Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:16 PM ET, 11/23/2010

Van Hollen: Dems need to "hope for the best, and plan for the worst" from GOP

By Greg Sargent

In recent days, various liberal commentators have been posing a question: How realistic are Democratic leaders about the nature, intentions, and motives of the new and emboldened GOP opposition?

In an interview with me just now, Chris Van Hollen, who headed up efforts to hold the House for Dems and will retain a major strategic role, answered the question this way: Dems need to "hope for the best" but "plan for the worst."

Various left-leaning writers have been arguing lately that the only hope for Dems is to realize that the GOP is out to "sabotage" the economy to better their chances in 2012, and chart their strategy accordingly. Yet this is a case that Dem leaders have shied away from making, and in the interview with me, Van Hollen declined to endorse that claim.

But Van Hollen did allow that the lesson of the last two years is that Republicans have steadily made harming the president their primary goal -- and suggested that Dems need to be quick to point that out again.

"For the previous two years it was pretty clear they didn't want to provide the president with any political success," Van Hollen said. "Democrats have to be prepared to blow the whistle every time Republicans engage in that kind of politics."

Van Hollen, interestingly, said he hoped Senate Dem leaders would be more aggressive in forcing the GOP to actually carry out filibusters in order to highlight obstructionism. "I would hope that they force Republicans to filibuster more than they did," Van Hollen said. "They really need to shine a spotlight on this kind of cynical political conduct."

But Van Hollen reiterated that the appropriate posture for Dems is that compromise remains attainable. "We need to find common ground where possible, but stand our ground whenever they attempt to turn the people's House over to the big-monied special interests," he said.

"It's important to send a signal to the public that where there are opportunities to work together to get the economy moving, we want to engage," Van Hollen continued. "The old saying suits the situation here: You hope for the best and you plan for the worst."

Van Hollen did endorse two key arguments made by liberals. He said that when it comes down to it, the only real way for Dems to win back independents is to fix the economy. And asked if the too-small stimulus was one of the causes of Dem losses, he said: "The Recovery Act should have been larger and more robust."

By Greg Sargent  | November 23, 2010; 3:16 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House Dems, House GOPers, economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Amid pat-down uproar, the public does not support racial profiling
Next: David Brock defends using undisclosed donors

Comments

"Democrats have to be prepared to blow the whistle every time Republicans engage in that kind of politics."

Ummm...

START
DREAM
DADT

Rep. Van Hollen, what in God's name are you waiting for?!?! They're doing it right now as we speak.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 23, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Why is the House not having votes right now on all those issues....


And, if the current House passes those bits of legislation does it have to pass through the Senate before the new Congress takes over or would the votes have to be retaken in the House if the Senate didn't act in time?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 23, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

It would be so refreshing, and would help their election chances, if Dems grew a spine & fought, instead of wilting, every time the Reps are obstructionist & hypocrites.

Unlikely, but refreshing.

Posted by: nyskinsdiehard | November 23, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Pakistan Van Hollen was adamant that Republicans would not win control of the House in the November elections right up until the results were in. Then he resigned as chairman of the DCCC. He is the prototypical smarmy, pseudo-intellectual liberal who insults both his opponents and his base (stance on Israeli-Lebanon war). He is a crypto-muslim.

Posted by: Charley_XF | November 23, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Re the sabotage argument:

By presenting the argument that Republicans are hoping to sabotage the recovery by preventing left-wing policies from becoming enacted, aren't you sort of assuming that Republicans actually believe left wing policies will work? If that was the case, wouldn't they be Democrats?

All I am saying (as a moderate right winger) is that Republicans believe left wing economic solutions are counterproductive, and if they truly wanted to sabotage the economy, they would simply sit back and let Democrats do what they want.

Also, I would note that a lot of my friends in the financial industry across the political spectrum (there are more liberals than you think) have great reservations about what the Fed is up to. Questioning QEII is not a left / right issue.

Posted by: sold2u | November 23, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Hey Charley, what's a crypto-Muslim. And, once I know, what should I look out for? Are they dangerous? Will they take my food, clothing off my back, etc?

Thnx and cheers!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 23, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

LOL!! This is perfect. Keep banging this drum House Dems!

-----------

"Poll: Republicans Want Anti-HCR GOPers To Just Say No To Gov't Health Care"

one conclusion from a new national poll from Democratic firm PPP, which shows big majorities of GOP and independent voters saying the politicians who ran against the health care reform law should forgo the health care benefits they're entitled to as employees of the federal government.

Just 28% of Republican respondents said that new anti-reform members should take their federal benefits, while a whopping 58% said they shouldn't. Among independents -- who voted for the GOP in big numbers on Nov. 2 -- 56% say politicians who made health care repeal a cornerstone of their campaigns should deny themselves their government benefits. Only 27% said they should take them.

The split is much narrower among Democrats, who presumably support the health care law and the idea of government-assisted health care in larger numbers. Forty percent of Democrats said that politicians who ran against the health care law should take their government care anyway, while 46% said they should decline it.

Overall, the poll shows the electorate is not interested in paying for health care benefits for politicians who opposed government-funded health care on the campaign trail. Just 33% said anti-health care politicians should take their government benefits, while 53% said they should burn their government care cards.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-republicans-tell-new-congress-to-just-say-no-to-govt-health-care.php?ref=fpa

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 23, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

sold2u has it right. The underlying assumption made by Mr Sargent and others is that the liberal nostrums are right for America.

The reality is there are competing visions of the right course. Many in America firmly believed that the Democrats were heading us down the wrong path. The election results were a function of that. The people that were sent to Washington aren't there to agree with the Democrats, they are there to stop them. Cold.

Crowing about obstruction is exactly what the Republicans hope the Democrats will do. It will prove to the folks who elected them that they cast their vote well.

And the choice of words is important too. "Political success" may have quite a few definitions but if the liberals here are any guage Obama had a great two years. In Mr Van Holland's universe "political success" can't possibly mean "getting what you want out of the legislature" Because Obama did get what he wanted. The problem is he wanted it, and we didn't.

Which brings us right back to sold2u's position. The Republicans failed to stop the stimulus and Obamacare. both are widely disliked by the electorate. Was that a Political success for Obama or not?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 23, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

sold2u:

"By presenting the argument that Republicans are hoping to sabotage the recovery by preventing left-wing policies from becoming enacted, aren't you sort of assuming that Republicans actually believe left wing policies will work?"

Yes, he is.

This is of course simply another demonstration of the article of liberal faith that their policy preferences are so manifestly and obviously correct that no one could possibly have an honest disagreement with them. Thus, anyone who appears to disagree is either stupid or has ulterior motives.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 23, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

And, if the current House passes those bits of legislation does it have to pass through the Senate before the new Congress takes over or would the votes have to be retaken in the House if the Senate didn't act in time?

Posted by: mikefromArlington
+++++++++

Mike -- I think the answer is that when the 111th Congress ends, all pending legislation dies. In other words, it has to be re-introduced in the new Congress, and the House would have to vote again.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 23, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"By presenting the argument that Republicans are hoping to sabotage the recovery by preventing left-wing policies from becoming enacted, aren't you sort of assuming that Republicans actually believe left wing policies will work? If that was the case, wouldn't they be Democrats?"

The relevant question is, work for whom?

Take, for example, healthcare systems in Canada, Israel, Britain and all other developed western nations. In none of these many other cases is their a political constituency for getting rid of their present systems and moving to a system such as the US has. No conservative party in Canada has made such a change a party platform position because they understand the electoral consequences.

You can consider all these other cases as pilot projects for what would happen in the US if it moved to something like Canada's single payer system. Citizens (consumers) would be happy and satisfied. Citizens would find that it "worked" for them.

But it wouldn't "work" for the entities who presently make billions from the status quo.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"...and if they truly wanted to sabotage the economy, they would simply sit back and let Democrats do what they want."

What the GOP wants first and foremost is to sabotage Obama, whether it's the economy, the Start Treaty, the TSA screenings, etc. It doesn't matter to them.
Remember it was George Bush who said "Some people call you the elite. I call you my base." The GOP essentially is beholden to the top 2%. They showed with Clinton's election in 1992 and Obama's in 08 that they have no respect, in fact, a cynical contempt, for the will of the voters. Destruction of the POTUS is their sole goal.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 23, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

That's great that the GOP disagrees with Dem proposals. Offer up something reasonable of your own. Don't tell us that tax cuts for the rich will pay for themselves, don't tell us that the debt is the biggest problem then offer no solutions, don't lie and deceive about what the Dems trying to accomplish , ie death panels, START, etc.

There is nothing wrong with a loyal opposition and righteous disagreement unless, of course, there is no loyalty and no righteousness - just opposition.

It has been said on here before but if the GOP plans re, for example, social security, is so popular and so fantastic, why do they keep running away from it. Propose your legislation and let's give it a fair hearing. That's all the Democrats are asking for - a fair and honest hearing on the merits of competing proposals offered up in good faith.

We all saw it yesterday - Coburn and Demint suggested allowing the ethanol subsidies to expire and there was near unamimous agreement on this board. The Democrats are not against a good idea just because it was offered by Republicans. I wish the same could be said about Republicans and Democratic ideas.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 23, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"Various left-leaning writers have been arguing lately that the only hope for Dems is to realize that the GOP is out to "sabotage" the economy to better their chances in 2012, and chart their strategy accordingly. Yet this is a case that Dem leaders have shied away from making, and in the interview with me, Van Hollen declined to endorse that claim."

Clueless. And that's why Van Hollen was such a tremendous party leader. Another Whipped Dog Dem afraid of his own shadow. Next!

Posted by: wbgonne | November 23, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Totally correct except for the hope part. Don't waste your hope.

Posted by: Maezeppa | November 23, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Offer up something reasonable of your own... Propose your legislation and let's give it a fair hearing."

Perhaps the author is unaware of how the congress works when you are the minority party? The idea that Reid or Pelosi gave a fair hearing to minority proposals during this congress is absurd.

One need only look to Reid and DADT:

"The central question still remains: Will the Senate Democratic leadership agree to hold a cloture vote on the Defense Authorization Bill containing repeal, and will the leadership commit to a two week period of floor debate? This is key because in combination with the Pentagon report, holding this debate -- and allowing the full and open amendment process that Republicans have insisted on -- could remove the last pretext GOP moderates have to withold their support."

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

Posted by: sbj3 | November 23, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

All of the left wing whining about the failure of the stimulus to fix the economy being the Republicans fault ignores the fact that the Democrats had control of the House, Senate and Presidency for the past two years with the largest majorities in a generation. Had the Democrats chosen to make the economy a higher priority than passing the health care bill, they could have done so. However, a crisis was a terrible thing to waste.

You also have a tough time selling the stimulus as being too small due to the Republicans when the Obama spokesmen are still defending it as exactly the right size and had previously promised that it would lead to the "Summer of Recovery".

Posted by: jnc4p | November 23, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

More on the push to get GOPers to fore-go their taxpayer-funded health insurance coverage:

UPDATE: Pete Sepp, the Executive Vice President of National Taxpayers Union -- one of the ultimate penny-pinching organizations in the D.C. area -- calls opting out of health care a "symbolic and not insignificant" gesture for congressional Republicans.

"If lawmakers are looking for ways to say that they feel solidarity with the American people this might be one way to do it," said Sepp. "And, again, if you are looking at dollar amounts that's equivalent or a little more of equivalent to [congressmembers] taking a pay cut of about five percent. And, again, we have heard a lot of pledges to reduce the overall budget of Congress by ten percent. So opting out of health care coverage is one place to start."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/republicans-could-save-24_n_787662.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 23, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

OT - Sarah lost 40% of her first week audience

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/sarah-palins-alaska-goes-south-loses-40-of-viewers-in-week-two.php?ref=fpb

It's a real puzzler.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"OT - Sarah lost 40% of her first week audience"

Yeah, but next episode she's shooting reindeer from a helicopter. We're talking BLOCKBUSTER, Bernie.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 23, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"And that's why Van Hollen was such a tremendous party leader. Another Whipped Dog Dem afraid of his own shadow"

So true. Van Hollen is Steny Hoyer junior. What the Dems need is a regular spokesman like Anthony Weiner, who won't back down and equivocate

Posted by: filmnoia | November 23, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats need to hope for the worst out of the republicans and plan for the best out of their own caucus.

Already the t-caucus is flexing its muscles and demanding that the rest of the republican party toe its lines, because there are some tea people and there other tea people and they never bothered to understand just what they each think they want.

As the fight over who gets to play with the favorite toy, and just which toy is the favorite, consumes the Majority Caucus, the demms need to go about their business as if they were still the majority, in that they need to meet, mark up a budget, process necessary legislation, and ask for the appropriate hearings, and when they don't get them, use their individual authority to request information from the Administration collectively to get the same result as if they had had hearings. Then when the Majority bogs down over just who is the majority anyway, the Dems can have appropriate legislation ready to go when it becomes needed. So when the debt cieling looms ever closer, the dems can let the republicans fight over who gets to demand what, they can prepare a standard debt cieling bill, run it past administration experts, and be ready to propose their alternative bill to Congress when the R's can't get their act together and propose their own bill. Same for the Budget. Come the first of August, when Congress has done virtually nothing because the republicans are still fighting over what the meaning of the word is is, The Dems can drop a marked up budget in the hopper and start moving its debate and its vote.

The R's stand a very good chance of being even worse then the Eightieth Congress for getting things done, and to be second to none for looking childish, petulant, and totally un fit to BE the majority caucus.

Posted by: ceflynline | November 23, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

OT - Sarah lost 40% of her first week audience

Posted by: bernielatham
+++++++++++

So 2 million Americans were sensible enough to find something better to do with that time? Or were they just disappointed that Sarah Barelycoulda didn't get eaten by a grizzly?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 23, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

wbg: "Yeah, but next episode she's shooting reindeer from a helicopter. We're talking BLOCKBUSTER, Bernie."

No. We talking "Sarah Palin's Christmas Special."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 23, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats who voted for the health care law should support their vote even though they might have lost the election. In time, the law will be viewed as a plus.

In the mean time, the most liberal views such as the three G's Dr. Dean talked about should be avoided. Because the problem now is the "Its the economy, stupid" that was used in the Clinton campaign.

But if we stick to the economy, jobs, and stand up and support all the good things that have happened, then there is a strong possibility that the Democrats will return in 2012.

Why? because the Republican don't have a plan for creating jobs and this will likely become obvious in a few months.

Also, all the Clinton tax rates for all brackets will return Jan 1, 2011 if we don't act soon. It appears that we won't.

But don't worry, the government only taxes profits. They don't tax the gross income. So, not many will be hurt since the unemployed are not earners and won't be taxed that much by the feds.

We all need to sacrifice somewhat if we are going to get this country under control. So, I am for increasing some taxes and cutting waste out of other programs. The cuts will likely have to be larger than those that are now planned.

The tea party means well, but they really don't understand that doing it their way, will probably put us deeper in the ditch. All you have to do is watch the c-span morning show to understand that about a third more or less of the callers spout untruths of all kinds but they think they are right.

I will be watching for that ditch in the next two years and if we start to climb out with Republican ideas (or tea party) then I will become a believer. But they still have a long way to go. Right now I am not a tea party believer.

Posted by: LL314 | November 23, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

But in reality, sbj, you still make my point for me. Still just opposing, pointing out what the Dems did wrong. If they are unable to get a hearing on the floor of the Senate, take it to Fox ... I'm sure you can get your ideas out there. But instead of proposing anything positive, they go to Fox to tell everyone why the Dems are wrong. Let's hear your ideas.

What about DADT, sbj ... what is there to debate that requires 2 weeks? Hasn't it been talked about over and over? Is there something about debate on the floor that is magical? Vote on the bill. Rather, it seems the GOP wants to waste another 2 weeks of time that could be used to consider some other proposal.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 23, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

No. We talking "Sarah Palin's Christmas Special."

Posted by: suekzoo1
+++++++++

The Palins shoot Rudolph! "Just aim for the red light, Willow, and squeeze the trigger . . ."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 23, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

The new Obama security procedures at the airports are a clear violation of the 4th Amendment and Obama should get impeached for them.

Also, there are issues concerning the authorization of the purchase of the airport scanners - because Congress rejected the purchase of those scanners.

Apparently instead of getting Congressional approval, Obama diverted stimulus money to buy the scanners.


Anyway.


The attitude of the liberals is going to affect the impeachment. If it doesn't seem like the Republicans are going to get Obama's and the other liberals to co-operate on a bipartisan basis and compromise, impeachment will be more likely. It is that simple. Obama and the liberals can either adhere to their own campaign commitments or not.


Posted by: RedNationRising | November 23, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

""Sarah Palin's Christmas Special.""

Good one! Guns for Xmas but the heavy artillery comes out for the New Years Extravaganza. Bombs away!

Posted by: wbgonne | November 23, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I have to admit that Palin is comedy gold. But then I start thinking that she was nearly vice-president and is considered a semi-serious possible candidate for president. Then I think:

YIKES!

Posted by: wbgonne | November 23, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"Sarah Palin's Christmas Special"

I haven't been watching, but if they *did* have an episode where she shoots reindeer from a helicopter I'd be settin' my DVR!

@prag: "What about DADT, sbj ... what is there to debate that requires 2 weeks?"

The Defense Authorization bill is huge. It should go through normal order.

"Is there something about debate on the floor that is magical?"

During the HCR mess even Dems were calling for Pelosi to hold open debates and votes on certain amendments!

The amendment process *is* sort of magical.

"It seems the GOP wants to waste another 2 weeks of time."

Good gosh. The Dems had all of congress for 4 years now and they still haven't resolved the Bush tax cuts issue.

Posted by: sbj3 | November 23, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

All, check out David Brock's defense of using undisclosed donors for 2012:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 23, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

@sue

The Christmas Special is a notion you probably ought not to have voiced publicly. It's too perfect. Todd as a rough-hewn carpenter. Sarah as virgin. Trig in a manger. O'Reilly, Beck and Ailes as Wise Men. Murdoch as God.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

@bernie:

Re heathcare. IMO, if the US goes single payer, it will almost certainly cover only the bare-bones basics, and insurance companies will do very well by offering supplemental insurance with the knowledge that the government will be forced to take care of the most expensive stuff. While the health insurers will complain about being turned into regulated utilities, they will figure out a way to turn a profit, no matter what the government does, and Republicans were not against health care reform because they were circling the wagons for the health insurers.

By asking the question "making the economy work for whom," you zero in on the philosophical difference Republicans have with Democrats. Most Republicans believe the business of America is business, and that when the government interferes with business to make things more "fair" (whatever that means), by creating price ceilings (for health care) or price floors (for labor), or using the tax system to encourage this or discourage that, they unleash all sorts of unintended consequences that make the cure worse than the disease. And the worst "cure" of all is to drive business to find a lower-cost domicile.

When Republicans look at places like the Rust Belt with 15% unemployment, they don't think "bastard companies, seeking lower cost labor," they think "yet another example of how increasing taxes and regulations makes business go away."

I am not trying to create a mud-slinging contest - I am simply pointing out how us free marketers actually think, and trying to convince the progressives that we really aren't evil.

Posted by: sold2u | November 23, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

@sold2u
"The business of America is business" isn't very meaningful. It's a slogan. The business of America is also justice, religious liberty, democratic governance and a bunch of other stuff which, one presumes, ought not to be deemed inferior to individual wealth accumulation.

As to "unintended consequences", that's not very compelling either in that any path one takes will have them as an unavoidable feature. But let's take the healthcare of the US and Canada as an example. By any number of health measures, our system outperforms the US; eg life span, infant mortality etc. Further, our system is far less expensive in delivery of service than yours. Beyond that, of course, all Canadians who pay a small monthly fee are guaranteed medical treatment without fear of not being able to get it or not becoming bankrupt or not thrown into poverty as a consequence of some unexpected illness in the family. What, you could ask yourself, are the unintended consequences to American society from those facts of your market-friendly approach?

You say, "Republicans were not against health care reform because they were circling the wagons for the health insurers". I'm sure you weren't but the decisions didn't fall to you. As we know from Wendell Potter, the ex Cigna exec who was part of this fight, and from many other sources of information that the C of C, pharma, large PR and lobbying firms and many politicians in both parties were doing exactly this. At the same time, of course, they were insisting it was merely a matter some principle such as the slogan you quote.

But it is the case that where you or some other holds as an infallible truth that free market mechanisms must produce the best results, then no contrary evidence is likely to have any effect on your presumption of best policies. I've talked to countless conservative Americans who will not (and I mean NOT) believe me when I describe what we actually experience in Canada with healthcare. It cannot, for many of them, be true. Axiomatically.

Of course you and most Republicans (as with any group of humans) are not evil. But that's never really at issue. What is at issue, as we've been saying to each other, are the broad consequences of certain policies and ideologies. Now, I'd be more willing to buy the "unintended consequences- horrid type" of a certain level of "socialist" policies if Canada or England or Israel or Denmark were cesspools of tyranny. But they aren't.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 23, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Van Hollen's prescription for making the Senate Republicans actually filibuster is only relevant for the next 30 days. In the new session, Republicans won't have to filibuster anything at all, since everything that passes in the Senate will go to the House to die a quick and painless death.

Posted by: andrewlong | November 23, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

@bernie.

Don't get me wrong. It may surprise you, but I do support some sort of single-payer system that takes the financial risk of getting sick out of the equation. Fund it with a VAT. The government is already in the health care business, so we are already pregnant, as it were. There probably are some economies of scale that can be reaped, although there will be no impetus to really work towards efficiencies so that may cancel out.

Of course any system will necessarily involve rationing, so you end up with a two-tiered system, like they have in the UK. NHS takes care of the big things, and supplemental insurance (or cash) gets you to the front of the line for the non life threatening stuff. I lived in London for 3 years and was a consumer of the private health care, which was amazing - but they refuse NHS patients. So you end up with a sort of ghettoized government run system and private insurance for everything else. But that is the price you pay - and forget about a Canadian system that bans private health insurance. Not going to happen in the US. No way, no how.

Culturally, the US is different than Canada, the UK, and Denmark. And maybe that is a shame. But ask yourself one question: How many Americans decide to go and start up a company in Canada, Denmark, or the UK? How many Brits, Canadians, and Danes decide to set up their company in the US?

Posted by: sold2u | November 23, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't it the "audacity of hope and change?" It's seems like downward and backwards to me. Yeah, democrats keep it up and all you will have is more unemployment, food stamps, deficits and welfare without houses to live in. The World is laughing at your democrat president Hussein obozo.

Posted by: COOLCHILLY | November 23, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't it the "audacity of hope and change?" It's seems like downward and backwards to me. Yeah, democrats keep it up and all you will have is more unemployment, food stamps, deficits and welfare without houses to live in. The World is laughing at your democrat president Hussein obozo.

Posted by: COOLCHILLY | November 23, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse


I have posted this already here before You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price check http://ow.ly/3akSX .If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and believe me you are not going to loose anything!

Posted by: ricardoeddy | November 24, 2010 5:36 AM | Report abuse

"wbg: "Yeah, but next episode she's shooting reindeer from a helicopter. We're talking BLOCKBUSTER, Bernie." No. We talking "Sarah Palin's Christmas Special." Posted by: suekzoo1"

Hey, neat, Headline: SP bags nine flying Reindeer. Santa is not happy.

Posted by: ceflynline | November 24, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

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

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




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company