Whodunnit? The Dems Are Dragging Obama Down

Jon Chait of TNR explains that Congressional Dems are doing to Obama what they did, with grim results, to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton:

At a time when the country desperately needs a coherent response to the array of challenges it faces, the congressional arm of the Democratic Party remains mired in fecklessness, parochialism, and privilege. Obama has made mistakes, as did his predecessors. Yet the constant recurrence of legislative squabbling and drift suggests a deeper problem than any characterological or tactical failures by these presidents: a congressional party that is congenitally unable to govern.

He offers three reasons but I am most intrigued by this:

A second factor encouraging Democrats to buck their presidents is the role of the rich and business interests. Unless you are a high school student reading this article in your civics course, in which case I'm sorry to dispel your illusions, you will not be stunned to learn that the affluent carry disproportionate political weight with elites in both parties. So, while people who earn more than $250,000 per year make up just a tiny slice of the electorate, they make up a huge chunk of any congressman's friends, acquaintances, and fund-raisers.

What's more, whatever their disposition toward business in general, Democrats feel it is not just a right but a duty to slavishly attend to the interests of their home-state businesses. That is why Kent Conrad upholds even the most absurd demands of agribusiness, or why even a good-government progressive like Michigan's Carl Levin parrots the auto industry's line on regulating carbon dioxide.

Taken as a whole, then, the influence of business and the rich unites Republicans and splits Democrats.

That might hold true in the Senatem but are the safe-seat Democrats in the House who have accumulated the most seniority really struggling to raise money, or worried that they may fall short in doing so?

I would point a finger at gerrymandering - the safe-seat Dems have no fear whatsoever that Obama can punish them by helping to chase them from office.  Now, could Obama help a primary challenger?  Maybe.

MORE:  Patterico questions Chait's grasp of recent history:

But Chait’s ignorance of history does not stop there, as his review of the Bush era demonstrates.  The Bush tax cuts were passed on partisan votes, but the rest of his examples fall apart on examination.  The first war resolution passed with broad bipartisan support.  The Iraq war resolution passed the Senate by a vote of 77-23.  The Medicare prescription drug program passed the Senate by a vote of 55-44, but 11 Democrats voted in favor and nine Republicans voted against it.  The 2005 energy bill passed the Senate 74-26, with help from then-Sen. Barack Obama.  The No Child Left Behind Act, on which Pres. Bush collaborated with the likes of Sen. Ted Kennedy, passed the Senate 87-10.  To the extent that partisan leverage was involved in the passage of these items, it was largely in terms of pressuring conservatives to expand the size and power of the national government.

Obviously some of those votes, such as the Iraq war resolution or No Child, don't count because Dems were tricked, or pressured, or confused.   I.e., Democrats.

[end of thread]

Comments

[Fresh Air]

Geez, what a series of profound observations. Senators who actually vote in the interests of their constituents instead of the egghead dweasils like Jonathan Chait? Who knew?

[clarice]

You beat me to the punchline, TM. The court ordered gerrymandering allows the goofiest Dems to continue in office to the detriment of the party and to the minority interests they purportedly are there to advance.

[Jimmy's Attack Rabbit]

Congressional Term Limits, (six terms for House critters and two for Senate critters), may help.

[Slavering Socialist]

"Now, could Obama help a primary challenger? Maybe."

holy cow...could Molly Maguire be supporting a socialist as deeply mired in Marx as Obama?

Or is it like his support of McCain: the lesser of two weevils?

[Neo]

Here I thought everybody had learned during the Clinton administration that all "rich folks" aren't Republicans. Given the number of folks who paid to pay in the Lincoln bedroom, there were obviously a large number of upper crust Democrats to partake in this audacious exercise in opulence.

[Ken Hahn]

Mr Chait of the JournoList parrots the far left's view that the rich are to blame for everything, even corrupting saintly Democrats. Let's face it, the left and their chosen vehicle, the Democratic Party, are motivated by two things, greed and envy. Mr Chait would like to dictate Democratic policy but feels he just doesn't have enough money. He envies those he thinks do have that money and is willing to use the power of government to get it away from those he envies and hates.

Both rich and poor are willing to buy politicians and politicians are willing to be bought. The only difference is that the rich use money and the poor use bloc voting. And the politicians use rich and poor alike.

[narciso]

So in other news, the Navy Secretary designate is a former Dem Governor from
Missippi, which of course they figured
was the perfect fit as Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, in the years when AQ was organizing itself in the Kingdom

[Neo]

I noticed that the coverage of "The Won"-s European Vacation seem not to understand or mention that the talk at the G-20 about a stimulus is in regard to yet another stimulus, not the already passed burden on future taxpayers.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid have been talking about another round of stimulus, call it "Stimulus II," served up just in time for the November 2010 elections, but the polls don't show any public support for another round of audacious opulence, so Obama was hoping that the G-20 would give him cover.

I'm waiting to see the response when Madame Speaker Pelosi finds out her plan for “Stimulus II” is out .. killed by another woman German Chancellor Merkel.

The only remaining question ………
will Obama/Pelosi/Reid do it unilaterally ?

[Danube of Thought]

Gerrymandering is the biggest single contributor to the horrifying collapse of California. Both parties have allocated safe seats to themselves (more Dems than GOP, but that just reflects the makeup of the electorate), with the result a mix of ardent leftists (the majority) and ultra-conservatives. The legislative results have been just what one would predict.

[DrJ]

Agreed DOT, but I would add the nefarious effect of ballot propositions.

[Fresh Air]

Re gerrymandering: I would like to see every map drawn by a computer using a set of pre-existing natural boundaries as guidelines: rivers, lakes, county and city lines, roads, etc. Turn the whole box upside down and shake it. No safe seats for anyone, regardless of party. We have enough ossified assholes in the Senate without making the House the home of the lifetime sinecure.

[Jane]

OT:

Last night it was reported that Bill Ayers had been canned as a speaker at BC for safety reasons. This morning on the local Fox station it was reported that he was still going to speak - via videotape, and the video could be viewed from a room in the administration building.

On a better note, I no longer have to give money to either of my alma maters as Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers have given me reason to turn down any further solicitation.

[clarice]

Fresh Air, I doubt nature set county and city lines or the roads though you may have some point to your argument.

[Fresh Air]

Clarice--

Right; needed a semi-colon; my mistake. A computer could quite easily create the maps without any help from ACORN, the SEIU or People for the Amerikkan Way.

[Daddy]

Jane,

I did not know you went to school in Boulder. Ever hang out at the Flagstaff House Restaurant or any of the bars in the Boulderado Hotel on Pearl Street back in the day? And as for Dick mentioning he was going to take care of you concerning the firing of the GM guy. I couldn't tell if that was a threat or a promise. Without getting into trouble, can you explain that a bit better.

[Thomas Collins]

Chait wins my rhetorical trickster of the month award for the following paragraph in the opinion piece linked by TM above:

"Obama has come into office having won the popular vote by seven percentage points, along with a 79-seat edge in the House, a 17-seat edge in the Senate, and massive public demand for change. But it's already clear he is receiving less, not more, deference from his own party. Democrats have treated Obama with studied diffidence, both in their support for the substance of his agenda and (more importantly) their willingness to support it procedurally."

What a crock! The "demand for change" was not a uniform demand for increased taxes and statist policies. It was a generalized feeling that things weren't going in the correct direction. Some folks were unhappy with foreign policy, some with too much pork coming out of Congress, some with style of governance, and yes, some did support Obama/Reid/Pelosi leftism. Obama skillfully became all things to all who wanted change. But such artifice in an election doesn't build a governing coalition. Contrast Obama with Reagan, who had a less friendly Congress with which to deal. Reagan's 1980 campaign was explicit that the change he was supporting was a reduction in marginal tax rates, a reduction in the rate of increase in the growth of domestic spending, and a more muscular approach to foreign policy. The people who voted for change in 1980 supported the change Reagan implemented when he took office. The people who voted for change in 2008 may or may not support the specific policies Obama is actually pursuing. So, of course it is going to be more difficult assembling a governing coalition for Chait's fantasy world of progresivism. Most of the country didn't vote for your fantasy world, Mr. Chait! But I do give you credit for your sophistry.

[Jane]

Daddy,

I was a very poor college student. Mostly I hung out at King Super bagging groceries. But I certainly know both places. I did go to Tulagi's a few times - and lived close to the flatirons which was pretty spectacular.

Dick was issuing a threat. It was the oddest thing. He came into the room when my segment started, sat down next to me and I could feel him fuming. (I didn't look at him). When the break came he got all kinds of outraged basically because he thinks Wagoner should go and apparently the means justify the ends. (My point was that the means were wrong - we don't want president's firing CEO's.)

I'm sure he is preparing for a filibuster and show down tomorrow at noon.

[clarice]

IMO the pollsters' fav question"Is the country going in the right direction?" always yields a perfectly meaningless response for the very reason you noted,TC.

[Porchlight]

From The Hill: Experts say Obama needs to watch the gaffes

Noting Reagan's reliance on note cards, Edwards said the teleprompter was a new factor in presidential assessment. "It's just strange," he said. "We haven't been able to figure out why he's so dependent on it, because he's a really intelligent guy.

This after an entire article describing Obama's many gaffes while speaking extemporaneously.

[Jane]

I wonder why people think he is so intelligent. I'll never forget a previously normal-appearing friend of mine declaring that the WON is the "most intelligent" president we have ever had.

Now if she had said "the most anti-American values president" I would have agreed with her. But I see no evidence that he is smart in anything but being underhanded.

[Daddy]

Thank you Jane for explaining that. Depressing. I hope that some of the sharper JOMer's here can help buttress you with well honed arguments, since I sense even more Filibusters coming from Dick than normal on your next show.

[Daddy]

OH and BTW,

Thankfully we have had many inches of thick snowfall on top of our ash, so wearing goggles and mask I was able to cleanly blow the driveway a few minutes back without asphyxiation, and that's how the guys cleaning the airport did it as well. One Runway back up and running.

[clarice]

Jane--I don't think that's a normal adult response to a political dispute. Something's whacky there..After all, are you to be allowed to voice your disagreement only if you do so in a way that's so stupid that you provide no threat to his views?I'm starting to feel this is getting spooky.

[centralcal]

Jane: I am with Clarice. I wonder if there is more than political disagreement going on? Jealousy, perhaps? Why on earth did he come in during your segment - that was rude and uncalled for. Was he hoping to make you bumble about or something?

[Daddy]

Concur Clarice.

That is both juvenile and eratic. I suspect somebody who has probably not had much recent experience in having either himself or his political party challenged, is somehow feeling threatened now that it is happening.

Keep up the good fight Jane.

[Ann]

I am running out the door but I listened to the last podcast of the FWDAJ show over the weekend. Jane runs circles around Dick with her knowledge on subjects. Her demeanour and humor make him sound like a moronic bully.

I think he is scared to death of her.

The last half hour of the shows are the best because Jane has totally exasperated and debunked everything he says that he comes up with questions like "What do you think of his suits?" LOL

Got to go...

[sbw]

"Is the country going in the right direction?"

No, it's going in the left direction.

[Jane]

Jane: I am with Clarice. I wonder if there is more than political disagreement going on?

Actually there is. There appears to be a bit of a coup going on (I'm not involved) and the reflexive response is getting aimed at me. Given the circumstances I'm not surprised, and I'm obviously not going to get into it all here.

[Syl]

Well, I'm a TRUE American. I've never been jealous or envious of anyone who makes more than I do. Not like those snotty progressives.

And I LOVE rich people. Though I'm not one. Whatever they want is okay with me. Cuddle up with congress all they want, I say. I'm way down on the totem pole, but no matter the sneering from the Left, I benefit from trickle down.

I was checking out the Kindle the other day. No way in hell can I afford one. I don't even have a cell phone or digital camera. And, no, I'm not bitching. It's just the way things are..BUT it's the rich guys who can start their own companies or branch out into making their own Kindle type goodies. And competition will eventually bring prices down.

(Except with Obamanomics growth will be so slow that by the time prices come down enough I'll be gone.)

And, ahem, Amazon at this point kinda has a monopoly. Both the device AND the store. I think that sucks but it has gotten the ball rolling on this type of useful doodad. We'll see what the future brings.

Meanwhile, rich folks please get mad and get even!

[daddy]

"The last half hour of the shows are the best because Jane has totally exasperated and debunked everything he says that he comes up with questions like "What do you think of his suits?" LOL'

Ann,

As a former waiter on tables, my completely bogus and unasked for psychoanalysis is that for the first half an hour or so Jane is exceedingly gracious and polite, as a decent waiter frequently is, but that by 30 minutes or so she is so sick of her courtesy not being reciprocated, and of his nit-noy corrections and know it all pontifications, that she realizes, screw the tip, this guy sucks, and then she simply treats the overbearing creep like he deserves. That's my view of why I like the last last third of the show so much.

Or to put it a better way, I would love to have Jane as my co-pilot on a 2 weeker around the Globe. Dick I would hate to have as co-pilot on a Drive thru at McDonalds.

[hit and run]

SYL!!!!

Happy late birthday!

[Old Lurker]

Syl, I LOVE my Sony eReader.

[MayBee]

Syyyyyyyyyyyyllllll!

[Jane]

You are on Daddy!

But actually I try to be nice all the time, which is definitely not my nature. In the very beginning Amy critiqued the whole thing saying: "You end up liking you and wanting to hear more from you, and you end up wanting Dick to shut up."

That's not a bad place to end up. It does get hard tho when Dick is yawning and watching TV and just looking for places to jump in to tell personal stories. But I try very hard to remember to dance with the one that brung me - and since I am having so much fun, I am eternally grateful for the opportunity.

At some point I am going to post a link to where you guys can send email - the parent company - to shamelessly praise me if you are so inclined.

[Syl]

MayBee and Hit! ::waves back at ya:: I've been dropping by frequently, just haven't been doing the comment thing. Been hanging out with the anti-AGW crowd lately. sigh. Lost cause.

oldLurker: Hi!! I'll check that out one of these days! Good to know.

[Neo]

A real game changer

[Jane]

Wow neo.

[clarice]

Add to that gateway Pundit notes that the amendment denying ACORN funds from the Youth Yugend bill lost..so religious groups cannot get money under the forced community service program, but ACORN can for political organizing..

[MarkJ]

I liked this part in the above linked article:

ACORN has issued statements claiming that Ms. Moncrief is merely a disgruntled former worker.

“None of this wild and varied list of charges has any credibility and we’re not going to spend our time on it,” said Kevin Whelan, ACORN deputy political director in a statement issued last week.

Rule of Thumb: when an ACORN hack tries to dismiss serious charges as wild, incredible, and time-wasting...you can bet the farm and livestock that the charges are true.

[Neo]

The NYT has some strange idea for a business plan .. ignore the "big" new .. if you don't like it.

[Porchlight]

From Neo's link:

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., the ranking Republican on the committee, said the interactions between the Obama campaign and ACORN, as described by Ms. Moncrief, and attested to before the committee by Ms. Heidelbaugh, could possibly violate federal election law, and “ACORN has a pattern of getting in trouble for violating federal election laws.”

He also voiced criticism of The New York Times.

“If true, The New York Times is showing once again that it is a not an impartial observer of the political scene,” he said. “If they want to be a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, they should put Barack Obama approves of this in their newspaper.”

[hit and run]

Syl:
Been hanging out with the anti-AGW crowd lately.

Yes and nice work at http://www.cricket-studio.com/>Cricket Studio!

Tilting at turbines, indeed...

Miss you.

[clarice]

I miss you, too, syl.

[Pagar]

From Neo's link:

Stephanie Strom was contacted for a comment, and The New York Times’ Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications Catherine Mathis replied with an e-mail in her place.

Ms. Mathis wrote, “In response to your questions to our reporter, Stephanie Strom, we do not discuss our newsgathering and won’t comment except to say that political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama.”

I can not believe that any American thinks that statement from the NYT is true. It seems to me that there has to be criminal action of some kind in the NYTs action.

[Mike Huggins]

On that Neo-linked story, so what we ultimately got out of Stephanie Strom's article was this:
"Republicans have tried to make an issue of Senator Barack Obama’s ties to the group, which he represented in a lawsuit in 1995. The Obama campaign has denied any connection with Acorn’s voter registration drives."

[PD]

Whoa! On the Fox All-Stars, Fred just inadvertently referred to Juan as "Mort."

That's harsh.

[unseen]

gerrymandering. The problem is that the house is not following the intent of the framers. they envisoned a house that grew with the population. the very 1st amendment which has still not been ratified but is still out there ready to be voted on by the states requires the house to grow with the population. In 1904 with a pop of 100 million the gov passed a law that locked the house at 435 seats. that means that at today's population of 300 million our vote is 2/3rd less powerful then in 1904. each individual person losses power every year while those in congress continue to gain that power. You want to shake up the house make it increase in size. This would require new districts every 10 years and all districts to be redrawn at that time also. thus you have "safe" seats for only one census cycle.

the beauty of this is Congress already passed the amendment in the 1700's with no expiration date. several states have already ratified the amendment. If about 25 more states ratify the amendment we the people could break the power base of Congress wide open and return a lion's share of it to the people.

[BR]

Wow, interesting, unseen. Like inflation.

OT - I noticed in the Sunday thread, Porchlight and Clarice were wondering about our Kim (as a "she").

Wouldn't it be funny if two JOMers fell in love and live-blogging from the honeymoon suite: Party of the first part is about to find out if party of the second part is really a man :)

[Porchlight]

Stranger things have happened, BR! After all Ann Althouse is marrying one of her commenters. :)

[zim zim alabim]

Juvenile and erratic sort of sums up most democrat positions these days, daddy.

As to the firing of Wagoner, I find it amazing that the president is dictating corporate policy without the involvement of either the board or senior management. Has Obama had consultants from the auto industry involved? What specific reason did he find to demand the firing? What corrective action is Obama proposing? When did Obama become an expert on the auto industry? Who advised Obama to fire the guy? Sheesh....these are fundamental issues of corporate governance and management. Not that I have a lot of sympathy for GM or Chrysler, but people just stopped spending. How does one manage through that?

Also, why hasn't the UAW made concessions yet?

[Thomas Collins]

Two males, two females, male and female, male and Z. female and Z, two Zs, no liveblogging from the honeymoon suite! Some things must remain private!!! :-))

[BR]

Hee, that sounds like the Mississippi joke :)

[centralcal]

Okay, I am so confused. Is Kim a He or a She? Does anyone really know?

Oh, and back during the Libby days when I started modestly commenting here, Syl was a regular. I have missed ya Syl! So glad to see you stop by . . . hope you stick around again!

[BR]

I like the Kipling version :)

[Bill in AZ]

Speaking of dragging people down, Gateway Pundit has one up on what looks to be the libs next target for the Limbaugh treatment - Governor Palin (again).

Multiple Democratic strategists say the party plans to increasingly elevate Palin in the same manner it has employed Rush for weeks, using her high-visibility, her social conservatism, and memories of her harsh attacks on Obama during the campaign to tar the GOP as partisan, obstructionist, and backward-looking.

Carville never seems to learn - I'll bet Rush gets on this just to screw with his head.

[BR]

Re the million dollars coverup of Obama's birth cert: it's going more and more mainstream. Here's AP today: 3/30/09. The first part is mainly spatzendreck, but the good stuff is at the bottom, like the kirschwasser crust of a fondue.

And did ya all see Corsi's being held in Kenya? The American Embassy better see to his safety and that nothing happens to him.

[Jane]

I'm gearing up for tomorrow's show. Does anyone see any constitutional basis for a president firing the CEO of a private company?

[Rick Ballard]

"Does anyone see any constitutional basis for a president firing the CEO of a private company?"

My Italian isn't really good enough to determine whether Mussolini was acting within constitutional boundaries and I don't speak German so I can't address the issue from the basis of the Third Reich but as a general rule fascists have never had any great problems with constitutional impediment.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Multiple Democratic strategists say the party plans to increasingly elevate Palin in the same manner it has employed Rush ....

Oh good. Maybe we can double her ratings.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I'm gearing up for tomorrow's show. Does anyone see any constitutional basis for a president firing the CEO of a private company?

I think you're going to need to look into the original bailout provisions. I don't think there's a constitutional basis for doing it ab initio, but I'd bet there's a contract provision for the earlier money.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Bloody hell.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Jeeez.

[MayBee]

I'm wondering about the President declaring we will honor GM warranties. Does he need Congressional approval or anything?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Another try.

[Thomas Collins]

None, Jane. You raise an interesting point. To what extent can the Feds use their goodies to control the personnel decisions of private companies? Defenders of Obama's action would say that conditioning federal help on a personnel change is not firing anybody (that is, GM could refuse the help). There has to be a point, however, at which one concludes that the Feds are using this emergency to unjustifiably intervene in the private sector. I don't know when the line is crossed, but it sounds as if you have a good topic for tomorrow.

[MayBee]

They are also forcing some resignations on the board of GM.

[Elliott]

So the new test of faith and investment in America will be whether one buys the biofueled wonder car of the future, the Cornmaro.

[Ann]

To bad the credentialed morons of the media didn't ask the President, who is suppose to be a constitutional lawyer, that very question when they had a chance.

Uh, sir, who made you king?

(You okay Charlie?) ;)

[Jane]

Defenders of Obama's action would say that conditioning federal help on a personnel change is not firing anybody (that is, GM could refuse the help).

Wouldn't that require a contract with a choice?

[Ann]

Cornmaro...LOL, Elliott

My first car was a sweet white convertible with red leather interior and a black cloth top. It was a FIAT. God help the company that has to merge with the "Fix It Again Tony" line of cars.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Lets see if some italic text will help.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Is everyone seeing the italics stuck on?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Dammit.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Okay, I didn't close an italics tag back after the word "her." Unlike in the past, a bunch of close tags isn['t helping. Sorry.

[clarice]

Charlie, they're unstuck for me. I proposed that instead of using these brackets for itals and bold and blockquotes<> we use these[]. That way the reader can know what you intended but the Bd won't get fubarred if someone larwyns the bracketings.

[BR]

Kim mentioned a few threads ago that Kim was locked out of JOM for a year. So, in case that happened again like it did recently with Clarice, here's a link for you, Kim. A 15-minute radio show at The Awakening on Sentinel Radio:

"Phillip Berg... guest... discussing Hollister v Soetoro and the outrageous memorandum US District Court Judge James Robertson issued and the other unusual things happening with these cases against Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama."

PS - if you're locked out, try posting with your usual sign-off symbol, but different name? Or from another laptop?

[RichatUF]

Charlie-

I've noticed that the Dems are also building up Sen. Murkowski, maybe even for a challange to the Gov. Should be interesting to see the GOP get out the pitchforks to take her down. The Obama Administration probably doesn't want to get around to having the FBI dig through her trash cans first and bring corruption charges against her.

[mel]

ChaCo-

Type furiously, you tend not to notice the damage in your wake. It works for me!

Busy here, all. Going into speed mode at work. 16,000 data points, and I'm only 2/3ds in. Gotta finish by tax day.

Night all.

[PaulL]

Charlie,

In the new TypePad version, once a post is inadvertently left italicized or boldfaced, every post on the same page follows suit. At least in Firefox. I think with some other browser the following posts look okay.

[Soylent Red]

I like the Kipling version

Well, Kim is a friend to all the world.

who is suppose to be a constitutional lawyer

What kind of Constitutional lawyer maintains a constant assault on the Constitution? Sort of like a priest telling people the Bible is, after all, and imperfect document.

[BR]

Re: the million dollars coverup of Obama's missing birth cert - the plot thickens.

In listening to the above link for the 3/9/09 radio show, it turns out their show was "glitched" and I'm now listening to the full show on 3/10/09. Here. I don't know how long the page will have that configuration. It's the 8th square (the 3rd blue Sentinel one).

Very, very interesting data. One is, the speaker on before Berg says there are two kinds of COLBs:

Certificate of Live Birth if you're born in Hawaii.
Certification of Live Birth if you're not. Apparently this is what was shown on the net. And the Hawaii Certification form has a space at the top where the foreign country is listed.

[Ann]

Hey, Soylent.

How is Virginia? One of my favorite states. I must warn you about traveling through Fauquier County if you go site seeing. It is the biggest speed trap in VA.

My husband traveling at his usual speed of 80 on our last trip there got pulled over in a 55 mile an hour zone. Should of been a reckless driving violation which means big bucks, a lawyer, and a court date. We had RUSH on the radio and I think that saved him. Honestly, he gave him a "Failure to obey highway sign" violation instead. But even a 30 dollar traffic ticket had a 61 dollar processing fee attached. So be forewarned. Slowly travel through scenic VA or listen to RUSH loudly and/or have a cute female passenger that winks.

[unseen]

but people just stopped spending. How does one manage through that?

It is simple yet it is not done much because it involves some pain. You have to cut prices until demand comes back. GM should be dropping prices everyday until people start to buy them. If they can make any net profit off the car they stay in business if not they don't. but companies do not like to make a lower profit margin and thus they try to restrict supply to drive up price by laying off workers which only makes things worse because them people see the layoffs get scared and stop spending.

Companies need to tradoff lower profits for sales in this economy. think walmart.

[daddy]

Jane,

IANAL but maybe a decent hypothetical that might help for the show would be to pose a different individual at a different company being removed by an American President, and see how that plays. Let's say Roger Ailes for instance, or Pinch Sulzberger, or you name it. I am sure JOMer's out there could give better examples of heads of companies accepting government money. How about Fred Smith of FEDEX...his company has government contracts. Could the President force his removal? Especially since he just vocally threw down the gauntlet on Card Check. I wish I was of more help.

And make sure you watch the video Glenn">http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/03/30/fox-news-host-beck-slams-connecticut-ag-you-are-insult-george-washington">Glenn Beck interviewing the Attorney General of Conn. tonight on his show. Thats another example to tie in to various high level Dem's overstepping their Constitutional bounds.

[BR]

Here's a more permanent link to the 3/10/09 Berg interview regarding Obama's eligibility, from the Archives of Sentinel Radio. It seems to be a new 2009 conservative radio and blog at www.tsrn.us. Their blogroll includes American Thinker and Attorney Philip Berg's site: www.obamacrimes.info.

[Daddy]

"I've noticed that the Dems are also building up Sen. Murkowski, maybe even for a challange to the Gov. Should be interesting to see the GOP get out the pitchforks to take her down"

Just some quick comments on the Sarah front from Alaska. Sarah Palin still does not have a huge core constituency up here supporting her. Her fandom in the lower 48 is much more fervent than it is up here. I've gone into how she was initially massively popular because she booted out Old Boy corrruption and defeated the hubristic Murkowsy. This made her the darling of the Dem's, the media, and the Conservatives for clean government. But once she became McCain's running mate, the Dem's went after her for partisan political reasons, and the Republican old boy/oil network went after her with a vengeance. She has also now been so consistantly and effectively hammered locally and nationally on a daily basis, and painted as some sort of uneducated, unsophisticated hillbilly in MukLuks, that like Bush, many folks will simply be glad to just get her out of the limelight and on her way. Feigned support toward Lisa Murkowsky is an effective way to make one seem not anti-Conservative, but only anti-Sarah, so that card is frequently played by the anti-Sarah Republican faction.

It is depressing these days to hear the local Conservative talk boys I always go on about. They started last week hammering Sarah, not because wearing the Arctic Sled jacket was unethical, but because they considered her honest indignation against the complaintant to be juvenile whining and unbecoming a Governor.
Then she was hammered by the left for not accepting Stimulus school funds, while at the same time wound up being hammered by the Right Wing Talk show crowd, for rejecting the school funds to promote her Conservative Bona Fides nationally.
Now Obama has appointed a Dem State Senator to some job in DC. Sarah has now appointed as his replacement another Dem. This has angered the Dems because it is supposedly the wrong Dem, and the Talk Boys are hammering her for incompetence or not appointing a Republican or whatever else they can throw daily against the wall to make it stick.
It is an ongoing and very sad instance of the politics of personal destruction played out by both sides that have a megaphone, with Sarah as the target, and noone of any consequence in the local Media is stepping up to the plate to call BS on her attackers or to give her a decent opportunity to respond in kind. It is sad to watch, so excepting for calling in to the local talk shows, there is not much the average citizen can do.

Be advised that the election for Anchorage Mayor to replace Begich goes down 7 April. Many lefties and Walt Monagan of Troopergate/Tasergate are in the running. I am keeping my fingers crossed for Sullivan, a decent Conservative, but this next week of campaigning should be worth keeping up with. As usual, apologies for my long windedness.

[Vince]

This is a wonderful post Tom, the Democrats are always bringing the president down. I think Barack is doing a pretty decent job and has taken many steps to show that he is serious about eliciting change in the Executive Office. I think that there are still a lot of challenges, and you can expect that it will not always be easy and that he will have to make many tough and unpopular decisions. People might enjoy this list of the top ten signs the president’s gig is harder than you thought: http://www.toptentopten.com/topten/signs+president+gig+is+harder+than+you+thought

[Donald]

Barbara Streisand and James Brolin screwed in the Lincoln room. Then when James fell asleep, Barbara hustled/Got escorted down to the oval office for, well, you know...

[RichatUF]

Daddy-

Take as much time on the Sarah front as necessary. The thing I really don't get is that the good ole' boy network in Alaska would probably get more of their agenda passed (if it is just oil drilling) if they spent less time trashing the Gov. and more time cooperating. Take the nat gas pipeline-the bruised feelings of the majors and their dislike of her have just allowed the resources to sit idle for another season. I am guessing that the oil majors are behind the "she raised taxes on oil"* and she is like Hugo Chavez when dealing with the oil industry. And the GOP wonders why they can't get decent candidates to run for office when decent people get cut to ribbons by people who should support them.

*You're in Alaska so you can probably speak to this better, but the research I did showed that she actually flattened the severence tax and widened the base because of the peculiar way Alaska was charging the tax. IIRC before the reform upwards of 40% of wells were not being taxed at all so in the technical sense she did raise taxes but she also lowered them on forward production. Anyway, plenty of work still needs to be done because the severence tax is still a peculiar creature and puts AK at a disadvantage to TX and LA.

[sbw]

My memory is so short. Was Donald a troll from before or is he just acting like one now?

[clarice]

I can't remember either, sbw.

[cathyf]

"Don" was a troll, "Donald" not, but because of the way bgates implemented narcisolater, "Donald" would get blocked if "Don" was on your list. "Donald" didn't stay around too long -- just drifted off. I have no idea if this current Donald is the old one. And without history, I'm not really sure if this Donald is a troll or merely inappropriately feisty.

[Porchlight]

My memory is the same as cathyf..."Don" is our familiar old troll of yore. I've enjoyed several of "Donald"'s comments in recent weeks.

[daddy]

Rich,

I'm on the road with no time to research your Tax point. But even if it is true, the unfortunate perception in Alaska is that the opposite is true, and that perception is the message that is continually hammered home each and every day by the Talk Show of Halcro and Fagan. That's what Sarah is up against.

[Mike Huggins]

Earlier here, Neo posted on the NY Times "game changer" with regard to the Obama/ACORN connection, and a few of us added to that. Well, Clarice hits a home run on this on PJ Media today: ACORN Linked to Illegal Aid for Obama Campaign. Amazing stuff that reminds me of a certain middle European "phenomena" of the 1930s.