×
- John Holbo cuts down to what I strongly believe is the core issue at stake with the Rand Paul-inspired debate over government and freedom: What good is having a political philosophy based on first principles when there are exceptions to those principles, as we've seen with conservatives and the Civil Rights Act? His conclusion can be debated, but I nonetheless agree: "You should acknowledge that there are large principles, incommensurable values, and they sometimes collide in confusing ways. ... There are no higher principles that really tell you how to balance these things. It takes good judgment. ... And now the problem is: congratulations, you’re a liberal."
- Plenty of others have made the same point, but It's very hard to determine what exactly the "scandal" is with Joe Sestak's allegation that the White House offered him a job as naval secretary in exchange for clearing the path for Arlen Specter to run unopposed in Pennsylvania. For that matter, if you look at the chronology of events, it's actually not possible for the job to have been offered to Sestak. But regardless of what job -- if any -- was offered, all we have is a lot of innuendo, presumption of guilt, and not a whole lot of evidence of a true quid pro quo.
- Jonathan Chait finds, in the methodologically dubious polling of Scott Rasmussen, evidence of "conservatives' overweening certainty that they embody public opinion." What Rasmussen does is provide the empirical evidence that this is true, and sets up a dangerous expectation: If a Rasmussen poll says one thing but reality (an election) tells you another, how do you reconcile the two? Bad polling or fraud at the polls?
- Remainders: The effectiveness of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, empirically considered, with charts; the Gulf oil leak is excellent news for vague Republican presidential ambitions; the median voter theorem is alive and well; and Republicans are prepared to make a new covenant with the American people.
--Mori Dinauer
