Paul Waldman:
While the Clintons bear responsibility for getting many of those scandals going with questionable decision-making or behavior, it's also true that the mainstream media made huge mistakes during that period by treating every Republican charge, no matter how ludicrous, as though it was worthy of a full-scale investigation splashed across the front page. Again and again, they reacted to the most thinly justified accusations as though the next Watergate or Iran-Contra was at hand, and when it turned out that there was no corruption or illegality to be found, they simply moved on to the next faux-scandal, presented no less breathlessly.
That past — and journalists' failures to reckon with it — are still affecting coverage today. When this email story broke, how many journalists said it was important because it "plays into a narrative" of Hillary Clinton as scandal-tainted? I must have heard it a dozen times just in the past week.
Here's a tip for my fellow scribes and opinionators: If you find yourself justifying blanket coverage of an issue because it "plays into a narrative," stop right there. That's a way of saying that you can't come up with an actual, substantive reason this is important or newsworthy, just that it bears some superficial but probably meaningless similarity to something that happened at some point in the past. It's the updated version of "out there" — during the Clinton years, reporters would say they had no choice but to devote attention to some scurrilous charge, whether there was evidence for it or not, because someone had made the charge and therefore it was "out there."
Amanda Taub:
Republican senator and presidential maybe-hopeful Lindsey Graham stopped by the "politics and pies" forum in Concord, New Hampshire, today, where he announced that if he is elected president in 2016, his first act will be to deploy the military in Washington to force Congress to reverse cuts to the defense and intelligence budgets.
Yes, you heard that right. Here are Graham's exact words:
And here's the first thing I would do if I were president of the United States. I wouldn't let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We are not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts.
Graham would use the military to force members of Congress to not just vote on the bill — but to pass it. Graham didn't say "until I get an up-or-down vote on restoring defense cuts." He said "until we restore these defense cuts."
In other words, Graham is proposing that his first act as president would be to use the military to force the legislative branch to pass his agenda.
More politics and policy below the fold.
NY Times:
But as the March 17 elections approach, Mr. Herzog, the leader of the Labor Party and co-founder, with Tzipi Livni, of a new center-left slate called the Zionist Union, is posing a credible challenge to Mr. Netanyahu of the conservative Likud Party. Israeli analysts say this election is not really a contest between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Herzog in the classic sense of who constitutes the most attractive candidate. Instead, they say, it is essentially a referendum on Mr. Netanyahu, with Mr. Herzog, popularly known by his nickname, Bougie, as a kind of default candidate.
The Guardian:
Israel elections: rising panic in Likud ranks as opposition gains ground
Polls indicate growing lead for Zionist Union led by Yitzhak Herzog over Binyamin Netanyahu’s party with less than a week before vote
Haaretz:
Senior Likud sources: Netanyahu may not win election
'Speech to Congress should have strengthened Likud, but we didn’t achieve the desired outcome.'
Republican Congressional failure comes at many levels. But should Netanyahu lose, Boehner's invitation will be considered epic.
Jeff Spross:
As Danielle Kurtzleben explained at Vox, right-to-work states have much lower rates of union membership. More importantly, even if right-to-work laws increase employment, they do so by creating more bad jobs that pay poorly.
This is a big deal. If you define a "good job" as one that pays at least $37,000 a year and provides health coverage and retirement benefits, then the American economy has lost a third of its capacity to generate those jobs since 1979. And the collapse has been far more acute for workers without a college degree.
Iowa Republican:
It’s not like Walker had never taken a position on ethanol related issues before, in a 2006 gubernatorial primary debate, “Walker said he would not support an ethanol mandate and would not sign one if it got to his desk as governor.” In the same campaign, Walker stated that ethanol mandates are “fundamentally wrong.” Walker even ran radio ads in his 2006 gubernatorial campaign stating, “The free enterprise system must drive innovation to relieve our dependence on foreign oil, not mandates from the state or federal government.” Walker repeatedly attacked his primary opponent for supporting an ethanol mandate in 2006, but as he prepares to run for president in 2016, Walker seems to be taking the same position he previously criticized.
Walker’s new-found support of the Renewable Fuels Standard, like his new passion on immigration, sets him up perfectly to draw distinctions between himself and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Coming into the race, Bush and Walker had nearly identical positions, but by supporting the RFS and opposing immigration reforms, Walker is now positioned nicely for an Iowa campaign.
The only problem is that, by changing his position on renewable fuels and immigration, it raises questions about what Walker actually believes. Candidates like Bush and Lindsey Graham have come to Iowa and stood firmly behind their positions on tough issues like immigration. Likewise, Senator Ted Cruz wasn’t afraid to articulate his opposition to the Renewable Fuels Standard at the Iowa Ag Summit on Saturday.
Those candidates should be commended for at least being honest with Iowans on issues. Walker, on the other hand, must now explain his conversion on those issues. It’s one thing to state a position that you know will be popular in a room of farmers. It’s another thing to explain how you can be totally opposed to the ethanol industry while running for governor, but be in lock step with the same industry when you run for president ten years later.