Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Yes, a new CNN poll finds that 68 percent oppose the Islamic center near Ground Zero. But the poll calls it a "mosque," and doesn't ask people if they support government intervention to block it, which is the rub here.

Also: The worse the polling gets on this, the more urgent it becomes for politicans and others to stand up against the mob and support the project. This controversy is a test of whether our public officials have the guts to defend people's rights when it's difficult to do so -- that is, when an organized faction, for transparent political reasons, is trying to make the political cost of doing so too high.

* Ben Smith says the mosque controversy is ripe for an Obama "reconciliation" cameo, and that this is precisely the type of situation that brings out his best.

* Conservatives are ripping into Harry Reid for saying: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican."

* Reid hits back, charging that Sharron Angle has blacked out the Hispanic media and supports possible changes to the 14th amendment.

* And: Reid goes up with a new ad hitting Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" talk as "crazy," "dangerous," and "way too extreme." I'm getting the sense that Reid wants us to think Angle is a whackjob or something.

* Kate Pickert does a nice job dissecting the latest numbers supposedly proving the "anchor baby" problem.

* Scott Wilson asks: Whatever you think of Robert Gibbs' barbs about the "professional left," is his candor itself a sign he should reassign himself?

* The RNC is seizing on Gibbs's barbs to push the "Dems in dissaray" narrative.

* And it seems kind of odd that Gibbs answered "yes" when asked today if he stood by his comments.

* The White House take on Senator Michael Bennet's win yesterday: It proves Obama voters can be rallied to turn out for off-year elections.

* But the NRSC counters that last night, "roughly 68,000 more Republicans voted in Colorado than did Democrats."

* And John Cornyn says Dem efforts to tar GOP candidates with the Tea Party is just a distraction from the real topic of the election: "Jobs, spending, and debt."

* Aqua Buddha gets its own Website.

* And some 40 religious leaders and scholars have issued a statement condemning Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich for "xenophobia" and "bigotry" in opposing the Islamic center.

It's not every day that religious leaders see the need to band together and wade into politics, but Palin and Gingrich are bringing out the best in us all!

What else is happening?

UPDATE, 6:32 p.m.: Forgot to link the new WSJ/NBC poll, which finds 58 percent think Obama has roughly met expectations. But, interestingly, the public thinks he's fallen short on multiple individual issues.

Also: New numbers from the same poll show that only slightly more have a negative view of the Tea Party than view it positively, which makes one wonder if the Dem strategy of tarring the GOP as the Party of Tea is about anything more than juicing up the Dem base.

By Greg Sargent  |  August 11, 2010; 5:57 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Foreign policy and national security , Happy Hour Roundup , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bachmann and Angle agree: State aid is "laundered" money for Dems
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

The GOP plan: lose your job, blame it on Obama

This is a watershed moment, and one that should be in a thousand campaign ads: The Republicans had a chance to vote on a bill that cuts $1.3 billion from the deficit, while extending aid to states for teachers and firefighters that will otherwise lose their jobs.

Problem is, the package was paid for in part by closing a tax loophole that rewards companies that send jobs overseas.

And given that choice, Republicans opted for companies offshoring jobs rather than teachers and first responders.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/8/11/892226/-The-GOP-plan:-lose-your-job,-blame-it-on-Obama

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 11, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

* Ben Smith says the mosque controversy is ripe for an Obama "reconciliation" cameo, and that this is precisely the type of situation that brings out his best.

.....................

I heard a right wing talk radio guy(Medved?) suggest the very same thing, last night, on the PBS news hour.

They are just dying to sucker President Obama into that trap.

How the hell could he win. He would either piss of most Muslims or the large majority of those who are objecting to the center.

President Obama should stay a million miles away from this controversy. He has bigger fish to fry. If asked about it; all he should say is: "that is a local new york zoning issue, so I will leave that up to Mayor Bloomberg, and New York City authorities to handle. I am sure they are perfectly capable of doing so, without having people here in Washington butting in.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 11, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

70% say Obama has met or exceeded expectations:

58% think the president has performed as expected, 29% say he's done worse than expected, and 12% who believe he's done better than expected.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/11/4868688-nbcwsj-poll-public-is-fed-up-with-congress

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 11, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

FinReg in action:

Beginning Sunday, banks and credit unions no longer can approve and charge penalty fees for one-time debit-card purchases that exceed customers' account balances unless the account holders have agreed to "opt in," or accept overdraft coverage.

These transactions, along with ATM withdrawals that overdraw accounts, now will be declined for customers who don't accept the coverage. The rule took effect July 1 for customers who open new accounts.

For millions of consumers who've unwittingly overdrawn their accounts by small amounts and been stung by hefty penalty fees, the new Federal Reserve guidelines will put an end to one of the most expensive and aggravating trends in modern banking.

"For the first time in several years, customers will be able to use their debit card and ensure they don't spend more than they have," said Leslie Parrish, senior researcher at the Center for Responsible Lending, which works to end abusive financial practices. "There's still a lot of overdraft abuses out there, but this is really a great step forward."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/11/99029/bank-customers-get-break-from.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 11, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

* Kate Pickert does a nice job dissecting the latest numbers supposedly proving the "anchor baby" problem.

.....................

But what about the huge Anchor Parents immigration scam.

Every year, thousands of foreign orphans are using American Anchor Couples, to get adopted just to gain entry into the USA and become Citizens.

All those foreign infants might be plotting to grow up in the USA and launch terror attacks.

When it comes to national security, one can never be too careful.

Keep all those potential terrorist orphans out of the USA.

To show how serious I am about this; I have typed it while wearing a Patriotic Flag Pin.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 11, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

argh, I forgot about the new WSJ poll.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 11, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

"The worse the polling gets on this, the more urgent it becomes for politicans and others to stand up against the mob and support the project."

Absolutely, Greg. Thanks for saying this.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 11, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Aqua Buddha page is not as funny as it should be. And I wish someone other than Harry Reid made that comment about Hispanics. He's just too flawed of a messenger to make that kind of statement no matter its actual merits.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 11, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Lord. What is it about the Right and their McCarthyite fetish? Never seen such a paranoid, scared-of-their-own-shadows bunch.

The leaders of such fantasies are clever enough to prey on the insecure masses, and for that they get their own circle in Hell.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | August 11, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

just added links above to new WSJ poll. also new numbers in on the Tea Party...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 11, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Chuck,

I have been pointing out for the past few years; that Right Wingers are the biggest cowards of all. They are afraid of their own shadows. Every thing scares them. They live in constant fear of of their own overwrought imaginations. Many of them talk about Jack Bauer as if he actually exists.

Look at how they crave handguns, and they can not wait for a background check. Irrational Bedwetters is all they are.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 11, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

The GOP’s Intellectual Dishonesty About Bush Tax Cuts

Republicans say tax cuts for the wealthy must be kept to protect the economy and small businesses, but neither would be affected by their lapse.

Over at Ezra Klein’s blog, Dylan Matthews recently polled an ideologically diverse group of economists on what tax rate they think would begin to reduce, rather than increase, tax revenue. The answers generally ranged between 60 and 80 percent. There was a broad consensus that the Laffer effect does not kick in at the level of taxes we would revert to, which at the highest would likely be less than 40 percent. (Matthews also asked some members of the Republican congressional leadership, but none responded.)

[...] the argument that because of this principle the two highest marginal rates should not be allowed to revert from 33 percent to 35 percent, and from 36 to 39.6 percent, respectively, has little relation to macroeconomic reality. The economy performed better under those slightly higher Clinton-era rates than during the Bush era.

Even in the abstract, the claim that increasing by a few percentage points a few rich citizens’ tax rate will harm economic growth is implausible. Outside of yacht manufacturers, Bentley dealers, and real-estate agents on Martha’s Vineyard, not many workers depend on the slight variations in disposable income of the very wealthy for their livelihood.

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/08/11/republicans-intellectual-dishonesty-regarding-bush-tax-cuts.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 11, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Greg, what is this “lived up to expectations” versus “fallen short” in the NBC/WSJ poll? Is that normally how they do things? Seems odd. I prefer "approve/disapprove".

This "expectations" game seems unreliable. I might think he hasn't achieved my expectations on any given issue (or in general) but I might still approve of his job.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 11, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

And isn't it funny/ironic that it seems Obama's best issue is improved race relations?

Pretty good job... considering he is a racist who hates white people.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 11, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

The Economy.

It is looking like the recovery could stall out, and sink into a double dip recession, which would be far harder to dig out of, and last much longer than the first cycle.

That is why Businesses who have seen their profits increase, and their orders increase, need to start hiring now. They can not wait for consumer spending to increase, because that will not happen, until people see the unemployment figures drop substantially, which would restore consumer confidence.

If Business wants to avoid a another recession, which will destroy many of them, they better start hiring now, and banks better start lending now.

They can continue to sit on their resources, and they will bring on the double dip recession, that will wipe many of them out. They will lose more money from a double dip recession, than they would put at risk by adding workers, or in banks stepping up the granting of loans to small businesses, or on mortgage loans.

Government can only go so far in spending us out of the worst recession in 80 years. Businesses must now start to spend more, or they will fall back into a deep sink hole, which many of them will never crawl out of.

There are almost no manufacturing jobs left in the USA, so plant jobs are not available to hire some of the unemployed millions. We now make almost nothing that we could export to sell to the working classes in other nations. That is why we will continue to accumulate greater and greater trade imbalances.

We better figure out how to bring back the manufacturing of consumer products, to the USA, before it is too late. We can not continue to spend so much on imports, while providing no manufacturing jobs for the non-college masses.

New Housing starts will remain anemic, as long as their is such a glut of empty homes on the market, so the housing industry will not be able to jump start the hiring trend, either.

That is why: currently profitable businesses, and lending institutions must hire and lend now. It is do or die time, now.

If they sit out the recovery efforts much longer, it will be too late, and we will see something like the great depression take hold.

The outcome hangs in the balance, and only quick action by businesses and banks, to greatly increase hiring now, can avert a new great depression.

Consumers have been bled dry. They are not able to donate any more blood to the economic recovery.

Only businesses and banks still have enough in their blood banks to do that. They better start doing so now, or they too will soon bleed to death.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 11, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

"Also: New numbers from the same poll show that only slightly more have a negative view of the Tea Party than view it positively, which makes one wonder if the Dem strategy of tarring the GOP as the Party of Tea is about anything more than juicing up the Dem base."

Where the Democrats failed is pointing out the extremism of the tea party. They think everyone can see it but they forget most people watch Fox and fox doesn't highlight their extremism.

Posted by: soapm | August 11, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Reid answered a question today about his Hispanic comments yesterday by saying he was talking about Yucca Mountain. It's time we question, at his age, if he has all his mental faculties.

http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12963676

Posted by: Truthteller12 | August 11, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

With the Gibbs story yesterday I missed this in the WaPo regarding SS. They're really working hard to make the case that we need to fix the system now, before it's too late. Below the WaPo link is a cooler head, Dean Baker, who explains why now is exactly the wrong time, and the prescription is wrong as well. He rebuts he piece. Just keepin' everyone informed so when the commission issues it's report and asks for benefit cuts, they will, we know what's going on.

"What does not make sense is preemptively bashing the debt commission. Social Security is not a cause of the current or future debt, but putting it on a sustainable footing is essential to getting the nation's fiscal house in order. Doing so quickly is a condition for making the changes as painless as possible for those who rely on Social Security the most. The debt commission would perform an important service by ignoring the denialists and tackling this topic."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081005524.html

"The piece begins by telling readers that: "THIS YEAR, for the first time since 1983, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it receives from payroll taxes — $41 billion. This development is not an emergency, but it is a warning sign (emphasis in original)." It certainly is a warning sign. The falloff in Social Security tax revenue is a warning that the economy is seriously depressed due to the collapse of the housing bubble. Double digit unemployment leads to all sorts of problems, including the strains that it places on pension funds like Social Security.

In a sane newspaper the next sentence would be pointing out the urgent need to get back to full employment.

There is also a very good reason for delay. The opponents of Social Security have been spending huge amounts of money deliberately promoting misinformation. Peter Peterson, the richest and most prominent opponent, has repeatedly asserted that the Social Security trust fund does not exist. This flat earth view of the program has been given respectful treatment at the highest levels of government. When Peterson put on a daylong program on the deficit in the spring both of the co-chairs of President Obama’s deficit commission took part in the program as did former President Clinton.

This massive effort to undermine confidence in the program has been largely successful. Polls show that substantial majorities of younger workers do not expect to receive their Social Security benefits.

That is not a good environment in which to debate substantial changes to the country’s most important social program. Since there are several decades until the program faces any real problems, it is entirely reasonable for those who support the program to focus on educating the public about the program’s financial health and to seek to delay any major changes until the Peterson-type misinformation campaigns have been defeated."

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/64561

Posted by: lmsinca | August 11, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Here are a few House Dems to watch who say they will not accept cuts to benefits.

"Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), the chair of the Social Security Subcommittee on the House Ways and Means Committee, said that any benefit cuts to the program, including raising the retirement age, are “completely unacceptable” and should be taken off the table, contrasting many Democrats and even the House Majority Leader on the topic.

Pomeroy cited statistics that just 11% of all senior citizens are in poverty now, compared to 50% prior to Social Security, which celebrates its 75th anniversary on Saturday. Noting that the average benefit comes out to about $14,000 a year, Pomeroy and his colleagues on the call, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL) repeatedly rejected any calls for benefit cuts. Schakowsky said that revenue enhancements, like bringing the payroll tax cap back to its expected level of capturing 90% of all compensation, would be preferable. The trio also rejected any talk of privatization with personal accounts in the stock market. “How much risk do you want to add into this system that pays $14,000 a year,” Pomeroy asked. “We need one place where income is completely dependable.”

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08/11/pomeroy-social-security-benefit-cuts-completely-unacceptable/

Posted by: lmsinca | August 11, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Can someone enlighten me as to the Republican GOTV strategy. Are they trying to do Obama's work for him?

Can someone explain their electoral strategy?

Let's see...start by
1. Years of alienation of the AA community with "welfare queens" and "Willie Horton ads.

2.) Piss off the Hispanic community with the most xenophobic insensitive approach to immigration that they actually want to rewrite our Constitution to make sure those "anchor babies" are thrown out.

3.) Make sure no one of the Muslim faith EVER votes R again by not only opposing the Cordoba Mosque but Mosques across the nation. One conservative bloviater a talk radio host actually proposed outlawing ANY BUILDING PERMITS ANYWHERE IN OUR NATION FOR A SINGLE MOSQUE. And these idiots say they support our Constitution and want their country back?

4.) Bash gays incessantly calling them wonderful things like an abomination against God and that Gays will destroy the American family...that's if they're not to busy being pedophiles. BTW sbj do you enjoy supporting a party that includes a substantial number who consider you a pedophile?

Lets see where are we...
A.A's no chance of voting republican.
Hispanics no chance of voting republican
Muslims no chance of voting republican
Gays no chance of voting republican.

Well there are still the whites left...oops unless they're firefighters, policemen, teachers or other public employees...you know those "special interests" the D's are using to launder money. That's right why would this group that the R's didn't want to help save their jobs..it's not like these people might vote their pocketbooks.

Harry Reid may have been inarticulate, he might have been pandering or politicking but one thing is CERTAIN SBJ REID WAS RIGHT. He should have said it more correctly. Any Hispanic voting R is obviously voting against his own interests.

But wait...here is the R plan...they hope a significant segment of our society develops "Stockholm Syndrome"...yeah that's the ticket. After all they have a running start with the kool aid drinkers watching Fox.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 11, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

"We better figure out how to bring back the manufacturing of consumer products, to the USA, before it is too late."

Liam, my Hibernian bro, as fate would have it, I work (rep, actually) for one of the last large [4K employess plus distributers], profitable [$1.3B/Rev], PRIVATE manufacturers in the US.

As to "figure out"...I can think of at least two.

HahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaH
{{{deep breath}}}

Guesses?

Posted by: tao9 | August 11, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Slave-Sargent:

"But the poll calls it a "mosque," and doesn't ask people if they support government intervention to block it, which is the rub here."

No, it is not the "rub" here. You continue to ignore the fact that it is entirely reasonable and acceptable to acknowledge the right of the organizers to build what they want while at the same time objecting to, criticizing, and attempting to prevent what is at best an insensitive project and at worst a blatant provocation. Your insistence that that the only relevant issue is the rights of the organizers to do what they want is either stubborn stupidity or pure propaganda.

"Also: The worse the polling gets on this, the more urgent it becomes for politicans and others to stand up against the mob and support the project."

This is simpleminded rubbish. No one is obligated to actively "support" an action that they (along with huge majorities of Americans) oppose simply because the actor has the right to engage in the action. Politicians and others are not obligated to "support", say, private clubs that exclude women simply because the owners of the clubs have the right to exclude women.

And your use of the term "mob" is notable. Were you using the term "mob" to describe majorities of Americans who reviled insurance company executives during the health care debates? And were you urging politicians to support those insurance company executives against the "mob" and the pressures on them to alter their perfectly constitutional business operations? Of course not. To you the majority is a "mob" to be held at bay only when the "mob" disagrees with Greg Sargent.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 11, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

The tu quoque rebuttal to Greg's definitional crack misses the mark.

To call nearly 3/4 of the American polity (the people being the definitive form of our constitutional organization) a "mob" belies a contempt often found but rarely so overtly expressed by an establishment liberal.

Posted by: tao9 | August 11, 2010 11:34 PM | Report abuse

tao:

"To call nearly 3/4 of the American polity (the people being the definitive form of our constitutional organization) a "mob" belies a contempt often found but rarely so overtly expressed by an establishment liberal. "

Good point.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 11, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

RE: "But the NRSC counters that last night, 'roughly 68,000 more Republicans voted in Colorado than did Democrats.'"

Assuming the NRSC numbers are accurate [It would be nice to have some independent verification.], is the difference in voters solely due to a discrepancy in the number of votes cast at physical polling locations? Or is this a discrepancy in total votes?

Please offer clarification on this issue, since CNN is reporting:

"For the first time, a majority of counties in the state [Colorado], 46 of 64, only used mail-in ballots for a statewide partisan primary. In previous elections, counties could offer the convenience of allowing voters to send in their ballots but could not use that system exclusively."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/11/colorado-voters-mail-it-in/#more-117458

If the discrepancy is due to differences in physical poll voting and not a discrepancy in total votes cast across all voting methods, this all may just be Republicans again trying to make lemonade out of the oh-so-bitter lemons the Republican establishment was served with Buck's win.

Posted by: associate20 | August 12, 2010 1:57 AM | Report abuse

What if we took a poll to decide if you should have the right to vote, tao9?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 12, 2010 7:47 AM | Report abuse

All, morning roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/the_morning_plum_72.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 12, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Scott C said: "You continue to ignore the fact that it is entirely reasonable and acceptable to acknowledge the right of the organizers to build what they want while at the same time objecting to, criticizing, and attempting to prevent what is at best an insensitive project and at worst a blatant provocation."

Yes, and you or I or any others have the 'right' to organize to kick all the sneaky Christ-killing Jews out of town. It's important to assert this 'right'.

As to "insensitivity" and "provocation"...clearly undesirable behaviors. Allowing blacks to sit near the front of the bus, allowing women's faces or legs to be seen, flying the American flag in Hiroshima, or allowing gay people to kiss in public - undesirable behaviors all because they were insensitive and provocative. And then there's the aspect of the blindingly stupid refusal to consider the consequences of initiatives like this one as insensitive and provocative to Muslims and other religious leaders (of the non-bigot sort) around the world.

"Politicians and others are not obligated to "support", say, private clubs that exclude women simply because the owners of the clubs have the right to exclude women."

You're right. They are obligated, as a consequence of your Bill of Rights and Constitution, to support initiatives and policies which do NOT discriminate against minorities or religious groups and to oppose those which do discriminate.

As to "mob"... majorities of southern whites who didn't want blacks riding up front in buses or majorities of Germans who didn't want the damned gypsies and Jews in the neighborhood. The last adjective appropriate to use is "mob". We're talking "will of the people". And let's just note that for-profit corporate heads are exactly the same as a religious, racial or ethnic community.

And why the hell don't you try to get a little honest here Scott and address the growing demands from the right across the US to disallow the building or the presence of mosques ANYWHERE?

Posted by: bernielatham | August 12, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Bernie,
No matter how much you want it to be...it's not 1964 anymore.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, yeah, good one ifya(onlyhadabrain). OOO! OW!

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

When I saw "Slave-Sargeant", I though it was gonna be Bilgy. I'm sad that it wasn't. Sorry, Scott, you can't touch Bilgy's level of crazy.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | August 12, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Bernie says:

"Yes, and you or I or any others have the 'right' to organize to kick all the sneaky Christ-killing Jews out of town. It's important to assert this 'right'. "

Right. Objecting to the building of a center dedicated to Islam on the site of a mass murder and attack on the nation committed by Muslims in the name of Islam is perfectly analagous to objecting to the very existence of Jews. Bernie "relevant distinctions" Latham sure is one sharp thinker.

"As to "insensitivity" and "provocation"...clearly undesirable behaviors. Allowing blacks...allowing women's faces or legs...allowing gay people to kiss in public... - undesirable behaviors all because they were insensitive and provocative."

The use of the term "allowed" shows your confusion (or your attempt to confuse others). The insensitivity and/or provocation has nothing to do with being "allowed". It is a function of the action itself. And your inability to make relevant distinctions rears its ugly head again. Some provocations are good behaviors, others are not. Citing certain provacative behavior that was both justified and good (blacks sitting in the front of the bus) does not, as you stupidly seem to think (or dishonestly want others to think) mean that all provacative behavior is justified and good.

I suspect that, should the NRA insist, over the objections of the local population, on opening a shooting range and gun education center on the site of a mass murder where a group of madmen shot and killed hundreds of people, your seeming inability to grasp the nature of the provocation/insensitivity would disappear quickly, and I you would hardly be summoning the images of blacks at lunch counters or "no Jews allowed" signs in defense of the NRA's constitutional right to open the center.

""And let's just note that for-profit corporate heads are exactly the same as a religious, racial or ethnic community."

In all relevant ways (ie with regard to their constitutional rights and their treatment before the law), yes they are. That you don't think so shows how just how shallow and false is your ostensible dedication to constitutional rights.

"And why the hell don't you try to get a little honest here Scott and address the growing demands from the right across the US to disallow the building or the presence of mosques ANYWHERE?"

Right. In Bernie's view, the failure to address an issue which has not been raised yet is somehow "dishonest".

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 12, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Chuck:

"When I saw "Slave-Sargeant", I though it was gonna be Bilgy. I'm sad that it wasn't."

Just my little tribute to a martyr of Greg's partisanship.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 12, 2010 10:57 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