I bet the answers would skew at least 60% for the second option. ("Uneasy" is the biasing word here. It's easy to be "uneasy!" Even about people you strongly support. Has the NYT never heard of anxiety?) 2:04 A.M.
Thursday, March 3, 2005
"Drag It Out!" New Dem Slogan? TNR's Noam Scheiber points out that if Republican congresspersons want to end the privatization debate quickly ... well, control of Congress is a zero sum game and what helps Republicans hurts Democrats:
[I]t's not clear that Democrats benefit directly from killing privatization so quickly. They could accuse the GOP of wanting to cut benefits on the campaign trail next year. But, in the absence of an actual proposal, it's not clear that this claim has any more resonance than it would in an election cycle where the GOP didn't try to privatize Social Security. That's obviously not nothing--campaigning to protect Social Security always has some resonance. But it's not Republicans-are-cutting-your-benefits-40-percent resonant. (The truly Machiavellian thing to do here would be to pretend to be open to compromise with the GOP, force them to propose a detailed plan, then balk at the last minute and attack the plan in 2006. I'm not sure Democrats are that devious, though.) [Emphasis added]
Is it time to have double agent Sen. Lieberman defect and give private accounts an agony-prolonging lease on life? ... P.S.: Scheiber also adds a beat to the Faster Politics concept--Faster Lame Duckness! ... Update:Hesiod outlines a scenario in which Bush settles for a conventional benefit-cuts-plus-taxes Social Security fix, with Dem support, in a reverse-NAFTA triangulating triumph that actually helps the GOPs in 2006. ... Initial reaction: It's hard to believe Democrats will now be backed into supporting a responsible, Concord Coalitionesque fix (and abandoning the ability to denounce benefit cuts) before the 2006 elections, unless the ratio of tax increases to benefit cuts is very favorable. ... 2:16 A.M.
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
Open book/PC Hell: Jada Pinkett Smith, "heteronormative." Who knew? But what, exactly did Pinkett say? Why doesn't the Harvard Crimson, you know, tell us? ... Not that I'm not interested in the press release the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance "developed in coordination with" yet somehow also in opposition to the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations. ... [via Drudge] ... Update: You can find what Pinkett said if you dig up a Crimson story published earlier in the week. Here's what the fuss is about--
"Women, you can have it all—a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career," she said. "They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want it."
"To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas. Be open," she added.
That is a bit heteronormative, isn't it? But I'd hope Harvard Lesbians and Transgenders would be made of tough enough stuff to endure it. Part of being a minority in a democratic society with a clear majority is that you don't find yourself validated and celebrated all the time everywhere, no? ... [Thanks to reader J.F.] 1:53 P.M.
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
Yesterday's developments were not encouraging for the President's major domestic initiative.