Line In The Sand: Will WH Lean On House Dems To Accept Spending Cuts For Debt Ceiling Increase?

Matt Yglesias:

[I]t seems to me that itíll be difficult for Pelosi to hold House Democrats together [on insisting on a clean debt ceiling increase bill] unless the White House also takes a firm line on the issue.

Yes, this is true. Indeed, it is true about almost every bill actually. The President is not quite as impotent as some would like you to think at times.

Speaking for me only

< Monday Afternoon Open Thread | Duke Lacrosse Accuser Indicted for Murder >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He's not impotent even when he's (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by observed on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:40:33 PM EST
    creating that appearance---by which he actually DOES make Congressional Dems impotent.

    With the Democrats openly bragging (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 05:29:45 PM EST
    about the amount of tax cuts they've passed since 2007 ($1.7 trillion - yes, trillion, with a "T"), I don't know why anyone thinks they're going to get off the spending cut train.

    The more taxes get cut, the more revenue is reduced, setting up an artificial reason to have to cut spending.  Nice how that works out, isn't it?

    They've cut job training in the midst of high unemployment and they've cut housing and foreclosure counseling at a time when foreclosures and housing issues are a huge problem.

    Does this lead anyone to think that Dems have any intention of drawing any lines, in the sand or anywhere else?

    The fix is in.

    And, from what I have read, Pelosi is seriously ticked off at Obama for completely leaving her and the House out of the "agreement" on this last continuing resolution.

    I'm guessing Obama doesn't give Pelosi the time of day: for one, she's not in any position of power and, for another, she's a woman.

    The only lines (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 05:38:18 PM EST
    in the sand the Democrats seem to be drawing are lines drawn at low tide, very much below the high tide mark.  They know very well that the next high tide will wash those lines away.

    Ziiiiiinnnng!!!!!!! (1.00 / 6) (#14)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 07:55:51 AM EST
    PUMA POWER!!!!!!!!!

    I think (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by kmblue on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 08:50:33 AM EST
    ABG has a problem with women.  

    Wow, I bet it felt good to (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 09:16:24 AM EST
    let that out, huh?  Although, in spite of your best efforts to keep it under control, there is often a not-so-underlying current of real hatred for those you deem PUMA - a judgment I don't regard you as qualified to be able to make.  

    Here's the thing, ABG: you can say all you want about Obama and his appointments/nominations of women to important positions, but if you look more carefully, those appointments and nominations have taken some of these women out of positions on the "outside," where they had perhaps more actual and potential ability to affect public opinion and push back, and put them in well-defined compartments where they are more or less constrained by the boundaries of their jobs, and the expectation of loyalty to the president.

    The two SC justices, now that they have the freedom of lifetime appointments, do have the ability to go their own way, but one aspect of the Kagan nomination may have escaped your notice: they deliberately walled her off from matters relating to health care legislation, so that she could credibly argue that she did not need to recuse herself from possible litigation, but not so with her involvement in matters relating to government secrecy - she was the one who argued for the government against the ruling to release the photos of the detainees (the ones Obama initially said he would release, and then reversed himself on) - means she will have to recuse herself from those kinds of cases.  I think that all was considered very carefully when she was nominated, with an eye toward giving her the ability to hear any challenge to health care legislation, if it ever came to that, and making sure she could not break ranks on the other.

    Obama did not choose Pelosi to be Speaker - he inherited her; their relationship has not always been smooth, and has been, at times contentious.  Now that she no longer has any power in the House, she really isn't much use to him - more so because she tends to come down more on the left, and the last thing I believe he wants is her rallying the Democratic troops in opposition to his rightward leaning policy.  Would he have marginalized a man in that position?  I don't think so.  Has he been working with or including other women in the caucus in his discussions?  Doesn't appear so - in spite of the fact that women bring a different perspective to these kinds of discussions.

    The man has a history of condescending to women, of not crediting them with the intelligence to make their own decisions without some man or men to make sure they are the right ones.

    And none of this has anything to do with PUMA, ABG - you really need to let that one go.


    And then again (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 09:39:21 AM EST
    many of Pres. Obama's most important foreign policy advisers are women.

    In terms of Pelosi, I am not sure what I think.  He probably believes, and is duly advised, that he gets some political benefit out of keeping his distance from her.  Many of the attacks on Pelosi are couched in sexist terms/imagery; but I'm not sure what the President needs to do/can do in response to that.  I think they had a more or less respectful relationship when she was Majority Leader.  I don't think gender defines why she is sidelined now.

    Generally, the WH has sought to avoid controversy.  So yes, they co-opted Elizabeth Warren, dangled Dawn Johnsen as a shiny object for liberals, etc.  But they've also fired people for dumb reasons, like Shirley Sherrod, Van Jones etc.

    I wouldn't agree with the characterization that "Obama has a problem with women."


    No? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kmblue on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 09:53:24 AM EST
    I think I disagree, "sweetie".

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:05:39 AM EST
    he somewhat blames Pelosi for the party losses last November since the GOP made an issue of her. Of course, they made an issue of HIM too but that's another issue.

    He sure is willing to use women as a bargaining chip to get what he wants though.


    or men (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:13:43 AM EST

    My middle finger itched when I read (none / 0) (#25)
    by observed on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:02:01 AM EST
    your last sentence.

    get over it (none / 0) (#31)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:23:29 AM EST
    as a woman I have my own perspective, and guess what, it doesn't agree with yours!  And I even managed to make that clear in a response that was free of insult!



    Hey, we disagree. That's all I'm saying. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by observed on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:24:12 AM EST
    Now, get over it yourself, "sweetie".

    Condescending (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:26:29 AM EST
    I guess you have a problem with women.

    Obama's words are condescending? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by observed on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:55:19 AM EST
    Maybe HE has the problem with women---I was just quoting him.

    sorry (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 11:06:58 AM EST
    but putting something in quotes doesn't change what you're calling them.

    If I called someone a "b*tch" I'd still be calling them that even if I put it in quotes.  Really doesn't matter who said it first.

    If you have a problem with it maybe you shouldn't use it on your fellow commenter.


    Sorry back at you. The commenter (none / 0) (#56)
    by observed on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 04:27:28 PM EST
    said she didn't think Obama was sexist; ergo, the endearment he used shouldn't have offended her.

    taking someone "outside" (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CST on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:25:43 AM EST
    that's the nature of politcs.  To move up you have to move out.  But all of these women had choices too.  And they seemed to think that the positions offered them were superior to what they had before.

    No one forced them to take these jobs.  And no one forced Obama to offer them either.

    Frankly, the idea that these women in his administration didn't want these roles that "marginalized" them, is a bit condescending...  and not "crediting them with the intelligence to make their own decisions"

    Pelosi is pretty capable of handling herself, IMO.  She put herself out there as representing the left wing of the party with a president that like bipartisanship.  I don't know why anyone would expect that to turn into a bff scenario, but I have never felt like Obama was pushing her out.  No more than Wiener or Capuano, or any other "leftist" Dems.

    I mean, it's not like the president is on tv holding hands with Reid either.  I don't see any difference between how he's treated the men in his administration vs the women.


    I'm not sure you're getting what I (4.67 / 3) (#37)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 11:04:04 AM EST
    intended for people to get when I made my original response to ABG, or in the comment of mine that he PUMA'd all over, so let me try again.

    I believe that Hillary Clinton accepted the nomination to be Secretary of State because she felt it was an area where she could have an impact, and I also believe that she knew going in that taking that job was probably going to preclude her from having any influence outside the foreign policy arena - and I saw that as a calculated move on Obama's part to eliminate the possibility of Clinton returning to a domestic arena where she had influence, especially coming out of a brutal primary election where allegiance did not so easily transfer over from Clinton to Obama.

    I see the appointment of Elizabeth Warren the same way - take this accomplished woman who was being an increasingly painful thorn in the financial community's side and put her in a position where she ultimately ends up with less influence.

    Elena Kagan is another one, as I explained in my response to ABG.  And there are others.

    I am well aware that these women all knew what the stakes were, and made their choices with generally wide-open eyes; but that doesn't mean that Obama's motives in making these appointments and nominations were entirely pure and free of calculation, either; sometimes it isn't just about what and who will help you, but about what and who has more potential to hurt and undermine you.

    I have been convinced for a long time that Obama does have a problem with women; does it inform his every move?  No, it doesn't, but it does bubble to the surface enough to make me aware that it's there; I would much prefer that he just say that he is opposed to abortion, but will follow the law, than to call himself a staunch defender of women's rights who thinks women need a committee of men to help her make reproductive health decisions, and who "gave" John Boehner the end of any public money for abortions in DC, and who signed off on legislation that used women's health issues as a bargaining chip.

    That offends me.


    you don't actually know him (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by CST on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 11:19:20 AM EST
    or his motives.

    And I never said his appointments were entirely free and pure of calculation for other things - but that doesn't make him anti-woman.

    The men in his administration had other jobs too.  Biden was a bit of a loose cannon.  Maybe he thought bringing him in would keep him in line a bit.  Of course if that was his intention, he's $hit out of luck, but you never know what the motive was.

    A lot of men and women signed off on that legislation.  I don't think they are all anti-woman.

    I don't think women's issues are at the front and center of his agenda.  But I also certainly don't see Secretary of State, or the supreme court as positions that marginalize people.

    And Elizabeth Warren is free to quit and run for senate in MA.  In fact, I really really hope she does that, she's probably the best chance the Dems have of retaking that seat, and I'm not the only one saying it.  But she looks like she's staying put right now.  And I somehow doubt it's for a position with no influence.


    She didn't describe "marginalized" (none / 0) (#48)
    by sj on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 01:13:03 PM EST
    as positions that marginalize people.

    She described " compartmentalized".


    I can (none / 0) (#39)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 11:14:34 AM EST
    see your point about Clinton, Warren, and Kagan.  I wouldn't say that's necessarily about them being women.  

    Also this:

    than to call himself a staunch defender of women's rights who thinks women need a committee of men to help her make reproductive health decisions,

    if you are referring to Obama's statment

    "I think [abortions] need to be made in consultation with doctors, they have to be prayed upon, or people have to be consulting their conscience on it,"

    By no means are doctors necessarily men.  Nor are religious figures.  


    The last (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 11:30:25 AM EST
    quote kind of shows the problem. He just should have said that women should decide for themselves what is best for them and leave the rest unsaid.

    Where did you get your quote? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by observed on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 11:41:36 AM EST

    Those of us, like myself, who believe that in this difficult situation it is a woman's responsibility and choice to make in consultation with her doctor and her pastor and her family."

    is the quote I found with a search, and which agrees with my memory.
    The condenscenscion and misogyny are much clearer here. It's not whether women need to consult with men (although that's the clear subtext, especially for a married woman), but the temerity to say that the woman's personal decision on this matter is not corrrect unless she asks for someone else's opinion.


    Obama has made numerous references (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 11:51:40 AM EST
    to the group of people whom women should be making their decisions in consultation with, and while I can concede that the "committee" doesn't necessarily have to comprise only men, what should I think about a man who never seems to be able to bring himself to say that the right to choose should be a woman's and woman's alone?

    Why, if he is truly pro-choice, must he always have to equivocate?

    Maybe this is just vintage Obama, who always has to make sure he isn't offending anyone, or maybe he thinks people should consider that women don't always make these decisions alone; I don't know.

    But being treated like a bargaining chip means something, I think; and when I read that he told Boehner he could "have" abortion in DC, the callousness that exhibited toward women, most of whom in the District are both poor and black, just took my breath away.


    Using abortion (none / 0) (#47)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 12:14:52 PM EST
    as a bargaining chip is callous to me.  But choosing Rick Warren to speak at your inauguration is also callous.  Nonetheless, DADT was passed.  

    I don't think Obama is homophobic and I don't think he has a problem with women.  I do think he equivocates all the time on everything and is way too willing to give hateful people the time of day on controversial issues.  That is the infuriating "political strategist" that is Obama.


    But, apparently, doctors are priests (none / 0) (#42)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 11:33:08 AM EST
    or should be. That part of the statement is the most offensive. And it's blatantly stupid.

    I agree (none / 0) (#35)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:38:12 AM EST
    I don't think Obama is as strong on some policies relating particularly to women as I would like him to be.  I think he could be defending and advancing women's rights, particularly the right to choose, more aggressively.  But he's a pol, and he's Obama...he's not big on changing the narrative (about anything) or the bully pulpit.

    Do I think that means that he has a problem with women?  No.  Do I think the two incidents (that were in fact disrespectful) when he called a factory worker and a reporter "sweetie" constitute a problem with women?  No.

    Why not?  Because there is plenty of evidence in the opposite direction.  


    except (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by dandelion on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 12:03:21 PM EST
    Except, let me ask you:  what 40-some odd year old professional men haven't yet learned not to call women in a work environment "sweetie"?  This isn't the 1960s, this isn't Mad Men.  Men KNOW not to do that.  Why doesn't/didn't Obama?  The fact that he didn't/doesn't -- and then the fact that he offered the excuse that he often calls women "sweetie" -- to me that just demonstrates an ignorance of power issues with respect to women that most men in their 40s -- unless they're complete a$$holes -- have come to understand.

    I think Obama hates men also (none / 0) (#46)
    by Politalkix on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 12:14:01 PM EST
    He took Jon Huntsman who could criticize his administration from the outside and offered him an ambassadorship to compartmentalize him in China, tried the same strategy with Ray Lahood and Judd Gregg(who was smart to see through Obama's plans).I have also heard that he did not give as much time (or associate himself)with Weiner, Grayson or.Kuchinich as he did with McCaskill or Snowe or Collins.I think Obama has a history of being condescending to men.snark  

    Oh lordy (none / 0) (#49)
    by sj on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    Did you read your own comment?

    I have also heard that he did not give as much time (or associate himself)with Weiner, Grayson or.Kuchinich as he did with McCaskill or Snowe or Collins.I think Obama has a history of being condescending to men.snark

    Emphasis mine.  Punctuation yours.

    That's how you're going to "snark"?  Being so unintentionally revealing?  You've just highlighted that he also has a problem with the Openly Liberal.


    I wouldn't describe it as "also" (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 01:15:15 PM EST
    I would say he has a political problem with openly liberal.



    Well (none / 0) (#51)
    by sj on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    sure if one wants to view it as isolated data.  If one, however, cannot help but see patterns (and has made a living at it) then one cannot view it as isolated data.

    It is part of a much larger pattern.


    who knew that (none / 0) (#52)
    by Politalkix on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 02:29:46 PM EST
    BHO has a political problem in publicly embracing openly liberal poltics as President till sj pointed it out?
    Is sj an abbreviation of sherlock and james from the old detective firm of sherlock holmes and james watson?

    not too good at (none / 0) (#54)
    by sj on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 03:15:26 PM EST
    continuity, are you?

    sorry (none / 0) (#55)
    by Politalkix on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 03:33:09 PM EST
    To disrupt the continuity of the "obama sucks"threads that keep the creative juices flowing in this blog over and over again..good day

    Try brain power. It might help what (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by observed on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:16:15 AM EST
    ails you.

    If Obama (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:23:20 AM EST
    is so wonderful and everyone loves him and the people who criticize his policies are "irrelevant" as you are constantly saying then why are you so obsessed about pumas?

    The reality of the situation is that Obama does have a problem with women according to the polls and that's why I believe you are so obsessed with pumas.

    Whatever. Obama's  problems with women have to do with his policy choices.


    Perhaps 'Tis time for Nancy (none / 0) (#19)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 09:17:01 AM EST
    to find her true voice

    Yglesias' statement indicates a complete (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 09:40:13 PM EST
    lack of knowledge of what Obama has already publicly stated on raising the ceiling.

    Obama has already said that "it's not going to happen without some spending cuts," so if the House Dems need the WH to take a firm stand on a clean debt ceiling bill, they are SOL.

    A doorstop. (4.50 / 2) (#8)
    by lentinel on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 05:56:00 PM EST
    The President is not quite as impotent as some would like you to think at times.

    Under his administration he has fulfilled most of my worst fears about him. He has completely validated every red flag that he threw out there during his campaign and lackluster career as a senator.

    He voted for FISA. He voted to extend the patriot act.
    He fled other controversial votes.
    He campaigned with Donnie McClurkin - a pathetic homophobe.
    He lauded Leiberman's "intellect" and "heart" and urged Connecticut residents to have the "good sense" to reelect this unapologetic architect of the invasion of Iraq - whom he calls "Joe".
    He had his intellectual equal, Rick Warren, appear at the inaugural spewing his crap upon us lest we think that we actually had any kind of stake in his upcoming administration.

    He played liberals like a violin.

    And he got his sorry keister elected.

    His campaign got everyone to forget about torture, indefinite detention without charge or trial, the wars, the erosion of civil liberties, the idiotic war on drugs, the intrusion of religion into the political arena and the domination of wall street and the military-industrial complex on our legislature and our lives.

    He has gotten done that which his benefactors hoped he would do for them.

    But I would not say that this makes him potent.
    I don't feel that he actually is trying hard to get anything done or exercising any power unless told to do so by those who actually are powerful.
    His function, as I perceive it, is to not pose any kind of barrier to those in our country who would impose their will upon the rest of us.

    He is letting the wealthy and powerful do whatever they like.
    That's not impotence. But it isn't potent either.

    I don't define as "potent" an individual whose function is to get the hell out of the way of an approaching train wreck.

    So, this is what we've come to. (none / 0) (#2)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:41:34 PM EST
    "We will commit National suicide, destroy the country unless you surrender unconditionally.

    Now I understand what Obama meant by bi-partisanship.

    Do you think Obama will agree to terms (none / 0) (#3)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:43:32 PM EST
    to allow the debt limit to be raised.  I think on this particular one he holds firm.  The debt limit is a different animal than other things.  Wall Street for example would crucify the GOP if they let the government default on anything.

    Obama has already said that spending cuts (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 05:45:52 PM EST
    will go along with raising the debt limit.

    Obama told the AP without doubt: "We will raise the debt limit. We always have. We will do it again."

    He warned that anything less would undermine the solvency of the government, roil financial markets and potentially "plunge the world economy back into a recession." Yet when pressed on how the stalemate with House Speaker John Boehner would end, Obama said: "I think he's absolutely right that it's not going to happen without some spending cuts."

    IMORepbulican stratergy on rasing the Debt ceiling (none / 0) (#4)
    by Saul on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:52:00 PM EST
    Obama IMO is up against a wall on the debt ceiling time line.   You can't veto it if he does not like what the Rep make it since it's saying the U.S is going to default on it obligations which would cause havoc worldwide.  

    The Rep will offer mini amounts to the existing ceiling just  to make sure the government meets the deadline so as not to default but these mini will be conditional with only  a two or three week period in order to get negotiations of what they want for the final agreed debt ceiling.  So they will continue to issue mini amounts increase for short periods until they get what they want.  Obama has no choice but to go along with the mini increases since if he veto's them it would initiate the default process and no one wants that.  

    Will Obama implement these recommendations (none / 0) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 06:43:14 PM EST
    along with raising the debt ceiling or for 2012 budget?

    The Gang of Six is attempting to put the December recommendations of the bipartisan fiscal commission into law. Social Security does not contribute to deficit spending since it draws benefits from a separate trust fund, but the fiscal commission sought to ward off a solvency crisis for Social Security after 2037 by raising the retirement age while reducing benefits. [...]

    Including Social Security in the Gang of Six package appears to be a concession by Democrats made in exchange for agreement to raise some revenue by Republicans.

    In addition to needlessly going after Social Security, the gang also reportedly intends to eliminate the home mortgage tax deduction. As Warner put it, "We are going to make everybody mad with our approach."
    SCHIEFFER: So that's where you would get the additional revenues, by eliminating deductions, not necessarily by raising taxes?

    WARNER: We're not talking about raising taxes. Link

    Removing the home mortage (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by itscookin on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 08:03:33 PM EST
    deduction will put home ownership out of reach for a lot of people and contribute to the number of foreclosures. While it won't make much difference to us- our mortgage is almost paid off, it will make holding on to their homes difficult for my children. Either the value of real estate will take another hit, or we're going to be creating a generation of long term renters. Maybe that's the plan. To expand real estate as a business investment instead of having people invest in the place they live.

    Yes, let's remove the last (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 10:50:49 PM EST
    financial incentive for people to stay in their underwater mortgages. Good plan. I think you are right though - the bankers found out people aren't under their thumbs enough when they can walk away from their homes with a mere credit hit. People have to live somewhere - let them all rent.

    I agree with your thinking, (none / 0) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 09:57:59 AM EST
    investment for renting is now more profitable than ever in its own right with the lower prices of property and the higher rents.  No longer is the incentive, in large measure, profit upon appreciation in value and quick flipping  While this may be a short-term gain for our small brained bankers and investors, it overlooks the political stability of individual American's investment in homeownership and the dream of doing so.  They may well come to regret this direction, but then savvy businessmen's long-range thinking seems to be the next quarterly report.

    "They" don't want a middle class, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by observed on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:00:50 AM EST
    because middle class voters have the time and energy, at least in theory, to educate themselves about issues and vote their interests.

    Yes, and "they" do not need one (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:15:37 AM EST
    anymore.  The global economy offers a bigger market for their products and a poor and  less-educated (end those public schools) population offers a bigger national market for their services, although there will be the problem of those predatory borrowers.

    Well, how much home ownership was there (none / 0) (#15)
    by observed on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 08:44:41 AM EST
    in the 1890's? That should give you a clue.
    Company towns are probably in the future, if Republicans get their way.

    A coworker went on a rant the other day, (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 09:05:38 AM EST
    and ended up with 'Yup, lawyers run the world'. I told him that's just what the bankers want you to think.

    HAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#23)
    by observed on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 09:58:18 AM EST
    does your friend like tea?

    Oh yes. Palin worshipper. (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 02:30:43 PM EST