Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:21 PM ET, 12/ 9/2010

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* Here's yet another way DADT repeal could still happen: A Senate aide says one scenario being mulled would be to ask the House to pass repeal again and send the Senate a so-called "message" asking for a vote. That would circumvent various procedural hurdles. No idea if it will happen, but it's a possibility.

* Good: Obama urges the Senate to revist repeal of DADT during the lame duck session.

* Jonathan Bernstein makes the case against Reid's decision to move forward today.

* Andrew Sullivan says Reid shares some of the blame, but ultimately lays it all in the laps of GOP Senators, particularly John McCain.

Indeed, it's going to be interesting to see how commentators who have long been willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt treat McCain's role in what happened.

* Ezra Klein:

The bill repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell didn't fail: The Senate did. The bill got 57 votes, not 49...a procedural failsafe that's theoretically meant to protect the rights of minorities was just used to restrict the rights of minorities -- which is how it's always been, of course.

* Indeed, the failure of DADT repeal is likely to renew calls for filibuster reform, and Jeff Merkley is now circulating a petition to build support.

* And: The Brennan Center is out with a big report on filibuster abuse and the potential for reform.

* When Fox News started pushing the phrase "government option," they were amplifying the preferred talking points of the insurance industry.

* Steve Benen argues, persuasively, that it's thoroughly wrongheaded to blame Obama for DADT repeal's failure today.

But Obama can -- and I imagine will -- do all he can to cajole moderate GOPers into supporting the stand-alone repeal bill that will be introduced soon.

* E.J. Dionne suspects that Obama is "perfectly happy to see liberals publicly furious."

* BooMan makes a strong case that Obama is not triangulating.

* Eric Holder tells Republicans that a bill barring the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the U.S. will make it harder to protect Americans from terrorists.

* Conservative bloggers are furious with Susan Collins for voting Yes on DADT repeal, even though her procedural objections are what gave GOP moderates cover to vote No.

* And a brutal new ad from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, set to run in Indiana, airs footage of Obama railing against the Bush tax cuts for the rich as a matter of "conscience."

Key takeaway: No matter how many times Obama rebukes the left, this line of criticism is not going away.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | December 9, 2010; 6:21 PM ET
Categories:  Happy Hour Roundup, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Why Harry Reid decided to move foward with DADT vote
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

From an Economic point of view, Obama has to drastically alter his stimulus to the Middle Class - because too much of that money is leaking to China. If Obama's aim is to provide a stimulus through the proposed Compromise, then someone has to tell Obama that aim will not work.


Obama's stimulus money is actually in a "debt spiral" Obama borrows once to give the money to people - then when they spend the money on foreign goods, we have to borrow the money again to finance the trade deficits.


This is making the problem WORSE - not solving the problem. The problem with the economy right now IS THE TRADE - we are not solving anything - we are simply accelerating the borrowing and debt spiral.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 9, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

I agree that filibuster reform should be the first thing the new Senate takes up.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 9, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

I think that service members, like Dan Choi, who have been discharged from the military for being gay out to start filing lawsuits. Get at least one going in every federal court.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 9, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I prefer to keep the sixty votes required rules.

Important trans- formative legislation should be hard to pass, and just as hard to repeal. Any Democrats who are longing to lower the number of votes required, for future legislation to pass, will rue the results, if they get their way.

The Republicans will be back in control of both houses, in 2013. Do we really want to make it much easier for them to repeal what we just fought hard to pass, and to also allow them to easily pass more big tax breaks for the super rich, while slashing programs for the poor?

Use your heads Democrats. Leave the Filibuster rules as they are. They will be the only weapon you will have to defend your programs, after the 2012 elections.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 9, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

"Conservative bloggers are furious with Susan Collins for voting Yes on DADT repeal, even though her procedural objections are what gave GOP moderates cover to vote No."

See? Her actions today do not support her re-election hopes.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 9, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Greg writes:


When Fox News started pushing the phrase "government option," they were amplifying the preferred talking points of the insurance industry.


________________________________

WHAT A LAUGH


Like Greg everyday doesn't push the talking points which the DNC and liberal interest groups send out ???


What a joke complaining that the other side does something that he does everyday.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 9, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Sue, you're right. As cynical as I am, I'll never be as cynical as a conservative blogger! Them's some truly deranged people.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 9, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Susan was the one that The Republican caucus picked to play along with the Democrats, in order to drag the issue out as long as possible, just like Olympia Snowe was their designated deceiver, during the health care negotiations. The Republicans picked those two women from Maine, to play mind games on the Democrats, because they were the most likely Republicans to be the least vulnerable to Tea Party challengers.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 9, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

bernie said,
"I am so deeply disgusted with the modern Republican party and its affiliates that there really aren't words adequate."

Well if you want to feel better quickly, blame the left. After all, we are the petulant thumb suckers who don't really understand how good we have it. We tantrum and wet our beds whenever we don't like the hood ornament on the shït sandwich we are told is one of the basic food groups.

I want to hear some more about the art of compromise Mr. Obama. Fill me in on how we find agreement at the center. Hello?...knock, knock...tap tap. Can I find out more about building compromise from the center?


Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

No, Liam, I don't think so.

Collins was acting on her own today. She's up for re-election in 2 years. They could not have forced her to *VOTE* with the Dems. They could not have forced her to offer free-standing legislation.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 9, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama is still putting the nation in a DEBT SPIRAL.


When Obama gives money to the Middle Class the way he has, he ENTERS THE DEATH SPIRAL


First, Obama is borrowing to do the spending and to make the tax cuts.

Then, as that money is spent on Chinese and foreign goods, borrowing has to take place to finance the TRADE DEFICIT


Then, when the INTEREST is due on all that debt, Obama BORROWS AGAIN.


It is a DEATH SPIRAL OF DEBT - and it is killing the country.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 9, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"After all, we are the petulant thumb suckers who don't really understand how good we have it. We tantrum and wet our beds whenever we don't like the hood ornament on the shït sandwich we are told is one of the basic food groups."

Yeah, and it would be nice if you would stop doing that.

:oP

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 9, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

I don't know who this Bernstein guy is but I agree re DADT:

"Yes, Republicans could have dragged things out until January...but so what, if ultimately it gets done before the clock runs out? And what exactly is the downside if they try and just can't quite finish?"

wth is worng with Reid?

Posted by: sbj3 | December 9, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama thinks he is this great Keynsian


Instead of the money multiplier - Obama has the DEBT MULTIPLIER

Obama is borrowing to give the Middle Class tax cuts

- Borrowing to finance the trade deficits with China and other foreign nations.

- and then Borrowing again to finance the interest when it is due.


IT IS A DEBT SPIRAL WHICH IS DESTROYING THE NATION.


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 9, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

shrink2, don't forget "sanctimonious" too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 9, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

I would love to let Republicans run out the clock on this session debating any issue, that would allow the Bush Tax cuts to expire, and to not pass the new estate cuts for the wealthy.

Let them do it Harry. It is the only way to save us from the Obama sell out.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 9, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

No, Liam, I don't think so.

Collins was acting on her own today. She's up for re-election in 2 years. They could not have forced her to *VOTE* with the Dems. They could not have forced her to offer free-standing legislation.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 9, 2010 6:49 PM

...................
She is not up for reelection until 2014. You already were told that, on the previous thread, so why do you keep claiming that she has to run in 2012?

Posted by: Liam-still | December 9, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Greg, I think you have the dumbest commenters on the internet. They even put the Yahoo commenters to shame.

Unbelievable.

Posted by: lcrider1 | December 9, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

The major difference between the 1930s and now is the Free Trade deals - and the stimulus money is leaking out of the nation now to stimulate China's economy, not our factories.


Obama has taken this one step further - insisting on diverting the stimulus money (last time and in the proposed Compromise) to Middle Class tax cuts which run right away out of the country to foreign countries.


Remember: in the 1930s, they had Smoot-Harley Tarriffs, which were blamed in part for making the depression worse. However, in an odd way, they could have made getting OUT of the depression easier by limiting the leakage of money out of the country.


We don't have Smoot-Harley now - we have an entirely different set of issues - We are now in the OBAMA DEBT SPIRAL, and the Economy is hurting.

Obama is insisting on diverting the tax cuts to areas which DO NOT spur job growth - Obama's motivation is purely that he doesn't like the rich getting anything - NOT sound economic policy.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 9, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know the three Senators who did not vote ?

Collins voted for the repeal.


AS I have been telling everyone, Joe Manchin voted against the repeal


Three did not vote - I suppose that would be one democrat and two Republicans.


.

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

Republican Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who have expressed support for repealing the law, both voted no.


So, there are 3 who didn't vote, Im looking for those names


Joe Manchin voted no, so that is a trade-off with Susan Collins.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 9, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama is triangulating and is responsible for the failure of the DADT repeal. When Obama crossed over and made his tax deal with the Republicans, he caved on a Democratic core principle, shoved the Democrats "to the back of the bus," and disrupted Reid's plans for an efficient flow of last minute legislation for the Lame Duck session. Obama may have channeled a bit of Lincoln during his first two years in office, but by his sellout on the deficit and the Bush tax cuts for "the rich," he has now transformed into Andrew Johnson, who after Lincoln was assassinated (five days after Appomattox), he reversed what Lincoln would have done, and made sure the secessionists (=modern day Republicans) got quickly back into power in the South.

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

bernie said,
"I am so deeply disgusted with the modern Republican party and its affiliates that there really aren't words adequate."
-----
Earth to bernie: no one cares. The liberals who post here regularly (like you) represent somewhere between 5 and 10% of the voting public. You don't decide elections. Your votes are already in the bank. I know it; you know; and Obama knows it. Stay home in 2012? Right. LOL. It's truly entertaining to listen to all the fussing and whining---and this while Dems have the presidency and huge majorities in both houses of Congress.

You folks are truly delusional. Someone said it would help Obama's re-election efforts if he could get DADT repealed. Do you actually think the majority of people give two hoots about this while the economy is in the tank and the fussbudgets in charge of the House are threatening to torpedo a bipartisan agreement Obama reached with Republicans which would extend unemployment benefits, stimulate the economy and protect working people from a tax increase?

All sensible voters could do in November was get rid of Dems who don't live in pinko safe-havens, thereby pulling the teeth of Pelosi and company. They couldn't get rid of the true scum but only deprive them of power. The best thing that could have happened to Republicans was for the stooge Dingy Harry to win re-election and remain majority leader for another two years. He'll deliver the Senate to Republicans on a silver platter.

Just keep this up. Who would have thought that Dems would let the leftie loons take them from the top of the world to the bottom of the sewer in such a short time.

Maybe more liberals should grab their punks and take refuge in some third-world shantytown---like someone we know.

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

"Greg, I think you have the dumbest commenters on the internet."

Oh if only. If only that were true, I would be proud to wear that. But I just have to ask, have you been to the sports comments sections on these tubes? How about the star culture web sites?

Dumbest commenters on the internet, I kind of like that. No more bed wetting for me! Sanctimonious, fatuous, all that isn't necessary. Just don't call me a silly billy, that would hurt my feelings.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

"When Fox News started pushing the phrase "government option," they were amplifying the preferred talking points of the insurance industry.'

The last word we'd want to use in the many cases like this one would be "propaganda".

...and, @ shrink
The wound will heal. And it will build character.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 9, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Susan was the one that The Republican caucus picked to play along with the Democrats, in order to drag the issue out as long as possible, just like Olympia Snowe was their designated deceiver, during the health care negotiations. The Republicans picked those two women from Maine, to play mind games on the Democrats, because they were the most likely Republicans to be the least vulnerable to Tea Party challengers.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 9, 2010 6:46 PM
------

You are an idiot. Susan Collins and Olympia Snow are as liberal as any Republicans you're ever going to find. If Dingy Harry can't work with them, he's worse than useless---he might as well be a Republican plant.

Posted by: Brigade | December 9, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

lcrider1said:
"Greg, I think you have the dumbest commenters on the internet. They even put the Yahoo commenters to shame.

Unbelievable."

Thanks for coming along and picking up the intellectual level and tone.

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

I think this is the vote on Don't Ask


Not Voting

Brownback (R-KS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Lincoln (D-AR)


It is telling that Joe Manchin voted NO, which is what I have been telling all of you lately and no one seems to listen


And Ben Nelson voted yes.


The House democrats sabotaged this vote today more than anyone - because they were not going to allow this to go forward before the tax compromise was settled.

And the liberals have been working against themselves for the past month - pushing to SLAM the Republicans on one issue, while seeking their votes on the other items of the liberal agenda.


It is a contradiction that just doesn't work.

Incredibly, the liberals still don't seem to get it.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 9, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

A very bright and thoughtful post from Digby (starting from a Drum post earlier)...

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/liberal-dilemma-they-wont-kill-hostages.html

Posted by: bernielatham | December 9, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

when wing nuts wax poetic

"...Dems would let the leftie loons take them from the top of the world to the bottom of the sewer..."

But, we really didn't take Democrats to the top of the world, we just tried to expose them to life beyond The Clintons.

Your kin folk still have to get past the Bushes. Are the wing nuts going to transport Republicans to the "top of the world"? Last I heard, Bible Spice still isn't interested in getting an education.


Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

"Use your heads Democrats. Leave the Filibuster rules as they are. They will be the only weapon you will have to defend your programs, after the 2012 elections."

Amen. That ship has sailed.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

But, we really didn't take Democrats to the top of the world, we just tried to expose them to life beyond The Clintons.

Your kin folk still have to get past the Bushes. Are the wing nuts going to transport Republicans to the "top of the world"? Last I heard, Bible Spice still isn't interested in getting an education.


Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 7:53 PM
-------

Most voters would much prefer Bill Clinton to what they have now, even though Liam (or whomever it was) says he was a Republican. At the rate you folks are going, Jeb Bush will be able to run and win in 2012.

Posted by: Brigade | December 9, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

I would love to let Republicans run out the clock on this session debating any issue, that would allow the Bush Tax cuts to expire, and to not pass the new estate cuts for the wealthy.

Let them do it Harry. It is the only way to save us from the Obama sell out.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 9, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Liam in 2012!

Posted by: wbgonne | December 9, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Bernie wrote: "The last word we'd want to use in the many cases like this one would be "propaganda"."

Does Barry's threat of a double-dip recession if the Bush tax cut extensions aren't passed constitute "propaganda?"

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 9, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Does Barry's threat of a double-dip recession if the Bush tax cut extensions aren't passed constitute "propaganda?"

Actually, the stinking pool of feces Larry Summers said that and yes, it was propaganda. There will be no double dip. The rich are already just fine, they are not at risk and the recession for the downwardly mobile, well that is still on, every day they get another dip in the pool.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Jeb Bush could beat Obama in 2012.

If Obama does not stop trying to hide in that moving little place where the political winds are entirely calm each morning, he will lose to anyone who isn't crazy.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

How credible is the White House/Summers/Geithner et al on predictions of economic policy anyway? Weren't they the ones that said that with the Porkulus bill, unemployment would only reach 8%? It would be kind of ironic if Congressional Democrats cite Barry's economic prognostication failures as a reason not to pass the Bush tax cuts extensions.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 9, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Yep, once again the left and the right agree, the Bush/Obama economic team are not credible. Tax cuts, printing money, tax cuts, printing money, and more tax cuts...then instead of printing money, lets buy our treasuries from GoldmineStacks, never mind they are our own treasuries, we'll call that quantitative easing instead of printing money. Hey, I've got an idea, should we try more tax cuts?

Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

I know Tweety isn't the most popular MSNBC host around, but this interview is a real eye opener. Were you aware you're reading a NeoCon paper? I wonder if bernie is engaging in "propaganda" when he posts comments on a NeoCon paper?

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1012/chris_matthews_media_critic.html

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

Black kid caught with some pot. Jail.

"Halliburton May Pay $500 Million To Nigerian Government To Settle Case And Keep Cheney Out Of Jail"

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/09/halliburton-500-million-cheney/

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

Heckuva job, Petey!

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/09/news/companies/citi_orszag/index.htm

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

"Why the "Liberals Can Mount Primary Challenge to Obama" Talk Makes No Sense

Posted Wednesday, December 08, 2010 5:33 PM | By David Weigel
Beware, liberals! Beware the specter of John Ashbrook. As you “murmur” and “bubble” about the bright idea of challenging Barack Obama in the 2012 Democratic presidential primary, remember that there are worse fates than opposing a president and losing. You could always oppose a president and lose so badly that people wonder why they took you seriously in the first place.
A Google search informs us that “John Ashbrook” gets 73,700 hits while "Obama primary challenge" gets 126,000, and because only one of these things actually exists it’s worth explaining it..."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/12/08/why-the-liberals-can-mount-primary-challenge-to-obama-talk-makes-no-sense.aspx

Posted by: bernielatham | December 9, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Oh, this is hilarious. Remember a few days ago when we all finally agreed on something? We all hated ethanol subsidies. Check this out:

"The White House and key lawmakers cleared the way Thursday night for swift Senate action to avert a Jan. 1 spike in income taxes for nearly all Americans, agreeing to extend breaks for ethanol and other forms of alternative energy as part of the deal....

"Among the energy tax provisions added was an extension of the current 45-cent per gallon subsidy for ethanol, at a cost to the Treasury estimated at nearly $5 billion."

It just keeps getting better!

Posted by: sbj3 | December 9, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

So Troll, can you tell me why the people who back Obama think he is beyond reproach?

I know you can't stand him, you know I can't stand him...We disagree on most things, but we do know Obama is a craven poser. Orzag, Summers, those are your own supply side people! Right? So don't you "Miss me now?" hat people have to laugh at yourselves, pretending Obama was a socialist?

It is over. Obama is ridiculous, but why can't the Democrats understand their President is trying to pose to the right of Mitt?

Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

sbj (from a previous thread):

Sorry it took so long to respond...I had to go to a dinner tonight. I am bringing this forward here because, well, this is where you are.

“I'd like to hear more about why you agree it might be plausible”

Fair enough. If concerns about sexuality and the creation of sexual relationships between men and women, and the effects of those relationships on military discipline, order, morale, etc, are significant enough to demand the segregation of men and women in living quarters within the military (as is apparently the case), then it certainly seems reasonable to me that the same concerns would exist regarding homosexual relationships. But because of the very nature of homosexuality, such concerns could not be allayed via the mere segregation of the sexes, and I can’t imagine how such concerns might be allayed. Therefore, it seems plausible to me (again, in my admitted ignorance about the needs and operations of the military), that gays serving openly could conceivably have a detrimental effect.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 9, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Key takeaway: No matter how many times Obama rebukes the left, he is going away.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

"Due to ethics rules, Orszag is prohibited from contacting U.S. federal government officials in his new role."

HaaaaahahahahahahahahhaohshhiiitIjustcan'tstoplaughingbwaaahaahahahaI'mgonnabarfthis is so stupid chortle sniff...snort ahem. I'll bet everybody contacts him....So, tell me again Obama supporters, the people on the left just don't get it, right?

We just have to learn more about how politics works, count to sixty, incredibly complex civil (bernie, help me out here, the complexity, so hard to understand) all that.

Democrats, the Obama administration is a farce.
Elect Mitt, at least he knows what the words mean.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

shrink wrote: "So Troll, can you tell me why the people who back Obama think he is beyond reproach?

Well, there are probably many reasons. I'm guessing that some have "fetishized" Barry (that one's for bernie), as well as have a lot invested in keeping him "blameless" since criticism of him, up until this point conducted primarily by the right, has been labeled as a racist activity. I've seen it start here, as a matter of fact:

"My theory is that it is the behavior of corporate Dems in legislative battles that gave the public and the political establishment the IMPRESSION that Obama was weak. And it is because of soft racism amongst the boomer class in both the political establishment (and political media) and in the Democratic base that this meme has taken hold. To be perfectly clear, I am not saying that this is the case for ALL boomers in the Democratic Party, I am simply suggesting that I believe that it is the boomers' weight and influence in the party that has allowed and even encouraged this myth to propagate. There are many boomers who I believe DO get soft racism and do NOT harbor subconscious struggles on race. You are clearly one of those people. But I think it would be folly to suggest that subconscious -- not overt, but subconscious -- racism is not prevalent in the Democratic baby boomers.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 6, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse"

Many Democrat's got caught up in Barry's campaign stategy of being a messiah. It's awfully hard to renounce one's religion.

And I don't recall saying Barry's a Socialist though I certainly think he has those ideas, unless they get too much in the way of his re-election bid. In a world in which Barry faces no opposition (like when he can remove an opponent from the ballot) I think he'd nationalize the banks, large industries and our medical system. But in a world where there will be an opponent he can't strip from the ballot, we'll face either incompetence or a vote of "present."

As Glen Reynolds says, "I think the Carter administration is starting to look like a 'best case' scenario."

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 9, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Troll, wow, I'm glad to be a leftist. Everywhere I look it is all about rich get richer, everyone else can f off and die.

"Peter brings a tremendous amount of knowledge as well as key private sector and government experience to Global Banking," John Havens, CEO of Citi's Institutional Clients Group said in a statement."

Pay to play. Obama supporters I've got a word for you: [fill in your blank].

So go on do it. Keep blaming the left. It's free, no one gets hurt. Say it: the left is the problem.

I'm going to go suck my thumb, wet my bed and dream about a better hood ornament.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 9, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3

But the dangers already exist because gays already serve side by side with heterosexuals. so your fear is that being allowed to serve openly will suddenly make them unable to control their sexual desires. It's not as if they will be allowed to assault people or sexually harrass people. I am assuming those sort of actions will still be prohibited by the UCMJ. What is it about serving openly that you think will turn these good soldiers into whatever it is you think homosexuals soldiers will do?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 9, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Heterosexual soldiers who think gays are going to come onto them or oggle their junk in the shower needn't worry. They're probably more afraid they'll be found wanting.

Given its problems with heterosexual rape I think the Army already has a much bigger problem with integration than "openly" gay soldiers are going to create. Yeah, again, "openly," as though concealing homosexuality solves or changes anything. So stick with the facts .. many other countries have openly gay soldiers and there's no problem there.

The problem isn't with acknowledging what everyone knows already. The problem is bigots like McCain and Brillohead DeMint, and the problem is Cletus and Jethro who joined up as the only way out of BFE and who're squeamish about "queers." Maybe if the military hadn't been turned into such a joke being sent to wars of choice they could go back to recruiting from those who score above the bottom quartile on the entrance exam and Cletus could do his time instead of getting out of it by joining up.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 9, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

The truth: Obama is so incompetent that he is having difficulty printing $100 dollar bills


Even Weimar Germany could print money with no trouble


It just so embarrassing. Isn't it? Obama can't even implement His horrible policies.


Posted by: OrangeDogs | December 10, 2010 12:13 AM | Report abuse

The truth: Obama is so incompetent that he is having difficulty printing $100 dollar bills


Even Weimar Germany could print money with no trouble


It just so embarrassing. Isn't it? Obama can't even implement His horrible policies.


Posted by: OrangeDogs | December 10, 2010 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Scott C: "If concerns about sexuality and the creation of sexual relationships between men and women, and the effects of those relationships on military discipline, order, morale, etc, are significant enough to demand the segregation of men and women in living quarters within the military (as is apparently the case), then it certainly seems reasonable to me that the same concerns would exist regarding homosexual relationships. "

In male/female relationships, the vast majority of the time, a man can easily physically dominate and overcome a woman, which necessarily makes women more vulnerable to sexual harassment and/or other unwanted behavior when living in shared quarters.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 10, 2010 12:16 AM | Report abuse

I agree about the debt

We borrow once to give the middle class tax breaks


Clinton structured our economy for Free Trade so now we have to borrow to finance the trade deficits.


Then we borrow to finance the interest.


It's true. It's a Multiplier. It's an Obama Debt Multiplier. And it's an Obama Spiral into the abyss is debt hell.


Obama is destroying the country and we have to get him out of office as soon as possible


If the man had any self respect, he would resign and spare the nation the next two years. Obama knows it's all downhill from here

Posted by: OrangeDogs | December 10, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Ezra is a complete idiot


For years the argument has been that the majority lives gays


So NOW the issue is whether to protect the minority which wishes to live free of gays. It's the height of minority rights

What is wrong with you if you don't want to protect this minority ????


Posted by: OrangeDogs | December 10, 2010 12:49 AM | 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: williamdawson | December 10, 2010 1:24 AM | Report abuse

"many other countries have openly gay soldiers and there's no problem there."

Coincidentally, many countries have armed forces that can't fight wars and have openly gay soldiers. Just great for battlefield morale, but the Germans & Dutch avoid battles like the plague.

Enjoy your commie slave existence, you POS.

Posted by: djman1141 | December 10, 2010 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, Israel is so helpless and pacifist.

No wonder America is falling apart .. education isn't what it used to be. It wasn't free enterprise that once made America great, it was an innovative and educated citizenry. All gone. The sharp minds that once went into productive careers like science and technology now rot on the fetid shoals of pseudosciences like econmics and useless pursuits like advertising and corporate law.

And, of course, with the chickens of poor education coming home to roost as a continual rightward shift, America descends without resistance into free market shabbiness. Doesn't matter which party it is, progressive ideas work and conservative ones don't, Doesn't matter if the progressive is Republican Eisenhower or Democrat Clinton, nor if the conservative is Republican Bush the Lesser or Democrat Obama .. conservative ideas don''t work, and under conservative uh "leadership" the country circles the drain.

No longer. Now America goes DOWN the drain. Under Eisnehower a tax that would now be condemned under the "redistributive" neologism worked very well, tax rates over 90% didn't impede growth, on the contrary, those were prosperous times.

The next generation will be shabbier than any in our -- your -- history and nobody will think of going back to what worked, because people don't know how to think critically.

Yeah, America is moving to the right, and no surprise, because the population is increasingly uneducated. Small wonder tht the new Tea populism scorns the educated instead of the wealthy.

If you're smart, you'll leave. I did, and life is very VERY good.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 10, 2010 2:23 AM | Report abuse

Enjoy your commie slave existence, you POS.

==

(*guffaw*)

Oh my, terms of service violation, whatever shall I do.

Commie? You bet. I live in a Communist country. The hammer and the sickle fly proudly from government buildings.

But slave? Bzzzt. That would be you. Here, the middle class is growing; in America it's being herded aboard boxcars and taken to the camps.

Should you disgrace your species by breeding, your kids will come home from school singing corporate jingles and they'll end up working for calories and living in corporate barracks, reminded hourly that "this is a business not a charity" and if they don't like hundred hour work weeks there are plenty of skeletal people outside the gates happy to take their jobs.

And you'll still be singing the praises of the free market and smirking about "socialist" countries where people think it's OK to "distort the marketplace" with wage laws and, ewwww, vacations.

Enjoy your precious free market, chump.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 10, 2010 2:36 AM | Report abuse

Did ya hear about the racist Dem congressman who shouted F____ Obama at the Dem Caucus meeting yesterday? SO many racist Dems disagreeing with Obama's policies. LMAO

Posted by: illogicbuster | December 10, 2010 6:53 AM | Report abuse

ashot:

"...so your fear..."

It isn't my fear.

I had said to sbj that, not having served in the military, I didn't have an informed opinion one way or the other on DADT, and was therefore content with whatever policy the military brass itself thought was best. I told him that, personally, I didn't anticipate that the repeal of DADT would have a detrimental effect on the military, but that I also didn't find it outrageously implausible that it might. He asked me why it might be plausible, and I responded as above.

So, again, it isn't my "fear" that it will cause a problem. I am simply not in a position to have a strong opinion about the matter.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 10, 2010 7:07 AM | Report abuse

suekzoo:

"In male/female relationships, the vast majority of the time, a man can easily physically dominate and overcome a woman, which necessarily makes women more vulnerable to sexual harassment and/or other unwanted behavior when living in shared quarters."

I may be wrong, but I don't think harrassment is the only, or even the major, concern. I suspect the goal is to minimize to the greatest extent possible the introduction of any kind of sexualized atmosphere, an atmosphere that will inevitably form if large groups of men and women are living in close quarters together 24/7.

But, again, I may be wrong. As I said above, I have no military experience which was why I was reluctant to pontificate on the matter to start with.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 10, 2010 7:21 AM | Report abuse

cao:

"Should you disgrace your species by breeding, your kids will come home from school singing corporate jingles and they'll end up working for calories and living in corporate barracks, reminded hourly that "this is a business not a charity" and if they don't like hundred hour work weeks there are plenty of skeletal people outside the gates happy to take their jobs."

How odd, then, that businesses are moving their factories to places like Vietnam in search of cheap labor.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 10, 2010 7:33 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/the_morning_plum_148.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 10, 2010 8:39 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