My pet peeve is about how these Sunday roundtables can accept a participant from the Washington Times. I can understand the Weekly Standard. Barely. But how someone from the newspaper of record can sit down at a table of colleagues that includes someone from the Washington Times is beyond me.

Posted at January 21, 2007 10:59 PM in response to Paul Gigot Discovers Evils of Criminalization

I think if you were to draw a pie-chart of the discussion of the House Intel Chair on TPM so far, it would be dominated with the posts on Hastings. I think that Joshua and DK should admit that. But isn't it more fair to start the discussion with Harmon? She's the ranking member and the presumptive choice.

So is she the right person for the job? After 3 and a half years of a war that has been poorly chosen, planned and executed, it seems that the choice of one of the Democrats chief enablers would be a poor one.

Posted at November 27, 2006 5:16 PM in response to Who for Chair of the House Intel Committee?

The prestige of the Mossad must have suffered greatly since the Iraq debacle, both within Israel and, hopefully, within the American foreign policy community. And the latest adventure into Lebanon has had the same problems: bad intelligence combined with an unrealistic policy yielding disastrous results.

Israel will certainly rethink its tactics and may rework its intelligence apparatus. But I doubt that it will change its policy towards Hezbollah or the Palestinians.

Posted at August 21, 2006 3:24 PM in response to Good for Israel?

If I could tell a lie, look foolish and stop a war, I would do it everytime.

Posted at August 18, 2006 3:09 PM in response to The Fakeout

I doubt it for two reasons:

* Lieberman isn't responding to voter's concerns about the war. He's just not on the same wavelength at all. Eventually, even his supporters grow concerned about this.

* The heavyweights who have backed him will lean on him heavily after a primary loss, particularly if it's more than 10%. Turnout exceeding expecations would be another nail in the coffin.

--Dan

Posted at July 26, 2006 10:06 AM in response to Question of the Day: Lieberman Edition

Of course Bush is going to take a pounding in any popularity contest on tpmcafe.com. But the people here are pretty level-headed and so I propose a different question: has Bush done *anything* that you secretly admire? It has to be something uniquely Bush II.

Afghanistan? Would the second-worst president not have attacked Afghanistan? I would call that an automatic response.

Maybe immigration reform. Maybe. Stem-cell research anyone?

But looking at it this way, it's hard to find any of his initiatives that rise above some form of pandering.

--Dan 

Posted at March 20, 2006 10:00 PM in response to He's Not the Worst President?

FOREIGNID: 75773
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 2301
AUTHOR: dbs
DATE: 12/16/2005 09:34:39 AM

Posted at December 16, 2005 9:34 AM in response to Don't Worry. I See Plenty of Humor Here

Sorry, but the Golden State Warriors are now 12-8 and no longer in the generous mood that gave the Wizards Arenas, Jamison and Hughes. So you'll have to stick with Arenas and Jamison, unless you can find some other team to steal from.

Posted at December 11, 2005 11:44 AM in response to I promised no more football

I doubt anyone holds you responsible for the shortcomings of the Reagan administration. But I  think the broader question is about the role of the Fairness Doctrine in the future. Is there a policy that can be clearly and fairly articulated that will result in a healthier politics?

--Dan 

PS Congratulations on the big win over the Rams yesterday.

Posted at December 5, 2005 12:48 PM in response to Fairness Doctrine

It's true that Walmart's healthcare practices are consistent with their other practices of forcing local governments to give them generous subsidies that other businesses could never hope to get. There may be a shadowmovement to subsidize low wage work, but it's naive to think that Walmart is innocently participating in this movement.

Having said that, I agree with what pacr says. Businesses basically shouldn't be in the healthcare racket. Watching large employers like GM slowly abandon their obligations only reinforces this view. The difference between Walmart and GM is that Walmart can get away with avoiding their healthcare obligations while GM will have to use bankruptcy to unload theirs. Neither of these behaviours is healthy for the economy and it would be better to drive a consensus to provide national healthcare.

Posted at December 2, 2005 11:20 AM in response to Wal-Mart and Public Subsidies