Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity


Things I blogged today:

Jay Rockefeller's being inconveniently honest about the public option, there are at least five reasons congressional Democrats might vote against health care, it's hard to say whether health-care reform is popular or unpopular, and I'm hoping one of you can come up with a less-boring name for the budget reconciliation process.

Things I didn't get around to blogging today:

1) The Senate's got 290 problems, but passing bills ain't one.

2) The bond market's treacherous state of denial.

3) I should be watching Mitt Romney more closely.

4) George W. Bush's domestic policy was more bipartisan than it's generally given credit for.

Recipe of the day: I made these sesame, soy and herb-roasted mushrooms last night. They were terrific.

By Ezra Klein  |  February 23, 2010; 6:33 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Malpractice reform
Next: The selling of the president's policies


A link for you: Amazon doesn't charge sales tax, and should:

Posted by: SamPenrose | February 24, 2010 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Several times here in recent weeks (including earlier today, before this post by Ezra) I have made the point that some Dems often cross party lines to vote for major GOP ideological bills. The GOP, however, rarely cross over and support the major Dem initiates.

George W. Bush was not bipartisan. No, rather, Dems were spineless after Bush dared them not to vote for his initiatives. Also, many Dems are actually conservatives who would be Republicans is they could only defeat the GOP candidate they would face in the GOP primary, and so instead they choose to be Democrat.

The mass media, Ezra included, mistakenly paint Bush and the GOP as bipartisan (because Dems are spineless) and paint Obama as polarizing (because the GOP won't support anything Obama or the Dems want when they are in power).

Ezra, please stop goose-stepping with the Republicans on this. Dems are the ones who show some ability at bipartisanship and Repugs are the ones who polarize.

Posted by: Lomillialor | February 24, 2010 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Why does the link to Bush's tremendous bipartisan domestic policy appear to omit McCain-Feingold? He signed it into law!

It marks the one thing I hate most about Bush & McCain----their efforts to eliminate the right of individuals to pool money in order to express an election-affecting political message. I had always thought that was what the 1st Amendment was specifically targeted for.

If they are going to commit this atrocity, they should at least get some credit from you horrible lefties for their support of your radical agenda to destroy everything good about the USA----you know, in the spirit of bipartisanship.

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | February 24, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

"Fin" seems too much like an arthouse film. I like "Tab Dump" or "Daily Wrap" better.

Posted by: MosBen | February 24, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Bush was bipartisan because there were sensible members of the Democratic party that a Republican could work with. I think if Lomillialor had his way, there would be not sensible Democratic center to work with.

Posted by: lancediverson | February 24, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company