A just a few minutes ago a Washington Times reporter on MSNBC (sorry didn't catch his name) said the Charlie Black comment was really bad because it invites terrorists to attack us. I wish more people in the media would spell it out this clearly.

First Pelosi couldn't get Hoyer replaced. Now she carries her plaudits about him to the public on a satin pillow.

I'm afraid the Third in line for the president looks as unfit as the first two.

I think it's time to raise money for Cindy Sheehan, who understands what can and can't be compromised and the terrible losses that occur because of political appeasers who believe re-election is what they're sworn to defend.

Defeat Barrow & Carney! That's a matter of principle and will serve as a remedial education to the special ed class of Hoyer Dems.

More a question than a comment: What is Hillary's position on this bill? With "nothing to lose" presidentially, will she come out against it? Strongly? Or go along to get along (and maybe she wants to stay in contention for VP)? Having come within a whisker of the presidential nomination, she could become a force in the Senate, if she so chose. I'm curious to see where she'll go following the campaign.

And we see the logic of 'representative democracy' turned on its head. Rather than represent the people who vote for them, today's Democrats represent the people who didn't vote for them, to make sure they don't get too upset at them.

Somebody needs to remind me why this idea should command my respect.

And, FWIW, 'Steny' is a very silly name.

OK Glenn, I'll just hold my breath until Obama filibusters this atrocity...

and for all you "enlightened" supporters of this charlatan - do ya see the light now? or are you still in "He's just saying that to get elected" la-la land? (not that Clinton was any better, btw).

WAKE UP PEOPLE! THESES LIARS ARE PLAYING FOR KEEPS!

THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOUR COUNTRY BEING STOLEN RIGHT OUT FROM UNDER YOU!!!

I don't want political parties to "neutralized an issue"; I want them to take a stand on an issue so that I can vote for what I believe is best for me and the country. I want a choice when I vote.

About 10 - 15 minutes ago a reporter for the Washington Times appeared on MSNBC (sorry didn't get his name). In a discussion about the Charlie Black statement this reporter said what was really bad about the statement Black made was that it invited terrorists to attack us. I wish more people in the media would make that connection and tell their viewers/readers.

The Democratic Congress is more popular with Republicans than with Democrats. I really wonder if this is the first time in modern American history when a Congress is more popular among the opposition party than among the party that putatively controls it. And this was taken before the FISA vote, so Hoyer's Congress is certain to become even more popular among the GOP.

Very unusual, but as I explained to C_O the other day - and I realize both of you are aware of this but others may wish to understand it - this is a national sample and they are asking Americans to rate a body comprised of both Democrats and Republicans and not just individual Representatives or Senators from their own districts or states. Congress rarely has very high approval ratings with this kind of sample, but when you ask individual constituents how they feel, the ratings do go up considerably. There is another question farther on down that is also worth looking at to get a snapshot of the mood of the country. They ask the sample how they feel about the Democratic party and the Republican party and the numbers are quite good for Democrats.

This does not undercut your argument but it does indicate that Democrats and the Democratic party are more popular with Republicans and Independents than usual and still very popular with Democrats and Independents. This is not bad news overall and it does lend creedence to those who posit that the country is undergoing a major political realignment. I think we both have a pretty good idea what kind of political calculus is driving this deal. Froma a purely tactical and stategic assessment, regardless of position on the issue, If they are that stupid that it costs them, they deserve to lose. I'm thinking they've looked at their own numbers and have concluded this has some benefit politically in terms of electoral politics, both local and national.

They know they can get away with it without serious political cost.

Sorry to post another MSNBC story but I just watched them try to help the hapless Time magazine continue to try to insinuate that their story about the pregnancy pact was accurate even though all evidence shows that it wasn't. This is another example of why we don't need any more media consolidation.

Chris Sinnard, you are dumber than T. Suarez. A most prodigious achievement, to be sure.

Mona, isn't there a school of demure and rational libertarianism somewhere that you can send Chris to? I know that the current topic of discussion is embarrassing Democrats, but we're working on that. Mightn't we expect the same of you folks?

I wish national Democrats would simply pick a position on whether the Cold War is over or not. Then we could at least have a proper argument and outline what remaining Cold War duties and opponents we have in the world and how much of a militarized and national security state we need.

This Hoyer/Emmanuel variety of reactive and very narrow selfserving behavior is just an insult to the intelligence. There has to be a line drawn, the paranoid-violent frame of mind rejected as a form of pathetic selfindulgence and insanity.

Obama is controlled by the global shadow government that does not exist in many minds. After all we all know there are no such thing as conspiracies because the main stream media tells us so over and over again.

Why would anyone think that politicians meet secretly in order to pull things off??

We know that politicians are all honest and really great people.