Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:41 AM ET, 02/ 8/2011

The Morning Plum

By Greg Sargent

* Supreme Court to uphold health law? Read of the morning: Don't miss Harvard professor Laurence Tribe's strong piece arguing that the Supremes should uphold their "constitutional duty" and dismiss the transparently political lawsuits designed to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

Note in particular Tribe's assault on the phony distinction health reform foes draw between economic activity and inactivity, which he calls "illusory."

* Obama administration calling GOP governors' bluff on health reform: An important story: Sam Stein on how Obama officials are turning up the heat on Republican governors who are dragging their feet about implementing the health law by telling them: If you deny your constituents the law's benefits, the feds will implement the law for you.

Key fact: For all the noisy opposition, only one state (Florida) has returned any federal grant money associated with the law.

* "Moderate" Senate Dems come out against the individual mandate: Red state Dem Senators like Ben Nelson and Claire McCaskill are already talking about rolling back the individual mandate and replacing it with ... well, something or other.

If these Dems think this is going to insulate them from GOP attacks, they're kidding themselves: Last night, the NRSC sent out a release blasting McCaskill, asking why she voted for "Obamacare" in the first place if she thinks the mandate is such a bad idea. All they're succeeding in doing is undermining one of the Democratic Party's signature domestic accomplishments.

* Obama challenged Chamber to address inequality: Jed Lewison counter-programs the media conventional wisdom that Obama's speech to the Chamber was some kind of "capitulation," noting that in fact Obama made a strong moral case for more government regulation and challenged corporate chieftains to back his agenda:

I never would have predicted that President Obama would give a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in which he explained why economic inequality threatens America and telling them that they share some of the responsibility for closing the gap. But that's exactly what he did.

Not that the details of what Obama actually said matter.

* Slippery misdirection from Tim Pawlenty: DADT dead-ender Tim Pawlenty's spokesman justifies his support for defunding the repeal of don't ask don't tell by claiming he's merely giving voice to the will of the "commanding generals," adding that "both generals and combat troops have voiced opposition to repealing DADT."

Note how slippery T-Paw's justification is. His "commanding generals," of course, don't include Robert Gates and Mike Mullen, both of whom supported repeal. And his use of "combat troops" is telling: It's a slick way of avoiding reckoning with the fact that the Pentagon survey found that the troops overall support repeal, too.

* Sheer genius on display as Pete King's Muslim hearings take shape: Rep. King plans to scour the country for Arab and Muslim witnesses who will claim, in defiance of what counterterror officials say, that Muslim American leaders are unwilling to cooperate with law enforcement efforts to disrupt terror plots.

It'll be interesting to see if Rep. King can dredge up any law enforcement officials to testify to that.

* Dear GOP: Don't try to improve health law! Full repeal or bust! Marc Thiessen warns Republicans that they must not support anything that might improve the health law, lest they undermine the quest for the Holy Grail of full repeal. My bet is we'll be hearing lots more of this from the right.

* Conservatives for "judicial activism": As Jonathan Cohn notes, conservatives who are hoping the courts overturn the Affordable Care Act are embracing precisely the sort of "judicial activism" they claim to decry.

* $500 billion in budget cuts? Piece of cake! Conservative senator Tom Coburn cautiously endorses Rand Paul's goal of cutting half a trillion from the budget, a sign that conservatives will not back off their insistence that GOP leaders make good on their vow to the Tea Party.

* The GOP's spending tightrope: Relatedly, Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake explain the delicate balancing act Republican leaders face on spending.

* PolitiFact spanks Obama: The fact-checking organization rates Obama's claim that he "didn't raise taxes once" to be false.

* Breaking: Gingrich criticizes Obama! Here's Newt getting tons of attention from CNN for attacking Obama's handling of Egypt as "amateurish." Why are recycled attacks from someone who hasn't been in public office for over a decade -- attacks he repeats again and again and are not newsworthy in any way -- considered worthy of such a huge media platform?

* And the history lesson of the day (not that it will make the slightest difference): Michael Kinsley effectively debunks, well, the entire library of mythology that the right has built up around Ronald Reagan.

Good stuff, but it will amount to mere spitballs bouncing off an impregnable fortress of falsehoods and distortions. A for effort!

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | February 8, 2011; 8:41 AM ET
Categories:  Health reform, House GOPers, Morning Plum, Senate Republicans, Tea Party, budget  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Tim Pawlenty: DADT dead-ender all the way

Comments

Now here's an exciting prospect... DeMint for President!

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259217/demint-surveys-field-praises-jeb-robert-costa

What's of interest in this piece is the evident search being carried out on the right for a candidate. It's becoming, for the brighter crowd of modern conservatives, increasingly panicky. They understand that Clinton's successful second election was a blow to the movement (Ralph Reed quit politics in despair, for a while) and they also understand that they then got very lucky through Gore v Bush. It could have been 16 years, not just eight. And what would that have done to the movement?

Then, Hillary or Obama. Either one, very tough and the right has no magic person, they have McCain. In panic, they toss in Sarah Palin. Excitement! Magic! And then she opens her mouth unscripted. But now they are stuck with her because they put her there. Inevitably, as the story is told, she's not a dire embarrassment at all, we insist she is not, she's being victimized by liberals and the liberal press and people who read books and NPR, home to Nazis!

And now, again, there's no magic person. Maybe we shouldn't have turned Reagan into Zeus/Jesus - it's tough to follow that.

"DeMint says President Obama is “clearly beatable.” But the GOP nominee, he argues, will need to be formidable"

Well, yeah, that's the problem, isn't it? And the whole present narrative, "This election repudiates the liberal agenda" becomes rather awkward if Obama wins the WH again as it will clearly represent the logical converse of the narrative.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 8, 2011 8:53 AM | Report abuse

The Republicrat Party is hard at work. From Greg's Politico link:

"And it’s not just health care. The senators are prepared to break with the White House on a wide range of issues: embracing deeper spending cuts, scaling back business regulations and overhauling environmental rules. The moderates most likely to buck their party include Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jon Tester of Montana — all of whom are up for reelection in 2012 and represent states Obama lost in 2008. ...

Health care issues aren’t the only way some Democrats are looking to distinguish themselves. Manchin, for one, introduced a bill to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent ruling against mountaintop mining, and he’s won over two other Democrats, fellow West Virginian Sen. John Rockefeller and Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu."

Posted by: wbgonne | February 8, 2011 8:53 AM | Report abuse

It is an amazing thing to watch as modern liberals/leftists try to coopt and corrupt the Reagan legacy to fit their own decrepit agenda. These are propaganda spitballs of sheer desperation.

Posted by: battleground51 | February 8, 2011 8:55 AM | Report abuse

* Slippery misdirection from Tim Pawlenty: DADT dead-ender Tim Pawlenty's spokesman justifies his support for defunding the repeal of don't ask don't tell by claiming he's merely giving voice to the will of the "commanding generals," adding that "both generals and combat troops have voiced opposition to repealing DADT."

Note how slippery T-Paw's justification is. His "commanding generals," of course, don't include Robert Gates and Mike Mullen, both of whom supported repeal. And his use of "combat troops" is telling: It's a slick way of avoiding reckoning with the fact that the Pentagon survey found that the troops overall support repeal, too.

==

Sleepy Tim tells a couple of "carefully parsed" (sic) whoopers to throw red meat to the starved wolves of the Base. At least this is one place conservatives are at home: on the losing side of history.

Funny, Chris Cillizza has a crush on Pawlenty. We former fixers always used to wonder what the hell he sees in that nebbish.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 8, 2011 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Brought over from last night's thread. The news vans and crews are probably gone and the world is turning away now that decisions have been made.

Let's not forget the protesters though who are fighting I suppose to enjoy and or exercise free will, such as it is. I read a piece yesterday that a clinic in Germany may be preparing for a health visit by Mubarak, probably just a rumor though.

""Protesters in the Egyptian capital are holding mass demonstrations, with a new wave of optimism reaching the pro-democracy camp following the release of the detained cyber activist, Wael Ghonim.

As demonstrations seeking an immediate end to Hosni Mubarak's rule enter their 15th day, protesters - set up in makeshift tents in central Cairo's Tahrir [Liberation] Square - are refusing to leave until their demands are met.

In a bid to counter the political challenge, the government offered on Monday a pay rise to public-sector workers, but the pro-democracy camp feels the government has conceded little ground in trying to end the current crisis.

"[The pay rise] doesn't mean anything," Sherif Zein, a protester at Tahrir Square told Al Jazeera on Tuesday. "Maybe it will be a short-term release for the workers ... but most of the people will realise what this is, it's just a tablet of asprin, but it's nothing meaningful."

Zein said protesters had called for mass demonstrations and he believed the crowds of Egyptians would not let them down.

Mubarak's message has thus far clearly stated that he has no plans to leave office until his term is up in September.

However, Omar Suleiman, the country's newly appointed vice-president, announced on Tuesday that Mubarak would set up a committee that would carry out constitutional and legislative amendments to enable a shift of power.

Amid this ongoing contest of wills between the government and protesters, Ghonim's release on Monday is "highly significant" in the sense that it "could certainly push big numbers into this protest later on", an Al Jazeera correspondent in Cairo said.""

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/20112851424979539.html

Posted by: lmsinca | February 8, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

"Obama challenged Chamber to address inequality"

A new poster here expressed his view that Obama's speech to the C of C seemed to him "like a lecture". I don't think the poster meant that as a positive descriptor. But I thought it positive indeed.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 8, 2011 8:58 AM | Report abuse

What else? Our Man in Cairo:

"On January 29, Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s top spy chief, was anointed vice president by tottering dictator, Hosni Mubarak. By appointing Suleiman, part of a shake-up of the cabinet in an attempt to appease the masses of protesters and retain his own grip on the presidency, Mubarak has once again shown his knack for devilish shrewdness. Suleiman has long been favoured by the US government for his ardent anti-Islamism, his willingness to talk and act tough on Iran - and he has long been the CIA’s main man in Cairo.

Mubarak knew that Suleiman would command an instant lobby of supporters at Langley and among 'Iran nexters' in Washington - not to mention among other authoritarian mukhabarat-dependent regimes in the region. Suleiman is a favourite of Israel too"

And, even better, Suleiman enjoys torturing people:

"Each rendition was authorised at the very top levels of both governments [the US and Egypt] ... The long-serving chief of the Egyptian central intelligence agency, Omar Suleiman, negotiated directly with top [CIA] officials. [Former US Ambassador to Egypt Edward] Walker described the Egyptian counterpart, Suleiman, as 'very bright, very realistic', adding that he was cognisant that there was a downside to 'some of the negative things that the Egyptians engaged in, of torture and so on. But he was not squeamish, by the way'. (p. 113).

"Technically, US law required the CIA to seek 'assurances' from Egypt that rendered suspects wouldn't face torture. But under Suleiman's reign at the EGIS, such assurances were considered close to worthless. As Michael Scheuer, a former CIA officer [head of the al-Qaeda desk], who helped set up the practise of rendition, later testified, even if such 'assurances' were written in indelible ink, 'they weren't worth a bucket of warm spit'."

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201127114827382865.html

Can you say Ugly American?

Posted by: wbgonne | February 8, 2011 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Assange extradition hearing, day two...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/feb/08/julian-assange-extradition-hearing-live

Posted by: bernielatham | February 8, 2011 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Hey rattlegourd.

Your hero Reagan was a DISGRACE. He ran guns to terrorists out of the White House basement and in doing so put the United Statesnof America at the level of Libya.

Whi would ever thought that America would back teenagers who shot up weddings?

Hope his casket is full of rats.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 8, 2011 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Housing prices down again in December. The elephant is still in the room.

Meanwhile, I am glad to see everyone's ongoing concern with America's support for military dictatorship (well yeah, but it is our dictatorship). Let's leave Realpolitik to Henry Kissenger.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 8, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, cut $500 billion from the budget. Easy. Reduce the military to the level needed for realistic threats, give up the idea that we need to be ready to fight 2.5 World War IIs at any moment.

Wanna bet Rand "thousand mile stare" Paul isn't talking about the military?

Posted by: caothien9 | February 8, 2011 9:09 AM | Report abuse

@Greg - "Why are recycled attacks from someone who hasn't been in public office for over a decade -- attacks he repeats again and again and are not newsworthy in any way -- considered worthy of such a huge media platform?"

Goddamn, this needs reporting. It really does.

It doesn't make sense, as you suggest. Except from a propaganda perspective where it makes every kind of sense.

And that entails, it must entail, mechanisms in place between Gingrich and CNN that facilitate a propaganda enterprise. And we generally know nothing about that.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 8, 2011 9:10 AM | Report abuse

From the NYT piece on the individual mandate: "Individuals who don’t purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system. They know that if they need emergency-room care that they can’t pay for, the public will pick up the tab."

This seems to be the sticking point -- the notion that the rest of us will pay for those who don't purchase coverage. There was a discussion on Friday (?) about EMTALA obligations. In thinking about it over the weekend the thought occurred to me that maybe EMTALA is no longer needed once everyone has access to insurance. If the only people showing up without coverage are uninsured by choice and not due to financial reasons, hasn't society met its obligation (not conceding that society has the obligation) by establishing a system were everyone has access to the means to finance their care. They made their choice on the front end by not enrolling in a plan. and that would solve the free-rider problem.

also, would love to see figures on the number of people who would actually opt out if given the choice.


Posted by: NoVAHockey | February 8, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse

If Greg wants to play dueling authority (ipse dixit), then Judge Vinson is a slightly higher judicial authority than both Professor Tribe and Professor Obama.

/dismissed

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 8, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse

DADT "dead enders"??? Ha! That's rich! Sounds like some kinky, homosexual talk to me. I sure don't want to ask about that and I don't want Sarge Greg to tell me about it.

Are Adam Sewer and Sarge Greg the same person? Their opinions are closer than carbon copies. Maybe their minds are on meld in their mean time.

Why would any self respecting homosexuals want to go to the CPAC. It's like ducks invading a roosters convention.

They are odd ducks, those homosexuals.

Someone ought to inform them that the Democrat party IS the homosexual party. Has been since brother Barry invaded the House.

I can't understand the liberal love of Muslimism/Islamism. It is weird. Islam deals terrible hate/death to homosexualism, yet leftists declare their love of homosexuality anywhere, everywhere, and whenever they can, and constantly do. I think most liberal commenters are, in fact, homosexual activists. I have no proof but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

Anyway, the liberal/Muslim/homosexual triangle defies logic. As does most leftist thought process.

None of it computes!

Posted by: battleground51 | February 8, 2011 9:16 AM | Report abuse

"Can you say Ugly American?"

wbgonne...yes I can...Dick Cheney!

Funny how Suleiman's career seems to somewhat parallel Cheneys. Although Cheney was not V.P. to a Dictator.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 8, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Paul has actually been pretty clear about the across the board cuts, including military

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/128045-paul-military-cuts-on-the-table and http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/01/budget_cutters

Posted by: NoVAHockey | February 8, 2011 9:22 AM | Report abuse

If the reigning, leftist, activist, ultra-liberal, 100% Democrat, socialistic, pinhead professor, Larry Tribe, breaks wind, all the liberals cry, "It must be true!!!", in unison and all in tune.

What a joke!

Posted by: battleground51 | February 8, 2011 9:22 AM | Report abuse

"On the 100th anniversary of his birth (and seven years after his death), he has moved into Mount Rushmore territory: beyond criticism — not just among conservatives and Republicans but among liberals and moderates, who insist that “you have to hand it to him,” and, most notably, among the media.

I do not think that you have to hand it to him. So, one more time, here is the case for not handing it to him."

My life has been made better by the excellent prose this man has generated. Sweeping bow.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 8, 2011 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Why would any self respecting homosexuals want to go to the CPAC. It's like ducks invading a roosters convention.

==

Because they aren't self-respecting homosexuals, dummy.

They're conservatives, and are just as clueless abou where their self-interest lies as the rest you dopes.

Gays beinng loyal to the party that hates them is no more illogical than people not worth nine figures voting Republican.

Christ but you're dense.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 8, 2011 9:27 AM | Report abuse

@NoVa

You ask some very interesting questions about the EMTALA...in "theory".

May I add some "reality" questions for your thoughts?

Forgive my ignorance but does the ACA address our problem with the millions of illegals. Are they also going to be forced into the overall pool of coverage by the mandate?

It the answer to the question above is no, what do you suggest will happen to illegals involved in gory car accidents.
Do we transport them at taxpayer expense?
Once they arrive at the trauma center do we treat them if they are uninsured?

If we do not treat EVERYBODY who shows up at an emergency room, what do we do with them. If they've just received a treatable gunshot wound one perhaps that is not terminal if they're not allowed to bleed out do we send them back out onto the street?
And no snark intended here...if we do decide to simply turn them away do we budget for a new and different need...somebody to go around and pick up the corpses which would surely represent a health hazard to the general public?

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 8, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

"Funny how Suleiman's career seems to somewhat parallel Cheneys. Although Cheney was not V.P. to a Dictator."

ruk:

He's Dick Cheney, Egyptian-style, which means that, unlike our chickenhawk Neocon NeoWarriors, Suleiman is the real thing with blood literally dripping from his hands. Suleiman for Mubarak and a Dictator-To-Be-Named-Later. Now that's Change We Can Believe In.

BTW: For the trillionth time we are shooting ourselves in the foot in the ME. Not that reality matters or anything.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 8, 2011 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Why are recycled Palin attacks from Greg who hasn't been in public office EVER -- attacks he repeats again and again and are not newsworthy in any way -- considered worthy of such a huge WaPo platform?

Palin-attacker, restrain thyself.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 8, 2011 9:31 AM | Report abuse

NoVa-

I agree there would be no need for EMTALA if there is a mandate in place, but I question why there is need for EMTALA to begin with. The Hypocratic Oath, physician disciplanary proceedings, medical malpractice lawsuits et al should be sufficient means to guarantee that people who need medical treatment receive it. I'm not talking about showing up at the ER with a non-emergent condition. I'm a big fan of the spirit of EMTALA and would be the first in line to represent a plaintiff who's wife/husband/child died in the streets, but it's seems like an awkward way to enforce a basic moral obligation.

Anyway, if you opt out of health care (as if millions of people are whining about having health insurance) then there needs to be mechanisms set up by which hospitals can easily get their bills paid. The poor and unemployed are already covered by Medicaid, so the opt outs would be employed individuals who would have assets for the hospitals to go after.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | February 8, 2011 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Shrink, when I predicted PPACA would be upheld, 7-2, I was allowing for the possibility J. Scalia would vote against. Prof. Tribe thinks that unlikely. But we [Lawrence Tribe and I] apparently both think J. Thomas will vote that the PPACA individual mandate exceeds Congress' power under the commerce clause.

The case presents an opportunity to draw a line, but I have been skeptical that the line can be drawn *because of the individual mandate* without some new proposition like Vinson's distinction between "necessary" and "proper", which is too novel, too activist; as it has never been done before in my recollection.

J. Thomas, as Tribe noted, has consistently thought the post Social Security commerce clause cases were wrong. So for him, it would be consistent to discard the doctrine that an "aggregation of local decisions" affects commerce [ "Wickard" and "Raich"].

J. Scalia is enough of an activist that neither deference to Congress nor precedent would bind his decision if he thought the precedents were w-w-wrong. Tribe is implying that he does not see evidence of J. Scalia's antipathy toward the precedents.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 8, 2011 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Didn't Reagan cut and run from Lebannon?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | February 8, 2011 9:36 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie

"And that entails, it must entail, mechanisms in place between Gingrich and CNN that facilitate a propaganda enterprise."

I think your reaction reminds me somewhat of the charge of "liberal" bias in newsrooms.
Again in my experience the bias in newsrooms was not liberal or conservative but rather almost totally driven by ratings.

Might I posit that the CNN/Gingrich relationship is simply symbiotic not actually part of the propaganda machine.
CNN needs a story...Gingrich needs an outlet...well you get the picture.

Having said that, Fox is a totally different animal, clearly a propaganda organ.

@Bernie, Greg

Or anybody who knows the answer. Won't FEC "equal time" provisions force both Huck and Palin off the air at Faux as soon as the "officially" declare their candidacies? Or I guess Faux could provide equal time to Obama or any Dem candidate who announces, not to mention all the R' who announce as candidates? We know that's not practical.

And so my real question is..could FEC "equal time" laws force Huck and Sister Sarah into delaying their "official" announcements so as to milk all that free exposure? Does that have other ramifications for the field of R candidates.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 8, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

If we do not treat EVERYBODY who shows up at an emergency room, what do we do with them. If they've just received a treatable gunshot wound one perhaps that is not terminal if they're not allowed to bleed out do we send them back out onto the street?

==

Could America really sink so low?

Yeah it could. Libertarians are two-legged garbage.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 8, 2011 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Why are recycled Palin attacks from Greg who hasn't been in public office EVER --

==

Of what possible relevance is that?!?

Posted by: caothien9 | February 8, 2011 9:49 AM | Report abuse

[battleground51 observed: "It is an amazing thing to watch as modern liberals/leftists try to coopt and corrupt the Reagan legacy"]

I’m sorry, but not since Princeton Professor Peter Singer explained that Leftists should give as good as they get from dogs who molest their legs, have I been so exasperated with the way Leftists think they should use their heads for a group colonoscopy and then crab-walk across the public stage expecting folks to think their new Reagan-legacy hats make them look smart.

And as with Professor Singer’s efforts to get pet stores to carry condoms, I have a very hard time taking their Reagan-conservatism denial campaigns seriously anymore; because I’m not sure taking them seriously helps anybody.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 8, 2011 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Illegal immigrants are not allowed to purchase from the exchanges, but are covered under EMTALA. If only America would learn to get over its hatred of brown people. Illegals tend to be younger and healthier and would have helped reduce costs. So not only are they not providing capital for insurance pools, but they are going to ERs, which is of a higher cost to taxpayers.

It would be funny if non-white people like me got some tax refund for all this nonsense.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 8, 2011 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Hi Ruk -- funny you mentioned illegals. was going to mention that problem but figured i was getting to long for one comment.

PPACA does address illegals -- by explicitly stating they are ineligible for any benefits and/or subsidies. I don't think they can even purchase coverage on the exchanges.

And i think the situation you present is more of a immigration than a health care problem -- the solution being get illegals into some sort of legal status. guest worker, path to citizenship, whatever. so then they would have the same choice as everyone else. that or mass deportations, which is comically silly.

Was going to post this story out of Chicago that addresses the exact situation you describe -- the hospital was eating the bill, so they put him on an air ambulance and basically deported him. Frankly, I'd send the bill to the Mexican consulate.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-06/news/ct-met-quadriplegic-immigrant-deporte20110206_1_advocate-health-care-ojeda-kelly-jo-golson


"Somebody to go around and pick up the corpses" -- I volunteer as an EMT .. you've just described some of my Friday nights. How it's billed varies by jurisdiction. Maryland is typically taxpayer supported -- if you ride in an ambulance it's completely taxpayer supported, insured or not. there's no bill to the patient. VA is different -- they'll bill you for the ride.

American hospitals traditionally have included charity care as part of their mission. No reason that can't get someone started until they either provider proof of assets, workout a payment plan, or the hospital stops care. But I also don't think the number of people who opt out is going to be very large. I'm against the mandate. But I'm not stupid either. I'm not going to drop coverage as some sort of protest. I think the number of people who actually opt out isn't likely to be very large -- especially if the system makes an example out of a few of them.


Posted by: NoVAHockey | February 8, 2011 9:57 AM | Report abuse

@Mike - shhh....

Next thing you'll be telling me he signed tax hikes and immigration reform. I even heard he had a gay sleepover at the WH!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 8, 2011 9:57 AM | Report abuse

[caothien9: "Of what possible relevance is that?!?"]

awww, cao needs to be spoon-fed this morning?

[Greg attacks: "Gingrich criticizes Obama! Here's Newt getting tons of attention from CNN for attacking Obama's handling of Egypt as 'amateurish.' Why are recycled attacks from someone who hasn't been in public office for over a decade -- attacks he repeats again and again and are not newsworthy in any way -- considered worthy of such a huge media platform?"]

I reiterate (tu quoque): Why are recycled Palin attacks from Greg who hasn't been in public office EVER -- attacks he repeats again and again and are not newsworthy in any way -- considered worthy of such a huge WaPo platform?

Palin-attacker, restrain thyself.

*goo-goo?*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 8, 2011 9:59 AM | Report abuse

@mark in austin

Thanks again for an update on your view of how the S.C. might rule on the "mandate".

If I'm reading you correctly, you think Scalia will NOT decide for the "UN" position which leaves Thomas and which other Supreme to take that side to fulfill your 7-2 prediction.

BTW Thanks for making this entire debate accessible for we lay people. I'm fascinated by your fascination with the Supremes and the history of the Court's personalities and decisions. You remind me of a sports fan who can quote stats and records from their favorite athletes and teams.

What a concept Mark...instead of obsessing and spending your time on something as truly "meaningful" as the NFL or MLB you spend your time on something as "irrelevant" as the S.C. snark snark :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 8, 2011 9:59 AM | Report abuse

"If only America would learn to get over its hatred of brown people.'

Surely you jest. American white people do not hate colored people, they just want them below or behind. The struggle for position is central to Rugged Individualism, America's Ur-myth

Posted by: shrink2 | February 8, 2011 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Ruk, Tribe reads it 8-1. If he is right about the inference from J. Scalia's commerce clause votes, I was wrong. He probably has them neatly cross-catalogued!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 8, 2011 10:07 AM | Report abuse

@NoVa & DDAWD

Thanks for adding to my understanding of the PPACA and it's relationship to EMTLA and illegal aliens in our country.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 8, 2011 10:08 AM | Report abuse

"If you deny your constituents the law's benefits, the feds will implement the law for you."

Oh, that's going to turn out well.

Diplomacy at work. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 8, 2011 10:11 AM | Report abuse

@DAWD: "If only America would learn to get over its hatred of brown people"

What's the problem America has with brown people? Is it the shade of brown? Is it because brown is darker than cream and they are afraid of the dark?

If you want America (presumably, all of America but you and your immediate friends) to get over their irrational skin pigmentation prejudice, you have to be able to identify the particular elements and/or shades of skin coloration that "America" hates, and maybe we can then deal with this irrational skin-tone bigotry.

Or, we can just routinely pronounce that "America" (except for me and people who think like me) hates "brown people" and then pat ourselves on the back because we are so totally awesome because we love all colors of people (except those in red states). Yay, us!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 8, 2011 10:15 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: "Well, yeah, that's the problem, isn't it? And the whole present narrative, 'This election repudiates the liberal agenda' becomes rather awkward if Obama wins the WH again as it will clearly represent the logical converse of the narrative."

When Obama wins it will suggest that the nation likes liberals who govern to the right.

As for the rest of it, it suggests a level of organization I suspect the national Republicans lack. But it's going to be hard for the Republican to take out an incumbent Democrat, when the Democrats just got the Whitehouse back. History would indicate, the incumbent usually wins in that scenario, absent a credible primary or 3rd party challenger.

The panicky Republicans ought to be looking for someone they can sacrifice so they have a good field for 2016.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 8, 2011 10:22 AM | Report abuse

[shrink2: "American white people do not hate colored people, they just want them below or behind."]

You betcha’! Just ask pasty-faced supporters of former KKK Grand Kleagle (recruiter) Senator Robert "Sheetz" Byrd (D-KKK) who famously bloviated, “There are white n!ggers. I’ve seen a lot of white n!ggers in my time. I’m going to use that word.”

Progressives referred to the Senate’s senior Democrat as the “conscience of the Senate.” They still downplay his Grand Kleagle’s white-sheet-wearing days as a “brief mistake” — as if joining the Klan were like knocking over a glass of water. Oopsy!

Own it, pasty-faced Leftists.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 8, 2011 10:25 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin

"you have to be able to identify the particular elements and/or shades of skin coloration that "America" hates,"

Why is that onus on those who decry racism?
My wife's endodonist colleague has boasted he has purchased land in Panama...just in case...just in case the N gets elected again in 2012..he refuses to live in a nation led by an N.

Or maybe it's the Neurosurgeon neighbor of mine...alas just four doors down..who achieved national notoriety for sending around an email with Obama as a "Witch Doctor".

Both highly educated WHITE professionals.
Do I need to ask them what it is they don't like about Obama's pigmentation?
Or which shade of brown might be more acceptable to them?

Or perhaps you are just riffing on some snark...I think the majority of us understood DDAWD's point about "brown" people. I think it's a generally accepted identifier of specific groups of minorities in our country, blacks and Mexicans as opposed to Asians although many of them are also "brown".

But if your point is simply that those two POS I mentioned in my example would be really cool with a hot chick in a bikini who had a deep dark tan, ergo it can't really be about "pigmentation" then I take your point...I guess...still not sure though because DDAWD's point was not about "pigmentation" was it now.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 8, 2011 10:26 AM | Report abuse

[shrink2 drooled: "American white people do not hate colored people, they just want them below or behind."]

Recall, it was pasty-faced SEIU union-goons (inspired by Obama's calls to "punch back twice as hard") who actually assaulted black tax protester, Ken Gladney, while screaming racial epithets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w

The only thing "behind and below" was the media coverage of that hate crime.

Meanwhile, voters are still waiting for Eric Holder to appear before House oversight hearings and subpoenas involving the New Black Panther case.

It’s not like there’s video of them stalking the polling place with batons or anything... oh no, wait...
http://bigjournalism.com/abreitbart/2010/10/22/washington-post-blockbuster-confirms-worst-fears-about-holder-justice-dept-race-policies/

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 8, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin - I'd say it's less a matter of skin tone, but there is a serious backlash against Latino immigrants. Just read the comments thread of any story in the Post where a crime is committed by someone with a Latino name. Or stories about health scares from immigrants.

@ruk - I don't doubt the stories, but those are fairly rare cases.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 8, 2011 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Re: EMTALA- although I apprently didn't expand Mark's EMTALA knowledge, I'll give it another shot.


The whole reason EMTALA is needed is because hospitals found a "loophole" of sorts in tort law wherein they only owed a duty to people they start to treat (roughly speaking). The problem is this loophole was filled with coplex regulatory framework that created a concurrent standard of care related under federal law related to patients who present at the ER. (Although what constitute an ER and when a patient presents to the ER is another area of confusion)

It seems to me that the simplest solution would be for a court to recognize a duty for hospitals to treat people with emergency conditions or something to that effect. That such a duty would exist seems self-evident to me, but it is revolutionary to some.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | February 8, 2011 10:43 AM | Report abuse

New Adam Serwer post on the meaning of T-Paw's DADT dead-ender-ism:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 8, 2011 10:43 AM | Report abuse

shrink:

""Surely you jest. American white people do not hate colored people, they just want them below or behind.""

Are you an American white person?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 8, 2011 10:48 AM | Report abuse

It isn't personal Scott, it is how the world works. We have had the whole struggle for position, subjectivity of relative relative value, etc. discussion before, we won't agree. Prior times it was organized around whether or how to mitigate the necessary evil of income disparity, whether freedom and socialism are antithetical, it is all the same argument, it is about how people win and lose in the perpetual struggle to get over on each other.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 8, 2011 10:55 AM | Report abuse

It used to be that some of the "conservative" comments on this blog were at least mildly thought provoking but it's getting to the point where the right's posts repetitiveness, ignorance, arrogance, pettiness and mendacity are nothing but tedious and boring.

I am left with the conclusion that there really are no governance ideas whatsoever from the right. It is pathetic and sad that a guy named Troll McWingnut has the distinction of being most interested in honest discussion.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 8, 2011 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"* Supreme Court to uphold health law? Read of the morning: Don't miss Harvard professor Laurence Tribe's strong piece arguing that the Supremes should uphold their "constitutional duty" and dismiss the transparently political lawsuits designed to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

Note in particular Tribe's assault on the phony distinction health reform foes draw between economic activity and inactivity, which he calls "illusory.""

Tribe's strongest argument is this one:

"Even if the interstate commerce clause did not suffice to uphold mandatory insurance, the even broader power of Congress to impose taxes would surely do so. After all, the individual mandate is enforced through taxation, even if supporters have been reluctant to point that out."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/opinion/08tribe.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

However, his analysis of Justice Scalia is flawed I believe. GONZALES V. RAICH is an outlier from a general approach restricting the scope of the Commerce Clause. Tribe is correct that Justice Thomas is the only one who has been totally consistent though:

"If Justice Clarence Thomas can be counted a nearly sure vote against the health care law, the only reason is that he alone has publicly and repeatedly stressed his principled disagreement with the whole line of post-1937 cases that interpret Congress’s commerce power broadly."

I find Adam Serwer to be more persuasive overall:

"Libertarian arguments about the limits of the commerce clause are successful when they mesh with the preferred policy outcomes of conservative Republicans. That's why defenders of the ACA should be worried."

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=02&year=2011&base_name=moar_on_the_commerce_clause

Posted by: jnc4p | February 8, 2011 11:07 AM | Report abuse

shrink:

""It isn't personal Scott, it is how the world works.""

Is it how you work? Do you want "colored people" "below or behind" you?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 8, 2011 11:10 AM | Report abuse

"@ruk - I don't doubt the stories, but those are fairly rare cases.

BB"

I'm not sure where you live BB...if I recall Northern Va. I live in crackerland..Florida where 22% of our moronic electorate literally elected a crook to be our Governor.

You do not have to "believe" the story about my neighbor the neurosurgeon.

"http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/florida_doc_who_sent_obama_witch-doctor_email_stil.php"

BTW The pic of that goofy moron is on his front porch...I pass it several times a week on my walk/jogs.

I'm not going to name the Endodontist..but anybody in St. Pete who knows this man is well aware of his feelings..he blasts them out to everybody he can, except of course to black professionals...like virtually every racist I've met he is a total coward.

As for being rare...I WISH you were correct. One group of my cousins are total racists..they live in a suburb of Cincinnati...my son lives in Columbus and he hates to have my grandchildren exposed to one set of his in-laws from Cleveland because they routinely drop Nbombs and "fa5got" slurs...in between the puffs on their Marlboros. At least those losers are contributing to their early departure.

Rare? Really. I shall concede this BB.
My wife and I make an annual business trip to DC. We always feel as if we have arrived in an alternate universe. We are surprised by the number of black professionals and the interaction between blacks and whites in DC. At least in the circles we are running around..admittedly with folks who are not poor...we are always impressed by the integration of DC.
Perhaps that is why you suspect it is rare.

Rare? Not here in Florida..not in the Greater Cincinnati area. I have no real research on the subject of racial attitudes, and I'm not sure I respect what people might tell pollsters about this subject anyway...the two POS examples I mentioned are simply egregious examples..there are plenty more in varying degrees of sublety.

Racism rare? I'll let the other posters speak to their experiences...perhaps my lifetime of witnessing unabashed racism (as in many of these folks taking pride in their racism) is unique. Others can confirm or deny there own "unique" experiences.

Perhaps as a 63 year old white man I've lived through too much of it...but when I listen to Sam Cooke's "A Change is Going to Come" I am reminded both of how far we've come as a nation on this subject...and how far we still have to travel.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 8, 2011 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Tribe's NYT piece reads more like parody or, to be charitable, equal parts flattery and wishful thinking, than reasoned analysis of the voting behavior of the conservative justices.

For one thing, Scalia's opinion in Raich had more to do with his authoritarian bent and paleo-conservative tendencies than any unyielding respect for Congressional authority, which in his case only applies where some hippie is getting smacked down. Otherwise, not so much - as his recent dissent in Alderman goes to show.http://www.slate.com/id/2283415/pagenum/all/#p2

The conservatives on the Roberts Court are the most nakedly political batch of justices to wear the robes in decades - 4 of the 6 most conservative justices since 1937 are presently sitting on the Court. If Bush v Gore didn't convince you that the Court plays politics, then Citizens United but Not Timid should have sealed the deal.

If this court gets the chance to rule on ObamaCare, it will come down to Kennedy - end of story.

Posted by: ched | February 8, 2011 11:32 AM | Report abuse

ched, I made and somehow lost a long post to Mark about his deeply refreshing materialism, his legal logic is unadorned, free from politics and all that psychological Anlage, it is based in precedent, just as it should be.

I on the other hand, based my prediction of the 5-4 smack down of the individual mandate based upon my understanding of how the people on the court view themselves, how they got to their position of power and what they believe they should do with their authority on behalf of the people they care about. It is true, Kennedy will be the swing, I am just guessing he will go with Roberts et al against the IM.

Scott, when there are winners, there have to be losers, the winnowing process is pretty brutal. Have I given up the privileges I enjoy, a product of very good luck (and some integrity and hard work) so that others, skin colored or not might simply live? No. That said, my wife is 1/2 Dayak, Borneo aboriginal, and 1/2 Malay, she is very brown and a Muslim, so no, I don't want colored people below or behind me. Yet twice I have seen people pull their kids out of the pool in this country as she gets in, as if something might contaminate the water, as if skin pigment were not only soluble but contagious.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 8, 2011 11:50 AM | Report abuse

The Cohn piece linked above uses a peculiar if convenient definition of judicial activism:

"But I don't think it's possible to deny that ruling against the Affordable Care Act would be an act of judicial activism, in the sense that such a decision would necessarily mean re-interpreting and even rejecting the precedents on these questions that have prevailed for many decades."

There is a common thread here that you will see in all of the legal left's arguments on the ACA topic -- they effectively place "constitutional law" and precedent above the Constitution itself, and they define "activism" for polemical purposes not as departure from the latter but from the former, or, in many instances, as application of the Constitution to invalidate legislation. These notions turn the idea of "activism" on its head and are really designed to obfuscate and confuse the issues and the minds of readers.

Their arguments are (consistently) revealing of the fact that it isn't the Constitution they defend but the New Deal's reinvention they defend. (More generally, take a look at Tribe's treatise sometime. The Constitution itself plays a small and late role.)

It is true ACA has a much better chance of survival under the New Deal precedents (or what might be called the New Deal Consitution), and that the courageous thing to do would be for the Court to acknowledge the truth that those cases were wrong. That is, contrary to Cohn, the Constitution really is not "ambiguous" on this point. The Commerce and Taxing and Spending clauses do not, without a strong dose of sophistry and violence, suggest any power of Congress to regulate these matters. It wasn't until almost 150 years after ratification that, for expediency's sake, the Court radically threw out precedent and effectively rewrote Congress' powers.

But, even so, the liberals are also engaged in propoganda with their assertions, a la Tribe, that the case is open and shut even under the New Deal Constitution. It's trendy philosophy to assert that action/inaction, commerce/noncommerce are false and formalistic distinctions. But nevertheless it is a bridge the Court has never previously crossed. If it were, the advocates of unlimited federal power could cite the cases that crossed it, but they haven't and can't.

One thing it all shows, however, is that terms like judicial activism lose their utility after they become used in argument in misleading and confused ways. It's necessary to be specific. Cohn's column at least gives a definition, making it possible to confront his claim, but it isn't an accurate description of how conservatives generally use the term, which renders his charge of hypocrisy incorrect.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 8, 2011 12:07 PM | Report abuse

@ruk - I've been based in DC for awhile, but spent most of my life in the Midwest and the Rockies (Idaho & Utah). That sort of open bigotry seems mostly a feature of the past.

I was considering a parenthetical exception for the South, but my impressions aren't based upon direct experience.

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 8, 2011 12:10 PM | Report abuse

All, I just spoke to Arianna Huffington, she shared interesting new details about her plan for expansion of AOL:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 8, 2011 12:24 PM | Report abuse

shrink:

""so no, I don't want colored people below or behind me.""

Nor do I. Do you suppose 12Bar, lms, qb, McWing, Kevin, ruk, mark or Bernie (presuming they themselves are "American white people" - let's give Bernie a pass on the "American" part) want "colored people" below them?

""Yet twice I have seen people pull their kids out of the pool in this country as she gets in, as if something might contaminate the water, as if skin pigment were not only soluble but contagious.""

That is really both sad and infuriating. Sincerely. But I wonder how many people didn't pull their kids out of the pool? And why is it that the former are, to you, representative of "white American people", while everyone else, including those of us here on this board, who do not engage in such behavior do not?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 8, 2011 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Oh no, not representative, not at all. I would estimate only about 10% of Americans (of all races) embrace deeply racist beliefs, wishes and fears as a coping strategy. Maybe another 20% can be made to regress when they feel threatened into overt racism, as in public statements or behaviors such as voting. But everyone is racist when it comes to dreams and the unconscious; we work to repress this, we are not proud of it and if we are really good at being self-conscious, we don't act in racist ways.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 8, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

@ruk: "My wife's endodonist colleague has boasted he has purchased land in Panama...just in case...just in case the N gets elected again in 2012..he refuses to live in a nation led by an N."

If he's moving to Panama, it can't be skin pigmentation that's he has an issue with, no matter who unjustified, or strange, his position.

Although how weird is an endodonist would share that with someone.

"Do I need to ask them what it is they don't like about Obama's pigmentation? Or which shade of brown might be more acceptable to them?"

Well, if you wanted an answer, you do. If not, then don't, but then how would they feel about a president John Boehner, who is orange in complexion?

"Or perhaps you are just riffing on some snark...I think the majority of us understood DDAWD's point about 'brown' people. I think it's a generally accepted identifier of specific groups of minorities in our country, blacks and Mexicans as opposed to Asians although many of them are also 'brown'"

So . . . causal racism from liberals is okay, and, actually, it's uncool of conservative to rag on 'em for it.

But are we seriously saying that people have a problem with "brown" people--meaning, the color of their skin? That begs explanation. What factors are involved? Tonality? Shading? Does tanning make a difference?

And if we don't mean that people literally have a problem with skin pigmentation, we should say something different. IMO.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 8, 2011 1:45 PM | Report abuse

""But everyone is racist when it comes to dreams and the unconscious""

That can't be true. As the proud god mother of my best friend's son who was killed in a car accident 10 years ago and also just happened to be AA, he pops into my dreams quite frequently, just as others I have loved and lost do. I think I have more hope for humanity than you do shrink, which somehow surprises me.

While I do think a small percentage of the population that still harbors a deep hatred or even just distrust of people of color has crept out from whatever rock they were hiding, perhaps because of having a black President, I do not believe it is what drives the opposition. It is the age old libertarian/conservative vs. liberal/progressive clash, views that are often both misunderstood and misrepresented.

Posted by: lmsinca | February 8, 2011 1:45 PM | Report abuse

@Scott: "That is really both sad and infuriating. Sincerely. But I wonder how many people didn't pull their kids out of the pool?"

And how much is hypersensitivity? I was at a Wal-Mart once where my daughter was dawdling around the fish tanks, looking at fish. A young African-American couple and their child came up, and their child also was looking at the fish. This went on for a minute or two, and then my wife came back from the garden section, not having found whatever she was looking for, and so it was time to pull my reluctant daughter away from the pretty fish and head home. So, after urging her gently to come on, it was time to leave, the African-American mother said--quiet loudly--to her husband, "They're leaving now because they don't want their child playing with a black boy!" . . . or something to that effect, I didn't not think to write it down, specifically, when it was fresher in my memory.

Which, rightly or wrongly, I just ignored. But I know why I was leaving (because the best part of going to Wal-Mart is always leaving), and it wasn't because I was worried about "brown people cooties".

At the same time, I had an experience at Chuckie Cheese and once at the zoo where I'm almost 100% positive that, for whatever reason, my daughter would make fast friends with another little girl who happened to be African-American, and in a few moments the little girl's father (and it was always the father) showed up, and they had to leave (even if it looked to me like they had just gotten there) . . . and then, at least at the zoo, where they "had to go" was the other side of the playground, away from my daughter. Which, frankly, I don't get, but . . . whatever. You can't help but feel offended for your kids when they are on the receiving end of "don't wanna get them Scary Other cooties".

BTW, my kids have played with hundreds and hundreds of non-caucasian kids over the years, and I have run into maybe 5 cases of parents making a point of separating their children from the scary little white girl. I think it's silly, but . . . there were always other kids to play with.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 8, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Kevin

My friend and I used to get the oddest comments occasionally, and I stress occasionally, when we had her son and my two towheaded daughters out in public. We used to laugh uproariously about it later. She had them at McDonalds once and a woman came up to her and said "Oh how cute, they must have different fathers", what else could she say but "Well yeah, and different mothers too". We still laugh about that one.

Posted by: lmsinca | February 8, 2011 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Ann Althouse lands some serious blows against the Tribe propaganda effort (making a point yours truly has previously made about the rationalization for the mandate).

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/02/i-have-to-take-3rd-shot-at-larry-tribes.html

Tribe's is a standard campaign to publicly bully the Justices by claiming the left's position is beyond debate. As part of it, he (and David Cole) subtly try to shift the issue from one of Congress' power to individual rights talk.

But it's funny how they come out saying there is nothing in the Constitution "remotely" suggesting a right to be free from the mandate, i.e., no right not to "choose" not to pay for insurance, and no right to "opt out of the social contract."

Strange talk coming from folks who celebrate the extreme "freedom as absolute personal autonomy" of Roe and Casey.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 8, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

shrink:

""Oh no, not representative, not at all.""

Well, then, to state that "American white people" want "colored people" to be "below or behind" them seems to me to be nothing but incendiary foolishness.

""But everyone is racist when it comes to dreams and the unconscious""

Since I don't remember most of my dreams and I'm not, er, conscious of any unconscious thoughts I might have, I don't know how true that is. But, in any event, saying that everyone in the world harbors racist thoughts unconsciously is quite a different thing than announcing that "American white people want colored people to be below or behind them".

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 8, 2011 3:22 PM | Report abuse

It is different, I'll make the argument later, I think it is important and I am just too busy today to do it. Tonight or tomorrow...

Posted by: shrink2 | February 8, 2011 3:56 PM | Report abuse

The reason Gin-Grinch, sp, mb, aw, rp, gb, jb, and other crackpots make "headlines every day" is because of people like you. If no one would "cover" these teapots and tyrants, reasonable discourse, with some measure of civility, might actually occur. But for $300K (out of somebody's pocket) The Grinch would still be in prison. He's nothing. Why put him in print? Is there no right of self-determination with columnists? Just because an editor says he wants the "sexiest" or "most brash" dopes on the planet to jack sales up, can't you guys respond that there are other people in America who deserve coverage? Like, 99ers? Unemployment benefits? Jobs?

Posted by: kickoradell | February 8, 2011 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

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

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




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company