President Palin? Ctd

Frum believes that there are many Republicans who feel "Romney-Huckabee is the party’s natural ticket in 2012":

They may be business oriented Republicans who prefer Romney or religiously oriented conservatives who prefer Huckabee, but they recognize that the ticket probably needs both. Such Republicans recognize something else: the real divide among the 2012 candidates is that between those who are primarily political figures and those who are primarily media figures.

Businessman Romney and multiply reelected governor Huckabee belong in the first category, along with Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty, while Palin, Gingrich and John Bolton belong in the latter category. The solution is to let everyone do what they do best: Nominate the politicians to run for office, leave the media figures to talk on Fox.

 

“WikiLeaks Itself Isn’t The Problem”

Kristol, among others, wants to "whack Wikileaks." Kevin Drum blames this line of attack on partisanship:

The United States has considerable control over actions by its own citizens on its own territory, but not over noncitizens who reside overseas and work primarily in cyberspace.

But then, I suspect most of the bloviators know this. WikiLeaks is, for most of them, just a good opportunity to bash the Obama administration (as if George Bush would have been able to act any differently) without having to actually offer any concrete solutions. And what makes this especially great for Obama's critics is that there's not really a lot Obama can do about it, aside from bloviating a bit in return.

Bloviating aside, though, we should be focused not on Julian Assange, but on figuring out how to keep anyone from providing this kind of information to him in the first place. That's more boring, but much more effective.

Where Are America’s Corner Pubs?

After a trip to England, Ryan Avent pines for an American equivalent to the British pub. Why it doesn't exist:

London, like cities and towns across the British Isles, is filled with pubs. They vary in type, quality, and clientele. I was very lucky this time around to find a near-perfect gastropub just a five minute walk from my flat. It was quiet and well-maintained with a great menu, and while there were always people there, there was also always a free seat. Kids were welcome during the day, as were dogs. Every time I went I thought to myself how great it would be to have such a place close by back in Washington. And every time I thought that, I immediately reminded myself that such a place, back in Washington, would be perpetually packed and fairly unpleasant. In the Washington area, you can’t have a place that’s both really good and quiet in a neighborhood-y sort of way.

That’s largely because it’s very difficult to open new bars. And the result is a pernicious feedback loop. With too few bars around, most good bars are typically crowded. This crowdedness alienates neighbors, and it also has a selecting effect on the types of people who choose to go to bars — those interested in a loud, rowdy environment, who will often tend to be loud and rowdy. This alienates neighbors even more, leading to tighter restrictions still and exacerbating the problem.

 Matt Steinglass fingers culture instead of economics:

[W]hat strikes me overwhelmingly about the difference between bars/pubs in London, New York and Washington is that these three cities have completely different nightlife cultures. Those cultures are irreducible to the regulatory environment or to economic behaviour. The regulatory environment in London doesn't do much to explain why, when you walk through Southwark on a winter's evening at 6:30pm with the thermometer tipping 0 degrees centigrade, you see crowds of men and women in long dark coats standing on the sidewalk sipping pints of bitter. It doesn't explain the fact that up until 1990 there basically wasn't a decent atmospheric bar with good food in Washington, DC, or not one that would be recognised as such by someone from New York or London. It doesn't explain the fact that even though breweries are allowed to own pubs in England, and are prevented from doing so in America, most pubs in London that are bought up by breweries or conglomerates have retained their individual characters and atmospheres, while in America they would almost certainly be swept under by company-wide branding campaigns. It doesn't even explain why bars in Washington have gotten so much better over the past 15 years that when I go back, I barely recognise the place.

The Promise Of A Democratic Iran

Karim Sadjadpour made an important point in yesterday's FT:

The WikiLeaks revelations make clear that Arab officials believe Iran to be inherently dishonest and dangerous. The feeling is probably mutual. But they hide perhaps a more interesting issue, namely what type of Iranian government would actually best serve Gulf Arab interests.

President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad and the Islamic Republic may be loathed, but equally the advent of a more progressive, democratic Iran would enable Tehran to emerge from its largely self-inflicted isolation and begin to realise its enormous potential. In the zero-sum game of Middle Eastern politics, a democratic Iran would pose huge challenges to Persian Gulf sheikhdoms.

(Hat tip: Norm)

Where’s The Anti-Palin Brigade?

Chait's guess:

Scarborough is correct that elected Republicans, and especially Republican presidential candidates, have shied away from attacking Palin on the record. There's an obvious collective action problem at work. The party as a whole would stand to lose a great deal if she captures the nomination. She runs a good 8 points worse against Obama than against a generic Republican or Mitt Romney. On the other hand, she's popular among Republicans, and a candidate who attacks her would put his own candidacy in grave danger. So the heavy lifting is going to have to reside with Republicans who aren't running for office.

Bernstein half agrees:

[T]his is probably a problem that will take care of itself over the next year or so.  Nothing will change for most Republican pols: they don't want Palin as at the top of the ticket, but they also don't want to risk attacking her and then facing angry primary voters.  But for those running for president, the situation is a bit different.  Right now, it makes little sense for them to attack — Palin may wind up dropping out of the race before Iowa, or she may just fail to rally support above the 20% or so level she's at now.  If, however, she looks like a formidable candidate for the nomination by next fall (give or take a few months), then attacking her makes more and more sense.