There’s a bunch of progressive groups experimenting with some interesting “Iraq recession” messaging which sounds promising to me, but as Paul Krugman explains doesn’t fit the facts particularly well:

The fact is that war is, in general, expansionary for the economy, at least in the short run. World War II, remember, ended the Great Depression. The $10 billion or so we’re spending each month in Iraq mainly goes to US-produced goods and services, which means that the war is actually supporting demand. Yes, there would be infinitely better ways to spend the money. But at a time when a shortfall of demand is the problem, the Iraq war nonetheless acts as a sort of WPA, supporting employment directly and indirectly.

Krugman mentions the war’s impact on the price of oil as one potential caveat. I would also add that the war’s been going on long enough at this point that we’re feeling some of the long-term consequences of war-related spending along with the short-term ones. Americans are probably somewhat poorer on average than we would be had the war never been fought. But the war’s not responsible for the economic slowdown — in the short-term it’s helping to prop the economy up. Indeed, the DC area in particular (though also, I would note, Arizona — though obviously Saint John’s hawkish views reflect pure straight talky principle and owe nothing to the large number of defense contractors he represents) has seen a lot of defense-fueled growth.

Here’s a random note from last night. Bush, talking about a free trade pact with Colombia, said “If we fail to pass this agreement, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere.” The purveyors of false populism are, I guess, Hugo Chavez and other murky conspirators. But why is it false populism? Chavez is a real populist. Maybe you think he’s a populist peddling fake solutions to Latin America’s problems, but he’s certainly not a secret pro-business neoliberal.

Meanwhile, what about failing to ratify the Colombia trade deal will embolden false populism? This seems like a bizarre context in which to start applying fight them in Tikrit so we don’t need to fight them in Tuscon logic.

Roger Pilon, Cato’s chair in constitution studies, is apparently one of that breed of libertarians who believes strongly in unlimited government surveillance powers plus retroactive immunity for lawbreaking telecom firms. Fortunately, we’ve also got this other breed of libertarianism around. Still, it’s a bit hard to take Cato’s claims to be sincerely serving a doctrine of small government when its people stake out this kind of position.

Here’s a bit on Saint John of Arizona flip-flopping on the Law of the Sea Treaty:

It’s no surprise, really, as he’s flip-flopped on a ton of stuff, though none of that seems to have penetrated into the narrative about him.

UPDATE: More here.

Indonesian dictator Suharto is one of those people who I’d vaguely assumed was already dead until I read a story about his demise. I’m not sure I have much to say about Suharto beyond the obvious — bad man, killed lots of people, etc. — but John Quiggin has an interesting post making the case that since his departure from power “Indonesia has been remarkably successful in dealing with what was, in many respects, a poisonous legacy from the Suharto era.”