Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

One cheer for Rand Paul

Which candidate for federal office made this forthright and progressive declaration of policy in a recent debate?

"I do not think federal subsidies of agriculture are a good idea. These go to things that are not economic, such as ethanol subsidies and large corporate farming, and I’m not in favor of giving welfare to business."

Hint: the same candidate also espoused raising the retirement age under Social Security to 70, a policy that, if done gradually, would knock $91 billion off the federal deficit over the next ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, with no undue hardship or sudden disruption of beneficiaries’ expectations.

Answer: Rand Paul, the Tea Party standard-bearer who appears poised to beat his mainstream Republican opponent, Trey Grayson, in today’s GOP Senate primary in Kentucky.

Let me be clear. I am not endorsing Paul. Far from it. His right-wing obsessions with the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education and the like turn me off, big time. I don’t doubt that his calls for reform of Social Security stem from a more radical libertarian agenda about which he’s not necessarily leveling with voters. And his blithe assertion that physician payments under Medicare should remain untouched hurts his fiscal conservative credibility -- especially since he’s a doctor himself.

Still, it’s depressing that Paul’s the only guy who’s willing to talk straight about these two obvious problems. Social Security must be modernized if it is to remain sustainable in generations to come. Farm subsidies -- especially those for wealthy growers -- are a particularly wasteful and regressive use of public resources, yet they remain sacrosanct on Capitol Hill. In response to Paul, his opponent, Trey Grayson, looked his state’s agricultural interests in the eye and boldly told them “the next farm bill cannot be as generous as the last one,” whatever that means.

In a healthier political climate, mainstream candidates would be tackling serious issues such as corporate welfare in agriculture and entitlement reform -- not ceding them to the Tea Party and the likes of Rand Paul.

By Charles Lane  | May 18, 2010; 4:18 PM ET
Categories:  Lane  | Tags:  Charles Lane  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Richard Blumenthal can't have it both ways on Vietnam
Next: Richard Blumenthal stanches the bleeding

Comments

Nothing on earth could induce me to vote for a tea bag.

Posted by: EdSantaFe | May 18, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Just saw him on the Nth appearance on Fox. He didn't answer even the softball questions that were slow pitched his way. I'm sure he moved to KY for the low info voter base and will likely win his primary. I can't say that Grayson is even slightly better though as the Repubs apparently have nothing to offer in the "great" state of McConnell. I could probably run a cardboard cutout there and win with the ridiculous cliche talking points.

"We're concerned" WELL WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE Mr. Lasik?

Posted by: theobserver4 | May 18, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Demographics dictate that something must be done about the Social Security retirement age. However, those who suggest that "70 is the new 65" are likely to have soft hands. I do myself.

My wife is an occupational physician for a major metal-producing company. She's a tough cookie, but she sees, daily, workers who are physically worn out--often at ages much younger than 65. For such workers, reaching the magic age of 65 (or even 62) under the physically challenging conditions of the mill is hurdle enough. Age 70 would be an absolutely unattainable goal for most of these these.

If nothing else, the early retirement age of 62 must be preserved for such workers in any revision of SSA retirement rules.

Posted by: wgmadden | May 18, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

It is most discouraging that "the likes of" Charles Lane, when they express a mildly sensible opinion, feel it necessary to reassure their readers that they have not gone "right wing". I know very little about Rand Paul, except that he is not his father, but if he would like to do away with the Department of Education, he has better sense than does Charles Lane, who for reasons he does not explain, appears to think that it is the bedrock upon which the enormous advances in the quality of public education since the 1970's are founded.
As to the Federal Reserve, my feelings are mixed. My father, a grocery clerk with no education, was able to wangle a position a local bank because he apparently was the only person in his small Oklahoma town who understood the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Let us just say that its performance after the crashes of 1929 and 1978 has been mixed, as has that of the central banks of the EU.
Mr. Lane would have been more succinct by merely saying "I dislike farm subsidies and an insolvent Social Security system, but very much like a large federal education bureaucracy and a central bank".

Posted by: JamesCurrin | May 18, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Turtlehead must be concernred about his leadership position. It's also going to be very interesting in 2011 to see Sen. Paul upset the Palin for Pres.Pom-Pom Express.

Posted by: BBear1 | May 18, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

There may well be elements of the Libertarian/Tea Bag platform that make sense. If you felt like picking and choosing you could find some good nuggets in the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf. But that doesn't mean that the essence of what these people propose is any the less stupid or dangerous.

Posted by: gposner | May 18, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Raising the age for Social Security might make sense if there were some way of making sure that older workers don't get shut out of the employment market. As it stands right now, someone over fifty losing a job has a hard way to go. And the older she/he is the worse the situation. If at some future time the age were raised to 70, someone who became unemployed at 65 would have a difficult time covering their living expenses let alone affording any sort of health insurance.

Posted by: seldoc1 | May 18, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Hey "theobserver4":
"Upon completion of his training in 1993, Rand and Kelley moved to Bowling Green, KY to start their family and begin his ophthalmology practice."
Yes, I'm sure he planned his run for Senate 17 YEARS AGO and decided KY was the only place that would elect him. But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a completely unfounded rant!

"EdSantaFe" Your close-mindedness only tells us about you, not about the qualification of Dr. Paul for office. Indeed there is much about him you may like, especially as it relates to foreign policy and civil rights. But you have to take the step to get past the labels that comfort you so.

Peace be with you.

Posted by: cfountain72 | May 18, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Lane,
I appreciate that you took the time to point out the substance of Dr. Paul's stance against farm subsidies, but I am a bit curious why you would consider it 'progressive.' Indeed, the very existence of farm subsidies was the result of 'progressive' legislation.
It seems that some folks don't quite get it: it simply comes down to the Constitution. Liberals appreciate some parts of the Constitution (freedom of speech, press), but ignore others (enumerated powers). Many conservatives like some parts (gun rights), but not others (illegal search and seizure). True Constitutionalists (like Dr. Paul claims to be) follow the precepts of that document regardless of whether the results are classified as Republican or Democrat. In this case, he would simply say, if folks REALLY like farm subsidies, pass a freaking Amendment!
Peace be with you.

Posted by: cfountain72 | May 18, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

I like how the Democrats don't see what is happening right under their snotty noses.

Posted by: RossOdom | May 18, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Hey "gposner"
I'm guessing if you lived in the 18th century, you'd probably say something like: "There may well be elements of the Constitution that make sense. If you felt like picking and choosing you could find some good nuggets in the English law. But that doesn't mean that the essence of what Madison or Paine or Jefferson propose is any the less stupid or dangerous."
If you don't like what the Constitution says, Pass an Amendment!
Peace be with you.

Posted by: cfountain72 | May 18, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

In a healthier political climate -- that is, one where so many lawmakers were not emasculated by Grover Norquist and the teabaggers -- another Social Security fix would be on the table. Namely, an increase in the maximum annual income that is taxed for Social Security purposes.

Posted by: angelas1 | May 18, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

I am not a Tea Party patriot (or whatever they call themselves), but I know you people don't get it.
They are not a radical right wing organization. They are fed up with the unchecked growth of government and feel the Republicans have sold out on this area.
Ideas like fiscal restraint, individual responsibility, non-interventionist foreign policy, and championing individual freedoms were radical when the founding fathers proposed them 235 years ago.
If you find them radical now, the old Virginia Slims tag line applies to you: You've come a long way baby! (but that's not a good thing)
I am thrilled Rand Paul won the primary. We need more than 1 person in Congress who is scared of a big government.

Posted by: natecar | May 18, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

I realize that the Senate is intended to equalize large and small states. But when it comes to taking the pulse of America, why should we place as much significance on a primary race in Kentucky as much as a primary race in Pennsylvania. Clearly the number of Americans expressing their support for the liberal views of Mr. Sustack is far greater than the comparatively tiny number that support Mr. Paul. As an insight into American opinion, why should we give so much weight to so few?

This imbalance in balance is also seen in the media interest in Tea Baggers over progressive causes. Compare the size of demonstrations and one can only wonder why the Tea Baggers seem to appear huge in their participation and influence. Indeed, the media focus on Mr. Paul's connection with the Tea Baggers may have helped him by free publicity and notoriety.

Sometimes it seems futile to point out these absurdities. The media is too addicted to its own excesses to turn away on its own. We need to think about how to take away its monopoly on information, if they continue to abducate their responsibility to serve the public interest as our "fourth estate."

Posted by: edarden4u | May 18, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

I like elements of Paul's platform: All agricultural subsidies should be ended and we should have congressional term limits.

Ordinarily, these two items would be enough to get me to vote for the candidate. It would all depend what the opposing candidate was offering. I would be happier if Paul and his father belonged to the Libertarian Party.

Paul's anti-immigrant views are enough to get me to vote against him. He is pandering to the worst elements of the Republican Party.

Posted by: alance | May 18, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Denial is good - never, never interrupt the left wing when it is slowly destroying itself.

Posted by: jmk55 | May 18, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

rand paul is the high point of the terrorist teabagger revolution ???

good luck with that

Posted by: nada85484 | May 19, 2010 12:04 AM | Report abuse

For all of Paul's huge win, look at his platform and it is not the same as the Tea Party. Cutting the defense budget, bring all the troops home and a 23% sales tax to replace an income tax are not Tea Party initiatives. Many in KY physically work for a living with 70 retirement too far a reach for most of the working class. Paul will probably win in Nov. but that is a long way off with a chance for him to mess up and hand the election to Conway.

Posted by: jameschirico | May 19, 2010 12:36 AM | Report abuse

"Hint: the same candidate also espoused raising the retirement age under Social Security to 70, a policy that, if done gradually, would knock $91 billion off the federal deficit over the next ten years,..."

Why is it republicans and teabaggers want to "TRY" to balance the budget on the back of the elderly?

$91 Billion is 23 months in Iraq.

Where are they when it comes to reducing subsidies to the military industrial complex?


Where are they when it comes to eliminating the cap on Social Security earnings?

SILENT!!!!

Posted by: knjincvc | May 19, 2010 1:47 AM | Report abuse

Pardon me for asking, but in which healthy political climate have "mainstream" candidates tackled serious issues in living memory? FDR certainly tackled a few, but at some violence to the rule of law: "mainstream" is in the eye of the rearview mirror. For that matter, why shouldn't "mainstream" pundits engage directly on complex issues like the banking system, rather than churn out hackneyed calls for "bipartisanship" and condemnations of "populism." The marketplace of ideas will serve up clear winners and losers as we pass through a turbulent period, just as in the '30s. Our society is afflicted by a "ruling" elite (of which this editorial page is a small part) which is so comfortable with the status quo that it resists ideas simply because they're not served up by dues-paying members of the club.

Posted by: Namazu | May 19, 2010 1:49 AM | Report abuse

"In this case, he would simply say, if folks REALLY like farm subsidies, pass a freaking Amendment!"

HUH? Do we need an amendment for every spending proposal?
Do we need an amendment to build highways, bridges, send a man to the moon?

Posted by: knjincvc | May 19, 2010 2:36 AM | Report abuse

EdSantaFe - How about our job? Your country? As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, the Democratic and Republican establishment will eventually out source you job,too. They have traded over 45 million jobs to buy cooperation for their foreign policy schemes and to buy Wall Street campaign donations and favors (read "bribes"). It's just a matter of time before hey get round to you. Then you get the fun of seeing your children hungry, marital programs, bankruptcy, poor or non-existent health care. In just 12 months, Obama outsourced more than 4 million jobs. He has issued more H1-B and L-2 visas than ever before in history, That has created a gigantic security hole. The engine of Democracy during the Second World War cannot even product enough ammunition for it's troops -- much of that has been outsourced to China. We passed the point of no return about a year ago, We are going to and in a DEPRESSION, likely in 2011, that will make the Great Depression look like a picnic. We are in so much trouble that the models show rots in the streets, assassinations, calls for revolt, and draconian police actions that will rip the very fabric of this country apart. The ONLY group that has any plans for dealing with the worst of this, fixing it, and restoring us to some semblance of sanity is the Tea Party. Before the next year is out you will eat those words.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 19, 2010 3:52 AM | Report abuse

Wow! $91 billion over 10 years!!! Is this guy simply an economic moron or one of the GOP terminally greedy? Either answer would be correct. The "Tempest in a Tea Pot Party" simply wants to kill any and every social net that exists in this country so they can continue Herr Flight Suit's program of tax cuts for the wealthy. A real crowd please for all the fascists in this country.

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | May 19, 2010 4:58 AM | Report abuse

Dude - if you do not understand Paul's argument against the Federal Reserve then you do not deserve to be writing a column. Have you been watching Senate Finance committee interrogations of Greenspan, Bernanke, et al? Did you see the historic low vote for Bernanke's reappointment? Do you understand the 1994 Equity Protection Act and Greenspan's failure to invoke it before the banking system went down? Do you actually believe the inflation numbers forced on the Bur. of Lab. Statistics by the Fed? Do you see the damage done by the whole "central bank" concept worldwide whether the EU, the Fed, IMF, etc.??

Read the Federal Reserve's mission statement on their web site and then tell me the Fed is great. CHRIST!!!

Posted by: hz9604 | May 19, 2010 6:28 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: gposner There may well be elements of the Libertarian/Tea Bag platform that make sense. If you felt like picking and choosing you could find some good nuggets in the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf. But that doesn't mean that the essence of what these people propose is any the less stupid or dangerous.
*******************************

Wow, stupidest, most uninformed post of the year. It's the stateist progressives that currently infest our government who resemble the hate-filled, anti-human doctrines you refer to. Tea Party members are about individual freedom and the God-given right to make choices and then face the fruits or consequences of those choices. gposner, you don't have a single clue about the Tea Party or much of anything I'd wager. Stop being spoon fed by the DNC-pimping MSM and attend a Tea Party rally before spouting off and confirming that you're an uninformed bozo.

Posted by: whatup | May 19, 2010 6:35 AM | Report abuse

In an editorial this past Sunday on Rand Paul and the Kentucky Republican primary, the Cincinnati Enquirer made a most revealing statement.
Discussing this newcomer to politics, the editorial quoted him as saying the Invasion of Iraq was probably a bad idea. Be careful, warned the conservative Enquirer, that's risky for a Republican candidate to say.
Risky? When most Americans would agree? Yet when have we heard any of the Republicans running for office own up to the huge mistakes in Iraq made by the Bush Administration?
Maybe it's risky for Paul, but I thought it was refreshing. Voters seem feel the same way. In addition to the support from Tea Party, he may be one of the anti-GOP Republicans we hear so much about.

Posted by: miramar50 | May 19, 2010 6:52 AM | Report abuse

I agree with those commenting that it would be okay if we could pick and choose Paul's ideas. However some of his ideas, like his father's, are so far out of the park, they are untenable. We do need independent thinkers in Congress, but we need thoughtful, reasonable independent thinkers.

Posted by: MNUSA | May 19, 2010 7:05 AM | Report abuse

Be careful in what you wish for.

You might get it.

But Social Security is an easy fix now. A few years more to retire and a higher limit on income that is taxed and it is OK for as far as we can predict.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | May 19, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Federal Employees that remained in the CRCS pension program can retire at 55 with 30 years service. Let's raise the age for government pensions!!!

Posted by: cautious | May 19, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

You reap what you sow.

The complicit silence of the GOP in response to the excesses of the Tea Party is coming home to roost.

Posted by: st50taw | May 19, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Social security could have been " reformed" long ago by not calling it the GENERAL FUND and dipping in for money like the CUBAN ADJUSTMENT act of 1960,,the largest federal welfare scam in history,,millions handed to the mariel criminals and psychos when they flooded into the country along with 40 years of other S Florida handouts to anyone getting a foot on the beach.

Posted by: gonville1 | May 19, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Hello, summer, good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready?

http://www.needaseller.com

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini)$16

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) $35

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

http://www.needaseller.com

FREE sHIPPING
........♫
....♫
..♪
........♬

...♪......♪

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Posted by: wwterueytiruertuwety | May 19, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse


Posted by:GaryEMasters/May 19,10 7:57 AM
"...But Social Security is an easy fix now. A few years more to retire and a higher limit on income that is taxed and it is OK for as far as we can predict."


*******************************************
So what higher age would you suggest? It's already 67 & 9 months for full retirement.

The solution is to completely eliminate the earning cap on Social Security earnings,as well as means testing for those retiring and receiving $100+K in other income.

However, those who suggest that "70 is the new 65" are likely to have soft hands. I do myself.

wgmadden wrote; May 18, 2010 5:45 PM
My wife is an occupational physician for a major metal-producing company. She's a tough cookie, but she sees, daily, workers who are physically worn out--often at ages much younger than 65. For such workers, reaching the magic age of 65 (or even 62) under the physically challenging conditions of the mill is hurdle enough. Age 70 would be an absolutely unattainable goal for most of these these.

If nothing else, the early retirement age of 62 must be preserved for such workers in any revision of SSA retirement rules.


*******************
And, as someone else mentioned there is the issue of age discrimination for those workers over the age of 55+.

Posted by: knjincvc | May 19, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Fear and Loathing in the campaign reporting. Straight talk is really ugly - better go back to those circuitous mumbling that make you feel better.

Posted by: Lynne5 | May 19, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

The fix for Social Security is ridiculously simple. Remove or revise the cap so that individuals making more than $108K pay Social Security contributions on all of it.

Why is there no politician willing to make this simple suggestion?

Posted by: DaveR1 | May 19, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

When has a candidate ever followed through on their campaign promises. Voters need to look at what they have done in the past to know what they can do in the future.

If any voter relies soley on campaign promises, then we may as well make Mother Goose president and vote for candidates with the best fairy tale.

Wait a minute, that's what we're doing now...................

Posted by: asmith1 | May 19, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

You Progressive LibTards are swinging early, no? What do I care about the points you make? He is a representative and is one vote. The more important questions are these:

1. Will Rand Paul push for a balanced budget?
2. Will Rand Paul begin the push to make cuts to unnecessary spending to address the deficit?
3. Will Rand Paul support our laws and support the rule of law?
4. Will Rand Paul protect our national security?
5. Will Rand Paul work to support businesses?

Free-spending Democrats have demolished our free enterprise system, even as Obama sits by and panders to Mexico's president...as we suffer the effects of decades of invasion. It doesn't matter if immigration is down - what matters is that the cumulative damage has been done and now we are forced at the state level to do what the Obama refuses to do.

While Obama commits dereliction of duties and aids and abets criminals, Americans know that he represents what we DO NOT want. The health care bill's passing was the last straw.

Put a fork in Democrats.

Posted by: easttxisfreaky | May 19, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

"Social Security must be modernized if it is to remain sustainable in generations to come," says Mr. Lane.

How do you know that, Mr. Lane? I didn't as why you believe it, but rather how you know this is a fact that is absolutely 100% true.

We were lied to before in the Reagan Administration about the perilous state of Social Security and suffered the largest tax increase ever inflicted upon the middle class. How do we know they aren't lying to us now?

As I asked before: How do you know that Social Security is in peril to be true, not believe it to be true.


Posted by: francis4 | May 19, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Do you know how many people would have absolutely nothing to live on if they had to wait until age 70 to receive SS benefits, something they have already contributed to for 40+ years. Not everyone has had a career where they can put away lots of money for retirement. Before more years are added (approximately 4), clean up the list of those who are receiving SS but are not entitled to it.

Posted by: OHREALLYNOW | May 19, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

What ReTardlicans don't want to admit is that the Libertarian agenda which they tiptoe around is enormously unpopular, for the simple reason that nobody who's getting government welfare wants to get less of it. After nearly ruining the country with massive debt and financial mismanagement during the Bush years, they now want to complete the task and give us another "lost decade" of zero growth. The question is whether Rand Paul will be marching "in lockstep" with the Party of No, or will try to impose his Libertarian dogma on an unwilling country. Either way, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Posted by: DaveHarris | May 19, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

The invisible hand of the electoral system is about to swat Stalinist Paul from his perch.

Posted by: tojby_2000 | May 19, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Ending farm subsidies would be a great boon to not only ending corporate welfare, but to world trade. Ending these subsidies would play a huge role in helping to alleviate world poverty by making farm products in developing countries more competitive.

Fortunately, Rand Paul cannot claim to be the originator of this idea. He's just reheated and served it again. In fact, for a lot of the tea party ideas they're pretty much reheated ideas from elsewhere, and this includes the paranoia.

Posted by: 44fx290 | May 19, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Not being first with an idea doesn't make it any less powerful. We all should support an end to subsidies (not just agricultural). They are a tax on everyone to benefit a select connected minority (such as states with early primaries, large corporations with expensive lobbyists, ...). The subsidies are a dead weight on the economy.
The $91 Billion in savings over the next 10 years on social security is a terrible twisting of reality. Social Security is in bad shape for the next 10 years, but horrendous shape for the following 40 years. This proposal will help to fix those 40 years in a way that Charles Lane understands but is not willing to acknowledge. That $91 Billion in savings will increase to Trillions over the next 40 years.
Almost enough to offset the Trillions in costs Bush added when he invaded Iraq.

Posted by: natecar | May 19, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"Hint: the same candidate also espoused raising the retirement age under Social Security to 70, a policy that, if done gradually, would knock $91 billion off the federal deficit over the next ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, with no undue hardship or sudden disruption of beneficiaries’ expectations. "

It's amazing how many pundits favor this. It's probably because (a) once you're in as a pundit, you're in for life, (b) productivity is easy when its all BS and blather, and (c) you can just hire an intern to write your columns for you.

For those of us in the real world, its another story.

Posted by: BarrytheD | May 19, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

I like elements of Paul's platform: All agricultural subsidies should be ended and we should have congressional term limits.

Ordinarily, these two items would be enough to get me to vote for the candidate. It would all depend what the opposing candidate was offering. I would be happier if Paul and his father belonged to the Libertarian Party.

Paul's anti-immigrant views are enough to get me to vote against him. He is pandering to the worst elements of the Republican Party.

Posted by: alance | May 18, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse *********************************************************************************************************************************Dr. Paul's anti-immigrant views are enough to get me to vote FOR him. He is pandering to the BEST elements of both the Democrat and Republican parties.

Posted by: jnrentz@aol.com | May 19, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

As an independent voter with an eye for corruption and abuse of power, I am trying to understand why Mr. Lane would refer to Dr. Paul's stance on the Federal Reserve as "Right Wing".,.?

Does that make Alan Grayson (D-FL) a right-winger because he has been pushing for a full audit of the privately-owned central bank?

I think its about time we had a full understanding and disclosure of how the Federal Reserve throws its money around, including how much it pays the Washington Post and Mr. Lane...

Posted by: courtrand | May 19, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company