The Dish

He thinks – surprise! – it’s not a big deal. The key reassurer of Christianists about Giuliani is someone else:

The fellow who matters most to Giuliani’s campaign to win over values voters is Ted Olson, followed by Ted Olson, followed by Ted Olson. Christian conservatives know that John Paul Stevens is 87; Justice Ginsberg 74; Justices Scalia and Kennedy 71; Justice Breyer 69 and Justice Souter 68. Ted Olson is easily the most respected conservative lawyer in the United States and a big Rudy supporter. If Giuliani is going to bring large numbers of conservative activists to his banner, he needs to keep the change facing the Supreme Court front and center. Pat Robertson doesn’t matter. The age of the six justices does.

I think Hewitt is largely right about this. I’d back Romney over Giuliani in a heartbeat. Romney may be without principles but he is not without decency. (It behooves me to note, on behalf of all canines – yes, the beagles are clear on this –  that Stephen Bainbridge disagrees with me on this one.)

Jeff Dinelli wants to know.

A Clintonista vents.

It reminds me of what Republicans used to be like:

The Economist peers down its very British nose:

"The mother of all tax reforms" was how Charles Rangel, the Democrats’ top tax-writer in Congress, described his new plans for revamping America’s tax code. "The mother of all tax hikes" was the response from many Republicans. Both the creator and the critics are wrong. Mr Rangel’s proposal is "revenue-neutral", raising taxes in some places while cutting them elsewhere. But it is not a bold reform; more a tweak than a transformation of America’s absurdly complex tax code.

Not a bimbo eruption on Ron Burkle’s plane, but a car.

Obsidian Wings’ Publius dissents from my Obama essay thus:

Frankly, I disagree that Obama is free from these demons. But still, Sullivan is on to something larger here. And that larger point is that liberals over the past two generations have been afraid to express their real views.

I’m not sure where it comes from. Maybe Nixon’s victories. Maybe Reagan’s. Maybe Bush’s. Maybe from 1994. Maybe from the Latina union-supporting, ERA activist who dumped Mickey Kaus in college. I’m not sure. But somewhere along the way, liberals got it in their heads (not always wrongly) that showing their true colors risked professional and political harm.

A small pitch: the print magazine is arriving in mailboxes now. We put the essay up online first to join the debate more fully after the last Democratic debate. But obviously the online appearance can cut into subscription and newsstand sales. If you appreciate accessing material for free online, one way to support places like the Atlantic who are doing that more and more is to subscribe to the print edition. Much of what’s great in the mag is, to my mind, more pleasantly and easily read in print. Dish readers get a great deal on the mag here. Subscribe! Or give it as a Christmas gift.

Scott Horton:

With the disclosures about Daniel Levin’s dismissal from OLC, it becomes increasingly apparent that Steven Bradbury was picked for one reason: to provide continuing OLC cover for the torture conspirators.

John Bolton talks about the Senate confirmation process as a kind of torture. It’s funny how they are so persnickety with the reality and so expansive with the metaphor.

I’m with Larison:

Despite the fact that he has explicitly and repeatedly ruled out an independent run, the fear of his impact on the general election is real enough.  Dismissing and insulting Paul’s supporters are the defensive responses of a crumbling, dying party, as if to say, "Yes, most Americans may despise us and everything we have done, but at least we’re not a bunch of kooks who talk about the Constitution!"  If things were like they were in 2002 and the GOP was still dominant, this arrogant dismissal of a small but noticeable group of Republican and independent voters might make more sense, but under the present circumstances it is baffling why anyone interested in GOP victory next year would go out of their way to insult and denigrate a relatively small but extremely active segment of the electorate.

And Weigel:

The "Paulites=Naderites" bit is too silly to address, but comparing $8m over one year with $4.3m in one day‹that’s not apples and oranges, it’s apples and nuclear submarines. And if you start from January 2007, Paul has raised $15.5m. He’s probably going to triple Nader’s haul by the end of the campaign. And Nader was an internationally famous consumer activist with 40 years in the spotlight. When this campaign started Paul was an obscure congressman who’d occasionally light up the House floor at 11 p.m.

The Republican party is just panicked that there may still be some actual conservatives in their midst. It kind of shows them up.

(Photo: Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty.)