If you check CNN, you’ll see the survey to which he is referring. In his hurry to get a sound bite, though, he must have missed the first sentence:

Nearly half of all Americans have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party movement, putting it in the same company as the Democratic and Republican parties, according to a new national poll.

So, the Tea Party’s negative rating isn’t really any worse than the Democratic or Republican parties, eh?

According to the poll, the Tea Party’s numbers are in decline: only 32% have a favorable view of the movement, while 47% have an unfavorable one. The Democrats and Republicans both pulled 48% unfavorable ratings.

I guess Harry couldn’t really get up there and say, “Nearly as many people have a negative view of the Tea Party as have a negative view of the Democratic party,” though, could he?

Just for fun, I looked up the RCP average Congressional approval ratings. In the RCP average, 24.2% approve and 66.2% disapprove of the job Congress is doing.

For some reason, Harry didn’t mention the Congressional approval ratings, either.

What she said was, Democrats would stop blaming Bush ‘when the problems go away.’

As far as I’ve know, she’s been Speaker of the House since January 3rd, 2007 – nearly 3 and a half years.

But, according to her, the problems the U.S. is facing can all be pinned on Bush.

Take for instance the U.S. budget deficit.

She blames Bush for the budget deficits, but she doesn’t seem to remember that the White House only submits a budget request.  It is the House of Representatives which originates the actual legislation to implement the budget.

The same House of Representatives which she has controlled for three and a half years and which has passed three budgets during her tenure as Speaker.

As far as I can tell, Madame Speaker Pelosi’ ‘just blame Bush’ politics are about as helpful as the Republicans’ “Just say ‘No’ to ‘O’” legislative campaign.

In other words, she’s just a part of the problem  – not the solution.

Which brings me back to the title I chose for this post – “Nancy Pelosi Says She’ll Keep Blaming Bush As Long As She’s Speaker of the House.”

In his latest piece at CNN.com (“Time for Obama to go ‘gangsta’ on GOP “) , though, I think he tanks an otherwise good article with a misguided summation paragraph.

He sums up the article nicely near the beginning:

For me, I’m sick and tired of Democrats having power and being unwilling to use it. I’ve always respected Republicans when they had power because they were willing to use it and maybe apologize later.

His basic idea isn’t bad – President Obama needs to play hardball in order to move his agenda forward.

Now, I don’t agree with everything in the Democratic agenda (more often than not, it is the means I have a fundamental dislike for, not necessarily the ends), but I do find it interesting that even when they had total control over Congress and the White House, the Democrats were unable to push through their ‘signature’ legislative pieces (in particular Health Insurance Reform and Cap and Trade).

Personally, I think it was because of President Obama’s decision to let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid drive the agenda – a mistake President Obama first made with the ‘Spendulus’ package and repeated with the Health Insurance Reform legislation.

In order to keep himself ‘above the fray’, he makes few public demands for what his ‘signature agenda item’ legislation should contain, instead focusing on getting something (anything!) passed.

This has allowed him to claim victory, no matter what is passed, because since he hasn’t staked out a clear position, except getting something (anything!) passed, he achieved his goal, if something (anything!) is passed.

Republicans, however, haven’t gone along with the Democrats.  This seems to be shocking to many Democrats, because obviously, they control Congress and the White House, so Republicans should vote in favor of Democratic legislation, even if it goes against the principles the Republicans claim to hold dear.

(Note to Democrats: perhaps instead of demanding that Republicans vote for your legislation because you say so and they are being meanies by not supporting your agenda, you might try bribing them.  Payoffs seemed to work for you in the Senate with some of your own caucus members, maybe there are a couple of Republicans would be willing to sign on to Health Insurance Reform if you kick a few hundred million their state’s way…)

Mr. Martin, however, makes a hard left turn into Bizarro World in his final paragraph:

Obama’s critics keep blasting him for Chicago-style politics. So, fine. Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let ‘em know that if they aren’t with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.

Excuse me?

Isn’t that the same thinking that liberals derided President George W Bush for during his presidency?

I could have sworn that we were told by knowledgeable liberals that this type of ‘cowboy diplomacy’ had driven America’s allies away and left the United States alone and friendless in the world.

Now, President Obama is supposed to engage in that exact, same ‘you are with us or against us’ policy to drive his domestic agenda?

It seems to me it was either wrong when President Bush implemented it (and thus it would be wrong now) or President Bush wasn’t so far off base.

Or, maybe, it is only wrong when non-liberals pursue that course.

Personally, I like the Teddy Roosevelt policy of “Walk quietly and carry a big stick!”, but that is just me.  It doesn’t have all of the ballyhoo of “You are either with me or you are against me.  If you are against me, you will pay the price!”, but it gets things done in a nice, quiet way.

Thank goodness that MSNBC was there to give them a home.

Between Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, there are at least two hours of ‘must see’ comedy on every week night.

For instance, this bit from Ms. Maddow about a “groundswell” of opposition to the filibuster rules in the U.S. Senate…

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Wow, 5 or 6 Democrats (plus Independent Joe Liebermann) don’t like how the filibuster rules work? That is almost a tsunami of opposition!

What’s so funny about that?

The fact that, until last Tuesday, Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority (if Joe Lieberman voted with them) and could have passed whatever they wanted without any Republican support, if they had the wherewithal to do so.

Which they don’t seem to have had.

Now, they are whinging about not having it.

I wouldn’t be too eager to change the filibuster rules, if I were a Senate Democrat (or a Democratic media wonk either) – after this November, they may not want to have a ‘majority rules’ Senate.

This is Democratic operative Bob Shrum from today’s Morning Joe:

One thing I find fascinating is the insistence by Democrats that it is better to elect a bad candidate and/or politician, just to preserve their power.  It simply comes off as, “We don’t care about having good leaders, as long as we are the leaders.”

I don’t know about anyone else, but it doesn’t really make me inclined to vote for someone whose own party is saying she isn’t a good candidate.

Of course, I’m pretty sure Republicans would be saying the exact same thing if a usually reliable Republican seat was in danger of going over to the Democrats… “Don’t vote for the Democrat!  Vote for our candidate, even though he sucks, he’s still a Republican!”

I can’t wait to see how this plays out – especially if it is a nail bitter.

It will be interesting to see Republicans screaming about any delays in seating Brown and Democrats trying everything they can to forestall it.

Kind of like the 2008 Minnesota Senatorial election, in reverse.

Republican Scott Brown has surged recently to take the lead in some polls in the race to fill the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy.

I have no idea who is going to win the seat, but after the Gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey (which Democrats have written off as not being a referendum on the President), it would be very interesting to see how Democrats spin it if Coakley loses after the President personally campaigns for her.

I imagine Democrats will just use the “she was a ‘flawed’ candidate” response (it worked well in the Virginia and New Jersey races, right?), but the damage will have been done.

In any case, if Scott Brown does win (or even comes close), the Democrats will likely be toast in November, barring some sort of dramatic turn around in the economy.

Harry Reid points out new guests arriving at Congressional Fantasy Island

I know that most people don’t share my opinion of her, but I think I’ve fallen in love with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

I can’t think of another politician who can give me a laugh or bring a smile to my face quite like her.

Well, Vice President Joe Biden does a good job, too.

The thing about Madame Pelosi is, you just never know what wacky thing she is going to do next.

Take today, for instance.

Today, TheHill.com is reporting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent an e-mail to Democratic supporters claiming:

“Republicans are in full blown ‘spin mode’ attacking the President and claiming he has lost support,” she wrote. “But that is just hype and hyperbole. You and I know better — together we are moving America forward.”

Now, I’m not sure what definition she is using for “spin mode” (perhaps, “repeating what most current polls are showing?!?”), but today, according to the Real Clear Politics ‘poll of polls’, President Barack Obama’s Job Approval rating stands at approximately 48.4% (with 45.0 disapproving of the job he is doing). This is down from a high of 65.5% on February 16th & 17th, 2009 (with 25.5% disapproving).

In other words, his job approval rating is off roughly 25% from its high, just one year ago (and the number disapproving has nearly doubled).

To be fair, given the promises made during the campaign, it would have been hard for President Obama to have maintained his high approval ratings.  To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Never in the field of human politics was so much promised to so many to be paid for by so few.”

Add to that the fact that we are nearly a year down the road from his inauguration and Democrats are still trying to blame Bush for everything that has gone wrong in this country – even the things that went wrong after Democrats took control of Congress three years ago.

Of course, to Madame Pelosi, 48.4% job approval probably seems like an awesome level of achievement – Real Clear Politics shows Congressional Job Approval at just 26.3%.

Bonus video

Jack Cafferty rips Madame Pelosi (again):

I found the whole piece very enlightening.

Money shot passage:

So what should Democratic candidates do to survive 2010? A strong consensus has emerged among Democratic operatives, based on a strategy developed under the guidance of pollster Geoff Garin. Garin declined to be interviewed for this story, but other party strategists say the most crucial order of business in each contest is to prevent Republican challengers from turning the race into a referendum on the Democratic candidate, the Democratic Party, President Obama, or all three. Rather, they say, Democrats need to turn the public’s attention to the failings of the Republican candidate and the national GOP.

Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says that as soon as her clients know who their opponents will be, her advice is “to get them [the Republican candidates] defined.” Democratic candidates, Lake and others say, should pre-empt Republicans seeking to present a positive image to the public. Among the techniques to achieve this goal are floating negative stories in the press, taking full advantage of sympathetic bloggers to create a hostile portrait of the GOP opponent, and actively using “less visible” means of communication such as phone banks, direct mail, and canvassers.

In this atmosphere, consultants say the key advice for Democratic incumbents is: “Don’t get on the defensive, don’t allow [the Republican] to define you.” Along similar lines, Joe Trippi, who has managed a host of campaigns, including overseeing Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential bid, says that any incumbent facing a challenger emerging from the Sarah Palin, Tea Party wing of the GOP “should make sure that’s known right away, before they get up populist steam.”

Another Democratic consultant with clients running in House, Senate and gubernatorial races, speaking on background, says “basically it comes down to one thing. You’ve got to kick the shit out of somebody.”

The burden for a Democratic incumbent is to “make it a ‘choice’ not a ‘retention’ election. The voters need to be thinking a whole lot about the other guy, not about you,” this consultant says. Party operatives agree that an election conducted on disputes over the deficit, health care legislation, the stimulus, the bank bailout, and/or climate change will work to the disadvantage of Democrats.

It seems to be saying that the only way Democrats can hold on to power in 2010 is if they don’t run as Democrats.

If that is the best idea Democrats can come up with, the only thing I can say about the 2010 election possibilities for the Democrats is… Ouch!

Well, it turns out that I was wrong.  The GOP had been working on a new image and was working hard to catch the attention of a demographic segment in which they had seen their support flagging!

According to the CNN exit polls from the 2008 election, 56% of women voted for Barack Obama.

So, some Republicans have been trying to woo the female segment of the population.

One problem?

They’ve been doing it one woman at a time.

The other problem?

They’ve really been wooing them.

Last week gave us the revelation that Senator John Ensign (R-NV) had an affair for nearly a year with a campaign staffer who was married to one of the employees in his Senate office.

This week, after a bizarre, Where’s Waldo-like escapade, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford admitted that he was having an affair with a woman in Argentina.

The GOP already had a crisis of confidence on its hands, what with the spanking they took in the ’08 elections and their inability to provide positive alternatives to the spending spree President Obama and Congressional Democrats have been on (becoming the Party of ‘No’ doesn’t count as providing ‘positive alternatives’).

Surely these kinds of things aren’t going to help the GOP brand with ‘values’ voters.

Or married women for that matter.

Or women who have been cheated on.

Or the mothers, daughters, sisters, or girlfriends of women who have been cheated on.

Aw, screw it, it won’t help them with anyone, really, and it just makes them look weak to boot.

If the Republicans really want to get their act together, they’d be wise to learn to keep their zippers zipped.

Of course, many have been questioning how Senator Ensign and Governor Sanford will fare politcally.  No doubt they will have some rough days ahead, but to quote Peter Burton (portreyed by John Cusack) in the movie True Colors, “You know the old saying in Washington: There are only two things that can ruin your career, getting caught with a live boy or a dead girl.”

“I don’t know whether the ($165 million in bonuses) is an issue as much as just the chutzpah of the people running AIG,” Grassley said. “That they could thumb their nose at the taxpayers, it’s more that.

“The attitude of these corporate executives and bank executives, and most of them are in New York, that somehow they’re not responsible for their company going into the tank,” he said.

“I suggest, you know, obviously maybe they ought to be removed, but I would suggest that the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them [is] if they would follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I’m sorry and then either do one of [two] things: resign or go commit suicide.”

Grassley added, “In the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology.”

Personally, I think he doesn’t go far enough.  I’d like to see this applied to failed politicians, too.

How about all currently active Senators and Representatives, who were in office before the 2008 elections, line up on the steps of Capital Hill and follow Senator Grassley’s advice?

None of them seem to ever want to take responsibility for anything that goes wrong, but all of them were in Congress while everything went to Hell in a handbasket.

If we are going to clean things up, we might as well make a clean sweep, no?

Link:

Political Punch: GOP Senator: AIG Execs Should Follow Japanese Model — Suicide or Apology.