Hire Pelosi

The soon-to-be-former speaker is going to run for minority leader, and it doesn't seem a bad thing to me, even -- maybe especially -- in light of this:

"Republicans cheered the move, which is likely to mean that Ms. Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, will continue as leaders in their respective chambers despite the party’s midterm election losses."

See, and the Harry Reid example is instructive. His name drips with contempt from the lips of conservative activists -- but Reid is pretty middle-of-the-road for a Democratic leader. Because he's a Democratic leader, he's become polarizing. Same for Pelosi, only she jumps ahead of Reid in the demonized sweepstakes because she's from San Francisco and thus makes good copy for Republicans.

But man, she's been effective. I don't expect that to change with her in the minority. It might be good for Democrats to have a leader who is practiced -- and good -- at throwing elbows at the helm. Keep her around, I say.

Obama Should Hold Steady on Bush Tax Cuts

This seems right to me:

"In his weekly address Saturday, Obama said that Democrats and Republicans not only agree on middle-class tax cuts but the need to rein in spending, and used this to try to drive his position on the tax cuts.

'At a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans,' the president said. 'We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children.'"

This seems worth fighting for. The tax cuts are better targeted at the middle class than the rich, even in a down economy, because the middle class will spend the money, doing their part to at least keep growth from bottoming out entirely. Couples making more than $250,000 -- yes, that's rich -- are more likely to save the extra dough. That's a virtue, but it's not the virtue their country needs right now.

And as politics: If Republicans want to hold a tax cut for the middle class hostage to a tax cut for the rich, let 'em. I'm certain voters will be paying attention.

Today in Philly Police Corruption

Inky:

"A high-ranking Philadelphia police officer seen as one of the department's rising stars was arrested Friday on federal charges of extortion and bribery, bringing a stunning end to the career of an ambitious 25-year veteran.

The accusations against 47-year-old Inspector Daniel Castro, detailed in an indictment unsealed Friday, stem from a real estate deal that failed, causing Castro to lose a $90,000 investment. He is accused of asking someone to hire an enforcer to use threats of violence to recoup the money."

Winners and Losers in the Election

Saletan gets it:

"In the national exit poll, voters were split on health care. Unemployment is at nearly 10 percent. Democrats lost a lot of seats that were never really theirs, and those who voted against the bill lost at a higher rate than did those who voted for it. But if health care did cost the party its majority, so what? The bill was more important than the election.

I realize that sounds crazy. We've become so obsessed with who wins or loses in politics that we've forgotten what the winning and losing are about. Partisans fixate on punishing their enemies in the next campaign.

Reporters, in the name of objectivity, refuse to judge anything but the Election Day score card. Politicians rationalize their self-preservation by imagining themselves as dynasty builders. They think this is the big picture.

They're wrong. The big picture isn't about winning or keeping power. It's about using it."

I wish the health care bill were better, frankly. (Single-payer or a public option, I think, would be both better policy and better politics.) But on the other hand, you don't govern so you can keep governing. You govern to get stuff done. Dems got stuff done, and if it means they lose out on power for a couple of years, that'll have to be the case. From that standpoint, I wouldn't change anything.

Wait. The Republicans Didn't Run on Cutting Social Security Did They?

Because that's the Republican agenda now that the election is over. Eric Cantor writes his fellow Republicans:

"Getting our long-term deficit under control will require that we address major entitlement reform.� It is a conversation that we must have, but one that is easier said than done. President Obama, congressional Democrats, and their liberal allies have made it abundantly clear that they will attack anyone who puts forward a plan that even tries to begin a conversation about the tough choices that are needed."

Entitlements being, of course, Social Security and Medicare. The Economist and Kevin Drum point out that Republicans spent the campaign season savaging Dems for reining in Medicare in the health bill -- but now that the election's over, things have changed.

My problem isn't the hypocrisy -- well, ok, my problem is partly the hypocrisy. Instead, I hate it when people run for office with big plans they don't tell the public about. That's deceiving the voters -- if only by omission -- and it's a lousy way to make a democracy. One reason George W. Bush started sinking so quickly after the 2004 election isn't just that he tried to privatize Social Security; it's that he didn't raise it as an issue until after the election was over. It's bait-and-switch, and it shouldn't be rewarded.

About The 'My Son Is Gay' Lady

I love my son. If he turns out to be gay: Awesome. If he wants to dress up someday as Daphne from 'Scooby Doo,' I'll buy him the wig. So I'm down with the Nerdy Apple Bottom blogger who did just that for her son. I'm just not quite as down with what happened next:

"Then as we got closer to the actual day, he stared to hem and haw about it. After some discussion it comes out that he is afraid people will laugh at him. I pointed out that some people will because it is a cute and clever costume. He insists their laughter would be of the ‘making fun’ kind. I blow it off. Seriously, who would make fun of a child in costume?"

Good lord. How about most of the other kids? And maybe even many of their parents? Unfortunately, that's what happened.

I'm not one to criticize another person's parenting: It's a friggin' hard job, we all make mistakes, and we all generally do them out of love. I have no reason to believe that Nerdy Apple had any other intent in her own actions.

But like I say: If my son wants to dress up like Daphne, that's how we'll play it. If he decides to reverse course because he's not sure he can handle the ridicule at school, well, I won't blow it off. Is it fair that he was ridiculed? No. Was it predictable? Absolutely. And while it's fine to support your child if he wants to challenge conventions, it's probably also important to support your kid if they'd rather not fight that particular battle in that particular manner. I'm going to instill values in my son as best I can, among them a dedication to standing up for the rights and feelings of less-powerful people. My job, however, is primarily to protect him -- and nudging him gently to let his freak flag fly might end up being more a demonstration of my own open-mindedness than his. It's a tough balance, to be sure, but I don't think the Nerdy Apple blogger found the right side of it.

Nerdy Apple meant well, I'm certain. She clearly loves her son. I agree with her values. But I think she made a mistake.

What The Eff Has Obama Done So Far?

Lots of my friends have been posting links to whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com in recent days. I'm not sure if the site is intended to buck up dispirited liberals or convince skeptical independents -- but either way I'm not terribly impressed. A lot of what's listed on the site is either bureaucratic paper-pushing that, while important, stands a fair distance from the heart of the liberal agenda. Other stuff is empty gesturing that deserves no better than a slow golf clap.

I'm pulling up the site now and running through a few items. What the eff has Obama done so far?

* Appointed nation's first Chief Technology Officer.

Um. Great. I know that's why I voted for him.

* Signed financial reform law establishing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to look out for the interests of everyday Americans.

Better, actually.

* Signed financial reform law requiring lenders to verify applicants' credit history, income, and employment status.

Reasonable, but very "campaign in poetry, govern in prose" type stuff. And I suspect this particular item might have come out of a McCain presidency, actually.

* Appointed more openly gay officials than any other president in US history.

Nice, but we're veering pretty close to the "empty gesture" territory. (Rick Santorum has gay employees, too!) It's taken Obama so long to get the ball rolling on "Don't Ask Don't Tell," for example, that he's about to lose the Democratic congressional majority likely to pass a repeal. And of course, he remains opposed to same-sex marriage. Obama's not been a disaster, I suppose -- unlike George W. Bush, he didn't try to win a presidential campaign by putting gays on the defensive -- but the inaction on this front might explain why gay voters doubled their support for Republicans in Tuesday's election from two years ago.

* Created more private sector jobs in 2010 than during entire Bush years.

That might be true, but only as a niggling technicality. As Atrios pointed out this week, unemployment has consistently been much higher under Obama than it was under Bush. I don't think that's Obama's fault: I do believe the unemployment rate and slow growth of the economy are the result forces that came to a head during the Bush years. But as a political matter, that doesn't matter: We're feeling the pain right now, and the voters are going to punish anybody who isn't making it better quickly.

I could go on, but won't. And maybe liberals need a reminder that the last two years haven't been as pointless as Tuesday's election made them feel. But there's something about the WTF site that strikes me as out-of-touch with the wants and needs of the average American voter -- and disconnected from the bigger picture of good liberal governance, as though the accumulation of small acts of governance is somehow good governance. That's not necessarily the case.