Bipartisan blogging

Bipartisan blogging

: Yesterday, here and on MSNBC’s Connected, I celebrated the bipartisan blog opposition to the bankruptcy bill and now it’s an official movement from Politology, backed by both DailyKos and Instapundit.

: This will be a topic on a blog roundup again today… after Michael Jackson, of course.

  • http://punditdrome.com Scott Ferguson

    …it’s an official movement from Politology, backed by both DailyKos and Instapundit.

    …which is like saying it’s backed by USA Today and the Weekly World News. Quite a coalition!

  • http://punditdrome.com Scott Ferguson

    … or rather, vice versa. Take your pick. :)

  • http://bushout.blogspot.com gandhi

    MUST READ:
    Garance Franke-Ruta at American Prospect Online has an in-depth look at what really happened in the Eason Jordan “scandal” – hang your head in shame, Jeff Jarvis!
    So are you part of the Bush shrill machine, or were you just duped by the screaming hysteria? Either way, an apology/explanation is in order.

  • http://www.oregoncommentator.com Timothy

    That has to be the most incoherent, off-topic, non-sensical comment I’ve ever read in the blogosphere. Way to go ghandi, way to go.

  • monkeyboy

    From Gandhi’s link
    “Which brings us back to Jordan. He was brought down not by outraged citizen-bloggers but by a mix of GOP operatives and military conservatives.”
    I learned that you can’t be former military and a citizen blogger, that Barney Frank is a conservative, and “but we support the troops” doesn’t include defending them against baseless charges of murder.
    On topic, I’m a Bush supporter who also thinks that the bill is bad, hopefully we can all do something about it.

  • BladeDoc

    Is the bill a fait accompli or is there some useful way to oppose it?

  • spongeworthy

    It occurs to me that something that appears this heinous couldn’t possibly have any redeeming features, could it? Don’t we all pay for the folks who have their debts dimissed by the court? Don’t believe for a minute the banks and credit card companies take that out of their pockets–it’s merely factored into the cost of credit for all of us.
    Now I’m not laboring under the delusion that once this bill passes, the card sharks’ll lower the rates from 18% to Prime or anything. But I am suspect of any attempt to claim this is going to be any windfall for the sharks at the expense of poor debtors. The credit card companies are ALWAYS going to get theirs–if you play with them you will pay and they will profit at your expense.
    Could there be any chance whatever that the purpose of the bill is to keep the debts of irresponsible borrowers from being so blithely passed on to others?