Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 7:00 PM ET, 01/21/2011


By Ezra Klein

Recap: The president's governing philosophy never survives first contact with Congress; the Republican war on the CBO; and it's gotten harder to pay workers well.

1) Ross Douthat on Sarah Palin.

2) Ken Auletta on Google and Eric Schmidt.

3) Amateur mapping.

4) I'll be on Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight.

By Ezra Klein  | January 21, 2011; 7:00 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Did Republicans just take ownership of Ryan's Roadmap?
Next: Wonkbook: Previewing the SOTU; inside the White House's reinvention; will the Senate cut the # of confirmable appointees?


--*I'll be on Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight.*--

Haw Haw Haaaaaaw. Dooberman's DOWN!

I wonder if the hair is standing up on the back of Matthews's neck?

But, seriously, who now is going to offer themselves up as the TV media's new low water mark?

Klein? Klein? You work on that speech impediment, buddy, and you've got a shot.

Posted by: msoja | January 22, 2011 12:15 AM | Report abuse

I want to be the first to say that the $28 BILLION shortfall in Massachusetts is neither the result of implementation of Jon Gruber's flawed healthcare model nor the result of misconduct by SEUI and other labor unions; rather, the shortfall -- leading to the need for a new "Sovereign Bankruptcy" law -- is the result of Republicans in other states... particularly southern states who opposed tyrannical statutes without paying double their share of Massachusetts debt. The writings of Ta-Ta-Neeshi Coates and others clearly prove that the south is as dead as has been for hundreds of years: even though census data demonstrates otherwise, the South is shrinking and is the cause of all debt in Massachusetts -- neither SEIU nor Jon Gruber had any role in the bankruptcy of Massachusetts.

Long live Universal Coverage! Unions and Universal Coverage will rise again!


Below the fold (duly designated by multiple hyphens), I'll note that it's possible to make a point without disparaging remarks about any individual, living or dead. Years from now -- and perhaps even hundreds of years from now -- people will look back at our collective statements and judge us (collectively) based upon the writing we leave behind. Anyone who is reasonably certain of his own assertions should be reasonable enough to tolerate the (potentially flawed) assertions of others.

Posted by: rmgregory | January 22, 2011 2:12 AM | Report abuse

@msoja, that was really uncalled for. Try to elevate the discourse rather than just making fun of people.

Posted by: StokeyWan | January 22, 2011 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I guess you'll have to wait your turn Ezra until Lawrence O'Donnell manages to lose even Olbermann's meager viewership, say about 6-9 months.

Dylan Ratigan would have been a much better choice, and has a blue collar appeal that O'Donnell completely lacks.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | January 22, 2011 8:15 PM | Report abuse


Why are commentators so unwilling to discuss the often very likely possibility that the guy is just lying, or choosing a position not because he honestly thinks it's best, but because he thinks he has to to get elected, for political capital, and as a result of these things perhaps for the greater good.

You honestly think by the second primary debate on this, if not right from the beginning, that a guy as smart and studious as Obama didn't understand a plan like his was impossible without an individual mandate?

He knew. He knew what he was saying opposing an individual mandate was wrong. He said it anyway because he thought it would help him get elected, which I think he thought would be for the greater good.

I mean comon. Why does everyone have to always assume that a politician means everything he says and then try to come up with some convoluted explanation for why he believes these things.

Lying and taking positions to get elected obviously happens. Please let's stop assuming these things away.

Obama says and does a lot of this stuff not because he's brain damaged from living through the Reagan era, or any other convoluted explanation. He's often just lying about what he thinks and what he really supports because he thinks it will gain him political capital and be for the greater good. And without doing this at least sometimes almost no one could be very successful in politics and have much impact.

Posted by: RichardHSerlin | January 23, 2011 3:04 AM | Report abuse


Usually we disagree, but I see no flaws in your argument today. Perhaps as Bogart would say, this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. (at least until the next Krugman column)

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | January 23, 2011 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge'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

© 2011 The Washington Post Company