Month: April 2011

Romney announced his presidential exploratory committee yesterday. David Frum worries:

[W]hile Romney would be a fine candidate to win with, he would be a very dangerous candidate for Republicans to lose with. If Romney should be nominated and defeated, it’s easy to imagine Republicans deciding that the route to victory is to do Tea Party 2.0 in 2014 and 2016 – doubling down on the extremism of 2009-2010 long past their sell-by date.

Once again, I have flashbacks to the Tories after Blair's first win. The only way you really kill off the far-right temptation is to give into it and lose so badly you never forget. Maybe a Bachmann-Trump combo could help the GOP in the long term.

A reader writes:

I couldn't disagree more with Chaplain Mike; The Giving Tree is a horrid, horrid piece of work. It stars a little brat who takes and takes from this poor tree for the entire length of the book. The tree gives and gives and gives until it has literally nothing left; It becomes a pathetic, dying stump. It has nothing left for either itself or anyone else who comes by. And the book presents this as a good thing!

While some of Silverstein's other works (particularly A Light in the Attic, Where the Sidewalk Ends and Falling Up) are excellent for kids learning to read, anyone who would let their kids near The Giving Tree needs to ask what lessons they're really imparting.

Another writes:

Maybe I'm too cynical, or my MA in English drove all the starry-eyed optimism out of me, but the older I get, the more disturbed I am by The Giving Tree.

When it first came out, I was in my early 20s, spending my summers working as a camp counselor, and we read that book to our campers often.  I loved it – the simplicity, the message of generosity. I gave it as a gift at baby showers and birthdays.  

Like the Boy, however, I grew up. I noticed what a greedy, solipsistic little shit he is. Worse, he doesn't outgrow it, as most of us try to do. He takes and takes until that tree has nothing left, oblivious to the havoc he wreaks.  If the tree were a human, we'd hold an intervention and tell it to get counseling for its martyr complex. Where's the "grace" in that??

I did click through and read Chaplain Mike's entire post, with its analogy between the tree and God. I'm not convinced.  Even God expects some penitence for our sins. Moreover, there is just nothing redeemable about the Boy – surely a rather Calvinistic interpretation of humanity?

Another:

I love Shel Silverstein but have always hated that book and its message.  That tree is on the receiving end of an abusive relationship and, in classic form, never stands up for itself. When my daughter got her hands on that book, my first words were, "Don't ever grow up to be that tree."

Another:

This topic cries out for the Sassy Gay Friend's take.

Ezra Klein points to an alleged blindspot of mine (and DC pundits in general):

[H]ealth-care costs are not all about, or even mostly about, insurance. Indeed, so much as I like exchanges, it’s very possible that you need the government putting pressure on the delivery system to control costs. What we tend to see with private insurers is that they just don’t have enough leverage over hospitals or doctors to get major changes done. Medicare does have that leverage, which is why it makes sense to use Medicare as a tool to reform the health-care system, as opposed to just the health-insurance system.

But I've specifically endorsed the cost-control pilot schemes in the ACA.

I do indeed see the need to find a way to get much more value for money within healthcare delivery. But I also see the power of the consumer as worth harnessing. One small reform I'd favor is making co-pays much more linked to the actual cost of the relevant procedure or drug. If you pay 30 percent for a new drug, rather than a flat fee of, say, $30, you're going to become instantly more aware of the generic option. Why not all of the above?

On this topic, it's worth revisiting the cover story in the September 2009 Atlantic by David Goldhill. As a bracing assessment from first principles, it's held up very well.

Ed Morrissey asks:

If Obama thinks that Simpson-Bowles was so terrific, why did he round-file it two months ago and issue a budget request that almost entirely refuted it?  And why should anyone believe he’d stick with the cuts Simpson-Bowles demands after giving it that vote of no confidence in February?

Well: duh. This move confirms the view that the president's decision not to go there in his State of the Union or budget was tactical, not strategic. He waited for Ryan to over-reach, forcing Americans to confront a deficit reduction package that seemed absurdly taxophobic and thereby too tough on the needy. Now, he can embrace the gist of the sanest proposal out there – which he never opposed, merely ignored. Paul Krugman, naturally, is depressed by the news:

Bowles-Simpson was a really bad proposal. Its cost-containment plan for Medicare was nothing but a magic asterisk; it proposed raising the retirement age without giving any consideration to the fact that life expectancy hasn’t risen much among lower-income Americans; it arbitrarily set a cap on revenues as a share of GDP. And by endorsing an already right-leaning document, Obama will of course define the center as being somewhere between the right and the far right.

Ryan Avent is less critical of Simpson-Bowles but doesn't expect a deal:

Maybe the Ryan plan will rally moderate leaders behind the Simpson-Bowles bipartisan commission plan, thereby making a meaningful deal on long-term borrowing possible. I have to say that I'm quite sceptical. A compromise position between the Simpson-Bowles plan and the Ryan plan will be well to the right of what most Democratic legislators can tolerate. And for now, at least, it appears that any plan which raises taxes is well to the left of what most Republican legislators can tolerate. 

Which is why, if Obama pulls it off, it will be a game-changer. And in the nick of time. Cohn remains uneasy:

[T]he Post story doesn't say how specific or meaningful Obama's embrace of Bowles-Simpson will be. It's possible Obama will simply point to the commission's work as one possible alternative to the proposal from House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, who has called for ending Medicare and Medicaid as we know it while extending massive tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. The Post also reports that Obama will highlight the ongoing negotiations among six bipartisan senators, which suggests Bowles-Simpson won't be the only option he cites. But even a modest, qualified endorsement of Bowles-Simpson is risky, because it could launch the debate over deficit reduction onto a dangerous path.

What Jon means by this is the 21 percent of GDP limit for federal government spending. I do not think that under-targeting federal spending has been our problem these last few years.

TNC isn't convinced. Earlier thoughts here.

He was onto something, wasn't he?

This is pretty striking:

Exit polls showed independents supporting the GOP by a 19 point margin last year at 56-37. Now only 30% of those voters think that the Republican controlled House is moving things in the right direction, compared to 44% who think things were better with the Democrats. Given those numbers it's not much of a surprise that independents now say they'd vote Democratic for the House by a 42-33 margin if there was an election today, representing a 28 point reversal in a span of just five months.

We're in very fluid times – as befits a country facing a debt meltdown. And Obama is a nimble swimmer.

The response from readers has been overwhelming in volume and generosity. One writes:

How beautifully expressed! I now need to "dry" my eyes.

Another:

I don't even know you but I burst into tears when I read this post (okay, I'm four months pregnant and a little hormonal, but still).  Congratulations, and enjoy some long overdue peace of mind.

Another:

Damn you, Sullivan.  Everybody gets good and mad at you over the Ryan budget and then you go and write something like this.

Another:

Funny how it takes someone who’s not originally from the US to make those of us born and raised here remember this truth:

America remains the great dream, the great promise. For all its dysfunction, it remains an ideal, a place where the restlessness of the human mind and soul comes to rest in a place it constantly reinvents and forever re-imagines.

Another:

How wonderful that you can see England again soon.  And in the spring, no less! Although it would seem a bit odd to celebrate your permanent residency with a trip out of the country.

PS.  Come to Manchester for the bear run!  I'd love to buy you a pint.

Another:

This Arkansas redneck is having a shot of bourbon in your honor. Welcome to the fold, brother. Now you own this mess, just like the rest of us.

Another:

Tonight at half-price cocktail night at a neighborhood bistro in Minneapolis, the assembled raised a glass to you. Welcome to the United States. And thanks for being American.

Another:

Consider yourself well hugged by this bearded bear from Alaska.

Another:

Thanks for sharing your wonderful news! I am a farmer and so rooted in my soil that I cannot fathom the insecurity you have been living with.

Another:

You wrote, "How do you live somewhere for a majority of your existence and still not know if you could remain for another year, another month, as each visa was sent for adjudication and each trip abroad became full of foreboding."

We can relate:  I came from Sri Lanka to study on a scholarship, met my future husband (a German exchange student), fell in love, and then – penniless and without permission to work – struggled to stay together in a neutral place. F1, unpaid internship, HI, F1 again, married, had kids, left for India on an expat assignment … then got the green card while out of the country!  The fear is finally gone but the scars remain as I approach living half my life away from the country of my birth.

Another:

Thank you for your wonderful post about what it means that the HIV ban has lifted.  It’s so wonderful to be able to tell our immigrant clients, “Your HIV status is officially irrelevant – no one is even going to ask you about it.”  Some of the most heart-breaking cases we saw over the years were clients who learned they were HIV + during the immigration physical.  

I remember one woman from Cameroon telling me how she drove home from the examiner’s office thinking of ways to kill herself. And the man from Mexico who had been given what turned out to be a false positive report but couldn’t imagine what he was going to say to his wife.  HIV remains a life-changing diagnosis, but at least it no longer leaves people in immigration limbo. 

Another:

I'm making a mental note that it was that buffoon of a president's doing that you've been freed from limbo. Good job, Dubya. Credit well deserved.

Not quite. While Bush signed the end of the HIV ban, and while it would not have been possible without him or Republican senators like Gordon Smith and Dick Lugar, it was the Obama administration that implemented it, after it fell through the cracks at the end of the Bush era. Another:

I, too, am an immigrant, but never had to deal with the fear and trepidation of the Damocles' sword you had over your head. Your success warms my heart and takes me back to being a 10 year old and watching my parents take the oath of citizenship of our great country and feeling the enormous pride of becoming a citizen. I hope to be able to see you take that oath someday in the future – likely on YouTube. 

Another:

Given all that you add to our public discourse, I hope you are applying for citizenship.   I have a special affection for those who – as your friend Fareed Zakaria said recently -are citizens by choice, and not by accident of birth.  The contributions of those who have chosen to be here are immeasurable.

Another:

I noticed something appropriately intriguing about the tree image you selected for that post. That tree's an immigrant, too.  It’s a Japanese zelkova (Zelkova serrata).  It's a tree in the elm family. When mature, it very roughly approximates the branching architecture of the native American elm (Ulmus americanus), which was a truly magnificent landscape tree that was very heavily used in American towns and cities for its beautiful shape at maturity and its cool, yet open, inviting shade. 

Another:

My path to residency was easier than your for many reasons – my straight marriage was recognized by the federal government, the HIV bad doesn't affect me, etc. – but I think I can identify with some part of your sense of relief. I'm happy for you, and for your husband. Now go celebrate!

Another:

You must celebrate by consuming the biggest baddest hamburger in your area. I developed a taste for hamburgers in the US.  It is so mundane to most, but how more American can it get for a Hindu boy from Calcutta who is not supposed to consume beef?

Another:

As the immigration officer said the first time I returned with my green card: “Welcome home."

A reader writes:

Have you guys been paying attention to Stephen Colbert's relentless and brilliant skewering of Jon Kyl on Twitter? He was tweeting 'til after midnight and must have dreamt up more, since has been on a roll since dawn today. Some faves:

Jon Kyl was sent from the future to kill Sarah Conner. #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

Jon Kyl calls the underside of his Senate seat: "The Booger Graveyard." #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

In 2009, Jon Kyl lost $380,000 wagering on dwarf tossing. #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

And it goes on and on, calling him on his bullshit in increasingly absurd tweets. Stephen Colbert is an American Treasure. 

Justin Elliott reports on a proposed academic paper that lays out the remarkable incuriosity of the American press when it came to getting to the bottom of the strange stories Sarah Palin told about the birth of her fifth child, Trig. Elliott regards this as self-evidently embarrassing for the Northern Kentucky University professor who wrote the paper. He also reiterates a simple and easily checked untruth about my own curiosity about this affair. This blog has never asserted or argued that

that Sarah Palin faked her 2008 pregnancy because Trig is actually the son of Bristol Palin.

All I have done is ask for evidence that Sarah Palin is the biological mother, evidence that must be easily available and definitive.

From the very get-go, I have wanted simply to get this out of the way and have deliberately kept my inquiry narrowly focused on the obligation of a public figure to provide evidence to back up politically loaded biographical claims. The birth of Trig was critical to appealing to a pro-life base, and was used as a political argument and weapon in the 2008 campaign and since. It cannot surely be "embarrassing" for the media to ask for evidentiary proof – any more than it was inappropriate for Obama to produce proof of his birth in Hawaii. It may be awkward, but it isn't illegitimate. If someone asked for evidence of a candidate's, say, war record, no one would bat an eyelid. And when the claims are made by someone obviously delusional and deceptive about a whole number of matters, the press should feel no qualms at all. And yet they uniformly took Elliott's position that this kind of inquiry is beneath them. Look: you're the press. Nothing is beneath you.

Elliott does not criticize the paper; he offers no thoughts on the specifics; he has no opinion on the media's role. He just asserts that this is an absurd request, even though Palin is actually on record saying she has already released a birth certificate for Trig (which she hasn't).

And so Elliott, far from rebutting the theory of press laziness and incuriosity in the paper, actually adds one more tidbit of confirmation.