New York Times:

In a major surprise on the politically charged new health care law, the Obama administration said Friday that it would not define a single uniform set of “essential health benefits” that must be provided by insurers for tens of millions of Americans. Instead, it will allow each state to specify the benefits within broad categories.

I forgot Newt Gingrich is a converted Catholic (disclosure - I am a lapsed Catholic):

Newt Gingrich sat beneath the soaring dome in the largest Roman Catholic church in North America, the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, and listened as a choir that included his wife sang at an evening vespers service for Pope Benedict XVI and 300 American bishops.

That is the moment, three years ago, that Mr. Gingrich says he decided to become a Roman Catholic, after having been born a Lutheran and joining the Southern Baptist Church in college. [. . .] Mr. Gingrich represents a new kind of Catholic [. . .] To a Kennedy-era Catholic, divorce was a sin [. . .] Mr. Gingrich is a culture wars Catholic for whom the church seems a logical home for conservative Republicans.

(Emphasis supplied.) It's really weird that Gingrich, whose personal life does not really shout out Christian virtue, is the darling of the Evangelical Right. I mean it's nothing to me, who lives in a glass house on this, but:

Gingrich is on his third marriage — this one to Callista Bisek, a former Hill staff member 22 years his junior who had been his mistress for six years.

The article does not say, but I assume Gingrich is not married in the eyes of the Catholic Church, unless he annulled his first 2 marriages (NOTE: this apparently occurred. Nice of the Church ay?) The article says "[l]ike many recent converts to the church, Mr. Gingrich is what Catholics call a “John Paul II Catholic,” those inspired by that pope to embrace traditional church teaching, eschewing calls to liberalize or modernize the faith[.]"

Except on divorce one presumes.

speaking for me only

Via Atrios, when Republicans like eminent domain:

Two pipeline companies are seeking the clout of eminent domain. While the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission has yet to rule, it signaled this year that it was leaning toward giving firms condemnation power to gain rights-of-way for their pipelines.

Many years ago, I penned a legal defense of the Kelo decision. Many "conservatives" claimed outrage over the decision. My defense was largely premised on the court's adherence to existing precedent that gave deference to the elected branches of government, especially, State and local government, on issues of purely local concern. The "conservatives" claimed that the "violation" of private property rights made the issue one of Constitutional concern. We'll see what they say now.

Paul Krugman responds to Ezra Klein:

[O]nce you realize that the GOP is not now, and never has been (at least not since the 1970s) concerned about the deficit. All the fiscal posturing of the last couple of years has been about using the deficit as a club to smash the welfare state, with the secondary goal of frustrating any efforts on the part of the Obama administration to help the struggling economy.

The entire debate has been fake. If you don’t understand that, or can’t bring yourself to admit it, you’re missing the whole story.

Fair and balanced in the Beltway.

Kevin Drum writes:

Obama is stuck trying to convince [2008 supporters] in very practical, non-soaring terms that he really has done a lot for them. That list is pretty long[. . . .] Were there disappointments too? Sure. [. . .] But that's to be expected. This is the real world, not utopia, and Obama is a cautious, pragmatic, mainstream, center-left Democratic president.

I'm good with this appraisal. Here's the problem though, Obama gets credit for what has been done and also blame for what has not been done. Just below in the Open thread, ABG writes about $1.5 billion in savings to seniors on prescription drugs and demands acceptance that ACA worked and the public option not being included is not important. I think Obama get credit for the $1.5 billion savings and also questions about the public option (and the housing finance crisis, among others). It's not all one thing or the other. I have stated that I think Obama could have been a great President and was not. but he was not terrible either. And obviously he has my support for reelection.

Drum titles his post "Real Obama vs. Fantasy Obama." That's kind of dumb imo. It's real Obama, the good things vs. Real Obama, the not so good things. He's not running against FDR. He's running against Romney or Gingrich.

Herman Cain never intended to really run for President. He was running to sell a book and to get a Fox News gig. It was bad luck for him that he became "the frontrunner" for the GOP nomination (in reality he had no chance whatsoever of being the GOP nominee despite Nate Silver's insistence otherwise.) CNN's Erick Erickson writes at Red State:

I had thought and expected that Cain would continue until Iowa. He had enough money. Dropping out after losing in Iowa would have distracted from the present issues. Dropping out now will be viewed by a great many as an admission against interests [sic] that Herman Cain did have a 13 year affair.

In any event, Cain is out [. . . a]nd soon [. . .] will be forgotten. It is a sad ending for a good man.

I forgot him already. The big question in the GOP nomination fight is who is going to show up for The Donald's Debate:

It’s officially a reality television Republican primary now. Donald Trump is pairing up with Newsmax, the conservative magazine and news Web site, to moderate a presidential debate in Des Moines on Dec. 27.

How sweet is that? Trump is toxic with the general population but the GOP crazies still like him to some extent. And The Donald will not be ignored. Damned if they do and damned if they don't for the GOP candidates and The Donald Debate. I've not watched any GOP debates yet, but I'll live blog that one if anyone shows up just for the ridicule fun.

Speaking for me only

Of all the political events in Gandhi’s life, perhaps none is more famous than the Salt March of 1930. That theatrical act of defiance—in protest of the heavy tax on salt imposed by the British in India—catapulted Gandhi to new heights in his political career, as the image of this frail individual challenging a mighty empire captured the hearts and imaginations of millions of people around the world. [Emphasis supplied] - Ian Desai, Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 2010

Gandhi would reject the division between the 99 percent and the 1 percent. Gandhi did not believe in enemies: he worked on the premise that solutions emerged only from cooperation. [. . .] Noncooperation is best understood as an invitation to cooperate. “We are the 100 percent” may not make for a dramatic slogan, but from Gandhi’s perspective, it is the only way to achieve true and lasting change in society. - Ian Desai, November 30, 2011 New York Times Op-Ed

I think Desai might better understand the situation if he thought of the 99%-1% argument as one of a 1% empire. The 1% of course are not the enemy, and I doubt anyone in the Occupy movement is thinking of them as enemies. The 1% is, though, an empire - a plutocratic empire that controls the workings of our institutions. The Occupy movement is engaged in a campaign of noncooperation with the 1% empire. Thus, Occupy shares Gandhi's view, as described by Desai:

[P]olitical freedom [. . .] to Gandhi implied the ability of a society’s system of self-governance to serve the interest of its citizens completely and without corruption.

That seems to me to express, in a nutshell, the ethos of the Occupy movement. It seems hard to imagine Gandhi would disagree with that tenet of the Occupy movement. More . . .

Won't Have "Herb" Cain To Kick Around Much Longer:

Herman Cain told members of his campaign staff on Tuesday that he was reassessing whether to proceed with his bid for the Republican presidential nomination[.]

I've not written about Cain much, because I knew he had no chance to win the GOP nomination (contra Nate Silver) and in fact he was just engaged in a speaking tour to raise his profile (ironically, I think Newt Gingrich was too, but he may stumble into being the GOP nominee - Obama is a lucky guy, nothing to sneeze at) and speaking fees.

Cain stumbled into the "anti-Mitt" role, and a lot of things he probably did not want to discuss have been reported on. If I was advising Cain, I would tell him not to drop out. If leaves now, it will look like he was driven out by scandal. If he just goes and loses, getting say, 6% of the vote in Iowa, he'll still have a viable "speaking career."

Speaking for me only

Unlike accuser #4, Herman Cain admits to knowing his latest accuser, Ginger White, who went on TV today to detail their 13 year consensual affair.

She says during the next 13 years, he would fly her to cities where he was speaking and he lavished her with gifts. She says they often stayed at the Ritz Carlton in Buckhead and dined at The Four Seasons restaurant. She says he never harassed her, never treated her poorly, and was the same man you see on the campaign trail.

Cain admits knowing Ms. White for 13 years but denies having an affair with her. He says he's just been trying to help her financially. [More...]

Booman responds to my post in which I write:

If I am understanding this argument correctly, Booman is saying that the South was not lost to Dems by the Civil Rights movement, it was lost by the Vietnam War. That is a pretty stunning claim it seems to me. Ridiculous even. What happened since the 60s, at least in terms of politics, is that the South became solidly Republican and the rest of the country became more Democratic.

Booman ignores my point, and instead continues discussing "countercultural" progressives:

[T]he post-Vietnam War progressive movement grew out of the counterculture, and you can't make a very good case for running the country if your disposition is counter to the culture and power structures of the country.

[MORE . . .]

In comments here, and in blog posts elsewhere, the lecturing of "the Left", led by Chait, has been boiled down to their personal view of President Obama's accomplishments. For example, Andrew Sullivan writes:

Chait notes how systemic and eternal liberal disenchantment is, and how congenitally useless Democrats are in rallying round a leader, even one who has achieved so much in such a short time. [. . .] (Memo to the left: universal healthcare was achieved under Obama). But much of this is the usual Democratic limpness and whininess. [. . .] If I hear one more gripe about single payer from someone in their fifties with a ponytail, I'll scream.

Universal healthcare was achieved? Why are we not celebrating? Maybe because not everyone thinks ACA has done that. Indeed, I recall a certain "wonky pundit" telling us Obama was a "moderate Republican" whose health plan was based on GOP ideas. More . . .

The Supercommittee explains its failure to reach an agreement on budget cuts and tax increases:

Both sides used remarkably similar language to describe their frustrations. A Democrat involved in the negotiations said: “We made a reasonable offer and got nothing in return. We got naked in the room. Republicans are standing there in overcoats, hats and gloves and are toasty warm.”

A Republican aide, who believed Mr. Toomey made a good-faith proposal and got nothing from Democrats in return, said a few days later: “We showed some leg. The Democrats want us to get completely naked.”

Maybe they should have met at the shvitz.

(Photo: Mark Kauffman,Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images, Apr 01, 1948)