American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Stan, Dopey,

I do agree big government is a problem, and that they will never be as efficient and cost-effective as private enterprise. For me, compromise is just not being rigid or in many cases, stubborn. You don't have to sacrifice your core beliefs. It just means you might now win everytime or havie everything go your way. Ultimately, great leadership can be one answer, sadly, we are lacking on both sides of the parties. Obama had potential, but inexperience in dealing within his own party cost him a chance to make history.

Perhaps, we can look in the mirror, and see how our culture has evolve to it's Jerry Springer stage. If you read the headlines everyday, and hear the baying on both sides, you know what I mean.

The irony is for most of us, life is still quite comfortable. No fear about the USA being the Titanic and so, we continue to indulge in impasse politics. I guess we haven't reach rock bottom yet.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 413333]The voters were worried about "[I]jobs, the economy and the direction of the country[/I]" two years ago, and in the interim the Democrats failed miserably to deliver on these concerns because they were single-mindedly focused on accomplishing their long-held philosophical goal of taking over and destroying the world's most advanced private health care system.

Now do you see how it's all connected? [/QUOTE]More smears and misinformation! You guys take the cake.

In early 2009, Dems first order of business before they did ANYTHING else was to pass an aggressive stimulus package, the Recovery Act, to work along with other federal programs to stabilize the financial system and stimulate the economy. In fact Obama got moving on this even before he got in office. The stimulus package was widely supported by economists and even the conservative-leaning US Chamber of Commerce.

The Stimulus and other programs are credited with stabilizing the financial system and economy, ending the Great Recession, and creating or saving millions of jobs. We've now had nine straight months of private sector job growth. Which is getting increasingly offset by government job losses, which conservatives should be happy about.

We still have an employment and deficit problem because we lost 7 MILLION jobs over 2008-2009 and the associated tax revenues, the deficit being further increased by the temporary Stimulus spending and tax cuts. While the Stimulus is the big one, Dems have also taken other steps to address jobs, all of which you conveniently omitted.

Those who look at the facts seriously, consider that the federal programs have been successful in helping turn the economy around. Though all agree we still have a long way to go. Where Dems did poorly, as I have said before, is in managing expectations about unemployment.

OTOH, those with a right wing agenda will ignore these facts, and make wild assertions such as Jackson has just posted.

Rock -

Nobody is convincing anybody of much in this thread, and I am sure I won't change your opinion much either. But I'll say it anyways.

I think it is premature to state the PPACA is going to be either a big failure or a big success. I think there are more benefits than the one you cited. And there will be trade-offs. In the end it will come down to whether one believes the advantages outweigh any disadvantages.

From what I have read I believe it has the framework to be successful, as long as it is implemented responsibly and issues addressed and fixed as needed. There is some question mark on this with Republican vows to do whatever they can to dismantle / defund PPACA (they won't be able to repeal). Unclear how that will play out. But the country has just begun the process of implementation and IMO far too early to declare it a huge success or disaster.

One more thing (for all):
If you are doing research on the health care reform, you should use words like ACA, PPACA, Affordable Care Act or Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. If you only use the right-wing slang "ObamaCare" in your search field, your info is going to be slanted to it's detractors.

Black Shirt. I'm with you on the Jerry Springer Mode. I have to laugh to keep from crying at the total BS coming out of the news media.

Term limits for Congress would be a good start, if the President is limited to two terms why not Congress. If you go back and look at the members of Congress for the first 50 years after independence they were in session as little as possible, they had to go home and MAKE A LIVING since there were no 'professional politicians' per say, or at least very few. I know the opposition to term limits say we have a mechanism now to change called elections, but in today's environment incumbency its an extremely powerful weapon against all comers.

The way I see it with term limits the special interests (both conservative and liberal) simply could no longer afford to buy access to power every few years. As it stands now they make the investment once then maintain it for decades with minimum cost. Simply moving the price point out of reach would go along way to solving the problem IMHO.

Wake up and get a grip Esten, everyone is using the moniker "ObamaCare" to describe this abomination of healthcare legislation. Democrats, Republicans, Liberal and Conservative media talking heads.

The next thing you will be telling me is Obama doesn't shit. He 'candies' and he doesn't fart. He 'perfumes'. No matter what you call it – it stinks.

Man, this guy takes the cake. Even [i]a Democrat[/i] Is calling it "Obamacare" and signed the petition to repeal it. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130652430 But he claims we're being slanted when we use the same term and should instead use Obama's preferred alphabet soup. Sure. Same point he made before: It's okay for Democrats but not for Republicans.

This is the guy who also claims to have been privy to Democrats' polling data, which he contends told them that Obamacare was no longer a big issue for their constituents, so they could safely ignore it. Since he claims everything he disagrees with here is "spinning, " it's better to use his own words to hang him:

[QUOTE=Esten; 413277]It's very simple how politicians go about determining their election year messages. They do something called [i]polling[/i] On what moves voters. And what is typically the case is that voters are moved by how their vote will influence the direction of the country going forward.

Dems ran on heath care reform back in 2008 because it was popular yet unrealized. Now it's passed. It is no longer a forward-looking event, so there are plenty of other things on the direction of the country that Dems are focusing on. [/QUOTE]Right. Unless Dems were using the Daily KOS pollsters, there's no way that's a viable argument. Any credible poll indicates that voters are still keenly interested in Obamacare, and most are mad about it. Even left-leaning outfits like Kaiser show this. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/more-bad-news-obamacare_509181.html That's the real reason Dems are running away from it, or touting their opposition where possible. They screwed up if they voted for it, so they ignore it, and they can score points if they voted against it, or support repeal, so they tout those issues.

More hypocrisy in action. Left-leaning NPR always claims that it provides balanced news coverage. This is just a fig leaf owing to the fact that NPR and its member stations still take between 10%.70% of their revenue from the public teet. It wouldn't look to good if they admitted they were liberal and unbalanced yet still lined up at the public trough asking for taxpayer money, so they go in drag and masquerade as non-partisan.

Two weeks ago, NPR circulated a memo telling employees that they could not attend the left-leaning John Stewart / Stephen Colbert rally in DC, unless it was in an official capacity. It might create the appearance of bias if staffers were in attendance. When asked why they didn't circulate a similar memo for the rightwing nutjob on Fox, Glenn Beck, they lamely claimed that Beck's rally was obviously political whereas Stewart's was not. The real reason, of course, is that none of the left-leaning staffers at NPR would ever want to attend a Glenn Beck rally, while they all probably had to cancel picnic plans for the Stewart / Colbert rally once the memo came out. In other words, it's important for NPR to avoid the appearance of bias, but actual bias is fine.

Now this. NPR has fired Juan Williams for saying, on Fox News, "[I]when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.[/I]"

Are you kidding me? Open-minded liberals like NPR object to this? Who [i]doesn't[/i] Feel this way? As they say, 90% of men masturbate, and 10% lie. Only that same 10% can claim they never get nervous in that situation.

The real reason they fired this guy is because he frequently appears on Fox News as the liberal counterpoint to a conservative view. They made Fox remove the NPR icon when Williams was on in the past. Since Juan didn't get that subtle hint, his "nervous" remarks are the latest fig leaf they're using.

Balanced and open minded, that's the left wing media, except when you disagree with them.

We have now seen NPR's version of Political Correctness in action. Now they are eating their own. How dare Juan Williams have the audacity to actually express a personal opinion? These are the same liberals who demand due process for terrorists captured on the battlefield but denied Williams even the courtesy of a face to face meeting.

If we could get NPR to shift at least 2 sigma's to the right, that might put them back to the middle of the spectrum.

I guess CNN was wrong for firing Rick Sanchez.

Makes sense.

On a daily basis, we see how Team Obama is taking a page from the Kirchners' playbook on how to manipulate and distort statistics to their advantage. The most recent:

Team Obama was claiming credit for having created 50,000 jobs with wind farm Stimulus money. They recently got called on it with data showing that many of these wind farms were completed either before Obama took office, or before any Stimulus funds were awarded. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39759042/ns/business-going_green/

So now, they're changing the nomenclature. Since jobs "created" made them look bad, they changed it to "created or saved. " Since that still loses 50,000 jobs from their wind farm tally, they're now changing it to jobs "created, saved or supported. " Whew! And Esten accuses folks on this board of spin!

But, at least they're consistent: They blame Bush for all the jobs lost, and then take jobs created by Bush and put them in their own column, under the new title "jobs created, saved or supported. "

Good thing we've got these renewable energy projects creating jobs, too. Except it turns out that the majority of the Stimulus money for that is going to foreign owned firms. http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/wind-energy-funds-going-overseas/story/renewable-energy-money-still-going-abroad/

Again, at least Democrats are consistent. They criticize Republicans and corporations for shipping jobs overseas. The Democrats would never do that. Instead, they become the middle man, tax us and give the money directly to foreign companies. See Cash for Clunkers for the precursor of this brilliant idea, where all the Clunkers were American and 6 out of 10 cars purchased with Clunker money were foreign made. Brilliant. And these guys are supposed to be on our team?

Stan, Dopey,

Posting with a frenzy trying to put a slant on most issues, it seems like you guys have allow Esten to get to you. Now, I know how Custer must have felt with the arrrows coming his way.

But I know you guys are having fun.

Hey Black Shirt or should I shorten that to BS, seems you are unable to type doppelganger or have now included me in the 7 dwarves, if so can you direct me to that hot dark haired babe Snow White?

BTW - check out Juan Williams response to his termination. WTF - Guess Juan is plugging to slant it it too?

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 413381]Stan, Dopey,

Posting with a frenzy trying to put a slant on most issues, it seems like you guys have allow Esten to get to you. Now, I know how Custer must have felt with the arrrows coming his way.

But I know you guys are having fun. [/QUOTE]I usually ignore Esten but every once in a while a poke is in order. He's an easy target; leads with his chin. But, I usually don't do it much. There's not much sport in it.

I did see Juan Williams' response to his firing. He's going right after NPR, and well he should. This is unlike the Rick Sanchez firing. He was fired by CNN (another left-leaning media outlet) but under much different circumstances, and he almost immediately admitted that he bore the responsibility. He did. Williams doesn't.

But, now NPR has responded to Williams. Listen to this lame response: "NPR CEO Vivian Schiller told the network's David Folkenflik earlier today, though, that "our reporters, our hosts and our news analysts should not be injecting their own views about a controversial issue as part of their story. They should be reporting the story. "

Really? Has she ever listened to NPR? Has Daniel Schorr or ever done a single piece that was anything other than left-wing drivel? How about Nina Totenberg, who masks as an even-handed Supreme Court reporter? Or Cokie Roberts while she was there? For that matter, have they ever listened to Juan Williams while on NPR? These folks give nothing but opinion masquerading as fact. I've got no problem with it when they label it as "opinion, " but NPR never does so with the above cast.

They've known that Juan Williams was being paid by Fox to give his left-leaning opinion for a long, long time. Only now do they get around to firing him? Ms. Schiller's only digging the grave deeper. She should follow the Dems' strategy on ObamaCare: Whistle past the graveyard and you can distract yourself from all the bad that's about the happen.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 413382]Hey Black Shirt or should I shorten that to BS, seems you are unable to type doppelganger or have now included me in the 7 dwarves, if so can you direct me to that hot dark haired babe Snow White?

BTW. Check out Juan Williams response to his termination. WTF. Guess Juan is plugging to slant it it too? [/QUOTE]Doppelganger,

Unintentional, not even thinking about the 7 dwarves. In my younger days, I was often refer as to Shit Head due to my initials then. I know you have already done Snow White, how about Wonder Women!

Have watch Juan for a long time, he always seem beseiged at Fox, but at least, they let him off the hook most of the time. Still, a tough way to make a living.

Yes some on the left are using the name ObamaCare, but [i]everyone[/i] on the right is using it. If you use ObamaCare in your search field, you won't see the articles which are discussing the ACA / PPACA by using its correct name. Which tend to be the most reasoned and accurate, including articles from healthcare professionals. Leaving out these articles slants your information to the other side, which is predominated by detractors.

Get it?

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;413370]This is the guy who also claims to have been privy to Democrats' polling data, which he contends told them that Obamacare was no longer a big issue for their constituents, so they could safely ignore it. Since he claims everything he disagrees with here is "spinning, " it's better to use his own words to hang him:[/QUOTE]I can barely make this post because I am laughing too much! But I'll try. The poking is far too easy with you Stan.

I never claimed I was privy to Dem's polling data. I also never claimed everything I disagree with here is spin. Pardon me a moment while I LMAOROTFL! Readers here can judge for themselves whether your statements are lies or spin.

You really hung me with my own words! I am dead serious, I have to stop typing as I write this, it is too laughable.

[QUOTE]Right. Unless Dems were using the Daily KOS pollsters, there's no way that's a viable argument. Any credible poll indicates that voters are still keenly interested in Obamacare, and most are mad about it. Even left-leaning outfits like Kaiser show this. [url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/more-bad-news-obamacare_509181.html[/url] That's the real reason Dems are running away from it, or touting their opposition where possible. They screwed up if they voted for it, so they ignore it, and they can score points if they voted against it, or support repeal, so they tout those issues.[/QUOTE]Your weeklystandard link is all about what people think of the ACA, and doesn't quantify how it ranks vs. other issues. Here's some help below. Case closed my friend, your research is pathetic. Thanks for the laughs.

[url]http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm[/url]

Most important issue / problem facing the country:

Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Co. Oct.7-10,2010. N=721 likely voters nationwide.
Unemployment, jobs 49%
Federal deficit, spending 27%
Health care 10%
War in Afghanistan 7%
Immigration 5%
Other (vol) 1%
Unsure 1%

CBS News Poll. Oct.1-5,2010. N=1,129 adults nationwide.
Economy / Jobs 54%
Health care 7%
Budget deficit / National debt 3%
Immigration 3%
Education 2%
Moral values / Family values 2%
The President / Barack Obama 2%
Other 22%
Unsure 5%

CNN / Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Sept.21-23,2010. N=1,010 adults nationwide.
The economy 49%
The federal budget deficit 11%
Education 10%
Health care 9%
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 9%
Illegal immigration 6%
Terrorism 3%
Energy and environmental policies 1%
Other (vol) 1%
Unsure 1%

Hey Black Shirt, no problem. I don't even want to go there as far as what I've been called. That was really true in 71' when I got back to the States.

Keep posting brother and monger on dude!

[QUOTE=Esten;413387]...is all about what people think of the ACA, and doesn't quantify how it ranks vs. other issues. Here's some help below. Case closed my friend, your research is pathetic. Thanks for the laughs.[/quote]That settles it then, just like anthropogenic global warming will kill us all.

Esten, you posted links to polling data, which is interesting. However, actual research and analysis of your polling data backs up what Blackshirt. Since polls are created to generate specific results, you have to do a little interpretation to figure out what they mean. These polls treat the issues as stand-alone items, to be ranked in personal priority. They don't come close to giving one an insight into how close behind one concern may be to another.

I think we can all agree that the number one issue to Americans, is unemployment.

Obamacare (you can call it whatever you like) is a job-killing, $10T albatros slung around America's neck by Democrats in the ruling class. Add to that the other forms of risk this congress and president have heaped on the economy and you can see why jobs are still disappearing. The severity and length of this recession have been exacerbated by the policies of the left, the largest of which, so far, has been Obamacare. There is a very tight correlation between the two issues.

I am pretty sure that I am not the only one who has figured this out. I suspect that some of the other folks that have figured it out have something important to do a week from next Tuesday.

Hugs and Kisses,

WW.

[quote][url]http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm[/url]

Most important issue / problem facing the country:

Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Co. Oct.7-10,2010. And=721 likely voters nationwide.

Unemployment, jobs 49%
Federal deficit, spending 27%
Health care 10%
War in Afghanistan 7%
Immigration 5%
Other (vol) 1%
Unsure 1%

CBS News Poll. Oct.1-5,2010. And=1,129 adults nationwide.

Economy / Jobs 54%
Health care 7%
Budget deficit / National debt 3%
Immigration 3%
Education 2%
Moral values / Family values 2%
The President / Barack Obama 2%
Other 22%
Unsure 5%

CNN / Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Sept.21-23,2010. And=1,010 adults nationwide.

The economy 49%
The federal budget deficit 11%
Education 10%
Health care 9%
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 9%
Illegal immigration 6%
Terrorism 3%
Energy and environmental policies 1%
Other (vol) 1%
Unsure 1%[/QUOTE]

He's just a serial liar. Essentially, all he's said is that there are other issues folks are more concerned about, but his data does not show that health care is a minor issue. It's not hard to find evidence that he's wrong. Here's a sample from today's polling results. The boldfacing is mine:

[quote]Overall, Americans remain divided about the changes. Among likely voters, 52 percent oppose the legislation, compared with 41 percent who said they support it. Strong opponents outnumber strong supporters by 2-to-1.

[b]Healthcare remained among the top issues for Americans in the poll, ahead of concerns about terrorism. [/b] But Democrats are losing their edge when it comes to whom the public trusts as stewards of the healthcare system. Among likely voters, there was essentially no difference, with 46 percent saying they trust Obama and the Democrats, and 47 percent saying they trust Republicans.[/quote][url]http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/US-AP-Poll-Health/2010/10/22/id/374568[/url]

This poll was just released this morning. Why are they wasting time on this issue if, as Esten says, it's insignificant? The answer is obvious. The pollsters are now lying, too. Get it?

More evidence today that the media's reading AP to get their ideas on what to cover.

Esten says that ObamaCare is not important to voters. Bingo! AP goes out and does a poll to instantly prove him wrong. (Linked in previous post.)

Now this: I said yesterday that NPR should be looking in the mirror at its staff, like Nina Totenberg, if it claims they aren't entitled to express their opinions. Bingo! Someone at the Weekly Standard is blogging about it today. Snip below:

[quote]On Thursday, however, Schiller revised her position on Williams's termination. According to the Associated Press, Schiller told the Atlanta Press Club that it wasn't the O'Reilly interview that led to his dismissal but the fact that he expressed his 'controversial' opinions at all. Doing so, she said, is prohibited by longstanding NPR standards. The AP reports:

[i]Schiller said Williams' firing is not a reflection of his comments (on Fox News Channel) that he gets nervous when he sees people in Muslim garb on an airplane. She said she has no problem with people taking controversial positions, but that such opinions should not come from NPR reporters or news analysts. [/i][/quote]If that's true, NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg might want to start looking for a new job. Over the past month, in her regular appearances on 'Inside Washington, ' she has: criticized a ruling of the Roberts Court as scandalous; claimed that Michelle Obama gives people 'warm and fuzzy' feelings; called Bill Clinton 'the most gifted politician I've ever seen; ' and lamented that the Democratic Party is diverse enough to include moderates that want to extend all Bush tax cuts. "

[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nina-totenberg-next_511512.html[/url]

Obviously, the "media" and the pollsters are getting their ideas directly from this thread.

This disclaimer is for Esten: That last sentence is written in jest, a form of humor. Note the winkie thing in the subject line. But you can go ahead and characterize it as "spin" if you want to.

Doppleganger:

Here's a map showing likely outcome. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html

The House is a given at this point. The Senate's always been a long shot. The map shows 51-49 Dems. You need to pick off two of the races currently slated for Dems right now, and not lose any of those showing Republican.

The most likely candidates for GOP pick-up are CA, WA and WV. Frankly, I'd be surprised if Fiorina wins California given the politics in this state and the trend for the governor's race. WV is a real wild card as there is virtually no reliable polling data. It's Sen. Byrd's former seat. For decades, this seat was never in question. Now, it's anyone's guess.

You also would need to not lose NV and IL, both of which are really close right now. The map shows them in the GOP column, but NV in particular easily could go either way. There are a couple of others that are pretty tight, as well, such as PA, CO and KY, all of which are in the tentative GOP column. But, most legitimate polls put those states in the GOP camp. Democrat and newspaper polls (essentially the same thing) have them closer, but partisan polls generally can be discarded.

We should start to see the last-minute sneak attacks by both sides this week, probably starting Wednesday or Thursday. I was surprised that Gerry Brown played his card so early, but with Gloria Alred involved, it's likely she just couldn't help herself. The fact that Gerry Brown is in the lead in California speaks volumes about that state's inability to solve its problems. Unions are completely entrenched, and they'll drive the state over the cliff soon.

My prediction: 52 (_D_) vs.48 (_R_) in the Senate. That still would be a huge swing. And, at the end of the day, gridlock beats the alternative we've experienced over the past 2 years.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413432]Doppleganger:

Here's a map showing likely outcome. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html

The House is a given at this point. The Senate's always been a long shot. The map shows 51-49 Dems. You need to pick off two of the races currently slated for Dems right now, and not lose any of those showing Republican.

The most likely candidates for GOP pick-up are CA, WA and WV. Frankly, I'd be surprised if Fiorina wins California given the politics in this state and the trend for the governor's race. WV is a real wild card as there is virtually no reliable polling data. It's Sen. Byrd's former seat. For decades, this seat was never in question. Now, it's anyone's guess.

You also would need to not lose NV and IL, both of which are really close right now. The map shows them in the GOP column, but NV in particular easily could go either way. There are a couple of others that are pretty tight, as well, such as PA, CO and KY, all of which are in the tentative GOP column. But, most legitimate polls put those states in the GOP camp. Democrat and newspaper polls (essentially the same thing) have them closer, but partisan polls generally can be discarded.

We should start to see the last-minute sneak attacks by both sides this week, probably starting Wednesday or Thursday. I was surprised that Gerry Brown played his card so early, but with Gloria Alred involved, it's likely she just couldn't help herself. The fact that Gerry Brown is in the lead in California speaks volumes about that state's inability to solve its problems. Unions are completely entrenched, and they'll drive the state over the cliff soon.

My prediction: 52 (_D_) vs.48 (_R_) in the Senate. That still would be a huge swing. And, at the end of the day, gridlock beats the alternative we've experienced over the past 2 years. [/QUOTE]I believe that the polls are not counting certain portions of the folks that will be going to the polls. This under counting could be 2-5.

I stand by GOP wins of both house (70-100 seats) and senate (52:48 GOP controlled)

The key of course will be turn out. Hopefully all of those energized would-be-voters will actually get off their asses and vote.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 413434]I believe that the polls are not counting certain portions of the folks that will be going to the polls. This under counting could be 2-5.

I stand by GOP wins of both house (70-100 seats) and senate (52:48 GOP controlled)

The key of course will be turn out. Hopefully all of those energized would-be-voters will actually get off their asses and vote. [/QUOTE]I hope you're right. I've been wrong before, and I hope to be this time, but 51 would be pretty tough.52 would be a message beyond what optimistic Republicans hope for at this point.

Again, I hope I'm wrong. There's still plenty of time for the October surprises that are bound to start soon. Conventional wisdom has it that this material gets released late in the week to prevent your opponent from having time to respond until after the week's news cycle is complete. But, absentee voting changes that dynamic a bit, and October surprises are more commonly a Democrat tactic. We'll see in a week.

Here's a sample of why I personally believe Democrat politicians are liars. This from Obama on the campaign trail today:

[i]He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We got to have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they got to sit in back. "[/i]

The facts are so diametrically opposed to this, especially on his claims that Republicans represent special interests. I hadn't realized that we were out of the ditch, but if Democrats think that 9.6% unemployment and anemic growth is a progress, then I guess that explains why they're doing so well this season.

And, on special interest funding, this is the guy that pledged not to take special interest money in the presidential campaign, and even signed documentation to that effect, then promptly violated that pledge during the campaign. He's the guy that refused to disclose the source of his campaign funds during the campaign, and re-jiggered his website to evade reporting on money he took in from foreign sources. Now, even Tina Brown's publication, which is still in Obama's hip pocket, is calling him on his lies. It is the Democrats who are beholden to special interests, namely, government unions who take their member contributions by force and give them to Democrats so that we can have. . . . More money for government unions. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-24/unions-the-real-big-money-culprits-this-election-season/

Fortunately, at this point, Obama just sounds like a bleating sheep. His rhetoric is tired, worn and old, yet he keeps droning on just the same.

Make sure Mitch McConnell's quote today gets covered far and wide in the media tomorrow, and all week.

And memo to DNC: Get a commercial with this quote on the air ASAP!

I was predicting 51 Democrat Senate seats, but with McConnell's quote today we may see 52.

[QUOTE=Esten; 413440]Make sure Mitch McConnell's quote today gets covered far and wide in the media tomorrow, and all week.

And memo to DNC: Get a commercial with this quote on the air ASAP!

I was predicting 51 Democrat Senate seats, but with McConnell's quote today we may see 52. [/QUOTE]If my GOP boys get to 50 I'm in the money at madahos! Fear not Esten, I am actually predicting 51-49 for my team. Boxer looks like she is history after Obomanation was done in California. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Reid's name already checked on ballots in Nevada.

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/25511115/detail.html

[QUOTE=Toymann;413443]If my GOP boys get to 50 I'm in the money at madahos! Fear not Esten, I am actually predicting 51-49 for my team. Boxer looks like she is history after Obomanation was done in California. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Bzzzzzzzz! With Biden a 50:50 Senate is in effect a Democratic Senate.

Mitch McConnell's comment on Obama was widely covered today, on CNN, Yahoo and others. What does Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell believe the most important thing is? Is it jobs? The economy? The deficit? Healthcare? Immigration?

Nope. In an interview with National Journal, he said:
[b][i]"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. " [/i][/b]

Every time I hear this guy open his mouth he sounds cranky, bitter and inflexible. Now he comes out with this. Unbelievable! This quote will not soon be forgotten.

WH bristles over top Republicans' remarks.
[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/26/wh-bristles-over-top-republicans-remarks/?npt=NP1[/url]

Even his home state Kentucky:
Mitch McConnell under fire for saying top priority is making Obama one-term president.
[url]http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101026/NEWS01/310260081/1008/rss01[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten;413472]Bzzzzzzzz! With Biden a 50:50 Senate is in effect a Democratic Senate.[/QUOTE]You are starting to stress my brother. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

That way you won't always be so far off the mark.

[QUOTE=Esten; 413473]Mitch McConnell's comment on Obama was widely covered today, on CNN, Yahoo and others. What does Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell believe the most important thing is? Is it jobs? The economy? The deficit? Healthcare? Immigration?

Nope. In an interview with National Journal, he said:

[b][i]"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. " [/i][/b][/quote]Judging by the overwhelming asskicking that the Dems are likely to take next Tuesday, I'd say a plurality of the country is with him on that.

So, let me get this straight. He is an idiot for making a statement that you find objectionable, however more than 50% of the US voting public agrees with the statement. Me thinks you don't know so much about politics.

[quote=]Every time I hear this guy open his mouth he sounds cranky, bitter and inflexible. Now he comes out with this.[/quote]Sounds like the cacophony of birds singing at daybreak as Spring unveils itself. When hope springs eternal and change is afoot.

[quote=]Unbelievable! This quote will not soon be forgotten.[/quote]I sure as shit hope not. They need to shut down the money printing presses and send Obama back to Chicago or Cuba or wherever he chooses to retire.

If he set up residency in Bs As, he could run here.

[quote=]WH bristles over top Republicans' remarks.

[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/26/wh-bristles-over-top-republicans-remarks/?npt=NP1[/url][/quote]


What a shock. The WH bristles when the opposition states that they want to defeat them. Well, here you have it. First time in politics the opposition has clearly stated its opposition to the entrenched powers.

[quote=]Even his home state Kentucky:

Mitch McConnell under fire for saying top priority is making Obama one-term president.

[url]http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101026/NEWS01/310260081/1008/rss01[/url][/QUOTE]


OK, do you really think that if there is an article taking issue with a statement (could be anyone's statement) that the statement is therefore invalidated? If so, every phony thing Obama has ever uttered has been invalidated because I can come up with at least one article opposing every thing he has said.

Come on Esten, you're arguments are getting weaker by the day.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413489]Come on Esten, you're arguments are getting weaker by the day.[/QUOTE]You go with what you've got. Esten can be thanked for consistently leading with his chin. My only objection to this is that it implies that the arguments were less weak before, but I agree with you: Just when you thought they couldn't get any weaker, he posts links to articles saying that the White House bristles at these comments, and Democrats take issue with the notion that their boy will be a one-term president. Now there's news.

Unfortunately, we haven't seen his quote splashed all over the headlines. I wish we did. The majority of the American public want Obama and the Democrats stopped in their tracks. Knowing that Republicans support that agenda may be obvious to most, but getting that headline out there might get a bunch more Independents, who may not have been paying attention, to the voting booths where they can show that they concur.

The notion that Obama should be stopped, and that his agenda should fail, is hardly controversial. Likewise, the idea that this is Priority #1 is no surprise: Stop Obama, Dems and their agenda and you can get the economy back on track; fail, and we're in for more of the same. Likely voters have been expressing this in polls for the better part of a year, and they'll express it in voting booths in six days. It's akin to Juan Williams' statement that Muslim-clad passengers make him worry when he's on a plane. Most people think the same. But the PC Left bristles when someone puts voice to their own private thoughts. According to the Left, you can think it; you just can't say it. Same with the comments on Obama, but in six days, they'll find out that the majority of the voting public doesn't agree with them.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;413495]Unfortunately, we haven't seen his quote splashed all over the headlines. I wish we did.[/quote]I believe that the selective coverage of that statement is due to the fact that if it were widely disseminated (Esten, that means spread all around to all the people) it might very well set a fire that the media (always on the look out to protect BHO) doesn't not want to risk touching off. That is, "if America is so sick of BHO's agenda that it will through democrats out of legislative office as if they were used banana peels, are they ready to cast off BHO? "

You never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer. If you already know the answer and you don't like the answer, you sure as shit aren't going to ask the question.

[quote=] The majority of the American public want Obama and the Democrats stopped in their tracks. Knowing that Republicans support that agenda may be obvious to most, but getting that headline out there might get a bunch more Independents, who may not have been paying attention, to the voting booths where they can show that they concur.[/quote]Agreed. America wants BHO and the Dems stopped. They (majority of Americans) also know that their opportunity to term limit BHO to one term is in two years, not next week.

[quote=]The notion that Obama should be stopped, and that his agenda should fail, is hardly controversial.[/quote]Agreed. Quite the contrary issues like socialized medicine, cap and tax and immigration reform (I. E. Mint 20 million new democrat voters) are very controversial, which is plain to see in how they played out. Steadfast Republican opposition to Obama is not controversial at all, it is expected. If the voters don't get it (I. E. Strong opposition to Obama, the freshly minted republicans will get shown the door too.

[quote=] Likewise, the idea that this is Priority #1 is no surprise: Stop Obama, Dems and their agenda and you can get the economy back on track; fail, and we're in for more of the same. Likely voters have been expressing this in polls for the better part of a year, and they'll express it in voting booths in six days. It's akin to Juan Williams' statement that Muslim-clad passengers make him worry when he's on a plane. Most people think the same. But the PC Left bristles when someone puts voice to their own private thoughts. According to the Left, you can think it; you just can't say it. Same with the comments on Obama, but in six days, they'll find out that the majority of the voting public doesn't agree with them.[/QUOTE]Amen

Ok, let's get a couple of things straight. First, I believe that EK was a disastrous nomination to the SC, not only is she wholly without qualification, she is a life long political hack. Second, I am not a proponent of the death penalty as employed by the US criminal justice system (that doesn't make me soft on crime. Thirdly, I do not believe in judicial activism, even if the issue at hand is one to which I could be sympathetic.

However, EK got to opine on her first ever SC case which is on an absolutely flatulent (full of stinky air) issue. The question was whether or not one of the drugs used for lethal injection was safe. This was completely made up argument. The now deceased dirtbag's attorneys saw an opportunity to create a false argument because the US manufacturer stopped making it so the state of AZ had to buy it from a UK company.

"A judge had put the execution on hold because she said she was "left to speculate" whether this drug was safe for its intended use. "

WTF? Safe for its intended use? Hello? They are using it to kill him. So what if it has side effects? So long as one of the side effects isn't reincarnation or resuscitation, how the f-k could it matter?

[QUOTE=Esten; 411380]LOL. There's no additional risk for me beyond what I was ready to accept. I pay if Republicans win both chambers.

But you substantially cut your risk. Instead of paying if Republicans don't win [I]both[/i] Chambers, you now only pay if Republicans don't win [I]any[/i] Chamber. If you had real conviction you would accept the wager I proposed. I think you wussed out. [/QUOTE]Esten and Toyman,

Question regarding your bet:

There are two Independents in the Senate, Bernie Sanders (VT) and Joe Lieberman (CT. Neither is up for re-election.

Who wins the bet if there end up being 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents?

Just thought you guys ought to sort this out in advance. I've requoted the post memorializing the bet, above.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413518]Esten and Toyman,

Question regarding your bet:

There are two Independents in the Senate, Bernie Sanders (VT) and Joe Lieberman (CT. Neither is up for re-election.

Who wins the bet if there end up being 49 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents?

Just thought you guys ought to sort this out in advance. I've requoted the post memorializing the bet, above. [/QUOTE]When is the exact measurement?

I still hold that there will be 52 republicans in the senate come Wednesday (theoretically of course since they won't be seated Wednesday.

However, there are two potential converts to the republican party that could convert to republicanism. They are of course Lieberman and Nelson (Ben of Nebraska. Either could be lured by the trappings of the ruling party. However, both are extremely unlikely to switch to the republican party. Nelson is more conservative than Lieberman, however, he was the final vote for Obamacare. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that he could get through a Republican primary in order to retain his seat. Likewise, Lieberman, while able to get himself reelected as an independent happens to reside in CT which is full of self-loathing rich people who rather than actually doing something to make life better for others, they donate to liberals to make themselves feel better about their vapid existances.

I don't see any conversions post election, unless either Nelson or Lieberman decides to retire following the end of their current terms.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413518]Esten and Toyman,

Question regarding your bet:

There are two Independents in the Senate, Bernie Sanders (VT) and Joe Lieberman (CT. Neither is up for re-election.

Who wins the bet if there end up being 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents?

Just thought you guys ought to sort this out in advance. I've requoted the post memorializing the bet, above. [/QUOTE]Fair point. And easy. You go by the Senate rules as to who holds power.

That's why you see all the stories saying Republicans need 10 seats (to 51) to take control of the Senate.

As far as timing, I would say as soon as all the Senate races are deemed decided. That might not be next week though, if some of the races are as close as the polls say.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413518]Esten and Toyman,

Question regarding your bet:

There are two Independents in the Senate, Bernie Sanders (VT) and Joe Lieberman (CT. Neither is up for re-election.

Who wins the bet if there end up being 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents?

Just thought you guys ought to sort this out in advance. I've requoted the post memorializing the bet, above. [/QUOTE]I win both ties. And more GOP whatever the number. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;413524]I win both ties. And more GOP whatever the number. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]One small detail, you need both sides to agree for there to be a valid bet.

My bet is strictly about who holds power in each chamber. If you don't agree then bets are off.... I already let you get away with a watered down bet, now you want me to go along with giving you a win even if the Senate is considered to remain controlled by Dems? LOL You are getting desperate for your prize! Make the honorable bet Toymann, you know its all about who holds the power.

P.S. My original statement was "I pay if Republicans win both chambers." That's what you agreed to. A win means in control.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 413489]OK, do you really think that if there is an article taking issue with a statement (could be anyone's statement) that the statement is therefore invalidated? If so, every phony thing Obama has ever uttered has been invalidated because I can come up with at least one article opposing every thing he has said.

Come on Esten, you're arguments are getting weaker by the day. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413495]

You go with what you've got. Esten can be thanked for consistently leading with his chin. My only objection to this is that it implies that the arguments were less weak before, but I agree with you: Just when you thought they couldn't get any weaker, he posts links to articles saying that the White House bristles at these comments, and Democrats take issue with the notion that their boy will be a one-term president. Now there's news. [/QUOTE]Let's see, first Walleye makes up an imaginary argument I never made (that McConnell's statement was somehow 'invalidated'). And then states the imaginary argument he invented is weak.

Then Stan jumps in in agreement.

ROTFLMAO!!!

[QUOTE=Esten; 413525]One small detail, you need both sides to agree for there to be a valid bet.

My bet is strictly about who holds power in each chamber. If you don't agree then bets are off. I already let you get away with a watered down bet, now you want me to go along with giving you a win even if the Senate is considered to remain controlled by Dems? LOL You are getting desperate for your prize! Make the honorable bet Toymann, you know its all about who holds the power.

P. S. My original statement was "I pay if Republicans win both chambers. " That's what you agreed to. A win means in control. [/QUOTE]I am a little confused. More GOP than Dems would mean control. YES? I also asked long ago that a 50-50 tie went to me as your team WAS IN CONTROL.59-41. Please clarify for all to see.

Happy Mongering All,

Toymann