Center of Attention

A round up of recent posts by a few centrist, moderate, and independent bloggers.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Assuming our readers have (by now) overdosed on the buffet of K. Rove commentary, we decided to avoid that subject in this edition of CoA. Slight problem: There wasn’t a lot else from which to choose. Net: We apologize for today’s slim pickings and encourage you to blame it on Karl. And why not? He seems to be responsible for practically everything else.

Dustin Metzger tosses a spotlight on the words of David Walker, U.S. Comptroller General, who has reason to believe America may suffer a fall reminiscent of the Roman Empire’s.

Jon Henke catches the Cincinnati Post in a tailspin of errors.

Amba chimes in (poetically) on “the mortgage crisis.”

Andrew Sullivan is back from vacation and, among other topics, he’s chiming in on the Ames Straw Poll. Notably, he thinks Huckabee (at this point) is a helluva likely VP candidate for the GOP ticket.

And according to David Adesnik, Sullivan’s not the only one paying attention to the former Arkansas Governor.

Then again, the Huckabee hooplah may be short lived.

3 Responses to “Center of Attention”

1. DLS says:

   August 14, 2007 at 8:36 am

   There is no mortgage “crisis” [sic].

   More interesting is that the federal government is willing to give New York City $350+ million, among other things to implement congestion pricing for Manhattan. (That Bloomberg wanted $500 million from the federal government, in and of itself, disqualifies him as a Presidential candidate.)
2. [BLOCKED BY STBV] The Gun Toting Liberalâ„¢ says:

   August 14, 2007 at 9:58 am

   Avoiding The Fate Of Rome…

   Arguably the Roman Empire’s most important historical lesson wasn’t it’s amazing architecture, brutal gladiatorial sports, or even it’s lasting impact on European languages. No, Rome’s most important lesson is simple, &#8…
3. casualobserver says:

   August 14, 2007 at 2:54 pm

   DLS said,
   August 14, 2007 at 8:36 am:
   There is no mortgage “crisis” [sic].

   You ought to give more context around that answer for its truth to be understood. A great example of the MSM practicing only “chills and thrills” journalism.

   Nonetheless, I never accept “the person is too poor or dumb to hold personal responsibility” which is, effectively, the author’s contention.