Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:32 AM ET, 12/23/2010

The Morning Plum

By Greg Sargent

* Yes, it was a good lame duck session, but the GOP is poised to regain the initiative: The New York Times reminds us this morning that the GOP's takeover of the House next year will enable them to "take the offensive and challenge Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats by initiating conservative bills in the House and pushing for Senate floor votes."

Key takeaway: Even if those bills never become law, they will be selected with an eye towards making the case for GOP control of the Senate and, of course, the White House.

* The 111th Congress's place in history: The Post has a nice overview of the extremely productive but racuous and stormy last two years.

Conclusion: The 111th Congress shifted the country in a progressive direction as successfully as the Congresses of the 1960s and 1930s, passing a raft of legislation undergirded by a single idea: "Government has a responsibility for social welfare, and to regulate the abuses of business."

* Obama's place in history (so far): Harold Meyerson says Obama clearly bested Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter when it comes to the grand progressive project of moving the country towards social and economic equity. But he now has to prove he can match FDR and Lyndon Johnson in persuading the public he is providing for their economic security.

* "Obama's orphans deserve to take a bow": E.J. Dionne has a poignant sendoff for the dozens of House Democrats -- call them Congressional shock troops -- who stuck their necks out to pass Obama's agenda and have now paid the ultimate electoral price.

* Filibuster reform update: ICYMI: Dozens of Dem Senators have now signed on with filibuster reform, raising the paradoxical possibility that Mitch McConnell's historic level of obstruction may prove to be the impetus that ends up ensuring that reform actually happens.

Key takeaway: The push to reform the filibuster has now become a real movement, and it could start making its mark as early as January.

* Indeed, David Dayen, commenting on Dem plans to forge ahead with filibuster reform, gets it right:

If this holds, the most consequential day of the next two years will happen on January 5.

Keep in mind that McConnell has already vowed openly to make things even more difficult for Dems next year, which (one hopes) will serve as yet another motive for Dems to get this done. We'll be covering it all closely right here.

* The Census's impact on our politics: This is a useful guide and map demonstrating the Census's impact on presidential politics.

Short version: GOP-leaning southern and western states gain, and Dem-leaning northeast states lose, making the presidential math a bit better for the GOP.

* But: Reid Wilson goes deep into the weeds to argue that all the talk of GOP gains is way overstated.

* Also: A reality check from Chris Good: "The real Census-politics story won't be written for a few months, when we find out how many Hispanic voters the country has gained." Good predicts a "Hispanic voter boom."

* What to watch next year: As Joan McCarter and Columbia Journalism Review point out, media coverage of the argument over Social Security tends to be hideously unbalanced in favor of the hatchet-wielders, which will only become a more pressing problem when this battle gets going next year.

* Understatement of the day: Digby catches a great line from Chris Matthews, about the opposition of Tea Party Republicans to New START:

I think it's fair to say without being too condescending that the Tea Party types are not too focused on the nuances of nuclear arms control.

* And McCain cements his legacy: After waging an erratic and unsuccessful crusade to derail DADT repeal, John McCain closes out the year with a final No vote on START, sealing his ignominy.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | December 23, 2010; 8:32 AM ET
Categories:  2012, House Dems, House GOPers, Morning Plum, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Obama's (conservative) liberal agenda

Comments

This was an interesting interview.

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

"David Brock, CEO of Media Matters of America and a former closeted gay Republican, appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball" Wednesday night to discuss Obama's signing the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into law.

Deeming the ban on gays in the military a "phony wedge culture war issue," Brock went on to say that right-wing leaders "exploit gay people and they exploit the fear of gay people to gin up their base. That's what they do. It's a totally cynical thing. Half of them don't even believe it. I know, I was in the right wing. So that's what's going on here."

When Matthews asked Brock how, as a gay man, he put up with the rampant homophobia within his party, Brock responded, "Self-loathing. I wasn't confident enough myself...to come out."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/republican-chris-matthews-exploit-gays-video_n_800554.html

Posted by: lmsinca | December 23, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin, what do you think, was it an "extremely productive" two years?

I, for one, still oppose the so-called "9/11 first responders" bill. Where in the Constitution does the FEDERAL government get the power to give away healthcare to state, county and city workers? Why is it just limited to 9/11? Why can't Obama start providing free healthcare to every policeman and fire fighter in the country, in the world? Why not for every union member in America? Is there anything Obama thinks that the federal government cannot do? One last question: Why am even I covered under this new entitlement program, as I posted on yesterday's thread, for simply spending five days in Manhattan?

Sounds like it's time to file another lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of this latest version of ObamaCare too. We should fine a "purported WTC survivor" in every State to sue (one of those judges will rule against it).

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 23, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

It's very bizarre that some liberals are crowing about how successful the Obamacrats have been even though they have been completely crushed and humiliated by the American electorate. This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that so-called progressives are anti-democratic, self-serving Marxists posing as Democrats.

If they were for the people, they would not have been so quickly kicked out. Most of them would have been re-elected.

Do you guys measure success by how badly you get thrashed in Democratic elections?

How does that work?

Posted by: battleground51 | December 23, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

"Where in the Constitution does the FEDERAL government get the power to give away healthcare to state, county and city workers?"

At least your SCOTUS brief will be short.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 23, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca, you are aware that Harry Reid, John Kerry, and even TEDDY Kennedy voted for it, and that Bill Clinton signed it into law, in 1993, right? So who exactly were "exploit[ing] gay people and the fear of gay people" again?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 23, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

On the unbalanced media coverage of Social Security (and much else, of course) and the importance of job growth for 3012...

Ed Kilgore at Dem Strategist wrote yesterday -

"The last few months of 2010 have been illuminating when it comes to the priorities of the Republican Party. By jumping at the Obama-McConnell tax deal, Republicans underscored the fact that protecting the marginal tax rates of high earners--not reducing the federal deficit, and not even denying Obama legislative success--is their party's primary focus at the federal level. It says something that most conservatives who opposed the tax deal did so on the grounds that it was not permanent, or that it did not completely eliminate the estate tax. As ever, to paraphrase Dick Cheney, Republicans seem to think deficits don't matter.

Yet that's not the half of it. For a true litmus test of the lengths Republicans will and will not go to in order defend the incomes of the very rich, you have to look to the states, where budget deficits are generally not allowed. There, a new crop of Republican governors and lawmakers--huge numbers of which rode to power on the Tea Party wave--are focused not just on preserving upper-income tax cuts, but actually cutting taxes for the rich while slashing services and raising taxes on the poor and middle class. All this is happening at a crucial time, since the most dire fiscal conditions in decades are about get vastly worse, as federal stimulus dollars run out.

...This is what Americans got when they voted for the Tea Party. When the last comparable wave of state-level Republicans took office, in 1994, it happened to coincide with the beginning of the long boom of the '90s, which allowed GOP officeholders to make popular tax cuts without reducing popular spending. Not this time: Across the country, Republicans are assuring that budget adjustments will be real and painful for everybody but the rich."

The next two years looks likely to be politics as ugly as any of us have seen it. And that will be made far worse, I expect, from the increasing levels of economic travail for citizens.

But in all of this is the potential for Dems and for the left to point to the real causes and culprits behind their suffering - "Your national and local safety nets have been destroyed by one party and one ideology and if you want a better, more just, more equitable, more caring and more affluent nation rather than a callous and dog-eat-dog cage match for survival for you family and kids, then turn back to the America you knew before this insane ideology gained a foothold."

The really sobering part of this is to imagine what will happen if such a change in sentiment and policy does NOT come to be.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 23, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

It's very bizarre that some liberals are crowing about how successful the Obamacrats have been even though they have been completely crushed and humiliated by the American electorate. This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that so-called progressives are anti-democratic, self-serving Marxists posing as Democrats.

If they were for the people, they would not have been so quickly kicked out. Most of them would have been re-elected.

Do you guys measure success by how badly you get thrashed in Democratic elections?

How does that work?

Posted by: battleground51 | December 23, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark, it won't be if I hire Orley Taitz.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 23, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

@Ims - I imagine Ken Mehlman would echo Brock's statement pretty closely.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 23, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

battleground51, did you read E.J. Dionne's laughable piece about the dozens of House Democrats -- call them Congressional shock troops or Obama orphans, but just call them-- who stuck their necks out to pass Obama's agenda?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 23, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

"The really sobering part of this is to imagine what will happen if such a change in sentiment and policy does NOT come to be."

Bernie, this is where the bully pulpit comes in. And the Republicans are still susceptible to public opinion and pressure as well as over-playing their hand, as we've just seen. Thankfully also, there are still a few moderate Republicans who are uniquely situated by their constituents to hold that ground.

"you are aware that Harry Reid, John Kerry, and even TEDDY Kennedy voted for it, and that Bill Clinton signed it into law, in 1993, right?"

claw, it's called progress.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 23, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

The Family Reseach Council thought they had a partner in Grumpy McCain to work on repealing the repeal of DADT. Apparently, they forgot to tell him. He's saying, "Nah..."
-----

FRC Claims McCain Will Keep Leading Pro-DADT Fight, McCain Says Not So Much

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/frc_claims_mccain_will_keep_leading_pro-dadt_fight.php?ref=fpi

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 23, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

@Ims - Bully pulpit - essential. Broad support for this individual - essential. It's a dance but it's the only dance in town.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 23, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

But battlegroundup, what are Republicans going to do with their gains? Advance popular legislation, promote new ideas? They have neither. No, they'er going to be emboldened to be even more publicly childish and more brazenly on the side of the very rich, and spend their time advancing frivolous investigations and nonsense legislation.

In case you hadn't noticed, in the past few weeks people started noticing in a big way that Republicans aren't governing seriously. It was easy to blame the nation's problems on Democrats when they had all the cards but that's not going to work anymore.

And if the slim indications that Obama is starting to fight back, those gains you're dancing about could be very short-lived, because at the end of the day Republicans really don't know how to govern.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 23, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I know it is not really proper to be insulting to folks on the right here who express opinions which I find really stupid by saying that I find the opinions really stupid. But they are and so I will.

What's unfortunate is that Bill Kristol, a man whose Platonism I find autistic in its inability to imagine a social arrangement not directed and ruled by himself and his friends as even possible and who I thus find functionally evil, is not as stupid as our friends here...

"There’s been some hyperventilating among conservatives about the effects on the military of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It’s going to be amazingly difficult to implement, some say. It could well be the end of the U.S. military as a feared fighting force. It’s just another step in the decline of the West.

Reacting to this, Cassy Fiano, a conservative blogger whose Marine husband is serving in Afghanistan, asked last week: “At what point does concern [about the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] turn into hysterics, and when does it become insulting to our honorable men and women in uniform?”

Fiano’s advice to conservatives? Cool It. We join in her suggestion.

...As Fiano writes, it’s a “massive insult to our military” to assume that soldiers can’t handle the challenge of integrating openly gay troops. "

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/don-t-fret-don-t-whine_524816.html

Posted by: bernielatham | December 23, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca, you didn't answer my questions. How about this one: when was Harry Reid "exploit[ing] gay people" more, in 1993 with his vote for DADT or 2010 with his Tweets to Lady Gaga?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 23, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

caothien9 writes
"people [have] started noticing in a big way that Republicans aren't governing seriously."

Some people have noticed that for quite some time. But I wonder whether conservatives think it is sound practice -a good 'small government' policy - to delay senate proceedings with filibusters on legislation that ends up passing 97-0.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 23, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Claw-

And things have evolved signiciantly since 1993. Including a 20% or so swing in how Americans feel about DADT.

I remember when Magic Johnson announced he had HIV in 1991. At that time it was controversial for players to even be on the same court as him and when Isiah Thomas kissed him on the cheek...wow. However, as society became more educated on the topic opinions and behavior changed.

Given all that has elapsed in the last 17 years and the shift in public sentiment and perception regarding homosexuals, it's entirely reasonable to question whether Republicans actually believe some of the things they are saying.

Battleground-
So the fact that Democrats lost in the election proves they are Marxists? Come again?
If that's the case, what did the 2006 and 2008 elections make Republicans? Or did it make the voting public Marxists?

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

Bernie, I don't know if you saw my post from last week where I opined that I don't see ANY credible threat of a primary challenge and his popularity numbers among Dems and liberals over-all are still strong and I'm sure he'll get a nice bump next week. I certainly agree he's the only game in town and I hope he's just realized he has more power to move votes than he realized. I've always supported him, I just don't always agree with him. I will continue to fight for policies that benefit bringing the middle class back from the brink of extinction, which means I'm usually fighting conservatives, but occasionally Democrats.


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

@Ims - Did not see it but I appreciate your stance and tend to match it mostly.

My proviso in much of this category of discussion relates to some meta-dynamics of how groups of humans perceive and organize which I think a necessary perspective to always have in mind (the right has been very smart about this, Norquist being one particularly notable case).

For example, and applicable to this case, the sentiment of members of a group will almost always follow along with a given or an emerging perception of "winning" or "winner".

To the degree that Dems/liberals join in a contradictory chorus or sentiment (Obama is losing, Obama will lose, Obama does it wrong, etc) they are unavoidably working against their own interests.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 23, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

claw

ashotinthedark was kind enough to take the time to answer your question for me.

I'm probably out for the Holiday weekend. I'd like to wish everyone joy, love and peace, and please be careful out there.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 23, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Not sure if anyone is interested, but I listened to a pretty interesting podcast on the power and impact of the President. It was on the Freakonomics podcast. It's worth a listen to if for no other reason than Ashcroft's opinion on the importance of the President.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 23, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

@Ims - in my home town in British Columbia, a baby was born just as the clock and calendar turned from Dec 24 to Dec 25. His name was Irving.

Happy Irvingmas.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 23, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

if it is true, barack plays politics as he does basketball, playing defense watching and judging what the opposition's game is, before he goes on offense; perhaps we have seen his time come, or perhaps he was the type of student who did his best work under the pressure of a looming deadline.

Posted by: sbvpav | December 23, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Here's how desperate Obama is to drum up some extra votes for 2012. He's back to pandering to outlaw "immigrants" and their sympathizers, again. Is Obama that dense?? How many times does America have to scream, "NO AMNESTY, EVER!!", for him to understand??

Obama knows that repeal of DADT is not going to advance his cause electorally. The only people who are pleased about that are the leftist fringers that seem to have a stranglehold on the Democrat party. The Obamacrats spent almost all their, remaining, political capital on the homosexual agenda. Hispanics/Latinos noticed this fact and are angry.

Obama is toast in 2012 unless he can create a big, new class of voters.

This junior, LBJ wannabe is still clinging to the hope that he can create about 20,000,000 new, Democrat voters by granting mass amnesty and free, American citizenship to all the illegal squatters that haunt America today.

It's an undemocratic, unpatriotic and almost treasonous plan to thwart American democracy. It is a Marxist ploy, pure and simple.

I hope the Republicans are tough enough to stop strongman Obama and his henchmen from destroying America. They must go on attack mode and stay there for two more years.

Our American Democracy is at stake.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 23, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

It is always the right time to fight Republicans. All that talk of compromise with them was nauseating. These people want to crush the people who want to compromise with them. I imagine if the Tea Party Express had not intervened in the November elections, none of the lame duck legislation would have passed.

Now it is time to lay gas cans all around the bizarre crowd of Republican Presidential wannabes.

These pretenders need to be destroyed before the money machine that is Barbour, Gillespie & Rove re-manufactures them into something Fox can pimp. Don't forget, they almost succeeded in reinventing Bible Spice, but for the priceless, historically significant (have you saved your copies?) am not a witch adverts.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 23, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Here's how desperate Obama is to drum up some extra votes for 2012. He's back to pandering to outlaw "immigrants" and their sympathizers, again. Is Obama that dense?? How many times does America have to scream, "NO AMNESTY, EVER!!", for him to understand??

Obama knows that repeal of DADT is not going to advance his cause electorally. The only people who are pleased about that are the leftist fringers that seem to have a stranglehold on the Democrat party.

==

Your views seem to be completely disconnected from reality. To parlay the DREAM act as pandering to illegal immigrants is just nonsense, and to say that repealing DADT has no popular support is in direct contradiction to the facts.

When you have to lie to make your case, ponder the possibility that you don't have one

Posted by: caothien9 | December 23, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I hope the Republicans are tough enough to stop strongman Obama and his henchmen from destroying America. They must go on attack mode and stay there for two more years.

Our American Democracy is at stake.

==

Yeah, Republicans in permanent attack mode, that should do everyone a lot of good.

You sound seriously disturbed, and I don't mean "upset." I bet the FBI has a file on you.

Probably stamped "harmless bigmouth"

Posted by: caothien9 | December 23, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Ashot wrote:

* At that time it was controversial for players to even be on the same court as him and when Isiah Thomas kissed him on the cheek...wow. *

The kiss of doom? Thus Isiah became GM of the NY Knicks, bringing that organization to its knees. Coincidence? Causal connection?

We report, you decide.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 23, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Good post from Adam Serwer commenting on the last two years and what they mean:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 23, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

ese pretenders need to be destroyed before the money machine that is Barbour, Gillespie & Rove re-manufactures them into something Fox can pimp.

==

In other words, they need to get in front of some cameras

Posted by: caothien9 | December 23, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

clawrence asked:

*mark_in_austin, what do you think, was it an "extremely productive" two years?*

I am guessing historians will say it was very productive. I fault this Congress for governing by CRs. It shares that with a few other irresponsible Congresses over the last decade. So to weasel a bit on your question, clawrence, it was extremely productive for an irresponsible and cowardly and lazy congress.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 23, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Brigade (and qb):

"What happened to Kevin and Scott?"

I deliberately took some time away. When reading the lefty loons here dulls my sense of the normal so much that it no longer gives me that Alice-in-Wonderland feeling of head-shaking disbelief, I figure I should spend some more time with real people to remind myself that common sense, logic, and honesty are not entirely a thing of the past. Extremely boring day today, so checked in for the first time in a while.

qb:

"It would be amusing to see the foreign creature explain to Scott..."

Maybe I'll stick around for the lecture.

BTW...I see that the progs here are still big users (and pushers) of Kevin's troll hunter. Does anyone else find it amusing that the self-professed tolerance crowd has such little, er, tolerance? I think it would be an interesting study to find out who many libs are using it, and how many people they are blocking, versus how many cons are using and how many people they are blocking. My sense is that it is the libs who are overwhelmingly intolerant of other posters. Even Kevin, the inventor of troll hunter, doesn't actually use it, from what I understand.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 23, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Scott,

I know exactly what you mean. I took a few breaks in recent months, too.

If you haven't had the pleasure yet, I suspect you'll find this new caothien creature to well exceed even the previous outer boundaries of PL lefty lunacy and vitriol. Really, you missed some performances not to be believed by this nutcase. Your mental health is probably better for having missed it.

I will be in a hearing today and then flying home late tonight, so I'm likely out for the weekend unless I have some boring downtime.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 23, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

We get this tolerance lecture a lot. In this case it's a shibboleth.

Blocking posters who fill space with repetitive inanities isn't rigidity or intolerance, it's prudent time management. Since the conservative posters are so rigidly in lockstep with one another we really only need one ... no, we don't need any because we can just go to the sites where they get their Phrases of the Dayses from.

As for "common sense,:" that's nothing but a paleo-neologism for the uninformed people who lack he education and reasoning power for actual analysis of the facts. Common sense is a salve for the weak minded to give them a false sense of authenticity. So yeah you go hang with people whut gots them some common sense and we'll read people who have IQs in triple digits and university degrees.

Oh dear how "eltist" of me. I take it back. Let's make some ditch-digger the president since pokling out rocks has given him special insignts for dealing with complex issues.

As QB will fall over "hisself" to tell you, I live in Vietnam. Tjhat's a Communist country, I love it here, but I'm not on PL during the day 'cause of time zones.

And I use Troll Hunter for time management .. and to go placidly amidst the noise and haste.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 23, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Oh my gosh this cao creature is such a prolific self-parodist and gaffe machine it isn't even possible to keep up with his inanities and dopey flights of fancy.

My fave: "So yeah you go hang with people whut gots them some common sense and we'll read people who have IQs in triple digits and university degrees."

Hahahahaha you fool. You are such a walking stereotype of the projecting, self-blind, arrogant, presumptuous twit. If only you had the slightest idea. But you never will.

Perhaps one of those smart university-type people will correct some of your other gross misconceptions about Stalin, when he was in charge and what he did. I've seen a lot of crazy internet lefties, but never one who veers from idolizing Stalin and his economic development record to a faux-freak out over nascent Pol Pot totalitarianism in the U.S. -- which you've left and disowned anyway.

You have to be either psychotic or a put on.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 23, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Scott, good to see you.

I'm off for several days. I'd like to wish everyone a Merry CHRISTmas (see what I did there)!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 23, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Very intolerant and unAmerican of you, Troll, to shove your retrograde religion (superstition) down everyone's throat. : )

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 23, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"Does anyone else find it amusing that the self-professed tolerance crowd has such little, er, tolerance?"

Isn't that the inverse of the argument about self-professed Christians who don't really act like Jesus?

Its easy to paint a stereotype & find examples of people who 'fall short'. Far more difficult is to read what people actually write & debate the points they make.

Speaking of which; what's yours?

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 23, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

McWing:

"I'd like to wish everyone a Merry CHRISTmas (see what I did there)!"

I did see, and I like it. Merry Christmas to you as well. And you too, qb.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 23, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

QB,

I'm a giver!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 23, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

caothien:

"As for "common sense,:" that's nothing but a paleo-neologism for the uninformed people who lack he education and reasoning power for actual analysis of the facts.
You are ill-informed."

Paleo-neologism? I guess that would be the same type of concept as a "brand new antique". Or perhaps a "uni-bicycle"? In other words, to borrow from that mainstay of conservatism himself, Orwell, a concept so incoherent only a highly educated person could think it makes sense.

"As QB will fall over "hisself" to tell you, I live in Vietnam."

I've been there, although not for about 15 years. I hope it is better now than then.

I guess a certain amount of respect is due to your principles, if not your (apparently non-existent) common sense, if you objected to America so much that you up and moved yourself to a people's paradise like Viet Nam. Good luck with that! You certainly stand in direct contrast to those unprincipled and self-deluding folk who have no end of complaints about America and American culture, but have bizarrely up and moved themselves TO America. We have one on this board, you know. He seems to like you. Perhaps because you have the courage of his convictions.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 23, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

bsimon:

"Speaking of which; what's yours?"

Simply that I find it interesting that the libs here seem much more inclined than the cons to be bothered by, and much less accepting of the presence of, posters who do not please them for one reason or another. They are a controlling and authoritarian crowd...to which their politics attest.

Posted by: ScottC3 | December 23, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

It will incumbent on Democrats to remind Hispanic voters of the tendency of the Right wing to hate-mongering and racial profiling vis a vis the Arizona law.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | December 23, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, mark_in_austin, for your answer.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 23, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

“If you’re a supporter of this President’s agenda, you have seen some setbacks and false starts, but Christmas has undoubtedly come early. While the President is being labeled the “comeback kid” and the glow of a convalescent figure follows him to vacation in Hawaii. Your gift was a country moving in the progressive direction you voted for in 2008. Change has indeed come to America, now it’s time to dig in and protect all that has been accomplished.”

My review of the 111th “Mighty-Duck” Congress:
http://j.mp/i7kUMZ

Posted by: RyanC1384 | December 23, 2010 6:59 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