While I'm traveling for the holidays, here are some short items from my Twitter feed (which you should follow!):
-TNR's Jon Chait on the triumph that the health care bill represents.
-It's absurd for Karl Rove to mock Dem. hopes for a "40-year majority" after what he said back in 2000.
-Matthew Yglesias notes questions about the sustainability of health care reform if it's passed on a party-line vote, but the most relevant political science study finds no evidence that the number of minority votes matters.
-Brilliant Ronald Brownstein column on Howard Dean and health reform.
-The ultimate critique of The Phantom Menace (note: mixed with strange and off-color comedy bits).
-The Huffington Post's "mullet strategy".
-"Three Myths about Political Independents" -- GWU's John Sides educates pundits about early 1990s political science.
-Arbitraging coins for frequent flier miles (via MR).
-Bill Clinton has some seriously middlebrow taste -- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, and Malcolm Gladwell as best thinkers of the year? Really? It's like the airport bookstore Pulitzers!
A strange ethic says that someone is barred from making even slightly inconsistent comments. However, that doesn't justify Brendan's use of the word "absurd" to describe Karl Rove's denigration of the Democrats' hopes for a 40-year majority. People should be able to learn from their experience. The failure of Rove's prediction of a long-term Republican majority would naturally lead him to doubt that the other party will achieve a long-term majority.
Posted by: David | December 25, 2009 at 01:05 AM
"A strange ethic says that someone is barred from making even slightly inconsistent comments."
It's also strange to see "criticizing" (which is what Brendan was doing with regards to Rove here) as synonymous with "barring." The latter word suggests that it's actually ILLEGAL for "someone" (Rove, in this particular instance) to make "even slightly inconsistent comments."
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 25, 2009 at 06:22 AM
daniel, I take your point. Brendan has no power to prevent Rove from speaking.
What I was trying to say is that Brendan characterized Rove's comment as "absurd" only because Rove said it. The identical comment made by someone else would be reasonable.
Part of the problem IMHO is that Brendan was happy to find an excuse to criticize Karl Rove, since Rove is one of the liberals' prime designated targets.
Posted by: David | December 26, 2009 at 04:29 PM