We would be far, far better served attending to the vapidity of the Democrat Party. This is where we deposit our trust and hopes, and this is where we need to be ruthlessly critical if we want to regain lost ground.

The Republican Party: same shit, different recession.

If you want your critiques of the Democratic Party considered seriously, you should probably learn the name of the party.

It used to be called Democratic, it ceased to be that – haven’t you noticed?

Tim Pawlenty mindlessly parrots the same vapid tripe. The GOP is really nothing more than a cargo cult led by shamans with good hair.

Rubio and his kind are going to cause the GOP a lot of headaches!

Rubio is not a traditional conservative, Rubio is as David Brooks put it a Wal-Mart hippie, apparently these new conservatives are all about changing the status quo.

To the GOP elite Rubio is the spawn of years catering to the radical right. David Brooks, Dana Milbank, Obama, Rahm, Blue Dog Dems, will soon be kick out of the GOP.

Read yesterday that his numbers are tanking, too. He deserves it.

Good Afternoon Blue Texan and Firedogs -

anyone have some recent Rubio vs Meek polling ?

“What you see in Rubio is what you see with the Republican Party Democratic Party as a whole today — a complete pathological refusal to accept any responsibility for the failures of their Republican policies, which produces an utter unseriousness in dealing with the country’s challenges.”

Hope this helps move us into the post 2006 reality.

… and the “good hair” is debatable!! tee hee

BT: you make a good point, but the Democratic party ain’t a whole lot better, but then again, we rant and tirade about that every day, too.

Not dealing with our nation’s and society’s challenges seems to be the Republican standard operating behavior today. The Dems aren’t much better but are still sometimes at least (cold comfort) paying a minimum of lip service to it.

Do not get what Republican voters “see” in such as Rubio, Pawlenty, Palin and their ilk. It’s an unceasing head scratch. Morally bankrupt, generally thick as a brick, not much to add to the conversation except NO!, and smugly self-entitled.

“Charlie Crist was a popular Republican governor until he had the gall to support . . .the stimulus bill”

No dear. He was a popular Republican governor until the film Outrage was released.

I have an apocalyptic view of things which, since we are still here, makes me wrong a lot. Still Ms Palin scares me. We can be smug as all get out, but if things aren’t substantially better by Nov 2012 we may be calling her Madam President. We have no plan other than to say a plague on both their houses.

a complete pathological refusal to accept any responsibility for the failures of Republican policies

BT: Thank you for characterizing this behavior as “pathological” because (as a matter of fact) it is. If the MSM had any stones, they would begin framing the debate in that way, as well. Moreover, presenting a few salient facts would make the pathology all the more obvious. The MSM is failing miserably.

Marco Rubio will ensure that seat goes to a Democrat. He looks to easily win the nomination and sane Florida voters will say “Yikes” and get out to vote against him.

BT: you make a good point, but the Democratic party ain’t a whole lot better, but then again, we rant and tirade about that every day, too.

I disagree. The choice is between totally crazy and too corporate, and it’s an easy one to make.

Not all Democrats are bad — but unfortunately there are currently just enough bad ones to make progress much harder than it should be.

From fivethirtyeight

Crist now finds himself trailing fellow G.O.P. Senate candidate Marco Rubio by 32 points, according to PPP’s new poll

As Bob Herbert wrote in his column today:
“But the fact that the Republicans are pathetic and destructive is no reason for the Democrats to shirk their obligation to fight powerfully and relentlessly for the economic well-being of all Americans.”

Are there sane voters in FL? After all, they did elect John Bush a few times.

But they voted blue in 2008. Not only that but not all Republicans are teabaggers. Not even in Florida or Texas.

“The timidity of the left exposes its cowardice, lack of a moral compass and mounting political impotence. The left stands for nothing. The damage Obama and the Democrats have done is immense. But the damage liberals do the longer they beg Obama and the Democrats for a few scraps is worse. It is time to walk out on the Democrats. It is time to back alternative third-party candidates and grass-roots movements, no matter how marginal such support may be. If we do not take a stand soon we must prepare for the rise of a frightening protofascist movement, one that is already gaining huge ground among the permanently unemployed, a frightened middle class and frustrated low-wage workers. We are, even more than Glenn Beck or tea-party protesters, responsible for the gusts fanning the flames of right-wing revolt because we have failed to articulate a credible alternative.”
-Chris Hedges
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/ralph_nader_was_right_about_barack_obama_20100301/

As a voter currently residing in Florida, I’d like to think there are a few (and for the record, it was Jeb Bush that was elected governor twice though doubtful he could win a statewide race today).

Yes, John Ellis Bush was elected twice.

thanks. I was looking for polling on Rubio vs Kendrick Meek, the Dem candidate in the race :D

You must not be hanging out in the Democratic parts of the web.
Only ‘Publicans use ‘Democrat Party’ (as everyone here already knows).

Florida’s purple.

And who will be left to kick out Rahm, Obama and the Blue Dogs?

Dedicated Limpy Limbaugh listeners do as well.

You’re right. Josh Marshall and Bowers are not where I hang out.

The working and middle class shouldn’t be begging for anything from the aristocracy including Obama but they should rise up and just take what they need and deserve.

Kendrick Meek is the Democrat? Needs to get out and spend some money now IMO. It won’t do any good to remain unknown because when people get to the polls, the only name they’ll recognize is Rubio. Or is Meek well known in Florida?

I guess the $133 haircut story never really hurt Rubio, did it?

Never heard him called John before.

When has such a story ever hurt a Republican?

Given how easily the public is manipulated by fear and ignorance and given the fact the electorate is so dumbed down Rubio will likely do quite well in Florida. Forget Palin, Brown/Rubio look good for 2012. The corporate media will play their role in legitimizing the wing nut ticket.

Kendrick Meek is as good a Democratic Party hack as Wasserman-Schulz. If you’re looking to get disappointed, he’s your guy.

I’m in Austin, Texas and even I knew that JEB were his initials. Personally, I think he was trying to play to the voters still fighting the Civil War and it’s a convenient reference to James Ewell Brown (JEB) Stuart.

Don’t know, don’t live in Florida and didn’t ask you….

The public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed by conservatives.

Here’s a game changer. Rush has said that if health insurance “reform” passes he’ll leave the country.

Of course they’re misinformed and given the fact that a majority of the people read at a 7th-87h grade level it’s not surprising they are uncomprehending.

I’m glad I googled before I threw out a mis-correction.

Well that’s the only reason I would be inclined to support the Insurance Company Welfare Bill. If only I could believe he would actually leave, I might even lobby my representative for it.

I’m glad you did too. Did you disbelieve JEB Stuart’s real name? :-)

Heh, perhaps Hawaii (because, you know, it’s exotic) where he’s already sampled the “socialist” health care.

Who did you ask?

Maybe they could write it into the legislation.

Wow! Lookie there! When I asked about Meek, I was asking cbl2 not fuckno. That’s what I said: “I don’t know, I don’t live in Florida and I didn’t ask you“

Reconciliation!!! WooHoo!

I’m relieved it wasn’t a heart attack. – better?

I do stand corrected.

Although I also imagine that the usage of Jeb as his nickname occurred long before he actually hit Florida

I stand corrected.

http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2010/03/rush-limbaugh-threatens-to-emigrate-to.html

btw, in Costa Rica “puravida” is the standard response to “como estas?” Literally, it means “pure life”, figuratively “life’s good.”

You know, I can’t speak for anybody else here but I sure get tired of being talked down to by people who think they are on a higher moral plane than the rest of us or who think they are so much better able to make judgments about people, candidates, whomever. It gets old. Really old. At the risk of sounding like a douche, my IQ has tested consistently in the high 140s to low 150s. I believe I am capable of analyzing information without being “screamed” at and badmouthed by people who have some kind of axe to grind.

The Senate today killed a job stimulus bill for summer employment for 500,000 youth among other things in the legislation. 500,000 unemployed youth is a nice beginning for an army of liberation. Time to organize.

Republicans still running the show? Un-fucking-believable!

BT,

Why would people like Rubio bring up defense spending, war spending, or the Republican role in increasing deficits?

That’s the job of the opposition. The real issue is that the Democratic party isn’t bringing it up effectively, and in practice is doubling down on the same crap.

How do the Democrats speak effectively about corporate bailouts and war spending of the Rs when they are doing basically the same thing? Why would Obama create a Deficit Reduction commission and juice that Republican “scary deficit” meme before thoroughly and utterly tagging the Rs with fiscal profligacy?

How can Democrats point out the hypocrisy of R war spending when they are increasing commitments in Afghanistan and opening new fronts in Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere, and promoting Bush era generals and hiring an R as Defense secretary? More war supplementals, yeah!

Obama wouldn’t actively promote a real alternative to the status quo (not even PO) on healthcare. Thus he’s stuck trying to corral support for a muddled bill which is more the same, but subsidized!

Obama wants Bush era torture issues to go away; yet increasingly kowtows to Bush era “security” precedent…How do you validate the opposition’s positions and avoid looking weak?

Functionally the same economic team and de-regulatory thought processes that brought us to the brink… Same bail out the bad actors screw the little people approach…
==================
My point is this:

The issue is not that the Rs are fringe, it is that the Ds, by providing no consistent countervailing message, are enabling them to move further and further out to the autocratic right. Actively refusing to promote anything other than “what they said, only lighter and with more technical competence” may work if its a single-use tactic, but as a longer term strategy it is a recipe for exactly the situation in which we find ourselves. F*cked.

hear, hear!!

Something like that. It would seem that Jane’s Students not Banks effort is a good place to start.

Thanks.

Though I did just notice that BT says (clearly!) it was Byron York’s beat sweetener that didn’t mention these things…[sheepish grin].

I think the analysis of the broader situation holds, but implicitly taking BT to task for expecting that Rs would criticize themselves was way off-base. My apologies BT. It must be residual irritation at the Chait article…

“We would be far, far better served attending to the vapidity of the Democrat Party. This is where we deposit our trust and hopes, and this is where we need to be ruthlessly critical if we want to regain lost ground.” man, are you so dead on. Why are we even wasting our time discussing the Gopers? They’re whole game plan is so antithetical to everything most of us believe in its not even a topic worth examining here. I agree the Dems. are our problem.

Meek’s another ConservaDem wannabe. Rubio’s batshit crazy.

Blue Texan. I hope you get the chance to read this message. I really enjoyed your article. In fact, I was struck by the irony of your article in the context that it actually disproved everything you asserted as fact.

In writing this article (and others before), you have exposed yourself as nothing but a partisan hack. You have literally zero original ideas. You are not constructive. The subject of your articles aren’t inventive in the slightest, the “research” you do to back up your claims of conservative idiocy are bogus, and unfortunately you don’t represent either side correctly.

You must be ignorant or smoking something potent if you think Marco Rubio is a poor candidate or that he is even in danger of losing right now. They just released a poll showing that Rubio was ahead of Crist in the polls 60-28. 60-28. The man is on fire. The most recent Rasmussen poll is more of the same. It shows that Rubio is leading Meek by an outrageous 51-31 percent.

Your misguided arrogance is what continues to amaze me though. How can you possibly say Rubio is not a viable candidate? The DNC would be lucky to have a young, energetic, attractive candidate like Rubio who has a ridiculous ability to raise money and grassroots support while making it look easy. Oh and I see that you’ve blasted Crist for supporting the stimulus bill as well. I won’t even get into the rights and wrongs of the ostentatious stimulus bill. But I will say that Rubio’s quick rise to popularity has something to do with the people of Florida’s dislike of the liberal economic policies that are quickly spelling disaster for the country.

I know what you’ll say. You’ll spout some nonsense about Bush and his spending. Bush was a spending liberal. Any conservative can tell you that. He was socially conservative with a tendency to spend like it was going out of style. Even with Bush as a big spender (which I will openly admit he was), your boy Barack has him beat hands down. Honestly, try to defend Obama’s spending. I dare you. If you say that health care (which won’t pass) will pay for it in the next 20 years I would remind you that the CBO said that it is impossible to project that far in advance. If you would say that within the first 10 years the bill will lower the deficit by a trillion dollars I would remind you that Obama made a mistake when he told that yesterday to a live audience.

Obama’s spending has shamed even the worst days of George Bush’s Presidency. If his health care is passed (it won’t), he will astronomically exceed even his own first year in office. You should spend less time being envious of Republican’s great find in Marco Rubio and more time worrying about Obama’s ears. His selective hearing has gotten to the point where he believes they don’t want health care because they are too ignorant to understand it. But he’s from the party of liberality and open-mindedness so that couldn’t be it…

One last thing Blue Texan: You gave us a parting treat in this article.

“What you see in Rubio is what you see with the Republican Party as a whole today — a complete pathological refusal to accept any responsibility for the failures of Republican policies, which produces an utter unseriousness in dealing with the country’s challenges.”

First point, I agree that Rubio is a great representation of the Republican Party right now. Both are quickly gaining monetary and grassroots support. Both are becoming more and more attractive with alienated Blue Dog Democrats and undecided independents. Both are starting to attract younger voters that have been disenchanted with the quick failure and post-fervor meltdown/letdown that is the Obama Administration.

Second point, since when does a difference in opinion mean one side is unserious about helping the country? (And no, I won’t even dignify the first part of that sentence with a response…everyone knows that Republicans have paid dearly for the relative fiasco spending policies from 2000-2008). Simply because you disagree with Republican ideals (which time and time again have shown to be more effective than the erroneous umbrella of government spending which protects everyone too lazy to do anything for themselves) does not make it okay to dismiss them so easily. When you do this, you lose out on the hope of any bipartisan reconciliation (get it?) and you alienate your own party. People have been so quick to cry out against the Republican Party for what they call the “inability to cooperate” when all that has really happened is liberal frustration has boiled over.

I imagine it must be quite embarassing to have a SUPER majority and have so much dissension and disagreement in your own party to not be able to pass your Presiden’ts ONE promise to the American people. And I mean, its not like you have a small majority now. Inefficiency, hypocrisy, excess, and depravity continue to plague the Democratic Party. How dare you point at someone else for your mistakes.

the “research” you do to back up your claims of conservative idiocy are bogus

You’re making a verifiable claim here. Care to back it up? Did Reagan not triple the debt? Did Bush not double it? Are taxes not historically low? Did the Bush years not produce the smallest number of jobs in 6 decades?

You must be ignorant or smoking something potent if you think Marco Rubio is a poor candidate or that he is even in danger of losing right now.

Note that I wrote, “He’s crushing Charlie Crist” with a link to a current poll. Reading is fundamental.

How can you possibly say Rubio is not a viable candidate?

Where did I do that?

Obama’s spending has shamed even the worst days of George Bush’s Presidency.

Obama’s spending includes the continuation of the $700B TARP, necessary to clean up Bush’s and the Republicans’ mess, a $787 billion recovery bill, necessary to clean up Bush’s and the Republicans’ mess, and $700B in defense spending this year, necessary to clean up Bush’s and the Republicans’ mess. That’s the bulk of it.

I agree that Rubio is a great representation of the Republican Party right now.

Then you agree with the thesis of my post. Congrats.

Maybe I should have simply said skewed? For example: In your “Memo to Jay Cost” article from last year you railed on his ability to correctly comment on the nature of the past election. Alas you are correct, you didn’t make any claim or use any incorrect stat to my knowledge, but the way you turned it around was not the way it was intended to be received.

“First, and there’s a no duh aspect to this, presidential elections aren’t decided by number of states won. In 2008, Obama netted 365 electoral votes, trouncing George W. Bush’s 2004 total of 286. And despite the fact that Bush was an incumbent, he managed only 50.7% of the popular vote, less than Obama’s 52.9%. More Americans voted for Obama (69 million) than any other presidential candidate in history, including Bush in ‘04 (62 million).”

Of course states elect the President. The electoral college makes sure of that. And though obviously it isn’t the number of states you win, rather the votes that those states you win have. But come on, did you not understand the point Jay Cost was trying to make or were you just playing dumb? The point is that though Obama won (and I’m not disputing the outcome of the election nor the overwhelming mandate the American people hastily gave him) he didn’t win as evenly as Presidents in the past. Meaning that he won the states he needed to, but his support was in specific pockets of the American public. Somewhat less than overwhelming.

We both know that high electoral numbers don’t always translate to high margins of popular votes. And vice versa. Cost’s point was well understood, and it wasn’t even controversial. I guess that was what I was referring to when I wrote that your “research” is bogus. I still don’t understand why you felt the need to piss on that stat as if it didn’t mean anything. If it doesn’t, then who cares? It is simply a commentary on the disparity between the electoral college and the popular vote.

But I did think that the disparity you tried to portray between this stat actually seemingly backfired: “And despite the fact that Bush was an incumbent, he managed only 50.7% of the popular vote, less than Obama’s 52.9%” Thinking back to November 2008, it seemed that the most popular man in the world was Obama and the most hated man in the world besides bin Laden was Bush. To see how close their numbers were actually amazed me, rather than shocked me. They’re not that far from each other. Sure, it was the difference between a fair amount of electoral votes, but the way people idolized Obama and hated Bush, I would have thought it was much farther apart. This to me illustrates the fact that we really are a center-right nation. A perfect candidate (No joke, Obama was an amazing candidate.) could only temporarily shift the public to broad government intervention. We’re already moving back since you wrote that article. It’s encouraging really.

Last thing:

“Obama’s spending includes the continuation of the $700B TARP, necessary to clean up Bush’s and the Republicans’ mess, a $787 billion recovery bill, necessary to clean up Bush’s and the Republicans’ mess, and $700B in defense spending this year, necessary to clean up Bush’s and the Republicans’ mess. That’s the bulk of it.”

I don’t really think I have to say much in response to this quote. The fact that you blame absolutely nothing on the Democrat-controlled Congress during Bush’s second term amazes me. You really believe that every penny that Obama has spent or wanted to spend has been because of conservative ignorance? Yes, maybe some of it. But get real. Stop blaming conservatives for everything under the sun. If conservatives are willing to admit their spending policies of the past decade were less than stellar, you should at least have the balls to take some responsibility for yourself. And when I say yourself, I mean the Democratic Party, not you individually.

Sorry for the novel

“I agree that Rubio is a great representation of the Republican Party right now.

Then you agree with the thesis of my post. Congrats.”

^Way to take the small part of that paragraph that suited your point and ignore the rest.

Maybe I should have simply said skewed? For example: In your “Memo to Jay Cost” article from last year you railed on his ability to correctly comment on the nature of the past election. Alas you are correct, you didn’t make any claim or use any incorrect stat to my knowledge, but the way you turned it around was not the way it was intended to be received.

“First, and there’s a no duh aspect to this, presidential elections aren’t decided by number of states won. In 2008, Obama netted 365 electoral votes, trouncing George W. Bush’s 2004 total of 286. And despite the fact that Bush was an incumbent, he managed only 50.7% of the popular vote, less than Obama’s 52.9%. More Americans voted for Obama (69 million) than any other presidential candidate in history, including Bush in ‘04 (62 million).”

Of course states elect the President. The electoral college makes sure of that. And though obviously it isn’t the number of states you win, rather the votes that those states you win have. But come on, did you not understand the point Jay Cost was trying to make or were you just playing dumb? The point is that though Obama won (and I’m not disputing the outcome of the election nor the overwhelming mandate the American people hastily gave him) he didn’t win as evenly as Presidents in the past. Meaning that he won the states he needed to, but his support was in specific pockets of the American public. Somewhat less than overwhelming.

We both know that high electoral numbers don’t always translate to high margins of popular votes. And vice versa. Cost’s point was well understood, and it wasn’t even controversial. I guess that was what I was referring to when I wrote that your “research” is bogus. I still don’t understand why you felt the need to piss on that stat as if it didn’t mean anything. If it doesn’t, then who cares? It is simply a commentary on the disparity between the electoral college and the popular vote.

But I did think that the disparity you tried to portray between this stat actually seemingly backfired: “And despite the fact that Bush was an incumbent, he managed only 50.7% of the popular vote, less than Obama’s 52.9%” Thinking back to November 2008, it seemed that the most popular man in the world was Obama and the most hated man in the world besides bin Laden was Bush. To see how close their numbers were actually amazed me, rather than shocked me. They’re not that far from each other. Sure, it was the difference between a fair amount of electoral votes, but the way people idolized Obama and hated Bush, I would have thought it was much farther apart. This to me illustrates the fact that we really are a center-right nation. A perfect candidate (No joke, Obama was an amazing candidate.) could only temporarily shift the public to broad government intervention. We’re already moving back since you wrote that article. It’s encouraging really.

Last thing:

“Obama’s spending includes the continuation of the $700B TARP, necessary to clean up Bush’s and the Republicans’ mess, a $787 billion recovery bill, necessary to clean up Bush’s and the Republicans’ mess, and $700B in defense spending this year, necessary to clean up Bush’s and the Republicans’ mess. That’s the bulk of it.”

I don’t really think I have to say much in response to this quote. The fact that you blame absolutely nothing on the Democrat-controlled Congress during Bush’s second term amazes me. You really believe that every penny that Obama has spent or wanted to spend has been because of conservative ignorance? Yes, maybe some of it. But get real. Stop blaming conservatives for everything under the sun. If conservatives are willing to admit their spending policies of the past decade were less than stellar, you should at least have the balls to take some responsibility for yourself. And when I say yourself, I mean the Democratic Party, not you individually.

Sorry for the novel

“I agree that Rubio is a great representation of the Republican Party right now.

Then you agree with the thesis of my post. Congrats.”

^Way to take the small part of that paragraph that suited your point and ignore the rest.

The fact that you blame absolutely nothing on the Democrat-controlled Congress during Bush’s second term amazes me.

That would be the Congress where the House was Republican controlled from ’95 – ’06? And the Senate was Republican controlled from ’95- ’00 and again from ’03 – ’06?

Yeah, there were a lot of Democrats running things those days.

Stop blaming conservatives for everything under the sun.

I don’t blame conservatives for everything — just for bankrupting the country with tax cuts for the rich and two mismanaged wars, while wrecking the middle class, failing to address the health care crisis, and driving the nation’s economy off a cliff.

That’s all.

perhaps then, you should be more forceful in raging against Obama’s continuation of the same Bush II policies which you appear to deplore.

As is, you appear to simply mirror demondeacons intellectual dishonesty and lack of independence of thought outside Party identity.

I have, look it up. But the idea that after one year Obama is going to correct every which way Bush and 30 years of Reaganism fucked the country up is naive at best, delusional at worst.

would you for our edification then, define Reaganism and contrast it with Obama’s and the Dems’ embrace of free and unregulated market policies?

I thought the government was under unbearable pressure to create jobs, Jobs, JOBS. Why would the Senate kill a bill to create a half-million jobs? Was this an attempt to save money? If so, it was a stupid, penny-wise, pound-foolish move.

If that were true, which I doubt, I’d almost be ready to reconsider my opposition to the current terrible bill.

If you really don’t see a difference between Obama and Bush, I can’t help you.

forget contrasting then, just define Reaganism.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2010/02/maurice-ferre-pushing-poll-results.html

Here is a poll from Feb 4. Meek is a 4 term Congressman from Miami who inherited his mother’s Congressional seat. Carrie Meek served 5 terms in Congress. Meek is being challenged by Maurice Ferre, a former 12 year mayor of Miami. The primaries are August 24. It’s hard to tell how serious Ferre is, for example he is 75 years old and I don’t believe he has held political office since 1985. There is a possible shakeout coming I believe, in April, since the fees or petitions have to be presented by then.

The poll shows Crist or Rubio winning handily over Meek or Ferre.

There is also a gubernatorial race in FL in 2010.

and, uranus used to called uranus.

peas!

Greetings – haven’t been around for a while. Speaking as one of (endangered) progressives from the Red Republic of Florida, it’s endlessly amusing watching, from the inside of the asylum, the loonies ‘revolting’ {or is that revolting loonies?} as they commit fratricide.

Crist, our very own Tampa Bay Mr. ‘Law & Order’, is the epitome of Baby Bush Lite. Only in the Red Republic could he be viewed as a ‘moderate’; he’s just not as heavy handed as Jeb but is every bit as repugnant.

The local tea partiers are the classic geriatric ‘keep your government hands off my Medicare!’ They seem to have a very unenviable ability to be completely vapid. In what other state, after all, would an Alan Grayson (D, Orlando) be the leading candidate favored by his district’s REPUBLICANS to oppose him as the DEMOCRATIC candidate in November? {I guess that’s what you’d call a lock.} Remember also, that Rush is a homegrown product!

Needless to say we’re following the national trend: Repubs like Specter are converted on the road to Damascus (i.e. November). Thus, total non-entities like Mario, espousing the tea party hot air, are wiping the floor with the ‘moderate repugs’. This circular firing squad will either lead to defection or action replays like NY23. The only problem is that we don’t want, or need, any more erzatz dems like Specter.

Thus we’re left with the likes of Nelson (yes, we have the other one, a “Bill” rather than a “Ben”) and second raters like Meek & Castor. We don’t have any Bill Halters or Joe Sestaks to rescue us.

Personally, after the all-too-expected Obama failures, I’m simply going to sit at home and let the loonies get on with it.

I’m continually amazed by FL’s completely ineffectual politics — both state-wide and national. I guess that comes from decades of gerrymandering and ‘safe’ seats. Hopefully the fair districts amendment passes and we get some fresh blood.

Back on topic…I’ve been to two Meek events and he reminded me a lot of Bill Nelson, in other words another entrenched Corprocrat whose only real goal is to offend as few people as possible, much like Crist’s political career up ’til the point Rubio entered the race (Crists’s Identity Problem).

Unless Rubio goes completely off the farm or Crist runs third party, Rubio will be FL’s next Senator. No one north of West Palm knows Meek and north FL is batty enough to buy anything Rubio sells them.

I’ve seen Meek and not been overly impressed.

Says you Gooper.

How do you take the words “Let’s start over and get this bill right” and turn them into “We have nothing constructive to offer in the health care debate except to stop liberal legislation?”

Republicans have given ideas to the debate which Obama has flatly ignored.

I remember saying Bush’s second term. That does not fall under the 90′s. I think I was very clear with my statement.

No one in their right mind would expect Obama to fix everything wrong in this country in one year. But no one expected him to make it even worse by focusing on a health care bill the majority of Americans don’t want instead of pooling all his efforts into creating jobs either.