Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:41 PM ET, 01/ 5/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* Is Nancy Pelosi openly siding against Harry Reid, and with the House GOP, on earmarks? That's what Eric Cantor says he took from a conference call he had with Pelosi and Obama today.

Aaccording to Cantor, Pelosi remarked that she'd like to see Reid join her and the House GOP in doing away with earmarks, a leading House GOP priority.

"She would think it would be a big move (if) we could get the Senate to come our way," Cantor said in parahprasing her remarks to a Virginia paper. Cantor's office confirms he was refering to a conversation about earmarks.

Reid, however, has defended earmarks, arguing that they are what Congress is "supposed to do." A source close to Pelosi confirms that Cantor's version of the conversation would indeed be in sync with her position. Interesting...

* Organizing for America cranks up its campaign to push back against the GOP's drive to repeal health reform.

* House Dems are circulating a new batch of talking points instructing members to hammer repeal-backing Republicans for enjoying their own government health care, suggesting this is an attack line Dems will stick with.

* John Boehner's speech today accepting the gavel was shrewly low-key and modest and conspicuously lacking in grand ideological pronouncements, suggesting again that Boehner is determined to avoid the fate that befell Newt Gingrich.

* Lots of interesting reactions out there to the Dems' filibuster reform package. An underwhelmed Kevin Drum says the proposal to force Senators to actually filibuster won't do much, because Senators will filibuster anyway.

* Ezra Klein likes the package, but notes that it won't do anything to reform the core problem of the 60 vote threshold.

* Jonathan Bernstein agrees, but thinks reformers are just trying to get their foot in the door and are settling in for the long game.

* Dan Watson, a spokesman for Senator Tom Udall, a leading proponent of the reforms, sends over a statement defending the package from such criticisms and arguing that it constitutes real reform:

The changes restore real debate in the Senate, rather than >obstruction behind closed doors. To combat the unprecedented use of cloture votes to require 60 votes, a "talking filibuster" would mark a considerable shift from a Senate where filibusters are called in, to one with real debate leading to up-or-down votes when that debate ends.

* Steve Benen likes the unexpected addition of amendments empowering the minority, and he also has a funny takedown of Senator Ben Nelson's puzzling refusal to come to terms with what the reform proposals actually do.

* Zombie right-wing media lie that won't die: Dems are trying to kill the filibuster.

* Dana Milbank on how House Republicans are already employing the very same tactics they decried when Dems were in power.

* And with House Republicans nixing amendments on the repeal bill, Igor Volsky has a nifty video compilation of GOPers demanding an open process throughout the original debate over the bill.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | January 5, 2011; 6:41 PM ET
Categories:  Happy Hour Roundup, House Dems, House GOPers, Political media, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, filibuster  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sarah Palin proves lying can be very effective
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Well, it wouldn't be a GOP-led House w/o a little minority voter suppression: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/04/5765178-eleanor-holmes-norton-is-so-not-having-it

And some folks still wonder why African Americans vote Democratic.


Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 5, 2011 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Cognitive dissonance revealed (yet again):
http://my.firedoglake.com/cenkuygur/2011/01/04/new-poll-confirms-country-is-clearly-progressive/

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 5, 2011 6:52 PM | Report abuse

"House Dems are... instructing members to hammer repeal-backing Republicans for enjoying their own government health care."

This is such stupid drivel I can't believe anyone's pushing it.

"If there's one thing more annoying than hypocrisy, it's illogical accusations of hypocrisy... The latest such example... Republicans should not accept health care, since they want to repeal Obamacare.

"... The logical fallacy here is that Republicans never said that government employees--which is what U.S. congressmen and senators are--should not receive health care coverage from their employer. What Republicans did was oppose a law that raised taxes and cut Medicare by $2 trillion in order to pay for an entitlement program that greatly increases government control of health care. (They favored and favor a variety of free market reforms.) The fact that many Democrats and a few Republicans do not understand this distinction does not mean all Republicans are hypocrites."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/democratic-lawmakers-should-forego-tax-cuts_526655.html

Posted by: sbj3 | January 5, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Speaker Pelosi didn't allow a single "open rule" bill (amendments from the floor) for the entire 111th Congress. Why are you complaining?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 5, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

"House Dems are circulating a new batch of talking points instructing members to hammer repeal-backing Republicans for enjoying their own government health care, suggesting this is an attack line Dems will stick with."

Look to see any of the talking points repeated here ad nauseum by people like DDAWD and Liam.

-------

"Zombie right-wing media lie that won't die: Dems are trying to kill the filibuster."

They've probably been reading the liberals who post here. Nearly every one of them has called for killing the filibuster.

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Dear Harry Reid and Senate Democrats:

I'm a Democrat. I vote for you. I donate to you. I volunteer for you. . . . . .

You count on me. Now I'm counting on you.

And I plan to hold you accountable.

Posted by: paul65 | January 5, 2011
-------

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: If you are concerned about folks misrepresenting Udall's rule changes then perhaps you should stop calling it a "filibuster reform package."

Posted by: sbj3 | January 5, 2011 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Some interesting tidbits from earlier:
------------------------------------------

Calling people names, in particular "communist," seems to be an old fall back for extremist right wingers with no real facts.

Posted by: Alex3 | January 5, 2011

Adam, this is Winger Tactic #101: Do not engage in actual discussion. Distract by calling opponent a name pulled out of your as$.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 5, 2011

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

Is this what you guys are talking about?

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

Yeah you bedwetters are gonna repeal ACA.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011

Dunno why you don't just put Brigade on Troll Hunter. He's a prurient bigot

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011

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

Is that a pretty good example of name-calling by someone incapable of forming an intelligent argument?

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"Why is it that whenever I ask for a liberal, no brain comes attached?" Henry Ford

Posted by: shrink2|January 5,2011

-------

I've asked that same question.

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 7:25 PM | Report abuse

7 minutes have just passed without a single tear from Big Boner...

Posted by: paul65|January 5,2011

-------

Then you should probably spit it out.

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 7:27 PM | Report abuse

What else?

President Obama is making a deal with the GOP to cut corporate taxes.

Momentum Builds for Corporate-Tax Overhaul

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703675904576064052401692010.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Cutting taxes on the Rich. Cutting taxes on Corporations. But freezing federal workers' salaries. There is a tsunami coming against the American Middle Class and the Poor. How do we think all the debt will be offset? Social security, that's how. Middle Class programs, that's how. Assistance for the Poor, that's how.

Who IS this man in the White House?


P.S. Forget all that stuff we were saying 3 months ago about the Chamber of Commerce being in cahoots with Big Money and the Plutocracy. That initiative in inoperative. Repeat: INoperative. We love the Chamber and only pretended to hate it so numbskulls, er, voters, could articulate a coherent explanation when they voted for Dems.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 5, 2011 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Some liberal conspiracy theories:

"disenfranchising minorities is a major pillar of Republican strategy for 2012"---fiona5

"Does anyone doubt that we have some paid conservative disruption trolls here?"---caothien9

"I simply can't bring myself to believe that after decades of hair-trigger Cold War readiness nobody could do anything about that plane on its way to the Pentagon. No, I just don't believe it...
It's all too goddamned fishy."---caothien9

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

And JakeD was banned for birther comments.

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 7:34 PM | Report abuse

"I don't see where Justice Brennan is arguing that the need for quick action trumps the framework in that excerpt."

Really, I see that as a green light for Congress to do pretty much what it pleases -- Brennen's statement captures the idea that we shouldn't let the constitution impede progress. This is standard progressive stuff -- the constitutional is outdated and should evolve with the time, scientific advances, etc.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | January 5, 2011
-----

Brennan, Marshall and Douglas. What a disgraceful trio of Supreme Court justices.

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 7:39 PM | Report abuse

"And JakeD was banned for birther comments."

No. JakeD was banned for repeatedly spamming the threads with birther comments. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good hyperbolic comment. You never do.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | January 5, 2011 7:48 PM | Report abuse

He did it again:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110105/ap_on_re_us/us_tears_of_a_speaker

"WASHINGTON – The chin started trembling partway down the center aisle as the applause rose to a roar. John Boehner, the emotional Ohioan about to become the House's new speaker, took his time, shaking hands with colleagues and their children on his way to the rostrum. At its foot, the hankie came out.

"It's still just me," he told the House after departing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, dry-eyed, handed Boehner his outsized "gavel of choice."

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

It Boehner goes a day without crying, his aides better rush him to the hospital, because he will be suffering from acute dehydration.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 5, 2011 7:56 PM | Report abuse

After the way the democrats having been acting over the past month, one could have fogotten there was an election


The democrats have DISRESPECTED THE ELECTION


Their conduct over the past two months has been nothing less than shameful.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 5, 2011 8:04 PM | Report abuse

And JakeD was banned for birther comments.

Posted by: Brigade at 7:34 PM

_________________________________

The same EXACT kind of comments that Chris Matthews has now said on-air on MSNBC

Disgraceful

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 5, 2011 8:07 PM | Report abuse


"And JakeD was banned for birther comments."

No. JakeD was banned for repeatedly spamming the threads with birther comments. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good hyperbolic comment. You never do.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | January 5, 2011 7:48 PM

-------

Now read my post again, idiot. I said he was banned for birther comments (plural). If you want to call it spamming, I suggest you're the one being hyperbolic. Now let's let's see some more nonsense about Republicans being racists and only worried about the rich and trying to destroy America. Now THAT is spamming, and we see a lot of it here. Also known as trolling.

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 8:07 PM | Report abuse

"Now read my post again, idiot."

On noes!!!!!.......the Plumline king of the one-liners insulted me. I'm crushed.

Excuse me for believing that "comments" implies "just a few" as opposed to repeatedly posting the same garbage over and over and over again even after being asked by Greg to stop. Yeah. That's exactly the same thing.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | January 5, 2011 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Please, will you people stop refudiating oneabrother? I mean, hyper-billy is a friend of mine. I know hypertrophy...

Posted by: shrink2 | January 5, 2011 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Hey, RainForestRising. Here's another golden oldie, a blast from the past, all from one thread when caothien9 was noacoler. The "CC" he references was Chris Cillizza.

------------------------------------
Surely the Post has to know the slant here and approve it, surely the coddling of racists and homophobes in this blog can't have gone unnoticed, not this long. My guess is that it's known and sanctioned.
------------------------------------
@BWJ: anyone NOT think that CC's private communications refer to "ni66ers" and "sp|cs?"
-------------------------------------
I figured you were taking about the body odor that was so familiar around Microsoft in 1989-91, before hygiene was added to new employee orientation. In any case you're confusing honest reportage with bigotry .. my current manager is Indian, I like the guy, we get along and we can even argue and keep it civil. I've gone to bed with Indian men, which I wouldn't do with a people I'm prejudiced against.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 25, 2010

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 8:31 PM | Report abuse

brigade,

I didn't know you were keeping files on our friend from Vietnam. He must really get to you, huh.

You're going to have to spell out what you are hinting at, cause I sure don't get it.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 5, 2011 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Breaking news....

Super Scoop cat litter has sued The Clorox Co. in federal court in New York, saying Clorox's Fresh Step cat litter is running a disparaging television commercial... AP

You may now return to your regular programming.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 5, 2011 8:48 PM | Report abuse

I didn’t have time to post this morning, but have read through the dregs of yesterday’s Happy Hour and today’s Morning Plum and stumbled upon this, from Bernie:

“Somebody has to fill the various government functions of composing and policing laws and codes, and determining and collecting and dispersing taxes. For Republicans, now, that someone cannot be allowed to be citizens broadly nor anyone representing citizens' interests broadly. So the functions of government (as properly differentiated from the show or facade of government) have to be placed in the hands of precisely those corporate interests who - by their own codes and legal regimes - to forward their own selfish interests above or in opposition to the broader interests of the nation's citizens...Citizens are not the Republicans' constituency. Corporate interests are.”

Isn’t this just classic Bernie? So basically Bernie believes there are two kinds of laws: 1) those passed by “the people” (don’t you just love this unassailable, if entirely undefined, concept?) via their representatives and 2) those passed by “corporate interests”. Since all laws are in fact passed by precisely the same representative bodies via precisely the same process, we are left to wonder just how Bernie can tell the difference between the former and the latter. Or not, actually, because anyone who knows Bernie knows exactly how he can tell the difference. Those laws with which he agrees are, by definition, passed by “the people”, because, of course, Bernie’s interests are always and inevitably aligned with “the people’s” interests, while, of course, those with which he disagrees are passed (or, conversely, those with which he agrees are prevented from passing) by “corporate interests”, because, by definition, “corporate interests” are never aligned with “the people’s” interests. It fits all so neatly, don’t you see.

Bernie also distinguishes between functioning government and “the show or façade of government”. Again, how are we to tell the difference? The same process of course. If Bernie approves, it is functioning government. If Bernie disapproves, it is the mere “show or façade” of government. Isn’t this easy?

BTW…you really have to love the nuanced thought behind that “Citizens are not the Republicans’ constituency. Corporate interests are.” Perhaps someone should remind our resident Canadian that in this country people, not corporations, cast votes. And as this morning’s proceedings ought to remind us, a whole lot of citizens cast their votes for Republicans a couple months ago. Oh wait, sorry, I forgot. Since Bernie’s interests are always and everywhere in alignment with “the citizens”, if he is not a part of a given “constituency”, then neither is anyone else. Except those nameless, faceless, and entirely undefined “corporate interests”.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 5, 2011 8:52 PM | Report abuse

This is what Greg Sargent said this morning:

With House Republicans set to assume the majority at noon, Paul Kane lays out the long-term game plan: The real action will come after all the symbolic efforts to repeal Obama's agenda, when House Republicans try to "force Obama into what they consider principled compromises."


______________________________

That represents COMPLETE DISRESPECT FOR THE ELECTION AND FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE


These are words of Resisting the Will of the People


People are elected to represent the People, not an agenda


The attitude of the democratic minority is to TRY TO IMPOSE ITS WILL on the majority


This is clearly UNAMERICAN

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 5, 2011 8:52 PM | Report abuse

And then Bernie followed up by quoting from Tomasky:

“Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: if you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well."

If Tomasky actually believes that conservatives think that governing is “wrong”, then he is perhaps the single dumbest writer ever to be published in a newspaper. Since I doubt he is that, we can only conclude that Tomasky is simply trying to make his audience stupider, a goal which he apparently shares with Bernie. Which explains why Bernie approvingly quotes from him so drearily often.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 5, 2011 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Except those nameless, faceless, and entirely undefined “corporate interests”.
----------------------------------------------
Yeah, you're right, Scott. There aren't any corporate interests who run gadzillions of dollars to Congress, write the bills, lobby them through, and get them passed to favor corporate interests. Everyone knows they don't exist. Maybe you better tell the Tea people that, because they're just like the rest of us--we all believe that Congress has sold out to corporate America. Except you, Scott, except you.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 5, 2011 8:57 PM | Report abuse

"Breaking news....

Super Scoop cat litter has sued The Clorox Co. in federal court in New York, saying Clorox's Fresh Step cat litter is running a disparaging television commercial... AP

You may now return to your regular programming."

There was, Like 30 years ago, a series that in National Lampoon that followed the proceedings of a lawsuit that Wiley Coyote had filed against ACME Corporation. Wiley's contention was that ACME made and sold defective products. ACME countered that Wiley used the products incorrectly.

P.J. O'Rourke, you Magnificent B@st@rd!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 5, 2011 9:27 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"Yeah, you're right, Scott. There aren't any corporate interests who..."

Did I say that? Really? You should really pay more attention when reading my posts. Bernie (among others) always rails on and on about "corporate interests", but it is always in ill-defined, entirely amorphous and unspecified thing to be applied by Bernie to whatever he wants when and as necessary.

Of course there are "corporate interests". For example, child safety seat laws for automobiles is an example of a law having a "corporate interest". (If you think manufacturers of child safety seats didn't and don't lobby hard for such laws, you are a fool.) There are also plenty of corporations which have and would benefit tremendously from certain so-called green laws. (If you think there aren't corporations positioned to benefit tremendously from cap'n trade, you are a fool.) And there is one corporation in particular that benefits hugely from the absence of laws against abortion. (If you think that non-profit corporations like Planned Parenthood do not also have "interests", you are a fool. Take a look at how much money it spends on political lobbying.)

I could go on, but you get the picture. No, it's not that I think there is no such a thing as "corporate interests". It's just that Bernie cannot define the concept in any way that would cohere with the rest of his silly pontifications about "the people's interests" and the dreaded Republicans. And he knows it. So should you.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 5, 2011 9:41 PM | Report abuse

brigade,

I didn't know you were keeping files on our friend from Vietnam. He must really get to you, huh.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 5, 2011 8:46 PM
-------

I don't keep the files; the Post keeps them. I just Google, cut, paste, and there they are.

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 9:45 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

BTW...I saw you singing the praises of caothien a week or so ago. Were you aware that he is a truther? (Not to mention his rather, er, strident positions on what should happen to people who he really doesn't like, like bankers?)

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 5, 2011 9:45 PM | Report abuse

I just Google, cut, paste, and there they are.
----------------
Yeah, but you remember them to go look. So, what are you hinting at?

Cao is a truther? Really? I'm sure you can find those quotes too. I must have missed them.

What's your vendetta against Cao?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 5, 2011 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Hey 12Bar, see how easy that was:

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

your sicko hero will do years in jail for that. Hope he gets
out of jail infected with HIV.

You republican types should be gassed

Posted by: Noacoler | February 1, 2010 11:06 PM

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 9:52 PM | Report abuse

What's your vendetta against Cao?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 5, 2011 9:50 PM
-------

No vendetta.

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 9:54 PM | Report abuse

It's just that Bernie cannot define the concept in any way that would cohere with the rest of his silly pontifications about "the people's interests" and the dreaded Republicans. And he knows it. So should you.
-------------------
This is what I know. You write a multiparagraph post that agrees with Bernie's main point that there are powerful corporate interests influencing government, but you don't like how Bernie writes and you can write it better.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 5, 2011 9:56 PM | Report abuse

"Troll, if you still believe that everything is on the up and up after Atta's unburned passport was found in the rubble coming from a plane who collision developed temperatures high enough to vaporize steel, then you are so lacking in incredulity that nothing I can write will pass the conspiracy-crazy sniff test.

And, one other little thing .. I simply can't bring myself to believe that after decades of hair-trigger Cold War readiness nobody could do anything about that plane on its way to the Pentagon. No, I just don't believe it.

Nor in the coincidence that the absurd threats made to the Taliban in August become credible ones just in time.

Nope. Not buying it. You shouldn't either. It's all too goddamned fishy. And I'm not talking about thermite.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 1:08 AM | Report abuse"

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 5, 2011 9:58 PM | Report abuse

The truther post was last night. You can find part of it referenced in the 7:34 pm post above. It all started with one of his earlier posts about the "alleged" terrorist attack on the Twin Towers.

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 9:58 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"Cao is a truther? Really? I'm sure you can find those quotes too. I must have missed them."

I guess you did. And yes, he really is. And yes, I can find the quotes. From just yesterday.

=========
Troll, if you still believe that everything is on the up and up after Atta's unburned passport was found in the rubble coming from a plane who collision developed temperatures high enough to vaporize steel, then you are so lacking in incredulity that nothing I can write will pass the conspiracy-crazy sniff test.

And, one other little thing .. I simply can't bring myself to believe that after decades of hair-trigger Cold War readiness nobody could do anything about that plane on its way to the Pentagon. No, I just don't believe it.

Nor in the coincidence that the absurd threats made to the Taliban in August become credible ones just in time.

Nope. Not buying it. You shouldn't either. It's all too goddamned fishy. And I'm not talking about thermite.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 1:08 AM | Report abuse

===========

Does that change anything?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 5, 2011 10:00 PM | Report abuse


"Is that a pretty good example of name-calling by someone incapable of forming an intelligent argument?"

That would be you and apparently the purpose of your life.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 5, 2011 10:00 PM | Report abuse

"Is that a pretty good example of name-calling by someone incapable of forming an intelligent argument?"

That would be you and apparently the purpose of your life.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 5, 2011 10:00 PM
----

Wow. What a comeback! A real zinger. I wouldn't say it makes you a genuine wit but maybe a half-wit.

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 10:06 PM | Report abuse


"Is that a pretty good example of name-calling by someone incapable of forming an intelligent argument?"

That would be you and apparently the purpose of your life, brigade.

brigade has a vendetta against cao -- same one zouk had against chrisfox -- same players, same old sh*t-- not even the words have changed, let alone the endless and deep-seated hatred of gay men, and,let's get down to it -- the fear of women and the knowledge of insufficiency.

I fully expect him to freak out and attack me now, but I will only laugh.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 5, 2011 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Does that change anything?
-------------
Like what?

Cao and I are not joined at the hip. Are all liberals supposed to believe all the same things? Nobody ever told me that was a requirement.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 5, 2011 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Wow so Brigade is keeping files on me? JakeD did the same thing.

I supposed I should be flattered by the obsessive attention but really it feels kind of creepy and makes me wonder what sort of alleged lives these guys have.

How is it that Atta's passport survived stellar surface temperatures while the flight recorder, one of the the most durable devices manufactured and explicitoly designed to survive an air disaster, was incinerated? Go off on all the tangents you want. That remains pretty god damned fishy.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 10:15 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"This is what I know."

Well then everything you "know" is wrong. It is quite difficult to understand how a reasonably intelligent person like yourself could read what I wrote and conclude that I agree with Bernie. If you really need me to explain how it is that Bernie is wrong (again), I will. But I think you are too bright to actually believe the silliness you just wrote.

Start with this...Bernie's main point was not that corporate interests influence government. It was that "corporate interests" are separate from, and stand in opposition to, "the people's interests." And that Republicans (in contrast to Dems, by implication) act exclusively for the former, even at the expense of the latter. That is pure nonsense. So much so that, again, it is hard for me to believe that a reasonably intelligent person like yourself, especially one who fancies herself a sophisticated investor, doesn't see it.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 5, 2011 10:25 PM | Report abuse

@fiona: the obsessions are the same, the approaches are different. Zouk was bent in half over my being gay and insisted on refering to me as a pedophile, which Cillizza allowed. With Brigade it seems to be the fact that I live in an Asian country. Not because it's Communist but because it's Asian ... last I saw of his posts (I don't expose myself to the bubbling excrement that is his mind), he was posting about eating bugs and sewer rats and basic racist garbage about Asians.

Dunno what it is about me that leads to for formation of inverse fan clubs but it's been that way as long as I've been online.

Anyway, I love living here. Though I really miss potato chips.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Arthur any dates refudiating the idea home fooling treats tween pregnancy?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 5, 2011 10:29 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"Like what?"

Er, like your opinion of cao's judgment.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 5, 2011 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Cao and I are not joined at the hip. Are all liberals supposed to believe all the same things? Nobody ever told me that was a requirement.

==

Projection again.

Conservatives *are* required to believe all the same things, and they do. That's why we only need one. You can pick the one conservative you can best tolerate, troll-block all the others, and the only thing you lose is a lot of repetition.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 10:33 PM | Report abuse

"Start with this...Bernie's main point was not that corporate interests influence government. It was that "corporate interests" are separate from, and stand in opposition to, "the people's interests."

well, it all depends on which 'people' you are talking about:

> ...Speaking at the [Aspen Ideas Festival], Thomas
> Wilson, CEO of Allstate, also lamented this
> global reality: "I can get [workers] anywhere in
> the world. It is a problem for America, but it is
> not necessarily a problem for American business ·
> American businesses will adapt." Wilson's
> distinction helps explain why many of America's
> other business elites appear so removed from the
> continuing travails of the U.S. workforce and
> economy: the global "nation" in which they
> increasingly live and work is doing fine -
> indeed, it's thriving.'
>
> 'The U.S.-based CEO of one of the world's largest
> hedge funds told me that his firm's investment
> committee often discusses the question of who
> wins and who loses in today's economy. In a
> recent internal debate, he said, one of his
> senior colleagues had argued that the
> hollowing-out of the American middle class didn't
> really matter. "His point was that if the
> transformation of the world economy lifts four
> people in China and India out of poverty and into
> the middle class, and meanwhile means one
> American drops out of the middle class, that's
> not such a bad trade," the CEO recalled.'

You see, buddy, corporate interests do not care about you, or any american citizen. They are 'global citizens' now -- welcome to the dreaded New World Order. It's here *now* and Americans are the simple children left behind.


>

Posted by: fiona5 | January 5, 2011 10:36 PM | Report abuse

It was that "corporate interests" are separate from, and stand in opposition to, "the people's interests."
-----------------------------------------------
Oh, I see. It isn't that you disagree that corporate interests have bought our government and completely run it. You now disagree that is bad. Yeah, stocks are going up because earnings are going up, but more and more people go bankrupt and lose their homes and jobs, but what the hey? No misalignment there.

Thanks, Scott, for pointing out the huge difference in your pov. Corporate interests do not oppose interests of the people.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 5, 2011 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Except of course they're lying about that part where a Chinese worker enters the middle class. The moment that started happening they'll pull up their roots and put them down somewhere else wages are repressed with whips and guns.

All that outsourcing to India has enriched a few executives over there, and to call the life of the call center workers "middle class" isn't even a good punchline.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Earning going up without hiring any new people? How does that work?

Wouldn't be intimidating employees to work longer hours for the same pay, now, would it?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 10:45 PM | Report abuse

When you read that an impossibiity has been reported you can either imagine a conspiracy or doubt the report.

Atta's passport was not found on the ground.
The story is in the 9-11 report and repeated in capsule at wiki.

Suqami's passport was found by a passerby, reportedly in the vicinity of Vesey Street,[7] before the towers collapsed.[8] (This was mistakenly reported by many news outlets to be Mohamed Atta's passport.) A columnist for the British newspaper The Guardian expressed incredulity about the authenticity of this report,[9] questioning whether a paper passport could survive the inferno unsinged when the plane's black boxes were never found. According to testimony before the 9/11 Commission by lead counsel Susan Ginsburg, his passport had been "manipulated in a fraudulent manner in ways that have been associated with al Qaeda."[8] Passports belonging to Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al-Ghamdi were found at the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 as well as an airphone.[10]
-----------------------------------
"Truthers" and "birthers" are recent examples of conspiracy theorists operating on limited second hand information. Real skeptics and all litigators still believe half of what they see and less of what they read. Even skeptics, I among them, have chased conspiracy theories, on occasion. So I am not trying to sound detached and somehow superior. I am just suggesting that we examine our preconceptions when we are wont to jump at allegations of dark shared motives of folks we never even met.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 5, 2011 10:46 PM | Report abuse

fiona:

"well, it all depends on which 'people' you are talking about"

Exactly. Although why you use scare quotes around "people" is beyond me.

"You see, buddy, corporate interests do not care about you, or any american citizen. They are 'global citizens' now..."

I guess even hedge fund managers can suffer from socialist illusions.

BTW...it is a simple fact of life that most people don't care about me (or you). In fact, most people don't even know me (or you) so how could they really care? There are a handful of people who truly care what happens to me (or you). So the fact that some hedge fund manager I never met (and never will) doesn't care about me neither comes as a surprise nor does it bother me in the least. The fact that it bothers you is quite bewildering.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 5, 2011 10:50 PM | Report abuse

"....skeptics, I among them, have chased conspiracy theories...".

Sadmad eyes, lips a circle, super slomo cheeks oscillating, a bass monotone, "No o o o o o o o o o o o."

Posted by: shrink2 | January 5, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if anyone is interested in this or not, but here's a progressive prescription for modernizing Social Security that I'm working my way through. From what I've read so far it's both serious and well thought out from a policy perspective. Anyway, it's long so I haven't read the entire piece yet, but I thought I'd link it for any other policy wonks out there.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/12/pdf/social_security.pdf

Also, since yesterday and a disturbing response I received from a comment I made, I've been thinking a lot about the public employee vendetta so many seem to have grasped onto. I realize there are some problems in the public sector but much of it has been exaggerated and even lied about. The fact is in this new environment of austerity and busted state budgets, virtually every public employee has taken both wage and pension fund hits or been laid off (58,000 teachers lost their jobs in Sept) just like the rest of the working class. The bottom 90% of Americans have shared in the sacrificing, what's the top 10% going to contribute?

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

From Robert Reich:

"Here's another whopper. Republicans say public-sector pensions are crippling the nation. They say politicians have given in to the demands of public unions who want only to fatten their members' retirement benefits without the public noticing. They charge that public-employee pensions obligations are out of control.

Some reforms do need to be made. Loopholes that allow public sector workers to "spike" their final salaries in order to get higher annuities must be closed. And no retired public employee should be allowed to "double dip," collecting more than one public pension.

But these are the exceptions. Most public employees don't have generous pensions. After a career with annual pay averaging less than $45,000, the typical newly-retired public employee receives a pension of $19,000 a year. Few would call that overly generous.

And most of that $19,000 isn't even on taxpayers' shoulders. While they're working, most public employees contribute a portion of their salaries into their pension plans. Taxpayers are directly responsible for only about 14 percent of public retirement benefits. Remember also that many public workers aren't covered by Social Security, so the government isn't contributing 6.25 of their pay into the Social Security fund as private employers would.

Yes, there's cause for concern about unfunded pension liabilities in future years. They're way too big. But it's much the same in the private sector. The main reason for underfunded pensions in both public and private sectors is investment losses that occurred during the Great Recession. Before then, public pension funds had an average of 86 percent of all the assets they needed to pay future benefits -- better than many private pension plans."

Posted by: lmsinca | January 5, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Er, like your opinion of cao's judgment.
-------------------------------------------
Cao is a friend of mine. I am not in the habit of criticizing my friends in public to strangers. Call it old fashioned, but that just how it is.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 5, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Troll McWingnut writes
"P.J. O'Rourke, you Magnificent B@st@rd!"

I thought some of his better work appeared in Road & Track; a review of his not-new subaru, if I recall correctly. Brilliant stuff.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 5, 2011 10:58 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"Oh, I see. It isn't that you disagree that corporate interests have bought our government and completely run it."

You do have a hard time keeping a consistent thought in your head, don't you? An agreement that corporations have "influence" over government policy suddenly transforms into corporate interests "buying" our government and running it "completely".

Or perhaps you are simply dishonest. You do seem intent on deliberately misunderstanding/mis-characterizing what I've said. If you have a real interest in discussing what I actually said, let me know.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 5, 2011 11:04 PM | Report abuse

You do have a hard time keeping a consistent thought in your head, don't you?
--------------------------------------------
Attacking me doesn't change a thing. Everyone, but you, knows something is deeply wrong with Wall Street heading for the stratosphere and everyone else standing in unemployment lines. Keep singing the company song, Scott, until your ox is gored and then remember today.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 5, 2011 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, scott. I'm sure Conservative spent all that money in legal fees arguing for their side of Citizens United just so they could ignore the subsequent ruling.

Yeah, yeah. It's all about the winky winks from Palin.

It's one thing when corporations would funnel money to candidates. Now they can do it anonymously and not only is Scott ok with it, but he acts like it doesn't happen.

Yeah, country above Conservatism, right?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 5, 2011 11:10 PM | Report abuse

"well, it all depends on which 'people' you are talking about"

Exactly. Although why you use scare quotes around "people" is beyond me.

"You see, buddy, corporate interests do not care about you, or any american citizen. They are 'global citizens' now..."

I guess even hedge fund managers can suffer from socialist illusions.
'
BTW...it is a simple fact of life that most people don't care about me (or you). In fact, most people don't even know me (or you) so how could they really care? There are a handful of people who truly care what happens to me (or you). So the fact that some hedge fund manager I never met (and never will) doesn't care about me neither comes as a surprise nor does it bother me in the least. The fact that it bothers you is quite bewildering.'

Scott, you appear confused. I don't know when simple English quote marks became "scare quotes" -- not sure what you mean by that. I am simply referencing the fact that corporations no longer need to care about american citizens, because they have other markets.

You contested the ideas that

"corporate interests" are separate from, and stand in opposition to, "the people's interests."

All I am pointing out is that corporate interests are indeed separate from and stand in opposition to, American citizen's interests.

Do you get that?

Posted by: fiona5 | January 5, 2011 11:15 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"I am not in the habit of criticizing my friends in public to strangers."

Fair enough. We all have friends with some strange notions, I suppose.

We don't, however, all have friends who revel in the notion of seeing their political opponents killed. Nice friends, 12Bar.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 5, 2011 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Here's something I linked awhile ago regarding Chris Christie pinning NJ's budget woes at the doorstep of public employees which went unchallenged in the 60 minute piece last month.

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

From Susie Madrak:

"First of all, New Jersey's pension problems came to a head in 1997, during the rein of one Christine Todd Whitman, who cooked up a high-risk scheme to finance tax cuts by refusing to make the state's mandated pension payments from general revenue. Instead, she and state treasurer Brian Clymer floated a $2.75 billion bond issue that would fund the payments.

In other words, she and Clymer were gambling that the market would generate enough money to cover their pension obligations, so they could borrow that money right away for tax cuts. (The state paid $23.9 million in bond fees, by the way. Plus interest.)

This was a radical idea for the time, and not everyone was thrilled with the plan. The mayor of Edison N.J. filed a lawsuit to stop it. The State Supreme Court refused a stay, saying the point was moot -- but agreed with the plaintiff that the bond authority was merely a legal shell created to get around the state's debt ceiling without putting it to a public vote.

And of course the inevitable happened: Whitman's pension obligation bonds (and just about every other state's) became a ticking time bomb.

From I've read, the Whitman bonds made no payments for the first 12 years and then, during the last 18 years, they were supposed to pay both the deferred interest and the current interest. Whitman assumed that the irrational exuberance of the market would continue to generate high returns -- in other words, the state of New Jersey was looking at a massive balloon payment.

Just to make things interesting, average annual returns on the bonds haven't even been enough to cover the interest payments."

Posted by: lmsinca | January 5, 2011 11:17 PM | Report abuse

The days when "what's good for GM is good for America" is over, if it ever was true.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 5, 2011 11:18 PM | Report abuse

"...money in legal fees arguing for their side of Citizens United..."

You are young, which is good. The big boys may spend money in legal fees to argue cases, but the real money is about buying judges, the White House. It is a long term process, a long investment and it is where the money is. Citizens United was the supreme achievement of the Bush years, mission accomplished.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 5, 2011 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Sorry if I'm out of sync with everyone tonight, but I'm off to bed and wanted to get a couple of comments in.

Enjoy your debate, discussion, argument. LOL

Posted by: lmsinca | January 5, 2011 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Nice friends, 12Bar.
-------------------------------------------
Your opinion. I don't choose my friends for their political opinions, believe it or not. I choose them for their heart.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 5, 2011 11:23 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"...everyone else standing in unemployment lines"

Such silly hyperbole. In addition to letting me know when you want to honestly address what I think, let me know when you are willing to do so while looking at the situation rationally.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 5, 2011 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Global corporations don't need the US anymore, Scotty -- either as employees or consumers. They have gutted the middle class here and they are moving on now to fresh meat. They are predators, of course, because that is what they were created to be. If you believe they are somehow benevolent and care about American interests, I pity your childish naivete.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 5, 2011 11:24 PM | Report abuse

let me know when you are willing to do so while looking at the situation rationally.
------------------------------------------------
Scott, let me say this as diplomatically as possible. Superiority is an unpleasant trait. I'd give it up if I were you. It doesn't disguise your inner anger.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 5, 2011 11:27 PM | Report abuse

"An agreement that corporations have "influence" over government policy suddenly transforms into corporate interests "buying" our government and running it "completely"."

Scott, the default position for a lot of commentors here is that Corporations own all but a Noble Few Democratic legislators. Every other Representative and Senator are completely bought and paid for. Period. Full Stop.

You have to prove, through hard physical evidence and 24/7 video/audio recording of all non-Noble Few legislators that they are not completely being dictated too from Koch headquarters. You have to prove a negative.

There is no philosophical disagreement between the Right and the Left, like you assume. There exists only Noble Policy or Corporate Policy (which is, by definition, anti-Nobel Policy).

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 5, 2011 11:29 PM | Report abuse

If you don't have employer provided health care coverage in CA you're pretty much screwed.

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

Another big California health insurer has stunned individual policyholders with huge rate increases — this time it's Blue Shield of California seeking cumulative hikes of as much as 59% for tens of thousands of customers March 1.

Blue Shield's action comes less than a year after Anthem Blue Cross tried and failed to raise rates as much as 39% for about 700,000 California customers.

San Francisco-based Blue Shield said the increases were the result of fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws.

"We raise rates only when absolutely necessary to pay the accelerating cost of medical care for our members," the nonprofit insurer told customers last month.

In all, Blue Shield said, 193,000 policyholders would see increases averaging 30% to 35%, the result of three separate rate hikes since October.

Nearly 1 in 4 of the affected customers will see cumulative increases of more than 50% over five months.

http://www.latimes.com/health/healthcare/la-fi-insure-rates-20110106,0,6975599.story

Posted by: lmsinca | January 5, 2011 11:34 PM | Report abuse

"...Corporations own all but a Noble Few Democratic legislators..."

That is a spurious allegation. You ignored the Republican judges as if they were not dearly bought. Glad you aren't an accountant.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 5, 2011 11:34 PM | Report abuse

fiona:

“I don't know when simple English quote marks became "scare quotes" “

Call them what you like. Why you used them around the word “people” remains inexplicable.

“All I am pointing out is that corporate interests are indeed separate from and stand in opposition to, American citizen's interests.”

And all I am saying is that you are wrong, and not least because American citizens’ interests are hugely varied, divergent, and often times contradictory. Talking about “American interests” as if all Americans have the same interests is just plain stupid. Sorry, but it is. And talking about “corporate interests” as if the people who benefit from them are not themselves Americans citizens, or as if non-corporate Americans don’t also benefit when corporations do, is also just plain stupid.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 5, 2011 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Shrink, that visual - was it a literary allusion or a clinical one?
--------------------------------------------
Were you a "Nero Wolfe" reader?
--------------------------------------------
The best conspiracy movie of recent vintage that I saw was "The Informant". If you did not see it, you should rent it. A dramatization of a true price fixing conspiracy, it was actually amusing, thanks to antics and thoughts of the nearly delusional protagonist, played with understated affect by Matt Damon.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 5, 2011 11:42 PM | Report abuse

"...talking about “corporate interests” as if the people who benefit from them are not themselves Americans citizens, or as if non-corporate Americans don’t also benefit when corporations do, is also just plain stupid."

Ok everybody, it is very important to not laugh. First, what exactly is a non-corporate American? No, I am as serious as a heart attack. I want citations, constitutional references...if we don't define our neologisms, I mean technical terms...oh I can not stop laughing...sorry...I get it...if someone does not benefit from corporate success, they are not American. Whew that was easy.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 5, 2011 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Scott's views are so plainly abhorrent that you really need to wonder if he's for real.

Arguing that all is well when massive profits coincide with massive unemployment is so deeply sick that there are really only are two possible interpretations of Scott's position

(1) he's a deeply disturbed person

(2) he's trolling for reactions like JakeD

Evidence of (1) is the reflexive condescension, but that's such standard Keyboard Kommando fare that it's hard to apply as a personal attribute.

To summarize: though, Scott makes no noteworthy points, he simply posts here to uphold a morally repellent position, which he makes no effort to substantiate, morally or in civic terms. Summary: the income gap in widening, the middle class is being wiped out, and Scott's OK with that.

And since nothing he posts is going to do anything more than repeat endless variations of this one theme, I recommend ignoring him.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 11:47 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

“Superiority is an unpleasant trait. I'd give it up if I were you.”

Heh. Coming from someone who not 20 minutes previously was lecturing me that “Everyone, but you, knows…”, that means so much. Thanks for the lightening the mood with a laugh.

“It doesn't disguise your inner anger.”

Heh heh. Your are bosom buddies with a guy who wants to kill people, but I am the angry one? Wow. I mean really. Wow.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 5, 2011 11:51 PM | Report abuse

"...talking about “corporate interests” as if the people who benefit from them are not themselves Americans citizens, or as if non-corporate Americans don’t also benefit when corporations do, is also just plain stupid."

==

No, what's stupid is refusing to recognize that those corporate interests are an extremely small number of American citizens and the the remainder of American citizens, the other 99.99% or so, are not benefitting at all but rather are being hurt.

If a plane crashes and 3 of 140 survive do you see it as good news? You're a sick a loathsome individual.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 11:53 PM | Report abuse

shrink:

"First, what exactly is a non-corporate American?"

Someone who does not own, or is not an executive at, a corporation. In the lingo of the lefties here, it would be just plain "American citizen", which to them seems to exclude owners and executives at corporations. But since such owners/executives are indeed American citizens, despite what you guys like to pretend, I came up with a different term to make the distinction you so desperately want to make.

Not really that funny if you think about it. But you probably didn't bother.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 5, 2011 11:58 PM | Report abuse

"...was it a literary allusion or a clinical one?"

I have to have another choice. I might have seen it in a movie. I know I didn't make it up because I think all recognizable communication is derivative. Can I have a continuance on this, or maybe a diversion program (I am sick of work anyway)?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 6, 2011 12:00 AM | Report abuse

cao:

"the other 99.99% or so, are not benefitting at all"

That is complete nonsense.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 6, 2011 12:01 AM | Report abuse

"To summarize: though, Scott makes no noteworthy points, he simply posts here to uphold a morally repellent position, which he makes no effort to substantiate,"

Is your position that Scott does not believe what he is writing? And further, that he is writing to to be purposefully "morally repellent?"

"Evidence of (1) is the reflexive condescension, but that's such standard Keyboard Kommando fare that it's hard to apply as a personal attribute."

Why doesn't the above statement make you a "Keyboard Kommando" as well?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 6, 2011 12:01 AM | Report abuse

@mark_in: thanks for the correction. I'll check out the snopes on Atta's passport, but really that's a minor point. There are too many fishy circumstances with 9/11, and I keep coming back to the fact that the plane on its way to the Pentagon was able to get there like 90 minutes after the towers were hit.

I grew up in the time of SAC and NORAD and nuclear readiness and I just can't accept that after all those decades of millisecond response preparations there was nothing anyone could do.

The wider argument, that planning or sanctioning an attack on US soil was something too abhorrent to believe about elected officials, nope, sorry, that one doesn't budge the meter for me. Not with people like Bush and Cheney and the neocons' anything-for-Israel policies, nor the disdain of Republicans for the "little people" who were in the buildings at those hours.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 6, 2011 12:03 AM | Report abuse

But since such owners/executives are indeed American citizens,
-----------------------------------
Herein lies the problem. If you are talking about Joe's Plumbing Shack, Inc. you'd probably be right. What large corporation is American, except perhaps in its state of incorporation, and even then will be comprised of hundreds and sometime thousands of corporations chartered all over the world. What large corporation has only American executives or American directors? What large corporation has only American shareholders? Those days are over. Large corporate groups are global citizens now, in every sense of the word.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 6, 2011 12:04 AM | Report abuse

cao:

"You're a sick a loathsome individual."

I do, in fact, have a pretty severe cold at the moment, so you are partly right. Blind squirrel, and all that.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 6, 2011 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Scott, don't bother, it is too late. You know corporate welfare is American welfare, corporate interests are American interests, corporations make money, Americans make money. So corporations are all good. Meanwhile, government is bad unless government is good for corporations. So corporations should help government be good to corporations because that will be good for Americans. Did I miss anything?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 6, 2011 12:11 AM | Report abuse

"Scott, don't bother, it is too late. You know corporate welfare is American welfare, corporate interests are American interests, corporations make money, Americans make money. So corporations are all good. Meanwhile, government is bad unless government is good for corporations. So corporations should help government be good to corporations because that will be good for Americans. Did I miss anything?"

Yeah, being funny.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 6, 2011 12:17 AM | Report abuse

So corporations should help government be good to corporations because that will be good for Americans.
---------------------------------------------
When corporations help Congress be good to business, business makes money, Congress makes money, Americans lose jobs. Oh well, two out of three ain't bad.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 6, 2011 12:22 AM | Report abuse

"Yeah, being funny."

Bingo! Now, we don't ever have to argue anymore. You just keep pasting my oh so serious, not funny and frankly, pretty tight exposition of your views about how the world's corporations relate to non-corporate Americans and everyone will get it, in the end.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 6, 2011 12:25 AM | Report abuse

s your position that Scott does not believe what he is writing? And further, that he is writing to to be purposefully "morally repellent?"

==

I believe I addressed this with my numbered choices, TMWN. But I'll elaborate.

For a long time I believed that all you conservatives were deliberate liars; every last one of you believes with conviction in things that are demonstrably false. So I thought you were all deliberately lying as though to convince yourselves that your orthodoxy can work (even though it doesn't .. maybe next time, maybe next time, maybe next time).

But then .. you all believe the exact *same* lies and you're all wrong about the same things in exactly the same way.

I'm sure there are some of you who recognize at some deep level that what you say is false, but never let yourselves think about it .. ti's called compartmentalization and it's not only conservatives who practice it. Even intellectual Catholics, many of whom I respect deeply up to but not including their faith inGod, draw lines and borders past which logic is not allowed to tread.

Does Scott believe what he's saying? Probably. Or maybe not, it doesn't matter, because his goal is not the Confess the Truth but to agitate liberals with his shocking callousness.

Does he say it to delibately be morally abhorrent. Of course he does.

As for the rest, no, trolls and keyboard kommandos aren't liberals. Just as there is no such thing as age discrimination against the young in the workplace, there is no such thing as a liberal troll. It just doesn't happen.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 6, 2011 12:29 AM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"What large corporation has only American executives or American directors?"

I checked Microsoft. They have 9 directors. Citizenship info was not necessarily easy to come by, so this is not all confirmed. But it appears that 7 of the 9 are definitely American. One of the others was born in Brazil, but appears to be a US citizen now. The last is a German. Undoubtedly he is the one with the most influence over our government. Damn foreigners.

BTW, one of the confirmed US citizens is Maria Klawe, who was actually born and spent most of her life in Canada, but became a US citizen 2 years ago. You'll be happy to know she did not become a director until she got her US citizenship.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 6, 2011 12:34 AM | Report abuse

"Does Scott believe what he's saying? Probably. Or maybe not, it doesn't matter, because his goal is not the Confess the Truth but to agitate liberals with his shocking callousness.

Does he say it to delibately be morally abhorrent. Of course he does."

Why are you not being "shocking[ly] callous{ness}" and "deliberately... morally abhorrent" when you hope for the "elimination" of bankers or other class of people you identify as bernie's "others?"

Or, if you're joking when you advocate mass murder, why aren't jokes about mass murder "morally abhorrent" to you?

Do others here find a desire for mass murder or the joking of a class of people being murdered in mass as acceptable as cao?

Or, is it just the type of people that should be murdered in mass the differentiator? Bankers? Eliminate. Social Workers? Beatification. (No offense, bernie.)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 6, 2011 12:40 AM | Report abuse

shrink:

"Did I miss anything?"

Anything of substance.

cao:

"For a long time I believed that all you conservatives were deliberate liars; every last one of you believes with conviction in things that are demonstrably false."

Deliberate liars who believe with conviction what they say? You really are incoherent, cao. Oh, but what a heart!!!

Night all.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 6, 2011 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Herein lies the problem. If you are talking about Joe's Plumbing Shack, Inc. you'd probably be right. What large corporation is American, except perhaps in its state of incorporation, and even then will be comprised of hundreds and sometime thousands of corporations chartered all over the world. What large corporation has only American executives or American directors? What large corporation has only American shareholders? Those days are over. Large corporate groups are global citizens now, in every sense of the word.

==

12Bar, this is a tangent, let's not let ourselves be drawn into a natioalism argument.

The war isn't between America and foreign ownership, it's between the wealthy and everyone else. Hot buttons like illegal aliens and race and other phony divisions only serve to distract us from the conflict that really matters, which is the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. That is what we need to fight, and we need to fight it openly an unapologetically, shouting back at accusations of "class warfare" and "envy" and "penalizing success."

We need to unflinchingly restore the tax code to one that makes the honest attainment of billionaire status literally out of reach and refuse to allow ourselves to be distracted and deflected by suggestions that doing so has any motivation other than the presevation of democracy.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 6, 2011 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Microsoft Subsidiaries

Last updated: Sept. 30, 2010


Albania Denmark Latvia Qatar
Algeria Dominican Republic Lebanon Romania
Angola Ecuador Libya Russia
Argentina Egypt Lithuania Saudi Arabia
Armenia El Salvador Luxembourg Senegal
Australia Estonia Macao SAR Serbia
Austria Finland Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Singapore
Azerbaijan France Malaysia Slovakia
Bahrain Georgia Malta Slovenia
Bangladesh Germany Mauritius South Africa
Belarus Greece Mexico Spain
Belgium Guatemala Montenegro Sri Lanka
Bermuda Honduras Morocco Sweden
Bolivia Hong Kong SAR Namibia Switzerland
Bosnia & Herzegovina Hungary Netherlands Taiwan
Brazil Iceland New Zealand Thailand
Brunei India Nigeria Trinidad & Tobago
Bulgaria Indonesia Norway Tunisia
Cameroon Iraq Oman Turkey
Canada Ireland Pakistan Ukraine
Chile Israel Panama United Arab Emirates
China Italy Paraguay United Kingdom
Colombia Japan Peru United States
Costa Rica Jordan Philippines Uruguay
Côte d'Ivoire Kazakhstan Poland Venezuela
Croatia Kenya Portugal Vietnam
Cyprus Korea Puerto Rico Zimbabwe
Czech Republic Kuwait

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/inside_ms.mspx

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 6, 2011 12:47 AM | Report abuse

'Sorry, but it is. And talking about “corporate interests” as if the people who benefit from them are not themselves Americans citizens, or as if non-corporate Americans don’t also benefit when corporations do, is also just plain stupid.'

What is just plain stupid, is imagining that global corporate interests have anything to do with American interests. They just don't... only in so far as they coincide with global corporate interests. Nationality has nothing to do with it. Many corporations, even those headquartered here, don't give a flying frack about americans... what counts only is how much money, or blood, they can extract from a particular group.

Their entire purpose and charter is to make money for shareholders -- if thpse are Saudis and they invest more, than it is in the interests of the corporation to do more for them, regardless of the fact that they might be funding terrorists against the US>

just a fact.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 6, 2011 12:50 AM | Report abuse

McWing:

"Do others here find a desire for mass murder or the joking of a class of people being murdered in mass as acceptable as cao?"

12Bar might. She's his buddy. She chose him for his heart.

Night..really.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 6, 2011 12:51 AM | Report abuse

The war isn't between America and foreign ownership, it's between the wealthy and everyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------
There's an intersection there, though. The wealthy are not just American wealthy. Perhaps in Microsoft's case, the familiar names (Gates and the other founders) are Americans, but if you look at the major institutional shareholders, there is a fair amount of foreign ownership. Even if major stakeholders have loyalty to their countries of origin, which is questionable anyway, they are not only Americans.

The lengthy list of MSFT subsidiaries, all of whom have executives and operations and employees and facilities, all have an interest in Microsoft. I find it difficult to limit the discussion to simply wealthy/not wealthy without the overlay of American/international.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 6, 2011 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Gee, Troll, considering how much money is concentrated in the hands of so very few people, joking or now\t, it would hardly be "mass" murder, now, would it.

I just want them out of power. I'd be content with prison. But considering how many lives have been destroyed, how many species sent to extinction, how many children grown up stunted or malnourished, how many orphans from wars to protect corporate profits, how many people killed in other countries to enable the theft of resources, if someone went vigilante and slaughtered the financial caste behind those decisions, men who've shed neither a tear nor a drop of blood over all the damage they'd caused, no, I wouldn't raise a whimper of protest.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 6, 2011 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Don't try to change the subject, it's pathetic. The topic is whether global corporations have american interests at heart. Hint: they have never given a sh*t, and now they don't have to try.

Cry me a river, this country is going down fast because your idols, your Galtian overlords, are taking their business elsewhere and leaving the US behind in their dust.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 6, 2011 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Actually 12Bar it just so happens I knew one of those MS VPs back when he was just a dev manager. I remember him well, as the repeat THE rudest individual I ever met .. after one offsite meeting at Carrilon Point when this guy interrupted one technical oresentation after another with blurted idiotic questions about "markets," I wrote to the manager above us both and protested his rudeness.

His name is Jawad Khaki, he runs a Mosque in Redmond that has come under suspicion for jihadist teaching, he was an admirer of Saddam Hussein, and no, he was not born in America.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 6, 2011 1:04 AM | Report abuse

We need to unflinchingly restore the tax code to one that makes the honest attainment of billionaire status literally out of reach and refuse to allow ourselves to be distracted and deflected by suggestions that doing so has any motivation other than the presevation of democracy.
-------------------------------------------------------
I think we'll have to do more than reform U.S. tax code. The genie is out of the bottle in terms of U.S. corporations whose foreign subs shelter income out of the country, foreign ownership which is outside our taxing reach. We really have an out of control problem where business doesn't even pretend to shelter American jobs anymore. Carly Fiorina became famous, and ultimately lost her election, because she said "There is no job that is America's God-given right". At least she spoke the awful truth and it has come true.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 6, 2011 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Then we do the same with outsourced income. Make it illlegal, and put people who do it in prison.

If corporations want to be regarded as persons, fine, they get the death penalty too.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 6, 2011 1:12 AM | Report abuse

@cao,

Obviously since MSFT has 90,000 employees and has operations in 85 countries, it's a no brainer that there are a LOT of international executives, employees and owners. The days when a large U.S. corporation is primarily American owned, managed and staffed are over. That's why they call them multinational.

BTW, I know a founder VP of MSFT too. Ida Cole. Did you ever know her?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 6, 2011 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Funny how Microsoft has become part of the discussion, I see great parallels between America's and Microsoft's twin falls from grace. Both started out much smaller than now but bursting with greatness, and both are now long past their peaks and surviving on inertia alone.

And in both cases it was financialization that did them in.

My first annual meeting at MS in 1989 .. software, excellence, let's do the best work we can and be proud of it. My last annual meeting, 2004 or so (contractors don't "get to" attend those things) .. Steve Ballmer stomping around the stage yelling about offering customers "value propositions," a term nobody but the suits down in front knew anything about.

Get the financial types running things, and everyhing falls apart.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 6, 2011 1:21 AM | Report abuse

No 12BB I never heard of Ida Cole. I was a peon, I just liked writing software and never tried to get anywhere near management.

That was the track there .. if you were good at your job you became more and more of a businessman. I would rather be buried alive than take MBA classes.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 6, 2011 1:25 AM | Report abuse

Steve Ballmer stomping around the stage yelling about offering customers "value propositions," a term nobody but the suits down in front knew anything about.
-----------------------------------------------------
I won't take it personally, but I'm one of the suits. But not for MSFT.

How-so-ever, having heard code talk like value propositions, I can guess what it means. Sounds a lot like value pricing for time and materials fees. Now, wrap your head around that concept for a few minutes.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 6, 2011 1:36 AM | Report abuse

My point 12BB is that the place stopped feeling like a software company. It was a business company. They were in the business business.

Yet the audience was overwhelmingly engineers. who weren't hearing anything about directions in software; as far as what was coming from the stage it might as well have been a shareholder meeting for McDonald's. Passing mentions of upcoming products (Vista was in the future at this time), but all the talk was financial. It was boring as hell.

And here's this coarse loudmouthed bashterd waving his arms in the air and yelling over and over about "value proposition." The kind of feeling like in college when you realize you're in the wrong classroom.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 6, 2011 1:42 AM | Report abuse

chris, I know what you mean. Software companies are in large part about software engineering and engineers. When the story isn't about that, but about pricing and price points and a whole bunch of stuff that appeals to the analysts (and thus the shareholders), the employees get the message.

And one of the messages, ultimately, is that engineering is just a commodity and can be done anywhere by anyone. That's really what happened, right?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 6, 2011 1:46 AM | Report abuse

Getting back to slowing down, or even reversing, the loss of American jobs, I swear I don't know the answer. You are right, the tax code is a major tool.

I don't see anything in the political works that even tries to achieve this. Do you?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 6, 2011 1:52 AM | Report abuse

Well a lot of us got the message; the talented people pretty much left MS long ago. I ran into a guy at my gym I recognized from 20 years prior, never worked with him but remembered his name .. he had left in disgust like 15 years before.

The message was clear: the greatness is gone, it's all about the shareholders. The place became extremely repressive, paranoid like a crackhouse, people working late into the night, strangers to their families, not because they loved theu\ir work but because they were terrified over their next review.

When I got a new manager and saw him laying a paper trail to "manage me out," I beat him to it and quit. But then, I was in a Vista group and a lot of us were leaving. I was too stressed from the politics and the stultifying layers of procedures and standards that I couldn't ever enjoy it again.

Came back two weeks later as a contractor in a WinMobile group, rewriting a project that the Indian dev center had completely screwed up, and had a great year. I doubt there are many groups like that left.

As to reversing the loss of jobs, you know what I think and I've already given my answer in the clearest possible terms: I left the whole country. America is under the control of the financials and we have belief sets like that ScottC sh|thead to contend with, or, rather, YOU do.

When people who are being "managed out" of the middle class scream their demands that the wealthy be furtther enriched, there is no hope. Democracy is based on acting on one's self-interest. That has broken down. Economic recovery in those circumstances is not possible. I expect nothing to be good in America ever again.

I also think that some disaster of some kind .. natural event like volcano or major earthquake, cosmic event, or another (phony?) terrorist attack is going to happen, and push the USA over the cliff I'm not factoring SS into my future plans at all, and it would not surprise me if by 2020 the USA was no longer one nation anymore.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 6, 2011 6:05 AM | Report abuse

Thirty years of relentless indoctrination in free market economics has made the crazy into the truth and the truth into the crazy. Everyone believes that junk to be established fact and everyone continues to believe that tax cuts for the rich will lead to renewal. Despite the fact that it never has.

Billions of dollars have been spent on this; right wing think tanks cranking out talking points, right wing economists on TV, right wing publishing houses, one-liners from Reagan, the Club for Growth.

Nobody can be elected to anything without a promise to cut taxes, nobody wants to spare a nickel for his country's future.

There is simply too much work to reverse this and get people back to reality, too much indoctrination to undo. America has had the Ludovico Treatment and vomits at any thought of productive economic behavior. Recovery is not possible.

Not to mention, Republicans won't let it happen. Getting people back to work would throw a wrench into their only path back to power (OK, mixed metaphor, sue me), so they will work hard to tank the economy with spending and tax cuts.

Just like Hoover did.

You guys should get out.

Americans aren't used to being poor, REALLY poor, and they're going to be, and they're going to look around for someone to blame, and it's not going to be the people who deserve the blame. Factor in cheap and easily available guns, and, well, not a safe place to be.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 6, 2011 6:25 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and Jan Brewer is now a murderess:

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_d20f2974-1926-11e0-8dbd-001cc4c002e0.html

Posted by: caothien9 | January 6, 2011 6:29 AM | Report abuse

Citizens United was the supreme achievement of the Bush years, mission accomplished.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 5, 2011 11:22 PM
------

Par for the course, isn't it? There were lots of liberal posts yesterday about constitutional interpretations keeping up with the times. Using Brennan's rationale, you guys should be fine with any decision at all coming from the Supreme Court. Now please don't insult anyone's intelligence by saying you're okay with the Citizens United decision but just upset with the rank hypocrisy of justices whose opinions ... well, whose opinions differ from yours. The evolving social climate with which the Court must keep pace may eventually require the overturning of Roe v. Wade. No problem for Brennan, no problem for me.

Posted by: Brigade | January 6, 2011 6:42 AM | Report abuse

What else is happening, Greg? Your editors and staff are keeping you (and Ezra) silent on 99ers. Everything else is BIG news or insight...5 MILLION and counting every week's end to the list of 99ers going down for the count. Bowed and bloodied, and not a word from you and your bud.

If you won't advocate, top of the page, blod print like it REALLY is a life and death matter no one in government can even mention, then at least have the spine to say WHY you won't write about it. This is the largest aberration in this country right now and your "team" of sleuths and agents COULD be all over this dire predicament affecting not the 99ers themselves, but their families, friends, relatives, and particularly their children.

If you need an interview, I will volunteer and give you an up close and personal accounting for what this existence is like.
Tell me how to get in touch with you or your staff and I will give you the nuts, bolts, and all the screws we've had drilled into us for almost one year now.

We're alive, Greg, but no longer living. The end of this modern-day version of the Bataan Death March begins with those in your position. Ask Jon Stewart.

Posted by: kickoradell | January 6, 2011 6:51 AM | Report abuse

Very telling. Even after mark_in_austin's effective takedown, caothien9 demonstrated the extent of his trutherism by moving on to other "evidence". Well, even if the passport thing has been falsified, there's STILL all this other stuff---like Bush and Cheney being such evil men. Can you imagine the number of people who would have to be involved in the orchestration of such a conspiracy and still be able to keep their mouths shut about it? I'm convinced there were time-travelling aliens behind the whole affair.

Posted by: Brigade | January 6, 2011 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca:

I'm with you in left field.

The attack on public workers is of a piece with the Cons' multi-decade attack on the American Middle Class. The goal is to remove ALL impediments to complete corporate domination. Unions are one of the vital protections for American workers. The COns have already destroyed private unions and now they're coming after public unions. Without collective bargaining, corporations can pit workers against one another to drive down wages. Just like the Cons did when they prevented unionizing in the SOuth and then used the South to steal jobs from the Northeast and Midwest. And now corporations use the undeveloped world, with low wages and no regulation, to steal jobs from the United States. A race to the bottom.

Three other quick points:

1. Obama capitulated to the Death Panel wackos and removed End of Life counseling from health care (Our Brave Hero strikes again).

2. Obama is cutting a deal with the GOP to reduce corporate taxes (they will call it "reform").

Which leads to ...

3. Obama is coming after Social Security. The GOP and the Republicrats are already on board. Will Democrats and Liberals allow this to happen?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 6, 2011 7:18 AM | Report abuse

"The evolving social climate"

Translation: As we sink deeper and deeper into Plutocracy.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 6, 2011 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Now they're gonna put you in prison if you don;t work hard and fat enough.

Blizzard Cleanup Is Subject of Inquiry

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/nyregion/05storm.html

The Cons claim that Liberals are fostering a Class War against the Rich when of course, the Rich have been engaged in a thermonuclear war on the Middle Class and the Poor for 40 years. (If you ever want to know what the Cons are up to, just listen to what they are accusing others of doing (Propaganda 101).)

I saw a comment recently saying that it's only Class Warfare when both sides fight; otherwise it's Class Slaughter. Here in the U.S., the Middle Class and the Poor have been so indoctrinated to hate themselves that they truly think they are to blame and deserve to be punished.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 6, 2011 7:58 AM | Report abuse

"But then .. you all believe the exact *same* lies and you're all wrong about the same things in exactly the same way."

I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who pretends to such intellectual superiority but is so intellectually and rhetorically slovenly. You just aren't very smart, or you are very lazy.

"Does he say it to delibately be morally abhorrent. Of course he does."

If this thread did not break the irony meter at PL, nothing ever could.


Greg, I know you never answer difficult questions, but I'd like your reason for not banning caothien. Now, I don' want him banned; he's a wonderful poster child for "liberalism." But you have here a person who litters threads every day with the same vitriolic if rote tripe and, more importantly (1) has routinely advocated totalitarian solutions like mass murder and mass imprisonment, and (2) spouts 911 trutherism like the nonsense above. He also routinely calls conservatives vulgar names like "shjthead."

So what is the explanation, Greg? You banned two conservatives who never did anything like this. Why have you instead welcomed personally welcomed this abusive troll?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 6, 2011 8:14 AM | Report abuse

"Media Matters" is a far leftwingnut, zombie, liberal Democrat, propaganda outlet that is 100% dedicated to trashing Republicans and promoting all things liberal.

We just thought "all" would like to know who did not know already.

I think "Media Matters" is owned by "Rolling Stone" magazine.

Posted by: battleground51 | January 6, 2011 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Rolling Stone does the finest investigative journalism in the country today. Dickinson and Taibbi are fantastic. I encourage all to subscribe.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 6, 2011 8:21 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne

I saw 1 & 2 yesterday and agree with 3. We're all rubes now. Small businesses are starving for capital but more than that they're starving for customers and they keep taking more and more discretionary funds out of the hands of working Americans. I bet there will be plenty of money floating around for the Presidential campaign though, there's suitcases full of money for bribes.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 6, 2011 8:21 AM | Report abuse

My God! (or yours, if preferred) I've always had great respect for the perspicacity and emotional balance of Frank Gaffney. And he's getting niftier day by day.

"Frank Gaffney, a leader of the conservative movement for the last 30 years, charges that CPAC has come under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is working to bring America under Saudi-style Shariah law."

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=247341#ixzz1AGFTqEM9

Posted by: bernielatham | January 6, 2011 8:22 AM | Report abuse

"The topic is whether global corporations have american interests at heart."

If that is the topic you think about, it is no wonder you are so confused.

But, rather than any further wasted effort in trying to unconfuse you, I'd be intersted in what you and the other liberals who've decided that corporations are implacable and predatory enemies of the People would replace them with. Abolish corporations? Replace them with government collectives? Or just return to a medieval or other pre-modern economic system?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 6, 2011 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca:

Did you also see that Obama is giving a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? Obama is worse than I ever imagined. I'm ready to fight back but where is the organization?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 6, 2011 8:26 AM | Report abuse

I just want to send a cyberspace Thank You to the person who was laying a paper trail to manage Chris Fox out. Whatever you did worked!

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 6, 2011 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Good thing we got that awesome health care reform.

"Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes of as much as 59% for individuals"

http://www.latimes.com/health/healthcare/la-fi-insure-rates-20110106,0,6975599.story

Posted by: wbgonne | January 6, 2011 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Once again, Folks. You argue with fools you look foolish. Especially so when the fools are getting paid and you aren't.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 6, 2011 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Favorite quote today, so far...

"The reason there's so little government censorship of the press in America is because it's totally unnecessary; why would the government even want to censor a media this compliant and subservient? " (Glenn Greenwald discussing and linking to good reporting by Maass at the New Yorker in collaboration with ProPublica on the iconic Saddam statue event...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/04/burns/index.html

Posted by: bernielatham | January 6, 2011 8:34 AM | Report abuse

"where is the organization?"

wbgonne, I don't think there will be any. I can't even find an anti-war group that is organizing anything other than minor petitions etc. Forget about a primary, Obama's leaving us a trail of crumbs (think DADT) to follow him home and most of us will.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 6, 2011 8:36 AM | Report abuse

We are so f-cked.

Later.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 6, 2011 8:38 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/the_morning_plum_161.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 6, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1, great questions. Those of us conservatives who have been around here for both of those partisan banishments get the message loud and clear.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 6, 2011 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

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

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




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company