bapifar01: Abbreviated pundit roundup

Visual source: Newseum

Paul Krugman looks into the heart of the modern GOP:

Back in 1980, just as America was making its political turn to the right, Milton Friedman lent his voice to the change with the famous TV series ?Free to Choose.? In episode after episode, the genial economist identified laissez-faire economics with personal choice and empowerment, an upbeat vision that would be echoed and amplified by Ronald Reagan.
But that was then. Today, ?free to choose? has become ?free to die.? [...]

The [debate] incident highlighted something that I don?t think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point, American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.[...]

And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we?ve had for the past three generations ? that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the ?common hazards of life? through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.

The New York Times argues that Democrats shouldn't be helping Republicans bust apart President Obama's jobs bill:

Republican opposition is bad enough, but The Times?s Jennifer Steinhauer reported that many Congressional Democrats are hanging back, saying they could support one or another of the components of the jobs plan, but not the whole package. Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana wants to protect the oil companies to which she is beholden from losing outdated and overly generous tax breaks. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, seemed to be preparing to bury the jobs program in Senate rigmarole. Senator Bob Casey and others threatened to slice and dice the program to death.
For Mr. Obama to win public support for this effort, Americans need to see him attack the Republicans? opposition and to forcefully get his party in line.

Margaret Carlson thinks the President is finally standing up for the policies he believes will help our nation:

At least the charade is over. For far too long, President Barack Obama clung to the notion that we can all get along in a bitterly divided capital and nation.
He?d come to look like a chump being rolled -- and rolled again -- by his Republican opposition. His most ardent supporters were losing faith as he sought to show independents what a reasonable fellow he is.

Last week, Obama dropped the demeanor of the Grand Compromiser and came out swinging in his address to a joint session of Congress. He kept his dukes up on his jobs tour, which he pointedly began in Richmond, Virginia, home of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. He told Congress, in effect, ?Yeah, I?m going to pay for my $447 billion jobs bill by raising taxes on the well-to-do: Want to make something of it??

As President Obama picks up a fighting tone, Lisa Mascaro and Kathleen Hennessey think that Republicans are easing theirs back, at least for the cameras:

Reporting from Washington? Republican leaders in Congress are striking a softer, more conciliatory tone, dialing back the hard-line opposition that has defined their recent rise to power but has done little to boost their standing in public opinion polls.
The change in style does not necessarily match a shift in substance. Republicans continue to show little willingness to bend on the key issues driving the debate over joblessness, deficits and the role of government.

Bloomberg's Lisa Lerer looks at the possible impact of Rick Perry's attack on Social Security:

To get a sense of the political risk Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry faces by calling Social Security a ?Ponzi scheme,? meet Flo McDonald.
?They should shoot him for what he said about Social Security,? said the 82-year-old, sitting by the pool at Kings Point, a retirement community outside of Tampa, Florida.
Perry?s remarks about Social Security have exposed a generational divide among Americans. Sixty-two percent of adults aged 55 and older disagree with Perry?s characterization of the program, while 55 percent of those 35 years of age and younger agree with it, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted Sept. 9-12.

Krissah Thompson and Aaron Blake pen a must-read piece on the sleeper issue of the election cycle:

[Republicans] have curbed early voting, rolled back voting rights for ex-felons and passed stricter voter ID laws. Taken together, the measures could have a significant and negative effect on President Obama?s reelection efforts if they keep young people and minorities away from the polls.
?It all hits at the groups that had higher turnout and higher registration in 2008,? said Judith Browne-Dianis, a civil rights lawyer who co-directs the Advancement Project, which has been tracking the new regulations.

Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering the latest, and perhaps most potent, legislation, a measure that would divvy up electoral votes by congressional district rather than use the winner-takes-all approach. The change would almost ensure a net gain of 20 to 24 GOP electoral votes in the 2012 presidential election.

Nate Silver expands on that Republican attempt to break up Pennyslvannia's electoral votes:

I don?t entirely buy that President Obama has problems with his base ? his numbers are still pretty decent with most Democratic core voters. But they have eroded some, even among African-Americans. And even if these voters still support Mr. Obama, they may not turn out, or they may turn out but decline to devote their time and money to his campaign.
I can?t think of many better ways to motivate these voters than to convince them that Republicans are trying to steal the election, and remind them of what happened in 2000, themes that will become prominent should the Pennsylvania plan come to pass.

Meghan McCain zings Rick Perry:

When the initial buzz about Rick Perry started getting louder and louder this summer, I asked a friend of mine, who is a longtime veteran of Republican politics, what I should expect from the Texas governor who was trying to become our party's next nominee for president. The response was quick and to the point: ?Rick Perry is George Bush on crack, just wait.? So far, I don't necessarily agree that Rick Perry is George Bush on crack, but he could definitely be described as George Bush 2.0. He is also a phenomenon that has quickly attracted intense interest and high poll numbers that continue to climb (he is currently, in most polls, the Republican frontrunner). All of it, I quite frankly do not understand. I feel like a character in ?The Emperor?s New Clothes,? but instead of pointing out that the emperor isn?t wearing any clothes, I am pointing out that this person is in every way unelectable on a national scale.

Scot Lehigh lays out the facts on the proposed infrastructure bank:

If you consider that every $1 billion in infrastructure spending puts between 18,000 and 30,000 people to work, over time, such a bank could give employment a shot in the arm.
"For $100 billion, you get 1.8 million jobs," Kerry said. Based on the results from similar banks elsewhere, he thinks the bank could leverage up to $600 billion in total infrastructure spending during its first decade. Michael Lind, economic growth policy director for the New America Foundation, says Kerry's estimate is realistic.

Karl Frisch examines the fate of the U.S. Postal Service:

"Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night, stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds," reads the unofficial motto of the United States Postal Service.
I guess no one ever thought it would be the Republican Party finishing off the Postal Service when those words were borrowed from the ancient Greek and chiseled in granite over the entrance to the James Farley Post Office in New York City in 1914. [...]

In the end, Republicans know the Postal Service is a government agency that works well for Americans. And the GOP cannot have an example of good government floating around lest it get in the way of their political aspirations.