Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:30 AM ET, 12/17/2010

The Morning Plum

By Greg Sargent

* Repeal of don't ask don't tell edges closer to reality: The big news of the morning is that Harry Reid will now hold a cloture vote on Saturday on the stand-alone bil repealing DADT, after talks between Dems and Republicans on funding the government fell apart.

As I reported here yesterday, the way to give repeal its best chance of passage is to hold the vote for this weekend. Now Reid has done it, seemingly putting repeal within reach. Good for Reid.

The key question now is whether the moderate GOPers who have signaled support for repeal in recent days -- Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe -- will actually vote Yes, or whether they'll find one final procedural pretext for voting No. If history is any guide, the latter always remains a possibility. But if the moderates do what they have pledged to do and actually vote for repeal, it could be a reality by early next week, 17 years after DADT first became law.

* Lisa Murkowski is a definite Yes: Senator Murkowski told reporters that she will vote Yes, which is key. Susan Collins, who voted Yes last time, is also presumably a definite Yes vote this time around.

* Ron Wyden will vote on DADT repeal: Senator Ron Wyden's prostate cancer diagnosis had some advocates worried that he would not be around to vote for DADT repeal, but his spokesperson confirms he will be available to vote this weekend.

* House Dems swallow tax deal, and ladies and gentlemen, we've got ... BIPARTISANSHIP! As expected, the last minute effort by House liberals to change Obama's tax deal failed, and the House ended up passing it anyway, with enough Dems voting for it to put it over the top.

The commentariat's instant takeaway is that Obama, by pulling off his first bipartisan coup, has effectively launched his comeback. You can bet that this adulation will resonate with White House advisers, who are said to be pleasantly surprised by the willingness of Republicans to reach a deal, and it seems likely that this compromise will operate as a kind of blueprint for Obama's strategy for the next two years of divided government.

* Obama closes the deal: Glenn Thrush on why Obama's ability to get Republicans and disgruntled liberals to accept the tax deal as a bailout of the economy was his greatest sales job to date.

* Takedown of the day: Steven Perlstein deftly skewers the claim that continuing tax cuts for the rich was all about helping small businesses.

* Lie of the year: PolitiFact picks its whopper of the year: The claim, generated by Frank Luntz and echoed by countless conservatives and Republicans, that health reform amounted to a "government takeover of health care."

Key point: As PolitiFact notes, "few in the press challenged their frequent assertion that under Obama, the government was going to take over the health care industry."

* Obama to drop defense of DADT in court? Interesting moment on Keith Olbermann last night: Dem Rep. Barney Frank suggested Obama confided in him that if DADT repeal does fail in the Senate, the administration will stop defending it in court.

Key takeaway: The consensus that DADT's days are numbered is now overwhelming.

* Joe Lieberman, civil rights hero? Andrew Sullivan lauds Lieberman for the key role he played in pushing for DADT repeal.

If repeal really does become a reality, it's going to be particularly interesting to reconsider John McCain's role throughout this whole fight.

* Filibuster reform update: Josh Green on why the chances of reform are "disappointingly slim."

* Zombie nonsense of the day: Orrin Hatch is still singing that golden oldie about unemployment benefits discouraging people from getting off their couches and going out to find a job.

* And she's a rock star ... who will never, ever, ever be president: Sarah Palin said this morning that prayer is helping her decide whether to run in 2012. She's going to have to do a lot of praying.

It turns out that six in 10 voters would not even consider voting for Palin for president, the new Post/ABC News poll finds. And it gets better. Sixty-two percent of independents would definitely not vote for her. The grand total of voters who would definitely support her? Eight percent.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | December 17, 2010; 8:30 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Plum, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, taxes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Scott Brown will vote Yes on DADT repeal

Comments

Nominee for Quote of the Decade - Ministry of Truth category

"In his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln spoke of his desire to appeal to "the better angels of our nature." It's a goal Mr. Obama should emulate." Karl Rove, from op ed in WSJ today.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 17, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

New documentary on Wikileaks and Assange is a very good primer on the subjects (full version). Take the time to watch it and then, please, pass it on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvmfOaZ34Pk

Posted by: bernielatham | December 17, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

If someone is constantly giving you a pretext for not doing something, it is clear they don't want to do it.


I suppose this has gone beyond obsession now to the area of hounding

How many articles have been written on this one piece of legislation ?

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 17, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Somehow agreement on running up 900 Billion Dollars of BORROWING AND DEBT is not what the American People had in mind when they voiced their support for "bipartisanship."


Robbery is more like it.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 17, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Re Palin...

No scientific study here but my clear impression is that the NRO/Weekly Standard crowd are souring on the girl too. There are still some what seem to be knee-jerk or obligatory puffy mentions of Palin most days but I'll bet that a tracking of the word count with her as subject has shown a steady decline for several months. And of course there was that evisceration of her by Labash.

The two other key propaganda operations which have enough influence to push forward (or utterly destroy) a candidates chances are, of course, Limbaugh and FOX. Both represent the desires of the real establishment on the right (that is, business interests) so it will continue to be fun to watch them distance themselves from prior "Sarah is uniquely perfect" PR.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 17, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Has there been any reaction from Senate Republicans after Jon Stewart took them to task for filibustering the 9/11 First Respondrs bill? If you don't know what I'm talking about checkout last night's The Daily Show.

Posted by: Trassin | December 17, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Portions of an email sent out by Senator Carl Levin who voted against the tax compromise:

"The tax cuts in this legislation are unwisely skewed toward the wealthy, including an estate tax provision that would benefit a few thousand of our most fortunate taxpayers at great cost to the Treasury.

These benefits for the wealthiest among us will not, despite the claims of our Republican colleagues, help our economic recovery. Nearly everyone says that should be our top priority, and it should be. But economists across the ideological spectrum have demonstrated that tax cuts for the well-to-do have little impact on economic growth.

In pursuit of their goal of extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, Republicans held hostage progress for the American people, not just on tax cuts, but on a range of other crucial issues. They told us they would not support tax cuts for working families, or emergency unemployment benefits, or tax relief to help businesses grow and add workers, unless we also gave away more borrowed money to the wealthy."

It also talked about the good things in the bill. Overall a good message from him and one that the democrats should be working hard to spread. If only the liberal mainstream media woudl bother to mention these things.....sigh.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

So, Obama's ability to get Republicans and disgruntled liberals to accept the tax deal was his greatest sales job to date, "effectively launch[ing] his comeback" in order to save his presidency, BUT by golly Obama never remotely said anything close to "failure to pass this will end my presidency" to anyone?

Is that the story that journ-O-lists are going with?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 17, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

What is Bill Richardson doing in North Korea, grandstanding for sure, but now, there, really?

If it were not for all the starvation, the place would be a lot funnier. This Maoist language is so quaint.

“The puppet warmongers are contemplating staging madcap naval firing exercises,” said the news agency, K.C.N.A., which also called the new South Korean defense minister “a war maniac keen to ignite a war” and “a puppy knowing no fear of a tiger.”

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

I have conducted a poll by piecing together two other polls and arriving at the truth of this matter.

The mid-terms are the only dead-accurate polls we have and it proves that America has almost, totally rejected everything the Obamacrats stand for. That includes repeal of DADT.

The dead duck Congress is trying to ram through a raft of stink-bomb bills in spite of American voters. Repeal of DADT is the stinkiest one of all.

Congressional approval is down to 13%, according to Gallup. Amazingly, if you add up the number of homosexuals, in America, and the number of far leftist homophiles, it adds up to about 13% of the population.

Eureka!!

Only about 13% of the American population supports repeal of DADT.

The rest is an illusion brought to you by the Obama media.

They desire a weak, submissive military. Like France and Canada.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 17, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

battleground, go take your meds.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 17, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

bernielatham, are you claiming that Rush Limbaugh or FOX News has ever distanced themselves from Sarah Palin? Or, are you simply predicting that they will? Your use of the words "will continue" is vague and ambiguous, assumes facts, and lacks foundation.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 17, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

So, Obama's ability to get Republicans and disgruntled liberals to accept the tax deal was his greatest sales job to date, "effectively launch[ing] his comeback" in order to save his presidency, BUT by golly Obama never remotely said anything close to "failure to pass this will end my presidency" to anyone?

----------------------------------------

Huh??? Because a columnists says this is Obama's greatest sales job it means that Obama must have said failure to pass this will end his Presidency?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Polls explicitly asking about repeal of DADT show about 80% favor repeal, and the number has climbed the more it's debated.

Battleground, you're demented. Really.

Even Israel, with one of the most atrocity-prone armed forces in the world, as "openly gay" soldiers.

Go find yourself a shrink. Bring your toothbrush.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 17, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark, not just one journ-O-list; keep reading about them all arguing that this has indeed saved his presidency. So, do we believe Obama or DeFazio? Sophie's Choice.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 17, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

We don't work with demented people who stay overnight. That is called a nursing home.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I don't know Barak Obama, I do know Peter DeFazio.
Just sayin'.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

suekzoo1, be sure to read my posts on last night's Happy Hour thread decimating your apples-to-oranges comparison, since blacks don't get to choose their skin color.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 17, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Claw-
ashotinthedark, not just one journ-O-list; keep reading about them all arguing that this has indeed saved his presidency. So, do we believe Obama or DeFazio? Sophie's Choice.
---------------------------------------

I still don't see the connection between what the journalists say and what Obama actually said or didn't say. I don't see how the opinion of columnists make it more or less likely that Obama did or didn't say something.

So you believe the columnists when they say this saved his Presidency but not when they say that Obama never said failure would end his Presidency (and probably don't belive them on just about everything else they write)?

I haven't followed this real closely, but it's not just having to believe DeFazio, right? You have to believe DeFazio and the unnamed person who told DeFazio what Obama said.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Battleground said:

"They desire a weak, submissive military. Like France and Canada"

As cao points out, mention of Israel is avoided.

But the revealing phrase there is "submissive military". You certainly don't want your army types in the emotionally-crippling position of having elected civilians and the citizens of a nation dominant over them.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 17, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Mudoch and Limbaugh aggressively support Pailin. Let them throw theire millions and radio time at that lost cause, it will take away from more potentually productive venues of damage and betrayal.

A majority of voters have decided that the Tramp is "unfit for the job," and unlike softer metrics like popularity, that judgment is pretty much irreversible.

Her supporters love her precisely for the reasons that others use to arrive and their judgment of unfitness: her ineptness and brainlessness resonates with them, matching their own. And attacks on her be they from wherever in the spectrum only ingratiate her further.

Palin supporters are the people who stopped progressing in school when it went from 6 x 2 = 12 to x + y = z. They're the people who can't read a book with equations and prefer books with pictures. They're the people who resent the educated around them who grasp the meaning of the sentence before the speaker is finished because they often don't get it even after he's finished.

They're the dummies. And they're conservative. The chicken and egg of this correlation is left as an exercise for the reader.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 17, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

We call it homosexual panic in the industry, it is a common phenomenon, men suddenly become obsessed with virility whilst worrying about getting things crammed down their throats, protecting their backs, submission and of course they can not stand being called afraid of being gay, oh no, they have to prove it isn't that, ergo gay bashing.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

I can only hope and pray that this tax deal has something in it for the people, finally! When will it be the people's turn. After all this is our country too. When will it be illegal to tell lies to the public for gain. When will our media expose the liars. They knew the GOP were lying about health care and that it was not a government take over, and yet they did not get the right message out to the people. What is going on in this country?

Poltifact's Lie of the Year Award Goes to Republicans:

In the spring of 2009, a Republican strategist settled on a brilliant and powerful attack line for President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to overhaul America's health insurance system.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

Posted by: wdsoulplane | December 17, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

suekzoo1, be sure to read my posts on last night's Happy Hour thread decimating your apples-to-oranges comparison, since blacks don't get to choose their skin color.

==

But people don't get to choose their sexual orientation either.

And what do you think "decimate" means? In this context it would mean that sue won on nine out of ten points.

Fool.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 17, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

@shrink: an observation .. the people who obsess over "the radical homosexual agenda" have more frequent and notably more lurid visualizations of gay sex than gay men do. . And they have this really odd habit of viewing their defeats e.g. gays being nonchalant about what they are at work in terms of homosexual rape, as in having that agenda "crammed down their throats."

We're talking major closet cases here.

Just come out, guys, you'll get used to it.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 17, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

suekzoo1, be sure to read my posts on last night's Happy Hour thread decimating your apples-to-oranges comparison, since blacks don't get to choose their skin color.

-------------------------------------------

It's apples-to-oranges in the sense that one is a protected class and the other is not, but that doesn't appear to be the distinction you are drawing.

You seem to be saying one is a choice and the other is not and that claims has been widely rejected.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark, I just double checked what the White House spokesperson actually said in the denial. I guess it could just be a coincidence that journ-O-lists (which includes Greg Sargent, but not all journalists, by the way) argue that this tax bill saved his presidency but Obama has never said anything remotely close to that. So, then, who gave that talking point to the journ-O-lists?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 17, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

No, caothien9, I know what "decimate" means, and I won on all ten of ten points.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 17, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

cao said:

"Mudoch and Limbaugh aggressively support Pailin."

My point is that this will almost certainly move into past tense (and I suspect already is). Both are concerned most primarily with electoral success for "conservative" candidates and with the electoral failure of liberal candidates. As it becomes clear that a Palin candidacy will do damage to that prime goal of electoral success, then support for her as a presidential candidate will wither. And we're seeing evidence of this already. Then, it becomes a task of keeping her fans within the fold and active (she will, I fully expect) continue to release hints that her proper role (saving America) can be best achieved otherwise.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 17, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Re: DADT

My only real worry about the stand-alone DADT repeal is that Collins/Brown's support were implied as "after the spending bill is taken care of".

That's their only rhetorical way out of this one. I won't believe that repeal has passed until the votes are counted.

Question: The cloture vote for tomorrow is to start debate, correct? If so...then we get 3 days (min) of debate, then another cloture vote, then final vote. This gives the likes of Brown/Collins/Snowe 3 days to wiggle out of shutting down debate and allowing a final vote.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | December 17, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Check out the later posts by my debate partner, quarterback1, if mine were not clear enough for you.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 17, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

I guess it could just be a coincidence that journ-O-lists (which includes Greg Sargent, but not all journalists, by the way) argue that this tax bill saved his presidency but Obama has never said anything remotely close to that. So, then, who gave that talking point to the journ-O-lists?
--------------------------------------

How is it a coincidence that journ-o-lists say one thing and the Administration says the opposite? That's not what a coincidence is. Wouldn't the coincidence be if they were both saying the same thing?

I'm guessing the "this saved Obama's Presidency" talking point isn't limited to Journ-o-lists is it? Maybe I'm wrong, like I said, I haven't paid that close attention to this and I really don't care that much one way or the other if Obama said it. I just thought your point didn't make much sense.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

So, that WAS just a prediction on bernielatham's part. Good to know.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 17, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of America's submissive military, boots on the ground are so archaic. What are we, The Huns? When you invade a country, it is much better to do it without actually touching the place (China v America), or if you do, you have to be able to pretend you didn't.

"As it published its year-end review of its Afghan war strategy on Thursday, the Obama administration indicated that it plans to step up attacks on Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents in the area.

That would mean using Predator and Reaper drones in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and possibly carrying out Special Forces operations along the border, officials indicated."

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

The liberals are happy today. Last night the House approved $900 Billion in additional BORROWING


When will the INSANITY END ???


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 17, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark, if journ-O-lists (look it up if you really don't know who that refers to) get their talking points directly from the White House, it's not a coincidence.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 17, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

"We call it homosexual panic in the industry, ..."

What a telling statement.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 17, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse


"When will the INSANITY END ???"

With your Ascension to a place next to Jesus, perhaps.

I say "perhaps" because the world's first troll was, obviously, SATAN.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 17, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

"It's increasingly apparent that the Congress which hadn't gotten a whole lot done since the enactment of health reform legislation may well go out with a flurry of genuinely significant activity."

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

Posted by: bernielatham | December 17, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama needs this kind of news like he needs oxygen.

"A private research group says its gauge of future economic activity rose in November at the fastest rate since March, suggesting the economy will strengthen early next year.

The Conference Board says its index of leading economic indicators rose 1.1 percent last month — the biggest increase since March, when the index jumped 1.4 percent.

The measure had stalled this summer as U.S. economic growth slowed." AP

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

"suekzoo1, be sure to read my posts on last night's Happy Hour thread decimating your apples-to-oranges comparison, since blacks don't get to choose their skin color."

Nah, I think I'll pass.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 17, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Check out the later posts by my debate partner, quarterback1, if mine were not clear enough for you.

Posted by: clawrence12
-----------------------------------------

Your posts were plenty clear, they were just changed later by QB to meet reality.

If your point was that homosexuals aren't a protected class why didn't you....well simply say that?

And that point hardly wins the day. The rational basis test still applies (perhaps a stricter level of the rational basis test). So the government is still required to show a rational basis for treating homosexuals differently. See Romer v. Evans where Kennedy said regarding the Colorado amendment:

"Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

@Greg

While I think Green's arguments are valid, it's also worth noting that all this last minute stalling and football pulling the GOP has done in the last month or so - omnibus spending bill, tax cuts, Military Authorization Act w/ DADT, 9/11 First Responder Bill - filibuster reform advocates are getting some serious help from the GOP in making it happen.

I don't think we'll see the end of the filibuster and pure majority rule take over the Senate (I wouldn't want it to, either). However, I think it's becoming more and more likely that we will see SOME sort of update to the filibuster: maybe along the lines of the ability of the majority to force a "real" filibuster, forcing the minority to at least show up in order to sustain a filibuster, the end of secret holds, etc.

Some combination of those factors seems both reasonable and passable, given the (justifiable) anger from within the Dem caucus.

My solution? First, end secret holds. Then fix the filibuster itself.

Cloture vote to start debate requires 60 votes. A cloture vote must be cast, and if a minority filibusters starting debate, then the majority leader can call for a "sustain filibuster" vote at any time after it. The "sustain" vote is held only for those that voted against cloture and requires 2/3 of them to vote to sustain. If the sustain vote fails, then there is another cloture vote to start debate, with a new cloture threshold of 50 votes. Note that the majority isn't required to participate in the "sustain" vote.

This gives the minority a chance to filibuster, but at the cost of holding 2/3 of their filibuster members on the floor at all times...since the majority leader could call for vote the second less than 2/3 of them aren't there to sustain it.

For a cloture vote to end debate starts with the current 60 votes threshold. If that fails, the same 2/3 "sustain" vote rules apply. However, once a "sustain" vote fails and there is a cloture vote with a 50 vote threshold...any Senator can hold the floor for an old-school filibuster if they choose. They can talk as long as they like, but once finished, there is a cloture vote with the 50 vote threshold.

This allows the minority to filibuster in the same way as starting debate, with the added ability to hold up the final majority-cloture vote before a final vote...but must do it by standing up in front of the cameras and holding the floor.

With this plan, the minority still has the ability to filibuster "indefinately", but it would require quite a bit of work on their part to do so. Even with rotating members on the floor, holding 2/3 of the minority on the floor at all times would be difficult. They get this opportunity twice, then a final last ditch "old school" filibuster, if desired.

I'd be fine with any solution that weakens the filibuster more than this...but this I think balances the minority having rights while not holding the Senate to "minority rule" as it is now.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | December 17, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Too late, ashotinthedark (literally this time), she just conceded defeat.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 17, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

"Steven Perlstein deftly skewers the claim that continuing tax cuts for the rich was all about helping small businesses."

Actually he doesn't skewer anything like that. But he does skewer the notion that "the rich" don't already pay "their fair share."

Don't know what Greg was reading.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 17, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: I get this point, and I offer in argument that this pragmatic distancing has failed to kick in at several other points. Once Palin's "breath of fresh air" novelty died down and it was evident she was a nitwit, the pragmatists should have dropped away. They didn't. When she had the opposite effect from intention on McCain's campaign, they didn't. When she abandoned her post in mistream, they didn't. When she did the supernova thing, expelling the support of the majority while the supporters collapsed into superdense degeneracy, they didn't.

The whole Palin phenomenon is based on irrational behavior and expectations, and even a lot of nominally educated people are saying with firm and non-defiant conviction, "Sarah Palin will be the next President of the (fully spelled out) United States of America."

Maybe pragmatism is going to kick in, but it's had plenty of chances to and hasn't. And don't forget, a lot of these people are religious. They literally expect a miracle.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 17, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

"Too late, ashotinthedark (literally this time), she just conceded defeat."

Do you usually address me figuratively? Anyway, great work this morning, you've declared yourself the winner in 3-4 consecutive posts. She didn't concede defeat anymore than QB called all those who support DADT repeal nihilists as I claimed in that comment section.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Too late, ashotinthedark (literally this time), she just conceded defeat.

==

Ah, no. She judged you as beneath her notice, and she's right about that. too.

I've seen enougn too. You're a troll, and you're really dumb.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 17, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Too late, ashotinthedark (literally this time), she just conceded defeat.

==

Ah, no. She judged you as beneath her notice, and she's right about that. too.

I've seen enougn too. You're a troll, and you're really dumb.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 17, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

From Bernie:

"It's increasingly apparent that the Congress which hadn't gotten a whole lot done since the enactment of health reform legislation may well go out with a flurry of genuinely significant activity."

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

But at the same time the CROmnibus that failed is described as follows:

"The $1.27 trillion catchall bill wrapped together 12 bills — blending $1.1 trillion for the operating budgets of every federal agency with an infusion of funding to carry the war in Afghanistan into its 10th year — into a single foot-tall piece of legislation that Democrats had hoped to pass with just a couple of days' worth of debate.

It was designed to bankroll the day-to-day operations of the government for the budget year that started Oct. 1, funding the almost one-third of the federal budget that Congress has to pass each year.

The House and Senate typically spend months on the 12 annual spending bills, but Democrats didn't bring even a single one to the Senate floor this year, AN UNPRECEDENTED COLLAPSE [emphasis provided] of an appropriations process. The House only passed two of the 12 bills and didn't make any of the other 10 public."

A less rosy view of D leadership. I am now one who believes the Rs would be worse, but that only leaves me on the verge of assuming that the parties will not swallow Bowles-Simpson, the can will continue to be kicked down the road, taxing and appropriating are just too difficult for mere elected officials, and the future is dim.

The committees no longer have time to meet and report out appropriations and the next Congress might not ever pass a budget either. They did not do their work because both Ds and Rs did not want to run on an actual budget. Campaigning for an office whose first responsibility is the American federal purse strings is what caused many of these these irresponsible representatives of irresponsible voters not to deal with the American federal purse strings.

Counting political victories around the margins is not the way out of the dilemma - it is more like an opiate for party politics at its worst.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 17, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

You give opiates a bad name.

Citizens United was the end. Nowadays, "The committees no longer have time to meet..."

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark (figuratively this time), please cite to any formal debate rules where "Nah, I think I'll pass" does not equate to conceding defeat. I'll wait.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 17, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

When anonymous corporate money is protected speech, there really isn't much to talk about, not with regard to the federal purse strings anyway.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark (figuratively this time), please cite to any formal debate rules where "Nah, I think I'll pass" does not equate to conceding defeat. I'll wait.

------------------------------------
Do I have to respond to posts that are only figuratively addressed to me?

Please cite to me where anyone here agreed to abide by formal debate rules. I'll wait.

I do note with interest that you seem far more interested in claiming victory over sue than addressing the fact that the debate isn't ended merely because homosexuals aren't a protected class.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark (figuratively this time), please cite to any formal debate rules where "Nah, I think I'll pass" does not equate to conceding defeat. I'll wait.

---------------------------------------

For that matter cite to any formal debate rule that allows one of the participants to declare victory.

I'm guessing formal debate rules allow debate participants to pass on a rebuttal or to otherwise rely on arguments they have already made. I don't really have time to google formal debate rules, but I'm comfortable that saying "I'll pass" isn't a concession of defeat and ever more comfortable that participants aren't allowed to declare themselves the winners.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

"I do note with interest that you seem far more interested in claiming victory over sue than addressing the fact that the debate isn't ended merely because homosexuals aren't a protected class."

==

His chest-pounding is also premature. "Proving" that gays aren't a protected class (so what?) is a distraction and an evasion.

He would need to show that the charter docs allow a majority to vote away the rights of a minority.

And parlaying someone's disinterest in engaging as a rhetorical triumph is about the dumbest thing I've read online in several months.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 17, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"And parlaying someone's disinterest in engaging as a rhetorical triumph is about the dumbest thing I've read online in several months."

You lucky man.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

All this talk of filibuster reform will lead to nothing so long as Dems have a majority but now that the Dems have established that the COULD eliminate the filibuster if they wanted to, count on the GOP eliminating it entirely should they ever regain control.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | December 17, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Was Glenn Thrush's article in Politico about 'Obama making the sale" ghost-written by Judd Greg, or maybe Jim DeMint or better yet, Mitch himself?? OBAMA CAVED.. He didn't negotiate - HE FAILED - COMPLETELY.. HE'S DONE.

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | December 17, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Interesting thought, and quite devious...

START needs 67 votes. What would happen if *this* Obama Face Chip is *still* in play and the REPUBLICANS (sensing a possible takeover of the Senate in 2012 -- a bit premature, sure) suggest an end to the filibuster as it now stands and make it harder to do?

Just wondering if I can scare any rabbits out there...

;'{P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | December 17, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

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

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




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company