Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:23 PM ET, 01/ 7/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* Takedown of the day: Rick Brookhiser on the fantasy that Rudy Giuliani has any chance of becoming the 2012 GOP nominee. Short, but brutal.

* Jonathan Cohn is optimistic that Dems are finally showing some fight on health care.

* But Gallup finds Americans favor repeal 46-40, though with 14 percent undecided, there's still plenty of room for either side to make real gains. Settle in for a long fight.

* Reality check of the day: Ezra Klein on the real reasons health reform may be in trouble.

Also: Erza says it's time to come to terms with health reform's unpopularity.

* A nice post from Joan McCarter on the perils for Dems of the "Obama governed from the left" narrative.

* Glenn Greenwald says Obama had no incentive not to pick William Daley, because the left's sound and fury signifies nothing.

* Obama comes out strongly for civilian trials of terror suspects in a signing statement decrying Congress's efforts to limit his options in that regard. Worth noting that this puts him at odds with Congressional Dems who are "worried" about such trials on U.S. soil.

* Dan Froomkin points out that Obama did not, however, claim the right to override Congress on this.

* Matt Miller is right that this one of the oddest conventions in political journalism:

It's always struck me as odd that journalists are supposed to pretend they don't admire certain public figures even as they honestly assess their strengths and weaknesses and render a verdict on their actions.

* Michael McAuliffe tallies up the damage of what he calls the House GOP's "wretched" first week.

* GOP Reps. Pete Sessions and Mike Fitzpatrick issue a groveling apology for skipping the oath of office, admitting that they dishonored the House and made a big mess.

* During the oath, Rep. Fitzpatrick was at a fundraiser in the Capitol, and Ryan Grim has the ins and outs on whether he broke the law.

* And two watchdog groups want a probe of "oathgate."

* Blue Dog Dems who cast the first procedural vote today for repeal have have only succeeded in revealing their deficit fraudulence.

* Too bad there were only four of them.

* Cutting Social Security is not a good way to win back elderly white voters.

* And Michele Bachmann, in an interview with ABC News, appears to be serious about 2012:

"I am going to Iowa -- there's your answer. I am going to Iowa."

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | January 7, 2011; 6:23 PM ET
Categories:  Happy Hour Roundup, Health reform, House GOPers, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, White House, deficit  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Matt Bai: No ideological shift
Next: Open Thread

Comments

Considering what tough guys Republicans think they are it must sure get under their skin the person who is basically now the leader of the party is a big cry baby.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 7, 2011 6:27 PM | Report abuse

What else?

For anyone who didn't catch it here is a sneak peak into a book with some shocking news about a huge blunder that was possibly responsible for hundreds of dead U.S. troops at the beginning of the Iraq insurgency.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/07/iraq-weapons-factory-al-qaida-us-failure

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 7, 2011 6:33 PM | Report abuse

OT but hilarious: "TV critics live-tweeting an epic Oprah panel at the Television Critics Association press tour... to read chronologically, you need to start at the bottom."

http://www.newsfortvmajors.com/2011/01/oprah-tveets.html

Posted by: sbj3 | January 7, 2011 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"I am going to Iowa -- there's your answer. I am going to Iowa."
........................

I have her campaign slogan.

Bachmann Turnout Overdrive.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 7, 2011 6:33 PM | Report abuse

sbj3, see how many of the groups are bowing out of CPAC because of GOProud? Shameful.

You should come join us on the good side, waters great!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 7, 2011 6:37 PM | Report abuse

@mike: Did you see the Oprah tweets?

One could also look to GOProud's participation in CPAC and call it progress. (I don't think too much of the groups I've heard of that have dropped out...)

My view?

"I think he realizes, as many conservatives must, that marriage equality is inevitable. If he truly views conservative policies as vastly superior in every other respect, as he must, then changing the party from within is the only practical course available to him."

http://www.mediaite.com/online/dana-loesch-and-goproud-chairman-respond-to-mediaites-rnc-debate-anti-gay-marriage-story/

Posted by: sbj3 | January 7, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are in power TWO DAYS - and look at the unemployment rate


Amazing what the Republicans have done !

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

"Associated Press – 10 mins ago

WASHINGTON – A package addressed to the U.S. Homeland Security secretary ignited Friday at a postal facility, and authorities said it was similar to fiery parcels sent to Maryland officials a day earlier by someone complaining about the state's terrorism tip line."

Posted by: Liam-still | January 7, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Liam and Mikefrom Arlington


PLEASE stop sending out packages.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 6:45 PM | Report abuse

all, just added a couple of links above on the whole Gitmo signing statement controversy...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 7, 2011 6:47 PM | Report abuse

The way Obama and democrats twisted the meaning of the 2008 elections....


AND NOW we have the Obama people IGNORING that the American People even voted in 2010.


We have a HIJACKING OF THE GOVERNMENT - and the democrats are intent on ignoring the truth THE RUPUBLICANS HAVE THE MANDATE NOW.


The American People do NOT want the liberal agenda which Obama has been pushing like a drug dealer in a housing project.


Sorry, but the American People are SICK of the way the democrats have been FORCING what they want on the American People - clearly against the RESULTS OF THE ELECTIONS.


Everyone is sick of it.


The American People have spoken. The lame duck session has PROVEN the democrats do not want to listen. The only course now is to THROW MORE DEMOCRATS OUT OF OFFICE.


As soon as possible.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 6:49 PM | Report abuse

History buff shrink (from previous thread):

Not sure if you are as "buff" about WWII as the Civil War, but I am hopefully scheduled to take a trip this summer to Europe with my brother and a few others to visit WWII sites. The idea is to start in Normandy and follow the allied march to Berlin, including a few detours to places like Berchtesgaden and Kehlsteinhaus (The Eagle's Nest, which I have been to before...very cool). We're hiring a old UK army captain as a tour guide who I am told is a great guide.

Should be interesting and hopefully educational.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 7, 2011 6:51 PM | Report abuse

"...join us on the good side..."

From there you can still blame the left for everything, it is a win, win.

Being a Republican is so one sided, when you are a Democrat you are on both sides, whatever feels good. It is a really big tent.

Only the far right and the people who got Obama past his Rev. Wright crisis and past The Clintons' Grand White House Redecorating Project are not allowed. (Yes jnc4p, we were
warned, we saw that, we took the risk and we got burned.)

Anyway sbj, the all new and fully purged Democrats are safe for Republicans, no harm no foul on that Bush Cheney administration; surely you tried to do the right thing.

Get a Mulligan with the Democrats. Play through.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2011 6:53 PM | Report abuse

And also folks,

the numbers which the democrats are pushing surrounding the health care bill....


Just another set of LIES


There really is no sense going line item-by line item exposing the LIES

Obama took $500 Billion OUT of Medicare - as reported by the Washington Post - and yet some liberals still DENY this SIMPLE TRUTH.


It is shameful - that the democrats INSIST ON LYING ABOUT THE TRUE COSTS OF HEALTH CARE.


Like I said - let Greg Sargent PAY THE DIFFERENCE - PERSONALLY.


And leave the rest of us out of it.


If Greg - you think these numbers are right - PERSONALLY GUARANTEE THEM, and when they are wrong, YOU write a check for the difference.


Leave the rest of us out of it.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

UFC fighter asks to fight Obama


And Obama runs like a coward - send the Secret Service in like a wuss


http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=AkPS94eW5I.6m1uc2HBwXPFzfNdF?slug=mmaweekly-b0eb628c4e352ae5a67151dca2a17281

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"Glenn Greenwald says Obama had no incentive not to pick William Daley, because the left's sound and fury signifies nothing."

The Left is politically irrelevant because the Left always votes Democratic no matter what. Want to change that? Want the Democratic Party to respect you?

Greens in 2012! (They're good for you!)

The Dems will get the message when they don't automatically get the votes anymore. Until then you're just a bunch of f-ing retards.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 7, 2011 6:57 PM | Report abuse

"Until then you're just a bunch of f-ing retards."

That is PI! Didn't you see There's Something about Mary?

We are not developmentally disabled. We carry water. The Left is politically irrelevant because the Left carries water on the Democratic golf course.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2011 7:02 PM | Report abuse

"Cutting Social Security is not a good way to win back elderly white voters."

Unfortunately, the President of the United States doesn't realize this. But that is why we're in the pickle we are.

Greens in 2012! (They're good for you!)

Posted by: wbgonne | January 7, 2011 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Scott, have you read Ian Kershaw's books? I am so boring, I am re-reading them, just to be sure. They are definitive if that is possible to say. I am so far gone, I read Plutarch on the toilet.
I ♥ history.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2011 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Boehner is like a weeping machine -- it's pathetic. What a girly man. He and Glenn Beck are poster children [and I do mean children] for the whiny baby, feel-sorry-for-yourself party that is 'conservatism' today.

To reference an earlier thread, Greg, Dems don't have the massive, organized, plutocrat-funded message machine Rs have had for decades. The MSM really needs to wake up to the monster they have created-- Pearlstein today showed some of what is needed:

"
There is an unmistakable redbaiting quality to the "job-killing" rhetoric, a throwback to the McCarthy era. It reflects the sort of economic fundamentalism better suited to Afghan politics than American. Rather than contributing to the political dialogue, it is a substitute for serious discussion. And the fact that it continues unabated suggests that Republicans are not ready to compromise or to govern.

So the next time you hear some politician or radio blowhard or corporate hack tossing around the "job-killing" accusation, you can be pretty sure he's not somebody to be taken seriously. It's a sign that he disrespects your intelligence, disrespects the truth and disrespects the democratic process. By poisoning the political well and making it difficult for our political system to respond effectively to economic challenges, Republicans may turn out to be the biggest job killers of all."

May turn out? Duh, it's already proven.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 7, 2011 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Ygelsias yesterday made a very good argument re the actual powerlessness of Tea Party types if the real power centers of the right wish X done rather than a TP favored Y...

"Ezra Klein comments that “It’ll be really interesting to see how the tea party does — or doesn’t — adapt to having allies in power.”

I think it’s really important not to engage in too much reification of “the tea party” in these kind of discussions. You don’t need to endorse the view that the tea party phenomenon is some kind of astroturf to recognize that that there’s a major grasstops element to the whole thing. Suppose there’s some sellout that John Boehner wants to implement. Boehner recognizes that he needs to pair this with a symbolic but meaningless gesture. Now suppose he sits down in a room with Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Donohue, and David Koch and persuades all three of those people that this is the right way to proceed. Then the next day, Boehner unleashes his symbolic gesture and his compromise, and the coverage of it on Fox News, The Rush Limbaugh Show, and the fox-affiliated radio shows is all positive. That alone gets you the three most popular talk radio shows, the television network, The Weekly Standard, a dose of influence at every single conservative think tank in America, and the important organizing efforts of Americans For Prosperity.

How far is a right-wing challenger going to get with those forces arrayed against him?

Not far. And the basic principles of elite signaling indicate that support among that group will lead to more support. It wouldn’t be a smart move for Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney to get on the wrong side of Rush & Fox. Jim DeMint might or might not find it useful to act as a rightwing defector from dealmaking, but he wouldn’t actually get anywhere without conservative media to back him. In essence, coordinated action among a very small number of people can cut the oxygen off from the tea party fire any time they want to. So the question becomes not how “the tea party” will react, but how a relatively small number of influential conservative media figures will react."

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/01/fear-the-grasstops-not-the-grassroots/

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

Scott, I'm not shrink but I'm jealous. Our daughter spent an afternoon at Omaha beach in September and visited the Cemetery and reflection pool in Normandy and was very moved. Sounds like a great trip. My dad flew in support of Patton chasing the Germans all the way, you'd love his diary and photos and one of his best friends, Rick Nelson, was the radio man on the Enola Gay. We're WWII buffs around here.

wbgonne

Everyone's giving you a pretty hard time, but you sound happy. It's gonna be a long two years so try not to burn out too early.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 7, 2011 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Ot but this one'll bring a tear to your eye: "He’s done more for me than I’ve done for him,’’ Rudy said. “There are times when I don’t want to go to practice, and then I look at Sam. By God’s grace, I can do what I’m doing, so I should keep it up. I’ve never been one to complain a lot, but just seeing Sam reaffirms everything, you know?’’

http://www.boston.com/community/stories_to_inspire/articles/2010/12/23/a_teenagers_simple_act_elevates_all/

Posted by: sbj3 | January 7, 2011 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I thought Glenn Greenwald missed the point with his article. Liberals did show Obama they can not support his crew. They didn't turn out to vote. It's not as noisy as the Tea Party, but if losing 60 house seats doesn't wake Obama's team up to fact he can't ignore his base, nothing will and the country is doomed to have a tea party crazy in the White House come 2012.

"And Obama runs like a coward - send the Secret Service in like a wuss"

This is exactly the type of immature nonsense the country is doomed to experience in 2012.

Posted by: Alex3 | January 7, 2011 7:35 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD,
"We aren't obsessed with getting Sarah Palin to wink at us"
-------

Poor DDAWD. He's certainly IS obsessed with Sarah Palin. He talks about her continually and makes this same comment at least once every day. Maybe he's depressed that there are so few nice looking Dem pols. More likely he's never been with a female, and probably never will be, as attracive as Palin. Poor pathetic DDAWD.

Posted by: Brigade | January 7, 2011 7:36 PM | Report abuse

re debt ceiling...Yglesias argues that Obama has no reason to negotiate with Republicans on the debt ceiling because they aren't going to follow through on the bluff (too many establishment types in the party understand that the results will unleash the havoc puppies). And Matt is right. The furious noise from DeMint and Bachmann and the rest is just noise.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 7, 2011 7:44 PM | Report abuse

You betcha! Obama has run so fast and so far from the Left that he could be Tea Partier. But he managed to wreck Liberalism anyway. Quite a trick.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 7, 2011 6:50 PM
-------

Maybe wbgonne will stick to his guns after all. I understand the POV of 12Bar and Liam and some of the others that any Democrat is better than a Republican (in their view), but at least wbgonne understands that the only thing you have to leverage is your vote. If your candidate is going to spit in your face and you continue to support him anyway, what incentive does he have to follow through? I can't imagine any circumstances under which I'd vote for Obama, but for different reasons than wbgonne. But I've always said, no politician works for votes that are already in the bank.

I've argued for years that African Americans would fare better if they had a larger presence in the Republican party. What do they get from voting 90+% Democratic in every election other than a lot of hot air and gut wind and the guarantee that they'll have no place at the table when Republicans are in power.

My vote is for sale to whomever works hardest for it, and I do not hesitate to withhold it from those who take it for granted. If any large group of voters wants the attention of a politician, just let it be known that you're willing to withhold your support---including financial support. They really don't understand any other message.

Posted by: Brigade | January 7, 2011 7:55 PM | Report abuse

fiona5,
"Boehner is like a weeping machine -- it's pathetic. What a girly man."
------

Boehner a girly man? I guess you've never seen Obama throw a baseball or a bowling ball.

Posted by: Brigade | January 7, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

For anyone interested in seeing a real live girly man.


http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=obama+bumper+car+photo&psj=1&wrapid=tlif12944484056001&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=JrcnTYvDCcf9nAefk_yIAg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQsAQwAA&biw=1415&bih=561

Posted by: Brigade | January 7, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Best headline of the day...from Suzy Madrack at C and L...

"Boehner To CBO: La La La, I Can't Hear You"

Posted by: bernielatham | January 7, 2011 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Another blast from the past (noacoler = caothien9):
----------------------------------------

"Noacoler and moonbat,

Still don't understand why after being banned multiple times under different names (and IP addresses) you guys keep coming back.

It would seem that moving to some other blog/message board on which to post would make sense since you refuse to follow the rules on this one.

For those regular posters who want to punish these repeat offenders, I would ask you simply ignore their (many) posts.

Since they are committed to end-running our good faith efforts to ban them due to their bad behavior, I think it is our best recourse.

Thanks,
Chris"

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | January 15, 2010 12:04 AM

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

Well, we know to what "other blog/message board" noacoler (caothien9) moved.

Posted by: Brigade | January 7, 2011 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Shrink, Scott, and the others who participated in the Civil War history lesson today: good job. Very interesting.

Posted by: Brigade | January 7, 2011 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Im sorry

To Greg and the liberals

You all are really so out-of-touch with reality. It is simply incredible.


Last spring - pushing through health care - everyone said that would lead to electorial disaster.


The liberals said - push it through. And I thought, MAYBE they know what they are talking about - against all reason.


But now it is clear that the liberals have been WRONG ALL ALONG

What is worse - this indicates that the liberals really should NOT be governing. They don't know what they are doing.


Yes, Daley is the wrong man with the wrong resume. However, he does seem to have a great deal more experience than EVERYONE else in Obama's White House.


EXPERIENCE??? I thought the liberals said that experience didn't matter.


And yet, Daley is coming in for ONE REASON - EXPERIENCE.

That confirms that Obama does NOT know what he is doing.


The key is to find the RIGHT GUY with the RIGHT EXPERIENCE.


NOT THE wrong guy with the right experience.


Life is HARDER than you think - governing is harder than you think.


Meanwhile - Greg and the liberals are PERFECTLY HAPPY while the nation sits around POORLY GOVERNED, while the liberals figure this all out.


These are NOT the times for on-the-job training.


HOWEVER, the liberals have HIJACKED the government - and as this lame duck session proves - the liberals are holding onto every lit bit FOR AS LONG AS THEY CAN.


DRAGGING the nation down the whole time.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 8:29 PM | Report abuse

"re debt ceiling...Yglesias argues that Obama has no reason to negotiate with Republicans on the debt ceiling because they aren't going to follow through on the bluff (too many establishment types in the party understand that the results will unleash the havoc puppies). And Matt is right. The furious noise from DeMint and Bachmann and the rest is just noise."

Major Garrett at National Journal (and previously at FOX News, he hissed) has an interesting take on whether those establishment types can reign in the crazy TP caucus. He writes:

"On the debt-limit vote, Boehner and his team watched with dismay as Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania said they might not support raising the ceiling. Skepticism runs deep in the Republican Caucus about the economic imperative to raise the ceiling above its current $14.3 trillion limit, and Cantor said that the GOP leadership will use a series of votes, including the health care repeal maneuver next week, to build support for the debt vote. The theory is this: If freshman Republicans, full of the animal spirits of the midterm elections, can take a whack at health care and get several spending-cut votes under their belt by the time the debt vote rolls around, they might be in a more malleable mood…

If House Republicans begin to walk away from big spending cuts, dissension could brew immediately, weakening the GOP before the debt vote and diminishing its ability to extract, or even credibly negotiate, a meeting of the minds with the White House on structural budget reforms or agreed-upon spending cuts. A deal with Obama on cuts would give the GOP a real accomplishment, as opposed to ephemeral victories on the House floor that die in the Senate and never make it to the president’s desk."

I don't think it's as much of a given as juicebox, er, Yglesias thinks. Of course, Speaker Boehner really only needs 25 Republicans to vote for the debt limit increase (assuming all the Democrats vote to increase the limit), so he may have enough establishment Republicans to get him over the top.

I wonder though, if any of those establishment Repbulicans (and remaining BlueDogs) might think about a Primary challenge after a vote like that, particularly if they don't wring any concessions out of The White House (you're welcome Fiona)?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/boehner-a-politican-s-politician-20110106

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 7, 2011 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Im sorry

But the liberals have turned politicals into such a circus - full of name-calling, deceptions and lies -


WHAT is the point??? The liberals are NOT helping the nation. Surely they must realize this.


Are they all insane? Are they that out-of-touch with reality???

The first objective is REPRESENT THE PEOPLE


Are the liberals doing that? NO


The second objective is GOOD GOVERNING


Are the liberals doing that? NO

All the liberals are doing is DRAGGING DOWN THE ECONOMY. SIMPLE


Case closed.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

"I read Plutarch on the toilet."

Never again will I say shrink2 is without redeeming qualities.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 7, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Girly Man? Obama is the one running from a fight


And a fight - the guy just said he was challenging Obama to a fight -


AND that means the Secret Service should show up??? This guy Obama is a JOKE


http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=AkPS94eW5I.6m1uc2HBwXPFzfNdF?slug=mmaweekly-b0eb628c4e352ae5a67151dca2a17281

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Brigade and I'm diving back in based upon that exchange. Not about hot button stuff. I want to know why the conditions were set so that they could not find some way to keep fighting, but skip the war. Scott struck a chord when he said the parties were resigned to what they had to do. Sure, that idea, resigned, has been used as a pretext forever, but I think these people really did not want to do what they did. They were sure that they had to. It wasn't some ethnic cleansing thing, no clash of civilizations, they negotiated themselves into war. It might have been in the Constitution. They might have gone to war over the 3/5 clause.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

qb, if you have a copy, you know what I mean. Open it at any page, read....pretty soon...time does not matter.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse

'Well, we know to what "other blog/message board" noacoler (caothien9) moved.'


and we also know where moonbat moved.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 7, 2011 9:13 PM | Report abuse

fiona

We know you are here, writing nasty things all the time


_________________________________

Nancy Pelosi - after 5 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt says she was trying to reduce the deficit the whole time.

What a laugh - if only the nation didnt have to pay the bill, it would actually be funny.


The DEMOCRATS should have to pay this bill - make them pay it. Record the list of REGISTERED DEMOCRATS and send them a bill every month, for the rest of their lives.


Make the democrats pay off Pelosi's debt and Obama's debt -


SEND them a bill EVERY MONTH.

You will see the democrats become fiscal conservative REAL FAST if they actually have to write a check every month TO PAY OFF OBAMA'S DEBT.


That is GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Brigade and I'm diving back in based upon that exchange. Not about hot button stuff. I want to know why the conditions were set so that they could not find some way to keep fighting, but skip the war. Scott struck a chord when he said the parties were resigned to what they had to do. Sure, that idea, resigned, has been used as a pretext forever, but I think these people really did not want to do what they did. They were sure that they had to. It wasn't some ethnic cleansing thing, no clash of civilizations, they negotiated themselves into war. It might have been in the Constitution. They might have gone to war over the 3/5 clause.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2011 8:49 PM
-------

I'll try to keep up with you guys.
I was raised by my grandparents; my grandfather's dad and a couple of his uncles were Civil War veterans (Union army), so he always had some secondhand stories to tell a young lad like me. I don't remember him focusing too much on the politics. I know the family lived in Missouri at the outbreak of the War, in an area that was such a hotbed of contention that they had to hightail it in the middle of the night.

My great-grandfather had recounted once hiding under a church with an arm wound and seeing some Confederate soldiers pass, one of whom had been his friend and neighbor on a Missouri farm before the war. He never revealed his presence because he didn't know what sort of reaction he'd get. His older brother was born somewhere in East Tennessee before the family moved to Missouri and his mother was originally from South Carolina. I don't recall how or why (if I ever heard) they sided with the Union, but I guess his mother and stepdad (father deceased) were active in the underground railroad in southern Iowa.

I'm not much of a Civil War historian myself, but I'm always interested.

Posted by: Brigade | January 7, 2011 9:28 PM | Report abuse

and we also know where moonbat moved.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 7, 2011 9:13 PM
-------

I don't know about that. He's the one the Fixistas all refer to as Zouk. I think 12BarBlues said she saw him hanging around the Fix again recently. I don't think he's lurking here; like cao, his style is fairly distinctive. If you're insinutating that I'm him, you're mistaken, but I was accused of it several times when I first started posting at the Fix. Some there seemed under the impression that there was only one conservative in the world---who just used many different monikers.

Posted by: Brigade | January 7, 2011 9:34 PM | Report abuse

As Obama sides with the big bankers in the financial crisis......

The Massachusetts High Court issued a ruling against the big banks....


Legal experts said the Massachusetts court rejected the most often-cited legal arguments the securitization industry has been making to reassure investors and the public that everything is okay.

__________________

That means we have ANOTHER financial crisis coming.


AND as I have said multiple times on these blogs OBAMA REFUSES TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES AT FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC.


Perhaps that Obama is concerned that too many DEMOCRATS would get caught up in the scandal.


It has recently been published that RAHM EMANUAL WAS A BOARD MEMBER AT FREDDIE MAC OR FANNIE MAE.

The truth is the Subprime Mortgage Crisis is a democratic SCANDAL - the Clinton people put this subprime program into effect. And they ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


Andrew Cuomo was at HUD at the time - as was Gillibrand - IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT.

These people are STILL winning elections - if you CAN BELIEVE THAT.


Seriously, you cant make this stuff up. If this was a movie script, it would have been rejected because no one would believe it.


Obama STILL HAS REFUSED TO ADDRESS THE MOST PRESSING ECONOMIC ISSUES.


And this is 2 years Obama has WASTED.


Obama is completely lacking in ANY ECONOMIC DIRECTION AT ALL.


Obama has spent the whole last two years on a LIBERAL AGENDA


Even the lame duck session was all about the LIBERAL AGENDA - NOT ABOUT FIXING THE ECONOMIC.


It is A PATHETIC PERFORMANCE


Obama should be fired.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Here is the thing. The only way we can stop blaming each other for these things is if we stop making ourselves believe that forces greater than ourselves make us do things we know are wrong. When terrorists say they are acting on principle, we know better.

This war did not happen because both sides were spoiling for it, looking for a pretext. It was not caused by Buchanan bungling, it was not a series of misunderstandings.

This was a war that was written into our Constitution and everyone knew that. But they would not look at the possibility of changing that fact, so they fought over it and fought over it and finally, they fought over it. I want to find out why the elephant in the room, the 3/5 clause in the Constitution, was non-negotiable, from the beginning to the end.

We think we understand why it went into the Constitution, I don't think we understand why it could not have been understood to be the poison pill that it was. People could have gotten together and said, hey, if we fight over every new state as free or enslaved, we are going to have a terrible war.

So I want to study the 3/5 and see whether the way that happened was well negotiated and specifically, how Thomas Jefferson thought about it, the role he played.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2011 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Incredible how much trouble Massachusetts is giving Obama

Which is supposed to be a liberal state.

I suspect the media is lying to us about Obama's true support - and I believe that support for Obama is really much lower than is being reported.

How does Obama have so much trouble in Massachusetts?


WE ARE BEING LIED TO.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Shrink

YOU are getting a BILL for Obama

A monthly bill


And YOU have to pay it


The Republicans should be off the hook


That is the way it is GOING TO BE. So, you can stop all this stuff. Nancy Pelosi ran up a 5 Trillion Dollar debt and STILL this week was talking about deficit reduction being her top priority.


WHAT PLANET IS SHE ON?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Shrink

YOU are getting a BILL for Obama

A monthly bill


And YOU have to pay it


The Republicans should be off the hook


That is the way it is GOING TO BE. So, you can stop all this stuff. Nancy Pelosi ran up a 5 Trillion Dollar debt and STILL this week was talking about deficit reduction being her top priority.


WHAT PLANET IS SHE ON?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 10:19 PM | Report abuse

The CBO numbers


These are the same numbers which said that health insurance premiums were supposed to go DOWN this year, right?


Even the DNC is running from that one.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Yea, it is becoming completely ridiculous to try to talk sense into the liberals.


They continue to fail to recognize reality.


The liberals are out-of-touch.


The ECONOMY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE. Instead, all we have heard for the past two months from the liberals is whining about the liberal agenda. THE LAME DUCK SESSION OF THE DEMOCRATS DID NOTHING FOR THE ECONOMY.


What a disgrace.


The democrats let down the country again - and again the liberals PROVED they dont care about the country, and dont care about the Economy - they only care about satisfying the special interests in their liberal coalition.


It is pathetic.

The lame duck session PROVED the democrats are unfit to govern.


Can you BELIEVE THE DEMOCRATS, IN THEIR LAST CHANCE, DID NOTHING FOR THE ECONOMY... AGAIN????


All they cared about was the liberal agenda.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

I would have taken you for a descendant of Robert E. Lee


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 10:28 PM | Report abuse

LET US BE CLEAR ABOUT THE 3/5 CLAUSE


The South wanted them counted as whole persons.


It was the NORTH which wanted them counted NOT AT ALL, or less than one.


The 3/5 was a compromise.


So, the South actually had LESS Congressman than if they had counted everyone fully.

There is a MASSIVE MISUNDERSTANDING HERE. This is something to be upset with the RACISTS IN THE NORTH ABOUT.


The South is FULLY IN THE CLEAR on this issue.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Shrink

Jefferson was in Paris during the Constitutional Convention - he really was not there.

Jefferson would have represented Virginia - and he would have been in favor o counting all persons as WHOLE.


The 3/5 Compromise worked against the South.


As the population in the North grew, perhaps there could have been room for changing that provision.

However, the balance in the Senate was how they did maintained the balance. One has to remember that the Southern States had alot of money - and as you know in today's Washington - various interests with money tend to spread that money around.


So - the Southern interests tended to have extremely well funded lobbyists - if you can understand that. The border states in particular maintained this kind of loyalty.

Maryland was a slave state - and there was much loyalty to the South there.


It is important to realize as well that the Supreme Court was really a Southern institution - and it mattered just as it does today.

The South maintained a majority on the Supreme Court - and was able to influence the nomination and confirmation process in a way that maintained their influence.


Hence the Dred Scott decision went the way it did. When that decision could have been a vehicle for finding a compromise - instead the Southern interests sought to establish certain principles which instead of compromise, led to enraging the nation.


People tend to be confused because Taney was from Maryland - and they forget that Maryland had Southern loyalties.


So, with the balance maintained in the Senate, one must remember that the South had built up the Supreme Court as its bastion of power.


I still don't understand - that maintaining the balance in the Senate - why the South was not willing to wait out a Lincoln Presidency - unite the democratic party and focus on the 1864 election.

That would have saved a great deal of lives.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia

"If the two races were allowed to co-exist in free relation, the thousand recollections, by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained...will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions that will probably never end but in the extermination of one or the other race...When I reflect, that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever...The Almighty has no attribute which can take sides with us in such a contest."

So said the slaveholder and 'lover' of his own slave woman property.

Still looking for the source of the 3/5 compromise. We have learned that it had to be that way in the Constitution or something really bad would have to happen. That is probably true.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 7, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

3/5 Compromise

Actually reduced the votes of the South in the Electoral College - it would be interesting to go back, and re-calculate those numbers if everyone had been counted whole.


In addition, it is fair to point out that the 3/5 compromise involved taxation, as much as representation.

In those days, the States were apportioned taxes on population. So the 3/5 compromise raised the Southern tax bill - because the original taxes were counted on free persons only.

If it were whole persons, the South would have had even higher taxes.

This is all before the Federal income tax.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Shrink

The 3/5 Compromise may have started as a compromise over taxation in the Articles of Confederation.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 11:07 PM | Report abuse

It would have been interesting - if the election of Lincoln could have been re-calculated had the 3/5 Compromise not been in effect and everyone was counted as whole persons.

The South would have had additional electoral votes - more strength.


It is impossible to completely re-play it because had those votes been there, the democrats may have acted differently.


It is interesting to note that the history books like to portray the South as having ADDITIONAL votes COMPARED TO not counting the slaves AT ALL.


The reality is the electoral strength of the South was LOWERED BY NOT COUNTING THEM.


Spin is unbelievable sometimes.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 11:23 PM | Report abuse

A few points left over from the Morning Plum thread

(1) Paid Trolls

Why would conservatives do a cost-benefit analysis before engaging hired (paid or voluntary) trolls to flood the blogs with right-wing positions? Recall and conservatives are (a) stupid and (b) obsessed with manipulating perceptions. They have email networks to send their flying monkeys to online polls, they screw with online ratings like Amazon, and have you ever been on a political blog where at least some of the conservative posters didn't actively try to marginalize the effective liberal posters by repeatedly mischaracterizing their positions? Look at QB on here with his "dictator" and "mass murderer" routine. Never seen this before, huh? Come on.

Of course there's organized manipulation.

(2) The Civil War was not about slavery, that was in-cid-den-tal, the Civil War was in response to the secession of the south, and the secession was about more than slavery.

(3) Slavery would not have continued. The reason was not moral; the rest of the world had reached the moral argument two decades before. If ending slavery depended on morality we would still have it, as to some extent we do, only we don't call it that. Republican still seek to create conditions where workers can be intimidated into working for inadequate pay and to deprive labor of negotiating power.

No, slavery would have ended soon anyway because of its cost. Slaves had to be fed when there wasn't any work for them to do, no cotton to harvest, while machines cost nothing when not operating and the machine realm was growing fast.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 7, 2011 11:42 PM | Report abuse

'Well, we know to what "other blog/message board" noacoler (caothien9) moved.'

and we also know where moonbat moved.

==

Is that from Brigade? He's STILL writing about me?

Talk about obsessed. Hey, Brigade, go find a hobby, or get laid, or something. This is getting unhealthy.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 7, 2011 11:45 PM | Report abuse

It would have been interesting - if the election of Lincoln could have been re-calculated had the 3/5 Compromise not been in effect and everyone was counted as whole persons.

The South would have had additional electoral votes - more strength.


It is impossible to completely re-play it because had those votes been there, the democrats may have acted differently.


It is interesting to note that the history books like to portray the South as having ADDITIONAL votes COMPARED TO not counting the slaves AT ALL.


The reality is the electoral strength of the South was LOWERED BY NOT COUNTING THEM.


Spin is unbelievable sometimes.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 11:46 PM | Report abuse

It would have been interesting - if the election of Lincoln could have been re-calculated had the 3/5 Compromise not been in effect and everyone was counted as whole persons.

The South would have had additional electoral votes - more strength.


It is impossible to completely re-play it because had those votes been there, the democrats may have acted differently.


It is interesting to note that the history books like to portray the South as having ADDITIONAL votes COMPARED TO not counting the slaves AT ALL.


The reality is the electoral strength of the South was LOWERED BY NOT COUNTING THEM.


Spin is unbelievable sometimes.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Cao

I wish they could ban you - Chris Cillizza has banned you dozens of times.


The "paid troll" problem started with the Obama campaign - hiring people in shifts to push Obama's garbage like DRUG DEALERS.


Now that most of that garbage has been PROVEN to be just that - a bunch of deceptions and lies - the liberals simply will not stop.


The liberals have hijacked the government - and they are intent on completely destroying the economy until they are all voted out of office.


However - the truth is that the Obama campaign had the PAID TROLLS - and they paid people to HARASS PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET.


These PAID TROLLS WERE LOCATED IN A BUILDING AT THE CORNER OF MICHIGAN AVE AND WACKER IN CHICAGO, IL at


233 N. Michigan Ave., Corner of Wacker, Chicago, IL


THAT IS WHERE OBAMA HAD HIS PAID TROLLS


So, can we all stop this garbage?

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 7, 2011 11:55 PM | Report abuse

I am so far gone, I read Plutarch on the toilet.

==

I think we could get seriously competitive here one-upping what we regard as recreational reading.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 12:04 AM | Report abuse

shrink:

“Scott, have you read Ian Kershaw's books?”

No, but just looked them up and seems like I should.

lms:

“Our daughter spent an afternoon at Omaha beach in September and visited the Cemetery and reflection pool in Normandy and was very moved. “

I did a couple of days in Normandy back when I lived in the UK, including the beaches and the American Cemetery, which was moving indeed. My favorite place, however, was Pointe du Hoc. Quite an amazing place.

“My dad flew in support of Patton chasing the Germans all the way, you'd love his diary and photos and one of his best friends, Rick Nelson, was the radio man on the Enola Gay.”

Funny, I just watched a documentary the other day about Hiroshima, and they interviewed the crew of the Enola Gay. Perhaps he was in the film.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 8, 2011 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Scott

I don't know if he was in the one you saw or not. He died about 10 years ago. I've seen several different documentaries etc. but haven't seen him interviewed, although I know he traveled the speaking circuit for quite a few years. His wife and my mother were great friends and she still lives here about 15 miles from us in Riverside. He and my Dad went to high school together. If memory serves he was the youngest crew member.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 8, 2011 12:25 AM | Report abuse

cao:

"the secession was about more than slavery."

Not really. Read the Declaration of Causes for Secession issued by several of the seceding states at the time. They are entirely infused with references to slavery.

Consider the first paragraph from the Georgia declaration:

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic...A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia."

Or, consider this from the Mississippi declaration:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

Or consider the fact that all of the seceding states referred to themselves collectively as "slave-holding states" and were attempting to justify their severing their relationship with what they called the "non-slave holding states".

There is simply no question that slavery was THE issue that drove the secession movement.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 8, 2011 12:48 AM | Report abuse

Search on the web "Wise Health Insurance" if you have a condition such as high blood pressure, asthma, diabetes, cancer, depression or have had an injury, like a broken leg and need health Insurance NOW.

Posted by: jeremytaylore | January 8, 2011 2:57 AM | Report abuse

Those who regard the Constitution as some final and unimpeachable authority should ponder that the Civil War, pitting not only state against state but neighbor against neighborm, brother against brother, was very much a "correction" of earlier writing.

The idea that there is any controversy to the fact of Constitutional interpretation is, well, bizarre. That's what the higher court system *is*.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 3:33 AM | Report abuse

cao:

"the secession was about more than slavery."

Not really. Read the Declaration of Causes for Secession issued by several of the seceding states at the time. They are entirely infused with references to slavery.

. . .

There is simply no question that slavery was THE issue that drove the secession movement.


Posted by: ScottC3 | January 8, 2011 12:48 AM

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

Your thoughtful research and analysis is lost on a grabastic buffoon like cao; he pictures himself as an expert on even matters he clearly knows nothing about.

Golden oldies:

---

"Folks,

Just wanted to let you know that I am well aware that some of the people we have banned for bad behavior are back under different names.

I have checked with our IT people and aside from banning people by username AND IP address there isn't much else we can do.

If someone is committed to commenting -- and disrupting -- the only way we as a community can truly stop it is by a) ignoring them and/or b) shaming them into better behavior.

I continue to be amazed by the fact that these people, who profess to hate me and the blog so virulently, go to such lengths to ensure they can keep returning to the blog.

Thanks to everyone who is working hard to abide by the rules and make the comments section a worthwhile endeavor.

Thanks,
Chris"

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | January 7, 2010 11:46 AM

---

Once again, Noacoler is BANNED poster Seattle Top / GoldAndTanzanite / Chris Fox. Our gracious host, Mr. Cillizza, asked us (at 11:46 AM) that we ignore or shame him for repeatedly coming back after being banned.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 6:58 PM

---

Some things never change.

Posted by: Brigade | January 8, 2011 3:45 AM | Report abuse

The market rates may have gone down, or remained the same. For the homeowner to get qualified for lower rates, there are certain prerequisites but I would recommend you search online for "123 Mortgage Refinance" before you decide because they can find the 3% refinance rates.

Posted by: pamelakuo08 | January 8, 2011 4:05 AM | Report abuse

Shrink:

I have some familiarity with the 3/5 Clause in the Constitution. This was the thinking. By 1789 slavery was already a moral repugnance in much of the world. Even Southerners were sheepish about defending slavery and largely thought it was wrong. The Founders, including the Southerners like Jefferson, thought that slavery would fade out of existence for purely economic reasons. The Colonies were largely agrarian and slave labor was less cost-effective than free labor in the developing colonies. The importation of slaves was curtailed by international convention and slavery did decline in the U.S., particularly in in Tidewater Virginia, to the point that Virginia began "exporting" its slaves to Kentucky and the Deep South. The cotton gin was invented and for a time it appeared that slavery in the U.S. would die out. But then new developments in sugar cane and the rise of the Tidewater tobacco industry made slaves more valuable than ever. The Southerners began defending slavery ever more vociferously and that was the end of the hope for slavery dying out naturally.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 8, 2011 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca:

Point taken.

See y'all down the road apiece.

Green in 2012! (They're good for you!)

Posted by: wbgonne | January 8, 2011 7:35 AM | Report abuse

P.S.

"It’s a vivid demonstration of the lack of oxygen in the Village’s intellectual bubble that when the Obama administration pursues a centrist/corporatist strategy from the outset, and encounters severe political setbacks… the only acceptable solution is to pursue an even more centrist/corporatist strategy, which is promptly heralded as not just a substantial change, but even a breath of fresh air."

http://firedoglake.com/

Posted by: wbgonne | January 8, 2011 8:00 AM | Report abuse

And in a related development:

"Number Who Identify as Democrats Down Big in 2010"

http://firedoglake.com/

Heckuva a job, Obie.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 8, 2011 8:02 AM | Report abuse

I have some technical questions for someone who has relevant knowledge.

1) does each computer or device connected to the web have its own IP address?
2) is it not possible for a site like this one to block access by a particular IP address?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 8, 2011 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Arguing how and when slavery would have ended had there not been a Civil War won't make us any smarter, there is just no way to know. No one said it wasn't still profitable, obviously, or no one would have defended it. The question I am trying to research was the origin of the 3/5 clause, who was it exactly, who decided that particular language had to be in the Constitution. We know TJ had a hand in it. Near as I can tell so far, he was the author of it and but I want to know why. Is it really true the slave holders would not have signed on had that not been in there, or was it Jefferson more or less saying so?

There sure is a lot of lore floating around in this regard and not much original source material. For example, yesterday someone said it was "not new" that it was in the Articles of Confederation, but in them, there is no mention of slavery at all, let alone the 3/5 clause.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 8, 2011 8:32 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: IP to PC mapping is unreliable

(1) many PCs have volatile IP addresses, it can change literally every few minutes.

(2) a single IP can represent hundreds or potentially millions of PCs (more than hundreds, unlikely). Everyone getting online through a corporate proxy server can show as the same IP.

Now MAC address, that IS unique, but it's not usually uploaded.

Here in VN the government blocks FaceBook, I get on through a public proxy server. And as far as this site goes, I have a different IP about fifty times a day.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 8:33 AM | Report abuse

"Number Who Identify as Democrats Down Big in 2010"

==

That might actually matter if the Republicans weren't going to nominate a freaking wild-eyed nutjob in 2012.

But they are.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Bernie, I never bother to look anymore (thanks again Kevin), but I just looked at the troll counter (24). That must discourage a lot of people who drop in for the first time or people who come and go and don't know about Kevin's script.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 8, 2011 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Colonel Kurtz said:

"and have you ever been on a political blog where at least some of the conservative posters didn't actively try to marginalize the effective liberal posters by repeatedly mischaracterizing their positions? Look at QB on here with his "dictator" and "mass murderer" routine. Never seen this before, huh? Come on."

Irony alert. Do we really need to assumble a few of your explicit endorsements of mass murder? Everyone here has already seen them. I haven't mischaracterized you or anyone else. Nor do we see other conservative regulars who do. The shoe is almost always on the other foot.

Take you, for example, Colonel Kurtz. Virtually every comment of yours mischaracterizes conservative positions, usually in ludicrously hyperbolic or wildly fictional terms. Even your pedestrian lies are big ones, like when you recently portrayed me as a Rand follower.

You are clearly one of the most dishonest of the 6 billion people on the planet, but in this case I think it's safe to say your lies are equally a function of ignorance, indolence, and plain indifference to the truth. You're beyond caring about truth versus lies, just like you are beyond good and evil . . . in your own foul mind.


Greg, here's the question again. Why is Colonel Kurtz aka caothien still here?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 8, 2011 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Kinda funny that Democrats and Republicans both suffer from the same problem but it bites them in different ways. Both hang around with too many like themselves .. Democrats hang around fellow educated people, Republicans hang around fellow uneducated rednecks. Advantage Republican since there are more uneducated people in the USA than educated people who can Do Nuance.

It would be a LOT harder for Republicans to appeal to the educated than for Democrats to come up with a simple compelling message that average people can grasp. Forget rednecks, of course, but who needs'em if you can get the middle.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 8:43 AM | Report abuse

@cao - Thanks. But what of those cases where a particular computer in a particular office or home is able to be determined?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 8, 2011 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Between 37th spew and Brigade machine-gun posts and a few others who've established themselves as below the intellectual salt, my Troll Hunter count is usually close to half the total posts.

New arrivals could handle terminally dull-witted posters like clawrence and clockwork automata like quarterback but 37th and Brigade are pretty repellent. Probably driving away a lot of drive-bys who might end up worth reading.

Really have to wonder what motivates a 37th (RFR). I mean *nobody* reads him, *nobody*

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 8:49 AM | Report abuse

"Is it really true the slave holders would not have signed on had that not been in there"

Yes. That is absolutely true. The Articles of Confed did not address slavery b/c the Southern colonies refused to even debate the issue. James Wilson proposed the 3/5 Clause but the Framers of the Const thought the slavery problem would resolve itself as slavery became increasingly inefficient and uneconomical.

I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for but one of the best books on the Constitution is Akhil Reed Amar's "America's Constitution." Slavery is discussed in numerous places but the history of the 3/5 Clause is addressed specifically at pp. 88-98. Another very good book on the Const is: "Miracle at Philadelphia" by Catherine Bowen.

Hope that helps.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 8, 2011 8:55 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: that is probably true in most cases .. when I was on Comcast I had the same IP for like two years.

Cillizza had me blocked on The Fix for calling out racists but it never took me more than like two minutes to get around it, as long I felt like posting there. But his own blog entries are pure drivel, very low quality, quite unlike here, and I moved on from there long ago. He has some new system now for The Fix alone but it seems to be most twitter people repeating the column title. Dishwater dull.

What you're talking about are "static IPs," and they are probably the rule in most of the USA. Of course, many homes have routers which give every PC / iTouch / etc in the house it's own class C address (192.168.1.XXX) but to the outside world they are all the same IP.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Cao:

“the Civil War…was very much a "correction" of earlier writing. “

I don’t think so. Rather, it was an assertion that the constitution was an eternally binding contract that could not be legitimately broken. The “corrections” came after the war, in the form of amendments, the very method by which the constitution is supposed to be “corrected”.

“The idea that there is any controversy to the fact of Constitutional interpretation is, well, bizarre.”

Indeed, which is why there is no controversy about it. The controversy is over the method used to interpret it. Should the interpreter try to figure out what the writers intended it to mean, or should the interpreter try to figure out what the interpreter wants it to mean? That is the issue.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 8, 2011 9:01 AM | Report abuse

"Number Who Identify as Democrats Down Big in 2010"

==

That might actually matter if the Republicans weren't going to nominate a freaking wild-eyed nutjob in 2012. But they are.

cao:

Maybe. I still think it most likely that the GOP will nominate an obscure governor. But unless it's Palin I don't think the Dems can count on winning through anti-GOP voting. Look how crazy the GOP has been for the past 2 years and they are winning handily.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 8, 2011 9:02 AM | Report abuse

I recall that the southern states were adamant about retaining slavery, uneconomical or not, and were writing all kinds of junk about the threat to the virtue of white women if blacks were freed.

Classic case of people who know they;re wrong doubling down instead of admitting their mistakes. See Bush, George W, and Occupation, Israeli.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 9:04 AM | Report abuse

"but 37th and Brigade are pretty repellent."

Come on, Greg, what keeps this guy in your good graces? He is making a mockery of your blog. Really. It's hard to explain at this point as other than intetionally making a mockery of it.

He's a poster who spends most of his time spewing hate and vitriol, calling people vulgar names, and calling for mass imprisonment and murder of conservatives and captialists. The rest he spends talking about how repellent conservative "trolls" are.

Yet you welcome him as a valued commenter. He's making a fool of you, and your own credibility is being shredded. Why is he still here while Bilgeman and Jake aren't?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 8, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

@cao and Ims... yes, it is the blog commentary as seen by new-comers which represents the problem (given the "troll-hunter" program we regulars have to put trolls on 'ignore'). Who'd want to bother?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 8, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Sorry wbg but Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, John Thune .. no. Not going to win against Obama. They're going to nominate someone to energize the base, you know it, their only alternatives are candidates who will have ten million hands reaching for the remote at the same moment.

Their sanest chance is Romney but they don't "do" sane and the base won't go for him.

Besides, though socialists like me are disgusted with Obama, if there is any notable job recovery the GOP will do like Bob Dole at best.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Joshua Holland has a pretty good view of the Nov. election and all the talk about the Republicans responding to the "will of the people". While the ranks of the Independents swell, do either the R's or D's realize what's happening to their parties? Most people I talk to are pretty much just disgusted with politicians, period.

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

"Despite the fact that it was entirely predictable -- one has had plenty of time to prepare oneself for the sanctimony -- the triumphalism coming from the newly ascendant GOP leadership is still stunningly annoying. You can't swing a dead donkey these days without hitting some Tea Partier newcomer to DC saying that the "American people have spoken," or that "the people sent a clear message that they want to do away with Obama-care."

But here's a memo from the real world: according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations*, 21.6 percent of eligible voters cast ballots for the GOP in 2010. Yes, a bit more than a fifth. Contrast that with 18.6 percent of those eligible to vote who "sent a message to Washington" favoring the Dems.

So, among the 41.6 percent who got off their butts and went to the polls, the GOP's spread was 3 percentage points: 21.6 to 18.6 percent.

For reference, Obama won with the support of 32.6 percent of eligible voters in 2008.

Another 1.5 percent cast votes for various third-party and independent candidates, "sending the message" that they didn't think much of either parties. If you add in the 58 percent who just stayed home, then you have the biggest group of Americans by far -- those who didn't think their vote would make a difference either way (that's the most commonly cited reason for not voting).

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/428573/gop_has_no_mandate_on_health-care_repeal%2C_taxes%2C_spending_or_anything_else/#paragraph4

Posted by: lmsinca | January 8, 2011 9:11 AM | Report abuse

quarterback, you whine like a little girl. You have no more audience for this banning demand than RFR has for whatever he's screaming lately. Don't like what I post then put me on TH or find somewhere else to surf.

Or you could think about, you know, growing a pair.

But you won't, of course, because you sit there hitting refresh nonstop waiting for my next post, loyal like the presidenf of a fan club.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 9:17 AM | Report abuse

All, a fresh open thread for you:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/open_thread_14.html

if anyone feels like reposting this morning's comments in the new thread, go for it...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 8, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse

"The controversy is over the method used to interpret it. Should the interpreter try to figure out what the writers intended it to mean, or should the interpreter try to figure out what the interpreter wants it to mean? That is the issue."

Not quite. That is the Conservative spin on the "controversy."

The search for Original Intent is largely ephemeral. Whose intent and whose understanding? The person who drafted the original language? The Committee that revised it? Those who voted for the Draft Constitution? Or, most of all, what the people in the states thought when the states ratified it?

The salient question when one is considering Original Intent is how the Framers' would apply the Const provisions in the face of present circumstances. That, of course, is unknowable so the Drafters built flexibility into the Const so that future generations could adapt it to meet their needs. That is the definition of a constitution as opposed to a legal code.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 8, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

@cao - I've not bothered attending to The Fix as I'm not a fan of Cilizza's analyses/commentary.

Greg has said at various points that his operation would try to get on top of the situation but either the necessary manpower isn't available (that's probably a certainty) and/or there is some lack of will or methodology to actually remove these individuals.

RFR and Brigade have disruption of discussion as their intent and they are a purposefully destructive influence. But the WP really needs to get a handle on this or commentary here and everywhere else is at risk. I'm very close to the end of my patience but I'd much rather we could figure some way to resolve this so that discussions aren't effectively destroyed.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 8, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Cao

How you can lack all self-awareness is amazing.

You have caused the level of discourse on these blogs to fall significantly.

The Obama paid trolls - now represented by Organizing for America - and a few others STILL on this site paid for by other groups - do not add anything of VALUE to this site.


Everyone knows what set of deceptions and lies Obama is trying everyday (some call it spin)

So there is little need for them to start to argue and take on an attitude about their lies.


What is my motivation? I am sick of this people???


The truth has to come out.

These people are DESTROYING THE ECONOMY


And they think they are helping someone, somewhere.


It doesn't matter how much these liberals give away, EVERYONE is better off in the end, when all the taxes and debt gets added up over the years - everyone is worse off - even the people that the liberals think they are supposedly helping.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 8, 2011 9:23 AM | Report abuse

thanks wb, I have to see original sources in this regard, who exactly said what to whom, what threats versus deals were made in what sequence...how the failed vote for the compromise went down for the AoC...I'm into James Madison's letters in 1783 right now. Amazing stuff, talking of his own slave, the slave tax in relation to the price of tobacco...

Posted by: shrink2 | January 8, 2011 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Ari Berman (Herding Donkeys), someone who is concerned re the future of the Democratic party, has a few words to say about Obama's pick for COS. I haven't said much about this because I know a lot of people, some progressives even, seem to think this pick works. I thought it was all about re-election pure and simple, obviously Obama's main concern, but I think we should know who we're getting.

Hopefully, we'll have some clues after the State of the Union, from Obama himself, about which direction we're going. I've heard he's given explicit orders to his economic team to figure out a way to end the unemployment crisis and get the economy into over-drive. Good luck.

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

"Daley, brother of outgoing Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, was Commerce Secretary under Bill Clinton, the chief architect of NAFTA, chairman of Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, a top adviser/fundraiser for the Obama campaign and, most recently, Midwest chairman of JP Morgan Chase. He shares the corporate centrism of Emanuel and, when it comes to economic issues, may be worse. AFL-CIO head John Sweeney once said that Daley stood “squarely on the opposite side of working families.”

Daley lobbied for telecommunications giant SBC, publicly chided the Obama administration for pursuing healthcare reform (he serves on the board of drugmaker Merck), advised the Chamber of Commerce on Wall Street regulation (they wanted less of it) and reportedly urged Obama’s team to drop the most popular provision of the financial reform bill—the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. When Daley joined the board of the corporate-aligned Democratic group Third Way in July 2010, board chairman John Vogelstein said that Daley’s tasks would include “reforming entitlements”—a clever code word for cutting Social Security and Medicare."

http://www.alternet.org/story/149436/here_we_go_again%3A_obama_picks_big_bank%2C_big_telecom%2C_and_big_pharma_lobbyist_to_be_chief_of_staff/

Posted by: lmsinca | January 8, 2011 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Bernie (to cao):

"yes, it is the blog commentary as seen by new-comers which represents the problem"

and:

"RFR and Brigade have disruption of discussion as their intent and they are a purposefully destructive influence."

I just want to be clear...it is your judgment that RFR and Brigade are "destructive influences" here, but cao is not? Seriously?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 8, 2011 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Every now and then I clear TH and glimpse at the blocked people. Then restore the blocks.

RFR is, well, mental. Nobody could stand to be as repetetitive and frantic as he is were he firing on all cylinders. About as worthy of study as the variantion in the width of sidewalk blocks. Nobody reads him.

But Brigade is another matter. He's so shockingly vulgar, all the stuff about fellatio and the blatant racism, he's bent into two halves with hate. Probably gonna be on the evening news sometime .. funny thing is long ago there would be rare occasions, really REALLY rare, when he would do a reasonably intelligent and original post .. usually when we were in thread drift mode and on nonpopolitical topics.

But most of the time he's clearly out to shock, like some 10th grader who sees a shrink three times a week and gets is always trying to see how much he can get away with before it happens again.

Hadn't realized JakeD had been on here and banned. That speaks well of Greg. Cillizza just loved the guy until he started getting merely disruptive.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, the liberal rhetoric about the 3/5 Compromise has caused some misunderstandings.

Par for the course, right?

Originally, the 3/5 Compromise was all about taxation. It really was not an affront to blacks.

There was no Federal income tax. The States paid the Federal government based on population.

So the question became - free population or total population? Hence, the North wanted the South to PAY more, so all South would have paid more if everyone was counted whole.

The REPRESENTATION then came into the discussion. Congressional Representation and Electoral Votes became linked to the 3/5 formula as well.

On Representation, the South actually wanted to count ALL the people - however the North would see the advantage in counting NONE of the slaves at all.

______________________


The Election of Lincoln

Ironically, if the South had more Electorial Votes, things would have turned out differently.


They say that the split in the democratic party did not actually cause the election of Lincoln.

However, if the South had counted everyone whole - the resulting increase in Electoral Votes just may have affected the Election of Lincoln - the CALCULATIONS within the democratic party would have been radically different.


Breckenridge got the second-most Electoral Votes, even though Douglas had the second-most popular votes - we all understand that now.

However, if the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, Douglas would have been excluded because the top 3 go to the House.

Remember, the House of Representatives as elected in 1858 would have taken the vote - with one vote PER STATE.


It is all speculation.


________________


What I don't get it is this - the South had half the Senate and the Supreme Court - why was the election of Lincoln such a big deal? Why couldn't they just wait it out???


Anyway - getting rid of Obama in 2012 is extremely important to our political system to show people to wait to the next election.

If the liberals manipulate the system again in 2012 - with the $700 Million in bogus money to Obama - there just might be some serious discontent in this nation.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 8, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

"Sorry wbg but Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, John Thune .. no. Not going to win against Obama. They're going to nominate someone to energize the base, you know it, their only alternatives are candidates who will have ten million hands reaching for the remote at the same moment. Their sanest chance is Romney but they don't "do" sane and the base won't go for him."

You may be right. I just don't know at this point. There is much to happen before then. One key wild card is whether Deep Red states like TX go broke b/c of the ideological refusal to raise taxes. If that happens -- likely -- and it gets very ugly -- very likely -- that would probably disqualify the NutJob govs like Jindahl, Perry and Chrisitie.

Everyone counts Mittens out but I wouldn't. He doesn't have an honest bone in his body (he was my governor) and he will do and say anything necessary. Wil that be enough to satisfy the Teabaggers? No. But the Big Money will not surrender control of the GOP will to the Teabaggers in my opinion. Wall Street will love Romney. Plus Mittens looks good on TV. And he sounds rational. Mittens would be quite formidable in the General.

But it is apparent that Obama has gone Third Way in the expectation that the GOP will do what you say and nominate someone unacceptable to the American People in the general election. Obama thinks he can win by appeasing Big Business and watching the GOP implode. That hasn't worked so far and I wouldn't count on it happening in 2012. Very risky. It would be much safer and smarter if Obama learned the real lessons from the Dem failures: the country is far more progressive than than Washington DC is. This shouldn't be unexpected. After all, DC is the bedrock of the establishment and Cons have been in power for 40 years imbedding themselves ever deeper into the fiber of the American government. It was like what happened after the 60s when the Liberals controlled all of government even as the country shifted Right. In the absence of forceful presidential leadership, DC will be the last to change.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 8, 2011 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Here's an idea for you, quarterback.

Go all the way back to my dramatic appearance here, gather all my posts (you already have them saved into a Word doc anyway, right?) and put together "CaoThiên's Greatest Hits." If you run up against the 3000 char limit you can break it into multiple posts and do them in order .. be sure to use lots and lots of bold and italic to underscore the really juicy parts.

And be sure to add ample commentary on how offended you are, don't hold back on the repetitiion, now, whatever you do. Be sure to get in lots of "mass murder" and "Stalinist" and all that.

You have a little homework assignment. Get to it! Let's see those fingers fly!!

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 9:52 AM | Report abuse

@wbg: I'm largely in agreement on Obama, I never would have expected a Democrat to be so unreservedly pro-corporate. I was hoping instead for mass arrests of the financial sector, neocons in The Hague, finreg red in tooth and claw, and Republican contained like a typhus outbreak.

Instead we have Bush Term III.

If the Republicans ran someone sane who could win Obama would be toast and we would be in agreement. But that isn't going to happen because they don't have anyone but Romney and their base is too bugf uck nuts to vote for him or anyone electable. They can take the center or the base, and they need both.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Shrink:

For original source material I recommend "The Debate on the Constitution," a 2-volume set edited by Bernard Bailyn. There is also a new book that has received good reviews (I don't have it yet) called "Ratification," by Pauline Maier.

As to the specifics of the 3/5 Clause I think James Wilson was trying to pull a fast one and get the Southern colonies to agree that only property holders could be citizens but somehow it backfired. The 3/5 Clause was the result of negotiations and deals, just like today. All the more reason that the Founders would laugh at the deification of their "intent."

Posted by: wbgonne | January 8, 2011 10:00 AM | Report abuse

"Instead we have Bush Term III."

It is plain that the Dems don't take liberals seriously because Liberals never follow through on their threats to not support Dems. What do you think of the Green Party? I think the time is propitious for a third party for several reasons, the first being what you wrote above. And the GOP, as you say, has gone insane. BOTH parties are out of touch with what the American people want on the major issues and now Obama is moving even further in the WRONG direction. There is a lot of daylight between what the two-party duopoly is offering and what the American people want. Even if the Greens fail -- nearly certain -- if enough people move to that party the Dems will have no choice but to respond out of self-preservation.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 8, 2011 10:09 AM | Report abuse

"But Brigade is another matter. He's so shockingly vulgar, all the stuff about fellatio and the blatant racism, he's bent into two halves with hate. Probably gonna be on the evening news sometime .."

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Colonel Kurtz is beyond all past conceptions of irony and self-parody.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 8, 2011 10:12 AM | Report abuse

"I just want to be clear...it is your judgment that RFR and Brigade are "destructive influences" here, but cao is not? Seriously?"

Cao can be sharp-edged but he's also intelligent and funny--I never take any of his hyperbole seriously.

RFR is a basketcase, someone with no life who is only to be pitied -- I always picture a giant pasty-white baby pounding his fists on the keyboard and wailing. It was thought at the Fix that he is institutionalized... should be.

Jake is a racist birther who is seething that we have a black president and often proposed assasination.

Brigade seems to get off on not much else but mockiing and taunting other posters, like a schoolyard bully.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 8, 2011 10:19 AM | Report abuse

You seem, like Brigade, to have an obsession with cao, QB -- what's that all about? Why don't you just ignore him or block him, instead of hanging on his every word?

Posted by: fiona5 | January 8, 2011 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Don't bother QB, fiona (drindl?) .. he's putting together my greatest hits compilation and he needs to get it exactly right. Expect three maximum-sized posts RSN.

QB's world is collapsing. For JakeD it was a black president, for QB it's an unrepentant liberal. He feels like a paramecium in a drop of water on a hot sidewalk.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 11:10 AM | Report abuse

fiona5, I've met JakeD in person, and he's not a racist. Asking why Obama doesn't just release his vital records is not "seething that we have a black president." If it were, then Chris Matthews is a racist too. I've also never seen JakeD propose assassination, which is odd since he's apparently done so "often." Why are you lying? What name did you post under at The Fix?

Greg, here's the question again. Why is Colonel Kurtz aka caothien still here?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 8, 2011 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I've met JakeD in person, and he's not a racist.

==

(*snort*)

(*hr0nk*)

ketHUCK kerHUCK kerHUCK

Did you meet him in Cambridge when he was peeing on Gates; lawn?

Haahahha yeah you "met him in person." While shaving, right?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 11:28 AM | Report abuse

"I saw ... a snail! Crawlin' on the edge .. of a straight rayza.

That's my dream ... that's my nightmare.

A snail .. crawlin' on the edge .. of a straight rayza."

(bows)

Posted by: caothien9 | January 8, 2011 11:33 AM | Report abuse

No, I met him in San Diego. He has actually met several people from The Fix.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 8, 2011 11:39 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne "Shrink:

I have some familiarity with the 3/5 Clause in the Constitution. This was the thinking. By 1789 slavery was already a moral repugnance in much of the world. Even Southerners were sheepish about defending slavery and largely thought it was wrong. The Founders, including the Southerners like Jefferson, thought that slavery would fade out of existence for purely economic reasons. The Colonies were largely agrarian and slave labor was less cost-effective than free labor in the developing colonies. The importation of slaves was curtailed by international convention and slavery did decline in the U.S., particularly in in Tidewater Virginia, to the point that Virginia began "exporting" its slaves to Kentucky and the Deep South. The cotton gin was invented and for a time it appeared that slavery in the U.S. would die out. But then new developments in sugar cane and the rise of the Tidewater tobacco industry made slaves more valuable than ever. The Southerners began defending slavery ever more vociferously and that was the end of the hope for slavery dying out naturally."

I believe you have this backwards. Tobacco was the original cash crop, and sugar cane was primarily in the Caribbean. It was the invention of the cotton gin and the growth of cotton as a cash crop that made it less likely that slavery would naturally die out in the American South.

"The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth of the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. The growth of cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the South became even more dependent on plantations and slavery, making plantation agriculture the largest sector of the Southern economy.[7] In addition to the increase in cotton production,the number of slaves rose as well, from around 700,000, before Eli Whitney’s patent, to around 3.2 million in 1850.[8] By 1860 the United States' South was providing eighty percent of Great Britain’s cotton and also providing two-thirds of the world’s supply of cotton.[9]

Cotton had formerly required considerable labor to clean and separate the fibers from the seeds; the cotton gin revolutionized the process. With Eli Whitney’s introduction of “teeth” in his cotton gin to comb out the cotton and separate the seeds, cotton became a tremendously profitable business, creating many fortunes in the Antebellum South. New Orleans and Galveston were shipping points that derived substantial economic benefit from cotton raised throughout the South."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin

Posted by: jnc4p | January 8, 2011 3:40 PM | Report abuse


Refinancing replaces your current mortgage with a new loan that has a more favorable interest rate and terms that you can afford to manage. The new loan is secured on the same property as your current loan. I refinanced and saving $451 every month! search online for "123 Mortgage Refinance" they got me a 3.11% rate

Posted by: rosasnow345 | January 9, 2011 12:49 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