Archive for Thursday, October 15, 2009

Could a political wave be building?

October 15, 2009


Demure Delaware was the first state to ratify the Constitution, but since then has not made many waves. It might, however, be part of a political wave a year from now, thanks to a direct descendent of Benjamin Franklin.

The great man’s great-great-great-great-great grandson, Mike Castle, 70, a nine-term Delaware congressman, will be next year’s Republican nominee for the Senate seat Joe Biden held for 36 years. This and other candidate-recruitment successes make it reasonable for Republicans to hope that in January 2011 the Senate will contain fewer than 60 Democrats.

Biden’s seat is currently occupied by a former Biden staffer who, in service to the ancient notion that public offices should be family patrimonies, will disappear when Biden’s son Beau, 40, runs. He is the state’s attorney general and has just returned from serving in Iraq with his Army National Guard unit. Delaware has not elected a Republican senator since 1994, but Castle, who has never lost a race, has run statewide 12 times: once for lieutenant governor, twice for governor and nine times for the state’s only congressional seat. In the last four elections he averaged 65 percent of the vote.

In 2010, each party will be defending 19 Senate seats. The high number of 38 reflects the fact that six of today’s 100 serving senators were appointed, not elected — one each from Massachusetts (Ted Kennedy’s replacement), New York (Hillary Clinton’s replacement), Illinois (Barack Obama’s replacement), Colorado (the replacement of Ken Salazar, who became Interior Secretary), Florida (the replacement for Mel Martinez, who quit) and Delaware.

In Colorado, where Democrats have won the last two Senate races, the appointed Democrat, Michael Bennet, faces a primary challenger, Andrew Romanoff, a former speaker of the state House. Annoyed because the governor did not appoint him to replace Salazar, Romanoff spurned the plea of a future Nobel Peace Prize winner that he not challenge Bennet. The Republican nominee might be a former statewide winner — Jane Norton, who was lieutenant governor.

In Illinois, which has not elected a Republican senator since 1998, the front-runner for the Republican nomination is Mark Kirk, a five-term congressman from the Chicago suburbs, where statewide elections often are decided. He annoyed his party by voting for the cap-and-trade legislation, but has sort of semi-apologized.

Connecticut’s Sen. Chris Dodd, seeking a sixth term, has an approval rating of 43 percent and has drawn several serious Republican challengers. Any incumbent with a job approval below 50 percent should worry; Nevada’s Harry Reid’s is below 40.

Three seats held by Republicans are currently in jeopardy — Missouri’s (Kit Bond is retiring), Ohio’s (George Voinovich is retiring) and New Hampshire’s (Judd Gregg is retiring). But Republicans have strong candidates in each state: In Missouri, Rep. Roy Blunt, former House Republican whip; in Ohio, Rob Portman, former congressman, head of the Office of Management and Budget, and trade representative; in New Hampshire, a possible nominee, former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, is currently leading her likely Democratic opponent.

Regarding House elections, substantial Republican gains are possible. As analyst Charles Cook notes, 84 House Democrats represent districts that were carried either by George W. Bush in 2004 or John McCain in 2008, and 48 of those districts were carried by both Bush and McCain. These and other uneasy incumbents know that Congress’ job approval is 22 percent.

Much can change, nationally and locally, before Nov. 2, 2010. But perhaps the most politically salient thing is unlikely to change: high unemployment. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the economy, which has lost 7.2 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007, must create 100,000 a month just to match population growth. Joseph Seneca, a Rutgers economist, estimates that even if job creation were immediately to reach the pace of the 1990s — an average of 2.15 million private-sector jobs were added each year, double the pace of 2001-2007 — the unemployment rate would not fall to 5 percent until 2017.

September’s 9.8 percent unemployment rate was the worst since June 1983. But robust growth began then and just 17 months later Ronald Reagan came within 3,800 Minnesota votes of carrying all 50 states. Reagan, however, was reducing government’s burdens — taxes, regulations — on the economy. Obama is increasing them.

The possibility of Republican gains, especially in the Senate, helps explain why Obama is in such a rush to remake the nation and save the planet. His window of opportunity could be closing.


jaywalker 8 years, 8 months ago

The problem, George, which you're more than willing to tip-toe around, is that the 1983 unemployment rate was due to the previous White House denizen rather than the man that occupied The Domicile at the time. Same thing here. But I say that only in reference toward the inference you make: Blaming the President for market forces is like saying Man caused the current 'global warming'; nobody knows how it happened, but hey, we need to point a finger.

Brent Garner 8 years, 8 months ago


You are quite correct to hint that Bush and the Republicans contributed to the current economic malaise. However, they were not alone. The current problem centers around the existence of toxic housing loans that were then securitized and sold thus spreading the poison throughout our entire financial system. To be blunt, people were given loans that should never have been approved. Why were they approved? Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced that they would buy up such loans thus creating a "market" for them. Why did Fannie and Freddie do this? Because members of Congress--Barney Frank and Chris Dodd leading the charge--mandated it through legislation. The toxic loans led to the banking sector collapses. Which led to the ill advised and inappropriate Bush pushed bank bailout which bailout has done NOTHING to solve the problem. That, in turn, led to the much ballyhoo'd stimulus package of Obama which package has done nothing to revive the economy. In fact, the vast majority of those funds remain unspent so they cannot have any "stimulating" effect and this ignores the fact that in the short time the democrats have been in control--and they are in control--the federal deficit has ballooned many times the size of any previous deficit. This, in turn, has led to a devalued dollar, higher oil prices even though there is no real increase in deman, and will eventually force higher interest rates and probably cause significant inflation. Look back at another loser, Richard Nixon, and his failed efforts to solve a similar problem.

So, the result will be that voters will indeed blame those in charge for the problem. 2010 may be a very bad year for democrats as a consequence.

BigPrune 8 years, 8 months ago

Why do I have a feeling that Obama is our first dictator?

labmonkey 8 years, 8 months ago

George neglects to mention that the two Democrats from Maine call themselves Republican. Democrats actually have a 62 seat majority.

jaywalker 8 years, 8 months ago


I'm with ya, bro. No doubt the current situation was a group effort, though President Obama's stimulus response Is an apparent attempt to wrest all the blame from anyone else for the next few decades.

headdoctor 8 years, 8 months ago

I tend to think that if the Republicans intend to take back the Government they need to clean up their act. They should have been working on a viable candidate the day after McCain/Palin lost. To date they have no viable candidate nor do they have an obvious platform to run on other than obstruction of Congress and they are relying on lies and spin spewed by the media to cover their multitude of sins. It takes time to groom and roll out a good candidate.

The Republicans are wringing their hands blaming Obama for everything possible and impossible. I find it amusing that Obama hasn't even been in office a full 10 months and we are barely into his budget plan 15 days. Most Presidents have trouble getting things done by their 4th year. I am thinking that those who try to smear with names such as the messiah must really believe he is to expect him to accomplish what they think he should have already. It is even more amusing that Obama is still working with a lot of plans that Bush started only he has expanded on them. You thought it was fine for Bush, not fine for Obama.

He may turn out to not the best person for the job but at the time was the only real option. Having a little more respect world wide than some Presidents and even though it isn't a solid thing, the stock market back up over ten thousand isn't something to complain about.

Jim Fisher 8 years, 8 months ago

All of the recent administrations spent money like they had it. Bill Clinton was the luckiest man in the world, serving during the time of two of the largest tax increases in history, and benefiting from the expansion of the internet by the unemployed from Bush the elder's recession. We will need another 'eureka' like that to pull ourselves from the current crisis, something that will stand alone, not like the current subsidized green expansion.

ralphralph 8 years, 8 months ago

Obama = Empty talk + Broken promises = Killing our Economy

GOP = see above

Unless we outlaw prostitution on Capitol Hill, it doesn't really matter which party is bending us over. They are all bought and paid-for.

tbaker 8 years, 8 months ago

Obama a dictator?

At least Hitler got the Olympics to come to Germany.

Jimo 8 years, 8 months ago

And yet there is bipartisanship.

The social security administration has announced that since there is no inflation there'll be no bump in SS payments next year. Nonetheless, Pres. Obama couldn't rush to the microphone fast enough to urge Congress to vote in a $250 bonus to senior citizens "to help them weather the recession" .

Query: is this because they were fired from the jobs they've long since retired from or because they can't pay the prices that haven't gone up.

I predict the most bipartisan vote of the session to rob distressed taxpayers who are actually trying to "weather the recession" to give away to the wealthiest segment of our nation. (I also predict that both the Reps and Dems will be silent about the scandal exception in narrow coded messages to seniors.)

staff04 8 years, 8 months ago

"And the Democrats, with the aid of the leftist media, are able perpetuate the myth that Republicans turn their backs on poverty."

No Tom, we know you don't turn your backs on them--you stand and mock them and tell them that you have their best interests in mind while sticking it to them at every turn. Nobody said you turn your backs on them.

Brent Garner 8 years, 8 months ago


Please explain why by the 1990s after nearly 40 years of Democrat control of Congress and billions and billions spent in the so-called War on Poverty,which by the way was a Democrat idea--see LBJ, the poverty rate had not budged an inch??? Is that evidence of Democrat compassion for the poor??

ksdivakat 8 years, 8 months ago

Whoa..wait a minute, hold up! Im just asking this question, seems to be quite the hypocracy going on here between dems and rebs. Staff, you said "No Tom, we know you don't turn your backs on them—you stand and mock them and tell them that you have their best interests in mind while sticking it to them at every turn. Nobody said you turn your backs on them." However, I recall SEVERAL articles on Lawrence homless situation and its the LEFT who wants them loaded up and moved out of town, it was the left who suggested "social cleansing" and then got bent out of shape when they were called on it, and asked if I believed everything i read in the paper? Hummm very interesting, that now its the same left who is saying that the right "laughs" at poor people. Interesting everytime I read the urinal world

jonas_opines 8 years, 8 months ago

"However, I recall several articles on Lawrence homless situation and its the LEFT who wants them loaded up and moved out of town, it was the left who suggested “social cleansing” and then got bent out of shape when they were called on it, and asked if I believed everything i read in the paper?"

What in the world are you talking about? This is almost completely fictional. Why don't you try and define who exactly you consider "the left" and get back to us. To suggest that there is not a regular contingent of conservative voices on here that suggest shipping off the population is totally off-base.

ksdivakat 8 years, 8 months ago

jonas, you are way off on this one, the article hasnt been that long ago, and it is always the left who is dissing the homeless, it was the left then who stated that "they should be loaded on a box car train and ride out of here" and another stated that the box car should be filled with gas. I believe it was an article on the city voting not to open a tent city at riverfront, but I will try to find the article and provide the exact quotes. In fact, I said something abotu how disgusting those ideas were and someone came back and asked me if i believed everything I read and someone else came back and said that when you start talking about social cleansing that is disgusting and people do get offended. Your comments sound hateful and attackful, so I will tell you this, you can call me anything you want, you can say anything about me you want, I really dont care, but dont you EVER call me a liar, simply because you dont like what I say, and that I may have just blown the left out of the it? I will get the reference for you but it may take me a day or 2 to find it, but I wont forget, you can bet that!

staff04 8 years, 8 months ago

"Please explain why by the 1990s after nearly 40 years of Democrat control of Congress and billions and billions spent in the so-called War on Poverty,which by the way was a Democrat idea—see LBJ, the poverty rate had not budged an inch??? Is that evidence of Democrat compassion for the poor??"

Over the last 40 years the poverty rate has dropped by, like 10 percent. What you'll notice in addition is that spikes in the poverty rate coincide with Republican Administrations and the most significant dips coincide with Democratic ones. Rocket surgery it ain't.

But that's not the question, right? Is this evidence of Democratic compassion for the poor? Maybe not. Make of it what you will. Next time you are howling about poor people voting, or the welfare state, or the homeless, realize that they hear your message loud and clear.

staff04 8 years, 8 months ago

"jonas, you are way off on this one, the article hasnt been that long ago, and it is always the left who is dissing the homeless, it was the left then who stated that “they should be loaded on a box car train and ride out of here” and another stated that the box car should be filled with gas."

Ok, you are obviously completely out of your tree. Please, just ignore my last post--I see now that it isn't worth having you read it.

staff04 8 years, 8 months ago

Sorry bkgarner--didn't mean to confuse you with the confused.

ksdivakat 8 years, 8 months ago

porch...Im looking, trust me! That whole fiasco is what made me turn from a dem to an independent and not want to be associated with the democratic party, so yeah its fresh in my mind and always will be, Im looking and will get back with you!

tbaker 8 years, 8 months ago

PrezBO is a true believer / statist. He is helped along by a good deal of narcissism and the doting fringe left who feel they've finally been empowered to reshape the country. After decades of being chained up under the stairs in the basement like the crazy aunt at family functions, now they're loose and they have a lot of catching up to do.

So utterly convinced they are right, no amount of reasoning will ever penetrate their view of the world, one where the government - not the people - is sovereign. One that measures compassion for one's fellow man by how many people depend on the government for assistance - not by how many who no longer need it.

To one degree or another, a considerable majority of Americans reject the statist agenda. The tactics the left has to stoop to in order to implement it (voting on bills that haven't been read, etc) is repugnant, and rightfully angers more voters every day.

Blinded by his smug self-assurance, Mr. Obama will lead the loony left and their statist madness right over the inevitable Thelma & Louis cliff that lies before them. The resulting political spasms we'll witness as the left loses power and foams at the mouth the day after the next election will be especially sweet to watch.

In the mean time, get a tan lefties. Your place under the stairs awaits.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 8 months ago

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has topped 10,000 for the first time in a year, as JPMorgan Chase reported massive profits in the third quarter. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that major US banks and securities firms are on pace to pay their employees about $140 billion this year—a record high.

Buttttttttt on Main Street, foreclosures are also at record levels, and the official unemployment rate is expected to top ten percent. Former bank regulator William Black, author of "The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One."

During the 1980s, Black helped expose the savings & loan scandal. He now teaches at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and is the author of the book The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry.

AMY GOODMAN: William Black, talk about Timothy Geithner. Talk about Lawrence Summers. Talk about Obama’s inner circle and what they have to gain from this.

WILLIAM BLACK: Well, I mean, Summers, for example—you talked about Geithner’s aides and how much money they had made, and, of course, it’s absurdly large, and they’re making it typically for not doing much of anything. But they’re taking their cue from Summers, who got $5 million, roughly, for working one day a week in areas he had no expertise. So, you know, once you leave the federal service, then these interests that you were very helpful to find a way to make you spectacularly rich, and they know that that’s what’s coming in their future. That’s part of the problem.

But the bigger part of the problem, in many ways, is that they have such an ideology about the market and its ability to deal with all problems that has no basis in reality, has been exposed in this crisis as completely fictional, and yet they can’t give it up. I mean, think of yourself as one of these professors who’s been trained in the Milton Friedmanish views, and you’re in your fifties, and you’ve been saying—you know, everything you’ve said in your career is wrong. Everything you’ve learned in your career is wrong. All of your areas of expertise are wrong. Are you going to admit that? “Hi, I’ve been misleading you, and I’m sorry I caused this disaster. And by the way, I have no meaningful skills or experience.”


Richard Heckler 8 years, 8 months ago

George Will like too too many never want to discuss the history of his party as if all is hunky dory. This party is as crooked as dogs hind leg. Well his party is responsible for destroying the economy... not only this one. They came into this situation with some experience under their belts.

This is about the RINO party that took over the republican party and wrecking the good republican name. This RINO party is neither fiscally responsible nor socially responsible. RINO's have taken over our city,state and federal governments. RINO's represent Reaganomics = Wreckanomics by way of tax favors, war and financial scandals.

It's about the NEW RINO party that first entered the scene in 1980 which has cost the nation 15-20 million USA jobs.

This is the problem: 1. The Reagan/ Bush Home Loan Scandal

  1. The Bush/Cheney Home Loan Scandal

  2. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the bail out money?

  3. Why did the RINO’s Lie About Social Security?

  4. Reagan/Bush Iran-Contra Secret Weapons Deal •

  1. Reagan/Bush - Bush/Cheney Weapons Deals •

  1. Nixon Watergate Spy Scandal

  2. Bush/Cheney PNAC foreign policy document, "Rebuilding America's Defences," openly advocates for total global military domination. Many PNAC members held highest-level positions in the George W. Bush administration.

  3. $9 Billion Lost In Iraq

  4. Thousands of Weapons Lost In Iraq May be Going To Taliban

  5. The Hostile Take-Over

  6. Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions What Can Be Done in Iraq? by Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.)

tbaker 8 years, 8 months ago

Merrill - I sincerely hope that someday you finally understand that ALL political parties exist for one simple reason: to accumulate and maintain power. Period. Initially, they are created to do this for the purpose of promoting their political agenda, assuming it to be whats best for the country. In short order however, they realize that campaigns do not pay for themselves and their once altruistic motives are cast aside in favor of those who finance their re-election.

This is why almost all of the founding fathers wanted to out-law them. They serve their own interests, which in the end, are not the country's - as your 1/2 complete list illustrates.

As I've told you before, I can assemble and equally disgusting list of corruption by the democrat party. (BTW, you are recycling your lists. At least give us original cut and paste) Do you believe that leaving out the liberal / democrat corruption isn't noticed? Can't you see this is intellectually dishonest? Do you think more people will take you seriously if you only call fouls against one team?

Katara 8 years, 8 months ago

Jane (Anonymous) says… ksdivakat—go here:… ~~~~~~~~ That's thoughtful of you to help her out but there are no recent articles there that she claims has this nebulous "Left" mocking the homeless or wanting to ship them out.

I even clicked on "anytime" & nada.

I, too, am curious about who this "Left" is and what Ksdivacat's standard she uses to define them.

Katara 8 years, 8 months ago

If ksdivakat commented on any of those articles as she implies she did, she would merely have to look through her comment history and she would be able to find the articles to prove her claims.

Just a suggestion.

weeslicket 8 years, 8 months ago

  1. tom shewmon describes conservative intentions towards those not in the Big Tent:
    "Investigations? Subpeonas? Document discoveries? Impeachment? "

question, tom: what "Investigations? Subpeonas? Document discoveries? Impeachment?" are ongoing at this time of ravenous leftist-socialist -statist frenzy?

tom shewmon wonders: "Hmmmm???"

  1. thegreatsantini (great movie, btw) states: "For a glimpse into you futures look at Washington DC, Newark, Miami, Los Angles, and hope you apart of the 1% with money and government connections." aside from the errors in language (these are correctable errors of language, btw, and do not discount the thoughts behind them), i would ask you to consider our population demographics in our state of kansas with regard to thegreatsantinit's example (this example actually applies to all of the usa).

do more people live in places like americus or densmore or kalvesta?
or in places like overland park, wichita, lawrence and manhattan?

in other words, the voting population is moving towards an increasingly urban (and also younger) setting. a setting wherein people have to interact with others of different backgrounds and beliefs and habits; and still live and work together; and that seems to be an ok thing. oh, and then they start voting more democratically.

tom shewmon says: "Excellent point GreatSantini."

  1. thegreatsantini states: "Obama is no dictator." tom shewmon responds: "Great Santini is right again."

Tom McCune 8 years, 8 months ago

If the Republicans actually want to win seats next time around, they need to field some candidates who have held positions of responsibility other than extras is "Deliverance."

Tom McCune 8 years, 8 months ago


You want to hear the worst part? I'm a registered Republican.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 8 months ago

The demo party has not this same list of basically high crimes as a matter of policy that perhaps Nixon established with his Watergate team.

The dollar may be trouble in fact it may be deemed worthless in many circles. Jobs jobs jobs is the central issue. Reagan/Bush began the big push of shoving jobs beyond our borders. Consequently millions upon millions lost jobs that have yet to be replaced.

As far as a new wave taking place no way jose'. George Will is merely trying to convince us that a new wave is happening. George Will has stood by all of the criminal administrations as do most so called republicans. It is evident by 30 years of basically the same names running the repub NOT party.

FACE IT the USA needs 20 million new jobs with NEW INDUSTRY as the source. USA citizens have got to say SCREW IT we don’t need bi-partianship WE NEED JOBS and WE NEED NEW INDUSTRY! The Kansas legislature has not been real good at new strong economic growth or public school support which is important to new economc growth.

For the new administration it is about how Bush/Cheney wrecked the economy. It is about how Bush/Cheney and their worshippers being idiots trying to blame Obama for the economy After Bush/Cheney managed to put 8 million people out of work.

The bottom line.... forget bipartisanship the USA needs new industry and jobs at least 20 million jobs. An active 3rd party would likely consist of registered democrats,registered republicans and Green Party thinkers.

headdoctor 8 years, 8 months ago

Newell_Post (Anonymous) says… porch_person: You want to hear the worst part? I'm a registered Republican.

Yeah, I am thinking that it may be time to consider leaving Kansas. I am not sure I want be considered an angry, uneducated, racist, fear mongering, redneck just by association. Maybe I should also throw hillbilly into the description as well.

KS 8 years, 8 months ago

I have asked myself many times if the Democratic party had ANY better people to put up in their leadership positions OTHER than Reid and Pelosi. Surely they must, but where are they? If these folks are typical of the Democrat party, they really are in serious trouble. Having said that, we as a country are in trouble for allowing ONE party to control the House, Senate and White House. Never should that happen, not even with Republicans. We can now see what happens. Reid and Dodd will be gone next fall. Pelosi on the other hand, who knows? San Francisco is California. They deserve whatever they get out there. It is just truly unfortunate that the rest of us will have to help pay for their failures.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 8 months ago

  1. The Reagan/ Bush Home Loan Scandal = lost jobs,lost retirement and lost medical insurance not to mention loss of homes! And a Wreckanomic economy.

  2. The Bush/Cheney Home Loan Scandal = lost jobs,lost retirement and lost medical insurance not to mention loss of homes! And a Wreckanomic economy.

  3. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the bail out money? FRAUD!


Face it items one and two cost millions upon million upon millions perhaps as many as 15-20 million families their jobs,retirement plans,medical insurance and their homes.

Next they try to steal away social security insurance which also provides medical insurance. Why do people buy into this fraudulent crap from politicians. For 70 years social security has paid back and cared for millions upon millions upon millions. It is excellent insurance.

Wall Street is wayyyy to risky except for those who can afford to lose money like maybe the upper 1%.

Every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: "the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative"--for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than 10 years where the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953 which is 24 years. In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset would be a lie..

Privatizing Social Security means unless taxes are raised, the government will have to borrow up to $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that is drained out of the system by private accounts. That is a huge tax increase and a rotten deal across the board. AKA dumb economics.

How would the rest of the U.S. economy have been affected if the Bush/Cheney plan would have been enacted?

Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk--it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.