The tough old bird
A radio show on the likely Specter-Sestak race
The tough old bird
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
I can't speak for other scribes, but I've always found talking (and talking and talking) to be far easier than writing. So I suppose that today I've taken the easy way out, by focusing on my gig as a guest on Philadelphia NPR.
For an hour this morning on "Radio Times," we kicked around the impending Pennsylvania Senate Democratic race, which is shaping up as a big national story. Newly-minted Democrat Arlen Specter, the tough old bird who could probably survive a nuclear blast by opening his umbrella, is likely to be challenged for the 2010 nomination by upstart Democratic congressman Joe Sestak, the tough ex-Navy rear admiral who seems blithely unconcerned that the entire party establishment has already marked him as roadkill.
Sestak wants to challenge Specter from the left, by reminding liberal primary voters that Specter, before switching sides in order to maximize his survival options, actually voted with George W. Bush 80 percent of the time. Sestak, again this week, reiterated his intention to run (although he has invoked the "family" loophole, suggesting that if he backs down in the end, it's only because his family insists.) And Specter appears to be taking the threat seriously; he's not just holding fundraisers, he even asked for money the other day at a health policy conference of medical equipment suppliers.
Anyway, during the radio show, I asked my fellow guest - Chris Borick, director of the Institute of Public Opinion at Muhlenberg College - whether he agreed with my theory that a contested primary, while potentially divisive for the Democrats, would actually benefit the Obama legislative agenda, because Sestak would force Specter to lean leftward on crucial Senate votes and thus ratchet up his displays of newfound Democratic loyalty. (And tacking leftward in the primary wouldn't torpedo Specter's general election prospects - or Sestak's prospects, for that matter - because the Obama agenda is broadly popular in Pennsylvania, and because likely Republican candidate Pat Toomey is too conservative for the blue-trending electorate anyway.)
Borick did agree with my theory, but only up to a point. He believes that Sestak would help Obama and the Democrats "keep a leash" on Specter through the election season - but not beyond. He said that if Specter survives a primary, and beats a Republican challenger in November '10, he would return to the Senate as an 80-year-old independent player, freer than ever to confound his new Democratic allies, for years. True that. And besides, as I noted later, the guy is going to live forever.
The audio of the show is archived here.
Comments (97)
I'm pulling for Sestak on this one. More than anything, Specter wants to survive. I would be so great for this switch to blow up in his face.— jmc
Arlen must be stopped!
jmc - I agree with every word you wrote. and this: See. This is what we end up with in the Senate when un-educated sheep are allowed in to a voting booth: “Sen. Jim Inhofe said today that President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo was “un-American” because he referred to the war in Iraq as “a war of choice” and didn’t criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program.Inhofe, R-Tulsa, also criticized the president for suggesting that torture was conducted at the military prison in Guantanamo, saying, “There has never been a documented case of torture at Guantanamo.”“I just don’t know whose side he’s on,” Inhofe said of the president. “ Seriously?! How is this man still a sitting Senator? Thank you Oklahoma. This is what PA will end up with if Specter gets past the Primary.— GoldenPickel
Comment removed.- I like the clear evidence of Polman bias - the further left the better, in his view.— CD75
- I also like the omission by Polman that if Specter is pulled too far left, he makes himself even more unelectable in the general election.— CD75
- So for Dickie pulling to the left is a good thing; pulling to the right is a bad thing.— CD75
- 9.4% Unemployment. Good Job Obama. Four months ago, Obama said if the stimulus (sic, err porkulus) was not passed, the unemployment rate would be 8.8% IN JANUARY 2010!. Obviously, Obama's economic policies are not working.— CD75
- Comment removed.
- Hey Dick and all you neo-libs, I would not expect you to be fair, but did you see that Pelosi's approval rating (34%) is less than Cheney's (37%)? It is true according to Gallup. Perhaps America is not as "left" as you think!— CD75
- It's hilarious that everybody's dream politician, someone who votes for his principles instead of his party, is reviled by both sides.— SteveMG
Right on Golden. Inhofe is also the last senator who doesn't believe in global warming. Inhofe is the best example but there's a whole lot more of them; as a matter of fact, PA voted one out in '06.— wokmaster- Admittedly off topic, but did anybody notice the weather data at the top of the page: "Severe Weather - Light Rain 59 degrees— SteveMG
- SteveMg--you apparently don't understand that for the political blogging/talk radio fan, "principle" means sticking to the same ideas, however idiotic they are shown to be, forever. The intellect and reality on the ground play no part in this type of principle.— liberal
- Regardless of who wins, Specter, Sestak, Toomey, anybody. Who is going to stop this unitarian president and all the power he is amassing in the executive branch. With the appointment of a "pay czar", Obama will now have 21 czars who report to him without any Congressional approval or oversight. There are 280 National Security staff in the White House, compared to 40 under Reagan. Why is there no outcry from the media? Polman constantly called Bush a unitarian, where is thes scrutiny of Obama. As for Specter/Sestak, Arlen will probably run as an Indy if he loses a primary. Either way, this bodes well for Toomey and the Republicans, for Sestak will never win a statewide race....too liberal for the middle and western part of the state.— tom - wilmington, de
- Right-wing Pelosi fans: You seem to forget that for most of us democrats, Pelosi is not our Congressperson. We can't do anything about her and for the most part we don't care what she does, as long as she doesn't vote with the republicans.— liberal
- Arlen can't run as an Indy if he loses primary. Also don't be surprised if Sestak moves toward the center after winning the primary. Toomey will have a hard time beating a military veteran. Unitary powers seem to ring a bell for me, hmmm, was that a previous administration's m.o.?— pagoda
- I interested to hear from the neococonuts as to Newtie's apology for calling Sotomayer a racist. Is this whimp really think he can be POTUS? lol— chasing history
- Pagoda...exactly my point. Bush was criticized for being a unitarian president and bypassing Congress, yet nothing is said about all the czars who happen to by-pass both Congressional approval (no advise and consent) and Congressional oversight. Isn't that a power grab, and the definition of being a unitarian president? Is it okay for OBama but it was not for Bush? Are you saying "since Bush did it so can Obama? I would hope not, for that is a weak argument.— tom - wilmington, de
- Newt's words: "My initial reaction was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice. With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word “racist” should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted). So it is to her words -- the ones quoted above and others -- to which we should turn, for they show that the issue here is not racial identity politics. Sotomayor’s words reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law." I would hardly consider that an apology.— tom - wilmington, de
- Is it okay for OBama but it was not for Bush? Are you saying "since Bush did it so can Obama? I would hope not, for that is a weak argument.....conversely, if you are so outraged over Obama's actions, why did you keep silent when Bush did it. Stop trying to have it both ways, as usual.— chasing history
- chasing...I did not consider Bush to be a unitarian president, but my complaint is more with those who criticized Bush but are silent on the power grabs of Obama. As far as I can tell, Bush did not want the gov't to run the auto industry, did not want the gov't to own a bank, did not order changes to executive compensation in private industry, did not unilaterally change NAFTA (for which Mexican truckers are now suing the US for $6 Billion), and did not appoint more than 20 czars to bypass Congress. So my question is easy, is this what you voted for with Obama? You cannot also have it both ways, criticize Bush for what you perceived as a power grab by the Executive Branch, but be acquiscient when it actually happens by the guy whom you supported.— tom - wilmington, de
- My fault Tom, I misread your post. I guess maybe the unitarian argument has more teeth when you don't like the President's policies. Or more importantly, don't trust the President. Congress is a mess, so I'm not sure the term Congressional Oversight carries much weight. This is why winning Presidential elections is getting more important. There was a time where the President was seen more as a cheerleader. Since I trust Obama, at least for now, I am hopeful the Best and the Brightest advisors will move us out of the deep dark scary places the previous administration all too often frequented. So yes, it's a power grab and I'm along for the ride, Congress be dam*ed.— pagoda
- You cannot also have it both ways, criticize Bush for what you perceived as a power grab by the Executive Branch, but be acquiscient when it actually happens by the guy whom you supported.....Even though I didn't vote for Bush in '00, I wasn't critical of him until his decision to go to war in Iraq. Everything since '03 was a complete disaster for Bush. I'm willing to give Obama at least a year before I determine if his policies are effective or not.— chasing history
- chasing - we currently have a wimp as POTUS, what would preclude another?— Joe Funk
- "I am hopeful the Best and the Brightest advisors will move us out of the deep dark scary places the previous administration all too often frequented. So yes, it's a power grab and I'm along for the ride, Congress be dam*ed." Pagoda, I disagree and just don't see any objective evidence to support the Chicago-machine style politics that now reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And those "best and brightest" advisers are pretty much all academic theoreticians who have never spent a day in the real world. The cover title in this week's Economist (hardly a right-wing publication) is spot-on: "Detroitasaurus Wrecks."— Vandy
- Funky Joe, Wimp? As opposed to the previous POTUS, member of the Yale cheerleading squad, who sat for how many minutes like a deer caught in headlights while 9/11 was occuring and then disapeared for 2 days until he knew he would be safe?— PA_Dutch
- Comment removed.
- LJL....from where did you get those poll results?— tom - wilmington, de
- tom: "czars" are advisors. They have no power. They can spend no money on their own. They can implement no policy. No power whatsoever is being "grabbed" by Obama by having them. ... Warrantless surveillance. Enemy non-combatant declarations of US citizens. Claiming the VP's office was not part of the executive branch to avoid oversight (then declatring executive privelege at other times). Abuse of signing statements. etc., etc.— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- still_independent, so Steven Rattner, who got the GM CEO to step down, cut Chrysler's advertising budget in half, and structured the bankruptcies has no power? Carol Browner, appointed as Climate/Energy Czar, who is to act as an overseer of the EPA, energy and climate entities, has no power? Then there are czars in the office of health and urban affairs. The "pay czar" will be in charge of setting and seeing that firms adhere to the government caps on executive compensation...surely though, he will have no power. As Robert Byrd stated about the czars...“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability." His fear is that since they had no reporting requirement to Congress, they could shield information using executive privilege...and he is right. Bush as assailed for this, but Obama is carrying it to new heights. For instance, his economic recovery advisory board has had meetings out of public scrutiny, and has no Congressional oversight, yet the media is silent. Surely if this was wrong for Cheney and his energy meeting, it is wrong for meetings on the economic recovery, right? And I have not seen where Obama stopped any items still_independent mentioned...so not only is he keeping Bush's "unitarian" policies, he is starting many of his own. Yet like Lemmings off the cliff, his supporters and the media just follow along.— tom - wilmington, de
- PA_Dutch - OK, so it would be 3 in a row. Wasn't a big fan of him disappearing but slamming him for the timing of the school visit is lame. Whisking him away from a classroom would have been a Terrorist TV classic for years. Does deer in the headlights = teleprompter?— Joe Funk
- Unemployment is up to 9.4%. Doesn't seem like the stimulus plan is working.
- Anyone know how much will be compensating the " pay czar " for his services? And just who will decide what is the right compensation for the " pay czar "? Perhaps we should appoint a czar to oversee the czars. At what point will this spending silliness stop. I also heard the Michell and the girls will be flying to Paris to meet up with Barack. I wonder what that trip will cost the taxpayers. Sigh...............
- Anyone know how much we are paying these czars? The " compensation czar " takes the cake. Will they be appointing czars to oversee the czars? When will this nonsense stop?
- FROM FOX NEWS: Last month's job figures were fewest monthly job losses since September and nearly half what was lost in December and January. It could be a sign that the bulk of U.S. companies have done their cost cutting already this year, and job losses could be slowing looking ahead. I guess Bush wasn't so bad for the economy afterall.— pagoda
- Forgot quotes at end of FOX piece. I said, "I guess Bush wasn't so bad for the economy afterall."— pagoda
- The federal government won the New Jersey pick 6 lotter last night. The Cash value was 14.8 million. Barack Obama's regime won 6.6 million of that. Imagine if you won every lottery, got 36% of every signing bonus from every NFL player yet you were always in debt. Only in the good ole USA can that happen.
- Pagoda- I don't know how you can find a silver lining rising unemployment. I would rather have the 5.5% of the Bush years. Back then you told us those were all just hamburger flipping jobs. LMAO
- Oh I forgot. The Obama regime also confiscated 36% of the 222 million dollar powerball lottery last week too. Maybe that's how they are paying for Michelle and the kids to fly to Paris.
- swede...and let's not forget that, like was mentioned all during the Bush years, that figure does not include those people who have stopped receiving unemployment or stopped looking for a job because they gave up on finding one. It is probably even higher than 9.4%.— tom - wilmington, de
- Reports are also that the powerless car czar and his task force are responsible for telling Chrysler which dealerships to close. But they are just figureheads, with no real power. Right.— tom - wilmington, de
- Tom from Wilm. De- I am sure those dealership owners who did not make a campaign contribution to Obama were done no favors by the " car czar"
- Teachable moment here. You libs try and keep up. A pay czar probably earns $ 100,000 per year. The pay czar in turn decides an exective making 2 million a year should only earn $ 400,000. Between the money paid to the czar and the lower available money to the tax the loss to the treasury is $ 676,000. Only a career bureaucrat could come up with an idea as stupid as this.
- Funky Joe, I'm fascinated by you right-winger's fascination with Obama's adept use of the teleprompter. Did you see Cheney try to read his speech a couple weeks ago. He could barely and only occasionally look up and face the camera. Bush couldnt even read a speech if it had more than 4 words per sentence. As far as general competence, Obama is light years ahead of the last group of baffoons.— PA_Dutch
- Pa Dutch- We are fascinated by how liberals go " ga-ga " over friggin teleprompter speech.
- Smike, Just a friendly word of advice: Remember we're not all ditto-heads here, so before you get on your high horse and start talking down to us liberasl, regurgitating the Drugsters daily talking points you might want to think it through. I'll assume you can subtract the 400K from 2 mill.. Where did that 1.6 mill go? Lost forever? And remember, if the govt doesnt bail out that company, the exec doesnt even get the 400K.— PA_Dutch
- Thanks Smike, I can't speak for all liberals; Can't say I go "ga-ga", but I am pleased that my current President is not the embarrassment the last one was. Thanks for reminding me what an inspiring public speaker he is. Have a nice day.— PA_Dutch
- SWMike - For the record, I like President Obama too. Way more than his predecessor, Alfred E. Neumann (what, me worry?). I can't begin to count the reasons, there are so many. You better slow down on your whining, and pace yourself. You only have 7.75 years to go before President Obama leaves office.— johngilb
- Pa Dutch- I knew you could not keep up. 36% tax braclet would apply on a 2 milion salary meaning $ 720,000 in federal tax revenue but if you hire a guy called a czar and pay him to tell the guy making 2 million that he now makes $ 400,000 the taxes revenue declines to $ 144,000 then add to that the money you are paying a " compensation czar" and the resulting lost in tax revenue is $ 676,000. Now perhaps a liberal living off the backs of those of us work cannot understand but it doesn't take a genious to see how idiotic it is for the federal government to be involved in setting compenstion for private sector jobs.
- johngilb- How are liking that 9.4% unemployment that the Stimulus bill got us? Are you liking that as much as you are liking Obama? You got thrills running up your leg?
- Smike, You're kidding right? Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion and pay everyone 2 million per year, Let's make it the minimum wage and while we're at it bump up that tax bracket to 50%. You really think the Federal tax from 2 individuals is the issue? The point you're missing is we come in and bail out the company. Now we want that company to succeed. Paying obscene salaries can be counterproductive. Don't tell me 2 mill needs to be paid to the ceo whose company needed bailing out. He should work for a buck and stock options.— PA_Dutch
- Pa Dutch- It's penny safe and pound foolish. While maybe it makes for good press conferences it is utterly stupid from a dollars standpoint. It is also very hypocritical to feign outrage over executive pay while Barack is flying Michelle and the kids to Paris this weekend at taxpayer expense.
- Pa Dutch- Another point here is that people who have bankrupt the nation should not be casting dispersions and judgements on the companies they are choosing to bail out. I am outraged that a nation 12 trillion in debt would be flying Michelle and the kids to Paris for the weekend. I am outraged that a nation 12 trillion in debt would be hiring Czars. Mr Obama you were elected to be President now go and do your job instead of hiring czars to do it for you.
- SMike, I'm sure we disagree on who has bankrupt the nation. The fact is Obama inherited a mess. Things were good when Bush took over but now they're a mess. It's going to cost money for Obama to travel the world and try to undo some damage. I don't begrudge him taking his family. Obama's representing the United States of America. Who's that CEO representing if he was pulling down 2 mill while his company was going down?— PA_Dutch
- "The point you're missing is we come in and bail out the company." Not missing that point, PA, just disagreeing with it immensely. "Studebaker, Nash-Kelvinator, Packard, Hudson, Stutz, Pierce-Arrow, Stanley, Checker and American Motors were once household names of the U.S. auto industry. Unlike General Motors in our time, they were not too big to fail. Despite mergers and rescue efforts by their owners, each was shut down. Their legacy lives on as classic cars, restored with erotic affection by collectors. GM's end is different. In the spirit of the new age, General Motors, like Citigroup and AIG, will be kept alive in an industrial coma. One has to ask: Is this where the entire country is headed? Since January, it looks like it is. So far Mr. Obama has used his personally exciting presidency for initiatives that are spending public money on a scale not seen since ancient Egypt. Besides Obama Motors ($60 billion to $100 billion), there is Obama-Care for health insurance ($1.2 trillion over 10 years), the stimulus ($800 billion), a global-warming offensive called cap and trade that hopes to siphon hundreds of billions of dollars from the economy, and a fiscal year 2010 budget of $3.59 trillion. Out of these mists of federal "investment" they promise five million "green collar jobs." Only public-sector lifers could believe, or assert, anything so fantastic. Then there is the never-ending march of the financial-rescue armies -- TARP, TALF, PIPP, EESA. The Federal Reserve's balance sheet stands at some $2 trillion and growing. Last week Treasury floated the possibility of a single financial regulator for the entire banking system. All this is the Obama government's idea of innovation. It is all public sector because all any of them know is public sector. Without exception, the Obama people with responsibility for the private economy come from a lifetime in politics, public administration or academia." http://online.wsj.com/article/wonder_land.html— Vandy
- "Things were good when Bush took over but now they're a mess." The country was in actually in a mild recession when Bush took office in early 2001, which started in late 2000.— Vandy
- Pa Dutch- It is a myth that Clinton ever ran a surplus. He grew the Federal debt by 1.2 trillion and never ran a surplus in any year and was looking the other way while the gathering threat of Al Qaeda was plotting 9-11. If want to talk about inheriting a mess look at the hand Bush was dealt. Look at the double digit unemployment, interest rates, and inflation rates that Carter handed off to Reagan.
- then the MBA president and his rubber stamp congress turned the mild recession and turned it into to the biggest depression since the great depression in 8 short years.— PA_Dutch
- Dutch- come on now. After 9-11 we had a 6 year economic exansion. Over 5 million jobs were created. Unemployment dipped as low as 4.9% But we had a lending frenzy fueled by the Community Reinvestment Act and Human greed that brought it all down. Some common sense and low cost regulation could have spared it all from happening.
- Change in the National Debt, as a yearly percentage of GDP. Sorted Best-to-Worst. D:Clinton -0.76 (reduced the debt) D:Carter -0.70 (reduced the debt) R:Ford 0.20 (no change) R:Bush II 0.90 (increased the debt) R:Reagan 2.31 (increased the debt) R:Bush I 3.05 (increased the debt)— PA_Dutch
- "D:Carter -0.70 (reduced the debt)" Inflation was fun, though! Let's see, a recession at the end of the Carter presidency, a recession at the end of the Clinton presidency, a recession at the end of the Bush presidency...does it even matter who's in office?— Vandy
- Dutch- Here is a link to the historical debt. Clinton grew the debt by 1.2 trillion. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
- Median household income fell an average of 1.15 percent per year under Bush. It rose an average of 1.65 percent per year under Clinton— PA_Dutch
- Swedesboro, Those debt numbers don't look too good for your side. Fortunately for you they only go up to 99.— PA_Dutch
- Dutch- Household income has risen steadily. Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
- "Those debt numbers don't look too good for your side. Fortunately for you they only go up to 99." I haven't seen the charts, but I'd pose a question. You're focusing on the President when it's actually Congress that creates legislation. What do the numbers look like when a Democratic president is confronted with a Republican congress instead of a Democratic congress? (For instance, how do Clinton's first two years compare to his last six?) And how do they look now with the Obama/Pelosi Democratic double team?— Vandy
- Pa_Dutch - 1. am liking the Funky Joe, may switch to it if this handle ever gets sent to the penalty box. 2 - Obama has one truly exceptional gift and that is oration. That he needs a crutch to manifest it is funny, in a OMG 3 years left (actually 3 years way left) kind of way.— Joe Funk
- Dutch- Here is a link that shows the debt through 2008. You are right Bush was a big spender. He added to the bloated government by creating prescription drug care and the office of Homeland Security. Bush was a big liberal on many things. If he had " D " in front of his name you guys would have loved him. I liked Bush for his resolve on getting to the root of the problems in the Middle East and for cutting taxes. But his spending was atrocious. At the pace Obama is going, he's gonna make Bush look fiscally resonsible..... But anyway he is the link to the Federal Debt. No modern president ever ran a surplus. To say Clinton ran a suplus is to give credence to Arthur Anderson style accounting.......http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
- Swmike, from your link "Overall, the median household income rose from $33,338 in 1967 to an all-time high of $44,922 in 1999, and has since decreased slightly to $43,318"— PA_Dutch
- LJL - I would be more impressed if Obama (or any Democrat) had tried to rein in Israel before they switched their campign financing from the American branch of Bank Israel to the China Savings and Loan. Peking got a bargain buying this administration.— Joe Funk
- Dutch- put your reading glasses on and go back and check again. In 2007 the household income has risen to $50,233. You claim it was at at an all time high in 1999 at $44,922.
- Obama has killed more in Pakistan, since taking office than last 5 years. Oh, he kills woman and children though, not those with guns. Even WHHY is carrying this. "The UN Human Rights Council has issued a report blasting the US for killing civilians, violating human rights and creating a “zone of impunity” for unaccountable private contractors to fight its wars. The UN group also criticized the US use of drones to attack Pakistan. The report, released this week was authored by Philip Alston, the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. “First, the government has failed to track and make public the number of civilian casualties, or the conditions under which deaths occurred,” he said. “Second, the military justice system fails to provide ordinary people, including U.S. citizens and families of Iraqi and Afghan victims, basic information on the status of investigations into civilian casualties or prosecutions resulting therefrom."— Fisher
- I think what the liberals have to realize is that this isn't the 1990's and Clinton is not president. We've got debt that will rise to 97% of GDP in 2010. High Unemployment and rising entitlement oblibations are the storm clouds that spell an even larger financial mess that no amount of media bias can spin it in Obama's favor. I doubt Obama will get re-elected. Eventually this act is going to get tiresome.
- CD - Please let me and others know just what part of this crisis President Bush and his GOP coherts in Congress own. Do this keeping in mind that GOP bankers blamed the President's economic policy (borrowing to pay for Iraq among other things) for this economic crisis. As far as Senator Specter - he speaks and votes for the state not a particular party. We need more Arlens less GOP sheeple.— ModerateMarge
- Mike, Your GOP talking points are getting old. We may take almost Obama's full term to start getting out of the malaise caused by the miserable presidency of George W. Bush. When GOP bankers Thain and Dimon blame BUSH'S fiscal policies for the many problems in the economy it seems lacking in intelligence to just blame Obama. Perhaps a big reason the GOP is out of power is that we have tried their policies and they have failed !— ModerateMarge
- John Kerry is a tax cheat too. The IRS had filed a $800,000 tax lien against him. Do any demoncrats pay taxes?— CD75
- Might as well add both George Bush's to your list of tax cheats if the filing of a tax lien equates to tax cheats. But I ask - what does that have to do with anything ?— ModerateMarge
- Marge: Where are these GOP Bankers? If we are going by campaign donations the fact is that many of the executives of the firms receiving tarp funds were Obama donars. The zeal to lend to people of limited ability to pay back loans was a major pillar of liberal policy. I guess you can spin it however you want but Obamanomics will be catastrophic. Since you use the word moderate as your screen name I would have thought you could get beyone the political spin. This is the Obama presidency now. It has been for going on 6 months. The excuses is what is getting old.— ModerateMike
- Marge: I think what you ignore is that the Democrats have controlled congress since Jan. of 2007 yet you find no blame for these career politicians. No blame for Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? hnnnmmm?— ModerateMike
- Sestak lied about his record and his positions to get elected. He is far more liberal than his district and running for the senate is not the same. There are alot of democrats out there that thing this is a contest between two men who have no understanding of morals. Let them fight it out to demonstrate their liberal purity.— dutchman
- George Bush was the first president who did not raise taxes to pay for wars while they were happening. This has never been done before in the history of this nation. He borrowed the $$$ from the Chinese and others which does not make us safer and more secure. Even GOP bankers JOHN THAIN and DIMON blame that policy for the severity of the economic crisis. As far as the mortgage meltdown - do you think the GOP led repeal of Glass Stengel was wise ???? There is blame on the Democratic side of the aisle as well - but these disasters happened on GEORGE BUSH'S watch with GOP Controlled congress for all but 2 yrs. GOP congress did not handle their oversight of Bush well at all becoming more rubberstamps than anything. And this Cheney tour today is becoming old fast. As far as the memos go - if there were any which conclusively proved his contention that torture worked don't you think they would have been released while Bush was leader ??? For the problems Obama came in with - they are being dealt with which is alot more than I can say about Bush's dealings with terrorism. I am reassured we will have Obama protecting us for over 7 1/2 more years !!1 Throw down the talking points for a moment and HONESTLY debate.— ModerateMarge
- Marge-Democrats are running the show. They have been for some time. Yet unemployment is rising not declining. What is the excuse? Debt from china you say. Well OK Obama has increased the federal debt by almost 2 trillion in 6 months.. You've got quite an ax to grind with your Republican countrymen to the point that facts don't even matter. For Example it was President Clinton who repealed Glass Steagal.— ModerateMike
- There's no point in focusing on daily upticks and downslides of the economy to analyze policy. You've got to look at the long range to see where the real problems lie. Many of them have little to do with partisan politics, but my view is that the republicans have not been good stewards, especially since Reagan. The national debt, as a percentage of GDP, declined up to 1980, then started upward. During most of that time, republicans were in power. Median income in the US rose sharply after WWII, and then started stagnating in the 1970s and has not yet recovered. Same thing, mostly republican stewardship. In fact, republican ideology holds that median income is not an imprtant economic issue. Finally, the US industrial, transportation, and other infrastructure was massively improved through the 1960s and has declined since then, reaching a crisis point in some sectors--see current article in The Economist. What is the Republican program to turn this around? I haven't heard anything, except the same old idiotic mantra "government is the problem."— liberal
- Mike - Presidents don't make the law the Congress does. The President signs the law. It was Phil Gramm's signature issue about Glass Stegel repeal. GOP advocated repeal of regs then shamefully try and place TOTAL blame for the financial meltdown at the Democrats door. Do facts even matter to you ??— ModerateMarge
- right down to it www.thegreenpapers.com the canidates election results guess who won!— LISAJACKSON
- Sestak wins this one. Specter's days are done. He has no clout with Democrats. He can't count on Independents. He doesn't even know who he is anymore. Sestak has disadvantages in funds and recognition, but he'll be able to overcome them in the campaign. Specter is tired. He's about to be history. Rendell will have backed another loser. And for no good reason, too.— Djoko Pritza
- “Daniel James Murray was arrested Friday outside a casino in Laughlin, Nev., charged with threats against Obama. Murray was described by former neighbors as troubled but not dangerous, known for strolling down a street wearing a cape while talking to himself. ‘He's sick. He's been sick for about 10 years,’ his father, said.” Sounds like the rightie posters on this site, especially CD— Djoko Pritza
- Comment removed.
- Liberal, you can spin it anyway you want, but you know all fiscal legislation originates in the House. Democrats have controlled that for all but 12 of the past 39 years, so how is that under Republican stewardship? As for the Senate, Democrats have controlled that for the majority of the past 39 years, and when they did not control it, they did have a filibuster proof minority. So where were they during all of this Republican spending? Sure, Bush spent wildly, too wildly for my taste. However, how many Democrats voted for that war of choice? How many continued to approve the funding, even after they got control of Congress? ModerateMarge forgets about the recession Bush43 inherited...sure, it "officially began in March, 2001, but how can Bush be blamed for that after being in office for 2 months when they want to negate any blame for Obama in 2009? Truth is we were told without the stimulus bill, unemployment would rise to 9%. The stimulus was passed, and unemployment is 9.4%. Obama has nationalized Chrysler, and in the process hurt Teacher and other Pension funds of ordinary people (see Indiana Teachers Assoc). Obama has nationalized GM, and in the same process hurt a lot of ordinary folks and other pension funds. We have a massive health care entitlement coming, and he backtracked on his belief that taxing health benefits is radical and the largest tax increase on the middle class in our history. In fact, during the campaign, Obama said that taxing health benefits would cause many corp's to stop offering them and put those people on the gov't plan, increasing costs and deficits. Now he is in favor of it? What gives?— tom - wilmington, de
- Mike - And a teachable moment for you as well. When you reduce Federal taxes by reducing state and local grants and DO NOT ELIMINATE the programs paid for with those grants - your state and local taxes increase. The Bush tax cuts were bogus for all but the wealthiest ! And as far as not blaming Clinton for the Bush recession - there was fault with some of the laws he signed. However the answer for this was not to raid the treasury to the extent that Bush did to hell with the average taxpayers. It comes down to a question of fairness - during the Bush years the average taxpayer was hosed !— ModerateMarge
- Hey Marge...please give the Gramm/Leach/Bliley act a rest, huh? Truth be told, the final version of the repeal of Glass/Steagall 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House. So you can see, the Democrats did not really put up much of a fight against the act. One reason was because the Republicans promised to strengthen the Community Reinvestment Act by toughening the provisions against red-lining. Also, one of the things in the act prevents any merger unless a financial institutions exceeded a certain score under its most recent CRA exam. This lead, as Maxine Waters was so proud at one time to mention, to 100% financing, desk top underwriting, and no doc and NINA loans. So please get off the Gramm/Leach bandwagon...it was not the Republican destroyer of the economy you believe it to be.— tom - wilmington, de
- Now, back in the real world, it is nice that Obama has backtracked and seems to have accepted Iran will get nukes. Note from his Cairo speech..."No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons." I had no idea that is what we were doing in opposing Iran and North Korea from acquiring nukes. Also, nice to see he thinks Iran can have nuclear energy, and we can sell that technology to the UAE, but here in the states it is windmills and solar panels...no nuclear energy for us. So sirree bob. As for Israel and the Palestinians, does everyone forget history? Wasn't the original founding of Israel based on UN Resolution 181, which separate British Palestine between Israel and Palestinians? Didn't all of the Arab states reject this proposition then as they do now? After this was recognized by the US, Russia, and many other nations, didn't 4 Arab nations (Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria) invade the Israeli side and get their butts kicked? Isreal has given back "land for peace" and ended up with Hamas firing rockets at them on a daily basis. What makes anybody think giving up more land is going to lead to a peace initiative?— tom - wilmington, de
- I think Obama was correct in telling the press he did not snub Sarkozy. After all, as he noted, he had a hectic schedule and with all the state of the economy back home, he could not be depicted as being too leisurely. He did not have the time for dinner with Sarkozy, too much other stuff to do. Meanwhile, he fit in some time for sightseeing with his daughters and took Michelle to a 'date night" dinner at the base of the Eiffel Tower. Nice to see he had such a hectic schedule. Thank you, President Obama, for bringing back our standing in the eyes of our European allies, like Germany and France. You clearly have a better relationship with Merkel and Sarkozy than your predecessor. This is evident by all the extra support you received for the war in Afghanistan, stimulus for the worldwide economy, and their taking of detainees from GITMO. Thank you for showing what true leadership and diplomacy are.— tom - wilmington, de
- Comment removed.
- tom: you are, as usual, living up to the half-truth moniker. I'll address Rattner first. HE didn't cut Chrysler's advertising budget in half. First of all, he can't Rattner heads Obama's auto industry task force. Other members include Treasury Secretary, National Economic Council Director, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, etc. He officially is the liaison between Treasury Department Secretary Tim Geither and Obama’s 10-person advisory board. Does he wield influence through the advice the advisors give? Absolutely. Can he execute policy? Absolutely NOT. And as an aside, complete the sentence. They cut Chryslers advertising budget in half .... during the 9 weeks of bankruptcy. Now I'll point out your inconsistencies, and where Obama IS being more transparent than Bush. Remember the president's task force on energy policy headed by Dick Cheney? The public was not allowed to even know who was on the task force, who they talked to, and who was represented. They even went so far as to classify white house visitor logs. Obama (and yes, I'd like some oversight) at least publishes who's on what advisory panel, when there meeting are, etc.— still_independent
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: