Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Another big loss looming today? In another vote drawing battle lines for the midterms, Democrats are expected to lose the Senate's vote on the DISCLOSE act, because they couldn't get a single Republican to support their effort to reverse the Citizens United decision allowing corporate money to dominate our elections.

* The White House is already going on the offensive, directly calling out Republicans for obstructing the measure, signaling that this will be a major campaign issue this fall, whatever the vote's outcome.

* Which makes this messaging from Chuck Schumer seem puzzling:

"If we fail to act now, the winner of November's elections won't be Democrats or Republicans, it'll be special interests."

Republicans won't be the winners if this goes down? By contrast, Republicans have not refrained from blasting the proposal as a secret Dem plot to game the midterms.

* Good read: House Dems who are now vulnerable after taking a tough vote on cap and trade feel like they got shafted by Senate Dems who have now abandoned climate change.

* Blame where blame is due: As the finger-pointing continues, let's remember that the climate change bill's death is largely the fault of a few "centrist" Dem Senators who let this extraordinary momentous decision be dictated by Republicans yelling "boo" from the sidelines.

* Remember last summer's town halls? House Dems vow not to get caught flat-footed again and plan to go on offense in their districts this August. The message: Bush, Bush, Bush.

* But: Dozens of freshman and sophomore Reps who helped Dems regain the majority are now severly vulnerable and could get swept away.

* Jonathan Chait reminds skittish Democrats that they hold the upper hand in the battle over whether to extend the Bush tax cuts.

* Joe Conason nails it: The only thing the Journolist "scandal" proves is that the right is still capable of dominating the media narrative with bogus, manufactured controversies.

* The real story behind the WikiLeaks disclosures may be that the leaks are getting more attention than the content of the docs themselves and are unlikely to force a change in Obama's war strategy.

* Matt Yglesias notes that Senator Jeff Sessions's call for hearings into the New Black Panther story is perfectly consistent with his record of "defending white interests."

* Adam Serwer predicts that if the current investigation into the New Black Panther tale turns up nothing, Republicans will launch an investigation of that investigation's failure.

* And the random deep thought of the day: Maybe mainstream news orgs should refrain from lavishing attention on Sarah Palin when she describes people who work for mainstream news orgs as crazy and evil.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  July 27, 2010; 8:25 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Climate change , Foreign policy and national security , House Dems , Morning Plum , Political media , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Yet again, it all turns on Olympia Snowe

Comments

Greg, that Robert's piece on the death of the Climate bill is terrific. The list of reasons is long and I just keep thinking of Obama's back up plan, the EPA. He came out and said yesterday that he will veto any legislation that diminishes their power. That meant a lot to me and I was very encouraged by it. It doesn't help House members though.

Posted by: lmsinca | July 27, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Greg, you're awesome.

One thing I want to tell you is next time you talk about Andrew Breitbart make sure you unequivocally state that he is a smear merchant who has no reputation left. YOU are influential, it is not enough that you exhort others to say it and only lightly question his credibility, by saying things like "is his credibility tarnished"?

You need to say Andrew Breitbart's credibility is nonexistent and anyone who still believes this idiot isn't doing their job or doesn't know how to do their job. Shep Smith said he didn't and still doesn't trust Breitbart's information, can you give Smith some credit?

Other than that, you are the s.h.i.t! The Plum Line is a must read for me. If I don't read anything else, I'll read you. Keep up the good work and isn't it about time the WashingtonPost gives you a column on the print edition? When they do, let me know and I'll buy a subscription.

Posted by: magnus_terra | July 27, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

On the DISCLOSE act - how many Americans even know what this is, know what the Citizen's United decision was or care. From a political win/loss column perspective this vote is meaningless, it does nothing to energize anyone. I assure you none of the 50 people around me at work have any clue what this is or what it means.

As a citizen who doesn't want corporations just drowning the air waves with their money I consider it a loss but as win/lose politics it's meaningless.

Posted by: zattarra | July 27, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

In another vote drawing battle lines for the midterms, Democrats are expected to lose the Senate's vote on the DISCLOSE act, because they couldn't get a single Republican to support their effort to reverse the Citizens United decision allowing corporate money to dominate our elections.
==================================

Of course not, Republicans would rather their billionaire friends just leave the money on the nightstand. No need for the voters to know who, how much, and such as.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024866.php
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | July 27, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

"Blame where blame is due: As the finger-pointing continues, let's remember that the climate change bill's death is largely the fault of a few "centrist" Dem Senators who let this extraordinary momentous decision be dictated by Republicans yelling "boo" from the sidelines."
---------------------------------------------

LOL! Sure. It's *their* fault that 58 is less than 60. Where is the outrage?

Posted by: CalD | July 27, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Greg, one thing I left out of my comment was that I know you have exposed Breitbart and his smear tactics.

The point I want to stress is that I don't want you to let up. I always notice that liberal commentators, online and on tv, just move on from something after a person has been exposed to be a lying hack. And I don't want this smear merchant to be given a pass. You not only need to tell people that they're getting their information from, highlighting someone who has no credibility but YOU NEED TO ALSO CALL THEM OUT ON IT. Straight up. You need to call out that trash sheet, also known as Politico, for their sleazy, disgustingly fawning, sycophantic reporting(if I could even call it that) on Andrew Breitbart and all that he does. Politico is the Fox News of the internet and you need to call them out on their blatant bias when they refer to themselves as an "objective" news source.

Posted by: magnus_terra | July 27, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

re Disclose Act...depressing, of course, but not surprising.

It seems clear that campaign financing is the meta-issue that trumps all others in US politics. It is the means by which those entities who possess great power and wealth can maintain their privileged position of dominance in the society. Any move to diminish this system will uniquely unify these entities in opposition.

One can't help but wonder what is going on in the noggins of the SC justices who sided with the majority in Citizens United. These aren't stupid people. But they've clearly found reason or justification for following an ideological scheme which will (quite obviously) have the consequence of diminishing the power of the broad citizenry and increasing the already enormous power of the wealthy and powerful entities in the state. I don't know how else one might imagine their thinking other than 1) as a severe Platonic notion that democracy (as normally understood) is a foolish and dangerous romanticism and that the silly masses must be corralled and led by their superiors or 2) as a notion that the stability of the status quo is in serious danger of faltering (because of the nature of humans) and so must be bolstered and protected even if precious hopes/ideals/national mythologies must be tossed aside in the process.

To draw an analogy, Citizens United pretends that it is 'democratic' and 'just' and a continuation of the founders' intent to have one or two in a townhall meeting who have bullhorns (while others do not) and who shout over top of all other voices who attempt to speak drowning those other voices into inaudibility (except perhaps to those very proximate to them). The pretense here is that, in this analogy, it is a threat to free speech rights (thus to true democracy) to make a law banning bullhorns or mandating Roberts Rules of Order.

One aspect of this which is so odd is that these people in the majority seem to believe that anarchy is just around the corner and that the only way to stave it off is through pretending that giving licence and means for those in power to stay in power, regardless of democratic and justice principles, is something other than anarchy.

We're in for a rough future, I think.

Posted by: bernielatham | July 27, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

I reside within the inner city of Chicago and just last night the City experienced 9 people shot while waiting to board a bus.

The Democrats in Congress should be ashamed to vote for a piece of legislation that enpowers the NRA.

Vote "NO" on the disclose act!

Posted by: mwhoke | July 27, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Greg says: "The real story behind the WikiLeaks disclosures may be that the leaks are getting more attention than the content of the docs themselves and are unlikely to force a change in Obama's war strategy."

The Taliban having heat seeking missiles seems like the only real hard news from the documents.

I'd like to see a large debate around why some of those documents were classified to begin with. Post 9/11, the mindset seems to be "when in doubt, classify." That is dangerous to democracy.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

thanks magnus, I'll communicate that to the overlords. :)

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 27, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

The only effective response to an anonymous attack ad is to take it apart piece by piece, play pieces of the attack ad that can be refuted and have the attacked candidate expose any falsehoods personally on the air.

A candidate looking you in the eye and telling the truth has got to be more effective than an anonymous voiceover spreading rumors or outright falsehood. It it isn't, then we're pretty much doomed.

Posted by: Gallenod | July 27, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Steve Clemons has a blurb at TPM about Afghani police getting stoned prior to going out on patrol. A member of the 82nd Airborn gave video evidence to a reporter.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/26/afghan_national_police_pot_before_patrol/?ref=fpblg

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

It's hard to imagine us leaving Afghanistan anytime soon. How many presidents in our history have abandoned a war before it was won? I don't think Obama wants to be remembered for that, unfortunately. Not to mention the fears it would stoke of allowing terrorists another safe haven without an American military presence in the area.

Posted by: SDJeff | July 27, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

imsinca, more about Elizabeth Warren.

"Why Elizabeth Warren Will Likely Be Confirmed"

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/76570/why-elizabeth-warren-will-likely-be-confirmed

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

That Schumer quote is telling regarding the detente that rules the Senate. No interest from Senate Dems to attack the status quo (also registered in their climate change votes).

Where are House Dems? Where is the aggressive push back? Grayson? There needs to be a small, focused, active group of Dem Reps who get on news programs to constantly call out the GOP record of obstruction and sabotage of working government.

If they are going to wait till the fall to push hard for Nov., I'm afraid it may be too late.

Posted by: BGinCHI | July 27, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

"It's hard to imagine us leaving Afghanistan anytime soon. How many presidents in our history have abandoned a war before it was won? I don't think Obama wants to be remembered for that, unfortunately."

Well, the Generals said they could get the job done by summer of 2011 and Karzai's Govn't would be able to take over and control the place themselves. If that place goes to hell from that point forward, some blame could go to Obama for appointing the Generals he appointed to get the job done, but some blame will lay on the corrupt and dysfunctional Afghan govn't who's rep is getting tarnished every time one of these leaks gets out about corruption at the highest lvl's of govn't.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | July 27, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Wow, the Liberals and Mr Sargent have got the full on whiney baby thing going for them this fine, fine morning.

Soooo, the Democrats attempt to limit free speech to just their billionaires while protecting incumbents won't pass in the senate?

Well it looks like our first amendment rights are safe for another day. Hoo ray for that.

Tell me, I'm just asking is all: why don't the liberals think that unions who spend millions on elections ARE NOT special interests?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 27, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Thanks again Sue. I don't see how they can refuse her the position now. Too much push in her favor and the screaming if she doesn't get it will be deafening. Next step is to reinvent HAMP. I've heard some rumors regarding this but nothing confirmed yet AFAIK.

Greg, I think your framing of the DISCLOSE Act is a little off after reading it a second time. It doesn't reverse Citizens United, merely brings transparency to campaign financing. And who wouldn't want that? Well, we know who don't we, Carl Rove et al.

Posted by: lmsinca | July 27, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Unions are included. What are Republicans afraid of? Never mind......

"Also known as the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, the DISCLOSE Act mandates that corporations and unions spending on campaigns and running political advertising publicly identify top donors and related information.

It would also restrict foreign-controlled corporations from spending money in U.S. elections."

Posted by: lmsinca | July 27, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and I loooove the selective attention of the Mr Sargent and Mr Ygelias.

So, Sessions is gonna get the hammer from the journ o list boys and girls.

but the silence about Senator Webb's WSJ editorial is defeaning. At least I expected Mr Sargent or someone of his ilk to castigate the guy for wandering off the liberal plantation. Imagine, making a case that Whites are being systematically discriminated against! What nerve.

Look what Macaca wrought, eh Mr Sargent?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 27, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Oh, thanks for the update. What section of the proposed bill contains that language you quoted? If what you shared isn't from the bill itself, perhaps you would be kind enough to provide the provenance of the quote so I can judge its validity for myself.

thanks.


The disclose act is an abridgement of our first amendment rights. We've had enough of that.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 27, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

skippy: "Tell me, I'm just asking is all: why don't the liberals think that unions who spend millions on elections ARE NOT special interests?"

Psst...here's a little clue...The unions are not left out of DISCLOSE. And no one is objecting to that.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

If this weren't so tragic, it would be hilarious:
==================
I reside within the inner city of Chicago and just last night the City experienced 9 people shot while waiting to board a bus.

The Democrats in Congress should be ashamed to vote for a piece of legislation that enpowers the NRA.

Vote "NO" on the disclose act!

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

Did the NRA kill those folks? No. so why blame them?

IMHO blaming the NRA is far easier than confronting the failure of the liberal social agenda to budge the dreadful circumstances in America's ghettos.

Instead of whining about the NRA, wouldn't a better question be: why are these people killing each other? Why does a black man's chances of dying via homicide 26 times greater than a white man's? What role do our government programs play in that? What should we do about it?

No, far easier to castigate a gun rights group than to face the harder questions concerning intractable failure in our inner cities.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 27, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

As I asked earlier, kindly provide the chapter and verse that proves your point Sue.

If indeed the unions are included I'll gladly aknowledge that they, too, dodged a bullet as congress once again attempted to snatch away our first amendment rights while protecting their own incumbency.

so when you find that, just let me know.

thanks.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 27, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I find it ugly and bizarre that so-called conservatives have lost all sense of decency. Look at Skipsailing just a moment ago, for example, calling us "whiney babies" for no apparent reason other than the fact that we are discussing issues. Republicans have friends, family, children, grandparents... They pick up their children at soccer games, they go to neighborhood picnics...

But when it comes to politics you have everyone from young activists to little old ladies hopping on the internet and literally assaulting anyone who disagrees.

Yesterday, I was offended by a commenter who said the Dems are "facist" [sic] and that we have a "final solution." Naturally I said I was offended by such offensive remarks.

I literally spent the next hour defending myself from calling out what amounts to a vicious and reprehensible which compared Dem policies to the Holocaust. I asked the commenter to apologize and they refused. Other conservatives jumped all over me, suggesting that I wasn't a Jew! And that I baited the "final solution" commenter by saying I was Jewish (tho it was after his initial comment). The same person continued to taunt me, calling me a "facist" again.

What is it about politics that brings this out in conservative Americans?

Is it ego?

Is it fear?

Is it the sense of empowerment that people feel from being anonymous?

Granted, I have strong views and make them clear. I also spent about an hour defending the fact that social programs have helped the African-American community. I said that the Republican Party has a racist agenda. Strong feelings, but I believe it to be true given a litany of actions and statements. Nobody I was "debating" argued that it wasn't true. Nobody said they were offended by my language. Nobody asked me to stop using that language. I would have, if someone was interested in having a discussion, and indeed eventually there was one individual with whom I disagreed but we had a civil debate.

But why do I need to defend myself when I reject usage of Nazi/Holocaust rhetoric?

Why are Republicans SO hateful that they will defend their use of the worst human catastrophe in history in making a political point?

Why do Republicans love their neighbor but hate diversity?

Why do Republicans relentlessly attack anyone who disagrees with them regardless of either factual evidence or any sense of human decency?

And I'm not just talking about comments here, obviously.

Go to any article at Politico. Go to any article at The Hill. You will find an endless stream of these people.

Who are they?

Why are they the way they are?

Why do they so callously disregard the "Do Unto Others" Judeo-Christian philosophy that, no doubt, influences their behavior amongst like-minded folks?

And why are they so willing to cast aside The Golden Rule -- which has guided the better aspects of humanity for over 1,000 years -- simply because it goes against the Fox News conspiracy drumbeat?

I don't get it. I really don't.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

skippy: The disclose act is an abridgement of our first amendment rights. We've had enough of that.

No it's not. It makes the first amendment transparent, so everyone can know who's doing what shouting.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Sec. 214. ENHANCE DISCLAIMERS TO IDENTIFY SPONSORS OF ADS
• Require Leaders of Corporations, Unions, and Organizations to Identify that
they are Behind Political Ads. If any covered organization (corporation, union,
section 501(c)(4),(5), or (6) organization, or section 527 organization) makes
disbursements for an independent expenditure or electioneering communication, the
CEO or highest ranking official of that organization will be required to appear on
camera to say that he or she “approves this message,” just like candidates have to do
now.
• In order to prevent “Shadow Groups”, Require Top Donors To Appear in
Political Ads They Funded. In order to prevent individuals and entities from
funneling money through shell groups in order to mask their activities, the legislation
will include the following requirements:
o The top funder of the advertisement must also record a stand-by-your-ad
disclaimer.
o The top five donors of non-restricted funds to an organization that purchases
campaign-related TV advertising will be listed on the screen at the end of the
advertisement. This has been used very successfully in Washington State and
is the model for this section in the legislation.

Posted by: lmsinca | July 27, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

All, it's not out of the question that DISCLOSE could pass today. It all turns on Olympia Snowe:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/yet_again_it_all_turns_on_olym.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 27, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Of course you don't get it Ethan. You live under and different rule: do as I say, not as I do.

For liberals to complain about the state of discourse in America today is simply hilarious. You guys spent almost ten years in a temper tantrum about Bush. you violated every rule about decency in so doing.

That's the playing field now. Chrissie calls it hard ball. Too bad for you that don't have what it takes to stand in the batter's box Ethan.

Remember all the "Kill Bush" signs at rallies Ethan? I certainly do. Remember "general Betrayus" Ethan? I certainly do. How about Kerry's "wind up in Iraq" truth telling? Remember that Ethan? I certainly do.

Do you know why I remember that stuff so well Ethan? Because my son was in Iraq when it happened.

I watched as the left engaged in a massive adoption of the good old "ends justify the means" rule during the Bush Admin. Now you wonder why people don't spare your feelings?

come now. This is a bed you made. Why not just lie in it? If the methods you used are now being used against you, why complain? Are you honestly expecting a double standard? do you honestly believe that the left's behavior has been the paradigm for virtuous political discourse?

As near as I can tell, Mr Alinsky's book is readily available at Amazon. If Obama can use it, why can't a conservative? If ridicule is a tool, then both sides of the debate can employ it, no?

Just look at Mr Sargent's response to Ms Palin. His friends and colleagues discussed ways to discredit her by spreading lies about her child. What mother would accept that? What decent person would even think it? And Mr Sargent blows off Ms Palin's concerns as no big deal.

OK fine. If that kind of thing is no big deal then the left should expect hammer and tongs from their opposition. That's the way they play the game, so don't whine when the opposition plays to win.

Now you want civility? It is to laugh.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 27, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Oh Ethan, I researching my response to you, read a fair amount of the emails posted at the daily caller.

How many have you read? If the number is greater than zero, tell me, did you stumble across this?
"Kathleen Geier
Aug 30, 2008, 5:20pm

When I first heard this story, I thought it was preposterous. (And btw, a scenario similar to this lurid tale occurred last season on Desperate Housewives). And maybe I really am losing it, driven over the edge at last by my hatred of all things Republican, but at this point I’m starting to believe it.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/26/raw-journolist-emails-on-palins-downs-child/8/#ixzz0utp4YmRf"

so hatred of all things republican is OK for this liberal, right? Just like the lady who reveled in the opportunity to watch Mr Limbaugh die.

Once again, Ethan, people in tin houses should not throw can openers. Or something to that effect.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 27, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I find it ironic that you complain about the media paying attention to Sarah Palin so much, but mention her ALL THE TIME. You know you are a part of the media right?

Posted by: adammc123 | July 27, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

So, in essence, Skip, the reason why you feel it is okay for conservatives to REGULARLY use Holocaust rhetoric (even against someone who is Jewish) is because people on the Left used to bash Bush?

Seriously?

Do you have a "line" that demarcates what is acceptable and what is not acceptable? If so, where do you mark that line?

I have seen photos of activists hanging Bush in effigy. I find that reprehensible and condemn that type of despicable assault and have condemned it a number of times. I did protest Bush a couple of times in Washington DC but never would participate in that kind of violent behavior.

Do you also condemn violent rhetoric and imagery on the right?

Because you have not so far, even when brought to light that I have been personally insulted with Holocaust comments. Not Bush, not Obama, me and my family. And that bothers me inordinately.

As I said, if anything I've said was taken to be insulting and someone told me so, I would apologize, and I have done so.

By refusing to condemn what YOUR party is doing, you are implying that what extremists on both sides do is okay.

You are implying that it is okay to personally insult someone who is only connected to politics out of pure interest and passion for their country.

That is exactly the double-standard that bothers me.

I hope you will join me in condemning violent and insulting rhetoric on the Right.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

re: the Palin quotation.

I just skimmed through 15 pages of journolist emails.

What I saw was an intellectual discussion on the topic.

Do you think it is fair to pick one email out of HUNDREDS and suggest it is a trend?

So what about that one comment?

What about the 500 other comments that said, "Don't go there, don't attack Palin for having a Down's Syndrome baby?"

What about the REALITY of that thread?

The REALITY of that thread is, as I said, that it is an intellectual discussion on the topic. NOT a Palin/GOP hatefest.

I ask again:

Do you think it is FAIR to pick one email out of HUNDREDS and suggest it is a trend?

Or is it not fair?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

i don't know how effective these will be, but i LIKE them:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/07/theres-a-republican-for-that.html

Posted by: ebproducer | July 27, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

You say, " Another big loss looming today? In another vote drawing battle lines for the midterms, Democrats are expected to lose the Senate's vote on the DISCLOSE act, because they couldn't get a single Republican to support their effort to reverse the Citizens United decision allowing corporate money to dominate our elections."

Maybe. But I'm completely against the DISCLOSE act and I don't think corporations are persons with independent Constitutional rights at all. (Property rights they exercise on behalf of their shareholders, but what invester in a typical corporation wants the company to SPEAK for them?)

Disclose act is intrusive on citizens and being rammed through with no transparency by committee review where the Congress is concerned. That is upside down and Congress should be ashamed of themselves for this act.

Go about it better.

Posted by: sailingaway1 | July 27, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

What are you talking about with the holocaust?

My point is pretty straightforward. The lay of the land now is knock-down-drag-out, no-holds-barred brawling.

This is because for nearly a decade now the liberals have been having a tantrum about Bush.

I'm not judging that one way or the other. I'm simply saying that this is the level of discourse we've accepted now. You don't have to like it. I get that.

but if the liberals used it, and it works, and they show no intention of abandonning it, and they don't, then the opposition would be foolish not to play to win.

it is really that simple. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

and I'm not praising or condemning anyone ethan. I'm simply making observations about the state of play in American society today.

it is what it is. We're playing to win. As Flo says "Better get used to it"

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 27, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Yes, ethan. I was responding to your concerns about conservative discourse. I was merely pointing out that hatred occurs on the left. I used the email as an example of that hatred.

My point remains, today's landscape is very combative. It is what it is. The liberals/Democrats made it this way. Now they are unwilling to be on the recieving end of this.

the holier than thou stance that the left has taken is simply a lie. The left hates, and the journ o list release provided additional evidence of that.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 27, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"The left hates, and the journ o list release provided additional evidence of that."

Again. ONE EMAIL out of HUNDREDS.

Absurd and mindless.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company