Registered voters can't pull the lever for Republicans fast enough, per a new WaPo poll. Among likely voters in the upcoming Congressional elections, 40% lean left and 53% are inclined to vote Republican.
By way of comparison, in early November 2006 (prior to the Dem housecleaning) the margin among likely voters favored Dems by 51-45.
Another question has a longer history:
4. Overall, which party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years?
Currently Dems lead among all respondents by 40-37. By way of comparison, in Sept 2006 the Dems led by 47-38; in the September before the Republican sweep in 1994, Dems led by 43-40.
I don't imagine many voters look back to our experience from 1995-2000 and fear a divided government. Especially if, as seems likely, Barack can keep his pants on in the Oval Office.
Tim, Jane, cannot post..Have you accidentally hit the wrong button?
Posted by: Clarice | September 07, 2010 at 04:01 PM
TM, anduril is not spelled J-a-n-e.
Posted by: sbw | September 07, 2010 at 04:16 PM
Vote early, vote often.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 07, 2010 at 04:22 PM
You already used the "keep his pants on" line a few posts down.
Posted by: Paraphrase | September 07, 2010 at 04:26 PM
And what is meant by "pants", does that include the Mom Jeans?
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 07, 2010 at 04:30 PM
TOm, not Tim...Rats..
Posted by: Clarice | September 07, 2010 at 04:51 PM
Well Tunku Varajardun (sp?) thinks Obama has lost his sex appeal. And Mama Michelle would whup his sorry backside if he ever found the testosterone to stray off the reservation. So it's a pretty good bet that he'll keep his "mom jeans" firmly buttoned up while he's in the Oval Office.
Posted by: Comanche Voter | September 07, 2010 at 04:53 PM
In the LUN, is Peter Orszag floating an idea for the Administration?
He states that the Bush tax cuts must be temporarily extended (for two years) for the middle class. He then states that the tax cuts for the "rich" (presumably the top two brackets of taxable income) should NOT be extended, but the evil Republicans will probably force the Democrats to retain ALL of the Bush tax cuts in order to get the legislation passed.
I assume Orszag knows, but can't admit, that the Bush tax cuts must be extended across the board in order to have any significant value, and he is signaling the Democrats that they should let the Republicans "force" them to maintain all of the tax cuts, inclding those for evil rich people, so that the middle class is not harmed.
The reason I think that this idea comes from the Administration rather than Orszag is that he insists the extension should only be for exactly two years. Only the Thought Leaders behind this Adminstration could think it would be a good idea to offer up as a 2012 campaign issue the question of again extending the Bush tax cuts.
Posted by: BobDenver | September 07, 2010 at 04:58 PM
All Republicans need to sweep both houses is for Obama to throw out the first pitch at the first game of the Phillies/Yankees World Series.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | September 07, 2010 at 05:02 PM
Page 26 of the cited poll provides a partisan identification breakdown of the sample as R 25 D 31 I 39 while Rasmussen's current split has it at R 34 D 35 and I 31.
The WaPo is nailing the Norwegian Blue to the perch.
PPP (Dem) provides a more realistic view:
Will the President accuse PPP of treating him as a dog treats a fire hydrant?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 07, 2010 at 05:03 PM
Greetings from cloudy, cold Capitola beach. Poor Jane got the boot? And, sick puppy is still allowed to throw up all over every thread? Bummer.
Posted by: centralcal | September 07, 2010 at 05:10 PM
Tunku Varadarajan thinks Obama has lost his sex appeal.
He also says he can't think of "a single politician of stature with any sex appeal at all."
The fact that guys like that are respected intellectuals goes a long way towards helping me understand how a majority of the public plan on voting Republican while a plurality think the Democrats will do a better job.
Posted by: bgates | September 07, 2010 at 05:11 PM
I think the problem is, Tunku Varadarajan is looking to politicians for sex appeal, and looking for sex appeal in politicians. The other problem is that people are giving Tunku Varadarajan bandwidth to spew his feces under the label of opinion.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 07, 2010 at 05:17 PM
Porchlight:
As you suggested in an earlier thread, Charlie Cook has now "incrementally" bumped his count of Republican additions in the House up to 40. :-)
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 07, 2010 at 05:17 PM
Especially if, as seems likely, Barack can keep his pants on in the Oval Office
why make this assumption? he's a guy, aren't guys genetically wired to cheat? he has groupies, and just like rock stars or pro basketball players, has many more opportunities to stray than a tax accountant with a good sense of humor. he has ready made alibis ("sorry, Michelle, big crisis, I was needed in the situation room") that facilitate concealing any affair. and most telling, he thinks he is better than everyone else and that he doesn't have to play by the same rules as everybody else (such as the rule that says one needs experience to get a really good job and the one that says people ought to be reasonably competent at what they do) and we all know guys with big egos are more likely to prowl than guys with little self esteem.
Or.. are you just suggesting it is just in the oval office he is likely to keep his pants on, that he isn't likely to do so outside of there?
Posted by: steve | September 07, 2010 at 05:17 PM
Bumperstickerest:
That would *ahem* be the Braves/Yankees World Series. *ahem*
Posted by: Appalled | September 07, 2010 at 05:27 PM
"You already used the "keep his pants on" line a few posts down."
Yes, it was a pretty good line, back then...
Posted by: anduril | September 07, 2010 at 05:28 PM
Thanks JMH! Good to see.
By the way, I completely neglected to thank RichatUF yesterday for his JSTOR citations on the 1994 elections. Rich, if you're reading, thank you. I am browsing them now. Good stuff.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 07, 2010 at 05:36 PM
steve:
"he's a guy, aren't guys genetically wired to cheat?"
White House Seminar on Presidential Infidelity
Day One: Are men genetically wired to cheat?
Day Two: Who is and is not fair game?
Day Three: How does the ethnicity of potential partners affect or effect the President's domestic agenda?
Day Four.....
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 07, 2010 at 06:00 PM
why make this assumption?
To set up the eventual headline, "Amoral Narcissist Married to This

Seeks Sexual Gratification Elsewhere.
Unexpectedly!"
Posted by: bgates | September 07, 2010 at 06:06 PM
AP Exclusive: Murkowski says she's not a quitter
Gee, is that a dig?
Posted by: Extraneus | September 07, 2010 at 06:17 PM
bgates--
that is one bad photo. wow. I almost feel sorry for Barry O-- almost.
Posted by: NK | September 07, 2010 at 06:18 PM
Well I can post on this computer. Clearly I must never go to work again.
Thanks guys - especially "Tim" whoever that is!
Posted by: Jane | September 07, 2010 at 06:30 PM
HEH--I'm so glad you made it back on..
Posted by: Clarice | September 07, 2010 at 06:33 PM
is looking to politicians for sex appeal, and looking for sex appeal in politicians.
and now the chattering class is hiring those that appeal for sex. How low can CNN sink to hire Spitzer? Is there no shame anymore?
Posted by: Janet | September 07, 2010 at 06:39 PM
I'm planning on live-blogging the MA gubernatorial debate over at YOU TOO if anyone is interested. It starts at 7:00
Posted by: Jane | September 07, 2010 at 06:45 PM
Now Hartford Connecticut is gonna open their city council meetings with Muslim prayers. LUN
from the article -
"Though meetings don't regularly begin with any form of prayer, an email from the Common Council called it "an act of solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters.""
They are embracing Islam like there is no tomorrow. Happy Holidays...get that damn tree off public property...Glenn Beck is a hater cause he talks about God....but let us invite some local imams to lead us in prayer to allah. Good grief.
Posted by: Janet | September 07, 2010 at 06:53 PM
How low can CNN sink to hire Spitzer? Is there no shame anymore?
In order: Probably lower than this and yes but don't go looking for it there.
At first I'm tempted to feel sorry for his wife but she's obviously as complicit in this as Muffer was in Clenis's bimbo eruptions so I don't think it would be worth my while to send any sympathy her way. They all strike me as incredibly damaged shells of people. I know that I'm disposed to liking him already, but what a fresh breath of air GWB was to walk away from all that garbage and not seem to miss it a bit. I think there's a lesson there to which the MFM is completely autistic.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 07, 2010 at 06:58 PM
Whew! Good thing for the Dems people have something besides the economy on their minds...
Posted by: anduril | September 07, 2010 at 07:01 PM
Like maybe this?
Tuesday: 2 US Soldiers Killed, 9 Wounded, 14 Iraqis Killed; 15 Iraqis Wounded
Gunmen killed two U.S. soldiers in one of at least three attacks on American targets. At least 14 Iraqis were killed and 15 more were wounded as well. Meanwhile, six months have passed since national elections, yet the new government has not been selected.
Posted by: anduril | September 07, 2010 at 07:04 PM
Rob Crawford:
A little over the top maybe? Have you ever read Varadarajan before? He's a serious, interesting columnist. While I wouldn't count this one of his best, it's not like there's nothing worth saying on the subject of political, and in particular, presidential sex appeal.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 07, 2010 at 07:06 PM
Gallup Generic Tie
Ras Generic +12 R
There is an overlap in the polling period. Gallup notes a 25 point lead by Reps in enthusiasm.
Anyone want to venture a guess as to why Gallup generic results are in constant yo-yo?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 07, 2010 at 07:09 PM
Yes, Tunku has written some things that make you hmm, but on balance he's good although moving from the Journal to the Daily Beast
doesn't really help as a general rule
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 07:10 PM
Clarice,
I appear to have access once again. Gawd knows what is going on.
Posted by: Jane | September 07, 2010 at 07:24 PM
Rick, are they (Gallup)still giving the Dems a 12 point boost? As Wm Jacobson says any poll which on no news shows a 10 pt swing in a week is not worth paying attention to.
Posted by: Clarice | September 07, 2010 at 07:29 PM
They formulated the sample, one of the reasons I distrust PPP they do that quite often
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 07:35 PM
Because the only real performance measure of these polling partisans is their last poll before the election? And all the rest of the gyrations are only intended to influence the outcome while maintaining some semblance of credibility?
I've looked for comparative data showing the performance of the various big-time polling outfits four weeks vs. two weeks out vs. right before the elections, etc. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but I drew a total blank. I'm sure this would make a great dissertation.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 07, 2010 at 07:36 PM
Bloomberg is proving he is a special kind of idiot, of all things approving of that psycho
pastor, in Gainesville
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 07:42 PM
That's either a big athletic bag, or...
Posted by: anduril | September 07, 2010 at 07:44 PM
I am not sure Jane's 7:24 is a statement of her final position. If it is not and anyone has any good ideas of how to get past typepad's jaws of death, please post them here.
Posted by: Clarice | September 07, 2010 at 07:46 PM
There have been like four posts in the past 24 hours that dissapeared into the ether
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 07:48 PM
The fact that Varadarajan stated that there are now no political figures of national import with any sex appeal made me wonder if he is gay, because I can sure think of one.
Posted by: BobDenver | September 07, 2010 at 07:55 PM
There have been like four posts in the past 24 hours that dissapeared into the ether
Tx, TM.
Posted by: anduril | September 07, 2010 at 07:59 PM
narciso, if you post a link you have to enter a confirmation code, but the confirmation box shows up below the bottom of the page and you don't see it unless you scroll to it.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 07, 2010 at 08:00 PM
I'm here and I won't know if I can post at work until tomorrow.
I just lived blogged the MA gubernatorial debate. The last question was about auntee Zeutini.
Posted by: Jane | September 07, 2010 at 08:01 PM
BTW Scooter libby is going to be on the Factor, with Monica Crowley if you are interested.
Posted by: Jane | September 07, 2010 at 08:02 PM
Yes, she was the subject of one of his less
wise columns last spring.
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 08:03 PM
Well maybe I read him wrong, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 08:07 PM
"Registered voters can't pull the lever for Republicans fast enough....."
For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.
Posted by: Pops | September 07, 2010 at 08:08 PM
Jane, I missed the debate/forgot it was on/who am I kidding? - I wouldn't have listened. I read your article. As always the D starts right in with the "investing" BS. Did anyone call him on his pledge to reduce property taxes?
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 07, 2010 at 08:08 PM
Have Bloomberg and Obama commented yet on how necessary it is to allow freedom that they support the Koran burnings??
I deleted the Koran from my Kindle...am I responsible for any deaths yet?
Shouldn't someone ask General Petreaus if it is the burning of the Koran that is wrong, or is it supporting a religion that demands the death of anyone who burns a Koran is wrong??
I just don't remember these same people telling us how obscene and disgusting and wrong it was for Palestinians to be dancing in the streets and passing candy out in celebration of Sept 11th.
Why can't our leaders state simple truths that Islam is the most INTOLERANT of all the major religions.
Posted by: Pops | September 07, 2010 at 08:12 PM
Where did they find this sTeyn woman, special
brand of crazy, then again maybe she pull some
votes away from Patrick
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 08:15 PM
Clarice,
I suspect that Gallup may be tossing in ringers to influence polling averages. Pull the Newsweek and Gallup "ties" and the Reps are at +9.4 rather than the Time owned RCP average of +6.7.
Rasmussen is very clear that his "secret sauce" involves weighting for party ID plus weighting for historical turnout as modified by current voter intensity. Gallup is as vague about that aspect of their sample selection as Rasmussen is clear.
I believe SUSA is using methodology similar to Rasmussen's regarding their sample modeling. Most other pollsters appear to be using "rear view mirror" modeling which is going to produce results that skew Dem positive.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 07, 2010 at 08:23 PM
Apparently these folks haven't figured out that "Burn Notice" is a TV show, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 08:24 PM
Stein may pull a few votes away from DP, but the worry is that Cahill's phony claims of fiscal conservatism will eat away more Baker voters than Deval's.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 07, 2010 at 08:26 PM
Yeah, and who can deny ol' Tunku's judgment here (from narc's link):
As opposed to Obama's unassailable abilities and achievements, of course.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 07, 2010 at 08:33 PM
Did anyone call him on his pledge to reduce property taxes
Yes, but it got all garbled at that point. I was trying to put my biases aside and I'd say Baker came off well, as did Cahill altho Baker nailed him for some flip flops. Patrick was too smooth, and IMO told some outright lies. Now if you like Patrick you would not have seen anything wrong, but if you are on the fence he seemed so much like an Obama charlatan.
I think I would give it to Baker, and maybe Cahill.
Posted by: Jane | September 07, 2010 at 08:41 PM
Narciso, I think you have it right about Steyn on both counts.
Posted by: Jane | September 07, 2010 at 08:43 PM
but the worry is that Cahill's phony claims of fiscal conservatism will eat away more Baker voters than Deval's.
Baker did a pretty good job with that - twice referring to the fact that on some issue - I forget now, cahill had had the exact opposite position when he supported Deval patrick's election in 2006, and I thought it was effective.
Baker's latest campaign literature says he is within 2 points.
Posted by: Jane | September 07, 2010 at 08:48 PM
Boy that Libby is a really great man.
Posted by: Jane | September 07, 2010 at 08:48 PM
Jane,
Rasmussen has Patrick at +2. Scrolling down and looking at the trend, I'd put money on Baker.
For those wishing to examine what SUSA is doing, here's Calif. statewides. Note the Party Affiliation weighting. R 31, D 47 and I 22. Brown at 40 and Boxer at 46 with that kind of weighting is an indication of the size of the wave coming.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 07, 2010 at 09:02 PM
NYT: "President Obama on Wednesday will rule out any compromise that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy beyond this year, officials said, adding a populist twist to an election-season economic package that is otherwise designed to entice support from big businesses and their Republican allies."
LUN
Posted by: Henry R | September 07, 2010 at 09:03 PM
Rick,
They say if Cahill was not in the race Patrick wouldn't have a prayer - it would be a landslide. I hope you are right, it certainly feels like you are around here.
Posted by: Jane | September 07, 2010 at 09:07 PM
Henry,
That is really bad news.
Posted by: Jane | September 07, 2010 at 09:08 PM
President Obama on Wednesday will rule out any compromise that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy beyond this year,
They are all expiring. So a compromise might not be his to rule out.
Posted by: MayBee | September 07, 2010 at 09:10 PM
Maybee-
He can veto any legistlation that the GOP sends extending them. I've been doubtful they'd be extended for a while now and am unsurprised that he would try and make it an issue. And the expiration will probably make them about the worse timed tax hikes in US history.
Posted by: RichatUF | September 07, 2010 at 09:16 PM
Rick, I refuse to waste time in anyone but Barone and Cost and any pollsters except Ras and SurveyUSA.
Posted by: Clarice | September 07, 2010 at 09:17 PM
He also says he can't think of "a single politician of stature with any sex appeal at all."
Obviously forgot about Ben Nelson and Jerry Nadler.
Posted by: PD | September 07, 2010 at 09:19 PM
He's 'acting stupidly' again, didn't even listen to genius Orszag, this time around.
Never heard of this steyn person, but that was
my first impression
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 09:22 PM
He can veto any legistlation that the GOP sends extending them.
Oh, absolutely.
But I don't think new legislation is going to be all that easy to get through Congress.
Whatever he vetoes (or doesn't get to sign) makes everyone's taxes go up.
Posted by: MayBee | September 07, 2010 at 09:23 PM
Irony, 'it's what's for dinner' in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 09:26 PM
It's just irksome that a government that isn't responsible enough to pull a budget together for this year will try to agree which citizens can do with less money.
They won't decide which government programs need less money, but by golly they are certain Joe Blow the accountant has some dollars he doesn't need.
Posted by: MayBee | September 07, 2010 at 09:33 PM
narciso-
Note paragraph 5.
He blows his whole story up with this little admission: "Mexican law places stringent restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, though it does permit ownership of shotguns and pistols."
I'm sure one little sentence wouldn't mean too much.
Please file that under ALL GUNS ARE BAD, and close the drawer, again.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 07, 2010 at 09:34 PM
MayBee-
It's. Not. Your. Money.
Please remember, they're doing the best they can with the one pie they inherited, off the neighbor's sill.
Shoo', Fly!
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 07, 2010 at 09:36 PM
"I assume Orszag knows, but can't admit, that the Bush tax cuts must be extended across the board in order to have any significant value, and he is signaling the Democrats that they should let the Republicans "force" them to maintain all of the tax cuts, inclding those for evil rich people, so that the middle class is not harmed."
Darn it, maybe already beat me to it. Most of the best provisions have already expired or ramped way down. Extending the Bush tax cuts really only extends the tax brackets, at this point. It's gonna require new legislation.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 07, 2010 at 09:40 PM
He also says he can't think of "a single politician of stature with any sex appeal at all."
Obviously, he added "of stature" to rule out Sarah Palin.
Now granted she is only about 5'2", but I don't think that's what he meant by "stature."
Whatever, Tunku. Go find something relevant to write about.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 07, 2010 at 09:44 PM
". "[It] again proves it is too easy for criminals and traffickers to get guns."
Making it more difficult for decent American citizens to get guns does nothing to stop criminals and traffickers getting them, IMO.
Posted by: Pagar | September 07, 2010 at 09:45 PM
And Orszag set it up so beautifully! O's insistence on tax increases for the rich is, I think, very bad news for the economy, but sows more seeds of destruction for an Obama re-election.
The other question this raises is, exactly how to square these $200K-250K thresholds with the actual tax brackets, which don't match up at all well. And do you use year 2000 brackets, or year 2010 brackets? You can find the brackets at monkeychimp.com. Click on "Tax rates for 2010 and beyond."
Posted by: BobDenver | September 07, 2010 at 09:47 PM
Maybee-
He can find waste over at Defense. No real problems at NASA either (I'm agnostic on ending Constellation. It was the dishonest process, which has been disruptive to many thousands of people, that got to me). Pretty sure he'd like to take a meat ax to our nuclear deterrent and re-direct that money to public employee unions. The WaPo had a front page story about the Europeans cutting CERN and ESO spending and I'm sure similiar cuts are coming to the US too.
The thing about the Bush era tax cuts is that Congress and the administration knew that they would expire since they have been in office. If it wasn't a good time them to make the permanent or repeal them why is it now. Are those tax cuts going to end up much like the AMT or the Medicare payment cuts? Stuff that gets a one or two year patch and then in is not a good time and they get patched over again. Seems like a great way for someone running a business to retrench because he doesn't have a real good sense what the next year's tax liability will be.
Porchlight-
You're welcome.
Posted by: RichatUF | September 07, 2010 at 09:57 PM
Well that was five months ago, since then he has deigned that she can 'rally the
troops' it can't hurt, mighty big of him.
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 09:58 PM
Great point Maybee @ 9:33.
Posted by: Janet | September 07, 2010 at 10:06 PM
My accountant was mightly peeved over the tax tables this year, he'll be apoplectic over next year's
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 10:12 PM
Ho, ho. Tunku channeling T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII there.
Ya know, it's one thing to write something with which I strongly take exception to based on extrapolations from available evidence; and it's another thing to be a snotty little prig with delusions of superiority based on nothing but acquired snark from one's dimwitted peers. Being the smartest journalist in the room is the most unimpressive standard I can imagine.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 07, 2010 at 10:26 PM
I don't know what to bring up first!
Do I mention "SENATOR" Boxer might have a "contribution-for-endorsement" problem with the esteemed Maxine Waters, OR, do I bring up Imam Rauf's impending op-ed piece at the NYT, naturally, set in type for tomorrow.
What to do, what to do....
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 07, 2010 at 10:31 PM
--it's another thing to be a snotty little prig--
Heh. A fine choice of descriptive noun there Cap. :)
Posted by: Ignatz | September 07, 2010 at 10:36 PM
Cap'n-
Then when I report some obscure news here, it's not because I have delusions of superiority? (That, purportedly, is cured, daily, with a morning application, by the spouse. It's historically called a "curative", or "snake oil". Only sticks as far as the train steps.)
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 07, 2010 at 10:38 PM
Well his lips are moving in the second instance, the first one seems all too plausibly awkward.
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 10:38 PM
Oh, and RS McCain has learned that Lisa Murkowski will NOT go quietly into the night.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 07, 2010 at 10:45 PM
From Iman Rauf's link
"in a verse deemed the heart of this chapter, “Peace is a word spoken from a merciful Lord.”
IMO, No merciful God would have anything to do with a religion that gives 99 lashes to someone for not wearing a headpiece, yet alone stoning a woman to death for allegedly committing adultery.
IMO,the words Islam and peace do not belong together.
Posted by: Pagar | September 07, 2010 at 10:45 PM
The Zombies in Raccoon City, are less ornery than Veruca, I mean Lisa. So Bitney, the fellow with the Sanford situation, and Halcro, Mr. 9% (that's what he garnered in the primary) are behind this genius move
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 10:57 PM
You're not suPposed to notice those little contradictions, pager.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 07, 2010 at 10:57 PM
Wow.
Despite the hopelessness of the quest - the 4th district includes some of the most entrenched liberal outposts in the state:PR of CH, Duke and Durham - I signed up as volunteer for Lawson over the weekend. Now this just came in over the transom:
We are winning. Lawson 45.6% - Price 45.1%
Dear redacted,
Your hard work and dedicated support is paying off!
In front of a packed press room with news reporters, cameras, and supporters at the Clarion Hotel in Raleigh I shared with reporters the historic results of a large-scale poll we commissioned in mid-August.
Not only are we addressing the key issues that people are concerned about, such as bailouts, record deficits, runaway spending, and a government that has grown too big....
We are winning.
It’s clear that the people of the fourth district know that Washington insiders are not representing our best interests.
As I told reporters, Americans know you can't spend yourself out of a recession - just like you can't drink yourself sober. Americans know that you need to cut taxes, eliminate wasteful government spending, stop the bailouts and let North Carolina keep more of our money to allow us to create jobs and prosperity in our own communities.
The signs are becoming clear: Even with a whopping 45.4% Democrat respondents we are still polling nearly half a point ahead of David Price.
This is big news, because this means we have a historic opportunity to unseat a 22-year incumbent Washington insider, who votes with Nancy Pelosi more than any other congressman.
This campaign will be center stage in the 2010 election. The DCCC cannot afford to lose this seat and will likely spend hundreds of thousands to save Price. Politicos across the country had written this one off, but we stood strong -- and it paid off.
Now more than ever I need your help.
The Pelosi/Price/Democratic war machine now will have us in their sights and will attempt to discredit me while ignoring the message.
This means we need to be ready to have our message ring clear through extensive radio, television and online advertising. Your contributions are desperately needed so we can remain competitive and beat David Price in November. Please consider a contribution today.
Posted by: Strawman Cometh | September 07, 2010 at 11:05 PM
News Flash:
Orzag gets it right and finally tells the truth; Rahm deserts Good Ship Lollipop!
Posted by: maryrose | September 07, 2010 at 11:05 PM
narciso-
Bitney was canned for "dipping his wick in foreign substances to his marriage" by Mrs. Palin. I see no problem with that action by her, but apparently he decided it was above her to judge, and got pissy about it.
If it were me, I'd slowly peel back the bandaid on his marriage, if it still exists, or re-introduce his former bride to the world.
And pay the lawyer's fees afterwards for breach of divorce decrees, but I'm from Chicago, so what do I know?
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 07, 2010 at 11:08 PM
So I am confused. Obama wants to extend tax cuts for the lower 98% but not extend them for the top 2%.
Do I have that right? How is he going to do it? Pass legislation? When?
Posted by: Porchlight | September 07, 2010 at 11:17 PM
"If it were me, I'd slowly peel back the bandaid on his marriage, if it still exists, or re-introduce his former bride to the world."
Never. Piss off. Melinda.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 07, 2010 at 11:25 PM
It's not meant to be figured out Porch. At this point, I think it's all campaign rhetoric. Bears no resemblance to reality.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 07, 2010 at 11:27 PM
Porchlight-
I'm sure the cap gains and dividend rates are included in the "top 2%". He will pull out the veto stamp and pen. The Congress won't pass anything in their lameduck session and the Reps will send up a package he won't sign.
Posted by: RichatUF | September 07, 2010 at 11:31 PM
The Congress hasn't passed a budget yet, that's a fundamental responsibility they flaked out on, yet they have loaded us down with at least two leviathan programs
Posted by: narciso | September 07, 2010 at 11:36 PM
narciso-
They also outsourced "deficit reduction" to a commission that won't report back until December.
Posted by: RichatUF | September 07, 2010 at 11:40 PM