"GOP plans wave of White House probes"

[Pirate Smile]

GOP plans wave of White House probes]

If President Barack Obama needed any more incentive to go all out for Democrats this fall, here it is: Republicans are planning a wave of committee investigations targeting the White House and Democratic allies if they win back the majority.
Everything from the microscopic – the New Black Panther party – to the massive –- think bailouts – is on the GOP to-do list, according to a half-dozen Republican aides interviewed by POLITICO.

-snip-
And a handful of aggressive would-be committee chairmen – led by Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) – are quietly gearing up for a possible season of subpoenas not seen since the Clinton wars of the late 1990s.
Issa would like Obama’s cooperation, says Kurt Bardella, spokesman for the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. But it’s not essential.

“How acrimonious things get really depend on how willing the administration is in accepting our findings responding to our questions,” adds Bardella, who refers to his boss as “Questioner-in-Chief.’
That’s feeding anxieties within the West Wing – even if administration officials won’t admit it publicly.

“I actually think it will be even worse than what happened to Bill Clinton, because of the animosity they already feel for President Obama,” says Lanny Davis, a deputy White House counsel who lived through Clinton’s trials.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41506.html#ixzz0xoAhPF1X

[Lint Head]

1. I'm ready to march on Washington if this happens.

[CTLawGuy]

3. I would suggest

marching to the polls this November with 1000s of other progressive Democrats to make sure this won't happen.

[Blaq Dem]

66. It's only been 2 years since Obama been president...

Cut Obama some slack. It's only been 2 years and some of you are already giving up on the man. Change can't happen overnight. It will take many years to undo the damage the Bush and republicans have done to this nation. If you're so dissatisfied now and decide not to participate this November, imagine how things will be once the GOP takes control. The GOP IS the 'Death Panel.' They have no feelings towards the poor and working class.

Don't give up so soon. Keep on pushing.

[CTLawGuy]

67. I dunno if you were trying to reply to the person above me

but I agree with you :)

[babylonsister]

2. politico is just wild with glee reporting on this, aren't they.

Ugh.

[Ganja Ninja]

4. Hows that bipartisanship working out for you Mr Obama?

:shrug:

[Bitwit1234]

22. That's what a lot of Democrats are asking this

republican leaning president. Who can't for the life of him get it thru his head his republican party hates him.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

31. Obama is NOT Republican or "Republican-leaning"

Obama does NOT "Heart" Republicans. Obama does NOT make decisions based on what Fox News, Glenn Beck, or anybody else among the right wing demands. If Obama liked Republicans as much as some people around here (and elsewhere) act like he does, he'd probably BE a Republican and you can bet that if he was, the Republican Party would be PROUD to have him with them as POTUS and would tout him as a "historic accomplishments". "THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT IS FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!"
Obama's greatest *sins* (as far as I can tell) in regards to the Republican Party, is that he just doesn't have the same blinding rage and hatred towards them as the rest of us (justifiably) do, he seems unwilling to unload his full nuclear arsenal of whoop-a** on them every single opportunity he gets, and he has some Republicans in his cabinet in fairly prominent positions. However, he has been plenty critical of them and has stood up to them on a number of things (and schooled them pretty good at their own conference too!). I would love to see somebody lay out a definitive case that President Obama is a "Republican-leaning" President. He may not be with some people on the Democratic side (ideologically) but that doesn't mean that he is "Republican-leaning" either.

[w4rma]

32. Then why is Obama's administration led by DLCers and Republicans instead of progressives? (nt)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. That would be a problem IF

Obama is/was a progressive. Truth is that he's more of a moderate/left-of-center/DLC-er and ran as one during the 2008 campaign, so it's not all that surprising that members of his administration are as well. You can agree or disagree about how he fundamentally is politically but he did NOT run as a progressive during the 2008 campaign and all of this outrage about some of his actions/appointments is perplexing to say the least. Just because he didn't stack his administration full of progressives doesn't make him a quasi-Republican one either. It WOULD definitely be wierd if somebody like Kucinich, Sanders, et. al became POTUS and decided to appoint a lot of DLC-ers to their cabinet but not so with Obama-who's always had a more moderate record.

[w4rma]

46. He absolutely did *not* run as a DLCer. He would have lost the primary had he done so.

In fact, he specifically told the DLC to remove his name from their list of DLCers.

And if he had run on the right-wing issues, such as fighting against the public option in back rooms, privatizing public education and raising our Social Security retirement age, he is now espousing he would have lost the general election.

These are not popular positions and they will be fought against for years *after* Obama has come and gone. People will not remember him fondly for this.

Another set of normally right wing issues that he is highly disliked for (irregardless of who shares the blame, i.e. Bush/GOP/DLC) is his bailout of the banks and financial institutions and his continued support of 'free' trade over American jobs and the Afghanistan war on the Taliban.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

51. Huh?

Sorry to burst your bubble but there weren't huge significant differences on most issues between Obama, Hillary, and Edwards save for Obama's consistent opposition to the invasion/occupation of Iraq and Obama did NOT run as a progressive so much as he did an "outsider". Read (or better yet, listen to) his "Audacity of Hope." I think that he tells us in the clearest possible terms that he is NOT and ideologue and that he is quite pragmatic in his political philosophy.

I don't know what "right-wing" issues he ran but he has not done nor is doing any of the things that you're claiming he supposedly did either.

President Obama and the Democratic Party certainly excited the progressives during the 2008 election (who DIDN'T want to get rid of Bush?) but he and the Democratic Party did not win a "progressive mandate" despite claims to the contrary. They clearly won a significant amount of votes over McCain/Palin, as well as a lot of formerly "red states" (albeit by slim margins) but he also got a lot of votes from independents and Republicans worried about McCain's selection of Palin for VP but they didn't necessarily fully endorse a progressive agenda. I never expected President Obama to govern as a progressive and I don't believe that he misled anybody during the campaign as to what kind of President he would be.

[w4rma]

58. He only ran as a DLCer if you were paying extremely close attention.

I warned folks that his promises were off kilter (he always seemed to omit the most important aspects of anything), but everyone said he was a progressive who would bring "Change We Can Believe In". Sorry, but he lied. He even put his campaign team on unemployment and brought on DLC losers to help him run his administration.

People voted for him because they thought he wasn't corrupt. The DLC is **at least** as corrupt as the Republican Party. He can't run on being a non-corrupt do-gooder. He can only run on "I'm not as bad as Sarah Palin", now.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

63. I think you're making my point

He didn't run as a progressive and pretty much laid out how he was going to govern if anybody cared to notice. I think that some people read too much into things and built him up in their minds as the next FDR- and then were upset/angry/disappointed when he didn't live up to that image. :shrug:

[w4rma]

70. No. He ran as a progressive to the vast majority of Americans.

Like I said, you had to pay extremely close attention to be aware that he wasn't. He's pissing people off in droves.

You can say (or pretend) that his conscience is clear and he didn't lie, but as far as the vast majority of Americans are concerned, he did lie. People don't like being conned.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

71. I remember things differently

He obviously ran as a progressive as compared to McCain but he expressed some clearly enunciated views during the campaign that have largely been reflected in his governance. I don't know if most Americans feel like they were "conned" but I suspect that a lot of people are more upset and hurting because of the rotten economy that he inherited from Bush II than they are about, say, the lack of a public option in HCR or escalation in Afghanistan. A lot of progressives seem to be upset at him because he apparently hasn't taken a strong enough stand and/or enough action on their particular issue of concern or feel slighted by the administration in some way or another. The real reason(s) I suspect that most of the public is upset at Obama (although he STILL has a higher approval rating than Reagan did at this point in his Presidency- AND with a worse economy- and still has a very high approval rating among Democrats) is because of the economic situation, and, more importantly, the Republican/Fox News/Teabagger "axis of evil" misleading a lot of naive and gullible people into believing somehow that Obama is a Muslim, that Muslims are bad/evil/scary people and that the American public needs THEM to protect them from Bin Laden's brigades infiltrating our towns and cities and building mosques, and, most importantly, feigning hysterical outrage over bailouts that they themselves initiated at the urgent insistence of Bush II (without any strings attached) and the national debt for which they are entirely responsible for causing. :banghead:

Out of curiosity, what exactly are the "vast majority of Americans" saying he lied about exactly???? :shrug:

[Canuckistanian]

53. +1

How many times do you have to be slapped in the face before you get a clue?

They HATE you and want you destroyed.

STOP cooperating and grow a pair.

[DailyGrind51]

61. By not prosecuting the Bush team, Obama showed weakness!

Republicans could have destroyed Clinton, and we know they tried, but he was too strong and had too many friends in Congress and the nation at large to let them succeed. Obama caved on too many issues to garner support. Where is the buy America provision? The public option? Workers' free choice? Had he gone to the mat for the stuff he ran on, everyone who backed him in '08, would have his back now!

[vi5]

5. Wait, I don't get it...

...why would they do this? I mean President Obama pursued bipartisanship, and sought Republican input and advice on so many things. And we were told and assured that by doing this, it would usher in a new era in Washington.

You mean to tell me that DIDN'T happen? And Republicans STILL want to take him down the same way they wanted to take Clinton down?

I'm sorry that's just impossible. I refuse to believe this approach didn't work.

[DrDan]

7. its either this or try to pass some legislation . .. . and that would require some biparisanship on

their part

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. You said....

"Wait, I don't get it why would they do this? I mean President Obama pursued bipartisanship, and sought Republican input and advice on so many things. And we were told and assured that by doing this, it would usher in a new era in Washington."

President Clinton tried to do the same thing. He caved to the Republicans with DADT, supported DOMA, deregulated the FCC (media), passed welfare reform, the Omnibus Crime Bill, NAFTA...

He did all these things that he thought would appease Republicans and placate moderate and conservative Democrats, and what happened?

Despite all that, the Republicans continued to pursue him and HIllary. What happened? The Republicans continued their bogus investigations, despite the lack of evidence.

What happened?

They impeached a president who improved the economy over sex.

Doesn't matter what Clinton did, the Republicans relentless pursued him.

What makes us think that they won't do the same--even worse--to Obama? :(

[vi5]

25. Bingo. That's my point....

Even the most casual observer of politics over the last 20 years could have predicted how this was going to turn out. And if anything the republicans have gotten WORSE and if anything MORE insane since when Clinton was in office.

[bluethruandthru]

41. They are absolutely more insane!

I thought Newt was bat-shit crazy back then...but Issa, Boehner, Demint, and all of them make the Newt of yesteryear look almost sane!
The Newt of today is totally off his f'ing rocker!

[TheEuclideanOne]

74. Did you forget the sarcasm tag?

I sure hope so.

[tanyev]

6. Wow, that's a lot of chicken counting going on.

They may want to bring Sue Lowden in to help with that.

[flpoljunkie]

8. Pundits working hard to make R's victory a reality but investigation fear won't get Dems out to vote

That said, let them do it. All their probes appear to be a waste of time and money--something this country can ill afford. I predict it will bite them in the ass.

[iamjoy]

16. Well, I Disagree

oh, you're right, it's hard to motivate Dems to vote on that and many Independents may think "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about." But, I'm still worried about what happens if they do it. It would be a waste of time and money with the specific intent of making President Obama look bad and distracting him from trying to do his part to run the country. But such a plot would have another goal in mind - to dig until they find something embarrassing to our President. All along they know there's the chance that they could hit the "jackpot" of a contradiction or mistake that they would use as grounds for impeachment.

[AndyA]

9. Glad you took impeachment off the table now, Speaker Pelosi?

Thrilled that an investigation into the actions of Bushco wasn't undertaken, President Barack?

Democrats must move forward, forgiving any Republican crimes.

Republicans, however, can waste billions investigating Democrats.

When Democrats investigate Republicans, it's a political stunt. When the tables are turned, it's to protect the interests of the people.

Why do I feel like I wasted time and money to get these people elected? :shrug:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. Was there a public mandate to investigate Bushco?

I agree, personally, that if any Presidential (mis-)administration ever needed to be investigated, it should've been Bushco.

However, speaking in terms of the larger political context..............

Is impeachment what people elected the Dems to do in 2006?

Is impeachment people elected President Obama to do in 2008?

Republicans suffered at the polls due to their "witch hunt" against the Clintons and there was little popular support for impeaching Clinton over Lewinsky even if the Republicans ultimately ignored public sentiment(which they do all of the time anyway and are VERY good at).

The last time in recent history there was significant public support for the impeachment of a President was with Nixon (and, ironically, involved crimes of significantly LESS magnitude than what Bush, Cheney, et. al did while in office) and what ultimately happened to Nixon?

If Republicans take House and they want to go after President Obama like they did with President Clinton, I guess we will see how important another string of partisan investigations really is to the country. My guess is that this will backfire horribly for them because people don't want President Obama impeached. My gut feeling is that most people want jobs and economic security, among other things, more than the impeachment of President Obama and we all know that the Republicans don't have any plans to actually *do* anything that might help the average person. The public may, unfortunately, need to be taught this lesson again despite the primer- that the Republicans gave them for the first eight years of this decade.

[AndyA]

29. I think the public is tired of "business as usual"

I voted for change. And part of that change was putting a stop to business as usual, where lobbyists write the legislation for their corporate masters, and politicians can do whatever the hell they want to do and get away with it.

Keith Olbermann made one of the best cases I've heard on why it was dangerous for Obama to allow Bush to get off without so much as an investigation. His Special Comment was a good one:

Mr. President-Elect, you are entirely correct.As you say, "what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past."

And that means prosecuting all those involved in the Bush Administration's torture of prisoners -- and starting at the top.

You're also right that you should not "want your first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch-hunt." But your only other option might be to let this sit and fester, indefinitely.

Because, Mr. President-Elect, some day there will be another Republican president -- or even a Democrat just as blind as Mr. Bush to ethics and this country's moral force -- and he will look back to what you did about Mr. Bush -- or what you did not do -- and he will see precedent. Or, as Cheney saw, he will see how not to get caught next time.

Prosecute, Mr. President-Elect, and even if you get not one conviction, you will still have accomplished good, for generations unborn.

Olbermann made a very good case for investigating Bushco on more than one occassion. And to date, no investigations. Big mistake, Obama. Huge mistake! Obama is now complicit in the cover-up of Bush's crimes.

[frylock]

44. i helped to elect dems in 2006 to get us out of iraq..

i helped to elect dems in 2008 to investigate the crimes of cheneyco. in 2012 i'll go back to voting third party.

[bigdarryl]

10. Joe Madison said this two months ago

there LATE!!!!

[FBaggins]

11. Man... talk about counting chickens...

the eggs haven't even been laid yet.

[izquierdista]

17. Neither have the Repubs

That's why they get all worked up.

[Peacetrain]

12. Why am I not surprised at this? NT

[GoCubsGo]

13. Boy, that will really go over well with the public.

They're already pissed off because nothing is being done. Just imagine how happy folks will be with another Repug witch hunt. IIRC, Bill Clinton's approval numbers went UP the last time they pulled this kind of shit. What was it that Albert Einstein said about repeating the same action over and over again, and expecting a different outcome?

[Jennicut]

14. Yeah, I think it would backfire on them. The public is mad at Dems

but not enamored of Rethugs. I don't think most people want to sit through two years of watching this crap.

[Pirate Smile]

34. "..GOP may well take control of the House this fall and then lose it right back in 2012."

Friday, August 27, 2010
Republican Disconnect

One of the most interesting things about this fall's election is that the Republicans in Congress may take control even though less than half of the people planning to vote for them think they're doing a good job.

Our last national generic ballot poll found the Republicans ahead 45-42 despite the fact that Congressional Republicans had a 24/61 approval rating. Even among respondents who said they were going to vote Republican the Congressional GOP could muster only a 44/35 approval.

John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are going to claim a mandate when their party does well at the polls this fall but they don't even have much of one with the people who are going to vote Republican this fall, much less with the population at large. If they keep on doing what they're doing the GOP may well take control of the House this fall and then lose it right back in 2012.

I'm really interested in whether Republican voters would like to see their party's leadership in Congress replaced. It's not likely to happen- you don't tend to lose your spot after a good election cycle- but it speaks to a major disconnect between the folks voting Republican and the Republican leaders themselves. We're delving into some of these questions as it relates to Ohio GOP voters and John Boehner this weekend, and we'll probably do some of that on our next national poll as well.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/republican-disconnect.html

[JoePhilly]

15. They'll have lots of time for investigations because the GOP has NO LEGISLATIVE AGENDA

They impeached Clinton over a BJ.

They spent millions investigating Whitewater. They search Clinton's past to try and find any dirt to investigate.

The GOP will investigate every aspect of Barrack and Michelle's life from birth to now.

It will never end, after all, the GOP has NO LEGISLATIVE AGENDA ... tax cuts for the rich, more war.

See ... they have lots of time for investigations because they have no intent to govern anyway.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

18. Wait a minute

Weren't the bailouts first pushed (without strings I might add) by Bushco? Ah well. There's really no sense in trying to find any shred of logic and/or consistency with them. I'm sure that just about every administration has it's share of "issues" and questionable decisions at some level but I'm really curious about how much they're going to have scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to find *something* incriminating about President Obama and/or the Democratic Party?
That New Black Panther Party "issue" has been beaten to death already by Fox and, unless they somehow are able to prove that there is rampant corruption and/or some kind of racial conspiracy going on with the DOJ since President Obama was elected (ha-ha), then I can't see how that's going to go anywhere. Of course, just because every single "manufactroversy" introduced by Republicans during the Clinton years (other than Monica, of course) ultimately yielded zip and fizzled away didn't stop them from wasting excessive amounts of time, energy, and money *investigating* every facet of the Clinton Administration and nearly every allegation against him no matter how minor and/or bizarre.
I hope that the Democrats make this an issue in the fall election. In fact, I really hope that they make it a "front and center" issue and force their opponents to take a stand on these "investigations". I believe that the American people DESERVE to know whether the people they're electing to office are going to actually be trying to solve our economic problems(among other things) or if they're going to just going to be wasting time and money on endless partisan witch hunts to try to "get" President Obama- absent any overwhelming evidence of misconduct (which I'm sure if they had, it would almost certainly already be out there).

[depakid]

20. The irony (of the tragic type) really is astonishing

The President and the Democrats in Congress have both the duty and extensive evidence- cases on the merits pursuant to the law- yet wilfully disregard both of these.

Republicans have neither- yet they alone have the political will and fortitude to proceed.

Pretty sure there's classic literature to be written from all of this.

How would one pick a side in such a play?
----

Mercutio: A plague a' both your houses! I am sped.

[democrat_patriot]

21. Won't work.

1. New Black Panther Party - 15 members. Who cares?
2. Bailouts? - The WH would subpoena Bush Jr and his entire administration to testify, ain't gonna happen.
3. President Obama was FULLY vetted during the election.
4. Dem's can always put Bush crimes back ON the table.

Republican's plan - vote no on everything, so we can investigate everything.

[impik]

24. Stay home, pure people, don't vote. Give the keys to these assholes

[Ganja Ninja]

26. Or go out and vote and let the people you vote for hand the keys to them.

:banghead:

[bigwillq]

59. Great post.

:thumbsup:

[Beetwasher]

27. I Love The High Bar They're Setting, Anything Less Than A Takeover Of The House And Senate

Is going to be a dismal failure. And they really don't have terrific chances of taking over either chamber. In both chambers they'd have to essentially lose NO seats of their own and pick up every single competitive Dem seat.

[niceypoo]

28. The 'Potatoe' doesn't fall far from the tree

[WI_DEM]

30. yeah but some "democrats" can't get off their asses and vote because they want to teach Obama a

lesson so will allow the GOP to gain ground.

[Arkana]

33. Bingo.

This should be incentive for everyone to get out and vote for Dems if for no other reason than they'd like some actual governing to take place in the next two years, rather than an endless stream of investigations.

[Hansel]

50. Just annihilating the meme that the Tea Party is all powerful

and knocking the insipid smirks off of Beck's megalomaniac and Palin's narcissistic faces makes it worth it for me to vote straight ticket for Democrats.

I just want to see the Koch brothers and Freedom Works completely annihilated so these greedy f*cks think twice before pissing their money away on such farces again. And totally embarrass the joke that passes for the MSM these days.

But then again I get to vote for real progressives in MN so it's easy.

[CakeGrrl]

35. Exactly. So I hope whoever plans on doing that

Have not been the same people complaining about things getting worse for people and being angry that not enough is being done.

Because if they think watching nonstop congressional investigations is going to create jobs or get better healthcare or save mortgages, then their heads are in a dark, uncomfortable place.

[Ganja Ninja]

37. At what point do you blame the Democrats for not offering more incentive ...

than fear of the Republicans getting in power? Why should we fear Republicans when the people we vote for seem to think they are perfectly reasonable people they can work with? On the one hand they tell to "be afraid, be very afraid". Then when they're in power it's all about bipartisanship.

[w4rma]

38. How about the DLCers and blue dogs listen to their progressive donors? (nt)

[geek tragedy]

36. I wonder how many people at DU would support these efforts.

I bet the answer is quite disturbing.

[KingFlorez]

39. They're revealing their plans before they win

That goes to show how dumb they are. The Democrats can use this against them, it shows nothing but vindictiveness on the GOP's part.

[AspenRose]

69. And as much as I hope the Democrats WOULD do just that...

my suspicion is that they won't because they're too damn NICE. :banghead:

These people would make Clinton's investigations look like child's play. And the 24/7/365 M$M would eat it up with a spoon.

[Kweli4Real]

40. This Is Telling ...

"“How acrimonious things get really depend on how willing the administration is in accepting our findings responding to our questions,”

Maybe the above is a misprint ... or maybe my post-grad education has failed me with regards to reading comprehension; but, does the above not suggest that they ALREADY HAVE their acceptable answers, i.e., "findings" for the questions that have not asked yet?

And, contentious any probe will be depends on the Obama Administration's willingness to accept their findings on matters yet explored?

Okay folks, if the republicans take back the House , lace up your boots and bring a lunch for "Clinton Redux 2.0".

[Bobbie Jo]

42. Yeah...that'll show 'em.

Seems this is in line with the "punishment" some are advocating. Honestly...if the thinking is that hanging Dems out to dry will somehow move them more to the left, they're sadly mistaken.

See: Bill Clinton and the birth of the Bush era, immediately followed by the emergence of the Blue Dogs and Conservadems.

Two steps forward, and a thousand steps back.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

48. The Democrats are pretty much damned if they do, damned if they don't

They may as well as disband at this point and have everybody just declare themselves "Independents" and form caucuses. They can never make the so-called "Independents" happy nor do they seem to be able to keep progressives happy either. Instead of uniting around a common cause, everybody seems to have their their own individual cause(s) and seem ready and willing to simply walk out on the party if they don't get what they want when they want it.

[JNelson6563]

43. That is all that would get done.

Pretty much like for Clinton.

Julie

[Yavin4]

47. They're Going to Go After Michelle First

They always go after wives first. Then, they'll saturate the media with false stories and fake accusations which will take years to prove false long after the damage will be done.

Finally, they will get their media flacks to bemoan Obama scandal fatigue because of the media's saturation coverage.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

49. ...and then, lastly, they will promise to "change the tone" in Washington if elected back to the WH

:eyes:

Wait, haven't we seen this movie before???? :banghead:

In regards to Michelle, I wonder if that infamous and widely rumored (but never found) "whitey" tape will finally magically surface???? I bet they'll probably ask her to convince the rest of us of how "proud" she really is of our country. :eyes:

Mon Dieu

[Rosa Luxemburg]

52. Obama had his chance to sink the Republicans when he came to office

I bet he wishes he did something sooner?

[Skittles]

54. these are the folk Obama has been sucking up to

[Milo_Bloom]

55. One can ONLY HOPE.

It would be the fastest shift of control in history.

It was this type of behavior in 1997 that allowed the democrats to preform well in 1998 and in 2000 (where they actually WON the presidency).

[rasputin1952]

56. Issa can put his torch and pitchfork back in the garage...

the GOP isn't going to win the House back, they'll be very lucky if the retain the seats they have now...no party can win voters over w/o a message and a plan, something the GOP is sorely lacking.

[Dawson Leery]

62. The GOP

is gaining seats. It is our job to minimize those gains.

[rasputin1952]

64. Sorry, I don't see it...

Cutting through all of the "news" hooplah, and looking at what is going on, I don't see the R's gaining anything, I see potential losses, but for them to gain, it's a stretch; for them to actually win the House is beyond the pale.

These people have absolutely nothing to offer voters, and the Teabaggers are splitting the party...it's a loss for them, hopefully big time. The one thing that could botch things up is a lack of D's showing up at the polls, and we need to working on GOTV on the D side.

[BeyondGeography]

57. Political suicide for the Pubs

and dreadful for the country. Not in that order.

[Wednesdays]

60. K&R

:kick:

[old mark]

65. If you recall when they did this to Clinton his popularity remained pretty much

the same and he got re-elected easily. The hardcore idiots hated him, but the did anyway, and everyone else voted for him.
And the GOP wound up looking mean and vindictive.

Why do they think this is a successful strategy?

Because they have NOTHING ELSE to offer except a circus.


mark

[and-justice-for-all]

68. Thanks pukes for wasting more time, tax payer funds and resoruces

FOR JACK SHIT.

[rasputin1952]

72. They can plan all they want...

they are not going to take the House.

[craigmatic]

73. Nate Silver says that they won't win the house or senate