Senator Inhofe is pissed at you? Bravo, Mr. Leonard! Seriously, Inhofe is one of those priceless politicians you can use as your benchmark for how evil (yes, evil) and wrongheaded a policy is.

There are several politicians like that, when you see them supporting something, you just know "Oh, okay, so this must be a bad thing." And, invariably, it is. And conversely, when they oppose something, you know "Ah, this must be a good thing." And, invariably, it is.

Inhofe has always been one of those kinds of politicians, so if he's pissed off at you, rest assured that you are doing something right, for sure. Nicely done.

You use parentheses a lot. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. ;-)

As a long time holder of the anointed title of "union thug", I welcome you to the list of honor. Achieving the status of "thug" in the eyes of the regressive movement is a badge to be proudly displayed.

Might we get a post about the electric Mini that should debut soon, Mr. Environmental Thug?

It would be wonderful if you were really an environmentalist. Sadly, since you are addicted to a car you, like the Sierra Club, are no environmentalist. We are not facing a carbon constrained future, we have a carbon constrained present that we ignore at the future's peril.

As a resident of the state that Inhofe is from, all I can say is, "Great Job, Andrew!" Every time this ass is re-elected, I just want to go outside and scream to the universe that not all of us Oklahomans are that stupid. Unfortunately, the religious right will keep him in office for the foreseeable future.

Must be feeling cocky after all the republican victories a couple weeks ago.

I frequently feel victimized by your insightful writing. Shame on you!

That's rest in PEACE, Andrew.

James Inhofe is really the redneck, retarded incarnation of the hilarious, priceless and sourly missed Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, the former Iraqi information minister, known best as Baghdad Bob.

Is it too early in the morning or am I too dense, but James Surowiecki's explanation is more of the "sky is falling" without facts, than succinct.

We all know we're in dire straits ("money for nothin', checks for free"). We all know the Big 3 employ thousands of workers and tangentially thousands of "jobbers". What we don't know is whether a bail-out would have more than just short-term results. (Somehow I get the impression that folks think we're going to come through this economic maelstrom without feeling the pain. Not likely.)

And anyone who ascribes to the speculation on Wall Street as a portent of things certain to arise has not been paying attention, the last few years.

Do we go ahead and take the gamble and bail-out the Big 3 (since were already in the hole to the banks Big Time)? Not without specific guarantees that GM brings back the equivalent of the Red Cars to SoCal.

Cheers.

GG lol

(... and thanks for the link to the pro-bailout argument — all this and a bonus!)

Here in Okie-land, I still cannot understand why so many people vote for this idiot.

Despite his supposed support for the oil and gas business, we are experiencing lots of lay-offs in the business, and many more are coming. Yet he thinks that if we just all go "La la la, I can't hear you" things will get better.

He is probably one of those, of whom there are many around here, who genuinely believe that God will somehow just replenish the oil reserves forever. And God will just make the greenhouse effect, etc., go away.

I am sending you an armadillo.

Maybe he has other posts where he explains how the bailout will stop those jobs from ending and how wall street traders have been adept at handling our money.

Sorry, but Surowiecki still hasn't convinced me. I keep hearing that the car companies don't consider Chapter 11 to be an option, but no one will explain why, in a way that even begins to persuade me. I see Chapter 11 as a way that they Big 3 can get out from under the union contracts that are currently killing them, and as these company's last best chance to return to profitability in the near term.

Surowiecki also fails to convince me that $25 billion in taxpayer funds will make a damn bit of difference. The automakers don't seem particularly interested in changing their business practices -- just in gobbling up whatever money is thrown their way and continuing to do the same things that got them into this mess in the first place.

Oh, and I live in southeast Michigan, so it's not like I don't have a stake in the automakers' health. I just don't see how a bailout of any size will keep them from collapsing unless they adopt fundamental changes -- changes that Chapter 11 could bring.

I've been feeling for a while like you need bigger enemies (the random Salon troll just doesn't cut it). If we are indeed defined by those that oppose us, then you're in good standing and with a big ol' white hat.

Thanks for the link on Surowiecki. I'm mildly in favor of *some* kind of bailout personally, although I suspect what I'd want - pretty much the polar opposite of the no-strings handout likely to occur - is about as likely as Inhofe becoming an environmental thuggee himself.

Congratulations on your designation as "Environmental Thug" by the ignoramus, Senator Inhofe!

We public library intellectual elites salute you, Sir!

Being criticized by the senior Senator from Oklahoma is high praise indeed. Do readers remember the uproar over Robertson's and Falwell's remarks about how America got what was coming to us on 9/11 because of gays and abortion? Inhofe said something similar on the Senate floor, only it did not get any attention. In this case, God allowed the attack to occur because America was insufficiently attentive to the Israeli government's wishes:

"One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our Government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them."

(Congressional Record, March 4, 2002, page S1428)