Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Van Hollen: We'll use Boehner as weapon against Republicans

The chief of Dem efforts to keep the House came out swinging hard against John Boehner's speech criticizing Obama on the economy, arguing in an interview with me that Boehner had only helped Dems by confirming that a vote for the GOP is a return to "Bush economics on steroids."

DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen also scoffed at Boehner's call for Obama to fire his economic team, claiming that Republican efforts to push that issue would be seen by voters as a "distraction" and "political gamesmanship."

The comments from Van Hollen suggest that both sides are girding for an intense game of chicken this fall on the economy, one that is shaping up as a showdown between, in effect, Obama and Bush. In the interview, Van Hollen said the DCCC would advise Dem candidates to seize on Boehner's speech.

"The Boehner speech is Exhibit A that they want to take a U-turn back to Bush policies that failed," Van Hollen said of Republicans. "We will be using it to encourage our candidates to draw a clear distinction between continuing on the road to recovery or turning back the clock to the failed Bush economic agenda."

Van Hollen added that Boehner's speech -- which presented an extension of the Bush tax cuts as a panacea but added few other policy prescriptions -- had only helped Dems by giving them a target, because it would enable Dems to present the election as a choice, rather than just as referendum on them.

"No longer is the Republican plan a blank slate," Van Hollen said. "Their proposal is Bush economics on steroids. By making that clear, he has sharpened the choice in these races. What he's proposing will provide ammunition for our candidates."

When I pointed to evidence this message isn't sinking in -- a recent polling memo circulated by Dems found only 25 percent believe the GOP wants a return to Bush policies -- Van Hollen didn't respond directly. "Boehner's speech opened up greater opportunities to have that conversation," he said.

This morning, the NRCC announced that they will be amplifying Boehner's call for Obama to fire Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, by pressuring Dem candidates to say whether they agree. But Van Hollen dismissed this strategy as a transparent stunt.

"People will see that as pure political gamesmanship," Van Hollen said. "If they focus on just that piece it will demonstrate that they lack any seriousness. The Geithner Summers piece is obviously a political effort at distraction."

Asked to respond to Charlie Cook's much discussed analysis predicting that Dems would lose the House in a wave election, Van Hollen dismissed the argument. "Unlike in 1994, in 2010 Republicans are not seen as a viable, credible alternative to Democrats," he said. "This is where John Boehner's speech comes in."

"This is not going to be 1994 redux," Van Hollen added. "Democrats will retain a majority in the House."

By Greg Sargent  |  August 25, 2010; 11:10 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , House Dems , House GOPers  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Harry Reid rips Sharron Angle over "domestic enemies"


OK, here's what Drudge has up right now:

Worries about recovery deepen...
'Hindenburg Omen' creator exits stock market...
Economy in 'Depression, Not Recession'...
Dow Faces 'Bouncy Ride to 5,000'...
Typical Slow Summer -- or Something Darker?
New Home Sales Sink to Lowest Pace on Record...
Investors Scatter to Safety...
MORGAN STANLEY: Government Bond Defaults Inevitable...

But don't worry Democrats! Van Hollen has "Speaker Boehner!"

Posted by: ath17 | August 25, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Greg, you might want to inquire about this.

What was John Boehner's role?

In Wisconsin, candidate for governor, Mark Neumann is making the following claim, about his own party, on his website, and in TV spots.

"While in Congress, Mark fought against a Republican spending bill because the political class could not explain where they would find the revenue. Republican leaders told him he had to vote for it or his political career would be over. Mark said he didn't care about having a political career and he voted against it (watch a video of Mark telling this story).

The next day, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee Bob Livingston pulled Mark aside and informed him that he was kicked off the Appropriations Committee."

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Funny, we've had what, 6 or 7 months of positive private sector growth and Boehner calls Obama's policies job killing.

I'd hate to see what Boehner called the last 12 months of private sector job losses during Bush's last term.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse


"claiming that Republican efforts to push that issue would be seen by voters as a distraction and political gamesmanship."

I'm curious...does he use that particular wording as well?

It's a tactic I really have grown annoyed by - Democrats saying "Voters will see this as...blah blah blah." Dems need to stop saying "voters will see it this way" and instead start saying "it is this way".

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 25, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

The problem with making Bohner into the bad guy is that, I would guess, most people don't know who he is.

Those of us who come to sites like this sure do, but we are a very small minority of political junkies. You don't have to work hard to convince us that Bohner is a lazy, golf-addicted compulsive tanner that cares only about power, never policy. We already knew that.

But can the Democrats convince enough politically uninvolved Americans that John Bohner is an orange-skinned turd to help them win elections? I doubt it.

Posted by: nisleib | August 25, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

bbq -- his quote on that is lower down in the piece

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 25, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

I'm not a pollyanna or really that naive, I understand negative political advertising is very effective...heck a crook here in Florida used it almost exclusively to grab the R nomination for Governor...again forgive the begging but we in Florida are afraid very this message from Alex Sink..

Meanwhile can't we figure a way to tout the accomplishments of the Administration.
Does honesty not work at all anymore? I'm tired of letting the right dictate how this country operates...can't we actually run on the merits of our plan instead of looking for ways to demonize Boehner? Can't we spend our time on advancing this nation instead of on opposition research.

Yes it's tough to sell something as ethereal as what would have happened without the stimulus...but there have to be plenty of newsclips of the doom and gloom in the fall of 2008. We don't even have to mention Bush or the R's simply show the freaking truth. We were all legitimately scared out of our gourds about the next depression. 25% unemployment seemed a genuine possibility at the time...moderating a great depression into a nasty recession is not easy to sell...I get that...but really can we not use plenty of the headlines of when this country was near the verge of panic.

I've been blasted here for disapproving of Obama's HCR and his Foreign Policy (wars) however given what he was handed...given with the kind of obstuctionist idiots who didn't care squat about our country but were more interested in Obama's "Waterloo", given the force of the billionaire robber baron Koch brothers and their limitless funding attacking Obama and creating a great many of the astro turf Tea Party groups...I give Obama great credit for getting us through what everybody(D's, R's and I's) at the time agreed was a near panic situation.

Of all the accomplishments Obamabots wish to tout...the one thing I believe history will give Obama the most credit for is avoiding a complete economic meltdown and moderating our panic into discomfort.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 25, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

You have to wonder if Van Hollen actually listened to Boner's speech? He didn't offer solutions; he simply bashed the Dems, relentlesly. I don't think if I was a Dem I would want to draw people's attention to:

"A continuous battering of the president’s advisers, policies and legacy. A recital of every Democratic misstep, misstatement and miscue of the past 20 months. An attack strategy that is thus far short on Republican vision and long on bashing Democrats.

"Boehner’s economic speech in Cleveland on Tuesday morning had few fresh new Republican policy ideas, yet he used the phrase “job killing” 13 times to describe the Obama agenda."

Read more:

Posted by: sbj3 | August 25, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Boehner is the best spokesperson for the GOP and I agree that it might help highlighting some of the things he's saying now and has also said in the past, but most Dems aren't running against him.

Personally, I think the best thing for Dems to do is come back from break and highlight the next step in the LONG process of rescuing America's workforce. We need a plan and I think we need it now. Most of us realize things are better than they might have been, we don't really want to go backwards, but please show us a path forward.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

If Republicans managed to focus people's attention on Nancy Pelosi, I see no reason why Democrats should face any greater obstacles, in making John Boehner the Poster Child, for all things wrong with Republican Leadership.

I seem to recall him passing out Tobacco Industry Checks, on the floor of the House, just before a vote was cast for a bill that the Tobacco Cartel wanted passed.

Democrats need to start running ads, reminding people of what sort of corrupt Speaker Of The House they would be getting, if they vote Republican in the fall.

John Boehner;

His color is not from a tanning bed;

It is his full body Nicotine Stain.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Boehner's image is one of over indulgence.

That is not exactly what Republicans want.


Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Liam - I don't think Republicans managed to villify Nancy Pelosi. Sure, they turned the hard righties against her, but they were already against her.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that their efforts to demonize Pelosi was an epic fail.

"Republicans have long promised to use Pelosi's liberalism and her roots in San Francisco to drag down Democratic members of Congress who represent much more conservative areas.

"To date, it hasn't worked because Pelosi has simply not been well known (or disliked) enough for voters to punish their member for being in the same party as the speaker."

Posted by: nisleib | August 25, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I'm curious about 2 things. One, where did Charlie Cook place Lisa Murkowski in her race and two, why does Cook still have the race in Connecticut with Blumenthal and McMahon as a toss up?

Posted by: roxsteady | August 25, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse usual..great post.

OT but a question generated in my mind by the Morning Plum....forgive my ignorance..and no snark intended with this question...

Is it a crime to be a communist. Can you be deported or placed in jail for being a member of the communist party?

Just curious about facts here. I am not a communist and I can't even use the ole saw..."but some of my best friends are communists" in fact I can't say I've ever even met a communist. I simply curious if our country's freedoms include the right to be a communist, anarchist or any other unpopular group?

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 25, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

John Boehner: The Great Orange Satan

...somebody had better tell Kos.

Posted by: CalD | August 25, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

They don't even have to paint Boehner as overindulgent, he's already done that for himself!

I bet the tan tax was Obama's way of leaving a goose egg on Boehners desk after the egg Boehner left on Obama's desk with the stimulus vote.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Just look up Boehners votes, on budget busting bills, during the Bush/Cheney eight year reign of terror.

He voted against fiscal responsibility over and over. Just keep showing his votes to the public, and tell them; this will be your new Speaker Of The House, if you elect Republicans.

Remind them, that Republicans like Boehner, always promise fiscal restraint, but they have always done the exact opposite, once they were put in charge.

Just use his voting record, to show that he is not to be trusted, and he is just lying to the voters.

His voting record is all the evidence the people need to see. Show it to them.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

All, check this out: Harry Reid is blistering Sharron Angle over the "domestic enemies" quote from yesterday:

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 25, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Listen if you MUST go down the demonize John Boehner route.

""Rounds of golf: 100 plus. Golf expenses: $83,000. Membership at all male club: $75,000. Special interest travel including golf junkets: $159,000. Raising the retirement age to 70 and voting to end unemployment benefits: priceless. For those who want an out-of-touch pro golfer for a Congressman, there's John Boehner."

Is this really a man who gives a rat's arse about the working man? Another 100,000+ in take home pay for folks making over ONE MILLION dollars a year? This time around vote YOUR interests. If you make more than ONE MILLION dollars by all means vote Republican...if you make 250,000 or less vote Democratic.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 25, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

@ lmsinca,

"Personally, I think the best thing for Dems to do is come back from break and highlight the next step in the LONG process of rescuing America's workforce. We need a plan and I think we need it now. Most of us realize things are better than they might have been, we don't really want to go backwards, but please show us a path forward."

This is SO very true. All summer we have been getting economic numbers that range from disappointing to terrifying, consistently failing to meet experts' expectations. There is no indication that the Democrats have any plan to combat joblessness and stimulate growth in 2010 and 2011, and the media is increasingly tossing around terms like "double dip" and "recession."

If the best the Dems can offer is "it could have been worse," and making an issue out of John Boehner's lame remarks and offensive personality, they are unlikely to turn out many voters, and anti-incumbent sentiment may indeed become the only driving factor.

The Republicans have no serious plan either, of course, but that is no excuse for the Democrats behaving as though everything that was needed for the economy has already been done.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 25, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Boehner has said his proudest achievement was No Child Left Behind -- Republican Style beyotches!

Posted by: CalD | August 25, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I also think Obama should give a big speech in October and layout his and Dems plans for the next two years. He should highlight the successes then spell out what he thinks we need to be doing going forward.

If, at the same time he forwarded Liz Warren to head the CFPB, spelled out exactly how SS needs to be tweaked without cutting benefits hopefully (take that away from the commission), introduced a new plan to boost manufacturing and a bold idea to bring our infrastructure up to 21st. Century standards paying for it with specific cuts in government waste (deficit neutral), we might pick up a few independents and recalcitrant liberals.

During an election season, people need a vision of the future. Then he needs to get ALL Dems on board. The middle class has been saving and paying down credit card debt now they need a reason to spend again.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget also that Boehner is the guy who distributed checks from the Tobacco Industry to Republican members of Congress... ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

This is from 1996:

In America; Checking Out the House

"""Perhaps he was bored. Debates were being conducted on such issues as funding for foreign operations and a proposal to amend the Constitution to outlaw desecration of the flag. In any event, Mr. Boehner took it upon himself to begin handing out money from tobacco lobbyists to certain of his colleagues on the House floor.

He was not deterred by the fact that the House was in session, and that he was supposed to be attending to the nation's business. He was not constrained by any sense that passing money around the floor of the House of Representatives was a sacrilege. He had the checks and he dispensed them.

Even for a place as benumbed by cynicism as Capitol Hill, Mr. Boehner had gone too far. Several of his Republican colleagues, including Representative Steve Largent of Oklahoma, were outraged. But attempts were made to keep the matter hushed up. I first heard about it this week and called Mr. Boehner's office.

"They were contributions from tobacco PAC's," said Mr. Boehner's chief of staff, Barry Jackson. "There were half a dozen checks, maybe."

I asked why Mr. Boehner had distributed the checks on the floor of the House.

The answer echoed Willie Sutton's observation about banks. "The floor," said Mr. Jackson, "is where the members meet with each other." """

Isn't that INSANE?

Here is a video of him ADMITTING to it:

This man as Speaker of the PEOPLE'S HOUSE would be beyond a disgrace.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 25, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse


I agree again, although October might not even be soon enough.

What we need to hear from our President is that he finds the current level of joblessness "completely unacceptable," and that he and his fellow Democrats "will not rest" until we are back to full unemployment, along with a strategy of concrete policy measures designed to take us there, which must be at a sufficient scale to be taken seriously.

Only THEN can the Democrats make this a "choice election," and also successfully argue who got us into this mess and how much worse the present might have been under Republican policies.

There needs to be a plan, and there needs to be a genuine sense of urgency.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 25, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Patrick, I agree, it needs to be done right after Labor Day. Maybe he's working on his big "Labor Day" speech right now? Please.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

The President should say no such thing. He should become the cheerleader for optimism, and how much progress has been made.

Talk up optimism, and how we are now on the road to recovery. Nothing to fear but fear itself. Morning In America. Our best days are yet to come.

That is how he should be speaking.

A leader should be inspiring optimism and a can do spirit. His foes will be telling people more than enough about how bad things are. He does not need to add to their negative bonfire.

We have put out the raging inferno that the Republicans ignited, and now we are engaged in rebuilding our Economic House.

Brag. Brag. Brag. Mr. President; about all your major pieces of legislation. Remind women about how you delivered on equal pay for equal work. Remind the retired, and the soon to be retired, about how Democrats have always saved Social Security for them.

Brag Brag Brag.

You have overcome the Party Of No, to pass many great things. Brag Brag Brag.

Democrats have saved America once again. Brag about it, Mr. President. Concede nothing.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Liam, we're arguing FOR optimism, a plan going forward. Do deny that people are still suffering flies in the face of reality. Give us hope again. And I did mention highlighting the successes also.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

edit: To deny

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse


People know where things stand. When campaigning, you have to lead by instilling optimism in them. FDR knew how to sell that message. So did the Gipper.

President Obama should heed the lyrics that Bing used to croon:

"You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between

You've got to spread joy up to the maximum
Bring gloom down to the minimum
Have faith or pandemonium
Liable to walk upon the scene"

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Look Liam, I don't really want to argue with you but just let me say if the President wants to go the route you suggest, more power to him. I am more of a policy geek and believe that good policy makes for good politics. We could debate all day whether the policy has been good enough and I think you know that in some cases I don't believe it has been, for whatever reason. I don't doubt his intentions, just some of his decisions. It doesn't mean I don't support his efforts or accomplishments. I will always advocate for something better if I think it will lift the middle class out of their stagnation and at the same time be sound policy.

I do a lot of work in the community and talk to a lot of people and there's unrest and uncertainty for numerous reasons. You can't just "happy talk" people into happiness. They need something to look forward to and believe in, especially now. I think Obama is more than capable of highlighting his successful attempts and achievements, admit that things aren't where he wants them to be and outline a plan to get us there. People who are serious about this country's future appreciate honesty as much as anything.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Asked to respond to Charlie Cook's much discussed analysis predicting that Dems would lose the House in a wave election, Van Hollen dismissed the argument. "Unlike in 1994, in 2010 Republicans are not seen as a viable, credible alternative to Democrats," he said. "This is where John Boehner's speech comes in."

All Boehner snarks aside (albeit reluctantly) that's actually true as best I can tell. I went digging through old polling data a while back (because I'm a junkie like that) and of three questions I could find history on that seemed to represent the best leading indicators of which party gained or lost House seats in recent elections, I have yet to see Republicans pull ahead in any of them.

One of the best sources of historical data out there is the WP/ABC poll, BTW. Two of these are questions I've only seen the Post ask the same way consistently over a long period and the other is one that the Post and others ask occasionally. (Maybe Greg could put a bug in someone's ear to ask them all more often?)

Anyway the questions were:

* Job approval for ~each party's~ members of congress. (Multiple sources) Overall congressional job rating doesn't seem to be all that useful in this context, BTW.

* Which party do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years? (ABC/WP)

* Which party do you trust more to handle the economy? (ABC/WP)

All of those make intuitive sense as things that could be predictive of how people vote. You have to figure that last one is going to be pretty big this year but in the past several congressional elections, the party that gained seats lead on all three where data was available. And last time I checked -- which would be about a month ago now and I was comparing midsummer numbers across the board as best I could -- Democrats were either holding their own or leading on all three. So if I seem a little more optimistic than some about their possible fortunes in November, that's probably why.

Also I've done some comparisons of pundit's predictions to House election results in the past two elections and Charlie Cook's? Not impressive. I guess you never know though. Maybe this could be his year.

Posted by: CalD | August 25, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

A discussion is not an "argument" .That is a pejorative way to end any discussion, from different perspectives, and so it has, on this topic.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 25, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Okay, you're right about my use of the word argument, we've had those before and I guess I was hoping to avoid that again while making my point is all. I respect both your opinion and your right to express it, we just disagree around the edges sometimes.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

I remain in 100% agreement with lmsinca. Simply bragging would be utter disaster; it would be perceived as being in a state of denial and would open fresh ground for Republican attack.

Both Bush presidencies sank like a stone when the voters became convinced they were "in a bubble" and disconnected from the perceptions and experiences of ordinary people. Obama is in danger of seeming aloof from the misery index.

Obama can and should be optimistic, but he (and all Democrats) must acknowledge that the country is still in a deep hole, and that although we have made real progress, much remains to be done in order to put the economy back on a sound footing and to once again grow a prosperous American middle class.

He can and should tie the problems of today to the disastrous two terms of Bush, but the worst thing that could happen is for the Democrats to appear as though they have run out of tools to fix the economy, which for most Americans still scares the living daylights out of them.

The unemployed themselves will be a significant segment of the voters, and could swing close elections. The Dems have to offer them something more than a promise to keep extending benefits to 99 awful lot of people have already crossed that mark.

We need a new populist Obama who is "fired up" to get this economy back up on the rails and pushing forward.

I am saying this not only because it is smart politics (and it is) but because it is the right thing to do. We are in danger of deep economic stagnation and structurally sky high unemployment unless the Democrats start acting like the party of the New Deal once again.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 25, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Patrick, that's a good point about the unemployed as a voting block. I know they've been trying to mobilize and put pressure on Congress to act. It really just seems like jobs are the most important issue right now and we simply cannot accept long term unemployment. It's the responsibility of our legislators and the Feds to come up with policies to deal with it.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse


Yes. And I can well imagine between the mid-terms and 2012 the long-term employed will get increasingly frustrated and restless if nothing is done to help bring down the unemployment rate faster and give people some real hope. I can easily imagine protest marches by the unemployed in every major city.

The times are ripe for a party that will really fight on behalf of ordinary citizens. Obama needs to turn down some of his inner-Lincoln and tune in to his inner-FDR.

I seriously doubt that any of what we want will actually happen, because the Democrats are so scared of spending and deficits, so probably instead there will be no new policies trotted out in the Fall, and instead we'll just keep hearing that corny line about "D" for forward and the "R" for backward on the car's transmission, and Boehner just might end up taking the gavel away from Pelosi after all.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 25, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Patrick, I think you're right, they're done for now as far as big policy goes. I said it then and I'll say it now, Obama's biggest mistake,IMO, was setting up the deficit commission this year. It took everyone's eye off the ball and made it almost impossible to try for anymore government spending. Are we looking at a lost decade do you think? I just don't see current policy bringing employment back around, at least in the next year or two, maybe more.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse


Yes, going that direction prematurely was a big error.

Another error was buying into the meme that there was only going to be one opportunity for stimulus. I wish that Obama had said from the beginning that recovery was not going to be easy, and that it would take an ongoing series of measures, some of which were bound to less effective than others, in order to get out of the hole.

Sadly even well-meaning smart people like Krugman were saying that the first stimulus had to be big enough, because there would be no political second chance. Obama might have pre-empted that thinking if (right from the inauguration forward) he had told us that there would need to be a constant stream of measures, and that we would never let up until the economy was better.

It is a good thing FDR did not buy into the notion that only one fiscal stimulus was possible.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 25, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Agreed and it's been nice talking to you Patrick, have a good day. We seem to be in agreement on most things, sort of unusual for me around here. Thanks

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse


Likewise and right back at ya. Have a great evening.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 25, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

One thing that is curious to me is that Mr. Van Hollen and his committee don't seem to think it's worthwhile to provide any funds to the Democrat, Justin Coussoule, who is challenging Boehner in his home district (OH-8). Apparently the DCCC will ONLY give money to conservative Democrats who vote with Boehner and insult Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by: Acharn | August 27, 2010 6:02 AM | Report abuse

If the repukes were not so dangerously stupid -they miss that moron w- they would be hilarious. What a bunch of insane children they and so vicious and immoral. I guess they miss segregation too.

Posted by: davidsawh | August 27, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

What a clown Van Hoellen is - the economy is crashing after the Dems waste of over a trillion dollars, and the Dems plan to launch a campaign based on Boehner.....the Dems are beyond incompetent, they are also very, very stupid. It is over for this version of the Democrats as the midterms will sliminate their majorities in the House and Senate.....all because of Obama's socialist agenda and his refusal to negotiate with the Democratic party moderates and the GOP.

Posted by: Realist201 | August 27, 2010 11:52 AM | 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