Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Jim Geraghty, who is deeply sourced within the Sharron Angle campaign, explains that there's real method behind the apparent madness. Seriously, it's worth a read.

* And: Angle, who has plainly discussed phasing out Social Security in the past, goes on the offensive in a new ad attacking Harry Reid for wanting to raid the Social Security trust fund for his "pet projects."

* Gettin' the message yet? Chuck Schumer concedes voters are "sour" and vows that Dems will attempt another series of jobs-related measures heading into the midterms. Please do!

* In another big (albeit possibly temporary) victory for gay rights, the judge who overturned Prop 8 says gays can start getting married in California next Wednesday, though the 9th Circuit court could still overrule that decision.

* David Kurtz feeds the anti-mosque crowd to the lions, going back 2000 years to explain why the anti-mosque campaign is decidedly un-Christian.

* Lede of the day, on the GOP plan to extend the Bush tax cuts:

A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday.

Could that be any clearer?

* Michael Tomasky says we should prepare ourselves for "another stroll down the supply-side hall of mirrors," and it's true that this discussion is going to dominate come September. Wonder if Dems will blink.

* PolitiFact (mostly) skewers Lindsey Graham's claim about the illegal immigrant strategy known as "drop and leave," finding it "misleading."

* Taegan Goddard notes that the new NBC/WSJ poll shows a massive lead for Republicans only in the south, and asks: "Are Republicans becoming a regional party?"

* Former administration official Neera Tanden appears to (delicately) criticize the White House for urinating on the left, suggesting the White House should be trying to fire up liberals.

* Not everybody worships at the Anthony Weiner altar: A prominent DNC official, Robert Zimmerman, tells Weiner to stop grandstanding about the 9/11 health bill and bring it back up for a vote.

* And the mosque fight keeps on giving! Turns out Liz Cheney was actually an official at the Bush State Department when it sent the Imam behind the "Ground Zero mosque" abroad to Muslim countries. Wonder if she protested the decision at the time.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  August 12, 2010; 6:11 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Foreign policy and national security , Happy Hour Roundup , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans , Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Kristol group's game plan: Make it politically toxic for Dems to criticize Israel
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Greg, Steven Benen bar-graphed Taegan Goddard's post about the generic ballot. It's a rather stunning picture.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025179.php

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

yeah, I saw that, sue, thanks for pointing it out...wanted to give Taegan credit for the catch...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 12, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Good point on Weiner. The procedural concerns Weiner was complaining about are only an issue because of a procedure invoked by Dems to prevent Rs from adding potentially embarrassing amendments. However, such a procedure requires a 2/3 majority for the bill to pass.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

I've been harping on Social Security and the deficit commission for weeks and I was somewhat relieved to hear this today from Van Hollen. I don't trust anyone in the Dem caucus or the President as much as I used to but I'll take this as a positive development.

"Facing a historically difficult electoral landscape, Democratic leadership is planning to reconfigure its message by focusing on what the election could mean for the future of Social Security.

Top officials insist that among all the issues they've tested with voters, the one that yields the best results for the party is a pledge to protect the retirement program from privatization. And with the economy in the midst of a slow but painful recovery, health care reform still largely a mixed bag in terms of popularity, and an unpopular war in Afghanistan, Social Security has climbed to the top of the list of conversation topics out of both expediency and necessity.

This week alone, Democrats are set to host 100 town halls centered on keeping Social Security intact. And they're putting together TV advertisements to air against Republican lawmakers who have supported privatization.

But in a small wrinkle to the intensified campaign, Democratic lawmakers have also suggested in various forms that the time has come for a serious discussion on raising the retirement age at which Social Security benefits will be paid out. And it hasn't been just fringe members or fiscal conservatives -- leadership figures like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) have suggested as much. Pressed about the potential for a muddled or mixed message, Van Hollen stressed the party's commitment to keeping the retirement age in place."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/dccc-chair-dems-will-poun_n_680473.html

Posted by: lmsinca | August 12, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, has some pretty hard hitting things to say about today's GOP. Worth a read.

"But why focus on Stockman's message? It's already lost in the 24/7 news cycle. Why? We need some introspection. Ask yourself: How did the great nation of America lose its moral compass and drift so far off course, to where our very survival is threatened?

We've arrived at a historic turning point as a nation that no longer needs outside enemies to destroy us, we are committing suicide. Democracy. Capitalism. The American dream. All dying. Why? Because of the economic decisions of the GOP the past 40 years, says this leading Reagan Republican."

Stockman rushes into the ring swinging like a boxer: "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."

In the past 40 years Republican ideology has gone from solid principles to hype and slogans. Stockman says: "Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts -- in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses too."

Finally, thanks to Republican policies that let us "live beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore," while at home "high-value jobs in goods production ... trade, transportation, information technology and the professions shrunk by 12% to 68 million from 77 million."

As the apocalypse draws near, Stockman sees a class-rebellion, a new revolution, a war against greed and the wealthy. Soon. The trigger will be the growing gap between economic classes: No wonder "that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy."

Get it? The decaying fruit of the GOP's bad economic policies is destroying our economy."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=2

Posted by: lmsinca | August 12, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

And one of the issues Dems might be forced to take up is to allow for illegals who were part of the emergency team at Ground Zero to get these same benefits. Dems don't want to go on record with that.

So yeah, they are somewhat complicit as well.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Where's this "urinating on the left" meme coming from, Greg? Seriously, am I missing some background here?

Posted by: mercerreader | August 12, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

"Former administration official Neera Tanden appears to (delicately) criticize the White House for urinating on the left, suggesting the White House should be trying to fire up liberals."
----------------------------------------------

Stop urinating on the White House and maybe they'll stop urinating on you. BTW, with all this urinating apparently going on all the time all around you, maybe you should change the name of your blog to The Yellow Line. Just a thought.

Posted by: CalD | August 12, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Stockman makes a good point: "The Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice."

But I wonder why he targets only the GOP? Both parties are pushing for tax cuts that will add to the deficit:

"Republicans want to extend all the cuts, which would cost the Treasury Department $238 billion... President Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to extend the cuts only for families [blah blah] ... in a plan that would add about $202 billion to next year's deficit."

Oh wait, Stockman DIDN'T target only the GOP - he also targets the Democratic Party:

"Even some Republicans, including Reagan administration budget chief David Stockman and former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, have urged lawmakers to let them expire and allow income tax rates to pop back up to their levels during the Clinton administration."

Posted by: sbj3 | August 12, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

If you're a Californian, this is simply amazing:

"California Republican U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina has increased her lead over Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer to five percentage points... The CBS 5 poll, conducted by the research firm SurveyUSA, showed Fiorina edging Boxer 47 percent to 42 percent."

http://cbs5.com/politics/fiorina.boxer.senate.2.1856862.html

Posted by: sbj3 | August 12, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

sbj, he's also not a fan of Keynesian economics, I couldn't quote the entire article and I'm fairly certain, he'd be a deficit hawk right now as well. When you read the entire article however, even you'd have to admit he has particular animus for Republicans. Right? Personally, I think the only tax cuts that should remain in place are for the working poor.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 12, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

I guess we can now include Hispanics in the "professional left". Their support for Obama has slid 20 points since he took office. I sort of doubt they'll vote Republican in any significant numbers but quite a few are disappointed in Obama's broken promises and are saying they'll stay home. Obviously more deportments and $600m for drones and border security without the balance of comprehensive reform is taking a toll. Some people are hoping the fear of returning control to Republicans may be enough to get them to the polls though.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 12, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Also, Republicans are the ones who are complaining about the deficit. You'd think they wouldn't work so feverishly to increase it.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"Jim Geraghty, who is deeply sourced within the Sharron Angle campaign, explains that there's real method behind the apparent madness. Seriously, it's worth a read."
----------------------------------------------

Whoever said method and madness are mutually exclusive? If one is believed to exist it doesn't immediately rule out the other. Serial killers for example, are often quite meticulous in their methods.

Posted by: CalD | August 12, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "Personally, I think the only tax cuts that should remain in place are for the working poor."

Who can't agree that the working poor deserve to keep more of their money?

I'm no econ expert but I think one thing that might help would be tax rates that are "locked in" so people and businesses can know what to expect. When you consider the unknown impact of HCR, perhaps-pending energy legislation, and expiring tax cuts we're all just sitting tight right now because we don't have a freakin' clue what's going to happen.

Posted by: sbj3 | August 12, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

"Gettin' the message yet? Chuck Schumer concedes voters are "sour" and vows that Dems will attempt another series of jobs-related measures heading into the midterms. Please do!"
----------------------------------------------

I wouldn't get your hopes up *too* much. I would be very pleasantly surprised if Dem's actually succeed in muscling much of anything else of any real consequence through the senate this year. More likely, about all they can really do is try to bring as much popular legislation up for a vote as they can, just to make Republicans vote against it.

Posted by: CalD | August 12, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

That's hogwash sbj. The world has been constantly changing for eons. There are wars and droughts and earthquakes. Tax rates go up and they go down. Health insurance premiums go up and new treatments are developed. It all costs money. When you have a freakin clue what's going to happen tomorrow, let us all know.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 12, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Ezra charts the Obama tax plan vs the Bush tax plan. It's pretty stark.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/the_bush_tax_plan_vs_the_obama.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Looks like the South is going to be a real killing field for Dems this year.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | August 12, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

I always love how the lefty MSM and the Dem classwarriors call households w/$250K+ income "millionaires."

Easier then to say 'eff 'em. You know how many NYS teachers/cops/fireman 2-earner households clear that threshold?

Those parasites will add $36B to the Fed/Def next year.
B@STARDS!!!!!

Obama/Pelosi spending adds $165B to the Fed/Def in the 31 days of July, 2010. {{{{crickets}}}}

And, Greg, citing the JCT & Stockman as "good faith/down the middle" agents is for the kidz newly landed off the turnip truck.

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Average cut per tax payer under each plan:

DEM PLAN GOP PLAN

100,000-200,000 3690 3766

200,000-500,000 6743 7152

What is your point tao9?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 12, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Interesting editorial in the NYT earlier this week. The DOJ is going to start enforcing all aspects of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, meaning that states are going to have to make it easier for the poor to register to vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinion/10tue1.html?ref=editorials

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

tao said: "I always love how the lefty MSM and the Dem classwarriors call households w/$250K+ income "millionaires.""

Do we? I don't recall such a case. Could you point to one? Two?

"You know how many NYS teachers/cops/fireman 2-earner households clear that threshold?"

None that I know of. Not where both are teachers or firemen or police. Do you have some cases in mind you'd like to share?

Posted by: bernielatham | August 12, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

As I noted earlier, the big guns and big money were certain to come into the Angle campaign (or the campaign of whoever might have won) in order to beat Reid. Pelosi too is a prime target (though in that case the opponent has oodles of her own dough). As I said, it is a strategy of 'beheading' - trying to take out central or key figures. The goal is 1) make the Dems less effective and 2) win a symbolic victory.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 12, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

cmcc60,

My point, Oblio, is sentence #4.

The mid brackets are the only place that Pres Obama & Nan can eventually get their Social/Dem swag. They're comin' after the the AGI/30%'ers of total tax/rev next, they have to to sustain the PARTAYYY!

A Dem tax-cut?...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

I see you hang @ Ezra's, the journowonderwonk has as much prvt/sector small-biz*** IQ as my Milwaukee cordless drill. And he's a wee dishonest, donchaknow.

***Just hired a new tech, 1st since 2008...want to know how? Everyone deferred raises and benies/increases for 18 months. Our sector got better, now we're rockin'. Try that SEIU piggies.

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Stop urinating on the White House and maybe they'll stop urinating on you.
...

Posted by: CalD | August 12, 2010 6:54 PM
=======================================

Unlikely. In fact, I'd say the reverse is true.

Republicans keep urinating on the White House, and the White House keeps compromising with them. For no discernible return.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 12, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Damned relativity!. As young Schlafly wisely concluded, Einstein was part of the liberal plot to...not sure, but I think Satan is involved.

"A new NBC/Wall Street Journal survey shows the Democratic Party's favorable rating dropping to 33%, the lowest level since July of 2006. The same survey, however, shows the Republican Party's favorable rating dropping to 24%, the lowest level ever recorded by the pollster."
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/08/its_all_comparative.php#comments

Posted by: bernielatham | August 12, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 8:45 PM |
===============================

"The tax cuts will pay for themselves"
-A. Laffer, Ronald Reagan, and Co.

"Reagan Proved Deficits Don't Matter"
-Dick Cheney

$12 Trillion of Republican debt later, and the GOP wants to gut Social Security to pay for those tax cuts.

Heckuva job, wingnuts!
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 12, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

"None that I know of. Not where both are teachers or firemen or police. Do you have some cases in mind you'd like to share?"

Uh, Ms.Tao (NYS 23yr spec/ed teacher) & me...most of our friends.

Where do you live, B? Biloxi (nttawwt).

ps.: re: "millionaires," it's used in the WAPO article Greg cited.

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Re Liz Cheney/Kristol and the ramped-up project to smear any Dem (or conservative, surely) who might criticize Israeli government policies...

If you've read or seen referenced the estimations of Goldberg that the chances of Israel launching an attack against Iran are greater than 50/50, then this PR offensive might have a component not yet widely recognized or discussed.

And, one could add the present push from FOX and the neoconservative media re the Muslim presence in Lower Manhattan.

What is certain is that the Israel-can-d0-no-wrong crowd will be working overtime to justify such an attack if it is launched. What is equally certain is that the anti-Muslim bigotry will move to a level of screeching hatred.

Less certain, but probable I think, is that allies of Likud/Bibi here will be informed that they would prove helpful if a pre-emptive Muslim-hate campaign was in gear and already moving when/if the event were to occur.

Goldberg's piece is here... http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/09/the-point-of-no-return/8186/

Posted by: bernielatham | August 12, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Goldberg (the IDF prison guard, not the L.A. Times Cheetos muncher) isn't trying to justify an Israeli attack on Iran, bernie.

He's pushing Likudnik propaganda aimed at getting the USA to spend its blood and treasure again. Iraq II, electric boogaloo.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 12, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

ifya,

How much have the tax cuts since 1980 added to the Fed/Def?

How many yrs were there Dem/majority Congresses since 1980? (Hint: at least 4 since you got out of middle school.)

Now go run along and find out. NO!! You can't ask your sister for help.

And try to add something of substance or at least interest w/out the cut&paste===dbl/spacedunderlined, SadlyNoPimpleCreamInTheMedCab methodology.

All the best,
PapaTao

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

tao9: "I always love how the lefty MSM and the Dem classwarriors call households w/$250K+ income "millionaires."

Easier then to say 'eff 'em. You know how many NYS teachers/cops/fireman 2-earner households clear that threshold?"

My guess? Not many. Average NYC teacher pay is $57k, and max is $100k with a boatload of years of service.

Police officer, average $90k.

Fireman average, about the same as police.
Sure both can make more with years of experience and attaining higher ranks, but both max around $125.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

@tao - What's with the dishonesty? In that piece, "millionaire" is not used to describe people making a quarter of that. It is used to describe people who make a million. Please point to a passage I've missed if I've missed it.

As to your family, you are not (as my question put it) a teacher or cop or fireman. That one partner might make high earning from business or investments tells us nothing about what teachers or cops make.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 12, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

All the best,
PapaTao

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 9:05 PM
=====================================

I already posted that number, babytao.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 12, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

@ifthe

Not my proposition that G was trying to justify such an attack, rather his reporting suggests that the chances are higher than many might have thought.

The justifications/evil muslim hype will come from elsewhere and the Kristol/Cheney operation will be one of the foremost given their media presence/access.

What I'm advising we consider is that this sudden flash of anti-Muslim bigotry might have a propaganda purpose outside of its obvious national political purpose.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 12, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

bernie: "What I'm advising we consider is that this sudden flash of anti-Muslim bigotry might have a propaganda purpose outside of its obvious national political purpose."

BINGO! The neocon beast feeds again.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

That's the total debt, padawan.

Do or don't do.

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Jesus...imagine if 1/5th of the US was underwater from flooding.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/world/asia/13pstan.html?_r=1

Posted by: bernielatham | August 12, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

I should state that I didn't come up with the idea that the purpose of Goldberg's article is to push the U.S. towards attacking Iran, that work was done by Jonathan Schwartz.

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003356.html
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 12, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

@sue - Well, not a certainty as I said that there's a purposeful propaganda strategy in place designed to make a coming Israeli strike palatable. But it seems a reasonable hypothesis given what we know. And it would go some distance in helping to explain this flash of ugly bigotry.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 12, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Golly, B.

Gov Paterson has a "Millionaires Tax" here in NYS...that's what the legislation was called for goodness sake!

You don't have to make a mil to catch it. Capice.

Me and Ms. Tao, her school principal friend and his guidance counselor wife; my State cop buddy and his nurse wife are up next.

Why? Because NYS is still in deficit to the tune of $30Bil.

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

@tao - Come on. The WP piece did not say what you claimed, nor was your absolute statement I initially challenged even close to being true. That's just dishonest.

And regardless of who you think might see a rise in taxes because of state budgets, cops, teachers and firemen don't make, if both are in such a profession, a quarter million a year.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 12, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 9:43 PM |
======================

A millionaire isn't someone who makes a million a year, tao9.

I realize that the difference between a balance sheet and an income statement is difficult for wingnuts to understand.

And the wingnuts who do understand the difference prefer appeals to ignorance.

I'll grant you a favor: I'll presume senility, rather than dishonesty, on your part.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 12, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

OK B. Dishonest? Man! J'accuse4peanutz.

We're there cause of me. My buds are all thaaaat close, and with investments even closer per state tax. We're the oldest in our gang, most others have kids at home(byebye child deduction too, remember). Like suezoo said, a teacher maxes @100k (years before retiring, and then draws 80-100% of that nut for annual pension til the boneyard). Cops & Fireman ROCK the OT. There are, I'd wager, tens of 1000's of NYS households like them.

What the heck "absolute statement" do you mean? If you held us, Greg, your companeros and yourself to that standard, well, we'd all be Derridaists...broke and stupid. Or as irrelevant as Noam C.

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

I'll grant you a favor: I'll presume crystal meth, ramen, and morning PBR's; rather than genetics, on your part.
~

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

I'll grant you a favor: I'll presume crystal meth, ramen, and morning PBR's; rather than genetics, on your part.
~

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 10:24 PM |
===========================

Case closed.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 12, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

tao, this is from May, no new millionaire tax. And as far as I know nobody really wants to add a bunch of new taxes on anyone, just get back to the way they were under Clinton. Those tax cuts broke the bank, along with the rest of big government spending by the GOP, and we can't afford them. I hope it doesn't reach down too far into the middle and working class or working poor, but that's where the battle lines will likely be drawn and frankly I say call their bluff. Republicans will probably only consider extending the lower income cuts if we also extend the cuts to the super wealthy. And what's wrong with quoting Stockman anyway? Also, I'm curious how your wife, her principle friend, the nurse and the cop feel about being called Dem. special interest money launderers?

ALBANY -- Gov. Paterson and Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Andrew Cuomo turned their thumbs down yesterday on Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's plan to impose another "millionaire tax" on high earners.

"We taxed millionaires last year to the tune of $4 billion," Paterson said.

"I'm not going to make the same mistake twice."

Attorney General Cuomo "is not in favor of any new taxes," said spokesman Josh Vlasto.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gov_and_andy_nix_rich_tax_vdI1YI8T4PrrrzZ4MDjNVK#ixzz0wRtrCp7i

Posted by: lmsinca | August 12, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

"...Dem. special interest money launderers?"

sheesh lms, everything always in the MOST unfavorable light and not even a quote.

They're all a little stunned by where they're at financially, a bit sheepish about it, and really worried that their pensions are at risk by DEMS (we're state&local One-Party here BTW).
No union firebrands either, actually dislike their reps intensely. Ms. Tao & they talk re: waste, stupidity, corruption & laziness all the time.

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, that was Bachmann's latest rant. How are their pensions at risk because of Dems. They may be at risk because of economics and the free fall the system has sustained. I don't think any Dems want to see teachers, cops or firefighters lose anything. Hey didn't they just give some money to the states for that? Come on, if anything their benefits are under assault from the right AFAIK.

If I could find a sliver of light or a ray of sunshine or hope coming from the GOP, I promise you I would highlight it to hell and back. Their recession ruined the lives and fortunes of too many people near and dear to me and maybe you've noticed I've been a little hard on the Dems also.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 12, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

The Dems would be smart to link tax cuts for the Rich to tax cuts for Wall Streeters. Wall Street is toxic among voters.

Posted by: jzap | August 12, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

thnx lms! C U 2moro, maybe. 1luv, hehe.

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Why does Senator Reid hate brown people?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/12/1993-flip-flop-senreid-introduced-bill-clarifying-/

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | August 12, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

"Are Republicans becoming a regional party?"

The Republican strength in the West is a surprise, what with California, Washington, Oregon, Left Coast, etc.

Posted by: rhallnj | August 13, 2010 6:16 AM | Report abuse

The top 5% of earners should be taxed at 70%, the way it has been throughout our history. The lower brackets should be adjusted accordingly. It is ridiculous to be considering tax cuts for the rich when the country is grossly in debt. This great nation has made it possible for many Americans to get rich: pay your taxes and stop whining.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 13, 2010 7:25 AM | Report abuse

@tao - Your statement was: "I always love how the lefty MSM and the Dem classwarriors call households w/$250K+ income "millionaires.""

Total falsehood. I know of no such instance. So why even begin with a statement/claim so patently divergent from reality? When I challenged you, you claimed the WP piece did it. It did not.

If you want a conversation that is valuable (something better than spitting at each other) the method used won't get you there because it is just too sloppy and substitutes cliches for thought.

Why hold you to such a standard? Because I'm talking to you. Why not hold other liberal types to that standard? I do, now and again, but if you are arguing with them, that's your job. Why not hold myself to such a standard? I do. I do not, ever, attempt to deceive here. I avoid absolutes and cliches because they make us stupider. Where I fail is where I have not adequately questioned my own assumptions. And any time I screw up on this stuff, you ought to challenge me for it.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 13, 2010 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Total falsehood."

Wrong. Again.

"I know of no such instance."

And of course, if Bernie doesn't know it, it must not be true, right?

In 1993, with the support of his fellow Dems, President Clinton introduced new tax legislation, which included a so-called "millionaire's surtax". That tax was applied to income in excess of $250,000.

Google "Clinton millionaire surtax" and educate yourself, Bernie.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 13, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

All, morning roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/the_morning_plum_73.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 13, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Bernie says:

"If you want a conversation that is valuable (something better than spitting at each other) the method used won't get you there because it is just too sloppy and substitutes cliches for thought."

Getting lectured on sloppy and unvaluable discussion methods by Bernie Latham is like being lectured on honest business methods by Bernie Madoff.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 13, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Bernie says:

"Why not hold myself to such a standard? I do."

Sure he does. Like when he implied that Michael Rubin held Palestinians to be "vermin" and then refused to either retract or substantiate the charge when challenged on it. Quote a standard Bernie holds himself to.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 13, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Scott - You've become, for whatever set of reasons, a bit of a jerk. When you get some discourse manners back, I'll respond to you.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 13, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"You've become, for whatever set of reasons, a bit of a jerk."

But accurate.

"When you get some discourse manners back, I'll respond to you."

Respond or not as and when you like, which will be no change from the past. You lost the already dwindling respect I might have had for your opinions when you made the vile and ugly accusations against Rubin, and then responded in a dishonest and cowardly fashion when challenged on it.

And again, you are no one to be lecturing anyone on discourse manners. (Just as you are no one to be lecturing anyone on propaganda...but that is a different story.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 13, 2010 10:47 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