What pols do in their private lives, absent legal or ethical issues, is not my business.

What is my business is what they do about public policy.

YMMV.

UPDATE: He admits everything. Apologizes. Not resigning.

Speaking for me only

Update (TL): Anthony Weiner lied for days with a straight face. I think he's toast.

Paul Krugman:

By the way, defenders of the G.O.P. plan often assert that it resembles other, less unpopular programs. [. . .] I’ve been seeing claims that Vouchercare would be just like the system created for Americans under 65 by last year’s health care reform [. . .]

[. . .] First, Obamacare was very much a second-best plan, conditioned by perceived political realities. Most of the health reformers I know would have greatly preferred simply expanding Medicare to cover all Americans. Second, the Affordable Care Act is all about making health care, well, affordable, offering subsidies whose size is determined by the need to limit the share of their income that families spend on medical costs. Vouchercare, by contrast, would simply hand out vouchers of a fixed size, regardless of the actual cost of insurance. And these vouchers would be grossly inadequate.

(Emphasis supplied.) Let me make 2 points in response - (1) The exchange/subsidies reform created by ACA do not forward us towards the best plan - Medicare for All. They take us toward the path of VoucherCare. What's more realistic? That Medicare will be made to resemble the exchange/subsidy reform or that the exchange/subsidy reform will be made to look more like Medicare? I think the former. (2) The size of the subsidies under ACA will be much more dependent on defeating the "Austerity Now! crowd than on the affordability of insurance on the exchanges. The reality is ACA will likely end up looking like VoucherCare when it is all said and done. Krugman's critique of VoucherCare is spot on. But he has a blind spot on the weakness of the exchange/subsidy reform in ACA, which likely will become VoucherCare.

Speaking for me only

Paul Krugman's critiques of RyanCare have delivered questions as to how RyanCare differes from ObamaCare with regard to how Americans will pay for health care under ObamaCare. Here is Krugman's response:

[H]ow does the Ryan plan differ from the Affordable Care Act? After all, in both plans people are supposed to buy coverage from private insurers, with a subsidy from the government.

Well, the answer is that the ACA is specifically designed to ensure that insurance is affordable, whereas Ryancare just hands out vouchers and washes its hands. Specifically, the ACA subsidy system (pdf) sets a maximum percentage of income that families are expected to pay for insurance, on a sliding scale that rises with income. To the extent that the actual cost of a minimum acceptable policy exceeds that percentage of income, subsidies make up the difference.

This is an inadequate answer imo. Indeed, it provides an obvious retort - what if RyanCare incorporated provisions to "ensure that insurance was affordable[?}" Would it be okay then? No it would not. Because Medicare is superior to ACA. Because single payer public insurance is superior to ACA. Krugman implicitly says so here. Moreover, Krugman is all too sanguine about the efficacy of ACA's ability to make sure "insurance is affordable." A perusal of the article Krugman links to, written by Jon Gruber, demonstrates this:

Via echidne, Florida the Guinea Pig:

Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed two historic Medicaid bills Thursday, placing the health care of nearly 3 million Florida residents into the hands of for-profit companies and hospital networks. Lawmakers said the program was overwhelming the state budget and needed to be privatized to rein in costs and improve patient care. Critics fear the bills build on a flawed five-county experiment where patients struggled to access specialists and doctors complained the treatments they prescribed were frequently denied.

[. . .] The bills removed a requirement for plans to spend certain percentages on patient care and Federal health officials encouraged state lawmakers to include that provision in the bill. Instead, the bills call for managed care plans to repay profits over 5 percent to the state.

[More...]

Given the acceptance of Austerity Now! by the Democrats, there is little hope that a rebounding economy and jobs picture will fill President Obama's political sails for 2012.

Two factors play in Obama's favor right now - (1) the GOP penchant for attempted destruction of popular social safety net programs (in 1995 and 1996, President Clinton was buoyed not only by a rising economy but also by GOP overreach in its attacks of the social safety net); and (2) the extremism that GOP primaries demand from their candidates (Obama gets to play the reasonable adult.) Will that be enough? Kevin Drum explores the Dem messaging issue on the economy:

So how do Democrats get back on top in the soundbite wars over the economy? Beats me. But Democracy Corps says they tested a bunch of messages and blaming Republicans for getting us into this mess is a loser. The three big winners are below. Take 'em for what they're worth.1

More . . .

The media is abuzz with news that John Edwards' Washington attorney, Craig, flew to Raleigh last night. No one knows whether an Indictment was returned this week, whether the visit is for a final negotiating session with prosecutors, or whether Edwards has agreed to a plea deal and an Information will be filed tomorrow.

Nor does anyone seem to know what Edwards might be charged with, other than violating federal election laws pertaining to campaign contributions.

It seems to me the media is over-simplifying the case. It began as an investigation into whether John Edwards knew about the money Fred Baron gave Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young. The evidence has always been conflicting as to what John Edwards knew, if anything. Fred Baron, who funded Rielle and Andrew's excellent adventure and is now deceased, insisted John did not know. His widow and law partner, Lisa Blue, told the grand jury the same thing. And it's doubtful the Justice Department would bring such a high-profile federal prosecution based on the words of people with as much baggage as Andrew Young and his wife, or Rielle Hunter. [More..]

No More Mister Nice Blog thinks Anthony Weiner is doing it all wrong:

The point is, [Weiner]'s trying to get people to back down by being as aggressive and self-righteous as he thinks a Republican would be in the same situation -- and no one's backing down. He's trying to rally the sympathies of non-wingnuts -- and (as you see from the TPM link above) it's not working all that well. (Also see this post from New York magazine, which generally leans left of center: it's titled "Anthony Weiner Is Not Doing Himself Any Favors.") [. . .] It's not working. Maybe it isn't working because a Democrat simply can't get away with this, but I'd say it isn't because he's misreading how Republicans and right-wingers win.

Not much interested in this story and I do not think I am alone. Sure Fox and the Right Wing Media won't let this go, but they wouldn't under any circumstances. The rest of the world is what interests Weiner. His "moving on" strategy may work there. It is way too early to judge his media strategy it seems to me. If a month from now this is big news, then it will have failed. If it isn't, then it will have succeeded. Judging Weiner's strategy at this point is silly. Nothing is going to happen in the next few days. More . .

David Dayen points to Jared Bernstein's response to Paul Krugman's take on political realism. Bernstein wrote:

It’s also congenitally hard for politicians to get behind “a serious program of mortgage modification.” Those who advocate for this (the NYT editorial page, e.g.) are right, but they’re also downplaying a very binding constraint. The politics of this idea are deeply wound up in moral hazard. People forget, but it was precisely this action—giving mortgage relief to someone at risk of default and not to someone who was struggling to keep up their payments—that birthed the Tea Party.

I ran into this "the Tea Party made them do it" argument before - see this. It struck me as specious at the time and still does. But it does point to an important issue- how activists can change political realities. Consider the Tea Party. What was it really? Nothing more than the usual suspect Right Wing Republicans ranting about the same things they always rant about. But not only did the Media pretend it was something new- apparently so to did the Obama Administration. The strange thing about it is would the rantings have been any different no matter what course the Obama Administration chose? I mean if the worries were the Tea Party, how then can the health bill effort be explained? There is a lesson in all of this and I will explore it on the flip.

The media seems surprised that John Edwards had lunch yesterday with 100 year old heiress Bunny Mellon, who was a grand jury witness in his soon-to-be criminal case. Edwards' attorney says the visit was purely personal and they didn't discuss his legal situation.

First, there's no secrecy rule imposed on witnesses to a federal grand jury. The secrecy rule pertains to Government prosecutors and their agents. Second, it's not the first time Edwards visited Bunny Mellon since the probe started. He flew up to see her in December, 2009.

According to CBS News today, it ultimately may be quite important for Edwards to show he has had a continuing personal relationship with Bunny Mellon since his campaign ended. Here's why: [More...]

Proving that Bill Clinton screwed up royally and should just stay out of ongoing political disputes, Mitch McConnell made some hay:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is leveraging an unusual ally to provide his party with cover from Democratic attack on the Paul Ryan budget and Medicare reform: Bill Clinton. In an extended question-and-answer session with reporters Friday, McConnell name-dropped the former Democratic president several times. It seemed like the answer to any question — whether on how many trillions need to be saved in a deal to raise the debt limit or what the Democrats’ victory in a New York special election meant for 2012 — started with the same refrain. “Let me quote President Clinton,” McConnell would begin.

Clinton must be aware by now that he screwed up. Now it is time for him to shut up.

Speaking for me only

Bill Clinton talked some nonsense yesterday about Medicare and how Dems should address it politically and in terms of policy:

"So anyway, I told them before you got here, I said I’m glad we won this race in New York," Clinton told Ryan, when the two met backstage at a forum on the national debt held by the Pete Peterson Foundation. But he added, “I hope Democrats don't use this as an excuse to do nothing.”

This is ridiculous coming from Clinton, who rejuvenated his political fortunes by drawing a line in the sand on Medicare and Medicaid cuts in his budget and debt ceiling battles with Newt Gingrich in 1995 and 1996:

John Edwards has added some heft to his legal team: former White House Counsel Gregory Craig. Craig released this statement today:

“John Edwards has done wrong in his life – and he knows it better than anyone but he did not break the law. The government’s theory is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. It is novel and untested. There is no civil or criminal precedent for such a prosecution. The government originally investigated allegations that Senator Edwards’ campaign’s funds were misused but continued its pursuit even after finding that not one penny from the Edwards campaign was involved.

The Justice Department has wasted millions of dollars and thousands of hours on a matter more appropriately a topic for the Federal Election Commission to consider, not a criminal court.”

Craig says Edwards is prepared to fight. My translation: If the Government offers a misdemeanor, there's still room to talk, particularly before the Indictment is returned. [More...]