about the impossibility of drawing different conclusions

A conclusion many pundits draw and share is that the plurality of votes for Donald Trump--and the groundswell of support for Bernie Sanders--is a reaction from people who are sick of politics as usual. In other words, most people probably do not actually understand and support the views, ideology, and policy positions of these candidates; people just opt for these guys because they do not like anything else.

about "St. George and the Godfather" by Norman Mailer

St. George and the Godfather unleashes Norman Mailer's critical mind on the characters participating in the 1972 Democratic and Republican National Conventions. That year, the Democrats nominated South Dakota Senator George McGovern, and the Republicans took President Richard M. Nixon.

Mailer describes a stiflingly boring political season, especially when compared to the Presidential races of the previous decade. He indulges his moods in this tract, veering from righteously indignant to contemplative, and all the while he keeps on his mind the ongoing, escalated bombings in South Asia. Mailer is an American original whose complicated, unconventional views can't be duplicated, even though the problems of politics and culture he describes repeat themselves over and over.

how it's nothing, really

If this article--Mother Jones' Access Hollywood: How Jeffrey Katzenberg Became the Democrats' Kingmaker--is like the hundreds of other such articles before it, then Jeffrey Katzenberg is a name you'll maybe hear two or three more times and then never again. Not because he doesn't have some influence, but because he only has some influence.

Business rules and faith in the leadership

Mitch McConnell wants the Republican-controlled Congress to stick President Obama with sole ownership of the decision to raise the debt ceiling. Probably a good move for them. This way, come election time, the GOP-Tea Party can point to the White House and say "Obama wants to spend even more, so he raised the debt ceiling!"

The whole debate places the Republican leadership in a tough spot: They don't want any part of a default, but they don't want to be perceived as being soft on spending, either. McConnell's way provides a way out. His additional requirement--that Obama specify cuts equal to each increase--almost seems unnecessary.

The New York Times article "McConnell Warns of Risk to Party, and Country, of Default" lays out the issue from McConnell's point of view. And it says,

While Mr. McConnell’s plan would face an array of political and perhaps constitutional issues, it signaled that Republican leaders did not intend to let conservative demands for deep spending cuts provoke a possible financial crisis and saddle the party with a reputation for irresponsible intransigence.

This sentence (1) nods in agreement with the premise that not raising the debt ceiling is bad and (2) signals confidence in the Republican leadership. And the word "irresponsible" is key there; it is at once (1) a recognition that the party has already been saddled with a reputation for neutral or responsible intransigence, and (2) a denial of any intransigence because such recognition goes unstated.

On the blue side, President Obama is always in need of strategy; if he wanted to rebuild some Federal Government credibility among the public, he should start a PR campaign to highlight new research and development in other countries and frame this in terms of other nations progressing while America stalls. What proud American wouldn't reconsider funding NASA after learning that China is gearing up its space program?