Slate's Fred Kaplan asks why haven't responsible Republicans spoken out against Sarah Palin? He doesn't seem to hold back:

Let's be clear on why those words ("Run Sarah Run"/"President Palin") should terrify anyone with a thinking brain. Palin is someone who has clearly never seriously thought through any issue of national importance on her own. She's excellent at reciting a raucous speech, but she can't improvise a coherent sentence, which usually reflects an inability to form a coherent idea. (At Nashville, she even had to scribble her five-word legislative agenda on her palm, and glanced down at it during the Q&A.) She is deluded enough to believe (or at least to say Sunday morning on Fox News) that her brief, aborted stint as Alaska's governor gave her more executive experience than President Obama has even now. She believes that the country should elect leaders, including presumably herself, who seek solutions in "divine intervention."

There's clearly little to gain at this point by criticizing the potential candidate with the strongest base. There is just no reason to fall on the grenade at this point. Also, as hard as some may try, I just don't believe most Americans buy this line of reasoning that somebody failing to denounce something or somebody signals an implicit agreement with their views or actions. So, while I understand the asking of the question, it's really just an iteration of a cheap play to the gallery that I thought we decided during the 2008 primary was a little ridiculous.

Filibustering and Holding Legislation

Yesterday while reading Paul Krugman's rant against the Senate's (specifically Senate Republicans) abuse of filibustering, it occured to me that we seem to always be in times that are "too important" to follow the established operating procedures. We seem to always be on the brink of history to the effect that what got us here will no longer suffice. Isn't that interesting?

Krugman's suggestion is the elimination of the filibuster by a majority vote of the Senate. Wouldn't this be subject to a filibuster? I don't necessarily have any great affection for the filibuster (though I do think it serves useful purposes in extraordinary times), but it's tough to take calls for reform seriously when they always seem to come from those who have something to gain politically. On the other hand, where was the restraint from Senate Republicans when they couldn't get their judicial nominees through the Senate and threatened the use of the so-called "nuclear option" that would have bypassed the filibuster?

E.J. Dionne suggested yesterday that the Senate should just bypass the filibuster issue and go straight through reconciliation. Simple enough, I suppose. There will again be a Republican majority in the Senate though, and it'll be interesting to see where Dionne and Company stand then. Sadly as a mentor of mine once told me, "Matt, in politics, memories are very short." At least this this guy is consistent in his position.

Op-Ed Roundup: February 9, 2010

David Brooks [New York Times]: In what largely seems like a throwaway piece, Brooks takes a brief glance at the role Joe Biden is playing in the Obama Administration. Apparently when interviewed for the VP spot, Biden responded that he didn't really want the job, but would do it. Now, heavily involved in Iraq, stimulus spending, and working on a middle-class agenda, Biden seems to have found his groove according to Brooks.

Donald Luskin [Wall Street Journal]: Positing on the cause of the recent decline of the Dow (now below 10,000), Luskin suggests the wave of "lynch Wall Street" populism sweeping the country is causing uneasiness in the markets. He also criticizes the brief campaign against Ben Bernanke's reconfirmation to Chairman of the Federal Reserve as a play to the uneducated. One thing is clear, conservative op-ed columnists don't seem to like populism (though Lou Dobbs -- in what may be my all-time favorite headline, clearly does).

Eugene Robinson [Washington Post]: Robinson takes exception to the actions of the missionaries who attempted last week to take children out of Haiti without proper documentation. Robinson believes that even if there was no ill-intent on the part of the missionaries, "...giving up a son or daughter is one of the most wrenching decisions a parent can face, and it has to be done right, with ample time to think about it. No parent or guardian should ever have to surrender a child under duress."

Katrina vanden Huevel [Washington Post]: vanden Heuvel, writing of Sarah Palin's speech at the Tea Party Convention this past weekend in Nashville, laments the influence of Wall Street and the student loan industry in killing off legislation that President Obama calls a "no brainer." Offering a way forward, she suggesetions: 1) Expose how Wall Street interests and bipartisan lobbyists block reforms. 2) Redouble efforts to pass the Fair Elections Now Act, so small "d" democratic public financing counters special-interest money. 3) Challenge the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United ruling with a constitutional amendment strategy.

Op-Ed Roundup: February 8, 2010

Ross Douthat [New York Times]: Writing from the German Security Conference, Ross Douthat writes that while President Obama is a pragmatist on most issues, he has shown an idealist streak on the matter of Nuclear Disarmament. He notes the praise other countries have taken for this move, but argues the basic point of the naivety of believing other countries will not develop nuclear weapons if we get rid of ours.

Paul Krugman [New York Times]: Krugman says he misses the days of Newt Gingrich. Expressing sheer frustration with the United States Senate (specifically the Republican Senators Bond and Shelby) for holding up Obama appointees from confirmation. He suggests the Senate should eliminate the use of filibustering or holds at their earliest opportunity by a majority vote.

E.J. Dionne [Washington Post]: Meanwhile, E.J. Dionne suggests that House Democrats' fears of midterm challenges are shortsighted and they need to pass the healthcare bill and make some amendments through the reconciliation process. He tells the story of Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA) who has been sharing his story of losing his Congressional seat in 1994 "because they didn't pass meaningful healthcare reform" and suggests Mr. Inslee (who regained his seat in 1998) are in danger of seeing the same result if they allow the same thing this time around.

Presidential Question Time

Nate Silver at Fivethirtyeight has some interesting thoughts on the idea of having the President go before Congress on occasion to answer questions from Members. Silver is in support of the idea as:

...perhaps I'm an idealist, but I tend to think that the lack of open, unmediated, and honest dialog between members of Congress, between the Congress and the Executive, and between both Congress and the Executive and the public, is the greatest threat to the efficacy of our democracy today. While structural constraints like the filibuster certainly also play a large role, these structures are nothing new -- it's the ways that our political culture have evolved around them that may be more problematic. In particular, it seems to me that there is a need for conversations that are not staged, that are not reduced to 30-second soundbytes, and that are not filtered through the lens of the media. A Question Time period, if reasonably well structured, could be a significant step toward achieving that goal. Politics needn't always be zero-sum, particularly at the time when our country faces a number of threats -- from the economy, to Islamic and other forms of radicalism, to the aggregation of power by elites, to the the changing climate -- in which we will all sink or swim together. That's why you're seeing Democrats and Republicans, technocrats and populists all working together to agitate for Question Time.

The other day I read Peggy Noonan's column about how President Obama has to make clear that he is the President and not an equal of any one member of Congress. As I read Silver's post, I thought, I'll bet Peggy Noonan won't like this idea. Not kidding, today she writes (in a column titled "Question Time is Not the Answer"):

Both our political parties continue, even though they know they shouldn't, even though they're each composed of individuals many of whom actually know what time it is, even though they know we are in an extraordinary if extended moment, an ongoing calamity connected to our economic future, our nation's standing in the world, our strength and our safety—even though they know all this, they continue to go through the daily motions, fund raising, vote counting, making ads with demon sheep, blasting out the latest gaffe of the other team. Our political professionals cheapen everything they touch because they are burying themselves in daily urgencies in order to dodge and avoid the big picture.

In short, she suggests that it would become such a grandstanding moment that it would lose its value almost immediately. That's a good point. While the President needs to be accountable to the public and has a responsibility to respond to their questions and concerns; this may not be the best way to achieve that goal. Back to the drawing board.

Pulitzer Winners

I have a problem. I can't stop starting books. After last night's State of the Union Address, I made a couple phone calls and then sat down to do some evening reading before retiring for the night. Rather than reach for one of the four books I currently have on my night stand or Kindle, I instead reached for one on my bookshelf I've been looking forward to since I got it (even though I've gotten other books since that time).

Last night's book was Edmund Morris' The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt which is part of a two part series that also includes Theodore Rex. As I was reading Morris' masterful description of Mr. Roosevelt, it occurred to me how long it had been since I've undertaken a good biography. Looking at my bookshelf, I realized it's been at least since McCullough's Adams and Truman that I've really read a biography that I could not put down. Pulling them both from my bookshelf (one of the many reasons I love owning the books that I truly enjoyed) I noticed they both were Pulitzer Prize winners. It turns out "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt" also won the prize for Biography/Autobiography in 1980. Though I haven't finished the book, those who have recommended it to me paired with my reading of the prologue lead me to believe I may be in for one of the best works of nonfiction I've undertaken.

Given this, I can't help but wonder if maybe this isn't a bad place to pull some reading ideas. Undoubtedly there are different committees making the call on the fiction writing (which I'm still struggling to find good reads in that category), but looking down the list, there are certainly a few on the Biography and History lists that I plan on reading.

Brooks on Populism

I've said it before, but I really think David Brooks may be listening in on my conversations. His column in today's New York Times roughly reflects a conversation I had last night about "cheap populism" and the fact that we should demand leadership that cares more about long term prosperity than short term electoral gain. Notes Brooks about those kinds of leaders [namely Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln]:

In their view, government’s role was not to side with one faction or to wage class war. It was to rouse the energy and industry of people at all levels. It was to enhance competition and make it fair — to make sure that no group, high or low, is able to erect barriers that would deprive Americans of an open field and a fair chance. Theirs was a philosophy that celebrated development, mobility and work, wherever those things might be generated.

He continues:

The populists have an Us versus Them mentality. If they continue their random attacks on enterprise and capital, they will only increase the pervasive feeling of uncertainty, which is now the single biggest factor in holding back investment, job creation and growth. They will end up discrediting good policies (the Obama bank reforms are quite sensible) because they will persuade the country that the government is in the hands of reckless Huey Longs.