Month: March 2012

Maybe:

What is clear is that, having been tempted to end all of the Bush tax cuts in 2009, the president would only find the idea more attractive were he to win a second term. At that point, he will never again stand before the voters, at least not as a presidential candidate. There would be nothing to stop him from flouting a campaign promise, even one as sensitive as his tax pledge. Meanwhile, after four straight years of trillion-dollar deficits, the pressure to narrow the budget shortfall would be even more intense than it was during his first term.

Not gonna happen. He's not Romney. He means what he says and keeping the tax burden on the middle class stable has been a staple for years. Now, if we had comprehensive tax reform, we could do so much better – lowering rates and raising revenues. And that's a second-term project, as it was for Reagan.

Not a foe.

A troubled history: 

The Republican Party launched in 1854 as an anti-slavery party and quickly seized on growing concern with Mormons in the Utah Territory taking on multiple wives. The GOP's first party platform in 1856 took direct aim at polygamy, placing it in the same sinister frame as slavery in the hope of cultivating the votes of Christians wary of the spread of these dual threats to the republic. "It is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — polygamy, and slavery," the party declared as it emerged on the national stage for the first time.

We sometimes forget, I think, how big a step forward it is to have a Catholic and a Mormon vying for the GOP nomination. Unthinkable not so long ago. It's not that far removed from having a bi-racial dude and a woman vie for the Dems last time around.

Question? askandrew@thedailybeast.com Video archive here.

While in England, I sat down with Johann Hari for a podcast. The whole thing went into the early hours of the morning, but it does get into some deep and interesting weeds. The best way to listen is to subscribe via iTunes by clicking here. It's free. So far, only the first part is up. I'll link when the second half is downloadable.

Christie defends his veto of marriage equality:

The trouble is: he's wrong in saying this is not about gay rights, but gay marriage, as if the two were separable. They aren't and cannot be. This issue is about the institution of civil marriage and gay rights. You cannot deal with this issue without acknowledging that it is about both things. That makes it harder – but no one promised that living in a democracy would be easy.

What Christie is doing, I think, is simply not allowing himself to see this from the point of view of a gay person. My view is that you can see this through both lenses and come to the same conclusion: marriage equality is about deepening and expanding the institution of civil marriage and protecting the core rights of a minority. It's a win-win for all.

More and more people see this, as the polls keep showing, and as the actual lived experience of marriage equality in the states where it exists reassure us. People are not wrong to worry about this as a big social change. That kind of skepticism is not the same thing as prejudice. Marriage is a critical social institution. But their worries are misplaced. And if representative government is to mean anything, it should be to decide these issues in a reasoned way and be accountable for the result. A referendum is a cop-out. But it is now what we face; and there's a very decent chance we can win in New Jersey as well as Maryland. So let's keep making the case as clearly, as reasonably and as passionately as we can.

This much we know: as an argument, it's a winner. The longer this debate has gone on, the more support we get.

Earlier thoughts on Christie's actions here.

Jerusalem, Israel, 9.02 am

"In the first decade of the DRUDGEREPORT Andrew Breitbart was a constant source of energy, passion and commitment. We shared a love of headlines, a love of the news, an excitement about what’s happening. I don’t think there was a single day during that time when we did not flash each other or laugh with each other, or challenge each other. I still see him in my mind’s eye in Venice Beach, the sunny day I met him. He was in his mid 20's. It was all there," – Matt Drudge.

My own further reflections on Breitbart and our current culture here. I have to say that Matt always seemed to understand the dangers of this kind of personal exposure. In order to balance the power and exposure he wields each day, he has become a virtual hermit, keeping the real and the online worlds rigorously separated. I'm not sure Andrew Breitbart could sustain such a solid boundary. And that takes a toll. 

Joe Klein asks how Romney plans to win it:

[I]f you’re going to posit yourself as "electable"–that is, attractive to a general electorate broader than the Republican Party’s base–you have to take positions will actually attract moderates and independents. Bill Clinton did that by promising to "reform welfare as we know it" in 1992 (he delivered, too); George W. Bush did that by offering the promise of a softer "compassionate conservativism" (with a few notable exceptions, like his support for AIDs relief in Africa, Bush didn’t deliver). Romney has done nothing to reassure moderate voters that he won’t be a nutter. He may be a "moderate" in the current Republican Party, but he has been campaigning as, well, a severe conservative if you consider the larger political spectrum.