×
- It's fairly ridiculous to suggest that Mitt Romney could win a special election in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, but if you view the politics of the present entirely in terms of the politics of the 2012 presidential race, you're bound to make ridiculous suggestions (Cheney 2012!). But let's point out the obvious objections to this argument. Romney isn't currently a resident of the Bay State. He declined to seek a second term as governor because his approval ratings were in the mid-30s. Barack Obama has a 73 percent approval rating in Massachusetts (as of August 10). And wouldn't it be pretty awkward for Romney, who campaigned as a New England liberal centrist in 2002, then campaigned as a right-wing caricature in 2008, to campaign again as a liberal centrist in 2009?
- Does the RNC really think this survey on health care is going to be some sort of game changer? Featuring such neutral language as "the liberal media," "government bureaucrats," and "socialized medicine," the true gold nugget here is a question that begins "It has been suggested" (I wonder by whom?) "that the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation," leading to Republicans being "discriminated against." Since the survey's cover letter bears Michael Steele's signature, that makes him not only an idiot, but a liar as well.
- The AP points out that the ARRA's biggest critics are rank hypocrites who want to have it both ways on federal stimulus spending. The story here isn't so much a lack of commitment to so-called principled conservatism, states' rights or limited government, but that for the purposes of their narrow political needs, these Republicans only tend to their constituents' well-being when it's convenient for them to do so.
- The Los Angeles Times has "dust up" between two legal scholars on the subject of whether investigating torture by the CIA would have a "chilling effect" on agents, but only one of the participants points out the obvious: the point of the law is to deter and it should have a "chilling effect" on those who are under its domain (whether a given law is a good law is another question). But as long as there is vocal minority out there who think 24 is an accurate depiction of reality, the nation's soul will continue to rot a little more as we "debate" whether torture is awesome, or merely regrettably awesome.
- Let's go over this one more time so we get it right: The right-wing lunatics and their LaRoucheite pals don't represent a movement and currently don't represent a widespread threat to the security of Democrats, including the president (hangings in effigy aside). But the real villains here are conservative Republicans like James Inhofe, who are openly cheering on revolution and thus encouraging the radicals that someone in power has their back. This is dangerous, irresponsible, and ought to be grounds for censuring Inhofe in the Senate. Too bad the upper chamber is such a congenial place that the likes of Inhofe are treated with a respect he does not deserve.
- Remainders: Bill Richardson clears a federal pay-to-play probe; why would anyone believe the former governor of Alaska is organized enough to run for president?; The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes is an enormous hack; Democrats would be wise to stay as far away from Mark Penn as possible; and Andrew Breibart is one disturbed individual.
--Mori Dinauer
