Author: Andrew Sullivan

While trying to make sense of David Broder's economic theories, Ryan Avent's head hits the desk:

Either Mr Broder thinks that Iran will take a war effort on a par with that for World War II, in which case we might expect him to be a little more sceptical about just whether or not an Iran attack is a good idea (lots of Americans died in World War II!). Or he's not actually relying on the extent of spending to dig America out of its weak recovery, but instead is imagining war preparations as something like a light switch—on means the economy grows, off not. But if that's all it is, then why not declare war on some uninhabited island somewhere? Or the moon? Or, you know, ignorance? Then maybe fewer people would be killed!

Larison imagines how the GOP would actually react to war with Iran (does anyone still think they are in any way serious about national security?):

Obama has given the hawks all they could want in Afghanistan, but that has not stopped them from railing against him as the second coming of Jimmy Carter because he set a withdrawal deadline. If Obama claimed that Iran was about to construct a nuclear device, Republican hawks would react in a few different ways, and none of them would help Obama politically. Many would formally support the military action, but they would happily attack Obama in the process. Some would berate Obama for having let things get to this point, and they would actually blame him for having previously “failed” to stop it. Despite having spent decades fretting about Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons, they would pin an Iranian bomb solely on Obama, whose alleged weakness and “appeasement” invited the Iranian threat. McCain would be all over cable television saying something like, “This is what happens when you try to engage with dictatorships. Our military is paying the price for the President’s failed leadership.” No doubt they would throw in some added shots at his Israel and Afghanistan decisions in the process. “While Obama was wasting our resources on nation-building in Afghanistan, the real threat was gathering in Iran,” they would tell us. It won’t matter if this is consistent with their own previous statements or not. 

"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking, “God, I’ve got to get my rocks off”, or they’d go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. ‘It doesn’t happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it… I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want. Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, “Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!” But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?" – Stephen Fry. And I know it's accurate because I read it in the Daily Mail.

''For all our troubles, midterm finds this Administration and this country entering a season of hope. We inherited a mess, we didn't run away from it and now we're turning it around … My biggest regret is that because the accumulated damages piled up so high for so long, putting America's house in order has been a tough and painful task … We've got to prove that what we said about it is true – it'll work,'' – Barack Obama November 2010, Ronald Reagan January 1983.

A reader writes:

Isn’t this the story of the Obama presidency so far? Quiet, unheralded success after success, from stopping a great depression, to getting near-universal healthcare, to actually removing a ton of troops from Iraq without fanfare, to financial regulatory reform (although not perfect, better than nothing), etc.? The only difference is on the terror plots, he either wins quietly or loses loudly.

A sign of where the power in the GOP now resides: Romney and Pawlenty have already rushed to Snooki's Palin's defense.

Larry Ferlazzo calls attention to an old and wise essay:

Its premise is that we need to be very careful what beliefs we turn into principles, because once they become a principle, we can’t really compromise on it. And that many people turn far too many ideas into principles that they are unwilling to reconsider. Subsequently, negotiation becomes out of the question, and unnecessary conflict often ensues. We can see it in our families, our schools, our country, and in our world.

The article is not saying there are no principles worth upholding. It’s just suggesting that we very, very carefully decide which ones they are.

He ends his piece by quoting Mark Twain: "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

A reader writes:

I know that you are probably receiving oodles of emails along these lines, but since you already said you enjoyed one South Park sign, I just want to say that that wasn't the only one. I went with a "Free Hat!" sign (and handed out newspaper hats), and bumped into none other than Awesom-o.

See below:

The Yes on Prop 19 folks haven't given up. Chris Good summarizes:

The backbone of the argument [that Prop 19 can still win]: Youth support, Prop. 19's get-out-the-vote program (rallies an canvassing over the weekend), and the idea that polls are undercounting Prop. 19's support.

Razib Khan thinks GOP elites gunning for Palin need to tread carefully because "Sarah Palin’s intensity of following may be inversely correlated with the the nakedness of antipathy toward her from elites":

Republican elites have been waiting for Palin to fumble to the point where she loses much of her core support. But this seems a case where the more she “fumbles” the more her core followers are reinforced in the righteousness of adhering to her cause, as she shows her humanity. On the other hand a Sarah Palin run for the highest office is probably one of the best ways for Democrats to guarantee massive turnout among their base in 2012.

This is the genius. If her campaign is simply the O'Donnell one – "I'm You" – then how does an elite hurt her without actually helping her? Even if someone found out some amazing new fact about her – the story would not be the fact, but that the liberal elitist media was out to get her. That's what happens when you have a paranoid personality cult dominating a political party.

I saw this early on when I dared to ask questions about the Trig story. Heads she wins; tails you lose. And so any actual investigation never happens, and you have pure reality television politics. The more Palin says "crap" on Fox, the wackier her Discovery Channel escapades, the sleazier Bristol's dance routines … the more Karl Rove worries and her base rallies to her as "one of them". The worse Snooki behaves, the more famous she is, the more people decry her … the bigger her audience.

I believe the press should relentlessly hammer Palin on her lies, policy vacuity and rhetorical meanness and excess. But they refuse even to find out if a 3,000 mile "motor-home" trip happened or didn't – for fear of losing market share, or seeming to be anti-Palin. (I emailed both John Heilemann and Adam Moss about their decision not to find out if a story Palin has been telling they reported as "possibly fictitious" was "actually fictitious", and have received no response from either.)

And now the press has another story, guaranteed to spike pageviews and ratings: the GOP establishment vs Palin. This one will run and run. How many old, white guys can take her on at once? And who, after all, benefited most from Politico's story? Palin or Politico? Tough call, no?

Palin is a political version of Snooki. The only thing that can destroy her is ignoring her. And it's way too late for that.

(Photo: TV personality Nicole 'Snooki' Polizzi attends the 2010 CMT Music Awards at the Bridgestone Arena on June 9, 2010 in Nashville, TennesseeB. y Rick Diamond/Getty Images.)