Krugman writes:

I don’t think [the wonk gap] this is unique to health care, or especially unusual. Monetary policy, fiscal policy, you name it, there’s a gap, although not quite as large as on health. [. . .] I’m surprised that Chait doesn’t refer to Upton Sinclair’s principle: it’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. In fact, in general right-wing think tanks prefer people who genuinely can’t understand the issues — it makes them more reliable.

[. . .] Wouldn’t the right be better served by better wonks? No. For one thing, they’d be unreliable — they might start making sense at an inappropriate moment. And, crucially, the media generally can’t tell the difference.

(Emphasis supplied.) Is this really so hard to understand? Yet there is this pretend world of "wonk debates" which legitimizes for the clueless Media the very dishonesty Krugman describes. And then Ezra Klein thinks Dems are going to win the health bill debate this time around. There is more than one deficit being described here. Which reminds me of this 2006 post.

Speaking for me only

Jack Balkin:

[I]f total repeal is not on the table, the insurance industry's interest is in keeping the individual mandate and thus opposing any attempt to hold it unconstitutional.

It will therefore be interesting to see whether, as the litigation develops, members of the insurance industry begin to file amici supporting the constitutionality of the individual mandate. [. . .] The Tea Party may despise the individual mandate, but the health insurance industry does not. [. . .]

Actually, this one is easy. No brief from the insurance industry is needed. Just the right signals. The Supreme Court will know what to do. No appellate circuit will strike down the individual mandate. Cert. denied. GOP can tell the Tea Party, we need a more conservative "originalist" Court!! Wins all around for the GOP.

Speaking for me only

Via Kevin Drum, The Audacity of Mac:

[Apple is] a religion of hope in a hopeless world, hope that your ordinary and mortal life can be elegant and meaningful [. . .]

Drum properly mocks this sentence. My title is just me playing headline writer (revised title h/t Robot Porter), but I do wonder how much "Creative Class" there is in all of this.

Speaking for me only

In a post discussing a dispute about Jeb Bush touting the "assimilibility" of Latinos (or Hispanics, if you prefer), Matt Yglesias writes:

At any rate, it’s perhaps worth mentioning that Ezra and I are both examples of English-speaking people of partially Latin American ancestry. It seems to me that one of the roots of the problem is precisely that the general public doesn’t recognize the Matt Yglesiases of the world in this way. Only highly un-assimilated Spanish-dominant people “present” to the bulk of the country as genuinely Hispanic [. . .]

(Emphasis supplied.) I chalk this up to poor phrasing by Yglesias, but this is not true. Indeed, I discussed with Yglesias the issue of the bigotry faced by Sonia Sotomayor, who is clearly English dominant, and he clearly recognized it went beyond who "presents" as Hispanic. Sometimes you get "presented." For Sotomayor, her complexion`more closely fit the stereotype. For many, Latino or Hispanic means "brown." Not just "Spanish." But sometimes just a name, like, say Yglesias, is enough.

Speaking for me only

Tweety writes about his passion for the Ronald Reagan/Tip O'Neill relationship:

A vigorous debate over the role of government is always at the heart of our democracy. Since the shootings in Arizona, however, many have said that our partisan ferocity is unhealthy. So it seems like a good time to reflect on Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill. It would serve us well to understand how these very different politicians managed to temper their philosophical divide with a public, and sometimes personal, cordiality.

A nice yarn, but how do Reagan/O'Neill stand up on the Beltway's MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF ALL TIME! - the budget deficit? Not very well. More . . .

Dick Cheney and Glenn Greenwald think so. I think that is a severe exaggeration. I'll try and explain why later this week.

What do you think? Let's make this an Open Thread.

USA TODAY:

Americans overwhelmingly want to see cooperation, not confrontation, between President Obama and congressional Republicans as a new legislative year begins, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds [. . .]

I love these poll questions. I also agree that Democrats and Republicans should get together and enact the exact policy I want. Here's the fun math part:

Ezra Klein writes:

Health-care reform isn't getting repealed this week. It's getting re-debated. The GOP's control of the House -- and thus of at least some of the agenda -- gives them a second opportunity to make their case against the bill. It also, however, puts the Republicans in a position Democrats will recognize immediately: They're behind a specific piece of health-care legislation with sweeping implications, some of which are popular, and many of which are not.

(Emphasis supplied.) I disagree. The Republicans are getting behind being AGAINST the health bill. Ezra imagines some debate where the Media talks about what it would be like without the health bill. Good luck with that. The fact is Obama and Democrats do not know how to win a policy debate. President Obama is well liked personally and his numbers are up after his very "Presidential" performance regarding the Tucson tragedy (especially in comparison to the GOP), but he has changed no one's mind on any issue in his Presidency. More . . .

Is anyone going to watch Kathy Bates on her new show Harry's Law tonight? I am.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

The Washington Post reported anonymous federal sources said a federal judge in Arizona would decide on moving the trial of Jared Loughner to San Diego and it would probably happen in the next few weeks. It predicted the trial would be moved. The Justice Department responded with a statement it would oppose any motion to move the trial out of Arizona.

Slow down. First, the Arizona federal bench has recused itself and only Judge Larry Burns, who has been assigned to preside over the case by designation, can make the decision.

Second, and more importantly, the trial can only be moved if Jared Loughner asks for it to be moved. [More...]

Freddie DeBoer writes:

[T]he nominal left of the blogosphere is almost exclusively neoliberal. Ask for a prominent left-wing blogger and people are likely to respond with the names of Matt Yglesias, Jon Chait, Kevin Drum...

Yglesias and Drum respond. My personal view, expressed previously, is that the Establishment Bloggers in many (probably most) respects tout views I hold, but they clearly are not Left. They are, like I am, largely Centrists. And in some respects, they embrace the orthodoxy of the DC Dem Party. My objections to them are how they have allowed themselves, and in some cases (Ezra Klein! cough!), encouraged, the labelling of themselves as "the Left." More . . .

I'm working today so here's an open thread, all topics welcome. (I'll be back online tonight.)