Hand Book for Tea Party Candidates:

This is top-secret, but I found one on eBay. What to do when:

You see reporters walking toward you. Answer: Run as fast as you can in the other direction. Notables: Sharron Angle and Rand Paul.

You are asked questions about the Constitution. Answer: Say you support the Constitution…with the exception of the defining citizenship passage, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Say the 10^th Amendment is your favorite Amendment, but you can’t remember what it says. Notables: Christine O’Donnell who reports the Constitution comes from God. (Although God is not mentioned.)

When you are asked what you did in college. Answer: Tie up a young girl and do some Aqua Budda thing. Notable: Rand Paul. OR: Go on a date and have lunch on a satanic alter. Only one notable: Christine O’Donnell.

When you are asked about your qualifications to be a member of Congress? Answer: Say None, no experience is necessary. Brag about being a Washington outsider and being clueless about government operations. Notables: All Tea Party candidates.

When asked how you would govern. Answer: Single-handedly repeal ObamaCare and financial reform. Oh, and let’s not forget lowering taxes, cutting spending and reducing the size of government. Notables: All Tea Party candidates singing in unison.

When asked how you would help the middle class. Answer: I support really big businesses; I would apologize to BP for being made to clean up their little old mess in hopes of a huge contribution to my campaign fund. Notable: incumbent Texas Congressman Joe Barton.

How do you plan to dress up for the Saturday’s Halloween Party? Answer: Dress up like a Nazi. After all, John Boehner gave me $7,000. Notable: Richard Lott from Ohio.

What do you do if you don’t like a question? Answer: Use my Second Amendment rights. Notable: Sharron Angle. Or: Tell the reporter that violent revolution is on the table. Notable: Thank you Stephen Brown.

With characters like these, how could anyone vote for a Tea Party candidate?

You just got to LOVE the heaping helping of hypocrisy the Republicans continue to hand out to the low information voters!

From Think Progress:

Appearing on CBS’ Face the Nation today, former Bush advisor Karl Rove defended “flooding our politics with money from people who don’t want people to know they’ve contributed,” as host Bob Schieffer put it, saying his Crossroads GPS group and other conservative organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money on this year’s elections without disclosing their donors. The network of special interest groups led by Rove is expecting to raise $250 million to influence this years’ elections, almost all of it from millionaires and billionaires.

But as ThinkProgress reported last week, Rove sang a different tune in 2004 when he said, “I’m against all the 527 ads and activities,” referring to a tax designation of some outside political groups, including his own American Crossroads. “I don’t think they’re fair. I don’t think it’s appropriate. They’re misusing the law. They all ought to stop,” he said at the time. Today, Schieffer confronted Rove with the video ThinkProgress highlighted, asking him, “so why is it that if they were so bad back then that they’re so wholesome now?”

But when Scheiffer asked Rove — who at that point had stated that we need “a different system” at least three times — whether he would commit to working towards a stronger campaign finance regime, Rove dodged, declining to commit to anything or say what a “new system” might entail:

SCHEIFFER: If you feel so strongly about it would you pledge this morning that you’ll work to have new campaign laws where we make all of these contributions transparent and we’ll know who is giving them?

ROVE: I’m for a new system, Bob. I’m focused on 2010. Right now I’m focused on trying to level the playing field. When you have an organization that spends $87 million. It’s announced it’s spending $87 million. We’re the big player but we don’t like to boast about it. That’s the amount of disclosure. We’ve tolerated this for decades. The system may need something else.

Rove did pledge, however, that his groups will act as a conduit for billionaires to secretly funnel money into American politics for years to come, saying his Crossroads groups will “serve as a permanent counterweight to the activities of the labor unions and these liberal groups.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/24/rove-2004-react/

There you have it folks – Karl Rove is on record as saying Democracy is NOW FOR SALE to the highest bidder!

On a positive not I guess they’ll have to retire the BS ‘Country First’ Slogan and replace it with “Corporations First’!

Good Morning Navy:

Exposure to the light of day. That's how it's done. Supreme Court Chief Justice forgot he was to just call "balls and strikes". Looks like he would like to be the pitcher too. (World Serises season)

"You can fool too many of the people too much of the time." James Thurber

Secret money is being used to convince voters the republicans have the answers. The same answers that Reagan and the GOP had in the 1980's which turned America into a debtor nation. The Reagan legacy of debt and deregulation left Bush 41 hamstrung during a recession. The same answers Bush 43 and the GOP had in the 2000's which left the nation even further in debt and left President Obama and the democratic Congress with few options to stop a second Great Depression. The American people will lose again because secret money convinces them that the party of big business and the wealthy--the GOP--has their best interest at heart. Sure they do, just as they did in 1981, and 2001.

Saw this in my local newspaper cartoon by Mr. Joe Heller.

I read a post by an unnamed blogger

That a faceless announcer narrates an unsupported attack ad

Put out by a vaguely Named Group

From somewhere out of state

Funded by anonymous donors

“It’s good to be an informed Voter”

I posted on Friday that this whole money argument was being raised as an excuse- it could not possibly be Obama's policies to which the electorate objected. Oh, no! It was outside money that bought of votes of an electorate too stupid or fearful, or both, to appreciate the magnificence of Obama!

Over the weekend, I read variations on that theme; here, today, we see it again.

Two problems: AFSME is the SINGLE largest contributor to these elections- all their money is going to Democrats. Just what do they expect to buy for this money? More goodies for their members from the Democrats, all paid for by the taxpayers.

Second problem: it leaves Democrats in the position of telling voters that they are stupid. Now, many of those voters already feel stupid- they voted for Obama after falling for the hopeful chanciness he offered, and did not look too hard at his record.

So, the republicans exploit the first problem, and let the Democrats hang themselves with the second.

Great idea. Got anything else?

We already know that NJ is in favor of selling our democracy to the highest anonymous bidder. No news there.

Over the weekend, I read variations on that theme; here, today, we see it again.

Get used to it... cause it's not going away!

PS: Weren't you suppose to be out knocking on doors?

Good morning Ron, excellent post

America is not for sale and it's time for americans to wake up and smell the coffee.

Think Progress did/ is a good job of waking up the people. When a poll says 84 % say they have a "right to know" who's bankrolling the ads an overwhelming, it's time the media stops all their slanted views. 84% of voters polled, including 80% of Republicans and 81% of Independents, believe voters have a right to know who is paying for ads for a particular candidate.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/final%20disclosure%20polling%20memo%20.pdf

People who disagree should realize it's important to take out the GOPTP, because the Supreme Court is selling America yo we don't know who.

We don't need Activist Judges and as anyone can see from your post that is the intention of the Billionaires Koch Brothers and Karl Rove's other shady friends.

Clarence Thomas shouldn't be sitting on the Supreme court anyhow. He hasn't asked a question in years.

Miss Ginny was trying to take the heat off the Chamber of Commerce.

If anyone should apologize it should be Georgie Boy for putting that "YES" man on the Supreme Court

AFSME. Public employee union. $87.5 million to democrats. What are they buying with that money?

It all gets paid for by the taxpayers.

What are they buying with that money? What have the democrats promised them for that money? How much will it cost the taxpayers?

That is the narrative you face after the mid terms.

They are questions that need answers.

84% of Americans disagree with anonymity in campaign funding, yet Conservative leaders say "there's nothing to see there" and their foot soldiers carry that message out into the field.

"Methinks she doth protest too much."

I don't know about a GOP 'wave'; but I certainly am sensing that the TIDE has gone out.

Just an observation.

I guess we Dems can wave,...Bye Bye O'Donnell and Angle. It was funny; but not so fun.

John B.

Agreed, no matter how many ways they try and spin it the fact is that the republican/tea party has sold out America for their Gods of Greed and Power, BOTH Foreign and Domestic. Nothing has changed except that the corruption runs deeper than we thought at first glance.

All right you guys, cease with the PC talk, especially you Feisty. These are not "low information voters". These are stupid voters and they comprise the vast majority of the electorate - both left and right. They don't begin to understand the machinations of Big Money and it's ownership of Washington.

Note that even what is termed a "landslide election" rarely tilts beyond the 55% to 45% range. It is only a relatively small group that determines the outcomes of elections, so powerful are identity politics. The battle of the ideologues of the right and the left is to try to sway that group to their side. These voters are erroneously called "independents". The "independents" are actually "undecided's". They will run like crazy to the party that promises them the most.

The yawning steve's and the cu's cannot defend their allegiance to the right. For Pete's sake, cu is a union member. No contradiction there, right? Generally, they have their counterparts on the left, who are every bit as ignorant, but who don't say much. Their only saving grace is that they don't put their ignorance on public display. They are what identity politics are all about.

The "undecided's" aren't some sort of intellectuals, carefully deciding the fate of America. They are the true "gimme, gimme, gimme" group, that identifies the mentality of the Teabaggers this cycle. These people have always been around. They're nothing new. They just have a new name. The only way to defeat these selfish bloodsuckers is through education.

Although I still believe the Dems will control the Congress, it might not be all bad if the Repubs take control. Their craven and cowardly refusals to identify cuts does not seem to bother voters. Again, this may work against them if they take control. The fact is they cannot do anything. All the Dems have to do is pound home for two years the fact that the G.O.P. came to Washington with nothing new, and that is exactly what they gave us. Nothing new!

It is up to us to push for campaign reform and the destruction and rebuilding of the education paradigm/model such that it encourages an informed electorate. That is the only way America can survive. Stupidity is not a virtue.

The major difference between the hundreds of million that have been funneled to the Repubs through the services of the CoC and others and that going to the Dems through the Unions is that ALL donations to the Unions MUST BE DISCLOSED. When corporations can hide their involvement of donating hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars from the public to sway elections their way to get laws favorable to Corporations passed VS. Unions working for their members right to get reasonable wages for everybody then we are seeing the finalization of corporate takeover of this Nation. It is no longer Of the People, By the People For the People, but Of the Rich, by the Rich for the Corporations and that IS NOT WHAT AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON!

The atmosphere at First Read should reach record levels of toxicity as we approach Election Day...and the likely outcome becomes imcreasingly clear.

I expect the usual suspects to broaden the scope and intensity of their assault as they lash out at points of view that don't fit the First Read liberal- progressive orthodoxy.

We'll certainly see more complaints about the voters, and a media selling a narrative unfairly slanted against President Obama...and a convenient memory lapse where no one can recall the electorate's brilliance in 2008, or the fawning, nearly obsequient acclamation bestowed upon then-Senator Obama by the maistream media.

Comments from the pundit class about thrills going up the leg (our own Chris Matthews), or exclamations that "Obama is God" (Newsweek's Evan Thomas) are forgotten. Now it's all about accountability and competence...of THIS Administration. Not the last one.

And First Readers aren't taking it well at all...

nojonobo:

I posted on Friday that this whole money argument was being raised as an excuse- it could not possibly be Obama's policies to which the electorate objected.

Wrong. It's being raised because polls show that an overwhelming majority of the public do not like secret donors and Democrats would be fools not to take it up. It's a genuine issue for the campaign. Nine months before this election in his State of the Union speech, President Obama denounced the disgusting Roberts' Court decision that made the out-of-control corporate election buying possible, causing "Justice" Alito to snarl for the TV cameras. This not some mere "process" issue thought up at the last moment to "divert attention" from other issues. It may be the single most important issue of this campaign.

Impeach Scalia and Thomas.

Good morning all,

Let's not be naive. American elections have ALWAYS been for sale. Big money talks. It buys ads, it pays for campaign "events" and it gets marginal candidates taken seriously.

And anybody who believes an individual who gives MILLIONS to a particular political cause "expects nothing" in return is a fool.

The game used to be played is smoke-filled rooms where envelopes of cash were passed to candidates from individuals wanting to buy "access" to the candidate. They supported candidates they thought would be "reasonable" and "accessible" to the party giving the illegal donation.

I know because I worked five years under cover for the FBI in a major political sting operation. I wore a wire, I received envelopes filled with cash from representatives of major corporations on behalf of an elected official I worked for who was also cooperating with the Feds in their investigation.

We sent a couple of people to jail, but our Senior Senator stepped in and saved all the big fish who swam away unscathed. It was a lot of work, high tension and drama, for a very small pay-off in the end.

But at least there was a law and an effort at enforcement to discourage it's abuse.

Nowadays, thanks to Justice Roberts and his activist court it's legal to make those donations and remain anonymous. It's no longer a crime. There is NO enforcement effort because there is not law to enforce.

I was shocked at Karl Rove's appearance on MEET THE PRESS yesterday morning. I watched all of it I could stand before my blood pressure started to spike and I had to turn it off.

He was asked multiple times by Bob Scheifer, How are the American people benefitted by all these anonymous donations? HE NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION. His evasive response was, the Democrats did it first, where was the outrage when the Democrats did it, the Unions do it...blah blah blah.

That was not the question. The question was non-partisan. But he refused to answer it. That should tell us all something, shouldn't it?

Folks, elections have always been for sale to the highest bidders, and the blame is spread equally. In Dem controlled states it was the Dems who were for sale. IN GOP controlled states it was the GOP who was for sale.

Our wonderful Congressman Tom Cole told us when he was just a GOP consultant that he knew when the GOP had finally become a power in Oklahoma because "they started throwing money at us." In other words the bribes and illegal campaign contributions would come flowing in. Something about the way he said it made me think he was looking forward to that day.

Well folks, now it's legal. Unless we do something to change it this country is truly doomed.

B.Honest- what is AFSME expecting to get in return for $87.5million to the democrats?

How much will it cost the taxpayers?

That is the big question. Public workers unions do not give away all that money to one political party without expecting something in return.

It is not the democrats whom will be paying for this, it is the taxpayers.

So, what are they getting, and how much will it cost us?

If a entity does not have the right to vote, that entity should not have the right to finance campaigns.

Why to put two more of your liberals in to take away more of our rights and grant rights that are not in the constitution

US Navy:

Your post hits upon one of the biggest news stories of our generation: the Supreme Court is tainted and has declared that corporations are people.

This is major news, and yet the "corporate people" are working overtime to tell us that it is "business as usual".

Thanks for shining a light on this despicable situation.

America is being attacked from the inside, and they are counting on us not to notice.

As America inches it's way towards another Barnburner of an Election, we find the more things Change, the more they stay the same.

We hear so much about Independents breaking for the GOP, but we don't hear about Independents who wore thier GOP stripes on thier sleeves, who did'nt wanna be on File as being GOP, so they registered Independent more than 2 years ago, from Sheer Embarrassment. So, yes, Independents are breaking GOP, they never left, just changed Registration's.

By the time this Election is over, 3 Billion $$'s will have been spent on Campaigning. Unknown candidates with endless supply's of $$, sitting back & wondering WTF is happeneing here, I got in this to help America(so they thought)only to findout, they were bought from somewhere far away from where they Live.

From here in Rural Ky, I get to enjoy Ad's from 3 states(Ky, WV,Oh) with WV being among the Most shown byfar.

In WV 4 (I think) thiers a GOP candidate named Spike Maynard, running against Nich Rahall. Now Maynard, while serving on WV Supreme Court(an elected position) a few years ago was found vacationing with ATMassey CEO Don Blankenship on the coast of France, just shy of an Appeal hearing of a $75 Million Judgement against Massey.

Don Blankenship is financing Maynards campaign(or lack thereof), only to have his Own Person, right there in Congress. He does'nt try to hide it, he's Blantantly Arrogant about it.

America, this is just 1 example that i'm familiar with, so i'm sure yall know of a similar case, right in your neck of the woods.

America's Electoral process is being Sold down the River to the Highest bidder.

Are American's gonna Allow this to happen? You have a saySo in this process!

Don't look around on Nov-3rd & say "What have i done, to vote for this Candidate", only to findout, they really meant it when they said, I'm gonna privatize Social Security, i'm gonna vote for less taxes on Business, so they can Ship My Job overseas to some 3rd world country.

The World laughed at us, when we gave President Bush a 2nd Term in 2004:

In 2006, the World said America has come to it's Senses & throwd the GOP from Control(right before the Sheeeeeeeeeit hit the Fan):

In 2008, the World said America was finally back on track:

In 2010, Does America really wanna be the laughing stock of the World again, by ReElecting the same people"The GOP", who made America a Comedy Show for the ages?

Do We?

I Don't!

Some excellent posts by the gang this morning on First Read! I wanted to quickly alleviate No Jo's mind on a point that she seems worried about and has belabored. President Obama was in the Twin Cities, MN this weekend, and contrary to what No Jo prefers to believe, there were 7000 in the main center, 4000 in an auxiliary area, and the line to see get in stretched over a mile long (KARE TV, and my redheaded cherub, sources) traffic was backed up on 35W with people trying to get there. I am sure that No Jo will feel much better to know that the Presidents popularity, and his ability to draw people to hear him speak continue unimpeded.

Bev,

Think Progress did/ is a good job of waking up the people. When a poll says 84 % say they have a "right to know" who's bankrolling the ads an overwhelming, it's time the media stops all their slanted views. 84% of voters polled, including 80% of Republicans and 81% of Independents, believe voters have a right to know who is paying for ads for a particular candidate

You are correct, most Americans want to know who is paying the bills for the TV ads. But 100% of the congressional leaders and politicians don't want people to know, on either side of the aisle. Because those who don't have enough money to spend on TV, need these groups. I don't care what your political affiliation is. They all use them, they all need them, and none of them wants campaign reform. Too much money behind the scenes, too many favors that need to be called in.

New day,

I wouldn't be bragging about the President drawing a whopping 11,000 people in a metro area of 3.5 million people. That is about .3% of the population of the Twin Cities. You would think that his popularity would draw at least 1% of the population considering he carried Minnesota in the last election 54% to 44%.

No Joe. We know who AFSME and other unions are and that their members donate the cash and their records are available. Who donates to Crossroads GPS, US Chamber of Commerce, Freedom Works--who specifically are the donors? It would seem to me that any conscientious conservative as well as most Americans would be asking who are they.

BigBear62

100% of the congressional leaders and politicians don't want people to know, on either side of the aisle. Because those who don't have enough money to spend on TV, need these groups. I don't care what your political affiliation is. They all use them, they all need them, and none of them wants campaign reform. Too much money behind the scenes, too many favors that need to be called in.

Do you know where open secrets' website is? It'll show where the money coms from. As far as unions go, they have to disclose. You can go to the FEC website and see the donations. So please stop your spinning. Most Americans who are not tea baggers don't believe anything the CoC, a few billionaires, and Karl Rove say.

Jody, you are deliberately avoiding the point.

I will make it very simple.

1. AFSME is the single biggest donor this cycle.

2. They have put $87.5million into Democratic campaigns.

3. They represent public employees.

The question is what do they expect to bUy with that money, and what will it cost the taxpayers?

It is a simple question. I expect the DNC to answer it. So do a whole lot of voting taxpayers.

No, the point is disclosure. AFSCME is REQUIRED to disclose where their money is coming from. CoC, Americans For Progress, Freedom Works, and any other similar front groups are NOT required to disclose that same information as arranged by the Conservative bloc of the Supreme Court. Your false equivalence doesn't fly. AFSCME is already at a higher level of disclosure than these other groups. They may both be apples, but you're comparing apples to rotten apples.

Bev,

If all your union loving, billionaire fearing, congressional leaders want reform, why don't they bring it up in Congress? And don't get all high and mighty, Unions have to report contributions, so do corporations as long as it goes to a PAC. But the other groups, like NEA advocacy, democratic leaning, is just like Carl Rove's group.

And here is a little information about contributions of Corporations and Unions.

Ccorporate PAC contributions dominate PAC giving, consider the fact that while the largest 10 PAC’s include five that are corporate PAC’s and five that are union PAC’s.

The corporate PAC’s tend to split their giving between Democrats and Republicans, with slightly more giving to Democrats during this election cycle (except for the American Banker’s Association which contributed more money to Republicans than Democrats).

Union PAC’s contributed almost exclusively to candidates who are Democrats.

Here are the raw data, in case you ever care to check the facts:

Honeywell 55%D/45%R ;

AT&T 48%D/51%R;

International Brotherhood Union 98%D/2%R;

National Association of Realtors 58%D/41%R;

National Beer Wholesalers Association 56%D/44%R;

American Association for Justice–a.k.a the Trial Lawyer’s Association–97%D/3%R;

American Banker’s Association 37%D/63%R;

Operating Engineers Association 89%D/11%R;

AFSCME 99%D/0%R;

Teamsters 98%D/2%R;

International Association of Firefighters 83%D/16%R).

Seems to me that if we see more television commercials for or against candidates, they are likely to be paid for by a labor union PAC and in support of a Democratic candidate.

It seems that unions don't really vote for candidates based on their individual qualities, they vote for them based on party. That is too bad, and what has lead us to the corruption in Washington.

87.5 million dollars of egg on their face............and here we are nearly 3 weeks later and they are still talking about the same thing..

Yawn................

The Supreme Court has been tainted for a long time, probably since before their horrendous decision in 2000 following the debacle in Fl when they gave the election to GWB, despite the fact Al Gore won the popular vote.

There are very few justices who would be totally impartial on any decision, because, the case in question, any case, has two sides, depending on which party nominated them, that's the side that will win the decision. Most who are on the court today are conservatives and are going to side with the right in most decisions. The Court has not been objective and nonpartisan in a long time. Unfortunately, one more institution lost to greed and partisanship.

New Day,

I sure wish you would learn to reply in the correct column. That would help me get you an answer faster. I am sorry I left out that line of traffic a mile long.

So lets say--each car is 12' long and carries 4 people per car.

That is 440 cars, times 4 people = 1740 people in that mile long line.

If there are 4 lanes of traffic, times 1740 people = 7040 more people going south on 35W and 7040 people going north on 35W. So if we add this 14,080 people on the highway, knowing that all 14, 080 people wanted to see the Prez.

That gives us a grand total of 25,080 people wanting to see the Prez. Which brings his total percentage up to .7% of the population of the Twin Cities, still not 1% of the population of a state that he carried 54% to 44%, and with that being the largest metro area in Minnesota you'd think his popularity would be better.

Gingerbread,

Maybe you should learn how the presidential election is done before getting on here and spouting out stuff. Gore might have won the popular vote in this country, but our elections are done by electoral systems. That means that the electoral votes in each state go to the winner of the popular vote of that state. In reality, you only need about 14 states to win an election, it might be 12 or 13. I haven't done the math lately. So you can win the popular vote each and every election, but if you don't win the electoral vote, it does not matter.

New Day,

Oops, I made a typo on the key pad. That 1740 should be 1760. Therefore you need another 20 people per lane, times 8 lanes 160 more people. Really doesn't bring up the percentage though. Sorry for the mistake. Trying to type too fast.

Smart people take back the country 11/2/10 and you can't do anything about it loony libs other than blow hot air to one another!

This administration is an epic failure and next week you shall see that there are far more voters in the U.S. other than the hand pick cronies who are bused in for Obama's winded speeches.

To BoJo;

At least we know where the contributions came from, the membership. Why don't the contributors to Roves organizations want to to be known? What are they afraid of? I think they have a hidden agenda and if their contributions were revealed it would show massive attempts at political manipulation by a few individuals.

I find it interesting that the only thing Republicans can say about the campaign financing debacle is "the Democrats do it too." You are missing the point: The Supreme Court of the United States made it legal. This is the most unspeakable Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott. Why are we (Democrats or Republicans) putting up with this? Even Supreme Court justices can be impeached. Congress do your duty!!

BigBear62 wrote:

New day,

I wouldn't be bragging about the President drawing a whopping 11,000 people in a metro area of 3.5 million people. That is about .3% of the population of the Twin Cities. You would think that his popularity would draw at least 1% of the population considering he carried Minnesota in the last election 54% to 44%.

Big Bear - During a midterm election Minnesota voter turnout drops to about 1/3 of that during a Presidential election. I would expect a midterm event to draw accordingly.

Another interesting consideration....is there ANY (R) in the country who could draw 11,000 people at an event in the same location?

Vermontgirl,

I thought he was there to energize the party, all 11,000 of them. or 25,000 if you count all those people in the traffic jam, because we know they all wanted to be there.

I would imagine that Sarah Palin would draw the same crowd in the Twin Cities.

Just a bet though.

This is comical. All you libs, undies in a bunch over where the money is coming from. I tell you what, clean up your own act, then get back to me about the GOP dirty money. It sure wasn't an issue 2 years ago when Obama was getting foreign money, now it is? Hypocrites! Just 8 more days till the democrats get their collective a$$e$ kicked.

One more Conservative speaking in favor of allowing deep-pockets, anonymous donors to buy elections. Thanks for letting us know who the enemies of transparency in campaign financing are.

Your "math" is hysterical Big Bear, based as it is on supposition. When the Republicans were there for their Convention, they were begging for help. No one was particularly interested in them.

Vermontgirl: I wouldn't worry too much about what Big Bear says. He still can't read. The line waiting to get in was a mile long. The traffic on 35 W was a separate issue. They have to try to spin this negatively. It is their only survival.

BigBear62,

I am well aware of how the elections for President are decided, and dont need you to instruct me. Popular vote not withstanding, the Courts decided and the electoral college went along doing the bidding of the Republican Party. You can twist it any way you want, it was still a bad decision in Fl and in DC.

What is it with you GOP/TP males you think you know everything and just want to keep the women in their place. Y'all need to come into the 21st century. The tone of your posts leaves much to be desired in the realm of communication.

Union money that funds political ads come from dues paying American workers that can legally vote. Union leaders will give that information up at any time.

If the GOP and the CoC has nothing to hide then why not open the books? Wouldn't it be nice to know regardless of what side of the isle you sit?

Cowards hide behind anonymity.

And what is your point Navy vet, I would not believe anything coming out of the Huffington post considering it now takes money from George Soros. Lets talk about journalistic ethics of which anyone working for the Huffington post have none. As far as the charge of the justices not being impartial I could say the same thing about the last two appointees of Obama.

How is it that when the right wing is challenged, all they can say is "they take money from George Soros.". You want to provide a source for that allegation? And are you equally bothered at the money given by Rupert Murdoch, owner of "Faux News" to the Republican Party? Or is that okay with you since Faux spouts the party lies?

The Supreme Court decision about the 2000 election was indeed a politically-motivated action. Remarkably, it was almost identical to the decision made about the 1876 election, in which one electoral college vote from Louisiana was accepted after a challenge - had there not been racist and financial motives behind the Republican deal-making in that matter, Samuel Tilden, the Democrat, would have been President.

As far as the Huffington Post is concerned, it is generally a reliable and honest source of information. I know Ariana Huffington, met her the first time when she was married to Mike Huffington during his effort to organize a campaign for Senate in California - as a Republican. At the time, she hardly knew the Internet existed, and when I proposed using email as a campaign tactic, both she and Mike looked at me as if I'd sprouted an extra head. I didn't go to work for him, in any event - instead, went home and took an extra-long shower to wash away the stink of GOP. Took much longer to lose the self-loathing for having even considered working for him.

George Soros and Warren Buffett both support Democratic candidates and causes. These men are also government-class wealthy, typically the types of people who would back conservative Republican principles. Instead, they are major philanthropists and use their influence to seek improvement in the lives of others. Neither one is socialist in any sense. Both have made astounding commitments to keeping the world a safer place. People who try to smear the name of George Soros are uninformed propagandists without anything substantive to say.

Sometimes I feel that the more political news and pundity I read, the less informed I am. Same thing happened in 2004 when I was convinced by the media, on the very night of the election, that Kerry would win, and then...he didn't. It's almost better not to watch the news, and just look outside, so see what's happening. Everyone I personally know is appalled by the Tea Party movement (except my brother, but he has always been Libertarian.)

Amy, I hear you. Tha are very few places us Amerricans can go to get just the facts without being told what we should believe, think or do. I just want the facts so i can make up my own mind. We are becoming a society that can no longer think for themselves and this is the attitude that the republican/tea party is trying to capitalize on. This is right out ofthe Karl Rove play book and it works to the demise of us all.

LouisJ

You have employed the best reason TeA Baggers need to vote against their whacky candidates likewise with the LBGT(gay community). Regardless of their party affiliation or stance everyone should reject the GOPTP. They will reserve everything accoomplised and African-Americans along with whites bleed too much, and died too young. In fact African American had to wait nearly a century
Too many people have suffered beatings, humiliation, and even death for me to vote. For me not to vote would be spitting in their face.fearing they could face setbacks if Republicans retake control of Congress. Baim said Democrats and Obama still enjoy widespread support in some parts of the gay community, particularly among African-Americans and Latinos, and she believes the majority still will vote.

I hit the submit button by accident before I completely edit it.

They will reserve everything accoomplised and African-Americans along with whites bleed too much, and died too young. In fact African American had to wait nearly a century

I meant the The GOPTP will REVERSE everything accomplished that African-Americans along with whites bleed too much, and died too young. In fact African Americans had to wait nearly a century to not be considered sub-humans.

Too many people have suffered beatings, humiliation, and even death for me to vote. For me not to vote would be spitting in their face.fearing they could face setbacks

I meant as a child I saw people suffer beatings, being spate on humiliation, and even death for me NOT to vote. For me not to vote would be a setback.

The Voting Rights Act was passed because people like Bull Connor were hitting people like John Lewis. The Civil rights issue dealt with housing, jobs, education, women rights, and equality; the same issues we have today; with the exception of Citizens United.

My advice to the Tea Baggers is don't turn the clock back and please do not allow America to be sold.

For the gay community come to your senses. If you think the military is a big issue. Look at the bigger picture. Think about issues from eliminating employment discrimination to uncertainty over serving in the military to health care to foreclosures to financial regulations.

I hope everyone understands my intent.

Beverly in Chicago

A friend forwarded me an email about what women went through to win the right to vote. It did make me cry and more determined not to take voting for granted. I am a Democrat and will always be a Democrat because the Democrats are for innovation, equality, fairness, protecting the environment, and improving education for everyone, not just the kids of the hedge fund managers. I have worked for large corporations, and seen people lose their health insurance at the whim of the company. Republicans want you to depend on your corporate Big Daddy, while disparaging representative government. If Democratic women don't vote, the sale of this country to the corporations, will be complete.

Everyone complains about the Tea Party Movement.

I am sorry to disagree with you. I know that there are extremist on every issue in the world. People who believe in partial birth abortions, and those who believe in life no matter what the cost, including blowing up and killing doctors who perform abortions.

There are extreme democrats and republicans and libertarians and green party members. So there will be extreme people associated with the Tea Party. But aren't you glad that people are interested in taking back the government from the scoundrels in Washington. Are all of you so one sided in your beliefs that you can't see what it has done to politics. It is bringing about "change". Change is not always perfect, and it needs compromise. Something we haven't had in Washington in decades. We need to take back the government of the people for the people, or we are all just going to be lead to slaughter.

So what you are saying from your comments is that Tea Party people can't be moderate, left leaning, or right leaning. So democrats can't be right leaning, and GOP members can't be left leaning. (unless you are from Maine).

When you group everyone of a race, religion, or belief together, that is nothing more than bigotry. And I thought most of you were above that. Am I wrong?

Of course Big Bear ignores this part: that the line was a mile long, and traffic backed up with people trying to get in. Do try reading the WHOLE post.

Amy B. Portland, ME

A friend forwarded me an email about what women went through to win the right to vote. It did make me cry and more determined not to take voting for granted. I am a Democrat and will always be a Democrat because the Democrats are for innovation, equality, fairness, protecting the environment, and improving education for everyone, not just the kids of the hedge fund managers. I have worked for large corporations, and seen people lose their health insurance at the whim of the company. Republicans want you to depend on your corporate Big Daddy, while disparaging representative government. If Democratic women don't vote, the sale of this country to the corporations, will be complete.

Thank you Amy

We have come a long way with Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, lead the fight for woman suffrage.

My hope is and I have faith that Americans have a zeal for a sense of justice. Tea Baggers anger is misguided; however, judging fom the crowds Sarah gets v President Obama' s more Americans want to maintain and continue that justice and equality.

Speaking of crying, when I was a little girl, my mother and her friends were crying during the March on Washington as Dr King gave his " I Have A Dream Speech". I couldn't understand. I do now. We can not allow the GOPTP to turn back the hands of time.

Remember...

If the other person injures you, you may forget the injury; but if you injure him you will always remember.
Kahlil Gibran quote

So you go right ahead and cry. You have right to. Your tears will help cleanse the soul of America.

Just a bit of history, which seems to matter less and less these days. Both providing freedom for Blacks and the vote to Blacks and Women were passed by REPUBLICANS. If it were up to the Democrat party, neither Blacks would be citizens, let alone able to vote nor would women ever have gained the right to vote. But, that won't fit the 'Progressive' agenda, so we can't discuss the actual historic events, just the made-up Hollywood history that says good D/bad R.

Big Bear:

The problem with the tea party is not with their stated beliefs.

Did you know that the "tea party movement" is a "grassroots movement" funded by "corporate people"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

The tea party is the classic bait and switch . . . who is against balanced budgets and lower taxes?

The question is how to REALISTICALLY get there, and unfunded tax cuts for billionaires (who are coincidentally the "sponsors") and leaving the American people at the mercy of the "corporate people" via deregulation is not the answer.

I mean, if that is not the lesson of the Bush Administration what is?

If you have admirable goals, but no way to get there, other than lies about the Obama Administration and advocating the very same policies that got us into this mess in the first place, how is that a "movement"?

BigBear

You are correct, most Americans want to know who is paying the bills for the TV ads. But 100% of the congressional leaders and politicians don't want people to know, on either side of the aisle.

You are NOT correct. Granted that too many Democrats spend too much time chasing after money and are more concerned with getting reelected than anything else. But 100% of Senate Democrats voted for the DISCLOSE act that would have banned secret donors and 100% of Republicans voted against it. Since there are only 59 Democrats and 60 votes are needed to end a filibuster, the bill failed and the Republicans once again succeeded in their service to their corporate masters. That's why the Repubs rake in the big bucks; they're very good at what they do.

Houston,

And that is why the Dems brought the vote, because they knew it wouldn't pass and they wouldn't have to abide by it either.

And since the DNC, with its $13.1 million cash on hand with $7.7 million in debt

compared to the RNC with $3.4 million on hand with $4.6 million in debt--looks like the GOP took a lesson in Obamanomics--spend your way out of debt:)

If you have admirable goals, but no way to get there, other than lies about the Obama Administration and advocating the very same policies that got us into this mess in the first place, how is that a "movement"?

Oh, it's a movement alright. A bowel movement. An odiferous pile of steamy human waste. When asked where any TBaggers proposes to make said spending cuts, they unanimously respond "Huh? I wasn't expecting you to actaully ASK." Are we really supposed to be that gullable?

History Matters, the Republican Party that passed those reforms bears absolutely no resemblance to the Republican Party of today. Not only does history matter, an understanding of that history is just as important.

And if you want to be taken seriously, it is the 'Democratic Party', not the 'Democrat Party'. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (he is the one who started calling the 'Democratic Party' the 'Democrat Party') and try showing a little respect for the opposing party.

BigBear:

And that is why the Dems brought the vote, because they knew it wouldn't pass and they wouldn't have to abide by it either.

That's just a conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up. To the contrary, the fact that all 59 Democrats voted for the DISCLOSE act shows they were serious about passing it. They only needed ONE lousy Republican vote to pass it but couldn't even get one of the dwindling band of so-called moderate Republcians to go along with it.

And since the DNC, with its $13.1 million cash on hand with $7.7 million in debt compared to the RNC with $3.4 million on hand with $4.6 million in debt--looks like the GOP took a lesson in Obamanomics--spend your way out of debt:)

You're confusing donations directly to the parties with attack ads run by outside organizations. The DNC reported that 90% of their money came from small donors in amounts of less than $200. Donations to outfits like Roves oddly-named American Crossroads come from a small handful of billionaires and multimillionaires.

The fact that the RNC can't raise as much as the DNC only shows that people who are following the political campaigns but who are not wealthy tend to support the Democrats over the Republicans. Why aren't the tea partiers donating more to the GOP? It looks like maybe they're tightwads who won't put their money where their big fat mouths are.

Hi LouisL, thank you for sharing this link, more truth than humor there. It will be interersting to see what shakes out after next Tuesday. I enjoy your posts thanks for sharing your well written thoughts and opinions, keep up the good work we welcome your input. Peace.

Tea party is afraid of only one thing Democrats and how much more destruction they are going to cause to the United States.

al151998

They appear to be afraid of facts. And perhaps the Constitution, too. But that's just on the face of it. Appearances certainly CAN be deceiving.

...as if, somehow, razor-thin majorities in Congress for the GOP would not result in paralysis in Washington.

One of George Will's standard rhetorical devices is to tell Democrats what would be best for the party. An odd approach for a life-long Conservative, which probably explains why his predictions on that matter always turn out to be wrong.

He would campaign on a razor thin majority as well.

It would sound something like, "We had the majority in both houses and still the republicans stopped us from doing anything. They are bad, bad people and all they do is say no"

Apparently, to some two years of entertainment trumps moving the country forward and working together to solve America's huge looming problems.

Will these same critics of Pres Obama and the democrats be equally critical of the GOP when they return to the same policies of Bush? Will they be asking about the debt? Will they be asking "where's the jobs"?

Oh, so many questions and the GOP provides so few answers to them--just the standard cut taxes especially for the rich, cut spending (which they never do), deregulate business, and take the country back to a near depression as the middle class gets smaller, the rich get richer and America mires further into the muck. Trickle down didn't trickle down in the 1980's or the 2000's; how sad that some think it will this time IF only republicans are elected.

The republican/tea party has an 80% chance of controlling the House and Boehner will be their leader. They will then continue with the stopping of any proposals from President Obama, they will put us into Gridlock, etc. They also will be facing probably TARP II with the mess on the Mortgage Foreclosures.

In 2012 they willthen have to explain to America why they did nothing to move this country forward, why their two years look exactly the same as the Bush 8 year reign.

I can not wait to see them try and make a horse race out of this mess. The republican/tea party taking over the house is probably going to work in the favor of President Obama and the Democrats come 2012.

Well, more importantly, it's that the GOP plans to take charge of Congress based on an empty promise.

"Why The GOP Will Never Cut The Size Of Government"

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2010/10/17/why-the-gop-will-never-cut-the-size-of-government/

Jody what problems has Obama solved?

I'll make it easier: what problem has he not exacerbated?

Unemployment is HIGHER since he took office.

GDP growth is sluggish, at best, and only reflects government spending, which brings me to his INCREASING the debt by three trillion dollars.

He has damaged our relationship with the UK, North Korea and Iran were totally unimpressed by his personal charm, and continue to develop nuclear weapons, unimpeded by his dubious strategy, and his war plan in Afghanistan would be a joke, were it not for the fact that it has cost so many American lives.

So, tell me, Jody, on what do you base your obviously high opinion of his "success"?

I join with the majority of the electorate in seeing him as an epic failure.

If Democrats retain majorities in both houses, it will be a message to the Democrats to use reconcilitation much more than they have. It worked for the R's during their slim majority and it will work for us.

I agree, US Navy, well said. The party of NO will continue saying no while the American people suffer. The GOP was and is willing to do anything to stop Pres Obama even if it means America fails in the process. This is what happens when the political process becomes all about power rather than a process for solving problems.

No Joe. Preventing a second Great Depression for one and doing so with a republican party that only wanted to see him fail; making health care fair to the people and not the insurance companies (it is not government health care); money for our aging and failing infrastructure; money for green energy manufacturing; equal pay for equal work for women; improved Veteran's benefits; finishing the war in Iraq and trying to finish one in Afghanistan, both of which should have been finished under Bush; along with Bush, TARP prevented the total collapse of our financial system; saved GM and Chrysler and with that millions of jobs; tax breaks for small business, and the list goes on.

The trouble with the No Joe's of the world is they lack the ability to acknowledge any good done by anyone other than a republican; they suffer from a failure to face the facts; and possess the inability to recognize just why this country came to be in this mess.

Do republicans honestly believe that if McCain had won, he would have set on his hands and done nothing? If you do, he'll sell you that ocean front property he owns in Arizona.

no joe, no bo, nj

Jody what problems has Obama solved?

I'll make it easier: what problem has he not exacerbated?

Well No Jo its kind of hard to exacerbated what was already WRONG when he took office,

I Guess he has not exacerbated Bank Reform, Wall Street reform, Credit Card reform, Equal pay For women, Stem Cell research and HCR. thank to that No Insurance company will ever deny your grand daughter health care because of a pre-existing condition. God Bless her.

And No Joe, if Pres Obama is such an "epic failure", why is his approval rating now 54%. Sad that some people really do live in an ideological fog.

Jody, Iowa

Its called having selective memory, meaning that you only remember what you want, instead of remembering what really happened.

No Jo has never defended former president Bush's Policys that lead us to near destruction, she just want to act like the ramifications of those policy's are not important and should not be mentioned, see Jody that called having selective memory.

Jody, Iowa

And No Joe, if Pres Obama is such an "epic failure", why is his approval rating now 54%. Sad that some people really do live in an ideological fog.

54%!?!? You must be referring to that liberal rag of a bankrupted magazine, Newsweek. If you look at RCP ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html )poll averages, you will see that Newsweek is way out of step with all other polling. If you take the average (including Newsweek), Obama's approval rating is 46.2% while is Disapproval is 48.7%.

If you take away the highest and lowest ratings (this eliminates possible skewed ratings) Obama's approval drops to 45% and his disapproval rises to 49%.

You are just proof that liberals put on their blinders everyday in order to see only what they are told to see.

Jody, the Newsweek poll you mention is a joke. The pool was skewed, the weighting was ridiculous, and no one, and I mean no one, who has taken statistics sees it as anything but laughable.

I'd question why Newsweek set themselves up to be a laughing stock, but I realize that they are going for people like yourself.

In other words, low information, mathematically illiterate voters.

Jody, my friend: don't you realize by now that the only polls that count in No Jo's limited world are the ones that make her feel good about her position? She is utterly unable to take in any information which threatens her rigid beliefs. Which is why I always say STTS.

Amazing how facts that don't fit the Conservative narrative can only be false, skewed, spun, or invented. That's because Conservatism doesn't live in a world of facts, it lives in a world of intent. Intent to benefit the rich in spite of the fact that they've become so extreme it's hurting the nation. Intent to enshrine Fundamentalist Christianity into law even though that's a group that doesn't even constitute the majority of Christians, let alone Americans. Intent to insist that their failed policies only failed because they weren't fully implemented.

Intent to decieve.

Really,

What has this administration done that really works? Please enlighten us Jody.

Saved 1 million GM jobs and stopped the slaughter of your children and gave them health care!!

Anything else Obama can do for you????

Why is anyone even bothering to answer no jo's questions? She has asked those same questions over and over and over and over again and again and again and has refused to acknowleged that they have already been answered. The answers were not to her liking so she pretends like no one has answered her questions or totally debunked her talking points. So she asks the questions again then puts her fingers in her ears (blinders on her eyes?) and goes, "Lalalalalalalalalalalalala. See, no one answered my question so I must be right. Let me ask again . . . ", "Lalalalalalalalalalalalala. See, no one answered my question so I must be right. Let me ask again . . . ", "Lalalalalalalalalalalalala. See, no one answered my question so I must be right. Let me ask again . . . ", etc.

You want to shut me up, no jo? Try asking something original or making an original comment. You really are boring.

You can sure bet that the Tea Party was sprung up in resistance to the ride of Oblaba the 5th Horseman of the Collapsed American Economy. Sure, Dems, your horseman is gallivanting across the country spouting his Marxist Progressive policies and waving his Shovel. Guess what? No one believes him or ever will , after what he has done to this country.

And yet you're powerless to refute even one of the assertions I've made above. Your attack is weak and pointless as long as the facts are out.

John B.

How true. They never let the facts get in the way of their rhetoric. When you present the facts, they ignore them and often times yap that we give no facts. Karl Rove would be proud of them.

Um you guys don't think it had anything to do with the almost trillion dollar stimulus bill that everyone knew would stimulate nothing but the deficit?

The one that even Obama admits failed to produce even one shovel ready job, since, as he puts it, ther is no such thing?

Nah. You'll stick with the line that the stimulus worked,despite evidence, in the form ofhigh unemployment and sluggish growth, to the contrary.

Chant it all you like. The electorate that you believe to be stupid knows better.

On the front page of this politics section is the headline "Obama must stress the danger of change", or words to that effect. Pretty funny, if you ask me. The electorate has awoken to the danger of Obama's change, and wants a refund. Have done so since February of 2009, when his agenda was made clear.

What is it the the Koch brothers believe that is so bad? Evidently they are rich and can buy power, but that is old news. Money and politics and power will always be intertwined.

The question I seek an answer to is what policies/beliefs do they espouse? Are their beliefs consistent with ademocracy or a republic? Other than wealth and power, which I accept as a given in politics, what are the core philosphies they represent which have everyone so up in arms?

Actually, I need to ask this about some of the other people and groups you mentioned. I am a newbie, so don't rant and rave, just give me nutshell answers, OK? What is the core theory to be opposed to, or fearful of, for:

the Koch brothers

the John Birch Society

the Tea Party

the Republican Party

no joe:

The Stimulus Bill has already created just as many or more jobs than the Bush Administration did.

The massive U.S. stimulus package put millions of people to work and boosted national output by hundreds of billions of dollars in the second quarter, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday. . .

The massive package of tax cuts, construction spending and enhanced safety-net benefits was passed in February 2009 in the midst of the deepest recession since the 1930s.

It raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs during the second quarter of this year, CBO estimated.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67N55X20100824

What was that? The Stimulus CRATED JOBS and gave Americans a TAX CUT?

You don't say!

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

"The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

The facts speak for themselves.

The stimulus worked and voodoo economics featuring unpaid for tax cuts for wealthy folk to horde and outsourcing our jobs and deregulating industry didn't.

Pretty clear cut.

Nashville_fan

Your wasting your breath with No Jo regarding the stimulus.

We have see what it did, the media see what it did, but No Jo and a few others its just crap talk. Lets talk crap and more crap and just maybe this crap will sink in no matter what the real facts are.

No Jo i must ask if the stimulus was such a failure, then why have republicans governors lined up to get their fair share?

Why have they taken advantage with Photo ops when stimulus funds have built a highway or a power plant.

Those of us knew, that when it was passed it would not be the cure to all our problems. No Jo you knew that but like i said, the stimulus for you was crap talk!!!!

Great post John B. to which I add, if I may, this quote:

"Facts are stubborn things: And whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence" John Adams

Thank you Donnahlah, fair questions all. I'd be happy to discuss those things.

There's a great (though lengthy) article about the Koch brothers here. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx They are among the wealthiest individuals in the world. Certainly there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. My complaint about them is how they use that wealth to build, mold, and direct the Conservative Movement while deliberately giving the impression that the movement is actually a group of free thinking individuals who have managed to find common ground. In fact very many of the pundits, think tanks, and radio talkers are funded by the brothers to espouce the Koch's chosen narrative.

I grew up in an area where the John Birch Society was very strong during the 1960s and 70s. The group was cofounded by Fred Koch, father of Charles and Edward as well as two brothers who became estranged due to their refusal to join in extreme right wing politics. The JBS is so extreme that esteemed Conservatve leaders like William F Buckley and Barry Goldwater disavowed them in the mid 60s, and J Edgar Hoover felt they had a serious potential for violence. They have always believed that there is a worldwide conspiracy to overthrow the American constitutional republic (they take exception to the word "democracy") through a vast, secret plot that involves agents in every corner of American life, including if not especially politics. A world monetary collapse is ALWAYS imminent, which is why it's essential to put your money into precious metals, as well as survivalist elements such as growing your own food and being well armed. Glenn Beck's entire schtick is lifted intact from the JBS, complete with John McCain replacing various 60s and 70s Republicans who are only pretending to be Conservatives, the Bilderberg Group supplanting the TriLateral Commision as the origin of the secret plot for "one world government". George Soros and terrorists have taken the roles of Armand Hammer and communists as lead bogeymen. Liberals, however, continue to be represented as dastardly villians whose greatest joy would come from the downfall of America. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130534982

The Tea Party is purported to be an informal group of patriotic Americans who have no leaders or organization, only the common bond of being wanting to see America returned to greatness, defined as a condition of total industrial deregulation, no liberal participation in the government, elimination of the social safety net, and Fundamentalist Christian views as the basis for all personal behavior. In reality there's plenty of money and organization behind them as demonstrated by my links.

Hope that helps.

Sorry Nashville,

The massive U.S. stimulus package put millions of people to work and boosted national output by hundreds of billions of dollars in the second quarter, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday. . .

The massive package of tax cuts, construction spending and enhanced safety-net benefits was passed in February 2009 in the midst of the deepest recession since the 1930s.

It raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs during the second quarter of this year, CBO estimated.

Although, I agree with the quote, it does not say created 1.4 to 3.3 million jobs, is says it raised employment, a lot of those jobs were just saved. You don't get to create by saving a job. And to top it off, that is a wide disparity isn't it. Maybe because some of those jobs were created and completed while Bush was in office. (see wind/solar energy on msn last week)

So while it might have saved some from unemployment, Obama is only second to the number of jobs created or lost to Herbert Hoover according to a report ending June 2010. Having lost 3.1 million jobs since his term began.

Big Bear:

Believe what you want to believe. Vote how you want to vote.

I presented the evidence that the stimulus worked and helped to improve the economy.

In your myopic world view, a saved job is worthless. It would seem that unemployment would be even higher if some of those saved jobs became loss jobs.

And yet, you tell me with a seemingly straight face that a President who hasn't even served two full years yet is responsible for job losses left to him by the previous President.

Believe whatever you need to believe to salvage your world view Big Bear.

I'm fine either way.

Nashville,

But worked for who, those who had jobs and got to keep them a while longer. The ARRA sign makers.

Where are new roads, bridges, rail lines?

Saved jobs, yes, I agree that some folks got to keep theirs. Created jobs, no it did not.

I am like you, I present the facts, this President has already lost 3.1 million jobs since his term began. It is gonna be hard in this first term to make up those jobs and get into positive territory within the first term.

I know that according to the labor department since June we are growing at about 40-60K private sector jobs a month, but not to be silly here, we are increasing our unemployment rolls by 450,000 per month or is it by week. I'll go with month. At that rate, we should see positive job growth by when?

And according to wikipedia charts--creation of jobs by presidents--GWB created 0 jobs in first term and 1.1 million second term. That is no prize either. But I have always had a job, haven't lost mine. But then in my field, there is always a shortage of people. But then as I stated last week, Obama has 2 years to go on that chart.

But then again, how do we know that it would have been worse if we had done nothing? Because some economist says so. Because some politician says so? What makes you think that Americans wouldn't have strapped it up and took care of the country had we let the banks wallow in failure, the auto industry fail, and even wall street fail. I heard this one time, Wall Street Crashed, but it came back. And now they are getting ready for more stimulus for infrastructure, where will the money come from?

Big Bear:

Based on your own research, the policies that President Bush pursued DID NOT WORK.

Based on your own research, there are MILLIONS MORE JOBS that would have been lost without the stimulus bill.

So how is it then, that you come to the conclusion that "maybe" everything would have gotten better by itself?

Those "saved" jobs would have miraculously not been lost? States would have found money to pay those salaries throught the magic of repeating the phrase "tax cuts"?

And how is it that you imagine that the same policies that CREATED THE LEAST JOBS OF ANY MODERN PRESIDENT are now "the solution" to what ails our economy?

Let me repeat Big Bear . . . I am not trying to convince you of nothing. I am just telling you why I believe what I believe.

It seems to me that you are twirling around in circles trying to support something that is unsupportable. Voodoo economics did not work, has never worked, and isn't going to start to work.

This is not a librul plot to brainwash you - it is reality.

Through my research I know that Bush did not do a great job.

Through my research, I here a government entity, supposedly biase, say jobs were saved, yet can't prove how many and where--that is why there is such a disparity in the numbers.

I have never said that tax cuts would save the world, but I still don't want to pay more taxes for government services, do you?

I believe in the workmanship of the American people, and the government had not passed the stimulus, we would still be coming out of our recession, only stronger in the private sector. We would have grown stronger because of bank, auto, and wall street failures. Not because the government takes care of us.

You keep trying to tell yourself that all this spending will get us out of debt and save the country. Does that work at your house hold, does spending more than you have work for you? Well it sure in the heck doesn't work where I live. But then again, you might be one of those people who lives off the government, has a government job, feels the need for the government to tell you what to do.

When are you and the rest of the people on here going to make your own decisions, take personal responsibility for your actions and your life and not have the government mandate things for you. That is what this country was founded on, that is why there is a movement. Government is intruding on our lives more and more, and there are people on here that think that is okay. Well it is not part of my pursuit of happiness.

Big Bear:

It is really sad to see you resorting to standard issue talking points and reverting to accusing those who don't agree with you of being "dependent".

If you can look at the evidence before you and come to the conclusion that pursuing the same policies President Bush used is the solution, then I wish you well.

It seems that you are convinced that you are right, even if all the evidence points in a different direction.

Like I said, fine with me.

It is interesting that to Republicans, the "role of government" is to clean up stuff after they screw it up.

You want to drill the oceans for oil, and ignore all safety precautions, and then when it blows up - its the governments fault.

Same goes for coal mines, the stock market, the housing market, and the job market.

We keep doing the stuff ya'll tell us to do, and then, when the house of cards collapses, you look for someone to blame while simultaneously telling OTHER PEOPLE to be "personally responsible".

Keep living in your alternate reality Big Bear, you'll be "safe" there.

Again,

All you do is blame someone yourself.

Was it Bush that issued the license of the Deep Water Horizon. I don't think so.

No one said that these companies shouldn't abide by the law, but it seems that our new administration is a little lax on them.

Where are your solutions to the problems? Real solutions. I have on here several times tried to get people to debate solutions, but all everyone wants to do is just blame someone, or find an excuse, or point out some fact that some commentator wrote that something is working.

As for New Day, you would still think that your president would be more popular in a liberal state. I mean they did give us McGovern:)

You know, Farley, I think that crystal ball of yours needs some work. Weren't you the one who was telling us months ago that Mexico filing that forgotten-by-the-next-day brief in the immigration debate was going to be just "HUGE" in this election? Funny, but I've never heard another word about it since. From either side.

And just a few weeks ago, weren't you promising us that something "HUGE" was going to come out about Chris Coons in Delaware that would hand that race right back to Christine O'Donnell? Still waiting on that one, too, and time's a'runnin' out. The Philadelphia media market where I live covers Delaware too, and the only things I've heard from O'Donnell in the last month is that she's not a witch, she didn't go to Yale, she doesn't know what's in the First Amendment, and she's "me". Or maybe she's "you". Or is she both of us??? Now that's scary! :)

But I'm sure she could recommend somewhere you could take that crystal ball to get it fixed.....

Yep. I was wrong. The GOP has decided to concentrate on Obama's other failures, his LOW approval numbers and the all-round bad name the Dems have right now. Maybe next time. They should use the illegal alien issue. It actually UNITES a lot of American citizens. They could take a lot of votes from the Dems on the part of the "black vote" since so many blacks don't like illegals and Hispanics in gerneral, unfortunately.

Yup CU, 54% approval is really a low number for President Obama, and trying to stir up racial divides between Hispanics and Blacks is a non-starter for sure. I think you need to go back and do some real study, you can start by looking up the word Study first!

Yes, comparing President Obama's approval numbers to Reagan and Clinton his numbers are better than either at his point in their presidencies.

I voted for Erlich for governor the first time. He had always seemed a reasonable guy in congress, so I thought he deserved a chance. He was so bad in his one term that we fired him. He has spent the last few years making nasty comments and raking in corrupt money. No way he gets back in there. O'Malley has been doing a good job getting Maryland through a bad national economy and deserves a second term.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10/obama-approval-record-low.html

54% of people do not "approve" of Obama, they say he is not worthy of a second term.

RV,, when they talk about approval rating . They mean Approval among Democrats.. because as far as the Democrats are concerned. they not only want to quiet our Voices . but our Votes too..

And yet he's more popular than Presidents Reagan and Clinton at the same point in their terms. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx And we know they never had a shot at being reelected, right?

John B - With a Republican congress (checks and balances) I think that Obama could become a better president. He would be forced to work with people who have blind zombie-like loyalty to him.

Your link shows that Obama has a 48% Disapproval and 44% Approval rating currently.

At 642 days, Reagan's OVERALL approval was 57%, Obama's OVERALL approval is 53% (using the term average to date.)

correction: my last post should read - people who DO NOT have a blind zombie-like loyalty to him.

D'oh!

Speaking of D'oh!, the link I provided shows that Reagan's popularity at 642 days was 43%, vs 44% for Obama. That's the highest number Reagan achieved for the next 6 months, btw. Reagan accomplished this number without being barely out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. And without having an entire wing of the broadcast industry dedicated to propping up Republicans and destroying Democrats.

So keep telling that Conservative talking point about how unpopular President Obama is. When the facts are available it only proves the extent to which Conservatives have no regard for the truth.

RV in GB - I find it oddly amusing that you think that the GOP, who has spent 2 years stomping its feet saying 'NO' to every legislative opportunity, will all of a sudden want to compromise with President Obama to get things done for the American People.

Why would the GOP want to when doing absolutely NOTHING for 2 years has enriched and emboldened them?

Why do you think that for a moment that GOPers will have a 'come to Jesus moment' and compromise and/or negotiate in good faith?

If this is the reason why some of you are voting in Republicans, then you are setting yourselves up to be bitterly disappointed. I know the thinking is that this 'divided Government' model worked for President Clinton, but are we really going to apply the same model to President Obama?

I could be wrong, but the GOP is, if nothing else, consistent.

USN, thanks for continuing to hit this issue. Republican benefactors are smacking their lips at the prospect of getting their hands on the retirement hopes of future retirees, knowing that their plan means a return to days of desperation for many seniors.

Over the weekend I had a conversation with my brother the sensible Conservative. I commented how odd it was that one set of grandparents were desperatly afraid that all their children would marry, they did not want that. Brother pointed out that since Grandma was born in 1883, Grandpa in 1893 they were well aware that seniors had NO support before SS. It wasn't infrequent for all the kids to move away or maybe just not be able to support their own parents while trying to scratch out a hardscrabble life for themselves.

Conservatives depend on being able to spin history as a better, more pleasant reality. It helps them in their effort to repeal the 20th Century.

USN

The problem with raising SS taxes is that the current administration, whoever they may be, will just spend the money. Currently, demographics are against the system and in my view the retirement age has to be raised. However, some graduated system should be investigated whereby the industry/job you work in should be used to calculate the retirement age (maybe by using the sic code).

As to cops and firemen, they are paid at the local and state level and are currently allowed to retire on unsustainable pensions after 25 or 30 years. Here is a link to problems in SF where retirement benefits are affecting current services.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2010-10-20/news/let-it-bleed/

And an article from USA Today which berates both parties. Repubs for wanting to keep the tax cuts that add 4T to the debt and democrats for for wanting to keep tax cuts that add 3T. Neither party is serious.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-10-25-editorial25_ST_N.htm

This is the issue that got the current governor of NJ elected and so far the voters here are behind him.

With all the Lefties copy-and-pasting ThinkProgress articles to here, should msnbc just have the FR link go to the ThinkProgress site? You know, just to cut out the middle-man.

Excellent post Pat: As a baseball fan, any predictions on the winner?

Looks like JoAnna doesn't like your use of acts when she only has her worn out opinions.

JoAnna, Karl Rove is a sell out. As are you for supporting the GOP.

Hello Ron - I'm happy for both teams. I think the nation is happier for the Rangers than they were for Tampa Bay when they made their first visit to the World Series.

The country say they are tired of Boston and New York. Well, let's see how the ratings go for this one.

But I have no favorite here. Rangers seem to have the better all around team though.

The New York Yankees took their loss very very hard. Mike Lupica said yesterday morning that once the Rangers went up 5-1, the Yankees quit playing for the most part. I didn't see this coming. New York looked strong in their first series.

I didn't see the Phillies losing either. I don't think anyone did.

Stunning really.

This series is a perfect metaphor for where we stand as a nation. The Giants, representing Progressive/Liberal San Francisco are the underdogs.

Let's see what November 2nd, um, I mean the Series brings.

Pat - What was stunning was watching Ryan Howard take a called third strike with two outs and two on in the bottom of the ninth. For $25 million a year, you could at least take a cut at the ball!

Clara - If we're going with your metaphor, I can promise you that no one on the Progressive/ Liberal team is going to just stand there and watch the ball go by on November 2nd. Or November 3rd. Or any other day between now and November 2012......

Best thing about this World Series, NO YANKEES NO RED SOX!!!

Big Bear62 - we NEVER agree on anything, but I agree with you on this - NO YANKEES, and yes, I think it will be a GREAT Worlds Series.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled partisan sniping.

In fair keeping with my metaphor, are Pietro and BigBear saying "No Incumbents!"? hehe

So, Navy, do you also blame the demise of the dinosaurs on the Republicans? And yes, you are getting that silly.

Navy:

Looks like you are getting under JoAnna's skin...Navy, you win.

Nothing silly about making promises to help out in a tragedy, then withdraw that helping hand for political reasons. The Cholera victims haven't died laughing.

So let me see if I understand you here.

Bill Clinton is in Haiti as the co-chair of a commission overseeing the Haitian reconstruction. That tells me there is an office of some sort down there.

The Kerry bill, introduced in May, wants to set up an office of a senior Haiti coordinator of US policy. That seems redundant to me.

Here's that part I don't get. The money that the US pledged to Haiti relief comes from FY 2010 money. The money that Senator Coburn is "holding up" is FY 2011 money. I may be off here (but I'm not), but those are two separate piles of money.

Coburn can't "hold up" anything that has already been apportioned. He can, however, object to the FY 2011 Kerry bill as that money hasn't been apportioned.

So to say that Senator Coburn is partly responsible for something that he cannot possibly be responsible for is irresponsible. The real question to ask is, where is the $1.15B the US promised and has yet to deliver?

U.S. pledges $1.2 billion in aid to Haiti

Last spring, the United States pledged nearly $1.2 billion in emergency aid to Haiti following its tragic earthquake that left hundreds of thousands of people dead and many more homeless

Yet the Associated Press (AP) reports today that “not a cent of the $1.15 billion the U.S. promised for rebuilding has arrived” to Haitians who badly the need the aid.

Now the authorization bill that would direct how the aid is delivered remains sidelined by a senator who anonymously pulled it for further study. Through calls to dozens of senators’ offices, the AP learned it was Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma.

______________________________________________________

Yes JoAnna I can tie the lack of aid to Haiti to the GOP. Specifically one Senator. I hope that Senator Coburn is as proud of his culpability in these deaths as you seem to be of him and his tactics.

Joannaone

If only! If the GOP had been responsible for the extinction of the DINOSAURS they might have wiped you out as well! HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA.

Oh, I tell you sometimes I crack myself up.

But seriously folks, what are we going to get these anonymous donors and foreign donors out of our elections?

This is a real and very serious threat to our nation. This is probably the greatest threat this nation has faced since the American Civil War.

It undermines our democracy and makes our electoral process a mockery.

Please note, I did not single out either party for condemnation. Both are equally guilty and both need to be stopped. The electroal process should be funded by private citizens, not corporations or special interest groups and we should be able to see and confirm who those private citizens are, no matter how small the donation. Period.

You're 90% right, Skip. Ninety percent of this newly-legal anonymous money is being spent on attack adds on behalf of Republican candidates. That answers why Conservatives are suddenly so attached to this miscarriage of democracy.

John,

Hey thanks, 90% is pretty good for me! :-)

And I agree, I was absolutely appalled by Karl Rove and his failure to answer a non-partisan question yesterday on MEET THE PRESS on this very same topic.

It should speak volumnes to everyone else as well.

Joanna we all know Republicans do not believe in dinosaurs!!! They were invented to push a progressive agenda to get god outta schools RIGHT??

The Republicans may not have run off ALL the dinosaurs- McCain is still knocking around somewhere.

Me also.

Me also. Come Wednesday Nov. 3 the hate for President Obama and the Democrats will only intensify after the Democrats hold both houses. And the teabaggers will fade away, think goodness.

I too am looking forward to next Wednesday. I make no predictions on what we will see on that morning. But the way we all react to the results will be very telling with regards to the future of this country.

If the winners can restrain their gloating and the losers accept their losses graciously then perhaps we can work together to solve the multitude of problems facing our nation.

But if the winners aren't happy unless they rub salt into each and every wound and the losers talk about getting even and various methods of revenge, we are doomed. Truly doomed as a nation.

We are all Americans. We must come together and worker together to solve our problems. Please let us all remember that, a house divided cannot stand.

Let's try to remember that next week.

It's always fun for the POTUS to bring up Boehner, Rove, Armey, and the likes at his campaign stops. Most people at those stops are looking at each other and asking themselves, "Who?" . And the Chamber of Commerce? Is that little whine over for the Democrats yet? Or are they going to continue to use that as an excuse for their dismal showing they're going to have next Tuesday?

Is anyone keeping a count of the number of times JS1 has refused to denounce anonymous funding of campaigns?

JS1: And the Chamber of Commerce? Is that little whine over for the Democrats yet?

John B,Des Moines,IA: Is anyone keeping a count of the number of times JS1 has refused to denounce anonymous funding of campaigns?

I guess I have my answer.

John B,

JoannaS1 does not read, she is totally unaware that 84% of Americans want Full Disclosure from the Democrats, Republicans and the Independents.

This is not a dems vs reps attack as she is trying to spin it. I told you Karl Rove would be proud.

The last time I checked they wouldn't come close to reaching the USA from Iraq

Yes, by now it's very old news that traces of decayed WMD were found in some old shell casings left over from the 1980s. When he was a friend of the Reagan Administration and they looked the other way as he built them.

Wrong, these were the same weapons that the UN said Sadam had to get rid of in 1991. And the UN said he did. believe it or not the UN is our enemy.

Then we're in agreement that Saddam didn't have an active WMD program when GW sent the troops in to shut him down. Who says Liberals and Conservatives can't see eye to eye?

Great post JoAnne . . . here's hoping we get a Category 5 wipe out for pontificating pundits with their oh-so-flawed polls.

So tired of hearing about polls instead of policy.

Joanne--you and Nash are right about the pundits. When I read the headline "How to spot a GOP wave"---I thought again how FR is so obsessed with telling us what is GOING to happen instead of just letting it happen and then helping us to understand how & why it happened.

Here in Pa., Sestak has run some powerful ads against Toomey while all Toomey seems to be able to say is that Sestak votes with Nancy Pelosi. Maybe they think that is enough.

Good to see you back on the board this morning Steeler fan . . . you were missed! :o)

Steeler Fan:

Saying that Sestak will vote with Pelosi is not enought to win an election. Voters care less about who is Speaker of the House. Hard hitting ads will win out for Sestak.

I'll second Nash's welcome back, Steeler Fan. And yeah, Sestak has had some great ads, all using Pat Toomey's own video clips against him:

"I don't think corporations should pay any taxes!"

"I think Sarah Palin's a spectacular governor!"

"I think we should impose penalties on doctors who perform abortions!"

"My political philosophy is VERY much like Rick Santorum's!"

Anything you say can and will be used against you in the voting booth.....

Thanks for the kind words, all--good to be back here after work deadlines & some travel.

My 2 favorite ads against Toomey are the one where he says President Bush is doing a great job (shouldn't that be enough?) and recently one where some veterans tell us how Toomey is in favor of bonuses for Wall Street executives but voted against a $1,500 combat bonus.

"Delay say's there was no cash invovled just checks."

That's funny stuff. Conservative ethics and ideas are bankrupt, but their bank accounts are fine thanks to all that anonymous campaign cash.

I swear you are my sarcasm TWIN, Buzz!

I call 'em like I see 'em.

Why is it so hard for ALL good, honest, caring US citizens to see this also??

Do they really think when someone mentions the 'wealthiest 2%', they mean THEM??

It's not that they don't see it. It's that they don't accept the Universal Salute for what it is. In their world it was a friendly overture that was rebuffed.

NPR fire anymore of their liberal employees that have strayed off the reservation today?

And keep the fight up against those nasty corporations. Do you have that rant of yours programmed on a hot-key, you know, just to save yourself from having to retype it in every single day?

Good morning JoAnna.

(This message brought to you anonymously by Citizens Against Distractions.)

I kind of like Camouflobbyist. It carries the message that people are hiding their agenda with a name that sounds silly. It would be silly, were it not so corrosive to our democracy, that these groups refuse to stand in the light of day but expect to dictate the actions of our government.

"...Distractions..."?

You mean...like jobs, and the economy?

Mixed Bag:

President Obama's much maligned stimulus has already created just as many or more jobs than the Bush Adminsitration.

The stimulus bill included TAX CUTS for indivituals and small businesses.

The health reform bill REDUCES the deficit and prevents health insurance companies from ABUSING their customers.

The 2010 deficit is SMALLER than the 2009 deficit, as in it came in LOWER than projected.

That sounds like the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress, with ZERO help from the Republican Party, moved this country forward economically.

The Republican Party has NO PLAN on the economy.

So what in the world are you talking about?

If what you say is true, Nash...

Democrats are going to have a terrific day on November 2nd as voters rush to the polls to thank them for their accomplishments, and validate and reward President Obama's record in guiding the nation to this impressive economic rebound.

I'm certain the electorate agrees with you...despite all the indications to the contrary.

We'll see, won't we?

While we're waiting...I suggest you read our hosts' comments about how to spot a GOP wave.

Mixed Bag:

If what I say is true?

lol

It's true and you know it.

Can you refute ONE THING that I posted?

There is nothing wrong with accepting reality Mixed Bag. That is not the same as "loving Obama".

P.S. I'm more interested in how to spot GOP bullsh!t than I am their "wave".

http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104222/false-things-public-knows-they-go-vote

Really, Nash...?

"...and you know it"?

You honestly believe that?

We'll find out on November 2nd whether or not you told the truth.

The voters are the truth.

It does not matter which political party wins on NOvember 2nd. It will be "business as usual" except with Boehner as Speaker it will be "business as usual" with a dummy in charge.

That should make for easy re-election of President Obama in 2012.

I still think Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and/or GLen Beck will soon have a "come to Jesus" moment like their mentor, the late Lee Atwater. He admitted to a lot of "dirty tricks" as a Republican operative before his untimely death but even he could not have imagined getting the Supreme Court in on the shenanigans such as we see now with the campaign financing by corporations laundering money in this election cycle.

What a country! And we are trying to import this "democracy" model to Iraq and Afghanistan. Wow!

Mixed Bag:

So in summary, you know that the GOP campaigns on lies, but it doesn't matter as long as they win elections?

What a sad world view.

Mixed Bag you teabaggers have just removed yourselves from reality.

You've broadened your horizons, Nash...

Now it's no longer just the hated Fox News...

It's the whole darned "news media"!

Mixed Bag:

I have been asking these same questions of all news media for over 3 years.

You chose to duck proven fact that Fox News LIES, not "leans right editorially" as you tried to finesse the issue on Friday.

Don't blame me for your blindness. . . you are the one excusing bad behavior by those in the media who you agree with.

"MSNBC is not a liberal propaganda machine."

No one making such a suggestion is qualified to speak objectively about or criticize blindness towards bias in the media, Nash.

Mixed Bag:

Still waiting for you to present evidence of MSNBC's "liberal propaganda".

Shouldn't be to hard to find, right?

Show me some things that MSNBC has said that is not true just to prop up "libruls".

Fox news tells outright lies.

Conservatives’ perpetual dishonesty (LIE) machine

http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2010/08/01/media-matters-conservatives-perpetual-dishonesty-lie-machine/

Ah, yes...

Media Matters.

The "gold standard" when it comes to objectivity and down-the-middle analysis.

That's the equivalent of me referring you to Red State to make an argument.

Please, Nash.

No one has ever been more serious, and yet...less to be taken seriously.

Mixed Bag:

You can post a link to whatever you want . . . either there will be facts there to bolster your argument or there won't.

Your inability to process information that does not come to you from pre-sanitized sites is telling.

Apparently you don't have the mental stamina to handle the truth.

I mean, if Media Matters points out a specific program, and a specific claim that was made, along with evidence that it is NOT TRUE, how is that biased?

Can you list "approved" publications that you will accept?

I mean how can you be "free" when you won't even LOOK at information to see if it is valid or not?

"For the most part, I love reading media watchdog sites. It's a healthy exercise for anyone in this business. But one site, in particular, has a hard time keeping its own bias in check, which of course is beyond ironic."

-MSNBC's own Chuck Todd, referring to Media Matters...right here at First Read, November 15, 2007-

Mixed Bag:

So you post Chuck Todd's opinion as a substitute for your own?

Bold.

Nash-

Honestly...

Why should I read what an organization like Media Matters has to say about either Fox News or MSNBC, when I can view either or both...and draw my own first-hand conclusions about overall political bias, and the veracity of their presentations?

Why substitute the opinion of Media Matters for my own observations?

Mixed Bag:

I am not talking about "opinions".

I am talking about lies.

"In an April 2009, the Fox News show America's Newsroom made the claim that Obama's $3.6 trillion budget is 4x bigger than Bush's costliest plan. This isn't true at all. Bush's budgets for 2009 and 2008 were $3.1 and $2.9 trillion respectively. "

http://www.spitefulcritic.com/home/10-most-ridiculous-fox-news-lies-creative-edits-and-half-truths

What is "slanted" about that?

Fox News lied. And there is lots more where that came from.

Nashville

Who was it that controlled Congress in 2008 and 2009 . OH yes thats right The Democrats. The people that acutally Have the Authority to spend the Money. Hmmm Funny how that works...

Nash-

Perhaps you should spend as much time assessing your own sources of information in terms of bias and veracity as you do Fox News. Get back to me with your findings.

Before I forget...

Given his background and experience, I'm going to consider Chuck Todd an expert witness with regard to Media Matters. He refers to them as "a liberal/Democratic watchdog site". He ought to know, eh Nash?

Mixed Bag:

So it is your contention that anything on a liberal/Democratic watchdog site is not true?

You know what . . . don't answer.

I think it is clear that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Have a good day.

P.S. Steve . . . you do know that the President . . . has to sign stuff from Congress before it becomes a law, right? You know just enough to be dangerous. lol

Nashville,

You do Understand that is was the Bloated Bills and Budgets taht the Democrats put before Bush to Sign.

I understand that you like the Fact that the Democrats Put Trillions of Dollars of Entitlement Spending and you Blame Bush for signing it. Nice try.

You understand nothing . That is what makes you Dangerous

Steve:

You can try to blame it on Democrats in Congress if it makes you feel better.

But just in case you can handle it, here is the truth:

President Bush and the Republican Congress destroyed our economy and exploded the deficit with unfunded wars, tax cuts, and Medicare benefits.

That is a fact.

Take it or leave it, but the truth is just the truth.

Question for Nash:

Do you want the media in charge of censoring what types of political ads are ok to distribute to the general public and also editing the information contained within those ads? What you call "lies" are actually, more likely, opinions that are contrary to yours. Isn't it up to the PEOPLE to inform themselves about the candidates?

You are a fan of free speech, aren't you, Nash?

Also, I am curious as to how many of the people posting on here have actually read the Citizen's United decision and know what the principle holding actually was? From the looks of what gets posted here, I would wager that none of you have.

Jill,

It is not about censorship. It is about checking the facts presented in an ad.

There is such a thing as "true" and "false".

Everything is not relative.

For example, I have posted in this very thread lies that have been told unchallenged and uncorrected on Fox News.

Instead of acknoledging this fact, folks want to change the subject.

And in regards to Citizens United, if the Supreme Court rules that corporations are "people" with "rights of free speech", your primary concern is how many people have read the decision?

That's kind of sad.

P.S. Do you think that it is approrpriate for Clarence Thomas to have part of his household income coming from the undisclosed entities that fund his wife's foundation?

Do you think that it is approrpriate for Supreme Court justices to attend political fundraisers and planning meetings hosted by the same folks funding the tea party movement?

Do you think our founding fathers intended for corporations to be considered equal to people?

Nash, your characterization of the decision is precisely the reason that I ask if any of you have even read the decision. At its core, the decision basically says that the source of the speech does not have any bearing on whether that speech is protected by the First Amendment, because the First Amendment protects all speech. Read the amendment; there is nary a mention of "individual" or "people" or "person". Then, read, for example, the 2nd and 4th Amendment and note its particular reference to "persons". I think that you have to understand the nature of the holding and the Court's findings to be able to make an informed criticism of the decision.

As to your question regarding the propriety of a portion of Clarence Thomas's household income coming from his wife's activity with the Tea Party, I see nothing wrong with that. She is a separate person from her husband (hello, feminism) and entitled to pursue her livelihood as she sees fit. I just don't think that she should be limited because of her spouse's occupation; and because they are each independent people, I believe that she would not be impacted by his beliefs and vice versa. Moreover, I would not attribute the beliefs or actions of a wife to be the same as those of her husband (and vice versa).

With respect to Supreme Court justices attending political fundraisers, I am not entirely sure I am comfortable with that prospect. However, I would say that it would have to be an overtly political gathering for me to have qualms about it. Judges are entitled to attend seminars and conferences and associate with whomever they choose. However, it would be a violation of the judicial code of conduct for a judge to attend, say, a political fundraiser. However, that is not my understanding of the nature of the event attended by Justices Thomas and Scalia.

And as far as your question regarding the intent of the framers, at least in the context of the First Amendment, I do think that corporations have the right to free speech. I simply do not think that the framers intended to limit speech in any context. Now, the question as to whether Congress has a "compelling interest" in limiting the type of speech engaged in by corporations, especially in the area of campaigns and elections, is a much more complex (and fact-intensive) question. Citizens United only empowered corporations to make "independent expenditures" in favor of or in opposition to political campaigns, which by their very definition are separate from candidates or issues and done without the coordination of campaigns. It is simply a means of providing information to voters, who, in turn, can sort out the merits of the message. However, I would disagree with a decision that, say, found that Congress would have no compelling interest in prohibiting direct campaign contributions by corporations to candidates or in favor of or opposition to initiatives.

Oh, and Nash, I would have more of a problem with Citizens United had the disclaimer and disclosure provision related to the independent expenditures made by corporations also been struck down.

Wait a minute, dangerfield, you don't mean that Karl Rove, the Chamber of Commerce, big money, blah blah blah, are unimportant to the electorate, do you?

You think it is all about high unemployment, sluggish growth, and a failed stimulus bill that stimulated nothing but the deficit?

Don't you read the posts here? The stimulus worked! True, unemployment rose by two points after it's passage, and the real unemployment number is now 20%, when those who have given up looking and those involuntarily working part time are factored in, but, well, Obama says it worked, Nash says it worked, a bunch of other DNC posters say it worked, so, well, it must have worked!

So how could the economy be the top issue?

You, I, and the majority of the electorate must resign ourselves to the status of low information voters, because we do not see things through the gauzy pink cloud of the DNC. They know better than we what the REAL issues are in this election.

Fortunately, this time they are the minority ov voters.

Dearest no joe:

Thanks for the shout out! You have great day.

P.S. According the the CBO, the stimulus worked. It also cut your taxes. Also too, the 2010 deficit shrank and came in LOWER than projected.

So you see, it is THE FACTS that are disagreeing with your narrative, not Nash.

Eight False Things The Public “Knows” Prior To Election Day

http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104222/false-things-public-knows-they-go-vote

Number 3 on the list is the "stimulus didn't work" lie.

You know what is curious?

If the stimulus is so bad, why do Republican politicians keep requesting money from it? Strange.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/23/kth-hypocrisy-over-stimulus-bill/

"...the stimulus worked."

The majority of the public doesn't seem to agree...at least, it hasn't "worked" in the sense that most Americans can see and feel the effects in their own lives enough to be able to say "the stimulus worked."

Of course, electricity works...even though you can't see the controlled movement of electrons from atom to atom. Still, you know it works because you can see and feel its effects.

"The stimulus worked" because...

Hmmm...

That's the thing, MB, Conservatives don't really seem to care about facts, it's only what they can sell. What you're selling relies on a concept that the stimulus only worked if it instantaneously made the recession go away completely and be replaced with rapid economic growth. Responsible Economists agree that the recession would have continued to become worse without the stimulus http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf?L=HPADV2&C=ZANDIBLINDER&P=LEARNMORE and a lot of them--even Conservative Economists-- believe the stimulus was too small and too biased toward tax cuts to have optimum effect. http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/panelists-stimulus-was-too-small-more-action-needed-to-jumpstart-economy

In other words Republicans made things worse by their slavish dedication to the same failed economic principles that brought us this mess in the first place.

"The stimulus worked" because...

... we don't have 25% unemployment, we still have money to spend on basic living items, and you still have a job, Mixed Bag. Of course the stimulus worked because both of us have enough time to argue this very TRIVIAL point here on this blog.

Just because YOU don't see evidence of the stimulus working, Mixed Bag, does NOT mean that it is not.

I see that your lack of external 'stimulus' about the stimulus (OK, I could not resist posting that) does NOT mean that 'the majority of the public' agrees with you.

Nashville_Fan has already provided links that prove you WRONG - again.

What more do you need, Mixed Bag?

Actually, Pietro-

Nash is an ideologue so blinded by loyalty to President Obama that she's unable to see that MSNBC is a propaganda arm of the White House. Are you able to see?

And, the outcome of the midterm elections will determine whether or not the majority of the public agrees with me...or you.

One of us will indeed be proven wrong...

I like your chances better than my own.

If the public inflicts a historic defeat on Democrats in next week's election...what more will YOU need, Pietro?

That dog won't hunt either pocketdare.

Actually history shows that 45 seats lost isn't uncommon at all.

Roosevelt-D, Truman-D, Eisenhower-R, Johnson-D, Ford-R, Clinton-D all suffered losses in the general area that is being predicted for this midterm.

Excellent point, VermontGirl. I've been making the point for months that losses for Democrats will be toward the top end of the "normal" range for the party in power in a midterm election. If Republicans win a narrow majority that will come to pass.

The real question is, what will they do with that majority?

Meet the new boss-----same as the old boss

The Who'' 1971

You live in California and you say vote Democrat? Sure, vote Jerry Brown back in and while your at it leave Boxer in, they both should be praised for doing an excellent job. Please!

Just in, Obama rating dropped to 41%, Independence not really getting the message. Shovel ready projects, health care, stimulus dragging him down.

Steven B, LOL.

And the 8 years under GWB? About as bad as you can get.

Funny, no mention of that. And Congress under Newt? A joke.

The GOP - can't govern. Can't anything except attack. Work? None. Zero. Zilch.