The Week in Blog: Government Dirt

[Bloggingheads]

[violetcrown]

I agree with Conn that I don't remember "Liberals Gleeful over Abramoff" headlines, but the "Conservatives Gleeful..." headings seem only as annoying as "Liberals Chafe at Obama Cabinet..."

It seems more like a problem with news/blogosphere meta-stories than liberal bias. No?

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by violetcrown

I agree with Conn that I don't remember "Liberals Gleeful over Abramoff" headlines, but the "Conservatives Gleeful..." headings seem only as annoying as "Liberals Chafe at Obama Cabinet..."

I'm sure you've read a lot of headlines you don't recall.

As it happens, just about an hour ago I was curious what Ann Althouse had to say about Patrick Fitzgerald back when he was going after Scooter Libby. And she said this:

Originally Posted by Ann Althouse

Earlier in the day, there was glee from some quarters when the Court of Appeals denied Libby's motion for release pending appeal.

Then, in the comments:

Originally Posted by Ann Althouse

And I do not like the glee on either side over this. I find partisanship disgusting and immoral in the criminal context.

Some of her commenters:

Originally Posted by Internet Ronin

those who are busy spewing their seething hatred, or tap-dancing with partisan glee, as a result of this don't care and never will understand.

Originally Posted by DKWalser

What I find disgusting was the glee on the left that Libby was going to serve jail time. Since when is someone going to jail something to be celebrated? Even when justified, a jail sentence is not something to be handed down with jubilation. It's something to be mourned. The dancing on Libby's grave was more than a tad unseemly.

It strikes me that too many have been viewing this think as if it were a football game. They shout for joy when something bad happens to the other team. In this case, such merriment is completely out of place. It would be like Giant's fans cheering when Joe Theismann's leg was snapped by Lawrence Taylor's tackle.

Originally Posted by John Stodder

We need to step back from the brink here. The liberal glee at putting Libby in prison is disgusting, but no more disgusting than the right's glee at the legal problems of the Clinton administration. I mean...Mike Espy? Henry Cisneros? All those now anonymous aides to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton who had to go out of pocket for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills due to the obviously political Whitewater and Lewinsky cases?

It's creepy that anyone in the political arena would take joy in the imprisoning of the loyal opposition, the ruining of lives for a cheap headline and a talking point.

[bjkeefe]

Thank you, Bill.

I have been saying the same thing to Conn ever since he started working at Heritage. Who knows? Maybe this time it will work. Presumably, even Heritage's budget for sneering and sarcasm has some upper bound.

[bjkeefe]

Conn:

Your reporting of the Change.gov/questions about Bagojevich issue was remarkably dishonest, even by your gutter-level standards. So the rightwing noise machine has devolved to equating voting with "censorship," is that it?

Bill:

I'm sorry to have to stop listening to you, but I can't take Conn anymore. Please find someone else to talk to. Conn Carroll makes Michael Goldfarb seem like a decent human being. I don't know how you put up with him. More to the point, I don't know why you do.

For the rest of you:

Don't miss John Cole's two posts on this matter, here and here.

[Jyminee]

BJ, not sure why Conn drove you over the edge in these one--as a liberal, I thought he was being pretty reasonable.

Will a panel of federal experts truly be able to distinguish the good bike trails from the bad ones? I have my doubts. Just look at the awful legacy of '60s-era urban renewal, how all the best and the brightest planners thought bulldozing neighborhoods to build highways and government housing was a great idea. We're still trying to repair the damage from those disastrous choices.

Now obviously we're smarter than we were 40 years ago, but I'm still very unconvinced that experts in a room in DC will be able to quickly make great decisions about how to spend all this money.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Jyminee

BJ, not sure why Conn drove you over the edge in these one--as a liberal, I thought he was being pretty reasonable.

Will a panel of federal experts truly be able to distinguish the good bike trails from the bad ones? I have my doubts. [...]

That's not the part that caused me to give up on the diavlog. I don't expect anything different from Conn on this issue, although as Bill noted, criticism would be more meaningful from someone who didn't come to the table determined to do nothing but smirk, roll his eyes, and parrot decades-old Heritage Foundation talking points.

What drove me over the edge was Conn's blatantly inaccurate version of the Change.gov story. Uncle Eb has already spelled out why Blagojevich doesn't bear much talking about, especially in connection with Obama, and especially on that site. My irritation was compounded by Conn's display of the typical wingnut instinct to cry "censorship" the moment the rest of us say the stupid shit they're trying to force into the conversation is not worth talking about. Especially when the evidence is out there (via) that those asking the dumb questions were likely there just to cause trouble. As I understand it, when the wingnuts aren't around to play their little games, the discussion on Change.gov is quite good.

As for the issue of bike paths (as symbolic of a larger program of investing in infrastructure), pampl put it pretty well. Maybe experts won't get everything right, but I have yet to hear a better idea than letting the best-qualified give it their best shot. That mistakes have been made in the past is not a sufficient argument for doing nothing for the rest of eternity, and if the past eight years have not convinced you that concentrated neglect by the government and non-stop invocations of the magical free market pony is not the way to go, I don't know what will.

[uncle ebeneezer]

I can only applaud this emphasis on a complete non-story, by the Conservative wingnutia. I can only assume that this means that the war(s), recession, bailout, global warming, Israel/Palestine etc., were sufficiently remedied at some point when I wasn't watching. And seeing as how the GOP is driving this issue, I can only assume that they played a large role in solving all those pesky problems once and for all. Thanks guys. "Country first" is obviously not just a slogan to you.

Seriously, look at the biggest storylines that the wingnuts have obsessed over duting the past 9 months or so. Reverend wright, Bill Ayers, Obama's birth certificate, Blagojovic... All the really pressing issues of the day, no?

Can we finally put the phrase "party of big ideas", out to pasture?

[Eastwest]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Bill:

I'm sorry to have to stop listening to you, but I can't take Conn anymore. Please find someone else to talk to. .... I don't know how you put up with him. More to the point, I don't know why you do.

I'd like to second this assessment: Conn may be plenty intelligent, but intelligence alone is not enough: Conn consistently uses his intelligence in the service of spewing polarizing ideology, taking IMHO positions which are intellectually dishonest just for the sake of maintaining a constant barrage of right-wing talking points. Consequence: He's become just a mouth-for-hire, prostituting his intelligence. If he's in such desperate circumstances that he has to keep doing that to keep getting his paycheck, fine. But why in hell should we have to keep listening to that week after week?

To me, "This Week in Blog" has become just another wasted day on BHTV. If there were other DVs to choose from, so you could just tune out "This Week's Conn Carrol Foaming-at-the-Mouth Right-Wing Blather," then it wouldn't be so bad.

So long, been good to know you...

EW

[Incompetence Dodger]

I'll third the assessment. Although to be fair, Conn never was on board the McCain bandwagon, and so never engaged in the kind of epic hackery that Michael Goldfarb did. As a result, from about the conventions to the first TWIB after the election I though Conn was pretty intellectually honest, at least in relative terms. He's sure snapped out of it, though. I found him irritating before for all the reasons Eastwest noted, but it's apparent that he's going to be an order of magnitude more aggravating when he's outside the tent pissing in.

I'm all for having thoughtful, intellectually honest, added-value conservatives on BHtv, in fact, I think it's vital. I never would have believed it, but I now really look forward to David Frum's appearances, and Eli Lake's journey from gleeful mustache-twirling verbal-bomb-throwing neocon to, well, whatever it is he's becoming has been fascinating. Reihan's a hoot, to understate the case. Pure hacks like Conn, Goldfarb, Jonah etc., on the other hand, only ever deserved the megaphone because of their (or at least their organizations') access to those in power, and the fact that their crazy actually had some possibility of real-world implementation. That's all over now, though (at least as of Jan. 20). What's the rationale now?

As an aside, I think maybe part of what's gotten under Brendan's skin is the fact that we've had Megan, Goldfarb, and Conn three days in a row, although personally, I'd put Megan in a separate category.

Operation Shun, Bob. If not now, then when?

Originally Posted by Eastwest

I'd like to second this assessment: Conn may be plenty intelligent, but intelligence alone is not enough: Conn consistently uses his intelligence in the service of spewing polarizing ideology, taking IMHO positions which are intellectually dishonest just for the sake of maintaining a constant barrage of right-wing talking points. Consequence: He's become just a mouth-for-hire, prostituting his intelligence. If he's in such desperate circumstances that he has to keep doing that to keep getting his paycheck, fine. But why in hell should we have to keep listening to that week after week?

To me, "This Week in Blog" has become just another wasted day on BHTV. If there were other DVs to choose from, so you could just tune out "This Week's Conn Carrol Foaming-at-the-Mouth Right-Wing Blather," then it wouldn't be so bad.

So long, been good to know you...

EW

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Incompetence Dodger

I'll third the assessment. Although to be fair, Conn never was on board the McCain bandwagon, and so never engaged in the kind of epic hackery that Michael Goldfarb did. As a result, from about the conventions to the first TWIB after the election I though Conn was pretty intellectually honest, at least in relative terms.

A fair point. I'll give him that.

As an aside, I think maybe part of what's gotten under Brendan's skin is the fact that we've had Megan, Goldfarb, and Conn three days in a row ...

Probably hasn't helped. Add Ben Smith to that list, too, as far as boosting irritation goes.

[Baltimoron]

The Boards are like the canary in the coal mine, warning me if I should bother to listen to a particular diavlog. I ran, and I'm still avoiding this one (and, I should have avoided the Goldfarb farce, too). Worse, I have to field questions about these American news items, and now I have to waste good verbiage on this shit!

The only good response to this tiny "scandal" is comedic. Unfortunately, no pro would waste his/her time, so it's left to Jon Stewart. But, David Brooks and Mark Shields did hit the right note, too.

http://www.radicalcontrapositions.co...3/blago-moron/

I was just watching Gonzo before checking the Boards. It's a shame I can't buy firearms in Busan!

[TwinSwords]

Conn, proud of his stupid argument: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/164...1:37&out=11:47

There was a wingnut here in the forum the other day making the same dumb argument: Democrats are against roads. These are idiotic strawmen. (The arguments, I mean.)

[Michael]

Wow...Michael Goldfarb´s white T-shirt is something new that we don´t see anywhere anymore...maybe he is cold, but it sure is hot!...Ann Althouse, take note. Good blog guys.

[pampl]

It's true that experts won't be able to make perfect decisions about where to spend the money. They're still a better bet than a deeply anti-intellectual "Hayekian libertarian" who has no knowledge of or interest in the decision making process

[harkin]

Hang in there Conn, this is just the weekly condemnation from the intolerant left here which, while noisy, rarely back up anything they say. Anytime they disagree with someone taking part in a civil discussion here, they ask Bob or the person participating with them to banish them. It's like CAs 'No On 8' torch-bearers having people fired for contributing to the 'Yes' fund. 'We disagree with you, you must vanish'.

While I find Bill's assertion that the answer to why there were no 'Liberals Gleeful' headlines over Abramoff was because 'no one cared what liberals thought' is dishonest, I don't want his voice cut off.

Originally Posted by harkin

Hang in there Conn, this is just the weekly condemnation from the intolerant left here which, while noisy, rarely back up anything they say.

I second that.
Both Week in Blog as a show and Conn Carroll's own performance are getting better and better with each passing week. Other than his views on Russo-Georgian conflict, Conn has been right on every single issue of the day - relentlessly rubbing liberals' faces in their own stupidity. And the polar bear loathing is pure gold.
Keep up the good work, Conn!

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by JoeK

I second that. [...]

Much of what I said to harkin applies to you, too, Joe.

If all you want to do is go "Hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo!" when someone says something you already believe, you've got Fox News and just about all of AM radio serving it up 24/7. Why do you need to come here, too, to hear the same old same old over and over again? Are you that insecure in your beliefs? Have you no interest in listening to something that you can't root for without worry?

I would rather have BH.tv try to stay above the usual blather. I like to have my views challenged and informed by people with whom I don't agree, or by people who know about things that I don't. I would have no interest in, say, a liberal diavlogger coming on to spout talking points about the incompetence of the Bush Administration, the evils of Big Oil, or the hypocrisy of televangelists. What would be the point?

By that token, I don't see what Conn offers. I can predict what he'll say on any given issue or news item. His entire shtick is exactly the same week to week -- say government=bad, prefer nitpicking and sarcasm over actual discussion, and toss in a few cherry-picked items from Chris Bowers or Matt Stoller, presumably, in a lame effort to show that "liberals agree" with Heritage Foundation claptrap.

I told harkin that I had some faint hope that one day he'd realize the need to have his views reinforced on a weekly basis might cause him to reexamine their worth. Your closing lines about liberals being stupid and polar bears worthy of loathing do not make me feel the same way about you.

Enjoy your cocoon as long as it lasts.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Much of what I said to harkin applies to you, too, Joe.

If all you want to do is go "Hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo!" when someone says something you already believe, you've got Fox News and just about all AM radio serving it up 24/7. Why do you need to come here, too, to hear the same old same old over and over again? Are you that insecure in your beliefs? Have you no interest in listening to something that you can't root for without worry?

I would rather have BH.tv try to stay above the usual blather. I like to have my views challenged and informed by people with whom I don't agree, or by people who know about things that I don't. I would have no interest in, say, a liberal diavlogger coming on to spout talking points about the incompetence of the Bush Administration, the evils of Big Oil, or the hypocrisy of televangelists. What would be the point?

By that token, I don't see what Conn offers. I can predict what he'll say on any given issue or news item. His entire shtick is exactly the same week to week -- say government=bad, prefer nitpicking and sarcasm over actual discussion, and toss in a few cherry-picked items from Chris Bowers or Matt Stoller, presumably, in a lame effort to show that "liberals agree" with Heritage Foundation claptrap.

I told harkin that I had some faint hope that one day he'd realize the need to have his views reinforced on a weekly basis might cause him to reexamine their worth. Your closing lines about liberals being stupid and polar bears worthy of loathing do not make me feel the same way about you.

Enjoy your cocoon as long as it lasts.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...Bhtv is in danger of becoming just another conservative echo chamber and right wingers who follow bhtv and like Conn Carrol are just too afraid to get out of their cocoon. Give me a break.
It’s not my fault that a Republican pundit holding a party line (which I don't concede is what Conn is doing) is still more reasonable, intelligent and entertaining than a liberal supposedly thinking out of the box.

[uncle ebeneezer]

Disagree completely. The best BHeads are the ones who despite their beliefs, are willing to step away from the stereotypes and talking points of their respective parties and engage in the middle in an interesting exchange of viewpoints, challenging each other's premises, as well as their own. This is why Conn is so weak. He clings desperately to every liberal stereotype he can muster and absolutely refuses to ever even attempt to get into a discussion from any direction other than his pre-approved way of framing it. It makes him incredibly predictable and mostly boring. Given the nature of TWIB, there's going to be more nonsense stories than on other episodes, but still, Conn's Kausian obsessions with focussing on the most insignificant issues (but ones that the Heritage folks have decided "matter") we get alot more hourlong, page 6-style talking point memo episodes.

That said, I have no urge to ban Conn, I just watch these blogs selectively.

I have to agree that between Goldfarb, Smith, McCardle and Conn, this has been one of the more irritating weeks in BH history that I can imagine.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by harkin

... this is just the weekly condemnation from the intolerant left here which, while noisy, rarely back up anything they say.

I dispute this. If you look back to past TWiB threads, you'll see plenty of posts from me and many others where Conn's claims are rebutted on the merits. It is more accurate to say that I, and I suspect most others, have grown weary of the effort. It's not like Conn will ever change his stance, as long as he's collecting a paycheck from Heritage at least, and it appears that Bob Wright doesn't care that most of his viewers have grown weary of the same old talking points. Or maybe Bob just doesn't know enough thoughtful conservatives who would agree to come on BH.tv.

Anytime they disagree with someone taking part in a civil discussion here, they ask Bob or the person participating with them to banish them.

And speaking of the same old talking points being repeated ad infinitum ...

I know you're only comfortable when you're wearing your victim hat, harkin, and I doubt my repeating this will ever cause you to take it off, but once more, for the record: There is a difference between calling for someone to be "banished" for expressing views that I don't agree with, and asking for a replacement who shows some capacity for independent and original thought. Presumably, there are conservatives out there who can do this, although I suspect you'd probably not agree that they're conservatives, since you only seem to approve of diavloggers who do nothing but recite the bullet points of your preferred dogma.

Sorry to hear that you need to have your views reinforced so frequently. Perhaps someday this need will make you realize that they ought to be questioned. I'm not holding my breath, but there's always hope.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Or maybe Bob just doesn't know enough thoughtful conservatives who would agree to come on BH.tv.

One can hardly fault Bob for the shortage of thoughtful conservatives. ;-)

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

One can hardly fault Bob for the shortage of thoughtful conservatives. ;-)

Cheap and easy. I like.

But seriously, they're out there. Modulo the purity tests mandated by the Palin- and "Joe" the "Plumber"-led slobbering fringe, of course.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Cheap and easy. I like.

But seriously, they're out there. Modulo the purity tests mandated by the Palin- and "Joe" the "Plumber"-led slobbering fringe, of course.

What is the chance of Joe the Plumber making Time's man of the year? Slim, I am afraid.
I have always liked the man, but after his recent criticism of McCain, he has my true admiration.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by JoeK

What is the chance of Joe the Plumber making Time's man of the year? Slim, I am afraid.

This is how you measure the worth of someone? Just ... wow.

I have always liked the man, but after his recent criticism of McCain, he has my true admiration.

So, not only are you a fan of someone who takes pride in his own ignorance, lies about his own station in life, and who shows an utter lack of shame at being a media whore; you also admire backstabbing and kicking a man when he's down?

Love those conservative "values."

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

This is how you measure the worth of someone? Just ... wow.



So, not only are you a fan of someone who takes pride in his own ignorance, lies about his own station in life, and who shows an utter lack of shame at being a media whore; you also admire backstabbing and kicking a man when he's down?

Love those conservative "values."

Would you remind me when Joe the Plumber took pride in his own ignorance? There is lot of talk about anti-intellectualism of the right wingers. I don't think that is the same as embracing ignorance and dismissing knowledge. On the contrary, conservatives, even those who are formally less educated, sincerely believe that liberal intelligentsia is bunch of know-nothings. That is especially true when it comes to economics, area in which Joe the Plumber was the most vocal.
That he takes his own beliefs on economic policies seriously, Joe the Plumber proved when he publicly, without fake sentimentality, criticized McCain. I don’t see opportunism in what Joe the Plumber did during and after campaign. Call me naïve. Anyways, that’s beside the point. Returning Republicans to small-government conservatism is what I am hoping for and everything the Plumber’s done so far I see as working toward that goal.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by JoeK

Would you remind me when Joe the Plumber took pride in his own ignorance?

It's his whole affect. I am going to decline offering examples, since I'm sure you'd reject them based on what else you have to say:

There is lot of talk about anti-intellectualism of the right wingers. I don't think that is the same as embracing ignorance and dismissing knowledge. On the contrary, conservatives, even those who are formally less educated, sincerely believe that liberal intelligentsia is bunch of know-nothings. That is especially true when it comes to economics, area in which Joe the Plumber was the most vocal.

Moving on ...

That he takes his own beliefs on economic policies seriously, Joe the Plumber proved when he publicly, without fake sentimentality, criticized McCain.

I don't remember a whole heckuva lot of this happening during the campaign, at least not until it became obvious even to people of "Joe's" ilk that McCain had no hope of winning. If you remember it differently, fine, but I doubt I'll ever think of Samuel Wurzbacher as anything other than a purely self-interested opportunist in this regard. He was happy to be McCain's stage prop, campaign icon, and eventually, de facto spokesman, for a long time. And only when riding on the Straight Talk Express proved to be a ticket to nowhere did he ... what's that phrase you all love so much? ... throw McCain under the bus.

Call me naïve.

As you wish.

Anyways, that’s beside the point. Returning Republicans to small-government conservatism is what I am hoping for and everything the Plumber’s done so far I see as working toward that goal.

Yeah, well, there's not much point in our talking about this one. I can respect this as an ideal, and even as a long term goal, but given the growth of government under recent Republican presidents and the boom in K Street -- especially pronounced when the GOP held Congress -- I think it's an unrealistic expectation.

Further, given the realities of growing income disparity, crumbling infrastructure, an ongoing energy problem, the looming perils of climate change, and many other woes that aren't going to be solved by free market pixie dust, I don't have any patience for the view that says "shrink the government, and all will be well." I don't like the bloat of the government any better than you do, in the abstract, but I have yet to hear of a better proposal for obtaining consistent and effective collective action on any of the problems facing us.

The choices, as I see them, are between two parties, both of whose leaders are primarily interested in getting and holding power for themselves and their friends. A few social issues aside, the primary difference between them is that one -- the Dems -- are at least upfront about it. The GOP spends all of its time talking the small government game, but so far as I can tell, all this amounts to in action is the replacement of competent people in the bureaucracy with people chosen solely on the bases of personal loyalty and ideological purity.

[pampl]

Originally Posted by JoeK

There is lot of talk about anti-intellectualism of the right wingers. I don't think that is the same as embracing ignorance and dismissing knowledge. On the contrary, conservatives, even those who are formally less educated, sincerely believe that liberal intelligentsia is bunch of know-nothings. That is especially true when it comes to economics, area in which Joe the Plumber was the most vocal.

There's intellectual honesty and then there's Kaus-style own-goalism. I can understand disregarding intellectuals in general, though I think it's laughable, but focusing on economic intellectuals - who largely self-identify as being conservative, small government types - seems like more than principled consistency would demand.

[conncarroll]

Originally Posted by harkin

Hang in there Conn, this is just the weekly condemnation from the intolerant left here which, while noisy, rarely back up anything they say. Anytime they disagree with someone taking part in a civil discussion here, they ask Bob or the person participating with them to banish them.

Don't worry Harkin. I never let bj get me down. Quite the opposite. He is such a typical Obamabot/slave I feel as though I've failed if he does not call for me to be band from bheads for my performance that week.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by conncarroll

Don't worry Harkin. I never let bj get me down. Quite the opposite. He is such a typical Obamabot/slave I feel as though I've failed if he does not call for me to be band from bheads for my performance that week.

Nice to see your spelling is at the same level as your reading comprehension.

Once more, in words of one syllable: I do not ask that you be banned.

[Baltimoron]

If Carroll were on just once a month it would be a good policy worthy of the promise the WIB feature offered. Without good transparent stats about what Carroll is pulling in ratings-wise, it's speculative, but Carroll seems to feast on a small plurality that just devour attitude over substance. Contrast this to Will Wilkinson's much more substance-rich sense of humor. Call Conn Carroll the Jimmy Fallon of bhTV

I would suggest other approaches:

1. Get Carroll promoted at Heritage, so that he doesn't have to pull bhTV duty, or pulls some other get-out-the-party-line shtick.

2. Make Carroll so successful he gets another job, so he can do something more in line with his talents.

Some people blossom in promotion, others dwindle. I'd hate to think Carroll is avoiding his destiny by continuing the bhTV addiction for too long. And, the more Carroll dawdles, another budding blog pundit doesn't get his wings. We should help Carroll along in his development.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Baltimoron

... Carroll seems to feast on a small plurality that just devour attitude over substance.

Very well put.

And, the more Carroll dawdles, another budding blog pundit doesn't get his wings.

That's another way to say it; i.e., it's less about "banning" Conn than it is giving other, potentially more worthy, people some shots.

[claymisher]

I really doubt Bob Wright would listen to Conn, so why should we?

[Baltimoron]

Bob's choices are irrelevant here. Of course, I have the choice not to listen, a right I too often exercise when it comes to WIB. I maintain of all the features, WIB should have as long and varied a cast as is possible. The more bloggers and other think tank hacks appear, the better for the name brand recognition of bhTV.

[pampl]

I like Goldberg, and Goldfarb was much more entertaining and thoughtful than I was expecting. This Carroll guy just sucks though.

[Wm. Blaxton]

Bill and Conn referenced Howard Dean's involvement with a bike path in Burlington, but didn't mention the funniest bike path anecdote in U.S. political history. Running for mayor of New York City in 1965, William F. Buckley, Jr. proposed a thick bike lane running the length of 2nd Avenue (with the possibility of another running the length of 7th Avenue). This proposal was cited by his detractors as evidence of the frivolity of his campaign and was opposed by some of his fellow Conservatives, as Buckley admits in his witty account of the race, The Unmaking of a Mayor. But Buckley stuck with it, on the grounds that: "(a) the idea was itself first-rate (it is, I think); (b) ... it does no harm for a candidate -- particularly a Conservative -- to have an off-beat idea or two ... . And (c) what-the-hell, I was going to say what I thought ought to be said."

On ppg. 258-259, Buckley recalls an incident that took place in the home of a supporter in the Bronx:

"[The supporter's] daughter-in-law, a sophisticated, slightly cynical, more than slightly bemused nurse's aid from a local hospital, told me at one point: 'You know, I was for John Lindsay until today.' 'What,' I asked, delighted, 'did John Lindsay do today?' 'It was that ridiculous bicycle scheme,' she said. I paused. But only for a moment, let the devil record. 'That was ridiculous, wasn't it,' I exclaimed -- changing the subject, and concluding that as of that moment, I had really and truly become a politician, and how would I formulate that sin at my next session with my confessor?"

[conncarroll]

...reading WaPo this morning we learn:

Most of the infrastructure spending being proposed for the massive stimulus package that Obama and congressional Democrats are readying, however, is not exactly the stuff of history, but destined for routine projects that have been on the to-do lists of state highway departments for years.
...
On the campaign trail, Obama said he would "rebuild America" with an "infrastructure bank" run by a new board that would award $60 billion over a decade to projects such as high-speed rail to take the country in a more energy-efficient direction. But the crumbling economy, while giving impetus to big spending plans, has also put a new emphasis on projects that can be started immediately -- "use it or lose it," Obama said last week -- and created a clear tension between the need to create jobs fast and the desire for a lasting legacy.
...
As it stands, Congress, wanting to keep things simple, plans to disburse the money under existing formulas -- funding for roads and bridges will go to state governments, while money for public transit will go to the local agencies that receive transit funding.

Now that's change we can believe in!

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by conncarroll

...reading WaPo this morning we learn:

Now that's change we can believe in!

Imagine that. Obama is inheriting an economic disaster caused in large part by policies and attitudes endorsed by the Heritage Foundation, he's smart enough to start with programs that will produce the quickest stimulus results and have to be done at some point anyway, and all Conn has to offer is more stale sophomoric sarcasm.