Author: Andrew Sullivan

Democrats For Palin

Some Obama supporters are hoping for a Palin nomination because her high negatives will give Obama a better shot at reelection. Ned Resnikoff lists other consequences:

Palin has already demonstrated a disturbing willingness to frame even minor political squabbles in terms of "tyranny" versus "liberty," and to make her a major party’s presidential candidate would only do more to throw the spotlight on that sort of incitement. Perhaps, as Kevin Drum prays, the GOP would then, "go down to such an epic defeat that they finally get some sense knocked into them." But in the meantime, we would be facing a long, protracted campaign in which both a major political party and the mainstream press would treat violently anti-democratic positions as existing within the confines of reasonable political discourse. We’ve already had quite a bit of that over the past few years; accommodating and encouraging it could potentially make things much, much worse.

Truly: she's far too dangerous to be considered opportunistically.

“Like Earth”

6a00d8341bf67c53ef0133f291cd81970b

A gaffe prematurely reveals some fascinating new astronomical findings via the Kepler Space Telescope:

In a recent presentation, Kepler co-investigator Dimitar Sasselov preempted the official announcement that the exoplanet-hunting Kepler Space Telescope has discovered about 140 candidate worlds orbiting other stars that are "like Earth."

Usually, announcements like these happen after an official press release, but during the TEDGLobal conference in Oxford, U.K., Sasselov unexpectedly dropped the groundbreaking news in one of his presentation slides.

The View From Your Recession, Ctd

A reader writes:

I work for the Texas Workforce Commission and am familiar with a few other state's eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits. Based on what your reader said, she may be eligible for UI benefits. Just because her work was "project based" does not automatically render her ineligible. I don't know what state she lives in, but it wouldn't render her ineligible in Texas and many other states. In Texas, if someone is hired for a definite period, and the work ends as anticipated, they can receive benefits barring some other disqualifying factor. This upsets many employers who end up having to pay benefits, but the statutes and precedents are clear on this point. Under these circumstances the claimant (that's what we call people who apply for UI benefits) will get benefits.

I won't bore you with further details re UI benefit eligibility in Texas. But unless she was told by whichever agency administers her state's UI benefits that she is ineligible, she shouldn't assume that she is ineligible without applying.

What A Palin Endorsement Can Do, Ctd

Ambinder wants more data:

Logically, one cannot connect any appreciable drop in Ayotte's numbers to one thing that happened so recently; this is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. PPP covers themselves by modifiers, as in, "Palin's endorsement may well be playing a role in this." Maybe. The poll suggests that most independents — those famous New Hampshire independents, that 50 percent of New Hampshire voters — are less willing to vote for a candidate who gets the support of Sarah Palin. That's an interesting data point, but it screams for more information: of Republican-leaning independents, how salient is this belief? And since PPP last polled in April, why isolate Palin's endorsement as the thing that has damaged Ayotte's standing among moderates? Nothing happened for three months, and suddenly Palin makes Ayotte a Mama Grizzly, and suddenly Ayotte's ratings drop? Eh. More information is needed.

The Daily Wrap

Today on the Dish, Cameron had stern words for Israel, Bagehot found him tone deaf, Larison joined the debate over the country's usefulness for the US, and Roger Cohen reminded us about the American who was killed on the flotilla. Optimistic Iran update here. And things looked up for Obama.

More Wikileaks coverage here, here, and here. Gingrich got scarier. Christianism alert here. Elizabeth Warren commentary here and here. Andrew called out the neocons over a Palestinian state, took a hard look at the US budget crisis, and qualified his criticism of Journo-list. Mickey Kaus got in a good punch against the list-serv and Jonathan Strong gave due credit to Ezra.

In Palin coverage, Mudflats searched for her accomplishments for Alaska since leaving office, Nyhan compared her favorables to Clinton's, and a reader noted her self-promotion over Track's service. Her endorsement of a New Hampshire Grizzly backfired and she hit the campaign trail with Christ. Trig clarification here.

In assorted commentary, Leonhardt engaged Douthat over energy innovation, Bernstein eulogized cap and trade, Ryan Avent and Greg Mankiw were skeptical about the stimulus, and Chait loved to hate on the Weekly Standard. Readers continued to chat about affirmative action, another shared her recession view, and another dissented over characterizing soldiers sent to war.

Joe the Plumber sighting here, browser porn here, and another dose of slow lighting here. A special MHB here, a timeless VFYW here, and a surreal FOTD here. This week's window contest was another good one.

— C.B.

WikiLeaks, WMDs, And Iran

Lynch connects them:

This use of the WikiLeaks documents brings back some old memories, of a long time ago (March 2006) in a galaxy far far away when the Pentagon posted a massive set of captured Iraqi documents on the internet without context. Analysts dived into them, mostly searching for a smoking gun on Iraqi WMD or ties to al-Qaeda. The right-wing blogs and magazines ran with a series of breathless announcements that something had been found proving one case or another. Each finding would dissolve when put into context or subjected to scrutiny, and at the end it only further confirmed the consensus (outside of the fever swamps, at least) that there had been no significant ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda. But the cumulative effect of each "revelation", even if subsequently discredited, probably fueled the conviction that such ties had existed and did help maintain support for the Iraq war among the faithful. The parallel isn't exact — in this case, there actually is something real there, and these documents were released against the government's will — but it does raise some flags about how such documents can be used and misused in the public debate.

That experience is something to remember when an "Iranian ties to al-Qaeda" claim, loosely backed by reference to these documents, enters into the argument to attack Iran which I expect to heat up in the coming few months.

The GOP Majority

Ezra Klein wonders how Obama will respond if Republicans take back the House and Senate:

If they just take back the House, Obama can't anger Senate Democrats by shifting his agenda too dramatically. That's a world of gridlock. But if Republicans manage to grab both houses of Congress — unlikely, I know — Obama will face the same choice that Bush and Clinton did: Does he transform his agenda into something he can work with Republicans to achieve, as Clinton did? Tax reform could fit here, or if you want to worry liberals, Social Security reform. Or does Obama use the veto pen as a scythe, and try to arrange the politics for a big comeback in 2012?