The Big Three have given up their worldwide leadership role when they stood in the way of innovation and instead opted for higher short-term profits. Dingell was more than willing to let this failure in leadership slide (considering he's married to a GM exec, not a big surprise); Waxman will not.

They -- and the UAW -- lobbied against higher CAFE standards which put them at a disadvantage when people realized they only sold low-efficiency vehicles when gas prices skyrocketed as opposed to foreign automakers; did not advocate for a national healthcare system which put them at a strategic disadvantage to foreign automakers who did not need to add $1000+ to each car to fund healthcare for their employees; let quality degrade; opposed tooth and nail every single regulation to come out of CA (and still oppose).

The tired excuse they have used: "we don't have the technology," "it will cost too much." Yeah, some leadership. Sounds like coward talk to me. Waxman will put those cowards in their place.

You're not supposed to take trolls seriously to begin with :).

You're assigning logic to right-wing thought... shame on you!

But, seriously, let right-wing radio bitch and moan as much as they want about the Fairness Doctrine; they can even take credit for defeating it. Meanwhile, Congress and the President can work on things that actually, ya know, matter, like healthcare reform, global warming, our foreign policy mess, etc.

The administration had, quite possibly, the MOST favorable judge to hear these arguments and, most probably, any evidence with the slightest credibility would have justified an adverse ruling for these 5.

We were predicting and hoping that this would happen and it's a shame that it happened so late in W's tenure: the judiciary -- even the right-wing ideologues -- are rebelling from the lawless decisions of the executive (with a huge assist from the legislative).

Congratulation, Judge Leon, I know we probably disagree on 95% of the issues but today you stood up for the rule of law and human decency.

They are obsessing over gays when everybody else is obsessing over whether they'll have a job in 4 months.

I don't understand why people are complaining so much. He never promised to get out of Iraq "now" and his statements during the campaign were generally on the hawkish side.

Were they expecting his campaign statements to be "just words"? How would that be any better?

on the first oil dictatorship to fall to revolution?

The network is, after all, owned by General Electric, which has a higher financial stake in the wars than the conflict-in-interest analysts could ever hope to have.

How many contracts between the military and General Electric stay nice and bloated with little oversight for as long as there is war? Probably billions worth.

NBC/GE has no interest in disclosing the truth of this matter. They are not interested in the public good; they are only interested in GE's profits.

One last point: I do hope none of this ruins my chances of succeeding Tim Russert on Meet the Press.

Anybody else remember GG being humorous (and not "these people are idiotic" scathing sarcasm)?

My acquaintance is absolutely convinced there is no recession. Why? Well, because she walked into a Starbucks on Thanksgiving Day and there were six people waiting in line to buy coffee. Also, the freeways by where she lives are crowded, which is apparently a harbinger of good economic times.

Things that don't get in my acquaintance's way, facts: 1) Starbucks' profits down 95%; 2) Starbucks closing 100s of stores nationwide; 3) she lives in the San Fernando Valley (the "Valley" of Los Angeles for you non-Cali people) where you have to get on a freeway to do ANYTHING, including going to the unemployment office.

She has never bothered to ask the people behind the counters at her Starbucks whether business is doing as well ("they won't tell the truth, anyways").

Yes, completely reminds me of Noonan's intellectually stimulating observation that "everything looks the same." What does Noonan expect? That everyone's clothes will suddenly look threadbare, that houses will suddenly become rickety, etc.?

You know, when someone can definitively prove illegal immigrants in "sanctuary cities" are, as a group, dumb enough to wield a gun in a public space AND shoot themselves in the foot, then, yes, let's round them all up and deport them.

Moral/legal relativism? You betcha!

In other "laws are best enforced locally" news, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case out of CA instructing local police agencies to ignore federal drug laws when they conflict with the state's medical marijuana.

And it's been severely lacking in Detroit, Washington and New York for decades. Many of the problems facing America today are interrelated and few people have had the guts to say that. (For example, the automobile industry sees the merging of America's energy, environmental and healthcare problems.)

Up until recently, it was taken as dogma that the "free market" could cure the problems eventually. That, of course, is a lie: the free market is inherently incapable of fixing the problems we currently have and, if anything, has exacerbated them. But the argument was used by those leaders and politicians too lazy or afraid to make the tough choices necessary to move America forward and who were willing to let the problems fester on the backburner until they could no longer be ignored.

Hopefully, this crisis will see a visionary national plan of action to tackle all or most of our problems at once such that we emerge stronger than before. Call it socialism, government interference in the markets, whatever you want, but America needs it.