The Democrats Steal Christmas . . . & a whole lot more
Well, the good news is that come 2013, Nebraska will have two Republican Senators for the first time since 1976. Indeed, it now seems likely that Republicans will have a cloture-proof Senate for the 113th Congress. The likelihood for a Republican majority in the 112th Congress has increased dramatically, with an 80-seat pick-up in the House no longer out of the question.
Perhaps, never before in the history of the United States has the majority party in Congress done so much to pass a bill that is so unpopular. With their endless arm twisting and bribery (with our tax dollars as well as those of our children and their children and grandchildren), ol’ Harry got Ben Nelson’s vote. While Democrats have lost the battle of public opinion on health care reform, they have won the battle of political control. The government will likely soon have greater control over our health care, more power will be transferred to Washington while our health care cost will increase and our choices decrease.
And all this in a debate that broke nearly every promise Barack Obama made on the campaign trail. It was not transparent. The majority resorted to the same ol’ political tricks that he decried on the campaign trail. C-SPAN cameras were not present for the negotiations. Indeed, they were taking place at the best possible time to avoid public scrutiny. Ol’ Harry unveiled the reform he promised ten days ago on the Saturday before Christmas:
When normal people are making breakfast for the kids, wrapping last-minute presents, cleaning their houses for out-of-town guests, or still sleeping.
Who conducts business this way?
Only people with something to hide.
Only furtive power brokers doing everything in their power to avoid full, public scrutiny and an open, deliberative process.
There still is time to stop this monstrosity. And let’s encourage Republicans to use every trick in the legislative rule book to block it. And if ol’ Harry complains, well, let’s just remind him of the tricks he pulled to block more popular legislation and qualified Republican nominees when there was a Republican in the White House.
65 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“an 80-seat pick-up in the House no longer out of the question.”
an 80 seat pickup? Has someone been skin diving in the eggnog bowl or something?
Comment by Tano — December 19, 2009 @ 2:51 pm - December 19, 2009
Actually, it would be an 80 vote swing. But of course, 40 (actually 41) seats changing hands would result in a Republican majority. The Democrats current control the House by a 258-177 margin.
Comment by Dave N — December 19, 2009 @ 3:04 pm - December 19, 2009
Tano, the more people know about the bill–and the way it was put together–will make them more upset with Washington than they already are. Watch for Democrats in districts that Obama won by 55 percent to start feeling the heat. And look back at 1980 and 1994, where some third-rate GOP candidates won election to the House and Senate based on the unpopularity of Democratic incumbents.
Think of the two clownish sibilant Steves (Symms and Stockman). Though even their (unintentional) buffoonery gives them nothing on Franken, Grayson or Ma’am. Each man won in years favorable to the GOP against entrenched and even respected Democratic opponents.
Now, I wouldn’t bet on 80, but just don’t think it’s out of the question.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 19, 2009 @ 3:06 pm - December 19, 2009
Dave N, I’m actually talking about a GOP pickup of 80 seats–don’t think it’ll happen, but it’s now within the realm of possibility.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 19, 2009 @ 3:07 pm - December 19, 2009
Dan,
Steve Symms might not be a good example (Jeremiah Denton of Alabama in 1980 is probably better example, or Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire in 1978, as politicians who came out of “nowhere” to win).
The best example of a Republican who came out of nowhere to win (and has now been serving for close to 30 years) is Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, who was working in his family sporting goods store at age 27 when he was elected (though it really helped that the incumbent was indicted).
David Stockman is a bad example. He replaced a Republican incumbent who chose to retire.
Comment by Dave N — December 19, 2009 @ 3:28 pm - December 19, 2009
Ben Nelson is actually pretty popular out here in Nebraska. He represents what I mean by Democrat–someone who thinks about families and workers. He’s an old-school Catholic-style Democrat before most of them left the party. I’m glad there’s a pro-life witness among the loony left Democrats. So, I will be voting for Nelson.
See? I told you all Nebraska was important!
Comment by Ashpenaz — December 19, 2009 @ 3:31 pm - December 19, 2009
I should have clarified, Steve Symms was a several-term Congressman when he knocked off Frank Church for the Idaho Senate seat in 1980.
I should also note that Jeremiah Denton had some level of fame for spelling out the word “Torture” in Morse Code while being interviewed for a propoganda piece while being held as a Vietnam POW. Regardless, his election in 1980 was considered something of a fluke.
Comment by Dave N — December 19, 2009 @ 3:33 pm - December 19, 2009
Dave N, I’m referring to Steve Stockman who bumped off Jack Brooks in 1994. And perhaps, Steve Symms isn’t the greatest example, but by 1992, the GOP knew it needed to get him to step down to hold the seat. He may not have been a clown in 1980, but became one by the time I was paying more serious attention to the Senate.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 19, 2009 @ 3:35 pm - December 19, 2009
Final clarification: Jeremiah Denton blinked the word “Torture” in Morse Code to an interviewer while a Vietnam POW. His Vietnamese captors were less than amused when it became widely known what Denton did.
Comment by Dave N — December 19, 2009 @ 3:37 pm - December 19, 2009
Dan,
Thanks for the clarification. I had actually forgotten about Steve Stockman — which is easy because Steve Stockman is easily forgettable.
Comment by Dave N — December 19, 2009 @ 3:39 pm - December 19, 2009
Ben Nelson is actually pretty popular out here in Nebraska. He represents what I mean by Democrat–someone who thinks about families and workers.
Which is hilarious, because he just agreed to impose crushing new taxes on them so that people who have promiscuous sex with multiple partners, drop illegitimate children everywhere, and refuse to work can have a free ride.
What’s really funny, Ash, is that a person like yourself who rants the most about promiscuous sex and irresponsibility is now supporting a bill that takes from those who aren’t promiscuous and are responsible to reward those who are.
Why do you support rewarding promiscuity, laziness, and irresponsibility, Ash?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2009 @ 3:43 pm - December 19, 2009
My personal prediction is that the Republicans pick up a net 50 seats in the House (Cao of Louisiana is the only Republican seeking re-election who will lose absent scandal) and 4-6 more in the Senate. The Republicans will gain a majority in the Senate in the 2012 election.
Comment by Dave N — December 19, 2009 @ 3:53 pm - December 19, 2009
an 80 seat pickup? Has someone been skin diving in the eggnog bowl or something?
Nope. Make it clear that the Obama Party and all of its members refuse to produce and publish a bill before voting on it, and that the Barack Obama Party supports and endorses imprisoning those who criticize its members, and the word “landslide” is not adequate to describe what happens.
The delusional and drug-addled ones are the ones like you, Tano, who actually support prosecuting and jailing political dissidents. You’ve been surrounded by your fellow global-warming pushers like Mugabe and Chavez so long that you think it’s actually a good idea to do that.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2009 @ 3:54 pm - December 19, 2009
Ben Nelson is actually pretty popular out here in Nebraska. He represents what I mean by Democrat–someone who thinks about families and workers.
and 61% said they would likely support someone else for his seat if he voted for this abomination
smart move there, made him even more “popular”
more and more it feels like we need to reinstate our original version of gov’t and get rid of this crap we are now saddled with
90% of the DC and state gov’t needs to be culled and some 70% of that needs never to be replaced
Comment by JP — December 19, 2009 @ 3:55 pm - December 19, 2009
Dave N in #10, my point exactly.
Should Nelson vote for cloture on this bill, watch for his popularity to plummet. As for that of any Senator who votes for this. There’s a reason Democrats are holding the vote at this time of year when fewer people are paying attention to politics.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 19, 2009 @ 3:55 pm - December 19, 2009
11: Well, perhaps if you and your ilk hadn’t fought so hard against responsible sex education, then promiscuous sex and dropping children (as you put it), wouldn’t be so prevalent.
Comment by Kevin — December 19, 2009 @ 4:21 pm - December 19, 2009
(spit take) Damn! I hate it when I read something so asinine and spew Dr. Pepper on my monitor. I really ought to stop drinking stuff when reading the comments on GP.
Do you mean “responsible sex education” as in activating your partner’s gag reflex from the other end with a vinyl glove? Or do you mean teaching kids whether it’s “polite” to spit, swallow or duck?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 19, 2009 @ 5:11 pm - December 19, 2009
Well, perhaps if you and your ilk hadn’t fought so hard against responsible sex education, then promiscuous sex and dropping children (as you put it), wouldn’t be so prevalent.
Actually, the degree of promiscuity and illegitimacy has risen in lockstep with the introduction of what liberals call “responsible sex education” — which should be obvious to anyone why, because it teaches children to have promiscuous sex without any thought of commitment or restraint or responsibility.
Do you really think wrecking society and spreading disease is worth you having sex with children like you want, Kevin? Why do you and your fellow gay pedophiles support and endorse teaching children sex? How many five-year-olds have you and your fellow gay liberals used as sexual toys, Kevin?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2009 @ 5:12 pm - December 19, 2009
Or maybe you mean the glorification of an older man raping a teenager or the beautiful magic of prostitution.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 19, 2009 @ 5:13 pm - December 19, 2009
And who could forget the meaningful lessons in the climbing numbers of bareback flicks?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 19, 2009 @ 5:15 pm - December 19, 2009
Or maybe we should show another example of what gay liberals and the Obama Party shills like Kevin and Tano consider to be “responsible sex education”.
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off……
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2009 @ 5:16 pm - December 19, 2009
It remains to be seen whether your prediction comes true. You guys don’t exactly have a good track record for these things. Your (inaccurate) 2006 & 2008 elections results forecasts are legendary and hey, how IS Congressman Hoffman (R-NY) doing now? (snark, snark). I’ll believe your figures when I see them.
Comment by Jim Michaud — December 19, 2009 @ 5:35 pm - December 19, 2009
Well for those of us who wanted a good reason for a conservative rout in 2010, this is good news indeed.
The liberal wing of the Liberal Democrat party is now tied totally to this horrific bill. Let the accountability begin. Who votes for bills that begin taxing the people immediately but the benefits begin 4 years later. I mean how stupid do you have to be? Now there are stark differences between the parties….you can’;t make the argument anymore that the two parties are alike. 60-70% of the people were against Obamacare and cap and tax. When the others who haven’t been paying much attention to the debate find out more details…..opposition may rise to 80%. That’s the democrat cross to bear. By the way…as a businessman who employes 250 people, I’m not hiring anyone now. Who knows the costs of this program to be imposed on me. All thinking business people will be doing the same thing the next few months. The Obama depression will deepen, not go away.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 19, 2009 @ 5:46 pm - December 19, 2009
Hey, how is Granny Clampett, Granny Botox and the Chump in Chief doing (snark, snark)? How long do you think the American people will tolerate unconstitutional power grabs? How much more time do you think they’ll be willing to give the dumbasses to “drain the swamp” or bring “a new kind of politics” or “hope & change”?
How long do you think millions of Americans are keen on staying unemployed, dining on Ramen noodles while the Kakistocracy shovels down Kobe beef?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 19, 2009 @ 5:50 pm - December 19, 2009
How long, do you suppose, the American people will tolerate fisters running the show?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 19, 2009 @ 5:53 pm - December 19, 2009
You gotta love the NY Post burning Obama to a crisp….
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/obama_does_it_again_xcbUOFFaHFxWRx2QITjBwJ
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 19, 2009 @ 5:56 pm - December 19, 2009
Wasn’t it just last week that the libs were accusing Lieberman or contributing to the deaths of thousand who die every day due to lack of healthcare?
If people are really dying in droves every day due to lack of insurance – then why the four year delay?
I would note that lack of insurance is not the same thing as lack of healthcare… we here in Collyfornia are bankrupt taking care of people with no health insurance (like the illegal awaiting her fourth liver transplant at UCLA).
Comment by SoCalRobert — December 19, 2009 @ 6:08 pm - December 19, 2009
#26: Gene, the NY Post op-ed was funny in a sad sort of way.
But, truth be told, it’s not all Barry’s fault that the Chinese treat us like supplicants awaiting another hand-out… because we are.
We’ve been on that road for a long, long time.
Comment by SoCalRobert — December 19, 2009 @ 6:12 pm - December 19, 2009
#21: NDT, I’m glad you are committed to reminding everyone of the story of the two leather queens (one of whom I recall is a “prominent” SFO psychiatrist) taking their two adopted, infant daughters to the Folsom Street Fair wearing studded dog collars. The fact that those two “progressives” would use their children to normalize their lifestyle built on sexual fetishes is nothing but vile, raging narcissism and their determination to desensitize their daughters to graphic sexual practices as early as possible will inevitably wreak havoc on the girls’ mental health. Only a liberal psychiatrist could have the rationalization skills capable of shamelessly spinning this assault on their daughters’ innocence as a positive learning experience for pre-adolescent girls. The worst part is that those disgusting queens have already taught their daughters that sexuality is nothing special–something cheap and meaningless to be given away indiscriminately–before they’ve entered junior high school. And if the worst happens, such as the girls ending up turning tricks on Polk Street or starring in a Tijuana sister-act donkey show, those queens will most certainly blame the destruction of their daughters’ lives on oppressive, uptight conservatives afraid of their sexuality.
And regarding Kevin’s support of “responsible sex education,” I think it was you that posted on another thread the statistical evidence of the tragic legacy of “responsible sex education”–increased teen pregnancy and exploding STD/HIV infections among teenagers. Of course, the destruction of children’s lives is irrelevant to liberals because it would entail an examination of the results of their misguided, narcissistic ideas–all that matters is that it makes liberals feel good about themselves.
Comment by Sean A — December 19, 2009 @ 6:15 pm - December 19, 2009
And everyone here thinks the MSM will help publicize what’s in the bill? You think that ACORN and the unions won’t spend fortunes trying to convince everyone how wonderful this is?
Comment by Paul — December 19, 2009 @ 6:16 pm - December 19, 2009
It’s the boob Obama who goes around the world bowing to everyone. He asks for a stick in the eye.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 19, 2009 @ 6:56 pm - December 19, 2009
6- …And, most importantly, Ben Nelson has shown a willingness to fall right in line with the betrayal and destruction of his country… as long as his state gets a big enough bribe of taxpayers’ money.
Way to go, Nebraska!
Comment by DaveP. — December 19, 2009 @ 7:28 pm - December 19, 2009
Well, Jim I can say with confidence that Betsy Markey–here in my Colorado district 4–will not be returning to Washington in 2011 and most probably Ed Perlmutter—the California transplant–from district 7 will not be returning in 2011. Johnny Boy Salazar, I won’t say but you never know. Of course, we will never get rid of the DENVER TRAMP Diana DeGette or the Boulder playboy Jared Polis but oh well. In addition Jim, the Senate will have a new Junior Republican Senator from the state of Colorado.
I will not say what will happen in other states; however, I have it on good advice that Nevada will also have a new Junior Republican Senator in 2011. (snark snark).
Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — December 19, 2009 @ 7:30 pm - December 19, 2009
Damn. Looks like I’ll have to get ready to be sent to jail in 2011 or 2012, after all.
I am not paying ANY taxes in 2010 or 2011 or 2012.
Let the IRS punish me all it wishes. I will not willingly become a tax slave to the evil Democrats. And I do mean evil.
How sad it has come to this.
Comment by RogerCfromSD — December 19, 2009 @ 7:36 pm - December 19, 2009
oops I meant freshmen in #32
Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — December 19, 2009 @ 7:43 pm - December 19, 2009
Of course Kevin has it absolutely backwards as usual. It is Republicans who are promoting responsible sex education. The ABC policy put into place by Bush and the Republicans teaches all about safer sex, condoms, but it emphasizes that abstinence is the only truly safe practice.
Liberals on the other hand are completely irresponsible, teaching that abstinence is unrealistic, and uncool, and that kids having sex is totally acceptable and expected, and by the way, heres a handful of free, cheap, low quality condoms, go out and get yourself some SEX!
Has anyone else ever noticed how drug addicts are always encouraging everyone else around them to get high? I guess trying to assuage their guilt for doing something they know is wrong and take comfort in the fact that so many others are doing it to.
Same thing applies here. They know promiscuity is wrong, they know they failed, so they want to convince themselves that their behavior was right, by teaching your kids that its inevitable, they have no choice, etc.
Hell, the same principle applies to almost everything liberals do.
Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2009 @ 7:50 pm - December 19, 2009
“Misery Loves Company” …THAT really should be the motto of the Democrat party.
Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2009 @ 7:54 pm - December 19, 2009
“Now, I wouldn’t bet on 80, but just don’t think it’s out of the question.”
Dan, I really don’t mean this to be merely insulting – its meant constructively. You don’t have the slightest clue when it comes to understanding American politics.
For example – Charlie Cook, of the well respected eponymous political polling firm. is estimating a 20-30 seat pickup. Very few analysts, if any, would go so far as to claim that a takeover (40 seats) is in any way possible. The great wave of ’94 was what…51 seats or something like that? And you are going for 80? You are out of your mind.
Since you are going out on a limb though, I will to. I’ll guess that GOP gains will be less than 15, with a wash in the Senate.
Comment by Tano — December 19, 2009 @ 9:34 pm - December 19, 2009
The dems are saying they are not worried and are already planning their campaign platforms. They are going to blame Bush and the republicans. They think the bad economy actually helps them because they are going to say the republicans caused it and it would have been worse if it weren’t for them.
Comment by Maureen — December 19, 2009 @ 9:47 pm - December 19, 2009
I’m not sure why anyone would be angry with Nelson because the bill doesn’t really make any changes, does it? I mean, what’s the reform? Can you name a single thing the bill changes? So, I think Nelson represents those in Nebraska and elsewhere who support this version of the bill which doesn’t do anything at all.
Comment by Ashpenaz — December 19, 2009 @ 9:56 pm - December 19, 2009
Senator mush in PA Spector is as good as toast here.
And it looks like a good ole fashioned Reagan conservative will be on the Republican ballot in FLA as the mushey Crist falters. All because he got to close to Obamaism.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 19, 2009 @ 10:18 pm - December 19, 2009
My bumper sticker for 2010
ROUT THE LIBERALS IN 2010
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 19, 2009 @ 10:19 pm - December 19, 2009
Dan, I really don’t mean this to be merely insulting – its meant constructively. You don’t have the slightest clue when it comes to understanding American politics.
Or so says the dishonest, ignorant, lying fool.
Poor Tano. You really think you’re smart, don’t you? You’re just a delusional liar. That’s why you’re unable to get any job other than an illegal government contract pushing propaganda on websites. How do you think that will survive once the criminals Pelosi and Reid are no longer in charge and Congress starts investigating why the Department of Health and Human Services needs “contractors” like yourself who do nothing but propagandize on websites illegally?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2009 @ 10:37 pm - December 19, 2009
My bumper sticker for 2012
Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2009 @ 11:47 pm - December 19, 2009
I predict 8 Senate seats switching hands with a possible 11…
Likely Change: PA, DE, AR, NV, CT, IL, CO, CA
Possible: ND (if Hueven runs), NY (if Giuliani runs), and MA (yeah, that’s a huge longshot)
Imagine the possibilities!
Comment by Michael — December 20, 2009 @ 1:31 am - December 20, 2009
Michael, don’t forget IN, WA, WI & OR if GOP can recruit opponents.
Patty Murray has always been vulnerable to an energetic and well-funded challenger, but given the outrage against this legislation–and the way it was passed, Bayh, Feingold and Wyden should also be worried.
Right now, if the GOP can get its act together, only 3 Democrats have safe Senate seats, alas that one of them is one of the most mean-spirited partisans in Congress–Chuckles Schumer. The other two are Leahy (VT) and Inouye (HI).
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 20, 2009 @ 3:09 am - December 20, 2009
#38: “Dan, I really don’t mean this to be merely insulting – its meant constructively. You don’t have the slightest clue when it comes to understanding American politics.”
Tano, I really don’t mean this to be merely insulting – its meant constructively: STFU.
Comment by Sean A — December 20, 2009 @ 4:07 am - December 20, 2009
Tano, two things.
OK, only caught your comment because Sean A mentioned it.
Now, the points.
First, um, well, do you even read what I write, read the comments you cut and paste in our comment box? I didn’t say an 80 seat pickup was going to happen. I didn’t even predict it. I just said it wasn’t out of the question. As to what Cook said, go back to 1993 and this time and tell me how many seats the prognosticators were predicting. I believe Michael Barone was the first one to talk about the GOP gaining control of Congress–and he didn’t do that until March or April of 1994. So, the prognosticators can underestimate a political wave, especially this in advance.
Second, I’m just shaking my head and laughing as I often do when I read your comments. You say you don’t mean to be insulting, then go on to insult me. And your own comment shows you harbor some strange sort of fascination with me. You spend a lot of time on this blog and judging from the comments section, spent more time on this blog yesterday (Saturday, Dec. 19) than I did. I’ve been doing most of the blogging here for the past few months. I mostly blog on politics.
So, if you think I “don’t have the slightest clue when it comes to understanding American politics”, why do you spend so much time here, often commenting on my posts within minutes of my publishing them?
If I’m so clueless about politics, my posts should be easy to demolish, yet you regularly misrepresent my points–and nearly always fail to respond to challenges like the question I pose in the paragraph above I pose directly to you.
So, let me repeat it, Tano, why do you spend so much time on the mostly political blog where (in your view) the leading blogger hasn’t the slightest clue about American politics? Please enlighten me.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 20, 2009 @ 5:07 am - December 20, 2009
I told you Dan, Tano’s in love with you and wants to you to top him.
I think we’ll see enough disruption to see SanFranNan have to fight to hold on to her speakership.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 20, 2009 @ 12:06 pm - December 20, 2009
A Nebraska Tragedy: The Selling of Ben Nelson Soul
I believe that we will find that as the days go on and Nebraskans statewide come to realize how Senator Nelson sold his vote and his soul to Liberals in Washington, the anger will only increase.
Be assured America, we will clean up our own house . . .
Comment by NebraskaPatriot — December 20, 2009 @ 1:10 pm - December 20, 2009
“I just said it wasn’t out of the question.”
But Dan – it is totally out of the question. You are totally guilty of cluelessness for thinking that it isn’t.
“And your own comment shows you harbor some strange sort of fascination with me.”
Sorry Dan, it ain’t about you. There is a group of people here that I am talking to. You just happen to be the one that makes front-page posts that spark the subsequent discussion.
“If I’m so clueless about politics, my posts should be easy to demolish”
As I do.
“yet you regularly misrepresent my points”
No I don’t. Thats a standard dodge of yours, but it really doesn’t hold water. Of course, it is true that I sometimes focus on a part of your post rather than the whole – the part that I find problematical, but thats no different than how you respond to the points I make, or from how any conversation tends to evolve.
“nearly always fail to respond to challenges like the question I pose in the paragraph above”
Thats rather unfair. The reason I sometimes spend more time commenting here than I should is because I try to make a good faith effort to respond to people who respond to me (at least the non-psychotic ones). In other words, I often do try to sincerely engage people, even though most of the commenters here limit themselves to just name-calling and ranting.
As to your “challange” – I spend time here to help you (all of you) become better citizens – by trying to make you realize that living in your hermetic little black and white world, where “libruls” are just some alien species that you can just rant against – thereby totally shutting down your brains – that that is really not a necessary or helpful way to participate in a democratic society.
It is possible to talk to people – it is possible to let the torrents of abuse and insult just wash past you and then calmly try to address people’s actual thoughts. Its possible to have some level of basic respect for other people, and an interest in engaging them, even if you think that much of what they write exhibits cluelessness. Maybe I just haven’t given up on you guys to the same extent that many of you seem to have given up on anyone outside your very narrow little world.
Comment by Tano — December 20, 2009 @ 3:13 pm - December 20, 2009
Ah yes, Tano is here to enlighten us. just like so many others in history’s past.
After all, wasn’t William Ayers just trying to ‘enlighten’ people to the evils of government? Or maybe Iran is trying to ‘enlighten’ gays to their moral peril.
One question Tano can’t answer. Why does the president (and he) continue to support the legally removed anti semitic president of Honduras? Why does PResident Obama support the partition of a free and democratic state?
In other words… Why does President Obama hate free people.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 20, 2009 @ 3:36 pm - December 20, 2009
Actually, Tano, you don’t “engage” anyone. You drop in, tell your lies, insult people, and run when you are challenged.
For example, this, about Sarah Palin:
As for Jesus and the dinosaurs, she does believe that – or something equivalent. Its in her book.
You have been repeatedly challenged to provide your evidence for that — including how you were able to make statements about a book that, at the time you made them, had not yet been released to the public.
Nothing has ever been provided. No evidence. No acknowledgement that this was a baseless smear. And yet you presume to come and lecture us? Indeed, you argue that anyone who dares to challenge you on facts is “psychotic”?
I think it’s time Dan posted this to the front page as an example of the lies you tell and the degree of ignorance and bigotry that is endemic to you and your Obama Party. I also think the standard response to you from this time forward should be to confront you with this lie until you admit that you lied.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2009 @ 3:38 pm - December 20, 2009
No, Tano, it’s not out of the question. It’s within the realm of possibility. Go study the result in the NJ gubernatorial election where the Republican candidate for Governor ran 8 points ahead of the Republican nominee for President just one year earlier. (And while you’re at it, look at the results in NY’s Westchester & Nassau Counties.)
If GOP ran the tables on Democrats, winning all the seats in districts where McCain got 42% or more (he got 41.61% In Jersey), you’d see a more than 100-seat GOP gain. But, I’m not suggesting that it is even possible. I’m just suggesting that the GOP has the potential to pick up 80 seats should the stars align. And given the way things have been going, with Democrats passing an unpopular bill which increases taxes and breaks Obama’s campaign promises and with GOP candidate recruitment, they just might. Republicans aren’t just going to win in districts that McCain won in ’08 (and Bush in ’04), but also where McCain ran at or above his national total.)
But, instead of asking me why I said it was within the realm of possibility that GOP could pick up 80 House seats, you call me clueless and cite one prognosticator. (As would someone who is serious about civil discourse.)
No, Tano, you have never once even come close to demolishing my point, especially not here where, I admit, I may be going out on a limb.
Trying to help us, Tano? Trying to help us? Ha! You do indeed help us, making it easier to make out points how so many on the left misrepresent conservative points. I agree it is possible to talk to people, to try to persuade them to change their minds, to make cogent and civil arguments in oppositions to their points. Unfortunately, Tano, you don’t do that. You don’t calmly address people’s thoughts. You don’t consider our arguments. You just repeat Administration (and other left-wing) talking points and insult my defenders.
Scroll back and read your comment #38 again. You say you don’t mean to be “merely insulting,” then proceed to insult me, calling me “out of my mind.” If that’s not an insult, what is? Say perhaps that I’m going out on a limb, and I’d agree with you.
But, if you meant to engage as you, in your latest comment #51, claim, then instead of saying I was out of my mind, you’d ask perhaps how I had arrived a the 80-seat pick up. I mean, since you spend so much time on my blog, it would seem that someone with the noble sentiments you express there, might be curious as to how I arrived at that conclusion.
Let me offer you another thing which made me more optimistic about my party’s chances, a comment from a Massachusetts Democrat (Michael Capuano) to his party on what he’d learned on the campaign trail in a state that hasn’t elected a Republican to Congress in 15 years (he’d been running for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat): “You’re screwed.”
If that’s what we’re hearing in Massachusetts, then the Republican tide could be bigger than anyone is predicting.
I mean, heck, didn’t you pay any attention to the election results in New York State outside NY-23?
And please, keep it up with the comments that you make, you’ll only help reinforce many of the points I have made about narrow-minded leftists.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 20, 2009 @ 3:51 pm - December 20, 2009
“It’s within the realm of possibility. ”
What can I say? In your mind, I guess it is. Do you know anyone else who thinks so?
“NJ gubernatorial election where the Republican candidate for Governor ran 8 points ahead of the Republican nominee for President just one year earlier.”
So? NJ has had more GOP governors than Dems over the last generation. I don’t think there is much predicitive power in an election like that – especially since governor races tend to be very state-centric. But even if you take it as a positive GOP harbinger, it doesn’t indicate some historical blowout.
“..given the way things have been going, with Democrats passing an unpopular bill which increases taxes and breaks Obama’s campaign promises and with GOP candidate recruitment, they just might.”
Actually, I explained to you why the seeming unpoularity of the bill is far less significant than it appears. A fair chunk of the unpopularity comes from the left that wishes the bill did more. If you put those people on the supportive side (which is where they will end up when push comes to shove at election time), then you have plurality support for the bill. And that is today – support will only increase once it passes and the apolitical undecideds reward Obama for getting something done, and when all the GOP rhetoric about this being the end of the world turns out to be hollow.
Within a few years, the GOP will be supporting and defending Obamacare the same way that they do for Medicare – even though people like Reagan made the same arguments against it when it first was passed.
“I agree it is possible to talk to people, to try to persuade them to change their minds, to make cogent and civil arguments in oppositions to their points. Unfortunately, Tano, you don’t do that.”
You are quite ungracious Dan. I suggest you scroll back through a few threads and dispassionatly read some of my efforts to make points, and the quality of the stuff thrown against me. Even you seem to almost always preface any comment to me with insults, and then the substance of your comment is a whine about the fact that I actually address points of disagreement.
“calling me “out of my mind.”
OK Dan. I can see that you might feel that an insult. I prefaced it by saying it wasn’t because I really didnt mean it in a nasty way – just like you might react if I said Obama is going to win reelection with 70% of the vote. You might say – hey, thats crazy. Its a figure of speech. Thats how I meant it. Thats why I prefaced it the way I did. I apologize if you were offended.
“If that’s not an insult, what is? ”
Well gee – check out what your regulars throw at me on a daily basis.
“You’re screwed.”
I think Capuano was talking about himself. He did lose, after all. And Coakley will win, I think thats fairly certain.
“I mean, heck, didn’t you pay any attention to the election results in New York State outside NY-23?”
Yes Dan, and even if you think these elections meant absolutely nothing to those voters except an excuse to send a message about how they will vote next November, even then, all they seem to indicate is that the out party (you guys) might have a pretty average out year pickup. That is, if the Dem polling doesnt improve in the interim (and I think there are lots of reasons why it might). But 80 seats? 60 seats? Sorry, even 40 is a very huge stretch, based on the reality of today.
Comment by Tano — December 20, 2009 @ 5:08 pm - December 20, 2009
Tano, where to begin, where to begin?
Let’s start with your juvenile retort to my rhetorical question about your insult. Instead of defending (or apologizing for) your remark, you proceed to being in what my regulars say to you. Yeah, I agree, sometimes they do go overboard. But, that’s not the issue here, you are, you know the guy who tells me that he spends so much time responding to a clueless blogger’s remarks to foster a civilized discussion of serious issues.
I have read your efforts to make points and no, Tano, you hurl more insults against me and my regulars than they do against you. If you had been more civil in your responses (as our critics Jody and rusty tend to me), I might defend you against their uncivil epithets.
So, Tano, if you really believe I preface comments to you with insults, why not just leave us alone? And there you go again, accusing me of whining, pointing out the simple fact that you don’t address my points.
Amused that you buy another Obama talking point about support for Obamacare increasing once the bill passes. Defies common sense that does. Media coverage for Obamacare has been largely favorable. Obama gave it the hard sell and yet the more he pushed the issue, the more people opposed it.
Yeah, right, the GOP will be supporting and defending Obamacare! And you accuse me of being clueless.
Finally, you say that the 2009 elections mean nothing to the voters who participated in them. Huh? If they sent a message this year, they may well send one next year. Those numbers show that jurisdictions that went Democratic in ’08, could go GOP in ’10.
And please understand the meaning of “could,” it’s a conditional. I know full well that very few people are suggesting an 80-seat GOP blowout, but I still contend it’s within the realm of possibility as a 70% Obama victory in ’12 is not. After all, in 2008, when all the stars were aligned in his favor, he only managed to muster a 53% majority against a Republican candidate who couldn’t come up with a coherent economic message.
I do wish you’d explore why you spend so much time here, Tano. The supposedly noble sentiments you express in comment #51 just don’t wash in the face of evidence.
Dispute my contention that if the stars align GOP could win 80 seats if you like, but my dismissing me as clueless, you show that you come here to vent your spleen at conservatives not argue with us as to the merit of our ideas.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 20, 2009 @ 5:40 pm - December 20, 2009
“Instead of defending (or apologizing for) your remark,”
Huh? What the hell was this: “I apologize if you were offended.”
Sheesh
“Tano, you hurl more insults against me and my regulars than they do against you’
Sorry, I can’t let that pass. THat is objectivly false.
“accusing me of whining, pointing out the simple fact that you don’t address my points.”
but it is true – I always address your points – the ones I disagree with. I guess you want me to address the points I agree with? OK – make some…:)
“support for Obamacare increasing once the bill passes.”
Thats not a talking point, it is a prediction. Thats what I conclude from thinking about it, with reference to all that I have seen in political dynamics in my lifetime. Maybe I will be right, maybe not, but thats how I see it.
Oh, by the way. Your consistent refusal to acknowledge that someone can actually come up with ideas different from yours, on their own – that it must be “talking points” – is offensive and insulting. Can we agree, as a basis for discussion, that each of us actually sincerely believes the things we say? If not, then how will you ever have a meaningful discussion with someone who sees the world differently than you do?
“Finally, you say that the 2009 elections mean nothing to the voters who participated in them.”
huh? I said that the voters most likely had other reasons for voting as they did than simply sending a message to us all about how they intend to vote next November. Like, for example, voting for the actual local candidates on the ballot based on where they stood on local issues…
“I still contend it’s within the realm of possibility ”
I realize that. I think an 80 seat gain is exactly as probable as a 70% Obama reelect – i.e. zero.
I thought I already gave some good reasons for that – the fact that such a sweep is so much larger than even ’94, is roughly triple what the polling operations are predicting. Its just off the scale completely. But you are making an optimistic guess, I realize that, and you are entitled to your opinion.
I’ll just advise you not to put any money on it.
See, just trying to be helpful….
Comment by Tano — December 20, 2009 @ 7:39 pm - December 20, 2009
Please, Tano, where do I ever refuse to acknowledge “that someone can actually come up with ideas different from yours, on their own”? That’s just projection plain and simple.
I’ve never said such a thing and never believed it, indeed, have often acknowledged points my critics have made and engaged them in threads to these posts. It’s just that you’re not one of those critics.
And the way you handle the 80-seat comment is a case in point. And since you bring up 1994. Let’s just look at the dynamics in play that year. Then, the economy was in full recovery, with employment increasing. There was no Tea Party movement nor conservative blogosphere. Grassoots small government activists weren’t as organized now as they are today. There was no FoxNews and the MSM had greater sway and was just as biased against the GOP as it is today.
As things stand now, GOP is poised to do better than we did in 1994. And as I noted in comment #48, at this point in that cycle, no one was predicting a GOP blowout the following year. I pointed that out to show that the prognosticators could well be underestimating the coming Republican wave.
And anyway, why shouldn’t I put any money in the GOP gaining 80 seats, assuming the odds are good? If they’re good enough, I might put $10 or $20 on that bet, maybe even $100, depending on the odds, given that should the GOP do so well, my return would be incredible.
You really are making a lot of fuss over a point which I put in mostly for rhetorical effect (and which I clarified in subsequent comments). Depending on continued strong GOP candidate recruitment and the employment numbers, I believe Republican gains will range between 25 and 65 seats, with the possibility of smaller gains (like 10-15) should we see a robust economic recovery or larger should GOP recruitment and fundraising exceed expectations.
And yes, Tano, you are helpful, most helpful. You show yourself to be a professional naysayer, a fine example of the species liberalus bitterus.
I mean, your guys are in power; they’re passing the bills they want and yet you come to a conservative to bitch, moan and whine about how wrong we conservatives are, impotent though we may be in blocking Obama’s big government “reforms.”
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 20, 2009 @ 8:00 pm - December 20, 2009
Dan,
I realize that you are gonna stick with your view of the upcoming election no matter what I say, and i really don’t feel any motivation to change your mind. I said my piece to make clear how extreme I thought your opinion is, so lets leave it at that. You and I are both on record with predictions, and we will see what happens.
I will make a small comment about this though (re. ’94):
“at this point in that cycle, no one was predicting a GOP blowout the following year.”
It seems to me that the obvious lesson from that is that the political conditions in the country 11 months before the election are not at all predictive as to what will happen in the election. We stand today at about the halfway point between Obama’s inauguration and the midterm elections. So the political changes we have seen in that time could just as easily double down, or completely reverse – and no one really knows.
“As things stand now, GOP is poised to do better than we did in 1994.”
Alright, I guess I have to comment on this too. I really can’t imagine how you can say that. I can see that maybe you would optimistically predict that the trajectories of the past year will continue, or accelerate, leading to such an outcome. But there is no way whatsoever that the way things stand NOW, would lead to a GOP win anywhere near the type you won in ’94. Which is why all the pros are predicting something considerably smaller. At least all the ones I have run across.
“And anyway, why shouldn’t I put any money in the GOP gaining 80 seats, assuming the odds are good? ”
Yeah, good point. I will modify my advice. Make sure you get VERY good odds.
“I believe Republican gains will range between 25 and 65 seats, with the possibility of smaller gains (like 10-15) should we see a robust economic recovery”
Well alright then. IF you were to substitue 35 for 65 in the above sentence, I would find your position entirely reasonable, albeit optimistic.
“a fine example of the species liberalus bitterus.”
Oh c’mon. Bitter? Thats a strange take on me. I think such a charge might well adhere to those around here who really can’t compose a single comment without spewing all manner of invective. I’ve been known to give back in kind, at least until I find it really boring to do so – but I know that my core motivation is to find an enjoyable level of discourse.
Comment by Tano — December 20, 2009 @ 10:37 pm - December 20, 2009
Tano, from the beginning of your comment, it seems you have read nothing I’ve said, but then later on, you do seem to acknowledge that I was giving an outside figure. Perhaps, were I trying to do something more than a rhetorical flourish, I would have said that the GOP could pick up 80 seats the same way I could make it from my apartment to a good friend’s apartment in downtown LA in 15 minutes.
In all the times I have driven there, I have only once completed the journey in that short amount of time, but all the stars aligned in my favor. I only hit a few red lights on the way to the freeway and had minimal traffic on both surface streets and the 101. Should the stars so align for the GOP, they’ll pick up 80 seats and then some.
As to your final point, I do want to believe you and have resisted appeals from some to ban you from this blog because you do occasionally offer sparks of insight. (as in your point to a recent thread that some of the 61% in the CNN poll opposing Obamacare may be disgruntled liberals.)
But, if you truly want to foster discourse, you’re going about it the wrong way. And here’s the best way to show you want to promote civil discourse, when you respond to my points, assume my sincerity. If you think, as in the case of the 80-seat pick-up, I’m being outlandish, ask me to justify my point. Don’t assume my political cluelessness.
Here for example is how you could have responded in your first comment:
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 20, 2009 @ 10:54 pm - December 20, 2009
“when you respond to my points, assume my sincerity”
Fair enough. Have we a deal?
Comment by Tano — December 20, 2009 @ 11:02 pm - December 20, 2009
[...] and perhaps a pundit or two, one of our readers insisted that support for Obamacare “will only increase once it passes and the apolitical undecideds reward Obama for getting something d…“. Hardly. Given the trend in polling showing that the more Obama promoted the Democratic [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Obamacare Passage: Democratic “Suicide Pact” — December 21, 2009 @ 3:55 am - December 21, 2009
[...] It Becomes Personal and I Promise A Fight! Temple of Mut: Senate Switchboards Melting! GayPatriot: The Democrats Steal Christmas… & a whole lot more and Democrats: In Power Now, but Still Running Against George Bush and Harry Reid’s Deputy [...]
Pingback by Rep. Parker Griffith Throws Democrat Party into Yuletide Tailspin… Defection to GOP « Frugal Café Blog Zone — December 22, 2009 @ 2:11 pm - December 22, 2009
[...] list Diary of a Mad Conservative: Red State & Erick Erickson: Insightful stuff GayPatriot: The Democrats Steal Christmas… & a whole lot more and Democrats: In Power Now, but Still Running Against George Bush Dana Loesch, Big Government: [...]
Pingback by CA Governator Arnie Reviles ObamaCare’s “Bribes, Deals, and Loopholes” « Frugal Café Blog Zone — January 7, 2010 @ 4:56 am - January 7, 2010
[...] Socialists Claim They Can Conquer Death Itself Cold Fury: Reid Backdoors America GayPatriot: The Democrats Steal Christmas… & a whole lot more Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Passing Obamacare Will Hurt Democrats, Not Passing Obamacare Will Hurt [...]
Pingback by Well Said: Ohio Man’s Letter to the Editor, “Health Care Bill May Well Be Remembered As Disaster” « Frugal Café Blog Zone — January 10, 2010 @ 6:59 am - January 10, 2010