Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:33 PM ET, 12/ 2/2010

In defense of White House on Bush tax cuts

By Greg Sargent

With everybody beating up on Obama's handling of the Bush tax cuts fight, it's only fair to note one crucial thing in the White House's defense: It isn't Obama's fault that Congressional Democrats punted on holding a vote on just the middle class tax cuts before the election. Indeed, the White House appears to have wanted just the opposite.

As many commentators have noted already, the failure to do that vote left Dems with precious little leverage in the current lame-duck showdown over the tax cuts. As David Leonhardt argues today, Dems "had their chance to win on this issue." Before the election, forcing Republicans to vote on just the middle class tax cuts would have thrown them on the defensive. Now they can basically run out the clock.

It's important to remember that the White House is not to blame for this. My understanding from the reporting I did at the time is that White House officials repeatedly signaled to Dem Congressional leaders that they wanted the vote to happen. Nancy Pelosi, too, wanted it to happen. But she and Steny Hoyer ultimately deferred to moderate Dems who feared such a vote would allow Republicans to paint them as tax hikers. Dem leaders also worried that they might lose the vote, though it's unclear why this should have mattered: It still would have forced House GOPers to make a tough choice before the election.

It's also key to keep in mind that when the possibility of the vote was still hanging over the elections, Dems were on the offensive. They were winning. As Ezra Klein reminds us, Republicans were clearly caught in a bind. House GOPers like John Boehner and Dave Camp were actually saying they might vote with the Dems. That was a clear signal that Dems held the cards at the time. Yet they punted anyway. Now Republicans are in a stronger position: Dems have been "shellacked," Republicans are no longer facing an election, and the tight timing of the lame-duck session has given the GOP more leverage.

You could argue that the White House could have been more vocal about their desire for a pre-election vote or pushed Dem leaders harder to make it happen. But the White House was right to grant Congressional leaders the leeway to chart their own course. And at a certain point, it's tiresome to hear Dems blame the White House for their own lack of spine or leadership. Amid the roar of criticism of the White House, let's keep in mind that they aren't to blame for a key aspect of the Dems' current predicament.


UPDATE, 3:52 p.m.: The House just passed an extension of only the middle class tax cuts, by a comfortable margin. There are now 229 votes in favor. Recall that one key argument against holding the vote before the election was that Dems might lose. And maybe moderate Dems would have been more reluctant to vote Yes before facing voters. But I doubt it. It's far more likely that when it came down to it, enough Dems would have voted Yes to pass it. More proof that punting on the earlier vote was a profound error.

UPDATE, 4:01 p.m.: In fairness, though, whatever the mistakes of the past, House Dem leaders do deserve props for getting this done today, even if it's a non starter in the Senate. It's another sign that Minority Leader Pelosi is likely to be every bit as confrontational as we've been led to expect.

By Greg Sargent  | December 2, 2010; 3:33 PM ET
Categories:  House Dems, House GOPers, taxes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The military leadership's challenge to GOP Senators
Next: Andy Stern will vote No on deficit commission


Then what business does a presidential campaign have making promises against tax cuts?

Posted by: Papagnello | December 2, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats should take a two year extension of all the Bush Tax cuts while they can. The next Congress will probably start by passing a bill to enact a permanent extension of all the Bush tax cuts.

Posted by: jnc4p | December 2, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Greg but, one must consider this: it wasn't the WH per se, but let's remember WHO brought the Dems who wanked on this vote and kicked the can down to now; the Blue and Dirty Dogs who were very keen to give the wealthy even more money from the public dole anyway.

Rahm Emmanuel legacy still lives on, doesn't it? They refused to listen to Howard Dean and his 50 States strategy and brought DINOs to DC.

Result? We, The People got screwed time and again by morally depraved beings like Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad, Evan "The Corruptible" Byah, Heath Schuler and the likes at every turn.

By the way, why didn't the White House forcefully and publicly chided the Dems wankers when it was time to shame them with maximum efficacy?

Posted by: grosmec | December 2, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Amid the roar of criticism of the White House, let's keep in mind that they aren't to blame for a key aspect of the Dems' current predicament.


Exactly. I maintain that the best thing they could do is let the BUSH tax cuts expire, just like the GOP designed them to.

Of course no politician will say that because politicians have spent the last few decades promising that tax cuts cure everything from depression to gout.

Luckily, the only thing that needs to happen to do away with the Bush tax cuts is...nothing. If there is anything Congress has shown aptitude for it is doing nothing.

Greg - Question: Since the majority of votes for the tax cuts to expire came from the Republicans, and since Republicans are the ones threatening to block any tax cuts that don't help the super rich, why is it that Democrats are the being painted as the villains in this debate? It seems to me that left-leaning pundits really aren't doing a very good job of explaining WHY these tax cuts are expiring. It may seem obvious to you, Greg, but most people aren't political junkies, they need to be enlightened about HOW we got here, Why we got here, When we got here, and What it all means.

Posted by: HansSolo | December 2, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Once again, the Democrats finds themselves in a situation where they are frustrated at their efforts to do something against the will of the people.

Isn't that supposed to be difficult in a democracy? Of course it is. Tax hikes, and face it boys and girls that is what this is, just aren't something Americans are interested in this time around.

Thankfully we have regained our healthy distrust of government. Here's an example from recent history. We were told, by people we believed, that if we granted amnesty to the illegals the problem of illegal immigration at its source would be addressed. So the legislature responded. Amnesty was granted to a 1.7 million illegals (per the NYT) but the root problem was never resolved. Now we have upwards of 12 million illegals and the federal government is suing a state of the union for having the nerve to address the issue on its own (by enforcing federal law I might add).

So we can see the sucker play for what it is this time around. We will be promised spending cuts, but first we'll have to accept tax hikes. The liberal Democrats will pontificate about how it takes a combination of the two to balance the budget but, but, but,spending cuts will take a lot of time and effort, soooo let's do the tax hikes now.

There is no reason for Americans to fall for this a second time (or an nth time for that matter). Let's see the spending cuts first. Then come back to us about wanting more of our hard earned money.

It is good thing that Americans have regained that sense of distrust in the government. Not only is it sensible, but it also makes the installation of further liberal concepts more difficult. Gotta love that.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 2, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse


I get your point but it's been obvious since Inauguration Day that the Congressional Democrats were hopelessly split. Because of that, Presidential leadership was critical. Obama had tremendous power and goodwill immediately after the election and could have used his power to frame the debate on several vital issues, especially health care. Instead, Obama stayed on the sidelines and watched Congress descend into madness during health care reform process, costing Obama much of his election-goodwill. But there was no White House change of course in response. Scott Brown then takes Ted Kennedy's seat. No White House change of course. The income tax issue arises just before the mid-terms and the White House -- almost identically to how it handled the HCR public option debate -- simply states its preference that the upper bracket rise. No forceful argument why. No argument at all. Plus Obama takes no action to make that stated preference meaningful, such as declaring that he would veto any contrary legislation. Then Democrats get wiped out in the midterms by an insanely radical version of the Republican Party. Would the White House change? Will it? It appears not.

People who have strongly supported Obama for a very long time are very concerned about his performance as president.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 2, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

House Democrats punted because we would have seen the exact same thing play out then as now. This bill will go to the Senate. Senate Republicans will refuse to let it come to floor until upper brackets are added. Senate Democrats will relent. Then the Senate amendment goes back to the House, where it will be approved. President Obama will then sign it.

Such an spectacle is best after the election than before it.

Posted by: boloboffin1 | December 2, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

OT - another R takes a potshot at Palin...

Posted by: bernielatham | December 2, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Greg Sargent. You are a mensch. You are also a treasured sane voice in a sea of yelling and screaming.

Posted by: 4jkb4ia | December 2, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I am not concerned about Obama's performance as President at all. I recognize that he leads a caucus that spans from Bernie Sanders to Ben Nelson, from Dennis Kucinich to Heath Shuler. I also recognize that the Republicans have not been the problem, it's the fact that many Democrats, while conservative, are still more liberal than the districts they represent. That's who he's been negotiating with.

Posted by: mgoetzesq | December 2, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Democrats DON'T GET IT. Now, they want to go further, and include the tax cuts that
were in the Stimulus, (which were supposed to be temporary).
How do you deal with this type of ignorance?
If we can't afford to extend tax cuts on ALL Americans... how can we afford to Also
extend temporary tax cuts that were in the stimulus bill ?????
This is unbelievable.

Posted by: ohioan | December 2, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Is this only a two year extension? What happened to permanently extending for the middle and only temporarily extending for the rich? Why does this post not explain to time-line for the extension?!!!!

Posted by: lnw80050 | December 2, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Well I have to hand it to Nancy Pelosi for getting this to go. Greg, thank you for your reasonableness....Can you talk some sense into some of your commentors now? Seems like they've had too much Kool-Aide.

Posted by: kindness1 | December 2, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Greg says -"But the White House was right to grant Congressional leaders the leeway to chart their own course."

Was the WH correct, or is it what looks to be more and more the case, a passive President who is letting himself being governed by events. What the WH and the Dem Congress should have done after Labor Day was act in tandem in a concerted effort to deal with the tax cut issue.
Being intimidated by the Blue Dogs didn't do any good, as a number of these critters lost on November 2.

Can someone direct me to a list of the Dems that voted NO today? I want to see whether my DINO piece of crap rep was on that list.

Posted by: filmnoia | December 2, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse


It's actually very simple and straight-forward. See if you can follow along:

Tax breaks for the Middle Class are stimulative for the economy (people spending money).

Tax breaks for the wealthy are not (people saving money).

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 2, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Goodness. Another R has un-nice things to say about Sarah. Nicolle Wallace, former communications chief for the last president and advisor to McCain/Palin...

"...Wallace said that Palin displays "incredible cynicism" and is "very prickly."

"I believe that if she were on the cusp of becoming the nominee for the Republican party a whole lot of people... would talk about some of her more troubling deficiencies," Wallace said. "Her incredible cynicism, her bitterness, her aggressive attempts to claw anyone that points out an area for her to work on, I think these things will continue to reveal herself and the people that love her will continue to love her, but the people who are not so sure about her will, I think, formulate harder opinions and more clarity about her..."

And then, there's this...

""No one's gonna cut her off at the legs," Wallace claimed. "Only Sarah Palin can beat Sarah Palin, and let me tell you why no one will take her on. Her defenders and supporters, the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity -- people I admire -- are so powerful on the Right that nobody wants to anger any of those people, nobody wants to end up in the crosshairs, and nobody wants to look like they are unwilling to let her do her thing."

Posted by: bernielatham | December 2, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

this is just to juicy a target to ignore:

It's actually very simple and straight-forward. See if you can follow along:

Tax breaks for the Middle Class are stimulative for the economy (people spending money).

Tax breaks for the wealthy are not (people saving money).

Just a few quick things, then I'll eagerly await the spittle flecked angry spluttering response from our resident stand in for Spencer Ackerman.

(1) What proof is there that the "rich" don't spend, but the "middle class" does. I'll be here all day tomorrow so feel free to provide it at your earliest convenience.

(2) Even if what you say is true (and I highly doubt it) how the heck does that constitute a moral argument for confiscating money from people? Basically here's the liberal gospel according to Ethan: If people aren't going to do what Ethan thinks they should do with their own hard earned money, then let's take it from them and do what we please with it. We, the liberals know what is best for everyone. therefore we know better than the folks who actually earned the money.

(3) What's wrong with savings and investment Ethan? Where do you think the money comes from for new property, plant and equipment, not to mention new ventures? Or is it the liberal view that if Americans need something, the government will fund research to produce it? If so, I can't wait for the new model zighuli's that the central factory will roll out shortly.

(4) thanks for the continued condescencion. I was worried for a while that the liberals would come to realize that the contempt the express toward others is part of the reason they got shellacked. It is nice to know that my fears are thus far unfounded. Carry on with the sneering Ethan, it is doing wonders for your movement.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 2, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"I am not concerned about Obama's performance as President at all."

Really? How would you say things have gone for Obama and the Democrats since Inauguration Day?

Posted by: wbgonne | December 2, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

"...Only Sarah Palin can beat Sarah Palin..."

Yes this is my working hypothesis too. They will bait her and she will rise to it, again and again. Still the entertainers are in a symbiotic relationship with her. She makes their ratings go up.

The Republican money management firm of Rove, Barbour & Gillespie will need the entertainers to look away from her for awhile, long enough to make sure she takes the deal and becomes the prom queen of the Tampa convention and not the nominee. She will have to become less attractive in the mass market and only she can make that happen. Right now, they are setting bait, no doubt about it.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 2, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Wb wrote: "...insanely radical version of the Republican Party"

What would be a "sanely radical version of the Republican party?"

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 2, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

The Senate needs to do the nuclear option. Come on Reid, grow a pair...

Posted by: soapm | December 2, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Why doesn't Obama deserve any responsibility for the Democrats punting prior to the midterms?

Posted by: eganfoote | December 2, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

President Obama is the head of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: sbj3 | December 2, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"...Only Sarah Palin can beat Sarah Palin..."

Sarah and the Tea Party had their test in the midterms and failed to deliver. The Republican Party already made their mistake with Palin. They aren't about to make another one.

Posted by: sold2u | December 2, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

At this point the Dems in the House have given Obama cover for his "Now tax increase on incomes under $250,000" and the Republicans will make sure that EVERYBODY gets his taxes raised. Since if the whole Bush Tax Cuts mess needs to go, and that will add trillions to the Federal Incomes over the next few years, what we have is an inadvertent, (or VERY roundabout and covert)bipartisan deficit reduction package with some real umph.

Since the R's can't vote down the House bill, they will have to filibuster it right up until Congress adjourns. But all that does is insure the total death of Bush Reaganomics.

And, by the way, what side of the vote did John Boehner come down on?

Posted by: ceflynline | December 2, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"What would be a "sanely radical version of the Republican party?"

The one that acknowledges the fundamental aspects of the social contract and is not a plutocratic extension of concentrated capital, the one that recognizes that government is necessary and can do good things, accepts that taxes are necessary and values public service, education and accomplishment, not just money.

Thanks for asking.

Later, All.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 2, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"...the folks who actually earned the money..."

Yeah wouldn't that be a change of pace. I know lots of rich people (they make great friends) and it has been quite awhile since they earned anything. In fact, quite a few people I know never did, never earned a dime, not over expenses anyway. Mind you, they have to "do something", so they are artists, photographers, shoe design consultants (with no paying clients), racers, writers...The money just keeps rolling in, imagine that.

Republican voters have no idea about the upper class because that is not on Fox News. They think Rush is rich (well, sort of) and that he earned it (he did). They think about Ayn Rand characters and think they know about how the rich get rich. Suckers.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 2, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like a temporary extension is whats going to happen

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell predicted Thursday a resolution soon to the impasse over tax breaks and the federal budget that has pitted congressional Republicans against the White House and Democratic lawmakers.

“Sooner rather than later,” the Kentucky Republican said in an interview with The Courier-Journal. “I think the issue in the end is going to be is how long we extend the current tax rates.”

The issue is "how long" not "if"

Posted by: sold2u | December 2, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

You're quite welcome wb. Now, what's a "radical version of the Republican Party" as opposed to the insane and sane version?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 2, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Good point ceflynline, the Dems can now say they passed extension for 98% of American's. If every ones taxes go up it's because the GOP blocked the extension in the Senate...

Good point!!!

Posted by: soapm | December 2, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"Good point ceflynline, the Dems can now say they passed extension for 98% of American's. If every ones taxes go up it's because the GOP blocked the extension in the Senate..."

Yes, the Dems will say that and they will be 100% correct, except the Right has the biggest media megaphone to counteract the truth. Consequently, the Dems can say what they want and it will all be thin gruel.
Anyway, the fix is in. There will be an extension of cuts for the top 2%. If it's temporary, say for 2 years, it will then be a big issue during the next election cycle.

Posted by: filmnoia | December 2, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Let them expire. Then Republicans have to ask for budget-busting tax cuts in the next session. Increase the debt to fund tax breaks for the rich? Sounds crazy! Only radical Republican anti-tax ideologues would even suggest it.

Posted by: thebobbob | December 2, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Raise our taxes, Mr. President

The unemployment rate is at almost 10%. The underemployment rate is fast approaching that rate as well. We devise strategies to deal with boosting employment – and put more people on underemployment (unemployment benefits, hourly jobs, pay cuts). And all the time we behave like ostriches – burying our heads in the sand.

There are no jobs to be given out. There are plenty of jobs to be acquired – but not here. We don’t produce anything anymore (except vitriol), agriculture is a myriad of laboratories, and pretty soon we will have household machines that fix themselves (if made in China maybe you would need one of those every year). But Chinese employment strategy is perfectly attuned to take care of such gyrations.

Time to face the truth. What we have known for some time in technology and manufacturing, the world has changed, and changing even rapidly. My son took a loan for 90k for a basic bachelor’s degree; my friend’s son paid 2k for the same degree in the same college - the cost of a flight to the US. My son will work more than half his productive life to pay his loans while my friend’s son will enjoy exponential growth. I thought about playing the system, and going through a divorce and bankruptcy, to get handouts. But you see – morality is a big part of education and culture – and that I couldn’t live without. And I stumble along with it, trying to do all the “right things”, and every time the goal post is moved further out I stumble more, keeping the faith.

They say faith is of the poor. Indeed - even as we enjoy record corporate profits, humongous CEO compensation not even linked to profit maximization by accounting methods – our net worth has lingered far behind the rise of healthcare costs, fees (waived for stalwarts), home prices, and above all – education costs. We are the new working poor, eking by, making do, not borrowing to purchase but spending the minimum to sustain.

Meanwhile democrats and republicans meet, repel, meet again, repel even more. Talk show hosts remind us daily how unworthy the other guy is to justify their own stratospheric net worth. The world listens, smirks, and wishes for the fall of Rome. But Rome led by immoral force. We led by spreading that most fragile of human aspiration - hope. Hope that tomorrow would be better exemplified everything that is known as America. Not a borrowed dream that shatters mid way through life, but a generation to inspire by, and pass unto the tired and the poor.

Raise our taxes Mr. President, all of ours. Let us collectively bear the frugality of the present so that we do not live on borrowed dreams but can an once more look into the future and see hope for generations to come.

Posted by: thislife | December 2, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I have no idea why the liberals are so happy that they just passed a $700 Billion Tax Increase in the House

Have they all come down with Mondale-Insanity ???

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 2, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Greg, you make some good points, and I agree with you on many of them.

I do believe, however, that the White House and the Democrats have sorely underestimated how loudly the issue of the Bush tax cuts resonates with the American people. I believe that President Obama has experienced a real failure of communication, and he has badly tarnished himself with the average American. Whether or not this is fair is largely irrelevant.

It was a year ago at Christmas time that my midwestern parents were talking about the Bush tax cuts and how important it was to re-establish a fairer playing field in the tax code. They were already expressing frustration with President Obama, and they were worried that he would not deliver on this promise. I was actually the one who expressed confidence in the President.

Well, this Christmas I'll be the one eating my words along with my Christmas dinner.

As others have said, the bottom line is that President Obama is the leader of the Democratic party. There are ways for him to "convince" his fellow Democrats to fall in line. But repeatedly he has made excuses for the reasons why he can't get things done. He appears to be more concerned with the process, rather than the results. And to most people right now, results are all that matter.

For a man with so many oratorical gifts, he has not used them well with this issue, which leads me to believe that he is not passionate about the tax cuts issue. It's not an issue that he wants to fight about. He has not used his bully pulpit to rally either his base or the American populace. He seems more preoccupied with demonstrating bipartisanship -- all the while the rest of America is clued in to the fact that the Republicans are playing him like a badly tuned violin.

George Bush outrageously skewed the tax code in favor of the rich. It has cost the country dearly over the past 10 years, and it's irresponsible to keep this going for another 2 or 3 years. The sad fact is that so many people who claim that "people should just be able to keep their own money" are being played as badly as the President.

How long does the President believe that he can keep telling the American people that he's on their side and fighting for them,... and then later say he's sorry, but there's absolutely nothing he can do about it because the Senate won't let him. That's just selling hopelessness, and that's not what got him to the White House.

Posted by: elscott | December 2, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

The various large timbers in the tax cut impasse.

December 21. Anything not passed before this date will be subject to a pocket veto. Obama just neglects to sign the bill and it dies. Congress HAS to adjourn before Jan 1

McConnell hasn't actually gotten his bill out in the Senate, he just keeps saying he will soon. The Senate has full debate available and other priorities, including the Military's budget, that are higher priority than McConnell's bill and Democrats can rightly request it be tabled until current business is complete. The republicans can object and delay, but they aren't the majority. The House bill, being a bill from the other chamber, and being a revenue bill, WHICH MUST ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE, (see that Constitution the R's are so worked up about) has priority. The R's can, of course, filibuster THAT, as well, but there are only about 16 weekdays left before the 21st. Republican delay in the Senate leaves the House bill the only game in town. it passes or everybody's taxes go up. Now, if you are a deficit hawk Republican who knows that the real way to get the deficit under control is cancel the entire Bush tax cuts, but can't be caught voting for their demise, what do you do? Stall and let the tax cuts die. Wasn't YOUR fault the democrats wouldn't be reasonable.

The BEST thing for the country is kill ALL the Bush tax cuts, but nobody wants the blame. On the 22nd of Dec, with no bill passed and no more time, EVERYBODY gets to blame everybody else, "It wasn't MY fault they wouldn't give in."

And $370 billion show up in next years budget, and in fact in this years budget as well, that weren't there before.

But it's all THEIR fault.

Posted by: ceflynline | December 2, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats DON'T GET IT. Now, they want to go further, and include the tax cuts that
were in the Stimulus, (which were supposed to be temporary). How do you deal with this type of ignorance? If we can't afford to extend tax cuts on ALL Americans... how can we afford to Also extend temporary tax cuts that were in the stimulus bill ?????
This is unbelievable. Posted by: ohioan"

Just once, in case you really aren't just another Kasich can balance Ohio's budget and cut my taxes at the same time Republican:

EVERY taxpayer gets the tax breaks on that portion (mine is 100%) of his income below $250,000. Damn I wish we could make it only for people whose INCOMES were below that magic number, but everybody gets that tax break. If you make MORE than $250,000 your taxes go up, but only on that part of your income above $250,000.

Everybody gets the same tax break, and the rich get a bigger tax break than the middle class, because they have more income between what the middle class earns and that magic quarter million, but then you win some and you lose some.

And because you Are a true blue Taft tax break man, I relish watching your totally Republican legislature having to send Kasich a major tax increase that he will have to sign. John Gilligan has lived to see the day.

Posted by: ceflynline | December 2, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

"That's just selling hopelessness, and that's not what got him to the White House."

Heck yeah, the Republicans know it, we know it...what happened to Barak Obama? Does he think we want to hear about "reality" from him? From him?
Barak Obama can not teach anyone about the way things work. I've forgotten more about the way things work than he will ever know.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 2, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi 2012. She gets things done.

Posted by: sparkplug1 | December 3, 2010 3:04 AM | Report abuse

Oh wow, I have gotten about 3 or 4 different samples from major brands. It is not difficult to find them. Search online for "123 Get Samples" you can find them easily.

Posted by: kathrynmerry | December 3, 2010 3:46 AM | Report abuse

Greg, stop covering for Obama.
He's the one who didn't want to vote on middle class tax cut before the election, he's the one who was prancing around the world while the Health care battle was raging, he's the one who folds at the drop of the hat.

HE makes it impossible for the Democrats to take a stand.. right now he's negotiating to keep his tax rate low low low

Posted by: newagent99 | December 3, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge'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