Most Americans understand the need not to run deficits and would much rather see Bush rescind the tax cuts and reduce the deficit. Most Americans understand that SS is necessary and don't approve of Bush policy. Most Americans get it. Polls consistently show this to be true. The press has bad credibility with the American public because in many instances, the press does not get it.

Why does the New York Times need two Thomas Friedmans, or two Nick Kristofs, which is to say why does the New York Times need both of them? One of their ilk is probably too many for my taste, but in any event their shtick is so similiar - pro-neoliberalism, pro-interventionism, Democrats-aren't-far-enough-to-the-right, etc - it just seems odd. Was there a two for one sale on backlash liberal columnists?

[troll]

"special stupid pills" Wow. Mark Schmitt is shrill.

[]

Kristof also has a bad case of "life expectancy = longevity" disease.

"But life spans grew by 30 years in the 20th century, and if you believe (as I do) that biotechnology will greatly raise life expectancy"

Oh, hell.

Rove Is Promoted To Deputy Chief of Staff, White House

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9308-2005Feb8.html

Rove, the political mastermind behind two presidential elections, yesterday was named White House deputy chief of staff in charge of coordinating domestic policy, economic policy, national security and homeland security.

Now, for the first time, he will have a formal hand in foreign policy as well.

Bush moved his key strategist into a new more simplified chain of command focused on legislative markups...while also shuffling other top jobs in the West Wing.

"Empowering Rove in this way shows that Bush cares more about political positioning than honest policy discussions," DNC Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said in a statement. "Bush knows that Rove is neither an economic nor a national security expert; he's simply an ideological strategist who has a history of bending the truth and using dirty tricks to get his way."

They said the new role was a smart fit for Rove, whom they called better versed on policy than the public understands. "I don't think people realize how much of a wonk Karl is," said Michael J. Gerson, a senior Bush adviser. "He's more up on more issues than anyone at the White House."

In taking on the job of deputy chief of staff, Rove will keep his first-term title of senior adviser but now will fall directly under Card and be responsible for managing a complicated and often bureaucratic policy process.

Steven Ricchetti, who held the same job in President Bill Clinton's second term, said it made sense to integrate Rove into the organization chart since he carries such influence anyway. "That looks like a smart thing to do," he said. "I suspect they're collapsing much of the political operation into what they're trying to do on the legislative front."

------

What's next?

Kristof is a real creep. But then look at Safire, Brooks, and Friedman. Being stupid and/or delusional is par for the course for NYT columnists. Krugman is the exception, not the rule.

Kuas wrote, "Kristof is a real creep."

The topic being his lecturing those on the center-left about what they should be spending time on (e.g. to US women's groups, that they should spend less time on domestic issues and more on things like international sex trafficking), I think the right appelation is "jerk," not "creep."

As for Friedman...best parody EVER of him can be found at:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/13/devil5.html
("The Datsun and the Shoe Tree," by "Thomas L. Freetrademan").

Speaking of guys who have no business being entitled to valuable op-ed page real estate, anyone read Robert J. Samuelson this morning? Blargh!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9446-2005Feb8.html

His basic idea actually makes sense: the most well-off Social Security beneficiaries could stand to receive a bit less than they do, and the system would be in much better shape if such an adustment were made.

But he credits Bush with 'indirectly' raising this issue (blatantly false: Bush's plan would give more to the rich, and less to the poor), and accordingly criticizes the Dems for their resistance.

Then he makes the problem seem a lot bigger by wrapping Medicare in with Social Security. But what sort of idiot thinks you can solve the looming Medicare train wreck by doing anything to Social Security?

Gawd, what a dork.

Brad, does Samuelson actually have any credentials that justify his being an economics columnist? My theory is that the WaPo originally thought they'd signed PAUL Samuelson, and by the time they'd realized their mistake, it was too late. (I'm kidding, of course, but still...)

I'll make my usual comment, which is that Kristoff is doing what he was hired to do. A newspaper's actual writers are at the bottom of the pyramid. Primary producers, like miners, farmers, fishermen, factory workers, etc. The real action is with faceless editors and publishers.

I don't know where anyone gets the idea that the people at the bottom of the pecking order call the shots. By now people in the media know who gets promoted and who gets fired. Good writing and good reporting can get you fired.

Krugman is a hiring mistake. If he is fired, we cn no that the game (i.e. democracy) is over. Moyers is gone, and Krugman is the only reliably partisan liberal in the major media, and he's not not terribly liberal. (Molly Ivins is small-market. Joe Conason is second-level. I might have missed one or two, but not many).

There are losts of reliably partisan Republicans. Novak, Will, Gergen, Buchanan and Safire were all political operatives before they went into journalism. Buchanan has slipped a little since he went off the reservation.

The knownothing opponents of the MSM have two branches. One demands balance, making sure that there are enough conservatives hired. The other branch attacks whomever provides the liberal balance. Krugman has been under continuous heavy attack for at least three years now.

Kristoff's willingness to play the weak liberal is a moral failing, but he isn't stupid. Journalistic professionalism today means giving the bosses what they want, and that's what he does. I doubt that many journalists under the age of 35 or o even know that there ever was any other standard.

PBS with Moyers gone, other than for British comedy, is almost beyond watching. Between the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board and Tucker Carlson they can not even let Buster the Rabbit interview a young girl from Vermont about maple syrup for fear she has 2 moms. What has happened?

Whatever dumb things there are in Kristof's opinion columns--and there are some doozies, especially when the subject is religion--are more than made up for by the truly heroic work that he does in visiting the poorest, weakest, most misearble people in the world and drawing attention to their plight and trying to shame the world into doing something about it. That work is hard, unglamorous, and dangerous, and there aren't many people lining up to do it. On balance, we are a lot better off with him than without him.

Kristof should write about something he knows about. It sure ain't Social Security. One gets the impression that he learns what the Democrats think by reading Republican talking points. Useful idiot, indeed.

David Balan's post about Kristof's admirable work gives a hint of why Kristof so badly misreads domestic politics.

Kristof does go about the world, visiting the lowliest, trying to keep their stories and lives in the newspaper, fighting back against the latest soporific dispatch from the Michael Jackson trial. Upon returning from his tours, however, he is stunned at the wealth and waste of America. He looks with stupefication at Republicans and Democrats arguing over just how wealthy they should be when they are retired. His columns are a "both of you are shallow, self-absorbed, button-bursting gluttons ignorant of real suffering and real hatred" exhalation of pent-up frustration. He has no time or patience to read up on American issues; to him they seem too trivial.

Friedman is similar in his division of the world into real reality--i.e. outside of the United States--and the meta reality taking place inside U.S. borders. However, Friedman's work lacks the aridity and uneasiness that Kristof acquired growing up on the Great Plains. He is also burdened by the legacy of having developed one terrific concept: "the superempowered angry young man." He has been on a quest ever since to find a second great concept to bear his name. Friedman's tendency to build up unsustainable metaphors and similes is not a crutch: it is a symptom of a desire to prove that big ideas still roam the earth.

I suppose we should first compliment both of them for the good they are trying to do and then chide them when they utter inanities. They are, in the end, on our(?) side.