Month: October 2010

Alexis Madrigal tells an interesting story:

Among the terrible things we learned when BP’s blown Macondo well began spewing those 5 million barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico was that the oil giant did not have a magical petroleum-cleanup machine. Little did we know that one farsighted wealthy man had spent more than $20 million building just such a contraption, scaling it up from laboratory size to be Gulf of Mexico–ready. And who could possibly have guessed that that man was Kevin Costner?

What to make of the findings of the latest NYT poll? I have to say it makes me scratch my head. It portends a big Republican wave election, buoyed by a new conviction that people want smaller government that does less rather (55 percent) than a bigger one with more services (36 percent). At the same time, 71 percent oppose reducing social security benefits for future retirees; 54 percent oppose raising the retirement age (42 percent support it); 57 percent oppose not giving social security recipients a raise in benefits this year; and a small majority 45 – 41 do not want the health insurance reform bill repealed.

So Americans – surprise! – want smaller government in theory, but when forced to make any hard choices on spending, balk. Taxes? Surprise! They don't want them raised either – except for those earning over $250,000 a year, but even then only by 48 – 43 margin. They also prefer the Democratic party to the Republicans – the GOP's unfavorability gap was 11, the Dems was 2 – but are going to give us the most hardline conservative House in living memory. So go figure. A bunch of adolescent whiners? More grist for the Kinsley meme that they are just "big babies"? Or just completely confused and disgruntled and lashing out?

Whatever the explanation, I think all this portends a much better future for president Obama than for the Republicans, even as they cruise to victory next week. People are deeply frustrated by the economy, but they do not take Bill O'Reilly's position that Obama owns the recession because after 18 months in office, and a stimulus decried as too much by the right and too little by the left, he still has 9.6 percent unemployment. Only 8 percent blame Obama for the current economy. 30 percent blame Bush; 22 percent blame Wall Street; 13 percent blame Congress. They're not as delusional as Fox News wants them to be.

As for future politics, Americans overwhelmingly trust the Dems on healthcare, favor the GOP on debt reduction (go figure) and split between the parties on creating jobs. But here's the critical thing: a whopping 78 percent want the Republicans to compromise with Obama rather than stick to their positions in the next two years; 76 percent want the Dems to do the same; and a slightly lower percentage, but still overwhelming, wants Obama to compromise too: 69 percent.

In other words, this looks to me as if the public wants to force a deal by both sides to grapple with the long-term debt, the economy and healthcare. Now, who do they think is most likely to do that?

72 percent say that Obama will compromise; but only 46 percent say the Republicans will. I'd say that gives Obama clear edge in future politics, and helps explain why he remains more popular than anybody else in politics, has a solid 46 percent rating even in a deep recession and has higher favorables than anyone else.

He is right and the lefties are wrong. He will be a much stronger and more transformational president if he sticks to pragmatism, avoids culture war fights, and keeps his focus on policy as much as politics. This is the GOP high-point; and as you survey the attitudes of Gingrich, Pence, Palin and McConnell, you can't help but think they are walking directly into the same hubristic trap as Gingrich before them.

They have campaigned on no compromise; yet the public wants them to. If they don't, they look obstructionist; if they do, they lose their base. As long as Obama keeps his cool, and the economy continues to recover, he's looking good.

Country music – and Southern Americana – meet cannabis legalization:

Brian Wilson wins Dlist's "Hot Slut Of The Day."

It's clear she understands a Murkowski or McAdams victory could hurt her deeply.

A reader writes:

Striking clip, for so many reasons – the pacing, the sobriety of the discussion, the way the director jumps into the conversation to throw it to commercial. But what's most striking about it is something we no longer have anywhere in today's media: real exploration of ideas among people whose ideas don't match.

Here we have Buckley, as conservative an icon as they come (if never a moralist), interviewing a man who, at the time, was considered a radical libertine. And he's actually asking him questions — and allowing him to answer in-depth.

People actually explored real ideas back then. I'm sitting here mourning that loss. Can you imagine how someone like Sarah Palin would fare in that kind of culture? She wouldn't even exist. For that matter, can you imagine how different the public image of Obama would be?

He may not be more popular — if he were to sit down with someone like Buckley and actually have a conversation (and if Americans were forced by the limits of their entertainment options to actually watch), a lot of the President's most ardent supporters might not actually like him, and plenty of his loudest detractors would adore him.

But at least the folks calling him a radical socialist would be laughed out of the room, because the people would know better.

You can't get much clearer than this half-million dollar ad campaign from Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition in favor of Sharron Angle:

Mike Pence pledges intransigence with Obama if the GOP takes back the House:

And yet they have failed to produce a single credible proposal to reduce spending by the levels required to tackle the debt without tax-hikes. This is what one can only call "magical nihilism." And as a political strategy next year, I think the party that refuses to compromise and is seen as refusing to compromise, will lose. If the debt is that dangerous, can the GOP truly justify doing nothing to counter it for the next two years, and indeed, by refusing to allow the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts, actually increase the debt by $700 billion?

A reader writes:

Just wanted to say that a lot of your recent posts on gay issues, such as the video of Dan Choi speaking about his experience have really influenced me. I keep seeing new angles and understanding new nuances. Sometimes I wish I could just "come out" as a heterosexual because coming out appears to be a process in which you become honest with yourself and with those around you. It seems so healthy.

I have to say I can see what my reader is getting at.

Being in a massive heterosexual majority where you don't really have to think very hard or deeply about your sexual nature, and where it is easy to drift along without examining core premises of your emotional life, can deny people an opportunity to reflect more profoundly about society and social norms or know themselves more completely.

Of course, many heterosexuals still accomplish this; and many homosexuals resist this opportunity (the closet can often be a shutting down of facing reality, a way to avoid living and thinking and feeling). But for me, at least, coming out logically demanded a much greater honesty about things in general, a much deeper awareness that established norms may not always be correct, and may even hide great cruelty or ignorance.

I shudder to think what an unreflective and glib person I could have become without that process. Not that I am never unreflective or glib, of course. But less so, I think, than if, ensconced in a relatively comfortable position – white, male, smart, educated, Western – I had never been forced  to see what it also is to be an outsider, and to feel, even in a much milder way than many, the pain and cruelty and misery it can involve, and equally the dignity and life and vigor of so many under such strain.