I think bipartisanship is extremely desirable. "Post-partisanship" would be even better. What I want to see is politicians who stand up for what is right, and occasionally concede what is necessary FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY. I am sick to death of people changing their positions when they change power relationships - "I used to think deficits don't matter until it became your problem". I contend that the democrats have been attempting to be responsible, relatively non-partisan actors but the repubs have consistently put party ahead of country.

Now the question is, how do you maintain a reasonable stance and focus on what's best for the country in the face of an unreasonable bully?

This is more important than it looks, because it is really about the success of principle driven liberal government. How do you hold your principles in the face of a local bully? How about in the face of a Communist bully? Or a (small but significant) Islamic bully (ie, most muslims are probably not set on our destruction, but some certainly are).

The republican answer is easy: When face with a bully, no principle is as important as winning.

The liberal answer is a lot harder. Sometimes you've got to stand and fight. Sometimes you've got to swallow a compromise.

And, as the Serenity prayer would have it, the wisdom to tell the difference.

I don't like guns. I think they should be highly regulated. I think the risk from accidental use, crimes of passion, or people "going postal" exceeds the value of broad gun ownership in our society.

But I recognize that lots of people enjoy hunting and feel that owning a gun provides them some personal safety, or maybe they just like shooting at targets. And, one can quote statistics back and forth, but I don't think I've seen anything conclusive to show that one approach is safer than the other. We need a compromise.

Here are regulations I think are reasonable.

Gun owners should be required to establish that they know how to use and keep their guns safely. They must be able to establish that they have the equipment (gun safes, trigger locks) etc available to protect the guns from theft or accidental misuse.

Gun owners should be limited from owning weapons that are excessively dangerous. This means weapons that if misused could cause either massive deaths or overwhelm law enforcement. Teflon bullets, high caliber weapons, rapid fire full machine guns - I don't know exactly where the line should be drawn but I'm sure that a compromise could be reached.

should read "28 out of 38 consecutive hours"

I put myself through college. It was the 70's, when things like that could be done with hard (hard) work (at the age of 18 I once worked 28 out of 32 consecutive hours for minimum wage) and scholarships. I didn't even need to take out any loans until I think my junior year. I got NO cash support from my parents but I stayed at my mom's house during summers and long xmas breaks.

Many, many years later, some statements my mom made rang against statements my dad made a long time ago (he died 20 years ago). My dad was or was not paying child support to my mom for me through my college years which was supposed to help support my college career. Other than free rent in the summers, I got no support. Mom said, not that long ago "Did your dad ever give you that money? Because he was supposed to pay you directly instead of paying child support to me" The statement I vaguely remember from my dad was, "Well, you know your mom is supposed to be supporting you from the money I pay in child support".

It's 30 years ago now, my mom is the only one who knows the true story and the story as she tells it is how she remembers it. But it doesn't ring true. It's pointless to bring it up now, there's no truth to find or justice to be had. And, indeed, I've gone on to a fair amount of success, good career, happy family.

But I had a real moment of bitterness when I realized that one or both of my parents was stealing from me while I was struggling to put myself through college.

I don't know if this adds to the discussion but it feels REALLY good to say it out loud.

Michael Steele says "Government never created a single job". Huh. I wonder who he works for?

I still don't get why this line sells at all to McCain crowds. If he were even honest enough to be internally consistent, his position would be better represented as "Barack Obama wants to take money from rich people and give it to you" which seems like it oughta be something people would kinda go for.

Wish I had the cite, but I read recently that a big reason for plummeting oil prices is that banks and other large investors are needing to sell off assets to raise cash, and that oil futures are one of the things that they're selling. The bad news is, when the short term sell off is over, oil prices go back up and stay there.

So anyone who's making any plans based on long term low oil prices might want to rethink their approach.

Seems convincing to me.