March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Reality based governance | Main | Never too early »

Nov 09, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

RBM

Seems that the best this
country can do is to 'muddle through'.

I have very low expectations so will be disappointed less than supporters.

Non-supporters should learn the meaning of 'loyal opposition'.

Duke of Denton

I believe more in disloyal, sneaky, backstabbing, perfidious, treacherous and faithless opposition. Thats the kind of opposition that comes from Uncle Sam, disguised now as Uncle Tom. I am the Duke of Denton and I approved this message.

Duke of Denton

I predict that muddle cluttering will become the newest act of Congress. The Muddle Cluttering Act will surpass the Patriot Act and Financial Stability Act. It will make it more difficult to discern where th* chickenchit ends and the chicken salad begins. I am the Duke of Denton and I approved this message.

Spag

"his vice presidential pick fired up parts of the GOP base but turned off the rest of the country. "

Right on the first part, absolutely wrong on the second. Read the exit polls the next time Ed, before you buy into spin like this.

A lot of people thought Palin lacked the experience to be VP, but that isn't the same as "turning off the rest of the country". In fact of those people who said that McCain's selection of Palin as VP was a factor in their decision- the majority voted for McCain.

She's not going away so you and others can stop the spin. Get used to it.

Ed Cone

Palin not going away is the fondest hope of many Democrats.

Kirk Ross

Ed, which country did she turn off?
USA? Africa?

Ged

How well did Sarah Palin do in election day exit polls? From CNN:

"GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin didn't do well in exit polls. Sixty percent of those polled said the Alaska governor is not qualified to be president, if necessary; 38 percent said she is. That compares with the two-thirds of those polled who said Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden is qualified to be president and the 31 percent who said he isn't."

Yeah, she did *great*.

Anthony

"Palin not going away is the fondest hope of many Democrats."

I hope she either goes away, or cultivates a genuine interest and knowledge about national policy. We can't afford governance-by-talking-point, and she certainly has a non-negligible chance of winning office in the future if she does stick around - you never know how random events are going to influence an election. I'd like to see both sides put forward knowledgeable, qualified candidates so that no matter who wins we end up with rational, thoughtful leadership. Palin is not qualified at this point. Of course, I'm not a Democrat, so others mileage may vary.

Tony Wilkins

EC on WMA: "Maybe that project needs a privately led campaign to raise awareness and money, so that any future bond request will have momentum."
That's similar to an idea I presented at the WM Commission meeting Thursday.
I suggested corporate involvement or sponsorship. Matt stated when this idea had been brought up before a "War Memorial" name change backlash had ensued and the amount of money needed would exceed an amount that a corporate sponsorship could raise. TDBS seemed to agree with my suggestion later in the meeting.
I'm wondering what kind of backlash the public will provide when the DH Griffin demolition crew arrives on the premises.

Ed Cone

Anthony the WSJ opinion piece I linked earlier in the week makes a similar point to yours: "Palin's grasp of energy policy suggests she's capable of mastering subjects when she wants to, and if she wants a national future she's going to have to do the same on national issues."

I don't take Palin lightly, but I do think she's got a lot of work ahead if she wants to broaden her appeal. If she merely rallies the social-con base, she won't get far.

KR, I wasn't there, but I don't find the Africa story to be plausible.

Tony, glad to hear the idea of some private involvement is at least under discussion. Naming rights would be a contributing part of the funding, not the whole thing. I could live with a [Your Company Name Here] War Memorial Auditorium. FWIW, a reasonably bright friend of mine told me last night that he'd voted against the bond because he thought it was for WM stadium, and we already have a nice new ballpark...

Ged

Just curious. Which part of Palin's grasp on energy policy suggests she's capable of mastering other subjects? The part where she claimed Alaska supplied upwards of 20% of the nation's energy supplies or the part where she touted the pipeline that hasn't been built?

Just playing devil's advocate.

G/

This belongs near the front of your "Best of Ed Cone Columns in the N&R" volume, Ed.

Forget about anyone's political views, the concluding paragraph captures a whole lot more than the five sentences might indicate on first read. In fact, they might make the first five sentences of a book that you have in it.

Tuesday was about our and others' kids, as well as anyone in the 18 to 30 year-old demographic that may have voted for the first time, and the passing of the torch--it is soon, and rightfully so, to be their time to direct (or not) this country's future.

I woke up feeling like {I entered} the new world began the Monday after they let Lehman Brothers' fail, and there was no turning back the clock. Wednesday morning cemented this feeling. The next few years will be tough for everyone in this country and it may prove to be tiring, draining, and exciting, as all transformative times in history have proven to be.


Thanks for sharing your thoughtful column, Ed.

Kirk Ross

Ed, I wasn't there either — just being snarky. I know a lot of people, particularly women, who were very turned off by her. Talk of 2012 for anyone in the GOP pre-schism of '09 is premature.
Reich has a good piece at TPM on what we might see going forward.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/09/the_mini_depression_and_the_ma/

Dave Dobson

If Palin runs for president in 2012, I'd expect her candidacy to do no better than Dan Quayle's run, i.e., die in the primary. She's no smarter, no more capable, and he had the advantage of actually being the vice president already. I think a lot of the support for her was faked, or out of obligation - she was McCain's pick, and for a Republican to complain about her would be to undermine McCain's campaign. If she runs in a primary, of her own volition, where criticism of her would not damage the party, I think she'll go down in flames.

Republicans just tried an incurious, folksy, stupid, arch-conservative for eight years. You'd think they'd want to go a different route.

Al LaCarte

Palin was the Democrat's silver bullet. The more she runs her yap, she turns kinda goldish.

Beelzebubba

Looking back at the election I missed the part where Obama formed a 4th branch of government-The Office of the President Elect. I wonder where that is in the Constitution. Did any other branch vote?

Al LaCarte

BLZ: Cheney and the Theocrats didnt even try that. It must be in the new Charter. Obama may be impeached before he is sworn in.

Dave Dobson

You'd rather he sit in his basement watching Netflix for a few months, and have somebody make sure he's awake in time for the inauguration?

Spag

Kirk, I think Africa is somewhere far from the 57 states in the U.S. but I will have to ask Barack Obama since he is familiar with all 57.

The rest of you- there is no evidence that Palin is dumb, but I appreciate all of you doing exactly as I expected you would when I predicted that liberals would claim that Palin was dumb on the day she was announced.

Be careful what you ask for. The exit polls did not confirm any broad sentiment that she isn't smart, rather that she lacked experience. Further as I stated before, of those who said that her being on the ticket was a factor in their voting decision, the majority voted for McCain.

I also take great enjoyment reading liberal predictions about Republican primaries. The reality is the liberals were out to destroy Palin from day one because the thought of the GOP having the first female VP runs counter to all the liberal orthodoxy- you know the 22% of the people who identified themselves as liberals on Tuesday. One out of five. I always said most of you were on the fringe.

Anyway, please keep underestimating Sarah Palin. Just remember that if and when she runs the next time it will be on her own terms not someone elses. You don't get an 80% approval rating for nothing.

Liberals salivated over Ronald Reagan's candidacy too.


Reggie Greene/TheLogistician

The problems in our country have risen to the point where it will require a coordinated and collaborative effort on the part of all Americans, no matter the side of the aisle on which they sit.

What the Republicans failed to understand was that this was not the time to be divisive.

Spag

Obama and Biden just as divisive, but when you can only see things from one perspective it is easy to see how that might be overlooked.

I also find that last comment hard to take seriously considering how liberals treated Bush during a time of war.

I also wonder how many of you would be talking about the need for unity if McCain had won. I feel pretty confident in saying that I will treat Obama much better than most of you would have treated McCain or treated Bush.

Mick

Agreed there Spag.

It is rapidly becoming a joke at the number of Ds, Libs, et al urging cooperation and bipartisanship.

It is a great idea and I really do agree and hope it all works out but it is hard to jump on board considering the various sources.

At least Chris Matthews and the "Network of Change" now think we've had enough nasty and it is time to support our President.
Oh did you hear, the situation in Gitmo is difficult and The Washington Post was bias towards Obama. Who'd a thunk it?

Spag

Of course Matthews et al think it's time to end the nastiness- their guy won. We all know that if McCain had won the nastiness would continue unabated.

My hope is that conservatives actually do put forth an effort towards cooperation and treat Obama with more respect and class than the Left did to Bush. We know that most of them are knee jerk intolerant reactionaries who believe that anyone who doesn't adopt their agenda is being "divisive" and they don't care at all about the consequences because they are slaves to an ideology first and foremost.

There is nothing to gain by conservatives stooping to their low level and hoping that Obama is a failure. I want him to succeed, but that doesn't mean I support his agenda. Failed presidencies don't help America.

Robin Leskovich

Something occurs to me.Reducing numbers seems the way of this century. The N&R is firing its readers. Corporations are terminating employees, right and left. Obama is reading Lincoln; does this mean we are just before being terminated? The last person to act on Lincoln's thoughts was Lincoln; he terminated a bunch of us. Did Lincoln find the way of the 21st Century long before its time?

Mick

Once again, agreed.

I have more issues/problems with the passengers on this train than the engineer!

Loyal opposition I shall be.


Spag

Well said, Mick. My biggest problem with Obama is many of his supporters, not Obama himself. Sure I disagree with him on most things, but the dishonesty and nastiness of many of his supporters is the most distasteful part.

newtogso

"Sure I disagree with him on most things, but the dishonesty and nastiness of many of his supporters is the most distasteful part."

Many? of his supporters? I didn't hear the thousands at Grant Park slinging "boos". All parties have equally dishonest and nasty "wings".

eric

I'd say the most common fault among Obama supporters is fecklessness, far more than either dishonesty (unless you count self-delusion) or nastiness (if anything, too many of them seem too concerned with being nice). Perhaps the dishonest and nasty ones are more vocal and thus appear more numerous (and I'd say the same about accusations of dishonesty or nastiness aimed at McCain supporters).

Of course, in the political context, both dishonesty and nastiness are, at least to a large extent, in the eye of the beholder; partisans on any side are more inclined to attribute those faults to those on an opposing side. And I also suspect that there may be some broad differences in what "liberals" and "conservatives" mean by "dishonesty" or "nastiness". (And I hasten to say I'm not taking a position that either side's conception is more valid, but merely suggesting that they are using the terms to mean different things.)

That aside, I'm inclined to agree that calls for "bi-partisanship" and "setting aside our differences" are just as fatuous coming from Democrats now as they were coming from Republicans over the past 8 years. I'd hope we can disagree and be partisan without being dishonest or nasty. But I don't see papering over substantive disagreements as a virtue.

eric

"You don't get an 80% approval rating for nothing. "

You don't lose it for nothing either.

Spag

And it went down to an incredibly low 65% despite all the hammering from the media and liberals. By contrast, Barack Obama, who just won the White House has a significantly higher approval rating than Palin, a whopping 68% as of yesterday.

I guess 65 is in the gutter but 68 is sky high.

Spin away, facts be damned. It's all about the cause.

eric

I didn't spin anything Sam, I just provided a link to the most recent fact, as opposed to the 6-month old one you cited. Make of it what you will. And by all means, please continue to lecture others on dishonesty and nastiness.

The comments to this entry are closed.