Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up

Friday opinion, and as you might expect...

Eugene Robinson:

Everyone knows that the bloodthirsty blowhard -- whom officials often refer to by his initials, KSM -- is never going to see the light of day. The uproar is really about the word "war." Outrage is being voiced by those who worry that Holder and President Obama are abandoning the Bush-era doctrine of a "war on terrorism" that must at all times be conducted by military means...

It's ironic that many of the officials and commentators who are so upset about the decision to give KSM a civilian trial were also quick to call the Fort Hood killings an act of terrorism. If the suspect, Maj. Nidal Hasan, is indeed a terrorist -- and not just a deranged man who snapped -- then his awful rampage helps demonstrate my point. Hasan reportedly considered the U.S. military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan a war against Islam, at one point arguing that Muslim soldiers should be excused from combat as conscientious objectors. In other words, he apparently bought at least part of the jihadist line. If killing a terrorist in Kandahar creates one in Killeen, we'll never make progress.

Frank Newport:

Rush Limbaugh stated on his radio program Thursday that several polls have shown President Obama’s job approval rating to be below 50%, while Gallup’s has not. Limbaugh then stated: "Gallup has it [Obama’s job approval rating] just teetering there on the little teeter-totter at 50%, and they're doing everything they can, they’re upping the sample of black Americans, to keep him up at 50% in the Gallup Poll."

This statement is a complete and inexplicable fabrication. Gallup has a 70-year history of providing unbiased, scientific measures of public attitudes. Gallup is not now, nor has it ever, modified its data in order to achieve any desired result.

Bang your shoe on the table if you can't get your way, Rush. Nikita Khrushchev used to do it all the time.

Paul Krugman:

For the A.I.G. rescue was part of a pattern: Throughout the financial crisis key officials — most notably Timothy Geithner, who was president of the New York Fed in 2008 and is now Treasury secretary — have shied away from doing anything that might rattle Wall Street. And the bitter paradox is that this play-it-safe approach has ended up undermining prospects for economic recovery. For the job of fixing the broken economy is far from done — yet finishing the job has become nearly impossible now that the public has lost faith in the government’s efforts, viewing them as little more than handouts to the people who got us into this mess.

David Brooks:

Well, the evidence of the past eight months suggests that Geithner was mostly right and his critics were mostly wrong. The financial sector is in much better shape than it was then. TARP money is being repaid, and the debate now is what to do with the billions that were never needed. It now seems clear that nationalization would have been an unnecessary mistake — potentially expensive and dangerously disruptive.

Glad to see Brooks and Krugman completely agree on Gaithner and Wall Street. Oh, wait...

WSJ:

Interestingly, in Treasury's official response to the Barofsky report, Assistant Secretary Herbert Allison explains why the department acted to prevent an AIG bankruptcy. He mentions the "global scope of AIG, its importance to the American retirement system, and its presence in the commercial paper and other financial markets." He does not mention CDS.

All of this would seem to be relevant to the financial reform that Treasury wants to plow through Congress. For example, if AIG's CDS contracts were not the systemic risk, then what is the argument for restructuring the derivatives market? After Lehman's failure, CDS contracts were quickly settled according to the industry protocol. Despite fears of systemic risk, none of the large banks, either acting as a counterparty to Lehman or as a buyer of CDS on Lehman itself, turned out to have major exposure.

Greg Dworkin (Politico's Arena):

While everyone might not have an appreciation for this,  Nicholas Kristof in the NY Times today points out that all the Republican bombast and over the top rhetoric ("holy war"!) could easily be referring to the 1960's passage of Medicare, which was equally and vehemently opposed by some of the same players, right down to the charge of "socialized medicine". If the Republicans are serious about this, why don't they just come out and demand that government programs like Medicare be repealed? The answer is that they know that it is a political death wish to reveal how radical they are.

Americans happen to like Medicare, despite the rhetoric. Same goes for Social Security. So they come up with the Palin-esque "no socialized medicine - and don't touch my Medicare!" and think that the concept will fly with the non-GOP American public. It's one of the many ways Republicans have shown themselves to be unserious about actually governing (anyone bringing up "socialized medicine" as a concept without discussing where Medicare fits in is unserious), and one of the main reasons they were kicked out of office in 2006 and 2008.

Peggy Noonan:

But there is a side benefit to televisions's excellence, and that is the number of people who follow a show so closely, and love it so much, that after it's aired they come together on long threads on Web sites and talk about what happened and what it means.

Honing in like a laser to the important issues of the day. BTW, was that a black and white TV you were watching? Nostalgia can only take you so far.