×
- I'm going to outsource my thoughts on Rand Paul. Bruce Barlett: "I don't believe Rand is a racist; I think he is a fool who is suffering from the foolish consistency syndrome that affects all libertarians. They believe that freedom consists of one thing and one thing only -- freedom from governmental constraint. Therefore, it is illogical to them that any increase in government power could ever expand freedom. Yet it is clear that African Americans were far from free in 1964 and that the Civil Rights Act greatly expanded their freedom while diminishing that of racists."
- A "universal theory" for the 2010 elections eludes us not just because there isn't one, but because suggesting there could be one implies social science is rigorous enough to both explain and predict. After all, wouldn't a universal theory be robust enough to predict the results of any election? I know Michael Scherer wasn't expecting "universal theory" to be taken that way, but it's worth noting that the current universal theory -- anti-incumbency -- will most likely be disproved this fall.
- It's amazing that such groundless political "analysis" continues to be produced by The New York Times. Does Matt Bai simply not understand the fundamentals of American politics, or is he just giving his readers what they want? Skimming the comments section of his think piece on the "meaning" of Tuesday's elections, there is an overwhelming agreement that the early primaries of 2010 forebode a wave of anti-incumbent sentiment. Bai's motives are a mystery. But he's definitely telling his readers (or at least, many of them) what they want to hear.
- Remainders: Goodbye war on terror, hello "Countering Violent Extremism"; nobody could have predicted that former conservative hero Scott Brown would become a pivotal swing vote in the Senate; Rich Lowry doesn't understand the role Howard Dean played in Democratic politics in 2004; and CNN unquestionably remains the most trusted name in news.
--Mori Dinauer
