Paul Waldman

Paul Waldman is a contributing editor for the Prospect and the author of Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success.

Recent Articles

Oh, To Be a Mobile-Phone Customer in India.

Here in America, we tend not to think too much about other countries. We're the global hegemon, so why should we care? And no one can possibly have it as good as we do, right? Well, not always. A new report from the New America Foundation examining mobile phone, text, and data service shows that not only is your cell-phone company charging you an arm and a leg, if you were living somewhere else, it probably wouldn't be so bad: In other countries it appears that a significantly more competitive market than what exists in the United States has resulted in innovative offerings and lower pricing for consumers. In contrast, in countries where competition is less and regulation more lax, higher prices and a limited choice of plans prevail. Let's go to the data: Whaddya know -- less regulation translates into fewer choices and higher prices. As if you needed another reason to hate your mobile-phone company. -- Paul Waldman

Talking About Lying Liars and Their Lying Lies.

Our local public radio station here in Washington recently booted one of my favorite shows, On the Media , off their regular schedule and relegated it to 5 a.m. on Saturdays, on one of their HD channels that I'm sure almost no one listens to even at times when people are awake. Which is too bad, because On the Media is a terrific program. How terrific? So terrific they actually invite me on every once in a while. Here's an interview I did with them that aired over the weekend, talking about this column , about what kinds of lies get candidates in trouble. And I'd encourage folks to listen to the show on their website, if it doesn't air in your town. -- Paul Waldman

More on Impeachment.

The thing about the possibility of a Republican House impeaching President Obama is this: The more you think about it, the more likely it seems. Not because it's definitely going to happen but because thinking about it allows one to come up with all kinds of horrific scenarios. Here's Kevin Drum's : Since we're going for style points here, I'm putting my money on a scenario in which South Carolina decides to nullify the healthcare reform law and prohibit its enforcement. Obama nevertheless directs the IRS office in Charleston to dispatch tax delinquency notices to uninsured residents. Governor Nikki Haley instructs the state police to barricade the IRS in order to prevent it from delivering outgoing mail, at which point Obama sends in Army troops to reopen the office. This is taken as a tyrannical abuse of federal power, and Rep. Joe Wilson files immediate impeachment charges. Kevin is (sort of) kidding, but this does highlight something you may not have considered before. After...

What Is a "Tea Party Candidate"?

The New York Times today does its best to get a handle on all these Tea Party candidates, and it's an admirable service. But the way it fails tells us a lot about what the Tea Party is now, and its eventual fate. As the article starts throwing around numbers about how many Tea Party candidates there are and what their chances are, you start asking, "How are they defining this?" And here's the answer: For purposes of the list, Tea Party candidates were those who had entered politics through the movement or who are receiving significant support from local Tea Party groups and who share the ideology of the movement. Many have been endorsed by groups like FreedomWorks or the Tea Party Express, or by conservative kingmakers like Sarah Palin and Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, but those endorsements alone were not enough to qualify as a Tea Party candidate. With all the "or"s, that definition could apply to pretty much any non-incumbent Republican running for Congress this year. And...

What Are You Talking About?

I haven't been doing it as much lately, but there was a time when I would regularly go on radio and television to debate conservatives on one issue or another. One of the simple tactics I used was to ask my opposing number to get specific about whatever sweeping claim they were making. Simply saying, "Can you tell us what exactly you're talking about?" was often enough to win the argument, because as often as not there really wasn't anything in particular. It's not just a debating trick, though. It's something reporters ought to be doing more. And I don't mean in a pop-quiz, "Can you name the president of Uruguay" way. Because it seems like a lot of the discussion in this election revolves around vague grievances people have that are either based on completely invented ideas, or really come down to "I don't like that Democrats are in charge." When candidates echo those claims, they have an obligation to tell us exactly what they're talking about. For instance, Republicans regularly...

Pages