I guess the Professional Christians, for whom no good sex goes unpunished, won't be voting for Edwards now. Oh wait, they never would have anyway. Oh wait, he already lost. Still, an opportunity to feel smug and righteous is a terrible thing to waste.

Posted at August 8, 2008 8:12 PM in response to Your Thoughts on the Edwards Scandal

and by older I mean he's been a Senator longer than the WWW has existed.

Posted at August 6, 2008 6:04 PM in response to John McCain is older than the World Wide Web,

I don't see the need to knock Edwards down another peg. Losing the 2004 nomination, the 2004 Vice Presidency and the 2008 nomination should be plenty.

Posted at August 6, 2008 2:40 AM in response to Birth certificate for alleged Edwards' "love child" lists no father

I think Brook's point is that Obama is not of the caste that includes Brooks, Dowd and every other snide, elitist Beltway douche who regarded Bill Clinton as "Bubba" and wondered aloud who invited the Beverly Hillbillies.

Brooks' choice of the word Sojourner makes it pretty obvious which word he means to substitute for "Bubba."

Posted at August 6, 2008 2:09 AM in response to Of Writers and Leaders

Wow, I botched my link. it was supposed to read:

So. Brooks' cockamamie explanation is that Obama's a Sojourner?

Remember the elitist, Beltway douche consensus about Bill Clinton? There goes the neighborhood! Who let the Beverly Hillbillies in? Substitute "Black man" for "Bubba" and a whole decade of Brooks and Dowd columns just rewrote themselves.

Posted at August 6, 2008 1:55 AM in response to Of Writers and Leaders

Brooks has a point, though. [...] Posted by Ellen August 5, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink

I agree that there was something intriguing about this particular Brooks narrative, [...] Posted by artappraiser August 5, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink

I don't agree that Brooks has a point. I think he invented a cockamamie explanation for some plausible, disingenuous nonsense that he just made up. The nonsense is that David Brooks knows a priori that Sen. Obama should be polling much better than he does. Brooks offers no support for his intuition, which is

Now it's obvious (to me, a partisan Democrat and an Obama supporter) that Obama should be winning by about 90-10. Brooks is plausible because he tells me something I already believe, and disingenuous because he really believes no such thing.

So. Brooks' cockamamie explanation is that Obama's a Remember the elitist, Beltway douche consensus about Bill Clinton? There goes the neighborhood! Who let the Beverly Hillbillies in? Substitute "Black man" for "Bubba" and a whole decade of Brooks and Dowd columns just rewrote themselves.

Posted at August 6, 2008 1:49 AM in response to Of Writers and Leaders

Bush failed because he didn't really know what he was doing; and like most people who don't know what they are doing, he fucked up. In the real world, there is no special providence watching over fools and children. When fools drive their car off the cliff, they are not gently blown over to the other side by guardian angels. They crash at the bottom of the cliff.

I agree with you about what a terrible President Bush is, but disagree that he failed. Bush is of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. Plain and simple. His circle of friends includes nobody who earns less than six figures and darned few who earn under seven. (The hired help don't count.) Everyday, ordinary folks, in Bush's orbit, are multimillionaires.

On his own terms, Bush is appallingly successful. Just to give one example, Bush was deeply troubled by the tremendous suffering wrought by Hurricane Katrina that the Federal government promptly sprang into action. Thankfully, casinos in Biloxi, MS are fully operational and the luxury high rise beach condos in Gulf Shores, AL are beautifully restored.

Posted at August 5, 2008 11:46 PM in response to Of Writers and Leaders

52-55% is enough to win the election, sure, but the vindictive part of it would like to see it more like 70%.

Ya I would like that too, but I'll settle for a 51% win in 49 states.

Posted at August 4, 2008 7:09 PM in response to Code.

I'd like Obama to go two steps further. He should promise:

to fully prosecute all Contempt of Congress citations.

to retroactively abolish Executive Privilege. The burden should be on the defendant to prove an exception for matters of national security.

Posted at August 4, 2008 6:59 PM in response to Bush's Last Days

I think the Federal government should start a Direct Mortgage program, similar to the direct student loan program. Once in a lifetime, every adult citizen should be able to buy or refinance one home, on a 30 year fixed mortgage at the prime rate. The maximum mortgage payment should be the traditional 28% of the buyer's gross income.

If the owner dies, their heirs should inherit the house and the Direct Mortgage with it. If there are no heirs, the government should sell the property for its Direct Mortgage balance or the market price, whichever is less. Eventually there would develop a supply of Direct Mortgage steals: houses selling for much less than they're worth. There should be a means-tested lottery system for lower-income buyers to win the right to buy these properties.

The owner should be allowed to prepay their own Direct Mortgage or transfer it to another qualified owner at the same terms. Wages should be garnished and assets seized to prevent defaults. Only living human adults should be eligible for any kind of Direct Mortgage transaction and private contracts involving Direct Mortgages should not be enforceable. Corporations and speculators need not apply.

This would be a real bailout for homeowners, with the added benefit that lenders get paid, too.

Posted at August 4, 2008 6:41 PM in response to Foreclosure Prevention Begins at Home