Author: Andrew Sullivan

At some point, they'll have to offer a minimal version of what they'd do, right? Or no? Is their cynicism and opportunism that great that they can continue to run against spending and yet refuse to outline what spending they will cut? They once backed a binding debt-commission; then refused to sign onto a non-binding one.

I saw one sliver of hope in Chris Christie's tough budget-slashing in New Jersey. But then this:

On a day marked by high drama and partisan brinkmanship, the Democrat-controlled Legislature passed measures that would enact an income tax surcharge on residents who earn over $1 million a year and use that money to restore rebates and other programs for seniors and the disabled. Within minutes, Republican Christie vetoed the bills, daring his political adversaries to corral the supermajorities needed to enact the tax through overrides.

Maybe it would be better if this revenue simply went to paying down the debt. But this aversion to all taxes, even on those earning over $1 million a year, seems utterly unhinged to me. In an ideal world, of course, we'd rather not. But with the debt we are facing? If the Republican mantra is no tax hikes ever – and outright opposition to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts – then there will be no deficit deal, no chance of debt reduction, and pure political posturing.

And it will be primarily because of Republican extremism, not Democratic intransigence.

Michael Wolff is loving the Eliot Spitzer comeback.

They get the maximum: 14 years of hard labor:

The BBC's Raphael Tenthani in Blantyre says Monjeza, who is unemployed, broke down in tears while Chimbalanga remained calm. … Some shouted abuse as the couple were taken back to jail. There were shouts of "You got what you deserve!" and "Fourteen years is not enough, they should get 50!"

The White House condemns the ruling. Dan Savage begins a campaign to cut off aid to Malawi. The whole thing is a reminder to me of the scale of oppression that the overwhelming majority of gay people still experience on this planet. In the West, we have great arguments about what equality means, priorities among reforms, what the limits of outing are, and the complex nature of human sexuality. For many gay people elsewhere, it is a triumph to stay alive, just as it has been for centuries, let alone find a love that can sustain you through your life.

Friedersdorf counters Ezra Klein.

The Onion gets a hold of Palin's speaking demands.

A reader writes:

Your dispassionate discussion of the Civil Rights Act in terms of libertarianism is cogent and well-argued, but it misses an important point about Rand Paul’s position on the issue of letting restaurants and the like discriminate in this day and time: it’s revolting.  It doesn’t add anything to the national conversation; it merely sends out dog whistles to the Tea Partiers who say they’re going to “take their country back.”  And we know who they think took it: this black man from Kenya. And once it becomes widely known where Paul stands, it will only inflame people on the other side of the question.

Another writes:

There are no purely intellectual positions for people who wish to be elected to government office. The consequences of their philosophies must be their responsibility.  Balancing intellectual ideals with the reality of human action is what we expect from our leaders.

That's one reason I didn't go into politics. Another:

Rand Paul's defense of discrimination in the cause of "Liberty" would have been defensible in 1865, when it was very much an open question as to whether "freedom" would result in less racial discrimination. But 145 years later it is completely knowable that this approach in fact led to anything but.

There's a reason McCain has jumped on the "dang fence" movement:

In March, Goodard led Brewer 45-36%. After signing the immigration bill into law, Brewer led Goodard by 8 — 48-40%. Now her lead is 13 points.

There’s something about her:

A reader writes:

Re: the Goldberg-Beinart interview, I could barely get by the first question:

“…Which is to say: Settlements are wrong, and various Israeli policies are discriminatory, but aren’t liberal-minded American Jews being naive when they think that the Palestinians are blameless in this morass?”

Honestly, I have never in my life heard any Jew say Palestinians are blameless, and I very much doubt Jeffrey has ever heard that either. That’s not even a strawman argument.

I used to go to an Orthodox synagogue (for proximity reasons) and stopped going after Yom Kippur ceremonies in 2001.

The 2nd intifada had just broken out, and there we were, reciting “Kol Nidre” on the eve of Yom Kippur. I’m one of those youngish liberal (Canadian) Jews who went to Hebrew school growing up, but never fully understood all the Hebrew prayers even while I was attending school, so I decided to read the English translation to myself this time around. Part of the Kol Nidre chant includes this:

“May all the people of Israel be forgiven, including all the strangers who live in their midst, for all the people are in fault.”

Of course, Yom Kippur itself deals with atoning for one’s sins. As is customary at this synagogue and likely many others, there was a break in prayers so the Rabbi could address the congregation. That year, there was a guest speaker from Israel’s embassy. He spoke about the Intifida and vigorously defended Israel while attacking all of its critics. He didn’t offer one word of criticism for Israel. Neither did the Rabbi. This didn’t seem to upset anybody in the congregation, even as we were supposedly gathered in a ceremony to acknowledge our faults and atone for our sins. I had enough.

I used to care about being called “pro-Palestinian” or “anti-Israel,” but then I realized that most of the people who throw out these names care more about Jews who criticize Israel “too much” than they do about the fact that Israel is on a path to become a de-facto apartheid State because of its own actions. I also used to care about being called a “bad Jew” because I don’t keep kosher and don’t go to Synagogue, but again, I realized that most of the people who say this kind of thing don’t feel a damn thing when they see Palestinians suffering because of Israeli actions. Just look at Beinart’s article. The orthodox Jews in Israel, the “good Jews,” are the ones most likely to support a pardon for the man who assassinated Rabin.

I don’t need lessons on what it means to be a Zionist, a supporter of Israel, or a good Jew from Goldberg or from AIPAC. Beinart’s article should serve as another wake-up call for some of these folks, but they tuned out a long time ago.

Rand Paul seems not to have understood that it was regulatory and safety corner cutting that allowed this BP explosion to happen and become such a nightmare. What I like about Paul – his artless honesty – is unlikely to survive the media churn.