Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Read of the morning, even if you disagree with it: Robert Reich says Obama's main problem is that he failed to take the risks necessary to expand the realm of the possible to the degree he might have.

But: Reich also concedes Obama deserves "enormous credit," and says the best may be yet to come: "He is, as he reminds us, a most improbable president." All worth pondering.

* This day in Republican attacks: Monkeys getting high? A million dollars for the study of exotic ants? John McCain says those things are being funded by your stimumlus dollars.

* The pushback: Tim Geithner says the stimulus and other measures have worked, and asserts we are on a "path back to growth."

* But: Geithner concedes unemployment could rise again before falling, which could of course exacerbate Dem problems heading into the midterms.

* Blue Dog blues: Fiscally "conservative" House Blue Dogs cheerfully accept hundreds of millions in Federal funds directed to their districts in order to save their political hides.

* Head-spinner of the day: Mitch McConnell explains his support for hearings into repealing birthright citizenship by claiming he doesn't think "anybody" is "comfortable" with the provision. Isn't it codified in the Constitution?

* Josh Marshall says McConnell's support for birthright citizenship hearings is another sign of our "darkening political horizon."

* Sighting of the day: The New York Times article focused entirely on House Dems' ethical travails finds a moment to mention John Ensign in passing.

* Relatedly: More media figures are beginning to notice that Charlie Rangel is getting far more attention than Ensign, even though the latter is being investigated by the FBI.

* Empty calories for the GOP base: Senate Republicans continue to pretend that they're going to mount a meaningful stand against Elena Kagan.

* And the base will lap it up: A new CNN poll finds that half of Republicans oppose Kagan's confirmation. Dems and independents both support it.

* Deeply controversial assertion of the day: Laurence Lewis makes the case for the Ground Zero mosque: "Muslim New Yorkers are every bit as innocent of the crimes of 9/11 as are all other New Yorkers."

* The assault on WikiLeaks continues: Michael Scherer, on former Bushie Marc Thiessen's suggestion that the U.S. government declare war on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange:

I guess those who care about international press freedom can take comfort in the fact that Marc Thiessen no longer works for the government.

* No wonder pro-war folks are so mad at WikiLeaks: After the revelations, Gallup finds only 34% think it's going well in Afghanistan, and a new high of 43% thinks sending troops there was a "mistake."

Key context here: The U.S. sent troops to Afghanistan in response to September 11th.

* And the question of the day: Ruth Marcus, who's been doing nice work on Sarah Palin lately, asks: Why is the most visible female Republican in the country equating testacles, i.e, "cojones," with toughness?

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  August 3, 2010; 8:21 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Foreign policy and national security , House Dems , Morning Plum , Senate Republicans , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Sharron Angle: I pledge to filibuster Dem agenda "to death"

Comments

Am I the only one who sees the total absurdity in that the Republicans
constantly attack Pres. Obama by claiming he is destroying the
Constitution, while at the same time calling for hearings to -
literally - repeal fundemental amendments of it?

How are they getting away with this nonsense? I'm for a two-party
system (three even), but how can any intelligent individual even consider the GOP a
legimate political party at this point?

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 3, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

I truly believe that the GOP will pay a steep political price for their demonization of immigrants sooner rather than later. Sure, I want this to happen -- they more than deserve it -- but isn't it fairly common knowledge that they're going to have a massive demographics issue?

The problem, as the "revoke birthright citizenship" boom highlights, is that it may not come soon enough to prevent new lows.

Still, 10 - 15 years into the future, how does the GOP plan to win a presidential election with CA, the Southwest, TX, and FL out of reach? (Not to mention their problems in the "New South") I'm sure Rove and Jeb Bush get this, but are they just being over - ruled? Anybody have a good handle on the internal debate?

Posted by: michael_conrad | August 3, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

I have a little news from CA. Meg Whitman has now spent $99 million in her quest to buy the governorship compared to $450,000 by Brown. Right now they're about even in the polls. Brown has about $23m on hand he's saving for the wire compared to Whitman's $10m. She blew a big portion of the money in the primary, a lot of it was her own.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 3, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

"Why is the most visible female Republican in the country equating testacles, i.e, 'cojones,' with toughness?"

Because it's, um, the common vernacular? Why do be equate "backbone" with toughness? A deep-seated prejudice against invertebrates?

"by claiming he doesn't think 'anybody' is 'comfortable' with the provision. Isn't it codified in the Constitution?"

By anybody, he means some members of the base, but the larger issue is that it's all for show. A decisive repeal of birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, or a constitutional convention, neither of which are likely (or desirable).

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

@TheBBQChickenMadness: "Am I the only one who sees the total absurdity in that the Republicans constantly attack Pres. Obama"

Yes, you are the only one.

"I'm for a two-party system (three even), but how can any intelligent individual even consider the GOP a legimate political party at this point?"

Oh, we're all idiots. Fortunately for the Republicans, there are a lot of us stupid people out there. At least as many as there are of you smarter, better-than-average looking fellows.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

On cojones: I think it was Dan Savage who pointed out the absurdity of our vernacular. I'm paraphrasing here, but his basic argument was that we equate lady plumbing with weakness despite the fact that women, you know, push out entire human beings from there, and we equate man plumbing with strength despite the fact that gentlemen will double over in pain if a stiff wind hits them the wrong way.

On the birthright part: I'm glad that people are pointing out that the 14th Amendment is part of that same Constitution the right supposedly wants to save. On the broader issue of immigration rights, I wish more people would bring up the fact that Reagan was the one who granted amnesty and a path to citizenship to undocumented residents. And I wish more people who are like, "My ancestors came over through Ellis Island, legally!" would take a look at this:

http://reason.com/blog/2008/09/24/new-at-reason-mike-flynn-shikh

which outlines what the immigration process looks like *now*, not what it looked like a hundred years ago.

Posted by: dkp01 | August 3, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Here's a great read if you're interested in deficit reduction on why Bowles and Simpsons target of 21% of GDP is unrealistic and will force cuts (that's the idea anyway) to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. This is from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the author is a bit of a deficit hawk himself.

"Over the 40 years from 1970 through 2009, revenues averaged a little over 18 percent of GDP, and expenditures averaged nearly 21 percent of GDP. Those averages reflected a federal government with far less responsibility than today, and a country with a much smaller percentage of elderly people and considerably lower health care costs. Averages for federal spending and revenues in past periods consequently are not very relevant for discussions about how to reduce deficits to economically sustainable levels in the decades to come."

Specifically:

* The aging of the population and increases in per-person costs throughout the U.S. health care system (in both the public and private sectors) will increase the cost of meeting longstanding federal commitments to seniors and people with disabilities. Together, these factors will drive up spending for the three largest domestic programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Limiting total federal spending to 21 percent of GDP despite these developments would have enormous implications for those programs as well as the rest of government.
* The federal government’s responsibilities have grown since 2000, with developments at home and abroad pushing spending above the average for earlier decades. These responsibilities include homeland security (in the aftermath of September 11, 2001); aid to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (many of whom need health care and income support); education (with the federal government providing more resources to improve educational quality and outcomes); the Medicare prescription drug benefit (which Congress added in 2003); and health reform (which extends health coverage to tens of millions of Americans who would otherwise be uninsured and will increase federal spending, even though it will reduce the deficit).
* Spending for interest on the federal government’s debt also will be substantially higher in coming decades than it was during the past 40 years. By the end of 2010 — largely as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the large Bush-era tax cuts, and the current severe recession — debt held by the public will be nearly twice as large (as a percentage of GDP) as in 2001, with a commensurate increase in interest costs.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3246

Posted by: lmsinca | August 3, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I love the fact that a woman who is too chickensh*t to face a press conference/msm interview gets to make judgements about other people's toughness.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 3, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin - use of 'cojones'/'balls' etc is not really the common vernacular unless one wants to categorize the common vernacular as that used by males.

The Palin/Liz Cheney/Bachmann ladies are following the lead of Thatcher - trying to make themselves acceptable as modern leaders of modern militarist nations even with the unfortunate deficiency of having a vagina. And this is all much of a steeper hill for women to climb in the Republican party which puts such an accent on the toughness/manliness thing.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 3, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

@TheBBQChickenMadness: "Am I the only one who sees the total absurdity in that the Republicans constantly attack Pres. Obama"

Why are you even making comments on a political blog if you don't understand that politicians must attack someone on the other side. It's how the game is played. Pointing out things they disagree with is one of the ways that opposing political groups use get people to vote for them. Duh. There's nothing absurd about it, unless you are the quintessential Obama zombie.

You are representing this..."It seems as the political thought content increases, the critical thought content approaches zero."

Posted by: actuator | August 3, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin

"@TheBBQChickenMadness: "Am I the only one who sees the total absurdity in that the Republicans constantly attack Pres. Obama"

Yes, you are the only one."

---------

"Oh, we're all idiots."

If you say so! That's quite the consession.

...see, I can take portions of a statement out of context too! Stick to swampland, rookie, The Plum Line is out of your league. Hell, SBJ could troll circles around you.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 3, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "use of 'cojones'/'balls' etc is not really the common vernacular unless one wants to categorize the common vernacular as that used by males."

No, actually, it's just part of the common vernacular. Etymologically, cojones translates as courage in Spanish. It's used to refer to strength, toughness, backbone or bravery by both men and women, about both men and women. The appropriateness of association testicles with courage and strength and ovaries with softness and emotions (less common, but one I've also heard, mostly by guys directed at other guys) may be questionable. The established vernacular usage of cojones to connote bravery, strength and stiff-upper-lipness is well established, and has a long a storied history.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

@actuator

"out things they disagree with is...use get...party which puts"

I don't even know how to respond to that. What you said doesn't even form a complete sentence!

It's like we got a bunch of ameteur Breitbarts on here today...

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 3, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

@TheBBQChickenMadness "'Oh, we're all idiots.' If you say so! That's quite the consession. ...see, I can take portions of a statement out of context too! Stick to swampland, rookie, The Plum Line is out of your league. Hell, SBJ could troll circles around you"

What are you going on about? Are you sure the reply was meant for me?

Are you suggesting I'm a troll? If so, I'd be curious about what your definition of a troll is, exactly.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse


The 14th Amendment was never intended to be leveraged by invaders as a means of hi-jacking citizenship.

Posted by: wmpowellfan | August 3, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Greg, spell-check please! See "And the question of the day" paragraph. It worries me that a MAN would not know how to spell THAT WORD.

Posted by: wmpowellfan | August 3, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

"The 14th Amendment was never intended to be leveraged by invaders as a means of hi-jacking citizenship."

But only because there was little to no immigration law on the books at the time. We had, for the most part, completely open borders at the time. A stat I saw given the other day was that <2% of all those who arrived at Ellis Island were turned away (usually for contagious diseases). So for those who crow about their ancestors coming here "legally" during the 1800s/early 1900s - that's an essentially meaningless statement.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 3, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Sooooooooooooo.... that big scary Muslim community center?

It's gonna have a 9/11 Memorial.

"""Ms. Khan said classrooms and lecture halls will host discussions aimed at keeping Muslims away from extremism. "There must be a robust debate on the critical issues of radicalization, extremism and terrorism," she said. She envisions the leadership of the center to be young, energetic Muslims "who are very comfortable in their American identity and committed to their Muslim identity.""""

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704905004575405654289175176.html

Ooh. Scary.

A wise man once said:

DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE.

(In this case, that means anything that comes from the anti-Constitution, anti-First Amendment Republican Islamophobes).

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

GREAT article on how the hospital association of Missouri favors Health Care Reform and opposes GOP efforts at blocking it.

Commentary: Freeloading on health care isn't freedom of choice

"""This year, the hospital association is financing opposition to Proposition C. That's the measure on Tuesday's statewide ballot that seeks to tell the federal government that it can't require Missourians to purchase health insurance if they don't want to.

Missouri hospitals don't want this measure to pass. They prefer that people be insured when they seek treatment.

No doubt this strikes some as self-serving. After all, supporters are calling Proposition C the "Health Care Freedom Act." Who would begrudge Missourians their freedom?

Here's the short answer: Freeloading isn't freedom.

[...]

"Proposition C would only reinforce a broken system," Herb B. Kuhn, president and chief executive of the Missouri Hospital Association, wrote in an opinion piece. "More than 700,000 Missourians don't have health insurance and the state's hospitals spent more than $830 million in 2008 providing care for these individuals."""

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/03/98408/commentary-freeloading-on-health.html

Good read. More at the article. Really interesting. I hope we see more like this, hospitals standing up and saying YES to HCR and NO to freeloading on our health care system.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

The republicans want to "re-think" the 14th Amendment?

Seriously? The same people who lied us into the Iraq War, who block virtually every piece of legislation put up for a vote that helps poor and middle class Americans, who ran the economy into the ground (and are STILL trying to sell us on voodoo economics)-- these people want to be trusted to "re-think" the Constitutional Amendment created to ban slavery?

Oh yeah. We TRUST these corrupt, stupid, amoral GOP'ers to mess with the Constitution, LOL!

Posted by: losthorizon10 | August 3, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

"Why is the most visible female Republican in the country equating testacles, i.e, "cojones," with toughness?"

Because hillbilly's like when Sarah talks about balls.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 3, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

All, Sharron Angle is now openly pledging to filibuster the Dem agenda "to death" if elected:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 3, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

@michael_conrad = "I truly believe that the GOP will pay a steep political price for their demonization of immigrants sooner rather than later."

I think you miss the point michael_conrad, this is the new southern strategy. You scare whites into believing that the Mexican Immigrant is the cause of all their troubles from increased crime, to higher taxes to support and educate their kids then you come out as the only party willing to do anything about the problem. Yes, this chases Latino's to the Democrats but it moves white Independents who buy into the scare to the Republican's.

Next will be mass scale fears about illegal's voting, Latino groups registering illegal to vote etc.. You know how it goes from ACORN. White extremist will show up at Latino voting places asking for papers etc... which i now legal to do...

What they don't say is if they were serious about immigration they would sit down at the table with Democrats and legislate a solution. The president can only do so much to seal the border especially because his troops are committed to fighting two wars, without funding and legislation from Congress there will be no permanent solution... That' the part you won't hear on Fox.

Posted by: soapm | August 3, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin

"Are you suggesting I'm a troll? If so, I'd be curious about what your definition of a troll is, exactly."

A troll would be someone who is intellectually dishonest and/or purposefully disengenuous.

You attempted to make it sound like I was claiming it's absurd to attack Pres. Obama about anything. I wasn't. It's obvious I wasn't, since I clearly expressed the specific line of attack I was referring to as absurd.

Yet you pulled only the first half of my sentence, and made some passive-agressive rebuttle to a completely nonexistent point that you pretended I made.

So please, don't waste my time with nonsensical bullsh*t.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 3, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

@BBQ = "Am I the only one who sees the total absurdity in that the Republicans constantly attack Pres. Obama by claiming he is destroying the Constitution, while at the same time calling for hearings to - literally - repeal fundemental amendments of it?"

The problem BBQ is Democrats aren't yelling what you said into every mic. They should be challenging the hypocritical tea party for saying they are defending the constitution and liberties while supporting candidates conveniently trample all over it.

The democrats need to talk about the elephant in the room. Whose liberties is the tea party defending? White tea party members only?

What constitution are they worrying is being destroyed? The one with freedom of religion and that says anyone born on our soil is a citizen or the one that only has the first, second and tenth amendment.

We all know these things are true but someone needs to grab a mic and be bold enough to say it. Next we will hear more about "states right" just like we did during the civil rights struggle...

Posted by: soapm | August 3, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Other than a Supreme Court ruling that "re-interprets" the Constitution, there are two ways to change rthe Fourteenth Amendment.
Have too many of our elected officials in DC been ignoring the Constitution so long that they have forgotten how it is amended?

The time is nigh for a change to birthright citizenship concept. Let us come into line with most of the rest of the world's nations.

Posted by: NocheGarcia | August 3, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca = "Here's a great read if you're interested in deficit reduction on why Bowles and Simpsons target of 21% of GDP is unrealistic and will force cuts (that's the idea anyway) to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."

Doesn't matter, if the commission is serious they will also have to recommend tax increases. This will demand Fox and every republican discredit the commission and invalidate anything they suggest as a socialist plot to take over the nation.

IOW, this commission will agree to disagree and IF they pass a plan it will never make it through the Senate since no Republican will vote to increase taxes.

Posted by: soapm | August 3, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

@Greg = "All, Sharron Angle is now openly pledging to filibuster the Dem agenda "to death" if elected:"

Why are the democrats not making the case that the filibuster is the cause of the 11% approval in congress and that sending someone who promises more partisan grid lock will only increase the problem with DC.

The democrats should be making a case that we as a nation have some serious problems that will call for serious people offering serious solutions. If Republican's are unwilling to compromise, if it has to be their way or no way, if NO and filibuster is their position even before legislation is introduced then the partisan grid lock in Washington will only become more of a problem with no hope for a solution in site.

The Democrats should be making the Republican's pay for being the party of NO yet you hear nothing about it. No to unemployment benefits, no to small business lending, no to immigration reform, no to BP cleaning up the gulf etc..

I am surprised that story detailing McConnell's strategy of obstructionism has resurfaced...

Posted by: soapm | August 3, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

@soap

"Whose liberties is the tea party defending? What constitution are they worrying is being destroyed? The one with freedom of religion and that says anyone born on our soil is a citizen or the one that only has the first, second and tenth amendment."

That's actually a really clever way to respond to those attacks...

I like.

ps - I'd leave out anything about race. It's a rhetorical bermuda triangle that isn't worth it for Dems to get into. If the media wants to play up that angle, fine...but Dems shouldn't instigate it.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 3, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

@soapm. Thanks for the two cents. Maybe I'm overlooking the lure of the short - term gains.

@imsinca. Great CPBB link. Along with the Strengthen Social Security coalition, Robert Kuttner, and the tireless Dean Baker, they give me hope that even if the Dem trifecta is somehow stupid enough to go for indefensible cuts, they'll have one hell of a fight on their hands, and can be effectively stopped.

The Fetish Commission is a joke. It's where Pete Peterson stooges and nominally Democratic Numerologists come together. There are precious few (as in 3 - 4) exceptions

Posted by: michael_conrad | August 3, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

It would be nice if Americans actually understood why the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution in the first place. I'd venture to say most people on either side of the immigration debate don't understand the background of this amendment at all.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 as part of a package that's become known as the "Reconstruction Amendments." The primary reason for the passage of the 14th Amendment was to overrule the Dread Scott decision of 1857 which stated African Americans were not, and could not be, citizens.

Additionally, Congress was afraid that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 would be declared unconstitutional, and they wanted to make sure the Civil Rights Act of 1866 couldn't be repealed by any future majority in Congress (meaning reps from former Confederate states). The original author of the amendment, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (R-Michigan) did not support U.S. born children of non-citizens automatically becoming U.S. citizens. The sticky part is that another supporter of the admendment Sen. John Conness (R-CA) stated during debate in the Senate that the amendment did automatically grant citizenship to children born in the U.S. regardless if their parents were citizens or not. Congress never really settled this issue, but the Supreme Court did in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. In that case the court decided that the U.S. born children of people with permanant residency or domicile in the United States are citizens.

The issue isn't the Amendment, it's the Supreme Court decision in 1898 that's the issue. Repealing the 14th Amendment would lead to a whole host of unintended consequences, because gutting the Amendment to "fix" one issue would harm us in other ways. The 14th Amendment also includes the Due Process Clause (which conservatives generally like) and the Equal Protection Clause.

Either the Supreme Court needs to re-visit this issue or the next Congress needs to take up the idea of an amendment to do what Congress failed to do in the 19th Century.

Posted by: CJMARTIN04 | August 3, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Those elected officials whining about yanking citizenship from children born on US soil should lead by example and first give up their US citizenship, that's the only way to show they're really serious about the concept, not just paying it lip service.

Only cowards enthusiastically appease "freedom-hating terrorists" by attacking our Constitution, the same Constitution they swore "to uphold and defend" in taking their Oath of Office.

Posted by: kingcranky | August 3, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Michael

I keep searching for as many voices as I can find to counter both the deficit commission's pre-conceived solutions and the Bush tax cut "holy rollers". I'm determined to fight both fronts, as well as getting Warren in. I'm staying totally focused on these three issues right now while I work on my local campaign to replace Calvert.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 3, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for the link to that Reich article, I'll check it out. That point resonates with my thinking too; I've wondered why Obama didn't try to govern with the intention of building his majorities in the midterms. He's been in conservation mode all along and it has hurt him.

I think the reason is he decided to cash in what he could with is current political capitol and then try for more later. I see the logic - he could have gotten nothing done by trying to go big - but I also think it was a mistake.

I DO think (hope?) the best is yet to come. I think his second term will be better than his first but I'm curious about what the next two years will bring.

Posted by: matt_ahrens | August 3, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"The time is nigh for a change to birthright citizenship concept. Let us come into line with most of the rest of the world's nations.

Posted by: NocheGarcia"

That's pretty funny -- most countries aspire to be like us.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 3, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"Robert Reich says Obama's main problem is that he failed to take the risks necessary to expand the realm of the possible to the degree he might have."
---------------------------------------------

Obviously, since Mr. Obama was unable to assemble one of the most effective and innovative political teams in modern times, build a nationwide campaign organization and upset an overwhelmingly odds-on primary favorite, go on to become the country's first black president, then make more progress on healthcare reform than any administration in the last century and roll back 20 years worth of Republican financial industry deregulation while and untangling the two wars that his predecessor started and soft-landing the worst economic crisis since the great depression, he clearly knows nothing about politics and needs all the advice that he can get on the art of the possible from Robert f***ing Reich.

God, I'm sick of the whining. Please make it stop.

Posted by: CalD | August 3, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

@BBQ Chicken Madness: "A troll would be someone who is intellectually dishonest and/or purposefully disengenuous."

Including sarcasm and/or irony?

"You attempted to make it sound like I was claiming it's absurd to attack Pres. Obama about anything. I wasn't. It's obvious I wasn't, since I clearly expressed the specific line of attack I was referring to as absurd."

Is that what I was attempting? I believe you said, "I'm for a two-party system (three even), but how can any intelligent individual even consider the GOP a legimate political party at this point?"

Which seems like a rhetorical question, to me, that was just begging for a flip answer. If that makes me a troll, then I think I have a lot of company.

"So please, don't waste my time with nonsensical bullsh*t."

Okee-dokee, then.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

@koolkat_1960 | August 3, 2010 11:36 AM:

Amen to that. The day the world stops sending us their best and brightest, the day we have to start relying on just what talent we can grow domestically for the energy, intelligence and innovation that we need to propel progress... looking around me I have to say, I'm not optimistic about that day.

Posted by: CalD | August 3, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

@mikefromArlington "Because hillbilly's like when Sarah talks about balls."

Man, that is so true. And I say that as a card-carrying member of the Allied Hillbilly's Aught-Aught Double-Aught.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

We need more WikiLeaks sires: just imagine if WikiLeaks had been around prior to the Iraq War? Perhaps some source would have exposed the Bush-Cheney-Powell WMD lie and prevented this total, immoral waste of blood and treasure.

Posted by: dozas | August 3, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

So, now the Constitutional constructionists want to tinker with it. And McCain should kep his mouth shut after unleashing Palin on us. Blue dogs are hypocrites.

Posted by: jckdoors | August 3, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

CalD | August 3, 2010 11:49 AM

"...the day we have to start relying on just what talent we can grow domestically for the energy, intelligence and innovation that we need to propel progress... looking around me I have to say, I'm not optimistic about that day."

Could it be that the K-12 public education system in this country, which is dominated by the left has anything to do with your lack of optimism.

On the other hand there are so many students from other countries on U.S. University campuses because college level science, technological and business education is actually often superior to what they can get in their native countries.

In some Asian countries the competition to get into college drives high school performance to great heights, but once they're in college, they skate through without much effort. They can't do this at good schools in the U.S., which makes the value of a degree from an American University much greater.

Posted by: actuator | August 3, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"Could it be that the K-12 public education system in this country, which is dominated by the left has anything to do with your lack of optimism."

Could it be the tax cuts which is dominated by the right has anything to do with lack of optimism? Since they won't fund putting a K-12 teacher in the room? Or want 45 students per teacher? Or like TX, want to limit teaching to things THEY believe?

Posted by: soapm | August 3, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

@ actuator | August 3, 2010 1:20 PM:

I have an idea that the biggest problem with a lot of our schools may be based in an increasing and multifaceted cultural unwillingness to learn. Sure there are problems with schools and teachers and there always have been. But at the point where you're putting angels and end times on the same level as physics and chemistry and gangsta rappers get more respect from more people than scholars and statesmen, can a return to the dark ages be far behind?

Posted by: CalD | August 3, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

After he admits that Obama accomplished everything he could given republican and conservative dem obstruction, here's what Reich's argument boils down to:

"The real choice is between achieving what's possible within the limits of politics as given, or changing that politics to extend those limits and thereby more assuredly achieve intended goals. The latter course is riskier but its consequences can be more enduring and its mandate more powerful, as both Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan demonstrated."

Somebody want to tell me wtf that even means?

"changing that politics to extend those limits and thereby more assuredly achieve intended goals"

Sounds like the kind of goobledygook one would expect to find in some full-of-bullshit sophmore psychology essay test response. Why do they publish this crap?

Posted by: converse | August 3, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

@ converse | August 3, 2010 3:06 PM:

"Somebody want to tell me wtf that even means?"

It means he wants a pony, damnit.

Be sure to tune in again tomorrow for another exciting episode of: How Has Obama Failed YOU Today?

Posted by: CalD | August 3, 2010 5:32 PM | 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