I was thinking about that also after seeing the polls shown.

I don't know what happened to that post. It get messed up because of the crappy HTML editor on this site. Anyway, it's like this:

After Debate:

Rasmussen: Obama 50 Romney 49 Obama + 1

WeAskAmerica: Obama 46 Romney 47 Romney + 1

Before Debate:

NBC/WSJ/Marist: Obama 51 Romney 43 Obama + 8

PPP: Obama 49 Romney 45 Obama 4

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know Rasmussen and PPP are typical Republican and Democratic, respectively.

But here's WeAskAmerica previously before the "debate:" Obama + 8 (July)

Great. Just fu king great.

This is what happens when a wimp lets a bully and liar walk over him and let lies go unchallenged.

After Debate:

Rasmussen: Obama 50 Romney 49 Obama + 1

WeAskAmerica: Obama 46 Romney 47 Romney + 1

Before Debate:

NBC/WSJ/Marist: Obama 51 Romney 43 Obama + 8

PPP: Obama 49 Romney 45 Obama 4

Wait a minute. What were those specific polls before the debate? If you show me USA Today prior to the debate and show me CNN after the debate, that tells me absolutely nothing.

What you're doing is similar to what the MSM does in trying to create a narrative.

I understand that.

That's why I gave you the most recent WeAskAmerica number before the debate. But remember, the President was leading Ohio to the extent that RCP and others had taken it off the board and put it on the "Leans Obama" side. Now they've put it in "Toss Up" status.

Rasmussen is a 3-day rolling avg right now so they don't have historical numbers on the RCP board. Maybe it's at Rasmussen, though I can't find it in easily displayable format.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html

Clearly we'll have to wait probably at least two more days to find the real damage done, but if this is any indication, it was substantial.

And.

That WeAskAmerica poll of + 8 for Obama was from July 24th. Since then, we had the Olympics, the DNC, the RNC, Libya.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html

and this:

Chief of "We Ask America" poll donated $$$ to "Friends of John Boehner"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002875773

"We Ask America" is a polling firm that has come up with some strange pro-Romney results. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_romney_vs_obama-1811.html

As a result, I decided to find out who the CEO of this polling firm is. I found the answer. His name is Gregory Baise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Manufacturers'_Association

I then typed the google search "Gregory Baise donations." One of the results led to the following page: http://www.city-data.com/elec2/08/elec-LEMONT-IL-08.html

That link above is a list of some people in Illinois who donated money political entities. In the link, we see the following:

Gregory W Baise (Illinois Manufacturing Assoc/Presid), (Zip code: 60439) $1000 to FRIENDS OF JOHN BOEHNER on 04/17/08

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/elec2/08/elec-LEMONT-IL-08.html#ixzz1z9ROliMP

There you have it. This polling firm should have a (R) next to it in Pollster.com and Realclearpolitics.com, but it doesn't. A right-wing nut is at the helm of this organization. A conflict of interest is more than clear.

Tell Mark Blumenthal of Pollter.com at Huffington Post to stop playing dumb and either stop citing this poll or to write an article stating the fact that it has a dog in this fight. Twitter account: @mysterypollster

Here's further no-less-interesting information on Baise:

...Its CEO is Greg Baise, who was a 1990 Republican candidate for Treasurer, losing to Pat Quinn by 11%. He is also Treasurer of the Economic Freedom Alliance, which has targeted Democrat Bill Foster with advertising labeling him as a "job killer" for his support of card check legislation.
http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6672/on-those-we-ask-america-illinois-polls

just want to point out that the average of the last ten ohio polls before the two rightleaning polls you cite was +6...

very doubtful that the debate had that much instant effect

WeAskAmerica does a poll on July 24 and doesn't do another one until October 4th?

In the perennial swing state of Ohio? Really?

It seems WeAsk America does a Pro Romney poll whenever he needs good news.

Despite WeAskAmerica's ties, their poll was still Obama + 8 in July. It's clear this is preliminary and not nearly enough data, but my guess is that there was fairly substantial damage. To keep my spirits up, I keep looking at Nate Silver because right now he doesn't have any post-"debate" data reflected in his calculations. My guess -- just a gut feeling -- Obama lost two points nationally and swing states that had very much been trending or seen to be in Obama's column are now in play. Hope Obama finds his genitals in time for the next face-to-face confrontation because this is a country that loves them some alpha male, even if it is fake and brow-beating.

We'll see.

but my guess is that there was fairly substantial damage.

But, what is your guess based on?

Rasmussen clearly stated that their poll reflects after the debate surveys.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president

Friday, October 05, 2012

The critical battleground state of Ohio remains a draw, with President Obama holding a one-point lead in the first post-debate survey of the contest there.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters, taken last night, finds Obama with 50% support to Mitt Romney’s 49%. One percent (1%) likes another candidate, and another one percent (1%) is undecided. (To see survey question wording,click here.)

Obama is up one, just as he was in Rasmussen's poll 2 weeks ago. But, now Obama has a majority of 50%.

9/12 - 9/12
500 LV
4.5
47
46
Obama +1

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html

I told you what my guess was based on. Right now, my gut. I'm dreading looking at what comes out today because I really hate it when that 87.1% chance Nate Silver is calculating as Obama's chance for victory goes down. And if the % drops are in the 2% range, it'll go down significantly.

One good thing, though: the jobs numbers were much better than I think everybody was expecting, so maybe, just maybe, Obama and his brilliant team of message-makers can figure out a way to use that to their advantage.

That would have been easier to say than to provide meaningless polls to ad validity to what you already want to believe.

HERMAN CAIN:

I don't have facts to back this up

Look asswhole. They're not meaningless. And I did say it. I don't want to believe it anymore than I wanted to see another flacid Democrat let yet another obnoxious lying Republican shove anywhere he wanted to at will. But that's what I saw and that's what countless others saw and that's what changed the outlook of this race from what it was at 8:59 pm Weds. to what it is now. And RCP took Ohio out of the Obama column. You got that?

Most pollsters I read say if there is a bump , it will not show up till at least 4 days after , which makes sense to me

I understand your point and frustration DWIA , some times you have to cut your team some slack tho , they live in a bubble in obamas world , quite frankly the guy looks worn out , over all , from working his ass off imo ....He needs to take some real time off before the next debate , that requires really trusting your lieutenants to take the helm when you are gone , campaigning is a full time job in its self , maybe he just learned that also?

I know, Patango. I know from experience it's difficult to get up in front of people, much less on TV in front of the nation and the world, and try to negotiate complex subjects, while under the gun. And I understand the fatigue factor. (The President has some pretty good amenities to ease that, however.)

But I can also tell from experience when the preparation was taken cavalierly. And that is EXACTLY what happened. It was just simply irresponsible what went on Wednesday. Simply irresponsible. Obama went in with the reputation of the candidate with the details and specifics of laid out plans and let Romney go unchallenged when he started his lies and it ended up looking like Romney was the one with specifics (he WASN'T) and that Romney was the truth-teller.
I still can't get over how lame -- completely and utterly lame -- Obama was.

No answer for "it's not working Mr. President." I mean, are you fu king kidding me? No, "Well, yes, it is working; and that's despite the obstacles of your party Mr. Romney, and the only thing you're proposing sir, are things that have been shown NOT to work." Where the hell was something like that. Do you even have to practice that? Like I said, I understand that the stresses and anxieties of the moment can be overwhelming; the stagefright of a good guitarist can make the easiest pieces difficult. But Wednesday was ridiculous.

Obama had no answer to Mitt Romney -- MITT "Lyin' SACK of SHHIT" Romney telling Obama to his face that Obama was not telling the truth!!!!!! Sweet fu king Jezebus! Romney even told the Obama team -- on 60 Minutes -- they were going to do that. I fail to see how performance anxiety could have made Obama not respond to that.

It's going to be a while before I get over Wednesday. Because 1) I AM SICK TO DEATH of obnoxious, nauseating, lying Republicans running rough shod over Democrats AND the truth, 2) Democrats allowing it to happen, and 3) this is the most important election since the Civil War in my opinion. Obama was damn near criminally negligent in his act Wednesday and it was all too reminiscent of his pusillanimous handling of Republicans from the get-go. We should be looking at Republicans having no chance of power for two generations, but because of Obama, we're staring at the demolition of the 20th century AND, if they were to win in November, Democrats being out of power for a generation.

I challenge you to defend the obstruction by the Republican party.

actually our president got 95% of the black vote in 08...up from kerry and gore's 88-90%...in other words half of african american republican voters switched sides.

claiming that that's racism is nuts...

why are you bringing up racism of this comment thread...steve's post doesn't say anything about the subject

Mr martains blue grass albums are also great , they have the youtube videos of them from pbs austin city limits concerts , the guy is still sharp as hell

thanks for giving this race some love! i loved that video (my wife and i lofao at the video over lunch) and from what i can see the Kerry Campaign is making a strong push for the senate seat with 1 month before the election.

If that video doesn't change peoples' minds, all they need to do is watch the debates between the two. Those debates show a candidate who has nothing but slogans and platitudes and a candidate who has experience, a plan, and objective assessments of the issues we face without kowtowing to a party line. Kerry is SANE!

There is also some news my wife found regarding Fischer pushing legislation that would have allowed her to take over land that was given to the games and parks commission. i don't have all the details yet, but the more we find out about Fischer the dirtier she appears...

This should some how be used on the national level also , reminding people the the whole t bagger gophouse and Cantor wanted to refuse help to people when the hurricane hit the east cost last year , they only want to barrow money for tax cuts to romney and the gang

These hypocrits represent dysfunctional governing right out in the open with no shame , then run for freakin office on it!!!!!

'obstruction of the Republican party' typically references how the 2010 congress acted in partisan lockstep to prevent any bill that the President approved of to pass the legislature. veterans bills, jobs bills, and anything else that the President was known to approve of was generally shelved by the House or filibustered in the Senate to prevent its passage. The congressional republicans worked toward the goal of making President Obama a 1 term president over passing legislation that would benefit the country during this legislative session. This is referred to as 'Republican obstruction' in the common lexicon.

It's not only since 2010. It started before Obama took office. I haven't proofed this, but it's somethng I've been gathering information on:

Overview and Inauguration Dinner Meeting :

Everybody knows the quote(s) by now:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc)

"Our top political priority over the next two years is to deny President Obama a second term." -- Mitch McConnell, Dec.,7, 2010, Heritage Foundation

(http://nationaljournal.com/member/magazine/top-gop-priority-make-obama-a-one-term-president-20101023)

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” -- Mitch McConnell, Oct.23, 2010, just prior to the 2010 election

Republicans, to avoid political embarrassment now and to deny charges of obstructionism, now like to claim that quote was not put in full context. Here's what McConnell said in total to the National Journal's Major Garrett:

NJ: You’ve been studying the history of presidents who lost part or all of Congress in their first term. Why?

McConnell: In the last 100 years, three presidents suffered big defeats in Congress in their first term and then won reelection: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and the most recent example, Bill Clinton. I read a lot of history anyway, but I am trying to apply those lessons to current situations in hopes of not making the same mistakes.

NJ: What have you learned?

McConnell: After 1994, the public had the impression we Republicans overpromised and underdelivered. We suffered from some degree of hubris and acted as if the president was irrelevant and we would roll over him. By the summer of 1995, he was already on the way to being reelected, and we were hanging on for our lives.

NJ: What does this mean now?

McConnell: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”

NJ: What’s the job?

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?

McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.

NJ: What are the big issues?

McConnell: It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I imagine, find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him.

NJ: What will you seek from the president on the tax issue?

McConnell: At the very least, I believe we should extend all of the Bush tax cuts. And I prefer to describe this as keeping current tax policy. It’s been on the books for 10 years. Now, how long that [extension] is, is something we can discuss. It was clear his position was not [favored] among all Senate Democrats. They had their own divisions. I don’t think those divisions are going to be any less in November and December.

So Republicans and some numbskulls in the press give McConnell a break claiming it wasn't just about obstructing the President and any Obama agenda from the beginning, but that his quotes were made in Oct. 2010, not Jan. 2009.

------------

Not so bad, heh? Ha! But Michael Grunwald, in his book, "The New New Deal" has learned differently. Scorched-earth obstruction started before Obama took office.

(http://negativeinterest.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/perhaps-glenn-kessler-should-attempt-some-journalism/)

At the (Republican Senate) retreat (January, 2009), McConnell reminded the Republican senators that there were still enough of them to block the Democratic agenda – as long as they all marched in lockstep…Politically, they had nothing to gain from me-too-ism.

…

McConnell recognized that Obama’s promises of bipartisanship gave his dwindling minority real leverage. Whenever Republicans decided not to cooperate, Obama would be the one breaking his promises…”We thought – correctly, I think – that the only way the American people would know a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan,” McConnell explain later in one of his periodic outbreaks of candor. “When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that the differences had been worked out.”

…

Maybe Obama had rewritten the rules of electoral politics, but the rules of Washington politics still applied. The dream of hope and change was about to enter the world of cloture votes and motions to commit. That was McConnell’s world.

That retreat took place in early January 2009, before Obama took office. At the House retreat around the same time, Pete Sessions delivered this message to his colleagues:

The team’s goal would not be promoting Republican policies, or stopping Democratic policies, or even making Democratic bills less offensive to Republicans. Its goal would be taking the gavel back from Speaker Pelosi.

“That is the entire Conference’s Mission,” Sessions wrote.

----------

We also had Republican Senators telling Joe Biden they were not going to be able to provide any help to pass (any) legislation, much less legislation that aimed to address the economic and fiscal disaster W and complicit Republican Congresses gave to the nation.

Again, from Grunwald but via Greg Sargent:

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/biden-mcconnell-decided-to-withhold-all-cooperation-even-before-we-took-office/2012/08/10/64e9a138-e302-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_blog.html)

"Grunwald has Joe Biden on the record making a striking charge. Biden says that during the transition, a number of Republican Senators privately confided to him that Mitch McConnell had given them the directive that there was to be no cooperation with the new administration — because he had decided that “we can’t let you succeed.”

Here’s the relevant passage, from page 207:

Biden says that during the transition, he was warned not to expect any cooperation on many votes. “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators, who said, `Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ he recalls. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was: `For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’” Biden says.

The vice president says he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along these lines.

Biden, of course, has a history of outsized comments. But two former Republican Senators are confirming the gist of the charges (though both have their reasons for holding a grudge against the GOP). Meanwhile, former Senator George Voinovich also goes on record telling Grunwald that Republican marching orders were to oppose everything the Obama administration proposed.

“If he was for it, we had to be against it,” Voinovich tells Grunwald. And at another point, characterizing a strategy session Republicans and McConnell had held in early January of 2009, Voinovich said: “He wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”

----

So,

During the greatest economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression (caused by 30+ years of failed conservative economic ideas and policies that resulted in inequality not seen since the Great Depression, immobility between income classes never seen in America, and a worldwide Great Recession) Republicans were of course primarily interested only in helping the nation recover from the mess they caused by pulling together to aid the newly elected President Obama, right? Answer: Hahahahahahaha…., Nope.

And if you would have thought any different, you simply haven't been paying attention to Republicans for 20 years.

-----------

A little more Grunwald:

(http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/15/six-revelations-from-michael-grunwald-s-the-new-new-deal.html)

In the Senate: Sorry, Joe

Perhaps the biggest scoop comes from Vice President Biden, who told Grunwald that despite Obama’s decisive win over John McCain and huge Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, the stimulus would be a tough slog that would win few, if any Republican votes. This turned out to be right—it was opposed by the House GOP caucus and only garnered the votes of three Republican senators, and only after they won significant policy concessions. Biden tells Grunwald that he “never for one instant” thought the administration could win more than a few Republican Senate votes. The blockbuster quote from Biden is “I spoke to seven different Republican senators who said: ‘Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything …’ The way it was characterized to me was: ‘For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back.’” Grunwald gets confirmation from Bob Bennett and Arlen Specter, Republican senators who fell short in their reelection bids in 2010 that they had “conversations with Biden along those lines.”

In the House: The Minority Plays for Majority

The Republican strategy, from even before Obama was inaugurated, was to oppose him in lockstep to make his bills appear to be partisan and controversial. Grunwald describes a retreat the House Republican leadership took in January 2008, before Obama was inaugurated. The second slide in the presentation read “The purpose of the Minority is to become the Majority.” Pete Sessions, the Texas Republican giving the presentation, added, “This is the entire Conference’s mission.” Later, when the chairman of the appropriations committee, David Obey, meets with his Republican counterpart, Jerry Lewis, to discuss the stimulus, Lewis tells Obey, “I’m sorry, but leadership tells us we can’t play,” indicating that there was not going to be any constructive negotiation between House Democrats and Republicans. Tom Cole, the GOP deputy whip, told Grunwald, “It was apparent very early that this wasn’t going to be bipartisan … We wanted the talking point: ‘The only thing bipartisan was the opposition.’”

-----------

More pre-Obama inauguration Republican obstruction planning :

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/republicans-had-it-in-for-obama-before-day-1/2012/08/10/0c96c7c8-e31f-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_blog.html)
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html)

Via Ron Draper's book " Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives," we know that on the night of President Obama's inauguration, the following Republicans met in the Caucus Room in DC for a dinner organized by Frank Luntz: Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) , Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), Dan Lungren (Calif.), Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), and Newt Gingrich.

"For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama's legislative platform.

"If you act like you're the minority, you're going to stay in the minority," Draper quotes McCarthy as saying. "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."

The conversation got only more specific from there, Draper reports. Kyl suggested going after incoming Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for failing to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes while at the International Monetary Fund. Gingrich noted that House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) had a similar tax problem.

McCarthy chimed in to declare "there's a web" before arguing that Republicans could put pressure on any Democrat who accepted campaign money from Rangel to give it back.

The dinner lasted nearly four hours. They parted company almost giddily. The Republicans had agreed on a way forward:

Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day: ‘Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it—please?’)

Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama’s economic stimulus plan.)

Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.)

Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012.

"You will remember this day," Draper reports Newt Gingrich as saying on the way out. "You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown."

Draper's timeline is correct. On Jan. 21, 2009, Kyl aggressively questioned Geithner during his confirmation hearings. On Jan. 28, 2009, House GOP leadership held the line against the stimulus package (Senate GOP leadership would prove less successful in stopping defections).

The votes, of course, can be attributed to legitimate philosophical objection to the idea of stimulus spending as well as sincere concern that the secretary of the Treasury should personally have a clean tax-paying record. But what Draper's book makes clear is that blunt electoral-minded ambitions were the animating force.

Whether or not that's shocking depends on the degree to which one's view of politics has been jaded. What's certainly noteworthy is the timing. When Mitch McConnell said in October 2010 that his party's primary goal in the next Congress was to make Obama a one-term president, it was treated as remarkably candid and deeply cynical. Had he said it publicly in January 2009, it would likely have caused an uproar.

By extension, however, the Draper anecdote also negatively reflects on the Obama administration for failing to appreciate how quickly congressional Republicans would oppose the president's agenda."

Links to information about the dinner, etc:

- http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/15/from-day-one.html

- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1451642083

- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/biden-mcconnell-decided-to-withhold-all-cooperation-even-before-we-took-office/2012/08/10/64e9a138-e302-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_blog.html

- "The New New Deal" http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Deal-Hidden-Change/dp/1451642326/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344614961&sr=8-1&keywords=michael+grunwald+the+new+new+deal

More unproofed Republican obstruction stuff:

First, consider this:

Here's how ALL the Luntz dinner participants voted on measures to combat the economic crisis before Obama became President:

- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney January 2008 Stimulus
- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney bailing out Bear Stern
- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney bailing out AIG
- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney TARP (Sept 2008)
- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney TARP (Oct 2008)

Pre-Great Recession fiscal profligacy:

- Supported Bush/Cheney keeping cost of two wars out of the Budget.

- Supported Bush/Cheney spending $4Trillion while giving Top 1% Tax Cuts; ignoring the fact that taxes pay for wars.

Now the Republican quotes:

------- Kevin McCarthy:

"If you act like you're the minority, you're going to stay in the minority. We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign." – Kevin McCarthy, Jan, 2009

------- Newt Gingrich:

"You will remember this day. You'll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown." -- Newt Gingrich, Jan, 2009

------- Rep. Pete Sessions:

- Rep Pete Sessions (who was at the Frank Luntz dinner in Jan.,2009 before the Obama inauguration), Feb. 5, 2009 to National Journal (after voting unanimously against the economic plan pushed by President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi):

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

"If they [democrats] do not give us those options or opportunities then we will then become Insurgency ... I think Insurgency is a mindset and an attitude that we're going to have to search for and find ways to get our message out and to be prepared to see things for what they are, rather than trying to do something about them"

"If they do not give us those options or opportunities then we will then become insurgency of a nature to where we do those things that are necessary to making sure the American public knows what we think the correct answer is," Sessions said during the 60-minute interview. "So we either work together, or we're going to find a way to get our message out."

"I think insurgency is a mindset and an attitude that we're going to have to search for and find ways to get our message out and to be prepared to see things for what they are, rather than trying to do something about them," Sessions said. "I think what's happened is that the line was drawn in the sand" by Pelosi.

"We believe our job is to aim to win the majority," Sessions said. "I've never aimed to come in second place."

-------- Jim DeMint:

"the best thing that could happen for business is complete gridlock" and that he wants to stop programs that violate his anti-Big Government ideology.

"What happens in the Senate is the Republicans sink to the lowest common denominator, People want an alternative to some kind of watered-down Republican philosophy."

" "If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," – Jim DeMint, on the prospects of passage of the PPACA, July, 2009 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/Health_reform_foes_plan_Obamas_Waterloo.html)

“If we stop him on health care,” he said, “then I think we have the opportunity to maybe realign the whole political system in our country.”

(http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/09/16/119377/demint-complete-gridlock/)

“I’ve been told by businesses that if we would stop the tax increases the best thing that could happen for business after that is complete gridlock. At least gridlock is predictable,” he tells Bloomberg Businessweek, taking a quick break between TV appearances. His goal, he says, is to stop programs that violate his anti-Big Government ideology. “What happens in the Senate is the Republicans sink to the lowest common denominator,” he says. “People want an alternative to some kind of watered-down Republican philosophy.”

(http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/09/16/119377/demint-complete-gridlock/)

Not sure if he said this:

“Our goal is a complete gridlock for the next two years. There is no place for bi-partisanship, compromise, only acceptable outcome is total victory and any politician that disagrees will be treated as a traitor. This is war.” -- Jim De Mint

-------

------- Mitch McConnell:
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” -- Mitch McConnell

"We thought – correctly, I think – that the only way the American people would know a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan,” McConnell explain later in one of his periodic outbreaks of candor. “When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that the differences had been worked out.” -- Mitch McConnell, explaining why complete obstruction on all legislation was necessary for Republicans – i.e., so they could take contrary positions in the 2010/12 campaigns. It was about political revival, not what was best for the country.

------- Charles Grassley

“I take pride with being an obstructionist,” – Charles Grassley

------- Rush Limbaugh

"I hope Obama fails." – Rush Limbaugh

------- John Boehner

"This is no time for compromise"– John Boehner, after 2010 elections

-------

More GOP obstruction information:

Important Votes after Obama Took Office: (These are BEFORE McConnell's remarks in Oct 2010)

Recall: Here's how ALL the Luntz dinner participants voted on measures to combat the economic crisis before Obama became President:

- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney January 2008 Stimulus
- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney bailing out Bear Stern
- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney bailing out AIG
- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney TARP (Sept 2008)
- "Yes" to Bush/Cheney TARP (Oct 2008)

Pre-Great Recession fiscal profligacy:

- Supported Bush/Cheney keeping cost of two wars out of the Budget.

- Supported Bush/Cheney spending $4Trillion while giving Top 1% Tax Cuts; ignoring the fact that taxes pay for wars.

Yes, the same people who from Draper's book who would "…Show united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama's economic stimulus plan.)"

And so when Obama became President? Republicans followed through on their House and Senate retreat and dinner conversation plans and just said "NO." Clearly it was for calculated political reasons only, hoping a rankly incompetent press and an irresponsibly inattentive public would not notice the difference in pre and post Obama behaviors, rhetoric, and transparent hypocrisy. The country's health – economic, political, citizens', or otherwise – was not the concern. It was the Republican party's health that was the concern. From

GOP Obstruction: S-CHIP (Signed 2/2009)

Senate Vote: 66 – 32; GOP votes: 8

House Vote: 290 – 135; GOP votes: 41

GOP Obstruction: ARRA - Stimulus (Signed: 2/2009)

Senate Vote: 60 – 38 ; GOP votes: 2

House Vote: 246 – 183 ; GOP votes: 0

GOP Obstruction: PPACA (Health Care Reform, ObamaCare) (Signed: 3/2010)

Senate Vote: 60 – 39; GOP votes: 0

House Vote: 219 – 212; GOP votes: 0

GOP Obstruction: Dodd-Frank (Wall Street Reform) (Signed: 7/2010)

Senate Vote: 60 – 39; GOP votes: 3

House Vote: 237 – 192; GOP votes: 3

GOP Obstruction: Extended Unemployment Benefits (Signed: 7/2010) (Can't even extend unemployment?)

Senate Vote: 59 – 39; GOP votes: 2

House Vote: 272 – 152; GOP votes: 31

GOP Obstruction: Small Business Jobs Act (Signed: 9/2010)

Senate Vote: 61 – 38; GOP votes: 0

House Vote: 237 – 187; GOP votes: 1

-----

GOP Obstruction: DISCLOSE Act (Signed: No. Filibustered)

Other Acts by the Dinner Participants and Other Important GOP Actors:

Threatened Government Shutdown on:

- Funding planned parenthood,

- Raising the Debt Ceiling which, in-and-of-itself, would cause US Economic turmoil.

Senators: Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, John Ensign, and Bob Corker have:

- Filibustered more Bills (over 300) than any Congress combined in US History.

- Voted NO on every single piece of Legislation brought to the Floor including:
--NO on Al Franken's Anti-Rape Amendment,
-- NO on Lilly Ledbetter,
-- NO on Fair Pay Act,
-- NO on Anti-Outsourcing Bill (2010)

NO on those bills?!?! Seriously?!?!

And I've got a whole lot more on individual items about the GOP traitorous obstruction.

Someone commented that it was a handkerchief that he used at the very end of the debate. Someone else replied that it appeared to be a well-starched one.

I am ready to believe that he had a starched handkerchief - after all, aren't his jeans pressed and creased?

red herring fallacy. Mr. Romney didn't look at the podium when speaking during the event Wednesday, and if they were note cards or something else untoward he would have been looking at them more often.

This has more to do with apologists for the President than proving that Mr. Romney did something to cheat during the debates. that is why i call it a red herring.

He did put notes on the podium when he came out. I specifically remember seeing him take it out of his right hip pocket and throw it onto the podium.

That puts it in perspective OUCH!!! thanx Russ

update: a miami herald article has the 08 numbers 57-42..so make that 15 points

their current numbers are 61-31 [30 points] with 8% undecided...still that's not what rmoney wants to hear.

also

In showing diminishing support for Republicans, the poll reflects the voter-registration trends for Hispanics in Florida, where their ranks have grown by a total of 39 percent while the overall rolls have increased just 10 percent since 2006.

But the number of Republican Hispanics has only grown 12 percent, while the number of Democratic Hispanics have increased 60 percent and no-party-affiliation Hispanic voters increased 50 percent. NPA Hispanics now outnumber Republican Hispanics in Florida.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/05/170651/poll-floridas-hispanic-voters.html#storylink=cpy

You still on this red herring? Got an agenda, much? It ain't working.

just repeating myself...

actually our president got 95% of the black vote in 08...up from kerry and gore's 88-90%...in other words half of african american republican voters switched sides.

claiming that that's racism is nuts...

all democratic presidential candidates since 1968 [all white, i'd note] have gotten at least 86% of the black vote....

why are you bringing up racism of this comment thread??...steve's post doesn't say anything about the subject

Deb , your going by a WHAT IF , which is never a stable debate stance

here from someone of color who has been willing to be out there and stand up:
And has never considered himself a victim because of Race. It just the way it is right now;-)

funny i live in Arizona. race is always an issue. it's not always blatant but it is there. here is an example.

my girlfriend is a50+ Independent(voter she says,loved her much),white Caucasian. her children are half Mexican-American Caucasian. They are dark-skinned not at all like her, not even close in color.
Her kids would every once in awhile ask her about why someone called them a "Mexican"?, said it to them with hate. She said "ah that's nothing they didn't say or mean that, i understand because i grew up around Mexicans and your dad"

I couldn't believe it! So I took each one aside, her17&18boys and 16girl through the years and let them vent there hurt and pain. Asked what they were feeling. Each one cried saying Mom didn't understand. All the hate and anger people say and show us at times she says not a big deal but it is. The kids are now in there mid too late 20's and now are better equipped in understanding that just because there dark-skinned it doesn't mean there less.
It is okay to embrace all of who you are.
When they are feeling hurt from prejudices done to them now they talk with each other or go talk to there dad and his family. You know other Mexicans;-)

Her and I are no longer together. Biggest reason she said, she would not support me when helping Latin-Americans who are being discriminated against. And when it happened she didn't.

But she is a Independent Voter. I was to until I was around her and her friends and finally understood what real Independent Voters are. And they also spew racial and prejudiced crap, with her just sitting there pretending it's not being said, wow.

i am a dark-skinned 50+ Mexican-American now Democrat Male. Beginning in my 20's to now i have not been served at bars, restaurants, told can't work there, not hired, women grabbing there purse, walking to the other side of the street then moving back over after passing even when they had children of color with them, pulled over and asked for my papers by Chandler AZ police in 1997, it goes on and on all because to them i am, a Mexican, a f--king Mexican, a spic, greaser, a wetback, one of those people even a N--g-r. All this was said. Yes I stood up and fought back peacefully, way I was raised. Use the system to help one move forward;-)

The issue of "Race" is there. And since our first Bi-Racial president but to America he is a Black President it has gotten worse. Meaning more open and blatant.

So here we are "Race" it is always a issue. The job is to confront it head on and deal with it. Deal with it so people of color can no longer feel less than even if they have succeeded in what is considered success in this Our United States of America;-)

Tired you may be but if you think racism isn't alive and taking names then you don't get out much..

well said. i agree 100%

Actually, Louisville is not a Republican city. But Kentucky is a very red state. And, sadly, the Courier-Journal is a shambles of a paper anymore.

hi in a state that has done papers please in 1997 and now again. Why isn't the most important concern is scott brown's saying " see she doesn't look Indian (Native-American)"

Nationally our most articulate advocate for Hispanics(Latin-Americans) was Alicia Menendez.
She now works for huff post live as host/producer. Sad;-(

She would and could truly express the feelings of so many Hispanic (Latin-Americans) like no other really has in this country.
Like myself and the many I have met and spoke too .

Go look and tell me that scott brown would not be saying she doesn't look it.

I of course look as they say illegal.

How do I know? In 1997 I was in Chandler, AZ driving when a Chandler police officer pulled me over and said, "papers please."

When I spoke he said "oh" Do you know I don't speak Spanish! But I understand. Boy do I understand;-)

Born here, parents born here, grandparents born here. "That makes me uhhhh a American, right?"
No traffic offense just pulled me over to ask for my papers. We marched on city hall back then;-) Geez