Good Advice

As sometimes happens when I read Marc Ambinder's blog, today I'm puzzled by the mentality of the campaign reporter:

While we've been focusing on the race card, the Republican echo chamber has been sounding full tilt about Barack Obama's Jimmy Carter-esque turn as advice columnist to Americans about energy. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity spent part of their broadcast mocking Obama for urging Americans to inflate their tires to help conserve gasoline.

Obama had a point, and the auto industry recommends the same thing as do governors Schwarzenegger and Crist, but nevermind; the ridicule fix is in. An effective GOP shot.

Here's my understanding of the sequence of events. Gas prices are on the rise. Consumers are feeling pain, harm is being done to the economy. Oil companies begin posting record profits. John McCain and the GOP propose a series of giveaways to oil companies that economists doubt will do anything to reduce gasoline prices in the short run. These measures will, however, starve the government of revenue for infrastructure, harm the environment, and devastate coastal economies. Barack Obama counters with a tip that will do no harm to the economy or the public purse but will allow people to save money in the short, medium, and long runs. Obama's proposal is endorsed by the auto industry as sound (similarly, fully inflated bike tires make you go faster), and has been embraced by the most successful politicians in the Republican Party today. But Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity mock it along with the rest of the "Republican echo chamber."

The upshot is deemed to be . . . success for the echo chamber, "an effective GOP shot." But why? Maybe the attack will be reported in a way that's helpful to Republicans. But why should it be reported that way? Why should slamming Obama for offering sound, bipartisan, industry-endorsed advice by an effective attack?

Photo by Flickr user Eric Castro used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Because part of your role as campaign reporter is to pretend you are an idiot. I notice Joe Klein has actually been asserting his intelligence lately--let's hope it doesn't get him fired.

Posted by David | August 1, 2008 9:46 AM

The upshot is deemed to be . . . success for the echo chamber, "an effective GOP shot." But why?

Because nobody can remember the last time it didn't work.

Maybe the attack will be reported in a way that's helpful to Republicans. But why should it be reported that way?

Because nobody can remember the last time it wasn't reported that way.

Why should slamming Obama for offering sound, bipartisan, industry-endorsed advice by an effective attack?

Because Drudge rules their world.

Obama/Clark '08!

Posted by ed | August 1, 2008 9:47 AM

Because if Al Gore or Barack Obama recommended breathing 15 to 20 times a minute, Rush, Hannity, et al. would recommend to their audience to hold their breaths and most of them would be stupid enough to do it.

Posted by calipygian | August 1, 2008 9:48 AM

Because Ambinder despises Obama & he will do what he can to push the Republican master narrative. He is just doing his little part. Logic be damned.

Posted by jay | August 1, 2008 9:49 AM

Didn't you see? It shows Obama is Carteresque. Game, Set, Match.

Posted by John | August 1, 2008 9:49 AM

Having properly inflated tires means your a gay gay wimpy fa***ty French-looking fa**y gay wimp who is too much of a p***y to demand the softer ride which American behinds seated in already soft suspensions demand. Also, it's gay. And French. Plus it's Nancy Pelosi's fault when you spend more on gas.

In addition, it's unmanly, and you ought to reject this stupid Democratic liberal Stalinist effort to run our lives and our tires just like when the FDA and other 'health' organizations tell you to wash utensils & preparation services when dealing with raw chicken. God made us to eat chickens and I don't need no damn Demo-crap Islamosexual freak telling me how to cook my g** d*** chicken.

Further, I think we ought to just let the air out of our tires and drive on the rims just to show that we can't be ordered around by no Indo-jihadist black panther Weatherman terrorist.

Posted by El Cid | August 1, 2008 9:49 AM

I've been in the US for a good few years now, and the traditional media is atrocious. Seriously prone to playing along with a narrative rather than dealing with issues that effect voters. It has a heavy pro corporate bias (which is something I didn't believe would be true before arriving here, duh) and it prefers the playground fights over the students report card.

The last couple of days has been a perfect case in point. The new Rove/McCain operation is masterful at bringing things down to divert attention from the issues, and the media runs right along with them.

Posted by TDE | August 1, 2008 9:50 AM

Agree with the above. Ambinder's Broderesque centrism is starting to show -- and that's a win for he GOP. He's turning into a grace disappointment.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | August 1, 2008 9:50 AM

Maybe this shouldn't be the case, but it does seem kind of dorky and Smokey the Bear fights forest fires-ish to give people a public service announcement of what they should do with their tires. To me it sounds like something that Ned Flanders would say.

Posted by Josh M | August 1, 2008 9:51 AM

That's Ambinder for you. In his mind, it's better to be loud than right.

Posted by Darius | August 1, 2008 9:52 AM

Because our political establishment is utterly and completely broken. With these yahoos at the helm, we'll be lucky to see age 250. And, the biggest problem is that there doesn't seem a way to get rid of them - can't seem to vote em off the Island.

Posted by Josh R. | August 1, 2008 9:52 AM

Maybe the Obama campaign should kick things up a notch and start organizing car pools. It'd be kind of like a community meet up but with more purpose.

Posted by Eric Rachlin | August 1, 2008 9:53 AM

Given absolutely zero evidence to demonstrate his assumption, we can only draw a corollary conclusion to David's point: Marc Ambinder thinks the American people are stupid fucking idiots. On the evidence of the past 8 years, he may be right--but how mean of him to assume so! Waaaaaah!

Posted by elle loco | August 1, 2008 9:55 AM

Matt, you ask "why" it's "an effective campaign shot." The answer is because the media makes it so.

Think about it. What, exactly is the "it" we're talking about? "It" is not just the stupid, misleading claim made by McCain and his allies. "It" is the fact that they made a ridiculous claim and the media reports it as though it weren't ridiculous. It's like taking a picture of a clown, photoshopping it to remove the make-up and costume and any hint of wacky antics, and calling what's left a serious contender for the presidency.

The right-wing noise machine has discovered how to exploit the tools the media uses to appear "neutral" or "objective" or "serious" in order to avoid neutrality, objectivity, or seriousness. For example, every story normally gets a spokesperson from both sides--even if one side is simply repeating a lie over and over.

Posted by Jeff | August 1, 2008 9:57 AM

"Maybe the attack will be reported in a way that's helpful to Republicans. But why should it be reported that way? Why should slamming Obama for offering sound, bipartisan, industry-endorsed advice by an effective attack?"

Marc Ambinder, like many political reporters/pundits, identifies with Republicans in particular and John McCain specifically.

Posted by Aaron | August 1, 2008 9:58 AM

Re: unsolicited advice. I don't know. The other day McCain was on NPR telling all of us to get our moles checked out by dermatologists. The more our politicians try to connect with the public, the more of this chatty advice we'll here. The R's are ridiculous for reading such obvious comments as major policy positions.

Posted by Abigail | August 1, 2008 10:01 AM

The MSM is stupid, but there is an easy fix - Obama should focus on the macro solutions in his speeches, not the helpful household hints.

People don't hire the president to come to their house and check the furnace for energy efficiency, they vote for him to instigate major policy changes - leave the minutiae to others.

Posted by CParis | August 1, 2008 10:02 AM

But CParis, the moment he does that, Obama's guilty of pie-in-the-sky, impractical megaplans that will never come to pass, cost too much, take years.

And we all know all Obama does is give good speech, because he's a substance-free empty suit.

The priests of Broderism will tell you "People want something practical, that will work now, and not cost a dime", until it comes from a Democrat.

He's damned either way.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | August 1, 2008 10:08 AM

Marc Ambinder, like many political reporters/pundits, identifies with Republicans in particular and John McCain specifically.

You see, I can't imagine why someone like Marc or just about any DC journalist would identify with McCain, unless they were extremely delusional or in complete denial about who they are.

Posted by Tyro | August 1, 2008 10:10 AM

"The MSM is stupid, but there is an easy fix - Obama should focus on the macro solutions in his speeches, not the helpful household hints."

Err, I disagree. Say Obama talks about climate change, McCain's people say he wants to raise your taxes and stop you from driving. Say Obama talks about Healthcare, McCain's people say he wants to take socialize medicine and make you wait in long lines for medical care. Say Obama says talks about the need to draw down troops in Iraq, McCain himself sputters about how unpatriotic Obama is and that he care more about winning a campaign then a war.

Now this isn't to say that Obama shouldn't talk about these things, but rather that it is a systemic problem. The media will report this shit and instead of informing you on the actual policy they will report on what sort of "narrative" each campaign is "putting forward." Then they will pull a bunch of shit out of their asses about how "effective" they think that narrative is and not inform you as to how effective experts think the policy will be. That would be taking side you see, plus that is, like, so boring. I mean nobody cares about policy right?

Posted by David | August 1, 2008 10:12 AM

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." -- Dick Cheney.

Says it all. The presumption among American conservatives is that small personal efficiencies are a sign of weakness, and the media helps support it. After all, Jimmy Carter told people to wear sweaters. Bwahahaha, mine's extra dry with an olive.

(Limbaugh was waffling about Chinese Hummer owners the other day -- a strawman in any case -- and comparing them to Americans buying efficient cars.)

TDE's right: people who visit or come to live in the US soon realise that Americans are atrociously served by a media establishment that wants the masses to stay fat, stupid and ready to buy shit from their blessed advertisers. The way to deal with this is not to argue around it, but to spit in the faces of those peddling it.

Obama should focus on the macro solutions in his speeches, not the helpful household hints.

And what if the macro solutions entail encouraging the micro solutions? Obama's right: personal conservation is the most immediate way to put a dent in energy consumption. (I'm reminded of the joke about leaving the taps running so that you know when the water has run out.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 1, 2008 10:16 AM

El Cid offers the correct answer.

Posted by Just Dropping By | August 1, 2008 10:19 AM

"Maybe this shouldn't be the case, but it does seem kind of dorky and Smokey the Bear fights forest fires-ish to give people a public service announcement of what they should do with their tires. To me it sounds like something that Ned Flanders would say."

It's a different order of advice from "drill more oil wells" and "cut gasoline taxes," i.e. McCain's so-called solutions. It's mundane and, I suppose, not "presidential" in the conservative CEO/strong-daddy definition. Never mind that it works, with no harmful side effects.

A boy has a problem with a bully who harasses him on his walk home from school every day. Dad signs the kid up for six months of boxing lessons, at the end of which time he should be able to whip the bully's butt. Mom suggests taking a different route home from school.

Posted by JBJ | August 1, 2008 10:22 AM

The funny thing is that small changes in personal consumption will increase the amount of available oil more than offshore drilling will.

Posted by Tyro | August 1, 2008 10:31 AM

A boy has a problem with a bully who harasses him on his walk home from school every day. Dad signs the kid up for six months of boxing lessons, at the end of which time he should be able to whip the bully's butt. Mom suggests taking a different route home from school. - JBJ

I guess this is why I am a Democrat and not a Republican: I just don't relate to the parties quite in this Mommy-party/Daddy-pary sort of way (except to the extent I would rather live in a house ran by my mom than my dad) -- in this case, my dad would have skipped the boxing lessons and just recommended that I kick the bully in the balls. While my mom would have recommended flaunting my associations with kids one-step away from being sent to juvy (my mom would arrange for me to have play dates with the real scary kids -- the hope was that my nerdiness would rub off on them and that their toughness would rub off on me).

Posted by DAS | August 1, 2008 10:32 AM

"But why?" Because Ambinder is a reliable tool.

And personally, I think this stuff actually helps Obama. Obama is in fact a pragmatist, and thus is interested in finding low-cost/high-benefit measures on every issue. Right now, I don't think people will have a problem with that approach to policy.

And I also suspect the only people who think it is clever to respond to all reasonable conservation measures by calling them "Carteresque" are the audience members for the Morton Downey Jr. imitators (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.)--an audience which unfortunately includes tools like Ambinder.

Posted by DTM | August 1, 2008 10:33 AM

Thank you! The presumption that every/any "shot" by the republcans is an "effective one" remains pervasive among the media. Only now (witness the Andrea Mitchell interview of Davis) are the media actually begining to wonder, "Does this make any sense at all?". I'm not in the "Ambinder hates Obama" crowd, but I do question his "a reported blog on politics" creed; he interjects an awful lot of his own personal speculation instead of simply reporting. Combined with the fact that rarely allows comments makes me wonder what he is reporting.

Posted by notchris | August 1, 2008 10:37 AM

But why? Maybe the attack will be reported in a way that's helpful to Republicans. But why should it be reported that way? Why should slamming Obama for offering sound, bipartisan, industry-endorsed advice by an effective attack?

I assume inter-office collegiality prevents MY from using the active voice here, so I'll just go ahead and translate:

But why? Maybe campaign reporters like Marc Ambinder will report the attack in a way that's helpful to Republicans. But why should campaign reporters like Marc Ambinder report it that way? Why should campaign reporters like Marc Ambinder deem slamming Obama for offering sound, bipartisan, industry-endorsed advice to be an effective attack?

Posted by Scott E. | August 1, 2008 10:48 AM

Matt,
This is slightly embarrassing coming from me (a 41 year old, white professional executive at a development company), but I have a man-crush on you Matt!

Great reply...I felt the same way.

Posted by Ed S | August 1, 2008 10:50 AM

Because sensationalism increases viewership which increases advertising revenue.

Posted by Magnolia Fan | August 1, 2008 10:50 AM

Tyro: I can't imagine why someone like Marc or just about any DC journalist would identify with McCain, unless they were extremely delusional or in complete denial about who they are.

Good point. I can't think of anything that most DC journalists have in common with McCain but not with Obama.

(muffled voice: The sheriff is a ni--)

-- What's that?

-- He said the sheriff is near!

(muffled voice: No, dadgum it! I said the sheriff is a ni--)

Posted by ajay | August 1, 2008 10:54 AM

Here is how we are going to find out this attack has failed. I figure that there is about 100% chance that in a debate McCain directly compares Obama to Carter. There is a chance Obama just tries to change the subject, but I bet after he proforma says Carter was not the greatest President embraces Carter's energy plans as far sighted and wise and goes on to crush McCain, showing that Mark A and the rest of the press have their head up their you know whats.

Posted by Napoleon | August 1, 2008 11:13 AM

Actually, saving 750,000 barrels of oil, or whatever it is, by keeping tires inflated would be good for the economy, precisely because it would keep that money here in the US, rather than sending it to Saudi Arabia.

Ambinder is a classic "The Note" idiot.

Posted by Doh | August 1, 2008 11:13 AM

Here is how we are going to find out this attack has failed. I figure that there is about 100% chance that in a debate McCain directly compares Obama to Carter. There is a chance Obama just tries to change the subject, but I bet after he proforma says Carter was not the greatest President embraces Carter's energy plans as far sighted and wise and goes on to crush McCain, showing that Mark A and the rest of the press have their head up their you know whats.

Posted by Napoleon | August 1, 2008 11:15 AM

Matt,
This is slightly embarrassing coming from me (a 41 year old, white professional executive at a development company), but I have a man-crush on you!

Great reply...I felt the same way.

Posted by Ed S | August 1, 2008 11:16 AM

Outside of the dumb zone, increasing supply is seen as a good thing. Had President Clinton allowed drilling in ANWR in 1996, we'd have a few additional million bbls a day worth of supply now, which would be good. Telling people to put air in their tires is like telling people to eat better. It may be good advice, but it makes the person giving it come off as smarmy.

Posted by James Robertson | August 1, 2008 11:22 AM

JR, keep in mind that (a) you can't drill in the Wildlife Refuge, because it was set aside as a refuge, not as a place to drill in, and (b) the tiny, minor changes in efficiency and improvement in auto mileage would overwhelm the small amount of additional oil that drilling in now-restricted areas would provide.

I presume that if drilling is a priority, then companies will start opening up the areas they have rights to drill on for drilling.

However, if you just want to say how you're "sticking it to the hippes and Al Gore!" then I can see why drilling in ANWR would be attractive. For practical purposes, not so much. Making public policy to gratify your ego and petty resentments isn't something I'm particularly interested in.

Posted by Tyro | August 1, 2008 11:28 AM

I can't tell the difference between reporters (like Ambinder) and trolls anymore.

Posted by Chris | August 1, 2008 11:28 AM

I think a great deal of this has to do with the audience for campaign reporting. It's not the public, certainly. It's other political-journalist professionals. And it's campaign reporting, so it's all about style and tactics. What's strange is that why does someone get style points for being a loud-mouthed idiot?

Posted by The Third Policeman | August 1, 2008 11:30 AM

I think Ambinder looves nothing more than adopting the pose of the clear-eyed realist who sees the political landscape as it is, not as idealists might wish it were.

What this means in practice is that if Rush and Hannity do enough bleating about something, and do it in sufficient harmony, they have won the day regardless of how stupid their case may be.

In fact, the dumber the charge the more gleefully reporters like Ambinder herald its success.

Posted by lowellfield | August 1, 2008 11:35 AM

I don't think Ambinder is malicious, or biased, or in love with Johnny Mac -- at least not to the extent that it makes his reporting as terrible as it is. I think the primary problem is that he's just not very bright.

Posted by Kevin | August 1, 2008 11:36 AM

Yeah I agree with Kevin. Ambinder is not a Ron Fournier-style Republican operative in disguise.

Posted by lowellfield | August 1, 2008 11:41 AM

Had President Clinton allowed drilling in ANWR in 1996, we'd have a few additional million bbls a day worth of supply now, which would be good.

No, we wouldn't. We might -- might -- see a couple hundred thousand bpd. Total US production (mainland, plus Alaska, plus GOM) is on the order of 5-6 million barrels, and ANWR is not going to increase our production by 50%.

Posted by Kevin | August 1, 2008 11:48 AM

I generally defend Ambinder as a guy whom you read to know what the "beltway consensus" is. The danger is what will happen when he starts to believe that his opinions are insightful or original, rather than just a passing on of the conventional wisdom.

Posted by Tyro | August 1, 2008 11:58 AM

Tyro, interesting point.

Posted by Kevin | August 1, 2008 12:04 PM

James Robertson: "Had President Clinton allowed drilling in ANWR in 1996, we'd have a few additional million bbls a day worth of supply now, which would be good."

The 2008 DOE projections, as summarised on wikipedia: "The opening of the Area to oil and natural gas development [in 2008] is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively."

Gap between the world inside James Robertson's head and the world as it actually exists: wide enough to take at least 2 million non-existent barrels of North Slope crude per day.

Posted by ajay | August 1, 2008 12:24 PM

John McCain spent 5 years in a Vietnamese POW camp. The least Americans can do is drive around on underinflated tires wasting gas. Some people understand this.

Posted by Njorl | August 1, 2008 1:11 PM

I thought the exact same thing after I read Ambinder's retarded post.

Good advice=bad politics/gaffe.

WTF!?

Posted by John B | August 1, 2008 1:14 PM

Politics aside ... Obama is right. Google "hypermiling" or "Wayne Gerdes" if you want to see how much gas you can save with your existing car by driving differently. Personally, I'm getting nearly 50% better mileage now than I did before gas hit $3/gallon.

How?

I now inflate my tires to 44psi which is the max sidewall pressure on the tire. Yeah, I know, most car manufacturers recommend somewhere around 31 but the tire manufacturers sure didn't pull that number out of their asses. For liability reasons they are clearly very confident the tire will be fine at 44 psi.

I don't think putting more air in my tires gives me any risk I'll be labeled a sissy.

Now it wasn't just the tires that helped the mileage. I've also slowed down substantially, I turn my car off and coast every chance I get, I almost never use the air-conditioner, I try to keep my windows rolled up, and so on. But my 6-cyl Honda Accord now regularly gets over 30mpg when I was just getting about 21 before when I drove like a crazy maniac.

You can call me a sissy for my driving changes if you want. I'll just smile and clutch the $100/month I've saved by changing my behavior.

Posted by Curt M | August 1, 2008 2:41 PM

Obama will be jumped on for absolutely anything that comes out of his mouth-the sky is blue, oxygen is an element, peanuts aren't actually nuts. If he said "Puppies are cute" in a speech, righty pundits would immediately claim that real Americans hate puppies and this further proof Obama's an elitist/Communist/Muslim.

Posted by Dragonfly | August 1, 2008 3:14 PM

Tyro:

"I presume that if drilling is a priority, then companies will start opening up the areas they have rights to drill on for drilling."

If there were significant supplies of oil there, they would. The fact that they don't tells those of us with a modicum of common sense what the reality of the situation is.

I used ANWR as an example; The Congress and Clinton could have opened that 12 years ago. They chose not to. Pelosi could have opened the offshore areas last week; she chose not to. Both actions would increase global supplies, which would be a good thing.

There are no viable alternatives to oil and gas for transport right now, and - even if there were - replacing the existing infrastructure would not be an overnight task. What the Democrats are doing is implicitly accepting the idea of the US relying on foreign producers of oil more and more as time goes by. Which also means that they are implicitly accepting the fact that the US will continue to be heavily involved (diplomatically and militarily) in those areas for the forseeable future.

Never mind what Pelosi says about military force; her actions virtually guarantee that future Presidents will continue to need to use or threaten it - without regard to which party they come from.

Posted by James Robertson | August 1, 2008 3:19 PM

James Robertson is spot on.

Also worth noting that the specific area that was considered for drilling in ANWR was 40 acres out of over millions of acres: a tiny pinprick in the open expanse of ANWR. The Alaskans were all for it, but Chuckie Schumer and other Dems who are irrationally in favor of importing a higher percentage of foreign oil opposed it.

Posted by Fred | August 1, 2008 4:35 PM

Tyro,

The trope about oil companies not drilling on current leases has been shown to exhibit a basic lack of understanding of how the oil business works. Drilling is the LAST thing an oil company does with acreage in its posession (after they have explored it, developed the infrastructure necessary to drill, contracted the rigs, gotten permits, etc; etc;). So looking at what percentage of a company's holdings are currently being drilled is almost meaningless.

There are many reasons to oppose offshore drilling but oil companies sitting on prospective acreage doing nothing as oil prices hit consecutive record highs is not one of them.

Posted by Pippi | August 1, 2008 6:15 PM

Yet another Matt "what don't I know about the world" post.

Of course it's an effective attack. Look at your posters above - morons Robertson, Fred, etc.

It works because the first reaction of people to suggestions like Obama's is the same as the "defend against terrorism by buying duct tape" - it can't work because it's too small and too stupid.

It doesn't matter if in fact it's not a bad idea in isolation. In context, people treat it like a stupid bandaid of a solution.

You can't figure that out, Matt? You really are that inexperienced and that unimaginative?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 1, 2008 6:20 PM

Sociopaths (http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html) are particularly brilliant at putting their victims in a "damned if you do....damned if you don't" vice grip. How to deal with a sociopath?

From Dr. Tony Fiore:

* One lie, one broken promise, or a single neglected responsibility may be a misunderstanding instead.
* Two may involve a serious mistake.
* But three lies says you're dealing with a liar, and deceit is the linchpin of conscienceless behavior.

Do not give your money, your work, your secrets, or your affection to a three-timer. Your valuable gifts will be wasted.

Do not join the game.

Intrigue is a sociopath's tool. Resist the temptation to compete with a seductive sociopath, to outsmart him, psychoanalyze, or even banter with him.

In addition to reducing yourself to his level, you would be distracting yourself from what is really important..."

Damn. Mc-cahn has sociopaths.

Posted by Just Us League | August 1, 2008 9:30 PM

I used ANWR as an example

And you pulled the supply estimate straight out of your ass. Out by a factor of four, if we take the lowest conventional reading of 'few'. How embarrassing. Do keep bullshitting in search of that higher moral justification for selfishness.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 2, 2008 7:58 AM

'More supply is good' ... why exactly?

More efficiency is good, and there's a hell of a lot of improved efficiency the US could do with just now.

'B-but efficiency means you consume less! How can that be acceptable to any red-blooded American?'

Right there you have your problem. Efficiency doesn't mean a one-room apartment or woollen sweaters, it means spending less for the same result. Or spending the same amount for a better result. What's been done in California over the last decades for example.

If the US doesn't start planning to use oil and energy much more efficiently right now, problems down the road will only get worse. The national love affair with wasteful consumption is not over, but it's getting extremely rocky. Break it up sooner rather than later and people will thank you. Extra domestic drilling is just a last desparate bunch of flowers to paper over the cracks.

Posted by Thomas D | August 3, 2008 4:04 PM

出会いサイト

Posted by 出会い | August 12, 2008 12:00 AM

I guess it's the first time that Matt ran across the possibility of irrational or unfair behavior among his fellow humans. If people believe stupid things, it must be because of some glitch in the system, some control in the experiment gone wrong - a fault of the mainstream media. In his world, if you give people the unvarnished, detailed statistics, they will all be clear-eyed rationalists, and won't be swayed by easy catchphrases or mean-spirited ridicule. Anyone who doesn't recognize the fundamental rationality of the American voter - like Armbinder - is a big puzzle to him.

Posted by Don | August 12, 2008 2:56 AM

China revises[FX]rules, with penalties for unauthorized transfers – XinhuaKuwait c.bank move could quash [http://www.fx-gaitame.com FX] bets, raise rates -guardian.co.uk
[http://www.fx-gaitame.com FX] Energy Provides Drilling Update on Kromolice-1 Well - CNNMoney.com

Posted by FX | August 13, 2008 9:42 PM

派遣の仕事探しはアデコ - 求人情報8400件【人材派遣会社 アデコ】派遣,紹介予定派遣,アデコ,派遣登録,人材派遣会社,仕事,募集,求人情報,仕事探し

Posted by 派遣 | August 13, 2008 9:57 PM