In which--even without benefit of a crystal ball--Dana Garrett nailed it

To be clear: though we can go at it hammer and tongs, Dana and I are friends.

And when he writes something so prescient as this paragraph on President Obama's waffling on the public option question, he deserves props:

It sounds as though the President is trying to have it both ways for the time being. He wants to keep the favor of the liberals and progressives while signaling to Congress and Americans afraid of the public option that he is willing to drop the public option in favor of a relatively more bi-partisan approach: viz., the co-ops. He doesn't want to take a stand.

Less than two days later it becomes apparent that the White House Press Secretary uses Delaware Watch as part of his regular background briefing material:

WaPo:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, speaking to reporters returning to Washington from Phoenix, said Obama has not shifted his position, suggesting that the president's support for a public option had never been absolute. "The goals are choice and competition. His preference is a public option. If there are other ideas, he's happy to look at them," Gibbs said. White House officials repeatedly denied that there was any new positioning on the provision, accusing the media of fabricating developments.

So tell us, Dana, when are you packing your bags for DC?

Comments

Delaware Watch said…

Thanks, Steve.

I'm beginning to think that this administration is taking up the habit of having it both ways. Did you see this example w/ DOMA?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/17/obama_makes_explicit_his_objec.html?hpid=topnews

August 17, 2009 at 9:43 PM

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog