Left/Right blogs

Are there other blogs where people from different ends of the political spectrum banter and discuss? I've seen sites that have areas cordoned off for writers from the left and writers from the right, but they don't talk to each other. I haven't seen others doing what we've been up to. Can't say I've looked all that much, though.

Michael's and my grandparents were dedicated to opposing parties. Our grandmother was a Republican and our grandfather, a labor union leader, was a Democrat. They both voted reliably to be sure to cancel out one another's votes. But I don't recall them ever arguing about politics. I spent a fair amount of time with them watching the Watergate hearings, which were no end of amusement to Grandpa. Maybe that wasn't much fun for Grandma.

The way the free market should work

From Drudge today:

Re: Suffocation

I have no idea about those numbers but have every inclination to believe that they are higher than we are led to believe.

To mix our metaphors, we've got to stop the bleeding. These bailouts have to stop if not repealed. Paulson seems to have no idea what he's doing. I choked on President Bush's homage to capitalism yesterday. Pay-go seems to have disappeared completely (not that I ever really believed it more than a game). Social Security and Medicare are a current mess and future disaster.

We are spiraling toward a Eutopia. Let's just take the system that has brought more wealth to more people in the history of the planet--a system where the poorest are overweight, have cell phones, a car and air conditioning--and just flush it. Fine.

Heaven help our children.

Suffocating

Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) writing at HuffPo:

It is the Financial Report of the U.S. Government, issued by the U.S. Treasury and signed by Secretary Henry Paulson. It is the only official government document that uses audited, accrual accounting to describe America's financial position.

It is also one of Washington's best-kept secrets. Neither Bush nor Paulson has mentioned it publicly because it reveals national deficits and debts that are much larger than the public has been told. The media have unwittingly participated in the cover-up.

Last year's Report said that the true national debt or "fiscal gap" was not $4 trillion, or even $9 trillion, but $53 trillion. Understanding the difference between these numbers is vital. Does America have a bad cold, the flu, or is it cancer?

We owe $4 trillion if you don't count the $5 trillion that the federal government has already borrowed from the Social Security "trust fund." Many economists say that you don't need to count intra-governmental borrowing, and politicians love the smaller figure. But seniors will demand their full Social Security checks. To protect them, we must recognize that we have borrowed the full $9 trillion.

Even the $9 trillion figure is misleading if you add this year's bailouts and war expenses. The official U.S. debt ceiling was recently raised to $11.3 trillion. In addition, Medicare is facing a shortfall of $30 trillion that the usual Washington budgets fail to recognize. This, plus other entitlement program shortfalls, means that our true fiscal gap is $53 trillion.

Please stop; I can’t breathe

Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush today urged leaders of the world's biggest economies not to abandon free- market capitalism as they seek an escape from the financial crisis, calling it the "best system'' for delivering growth.

Re: the Tin Cup

Silly me, I forgot all about the cities:

The Detroit City Council passed a resolution today calling for a $10-billion bailout for the city of Detroit.

After Auto--the Next Bailout?

Who will next appear with cup in hand? Airlines?

Re: Dime Bags

The Holy Cow post was a hoax/parody.

I can't

express how sad this makes me. I'm done here. I'll explain it later, but you must know that it has nothing to do with the arguments and name calling, which I relish more than you do.

Whitey tape: the ghost of Lee Atwater?

Just caught the last 20 minutes of Boogie Man, the documentary about Lee Atwater. It took my breath away to hear about how Atwater was behind a "story" that broke during the 1988 race that there existed a photo of Kitty Dukakis burning a flag. Of course there was no such photo.

Sound anything like the "story" about Michelle Obama's "whitey" tape?

Newt v. Steele

The vote is on.

My personal preference is Steele because of my late grandmother's extreme dislike of Newt, in spite of her basic conservatism. Newt is clearly one of the better thinkers of the right but he has far too much baggage.

My only Steele reluctance is his race. Not because he's African-American but but because his African-Americanishness might be perceived as some kind of calculated response to the President-elect.

Suggestions welcomed

I'm getting a bit bored with the songs on my iPod and will be doing a revamping of my playlists. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I would welcome suggestions on songs/artists to add. I have a wide, varied and at times, eclectic taste in music. To give everyone an idea, here is a partial listing of the artists currently in my rotation:

10,000 Maniacs
50Cent
A Perfect Circle
ABBA
AC/DC
Alanis Morissette
Alison Krauss
Annie Lennox
Asleep at the Wheel
Barry White
Bauhaus
Beastie Boys
Black Sabbath
Bob Dylan
Bryan Ferry
Cowboy Junkies
David Bowie
Depeche Mode
Edith Piaf
Eminem
Erasure
Fiona Apple
Janis Joplin
Jay-Z
Joe Jackson
Johhny Cash
Joni Mitchell
Joy Division
k.d. lang
Led Zeppelin
Marvin Gaye
Metallica
N.W.A.
Neil Diamond
Nine Inch Nails
No Doubt
Oasis
Pink Floyd
Prince
Radiohead
Roxy Music
Snoop Dogg
Smashing Pumpkins
The Cure
The Killers
The Smiths
Tool
U2
White Stripes
Willie Nelson
Wynonna Judd
Yeah Yeah Yeahs
some misc Bollywood
Broadway soundtrack of Evita

I have only 2 restrictions: (1) no Christian music (2) no Bela Fleck.

Thanks in advance.

Exuberance

LJ, you're certainly entitled to your exuberance but I find it curious from a guy who, less than three weeks ago, was undecided. I assume it is more just disgust with Republicans than joy over the victory, or, did your views change markedly in the last couple of weeks?

I've voted for the lesser of two evils in the last five elections. The last time I was excited as the left seems to be was in 1988 when I thought President Bush the Elder was a genuine conservative. I was wrong though he got Justice Thomas right.

The autism spectrum

Benedict Carey at the NYT today highlights a big new idea that links autism and schizophrenia, putting them at opposite ends of a spectrum of behaviors that have genetic foundations. This is just an idea at this point, but fascinating.

I have a friend who works with autistic kids in the public schools so she's always noticing and pointing out behaviors that show we all lie somewhere on the autism spectrum. I, for example, flap my hands a bit when extremely time-crunched.

Bush's "Conservatism"

From Goldberg's LA Times column:

Bush's brand of conservatism was always a controversial innovation on the right. Recall that in 2000 he promised to be a "different kind of Republican," and he kept his word. His partner in passing the No Child Left Behind Act was liberal Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. Bush's prescription drug benefit -- the largest expansion of entitlements since the Great Society -- was hugely controversial on the right. He signed the McCain-Feingold bill to the dismay of many Republicans who'd spent years denouncing campaign-finance "reform" as an assault on freedom of speech. The fight over his immigration plan nearly tore the conservative movement apart.
…
And Bush admitted as much [compassion=large gov’t programs]. In an interview with the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes, Bush explained that he rejected William F. Buckley's brand of anti-government conservatism. Conservatives had to "lead" and to be "activist," he said. In 2003, Bush proclaimed that when "somebody hurts" government has to "move." This wasn't a philosophy of government as much as gooey marketing posing as principle. Ronald Reagan would have spontaneously burst into flames if he'd uttered such sentiments.

Someone in Canada has way too much time on her/his hands

An SSJ visitor:

Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
Canada (Facts)
State/Region
:
Ontario
City
:


Internet Explorer 7.0Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; GoogleT5; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
:
32 bits
Time of Visit

Nov 11 2008 8:31:05 am
Last Page View

Nov 11 2008 11:12:29 am
Visit Length

2 hours 41 minutes 24 seconds
Page Views

49

President-elect Obama may keep Gates on for a year

From the WSJ. H/t: HotAir.

That would be a great decision and would give me some real assurance about how President-elect Obama views the dangers we face.

Update: Had to love this part:

Still, speculation that Mr. Gates would remain in the job increased over the weekend when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) endorsed the idea in a CNN interview. "Why wouldn't we want to keep him?" Sen. Reid said. "He's never been a registered Republican."

Pollsters accuracy

Kos provides this tally of the big polls on their national numbers for the presidential race:

Not every ballot has been counted, so the national popular vote percentages may continue to shift. But as of now, here are the pollsters ranked by how far off the mark they ended up:

CNN: 0.5
Ipsos: 0.5
Pew: 0.7
Rasmussen: 0.7
ARG: 1.5
Research 2000: 1.7
ABC: 2.5
IBD: 2.7
Hotline: 3.7
Gallup: 4.5
Zogby: 4.5
Battleground: 5.7
CBS: 5.7
Fox: 5.7

Olbermann on gay marriage

Holy Cow

CLARIFICATION: Everything in this post is a HOAX/PARODY.


"While a state congressman, Barack Obama used to pimp out his wife Michelle and his two young daughters on the streets of Chicago for dime bags of crack."

Stunning, if it's true. Steph, I think you should be able to get your money back. I'm guessing you wouldn't have contributed had you known that he was pimping out his wife and two young daughters on the streets of Chicago for dime bags of crack. True or not, the party is destroying him by telling these tales.

This reporting is coming from various sources, including Newsweek. I guess they will now be lumped into the ever-expanding list of "conservative media" outlets. He is woefully un-qualified for the office of president. If he pimped out his wife and two young daughters on the streets of Chicago for dime bags of crack, I would suggest to you that he isn't qualified to be the mayor of Chicago. Then again, Chicago has been electing corrupt politicians forever. Guess things are VERY different up there.

There's speculation that the sources for these stories were fans of Hillary’s so they're sandbagging him on behalf of Hill with an eye to 2012. But the DNC is dispatching lawyers to Illinois to look into it which sounds more like a full-party effort to undo him.

I heard this subject discussed today on a leftie radio program. Their answer was, of course, no they did not have a duty to replace him. Here was the reasoning: If you (Biden) felt that you were better for the country as Vice-President than Palin, then you say nothing because if you do, you lose. If you win and Obama becomes President, the WH has people that can and will tell him to stop pimping out his wife and two young daughters for dime bags of crack.

Not quite sure I followed that logic, but they are grasping at anything try and not blame Cokehead Barry.

Not that I'm a prayerful person, but if I were, I would pray to whomever that Obama runs in 2012. If he is the best the lefties can come up with, THAT is the ultimate clue to show how far the Democrat party has fallen. Talking about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Can we agree on this?

If it is true that campaign staff learned that Obama pimped out his wife and two young daughters for dime bags of crack, did they not have a responsibility to the people of this country to replace him on the ticket? Was it OK for them to view this as simply an adversarial process where they had the right to try to win with him?

I say they had a duty to replace him.

And what I'm trying to ask shouldn't be a partisan question. Does a party have a smidgeon of a fiduciary duty to provide candidates with enough crack so they don’t have to pimp out their wives and young daughters for dime bags of crack? (And, btw, I would not be surprised if his crack habit started at Columbia with Ayers.) I suspect we haven't thought about it before because the parties have never submitted someone so thoroughly hooked on crack.

Hey I’m not slandering Obama, the DNC did. I'm asking an earnest question: did your party have a fiduciary duty to remove him when they learned he was pimping out his wife and two young daughters for dime bags of crack?

Per CNN, on the Obama infighting:

One source involved in preparing him for interviews and the presidential debate told CNN "he had been pimping out his wife and two young daughters for dime bags of crack for 10 years."

Priceless.

It's a hoax

and you wanted so much to believe the worst you fell for it. I told you immediately it was bs and so did Scooter. Retractions anyone?

More at Hot Air.

Semper Fi

Because Dad was a Marine, this is my obligatory and joyous link from Hot Air on the Corp's 233rd birthday. OORAH!

(I hate doing that last part since not having served is still my greatest regret.)

Howard Dean

Congrats to Governor Dean...stepping down after an extremely successful campaign. H/T Hot Air.

Re: Another Day

Iain Murray at the Corner has more thoughts from PJ O'Rourke and a new to me blogger:

If I hear one more conservative pundit say "conservatives are the adults at this party" (or a similar thought), I'm gonna haul off.

I loved the MLK quote. She's right, too. If you're an adult, act like one.

Udate: I'd have used "Republicans" in the internal quote. I wouldn't call them genuine conservatives.

Re: Another Day, Another Bailout

The more I think about Stephanie's post [Update/correction, just noticed it was LJ's post] the angrier I get at my political "heroes." Who would have thought I'd be praising Circuit City for doing the honorable thing and committing economic hari kari today? This is how it is supposed to work.

If you have a bad business model, you fail. You're assets are then scooped up by evil capitalists looking to put those assets to a better use.

If the "big" three are to be bailed out, and they shouldn't be, any money should be conditioned upon the immediate removal of the CEO, CFO, COO, President or all VPs (there has to be some continuity I suppose), and one-half the board. Also, the top officers of the union should be required to resign.

Alternative II: just sign all the stock over to the employees and former employees and say, "Here, have a go."

While Stephanie and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum, we both saw the prudence of slowing down in September. This is just insane.

Kristol on Emanuel

Kristol says something that should be reassuring to Michael and Scooter:

His selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff suggests that Obama’s not going to be mindlessly leftist, and that he’s going to shape a legislative strategy that is attentive to Congressional realities while not deferring to a Congressional leadership whose interests may not be his own.

But Kristol turns out to be wrong in his predictions about 90% of the time. So now I'm wondering whether your fear might be justified.

Another day, another bailout

So AIG is getting ANOTHER bailout from the Treasury Department. OK, it may not be another one, but just a restructure of the original one. As I have stated earlier on these pages, I thought the cornerstone of the Republican/Conservative ideal was less government, free-market, yadda yadda yadda. Yea, right.

Up next on the bail-out list will be the auto industry. I'm sure the line of companies/industries with their hand out is a long one. Way to stick up for your principles, righties. You have become very good at rationalizing these breaks from conservative tenants.

Gloating post of the day

A classic Top Ten list from Dave: