Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:01 PM ET, 12/ 8/2010

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* This is potentially significant: Susan Collins, who has emerged as key to getting don't ask don't tell repealed, tells my colleague Jonathan Capehart that she can live with Harry Reid's procedural offer of 15 amendments and could vote Yes.

One caveat: She says she just wants ample time to debate them on the floor, say, two hours apiece. But Capehart argues that Reid should grant her wish, and that it's now within his grasp to get this done. It's Reid's move.

* Also: I'm hearing that Obama's political operation, Organizing for America, is set to deliver over half a million signatures supporting DADT repeal to Collins's office tonight.

* And: The Senate has postponed its vote on DADT repeal until tomorrow,aides say.

* Joe Lieberman, who's been working Collins hard behind the scenes, pleads with Reid to give the GOP moderates what they need to support repeal.

* Jonathan Cohn has a take very similar to mine on why Obama's scolding of the left isn't really Clinton-style triangulation, and he makes the case very convincingly.

* If Republicans scuttle the defense authorization bill over DADT, a whole bunch of other provisions that are vital for the troops and military could go down the drain, too.

* George H. W. Bush called for the ratification of New START today, and as Sam Stein reports, he did it with no prompting whatsoever from the White House.

* Talk about taking off the gloves: Top White House adviser Larry Summers says if Dems fail to pass the Bush tax cut deal, it could lead to a "double-dip recession."

* Dem Rep. Peter Welch, who is leading the charge against the tax cut compromise, tells Ezra Klein that the White House failed to make Dems feel like they had any kind of buy-in on the deal.

* Other House Dems are making the same complaint: They say they were cut out of the negotiations between the White House and Republicans.

* But Obama is growing increasingly confident that Dems will back the deal, arguing that once they take a serious look at it, they'll decide it makes sense.

* Indeed, it looks like the deal is gaining momentum among Dems in the Senate and that it may pass that chamber.

* But angry House liberals still want Dems to let the tax cuts expire, to force Republicans to explain to the unemployed why their benefits ran out and to explain to the middle class why their taxes went up. Bottom line: This is still a tough slog in the lower chamber.

* And Rand Paul goes full Tea Party, signaling he may vote against the deal, because it pairs tax cuts for the rich with spending for the non-rich.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | December 8, 2010; 6:01 PM ET
Categories:  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: Lisa Murkowski supports repeal of DADT
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

@Greg: "It's Reid's move."

Thank you, Greg, for being a standup guy on this.

Please, let's get everyone who supports repeal to call Reid's office and tell him to bring this to the floor no matter what the terms. This may be our only chance to get DADT repealed for a long time.

202/224-3542

Posted by: sbj3 | December 8, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

ALL,

Jennifer Rubin's posting on this is worth reading.

You should all check it out.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2010/12/readers_point_obama_ran_on_com.html

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 8, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

ALL,

Jennifer Rubin's posting on this is worth reading.

You should all check it out.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2010/12/readers_point_obama_ran_on_com.html

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 8, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm kinda curious as to how Rand Paul is going to vote on this considering he's coming into the Senate in January and I hope this is resolved before then.

Posted by: calchala | December 8, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama, July 2, 2008:

"That's why we held vigils and flew flags. That's why we rallied behind our President. We were ready to step into the strong current of history, and to answer a new call for our country. But the call never came. Instead of a call to service, we were asked to go shopping. Instead of a call for shared sacrifice, we gave tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans in a time of war for the very first time in our history."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/02/text-obamas-speech/

Where did that man go?

(re-post)

Posted by: wbgonne | December 8, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

"* Dem Rep. Peter Welch, who is leading the charge against the tax cut compromise, tells Ezra Klein that the White House failed to make Dems feel like they had any kind of buy-in on the deal.
* Other House Dems are making the same complaint: They say they were cut out of the negotiations between the White House and Republicans."

At the start of negotiations, Speaker-elect Boehner was heard to say, "I won."

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 8, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I think the SS tax cut is a trap being set and Obama is walking right into it. The GOP will have SS inspected at the temporary rate then use those numbers to show the program is in trouble.


I wished he had of demanded the Obama cuts from the Stimulus be extended to 1. force the GOP to own part of the stimulus and 2. keep SS out of the discussion...

Posted by: soapm | December 8, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

And in other news, Obama has signed the law that finally gives African-American farmers and American Indians settlements related to discrimination and government malfeasance, a law he's been pushing for and finally got.

Check.

Posted by: AllButCertain | December 8, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

"the White House failed to make Dems feel like they had any kind of buy-in on the deal."

OMG, their fee-fees are hurt. Waaaaaaaa.

They should have voted in September. POTUS was pushing them to. They didn't. They ignored him. Now they are crying about being left out of his deals? Thumbsuckers.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 8, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

wbg,

He's right here.

http://whatthehellhasobamadonesofar.com/

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 8, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Dems are complaining they were cut out of the negotiations? That's because they can't keep their mouths shut. They would have leaked information before the president was ready to say what the deal was.

It's bad enough people were already saying they were willing to give a two year extension on all Tax Cuts. No need to broadcast, the rest of the deal that is better for the Dems anyway and give the Republicans time to trash it. As it stands right now, the Republicans think they've won, but critics of President Obama says it's a pretty good deal for Dems.

Posted by: Jalenth | December 8, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Dems are complaining they were cut out of the negotiations? That's because they can't keep their mouths shut. They would have leaked information before the president was ready to say what the deal was.

It's bad enough people were already saying they were willing to give a two year extension on all Tax Cuts. No need to broadcast, the rest of the deal that is better for the Dems anyway and give the Republicans time to trash it. As it stands right now, the Republicans think they've won, but critics of President Obama says it's a pretty good deal for Dems.

Posted by: Jalenth | December 8, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I truly do not understand Democrats vilifying Liberals. It makes no sense to me as a simple matter of political analysis. Where is the benefit to either President Obama or the Democratic Party when Democrats attack Liberals? It strikes me as pure petulance. Even if you believe that Liberals have been disloyal to Obama, how does attacking Liberals help him?

Posted by: wbgonne | December 8, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the double post, there was a glitch and I didn't think it posted so I posted again.

Posted by: Jalenth | December 8, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

@ABC: That's great news! I know they've been fighting for that discrimination settlement for a long time.

It's good that, after the settlement has languished for years, Obama and the Democrats in Congress finally were able to deliver on it.

Posted by: associate20 | December 8, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1:

You can't possibly believe that is an adequate retort to the quote of Obama's that I recited. Nevermind the no-taxes-for-the-rich-during-war hypocrisy, where did Obama's SPIRIT go? When did he become so defeatist and fatalistic? When did Yes We Can turn into No I Can't?

Posted by: wbgonne | December 8, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

BS, wbg!

He is not defeatist, nor fatalistic. He has a remarkable number of accomplishments. Sorry you don't agree, but observers on both sides of the aisle have acknowledged that he has. My reply was not a retort, it was a link to a list.

You want an endless campaign. I get that. We get that.

He got elected and needs to govern. The.Whole.Country. He's governing in the toughest era since the 1930's, and you want to criticize his spirit?

LOL

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 8, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Heck yeah!

"...finally gives African-American farmers and American Indians settlements related to discrimination and government malfeasance..."

That is my guy. Shades of Lilly Ledbetter. You fight, you win, so long as rich people are not threatened, in that case you really have to fight.

But this...

"Top White House adviser Larry Summers says if Dems fail to pass the Bush tax cut deal, it could lead to a "double-dip recession."

Obama just loves his supply side friends. Larry Summers needs to drop dead. There will be no double dip recession, what a lie. Larry, you are too smart to have anyone think you didn't lie on that one.

The question is whether the overwhelming tide of borrowed money swamping America's boardrooms might..."create" a few jobs.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 8, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

"Obama has signed the law that finally gives African-American farmers and American Indians settlements"

Reparations! Gaakkkk.

Seriously, major major accomplishment. Congrats President Obama and all who've fought for the settlement. Sending out a prayer for those who died before the settlement could be approved by Congress.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 8, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Susan Collins wants 4 days of debate. Doable.
---

"Here's what Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that she needs to support a full Senate debate on the defense authorization bill (the vehicle for Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal): 15 guaranteed votes on amendments (10 for Republicans, and 5 for Democrats), and somewhere around four days to debate the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid already promised her the 15 amendments, but his initial offer was for a day or two of debate. Here's her response to reporters tonight, after a Senate vote.

"The majority leader's allotment of time for to debate those amendments was extremely short, so I have suggested doubling the amount of time, assuring that there would be votes, and making sure that the Republicans get to pick our own amendments as opposed to the Majority Leader."

"If he does that I will do all that I can to help him proceed to the bill. But if he does not do that, then I will not," she added.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/collins-hands-reid-a-final-offer-on-dont-ask-dont-tell.php?ref=fpblg

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 8, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

calchala, exactly what I was going to say: who gives a rat's arse what Rand Paul thinks about this?

Was Newt Gingrich unavailable?

Greg, please keep that moron out of the news until he starts drawing his government salary, sitting in his government office, enjoying his government health care.

Thanks.

Posted by: BGinCHI | December 8, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

One thing, despite John Kyl saying they won't have time...President Obama is "confident" the START treaty will be ratified before Congress breaks.

I can see why the momentum has built...take a look at the START treaty debate "by the numbers"

http://www.doubledutchpolitics.com/2010/12/start-treaty-by-the-numbers/

Posted by: RyanC1384 | December 8, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Cityview staff column (9 Dec 2010):

NO NEED TO ASK

"We have been a vocal supporter of gay rights in these pages, as we don’t believe anyone should face discrimination based on sexual orientation. We have also adamantly stated our belief that if we all spent more time focusing on how we are alike rather than how we are different, that this world would be a better place. With all that said, we struggle deeply with how to address gays in the military.

"As civilians, we haven’t lined up — elbow to elbow, knee to knee — in a latrine full of young, naked people with strong sexual desires. We don’t know the pressure of having our lives totally dependant upon the soldier next to us in the foxhole. We can’t relate to the absolute need to work in full unity all day, every day. These are issues soldiers do understand.

"We know that the military must have some rules that differ from civilian law, as there is no other entity that relies more on uniformity. That’s why soldiers wear the same clothes, have the same haircuts, sleep in identical quarters and engage in the same daily routines. This uniformity is absolutely essential to the success of a military unit. So when discussion arises regarding the expression of how soldiers may be different, we understand, to a degree, the concern of some members of the military.

"The 'don’t ask, don’t tell' policy allows gays to effectively serve in the military but prevents the expression of sexual orientation. For the most part, it seems to work. We have read and heard all kinds of rhetoric about what may or may not happen if 'don’t ask, don’t tell' is repealed, and, like everyone else, we simply don’t know. In all likelihood, the effects would be minimal, but is it worth putting a military that has effectively served and protected our country for centuries at risk?

"Neither discrimination nor expression should be acceptible in the military, and the current system addresses both of these potential problems. As a result, there is no need to ask. CV "

Seems like a reasonable and non-bigoted view.

Posted by: Brigade | December 8, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

NEWS FLASH


The Senate is going to have a vote on Don't Ask TONIGHT


YEA, IT LOOKS LIKE TONIGHT.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 8, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

@sue: "Susan Collins wants 4 days of debate. Doable."

Yes it is. Now, will Reid do it? And if he doesn't, will we place the blame squarely on his shoulders?

Posted by: sbj3 | December 8, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

When did he become so defeatist and fatalistic? When did Yes We Can turn into No I Can't?

Posted by: wbgonne | December 8, 2010 6:35 PM
-------

It didn't. It's still Yes We Can to a Congress that can deliver the necessary votes. Unfortunately, Pelosi/Reid have proven over the last two years that they have no interest whatsoever in working with Republicans to get Obama a bipartisan bill to sign. So he decided to step in and get a bipartisan agreement on his own. What are Dems going to do now? They couldn't get either of their alternative tax bills passed, so now they're going to filibuster a bill endorsed by their President? LOL.

Harry Reid is totally incompetent. He should step down as majority leader even though he was re-elected.

Republicans have said that if we don't address the taxes and get a budget, nothing else is going through. Good job.

Posted by: Brigade | December 8, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

HansSolo wrote,
"Some of the lefties are behaving like bed-wetting thumbsuckers"
------

Liam's already had to purchase rubber sheets.

Posted by: Brigade | December 8, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

But this is a fight, for the good people to win, the bad people have to lose.

Posted by: shrink2|December 8,2010
-------

That's mainly what happened during this recent election, but it will take one more to completely turn the corner. First the House; next the Senate.

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

let's get a candidate who will shut down the money interests .... obviously we need to move on from Obama and fight the conservatives who leach off the working man.

education ineptness , tax breaks for the rich, where does it stop .... unite those that care about themselves and other people ... it's that simple

Posted by: agra09 | December 8, 2010
-------

Ralph Nader may be available for a third party run.

Posted by: Brigade | December 8, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse


MNUSA wrote,
"We got a president who inherited the biggest mess any president's ever inherited"
-------

You need some remedial work in history. Poor soul.

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

DADT basically says "Sure you can serve, as long as you lie about yourself- and as soon as your lie is exposed, you can't anymore"

I'd try to come up with an analogy for you, but I honestly can't think of one that isn't utterly insane, which tells us something about this policy.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | December 8, 2010 4:45 PM
-------

Is there some question on your enlistment papers than asks if you are homosexual. If no one "asks", then why should you have to lie?

Posted by: Brigade | December 8, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Presumably if Reid comes to terms on the amendments and achieves cloture on the bill, then the Democrats could introduce DREAM as one of their five amendments, correct?

Posted by: jnc4p | December 8, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

I truly do not understand Democrats vilifying Liberals. It makes no sense to me as a simple matter of political analysis. Where is the benefit to either President Obama or the Democratic Party when Democrats attack Liberals? It strikes me as pure petulance. Even if you believe that Liberals have been disloyal to Obama, how does attacking Liberals help him?

Posted by: wbgonne | December 8, 2010 6:30 PM

But it's ok for liberals to attack Democrats?

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

I don't see why this is such a good deal for GOP. They could have gotten more out of it. Two years is no time at all. We'll be right back here in two years doing this again. Why not hold out for three or more years or just wait till the new Congress comes in and get a much better deal when they have the House in January? Send Obama something he hates and make him sign it or Veto it in January. If he vetos it GOP can say Obama let your taxes go up. Send it up there again with some changes and make him veto it again. He would end up having to sign something much better for the GOP. Someone help me out on this. Why is GOP settling for deal that's just ok when they could get way more?

Posted by: Truthteller12 | December 8, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Dream Act / Amnesty bill vote on motion to concur in Senate Amendment FAILS! 2 million illegal aliens and potential for fraud is huge.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 8, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Truthteller12, I believe that the conventional wisdom is that the Republicans will use the tax cuts in 2012 as a campaign issue.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 8, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute, the lameduck Dems kept the vote open and now it passed! BOO

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 8, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

It passed the House not the Senate yet, I don't think you really have much to worry about I'm sorry to say.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 8, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

HansSolo wrote,
"Some of the lefties are behaving like bed-wetting thumbsuckers"
------
Liam's already had to purchase rubber sheets.


Hans and Brigade, you two get a room. I don't mind men loving men I just don't think you should, you know, be so flamboyant, it might degrade the mission.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 8, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

So, I left a link earlier re the payroll tax cut and Social Security hoping someone would pick it up (Greg) and move the discussion forward. I said last night that I would vote against the compromise tax proposal if I were a member of Congress based solely on this particular cut. I don't think some of you realize the importance of this cut and what it MIGHT mean for the future of SS. Let me ask a question first, why would Republicans agree to a tax cut that only affects people below the $106,000 income level that also adds $120b to the deficit?

I'd like to set the stage first because I know some of you will complain that I'm just looking for an excuse to slam the President or pragmatism or bi-partisanship or something. I work on public policy in my local community, while I've never run for office, I have been on numerous public policy commissions in my local community and have learned over the last 30+ years to look beyond the immediate rewards to the lasting effects of a particular proposal. This is work that I volunteer for, no one pays me for my opinion and my community is only about three times larger than Wasilla, LOL. It's strictly small scale.

I'd also like to point out that I have never called our President weak, a capitulator, or called for either a third party or primary challenge. I have criticized his negotiating skills from time to time but other than that I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt as far as his motives and the enormous number of problems he's had to deal with. I have criticized some of his policy decisions and his lack of communicating his vision since he's taken office, but I think that's allowed.

I won't go into all the benefits of SS here, or remind everyone it's one of the greatest liberal accomplishments in the last century. You've heard it all before and I think most of you agree.

Here's two of many articles discussing the long term consequences of the payroll tax cut. I'm fairly certain the President's compromise will pass but I want to go on the record that I believe this particular part of his proposed legislation will probably change the face of SS for future generations. Is that a legacy we want?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/tax-cut-deal-a-hidden-thr_n_793983.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/8/927057/-The-payroll-tax-holiday-wont-be-temporary

"The reality is that politicians rarely find the courage to raise taxes, and there's no reason to believe that will suddenly change when it comes to the payroll tax holiday. Once the payroll tax is cut, it won't be going back up -- and that's a prospect Republicans dream about, because they will have finally created the fiscal crisis for Social Security that they've been so eager to "solve."

Posted by: lmsinca | December 8, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca, do you know of any Senate Dems opposed to DREAM act GOPer's in favor? How far from 60 are they right now?

Posted by: Truthteller12 | December 8, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Truthteller

I don't have any numbers, but I heard Durbin say something along the lines of it being a difficult climb or whatever. I'm skeptical it will pass this time around and I'm thinking the prospects won't be any better for the next two years at least. It's too bad because it's a good bill and a good idea. There's lots of very earnest and hard-working young people out there who are here through no fault of their own and are willing to do just about whatever we require of them to become citizens, even serve in the military.

We're working on passing our own version in CA.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 8, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca said, "I have never called our President weak, a capitulator, or called for either a third party or primary challenge."

But now you realize, he put SS on his poker table, he wants to parlay SS. He wants to disconnect the hard relationship between paying in and being safe when you get old.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 8, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Pretty good article about SS and the "hard relationship between paying in and being safe when you get old." Suffice it to say, that relationship ended a couple of decades ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 8, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

shrink

I take a different approach. While I have been extremely unhappy with numerous policy decisions, ie health care (the PO and drug re-importation), Afghanistan, HAMP, KORUS, etc. I try to stay away from motives while disagreeing with the results. When the time comes to vote I'll decide which way to go. In the meantime I'll just keep plugging along supporting policies and candidates that best represent my goals. I'm just a worker bee not a strategist.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 8, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

"I take a different approach."

We all support policies and candidates we think best represent our goals.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 8, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Yes, but I don't delve too much into motives or political strategy other than advancing those goals. I think it's counter-productive to try to guess the President's motives and it's also difficult to "know" something like that. Like I said when the time comes to campaign and vote, I'll decide whether I think he's done a better job than the guy or gal he's running against might do and how either one advances my policy preferences. Truthfully, I'm pretty discouraged but I'm trying to keep an open mind.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 8, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Will DADT and START and DREAM act get done in lame duck or will tax cut issue drag out till Christmas eve and everything else get flushed? What do y'all think?

Posted by: Truthteller12 | December 8, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

"Suffice it to say, that relationship ended a couple of decades ago."

It is like the deficit. We still get to decide whether we are going to fix it or not. SS has not defaulted. But when Obama says, lets just make sure you all know, you are paying into a program, but no one knows what you'll get to draw...that is capitulation, really that is the end of Social Security.

Fine with me, I don't expect to get Social Security, I really don't. I am planning to not get a $. I was just saying that it is important to watch the mile markers go by.

If people think Obama's goals and policies and their goals are aligned they just need to be aware.

Funny because I'll bet people who expect to get their fair share of SS think the free health care for everybody plan is fully funded too. Well guess what Democrats, if you want that, you have to stop spending on a lot of other things, you have to stop Republicans from wasting money, you have to stop Democrats from wasting money. That involves fighting, which is like you know, people punching each other and stuff.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 8, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

"I don't expect to get Social Security, I really don't. I am planning to not get a $. I was just saying that it is important to watch the mile markers go by."

Do you want to watch the mile markers go by or fight? You and I may be fortunate enough to not have to rely on SS, but there's a whole lot of people who are going to need that money, especially now. The President isn't the only one with political power and people waste too much time trying to define him instead of fighting for what they want. We still have some power when we band together regardless of what the bankers, politicians, wall street, insurance companies, blah blah blah think. That's the kind of strategy I'm interested in, not the WH or Senate/House theater.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 8, 2010 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Anyway, I really just wanted to make my statement re SS for the record. I'm out for a couple of days, off to NM to fetch my little sis and bring her here for the Holidays. I don't let her fly alone so I'm gonna go get her.

Truthteller

I have absolutely no idea on the chances of passage of anything. I'm beyond speculating re this Administration or Congress.

Talk to y'all later.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 8, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Fight, of course. I do not to plan to kill anyone, though I realize the people we are fighting against don't have a problem with that.

But to speak of milestones, they can be millstones, they do matter. The day Lehman Bros fell was a bigger day for America than the day the World Trade Center fell. Americans do not know that, not yet. They are working on that realization.

Point is, radical Islam is no threat to the United States, it is just a threat to security.


Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Larry Summers? Isn't he the guy who effed up the last stimulus? I'll be sure to take his recommendations reeeeally seriously.

Posted by: callingalltoasters | December 9, 2010 1:02 AM | Report abuse

The liberals are "clinging" to a Lame Duck Session of a Congress in which they NEVER had the support of the American People.


In all my life, I can not believe that the liberals would hijack our American government to such an extent.


The liberals have turned into totalitarian socialists - that is the ONLY way to describe this hijacking. I am sorry to say but that is the truth. At no time in American history would ANY of this be acceptable.


AND the liberals won't stop.


The liberals are acting and talking like they are entitled to this lame duck session - like somehow they are entitled to the US government doing what they want. They are NOT entitled to anything except what the "consent of the governed" has given them - and CLEARLY THEY DO NOT HAVE THAT. This lame duck session is the MOST UNDEMOCRATIC AND TOTALITARIAN SOCIALIST TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY.


I hope these liberals are happy with themselves.


I find it the most shameful episode in American history.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 9, 2010 2:48 AM | Report abuse

THE King of hyperbole: RainForest.

Congrats. Only a neophyte would be the first to claim this is the "... most shameful episode in American history."

gasp! They said similar about Washington.

Get a life.


Posted by: ChuckinDenton | December 9, 2010 4:28 AM | Report abuse

...unless RainForest is pure performance art paid for by some Liberal Group. In which case, thanks for the motivation. But, as for us regulars? We're tired of the B.S.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | December 9, 2010 4:33 AM | Report abuse

And what sort of amendments are Republicans going to propose? Expressions of squeamishness and nothing more. Demands for segregated showers. Punitive measures for gay soldiers who "come on to" straight ones. No gay chaplains or doctors cupping straight nuts. Availability of "cures" and counseling to be "normal." Denial of visitation rights. Some vastly irrelevant blather about "gay recruitment" of "children." Shoehorning in all the stereotypes and ugly characterizations promoted by the American Family Association and whatever outfit Pat Robertson heads up these days.

Hey, GOP. You knucklewalkers have lost the social issues. You can rile up the rubes but when the details come out, as rarely as they do, nobody wants anything you guys are selling.

What purely despicable people. And how they revel in it.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 9, 2010 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Thanks to DDAWD for the script reference, the little summary at the bottom of the page tells me that there are 14 troll posts that I'm going placidly not seeing at all. Why anyone would continue to allow oneself to have his time wasted and his serenity disturbed by the utterances of malevolent and stupid people is outside my comprehension. 37th aka RainForest and Brigade are as predictable as the trajectory of a freely falling stone, so why would anyone would place his head there? Use the script.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 9, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Interesting ... but not surprising:

At the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News' controversial Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network's journalists not to use the phrase "public option."

Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox's reporters should use "government option" and similar phrases -- wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats' reform efforts.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012090003

Posted by: pragmaticagain | December 9, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/the_morning_plum_147.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 9, 2010 8:40 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