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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bill passed 61 to 39.

So, we have 61 Senators who are so vigilant and thorough in their analysis of the legislation they are voting on that none of them noticed that the bill didn’t even have a title?

And some people wonder why Congress has a 21% approval rating…

Web watchdog spots unusual congressional gaffe | Politics and Law – CNET News.

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

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

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

Take for instance the U.S. budget deficit.

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

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

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

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

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

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’d surely like to see President Obama kick someone’s ass over this oil spill and I’m certainly favor moving towards green/renewable energy sources, but calling for the rounding up and imprisonment of U.S. citizens because they favor expansion of oil drilling as a path towards reduced dependency on foreign oil is just being, well, an ass.

Harry Reid is closing in on the Veep, though, as the White House has done an incredible job of keeping Ramblin’ Joe occupied with no-press-allowed meetings on transparency in government and trips to Iraq to do, you know, Vice Presidential, er, “stuff”.

I do have to wonder, however… if this is Harry Reid’s idea of good news on the jobs front, what the heck are we in for when (if) the Democrat’s health insurance reform plan is passed (whichever and whatever that plan actually ends up being).

Here’s Harry:

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

He sums up the article nicely near the beginning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excuse me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. O’Keefe and three others were allegedly involved in some sort of plot to gain access to Landrieu’s New Orleans office’s phone system. Two of the men were stopped trying to enter Senator Landrieu’s office, which is located in a federal building. They were posing as telephone workers, dressed in “hard hats, tool belts and fluorescent vests.”

Others arrested in connection with the incident are listed as Joseph Basel, Stan Dai, and Robert Flanagan.

I’m not sure what to make of this.

The AP reports that “O’Keefe was sitting in the waiting area of Landrieu’s office and appeared to record Basel and Flanagan on his cell phone when they arrived posing as phone workers”, so it doesn’t sound like they were really attempting to ‘tamper’ with the phones.

Why?

If they were, they probably wouldn’t have been trying to record themselves doing it.

On the other hand, they were messing around in a Senator’s office in a federal building, which is, in a word, unwise.

Whatever they were trying to do, Mr. O’Keefe may be wishing he had quit while he was ahead… I’ve heard the Department of Homeland Security and FBI aren’t too keen on people trying to monkey around in federal buildings.

UPDATE:

I was doing further reading and it appears that they were actually tampering with the phone system.

The whole hidden-camera expose is one thing, but this really does sound like wire-tapping (or something similar).

I’m pretty sure that is a big ‘no-no’.

Unless you have a warrant to do so.

Or, you are the government and can persuade telcos to do it for you without a warrant and then get Congress to give them a blanket immunity after the fact.

Whichever way works for you.

I think the way you aren’t supposed to do it is get a couple of guys to dress up in phone repairman costumes and try to bug a U.S. Senator’s office.

In other words, have fun in the big house, guys!

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

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

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

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

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

What’s so funny about that?

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

Which they don’t seem to have had.

Now, they are whinging about not having it.

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

US Congressional Seal

According to Sunday’s New York Times, President Obama hopes that putting its 2008 campaign team together to “oversee House, Senate and governor’s races to stave off a hemorrhage of seats in the fall.”

David Plouffe, President Obama former campaign manager is being pressed into service to coordinate the Democrats’ efforts to keep the normal off-year election losses the party in power usually sustains from becoming a full-fledged rout in November.

Mr. Plouffe, wrote a piece for Sunday’s Washington Post titled “November doesn’t need to be a nightmare for Democrats“, in which he lays out what will presumably be the thrust of Democratic efforts this year.

Here is a bullet point listing of them:

• “Pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay.”  Presumably, he means to abandon the graft filled proposals that have been passed by the House and Senate – which poll after poll show most Americans oppose.  Maybe they could pass something without things like the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Union exemption?  Perhaps they could actually carry out their negotiations in the light of day?
• “We need to show that we not just are focused on jobs but also create them.” The problem is that they haven’t been focused on jobs, they’ve been focused on Health Insurance Reform (with a little Cap and Trade thrown in).  Since Martha Coakley lost in Massachusetts, Democrats have been saying they can’t give up on their current Health Insurance Reform bills or they would have wasted the entire year working on it.  If you really feel that way, you can’t honestly say that “jobs” have been your focus.
• “Make sure voters understand what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did for the economy.”  This one will be interesting.  The stimulus package was supposed to create millions of jobs, but by their own admission, Recovery.gov can’t vouch for how many jobs were actually created.  Add to that the recent AP study on the stimulus which says that the $20 billion in spending on roads and bridges had no impact on unemployment and, well, I guess we’ll be hearing a lot about how many teaching and police jobs were saved by the stimulus.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that there was funding provided to help keep teachers and cops on the job, but don’t try to tell me that saving government jobs is the same as helping kick start the economic recovery by ‘creating’ private sector jobs… it just isn’t.
• “Don’t accept any lectures on spending.” Well, considering the budgets for the last three years have been approved by the Democrat controlled Congress, I think it is getting harder and harder to blame Republicans.  How long do Democrats have to be in charge before they start accepting responsibility for things that happen while they have had control?  Apparently, three years is not long enough.
• “”Change” is not just about policies.” Somehow, Mr. Plouffe wants to remind people that Democrats have cleaned up Congress and that Republicans were plagued by ethics problems that the Democrats don’t have.  Sounds like a plan.  Well, as long as people don’t think about things like Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd’s mortgage issue, or New York Representative Charles Rangel’s financial and tax problems, or the backroom dealing and pay offs that have gone on with the Health Insurance Reform bills…
• “Run great campaigns.” Well, to be fair, this requires them to run good candidates (for the most part).  As the saying goes, “You can’t polish a turd.”  Of course, the Republicans have their own honey wagon full of potential stinker candidates, too, so the Democrats should be able to do something here.
• “No bed-wetting.” I think the fact that he even has to list this one is quite telling.

Basically, it sounds as Mr. Plouffe’s strategy will be, “Campaign like its 2008!”

He doesn’t seem to have gotten the memo that Democrats control both the White House and the Congress.  At some point they will have to start accepting blame for things that have gone wrong on their ‘watch’ and for promises that they failed to keep.

Their biggest problem in the 2010 elections, though?

President Obama might be able to bring back his 2008 campaign team, but he can’t bring back George W. Bush to campaign against.

Sure, they can try it, but I don’t think running against a man that will have been out of office for nearly two years is going to be a winning strategy.

Of course, with Congressional job approval at only 26%, it might be a better strategy than for Democrats to run on their record as the party that has controlled Congress for the last three years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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