Althouse: "Ridiculous NY-09 spin: 'It’s a very difficult district for Democrats.'"

September 14, 2011

"Ridiculous NY-09 spin: 'It’s a very difficult district for Democrats.'"

Ed Morrissey laughs.

Just how big is the NY-09 result?

143 comments:

Fred4Pres said...: All I know it that Turner's victory is the best thing to come out of that district since Brighton Beach Memoirs!; 9/14/11, 9:01 AM
David said...: Anthony Weiner's choked chicken has come home to roost.; 9/14/11, 9:07 AM
BigFire said...: Not too much problem for Democrats. They'll just remove it on the redistricting.; 9/14/11, 9:07 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Thanks Wiener! Thanks to the Democratic Party for running a candidate who does not live in the district and who was completely inept. And thanks for Barack Obama for helping contribute to this victory for the GOP.

Hey, it is not Doug Hoffman winning in upstate NY, but it is not a bad thing!; 9/14/11, 9:08 AM
Sal said...: I'm waiting for American Politico to report on the K Street consultants' take on it.; 9/14/11, 9:10 AM
Fred4Pres said...: BigFire, they may not be able to move that seat. The "deal" in New York is when a congressional seat has to go, the GOP removes one up north and the Dems remove one down south. Now that this seat is not slated to go and its GOP, some other poor schlub Democrat has to lose his seat.

The Dems should have slated this to go before the election. Because they did not, it may be too late to do it now.; 9/14/11, 9:10 AM
Mogget said...: Congrats to Ace, Breitbart, et. al., who kept the heat on Wiener until his indiscretion could no longer be ignored.; 9/14/11, 9:14 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Now the GOP Turner has to make his constituents want him to come back in two years. But this is a big deal for the GOP.; 9/14/11, 9:18 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Debbie wasserman. The gift that keeps on giving.; 9/14/11, 9:18 AM
Scott M said...: It's not Scott Brown big, but it's certainly something. How POTUS thought he could treat Israel as he has and not bear the wrath of Jewish voters is a puzzle within a puzzle, but then again, so are most of this administrations doings...unless, of course, you accept that they are simply inept.

Then it all makes sense in stunning HD.; 9/14/11, 9:19 AM
Scott M said...: By the by, I don't know how Schultz got the gig for DNC chair. Anyone have any input on that? She definitely seems like the dimmest bulb in the room.; 9/14/11, 9:20 AM
Scott M said...: Now the GOP Turner has to make his constituents want him to come back in two years.

Isn't the district itself going bye-bye due to redistricting?; 9/14/11, 9:21 AM
Anonymous said...: The big O's losing streak continues.

He's the kiss of death, I tell ya.

Debbie-baby-schmoozer-lady can discount it all she wants, but you can bet that the Dems in congress are all taking notice and quietly plotting their response for 2012.

Which means we can expect a whole lot more retirements of long-time Dems.

It's so bad that families that were once completely ignored for decades will now suddenly appear attractive enough that more time will want to be spent with them.

That's how bad it is.; 9/14/11, 9:22 AM
JimMuy said...: This is a statement made for consumption by the 15% to 20% of the Democratic Party that thinks the media is controlled by the GOP and is too conservative.
You know, the ones who have no problem saying, "The only good Republican is a dead Republican."; 9/14/11, 9:22 AM
traditionalguy said...: Obama's sneaky betrayal of Israel has come out of the closet thanks to Ed Koch.

The Dems will need to find another candidate for President if they want the contributions and votes that were theirs since 1922.; 9/14/11, 9:24 AM
Robert said...: Is Debbie Clowner the best the Democrats have to offer? They purposely put her out to be one of the faces of their party, and she's this incompetent? There's good spin and there's bad spin. This is awful spin. I'm actually starting to worry about the Democratic Party, if this is the best they can do.; 9/14/11, 9:24 AM
Anonymous said...: One of the first ripples of the tsunami that will wash socialism out of the white house and by osmosis congress as well.; 9/14/11, 9:24 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, making Florida and the USA GOP one election after another! Thanks Debbie!; 9/14/11, 9:25 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... . But this is a big deal for the GOP..."

Wrong. This is a big fucking deal for the GOP.; 9/14/11, 9:26 AM
Freder Frederson said...: How POTUS thought he could treat Israel as he has and not bear the wrath of Jewish voters is a puzzle within a puzzle

How has the administration's stance on Israel changed significantly since Obama took office?

The answer of course is that it hasn't.; 9/14/11, 9:28 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: *laughs* for all sorts of reasons. Good times.
btw - Who held the seat before Weiner? Why... a long string of leftwing democrats.; 9/14/11, 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: "New York 9: Stunning Repudiation of Chuck Schumer"

WV: logrot, in a nutshell.; 9/14/11, 9:32 AM
Fprawl said...: I didn't stay to watch, but I don't think the Today show mentioned the NY-09 results, although i know they touted the upstate NY win by the Dem several months ago.

Look for NO NEWS on Dem shortcomings, lots of quotes about how crazy Tea Partyers are in the runup to 2012.; 9/14/11, 9:33 AM
Scott M said...: How has the administration's stance on Israel changed significantly since Obama took office?

The answer of course is that it hasn't.

You're right, of course. I doubt seriously that Obama's stance on Israel has changed since he was at Hahvahd.; 9/14/11, 9:33 AM
The Drill SGT said...: The big deal is not that Obama isn't going to carry Orthodox Jews in the 2012, but it does have implication in 4 areas:

1. Jewish fundraising for the Dems in 2012
2. Reagan Dem's coming home to the GOP, nationwide, watch PA, OH, WI, and MI
3. Jewish margin in PA and Florida
4. Obama in 2012 will be toxic in many districts. I expect the only ones he'll get invited to are the ones, that are either solid BLUE or solid RED.; 9/14/11, 9:34 AM
Bob_R said...: Of course there is SOME local component to the election, but Weprin is not that bad a candidate and Weiner was not that big a drag. It's basically Obama. The Dems only hope is that the economy improves noticeably in the next year. If unemployment is at 9% next year they are in big trouble.; 9/14/11, 9:40 AM
Christopher in MA said...: "How has the administration's stance on Israel changed significantly since Obama took office? Tha answer of course, is that it hasn't."

You're right Fred. I remember Bush telling Netanyahu to get his Jew ass back behind the 1967 borders. And I remember Bibi then speaking to Congress and showing Dubya up for the ignorant, anti-Semitic blowhard that he was. Ah, those were the days.

BTW, I am looking forward to C4 telling us how the election was bought by the moneyed Jew elites and the "Israel First" ball-washers like Sarah Palin. That's comedy gold.; 9/14/11, 9:41 AM
Calypso Facto said...: "Bob Turner, a retired cable executive, channeled discontent with President Obama into an upset and won the New York City district" New York Times

When even the faithful leftists at the NYT are forced to admit that this loss was a referendum on Obama, you know the Dems are worried.; 9/14/11, 9:41 AM
Wince said...: Coincidentaly, or not so coincidentally, Elizabeth Warren today announces her challenge to Scott Brown for "Ted Kennedy's seat" in the Senate.

Howie Carr does the tale of the tape in the match-up between Elizabeth Warren and Setti Warren on the Democrat's side in "Massachusetts fights its own Warren terror."; 9/14/11, 9:42 AM
Will Cate said...: re: "I don't know how Schultz got the gig for DNC chair."

Scott M - my guess is that she got the job simply because nobody else wanted it. I mean, who wants to lead the troops into the valley of death? That's pretty much what 2012 is shaping up to be for the Dems.; 9/14/11, 9:45 AM
sorepaw said...: It's one special election.

With low turnout, as usual.

But it is an embarrassment for the Democrats, just as the loss in upstate NY was for the Republicans.

And, as Barone noted, it's a slap in the face for Chuck Schumer.

I won't be nice to Schumer, the way Barone was. Schumer is one of the biggest slimeballs in the Democratic Party.; 9/14/11, 9:46 AM
Chase said...: How has the administration's stance on Israel changed significantly since Obama took office?

Freder,

Is that a mistake - did you mean to say it that way?

Are you asking "How has the Obamaadministration's stance . . .?; 9/14/11, 9:46 AM
gerry said...: Not too much problem for Democrats. They'll just remove it on the redistricting.

Please, please, keep ignoring the message being sent to Democrats. Oh, please, just delete this district and ignore the message! Promise?; 9/14/11, 9:50 AM
Wince said...: Very funny Debbie Wasserman Schultz video parody:

Debbie Downer; 9/14/11, 9:51 AM
traditionalguy said...: Freder... Ever heard of Obama's call for the pre-1967 borders for a Palestinian State?

FYI that means the truce line of 1948 which cut Jerusalem in half with the Arab Armies controlling the Temple Mount that was than ceded it to Jordan in 1949.

That will never happen unless Israel is attacked and surrenders to UN Peacekeepers.

We see that tactic about to be tried again because Obama sent his favorable signal to Israel's Muslim neighbors. Obama and Carter are now both cooperating with Jew Killers.

And how is the USA doing these days?; 9/14/11, 9:53 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Correction:

4. Obama in 2012 will be toxic in many districts. I expect the only ones he'll get invited to BY DEMs are the ones, that are either solid BLUE or solid RED.

Fixed; 9/14/11, 9:54 AM
Anonymous said...: It's not just ONE special election.

"Republican wins in Nev. House special election"; 9/14/11, 10:01 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: David- LMAO!

And what does this mean to Dems? How would I know- I predicted the DEM would win.; 9/14/11, 10:03 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: It is shocking when you realize that most of the big, librul ideas have been repudiated, by public opinion, in less than three years.

In 2011 election, Prez Obama may get shutout.; 9/14/11, 10:06 AM
edutcher said...: It's Difficult????

They've had it since bonded indenture and debtors' prisons ended in this country.

Oy!

Freder Frederson said...

How POTUS thought he could treat Israel as he has and not bear the wrath of Jewish voters is a puzzle within a puzzle

How has the administration's stance on Israel changed significantly since Obama took office?

The answer of course is that it hasn't.

Absolutely correct.

GodZero is as anti-Semitic as he's always been.; 9/14/11, 10:06 AM
Freder Frederson said...: Ever heard of Obama's call for the pre-1967 borders for a Palestinian State?

Yes I have. And again what was the U.S. government policy on this before Obama? It was the same. Of course Jerusalem is going to be a special case. But the fact remains is that our policy (and most of the rest of the world) has been a return to pre-1967 borders for a very long time. It is and has been the starting point for any negotiation.; 9/14/11, 10:07 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: And Weiner moves out of the District into a nicer neighborhood.

I guess he doesn't have to "slum it" anymore and pretend that he gives a crap about the people who he supposedly represented.; 9/14/11, 10:10 AM
Anonymous said...: "It is shocking when you realize that most of the big, librul ideas have been repudiated, by public opinion, in less than three years."

AJ, Obama has proven correct every GOP meme on liberalism for the past 40 years.

He has done more damage to his party in this short time than the GOP could ever hope to accomplish.

Priceless....; 9/14/11, 10:11 AM
MadisonMan said...: Since I don't live in NY-09, I can only assume that the Candidate offered up by the Democrats was a dweebish loser.

People are picky these days.; 9/14/11, 10:15 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... But the fact remains is that our policy (and most of the rest of the world) has been a return to pre-1967 borders for a very long time...."

Actually most of the rest of the world would wish Israel would just vanish.; 9/14/11, 10:15 AM
edutcher said...: Freder Frederson said...

Ever heard of Obama's call for the pre-1967 borders for a Palestinian State?

Yes I have. And again what was the U.S. government policy on this before Obama? It was the same. Of course Jerusalem is going to be a special case. But the fact remains is that our policy (and most of the rest of the world) has been a return to pre-1967 borders for a very long time. It is and has been the starting point for any negotiation.

Gee, I seem to recall all manner of Republican administrations understanding that giving up the Golan Heights was tantamount to suicide for Israel.

Freder's snorting the same stuff as J these days.; 9/14/11, 10:16 AM
Freder Frederson said...: It is shocking when you realize that most of the big, librul ideas have been repudiated, by public opinion, in less than three years

You like creating your own reality, don't you.; 9/14/11, 10:17 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: It is shocking when you realize that most of the big, librul ideas have been repudiated, by public opinion, in less than three years.

Not really.

When they were just ideas people could ignore or pretend that the consequences would be something else.

When the ideas became reality and rammed down the throats of the public and we got a first hand view of the sausage being made, the public is repelled and is rebelling.

In some ways we should thank Obama for ripping the curtain aside and letting us see the ugly nasty reality of progressive/liberalism.

Instead of a slow cooking of us uncaring frogs......we got the heat turned up really fast and woke up to our danger.

Thanks to Obama, now get rid of him and his ideas and his sycophants.; 9/14/11, 10:18 AM
Anonymous said...: MadMan,

Weprin is the son of late New York State Assembly Speaker Saul Weprin and brother of the former New York State Assemblyman and current New York City Councilman Mark Weprin. Born in Queens on May 2, 1953, Weprin has lived in the Hollis-Jamaica area of Queens his entire life. He is a graduate of Jamaica High School. He received a cum laude bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University at Albany, SUNY, and a law degree from Hofstra University School of Law.

David I. Weprin (born May 2, 1956)[1] is a Democratic member of the New York State Assembly, representing District 24 in Queens since 2010. Weprin was previously a member of the New York City Council, representing district 23. He is also the former Deputy Superintendent of the New York State Banking Commission and former Chairman of New York's Securities Industry Association.

As per Wicki

Not dweebish at all. Establishment NY dem all the way, his family also.

This is a big Dem loss.; 9/14/11, 10:23 AM
Scott M said...: It is shocking when you realize that most of the big, librul ideas have been repudiated, by public opinion, in less than three years.

I don't know about public opinion, but Margaret Thatcher sure is biting them in ass at every turn. Utterly predictable, as is what's happening in Europe.; 9/14/11, 10:27 AM
Fred4Pres said...: And Weiner moves out of the District into a nicer neighborhood.

Dust Bunny Queen: At least Weiner lived in the district. The Dem who was running didn't and refused to commit to moving to the district.

I am surprised Weiner is not moving to some local separate from his bride Huma.; 9/14/11, 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...: What about same sex marriage? That's a local NY issue that plays poorly with the Orthodox - might it not have contributed to the Dem's defeat?; 9/14/11, 10:33 AM
traditionalguy said...: It took Truman going around his Secretary of State to get a UN created Jewish state.

The President of the USA at the time has been the lifeline of Israel since then, and especially Nixon whose actions saved Israel from extermination in 1973.

Nixon had to go against the advice of Kissinger. If he had waited another day, Israel's Jews would have been murdered.

The internationalist diplomats can never see a positive cost benefit analysis from protecting Israeli Jews from the oil rich Arabs who want them murdered. That blindness is traditional antisemitism.

Obama is all internationalist. He is not the same type President.

So, yes our policy towards Israel has changed where it counts...in the Obama White House.; 9/14/11, 10:33 AM
MadisonMan said...: Not dweebish at all. Establishment NY dem all the way, his family also.

But he didn't live in the district, according to others here. Why would someone vote for him?; 9/14/11, 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: MadMan, because in NY a minor detail like that has never mattered before.

Think, (carpetbagger)Hillary! Clinton.; 9/14/11, 10:39 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Utterly predictable, as is what's happening in Europe..."

Wait, are you saying a lavish social welfare state supported by confiscatory taxation isn't sustainable??????

Sonofabitch!!!!!!!; 9/14/11, 10:43 AM
FedkaTheConvict said...: How about Obama deleting all references to the fact that Jerusalem is in Israel from its website.

Read the whole thing:

White House, in Escalation of Jerusalem Controversy, Scrubs Its Web Site of References to the City Being in Israel

"The White House, in an escalation of a closely-watched case the Supreme Court is preparing to hear on whether Congress or the President gets to decide American policy in respect of passports of American citizens born in Jerusalem, has quietly altered its website to remove the references to Jerusalem being in “Israel.”

The references to Jersualem had appeared in the cutlines of photographs on the White House Web site illustrating an account of the vice president’s trip to Jerusalem last year. The references to ‘Jerusalem, Israel’ were first disclosed in The New York Sun’s dispatch last week on Zivotofsky v. Clinton. The case asks the high court to rule on the constitutionality of the 2002 law that gives American citizens born in Jerusalem the right to have “Israel” entered on their passports as their place of birth.

The Sun’s report was titled “Jerusalem Case at Supreme Court May Pit White House Web Site Against the President,” and noted that the pictures might be pivotal evidence contradicting the administration’s claim that the 2002 law impermissibly infringes the President’s power to “recognize foreign sovereigns.” Since the White House had effectively acknowledged on its own website that Jerusalem is in Israel, as have other executive branch agencies, the report suggested there might not really be a constitutional issue in giving Zivotofsky a statutory right to have that fact noted on his passport.

Yesterday afternoon Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard posted one of the pictures, noting the reference to “Jerusalem, Israel” and contrasting it with the State Department press release issued earlier in the day stating the current administration policy to prohibit U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem from having “Israel” designated in their passports. The Halper posting went up at at 3:22 p.m. Less than three hours later, at 5:36 p.m. Halper noted that, at some time after he posted the picture, the White House had “apparently gone through its website, cleansing any reference to Jerusalem as being in Israel, including the pictures of Biden there last year.”"; 9/14/11, 10:54 AM
gerry said...: Since I don't live in NY-09, I can only assume that the Candidate offered up by the Democrats was a dweebish loser.

He threw that yarmulka right under the bus.

Welprin, when asked if he would support Obama in 2012, said he possibly would. If he'd said, "Absolutely not!" he would have been elected. He should have taken a hint from Joe Manchin.

Golly, could Democrats be turning into Negrophobics?; 9/14/11, 10:55 AM
Quaestor said...: I notice Instapundit has lately taken to nicknaming Barack Obama President Millstone a likely acknowledgement of the burden the President's mishandled career has become for all Democrat office-seeker.

However, as his approval continues to ebb I see Obama's legacy to Democrats running in 2012 less as a matter of ballast than as an emblem of shame.; 9/14/11, 10:58 AM
Tim said...: MarkG said...

"I'm waiting for American Politico to report on the K Street consultants' take on it."

Mark, you don't have to - there's this report of K Street Consultants and Dem Donors Pissing Their Beds

"In a high-level campaign conference call Tuesday afternoon, Democratic donors and strategists commiserated over their disappointment in Obama. A source on the call described the mood as ‘awful.’”

Yup. No shock here. This is what electing an unqualified, obvious beneficiary of reverse discrimination as president get you...; 9/14/11, 10:58 AM
ndspinelli said...: We have a new "Baghdad Bob" and ironically, it's a curly permed, Jewish woman.; 9/14/11, 11:04 AM
Methadras said...: “It’s a very difficult district for Democrats,” said Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz

This woman is a delusional retard. NY-09 was and still is a heavily blue collar union district. These leftards are so living in a fantasy land.; 9/14/11, 11:05 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Mad Man:

I saw Weprin on the news last night. Dweebish is a pretty good way to describe him and his hairpiece.; 9/14/11, 11:07 AM
Scott M said...: It is shocking when you realize that most of the big, librul ideas have been repudiated, by public opinion, in less than three years.

I don't know about that. I wouldn't have put Carney in the B-Bob category, but yesterday someone in the press pool was grilling him about the number of POTUS speeches on jobs in the past seven days, asking if it isn't just re-election campaign mode. Carney responded, haltingly as if he didn't believe his own bullshit, that the President IS campaigning...for economic growth and jobs. The laughter from the press pool was very telling.

They're either simply not buying it anymore or this administration's ability to slather them up doesn't rise to the level of, say, Mike McCurry or Der Schlickmeister himself. Let's be honest, though...they WANTED to be lied to by Willy.; 9/14/11, 11:08 AM
MadisonMan said...: MadMan, because in NY a minor detail like that has never mattered before.

Think, (carpetbagger)Hillary! Clinton.

I think Hillary worked very hard, all around the state, to establish herself. Were they living in NY when the election was held -- I recall that the house in wherever it is/was was already bought. Did the Losing Democrat from yesterday do the same thing?

If I were a consultant, I would say: Do not oversell the victory.; 9/14/11, 11:08 AM
Robert Cook said...: "It is shocking when you realize that most of the big, librul ideas have been repudiated, by public opinion, in less than three years."

How do you figure that, given that the voters haven't had an opportunity to see any "big, librul ideas" in action?; 9/14/11, 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...: The Turner victory shows the Republicans just might be able to hang on to the House, albeit, probably with fewer conservatives and more RINOs. I doubt anyone seriously believes Obama can lose the election though. The American people love the idea of "tax the rich and give it to me" which combined with the expertise with which Obama is milking the economic crisis, leaves him unassailable. Best guess, 4 more years of the same.; 9/14/11, 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: "I think Hillary worked very hard, all around the state, to establish herself."

MadMan, Hillary traveled the state for almost two years on a "listening tour"(remember that?) answering no questions from the press and offering no opinions.

Hillary was elected by New Yorkers solely because she was a Democrat, she at that time had nothing else to offer and it was plenty good enough for the voters.

The machine Dems put Weprin forward with the same game plan in mind never feeling that the earth had shifted beneath their feet.

They can feel it now.; 9/14/11, 11:20 AM
Scott M said...: Don, does oxygen in the atmosphere scatter more blue light than any other color in your world?; 9/14/11, 11:22 AM
KCFleming said...: "given that the voters haven't had an opportunity to see any "big, librul ideas" in action?"

I don't think having 7-50 million people dying of starvation will ensure re-election.

But what do I know?; 9/14/11, 11:22 AM
Quaestor said...: According to politico.com
The Democratic Party’s rare loss of a congressional seat in its urban heartland Tuesday, accompanied by a blowout defeat in a Nevada special election, marked the latest in a string of demoralizing setbacks that threatened to deepen the party’s crisis of confidence and raise concerns about President Barack Obama’s political fortunes.

It's heartening to see Politico finally acknowledging the obvious. However, there's a significant element of bullshit in their overdue arrival at Reality Station. Obama has no "political fortunes", no more than Garry Kasparov has chess fortunes. Politics is not a horse race. Obama has got himself where he is by deliberate and calculated steps. That his position is unenviable is entirely his own doing.; 9/14/11, 11:24 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Don you are both right and wrong. Obama will be a tough candidate to beat. That is true. But unbeatable? Hardly. The GOP needs a good candidate who gives voters a clear choice and who can articulate and explain what he (or she) would do differently.

As for the House...what makes you think the Dems have a serious chance of taking back the House in 2012? Are you just trying to spin? Because you are getting sort of tilty spinny.

If anything, the GOP has a better chance in 2012 of taking the Senate than the Dems have of taking the House.; 9/14/11, 11:25 AM
Anonymous said...: "Do not oversell the victory."

In New York when a Dem loses a well publicized election, it's a big f'in deal.

I'm sorry, I didn't answer your residency question. Yes, I'm sure that Hillary had the Chappaqua residence but not certain if she was living in the D.C. manse at the time.; 9/14/11, 11:29 AM
Tim said...: "How do you figure that, given that the voters haven't had an opportunity to see any "big, librul ideas" in action?"

Oh, this is so true.

Because everyone knows the $1 trillion "stimulus" to long-time Democrat constituencies, the annual $1 trillion + deficits, the expropriation of GM/Chrysler bondholders and subsequent bailout of the autoworkers union, the unworkable government-takeover of healthcare, the Fantasyland focus on mythical "green jobs," the endless demagoguery of those "who earn too much," and receive "tax cuts for corporate jets" are all longstanding, conservative policy preferences.

Everyone knows that. Everyone.; 9/14/11, 11:29 AM
Clyde said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/14/11, 11:32 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... The American people love the idea of "tax the rich and give it to me" which.."

And why wouldn't they? Then again when Obama talks of taxing millionaires and billionaires that means the $200/250k per year income earners. He can tax the millionaires at Kennedy era rates and then wonder why revenues aren't rising in a corresponding fashion.

Honestly, I'd like to see the GOP just give him a blank check and say you go boy! Pass every measure he wants with the caveat that we will pass it now you own it. Oh sure it would devastate the economy but in doing so it would put the nail in the coffin for liberal economic policy in thus country for the next century.

Popeye Doyle went through a very unothodox form of detox in French Connection II. Maybe we need it as well.; 9/14/11, 11:33 AM
Clyde said...: Shorter DWS: "It's just a flesh wound!"; 9/14/11, 11:36 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Obama will be a tough candidate to beat..."

I'm becoming less convinced of this every day.
If U6 is still 9% or Allah forbid, worse, I can't conceive of a scenario where he could win reelection.; 9/14/11, 11:38 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I'm also not sure how government taxation of high income earners creates jobs. Maybe someone can esplain that to me.; 9/14/11, 11:40 AM
Anonymous said...: $200K-$250K doesn't go very far in the 5 boroughs of NYC. That puts a married couple who are a fireman/policeman and a nurse/teacher carrying a mortgage and a couple of kids right into Obamas "tax the rich" schemes.

Voters know that and it ain't flying.; 9/14/11, 11:41 AM
Toad Trend said...: Yeah the folks of NY-09 obviously didn't know what they were doing.

Right.

All you dems out there grab your paper bags, affix your lips to the opening, clamp down, and breathe.

There, that's better.; 9/14/11, 11:44 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I do like how that Democrat campaign treasurer in California 'spreaded the wealth' of those campaign contributions to herself.

Hell she probably stimulated the economy more than President Teutonic Shift ever will.; 9/14/11, 11:46 AM
Toad Trend said...: @ Hoosier

"I'm also not sure how government taxation of high income earners creates jobs. Maybe someone can esplain that to me."

Heh. It doesn't. But dems and the left are all about feel-good-ism. And, when you are a leftist, sticking it to your neighbor is a sacrament. A given. Because its a natural extension of jealousy and grievance politics, the stuff of junior high.; 9/14/11, 11:47 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... $200K-$250K doesn't go very far in the 5 boroughs of NYC..."

You know I have heard this before and I'm sorry, I don't give a shit where you live, if you're struggling on a quarter million a year then you're doing something wrong, like living well beyond your means.

To your other point, yes, they'll be hit with the tax increase since they are millionaires and billionaires when you do Obama math.; 9/14/11, 11:51 AM
Seeing Red said...: $200K-$250K doesn't go very far in the 5 boroughs of NYC. That puts a married couple who are a fireman/policeman and a nurse/teacher carrying a mortgage and a couple of kids right into Obamas "tax the rich" schemes.

Voters know that and it ain't flying.

Add on removing prop tax deductibility and the 3.8% Obamacare tax in 2013, plus those little extras when you want to sell your home.....; 9/14/11, 11:53 AM
William said...: I wouldn't know how to quantify this as a factor, but it was a factor. Very few men in public life have been caught lying as blatantly and as agressively as Anthony Weiner. The Democrats seemed remarkably tolerant of those lies. I can't remember any Democrat taking offense. The attitude was: we have the right to lie, and you have the duty to believe us.....If I lived in Weiner's district, I would have held not only Weiner's lies but the bland, non judgemental attitude towards those lies against the Democratic candidate.; 9/14/11, 11:58 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Add on removing prop tax deductibility..."

And charitable contributions are on the block.

I don't have as big a problem with removing prop tax deductions.; 9/14/11, 12:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Monthly Home Price History for New York City

The median price for all homes and apartments in new york city reached its most recent peak of $560,734 in June 2007. At $495,000, the current median price is now 11.72% lower. When the median price hit its lowest point (to date) of $425,000 in November 2009 it was 24.21% off the most recent peak. It has since climbed 16.47% from that post peak low.

Once you know the shape of the homes on the bottom, you'll see that a decent home price starts way into the top half.

What are the median home prices in Indiana? Maybe that's why you can't understand.

I looked-

The median asking price for homes in Indianapolis peaked in April 2009 at $154,325 and is now $14,425 (9.3%) lower. From a low of $134,800 in February 2011, the median asking price in Indianapolis has increased by $5,100 (3.8%).; 9/14/11, 12:01 PM
PaulV said...: NYTNewYorker. You think the real estate tax rate may be higher in NYC than Indiana?; 9/14/11, 12:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, I'm paying over $13,000 a year out here in Medford Long Island for a .8 acre lot.; 9/14/11, 12:11 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... What are the median home prices in Indiana? Maybe that's why you can't understand...."

Mhhhm. Cops and teachers in Indians aren't pulling down $250k a year either.

So at its peak, a higher end home is twice their annual salary. Sounds about right.; 9/14/11, 12:12 PM
PaulV said...: $13,000/year is a luxury apartment building most places. Likely cheaper than something in the city.; 9/14/11, 12:14 PM
edutcher said...: And now we hear GodZero is polling at 46% approval in CA.

Lessee now, that's 35 in NY, 36 in PA, 44 in Jersey, and 46 in OH, along with 41% approval among women and 44% among Hispanics.

Looks like a trend here.; 9/14/11, 12:16 PM
PaulV said...: How much would it screw the blue states for Obama to cut FIT deductions for state income and property taxes or just impose AMT?; 9/14/11, 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: All I'm saying is when the Dems talk about taxing the rich starting at $200K, that is normal taxpayers in every big metro area.

I would very much like to live in Mad.Wis. or Indianapolis Indiana on my income but you get born where you are and roots and family develop and there you are, eh?; 9/14/11, 12:18 PM
Robert Cook said...: "I'm also not sure how government taxation of high income earners creates jobs."

It's not intended to create jobs (and no one ever said so) but to bring in revenues to the government.

I'd like to hear the fairy tale again about how slashing taxes creates jobs.; 9/14/11, 12:20 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Median income for Indy in 2009 was $40,278. It was $45,424 statewide.; 9/14/11, 12:21 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... All I'm saying is when the Dems talk about taxing the rich starting at $200K, that is normal taxpayers in every big metro area..."

And I don't disagree.; 9/14/11, 12:23 PM
edutcher said...: Robert Cook said...

"I'm also not sure how government taxation of high income earners creates jobs."

It's not intended to create jobs (and no one ever said so) but to bring in revenues to the government.

I'd like to hear the fairy tale again about how slashing taxes creates jobs.

Simple, taxes are business costs.

Lower taxes, you lower business costs.

You lower business costs, businesses find it easier to expand.

So simple even a guy from The Daily Worker could understand it.; 9/14/11, 12:26 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... It's not intended to create jobs (and no one ever said so) but to bring in revenues to the government...."

But that's not all the liberals are saying.

"...I'd like to hear the fairy tale again about how slashing taxes creates jobs..."

Once upon a time the country was in the midst of a terrible recession and this great leader came in a cut taxes across the board which meant people had more money to buy goods and services and businesses had to hire more people to provide those goods and services.

The end.; 9/14/11, 12:27 PM
Robert Cook said...: "All I'm saying is when the Dems talk about taxing the rich starting at $200K, that is normal taxpayers in every big metro area."

Incorrect.

I live in Manhattan and have lived here for 30 years. I have never made even half the salary figure you cite, and with only one exception, none of my friends have hit even half that figure either. That one exception still makes well short of 150k. From where I sit, as a Manhattan resident, that's still a very handsome income. In fact, the median annual income for New York City residents as of 2007 was less than 50k:

http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/life-or-something-it-city-s-median-income

Anyone who finds life at 200k per year difficult or "modest" even in NYC, has simply grown accustomed to living a lifestyle that for most would be very lavish indeed.; 9/14/11, 12:32 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Once upon a time the country was in the midst of a terrible recession and this great leader came in a cut taxes across the board which meant people had more money to buy goods and services and businesses had to hire more people to provide those goods and services.

The end."

Yep, that's the one. Very nice fairy tale. Would that it were true.; 9/14/11, 12:33 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Yep, that's the one. Very nice fairy tale. Would that it were true...."

It is true, proven several times over.; 9/14/11, 12:41 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Jeez folks- all I meant was the political pendulum does not usually change direction so quickly.; 9/14/11, 12:44 PM
traditionalguy said...: We await the Dem tax increase targeted to the over a million a year in income.

That has never mentioned by any politician from either side because it is a useless act. It only hurts the Dems and the less wealthy Repubs, but brings in little money.

The Middle class is the targeted group because that 200K to a Million group's increase brings in money by the boatload to be "Invested" into Green Energy scams run by the wealthy Dems and Repubs.; 9/14/11, 12:46 PM
SPImmortal said...: The real story here is that mediscare was a flop. Didn't work in NV-2 and didn't work in NY-9; 9/14/11, 12:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey there Mr Cook, are you living in a rent controlled apartment then?

If so would you care to share your rent number?; 9/14/11, 12:56 PM
Widely Seen said...: “It’s a very difficult district for Democrats,” said Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

So true, but only very, very recently [in the Obama error = era].; 9/14/11, 12:56 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Here's another.

Once upon a time in a faraway land called Grease the rulers set up a wonderful place where everyone would be taken care if by the state and all the rich people would be taxed to pay for it.

Then one day there wasn't enough money so they borrowed and borrowed and then one day no one would loan them any money so all the people rioted because there wasnt any more money and none of the kingdoms around them wanted to loan them any money either.

Not quite the end but soon.; 9/14/11, 12:57 PM
Trooper York said...: "Once upon a time in a faraway land called Grease the rulers set up a wonderful place where everyone would be taken care if by the state and all the rich people would be taxed to pay for it"

Well if Olivia Newton John is going to wear tight stirup pants and a tube top and give me a blow job I would move there.

That's what happens in Grease right?; 9/14/11, 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: It's a huge deal.

1; "Jews live like Episcopalians, and vote like Puerto Ricans." Turner won because a large chunk of Jews were willing to vote Republican, if that's what it takes to support Israel. President Obama now faces the threat that either he stops being anti-Israel for then next year and a quarter, or he's going to get hammered among Jews during his re-election bid.

Does it matter if New York Jews vote for the Republican in 2012? No. (If NY is up for grabs, the election is over.) But does matter if they decide not to give CReEP (the Committee to Re Elect the President) any money because of his anti-Israel Administration? Yes, it does, a lot.

This election just made it more socially acceptable for Jews to be pro-Republican.

2: MediScare didn't work.; 9/14/11, 1:08 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Because everyone knows the $1 trillion "stimulus" to long-time Democrat constituencies..."

$1 trillion stimulus to what Democratic constituencies?

"...the annual $1 trillion + deficits..."

How is this a demonstration or result of "big, librul ideas""

"...the expropriation of GM/Chrysler bondholders..."

Do you refer to the bailout which kept GM from going out of business and which they are repaying. Lending is a "big, librul idea"? Taking ownership of controlling shares in a publicly traded company through exchange for money is "expropriation?"

And didn't negotiations for the bailout of Detroit's big three commence during Bush's term, and didn't the unions have to make concessions?

http://www.alternet.org/economy/114303
/autoworkers_forced_to_take_concessions_in_industry_bailout/

"...and subsequent bailout of the autoworkers union..."

What bailout of the autoworkers union? (see above)

"...the unworkable government-takeover of healthcare..."

What government takeover of healthcare?

"...the Fantasyland focus on mythical "green jobs," the endless demagoguery of those 'who earn too much,' and receive "'ax cuts for corporate jets' are all longstanding, conservative policy preferences."

Here you got me. But then, this part is merely rhetoric, rhetoric that resonates deeply with most Americans, but which has never been put into practice, (probably one reason voters keep voting to remove the frauds who are in office to replace them with frauds from the opposition party--whichever it may be at the time. They're hoping somebody might just actually get down to doing something to help working Americans and not the financial elites.)

But it's a trick: both parties are owned by the financial elites. The Republicans wear their "I'm Wall Street's Bitch" dog collars proudly and righteously, while the Democrats do so with various degrees of embarrassment or shame--and there are maybe a couple or so Dems here and there who try to resist their masters, (a phenomenon not seen or even thought of among the Republicans), but, in the end, there is no real choice, unless one wants to consider a choice between the "sluttier, more brazen whore" and the "more discreet, uptight whore" a meaningful choice.; 9/14/11, 1:14 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... That's what happens in Grease right?.."

You bet Trooper. It like fantasy island but without rich Corinthian leather and a midget.; 9/14/11, 1:21 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Hey there Mr Cook, are you living in a rent controlled apartment then?

"If so would you care to share your rent number?"

Not rent controlled, but rent stabilized.

My monthly rent is greater than 1K but less than 2K (but getting closer every two years).; 9/14/11, 1:24 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Do you refer to the bailout which kept GM from going out of business.."

Yeah that. See, when a business fails they go into bankruptcy or that's what's supposed to happen.

That's why I buy Fords.; 9/14/11, 1:26 PM
Trooper York said...: Well that doesn't work for me.

There has to be midgets.; 9/14/11, 1:26 PM
cubanbob said...: Fred4Pres said...
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, making Florida and the USA GOP one election after another! Thanks Debbie!

9/14/11 9:25 AM

Unfortunately that idiot is my congressperson. If, if, the republicans were to find a candidate with a quarter of a brain, that candidate would be four times smarter than Debbie and would have a real chance at winning in the district. Alan West won in Palm Beach county with a similar demographic to my district. It can be done if the republicans would get off their butts.; 9/14/11, 1:26 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Troop just make sure you spell it right so you don't end up on the island where the hottie in tight pants and tube top isn't named Nicholas Paoadokalous.

Just sayin; 9/14/11, 1:30 PM
Original Mike said...: "Just how big is the NY-09 result?"

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, ...; 9/14/11, 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...: A difficult district for Democrats.

What, no cemeteries?; 9/14/11, 1:36 PM
BJM said...: @NYTNewYorker

The two income couple will simply be collateral damage. It is more than a little ironic that many will be union members.

Under Sub-Chapter S a business owner is allowed to combine their business gross with their personal income gross and be taxed at the personal rate. This was designed to allow businesses to retain capital, to expand, buy inventory and hire without taking on debt. This is the pool of money Obama has targeted and it's our economic lifeboat at the moment.

The worst possible idea, if you want to retain/create jobs, is to raise taxes on S corp filers, if anything we should raise the deductions to provide more capital.

$250K gross may sound like a lot of money but it's not for a plumbing co or carpet cleaners running a couple of trucks, family operated restaurants, farms, kindergartens, service businesses or your local fast food, coffee or donut franchise.

Yes, donut shops. We have a donut shop phenomena in CA, wherein most are now owned and operated by Southeastern Asians; Thai, Vietnamese and Cambodian families. One doesn't think donuts when visualizing their food culture, but they have an affinity for making great donuts.

They bootstrap the entire family into the middle class, and younger members into the professional class. While they tend to only hire family, they support the local supply/service chain, buy homes, cars and goods/services. Shouldn't we encourage economic self-sufficiency such as this?

Next time you drive into a strip mall or shopping center look at the many small store fronts...those are the very people who are already struggling to survive in this economy and will pay more taxes under Obama's "Jobs" bill. Does that make any sense?; 9/14/11, 1:44 PM
cubanbob said...: BJM said...

Very well put and absolutely true. Just that comment alone makes you better qualified to be president than Obama, Biden and every democrat elected official in the USA. Not that is a high bar to exceed.; 9/14/11, 1:51 PM
Trooper York said...: BJM hit the nail on the head.

Of course small business men are the target of these tax increases. They don't realize that this is a paper profit that is sunk right back into the business. The Sub S dividend is not cash like a paycheck where you get a W-2. It is all on paper and you never see the money.

Obama and the Democrats do not understand small businessmen and always hurt them. Despite all the bullshit they spew. They are tax and spend poison to this economy.; 9/14/11, 1:55 PM
BJM said...: "Not rent controlled, but rent stabilized."

Buhwahahah!

*slaps knee*

That's right up there with "depends what the meaning of "is", is." in the leftie handbook of disingenuous parsing.; 9/14/11, 1:56 PM
Trooper York said...: By the way. Those donut shops run by immigrants?

You can bet they keep as much as they can off the books and in the underground economy.

I bet they only report one in three of the donuts they sell.; 9/14/11, 1:57 PM
BJM said...: @Trooper

That's a little harder to do with POS terminals everywhere nowadays. Plus, in CA, the Franchise Tax Board collects state sales and income taxes, they are stormtrooper efficient and twice as nasty.

A biz can get seriously sideways financially in CA by running afoul of the FTB...so I'm guessing it's more like every 6th donut.; 9/14/11, 2:17 PM
Robert Cook said...: Regarding the distinction between "rent stabilized" and "rent controlled":

"That's right up there with "depends what the meaning of 'is, is.' in the leftie handbook of disingenuous parsing."

Hardly.; 9/14/11, 2:31 PM
cubanbob said...: Robert Cook said...
Regarding the distinction between "rent stabilized" and "rent controlled":

"That's right up there with "depends what the meaning of 'is, is.' in the leftie handbook of disingenuous parsing."

Hardly.

9/14/11 2:31 PM

RC not to being snarky but what is the difference between rent stabilized and rent controlled? If my kids go to school and grad school in NYC my wife was thinking of getting a place in the city. The purchase price for even a closet in a good area is unbelievable and the rents are also extremely high.
Not that we would ever be able to get a rent controlled or stabilized apartment but I was wondering what the difference is between the the two terms as they appear to be interchangeable.; 9/14/11, 3:27 PM
gerry said...: How do you figure that, given that the voters haven't had an opportunity to see any "big, librul ideas" in action?

Soviet Union, 1917 - 1990.
Cuba, 1959 - present
National Socialism, 1933 - 1945
Obamaism, 2010 - present

I think big, liberal ideas have been pretty disappointing so far.; 9/14/11, 3:32 PM
gerry said...: Not rent controlled, but rent stabilized.

When they buy the line, they really buy the line, don't they?; 9/14/11, 3:33 PM
gerry said...: Not rent controlled, but rent stabilized.

"rent controlled" is to "rent stabilized" as "bombs falling and guns firing and drone bombers diving" is to "kinetic action"

Delightful kool-aid ya got there, dude.; 9/14/11, 3:36 PM
gerry said...: Rent control.

Unbelievable.; 9/14/11, 3:42 PM
gerry said...: More rent control

How do they keep buying this stuff?; 9/14/11, 3:43 PM
Cedarford said...: Hoosier - "Once upon a time the country was in the midst of a terrible recession and this great leader came in a cut taxes across the board which meant people had more money to buy goods and services and businesses had to hire more people to provide those goods and services.

The end.
===============
The end as it was 30 years ago. The fairy tale had a different ending 20 years later as Bush tried Reaganomics in another bad recession. Because the world went globalist, multinational.
The tax cuts went to Americans who flocked to Walmart to buy Chinastuff. While 0 net jobs were created in Bush's 8 years and Obama's 2 in that decade...China grew its GNP at 11% a year and added 46 million new jobs.
(The job creation from globalization and Bush's tax cuts would actually have been negative but for Bush and Obama borrowing money from China to create new government jobs and jobs for government contractors and services people.)

Once upon a time the industrial might of America - in what was Detroit and the place now called the Rust Belt of America won wars.

But that was 70 years ago. Now it is ruins.

Once upon a time tax cuts "primed the pump" as Keynes said of goverment spending doing the same. American consumers went out and bought US goods and services. And multinationals selling US stuff abroad or making profit on things like Korean steel brought the profits back to the US - rather than parking it in offshore accounts or investing it all in foreign nations.

But that fairy tale was 30 years ago. The world profoundly changed between the time of Reaganomics under Reagan and Bush trying the same stunt.; 9/14/11, 4:09 PM
BJM said...: @gerry

You forgot the EU 1993-present; 9/14/11, 4:13 PM
Cedarford said...: You know it is bad for Progressive Jews when even Jews start rejecting progressive Jews like Welprin, Bernake, Geithner, Debbie Wasserman -Shultz, and the majority of the Board of the NY TImes and NYC ACLU.; 9/14/11, 4:13 PM
Eric said...: The Dems only hope is that the economy improves noticeably in the next year.

If that's really their only hope then they're screwed. It's going to be 2014 at least before UE starts to go down. Maybe longer. And there's every possibility the wheels are going to come off the global financial system when the Southern European countries start to default.; 9/14/11, 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: "Hardly."

My point is R. Cook that you pay below market price for rent and I'd wager, don't have a car(as many city dwellers don't) and associated expenses, plus no commuting costs and yet you tell all here that living in Manhattan is not expensive.

One second on Google for NYC rents and home prices would put the lie to that.

Why would you say such as that if not to somehow justify Obamas taxing people all the way down to $200K?; 9/14/11, 4:59 PM
Kirby Olson said...: Local television is saying Ed Koch's support for Turner was decisive among the Jews in the district (they make up 40% of the district). Koch is mad at Obama because he's a big supporter of Palestine and wants Israel to go back to its 1967 borders. That's the first step at least. Many say that Obama got his marching orders from one of his Harvard professors: Edward Said.; 9/14/11, 8:29 PM
Gary Rosen said...: C-fudd's so cute when he starts talking economics, especially after he's proven that he doesn't have a clue in his little shriveled pinhead how a business even works.; 9/15/11, 1:47 AM
Gary Rosen said...: "when even Jews start rejecting progressive Jews"

You mean the progressive views whose posture towards Israel is exactly the same as C-fudd's? Not to mention posture towards Obama.; 9/15/11, 1:49 AM
Gary Rosen said...: "progressive Jews like Welprin, Bernake, Geithne,... the NY TImes."

NYT is run by an Episcopalian who hates Israel and loudly rejects his Jewish heritage. Of course he's still a Jooo by C-fudd's "one drop or anything vaguely resembling a Germanic name" rule.; 9/15/11, 1:51 AM
Robert Cook said...: "My point is R. Cook that you pay below market price for rent and I'd wager, don't have a car(as many city dwellers don't) and associated expenses, plus no commuting costs and yet you tell all here that living in Manhattan is not expensive."

You're correct I don't have a car, "as many city dwellers don't" (as you yourself pointed out), and I am fortunate enough to have a rent that is lower than market rate. Many working NYC residents who have incomes no higher than mine (or lower) do not live in rent controlled or rent stabilized apartments.

I have the modest commuting costs that all city dwellers may avail themselves of via subway and bus commuting.

However, I did not say living in Manhattan is not expensive. Of course it is, and my sub-100k salary would go much farther just about anywhere else in the country than it does here.

I did dispute your assertion that it is "normal" for"taxpayers in every big metro area" to make 200k.

As per the article I linked to in a subsequent post, as of 2007 the median household income in New York City was below $50,000.00 annually. What I did say is that even in NYC, even in Manhattan, (a subset of the NY "metro area," your designation), 200k is a very handsome income. It does not make one "wealthy", as such, but a household with that income is certainly affluent, and even here in the NY metro area, it is above the norm.

Even with the higher number of wealthy individuals and households who reside in the NYC metro area, most of us here are still making incomes that fall far below the 200k figure you cite as "normal."; 9/15/11, 5:58 AM