Geoff, you're obviously a Brooks' fan, but I've gotta ask, why?  Is this a Republican in Texas contrasted with a Rebublican in New York state thing?

I'd guess so, yes.  Although candidly, my Republicanism is at its weakest now.  The party has moved, socially speaking, too far to the right for my tastes.  And based on Dubya even the tenents of smaller government and less government interference are just talking points not practice (as far as I have seen at least).  I do like Brooks, but as for this column, I was really focused on the last line, in light of what was being discussed in this thread at the time -- which is why I wrote "and forget Ayers and Keating"

There are teenagers that don't fumble in debate class all the time, yet that shouldn't be a criterion for presidency/vice-presidency. 

**

Indeed, that's a recurring theme when for me talking with Palin supporters.  Sure, she's "spunky", "feisty", "down to earth", "seems just like you", etc., .... but that doesn't equate to being qualified for being Vice President. 

(There was also the one male supporter who told me, "She's pro-life and pro-second amendment.  Good enough for me."  To which I replied, "Wow.  Sounds pretty easy to get your vote.")

In the debate, she seemed like a spokesmodel/news anchor/weather girl.  She carried herself well, memorized her cards, and winked a lot.  I don't particularly like Biden, but Palin seemed like someone who'd prepared for a job interview with generic answers after reading Knock'em Dead.

But I'll say it again .... for better or worse, we get the government we deserve.

Michael Myers wrote: Matt, NBER announced the March, 2001 peak in November of that year.  They base their determination on analysis of the indicators, period.

Right.  November of that year was when it was over; March 2001-November 2001.  Nothing I wrote contradicts that.  They determined the end after the end and didn't determine the period of time of the recession until it was over.

Ungh, gospel.  Even a cat as sometimes argumentative as I am can't argue with that one.

Michael:

Yeah, pretty bloody awful truth at that.  Add to it I haven't seen that McCain will be any different (despite my hopes to the contrary) and the Palin selection doesn't support that hope.  I have an attrocious understanding of economics, I'll defer to your knowlegde.  But my horsesense tells me that based on the bailout (which I unenthusiastically supported) I think whoever will be in the White House will be forced to (1) roll back the tax cuts and (2) deal with this nationalized economic mess.  How Europe and Asia react in the coming days will certainly effect the policy of the next president as well.  So its all a fucking mess!

Dig.  You know, I would have thought some of the more enthusiastic McCain supporters would have pounced on this fact and the notion that Senator Obama's tax plans will have to be revised, right down the line, in view of the economic situation.  You can't contract an economy facing recession, yet his tax plan, for one aspect, does just that.

I think the cold reality of January will bring that out should Obama be elected but I don't suspect or expect to hear that from either candidate.  I feel, my poor knowledge in economics aside, that the economy will eventually swing back up.  The question, at that point, is how do we handle what we owe?  Then I think you'll see tax increases (and I actually think McCain would want to increase taxes) if its the fiscally responsible thing to do (recall Reagan and Bush the Elder, raised taxes -- Clinton's surplus had a lot to do with the tax increase implemented by 41.)