Money in Politics

Kevin Drum highlights the McComish case which was argued before the Supreme Court today. He cites Paul Waldman, highlighting the main issue for me:

What is the "right" at issue here? It's not the right to free speech, since the self-financed candidate still can speak as much as he likes. It's the "right" to have the loudest voice if you have the most money, to drown out every other voice.

Which isn't a right at all. It's a privilege: the privilege of those with money to bend the political system to their will, to have the biggest megaphone, to make sure that their money gives them the ability to put a thumb on the electoral scale.

Conservatives favor those with money, so expect this one to be a 5-4 decision one way or the other with the 4 conservatives on the Court voting as a bloc.

That about sums up Newt

From The Economist's DIA blog:

"Now Mr Gingrich has added to this string of embarrassments with an acrobatic flip-flop on America’s involvement in Libya. Barely three weeks ago he told Fox News that Mr Obama should suppress the Libyan air force and establish a no-fly zone over the country right away. Yesterday he announced that a military intervention was a terrible idea to which he would never have resorted as president. Then he issued a convoluted explanation claiming these two stances were consistent, before criticising the president for his confusion and lack of resolve."

Who to believe?

The guy who's future political career depends on bringing President Obama down a couple of notches...

"This is about as badly run as any foreign operation in our lifetime... This is as badly executed, I think, as any policy we've seen since WWII, and it will become a case study for how not to engage in this type of activity."

Or a random commenter at Tom Ricks' blog...?

"The air campaign has been about as perfect as can be..."

I'm going with the random commenter.

Question of the Day

From Matthew Yglesias. His point is that the deficit can only be tackled with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. But, as he points out - "Republicans simply refuse to acknowledge that revenue as a share of GDP needs to go higher than it was at the end of the Bush years." He says that if Republicans won't agree to any revenue increases, "that’s their prerogative, but willingness to compromise on revenue is the sine qua non of a bipartisan deal. Absent that willingness, there neither can nor will be a bipartisan deal."

So on to the question. "When will the Republicans produce a budget proposal? We’ve seen the White House proposal. Do Republicans have an alternative proposal that makes the deficit lower consistent with their position on taxes? If they do, I’d like to see them write it down on paper so we can talk about it."

Guiding Principles of the Day

Although I'm a few days late on this one. From Kevin Drum:

Modern conservatives have a few simple guiding principles. Keep taxes on rich people low. Let corporations do whatever they want. Toe the Christian right line on social issues and the NRA line on gun issues. Support military action overseas if a Republican president proposes it. Oppose spending on poor people.

Maybe we should have a Republican President

'Cause then the Republicans wouldn't be pretending they're worried about spending in general when what they really care about is spending on issues Democrats care about. Then maybe they'd actually see that cutting spending right now will lead to continued problems with the economy and higher unemployment.

Nah, a Republican President would still be terrible.

Support for the President

I'm probably one of the biggest supporters of the President that you'll run across, especially considering the fact that I'm in the military surrounded by a lot of pretty conservative types.
Still, I note with interest this piece from the Economist's Lexington columnist. He asks, "Wheres the courage?" with regard to President Obama and then cites:

"It's much easier to think of examples where he appears not to have had the courage of his convictions.

Guantánamo is still open, despite his promise to close it. He reinforced the troops in Afghanistan, but set a date to start withdrawing, a careful bit of bet-hedging. He pushed for peace in Palestine, but seems to have retreated at the first sign of gun smoke from Capitol Hill. He established a bipartisan commission on the deficit, but failed to pick up and run with its recommendations. He said he would let the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the rich, but backed down after the mid-term elections. His support for gay rights has been a study in caution, as has his position on gun control."

Let me say where I agree and disagree with his points. I've long advocated that the Democrats should play hardball politics just like (or even harder) than the Republicans. Instead of shying away from conflict, they should seek it out. Take the battle onto the Republicans turf. Fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here...(oops, one too many military metaphors). So, as much as I agree with the sentiment when it comes to Democrats in general, I generally disagree with regard to the President. Would I want the President to be a little more combative? Yes. But which do I want more - more combativeness or a Democratic president from 2012-2016? I think the answer's obvious. Now maybe that's a false choice. Why can't we have a more combative President and also get him reelected in 2012? It's certainly possible, but I think the President's a pretty good politician. In the current political climate, I think big gestures = big risks. A more cautious President is more likely to get reelected in 2012. He's going slowly, but he's also going in the direction that I prefer. I'd rather have 4 more years of slow in my direction, rather than having the country go in reverse after next year.