Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

By Greg Sargent

* Obama to GOP: No mandate for gridlock: With Obama returning to Washington, get ready for the first real head-to-head confrontation between the President and newly-victorious GOP leaders: Over the Bush tax cuts. On Air Force one yesterday, the President continued to lay the groundwork to seize the moral high ground:

"I am very confident that the American people were not issuing a mandate for gridlock...So my expectation is, when I sit down with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner this week, along with the Democratic leaders, that there are a set of things that need to get done during the lame duck, and that they are not going to want to just obstruct, that they're going to want to engage constructively...making sure that taxes don't go up for middle-class families starting January 1st."

* But there's a niggling problem with Obama's appeal for compromise: As The New York Times archly notes, Republicans "feel vindicated by their election triumphs in continuing a strategy of obstructing Mr. Obama's agenda."

Nothing has happened to suggest that the Dem strategy of screaming about the "Party of No" has had any effect whatsoever. Dems need to deal with that.

* More brinkmanship on the Bush tax cuts: Chuck Schumer proposes only letting the tax cuts expire on those over $1 million (which Republicans won't support, period, full stop), while Rand Paul and Jim DeMint suggest a temporary extension of all the cuts (which isn't a compromise no matter what you hear to the contrary).

* Obama "negotiating with himself"? In perhaps his toughest column yet, Paul Krugman says the prospects for Obama taking a firm stand on the tax cuts are extremely bleak, but notes that if Obama finds it in himself to use his own power, he could turn things around.

* Dems delude themselves with dreams about fake "compromises": E.J. Dionne urges Democrats not to "pretend that capitulation is conciliation." This is the crux of the issue: Dems are already laying the groundwork to accept the idea that a temporary extension of the tax cuts a "compromise," when in fact it's capitulation.

* Also: David Axelrod is not ruling out the possibility that the White House will agree to this fake compromise.

* Takedown of the day: Jonathan Capehart skewers the ridiculous argument by Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell that Obama should agree to be a one-term president in the interests of national unity.

I would only add that when Schoen and Cadell claim this is Obama's only way to be remembered as a great president, it's pretty obvious that they don't really care a whit about his legacy. This piece was nothing but concern trolling taken to the loftiest heights ever.

* The Blue Dog finally barks: Dem Rep. Heath Shuler says he's challenging Nancy Pelosi for minority leader, even though he knows he has no chance of winning, presumably because Dems would be better off today if they had been more "moderate" and passed a smaller stimulus or no stimulus at all.

* History lesson of the day: Check out this 1995 quote from Hillary, describing the dynamic between Dems and Republicans in the 1990s:

"Every time we moved toward them, they would move away."

Sound familiar?

* Time for filibuster reform? Young Democratic Senators plan to mount a big push, even though it's perfectly possible Dems will be in the minority in two years.

* Let's keep on studying DADT repeal forever: John McCain, who previously said he wanted the Pentagon to study the impact of repeal, is now laying the groundwork to say the Pentagon's forthcoming study isn't thorough enough.

* Special bonus history lesson of the day: What the 1860s have in common with today.

* And it's always the fault of the "liberal left": That's who GOP Rep. Allen West is now blaming for his inability to hire a chief of staff whose radio show was linked to a threat of violence that closed 300 schools.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | November 15, 2010; 8:33 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, 2012, House Dems, House GOPers, Morning Plum, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, gay rights, taxes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama advisers chart the route back
Next: McCain is still on the wrong side of history

Comments


Isn't it obvious that Schoen and Caddell have hidden motives - those motives are that both of them are complete and total racists?


There can be no other explanation.

Absolutely, there is no way that any reasoning they have should be considered - at all.

The Great Obama is just the smartest person to ever hold elective office in the history of the world. Obama knows what is best for this nation.

The voters are the ones who simply do not understand. The voters are the ones who do not know what is good for them. The voters should not be allowed to vote anymore because they make bad decisions.


Don't you see, it's not Obama.


Everyone else are the ones who is not doing their jobs properly - which is to see how great Obama is and follow what he wants for the country and those who are earning less than 250,000.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 15, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

The country is simply not buying Obama's efforts to divide this nation - all at.

Obama is attempting to divide the nation at 200K per year, 250K for a two-income family.

There can be no other explanation for Obama's insistence on this level - other than this division is Obama's way to DIVIDE the nation along RACIAL LINES.

Seriously folks.


This is how Obama is attempting to put the ideas of BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY into force - he has demographically divided the nation along income lines which roughly divide who Obama regards as dividing white from black -

It is simple.


In his mind, Obama has decided that the enemy is white people earning over 250,000 per year. This is a racial thing with Obama.

Rev. Wright and the Black Liberation Theology crowd believe that historically wealth has been stolen from the black community - and the white people of this nation should pay compensation to the blacks.


Obviously, the question of "immigrant families" then comes up - who are those whose families immigrated to America after the Civil War. Logically, this issue has presented a problem for the proponents of Black Liberation Theology because the "immigrant families" are not responsible for slavery because they were not in the US at the time - and therefore should not have to pay compensation.


In his Philadelphia speech, the media largely missed Obama's reference to "immigrant families." In that speech, Obama said that "immigrant families" should pay compensation as well - mostly because they are white, but also because that would be the nice thing to do.


The point is this: "250K a year" is Obama's codewords for "Let's divide it along racial lines and try to compensate the blacks."


Posted by: OrangeForces | November 15, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

The only thing that can save the Obama Presidency is...retail sales.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 15, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

as e.j. dionne so accurately said, "trying to sell capitulation as conciliation," may, but i suspect will not, work with those vaulted "independents" (who let's face it are republicans in all but name only) but will lose the base. so the question is: are you more assured of winning when you have won the middle and lost your base?

Posted by: sbvpav | November 15, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

The comment section of this blog has devolved into a microcosm of the problems presently faced by the country. Lies and deception, nonsense and incoherence from many on the right. From many on the left, we hope that if we ignore the idiocy, it will go away or at least that reasonable folks from the right will try to control their more unhinged compatriots. When this fails, some of the left then lose their composure and respond with their own hyperbole to which the right unanimously responds - "see, you're as bad as us!"

It's no way to run a country or a blog.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 15, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

sbvpav, right, I've never voted for a Republican in my many (did I mention many?) years, I imagine I never will: he's lost me. He should have been more honest and run on a business as usual ticket.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 15, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain


You are correct to say this blog is a microcosm of the issues of the nation.

However, you fail to realize that many Conservatives honestly believe that liberal policies will drag down the economy - and hurt everyone of all income levels.


For some reason, liberals appear convinced that certain economic policies will benefit the poor - when the facts of economics prove otherwise.

Raising taxes on one group does not necessarily help another group. What does is increase the size of government but it does not help the poor.


This is an important distinction.


Liberals fail to understand that the government is just too large. Liberals fail to see that union contracts have bloated our budgets at the Federal, state, county, local and school board levels.

It is just too much of a burden on the economy.

The liberals are convinced this is an issue between rich and poor. It is not.

It is a question of how large the government should be, which the liberals refuse to discuss.

It is also a question of Economic Growth, how to best grow the Economy.

This question should be central to all issues - like the health care plan. However, the liberals who support the health care plan have carefully sidestepped the issue of the affects on the economy.

In addition, the details weren't even told to the people until late in the process.


The Conservatives have come to the conclusion that the liberals' ideas are nonsense.

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Sad but incredibly true:

So I know that tangible improvements in the economy are key to Obama’s re-election chances. And Douglas Hibbs knows that it’s key. And senior administration officials know that its key. So is it so unreasonable to think that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner may also know that it’s key? That rank and file Republicans know that it’s key? McConnell has clarified that his key goal in the Senate is to cause Barack Obama to lose in 2012 which if McConnell understands the situation correctly means doing everything in his power to reduce economic growth. Boehner has distanced himself from this theory, but many members of his caucus may agree with McConnell.

Which is just to say that specifically the White House needs to be prepared not just for rough political tactics from the opposition (what else is new?) but for a true worst case scenario of deliberate economic sabotage.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/planning-for-the-worst/

These people need to be shut down and their mendacity must be exposed.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 15, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Deliberate economic sabotage.

"Planning for the Worst

I agree with Steve Benen that it would only make sense for the White House to make sure to be “planning for the worst” when it comes to dealing with Republicans on the Hill. But the specific thing I would worry about isn’t gutting of health care legislation or endless investigations. It’s the economy. Anne Kornblut reports that the White House understands the basic political dynamic: “Even more important, senior administration officials said, Obama will need to oversee tangible improvements in the economy.”

So I know that tangible improvements in the economy are key to Obama’s re-election chances. And Douglas Hibbs knows that it’s key. And senior administration officials know that its key. So is it so unreasonable to think that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner may also know that it’s key? That rank and file Republicans know that it’s key? McConnell has clarified that his key goal in the Senate is to cause Barack Obama to lose in 2012 which if McConnell understands the situation correctly means doing everything in his power to reduce economic growth. Boehner has distanced himself from this theory, but many members of his caucus may agree with McConnell.

Which is just to say that specifically the White House needs to be prepared not just for rough political tactics from the opposition (what else is new?) but for a true worst case scenario of deliberate economic sabotage."
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/planning-for-the-worst/

Posted by: bernielatham | November 15, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

sbvpav,

You make an extremely important point - which is focusing on the relationship between the "middle" and the "base."

This issue deserves much thought and discussion.

Under the most basic scenario, the "base" presents its case to the middle and convinces enough of them of the wisdome of their positions. In that case, the middle actually supports the ideas of the "base" after the election.


The second scenario is the Obama model - in which the base "packages" their candidates in a bunch of deceptions and lies. This strategy involves telling the middle that "bipartisanship" will rule the actions of officials once elected, and the result will be centrist policies which large groups in both parties AGREE.

That Obama model promises a great deal of compromise - and the "base" not getting nearly everything they want.


Immediately, there is tension apparent. The "base" which is idealogically pure will oppose the compromises necessary to make the middle happy and comfortable with the arrangement.

Herein lies the real rub: Is this situation actually a result of a pre-planned deception in which the "base" never really intended to follow a centrist course at all?


I think the truth and reality of the matter is the middle is the middle precisely of who they are: the middle. They are NOT the "base."

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Conservatives have always believed that liberal policies were wrong but in the past they at least argued in good faith. In the past, conservatives believed they could win the argument by honestly presenting their alternatives. Unfortunately, that no longer occurs ... the right simply lies about the policies and proposals from the left without ever offering their alternatives.

You, Red Revolution or whatever your name have been or in the future be, are dishonest and disingenous and the other posters from the right that do not deny your nonsense are enablers that enjoy watching you distract and frustrate any true debate. Confusion allows the GOP to continue its obstruction of progress and, as a result, perhaps regain power at the expense of this great nation. You are pathetic and unpatriotic in the truest sense of the word.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 15, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

-- "Every time we moved toward them, they would move away."

Sound familiar? --

Oh yeah, it sounds familiar. Of course the problem is every time they moved away the Democrats would follow. And all signs point to the fact they will continue doing it forever.

The Democratic Party has moved so far right with the Republicans I don't even recognize it anymore.

And it's also why as of a few months ago this lifelong Democrat is an ex-Democrat.

Posted by: unymark | November 15, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain at 9:10

You are complaing about the discourse of the blog

But then instead of acting in a way that would make the blog better and have a more effective discussions, you engage in the exact same behavior which you are complaining about.

- you immediately characterize the thoughts of the other side as "nonsense"

- you claim that many on the right are "incoherent" - this is ridiculous and dishonest when there are numerous attempts by those on the right to have liberals understand how wrong they are

- you call the right's ideas "lies and deceptions"

- then you call the right's ideas "idiocy"


- then instead of the engagement which you initially claim you want from the blog, you say that you want to "ignore" the right - which is the exact opposite of what you claim you want.


_________________________________


Right back at you - the right considers much of your ideas to be nonsense.


Nonsense meaning non-starters which are so expensive that they are impractical over a number of years.

Nonsense meaning that the totality of all 5 levels of government in this nation has gotten so out of control, that the very idea of ADDING to the government is COMPLETE INSANITY.


The right regards the left as completely ignoring the costs of what they say they want. And that amounts to ignoring reality.


Funny, isn't that the same thing you are saying to the right's ideas ???

When you try to ignore a Conservative, are you not simply trying to IGNORE REALITY ITSELF ??

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

unymark -- another representative of the success of the GOP strategy. Abandon all hope, ye on the left, for we will use any tactic, promulgate any lie to defeat you.

Country first in now country be dam*ned.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 15, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

@pragmaticagain: "or at least that reasonable folks from the right will try to control their more unhinged compatriots"

I wrote the frickin' Troll Hunter. What else do you want from me? Blood?

You people are never satisfied. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 15, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin-
"I wrote the frickin' Troll Hunter. What else do you want from me? Blood?

You people are never satisfied. ;)"

Finally, a little levity to start the week. I have started using Troll Hunter after the obscene display by the local troll on Friday and over the weekend.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 15, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Sorry for the off topic post, but there's a rebuttal to the Muslims are terrorist screed, while also being a rare up beat article on my local town, Detroit:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2028057-1,00.html

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 15, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

-- another representative of the success of the GOP strategy. Abandon all hope, ye on the left, for we will use any tactic, promulgate any lie to defeat you. --

And I can understand that. I believe they are wrong but I would fully expect them to fight for what they believe in.

My problem is the Democrats don't fight for what they believe in, or what they used to believe in, or maybe what I used to think they believed in at least, they simply adopt the policies of the Republicans.

We've already seen Obama is no FDR -- FDR took on the powers that be, Obama first and foremost accommodates them. And does anybody believe contemporary Democrats would ever pass medicaid or the civil rights legislation their predecessors did?

My problem isn't the Republicans fighting for what they believe, it's not even so much the dirtbag tactics they use to do so.

My problem is with the Democratic Party not opposing them with similar tactics but instead actually adopting the policies, or watered down versions of same, in the vain hope the Republicans won't push farther.

If the Democrats were a football team they would intentionally score points for the other side, but would argue they are only making field goals for them and not touchdowns.

They are simply too pathetic and embarrassing to support anymore.

...

Posted by: unymark | November 15, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Democrats need to just get used to the idea that nothing is going to get done for the next to years, and that they can spend their time most productively by campaigning against the do-nothing Republican congress. A big part of what needs to not get done of course, is any extension of the Bush tax cuts for anyone.

Posted by: CalD | November 15, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain at 9:36 AM


Let's be serious here - your comment is not an effort to engage in serious debate of any issue.

I have not been dishonest about anything - and everything I say is true.


The only things I may be guilty of are hyperbole and satire.


As to honest questions about Obama's "world view," I honestly believe there are questions out there that remain unanswered.

It is unfortunate that the democrats have chosen to push forward someone who has so little experience and qualifications. The reason is that a track record over a long period of time would give everyone more confidence in what Obama's views actually are.


To see someone bring their children to Rev. Wright's church week after week, year after year, has to show that Obama and his wife believe in some of the Black Liberation Theology being taught there.

This is the same as if a white couple brought their children to KKK meetings.


For liberals to not recognize that is simply dishonest, a willful disregard for the truth.


>>>>>>>> The taxes are another big issue.

It sure seems as though liberals like to sidestep the issues of costs -

The costs of health care - 10 years of taxes against 7 years of benefits - that is not going to have to be fixed down the road?

The health care plan is not close to "paid for."

Health care premiums have gone up - in some cases 20% - can we re-vote on health care KNOWING THAT?

Anyway - these are the issues - they are not nonsense. And your response is inadequate.

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Just scanning the new batch of Republicans makes me think of the post turtle jokes.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 15, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

All, new Adam Serwer post on John McCain's absurd positions on DADT:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 15, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

The point is this: "250K a year" is Obama's codewords for "Let's divide it along racial lines and try to compensate the blacks."

______________________________


This certainly appears to be an issue which should be examined and discussed.

Is this 250K a "codeword" for dividing out the bulk of the black community from the tax increases ???


I think it is important to say that a majority of Americans would support sustained efforts to help the innercities.

This Obama has not done - for fear of appearing "too black."


Instead, it appears that Obama has attempted to adopt these "transformative" ideas - which seek to find a RACIAL ECONOMIC COMPENSATION through policies which are sold as "transformative."


This is serious - these schemes appear to most Americans to be more like "income re-distribution" plans rather than anything else.


I believe most Americans would support targeted programs to help the innercities - programs which seek to help people lift themselves up and eventually get off of government assistance.

This is the problem with Obama: the reasoning behind his policies is HIGHLY SUSPECT. It certainly appears that hidden motives are at work.

Posted by: RedRevolution | November 15, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

"However, you fail to realize that many Conservatives honestly believe that liberal policies will drag down the economy - and hurt everyone of all income levels" And the nit wit also talks about conservative realities. Meanwhile at no time in the last thirty years has the conservative way worked. The previous administration ushered in the worst recession in our lifetime. Republican ideals have resulted in the offshoring of our manufacturing. He complains about adding jobs in govt while the miltary and its spending has grown exponentially under Republicans. When Repubs have full control and pushed what economy is left fully in to the crapper who will Red nit wit have to blame ?

Posted by: Falmouth1 | November 15, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

An emotional statement, made in apparent ignorance oft repeated is still an emotional statement made in apparent ignorance.

Among the many emotionally charged yet historically ignorant statements made by liberal commenters here are the complaints about "offshoring". Show of hands: how many used to call that "outsourcing? Next question, how many can recall exactly when "liberals" became "progressives". Bonus question: why?

but I digress. The simple fact is that jobs which rely prinicipally on machines are always at risk. Either they can be moved to some source of cheaper labor, or they can be eliminated altogether as machine performance improves.

Just for some historic perspective, I did a little reading on shoe making in America. Not many shoes are made in the USA these days. In fact most of the jobs were gone shortly after ww2. Why? Well, standard sizing and division of labor replaced cobblers with "craftsmen" and then machines replaced "craftsmen" with "factory workers". Once it gets to that level if the disparity in labor cost is great enough to offset logistics related expenses, the jobs will wander all over the globe.

According to one brief report, at the turn of the 20th century 200,000 Americans were employed in shoe factories. The factory workers were unionized in 1895.
But after WW1, the american factories were overwhelmed by inexpensive imports. New technology like rubber soles and canvas uppers challenged the Americans.

Which of Bush's (or the right's) errant policies lead to that decline?

NIKE recovered a bit in the 70's. but in the 70's, according to Global Exchanges "Sweatfree" web page Nike made shoes in Taiwan and South Korea. Since the standard of living in those places improved the shoe factory jobs moved to China and now Viet nam. As the standard of living improves there, the jobs will move to where ever is next. My Guess is Africa.

So whenever a modern "progressive" whines about offshoring, out sourcing, he or she is really complaining about the current aspects of an age old fact of life: fungible jobs will move to the lowest cost provider as long as logistics affords profitability.

Here's an easy way to bring jobs back to the US: abandon the US navy. When the seas become too dangerous for cargo ships we'll all be forced to buy from the local makers.

Yeah, that'll work

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 15, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

@unynark: "My problem isn't the Republicans fighting for what they believe, it's not even so much the dirtbag tactics they use to do so."

And the Republicans wouldn't be doing it if it didn't work. And while I don't have a problem with either side fighting for what they believe in, and I'm not entirely sure what the Republican's believe in, really, other than them wanting the committee chairmanships back.

And it's easy to argue that the Democrats should be using the same tactics as Republicans, but the effectiveness of said tactics depends on a lot of things.

You can't just use dirtbag tactics and expect to win, just because you're willing to take and ends justifies the means approach. Taking it too far or in the wrong direction can backfire--and then those Democrats are doing the Republican's jobs for them. If you want to advance a policy, there's a lot of temptation not to go all-or-nothing, although that may be what the base demands. Because you, as a politician, might feel that a little bit of a piece of legislation is better than none at all. But that's viewed as capitulation by the base.

And, of course, the relative size of the base is important. You can afford to use "dirtbag tactics" demanded and cheered by the base when your base is large enough. If there are, in fact, more far right conservatives than far left liberals, a scorched earth strategy could backfire--riling up the base but failing to appeal to enough of the middle. Which is fine, if the base is large enough. But if it's just a few percentage points too small, then the "mean as the Republicans" governing/campaigning strategy fails.

And, finally, are we sure dirtbag tactics and obstruction makes the difference? The president's party normally loses in midterms. The economy is bad, not just nationally but locally (sometimes especially locally), encouraging voters to show up to vote out Democrat incumbent governors and legislatures, which may have had upticket consequences, etc.

The idea that "Wow! That's the magic bullet! We'll obstruct and take no prisoners, just like the Republicans" won't necessarily make the difference electorally. It may not even work for the Republicans, next time around.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 15, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

@unynark: "My problem isn't the Republicans fighting for what they believe, it's not even so much the dirtbag tactics they use to do so."

And the Republicans wouldn't be doing it if it didn't work. And while I don't have a problem with either side fighting for what they believe in, and I'm not entirely sure what the Republican's believe in, really, other than them wanting the committee chairmanships back.

And it's easy to argue that the Democrats should be using the same tactics as Republicans, but the effectiveness of said tactics depends on a lot of things.

You can't just use dirtbag tactics and expect to win, just because you're willing to take and ends justifies the means approach. Taking it too far or in the wrong direction can backfire--and then those Democrats are doing the Republican's jobs for them. If you want to advance a policy, there's a lot of temptation not to go all-or-nothing, although that may be what the base demands. Because you, as a politician, might feel that a little bit of a piece of legislation is better than none at all. But that's viewed as capitulation by the base.

And, of course, the relative size of the base is important. You can afford to use "dirtbag tactics" demanded and cheered by the base when your base is large enough. If there are, in fact, more far right conservatives than far left liberals, a scorched earth strategy could backfire--riling up the base but failing to appeal to enough of the middle. Which is fine, if the base is large enough. But if it's just a few percentage points too small, then the "mean as the Republicans" governing/campaigning strategy fails.

And, finally, are we sure dirtbag tactics and obstruction makes the difference? The president's party normally loses in midterms. The economy is bad, not just nationally but locally (sometimes especially locally), encouraging voters to show up to vote out Democrat incumbent governors and legislatures, which may have had upticket consequences, etc.

The idea that "Wow! That's the magic bullet! We'll obstruct and take no prisoners, just like the Republicans" won't necessarily make the difference electorally. It may not even work for the Republicans, next time around.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 15, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Sorry about the double post. I felt myself doing the double-click on the submit button, and said to myself: I bet that will be a double-post. Dagnabbit. And sure enough, it was. Apologies, all around.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 15, 2010 11:41 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