stay connected

FrumForum Facebook FrumForum YouTube Update Twitter FrumForum Flickr

The Juggernaut Rolls Forward

November 21st, 2009 at 5:28 pm by David Frum | 76 Comments |

Share

Looks like Blanche Lincoln is voting to allow the bill to proceed. We’re heading to an all or nothing situation for Republicans. Because we dealt ourselves out of the game at the start, this thing either passes more or less as the Dem leadership wishes – or it collapses utterly. That latter outcome seems hourly more unlikely. Will this be 1993 in reverse? A Republican strategy of non-negotiation and obstruction ending not in the defeat of a repugnant bill, but in its passage without any of the compromises that a deal-making GOP might have extracted?

Recent Posts by David Frum



76 responses so far

  • 1 rbottoms // Nov 21, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    A Republican strategy of non-negotiation and obstruction ending not in the defeat of a repugnant bill, but in its passage without any of the compromises that a deal-making GOP might have extracted?

    Yep.

  • 2 balconesfault // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    Well, the vote was just to allow floor debate.

    I would think that for an issue this important, the vote should have been close to unanimous, given that the Repubs have in pocket the chance to filibuster the final vote.

  • 3 steelyblades // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    The Senate floor debate ought to be the most interesting part yet. There is still plenty of time to Stupak this bill up, but overall this looks like a momentum builder for the Dems.

  • 4 rbottoms // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    I would think that for an issue this important, the vote should have been close to unanimous, given that the Repubs have in pocket the chance to filibuster the final vote.

    The Republicans are cooked, and best of all Obama has barely applied any pressure on recalcitrant Dems to this point, leaving lots of room to maneuver now. All it will take is one of the Senators from Maine and we’re over the finish line.

    Then it’s on the repairing relations with gays over DADT and we’re pretty solid for 2012. The GOP presidential race will be a race to the bottom, who can be the most outrageous freak to please the teabaggers with the winner boxed in to taking stands that will remind the independent voters just why they find the modern GOP to be conspiracy minded loons. It will be all ACORN all the time, birth certificate hi-jinks, and insults du jour to Hispanics on immigration.

    Meanwhile the Democrats will have the benefit of an economy finally back on track. As voters notice not only has granny not been sent to the ovens but they can make decisions about health insurnace without worrying about where they live, whether they have pre-existing conditions, or recessions.

    Things are looking up for three years hence.

    Gitmo will be closed, some lucky locale will have hundreds of new jobs guarding the prisoners, and best of all KSM and the others will long since have been hanged. A feat George Bush hadn’t managed.

    GM will pay back its loans by 2012, there will not only be that success to crow about but hundreds of thousands of happy UAW workers still employed, along with suppliers still in business. Plus, lots of fully electric vehicles will be available, at long last starting our drive for energy independence.

    Stimulus successes will abound and the Dow will be humming above 10,000.

    We’ll have one and possibly two more Supreme Court appointments and judges will at last be taking the bench with Obama’s ideological stamp.

    The party of NO in 2009 will be busy the next few years trying to find the furthest right, hard ass conservatives the teabaggers will approve at all levels, and by 2012 the rest of America will be highly uninterested in their jihad to unmask ObamaHitlerMao as the Anti-Christ.

    So, let the games begin.

  • 5 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    balconesfault // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    …….Do get real guys this is how it was always going to be……it was always going to pass in the house despite the apparent closeness of the vote(Pelosi could afford to give the squeamish a pass when she had the votes)……in the senate first prize for Reid was always cloture and then actually pass the bill with as few as 55 votes Dem votes……then conference…….then final votes….. no problem in house and again in the senate ideally 60 for cloture but if push comes to shove he’ll use recon

  • 6 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    rbottoms // Nov 21, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    …….While you’re putting the best spin on it and there’s many a slip twixt cup and lip……the scenario you outline is entirely credible……if things go well the world is going to look rather like this

  • 7 mpolito // Nov 21, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    There certainly are a lot of liberals who post here. Some of them seem very confident about the Dems bill and agenda (Obama could have closed Gitmo already, so why is he waiting?). You’ll have to see how things look after the 2010 midterms before you gloat, guys.

    As for David’s view, the GOP does not have a lot of leverage. In fact, it has very little. That’s what happens when you have 40 or fewer seats. The Dems would not want to negotiate with us in any case, because they know that now is their best chance to nationalize healthcare, and so they want to do it now. But blaming the GOP is pretty fatuous.

  • 8 rbottoms // Nov 21, 2009 at 7:16 pm

    Obama could have closed Gitmo already, so why is he waiting?

    Busy ensuring he’s the first Democratic president in 100 years to reform health care? I can sure tell you which issue I care more about.

  • 9 ottovbvs // Nov 21, 2009 at 7:20 pm

    mpolito // Nov 21, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    ” (Obama could have closed Gitmo already, so why is he waiting?).”

    …….Where would you say this was on Obama’s to do list?……15th—–18th——25th….

    “The Dems would not want to negotiate with us in any case, because they know that now is their best chance to nationalize healthcare, and so they want to do it now.”

    …..the list of the issues where the Republicans have worked with Democrats is the shortest in history

  • 10 jruss89 // Nov 21, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    “Obama could have closed Gitmo already, so why is he waiting”

    Don’t you want him to wait though? I gather that it’s likely you do not want him to close it for fear of sending its occupants to your local maximum security prison, but then when he doesn’t do it immediately, you ask why he didn’t close it already and send them to your local maximum security prison. Aren’t you having it both ways?

    David is right, the GOP definitely should have at least tried negotiating instead of going in all or nothing. Whether you trust the Democrats and Obama’s goal of bi-partisanship, one should at least try to act in a bi-partisan manner to either call their bluff (and use it against them next election), or lessen the “damage” that such a bill could cause.

  • 11 rbottoms // Nov 21, 2009 at 10:01 pm

    Don’t you want him to wait though?

    You’re asking as if you think they want Obama to succeed at anything. They will fight tooth and nail over it and when there’s no more outrage to be generated about it, on to the next thing, flag pins, bowing, the Dow, speeches to kids. All bunk, and not one ounce of substance just red faced conservatives on TV ranting about it.

    Case in point, Afghanistan. You’d think Obama ordered the troops to lay down their weapons and go smoke some weed while he decides the next move over there.

    Never mind there’s been seven long years for them to get it right already, four of those years with the GOP fully in charge with a public willing to back any action against the country that actually hit us on 9/11. Forget that the first new troops won’t hit the ground until spring, it’s all about dithering, not fact gathering, war gaming, and discussions about how to deal with the corrupt, inept Karzai.

    They want a decision now. Today. If not, well that’s just outrageous.

  • 12 MI-GOPer // Nov 21, 2009 at 11:38 pm

    You really have to love this site when two of the biggest Village Idiots, richard bottoms and automaticBSer are circle jerking off another round of fantasy troll olympics while seeking some comfort on a conservative-GOP site dedicated to rebuilding the Party.

    Could this ever happen inversely on a DailyKos, democrat undergound or HuffPo blog? Nope. The conservative commenter would be tarred & feathered, ridden out of the blog on a rail, blocked at the IP address level, pilloried and scorned for at least a week after getting the boot and then be followed to subsequent sites for some harassment –like richard bottoms still does with GOPers and conservatives who kicked his spiteful character off other GOP/conservative sites.

    It’s a strange inversion of reality to see these guys supposedly commenting on a site for which they have nothing but disdain and contempt. Kind of psychotic and creepy.

  • 13 MI-GOPer // Nov 21, 2009 at 11:52 pm

    “it’s all about dithering, not fact gathering, war gaming, and discussions about how to deal with the corrupt, inept Karzai”

    I’m kind of curious if you find it ironic that a President who entered office based on massive vote fraud and illegal campaign contributions should be lecturing a similarly corrupt Afghanistani president who has done nothing more than model his crooked campaign on the winning ACORN strategy of Obama?

    I’m kind of curious if you find it ironic that a President who is dithering on decisions that were made months ago for him and based on briefing documents taken from the still-warm fingertips of Dick Cheney can lecture Karzai on how to organize his govt?

    I’m kind of wondering if Obama even gathers the karma sense of his telling Karzai to clean up his cabinet when Obama’s chosen tax cheats, liars and radical agitators to fill out his cabinet?

    I’m kind of wondering if Karzai thinks he can bet anything –or any agreement– made with Obama today will be in place tomorrow evening… Obama has such little character and has proven time and time again he’ll toss anyone under the Obama bus if needs to…that Karzai could trust him behond making sure Obama doesn’t steal the presidential silverware?

    What Obama ought to do is resign the presidency, go over to Kabul and become a community organizer, return to his muslim roots and heritage and help Karzai make a bundle off the poppy trade… afterall, given Obama’s past murky drug dealings and bribery scams in Chicago could help Karzai govern in that corrupted, immoral world. Heck, who knows, maybe Michele could get a $500,000/yr job as a “hospital board member” at some non-profit Red Crescent hospital in Kabul. I can smell another Nobel for the Obamas if she does… only this time it’d be coming Michele.

  • 14 balconesfault // Nov 22, 2009 at 12:25 am

    MI-GOPer: I’m kind of curious if you find it ironic that a President who entered office based on massive vote fraud and illegal campaign contributions

    Yeah, I would find that ironic, if it had any basis in reality.

  • 15 rbottoms // Nov 22, 2009 at 1:56 am

    Yeah, I would find that ironic, if it had any basis in reality.

    I no longer respond to this particular individual, but there a zillion GOP viters convinced Obama stole the election, or more accurately they are pretending to be sincere about the notion as we were after the Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush.

    The reality is, it’s just another of the 1,000 points of outrage that the Republican party uses to keep its base willing to fork over donations and keep there hopes alive that there’s some chance of winning the White House back in 2012.

    Who knows, aliens might land by then, or some other upheaval might happen that raises their iota of a chance to some level of possibility greater than no chance in Hell.

    The very best thing we can do is back the effort to pass health care reform by Christmas. It we manage that the GOP is cooked like bacon.

  • 16 mlindroo // Nov 22, 2009 at 7:17 am

    Mpolito wrote:

    > There certainly are a lot of liberals who post here.
    > Some of them seem very confident about the Dems bill and agenda
    > (Obama could have closed Gitmo already, so why is he waiting?).
    > You’ll have to see how things look after the 2010 midterms before you gloat, guys.

    True.

    However, I don’t think the 2010 will tell us that much since the economy certainly will remain in dire straits for the next year. That alone ensures “the angry old white guys” finally will get some time in the limelight (my hunch is the Republican gains will be surprisingly modest, though). Obama’s approval ratings so far closely follow those of the economy, see http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/its-still-economy-dumbass.html

    *IF* the economy is in decent shape by 2012 and *IF* Obama’s track record remains good (so far he has made no obvious mistakes), then I think rbottoms’ prediction will be proved correct.

    MARCU$

  • 17 oldgal // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:10 am

    Mpolito, Don’t assume disagreement with a post indicates a liberal bias. Some of us are just fed up with both parties and the lack of candidates who will put the country before the party. I am very tired of two parties who would rather make the other side wrong than work to fix the problems in this country.

  • 18 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:20 am

    mlindroo // Nov 22, 2009 at 7:17 am

    ” However, I don’t think the 2010 will tell us that much since the economy certainly will remain in dire straits for the next year.”

    ……I think you are being overly pessimistic……dire straights is last November when the entire financial system was teetering on the brink of collapse, the major auto companies had to bailed out by a Republican admin, and we were losing 700,000 jobs a month……..I’ve been through five significant recessions in my career and on every occasion once the economy has started to turn the snap back from recession can be faster than you think…..it’s true this one has been worse than any since the thirties but you’re underestimating the basic resilience of the US economy and the impact of the stimulus program where much of the expenditure on job rich infrastructure projects is back loaded into 2010……..I would not be surprised to see a 4-5% GDP growth rate in the first half of next year……by the late summer unemployment won’t be back to it’s natural level of around 5% but I suspect it will be hovering around 8%…….we’ll see

  • 19 teabag // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:40 am

    Mi-Goper said in his strange loony voice.

    “I’m kind of curious if you find it ironic that a President who entered office based on massive vote fraud and illegal campaign contributions should be lecturing a similarly corrupt Afghanistani president who has done nothing more than model his crooked campaign on the winning ACORN strategy of Obama?”

    Dude, you really need to get to your VA, you know that socialist government paid for free healthcare you get. Go see your psychiatrist, you sure need help.

  • 20 rbottoms // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:49 am

    we’ll see

    The problem for the Republicans is how nakedly some of their top leadership have been rooting for major corporations and institutions to fail.

    Shutter GM, put 100,000 Americans out of work just to score debating points? Rooting for mass extinction of major banks? These thing will come back to bite the GOP in the a** a little bit in 2010, and in 2012 a whole lot.

    What autoworker in their right mind would vote for the GOP? That 100,000+ inclined to dial phones, send checks and who will likely want the heads of the teabagger loving pols who were all for letting the auto industry die this time last year.

    ObamaHitlerMao looks pretty good to you when you have a nice job at decent wages courtesy of a few measly billion that didn’t get shoveled into the furnace called Iraq for once, and, which will be paid back by 2012. And even if you don’t have a job right now you probably have unemployment or an extension, provided incredibly over the objections of… you guessed it, the GOP.

    They’ll remember in November.

  • 21 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 10:08 am

    rbottoms // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:49 am

    ” They’ll remember in November.”

    ………Actually I think they will because the Democrats orchestrated from the white house (Im sure task forces are working on it now) are going to make the 2010 mid terms a referendum on their stewardship……the Republicans have given lots of very visible hostages to fortune in resisting much of the Democratic program(equal pay for women, unemployment extension, the stimulus bill, healthcare, schip, clean air, etc ) so I’m expecting the airwaves to be full of ads all next summer and fall contrasting November 2008 with November 2010 with lots of choice soundbites, pictures of Bush with the deer in the headlights look as disasters pile up, a summary of the Dem record etc etc…….one of the problems Republicans have today is an inability to think strategically……it’s all kneejerk short term tactics and stunting

  • 22 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 10:12 am

    MI-GOPer:

    Could this ever happen inversely on a DailyKos, democrat undergound or HuffPo blog? Nope. The conservative commenter would be tarred & feathered, ridden out of the blog on a rail, blocked at the IP address level, pilloried and scorned for at least a week after getting the boot

    And ditto for RedState.com, which does the same thing to liberal commenters.

    And you prefer blogs like that, don’t you? RedState.com is a blog for conservative political tactics. There’s no consideration of whether their policies, vision for America, or platform are right. DailyKOS has the same orientation. You would feel safer and more reassured at RedState.com, where everybody thinks just like you.

    I have no problem with a free exchange of ideas between conservatives and liberals. The problem is that a civil exchange has to proceed on a basis of mutual respect. And respect seems to be sadly lacking here. Liberals truly believe that we conservatives are evil. And hence we are the constant subject of personal attacks.

    If New Majority is to reach its potential, the moderators are going to have to stop these personal attacks. And Frum has to set a good example by stopping his personal attacks on Palin and Limbaugh. If he wants to criticize their policies or ideas, that’s fine. But leave the personal stuff (like Palin’s “sexual signals”???) out of it!

  • 23 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 10:19 am

    sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 10:12 am

    “And ditto for RedState.com, which does the same thing to liberal commenters.”

    …..mi-goper is rather obviously a refugee from redstate who apparently gets his his socialized healthcare from the VA

    ” (like Palin’s “sexual signals”???) out of it!”

    ……As Frum pointed out much of the sexual signalling came from Palin herself and her acolytes like starbursts Lowry

  • 24 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 10:22 am

    22 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 10:12 am

    “Liberals truly believe that we conservatives are evil.”

    ………no….just obtuse and irresponsible….a bit like 13 year olds

  • 25 balconesfault // Nov 22, 2009 at 10:55 am

    Liberals truly believe that we conservatives are evil.

    Strawman.

    Otherwise, you’re right about the personal attacks. None of us should be walking around like a tripwire, so that any criticism of our thinking is taken as a personal attack – but when discussions jump the rail so they’re no longer at all about the issues, but only about the persons involved, there’s really no purpose being served except for blood sport.

  • 26 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    ottovbs:

    As Frum pointed out much of the sexual signalling came from Palin herself and her acolytes like starbursts Lowry

    Frum should not have pointed it out at all.

    Like his previous discussion of Limbaugh’s medical history, such personal attacks are inappropriate for “building a conservatism that can win again.” Such sniping only plays into the hands of such opponents as yourself.

  • 27 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    balconesfault:

    when discussions jump the rail so they’re no longer at all about the issues, but only about the persons involved, there’s really no purpose being served except for blood sport.

    David Frum repeatedly “jumps the rail” himself, with his personal attacks on Limbaugh and Palin. His bringing up Limbaugh’s drug history and Palin’s so-called “sexual signals” is out of line, and sets a bad example for posters here. If he can attack conservatives personally, why can’t posters here?

  • 28 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    rbottoms:

    Then it’s on the repairing relations with gays over DADT and we’re pretty solid for 2012.

    The only reason Obama looks “solid” for 2012 is the same reason he was “solid” in 2008:

    He’s BLACK.
    And therefore he can automatically count on a huge turnout of blacks like yourself (95% voted for Obama), and a two-to-one edge in Hispanic votes. 2012 will be just like 2008 in that regard.

    You blacks wouldn’t break with Obama, even if the unemployment rate was 50% in your own communities in 2012. Right? Because he’s black, and you’re black, and he’s one of yours.

    As long as the Dems nominate a black or Hispanic for President, racial solidarity guarantees that this black-Hispanic coalition can’t be turned around.

    The place where the GOP can score is with young people fresh out of college who are looking for work. If the economy remained sluggish (as I believe it will), young people just starting their careers have the most to lose. The GOP can appeal to them.

    But blacks and Hispanics? The GOP will have to wait till the Dems nominate another white candidate, maybe in 2016.

  • 29 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    26 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    “Frum should not have pointed it out at all.”

    ……Why not?…..it’s an intrinsic part of her appeal as several conservatives like Lowry and Steyn have pointed out, Steyn referred to her as a MILF once……if it’s a part of your political persona it’s fair game just as Obama’s famed intelligence, calm and poise are constantly attacked by the right……apparently these are not qualities that conservatives want their children to possess.

  • 30 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    “He’s BLACK.
    And therefore he can automatically count on a huge turnout of blacks like yourself (95% voted for Obama), and a two-to-one edge in Hispanic votes. 2012 will be just like 2008 in that regard.”

    …….Blacks and hispanics aren’t American citizens of course

    balconesfault:
    …….I told you you were being too charitable where this gentleman was concerned……despite the veneer this guy is every bit as consumed with anger and hatred as the more overt nuts like mi-goper

  • 31 rbottoms // Nov 22, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    The only reason Obama looks “solid” for 2012 is the same reason he was “solid” in 2008:

    He’s BLACK.

    He’s BLACK. sane, and he’s not a Republican, which pretty much means the same thing.

    As long as the Dems nominate a black or Hispanic for President, racial solidarity guarantees that this black-Hispanic coalition can’t be turned around.

    As long as the Dems nominate a black or Hispanic someone who’s sanefor President, racial rational thinking solidarity guarantees that this black-Hispanic non-medicated coalition can’t be turned around.

    Fixed.

  • 32 Socrates // Nov 22, 2009 at 3:18 pm

    Sinz:

    I like many of your comments, but the latest comment (#28) on race is off the mark and dangerous. It is off the mark because it does not reflect the facts. If your comment is true, we should have lots of black presidents, right? How many black presidents have we had?

    Why did Obama receive 95% of the African-American votes? For once, African Americans have historically supported the Democratic party. Furthermore, black supported Obama overwhelmingly because it was a historical election: he was the first black to be on the presidential ticket. But this does not warranty that a black candidate will always get 95% of the black vote all the time.

    Moreover, it does not mean you will receiving an overwhelming percent of vote from other minority groups. In other words, Blacks may vote overwhelmingly for a black candidate in an historical election, but this does not mean Asians or Hispanics may follow suit. Not all minority groups are the same.

    The reverse is also true: people in the majority may not vote for you because you are a minority. History shows that it is very difficult to overcome racial barrier.

    Finally, your argument is dangerous because talking about race without the depth of cultural and historical contexts can lead to harmful conclusion, e.g., black are always doing this, Hispanics do this, Asians do that, etc. Be careful and don’t put every minority into an ethnic box. Obama won because he is Obama, not because he is black.

  • 33 sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    Socrates:

    Obama won because he is Obama, not because he is black.

    Oh, give me a break.

    Do we have to be politically correct here?

    It’s true that blacks voted in large percentages for Dem candidates–but they never turned out in such huge numbers for any Dem as they did for Obama. It’s obvious that they were energized by the thought of electing the first black President. I guarantee you they would NEVER have turned out in such huge numbers, had Hillary been the Dem nominee instead of Obama.

    I’m not attacking that or criticizing that, as “ottovbs” seems to think. I’m stating it as a FACT. Facts, by definition, are never “dangerous.”

    Do you really think a white candidate would have a chance in Oakland? Or Harlem? What kind of chance does Joseph Cao have in the 2010 elections?

    The main reason why Republicans have a decent chance to win in the 2010 congressional elections is, frankly, that Obama is not on the ballot.

    Hispanics had a choice between voting for a candidate who was obviously of a minority group and who promised immigration reform, versus the GOP who (as could be seen at their convention) looked 98% white, and whose base had shot down immigration reform. Which way did YOU think they were going to vote?

  • 34 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    sinz54 // Nov 22, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    “The main reason why Republicans have a decent chance to win in the 2010 congressional elections is, frankly, that Obama is not on the ballot.”

    ………I fear you are going to be disappointed because I predict starting in the late spring Obama and the Democrats are going to go all out to make the mid terms a referendum on his stewardship

    …….And yes of course blacks voted for him because he was black but the Dems alway pull 80% of the black vote…..it just went up to 95%…….you might just as well complain because the vast majority of white evangelical christians voted for Bush…..this is a multi ethnic society and becoming more so….duh

  • 35 rbottoms // Nov 22, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    Do you really think a white candidate would have a chance in Oakland?

    Jerry Brown, mayor of Oakland 1998-2006.

    Bzzz. Fail.

  • 36 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    rbottoms // Nov 22, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    Do you really think a white candidate would have a chance in Oakland?

    Jerry Brown, mayor of Oakland 1998-2006.

    Bzzz. Fail.

    …….Well played Snetterton

  • 37 rbottoms // Nov 22, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    …….Well played Snetterton

    As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

    These guys have a script that plays in their head and no amount of reality will interfere. It was Republicans who led the Civil Rights movement, blacks only care about welfare, ACORN is a bigger force than the Mafia to here them tell it.

    The tide of Demographics will wash them away starting in 2012.

  • 38 ottovbvs // Nov 22, 2009 at 8:38 pm

    rbottoms // Nov 22, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    “The tide of Demographics will wash them away starting in 2012.”

    ……..Actually it started in 2008 if not 2006……..demographic, generational and social shifts are a million times more important than who won VA governorship or Palin’s latest tv appearance but these guys either don’t or don’t want to get it…….the only similar case of Republican self delusion that I’ve come up against before was in the Soviet Union in the seventies and early eighties…….these guys could be Intourist guides for the GOP they sound so similar to the minders and apparatchiks you had to contend with there…….the tide is running against them

  • 39 Socrates // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:00 pm

    Sinz:

    You have some good points which make me think more about the issue. Yes, race is an important factor, but, as you inferred, the bigger issue with the GOP is its record on issues that have racial ramifications: immigration, health care, etc. In other words, issues that matter to people.

    Ultimately, though, Americans vote with their pocket book. The 2010 and 2012 elections, just like the 2008, will likely be decided by economic issues. by then, if the economy is really bad, it doesn’t really matter if Obama is black, white, green, or blue, he will be voted out.

    BTW: concerning the case of the Republican Joseph Cao, his chance of being re-elected (being a Republican in a heavily Democratic district) is slim. He is being challenged both from the right and from the left. Yet, from what I heard, he is doing a very good job, getting ton of Katrina money for his district; so I wouldn’t count him out yet. His case has a twist because he is Vietnamese-American, one of the few minorities that the GOP has. I think the Vietnamese-Americans all over this country will try to support him. We will have to wait and see.

  • 40 Kevin B // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    Obama won because he is Obama, not because he is black.

    I have to agree. It’s axiomatic that Obama’s election means the country was ready to elect a black man president. But not any old black man would do. If Jesse Jackson had run instead of Obama, we’d now be in the third term of the Clintons.

    Who else might have won in 2008? Colin Powell? Maybe (I would have considered him), but he’s the one who sold the idea of Iraq’s WMDs to the world. Could Alan Keyes earn 95% of the black vote?

  • 41 rbottoms // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:15 pm

    He is being challenged both from the right and from the left. Yet, from what I heard, he is doing a very good job, getting ton of Katrina money for his district; so I wouldn’t count him out yet.

    He’s the example that makes my point. The teabaggers will make this guy’s life hell for support the Democrats and he will be forced to take stands further right then he would otherwise want to in a Democratic district. And the Democrats have perhaps finally learned their lesson that they have no friends on the other side of the isle. Cho’s choice, change parties or get creamed if not in 2010, eventually the seat will go to the Dems again.

  • 42 rbottoms // Nov 22, 2009 at 9:17 pm

    Could Alan Keyes earn 95% of the black vote?

    Alan Keyes is a lunatic.

  • 43 Socrates // Nov 23, 2009 at 12:04 am

    rBottoms:

    My beef with the tea party people is that they care more about ideology than competency. In some way, their fascination with celebrities shows a certain affinity toward style over substance. Case in point, Rep. Joseph Cao is hard working, articulate, and cares deeply about his constituents. He also works well with the Dems, a sign that he will be “Scozofaved” in the primary. The partisan nature of national politics has become more and more destructive: we can’t get anything done any more. What have the hardliners like DeMint contributed for the good of America besides whining and criticizing?

    That is a pity. We need more people like Joseph Cao in both parties. Instead, they pour money into places like NY23 and supported Huffman who did not live in the district and did not understand many of the local issues. This is what happens when you give entertainers and opportunists so much influence over your party.

  • 44 Socrates // Nov 23, 2009 at 12:08 am

    Oh, concerning Alan Keyes, I read somewhere that when Obama met Bush for the first time, Bush said to Obama: we both have the distinction of running against Alan Keyes. He was quite a character, wasn’t he! I think Keyes was the presidential candidate in 2000 (?), and he was “parachuted” into the Illinois race against Obama in 2004.

  • 45 rbottoms // Nov 23, 2009 at 1:46 am

    Oh, concerning Alan Keyes, I read somewhere that when Obama met Bush for the first time, Bush said to Obama: we both have the distinction of running against Alan Keyes. He was quite a character, wasn’t he! I think Keyes was the presidential candidate in 2000 (?), and he was “parachuted” into the Illinois race against Obama in 2004.

    And not only did we get a Senate win in the Democratic column as a consequence of their blind devotion to ideology, said Senator Obama is catapulted to national prominence and… well you know the rest of the story.

    Har and, double har.

    The Democrat’s problem is too much introspection. Instead of declaring Saturday’s vote a solid win and a kick in the a** of the GOP, we get moaning and wailing about the flaws and pitfalls yet to be overcome as we race to the finish line.

    Oh well, better that than the utter certainty of the support of God Almighty for everything they do that makes the GOP so insufferable. Their political foes are not just wrong, they are un-American, Marxist traitors, members of a secret cabal controlled by the Eastern Elites (Jews) out for the total destruction of mom and apple pie.

    No wonder the young are disgusted by the sheer nastiness and self-righteousness.

    What must it be like to have to at once defend everything George W. Bush wrought on the country while simultaneously putting for the claim they were duped, and GWB was not really a conservative in the first place.

    Iraq is a victory, the escape of Bin Laden is really a success, Hamid Karzai another Lincoln, Gitmo is Disneyland, and finally bringing the masterminds of this modern Pearl Harbor to justice is Obama’s biggest failure.

    NY-23 is actually a success and Health Care Reform is on the ropes, right where they wanted things from the start,

  • 46 greglane // Nov 23, 2009 at 8:39 am

    rbottoms:
    “The GOP presidential race will be a race to the bottom, who can be the most outrageous freak to please the teabaggers with the winner boxed in to taking stands that will remind the independent voters just why they find the modern GOP to be conspiracy minded loons. It will be all ACORN all the time, birth certificate hi-jinks, and insults du jour to Hispanics on immigration.”

    Depressingly likely.

  • 47 ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2009 at 9:35 am

    greglane // Nov 23, 2009 at 8:39 am

    “Depressingly likely.”

    ……It really depends on what the electoral landscape looks like in early/mid 2011 because this is when you have to start your campaign……..The only thing that has the potential to change the electoral landscape significantly is an Obama implosion and from what we’ve seen of his style of governance that doesn’t seem likely does it?…….. I’ve thought about all Republican game changers (eg. they get a their man on a white horse candidate Petraeus) but none of them really change the game……when you look at the slate of semi declared candidates they are either freaks (Palin), lightweights (Huckabee) or grey men (Pawlenty) or discredits (Romney/Rudy)……..As against this you have an obviously highly competent president and the societal tide running against Republicans……..Consequently, absent an implosion I think the “serious” candidates will end up sitting this out……running for president and raising the money to do so is a huge grind and if you think the odds are hopeless who is going to do it…….to me as of now 2012 looks like 1936, 1952,1956, 1964, 1972, and 1984

  • 48 ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2009 at 9:46 am

    rbottoms // Nov 23, 2009 at 1:46 am

    “The Democrat’s problem is too much introspection. Instead of declaring Saturday’s vote a solid win and a kick in the a** of the GOP, we get moaning and wailing about the flaws and pitfalls yet to be overcome as we race to the finish line.”

    ……..Boy did you nail that one…….Democrats should be doing high fives and putting laurel wreaths on the heads of Reid, Obama and Schumer, but instead they are whining about this, that or the other. The media of course contribute to this climate because they have to maintain the fiction of a football game to keep their readers/viewers interest but the lack of Democratic enthusiasm is strange…..maybe it’s deliberate……from what we know of Obama this would fit……keep expectations low and then exceed them……to me that vote on Saturday night was THE vote……all that now remains is to grind through the debate, proposed/defeated motions and he can pass it with maybe 56 votes……then conference…….then another cloture toughie but without it the option of reconciliation…….as Kyl recognized yesterday the passage of this bill is well nigh inevitable.

  • 49 About party, republicans, political, gop, democrats | Find me About // Nov 23, 2009 at 10:11 am

    [...] Looks like Blanche Lincoln is voting to allow the bill to proceed. We’re heading to an all or nothing situation for Republicans. Because we dealt ourselves out of the game at the start, this thing either passes more or less as the Dem leadership wishes …Read Original Story: The Juggernaut Rolls Forward – FrumForum [...]

  • 50 DFL // Nov 23, 2009 at 10:29 am

    So we accelerate the rush to fiscal oblivion. I couldn’t be more happy.

  • 51 Churl // Nov 23, 2009 at 10:39 am

    A while back, ottovbvs said “…generational and social shifts are a million times more important than who won VA governorship or Palin’s latest tv appearance but these guys either don’t or don’t want to get it…”

    Perhaps, but, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher on socialism, the problem with Obama’s various programs is that eventually he runs out of other peoples’ money.

    We’ll see what happens when the money shortage become too obvious to ignore.

  • 52 balconesfault // Nov 23, 2009 at 10:47 am

    The media of course contribute to this climate because they have to maintain the fiction of a football game to keep their readers/viewers interest

    No kidding. Take CBS Sunday morning – a legislative panel to talk about the healthcare bill.

    From the House – one Dem (for public option) … and one Repub (against public option)

    ok … so from the Senate

    Tom Coburn … and Ben Nelson

    So the public option – which is supported by a majority of House members, a majority of Senators, and a majority of Americans – was being discussed by 3 Congressmen opposed and 1 Congressman in favor.

    The networks love the controversy, and the corporations who own them hate the public option (the government isn’t going to be raining advertising dollars down on them the way insurance companies do). So its to their advantage to elevate the opposition to the bill as much as possible.

  • 53 ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2009 at 11:00 am

    Churl // Nov 23, 2009 at 10:39 am

    “Perhaps, but, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher on socialism, the problem with Obama’s various programs is that eventually he runs out of other peoples’ money.”

    …..Perhaps you need to remind yourself that the two presidents who have burned through most of other peoples money over the 64 years since the war ended were Reagan and Bush junior

  • 54 ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2009 at 11:10 am

    balconesfault // Nov 23, 2009 at 10:47 am

    “No kidding.”

    …….what most people lose sight of is that much of what one sees on tv and in the media is a narrative thread concocted by media screenwriters……..manufactured conflicts ……obama wins people, obama loses people, obama regains people…….Koch funded shoutfests in bumf*** MS are mass marches on Washington…….it’s a complete joke for anyone with an ounce of intelligence…..and since most Republicans at every level from the highest (McConnell) to those who are lower than whale poop (bi-groper) think only in tactical or stunting and not strategic terms they think all this means something (to be honest McConnell who is no fool probably only pretends it means something)

  • 55 Koz // Nov 23, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    I am a little more optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on your perspective) on the GOP’s chances to beat this bill. But that is a side issue to the point of the post.

    The brinksmanship is the other team’s doing. What is it that the GOP was supposed to get to be worth supporting the bill? Most people think the Medicare “cuts” are a phantom anyway.

  • 56 Churl // Nov 23, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    Also sprach ottovbvs, “Perhaps you need to remind yourself that the two presidents who have burned through most of other peoples money over the 64 years since the war ended were Reagan and Bush junior.”

    I need no reminding of that. What worries me is that Obama’s deficits are even bigger than the two profligates you name.

    Further, I need no reminding that according to lefties, Reagan’s deficits and GWB’s deficits were going to wreck the economy, but Obama’s very much larger deficits will bring us generations of future prosperity.

  • 57 rbottoms // Nov 23, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    Further, I need no reminding that according to lefties, Reagan’s deficits and GWB’s deficits were going to wreck the economy, but Obama’s very much larger deficits will bring us generations of future prosperity.

    The difference being, Obama isn’t pretending that it’s NOT deficit spending. He’s fixing a fiscal emergency using the only tools available. One of them is ending tax cuts for the top 1% because we really need the money and Warren Buffet does not.

  • 58 balconesfault // Nov 23, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    Churl: What worries me is that Obama’s deficits are even bigger than the two profligates you name.

    Well, true – but there is a momentum to the last year of the Bush Presidency that’s going to take some time to reverse. From Feb 07 – Jan 08 the deficit was 208 billion. That jumped to 918 billion between Feb 08-Jan 09. And in the first two months of Obama’s Presidency, thanks in no small part to committments from the previous administration, we piled up another 385 billion in debt.

    Is this shifting blame? Well, remember that in 1980 we had a deficit of 689 million. That swelled to 5.1 billion in 1981, and 7.4 billion in 1982. Was that Reagan’s fault?

    Further, I need no reminding that according to lefties, Reagan’s deficits and GWB’s deficits were going to wreck the economy,

    Had Reagan not accepted a lot of tax increases (particularly in SS) as President, his deficits may well have wrecked the economy.

    Bush II’s deficits, on the other hand, demonstrably DID wreck the economy.

    The problem with taking the wheel after someone has driven a car into the ditch, is that it’s going to still be a bumpy ride for awhile before you can get back on the pavement.

  • 59 James Cody // Nov 23, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    If the GOP went to the Dems on the stimulus and said, “OK, we don’t believe in fiscal stimulus, but if you agree to take out all Dem pet spending projects that has nothing to do with stimulus, and to take out all pork barrel, and to replace all proposed tax cuts with a payroll tax holiday, we can deliver at least 20 Republican votes in the Senate,” the Dems, I think, would have taken it. So all these whining conservtives have themselves every bit as much to blame for the deficiencies in the stimulus as the Dems.

    Likewise, if the GOP went to the Dems and said, “OK, we don’t believe in your universal health care proposal, but if you put in full-fledged tort reform, and take down barriers to selling insurance across state lines for federally chartered insurance companies (which I believe would have to be created with the bill), and keep Medicare Part D as is, and include no public option, we can deliver you at least 20 GOP votes in the Senate,” Dems would have gone for it. So the GOP have themselves to blame as much as the Dems for not including these options.

    So yes, they screwed themselves by refusing to be bipartisaned and to negotiate. Moreover, the Dems haven’t been ideal in their bipartisanship efforts, but they’ve definitely tried more and I think would’ve been agreeable to the terms laid out above.

  • 60 rbottoms // Nov 23, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    Dems haven’t been ideal in their bipartisanship efforts, but they’ve definitely tried more and I think would’ve been agreeable to the terms laid out above.

    The GOP approach to Obama is, we don’t let the president win on anything. Of course that only works if he actually doesn’t win. As that seems unlikely, they have no Plan-B.

  • 61 ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    56 Churl // Nov 23, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    “I need no reminding of that. What worries me is that Obama’s deficits are even bigger than the two profligates you name.”

    …….math skills Churl?…….. Actually two thirds of the deficits that Obama is contending with are the product of GWB……and since he was largely responsible for creating the recession it’s not unreasonable to say he’s got a lot of responsibility for that part of the deficit Obama is having to create to contain it…..I need to check but I think every single Democratic president since Truman has left office with the deficit as a smaller % of GDP than when he entered the presidency, even Johnson because the economy was growing so strongly in the sixties…….Reagan tripled the national debt, Bush didn’t do quite as well only managing to double it……since fiscal conservatism is your alleged mantra one has to wonder why you want anything to do with the Republicans since their record has been appalling……it makes no sense whatever

  • 62 ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    56 Churl // Nov 23, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    “Also sprach ottovbvs,”

    …..BTW Churl it’s “Thus sprach Zarathustra……If you want to use Nietzschean references try to get them right……although it’s nice to see you consider me a godlike voice of authority

  • 63 Koz // Nov 23, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    “Likewise, if the GOP went to the Dems and said, “OK, we don’t believe in your universal health care proposal, but if you put in full-fledged tort reform, and take down barriers to selling insurance across state lines for federally chartered insurance companies (which I believe would have to be created with the bill), and keep Medicare Part D as is, and include no public option, we can deliver you at least 20 GOP votes in the Senate,” Dems would have gone for it. So the GOP have themselves to blame as much as the Dems for not including these options.”

    Let’s stipulate to that for the sake of argument. Would the country be better off under that deal or the status quo? I say the status quo, because your deal expands the entitlement state and the status quo is the status quo.

    Of course, doing it this way changes the political calculus as well which for the moment is cutting in the GOP’s favor. And it also gives public opinion a vote, which increases the lower-case r republican legitimacy of whatever happens.

  • 64 balconesfault // Nov 23, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    I wonder about the “include no public option” part … but truth be told, had Republicans come to the Dems last spring and made this proposal, with the promise of an expedited passage of key reforms, with the whole public option to be something to tackle soon down the road, it is possible the Dems might have taken the deal. In the ensuing months, however, the sides have clearly hardened, and the Democratic base after having 8 months to buy into the public option are not going to be happy with a bill that doesn’t include it – particularly since polling numbers on the public option are on their side.

    I’d say that by August, any possibility of a compromise being worked out on those grounds were gone.

  • 65 ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    balconesfault // Nov 23, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    “I’d say that by August, any possibility of a compromise being worked out on those grounds were gone.”

    ……There was never the faintest chance of a compromise……this is a bit of Republican rationalisation……when they weren’t prepared to support a stimulus bill which every serious economist of left and right said was required as the country hovered on the edge of a depression that could have disastrous what chance was there of compromise on healthcare…….this is a bs argument and I suspect it’s proponent knows it

  • 66 hormelmeatco // Nov 23, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Sinz:”The place where the GOP can score is with young people fresh out of college who are looking for work. If the economy remained sluggish (as I believe it will), young people just starting their careers have the most to lose. The GOP can appeal to them.”

    No, they can’t appeal to them. I’m one of them and my own parents tried the tactic you bring up. It didn’t work on me and likely won’t for the vast majority of people my age.

  • 67 ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    hormelmeatco // Nov 23, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    “No, they can’t appeal to them. I’m one of them and my own parents tried the tactic you bring up. It didn’t work on me and likely won’t for the vast majority of people my age.”

    ……Sinz thinks college grads being the best educated segment of the population have the worst memories

  • 68 MI-GOPer // Nov 23, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    Wow, the TrollTribe of GOP Bashing goes on and on; who’s have thought that a thread dominated by the triple Troll tweets of BlankHead, AutomaticBSer and richardbottoms would take this thread a mile away from the topic and under the bridge of TrollTribe Fantasy Kingdom? Yeah, who’da thunk, eh?

    BlankHead, rewriting history and hoping no one takes note now says: “(why didn’t the GOP agree to all the democrat big govt manipulations) … with the promise of an expedited passage of key reforms, with the whole public option to be something to tackle soon down the road, it is possible the Dems might have taken the deal.” Yeah, like the democrats were even interested in compromise.

    Easy to answer, BlankHead. I’m not surprised someone so deeply mired in the democrat pile can’t see the answer for the trees.

    Your fleckless leader, Obama Messiah and his chief thug, Rahm Emanuel, made it quite clear –as you have here repeatedly– that the election created a mandate for action on health care reform… even if we don’t lower the costs of health care, even if we can’t cover everyone, even if we need to cut MediCare, even if we balloon the deficit so that it looks like a rotting corpse in a pair of Chicago cement-boots and then bankrupt the states with unmet mandated spending… oh and ask grandma to head home to the family and go quietly so that scarce medical resources can be retasked to important things like giving Democrat constitutents access to abortion on demand.

    Your president (no, he is definitely not “my president” even though I am an American) made it quite clear that bipartisan action on health care reform was unnecessary. He made it quite clear that he’d take the leading GOP proposal and turn it into some farflung limited “test” program in a few states to see how it worked… he made it clear that the GOP would be hands off on meaningful litigation reform and any attempt to constrain the Democrat-rich sleaze trial lawyer base would be rebuffed… Obama made it clear that opening up health insurance so that buyers weren’t constrained by the in-state monopolies (which aid the Blues, which are big contributors to the Dems) was a no-go… Obama made it clear that addressing the outrageous drug research/FDA lead time/drug recapture timeframes would “not be meddled with” –his words from an Oct 2008 speech… and Obama made it clear that getting the biggest drivers of sprialing health care costs –the hospitals– would not be grist because Obama had already cut his deal, like he did with his pals at BigPharm, with the democrat-supporting American Hospital Assn.

    Obama similarly told the Chamber of Commerce, an ally of the GOP, that their involvement was not needed or warranted in the health care un-reform debate. Wow, that was some effort at reaching out and being bipartisan… such a guy that Obama Messiah. I guess if you don’t worship and pray to his image, you can’t expect to be consulted on the biggest social reform that will impact job providers, can you?

    So, once again, BlankHead, spitting out the ol’ Democrat activists’ talking points causes you more problems than you solve with another of your facile rhetorical questions.

    Like AutomaticBSer says above, the democrats never intended to compromise. It was all the usual DC game of smoke and mirrors by the democrats. Same ol, same ol from the side that promised Hope & Change and, by that, frauded Americans out of an election.

  • 69 ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    MI-GOPer // Nov 23, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    ……….pepto bismol time again

  • 70 MI-GOPer // Nov 23, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    AtuomaticBSer does more of the far Left democrat talking poitns with this whooper of a bold-faced lie “Actually two thirds of the deficits that Obama is contending with are the product of GWB”.

    Obama will have added some $185b in deficits in 2009…

    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

    Maybe that’s why more and more Americans think Obama is the biggest part of the problem, his efforts on THEIR #1 issue of deficit reduction has them at 65% saying he’s doing nothing to help or he’s hurting the cause. And it’s also why more Americans are saying the recession is the Democrats’ fault and the GOP will be better on the economy.

    Its gotta hurt when you are so wrong, automaticBSer, so often, on so much.

  • 71 MI-GOPer // Nov 23, 2009 at 4:33 pm

    AutomaticBSer complains: “pepto bismol time again”.

    I know the truth upsets you, automaticBSer. Go ahead and take a good drag on the pink stuff… under ObamaCare, it may be the only unrationed item in medicine when they get done.

  • 72 BarryS // Nov 23, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    WOW, just signed on here, is this the usual level of debate!! Why is this GOPer guy so angry?

  • 73 PracticalGirl // Nov 23, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    David makes a great point. The train is leaving the station, and there won’t be any GOPers on it. Most importantly, by their behavior from the start, the entire GOP Congress made it clear that “NO!” was the entirety of their legislative game. And I still wonder if that isn’t indicative of their weak support of any of their own policies.

    I am continually amazed at the posts on this blog and how far away from the original point Frum makes/any question he asked. Always entertaining, but also becoming predictable. Can GOP supporters ever just deal with the reality of a question without devolving into ad hominem attacks on other bloggers and the opposition? Some on this blog do, but many do not.

    It would be refreshing to have these conversations where several did not resort to well-worn rhetoric, or sophomoric terms. This kind of nasty, unproductive argument is exactly why the GOP got waxed in ‘08. Can anyone articulate- What the DOES the GOP stand for? And try to do this without using the words liberal, socialist, black, Maoist, urine-soaked, Kool-Aid drinker etc…Most importantly, can you do it without saying “not Democrats”?

    Frankly, I didn’t give a damn what color Obama was in ‘08. I voted for him because I was tired of an entire party SCREAMING what they didn’t want without ever being able to articulate what they do want. The Democrats’ plans need to be held in check (but won’t be by a childish GOP legislative bunch), but you know what? At least they had some. And if proud GOPers don’t start holding their elected officials to a standard higher than anarchy and chaos, ‘10 and ‘12 will be a repeat of ‘08.

  • 74 balconesfault // Nov 23, 2009 at 5:06 pm

    Why is this GOPer guy so angry?

    Because for some reason, Frum won’t run this forum like RedState, or FreeRepublic, and kick off anyone who challenges Republican heterodoxy. I think that Frum actually believes that dealing with viewpoints from across the aisle actually creates a marketplace of ideas which challenges Republicans to better evaluate their own suppositions will create a stronger Republican Party.

    This frustrates MI-GOPer to no extreme, since he believes that declared loyalty to the Republican Party should be the price of admission here.

  • 75 ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2009 at 5:08 pm

    BarryS // Nov 23, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    “WOW, just signed on here, is this the usual level of debate!! Why is this GOPer guy so angry?”

    ……I would have thought it was fairly obvious……have a laugh…..tune him out……there are some good contributors

  • 76 ottovbvs // Nov 23, 2009 at 5:10 pm

    balconesfault // Nov 23, 2009 at 5:06 pm

    ” Frum won’t run this forum like RedState, or FreeRepublic”

    …….and how would you define the mental state of regular posters on these blogs?

You must log in to post a comment.