Abbreviated pundit round-up: Hiring Boehner would be ‘terrible investment’; Ginsburg’s radicalism

E.J. Dionne Jr. at The Washington Post writes—Why Trudeau matters more than Gowdy:

Already, conservatives in the United States are making the case that Trudeau will regret abandoning the fiscally cautious policies of the earlier Liberal governments headed by Jean Chrétien and then by Paul Martin. The Chretien-Martin Liberals were a middle-of-the-road lot who dominated Canadian politics from 1993 until 2006. Their budgetary prudence gave Canada nine straight surpluses.
But there’s a problem with this argument: None other than the fiscally responsible Martin himself endorsed the emphasis on investment. “You should be investing to pay for the kinds of things that are going to give your children a better life,” Martin said in defense of Trudeau. “And that’s what infrastructure is, what education is, it’s what research and development is.” […]

It’s true that the political and fiscal situations of Canada and the United States

different. But progressive politicians in the United States and elsewhere would do well to learn that if they let orthodoxies paralyze them, they will have little to say to voters who, as Trudeau declared on election night, are tired of the twin ideas that they “should be satisfied with less” and that “better just isn’t possible.”

Brian Beutler at The New Republic writes—It’s Time for Democrats to Boycott the Benghazi Committee:

The argument against boycotting the committee is straightforward and reasonable. Without Democrats on hand to provide a modest check, the committee’s Republicans will be unconstrained, and nobody will be able to neutralize their selective leaks. Or perhaps the boycott should be partial, so that Democrats like ranking member Elijah Cummings will be on hand to monitor the majority, but so that it’s also clear that Democrats aren’t a party to the larger farce.
If and when the committee issues its final report, Republicans will try to sweep all the dirty tricks that preceded it under the rug. There’s no reason Democrats should want their names on a consensus report, given the way the committee has conducted itself. The Democrats on the committee have been clear that it should be disbanded. They should suffuse that vote of no confidence with symbolic heft by walking out.

There’s more below.

Leave a Reply