Month: November 2009

Every vote over the minimum necessary to secure passage represents compromises that the Democrats as a group would prefer not to make. It’s not that Nancy Pelosi was lucky to pass the bill, it’s that the Democrats wrote the strongest bill they could that would get enough votes to pass. That’s good strategy.

Rafe Colburn, who I currently agree with 100%.

Simple enough for Joementum

Let’s begin:

LIEBERMAN: A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I’m convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance. They’ve got a right to do that; I think that would be wrong.

But worse than that, we have a problem even greater than the health insurance problems, and that is a debt – $12 trillion today, projected to be $21 trillion in 10 years.

WALLACE: So at this point, I take it, you’re a “no” vote in the Senate?

LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren.

That was Lieberman on FOXnews (where else?) this Sunday past. Doubtless just posturing, but let’s take him at his word: the deficit (and, by extension, the debt) is and should be held in absolute primacy to any and all other spending or policy decisions (which, of course, also have direct spending implications). Fair enough. We take that as a first principle.

The current GOP “plan” (in that it’s not even a plan so much as a policy statement) has been scored over the 10-year window as potentially resulting in a reduction of budget deficits by $68 billion while helping 3 million folks get coverage they wouldn’t otherwise have.

The plan passed by the House, on the other hand, extends coverage to 36 million currently uninsured Americans while cutting the deficit by $104 billion over the same 10-year window.

Which of those plans is more deficit neutral, Joe?

Of course, third option is do nothing. Joe himself has pushed this idea. Here’s what that looks like:

By all means, MSM, continue treating Joe Lieberman as a sober, deficits minded fellow only out for what’s best for the country. Let’s not once pause to ask him: Joe, just how does the public option contribute to the deficit?

Cheap Premise

The Atlantic and author Christopher Hitchens, trying to declare Western Civilization dead because Jon Stewart pokes fun at our political discourse (and out-polls his Serious Journalism counterparts in the “most trusted” category while doing it), goes completely off the deep end intellectually just two paragraphs in:

And if any one thing undid Governor Palin as a person who could even be considered for the vice presidency, it was the merciless guying of her manner and personality by Tina Fey.

Uh, no. If any one thing undid Governor Palin, it was her brazenly obvious lack of qualifications for that job coupled with an obvious absence of the sort of desire or drive needed to get her ready in the several months available prior to the general election (or, for that matter, her debate with Biden). Her unceasing reliance on “You Betcha!” and other equally trenchant bits of commentary in the face of any and all questions is what created, powered, and was ultimately the thing that resonated in the Tina Fey bit. Fey was simply the person most visibly pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. The imitation was so effective that viewers couldn’t help but realize that there was nothing else in there but the scare quotes, nonsensical rambles, and the closing catch-phrases. Had Palin been an unquestionably qualified (but green) candidate with a similarly idiosynchratic library of quips and old-fashioned truisms, she still would have been mocked, just as any national political figure’s most obvious tics are mocked, but simultaneously would have been accepted as an otherwise serious player on the national scene, admittedly one with a folksy shtick. Big deal. Suggesting otherwise is the real infantilization of the American discourse. And Jon Stewart and his ilk aren’t the ones responsible for any of that. Makes you wonder why his “Trust” numbers are so high.

Got this offer from the Boston Globe today. What the Globe (and, by extension, its parent company the New York Times) can’t quite sort out: this price should read: $0. If you subscribe for a year or two, we will GIVE YOU a kindle so long as you agree not to receive the actual paper-paper. That’s because printing the damned thing costs twice as much as simply giving all subscribers the kindle and calling it a day.

Newsprint: To survive, you are going to have to shed your old ideas about what your business model is. I’m not sure how much more simply it can be put. Change or die.

Tofurky

Of all the MSM tropes, this one is (perhaps) the most insane:

Resolved: Anyone who espouses a given idea must then hew to the most unforgiving and ridiculous possible interpretation of said idea or that person is a hypocrite and probably a liar.

One example: John Edwards wants to help the poor and has put his political muscle, such as it is, behind that. He also happens to live in an expensive house. MSM analysis: He is an unforgivable hypocrite who cannot care about the plight of those living in poverty.

However, Al Gore, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace, is the target of more if this sort of ass-hattery than perhaps anyone else in public life, ever. The MSM has conducted a long and wide-ranging War on Gore that is as unstoppable as it is unmentionable in “polite” discourse.

Witness Diane Sawyer, hiding behind Glenn Beck to ask this question:

Once again asking Al Gore if you really want to save the planet, Al, why don’t you put down the cheeseburger and pick up the veggie burger? Time for, maybe, soy milk and tofurkey?

To which Gore (sensibly) replies:

There is a serious issue about the connection between the growing meat intensity of diets around the world and damage to the environment. And like a lot of people, I eat less meat now than I used to. I’m not a vegetarian, don’t plan to become one, but it’s a healthy choice to eat more vegetables and fruits. So it’s not a laughable issue.

Sawyer’s take-home:  “So, tofurkey for you.”

Her annual salary for this incredible analysis: between 12 and 15 million dollars. And who can possibly argue with her logic? It is not possible for an individual to be concerned about the environmental wages of industrial meat production without subsisting entirely on a flavorless mush called “rootmarm.” Any other course of action would be both utterly ridiculous and inexcusably hypocritical.

End of Days

Rick Hertzberg and I agree on three out of four things:

1. The Beck-Limbaugh purification of the Republican Party will continue apace.

Populist nihilism—increasingly the default position within the G.O.P., especially on national level—still has a lot of energy left in it. As the party’s core shrinks (a process that will continue even if its share of the vote increases relative to the Democratic share), the resentful right’s stranglehold will grow stronger.

2. The Republicans will gain seats in next year’s midterm election.

The party holding the White House always loses seats in a new President’s first midterm, the only exception being the special case of 2002, the year of Bush-Rove post-9/11 electoral terrorism.

3. The right, and much of the commentariat, will discover a cause-and-effect relationship between No. 1, above, and No. 2.

They’ll figure it this way: post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Then we diverge. He offers:

4. President Obama will be reëlected.

He’ll be the safe choice. Having been elected on hope, change, and adventure, he’ll be reëlected on reassurance, stability, and … experience.

I think it’s more like:

4. If unemployment is below 10% nationally, Obama may be reelected, depending on opponent. If it’s below 8%, he will win in a landslide regardless of oponent.

It’s really as simple as that.

We’re back in agreement on the bonus Fifth Thing, which is presented more as a prayer:

5. The number of Americans who realize that more of our problems stem from structure (especially the Senate, and most especially the filibuster) than from politicians’ lack of moral fiber will reach the cusp of a tipping point.

Amen.

Perhaps the conventional [remote control] design is finally paying off? Maybe all of those legacy buttons that no one ever uses (the various ‘Picture in Picture’ controls and the colorful A,B,C interactive TV buttons) are part of a deliberate design strategy? Maybe they are there precisely to add to the cognitive load – the accumulated effect being that valuable functions, like fast forwarding, are much harder to learn. Maybe Time Warner’s Remote Control design strategy is finally paying off?

Robert Fabricant likely isolating to 100% efficiency the reason why commercial skipping rates are so oddly low amongst DVR users.