Poll: Majority of Voters Would Consider Voting against Their Current House Member

63%

Of voters say they would consider voting for someone other than their current congressional representative in the House elections next year, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll. That is the highest anti-incumbency number recorded in the poll since the question was first asked in 1989. In 2010, by comparison, just over half of voters said they would vote against their incumbent representative, and on Election Day, Republicans won 63 seats and took control of the House, arguably making this an early indicator that control of the House could be in play again next year.

Taxes Not Worth Fighting to the Death Over

TIM RUSSERT: Is the energy tax a fight until death, or are you willing to compromise a little bit with Senator Boren, modify it a bit?

SEN. MOYNIHAN: Fight until death over taxes? Oh no. Women, country, God, things like that. Taxes? No.

— From a 1993 appearance on Meet the Press by the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) during the debate over a congressional budget deal.

Obama Said to Be Caving in Fake Debt Ceiling Crisis Negotiations – Hostage Takers’ Latest Demand: Kill ‘Obamacare’ Mandate

art--eagle-held-hostageIn the wake of a spate of polling and punditry suggesting Pres. Obama had gained the upper hand over Speaker Boehner and his tea bagger caucus in negotiations over the debt ceiling crisis, now comes word that the president intends to cede to a deal that favors Republicans.

In an editorial for USA Today published yesterday, the president said he agreed with a majority of voters, including a majority of Republicans, who want deficit reduction deal that includes tax increases as well as program cuts:

PRES. OBAMA: A balanced deficit deal that includes some new revenues isn’t just a Democratic position. It’s a position that has been taken by everyone from Warren Buffett to Bill O’Reilly. It’s a position that was taken this week by Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, who worked together on a promising plan of their own. And it’s been the position of every Democratic and Republican leader who has worked to reduce the deficit in their time, from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton.

What he did not say was that the only new revenue in the deal will come from allowing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire in December 2012, as they are set to do anyway. No loopholes for billionaires will be closed or corporate welfare reduced. Instead, the president will give in to Republican demands that the federal budget must be balanced on the backs of the middle class and the poor, including the gutting of Social Security and Medicare and trillions in cuts to federal programs.

All the tea baggers have to do is promise they won’t fight to extend the Bush tax cuts in December 2012. Of course, they won’t have to keep that promise if Mitt Romney or Rick Perry is elected president seven weeks earlier — an unhappy prospect that becomes much more likely if seniors, liberals and independents stay home on Election Day 2012 because Obama presided over the shredding of the nation’s safety net.

[…]