Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:38 AM ET, 01/20/2011

The Morning Plum

By Greg Sargent

* Dem pollsters plead with Obama: Don't touch Social Security! An important read from Dan Froomkin, who quotes prominent Democratic pollsters telling the White House that agreeing to some kind of "deal" to cut Social Security would spell disaster for Dems in the next cycle.

With many convinced that Obama may address Social Security cuts in the State of the Union address, the pollsters offer a sobering assessment: Voter confidence in the Democrats' handling of Social Security is precipitously down>. That's particularly striking given that Social Security has for decades been a defining bedrock issue for Dems, one that's crucial to the electorate's sense of what the Democratic Party stands for.

The pollsters also note that the elite Beltway conviction that the deficit needs to be addressed with entitlement cuts is totally disconnected from voters. As Celinda Lake puts it, going this route would be "a great way to really solidify our losses." That these Dem pollsters see the need to warn Obama off Social Security is a mark of what a nightmare scenario this remains for liberals.

* An Obama rebound: The new NBC/WSJ poll finds that Obama's approval rating has jumped eight points from last month, to 53 percent.

Key nugget: If Obama's strategy is about winning back independents, it's beginning to work: He's jumped 11 points with that group. The President is heading into next week's State of the Union address with some momentum after enjoying one of the best stretches of his first two years.

* Repeal and replace? John Boehner says he won't set any "artificial deadlines" for House GOPers who have been tasked with coming up with a Republican health reform plan to replace Obama's; he just expects them to "act in an efficient way."

* Tea Partyers are in for a rude shock, ctd.: As Stephen Stromberg notes, once the euphoria of yesterday's repeal vote wears off, Tea Partyers will soon have to face the difficult reality that they aren't going to get much of anything they want, whether it's on full repeal or on the debt ceiling. How GOP leaders manage that disappointment will be a key narrative going forward.

* But GOP won't give up on repeal: With full repeal a nonstarter, GOP leaders plan to try just about everything, from hearings to funding cuts, to stall implementation of the law. This fight will be a defining one for the 2012 cycle.

* Repeal fantasy of the day: From Joe Wilson:

WE JUST REPEALED OBAMACARE!

Congressman, you lie!

* Who will replace Joe Lieberman? Sam Stein on why Democrats are not all that sanguine about taking Lieberman's seat. Hint: Linda McMahon, her name recognition, and her ability to write checks for $50 million.

* Lieberman sendoff of the day: Defense contractors are dismayed to lose one of the staunchest defenders of weapons programs that Republican and Democratic presidents alike wanted to cut.

* Guantanamo still open for business: The Obama administration plans to increase military trials of terror suspects at Gitmo, effectively acknowledging that the facility will remain open for the foreseeable future. Keep in mind that this is a response to Congressional opposition to closing Gitmo -- and to civilian trials -- from not just Republicans, but Democrats, too.

* Jared Loughner indicted: Read his indictment here. Count one:

On or about January 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, JARED LEE LOUGHNER, with the intent to kill, attempted to kill Gabrielle D. Giffords, a member of Congress.

* Obama's silence on guns: Glenn Thrush wonders why White House officials have remained noncommittal on the very moderate and reasonable proposal to restrict access to the kind of high-capacity ammo magazine used on Giffords.

* Rant of the day: Great rant from Digby about Rep. Phil Gingrey's (R-Versaille) claim yesterday that if it's true that there are 129 million people will preexisting conditions, "they would all have to have hang nails and fever blisters."

* Sarah Palin taking steps towards running for president? Scott Conroy reports that her operatives are reaching out to the Iowa grassroots, signaling that she may be ready to step outside the media/celebrity bubble and begin organizing a real campaign.

* And: A new Post poll finds that she is one of only three candidates in the top tier of 2012 GOP hopefuls, effectively tied with Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. While polling so far out doesn't tell us much, it's certainly not too early to start taking a Palin candidacy seriously.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | January 20, 2011; 8:38 AM ET
Categories:  Health reform, House Dems, House GOPers, Morning Plum, deficit  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Delusions of world-historical grandeur

Comments

Re Boehner and "no artificial time limits" on what "replace" might look like...

Repeal isn't about governance, therefore no governance proposals of any real significance will be offered up. The purpose of repeal (see Rove in his WSJ op ed) is about doing electoral damage to Dems.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 20, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Greg

Why haven't you banned Liam for participating in a SMEAR campaign against an innocent citizen on the pages of this lofty blog???


Why haven't you banned rukidding (Bobby Lee) for his Racist hate speech on the pages of this lofty blog ???


Why haven't you banned 12barbluesAgain for bringing Cao this blog, knowing exactly what he would do? She did it to act out on her destructive tendencies. She knew what she was doing, and even said she was proud of it and defended on it on the pages of this lofty blog.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 20, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse


Symbolic


The American People have an election - elect a new House of Representatives.

And the new Congress EXPRESSES THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE with yesterdays vote.

And Obama and his poeple KICK THAT EXPRESSION TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, calling it "symbolic."


That is DISRESPECT.

Obama is a joke - his people are a joke - the American People are getting sick of this attitude. Period. The liberals need a SERIOUS ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT.


The use of the word "symobolic" is NOT CIVIL, it is DISRESPECTFUL.


And the democrats keep on claiming they are not PROVOKING PEOPLE.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 8:59 AM | Report abuse

A Palin Candidacy?

Please let this be real. Oh god imagine the meltdown.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 20, 2011 9:03 AM | Report abuse

The 21st Amendment wasn't about governance either?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 20, 2011 9:03 AM | Report abuse

The Polls

Obama is getting what is known as a "Dead-Cat Bounce" -

Dead Cat Bounce has its origins in stocks - when a dying stock has some people buying on the dip in price. This is just like a politician getting sympathy from some people as they see their careers end.


Clearly, Obama got a little bounce from the SMEAR campaign against Sarah Palin - one would have to look at the exact days the poll was conducted.

In addition, the gays-in-the-military probably gave Obama a short-term blip in the gay community. That will diminish in time as Obama fails the gay community on other issues like gay marriage and teaching the gay agenda to young children in public schools.


So, the polls mean nothing -

The only poll which means anything is in November 2012.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Why do beltway Democrats believe that Obama is going to embrace Social Security cuts in the SOTU? I have not read one article stating that Obama plans to talk about Social Security cuts in the SOTU.

I have read plenty of articles that said Obama will focus on JOBS JOBS JOBS, economic growth, and long term deficit reduction in the SOTU. Obama has said on many occasions that he will NOT cut the deficit on the back of Social Security benefit cuts.

Instead to address the long term deficit expect Obama to focus on growing our economy, "Tax Reform", and Defense cuts in the SOTU. He may even throw a bone to Republicans and say that he wants to do more in reigning in the growth of medical cost in which he may even fully embrace Tort Reform.

Besides Obama knows that he doesn't have 60 votes in the Senate for any Social Security benefit cuts and there are 23 Democratic Senators up for re-election and thus NOT one of them will be vote for Social Security cuts in 2011.

Also, Obama needs to raise $1 billion for his re-election. He can't afford to have the Democratic activist base pissed at him. Thus perhaps the most Obama will say in the SOTU is that Social Security is in good shape but to ensure it solvency for the next 100 years that tweeks should be made but that should happen AFTER we work on long term deficit reduction. Thus there will be NO specificity on what to do with Social Security in the SOTU.

Obama knows that any changes to Social Security won't happen until AFTER his re-election so why bother talk about pain NOW when that can be addressed in his SOTU in 2013.

Posted by: maritza1 | January 20, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

For anyone interested, here are ADL's press releases on Cohen's comment, Palin's "blood libel" reference, Roger Ailes comparison of NPR to Nazis, and Beck's "remarks" (actually a three part programming offensive running over three consecutive evenings) on Soros...

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/default.htm

It's not news that the ADL under Foxman has come to be a functioning shill for the Republican party but the contrasts here make the decline of this organization acutely clear.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 20, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Clawrence

Ignore Bernie - he is sitting in a dying retail store - we can see how many customers he has by his number of posts.

Instead of advertising, or trying to get more customers, Bernie is just making ridiculous comments.


Of course, repeal is about what kind of health care system we have - that is governing. It is about LOWERING taxes - YESTERDAY'S VOTE WAS A VOTE TO LOWER TAXES BY BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.


Yesterday's vote was a vote to lower business uncertainty.

Yesterday's vote was also a PRO-GROWTH VOTE because repeal will be a massive growth injection into the economy. It is that simple.

Yesterday's vote


Yesterday's vote was all about ECONOMICS - and growing the Economy - something that Obama and the liberals ignore or simply do not understand.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 9:13 AM | Report abuse

I'm always amazed at how those on the right claim that the 2010 election was a mandate to repeal health care reform and that Dems are disrespecting the will of the people by calling yesterdays vote symbolic. I don't recall the right respecting the the will of the people after the 2008 election. That election was clearly one of the largest mandates in recent history....and health care reform passed as a result of that mandate.

Posted by: nostunk | January 20, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

"The pollsters also note that the elite Beltway conviction that the deficit needs to be addressed with entitlement cuts is totally disconnected from voters."


It is also disconnected from reality.

Americablog posts video evidence of Beltway conviction to harm Social Security and shows Sen. Harry Reid telling David Gregory (of NBC) the facts. David Gregory is a salesman for cuts, not a dispassionate observer or reporter. What a shame.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nR7-NJVwN4&feature=player_embedded#t=0s

This video deserves some time on your front page.

Reid: "..this is something that's perpetuated by people who don't like government. Social Security is fine..."

And if you did "fix" Social Security, you still would not fix the "deficit problem" because the GOP would just ratchet down taxes until there was another "crisis". And while you can embed funding and cuts to Social Security into law, you cannot tie future Congress' hands -- they will be able to change things at will.

Should Obama cut Social Security, the much larger GOP Congress elected in 2012 will certainly make sure that the crisis reappears -- even after they win reelection by campaigning to be the champion of Social Security.

Posted by: grooft | January 20, 2011 9:17 AM | Report abuse

@nostunk: you mean RFR.

We don't take him seriously around here. Pretty much everyone ignores him. He must have a full diaper this morning.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 20, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Word today is that OBAMA WANTS TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY.

Apparently, all the diversion of money to democratic interest groups and expensive union contracts has caused the Obama people to want to CUT SOCIAL SECURITY in order to finance Obama's "transformation" of American society.


Obama wants everyone to be equally poor - and the way to do it is to drag the economy down, INCREASE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, and then cut social security.

Clearly, the only way to finance "TRANSFORMATION"


So, Obama is telling the nation's seniors -

1) Obama is going to cut your Social Security

2) Obama already took $500 Billion OUT of Medicare

3) Obama is going to give you "end of life counseling" so you can decide to end it all early.


Clearly, this is Obama's Senior Platform for 2012.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 9:19 AM | Report abuse

nostuck

Total DISRESPECT - since mid-November all the democrats have been doing is disrespecting the American People DIRECTLY by disregarding and trashing the results of the election.

This is a democracy, not a left-wing liberal agenda dictatorship.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Polls

Other polls have Obama up no more than 2% - not even close to the 8% that the bogus liberal press is running wild screaming.

In fact, Rasmussen on Jan 16 has Obama at 44%, which is DOWN 2%.

ON Jan 15 and Jan 17, Rasmussen had Obama at 46%, which is around Obama's average from December.


The conclusion is perhaps Obama has a bump from the Don't Ask vote - however that is bound to be temporary when gays start to turn to other issues like gay marriage and teaching young kids the gay agenda in public schools.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Obama's only recent mandate was with Larry Sinclair.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 20, 2011 9:29 AM | Report abuse

caothien9

Thanks for the info....as someone new here I was wondering why rfr's rants never seemed to be responded to. Now I know.

Posted by: nostunk | January 20, 2011 9:29 AM | Report abuse

There's a MUST READ piece by Kristol at the WS titled "The 2012 Nomination Is Too Important to Waste".

Ain't that title neat? We love you Sarah and maybe you are our girl but the nomination is too important to waste (even while I'm implicitly agreeing with the person I quote that you ain't our girl). For any of you who've read Strauss or read about Strauss, you'll note the two levels of meaning.

Kristol works from an NRO piece by Jeffrey Anderson. Read it. It's a great example of propaganda (eg. "He [Obama] wanted it this way. He wanted Obamacare to be "comprehensive legislation," passed without compromise and without input from the minority party.".... one of the big lies promulgated in this effort). And it lays out or replicates the electoral strategy voiced by Kristol regarding this healthcare initiative and his earlier memo on the Clinton healthcare initiative.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/2012-gop-nomination-too-important-waste_536764.html

Kristol is a sleaze. With any luck, Palin will have figured this out by now and do just what Kristol doesn't want her to do. She can't win but she can muck things up badly.

Go Sarah!

Posted by: bernielatham | January 20, 2011 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for the constant reminder that we had an election. Here's one you might remember:

Obama - 365
McCain - 173

Deal with it.

Posted by: cao091402 | January 20, 2011 9:32 AM | Report abuse

If Obama does move to cut Social Security, is that enough to warrant a primary challenge?

Posted by: NoVAHockey | January 20, 2011 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Does RainForestRising have a job? Or perhaps this is his or her job? Who has the time to be so ubiquitously negative?

Posted by: mercerreader | January 20, 2011 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Maritza, there was a posting at Brad De Long's website some weeks ago, Brad basically received from the White House prelim/preview talking points, and he was impatient that jobs wasn't among them.

Posted by: Papagnello | January 20, 2011 9:43 AM | Report abuse

@mercerreader - RFT (one of many names he posts under) is a classic troll - he's here to disrupt people's conversations because he doesn't like the conversations. Everyone ignores him except that edge of the bell curve which isolates the very stupid among us. Why he might spend so much time disrupting others' conversations rather than going somewhere and having conversations is a good question. I expect the answer is a sad one though.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 20, 2011 9:51 AM | Report abuse

"the pollsters offer a sobering assessment: Voter confidence in the Democrats' handling of Social Security is precipitously down"

Sobering perhaps, but not surprising. The reality is that social security *is* in trouble. Social security is the Democratic Party's 'Global Warming' issue. They refuse to address the problem, and until they do voter confidence will continue to fall.

"The pollsters also note that the elite Beltway conviction that the deficit needs to be addressed with [benefit] cuts is totally disconnected from voters."

Unfortunately, the voters are disconnected from reality. (Perhaps it's because the take what their favorite pundits tell them as divine truth.) They want to reduce the deficit without spending cuts or tax increases. Good luck with that!

"As Celinda Lake puts it, going this route would be "a great way to really solidify our losses." That these Dem pollsters see the need to warn Obama off Social Security is a mark of what a nightmare scenario this remains for liberals."

Whatever proposal congress comes up with will have to contain some benefit cuts. I don't see this as a nightmare for liberals, provided they can work out a fair deal (i.e. one that hurts both sides equally). Where are liberal voters going to run to? The socialist party?

Posted by: mmyotis | January 20, 2011 9:52 AM | Report abuse

The vast majority of social security recipents are white, makes sense to lower their income, they stole the american riches from the poor in the first place.One would guess they are racest homophobes and are greedy.One also had to notice the grey hair tea protesters wanting their country back,hmm old people,bad.So lets stop the game and man up to the final solution Death panels as suggested by mr. Krugman.It's kind of cool like the "death star" .We only need to figure out who are the storm troopers?

Posted by: jmounday | January 20, 2011 9:55 AM | Report abuse

@bernielatham. Thanks. Is being a troll a profession? Can one make a living at it? Does trolldom come with benefits? a retirement package? a special dispensation from the Pope?

Posted by: mercerreader | January 20, 2011 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Hey Boys And Girls;

You know that Big Lie that the Republicans keep spreading about how the Health Care Reform Bill, which President Obama signed into law, means Government has taken over running health care?

You must all be familiar with that piece of Republican Nonsense, aren't you? Most of them are still claiming that Government is taking over health care.

However; yesterday; one of their own unintentionally let the cat out of the bag, and admitted that The Republicans have been telling The Big Lie.

Here is how he did it. If the government were really taking over health care, then he would not be able to keep his old private insurance coverage, but that is exactly what he said he is going to do.

Read it for yourselves:

"because he says members of Congress should not support laws they don't want applied to themselves. From The Daily Courier of Arizona:

New U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar says he won't sign up his family for federal health insurance since he wants to dismantle the landmark health care legislation the previous Congress created.

Gosar, a Flagstaff dentist, said members of Congress should not vote for laws they don't want for themselves, and vice versa.

"I'm keeping my own private (health insurance) plan," he said."

Could he have made it any clearer, that the The Republicians were just using The Big Lie tactic all along.

He is one of the liars, who kept telling the voters that government was going to be making all the health care decisions for them, and yet; he admitted yesterday that he was just spreading The Big Lie.

He said he is going to be able to keep his old private insurance policy.

" "I'm keeping my own private (health insurance) plan," he said.""

There you go Greg. Pass that along to Congressman Cohen, and thank him for me, for calling out the heartless lying cabal that calls itself The Republican Party.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 20, 2011 9:59 AM | Report abuse

@Maritza

I hope and pray you are correct Maritza.
Our fear is based on B.O.'s past performance when it comes to dealing with R's.

Public opinion was in favor of a "single payer" solution...ala Medicare for all...

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

The Pres clearly also had public support for the P.O. and he never lifted a finger.
OK he got health care passed and those of us who were disappointed remain hopeful that this is just a start...For me personally..while I'm still a big fan and a supporter of B.O.'s I confess for me the verdict is still out on his HCR or the ACA.
Because I respect him so much I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Tax cuts for the Wealthy? A HUGE plurality of Americans were against those extensions...again I'm not out to handcuff our President by being an inflexible ideologue and so AGAIN I give him the benefit of the doubt and enough room to maneuver.

And now S.S. I love your post Maritza...it certainly sounds plausible..and I hope and pray you are correct...but I hope you understand why we progressives remain fearful...backroom deals with the Big Pharma...the R's...perhaps necessary...I don't wish to let "perfect" destroy the chance of getting good...but S.S. better remain off the table with the possible exception of "means testing".

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 20, 2011 10:11 AM | Report abuse

When arguing polls, it's too easy to cherry pick the one you like. And if there aren't any, claim that you have some internal polling that shows otherwise. For example, Rand Paul was always ahead in the polling. Rasmussen had some odd numbers (wasn't it +30 at one point?) and others had Conway up.

With all that as preamble, it's worth looking at the so-called poll of polls, i.e., Real Clear Politics just averages everything. At the moment, Obama is up 5% on average. Trends are more important. Obama hit the 50% mark around late 2009, stayed mostly steady and sagged last summer when it was clear Recovery Summer wasn't happening. There has been a sharp blip upwards in the last month that is not isolated to any single poll.

Take Rasmussen, for example. I assume the conservatives on the blog would approve. His poll of likely voters fairly consistently had Obama down through the fall. It too has shown improvement in the last month. Rasmussen's scatter is higher than other polls since it's a robopoll.

Date App Dis Diff.
Sept. 4 45 55 -10
Sept. 16 45 55 -10
Oct. 1 48 51 -3
Oct. 12 43 56 -13
Oct. 21 47 53 -6
Nov. 11 47 52 -5
Dec. 1 43 56 -13
Jan. 16 48 51 -3

BTW - The morning call-in shows on C-SPAN have been interesting. There is a notable change in the tenor of the calls. The occasional Republican caller finding agreement with the Democratic guest and vice versa. Somehow, I don't think that's going to penetrate to the floor of the House.

You can now resume your usually scheduled bickering.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 20, 2011 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Breaking: Home Prices Fall for 53rd Straight Month, Eclipses Great Depression Decline
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70961E20110111

Are you better off now than when the Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) triumverate assumed power in 2006?

How are those Marxist economic policies of the P.O.R. triumverate working out for you?

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 20, 2011 10:13 AM | Report abuse


Word today is that OBAMA WANTS TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY.

Apparently, all the diversion of money to democratic interest groups and expensive union contracts has caused the Obama people to want to CUT SOCIAL SECURITY in order to finance Obama's "transformation" of American society.


Obama wants everyone to be equally poor - and the way to do it is to drag the economy down, INCREASE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, and then cut social security.

Clearly, the only way to finance "TRANSFORMATION"


So, Obama is telling the nation's seniors -

1) Obama is going to cut your Social Security

2) Obama already took $500 Billion OUT of Medicare

3) Obama is going to give you "end of life counseling" so you can decide to end it all early.


Clearly, this is Obama's Senior Platform for 2012.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Yeah don't touch SS, after all it is the biggest give away program the DEMS ever came up with and it has been a cash cow for ALL of Cpngress to loot.

Posted by: g30rg3544 | January 20, 2011 10:18 AM | Report abuse

KDE seems confused. Obama wasn't elected in 2006.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 20, 2011 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Two-Thirds of U.S. Doctors Expect ObamaCare to Worsen Care Patients Receive
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41149280

*know-nothings*

/sarc

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 20, 2011 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Fairlington

Rasmussen also had Obama at a low of 39

I think it would be fair to say that Rasmussen has Obama at an average of 46 through the end of December.

I haven't done any averages for the months.

I suppose if one really want to analyze Rasmussen correctly, run some 90-day running averages, 60-day running average, run a 30-day and maybe a 7-day and a 3-day running average.

Take a look at those three running averages.

Im just throwing out the methodology - I suppose an Excel spreadsheet would produce those graphs fairly easily.

Without running those graphs, I would say Obama has a "Dead-Cat bounce" - a combination of the gays, the Arizona shooting and the sympathy vote - all of which are temporary.

Let Congress get settled in, the numbers in the Spring and Summer are much more important than now.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 10:20 AM | Report abuse

One observation - Obama looked really rattled yesterday at the news conference - not at ease at all.

I thought about that yesterday - and I thought maybe the translations was the issues.

However, now Drudge has it up -


Obama looked like a complete idiot on the stage with Hu.

Im thinking that the world leaders are deciding how much they should take advantage of his lack of knowing what he is doing. They are wisely restraining themselves because they do not want a reaction. However it is clear that when it comes to the Chinese, Obama is NOT the guy you want representing you.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 10:24 AM | Report abuse

[FairlingtonBlade drooled: "Obama wasn't elected in 2006."]

The Pelosi-Obama-Reid (P.O.R.) triumverate took over both houses of Congress in 2006.

Own the POR Depression, Leftists.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 20, 2011 10:26 AM | Report abuse

[FairlingtonBlade drooled: "Obama wasn't elected in 2006."]

The Pelosi-Obama-Reid (P.O.R.) triumverate took over both houses of Congress in 2006.

Own the POR Depression, Leftists.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 20, 2011 10:26 AM | Report abuse

@ruk -- I don't get it. Is Social Security your line in the sand? Why continue to support the guy if he won't fight for your priorities? The public option I get, he didn't make that a centerpiece of his campaign. The tax cuts, however, he made a big deal about during the campaign.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | January 20, 2011 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Tea Party Congressman Reveals That His Party has been using The Big Lie tactic to mislead The American People.

You know that Big Lie that the Republicans keep spreading about how the Health Care Reform Bill, which President Obama signed into law, means Government has taken over running health care?

You must all be familiar with that piece of Republican Nonsense, aren't you? Most of them are still claiming that Government is taking over health care.

However; yesterday; one of their own unintentionally let the cat out of the bag, and admitted that The Republicans have been telling The Big Lie.

Here is how he did it. If the government were really taking over health care, then he would not be able to keep his old private insurance coverage, but that is exactly what he said he is going to do.

Read it for yourselves:

"because he says members of Congress should not support laws they don't want applied to themselves. From The Daily Courier of Arizona:

New U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar says he won't sign up his family for federal health insurance since he wants to dismantle the landmark health care legislation the previous Congress created.

Gosar, a Flagstaff dentist, said members of Congress should not vote for laws they don't want for themselves, and vice versa.

"I'm keeping my own private (health insurance) plan," he said."

Could he have made it any clearer, that the The Republicians were just using The Big Lie tactic all along.

He is one of the liars, who kept telling the voters that government was going to be making all the health care decisions for them, and yet; he admitted yesterday that he was just spreading The Big Lie.

He said he is going to be able to keep his old private insurance policy.

" "I'm keeping my own private (health insurance) plan," he said.""

There you go Greg. Pass that along to Congressman Cohen, and thank him for me, for calling out the heartless lying cabal that calls itself The Republican Party.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 20, 2011 10:27 AM | Report abuse

@mmyotis

"The reality is that social security *is* in trouble."

NO..That is YOUR reality. Perhaps you're new here mmyotis but we don't let respected posters get away with crap like that. Again notice I said "respected" posters and so take it as a compliment that I am explaining our customs here. So far at least you remain a "respected" poster.

BUT if you wish to make absolute statements as if they are fact you need to provide links....LINK PLEASE..

For example while you perhaps have been brainwashed by the neocons that it's SS and yes when you look at the budget it appears Defense Spending is 23% and SS is 20%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%

This is a HUGE right wing canard....because the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been fought "off budget".

The reality is that roughly half of your tax dollars are going for defense...and that doesn't caculate the future costs which will also be exhorbitant! The VA will be working overtime...PTS...homelessness..prosthetic limbs and the training and rehabilitation to learn how to use them. Guns or Butter?
Remember Econ 101 and the Guns and Butter question. Well Mmyotis which is it...Guns or SS...Guns or Healthcare for all?

If you want to worry about a "real" problem it's our heads up our posterior Foreign Policy and our Military adventurism which nobody can prove has made us one iota safer.

Remember the joke about the man who snapped his fingers incessantly? When asked why, he said to keep the elephants away. When people then made fun of him he said...you don't see any elephants do you?

That is the Dick Cheney defense for the worst foreign policy screw up in the history of our nation! We're not getting attacked are we? Well actually yes we are and it's NEVER stopped military adventurism be damned.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 20, 2011 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Fairlington

If you take a look at the second graph on this page, Obama's approval rating is just about steady since September 2009.

The first graph is just the "strongly disapprove" and the "strongly approve" numbers. That graph shows in the past 5 months, the numbers of "strong disapprove" have fallen -

However practically ALL of them have simply gone from "strongly disapprove" to "regular disapprove."

Overall total "disapprove" is relatively steady.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 10:30 AM | Report abuse

NBC/WSJ’s pollster, Hart/McInturff, polled 1000 adults without restricting respondents to registered or likely voters. In fact, 19% of those responding claimed not to have voted in the 2008 elections, which is almost 1 in 5 and tends to make the predictive value of the poll rather weak. The D/R/I sample split is 31/21/39, a ten-point Democratic advantage when Gallup and Rasmussen both show the electorate evenly split or with Republicans taking a slight edge in affiliation. A 21% sample composition for Republicans is a gross underrepresentation. The previous poll has a 33/23/36 split.

On top of that, 42% of respondents say they voted for Obama, and 29% for John McCain, while 10% split evenly say they voted for someone else or can’t recall for which candidate they voted. Since Obama beat McCain by seven points in the popular vote, this appears to oversample Obama voters badly. Compare this sample to their previous poll, in which the split was 41/32 and 17% said they didn’t vote for anyone at all, and one can see where at least some of the bounce originates.

Otherwise, like the WaPo/ABC poll earlier this week, the bounce appears confined to personal considerations and not the issues. On the economy, Obama went from 42/54 to 45/50, which almost exactly fits the change in sample between the two polls. Oddly, the poll only asked about one other issue — Afghanistan. Obama’s numbers were virtually unchanged on the war.

Nothing in this poll points to long-term strengthening in Obama’s polling. Now that Congress has returned to work, Obama’s low polling on the issues will once again drive his overall job approval.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 20, 2011 10:30 AM | Report abuse

"Obama wants everyone to be equally poor - and the way to do it is to drag the economy down, INCREASE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, and then cut social security."

Lord knows, the good society wouldn't want to act affirmatively to help their struggling neighbors! All hail conservative values and the protection of wealth for the top 5%!

Posted by: mmyotis | January 20, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Charles Hughes Smith has a few contrarian articles as to the health of Social Security:

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjan11/Social-Security-fraud01-11.html

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjan11/Social-Security-problems01-11.html

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjan11/Social-Security-fixes01-11.html

Posted by: Papagnello | January 20, 2011 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I think the Joe Willson lie is a Republican strategy to try to quiet the Tea baggers. They will keep saying they "REPEALED Obamacare"--so they can say they carried through on their promises. But, of course, they haven't and the won't.

On Palin, I think you are reading this in the wrong way, Greg. Palin is dropping and Huckabee is rising. She will end up dropping out, and that is very good for Huckabee. That is the big story here. Romney is in trouble. Palin's supporters will most likely move to Huckabee after she drops out.

Posted by: michiganmaine | January 20, 2011 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Oh yes! Those DEMOCRATIC POLLSTERS certainly know what is good for Obama. Those Democratic pollsters are always seeking to promote all Obamacrats with crafty advice and polls.

Who are these Democratic pollsters??

The Washington Post
CNN
The New York Times
USA Today
The Los Angeles Times
Pew
NBC
Bloomberg
CBS

To name a few of the major ones.

Posted by: battleground51 | January 20, 2011 10:36 AM | Report abuse

[mmyotis snarked: "Lord knows, the good society wouldn't want to act affirmatively to help their struggling neighbors!"]

Will Leftists tone down their class warfare rhetoric long enough for the good society to start hiring again?

Struggling neighbors want jobs... not handouts.

Nationwide 14% of the population relied on food stamps but in some states the percentage was much higher. In Washington, D.C., Mississippi and Tennessee – the states with the largest share of citizens receiving benefits – more than a fifth of the population in each was collecting food stamps.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/12/08/food-stamp-rolls-continue-to-rise/

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 20, 2011 10:40 AM | Report abuse

@NoVA

Yes I'm afraid SS is my line in the sand. I agree that IMHO the Pres wimped out on single payer or at least a P.O. He and the Dems claim they got the best deal they could and at least it's a start. The actual argument that convinced me to give them a chance came from Sen Harkin who explained...yes it's bad their is no P.O. and that the bill is far from perfect but it is not only a start...but it is the first time in history that our nation has actually embraced the principle of Universal Coverage.

The tax cuts...well that was influenced by the Lame Duck session..an incoming R majority in the house and the game of chicken the R's were willing to play.
Do I believe Obama could have won..perhaps...maybe even probably..am I willing to give him enough room to operate...yes...I'm sure he calculates how much political capital he wishes to spend at any given time...and that's his call.

But when it comes to S.S. (For sake of disclosure I'm now old enough to begin early SS if I wish...I'll wait to let my benefits increase before collecting) that is the proverbial "third rail" for me.
I'm tired of losers like Gov Rick Scott stealing from Medicare/Medicaid making millions in the process and paying 15%........15%...can I say it again 15% tax on 10 MILLION a year. It's truly obscene. Let tricky Ricky pay his fair share and then we'll talk.

BTW since we are talking about S.S....my employees and I are paying 7.65%...5.65% this year thanks to the deal Obama stuck in there at the end...Rick Scott may pay nothing since all of his money comes from coupon clipping...if he did take the entire 10 million as salary..(Obviously never happens in the real world) he still be paying .000765% of his salary....that's fair isn't it.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 20, 2011 10:41 AM | Report abuse

mmyotis, you don't have to get links for rukidding7. I would just like to point out that there's no mandate in the Bible for GOVERNMENT to "act affirmatively to help thy neighbor"

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 20, 2011 10:42 AM | Report abuse

KaddafiDelendaEst |

Excellent set of points there

"19% of those responding claimed not to have voted in the 2008 elections, which is almost 1 in 5 and tends to make the predictive value of the poll rather weak"

So, we really are not talking about "likely voters" or even the voters who voted in November.

I was looking on the internet for all the details as well - and I got a bunch of phone calls - I wanted to review the actual DATES the poll was taken.

_________________________

Folks,

The PROPER way to conduct a poll is to demographically RE-BALANCE the poll. For instance, if when asking the questions, a poll has additional women, the women-men ratios are re-balanced by weighting the responses.

Similiarly, the McCain voters could have been re-balanced to reflect that somehow the poll got extra Obama voters.


For every demographic category, a re-balancing can occur.

From KaddafiDelendaEst's points, it seems like someone did a PARTISAN DECEPTION on these polls results, PURPOSELY placing more Obama people into the numbers.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 10:42 AM | Report abuse

"Guns or Butter?"

I love that question. Because it ignores the choice of "none of the above"

Posted by: NoVAHockey | January 20, 2011 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Have you heard the most recent Big Lie that Republicans have been telling about health care reform?

The say that it is "a job killer".

Didn't they kill all the jobs, by the time Bush left office, without any health care reform being in place?!

Posted by: Liam-still | January 20, 2011 10:43 AM | Report abuse

@ rukidding7

It sounds like you said I was wrong, and then agreed with me. If we continue to believe that we need to spend on 'defense' the way we do today, social security is in trouble.

Here's how you could have handled it:

'Well Tom, social security is in trouble because Republicans want to cut it to balance the budget in preference to cutting defense spending.'

That way you would have gotten your point across without impuning my right to your respect.

In my opinion liberal beliefs include acknowledging the worth and dignity of all people regardles of their stated beliefs. I realize that isn't always easy, so I try not to get too uptight when I'm dissed. But I think it's important to speak up when I feel that I have been.

Peace,
Tom

Posted by: mmyotis | January 20, 2011 10:44 AM | Report abuse

"Obama wants everyone to be equally poor - and the way to do it is to drag the economy down, INCREASE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, and then cut social security."

One has to look at Obama's actions - and these have been Obama's actions.

Obama took $500 Billion out of Medicare. Simple. Obama cares more about his "transformation" (which is "redistribution of wealth") than he cares about growing the Economy.

________________


It is true - and the more the liberals deny what Obama is up to - the more the American People are sick of the liberals.

What the liberals do NOT understand is: if one grows the Economy, the slice of the pie the bottom half gets ENDS UP LARGER after a few years compared to any redistribution efforts. It is that simple: the bottom half is better off when the OVERALL ECONOMY IS GROWN.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 10:47 AM | Report abuse

rukidding7, if you're so tired of losers like Gov. Rick Scott, why don't you "put him up against the wall and shoot him"?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 20, 2011 10:50 AM | Report abuse

rukidding

Because of Obama, the Social Security Trust Fund is now going to have LESS money.

Do you realize that?

Do you even know how much money Obama is TAKING OUT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND in order to lower that rate for two years??? Doesn't that hurt the overall health of Social Security???


NOW, after Obama gets the political benefits, he is floating what it really means: Obama wants to CUT social security.

No one wants that - except the liberals who are DIVERTING THE MONEY to expensive union contracts and other democratic special interest groups.
.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Republicans were overwhelmingly triumphant in November because they were 100% against Obamacare and promised to repeal it.

Obamacrats were crushed and humiliated in November for ramming Obamacare through Congress despite the fact that most Americans appeared to be against it.

Duh!!!!!!!

I doesn't take a genius to see that working for the busting of the Obamacare boondoggle is a winning strategy and fighting to maintain it is a loser.

The effort to repeal Obamacare will take a few more years and a bigger Republican majority in Congress.

Just wait. It's coming. 2012 is right around the corner.

Posted by: battleground51 | January 20, 2011 10:51 AM | Report abuse

rukidding

Because of Obama, the Social Security Trust Fund is now going to have LESS money.

Do you realize that?

Do you even know how much money Obama is TAKING OUT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND in order to lower that rate for two years??? Doesn't that hurt the overall health of Social Security???


NOW, after Obama gets the political benefits, he is floating what it really means: Obama wants to CUT social security.

No one wants that - except the liberals who are DIVERTING THE MONEY to expensive union contracts and other democratic special interest groups.
.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 10:53 AM | Report abuse

@RFR -- PJ O'Rourke said it best:

"Economics is not zero sum. There is no fixed amount of wealth. That is, if you have too many slices of pizza, I don't have to eat the box. Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking."

Posted by: NoVAHockey | January 20, 2011 10:54 AM | Report abuse

[RFR: "I was looking on the internet for all the details"]

Errata: I meant to cite the source.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/20/nbcwsj-poll-shows-obama-bounce-of-eight-points-to-53/

I agree, Ed Morrisey is spot on.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 20, 2011 10:54 AM | Report abuse

@ clawrence12

"I would just like to point out that there's no mandate in the Bible for GOVERNMENT to "act affirmatively to help thy neighbor"

I do not limit my actions to those that are suggested in the Bible and do not believe that Jesus would have counseled that I should. I look to my heart and try do what feels right in my spirit.

Posted by: mmyotis | January 20, 2011 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Liberals,

Obama is playing a TRICK on you - he wants to lower the Social Security tax to get his people to PAY LESS into the system

Then, Obama is going to start saying that people making over 50,000 have to PAY MORE, OR GET LESS BENEFITS

So Obama wants to turn Social Security into a VEHICLE FOR REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

Just what everyone had in mind when they voted for him, right?

It's a TRICK. VERY DECEPTIVE.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 20, 2011 10:56 AM | Report abuse

OK, let's talk big lie.

It is ironic that liam would accuse the Republicans of using this technique. Afterall let's look at what the American left did just two short weeks ago.

How many liberals here were appalled by the WaPo political cartoon using a tea pot and a revolver? Hmmmm? It was a huge lie and the Democrat big lie machinery was kicked into overdrive. When it comes to the Goebbels technique no one beats the left. No one. they've got lying down to a science.

Many thanks to DEMOCRAT congressjerk Steve Cohen for the reference. It is easy to know the truth about the left. The pattern is clear. the left engages in the ugly big lie, then to cover their tracts they accuse the right of the crime.

No mas on that kids. The left no longer owns a lock on the media. Walter Cronkite is dead boys and girls. The big lie is harder to pull off now.

And while we are speaking of big lies, let's not forget that Mr Obama has left quite a wide and deep video trail of comments stating that ultimately he wants government control of health care. It is no accident that he made the clearest admission of this to an audience of SEIU members.

Let's take Obama at his word shall we? And let's recognize that Obama is deeply indebted to the SEIU. And then let's bear in mind the fact that the SEIU is the largest single union in the health care industry.

Liam still, you may wish to wallow in ignorance, but please recognize that many of us simply aren't living our lives according to liberal dogma.

and I'll thank you to stop lying about me. I don't know what remedies I have to address your calumnies, but I will determine what they are and bring them to bear against you if you don't retract them.

If you want an ugly confrontation pal, you've come the right guy.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 20, 2011 10:57 AM | Report abuse

All, it looks like we now have a House GOPer lamenting the "chains of Obamacare" and comparing them to the reign of George the Third:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 20, 2011 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Which of course explains why The Bush economic policies created no jobs.

PJ O'Rourke is just another big greedy fat cat, telling The Big Lie over and over.

The rich got richer, but the middle classes kept getting poorer when Bush applied the economic policies that P J O'Rourke has been proclaiming.

It is a zero sum game for the poor, in Right Wing America.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 20, 2011 10:59 AM | Report abuse

@ Liam -- crony capitalism as practiced by Bush and Obama is far different that what O'Rourke is talking about.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | January 20, 2011 11:02 AM | Report abuse

No it is not. O'Rourke has always been a mouth piece for the Oligarchs and their Republican lapdogs.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 20, 2011 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Great advice, just keep putting off what needs to be done, is good political advice. Don't act like statesmen and leaders, but more like the weasel, that why we send you all to represent us. How can someone say this and not be a shame of themselves? We need to look at everything and nothing should be off the board or we will be burning like the EU.

Posted by: tateofpa | January 20, 2011 11:17 AM | Report abuse

By the way; President Obama is truly amazing.

Republicans see him as A Socialist, A Nazi, A Communist, A Muslim, A Kenyan, and now A Crony Capitalist.

The country sure got their money's worth when they hired him. Look at all the roles he has filled, according to Right Wingers, and yet he only receives one paycheck. Pay the man for all the jobs he has filled in the Right Wingers empty skulls.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 20, 2011 11:21 AM | Report abuse

mmyotis, good for you. I was simply responding to your invoking the "Lord."

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 20, 2011 11:22 AM | Report abuse

"Oligarchs and their Republican lapdogs."

I disagree about O'Rourke, but do you really think it's appropriate to exclude the Democrats from that comment? What makes them so great? That they give lip service to being "for the poor" or "for the working class?" They're exactly like the Republicans, equally worthless.

Lapdogs. Good word choice. Now we can pick which breed is appropriate for the particular party. Dems are all bark and no bite. They'll run to the door causing a fuss when a stranger comes by, but you can push them aside and they'll shut up if you thrown them a bone now and then.

"Hey I caved on the public option without even trying and I'm going to force people to buy policies from the hated insurance companies. And I'm doubling down in Afghanistan and have no intention of ever closing Gitmo. and i might even cut Social Security. but here's DATD repeal. now go sit in the corner and try not to mess on the carpet."

Posted by: NoVAHockey | January 20, 2011 11:31 AM | Report abuse

@mmyotis Tom,

I was not dissing you at all. Merely making the point that links are appreciated when folks are making points as fact rather than opinion.

Yes everybody is entitled to their opinion but not their facts. That was simply my intent with no thought of impugning your motives, intelligence. Your posts are reasonable and thus respected regardless of your opinion.

Alas as you've probably seen Tom we are infected with trolls who state their opinions as fact.

Papagallo posted several links...not certain what his point was..other than to perhaps point out the concept of an SS trust fund is a joke. I agree wholeheartedly. FDR sold the program that way to get it passed but since then it has been raided so frequently...and has been so thoroughly commingled with our general budget as to now simply represent a tax.

"Well Tom, social security is in trouble because Republicans want to cut it to balance the budget in preference to cutting defense spending.'

That way you would have gotten your point across without impuning my right to your respect."

I'll quickly concede that you stated it better, with more manners,(I was heavy handed) than me. You did leave out the part about links for facts...opinions are bolstered by links as well...but I don't expect links for opinions...facts..unless they're self evident..that's another story altogether.

At any rate Tom I sincerely apologize if you felt I was impugning your intellect or insulting you in any other way. Sorry!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 20, 2011 11:42 AM | Report abuse

So which Obama are you talking about?

The "Socialist" or the "Crony Capitalist". I do not recall you ever refuting the claims by Republicans that he is "a socialist", and yet suddenly, because you want to spread the blame around for the economic and jobs collapse that occured while Bush called the shots, you want to label Obama a "crony capitalist"

That is downright deceitful, and I expected better from you.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 20, 2011 11:45 AM | Report abuse

KDE is still confused as Sen. Obama was never in the Senate leadership (or that of the House for that matter). I'd recommend you not drool on your keyboard. Bad for the computer, especially if it's a laptop.

@RFR - I wouldn't call it a dead cat bounce as the change in approval numbers (all polls now, not just Rasmussen) only registered in January. So, that probably means opinions started shifting mid-December. As the lame duck session was, if anything, full speed ahead, one might expect voter anger that their will was being ignored. That or the results can be interpreted somewhat differently. Say, a combination of frustration over economic stagnation as well as apparently inability of Congress to do something about it.

At this point in 1991, Bush 41 was unbeatable. At this point in 1995, Clinton was a footnote to history. At this point in 2011… ?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 20, 2011 11:46 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence

What's up this morning...wrong side of the bed? :-)

"rukidding7, if you're so tired of losers like Gov. Rick Scott, why don't you "put him up against the wall and shoot him"?"

Because as you well know Clawrence that is not my style. I prefer ballots to bullets and I do not believe in 2nd Amendment remedies. I'll take Sister Sarah's advice and reload with ballots of course.

And Clawrence I thought we were friends and now you go and call for my banning.
What's up with that?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 20, 2011 11:46 AM | Report abuse

nothing like high-minded, lofty words on a gray January day:
======================
I do not limit my actions to those that are suggested in the Bible and do not believe that Jesus would have counseled that I should. I look to my heart and try do what feels right in my spirit.

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

Isn't this pretty much what Mr Loughner just did just before he embarked on his modern day version of "smackwater Jack"?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 20, 2011 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"The "Socialist" or the "Crony Capitalist". I do not recall you ever refuting the claims by Republicans that he is "a socialist"

I never refuted it, because I never made the claim. I also never refuted because the socialism (as well as the others you list) charge because it is silly, akin to the birther nonsense. Criticism of Obama is not an endorsement of Bush. And if my posts have left that impression, I've failed.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | January 20, 2011 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Rush just said "bedazzled".

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 20, 2011 12:21 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7,

I'm a big proponent of providing links to support one's claims, and I should have acknowledged your point on that.

Posted by: mmyotis | January 20, 2011 12:33 PM | Report abuse

DADT repeal is Obama's crowning achievement. http://OutMilitary.com - the gay military network - is providing a supportive environment for friending, sharing and networking between gay active military, vets and supporters.

Posted by: skoa | January 20, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Now Rush hit back at Cohen.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 20, 2011 1:27 PM | Report abuse

More important than Cohen, the House has released its list of $2.5 TRILLION in proposed spending cuts:

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/20/house-gop-lists-25-trillion-in-spending-cuts

P.S. to ruk, we are NOT friends, but I didn't call for you to be banned.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 20, 2011 2:28 PM | Report abuse

What a shock. Rush being thin skinned.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 20, 2011 3:17 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