Month: December 2011

 This chart is currently in the lead for Chart Of The Year (but voting is still open):

The NYT had a story on these lines today. Their graphic – not as striking as the one above – is here. Along the same lines, the WaPo reported yesterday that from "1984 and 2009, the median net worth of a member of the House has risen 2½ times … rising from $280,000 to $725,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars." Kevin Drum's analysis:

It just costs too much to run for Congress today for anyone who's not fairly well off to do it. And that's no coincidence. As income inequality goes up, campaign funding from rich donors also goes up — partly because the rich have more money and partly because they're more motivated to use that money to influence the political process in order to protect their wealth. This creates an arms race that effectively precludes anyone who doesn't have either money of their own or access to wealthy donors from running.

After asking his readers to vote for him and an endorsement from last year's winner, Dan Savage is off to an early lead, but Cornel West or Simon Winchester could still mount a come from behind victory. Help decide the winner:

The Daily Dish Awards Glossary

Click here to vote for the 2011 Malkin Award!

Click here to vote for the 2011 Hathos Alert!

Click here to vote for the 2011 Face Of The Year!

Click here to vote for the 2011 Von Hoffmann Award!

Click here to vote for the 2011 Yglesias Award!

Click here to vote for the 2011 Chart Of The Year!

Click here to vote for the 2011 Mental Health Break Of The Year!

Social activist Anna Hazare drinks water during the first day of his three-day hunger strike at Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority Ground, Bandra on December 27, 2011 in Mumbai, India. The protest action by Hazare is intended to help press his demand for the government to introduce a strong Lokpal bill in seeking to address issues of corruption. By Satish Bate/Hindustan Times via Getty Images.

Robin Hanson asks:

[W]e don’t at all limit housework, and place few limits on self-employed work. Furthermore, high status occupations are especially exempt. Doctors, lawyers, managers, financiers, artists, writers, athletes, academics, and software engineers often work crazy hours. … Why are we so selective in our limits?

Paul's thoughts on the UN in this John Birch Society documentary are out of the mainstream, to say the least:

Michael Cohen worries that I'm burying the lede on Paul's foreign policy:

[A] Ron Paul presidency would mean far more than simply an end to foreign wars and the United States playing policeman to the world. In short, he wants to pull up the drawbridge and separate the United States from all official foreign entanglements, not just the military ones. One could certainly make the case that the consequences of such a doctrinaire and unyielding foreign policy vision could do significant long-term damage to the United States. According to Heather Hurlburt, the executive director of the National Security Network, "A foreign policy that lets our trading partners collapse (in Europe); fails to engage with new ones as they are busily building ties with each other (Brazil, Turkey, Korea, Indonesia); and lets new disease incubate in the food we import and pollution concentrate in the winds we breathe will kill citizens and impoverish our national treasury as surely as the wars Paul critiques."

Steve Benen is stumped:

We’re talking about a French-speaking Mormon vulture capitalist named Willard, who used to support abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants, and combating climate change. He distanced himself from Reagan, attended Planned Parenthood fundraisers, and helped create the blueprint for the Affordable Care Act. He supported taxpayer-funded abortions and taxpayer-financed medical care for undocumented immigrants.

Given all of this, I thought there was no way Romney would coast through 2011 without facing brutal attack ads from his GOP rivals. But I was completely wrong — the attacks never came; Republican voters never heard about this record; and Romney appears well positioned to win the nomination.

Keith Humphreys agrees:

The one guy to rip into Romney — Jon Huntsman — has done a brilliant job of it. But he doesn’t have the money or the cred to take on Mitt with Iowa caucus goers. 

 

That's Peter Beinart's bet:

Since the Iowa caucuses generally reward organization and passion, I suspect Paul will win them easily. That would likely propel him to a strong showing in libertarian New Hampshire. Somehow, I think Romney and the Republican establishment will find a way to defeat him in the vicious and expensive struggle that follows. But the dominant storyline at the Republican convention will be figuring out how to appease Paul sufficiently to ensure that he doesn’t launch a third party bid. And in so doing, the GOP will legitimize its isolationist wing in a way it hasn’t since 9/11.

Gershom Gorenberg is doing his own version of our year-end awards for worst PR missteps by the current Israeli government. One nominee:

The New York Times invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to write an article for its opinion pages. Netanyahu adviser Ron Dermer wrote back to decline the offer on the grounds that the oped page was biased against Israel. Yup. Offered the chance to balance what the prime minister’s office claims is unfair commentary on his policies, Netanyahu said no because he wouldn’t appear on a page that doesn’t have balance. Netanyahu is supposed to be a master of hasbarah (Heb. n.: propaganda, bull) but he simply ceded the podium. Dermer objected to columnist Tom Friedman’s assertion that applause for Netanyahu when he addressed Congress was purchased by the Israel lobby. But Netanyahu is unwilling to face the wider audience of the Times, which cannot be accused of being bought. At first glance, Netanyahu and his advisers gave into childish petulance. If we assume a more adult, reasoned choice, they decided to plead nolo contendere to the criticisms made on the Times oped page rather than risk new criticism based on the inevitable weakness of their defense of Netanyahu’s policies.