Of Politics and Economics, etc.

The New York Times comments moderators have been up to their old tricks all week. Last night, for instance, a couple of friends & I submitted our comments to Paul Krugman's & David Brooks' column at the same time. One of the three of us made it. The moderators have not read the other comments. My comments on Krugman's & Brooks' are below. After the comments, see also a letter I received from a Times staffer.

Paul Krugman writes about a House bill authored by Democratic Rep. Sander Levin & passed by a huge bipartisan majority. Here's the backstory. Though the bill is weak -- it doesn't force the Administration to impose sanctions on China for refusing to devalue its currency -- Krugman notes that the bill is "a signal at best — and it’s at least as much a shot across the bow of U.S. officials as it is a signal to the Chinese." 

The Constant Weader comments:

Squishy as the bill is, it has only passed one house, & Serious People say it may not leap the Senate filibuster.

Weak as the bill is, if it passes the Upper Chamber, it also has to get past the President. That, too, is a big "if." The purpose of the bill is to smack down the Administration, specifically Tim Geithner, who up until a few weeks ago was the chief "negotiator" with the Chinese. I'm not at all sure President Obama would sign a bill designed to humiliate Geithner. The President shows a distressing loyalty to his economic team, & to Geithner in particular.

Plus, the new face on economic negotiations with China is President Obama himself. Would he sign a bill that says, "Mr. President, you've done a lousy job here"? Gosh, maybe not, although it is possible the President would wrap the bill in a smile & call it another tool in his negotiating kit, another arrow in his quiver.

It seems to me the Levin bill is not aimed at China, as many news outlets characterized it. Its real targets are Tim Geithner & his boss.

Speaking of economic matters, David Brooks is impressed with fiscally conservative "New Republicans." 

First, here's a bit of the backstory:

Michael Crowley of Time: "Meg Whitman says she's running for governor of California to bring a sense of fiscal responsibility to Sacramento. But Whitman's own campaign ... has already pumped about $120 million of her estimated $1.3 billion personal fortune into the race. Yet ... she hasn't purchased much of anything yet."

AP: "California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman employed an illegal immigrant Mexican housekeeper for years even though the federal government alerted her in 2003 to the maid's dubious legal status, the worker and her attorney claimed Wednesday....

Brooks writes,

[Meg] Whitman has the personality type that you’re seeing more and more of these days.  The quintessential New Republican is detail-oriented, managerial, tough-minded, effective but a little dry. If Whitman wins her race, she’ll fit right in.

The Constant Weader thinks that's pretty funny:

Is that the personality type that hires an illegal immigrant to clean up its modest Colonial home, keeps her on for nine years, then fires her when it decides it would like to spend $120 million (& counting) to purchase the governorship of the nation's most powerful state? Is that the personality type that then rails against illegal immigrants once it has got rid of its own?

Is that the personality type that when called out for harboring an illegal immigrant blames her opponent -- without presenting a whiff of proof -- for "alerting the media" to its embarrassing indiscretion? "This is just classic smear politics," Meg Whitman said yesterday. "Jerry Brown is a career politician; it’s what they do."

"They," Ms. Whitman? Oh, Pot, they name is Kettle.

Sounds more like a personality disorder than a personality type -- maybe Republicanitis hypocritus.

It doesn't matter how many fingers Meg Whitman can flick in your face -- if she can't run her own little household, as the saying goes, how can she run the famously dysfunctional State of California?

Here's the letter, reproduced in full, which I received from the New York Times regarding their quixotic posting of comments:

Dear Ms. Burns:

Thank you for writing us and bringing your concern to our attention.  Mr. Brisbane [the Times' new Public Editor] is considering doing a column on The Times comment system at some point due to the high volume of complaints this office receives on a daily basis.

Your point regarding the arbitrary nature in which comments are allowed and what time they are approved has been a source of consternation for many and we will be looking into it in the near future. To our knowledge, The Times does not deliberately scramble the comments it approves, but we will be looking into the comment system as a whole.

We will keep your e-mail on file in the event that Mr. Brisbane decides to use it as a part of his upcoming column.  We will ask your permission before he does.

Once again, thanks for writing to us and expressing your concern.  It is much appreciated.

Best,
Joseph Burgess
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times