This is an important story and I'm glad the Times broke it. Yet, the Times, Salon and others are missing the point. Two quotes from the Times tell the real story.

First: "In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said: 'I regret that the language was the same. I did not know it was.' Note that he does not regret that he is letting lobbyists drive his speeches, his positions and his votes. No. He's concerned about the embarrassment of the language scandal...not the fact that he (like so much of Washington) is happy to be a mouthpiece and puppet for those with the money and power to get him re-elected.

Second: "Asked about the Congressional statements, a lobbyist close to Genentech said: 'This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it.'" Note, the "all the time" comment. This story is important but it is not news. The more important and more newsworthy reporting would be focused on how our representatives, through words and actions, are doing the work of people and corporations with power and money.

How can this be addressed? I would suggest that the Times and other news outlets cease reporting any and all statements by politicians. These people should receive no promotion or exposure of their comments and ideas until those comments start to reflect a true blend of their actual opinions and their constituents' interests. In the meantime, if we want insight into the value of a particular piece of legislation, we should go right to the source (in this case Genentech). If large corporations and industry groups are writing and promoting legislation, we might as well hear what they have to say and leave the politicians out of it.

I am not a Christian but I do value and appreciate the role that religious observance and celebration can play. As the 'War on Christmas' rhetoric heats up each year I am annually confused as to how these groups accuse selected retailers of attacking Christmas by limiting the holiday's role in their sales promotions. Isn't it really the other way around? Retailers engage in a 'War on Christmas' precisely when they do use (and abuse) it as a way to sell their goods and services. The commercialization of Christmas (and other holidays) slowly chips away at the joy and celebration, replacing them with stress and shopping. When retailers embrace Christmas they are not making it a special time...rather they are trying to get us to do the same thing they are always trying to get us to do: shop excessively. If I truly cared about the preservation of anything good about Christmas, I would be applauding each retailer who omitted the holiday from its sales pitch.

If Dobbs truly despises corporate lobbyists, as reported here, then Republicans need not worry. His candidacy would never get off the ground. These days no candidate stands a chance without cozying up to lobbyists.

This is an interesting list but we need more information before we start judging these people based on their votes (see other comments above). Over the past days this bill has grown considerably larger (over 2,000 pages) and more expensive (cost projections are flawed but the direction has been up). There are people on the list who would have voted "Yes" for just about any health care bill. This isn't particularly admirable but at least it's not sleazy. There are others who were on the fence but were convinced to join the (very small) majority likely because of things that were added to the bill. Voters should know who these people were and what it cost (in terms of dollars and complexity) to get their votes.

An "all in" bet would imply that Buffet was shifting all of his assets into this industry. Pretty unlikely.

Expect Salon readers to (rightly) jump all over Boehner here but once again, a Salon staff writer and its readership will be missing the real story here. Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for all that is wrong with government and equally uninterested in fixing it. It is not until we accept this and fire them all that we can start solving our country's problems.

Using the tax code to facilitate social and economic outcomes has left us with a screwed up tax code as well as screwed up social and economic outcomes.

Are kids actually safer as a result of these policies? Does a ban on knives mean there will be no deadly violence in a school. Would lifting such a ban mean there would be more deadly violence? If so, how much more?

We need to lift these laws because their benefits do not outweigh the costs in terms of expense, dignity and civil liberties, not to mention the embarrassment associated with disciplining a 6 year old with camping gear. But we need to recognize that if we do this (and even if we don't) a student somewhere will harm another student with a knife. These occurrences are horrible and tragic but will never be completely preventable. We should learn from Columbine but school policy (particularly zero tolerance policies) should be driven by broader statistics and rationale cost/benefit analysis rather than knee-jerk reactions to nationally sensationalized tragedies.