:D

SI

Can anyone makes heads or tails of this deficit dispute involving the health care bill? Sounds like the CBO has changed its initial assessment of the deficit impact to where it's now a $300B increase in the deficit, but I'm seeing conflicting stories.

not true.

What they said, according to the Sentor speaking on the 'interpretation' they got from the CBO is that you cant count monies twice, once in spending now, and than once in savings on Medicare later.

So... we're running special ops in Yemen? Seriously this war on terror seems like bullshit... an endless war.

Well we've got the war on drugs too - so they are a matched set.

This Chris Matthews quote is fantastic. The media can hardly contain their glee at having another terroism story. From Balloon Juice:

What you are suggesting is an alternative?

Yes...it is...and people need to be prepared to fight it instead of waiting around for them to bomb our embasies, run suicide boats into our ships, run planes into our buildings, and whatever the hell else they can come up with. I know...let's sit by and just wait for these things to happen over and over again...eventually, when they figure out we won't fight back, they'll just decided to stop.

Ready to retire or seeing the writing on the wall? You decide.

Democrats Dropping Out Of 2010 Elections

Harry Reid might as well do the same thing to avoid having the Senate Majority Leader voted out. Either way, the time frame to pass some of these Democratic mandates just shrunk by quite a bit.

Also Scott Brown (who I find to be a very attractive candidate) has pulled within 9 points of Martha Coakley for Kenendy's seat in the special election. Very unlikely, and probably not enough time left (Jan 19), but still interesting. First Republican Senator from MA in 30+ years?

It will be closer than Obama's win, but that 9 point gap comes from Rasmussen that traditionally leans toward the GOP. Somewhere I read an analysis of what would happen if the MA electorate looked like the VA governor electorate and Coakley still wins by a couple of points.

edit: Will the winner have to run again in the Fall?

Pretty sure that seat will be filled until 2013. And yeah, Brown winning is not terribly likely, but the GOP is having a small renaissance in MA. Odds are our next governor will be a Republican, and Brown is at least making this race more than a formality.

The move actually made it a guaranteed Democrat win in 2010 since the AG will run and he's really popular in the state.

I like Coakley and hope she wins. I don't think Brown is bad either but I still think he's too far to the right on social issues to win in that state. Nate Silver doesn't even have this seat in play according to his Senate rankings.

Can't wait for the Republicrats to gain some Senate seats back! :banghead: At least when neither of the two parties (obviously they are both the same pro-state, pro-spending your money party) has a majority less bullshit gets done. So here comes 2012 when the Democrats make a "resurgence" because the Republicans don't live up to campaign promises. ("They said they were for smaller government. But after more wars with Yemen, Pakistan, and Iran and more corporate handouts we need a change. Obama pledges to being that change back again!!!") Hopefully this country will wake up sometime soon, but sadly I don't see it happening.

Peter Schiff has the best message. Will the people listen or go with the tired and true Republicrat Rob Simmons or even worse Linda McMahon? (who contributed to Rahm Emanuel’s campaign) One can hope for Peter Schiff but this is the American electorate voting so it is highly doubtful. (He doesn't promise the cake or eating the cake)

Correct. Dodd would be the most likely one of the three that you could state saw the writing on the wall. He knew the Democrats were considering a primary challenge to keep him from losing the seat.

He would be a nice voice in the Senate but he's not winning in that state. And despite being correct on some predictions, it's just not the best time for a stock broker to be running for Senate.

Agree that he probably won't win but somebody who understands economics is absolutely who we need with these clowns and their TARP and "jobs" bills. He is hardly a typical stock broker either, his views are very solidly against the grain.

But the average voter is not smart enough to see that. They just see rich stock broker and say "no fucking way, I'm out of work because of guys like this". I think he only stands a chance in a purple state that has some independent leanings like Minnesota.

Surprised this quote hasn't popped up here yet. Mrs. Pelosi doesn't sound like she and Barack are playing nicely when it comes to health care reform.

OH SNAP! Pelosi On Obama: 'There Were A Number Of Things He Was For On The Campaign Trail' | TPMDC

It must be exhausting being continually surprised by everything. One would think cynicism would set it at some point.

Could be. You don't find that to be surprising? I certainly didn't wake up today thinking that I'd see a quote from Pelosi that I'd agree with when it comes to health care legislation, but evidently it's a red letter day.

I don't find it to be surprising that it wasn't mentioned yet in a thread where you start 90% of the discussion and no one had really posted in for nearly a week before you started it off today.

I'm kind of surprised MBBF didn't post about this, which will be the cover article in this weekend's New York Times Magazine: Magazine Preview - The First Senator From the Tea Party? - NYTimes.com

I had the opportunity to talk to Scott Brown earlier today when I was filling in on another radio show. Seems like a very bright guy, and it'd be great to see him win that seat. I'm with you... doesn't seem very likely, but it's still fascinating to see the lack of enthusiasm for Coakley. I wonder if she'll bust out some "Teddy would have wanted you to vote for me" ads before election day?

The problem with Coakley, as I see it, is that she hasn't been campaigning. She's acted like the seat it hers because of winning the primary (which it probably is) and that rubs me the wrong way. Brown is out campaigning, advertising. Coakley is running out the clock.

Brown seems like someone who could win the state. A sort of Mitt Romney-esque Republican before Romney went all pretend conservative for the Presidential race. I'm under the impression that he supports abortion rights which is pretty rare these days for a candidate on the right. His economic views seem good too.

The bigotry toward gay marriage seems an issue though and while I like the guy, if I'm a Massachusetts resident, I probably couldn't vote for him. Just think this civil rights stuff needs to get over with in this country.

no way Brown wins.

We should probably start a 2010 Election Thread at some point.

I could have sworn that the polls were all wrong according to some of the posters here. The country really wants the health care bill. Odd that these big names all just decided to retire. You would think their re-elections would be guarenteed with such a popular bill and popular party in power.

Dodd was out long before health care was on the table. His hands being in a lot of the fraud in the financial system collapse caused him a lot of negative press in the state.

You do know that more GOP politicians have retired in both the House and Senate? Maybe retirements are more complicated than HCR?

I think it's highly unlikely as well, but if voter turnout is low among Democrats, it could be a lot closer than what you'd think, especially considering this is the Ted Kennedy Memorial Election. Coakley in a good year would beat Brown by 20+ points. I think it's very possible that Brown keeps it within single-digits.

You know what my hope is? Maybe the country is getting sick of all of them! But I think I will stick with the country not being happy about the "change" Obama brought. IMO they were fed up with endless war and corporate welfare... and health care was a tier II issue along with stuff like immigration, education, etc. But the Democrats came along and gave more money to banks and escalted more war and then on top of that spent a trillion on health care. I am pretty sure a lot of these guys know its time to get the hell out of Dodge. I hate generally populism but if it actually shakes up Washington then I will give it a pass.

Not looking to butt heads either. I know I paint you as a liberal and you paint me as a guy who wants to end government. I just think it is pretty obvious why all of these retirements are occuring.

In some cases it's obvious, but not necessarily for the reasons you assume. Dodd has been dead since his mortgage deal was made public. HCR didn't change things at all. Dorgan would likely have won re-election and it's still somewhat of a mystery as to why he's leaving. The CO governor I don't know enough about to speculate.

I haven't been an advocate of a 3rd party, so I'm not sure why I'd be interested in that. Florida's a f'd up state to begin with. Ask Al Gore.

Good point. The Romans don't want to talk about Rome when it's burning.

What are you going on about?

I was only joking about how you start most of your posts here with a dishonest claim at surprise.

And I was just joking about how the more liberal posters have gone dead quiet of late as things have gone south with this administration and the party. No worries.

Gone south how? Approval rating for Congress and Obama is essentially flat over the last month or so. HCR is going to be signed int law within the next month or so. ND retirement hurts, but CT retirement helps. Dems still favored over GOP nationally.

What's happened "of late" that would silence liberals? Maybe not much has happened worthy of discussion over the holidays.

Or because Congress is still in recess and not much is happening other than window dressing. Yes, two Senators and a Governor stepped down- that's big news and there was some chatter about it. Pelosi throwing a little political jab- that's not really news.

I am mock surprised at your mock surprise

SI

Robert Gibbs would probably agree with you. There's been nothing on TV, which is in stark contrast to a campaign promise by the Obama Administration that all discussions in conference would be televised so we "could see who was siding with the American people and who was siding with drug companies". I guess that's not such a priority when the reality of what really happened is shown on TV.

White House: We will NOT discuss broken C-Span promise | Washington Examiner

Discussion about why the changes in Senator leanings give more reasons to keeping the filibuster in place. An interesting graph is included revealing the increasing polarity of the Senate, which much of us already know about.

RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - Why the Filibuster Is More Essential Now Than Ever

Looks like Gitmo will not be closed down anytime soon, if ever. Obama's campaign promises on this topic were unrealistic as most people noted at the time. I think they're finally realizing just how unrealistic they were...........

'Gitmo Forever'? - Declassified Blog - Newsweek.com

I just read this


Is that right?

What's interesting is that he's basically in line with Reagan's second year start. People forget how Reagan was in bad shape until the economy turned around.

There's a lot of story left to tell, but between the incredible polarization that's been in place since Clinton and the not-so-stellar start for the Obama administration it's not surprising that he's at a low rating.

It's not going to turn around anytime soon. There's just way too much mistrust of government right now given the increase in deficit spending. There's no incentive for business owners to do much other than save and weather the storm.

I doubt there's a single business owner that is putting off expansion solely because of deficit spending by the federal government.

They're with all the others refusing to make over $250K/year.

He's slightly in line with both Reagan and Clinton, both of whom took office under similar conditions. Obama's 7.6% unemployment is slightly higher than Reagan's 7.50 and Clinton's 7.30.

What's surprising about Obama's number is how he's still at 50% approval despite 10.0% unemployment. Reagan was down to 33% at the beginning of 1983 when unemployment was 10.4%. That suggests his ratings will skyrocket if unemployment starts to drop. That's a big if, but Reagan himself was able to claim "Morning in America" when unemployment was about the same level as before he took office.