Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Weekend Fix Picks: The WaPo Edition

Thumbing through the Post this morning -- yes, we still get the paper delivered -- we came across a bunch of great stories.

If you have time today, check them out. You can also find them listed on the left side of the Fix homepage.

1. Dana Milbank on the anger on the left.
2. Dan Balz on the promise and perils for the GOP of last week's tea parties.
3. Carol Leonnig on John Murtha's airport.
4. Ana Marie Cox on why the White House press corps is no longer necessary.
5. Jose Antonio Vargas on Susan Boyle and viralness.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 19, 2009; 12:10 PM ET
Categories:  Fix Picks  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gresham Barrett and the Perils of the TARP Vote
Next: White House Cheat Sheet: Grading Obama's Cabinet


My impression (and I try always to make allowance for the subjective) is that Milbank would rather go for the catchy but simplistic criticism. The "Lending Tree" dig, for recent example, smacks of someone who's more interested in being clever than being informative.

Posted by: FlownOver | April 20, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

The reaction to the tea parties seems extreme when compared to the size of the actual events. Why do the Democrats want to continue to scrap when it is clear that they have a quasi-mandate. Don't be so upset about the other side being upset.. it's not a sign of strength or confidence in your own endeavor. It is time for Obama to reach out further.. and embrace All Americans.

Posted by: newbeeboy | April 20, 2009 9:47 AM | Report abuse

I will take all those tea party goers and others demonstrating against government spending serious just as soon as they return that $600 stimulus check they got last year. Until they do, they are "All smoke and no fire" as far as I am concerned. Not to mention the tax cut they got through this present stimulus program. Naturally they will continue to pay their taxes at the higher rate. Sure they will.

Posted by: Opa2 | April 19, 2009 9:32 PM | Report abuse

FlownOver, please do enlighten us as to why Dana Milbank is better suited to reviewing movies than to reporting political events.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | April 19, 2009 9:16 PM | Report abuse

The Milbank and Balz pieces were instructive. If nothing else, they illustrate concisely why Milbank would be better used as a movie critic (reminiscent of the cartoon critic Jay Sherman, his opinion is usually "It stinks") and why Balz is always worth the time.

Posted by: FlownOver | April 19, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

In support of my comment below as Miss Hogynist, I'd just like to add that from here on out I will be posting under my real name - and I would like to urge others to do the same.

Freedom of speech does not require anonymity.

And what's more, civility in the presence of political disagreement is a treasure not to be lightly cast aside.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | April 19, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

I enjoyed Milbank's crie de coeur, though it unearthed nothing new. The simple explanation for what he observes is that perceived anonymity on the web unleashes what's always been a part of peoples' makeup, but kept under wraps when the crass speaker could be identified by relatives, neighbors and co-workers.

Unforunately I fear that the case is now a little worse than that. It seems that the formerly uniquely vituperative tone of internet discourse has infected mainstream politics and we are now in a feedback loop (feedback between "anonymous" internet postings and real world politics) in which civility and mutual respect are the casualties.

It won't be the first time in human history that a new communications technology has revolutionized human relations. It may, though, be the most depressing instance of a technology being used more often to nurture what's foul in human nature rather than what's best. Or not - there's always nuclear weapons to consider when that issue comes up.

At least when you get flamed, you remain physically intact.

Posted by: Miss_Hogynist | April 19, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Threadjack for Duffman - I do not think a 14th A challenge to selective visa grants to Cuba would succeed, after thinking about it, but without benefit of any heavy duty reading.

I am guessing that since the right to travel overseas can be restricted on any number of grounds a "rational basis" test would be applied, and that the low threshold would be satisfied, assuming that the petitioner had standing.

"Right to travel" cases were often challenges to state residency requirements as I recall. This is a very different matter. I am having difficulty with imagining the person who wants to visit Cuba who is not of Cuban ancestry having standing to challenge her visa denial to a country with which we have no diplomatic relations. That challenge would, if successful, allow an individual to circumvent the entire FP toward Cuba.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 19, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company