Paul Krugman, perhaps the most vital asset in the Media for progressive policies (even if he does not always advocate for them), writes these strange words:

My sense is that too many people are taking the easy route of going for the cheap slogans instead of thinking things through; and some people are pushing their signature issues even when the evidence clearly shows that they’re wrong. And we can’t afford that kind of self-indulgence.

I'm not familiar with every issue Krugman mentions in that post (though I think he is wrong on the issue of "too big to fail"), but I am familiar with how politics works. I think Krugman is confusing "easy route" with "effective route" when it comes to politics. In a perfect world, politics would be a polite debating society. In the real world, "cheap slogans" are almost always more valuable than "thinking things through." The thinking comes first - decide what policy you want to forward, then the politics (the "cheap slogans") for forwarding those policies comes next. Bashing Wall Street (and Goldman) is clearly the best "cheap slogan" for advancing financial reform. Silly to pretend otherwise. Krugman's title - "Can't Anybody Play This Game" - is ironic to me. He seems the one lacking in the political acumen here.

Speaking for me only

Can anyone deny that the most trenchant and effective criticism of President Obama today comes not from the right but from the left? - Marc Ambinder

This one has been making the rounds from some fairly ironic quarters (see, e.g., here.) And Ambinder's line "Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn's keepin'-them-honest perspectives on health care[,]" come on.

Anyway, I'm sort of switching to election mode about now, which means looking hard at the alternative, as I imagine will a lot of folks. So there may be a paucity of "trenchant and effective criticism" of Dems until after November. We'll see.

Speaking for me only

In 1994, then House Speaker Newt Gingrich unleashed his Contract on America, a set of 10 bills to be considered within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress.

Now, in 2010, the Republicans are drafting a remake. This time, they are going to use social media to get ideas, so when they unveil it after Labor Day, it will have built-in support.

So what was in the Gingrich version? One of the ten bills was a crime bill, named the "Taking Back Our Streets Act." It was a trojan horse of a bill. Presented as the answer to the "crime crisis" for "minorities and the poor," in its specifics, the plan's solutions were simply to incarcerate and execute in greater numbers.[More...]

I am so nonplussed by this post by Chris Bowers, that I do not even know what to say other than you have got to be kidding me Chris.

In comments, Paul Rosenberg has an intelligent response:

Political fodder:

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission split 3-2 along party lines to approve an enforcement case against Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to two people with knowledge of the vote. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro sided with Democrats Luis Aguilar and Elisse Walter to approve the case, said the people, who declined to be identified because the vote wasn’t public. Republican commissioners Kathleen Casey and Troy Paredes voted against suing, the person said.

Political hay for Dems in this.

Speaking for me only

Steven D writes:

[An] AEI expert kept repeating the same talking point over and over -- the bill is bad because the Democrats want to set up a $50 billion dollar fund paid for by the big financial institutions. This is bad because it will enshrine "Too Big to Fail" in the law and in the minds of those who deal with those banks.

Thus the Republicans are opposed to financial reform on principle alone: they want to prevent the evil Democrats from ever bailing out Big Banks again. Republican[s] [. . .] want you to believe that their opposition to financial reform is to protect the public, rather than serve the needs of the financial industry [. . .]

Well put. But then there is this:

The Obama administration is telling Senate Democrats to ditch a measure in their financial reform bill that would create a $50 billion liquidation fund by assessing a fee on big financial institutions.

Seems the Obama Administration wants you to believe it too.

Speaking for me only

Brutal partisan brawling over things like healthcare reform and climate change legislation was (and is) entirely unsurprising. [. . .] Financial reform is different. Politically, the obvious play for both parties is to outbid each other in efforts to rein in Wall Street, which practically everyone in America hates. But even though this would be an enormous vote getter, neither party is doing it. Democrats are offering up some mild reforms that would modify the playing a field a bit but not really fundamentally change anything. Republicans won't even go that far.

This is not as surprising as Kevin would have it. Money is all important in politics. And much of the money in politics comes from Wall Street. This is where the promise of Obama changing politics was so obviously false. In any event, the era of Democrats running against Wall Street are long over. A relic of the era of FDR:

Speaking for me only

On March 19, 2010, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said:

Reid promises public option vote 'in the coming months'

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) promised two Democratic senators this week a Senate vote on the public option "in the coming months." In a letter to Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the top Senate Democrat said he was committed to pursuing the controversial public insurance option later this year. "Like you, I remain committed to pursuing the public option," Reid wrote in a letter dated Thursday, which was obtained and published by the Huffington Post. "As we have discussed, I will work to ensure that we are able to vote on the public option in the coming months."

(Emphasis supplied.) Just sayin'

Didn't see it, but on Meet the Press, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said:

DAVID GREGORY: How viable a political force do you consider the Tea Party to be?

TIMOTHY GEITHNER: [L]et me do the positive side of this. Okay? We've-- just been through eight years where people said-- many people said, ‘Deficits don't matter. We can-- we can pass huge tax cuts, pass huge new programs without paying for them.’ That debate has changed fundamentally. Now you don't hear people say anymore, ‘Deficits don't matter.’ You don't hear people saying that we can pass enormously—enormous expansion of government without paying for it. That's an important change. I think all Americans understand that our deficits are unsustainable. And I think that'll be helpful as we move to try to make the hard choices to bring them down again.”

I participate in the National Journal's weekly bloggers (and DC Insiders) poll. Here was this week's. On the poll question I will be asking you - "Are you open to supporting some version of a value-added tax?" - my answer is:

"'Some version'? Sure. Especially on luxury items."

Let's VAT tax yachts, 5 star hotels, expensive cars, million dollar homes (especially vacation homes), caviar, champagne, private jets. That sort of thing. I even have a name for it - the "Cadillac Tax." Whaddya think? Take the poll.

Speaking for me only

The attorney general's office pledged to get to the bottom of the situation, saying its expanded inquiry will seek to determine whether the university foundation, which has assets of more than $20 million, is spending its money to benefit the campus, as it promises donors, the university and the public. "We are taking this action to make sure that the money raised goes toward the intended educational purposes and not a dollar is wasted or misspent," Brown said. "Prudent financial stewardship is crucial at a time in which universities face vastly decreased funding and increased student fees."

ABC News has a copy of an addendum toSarah Palin's speaking contract with the Washington Speaker's Bureau for a speech she contracted to give at a California University. Huffington Post has a pictoral break-down.

The details of Palin's contract with the California State University, Stanislaus Foundation were contained in five pages of the document retrieved from a campus trash bin by students who heard administrators might be shredding documents related to the speech.

It begins by saying the extra provisions are necessary because of her "high profile" and "professional endeavors." It requires first class airfare for two, non-restricted coach for two more people (or a private jet), SUV's on the ground a Luxury hotels. [More...]

My friends at corrente misunderstand what I mean by my refrain "pols are pols . . .":

In the thread to lambert's post "Hello to all that" I cited comments from TalkLeft to the effect that officeholders' principles belong at home, not at the office. Anne, whose comments at TL are the reason I read that site, responded:

I hate the “pols will be pols” framing, mostly because it just absolves them of any responsibility for their actions [. . .]

Let me first say that I too enjoy Anne's comments, but she mistakes my meaning. Let me quote again from the post from which the phrase originates: