« It Will Be A Night to Remember | Main | Maverick or Messiah? »


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

You need a break Dave.

1. Obama didn't actually pledge or promise to use public financing. He talked about the possibility of doing so.

2. Bill Kristol? Isn't he like the MOST discredited neo-con out there? Why do you even bother reading him?

3. Sarah Palin? Ha! She is his baby, his creation, his Frankenstein. Of course he's going to push her in 2012.

Memo to the New York Times: Dan the Moderate thinks you are part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Take off the tin foil hat, Dan, and maybe Kenneth will help you find the right frequency.

The difference Reagan and Newt had actually heard of Asia, Europe, and the middle east. Palin is more of a Dan Quayle smart enough but nothing else.

No, Dave. I just think the New York Times made a really bad mistake in hiring Bill Kristol. You know organizations like the NY Times are not monolithic. Even Fox News can surprise you. Like what's his name, Shep Smith. That guy actually gets incredulous when people try to make outrageous claims, thinking it is just Fox News; they could get away with whatever they want. For instance, he had "Joe the Plumber" on with the ridiculous claim that a victory for Obama equals the death of Israel. Shep Smith just couldn't peddle that kind of crap onward and actually pressed "Joe" to explain himself.


Bill Kristol is one of my favorite conservatives...and that is not a long list.

I have not problem with him being partisan. Not like he hides it. His appearance on Jon Stewart last week went a ways toward humanizing him.

Uh, thanks for the survey? You might be a newcomer but the rest of us have already read it front to back.

Peter LLC, I salute you for your good reading habits. That plus a governorship will make you a better VP candidate than Sarah Palin. [Of course the tougher part is getting elected governor, not reading the paper.]

Remember, bloggers are a tough crowd to please. I link to blog commentators and people complain. I link to the NYT and people complain. I suppose some people think the primary purpose of comments is simply to complain. Maybe I'll just focus on posts and ignore the comments.

Bill Kristol once was a thoughtful commentator. Even after the first six months of the Gulf War. It was sometime in the year prior to the 2004 elections while acting as a Fox commentator that he completely and utterly lost it. Just really crappy comments with little or no thought behind it. I think he'd lost complete faith in Bush but basically had a job where he had to defend it. He's a smart guy and I hope he gets back on his game. But the last 5 years he just hasn't been worth reading.

Bob, it's true Palin is way too ignorant to be worth much right now. However she is a skillful politician. Further far too many of her critics have confused ignorant with stupid. I'd lay good bets that three years from now she won't be ignorant and will be playing the "media bias" charge for all she's worth.

Don't get me wrong, I think Palin has zero hope of winning the Republican nomination in 2012. One thing that the media (or Obama) never got into was her abortion position which is far more radical than most people are comfortable with. (No abortion even in terms of rape or incest and a very skeptical view towards health of the mother) Regardless of what you may be comfortable with that's a position more radical than most Republicans are comfortable with let alone independents or Democrats.

Likewise in 2012 all the Republicans who wouldn't have anything to do with this election because of Bush's "legacy" will be running against Obama and whatever problems he is having. Likewise there will be new names in Washington and Palin will have a hard time remaining a national figure. So I suspect things will be much more competetive. Don't get me wrong, I think many will underestimate her. But I think the odds are against her unless she manages some serious reinvention.

Well, suit yourself, but the NYT isn't exactly, well, news.

Obama didn't actually pledge or promise to use public financing. He talked about the possibility of doing so.

In February 2007 Obama challenged all Republican candidates to agree not to take public financing. A few months later he promised the Midwest Democracy Network in writing, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

He never even tried. More here.


What he promised was that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement" not actually promised to use public financing. Don't misquote him, and don't accuse him of backing off public financing. He didn't promise to use public financing but that he would find a way to work with Republicans on public financing. That's a different issue.

In any case, most Americans don't seem to really care. Frankly, I hope public financing goes the way of the dodo bird.

On the eve of the election (and all too late) a bit of truth hits the fan:


I voted for Obama, but c'mon, he did back off a pledge to work towards an agreement on public financing. And I'm glad he did. He'd have been stupid not to once he saw what was possible.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Now Reading

General Books 09-12

General Books 06-08

General Books 04-05

About This Site

Mormon Books 2015-16

Mormon Books 2013-14

Science Books

Bible Books

Mormon Books 2012

Mormon Books 2009-11

Mormon Books 2008

Mormon Books 2007

Mormon Books 2006

Mormon Books 2005

Religion Books 09-12

Religion Books 2008

Religion Books 2004-07

DMI on Facebook

Blog powered by Typepad