Elections 2009-2012

Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
badspell
Pirate
Posts: 1734
Joined: 11-27-2007 09:28 PM

Post by badspell » 12-18-2009 01:54 PM

There may be hope in the political realm.
People like Sen. Tom Coburn my close neighbor to the west should be an example to all that would run or hold office.

Don’t let the R or D conspiracy lead you down the path of foolishness.

Disagreeing with respect should be respected !

I live in the land of Republicans here in Southwest Missouri, Northwest Arkansas and Northeast Oklahoma…I even live with a Republican ( my lovely wife Jeannie ) In the past I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats but I vote for the individual not the party.

To be honest, the entire Republican / Democrat conspiracy sickens me and is an insult to this nation and to the intelligence of those who believe in freedom.

Good video Race

:)
All hear few listen

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Senator Kit Bond:"Twas the Congress Before Christmas.&q

Post by racehorse » 12-18-2009 03:49 PM

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/ ... _bond.html

December 18, 2009

Christmas Wishes from Senator Bond

In this video, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) reads his holiday poem, "'Twas the Congress Before Christmas."

Here's the clip:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4uHNt5l8g8&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4uHNt5l8g8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
racehorse
Image

User avatar
badspell
Pirate
Posts: 1734
Joined: 11-27-2007 09:28 PM

Post by badspell » 12-18-2009 06:31 PM

The dogs are nice touch. ;)
All hear few listen

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 12-18-2009 06:44 PM

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/ ... rivia.html

December 18, 2009

Friday Night Trivia

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) was born in Karachi, Pakistan. He is the son of a U.S. Foreign Service officer and has lived all over the world

The oldest member of Congress is Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX). Born in 1923, the 86 year old was first elected in 1980 as a Democrat and switched parties in 2004.

The youngest member of Congress is Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL). Born in 1981, the 28 year old is serving his first term in the U.S. House. He was elected to the Illinois State Legislature at age 24.

Rep. Mike J. Rogers (R-MI) worked as an FBI Special Agent from 1989-1994. He entered the Michigan State House in 1995 and was first elected to congress in 2000. He is currently serving his 5th term.

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) is the only Quaker serving in congress.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was a Fulbright Scholar in Chihuahua, Mexico in 1996. Exactly 10 years before she was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) was a professional baseball player from 1957-1971. He played for the Detroit Tigers, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates and the Los Angeles Dodgers. In 1996 he was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) founded ProFlowers after he graduated from Princeton. He also founded bluemountainarts.com, American Information Systems, and Sonora Entertainment Group. Polis was first elected in 2008.
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 12-19-2009 01:27 PM

http://www.whas11.com/community/blogs/p ... 73512.html


Paul/Grayson now feud over 9/11 questions

by Joe Arnold

December 18, 2009

4:21 PM

Challenged by the Trey Grayson Senate campaign to state if he agreed or disagreed with his former spokesman's belief that the United States government was responsible for the attacks on September 11th, Senate candidate Rand Paul instead criticized Grayson for asking the question, but did not address his own 9/11 position.

Following are both the Rand Paul response and the Trey Grayson release that prompted it.

Rand Paul:

"At a time in our nation's history when unity of action is needed in combating the forces of terrorism that would destroy America, my opponent has chosen the path of division. In the Republican party's history when unity of purpose is needed, my opponent seeks to divide us. I seek to unite our nation in combating the forces of evil and protecting Americans from our enemies.

I am saddened that my opponent has placed his personal ambitions above the interests of our nation and those principles of the Republican party that support victory."

Rand Paul

Trey Grayson:

Rand Paul: Dangerous for Kentucky

Says that U.S. Government Responsible for 9/11


Florence, Kentucky –

Yesterday, Rand Paul failed to make clear where he agrees or disagrees on the extreme racist, anti-Christian views of his Communications Director, Chris Hightower, and instead made excuses for what a good guy he is.

However, when pressed by the Louisville Courier-Journal if he agreed or disagreed with Hightower’s belief that the United States government was responsible for the attacks on September 11th, Rand Paul’s campaign said it was a “complicated situation” with “truth on both sides.”

“Let me help you find the truth, Rand, if you can handle it. The attacks on 9/11 were pre-meditated and carried out by terrorists who wanted to disrupt the American way of life,” said Grayson campaign manager Nate Hodson. “This is a foolish and dangerous position that continues the pattern of disturbing views from the Paul campaign. His views on national security have been as consistent as they have been misguided.”

This isn’t the first time Rand Paul dodged the issue. During remarks in Montana while he campaigned for his dad for president, Rand Paul had this exchange:

Questioner - “Why doesn’t your dad believe in the sort of notion that 9-11 was an inside job? And has he seen Loose Change: Final Cut, anything like that?”

Rand Paul – “I don’t know that much about it, I mean I don’t know enough to respond for him on that and I don’t know about the movie that you are talking about."

(Speaking in Bozeman, MT, YouTube Video, 1/28/08)

If Rand Paul had his way, our national security would be much worse. Paul advocated closing the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and releasing suspected terrorists back into battle in Afghanistan.

“ … it’s kind of unclear whether these people are guilty, not guilty … So I really think deportation or sending them back to their country of origin might be the best way to go. And none of it’s fair, because some of them have been held years and years …” – (Alex Jones Show, YouTube video, 5/21/09)

“I think they should mostly be sent back to their country of origin or to tell you the truth I’d drop them back off into battle … you’re unclear, drop ‘em off back into Afghanistan. It’d take them a while to get back over here.”

(YouTube video of Rand Paul speaking in Paducah, KY, 5/8/09)

Rand Paul “couldn’t agree more” with those who believe Guantanamo has “significantly damaged the reputation of the United States” and who want to “see it shut down.”

(Rand Paul official campaign website post, posted by the site Administrator, 5/25/09)

Alex Jones: “Because if they don’t get a trial we’re not gonna get a trial. We know Dr. Paul they are using the Patriot Act against non-terror related cases. They’ve set the precedent. All of this is gonna come back on us.”

Rand Paul: “Oh I agree with you. And then ultimately though if you cannot figure how to have a trial and cannot have enough evidence to do this I think deportation is the only acceptable way and I think you deport them to where they were captured. Now they say oh these countries won’t take them back. Well I think we have enough military force in Afghanistan that they can be taken back to Afghanistan at the very least and I think that would be acceptable to the vast majority of people. It gets rid of the idea of having to try them. And then you know a lot us aren’t going to be too happy if you take people who are potentially violent, and we don’t know this, but are potentially violent, and put them on the streets of Austin. You know I think sending them back to where we captured them is probably the best thing.”

(Alex Jones Show, YouTube video, 5/21/09)
racehorse
Image

SETIsLady
Pirate
Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Post by SETIsLady » 12-19-2009 01:57 PM

racehorse wrote: Rand Paul: Dangerous for Kentucky

Says that U.S. Government Responsible for 9/11
Right or wrong, stick a fork in Rand he is done.

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 12-19-2009 08:55 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 21_pf.html

Sunday Take: For Democrats, health-care debate exposes deep wounds

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, December 20, 2009; A02

Amid the spectacle that has become the health-care debate, Democrats have taken comfort in the belief that they will be rewarded politically if in the end they pass something -- almost anything. That proposition is being sorely tested in these final days of maneuvering.

For all the talk of the damage President Obama has sustained during this long and difficult year, congressional Democrats have suffered at least as much -- and will have to face the voters far sooner than the president.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on Saturday he had the 60 votes to pass the bill. The House still must be persuaded to go along, but Obama and the Democrats are one step closer to achieving the goal that has eluded so many presidents and Congresses. That in itself is a significant achievement.

The long fight has been costly, however. The health-care debate has split the Democratic coalition. Unity has given way to bitter infighting. This has been a moment for individuals to make war on one another.

What goodwill existed among Democrats at the start of Obama's presidency has been fractured and will be difficult to put together again. The events of the past week underline that reality.

Joe Lieberman, who bolted the party in 2006 to salvage his Senate seat and then accepted the Democrats' generosity to maintain his committee chairmanship despite having backed Republican John McCain in last year's presidential race, held the party hostage in negotiations, infuriating many liberals.

Howard Dean, who has grievances about the way he was discarded by the Obama team after running the Democratic National Committee for four years, has led a vocal guerrilla war against the bill from outside the Congress, enraging the party leadership.

Democratic centrists have extracted costly promises to stay onboard, but still fear for their political future. Bloggers and progressive activists have counterattacked against them, vowing retribution. Labor is unenthusiastic to hostile.

Progressives in Congress have swallowed hard over the compromises needed to round up enough votes to beat back a Republican filibuster.

Hard-headed politicians would say there was no way to avoid this kind of squabbling, given the stakes and complexity of health-care reform and the rules of Congress. There are no immaculate legislative struggles on a piece of social legislation of this consequence.

Leading Democrats also think that, in the end, voters care less about the process than about the outcome. If, in the face of united Republican opposition, the Democrats produce historic changes in the availability of health care to millions more citizens and protect against some of the arbitrary practices of the insurance industry, that will override the messy path to success.

But there is something broader for Democrats to worry about as they try to finish their work this year and prepare for 2010 and the midterm elections. What began as an undercurrent of dissatisfaction has grown throughout the year. Disappointment with the president is dwarfed by discontent with Congress.

No Congress is ever loved, but the assessments of this Congress are striking in their negativity. In the most recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, only 7 percent rated the performance of Congress above average, and 34 percent called it one of the worst.

Two benchmarks put that number into perspective. In October 1994, shortly before Republicans ousted Democrats from power in the House and Senate, 16 percent called that Congress one of the worst. In October 2006, just before Democrats recaptured control, 25 percent called that Congress one of the worst. In the past five months, the percentage rating this Congress that low has jumped 11 percentage points.

Thirty-five percent gave the Democratic Party a positive rating, still higher than the 28 percent who rated the Republican Party that way. But since February, Democrats' overall image has gone from net positive to net negative. Republicans, while still living in negative territory, have improved slightly.

A third finding underscores the problem for Democrats: Thirty-eight percent said their member of Congress deserves to be reelected, and 49 percent said it is time to give a new person a chance. That is identical to the percentage who said to give a new person a chance a month before the 1994 GOP landslide and slightly above the number a month before the 2006 Democratic takeover.

Why won't that anti-Washington sentiment fall equally on Republicans and Democrats? Because it rarely does. Republicans are hardly secure or popular, but Democrats are in control. If the public is ready for change again in November, Democrats will feel the brunt of that anger.

Many factors contribute to the dissatisfaction with Washington. People are angry about bailouts for bankers. The unemployment rate is at 10 percent. They see the deficit rising and worry about the long-term consequences. Conservatives and liberals question whether their leaders have the right priorities.

Health care has exhausted Democrats and tested their capacity to govern. Democrats hope that passage of a health-care bill will prove to be a political restorative. But the longer the debate has gone on, the less people like what they think they may be getting. Congress may be on the cusp of a historic achievement, but right now the public believes the status quo is preferable to change.

Democrats have a dual problem. They must find the votes to pass a bill to avoid the charge that, even with their big majorities, they are incapable of governing. They also must convince voters that the policy changes they want to enact include far more pluses than minuses.

That is a big challenge, not only for Obama and Democratic leaders. They are governing in difficult times and see themselves close to the finish line on health care. But they are nonetheless bracing for a difficult election year in 2010.
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 12-19-2009 09:54 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 99590.html

December 19, 2009

The Health Care Bill Is Political Suicide

By Sean Trende

Health reform is shuffling toward its endgame, and even though the bill's popularity resembles George Bush's circa 2007, Democrats seem determined to push the bill through. Browse through certain liberal blogs, or listen to Democratic leadership speeches, and you'll read the same justification again and again: However bad passing this bill might be, politically speaking, not passing it would be much, much worse.

I've been skeptical of this line of argument for quite some time. This summer, I showed that Democrats from Republican-leaning districts who supported President Clinton's agenda fared significantly worse in the 1994 midterm election than those who did not. It seems almost certain that an additional vote for Clinton's then-wildly-unpopular healthcare bill would not have helped these Democrats any; passing ClintonCare almost certainly would have made 1994 even worse for the Democrats. Likewise, after taking tough votes on the stimlulus package and cap-and-trade, it seemed unlikely that a vote on the then-mildly-unpopular health care bill would help Congressional Democrats.

Nothing has changed my mind since then. Rather, as events have unfolded I've become increasingly convinced that there is little political upside for Democrats in passing this bill, and much, much downside. For one thing, the "failure is not an option" argument makes little sense at a very basic level. It's the equivalent of arguing that what the GOP really needed to do to save its majority in 2006 was to sign an immigration bill that deported illegal immigrants; maybe it should have pushed through private accounts for social security, just to show the country that the GOP was capable of “governing,” and to give the base something to get excited over. The problem is that the public doesn't want to see a party simply “governing” or pushing through major legislation. They want to see a party “governing well,” and pushing through major legislation that the public wants.

The 2009 elections showed that the public does not equate "governing well" with "moving the agenda to the left." Democrats have convinced themselves that the 2009 elections somehow showed that the Democrats really need to push through more of Obama's agenda to win, much as some Republican partisans convinced themselves that the GOP lost in 1996 because it cut a deal with President Clinton over the government shutdown. As Kos wrote to his party the Wednesday following the elections, “[t]he choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.”

But the biggest problem in 2009 was not really that liberals didn't turn out to vote. The problem was that the Democrats lost Independents and moderates. Take Virginia. There was a substantial drop-off in Democratic performance from 2008 to 2009. But the real change this year is how Independents voted (as was the case in 2006). Independents in Virginia voted 49%-48% for Obama in 2008, but gave Bob McDonnell a 66%-33% landslide win in 2009.

To put this a different way, if Creigh Deeds had run to the left and managed to increase Democratic turnout to 2008 levels, without changing the way Independents split, he would have closed the gap with McDonnell, but still would have lost by more than five points, 52.25%-46.5%. If, however, Deed had persuaded Independents to vote for him at the same level as they did in 2008 without increasing Democratic turnout, he would have fared better, losing by a slim 51%-48% margin. Indeed, this is exactly how Jim Webb won in 2006; even though his electorate had the rough composition of the 2009 electorate, he managed to take a 12-point win among Independents and win the election.

Democrats may object to this analysis on the grounds that many Republicans took to calling themselves Independents during the post-Bush years. But running the same experiment using liberal/moderate/conservative splits instead of partisan identification doesn't change the result. Deeds barely loses (losing 50.8%-47.9%) in an electorate with 2009's composition where he performs as well as Obama did among moderates. If he recreates the 2008 electorate, but doesn't improve his performance among moderates, he loses by a larger margin (53.5%-46.4%).

We see the same effect up I-95 in blue New Jersey. Recreating the 2008 electorate without changing voting patterns would have actually given Jon Corzine a narrow 51%-49% win over Chris Christie. But taking the 2009 electorate and having Independents vote as they did in 2008 would have expanded Corzine's win to a substantial 55%-44% clobbering of the former U.S. Attorney.

This illustrates another difficulty with the left's argument. Jon Corzine did exactly what liberals suggested Creigh Deeds should have done: He cleaved unto his President, and he still lost. New Jersey had a slightly smaller drop-off in Democratic participation than did Virginia (3 points versus 4 points), but the rightward swing among Independents was even more pronounced (21 points versus 16 points). This suggests that the 2008 turnout was a phenomenon that owed more to Obama's highly personal candidacy than any particular set of domestic initiatives he may have been espousing. It might simply be impossible for anyone not named "Obama" to recreate the Obama coalition.

Polling for the House of Representatives further demonstrates little upside for having vulnerable members vote for the health bill. If the best way for Democrats in swing-to-conservative leaning districts to keep their seats is to bet on the base turning out in record numbers, then we should see Democrats who are supportive of the President's agenda outperforming those who oppose it.

But consider Vic Snyder. Snyder represents an Arkansas district based in Little Rock, which went modestly for George W. Bush before going strongly for John McCain. Snyder has been a relatively loyal foot soldier for Obama, voting for the stimulus, cap and trade legislation, and the health care bill. According to a November PPP (D) poll, Snyder holds an upside-down approval rating, and barely leads a relatively unknown GOP opponent. Snyder still takes 80% of the Democratic vote in the district, while his opponent gets 83% of the Republican vote. The difference-maker? His opponent leads Snyder among Independents by a 15-point margin.

Or consider Dina Titus. The first-term representative, who defeated a GOP incumbent in 2008, has likewise supported almost all of Obama's agenda. She finds herself tied against a relatively unknown GOP opponent, receiving only 40% of the vote. Pluralities in the district, where Democrats enjoy a sizable registration advantage, oppose the health reform bill.

Now consider Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. She opposed the health care bill and cap and trade legislation. Presumably, this should turn off her left-leaning supporters, and she should fare no better than Snyder or Titus. But another recent PPP (D) poll shows her actually in fairly good shape. As we might expect, her standing among Democrats is a tepid 63%-24% split, about 8 points lower than President Obama's. But she enjoys a 42%-47% split among Republicans – nearly three times Obama's approval rating in that group -- and a 41%-41% split among Independents. Because she's been able to win over Republicans and Independents in head-to-head matchups (picking up 24% of the former and 47% of the latter), she leads both of her Republican opponents by healthy margins.

This really should not surprise anyone. Almost by definition, representatives only win in red/swing districts by appealing to substantial numbers of Republicans and Independents. You just can't do it by appealing to the Democratic base. This has a disproportionate effect on Democrats, who choose to pack their most fervent supporters into a few heavily Democratic districts. This is why there are twice as many districts with PVIs of D+20 or greater than there are districts with PVIs of R+20 or greater, and why a healthy majority of districts – 239 – have PVIs leaning toward the Republicans.

If Democrats need to appeal to Independents and moderates to hold their majorities, then passing this bill is a terrible idea. The most recent polling shows that 81% of Republicans and 69% of Independents oppose the healthcare plan (with 74% of Republicans and 57% of Independents strongly opposing it). With majorities of Independents strongly opposed to the bill, it's really hard to imagine any boost in Democratic turnout from passing the plan being enough to surpass the ensuing backlash from Republicans and Independents.

It isn't even clear that there will be a boost in Democratic turnout. The latest version of the Senate bill holds little appeal for progressives. As I noted on the blog, without a public option, this bill becomes a wet, sloppy kiss to the insurance industry. It doesn't even represent a substantial triumph for liberalism by significantly expanding government through taxing the wealthy; there are large new subsidies, but for the most part the subsidies are paid for by gouging Medicare and taxing union health benefits. It really reads like a bill a moderate Republican would propose; it is a slightly stronger version of RomneyCare at this point. In other words, the only remaining group that might have even arguably been excited to vote for Democrats on this bill is now at best lukewarm on it.

This bill may encourage a few Democratic policy wonks to run to the polls, but this trickle will be nothing compared to the flood of angry Republicans and Independents. And this is all analysis conducted before election ads begin to run telling voters about how the Democrats will jail them if they don't buy health insurance. To which the Democrats will respond “no, you see, it's only a big fine.”

I suspect that most of the left intuits this. That's why the other argument you'll see – and this is especially true of the Administration and the leadership – is that the Democrats should pass this bill because they have a chance to make history: Do something the Democrats have wanted since the Truman Administration. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid believe that if they pass this bill, regardless of what else happens to them, they'll have earned a place in the Democrats' Pantheon of Great Leaders. These Democrats see universal coverage as their Holy Grail (never mind that the bill actually leaves behind millions of uninsured), it's within reach, and they really don't care what sort of bill they have to pass to get it. They'll even let the press start describing them, with reason, as allies of Big Pharma to achieve the win. The train is simply running out of control at this point, and all Pelosi can do is stand at the front and repeat increasingly out-of-touch talking points about the American people wanting them to enact this bill and standing up to the insurance industry.

I don't think they're close to finding their Grail. I think the better analogy is probably that they're close to their Moby Dick. And we all know what happens to Captain Ahab once he finally harpoons his white whale.
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 12-20-2009 12:16 PM

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... nt=1&page=

Nader: Pres. Obama 'flunked' first year

By Tony Romm - 12/18/09 01:05 PM ET

Ralph Nader was incredibly critical of candidate Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign -- at one point predicting the former Illinois senator would become the nation's premier "panderer-in-chief."

But almost a year into Obama's first term as president, Nader said he remains steadfastly unsatisfied with the administration's performance, which he described on Friday as "concessionary."

In an interview with The Hill, the former Green Party candidate noted Obama had basically "flunked" his first year in office, in part because he was too conciliatory to businesses, interest groups and political opponents. (Flunking is below "hanging in there" and "prevailing," Nader explained of his grading scale.)

"He's been far too concessionary to large corporations, many of which want to block his legislation and many of which are being bailed out by his administration. That's the Wall Street crowd and the drug and health insurance [companies]," Nader said.

"And when you're concessionary, for the president, the Republicans smell weakness, they smell pliability, they smell the desperation... and when you project weakness, instead of steadfastness, then you facilitate divisions within your own party," he added.

Obama graded himself a B+ last week, mostly as a result of this year's healthcare debate. Still, the mark shocked many of the president's political opponents, who quickly demurred he deserved a far lower grade.

Nader said Friday he agreed with that sentiment, describing the president's performance so far as "a weak presentation of self." He also charged Obama had reneged on a number of his original positions -- from his promise to establish a robust public option, to ending torture, to raising the minimum wage -- and ultimately threatened Democrats in 2010.

"I never through he'd achieve the degree of political cowardliness he projects towards his oppoents or big business, or that politically that he'd turn his back on liberals and progressives...," Nader said of the president's policy objectives, noting that early defeats hardly portend well for presidents by the end of their terms.

"It's not like he doesn't know anything about Washington," Nader added. "The minute you signal you're going to cave, you're going to cave... you lose your bargaining power."
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 12-20-2009 03:09 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 45_pf.html

Democrats take on the Liebermonster

By Dana Milbank

Sunday, December 20, 2009; A19

The reviews of Sen. Joe Lieberman's handling of the health-care bill were savage.

The Connecticut Democrat "snubbed" the president's health-care entreaties and gave "aid and comfort" to the Republicans. Liberal activists arrested in a protest outside his office said "we blame Lieberman" for weakening the Senate majority leader's bill. Liberals said he made a "political decision early on to pander to the insurance industry." He shifted positions so much it was "like trying to hold quicksilver in your hands."

Sound familiar? Those quotations are all from the summer of 1994. The president he snubbed was Bill Clinton, the Republican he aided was Bob Dole, and the majority leader he weakened was George Mitchell.

The iconoclastic senator is again infuriating liberals. To them he has become a Liebermonster, loathed as if he were Dick Cheney -- maybe more, because liberals feel betrayed by Lieberman.

The story now is that Lieberman, bitter about losing his Democratic primary in 2006, has shifted to the right with the goal of "torturing" liberals on health care and other issues. The narrative is as satisfying as it is pervasive. It's also wrong.

Lieberman probably is still angry about being beaten by Connecticut businessman Ned Lamont and forced to run as an independent while his Democratic colleagues -- including Barack Obama -- campaigned for his opponent. And his explanations of why he is undermining the Democrats' health-care legislation aren't exactly cogent.

But Lieberman has not turned into a "standard-issue conservative" (the Daily Beast) or even become "increasingly conservative" (Mother Jones). Neither is his position on health care particularly "startling" (The Post), evidence that his "heart is with the right" (Newsweek), nor a sign of "new depths of betrayal" (the Guardian).

He's the same old Joe who has been sticking it to Democrats on high-profile issues for two decades. What's changed is everybody else. In our increasingly tribal politics, both sides are more demanding of ideological purity than they were when Lieberman came to the Senate in 1988. The constant purging of heretics has left Congress ever more polarized. This, more than anything done by Lieberman or Ben Nelson or Olympia Snowe, is why the government can't get anything done.

Those who accuse Lieberman of a recent right turn have probably forgotten that in his first campaign for Senate he secured the endorsement of William F. Buckley in defeating a liberal Republican, Lowell Weicker. Lieberman criticized Weicker for opposing U.S. military actions and accused him of trying to raise taxes.

His ideology has not changed one bit, as measured by vote ratings. The American Conservative Union scored his conservatism an eight out of 100 in 2008, the same as Maryland's Ben Cardin (Obama scored a more conservative 17). His lifetime conservative rating is 16, and over the past five years he's actually been a slightly more liberal 8.2. Ratings by the liberal Americans for Democratic Action tell a similar tale, and a University of California at San Diego ranking through the end of July found him to be the 28th most liberal member of the Senate this year, tied with that conservative icon, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii.

Lieberman has always defied party orthodoxy on highly visible issues: cuts in the capital gains tax, vouchers for private schools, partial privatization of Social Security, limits on jury awards and George H.W. Bush's military actions. He worked closely with Bill Bennett and threatened Hollywood with "legal restrictions on their freedom." In 1998, he supported California's Proposition 209, restricting affirmative action. His heresies have continued in recent years, including his kisses for George W. Bush and the Iraq war -- and, after Democrats drummed him out of the party, his support for John McCain.

The difference now is how his actions have been received. A decade ago, after he harshly criticized Clinton's morality, Al Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate -- in large part because of that stance. Liberals balked but ultimately agreed to accept Gore's choice.

This time, however, there is no forgiveness. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat from Lieberman's home town, told Politico she wants him "recalled" from office (it's impossible). Liberal bloggers are going after his wife. Others are renewing demands that Lieberman lose his committee chairmanship. The Crooks and Liars Web site proposed that Lieberman be labeled "a sleazebag," "a sanctimonious backstabber" and "a serial betrayer."

Republicans, who recently floated a purity test for GOP candidates, know where this road leads: to a 40-member minority in the Senate. If Democrats wish to remain the majority party, they should avoid the loyalty trap. Lieberman may be a monster, but he's their monster.
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 12-21-2009 12:08 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/healt ... tecnd.html

Senate Debate on Health Care Exacerbates Partisanship

By CARL HULSE and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

Published: December 20, 2009

WASHINGTON — Nasty charges of bribery. Senators cut off mid-speech. Accusations of politics put over patriotism. Talk of double-crosses. A nonagenarian forced to the floor after midnight for multiple procedural votes.

In the heart of the holiday season, Senate Republicans and Democrats are at one another’s throats as the health care overhaul reaches its climactic votes, one of which is set for 1 a.m. Monday. A year that began with hopes of new post-partisanship has indeed produced change: Things have gotten worse.

Enmity and acrimony are coursing through a debate with tremendous consequences for both sides as well as for the legislative agenda in the months ahead.

Should Democrats prevail, it will put an exclamation point on an eventful first year of their control of Congress and the White House and leave Republicans on the Napoleonic side of what one predicted could be President Obama’s Waterloo. A Republican victory would invigorate an opposition party that was back on its heels at the beginning of 2009 and would strike a crushing blow to Democrats and their claims to governing.

The toxic atmosphere is evident on the floor, on television talk shows and in the hallways of the Capitol. Despite the fact that Democrats appear to have the 60 votes in hand to push through their legislation, Republicans say they intend to force a series of six procedural showdowns that would keep the Senate in session right through Christmas Eve.

The procedural vote scheduled for early Monday will test the Democrats’ unity, and the absence of a single member of the Democratic caucus could throw the process off the rails.

Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma and a leading opponent of the measure, said Sunday that a missing Democrat might be the best hope for foes of the overhaul.

“What the American people should pray is that somebody can’t make the vote,” he said in a floor remark that Democrats found offensive and suggestive of wishing misfortune on one of them.

“This statement goes too far,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. “We are becoming more coarse and divided here.”

Members of both parties say the dispute over health care has created bad blood, left both Democrats and Republicans suspicious of the opposition’s motives, and shattered some of the institution’s traditional collegiality.

At the same time, Democrats say the apparently unbridgeable health care divide has convinced them that Republicans are dedicated solely to blocking legislative proposals for political purposes. Several said they now realized that they would have to rely strictly on their own caucus to advance such defining issues as climate change in 2010.

“We have crossed the mark of over 100 filibusters and acts of procedural obstruction in less than one year,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said on the floor Sunday. “Never since the founding of the Republic, not even in the bitter sentiments preceding Civil War was such a thing ever seen in this body.”

Republicans say that the pre-holiday legislative rush reflects an artificial deadline set by Democrats who want to force through a highly complex measure with minimal public scrutiny; Democrats say Republicans, under pressure from conservative campaigners and commentators to stall the bill, are simply unwilling to accept defeat.

Democratic tempers flared during consideration of a Pentagon spending bill, with lawmakers suggesting that Republicans were playing politics at the expense of American troops by extending debate over the $626 billion measure as way of trying to deny Democrats time needed to pass the health care bill before Christmas.

Democrats first thought they had Republican commitments to back the measure, but any they had were later withdrawn, setting off complaints of a double cross. Short of votes, Democrats had to prevail upon Senator Russ Feingold, an anti-war Democrat from Wisconsin, to break his pattern of opposing military spending bills and join them.

The thin margin also required that Senator Robert C. Byrd, who turned 92 last month, be brought to the chamber in his wheelchair after midnight to cast his vote. After Democrats produced the needed votes, some Republicans then cast their votes for the Pentagon measure, drawing an audible murmur of disapproval from Democrats who considered that bad form.

Tensions have run so high on the Senate floor, with Democrats so perturbed by Republican stalling tactics, that party leaders told senators to object to any senator who asked for additional speaking time — even the routine extra minutes that senators request to finish a sentence.

At one point during debate, Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, made just such a request for two minutes but was blocked by Senator Mark Begich, Democrat of Alaska, who was presiding over the chamber at the time.

Mr. Cornyn was flabbergasted. “I’m looking around — I don’t see any other senator waiting to speak,” he said. Mr. Begich relented, but similar incidents followed.

On Sunday, Republicans did not mince words when characterizing provisions put in the health care bill to attract the final votes for passage, particularly that of Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska.

Some suggested that special Nebraska considerations in the bill amounted to bribery and corruption. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that it was reflective of “seedy Chicago politics.”

“In order to try to get the 60 votes, there has been basically a pay to play approach to this, and it’s just repulsive,” Mr. Cornyn said.

The Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the increasingly hostile relationship between the parties reflected differences in issues, not personalities.

“This is not about acrimony; this is about policy,” Mr. McConnell said. “So, we’re upset about it, but it’s not a personal thing.”

But some of the issues do seem to have become personal. “We’ve allowed political disagreement to spill over into our relationships and friendships here,” Mr. Durbin said, “and that really does hurt the institution.”

Whatever the cause, things have gotten bad enough that Senator Arlen Specter, Democrat of Pennsylvania, said the Senate should be stripped of one of its illustrious institutional claims.

“This body prides itself on being the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Mr. Specter said. “That designation has been destroyed with what has occurred here the past few days.”
-
Senators Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Saxby Chambliss, all Republicans, at the Capitol on Saturday.
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 12-21-2009 12:22 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1261359 ... #printMode

* DECEMBER 21, 2009

Democrats Pin 2010 Hopes on Bill

Infighting, Struggles on Legislative Priorities Stand as Hurdles for Party Leadership


By JONATHAN WEISMAN

WASHINGTON -- Slumping in the polls and struggling to pass climate and financial legislation, President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders are counting on an historic health care victory to buoy their electoral prospects in 2010.

But Republicans argued Sunday that the issue is breaking their way, and liberal infighting indicates the party leadership has to win back its base along with the larger electorate.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been telling Democrats a win on the health issue will reverse the slide in public opinion, just as passage of another controversial proposal, the North American Free Trade Agreement, lifted President Bill Clinton in the polls.

The apparent success by Senate Democrats this weekend in securing the necessary votes to pass a sweeping overhaul of health care before Christmas will offset setbacks on climate change and financial industry regulation, Democrats say.

"The reality, I think, will trump poll numbers in the dead of winter as this debate is going on," White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

"We're governing through difficult times," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I think we're going to be in a better place" when the midterm elections arrive.

Republicans say public opinion is on their side.

"If Democrats want to run on this, then we invite them to go ahead and do so. The Obama-Pelosi agenda continues to feed into the emerging 2010 narrative that this is a Congress that spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much," Ken Spain, communications director of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Sunday.

Last week's Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll not only showed a substantial majority opposed to the plan, but for the first time, it showed a plurality favoring the status quo over passage.

Mr. Obama is taking heat from the left and the right on health. The president's quest for a 60th vote for the Senate health bill has drawn criticism from liberal Democrats who say the White House has capitulated to conservatives in the party.

"We need the president to stand up for the values our party shares. We must stop letting the tail wag the dog of this debate," Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.) said in a post on his Web site.

The Democratic leadership is particularly relying on a health victory as other domestic priorities struggle. The failure of the United Nations climate summit to reach a binding accord could cripple Mr. Obama's chances of securing legislation to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, even after many House Democrats took a politically painful vote for legislation to cap carbon emissions.

Mr. Obama's standing with American voters has fallen more dramatically in his first year than any recent president, in part because he was so popular at the outset, but also because voters perceive he has not accomplished much, said Democratic pollster Peter Hart.

His 47% approval rating is just the start of his problems, pollsters say. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll also found the first real evidence that Mr. Obama's personal bond with Americans -- his likability -- has been battered by high unemployment, Democratic infighting and months of bickering over health care, Just 29% of Americans now say they feel "very positive" about the president, down from 36% in October and 47% in February.

And at least some of that bleeding is coming from Democrats; his 86% approval rating in September is now down to 79% among Democrats.

In an interview Friday, Mr. Emanuel expressed little concern for the president's standing with the Democratic base. Mr. Emanuel said the liberal wing of the party is already coming back to the fold.

For instance, liberals such as Mr. Weiner now say they will work to make the bill more like the House version in House-Senate negotiations, rather than implore the Senate to kill the bill.

Mr. Emanuel argued that this generation of liberal political figures won't repeat their predecessors' mistakes in not reaching deals on health care. The late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said his greatest regret was not cutting a deal with Richard Nixon on universal health care. Former President Bill Clinton has lamented that he didn't take up moderate Republican Sen. John Chafee on a compromise that could have secured a health-care bill early in his presidency, Mr. Emanuel said.

"Every time they've gotten close to the deal, they've passed up the opportunity and chosen to walk away from a particular chance where they've lost the forest for the trees," Mr. Emanuel said.
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 12-21-2009 12:41 PM

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ota_senate

Election 2010: North Dakota Senate

2010 North Dakota Senate: Hoeven 58%, Dorgan 36%


Monday, December 21, 2009

Incumbent Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan may have a serious problem on his hands if Republicans recruit Governor John Hoeven to run for the U.S. Senate in North Dakota next year.

The first Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 telephone survey of likely voters in North Dakota finds the popular Republican governor leading Dorgan by 22 points – 58% to 36%. Just six percent (6%) are undecided in that senatorial contest.

Part of the challenge for Dorgan is the health care legislation working its way through Congress. Dorgan, along with every Democrat in the Senate, has voted to move the legislation forward and is expected to vote for final approval of the reform later this week. That’s not likely to be well received in North Dakota where just 30% favor the proposed health care reform plan and 64% are opposed.

Opposition to the health care plan is higher in North Dakota than it is nationally.

Eighty-four percent (84%) of those who strongly favor the plan support Dorgan.
Eighty-six percent (86%) of those who strongly oppose it back Hoeven.

Dorgan is likely to have a much easier time of it if Hoeven declines to enter the race.

Duane Sand, who has already announced for the race, trails Dorgan handily – 52% to 37%. Sand, a Naval Academy graduate and Navy veteran, ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 2000 and for the House in 2004.

Voters are divided over whether Hoeven should challenge Dorgan. Thirty-seven percent (37%) say it’s better for the state if Hoeven stays as governor, but 42% would prefer it if he represented North Dakota in the U.S. Senate. Twenty-one percent (21%) aren’t sure which is best.

Hoeven, who has been governor since December 2000, carries the male vote by nearly two-to-one and wins female voters by 15 points. Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer Hoeven by a 63% to 28% margin.

Dorgan and Sand divide male voters, while women prefer Dorgan in that contest by 24 points. The Democrat, who has been in the Senate for 18 years, wins unaffiliateds 48% to 35%.

Sand benefits from the health care concerns but not nearly as much as Hoeven. While 86% of those who strongly favor the health care plan support Dorgan in his match-up with Sand, 66% of those who strongly oppose the plan back the Republican.

Thirty-one percent (31%) of North Dakota voters have a very favorable view of Dorgan, while 13% view him very unfavorably.

Hoeven is seen very favorably by 53% and very unfavorably by only five percent (5%). Six percent (6%) have a very favorable opinion of Sand, and 11% view him very unfavorably.

At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with strong opinions more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) approve of Hoeven’s job performance as governor, including 55% who strongly approve. Only 11% disapprove, with three percent (3%0 who strongly disapprove.

Along with Hoeven’s popularity in the state, Dorgan has to contend with President Obama’s unpopularity. John McCain carried North Dakota over Obama 53% to 45%, and now just 41% approve of how the president is doing his job. Fifty-eight percent (58%) disapprove. Those numbers include 18% who strongly approve of Obama’s job performance and 41% who strongly disapprove, considerably worse than the president’s overall job approval ratings nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Thirty-three percent (33%) of North Dakota voters rate the president’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan as good or excellent. Thirty-one percent (31%) say he is doing a poor job.

Fifty-one percent (51%) support the president’s plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, while 28% are opposed. Voters are more closely divided over the president’s decision to begin withdrawing troops within 18 months: 41% like the idea, but 45% don’t.

Like voters nationally, those in North Dakota are also evenly divided over Obama’s overall strategy for Afghanistan, with 32% in favor of it and 34% opposed.
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 12-21-2009 01:46 PM

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunki ... ma_an.html

Political Junkie with Ken Rudin

Hutchison v. Perry: Big Drama, And History Too?

11:59 am

December 21, 2009

2010 is going to be an amazing year for political junkies, but I think one thing everyone agrees on is that the March 2 Republican gubernatorial primary in Texas is going to be one for the ages. That's the one where Gov. Rick Perry is being challenged by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

So much ink has been spilled on this race, none better I thought than the Dec. 6 article in the New York Times Magazine by Robert Draper, who calls the matchup a great example of the GOP's "internal discontents":

The issues and cultural references in the ace are unmistakably Texan. But the contest's central question -- whether a highly popular general-election Republican (Hutchison) can defeat a less-popular Republican (Perry) who nonetheless knows how to excite conservative primary voters -- goes to the heart of the party's overall vitality. In an effort to reclaim Reagan's scepter, both campaigns are aggressively ignoring the Gipper's 11th Commandment to not speak ill of fellow Republicans. The mounting ugliness between "Slick Rick" and "Kay Bailout" seems destined to turn off independent voters because, as the veteran political handicapper Charlie Cook observes: "in a primary, shrillness matters. It's a race to the fringe." ...

It's bad enough that a sitting governor not beset by scandal is about to be embroiled in a costly (perhaps as much as $50 million) intraparty contest before a potentially tough general election. But in 2010, as the party writ large struggles to coalesce around a singular leader and message, the spectacle of two well-known Republicans savaging each other is a midterm gift to the Democratic National Committee. The pain is already being felt in Texas. Each candidate lays a claim to Texas royalty (Perry's great-grandfather served in the Texas House in 1892, while Hutchison's great-great-grandfather was among the 54 men who signed the Texas Declaration of Independence in 1836). Each is a Karl Rove prot??g??. Back in 1990, when each first ascended to statewide office (he as agriculture commissioner, she as treasurer), the two fresh-faced Republicans campaigned together and were seen as the party's twin stars. Today they're each other's worst enemy.


A primary on the national stage. But is it one for history? That's what Sarah Lopez of Houston, Texas wants to know:

Everyone here is consumed by Perry-Hutchison. When was the last time a sitting senator came home to challenge a sitting governor in their own party's primary?

The answer is, never. Never before has a U.S. senator gone home to take on his or her own party's governor in a primary. As it is, the list of senators elected governor is small; just five have made the move in the past half-century or so: Price Daniel (D-TX) in 1956, Pete Wilson (R-CA) in 1990, Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID) in 1998, Frank Murkowski (R-AK) in 2002, and Jon Corzine (D-NJ) in 2005. But none challenged an incumbent to do so, in a primary or in the general.

Daniel ran only after Texas Gov. Allan Shivers (D), an ally, decided to retire. Both Wilson and Kempthorne succeeded retiring Republican governors (George Deukmejian and Phil Batt, respectively). Murkowski ran in Alaska to succeed a term-limited Democrat, Tony Knowles. Corzine jumped in the race after his fellow Democrat, Jim McGreevey, resigned in a sex scandal and the acting governor, Richard Codey, also a Dem, didn't want to fight Corzine or his millions. But there was no primary.)

And while I know there's probably more, I can only think of two other senators who ran for governor while still in office, at least since senators were first popularly elected starting in 1913.

In 1958, Bill Knowland, the Republican leader of the Senate from California, felt the best way for him to reach the White House was as a governor. The problem: Gov. Goodwin Knight, a fellow Republican (albeit more of a foe than a friend), didn't want to give up his job. A Knowland-Knight primary was averted when Knight gave way and ran for the Senate. As it was, both Republicans lost that year.

The other was Sen. Irving Ives (R-NY). When Gov. Thomas Dewey (R) announced late in 1954 that he wanted to retire, Republicans drafted Ives as their candidate for governor. He wound up losing to Averell Harriman, though he didn't have to give up his Senate seat.

There are instances where a governor has challenged a senator of his own party in the primary. Two memorable contests were the Democratic battle in Arkansas between Gov. Dale Bumpers and Sen. J.W. Fulbright in 1974, and the GOP affair in South Dakota between Gov. Bill Janklow and Sen. Jim Abdnor in 1986. (For the record, Bumpers won but Janklow lost.) But never before has a senator gone home to take on a governor in the primary.
racehorse
Image

User avatar
racehorse
Pirate
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 12-21-2009 01:54 PM

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... s_governor

Election 2010: Illinois Governor

2010 Illinois Governor: Ryan Leads Quinn, Close to Hynes


Monday, December 21, 2009

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Illinois voters finds former state Attorney General Jim Ryan leading incumbent Democratic Governor Pat Quinn 46% to 39%. Nine percent (9%) of Illinois voters like some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Ryan’s is within two points of Illinois Comptroller Daniel Hynes, who hopes to wrest the Democratic nomination from Quinn. In that match-up, Hynes attracts 42% of the vote while Ryan gets 40%. Seven percent (7%) opt for another candidate. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.

Hynes ran slightly stronger than Quinn in a separate survey late last week. But both the top Democratic hopefuls in next year’s governor’s race beat three other Republican challengers.

It’s important to note that at this stage, the close contest between Quinn and Hynes may be depressing the Democratic vote in match-ups with the Republicans. Once the party selects a gubernatorial candidate in its February 2 primary, supporters of the losing candidate can be expected to begin moving into the winner’s column.

Ryan carries male voters over both Quinn and Hynes. He has a nine-point advantage among female voters against Quinn but loses women by 10 points to Hynes.

Voters not affiliated with either party strongly prefer the Republican over either of the Democrats.

Ryan ran unsuccessfully for governor against Democrat Rod Blagojevich in 2002. Quinn became governor in January following Blagojevich’s impeachment.

In a generic Illinois gubernatorial ballot match-up in October, a Democratic candidate held a 43% to 37% edge over a Republican.

Ryan is viewed more favorably than any other GOP candidate and his favorables are in roughly the same territory as the two Democrats.

Rasmussen Reports has released recent polls on the 2010 governor’s races in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.

Democratic State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has slipped past Republican Congressman Mark Kirk in Illinois’ 2010 race for the U.S. Senate, and other Democratic hopefuls are closing the gap.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Illinois voters oppose relocating some suspected terrorists from the Guantanamo prison camp in Cuba to a prison 150 miles west of Chicago.
racehorse
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government 2010-2013”