Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Assessing Organizing for America through the health care lens


Washington Democratic Rep. Brian Baird is at the center of a debate over Organizing for America's effectiveness. AP Photo/Lauren McFalls

A few weeks back, we wrote that Organizing for America -- the operation built in the wake of the 2008 campaign to push President Obama's legislative agenda -- faced a serious test of its efficacy as it pushed hard for passage of the health care bill.

In the immediate aftermath of Sunday night's vote, OFA claimed a sweeping victory (and a validation of its mission), noting that they had produced hundreds of thousands of phone calls -- among other voter contacts -- to fence-sitting members in the week prior to the vote.

Their work, in turn, drew praise from several people who have followed the organization very closely.

Ben Smith of Politico headlined a post "Credit to OFA" and concluded that in the "legislative trench warfare that has defined this year, [Obama's] campaign organization was a serious asset."

Ari Melber of the liberal Nation magazine, who has studied OFA (and its effectiveness) closely, offered this take:

"In the homestretch...the numbers and coverage suggest that OFA was able to channel grassroots support for the bill in effective and even confrontational ways."

If OFA's success or failure as an organization is entirely hinged on the fate of the health care bill passing, then it's tough to draw any other conclusion than the Sunday vote was a rousing victory for the organization.

The truth, however, of OFA's efficacy in regards the health care vote is far more nuanced and more difficult to accurately assess.

OFA's mission statement is simple: rally Obama's base -- and the more than 13 million email addresses its possesses -- to persuade and/or cajole members of Congress on the president's legislative priorities. And, assessing persuasion is a complicated game that is as much about human nature as it is about politics.

Take Washington Rep. Brian Baird (D) who voted "no" on the health care bill back in November.

Baird, who announced his retirement in early December, was publicly wavering in advance of this vote. In a memo outlining OFA's effectiveness sent to to reporters this morning, Democratic National Committee communications director Brad Woodhouse noted that Baird "said that the number of calls he received from inside his district in support of reform was persuasive in moving him" from "no" to "yes"; Woodhouse added that OFA was directly responsible for nearly three-quarters of all calls to Baird's office in support of the health care bill.

Compare that claim with Baird's quotes in a Roll Call story detailing the effort to win his vote.

Said Baird:

"Everybody knew in my case -- no point in cajoling me, They were likely to get punched in the mouth if they said, 'You're not running,'. You say that to me, you insult me personally, because it implies all I care about is election."

The story goes on to note that as Baird made up his mind he had a private sitdown with President Obama as well as conversations with Vice President Joe Biden and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke (Wash.). He even went over the plan "point by point" with Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orzag.

What then made up Baird's mind? Was it OFA's calls? Or the conversations with top Administration officials and members of the Democratic leadership in the House?

It's impossible to know and it's almost certain that no one thing did the trick.

(In truth, Organizing for America is likely to get less credit than it deserves in some circles because individual Members of Congress are often loathe to credit a persuasion campaign as the reason that their vote changed. The typical stated reason is generally far more high minded citing a detailed analysis of the bill after which they decided it was the right thing for the country.)

But the Baird back-and-forth gets at the fundamental chicken and egg-ness of OFA. We could argue until we are blue in the face as to whether insist that Baird was swayed primarily by calls from OFA or conversations with the President and his aides without coming to any real resolution.

The best (only?) conclusion we are left with is that, at a minimum, OFA helped around the edges to rally support for the vote. If the choice is between scads of calls in support of passing the bill into wavering Members' districts and no calls at all, it's hard to argue against those calls and the work OFA did.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 23, 2010; 2:03 PM ET
Categories:  Democratic Party , Health Care  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Is a Republican-controlled House better for President Obama in 2012?
Next: Sarah Palin announces her 2010 target list

Comments

Anyone else? Maybe on the actual thread topic?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 25, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

I do not find posts by 37th abusive or irritating.

==

and you ca probably stay amused all day playing with a piece of your own poo.

You STILL don't get that nobody here gives a crap about what you think, or who you voted for, or that someone didn't respond to your idiot questions? Any cocker spaniel is more in the ball than you are.

Get lost, creep. And take PissJug McBrainChar with you.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 24, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

First, JakeD2, you can't "turn out of power" a grassroots group of millions of Americans. We're not "in power." We just speak up when we want to let our legislators know what we want. That's called DEMOCRACY.

To 37thandOstreet: OFA doesn't pay anyone to post blogs. We speak out because we choose to, and because we believe what we're saying. Stop looking for plots and payola among Dems -- you're just projecting the GOP's MO onto us. As for "the individual mandate is nowhere in the Constitution" -- gee, if the founding fathers didn't write about a specific thing, it can't be done? Get real. The federal government's right to levy taxes has long been established and legally endorsed; the fine for those who can afford to buy health insur. but don't is a TAX. Perfectly legal. All those state attorneys general: they're gonna lose. Waste of time.

Finally -- when we spoke to one of our U.S. Senator's staff about the bill (last summer), we were told that she "starts paying attention" when 5,000 constituents call in on one side of an issue." The notion that Senators and Congressmembers aren't influenced by constituent calls is nonsense; they are, particularly when they receive them in significant volume. That's precisely why OFA can help the President: because we live everywhere in America. We can call our legislators -- and we will. We placed a quarter of a million calls LAST WEEK, to our own representatives. THAT IS PEOPLE POWER. THAT IS DEMOCRACY.

Posted by: marcywrite | March 24, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

There have been efforts by the democrats to define everyone in the Tea Party Movement by the actions of a few.


Clearly, if that logic is valid, then the democrats would not object to going to any Courthouse in America and defining all blacks in the country by the few who are on trial as criminals.


This effort by the democrats is silly - and it is destracting the country from the MASSIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM AND THE MASSIVE TAXES WHICH ARE BEING IMPOSED ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR WILL.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 24, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Acorn is gone!!!!(??)

Welkomen, OFA.

Posted by: connyankee1 | March 24, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1:
"does dbw1 know how to paste the link to which he refers earlier in his post? Or is the whole post a cut 'n paste job, during which he neglected to cut the link to the AP article on which he heaps disdain?"

Sorry for being a little behind, but obviously I don't have as much time as some to post on this message board all day long. I'm flattered, bsimon1, that you are so concerned about what I have to say.

Your link is below. I thought it had pasted the first time, but guess not. Of course you could have found it with google or yahoo, but I'm always glad to provide my sources. You'll notice my sources are nearly always from the left-leaning MSM. I don't copy and paste from right-wing equalivants of the HuffPost, like many leftists on here.

And yes, my disdain is still heaped highly on this AP 'analysis' of the health care bill. Thanks for asking!

(those reading this post for the first time will have to scroll down to posts on this page yesterday afternoon to see what bsimon1 was all flustered over. AP writers don't know how to add and subtract, but then again most liberals spend a lot more time in philosophy classes than they do in math classes, so I'm not really surprised.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_glance_7

Posted by: dbw1 | March 24, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

that's because you're both burnout losers.

Posted by: drindl | March 24, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse


Margaret


Are you offended by the postings - or by the content of the postings ???


If you agreed with my positions, would you be complaining ????


Besides, I though you promised that you were not going to read any of my posts -


If that is true, how do you know what they say?

.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 24, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

I do not find posts by 37th abusive or irritating.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 24, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

While I'm glad 37th finally fixed commerce cluase, I'm still

UPSET

that he pasted the

SAME POST

over and over on every thread

ALL DAY YESTERDAY!!!!!1!!!!!

.

Isn't that an abuse of the rules of this blog?


STALKING is best when it is scary, not irritating.

.

.

.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 24, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

Grown men complaining about being called a bad name.

- they aren't adults


- and they aren't men.


.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 24, 2010 1:06 AM | Report abuse

F ucking burnout

Posted by: Noacoler | March 24, 2010 12:43 AM | Report abuse

It is clear that the liberals and democrats have run out of ideas save for one: SPEND UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNTS OF MONEY.

None of their ideas does anything but that.


Obama is going to spend TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON HIS HEALTH CARE PLAN - AND NOW WE HEAR THAT THE PREMIUMS ARE NOT GOING DOWN.


What is that all about ?

,


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 24, 2010 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler


Go to Vietnam and leave Freedom-loving Americans alone.

Please take broadwayjoe and his pinko friends with you.


.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 24, 2010 12:28 AM | Report abuse

I know 37th doesn't have a job, he's here 18 or more hours a day, the only question in my mind is if he showers.

Not how often. If.

Cillizza should be fired for his entries of the last three days. I'm composing a letter to the editors making my case. But for allowing this charred brain troll to fill up the blog with repeated unintelligible idiocy Cillizza deserves hell.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 24, 2010 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Ah, its is a regrettable necessity, it must be done, but there's no sport in setting traps for vicious morons.

Posted by: nodebris | March 23, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

It may be only some teabaggers screaming the insults, actually it's a lot of them, but the others don't tell them to stop it and certainly don't find it objectionable enough to leave. So they're complicit and only marginally less guilty.

The same is not true of your blacks on trial comparison; people in high crime neighborhoods hate crime. So you 20x repeated post is idiotic and you are a PCP burnout.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 11:36 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe

game, set, match.

.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

BROADWAYJOE


If you INSIST on defining the ENTIRE Tea Party Movement by the actions of a few people, then surely you would NOT OBJECT to going down to any courthouse in America and defining all black people by the actions of the few blacks who are on trial as criminals ????


Surely, your logic makes sense.


If you do not agree, you are a fool.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse


What about the commerce clause?


This is going to be interesting


Are doctors' licenses generally restricted state-by-state ???


Yea, there are cases that the federal government can regulate wheat grown in your backyard - which only the people in the house eat.


However, the States DO have powers - and there MUST be some line between Federal and State powers.


It is an error to say the Federal Government can do whatever it wants - and the States' Power has to diminish until there is nothing left.


Wheat is traded across state boundaries - and the Federal government was trying to regulate supply and demand - so growing wheat in one's backyard and eating it - that reduces the demand in interstate commerce.


HOWEVER HEALTH INSURANCE IS DIFFERENT. Right now, it is illegal to sell health insurance across state lines. AND health insurance has TRADITIONALLY BEEN REGULATED BY THE STATES.


The Courts should look at this question -

___________________________________________


The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

BROADWAYJOE


If you INSIST on defining the ENTIRE Tea Party Movement by the actions of a few people, then surely you would NOT OBJECT to going down to any courthouse in America and defining all black people by the actions of the few blacks who are on trial as criminals ????

Surely, your logic makes sense.

If you do not agree, you are a fool.

.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

@noa:

You might like Paul Begala's 2007 article in HuffPo, "David Broder is a Gasbag."

Excerpt:

"Perhaps Broder's bed-wetting tantrum against Reid was spurred by the certain knowledge that while Harry Reid has been telling hard truths, Mr. Broder has been falling hard for transparent lies.

Whereas Reid called for Donald Rumsfeld's dismissal long ago, Broder vouched for Rummy, writing, "Overall, Rumsfeld left me with the impression that he is aware of the risks of war with Iraq, but confident they can be handled."

While Reid has called for investigations into allegations Karl Rove broke the law, Broder vouches for Rove: "Let me disclose my own bias in this matter. I like Karl Rove.... I have eaten quail at his table and admired the splendid Hill Country landscape from the porch of [Rove's] historic cabin...." Mighty cozy in Karl's cabin, isn't it, Mr. Broder?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/david-broder-is-a-gasbag_b_46923.html

Three years later and nothing's changed. :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 23, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse


BROADWAYJOE


If you INSIST on defining the ENTIRE Tea Party Movement by the actions of a few people, then surely you would NOT OBJECT to going down to any courthouse in America and defining all black people by the actions of the few blacks who are on trial as criminals ????

Surely, your logic makes sense.

If you do not agree, you are a fool.

.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

wonder what the strategy is in BroderWorld? More chumble chumble about "fiscal restraint?" About "market-based" solutions?

"Bipartisanship?"

Or does The Dean talk about Obama being "uppity?"

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 8:40 PM
_________

I'd give a week's pay to see Blow-der tut-tuting and belching about the irrational fiscal exuberance of the HCR. And the sheer uppitiness of BHO passing such an historic thing. My goodness! He'll soon push some false narrative that HCR passage is bad for Dems and blah, blah, blah, tut, tut, tut...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 23, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


You continue to make sexist statements - and you continue to use sexual slurs on this blog.


It sort of blunts your complaints about racism - doesn't it ???


Please explain to everyone that your attacks on women are OK, while you condemn racism.


Please explain your position that you pretend to see racism everywhere - but you can not restrain yourself from typing sexual slurs all the time ?????


Please explain.


.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

I'll take it, Cup. Thanks.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 23, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe


do you work for Organizing for America ??


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

...SILENTLY ASSAULT, TORTURE, IMPAIR, SUBJUGATE U.S. CITIZENS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVE WEAPON SYSTEM,

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 23, 2010 9:12 PM


Scrivener, I'm so glad you're here. Do you know who supports your theory? Yes, believe it or not, George Bush himself. Here's a picture of George showing a famous Russian how to use a homemade satellite to protect yourself from the cell tower microwaves. Please add this to your web site. Thanks.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0jhe4AbFCnY/Rv6rlGX-yVI/AAAAAAAAAUc/d6vFFBAXB9U/s400/Bush%2BSatellite%2Bdish.jpg

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 23, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

POTUS, Congress: Now do the REAL health care reform:

Stop Bush-Era Homeland-Led Atrocities that Destroy American Lives, Livelihoods...

HOMELAND-RUN 'FUSION CENTERS' SILENTLY ASSAULT, TORTURE, IMPAIR, SUBJUGATE U.S. CITIZENS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVE WEAPON SYSTEM, FINANCIAL SABOTAGE, 'COMMUNITY WATCH' VIGILANTE DOMESTIC TERRORISM: VETERAN JOURNALIST

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
OR NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA" (see "stories")

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 23, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

.

wow, moonstream... lay off the amphetamines..

.

Posted by: drindl | March 23, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Hooray, BHO
Hooray, Pelosi
Hooray, HCR
Hooray, the United States of America

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 23, 2010 8:35 PM


broadwayjoe, to congratulate you, let me offer four checks and a star today. All of them unearned. ✓✓✓✓✰

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 23, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Poor lonely Ped.

Posted by: Moonbat | March 23, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what the strategy is in BroderWorld? More chumble chumble about "fiscal restraint?" About "market-based" solutions?

"Bipartisanship?"

Or does The Dean talk about Obama being "uppity?"

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Hooray, BHO
Hooray, Pelosi
Hooray, HCR
Hooray, the United States of America

This is a great day, at least outside Drudge/Fix World. Just think, with HCR's passage, Rush has committed to live in Costa Rica in a few years...permanently.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 23, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Infanticide is a pretty serious charge. Neugebauer accusing Stupak of murder? With no evidence?

He should be *arrested* for slander.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

great. another incoherent screamer

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Suzy, source? I read that he was actually pretty apologetic for saying that. He clarified that he actually intended to call the bill a baby killer, not Stupak. And he said he shouldn't have made the outburst no matter how he felt.

At least that's what I read.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 23, 2010 8:22 PM

Mr. Dawd, he did apologize personally, but he refused to apologize on the floor. Here is the article from CBS.

"According to the conservative blog Riehl World View, Neugebauer said on a conference call with bloggers Tuesday that he would not apologize on the floor, since "what I said was the truth."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001029-503544.html

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 23, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

MOOCHER'S PARADISE--OBAMA'S & DEMS NEW HEALTHCARE....


USA PUBLIC will be RENDERED an EXPENDIBLE SLAVE with NO MEDS, NO HEALTHCARE & TAX PAYING SLAVES FOR ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS----UNLESS USA PUBLIC FORCES WASH DC SLUGS TO REPEAL THIS BOONDOGGLE HERE IS WHAT AWAITS USA PUBLIC....

1. USA WILL BECOME SHARIA LAW MUSLIM OWNED NATION-- U NATION DICTATOR TO USA PULIC....USA PUBLIC WILL LOSE ALL RIGHTS & FREEDOMS EFFECTIVLY DESTROYING OUR CONSTITUTION SO ANY CITIZEN WILL BE ABLE TO BE ARRESTED BY ANY MUSLIM & ON TRUMPED UP CHARGES THROWIN INTO JAIL WITHOUT TRIAL, WITHOUT PROTECTION FROM DOUBLE JEOPARD & WITHOUT NEED FOR UNANIMOUS VERDICT--FOREVER

2. ALL MUSLIM PRISONERS WILL BE RELEASED FROM PRISON FREE TO RAPE, MURDER, & COMMIT TERRORIST ACTIVITIES TO ALL NON-MUSLIMS BECAUSE THEIR RULES STATES MUSLIMS ARE EXEMPT FROM PROSECUTION.


***IN CASE YOU HAVE HEARD YET OBAMA & DEMS ARE ALREADY MAKING PLANS FOR AMNESTY FOR THESE PEOPLE

SO KIDS YOU CAN FORGET ABOUT FOREVER HAVING---

a. JOBS--that pay more than a pittance IF THEY PAY AT ALL.
b.MP3'S
C. IPOD'S
D. WEB
e. web based business EVER
F. movies say good bye to childhood
G.GOOD HEALTH--because childrens immune systems are NOT FULLY FORMED and unable to fight off even minor sraps & scratches WITHOUT MEDICINE.

BECAUSE THE ONLY ONE'S whom will be WORKING/PARTYING HEARTY are the TOO BIG TO FAIL COMPANIES EVERYONE else will be OUT OF WORK AND 1 OR 2 DOLLAR A DAY WELL FARE---BECAUSE THE DEMS JUST LIKE ANY TRUE PROGRESSIVE HATE PROFIT FOR ANYONE EXCEPT THEIR TOO WASH DC SLUGS & TOO BIG TO FAIL COMPANIES on BAILOUT OF COURSE.... because PROGRESSIVE'S DON'T FEEL THEY SHOULD HAVE TO RUN THEIR BUSINESSES EFFICIENTLY WHEN THEY HAVE A GULLIBLE PUBLIC TO PAY FOR THESE BUSINESSES IRRESPONSIBILTY.

DID YOU KNOW AN UNTREATED EAR INFECTION WILL CAUSE PERMANT HANDICAPPING/DEATH ESPECIALLY IN CHILDREN

DID YOU KNOW??? ALLERGIES/ASTHMA LEFT UNTREATED WILL CAUSE PERMANT HANDICAPPING/DEATH ESPECIALLY IN CHILDREN???

WELL....DEMS DID AND STILL WANT TO SELL THE USA DOWN THE RIVER EXPECTING THE UNSUSPECTING USA PUBLIC TO PAY FOR illegal & UNCONSTITUTIONAL HEALTHCARE BY EXISTING WITHOUT FOOD MEDS HOUSING JOBS & WITH THE LOSS OF FREEDOM & LOSS OF LIFE ...SO DEMS CAN LIVE ON PORK AND EVERY ILLEGAL ANYBODY MOOCH OFF THE PUBLIC.

seek legislative and LEGAL action to get OBAMA HC & stimulus and bailout kicked out see American center for law and justice OR GOOGLE the problems with socialized health care OR GOOGLE handsoffmyhealth.org OR GOOGLE bigGovhealth.org OR stoptheaclu.com OR Southeastern Legal Foundation OR health science institute OR familysecuritymatters.org OR alliance defense

Posted by: moonstream1 | March 23, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Suzy,

Obama did not sign the executive order today - what is up with that ?

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 8:16 PM


37, he was probably afraid that Biden would yell out "a big f..king deal" again.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 23, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Suzy, source? I read that he was actually pretty apologetic for saying that. He clarified that he actually intended to call the bill a baby killer, not Stupak. And he said he shouldn't have made the outburst no matter how he felt.

At least that's what I read.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 23, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

And who do you think Obama is going to lose to, Suzy? I'm curious. Mitt Romney? Mike Huckabee? Tim Pawlenty?

Sarah Palin?

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 8:08 PM


Much to the dismay of JakeD, it won't be Sarah. And you can send Huckabee back to Arkansas, for all I care. Tim Pawlenty? No, I wouldn't bet on him either. Nó chắc chắn nhất sẽ được Mitt Romney.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 23, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Suzy,


Obama did not sign the executive order today - what is up with that ?


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


You continue to make sexist statements - and you continue to use sexual slurs on this blog.


It sort of blunts your complaints about racism - doesn't it ???

Please explain to everyone that your attacks on women are OK, while you condemn racism.


Please explain your position that you pretend to see racism everywhere - but you can not restrain yourself from typing sexual slurs all the time ?????

Please explain.


.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Many thanks to Rep Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts, for voting NO on the health care bill. As we now say in Massachusetts, "Better partly red than Ted."

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 23, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Stupak (Mr kaput) has demanded that Congressman Neugebauer apologize on the House floor for calling him a baby killer. Neugebauer refused. Yes!

A $100 contribution coming right your way, Congressman Neugebauer.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 23, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

And who do you think Obama is going to lose to, Suzy? I'm curious. Mitt Romney? Mike Huckabee? Tim Pawlenty?

Sarah Palin?

And where will the votes come from? What demographics and what percentages?

With the troops back home, the economy improving, millions of new medically-covered people with every reason to be grateful?

Or are you hoping for some calamity to take the shine of his presidency? How many thousands are you hoping will be killed to make the president "look bad?"

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama did not sign the executive order today - we will see if his word is any good.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

betting against Obama isn't a good gamble...

Posted by: DDAWD | March 23, 2010 7:19 PM

It's not 2012 yet. That's when it'll be a sure thing.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 23, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse


If the next President requires everyone in the country to buy a gun - would that be legal ?


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

"I don't see how anyone could be blamed for shorting health care after Brown's election."

Well I figured if this bill died that would make health care stocks go up...but if it were to pass, that would make health care stocks go up even more. I put a bunch of money into FSPHX this year. We'll see where it ends up.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 23, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

(*guffaw*)

look who's calling us unemployed .. the guy who's "willing to learn" to be a "professional photographer."

What do you get for a bar mitzvah, champ? About $80? Or do you only snap wh0res?

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd and broadwayjoe


Is that who you work for - Organizing for America ?????

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Oh lookee. Three small minded stooges, all in a row.

Why don't you losers get a life?

You really think the NYSE just woke up this am and started thinking about the enormous benefits of a government takeover?

No wonder you're all unemployed or hourly clock punchers or sucking off the productive members of society.

Posted by: Moonbat | March 23, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

That being said, I don't see how anyone could be blamed for shorting health care after Brown's election. Even Democrats wanted to let this go. Yeah, betting against Obama isn't a good gamble, but shorting the health care market wasn't shorting Obama until a month ago.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 23, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

"Slate column on betting against Obama
and losing, and losing...
I see a trend developing.

Posted by: shrink2"

It's incredible, isn't it? Obama is only the third president I've really paid attention to, but his ability to turn these debates around is nothing short of astonishing. You have a press against him, powerful lobbies against him, a relatively ineffectual team of allies. And he can single handedly turn these debates. The stimulus was dead until Obama said "well, I may as well try to get this thing passed." And now he did the same thing with health care.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 23, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

http://www.slate.com/id/2248566?nav=wp

Slate column on betting against Obama
and losing, and losing...
I see a trend developing.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 23, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"Looks like the stock market is pleased with the pending doom of Obama socialism. "

Really too funny. The market surges on the news of a Democratic bill, and nutbags calls it like this. You can't get more twisted than that.

Posted by: drindl | March 23, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/repeal_drive_loses_steam.html

Oh, what? They were full of crap? Who would've thunkit?

Posted by: DDAWD | March 23, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

When are we going to round up these violent nutbags and lock them away forever?

==

An idea for decent people with time off .. hang around Democratic offices with cell cameras and snap anyone showing up with bricks, get the pictures to the cops. Getting a bunch of Republicans into prison would be a public service.

The more the better.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Nice try, shutterbug, but we both know that the stock market likes the healthcare reform bill. Better scream "socialism" a lot louder because it looks like pulse rates are holding steady

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse


What about the commerce clause?


This is going to be interesting


Are doctors' licenses generally restricted state-by-state ???


Yea, there are cases that the federal government can regulate wheat grown in your backyard - which only the people in the house eat.


However, the States DO have powers - and there MUST be some line between Federal and State powers.


It is an error to say the Federal Government can do whatever it wants - and the States' Power has to diminish until there is nothing left.


Wheat is traded across state boundaries - and the Federal government was trying to regulate supply and demand - so growing wheat in one's backyard and eating it - that reduces the demand in interstate commerce.


HOWEVER HEALTH INSURANCE IS DIFFERENT. Right now, it is illegal to sell health insurance across state lines. AND health insurance has TRADITIONALLY BEEN REGULATED BY THE STATES.


The Courts should look at this question -


___________________________________________


The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the stock market is pleased with the pending doom of Obama socialism. now that congress is headed for a Republican majority, the investors can come out from under the bed, where they were hiding. Obama will get no more of his big socialist programs through and everyone is now fully aware of the legacy of failure he is setting down.

so we will pretty much be at a standstill for the rest of the year, with improvements coming next Jan when the worst speaker in history, the center of the culture of corruption, is benched.

Seems like when she drained the swamp, all the slimy, slithering liberals emerged to grab whats what. but even with the compliance of the ignorant dinosaur media, the truth has been shown to the voters anyway. so Chairman Zero has presided over the most ineffective and highest spending admin in history. Jimmy is so relieved.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 23, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

oh for god's sake --


'The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools.'

oh sure, you bet. because we need more lunatics with guns around little kids.

Posted by: drindl | March 23, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

By JUDY L. THOMAS

The Kansas City Star


Authorities in Wichita and some other cities across the country are investigating vandalism against Democratic offices, apparently in response to health care reform.

And on Monday, a former Alabama militia leader took credit for instigating the actions.

Mike Vanderboegh of Pinson, Ala., former leader of the Alabama Constitutional Militia, put out a call on Friday for modern “Sons of Liberty” to break the windows of Democratic Party offices nationwide in opposition to health care reform. Since then, vandals have struck several offices, including the Sedgwick County Democratic Party headquarters in Wichita.

“There’s glass everywhere,” said Lyndsay Stauble, executive director of the Sedgwick County Democratic Party. “A brick took out the whole floor-to-ceiling window and put a gouge in my desk.”

Stauble said the brick, hurled through the window between Friday night and Saturday morning, had “some anti-Obama rhetoric” written on it.

Vandals also smashed the front door and a window at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ office in Tucson early Monday, hours after the Arizona Democrat voted for the health care reform package.

Over the weekend, a brick shattered glass doors at the Monroe County Democratic Committee headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Attached to the brick was a note that said, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice” — a quote from Barry Goldwater’s 1964 acceptance speech as the Republican presidential candidate.

And on Friday, a brick broke a window at Rep. Louise Slaughter’s district office in Niagara Falls, N.Y. Slaughter, a Democrat, was a vocal supporter of the health care reform bill passed by the House on Sunday.

Vanderboegh posted the call for action Friday on his blog, “Sipsey Street Irregulars.” Referring to the health care reform bill as “Nancy Pelosi’s Intolerable Act,” he told followers to send a message to Democrats.

“We can break their windows,” he said. “Break them NOW. And if we do a proper job, if we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democrat party headquarters across this country, we might just wake up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary.”

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/22/1830379/democratic-offices-vandalized.html#ixzz0j2Rt2mN8

When are we going to round up these violent nutbags and lock them away forever?

Posted by: drindl | March 23, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx

Eeek! people like the bill!

Who is that guy, Cucuracha, the AG vrom Virginia? Is he still going to sue or repeal to open revolt or whatever nonsense he said he was going to do?

Posted by: DDAWD | March 23, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Yes it is an INVASION OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY

The states have certain powers - and the federal government has certain powers.

Health insurance has NEVER been within the powers of the Federal Government -

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Yaaaawwwn.

Other day of the dollar rising against the Euro, American equity markets pushing steadily higher, flat home sales in February (but who buys houses in February? no one I know)...I can't understand how the Republican hysteria machine continues to keep its steam. The economic news really couldn't be much better.

Someday something terrible might happen?
So we need to elect Palin or Tpaw to keep us safe? I'm laughing. Republicans are not going to get far running on predictions that never came true. They have no accomplishments (Minnesota's budget fiasco won't help) in recent history. It seems like being angry about feeling afraid all the time is their product, it is what they create and sell.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 23, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse


What about the commerce clause?


This is going to be interesting


Are doctors' licenses generally restricted state-by-state ???


Yea, there are cases that the federal government can regulate wheat grown in your backyard - which only the people in the house eat.


However, the States DO have powers - and there MUST be some line between Federal and State powers.


It is an error to say the Federal Government can do whatever it wants - and the States' Power has to diminish until there is nothing left.


Wheat is traded across state boundaries - and the Federal government was trying to regulate supply and demand - so growing wheat in one's backyard and eating it - that reduces the demand in interstate commerce.


HOWEVER HEALTH INSURANCE IS DIFFERENT. Right now, it is illegal to sell health insurance across state lines. AND health insurance has TRADITIONALLY BEEN REGULATED BY THE STATES.


The Courts should look at this question -


___________________________________________


The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse


What about the commerce cluase?


This is going to be interesting


Are doctors' licenses generally restricted state-by-state ???

___________________________________________


The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

A couple of knuckleheads, huh? You mean like the ones on the House balcony egging them on?

When you have week after week of "isolated incidents" you have a "pattern," you have a "trend," you have a "consistent characterization."

Those "few knuckleheads" got a LOT of play in the news, and it's going to be pretty hard to retort that calling the Republican Party a racist organization is "hyperbole" or an "unfair generalization" anymore.

Posted by: Noacoler
-------------------------------------------
There is 24/7/365 multiple forms of media and 300 million people in the US. Add in a prostrate media who covers for their favorites. Not hard to find some dysfunction in America or not find it in other cases.

Posted by: leapin | March 23, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Jake


What about the commerce cluase?


This is going to be interesting


Are doctors' licenses generally restricted state-by-state ???

___________________________________________


The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

As someone who was pretty excited about using OFA to drive the healtcare debate I would have to say OFA was pretty lame.

Posted by: bradcpa | March 23, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

4.3 million Texans will loose rights created by this Bill. The Democrat running for Texas Attorney general may have just got 4.3 million votes she would not have otherwise received.

From the Candidate:

"Attorney General Abbott today sued to block 4.3 million Texans from receiving health care insurance[i]. Barbara Ann Radnofsky, 2010 Democratic nominee for Texas Attorney General, responded to Attorney General Abbott's partisan pursuit of a legal loser lawsuit."

People are mad and will organize - the Republicans truly underestimated those who favor this bill.

Posted by: bobbywc | March 23, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Jake


What about the commerce cluase?

This is going to be interesting


Are doctors' licenses generally restricted state-by-state ???


___________________________________________


The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

A couple of knuckleheads, huh? You mean like the ones on the House balcony egging them on?

When you have week after week of "isolated incidents" you have a "pattern," you have a "trend," you have a "consistent characterization."

Those "few knuckleheads" got a LOT of play in the news, and it's going to be pretty hard to retort that calling the Republican Party a racist organization is "hyperbole" or an "unfair generalization" anymore.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

dbw1 writes
"Question: does anyone at the AP know how to use a calculator, or at least know someone who can show them how to use one?"


Followup Questions: does dbw1 know how to paste the link to which he refers earlier in his post? Or is the whole post a cut 'n paste job, during which he neglected to cut the link to the AP article on which he heaps disdain?

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 23, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

So Fox News reporting that Biden, our Vice President, dropped the F-bomb during the signing today?

So how do you feel about the hours and hours of coverage the major outlets spent over the weekend painting all 30,000-50,000 protestors at the Capital as homophobic racists because of a couple knuckheads?

Posted by: dbw1 | March 23, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Kudos Jake, the report abuse mailbox is full...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

drindl:

What I want to know is if Biden signed the bill, just in case ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 23, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dont_remember | March 23, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Question:

How does my social security payments compare to the legal challenges they will mount against HCR. Are they not similar in concept? Just trying to understand the legal stuff.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | March 23, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't help but be amused when I read the AP article (link below) that breaks down the Obama/Pelosi health care reform. The AP (aka, official state media) identified:
- $938 billion of costs
- $807 million of 'revenue' (and that includes the fantasy Medicare savings)

Yet, the AP still dutifully regurgitated the party line that the bill will reduce the deficit $140 billion.

Question: does anyone at the AP know how to use a calculator, or at least know someone who can show them how to use one?

p.s. your proper response to the above should be:
Faux Outrage - if you are a leftist who tires of having 'facts' continually pointed out about the lies you have to tell to get your agenda jammed through Congress.
Amusement - if you are a fellow conservative who knows how to do math.
Utter Confusion - if you are a journalist at the AP or WaPo, who doesn't know how to do math, either, and can't figure out why the numbers quoted above don't jive.

Posted by: dbw1 | March 23, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

And the Dow begins to flirt with 11,000.

Where's Zouky and his "the market always knows best" mantra?

Oh, wait, I know what he's doing....

Posted by: Bondosan | March 23, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

What I want to know is if Biden signed the bill, just in case ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 23, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

"Vice President Biden turned to President Obama at this morning’s health care bill signing ceremony and whispered, “This is a big f—ing deal!” "


I'd say, given the volume & hysteria of the opposition, that VP Biden's uncharacteristically brief assessment is accurate.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 23, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris

How do you feel about a nut posting nonsense on this blog all day, and irritating other posters ???

Think about it.


.

.

.

Posted by: drindl | March 23, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

We'll see what the ROBERTS Supreme Court has to say about that.

BTW: didn't you promise to never post here again?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 23, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"We lost this battle, but not the war."

Time will tell.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 23, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

whatconstitututes 'news' on fox -- how much more of a joke cna this station turn into?


"Expressing his great enthusiasm for what he called “a historic day,” Vice President Biden turned to President Obama at this morning’s health care bill signing ceremony and whispered, “This is a big f—ing deal!” In their eagerness to distract from the bill signing, Fox News jumped on the comment, breathlessly reporting it as a scandal.

Fox News’ official Twitter account first tweeted Biden’s quote:


Immediately after President Obama signed the health care reform legislation, Fox News’ Trace Gallagher brought up the “news,” saying that it was crossing their “urgent wires.” “We’ll play that for you if we can,” he promised. Bret Baier called Biden’s comment “striking”:

GALLAGHER: We also had crossing the urgent wires…the possibility that Vice President Joe Biden might have slipped up and dropped an f-bomb when he was addressing the President. [...]

I want to add some more context about what I was saying about the comment that Vice President Joe Biden made to the President and it says here, in our urgent queue, that when he was hugging the President, he leaned over and said, “This is a big bleeping deal.” We’ll play that for you if we can. [...]

BAIER: It was pretty striking for Vice President Biden to turn to the President and say, “This is a big blanking deal,” using the f-word with the microphones picking it up, and I’m sure we’ll take about that later."

Posted by: drindl | March 23, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

OK so you have an administration with all the traditional levers of power at its disposal - and in addition to that it has a pool of money which it chooses to manufacture public opinion at OFA - probably INCLUDING ON THIS BLOG.


Chris


How do you feel about OFA paying people to post on this blog, and harrass other posters ???

Think about it.


.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

ck it -- 37 thinks he's a LAWYER.

Posted by: drindl | March 23, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

We lost this battle, but not the war.

http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-83TKWB/$file/HealthCareReformLawsuit.pdf

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 23, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse"

Those lawsuits will be the equivalent of mop-up actions. The big battle has been fought and the forces of stupidity and selfishness have been routed.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 23, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 23, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

There are two issues here - and I am disappointed that the Washington Post did not outline the issues - pros and cons - instead of basically dismissing the idea.

The individual mandate is NO WHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION - it is a whole new legal concept - and it really has little basis in the Constitution.


The individual mandate could be interpreted as a taking - but does that taking have due process? The only process is - you live, you have to pay.

The second issue is much more complex and it involves the Interstate Commerce Clause - obviously there have been numerous court cases which have expanded this cluase - to the point at which one might believe the entire universe might one day be included.

Well - is that right? You have an industry - health care insurance which has BEEN ILLEGAL TO SELL ACROSS STATE LINES - AND HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY IN THE POWER OF THE STATES TO REGULATE.

So Obama may have problem there.

This area deserves Constitutional review -


On Obama's side, there were Court cases with ERISA and with Cobra - in which the federal government has strayed - But those cases had a hook-in: employment which interstate corporations.


Health insurance and health care itself does not really have that hook-in. Perhaps they will find another hook-in.


FDR had much of his program struck down by the Supreme Court - Obama loves having things in common with famous people - maybe it will happen again.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Every congressional office I called knew about Limbaugh's and his ilk's BS -- and asked for positive identification that I was on their voter rolls.

And uniformly, if you weren't in their district, they didn't want to hear from you.

So I seriously doubt Limberger had any effect whatsoever.

Posted by: drindl | March 23, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Having been actively involved with OFA for well over 2 years now, I'd like to make a few observations of my own. First, the influence of David Plouffe can't be overstated. Plouffe's credentials as a union/labor organizer gave him unique clout that helped turn the tide from "kill the Senate bill" into vigorous support within just 45 days. Plouffe's return to OFA under the new DNC umbrella helped clarify messaging and strategy. In particular, the volunteer hours pledge "You fight, we'll fight" garnered 9.3 million volunteer hours that could be taken back to local House members and help put it over the top. One key sticking point at this time is the continued corporatist influence in the US Senate and with the DSCC. DSCC is not under the purview of the DNC while OFA and the House races are. Stay tuned to see how this plays out in 2010.

Posted by: benintn | March 23, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I am intrigued by the 10% of Democratic congressmen who did not vote for HCR. I'm interested to see if any switch parties or find they now have a challenge in the primary. I'm interested to see if the Democratic Party will do what it usually does, accept dissent in their own party, or if this time their might be some rethinking (losing a prominent position or a little campaign funding or some pork).

I've been laughing at the idea of Pelosi "twisting arms." I think if she had been truly bullying we would have heard about it and there wouldn't have been so many democratic congressmen voting against the bill. However, you will notice that the Republican congressmen are very used to getting into line and not complaining about it. You could say they are principled, but I think they have been schooled.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 23, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The success of OFA will come in the next quarter when they also back up their work by getting their members to donate to the congressional members who voted yes even though they are in purple districts. If they can bring in a couple hundred thousand or even a million each to these folks than there standing in DC will be greatly heightened.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 23, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"Rush Limbaugh single-handedly produced hundreds of thousands of phone calls and effectively overloaded the Congressional switch boards."


Yet his side lost.


That's the difference between quantity and quality.

Note el Fix's point: "Brad Woodhouse noted that Baird "said that the number of calls he received from inside his district in support of reform was persuasive in moving him""

If I could bold, I would highlight the phrase "from inside his district."


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 23, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh single-handedly produced hundreds of thousands of phone calls and effectively overloaded the Congressional switch boards. Come on, I mean seriously, Organizing for America will be turned out of power soon enough.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 23, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company