Abbreviated pundit roundup: GOP obstructionism, the Pope's comments, and more

On healthcare, Jules Witcover says that the Republican Obamacare obsession is "stating to look like political suicide":

Although the president's own favorable rating with the American public remains below a majority at 47.8 percent in the latest Gallup Poll, he remains much stronger than Congress, whose latest standing in the same poll has plunged to a deplorable 15 percent. Mr. Obama's overwhelming support from Hispanic and Asian voters in the last election, as well as fellow African-Americans, already weighs heavily on the minds of Republican political strategists.

But unpopularity of his health-care law also clings, endlessly fanned by the drumbeat of conservative rhetoric in and out of Congress, inspiring opponents of Obamacare to keep up the pressure for repeal, or at least defunding.

Surprisingly, President Obama himself on occasion has taken to use the label himself as measure of pride or at least hopefulness. In any event, "Obamacare" will continue to be a flashpoint as he and his most virulent critics approach this fall's latest budgetary combat. And the White House obviously hopes that if there is a next showdown over closing government services and facilities, this lame duck president will nevertheless prevail.

Michael McGough at The Los Angeles Times dissects the Pope's comments on gays and provides an overview of what pundits are saying on the matter:

[W]hereas one got the sense that Pope Benedict XVI would construe that prohibition in a restrictive way, erring on the side of excluding candidates for the priesthood who might be ?too gay,? Francis? language ?suggests a looser dispensation.

That?s the view of Damian Thompson, a conservative Catholic blogger and columnist for the Daily Telegraph in London. He said the pope?s words ?don?t change Catholic teaching, but they do alter the atmosphere very much. It seems that there will be no longer a witch-hunt to stop celibate gay men from entering seminaries, which had been the situation.?

That -- not the question of the church's condemnation of homosexual acts -- was the context of Francis' question ?Who am I to judge them?? ?Even so, the ?spirit? of the pope's remarks was new, and newsworthy.

Over at The Erasamus blog at The Economist, it's pointed out that in such a conservative institution, style matters:

So far people have generally taken at face value the image of Francis as a "barefoot pope" who is personally modest, feels compassion for the disadvantaged and is endowed with a basic human warmth that his predecessor seemed at times to lack. He is simply likeable, and that ensures that he commands some respectful attention (even from those who disagree with him) when he seems to be speaking from the heart.

In the leader of a religious organisation whose core beliefs are not open to negotiations, style matters a lot. People can sense hypocrisy and pomposity, and they can also sense the opposite.

Much more on the top stories of the day below the fold...

Speaking of style, it's not just Larry Summers' style that has people lobbying against his nomination as Chairmain of the Fed. It's his record. The New York Times editorial board pushes back--hard--against attempts to deny Janet Yellen the appointment:

In the wake of the financial crisis and the Dodd-Frank reform law, the Fed chairmanship has only become more central to the fate of the banks and economy; as a result, they want someone who shares their background and can be counted on to further their views.

Ms. Yellen is not that person, not only, or even mainly, because of policy differences but because she is not part of the fraternity. Indeed, she is reminiscent of other accomplished women with whom Mr. Summers, or his supporters, or both have tangled in the past. [...]

In the end, the choice rests with Mr. Obama. The facts are entirely on Ms. Yellen?s side. Is the president?

Alexandra Petri at The Washington Post writes up some mock interviews for FOX "News" interviewer Lauren Green following her disastrous interview of Reza Aslan, author of "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth":

-You?re a human being, Rachel Carson, but I can?t help noticing that you wrote about birds. What could possibly interest you in birds if you are not a bird yourself ? or even a tree? Do you worship birds?
-Jane Goodall, I can?t help noticing that you are not a chimpanzee. Why this book?

From Aslan's Reddit interview:

Despite the backlash against Green, Aslan says he never heard from her after the interview. "I've never spoken to her before or since," he said. "Frankly, I feel kind of bad for her."

His book has soared to #1 on Amazon.

Christopher Flavelle at Bloomberg looks at why more journalists don't run for (and win) public office:

Given the importance of name recognition in politics, and presumably the importance of knowing about the issues, why aren?t more former journalists better at the game? The obvious answer is that professional politics, like any other pursuit, is harder than it looks, and somebody coming from a successful career covering government may mistakenly believe they know what they?re doing.

This leads to the risk that big-name recruits will be used to burnish a party?s credentials, or underline its commitment to a certain message, in a way that may not necessarily advance their own careers. [...]

So why do they do it? For the same reasons as anyone else -- both good (altruism) and less good (vanity, boredom). But there may be something about politics that?s particularly appealing for journalists, especially those who write about the failure of policy makers to fix chronic problems. You can only cover something for so long before you start to wonder if you couldn?t do a better job.

Turning to conservation and consumption, William deBuys at The Los Angeles Times explains why the drying of the West should be of grave concern to all:

One recent study forecasts that, under a changing climate, the yield of the Colorado will decline 10% by about 2030, and it will keep falling after that. Meanwhile, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation expects the river's 40 million water users to grow to between 49.3 million and 76.5 million by 2060.

None of the available remedies inspires much confidence. "Augmentation" ? diverting water from another basin into the Colorado system ? is politically, if not economically, infeasible. Desalination, which can be effective in specific, local situations, is too expensive and energy-consuming to slake much of the Southwest's thirst. And weather modification, a.k.a. rainmaking, isn't much more effective today than it was in its infancy during the last century.

Undoubtedly, there will be small successes squeezing water from unlikely sources. But the surest prospect for the West? That a bumper harvest of lawsuits is approaching. Water lawyers can expect decades of full employment in the region. Their clients will include irrigation farmers, thirsty cities and power companies that need water to cool their thermal generators and for hydroelectric production. Recreation interests and environmentalists trying to save endangered species will join them in the legal equivalent of a long-running, circular firing squad.

On the critically important topic of poverty and food stamps, Jordan Weismann and Kyle Thetford crunch the numbers and explain that the GOP's policies will hurt many of their constituents:

When most House Republicans talk about cutting food stamps, they're saying that they're ok with the idea that at least one out of every ten households in their district will have a tougher time putting food on the table, and will have less money to spend on local businesses. Now, politicians like Louie Gohmert might think that's ok because poor families eat too much anyway and are just using their benefits to buy expensive king crab legs (13 percent of his constituents use food stamps by the way). But for those of us a bit more strongly tethered to reality, it ought to cause a bit of concern.

Finally, Olga Khazan at The Atlantic highlights a fascinating study on "the stupidity of the crowd":

The theory of the "wisdom of the crowd" has been used to explain everything from the overall accuracy of Wikipedia to the logic of democracy. And in general, that principle is true: Choices made by many are usually better than those made by a few or one.

But new research from Arizona State University and Uppsala University in Sweden adds a caveat to that notion, showing that while crowds might indeed be wise when it comes to making tough, close calls, they are actually worse than individuals at choosing between two options, one of which is vastly superior to the other. When the choice is easy, in other words, the crowd can actually be pretty dumb.

Source: http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/p6ymQ1YCzIc/-Abbreviated-pundit-roundup-GOP-obstructionism-the-Pope-s-comments-and-more

titanic ii babe ruth new jersey nets nba playoff schedule rondo morris claiborne clippers