Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* The Elizabeth Warren "dilemma" heats up: Elizabeth Warren was seen leaving the White House yesterday, and speculation is mounting that Obama may soon decide whether to appoint her as top Wall Street consumer cop. Here's his choice:

If Obama doesn't choose her, he risks infuriating his already-agitated liberal supporters who see Warren as the only logical candidate. If he gives her the nod, Obama risks deepening the financial community's distrust of his administration and sparking a confirmation fight.

Is this really a tough dilemma? After all, sacrificing Warren isn't going to induce Wall Streeters and Republicans to suddenly stop tarring him as anti-business. And: Who's more important to Dem hopes in the midterms, Dem base voters or Wall Street titans and GOP leaders?

* And: The White House's view is that she's a strong choice and would be confirmable on the Hill, yet a decision is still not imminent, because there are other strong contenders.

* Social Security turns 75 years old today: Expect a lot of Dems to go on the offensive against various Republican plans to phase out or alter the program, particularly against GOP Senate candidates.

* The GOP response: Republicans will point to all the leading Dems who have called for a hike in the retirement age in order to play the "Dems in disarray" card.

* Ya think? Sharron Angle allows she may have suffered a few "self inflicted wounds." At least, that what I think she said.

* But she could still win: A new Las Vegas Review Journal poll finds the race couldn't be tighter, with Harry Reid leading 46-44 and only 5 percent undecided.

* And Reid's argument may not be resonating: The poll also finds that "51 percent said Reid's clout as the Senate majority leader is not too valuable to give up, while 45 percent said Nevada can't afford to lose his influence."

* You're no Newt Gingrich, sir! Senator Richard Lugar says John Boehner and Mitch McConnell might not be able to fill the shoes of the great Newt if Repubs take back the majority. I'm pretty sure Lugar meant that as a negative.

In all seriousness, Lugar's criticism gets at an important question: If Republicans do take back the House (or, far less likely, the Senate), who if anyone will act as the tone-setting leadership figure?

* Rightward, ho: Former Bushie Michael Gerson skewers the repeal-birthright-citizenship crowd with this nifty line:

The radical, humane vision of the 14th Amendment can be put another way: No child born in America can be judged unworthy by John Boehner, because each is his equal.

* And: Mark McKinnon, who also worked for Bush, also blasts the birthright push, warning Republicans not to let "the sirens of extremism" lure them "toward the rocks of demagoguery."

That former Bush officials are speaking out in such eloquent terms is yet another mark of the degree to which today's GOP officials are capitulating to hard-right forces inside and outside the party.

* Andrew Sullivan says that capitulation to the right is visible on immigration and national security alike:

A sign of how radical and extremist the GOP now is: on the question of the war on terror (and immigration), some of us are beginning to see the relative moderation and sophistication of George W. Bush.

* Snark o' the day: Katha Pollitt says right-wingers opposed to the Islamic center are treating the Constitution "as if Sarah Palin had tweeted it herself."

The problem, of course, is that the Constitution was inked long before Palin (and Twitter) were born. Maybe she could resolve this whole mess by tweeting a quick amendment to it?

And what else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  August 13, 2010; 8:26 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Foreign policy and national security , House GOPers , Immigration , Morning Plum , Senate Republicans , Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Krauthammer: Government regulates liquor stores, so why can't it block the "Ground Zero mosque"?


"warning Republicans not to let "the sirens of extremism" lure them "toward the rocks of demagoguery.""

Little late for that. The GOP is all-in for pot-stirring demagoguery which they hope and pray will distract enough Americans from realizing that the country is going down the drain due to Radical Conservative policies. Since the GOP has nothing else to offer so it will surely continue. If the Democrats only had the brains and courage they were born with the GOP would already be splintered on the shore. But, alas ...

Posted by: wbgonne | August 13, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Krauthammer writes today on the GZ mosque. Of course, he begins with the falsehood that it is situated at GZ rather than near. Second, he argues that this is now 'sacred ground'. That's handy for him because labeling a thing as 'sacred' immediately places it in a category which blocks or resists challenge, reflection and questioning.

There's a lot in this column to criticize. Eg, we'd look in vain for Krauthammer suggesting Israelis ought to be sensitive to locations 'sacred' to Palestinian Muslims. Or his criticism of Rauf's statement that US policy played a causal role in 9/11 as if he's never supported a 'realist' foreign policy that explicitly puts American interests above all other community's interests. And more to the point, as if this present surge in anti-Muslim bigotry coming from the right in the US won't be causal in fomenting further extremism.

His nationalism makes him, as it does any passionate and extreme nationalist, both blind and stupid.

"Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed."

This act was 'mass murder' (the use of the term furthers his comparisons to the holocaust). And one could certainly call it that. But only if one also calls the attack on Iraq which killed a hundred thousand people - substantially more 'massive' than 3000, we'll note) as mass murder as well.

Then, he suggests that zoning regulations (no porn theaters near elementary schools) provide an appropriate precedent. As if he'd allow that the Constitution somehow permits a community from establishing a 'jew-free' zone anywhere for any reason.

But Krauthammer gets something important right here. He differentiates the small minority of Muslims who perpetrated this act (and other such acts) from the large majority of Muslims who have different values and worldview. Hats off to him for this valuable voice of sanity in the rising chorus of bigotry where no mosques ANYWHERE in the US is now rising up as a fine American idea (and not just American, if you think about some Canadian small town politician voiced the same 'no mosques!' idea you can bet it would get support from Bachmann and Palin). Krauthammer deserves praise on this.

And he's surely right to observe that some locations gain a special symbolic value to communities associated. But this is tricky because of the consequences of the 'sacred' categorization. Taking his Pearl Harbor example, it wouldn't bother me to see a Japanese cultural center there (I think it would be a good idea) but understand others might view this differently. Then, as Greg and others point out, is one block away ok? Two? There's no measure other than some arbitrary black/white. And what is the danger? Really?

For many of us, the serious danger in all of this is the rise in bigotry and the evisceration of the intent of the constitution.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 13, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Re: Warren:

"If he gives her the nod, Obama risks deepening the financial community's distrust of his administration and sparking a confirmation fight."

Not exactly, "I welcome their hatred." And THAT is exactly why this Democratic Party is getting clobbered by the No-Nothings instead of still ascending as FDR's Dems did in his first mid-terms. The country would have given Obama and the Dems more time and power if they hadn't already proved themselves unworthy of trust.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 13, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Note: later on, he correctly locates the building as 'near ground zero'.

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

Re: the Near Ground Zero Mosque:

Could anyone conceive of a more vivid illustration of the failure of this White House to dominate the national debate? From all appearances it seems that the GOP is still running the country. Undoubtedly, that is the fault of Liberals instead of the White House communication team. Right, Mr. Gibbs?

Posted by: wbgonne | August 13, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Greg said: "Is this really a tough dilemma? After all, sacrificing Warren isn't going to induce Wall Streeters and Republicans to suddenly stop tarring him as anti-business. And: Who's more important to Dem hopes in the midterms, Dem base voters or Wall Street titans and GOP leaders?"


Posted by: bernielatham | August 13, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Have a nice day Bernie, Greg, et al.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 13, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Social Security turns 75 tomorrow, not today:

Posted by: RossWallen | August 13, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

"That former Bush officials are speaking out in such eloquent terms is yet another mark of the degree to which today's GOP officials are capitulating to hard-right forces inside and outside the party."

I feel little sympathy. The marginalization of moderates and the fomenting of extremist tendencies (for electoral gain) has been going on for more than three decades and it served the party (and these modern in-party critics) well up until lately. If there's a better reap/sew example, I'm not sure what it might be.

So, Gerson, what have you to say about Limbaugh and Norquist and Schlafly and the Bradley's and Palin?

Posted by: bernielatham | August 13, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Et tu, wb.

BP gets $50 million fine for safety violations committed AFTER explosion that killed 15 workers which was itself due to earlier violations.

It's why we love the profit motive and why we consider corporations to be the cat's burning pajamas when it comes to citizenship, responsibility and morality.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 13, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

I guess I'm done reading this blog anymore. Instead of focusing on our problems,Greg, you appear to be indulging in an almost gleeful sniping contest of "point the finger of blame." Does it matter to you that unemployment is at 9.5 percent,or that 30,000 people waited in line in over 100 degree weather for just the CHANCE at 435 government apartments? I heard today that Russia is building a nuclear power plant for Iran starting next month- not a problem? I am sure I will hear several"it is all the republicans fault,Bush's policies caused this,blah,blah.blah.blah.blah" That may be so, but what good does affixing the blame do? We are spending our time looking towards the past, INSTEAD of trying to solve the actual problems. I AM SO WEARY OF THIS PARTY- I went to my first tea party last weekend, I just wanted to SEE for myself and tried to remain incognito and observe. Instead I was welcomed with open arms and just the tiniest bit of hope shone through because these people are ACTIVELY working on solutions. They accepted that I am a democrat, a union worker, and also black. People mock and tease and call them racists. They are not,these people don't know me from ADAM and yet when the leader asked me my story, they secretly sent around an envelope and raised $435 for me and just handed it to me before I left. At nearly 40 years of age, I bawled like a baby. I can see that cutting back on entitlements is probably one of the only ways to right this economic ship. Nobody wants to hear that but sometimes the truth is not pleasant. Our constitution does not guarantee us a house,an education,free health care, free child care.etc. It would be nice if it did but at some point there has to be the money there to fund all of that and at this point, the money is quite simply- not there. I read this blog from the start, I still believe in the basic tenets of the democratic party,however THIS democratic party is nothing like it once was, I will not vote for it again until some of the extremists have been purged and until the elected officials STOP blaming everyone but themselves, and the media start doing their jobs of investigating politicians instead of becoming their cheerleaders and attack dogs

Posted by: sayoung809132001 | August 13, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Last week I wrote a short rant on the seriously stupid idea of establishing a private and for-profit prison system. Hardly surprising that the demands for corporate growth and increasing profits won't have consequences for how many citizens end up in jail, how many crimes end up on the books, how many lobbyists make the big bucks working to maintain or increase penalties for black kids smoking pot, etc.

Maddow did a piece last night on the connections between the Arizona governor and for-profit prisons. Great new market expansion idea, those immigrants

Posted by: bernielatham | August 13, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

How far will the circulation for the Washington Post have to sink before they realize that most people do want their news filtered by the Journolist?

Their stock price has tumbled from over 540 per share when the story of journolist broke to down to less than 350 today.

I will just keep shorting the stock and reading these prigs ramblings and enjoy.

Posted by: TECWRITE | August 13, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse


Speaking of the Ground Zero Community Center and Rainbow Lollipop Appreciate Club (well, okay, that's just what *I* would name it), Andrew McCarthy tries to take you to school about the wisdom of what Bush did, vis a vis Muslim outreach, as a reason why what's going on the Obama administration (the State Department sending Feisal Abdul Rauf out to fundraise on the tax payer's dime).

Better school him back some. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 13, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Bernie, agreed re Krauthammer's column. So much to criticize, I'm not sure where to start.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 13, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

@sayoung - By all means, feel quite free to leave off attending to this blog. As I've pointed out before, there's absolutely nothing in what you write that suggests you are doing anything but lying through your teeth as to former allegiances and present political ideas.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 13, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I generally like Krauthammer, but he's just wrong on this. Even in regards to making zoning comparisons, as the relevant zoning commissions all heartily approve of the Two Blocks from Ground Zero Muslim Community Center.

Even if it's sacred ground, then, again, the whole "they hate us because of our freedoms", so let's capitulate on this issue and be less free, because some of the folks involved might be apologists for radical islam in some form or fashion--doesn't work. If it's sacred ground, then the freedoms enshrined on that sacred ground should be celebrated.

I think the entirely right approach (if you are a critic of the Muslim Community Center, or feel there is some hypocrisy involved) to this is the Greg Gutfeld approach. A gay bar next to the community center that caters to Muslim men. Frankly, having the bar and the Community Center right there together would really be convenient.

Where I used to live, they built a Muslim Community Center two blocks from my house. Turned out, it was all right. Community centers may not be where the real battles between Western enlightenment and medieval Sharia are fought, after all.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 13, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of Krauthammer . . . and I'm really not trying to pimp The Corner (or, the CornoList, as I like to call it), but I liked Kraut's take on Robert Gibbs "professional left" comment a lot. I think Krauthammer was dead on with this:

"He has given them two appointments for the Supreme Court, each of which will yield a quarter-century of liberal opinions. He bailed out unions in the auto takeover. He bailed out the teachers’ unions just this week by supporting state and local governments. He has given them everything he could possibly do — and they’re whining about him? It’s unbelievable."

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 13, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

"the Greg Gutfeld approach. A gay bar next to the community center"

Wonderful! Talk about thinking outside the box. As a fan of religious pluralism and liberal social arrangements (and of the boggling diversity of that city) I heartily approve.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 13, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

And again, @ Kevin...

Krauthammer does, I think, get that one pretty much exactly right. Of course, it isn't unusual for someone sitting outside a thing to have a better perspective on it than those stuck inside.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 13, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "By all means, feel quite free to leave off attending to this blog. As I've pointed out before, there's absolutely nothing in what you write that suggests you are doing anything but lying through your teeth as to former allegiances and present political ideas."

I always find this funny. Polls, voting patterns, self-identification, registered party affiliation, even the voting patterns of Beltway politicians, all suggest that some people can and do move from left-of-center to right-of-center or even far left to far right (David Horowitz comes to mind) or from modestly liberal to pretty conservative (I'd say Dick Morris falls in this category, you might disagree) or part of the vast right wing conspiracy to an opponent of same, ala David Brock.

People really do have changes of heart, and usually that's an experience (even if it happens over time) that's important to them, so they will frequently share the fact that they used to be liberal, conservative, a Democrat, a Republican, or an alcoholic.

I used to be pretty liberal. I still have some of those proclivities, although 4 years of art school did a lot to cure my of my naiveté when it comes to ideologies.

I understand the feeling. I've encountered folks (commentors, even, on other WaPo blogs) who constantly end some far-left, anti-Republican rant with "And this is why I stopped being a Republican!" From what that person writes, yes, it is impossible for me to imagine that they were ever a conservative, much less a Republican. But I'm afraid I have to take them at their word. Because Road to Damascus moments really do happen, and they happen in both directions.

That being said, why does anyone ever feel the obligation to announce that they are taking their ball and going home because the other kids aren't playing by their rules? If you're going, just go. I've left off reading many things, and never felt compelled to announce it in the comments. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 13, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin - People do move and change as they bump into new ideas or have no experiences. It's a good thing, of course, usually (Horowitz seems a case in pathology to me and his books read like a memoir of personal victimization and under-appreciation). The chap in question here hasn't done his lying very well so he's obvious.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 13, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

ought to read "new experiences"

Posted by: bernielatham | August 13, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Must run...good day all.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 13, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse


His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday. He added that the department’s public-diplomacy offices “have a long-term relationship with” Rauf – *******including during the past Bush administration, when the religious leader undertook a similar speaking tour.*******

"It is the Obama administration’s doing, however, that Feisal Rauf has been selected for a trip at a time when (a) he has triggered a divisive controversy that shows he does not speak for the vast majority of Americans, (b) his sharia promotion is now a matter of public record and attention, (c) his troubling ties to Muslim Brotherhood groups and an organization that financed “Peace Flotilla” terrorists have emerged, and (d) he is trying, for his own self-aggrandizing purposes, to raise tens of millions of dollars from the countries to which State is sending him." national review

a) shows he does not speak for the vast majority of Americans--of course this isn't his goal. The talks are about being a religious MINORITY in the US.
b) whether or not he supports "Sharia law" is immaterial. Such a set of laws would be ruled unconstitutional. If he wants to try and get his followers to follow stricter religious rules than other groups, say like Hasidic jews, or fundie christians, that is his right. I am highly skeptical of this claim with no links or attribution.
c)"ties?" to the Muslim brotherhood. What does this mean? Supporter of some groups that supported the flotilla (the nerve of those protestors to leap in front of Israeli bullets).
d) I don't really have any comment about this...If he is on a state dept mission, and he completes that mission, the other things he does in those countries don't really matter.

Pretty weak tea...

Posted by: srw3 | August 13, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse


Charles lowered The Kraut Hammer.

"Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi -- yet despite contemporary Germany's innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka. "

He says that Islam is not intrinsically to blame, but then demands that they conduct their affairs as if they are to blame for 9/11.

Does Krauthammer want all Muslim cab drivers to refuse fares to anywhere close to the 9/11 site?

I am just starting research on a book I am going to write:

Working Title:

When Psychiatrists Go Mad:

The Life And Times Of Radovan Karadžić, and Charles Krauthammer.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 13, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Has Elizabeth Warren said that she wants the appointment?

Posted by: Liam-still | August 13, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Greg, you missed the hard hitting ad on Vitter.

You definitely have to cover it in the round-up today.

It needs as much exposure as possible to highlight just how much Vitter despises women in general.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 13, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

From the article on Liz Warren:

"""She was the child of a cash-strapped family on the Oklahoma plains, a teenage wife and young mother who became the only member of her immediate family to graduate from college, then went on to teach at Harvard Law School. Drawn to the field of bankruptcy, she initially took a jaundiced view of the irresponsible spendthrifts she believed were gaming the system, only to discover during her research a humanity in their stories that altered her life's work. She has long maintained the bearing of a straight-shooting, "aw shucks" Washington outsider, even though she began showing her Beltway savvy as a political infighter more than a decade ago.


Betsy, as her family always called her, was born in 1949. Her parents were hardscrabble Okies, forever haunted by the Dust Bowl poverty that had defined their early lives.

"They hadn't recovered from the Depression, and I guess in many ways they never did," Warren, who declined to be interviewed for this story, recalled during a 2007 interview at the University of California at Berkeley as part of its "Conversations With History" series. "Those were the stories that permeated my childhood -- what it was like to have seven years of drought, what it was like when nobody had any money, what it was like when all your neighbors left to go to California or someplace where they thought there might be jobs." """

Yeah, she sounds like one of those "Democratic extremists" right sayoung? Hahaha!

She's flat-out awesome.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 13, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Liam, the couple of times I have seen the question posed to Warren, she has not said strongly yes or no. She has demurred. I'd read that as her being interested, but not presumptive.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 13, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse


It looks like Paul Ryan has a fresh Road To Damascus moment, with regards to Medicare, and fiscal responsibility, every time his party is out of power.

He voted for all those budget busting bills, that Tom Delay pushed through, without funding them. Now he wants to save Medicare by issuing vouchers, that can be used to purchase private insurance.

I say to Paul Ryan; you first Mr. Ryan.

Start a pilot program, for all members of congress. Make them take care of their health coverage, with the same amount of voucher cash, as you are proposing that medicare recipients would receive.

Once you have demonstrated, for at least a decade, how all you members of congress have fared on vouchers, instead of your current free Cadillac health care plan, then we can take a hard look at the idea of adopting it for all Medicare recipients.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 13, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Rand Paul Takes Page From Sharron Angle's Playbook, Runs From Reporters (VIDEO)

Why are these Republican extremists such cowards?

Are you ready to vote for the GOP, sayoung? Rand Paul stating that he would vote against the Civil Rights Act because it forced private companies to serve blacks? Is THAT the kind of party you want to support sayoung? Or the kind that says we need to "Phase Out" social security? Or the kind that says it's okay for tax cuts for the rich to ADD TO THE DEFICIT but god-forbid they support aid for cash-poor states that DOES NOT add to the deficit?

Is THAT your kind of party sayoung? Puh-lease. If that's the kind of party you support and want to vote for in November 2010, then you were simply lying when you said, "I still believe in the basic tenets of the democratic party."

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 13, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Would you trust Rand Paul and Sharron Obtuse Angle to stand up to Terrorists, or Hostile Nations, when they are afraid to face Milquetoast reporters?

Posted by: Liam-still | August 13, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Europe debt crisis in the spring was THE primary cause for the softening of the recovery:

"""When Obama spoke Wednesday in the East Room about American manufacturing, he placed the inflection point at "last spring," when he said "events in Europe roiled the markets and created headwinds for our economic recovery."


Economic data suggests that the administration is right on the substance: Exports, which had been growing, contracted in June, adding to the nation's trade imbalance. That has hurt U.S. manufacturers and is slowing job growth.

"It's a headwind," said University of California economics professor J. Bradford DeLong. "It's a legitimate thing to point at. How big? I don't think we really know."


"While we have fought back from the worst of this recession, we've still got a lot of work to do," Obama said Wednesday. "We've still got a long way to go. And I'm more determined than ever to do every single thing we can to hasten our economic recovery and get our people back to work." """

The Europe Crisis gets NO PLAY in the job/economy discussion.

And that is just another tragedy in our long line of tragedies that would have been at least partially avoidable, or at least explainable, if we had a functioning news media.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 13, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

All, my response to Krauthammer:

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 13, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

@srw3 "c)"ties?" to the Muslim brotherhood. What does this mean?"

I'm supportive of the Cordoba House, but it's really too bad this effort is being led by this imam whose reputation is not great among many of us who know him.

A few years ago, through my Sufi group, I met and spent time with both Faisal and Daisy Khan, during a couple of spiritual retreats, then at their homes in NY and NJ.

Daisy is a great person, although totally submissive to her husband. He is shady, at best. His practice of Islam is much too doctrinaire, literal, and conservative for me.

He traumatized my (12 year old, at the time) son during prayer when he singled him out because his shorts were just above his knees. He wants women covered-up, and doesn't like mixing genders much, socially or any other way. He reprimanded me several times for being "too friendly" with fellow Muslim men and for wearing tank tops in summer, for example.

As for the "ties to the MB", that has to do with his Dad I believe. He was the imam of the DC mosque for many years, I met him too. He is Egyptian, and even more conservative than his son, and probably knew many of that generation of MB leaders. Nothing terroristic about the father or the son though, as far as I know. Just a profoundly conservative, outdated practice of Islam, for which I have zero patience.

Posted by: Mag3 | August 13, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

@Mag3 : Thanks for the info. I am personally not enamored with any sky wizard practices, but that is not really an issue. He doesn't seem any more extreme than the barefoot and pregnant strain of fundamentalist christian nutcases I have dealt with. Its not his views that are at issue, it is his right to build a house of worship on land that he or his group owns, right?

And it sounds like his "radical" ties are pretty far removed...

Posted by: srw3 | August 13, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Mag3, thanks for adding your perspective!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 13, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

swr3: yes, I agree, it's at least the right of the community he represents.

You're welcome, sue :-)

Posted by: Mag3 | August 13, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Chiming in on the thankyou for that information, Mag3. Would love to hear more from you as issues arise where your knowledge and unique perspective would help the rest of us increase our understanding.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 13, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

well Greg, if Obama selects Warren and the stock market drops 300 points, that 3% reduction of wealth and more fear from business to convince them investing in America is a bad idea through 2012, it wouldn't be to Obama's advantage. Not selecting her would help the stock market, the fringe left would forget about Warren the next time some other issue pops up like everything else that fades from the headlines. A woman who is fawned over by Michael Moore and plays a starring role in his anti capitalism movie won't play well with the capitalists.

Posted by: jeff38 | August 13, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company