February 05, 2009

2/5: The Limits Of Bipartisanship

Lately there has been a palpable sense of frustration in the liberal blogosphere concerning the economic stimulus bill. Lefty bloggers believe (with good reason) that Dems have lost control of the stimulus debate, and they think there are several reasons why. First of all, they believe that liberals aren't making enough appearances on cable news programs and are allowing conservatives to dominate the airwaves. Second, they believe that the media is doing a poor job of correcting "myths and falsehoods" surrounding the stimulus. Third -- and most importantly -- they believe that Pres. Obama has made a critical error by emphasizing bipartisanship instead of forcefully defending his bill. Lefty bloggers believe that by trying so hard to win GOP votes, Obama has allowed GOPers "to turn the haggling over the stimulus package into a decidedly stale, Republican-style debate over pork, waste and overspending." Harvard Prof. Theda Skocpol echoes the sentiments of many liberal bloggers when she complains: "Obama is, sadly, much to blame for giving the Republicans so much leverage. He defined the challenge as bipartisanship [instead of] saving the U.S. economy."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Ruffini, Hinderaker, Yousefzadeh, Painter) are buzzing about the new Rasmussen poll indicating that support for the stimulus bill is dropping. Most righty bloggers (Reynolds, Malkin) are urging GOP senators to "kill the bill," not amend it.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Morrissey, Klein, Andersen) are accusing Obama of engaging in "fear-mongering" in today's Washington Post op-ed. On the other hand, liberal bloggers (Marshall, Silver) believe that Obama needs to do more to sell his bill to the public.
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Klein, Beutler, Orton) are annoyed that Obama's Commerce Sec. nominee, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), will recuse himself from voting on the stimulus bill, as they believe that Gregg would have been "a gettable GOP vote."
• Most conservative bloggers (Klein, Huston, Liebau, Hinderaker) are critical of the Obama admin.'s plans to impose a $500K salary cap on executives at companies that receive bailout funds.

Please check back later today as we reintroduce an old Blogometer feature called "Blogger Spotlight," in which we interview bloggers from across the political spectrum. Our first interview will be Open Left's David Sirota.

STIMULUS: How Obama Messed Up

In one of those rare instances when a mainstream pundit perfectly articulates netroots sentiment, liberal bloggers are praising Newsweek's Michael Hirsh's analysis of why Obama "has all but lost control of the agenda in Washington":

"Obama's desire to begin a 'post-partisan' era may have backfired. In his eagerness to accommodate Republicans and listen to their ideas over the past week, he has allowed the GOP to turn the haggling over the stimulus package into a decidedly stale, Republican-style debate over pork, waste and overspending. This makes very little economic sense when you are in a major recession that only gets worse day by day. Yes, there are still some very legitimate issues with a bill that's supposed to be 'temporary' and 'targeted' -- among them, large increases in permanent entitlement spending, and a paucity of tax cuts requiring immediate spending. Even so, Obama has allowed Congress to grow embroiled in nitpicking over efficiency when the central debate should be about whether the package is big enough. When you are dealing with a stimulus of this size, there are going to be wasteful expenditures and boondoggles. There's no way anyone can spend $800 to $900 billion quickly without waste and boondoggles. It comes with the Keynesian territory. This is an emergency; the normal rules do not apply."

• dday: "I think Michael Hirsh nailed the dynamic in Washington right now better than anyone. It seems to me that the Obama team let their foot off of the accelerator. There was a lot of talk during the transition about how economists and elites of all political ideologies knew something major had to be done, and they must have thought they would just coast to a quick victory on this plan. But that's not what's happening, as the conservative noise machine forced an argument about small particulars rather than the need to have a massive job creation program as soon as possible to stave off disaster. [...] Their goal is to muck up the bill enough to discredit it and make it functionally inoperable, purely for reasons of party and not country."
• Ezra Klein: "The debate is truly off-course when [ME Sen.] Olympia Snowe and [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson are talking about cutting the stimulus by $200 billion and the conversation is focused on individual programs rather than the macroeconomic effect. Hirsh doesn't really offer a way to change course. But it would seem that Obama, Rahm [Emanuel], and the Senate leadership need to exert enough control over their 58 Democrats that the question becomes how long the Republicans can let their moderates hold out. And this remains a new and a popular administration. Surely these senators are going to want their legislative and political support in the coming months. It's time to use some capital. Isn't that what Rahm is there for?"
• digby: "I think the administration thought they could be mediators between the two parties rather than leaders of the Democratic party. That just won't work, particularly when the Democrats aren't very good at battling the Republicans in close combat and the Republicans can make those who stay above the fray seem lightweight and insubstantial, which is what they've managed to do. They've showed they don't respect Obama and are unimpressed with his mandate -- the administration needs to accept that and strategize with that in mind."

Most liberal bloggers agree with digby that Obama's "post-partisan" strategy has backfired:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "What have we seen the last few weeks? Democrats caving to GOP demands and inserting useless tax cut provisions to appease them. Then they vote en masse against the stimulus in the House. [...] During the Bush years, the best interests of our country took a back seat to the GOP's failed ideology. Right now, it looks like the best interests of our country are taking a back seat to the failed ideology of 'bipartisanship'. It would be nice if, for once, people actually looked at what was best for our country."
• Ryan Avent: "A changed tone in Washington, if costless, would be a wonderful thing. But voters put Obama and Democratic majorities into office in order to get results. If Obama chooses to embrace Republicans even as they actively work against the interests of the vast majority of Americans, then we have to question his judgment. It takes two to change the tone. Republicans aren't interested, and they're using his overtures to undermine the American economy and the Obama presidency. Obama's mandate is his to deploy or squander, and the speed with which he has lost control of the storyline on stimulus suggests that he has miscalculated in figuring how much magnanimity that mandate affords him."

STIMULUS II: Trying To Compromise Is Pointless

Many liberal bloggers believe that it's useless and self-defeating to try to reconcile Dems' economic views with those of GOPers:

• The New York Times' Paul Krugman: "This isn't a brainstorming session -- it's a collision of fundamentally incompatible world views. If one thing is clear from the stimulus debate, it's that the two parties have utterly different economic doctrines. Democrats believe in something more or less like standard textbook macroeconomics; Republicans believe in a doctrine under which tax cuts are the universal elixir, and government spending is almost always bad. Obama may be able to get a few Republican Senators to go along with his plan; or he can get a lot of Republican votes by, in effect, becoming a Republican. There is no middle ground."
• Atrios: "These Things I Know To Be True: (1.) Republicans will scream until they get their way and then still not vote for it. (2.) People who listen to Rush Limbaugh and then call Democratic offices to scream at them will never vote for a Democrat. (3.) Without a good stimulus bill, we're pretty fucked. (4.) Unless Dems make a relatively forceful and united case, they're pretty fucked."

TPM's Josh Marshall thinks GOPers are opposing the stimulus bill for political reasons: "[W]hy would Republicans be trying to drive the country off a cliff? Well, not pretty to say, but they see it in their political interests. Yes, the [Jim] DeMints and [Tom] Coburns just don't believe in government at all or have genuinely held if crankish economic views. But a successful Stimulus Bill would be devastating politically for the Republican party. And they know it. If the GOP successfully bottles this up or kills it with a death of a thousand cuts, Democrats will have a good argument amongst themselves that Republicans were responsible for creating the carnage that followed. But the satisfaction will have to be amongst themselves since as a political matter it will be irrelevant. The public will be entirely within its rights to blame Democrats for any failure of government action that happened while Democrats held the White House and sizable majorities in both houses of Congress."

Meanwhile, Ezra Klein is disgusted by what he perceives to be the capitulation of Senate Dems: "Republicans know full well that they won't actually be forced to publicly filibuster the bill and defend their obstructionism while Democrats fan out across the news shows to warn of the economic dangers. Instead, [Senate Maj. Leader] Harry Reid will ask how the bill can be made smaller and leaner and more Republican. And maybe, for this, he'll get the crucial two votes assuring passage of an insufficient measure, the failure of which Republicans will run against in 2010."

STIMULUS III: To The Barricades, Dems!

Many liberal bloggers are blaming the stimulus bill's declining popularity on the relative paucity of Dems on the cable news channels:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "No one is selling [the bill]. The Democrats are simply AWOL. All I see on my tv are Republicans talking about wasteful spending, as if they have any credibility on that topic. I would pay to see [MA Rep.] Barney Frank matched up against a Republican opposed to the stimulus bill, because every Democrat has an easy retort -- 'If you have so many good economic ideas, how come you never passed any of them along to the last President?' It isn't so much that Obama is losing control in the debate. The Democrats just aren't participating, and this isn't so much a debate as a Republican monologue. We all know, given our 'liberal' media, how that is going to play out in the long run."
• Balloon Juice's Tim F.: "Why won't Democrats defend their own damn bill? Even if the Dems have some intricate strategy they still lose when Republicans run all over then in the media space. If public relations is such an important part of saving the effing country from complete economic collapse then it makes no goddamn sense to let Republicans set the terms by which the public discusses the bill. Don't just wring your stupid hands when Republicans dominate the cable shows. You have the big mic now. Use it."

Liberal bloggers are also concerned that the progressive grassroots is being outworked by the conservative grassroots, since calls to Congress are reportedly running at 100-to-1 against the stimulus bill:

• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "It's time to hit the phones for the stimulus bill. Calls are running at 100:1 against. Yes, it's not that good a stimulus bill, I've said so myself, but it's not a case of scrapping it and starting over, what looks likely to happen is that it gets badly watered down with bribes to Republicans and 'moderate' Democrats like Ben Nelson to get it through."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Grassroots action from the left is crucial. [...] Go HERE for instructions on calling your Senator in support of the stimulus package and to report how the call went."
• The Washington Monthly's Art Levine: "[T]he oft-touted grassroots army that was supposed to help push the Obama agenda seems to be Missing in Action. [...T]he huge 13-million-plus Obama network, under the direction of the new Organizing for America organization, is sending emails through the barackobama.com website asking people to attend house parties to learn more about the stimulus package, but hasn't called yet for lobbying Congress. Will they act in time?"

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are urging their readers to keep calling Senators and telling them to oppose the bill.

STIMULUS IV: Conservatives On The March

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about the new Rasmussen poll indicating that support for the stimulus bill is dropping:

• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "The stimulus is now officially unpopular, with 37% supporting passage in its current form, reminiscent of the plummeting support [for Bill] Clinton's early economic initiatives. In two weeks the GOP has been transformed from the party of Bush to the party of sensible, bipartisan opposition to fiscal insanity. It's amazing what a change in the underlying political dynamic in the form of a new President will do in so short a time."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "People are catching on to what the bill actually does, and support seems certain to decline further. The Republicans have a winning issue here, one that can take them a long way toward reclaiming their brand. The biggest danger is an untimely collapse by Republican moderates in the Senate who are not in touch with the mood of the voters."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Support for the stimulus package has plummeted. And not-coincidentally, the Senate is feeling the heat. Maybe we will avoid repeating past Keynesian follies. Now, how about some real stimulus, like tax cuts, free trade and giving monetary policy a chance to work?"
• RedState's Josh Painter: "Opposition has risen from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today. This public trend should encourage Senate Republicans who oppose the stimulus, and it should be food for thought for those GOP Senators who want something from President Obama in exchange for going along with this terrible excuse for a shot in the economy's arm. [...] It appears that voters may be experiencing buyers remorse over their election season embrace of government as a problem solver. Forty-six percent (46%) of them fear that the government will overreach in trying to fix the country's economic problems."

Glenn Reynolds: "I think the stimulus bill is a bad one, and I'm glad to see the Republicans trying to kill it rather than -- as I had feared -- just holding out for some payola before going along and providing bipartisan cover for a massive looting operation. Let's see if they can hold things together and not screw it up."

Michelle Malkin: "If Senate Republicans can hold the line, they can avoid the same head-long rush toward repeat failure that led to bailout-mania and stimulus-palooza last year. It's a big 'If.' Do your part. Make a call: 202-224-3121. [...] Kill the bill. Stab it. Stick a fork in it. Then start over from scratch."

OBAMA: This Bill Ain't Gonna Sell Itself, Mr. President

Liberal bloggers don't understand why Obama hasn't been using his bully pulpit to sell the stimulus bill:

• Harvard Univ.'s Theda Skocpol: "Obama is, sadly, much to blame for giving the Republicans so much leverage. He defined the challenge as bipartisanship [instead of] saving the U.S. economy. Right now, he has only one chance to re-set this deteriorating debate: He needs to give a major speech on the economy, explain to Americans what is happening and what must be done. People will, as of now, still listen to him -- and what else is his political capital for?"
• Marshall: "I have been surprised that [Obama] has not chosen yet to play more to, and get out among, his real constituency -- particularly on this bill -- the people. This is about them. 10 or 15 thousand people are losing their jobs every day at the moment. Half a million people a month. It would not be hard to find -- and I can't believe they're not thinking about it already -- lots of communities around the country where some version of this bill would provide critical, immediate and sustained relief to lots of people. [...] When political battles are entirely bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue, back and forths between the White House and the Hill, presidents can become just one player among many, cut off from their real source of power. And the whole nature of the debates can get rapidly disconnected from the realities actually people are experiencing in the country. Presidents are powerful when they have a national constituency behind them. Washington is a dark place, eager to trip all this up."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "If the Washington Post is correct that the stimulus bill is going to be significantly pared down in the Senate -- possibly deducting about $200 billion from its total and making the ratio of spending programs to tax cuts closer to 1:1 -- this will be viewed as a moral victory for the Republicans. I think that's a fair assessment. [...I]n essentially passing off both narrative and literal control of the contents of the package to the Congressional Democrats, the Obama administration may have played it too cute by half. Obama is popular; [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid aren't. The trajectory of the bill might have been different if Obama had devoted a prime time speech toward selling it, with graphs and pie charts and the like. But there hasn't been a Big Obama Moment like that -- a show of force -- something that really resonated outside the Beltway. [...] If Obama is not ready to use his political capital for fear that he'll lose it, then what good does it do him in the first place?"
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "[T]he Obama camp underestimated how much daily effort would be needed to sell this thing. The stimulus is a necessary and noble effort -- but it won't sell itself. You have to go out and make the case for it aggressively each day -- each news cycle."

OBAMA II: Now That's What I'm Talkin' About

After criticizing Obama's bipartisan approach to passing the stimulus bill, liberal bloggers praised him after he used last night's S-CHIP signing ceremony as an opportunity to change tactics and put the heat on GOP opponents of the stimulus bill:

"In the past few days, I've heard criticisms of this plan that frankly echo the very same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis in the first place -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems, that we can address this enormous crisis with half steps and piecemeal measures and tinkering around the edges, that we can ignore fundamental challenges, like the high cost of healthcare, and still expect our economy and our country to thrive. I reject these theories. And, by the way, so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."

• Open Left's David Sirota: "Finally, at his press conference today, President Obama begins to rise above the Church of Broderism that fetishizes bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake, and instead offer up a little bit of good old fashioned commonsense. [...] More like this, please."
• dday: "This is what needs to be said today, tomorrow, and every 10 minutes in the ear of everyone in Washington until a real and effective jobs bill passes. [...] If these right-wing lies aren't answered forcefully every single day, they become embedded. During the campaign they were rejected but within a matter of weeks they've sprouted again."
• Daily Kos' Jed L: "The President's remarks were more of a warning than open political warfare, but he did remind GOPers that the economic theories they are fighting for have been tested over the last eight years, and that they have failed. President Obama reminded Republicans that it wasn't just his opinion that their ideas have failed -- it was also the opinion of the American public, who on November 4th soundly rejected the conservative dogma. It was the first time that President Obama invoked the results of the election in a public setting, and it was clearly intended as a reminder to Republican obstructionists that when they block progress on economic recovery, they are not only are they playing with the nation's welfare, they are also toying with their own political welfare."

Benen: "I can only assume that Obama's entirely accurate remarks will be met with a new round of media complaints that the president isn't being nearly 'bipartisan' enough."

OBAMA III: Quit Trying To Scare Us

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama's Washington Post op-ed urging Congress to pass his stimulus bill. Righty bloggers are accusing Obama of trying to scare people into supporting his bill:

• Malkin: "President Obama is losing the stimulus battle. Fiscal conservatives are winning the message war on the Generational Theft Act of 2009. Flailing and desperate, he has resorted to the very 'politics of fear' he ran against during the campaign. In a WaPo op-ed this morning, he invokes Chicken Little tactics to scare Washington into ramming his massive, ineffective, debt-stimulating plan through Congress."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "[I]n reading Obama's column in today's Washington Post, all I see is empty sloganeering and cheap fear-mongering instead of substantive cases for the myriad of spending projects in his stimulus bill."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "So in other words, if we don't enact the exact policies that President Obama advocates, then we will face dire consequences. Isn't that what candidate Obama used to call the 'politics of fear'?"
• Townhall's Ericka Andersen: "While he implements words like 'crisis', 'catastrophic', and 'dire', never missing an opportunity to reference the Great Depression, where is the emphasis on reviving ourselves, as well? That should be a major component of his message but I have yet to hear of anything more than how government is going to save the day."

NRO's Yuval Levin: "President Obama's op-ed in today's Washington Post is a very peculiar move by the White House. It makes a case for refusing to compromise on the stimulus bill that Obama is clearly about to compromise on, and it makes the argument of his opponents: that the bill is not really emergency legislation to give the economy a short-term boost but an ambitious move to enact a much larger long-term liberal agenda in one fell swoop rather than working through the normal legislative and budget process. Why not wait a day or two for a compromise measure to emerge in the Senate and then make a case for why it's better than the original bill and how it reflects your bipartisan outreach and whatnot? Instead we have a collection of campaign talking points that don't make much sense when you're the guy running the show, and that will make you look weak when you accept a different bill later this month."

GREGG: Wow, Being Bipartisan Sure Is Paying Off, Isn't It, Obama?

Liberal bloggers are annoyed that Sen. Gregg will recuse himself from voting on the stimulus bill, as they believe that Gregg would have been "a gettable GOP vote." TPM's Elana Schor complains:

"It sounds like a harmless announcement -- but what this effectively does is deny Senate Democrats a gettable GOP vote in favor of Obama's stimulus bill at a time when they're desperately in need of one. It would have been entirely conceivable for Gregg to follow Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) example and show up for Senate votes while his nomination was being considered by the chamber. Quite a disappointing move."

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "With Gregg recusing himself from the stimulus vote, and with his seat staying in strong Republican hands, I'm sure glad Obama stuck him in his cabinet. Republicans deserve to be rewarded for their warm bipartisanship, and the crazy anti-government guy who voted to dissolve Commerce a few years ago will be great running the department!"
• Klein: "One of the upsides to nominating Judd Gregg for Treasury, we were told, was that it would mean another vote for Obama's stimulus package in the Senate. Gregg couldn't very well oppose the administration's central initiative than ascend to head its Department of Commerce. But Gregg -- who'd already demonstrated his respect for the administration's agenda by insisting he be replaced by another Republican -- found a different solution: He's recusing himself from the vote. This outcome is no better than a 'no' vote. [...] Daschle withdraws his nomination. Gregg won't vote for stimulus. Whatever the optical benefits of the heightened sense of propriety Obama is bringing to Washington, it doesn't seem to be of much use in passing an agenda."
• Brian Beutler: "Things would be different if [Gregg] had, for instance, resigned in anticipation of his confirmation. But a cloture vote only succeeds if at least three-fifths of all duly elected and serving members of the Senate vote 'yes'. With Gregg still seated, the Democrats need 60 votes to end debate, even if he votes 'present'. If all caucus members vote yes, they have 58. They need two. Gregg could have been one of those two. But of course, Gregg has nothing but the utmost respect his soon-to-be boss -- who has, of course, committed to changing Washington -- and to vote the way Obama wants him to would appear unseemly."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "As Brian Beutler points out, if Gregg really has deep concerns about some optics problem, he could have simply resigned his seat in anticipation of confirmation (although he'd run the risk of unemployment if a skeleton come out). So instead we get nothing. Zero. A theme developing?"

EXEC PAY: Creeping Socialism?

Conservative bloggers continue to criticize the Obama admin.'s plans to impose a $500K salary cap on top executives at companies that receive bailout funds:

• Philip Klein: "The idea that the President of the United States is calling for a maximum wage of $500,000 for top executives in private companies is a disturbing development for those of us who still believe in a free market economy. [...] This is how creeping socialism happens. Once the government comes to the rescue of the private market under the guise that it's merely an emergency, it opens the door for all sorts of new and unprecedented intrusions into the free market."
• RedState's Warner Todd Huston: "Obama's populist gobbeldegook has nothing at all to do with the right thing, here. It all has to do with giving Obama a soapbox upon which to stand so that he can vent his faux outrage and give the people that warm feeling that daddy is looking out for them. It's class warfare, plain and simple."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "[It's] silly to argue that the government should be setting pay limits for CEO's of companies who are accepting the government bailouts -- especially when it's a prospective measure that wouldn't impact the livelihoods of those who actually got the companies into trouble. [...] If someone argued for a cap on teachers' salaries, the (quite sensible and correct) argument would be: We don't want to discourage the best minds from going into teaching. Well, the same goes for serving as the CEO of a large business."
• Hinderaker: "I have a couple of specific objections. First, a number of banks were forced by the federal government to accept TARP funds that they didn't want. I don't think the government, having bullied those banks into taking unwanted money, should now be in a position to dictate compensation decisions. Second, while $500,000 may sound like a lot of money, the idea that you can find an executive who will competently run a multi-billion dollar enterprise for that salary is a joke. A car dealership in a mid-sized city, yes; Citigroup, no. So Obama's decree is basically grandstanding: it will work only if attractive stock option packages supplement the cash salary."

While most righty bloggers oppose the Obama admin.'s limits on executive compensation, there are a few (such as Jim Manzi and Burton W. Folsom Jr.) who support it.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Just Win, Baby

Ruffini sees "plenty of opportunities" for the GOP:

"Nothing will do more to build passion and confidence and activism at the grassroots level than winning elections again. [Michael] Steele at the RNC was a big step in regaining that lost confidence. And now we have a chance to prove we can win again by taking back NY-20, and the statehouses in Virginia and New Jersey. Our 1993 wins were a precursor to our 1994 success, not just in these two Governors' races, but in obscure municipal races in places like Jersey City, New Jersey that hadn't elected a Republican in decades.

In a thumbnail way, things have already started to move in our direction. The Fairfax County, Virginia supervisor election Soren [Dayton] and I have written about ended in a 1-point victory for the Democrat in a county Obama won by 21 points and [VA Sen.] Mark Warner won by 37 points. There was no particular reason for it to be so close -- [Rep.] Gerry Connolly was just elected to Congress after all. I think mostly this is a sign that Republicans are becoming fired up about voting again, and along with GA-SEN Obama's coalition is not recreatable downticket, a problem for any Democrat on the ballot in 2010. Not to mention the fact that we currently lead in New Jersey (!) and the Democrats will probably nominate crazy [Rep.] Jim Moran's brother for VA-GOV (more on that later).

Jon [Henke] is right that the deck is stacked heavily against us in D.C. right now -- which is all the more reason to focus on elections and on battles in the states. But this need not mean our atttiude should be glum or defeatist. There are plenty of opportunities for morale-boosting wins if we know where to look."

LEST WE FORGET: Those Super Bowl Ads

ESPN's Bill Simmons offers his take on some of the Super Bowl commercials:

• John Turturro for Heineken. Any time you can lock up the fifth lead in 'Rounders' for a beer commercial that costs $3 million for 30 seconds, you gotta do it.
• Hey, remember that fantastic Coke ad with Mean Joe Greene and the little kid from the '70s? If I told you that Coke planned on bringing them back as Coke Zero ads with Troy Polamalu, Polamalu's hair and an annoying little kid, you'd say, "That's a hideous idea; we should talk them out of it." Right? Well...
• Good news: Taco Bell is now offering a spicy enchilada platter, which gets the bronze behind Domino's new oven-baked sandwiches (silver) and Pizza Hut's new lasagna (gold) in the "We're Finding New Ways To Make America Fat" Olympics.
• Well, MacGruber changed his name to "Pepsuber" and did a Super Bowl ad for Pepsi with the real MacGyver. And I enjoyed it. I continue to hate myself.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at February 5, 2009 01:00 PM