Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:28 PM ET, 01/31/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* The White House strikes back hard at the ruling that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, arguing that similar challenges to many other hstoric American legislative accomplishments have all been struck down.

* Ian Millhiser has the rundown of previous laws upheld by the Supreme Court.

* David Axelrod tweaks Mitt Romney on health care reform, suggesting the White House will continue feeding his worst problem heading into 2012: "We got some good ideas from him."

* Which may mean that Obama advisers take Romney seriously.

* Good read from Ryan Grim on how Al Jazeera is blacked out across most of the country, meaning that many Americans won't be presented with the same version of events in Egypt as the rest of the world will.

* Matt Duss on how the violence in Egypt requires Obama to make good on the promise of his Cairo speech.

* The White House sticks to its insistence that there must be an "orderly transition" in Egypt, without quite saying what that should mean for Mubarak.

* But senior Obama officials are privately discussing how to handle life after Mubarak.

* I noted earlier that Dems are embracing the fight over government, and here's Chuck Schumer openly daring Reublicans to pull a Newt and shut down the government again.

* Breaking: Still another poll (this one by a Dem firm) finds that the public overwhelmingly prioritizes job creation over reining in the deficit, prompting this from Jed Lewison:

So it turns out the vast majority of Americans are Keynesians after all -- other than Republicans, conservatives, and tea party supporters...

* Jon Huntsmann sends the White House his letter of resignation, meaning (I guess) that he's really contemplating a run in 2012.

* Judge Vinson's ruling on the individual mandate today embraces a standard of judicial activism that even John Roberts can't bring himself to embrace.

* And as Steve Benen keeps tirelessly reminding us, the mandate was originally a Republican idea.

* If conservatives do succceed in getting the whole of health reform junked, they should prepare for true armageddon: Dems trying to pass an expanded version of Medicare via reconciliation.

* And the reaction of the day to the health care ruling, from Anthony Weiner, on Twitter:

We know this: the public option is constitutional.

#stillpissedwegaveuponthat

Yup. What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | January 31, 2011; 6:28 PM ET
Categories:  2012, Health reform, deficit  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Yes, but what will Anthony Kennedy say?
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

"* The White House strikes back hard at the ruling that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, arguing that similar challenges to many other hstoric American legislative accomplishments have all been struck down."

Well played Barry. Devastating. I expect mass GOP resignations due to that comment. Game over.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 31, 2011 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Now I know that the situation in Egypt is a big deal, because ABC has Diane Sawyer standing on big floor map of the region.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 31, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

The conservative War on Public Employees continues apace: http://www.truth-out.org/public-sector-squeeze67314

"Whatever may be needed in the way of reasonable rationalizations and savings in government budget outlays, we will not exit the continuing economic crisis by massive reductions in public service provision and employment. Those only further depress the economic conditions and well-being of middle- and lower-income communities. This would be a more and more cruel version of the track we have been on for decades. Sadly, this approach is neither new nor likely to work."

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 31, 2011 6:39 PM | Report abuse

ROUND ONE GOES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE


Let's see if Obama and the liberals will RIG the court system against the American People - and abuse their power again.

_______________


Ultimately, it doesn't matter what Anthony Kennedy says on this issue. What matters is what the American People say.

Clearly, the American People want this BILL REPEALED.


There were several illegitimate actions surrounding this bill, the way Obama got to 60 votes, the Massachusetts law change, reconciliation, the dumping of the bill in the middle of the night, and the BETRAYAL of the American People with Obama going back on his word to be bipartisan in the drafting of this legislation.


Sorry, but this bill HAS TO GO.

The bill should go.


The bill is illegitimate. It's passage was AGAINST the will of the American People.


The American People are going to make sure this bill is VOTED OUT - OUT OUT OUT.


The American government has been hijacked - and ultimately the American People will take control of THEIR government through elections - the liberals do not believe in this fundamental principle because they are constantly seeking to go around democratic processes to get their liberal agenda in.

Our government has been hijacked. I don't care if the liberals want to breeze over that fundamental point - however America is a democracy, and the liberals have not acted accordingly.


Throw them onto the ASHHEAP OF HISTORY.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 6:42 PM | Report abuse

High STRF. Good to see you back. I was starting to worry about you. I was starting to fear that you had been struck by a bolt of sanity.

Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 31, 2011 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama should fold now.


Kenny Rogers was right about LIFE


You have know when to hold them, know when to fold them,


knowin' what to throw away and knowing what to keep


Know when to hold them, know when to fold them.


Knowing when to walk away,


AND KNOWING WHEN TO RUN......

Obama is way pass the RUN point.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 6:46 PM | Report abuse

* Jon Huntsmann sends the White House his letter of resignation, meaning (I guess) that he's really contemplating a run in 2012.

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

This has got to be bad news for Mitt Romney, since they will both be competing for support and contributions from Mormons.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 31, 2011 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Liam

My comment to you on the last thread was:

Well, don't libel any screen names and you will be OK,


isn't that right?


.

Hibernians should remember - that we have always been against the oppression of the British.

However - in the case of Eqypt, I think the people in Egypt understand that our policy has been driven in large part by our caution regarding the Muslim Brotherhood.


For the most part, people in the US are not aware of all these goings on, and the delicate balances of our policies with Egypt and the Arab world over the years - that being said, it is important to realize that the average Egyptian on the street is WELL AWARE of all these issues.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Fox News and Andrew Breibart accuse CNN of having sabotaged the telecast of Michelle Bachman's SOTU remarks.

It looks like CNN is guilty as charged, because they did allow Michelle Bachmann to make the remarks. Clearly a case of sabotage.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 31, 2011 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Decision of HIS LIFE

Obama has a choice


Obama can DROP health care NOW - bringing certainty to the JOBS MARKET - and allowing businesses to have a much better idea of what their health care costs will be.

THAT ACT would instantly give a boost to the ECONOMY, LOWER health insurance costs, and IMPROVE HIRING PROSPECTS FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS.


Insurance companies would roll back many of the Premium Increases which they have put in over the past year - many driven by the provisions of Obama's bill.


OR


Obama can just sit there ARROGANTLY AND SUBBORNLY

And allow millions of unemployed Americans to continue to SUFFER.


AND Obama can look in the mirror and see that his EGO IS STILL INTACT.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Hi STRF. We missed ya today.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 31, 2011 7:06 PM | Report abuse

STRF. What were you doing all day? Waiting for Nurse Ratched to go home?

Posted by: Liam-still | January 31, 2011 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Scott, thanks for your reply this morning. We could discuss this over dinner sometime, but there is too much here for either of us to cover through blog responses.

Are you physically located in the UK?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 31, 2011 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Heh.

I see comments #1, 3 and 11.

That's it.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 31, 2011 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Today's NYT had an article about gender imbalance in contributions to Wikipedia. Only about 13% of entries are from women. That's a close reflection of the 85% to 15% ratio of men to women appearing in opinion/information pieces in print media. I suspect there's a similar ratio on blogs and I think it's a question that's very germane here. While we may have only an anecdotal sense of how many women post vs. how many men, I think we're all aware that, in spite of the fact that many of the most interesting Plum Line commenters are women, they're in a definite minority.

Without going into it in much depth, the piece on Wikipedia suggests there's always been something about the computer world that makes it more male friendly. Since people don't usually get paid to post on blogs and information sites like Wikipedia, there's obviously self selection going on. It's not a matter of New Yorker editors, for instance, simply publishing far more men than women. As a woman myself, I've been aware for decades that women are seriously underrepresented among the written voices who drive the ideas that shape us culturally and politically.

With women beginning to appear in the crowds in Cairo and adding their voices and presence to their country's movement toward freedom of expression, I'm seriously considering this whole subject again. What do the rest of you think? Why is it that more women aren't commenting and offering their expertise on sites like this? Is it something about the way women have been socialized? Something about the no holds barred climate of the blogosphere? Something else? I think it's a subject worth talking about.

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 31, 2011 7:28 PM | Report abuse

re: Huntsman

Stunningly well qualified to have been Ambassador to China, I think that additional experience marks him as one of the few very qualified candidates in either party to be POTUS. If he is the only center-right candidate in a field that is committed to running power sweep right, he might just sneak by in the winner-take-all primaries on the R side.

Remember that the action will all be on the R side and that indies and moderates are likely to vote in the R Primary [where possible] rather than the D, where the result is a foregone conclusion.

Because I always want both parties to put up their best nominees I welcome Huntsman as an R candidate.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 31, 2011 7:29 PM | Report abuse

"The White House strikes back hard at the ruling that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, arguing that similar challenges to many other hstoric American legislative accomplishments have all been struck down."

"Ian Millhiser has the rundown of previous laws upheld by the Supreme Court."
==========================================

Legal experts are coming out of the woodwork. Guess what? Liberals have no doubt that the law is constitutional, even though it's only batting .500 in court. Big surprise there. Of course, should they lose in the Supreme Court, it won't mean the law is unconstitutional; it will just mean that the Supreme Court Justices who find that way are a bunch of right wing stooges. Right Liam?

You wonder why we even need a third branch of government when liberals have so little confidence in it. Of course, if courts can find something like a right to abortion or a right to gay marriage hidden in plain sight in the constitution, well that's altogether different. In fact, when you stop and think about it, liberals have traditionally relied more on the courts than legislatures to pass their agenda. It must be really put the old panties in a wad to think that Kennedy is standing in the doorway of your dreams while Kagan and Sotomayor diddle in the back room.

Posted by: Brigade | January 31, 2011 7:34 PM | Report abuse

@AllButCertain-

VERY interesting stats. Thanks for that. The numbers are whack.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 31, 2011 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Brigade-

Medicare, Voting Rights and Civil Rights were all passed in the other two Branches. So much for SCOTUS, eh?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 31, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

@ABC - Hi!

My experience is that women are well represented on certain sorts of blogs or online discussion but far less so on tech matters and politics. I don't have a good answer on that first but on politics my experience is that the aggression/fights are considerably less appealing to women than men. Many have said precisely that.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 31, 2011 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Here's a link to that article on gender imbalance at Wikipedia:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=1&ref=business

And here it is a bit of what the article says about the Internet culture:
[B]ecause of its early contributors Wikipedia shares many characteristics with the hard-driving hacker crowd, says Joseph Reagle, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. This includes an ideology that resists any efforts to impose rules or even goals like diversity, as well as a culture that may discourage women.
“It is ironic,” he said, “because I like these things — freedom, openness, egalitarian ideas — but I think to some extent they are compounding and hiding problems you might find in the real world.”

Adopting openness means being “open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists,” he said, “so you have to have a huge argument about whether there is the problem.”

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 31, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

ABC

I have to agree with Bernie re the aggressiveness on some political blogs, including here on occasion, although I've seen worse. There are times when the insults are being hurled that I just tune it out altogether. I can take a lot of heat and I'm sure I've heard all of it before but I just don't find it a productive use of my time. Maybe that's not a woman thing, just a me thing, I don't really know. The women in my family are pretty strong and independent, some say a little too independent :), so it's difficult for me to speak for others.

I will say that the times I've considered leaving the PlumLine completely I usually reconsider precisely because I think the guys here need a consistent perspective from the female persuasion, and there's just not that many of us.

I do wish there were more women in print though, that is definitely lopsided, but I think it reflects society in general still. It's continues to be an uphill battle for women in some professions. I'm sure you have your own story to tell but most people here would be shocked by some of mine and my daughter's.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Vinson and the Family Research Council...

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/vinson-frc/

Posted by: bernielatham | January 31, 2011 8:11 PM | Report abuse

From earlier in the day:

RUK responded to my post:

@Brigade:
"Good of you to bring it up. If you read your Bible instead of using it as a prop you'd know the commandment against murder has nothing whatsoever to do with war or capital punishment."
-----------------------------------------

RUK's repsonse:

"I have read the Bible...and I routinely refer to it still...even though I would not be classified a "Christian". I use now primarily for reference because I think Christ was an incredible teacher...

"But Brigade...again...this is not the Fix.
You don't simply get to make debatable statements without some proof.

"I listed chapter and verse...when Clawrence came back with his own Chapter, which of course he conveniently got to quote or point out WHICH lines illustrated his point.

And so if I don't accept Thomas Aquinas' opinion without thinking about it...given that he was an incredible religious scholar...why would I simply accept your opinion...you are no more than an old Army Vet like me. :-)"

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

Ah yes. Debatable statements. Here's the post of yours I quoted and responded to:

---------------------------------------
"I simply bring up the 5th Commandment for you 12Bar...Jewish folk and the rest of the Christians call it the 6th Commandment 'You shall not kill/murder'"
---------------------------------------

You can turn to Exodus 20:14 and read,
“You shall not murder." (NIV)

Then turn to Exodus 21:14 and read,
"But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death." (NIV)

And the Old Testament, where the Decalogue is located, has many examples of God sanctioned killings in the context of war, none of which, obviously, were prohibited by the commandment against murder. You can look them up yourself.

So, you see, my statement wasn't really debatable at all.

So you immediately pivot to some exchange you had with clawrence about Jesus and the New Testament. Since you see yourself as an infallible interpreter, there wouldn't be much sense in examining any "opinion" that I---or Thomas Aquinas or any of a hundred others---might offer. You make that clear.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, to possess deity himself; to have the authority to revise and extend the Old Testament; to be able to predict the future as well as heal the sick and raise the dead; to raise himself from the dead; and to stage his final coming, with his angels, on the clouds of heaven . . . he said many other things, but you get the idea.

If I didn't believe any of this stuff, I might think the fellow was a charlatan or a madman, but the last thing I would infer is that he was "an incredible teacher." Cao is not a Christian either, but at least his disbelief is logically consistent. Yours isn't.


Posted by: Brigade | January 31, 2011 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Hi Bernie--I think it's true that women are less in for the aggression and fights. Even someone as feisty as Tena when she posted here would withdraw from some arguments when she felt they had crossed a line on contentiousness. And, of course, eventually she left.

12BB had a long querying of Scott here yesterday, and I think her being a woman may have helped with her patience in pursuing her questions. But I suspect it was draining. It's a lot easier to just hurl names instead of trying to find out what people really think, and that happens fairly often on this site.

From my own experience here over the last two years--sometimes when I've been able to be more active than others--I admit to contributing occasional, irresistible snark. Mostly, though, I've tried to take an open-minded and moderate tone in my comments. In spite of that, I've occasionally been bashed with some seriously nasty responses and, yes, it did at times make me just want to leave.

I think that would be a mistake, though, because I believe it's really important for women's voices to part of the political dialogue. Why would we cede this ground?--particularly when many Republicans are pushing the Palins and Bachmanns who so underrepresent women's seriousness.

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 31, 2011 8:17 PM | Report abuse

@Bernie-

Seems like he has a case of the Plagiarism Blues...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 31, 2011 8:17 PM | Report abuse

@AllBut-

I miss Tena. I wasn't around when she left so I don't know the circumstances, but I dug her style. C' est la vie.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 31, 2011 8:21 PM | Report abuse

when many Republicans are pushing the Palins and Bachmanns who so underrepresent women's seriousness.

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 31, 2011 8:17 PM
=======================================

Right. Neither of them have accomplished a thing, have they? I mean compared to riding their husband's coat-tails like Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Brigade | January 31, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca -- There're not many women like us with grown daughters who don't have a lot of war stories. My concern in bringing this all up isn't so much a wish for people to be more civil. The blogosphere is the Wild West in many ways, and that's it's nature. What worries me is that this lack of women's voices continues in print and is being perpetuated to a large extent on political blogs. I think this should change, but I don't know how.

And I hope this is a conversation men can care about too--that they won't just circle their wagons at their own bonfire since politics is about all of us together.

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 31, 2011 8:28 PM | Report abuse

@ABC

"Something about the no holds barred climate of the blogosphere?"

I think that may be part of it, but you do bring up an interesting observation. I'm an old white dude and at the risk of sounding like I'm sucking up...IMHO as a % of posters the women generally do a far better job than the men. There have only been two ladies on this blog who could really get down in the dirt with the guys and give as good as they got...I say this not as praise or derision but rather as a simple observation. I've seen NO regular women on this blog..we used to get one every now and then when one of Greg's posts gets linked to conservative blogs, who are full fledged wack jobs like STRF or Clawrence/Jake...no birther women..LMAO By and large the women have better manners. I haven't seen any ladies who are out simply to score points with insults like Brigade.

If you have time ABC you might reread last night's open thread...you'll see that 12Bar was just fantastic at drawing observations from BOTH sides...she actually got almost all of us to respond thoughtfully without so much rancor...and I'd praise the hell out of lmsinca but I'm afraid I'm still in her doghouse for anointing her the blog saint:-). The point is ABC if you read lmsinca and 12Bar regularly you'll see they respond thoughtfully, and with cogent ideas.

Hope I didn't waste too much of your time ABC it's all just my humble OPINION anyway I have no facts or specifics to back it up.
BTW Sue from Kzoo...Kathleen Hussein from Maine...Jenn...the more I think of it the more I'm afraid the ladies are the smart ones on this blog. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, I think both Palin and Bachmann have had to work hard and make sacrifices as any people in public life do. I don't take that away from them. My problem with them has to do with their recklessness with the truth and the shallowness of much of their politics.

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 31, 2011 8:37 PM | Report abuse

My god in heaven. Check out this FOX news map of the middle east and where somebody things Egypt is...

"Example #2,439,329 Of Why Watching Fox News Makes You Stupid"

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/example-2439329-why-watching-fox-news


Posted by: bernielatham | January 31, 2011 8:37 PM | Report abuse

"Only anarchists "hate" all government. True conservatives only "hate" government expanding beyond what was allowed. Americans do not hate a government that wins WWII for instance.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 31, 2011 2:23 PM | Report abuse"

A war that conservatives kept us out of for over two years, by the way, then was won by an extremely liberal federal government.

Posted by: Observer691 | January 31, 2011 2:56 PM
======================================

Yes, the good ole days when liberals were real men. Old FDR gave those Nazi terrorists captured in New York and Florida in 1942 a quick trial and had them summarily executed. And how many Japanese-Americans did he subject to relocation and internment that same year? About 110,000?

18,000 civilians were killed in the bombing of Pforzheim in 1945; 50,000 civilians died in the firebombing of Hamburg in 1943, which destroyed the entire town; and who can forget the firebombing of Dresden?

And ole Harry Truman knew the short way to end a war. Nothing left of Nagasaki and Hiroshima but rubble, charred bodies, and nuclear fallout.

Somehow I get the feeling that these "liberals" wouldn't feel any more at home with today's liberals than would the old Dixiecrats. You did know that Truman was a former Klansman. Right?

Of course Obama is doing a decent job of killing people in Pakistan. And hardly a peep is heard from the anti-war crowd.

I guess the moral of the story is that Observer691 is about the dumbest person who ever leaves his droppings here.

Posted by: Brigade | January 31, 2011 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Hi Mike

Im sure you missed me so much.

You had the run of the place.


All you know that I very much enjoy hyperbole.

I really don't like to gloat too much.


I am happy about the Court decision. However, we all know the Courts have a long way to go from here. Also, next year's elections are going to mean a great deal regardless.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 8:41 PM | Report abuse

The so-called revolt against government spending was a reaction to the anti-poverty programs of the "Great Society" and then the drive for affiramtive action. In other words, spending on "other people", non-white, mostly.

Posted by: Mimikatz | January 31, 2011
========================================

The day wouldn't be complete without some liberal throwing the race card on the table. Looks like he/she believes most of the welfare beneficiaries of the Great Society are "non-white". If I said that, I'd be called a racist.

Posted by: Brigade | January 31, 2011 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Liam

Everyday I am working - I suppose you could say I'm multi-tasking.

I have a wonderful skill that I can speak on the telephone and type at the same time.

Are you astonished?

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 8:48 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans and their Plutocratic puppet masters are going to have a free run at turning the working class, into America's version of Egypt's impoverished masses, and then there will be hell to pay.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 31, 2011
==========================================

If it only effects "the working class", then deadbeats like you won't have anything to worry about.

Posted by: Brigade | January 31, 2011 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

Not sure about your support for FDR and Truman

However, your comments sparked an idea: if health care was a right, WHY didn't FDR and Truman push through universal health care back then???

ALL those democrats then were not pushing for even the level of the Great Society programs.

The historical context is important - all the liberals on this blog attempting to make points from the political landscape decades ago - those points are pretty much worthless.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, should the government regulate cable news channels?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 31, 2011 8:55 PM | Report abuse

When the Wall St crashed happened; Hoover then started cutting back, regardless of what spin you try to put on what the annual budgets called for.

That is a fact, no matter how you try to spin it in your Toon Town Lawyer's Rubber Noggin."

I see, so even though the federal government's spending increased substantially each year until 1933, somehow Hoover "started cutting back" right after the 1929 crash. And surpluses changed to increasing deficits in 1930. That's a "fact."

You aren't just spinning; you are flat-out lying.

Hoover did raise tax rates. Perhaps that's where you are confused. Hoover did just what you advocate.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011
=========================================

LOL. Liam gets smacked down again. Those pesky facts just keep getting in the way of liberal porkies.

Posted by: Brigade | January 31, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse

""I think this should change, but I don't know how.""

ABC, maybe we should all just branch out to other blogs, there's not that many of us so it may not matter much in the long run, but we could try and overrun the comments sections with our "wisdom" and probably make a few people mad in the process. It might be fun to stage here and then head out to a particularly male dominated blog and step into their fray. I bet Sue and 12Bar would be game and probably Jenn as well. It might be fun.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Brigade-

Medicare, Voting Rights and Civil Rights were all passed in the other two Branches. So much for SCOTUS, eh?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 31, 2011 7:43 PM
=================================

Did I say you rely "exclusively" on the courts? Didn't think so.

Posted by: Brigade | January 31, 2011 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Re the gender discussion... my observation here and elsewhere is that the women posters have far less of a tendency to play the one-upsmanship/insult game. Consequently, their posts are consistently more substantive than many of the guys' posts. I'd love more of them here.

Re Greg's al jazeera link above (which you ought to read if you haven't), let me add this one...

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2011/01/31/al-jazeera-in-egypt-is-cables-sputnik-moment/

Posted by: bernielatham | January 31, 2011 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Observer691 makes some extremely insightful comments on Isolationalism in America

_______________________


OK - it is true that the Republican party used to be the Party in which a large group of Isolationists found their home.


However, most of that was before WWII - before a time when the world relied on America as a Superpower.

__________________


One has to ask oneself: Do you want America to be a Superpower ?


If the answer is yes, then one has to support the armies and the foreign policy engagement which that Superpower status requires - including the expenditure of funds.


AT this point, there are two wings of the major parties which may be considered as LEANING toward isolationalism:

1) Ron Paul and the Libertarians really want the US to pull many American troops out of regions of the world They want to reduce military spending dramatically. Obviously, one would have to ask Ron Paul how far he would like to go.


2) The leftists of the democratic party - they want us out of Iraq - they want us out of Afghanistan. The leftists have different motivations than the libertarians, however the result is the same - a pull-out of American forces and the resulting chaos is "their problem."


___________________


For me, I am an internationalist - I believe in American having a Strong Superpower status.

There is little reason to get rid of any nuclear weapons (we might actually want to use them - and it is good to keep them around anyway.)

Specifically, I support American militaray presence in the Persian Gulf. Ironically, the democratic administrations have not changed this policy significantly.


Overall, I believe America should have a more activist role in regions like the Middle East - where we could have had more reformist tones over the years. However, Condie Rice did do that, and didn't get very far. One has to give her credit for what she did attempt to do.

The liberals would love to see America withdraw from many parts of the world, however I don't believe they will like the consequences of those decisions.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 9:02 PM | Report abuse

For the Assange lovers (or not that) here's the 60 minutes interview with him in two parts (I just bumped into the link and haven't watched it but Jay Rosen, whom I have great respect for, describes the interview as "impressive...

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7300034n

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7300036n&tag=contentMain;contentAux

Posted by: bernielatham | January 31, 2011 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Felix Salmon on Davos (and read the comments)

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/30/the-triumph-of-davos/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+felix-all+(Felix+Salmon+-+All+(Reuters+%2B+FS.com))&utm_content=Twitter

And good night.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 31, 2011 9:06 PM | Report abuse


Obama should fold now.


Kenny Rogers was right about LIFE


You have know when to hold them, know when to fold them,


knowin' what to throw away and knowing what to keep


Know when to hold them, know when to fold them.


Knowing when to walk away,


AND KNOWING WHEN TO RUN......


Obama is way pass the RUN point.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama can quit the health care plan now - he has his out.

That will spur the Economy - in a major way.


At this point, it is Obama's personal choice - MILLIONS OF UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE OR OBAMA'S EGO.


Which is more important ?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 9:11 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca

"I think the guys here need a consistent perspective from the female persuasion, and there's just not that many of us."

Hear! Hear! Indeed lmsinca. I ALWAYS enjoy reading your posts as well as 12Bars and Sue and Jenn...and I agree with your basic point...you guys do bring perspective...especially when the food fights begin.

ABC-lmsinca-any ladies who wish to chime in...here is a return question for you.
This is obviously a progressive blog. IMHO however Greg works harder than most bloggers to honor journalistic traditions of fair play, FACTUAL reporting, and revealing all sources. I'm not a regular at FDL...while I am progressive..and I have no real quibble with Jane...I'm just not sure I get the same even handedness that Greg offers...same for Kos..I read occasionally but I find it a little too partisan even though I largely agree with Kos' positions...sorry for such a long lead up to my question..

Why do you suppose all the ladies on this blog are progressive? There are certainly more progressive men here than righties...but the righties are not exactly underrepresented...from the right wing wack jobs like strf and clawrence/jake
to rigid intractable far right ideologues like Q.B...to more thoughtful righties like Troll and Tao...to one downright sociable rightie Kevin...and I'm not even going to mention a couple more...but you get the drift...against that backdrop..where are the conservative women?

BTW Not that I want anymore...in fact I feel we already have more than enough righties...especially given this is a progressive blog.

I don't get around that much in the blogosphere and so I don't know what happens at redstate or drudge and their % of women...hopefully all the conservative knee jerk ladies will stay over there. LOL

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama the Liar


Obama's own words finally got him into trouble. The Judge in the health care case cited Obama's own campaign promises on the individual mandate.

The Judge stated that Obama himself said that there were other ways to write a health care bill - other than with an individual mandate.


FINALLY - OBAMA THE LIAR GETS HIT IN THE SIDE OF THE HEAD WITH HIS OWN LIES


Fitting end to Obama's major "accomplishment"


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 9:18 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Huntsman's ties to Obama may hurt him if he runs. Seems like the two best GOP candidates, Romney and Huntsman have some damning marks on their records if someone like Palin chooses to attack them for it. I'm not sure if Pawlenty is even above low blows at this point. He has been gearing hard for this run and may pull out all the stops. It really only takes one candidate to do it.

Also, score one for judicial activism! I'm trying to remain optimistic, but I don't think the ACA survives a Supreme Court Challenge.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 31, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Good night Bernie!

Perhaps tomorrow you could share your opinion on whether the Fderal government should regulate cable news? (Fingers crossed. ;-))

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 31, 2011 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Reading the poll Greg linked to, found something that liberal and conservatives can agree on: go pack go.

Posted by: Bailers | January 31, 2011 9:24 PM | Report abuse

""where are the conservative women?""

Barefoot and pregnant? Sorry, I couldn't resist. I have no idea really, but a lot of women comment at SP's facebook page. She's a role model to a lot of conservative women as far as I can tell.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Reuters is reporting:


If Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday.

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness.


________________________

Well, well well................

..

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Here ya go Imsinca. Your prayers have been answered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/31/harry-reid-social-security-off-the-table_n_816549.html

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 31, 2011 9:27 PM | Report abuse

@Bernie

I've seen Crooks and Liars before but I'm not sure about their credibility or mission.
Obviously they enjoy a laugh but seriously...

Was that Fox News Map real or photoshopped?
I'm serious Bernie was that a joke?
If that's real...just another indictment of the Fox Geezer crowd.

We don't need no education..dunh da dunh
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 9:28 PM | Report abuse

"to rigid intractable far right ideologues like Q.B..."


Thank you, thank you vera much.

Free cotton candy forever, with no rollbacks!

Greg, I've often remarked (to no avail of course) on the apparently complete lack of QC in your links selections. Sometimes it seems you pick the most inane and untenable tripe. (I'll not mention the delicate matter of whether this sets your links apart from your original "stuff.") That severability/John Roberts link is ridiculous. The author doesn't even make a swipe at a legitimate legal argument.

Maybe you can do better. Go ahead. Offer a good argument why the mandate is severable from the rest of Obamacare.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, that Salmon piece had me going for a minute. Did you happen to catch the Simon Johnson piece from Davos I linked to earlier, pretty disappointing how removed from reality these guys are. It kind of reminded me of the song from "South Pacific", "Happy Talk" I think it's called.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 9:30 PM | Report abuse

PATHETIC OBAMA - OR HOW THE LIBERALS ENDED UP HURTING THE WHOLE WORLD


Paper:


Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as "the president who lost Iran," which during his term went from being a major strategic ally of the United States to being the revolutionary Islamic Republic. Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who "lost" Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled.

The superficial circumstances are similar. In both cases, a United States in financial crisis and after failed wars loses global influence under a leftist president whose good intentions are interpreted abroad as expressions of weakness. The results are reflected in the fall of regimes that were dependent on their relationship with Washington for survival, or in a change in their orientation, as with Ankara.

America's general weakness clearly affects its friends. But unlike Carter, who preached human rights even when it hurt allies, Obama sat on the fence and exercised caution. He neither embraced despised leaders nor evangelized for political freedom, for fear of undermining stability

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 9:30 PM | Report abuse

"where are the conservative women?"

I'm guessing that if there were a ton of Conservative women, Sarah Palin would still be an unknown governor in Alaska. I think we're seeing some Palinesque women pop up like the new governor of SC, but in general, even the most Conservative women have been considered too liberal for their party. Look at KBH in Texas or Murkowski in Alaska.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 31, 2011 9:34 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade-

Thus, proving that conservatives don't do context: Truman was never inducted, never attended a meeting and wanted out of the Klan after he thought better.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 31, 2011 9:35 PM | Report abuse

ruk--I think many of the conservative men who come here generally come for a fight or to disrupt the conversation. They're combat soldiers and it's possible that few women in the conservative ranks want that role and prefer sites that reflect their own views. But I'm just speculating. I know I wouldn't want to hang out on a right wing site.

I agree with your observation about the high level of the posts of the women you mention. I wonder if the site has a lot of women lurkers who, for whatever reason, prefer not to comment.

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 31, 2011 9:38 PM | Report abuse

rukidding


OK Greg is a liberal - however why does the comments section have to be tilted toward the liberals as well?

What about equal time?


And just because the topics get some ridiculous garbage liberal spin at the top, there is no reason why the debate below can not DEBUNK everything that Greg says - as is OFTEN THE CASE.


I reject your assertions - and they are unAmerican - and they SMACK of regulation of Free Speech.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Question:

This morning lmsinca responded to me that, in essence, she does not believe that there is any personal moral duty to help the dying uninsured but only a public one -- an obligation to provide health care through the government.

In this view, it is fair to criticize opponents of government health care on moral grounds (for putting their money above people's lives), but it isn't fair to criticize the critics for failing to than directly help the dying and uninsured.

Now, we know lms puts her own time and resources where her mouth is, despite this opinion, but who agrees with this?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 9:41 PM | Report abuse

""Here ya go Imsinca. Your prayers have been answered.""

McWing, it's difficult for me imagine in any universe I live in, alternate or otherwise, that Harry Reid would be an answer to my prayers. If he sticks to his guns though maybe we can find someone to work on the real problem with the deficit, the rising cost of health care. It's breaking the bank of everyone in the country and considering the banks are hanging by a thread, that's saying a lot. Hope springs eternal.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Skimming through Ezra Klein's material for today. I forgot that Huntsman is for civil unions.

That pretty much makes him unelectable in a GOP primary, no?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 31, 2011 9:46 PM | Report abuse

A war that conservatives kept us out of for over two years, by the way, then was won by an extremely liberal federal government.

Posted by: Observer691 | January 31, 2011 2:56 PM
======================================

I'm pretty sure it was the armed forces who won the war. Call me crazy, but that's how it always looks on TV and stuff. (Help from Sovs, too.)

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 9:49 PM | Report abuse

AllButCertain


The only thing that is CERTAIN, is that the liberals come here to disrupt the Conservatives.

It is clear - and you can look in the archives because the liberals are the ones causing the trouble around here - and dragging down the conversation.

Greg gives his liberal garbage - and the Conservative debate and DECIDE HOW WRONG HE IS.


The gradations of "How Wrong Greg Is" run from completely to massively.


It is that simple.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 9:49 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD

"Also, score one for judicial activism! I'm trying to remain optimistic, but I don't think the ACA survives a Supreme Court Challenge."

Don't worry DDAWD there is a huge silver lining in this story. The conservatives will score a Pyrrhic victory setting the stage for what we really should have done from the very beginning...Medicare for all.

By the time this gets to the Supremes..and especially if they confirm today's ruling with the severablility aspect negating the ENTIRE ACA...they will step in a huge pile of dooty. Overnight all those people back to square one...pre existing condition..sorry charlie...contract a truly bad as in expensive illness..hello recission..able to still have health insurance despite sky rocketing college tuition...tough darts trying for a graduate degree...at least while still maintaining insurance...
In short DDAWD the Supremes could toss hundreds of thousands off the roles of those who have insurance back to square one. How do you think that will go over?
I hope the Supremes get this before them in the summer of '12. Let them strike the entire ACA from the books and then let's see how the 2012 elections turn out.

Anthony Weiner...Sherrod Brown and others are just waiting for an excuse to cut the crap and simply plunge ahead with "Medicare for All". What our righty friends don't wish to acknowledge is that is exactly what Americans have said they wanted..BEFORE..all the death panels lies etc...I've posted this before DDAWD but if you haven't seen it, it's actually very enlightening. This is a sampling of polls done by very diverse organizations...from CBS..to Time..to Quinnipiac..to Kaiser Health..to physicians groups. There is a clear trend of support for a single payer "Medicare for all" plan. Do we think after the R's jerk the rug out from under the public they're going to be in any mood to listen to them? Especially given the fact that Americans ALREADY want a single payer solution...the special interests won the last time around...the Supremes...unwittingly on the part of the right wing stooges like Scalia, Thomas and Alito...will get us to the Medicare for All solution the American People wanted to begin with...

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 9:52 PM | Report abuse

lms--I'm a bit on the energy-challenged side, but your idea of recruiting some of the women commenters here to drop in on other sites is interesting. I'm wondering about younger women--if they're going to have the time or interest to do this sort of reading or commenting or if the number of women writing about larger, non-gender issues is actually going to drop as our generation leaves the field. Again, I don't know.

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 31, 2011 9:53 PM | Report abuse

qb, that is not what I said, here's the quote if anyone's interested. I was trying to figure out your point, which I still don't get. I was simply pointing out that there is a difference between our personal moral imperative and our collective one. I happen to think health care satisfies both but I believe that conservatives, such as yourself, may have a well defined sense of personal morality but don't agree with the progressive view of a collective one. Why else would you recommend we give up all our assets to help the sick?

qb said,

"That doesn't seem to stop liberals from claiming that it is every person's duty to pay taxes for it, and to support taxation for it."

My response,

""Where is the moral claim in this? If we advocate a goal of universal health care, then the cost needs to be born by us as both individuals and as citizens in the larger community that has decided even those unable to pay should receive care. I think we can argue over the need or imperative for universal coverage without bringing individual morality into the debate.

I believe there is a difference between our personal moral imperative and our collective one. Perhaps they are arguing we have a collective moral responsibility and it's that which you are disagreeing with? If so, I think that's a reasonable debate which is a separate issue from our individual moral responsibility.""

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 9:55 PM | Report abuse

"ruk--I think many of the conservative men who come here generally come for a fight or to disrupt the conversation. They're combat soldiers and it's possible that few women in the conservative ranks want that role and prefer sites that reflect their own views. But I'm just speculating. I know I wouldn't want to hang out on a right wing site.

I agree with your observation about the high level of the posts of the women you mention. I wonder if the site has a lot of women lurkers who, for whatever reason, prefer not to comment."

That would go along with bernie's belief in a conspiracy of righties (paid or not is still open to debate, but Koch's utter domination of American Politics is not) deliberately disrupting the inevitable and Great Liberal Consensus Building.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 31, 2011 10:00 PM | Report abuse


@Brigade-

Thus, proving that conservatives don't do context: Truman was never inducted, never attended a meeting and wanted out of the Klan after he thought better.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 31, 2011 9:35 PM |
========================================

A little whitewash maybe?

"The Truman diaries reveal a public figure who was much less than meets the eye. Harry was not just anti-Semitic, but he was a racial bigot who paid his dues to join the Ku Klux Klan, but never became an active member because the KKK was anti-Catholic. His personal feelings about blacks and Jews, as his diaries show, never changed."---enterstageright.com

'In criticizing the approach of Mrgenthau, who was Jewish, Truman wrote in a July 21 passage, "The Jews, I find are very, very selfish."'---smokinggun.com quote from Truman diary.


Posted by: Brigade | January 31, 2011 10:00 PM | Report abuse

QB

This "morality argument" has so many flaws it really does not make any sense to continue.


First of all, does every rich person in the world have a MORAL obligation to spend ALL their money to extend the lives of EVERYONE around them ???


Surely, not.


So, morality has gradations, shades of grary.

With modern technology, the question has become more pointed: doctors and hospitals can charge large sums of money to extend people's lives one month, one year, maybe three years.


We get into the INSANITY of Rahm Emanuel's brother - who toys with the thoughts that the life of a twenty year old is much more "valuable" than the life of a seventy-year old - because one can be expected to live longer.

So, as the logic goes, a dollar of health care will have decades of benefits for the twenty year old, while the seventy-year old will only have years to benefit.


These questions can go NUTS.

____________


On the question of individual vs. communal morality, the questions are really the same.

Should a rich person devote his money to extend the lives of others.


WHAT happens in 50 or 100 years, when medical technology advances - when more money can mean even more years added to life?

Does the advancement of technology change the morality?

If morality is universal, how can technology change moral calculations?

________________

The Great Obama Stagnation has brought to the fore the question - health care OR jobs.

Surely Obama's health care plan has cost jobs - IS IT MORAL to throw one group of people out of work so that a bunch of seventy-year olds get better health care ?


These are the trade-offs.

And that is precisely it: a trade-off. Money can be spent here OR there. Which is more moral? Here or there ?


Again - if it is YOUR money, you may want to spend it on your family.

HOWEVER, the liberals are thinking about spending NOT their money, but the MONEY OF OTHER PEOPLE.


That changes the calculation - Money of Other People - is it moral to take THAT money and give it to other people.


Surely, if the democratic party wanted to raise a fund and PAY for everyone's health insurance, no one would object.

The DISPUTE is the democrats want to BILL EVERYONE for what they want - instead of paying for it themselves, which is clearly MORAL.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. Given your record of support for winners I'm glad you're on the right and not the left...

Let's see you have defended Herbert Hoover..
36th ranked President in the Time poll...generally in the mid 30's in any compendium of polls..

G.W. Bush...ohhh he's even better than ole Herbert...37th in the Time poll and near the bottom of any compendium or average of polls..

Both judged losers by historians and academicians...but of course we should accept the opinion of a rigid intractable
right wing ideologue attorney over hundreds of historians who are in agreement.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5055404.ece?token=null&offset=36&page=4

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

You've defended Sarah Palin even though her own campaign officials...Republicans not Dems or lefties...have criticized her as being unqualified, unprepared, unwilling to work to prepare...and being difficult personally. Virtually every erudite right wing pundit from Peggy Noonan, to Michael Murphy to George Will...Republican officials like Karl Rove...ahh but again Q.B. knows more than all these educated people who have actually worked in the biz..and many of whom have actually worked with Palin up close and personal.

Yeah Q.B. you're on a roll...perhaps you'd like to spend the rest of the evening telling how the Buffalo Bills are really the best team in the NFL and in your usual justification..since you said it..it must be gospel...forget facts or the records of the two teams in the Super Bowl.

But I saved the best for last Q.B. Just a little bit of fun for you and your soul mates STRF and clawrence. BTW Q.B. do you believe Obama was born in Hawaii? Seriously dude? Anyway enjoy this link. LMAO..

http://rockrivertimes.com/2010/07/02/experts-rank-u-s-presidents-fdr-first-clinton-13th-obama-15th-g-w-bush-39th/

Experts rank U.S. presidents: FDR first, Clinton 13th, Obama 15th, G.W. Bush 39th

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 10:06 PM | Report abuse

ABC: "And I hope this is a conversation men can care about too--that they won't just circle their wagons at their own bonfire since politics is about all of us together."

I think it is a conversation that men care about, but maybe not a lot of the men who hang out here. Some do, sure. Some probably couldn't care less. But, from experiences I've had on other blogs, including those with strong debate, won't let me generalize too much.

I see PL as pretty male-centric, but I don't find that everywhere. Some of the other blogs I frequent have female front-pagers, and I think that sets a different dynamic for the blog. Greg has Adam Serwer and Jonathon Bernstein as his other voices on the front page, but no women. I don't know, and will make no assumptions, if he doesn't know any women to include here or just hasn't thought about it.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 31, 2011 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Re: gender and online behavior. Basic misapprehension in progress.

The fundamental gender difference (one of VERY few actually evidenced by testing) isn't in aggression, it's in competitiveness.

Female political leaders are just as brutal as men.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 31, 2011 10:08 PM | Report abuse

RUK7 wrote,
"Sherrod Brown and others are just waiting for an excuse to cut the crap and simply plunge ahead with "Medicare for All"."
========================================

Sherrod Brown has to run for re-election next year. He'd better act fast because he has little chance of being re-elected. He's a buffoon.

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

This discussion about WWII is ridiculous - both parties supported the war once we were BOMBED AT PEARL HARBOR

So just cut it - if FDR was so liberal, how come he didnt start Medicare and give everyone free health insurance. FDR never did that - so he MUST be Tea-er than the Tea Party.


______________________

Obama LOST Turkey, Lebanon - and now Egypt.

ALL THE GAINS in the Middle East that America has made over decades are about to be LOST BY OBAMA AND THE LIBERALS.


History will not be kind to this kind of short-sighted bone-headedness.


AND liberals, don't think this is the last word on the Middle East


AMERICA WILL COME BACK - AMERICA WILL RECOVER FROM THE STUPIDITY OF OBAMA AND THE LIBERALS.


The liberals will be out, and the history books will regard Obama as some silly misguided URBAN RUBE who lost his way.


AMERICA IS COMING BACK STRONG


We are taking our country back - and AMERICAN WILL REGAIN ITS INTERNATIONAL STRENGTH


Obama is so weak that no one is taking him seriously. Obama's only advantage is that few countries believe that Obama can be this stupid. They think it is some sort of trick, or he is a some sort of plant.


Here in America we know better.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Sorry but this is just too much fun...

For the fifth time since its inception in 1982, the Siena College Research Institute’s (SRI) Survey of U.S. Presidents finds that experts rank Franklin D. Roosevelt as the top all-time chief executive.

The 238 participating presidential scholars round out the top five, in order, with Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

The current president, Barack Obama, while highly rated on imagination (sixth), communication ability (seventh) and INTELLIGENCE (eighth), scores poorly on background (family, education and experience) and enters the survey in the 15th position.

George W. Bush had entered the survey at 23rd when the study was last conducted one year into his first term. Today, just one year after leaving office, the former president has found himself in the bottom five at 39th, rated especially poorly in handling the economy, communication, ability to compromise, foreign policy accomplishments and INTELLIGENCE!

http://rockrivertimes.com/2010/07/02/experts-rank-u-s-presidents-fdr-first-clinton-13th-obama-15th-g-w-bush-39th/

kde how did you miss that link? You keep feeding us all that info on Obama's SOTU...ohh wait...you only post the same survey over and over and over again. And somehow you neglected ALL those polls from CBS News, USA today...that had Obama in the 90% approval zone for his SOTU.

kde...LMAO at you dude.

Sorry 12BAr...I know..I know..I fell off the wagon but is was just too much fun.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Experts rank U.S. presidents: FDR first, Clinton 13th, Obama 15th, G.W. Bush 39th

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 10:06 PM
======================================

Hahahahahahahahahahah! This dolt's two years into his first term, the economy's in the toilet, the unemployment rate is near 10%, he's defaulted on virtually all of his campaign promises, but he's already #15 on the list. Quite a group of "experts" you depend on.

Posted by: Brigade | January 31, 2011 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Greg has Adam Serwer and Jonathon Bernstein as his other voices on the front page, but no women. I don't know, and will make no assumptions, if he doesn't know any women to include here or just hasn't thought about it.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 31, 2011 10:07 PM
=========================================

Palin might as well be on the front page. He talks about her all the time.

Posted by: Brigade | January 31, 2011 10:17 PM | Report abuse

"But I saved the best for last Q.B. Just a little bit of fun for you and your soul mates STRF and clawrence. BTW Q.B. do you believe Obama was born in Hawaii? Seriously dude? Anyway enjoy this link. LMAO..

http://rockrivertimes.com/2010/07/02/experts-rank-u-s-presidents-fdr-first-clinton-13th-obama-15th-g-w-bush-39th/

Experts rank U.S. presidents: FDR first, Clinton 13th, Obama 15th, G.W. Bush 39th"

Liberalz! The whole lot of them! Erryone who doezn't luv Bush is an effin LIBTARD!!11!!1!!11!2

Posted by: DDAWD | January 31, 2011 10:18 PM | Report abuse

cao

I think women are every bit as competitive as men, at least all the women I know, but we're not necessarily as combative. Women have a way of sneaking up on you guys and winning the long game, LOL.

ABC

I'm going in search of a blog written by a liberal or moderate man where it seems like most of the commenters are also men and let you girls know what I find. It could be interesting I think. I don't have a lot of time right now so it may take me awhile to get back to you on it.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 10:19 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade...

"Quite a group of "experts" you depend on."

Your a Vet Brigade and so you know I honor your service and so I'll try to be as gentle as I can with this...with all due respect for your service to country (sincere..no snark) you've got to understand that I trust

"238 participating presidential scholars"

far more than an ideologue right wing blogger who mainly comes here to take cheap shots at progressives.

But that is not an insult directed at you Brigade...I trust 238 Presidential scholars more than I trust my own opinion.
I mean why lend any credence to the opinion of people who have actually studied and analyzed the subject.
Open your mind Brigade and go to the link and read their criteria and justification.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 10:20 PM | Report abuse

rukidding

No one should make any determinations on Obama's intelligence until we see his transcripts

Seems like the liberal are talking again without any facts.


Obama has been pushed ahead by affirmative action programs his whole life. Without affirmative action, Obama would probably unemployed - another victim of Bill Clinton's failed policies.


YOU have no evidence to the contrary. No affirmative action, no gerrymandered black districts - no racial advantages.


Obama would just be left behind a long, long time ago


And now the country has to endure a sub-par, sub-intelligence person who is buggling economic policies, and now foreign policies.


AND you thought affirmative action was so good.

AND you have ZERO evidence to dispute any of this - you don't even have Obama's transcripts to support ANYTHING you want to say.....


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 10:21 PM | Report abuse

lms,

I suppose anyone interested can go back to the Sunday thread and review it. I'm not saying you are misstating the discussion, but I think there was more to it than that, and it started with 12bb's claim that opponents of government health care simply consider it more immoral to pay for someone else's health care than it is to let them die. And she claimed that the Constitution is just an excuse to cover up this immorality.

I pointed out that if 12bb or anyone who agrees with this claim has not given all the resources they can to save the uninsured from dying, then they are just as guilty, and are shirking their own moral duty based on the excuse of government.

So this:

"Why else would you recommend we give up all our assets to help the sick?"

is not something I ever did. I just pointed out that the same moral imperative that 12bb claims condemns opponents of government health care equally condemns her. Many, many people are dying for lack of care (it is asserted by liberals), and people like 12bb have money that could help them. Thus, there is no escaping that either one gives the money to help, or one is valuing possession of the money over the lives of others.

I didn't advocate it. I just pointed out that it is the logical corollary of her claim, and the object was to show that things might not be as simple as 12bb claimed.

I frankly can't make any sense out of your attempt to sever the asserted "public" moral duty from any personal one. But it is consistent with what I have observed over a long period of time -- that liberals tend to treat government not only as the necessary but as the only morally efficacious vehicle for "helping the poor."

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Ims,

What I've found is that blogs that have female front pagers, even if the lead blogger is a male, also have more female commenters.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 31, 2011 10:23 PM | Report abuse

@Troll

"I agree with your observation about the high level of the posts of the women you mention. I wonder if the site has a lot of women lurkers who, for whatever reason, prefer not to comment."

Very interesting observation...we very well may have female lurkers. In fact I wonder how many people read these comments besides our regular posters. You certainly raise a credible question...maybe a large % of our lurkers are the missing females.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 10:25 PM | Report abuse

"true armageddon: Dems trying to pass an expanded version of Medicare via reconciliation"


________________


What a LAUGH


First, reconciliation was only possible because the Senate voted on health care before Scott Brown was elected.


And silly, silly - the HOUSE has to approve everything now.


The Senate just can't throw on whatever they want to Medicare and the House has to live with it - the HOUSE has to approve all changes.

AND if you don't understand that, you shouldn't be talking AT ALL.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Mark:

""Are you physically located in the UK?""

No. I was there from '99 to '06, then returned to the land of the grand and glorious. I am on the east coast now. If you find yourself in NYC let me know and we can have that dinner and sort out the tax code.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 31, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Sue, your observations make it seem that women are more apt to go where they feel welcome. And that probably means that if Greg had a regular front page poster who was a woman, we'd likely have more women's voices here.

Does that mean men can still keep the doors partly closed in what seems an open setting by not accepting an obligation to try to level things out?

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 31, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

McWing:

""...deliberately disrupting the inevitable and Great Liberal Consensus Building.""

Heh. Keep it coming.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 31, 2011 10:29 PM | Report abuse

@STRF "What about equal time?"


Dude you mean you're not getting a large


enough allocation of


white space? I'm with you STRF.

GREG set STRF free...give him his white


space...as Liam has posted earlier...we


luvs us some STRF.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Erza writes in Greg's link this idiocy:


Democrats would start organizing around a solution based off of Medicare, Medicaid, and the budget reconciliation process -- as that would sidestep both legal attacks and the supermajority requirement.

______________


Ezra you should be FIRED for that statement


It is blantantly untrue

ANY reconciliation needs the approval of the HOUSE.


You are silly, and ridiculous - and if I was in charge of your newsroom you would be FIRED for being so stupid.


OH by the way, there are some Constitutional Amendments approaching 100 years old - does that mean they are no good anymore????

How about income taxes???


We don't have to pay after 100 years, right???


That would surely DEFUND Obama and the liberals.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 10:35 PM | Report abuse

qb

We seem to be talking past each other. I guess your disagreement with 12Bar is between the two of you. I am not one to impugn another's morality because they disagree with universal health care. But I do believe we have a collective responsibility, if you will, to provide health coverage for our citizens, some will be able to pay and some won't. What we all do to satisfy our personal morality is up to us as individuals.

Don't you believe we have a National sense of purpose or responsibility, moral or otherwise? I think we can disagree how far it extends and what it includes but it's undeniably part of who we are as a nation, don't you think, even if it's difficult to define? Am I being too esoteric?

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Cao, if that's really true that a difference in competitiveness is a rare observable difference in gender traits on testing, I find that extremely interesting. In fact, it makes me think about this whole question with a different frame.

But as you seem to know the research on this, is there any indication that younger women are more competitive in the wake of the changes that came with Title 9? I would guess that at least some of the competitiveness would be a result of nurture, not nature (and various sociological phenomena) and maybe all of it.

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 31, 2011 10:38 PM | Report abuse

rukidding

If that space was black, you wouldn't be saying that.

RACIST !


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Sue and ABC

Instead of me looking for another blog to disrupt, let's petition Greg for a female guest blogger, I think you two nailed it.

Are you reading this Greg?

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 10:41 PM | Report abuse

ruk,

Survey "rankings" of Presidents by historians -- particularly of recent and contemporary ones -- have about as much validity as astrology. Why in the world would any intelligent person even pay attention to such nonsense?

I studied in college (and somewhat in law school) with a bunch of commie pinko professors of various stripes. I loved most of them, but I wouldn't give a nickel for their opinions about good and bad presidents. I'll go with my own judgment and those of people I respect.

Thanks, though.

Btw, you again don't read very carefully. I didn't defend Hoover. I simply corrected Liam's misrepresentation of the facts. In fact, I think Hoover made terrible policy mistakes. It's just that they aren't the mistakes of liberal urban legend.

Defending Palin? About all I've done is react to, and laugh at, your absurdly over-the-top attacks on her. But she'd be a heck of a lot better than Obama or Biden. Or just about any other Democrat.

Btw, hilarious that you cite R and D campaign officials and aides as trashing her -- the Rs who completely bungled the campaign, and the Ds whose job was to defeat Palin (and keep her defeated). Are you always this gullible? That Steve Smith loser or whatever his was? Hahahahaha, yeah, good source. We'll just let him decide who is "qualified" from now on.

You are too much sometimes. I'd urge you to stick to creative writing, because analysis and argument isn't going so well for you.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 10:41 PM | Report abuse

ABC: "Does that mean men can still keep the doors partly closed in what seems an open setting by not accepting an obligation to try to level things out?"

Can they? Sure. Should they? I think it's dumb of them if they do because there is something lacking, and in the long run, it's difficult to attract and hang onto regulars if there is a void that's never filled.

But I look at a blog like PL, attached to a major US news organization, differently than other blogs that aren't affiliated the same way. The PL is a commercial venture, page clicks count because it means more traffic which is a measurable. (Frankly, I think that's at least part of the reason that WaPo has been reluctant to improve their comment sections across the board. What would be their motivation to do so?)


"your observations make it seem that women are more apt to go where they feel welcome. "

I think this is true for more than just women. In my experience, it's been the rare person who has willingly waded into a place where they didn't feel welcome, or if they did, they turned around and bailed out quickly. I think that's just human nature, not something unique to women.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 31, 2011 10:49 PM | Report abuse

O.K. Ball in your court, Greg.

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 31, 2011 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Re: Women on our blog....

Sue you've probably hit the nail on the head about female front page posters. Perhaps Greg will read this and think about adding a guest female front pager like Adam. I'd certainly support that move.

As far as competitive versus combative...lmsinca has nailed that one big time..at least from my perspective.

I'm married to an incredibly talented and very...I mean VERY competitive lady. I have sooo much fun with her. Our first spinning class she was next to me and simply would not back off...she pumped as fast as me and if I picked up the pace she was not going to fall behind...we exhausted ourselves...LOL...she had trouble walking for three days her legs were so sore...She has achieved a very high position...in fact the highest by a woman in my cracker state..in organized dentistry...it is a male dominated world.
She is as competitive...hell far more competitive than most of her male counterparts...but you have elucidated the real difference IMHO lmsinca...she is not combative. I envy her diplomacy, just as I envy 12Bar's and lmsinca's here on this blog. I am the big mouth...she is the diplomat...the thing that really makes our marriage work...is that neither of us is really sure which one of us is smarter than the other...a great bit of ignorance to maintain when two very, very competitive people hook up. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Ruk, you may be purposefully missing my response. I wasn't addressing whether chicks comment or lurk on blogs. I was commenting on ABC's agreement with bernie's conspiracy theory. I often miss my nose, particularly when it's right in front of my face, so if it was snark, let me know and I will feel duly chastised and shamed.

And for the record, and for anyone that needs to update their Trollblocker, I, along with Clawrence (not sure about STRF) am a full throated supporter of Sarah Palin. I've donated to her PAC and have written to her urging her to run. I also will, should she choose to (fingers crossed) run, donate money and labor to her Presidential campaign.

Let's keep our troll boogeyman straight, shall we?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 31, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""First, your question has been answered from the beginning of this conversation...""

Your only direct response to the question posed was "There's no refusal to say that a slave has rights that transcend local custom."

I didn't ask you if "there was a refusal" to say anything. I asked you if you believe that a slave possessed rights despite a community consensus that said otherwise. You refuse to answer this question. And we both know why. Because your explicit claim about moral notions being nothing more than "preferences" means that your answer must be "no". But you are (rightly) embarrassed to say it, and you probably don't even believe it, despite what your intellectualism tells you.

It is telling, however, that you think that when you speak of moral notions you are engaged in a con. We should all remember that the next time you pontificate on the immorality of one of your many conservative bogeymen.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 31, 2011 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Took a quick look at ruk's precious Presidential ranking link. Hilarious.

FDR 1st, over Washington and Lincoln. Truly bizzaro world. (FDR, btw, easily one of the stupidest Presidents, if not the stupidest.)

LBJ, Clinton and Obama all above Reagan. LBJ, the crude bully who plunged into Vietnam, exploded government, and left office a shell of a man.

Rankings = joke.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Sue, you say: "In my experience, it's been the rare person who has willingly waded into a place where they didn't feel welcome."

Bit off topic, but I think we can conclude Rain Man is rare.

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 31, 2011 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca

While you are at it, why don't you survey everyone in the comments section - and get their ethnic backgrounds

Then you can establish a quota system - and weight the number of comments according to each ethnic group


How about that?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 11:00 PM | Report abuse

ABC: "but I think we can conclude Rain Man is rare."

That was mighty diplomatic of you! Bwahahaha!

(I haven't read a word of Rain Man or any of his sock puppets since Kevin created the Troll Hunter.)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 31, 2011 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Q.B.

"but I wouldn't give a nickel for their opinions about good and bad presidents."

Did you give a nickel about their legal opinions in your law classes?

Their opinions on English Lit if you took any English lit courses..how about the instructors...did you find you also knew a lot more about literature than your instructors?

How about history? Did you also have a more valid or credible opinion about history than your instructors. And so you as an attorney have more validity in your argument than 238 Presidential historians?

Just asking without snark. You realize your side...and especially the Palinistas have little respect for education. Perhaps you feel the same way. That's certainly an available position to take but that would put us at loggerheads for sure Q.B. Personally I value education.
Not that I agree with or would expect you to agree with one..two..or three opinions...just because they came from educated people...but the consensus of 238 Presidential historians...actually that survey was for fun...G.W. entered at 23rd and fell to 39th..Obama may yet fall as well..but it is a snapshot in time and the 238 did reveal their criteria..and of course then there is the little matter of the other two links...Time...and worse still Wikipedia which featured a chart combining a dozen rankings.

You know Q.B. if we have a discussion and I bring credible EXPERTS to the table and you say.."have about as much validity as astrology."

Kinda reminds me of when someone looked into the camera and said "I'm not going to answer the questions you ask...I'm going to say what I have to say...wink wink.

I'm not going to respect more than a DOZEN surveys from many sources..one of which had 238 Presidential Historians.

Thank God you weren't Moses Q.B. I can see you stuck up on Sinai arguing with God about the order of the commandments.
You're only God...that's like some astrology mumbo jumbo I'm Q.B...don't you get that God...I'm Q.B. I'm NEVER wrong.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 11:08 PM | Report abuse

"Rain Man", perfect.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 11:09 PM | Report abuse

@Troll Perhaps I missed the mark...or should I say the snark.

As for Sister Sarah...you have a lot of supporters with you here...at least through the primaries...Liam and I shall be happy to toss a few sheckles her way if she actually does run...you know as in..does actual debates...answer questions from a genuine press pool and not just the fawning sycophants at Fox.

We're with ya Troll...let's go fer that nomination thing...RUN SARAH RUN!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Buchanan - he should be right above Obama

_______________


Jackson could not spell, but a great President.


_______________

Truman should be at the TOP -


HE WAS THE ONLY ONE WITH THE BALLS TO DROP THE BOMB........


and then............


He did it again.............

.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 11:17 PM | Report abuse

@Troll

You know I probably sounded snarky about supporting Sister Sarah...but I'm serious...Liam can speak for himself but I believe he'll join me...I'm truly serious...
the moment Sarah enters the race and signs up for the debates and agrees to be interviewed by the press corps...I would literally pay money for that...what a hoot!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 11:20 PM | Report abuse

rukidding

As things stand now, Obama has ZERO accomplishments - the Court has voided health care out the window.

So Obama has NOTHING.

He lost Congress for a vote which was declared VOID. AND now no one trusts Obama. Everyone still wants him out.

So, that has to be the dumbest move in the history of the country - Obama at 44th on the list. The guy who ate something and died in 30 days DID LESS DAMAGE THAN OBAMA.


At this point, ALL Obama has done is THROW PEOPLE OUT OF WORK in order to stroke his own ego on health care.


Unemployment or health care. It's a trade-off. Where is the morality there, oh liberals who love to try to prove your moral superiority, but only come off as being clueless.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 11:26 PM | Report abuse

ruk

I've got to disagree with you and Liam on the "run Sarah run" thingy. I would actually dread that scenario, not because I think she could win, but I would find it embarrassing as a woman and an American for someone so lacking in depth to be running for President of the United States. I would love to see a woman run, but neither Palin or Bachmann deserve that kind of support in my opinion. Sorry, but that makes it seem like a game to me, and it shouldn't be. I know I'm too serious sometimes, but we need serious debate in 2012 and she cannot and will not provide that. I'd rather see Obama face a moderate challenger even if it's a tougher race for him.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 11:27 PM | Report abuse

rukidding

I bet if you put all your "experts" in a room, you would come out of there convinced they were all a bunch of idiots.

You are touting this list - and you have no idea what the people who made it are like.


Obama is in the last place - I would put Buchanan ahead of him.


The guys who died early were BETTER than Obama.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 11:30 PM | Report abuse

That's if for me tonight. See y'all. Push Greg for that woman guest blogger tomorrow everyone.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 11:30 PM | Report abuse

"Thank God you weren't Moses Q.B. I can see you stuck up on Sinai arguing with God about the order of the commandments."

You consider 238 historians rating presidents like God? Explains a lot.

"You're only God...that's like some astrology mumbo jumbo I'm Q.B...don't you get that God...I'm Q.B. I'm NEVER wrong."

You consider rating Presidents a matter of right and wrong? Interesting. Again, explains a lot.

"Did you give a nickel about their legal opinions in your law classes?"

Some of them, but mostly law school isn't about getting legal opinions from profs. I wrote my 3L paper critiquing a position of the famous con law prof who "supervised" it. (He liked it a lot.) What would you make of that?

"Their opinions on English Lit if you took any English lit courses..how about the instructors...did you find you also knew a lot more about literature than your instructors?"

One prof thought Middlemarch was wonderful. I didn't. Does that count? Also didn't share his affinity for Intimations of Immortality. He for sure knew more about literature.

But none of my profs expected us to adopt their opinions. They were rather determined to get us to reach our own in a rigorous fashion. You're now telling me this was all wrong? Are you seeing a theme developing here?

"How about history? Did you also have a more valid or credible opinion about history than your instructors. And so you as an attorney have more validity in your argument than 238 Presidential historians?"

Strangely, rating Presidents and such was never part of studying history when I was in school. Nor was it a matter of who had a more "credible opinion" about history.

Arguments either have validity or not, independent of the arguer. (You might have heard of the fallacy of appeal to authority?)

What makes you think that professional historians have some exclusive claim as "experts" in deciding which Presidents are best and worst? How do you suppose they control for sheer ideological bias? (Hint: they don't.) My colonial/rev America prof could tell you a lot about colonial women and Virginia plantation life. Her opinions about Reagan and other Presidents were no more "valid" than yours or mine.

I find your next statement (insult, actually) to be enlightening in this regard:

"You realize your side...and especially the Palinistas have little respect for education. Perhaps you feel the same way. That's certainly an available position to take but that would put us at loggerheads for sure Q.B. Personally I value education."

If you actually valued education and intellectual rigor as much as you claim, you would be more inclined toward examining the evidence and reaching (or testing) considered judgments for yourself, not in accepting a crude survey of opinions -- and these are just OPINIONS -- of "experts" as gospel.

I won't bother with the rest of your insult.

Btw, you call the survey a "consensus," but again you are loose and inaccurate with facts.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Ezra Klein, Esq.:

“I’ve often said that I think the Washington Post is the most respectable voice of the Democratic Party, but that paper’s instant analysis of Judge Vinson’s decision, by Ezra Klein, is pathetic. Klein has no legal training, and it shows. His reaction to the decision is shrill, partisan, and unencumbered by any knowledge of the law.”
{...}
“There is, obviously, considerable humor value in seeing a kid who is on record as believing that the Constitution is too ‘confusing’ to be understood, since it is more than 100 years old, trying to critique the constitutional analysis of a federal judge with almost 40 years of experience as a lawyer and 27 years as a judge. But is the Washington Post really in the business of providing its readers with that sort of amusement?”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028256.php

heh

{{{journolistre sans avocat}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 31, 2011 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Well, Cillizza is going to have to give the Worst Week in Washington to Obama - finally.


After the Obama people trying desperately to distract everyone from Obama's ineptitude and inaction in Egypt - then the bottom fell out of the Obama administration - the Constitution was actually ruled to be valid.


Obama bet everything on health care - LOST Congress

And Obama hoped to TRADE Congress for health care in the worst case scenario (throwing 60 democrats and hundreds of staffers out of work) -

And Obama got NEITHER.


Oh well...........


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Ezra Klein is a silly young man.

Is there more to say about him?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 11:44 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca--I agree totally with all your reasons for not wanting to see Palin run.

Posted by: AllButCertain | January 31, 2011 11:48 PM | Report abuse

@qb "Is there more to say about him?"

Probably not, but I thought the "...unencumbered..." locution was a keeper, and was suitable for a further audience.

heh2X

Posted by: tao9 | January 31, 2011 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Ezra is a complete idiot

QB - the income tax Constitutional Amendment is almost 100 years old - do you think that means we don't have to pay anymore ?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 11:58 PM | Report abuse

WOW rare agreement on this blog


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 12:01 AM | Report abuse

Tao

Ezra apparently attempted to claim that a Medicare expansion could be approved WITHOUT the House Republicans !


His theory is this - through reconciliation, the democrats can bypass the closure rules AND the House of Representatives.


LOL - this was a good one. I suppose that Ezra's position is : since Article 1 of the Constitution is over 100 years old, it does not apply and the House doesn't have to approve ANYTHING, anymore.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Tao,

Agreed. Wasn't trying to snaring at you. I actually find Ezra's seeming lack of self awareness or perhaps even of sense of vulnerability puzzling. Perhaps unwilling to puzzle long on it, though, I just concluded that he is frivolous under that earnest veneer.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 1, 2011 12:06 AM | Report abuse

QB and Tao


I seriously don't know what has been going on at the Washington Post -


It was never this bad.


This paper used to have prestige from taking down Nixon -


NOW Nixon looks better than the Washington Post.


Unbelievable how these things change over time.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Take a good look at some of the writers here

Colbert King - still thinks he is fighting in the Jim Crow Era

Eugene Robinson - wishes he was still fighting in the Jim Crow Era, and he won't let go of any of it.


Greg Sargent, repeats himself more than a Cuckoo Bird, his blind reprinting of democratic talking points is beyond clueless. The way he insists he is right, on a nuance - is childish.


Ezra Klein - worse than today - Ezra Klein mindlessly repeats the democratic dreams - completely unvetted with any intelligence or reasoning at all.


Cillizza destroyed his own blog, and somehow thinks that tweeting is better.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Bernie,

A follow-up to your mosque bombing madman. The operative word being madman.

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/another-liberal-meme-bites-the-dust/

(And a link to that exceedingly rare bird, a conservative blogger that's a chick! Look away!)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 1, 2011 12:45 AM | Report abuse

@ABC: Real psychological differences between the genders are hard to determine and only show up with rigorous testing of large groups, they're not like physical differences. Women more social? No, not really. Women more nurturing? No, not really. Men more aggressive? Barely.

Competitiveness is a bona fide gender difference; not only are men more competitive, men will outperform themselves under competitive pressure while women will perform identically with our without that pressure.

Psychologically the human genders are very alike.

The only other one I know is a serious outlier that women hate to read about: historical math geniuses, the ones who make the huge leaps, people like Galois, af 100% male and do all their best work before age 20. Women want to believe this is prejudice against girls studying math. It isn't.

@QB: your inability to distinguish your own virulent prejudices from fact is a sight to behold. Your ideology is intellectually *crippling*. LBJ a mediocrity? Not surprised you would dismiss the Civil Rights Act, your probably revile it. FDR a mediocrity? Don't need to look far to see why you woud need to believe that. Yeah, you "studied" Keynes and found him "wanting." I'm sure you really thought about him in depth after you discovered he didn't support your ideology.

You are the political equivalent of a *cartoon*, dude.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 1, 2011 1:05 AM | Report abuse

@QB: you wouldn't get presidential ratings in history classes. Neither would you get comparative linguistics in English literature. As in so many cases yours is a trly bizarre and wildly tangential argument, yet puzzlingly delivered with a condescending sneer as though you think you're stating the obvious.

Ever hear of a field called Presidential Studies? They have their own quarterly magazine. Any good graduate library would subscribe. There are such things as scholars who study and, yessss, Precious yessss, compare presidents.

And their opinions count a lot more than some rage case right wing troll who's clearly full of himself.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 1, 2011 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Tao, while you're here, can you teach me how to convey derision? Like clearly you're scared of Ezra Klein. But suppose you weren't scared of him and wanted to make fun of him. How would you do it?

Posted by: DDAWD | February 1, 2011 1:16 AM | Report abuse

No, Cillizza's blog was destroyed by 37thand0Street, who posts here as RFR among many others. Cillizza buried it with a comment software update that turned it into a twitter repeater.

Just took a peek at one column. All tweets, nothing but repeats of the blgo title. No great loss anyway, 37th had already driven away most of the good commenters and the few who remained were people who'd settled into drearily predictable grooves. As if anyone needed to read another bloody word about Kaye Bailey Hutchinson or another flame war between zouk and drindl.

I really don't get why this paper fronts Cillizza. He's a terribly mediocre analyst and a deplorable writer. His recent summary of the deficits of the GOP presidential hopefuls was "on the one hand" a refreshing change from fawning over them, but "on the other hand" it was puddle deep. As though he just went down the list and wrote the first thing that popped into his head. Pawlenty's problem isn't just uh "lack of pizazz."

WaPo fired Dan Froomkin, a brillant guy, and kept Cillizza. Greg is closer to Froomkin in ability, yet it's Cillizza's sloppy smile we see on the front page. Really gotta wonder about that.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 1, 2011 1:23 AM | Report abuse

Much though I would like to see a 50 state Obama landslifde, now that he's finally found his voice and hit his stride, I too would rather not see Palin as the GOP nominee. For lots of reasons.

The main one is that it would be so undignified. She is, as Bernie perfectly expressed, a preposterous candidate. She's of barely average intellect and makes lazy use of what little she has, shows no willingness to grow into even her shabby rabble-rousing role, much less (!) national office. Her supporters are motivated more than anything else by a desire to see people they hate appalled as they themselves are appalled at a black man of authentic liberal credentials as president. A community organizer, they say over and over, when the president is supposed to be a guy right off the cover of Business Week.

Palin embodies everything wrong about America .. the anti-intellectualism, the apocalyptic Christianity, the shallow selfish self-absorption, the acquisitiveness. A Palin candidacy would heap shabbiness on our national discourse.

That's just one reason.

At the other end of the scale, I just can't stand her. Her voice is like getting a bug in the eye riding a motorbike. Her contempt for the natural kingdom makes me wish her "down to earth" character would end up under it.

Let the GOP sacrifice someone else.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 1, 2011 1:40 AM | Report abuse

meh, the GOP is already the party of the intellectually lazy. They ignore any evidence contrary to what they want to believe. No thought of theirs is disprovable, much less disproven, in their minds. Either it's misinformation by liberals or bad CBO math or the science isn't in for global warming or the economic gains of the Clinton years are due to Reagan's policies kicking in 12 years later.

And if all that fails, then they simply assert falsehoods. Things like Democrats increase the deficit more than Republicans or tax cuts increase revenue.

If a major political party can't even do proper arithmetic, Palin isn't all that much more of an embarrassment than Mitt Romney.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 1, 2011 1:58 AM | Report abuse

And for the record, and for anyone that needs to update their Trollblocker, I, along with Clawrence (not sure about STRF) am a full throated supporter of Sarah Palin. I've donated to her PAC and have written to her urging her to run. I also will, should she choose to (fingers crossed) run, donate money and labor to her Presidential campaign.

==

And failing that you could always strap on a few dozen sticks of dynamite and mosey over to some Jewish Community Center, or maybe fly an airliner into one of those big white monuments in DC.

There's a few more ideas for someone who obviously has a hypertrophied need for attention.

Wow, you support Palin, I mean that's just soooooo cooooool.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 1, 2011 2:40 AM | Report abuse

Troll,

Great find on the Michigan Beck/Palin/Limbaugh bomber.

I knew something was wrong with that story when I saw that he had M80s, which are basically large firecrackers, supposedly to blow up the center. I suppose you could blow something up if you had enough of them and knew how to detonate them simultaneously, but mostly they are used to blow up toy cars and the like.

Countdown to backup "Yes, but ..." story in 10, 9, 8 . ....

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 1, 2011 6:30 AM | Report abuse

Scott - "It is telling, however, that you think that when you speak of moral notions you are engaged in a con. We should all remember that the next time you pontificate on the immorality of one of your many conservative bogeymen."

You twit. Go back and find the play on words.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 1, 2011 6:38 AM | Report abuse

@ru - Crooks and Liars is a good site. Lots of information of value and he's got integrity re content/accuracy. Been around for a long time.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 1, 2011 6:41 AM | Report abuse

"You twit. Go back and find the play on words."

How was it a play on words? As I recall, you said simply and without irony that moral debate is a con game.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 1, 2011 6:51 AM | Report abuse

* Ian Millhiser has the rundown of previous laws upheld by the Supreme Court.

The implication here is that the present Court would give some weight to precedent?

Posted by: rhallnj | February 1, 2011 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Bernie, you're here early for a West Coast guy. Got all your papers delivered?

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 1, 2011 6:59 AM | Report abuse

Here's a depressing example of mainstream press setting up the context or narrative for attacks on ElBaradei...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/world/middleeast/01elbaradei.html?_r=1&hp

Not a word - not a single frigging word - on Suleiman...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/01/who-is-omar-suleiman.html

Posted by: bernielatham | February 1, 2011 7:07 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie....

So you're saying that Fox effup misplacing Egypt on a map was genuine and not photoshopped...not to be a doubting Thomas..and if it was for laughs I enjoyed the joke...but if Faux REALLY did that...I'm truly astounded...no hyperbole.

@lmsinca, ABC, & Tao

Ok I'm chastised! :-) I was wrong to want Palin to run for all the reasons you"ll elucidated. Mea Culpa It was my coarser human side that simply thought how enjoyable it would be to see this joke exposed not only to the world but to herself...this poor deluded soul actually believes her own mythology.

Q.B.
"Some of them, but mostly law school isn't about getting legal opinions from profs. I wrote my 3L paper critiquing a position of the famous con law prof who "supervised" it. (He liked it a lot.) What would you make of that?"

What I would make of it...first happiness for your success...second sadness that you feel the need to post it.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 1, 2011 7:08 AM | Report abuse

"What I would make of it...first happiness for your success...second sadness that you feel the need to post it."

Sad that I answered your question about law school. I see. Okay, then I won't respond to your questions any more. You reliably miss the point anyway, so it seems to be a waste of time, and this way you won't feel sad.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 1, 2011 7:15 AM | Report abuse

ABC - My schedule is fairly odd in the view of most people. I'm up about 2:30 AM for several hours. It's my peaceful reading time (with posting thrown in, of course). Then I pop back into bed for a couple of hours, then up and to work.

And here's a relevant point re earlier gender discussion. As the Times notes, Barbara Bush (the twin who didn't shove my daughter-in-law's face into the school locker at the school they attended together as teens) has made an open and strong statement supporting gay marriage. The piece notes other Republican women who are not beset by homophobia and properly understand this as a simple and obvious matter of civil and human rights. Kudos to every one of them...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/us/politics/01bush.html?hpw

Posted by: bernielatham | February 1, 2011 7:18 AM | Report abuse

Cao

YOU and the Obama paid trolls destroyed Cillizza's blog.

Go back in the archives - I challenge you and see how "friendly and civil" you all were.

Seriously man, you of all people, who makes the most uncivil attacks on other people saying such a thing. Outrageous.


The Obama paid trolls were attacking every comment - often within minutes.

The Obama paid trolls were working in shifts - and attempting to drive anyone away who didn't agree with the DECEPTIONS AND LIES OF OBAMA.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 7:28 AM | Report abuse

I'll let others eviscerate Gerson for the following notes from whatever solar system this man lives in:

"Repeating its performance following the Iranian protests of June 2009, the Obama administration initially adopted a prudence indistinguishable from paralysis. It does not know how to respond in these situations because it does not know its own mind. Is democracy promotion a naive relic of the Bush era? ...

Democratic revolutions can be defeated by violence or co-opted by radicals. But again, we are seeing that it is neither principled nor prudent for America to base its strategies in the Middle East on the denial of rights we value."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013103862.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted by: bernielatham | February 1, 2011 7:32 AM | Report abuse

bERNIE

what is the link to this supposed map?

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 7:42 AM | Report abuse

@ru - the team at C and L understand that if they play a game like Breitbart that they'll lose credibility and readers. If they get something wrong, it won't be intentional and they'll correct. According to the comments section, the graphic ran in July 2009.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 1, 2011 7:44 AM | Report abuse

@DDAWD - re your earlier wonderments on Huntsman... his decision seems quite inexplicable at this point.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 1, 2011 7:49 AM | Report abuse

In Ayotte - quoted in the health care decision:


The central question is this:


After finding an application or portion of a statute
unconstitutional, we must next ask: Would the legislature
have preferred what is left of its statute to no statute at
all? All the while, we are wary of legislatures who would
rely on our intervention, for it would certainly be
dangerous if the legislature could set a net large enough
to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside to announce to whom the statute may be applied. This would, to some extent, substitute the judicial for the legislative department of the government.


______________________


Well - that certainly is an interesting topic -

Do the Courts throw the entire health care law back to Congress - "sans individual mandate" - or do they just get rid of the whole thing.

Interesting that the "preference" of Congress is attempted to be inferred here.


Further of interest is the intervening election - in this case, the American People have CLEARLY indicated a preference to get rid of the entire law.


In this case, "judicial activism" would ACTUALLY be putting in place the WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, rather than the will of a HIJACKED GOVERNMENT.


Something with those Minnesota court decisions which gave Franken his seat and Obama his 60 votes - there is something that does not sit well there. There is something RIGGED

The Rahm Emanuel gets his court decision the way he wants.......


OH, there is a resident of the MOON who is now allowed to be candidate in the Mayor's race in Chicago.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 8:05 AM | Report abuse

This passage from Kristol ought to garner some commentary today...

"The New York Times reported on Saturday that Obama is “acutely conscious of avoiding any perception that the United States was once again quietly engineering the ouster of a major Middle East leader.” It’s time for him to stop anachronistically obsessing over Iran in 1953 (assuming that’s what he’s referring to). Our problem in the Middle East isn’t that we’ve quietly engineered the ouster of too many Middle East leaders in recent decades. We’ve probably engineered the ouster of too few"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-opportunity_537750.html

Posted by: bernielatham | February 1, 2011 8:11 AM | Report abuse

"judicial activism"


WHAT A JOKE Is Obama serious in mentioning this???


This term JUDICIAL ACTIVISM has a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MEANING

Obama is being DECEPTIVE AGAIN.

"Judicial Activism" means clearly, the Courts doing something different from what the PEOPLE WANT.


In this case, Obama the Liar is applying this term to something that the PEOPLE DO WANT.

Thanks Obama, for using the English language to DECEIVE AND LIE AGAIN.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Go back and find the play on words.""

Here is the exact quote, which came in the context of you denying that moral claims can refer to anything real or contain any truth value, but proclaiming that moral language is nothing more than a "tool" used to get what we want:

"You try to convince. I try to convince. Everyone tries to convince. It's a con-game."

This is clearly an admission that you view moral claims, most especially your own, as nothing more than an attempt to fool others into thinking there is a reason to do as you want them to do. There was no "play on words".

BTW, I say above "especially your own" precisely because of your next sentence: "The difference between us is that you might have even managed to con yourself." This is clearly a reference to my acceptance that moral claims can have truth value. So, when I am making claims about morality, even by your own estimation, I am at least being sincere, even if I am wrong. You, on the other hand, are admitting upfront that you don't believe the claims you are making. They are just a "tool" you use to get what you want. You are, in a very real sense, a con man.

But, of course, we already knew that.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 1, 2011 8:14 AM | Report abuse

The whole democratic party is a con game


That is pretty direct.


And the liberals KNOW its true. That is why the liberals are not upset with the deceptions and Lies of Obama (DLO)

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 8:17 AM | Report abuse

qb (to Bernie):

""How was it a play on words? As I recall, you said simply and without irony that moral debate is a con game.""

You recall correctly. That is exactly what he said. But apparently I am a "twit" for following his thinking (such as it is) to its logical and necessary conclusion. Go figure.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 1, 2011 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Scott, you see a greater sin in taxing the wealthy than in letting treatable people die on the street. Your notions of morality aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Don't know where you got the idea you're a clever fellow.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 1, 2011 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Since we are being moral, let me say this: today's Radical Right subscribes to the most anti-christian political philosophy conceivable in a democracy. The American Radical Right mocks everything Jesus Christ preached and stood for.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 1, 2011 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Kristol has never been right about anything.

Installing the violently unpopular Shah led directly to the Islamic Revolution and Khomenei, which absolutely would not have happened otherwise. The USA just won't stop interfering with the secularization of Iran, driving it again and again into the hands of radical Shiites.

Not really any point in dignifying Kristol with rebuttal. Just do the opposite of what he advises and you'll never go wrong.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 1, 2011 8:39 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/the_morning_plum_177.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 1, 2011 8:43 AM | Report abuse

A Tale of Two Cohens. The NY Times' gets it right while the Post's sees everything Egyptian in terms of Israel.

Yes let's keep putting Israeli interests before our own. After all, they've been such a great ally.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 1, 2011 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Wow. Now Abdullah in Jordan has gotten rid of the prime minister and the rest of the government after street protests. This whole thing is going seismic,

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 1, 2011 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Have now read the opinion and it gives food for thought.

First, Congress inexplicably left out the boilerplate severability clause in the statute. That left an open door for a court to enter.

Second, Vinson is sold on the "inactivity" distinction. He assumes that, standing alone, the mandate is a novel stretch of Congressional power which would have to be justified based on whether it was a necessary and proper adjunct to a bill regulating commerce. He concludes that it is necessary but not proper.

This is not foolishness by any stretch, but I think the case should turn on the acceptance or rejection of the aggregation argument of "Wickard" and "Raich". That is, the single incident of a person failing to buy health care insurance in Keokuk when aggregated with similar decisions of others in other states affects commerce among the states.

I am suspicious of the aggregation argument, in general, but it seems relatively strong here. Failure of some to buy HC insurance raises our property tax rates and the cost of hospitalization for those of us who do pay for it, b/c hospitals and docs must charge us for their charity work when they are forced to do it, also by government mandate.
The weak link in that chain of argument is the rare person who can pay out of pocket for hospital stays and procedures - her failure to buy insurance does not affect me. But I think it is a generally sound argument for an overarching scheme that is based on regulation of commerce among the states.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2011 8:50 AM | Report abuse

@Q.B.

For some reason I really like you, I can't explain it. LMAO Not trying to be too snarky this early in the morning.

If I had to guess, I like you because of some sort of reverse projection. :-) You remind me somewhat of myself about 35 years ago.
My political beliefs have largely followed my spiritual beliefs.

I was raised Catholic for the first 14 years of my life, and as a "Catholic" progressive perhaps in the mold of 12Bar.
I slipped into Agnoticism for about a decade and along with that slip came a period of what perhaps could be described as virulent libertarianism, I was to the right of Scott. Then I wandered back into Christianity...first trying life as a Methodist...then Presbyterian...finally as a Southern Baptist. Yeah unbelievable even to me as I look back.

Finally I arrived at a spot I've occupied for the past decade or so...no longer a "Christian" but with the greatest respect for Christ's teachings, but an equal respect for the teachings of Buddha.
As I moved closer to Buddhism and tried letting go of my ego...still working hard on that one...with perhaps marginal success as observed on the blog :-)..I just started seeing the World in a completely different light. Combine that with my discovery of John Steinbeck's writing, his choice of subjects, well I simply morphed into my present "progressive" positions.

Back to you and I...when I was young my mother would taunt me with the old cliche..."You'd rather be right than President" So I do relate to you in that aspect Q.B.

My last post could have been more precise.
In a thread where the debate was over the constitutionality of ACA's "mandate" it was certainly appropriate for you to mention your legal studies on Constitutional Law. And yes you were answering some of my questions directly.
Here is the phrase that saddened me...
"(He liked it a lot.) What would you make of that?"
BTW I could have added I'm not surprised, you are obviously a very bright fellow indeed..no snark. But when you tout your own achievements..you cheapen them. We truly do KNOW you are smart and a great debater. If someone told me you were a great attorney I'd say...so...of course he is that's what I expect after reading his posts.

I just sense a certain...I wish to be very careful..that you feel you don't get enough respect on this blog from we lefties. You do not have to be right all the time for us to respect you. Other than informing us of your background for context and perspective (appropriate and appreciated)you don't really have to claim success or mastery. We REALLY do understand you're a bright and talented fellow. Just wanted to let you know I meant nothing derogatory with my "saddened" comment. I meant it as "understanding". I'm not on your "side" politically Q.B. but I do like and respect you...and I'll call you a name the next time you post something that makes me nucking futs..probably later today. LMAO

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 1, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse

ruk,

"You remind me somewhat of myself about 35 years ago."

Hey, I like this -- I could relive my youth. You know what they say, youth is wasted on all the wrong people.

Pretty jammed with work thought today so going to have to cut out. Will look at the rest later if I can.

Scott,

I see what he means about play on words -- con(vince)- game -- but it seems to amount to the same thing to me. I didn't pick that up at all when he posted it. He's stuck in the trap as all relativists.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 1, 2011 9:27 AM | Report abuse

"mandate was originally a Republican idea." i am a life-long democrat and can not foresee an election where i would not vote for a democrat; however, i will say it is "tiring" to see the democrats time after time outsmarted again and again by the long-view, machaiavellian and disingenuous republicans. in today's senate world, where "it is the job of the majority to govern and the job of the minority to become the majority," it is discouraging how the democrats always fall for the lucy and the football routine of the republicans.

of course the mandate was a republican carrot to offset the wiser and more economical public option or "medicare for all," as was the TARP, the tax cuts for the wealthy and all the other ways we find ourselves trying to solve this nation's challenges.

it would seem one's only hope is the gop will finally overstep and the american people will see the puppeteers who really are pulling the strings for their own financial gain.

Posted by: sbvpav | February 1, 2011 10:27 AM | Report abuse

@sbvpar

Great post hope you stick around and contribute frequently. We have plenty of formidable "righties" on this site, we can use all the help we can get. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 1, 2011 10:52 AM | Report abuse

sbvpav, did you at least see all of the WORSE things said about assassinating George W. Bush that I posted for you on an earlier thread?

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 1, 2011 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

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

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




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company