Bunning and Belushi
The senator who has lost his fastball
Bunning and Belushi
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
On the original Saturday Night Live, John Belushi used to play a slobbering character called The Thing That Wouldn't Leave, so named because of his clueless propensity for staying too long at a party, and refusing all hints and entreaties from his hosts to haul himself off the sofa and hit the road.
Senate Democrats are currently saddled with such a character; I refer, of course, to Roland Burris. But Burris has sucked up so much attention lately that it's easier to forget about the Thing who persists in camping out on the Republican sofa, even as his hapless hosts gnash their teeth and pray that he will go away.
I refer, of course, to GOP senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, the former baseball pitcher who hurled a perfect game as a Phillie in 1964, but who, in his two terms as a Washington lawmaker, has been pitching way too many screwballs.
Bunning is such an embarrassment, with his verbal miscues and bizarre behavior, that Senate Republican leaders are now working openly to bounce him out of the chamber. They have made it abundantly clear that they don't want him to run for re-election next year - a highly unusual posture, since party leaders normally encourage incumbents to run again. But Bunning, at age 77, is shaking off all the signs and digging in for a third bid. The GOP is so distressed by his intransigence - and so worried that a Bunning defeat next year would help the Democrats win a filibuster-proof 60 seats - that they are actively soliciting another Kentucky Republican to challenge their own senator in a party primary. That's how bad things are with the Thing.
Actually, things got even worse over the weekend, when Bunning declared in a speech that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg will soon be dead. By the end of the summer, in fact.
While making an argument for more conservative judges, Bunning informed his audience that the high court will soon have one less liberal judge. Bunning, who is not a doctor, and who naturally has no access to Ginsberg's private medical records, nevertheless stated that she has "bad cancer. The kind you don't get better from. Even though she was operated on (Feb. 5), usually nine months is the longest that anybody would live after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer."
Meanwhile, Ginsberg was back on the bench yesterday, firing questions at lawyers, as medical experts provided a cautiously optimistic prognosis, noting that her cancer had been caught at an early stage and that it had not spread beyond her pancreas. And Bunning - realizing, perhaps, that it's a tad tacky for a senator to summarily consign a high court judge to her eternal rest - shifted yesterday into mea culpa mode: "I apologize if my comments offended Justice Ginsburg." (If?)
The Ginsberg episode is merely the latest in a long string of embarrassments. That's one big reason why he has barely raised any money for his 2010 re-election bid (a Senate incumbent in Kentucky needs to raise upwards of $20 million; in Bunning's latest filing, he has raised around $175,000). Meanwhile, the Kentucky polls show that he is highly vulnerable - which is no surprise, given the fact that Bunning barely eked out a two-point victory in 2004, on a night when President Bush won Kentucky by 20.
Bunning's behavior is legendary in GOP circles. During his '04 campaign, he said that Democratic challenger Daniel Mongiardo looked like Saddam Hussein's sons "and even dresses like them, too." (A Bunning spokesman later apologized, while insisting that the remark had generated "a lot of laughs.") Bunning also boosted his security detail, at taxpayer expense, claiming that al Qaeda might be targeting him; indeed, he told a TV crew, "There may be strangers among us." (Senate officials said there were no specific threats against Bunning.) Even in 2007, he insisted that Mongiardo (a doctor by trade) had dispatched campaign workers dressed as doctors to harass him and Mrs. Bunning ("I had little green doctors pounding on my back"), though there was no evidence of it happening.
He has also alienated business leaders and fellow Republicans back home. During the '04 campaign, he told a chamber of commerce luncheon in Louisville that, contrary to all expectations, the city would not be getting a new bridge. This was news to the local Republican congresswoman, Anne Northrup, who had arranged for that bridge to be built with federal funds - and who knew that, in fact, the project had the green light. Northrup had to mollify the shocked business leaders by declaring that the senator was merely "confused," a word that is code for "senile." As for Bunning, he at first denied that he had uttered his inaccuracy - then admitted saying it only after he was informed that his speech had been recorded. (He had also denied the remark about Hussein's sons, until informed that those remarks had been videotaped.)
Bunning also has a habit of being in the wrong place. In October '04, he was supposed to be in Kentucky for the only scheduled Senate campaign debate; instead, he was up in Washington, claiming he was "tied up" with legislative duties (actually, the Senate was not in session). So he participated via satellite, and appeared to be using a teleprompter in violation of the debate rules.
By contrast, when he was supposed to be in Washington last month, for the opening Senate session and the casting of consequential votes, he was somewhere else on vacation (he has never said where). Republican officials were less than thrilled, rightly recognizing that Bunning's decision to go AWOL in a time of crisis could well become grist for Democratic attack ads in Kentucky next year.
So it's no wonder that Washington GOP strategists have been huddling with a respected Republican state senator, mapping the possibility of his challenging Bunning in a primary (while officially denying, naturally, that any such plans are in the works). Most instructive, however, is that posture being taken by Republicans Mitch McConnell (the GOP's Senate leader) and John Cornyn (who chairs the party's 2010 campaign committee). They have met with Bunning, he has told them that he intends to run, and yet they still keep insisting publicly that Bunning has yet to make up his mind. To which Bunning said of Cornyn, "He's either deaf, or he doesn't listen very well."
Cornyn was also recently asked whether Bunning would be the best candidate to hold a seat that the GOP dearly needs next year. Cornyn replied, "I don't know. I think it's really up to Senator Bunning."
Stripping away the politesse, here's the translation: "I wish that freaking slag heap would take a hint, get off the sofa, and hit the road."
But the point is, senators don't feel compelled to take such hints. Once ensconced, they often tend to be independent actors, heedless of the needs of their party. Once ensconced, they are tough to extricate - short of waging a successful, and costly, primary. That's the deal at the moment with Burris and Bunning, this season's winners of the Belushi award.
Comments (102)
Geez, am i the first poster? What a chance to remind our readers that republicans' mothers wear combat boots to church!— liberal- How this story turned from Roland Burris' Senate career to Jim Bunning's re-election chances is a great look at Mr. Polman's award winning jounalistic style. A curious way to go with the story, to say the least! Careful Mr. Polman, your stripes are showing again, as usual!— NEPhilly
Let's all be honest here, when you heard that Ginsburg had pancreatic cancer, didn't you start thinking of the possibilities for Obama's first SCOTUS nominee? At least the GOP is actively trying to oust Bunning, the Dems made their embarassing gaffe machine the VP for God's sake.— jmc
you're missing the point jmc - sure we're THINKING she might not last too much longer. But to give a speech and say - with excited anticipation - so is another thing.— potus- I wish it was just gaffes with Biden. See http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Accused_hedge_thief_Stanford_was_Biden_family_partner.html in this very paper— MaggieL
- This is just one more example that leads me to believe, even though I hate to admit it, term limits are a good idea. I know that we have the power to vote senators and representatives out of office but once ensconced they rarely leave without either an indictment forcing them out or an illness/death to vacate the seat. It's sad to see a man I had great respect for as a pitcher, Jim Bunning, reduced to this.
- I am curious frankg962 why you hate to admit that term limits are a good idea?— jwad56
- Jim Bunning is a shining example of why “dumb jocks” should stay out of politics. In any other place in this country, he'd be such an embarrassment that he'd have been gone by now. But a sorely uneducated electorate base in KY keeps sending him back. The Congress is already filled with too many backward thinking slugs and corrupt morons (Burris). Hopefully after this most despicable Bunning event, they’ll finally catch on and send him into a long overdue retirement.— BarneyMiller
- I love watching the Republicans eat each other. lol— chasing history
- NEPhilly's comment is why jokes like Bunning (and Rangel) continue in office despite manifest incompetence or corruption: Party before country. To NEPhilly, this was not an interesting look at a real issue, it was partisan, so he attacted Polman. NEPhilly, look in the mirror. You and voters like you are the problem.— Djoko Pritza
- Why can't we talk about the big speech tonight? It should be a doozy. Lots of fear and hopelessness.— jwad56
- I read this blog today, and I almost fell asleep. Now, onto real things: Obamachev's political strategy so far, and tonight, is the Lenin motto of "the worse, the better". To get what he wants, our Comrade leader will keep scaring us to all ends. A good commie knows how to follow other commies.— CD75
- I have to admit I was listening to Rush (I know janann, he's the devil) and someone found this article from 1999 in the NY Times (if Wikipedia is no good, we will see if the NY Times is:( ) ! See the quotes by Franklin Raines and Peter Wallison. This is a 'smoking gun' sort of, of what was going on and who was doing what, when:) Check it out! http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 Here is my favorite or least favorite part; *In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.*— NEPhilly
- djoko, I agree that Bunning should not run again (i'll throw him under the bus, just like you did to Rangel we're even)! That was not the point, the point was exactly what you are bashing me for, blatant partisanship:)— NEPhilly
- I agree. Term limits are looking better by the minute. I wouldn't say that all athletes are dumb jocks and should stay out of politics, however. Bill Bradley was a Fulbright scholar and a brilliant man (presumably, he still is). I admired him a lot. But there are so many duffuses in Congress. It would be funny if we weren't in such serious trouble at the moment.— NigeltheMastiff
- Here's what really didnt make sense to me about Bunning's comments: we have a liberal president in office and liberals control both houses, what made Bunning think the death of a liberal justice would be cause for a conservative justice to take her place? There is zero chances of that happening with the WH and Congress made up like this.— Master Dreamz
- jwad - sure let's talk about that speech that hasn't been made yet. But really, why? 80% of America has confidence that Obama will make the right decisions and 68% approve of the job he is is doing so far. You can't let that stand for a day? Are you that desperate to trash Obama? Today's American Debate column is about Burris and Bunning. If you have nothing to add, why not just move on until tomorrow. That being said: The Dems need to get Burris out, quickly and the GOP should let Bunning yap all he wants. Happy Fat Tuesday. Off to prep for a Mardi Gras party.— SNS08
- Good point, Master Dreamz.— Djoko Pritza
- NEPhilly, sorry, but I'm not looking up any links provided by other posters, left or right, from here on out. My experience is that like everything else, the poster cherry-picks something from a link to support her/his viewpoint and ignores all that doesn't, or misinterprets the link, or that the link is just plain dumb (see SMike's touting of the infamous Naked Emperor production). Then you spend all your time arguing over what was a bogus link in the first place. So, bring it on, but don't link me to it!— Djoko Pritza
- NEPhilly, that was MY point on partisanship. You don't see the irony of your post to Polman?:)— Djoko Pritza
- Djoko, yes I see the irony:) The link is to the NY Times for heck sake, it is a short article from 1999! Take a look, it is interesting:)— NEPhilly
- Burris will be gone shortly. His appointment by the national joke Blago almost assures it. Bunning may make it easier for the Dems to pick up a seat as it is almost assured of a fractured GOP after the primary. And as far as Obama and the fear isn't selling fear EXACTLY how the miserable Bush presidency got extended in 2004 ????— ModerateMarge
- *In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.*— NEPhilly
- ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''— NEPhilly
- Find this guy and let him run the Treasury:) **In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's. ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'' ***— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly, 1999 was a bad year:) All right, I'll take a look, but don't let me down!— Djoko Pritza
- Geeze, I hope he runs; He is emblematic of a GOP that really has nothing to offer and that continually rehashes the bygone era of Ronald Reagan and the no-hitters of the past. Like him, they are the Grumpy Old Party with no new ideas, whose old ideas have no basis in reality, but they insist on their own relevancy. What a bunch of losers; who are they to pass judgement on such an esteemed GOP elder.— tiredoftheBS
- I have been checking out the NY Times website and it is good! The front page looks like the top fold of the paper, pretty cool. I added it as a favorite so I can become more informed:) It is right under the NY Post, ha, ha, ha:)— NEPhilly
- WAD: Yes, let's keep the heat on Obama for that awful speech he'll give tonight, because we know for a fact it will be all lies, like Rush Limbaugh has noticed.— Talvenada
- SWEDE: Remind everyone of how much The Dow dropped yesterday, and will drop tomorrow.— Talvenada
- HEY SNS08! Take a look here http://www.gallup.com/poll/116077/Obama-Job-Approval-Dips-Below-First-Time.aspx approval is NOT 68% and it has been steadily dropping. But go ahead, call Gallup a right wing polling organization.— jwad56
- And then there is this by the other right wing polling org http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/confidence_in_stimulus_plan_drops_over_past_week— jwad56
- NEPhilly, keep on getting informed! Soon, you'll be a liberal!— Djoko Pritza
- TIRED: The GOP Stim Bill would produce twice as many jobs for half the cost, and in half the time. The Dems and MSM prevented the public from hearing the truth. As far as throwing Bunning under the bus, it's The Conse 'Pub way. Reagan said never speak ill of a fellow 'Pub, but they make exceptions to cut certain guys 100% loose.— Talvenada
- Djoko, now I'm reading and quoting Maureen Dowd, the horror:) **Though he demonstrated in the campaign that he has a rare gift for inspiring the country with new belief in itself, Mr. Obama has not yet captured either the grit the moment requires or the fury it provokes. He has not explained in a compelling way why Americans who followed the rules need to sacrifice more to help those who flouted the rules.** That is why the CNBC reporter Rick Santelli struck a populist nerve with his screed about the unfairness of responsible homeowners picking up the tab for irresponsible homeowners — following the unfairness of taxpayers who are losing jobs, homes and savings propping up the exact same bankers and carmakers whose greed and myopia caused the economy to crash. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22dowd.html?_r=1— NEPhilly
- **All in all, I can see why the markets are nervous and dropping. And it’s also clear that we’re on the cusp of the biggest political experiment of our lifetimes. If Obama is mostly successful, then the epistemological skepticism natural to conservatives will have been discredited. We will know that highly trained government experts are capable of quickly designing and executing top-down transformational change. If they mostly fail, then liberalism will suffer a grievous blow, and conservatives will be called upon to restore order and sanity. It’ll be interesting to see who’s right. But I can’t even root for my own vindication. The costs are too high. I have to go to the keyboard each morning hoping Barack Obama is going to prove me wrong. ** http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/opinion/24brooks.html?ref=opinion I think I know the answer, but we will see:) I like the NY Times:)— NEPhilly
- NEPHil, I just read that David Brooks column this morning. I also read the Maureen Dowd. I visit that site every day. Whether you agree with them or not, they have some of the best writers in the country. And as I'm a word nerd, that goes a long way with me! Maureen can be snarky and satirical, but no one has a vocabulary like hers.— NigeltheMastiff
- I am sure residents of Kentucky could care less what an urban liberal journalist thinks. When you get right down to it there is lots of stupid sound bites from Senators and politicians. Take Joe Biden. He's just a laugh a minute. Anyone remember his soundbite about the clerks at the 7-11. Or Robert Byrd's off color comments which I will not repeat. What is even funnier about Robert Byrd is that he's a former Klansman.
- Ne--I still don't get what you and Rush are trying to prove. Sure there were democrats who were entranced by the prospect of the housing bubble, and there were also republicans who felt the same. And the republicans had eight years of being in sole charge of the fed and the bank regulatory institutions, and did nothing about the risks. That's what happened. I can't see how any of this can be used as a republican selling point; all that can be said for them is that it wasn't a one-party catastrophe.— liberal
- NE--both the Dowd and Brooks columns you quoted were more nuanced--you picked the "on the other hand" part that was sceptical of Obama. Still, I'm glad to see you reading the NYT. Incidentally, I'm pretty much agreeing with Brooks these days.— liberal
- lib, that is what I am now, nuanced:) As for the financial meltdown, the Repubs should have done more. I agree and I am angry and I want answers as to who is at fault, the heck with politics! Also, we need 'clawbacks' on all those bonus' the banking officials/CEO's (Franklin Raines, 1st in line) made as well and that is un-Republican. During the campaign candidate Obama made it sounds like (and still today makes this meltdown sound like) a Republican making, which I dispute and I'm glad you agree, that's all! Steve Forbes said he thinks we should have a 'toxic bank' to buy all these nasty assets from the banks and keep them as investments. What do you think? The banks stock prices need to rebound and quick, they are only worth $300 Bil total and we spent $700 Bill to save them already? Nigel, I think Maureen tries too hard with the vocab, but I must admit I like it. In any case, time to hit the ball out of the park tonight with this speech, Mr. President, time to lead, time to be positive, time to give hope, time to use your 'gift of gab' for the good of the country, not just for the good of your party!— NEPhilly
- Mr Obama will remind us that the economy is the worst most since the great depression tonight. But thanks to his stimulus, it will get better but only after it gets worse. blah blah blah.... don't waste your time watchin' this
- NEPhil, I can't remember where I read it, but I think I saw that Obama agrees with Forbes about creating a bank for the toxic assets. I can't remember what term he used to describe it, but it sounded like the same thing.— NigeltheMastiff
- NePhilly, I couldn't agree more that both parties have much responsibility on their hands for this current mess. I think that Obama is trying to define the problem HONESTLY so we can honestly solve it. For instance why it took until now for Iraq expenditures to be on the budget is beyond me.— ModerateMarge
- Marge- It was the community reinvestment act and the zeal of democrats to get loans for poor people that built the house of cards that created the financial mess. It mostly lies at the doorstep of Barney Frank. As for the cost of the War in Afghanistan and Iraq, any cost has to be subtracted from what those troops would be paid if it were peacetime. The cost of the equipment and training isn't free either in peacetime. Wether in war or peace we still need to fly the Jets and Helicopters and use all the equipment in training exercises. And the troops still get paid.— ModerateMike
- I'm a Conservative and embarrassed by Jim Bunning's comments on Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg. Who, by the way, I disagree w/ profoundly. Talking about future opportunities is one thing... specifically predicting someone's demise... really unkind!— JGD84
- Where have you been, ModerateMike? We all on this site have agreed long ago that it's all the fault of Barney Frank. But I admire your insight.— Djoko Pritza
- NEPhilly, I agree with you and your new pal Maureen: Mr. Obama … has not explained in a compelling way why Americans who followed the rules need to sacrifice more to help those who flouted the rules.” Yes, when I muse about the American public, I think, “Tiny steps for tiny feet.” Life is indeed unfair. Or, “Life’s a b*tch, then you die!” Tell it like it is, Barack!— Djoko Pritza
- S-mike and Tom/DE, taking the bait I answered the misreading of my comments near the end of yesterday's thread.— JimR
- This entire mess in congress is calling out for a thorough House (and Senate) cleaning. What is Bunning doing that he was elected twice? Is athletic prowess the qualifier any more than community activist?— JimR
- Mike - Under your scenerio a lowly minority Congressman wields more power than the President of the United States !!! Does not fly, try again !!!— ModerateMarge
- "Why can't we talk about the big speech tonight? It should be a doozy. Lots of fear and hopelessness."***Hey, jerkwad, Obama's speaking tonight, not a republican.— mike l
- Gee, moderatemike, I didn't know Barney Frank brought down our economy all by himself. I thought it was because the Wall St bankers built up a house of cards extending credit to any and all. (How many card offers did you get each week? They didn't come from Frank.) I also thought it was because good ol' Phil Gramm pushed to do away with regulations on the banks. That builders went nuts building all kinds of half-million dollar homes that the mortgage lenders told people they could afford. I didn't know that Barney Frank made like Luca Brazzi from "the Godfather", holding a gun to the bankers heads and making them give out loans to people with no way of paying them back. Who'da thunk ol Barney was that powerful?— mike l
- Mike I and ModerateMarge- You are being very disingenious about what cause the mortgage crisis. Republicans never had supermajorities in either the house our Senate. As we all know there are many Republicans who are liberals with an R in front of their names. Bush said early that Fannie and Freddie needed to be reigned in. The call for regulation was there but is thwarted by Barney Frank, Maxine Waters et al.— ModerateMike
- C'mon, ModMike, I already acknowledged for you that Barney Frank is the guy responsible for the world-wide financial meltdown. Now you want to include Maxine Waters! Give 'em an inch, they take a mile ...— Djoko Pritza
- Mike - Anyone who solely blames Rep Barney Frank or Democrats for the Mortgage crisis is immune to reality. And really who cares until we get our economy and financial system out of the crisis.— ModerateMarge
- So Barack is going to cut the money he's going to add to the federal debt in half all while telling us he's going to do spend trillions on more government programs. Winding down the Iraq war while he winds up the war in Afghanistan will not save a dime in defense spending. If you minions on this blog believe any of this please send $ 200 dollars to swedesboromike.org( it's a joke- please don't actually do this)
- WOW!— Djoko Pritza
- You know, it will be telling, about a rump part of the Repubs/converatives, that in the face of an awesome speach extolling the virtures and hope of all Americans, little minds will continue to pick little points to snip at. Listen, they'll be visiting us soone on this very blog.— Djoko Pritza
- SWEDE: Again Obama fails, no? Stock Market will drop tomorrow based on this failure, no?— Talvenada
- DJOKO: I'm surprised that your stubbed toe, aka CD75, hasn't been here yet to bloviate his all-knowing wisdom!— Talvenada
- Another Home Run President Obama !!! Pretty soon Bush's miserable Presidency will be only a distant memory !!— ModerateMarge
- Talvenada- yes that speech was ridiculous. YOur response is not surprising considering this man got elected by a minion of the bamboozled.
- Obama is a genius; when the rich get higher taxes, their new rate will be what it was prior to the Bush cuts. And everyone knows the rich made most of their money during the Clinton years. Deja voodoo economics! Seriously though, Republicans were cutoff at the knees tonight and tomorrow will be a must listen to Rush day. Haven't felt this good since election night.— pagoda
- Oh Yes. Obama is going to fill you gas tank, pay your mortgage, pay your healthcare, find you a government job, and send you and your children to college. And he's going to cut the amount added to the debt every year in half. All while he's doubling down on troops in Afghanistan. The he's going to control weather and stop the global warming( sheesh , we could some warming) and spend trillions on smart cars that no one wants to drive! And give " working people " a tax cut( welfare) Does anyone actually believe this nonsense!
- Pagoda- that's called a tax increase. My aren't you a genius
- Obama got elected because he was by far the best of the 2 candidates. I for one was wary of McCains shady associations including but not limited to Domestic Terrorist Gordon Liddy.— ModerateMarge
- It must be nice to sit back and actually believe the speech was ridiculous (if you really did), because Swedes- when the economy was crashing on the cliffs, I don't seem to remember GW saying anything at all. The Republican response said it all. Oh man, just put on Hannity, this is some serious fun. Michael Steele up next! This is embarrassing- Now they're making fun of healthcare summits- 2010??? Are you kidding me???— pagoda
- PAGODA: Rush's latest bloviation is that whatever Obama says has an opposite meaning, and is a LIE!! This is the latest Conse 'Pub media formula. Example was that Mort guy on Fox who stated that Palin's daughter who said abstinence is unrealistic was the opposite of what she meant. It proved that abstinence is realistic.— Talvenada
- Pagoda- Do you understand that talk show hosts don't run the country? I mean you do understand that right? Obama had all the answers while campaiging. Since he has become President the market has tanked and it gets worse every day. I hope at some point you understand how bad democrats are governing. But please don't tell me about talk show hosts. You sound silly
- Drill baby drill! The party of nothing and sinking fast has moved their eggs from Alaska to Louisiana. Good luck with that. This is truly awesome.— pagoda
- pagoda- go get a job. Stop asking for handouts. Get out of everyone's pocket why dont you!
- PAGODA: Don't you know the economy started to tank when Obama started to run for president?— Talvenada
- There are no elected Republicans making their case. Michael Steele is the closest you got right now. The talk show hosts may not be running the nation, but they appear to be running your party and Michel Steele is laughing with them all the way to oblivion. Jindal may be smarter than Palin, but he sure didn't show that tonight.— pagoda
- Tal: Fred "Beltway Boy" Barnes wasn't claiming to clarify what Bristol Palin said about abstinance, he just seemed to completely blow the interpretation. Don't be knocking Fred. Barnes has been a loyal water carrier for Bush & Cheney, but he's at least civil in his disagreements with Mort "Other Beltway Boy" Kondracke, the left of center portion of the show (who actually gets an equal say in the show).— yobill626
- PAGODA: Don't you know that ONLY Conse 'Pubs have jobs, brains, money and rights?— Talvenada
- Got to go to bed so I can get up for work tomorrow at a bank that got a gazillion dollars from the government BEFORE Obama became President. But if my company fails, I'm glad I live in a state who's governor did not turn down funds for extension of unemployment benefits. I guess that makes me a mooch, unlike Swedes who'd rather lose it all on principal.— pagoda
- YO BILL: Sorry, I got them mixed up, which shows I'm not a big Fox guy. I don't want to lose my dinner, if you know what I mean.— Talvenada
- I like Jindal a lot, but he didn't show himself all that well in comparison to Obama tonight. Even deep in Bush excrement, the man is just on a roll. Young Bobby needs to focus on running for a 2nd term in LA and then take a shot at toppling the Obama successor in 2016.— yobill626
- One thing you will never read on this site from the author. According to Gallup, Obama approval rating now below 60% (an 11 point drop since inauguration and lower than even Jimmy Carter after one month in office) and negatives doubled since inauguration. Agree that Jindal did not look good, but who could after the Obama, who gives oratory as good as anyone. Nobody can follow Barack and look good.— tom - wilmington, de
- Tom, I strongly disagree. Had Jindal had some content to share he would have looked good. What would the GOP do - pray for the unemployed as opposed to giving them benefits ???? And you wonder why they have had 2 bad elections ??? Seems to be out of ideas !— ModerateMarge
- Funny. Philadelphia Newspapers Inc files Chapter 11. New York Times needs bailout of $250 million from Mexican millionaire. Tribune Co, owner of Chicago Tribune and LA Times, files Chapter 11. Minneapolis Star Tribune files Chapter 11. Hearst Co says it will either close or sell San Francisco Chronicle withing next few weeks. MSNBC is losing money and ratings (February saw them 23rd in total viewers with less than one million). Meanwhile, Fox News continues to grow and prosper. But of course, this cannot be because Fox is "fair and balanced" while the others are biased, can it? NAH...that is just a myth...we all know Fox is a right wing media machine....— tom - wilmington, de
- MARGE: Conse 'Pubs are against Unemployment, Social Security, Welfare, and they have an answer for Bobby's deadbeats: go to their church for aid, but don't touch one penny that belongs to them.— Talvenada
- MARGE: Jindal is a conservative LOL compassionate, unlike that community LOL organizer.— Talvenada
- TOM: That's right. Obama got only over 52% of the vote, and almost 60 million people don't want Obama as president--or they'd have voted for him. Yes, his approval rating is in the above 50% mark, says it better don't you think?— Talvenada
- Tom, Last time I checked Murdoch's stock is down 80 percent or more from it's high. Not doing well either. Nobody wants to hear GOP shills !!!— ModerateMarge
- Cute pep rally last night by Comrade Obamachev. Let's call that speech: "you can have your cake and eat it too" or "words speak louder than actions" or "because I say so".— CD75
- Is Barack the Clown dumb, or just a clown? Last night he said that America invented the automobile. NOT TRUE. Germany did. Duh.— CD75
- Tom, to the best of my knowledge,Fox news doesn't run a print version. Short of the folks on the morning traing, not too many bother with a half pound of newsprint.Let's make an honest comparison.The electronic media is taking the lead - indicated by the amount of time all of us spend fighting here.— JimR
- It is rather amusing how Obama supporters just gobble up whatever he says without question. Telling you he's going to spend lots of money on lots of programs while the defict will be reduced is akin to believing that unicorns exist. The minions have thrown their own free thought out the window and support this guy in almost cult like trance fashion.
- Swede, you babble. You distort the truth. The truth is, with Bush in office the DOW climbed to over 12,000 but was below 8,000 by the time he left office. You seem to want to blame Obama for this drop, when, in fact, it was the policies of the Republicans that caused it; and, until Obama's plans have a chance to come to fruition, how can it be Obama's fault that the market is down? But, actually, compared to the free fall of Bush's last year in office, if you look at it objectively, it is stabilizing. Reagan's chief financial advisor, whose name escapes me, said that this ecomony is going to take 2-3 years to rebound. You expect it should have happened when Obama took office? Now who is making Obama seem godlike? Not me...not marge...no, you and those like you expected great things immediately. No wonder you are disappointed. He is just a man that was handed a country in complete chaos, who is forced to continue some failed policies (Iraq for example)because the previous administration messed up so bad. No one but Republicans, and their wish to see Obama fail (and in turn the country fail) expected this country to turn around in a month. No, responsible people (read Democrats) knew this would take much more time because Bush screwed this country so righteously.— Master Dreamz
- Conse Pub checking in here. That was a wonderful speech. I thought Pelosi was going to lose her britches she was getting so excited about spending money. He described an incredibly ambitious agenda. I think we can all agree free education is great, universal health care is great. Frankly though I think the "green" energy stuff is pretty stupid. I wish he would have explained honestly though how he intends to pay for it.— jwad56
- MasterDreamz- But 5 million jobs were created under President Bush up until 2008. Unemployment was 5% in 2008. Democrats have controlled congress since 2006. Every day Obama talked down the economy when things were good. The media helped because they wanted to get a democrat elected. Every Republican effort to reign in Fannie and Freddie was thwarted by Democrats. Try to remember we only ever had small majorities so to get things done there had to be bipartisan support( like the vote on Iraq). By destroying consumer sentiment your party got the economy it needed to win election. But what I can't get over is that the Dow has not reacted very well to hope and change. Losing 2000 points since Election night. Obama lacks a clear pro business agenda that will get the economy moving again. Providing unemployment extensions helps people buy the necessities but it doesn't create a job. It comes down to the question if you want to just provide the necessities to people and put them in perpetual dependence or do you want them to prosper and be able to find a good paying job in the private sector. Without a pro business policy I fear we'll never get out of this recession
- Mike, where do these good paying jobs come from? When people cannot afford to by necessities that other people make, wont then those other people lose their jobs? You point out how many jobs Bush created, but in the first 4 years, Bush was the only president of the last 50 years not to have created any jobs. How can you blame Obama for the downward trend of the DOW before and leading up to his swearing in? It also has only dropped 1800 points since Nov. 5th, closing at 9139 (you cannot include nov 4th since no one knew who was going to win when the market closed) The Dow was at 8228.10 when Obama took office which means it has dropped about 900 pts under his watch. What about the other 2,800 points it had already dropped under Bush? Obama's election was not going to stop the market from its previous decline. Your "pro business policy" is what created this mess. How about stepping aside and giving a new policy a shot? Bush had since 2007 to fix this, but no, instead he and his minions said there was no recession, it was all in our heads. The Republicans have yet to put forth an idea to help this situation that has not been the same old same old that got us to where we are today.— Master Dreamz
- Master Dreamz- If government spending were the ticket we be in heaven by now. None of us agreed with Bush's deficit spending. Well targeted tax cuts for business and actual tax payers can help the economy. Bush's liberal ways helped get us here but not it is not the fault of principled conservatism of low taxes and fiscal responsibility. Spending 1.5 trillion in the first month is not only more of Bush's free spendng ways it's taking what Bush did and mulitiplying by 4. Obama kids himself if he thinks he will be allowed to preside over a depression with getting blamed for it politically. It'll get interesting in 6 months.
- Mike, I am not so sure that Obama is spending 4x's the amount that Bush did. Don;t forget Bush did alot of his spending off budget. If a Wall Street exec accounted for spending the way Bush did he'd have been put in jail. Obama was handed a mess from the miserable presidency of George W. Bush - what do you expect him to do ? If tax cuts were really the answer we wouldn't be having this discussion right now !— ModerateMarge
- "Bush's liberal ways helped get us here but not it is not the fault of principled conservatism of low taxes and fiscal responsibility." So Swedes, was it "principled conservatism" that caused huge deficits under total Republican control of Congress prior to 2006. You know when Bush used his veto pen ZERO times. It's really easy for Republicans to curb spending when they have a Democrat President holding the pen, or when they don't have the numbers in Congress like under Reagan. The first time in recent history when Republican had total control they spent like powerball winners. These same "principled" Republicans are occupying Washington- Lord knows not many new ones have emerged from elections.— pagoda
- swede--why is it more beneficial to give tax cuts to "real tax payers" than to nontaxpayers? i don't get that. The so-called nontaxpayer (an insult since a lot of these people may pay a higher tax rate than you) is just as likely to use the money to expand his business as the taxpayer. There are millions of small businesses started and expanded by recent immigrants and others who start out at a very low income level. you're not making any sense here.— liberal
- I wonder with the rash of GOP retirements if the GOP will keep their seats in 2010 ? If the GOP's performance so far is any indication I wouldn't think so. There has been nothing offered as a choice to Obama's plan. Obama is doing alot more than voting present - he is trying to deal with the issues of the day presented to him in the messiest possible way due to Bush's poor office performance.— ModerateMarge
Comment removed.- One last point here SWmike, it isnt just spending for spending sake, a la Bush, it is spending with a purpose, something Bush never seemed to have, unless it was lying. Your solution would be to leave things the way they are, offer no help to anyone or any business. That isnt a plan, that is hiding your head in the sand until the storm, hopefully, clears.— Master Dreamz
I love the Ditto heads that complain about partisanship - what isn't Fox news broadcasting something now that you can watch? Or is reading RNC press releases verbatim not partisan enough for you - unbelievable. The true moderates are rooting for the new administration - not calling them commies and uh it looks like your talking point predictions were wrong. Do the republicans have any new ideas or not - 8 years of the same old, same old have left the whole country in quite a mess - yea status quo.
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: