Friday opinions, fresh as a... well, Friday opinions.
NY Times:
With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.
Ronald Brownstein:
After Republican Scott Brown's stunning victory in Massachusetts' Senate race, one dreary lesson for President Obama -- and, for that matter, his successors -- is now unambiguous: Stick to school uniforms.
Sugh. Pundits can be denser than DC insiders. Voters would prefer school uniforms to fixing the economy? Brown's voters prefer a public option. Doesn't fit the narrative? Too bad.
Charlie Cook:
These successful Republican candidates were able to take advantage of the vise grip in which Obama and his party are caught. A large group of Americans are upset that the president and congressional Democrats have focused so much on health care and climate change, seemingly at the expense of the economy and jobs. Another group is furious about the expansion in the size, scope, and reach of the federal government and the explosive growth of federal spending over the last year, albeit on top of an orgy of deficit spending under President Bush and the GOP majority. These two forces are squeezing Obama and his fellow Democrats from opposite directions, doing grave damage to him and his party.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats can win on "brand". The question, same as it always is, is what are you doing for the voter? And if health care and climate change are good things to focus on, you had damn well better explain why in terms other than "it's good for Ben Nelson, and makes Joe Lieberman feel important". That's not change we can believe in.
If you're an incumbent, you'd better do more than just raise money all day if you want to be re-elected.
WSJ:
Corporations, labor unions and other political entities are gearing up to play a larger role in influencing elections in 2010 and beyond after a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down elements of campaign-finance law.
Jonathan Rausch:
"Doing nothing would be better than doing what they are proposing to do," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told CNN in December. Regardless of what you think of Thune's answer, he raises the right question about the Democrats' health care reform. Is it better than nothing?
...
I think the answer is yes. The Senate health bill, though flawed, passes the Thune test.
True, it could have been so much better. If, for example, it were bipartisan (but Republicans chose to boycott it). If its "pay-fors" were more solid (but this is the U.S. Congress we are talking about). If it were serious about malpractice reform (but these are Democrats we are talking about).
Eugene Robinson:
Pay no attention to the Cheshire Cat claims by Republicans that they'd love to cooperate on a bipartisan reform bill. Sen. John McCain, (R-Ariz.) has already ruled out modifying the current bill, insisting that the Senate has to start the process from scratch. There remains another way, and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) mentioned it Thursday: Pass a reasonable reform package using the parliamentary tactic known as budget reconciliation, which would require only a simple majority of 51 to get through the Senate rather than a supermajority of 60.
Well, Gene gets it. And it sounds a helluva lot better than the 2010 School Uniforms Reconciliation Act.