September 2019

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          

« Talking with Teresa Bratton | Main | Trippiing out »

Mar 31, 2008


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

keith brown

it might be time for Spag to call into the show and give ed a hard time, the number is 1-866-482-1011.


I give Brad & Britt enough of a hard time as it is. Well, not as much as I used to. I actually think both of those guys are great, and I'm a big fan of the show. But I don't feel the need to call in just to give Ed a hard time. Believe it or not, I don't give Ed a hard time just for the hell of it. And despite what the common image may be, there have been plenty of instances where I have agreed with Ed. They just don't get as much attention.

I am curious about the subject for which B & B are calling on Ed's expertise.

keith brown

spag were you on today or friday? I thought i heard a thanks sam.

Ed, so what are you going to be talking about on Brad and Britt Show?

Ed Cone

Regulation of financial markets and the Blue NC gubernatorial debate are the scheduled topics, if I remember correctly.

Roger Greene

I love their show. They both possess perfect radio looks as well. Of course, some say I have blogging looks too.

keith brown

thanks have fun


I think it was Thursday or Friday, but B&B get a lot more emails from me than phone calls. I usually don't have the time to wait on hold, so I email them a lot.

Ed knows a lot about the two topics he will be discussing, of course I fully expect a few jabs at the Administration. Whether they are justified remains to be seen.

Ed is usually pretty witty live and in person. I will give him that.

Ged Maheux

You did pretty well Ed. You definately got more relaxed as you went along. Gotta watch all the "a"s and "um"s though, there we're quite a few. The only thing I'd disagree with you about was your line about Katrina. I don't think the event helped to swage fears about help from the federal government, it did just the opposite. I don't think people's openness to regulation in today's financial markets has anything to do with how the government did (or in this case) did not help during a natural disaster.

Again, overall it was enjoyable listening to you. Glad to finally hear your voice.

Ed Cone

The Katrina thing isn't directly related to financial regulation, it's part of the larger point of attitudes toward government changing over time. If you think the federal response to Katrina didn't remind a lot of people that they actually want a competent government instead of no government, we disagree.


I agree with Ed entirely on Katrina. I said at the time it was going to cause a sea change in politics and that the GOP was in big trouble for essentially the same reason Ed cites. That is exactly what followed. Bush's numbers plummeted and the Democrats won both houses of Congress.

Katrina made a lot of people question the idea that the federal government should be so stripped down that it couldn't perform the minimum essential functions that people expect. It was the turning point towards a return to more government. I disagree with that of course, but I certainly could understand and did at the time why people might question whether the incompetence on display (on the state level too to be fair) was what they could look forward to if the conservatives philosophy on government continued to reign supreme.

I myself thought that as a conservative, if we were going to preach smaller government then we need to be even more competent in performing those tasks that we expect government to perform to justify our philosophy. With Katrina, it failed.

Good spot, Ed.

Ed Cone

Is a federal government that is both lean and competent, and that works well with lean, competent, and duly empowered state governments, too much to ask for?

Roger Greene

"Katrina made a lot of people question the idea that the federal government should be so stripped down that it couldn't perform the minimum essential functions that people expect."

Spag I would argue against the view that a shrinkage in federal government was the cause of the Katrina fiasco. While Bush and the Republican Congress were in charge, we've had unprecedented growth in the federal government, directly in conflict with traditional Republican values. Values I hold dearly, by the way. It does point to Ronald Reagan's quote that Ed used on the Brad & Britt show, "I'm from the federal government and I'm here to help", as being among the most scary words in our language. I'm guessing you're talking more about the perception amongst the masses though.

Ed Cone

I don't think the shrinkage of the Federal govt was the cause of Katrina problems (let's simplify here to focus on the federal level, as there were obvious problems at the state and local levels of govt, too).

As RG says, the Fed gov didn't shrink. This was more a matter of focus and competence. FEMA was at one point a competent agency, but it was devalued and led by a crony.

If we are to have a government that is lean and competent, emergency response to disasters seems a reasonable area to keep intact.

It's scary (or at least annoying and impractical) to have the government micromanage your life and your business. It's welcome -- even essential -- to have public help when a disaster of biblical proportions unfolds around you.

Likewise on regulation: business should be as unencumbered as possible, but that doesn't mean you should be able to pollute wholesale or blow up the financial markets and then cry for help, invoking ideology as you go.

Ged Maheux

The point I was trying to make is how did Katrina, in any way, make this line: ""I'm from the federal government and I'm here to help" any less scary or more acceptable to the American people?

Ed Cone

It demonstrated in vivid terms that hearing "I'm from the federal government and I'm here to help" can be a very desirable thing to hear in certain circumstances.

Sadly, this was proved in the breach (i.e. by the lack of hearing those words when they were most needed), but that makes it no less true.

People were waiting to hear that help from the feds had arrived. When it didn't arrive, or arrived far too slowly, the nation was reminded that an offer of help is not always a scary thing -- it can be a welcome or necessary thing.

Roger Greene

Ed, I'm going to sound like a stuck record, but you can't talk about the competence of government without talking about how we select our government. You can't talk about that without talking about how we've somewhere crossed a line on campaign finance and lobbying. The potential best leaders are scared off by the fund raising process that comes with running for office even in little old Greensboro. The process is corrupting in and of itself and the stranglehold of special interests can't be broken without a radical imposition from the voters on how we run and finance campaigns. Industries don't give to politicians in order to level the playing field and they out give individuals by a substantial margin.
Only very wealthy types (Bill Gates level) can have as much impact as an industry that gives and lobbies.

Ed Cone

Interesting to see the impact of internet/grassroots fundraising, along with web-driven transparency, on that dynamic.

But FEMA was a well-run agency well into the current era of moneypolitics, so I don't think it serves as a good example of they system manufacturing incompetence - more an example of cronyism and ideology gone wrong.

Big L

I'm amazed those two traitors stopped giving Hussein a lap dance long enough to talk about something else.

I did hear that one of them called a solider an asshole later on for not sharing their same socialist views.

Between this and Ed's Mom at Hussein's campaign stop, I'm starting to wonder just who's side Ed's on.


You mean Obama's middle name is Hussein? OMG!

I was undecided, but thanks to the attentive efforts of true patriots like Big L, I now know I cannot vote for a socialist, traitor Muslim. No doubt hundreds of thousands of other voters will make up their minds the way I have -- thanks to the thoughtful persuasion of Big L and others who can cut to what's really important. Thanks Big L for making it so I don't have to think any more. You are a great American.


You're both missing the point. People on the Left and the Right were screaming "where the hell is the government?" Yes, it was about competence, but I think it seriously called into question the demonization of government in many peoples minds. As one who engages in demonizing government quite a bit myself, I was pissed off along with everyone else.

Although RG is correct that the government had actually grown, that wasn't the perception. The perception was that conservative politicians who preached self-reliance maybe had gone too far. As a conservative who believes strongly in self-reliance, I felt like the safety net had failed miserably and many would question the message of the Right as a result. I believed "we can't go around selling a message of smaller government and self reliance if the government is going to fail the people in their maximum hour of need".

In the end, it really wasn't about ideology at all, but competence as Ed correctly points out- but I don't think that was the sole reason in the minds of many, and the GOP paid dearly for it.

Ed Cone

"we can't go around selling a message of smaller government and self reliance if the government is going to fail the people in their maximum hour of need".

Yep. Lean but competent is the right mix.


I agree with that, Ed. The incompetence surrounding Katrina really hurt the conservative movement. I actually remember telling my dad while watching New Orleans on the news that the GOP was going to lose in the next election as a result.

Some people say it was Iraq that killed Bush, but I think it was more Katrina.

The comments to this entry are closed.