Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Did Jim DeMint just take control of the Senate?

deminthotlining.JPG

What is Sen. Jim DeMint doing?

Senate staffers I spoke to weren't exactly sure -- but whatever it is, they're really not happy about it. "This is really, really, really, really, really, really bad," one said. "In a precedent-setting institution like the U.S. Senate, letting one person anoint themselves king is not a good idea."

DeMint's method of anointment is relatively banal. Non-controversial legislation in the U.S. Senate gets "hotlined." That means it goes out on an internal messaging system to see if anyone has an objection. If no one does, the legislation is often passed using unanimous consent, and without any floor debate. That's done so the Senate doesn't waste a lot of time on things like post offices or -- to use an example that got hotlined recently --the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Fishery Cooperative Act.

As the Senate approaches the end of a session, these non-controversial bills build up and often get passed in a rush at the end. And that's where we are now: The Senate is expected to adjourn either Wednesday or Thursday, and most expected a few non-controversial bills to pass during those final hours. But DeMint is saying he'll block any bills that aren't hotlined by this evening -- a position, according to his office, that the Republican leadership was notified of last week. Anything less than 48 hours, he says, simply doesn't give him and his staff time to review the legislation. If the bill -- and, in some cases, its CBO score -- isn't delivered by tonight, it'll have to wait until the lame-duck session.

It's not a crazy request. Sens. Tom Coburn and Claire McCaskill, in fact, have tried to make it a rule of the Senate with their Stop Secret Spending Resolution. DeMint supports their effort.

What's riled so many in the chamber, however, is that DeMint is turning that preference into a demand. Given the power that unanimous consent affords to individual senators, the chamber's functioning is always fragile. It relies on 100 egotistical people with differing procedural preferences to compromise with their leadership and their colleagues. That's what you see in Coburn and McCaskill's bill: an effort to get enough senators behind them to make this the new rule.

DeMint, by contrast, is saying that if this is not the new rule, he won't let the Senate vote on these bills before recess. That's a challenge to the Senate, of course, and to the Democratic leadership. But it's most directly a challenge to the Republican leadership, who've argued that the Democrats don't give them time to read the bills, but haven't demanded a change in the underlying rules. By making news with a hard-line stance on the rule, he's highlighting the Republican leadership's hypocrisy on the point.

DeMint's office says they expect that most of the legislation will indeed be non-controversial, will be sent to them and will pass. They emphasize that they have long requested time to review these bills and say that taking time to look at every bill shouldn't be a lonely crusade for one senator, but the job of every senator. And in all of that, they may be right. But the other offices in the Senate look over and see them taking the rules and norms of the Senate into their own hands, going around their colleagues and leadership, and calling the fragile compromises that allow the Senate to function into question. "You cross that line," says the aide, "and where do we go from here?"

Photo credit: Melina Mara/The Washington Post.

By Ezra Klein  | September 28, 2010; 12:23 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Why the offshoring bill?
Next: Lunch break

Comments

"Where do we go from here?" You're already there, morons. The only good news in the lurking Democratic disaster is that they're all dinosaurs.

Posted by: Hopeful9 | September 28, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

This whole "senators need to read every word of every bill" is a canard and a distraction.

Every senator has dozens of well-paid, trusted advisors who should and do read the bills. And if a senator doesn't have his office set up to respond to each piece of legislation in a timely manner, it's his own damn fault.

Posted by: Hieronymous | September 28, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Klein didn't say whether the 'Senate staffer' he was quoting was Republican or Democrat. From the headline, it looked quite scary, the idea of someone taking over the Senate. But when you actually read the article, you see that the problem doesn't actually start with the Senator, it starts with the warped way in which Congress has been operating for many years. Both parties, Democrat and Republican, stuff tame bills with stuff that the other party might not like or might not want to pay for and then shove it through at the end, when the other party doesn't have enough time to review everything. There should be a deadline that bills for review must be made available. That's all DeMint did and Klein makes out like its shocking, shocking (round up the usual suspects.)

Posted by: Georgetowner1 | September 28, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

There is a special circle in hell for the rigid ideologues of the world, the ones who are so insistent upon "being right" that they can't see that they aren't "doing right." Jim DeMint has an engraved chair in that circle of hell. DeMint and his staff may be correct about some of the particulars, but to petulantly insist on "my way or the highway" doesn't get the country's business done, even if the way that it must be done is far from ideal (a point that nobody is seriously contesting). Of course, since when has getting the country's business done been a priority for the High Priest of Rigid Conservatism?

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | September 28, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Georgetowner1 - based on the headline and the opening sentences, I thought we were going to find out that DeMint - someone I'm not a big fan of - had used some arcane procedure to stop approval of a spending or budget measure. Call me crazy, but it just does not seem that unreasonable to me. If it's that important, hold a vote. I think the quoted Senate staffer really, really, really, really, really needs to take a xanax.

Posted by: Baltesq | September 28, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Hopeful9 | September 28, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse
"Where do we go from here?" You're already there, morons. The only good news in the lurking Democratic disaster is that they're all dinosaurs.

--------------------

So are you saying that in the next Congress there won't be ANY democrats in the Senate? Because just remember, what goes around, comes around.

And if Mr. DeMint's nonsense is allowed to stand as prescident, then what is to keep a Democratic Senator from doing the exact same thing if the Republicans gain control of the Senate next term? Is this the way we want our elected representatives to solve problems?

Holding up Senate business on routine matters isn't good government, no matter what your political ideology is. It's bullying, pure and simple.

I can understand using this procedure for a controversial matter, since it seems that Mr. DeMint et. al. are no longer capable of engaging in serious debate on the crucial issues facing this country. Their only recourse, in their limited minds, seems to be to resort to childish temper tantrums.

But holding up routine, non-controversial matters only serves to distract Congress and prevent Members from engaging in meaningful debate on the serious issues that require a high level of scrutiny and discussion in order to arrive at a reasonable and realistic solution. Forcing members to sit through endless votes on inconsequential matters is foolish and nonproductive.

But sadly, Mr. DeMint is an example of the kind of personalities we can expect to dominate the Senate and House, as people with the intelligence and experience to address complex issues choose not to become public servants because they just don't want to deal with the nonsensical behavior that now seems the norm, rather than the exception.

Good grief!

Posted by: dlpetersdc | September 28, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Who could have predicted the 1rst African American president would be blockaded by a racist senator from South Carolina.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld1 | September 28, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

New rule for the Senate. Give them the time to read the bills. Quiz at the end. Scores reported weekly. I doubt DeMint takes the time from running around to this or that conference or appearance to bother to read what he is demanding to read. Nor do the others. In fact, I doubt any one person in existance has ever read all of the budget bills.

Posted by: chucko2 | September 28, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

If the GOP doesn't take over the Senate because, oh, say, O'Donnell loses in Delaware even though she's DeMint's girl, think he might face some payback from the GOP leaders?

Would you want Mitch McConnell steamed at you if you were a GOP Senator?

Posted by: Garak | September 28, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Ezra ... can't take anything you write seriously anymore. I've tried, but I keep asking myself if what you write is just another made up Journolist slam to influence your special interests.

so ... bye bye ... getting my opinions from elsewhere now.

Posted by: playfair109 | September 28, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives have always told us that it is hubris to believe you can export democracy, because democracy is not a collection of mechanical devices like elections or even written laws. Instead, democracy is a product of culture and of habits of mind and behavior.

Jim DeMint shows how true that is. He shows that when a major political party, even one with a 150 year democratic history, is overtaken by partly-civilized radicals who do not subscribe to the customs and culture of democracy, democracy itself quickly breaks down.

The filibuster and Senatorial "holds" were essentially courtesies extended by members of the Senate to one another on the understanding that their allegiance to the Senate as a governing institution would prevent them from abusing those privileges. DeMint shows what becomes of such fragile courtesies in the hands of a hardened revolutionary with "regimes" to topple.

Posted by: TedFrier | September 28, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

2 thoughts:

1. Alvin Greene! Alvin Greene!

2. Where do we go from here? The Senate needs to change it's idiotic rules. If it doesn't we don't go anywhere.

Posted by: bswainbank | September 28, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, but explain to me why exactly some Democratic Senator doesn't balls up and start denying unanimous consent to everything until someone passes institutes a set of freaking functional parliamentary rules that kill BS like the filibuster and these holds and all the other crap that prevents normal majority rule?

I blame EVERY INDIVIDUAL member of the Senate for preserving a dysfnctional system that allows an extremist minority to control the national agenda on critical issues. It's long past time someone tied themselves to the tracks to fix this crap.

Posted by: theorajones1 | September 28, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

If the dems keep the senate, and then proceed to keep these insane rules...

Well, they deserve to be put out on their rears. The current crop of R's are basically trying to destroy the gov. A goal they also pursued when they were in power.

Posted by: rat-raceparent | September 28, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"DeMint to block almost everything"

Best news I've heard today!

Posted by: gun313 | September 28, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Is this DeMint flexing his "Leader of the Senate in 2011 muscles?

Doesn't he want to overthrow McConnell so he can have a tea bagger running as Senate Majority Leader?

Ezra I'd like to hear your take on this.

Posted by: hyacin | September 28, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse


According to the U.S. Constitution Article I Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

One such rule is that cloture vote in the Senate requires 60 votes.

Another Senate rule is that changing a Senate rule requires a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate.

Good luck with that Dims.

Posted by: screwjob21 | September 28, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Sen. DeMint is a pompous ideological ass. I'm a bleeding heart liberal.
.
And I fully support his efforts. The Senate as currently operated, i.e. the 'rules' that aren't in the constitution, is not functional without reasonable cooperation.
.
We've seen that the GOP does not possess that particular ability any more. It will only get worse in the next few election cycles until the ditto-head GOP/Tea Party supporters understand that compromise is the only way forward, not their 'one-true-way'.
.
The Senate needs to be reworked back to the original intent; to provide smaller states an even playing field against the popular vote house. Our bicameral system has flaws, but this isn't one of them.
.
Having a single Senator able to literally shut the place down indefinitely is a *major* design flaw that needs to be rectified ASAP.
.
And if DeMint's stunt finally gets that across to the masses (and the other Senators) so be it.

Posted by: rpixley220 | September 28, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

More Republican hypocrisy, DeMint-style. Stall and impede action on anything the Democrats propose, then claim they are not given time to study what they've been stalling.

In effect, DeMint has declared war on everyone to the left of him for his own personal glory.

This why Cassius, Casca et alia — and Brutus, too — took down Caesar in their Senate.

Posted by: tomcammarata | September 28, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I'll betcha if a Republic Party freak brought up a bill for more big fat tax cuts for rich people, DeMint would deny he ever said he'd hold up all legislation.

Posted by: mongolovesheriff | September 28, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

So let him block everything. Surely he can handle the complaints from 99 colleagues unable to 'bring home the bacon' to the special interests they work for. I assume any earmark he ever needs in the future for the folks in South Carolina will sail right on through.

Posted by: SoCal | September 28, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Work quick Jimmy Boy. You've backed a loser when you threw down with the Tea BAg set. Enjoy your 15 minutes.

Posted by: CenterLeft | September 28, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I think the real solution is for Reid to keep the Senate in session until everything is done. He should have done it for the entire Congress; 6 days a week in session as long as Republicans are trying to slow play everything.

Posted by: mschol17 | September 28, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

DeMint is "Da Man." He's the man who should be running for President!!!

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | September 28, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse


The Constitution grants the Senate the authority to make its own rules. See Article I Section 5.

Senate Rule XXII state it takes a three-fifths majority vote in the Senate to bring debate to a close. However if the subject of the debate is a change of Senate rules, it requires a two-thirds vote.

Another Senate rule is that Senate rules autmotically remain in effect from one Congress to the next, unless the rules are changed. Quote:

"The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules,"

Therefore in this Congress, or the next, it requires a two-thirds vote to change the cloture rule.

Posted by: screwjob21 | September 28, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

We should really strip individual Senators of the power to paralyze the whole government.

Posted by: lonquest | September 28, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

@Hieronymous

This whole "senators need to read every word of every bill" is a canard and a distraction.

Every senator has dozens of well-paid, trusted advisors who should and do read the bills. And if a senator doesn't have his office set up to respond to each piece of legislation in a timely manner, it's his own damn fault.
-------------------------------------------

However, last I checked, we elect Senators to legislate and not staffers. Each Senator need to read everything they vote on. Otherwise they are not voting on bills but rather voting on thier staffers summeries.

So, who would you rather be reading the bills? The senator that is supposed to represent you or some nameless staffer than was appointed?

Posted by: BradG | September 28, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

@screwjob21:

That's why most proposals to reform the filibuster focus on changing the rules at the start of the next senate session.

Posted by: lol-lol | September 28, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

@screwjob1:
the only thing in the constitution regarding Senate rules is this:
.
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."
.
Source http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec5
.
The rest of the things you mention are in the 'rules' themselves, and as such are immaterial as to whether the rules are adopted at the beginning of a Congressional term. That vote is a simple majority vote since no other rules are yet in effect.

Posted by: rpixley220 | September 28, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

What's wrong with this? What's wrong with our ELECTED officials READING EACH BILL? That's the problem, isn't it? Nobody read the Obamacare bill. That's a recipe for disaster. Good for DeMint! The only people complaining about this are the Democrats! Let them complain. Shortly, they won't have to worry about such things, because they won't be there. DEMINT IS ONLY DOING WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT!!!!!

Posted by: georges2 | September 28, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Ezra, you may be right; but you at least fail to make it very clear.

What I get from your post is Sen. DeMint is asking 'time' to read bills. If Senate had a practice for certain 'bills' to be hotlined; that is not a Constitutional Requirement. So why is Sen. DeMint wrong? Nobody did it first? Hardly that matters. Senate need to change rules? Well then let them do it.

This is one more ways we know all the silly business which goes in Senate. If a Senator says he needs time, you need to give him/her reasonable time. That is it.

(I am a Dem guy and I hate Sen. DeMint for his Bush style policies, but that is different.)

Posted by: umesh409 | September 28, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

You mean some of our Senators are passing laws WITHOUT reading them first? Kidding, right?

Posted by: forgetthis | September 28, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Abraham Lincoln once said, "The best way to change a bad law is to enforce it with unflinching vigor." That DeMint is being selfish and petty in applying unflinching vigor is besides the point that this will help change the law sooner.

Posted by: ctown_woody | September 28, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

It takes only one senator to blow up the "Pledge to America."

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Party of No.

Posted by: mattintx | September 28, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

if i thought he and his staff were actually reading the bills.i would wholeheartly support him. but i fear he is only being the egomanic racist some know him to be.it is no secret he will never have a leadership position so this is is way of getting even.

Posted by: donaldtucker | September 28, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

DeMint is just the latest senator (or either party) to appoint himself President. We have no one to thank for this behavior that Harry Reid and Barack Obama, had they taken action against Lieberman when he backed McCain, or any of the Conservadems when they held single payer and the public option to the tender mercies of the insurance lobby, then there would be a well founded fear of retaliation in the Senate. But they did not, so redneck racist bullies like DeMint figure they can get away with anything....and he will.

Posted by: pblotto | September 28, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

All you morons claiming that senators need to read every bill: that would entail reading thousands of pages EVERY DAY. Physically impossible.

That's why they have so many staffers

Posted by: maurban | September 28, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Ezra, for one of the rare articles that attempts to explain things rather than run the talking points from the party talking heads. I think it comes down to what one poster said:

"But when you actually read the article, you see that the problem doesn't actually start with the Senator, it starts with the warped way in which Congress has been operating for many years."

Posted by: mypitts2 | September 28, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

It's not physically possible to read every bill, given the thousands of pages per day. No CEO in corporate America reads his own mail, or all of the operating documents of their divisions. They delegate, as should Senators and Congressman. This is just a ploy to boost the sad ego of DeMint, but it's clearly believed as a "good" idea from those in this forum who like a good soundbite without any substance. This is the heart of the Tea Baggers - lots of talk, and not an educated clue among them. To a Tea Bagger, "elitist" means someone who has more than a high school education.

Posted by: ben16 | September 28, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Most remember the Coup that took place in Pakistan well DeMint is starting his own Coup in the US along with his soldiers in the Tea Party and KKK members. As the wings nuts bring chaos DeMint is secretly taking over the US Government. We thought Osama Bin Laden/Al Queada were the Axis of Evil but now we know the real Axis of Evil is a home grown American Law Maker. DeMint is destroying the US Democracy and will appoint himself the US Dictator. Now remember other idiot dumb people formed a coup and we know they fail because they were stupid, this will happen with King DeMint. Notice how so many stupid elected official come from South Carolina. There are smart bright educated people in that State but it seems only the idiots get in office. Alvin Greene got 100,000 votes from people who never heard of him, so it makes since why the State has the corrupt officials and Sanford is laughing at how easy it was to have his mistress and wife at the same time.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | September 28, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

The last time the Senate functioned as the founders intended was in 1850. Since then it has, through it's outdated parlimentary rules, been warped into a failed legislative body by the conservatives.

ONE man can stifle the will of 100 plus the majority of 435 House members? It's insane!

It has done more damage to the country than can be measured and should have been abolished long ago.

Posted by: toc59 | September 28, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

"All you morons claiming that senators need to read every bill: that would entail reading thousands of pages EVERY DAY. Physically impossible."

Why the hell should I be bound by laws when the jokers who passed them couldn't even be bothered to read the text?

"It's not physically possible to read every bill, given the thousands of pages per day. No CEO in corporate America reads his own mail, or all of the operating documents of their divisions. They delegate, as should Senators and Congressman."

If it is truly "impossible" to read all of the bills well tough - our reps don't get to pass as many laws and we'd have far fewer 2,000+ page monstrosities coming out of Congress. What a disaster that would be.

Posted by: justin84 | September 28, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Huffington Post is now reporting that DeMint has had a standing hold on all legislation and amendments for the past 2 years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/demint-has-placed-a-stand_n_742175.html

My first thought: Payback is hell. If he's ever in the majority again, the D's ought to put a hold on all of his bills and amendments.

My more rational thought: I don't buy the "read the bill" justification either. Staffers should already be screening all the bills, and the fiscal implications. I don't believe most legislators read the bills themselves, and I don't think that would change even if they were given time specifically for that purpose, nor do I think it would make a lot of difference (I think a staffer with expertise in the subject matter would do a much better job of screening the bill for key issues).

Holds, judicial nominations/confirmations, filibusters -- all are seriously in need of reform. Change the rules in January.

Posted by: reach4astar2 | September 28, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Huffington Post is now reporting that DeMint has had a standing hold on all legislation and amendments for the past 2 years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/demint-has-placed-a-stand_n_742175.html

My first thought: Payback is hell. If he's ever in the majority again, the D's ought to put a hold on all of his bills and amendments.

My more rational thought: I don't buy the "read the bill" justification either. Staffers should already be screening all the bills, and the fiscal implications. I don't believe most legislators read the bills themselves, and I don't think that would change even if they were given time specifically for that purpose, nor do I think it would make a lot of difference (I think a staffer with expertise in the subject matter would do a much better job of screening the bill for key issues).

Holds, judicial nominations/confirmations, filibusters -- all are seriously in need of reform. Change the rules in January.

Posted by: reach4astar2 | September 28, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Huffington Post is now reporting that DeMint has had a standing hold on all legislation and amendments for the past 2 years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/demint-has-placed-a-stand_n_742175.html

My first thought: Payback is hell. If he's ever in the majority again, the D's ought to put a hold on all of his bills and amendments.

My more rational thought: I don't buy the "read the bill" justification either. Staffers should already be screening all the bills, and the fiscal implications. I don't believe most legislators read the bills themselves, and I don't think that would change even if they were given time specifically for that purpose, nor do I think it would make a lot of difference (I think a staffer with expertise in the subject matter would do a much better job of screening the bill for key issues).

Holds, judicial nominations/confirmations, filibusters -- all are seriously in need of reform. Change the rules in January.

Posted by: reach4astar2 | September 28, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

so most of you think its a good idea to have legislation be passed with less than 48 hours from the time it is proposed to the time it has to be voted on? jim DeMint did not say "so he could read it" he said so that his office could read it, this includes staffers. but i guess just because its a republican who is doing this then its automatically suspect and should be shouted down.
as for majority rule that was not what our country was founded on. we have never been about 51% imposing its will on the 49%. states rights and the idea of 2 senators from each state protect the minority from the majority.

Posted by: upsetnewyorker | September 28, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting that the "rise" of the Republican party and a major stink bug infestation are taking place at the same time?

Posted by: pjohn2 | September 28, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

One of the Bills he is going to hold hostage is the stopgap spending measure that will keep the Government financially afloat until January, if this bill does not go through by Thursday then those of us on SSI won't get our checks on time to pay our bills. Is that the right thing to do to the most vulnerable of us?

Posted by: grossdc2 | September 28, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

I have this image in my head of a tiny Jim DeMint sitting on someone's shoulders screaming out "Embargo On!"

Posted by: wpost15 | September 29, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

It is difficult to understand why those egotistical senators don't want all bills available to be read by their staff, which is what happens most of the time.

The Dems have been living on earmarks and bills that no one has read. Go DeMint, stop those idiots who think it's OK to vote on a bill which you nor any of your staff members have read. Hell no.

The reason we are in trouble now is because the Dems force 2000-page bills through with no time to read them. To hell with them and any Repubs who feel the same way.

READ THE BILLS

Posted by: RonKH | September 29, 2010 3:37 AM | Report abuse

I take time to read parts of you online newspaper and react by writing four blogs, on four different articles. You turn the last one down.

Do you want people to read less of your newspaper?

Do you want anyone to interact with your hack writers?

I suggest you change your rules. But maybe you don't want readers and want to go the way of your sister pub, Newsweek.

I get it; I'll read the Washington Times more.

Posted by: RonKH | September 29, 2010 3:41 AM | Report abuse

Jim DeMint is the New Tom Delay (Pun intended)

And we all know that people like this will, in the end, get Hammered.

Posted by: alpacaman1 | September 29, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Ezra, Your analysis is the most intellectually honest I have read. When both sides are being hypocrites, it's nice for someone to unemotionally point it out. If our Congress wants respect, they must begin to show integrity even when it is unpopular.

Posted by: kalojohn | September 29, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Go Jim go stop the socialist take over of this country in its tracks.

Posted by: DCalle10411111 | September 29, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

DeMint, or Demented as we call him, believe in an obvious fallacy, that the absence of government means individual freedom. The absence of government means the control of corporations, which you apparently prefer, probably because they are financially responsible for the so-called independent tea party. Ha!

Posted by: Koko3 | September 29, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company