<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/936301</link>
		<description>Comments by ELC</description>
<item>
<title>Big Journalism : From &#039;The Front Page&#039; To a Flock Of Sheep: Reporters, Then and Now</title>
<link>http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/04/20/from-the-front-page-to-a-flock-of-sheep-reporters-then-and-now/#IDComment69100707</link>
<description>Can you just imagine all the red-faced screams of &amp;quot;Fascist!&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Dictator!&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Tyrant!&amp;quot; etc. if it were a Republican in the White House keeping reporters away like that? </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:07:01 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/04/20/from-the-front-page-to-a-flock-of-sheep-reporters-then-and-now/#IDComment69100707</guid>
</item><item>
<title>KeithHennessey.com : Understanding the new health reconciliation bill</title>
<link>http://keithhennessey.com/2010/03/18/understanding-health-bill-two/#IDComment62961739</link>
<description>I may be mistaken, but I believe that the whole point of the &amp;quot;deem and pass&amp;quot; trick is that the Senate bill as is won&amp;#039;t be &amp;quot;deemed&amp;quot; to have passed UNLESS the Senate passes the reconciliation bill. That&amp;#039;s why the (reports of) the Senate parliamentarian&amp;#039;s opinion that the Senate could not consider the reconciliation bill until the original bill had been signed into law is thought to be an insuperable stumbling block to the &amp;quot;deem and pass&amp;quot; chicanery. </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:06:02 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://keithhennessey.com/2010/03/18/understanding-health-bill-two/#IDComment62961739</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>