yo

so?

lo yo yo
(everybody’s doin’)

Krugman must have been promised the Fed or something. Brutal.

If the energy policies that Carter had started putting into place in the late ’70’s were still in effect we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now. Reagan was the devil and this country is in deep denial. Still.

Whoa, the Devil! Go’ne wit you bad self Rev!

Has Paul Krugman commented on the effectiveness of the McCain and Clinton proposals for a gas tax holiday? If so, did he mention any potential effects on the Democratic Party of Clinton adopting a proposal previously announced by McCain?

Well, the devil hath power to assume a pleasing shape, and one may smile, and smile, and be a villain… Did Shakespeare ever meet Reagan? Didn’t Ronnie sit behind him in third grade?

Good Morning Scarecrow,
Thanks to Marion we got a head start on Krugman this morning.
His complaints make no sense

as you say…

Republicans should never be given credit, and that idea, we are told, emerged from Democrats during the Carter era, when his administration first sanctioned emission trading systems. Well, maybe, maybe not, but so what?
…
And if Obama wants to cite that as a decent “Republican” idea as a way of getting broader support from those still clinging to denial for one of the things that need to be done on global warming, it doesn’t strike me as helpful to criticize the effort.

IV met him twice,sent him prezzies when he wrote good columns back in the dark days befor Keith,but if he was promised something by the CLINTONs and is trying to hurt our grass roots guy,i say fukem….

yes. Krugman said first in his blog (see my previous post) and again at the bottom of his column today, that the gas-tax proposal is a bad idea. He’s “disappointed” that Clinton supports it.

Looks like Krugman is getting his talking points from Sidney Blumenthal,
another example of what a dense pack of zombies the Clintons have to do
the background buzz work for their campaign… the Clinton campaign has
taken on a distinct Jonestown flavor of late and I hope they have the
kool-aid party soon.

No, I don’t believe Krugman has. It was, surprisingly, Thomas Friedman who called them out. Who’d a thunk it…

Wouldnt it be nice if all ideas could be discussed and debated. Put out there for the American people without the greed and mismanagement we have had.

The obtuseness of this post is surprising on a progressive blog. Obama, in his desire to advance his unity theme, often advances incorrect, revisionist history about progress that has been achieved under Republican vs. Democratic administrations. It’s becoming his signature move. Progressives should call him on this, whether they support him or Clinton. How hard to understand is that?

Carter had five different energy bills, a couple of which were not good ideas. The Fuel Use Act produced a mess we had to undue a decade later. PURPA, which midwifed competitive generation industry, was a mixed bag. Other stuff on promoting conservation/demand-side efficiency and renewable was goods, and we ran with it. Reagan tried to kill everything worthwhile, but we kept going at the state level.

Always check your mirrors before pulling out into traffic.

He was a strong Edwards supporter to begin with. It seems like he has myopia re health care. That seems to be his one and only focus in which case it explains why he would shift to Clinton. Problem is there’s lots more to the whole package than health care and she sucks on the rest of it . . . . like war for instance.

Krugman should know better. Disappointing that he doesn’t.

Look, there are reasons for disagreements. Stick to the policies/merits and take the ad hominen elsewhere.

i used to like Sidney,what the hell is up to at TPM,somebody said he is issuing bullshit smears against Obama there….@#$%^&*argh,better dems,puleaaaaaaaaaase

I was in MA at the time dealing with energy policies that were strongly mandated at the beginning—until Reagan trashed it all and then it became an official after thought. Much of the country was way behind CA and even MA but had the codes not been dropped we would be much further along with conservation and alternative energy. All of the funding etc. for the development of alternatives got cut off at the knees. Makes me crazy.

Not hard to understand. I agree with the broader point about not using Repub talking ponts, but there are instances where giving credit is defensible, and I believe this is one of them.

Oh yes and Hillary never does that. Oh please! Her gun-toting, whiskey-swilling, “I’m a $100 million dollar commoner”, duck hunting, and, “I’ve been under sniper fire and am combat ready!”, image is all truth to you Hillary supporters, huh? If I’m not mistaken, those I’ve encountered online who support her USE ALL NEOCON talking points and act like the victim when they’re asked a direct question. It’s getting tiresome. Real change is NOT VOTING FOR A NEOCON. That leaves Hillary Clinton & John McCain out. The End.

Seriously whats up with the smears?

You want to talk about candidates re-writing history?

Take a look at Hillary on NAFTA.

That’s some SERIOUS re-writing.

RevDeb, don’t be pointing out facts this morning. You’ll make the Hillary supporters cry. LOL

Okay, going to work now. ;-)

ditto

Marion — it was on Krugman’s blog a few days ago; also, read the bottom of his column today:

To be clear, both Democratic candidates have been saying things they shouldn’t; Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have endorsed the bad idea of a gas tax holiday.

Pretty typical - “but, but, but SHE does it too!” Same goes for RevDeb. No criticism of Obama is fair. I get it. Moving on.

I like Krugman a lot, and he was quite correct when he said that Obama should lay off the right-wing attacks on Hillary’s healthcare plan. But he has gotten his pride and academic tenacity involved in this, and has forgotten Voltaire’s warning that “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

On a similar line, on Wednesday afternoon on her radio show, Rachel Maddow mentioned that she had once interviewed Obama, and it hadn’t gone well at all. She even mentioned it more than once. Does anyone know what that’s all about?

Too true, it seems that a olt of otherwise talented people have become
highly engaged to say the least. Too bad, Blumenthal is a fine writer
and has a body of work very much worth the reading. Same type of smear
work has come from Sean Wilentz and Joe Wilson as well, so it seems a
widespread phenomenon… could be obtuseness is contagious after all.

i haven’t read krugman yet, but i have read the transcript of obama’s interview on fox. and i gotta say, it pissed me off too. i’ll post some more quotes, but please see the link for the entire interview.

OBAMA: Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea.

WALLACE: Such as.

OBAMA: Well, on issues of regulation, I think that back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, a lot of the way we regulated industry was top down command and control. We’re going to tell businesses exactly how to do things.

And I think that the Republican party and people who thought about the margins (ph) came with the notion that you know what, if you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives for businesses, let them figure out how they’re going to for example reduce pollution. And a cap and trade system, for example, is a smarter way of doing it, controlling pollution, than dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.

I think that on issues of education, I have been very clear about the fact, and sometimes I have gotten in trouble with the teachers union on this, that we should be experimenting with charter schools.

I’m typical? Wow. I bet you also chant, “Yes we can!”, because the Hillarybots aren’t capable of thinking for themselves. LOL

Hey, you can love Hillary all you want. You’re in good company: republicans, neocons, Rush Limbaugh and others support you!

Okay, really going to work now. LOL

Folks around here know that I’m not an Obama cheerleader. But stuff that Hillary has done in this campaign has been beyond what I consider kosher. Just because IOKIYAR in campaigns doesn’t mean that dems should stoop that low.

Most folks probably don’t read his blog (well, we do…) and an afterthought at the bottom of a column doesn’t strike me as being as strong a statement as Friedman made, right up front.

on the topic of global food shortages, the author of the WP series on it is up on CSPAN right now

more quotes from obama’s fox appearance:

OBAMA: No, look, I think this is fair. I would point out, though, for example, that when I voted for a tort reform measure that was fiercely opposed by the trial lawyers, I got attacked pretty hard from the left.

During the Roberts –

WALLACE: John Roberts, Supreme Court.

OBAMA: John Roberts nomination, although I voted against him, I strongly defended some of my colleagues who had voted for him on the Daily Kos, and was fiercely attacked as somebody who is, you know, caving in to Republicans on these fights.

OBAMA: On partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother.

OBAMA: And I do not consider Democrats to have a monopoly on wisdom. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we are always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

WALLACE: And we are back for one final segment with Senator Barack Obama. Senator, this week President Bush named David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, to be the head of Central Command, which controls overseas military operations across the Middle East and Central Asia. Will you vote to confirm his nomination?
OBAMA: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.

WALLACE: Senator Obama, thank you so much for talking with us
OBAMA: I enjoyed it.
WALLACE: Don’t be a stranger.
OBAMA: I won’t.

creepy.

One thing that can be said about the folks here is that unlike reich wing blogs who defend their propagandists no matter what they say, we are equal opportunity critics.

Who would have thought we’d have one post singing praises to Friedman (do remember the F.U.) and then rag on Krugman? But then again we have a standard of trying to uphold things like, well, the rule of law, economic justice, ecological responsibility . . . stuff like that.

This remains a healthy place for analysis and conversation.

maybe krugman doens’t think obama will get us out of iraq any sooner than clinton?

maybe healthcare is his most important issue?

… look, i don’t agree with him - i think you know how much i despise the both clintons - but i don’t transfer that to their supporters. i haven’t seen anything from krugman to make me think it’s not a genuinely and thoughtfully held position.

don’t know if it makes sense, but i can despise a candidate and respect their supporters - so long as the support is not dishonest.

yea but i think he was looking for a few Fox voters,but that is stoopit,for it will never happen….i like the “perfect” quote…he aint perfect,but he is “good” imo

Krugman and Blumenthal and a lot of other HRC supporters were out there in public banging on the bushies when no one else was. They have earned our respect and should get it, even if we disagree on who should be the Dem candidate. And at least those two know a lot more about things than I do, and I want a real good reason to disagree with them on policy, not a bunch of tin foil hat speculation about what HRC promised them.

Both these candidates that we have been given are corporate trash. They both toe the corporate line on any number of issues, health care, industry regulation, unending “war”, banking. Whatever. Why the heck progressives are arguing about which side of a blank piece of paper to look at is beyond me. Forget about the corporate candidates and support progressives at every elective level.

yea,well Hills healthcare program….sukkks tooooooooo

well said

HILL BELONGS TO BIG PHARMA lest we forget

Who would have thought we’d have one post singing praises to Friedman (do remember the F.U.)

Who could forget the Friedman Unit? But even a blind hog finds an acorn from time to time…

Why the heck progressives are arguing about which side of a blank piece of paper to look at is beyond me.

i think this is possibly the most insightful comment i’ve read on the entire event we call the democratic presidential primary.

wow.

The final two graphs of his piece, which it’s clear that some posters here didn’t read, are:

“To be clear, both Democratic candidates have been saying things they shouldn’t; Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have endorsed the bad idea of a gas tax holiday.

But I think Mr. Obama is doing much more harm to the Democratic cause by echoing Republican attack lines on such issues as insurance mandates and Social Security. And now he’s demonstrating his post-partisanship by giving Republicans credit for good ideas they never had.”

This is clearly his theme. The column is a reasonable critique of a what has become a pattern of Obama’s. Yet you want to equate him with MoDo. I just don’t understand why you would do that unless you were trying to delegitimize criticism of Obama. Krugman and Dowd are night and day, in substance and in tone. This was poor.

The post, and several of the comments here, really seem to suggest that criticism of Obama is always wrong and unfair. That’s silly. Neither candidate is perfect, by a long shot.

I said nothing of any promises made to them by anyone, I think they, like
most people are capable of getting it wrong on occasion, especially in
an atmosphere as charged as it seems to be at the lake today. They are
just people after all.

I agree both are worthy our respect. I just don’t think this particular point was helpful.

For myself, I think that one the great ills affecting the country for the past few decades is the tendancy to latch on to some ideology rather than rationalism and pragmatism. I think either Obama or Clinton would, like FDR, use the most basic problem solving approach of considering alternative solutions and selecting the most promising, and that either would revise a policy as necessary. Therefore, I have no problem with either one suggesting that, like a clock, any Republican policy may have been right a couple of times a day. I would be more appalled if either suggested they wanted to replace the Republican idiologies with some exact set of socialist theories.

please read this insightful post,about Big Pharma,i dont want a mandate for insurance companies to make windfalls

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..707/505753

You are too kind

Not as creepy as what’s percolating out about Clinton’s campaign tactics. That does give me pause. That she’s demanding Congress go on the record for or against the gas tax holiday? That sounds right out of the Republican let’s force everybody to vote on Iraq right before the 2002 election playbook.

Add that to the historic pattern of her health care debacle, and the whole issue of trust and honesty and entitlement.

I just see nothing but destructiveness coming out of the Clinton camp wrapped in promises ribboned by neocon tactics. The swift-boating of Obama by Blumenthal and company. The triangulating against the Democratic Congress–didn’t we learn our lesson about how much the Clintons care about the Democratic party back in the 90s?

As Scarecrow said,

It’s not just about getting elected; the point is to govern.

We’re seeing in campaign tactics how these candidates will govern.

Prairie Today: War Games & War Games…Redux

no disagreement here. We need to pour more of our energies into the Blue America candidates and find more like them.

As for the blank sheet of paper, my thinking is that we have more of a chance to write our own priorities on one of those sides than on the other. Whomever gets elected will have to be pushed to do the right thing. So who will we have a better chance at pushing?

For myself, I think that one the great ills affecting the country for the past few decades is the tendancy to latch on to some ideology rather than rationalism and pragmatism

i’m with you here. right on.

my problem with what obama said wasn’t so much that the republicans might be right and should at least be listened to. my problem is what he said they were right about. that is where i disagree.

This is clearly his theme. The column is a reasonable critique of a what has become a pattern of Obama’s. Yet you want to equate him with MoDo. I just don’t understand why you would do that unless you were trying to delegitimize criticism of Obama. Krugman and Dowd are night and day, in substance and in tone. This was poor.

The post, and several of the comments here, really seem to suggest that criticism of Obama is always wrong and unfair. That’s silly. Neither candidate is perfect, by a long shot.

waa?
I didn’t get any sense from Scarecrow’s post that Obama can’t be criticized or that Krugman is the new MoDo. His criticism of Krugman was specific, clear, and to the point.

Hill had a GREAT chance to promote universal healthcare,when Bill was in the white house for 8 YEARS,she failed dismally,i say …give somebody else a chance

Both these candidates that we have been given are corporate trash. They both toe the corporate line on any number of issues, health care, industry regulation, unending “war”, banking. Whatever. Why the heck progressives are arguing about which side of a blank piece of paper to look at is beyond me. Forget about the corporate candidates and support progressives at every elective level.

I certainly agree that neither of them is a progressive.

That said, both of them are way better people than McCain.

On domestic policies, I like Hillary’s stuff a bit better. But on foreign policy, I prefer someone who is not a neocon, which Hillary is.

so VERY wise you are

please do not think that my criticism of obama is an endorsement of clinton or even any kind of comparison. i was judging obama’s statements on their own merits (or at least trying to).

I just see nothing but destructiveness coming out of the Clinton camp wrapped in promises ribboned by neocon tactics. The swift-boating of Obama by Blumenthal and company. The triangulating against the Democratic Congress–didn’t we learn our lesson about how much the Clintons care about the Democratic party back in the 90s?

SPOT ON

please LOOK at the venue

so you thought NAFTA was a good idea,we know their track record

Now I know why you a so good at your real job. You are a glass half full person….and wise to boot.

So who will we have a better chance at pushing?

excellent question.

but i don’t have an answer.

i never would have thought that pelosi would be so irresponsible and so unresponsive to the american people. basically, i just don’t know how to judge.

Touche — I meant to separate Krugman from MoDo, because I respect him and expect more, but I can see how one might read it as equating them. It’s a fair cirticism.

Exactly. You disagree on this point and show your thinking, complete with facts and experience. Others just assume Krugman is a supporter of HRC, and will say anything to help her. Of course it is true he supports her, and what he says has to be read through that lens, but his thinking is out there for us to study and criticize.

There is no way Krugman and Blumenthal are in the category of the bushies, who say anything to get what they want. That is a trap we all need to avoid.

LOOK how our oligarch corporate controlled media SPINS NONSENSE ceaselessly….he must be VERY CAREFUL what he says,because they would like to hang em high(figuatively)

you DO have an answe,the CLINTONS were in office 8 years,and were PUSHED WAY to the RIGHT….just sayin

Really, I get that, selise.

I guess I’m really growing increasingly frustrated these days because we do have, as Joe Andrews put it [heard on car radio yesterday so no linky], two very good candidates on our side.

And more needs to be said about issues, and how to accomplish those issues, instead of the media-enabled roilings about Obama’s pastor, etc.

In Hillary’s campaign tactics, I’m seeing a “style of governance” if you will, that won’t accomplish those issues no matter whether she’s incrementally better on one or the other. We’ve lived thru the Clinton Years.

Let’s Move On….

i never would have thought that pelosi would be so irresponsible and so unresponsive to the american people. basically, i just don’t know how to judge.

I don’t think that fancynancy’s intractable position is helpful to clinton2 frankly. The perception of clinton2 as a stuborn intractable women is being played out for all the world to see in the person of pelosi the defense industry’s puppet.

Blumenthal is a senior advisor to the Clinton campaign, he has a formal
position in the organization, so some discount is applicable for the
duration. Social networks influence opinion, Krugman is not immune.

But he has gotten his pride and academic tenacity involved in this, and has forgotten Voltaire’s warning that “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

A lot of progressives seem to have forgotten Voltaire’s warning during this long primary season.

November is still months away & I think I’m near the political burnout point. My mind is tuning out more often every day due to the struggle of finding a minute or two of common sense, rational discourse out of 24/7 babble. The only times I find myself fully engaged in listening & watching is when Elizabeth Edwards & Michelle Obama speak.

Has Krugman actually endorsed HRC, or has he merely said that he favored her plans on healthcare and the economy?

Once again I say:

Obama cannot win the General Election without a large percentage of the Clinton supporters voting for him.

Clinton cannot win the General Election without a large percentage of the Obama supporters voting for her.

So as Scarecrow asked the other day, how do the supporters of both plan to bring the supporters of the other back into the fold for November?

And how will that be done without insulting the intelligence or integrity or beliefs of the other side?

I was responding to selise’s concerns about Obama giving a gratuitous nod, off the top of his head, to some supposed Republican concepts. I don’t like to hear praise for them either, but don’t take it too seriously because I don’t think either candidate will effect any actual policies or decisions. That’s just based on what both candidates have said or done.

I support Obama for the precise reason that I thought the tactics and statements adopted by Clinton over the past couple of months were very self serving and destructive to the Democratic Party and chances of correcting the nation’s ills. The policies of the two differ little, but in a few cases (mandatory health care participation), I think her ideas are correct. Nevertheless, I feel certain he would ultimately adopt whatever method is most likely to solve the problem and modify as necessary.

Hill at CAMP DAVID

BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Similar Bloggers
My Recollection of Hillary Clinton at the 1995 Camp David Meeting

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....97291.html

sadlyyes @ 69 says:

you DO have an answe,the CLINTONS were in office 8 years,and were PUSHED WAY to the RIGHT….just sayin

but that doesn’t mean obama won’t be worse (not arguing that i think that - just saying i don’t see much evidence of him standing up for principle).

Prairie Sunshine @ 70 says:

two very good candidates on our side.

on this we disagree - i don’t like either one.

I think we’re all burned out by the campaign. It causes irrational behavior– or as RevDeb observes, I’ve written a favorable piece on Friedman and a critique of Krugman? What?

So just out of curiosity . . .

Do most folks think we should avoid the Clinton/Obama issue until it’s decided? Is that what we should be doing at the lake. Like to hear from those who watch/read but don’t often comment, too.

So as Scarecrow asked the other day, how do the supporters of both plan to bring the supporters of the other back into the fold for November?

Well now if the eventual candidate were to take a definitive, progressive stand on say healthcare or taxing the rich I don’t think there will be any trouble at all getting most, if not all, Dems behind them. Wishy washy will get neither of them what they need, the votes.

should have included that i don’t like either D candidate, except with i compare them mcsame.

I don’t believe the columnists are allowed to formally endorse.

WELL mandatory HEALTH INSURANCE ,ina recession/depression,is a non starter imo

Yes.

And these same meme applies to dakine’s point about uniting the party.

He’ll do it, she won’t.

no shit SHERLOCK…….”G”

Do most folks think we should avoid the Clinton/Obama issue until it’s decided?

If the discussion is about clinton2 or obama1 then all is fine but if the drift is towards chit chatting about Wright or Krugman or Blueballs, or any other supporter endorser then time is a wasting. Issues ladies and gentlemen it is all about the issues.

from my comment

But what is clear in both in my memory and my notes is that there was extensive, hard-nosed discussion about why masses of voters did not support Clinton or trust government or base their choices on economic as opposed to what people saw as peripheral life-style concerns. Hillary Clinton was among the most cold-blooded analysts in attendance. She spoke of ordinary voters as if they were a species apart, and showed interest only in the political usefulness of their choices — usefulness to the Clinton administration, that is.

I vividly remember at the time finding it impressive that Bill Clinton (NOT Hillary Clinton) showed real empathy for the ordinary people whose motives and supposedly misguided choices were under analysis. Ironically, just as Barber reported, Bill Clinton was the one who combined analysis and empathy, much as Obama himself did in his full San Francisco remarks.

Truly I don’t think any of us has an answer that we can count on. There comes a time when we just have to make a decision based on the best information we can gather and go on from there. Then we get to live with the consequences and either be pleasantly surprised or work hard (again) to change it in the next round.

rinse and repeat.

So, you want to argue with me over this? LOL.

I don’t think FDL or any blog should avoid the Clinton v Obama conversaton. Then you leave the playing field to the lowest common denominators like Limbaugh, corp media, and yes, hyperpartisan campaign minions.

FDL’s mix of conversation over the dayparts and thru the week give everyone ample opportunity to participate, to pop off, to learn, with the greater goal of actually realizing restoration of democracy and rule of law in this country.

And really, how could we possibly separate the candidates, the competition, from each of the issues which move us so deeply?

The Clintons have a record that extends from Arkansas through DC that
is more image than substance. They have been at it for too long, there
is plenty of talent that can take the lessons learned from those years
and apply them for a future that is less of a rerun of a nostalgic past.
I agree with Cross, the methods used by the Clintons in this primary
season don’t pass the smell test, but they have a long history that can
be found in texts widely available to the inquiring mind.

Your last sentence is THE question.

sez a lot

Hillary Clinton was among the most cold-blooded analysts in attendance. She spoke of ordinary voters as if they were a species apart, and showed interest only in the political usefulness of their choices

For the Clintons, it IS all about getting them elected, if not this time then next time following a failed McCain term. They care about nothing else, certainly not about the fate of the rest of us under more years of Republic control.

Do most folks think we should avoid the Clinton/Obama issue until it’s decided? Is that what we should be doing at the lake.

How refreshing that would be… Searching out and supporting more and better Democrats in the down-ticket races would be helpful, I think. Several times I’ve heard about good candidates here and when possible I’ve tossed a few bucks into their kitty. How about more focus on Congress and state races?

no!,peeps might be choosing to pay for FOOD,and not INSURANCE
and Krugman obviously doesnt get it

It’s the SUPREME COURT. Period.

That has to be the bottom line and anyone you talk with who hints at not voting for the dem—whomever it is—needs to be asked with this frame. Do you truly want John McCain to choose the next 2,3,4, Supreme Court Justices?

She lacks the ability to fake empathy that her husband has. Her attitude is very Republic.

What Krugman doesn’t get is that Obama is following George Lakoff’s lead.
And, I would say that he’s doing one hell of good job of it to. This quote below explains what Obama’s up to better than I can.

“When you want to convert someone to your point of view go over to where they are standing, take them by the hand, and guide them. You don’t stand across the room and shout; you don’t call them a dummy; you don’t order them to where you are. You start where they are and work from that position. That’s the only way to get them to budge.”
Paraphrase from: St Thomas Aquinas

I think you and the other posters have been doing as well as can be done to raise interesting topics without picking sides. I don’t see how the controversy can be totally avoided right now.

I personally react adversarially when I perceive someone trying to convert every subject and point in favor of their candidate. When I see the, “Yes it’s a very nice day and that is no thanks to the evil influence of Obama,” comments. I feel like someone is on here for a definite purpose of obtaining converts, or sowing dissent, or something. Anyway, I promised to bite my lip.

The point is that Obama’s remarks fit into and reinforce caricatures of the Democratic party as top down regulators. To be fair, I have called both Obama and Clinton on it when they fall into this kind of trap - and would still prefer Al Gore. But what I said on my blog,(http://www.postnormaltimes.net/blog/archives/2008/04/transcend_this.html) before Krugman’s piece (maybe he read it?)is that, when set up with the question about where he might have differences with his own party, he could have, instead, taken the opportunity to say something more interesting, which is that the markets vs regulations debate is just an old tape that keeps getting replayed, and that there are legitimate debates, even among Democrats, over how best to confront complex environmental problems for which regulations alone are clearly inadequate. And that many Republicans, less bound by caricatures and ideological convictions, are already part of that conversation.

Although it doesn’t fit so neatly into soundbites [or Republican images of Democrats], most of those engaged in environmental issues have, for quite some time now, known and acknowledged that end-of-the-pipe command-and-control regulatory solutions were only useful for going after the low-hanging fruit. From non-point source pollution such as stormwater and agric