Tactically, eliminating food stamps through a farm subsidies " bumper shot " would be brilliant, but not really necessary. The attack on the subsidies is a symbolic shout-out to Bush's conservative base, the CATO's and Stephen Moore's of the world. To let that die while simultaneously kidney-punching the poor would win neither the President nor the party any friends, and let's not forget a farm industry plenty able to support Democrats in the '06 midterms. If Bush is taking them on, my hunch is he's doing it for real. And if he loses, food stamps is one of those programs with sacrosanct symbolism, retaining a facade of compassionate conservatism has been important to this bunch and I can't see them sacrificing it for such slight budgetary gain.

I won't be watching the Superbowl today. Like Steve Clemons , I just can't get excited about big dudes chasing each other up and down the field. It's weird, I love football -- played it for four years -- but, like with all other sports, I have no interest in watching others do the deed. And since my girlfriend isn't around this weekend, there's nobody present to force me in front of the television (take that , traditional gender roles!). Nevertheless, this is the sort of thing I can get excited about. Over at Duncan's place they're doing some gambling -- if your team loses, you donate to one of the predefined charities. I do realize that you're betting money with no hope of making any, but that's okay, think of it as role-playing for Social Security privatization.

5/13/2002 : President Bush on Monday signed a 10-year, $190 billion farm bill that promises to expand subsidies to growers. "This bill is generous and will provide a safety net for farmers, and it will do so without encouraging overproduction and depressing prices," Bush said at a signing ceremony. "It will allow farmers and ranchers to plan and operate based on market realities, not government dictates." 2/5/2005 : President Bush will seek deep cuts in farm and commodity programs in his new budget and in a major policy shift will propose overall limits on subsidy payments to farmers, administration officials said Saturday. The bill, by the way, is a good one aimed at ending one of America's most disgraceful economic policies. But it really should end the discussion on whether or not Bush is a man of principle. It reverses legislation he supported and signed three years ago in the name of political expediency, and that shouldn't be forgotten.

Kristof is rightfully getting slammed for his op-ed arguing Democrats need to spend less time obstructing Bush's efforts to eviscerate Social Security and more time offering responsible plans of their own. As so often happens with these things, Kristof seems to have drawn his column from some collective press mind, as the same daring idea was popping up in pieces all weekend long (although the Post certainly gets the award for silliest literary device in service of the editorial ). But uh, quick question guys -- while you're begging, pleading and imploring the Democrats to become responsible stewards of Social Security checks, could you tell me what George Bush's idea is here? Because -- funny thing -- he won't. In fact, he keeps asking other people to offer ideas. And insofar as all he's doing is searching for proposals to read, there are plenty of liberal policy papers floating around the internet ether, all he's got to do is search. So guys? I know this is an easy piece to write. I...

My good buddy John Edwards just sent me an e-mail with his plans for the next couple of years. Figured you guys might want to know them too: I am very proud to say that I will be joining UNC to launch its new Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, which will examine innovative and practical ideas for moving more Americans out of poverty and into the middle class. The fact that millions in this country go to work every day and still live in poverty is wrong and unacceptable. This is personal to me, and I believe that it is one of the most important moral issues of our time. Together with UNC, I will work hands-on to explore creative approaches to the difficulties that families in poverty face every day. We may not have all the answers right now, but I can promise you this: we will be asking the hard questions. We will work tirelessly so that America's bright light of opportunity shines on all of us. Sounds like a plan. I'm not sure how politically savvy it is; Edwards is simply...

Crowley's analysis of the Democratic SOTU response is spot-on, even as it's in-line. While his criticisms of the speech are the best I've read (and you should read them ), it's general awfulness and ineffectiveness seem well accepted. The calls are already coming for the tradition to be scrapped, for the minority retort to be let out of its misery. No. There's something nicely, idealistically American about guaranteeing the opposition party airtime to respond to the President's address. Just because they don't do it well (and that goes for Republicans and Democrats), doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. What it does mean is that it needs to rescued from irrelevancy. So let's start at the beginning. It's a speech. To succeed it requires three things: a speaker people want to listen to in the first place; a speaker possessing the oratorical skill needed to retain the audience's attention, and a well-crafted text. Working backwards, last night's text was poor. Cluttered and off-key, it...

Note to Dems -- It's like this and like this and like that , and uh. Update : I should probably say something more on this. Berry's genius is in realizing that Bush is making an effective public play to seem reasonable, open-minded, and good-hearted concerning Social Security. He's using Congress as cannon fodder, getting them to float an unpopular plan that they'd never touch if the White House didn't have bayonets to their backs. But just because he's kept his mouth shut concerning his intentions doesn't mean that others have shown similar discipline. So just as Republicans use Michael Moore to tar the national security bona fides of moderate and even hawkish Democrats, we should use Grover Norquist's statements to define the President's plans. Props to Marion Berry for figuring it out.