I think a guy who's been so wrong for so long should just shut the fuck up. The funny thing is, he knows he's been wrong. There's no way someone of his intelligence can think otherwise, but now it's become a principled stance. He's got to keep the charade up or risk being called an empty suit. So Friedman and others like him keep vomiting this crap. I wonder how "supportive" of the President policies Friedman will be of next year?

That last sentence should read, "I wonder how 'supportive' of the Preseident's policies Friedman will be next year?"

somewhat related, this HuffPo article exposes the GOP quite plainly, and I have to think for some, shockingly, as more concerned with it's own survival than serving the best interests of Americans. Kind of stunning to see this being discussed so openly. It's like they're admitting "yea, we all know we're corrupt, but here's how were going to keep the 'family' alive".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/22/reports-passing-universal_n_145769.html

I don't get where Friedman is coming from. What exactly is his agenda? Drudge is easy to figure out. He's just a purveyor of right wing sludge. Halperin simply wants to matter and is prepared to say whatever it takes to get noticed.

But what is the deal with Friedman? Is it really as simple as his trying to cover up all the times he's been wrong? That's a lot of covering up to do.

I don't get where Friedman is coming from. What exactly is his agenda? Drudge is easy to figure out. He's just a purveyor of right wing sludge. Halperin simply wants to matter and is prepared to say whatever it takes to get noticed.

But what is the deal with Friedman? Is it really as simple as his trying to cover up all the times he's been wrong? That's a lot of covering up to do.

Someone should tell him to just give it 6 more months.

I gauge a bloviating idiot by the number of times he uses 'basically' in the course of an interview. He clocked in at 6 when he was whoring his book on the Daily Show. Friedman just loves to root for the winning team. At the first sign of clouds, he will run inside to his only friend, his typewriter, and renew his boho nonsense.

Actually, this seems to be the editorial direction for the NYT, since Gail Collins said the same thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/22collins.html?em

Thanksgiving is next week, and President Bush could make it a really special holiday by resigning.

Seriously. We have an economy that’s crashing and a vacuum at the top. Bush — who is currently on a trip to Peru to meet with Asian leaders who no longer care what he thinks — hasn’t got the clout, or possibly even the energy, to do anything useful. His most recent contribution to resolving the fiscal crisis was lecturing representatives of the world’s most important economies on the glories of free-market capitalism.

And Paul Krugman, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21krugman.html?em

There is, however, another and more disturbing parallel between 2008 and 1932 — namely, the emergence of a power vacuum at the height of the crisis. The interregnum of 1932-1933, the long stretch between the election and the actual transfer of power, was disastrous for the U.S. economy, at least in part because the outgoing administration had no credibility, the incoming administration had no authority and the ideological chasm between the two sides was too great to allow concerted action. And the same thing is happening now.

Taken as a whole, the picture the NYT is painting is pretty dire - the prospects of a government with no governing authority, and one in waiting that the entire world would prefer to have now.

I'm not willing to dismiss the entire idea just because Tom Friedman is a blowhard. I think the chances of something like this happening is slim to none, but Tom Friedman actually offered a reasonable interim measure - namely having Bush appoint Obama's Treasury Secretary now. That's not an unreasonable idea.

QT

Tuna fish. Lots of it = mercury poisoning. Maybe he should eat it everyday before recommending it.

I hate TF. He's epitomizes asinine to an ASS.

It's their way of making the Dems take responsibility for the mess the GOP got us into. They're already referring to the economy as "Obama's Recession" - they want to make it official.

ceu: I honestly don't think so. I really think that the media is acutely aware not only of our current president's shortcomings, but of the credibility gap that also become noticeably public with the fall of the economic markets in September. McCain caught the brunt of that, but that only partially overshadowed the president's incompetence. Here's The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12668365&source=features_box_main

STOCKMARKETS soared on Friday November 21st when investors learned that Barack Obama would nominate Timothy Geithner as his Treasury Secretary. That might seem odd. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York president was already a favourite for the post. And he brings no magical solution to the financial crisis: he has been battling it for over a year, with no end in sight.

The 494-point (6.5%) jump in the Dow Jones Industrial Average is more a statement about investors’ anxiety over the unsettled state of economic policymaking. News of the Treasury nominee holds out the prospect of a more coherent and forceful approach to the crisis. The current treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, is reworking the $700 billion bail-out plan on the fly, policymakers are struggling over a new approach to foreclosures, the status of the mortgage agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is in limbo, and Congress has just sent the carmakers, teetering on insolvency, home empty handed. The two months before Mr Obama is sworn in seem like an eternity.

QT

I'm with Queen. The suggestion that Bush put Obama's picks in place makes sense, and the sad fact is that a lot can go wrong and get worse between now and Jan. 20.

Bob said:

Friedman, Drudge, Halperin and the like are writers who everyone in Washington reads. Now that's a good reason to panic.

The Queen says:

Easy cure! Get everyone in Washington to read Cesca! Start a book donation drive now. Contribute to a pool, buy Bob's book, and mail them to our congress critters, and to the President-Elect!

QT

I still disagree. While I understand (and agree) in theory, I don't believe it would be good in practice. If it happens, it will come back in 3 years to haunt and dog the Democrats. Anything that happens to the economy that is unfavorable will be seen as a Democratic failure, regardless of the fact that the events were set in motion by the GOP. Obama's already starting at a disadvantage; he doesn't need to take it all on two months early.
Now...I DO think that Geithner should be working closely with Paulson and if Obama disagrees strongly with something BushCo wants to do then Obama's policies should prevail, but that's probably not going to happen.

Funny how all the pundits who admonish people for continuing to eat out and going to Starbucks and buying a few Christmas presents don't realize that if we all stop spending money - today - on anything other than raw necessities, millions of our fellow citizens will have no income at all, even more shops will close, and we will go on spiraling downward. That's the problem of becoming dependant on a consumer economy in the first place. If I stopped spending every dime of my modest discretionary income, I still wouldn't have enough for one week's worth of private health insurance. In the meantime, it's important to buy those cups of coffee and half sandwiches and to tip well because otherwise, even more people will lose their jobs, shops and homes, and we will all starve in our lonely isolation.

We're all in this together, and I'm getting a little sick of the "eat tuna" admonitions because 1) they refuse to admit our financial interconnectedness, 2) they are yet another thinly disguised version of "blame the poor for having no money" (we're just feckless at budgeting, or we'd be secure in our homes and incomes, like them) and 3) they do nothing to address any of the real issues, including the importance of phasing from a consumer economy to something actually sustainable and connected.

yeah,i get it-spending cash like a drunken sailor is bad...but still,dont we need SOMEONE to spend money in order to build the economy back up?the restaurant business is just one of many which are suffering.so if the people who still have good jobs arent going out to eat who the fu** will?apparently its okay for journalists to dine out right?