Grasping Reality with Both Hands

David Frum Writes About the Republican Succession

Frum:

The Republicans' dwindling options - THE WEEK: The GOP is a party of orderly succession.  Ronald Reagan finishes second in 1976, wins in 1980. George H.W. Bush finishes second in 1980, wins in 1988. Bob Dole finishes second in 1988, wins in 1996. John McCain finishes second in 2000, wins in 2008. This succession will be complicated in 2012 by the unusual fact that two men can plausibly claim to have finished second in 2008: Mitt Romney... Mike Huckabee....   So how to choose? Republicans have to worry that Huckabee -- like Palin -- cannot win a national election, even under the most favorable circumstances. Romney? That’s a more open question. There are two Romneys: the pragmatic, results-oriented candidate who got himself elected Republican governor of Massachusetts -- and the phoney hyper-ideological ex-candidate who addressed the Republican convention in St. Paul in 2008:

For decades, the Washington sun has been rising in the east -- Washington has been looking to the eastern elites, to the editorial pages of the Times and the Post, and to the broadcasters from the coast. If America really wants change, it's time to look for the sun in the west, cause it's about to rise and shine from Arizona and Alaska!

Last week, the Democrats talked about change. But let me ask you -- what do you think Washington is right now, liberal or conservative? Is a Supreme Court liberal or conservative that awards Guantanamo terrorists with constitution rights? It's liberal! Is a government liberal or conservative that puts the interests of the teachers union ahead of the needs of our children? -- It's liberal!

Is a Congress liberal or conservative that stops nuclear power plants and off-shore drilling, making us more and more dependent on Middle East tyrants? -- It's liberal! Is government spending - excluding inflation - liberal or conservative if it doubles since 1980? -- It's liberal!

Twenty years of Republican presidencies since 1980? Eighteen years of Republican majorities in the Senate? Twelve years of Republican majorities in the House? Seven of the nine Supreme Court appointments? Never happened! And for that matter, Massachusetts isn’t in the east either.   The big question for Republicans is: which Romney will show up in 2012? The electable or the unelectable, the serious or the cynical, the commanding or the pandering? All Republicans have to hope that Romney brings his best self to the next election cycle -- if only because after this week, we are seriously running out of alternatives.

It's also going to get seriously ugly in Republican primary time in 2012. Remember this from Huckabee at the end of 2007:

Libby Quaid: Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks in an upcoming article, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" The article, to be published in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, says Huckabee asked the question after saying he believes Mormonism is a religion but doesn't know much about it. His rival Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, is a member of the Mormon church...

The problem is that for Romney to actually be a president who might be worth electing he has to be a Jack Kemp-style Republican starting now: it takes quite a while to build up a policy and governing apparatus that can function well. And right now all of Romney's political advisors are telling him that he dare not be a Jack Kemp Republican.

Republicans: The Party for People Who Don't Like Black People

David Kurtz of TPM:

Glad He Cleared That Up: We've gotten an explanation from Rep. Steve King (R-IA) for why he was the lone vote against acknowledging the role of slaves in building the U.S. Capitol. He did it to protest "a several year effort by liberals in Congress to scrub references to America's Christian heritage from our nation's Capitol":

Our Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation and should not be held hostage to yet another effort to place guilt on future Americans for the sins of some of their ancestors.

So there you have it.

Josh Marshall on Sarah Palin: She's Done

The astonishing thing about Sarah Palin is her claim that Sean Parnell will be a better governor of Alaska than she would be.

But in that case, why run for office in the first place? Why did she not simply support Parnell in 2006? My head spins.

Josh Marshall:

She's Done | TPM: TPM Reader MC checks in ...

Am I living in Bizarro world? Does anyone really think that there is any realistic way Palin could be a candidate for President after resigning as governor? Yet pundit after pundit is saying this is a "risky" move that "may pay off". This is absolutely preposterous, and any professional putting such ideas into print should be relegated to writing copy for infomercials. All one needs to do is imagine the campaign ads (Can we Trust S.P. to Finish What She Starts?; Palin Quits When She's Tired, Winners Quit When They're Done; or just string together a few clips from the Mistake by the Lake) to realize there is no recovering from this. This is no wily strategic move; it's running from a scandal.

As I said earlier, I think there's a small chance there's no specific scandal and that Palin is just very mentally unstable. But MC is 100% correct that any pundit who thinks this is some risky but potentially brilliant strategic move is absolutely smoking crack. Hitting the crack pipe, or, just as likely, being witlessly contrarian to set themselves apart from the common herd of sane people. The kinds of ads MC mentions are right on the mark. But they're really only the beginning.

To a degree it goes without saying. But it's worth reviewing just how deeply preposterous Palin's argument yesterday really was when she claimed that she refused to exploit the people of Alaska by serving out her full term.

When you run for governor, as for president, you run for a four year term. You commit, at least implicitly, to serving four years, though many people end up not doing that for various reasons. There's nothing in the implied contract about running for reelection. Indeed it's arguable that the public would be better served by a governor focusing for four years on running the state rather than laying the groundwork for their reelection.

In any case, Gov. Palin, who's served only a little more than half her first term (remember, she was elected in 2006), announces she won't run for reelection. And having decided that she won't run for a second term, she concludes that it would be exploiting the people of Alaska to agree to serve out the remainder of the term they elected her to serve back in 2006. This is apparently because she'll be a lame duck. And, she claims, lame ducks never get anything done and just spend a lot of money going on taxpayer funded junkets. So better to walk away from her job and pass it off to the Lt. Governor who no one hired to do the job at all.

You could keep plumbing the depths of this ridiculousness for some time. But as MC rightly notes it's simply poisonous, toxic, fatal for anyone running for president. Setting side political and policy stances, the one thing really key about a president is that they be steady under pressure, not rash, and not prone to spur of the moment freak outs where they just walk away from the job to go to Disneyland. A lot of nonsense gets knocked around about 'character' in presidential elections. But this is the foundational question of character that really is critical. Assuming this isn't about some soon-to-pop scandal and it's really that Palin just decided on a moment's notice (look at how much preparation went into the press conference to know how long this was in the works) to up and walk away from her responsibilities, that's simply fatal for anyone's presidential chances.

She may resurface as a latter-day Hannity or she may found some Palin-specific Anti-Defamation League dedicated to calling out obscure bloggers who've written mean things about her. But what very little shot she had as a future presidential candidate (and it was a much longer shot than I think many realized) is over. She's done. She's back to what she was -- a small person looking for someone to be angry at.

Sarah Palin: Video

Sarah Palin:

Sarah Palin Announces Resignation as Governor, Part 1; Sarah Palin Announces Resignation as Governor, Part 2.

"It was four yeses, and one 'hell yes!'"

An enormous amount of bulls--- here.

But this sounded genuine:

In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous... well, in response to asking: "Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from OUTSIDE the Governor's office?" It was four "yes's" and one "hell yeah!" The "hell yeah" sealed it - and someday I'll talk about the details of that... I think much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently.) Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we ALL could learn so much from someone like Trig - I know he needs me, but I need him even more... what a child can offer to set priorities RIGHT - that time is precious... the world needs more "Trigs", not fewer...

Sarah Palin's Resignation Speech (Department of "Huh?")

Via Talking Points Memo Sarah Palin:

Full Text Of Palin's Resignation Speech | LiveWire: Hi Alaska, I appreciate speaking directly TO you, the people I serve, as your Governor. People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing's more important to me than our beloved Alaska. Serving her people is the greatest honor I could imagine.

I want Alaskans to grasp what can be in store for our state. We were purchased as a territory because a member of President Abe Lincoln's cabinet, William Seward, providentially saw in this great land, vast riches, beauty, strategic placement on the globe, and opportunity. He boldly looked "North to the Future". But he endured such ridicule and mocking for his vision for Alaska, remember the adversaries scoffed, calling this "Seward's Folly". Seward withstood such disdain as he chose the uncomfortable, unconventional, but RIGHT path to secure Alaska, so Alaska could help secure the United States.

People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing's more important to me than our beloved Alaska.

Alaska's mission - to contribute to America. We're strategic IN the world as the air crossroads OF the world, as a gatekeeper of the continent. Bold visionaries knew this - Alaska would be part of America's great destiny.

Our destiny to be reached by responsibly developing our natural resources. This land, blessed with clean air, water, wildlife, minerals, AND oil and gas. It's energy! God gave us energy.

So to serve the state is a humbling responsibility, because I know in my soul that Alaska is of such import, for America's security, in our very volatile world. And you know me by now, I promised even four years ago to show MY independence... no more conventional "politics as usual".

And we are doing well! My administration's accomplishments speak for themselves. We work tirelessly for Alaskans.

We aggressively and responsibly develop our resources because they were created to be used to better our world... to HELP people... and we protect the environment and Alaskans (the resource owners) foremost with our policies.

Here's some of the things we've done:

• We created a petroleum integrity office to oversee safe development. We held the line FOR Alaskans on Point Thomson - and finally for the first time in decades - they're drilling for oil and gas.
• We have AGIA, the gasline project - a massive bi-partisan victory (the vote was 58 to 1!) - also succeeding as intended - protecting Alaskans as our clean natural gas will flow to energize us, and America, through a competitive, pro-private sector project. This is the largest private sector energy project, ever. THIS is energy independence.
• And ACES - another bipartisan effort - is working as intended and industry is publicly acknowledging its success. Our new oil and gas "clear and equitable formula" is so Alaskans will no longer be taken advantage of. ACES incentivizes NEW exploration and development and JOBS that were previously not going to happen with a monopolized North Slope oil basin.
• We cleaned up previously accepted unethical actions; we ushered in bi-partisan Ethics Reform.
• We also slowed the rate of government growth, we worked with the Legislature to save billions of dollars for the future, and I made no lobbyist friends with my hundreds of millions of dollars in budget vetoes... but living beyond our means today is irresponsible for tomorrow.
• We took government out of the dairy business and put it back into private-sector hands - where it should be.
• We provided unprecedented support for education initiatives, and with the right leadership, finally filled long-vacant public safety positions. We built a sub-Cabinet on Climate Change and took heat from Outside special interests for our biologically-sound wildlife management for abundance.
• We broke ground on the new prison.
• And we made common sense conservative choices to eliminate personal luxuries like the jet, the chef, the junkets... the entourage.
• And the Lt. Governor and I said "no" to our pay raises.

So much success in this first term - and with this success I am proud to take credit... for hiring the right people! Our goal was to achieve a gasline project, more fair oil and gas valuation, and ethics reform in four years. We did it in two. It's because of the people... good public servants surrounding the Governor's office, with servants' hearts and astounding work ethic... THEY are Alaska's success!

We are doing well! I wish you'd hear MORE from the media of your state's progress and how we tackle Outside interests - daily - SPECIAL interests that would stymie our state. Even those debt-ridden stimulus dollars that would force the heavy hand of federal government into our communities with an "all-knowing attitude" - I have taken the slings and arrows with that unpopular move to veto because I know being right is better than being popular. Some of those dollars would harm Alaska and harm America - I resisted those dollars because of the obscene national debt we're forcing our children to pay, because of today's Big Government spending; it's immoral and doesn't even make economic sense!

Another accomplishment - our Law Department protected states' rights - TWO huge U.S. Supreme Court reversals came down against that liberal Ninth Circuit, deciding in OUR state's favor over the last two weeks. We're protectors of our Constitution - federalists protect states' rights as mandated in 10th amendment.

But you don't hear much of the good stuff in the press anymore, do you?

Some say things changed for me on August 29th last year - the day John McCain tapped me to be his running-mate - I say others changed.

Let me speak to that for a minute:

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations - such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters' questions.

Every one - all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We've won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to "opposition research" - that's money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers - or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the "politics of personal destruction" ... Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn't cost them a dime so they're not going to stop draining public resources - spending other peoples' money in their game.

It's pretty insane - my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with THIS instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more "politics as usual," but THIS isn't what anyone had in mind for ALASKA.

If I have learned one thing: LIFE is about choices!

And one chooses how to react to circumstances. You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity. I choose NOT to tear down and waste precious time; but to build UP this state and our country, and her industrious, generous, patriotic, free people!

Life is too short to compromise time and resources... it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: "Sit down and shut up", but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and "go with the flow".

Nah, only dead fish "go with the flow".

No. Productive, fulfilled people determine where to put their efforts, choosing to wisely utilize precious time... to BUILD UP.

And there is such a need to BUILD up and FIGHT for our state and our country. I choose to FIGHT for it! And I'll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and LIFE... I'll work for and campaign for those PROUD to be American, and those who are INSPIRED by our ideals and won't deride them.

I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don't care what party they're in or no party at all. Inside Alaska - or Outside Alaska.

But I won't do it from the Governor's desk.

I've never believed that I, nor anyone else, needs a title to do this - to make a difference... to HELP people. So I choose, for my State and my family, more "freedom" to progress, all the way around... so that Alaska may progress... I will not seek re-election as Governor.

And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn't run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks... travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade - as so many politicians do. And then I thought - that's what's wrong - many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and "milk it". I'm not putting Alaska through that - I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! ? That's not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old "politics as usual." I promised that four years ago - and I meant it.

It's not what is best for Alaska.

I am determined to take the right path for Alaska even though it is unconventional and not so comfortable.

With this announcement that I am not seeking re-election... I've determined it's best to transfer the authority of governor to Lieutenant Governor Parnell; and I am willing to do so, so that this administration - with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future - can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success.

My choice is to take a stand and effect change - not hit our heads against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new environment. Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities - and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.

Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me - sports... basketball. I use it because you're naïve if you don't see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket... and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it's time to pass the ball - for victory.

I have given my reasons candidly and truthfully... and my last day won't be for another few weeks so the transition will be very smooth. In fact, we will look to swear Sean in - in Fairbanks at the conclusion of our Governor's picnics.

I do not want to disappoint anyone with my decision; all I can ask is that you TRUST me with this decision - but it's no more "politics as usual".

Some Alaskans don't mind wasting public dollars and state time. I do. I cannot stand here as your Governor and allow millions upon millions of our dollars go to waste just so I can hold the title of Governor. And my children won't allow it either. ? Some will question the timing. ? Let's just say, this decision has been in the works for awhile...

In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous... well, in response to asking: "Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from OUTSIDE the Governor's office?" It was four "yes's" and one "hell yeah!" The "hell yeah" sealed it - and someday I'll talk about the details of that... I think much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently.) Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we ALL could learn so much from someone like Trig - I know he needs me, but I need him even more... what a child can offer to set priorities RIGHT - that time is precious... the world needs more "Trigs", not fewer.

My decision was also fortified during this most recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas, those who sacrifice themselves in war for OUR freedom and security... we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops... they're bold, they don't give up, they take a stand and know that LIFE is short so they choose to NOT waste time. They choose to be productive and to serve something greater than SELF... and to build up their families, their states, our country. These Troops and their important missions - those are truly the worthy causes in this world and should be the public priority with time and resources and NOT this local / superficial wasteful political bloodsport.

May we ALL learn from them!

((Gotta put First Things First))

First things first: as Governor, I love my job and I love Alaska. It hurts to make this choice but I am doing what's best for Alaska. I've explained why... though I think of the saying on my parents' refrigerator that says "Don't explain: your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway."

But I have given my reasons... no more "politics as usual" and I am taking my fight for what's right - for Alaska - in a new direction.

Now, despite this, I don't want any Alaskan dissuaded from entering politics after seeing this REAL "climate change" that began in August... no, we NEED hardworking, average Americans fighting for what's right! And I will support you because we need YOU and YOU can effect change, and I can too on the outside.

We need those who will respect our Constitution where government's supposed to serve from the BOTTOM UP, not move toward this TOP DOWN big government take-over... but rather, will be protectors of individual rights - who also have enough common sense to acknowledge when conditions have drastically changed and are willing to call an audible and pass the ball when it's time so the team can win! And that is what I'm doing!

Remember Alaska... America is now, more than ever, looking North to the Future. It'll be good. So God bless you, and from me and my family - to ALL Alaska - you have my heart.

And we will be in the capable hands of our Lieutenant Governor, Sean Parnell. And Lieutenant General Craig Campbell will assume the role of Lieutenant Governor. And it is my promise to you that I will always be standing by, ready to assist. We have a good, positive agenda for Alaska.

In the words of General MacArthur said, "We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction."

Huh?

Forensic Table Reading: Bush CEA Forecast Edition

In email, lurkers are questioning my claim that:

Forecasting the Obama Economy: ...what happened to the Mankiw CEA over the winter of 2003-2004, when high politics appears to have reached down into the forecast, changed the table for payroll employment (and only payroll employment: the rest of the forecast is not out of line with contemporary professional forecasts), and produced an estimate for December 2004 (a) inconsistent with the rest of the forecast, and (b) high by 2.3 million in its estimate of payroll employment--all because Karl Rove and company thought it important to avoid headlines like "Bush administration forecasts 2004 payroll employment to be less than when Bush took office." White House Media Affairs would have a much harder time pressuring the forecasters to produce a "rosy scenario" if the pressure has to be kept on month after month [as the Troika forecast is revised, updated, and released at a monthly frequency].

I think that the smoking gun is provided by a little forensic table reading--going through the Bush administration's economic forecasts year-by-year as they were published in the successive versions of the Bush-era CEA's Economic Report of the President, the ERP:

• In the 2002 ERP, Table 1.1 shows 3.2% growth expected for the next two years gives you 2.9 million jobs--for a forecast labor productivity growth rate of about 2.1% per year...
• In the 2003 ERP, Table 1.1 shows 3.5% growth expected for the next two years gives you 4.4 million jobs--for a forecast labor productivity growth rate of about 1.8% per year...
• In the 2004 ERP, Table 3.1 shows 3.7% growth expected for the next two years gives you 6.2 million jobs--for a forecast labor productivity growth rate of about 1.3% per year...
• In the 2005 ERP, Table 1.1 shows 3.4% growth expected for the next two years gives you 4.1 million jobs--for a forecast labor productivity growth rate of about 1.8% per year...
• In the 2006 ERP, Table 1.1 shows 3.3% growth expected for the next two years gives you 3.8 million jobs--for a forecast labor productivity growth rate of about 1.9% per year...
• In the 2007 ERP, Table 1.1 shows 3.0% growth expected for the next two years gives you 3.3 million jobs--for a forecast labor productivity growth rate of about 1.8% per year...

The forecast rate of labor productivity growth over the next two years or so is a relatively stable variable. It starts at an annual rate of 2.1% in the first Glenn Hubbard ERP, and then Glenn and company drop it to 1.8% the next year as they become less optimistic about productivity growth in the aftermath of the collapse of the high tech bubble. Thereafter the Bush CEA forecast assumes a labor productivity growth rate of 1.8% - 1.9% in every year save one: the 2004 ERP, issued at the start of 2004, drops the labor productivity growth rate to 1.3% (and the 2005 ERP raises it back up to 1.8%).

Was there anything in the economic data that would make one much more pessimistic about labor productivity growth in early 2004 and only early 2004? No.

But assuming a 1.8% labor productivity growth rate at the start of 2004 would have meant that the forecast average level of employment in Tqble 3.1 for 2004 would have been lower than the level of employment when Bush took office, and that would have created a point of political vulnerability. There were two ways to fix this that would have satisfied White House Media Affairs: (i) reformat the table so that it no longer reports an annual average payroll employment number, or (ii) push assumed labor productivity growth down because if you keep GDP the same but reduce labor productivity arithmetic forces your forecast to produce higher employment.

Why the Bush CEA didn't pick option (i) is something I have never understood...

---

Does John McCain Have a Legitimate Place in American Politics? I Say No

This is why:

Michelle Goldberg on Sarah Palin:

Is She a Narcissist?: On Thursday, CBS News had a small scoop.... After McCain’s chief strategist, Steve Schmidt, rejected a request by Palin to reply to a report that her husband, Todd, had been a member of the secessionist Alaska Independence Party, Palin came forward with a preposterous excuse.... Secession, she insisted—despite all available evidence—is not part of the party’s platform, and besides, Todd “was only a 'member' bc independent alaskans too often check that 'Alaska Independent' box on voter registrations thinking it just means non partisan. He caught his error when changing our address and checked the right box. I still want it fixed." A clearly exasperated Schmidt wrote back that secession is the AIP’s “entire reason for existence. A cursory examination of the Web site shows that the party exists for the purpose of seceding from the union. That is the stated goal on the front page of the Web site. Our records indicate that Todd was a member for seven years. If this is incorrect then we need to understand the discrepancy. The statement you are suggesting be released would be inaccurate.”

Despite such rebukes, and her punchline status in much of the country, Palin’s self-conception appears undiminished.... Her seemingly irrational faith in herself might not be totally misplaced, especially if other Republicans keep self-destructing at their current rate. That’s because while Palin is unhinged, so is much of her competition. Politics has always attracted the deeply screwed up, but our current political system seems to do so more than most. Perhaps that’s because healthy people looking to make their mark on the world don’t want to subject themselves to the inquisitorial media attention or crushing vapidity of modern campaigning.... Success in our politics often requires a voracious, antinomian egotism, a sense that rules are for others.

The Alaska governor shares the personality flaws of many of her male peers, but by all accounts she doesn’t express them via the preferred method of politicians like John Edwards or Mark Sanford—by being sexually reckless. The United States has grown more blasé about sex scandals post Bill Clinton, but they remain more damaging than, say, dishonesty, greed, or naked incompetence.

Palin may have gone rogue on John McCain, had public feuds with her grandson’s teenage father, turned on loyal aides, flubbed interviews, spent tens of thousands of dollars of other people’s money on clothes, and told countless lies, but as far as we know she hasn’t cheated on her husband. If congenital narcissists dominate our politics, Palin may be just the narcissist the GOP needs.

Orbital Mind-Control Time-Traveling Lasers!

The answer is: "Barack Hussein Obama has a spaceborne flotilla of orbital mind-control time traveling lasers at his command."

"What is the question?" you ask. It's Steve Benen's:

The Washington Monthly: TYING IT ALL TOGETHER.... We learned yesterday, by way of Rush Limbaugh, that Mark Sanford's sex scandal was President Obama's fault. If it weren't for the administration's economic policies, the argument goes, Sanford would have been more optimistic about the future, wouldn't have cheated on his wife, and wouldn't have secretly left the country to see his mistress.

Who can argue with air-tight logic like this?

Today, Limbaugh's right-wing colleague, Michael Savage, takes this one step further. Obama didn't just inspire Sanford to betray his family; the White House conspired to make this scandal happen in the first place.

"The fact is, Obama's team is taking out potential [2012] rivals, one after another," Savage argued:

Just last week, the media jumped on the story of Sen. John Ensign (R) of Nevada and his infidelity. He was considered to be a possible Republican presidential candidate in '12. Now Sanford, who had similar ambitions, caught in a similar situation. This is politics at its worst, brought to us by the worst administration, the meanest administration, the most closed administration, the most incompetent administration in American history."

Now, listening to the clip, it's a little unclear to me whether Savage thinks Obama made Sanford and Ensign have sex with these other women, or whether Obama was spying on Sanford and Ensign, learned of their adultery, and brought it to public attention.

Sure, either way, this is all painfully stupid, and not to be taken seriously. But even from the perspective of a twisted right-wing worldview, I'm curious about one thing: how does an incompetent administration pull off a feat like this? Wouldn't it take an enormous amount of competence to secretly hatch such an elaborate conspiracy?

Silly Steve. He just doesn't understand the Republican Party: Obama is incompetent and he controls a flotilla of orbiting mind-control lasers that he can send back in time eight years to persuade Sanford to ask Maria for her phone number.

Who Are You and What Have You Done with the Paul Krugman I Used to Know?

I would have thought it impossible for Krugman to cite Robert Reich completely approvingly, without even a trace of snark. Yet, lo and behold, it has happened:

Read Robert Reich: Just read. He’s right.

Robert Reich:

Robert Reich's Blog: "What Can I Do?": Someone recently approached me at the cheese counter of a local supermarket, asking "what can I do?" At first I thought the person was seeking advice about a choice of cheese. But I soon realized the question was larger than that. It was: what can I do about the way things are going in Washington?

People who voted for Barack Obama tend to fall into one of two camps: Trusters, who believe he's a good man with the right values and he's doing everything he can; and cynics, who have become disillusioned with his bailouts of Wall Street, flimsy proposals for taming the Street, willingness to give away 85 percent of cap-and-trade pollution permits, seeming reversals on eavesdropping and torture, and squishiness on a public option for health care.

In my view, both positions are wrong. A new president -- even one as talented and well-motivated as Obama -- can't get a thing done in Washington unless the public is actively behind him. As FDR said in the reelection campaign of 1936 when a lady insisted that if she were to vote for him he must commit to a long list of objectives, "Maam, I want to do those things, but you must make me."

We must make Obama do the right things. Email, write, and phone the White House. Do the same with your members of Congress. Round up others to do so. Also: Find friends and family members in red states who agree with you, and get them fired up to do the same. For example, if you happen to have a good friend or family member in Montana, you might ask him or her to write Max Baucus and tell him they want a public option included in any healthcare bill.

---

My memory reaches back to September 18, 1787:

Mrs. Powell: "Well, doctor, what have we got?”

Benjamin Franklin: "A Republic, if you can keep it."

How Damnable Is Mark Sanford?

In email, maureendowdsfriendwhodoesntwantanycredit@gmail.com writes, contra those who say, "At least Mark Sanford is sincere!":

It's hard for me to find anything decent or honest about a politician who rejects stimulus money for a state with the 2nd highest unemployment rate in the country out of some misguided loyalty to an uncompromising political ideology. I understand the point you're trying to make here, but there is nothing even remotely admirable or honest about putting ones narrow and misguided beliefs ahead of the livelihoods of the voters who you are nominally elected to serve.

Just because Sanford isn't as hypocritical as your average Republican doesn't mean he's not a jerk. In fact, I'll gladly take the hypocrite over the ideologue; at least people dont get hurt as badly when the hypocrite is around. (The contrast btw Reagan and [George W.] Bush comes to mind here).

Also, its hard for me to believe that currying favor with the mindless and knee jerk enemies of government in South Carolina, not to mention New Hampshire and Iowa, didn't also play a role in Sanford's thinking...

Can the Republican Party Be Saved?

Maureendowdsfriendwhodoesntwantanycredit@gmail.com emails me:

12% of the country still thinks Obama is a Muslim. 8% thinks he faked his birth certificate. The new Washpost/ABC poll says that 22% of the electorate id's itself as GOP. Thus it is a fair inference that roughly half of declared Republicans are fringe lunatics--which explains why "respectable" conservative media outlets like National Review publish the Andy McCarthys and the Victor David Hansons, and why GOP politicians like Michelle Bachman and Steve King are now "mainstream" for the GOP.

Kent Conrad and Max Baucus Have No Freedom of Action Because of Kent Conrad and Max Baucus

Matthew Yglesias watches, bemused:

Matthew Yglesias » Senators Have Agency: In today’s column, Paul Krugman lamented the circular arguments you sometimes see presented as a reason for watering-down reform:

And Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota offers a perfectly circular argument: we can’t have the public option, because if we do, health care reform won’t get the votes of senators like him. “In a 60-vote environment,” he says (implicitly rejecting the idea, embraced by President Obama, of bypassing the filibuster if necessary), “you’ve got to attract some Republicans as well as holding virtually all the Democrats together, and that, I don’t believe, is possible with a pure public option.”

Timothy Noah had a great example of this near the end of a recent column offering a tour of health care systems around the world:

Afterward, Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who has since become interior secretary, noted that other countries saw a conflict between profits and health. How could the United States possibly persuade insurance companies to give up profits? [Author T.R.] Reid answered that Switzerland, home to many powerful insurance companies, had done it in 1994 when it adopted the Bismarck model. The insurers fought it tooth and nail, of course, but now they compete energetically to sign up people for basic care on a nonprofit basis because they constitute a customer base for supplemental insurance that they’re allowed to sell on a for-profit basis. This answer didn’t satisfy Baucus. “Perhaps you don’t know how much money [U.S. insurers] have,” he told Reid.

Which would be an amusing and apposite remark from Baucus were it not for the small part that Max Baucus is the most powerful legislative voice on health care policy in the country. It makes sense for Tim Noah or Paul Krugman or Matt Yglesias or TR Reid to ironically step outside the debate and start talking about the political obstacles to really hitting the insurance companies where it hurts. But Max Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee! “Political reality” is something pundits and activists need to adjust to, it’s something powerful Senators create.

Reading C.V. Wedgewood's "William the Silent"...

And watching the remake starring Mir Hossein Moussavi...

The Future Is Here, It Is Just Not Easily Distributed (Iran Edition)

Author Walter Jon Williams says that he has an unimportant problem toay:

Angel Station: Watching My Uncompleted Novel Go Down in Flames: There is a scene just like this in the novel I'm working on. My whole novel is playing itself out before my very eyes. All its specialness and wonderfulness, coolness and invention is curling up and dying in fire, as if one of the incendiaries from Fahrenheit 451 found it before I could even finish it. The Twitter Revolution in Moldova was bad enough, but at least it didn't get a lot of coverage over here, and most Americans never heard of Moldova. Iran is different. I feel like all those guys who were working on Cold War novels when the Wall fell.

The parade of demonstrators in Tehran today was nine kilometers long. It's a People Power revolution fired up by social media--- you don't get a crowd that big by sticking up posters on lamp posts. (Does the use of Twitter in Iran somehow absolve it of totally sucking?) Hackers are also proving useful, by attacking Iranian government web sites. (But be careful, script kiddies of the world--- you don't want to bring the whole system down.)

And he has a recommendation for what you can do to help the people with serious problems:

If you want to turn your computer into a proxy server to help Iranians avoid government roadblocks, "Austin Heap" provides instructions here. Be sure to read the disclaimers. I'd do this myself, but I have to admit that it's all beyond my competence.

And he notes that the usual suspects are still acting badly, as usual:

As a final note, I'm startled by the wave of support for Ahmedinejad by American neocons like Marty Peretz ("Maybe the regime fiddled around a bit with the numbers at the polls and after the polling. Still, the outcome had a sense of authenticity.") and Martin Rubin. Maybe if there's regime change, and the Iranians liberate themselves, then the neocons won't get their holy war with Iran, and we won't get to liberate the Iranians by killing zillions of them. A great disappointment, to be sure.

UPDATE: The neocons aren't all speaking with one voice, it seems. Bill Kristol now demands that Obama immediately issue a statement of support to the protestors. Why? Because Hitler invaded Poland in 1939! (No, really! Read it yourself!) Ahmadinejad is Hitler! Obama is Chamberlain! So I guess Kristol's idea is for Obama to support the protestors, Ahmadinejad to denounce them as American puppets and kill them, and then we still get to invade Iran! Yay!

A Leak from Iran's Interior Ministry?

From heretac:

jill ian (heretec) on Twitter: Actual Iran election results-Iran's Interior Ministry leaked the following earlier today: Mousavi 48% Karroubi 28% Ahmadinejad 13%...

Mitch Daniels Did Not Do His Job

Oh dear. Only 52 hours in working for National Review, and the brainrot has gotten to Reihan Salam:

The Agenda on National Review Online: Daniels for Rushmore: Like NR's Mark Hemingway, I'm a slightly fanatical admirer of Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels...

One of the threads of Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty is that Mitch Daniels simply did not do his job as Bush's OMB Director. The OMB Director is the principal--indeed, the only--voice inside the White House for fiscal prudence, for trying to ensure that the money the government spends is spent well and that the resources the government raises are adequate for the spending plans the White House evolves. While he was Bush OMB Director, Daniels simply did not do his job.

Page 219:

Mitch Daniels became agitated. He blurted out, "Well, yes, but if you can't do the right thing when you're at 85 percent approval, then when can you do the right thing? I think it's time to say no." Everyone looked with surprise at Daniels--he has a way of expressing what others are thinking but don't say. Often, he'd find himself doubling back when he got an arched brow from Cheney or Rove...

And page 296:

The Commerce Secretary echoed much of what had been said.... As usual, not a real discussion, O'Neill thought as he looked over at [Mitch] Daniels.... He knew Daniels was focused on the perils of rising deficits, but it would take gumption to air those concerns in a room full of tax cut ideologues. "I think we need to balance concerns," Daniels said.... "You need to be out front on the economy, but I am concerned that this package may not do it. The budget hole is getting deeper... we are projecting deficits all the way to the end of your second term." From across the table came glares from the entire Bush political team. Daniels paused.... "Ummmm. On balance, then, I think we need to do a [tax cut] package... accelerate the rate cuts and the double taxsation of dividends..." O'Neill looked with astonishment at Daniels... turn 180 degrees in midsentence...

Surely we can do better? Surely we can find a Republican who has (a) held high federal office and (b) actually done his job?

What Is Happening in Iran?

The leading news edge really is: http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23iranelection

Nico Pitney:

Iran Updates (VIDEO): Live-Blogging The Uprising: 3:22 PM ET -- Foreign media crackdown intensifying. ABC's Jim Sciutto tweets: "police confiscated our camera and videotapes. We are shooting protests and police violence on our cell phones." Alex Hoder tweets: "NBC offices in Tehran raided, cameras and Equipment confiscated. BBC told to get out Iran immediately. Cell/internet shut down" BBC publishes editorial: "Stop the blocking now."

3:10 PM ET -- Local Iran protests? If there are Iran demonstrations/events happening in your area, we'd love to know about them: email ee+iran@huffingtonpost.com with a short description of what happened (300 words or so if possible) and we'll compile them for posting tomorrow. I know about several protests planned in California today, but am sure there are plenty of others out there. Let us know.

3:02 PM ET -- Taking down Ahmadinejad's website. Via emailer Nick: The anti-Ahmadinejad Twitter user @StopAhmadi, who has been posting virtually nonstop over the last few days, mounted an apparently successful effort to swarm Ahmadinejad's website and shut it down. He's now targeting Khamenei's site.

2:58 PM ET -- BBC Persia hit by "heavy electronic jamming." Via emailer Sven, AFP confirms several foreign outlets being banned from reporting, and adds: The British Broadcasting Corporation said the satellites it uses for its Persian television and radio services had been affected since Friday by "heavy electronic jamming" which had become "progressively worse." Satellite technicians had traced the interference to Iran, the BBC said. BBC Arabic television and other language services had also experienced transmission problems, the corporation said.

2:55 PM ET -- More video of violence. Whoever posted this YouTube says the man in the video was beaten to death by the police. It's unclear if that's the case, but he is certainly beaten by several officers and is left, unmoving, on the ground...

Muhammad Sahimi:

Ayatollahs Protest Election Fraud: [TEHRAN BUREAU] Mir Hossein Mousavi’s, the main reformist rival to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, letter to the important ayatollahs in the holy city of Qom, asking them to protest the fraud and declare it against Islam, has sparked protests by the ayatollahs and clerics as well.

The Association of Combatant Clerics, which consists of moderate and leftist clerics and includes such important figures as former president Mohammad Khatami, Ayatollah Mohammad Mousavi Khoiniha, and Grand Ayatollah Abdolkarim Mousavi Ardabili, issued a strongly-worded statement, calling the results of the election invalid.

Grand Ayatollah Saafi Golpaygaani, an important cleric with a large number of followers, warned about the election results and the importance that elections in Iran retain their integrity.

Grand Ayatollah Yousef Saanei, a progressive cleric and a confidante of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, has declared that Mr. Ahmadinejad is not the legitimate president and cooperation with him, as well as working for him, are haraam (against Islam and a great sin). He has also declared that any changes in the votes by unlawful means are also haraam. Several credible reports indicate that he has traveled to Tehran in order to participate in nationwide protests scheduled for Monday (June 18). It is said that he has planned a sit-in in some public place, in order to further protest election fraud. His website has been blocked.

Credible reports also indicate that security forces have surrounded the offices and homes of several other important ayatollahs who are believed to want to protest election fraud. Their websites cannot be accessed, and all communications with them have been cut off.

The nation is waiting to hear the views of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, the most important ayatollah living in Iran and the strongest clerical critic of the conservatives. He has been asked to issue a clear statement, explaining his views about the election fraud.

Mr. Khatami, who campaigned strongly for Mr. Mousavi, is also under house arrest.

Hard as it may be to believe, some people are trying to claim that the Iranian vote count may be honest.

Gordon Robison writes:

What Happened in Iran?: Broadly speaking, there seem to be three scenarios...

• Scenario One: Ahmedinejad and his supporters stole the election, plain and simple. The revolutionary old guard felt threatened by the reformists so it rigged the vote to guarantee a conservative victory.... This scenario sees the outcome, in effect, as a reassertion of power by the Supreme Leader and the religious old-guard. There is, however, another way of looking at things…

• Scenario Two: There has been a coup. Ahmedinejad and the security services have taken over. The Supreme Leader has been preserved as a figurehead, but the structures of clerical rule have effectively been gutted and are being replaced by a National Security State.... Ahmedinejad and the people around him represent a new generation of Iranian leadership. He and his colleagues were young revolutionaries in 1979. Now in their 50s they have built careers inside the Revolutionary Guard and the other security services. They may be committed to the Islamic Republic as a concept, but they are not part of its clerical aristocracy.... This theory in particular seems to be gaining credibility rapidly among professional Iran-watchers outside of the country...

• Scenario Three: Ahmedinejad won. Really. At moments like this it is easy to forget that Tehran is not Iran....

So was it stolen? Are we watching a coup? Or did Ahmedinejad actually win? A decent case can be made for any and all of these scenarios and it is far too soon to say how the situation on the ground is going to play out.

Robison's scenario three seems completely wrong: Robert Waldmann reports:

Interior Minister Sadegh Mahsouli [had] said [on] Saturday that such a[n impression of a Moussavi] lead was a misimpression based on Mr. Moussavi’s higher levels of support in the capital, and that he had less backing elsewhere,"

According to Mahsouli's ministry (same Juan Cole link) Ahmedinejad won Tehran by over 50%.

And Robert criticizes Robert Worth and Nazila Fathi of the New York Times--and Bill Keller and the others who publish them--for High Journamalism:

Robert's Stochastic thoughts: It is absolutely clear that the official vote count in the Iranian presidential election is pure fiction. However, it is official and supported by the incumbent president, the supreme leader etc. This poses a problem for reporters who risk "opinions on shape of earth differ" if they follow standard practice. How exactly does one report the demonstrable fact that someone is lying without breaking the rules of Balance ?

ROBERT F. WORTH and NAZILA FATHI show how. One rule is that if one appears to favor one side in an argument (because the facts are biased against the other) then you give someone on the other side the last word. In advocacy one might present argument against the conclusion one favors, but one doesn't close with such arguments. Therefore in the rare cases in which the truth is so obvious that there is no other way to achieve Balance, one can close with an implausible denial of the facts. Or, if one really really can't stand to be Balanced, one can close with a statement from a supporter of the main benificiary of the lies such as this one:

There might be some manipulation in what the government has done,” said Maliheh Afrouz, 55, a supporter of Mr. Ahmadinejad clad in a black chador. “But the other side is exaggerating, making it seem worse than it really is.

Will the Revolution Be Twitterified?

Demagoguery and the Responsibility of a Bureaucrat

Todd Gitlin asks a question of Council on Foreign Relations head Richard Haass:

Demagoguery of Choice | TPMCafe: I was present at a conference in Maryland sponsored by the NewsHour in November 2002 when Mr. Haass, then head of policy planning at the State Department, issued a ringing defense of the impending war, which evidently he now maintains that he already opposed as a war of choice, not necessity. At the time, he stirred together, in Cheneyesque fashion, claims about Saddam and al-Qaeda, about Iraqi WMD, and the rest. I arose to argue with him and called his presentation "demagogic," but my protest did not attract his interest or sympathy. I'm curious to know if Mr. Haass believed what he was saying to this audience of foreign policy influentials at the time; if his presentation was a presentation of necessity or of choice; if he agrees that he was demagogic; and if he has any regrets.

There are hard questions as to how one should act when one works for an administration that is making a mistake on matters of policy. One could resign--and see one's place taken by somebody who will make the mistakes even better. One can be a good soldier and argue publicly for the mistaken policies while arguing privately for the right thing, in the belief that:

But it has always seemed to me that the minimal requirement imposed on the "good soldiers" is this: you don't tell lies in public.

From what Todd Gitlin reports, it looks as though Richard Haass--a man whom I have never heard praised in his role at the head at CFR--told things that he knew to be lies or that he could easily have determined to be lies in public.

Can Anybody Tell Me Why Ross Douthat Rather than Hilzoy Writes an Op-Ed Column for the New York Times?

Hilzoy:

Obsidian Wings: Ross Douthat Makes No Sense: Ross Douthat has a very peculiar column on abortion in the New York Times. In it, he asserts, falsely, that "under current law, if you want to restrict abortion, post-viability procedures are the only kind you’re allowed to even regulate": in fact, it is possible to regulate abortions before viability, and the Supreme Court in Casey upheld precisely such restrictions. He claims, also falsely, that "Americans aren’t permitted to debate anything" besides post-viability abortions (which would surely come as a surprise to the First Amendment), and that abortion needs to be "returned to the democratic process." As Freddie at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen notes:

Setting aside the banal fact that the judicial system is a part of our democratic process, there is a clear, straightforward and well-known way to overturn Roe v. Wade– pass a constitutional amendment criminalizing abortion. That’s how you override Supreme Court decisions; that’s how Dred Scott was effectively overturned. That’s how the federal income tax was passed. There’s a method for overturning Supreme Court law you don’t like, it’s well known, it’s time tested, and it’s as open to abortion foes as it is to anyone else.

But what's really odd is his reasoning. Try, if you dare, to make sense of this:

The argument for unregulated abortion rests on the idea that where there are exceptions, there cannot be a rule. Because rape and incest can lead to pregnancy, because abortion can save women's lives, because babies can be born into suffering and certain death, there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. As a matter of moral philosophy, this makes a certain sense. Either a fetus has a claim to life or it doesn't. The circumstances of its conception and the state of its health shouldn't enter into the equation. But the law is a not a philosophy seminar. It's the place where morality meets custom, and compromise, and common sense. And it can take account of tragic situations without universalizing their lessons.

First of all, the claim that "where there is an exception, there cannot be a rule" does not make sense as a matter or moral philosophy. If it's possible to distinguish clearly between the exceptions and the other cases, there's no problem at all with having a rule. This is why we can have such rules as: No parking in a handicapped spot, unless you have a handicapped badge. When it's not easy to tell the exceptions from the rest, whether or not it's OK to have a rule depends on how bad it is to miss those exceptions, and how bad it is not to have a rule. There are surely circumstances in which it would be fine to drive on the left, but we do not normally think that these should prevent us from having a rule about which side of the street to drive on. On the other hand, the existence of people who have been falsely convicted of capital crimes is a much more compelling argument against capital punishment: even one mistake is a horrendous injustice.

More importantly, consider this sentence:

Because rape and incest can lead to pregnancy, because abortion can save women's lives, because babies can be born into suffering and certain death, there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

How on earth is that supposed to be evidence for this?

Either a fetus has a claim to life or it doesn't. The circumstances of its conception and the state of its health shouldn't enter into the equation.

The whole point of bringing up cases of rape and incest is to argue that the circumstances of a fetus' conception are relevant to the question whether abortion should be legal. If we were convinced that a fetus was a full person, they wouldn't be: we do not think it's OK for a mother to kill her five year old child on the grounds that it is the product of rape or incest. Likewise, the point of bringing up the fact that "babies can be born into suffering and certain death" is to say that the state of the fetus' health is relevant, not that it isn't. What Douthat wrote makes about as much sense as saying: "The argument for not hitting yourself on the head with a hammer is that it would cause you a whole lot of pain. As a matter of moral philosophy, this makes a certain sense: hitting yourself on the head with a hammer is either right or wrong regardless of how it makes you feel." To which the only possible response is: Huh???

Douthat's column begins with a rather lovely meditation on the hard cases that George Tiller had to deal with: abortions on "women facing life-threatening complications, on women whose children would be born dead or dying, on women who had been raped, on "women" who were really girls of 10." He doesn't actually say much about how we should deal with these cases, other than the part I already quoted: the law "can take account of tragic situations without universalizing their lessons." How it should take these cases into account, and why it shouldn't universalize their lessons, are left shrouded in mystery.

And yet, somehow, he ends up here:

If abortion were returned to the democratic process, this landscape would change dramatically. Arguments about whether and how to restrict abortions in the second trimester -- as many advanced democracies already do -- would replace protests over the scope of third-trimester medical exemptions. The result would be laws with more respect for human life, a culture less inflamed by a small number of tragic cases -- and a political debate, God willing, unmarred by crimes like George Tiller’s murder.

Because, as we all know, giving terrorists what they want is the surest way to prevent more terrorism.

There are arguments for making abortion illegal. I don't accept them, but they exist. Douthat should try making them sometime.

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

In Which Conor Friedersdorf Succumbs to Stockholmm Syndrome...

He writes:

The Man with the Golden Microphone | Politics | The American Scene: Americans regard Rush Limbaugh as the face of the Republican Party, he is able to drive the agenda of the conservative movement, and a lot of people on the right don’t find that problematic. Okay, it is what it is. Mr. Limbaugh isn’t going away anytime soon, and I wouldn’t want him to stop doing his radio program even if I could choose it. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to quietly stand by while Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck or Mark Levin jockey to be his successor. Should this be the last time that a talk radio host breaks the 10 percent barrier in a poll like this, the GOP and the conservative movement will be a lot better off, and so will our country, which suffers when its public discourse is largely driven by a medium that rewards bombast, oversimplification, the vilification of political opponents, and engaging paranoid straw men rather than the strongest arguments offered by the other side...

But if Rush Limbaugh were to stop doing his radio show today, move to the Upper Amazon, and take up a life of anonymous service to others--well, then, the country and the Republican Party would be much better off: there would be less "bombast, oversimplification, the vilification of political opponents, and engaging paranoid straw men..."

So why doesn't Conor wish that Limbaugh stop? I can understand "I wouldn't want to shut him down even if I could..."--free country, free speech, et cetera. But I cannot understand "I wouldn't want him to stop..."

It looks to me like Conor Friedersdorf has succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome...

The "Public Plan" and Health Reform

What form would this "public plan" take? Would it be administered by CMS and HHS? Would it offer Medicare reimbursement rates or something else?

And we aren't we simply letting people who want to sign up for FEHBP? Isn't that the simplest public plan?

Ezra Klein observes:

Why Health Reform Is Likely to Have a Public Plan: Huffington Post's Ryan Grim has been doing great work covering Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-Neb.) endless flips and flops on the public health insurance plan. A few weeks ago, you might remember that Nelson was talking about forming a "coalition of like-minded centrists opposed to the creation of a public plan, as a counterweight to Democrats pushing for it." Back then, the public plan was a "deal breaker."

Now? He's open to a public plan. Neat how that works. But Nelson isn't alone. Support for the public plan seems to have elevated in a few corners. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), previously cool to the idea, is now said to be fighting "tooth and nail" for its inclusion. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), once a monosyllabic opponent ("no"), is now proclaiming himself open to the idea.

Meanwhile, the public plan's supporter -- Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), and others -- have organized and begun insisting, rather than merely mentioning, the idea. Liberal senators came together and signed a letter in support of the policy. The White House, which seemed relatively unsinterested in the issue a few months ago, has begun pushing hard for it.

And that, in my reporting, is what seems to be underneath the change. A few months ago, most observers thought the public plan was a bargaining chip. It had a lot of public supporters but few real friends. In recent weeks, that's begun to change. The White House seems genuinely intent on including a public plan -- or at least some form of public competition -- in the final bill. And that's changed the incentives for senators down the line. The public plan was safe to oppose so long as the powerful players weren't really interested in its survival. Indeed, when the policy was going to be bargained away anyway, the incentives were to try to convince the health industry that you'd been their key ally in that victory. But now that the White House has put some muscle behind the policy, opposition has potential consequences. And that's making the policy's opponents rethink their stridency.

A few months ago, I would have bet against the presence of a public plan in the final bill. Now I'd put my money in favor of it.

Politics and Demography

Richard M. Scammon and Kevin Phillips told the Republican Party in the 1960s that the American electorate was not young but middle-aged and old, not poor but middle-class and rich, and not minority but white. Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan heard them and decided to go "where the ducks are"--to try to cement an electoral coalition by broadcasting as many signals as possible that the Republican Party was not for the young, not for the poor, and not for the minorities.

Nate Silver says that the bill has finally come due:

Politics Done Right: GOP Has Always Been Dominated by White Voters: [In] last November's Presidential election when 89 percent of John McCain's voters were white.... 88 percent of George W. Bush's voters in 2004, and 91 percent of them in 2000, were white. And nearly 98 percent of Ronald Reagan's voters in 1980 were white as were 96 percent of Gerald Ford's in 1976. The GOP is, in fact, slightly less white than it once was....

The Democrats, however, are becoming less white at a much faster rate than the Republicans. Whereas 85 percent of their votes were from white voters in 1976, the number was just 60 percent last November. This is, of course, a helpful characteristic, since the nonwhite share of the electorate, just 11 percent in 1976 and 1980, represented more than a quarter of the turnout in November.

Consider this remarkable statistic. In 1980, 32 percent of the electorate consisted of white Democrats (or at least white Carter voters) -- likewise, in 2008, 32 percent of the electorate consisted of white Obama voters. But whereas, in 1980, just 9 percent of the electorate were nonwhite Carter voters, 21 percent of the electorate were nonwhite Obama voters last year. Thus, Carter went down to a landslide defeat, whereas Obama defeated John McCain by a healthy margin.

In certain ways, I wonder if the GOP isn't paying a price for a strategy adopted years ago -- namely, the Southern Strategy. The Southern Strategy... adopted at a time when probably less than 10 percent of the electorate was nonwhite.... The steady drumbeat of demographic change, coupled with an inability or unwillingness to adapt to it, has steadily made the Republicans' job harder and harder.

On the Whiteness of the Whale

From Kevin Drum:

Chart of the Day | Mother Jones: This isn't really big news or anything, but Gallup's latest poll shows just how big a hole the Republican Party has dug itself into: they now have virtually no appeal to anyone non-white.  They're almost exclusively a party of white men and women, which explains why their base has convinced them to haul out racial fears as their main line of attack against Sonia Sotomayor.  I just hope they aren't surprised when their meager 11% non-white base declines even further after this is all over.

David Frum's New Majority Site Endorses and Claims Earl Warren

This is very nice to see.

It has been a very long time since any prominent Republican acknowledged that great man, Earl Warren.

The Republican Base on Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Via Ali Frick of ThinkProgress. The Republican Base's culture hero G. Gordon Liddy on Judge Sotomayor:

G. Gordon Liddy On Sotomayor: Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, “the race”...

Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then...

And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, "underrepresented," unquote. And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body...

Clean up your party, guys. I understand that you have a base that is heavily into identity politics of the worst kind--that thinks that the Supreme Court ought to be made up of eight old white men plus Clarence Thomas, that thinks that there is something wrong with people who menstruate, and that thinks it is funny to call Spanish "illegal ailen"--and that you think you must pander to it. But enough is enough.

The Radical Education of Matthew Yglesias: Sonia Sotomayor and Identity Formation

The attacks on Sonia Sotomayor lead Matthew Yglesias--the original model for the New Yorker's Eustace Tilly--to discover his Hispanic-American roots and sign up as head of La Raza's Special Action Executive:

Matthew Yglesias: Sonia Sotomayor and Identity Formation: As anyone who knows me can attest, I don’t have what you’d call a strong “Hispanic” identity. Three of my four grandparents are Jews from Eastern Europe. My paternal grandfather, José Yglesias, was a Cuban-American born in Florida. But that puts the family’s actual Hispanic ancestry pretty far back in the past. He grew up in a Spanish-dominant immigrant community, but spoke English fluently. My dad grew up in an English-speaking household and knows some Spanish. I took a semester of Spanish at NYU one summer. And Cuban-American political identity in the United States is heavily oriented around a highly ideological far-right approach to Latin America policy that neither I nor anyone else in my family shares. The Yglesiases emigrated from Cuba before the Revolution, José was initially a Castro supporter, and though he gave that up he and my dad and I all share what you might call anti-anti-Castro views.

But for all that, I have to say that I am really truly deeply and personally pissed off my the tenor of a lot of the commentary on Sonia Sotomayor. The idea that any time a person with a Spanish last name is tapped for a job, his or her entire lifetime of accomplishments is going to be wiped out in a riptide of bitching and moaning about “identity politics” is not a fun concept for me to contemplated. Qualifications like time at Princeton, Yale Law, and on the Circuit Court that work well for guys with Italian names suddenly don’t work if you have a Spanish name. Heaven forbid someone were to decide that there ought to be at least one Hispanic columnist at a major American newspaper.

Somehow, when George W. Bush affects a Texas accent, that’s not identity politics. When John Edwards gets a VP nomination, that’s not identity politics. But Sonia Sotomayor! Oh my heavens!

At any rate, Ann Friedman wrote a great piece on the hypocrisy of this back during the Democratic primary. And I think this item from Neil Sinhababu on constructing political identities is insightful. I think conservatives are playing with fire here, and underestimating the number of, say, Mexican-Americans in Texas who didn’t think of themselves as having a great deal in common with Puerto Ricans from New York who are waking up today to find that in the eyes of the conservative movement normal qualifications for office don’t count unless you’re a white Anglo.

David Sirota Takes Us to School...

My friend maureendowd@gmail.com emails me that David Sirota is "hilarious, obnoxious, and brilliant here:

David Sirota: Teabags vs. Douchebags: Why this may not be the second coming of the New Deal after all...

David Brooks Joins Those Trying to Unseat Rush Limbaugh and Richard Cheney from Their Positions at the Head of the Republican Party

However if Brooks wants to get anywhere he is going to have to work much harder and to find a different frame for his anti-Cheney and anti-Limbaugh columns than Obama is a liar":

Cheney Lost to Bush: [A]fter Sept. 11, we entered a two- or three-year period of what you might call Bush-Cheney policy.... The Bush people...did things most of us now find morally offensive and counterproductive. The Bush-Cheney period lasted maybe three years. For Dick Cheney those might be the golden years.... But that period ended long ago.

By 2005, what you might call the Bush-Rice-Hadley era had begun. Gradually, in fits and starts, a series of Bush administration officials — including Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Jack Goldsmith and John Bellinger — tried to rein in the excesses of the Bush-Cheney period. They didn’t win every fight, and they were prodded by court decisions and public outrage, but the gradual evolution of policy was clear....

Throughout the second Bush term, officials were trying to close Guantánamo, pleading with foreign governments to take some prisoners, begging senators to allow the transfer of prisoners onto American soil.... [T]he practice of waterboarding... [was halted by] a succession of C.I.A. directors starting in March 2003, even before a devastating report by the C.I.A. inspector general in 2004....

When Cheney lambastes the change in security policy, he is... attacking the Bush administration. In his speech on Thursday, he repeated in public... the same arguments he had been making within the Bush White House as the policy decisions went more and more the other way...

Colin Powell Tries to Expiate His Sins by Reforming the Republican Party

Laura Rozen:

War and Piece:: WP: Powell urges Republican party to become more inclusive.

Not sure if we should salute him yet--his sins are mighty--but he is less condemnable and contemptible than was the case yesterday.

Diogenes to the White Courtesy Telephone, Please

We salute Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). If the Republican Party has a future, it lies with people like him. More such please.

From Amanda Terkel:

Think Progress » GOP lawmaker slams RNC video mocking Pelosi as ‘reprehensible.’: This past week, the Republican National Committee (RNC) released a web video comparing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to the James Bond villian Pussy Galore. Politico said that the video “implies that Pelosi has used her feminine wiles to dodge the truth about whether or not she was briefed by the CIA on the use of waterboarding in 2002.”... Yesterday, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) sharply criticized the RNC’s video:

I thought it was reprehensible, irresponsible and unpersuasive. If we’re going to regain the credibility of the American people, we’re going to have to stop with silly antics like that. It may get a snide chuckle inside the Beltway, but it offends most people. We have to get away from the politics of personal destruction.

Republicans: The Stupid *and* Immoral Party

Ta-Nehisi Coates:

OK, I'm No Longer Surprised: It's just who they are:

[Andie Collier:] She's the 69-year-old speaker of the House of Representatives, second in the line of succession and the most powerful woman in U.S. history. But when you see Nancy Pelosi, the Republican National Committee wants you to think "Pussy Galore." At least that's the takeaway from a video released by the committee this week - a video that puts Pelosi side-by-side with the aforementioned villainess from the 1964 James Bond film "Goldfinger...."

"It's an attempt to demean your opponent, rather than debate them. If they're serious that this is an issue of national security, then you'd think that one would want to debate it on the merits," [Ann Lewis] says. "It's almost as if they can't help themselves." 

That's because they can't.

For some time now I have been responding to Daniel Klein's whimpers about the low numbers of Republicans in academia as evidence of some sort of bias by pointing out that the existence of any academics who are Republicans is evidence of an opposite kind of bias--that nobody dedicated to education and truth-telling could stomach being a Republican today, and nobody who isn't dedicated to education and truth-telling had any business being a Republican.

Now I think it is time to expand that list of professions in which having professional ethics is simply inconsistent with being a Republican...

Andrew Samwick on Republicans and Taxes

Andrew writes:

Libertarians and Taxes: From David Boaz of the Cato Institute, who visited Dartmouth yesterday:

Too many advocates of small government still have this lingering attachment to the Republican party,” Boaz said. “It’s like being a battered wife — how long do you wait to leave?

Perhaps the more interesting part of the analogy is, Where do you go when you leave?  Typically, it is not to another partner, but to a period in which you are not in a relationship until you can recover from what just happened and make the changes that are needed so it never happens again. Are the Libertarians doing that?  I'm not so sure.  Consider more of what Boaz said: Boaz described the recent Republican tea parties in protest of tax day as “the revival of a freedom movement.” He also referenced a recent advertisement run by the Cato Institute in several major U.S. newspapers, including The New York Times. The advertisement discussed perceived flaws in the economic stimulus package. “Someday, this ad is going to be remembered as the revival of the free market movement,” Boaz said.

At moments like this, we go back to Milton Friedman's adage, "To spend is to tax."  I cannot really come up with a better word than juvenile for the tea parties -- don't protest the taxes unless you can identify the specific cuts in expenditures that you would make to bring the budget into balance.  If you think taxes are bad, then you should think deficits are worse, because they raise the taxes of people who were not represented in the decisions to spend the money. That's the real lesson from the Revolutionary War period that should be drawn.  And the danger for the Libertarians is that if they don't put the reduction in expenditures ahead of the reduction in taxes on their agenda, they are destined for another abusive relationship down the road.  This title of an Economix post [by David Leonhardt] had it right, "Where Were the Medicare Tea Parties?" 

Jonathan Versen FTW!!!!

We have a new world snark champion!

Hoisted from comments: Jonathan Versen on the Republican Party's denunciation of Obama as anti-slavery:

Republican National Committee Attacks Obama For Opposing Slavery: Can't we just agree to disagree three-fifths of the time?

Republican National Committee Attacks Obama For Opposing Slavery

From Media Matters:

Barack Obama, September 6, 2001: A September 6, 2001 program called "Slavery and the Constitution" on WBEZ Chicago.... Obama explained that the "fundamental flaw" [in the Constitution] was [that] "Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers." In addition, the framers did not "see...it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth." http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=639

And today, the Republican National Committee:

RNC: as he prepares to deliver remarks in hall that holds the constitution, flashback obama: "constitution flawed" http://bit.ly/tFL7O #RNC [Twitter, 5/21/09] http://twitter.com/RNC/status/1869456831

I understand that Barry Goldwater turned the Republican Party into a party that thought the most important piece of individual freedom was the right to keep Black people out of restaurants and schools, and that Richard Nixon turned the Republican Party into the party of people who just don't like Black people, but this is ridiculous.

Republicans, the Stupid Party; it's Much Worse than I Thought (Niall Ferguson Edition)

Not only Republican intellectuals not pushing back against the RNC's self-abusive claim that the Democratic Party "is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals," thy hace written down the talking point and are running with it. A friend directs me to Andrew Purcell's report:

Niall Ferguson v Paul Krugman: Krugman was lost for words. “Boy,” he shook his head, “Oh dear.” He took issue with Ferguson’s sums and with neoconservative economics as a who.... On the core subject of deficit spending, Ferguson could not find a single ally.... [I]n one last defiant gesture, revelling in his role as pantomime villain, reached for the ultimate conservative put-down: “If you wanna try the Soviet model, fine...”

Krugman and Soros groaned loudly. The audience booed. Moderator Jeff Madrick interrupted once, then twice, talking over Ferguson’s objections. “We’re doing you a good turn by not extending this ten minutes,” he suggested...

Barack Obama is a Keynesian (and not enough of one, at that), not a Marxist. John Maynard Keynes is not Karl Marx. The last time any bunch of people argued what Niall Ferguson does it was the honchos of National Review in the 1950s, who denied the possibility of any third-way alternative at all to either laissez-faire or Soviet Russia, who lauded Francisco Franco as Europe's greatest twentieth-century politician, who thought there was a serious chance that George C. Marshall was part of the conspiracy so immense that had handed China and was working to hand America over to Josef Stalin, and believed that white southerners had the right and duty to deny African-Americans the vote by "such measures as are necessary to prevail."

Is this the company that Niall Ferguson really wants to be in? Apparently so.

And what did John Maynard Keynes think of the Soviet Union? This, from his A Short View of Russia:

Leninism is a combination of two things which Europeans have kept for some centuries in different compartment of the soul--religion and business. We are shocked because the religion is new, and conemputous because the business... is highly inefficient. Like other new religions, Leninism derives its power not from the multitude but from a small minority of enthusiastic converts, whose zeal and intolerance make each one the equal in strength of a hundred indifferentists. Like other new religions it is led by those who can combine teh new spirit, perhaps sincerely, with seeing a good deal more than their followers, politicians with at leat an average dose of political cynicism who can smile as well as frown, volatile exporimentalists.... Like other new religions it actively persecutes without justice or pity.... But to say that Leninism is the faith of a persecuting and propagating minority of fanatics led by hypocrites is, after all, to say no more nor less than that it is a religion and not merely a party, and that Lenin a Mahomet not a Bismarck...

I sympathize with those who seek for something good in Soviet Russia. But when we come to the actual thing what is one to say? For me... Red Russia holds too much which is detestable.... How can I admire a policy which finds a characteristic expression in spending millions to suborn spies in every family and group at home?... How can I accept a doctrine which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete text-book [Marx] which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above bourgeois and the intelligentsia who, whatever their faults, are the quality in life and surely carry the seeds of all human advancement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values...

On the eonomic side I cannot perceive that Russian communism has made any contribution to our economic problems of intellectual interest or scientific value.... [W]e have everything to lose by the methods of violent change. In Western industrial conditions the tactics of Red Revolution would throw the entire population into a pit of poverty and death...

Yet the elation, when that is felt, is very great. Here--one feels at moments--in spite of poverty, stupidity, and oppression, is the laboratory of life. Here the chemicals are being mixed in new combinations, and stink and explode. Something--there is just a chance--might come out.... Russia will never matter seriously to the rest of us unless it be as a moral force. So, now the deeds are done and there is no going back, I should like to give Russia her chance; to help and not to hinder. For how much rather, even after allowing for everything, if I were a Russian would I contribute my quota of activity to Soviet Russia than to Tsarist Russia! I could not subscribe to the new official faith any more than to the old. I should detest the actions of the new tyrants not less than those of the old. But I should feel that my eyes were turned towards and no longer away from the possibilities of things; that out of the cruelty and stupidity of Old Russia nothing could ever emerge, but beneath the cruelty and stupidity of New Russia some speck of the ideal may lie hid.

Republicans: The Really Stupid Party (Part CCXXII)

Well, by the Holy Name of the One Who Was, Is, and Will Be, the Republican National Committee went and did it:

Jimmy Orr at the Christian Science Monitor: "Resolved, that we the members of the Republican National Committee recognize that the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals."

Since Obama is not a socialist--at most he's a Keynesian, and less of a Keynesian than many of us would wish--this is the equivalent for a political party of defecating in its own pants: something that two-year-olds do because they haven't quite got the "you can control your own anal sphincter muscle" business down, something three-year-olds do when mad because it gets your parents' attention and makes them upset, and something four-year-olds and up realize hurts them more than anyone else.

Most disturbing is the absence of Republican push back from politicians and intellectuals. If the Democratic National Committee were to pass a resolution stating "Resolved, that we the members of the Democratic National Committee recognize that the Republican Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along fascist ideals," Democratic office-holders, candidates, and intellectuals would be out there in angry mobs, denouncing the DNC as having done something stupid and false, something damaging to the party and destructive for America. And I would be out there with them, denouncing the DNC in terms that make my views on Hillary Rodham Clinton and Ira Magaziner's stewardship of health care reform in 1993-1994 look like weak toast, or milk tea.

But from the Republican side of the aisle? The office holders? The candidates? The ex-cabinet members and ex-assistant secretaries? The intellectuals? Not a peep of complaint.

I hope it's just stunned silence...

If anyone runs across any Republican with even the slightest amount of guts on this issue, please drop a pointer to them in the comments...

John Roberts, Wingnut

Jeff Toobin:

Annals of Law: No More Mr. Nice Guy: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker: Roberts’s hard-edged performance at oral argument offers more than just a rhetorical contrast to the rendering of himself that he presented at his confirmation hearing. “Judges are like umpires,” Roberts said at the time. “Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.” His jurisprudence as Chief Justice, Roberts said, would be characterized by “modesty and humility.” After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party...

How Much Intellectual Steam Did the Conservative Movement Ever Have?

Richard Posner writes that the American conservative movement is losing intellectual steam:

Is the Conservative Movement Losing Steam? Posner: Until the late 1960s (when I was in my late twenties), I was barely conscious of the existence of a conservative movement. It was obscure and marginal... Barry Goldwater... Ayn Rand, Russell Kirk, and William Buckley--figures who had no appeal for me. More powerful conservative thinkers... Milton Friedman... Friedrich Hayek... George Stigler, were on the scene, but were not well known outside the economics profession.

The domestic disorder of the late 1960s, the excesses of Johnson's "Great Society," significant advances in the economics of antitrust and regulation, the "stagflation" of the 1970s, and the belief (which turned out to be mistaken) that the Soviet Union was winning the Cold War--all these developments stimulated the growth of a varied and vibrant conservative movement... free-market economics... "neoconservatism" in the sense of a strong military and a rejection of liberal internationalism... cultural conservatism, involving respect for traditional values, resistance to feminism and affirmative action, and a tough line on crime.

The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the surge of prosperity worldwide that marked the global triumph of capitalism, the essentially conservative policies, especially in economics, of the Clinton administration, and finally the election and early years of the Bush Administration, marked the apogee of the conservative movement.... By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes.... I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of "originalism," the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004....

[T]he policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings... weak in conception... failed in execution... political flops.... The major blows to conservatism... have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.

By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.

And then came the financial crash last September and the ensuing depression. These unanticipated and shocking events have exposed significant analytical weaknesses in core beliefs of conservative economists concerning the business cycle and the macroeconomy generally. Friedmanite monetarism and the efficient-market theory of finance have taken some sharp hits, and there is renewed respect for the macroeconomic thought of John Maynard Kenyes, a conservatives' bête noire...

At least Posner knows (unlike his co-blogger Gary Becker) what "conservatism" means.

But is he arguing that conservatism has lost steam or that it never had much steam in the first place?

Richard Posner sees things wrong with Bush era conservatism:

• fiscal incontinence
• the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect
• cultural-conservative issues ("continued preoccupation with abortion" "religious criteria in the selection of public officials")
• the failure of military force as a first resort in attempting to achieve U.S. foreign-policy objectives

But weren't these also the key components of the Reagan administration. Ronald Reagan was the original fiscal incontinence. And the substitution of will for intellect--was it ever any greater than in the rush to cut taxes to raise revenues, or in Alexander Haig's belief that U.S. national security would be enhanced if the IDF gave the Syrian army a thrashing in Lebanon? We had to rely on the alliance of Nancy Reagan and her astrologer to get a sane policy toward Gorbachev, for God's sake. And cultural conservatives--if I understand Posner, his complaint is that Reagan paid them only lip service and they patiently sat in the back of the bus and were quiet, while Bush, Palin, and Joe the Plumber take them seriously.

And, of course, the piece of Reagan-era conservatism of which Posner was most proud--deregulation and the trimming-back of government--has either turned out to be (a) destructive, or (b) accomplished by Carter and Clinton.

How much intellectual steam did hte conservative movement ever have?

Republicans: The Stupid Party

I have said it before and I will say it again: no member of any university has any business being a Republican. I'll make it stronger: every member of every university has a strong positive moral duty to do whatever he or she can to undermine and transform the Republican Party.

Satyam Khanna watches the train wreck that is Michael Pence (R-IN):

Think Progress: Pence: I’m Not ‘Anti-Science’... But I Don’t Believe In Global Warming, Stem Cell Research, Or Evolution: Last month, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) announced the creation of the House GOP American Energy Solutions Group, which will “work on crafting Republican solutions to lower energy prices for American families and small businesses.” Undermining the seriousness of the task force, the GOP announced that it was appointing climate change denier Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to the group. Another member of the organization is Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN). In a contentious debate with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews today, the third-ranking House Republican claimed that the science behind climate change is “mixed.” Pence did, however, admit that it is “fair” to question whether that makes him a discredited messenger on energy issues:

PENCE: Well let me tell you. I think the science is very mixed on the subject of global warming, Chris.

Q: Then why should your party believe you’re going to get serious about it, if you say the science is mixed?

PENCE: Yeah, it’s a fair question. But look. I’m all for clean air. I’m all for clean coal technology. I’m sure reducing CO2 emissions would be a positive thing.

“In the mainstream media, there is a denial of the growing skepticism in the scientific community on global warming,” Pence bellowed.... It’s unclear what “growing skepticism” on man-made climate change Pence is seeing. But his anti-science tirade was just beginning. Pence then defended his party’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research, falsely claiming there were alternatives that “obviated” the need for embryonic research. And when Matthews pressed Pence on whether he believes in evolution — an undeniable fact and the foundation of biology — Pence said he believes in creationism:

PENCE: Uh, do I believe in evolution? I embrace the view that God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Seas and all that’s in them. The means that he used to do that, I can’t say, but I do believe in that fundamental truth.

“Did you take biology in school?” asked an incredulous Matthews. “If your party wants to be credible on science, you gotta accept science. … I don’t think your party is passionately committed to science, or fighting global warming, or dealing with the scientific facts we live with.”

“Tell me what you really think, Chris,” Pence retorted. “This anti-science thing is a little bit weak.”

Flash: GOP Chairman Michael Steele Says Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins No Longer Members of the Republican Party

How did I miss this? The Obama fiscal boost vote, Republican Party Chair Michael Steele says, was "a party call... a stand-up moment for every Republican.... [Y]ou voted yourself out of the party..."

Wow.

Context from the Republican Party state convention in LaCrosse, Wisconsin:

GOP chairman Steele to moderates La Crosse convention: All you moderates out there, y'all come. I mean, that's the message. The message of this party is this is a big table for everyone to have a seat. I have a place setting with your name on the front. Understand that when you come into someone's house, you're not looking to change it. You come in because that's the place you want to be....

That vote on the stimulus bill was the effectiveness of a party call. That was a stand-up moment for every Republican.... And so, you voted yourself out of the party. We didn't kick you out...

Senate Republicans: The Racist Party

The Republicans put Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III in charge of their faction of the Judiciary Committee.

Sarah Wildman:

Closed Sessions: [In 1986] Sessions was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. The year before his nomination to federal court, he had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers--including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr.--on a tenuous case of voter fraud. The three had been working in the "Black Belt" counties of Alabama.... Sessions's focus on these counties to the exclusion of others caused an uproar among civil rights leaders, especially after hours of interrogating black absentee voters produced only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of more than 1.7 million cast in the state in the 1984 election. The activists, known as the Marion Three, were acquitted in four hours.... Civil rights groups charged that Sessions had been looking for voter fraud in the black community and overlooking the same violations among whites, at least partly to help reelect his friend Senator Denton....

Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down the throats of people." In his confirmation hearings, Sessions sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. Hebert testified that... Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking.... He further admitted to calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation."...

[A] black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest.... Sessions... warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks." Figures echoed Hebert's claims, saying he too had heard Sessions call various civil rights organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "un-American."...

The Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee finally voted ten to eight against sending Sessions to the Senate floor. The decisive vote was cast by the other senator from Alabama, Democrat Howell Heflin, a former Alabama Supreme Court justice, who said, "[M]y duty to the justice system is greater than any duty to any one individual"...

Arlen Specter Really Wants a Primary Challenge

Arlen Specter decided that he could not win the Republican primary in Pennsylvania next year. But he does not seem to have figured out that now he needs to win the Democratic primary. If he has figured it out, he is going about it all wrong.

Ben Armbruster:

Think Progress » Specter: ‘I Did Not Say I Am A Loyal Democrat’: Shortly after news leaked that Sen. Arlen Specter would be switching from the Republican to the Democratic Party, media reports quoted Specter telling President Obama he would be a “loyal Democrat” who would support his agenda:

At 10:32am, President Barack Obama reached Specter and told him “you have my full support” and “thrilled to have you.” Specter told the president, “I’m a loyal Democrat. I support your agenda.”

Specter immediately exhibited his loyalty by restating his opposition to Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel, and by joining every Republican in Congress in voting against the president’s budget.

Today on Meet The Press, host David Gregory asked Specter if he would be supporting Obama’s health care plan given reports of his loyalty to Obama’s agenda. “No,” Specter said, adding that he never said he would be a “loyal Democrat”:

GREGORY: It was reported this week that when you met with the president, you said, “I will be a loyal democrat. I support your agenda.” Let me test that on probably one of the most important areas of his agenda, and that’s health care. Would you support health care reform that puts up a government run public plan to compete with a private plan issued by a private insurance company?

SPECTER: No. And you misquote me, David. I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that. And last week, after I said I was changing parties, I voted against the budget because the budget has a way to pass health care with 51 votes, which undermines a basic Senate institution to require 60 votes to impose closure on key issues. …I did not say I am a loyal Democrat.

Justice Souter’s Retirement

Nino Scalia on David Souter:

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia: David and I have served on this bench together for almost 20 years — sitting next to each other at argument for all of that time. I will miss his always intelligent contribution to our work, but most of all I will miss his companionship. The only consolation is that I am sure he will be happy back in his cold and beloved New Hampshire.

Clarence Thomas on David Souter:

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas: I have been privileged to serve on the Court with Justice Souter for almost two decades. It is an honor to have been one of his colleagues at the Court. Though deeply saddened by the departure of a friend and colleague, I am comforted by the knowledge that the bonds of friendship that have been formed during our toils here shall happily remain firm. Virginia and I wish him much happiness and contentment.

David Souter on Nino Scalia and Clarence Thomas, from The Nine:

[David Souter's] whole life was being a judge. He came from a tradition where the independence of the judiciary was the foundation of the rule of law. And Souter believed Bush v. Gore mocked that tradition. His colleagues’ actions were so transparently, so crudely partisan that Souter thought he might not be able to serve with them anymore. Souter seriously considered resigning. For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice. That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same. There were times when David Souter thought of Bush v. Gore and wept.

John Judis: Jack Kemp. R.I.P.

From <>:

Jack Kemp. R.I.P.: Kemp, a former congressman who ran for president in 1988 and for vice president in 1996 with Bob Dole, never quite had the deep abiding ambition that it takes to become president, and the reason had a lot to do with that photograph on his wall. When Kemp grew up in Los Angeles in the 1950s, he had one ambition in life--to be a pro football quarterback. And it wasn’t obvious that he was going to succeed.

Kemp was barely six feet tall--too short to see over on-rushing linemen. He wasn’t recruited by any big college programs, and ended up starring at Occidental, a small Southern California school better known for its political science than its touchdowns. He wanted to play in the pros, but he was drafted in the 17th round by the Detroit Lions and was cut before the season began. Kemp's friends advised him to quit but he persisted.

Finally, in 1960, when he was signed by the Los Angeles (later San Diego) Chargers of the fledgling American Football League, and given a chance to star, he made up in savvy and determination what he lacked in size. In 1962, as a result of a front-office slip-up, he was waived to the Buffalo Bills, whom he then led to two AFL championships. In 1965, Kemp was the league's most valuable player....

Kemp... had very little of the cut-throat, I’ll-do-anything-to-win quality that sometimes characterizes successful politicians. He was a Reagan Republican, but unlike Reagan, he did not cultivate the façade of the happy warrior. That’s pretty much who he was. Quarterbacks don’t fit the stereotype of the dumb jock.... It shouldn’t have been surprising that Kemp ended up a conservative Republican, especially on economics. His father had built a trucking business from the ground up, and Kemp himself had succeeded in his own business of football entirely on his wits and ability. He worshipped at the shrine of entrepreneurial capitalism, and when capitalism faltered in the 1970s, he naturally looked to government as the villain, and found it in high marginal tax rates.  

But unlike George W. Bush, Kemp was really a compassionate conservative. He called himself a “progressive conservative bleeding heart Abraham Lincoln Ronald Reagan George Bush Republican.” (He included George Bush out of courtesy to his employer.)  From his own experience, he didn’t draw the conclusion that he was special, but that he was fortunate... and he spent most of his political life trying to figure out a system where everyone could succeed....

By the 1990s, Kemp had a feeling that his time was past--that the Republican party was headed in a direction that he wasn’t going to be able to follow. He liked to cite Winston Churchill--not the Churchill of the Iron Curtain speech, but Churchill the Tory who in the early 1900s quit the Tory party for the Liberals because he thought it had become too conservative. I don’t think Kemp ever considered switching parties, but he was clearly dissatisfied with his own...

We Mourn Jack Kemp

One of the few senior Republicans to try to undo the curse of Richard Nixon, Jack Kemp 1935-2009 was a pillar of and an ornament to the American republic:

The Associated Press: AP Top News at 10:42 p.m. EDT: WASHINGTON (AP) — Jack Kemp, the ex-quarterback, congressman, one-time vice-presidential nominee and self-described "bleeding-heart conservative" died Saturday. His spokeswoman Bona Park and longtime friend and former campaign adviser Edwin J. Feulner confirmed that Kemp died after a lengthy illness.

David Frum Looks into the Future and Does Not Like What He Sees...

He sees a Club for Growth boot stamping on the face of the Republican Party forever::

How to rebuild the GOP: The political party of Sumner, Lodge, and Dewey retains a minimal presence in the northeast.... These New England senators are not as conservative as the rest of the Republican caucus.... They are, however, much more conservative than most of the Democratic caucus.... It ought to be obvious to any Republican why we need to make room for politicians like Snowe and Collins in our party. It’s not like we have so many votes that we can afford to throw them away. And yet, some Republicans responded to the defection this week of Senator Arlen Specter by saying: “Good riddance—don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”... So what to do? How do we Republicans reverse this downward spiral?

First, how about we stop eating our own? Over the past few years, we have seen a series of primary challenges by conservative Republicans against moderate incumbents.... Second, Republicans have to find some way to make internal peace on the abortion issue. The GOP is a majority pro-life party.... But New England and the mid-Atlantic are regions where Republican officeholders tend to be pro-choice.... If we restrict pro-choice candidates from ever being considered for the national ticket, in effect we are placing a ceiling on the careers of Northeastern Republicans.... Politicians are creatures of ambition. If a national party bars politicians of a certain region from the highest offices, those politicians will gravitate to places—and parties—where their ambitions can be gratified. By penalizing pro-choice candidates, Republicans are not only making their party increasingly unelectable in the present, they are repelling the very people who might help restore electability in the future....

Right now, I fear, the Republican mood is not conducive to party building. It’s a mandate for party shrinkage. Our current demand, to paraphrase P.G. Wodehouse, is for “fewer and better Republicans.” Better is always nice. But in democratic politics, quality is no substitute for quantity.

For policy-oriented Republicans, the curses of Richard Nixon--that the policy of the Republican Party was to keep African-Americans down--and of Ronald Reagan--that the policy of the Republican Party was to make the budget defici big--were devastating: they overwhelmed what was potentially good in the positions of the Republican Party, and meant that each episode of Republican rule left the country worse-off, weaker, and poorer than it would have been otherwise. And attempts by Jack Kemp to break the curse of Nixon and by George H.W. Bush and Richard Darman to break the curse of Reagan failed.

But they did win elections--or, at least, some elections. And even though the winning of elections was pointless and empty, it did keep the party a going concern as a political force.

Now it looks as though the Republicans have called down on themselves a third curse--call it the curse of McCain: when Tom Ridge is not and Sarah Palin is a viable vice-presidential nomineee for the Republican Party, the downward spiral can only continue.

Were I David Frum, I would start arguing for super-open primaries for the Republican Party--that everyone, Republican, independent, or Democrat, can vote in the Republican primary without becoming a member of the party for even one day. The curses of Nixon, Reagan, and McCain have created a self-reinforcing circle of party members that dooms the party for the long run, I think, and I can see no other way to get out of it.

A Statement by Brad DeLong

In response to:

A Statement by Senator Arlen Specter:

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania's economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy's statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

All I can say to Senator Specter is: spend the next year working as hard to court the Democratic base as you have worked to court the Republican wingnut base over the past decade, or I am maxing out for every single challenger you face in the Democratic primary.

Just saying...

Government Spending We Don't Need: Susan Collins Edition

Can't we get some better senators from Maine? Matthew Yglesias:

Susan Collins and Pandemic Flu: Boy, it sure is great that Susan Collins made sure we didn’t waste any money on pandemic flu preparations in the Recovery Act. That’s moderation I can believe in!

Michael Tomasky on How Newt Gingrich Has No Rightful Place in American Politics or Government

Michael:

Michael Tomasky: Did an Obama judicial nominee really express a preference for Allah over Jesus?: From the second I read the sentence, I knew there was something fishy about it. Many years' experience in reading and then looking into rightwing canards set off the usual alarm bells in my head. So I know how these things work. But even I was shocked after I looked into the truth of the matter. My daily readings led me to an interview with Newt Gingrich in Christianity Today. The former speaker was asked whether opposition to tax increases was an adequate "uniting message" for his party. Gingrich replied that there had to be more to the party's story. For instance, he said:

You have Obama nominating Judge Hamilton, who said in her ruling that saying the words Jesus Christ in a prayer is a sign of inappropriate behavior, but saying Allah would be OK. You'll find most Republican senators voting against a judge who is confused about whether you can say Jesus Christ in a prayer, particularly one who is pro-Muslim being able to say Allah. That seemed, frankly, ridiculous. I happened to know that the "Hamilton" in question was from Indiana.... I also happened to know that "her" first name was David, so Gingrich could not get even this basic fact straight.... So I wanted to know more.... [A] search returned thousands of rabid posts from the wing-o-sphere about this judge who thinks Indianans should be allowed to pray to Allah but not to Jesus.... [E]ventually I found my way to... Hamilton's actual decision... Hinrichs v Bosma.... Naturally, it's all a lie, but as I said, even I was shocked at how rancidly despicable a lie it was....

Hamilton's decision is eminently calm and even-keeled... he relies on two decisions from the fourth judicial circuit... the country's most conservative.... Wynn v Town of Great Falls. The town council opened its meetings with a prayer that regularly mentioned Jesus Christ.... Not only did Hamilton rely on the country's most conservative federal circuit court, he specifically cited an opinion written by one of the most conservative jurists on that court. Judge J Harvie Wilkinson is always on the short list when a US supreme court seat opens up during a Republican presidency. But even Wilkinson wrote....

We cannot adopt a view of the tradition of legislative prayer that chops up American citizens on public occasions into representatives of one sect and one sect only, whether Christian, Jewish or Wiccan. In private observances, the faithful surely choose to express the unique aspects of their creeds. But in their civic faith, Americans have reached more broadly. Our civic faith seeks guidance that is not the property of any sect....

[H]ere's where the lie comes in... what did [Hamilton] say about Allah?... [T]he decision doesn't so much as mention Allah.... Read this paragraph, from page 49:

The Speaker has also suggested that such an explicit caution about Christian references "would be the first known religious viewpoint discrimination in connection with the Indiana House invocation."... The criticism is misguided. The decisive point of constitutional law is that a practice of sectarian prayer favouring any particular religion violates the establishment clause. From the evidence here, it is clear that the letters asking invited clerics to "strive for an ecumenical prayer" have not been sufficient to prevent many Christian speakers from using the prayer opportunity to advance and even to proselytise Christianity. The same strictures will apply to sectarian Jewish or Muslim prayers, for example. This record, however, shows no efforts by Jewish or Muslim clerics to use the prayer opportunity to advance their particular religions. At this juncture, there is no need to be more specific in the injunction as to what would amount to a sectarian prayer in those traditions.

The same strictures will apply!... [T]he wingers have taken the last sentence of this paragraph, yanked it completely out of context, and then taken the extra step (or two or three) of insinuating that of course, this kind of Godless heathen is exactly the sort of nominee you'd expect from a secret Muslim president....

I'd like to report that this is unusual, but this kind of slippery illogic is standard operating procedure on today's right. Find something that might inflame opinion and stoke prejudice, and pump it. Doesn't matter that it isn't really true. By the time the other side explains that it isn't true, we'll already have won. They know that no one's going to read page 49 of a legal opinion. As it happens this time someone did, but often, alas, they're right.

These are sick, sick people. May their Jesus consign them to history's ash heap.