Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity


By Dylan Matthews

Today, I thought about depoliticizing stimulus policy, while Ezra talked to Aspen panelists about corporations' unwillingness to spend, passed along snippets from Alan Greenspan's pessimistic talk, and marveled at the accessibility the Web provides to events like Aspen.

1) The Hoover Dam's not getting as much water to California as the state wants.

2) Two of the three appellate judges who ruled against the drilling ban have represented oil and gas companies.

3) The most and least popular ways to close the deficit.

4) Daniel Drezner weighs in on journalists' use of research papers.

Recipe of the Day: People older than me should try this cocktail of Derek Brown's, made just for the D.C. heat wave.

By Dylan Matthews  |  July 9, 2010; 6:50 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Why won't we let the market be irrational in our favor?
Next: Wonkbook: BP replaces cap; Kagan against the left; White House pushes jobs tax credit


Two of three Judges who ruled against the drilling ban previously represented oil interests? Oh my! The shock and horror of it all! I bet if you checked, they may have even represented murderers, or terrorists, or even summer interns, because that is what lawyers do. Didn't they teach you that at that fancy pants school that you go to?

Posted by: cummije5 | July 9, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

They also own oil company stock.

Besides, have you had a look at the reasons given for denying the moratorium? There were two reasons: 1) the judges argued that drilling wouldn't resume any time soon anyway. That is patently nonsensical given that the reason for lifting the moratorium was the claim that irreparable harm would result for the oil industry if drilling was halted. But even more bizarre, the judges opined 2) that they couldn't see any reason in the world why anybody would consider deep sea drilling as dangerous!

It is difficult not to conclude that these judges are corporate shills of the worst sort.

Posted by: carbonneutral | July 9, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

cummije5 may wish to look over Title 28 of the United States Code (Section 455), after which his own pants might become somewhat more fancy, as a result of knowing at least the tiniest bit about the things he comments upon.

Posted by: Patrick_M | July 10, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Could you please not link to Pete Peterson funded organizations as though they were *actual* *think* tanks. The CRFB did not present a full palette of options, but instead, put the list together to lead where they wished the poll participants to follow.

It is sort of like a Fox poll where all the questions lead to "Obama is failing".

Posted by: grooft | July 10, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Hey Ezra, I'm totally with on your Newsweek piece in the sense that Democrats need to stop governing based on whatever garbage is said on cable news shows and whatever crappy "poll" is publicized.

Democrats aren't struggling because of the defecit. I actually don't even think people fault them for the economy. Democrats are struggling because Republicans have gummed up the wheels of government and, in so doing, are making the case that Democrats can't run the country. If I weren't as politically engaged as I am, I'd currently believe that for however bad the Republicans were, the Democrats look like an incoherent mess! Look closer at what Republicans are saying and it's not so much about the defecit, as a "the system is broken" kind of thing.

If the Democrats do poorly this year, I don't think it is because of the economy. The Republicans really have no economic argument and, in any event, people generally do not like the GOP. Rather, if the Democrats do poorly, it is because it took them too long to become a governing party.

To Democrats in Congress: For the love of God, turn off cable news! Stop responding to that crap and start driving the political conversation yourselves!

Posted by: phillycomment | July 10, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"It's always the economy, stupid"
"The economy is still weak, and there aren't 60 votes in the Senate for further stimulus spending. And even if there were, it is too late for them to make a major difference in the economy before November. Democrats needed to pass a bigger stimulus back in 2009, not in late 2010. What they do from here might help the economy, but it's not likely to affect their reelection."

Excellent commentary. Last year they snickered at Rooseveltian programs used to alleviate unemployment during the Great Depression. Last year they said unemployment wouldn't hit 10% (it did).

Fifteen months later the economy is sputtering and unemployment is near double digits. What happened to the then-vaunted economic team?

Posted by: tuber | July 10, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

memo from WH communications office: the phrase you ALL must use is "choice, not referendum" when talking about the upcoming elections. Nina Totenberg, Rachel Maddow, Axelrod (he thought this brilliant phrase up) and many others have used it, and deftly, I might add, as if it were just coming to their mind. So all of you who have not YET described the upcoming election as a "choice, not a referendum" -- what are you waiting on? Independent thinking will be punished, it goes without saying. DP

Posted by: truck1 | July 11, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Does anybody know anything about the legal substance of the ruling against the drilling ban? All I've seen is ad hominem attacks on the objectivity or qualifications of the judges.

Posted by: tl_houston | July 12, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company