Does it hold true that any compromise is inherently better than inaction?

To me it doesn't. For even if the compromise itself it not inherently bad it will leach momentum away from efforts to achieve the ideal. "Let's just get this bit done and then we'll work on the rest" has a very bad habit of morphing into "well, we did that bit, so lets just move on."

He hasn't exactly gone out of his way to take any bold stands, but so far I'm respecting Obama simply because more often than not I've heard him saying, "I'm the right candidate because..." rather than, "The other candidates [on either side of the aisle] suck because..." I appreciate that. I'm sure people will be happy to find counter examples, I'm just saying I've heard it less from him than anyone. I hope he continues in that vein.

That, and while it may hurt his electibility, I consider his relative lack of political experience a huge bonus to his qualifications.

Bill Richardson is running and Newt is thinking about it:)

Isn't this the best way of assuring that nothing works well?

I'm a too many cooks spoil the broth kind of guy.

There is a movement in AZ (and I doubt it will go anywhere) to get McCain to resign. It isn't because of his position on this bill per se (thought I'm sure that comes into play), but because in this session of Congress he has missed 50% of the votes.

I don't care if you're running for President....fulfill the responsibility of the office you hold. His argument is that the votes he has missed hasn't mattered because they were one sided anyway. I say they matter because he can successfully take himself off the record on 50% of recent votes.

To change the subject a bit, here's another reason I am hating all politicians at the moment....

House votes to sue OPEC

What the hell? These people have no concept. What gets me is the vote tally.

We can't drill for our own oil. We can't increase our refinery capacity. But by golly, we can sue OPEC for cutting their production. Doing this not only accomplishes nothing, but it will most likely have the opposite effect with China and India importing more and more oil to feed their growing economies.

At least those tough legislators can tell their constitutents they stood up to OPEC for lower gas prices. A$$holes.

Interesting, since we're the primary controllers of the oil production in one of the OPEC member countries (Iraq). (Just for the record, I know that Iraq oil is excluded from the OPEC production quotas and therefore has nothing to do with the effects of OPEC manipulating production.)

I'm not clear where exactly we'd be suing them? In American courts? And then seizing assets?

This would lead me to believe that it will be in American courts (should it ever happen) -

If it is going to change our antitrust laws, that must mean it would apply to our courts, correct?

In comparison, how much time was spent on Paris Hilton?