Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* UPDATE: Happy 10th anniversary, Talking Points Memo. As someone who spent a fair amount of time stepping over trees to get into TPM's old offices in New York's flower district, I can tell you first-hand that what Josh Marshall has achieved is truly amazing.

Josh's core insight, I think, was to recognize that caring what happens in politics -- preferring one outcome to another -- is not incompatible with doing journalism with accuracy, fairness, professionalism, and integrity. This idea was a good deal more controversial when he started doing it than it is today. Josh's energy, drive and journalistic ambition -- the fact that he successfully put this notion into practice day after day after day, through cycle after cycle -- played a major role in gaining acceptance for it.

Josh also recognized before pretty much anyone else that this vision could find perfect expression in a blog idiom, and that he could give that vision force and utility by mobilizing an engaged and deeply invested readership -- one that welcomed and embraced his appeal to join him in the reporting process.

And the site's still a blast to read. Kudos to him and the rest of the TPM team.

* A dozen female members of Congress have mounted a new push for Nancy Pelosi as minority leader, arguing in a letter to colleagues that she made history as the first female Speaker and can be counted on to battle Republicans who are a threat to "the progress we have made for women and families."

* The Blue Dog finally barks, sort of: Dem Rep Heath Shuler recently threatened to run for minority leader, but in the days after Nancy Pelosi declared, his office and staff went into total bunker mode, refusing to say whether he's still running.

Now Shuler may announce that he's running on the talk shows this Sunday. But as Roll Call puts it today, no one considers the Shuler threat anything more than a "token gesture."

* Interesting: Obama's weekly address tomorrow is all about earmark reform. Wonder if this is partly intended to exacerbate the intra-party tensions that are roiling the GOP over the issue...

* Bob Shrum goes there, charging that Republicans are plotting government "inaction" to ensure that the recession will "still be painfully felt in 2012."

* I think I've got this one figured out. George Soros has kept a senior adviser to Sarah Palin on his payroll for years as part of a secret, long-running Soros plot to ensure she runs in 2012, securing Obama's reelection.

* Great point from Defeated Dem Rep Paul Kanjorski, who notes that many House Dems will oppose a temporary extension of the tax cuts for the rich -- because they all "took it very seriously" when Obama campaigned against cutting taxes for "millionaires and billionaires."

* GOP establishment 1, Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party 0.

* There's really no need to worry that a climate change skeptic like GOP Rep. John Shimkus may hold a key energy role in Congress, because God has already indicated he's protecting us from global warming.

* Cindy McCain versus John McCain on Don't Ask Don't Tell. The best part: Cindy condemns "political leaders" for telling gays that "they can't serve our country openly."

* A useful guide to all the creative tactics Republicans intend to use to repeal Obamacare.

* Barbara Morrill on how Dems holding just a vote on the middle class tax cuts could actually work.

* And one more time: Letting the GOP get its way on the Bush tax cuts for now, on the understanding that we'll have the same conversation again in two years, is in no way, shape, or form a compromise.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | November 12, 2010; 5:30 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, 2012, Campaign finance, Happy Hour Roundup, Health reform, House Dems, House GOPers, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: AFL-CIO calls on Dems to vote on just middle class tax cuts
Next: Obama advisers chart the route back

Comments

Interesting read from Ryan Grim on apparently GWB lifted portions of his book from others' previously published works. Sample below.
------

George Bush Book 'Decision Points' Lifted From Advisers' Books

Bush writes: "Tommy told the national security team that he was working to apply the same concept of a light footprint to Iraq... 'If we have multiple, highly skilled Special Operations forces identifying targets for precision-guided munitions, we will need fewer conventional grounds forces,' he said. 'That's an important lesson learned from Afghanistan.' I had a lot of concerns. ... I asked the team to keep working on the plan. 'We should remain optimistic that diplomacy and international pressure will succeed in disarming the regime,' I said at the end of the meeting. 'But we cannot allow weapons of mass destruction to fall into the hands of terrorists. I will not allow that to happen.'"

Franks, in his memoir American Soldier, writes: "'For example, if we have multiple, highly skilled Special Operations forces identifying targets for precision-guided munitions, we will need fewer conventional ground forces. That's an important lesson learned from Afghanistan.' President Bush's questions continued throughout the briefing.... Before the VTC ended, President Bush addressed us all. 'We should remain optimistic that diplomacy and international pressure will succeed in disarming the regime.' ... The President paused. 'Protecting the security of the United States is my responsibility,' he continued. 'But we cannot allow weapons of mass destruction to fall into the hands of terrorists.' He shook his head. 'I will not allow that to happen.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/12/george-bush-book-decision-points_n_782731.html#s180908

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 12, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Tea Party Patriots Release Personal Phone Numbers, Emails Of Almost 100 Incoming GOP Reps

A prominent Tea Party group is hoping to ensure that recently elected GOP representatives aren't transformed by their newfound Capitol Hill influence, by allowing their constituents to get to them before Washington does.

At least that was the logic behind the Tea Party Patriots' decision to release the personal cell phone numbers and email addresses of almost 100 incoming Republican representatives, a step they took after they learned that their "Freshmen Orientation" seminar was going to be rivaled by an event supposedly "coordinated by lobbyists and campaign consultants" and organized by the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/12/tea-party-patriots-releas_n_782963.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 12, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1 - In all fairness Bush would have written his own book, but he ran out of crayons.

Kidding.

I'm sure all the wingnuts who think Biden's plagiarism is terrible, no good, awful will also have problems with Bush. Any minute now they'll start screaming... *crickets*

Posted by: HansSolo | November 12, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to take a minute to welcome Hans solo to the site. Have been enjoying your comments. Welcome.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 12, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Greg

What about Chewbacca - you forgot about him.

.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 12, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

TAXES

The Bush taxes in the disputed bracket is 39.6% which was lowered to 35% by 2006


I believe this bracket was orginally 36% - but Clinton put a surcharge on it to make it 39.6%.


So originally it was 36%, Clinton raised ito to 39.6% and Bush brought it back down to 35%


So why don't we all settle on 36% ???


That is a compromise.


.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 12, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

All, I just added my tribute to TPM's 10th anniversary above.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 12, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Josh Green's post on the birth of TPM is a must read if you are a Josh Marshall fan.

http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/11/how-tpm-got-started/66509/

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 12, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I'm willing to have someone check my numbers because I'm not entirely sure what they are.

However the ORIGINAL TAX RATE WAS 36% - and Clinton raised it to 39.6%


Then Bush came in - and the disputed bracket at 39.6% was lowered to 35% by 2006.


So, why don't we compromise and just go back to the Original Rate of 36% ???


That would settle this.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 12, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Great round-up Greg.

I will never understand the whole "deficits don't matter" schlock from the right.

Why do Republicans love the USA paying interest payments on our debt to China?

It is as clear as day that we are GIVING AWAY taxpayer dollars to foreign creditors! Just giving it away. Please take our money! Just take it!

It's not that difficult a concept to grasp. If we don't balance the budget, we will keep throwing money away for no reason. It is literally the dumbest thing you could possibly do.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 12, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

How is what President Bush wrote plagiarism?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 12, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Yea, I don't know why the media is not really reporting the full truth on that upper tax bracket - Clinton increase the bracket from 36% to 39.6% - so all Bush did was take away that short-lived increase and then give those people another 1%.


Bush's tax cuts were MAINLY a middle class tax cut - if you look at the numbers and consider what Bill Clinton did.

One other note - Bill Clinton campaigned on a middle class tax cut, but he quickly abandoned that pledge after the election, and it wasn't even on the table by Clinton taking office.


That Clinton promise never happened - but was delivered by Bush, so for the liberals to complain about that - there is that history there.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 12, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Sue,

I don't know if it is appropriate to characterize the Claremont Institute as a "think tank," given that they gave Christine O'Donnell a "Lincoln Fellowship" to study Constitutional Government.

But it is kind of funny to see the Tea Partiers panicking at the prospect of the new TP Congresscritters being seduced by D.C. It is inevitable. Counting down to the first affair with a staffer, lobbyist, or anonymous person in an airport men's room in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 12, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Here's some extract from a news story from the Orange County register yesterday about those green jobs taxpayers are subsidizing:

"Despite a $535 million loan guarantee from the federal government, Solyndra, a maker of solar panels in the southeast San Francisco Bay Area city of Fremont, will close one of its manufacturing plants, lay off 40 permanent and 150 contract workers, delay expansion plans of a new plant largely financed with the government-guaranteed loan and scale back production capacity more than 50 percent.

Despite the hype and tax money, Solyndra seems unable to compete with Chinese manufacturers, whose prices are lower. This is the latest bad news for the company touted by Mr. Schwarzenegger and President Barack Obama as one of the green industry’s supposed shining lights. President Obama visited Solyndra in May, calling the operation “a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism.”

But, truth be told, Solyndra is more of a testament to taxpayers’ hard-earned money pledged to guarantee 73 percent of the cost of building its new facility. Closure of its older plant, located nearby, is a testament to the reality that, even if massively underwritten by taxpayers, renewable energy operations aren’t certain to find a profitable niche in the open market."

Posted by: actuator | November 12, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Crown also got a mash-up of worn-out anecdotes from previously published memoirs written by his subordinates, from which Bush lifts quotes word for word, passing them off as his own recollections. He took equal license in lifting from nonfiction books about his presidency or newspaper or magazine articles from the time. Far from shedding light on how the president approached the crucial "decision points" of his presidency, the clip jobs illuminate something shallower and less surprising about Bush's character: He's too lazy to write his own memoir.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/12/george-bush-book-decision-points_n_782731.html#s180910

Definition of PLAGIARIZE
transitive verb
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive verb
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 12, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Prag,

Thanks for the definition, but I still have not seen an example of plagerism.

And if charges of plagerism are going to be bandied about, shouldn't they really be directed at the author? It's not as if you ever thought President Bush could read let alone write. Didn't they put peanut butter on the roof of his mouth and overdub someone else's voice when he was on camera?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 12, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

That HuffPo expose on the W book is really gonna eat into sales.

Posted by: tao9 | November 12, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

tao9,

Funny! Who do you think buy's more of W's book, Libs or Cons? I say Libs. The need to be outrageously outraged is just to strong.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 12, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps you missed this part, troll:

Crown also got a mash-up of worn-out anecdotes from previously published memoirs written by his subordinates, from which Bush lifts quotes word for word, passing them off as his own recollections.

Let me repeat -- FROM WHICH BUSH LIFTS QUOTES WORD FOR WORD PASSING THEM OFF AS HIS OWN RECOLLECTIONS.

And now, the definition --

to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own.

Do you see it now?

What do you mean when you say "And if charges of plagerism (sic) are going to be bandied about, shouldn't they really be directed at the author?" Are you saying George Bush is not claiming to be the author of this memoir? Perhaps --

The memoir features anecdotes about events Bush didn't witness, and remarks Bush didn't hear. Perhaps he got confused about what a "memoir" is.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026611.php

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 12, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Adding to the list from last night -- unserious.

Tao -- thanks for playing.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 12, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

“His absence doesn't stop Bush from relating this anecdote: "When Karzai arrived in Kabul for his inauguration on December 22 - 102 days after 9/11 - several Northern Alliance leaders and their bodyguards greeted him at an airport. As Karzai walked across the tarmac alone, a stunned Tajik warlord asked where all his men were. Karzai, responded, 'Why, General, you are my men. All of you who are Afghans are my men.'"”

I could not find, in this example, where W asserted he was there. Also, could there have been other’s there to witness this? Such as, I don’t know, some junior translator for a Army Colonel or a CIA (bernilatham just shat himself) who shouldn’t be named?

Also, doesn’t he write, in the beginning, “"Decision Points is based primarily on my recollections. With help from researchers, I have confirmed my account with government documents, personal interviews, news reports, and other sources, some of which remain classified,"” Damnit!!! If he doesn’t admit to a photographic memory and an ability to read minds that it’s all FAKE!!!!!!1111!!!!

The Bush/McCain “issue” (snicker). Is Greg butthurt that he doesn’t cite WaPo or something? McCain couldn’t of told this to him on the phone, or said it in 50 different interviews? It can only come from the WaPo? This is somebody’s idea of evidence?

And holy cow!!! ZOMG!!!111!! He has the same recollection of a meeting he was in that others had of that (wait for it)… same meeting!!!!111!!1!1! CASE CLOSED!!!!!!111!!!!

This is pathetic. I get it, you hate Bush and have to make sure all your friends know it. Don’t worry, I’m embarrassed for you.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 12, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

prags,

So W's lifting his own memories, notes and quotes from, eg. Woodward, who's quoting W.

When this gets out into the ethertubules, there's no way Boehlerts's gonna give it a thumbs up.

Seriously.

Posted by: tao9 | November 12, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

OrangeForces:
"Bush's tax cuts were MAINLY a middle class tax cut - if you look at the numbers and consider what Bill Clinton did."

Bzzt! Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

First, the claim that if you combine them with some of the tax changes under Clinton, Bush's tax cuts were mainly middle class only works if you start with the assumption that the highest-income citizens somehow deserve the tax rates they had before that, and therefore changing back to that rate doesn't "count" as a cut.

This is particularly ludicrous because what you're referring to as a "temporary surcharge" was in effect *longer* than the low rates that preceded it. The top rate of 39.6 was in effect for *eight years*, and another two with only a small change. The Reagan-Bush top rates of 28% and 31% were only in effect for a total of five years, so if you're arguing that the Clinton rate doesn't really "count" because it was "temporary," then you have no standing to claim that the rate that preceded it is the "normal" rate we should be compromising with, rather than the 1986 50% top rate that is the *lowest* of the preceding fifty years.

Finally, it's dishonest to consider tax rates in a vacuum. The reason the first Bush agreed to tax increases, and Clinton presided over more is that the Reagan-Bush tax rates produced massive deficits. The reason the Bush II tax cuts were temporary was to satisfy budget rules, because they produce massive deficits.

And furthermore, under Clinton tax rates we had an unprecedented economic boom. The Bush tax cuts were predicted to be great for the economy, but instead produced the weakest economic recovery since they've been keeping track. Why would we want to "compromise" between those two positions?

Posted by: jimeh | November 12, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

@OC:Bush's tax cuts were MAINLY a middle class tax cut - if you look at the numbers and consider what Bill Clinton did.

OC continues to spout false nonsense. He reminds me of STRF sooo much. Coincidence?

I guess "reality" is different from his hacienda deep inside farrightwingnutistan...

Despite his ranting about soaking the rich, the US has the lowest marginal tax rates of just about any industrialized democracy. This fact is somehow not apparent in farrightwingnutistan.

Posted by: srw3 | November 12, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

A compromise was proposed

Consider the original rate was 36% before Clinton. And instead of going to the Bush rate of 35% go to the pre-Clinton rate of 36%


Reagan was at 28%


Not one constructive comment from a democrat

Not one

Posted by: OrangeDogs | November 13, 2010 12:17 AM | Report abuse

jimeh and srw3

It is true. The Bush tax cuts were mainly a a middle class taxes cut

Did you look at the brackets and the rates???


You haven't, have you ???


Seriously the liberals just want to hate Bush


It is almost like they would melt if they said anything good about anything he did. He wasn't that bad. It's not like DeMint was President.

Posted by: OrangeDogs | November 13, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Jimeh

"temporary" was meant to be just that
TEMPORARY


What Obama, who is widely now regarded to be a complete irrational idiot, is saying is "Bring back the temporary rate"


Well that was meant to be temporary, and you are a lying idiot if you say otherwise.

Posted by: OrangeDogs | November 13, 2010 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Wusses.

All of you.

Totally pathetic how the liberals love to intimidate people wthe false charges of racism. And then they run from the facts. Worthless pathetic amebas. Unfit to be in any level of government

Posted by: OrangeDogs | November 13, 2010 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Yea I guess that is it


It's all about character

Obama and the liberals don't have it.

Posted by: OrangeDogs | November 13, 2010 1:23 AM | Report abuse

Obama still doesn't want to find a way to try Kalid Sheik Muhammed


I am a little confused.


The guy killed 2,800 people - and Obama is so caught up in his silly and childish notions that he can't find a way to just shot the guy???


The guy deserves the death penalty - and the body should be thrown in shark-infested waters.


Obama is completely worthless.

No one wants to hear about Obama's bogus ideas of what the criminal trial vs. enemy combatent trials should be like. The guy killed 2,800 people and the only question should be the method of execution.

What does Obama the Worthless have to say about method of execution????


NOT MUCH - just throw the body into shark-infested waters and forget about him.


Anything less and Obama is not a real man.


.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 2:54 AM | Report abuse

There is another point to be made in the tax cut issue

My understanding is that the 250K number applies to "married filing jointly" which means a two-income household. The corresponding number from Obama is 200K for a "single" filing.


The Orginal rate is this:

161,450 to 288,350 was 36%

Those over 288,350 had a Clinton "Temporary Surchage" of 10% - which brought that rate to

Over 288,350 39.6%


So Bush's tax cut was ONLY from 36% to 35% - because Clinton's "Temporary Surcharge" was TEMPORARY

This year the rates are

209,250 to 373,650 33%

373,650 and above 35%


So if you "expire" the tax cuts at 250K


then...

209,250 to 250,000 will be 33%
which is the tax cut rate


250,000 to 288,350 will be 36%


Above 288,350 is where the question is - will the Clinton "temporary surcharge" apply to that level - BECAUSE the rate above that level is 36% plus a "ten percent surcharge" to send the rate up to 39.6%


So, the debate that the liberals have been having is mainly whether to make the Clinton "temporary surcharge" permanent.


Again - a COMPROMISE is probably to be had if the rate is just put at 36%

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

The rate before 1992 was 31% for the top bracket.


One of the first things people learn in economics is that economic policy takes years to take hold in an economy.

That is why it is correct to assign much of the blame for the current downturn on Bill Clinton's policies.

Remember - the internet bubble was just that - a bubble.

What was going on underneath the bubble is what should be looked at if one wants to analyze how the tax rates affect the economy.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Have a bit of time this rainy AM.

First, big sweeping bow and hat doff to Josh and staff prior and past. Hard work, integrity, and giving a damn. It's a good combination.

Second, re Bush's book and plagiarism. He didn't write it so little cause to indict him personally for the failing. As one commenter elsewhere put it, it's delightful to imagine Bush perusing the pages of the NYRB but we don't expect it actually happened. And given the recent past (see rightwing commentary on John Kerry or Doris Kearns Goodwin) there's nothing unfair about criticism of the book for plagiarism. But it's evidence of some serious stupid on the part of the ghostwriter(s) and editors. Kids get booted out of college for doing it because it is dishonest (and lazy).

Re Palin, there's an interesting tidbit from a NY Times piece this morning on fundraising for 2012...

"Noticeably absent from the wooing for the most part has been the former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, Republican fund-raisers said. She has raised large sums for her federal political action committee, Sarah PAC, this year — exceeded only by Mr. Romney — but largely through small-dollar contributions."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/us/politics/13donate.html?_r=1&hp

That's another indication she isn't going to run. Given her near zilch chances of winning and the dead certainty such an attempt would work devastation on the party's future, the more powerful strategists and big funders are not going to support her (they are out to win because of the billions or trillions of dollars at stake). The Ron Paul movement has been efficiently neutered by the far superior organizational muscle and expertise of the corporate community and the only remaining hope for those people is some influence being inside the establishment (yes, I'd love to attend that AEI briefing, thank you for the invitation.)

Palin's role remains pure "bullsh*t" and "just political" as Peggy Noonan put it while unaware her mic was still on. She'll be used to motivate, to fill the media space with loud irrelevancies, and to portray an image of the Republican/conservative leadership that has as much connection to reality as Porsche badge on a Lada.

And there's another aspect here to consider. She provides a contrast for any of the men who will actually run, any of whom will look like responsible, thoughtful, near-geniuses in comparison. "See, we're not extreme and kooky after all."

Posted by: bernielatham | November 13, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

And, under the heading of "we have to carefully distinguish the real from the imaginary"...

"Now, American bishops are holding a conference on Friday and Saturday to prepare more priests and bishops to respond to the demand. The purpose is not necessarily to revive the practice, the organizers say, but to help Catholic clergy members learn how to distinguish who really needs an exorcism from who really needs a psychiatrist, or perhaps some pastoral care.

“Not everyone who thinks they need an exorcism actually does need one,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Ill., who organized the conference. “It’s only used in those cases where the Devil is involved in an extraordinary sort of way in terms of actually being in possession of the person."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/us/13exorcism.html?hp

Here's one expert on the matter...

"Monsignor Corrado Balducci, the Vatican's previous chief exorcist, estimated that only five or six out of every thousand people who seek help from an exorcist are really possessed by evil spirits."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_exor2.htm

This estimation is based on theologically rigorous float-tests, one presumes.

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

Another in the "Theological Debates of 2010 in America" series...

"There is a theological debate that this [is] a carbon-starved planet, not too much carbon.” - John Shimkus (R-Ill)

http://washingtonindependent.com/103079/shimkus-greatest-hits-climate-change-edition

Yes, clearly a theological question.


Posted by: bernielatham | November 13, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh in interview with George W Bush re book...

"If some rightwinger was talking about this Democrat president this way, they'd be putting him in jail. And the answer is always the same. The office of the presidency is way up here, and those people are down in the gutter, and I'm not taking the office of the presidency down there."

That's what we expect from the oleaginous lounge lizard, of course. But all the other big conservative propaganda founts are playing the same game (small fry don't matter) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/12/fox-news-talk-shows

There's a bunch of interesting stuff here. Notably, we don't really expect to see Bush across a table from Beck for a book interview, do we? Awkward and confusing juxtaposition of propaganda vectors (imagine Ralph Reed curb-stomping a Muslim after Sunday Service - right in one way but somehow wrong in other ways).

More broadly, the publishing was held off until post election for the obvious reasons of lingering nukular negatives. But it will not do, propaganda-wise, to allow the Bush legacy to remain tarnished with 2012 coming.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 13, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Greenwald on Cantor and Israel...

"Last night on Twitter, I wrote: "Imagine if a leading Democratic Congressman told a leader of a foreign country he'd side with them against the GOP US President" and "Imagine John Kerry, 2006, to French President Jacques Chirac: 'I'll safeguard French interests against President Bush'." In reply, The Washington Examiner's David Freddoso wrote: "No need to imagine. It happened in 02." He's presumably referring to Rep. Jim McDermott's trip to Iraq to oppose America's imminent attack on that country. That's hardly comparable -- McDermott wasn't in the leadership of his party and he was opposing that war out of allegiance to the U.S., not to Iraq -- but even so, it created a major media backlash in which McDermott was routinely denounced as a traitor and to this day is mocked as "Baghdad Jim." Needless to say, Cantor's actions will spawn nothing comparable. That's the point." http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/13/israel/index.html

Hardly a surprise anywhere here, of course. As Ha'aretz reported a few months back...

"The real Netanyahu also brags about his knowledge of America: "I know what America is. America is something that can be moved easily.""
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/tricky-bibi-1.302053

Posted by: bernielatham | November 13, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Well, that felt good. Now, off to life.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 13, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

When the lawyers leave, thats all folks. Say ta ta to Joe dirt bag Miller. Hope all that Tea Party Express money helped the local economy...loser. Murkowski, the irst write-in Senate candidate to win in decades, how does it feel to be on the losing end of that record Joe?...Joe? Cat got your tongue?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/lawyers-depart-alaska-as-millers-chances-dim/?hp

Posted by: shrink2 | November 13, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

A concise review of the midterms:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/11/15/101115taco_talk_hertzberg

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 13, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

srw3 wrote,
"It is going to take at least 4 years to dig out of the giant hole we are in."
-------

The Democratic House's four years are up January 1, 2011. Obama still has two more to go. You might want to tell him he's digging in the wrong direction. He could eventually get to China that way, but probably not in just two more years.

Posted by: Brigade | November 13, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain wrote,
"As indicated by Hans, so long as the tax cuts are called an extension or renewal or whatever of the Bush Tax Cuts, there is no benefit to the Dems."
-------

Gee, and I thought it was about what's best for the country; but now it's what's of "benefit to the Dems." Shameless hypocrisy. What else is new?

Posted by: Brigade | November 13, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

julianzs wrote,
"the exacting price of running like a herd of wildebeest to elect Republicans because we were too dumb to read the legislation achievements of the President & the Democrats."
-------

Okay, okay. The important thing to reveal is how you managed to get so dumb. Was it all the Republican propaganda resulting from all that foreign money? Better foreign money coming into the U.S. than U.S. money going to foreign countries---right?

Posted by: Brigade | November 13, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

To summarize:

Proposing that people making over $250,000 pay taxes at the level they did in the 90s makes democrats socialists and means we despise the rich and wish to punish them for their success.

Posted by:ashotinthedark|November 12,2010
-------

You forgot the part about cutting the budgets of departments of the federal government to the level of the 90s---didn't you? No more tax and spend; let's balance that budget. Right?

Posted by: Brigade | November 13, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote,
"government (or was it gubmint?) does not create jobs no matter how rich it gets . . ."

It can create more government jobs, but since it is far underwater instead of rich, that may not be a good idea.

"Stop arguing about whether or not even richer rich people will create jobs. They won't. It is much more complicated than that."

They might if they were convinced that the jobs they create would make them even richer. They're unlikely to do it for altruistic reasons. It may be complicated, but we can all agree that poor people aren't going to create any jobs---one way or the other.

Posted by: Brigade | November 13, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Well is that all you have to do on a fine Saturday morning, chop up other peoples' posts and make fun of the snippets you created? Speaking of needing a job, man, get a life.

Aren't there maybe some kids playing on your lawn you can yell at? Maybe a project car on blocks that needs your attention?

We agree on this, there will be no job creating investment in this country unless and until more money can be made by making stuff here than somewhere else. All this stimulus and pump priming and tax cutting without spending cutting is an ongoing debacle, just throwing borrowed money away.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 13, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

calchala wrote,
"Greg, here's another issue folks aren't seeing with this myopic view on tax cuts. What about DADT? New START? Dream Act?

"There just isn't enough time in the legislative calendar to get all of these accomplished plus a fight on tax cuts."
-------

Didn't people like you learn ANYTHING from the recent election results? What part of "it's the economy, stupid!" do you not quite understand?

You'll be pleased to know there isn't likely going to be much of a "fight" over the tax cuts. Just an extension. And if we had a President with any leadership skills whatsoever, some of the other issues so dear to your heart would have already gathered bipartisan support and be signed into law. Sort of makes you nostalgic for GWB, doesn't it? I guy who knew how to get things done.

-------

Well, that felt good. Now, off to life.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 13, 2010 10:46 AM
-------

I'm with you there. Not nearly as much action here of late. Post election blues.

Posted by: Brigade | November 13, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote,
"Well is that all you have to do on a fine
Saturday morning, chop up other peoples' posts and make fun of the snippets you created? Speaking of needing a job, man, get a life.

"Aren't there maybe some kids playing on your lawn you can yell at? Maybe a project car on blocks that needs your attention?"
-------

I'd rather make fun of you, but let me go check my lawn, just in case.

Posted by: Brigade | November 13, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to make this point again becaus it is important

The top rate under Reagan was 31%,

The first Bush agreed in the infamous deal to raise it to 36%

Then Clinton put a "Temporary 10% Surcharge" on that rate - which made the effective rate 39.5%.

So Bush lowered the top rate from 36% to 35% and took away the Temporarty Surcharge.

(I am not sure if Clinton's Temporary Surcharge had an actual sunset date)

However, the point is that the Obama position is to make the "TEMPORARY" Surcharge permanent.

And Bush only lowered the rate from 36% to 35% - not to the Reagan level of 31%.

So, they are not talking about "Letting the first Bush's tax increases EXPIRE"

Which is what they should be talking about.

____________________


The second point is that Obama is really talking about creating another tax bracket - because the cut-off for the top rate is at 288,000 - so there would be a new interim rate between 250,000 and 288,000.

Remember all these numbers are for married couples - double incomes - filing together - single people have a lower set of incomes at which these rates kick-in.

________________________________


So, why don't we all just compromise - we can recognize that the Bush rate is really 36% - and we agree that the Clinton "Temporary Surcharge" has to go.

So we - don't allow the "Bush tax cut from 36% to 35% stand. And we get ride of the Clinton "Temporary Surcharge"

That leaves the top rate at 36%.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"Well is that all you have to do on a fine Saturday morning, chop up other peoples' posts and make fun of the snippets you created? Speaking of needing a job, man, get a life."

Yeah, there's no point to Brigade's posts. If I were interested in what he had to say, I would create a facebook account and read Sarah Palin's posts firsthand without the suspense of waiting for Brigade to repeat them here.

But Murkowski's win is amazing. In a race between two Republicans, voters went for the Republican who they had to actually write in rather than just press the button for the Tea Partier.

That's embarrassing.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 13, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

ddawn and shrink2

Both your comments today qualify as "intent to harass" Brigade.


You both should be banned.


Greg - please ban them both.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Earmarks...smeermarks... this is minor league compared to what Obama needs to get straight - TODAY.

In public, on the record for everyone to hear, " I DO NOT support ANY extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy but will support legislation that extends those same tax cuts for anyone earning under $250,000.... Any questions?? That's about as clear and unambiguous as it can get. Anything else is a cave in.

IF Obama caves, his support of any kind on the left is gone - period... NOT to the GOP - GONE.

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | November 13, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

rbaldwin2 | November 13, 2010 1:59 PM


Bush's tax cut was only from 36% to 35%


Then they let the Clinton "Temporary Surcharge" go by the wayside.

(I am still waiting for someone to tell me what the actual senset date of Clinton's Temporary Surcharge was)


Have you been reading?


Do you have any COMPROMISE in you- or what part of OBAMA'S BIPARTISANSHIP pledges did you not understand ?

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

None of this matters at all. The liberal ascendency is finished. Obama and the Pelosites are toast. Democrats are going to have to start over from scratch.

As long a the leftist looneys are running the Democrat show, the party will poop out, every time. It's been proven by history now.

Republicans don't even have to do more than NOT be liberal Democrats to win.

It's really pathetic!

The Democrat, three stooges will be back to do more damage. It's beyond stupifying.

Looney, lefist losers! They must be purged and exiled.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 13, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

IF Obama caves, his support of any kind on the left is gone - period... NOT to the GOP - GONE.

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | November 13, 2010 1:59 PM


___________________________________----


Does that mean you are going to join the Tea Party???


Might as well - you know they aren't as bad as you think


All they want to do is cut the size of the government and put more money in your pocket.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

IF Obama caves, his support of any kind on the left is gone - period... NOT to the GOP - GONE.

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | November 13, 2010 1:59 PM

_________________________

I do not understand why you feel so strongly about this.


Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

From today's Washington Post:

The administration has concluded that it cannot put Mohammed on trial in federal court because of the opposition of lawmakers in Congress and in New York. There is also little internal support for resurrecting a military prosecution at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The latter option would alienate liberal supporters.

The administration asserts that it can hold Mohammed and other al-Qaeda operatives under the laws of war, a principle that has been upheld by the courts when Guantanamo Bay detainees have challenged their detention.

_____________________________


So, Obama wanted to have a trial, but the people in New York said no. And there is no other location.

Meanwhile, the liberals do not want a military trial - so that is out.

So Obama is doing NOTHING?


This is becoming a pattern with Obama - if he can't get his way, nothing gets done. And it is a little pathetic.


This guy killed 2,800 people, and the priority for Obama is not moving the case forward, the priority is Obama's liberal agenda of bogus legal liberal theories.


AND by the way, detention was the Bush policy, which Obama didn't like back then.


__________________


Isn't there a way to just give this guy the death penalty and be done with it?

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

For those interested, one of the smartest journalism guys in town is Jay Rosen. Here he takes up the question of "objectivity" in journalism (or in anything, for that matter)...
http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-questions-and-answers/

Posted by: bernielatham | November 13, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"...one of the smartest journalism guys in town..."

Journo-town is where they set the high jump bar at 42 inches and the limbo stick at seven feet.

Posted by: tao9 | November 13, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

On Kalid Sheik Muhammoud, after two years of inaction by Obama - including firing his man put in charge of working out all the complex issues - the result is that Obama is falling-back to Bush's policy.


So, after two years of the liberal-theories being hashed and re-hashed against reality, Obama just goes back the Bush decisions which now appear to be the best options.


Quite a stunning turn-around for anyone who has been watching these issues.


.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

News from the reality-based community:

"One of the earliest and loudest self-styled skeptics of anthropogenic global warming is Sen. James Inhofe, the ranking minority member of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. In late 2007, Inhofe released a list of over 400 "prominent scientists" who "disputed man-made global warming claims." By 2009, Inhofe had expanded his list to just under 700 people. The Inhofe list has been regularly cited by climate skeptics as evidence that there is no scientific consensus on climate change and that most scientists actually challenge the idea that global warming is human induced.
I discuss Inhofe's fraudulent list at some length in the book, but it suffices here to note that a thorough study of the curiously ever-expanding Inhofe list was completed in summer 2009 by the Center for Inquiry in the US. Among other things, the study found that fewer than 10 percent of the people on Inhofe's list could be identified as climate scientists, that a further 4 percent actually favored the IPCC consensus on anthropogenic global warming and that 80 percent of the list had no peer-reviewed publications related to climate science."

http://www.truth-out.org/the-real-climategate-getting-over-nonexistent-email-scandal-part-165012

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 13, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

ChuckinDenton at 4:20 PM

In the book, do you closely examine the East Anglia emails?

Do you closely examine how the "scientists" have decided to "adjust" ALL the raw temperature data ? Why is beyond me.


In addition, when other scientists have requested to examine those "adjustments" - and examine the raw temperature data for verification purposes, they have been refused access to the supporting data.


Scientific Study REQUIRES experimentation - and experimentation that can be duplicated and verified by other scientists. At this point, the global warming people are FAR from meeting that simple standard.

The global warming people are HIDING the actual raw temperature data that they have. They say that they "lost" the evidence.


______________________________


This is much worse - because the methods of gathering data has been proven to be NOT uniform throughout the globe.

In addition, the "scientists" claim that they have "calculated" temperature data for areas which they do NOT have data.

This is called their "proxy" data. When requests have been made to review this "proxy data" and how the "scientists" arrived at those "proxy" numbers, they have been refused.

___________________________


Your point about "scientists" is right ON THE MARK -

Because what the global warming people have done is NOT science at all. It is "fudging" numbers on a spreadsheet. They refuse to allow their methods or data to be reviewed properly - in accordance with accepted and traditional scientific procedures.

In addition, the global warming people have been accused of manipulating the published papers on the subject. NOT exactly the kind of accusation that revolves around theories that stand the test of time.

.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

ChuckinDenton at 4:20 PM

In the past million years, the Earth has heated and cooled 63 times - all on account of natural forces.

How is it that "scientists" are sure that those natural forces are not at work right now???


At this point, there is no adequate theory which distinquishes from those warming and cooling cycles - and what is happening now.

________________________________


New York and Chicago both used to be covered with a quarter mile of ICE -

How did all that ice melt, without one SUV or fossil fuel being burned???

Surely, that was the result of natural warming of the Earth - so WHY is that warming any different from this warming that the Earth is experiencing???


Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

ChuckinDenton at 4:20 PM

In the past 15 years, there have been various global warming models advanced - however each one has failed to properly forecast the temperatures over the past decade.

We used to hear that these "models" were about to get various revisions - however each time, such talk simply amounted to admissions that the models were wrong.


NOW, where are these "models" Is there ANY model which can accurately place as input the carbon emissions over the past 150 years - and then accurately predict what the global temperatures have been???


The 1970s were cold - before that the 1930s were warm - where is the model that shows those ups and downs ???


In addition, the Medieval Warming period is sitting out there - a recent warming and cooling cycle which is WELL DOCUMENTED - and yet the "models" refuse to even take up the subject of how there could have been a warming cycle without fossil fuel emissions.


The bottom line is that NONE of the global warming models EVER worked. They failed to predict the temperatures correctly.


The other bottom line is that global temperatures have leveled off - there has been a signficant lack of additional warming EVEN THOUGH massive amounts of carbon still is pumped into the atmosphere.


The basic theory is More Carbon = Higher Temps.

But recentlty we have More Carbon = No Additional Warming.

There is NOTHING to support the global warming theories anymore.


NOTHING.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"The modern right wing ... feels dispossessed: America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers; the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power."

Written nearly a half century ago in 1964 by Richard Hofstadter:
http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/0014706

Posted by: bernielatham | November 13, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

ABC News is pretty much reporting that Obama's trip abroad has been a failure - Obama failed to bring about any new trade deals which would help the nation.


Obama did say one thing: the American People are not going to borrow anymore to finance the stimulus of other nation's economies.


That was one good statement. NOW let's see Obama follow through - EVERY MONTH - STOP ALL IMPORTS until the reach the value of Exports for that month.

Just DEMAND that the exports equal imports. If other countries want to bring more into this country, they have to buy more.

Just set up a system to enforce that - an auction for the right to import into the US would work - it would allow companies to purchase the "right" to import a certain amount of goods into the US.


Only the amount of exports from the US would be auctioned off.

It is time the US economy came first.

The Cold War is over - and there is no reason why the US economy should help France - or keep Europe strong - especially since those nations do not always support us.


Same with Asia - WHY are we financing their exports - and helping their nations develop - and in return we get just a dose of arrogance and a complete lack of cooperation.


Congress NEEDS to set NEW GROUND RULES IMMEDIATELY -

Too much of our stimulus dollars have already gone overseas - and now we are talking about extending the Middle Class tax cuts - and much of that money will again end up overseas

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Bernie at 6:22

And think, over the past 50 years, the Republicans have been elected in most of the Presidential elections -

and they now control the House of Representatives.


And the right is about to embark on an "Era of Good Feelings" of rightist one-party government which will last a generation.


Liberals have been proven to be morally and financially bankrupt. Extremely sad

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"The modern right wing ... feels dispossessed: America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers; the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power."

Written nearly a half century ago in 1964 by Richard Hofstadter:
http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/0014706

Posted by: bernielatham | November 13, 2010 6:22 PM
-------

Looks like the talking points haven't changed that much in the past 50 years. What has changed is the expansion of the welfare state, which at this point has become to our economy like the antlers of the Irish elk.

Posted by: Brigade | November 13, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Bernie

You quote for Hofstadter at 6:22

they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.

----------------


So, when people say "We are taking our country back" - you have now proven that it is a sentiment which has been around at least 50 years.


So, it's not a personal thing against Obama - who isn't even 50 years old -


So, you can't now say such a sentiment is rooted in racism, can you????

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

Except the liberals have added now that the conservatives are now racist - they added that to the talking points.

When, prior to the 1960s, it was the democrats who had put in place Jim Crow and had enforced it on a daily basis.


__________________________


We need an economic plan

And the best way to do that is to tell the nations - we will import the same amount we export -


That is the major problem Obama faced this week at the economic summit - the countries with a positive trade balance do not want to change that - they are LEACHING OFF OF OUR COUNTRY - and now they think they can call the shots.


Just STOP their exports at the port - hold them back at the end of EVERY MONTH - until their purchased equal their sales.

Clearly, if they want to export more into this country, they can BUY MORE.

Pretty simple concept.


We will see how fast the South Koreans like our beef that way.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

What the liberals say seldom turn out to have much support - when it is carefully examined.


.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 13, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Apparently for some people, capitulation on tax cuts is not enough capitulation.

You know how McConnell wants Obama to be a one term President? Apparently Obama should just hand this to the GOP. Then FINALLY the Republicans will work with the Democrats and we'll have a harmonious Congress and blah blah blah.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202846.html?sid=ST2010111203190

Yeah, the two guys that are trotted out every time Republicans want "Democrats" to spout GOP talking points.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 13, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD - Tough to pick a favorite passage from the thing but this one might be mine...

"We are convinced that if Obama immediately declares his intention not to run for reelection, he will be able to unite the country..."

I'm sure they've got that right.

@Greg - I'd REALLY like to know if this opinion piece was submitted on some hope it would be published in the Post or if it was actually requested or commissioned by the Post. How did this wriggling, smarmy, cretinous thing get into the paper?

Posted by: bernielatham | November 13, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Lotta comments for the...whatever you want to call it. The first and surely the best...

"AlanGoldberg54 wrote:
To be a great newspaper, the Post should not publish any more in 2011.

We believe if the Washington Post gives up the need to continue as a newspaper (online or otherwise) it will be able to publish what is really needed for the next six weeks without fear or favor.

Then it will go out of business and be remembered as a great newspaper."

Posted by: bernielatham | November 13, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

"Looks like...our economy like the antlers"

Wow, that makes no sense. Hmmm, butchering sentences is easy, but it isn't funny.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 13, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Bernie

You said you were leaving fir good.

Now you are back complaining


Maybe you had it right the first time.

Posted by: OrangeDogs | November 13, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Can't wait for the Carville/Begala piece making the case for resignation effective Christmas Day.

For the good not just of the nation, but for the whole world!

Joe Biden in a Santa hat baby!

Posted by: tao9 | November 13, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Interesting thoughts from Benen:

Two short years ago, one of the presidential tickets had the wisdom to not only acknowledge the climate crisis, but also to present credible solutions to address it.

If elected, the tandem told Americans, they intended to do what the Bush administration would not: establish "a cap-and-trade system that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions" and pursue "alternatives to carbon-based fuels." The result, they said, would be "a better future for our children."

The candidates were John McCain and Sarah Palin.

The nuances matter, but the differences between the Democratic vision on energy policy and the McCain-Palin platform are relatively minor. In fact, if the White House were prepared to open negotiations with a Republican-led House next year, President Obama could do worse than starting with the McCain-Palin plan.

With that in mind, why doesn't he do just that? What better way for a Democratic President to demonstrate a commitment to bipartisanship than by embracing specific Republican proposals?

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/11/14/2010-11-14_bam_should_call_the_gops_bluff.html

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 14, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

All, a fresh thread for you:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/obama_advisers_chart_the_route.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 14, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

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

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




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company