Until tomorrow
Until tomorrow
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
We interrupt our regular programming to bring you this special bulletin:
The Friday piece will be posted on Saturday morning. Hope to see you here then.
Comments (67)
liberal, you're right. Let's foster ideas on coerced abortions, or "one child per couple" laws as exist in China, or sterilization of less desirable persons so they do not reproduce (as long as I am on the committee who rules on what makes a person less desirable). I believe we should debate all these issues. Can we have too many people on earth? Yes, and when natural climate changes take place (like the little ice age period you referenced), we should stop all population growth until warmer temperatures come back. As a child is born, we euthanize some older person to offset the birth. Anyone sick who is over a certain age, let's just off them, all in the name of science and zero population growth of course. Maybe we could release excess carbon dioxide during these periods to help the earth warm faster. As for political correctness, I scoff at a liberal chastising a conservative for such thinking. It was not conservatives who forced colleges etc to change their mascot names for fear of offending some group; flying a Conferderate flag because it "symbolizes" racism or slavery; calling "illegal aliens" "undocumented workers"; and countless other dumb ideas all in the name of "political correctness".— tom - wilmington, de- Yea, the great Joan Walsh from Salon.com. Maybe someone should tell her that it was not Cheney who was president from 2001 to 2009, so he could not really make any decisions. Maybe she should ask her friend Hillary how Bill felt making military decisions even though he dodged the draft by not reporting and then going off to Oxford. Maybe someone should also tell her that as Vice President, Cheney did not send anyone's children off to war. He was not Commander in Chief. And then she should be asked what she calls waiting more than 60 days and still not being able to make a decision about such an urgent matter. Obama will not make a decision until after healthcare is finalized, so as not to offend the liberal votes he needs. This is a political decision he is making (why else would Axelrod be in the situation room during the meetings...he is Obama's political advisor) and as commander in chief politics should be the last thing on his mind. So much for the great Joan Walsh.— tom - wilmington, de
- Liberal- Thanks to modern technology and the free market, we grow more food on less land. Nowadays famine is caused more by political issues. I fear that militant enviromentalism and the climate hysteria that feeds it have become mainstreem liberal thought. It's all wrapped in compassion and disguised as pure goodness but it is anything but. More poeple is an engine of economic growth, ingenuity, new inventions and efficiencies. Smug liberals and their idealistic vision of the world do more harm than good.
- Liberal- you said "Conservatives attack scientists for even discussing both sides of an issue that violates their political correctness tests, regardless of the writer's actual conclusion."....... I think it is quite the opposite. Liberals attack sciencetists that disagree with global warming theories. The Scientists get their integrity impugned. Tis the left that has no tolerance for opposing viewpoints and will not listen to anyone who disagrees with them. People like Al Gore do a grand dis-service to science by bantering on about settled science when the facts prove otherwise.
- Sweet, naive Tom. Yes, GWB was President, but Cheney himself has stated on quite a few occasions that his office was the integral clearing house of all matter related to foreign policy and the wars. Perhaps you should check that out and get back to us.— LorettaL
- Tom, Obama is reversing the failed Bush/Cheney doctrine. No need to rush to send more troops into the grinder. Seriously - how old are you?!— LorettaL
- LorettaL- there is not need to rush a lot of things. Like Stimulus considering 90% won't spent until next year. Or a healthcare bill since it would not go into effect until 5 years from now. Of course on Afghanistan this president dithers for political reasons. putting politics ahead of country. Not good LorettaL- Which is why his poll numbers have dropped drastically.
- Mike, do you have hard evidence to back up what you just said about dithering on Afghanistan or did you get that from the opinions of the commentators on Fox.— USA#1
- Zzzzzzz - Righties with their tired old Fox talking points. Outta here - going to enjoy the weekend. Get a life people!!!— let me in
- USA#1- Obama's hand picked general asked for more troops months ago. Obama's Sec. of Defense admitted in public he's been" sitting "on the report. My opinion is that we should be all in or all out. No half measures. Go in get the job done and get out. At this pace we will be in Afghanistan in peptuity. We need to stop fighting wars with one hand tied behind our back.
- I agree with some of what you say, I just wanted evidence. Let’s remember how a couple of generals were retired after they said it would take over 300,000 troops for Iraq. GWB dithered for many years in Iraq.— USA#1
- Tom - You really don't know much about the Bush admin or the history of Afghanistan, do you?— sully64
- LORETTA L: There is no rush on the health insurance, Swede wants to study it for 5 years straight during a Dem Admin ONLY! Any of Obama's plans to spend money are NO RUSH, unless they involve WAR, which is obviously a RUSH. Americans die in wars, as Swede knows health ins. is an earned right. Why should he pay for anyone else to get sick, that's their problem, and they shouldn't make it his problem. Swede never saw anyone die from no health ins. They can get charity, IF they're so-called sick.— Talvenada
- Talvenada- If it does not go into effect for 5 years then it should be debated for 5 years. Posted on the website for all to see. You know, like he promised in the campaign. But while our troops our dying in Afghanistan you want to deliberate. Nice logic. You've been spending too much time at the Pub.
- Ah, a chance to pick up on the Fox debate from yesterday. I think it’s smart to make an issue of Fox News. First, it is a fact that Fox does not function as a legitimate news organization (“Outfoxed” presented memos from Fox managers describing how news stories should be spun). Second, it cheers Obama supporters to have him fight back. Third, it alerts people who otherwise don’t pay much attention to Fox that it can’t be taken at face value (the ratings increase is mostly people who are curious about Fox because of the Obama push-back; they won’t stay long, but they will see for themselves how right-on are the charges of distortion and bias). The Fox claim about “ratings candy” is instructive: Fox is not celebrating; rather it hopes to discourage more push-back. As to the arguments against the Obama campaign, they are mostly conventional wisdom and are not persuasive. Letting smears and distortions go unchecked can be appeasement, as easily as it can be helping Fox boost ratings. Rather than making Obama look Nixonian, attacking the media has always paid off. Look at how easily the media was manipulated recently when they were attacked for being pro-Obama. They immediately began parroting the righties’ talking points. And Fox’s bias and distortion are themselves distractions; people call for Obama to be tougher, and when he takes Fox on, people worry that he is taking on too much. Finally, the people cautioning against going after Fox are hardly unbiased themselves; most are media people or provide an outlet for critics. At my picnic, rather than let ants spoil the outing, I just whip out a can and Ant-B-Gone and give them a shot. They don’t like it.— Djoko Pritza
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: