Author: Andrew Sullivan

Steven Taylor's "basic theory of Sarah Palin":

I think that Palin represents the culmination of the rise of partisan (specifically in this case Republican/conservative) media that started in the mid-to-late 1980s and grew up alongside the growth of niche media and the segmentation of news/commentary consumption in the United States because of cable and the internet.   It is possible now to not only get conservative-oriented news and commentary it is possible to get exclusively conservative-oriented news and commentary.  Further, Palin has cleverly exploited long-standing resentments within the public about perceptions of liberal bias in the press.   This is especially true of older voters who remember (and resented) the pre-cable era when all the news came through the Big Three Networks and from anchors who were often believed to have liberal-leaning perspectives.

It's a local race – and no big deal. A state senate seat in Connecticut. And yet …:

The race between [incumbent state Senator Andrew] Maynard and [Republican challenger Stuart] Norman may be unlike any other in the state. Rather than spend their time railing against each other, the two have decided to campaign together, embarking on what they're calling a "civility tour." "After one of the first events of the campaign, Andy and I got talking in the hallway, and I talked about how a campaign of civility and respect would be good," said Norman, who lives in Griswold.

"I said, 'Andy, you might have better name recognition than me and if the press catches on, it could help me more than you,' " he said, noting that the unlikely partnership could boost his lesser-known campaign. "And [Maynard] said, 'I still want to do it,' " Norman said. "I wouldn't go as far as saying Andy and I have become good friends, but we respect each other."

They called their joint campaign and debates a civility tour. 

William F. Buckley Jr, a believer in legalization, would be happy. Rob Kampia:

[B]efore a single vote tally is reported, it should be noted that — regardless of any results next week — 2010 might already go down in history as a major turning point in the government’s failed war on marijuana. It was the year when marijuana prohibition became ingrained as a topic of mainstream public discourse, when political strategists first openly encouraged both major parties to embrace marijuana voters, and when – without much national notice or outrage – a Western state (not California) began to enact the first widespread system of legal, licensed, and regulated marijuana stores anywhere in the nation.

The unprecedented levels of mainstream media coverage generated by Prop. 19 and other marijuana issues cannot be overlooked. When virtually every TV news outlet and major print or online publication in the country gives prominent coverage to marijuana policy, it compels millions of Americans to think seriously about this issue for perhaps the first time in their lives. People who for years may have thought regulating marijuana was a “fringe” idea unlikely to ever come to fruition will inevitably reconsider as they see mothers, former police officers, and a former U.S. surgeon general renouncing our current policies live on television.

A search for a single mention of Prop 19 in today's National Review found only this measured piece by Reihan, one of our most illustrious Dish alums. Buckley's days truly are over at his magazine, aren't they?

More class and cultural warfare from the GOP.

A small cultural moment as a Texas baseball reporter broadcasts back to his studio. The reaction in Texas is remarkable for its tolerance as well.

Yglesias looks at the bright side:

[F]rom a social point of view, the fact that the lawyers’ cartel has failed to erect giant barriers to entry is a good thing. Falling real wages for lawyers is an egalitarian, pro-growth measure. And lawyers still earn above-average incomes—it’s not like people are being forced into penury. These are trends that are making legal services more affordable for productive businesses and improving the quality of legal talent the public sector is able to attract without adding to taxpayers’ burden. 

Paul Salopek calls landmines a war crime. Tom Ricks admits that landmines "are awful little things" and that especially "evil are the simple little ones, no bigger than a can of tuna fish, [that] last for decades, and blow up kids, dogs, sheep and photographers." But he still thinks they have their uses:

[W]hy do I have even one good word to say about land mines? Because those that are built to self-destruct after a set period — say six months — can still be useful. For example, if Pakistan descended into total chaos, it might be a very good idea to air-drop land mines around the bunkers holding its nuclear warheads, just to keep them from falling into terrorist hands while the situation is sorted out. Considering that the alternative could be a nuclear 9/11, in New York, Bombay, Madrid, Paris, or London, suddenly land mines don't seem so bad. This is of course an extreme situation, but it tells me there are some instances where an argument can be made for certain kinds of land mines. 

Today on the Dish, Andrew parsed the NYT poll on the sometimes schizophrenic opinion of voters. He also picked apart Obama's waxing and waning support for marriage equality, went another round in debating Israel-Palestine, and chastised the NYT on their double standard for torture. Andrew opened up about coming out and the remarkable Dan Choi recounted how he met his partner.

Mike Pence pledged "no compromise" with the Democrats and an ad supporting Angle's campaign proclaimed "us vs them." Chait explained the endless loop of spending and tax cuts for Republicans. Justin Wolfer hedged his bets against everyone else's bets, while admitting no one would remember either way. Rove waged war on Palin, who may have waged war on herself in her own backyard with Miller in Alaska. Obama was still the least unpopular of the Republican frontrunners, Joe Miller Halloweened Murkowski, and we tracked Sabato and Silver on the horserace here and here.

Bernstein proposed that Fox News is part of the Republican party, and readers responded to Andrew on whether liberals should appear on the channel at all. Tea Party members were not fans of Islam, according to one of their founders. Yglesias defined climate hawks, terrorists could turn to cyber offense, and Mark Lynch feared open war talks with Iran. Megan looked at a future without Warren Buffet, and Prop 19 got a polling reality check just as the national numbers were improving.

Dyed beards can be sexy, readers didn't want to do away with snow days, and a country singer serenaded weed. Ben Goldacre informed us on how we read newspapers wrong, Kevin Costner outperformed Captain Hindsight, and Annie Lowry asked if there were too many lawyers. MHB here, FOTD here, email of the day here, quote for the day here, Malkin award here, VFYW here, and GIF fun here.

–Z.P.

From a Sharron Angle flyer (via the Reid campaign):

Priapic graphs. So sue me.