Pangloss

I agree with that. This was a good week for Obama in that regard, and it's reflected in new poll numbers showing him ahead, though I'm afraid much of that came from comparing McCain to Bush on the economy and hitting him on straw men like "he thinks the economy is fine".

Yes I do, and thanks for clarifying. I absolutely agree with you that "the Democrats attempted a compromise and the Republicans acted as if they just got the middle finger." Well put. In my opinion it makes no sense that Republicans rejected this compromise, because it's what they asked for; it's just not all of what they asked for. That's how you do things in a democracy, you accept compromise because it allows you to move forward. The Republican position SHOULD have been "okay we take this and it lets us start drilling, and we can try to get more of these areas opened up in future legislation". What's wrong with that? That approach has been working for 230 years and it BURNS ME UP that they rejected it. It's a complete vindication of everything I've been saying about partisan politics for years. But that doesn't mean there isn't oil closer than 50 miles, and in fact it's not very likely that there isn't any, so really that Stewart piece is just spinning things back in the opposite direction for reasons that are obviously partisan in nature.

When was I ever arguing that? You make that argument frequently, in quotes like these: I understand the sentiment, but it's still wrong. And the examples you gave above are easily offset by examples of media bias and information outlets coming from the left. Not only is it a wash, but it's demonstrably a wash based on the fact that the elections have been so close. The problem isn't lack of ability or outlets for Democrats/liberals to get the message out. It just is not. And it's really unfortunate that so many Democrats and Republicans seem to feel that "the problem" is that we're not getting enough "message" shouted into our faces. I think that says a LOT about what the REAL problem is.

Oy vey, not the old "we have to yell louder because the stupid people are only listening to the Republicans!" argument. Prove it. I could have sworn the last two presidential elections were won by a hair. But hey, maybe I was smokin' somethin'. Like I've said countless times in the past, the conservative talk radio forum is more popular than liberal alternatives. But liberals have the majority of the press and Hollywood in their favor. It's a wash, bro. It just doesn't seem that way to you because of your present bias towards one particular side. At any rate, no matter how badly you need it to be so, two wrongs still doesn't make a right. No matter how bad Republicans cross the line, Democrats don't get a free pass, and vice-versa. It's exactly that kind of thinking, that kind of offset nonsense, that's gotten us into this mess.

(Isn't the bill for drilling between 50 and 100 miles?) I'm not sure I get your drift. Are you suggesting that there may not actually be any oil between 3 and 50 miles? That would be interesting if it's true. (Of course, in this subforum that means that there cannot be any oil between 3 and 50 miles. I mean, geez Pangloss, how much more do you need?!)

Great article, thanks for passing that along. I definitely picked up a couple things from it. Some points that really stuck out in my mind: ABC News did a piece on that the other day adding up all the money that's been spent on bailouts, "bridge loans", new home loan mortgages for hardship cases and other interventions and it added up to almost a trillion dollars. Yikes. This one falls on mainly on Republicans, a few key Democrats, and K Street, IMO. What this basically suggests is that deregulation itself is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact we probably ought to discard the notion of "deregulation" altogether and adopt something more logical, like "right regulation", or "correct regulation" (ok, I'm a long way from the Tipping Point with those phrases, but you get the idea). Obama said something to that effect the other day and I thought it made the point well, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. Anyway, this point from that article was particularly interesting: My goodness, actual sensibility from at least ONE sector of the government! Bascule said something to the same effect the other day -- perhaps a rare moment of Bush administration approval on his part. It's not hard to imagine the serious hole we'd be falling into right now had it not been for these interventions. (But of course had there been correct oversight we wouldn't be in these straights to begin with.) And of course the problems don't stop here. D*mn good questions.

Yeah I saw that the other day after a similar discussion on another site, and was pretty appalled. Even more appalling were the conservatives who tried to tell me that this CNN story about Rove's words... http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/index.html ...was an example of media bias on CNN's part because it didn't include his criticism of Obama's campaign! My reaction to the above story was, "okay, this is a top Republican and a former negative ad master, and HE says McCain is too negative?! -- THAT's the story", i.e. CNN was right on target. (I hope you don't mind my passing that along -- it's not a sneak attempt to actually promote those conservatives' point of view.)

Yeah I cross-posted with iNow up there, so I agree we're at four days. I take your point as solid at the end there: Well put. This is where I agree with bascule as well, and I think Rove took things to a whole new level back in the 2000 campaign. Has anyone else noticed the irony of McCain utilizing attack ads? It's really crushing for this long-time McCain fan to see that sort of thing.

Huh? Those are sources for the regulations themselves. Obviously they predate the story -- one would assume that. They don't say anything when her email account was hacked and when the story came out. You might as well claim that you've been following the story since February 7th, since that date appears in the New York Times story.

What's worse coming from official Republican statements at the moment?

The earliest I saw anything about Palin's email being hacked was yesterday, Wednesday the 17th. I just did a search on Google News on "Palin email" and sorted it by date, and it doesn't go back before the 17th. I believe you that it started a day or two before that, but I'm kinda curious what sites you're reading that had that information before the mainstream media. You're always telling me how non-partisan your news sources are, but that sounds like a blog revelation to me. You should pass that along -- it would stand as evidence that partisanship has merit. Edit: Okay, so four days. Thanks. The story's four days old and you've already drawn conclusions. I think that fact speaks for itself.

Or I'm not as eager to jump on the bandwagon. I'd like to see a source for 'two weeks' of stories on this, please.

Definitely. I found it very confusing trying to figure out what I could buy for my smartphone because the software that was available operated at different levels. Some stuff was designed to run other stuff, whereas other programs were designed to run as standalone, but weren't compatible with interface-replacement programs. It's confusing, and even worse, it's tricky getting back to an operable state if you mess up. It's nothing that any typical technogeek can't handle, but these are phones we're talking about, so they really have to be workable by folks who aren't techno-savvy.

I actually agree with that assessment as being the current state of events. And I think you've already agreed with me that Democrats have behaved that way in the past, so it's perhaps a moot issue. And I think the polls support that view (as contrasted with the polls on Clinton at the end of his presidency, for example). But I feel compelled, perhaps through my own particular brand of anti-partisan partisanship, to refresh my warning about being careful what we wish for. I remember thinking that things would improve when Republicans came to power in 1994, and how disappointing it was when it turned into just a great big opportunity to bash and harass Democrats. Many on the left don't want progress. They want revenge. Those people need to be reigned in. Some examples of Joe Biden throwing out distortive and truth-stretching talking points on the campaign trail: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/stretching_with_biden.html I don't mean to make a straw man, though -- I don't think it's necessarily incorrect to say that Republicans are worse right now. Maybe they are, but at the very least it's a legitimate point of view (not necessarily partisan). This (above) just goes to show that Democrats can be every bit as bad as Republicans, even right now.

It's a developing story and I'm keeping an open mind about it. It just seems to me that many here leaped straight to the worst possible answer without waiting to see if it wasn't just a case of someone not wanting to use a bad email program. And you know what, I'm convinced that's the case, just looking at the timing and rabidness of some of the early replies in this thread. She scares you. You've said so yourselves. So you assumed the worst. That's unfortunate and it's not good politics.

It's a government bureaucracy. That speaks for itself. K. But that's why the issue is front and center.

They are if you're partisan. If you're not partisan, and you understand the problems that partisanship pose, then they are not. No more so than Democrats. So it's okay that they don't rely on reason and evidence? Because I (in your opinion) threw an accusation I couldn't justify? Interesting reasoning. I believe we have a word for that. Something about two of something not equaling one of another? Something like that.

You believe that shifting the balance of power will actually alleviate gridlock? I'm just not sure we live in that world anymore. But yeah, that's why I feel that a dramatic statement is needed in this election. I think most of us here agree that politicians in both parties are out of touch and in dire need of a wake-up call. I think that's what can potentially rescue us from partisan-driven politics -- getting people more or less on the same page, then explaining to congress through non-partisan watchfulness and attention that our tolerance for shenanigans is very low.

It's an invasion of privacy. They're sneaking through exemptions to do-not-call legislation that are intended for either non-partisan political purposes or overt, clearly-stated political campaigns.

Actual evidence? Come on, when somebody makes a statement like that about global warming you're beside yourself in apoplexy. Why is it okay to leap to conclusions here? Can I think of any reason why someone would use their personal email preference instead of a governmentally-mandated email system? Are you kidding? Come on, would you even pose that question if it wasn't a political opponent you're talking about? People prefer some email systems over others. What exactly is the great surprise here? If Joe Biden were being accused of using GMail instead of the Senate email system you'd be telling me about how he prefers the GMail interface over the Senate's ridiculous Outlook Web Access client. This is political wrangling, not logical concern.

If, would, whether, appears. I think there's a point to be made here about whether government officials should use public email accounts for government correspondence, but I think that's a minor, technical issue, not a political issue or a trust issue. Many people simple are not aware of the potential security risks in that area. It's not something that generally affects the average email user, and it's not something that all governments have set policy on yet. My own company just instituted a policy on it earlier this year. If she did something untoward or illegal while using that system, then that's a trust issue and a political issue.

You're absolutely right about those problems, but that wouldn't explain the success of things like ASP or XNA. Microsoft is very innovative in the area of training and education. It's a big part of why they're so good at capturing the lion's share of a market. Sony doesn't dominate the 7th-gen console war, Nintendo does. But yes, a big part of Microsoft's success in maintaining a second-place position with Sony in the war (which isn't a bad thing given the insane expansion of the market in this generation) is the way it has approached development for its platform, making it cheap and easy.

Push polling is a particularly vile and disgusting side of partisan politics. But it is not limited to Republicans.

So why can't we trust her with national secrets?

In the case of Obama, I'd hope for a departure from the reactionary politics of Bush and a move towards a more centrist set of politics.