Indecision

Whether you support intervention or not in Libya, how can anyone be anything but dismayed by the delays and indecision of the West in acting? It's the worst of all possible choices, to wait until the situation is dire and then decide to do anything. It's not clear that there is time to save the rebels now. If they were going to act they should have done it weeks ago. The title of this article says it all: Gadhafi strikes rebels as diplomats mull action

Krugman gets a few right

I agreed completely with Paul Krugman's columnd today in which he attacks a proposed settlement between state attorneys general and the mortgage servicing industry. He's right that bankers are being allowed to break the law with impunity. The banking and mortgage industry have been out of control for a while and are able to do things that would cause average people to be thrown in jail or suffer extreme financial consequences. Banks are bailed out and their crimes and lies are ignored.

Krugman has had a few other good insights in recent columns. For example he rightfully questioned the idea that getting more people to go to a college is the solution to our competitiveness. But he is still being reckless with his endless call for more government spending. In one recent column, he says, "The federal government is having no trouble raising money, and the price of that money — the interest rate on federal borrowing — is very low by historical standards." Yeah, just like all the consumers who had no problem borrowing from their home equity lines or credit cards up until the point when they were taken away and they suddenly found themselves deeply underwater in their houses and buried in debt. He does not discuss the incredibly sharp rise in the national debt over the past few years. He mentions the governemnt's "long-run" fiscal problem. I think the crisis is upon us. Waiting any longer to address it seems to me to be incredibly reckless and shortsighted.

Will on Huck

George Will is down on Mike Huckabee. In his latest column, he criticizes Huckabee and Gingrich for their recent statements, zeroing in on Huckabee's mistaken assertion that President Obama grew up in Kenya. He goes on to state that there are five serious candidates for the GOP nomination: Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, and Tim Pawlenty. I like Will, but who is he to declare who is a plausible candidate? One small gaffe that will be forgotten in a week does not disqualify Huckabee. I'm not a Huckabee supporter but you have to be impressed by his showing in 2008 when he was the only minor candidate to vault himself into the top tier and ended up with the second highest delegate total. He's on TV constantly and he has a very polished image. If he decides to run, he will be a formidable candidate. He certainly starts from a stronger position than someone like Huntsman whom no one had ever heard of until he recently resigned as ambassador to China. I like Daniels and Pawlenty but they don't have high name recognition with the general public either. Barbour is likely to have a lot of trouble due to some of his recent civil rights statements. Romney has to explain how his health care bill was different than Obama's. Everyone has problems. I think Huckabee's are smaller than the others.