Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Most Americans say regulate greenhouse gases

In advance of an expected Senate vote today on a GOP plan to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows broad public support for the new oversight.

Some 71 percent of those surveyed back federal regulation of the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming. The idea also had strong majority support in polls last year.

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski's resolution would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse emissions under the Clean Air Act. The White House has threatened to veto the bill should it pass.

In the poll, Democrats and independents broadly support EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, with most strongly behind the new controls. More than half of Republicans also favor the new controls.

Q: do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

             ---- Should -------  --- Should not ----  No   
             NET  Strngly  Smwht  NET  Smwht  Strngly opin.
All adults   71     52      19    26     7      19     4

Democrats    81     65      17    16     7       9     2      
Republicans  55     32      23    39     7      33     5
Independents 69     52      18    27     7      20     3

By Jon Cohen  |  June 10, 2010; 7:00 AM ET
Categories:  Post Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Poll: On economy, (still) more negatives than positives
Next: Public remains unfriendly on Afghanistan

Comments

Seems like someone in the media is terrified that the EPA may be stripped of their authority, so we have this hastily collected survey right on the day of the Senate vote.

Posted by: moebius22 | June 10, 2010 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Abolish the EPA today. It consists of socialists bent on destroying our standard of living. The big mistake of the Nixon presidency was the creation of this organization of jackbooted thugs.

- josephlcooke.blogspot

Posted by: Joseph_L_Cooke | June 10, 2010 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Just because people favor control on greenhouse gases, does not mean they support the EPA, which has a very checkered history and is unelected, from drawing up and enforcing those controls. Yet another example of media bias playing around with poll numbers. Ask this question "Do you feel the EPA should be given the power to control, at its whim, of greenhouse gas emissions, considering its top execs are politically appointed". I would bet my house you would get different results.

Posted by: rscott251 | June 10, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Should the EPA essentially usurp the Congress' role- that is the question.

Posted by: moebius22 | June 10, 2010 7:45 AM | Report abuse

So much crap from this administration. And the Kooks on global warming, no one thinks outside the box. The main cause of global warming they claim is CO2. So the stimulus package was to fund road construction and such which tears down trees (CO2 consumers) and replace them with asphalt roads(heat retainer). Anyone see the correlation with global warming here? I do applaud the Secretary of the Interior with their initiative to plant 20 million trees over the next several years. THAT is where the stimulus money should have been going to. Hire through temp agencies thousands of unemployed to plant TREES instead of bulldozing new roads. Make it so the planters were getting like $20/hr. All the jobs would be temp, only hire co. that provide health insurance to their employees...and there you go...solves a whole lot of problems in one fell swoop. But no, same ol, same ol. Obama is an idiot.

Posted by: rscott251 | June 10, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Nothing like carefully worded question to ensure getting the poll numbers you want. Typically what I would expect from the Washington Compost. I'm all for protecting the environment but not by the thugs in the UNREGULATED and UNELECTED department called the EPA. Smart money says most polled don't have a clue that THEY will be the ones under the grindstone for all this, NOT big business where the payoffs will continue unabated.....

Posted by: franklinone | June 10, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

The loss of trees has an effect on greenhouse gasses. The Washington Post uses alot of trees. Maybe the EPA should regulate the Washington Post?

Posted by: bobbo2 | June 10, 2010 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Congress would be delegating authority to an Executive Branch agency. This is how our government has operated since its inception. Are we really supposed to believe that the people who are posting against this are opposed to this delegation of authority? If so, why single out this vote in particular? I find it hard to believe that they care about anything other than winning a political argument (as opposed to doing what is in everyone's best interest).

Posted by: johnhunsaker4 | June 10, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

So the true number of climate change deniers is 26%. A noisy 26%, to be sure. But they're dead wrong that the American public now thinks climate change is a 'hoax'.

Who are these 26%? The very same people who gave GW Bush a 26% approval rating towards the end of his presidency. The very people who most eagerly swallowed the REAL great hoax of our time: The lies about Iraqi WMD.

Posted by: bourassa1 | June 10, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Too many right-wing climate change denialists here. All you phony libertarians should just get over it: greenhouse gases cause the global warming that is destroying our life support system. If Congress can't muster the will to get them reduced, then let's hope EPA does.

Posted by: Bugs222 | June 10, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

The loss of trees has an effect on greenhouse gasses. The Washington Post uses alot of trees. Maybe the EPA should regulate the Washington Post?

================================

Yeah.........for the good of the environment ALL urban newspapers should be required to stop printing news on paper and having thousands of delivery trucks and cars on the road every moring throwing on driveways, these sinking political papers ...................

How does that sound POST ?

Posted by: allenridge | June 10, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Hello, summer, good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready?

http://www.needaseller.com

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini)$16

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) $35

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

http://www.needaseller.com

FREE sHIPPING
........♫
....♫
..♪
........♬

...♪......♪

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Posted by: ttyerutyikupyuioryiytut | June 10, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

what a misleading question by the global warming kooks.

it is like asking, are you in favor of regulating crime in an effort to improve our well-being.

they using a leading question to get support for a policy that is based on a theory with absolutely no solid scientific proof.

in fact, the world is cooling and will cool for the next 20 years, in case the liberals out there didnt notice because of the hot air they exhale.


Posted by: skeptic11 | June 10, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Personally, I would prefer environmental policy to be set by unelected officials. Not having to face re-election gives them more of an incentive to make good decisions for the environment which are politically unpopular.

Elected officials have shown time and again they lack the gumption to do what's right in the face of what's popular. The absolute last thing I want them taking control of is environmental protection, although NIH research grant funding is a very close second.

Anybody who says that a bunch of unelected officials making policy subverts the will of the voters should read up on history - the Founders NEVER intended for the regular/typical/average voters to control the government. The Executive Branch is headed by the President. Who casts the only votes that actually determine who becomes President? The College of Electors. As originally defined in the Constitution, the CoE were free to ignore the results of the popular election. The Supreme Court justices are appointed by a President elected by the CoE. Senators were initially chosen by each state's legislature (almost always comprised of wealthy individuals who hardly answered to the general public). Only Representatives were directly elected.

So, of the three branches of the government, only one part of one branch was ever originally intended to be determined by direct election. How's that for subverting the will of the people?

Posted by: SeaTigr | June 10, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Hey "skeptic", I'm always hearing that "the American people are pretty smart". But you apparently think that they can be made to believe in global warming just because of the phrasing of this question. What, even 55% of Republicans?

But you guys are always saying things like "The American people have seen through the global warming Albore Scam!"

Make your mind up. You people are all the same. One minute you're saying the American people are the best, bravest, kindest, wisest ubermenschen ever to walk the surface of the Earth, the next you're saying they're suckers who are more easily led than 3-year-olds, depending on whether or not they agree with your position.

Still, you're better than SeaTigr below you. He's so unhappy that Americans want action on greenhouse gases, he wants to abolish democracy!

Posted by: bourassa1 | June 10, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Can someone please explain the references to "thugs" and "jackbooted thugs" in some of these comments? Are we suggesting that the EPA is using violence to enforce regulations? The image this creates, of course, is of beetle-browed psychopaths with clubs and knives. Could we have some specific examples? Otherwise, can we have a reasoned discussion rather than distracting ourselves with colorful fairy tales?

Posted by: johngriffinellis | June 10, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

All you folks who are talking about carefully worded poll questions need to take another look. The question was, should the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT regulate greenhouse gases to slow global warming. Now, we know nobody likes the Feds right now. Most Americans don't seem to care in this case, though.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | June 10, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Excuse me, but the regulation of "Greenhouse Gasses," is a joke. When nations such as PRC, Russia and others, spew out there gasses, out "contibution" will be negated.

Furthermore, MORE manufacturing jobs would be shipped overseas.

I present Exhibit "A," the State of California. They used to have:

1. Major aviation, sea and military ground systems production facilities.

2. Steel and Aluminium production an foundaries.

3. Automobile assembly lines.

4. Major electronics manufacturing.

5. JOBS that paid good money and generated tax revenue.

Today, 1/3rd of the citizens of California is paying the taxes that the other 2/3rds enjoy. The fiscal system is a joke, municipalities are or considering Chapter 9 Bankruptcy proceedings and the "Green" Democrats have supported social service programs, beyond the revenue that is generated.

This is the future in the Age of King Obama.

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | June 10, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Seriously people? Are you not paying attention to what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico with the BP Oil Rig that exploded, killing 11 Americans, and spilling over 50 MILLION Gallons of crude oil into the Gulf? Have any of you who are so vocally against trying to slow Climate Change ever taken an Ecology or Environmental class in College, or even at the High School level? Or how about a basic Ethics class? Do you think that Big Oil cares about anything other than this quarter's profits, no matter what the consequences of hurting America's National Security, crippling our economy with debt and destroying the environment in the process? I understand that you may be upset with poor government regulation. I am too, but why can't we work together to find feasible solutions that are available right now to conserve our FINITE resources, protect our environment, our health (oh, and our food supply if any of you like seafood), create a sustainable economy with good clean energy jobs that can't be out-sourced to China, and protect our National Security by finally freeing the USA from it's horrible addiction to oil.

Posted by: WiseConservtv | June 10, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Here are your jackbooted EPA thugs:

A state environmental investigator came to the plant and met briefly with McNabb on that day.

The investigator, Spring Allen, failed to follow department procedures and refused to tell McNabb what she had come to investigate, the complaint contends.

Spring Allen could not be reached for comment, and DEHNR spokesperson Don Reuter said DEHNR officials had not yet seen the lawsuit and therefore could not comment on the matter.

After Allen's visit McNabb called her supervisor and agreed to a later investigation, but Allen and another DEHNR employee, Douglas Holyfield, the complaint claimed, intercepted communications between managers so as to nullify the effect of the agreement..

What followed on April 15, 1999, was a raid in which more than 30 law enforcement agents and other government officials, some carrying shotguns and machine guns, stormed his business, held him illegally for an hour until the media arrived and harassed his family and employees, according to McNabb.

Afterward, EPA agents tapped his phone and intimidated employees and clients, he said.

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/McNabb_Steve_23583972.aspx

Posted by: Joseph_L_Cooke | June 10, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

The argument that environmental protection kills jobs is old and stale and has never been proven. It is propaganda by those who favor deregulation, which Massey Energy, Goldman-Sachs and BP have all shown is bad policy. Environmental protection saves lives and preserves a healthy environment. The Clean Air and Clean Water acts (to name just two) have been vital in protecting public health and safety. Quite the contrary, enhanced environmental protection creates new industries and new jobs that involve R&D and new technology. Most Americans are intelligent enough to understand this as the poll indicates.

Posted by: citizen4truth1 | June 10, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

what a misleading question by the global warming kooks.

it is like asking, are you in favor of regulating crime in an effort to improve our well-being.

they using a leading question to get support for a policy that is based on a theory with absolutely no solid scientific proof.

in fact, the world is cooling and will cool for the next 20 years, in case the liberals out there didnt notice because of the hot air they exhale.

Posted by: skeptic11 | June 10, 2010 8:33 AM

________________________________________

Really? Even though the first four months of this year were the hottest Jan, Feb, March and April ever?

Posted by: RLDRY | June 10, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I see that the Birch inspired nutbag one-world conspiracists are out in force this morning. Boy talk about denial and delusion. With all that has happened and with the public becoming increasingly alarmed at the utter pillaging of our environment and our resources, all this dweeby bunch of morons have to offer are the old 1950s Bircher-McCarthyite inspired slogans about communism and socialism.

Will someone grab this bunch of narcoleptics and shake them and inform them that we are in the 21st century?

Posted by: jaxas70 | June 10, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

These data mean nothing. By saying "greenhouse gases," the question assumes the global warming thesis. If the Post tries the question, "should the US take expensive measures to cut back carbon dioxide when China and India will not?" you will get about 10-20% yes, if that high.

The important result here is how strongly the public supports government regulation. I think that if you phrase the question to ask whether the government should regulate any aspect of corporate activity, you would get a big yes. And if you want 90% yes, ask if they want government regulation of outsourcing to China and India and US investment there.

The politically correct have no idea about the train that is coming down the track. As Balz just reported, the anger is rising to all time levels and the support for the tea party is falling. The public does not want a libertarian, Dick Armey kind of solution, but it wants action.

Posted by: jhough1 | June 10, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

"Still, you're better than SeaTigr below you. He's so unhappy that Americans want action on greenhouse gases, he wants to abolish democracy!"

Uhhh...bourassa, you need to improve your reading comprehension skills. I said I PREFER environmental protection policies being set by unelected officials because they don't have to worry about losing their jobs if they do what's right instead of what's popular.

My point in the remedial history lesson was for those who continuously bloviate about how decisions made by unelected officials subvert the will of the people in this great democracy of ours.

1) America isn't a democracy, it's a democratic republic.
2) The design of the Constitution makes it quite clear the Founders had no intention of putting much power in the hands of the common folk.

Posted by: SeaTigr | June 10, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

This is NOT ABOUT some "global warming conspiracy," people!!!

Pollution KILLS people.

In 2004 the EPA estimated that there would be as many as 67,719 cases of PREMATURE DEATH in 2010 due to power plant emissions alone!

WAKE UP!

Check out this PDF:

http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Power_Plant_Emissions.pdf

Jump to page 82 for a chart of where the air is so bad it KILLS.

For example, in West Virginia, there are approximately 545 premature deaths every year from power plant emissions.

Like I said, people, WAKE UP. This stuff is not a game. It's life or death.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 10, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Our scientists can't even plug an oil leak on the bottom of the ocean, and all you leftist lemmings actually believe that science has a sound understanding of all of the thousands of factors that influence earth climate?

The hubris in this political movement is stunning.

Just wait until EPA regulation of CO2 causes everyones monthly heating/cooling and electric bills - TO DOUBLE.

That will be the end of the EPA and the democratic party as we know it.

There has never been a time in the history of the world when climate hasn't been in a state of flux/change.

The question is: do we know with any certainty what percentage of the current "changes" are being caused by man generated CO2, and how great of a threat is this potential change/warming compared to the costs and effectiveness of our remediation.

The argument is not over.

We need more science and less politics by Green fanatics.


Posted by: Parker1227 | June 10, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I dont deny that the climate is changing. I just dont believe its been proven beyond doubt that C02 is the most significant factor. In my mind its far more likely this is tied to other factors like the large increase in solar activity.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18692

Posted by: motslots | June 10, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse


Anyone who thinks we can tax the coal industry into the ash bin of history without HUGE negative economic consequences, simply doesn't understand our level of dependence on coal.

Coal provides HALF of our nations electricity.

Thousands of coal plants spew (non-CO2) toxins every day so that hundreds of millions of Americans can live comfortable lives with electricity.

If the same idiot leftists who spew spittle about global warming now, hadn't shut down our nuclear industry 30 years ago, we would have plenty of clean power on line to help us transition should global warming turn out to be a real threat.

BTW - love the way they changed it from global warming to "climate change" when the average temps stabilized a decade ago.

How convenient!

That way, no matter which way temps change they are still right!

How scientific.

Posted by: Parker1227 | June 10, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"BTW - love the way they changed it from global warming to "climate change" when the average temps stabilized a decade ago.

How convenient!

That way, no matter which way temps change they are still right!

How scientific."

Actually, Parker, that IS scientific - as you would know if you had any real understanding of science.

Science is about forming a hypothesis, collecting data, and evaluating the hypothesis. A hypothesis is never "confirmed", you either reject it or say the data means it can not be rejected. That is not semantics. If the data says the hypothesis can not be rejected, that leaves room for future data to give cause for rejection.

As for temps stabilizing, you DO know that 10 of the warmest years on record (since the U.S. starting keeping data sometime in the mid-to-late 19th century) have been in the last 12-15 years, right? And how each year was the warmest year on record, until the next year?

The change from 'global warming' to 'global climate change' is not mere politics. It stems from increased understanding that greenhouse gas emissions may not simply cause global temperatures to increase. Instead, they may cause the global climate to undergo dramatic shifts in areas. So, some areas might become extremely warm, others extremely cold. We might start recording a storm of 'once in a hundred years' strength for an area every few years.

Changing the name had to do with an increased understanding of the data, not some diabolical conspiracy on the part of green freaks.

Hope I'm not going to fast for you. I tried to keep the number of big words down.

Posted by: SeaTigr | June 10, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Just like repealing DADT, having 71% support means that Republicans will oppose it and Democrats will lack the backbone to fight for it.

Since those 29% are likely teabaggers, the media will be interviewing everyone of them and Boehner/McConnell will vow to filibuster on their behalf.

Posted by: AxelDC | June 10, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

"greenhouse gases cause the global warming that is destroying our life support system"

Of course.

Al Gore told us, so it must be true.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | June 10, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Dear customers, thank you for your support of our company.
Here, there's good news to tell you: The company recently
launched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionable and
welcome everyone to come buy. If necessary, welcometo:
===== http://www.smalltrade.net =====

free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,) $25

FREE sHIPPING

====== http://www.smalltrade.net =====
` ╰—┘ 。 ┅★`_、
│\__╭╭╭╭╭__/│   
│           │  
│           │ 
│ ●       ● │ 
│≡    o    ≡│
│           │ 
╰——┬O◤▽◥O┬——╯
   |  o  |
   |╭---╮| ┌┬┬┬┐ 
╞╧╧╧╧══╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╡

Posted by: itkonlyyou112 | June 10, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

I was amazed to read that 3/4 of Americans still believe in global warming and climate change, in spite of all the obfuscation raised by the right. Amazed and heartened. Let the government do its job, I say. The environment does need protecting.

Posted by: DavidH3 | June 11, 2010 7:02 AM | Report abuse

When you hear folks say "abolish" the EPA, do you not remember when there were virtually no zoning/environmental/water/land laws? This is not some "socialist" experiment bent on taking control of your government and killing businesses. This is a rsponsable attempt to 1) get rid of lead paint for your children, 2) lower asbestos in buildings causing cancer, 3)force businesses to act responsabily for discharge waters, heavy metals, etc, 4)reduce air toxins leading to greater asthma deaths, 5)Test chemicals in house hold products that affect brain development, etc. This is really about quality of life, or just life, for many people. YES there are times they take it too far, but it is a responsible force. If your options are to have industry police itself or have states do it with no federal oversight, that simply does not benefit the public. Look at the EPA vs TX right now and Gov Perry's hysteria against all gov regulations.

Posted by: cadam72 | June 11, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Send every voting Republican to the Gulf coast to clean up the environmental mess made by "big oil." This would save the rest of us "told you so, tax payers" from footing their irresponsible greed and ideas. Nothing makes a better statement then the smell of reality when it is under your nose. The Gulf coast populates a majority of Republicans who are starting to realize that the GOP and "tea party" are not the party of the people and represent greed while squatting directly on them. The Democrats don't get it right most of the time but they do try to represent hard working people. So come on "drill baby, drill" supporters. Step up to the plate and show your patriotic responsibility. (silence)

Posted by: rbraun2000 | June 11, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Maybe if I actually lived in a "greenhouse" I'd be concerned about the gasses within and the temperature.

But, I DON'T LIVE IN A GREENHOUSE and there is NO SUCH THING as GLOBAL WARMING. How stupid.

Posted by: notinsc | June 11, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

I see from the beach videos that the State prison populations are being PUT TO WORK cleaning up the spilled oil. You can tell by the dreadlocks and wasted ganga-tude of the orange jumpsuit set.....and the shotguns that the guards have.

But, there are more jobs than prisoners available to help.

Are YOU out of work?

How about $13/hour + housing + meals + overtime at $19.50/hour?

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2010/06/06/temporary-jobs-available-for-gulf-oil-spill-cleanup.html?sid=101

GetItWhileItsHotGetItWhileItsHotGetItWhileItsHotGetItWhileItsHotGetItWhileItsHotGetItWhileItsHot

Posted by: notinsc | June 11, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

First, let's acknowledge the source of this poll -- two left-wing media organizations -- so the results are biased.

Second, even the question is biased with the last part reading, "....in an effort to reduce global warming..." There is no SCIENTIFIC proof that carbon dioxide (the allegedly bad emission called "greenhouse" gas) causes global warming. That's why the warming alarmists changed the name of their propaganda campaign to "climate change."

Make your own scientific test. From a reliable source (you choose) get a line chart of the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last 100 years. Then, from a reliable source of your choosing, get a line chart of global temperatures over the last 100 years. Lay one on top of the other -- and you'll find THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. Now, from a reliable source, get a line chart of solar irradiance over the past 100 years. Lay one on top of the other and you'll find a VERY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOLAR IRRADIANCE AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. You know, you'd think that we would have learned that from laying out in the sun to get a tan. Now, do not let WaPo/ABC lead you astray. They want the EPA (run by socialist Carol Browner, chosen by Obama) to have control because liberals are smarter than you are (so they think).

Plus, they want the cap and tax (trade) bill to pass. Remember, when asked about a bill like this some four years ago, Obama said on TV, that when cap and trade passed, "electricity bills will skyrocket." Believe him. Cap and Tax will cause all fuels to cost more and coal/oil are what runs 90% of our electricity plants.

Folks, think for yourself and don't fall for left-wing propaganda.

Posted by: RonKH | June 11, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Who needs the EPA? Not the environment, hell she can deal with millions of barrels of oil, its natural.

The EPA may inefficient, but businesses are ruthless and don't give a crap about our planet or the world that will be passed on to future generations. And it seems many of you here don't either.

Posted by: dhill4 | June 14, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company