Video of the day

So, I missed the James Bond 50th anniversary montage at the Oscars because… I missed the Oscars.  Because, I hardly see enough movies to make it worth it anymore.  And Seth McFarlane– seriously?  Anyway, Slate’s Alex Heimbach points out that this montage is far superior to what ran at the Oscars.  I’m not going to bother with that one, but for Bond fans, this is definitely good stuff:

Photo of the day

Loved this In Focus collection of photos from 1963.  Apparently the world was quite black and white then.  Love this great Civil Rights image I had never seen before:

Mrs. Gloria Richardson, head of the Cambridge Nonviolent Action Committee, pushes a National Guardsman’s bayonet aside as she moves among a crowd of African Americans to convince them to disperse, in Cambridge, Maryland, on July 21, 1963. (AP Photo)

Knee-jerk bipartisan-think

I read this “pox on both their houses” Post editorial on the sequester yesterday and just thought, how utterly predictable and ridiculous.   Yglesias [emphases in original]:

Today’s lead editorial from the Washington Post is a great example of the modalities of BipartisanThink in action. They say that in the debate about how to replace sequestration, Obama has the correct position and his opponents have the incorrect position so the real issue here is that Obama is failing by failing to talk about his correct position in the manner

Fred Hiatt prefers [emphasis added]:

In the petty arguments over this self-inflicted wound, there are merits, or demerits, on both sides. The Republicans are right when they say that the sequester was Mr. Obama’s idea, in the summer of 2011, and that he agreed to a deal that was all spending cuts, no tax hikes. He is correct that he hoped the sequester would never go into effect but would be replaced by a 10-year bargain that would raise revenue and slow the growth of entitlement costs. He is correct, too, on the larger point: Such a deal is what’s needed, and the Republicans are wrong to resist further revenue hikes.

But if that’s what’s needed, why is Mr. Obama not leading the way to a solution? From the start, and increasingly in his second term, Mr. Obama has presented entitlement reform as something he would do grudgingly, as a favor to the opposition, when he should be explaining to the American people — and to his party — why it is an urgent national need. Obama priorities such as health and energy research, preschool education and job training: Those come from the discretionary budget.

See, this is the genius of BipartisanThink. Either the parties agree and everyone can cheer and everything’s good, or else the parties don’t agree in which case one party is wrongly taking the wrong side of the argument and the other party is wrongly failing to lead the other party to the true path. Equipoise preserved.

In a similar vein, Chait takes down columns by Bob Woodward and Ron Fournier blaming Obama:

Fellow venerable reporter Ron Fournier has been insisting that Obama ought to somehow mind-control Republicans into accepting higher revenue. “His aides and allies will ask, ‘Exactly what can he do to get the GOP to deal?,’” writes Fournier, “That is a question best put to the president, a skilled and well-meaning leader elected to answer the toughest questions.” Hypnosis! Jedi mind tricks! Whatever! Fournier’s job is to demand that Obama do something that flies in the face of everything we know about the ideological makeup of the Republican Party and the nature of free will, not to explain how it could happen. [emphasis mine]  David Gregory, among others, heartily endorses Fournier’s argument.

Now, there’s certainly some smart editorial writers and Op-Ed columnists out there, but the knee-jerk bipartisanism of so many centrist/establishment is just truly, amazingly intellectually vapid. Jedi mind tricks, indeed.

%d bloggers like this: