The Negotiator

Apparently, some people are doubting President Obama's negotiating skills.

You don't say. It runs in the political family though, as progressive activists pretty much stink at political bargaining themselves.

Maybe Obama can send this guy instead of Geithner to the tax cuts for the rich negotiations:

Open Thread.

< Obama Apologizes To GOP For Being Mean | Supreme Court Hears California Prison Conditions Case >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Tea Party Nation President (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    It `Makes A Lot Of Sense' To Restrict Voting Only To Property Owners

    (note, this is not an onion article)

    PHILLIPS: The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote.  It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you're a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.

    I agree with a comment I saw on another blog.  lets go all the way and make it white male property owners.  that would eliminate Palin.

    these days (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by CST on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:58:39 PM EST
    I wonder who counts as the "property owner"?

    No one seems to know.  What if you have a mortgage, does that count?  Do bankers get to vote a bajillion times, once for every tiny piece of mortgage they own?

    "I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."

    Banks have such a vested interest in communities, doncha know

    As a renter who has lived in the same neighborhood for a majority of my life, I would like to say "eff you" Phillip.


    Been rentin' my whole life (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:12:21 PM EST
    mostly in places like NYC, LA, SF and Brooklyn. Safe to say, it would really cut down on eligible voters in those cities if you had to be property owners . . . .

    I also stay in the same "community" for long periods of time. I was living in my last place for 17yrs. Some people are pretty effin' clueless . . .


    it would really cut down (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:14:04 PM EST
    on liberal voters.  that I believe is the point.

    Yup. Just what I was thinking (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:27:40 PM EST
    when I looked at the cities :)

    the funny part is (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:01:12 PM EST
    were they not supposed to be for the little guy?
    or something?

    She couldn't vote, (none / 0) (#14)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:31:18 PM EST
    but could she serve if elected? Scary

    think how pi$$ed (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:32:27 PM EST
    the TPer will be when they find out that owning a double wide on a rented lot doesnt count.

    Got a question... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:04:14 PM EST
    who from the bank gets to vote for all the debtors who have illusions of "ownership" grandeur under this proposal?  Cuz I got news for ya, if you're paying a mortgage you don't own nuthin' yet but a pile o' debt.  See how the courts treat ya ownership society arse in a dispute.

    Sh*t, even if you're paid in full you only own it as long as you're paying your property taxes, stop doing that and you'll find out the "ownership" illusion really runs deep.

    Yeah, go all the way...we can stop wasting time on Novemeber Tuesdays and find something productive to do, or more fun.


    you are not getting it (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:05:57 PM EST
    you see what they really mean my "ownership" is that once you sign on the dotted line they own you.

    Truer words my friend... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:16:07 PM EST
    I'm signing as few lines, dotted or otherwise, as possible.

    It's unavoidable though...paychecks and money orders minimum.  And tax forms, dmv forms, mandated auto ins forms..really unavoidable, unless you're hardcore off the grid.


    Or retired with your internet buddy to (none / 0) (#32)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:26:39 PM EST
    Puente Polonia, Uruguay... only have to go to Montivideo once a month for the SS check! Since they speak Spanish, the lady friend should be happy. Problem is, the all fire-roasted meat diet. Not good when one retains iron. Ah well, don't sweat the small stuff, I always say.

    There are casinos down there, too, Kdog...


    Don't twist my arm:)... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:43:45 PM EST
    sounds especially good right now...startin' to get the chill in the bones, especially when I'm setting the 'stat at 64 and watching it like a hawk.  Also trying to minimize my dealings with the oil industry:)

    more or less two years and counting... (none / 0) (#40)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:49:02 PM EST
    until I have my fork you money in place...

    No free lunch, I'll have to teach or fish or something for a few years, but hey... I gotta make sure we have a two-story beach shack reserved. Rent is, oh, about nothing on them, especially the one I'd build.

    Stay warm brother, we get our first sub 30 freeze tonight.


    Make that great escape.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:56:21 PM EST

    "You remember the name of the town, don't you?  I could use a good man to help get my project on wheels."

    asdf (none / 0) (#43)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:01:14 PM EST
    I hope the [Atlantic] is as [gray] as it has been in my dreams. I hope.

    aw kdog my buddy... (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:06:15 PM EST
    Do it early because when the pain comes and they can not make it go away you will want all those gadgets to let them look and look until they find it.

    True story, bro. The only valuable thing we have is time.


    Jim, those gadgets have been (none / 0) (#67)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:30:49 PM EST
    exported, with the knowledge to use them. They are, however, a hell of a lot cheaper to use elsewhere, for some odd reason.

    You're invited to visit, Jim, where the medicine is cheap, and where the waves roll in...


    I never doubted it (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:52:34 PM EST
    But still, do it early and enjoy not needing the gtadgets

    oops, misread your post... (none / 0) (#95)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 07:26:25 PM EST

    Shorter version (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:25:29 AM EST
    Only the plantation owners know what's best for the rest of us.

    finally (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:59:38 PM EST
    some good news for the president:

    Narcissism No Longer a Psychiatric Disorder

    How about masochism? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Coral on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:25:34 PM EST
    Dispersants contaminating gulf seafood (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:28:15 PM EST
    Not depressed enough? Read this.

    Posted without comment. It speaks for itself.

    This is news? (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:00:07 PM EST
    "Some people" are late to the realization.  It was obvious way back when Obama took the public option off the table during the very start of the health care debate.  He flunked Negotiating 101 back then, and he hasn't learned a thing about it since.  

    Some others not happy with O (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by waldenpond on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:15:45 PM EST
    Critiquing Obama's negotiating skills....

    Tbogg... Obama buys a lawnmower

    ["Hey John. I couldn't help but notice that fine lawnmower in your garage. How much do you want for it?"
    "Well I wasn't planning on selling it, but I guess I'd let it go for $20."
    Obama thinks about it for a moment. "Okay I'll give you $25."]

    Timf at BJ doesn't think Tbogg (!!)quite gets it.. cynical

    ["Hey! Smith! You see this guy threaten me? Get off my lawn, you sumbitch! I'm getting my gun."]

    Obama is not naive, dumb or incompetent (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Romberry on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:03:32 PM EST
    After a while, there is no reasonable explanation for his advance capitulation in place of actual negotiation other than the end result of capitulation is what Obama actually wants. If anyone is to argue otherwise, they have to essentially argue that as a pol, he is naive, dumb or incompetent. None of those things really make a good defense, and I don't think any of them are true anyway.

    Cluestick for Rachel and Paul Krugman and any other columnist, pundit or reporter that has not figured it out just yet: Obama does these things because the end result is what Obama wants. Barack Obama is a conservative, a moderate (by today's standards) Republican wearing a Democratic label. What you see is what you get.

    We have one political party. It's the money party. The Democrats and Republicans form its two wings.

    I guess I have to revise the definition (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:48:56 PM EST
    of the words "negotiator" and "negotiate;" probably just be easier to order my English-to-Obama/New Dem-speak Dictionary directly from the OFA website.

    Honestly, how many times can we go through this charade before it's obvious to the blind, the deaf and the mute that Obama's definition of "negotiate" is "to assume a belly-up (alt. bent-over) position in the presence of conservatives and Republicans while talking down to anyone remotely liberal and bamboozling the moderates into believing you actually have any intention of advocating for them."

    I feel like we're trapped in one of my least favorite movies ever: Groundhog Day; it's the same thing, over and over and over.

    I have news for Obama: I do not want Democrats and Republicans to come together and find common ground; I want Democrats to advocate for and lead on progressive/liberal policies, and extract concessions from the GOP, not deliver them to the GOP.

    For a change, I would like to see leadership in place of facilitation and capitulation, but I no longer think the Democrats are capable of it.

    For oculus (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:53:26 PM EST
    Joshua comes home from school today and tells me that the shortest opera is 7 minutes long.  And as far as kids are concerned that is still too long.  

    stupid, vain, self absorped, childish, sick, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:43:02 AM EST
    ignorant, mean, selfish, shallow, insensitive a$$holes.

    adjectives fail me.  this makes me really really angry.  I wish I could resurrect the guy so I could kick his a$$.

    When I die, so does my dog: Some pet owners take animals to their graves

    Such was the case with Tom Tom, a healthy  2-year-old Yorkshire terrier who was euthanized and laid to rest last March after its late owner, Donald Ellis, left explicit instructions that his beloved Yorkie be put down and buried with him.

    ditto (none / 0) (#87)
    by sj on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    really, really angry...

    there should (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:14:43 PM EST
    immediately be laws passed to stop this.

    That ain't the answer... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 03:49:57 PM EST
    the prosecutorial class would only twist it...laws passed in haste when blood is hot are almost always a disaster, no matter how well intentioned.

    sorry (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 04:51:54 PM EST
    not this time.  passing a law saying you cant have your dog killed and buried with you is a no brainer.
    and I cant really imagine many opponents other than Pharaohs.

    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:02:28 PM EST
    If it passed, I hope by some coincidence an owner and pet don't go out at the same time and some poor widow goes to prison for putting them to rest together.

    Murphy's Law man...what can go wrong will go wrong.  Dig the freak up and crucify him if you want, but please, no laws.  We've got enough weapons.


    also (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:20:50 PM EST
    the problem is its a "trend" and it needs to be stopped.  there are laws protecting animals from cruelty.  this is cruel.

    Existing law... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:25:13 PM EST
    should suffice...or if not, there are other ways.  You could Phelps it up at these people's funerals or other street justice shaming.

    I hear ya man, I don't know why old-school pet freak "leave your money to your pet" went outta style...we're a sick breed.


    et tu, Rachel? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 03:56:20 PM EST
    Erickson: I think they probably demand more seeing as he folded so easy on this one. Why not?

    you know, it took a while but I am nearing I absolutely will not vote for him again.  I am not QUITE there yet but I am teetering.

    if it takes 4 years of President Palin, f*ck it.  lets pull the trigger.

    You are on your own on that one buddy. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:00:06 PM EST
    Wake me up when we have another legitimate party to vote for.

    there is (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:00:42 PM EST
    always not voting

    but seriously (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:01:20 PM EST
    how much worse could it really be.  Im serious.  think about it.

    Do you think Obama is as bad as Bush? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:02:34 PM EST
    Palin would be worse than Bush.  Think about that.

    it really comes down (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:07:54 PM EST
    to a choice between being upfront screwed by someone like Bush or Palin or being namby pamby smiling/lying face screwed by Obama.

    I am tired of feeling like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football.


    Seems like deflection (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by waldenpond on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:34:32 PM EST
    Oops, seems to me you were trying to cover up the question with a 'look over there'.

    Yes, Obama is as bad as Bush and if the leak shows that the Pres that was considering bombing refugee camps was not Bush but Obama, then clearly Obama is worse than Bush.

    I don't know if the 'be afraid' strategy is going to work.  It gone worn out with choice and the SC.


    At least we had great sound bites with Bush (none / 0) (#7)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:07:56 PM EST
    "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on --shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

    Actually it is (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:57:16 PM EST
    Fool me once,shame on you... fool me twice shame on me....

    but I see what you mean.


    Are you saying that GWB actually didn't (none / 0) (#65)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:07:33 PM EST
    get something right?

    Wonders will never cease.  :-)


    Like Bush, I couldn't get it right, thanks :) (none / 0) (#74)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 07:16:30 AM EST
    really (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:09:07 PM EST
    at least we could LAUGH at Bush.

    Yes, and we did have Cheney (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:11:31 PM EST
    for the other bad cop.  Bad cop, bad cop.

    now (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:12:07 PM EST
    we are stuck with Goofus and Gallant.

    Like during the Cold War (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:12:46 PM EST
    You knew who the enemy was.

    My favorite (none / 0) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:41:58 PM EST
    was "I know it's hard to put food on your family."

    make the pie higher (none / 0) (#69)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:34:54 AM EST
    And the classic: (none / 0) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:36:35 AM EST
    Strategery.  It that a real one?

    Or, has anyone said, "put food on your family?"


    How about (none / 0) (#75)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:04:13 AM EST
    Humans and fish coexisting?

    Ardent "lesser evil" voter (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Coral on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:23:51 PM EST
    for decades. But I've never been so disappointed with the aftermath of an election.

    Well, okay, Bush v. Gore was pretty disillusioning, but I could always blame the evil GOP. And imagine that Gore would have done a better job as president.

    Now I am seriously wondering if we wouldn't have been in a better position with McCain-Palin. At least then the Democrats would be fighting cuts to Social Security ... and maybe even continued Permanent War in the middle east.

    I am dumbfounded at Obama's startling reversal of everything he appeared to stand for in the election and first couple months.

    Extortion, brainwashing, or outright deception keep springing to mind as nonrational explanations for his behavior. But then I say that's crazy thinking.

    He's obviously not stupid or ignorant.

    Maybe he has a serious personality problem where he has to keep trying to please his most vocal enemies.

    I just can't quite get into his mindset.

    Even Clinton, Bill, that is, who appeased the right appallingly seemed to have a political survival sense guiding his most awful actions.

    If Obama keeps this up I will throw my vote away on a third party candidate. Ugh.


    He's abjectly ignorant (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by observed on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:08:24 PM EST
    about economics,IMO

    I said (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:30:46 AM EST
    that two years ago. I thought that since the Dems had no spine and Obama had no spine winning a presidential election with Obama would be less than worthless. Unfortunately it has turned out to be true.

    Sotomayor and Kagan (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:43:40 PM EST
    Watch how they vote on gay marriage.

    Would you want someone like them to replace Ginsburg or one of the Republicans?  Or would you like someone like Thomas?


    Feh (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:32:20 AM EST
    if the Dems had a spine the bad picks wouldn't have happened. McCain would still have had to deal with getting a conservative pick through the Senate.

    FINE (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:46:19 PM EST

    go ahead.  bring up the ONE SINGLE reason to vote for the slimy backstabber.  

    cant have one single little rant.



    Just wait and see who Obama will chose (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:02:04 PM EST
    when (not if) the Republicans obtain the majority in the Senate in 2012. Actually I'm not even sure he will wait to nominate another conservative to the SCOTUS if he gets the opportunity before 2012. Of course , he will be forced to do this in the spirit of bipartisanship or the Republicans made him do it.

    Obama is not dumb or naive but he definitely thinks that the Democratic voters are both. He may have a point.  


    Whew (none / 0) (#25)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:07:09 PM EST
    So, you are okay...for awhile (a few comments back) I thought that you hit your head or someone had lifted your ID. :)

    I feel your pain (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:18:59 PM EST
    One more Obama term, and he will get one or more Supreme Court picks....If so, he may be able to replace one of the conservatives or Kennedy.  If that happens, the religious/social conservatives would have lost every single battle--irrevocably....

    The social conservatives would then leave politics as an organized force....

    The social conservatives would then go back to their more economic populist origins.....a la William Jennings Bryan.....Without a core of social conservatives, the Republicans would become a permanent minority party....The Reagan Revolution, which first harnessed religious conservatives, would be undone for good. Kaput.

    ....which is what will happen anyway with the emergence of the Latino vote....but speeding up that day is a good thing.

    Full gay rights will finish social conservatives as an organized force.....

    Victory is at hand and the social conservatives know it....  


    but what if (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:20:21 PM EST
    we actually have someone to vote FOR in 2012.

    think about it.


    for christine (none / 0) (#33)
    by waldenpond on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:27:04 PM EST
    that IS Obama.  hahaha!

    Huh (none / 0) (#45)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:23:13 PM EST
    Sorry for my slowness...but, I was thinking along the lines of MKS and that kind of progress. Hey, one can dream.
    In any event, it does look like a classic negotiation trade may be in the offing for the Senate: Secure the START votes, and provide some form of give & take (read: compromise) on the upper echelon tzx extension or whatnot. Maybe I was a government lawyer too long, but that is what I see. Classic trade (while somehow including the unemployment benefits extension.)

    Y'know, I grew up reading Emerson. Remember the part about "Whoever would be a man <update: woman too> would be a nonconformist." I'm comfortable with that, Waldenpond.


    Dream on . . . . (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:00:34 PM EST
    Hey, one can dream.

    That and a lil' "Hope" will get you nadda these days . . .


    START and tax extension (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:09:31 PM EST
    That is what I see Obama pushing for too.  Dream Act will be defeated....

    DADT--that will be interesting....

    Jon Kyle was very interesting on MTP.  He said that Harry Reid was too ambitious and was trying to accomplish too much in too short a period--and suggested that if Reid jettisoned some votes on some other bills, there might be enough time for START.

    I heard an offer from Kyle:  drop the Dream Act and DADT repeal and we can do START.  Kyle is not some Lone Ranger out there....He is the voice of the Republican Caucus....

    Best to reject the offer and jam through votes on it all......    


    DADT repeal is still an unknown (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:43:29 PM EST
    Yet, I'm thinking that the Senate Dems ought to jam it. We have the study; we have the statements of the study's co-chairmen, we have the statements and full responses of Gates & Mullen; and, we have the bookcase polling reports of American acceptance of a change.  I've been thinking of Bob Dylan lately; and, "the times, they are a'changin."  The long & short: After all is said and done, the voting change overall strongly favors repealing DADT--and the Repubs really know that. It will be close; but, if pushed, there is a good chance that the Senate votes are there.

    Its actually not that funny (none / 0) (#85)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:58:52 AM EST
    frankly, I still think Obama's a better president as sad as that is than any we've had since LBJ.

    I thought the war was over (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:58:57 PM EST
    on 11/4/2008...

    Some people said (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 11:22:53 PM EST

    Proven on 11/4/08

        REMEMBER - sometimes a majority simply means that all the fools are on the same side...

    There's (none / 0) (#84)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:57:49 AM EST
    actually a rather large number of reasons but we choose to ignore them because its more fun to bitch and moan.

    Palin--the Left should promote her (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:27:32 PM EST
    as much as possible....

    Joe Scarborough wrote a scating anti-Palin piece.....The hard-boiled, savvy Republicans are about to get all wei-weied up, as Palin would say, over the prospect of her just running....

    If Palin runs, Huckabee is the primary loser.  Then, Romney gets the nomination by default....And he takes one for the team in 2012.  Huckabee could actually win, so knocking him out is a good thing.

    Run, Sarah, Run!


    the left (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:13:42 PM EST
    & its obsession w/Sarah Palin is the ONLY reason anybody is still talking about her

    Many on the Right are obsessed too (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:18:05 PM EST
    She leads the Republican pack in the latest polling for the Nomination.

    She is getting better at fielding questions....

    She will run with that kind of polling.  Why not?  What has she got to lose?


    i maintain (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:20:26 PM EST
    that this is because THE LEFT can't let it go & takes her as a serious threat

    Agree (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:38:39 PM EST
    we may not even have to hear "What about RvW?!?!" next election. The new cry is "What about SP?!?!"

    At least we wouldn't lose any sleep (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 08:08:47 PM EST
    worrying about her attacking our "ally," North Korea.

    Nope (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:46:06 AM EST
    Romney leads the field.

    Palin is pushed by the left because she is the only one for sure that Obama could beat at this stage - anyone else would mean that Obama and the Dems would have to work to get re-elected.

    Palin is completely a creation of the left as a scary boogey-man (or woman) and she grows stronger every time the left attacks her.


    this is such nonsense (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:54:13 AM EST
    pushed by the left?  
    the republicans are starting to get it.

    its on.  and it will be fun.


    I'll take (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:02:00 AM EST
    PPP's analysis over Joe Scarborough's (sorry - can't link for some reason)

    Monday, November 29, 2010

    Obama leads all Republicans

    Americans are pretty evenly divided on whether they'd rather have four more years of Barack Obama or replace him with a Republican in 2012, with 48% going for Obama and 47% with a generic Republican. But with the exception of Mitt Romney none of the actual top tier Republican candidates poll as well against the President as the hypothetical one.

    Obama leads Romney 47-46, matching his generic ballot lead. Obama's lead expands to 48-45 over Mike Huckabee, 49-43 over Newt Gingrich, 51-42 over Sarah Palin, and 48-37 over Marco Rubio who PPP followers voted in as this month's 'wild card' candidate.

    Obama's not getting any more popular- as has been the case on every PPP national poll since the spring more voters disapprove than approve of the job he's doing. This month it's 47% approving and 50% disapproving. But they don't care for any of the leading Republicans either. Huckabee's favorability comes out best at a net -1 (39/40). He's followed by Romney at -6 (36/42), Palin at -17 (38/55), and Gingrich at -20 (33/53). The fact that every leading Presidential candidate is viewed dimly by the American public is pretty reflective of the continuing high level of dissatisfaction with politicians in the country.

    Obama does the same with Democrats against all of the top 4 Republicans, getting 83-84%. There are big differences with Republicans though. Romney and Huckabee each get 87% of the GOP vote, but Gingrich gets only just 81% and Palin's even lower at 79%. There's a small but meaningful group of Republicans who are very hesitant to commit to supporting Gingrich or Palin even if they end up with the party nomination. There's also a wide divide with independents depending on whether the GOP nominee is Palin or one of the others. Obama ties Romney with them and leads Huckabee and Gingrich by only 2 and 3 points respectively with them, but against Palin his advantage expands to 12 points.

    Bottom line- Obama is weak but for now the Republicans are even weaker. There's a long way to go.

    The only people I know talking about Palin (and constantly) are Democrats.  Can't tell you how many times during Thanksgiving that her name was randomly dropped into conversations - even those not remotely related to her - by very liberal family members.

    The left is drooling at the thought of a Palin nomination.  


    no idea what th left is doing (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:23:57 AM EST
    but I am not drooling.  I fear her.  I do not underestimate her.  I think if things continue as they are with Obamas namby pambyness I think she could very well beat him.

    Who knew the amount (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:42:40 PM EST
    of behind-the-scenes power the Left wielded in this country? First, manipulating things to set her up as Governor of Alaska; then making sure McCain picked her, and only her, as his running mate in 2008; pulling all the right strings to make her a featured star on the Tea Party circuit, then setting her up as a commentater on Fox, while at the same time making sure she became the darling of every right wing talk radio host in the country..

    Now thats power.


    hey (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 03:25:10 PM EST
    this stuff cant be "taught".  we are just born with it.

    great closing paragraph (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:59:25 AM EST
    If Republicans want to embrace Palin as a cultural icon whose anti-intellectualism fulfills a base political need, then have at it. I suppose it's cheaper than therapy.

    But if the party of Ronald Reagan, Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio wants to return to the White House anytime soon, it's time that Republican leaders started standing up and speaking the truth to Palin.

    you think they will do it?  bwahahahahaha
    they will not.  she may not run.  and if she doesnt she can be a king killer or a king maker.


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#47)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 06:25:29 PM EST
    Netroots Negotiating style (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:09:23 PM EST
    Don't understand the problem, I remember the Netroots people gave up before they were even asked.  

    the results (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:55:13 PM EST
    are apparently in:

    The study said that 69 percent of 115,052 troops who responded to the survey said they had served with someone they believed to be a gay or lesbian; 92 percent said their experience working with a gay or lesbian service member was good or indifferent.

    However, the survey said that 48 percent of Army combat troops and 58 percent of Marines in combat units feared the change would affect their ability to fight, though the report said those statistics were contradicted when service members were asked about their actual experience. "The percentage distinctions between warfighting units and the entire military are almost non-existent when asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with someone believed to be gay," the report found.

    and they are vague enough to please McCain.

    Somebody needs to (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:44:31 PM EST
    stuff a sock in McCain's mouth.  He irritates me every time he says something.

    it really come down (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:57:15 PM EST
    you know to the fact that f*ggot it just SUCH a useful pejorative.  how could the really function without it?

    its a fair question.


    GWAR kills Palin (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 05:10:02 PM EST
    watch her die

    the outrage du jour. I couldn't name you a single Gwar tune but I've known of the band for years for precisely this reason -- their costumes and stagecraft are so famously ridiculous that the whole act operates as a sort of satire of death metal.

    once when I was at Digital Domain in LA GWAR played for one of our Halloween parties.  DD is famous for their Halloween parties.  they were awful.  and fabulous.

    jobs (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:38:58 AM EST
    rigged (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:41:18 AM EST
    "Because -- because, it's all rigged. I mean, the whole conversation is rigged. The fact that we don't get to discussion before the break about what we're going to do in the lame duck is just rigged. This stuff's rigged," the Senator (Bennett, CO) said.