It's as though they look at public choice theory and see a blueprint not a critique.

"This history is truly what makes the lamentations of present-day conservatives for a conservative think tank (or think tanks in general) dedicated to rigorous policy development so hard to accept. In the sixties and seventies conservatives in places like AEI, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute did more than anyone else to discredit the idea of policy making as a social-scientific endeavor. Instead, policy debates became primarily concerned with political identities and political combat and provided the foundation for the elite media discourse within which Americans live today, where “balancing” public policy debates between “two sides” in a “marketplace of ideas” effectively takes precedence over policy content and, dare I say, truth.
"Likewise, this history makes the lamentations of Julian Sanchez at Cato equally hard to have sympathy for. As the brief history I’ve outlined here suggests, the political subjectivities and biases of the wealthy funders of conservative think tanks were integral to the success of these institutions. Obviously, such monies were used to develop the institutional infrastructure, but even more importantly their biases and subjectivities were used as a way to change and enter public policy debates. So, it is hard to feel sorry for those at Cato who are now lamenting what Koch may or may not do to the institution. When the history of the institution is wrapped up in a project which uses the biases of wealth funders to gain power and change the way people discuss politics and public policy, you can hardly be angry when those funders want to change the political identity that you’re promoting.
"And this, ultimately, is what the debate at Cato is about. Since it has been a long time since the technocratic ideal held (if it ever truly did—that is a discussion for another post) this is not a debate between one side that wants an institution dedicated to Republican Party political combat (Koch) and one side that wants rigorous truth-seeking and a development of policies that “work” (people like Sanchez at Cato). No, it is instead the battle that conservatives (in think tanks and elsewhere) have been wanting for the last four decades—a battle of identities in a political marketplace. Who will win: the millionaire who is seeking to “re-brand his product” or the old-school libertarian brand? According to the narrative conservatives have been offering us, only “the market” can decide."

"the Borat humor is taking people whose jobs are to behave a certain way under a familiar, professionalized script and then start acting like a weirdo. ... They all try to keep to their scripts while the person opposite of them acts like a buffoon,,,, instead of going “stop acting like a buffoon.” ... These right-wing videos take this and amplify a particularly interesting part of the service/professionalized economy. When so much of our economy is driven by professionals there is a lot of work done in making sure that there are layers of people between the consumer and the professional. ... You don’t want the expensive brain surgeon making sure you’ve filled out your address and contact information correctly or taking your temperature – that’s why there’s a secretary and a nurse in-between these steps at the hospital.What the right-wing videos do ... is present the front-line staff as the actual decision making professionals. ..."

The ownership society, brought to you by a promiscuous causal interpretation of logistic regression coefficients.

"One major analytic error I think liberals tend to make is vastly overstating the level of dishonesty among conservative pundits, analysts, advocates, etc. The crux of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of smart people with conservative political opinions are working as businessmen. If they think about public policy at all, they’re thinking about how to cheat on their taxes or clever knew ways to bilk the public, and certainly not talking about it. So you’re left with a kind of denuded population in terms of brainpower. But at the same time, smart conservative businessmen have financed a staggering array of conservative institutions creating a tremendous number of jobs for conservative pundits and so forth despite the shallow talent pool. The result is a lot of people saying dumb things that they genuinely believe."

"Still, just as a brief refresher, recall that over the past two years, the movement’s flagship publications and most prominent pundits have found it urgent to discuss: Bill Ayers’ potential authorship of Obama’s memoir, the looming threat of death panels, the president’s crypto-Islamic background and allegiances, his attempt to create a “private army” via the health care bill, his desire to see America come to ruin, the imagined racism of Sonia Sotomayor…"

How can this appear in the Washington Post? (But I'm glad it did.)

In which David Frum is called on a public falsehood, admits that he's lying, and proclaims his intention to continue to keep on repeating the lie.

Roger Eugene Ailes

In which Josh Marshall encounters ideological hegemony.

"While industrial America was built by and for the urban North, rural Southerners comprised much of the labor, management, and consumers in the postwar service sector that raised the Sun Belt to national influence. These newcomers to the economic stage put down the plough to take up the bar-code scanner without ever passing through the assembly line. Industrial culture had been urban, modernist, sometimes radical, often Catholic and Jewish, and self-consciously international. Post-industrial culture, in contrast, spoke of Jesus with a drawl and of unions with a sneer, sang about Momma and the flag, and preached salvation in this world and the next."

I got _two_ copies.

Brad, tricked into appearing with Grover Norquist, loses his temper with the entire establishment.

It's a wonder the WSJ editorial page doesn't explode from sheer cognitive dissonance.

Call me paranoid, but the involvement of Italian intelligence makes me think of the forged Niger uranium letters, and wonder whether we were played by Italy rather than Iran...

"Conservative policies couldn't have worked better for the financial supporters of the right. But for virtually everyone else, conservatism has nothing left to offer."

Mark Schmitt suggests that the GOP try the Know-Nothing/Nativist strategy...

The McClatchy (formerly Knight-Ridder) news service on actually being journalists

Nice, but doesn't get into why people think ideas (in this sense) matter, if they don't, or why they spend some effort on creating and disseminating them.

"the problem with the conservative movement is that it's fundamentally malign" (my romans)

"Steve Milloy -- the man deserves a statue, on which we could inscribe the words: "No one man labored harder or more successfully to propagate misinformation about global warming, tobacco's health effects, and DDT.""

"they have set themselves on a path to a collapse so complete, into candidacies and incumbencies so pathetic, that we will have an election, and then a government, without the kind of resistance, testing, and pushback that is essential to any policy-makin

Wow, I actually read something recent by Pinker (in The New Republic, no less!) and agree with it. Wonders never cease.

"The point of environmental management isn't to denounce sin, it's to get prices right."

Ans.: The CIA, of course. (OK, a _retired_ CIA officer. Still.)

"Advice and consent" means: advice and consent.

Ladies and gentlemen, Tony Zirckle: "Some have questioned whether there is any link to Jews and porn-prostitution. ... Let’s save our Jewish brothers and sisters from this tyrant king porn dragon before we get to another world-wide pogrom."

Chris Mooney reviews _Doubt Is Their Product_, and ends by calling for maddened scientists bearing torches and pitchforks to storm PR firms.

"Hagee's view of current affairs is animated by his view of the end-times, and his belief that godly forces are engaged in spiritual warfare with satanic forces. The bible foretells, he believes, plagues, natural disasters, and nuclear war. So all those t

On the anatomy of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

"How a top Pentagon official and a host of influential Republicans almost made sure that one American company gained a key stake in Iraq's lucrative wireless market." Ahhh, 2004.

Scott Horton and Rogoff and Reinhardt

Crude (but not stupid) use of social networks in analyzing campaign donations.

"he people behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't actually a bunch of aggrieved veterans pissed off at John Kerry's anti-war activities. Rather, the main donors were extremely wealthy businessmen like developer Bob Perry, oilman T. Boone Pickens"

Rudy Giuliani's foreign policy team: oy!

Krugman summarized

Michael Lind calls Pat Robertson on being a crazy conspiracy theorist, as well as an apocalyptic kook.

One of the commenters is right: the weirdest part of this is that the FBI didn't bother to learn anything about Iranian cuisine. (Their loss.)

an example of the previous

On Richard Mellon Scaife's divorce. (I live in Shadyside and go by those houses every day. I guessed the "welcome home" sign was for coming back from the vet's!)