Former speech writer for President Reagan, current columnist for the Wall Street Journal. She comes off as movement-conservative, who totes the party line and worship’s Ronald Reagan’s feet. Today she writes that President Obama is likely to lose next year. She lists the reasons why…then contradicts herself toward the end by saying he’ll probably win because there’s no serious GOP candidate. That’s about the equivalent of me saying, “I think A-Rod is going to strike out at this next at bat. Unless the pitcher’s curve ball doesn’t break, then he’ll hit a home run.”

Sure, I get where she’s coming from. By the numbers of right track/wrong track polling, and his slipping approval rating among key voting blocks, Obama could be vulnerable. And by this same logic, so was Bush in ’04. But he won, for several reasons being that he ran against John Kerry. Not saying Howard Dean, John Edwards or Wesley Clark would have carried the day, I’m saying that the Democratic party didn’t have a strong message that election cycle. The GOP doesn’t this year either.

The only consistent thing the GOP talks about is whether our President is a citizen or not.

The president’s proposal isn’t perfect, by a long shot. My own view is that while the spending controls on Medicare he proposed are exactly the right way to go, he’s probably expecting too much payoff in the near term. And over the longer run, I believe that we’ll need modestly higher taxes on the middle class as well as the rich to pay for the kind of society we want. But the vision was right, and the numbers were far more credible than anything in the Ryan sales pitch.

What happened over the past two weeks, then, was more about staking out positions than about enacting policies. On one side you had a combination of mean-spiritedness and fantasy; on the other you had a reaffirmation of American compassion and community, coupled with fairly realistic numbers. Which would you choose?

There will be more talks, and dramatic up or down votes next year. Krugman, who like many liberal writers never seem satisfied with anything, I do think is on the money. Obama’s ideas are more mainstream and Ryan’s ideas will be yelled about, but never really acted on.

“Escapism” – as defined as a form of mental diversion by means of entertainment or recreation to escape from an unpleasant or banal reality – might be in order for many this weekend, especially to those who want to divert attention from the consistently glum headlines of a government shutdown or a potential Donald Trump candidacy.

May I recommend HANNA, from Focus Features, a new action-thriller starring Saoirse Ronan (Atonement) as a young girl trained by her father (Eric Bana) to be a would-be assassin and must seek out the CIA agent on their trail (Cate Blanchett). It’s fun, it’s slick, it’s got lots of bang-up action (with a PG-13 rating, it’s not brutal) and if you can buy the concept of this trim young lady trading body blows with bad guys, it’s damn well worth checking out. It’s the most fun I’ve had in a theater in some time.

Blanchett is a hoot, as is Tom Hollander who plays a whistling, menacing scumbag hired to take out Hanna and her Dad.  Though what sets this film a part is the techno score by The Chemical Brothers that dominates each action sequence (a sample, above)

But according to Nate Silver the public is not following the potential shutdown situation as closely as other big news stories this year (granted from Tuscon to Egypt to Libya to Japan, we’ve had a few big ones).  Big politicos are, obviously, but it looks like the government will have to shutdown for the winds of attention to reach hurricane velocity.

It’s a very strange film that doesn’t work. Pure and simple. However, the most watchable sections are with the great Paul Giamatti and Andre Braugher. Here’s a taste.

The Hangover – Most watched movie ever on V.O.D.
Domestic B.O. Gross – $277M
Worldwide B.O. Gross – $467M
Highest grossing R-Rated comedy.
Third highest grossing R-Rated film ever (behind The Passion and The Matrix Reloaded)

So…I’m betting the sequel will do pretty well. As big? Potentially. Part of the charm of the first original was while it wasn’t technically grounded (Mike Tyson and tigers and whatnot) it never veered too much into crazy territory. Also, millions of people every year travel to Las Vegas for a 48 hour window period and lots of shenanigans ensue. Many adults have woken up and tried to piece a crazy night together. Many of us have that tangible connection. The Hangover part II seems a bit different. Not that many individuals have traveled to Thailand and woken up in a slum house. However, it’s the same actors, same type of humor and same concept. Not sure if Mike Tyson is back. But Ken Jeong and two already publicized cameos are official. I’ll see it opening weekend.

Three important things to note about Ryan’s Proposal: 1) no big tax increases for rich folks; 2) If you’re currently 55 and over there will be no significant changes; 3) It sidesteps Social Security.  Meaning:  We’ll lump in “fixing Medicare” as part of “the problems with Obamacare” argument.

As you’d expect there’s a wide variety of reactions to this.

Andrew Sullivan appreciates the “honesty” of this package, but points out the complete BS that the GOP is saying we all must sacrifice, except the rich.

David Brooks thinks its the right way to go, and labels this juncture Obama’s “Moment of Truth”.

Josh Marshall of TPM, says this is the route to getting rid of Medicare. Slowly, but surely. And that’s a bad thing.

Ezra Klein agrees with Marshall, this is going to be a big cut. And public insurance is less expensive than private, and so essentially this is a big spending increase to the average American consumer.