About that GOP momentum

Many Republicans are anticipating a 1994 or 2006 kind of backlash in next year’s mid-term elections, a “throw the bums out” kind of year in which they could narrow the gap in Washington. In their most optimistic moments, they dream of even winning back a majority in the U.S. House.

But they might not be even the second most popular party in the country.

According to a recent opinion poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports, that distinction would go to the Tea Party. And if you just thought to yourself, “Wait, there is no political party called the ‘Tea Party,’ ” then you understand how significant this finding is.

Some of us have been warning for months now that the small-government, anti-Democrat movement manifested in tea-party protests around the country since April didn’t necessarily represent a mother lode of votes for the GOP to mine. No doubt, many of these voters would prefer not to vote for the party of Obama, Pelosi and Reid. And so would many Americans: Since June 28, Republicans have been leading Democrats on Rasmussen’s weekly “generic ballot” poll (which asks whether you would vote for your congressional district’s Republican candidate or Democratic candidate, without specific candidate names). In recent weeks, that gap has been in the range of 43-44 percent Republican/37-38 percent Democrat.

When Rasmussen asked respondents to assume that the Tea Party movement organized as a new political party,” however, Democrats stayed about the same at 36 percent — but “Tea Party” won 23 percent and Republicans only 18 percent (22 percent were undecided).

The polling firm cautions that “it is unlikely that a true third-party option would perform as well as the polling data indicates. The rules of the election process — written by Republicans and Democrats — provide substantial advantages for the two established major parties. The more conventional route in the United States is for a potential third-party force to overtake one of the existing parties.”

I would agree with that assessment. But what the Tea Party support indicates to me is that Republicans’ attractiveness to tea partiers is tenuous, and that the GOP will have to work very hard to convert those voters’ anti-Democrat attitude into a pro-Republican result next November.

***

Find me on Facebook.

154 comments Add your comment

dewstarpath

December 8th, 2009
6:43 am

- Kyle: I agree with you that the GOP has its work cut out
for it to convert “teabaggers” into card-carrying members.
But I doubt that most of those protesters have the temperament
or the prerequisite interdependent skills to be effective public
servants. I didn’t see any leadership potential from them.
I use the word “interdependent”, because it’s a concept
future politicians are going to have to be familiar with. I used it
from “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” by Stephen Covey.
He also wrote the sequel “Principle-Centered Leadership” a book
outgoing Governor Sonny Perdue made required reading for his
staff at the Capitol.
I wasn’t impressed by the tea-bagger parties. A better source
could be the nascent Independent party. They are more likely to
gain bipartisan cooperation from across the political aisle.

Jimmy62

December 8th, 2009
7:37 am

Dewstar: As soon as you called them tea-baggers, I realized you had nothing to contribute.

The Tea Party folks probably won’t turn in to a third party, but it will generate some new leadership. These people are mostly independent folks who don’t like to be beholden to anyone for anything. There will be some very intelligent ones that will run for office in order to actually serve their constituents instead of themselves. I see it as bringing in a lot of non-political people into politics, and that can only be a good thing.

Patriotson

December 8th, 2009
7:43 am

The two parties have such a lockup on the political processes that it is impossible for a third party to succeed. It would be far better for the GOP to incorporate the seeds of discontent in America into their political platform. How-be-it, the American citizen is so angry over the Obama Admin ideologs and socialist agenda’s that the shock and augh in 2010 is going to change the entire tennor of politics in America.

dewstarpath

December 8th, 2009
8:13 am

- JIMMY62 – “Teabaggers” call themselves that.
I obviously did not come up with the name (Boston Tea Party ?)
And HOW does my calling someone by a name they call
themselves invalidate what I have to say? Or do you need
to invalidate anyone and anything YOU don’t agree with?

dewstarpath

December 8th, 2009
8:15 am

patriotson – It’s spelled “tenor”.

itstrue

December 8th, 2009
8:17 am

Kyle should be careful citing Rasmussen data only. They routinely track to the right of most of the other national polling agencies. I’m not crying conspiracy here, but using Rasmussen alone can overstate your case, sometimes greatly. He called the ‘08 election for McCain almost all the way to the end, while everyone else was 5-6 points away.

It’s like citing a Daily Kos poll and calling it fact. It’s meant to get people fired up, not tell them what’s going on.

If it’s truth on American public opinion you’re seeking, it might be good to look at a few different polling agencies, or take a trendline over a few months.

If reconfirming your own beliefs is what you’re after, however, by all means, cite the guys biased towards you.

More information? http://www.pollster.com/blogs/why_is_rasmussen_so_different.php

itstrue

December 8th, 2009
8:23 am

Teabaggers calling themselves teabaggers is sort of like rednecks calling themselves rednecks.

It might be an act of defiance to take an insulting name for their own, but if they want to be taken seriously, they have to first take themselves seriously. Just a thought.

Horrible Horace

December 8th, 2009
8:31 am

The teabaggers have decided to “own their teabaggedness”. Sound familiar…LMAO!!

Mutts R Stupid

December 8th, 2009
8:42 am

After nearly 8 years of FatBoySonny’s principle centered leadership, Georgia has the highest bank failure rate in the country. Why? Because Georgia banks use the good old boy method of making loans, and the good old boys have lost their shirts speculating on real estate, with the support and approval of FatBoy and his ilk. I long ago moved all my money outside the State of Georgia, and most of it into investments outside the Country, to places like France (Total, a foreign owned oil company that pays ~5% dividend at the current price of ~$64, but that I purchased at $42) and Brazil (PetroBras, with a nice divy, and much growth potential) but I would not trust the good old boys of Georgia with one red cent of my money. As for real estate in Georgia, I own my house free and clear, but I would not buy any more real estate in this state because there are too many crooks in real estate, government, and banking in Georgia. But soon I will be able to stop paying the school tax portion of my annual assessment, thank you Cobb County, the only honest county in the whole otherwise worthless state.

Ga Values

December 8th, 2009
8:51 am

Georgia does not have a Republican party, we have a mix of RINOs and former blue dogs who are only in this for the money and power. How can a real Republican vote for either of our Socialist/RINO Senators? At this point Saxby is less bad than Johnny because we all know Saxby is a crook but Johnny is a die in the wool Big Government, Big Spender.

Bob in Winder

December 8th, 2009
8:54 am

I have been a Libertarian for the last 7 years, we might not win but we get to vote for what is right. The only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is which lobbyist is paying them off.

itstrue

December 8th, 2009
9:00 am

Ga Values: If Georgia doesn’t have a Republican party, then no one has a Republican party. This place is practically the definition of what a Republican is and isn’t. Maybe the problem is around the notions of what a Republican is in the first place.

What you write certainly captures some of that third party energy in a post. The question remains on whether there are enough people who share your beliefs to split off into something viable. I’ll be interested to find out.

My hunch is that politics trumps ideology every time. My belief is that it should, even if it’s ugly or unsatisfying to our beliefs. Politics is where compromise (and democracy) happens.

frank burns

December 8th, 2009
9:04 am

The original Tea Partiers back in Boston were subversives against a government they saw as illegitimate. Maybe Tea Partiers today say that in jest. But if they are serious, that makes them traitors to the Constitution and to the USA. As such they deserve no respect from any true patriot.

Chris Broe

December 8th, 2009
9:06 am

A third party choice in 2012 would be nice. Why not the Tea Party? Remember the Reform Party with Ross Perot? In 1969, Ross Perot tried a hostile takeover of a CIA contractor called the Collins Radio Company. Today, Bob Barr is third party libertarian with CIA connections who only needs a writer to take over der verlde.

That is why not The Tea Party. Their connection isn’t so much CIA as it is CHAI, but I still feel schadenfreude when I read reports, (over a bowl of vanilla Fruzen Gladje) that the Tea Party is being driven (farfegnugen-free) into splinter groups, steeped in dissention.

Jklol

OT: Global Warming and the Surprise Kitten

The Surprise Kitten has joined into the global warming debate. So far, the two sides have only managed, “Is too.” and “Is not”. The suprise kitten has breathed fresh air and insight into the debate. We now join in live as the three sides continue the heated discussion:

Not.

Too.

Meow.

Not.

Too.

Meow.

Not.

Too.

Meow.

etc. ditto, infinity, ad nauseum, ad hoc

Ben

December 8th, 2009
9:39 am

I have never heard someone going to a Tea Party protest call themselves a teabagger. It’s a sexual term that their political opponents use exclusively, and insultingly, and because they can’t come up with any actual arguments on why the Tea Party folks are wrong.

Ben

December 8th, 2009
9:40 am

Frank Burns: If the government is violating the Constitution, then it is they who are traitors.

Ben

December 8th, 2009
9:44 am

Pelosi wants us to pay a global tax to some global agency. That violates our soveregnty and the Constitution and if it passes, that would make Congress a bunch of traitors… By definition.

samuel

December 8th, 2009
9:45 am

The Tea Party’s small government values have never been shared by the Republican Party. A few weeks ago, there was a rally here in Atlanta (I believe) in which tea party members called for a return to “Reaganesque conservatism”. Ronald Reagan was never a fiscal conservative. The budget deficit exploded, and the national debt went from 33.3% of GDP in 1980, when Reagan was first elected, to 55.9% of GDP in 1990, after Reagan left office, and in the middle of George H.W. Bush’s term in office. By 2000, at the end of Clibton’s second term, we had a budget surplus and a stabilization of the national debt as a percentage of GDP (58& of GDP in 2000). Now, at the end of George W. Bush’s second term, we have a $1.4 trillion budget deficit, and a almost $13 trillion national debt (90.4% of GDP). That almost $13 trillion of debt in a $14.8 trillion economy (according to The Economist magazine). Obama’s first budget didn’t take effect until October 1, 2009, so if the budget deficit and the national debt are higher after September 30, 2010, then consevatives can complain about Obama. I personally think tea party members are bitter white people (primarily Southerners) who resent the fact that we have a black President.

Heather

December 8th, 2009
10:17 am

I do not think this is correct. If the tea party people are nor in the Republican party, would you then say that pro life Democrats are not in the Democrat party?

If you want to talk about division within a political party you need to look at the Democrats! The “Democrats” control all three branchs of goverment, but look how difficult it still is for them to get anything done!

This is because the Democrat party is more like a collection of tribal groups.

Peter

December 8th, 2009
10:36 am

Kyle it is time for some positive change from the Republican’s……

They have spent far too much time criticizing the Obama Presidency, despite he has not been in office for a full year.

The amount of change needed since Bush left office has been over whelming, and the Republican’s need to look at what they stand for in general.

They need to come up with positive solutions for America, and shed the attitude “It’s all about ME”, and screw the general American Population………Oh and if we don’t like what you are doing, then we will start name calling…….too much small thinking !

Maybe a third party is needed in general ?

Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 8th, 2009
10:41 am

I respectfully disagree with Samuel, because he does not distinguish “deficit” from “spending.” “Deficit” is a meaningless term, as there is no economic difference between “running a deficit” and “raising taxes.” Both damage the economy approximately equally, as the government is diverting limited wealth from the productive economy into the unproductive economy. Rational economists focus on government spending as the object of their disgust.

To Kyle’s point, is the Republican brand name so damaged that another name would attract more votes? Certainly the democrats engage in such Orwellian games, changing their names variously from “socialist” to “progressive” to “liberal” (and seemingly, lately, back to “progressive”.) Same old brainless elitism, fraudulently misrepresented as “for the people.” Thus, why should not conservatives rebrand, playing the same game as the statists?

Ray Pugh

December 8th, 2009
10:50 am

Teabaggers are the kind of idiots who call the Obama admin “fascist” and “socialist” at the same time…

Arthur

December 8th, 2009
11:01 am

Since there are more Republicans up for reelection in 2010 they better be polling higher than Democrats if they expect to hold on to the modest number of seats they currently have. But it is a long time between now and November and a lot is going to happen between now and then, a lot of which is going to make the Republican’ts and the more passionate “Tea Party” crowd look rather less appealing. It is inevitable. Give Obama and Congress the chance to make some changes that people really like and I think you will find the American people, as a whole, moving back to where they were in 2008. The shenanigans of Sarah Palin, John McCain and Dick Cheney have not impressed many outside the core 30% of the population that will vote Republican come Hell or high water. Rasmussan polls? Mmmm, about on a par with Zogby polls, you know, the one’s who were confident John Kerry was going to win handily? Just a little bit-a-bias will do ya…

Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 8th, 2009
11:02 am

Dear Ray, your post reflects muddled thinking. How is a fascist totalitarian different from a socialist totalitarian?,

Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 8th, 2009
11:06 am

http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/11/the_list_which_presidential_po.html

The List: Which presidential polls were most accurate?

The Pew Research Center and Rasmussen Reports were the most accurate in predicting the results of the 2008 election, according to a new analysis by Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos.

The Fordham analysis ranks 23 survey research organizations on their final, national pre-election polls, as reported on pollster.com.

On average, the polls slightly overestimated Obama’s strength. The final polls showed the Democratic ahead by an average of 7.52 percentage points — 1.37 percentage points above his current 6.15-point popular vote lead. Seventeen of the 23 surveys overstated Obama’s final victory level, while four underestimated it. Only two — Rasmussen and Pew — were spot on.

Here is the list —

1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*

Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 8th, 2009
11:07 am

6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
6T. ARG (10/25-27)*
8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)
8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)

11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
13. FOX (11/1-2)
14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)

16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
18. Marist College (11/3)
19. CBS (10/31-11/2)
20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)

21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
23. Newsweek (10/22-23)

The Snark

December 8th, 2009
11:13 am

The Snark dearly hopes that the Tea Party becomes an independent third political party. He hopes that would drain the know-nothings, birthers, and assorted crackpots from the Republican Party so that it can concentrate on responsible governance, instead of catering to the fringes.

And if Sarah Palin goes with them, so much the better.

Roberta Higginbotham

December 8th, 2009
11:15 am

I think Republicans need true leadership, and that is their problem for the foreseeable future. All you hear from today’s top Republicans is griping about, after only 11 months in office, Obama isn’t delivering jobs. Yet, for 8 years, they sat around saying nothing while the Bush administration created the fewest number of jobs of any president since WWII. They are outraged by the deficit, yet did nothing while Bush gave the wealthiest 1% of Americans a trillion dollar tax break and started the Iraq war, which has cost us another trillion to date. Oh, and suddenly, they want to start “honoring the Constitution”, while out here in Pickens County nobody seems to have a problem with the Nativity scene on the front lawn of the courthouse, yet again.

Confused. Fearful. Directionless. Leaderless. And not an original idea among the entire group. GWB is responsible for the mess we’re in now, and Republicans supported him in lockstep. I’m sick of hearing them complain and whine. They had their chance and blew it. So now I suggest they take a deep breath, sit back, shut up, and let some very smart people try to get us out of this mess.

The Snark

December 8th, 2009
11:17 am

RAGNAR:

Socialism kills people in the name of using the power of the State to protect the interests of the masses. National socialism (”Fascism”) kills people in the name of using the power of the State to protect the interests of the masses. See the difference?

And no matter how much some may dislike President Obama or his policies, he is a centrist and not within a country mile or either socialism or fascism.

Kyle Wingfield

December 8th, 2009
11:18 am

The comments about Rasmussen are funny to me, and not just because, as Ragnar points out, Rasmussen was considered the most accurate polling firm in the 2008 election — not, as a couple of people have claimed, an inaccurate or biased one.

But let’s assume for a moment that itstrue and Arthur are right, and that Rasmussen is some sort of right-wing polling outfit. The premise of this post, and the poll to which I referred, is that right-leaning voters are not necessarily dedicated to the Republican Party. Wouldn’t an allegedly “right-wing” polling firm be better at polling the opinions of right-leaning voters?

Mutts R Stupid

December 8th, 2009
11:29 am

What the FairTax Clowns do not tell you is this: If you have been successful, lived within your means, paid all your taxes on time, and still managed to save a sizable after tax fortune, the FairTax will tax you again on that fortune. Remember, you have already paid income tax on your savings, now the FairTax crowd wants to tax you again on that same savings with a ValueAddedTax and eliminate the income tax. They do not propose to give you a tax refund on all your savings. The ValueAddTax Clowns are mostly young professionals who have great income potential, but little current wealth. They plan to take from us older savers to enrich themselves. Just say NO to a valueaddedtax.

Joan

December 8th, 2009
11:30 am

The more the Republicans tend toward the Tea Party principles, the more likely they are to be successful. Tea Party people are independent, careful with their money, conservative with their social morals, and don’t have much use for slackers, whiners and welfare recipients. So, find us a candidate who tells the latter to get off their duffs and go to work, and we will vote for him/her. By the way, the Republicans just haven’t got a winning horse in the race anywhere. We lack leadership.

Kyle Wingfield

December 8th, 2009
11:38 am

Roberta: I won’t speak for Republicans here, but I don’t think many conservatives are griping that “after only 11 months in office, Obama isn’t delivering jobs.” Conservatives don’t think that the president does or doesn’t create jobs — only that government actions invariably affect employers’ willingness or ability to hire people.

What conservatives “gripe about” is that this president and Congress passed a $787 billion “stimulus” package with the promise that it would save or create millions of jobs this year, when it plainly hasn’t done that. This was always a flawed policy, even more so because of the way it was done, and conservatives are right to point out that the policy has had poor results, just as we predicted.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 8th, 2009
11:38 am

Dear Snark, smile when you say “stimulus.”

Kyle Wingfield

December 8th, 2009
11:41 am

Snark: Just because the president is doing a good job of ticking off people on both the right and the left doesn’t make him a centrist.

dewstarpath

December 8th, 2009
11:54 am

- This is for Ben, Bob, Horace, and everyone else.
I thought that by putting “teabagger” in “quotes”, it would
be clearly understood by posters that the “term in quotes”
is an alleged reference in the public sense that is not my
personal quote. I even mentioned Boston Tea Party
as the origin of the movement’s name. I guess not.

Peter

December 8th, 2009
11:55 am

Hey Kyle…How many Jobs did Bush create just before leaving Office ?

How much money has been paid back so far by banks and other groups, after they received the stimulus money ?

Did Bush or did he not begin the stimulus packages with huge bailouts of wall street ?

TRUTH

December 8th, 2009
11:55 am

As a Liberal Democrat, which one of you do we campaign against? After Kyle has laid it out for us, the GOP consists of three or four factions. Republicans, Tea Party (or baggers), Conservatives (because there is a blurred line between the two), and ???). If an election were to happen today, the GOP(?) vote would be split. With the infighting, it will be interesting to see who represents which faction, and just how that representative will mesh the party (ies) – factions – Fifedoms together. Instead of coming back to the middle (where the country is), it continues to splinter and steamroll farther to the right. The polls that I’ve seen show the Republican party at around 26% declared party affiliation, and the numbers are parsed out from that amount. I know polls vary from site to site and from person to person, but this is about the average that I’ve seen.

It appears that the GOP is caught up in showing how more conservative they are as opposed to the other. If you caould only come up with a genuine plan for the country, that the COUNTRY (HELLO!!!!) could get behind, you may, just may have a shot. As it stands now, your message is garbled and you have some lousy interpreters on the stump, Limbaugh, Hannity, Palin, (and dare I say Joe da Plumma). The country have seen what you’ve pegged as the great political minds, and have answered with a NO! Your political minds, Gingrich, McCalin, Steele, Cantor, Boehner, etc, have shown NO leadership to the party and have NOT offered any alternative way out that does not repeat the mistakes of the past. Besides, they are CAREER politicians that continue to pander to whomever will keep them in office.

The GOP is in a divisive mess. If you believe that something solid and tangible will come of this disarray, I got homes in Stockton, CA (one of the hardest hit foreclosure areas) to sell ya’ for a nice price.

Obama/Biden 2012!!

dewstarpath

December 8th, 2009
11:56 am

Ben – I didn’t know “teabagger” was a sexual reference
about the Tea Party.

dewstarpath

December 8th, 2009
12:00 pm

BOB (8:55 am) – I don’t think the misspelling of a
simple word like tenor is cute, and I don’t
have any “buddies” that I conspire with. It may just
be a simple typing error on patriotson’s part. It happens.

Peter

December 8th, 2009
12:03 pm

Kyle do Republican’s even care about this issue ?

Hunger, family homelessness on rise in U.S. cities

Tue Dec 8, 8:10 am ET
CHICAGO (Reuters) – Hunger is spreading while the number of homeless families is increasing as a result of the recession and other factors, according to a report on Tuesday.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors said cities reported a 26 percent jump in demand for hunger assistance over the past year, the largest average increase since 1991.

Middle-class families as well as the uninsured, elderly, working poor and homeless increasingly looked for help with hunger, which was mainly fueled by unemployment, high housing costs and low wages.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091208/us_nm/us_usa_cities_hunger

Do Republican’s think this is a government concern ?

Is this a country for the people, and by the people ? Or for the rich, and by the rich ?

Gary

December 8th, 2009
12:18 pm

Dew – Tea Party protesters do not call ourselves “teabaggers.” That was a derogative name given to the protesters by the liberal sympathizers in the media at CNN and MSNBC. No protest has been conducted with the groups calling themselves “teabaggers”

istrue – better check the recognition on Rasmussen there buddy. For the last two Presidential elections they have been the most accurate in their polling data. They were also accurate in the mid-term (2006) and off-year elections(2005 and 2009). They are anything but right wing and if you don’t believe me, then just go ask the Nate Silver at 538.com. He is an unashamed liberal and ranks Rasmussen at the top of all pollsters.

Intown lib – obviously you have never been to a Tea Party protest. If you have, you would know the majority of them are independents who cannot stand Republicans or Democrats. Many of them voted for President Obama in the last election. Of course that is typical of you libs. Cast a stone or reject something without even knowing what they stand for and who is involved. You need to be there to understand. So unless you where, your opinion is worthless on this matter.

Arthur – how are there more Republicans up for Re-election in 2010 when the Democrats control all chambers of government? There might be 1-2 more Republican Senators up for re-election than Democrats, but all 435 House members are up and they are in the D column last time I checked. Also 34 governorships and state legislatures are up as well and the majority of them are held by Democrats too. 2010 is not going to be a Democratic year. Will the Republicans get back all houses? Highly unlikely. But those of you who are sipping on the kool-aid obviously need to wake up and see that the country is mad and are no longer blaming just Bush. The anger is now squarely on any incumbent who holds office and the majority of them are Democrats. More than likely the Republicans win back majorities in the Governorships and State Legislatures in 2010. They have a slight chance as each day passes of taking back the House of Reps as well. More than likely they will push themselves to within single seats of taking it back in 2012. The Senate is unpredictable right now, but they will probably pick up anywhere between 3-6 seats next year and in 2012 will have a much better opportunity to take it back.

Snark – how is Obama a centrist? Everyday the independents in this country are moving away from him and the Democrats. His avg approval rating is now under 50%. His policies have no moderation or moderate input allowed and are being crafted by far left liberals. Those conditions and numbers do not add up to being a centrist.

The Snark

December 8th, 2009
12:20 pm

The Snark does not regard the President as a centrist because he is “ticking off people on both the right and the left.” It is because he takes a cautious approach to decisionmaking that does not begin from a predetermined point of ideology. Whether his decisions are wise or not, only time will tell. But the knee-jerk desire to slap a generic “liberal” label on him is unjustified and unhelpful to the national debate. The belief that government can solve problems, even if it — OMG — requires spending money, does not alone make one a “liberal.” If it were, President Eisenhower would be one of the most wild-eyed liberals of all time ($25 billion authorized for the first twelve years of the interstate highway system.)

Gary

December 8th, 2009
12:27 pm

Peter – Bush did not sign a stimulus bill, that would be President Obama. Yes Bush lost jobs on his watch at the end and he did authorize the first allotment of TARP money for the banks and financial institutions. President Obama awarded the second portion this past year though. Both or their hands are in the TARP cookie jar, but Obama is all alone on the stimulus part.

David Axelfraud

December 8th, 2009
12:35 pm

Kyle, I don’t know. The tea party guys/gals may give the GOP the kick in the a$$ they really need.

BESIDES, OBAMA JUST SAID THIS: New Obama plans: ’spend our way out’ of downturn

LOLOLOLOLOL

Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 8th, 2009
12:42 pm

Dear Peter @ 11:55, false question – presidents cannot “create” productive (i.e., private sector) jobs – but they certainly can destroy them, through higher taxes and regulations. We note the election of a congress in 2006 that was/is dedicated to the “expiration” of the Bush tax cuts that allowed creation of so many private sector jobs. I guess we should also note the subsequent job destruction efforts hidden within the names of “cap and trade” and “healthcare reform,” both of which feature unprecedented and costly new obligations for employers. The old “unintended consequences” bugaboo that democrats always forget about.

Hillbilly Deluxe

December 8th, 2009
12:43 pm

I would think the winner in any poll about political parties would be None Of The Above.

Kyle Wingfield

December 8th, 2009
12:46 pm

Gary: Actually, Bush did sign a $170 billion stimulus bill in Feb. 2008. It didn’t work, either.

Peter seems to conflate bailouts and stimulus bills, which I suppose is why he asked about banks repaying stimulus money. If he’s talking about TARP, Bloomberg reported yesterday that banks have repaid $71 billion so far, with Bank of America having just pledged to repay another $45 billion. In other words, the feds could “repay” more TARP funds simply by canceling the $200 billion in uncommitted money — as opposed to finding another way to spend it.

kjg

December 8th, 2009
12:47 pm

ROBERTA – actually, obama is the one with the fewest jobs created to date: -3.5. of course he has 3 more years to improve it. hoover had the all time low with -6.4.

Ben

December 8th, 2009
12:47 pm

In practice, socialism, fascism, and even theocracies are all basically the same. One small group makes all the decisions, gets most of the power and wealth, and everyone else is poor and hungry. Only in theory are they different, but theory matters little to the man who has to wait in line 6 hours for bread to feed his children.