Month: October 2010

 
Although things are looking dire in California, national support for marijuana legalization is growing:

The public is almost evenly split this year, with 46% in favor and 50% opposed. If the trend of the past decade continues at a similar pace, majority support could be a reality within the next few years.

Chait explains the GOP's "endless loop of failure and recrimination" on spending:

The loop begins with Republicans gaining power on the basis of promising to cut unspecified programs, or perhaps programs accounting for a tiny proportion of the federal budget. That is the stage of the cycle we are currently in. Then Republicans obtain power and have to confront the fact that most spending programs are popular, and so they must choose between destroying their own popularity by taking on programs like Medicare, or failing to materially cut spending. So they settle on tax cuts instead of spending cuts. Then eventually their supporters conclude that they have been betrayed by their leaders, and cast about for new leaders with the willpower to really cut spending this time.

As I've been saying over and over, there is a way around this. Republicans can make a bipartisan deal and obtain Democratic cover for cuts in popular spending programs. But the price of this deal is to impose shared sacrifice on the rich and violate the fundamental republican taboo against ever allowing revenue increases. Since the party cannot violate that taboo, it's back to the cycle of failure, recrimination, and self-delusion. Right now, conservatives are in the hopeful self-delusion phase. Look, these new leaders have learned their lesson! They sound serious!

The Prop 19 poll of polls:

Even the robo-polls, which had continued to show Prop 19 ahead perhaps due to a reverse Bradley effect, now have the measure losing:

Seeing that he has named a possible successor, Megan goes on to explain why his success is unlikely to be replicated:

The lure of value investing is that all you need is common sense, hard work, and the courage to resist your own greed, but in fact, Buffett's intelligence is really singular. Reading his thoughts on the bubble in 1999, you're struck not merely by his courage in naming the bubble, but his ability to crystallize such an incisive critique of the prevailing zeitgeist.  Moreover, the kinds of stock values that made Buffett rich are thin on the ground these days–the proliferation of screening tools, and other sorts of company information, means that few people are able to make money simply by identifying "hidden gems".  Buffett has survived through a combination of unique vision, good management, and the magical effect of the Buffett name on the investments he does choose to make.  It's going to be hard to impart that to a successor.

Marc Lynch fears that Obama is going to talk more about military options against Iran:

The greatest danger of introducing open war talk by the administration is that it would represent the next step in the "ratcheting" of which I've been warning for months and pave the way either to the 1990s Iraq scenario or to an actual war.   Once the military option is on the table, it never goes away.  The only way to signal "toughness" in future encounters will be to somehow escalate beyond military threats — i.e. to action, such as airstrikes or cruise missiles.    And those would, by the consensus of virtually every serious analyst, be a catastrophe.    If it isn't prepared to follow through on the threat — and it really, really shouldn't be — then it shouldn't make the threat.  That would just either undermine credibility, or else give a hook for hawks to demand that actions live up to rhetoric. Dangerous either way. 

Annie Lowrey sees an incongruity: 

Between 2007 and 2009, the number of LSAT takers climbed 20.5 percent. Law school applications increased in turn. … [But the] demand for lawyers has fallen off a cliff, both due to the short-term crisis of the recession and long-term changes to the industry, and is only starting to rebound. The lawyers that do have jobs are making less than they used to. At the same time, universities seeking revenue have tacked on law schools, minting more lawyers every year.

Lynn Vavreck finds that Obama's popularity has fallen but that he's not alone:

Obama still wins in [2012 presidential] contests between all three of the Republicans we asked about – Romney, Palin, and Gingrich.  Against Romney, Obama’s loss in vote share from 2009 is seven points, from 48 to 41 percent – so yes, Obama has lost votes this last year.   But so, too, has everyone else.  Romney’s share of the vote is down 10-points, from 42 to 32; and Gingrich’s dropped nine points, from 39 to 30.  Palin loses the fewest votes, but she was starting from an already low baseline – 35.2 in 2009 to 32.4 in 2010. 

Voters like all the candidates less than they did a year ago, not just Barack Obama. 

More context on his historically solid approval numbers and the previous parallels (Reagan and Clinton) to what seems about to happen next week here.

A reader writes:

Addressing your reader who compares MSNBC's lack of conservative voices to FNC, I think the difference is between an echo chamber and a propagandist.

It is one thing to not have guests of opposing viewpoints – the claim against MSNBC – but quite another to claim a balance the way FNC does. I'm sure FNC has finally stopped listing Dick Morris as a Democratic pollster on his chyron now, but they certainly did for years while he bashed Democrats mercilessly. The same is true of Pat Caddell and other Democrats who get airtime. These are not people like, say, you or David Frum, who identify as conservatives but will give honest critique. Most of the so-called liberals or Democrats that FNC brings on are people who loathe and abhor the Democratic party and presents them as counter-balance. If FNC just presented Republicans and conservatives exclusively – as MSNBC is accused of doing – it would be far less noxious than what it is doing now.

Another writes:

I really believe the revolt against MSNBC started when Chris Matthews embarrassed Michele Bachmann over her absurd comments about investigating members of Congress to determine whether they were pro-American.  Matthews used to get more conservative guests than he does now, and I think that interview is the reason.

Rachel Maddow invited Rand Paul on and the interview went so badly that he is boycotting the network. And it wasn't because Maddow's interview was "gotcha journalism" or blatantly partisan; it was because Paul simply could not coherently explain why, in the 21st century, he still has problems with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Another:

You said of Maddow's show, "But the bias is pretty overwhelming nonetheless – and sometimes veers into suffocating smugness." Yes, she has strong opinions.  So do you.  She regularly invites people with contrary opinions to appear on her show for tough questions and debate.  Isn't that exactly how it should be?  People with strong, well-defined views who aren't afraid to engage with others?  What you perceive as "bias" is the empty chair across from her caused by the cowardice of those with differing views. It's not she just trumpets her view while denying others the right to respond – you know, like not permitting comments on blog posts or something.

Another:

If "suffocating smugness" is bias, then so is preening self-righteousness.

Another:

Kind of tangential to the actual issue here, but I just want to say that I definitely agree with your description of Maddow. I'm pretty much in total agreement with her positions on many things, but I have a really hard time watching her show sometimes because of that smarmy, "I-can't-believe-how-stupid-these-people-are" attitude she gives off sometimes. I would expect you'll get some pushback on that statement, but there's at least one crazy-pinko-commie-leftist who totally agrees with you on that one.