he recruited passionate paul...? ooooo... kiss of death...

For those of us who are proud when our checkbooks balance, can you explain why Paul Krugman is bad for the neos?  Thanks

1. Krugman is a neo-Keynesian -- he believes government spending can be good for the economy, and doesn't place as high a priority on monetary policy.  Monetarism provides the theoretical underpinnings that justify the conservative mania for tax cuts.

2. He's Krugman.

Back in August, National Review Online published an article saying Bernanke was the wrong guy for conservatives. We'll have to see how they react in the next few days.

Why is Bush suddenly willing to shirk his base for the first time in his presidency?

For one reason because they have nowhere else to go.  But really, I think it's very smart, incredibly pragmatic.

The GOP long term strategy seems basically to charm their way into office when they can, and then try and push a radical right agenda, like SS reform, church and state, or imperialism. Two out of three isn't bad, they've done a lot of damage.

Looking at the long term, now would be the worst time for them to push it. If the Republicans try and force too much now while the public is watching and already displeased, they're just asking for a hard backlash later. Anything they do now which is out of the mainstream can have long lasting consequences in public opinion for the GOP.

So, their optimal path presently seems towards moderation, minimizing the mainstream fallout, while retrenching for their next attempt to privatize SS or whatever down the road.

Makes perfect sense.

I don't agree that Bernanke's nomination will spur a rightwing crackup.  To be frank, I think wingers are fairly shaken at this point.  They don't want to have to defend another terrible Bush selection.  Moreover, even the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts understands (on some level) that the country is on the brink of fiscal disaster.  While Bernanke might not be the perfect idealogue, at least he's got the qualifications to steer the American economy through turbulent seas.

Increasingly, it looks like the Miers pick will hurt Bush because he may lose.  At the end of the day, that's what counts, regardless of what the eggheads at the corner say.

It's hard to imagine him losing on Bernanke...

What's up?

It's the real Bush.

He's a lame duck now and can do what he wants.

He's not an evil genius, he's a wacky, incompetent moderate on some issues/conservative on others, who goes on gut instinct and is too trusting of his ability to judge people and isn't curious. He goes by what he learned in MBA school and what the people he trusts tells him and in God.

Many on the left and the right in the blogsophere echo chambers and talking headdom spun themselves into a confused tizzy about Bush by carefully constructing narrative plots (such things as him being in on the radical Christian fundie agenda to bring the end time to Jerusalem or him being sold on the entire theoretical neo-con agenda) and ignorning info. coming out contrary to the picture they were painting (like Bush in Woodward's book saying "no, Aghanistan first" to the calls from Rummy et. al. to invade Iraq on 9/12/01, or Bush telling his friend on the phone that he didn't like the gay bashing that Dobson types do.) I, for one, saw this kind of thing on the blogosphere all the time, and also among the more left and right opinion journals like National Review and The Nation. Cherry picking to create a vision of Bush that didn't seem real if you read a more balanced view in the major newspapers or news magazine over time. Taking the stories about Bush that fit your narrative, and discarding the reports showing another side, leaves you surprised when he shows his true colors.

I was never surprised by many of his more moderate decisions; I was also never suprised by his incompetent ones based on the great store he puts on his ability to judge people and his lack of interest in learning; except for the grand theme of the Iraq war, when I saw him make a radical move, I always looked for the interest group that he was trying to pander to and usually found one.

All previous decisions he made had to take into account coalition building; that's how you win, especially with the Electoral Collage.

Perhaps Barack Obama recently said what I am trying to say much better; he's talking about the left, but I think that the same goes for many righties who created their own vision of Bush:

....According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party.  They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda.  In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda.  The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people.  From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon.  They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent.  They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs.  They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings....

Thanks Luigi, that gives me a start