Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:35 AM ET, 12/20/2010

The Morning Plum

By Greg Sargent

* The lame duck session's final push comes into view: The historic repeal of don't ask don't tell sets the stage for the final stretch of the lame duck session -- one that's shaping up as a surprisingly good one for President Obama and Democrats.

DADT repeal appears to have emboldened Harry Reid to call the bluff of GOP Senators and hold a vote on New START as early as Tuesday. Meanwhile, GOP senators who piously insisted that their position on New START would never be based on DADT repeal are now renewing their threat to oppose the treaty.

If Reid and Obama pull off another victory, and succeed in ratifying New START -- after Obama secured the tax deal he wanted -- it will constitute a surprisingly dramatic rebound for the President after the midterm "shellacking."

That old writer's dictum that showing is better than telling seems operative here: If Bill Clinton had to tell Americans that the president is "still relevant" in the wake of the 1994 debacle, Obama has already shown it. He has flummoxed the pundits and rattled his most determined critics, and media elites don't smell blood in the water the way they did when Clinton was bleeding and sinking -- quite the opposite.

* But the fun is only getting started: Obama should enjoy his lame-duck successes, because what's coming next is fearsome: Dissatisfaction on the left perhaps intensifying, the GOP taking over the House, the push to repeal health reform, and the bruising showdowns over taxes and spending that will set the climate heading into 2012.

* Harry Reid's place in history: In the wake of DADT repeal, the Senate Majority Leader reflects on his "central role" in one of the most productive Congresses in recent times, and justifiably says he's "very comfortable with my place in history."

* Reid calling GOP's bluff on New START? Perhaps embodened by his DADT victory, Reid is forging ahead with a vote START on Tuesday, even though some GOP senators are still threatening to vote against it. Reid is throwing down this gauntlet:

"You either want to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists, or you don't."

* But GOP may make good on START threat: Some GOP Senators insisted they would never let DADT impact their approach to New START, but here's Lindsey Graham on Face the Nation yesterday again claiming the two are linked:

"If you want to have a chance of passing START, you better start over and do it in the next Congress, because this lame duck has been poisoned."

* And: Mitch McConnell announced yesterday that he will oppose New START, partly because GOP senators "don't feel thoroughly familiar with it," even though it's been available in full for months and months and months.

* The White House's view: A senior administration official makes a pretty interesting point to Mike Allen about McConnell's declared opposition to START:

It undercuts the GOP argument that there hasn't been enough time to review/study the treaty. Clearly McConnell had enough time to decide he's a 'no.'

* Takedown of the day: I'd been waiting for top-shelf columnists to hammer John McCain for his erratic performance on DADT, and Joe Klein doesn't disappoint, ripping McCain as "cynical and cowardly," a public official who has suffered a "spectacular fall" and "can barely tolerate the fact that he lost to Barack Obama."

* The old culture war issues have lost their juice: The fact that some GOP Senators supported repealing don't ask don't tell shows that social issues have lost much of their potency in the last generation, which only makes it more remarkable that the vast majority of GOP officials still opposed repeal.

* Counter-intuitive take of the day: Nate Silver mulls the possibility that some moderate GOP Senators may have voted for DADT repeal because there was political risk in voting against repeal, since it's supported by overwhelming majorities.

* Left to Obama: Don't think about touching Social Security: The White House is working hard to mend fences with liberal activists, but they say they have not received clear assurances from the White House that Obama won't join the GOP in trimming Social Security. If Social Security is in the crosshairs, expect armageddon.

* The danger of embracing the rhetoric of your foes? Paul Krugman warns that Obama will have a tough time countering GOP demands for deep spending cuts, given that he himself has said government needs to tighten its belt.

* But: Andrew Sullivan says Krugman is "profoundly resistant to the core rationale of the Obama presidency."

* And it's the unemployment, stupid: E.J. Dionne makes a point that can't be repeated enough: Even if the early returns on Obama's new strategy for dealing with divided government are very promising, his prospects for political and policy success going foward will largely turn on those pesky unemployment numbers.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | December 20, 2010; 8:35 AM ET
Categories:  2012, House GOPers, Morning Plum, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, gay rights, taxes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sunday Open Thread
Next: Time for the GOP to get serious on START

Comments

-- * Left to Obama: Don't think about touching Social Security: --

From the front page of the WSJ:

"GOP Digs In on START

The Senate debate over the nuclear arms control treaty with Russia MOVES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TODAY for a briefing that could determine the fate of one of Obama's year-end priorities." (emphasis mine)

So lets put two and two together. Obama once again goes to his hidden location to wheel and deal with his Republican partners. What cherished New Deal policy is he negotiating away today.

Could it be....

---

It was clear as day that the end of Social Security was cooked in when they cut the payroll tax. But I gotta admit even I didn't think Obama would kill it off this quickly.

Posted by: unymark | December 20, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

What a petty, vengeful small man John McCain has turned out to be.

Or, more likely, he was all along.

He was practically throwing a tantrum in the hours before the DADT vote,acting like a spoiled child denied a piece of candy. Wow did we ever dodge one by not electing this infant.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

This is sickening...what a disgrace.

"In terms of overall profit, Wall Street is on track for one of its best years ever, although it will trail 2009, which was pumped up by federal bailout money and the rebound from the financial crisis. In the first three quarters of the year, Wall Street earned $21.4 billion, putting it on track to easily outpace 2006, when the economy was booming...This year, Wall Street’s five biggest firms have put aside nearly $90 billion for bonuses."

Posted by: shrink2 | December 20, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

This year's bonuses in the financial sector would close the gap for all fifty state budget deficits.

I'm sure the conservatives consider it money well-earned and that using it to help the country would be "redistributive" or some such crap.

Conservatives should be collectively gassed.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

A classic case of "do as I say, not as I do". Check out some of the numbers for Cantor and Bachmann.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Overall, congressional payroll expenses have climbed much faster than the civilian federal work force costs that lawmakers are now clamoring to freeze. Many of the most vocal federal critics have overseen growth that rivals or outstrips the executive branch's, according to data from Legistorm, a website that tracks congressional salaries.

Conservatives argue correctly that federal payrolls have outstripped the private sector's in recent years. Total U.S. private personnel costs rose just 25 percent from 2001 to 2009, compared with 39 percent for the civilian federal workforce's.

But the comparison doesn't account for the explosion in federal homeland security hiring that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that has helped fuel the federal increase. And even with that jump, the number of federal employees has fallen over the past 20 years from 1 for every 110 residents in 1988 to 1 for every 155 residents in 2008, according to the latest federal budget.

While studies show that the federal work force overall earns a higher average salary, that's because the government has more professional employees than the private work force, which includes a heavy contingent of lower-paid service employees such as fast-food workers and hotel housekeepers."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_ Firebrand Republican Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has for months pushed legislation to freeze what she calls "unconscionable" federal salaries. Meanwhile, her own payroll jumped 16 percent between 2007, when she came to Congress, and 2009.

_ Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican set to chair the House subcommittee overseeing the federal work force, says Washington must "figure out how to do more with less." But the freshman lawmaker gave his own employees an average raise of about 9 percent this year.

_ Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has long criticized federal pay, has overseen an average jump of 8 percent per year in his office employee costs between 2006, his first full year in the Senate, and 2009.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/gop-spending-cuts_n_798986.html

Posted by: lmsinca | December 20, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

"Conservatives should be collectively gassed."

By that do you mean, "having a good time," or are you using the slang for "drunk or intoxicated"?

Posted by: NoVAHockey | December 20, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

"The fact that some GOP Senators supported repealing don't ask don't tell shows that social issues have lost much of their potency in the last generation"

Jeeze, don't tell qb, that's not the America he lives in.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 20, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I think he means ausgerottet.

But seriously, Obama should call Peter Orzag over at Citi, the company that would not exist but for...wait for it...or forget it, too obvious. Obama should ask Peter when all that money is going to turn onto jobs. They could share a good laugh. Oh wait, the President can't call Peter, that would be a conflict of interest, he has to wait a few months, optics you know.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 20, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

You would think there would be more message discipline from Republicans on START. Instead we hear there are substantive problems, then we hear they haven't had time to review it properly, and that Congress has been poisoned by DADT (whatever that means exactly). It sort of makes one think that they don't have a legitimate reason to oppose START so they keep offering up whatever excuse pops into their head. What's the problem, can't they convince 34 of their own party Senators to vote against it?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 20, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Here is the next step in the culture war....

"Following this weekend's vote by the Senate to allow gays to openly serve in the military, Del. Bob Marshall (R-Prince WIlliam) said he is drafting a bill for the 2011 legislative session that would ban them from serving in the Virginia National Guard."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/12/following_this_weekends_vote_b.html#comments

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 20, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

yeah they "need more time to read it." Eight months hasn't been enough time to bone up on a treaty about *nuclear weapons*.

Let's hear some more about "responsibiity"

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

You would think there would be more message discipline from Republicans on START. Instead we hear there are substantive problems, then we hear they haven't had time to review it properly, and that Congress has been poisoned by DADT (whatever that means exactly). It sort of makes one think that they don't have a legitimate reason to oppose START so they keep offering up whatever excuse pops into their head. What's the problem, can't they convince 34 of their own party Senators to vote against it?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 20, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

McConnell's floundering message regarding START, in that he's attacking the process and not the substance of it shows he's got nothing.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 20, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Imsin, indeed. We heard so much from the TP about how they are only about fiscal discipline, not the culture war. It was ludicrous, we knew that. They are the same old "values voters", Republican base are who we thought they were. The behavior of the right here is emblematic.

They blew a gasket on the immorality of DADT repeal, the shower problem is enormous we learned, but Wall Street looting the economy, well, lets spend hours on terminology, we'll redefine it all into a good thing, or at worst, something we can't understand, let alone criticize.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 20, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Mike- How refreshing...and Republicans wonder why Democrats are suspicious when people talk about state's rights.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 20, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark,

I guess Bill Kristol should tell Harvard and Yale to hold off on re-introducing the military recruitment stations onto campuses until every state that wants to flex it's independence gets their macho mentality out of their system.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 20, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

"I think he means ausgerottet."

And everyone's cool with that? Nobody's going to challenge him. Or is he the crazy relative of the bunch? "Oh, that's just cao -- pay him no mind."

Posted by: NoVAHockey | December 20, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Yeah we're the Blue Pills who live in the illusionary Matrix where America has moved on past bigotry against gays. Eight Republican blue pills.

The truly enlightened, the scales fallen from their eyes, can see that the bigotry is still all around us.

Actually the year is 70AD, time stopped with the destruction of the Temple,and if you listen you can hear the Roman soldiers marching.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

"If Reid and Obama pull off another victory, and succeed in ratifying New START -- after Obama secured the tax deal he wanted -- it will constitute a surprisingly dramatic rebound for the President after the midterm "shellacking.""

What will be your assessment if START goes down? Keep in mind that the more you characterize ratifying START as a "victory" for Reid and Obama, the more it reinforces the narrative that holding a vote on START during the lame duck is less about national security and more about getting "victories" for Reid and Obama to refute the political message of the mid-term election results.

Does anyone know if a treaty can be reintroduced in a different Congress if it fails in a ratification vote in a previous one?

Posted by: jnc4p | December 20, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

caothien9 -- it seems like you're becoming a bit of a regular around here. Wanted to welcome you.

and you too, ashotinthedark

Posted by: sargegreg | December 20, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

"If Reid and Obama pull off another victory, and succeed in ratifying New START -- after Obama secured the tax deal he wanted"

Also, in what sense did Obama secure "the tax deal he wanted"? My impression was that Obama wanted the tax rates for the upper income people to expire, or at least only be renewed temporarily while the middle class ones were permanently extended. He acquiesced to a compromise with the Republicans, but I wouldn't characterize this as the tax deal that he wanted, rather it was one he was willing to accept.

Posted by: jnc4p | December 20, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

cao, Chris never talked nice to us. Once I even guessed right and predicted O'Donnell's margin of victory over Castle. Did I get my t-shirt? No. And I even pestered him about it, go figure. I guess that is just my little cross to bear, hurt collector that I am.

"Congrats to "shrink2," the winner of The Fix's primary prediction contest! If you are "shrink2," send an email chris.cillizza@wpost.com with your mailing address and preferred shirt size and we will ship an official Fix T-Shirt your way."

Posted by: shrink2 | December 20, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

in response to:
=====================
Mike- How refreshing...and Republicans wonder why Democrats are suspicious when people talk about state's rights.

=================

Exactly! God Forbid that citizens of the several states get the government they want. Oh no.

Hey, let's ignore the constitution and the framework of the states creating the federal government. Instead let's shift all power to DC, because DC gets the liberal agenda. Then let's see how long it takes for a strong centralized government to turn Boston into Bratislava. Nothing quite like those old eastern European worker's paradises to demonstrate the glory of central planning and governance.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 20, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

McConnell's "not familiar with it".

What a steaming pile of horsesh*t. Everyone knows the TeaOP cares more about politics and optics at this point re: START.

So, speaking of optics, you'd think he could come up with something better than *that*.

Mwahahahaha!

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | December 20, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

States should never get the right to discriminate. Ever.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 20, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for the welcome and all the hard work, Greg.

jnc- Can't it be both? I think the case has been made by Democrats and the Administration as to why passing STAERT is important for national security, what's your case for why delaying the bill is important for national security?

At this point, virtually every bill or nomination is couched in terms of a win or loss for one party or the other so I don't think we can avoid that rhetoric. The question is why do you want the President to win or lose? Is it just to make him lose or is their another reason to oppose or support a particular bill or nominee? The ever changing justification for delaying START makes it hard to believe the goal is anything other than stopping Obama from getting a victory while Obama has laid out why he thinks getting the treaty reatified is important outside the win/loss rhetoric.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 20, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Well you know what I think about Cillizza, shrink. He's a Republican bootlicker and an all around putz.

And he's an absolutely awful writer atop being a puddle-deep analyst..

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

I'll start to think good thoughts about state's rights when I hear one case of them being invoked for something that isn't utterly vile.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

The least covered (substance) of any story over the weekend?

Frank Rich's column about how politicians and the leaders of the new "No Labels" organization are either missing or ignoring the real reasons why Americans are so unhappy with Washington - because of the influence of "special interests" - i.e. big money, lobbyists, etc.

As Mr. Rich writes, "Yet what’s most disturbing about No Labels is that its centrist, no doubt well-intentioned leaders seem utterly clueless about why Americans of all labels are angry: both parties are bought off by special interests who game the system and stack it against the rest of us".

Of course, as with Bernie Sanders' "filibuster", it's easier for the corporate press and Washington insiders in the media to focus on the "tone" of Mr. Rich's column, rather than the substance. So all I've seen - on Meet the Press, and Morning Joe and elsewhere - is a debate about some minor factual discrepancies, and the tone of the column including the use of the term "childish magical thinking" in regard to the notion that bipartisanship itself will solve the nation's big problems. Somehow the use of that term is more troubling than the corruption of the politicians themselves.

Yet again, the corporate media does its job in obfuscating the facts, and ignoring the substantive argument being made by writers such as Mr. Rich. They would rather perpetuate the false equivalence of the "left' and the "right", and equating Mr. Rich to Rush Limbaugh than actually cover the real issues of corruption that Mr. Rich is attempting to illuminate - an issue that is worrying and angering more and more Americans.

Yet again, by virtue of this lazy journalism, these regular Americans are left uninformed (or worse, misinformed), confused, disenfranchised and unwilling or unable to make real choices - like voting for those who will truly represent their interests, rather than those of the most powerful and most wealthy.

Posted by: adsdan | December 20, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

-- "Conservatives should be collectively gassed." --

-- "I think he means ausgerottet."

And everyone's cool with that? Nobody's going to challenge him. Or is he the crazy relative of the bunch? "Oh, that's just cao -- pay him no mind." --

-- ausgerottet = wiped out, stamped out, eradicated, exterminated --

and finally,

-- caothien9 -- it seems like you're becoming a bit of a regular around here. Wanted to welcome you.

and you too, ashotinthedark

Posted by: sargegreg | December 20, 2010 10:13 AM --

Not only not challenged, but actively welcomed by the host.

Greg, did you slip up a bit here or do you actually believe conservatives should be collectively gassed?

For the record I can't stand their policies but I sure as heck don't think they should be exterminated.

Just sayin....


Posted by: unymark | December 20, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

~House GOP Crushes Bill That Would Protect Against Child Marriage~

On Thursday night, hours before passing the tax cut compromise, House Republicans thwarted a bill that aimed to protect girls around the world from being coerced into child marriage. They opposed it because, they claimed, it might fund abortions.

[...]

Republican leadership blasted out a "whip alert" to GOP staffers with a message: Vote no.

[...]

Even some congressmen who sponsored the bill voted no.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/house_gop_crushes_bill_that_would_protect_against.php

This is what they voted AGAINST:

- support educating communities on the dangers and health effects of child marriage,

- keep young girls in school,

- support female mentoring programs and

- make sure girls have access to health care services.

Who reads that list and says NO!!!

True scum. And speaking of scum:

~Gingrich Asks Topless Club Owner For Money -- After Snubbing Her Last Year~

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/gingrich-asks-topless-club-owner-for-money----after-snubbing-her-last-year.php

Republicans are truly the most disgusting scum of the Earth.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

All, new post from Adam Serwer calling on GOP to get serious about New START:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 20, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

"Hey, let's ignore the constitution and the framework of the states creating the federal government."

Well I think there is some sort of middle ground between a centrally controlled government and states actively discriminating against minority groups. But it's much more fun to write pithy comments about Boston becoming Bratislava.

I'm not saying I would rather have the government tell Virginia how to handle their National Guard or that Virginia isn't even allowed to do this (although depending on whether it's a DADT policy or an outright ban, it might not be Constitutional). I'm simply saying that it's knee jerk, discriminatory actions like this that make people question arguments about state's rights.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 20, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

@ashotinthedark "jnc- Can't it be both? I think the case has been made by Democrats and the Administration as to why passing STAERT is important for national security, what's your case for why delaying the bill is important for national security? "

Delaying START isn't important for national security, but neither is ratifying it in the lame duck session a matter of extreme urgency. All things considered, START should be ratified and will provide modest benefits vis-a-vis our relations with the Russians. However, the arguments that START should be ratified to give a "victory" to Obama and Reid show that the Democrats are playing politics here too.

The counterpoint is that if Reid and the White House mishandle this and the treaty goes down because they bring this up for a vote without having 67 yes votes secured, they share some of the blame as well. They have to weigh the benefits of public confrontation with the Republicans versus behind the scenes negotiations.

There will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Democratic side about "Republican partisanship" if START goes down but the fact will remain that Obama will be one of the first Presidents in modern times to have a treaty like this fail to gain ratification in the Senate.

Posted by: jnc4p | December 20, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

WOO HOO! THE CIVIL WAR! SLAVERY! THE CONFEDERACY! DESTROYING THE USA FROM THE INSIDE! WASN'T THAT AWESOME?!

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/19/105532/150-years-later-s-carolina-celebration.html

Note: the celebration "celebrates" not the end but the BEGINNING of the Civil War.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

jnc- Thanks for the reasonable and civil reply. I still think there is a difference between how the two sides are approaching this. You readily admit there is at least some benefit to this treaty being passed so why delay that benefit at all? I have yet to see a justification for delaying the vote that is anything other than a transparent attempt to delay a victory. Won't dems still declare victory in 2011 when they still have a Senate majority and the Presidency?

I really think your attempt to turn this argument around on the democrats is disingenuous when there are legit reasons for supporting the treaty but no legit reasons to delay it until 2011.

Are there really concerns that dems don't have 67 votes? I thought that was the whole reason Republicans were delaying the vote.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 20, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

The, um, "BUSINESS" before the court:

Under corporate-friendly Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court has sided with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on 13 of 16 cases — higher than under previous chiefs — and “the percentage of business cases on the Supreme Court docket has grown in the Roberts years, as has the percentage of cases won by business interest,” a New York Times study found.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/19roberts.html

81% success rate for the Chamber of Commerce. Best court money can buy...

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 20, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

DADT didn't get repealed. A highly enlightened, level-headed poster here on the Plum told me they'd never get the votes.

Posted by: cao091402 | December 20, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, you wouldn't have voted for that if it also sent the Human Life Amendment to the states for ratification.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 20, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I've heard Cilizza never sent any tshirts - which doesn't surprise me. He's too busy cheerleading republicans and making childish videos to do much else.

More republican scumbaggery -- it never stops. It's like they wake up in the morning and think --"what vulnerable people can I screw today?

"In case you missed it, S. 987 (The International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act) failed to pass last night. Despite unanimously passing the Senate, it only garnered a 241-166 majority in the House. Since House rules were in suspension, the bill needed a two-thirds majority to pass.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who sponsored the bill, had a blunt response in a late-night press release:

The action on the House floor stopping the Child Marriage bill tonight will endanger the lives of millions of women and girls around the world. These young girls, enslaved in marriage, will be brutalized and many will die when their young bodies are torn apart while giving birth. Those who voted to continue this barbaric practice brought shame to Capitol Hill. "

............

"The Chamber of Commerce fought to help kill the 9/11 compensation bill because it was funded by ending a special tax loophole exploited by foreign corporations doing business in the United States."

Posted by: fiona5 | December 20, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

What an AWESOME couple of weeks in Congress, and they're not done yet. As a moderate Democrat who cares much more about policy than politics, I couldn't be happier.

Somebody please: carve Obama's face on the side of a mountain.

Posted by: paul65 | December 20, 2010 1:07 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