Just Be Glad You Didn't Pay To Read ...

I'm so glad I didn't buy The Economist today to read this cover story:

Mr Obama deserves to be pegged back. This newspaper supported him in 2008 and backed his disappointing-but-necessary health-care plan. But he has done little to fix the deficit, shown a zeal for big government and all too often given the impression that capitalism is something unpleasant he found on the sole of his sneaker. America desperately needs a strong opposition. So it is sad to report that the American right is in a mess: fratricidal, increasingly extreme on many issues and woefully short of ideas, let alone solutions.

This matters far beyond America’s shores. For most of the past half-century, conservative America has been a wellspring of new ideas—especially about slimming government. At a time when redesigning the state is a priority around the world, the right’s dysfunctionality is especially unfortunate.

The Republicans: What's wrong with America's right

It just gets more insane from there. The article goes on to accuse President Obama of being a "statist", whatever that means in their context, which seems to have nothing to do with what I interpret the word to mean. The one thing that Obama has proved over and over is that he doesn't want to get the government involved in anything except gross overreaches for executive power - like suspending habeas corpus for both foreigners and Americans, and killing Americans overseas for being supportive of terrorists.

The article does manage to make a cogent point here and there, but to read it you'd think the main problem was the Republicans just can't get along.

The reason Republicans are in trouble is that they keep saying insane things like this, not because they can't pick a leader or choose an agenda. Doing those things requires at least a modicum of clear thinking, which is something that few Republicans in Congress have shown any talent for.

There were quite a few comments on this article that made more sense than the article itself, including a few that were clearly written by conservatives. Why should I pay to read something that foolish? In the future, I hope that The Economist learns to not make foolishness like this the week's feature.

I'm also glad I don't have to pay to read Talking Points Memo. Josh Marshall seemed positively convinced that we just had to read this mindless screed by some Obama supporter:

In this case, it is simple. If liberals do not support Obama and the Democrats for the next two election cycles, a rabid Right will be back in control, and America will devolve further into ineffective gridlock and rising inequality. Even the gains that have been made so far, a pretty good health reform, student loan reforms, improved financial regulations, and so forth, will quickly be weakened and reversed if the Republicans regain Congress and the presidency. Liberals right now should not be joining in Obama bashing on the oil spill. They should be focused on Republican blame and hypocrisy -- and should pressure the Senate to vote for good energy legislation.

Liberals and Obama on the Oil Spill -- continued

I don't even know where to begin. Anyone who thinks that's a "pretty good health reform" needs to have her head examined. Let's just start there. Then there's the increasing obviousness of the conclusion that there is precious little difference between this Administration and the last one, and that the Democrats in Congress have not done one of the things they should have done on the economy, the wars we're still involved in, or anything else of any real consequence. They're talking about gutting Social Security and Medicare for crying out loud.

That the Republicans might do worse than this doesn't seem humanly possible. Even if it is, they're the opposition. I can take having the opposition trying to screw us. What I can't take is having no party that won't, and that's where we are.

As for not criticizing Obama about his response to the oil spill, he failed to do the most basic first step of problem solving, which is to define the problem. It took a month for him to have an independent assessment of the oil spill's magnitude done. He left BP, a company with a miserable record of safety and environmental failures, in charge of the cleanup effort long after it was clear that they were screwing it up, if not phoning it in. He has not changed his mind about continuing deepwater drilling, and has not proposed any serious means of regulating it. If Obama had done everything I could have possibly wanted in all other areas of government, I'd still have to criticize his work here. His handling of this disaster has been profoundly flawed. Not only did Obama ignore common sense in this disaster, he ignored the progressive principles many of his supporters thought they were sending him to the White House to uphold. He should be criticized, and if we refuse to do that because he might not do something else for us, we're as dishonest as the most mendacious conservative in Congress.

One of the most basic progressive principles, in my opinion, is that with power comes responsibility. When people in power screw up, it matters. That's why I criticize Democrats more than Republicans these days - because their screwups are the ones that matter. If Republicans are in power, then their screwups will matter.

Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't much of a thinker, in my opinion.

In all likelihood, the only thing these two people have in common is that they are gibbering idiots. Why does anyone take them seriously? When did up become down, and black white? Solve those riddles, and I think we'll be on the way to curing what ails us.

Meanwhile, I'm just glad I can read what they write for free.