Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Reconciliation

Recap: Jim DeMint staged a hostile takeover of the Senate; David Axelrod is disillusioned; and the Congressional Budget Office said extending the Bush tax cuts will hurt the economy.

Elsewhere:

1) Obama's interview with Rolling Stone.

2) Peter Daou is right that liberal bloggers are getting under Obama's skin.

3) Brad DeLong on Karl Marx.

4) What the food stamps cut will mean, in pictures.

Recipe of the day: Shortbread covered with caramel, chocolate and sea salt. Yes please.

By Ezra Klein  | September 28, 2010; 6:31 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: CBO's case against 'Obama's middle-class tax cuts'
Next: Wonkbook: CBO thrashes Bush tax cuts; GOP blocks outsourcing bill; gov funding shaky

Comments

The WaPo report today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/28/AR2010092803217.html) regarding immigration reform in France, a state cited as an example during the health care reform push, is worth reading:

"Sarkozy's campaign, denounced as demagoguery by his opponents, reflects swelling concern in Western European countries over large numbers of immigrants pouring in to seek work, political freedom and generous social services. Several governments have taken new steps to limit the flow, and anti-immigrant political parties scored electoral gains this year even in such normally liberal bastions as Sweden and the Netherlands."

Posted by: rmgregory | September 28, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

jerry brown-meg whitman debate this evening.
if anyone heard this debate this evening, could someone explain how meg whitman has the gall to criticize ANY policies in california, when she has not voted IN ANY POLITICAL ELECTION IN 28 YEARS?

how can any person run for governor for the state of california, and stand before an audience, with a record of NEVER VOTING IN ONE OF OUR ELECTIONS, and lecture the audience on all that has gone wrong???
how can she stand before californians and try to persuade anyone that she cares about our politics?
isnt she ashamed to admit her lack of a voting record????
what is more important to our civics, to our commitment to our country, than actually....voting?????
wouldnt she think that never caring enough to cast a vote, would sort of disqualify her legitimacy to run for GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA?

who could ever cast a vote for a person like that????
it is beyond unconscionable.
and how could she talk about campaign finance reform, when she has spent more on her election, than has been spent on any campaign in u.s. history.
she kept talking about einstein's definition of insanity.
the definition of insanity, would be to vote for a person, who never cared enough to vote in any election.
and for someone who reaped the benefits of her life in this state, but never even CARED enough to cast a vote.
forget that she didnt care to vote, for whatever reason....but she didnt care about the rest of the people in california, when she didnt cast a vote for her whole adult life.
who would vote for a person like that????

the fate of california, matters to the whole country.


how can someone like meg whitman be elected to be governor of california?


Posted by: jkaren | September 28, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the Marx link, browsed through it. Quite timely and a saner take.

Will learn slowly, as like our Dem Members of Congress!

Time to pass the brandy....

Posted by: umesh409 | September 29, 2010 12:44 AM | Report abuse

"if anyone heard this debate this evening, could someone explain how meg whitman has the gall to criticize ANY policies in california, when she has not voted IN ANY POLITICAL ELECTION IN 28 YEARS?"

Jkaren,

How would Meg Whitman have made a difference by voting? As a practical matter, voting is a waste of time. Hardly any issues/races are won by a single vote.

"and how could she talk about campaign finance reform, when she has spent more on her election, than has been spent on any campaign in u.s. history."

She's playing by the rules of the game as they currently exist. That doesn't prevent her from seeking a different set of rules. Of course, she could just be playing politics and doesn't really want change too.

"wouldnt she think that never caring enough to cast a vote, would sort of disqualify her legitimacy to run for GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA?"

If a voter prefers her positions to Brown's, why would it matter whether or not Whitman voted in the past?

Even if voting were important, is being politically apathetic for a spell really an unforgivable sin? Would you really change your vote if your found out your preferred candidate had never voted?

"forget that she didnt care to vote, for whatever reason....but she didnt care about the rest of the people in california, when she didnt cast a vote for her whole adult life."

You can care a whole lot about other people and yet never vote - the reverse is also true.

Posted by: justin84 | September 29, 2010 10:52 AM | 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