×
- I hate to dash Michael Bloomberg's dream of a third-party president healing the wounds inflicted by partisan politics, but I'm curious if he himself can define this "middle" from which bipartisan votes can be achieved. And I don't even think he's necessarily talking about himself as a viable candidate. He sincerely believes that a nonpartisan president would provide the crucial ingredient toward bipartisan legislation because ... well, it's not clear why.
- It's fashionable now for pundits both good and bad to make the claim that neither of America's two major parties are credible on deficit reduction, but it's plain to see this is not the case. And again, it's important to make the distinction between political parties and the ideological movements which support them. Democrats don't talk a whole lot about deficit reduction but they get it done in practice. For Republicans, it's the opposite, even if there are conservatives committed to deficit reduction.
- Peter Beinart would like to confuse you: "[The Tea Partiers are] conjuring, once again, the myth that America was born free, and surrenders a smidgen of liberty every time Washington imposes another tax or establishes another government agency." Next sentence: "The Tea Partiers, in other words, are making a serious argument, which the left too often tries to dismiss by calling them nuts." So, it's unserious to point out Tea Partiers are engaged in myth-making? Do I have that right?
- Remainders: The rehabilitation of George Bush is largely the labor of Bush sycophants; I can see why ABC News wanted access to the penetrating insights of Andrew Breitbart; take a moment to contemplate that David Brooks is paid money to give his opinion on things; and is the "most under-reported story of this election cycle" moderate Republicans reclaiming House seats?
--Mori Dinauer
