We need to not only win (keep) the Senate but also (somehow) make it politically toxic for the Republicans (or anybody else) to keep up with this radical obstructionism that makes it impossible for President Obama to appoint nominees to fill cabinet positions and federal courts (particularly when the only reason the Republicans are objecting to most of the nominees is simply because it's OBAMA who is doing the appointing), grinds normal Senate business to a halt, and prevents the Senate from being able to have an up-or-down majority vote on, well, anything.

You don't see any Democrats filibustering nominees nor do you see them doing anything that should be considered controversial or "political". Just more the usual "both sides" false equivalency BS!

Republicans- whose "base" votes religiously- would have a much harder time winning elections if people on our side didn't stay home on election day and essentially let them win. Do they ever wonder why so many regressives keep running for office and winning- usually making their jobs (and everybody else's lives) harder, not easier? It makes no sense to me whatsoever. Voting, particularly when relatively so few people actually do so in our country for one reason or another, seems like it would be a no-brainer, particularly among people whom tend to be more politically informed and better educated than your average person. What exactly do they think they are accomplishing by not voting?

So, I suppose the National Review is now throwing its support behind the DEMOCRATIC-controlled Congress' passage of the Financial Reform Law that DEMOCRATIC President Barack Obama signed into law and will oppose further Republican attempts to weaken the law and/or obstruct President Obama's nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the new law created?



Yeah, didn't think so.

I know that we are supposed to honor our military men and women and their sacrifice for this country but, frankly, given the circumstances of our "involvement" in Iraq and the fact that 4-5K soldiers (and countless Iraqis) died needlessly over there in the Bush/GOP "war of choice", getting them out of there was actually the best possible way to honor them IMHO. And no, this "war" with Iraq was never that popular with Democrats-though President Obama was one of the very small number of elected officials to publicly speak out against it (one of the reasons I ultimately supported him over Hillary).

I think that he is who the establishment is rallying around at this point and he seems more likely than not to ultimately capture the nomination and I look forward to the debates between him and Obama next year. I agree with you that he is likely to put his base to sleep but I'm wondering if he might do the same to ours? A Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, et. al would definitely electrify our base as it would the GOP base. I just worry that, with Romney appearing to be more moderate if he might draw in some low-information voters as well? Also, I wonder if having Romney on the ballot might depress those "No difference between the two major parties" voters?
That's why I think that what we need the most is for President Obama and Democrats to run a more broad campaign against the GOP Tea Party and their extremist ideology that ANY of the eventual GOP nominees would be ultimately beholden to and would be pressured to support, particularly if *gulp* the entire Congress goes Mad Republican Tea Party.

I have actually said many of the same things in an article I recently wrote about plans to introduce drug testing for welfare recipients in this upcoming legislative session here in Indiana (along with "right-to-work" ). It's another ploy to get people all fired up about something trivial and are, regrettably, likely to succeed in passing no matter what statistics you throw out there because the thought of even a single drug user getting any kind of public welfare gets people so worked up that they are ready to form a lynch mob to go after them. Anyway, who wouldn't naturally be against something like that? I know I don't like the idea of people using drugs while receiving public benefits, committing fraud, etc. personally but people like us whom don't live a Fox News/hate-radio web of confusion know that such problems are not massive and/or widespread enough to warrant the kind of *solutions* that Republicans always seem to be keen on proposing to "deal" with them.

I can understand why you would need to do it for a few jobs involving public transportation/public safety but outside of that, there's no need for drug testing for any job- let alone receipt of public benefits IMHO.

Last I looked, he has been actively participating in the GOP obstructionism since Obama was elected POTUS (presumably to stifle a primary challenge). I used to respect him as being a somewhat more sensible voice of reason (and have voted for him too) but, unfortunately, he, like every other Republican in Congress, has obviously made a decision to be part of the problem rather than the solution and deserves to be defeated in the primary or the GE. The Indiana Democratic Party clearly smells blood in the water as they are actually fielding a viable candidate (Joe Donnelly) next year for the seat, who I plan on voting for.

That picture of CG is particularly disturbing. It's actually almost like she got a hypo of "Joker venom".