Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:44 PM ET, 12/ 7/2010

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* Is there really a liberal revolt? The new Pew poll finds no evidence that rank and file Democrats agree that Obama is too quick to give away the store to Republicans:

Obama's job approval ratings among Democrats remain strong (77% approve), and there is little evidence that Democrats think he is going along too much with GOP leaders in Congress. Only about quarter of Democrats (23%) say he is going along too much, while about twice as many (48%) say he is going along the right amount.

Caveat: The poll was taken before the deal on the Bush tax cuts was announced, though it's also true that there's been widespread media coverage of the impending compromise in recent days.

* However, the Pew poll also finds that only 54 percent of Dems and Dem leaners think Obama is doing an excellent or good job of representing the party's traditional positions.

* Michael Crowley says that Obama's sharp criticism of the left today is "further evidence that Obama's next two years are likely to be more Clinton and less Truman."

* TPM clips the video of Obama's broadside, and it's a must-watch:

* Josh Green says Obama doesn't really have a problem with liberals, arguing that they will support Obama in 2012 "with a vengeance."

* Now that even the likes of Liz Cheney has reiterated that it's time to repeal don't ask don't tell, isn't it beyond obvious that Senate Dems must schedule the time necessary to get this done?

* Bob Shrum staunchly defends Obama, arguing that he has racked up more progressive accomplishments "than any president in 70 years" and has the strength to do what's right on the economy when "faced with an unpalatable choice."

* Jonathan Bernstein on why Obama's tax deal is actually a win for Democrats.

* For Obama's tax deal to become law, it first has to pass the Senate, and right now Senate Dems remain divided or undecided on the proposal.

* House Democratic leaders have yet to signal support.

* And the rebellion of Dems on Capitol Hill who outright oppose the deal appears to be spreading.

* But the Center for American Progress finds that the tax deal will create 2.2 million jobs.

* As Steve Stromberg notes, we should be hopeful that Obama is serious about his threat to relitigate the tax cut fight in 2012.

* Matt Yglesias worries about Obama's hostage metaphor and thinks it could set a bad precedent for the coming debt ceiling standoff.

* Surely it will be enough for Jon Kyl that even Senator Judd Gregg is now leaning towards supporting New START and believes Kyl's objections have been adequately addressed.

* And R.I.P., Elizabeth Edwards. Ben Smith and Meredith Shiner have a very well-done obituary.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | December 7, 2010; 5:44 PM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security, Happy Hour Roundup, House Dems, 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 administers a stern scolding to lefty critics
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

The parallel between health care reform and the tax cut debacle is clear and it does not reflect well on Obama. Could we get single payer? No. Could we use single payer as a club to get more and better stuff in the bill? YES! Could Obama have gotten a ban on tax cuts for the rich? Maybe, maybe not. Could Obama have bargained harder, done more with the bully pulpit (he didn't barnstorm the country pushing his tax plan). YES! Would he have the support of liberals if he actually fought for and made the repubs pay a HEAVY POLITICAL AND PUBLIC RELATIONS PRICE FOR DEFENDING TAX CUTS FOR RICH PEOPLE? YES! Did he make them pay? NO! That is the problem. Obama looks like a wimp because of the way he compromises, not the compromises themselves. same for the stimulus debate. etc...

Posted by: srw3 | December 7, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

In other odd news, The State department announced today that it will host the UN's 2011 World Press Freedom Day celebrations. Sorry, can't stop laughing.

Posted by: temptxan | December 7, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: "Now that even the likes of Liz Cheney has reiterated that it's time to repeal don't ask don't tell, isn't it beyond obvious that Senate Dems must schedule the time necessary to get this done?"

wtf is wrong with Reid?

Posted by: sbj3 | December 7, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

If I could draw, I'd draw a cartoon.

The first panel would have a Wall Street Republican whispering "Obama's weak" in the ear of a news anchor. The next panel has the anchor saying "Obama's weak" on air. The next panel has a Democrat pulling his hair out, saying "Obama's weak?!" The third and final panel has Obama in the Oval Office saying, "Idiots."

RIP Elizabeth Edwards.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 7, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"Is there really a liberal revolt?"

Yes there is. Don't kid yourself that Happy Talk will make this go away. Obama is creating a schism in the Democratic Party.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 7, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I would like everyone to read this article - by an investment company


Let's talk about the Free Trade deals and what we are going to do to get this economy moving again.


This article is some sound background

http://www.pimco.com/Pages/AllentownDecember2010.aspx

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

To all you liberals


We can NOT borrow our way out of the economic crisis - we are only helping other countries like China, and making the situation worse for us.


Let China borrow money to keep its own factories going -

NO borrowed money to BUY IMPORTS - what is wrong with YOU?


http://www.pimco.com/Pages/AllentownDecember2010.aspx

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

This is a rather provocative piece -
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025

It makes all the talk about the tax extension and Obama's chances for re-election seem like small town back yard politics.

Posted by: filmnoia | December 7, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Job Openings Rise Sharply to a Two Year High

Employers posted a sharp increase in job openings in October, raising hopes that hiring could pick up in the coming months.

Businesses and government advertised nearly 3.4 million jobs at the end of October, up about 12 percent from the previous month, the Labor Department said Tuesday.

That reverses two months of declines and is the highest total since August 2008, just before the financial crisis intensified.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40549833

Posted by: associate20 | December 7, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Hi, longtime lurker - I'm almost sorry President Obama used the north star analogy, since it's been co-opted by Sarah Palin. That's all I wanted to say.

Posted by: M-Pop | December 7, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Can the whole tax debate be summed up by saying the liberals are against sound job creation policies?


"But the Center for American Progress finds that the tax deal will create 2.2 million jobs."

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I vehemently oppose liberals citing anything Liz Cheney says or does as reason to move forward on any issue. She is dishonest and knowingly scapegoated LGBTers in the 2004 election to get Bush/Cheney reelected. DADT is anachronistic and we don't need any mention of her vile punditry to further the cause. I'd love to kick her off the bandwagon, as I'm sure she's only on it to server her own political ends. For shame Greg. For shame.

Posted by: adammc123 | December 7, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Maybe now is the time that everyone can agree that Obama is completely incompetent, and the Economic Crisis is so important that the nation has to move beyond Obama.


The solution? Impeachment. Just get rid of him.


If 20 democrats in the Senate agree, the country can get rid of Obama and we can all move on. We can start with solid growth and job-creation policies.


YES WE CAN


YES WE CAN.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

wbg: "Obama is creating a schism in the Democratic Party."

Point to evidence. Got any?

From earlier today:

" In the latest Associated Press survey, which was conducted Nov. 18-22, Obama's standing was quite strong among liberals.

While just 48 percent of the overall sample approve of the job Obama is doing, 80 percent of self-identified liberals feel the same -- a stratospherically high number.

The story is much the same on Obama's personal favorability ratings. An AP poll in the field just after the 2010 election showed that 90 percent of liberals felt favorably inclined to Obama as compared to 55 percent overall.

In February, Obama's approval rating among liberals in the Gallup weekly tracking poll stood at 79 percent. (His overall approval was 50 percent.)

On the week of the election -- Nov. 1-7 -- Obama's approval among liberals was a virtually identical 78 percent even as his overall job approval had dipped to 45 percent."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 7, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

The Pew poll is invalid since it was taken prior to Obama's big cave. Second, how can anyone predict that this sellout will produce 2.2 million jobs: garbage.

What we do know is that the Bush tax cuts did not produce any real job numbers over the last 10 years. Furthermore, they "ended" on the tail end of the greatest Recession since the Depression.

Stop the lies.

Posted by: dozas | December 7, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Never a big Obama fan, I can't see why Dems are so upset with him. He wanted a vote on the tax cuts before the election. It didn't happen. He's waited until the last minute for a bill that did NOT include an extension of tax cuts for the "rich". Dems, in control of both houses of Congress, couldn't send him the bill. Time is running out. He doesn't want the middle class getting hammered, so he cut a deal with Republicans he thinks will pass Congress. He made out fairly well, as Ezra Klein pointed out in his piece.

Things aren't going to get better for Dems in the next Congress, so there isn't much use waiting. This bill will do nothing to reduce the deficit. It was aimed at supporting a fragile economic recovery. When Obama starts working with the new Congress on actually cutting spending, you can expect the left to really howl. Just like when he mentioned freezing government wages.

Obama has a much better chance of getting re-elected in 2012 than the chances Dems have of holding the Senate. Or so it appears at this time. Sometimes divided government works.

Posted by: Brigade | December 7, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

You know, it is always good when Obama talks. He does seem reassuring for the most part.

I'm not so sure that he is going to pull a Clinton over the next two years. If he actually goes ahead and appoints Richard Levin as DEC Director, he might actually be a combination of Clinton and Truman (Truton? Clintman?) in that he'll make deals with Republicans in order to get what he can for the middle class while pushing a more center-left economic agenda that he'll campaign on. That could work.

Obama is smart.
AND, I get the feeling he doesn't like anyone telling him what to do.
He'll plot his own course.
Liberals would serve themselves well by not focusing on Obama and focus on their goals instead. If they (we) do that strong enough, they'll get more over the next two years and they'll help position the Dems for the next four years after that.

He's got a tough task ahead of him. If he wants to be a good to great president he'll need Dem control of both houses for at least the first two years of his second term; preferably all four years of it. To do that, he needs to give people a reason to vote Dem that goes beyond voting against Republicans. That means the rest of his agenda.

Posted by: matt_ahrens | December 7, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

The Obama agenda is in tatters.

Too good not to reprint (via HotAir):

"Guanatanamo Bay is not closed, and will not close. At least 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq through 2011. There is talk that U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan through 2014. Rendition will continue. Government wiretapping is expanded, not receded. Obama has refused to release controversial photos that allegedly show detainee abuse. The Obama administration asserts the authority to kill al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists, even ones that are American citizens, without trial. There will be no KSM trial in Manhattan; the administration now sees the wisdom of military tribunals. There have been no summits with the leaders of Iran, or North Korea, or Cuba, or Syria... Obama’s Middle East peace initiative has gone nowhere.

"... Domestically, there will be no Card Check. There will be no cap-and-trade. There will be no amnesty, no DREAM act. The man who denounced Bush’s recess appointments now uses the tool regularly. Bill language isn’t posted online for five days before signed into law. NAFTA will not be renegotiated; new trade deals with countries like South Korea are signed instead. No “windfall profit tax” will be enacted. He has frozen federal workers’ pay. His deficit commission rejected a VAT and proposed a slew of spending cuts that liberals find unacceptable."

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/254675/2008-obama-would-denounce-2010-obama

Posted by: sbj3 | December 7, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

He's got a tough task ahead of him. If he wants to be a good to great president he'll need Dem control of both houses for at least the first two years of his second term; preferably all four years of it...."

Posted by: matt_ahrens | December 7, 2010 6:31 PM
------

LOL. Good luck with that. The economy had better start rebounding soon. The Dems are much more likely to lose Senate seats in 2012 than are Repubs---regardless of how Obama does. I think there are probably Republicans who could beat Obama, but it's not at all sure any of them can win the nomination. Romney seems up to the job, but some conservatives have this thing about Mormons.

Posted by: Brigade | December 7, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

"The Obama agenda is in tatters."

Hahaha! Hilarious.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 7, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Brigade and Matt Ahrens

The democrat got off easy in the Senate this year.

The rotation of Senate seats this year really worked in the favor of the democrats.

In 2012, the Republicans have 14 legitimate pick-up opportunities. That includes competitive states and states in which Republicans have won recent State-wide races.


That puts 60 votes for the REPUBLICANS in reach.


The liberals have now become the DEAD AGENDA SOCIETY -

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

250 K


This is basically a RACIST level -

Above that level, the people are mostly white.

Most blacks are below that level.

It is RACIST - and it is wrong to divide people - and say some get tax cuts and some don't.


So, that is ridiculous - and having to explain that to people, no matter how many times Obama said that - it just doesn't work.

The American People are sick of the democrats trying to divide the nation along class lines - which end up to be RACIAL lines as well.


It is just the wrong way to approach any of this -


And it just seems that the democrats keep on falling flat whenever they have tried to make the case that Bush did something wrong - and the way the democrats have PARCED the Bush tax cuts - it is a failure of message
.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Barton loses House energy gavel to Upton

With his win, Upton navigated an internal GOP feud between the upstart tea party movement and the party's rank-and-file establishment. Conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck both called him a socialist on their programs because of his co-authorship of legislation banning the incandescent light bulb. Former House GOP Majority Leader Dick Armey's Freedom Works tea party campaign ran a 'Down With Upton' Internet petition campaign.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46097.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 7, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Lots of good stuff at ThinkProgress (mostly on the tax debate), but this one stands out as a real knee-slapper

~~Lieberman: "I Don't Understand" Why The Department Of Justice Hasn't Charged Australian Assange With Treason~~

At one point, the Fox News anchor asked Lieberman what he thinks “of the Justice Department’s actions so far not to charge Julian Assange with treason.” Lieberman responded by saying he doesn’t “understand why that hasn’t happened yet”

[...]

While the Justice Department and other government agencies are apparently searching for ways to bring criminal charges against WikiLeaks and those who leaked information to them, it is easy to understand why they have not brought charges of treason against Assange. For one, he isn’t American [...] and has never even been a U.S. resident, meaning that he cannot be charged with treason against the U.S. government.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/07/lieberman-understand-doj-treason/

While they're at it, why don't they charge Osama Bin Laden with treason too... Sheesh, Republicans.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 7, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

"Upton"

He's my rep. We call him Ughton. He used to be a moderate centrist, but lately, he's lost his mind.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 7, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the democrats ARE the ones who divided out the Bush tax cuts - and placed the artificial 250K number on those tax cuts.

NOW those same democrats are complaining that the Republicans have turned the below 250K tax cuts into HOSTAGES


This is RIDICULOUS - the democrats have whipped themselves up into such a frenzy, they have no idea that they have adopted such extremist language.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

" Is there really a liberal revolt? The new Pew poll finds no evidence that rank and file Democrats "

what do rank and file democrats have to do with liberals?

are you so silly as to believe one equals the other?

Posted by: newagent99 | December 7, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

The truth is Obama is the one who divided off the ABOVE 250K tax cuts - and it is Obama and the democrats who have held those tax cuts HOSTAGE


Obama and the democrats are the ones who are saying THEY won't go along with the extension of ALL the tax cuts UNLESS they get to kill THE HOSTAGES ABOVE 250K


This was a completely artificial number arrrived at THROUGH RACIAL DIVISIONS - and entirely made up out of thin air.


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

FOUNDING OF AMERICA


One question today at the Press Conference drifts into a comment on the Founding of the country - and Obama has to IMMEDIATELY make it a RACIAL comment.


OBAMA HAD TO IMMEDIATELY CALL THE FOUNDING OF THE NATION RACIST.


Disgraceful - that this kind of thing would come up - AND that would tell you where Obama is coming from -

EVERYTHING IS THROUGH A RACIAL LENS


Seriously folks, this tax cut thing is too RACIST

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

I'll have to disagree with Shrum a bit here: he's forgetting LBJ. I don't think Obama has matched Johnson's record domestically-yet. I doubt that he will because he just lost Congress. He might be third after Roosevelt and Johnson.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | December 7, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman voted for Obamacare. Why are you surprised he doesn't understand who can and cannot be convicted of treason? That one vote says it all about his IQ.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 7, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Is there a budget yet? Is there an agreement to lift the debt ceiling, in order to accommodate the budget?

Assuming, arguendo, that an actual budget and raising the debt ceiling are done deals, will the lame duck address anything else?

Assuming no budget, will the lame duck address the DQ of homosexuals in the military, and/or new START, and or DREAM, instead of passing a budget?

Is there any serious thought about priorities among these folks [I do not mean commenters here, I am referring to our elected Senators and Reps]? What am I missing?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 7, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Citi bailout nets 12 Billion for US taxpayers

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704156304576003884177348202.html

That would buy a lot of tea, doncha think?

Posted by: bernielatham | December 7, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

"That would buy a lot of tea, doncha think?"

So you supported the FatCat bailout?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 7, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

I want to address the left with this note: If the effort had been expended to pass a budget and it had passed, then the expiration of the tax cuts, the DQ of homosexuals, and DREAM could all have been handled as budget reconciliation votes by simple majority in the Senate.

I want to address the right with this next note: If a budget had passed first, the nature of the beast would have been known, and arguments about deficit reduction would have had some context. A long as no budget is out there we are shooting at a moving target.

I suppose we are all reminded of the movie "Dave", where the putative President's personal accountant boggles at the Federal budget.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 7, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

wbg: "Obama is creating a schism in the Democratic Party."

Point to evidence. Got any?

Just watch.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 7, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the liberals are just fighting over the arrangement of the deck chairs as the liberal agenda goes down.


Let's be serious folks.


The House will not be in control of the democrats in a few weeks - and the election has already limited the action of what is politically possible.


What is wrong with the liberals?


Seriously folks, do you have any idea what is going on - the Liberal Agenda is dead - liberals have failed the country, AND Obama is incompetent. And you all are fighting as IF the outcome of that fight means anything. It doesn't.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

lmao.

He's on a roll.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 7, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Oh and STRF, I think you just went http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwGRJA28lY

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 7, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Wonderful piece at MM on the world as seen through Glenn Beck's DVD collection...

http://mediamatters.org/research/201012070030

Posted by: bernielatham | December 7, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington 8:26 PM


First, you keep on saying you won't read anything


Second, you know it's all TRUE


Otherwise, you would be fighting and complaining

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

"Michigan Poll Shows Difference Between 2010 and 2012 Landscapes

by Ed Kilgore, December 7, 2010 02:22 PM EST

Michigan was without a doubt one of the states that made the Rust Belt such a disaster for Democrats during the midterms. Republicans picked up two U.S. House seats; gained control of the state House to take over total control of the legislature; and won the governorship by a 58-40 landslide.

It's interesting, then, that a new PPP poll of Michigan looking ahead to the 2012 presidential election shows Barack Obama beating all the big GOP names, even Michigan homeboy Mitt Romney. Obama leads Palin by 21 points; Gingrich by 15 points, Huckabee by 12 points, and Romney by 4 points. For grins, PPP even tests Obama against newly elected Republic Gov. Rick Snyder, and the president leads that one by 11 points.

Dave Weigel thinks this is probably all about the popularity of the Auto Industry Bailout in Michigan. I'm sure that's an element of it, but just as importantly is the fact that we are talking about a different electorate voting on a different contest with different candidates in play. Get used to seeing this kind of poll in the future."

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/12/michigan_poll_shows_difference.php#comments

Posted by: bernielatham | December 7, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Bernie

The unions in Michigan got a great deal, right???

And by the way, how much are Obama's people paying you???


You should disclose that, don't you think???

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Oliver North, writing in that paradigm of freedom and liberty publication, the National Review, seems convinced that US armed forces are anti-homosexual bigots.

"If tens of thousands of troops now serving in the finest military force the world has ever known vote with their feet in the midst of a war, we’re all in deep trouble."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254643/gays-military-oliver-north

As we know from the experiences of the Israel military, the Canadian military, the Brit military and all others where gay men and women serve openly, the adoption of such a policy of inclusion and equality has been a "non event". As Mullen noted, even the US military's research has found this the case.

But Ollie figures that US force members might just be exceptional. They might hate homos so danged much that they'd swarm out like...oh, white supremacists who'd wandered into a blues bar.

Despicable creature, our Ollie.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 7, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Here's the photo that's now up at the National Review above the following title...

"Julian Assange notices Sarah Palin’s reaction to his WikiLeaks."

http://c8.nrostatic.com/dest/2010/12/07/b9395b99606e1361f5cd99348309bf45.jpg

They love their assassinations over there at NRO.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 7, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't it be the height of irony if lefty bete noir, Jim DeMint, was the vote that scuttled Barry's hard fought deal?

http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/185fec91-dd0f-4eb1-a7d4-ce3e793fece6

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 7, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

And another Republican gets busted for voter suppression...

"...a federal jury in Santa Ana found former Republican congressional candidate Tan Nguyen guilty of one charge of obstruction of justice and was hung 9-3 on another charge.

Nguyen was found to have lied about his knowledge of the mailer sent to 14,000 voters with Latino surnames warning that immigrants couldn't vote. The mailer was sent during his bid to unseat Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/12/07/us/AP-US-Immigration-Voting-Threat.html?_r=1&ref=news

Posted by: bernielatham | December 7, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Liberals, you think this is all you get. Now you will hunker down, once again, you capitulated!

No one on the levers of political power cares about what you think unless you bring votes money can't buy. The money has told you to piss off. Losing becomes you.

You people who still think Jimmy Carter was a very good President but you can't say it anymore, now get ready, you will hear how bad Barak Obama was...forever. Can liberals fight? Really that is the question.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 7, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama acted like he was the victum of this Compromise


Compromise was what Obama promised the American People - and Obama is acting like a little child that now he has to do just that.


It really is astonishing


And the "hostage" commment.


Obama went around the country saying he was the master negotiator - saying he could bring people together - and NOW Obama is describing COMPROMISE NEGOTIATIONS AS HOSTAGE TAKINGS


This is COMPLETE INSANITY.

The American People are sick of the liberals - the liberals have no idea how repulsive they have been just over the past two days.

Did the democrats forget they lost the election?

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Why does Speaker Pelosi hate the President?

http://twitter.com/#!/markknoller/status/12254901706952704

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 7, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Bernie quotes: "It's interesting, then, that a new PPP poll of Michigan looking ahead to the 2012 presidential election shows Barack Obama beating all the big GOP names, even Michigan homeboy Mitt Romney. Obama leads Palin by 21 points; Gingrich by 15 points, Huckabee by 12 points, and Romney by 4 points. For grins, PPP even tests Obama against newly elected Republic Gov. Rick Snyder, and the president leads that one by 11 points."

As a Michigander, there is nothing surprising here, not even the results of the Synder v. Obama poll. Snyder is an unknown quantity at this point. He was a roll of the dice in this election.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 7, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

This is no "community"


This is a blog filled with paid democratic trolls


You all should reveal yourselves, who is paying you and how much.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

"You people who still think Jimmy Carter was a very good President but you can't say it anymore, now get ready, you will hear how bad Barak Obama was...forever. Can liberals fight? Really that is the question."

lol.

Is it time to do some comparisons of Obama's job approval and Reagan's after the same amount of time?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 7, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

"Can liberals fight? Really that is the question."

I confess I can't. But in the bedroom, I show no mercy.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 7, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama has destroyed his last bit of credibility today -


By taking his campaign promise of COMPROMISE and describing it as "negotiating with hostage takers"


THAT is the BIGGEST JOKE OF THE YEAR.

Do the democrats realize what has gone on here???


Obama, the liberals and the rest of the democrats have COMPLETELY DESTROYED their campaign platform of 2008. There is now NO REASON for anyone to support them.


Obama and the democrats have been EXPOSED as the lying deceitful people they are.


It's over - it is now the DEAD AGENDA SOCIETY.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Gallup - New Polls


Presidential Approval


Bush 47%

Obama 46%

HA !!!

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Back to my pet peeve of the season.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app11.html

There was no cloture vote on any budget bill; no threat of filibuster. The status of the appropriations bills as shown at "thomas" reflects a lack of courage and a lack of common sense so deep that this Congress rivals a session of the TX Lege in its gross incompetence.

We suffer for that. Liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Americans. We have a bunch of grandstanders who do not accept their constitutional obligation. I would not have voted for the TEA candidates - not a one of them - but I understand the TEA frustration, if from an assertively moderate position.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 7, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Thanks sue, I didn't recognize the name. Just thought I 'd toss that piece in as an ameliorative to wb's zest for an early migration.

On another matter, likely some of you saw that Gingrich had used the Pearl Harbor attack anniversary to try and hawk his books via twitter. Te tweet is now erased. He really is one of the least classy sociopaths I've bumped into.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46087.html

Posted by: bernielatham | December 7, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Karl Rove peers out across the glowing and expansive horizon just brimming with potential Republican presidential candidates and She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is not named...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46071.html

Posted by: bernielatham | December 7, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Sully points to an astute observation by a wikileaks critic...

"I would love to see Dinesh D’Souza and all the other right-wing hysterics who are hawking the idea of Obama’s scary Otherness explain how these diplomatic cables contribute in any way to their thesis. I would love to see them nominate their favorite dispatches that demonstrate Obama’s efforts to undermine American power and to elevate socialism, Third World radicalism, and anti-colonialism over traditional American interests. To the contrary, the cables demonstrate a continuity of American foreign policy and discourse from the Bush to the Obama administrations. The Obama-era dispatches show the same assumptions about the need to maintain American supremacy as have been harbored by every previous administration. And I doubt whether Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld would have deplored the idea of gathering biometric or other identity information on fellow diplomats. If Obama and Holder wanted to destroy American influence, they should be cheering Assange on, not looking for ways to prosecute him."

http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/2010/12/06/obama-paranoia-and-wikileaks/

Posted by: bernielatham | December 7, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse


This is no "community"


This is a blog filled with paid democratic trolls


You all should reveal yourselves, who is paying you and how much.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

"That would buy a lot of tea, doncha think?"

B,

It's Kabuki for the rubes:

Citigroup had an MBS asset pool of $306Billion two years ago:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20081123a.htm

The pool was, of course, shite:

" "Richard M. Bowen, former chief underwriter for Citigroup’s consumer-lending group, said he warned his superiors of concerns that some types of loans in securities didn’t conform with representations and warranties in 2006 and 2007.

" “In mid-2006, I discovered that over 60 percent of these mortgages purchased and sold were defective,” Bowen testified on April 7 before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission created by Congress. “Defective mortgages increased during 2007 to over 80 percent of production.” "
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/banks-fight-two-front-war-over-flawed-mortgages-with-investors-homeowners.html

Citigroup pays back peanuts on shares the Fed paid too (way) much for. Citi was playing "hide the decline" in 2008...their exposure was perhaps twice that.

Do you think its any better now?

“At both the national and metro area levels, the fall in home prices is showing no real signs of a slowdown or turnaround,” says Robert J. Shiller, Chief Economist at MacroMarkets LLC.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/52136-case-schiller-home-price-index-still-no-good-housing-news

Citi is as hollow as a Halloween pumpkin. They ought to be closed down, sold off, and a ten or twelve score of their upper mngmt arrested.

Until something like that happens to Citi, Wells, BAC, et.al. you can watch the S&P Case/Shiller bleed. And the middle-class homeowner screwed with a broken bottle.

It makes me think maybe Obama, Bernanke, and Geithner don't want the housing market to recover.

And they'd shed no tears if Wall Street rocked.
http://www.bing.com/finance/search?q=C&FORM=DTPFSA&qpvt=citigroup+stock#

Now, why the eff would they want that?

Posted by: tao9 | December 7, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama's irritation with the left wing stems from the fact that they are the ones who are supposed to be acting like adults. The right wing is the one who is saying "zomg, deficits iz teh most important thing I mean giving money to rich people iz the most important thing I mean death panelz is the most important thing"

Left wingers are the ones who are supposed to be the educated adults who understand Republican gridlock.

Honestly, they probably do, but have to push the guy mainly for a change in tactics and messaging.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 7, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Tao

You are right about all that Citi and the housing market

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

After today's news conference, are their enough votes to Impeach and Remove Obama from office???


Seriously, 20 democratic Senators to say yes and Obama is OUTTTTTAAAAA THERE.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

"Citi is as hollow as a Halloween pumpkin. They ought to be closed down, sold off, and a ten or twelve score of their upper mngmt arrested."

Tao, frankly my dear the banks own the place, did you forget?

Posted by: lmsinca | December 7, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Howard Dean is going to challenge Obama -
and to be honest, I'm not sure who would win -


Obama is a disaster.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

lms,

Nope, didn't forget.

It's enough to make me truly wish for a middle-class lib&con bi-partisan pitchfork party.

BTW: Hope you & yours (esp. the travelling geo-daughter) had a good Thanksgiving and wishes for a great Holiday season.

Did you just call me dear? :>)

Posted by: tao9 | December 7, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Diane Feinstein says this in the WSJ

The law Mr. Assange continues to violate is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a felony for an unauthorized person to possess or transmit "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

The Espionage Act also makes it a felony to fail to return such materials to the U.S. government. Importantly, the courts have held that "information relating to the national defense" applies to both classified and unclassified material. Each violation is punishable by up to 10 years in prison


____________________________

So, why hasn't Obama acted to stop Assange?


Seriously folks - what is all this nonsense about US laws being inadequate???


There is something Obama is not telling us here - DOES OBAMA REALLY SUPPORT THE RELEASE OF ALL THESE DOCUMENTS???


There is something highly suspicious about Obama's actions on this subject


Obama is up to something, besides being incompetent.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

You'll all be happy to know, flattery aside, that I'm not running for office or in the US Congress currently because after reading all the pros and cons and details of the tax cut compromise, I would have to vote NO. Good thing I'm just an old blogger and don't control any of the levers of power, I'm just too sanctimonious for my own good.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 7, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

"Tao, frankly my dear the banks own the place, did you forget?"

It's too bad that even a smidgen of regulation over the financial sector would cause the immediate collapse of our Democracy.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 7, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

It's too bad that even a smidgen of regulation over the financial sector would cause the immediate collapse of our Democracy.
------------------------------------------------
And the ultimate irony is that the financial sector will cause the collapse of our Democracy, without any regulation.

This is the classic case of heads they win and tails we lose.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 7, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

"Did you just call me dear? :>)"

In a sort of "Gone with the Wind" style. All's well with the family, first semester almost done, two classes left and all A's. She's staying there until the 23rd to work on her proposal, then here for a week, then San Diego for research for 10 days. The whole family has really missed her, but especially our little guy. Jan., it's back to classes, she's taking five so she'll have all the class work done early. She's a busy girl.

Hope you and yours enjoy the Holidays, bet that red head gets spoiled. I love Christmas, everything about it cheers me up and fortifies me to face another year restored and rejuvenated by family, friends, faith and of course it's the one time of year I indulge in cookies.

I've heard others call for a coalition of lib/con activists to fight some of the worst offenses. Hamsher tried it with Norquist over the unlimited funding of Fannie and Freddie last Christmas and got hammered for it, but I'm game.

Let me add to my previous post, the reason I would vote no on the compromise is because of the payroll holiday and the effect on Social Security, seems I'm not the only one recognizing what a slippery slope that would be.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 7, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

@bernie: "I confess I can't. But in the bedroom, I show no mercy."

Ewwww. Now I have to go wash out my brain. To quote Rainier Wolfcastle: "The goggles! They do nothing!"

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | December 7, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

I think I may have missed the boat today on something by assuming the majority of Dems would come around to Obama's deal with Republicans. I may have been wrong, looks like he's getting a lot of push back so the deal may be in jeopardy. Interesting. It does make me wonder when all the polling says one thing, extend only middle class tax cuts, and then Dems do the opposite, how long people will forgive us for that?

Posted by: lmsinca | December 7, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Ims,

The time for the Congressional Dems to be angry and fighting about the tax issues was back in August and September...back when they punted...back when the majority of them were trying to distance themselves from the WH and the legislative accomplishments of the last two years. What the heck did they think would happen after the mid-terms?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 7, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

"And the ultimate irony is that the financial sector will cause the collapse of our Democracy, without any regulation.

You must be a communist. How dare you question the way we, I mean the rich get richer.

What do the liberals think they are in charge of these days? What a bunch of slow learners.

Hey, you Obama people, how is your war going? Do you think ceding the economic recovery to the Republicans is going to impress the center right? Well, do ya?

Obama can not sell protecting the rich better than Republicans can.

Democrats blew it. Now they will come for you. Go ahead and blame the left, Obama did.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 8, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

I agree Sue. AFAIC, congressional Dems have missed more than one mandate from the people. I'm not one to blame Obama for everything, although I still have to fight for what I believe is right, whether it's the same thing he's fighting for or not. It's time to let the Republicans pay the price for going against the will of the people. It won't be any better in 2012, in fact our ability to counter punch may be even worse by then the way things are going.

My advice to the President would be to go before the American people and let them know exactly why he can't compromise with Republicans on this. He knows the polling and even mentioned it today, and knows what the right thing to do is. It's time for a fight now, not later. I believe the people who have supported him in the past and want to in the future will not only cheer him on but understand, and the rest won't ever support him. Once the hostage is out of the equation he can negotiate on an even footing to pass relief for the unemployed, they're the ones who really matter right now.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 8, 2010 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Ims: "Once the hostage is out of the equation he can negotiate on an even footing to pass relief for the unemployed, they're the ones who really matter right now."

But, time is of the essence, Ims. A whole bunch of unemployed people lost their benefits December 1. The lowest tax rate is going from 10% to 15% January 1. That is a 50% increase on those who can least afford it in a sputtering economy. I don't see any time in the near term where footing will be better than it is now. If anything, I'd expect the Repubs to dig in further next year if this thing is not passed, and they will certainly have more clout (votes) in January than they do now.

One thing I find particularly curious is Bernie Sanders reaction. He's going to kill this and then negotiate something fairer? Give me a break. With who exactly? Jim Demint?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 8, 2010 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Here is the real problem with the tax deal, that I've seen no one address:

This is a bad move strategically if the Democrats want to protect Social Security and Medicare over the next two years.

What the Republicans have done is to lock in their starting point for taxes on the rich when it comes to dealing with the deficit. This is another example of their successful "starve the beast" strategy. It will be much harder to raise sufficient taxes from the top 2% because the starting point is so low now.

Posted by: Poster3 | December 8, 2010 12:30 AM | Report abuse

"Back to my pet peeve of the season...no cloture vote on any budget bill; no threat of filibuster. The status of the appropriations bills as shown at "thomas" reflects a lack of courage and a lack of common sense so deep that this Congress rivals a session of the TX Lege in its gross incompetence.

We suffer for...a bunch of grandstanders..."

Mark, I am all there and then...

"I would not have voted for the TEA candidates - not a one of them - but I understand the TEA frustration, if from an assertively moderate position."

I won't say, Really? ooops

Your frustration as an assertive moderate, to even set up the TP as something understandable, I'll try.

As an assertive leftist, I can not even comprehend communism, their frustration is no excuse.

I don't even understand the atrocious Caudillo, Hugo Chavez. I can not support leftist extremism, even if I did understand it.

I say it just to leave a crumb on the trail.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 8, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

What about Obama's explanation? That not capitulating with Republicans means the tax cuts expire for everyone which means they expire for the middle class. He explains that it's not worth penalizing the middle class because of this fight.

And it makes sense. Republicans are more than willing to brutalize the middle class to get what they want. They oppose pretty much any form of stimulus, state aid, unemployment benefits. There's no doubt they will step on the necks of the middle class to try and get tax breaks for the upper class at the expense of long term solvency.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 8, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Sue, the one thing Republicans did not want was the decoupling of the tax breaks because they knew they would have to pass the break for the middle class and never get the one for the high earners. They've already said they support a middle class tax cut so let them expire and then pass one. They have constituents who need it, the majority of Americans need it.

I'm with you on the unemployment insurance extension, but I really believe they can pass it once this tax debate is gone. The pressure to pass it will be almost unbearable even for Republicans.

I might be wrong, although I really don't think so, but like I said earlier it's probably a good thing I'm not anywhere near the levers of power.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 8, 2010 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Sorry guys, I just posted a response to sue but it disappeared, I'm too tired to repeat it, maybe it will just magically show up. Trust me though my argument made sense. LOL

Back at it manana.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 8, 2010 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Oh there it is. Night all.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 8, 2010 12:41 AM | Report abuse

ddawd: "What about Obama's explanation? That not capitulating with Republicans means the tax cuts expire for everyone which means they expire for the middle class. He explains that it's not worth penalizing the middle class because of this fight. "

And, of course it's not, especially RIGHT NOW! Sacrificing middle class tax cuts at this point is highly destimulative. This is not that hard to understand.

The other angst I have yet to understand is about the estate tax. Right now, the estate tax is 0%. Zero. Nada. Nothing. It's going up to 35% on some estates. That's a tax hike no matter how you cut it.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 8, 2010 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps we can try not adhering to ideologies such as leftist or moderate (yes, moderate is an ideology) and try to take positions that are best for the country.

If we all thought about issues in this manner rather than worrying about our membership in these clubs, there would be a hell of a lot more agreement. Yeah, it's one thing for politicians to join their clubs since their jobs are based on contrasting ideologies, but for non-politicians to do it is ridiculous whether you are liberal, conservative, or *gasp* moderate.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 8, 2010 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Ims: "Sue, the one thing Republicans did not want was the decoupling of the tax breaks because they knew they would have to pass the break for the middle class and never get the one for the high earners. They've already said they support a middle class tax cut so let them expire and then pass one. They have constituents who need it, the majority of Americans need it."

Ims, the decoupling went down to defeat in the Senate last weekend with the help of DEMOCRATS. You can't honestly believe those Democrats are going to all-of-a-sudden change their votes next year...

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 8, 2010 12:56 AM | Report abuse

shrink wrote:

Mark, I am all there and then...

"I would not have voted for the TEA candidates - not a one of them - but I understand the TEA frustration, if from an assertively moderate position."

I won't say, Really? ooops

Your frustration as an assertive moderate, to even set up the TP as something understandable, I'll try.

As an assertive leftist, I can not even comprehend communism, their frustration is no excuse.

I don't even understand the atrocious Caudillo, Hugo Chavez. I can not support leftist extremism, even if I did understand it.

I say it just to leave a crumb on the trail.
=================
That was well and unemotionally stated. The analogies are clear. Your point is taken.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 8, 2010 4:57 AM | Report abuse

I want to consider a red herring being bandied about: that Obama has to capitulate to the GOP b/c otherwise taxes will go up on everyone.

My first response is so what. Krugman has shown that the tax cuts under consideration, even for the Middle Class and the Poor, will be only mildly stimulative, and certainly not worth the cost of the cuts for the Rich, not to mention the estate and payroll tax goodies that Obama "had" to put in the GOP Xmas stocking. Further, taxes in the United States are at historically low levels and if the Bush cuts all expire rates will revert to the Clinton Era which was about the second lowest in history.

My second response is also so what. Let's say no bill gets done and rates revert to the Clinton Era for 2011. Once the GOP formally takes over the House don't you think the first thing they'll want is tax cuts? Then Obama can credibly say that he will cut the rates -- retroactively if necessary -- for earners up to a certain income level but will veto any legislation that included cuts for the Rich. Will the GOP then abandon tax cuts altogether? Maybe but I doubt it. And even if they do, so what?

Like nearly everything the GOP does today, this maneuver on its part is intended to starve the government so they can mount ever more ferocious attacks on the New Deal and Working People by pleading for debt relief Allowing the GOP to do this by granting obscene tax cuts to the Richest Americans is insipid and depraved.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 8, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne, this bar chart does not enthuse me or make me think there are adults in the room. However, it does make me think that BHO got way more than he conceded and that your focus on "obscene tax cuts", your use of the word "depraved", and your characterization of him as "insipid" are emotional and unrelated to the numbers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/tax-cut-compromise/index.html?hpid=topnews

About half of the package had bipartisan support to begin with and the remainder was 4-1 D priorities. Look at it.
=========================
I remain amazed that we are likely to end the term of Congress without a budget. As best as I can tell, this is largely a Blue Dog result, which I take as a real shame, b/c I have always counted on Rs like Lugar and Blue Dogs to actually make what can happen, happen; to be facilitators. When the center folds, or is weak, the chances of doing the nation's business are probably reduced over the medium term.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 8, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

wbg: "I want to consider a red herring being bandied about: that Obama has to capitulate to the GOP b/c otherwise taxes will go up on everyone.

My first response is so what. Krugman has shown that the tax cuts under consideration, even for the Middle Class and the Poor, will be only mildly stimulative, and certainly not worth the cost of the cuts for the Rich, not to mention the estate and payroll tax goodies that Obama "had" to put in the GOP Xmas stocking."

Red herring? Good lord.

The lowest tax bracket would experience a 50% (FIFTY PERCENT!!) increase, going from 10% to 15%. That, my friend is DESTIMULATIVE. People who earn the majority of their income in the lowest tax bracket would have money that they are currently injecting into the economy sent to the IRS instead.

The payroll tax cut is very much stimulative, and is a benefit for the working POOR, and middle class people.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 8, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

"BHO got way more than he conceded"

You don't really believe that, do you? If you do you might want to check w Mitch McConnell once he stops gloating about how the GOP has broken Obama. Taxes on the Rich. Payroll taxes. And, incredibly, the estate tax. If Obama had sold Manhattan some people in the Democratic Party would be arguing that he got a great deal b/c he got TWENTY-FOUR beads while the Colonists only got ONE island. That's partisan distortion; it's dangerous but I understand it.

I saw in the news this morning that Israel refuses to even consider a settlement freeze, a complete smack in the face to Obama. Perhaps you think Obama's weakness has gone unnoticed by others, but it hasn't.

If this is what what "the adults" have wrought, I say give the children a chance. Maybe even the Liberals. Especially since Liberal policies are overwhelmingly popular with the American people and are superior policy by nearly all accounts.

Obama has to wake up pronto and Establishment Dems circling the wagons and shooting the hippies only keeps him in denial. Obama needs to sit down with some people are REALLY listen to what they are saying. He should meet with Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse and Pelosi and some Progressive House Dems. And he should sit there and he should listen well. Obama isn't a stupid man by any stretch but he has acted like an imbecile ever since the election. That must stop.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 8, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

"The lowest tax bracket would experience a 50% (FIFTY PERCENT!!) increase, going from 10% to 15%. That, my friend is DESTIMULATIVE. People who earn the majority of their income in the lowest tax bracket would have money that they are currently injecting into the economy sent to the IRS instead. The payroll tax cut is very much stimulative, and is a benefit for the working POOR, and middle class people."

50%! Yes, I heard Lawrence O'Donnell shrieking that number like a good DLCer last night. Yes, tax cuts are the answer to everything, just like the GOP says. It's good that Obama now sees the glory of the Republican Way.

Except when the tax cuts balloon the deficit and then the Poor and Working Class get their programs slashed out of "fiscal discipline," which is EXACTLY where things are headed. Just b/c Obama buries he head in the sand doesn't mean you must.

This is a pathetic deal which our fine host repeatedly and correctly referred to as "capitulation," at least until it happened. Which reminds me of what Keith Olbermann said yesterday: that Senior White House aides contacted him and tried to persuade him to sell the capitulation as a "compromise." But Olbermann refused. Good for him.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 8, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/the_morning_plum_146.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 8, 2010 8:36 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