Desperate to find video of Holy Joe talking to Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC just now, explaining that we don’t need to worry about Sarah Palin’s qualifications because “let’s assume nothing bad will happen”? Did anyone get this for YouTube? It's devastating.

He's a drowsy speaker, his voice sinks deep into his throat and slows all the way down, as if preparing itself for bed.

I loved that.

Oh my. I laughed out loud several times when reading this post. You are one a roll tonight, Ezra.

Wasted night. Everybody knows McCain was a POW because they won't STFU about it. To win they have to scare people out of voting for Obama and they aren't doing that, in part because they are hamstrung by their own VP pick.

McCain is such a pathetic figure. For a five year period he was brave and honorable. And then he spent the rest of his life being a selfish son of a bitch because he thought he was owed something over and above the trophy wife and the millions of dollars.

Ha ha ha, Ezra. Good stuff. Have you considered a career in writing?

Sorry kids, but I'm not kidding about this "stay on topic" thing. If you want to disagree, you're welcome to do so. if you want to troll, do it elsewhere.

Kisses,
Ezra

The bar is higher for the GOP than the Democrats this year. The Democrats had to prove two things: a) we are united and b) Obama is presidential. The GOP must prove a lot more: a) We aren't the party of Bush b) Palin isn't a bad pick c) McCain isn't Bush III d) The GOp Brand doesn't suck e) We have fresh ideas besides what you already know and on and on. The bar is high for them. I doubt there is anything they can say this week that will change the dynamics because Palin was a sign that they are captive to the house that Reagan and Bush built. They shored up their base, and Obama went passed 50 percent for the first time. Congrats to them.

Well said. I particularly liked the part about Lieberman as goldfish. But may I make a plea for bipartisan retirement of the phrase "hit it out of the park" and all its variants? For some reason-- maybe because of the use of sports arenas-- this tired phrase has been ubiquitous this convention season, used both prospectively ("Palin needs to hit it out of the park," etc.) and retrospectively about every single important speech, and repeated with mind-numbing frequency. Even "slam dunk" or "touchdown" would be some relief.

the truth is your enemy, isn't it ezra???? Glad you got to read my comment.

So why was Al Gore's #2 man speaking at the Republican convention? Didn't he get the memo that the Supreme Court stole the election? Strange. Is he leading a revolution within the Democratic party to help other Democrats start THINKING and give up their deep denial?

Not really -- few here will be concerned by some anti-choice boilerplate. But if you want to set the topics, get a blog. If you're going to hang out on this one, however, stick to the thread of the conversations. The rules are no secret.

Ezra,

Please give me another kiss... c'mon. just one more. Then lets discuss the implications of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It will be a pivitol factor in this election, ya know. Actually, it is very much on topic, and will be so tomorrow when Palin explains the eugenic implications of abortion.

Who gives a rat's ass how well Palin gives a speech she did not write to convention that already loves her.
It's time for the Governor to meet the press, and I don't mean Tom Brokaw.

I pray that she gives a speech about the eugenic implications of abortion. Honestly, I can't think of a worse topic for her to focus on than to highlight her support of using the threat of government violence to force pregnant women to bear the child of a rapist.

You know what seems sorta funny? Every single Republican hack out there telling us how scared liberals are of Palin. They really feel the need to reassure themselves of that.

"Impactful." Oh no!

CERN RAP!!!
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=T3iryBLZCOQ

Sry, totally ot, I know, but did you see this, Ezra?
Kate McAlpine rulez!

"He's risen to the occasion many times before, and touch Americans in a powerful way."

I'll give you his speech on September 13 or 14, 2001. But i'll defy you to name second time.

Most of what I saw of the convention was pretty blah. Two points, though:

1. Fred Thompson had one effective moment, when he talked about Obama's tax plan. The line about how you won't be impacted by the tax hike on corporations unless you buy things from corporations or get a paycheck from one was of course totally dishonest and misleading, but effective. We're going to hear that many more times and we need a one-liner takedown.

2. Could the constant repetition of the "country first" theme be more offensive? Oh, right, I forgot: Obama is a secret Muslim/Black Power radical who wants to tear the country down from the inside. I'm glad John McCain is here to remind me without actually coming out and saying it.

That said, if you were unaware of McCain's history as a POW, and it will swing your vote, consider your vote swung. If not, not.

There I was thinking McCain was tortured as a POW. Apparently not, if you believe Bush and Shite Says Fred.

Democrats: party of new ideas

Republicans: party of no ideas

Honor and patriotism are fine qualities but without a strategy they won't help you win a war, much less solve economic problems, mortgage foreclosures, health care, climate change, etc. etc. Do the Republicans have any plan at all for addressing real problems? (Oh. I forgot. Drill here. Drill now.)

You're not giving them enough credit.

Thompson did a very good job with his material. His attacks on Obama were completely misleading and based on lies, but he delivered them in exactly the right sort of sideways way. Attacks are always much more convincing when you can get them in without sounding like you're attacking your opponent by name.

He also did a great job with McCain's bio.

Lieberman was good ... textually, but his presence and his argument seemed especially hollow. In fact, just seeing Republicans argue for bipartisanship seemed absurd, but maybe the American public is goofy enough to believe it.

The real problem wasn't the performance, which was good, it was the fact that I'll bet no one was watching. Every night of the Dem convention had a reason to watch, Hillary, Bill, and Obama kept people glued. People are only going to watch Palin and McCain at this convention.

Maybe the numbers will prove me wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if this night's ratings were as much as 50% lower than the Dem convention's. Hard to make a good argument when no one's listening.

>>McCain's reluctance to speak about his war record that by this point in the election, the mute can tell it, the forgetful can recall it,""

If I recal a few weks back, YOU EZRA forgot about McCain service when you claimed wrongly, that McCain had never wanted for anything his whole life.
Remember that rant?

"""And Barack Obama is inexperienced"""

Obama tells us that he has the judgement to be President because he had the great judgement to OPPOSE the liberation of Iraq. That McCain should not be President because he supppported the Liberation of Iraq. THAT IS WHAT OBAMAS ARGUMENT COMES DOWN TO.

But then Obama picked Biden as VP, Biden also voted with McCain on Iraq Liberation.

Therefore, Obama is admitting his own VP pick doesn't have the judgement to be President.

So did Obama vet Biden at all? Was he aware of this disqualifying vote? Did he forget about it? How can Biden possibly be ready on day one when Obama proclaims Bidens judgement fundamentally flawed?

It just seems a little unseemly when the National News is all about the Govenors daughter having a baby, Obama decideds it a great time to start running pro-abortion ads.

Guess he's pretty much give up on the religious voters.

Must be his knee jerk, baby as punishment stand.

The line about how you won't be impacted by the tax hike on corporations unless you buy things from corporations or get a paycheck... We're going to hear that many more times and we need a one-liner takedown.

They're making record profits, they can afford it.

How's that?

Obama tells us that he has the judgement to be President because he had the great judgement to OPPOSE the liberation of Iraq unpopular clusterfuck in the desert. That McCain should not be President because he supppported the Liberation of Iraq murderous insanity

There, fixed it for you.
I think you'll find you're pissing into the wind of public opinion on this one. BTW, that's the *voting* public's opinion. It's ok, take some zoloft and come back in 8 years. The dems will have fixed the country up enough by then that people may have forgotten the mess you yahoos left it in, and be willing to give you another crack by then.

Doh! Strikeouts don't work inside italics here! Or they just don't work. Let's try this again:

the great judgement to OPPOSE the liberation of Iraq unpopular clusterfuck in the desert.

Words 7,8, and 9 should be strike out there.

Teh suxors!

Yeah, we liberals are not sexists pigs:

""Mark Shields insisted a callous Gov. Palin chose national ambition over "love and consideration for her daughter..."""

Gee, did any Democrat say that about Obama leaving his two kids? Did anyone say that about Biden leaving his two motherless injured children at home?

When Biden was chosen, did Shields say Biden put his own ambitions ahead of two injured children who's mother just died?

Why don't you just now admit that Democrat men don't REALLY believe in equality for women.
If they did, this misogynist garbage wouldn't keep spilling out of their mouths.

Anon lies about being a liberal and does nothing but spout piles of cut and paste garbage on the thread. Ezra, your comment threads are just vehicles for a single obsessive poster to spout lies and attacks on Democrats - someone without even the guts to sign their name. Is this really what you want? He has single-handedly destroyed any vestige of an actual conversation here.

I'm kind of conventioned-out, but I still tried to watch some of it last night. It was sad. It still blows my mind to see how far Bush has been pushed into the margin. Here you have a stadium of the most far-right wingnut crazies in the country (Brownback said so last night) and they still won't let Bush come to the show, lest someone actually get a picture of him standing next to McBush.
I heard someone talking about how this year's delegates were the most socially conservative ever, and they were pushing McBush as far to the right as possible. Then I saw Christine Todd Whitman very meekly try to say that the party was more "centrist" now and to prove it they nominated John McBush. She looked like she was gonna cry just trying to say that crap. This is gonna be a long week for those folks.

I'm kind of conventioned-out, but I still tried to watch some of it last night. It was sad. It still blows my mind to see how far Bush has been pushed into the margin. Here you have a stadium of the most far-right wingnut crazies in the country (Brownback said so last night) and they still won't let Bush come to the show, lest someone actually get a picture of him standing next to McBush.
I heard someone talking about how this year's delegates were the most socially conservative ever, and they were pushing McBush as far to the right as possible. Then I saw Christine Todd Whitman very meekly try to say that the party was more "centrist" now and to prove it they nominated John McBush. She looked like she was gonna cry just trying to say that crap. This is gonna be a long week for those folks.

While I find the choice of Palin, and the way in which the choice was made, bizarre to say the least, your constant references to US Weekly stories as some sort of proof how bad the choice was is pretty bizarre itself. You might want to raise your standards.

NOM NOM NOM THRED

This sentence is pure brilliance:

"Lieberman is at the Xcel Center for much the reason that pet goldfish spend their days in a neon castle: He has nowhere else to go."

Wow... to think I would miss the days of arguing with akaison and sanpete... at least that was about something.

I don't usually even resort to using the word "troll" but there's certainly a movement afoot round here.

Anyway, to the point of the post: I agree it was a weird, not entirely successful night. You can say Thompson's jabs were effective... but they seemed most likely to me to convince people who already had their minds made up, not really move anyone still trying to figure out who to support. Ditto for Lieberman, whose "outreach" to Independents and Democrats was nearly comical when it wasn't merely sad and out of touch. I do agree that none of this probably got much of an audience, and while I'm not as down on Palin as some, I think the effectiveness of choosing her has given way to asking just what the GOP intends to do... and so far the answer appears to be "not much". Palin's dramas make an interesting distraction, but they won't really change voters minds - the lack of policies and proposals will.

I think it is very important for the left to understand you are being lied to by the press. We just had many lefties publish the US Weekly cover, even Ezra published it with the headline
AS GO THE TABLOIDS, SO GOES THE NATION.

Ezra said: "According to Mark Halperin, this is a leaked version of US Weekly's coming cover"

WHAT HE FAILED TO SAY is the publisher is a huge Barack Obama supporter and is a major campaign donor to Barack Obama.

I think its important to understand that Baracks friends are using their media outlets to smear Governor Palin why Barack Obama pretends he wants the family left alone.

If Barack really wanted them left alone, he wouldn't have his major fundraiser publishing this crap.

What's more interetsing is Ezra thought we wouldn't find out that a Barack money man was behind this smear cover.

I guess alot of the lefty men just think women are stupid, and wouldn't learn that this publisher had given over 25,000 dollars to Democratic MEN since 2004, and not one dime to any WOMEN.

Those are the real facts.

"""He has nowhere else to go""

Since Senator Lieberman is the Democrat Party Chairman of the Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, you would think the Democrats have some trust in his judgement.

Maybe Homeland Security is just not important to them...

The comments section here has become completely polluted.

I am a young white man. Obama, over twenty years my senior, is not a young man. I have a hard time believing anyone would call a white 47 year old a "young man."

WHAT HE FAILED TO SAY is the publisher is a huge Barack Obama supporter and is a major campaign donor to Barack Obama.

What he did say was that is was US Weekly. If folks are making up their mind who to vote for based on what US Weekly says about McCain's VP pick--or what US says about anything--I doubt Republican's are going to get that vote, anyway.

If they take seriously what US Weekly has to say--about anything--then, really, who cares what they think?

It's US Weekly. All the news that's fit to print, since the Weekly World News had to fold up last year.

I guess alot of the lefty men just think women are stupid, and wouldn't learn that this publisher had given over 25,000 dollars to Democratic MEN since 2004, and not one dime to any WOMEN.

Of course. Right-wingers will understand this intuitively, left wingers don't care. Indeed, numerous commentors over at Daily Kos have been making the argument to use lies, smears and distortions to ruin the lives of Sarah Palin and her entire family because it's worth it "for universal healthcare, and getting out of Iraq". You think those folks are gonna give a shit if US Weekly is transparently biased on the issue of Palin? Or any issue? Most of the folks on the left are going to think the US Weekly story is too soft, that it doesn't hit hard enough.

"The line about how you won't be impacted by the tax hike on corporations unless you buy things from corporations or get a paycheck from one was of course totally dishonest and misleading, but effective."

Please explain how that is dishonest.

When a business is taxed, they pass that on to consumers. When the cost of doing business goes up, employees suffer through understaffing and lower pay.

Also regarding Obama's tax plan, he says he will not raise taxes on 95% of Americans, yet he will raise taxes on capital gains and dividends. Over half of working Americans have money invested. Obama wants to raise taxes on money people have worked hard all their lives to earn and invest. The people who did the right thing, worked hard and saved will now be punished by Obama for doing the right thing. And don't forget the significant portion of the elderly who live off dividends and have a fixed income. Why does Obama want to take more of THEIR money?

As for experience (Palin v Obama), both have little TIME in public office. But look at what they did while in office.

Palin,
"*80 to 90 percent approval rating

*Passed a landmark ethics reform bill for Alaska

*Alaska had a corrupt system till she stepped in – she took on corruption and removed it by having people fired – within her own party

*In charge of the National Security of the largest pipeline transporting 25% of our nation's oil

*In charge of one of 120 fed. funded Counter Terrorism units in Alaska

*In charge of Disaster 1 a unit that went to aid The World Trade Center

*Union membership and took out "mob" union boss

*Stopped pork spending

*Created a surplus and got rid of a deficit

*Stood up against oil companies

*Brought down the state attorney general of Alaska and the Republican chairman of Alaska

*Because the oil revenues were high, she provided a tax rebate to the voters of Alaska

*Served as State Ethics Commissioner

*Served as Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

*Commander of the Alaska National Guard which was deployed to Iraq and Palin visited her own troops there. On her way home she stopped at Landstuhl military hospital to visit wounded troops.

*Oversees a State budget of almost $7 billion

*Slashed the budget - cut more than 300 line item expenditures in her first year in office saving 100s of millions in taxpayer funds

*First female on the Republican VP ticket – second female to be named on a major Presidential ticket

*Mayor at the age of 32

*Governor of Alaska – youngest and first female"

What has Obama done?

The Republican VICE PRESIDENTIAL nominee has more experience than the Democrats PRESIDENTIAL nominee.

Looks like the Republicans got their ticket in the right order.

Someone made a good point about how McCain could have insured Sara Palins daughter was having a baby could have been kept out of the press, with all the press agreeing to not cover the story:

___Leaked it that John Edwards was the father __...

-------------------------

The media would have shut up but quick.

If they take seriously what US Weekly has to say--about anything--then, really, who cares what they think?

They are entitled to political representation just like the rest of us are, Kevin.

Politics isn't being done on the comments of blogs and on the op-ed pages of newspapers... it's being done by neighbors and friends at supermarkets, and in parks and local churches, when friends talk about whom they're going to vote for.

"Leaked it that John Edwards was the father . . ."

Anonymous, the press is entirely capable of making value judgements. John Edwards is not a viable candidate at this point, and won't ever be. They might not have wanted to cover the lovechild story in the first place, and did so only grudgingly after the Enquirer broke it, and then buried it as soon as possible . . .

But if, in the same circumstances, it could have been used to bury Sarah Palin, they would have given John Edwards the scorched earth treatment. He would have been acceptable collateral damage on the road to ruining Sarah Palin's family. You know, for the greater good of universal healthcare and getting out of Iraq.

The press would have covered the story of Bristol sleeping with the much older, ultra-liberal John Edwards to the hilt. To the ends of the earth. While much of it would have been blamed on Bristol and Sarah Palin's extremist and anti-sex religious views, John Edwards would have been creamed, too, and the press would be happy to skewer him. They would have crucified him, if that would have gotten them Sarah Palin.

The press covered up for Edwards for over a year...they complete ignored the story even though it broke while he was still on the campaign trail.

It is very telling that the Obama campaign, seeing a Mother caring for her newborn baby, and a daughter about to have that womens first grandchild...the first thing the Obama campaign thinks of is to run pro-abortion commercials.

What is the thinking there? That children are a punishment?

What Mother, with a 17 year old daughter who is engaged and getting married; thinks to tell her daughter, please go abort my first Grandchild.
I don't want you punished with a child, kill it please.

There are obviously too many men like Chriss Mathews on the Obama campaign who think all womens' number one priority is to kill off their offspring.

abg, your, um, exhaustive list seems little more than regurgitated talking points (that "commander of the Alaska National Gard" stuff is probably the most amusing - so Deval Patrick is, like, seriously important for commanding the Massachusetts National Guard? Or is that just when you're a Republican?), and talking points to an argument almost no ones has made. Except Republicans. However one wants to dress it up, Palin's "experience" boils down to a short stint as a first term governor, and a small town mayor. It's not disqualifying... it's just not deep. And that's a problem for Republicans in the sense that complaining about Obama having a thin resume was predicated on basically the same trajectory. Either they're both ready, or both not... but the distinctions between the two don't make the most compelling argument (something Obama folks will have to live with, too, I think).

In any case the reasons to support Obama aren't about resume, they're about his plans to take action on a variety of issues... issues that have largely been ignored so far at the RNC.

Finally, this equally absurd debate about US Magazine and Jann Wenner seems highly silly. Wenner's exercise over content decisions at US is just not that great, and even if he did make a decision to cover her (which I seriously doubt) or push her onto the cover, I'm not sure what the objection is - is it inaccurate? Or is it simply that it doesn't present Palin in the best Republican light? And if you're deciding to be upset, now, that Us magazine prints gossip and tries to sell magazines with come-on headlines... my goodness, you're late. Or did you miss the one about how Jamie-Lynn Spears got knocked up at 16 and has to marry her high school boyfriend, too?

His attacks on Obama were completely misleading and based on lies, but he delivered them in exactly the right sort of sideways way. Attacks are always much more convincing when you can get them in without sounding like you're attacking your opponent by name.

His attacks were a little too sideways, almost inside jokes that play well to a party convention but probably go over the heads of lots of people just watching, if indeed anybody was actually watching.

"he's been to Iraq eight times since 2003. He went seeking truth, not publicity."

"the United States Senate has always had more than its share of smooth talkers and big talkers. And obviously it still has. But while others were talking reform, John McCain led efforts to make reform happen"

"the respect he's given around the world is not because of a teleprompter speech designed to appeal to America's critics abroad, no, not that; it's not because of that, but because of decades of clearly demonstrated character and statesmanship."

"the Democrats present a history- making nominee for president -- history-making in that he's the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president."

Most of these are glancing blows at best, requiring the listener to make connections that are by no means obvious. The line about teleprompter speeches was particularly stupid, given that Thompson was himself reading the line off a teleprompter, and one that was clearly visible on television at that.

And the bit about the Democrats' "history-making" nominee is just kind of ungracious.

weboy, somehow the Democrat party managed to elect Woodrow Wilson PRESIDENT with less then 2 years experience as Governor before becoming President, not vice President. He had no other government experience.

I know your response will be Sarah palin is no Woodrow Wilson.

My response to you, of course, because she's a women and doesn't have a penis, right?

And stop plagiarizing like Mr. Biden.

jeebus, what you point about about Thomson's speech is why Senators almost invariably make poor presidential candidates: their rhetorical style is full of insider references without any direct attacks. It's fine for the etiquette and "comity" of the Senate, but pretty poor for addressing the general public.

One of the reasons, I think, why Obama decided to run now is that he figured that he should run for president while he still talks like a normal human, before too many years in the Senate rots that ability away.

..and I'd actually say, somehow it's likely that Barack Obama will be President with about 2 years experience in the Senate, and I'm not sure he's a Woodrow Wilson, except in a good way.

I think Palin's fine for VP... except I think someone should have checked a few things before announcing her name. I think the bigger problem is that the Republicans are wrong for America, and McCain is the wrong man for President. Palin's the least of my issues. And I think women are great, myself. I can't wait to elect one President. And I kind of already did, voting for Hillary Clinton.

The press covered up for Edwards for over a year...they complete ignored the story even though it broke while he was still on the campaign trail.

There are about a zillion stories just like this one, and the reason is the same:

1) The media, press, or whatever you want to call them is all about low hanging fruit.

2) Stories either gather irreversible momentum or they sit on the back burner.

Was ABC supposed to lead their evening news with, "We've been watching the front page of The National Enquirer, and..."?

For every case of the liberal media sitting on a story, there's one of the conservative media sitting on one. And neither are because of conspiracy — it's because of the mechanics of reporting.

Pepsi brings out Crystal Pepsi, and then everyone has a clear cola. Coke brings out Vanilla Coke, and then everyone has a vanilla cola. But both occasionally bring out flops that no one else copies.

The media is just a business. No one wants to loose credibility by quoting the Enquirer, so no one broke the story.

But if your argument is that the media is liberal, then why didn't Fox break the story? O'Reilly claims he knew about it.

The left-wing media used to be a valid argument for just about anything, but those days are over. For the sake of argument, say MSNBC had discovered the Edwards story. And, for the sake of argument, say they really wanted to squash it. Do you really think they would sit on it, knowing it was just a matter of time before Fox broke it?

The Edwards story stayed squashed because The National Enquirer had the lead, plain and simple. The MSM can occasionally dip into Big Foot stories, because they are funny, but no one wanted to quote the Enquirer.

That's the free market and marketing and Business 101. Nothing more.

But if you want to see conspiracies everywhere, I'm not going to stop you, because I'm pretty sure you stopped reading around para 2.

There were a bunch of boring old wrinkly white haired guys on my TV- ick.

This is not comforting. Loserman is a loser. What were Republicans thinking putting Loser Joe up there.

It would be a real hoot if the Republicans turned the ridiculous questions about her family back on the media.

They should ask the female reporters who's taking care of their kids?

As a matter of fact, ask the MALE reporters why they aren't home with their children.

Why did they abandon their children for a carer as Mark Shields likes to opine.

Ask them if any of their daughters are pregnant, or have hidden a pregnancy or baby in the last 5 months?

Or have their kids been doing drugs, drinking, getting arrested, etc. etc.

Perhaps call Campbell Brown 'SWEETIE' like Obama likes to do, and when she tries to ask a serious question, tell her she's 'good-looking' like Biden likes to do.

It would be a hoot to see these proffessional women, and even the misogynist men talked to like they are doing to Governor Palin.

weboy, somehow the Democrat party managed to elect Woodrow Wilson PRESIDENT with less then 2 years experience as Governor before becoming President, not vice President. He had no other government experience.

Interesting point.

Experience is in the eye of the beholder. And in this case, both sides seem quite locked in on their own definitions.

Wilson may have been governor for two years, but his record looks much more like Obama's than Palin's (in terms of experience). He was an academic, not an executive. Yes, he was president of Princeton and then governor, but during that time he is known more for the articles and books that he wrote than for the laws or policies he signed.

Quite interesting that Wilson wrote many essays for The Atlantic, which started as an abolitionist magazine. Interesting because his father was a slave owner. Moved from Ohio to Virginia, in fact, mostly for that reason.

Crazy world we live in. We not only all disagree on current affairs and what direction we need to go in, we also disagree on what the past means. I guess the past never really is the past.

HookerandBlow
(Must be a Democratic Convention moniker)

"Was ABC supposed to lead their evening news with, "We've been watching the front page of The National Enquirer, and..."?"

NO, just as they shouldn't have said, we've been reading the DailKos and Andrew Sullivans blogs and they say Governor Palin faked her preganancy to hide her daughters child.

Notice the mainstream media didn't care that it was the National Enquirer when it came to OJ simpson, or Dog Chapman, or many other stories, they had no problem following their lead.

HookerandBlow (Must be a Democratic Convention moniker)

Not exactly.

"The line about how you won't be impacted by the tax hike on corporations unless you buy things from corporations or get a paycheck from one was of course totally dishonest and misleading, but effective."

Please explain how that is dishonest.

It's not. It's exactly right. Not only is it exactly right, it doesn't go far enough. It doesn't talk about the dividends paid to folks with the retirements in funds that invest in these companies. Or the fatter paychecks that go to the fatcat CEOs, that then buy things that employ people, invest in things that employ people and create new technologies and products, and that directly employ folks as assistants and so on. And on, and on, and on.

But making that point here is, well, pointless. It's kind of like holding something directly in a person's blind spot and then asking them to see it. They are going to think you are crazy. There's nothing there, from their point of view. You keep insisting you are holding this thing, and they see you there with empty hands and think you're a nut.

You can illustrate it 9 ways to Sunday. They still won't see it.

Hookers and blow transcend party politics. Who doesn't like to get liquored up or high as a kite and get a quick BJ from your friendly neighborhood escort? Especially in DC?

Some things are truly bi-partisan.

Man, midweek into the RNC and I have never seen such a bunch of jittery, nervous trolls as you have here.
You finally found a way to get a few Republicans to vote for McBush! Relax already!

""The line about how you won't be impacted by the tax hike on corporations unless you buy things from corporations or get a paycheck from one was of course totally dishonest and misleading, but effective."

Please explain how that is dishonest.

It's not. It's exactly right."

No, it isn't. You apparently have the same infantile understanding of economics as many conservatives, so I'll try and explain this to you very simply.

Businesses cannot just charge whatever they want for their product. There is a point where price increases result in lost sales and most companies are already as close to that line as they can get, charging as much for their product as they can. So, if taxes go up on a corporation, they CANNOT simply "pass it on" to the consumer.

Try and wrap your brain around this example - If McDonald's could just raise the price of a cheeseburger by 50 cents to pay for a tax increase...why aren't they already charging that extra 50 cents and pocketing the profit?

There are practical limits on how much businesses can charge for their products, so if their costs go up they can't just "pass it on" to consumers in the simpleminded fashion you seem to believe in.

You can criticize conservative economic ideas, but the real problem is that many conservatives simply don't understand economics and think they do.

Mike

NO, just as they shouldn't have said, we've been reading the DailKos and Andrew Sullivans blogs and they say Governor Palin faked her preganancy to hide her daughters child.

Again, irreversible momentum. The left blogs jumped on it, and then the right blogs jumped in denouncing it. At that point, no one could step back.

One man crying wolf is just that. A whole village crying wolf, even if you know the village is delusional, is something else.

I think the lesson is about feeding the beast. A medium sized beast, you can starve. But a ginormous beast, when it gets hungry, it's going to find vittles (vittels?) one way or another.

Simple question: If the media was all part of a left wing conspiracy on the Edwards Affair, why didn't the right leaning blogs or Fox or NRO jump on it?

Left and right conspiracies were believable in the '90s, but I just don't see it happening anymore.

You can criticize conservative economic ideas, but the real problem is that many conservatives simply don't understand economics and think they do.

Three kinds of people:
1) Those who don't understand economics.
2) Those who do and are in the private sector, making money
and
3) Those who do and are in politics, knowing that group #1 is rather large so they can get away with talking out of their fourth point of contact.

Hello Ezra,

I believe one of the reasons Joe Lieberman has become such an opposition figure to Barak Obama stems from a relationship breakup. When Barak entered the Senate he was paired with Joe in a Senate mentor-mentee relationship (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/nyregion/02lieberman.html). I can only imagine that as Barak's star has ascended, along with his own political inclinations, Joe hsa become more and more embittered by not having/retaining sway.

The hard feelings are probably only compounded by the collegiality and respect shown by Barak. Joe, on the other hand, seems to be spiraling down into an ever-deepening self-parody of a Senator. Sad.

If businesses are indifferent and simply pass the cost along to the consumer, tell me why they spend so much money lobbying against tax cuts and contributing to candidates who support tax cuts and so on.

It's actually "Victuals" just pronounced "vittles"

Re: Hanoi Hilton and "angry left."

I am disgusted though not shocked that my president would equate me to a Vietcong torturer. Fuck yeah I'm angry.

Meanwhile, who was firing tear gas and flash grenades into the crowds? Hint: not liberals.