Boehner and Cantor are complete hacks. Newt Gingrich at least had a brain sloshing around in that big skull of his, and you can be sure that if he were still the GOP's House leader, he wouldn't be pursuing the same strategy he pursued in 1993. Is there any better indication of the GOP's complete dearth of innovative ideas? Even their political theater is cribbed from old playbooks.

Bunning may have given R.B. Ginsberg yet another reason to beat this disease. Is respect for the office and an individual's privacy totally a thing of the past??

"We as conservatives have to ultimately balance the federal government's checkbook," the younger Bush said

That's breathtaking. I don't know what to say -

I listened to Pawlenty on C-Span radio this morning (me: propellerheaded nerdlinger), and heard Jindal this weekend hand-wring over the evils of the stimulus package. Both repeated the moronic phrase "this isn't a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill," and both advanced the economically bankrupt exhortion that "the way to stimulate an economy is through tax cuts."

Due to his Minnesota accent, Pawlenty oratorically sounds like he has an incessant low-grade whine. Jindal, while dramatically more charismatic, youthful, and skilled, nevertheless attended an exorcism and is positioned only slightly to the right of Sarah Palin. Romney is nowhere to be seen, probably raising money or, in the parlance of the new suburban-urban-hip-hip phraseologisms of the GOP, rasing "bling bling" by wondering aloud "who let the dogs out? Ruff, ruff-ruff."

2012. Bring it.

Devaney seems like a solid choice. Now let's make sure these governors actually use the stimulus money!!
http://www.governmentalityblog.com/my_weblog/2009/02/5-things-to-watch-for-this-week.html

Yep, early 90's is the strategy for the soon to be whig party of the 21st century. Keep going back to history to make the same mistakes. The early 90's "strategy" if you want to call it that is viewed by many as what has led us to where we are today. I am hopeful that these buffoons never wake up and cease to exist as a viable party in 2011.

Incidentally, obama is no where near the target that the clintons were. The early 90's strategy was to slime the clintons and the clintons gave the slimers a ton of ammunition. I don't see obama giving them ammunition. They have nothing to go on, so they make crap up like the birth certificate garbage, which isn't getting any traction except with the wackos.

it seems thanks to the AP the predominant lede on the devaney stories is: 'obama taps former secret service agent to oversee stimulus'.

fucking stupid. that he was a secret service agent is interesting but not particularly important or relevant. it certainly isn't the fucking LEDE!

Regarding "lede" vs. "lead", they are the same thing, spelled differently to avoid technical confusion with terms used in the printing process in early metal type.

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20001128

Susanne Sheifer wrote:

I keep coming across a word that doesn't make it into the dictionary. It is very specific to the journalism world and dates back to earlier days of newspaper publishing. The word is lede, and it refers to the opening lines of a newspaper article, also called the "lead." It is used in alerting the printer to them but distinguishes them from the word "lead" (Pb), since that metal was used in the printing of the ink. The two homophones needed to be distinguished, and hence the variant spelling lede was invented. I'm a little hazy on all of this, but it seems that the word has survived into the computer age and is still used by some journalists. Do you have any info on this?

Carol wrote:

Your explanation is good as far as it goes (thanks for doing part of my work), but to fill in the gaps I contacted Evan Jenkins, editor-in-residence at the Columbia University School of Journalism. (I highly recommend his Web site, Language Corner.) What he told me was that your explanation of lede as it's used in modern journalism is correct--it's "lead" (rhymes with greed)--the first, or leading, paragraph--spelled phonetically to avoid confusion with "lead" (rhymes with led), which is more or less what type was made of once it replaced wooden type in the 19th century. A "lead" (hear led) was also a thin strip of metal used to put space between lines of type, an act referred to as "leading" (sometimes spelled "ledding"). That last word persists today even though metal type is long gone in most places. In modern times, "leading" refers to the spacing between lines of type in phototypeset or computer-generated typeset material. "Leading out" refers to the insertion of extra spacing between lines.

In journalistic use, the "lead" is the first sentence or the first paragraph of a magazine or newspaper article. It can summarize the article, set the scene, or establish the mood of the story. The term is also used in broadcasting. For example, a "segue lead" is a transition to a related story, and a "quote lead" is a quotation.

The "lead" can also be the main or "lead(ing) article," usually appearing on the first page of a magazine, though letters to the editor and other features can precede it. In a newspaper, the "lead(ing) article" is often at the far right of page one, but each separate section can have its own main article. The "off-lead" is the second most prominent article, usually on the far left side. "Leader" (or "leder") is another term for the main article, a term used especially by The Wall Street Journal. In England, "leader" or "lead(ing) article" has a different meaning--it's a newspaper editorial.

The use of the word "lead" to mean 'the main article' is first recorded in 1927, though "lead-off" in the same sense dates from the end of the 19th century. The term "leading article" in the British sense of 'a newspaper editorial' dates from about 1807, and "leader" in this sense is first recorded in 1837. "Leader" in the sense 'the main article' is an entry in Berrey and Van Den Bark's American Thesaurus of Slang (1942).

The spelling "lede" was not invented by journalists. This spelling (and several other variants) was used for all meanings of the noun and verb up through the 1500s; the spelling "leade" or "lead" starts appearing at this time.

The Politico reports that Republicans are quite consciously looking back to the strategies employed during the first two years of Bill Clinton's presidency, in their opposition to President Obama's policies now.

I truly don't get it.

Why is their entire strategy: "what will be good for our ideology?"

Why isn't it: "what will be good for the country?"

At this stage in the game, how can they NOT think about the collective good of the country? Putting your political party first while the country suffers amounts to treason in my eyes. Opposing every solution to fixing our country's problems in the name of "winning back power" is about as anti-American as you can get without, say, a military coup.

I am continually horrified that we even have to mention this band of criminals and their "ideas".