This thread has nothing to do with who you think should win in 2010, party ideology, or candidate integrity. (If you believe in the last two, you clearly don't understand politics) This is nothing but pure unadulterated slushy brain candy for political junkies.


First up, a Politico article on why 2010 will not be like 1994:

Quote :

"There has been a lot of nonsense written and uttered during the past few months comparing the 1994 congressional elections with the upcoming 2010 midterm elections. On the surface, a comparison might seem to make sense. After all, in 1994, newly elected Democratic President Bill Clinton was serving his first two years, and there were Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. And we all know what happened: Republicans won control of both chambers in a historic rout. However, that is all that these two very different political years have in common. . ."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28741.html

11/18/2009 10:25:15 PM

Alright, we gotta get this reality out there.

I didn't read your quote or your link.

You voted for Bush, and you admit to having enjoyed Rush Limbaugh in the past.


Are you willing to also admit that those two acts are worse than being a "liberal?"



It seems to me that there are a lot of people out there who voted for Bush and bought into the bullshit conservative line for a long time, and the only way they can reconcile their idiocy is to bash everyone. Like, "I was wrong about Bush but I'm not willing to concede that anybody else is right so FUCK EVERYBODY." It's not original or interesting.


To expand on this...

It's difficult for you to admit that you were wrong. So instead of admitting you were wrong about Bush, you admit that everybobdy was wrong about Bush and Gore...it's a bullshit pussy-ass cop-out.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 2:19 AM. Reason : ]

11/19/2009 2:15:52 AM

^I'm not entirely sure what any of that had to do with 2010

^^Isn't it an extremely common trend for midterm elections to go in the favor of the party that is not holding the presidency at the time?

11/19/2009 2:44:19 AM

It's relevant. He said, "If you believe in the last two, you clearly don't understand politics."

So pretty much, he believed in Bush and listened to Rush Limbaugh and loved the fuck out of conservatism...and then realized he was wrong. And now, in his mind, people who believed the same as him or differently than him or continue to believe (most people) don't understand (and are wrong)--he comes out as right. In reality, he's the one who was so decidedly wrong. Gore supporters have never been proven wrong.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 3:05 AM. Reason : ]

11/19/2009 3:01:52 AM

I think what he meant by the line that you quoted was that those two things aren't going to necessarily influence what happens in 2010.

As in, no matter what party a person associates themselves with now, 11 months from now they may just vote out who's in there now, without regard to the person they're voting in.

We'll see what happens in the next 8 months, but if the Dems can't get their heads out of their asses - they're screwed.




(and yes, I'm a democrat)

11/19/2009 7:02:33 AM

What I specifically was referring to with the party ideology and candidate integrity comment is the fallacy that voters decide en masse because they've weighed the issues and picked the better candidate. Perhaps some do, but the majority of swing voters make up their mind at the last minute and aren't delving deeply into voting records or old speeches.

In reality, the candidate is a product which must be sold to the non-political public based on perception and style. They expect their politicians to say certain things, the right things, but exceptionally detailed policy proposals don't win votes.

Quote :

"Isn't it an extremely common trend for midterm elections to go in the favor of the party that is not holding the presidency at the time?"

Yeah, but 1994 was a rather exceptional year. I think some on the right are expecting 2010 to be a repeat of 1994 simply because of the unpopularity among swing voters of the President. I've always been of the mind that independent voters and all but the most rigorous of voters simply don't get up and go to the polls to vote against a candidate. The GOP in '94 had the Contract with America which stood as something people could vote for in stark contrast to 60 years of Democratic control of the House. The GOP appeared to be a group of reformers, with different ideas and a desire to be held accountable. Of course we all see how that turned out, but that wasn't the perception in 1994.


In 2010 the GOP will have only been out of power for four years and their most popular spokesman is Sarah Palin, who polls exceptionally poorly amongst independents. Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell both made it a point to keep at arms distance from her in the recent governors elections, as are a lot of other GOP governors: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29711.html











* Bridget, your lack of reading comprehension and a general failure to grasp what is going on around you while plowing forward with a poorly thought out agenda wins your the Sarah Palin award for this thread. If you want to call me out in a thread titled, JCASHFAN is a disingenuous fuckhead go ahead and I'll waste my time talking to you there, but not here.

11/19/2009 8:08:19 AM

BridgetSPK, you're dead wrong on all of that. There's nothing to really refute, because you essentially said "Ha, you voted for someone that ended up not doing what he said he would, which means the principles you stand for were proven wrong! Gotcha!" Well, that's idiotic, and hopefully you're capable of taking a step back and realizing that. If not, I would suggest sticking to subjects that you aren't ignorant about.

One of the problems is that the vast majority of politicians, of both parties, don't understand the financial crisis, don't understand what caused it, and most certainly don't understand how to not make it worse. The only answers are more government intervention and more spending. So, we don't just need a switch in the majority party. Republicans aren't going to do what needs to be done, either. I don't know what the solution is, or what will happen, but hopefully we can get a few people in office that understand the magnitude of the problem.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 8:55 AM. Reason : ]

11/19/2009 8:48:58 AM

My prof in PA 511 (Public Policy Analysis - mostly from an economic perspective, I don't know if the class is designed that way or if it is because the prof has a PhD in economics rather than public administration) showed a chart that correlates how well incumbent parties do to a few factors. The economy doing well vs poorly was by far the strongest, and whether or not the US had more troops overseas at the time of the election than at the start of taking the office made up most of the rest of the difference.

I don't recall if this chart only applied to presidents, or it was how well parties did in general. I know for 2012, despite this prof making claims like President Obama hasn't done anything progressive yet, this prof fully believes President Obama will easily win if the economy continues on a slow path to recovery. Although this maybe a little bit of that syndrome, where everyone looks at the same problem and a psychologist sees a psychological problem, a doctor sees a medical problem, and a surgeon sees a surgical problem... although in this case it is an economist who is seeing the problem.

We can all huff & puff about the candidates we like as much as we want (and I certainly will be doing just that), but in the end how much the economy gets better 2010 will probably be the single greatest factor.

My prediction for 2010. The dems will lose a few seats in the house, but who cares there, and a few seats in the senate which is probably a good thing for them so they can get out of the ideology that they need 60 votes before they try anything. Maybe with 55 seats they'll actually get more done. As long as Burr loses his office, I'm fine with the dems losing their super majority.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]

11/19/2009 10:12:52 AM

I think I should win the Finished Paper & Drank 8 Beers Award. Obviously, my objections didn't quite fit with the thread, but I gotta get my opinion out. In general, I'm annoyed by ex-Republicans who totally used to buy in but now disenchanted they suck the fun out of it by being supercynics and feigning some jaded old man bit, putting down anybody else who buys into a candidate the way they already did. For example, I believe Joe Biden adheres to his party's ideology and has tremendous candidate integrity. The guy's so earnestly liberal and honest that he pretty much lives with his foot in his mouth. I look forward to his running for president in 2016.

And thank you, d357r0y3r, for suggesting there are subjects I'm not ignorant about. Greatest compliment I've ever received on The Wolf Web.

I'll make myself unignorant about this subject and be back with some amazing insights that are gonna blows y'all's minds.

11/19/2009 2:50:09 PM

Quote :

"I think some on the right are expecting 2010 to be a repeat of 1994 simply because of the unpopularity among swing voters of the President"

I'm still not seeing how this is any different than 2006, other than it was Bush's 2nd term and not his first.

11/19/2009 2:59:19 PM

Quote :

"This thread has nothing to do with who you think should win in 2010, party ideology, or candidate integrity"

Yah...good luck with that

11/19/2009 5:37:44 PM

Quote :

"In general, I'm annoyed by ex-Republicans who totally used to buy in but now disenchanted they suck the fun out of it by being supercynics and feigning some jaded old man bit, putting down anybody else who buys into a candidate the way they already did."

You're still missing the point.

This thread is about the horse race that is politics, not the ideas. There are 6 bajillion other threads on TWW about ideology. Ideas are a factor, but not the dominating one.

11/19/2009 7:50:22 PM

Quote :

"but exceptionally detailed policy proposals don't win votes"

Health Care Reform is a prime example of this.

Quote :

"The dems will lose a few seats in the house"

a few in the senate maybe. but the house will probably be 20-30. at the very least, more than a "few". IMO.

[Edited on November 29, 2009 at 4:22 AM. Reason : .]

11/29/2009 4:14:34 AM

Along the lines of losing seats in the senate - I've heard Dodd may drop out of the race in Conneticut

11/29/2009 7:50:48 AM

I would be shocked. what would the reason be? hes mr "polls are a snapshot" lol

11/29/2009 8:08:05 AM

Yea but this time around - they're actually not a snapshot. He may lose big and from what I'm hearing he'd rather "retire" than lose big.

11/29/2009 8:41:10 AM

I'd rather see him lose big, preferably to Peter Schiff.

11/29/2009 12:50:54 PM

this is gonna be my first election. pretty big stuff. wish i could have voted last year. who can i support who will line up with my beliefes?

-honor place of the almighty in creation of america
-taxation is theft
-freedom through LESS government and less regulations on businesses
-no public option health care
-no bailout or stimulus
-pro life
-importance of one man one woman marriage
-us out of un and other international orgs who dont respect us or our unique view
-us out of un wars like in afganistan and iraq (un resoluition led to iraq war, started iraq involvement even tho europe opposed)

i want to get more involved. how can i? sorry if this is alot, im new and i didnt want to make a new topic to ask something like this.

[Edited on November 29, 2009 at 9:33 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2009 9:32:27 PM

oy - so it begins

11/29/2009 9:34:00 PM

Pretty good article in Politico yesterday:

Quote :

"Five steps to recovery for Dems By STEVE ROSENTHAL | 12/29/09 1:32 PM EST You wouldn't know it by listening to many Democrats, but the last time I checked, the party still controls the White House, the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives and 26 governor's offices across the country. And while they could be heading for a disaster in the 2010 elections, it's just as possible it could still be a very decent year for Democratic candidates. So, while they shouldn't really need it, for all those Democrats wringing their hands, here's a five-step plan for Democratic "recovery": Step 1: Stop whining, stop bellyaching and, as Barack Obama's former campaign manager, David Plouffe, so eloquently put it in 2008 (quoting my mentor, the late Paul Tully), "stop bed-wetting." "

It goes on with, well, 4 more prescriptions. I thought this one was especially critical:

Quote :

"Step 4: Put Obama on the ballot in 2010 for African-Americans, Hispanics, single women and young voters. The Democratic base is not energized, and it needs to be if we are to be successful in the midterm election. There is a massive pool of Obama surge voters in every state with competitive elections in 2010. The 2009 election results already show that in addition to moving the agenda these voters care about, Democrats must rethink the way they have been appealing to these individuals to vote without Obama on the ballot. The key demographics that turned out for Obama in 2008 and remain highly supportive of him — African-Americans, Hispanics, single women and youth — have shown a disproportionate tendency to stay home during past midterm elections, and this held true in 2009. A December national Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll paints a stark warning sign for Democrats: Only 30 percent of African-Americans, 39 percent of Hispanics and 38 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds said they were likely to vote in 2010, compared with 53 percent of all voters. Similarly, a June poll commissioned by Women's Voices, Women's Vote found that only 36 percent of single women were likely to vote in 2010."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31035_Page2.html#ixzz0bC5uTxKG


This election will probably come down to who energizes whose base better. I suppose that is always true of a mid-term election, but especially so this year as the GOPs base is already energized . . . but not necessarily for the GOP. So . . .

12/30/2009 12:29:15 PM

The complete 2010 primary calendar follows...

February 2

* Illinois

March 2

* Texas

April 13

* Texas run-off

May 4

* Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio

May 11

* Nebraska, West Virginia

May 18

* Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon, Pennsylvania

May 25

* Idaho

June 1

* Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico

June 8

* California, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Arkansas run-off

June 22

* Utah, North Carolina run-off, Mississippi run-off, South Carolina run-off

June 29

* South Dakota run-off

July 13

* Alabama run-off

July 20

* Georgia

July 27

* Oklahoma

August 3

* Kansas, Michigan, Missouri

August 5

* Tennessee

August 10

* Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia run-off

August 17

* Washington, Wyoming

August 24

* Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma run-off

August 28

* Louisiana

September 14

* Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin

September 18

* Hawaii

October 2

* Louisiana run-off

1/4/2010 10:12:28 AM

Open Seats are increasing daily...

Governor Races (these are just the ones who are either retiring or the people that are running for a different political office, not the ones that aren't eligible for another term)
Kansas (currently D)
Wisconsin (currently D)
Colorado (currently D) - Just announced today
Connecticut (currently R)
Florida (currently R)
Minnesota (currently R)

Senate
Florida (currently R)
Kansas (currently R)
Kentucky (currently R)
Deleware (currently D - the guy that was appointed to fill Biden's seat isn't running)
Missouri (currently R)
New Hampshire (currently R)
Ohio (currently R)
Texas (currently R)
Illinois (currently D)

House Races:
There are a ton to list but right now there are estimates that there are approximately 47 dem seats and 35 republican seats.... (but that includes people that might run for something else, people who are running for something else and people who are completely retiring)

That's a lot of open seats across the board.

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 9:26 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2010 9:25:58 PM

Governor races are going to be critical this year with the census and congressional re-districting. At the moment, expecting the GOP to pick up more than they would lose isn't unreasonable.

1/6/2010 1:57:28 AM

I was going to come in here and post that Dodd was retiring BUT looks like there was a whole new thread created....

1/6/2010 8:13:46 AM

Quote :

"Former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford Jr. is weighing the possibility of challenging appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand later this year, a longshot candidacy for the one-time rising star in Democratic politics. Ford, according to a report in the New York Times, is being encouraged to run by a group of New York City-based Democratic donors and will make up his mind in the next 45 days."

1/6/2010 3:19:26 PM

Not going to happen. The WH . . . oh, never mind, you probably read the same e-mail I got about this

1/7/2010 2:44:54 AM

Harry Reid in some hot water:

Quote :

"Harry Reid apologizes for "light skinned" remark about Obama Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) apologized today for referring to President Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect" in private conversations during the 2008 presidential campaign. "I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words," said Reid in a statement. "I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments.""

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/harry-reid-apologizes-for-ligh.html

I don't find anything inherently racist in this. Part of the appeal of Barack Obama was that white Americans could vote for a black man who wasn't Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Candidate Obama was articulate, intelligent, tall, and handsome, all benefits in the political world which Harry Reid inhabits.

1/9/2010 2:43:30 PM

WOO HOO!!! I wish Pelosi was the one in hot water, but I'll take Reid.

1/9/2010 2:59:14 PM

^^ It's not racist, but haven't people in politics learned by now that you can't talk about the color of someone's skin? Or say that someone doesn't talk like a Negro?

1/9/2010 3:02:06 PM

First off, it was in private conversations and let's be honest . . . race mattered in this election*, especially to those who are pretend to be color blind. Quite frankly, Barack Obama's blackness (such that it is) won him the Democratic nomination. There is no way a white male would have been nominated over a white female as powerful as Hillary Clinton. So we can pretend that skin color and race don't matter but they do. A serious black candidate running for the presidency is bound to turn out a voter group which reliably votes 90% Democratic in a way that a white female would not.

On the other hand, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and many public black men have speech patterns that white voters perceive negatively (even supposedly "enlightened" post-racial Democrats). Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are too preachy and the familiar punching bags, rap stars and athletes, aren't always the most eloquent or grammatically correct.

Barack Obama was a candidate black America could embrace because he was one of them and which white America could embrace because he was one of them as well.


As far as the word Negro, it can be hard for hyper-sensitive whites to know exactly what the least offensive term of the moment is. Colored would be deplorable in most circles and yet it is still the NAACP. Senators are notoriously detached so I'm inclined to forgive him on that (not that he needs or seeks my forgiveness). Besides, I'm sure the Senate President Pro-Tem has said far worse things about black Americans.


It isn't going to affect Reid's reelection though, black voters make up less than 7% of the population.

[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM. Reason : * see my post ITT from 12/30]

1/9/2010 3:29:53 PM

hahaha are you kidding me? If this was the only problem Reid had confronted in his reelection bid, then we might be able to ignore your analysis, but this is just the latest in a drip drip dripping series of embarrassments and awkward moments for Reid to try to explain to his constituency.

you have completely missed the political context into which this news is breaking.

1/9/2010 3:44:33 PM

I just don't see race being a big issue in a state which is 80% white and sees racial conflicts as a "foreign" issue. There might be some ads on TV repeating this story in late October but it won't gain the traction that it might in California or the Eastern US where race is a bigger issue.

I could be wrong, but I feel like he has bigger dragons to slay than offhandedly patronizing Barack Obama in a private conversation.

1/9/2010 3:50:23 PM

the concept of death by a thousand cuts is apparently beyond this person's understanding.

1/9/2010 4:46:08 PM

Unfortunately, it doesn't work in politics like it might work elsewhere, not with stuff like this. Voters have a very short attention span and will go with their last impression of the candidate shortly before the election. Barney Frank's boyfriend was busted for running a prostitution ring out of their basement and that didn't stop his reelection. Creigh Deeds attempted this in Virginia last year and we see how well that worked out. A news story like this has a limited lifespan and come election time will be treated with weary dismissal.

The thousand cuts that will kill a campaign are the ones that effect staffing, fund raising, failure to stay on message, quarreling with the press, etc. I'm not saying he was right or wrong, but he said what he said, he apologized to the President, the President accepted the apology and will probably stump for him come fall.


It says something about politics in general, but I don't think many people are going to pull the lever against Harry Reid because he referred to Barack Obama as an articulate light skinned negro.

1/9/2010 4:52:48 PM

No one said they would. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.


I'll continue the trend and make the observation that your redundant comments regarding this controversy will not result in you getting suspended.

Can we get back to discussing how this is not good news for Harry Reid and how pleased we all are that he's finding himself in hot water right when he needs it least?

[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 5:21 PM. Reason : s]

1/9/2010 5:18:05 PM

Quote :

"Can we get back to discussing how this is not good news for Harry Reid and how pleased we all are that he's finding himself in hot water right when he needs it least?"

The entire purpose of this thread is to discuss the reality of the political race, not your personal bias as to whether or not you'd like to see Harry Reid win or lose. Good going on the reading comprehension though, you get the runner up Sarah Palin award along with BridgetSPK from the beginning of this thread.


If you really feel the need, moron already created a thread for you: message_topic.aspx?topic=585667

1/9/2010 5:23:48 PM

If you want to discuss reality then how about stuffing the pseudo-intellectual BS back down your gullet and acknowledge the fact that a gaffe like this will provide ammunition against Reid. It will not single handedly sink his campaign nor will the average voter have it on his mind when they pull the lever, but it will likely be used in advertisements and discussed at political round tables.

And lets face it, when they can create an ad that flashes all the rude and contemptuous remarks made by Harry, with this being one of them, that's not something to gloss over like, "hey guys look at me i'm trying to polish up my objectivity credentials because normally i lean conservative but now i'm pretending like reid's gaffe is politically neutral lolol i hope no one else notices"

Regardless of what you say, this WILL be used against him. You're pretending like a single brick is unimportant because its not a complete wall.


[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 5:32 PM. Reason : s]

1/9/2010 5:29:13 PM

I think solinari is trying to overstate things, but i fundamentally agree with what he’s saying.

1/9/2010 5:31:34 PM

like I said:

Quote :

"I could be wrong, but I feel like he has bigger dragons to slay than offhandedly patronizing Barack Obama in a private conversation."

Race just isn't a killer issue in Nevada and, to my knowledge, there isn't any audio of Harry Reid actually saying it. Reid is in trouble, no doubt about it, I just don't think this is the issue that will sink his reelection.

Where it might have mattered would have been campaign donations but I don't think that this will be the issue that does him in. He's more likely to see fire on his health-care compromise or the general inability of the Senate to make progress on progressive legislation despite having 60 semi-reliable votes.



Looking back, this quote might have started the confusion:

Quote :

"It isn't going to affect Reid's reelection though, black voters make up less than 7% of the population."

I didn't mean to implying that he was going to be reelected, it is pretty unlikely that he will, I just do not think that this issue will be the one to bring him down. Had it never occurred, his campaign would still be in trouble. Now that it has occurred, it'll be brought up but won't move many votes.

1/9/2010 5:36:06 PM

A single brick does not perform the functions of a complete wall. Your keen insight just blows my mind!!

Can't wait to read more of your political analyses.

[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 5:42 PM. Reason : s]

1/9/2010 5:38:34 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/14/news/economy/bailout_tax/index.htm?cnn=yes

Quote :

"Obama calls for bailout tax NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama on Thursday called on Congress to tax the largest banks to ensure that U.S. taxpayers don't lose a penny from the federal bailout of the financial, auto and insurance industries over the past year. The "financial crisis responsibility fee" would target major institutions. It would be levied on those that were the main contributors to the financial crisis and the most significant beneficiaries of the extraordinary actions taken by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. My commitment is to recover every single dime the American people are owed," Obama said. "We want our money back and we're going to get it.""

Specifics aside, I can't imagine this being anything other than wildly popular with the American public at large which may help perceptions before the 2010 elections.

[Edited on January 14, 2010 at 1:56 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2010 1:56:16 PM

Quote :

""My commitment is to recover every single dime the American people are owed," Obama said. "We want our money back and we're going to get it.""

Hahaha. Obama either doesn't understand anything about this crisis, or he's playing dumb. The American people won't get the money back. The money is gone. It's the lifeblood of the zombie banks. If we just tax the bailed out banks, what was the point of bailing them out to begin with?

That's the great thing about Washington. They can bail out banks, hail it as a victory, then threaten to take the money back, and also hail it as a victory. And the majority of people are too dumb to know what's going on.

1/14/2010 2:13:40 PM

While there is at least a little sense to the idea of giving them some money to stabilize them during bad times and take back some money when they're doing better, you're mostly right about hailing opposite actions as victories both times... gotta at least appreciate the symmetry of it all.

1/14/2010 2:46:17 PM

Yeah, it does make sense on the surface. The idea was that these banks were going to fail, so the government would give them a little money and once they got back on their feet, they'd be able to pay the money back. They'd need to make a profit first, otherwise, we'd be back where we were to begin with. Banks make money by lending. They're not lending, though, at least not enough to make the profit necessary to pay back the TARP funds.

Plus, this requires us to believe that the banks wouldn't just pass the tax increase to the consumer. Whenever you tax a company, it's not like they just take the loss and keep prices stable.

1/14/2010 2:57:25 PM

Yeah, in the President's speech he was all like I encourage you to pay for this by reducing bonuses rather than passing it on, which for the sake of avoiding bad publicity may happen to some degree, but there is no way that the banks are just going to eat this cost wholesale.

1/14/2010 3:06:32 PM

Quote :

"LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Democratic U.S. Rep. Vic Snyder of Arkansas says he won't seek re-election to an eighth term. The 62-year-old says he wants to spend more time with his wife and four young children, including a set of year-old triplets. He also voted for health care reform, which was thought to have weakened him this year. "

Yea.. he wanted to spend more time with his family and less time getting his health-care voting ass kicked in the election.

1/16/2010 10:21:07 AM

Wow, you mean Arkansas is turning conservative? Color me shocked...the end is nigh.

1/16/2010 12:06:51 PM

d357r0y3r, the big banks have already paid back the TARP money so Obama cant keep them from paying executives millions. Even Citi paid it back, and Obama is pissed that they paid it back so soon and the Pay Czar cant do shit to them. Now the Pay Czar will just messed with the small banks that cant pay it back so fast.

1/16/2010 8:02:15 PM

Some banks that didn't want any TARP money and were forced to take it. They have already paid back all the money plus interest..and now Obama wants to tax them even more.

This can only be seen as vengence against the financial sector. Will Obama be just as aggressive in punishing the gov't side of the recession equation? Current and past execs at Fannie, Freddie, Barney Franks, Tax-cheat Geithner et al.

In more election news...

Quote :

"(Barbara) Boxer leads former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina by just three points, 46% to 43%. In November, Boxer was also at the 46% level of support but led Fiorina by nine points. The longtime Democratic senator runs best right now against state Assemblyman Chuck Devore, beating him by six points, 46% to 40%. Two months ago, though, she posted a 10-point lead on DeVore, 49% to 39%. As for Campbell, the ex-congressman and former state finance director who on Thursday quit the governor’s race to jump into the Senate contest, Boxer leads him by just four points, 46% to 42%. The fact that Boxer’s support is frozen at 46% against all GOP challengers suggest that the race for now is about her rather than those running against her. "

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/california/election_2010_california_senate

1/16/2010 10:10:50 PM

Oh boy, Rasmussen. Got any Newsmax polls?

I wonder how 2010 would turn out if Obama played to the base of the Democratic party and pushed harder for the public option, winding down Afghanistan, and stood against the antiterror tactics of the Bush administration? Would we get a showdown between the base of both sides? Which side is bigger: tea baggers or the anti-war crowd circa 2003?

I think I know the answer to this unfortunately, and it's why I wish we had proportional representation and more parties.

1/17/2010 8:41:36 PM