Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (45750)	9/10/2010 1:30:36 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

In the case of irresponsible people they can only be tagged with the successes that happen while they are in the proximity, any failures must belong to their predecessors. Obama shows no remorse in blaming President Bush for everything Obama does wrong. He also shows no remorse in trying to take credit for everything President Bush did right.

To: sandintoes who wrote (45750)	9/10/2010 9:32:15 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Obama's Agenda is Toxic in 2010 Sinking With Obama, Dems Plan Political Triage By Michael Barone September 9, 2010 When you spot the word "triage" in a political news story, you know someone is in trouble. Triage is the procedure by which medical personnel screening people injured in combat or disasters separate those who can be saved from those who can't. The first group is given immediate surgery in hopes of recovery. The second is given painkillers to make the end bearable. So it was startling to read last weekend in The New York Times that House Democratic leaders "are preparing a brutal triage of their own members in hopes of saving enough seats to keep a slim grip on the majority." House Democratic campaign chairman Chris Van Hollen quickly pooh-poohed the story, as any politically savvy person would. But I bet he's already done his triage and that some of the names mentioned in the Times story are to get painkillers only. For in the last week the bad news has been flooding in on congressional Democrats. On the generic ballot question, the realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls showed that 49 percent said they would vote for the Republican candidate for the House and 41 percent said they would vote for the Democrat. To put these results in perspective, consider that before last month Gallup had never shown Republicans leading by more than 6 percent since it began asking the question in 1942. Now they lead by as much as 13 percent in some polls. And consider also that the generic ballot question has tended to under-predict actual Republican performance in five of the last six House elections. Republicans need to gain 39 seats for a House majority. The professional analysts see it happening: Larry Sabato puts the number at 47, Stuart Rothenberg at 37 to 42, Charlie Cook at 40. Cook notes that Democratic incumbents are trailing Republican challengers in polls in 32 districts. These are cautious prognosticators who evaluate candidates for every seat. No wonder Politico's Mike Allen wrote yesterday that "the sky is falling" for the Democrats. The signs are that Democratic candidates are getting the same message in their polls. Joe Donnelly in Indiana 2 runs an ad criticizing Barack Obama. Travis Childers in Mississippi 1 boasts of voting against the budget. Steve Driehaus in Ohio 1 runs a spot identifying his opponent as a congressman, even though he's an ex-congressman, while positioning himself as the challenger. At least five House Democrats are running ads bragging about their votes against Obamacare. Surveys of ads run by candidates indicate that no Democrat has run an ad bragging about the health care bill since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did in April. More recently, he's been concentrating on depicting his opponent, Sharron Angle, as a wacko. Is all this just a response to a sputtering economy? Political scientist Alan Abramowitz, on a panel with Sabato and me at the American Political Science Association conference last weekend, said he thought so. I disagreed. I think what we're seeing is a rejection of the Obama Democrats' big-government policies. The president and his party thought that in times of economic distress most voters would be supportive of or at least amenable to a vast expansion of the size and scope of government. They jammed the Senate version of their health care bill through the House in March, in the face of the clear opposition signaled by the voters of Massachusetts as well as every public opinion poll. I can't think of a more unpopular major measure passed by Congress since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Back then, the Democrats also had supermajorities in both houses of Congress and a young, previously little known president who had defeated an aging war hero by a decisive margin. They realized that the Kansas-Nebraska Act promoting slavery in the territories would raise some hackles, but expressed confidence that voters would accept it when it was properly explained to them. They didn't. Voters reduced the number of Democratic House members from 159 to 83, nearly eliminating the party in much of the North. Democrats didn't win a House majority for the next 20 years. Today, House Democrats have more money than their opponents and, unlike 1994, they've known for months that they might be in peril. They know that Republicans remain unpopular and hoped their own numbers would improve. But instead they're plunging to historic depths. Time for triage. realclearpolitics.com

To: sandintoes who wrote (45750)	10/15/2010 6:00:21 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Barney Frank a tough sell Yet voters have kept buying Frank’s nonsense By Michael Graham Friday, October 15, 2010 Could Don Draper sell Barney Frank? Don Draper is the central character on the popular and (as I can personally attest) addictive TV drama “Mad Men.” He is a marketing miracle worker, the prototypical ad man from Madison Avenue’s heyday. He’s a guy who can sell anything. But I bet Barney Frank would leave him stumped. Who is Barney Frank’s market? If you’re a “good government” white-collar suburbanite, Frank’s been a disaster. When he’s not in a personal relationship with an executive at an agency he oversees (Frank’s former partner, Herb Moses, was an executive at Fannie Mae) Frank’s on vacation to the Virgin Islands riding the private jet of a Wall Street tycoon - another person whose industry he regulates. So maybe you’re a results-oriented pragmatist who just wants politicians who keep the trains running on time. Has any congressman ever wreaked so much economic damage on his nation? Even Frank admits that he had “ideological blinders” about Freddie/Fannie. His push to put the taxpayer on the hook for high-risk loans to special-interest borrowers was done in the name of liberal politics, not economic rationality. He now claims he just didn’t know any better. But everybody knew better in the summer of 2008 when Frank claimed “Freddie and Fannie are not in danger.” Two months later they were bankrupt. Here’s just one frightening phrase from a memo in Frank’s congressional committee: Fannie and Freddie participated in transactions “that would not normally be considered to be economically viable.” “Not considered economically viable” could be Frank’s campaign motto. From opposing Reaganomics to opposing welfare reform to opposing the Bush tax cuts, Frank’s been wrong on nearly every major issue since taking office in 1980. Then there’s Frank’s (ahem) winning personality. Voters looking for a shaken hand or a well-kissed baby shouldn’t count on Barney. He’s branded himself as the “congressman most likely to scream at you as if he forgot to take his meds.” Many voters remember Frank insulting a Lyndon LaRouche fan at a town hall (“Talking to you is like talking to a dining room table!”). But not long after he attacked the intelligence of a Harvard law student for asking legitimate questions about Frank’s role in the financial meltdown. Cruel, cutting and cranky - is there really a political market for this? And not to be catty, but, well, we live in a society where people are judged by their looks. Frank is, to put it kindly, the Susan Boyle of American politics - a role he highlights by frequently dressing as though he slept in a homeless guy’s clothes and forgot to give them back. Bad policy, bad politics, bad attitude and bad hair - put on your Don Draper hat and tell me how you’d sell a voter on Barney Frank? And yet, political scorekeeper Charlie Cook says he’s likely to be re-elected yet again. Just like every year since 1980. You’ve been to Newton and Brookline. Does Frank really represent the quality of those communities? If he had never been elected to public office and showed up to announce his candidacy today, would he even be taken seriously in an elite Massachusetts suburb? If Frank is re-elected (and alas, I suspect he will be), it will be an indictment of the voters of his district - indisputable truth that these posturing, suburban liberals don’t understand the issues or care about results. They vote Democrat for the same reason they pay $6 for coffee at a Starbucks, because “we’re that kind of people.” Even if it means electing the kind of congressman that is Barney Frank bostonherald.com