The model I'd use at this point for non-critical (to them) decisions is a headless chicken running around.

The spinal neurons firing movement here are the second-tier appointees hoping for jobs in the fossil fuel industry.

Lessee....

So, the president disagrees with you and as such, couldn't have an honest opinion that differs from yours. Must be something nefarious, something hidden....escondido!

That about it?

It's self-justification. We so often assume knowing evil intent on the part of conservatives when many of them have convinced themselves that they and their cohorts are correct and are only doing what's right. Even when that's a laughable thought to us, I think that's how a lot of people that have bought into it get through the day. So when the whole thing is coming to a close, if you've been desperately telling yourself that you are doing The Right Thing for the past eight years, are you going to pack it up and go home, or are you going to take one last Hail Mary pass and pretend you've left a legacy of smart governance? It's their last firewall against Obama coming in, cleaning it all up, and showing them they were as wrong as wrong could be.

"I've generally used a mental model of the Bush administration that is deeply corrupt and mainly interested in enriching its friends and assuring its own survival, but we're past all that now."

I guess this helps everything fit into your view of the world. How convenient.

anon / church lady

You got a better model?

I have noticed that when liberals are at odds with Conservatives, they attribute deliberate mal intent to the motives of the conservatives. They believe they are personally evil.

Conversely, when Conservatives discuss the motives of liberals, it's rarely attributed to being an evil person. Conservatives attribute poor judgement, lack of understanding of the issues and generally misguided motives.

what Ryan said - to adopt a sane and responsible policy now would be tantamount to admitting to yourself that you were for eight years motivated solely by kleptocratic villainy.

El V:

Actually, conservatives seem to frame it less kindly than you've put it. See, say, Ann Coulter.

Anyway, the characterizations are inherent in the different perspectives. Liberals think you have to try through policy to attain the greater good, and this may mean some thwarting of individual interest to achieve collective betterment. Conservatives assume that pursuing self -interest either naturally will result in collective betterment, or that it constitutes a greater good in and of itself.

Of course the liberal perspective at its worst leads itself to overthinking, or a "think of the children" response at that cost of hard analysis. The conservative perspective at its worst leads itself to accusations of cronyism, looting, gaming the system and the malintent that you speak of.

Liberals = naive idealists. Conservatives = corrupt bagmen.

Which would you rather be?

I have noticed that when liberals are at odds with Conservatives, they attribute deliberate mal intent to the motives of the conservatives. They believe they are personally evil.

I'm sure your keen conservative mind has noticed much more about us Liberals than just how we ALWAYS relate to those benevelent and peace lovin' conservatives.
As for the "deliberate mal intent(?)" and "personally evil" labels, those are universally applied to the Bushco/Neocon conservatives, you know the war criminals in this (thankfully) departing mis-administration.

(em)Conversely, when Conservatives discuss the motives of liberals, it's rarely attributed to being an evil person.(/em)

Bullshit..Have you been in a coma for the last eight years? Especially through the build-up to dubya's assault on Iraq and even after? When Liberals were called everything from terrorists to scum.

(em)Conservatives attribute poor judgement, lack of understanding of the issues and generally misguided motives.(/em)

Riiiight! Those poor ignorant Liberals! BWAHAHAHAHA!

George The Terrible has previously said he thought his redemption in history was down the road some decades (therefore he'll ignore the blasts from the present).

My theory is that Bush has rankled under Father Reagan's golden reputation among the GOP faithful. He wants to be a better accoladed Reagan.

Behold: Reagan + Mean and Callous = Wingnut Sainthood.

More Polution! More drilling! More corruption! More violation of the the Law! More ignoring the Constitution! Torture Baby! More illiterate speeches! More crony rewards! More Fuck You's to Congress and the Courts!

I think he'll pull it off among the super-con faithful.

I just want to say that the block quotation on this page showed up correctly in Google Reader. Whatever you did, or had done, it fixed the problem. (Apologies if it was fixed a long time ago and I just now saw it.)

But what's happening in Bombay tonight? I thought the election of Obama would end all this. At least, Americans should not be targeted, right? How come they were? We elected Obama! How can it possibly be that there would be any terrorism in the world anymore? Maybe when Gitmo is finally closed, all this will end. Yes, I'm sure that will end it.

Well, Ezra, it all makes sense when we take scorching the planet in context of the greater Biblical narrative of preparing the world for the return of our Lord and Savior, who is just going to incinerate four-fifths of the population of the planet anyway on the road to a thousand years of reruns of the 700 Club. We're just helpin' the old guy along, that's al.

And you betcha, Anonymous, several dozen Indians perished today in a terror attack you say was aimed at Americans. Those Qaeda guys are getting kinda sloppy in their declining years, don't you think?

americans (and brits) were, in fact, both the target and many of the victims. so, way to use the horrible deaths of your fellow-citizens to make a sneering, puerile political point, anon. good show.

It was not a sneering point at all. How is it more sneering than the talk of deaths of U.S. soldiers abroad, or suffering at Gitmo, made by you? What, nothing can be said about this attack? Just mute silence? One has to wonder, if terrorism is on the upsurge, (and that might not be the case) why now, when it seems that the complaints of aggrieved parties will get a more sympathetic hearing? It does suggest, on the surface, that the cowboy stance of America might not have been the main cause of the uproar. Your huffy sanctimony answers nothing, though. You remind me of a third grade hall monitor.

anon, you're asking for too much. Terror will stop when Bush is gone and Obama takes power, to use his phrasing, and not a moment sooner. And using your dead fellow-citizens to make a point? That's what you do to win elections, not in a blog-comment.

On topic: Ezra skips right over offering a defense of the EPA writing and implementing some sort of cap on carbon emissions and gets right to an ignorant dismissal of those who disagree. What's wrong with democracy? You have 58 or 59 or 60 votes in the senate, a large majority in the house, and a new president. Pass a fucking law, and take the heat for it. Don't blame it on a law passed a generation ago that was never intended to address the issue. Why do liberals hate democracy? Should I tell you my theory?

And using your dead fellow-citizens to make a point? That's what you do to win elections, not in a blog-comment.

It was despicable when the Republicans used the deaths of Americans (which happened on their watch) to win elections in 2002 and 2004, and it's despicable when you and Anonymous use it to make sneering, puerile political points now. Both these things are true.