Center of Attention
Extra attention to a few Centrist blogs.
Donald Sensing at Winds of Change: House votes to increase foreign oil dependency, punish American poor. An interesting issue / post to debate?
My friend Libby Spencer at The Impolitic links to an interesting article at the Huffington Post in which Bob Burnett describes U.S. President Bush’s kind of conservatism: materialistic conservatism. In another post at her blog I read that she likes Hagel.
I agree.
Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye… on fat dogs. I have a black labrador retriever. Labs love to eat. It’s what they like most and do best. As such, a lot of labradors are overweight. Like Dave I, however, know what he needs, know what his ‘perfect’ weight is and adjust his diet to it. Also: exercise people dogs!
John Cole at Balloon Juice refuses to believe that a poll conducted by Fox News is accurate. The results:
Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?
Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know
Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know
Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know
Independents 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know
Hmm.
UPDATE
I just saw that Libby (from The Impolitic) has been asked by TMV co-assistant editor Michael J. Stickings to become a co-blogger at Michael’s own blog, The Reaction. Libby – of course – gladly accepted the invitation.
Congrats to Libby: you deserve it and I’m sure that you’ll be a great addition to The Reaction, which already is one of my favorite blogs (even though I do not always agree with the boys and gals there) and will be even more so now.
11 Responses to “Center of Attention”
@ WoC:
One of the fundamentals of economics is, “That which is subsidized, increases.”
Of course, this is only true in perfect markets. The oil market in the US is far from perfect, being dominated by a few big players (oligopoly), and the market for refined products even less. And if you look at the oil companies’ profit shares, you can’t escape the impression that this wouldn’t be possible in a high competitive situation. The subsidies are simply theextra on the cake. On the other hand, if the oil gigants try to make up for the elimination of those subsidies, and raise their prizes, the difference will be even more obvious. There is only so much gred that the public is willing to totlerate before calling for regulations. And maybe some CEOs do have to be told this story again:
Once upon a time, there was an evil giant named ‘Standard Oil’…
..but he didn’t live happily ever after.
“Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?”
This can be interpreted in at least two ways:
Do you want the plan to succeed in Iraq?
Do you want the plan to succeed in House and Senate?
Depending on the context, many of those polled may have understood it in the second meaning. I can’t believe a qualified polster asked this. Just another Faux poll.
Just look at the 11% republicans voting ‘No’, and the 10% who don’t know. QED.
Ignoring that fact that few people would consider Rev. Donald Sensing to be moderate, he has a lot to learn about both the oil industry, and what the dems in congress are proposing.
Yes, personally I want the president’s plan announced last week to succeed, but no, I don’t think it will. The wording of the question makes it give the results the Fox News want, a positive spin on Bush’s (latest and greatest) plan for the mess he has made in Iraq. Why didn’t they ask if the plan would make any difference in how things are going in Iraq? They already knew the answer to that one.
“Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?�
I would assume most people thought the question was, “Do you personally think…”
Or for that matter, perhaps some were asked that just to screw with the numbers. Remember, this is the same station that told their staff to be on the lookout for Islamists celebrating the Democratic Pary’s gains in November.
The spin on this plan is that it is the only plan that has a chance (however miniscule) at success. We can occupy Iraq until kingdom come and send more and more of our troops and tax dollars to infinity and beyond, and never have to come to grips with a loss. Its a stroke of genius, if you think about it. No one is going to come out and say “I want our country to fail”. Its an update on “with us or against us” or if you disagree with the administration- why do you hate America? Rove’s redeemed himself after the midterm loss,lol!
“We can occupy Iraq until kingdom come and send more and more of our troops and tax dollars to infinity and beyond, and never have to come to grips with a loss.”
But only if the US can handle it financially (questionable), and if the strategic situation with the neighboring nations doesn’t change for worse (Saudi Arabia?). Or another urgent crisis breaks out and the troops are needed elsewhere (Pakistan?). So, imho the question isn’t wether this can go on indefinetly, but if it at least can go on until 2009, what obviously is Bush’s and Cheney’s idea behind this. And I’m not at all sure if they aren’t overly optimistic about the strategic stability of the Iraq deployment.
In regards to the Sensing article, what about the missing golden parachute for the former CEO Lee Raymond? A $400 MILLION retirement package?
I agree, Gray, that is the Bush/Cheney objective. They don’t care how high the debt grows for this war, as long as they are not seen as forfeiting victory. There’s also a theory that they are starving future funds for entitlement programs by driving up the debt.
WEll I was sorta disappointed with my visit to “The Reaction”
The first thing I read is how disgusting FOX news is and how they are smearing Obama and even give me a link to the FOX Broadcast.
Sorry I saw no smear here at all. I saw 3 reporters questioning and discussing the article that supposedly smeared Obama. But these 3 morning hosts did not in anyway smear Obama.
They did raise questions. Gee isnt that what reporters are supposed to do?
Well my 2 cents.