Is That Booker with an H? (and Open Thread)

 

"Government Center" - Modern Lovers

What can I say -- I'm in a Boston kind of mood these days.  (That's David Robinson, later drummer for the Cars and Jerry Harrison, later of Talking Heads, next to Jonathan Richman in the front row.)

- Like many people I was aghast at Cory Booker attacking Obama for attacking Romneyand Bain Capital.  It seemed like one of those moments where being a Democrat feels utterly hopeless.  I am heartened to find that Booker's betrayal was not the result of terminal naivete or being a squish, but rather prior and evidently superceding loyalties.  What a phony putz.

- I actually thought the thirty day sentence for Darhun Ravi was about right.  Being a jerk is not a criminal offense.  If it were, our already overcrowded prisons would likely need to be expanded ten fold.  Anyone interested in the case should check out this excellent New Yorker article, which leaves more questions than answers.  

- I am not sure how people can read about the many wrongful convictions that take place in the United States -- for the most serious of crimes -- and still favor the death penalty.  Essentially it indicates that one believes it is acceptable for an innocent person to be put to death from time to time.  And this strikes me as monstrous.

- Speaking of monstrous, what is wrong with these people?  It's depressing that certain aspects of the American political dialogue are unchanged over forty years. 

- Update: I meant to link to this excellent article by Katha Pollitt in The Nation regarding "attachment parenting."  Once again, these trends and inflammatory cover stories like that recently featured in Time all seem geared to manipulating women, to spreading guilt and promoting division, all the while remaining grossly unrepresentative of the population writ large.  Men remain totally immune to this sort of thing -- basically anything we do in this sphere is seen as above and beyond the call.  (From the time that our son was four months old until he was about 12 I did most of the dropping off and picking up from day care and school because we were a one car family and my wife took the subway to work while our son was in Metro inaccessible places.  As a result I also did a lot of the mid-day school functions and the like.  When you do this sort of thing as a man, you get treated like some kind of hero.  I used to laugh about this a lot to my wife, who strangely was less amused about it than I was.)  The day that a man who says he is going to "babysit" his kids gets ostracized will be the day when you know that progress has been made on this score.

Trying to get a couple of posts done on Tim Noah's The Great Divergence and a recent Wall Street Journal travesty attacking union-sponsored pension plans.  In the meantime, I turn it over to you.

Comments

[Bill H]

" Like many people I was aghast at Cory Booker attacking Obama for attacking Romney and Bain Capital."

Indeed. How dare a Democrat disagree with President Obama?

[Sir Charles]

Yes Bill that was my point -- no Democrat should ever criticize Obama.

Not that Corey Booker was disloyal in his role as a campaign surrogate (which was why he was on TV in the first place), nor that he gave aid and comfort to Mitt Romney and his campaign, not that he essentially spouted a GOP talking point with respect to Bain, nor that he undermined a major theme of the campaign, that Bain engaged in a kind of rapacious vulture capitalism that is utterly unconcerned with the common good -- no, my point was that Obama is unassailable.

Way to spot the issue.

[oddjob]

Essentially it indicates that one believes it is acceptable for an innocent person to be put to death from time to time. And this strikes me as monstrous.

What? You mean you don't believe you have to break eggs to make an omelette???

The death penalty is not evidence of a civilized society.

[oddjob]

It's depressing that certain aspects of the American political dialogue are unchanged over forty years.

Sigh...............

[oddjob]

Wingnut archbishop needs a waaaambulance.

[oddjob]

He also doesn't seem to understand that it was the requirement of Catholic universities to tow the line that caused them to once be regarded by non-Catholic Americans as inferior places to get a college degree.

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

I love how these clowns think that by hanging a crucifix in a classroom that they should somehow be exempt from what are essentially labor laws.

There was a wingnut church a number of years ago run by lunatic Tony Alamo, which claimed to not believe in paying overtime to workers. The Supreme Court did not really have a difficult time disposing of that nonsense. This strikes me as not terribly different.

[oddjob]

How many Opus Dei members were on the SCOTUS bench when they made that ruling?

[Sir Charles]

Ha!

[Bill H]

Oh my gosh. Disloyalty. That's even worse. I hadn't thought of that. Can he go to prison for that?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Bill: Not only do I wish you had actually engaged us instead of just tossing out lines that demonstrated you hardly ever had seen how we talk here, I also wish you had engaged us more fully because I actually clicked through to your website, and you have an interesting perspective that would be valuable. (Only take a brief course in recognizing irony, it really will be a help in avoiding fatheaded comments like the ones you did make.)

An ex-steelworker, somewhat libertarian in general, but with an understanding of the need for business and industry regulation. That'd be a really valuable addition here, if you'd just go back and read some of the commentary and see we aren't the people you think we are.

I may be Obama's strongest critic here, but I'm far from the only one. I have called him immature, inexperienced, a bungler, someone who confuses speechmaking with leadership, someone who can present a good idea in a way that turns people off it, someone insanely devoted to the idea of 'post-partisanship' at a time when Republican partisanship -- to the point of injuring the country to injure Obama -- is at its highest. I think he has no concept of the Keynsian economics that has driven the Democratic party in the right directing since FDR, and that I wonder if there is a solid core of belief ion any one principle. (Despite this, he's still better than any Republican National office holder I know, not to mention the arrogant cartoon version of Thruston Howell they nominated, and we have no choice but to support him, despite his flaws, and work for a more progressive Congress -- not give up the way the DumbestNationalCommittee has a tendency to do -- just to keep him pointed in the right way.)

And if you find Krugman so obnoxious, perhaps you would find the writing of my own favorite economist, a woman who writes under the name Desert Beacon. I think you might find her writings at least more direct and might find yourself agreeing more than you think.

[Sir Charles]

Bill,

If you sign on to be a surrogate for a campaign, you actually do have an obligation to be loyal. If you want to be a self-promoter for the Broder set, then you should sit it out and enjoy playing the Lieberman role on the Sunday programs. But you're either on board or your not. You can't have it both ways like Booker seems to want to do.

And actually, anyone who cares a bit about liberal politics has an obligation right now to devote all of their effort to defeating Romney and the Republicans. Trimming in this way -- particularly on behalf of Wall Streeters -- is a huge disservice to those who want to stop the enactment of the right wing agenda.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The irony, of course, is that Romney's own surrogates have mocked him, said how they were 'supporting him but wished they had someone else to vote for,' and had, in some cases to be disavowed because of the embarrassment they caused (Paul Babeu). Steve Benen and Rachel Mddow have been running pieces on this frequently, and -- my sound card is busted, can't hear videos on the desktop -- I think Rachel did a long piece on this last night, judging from the cites at her blog.

But then, they've given up on him, as I keep on trying to explain. They want to hold Congress, and if -- here he goes again -- we don't fight on that battleground, our guaranteed hold of the White House might be a symbolic, Pyrrhic victory.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Another comment to Bill H -- wish you'd stuck with "Jayhawk." I've put your blog in my RSIP (Random Smart and Interesting People) folder. I am not sure how you do with the give-and-take of arguing and discussion, but you do make some good points. I have no problem suggesting to other people here to check out "Another Tin Bugle". The unnecessary knock at Obama -- and the delusion you have that Democrats, even Krugman -- are "Obamabots," are a little tooth-jangling, but the parts before that raise some excellent points.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I wish I were as confident as you.

I think Obama will win, but I remain worried about all of the uncontrollable aspects of the economy, especially what is happening in Europe. A real slide there could be very harmful to Obama's chances.

[oddjob]

LOL! Someone is planning to auction a vial of what is purported to be Ronald Reagan's blood!

Someone has decided the man's fans will want a vial of his blood. That's the sort of thing that happens with saints!

Talk about nuts.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir C: I don't think even that sort of a catastrophe would elect Romney. If it happened early, before mid-July, Obama would have plenty of time to show his own control of the situation, and how totally Romney -- as usual -- misunderstood the situation and offered disastrous advice. But after that, it would already be too late for Romney to profit.

Between the policies of the Republican party like the "War on Women", the constant lying and finanical suspicious history of Romney, and the extremist positions he will be stuck with -- his base is too suspicious of him for him to risk a pivot -- he will have alienated so many voters -- whether they would vote for Obama or just stay home -- that there will not be a big enough pool of undecided voters for him to build a majority from.

That will be true before the Convention, but this is 5-gallon tin of popcorn level entertainment. It was going to be anyway, with the TP types and the platform they'll construct, and the fights over the VP, but with the nasty but brilliant games the Paulistas have been playing in caucus states and with state parties, "Hurry, hurry, hurry, step right up ladies and gentleman for the most stupendous show of the year. More clowns, more high-wire acts..."

By the time that circus is through, well, can you imagine any world catastrophe that would have elected Goldwater, McGovern, or Dukakis once the voters had dismissed them as clowns or madmen. This will be worse.

[more, hopefully, after the nap, including trying to explain that 'personality is vital to who you vote for' is not the same as 'would you want to have a beer with this guy?']

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Grr, my usual "I forgot to mention as well"

but just yesterday I saw -- I think on Benen's -- a Republican official saying that there was quite a credible possibility that Romney would have a plurality but not a majority by the time of the convention. If that happens

Make that popcorn a double!

And forget even a hint of pivot, if he has to deal to get the majority.

[oddjob]

I don't think even that sort of a catastrophe would elect Romney.

I do. The polls very consistently show a majority of the country thinks things are going the wrong way and that Romney & Obama are running neck and neck.

[Bill H]

Okay Jim, my reaction was not well advised. I am, perhaps, too overly steeped in the liberal tradition of independent thinking to respond well to such concepts as "party loyalty" which seems to have permeated the Democratic Party lately.

It seemed to me that Booker was calling for an end to the politics of personal attack and asking that the debate be on issues. He say that an end should be put to both the "vulture capitalism and jeremiah Wright," attacks and of course the only part that was heard was the first. It does seem to me that his arguement has some validity, in that attack politics does not serve us well.

[low-tech cyclist]

Bill: I am, perhaps, too overly steeped in the liberal tradition of independent thinking to respond well to such concepts as "party loyalty" which seems to have permeated the Democratic Party lately.

As SC pointed out, if you sign on to be a campaign surrogate, you do in fact have an obligation to be loyal. Because that means that you're volunteering for the campaign and that puts you in a different role than merely being a member of the party. This distinction should be obvious, especially now that it's been pointed out twice.

It seemed to me that Booker was calling for an end to the politics of personal attack and asking that the debate be on issues.

Bain Capital is in fact an issue. Hell, it's the only part of Romney's own record that Romney's trying to run on, since he appears to have essentially wiped his own brain clean of any association with his term as governor of Massachusetts. Without Bain, he literally doesn't have a record, public or private, to run on.

Romney's claiming that he was a 'job creator' during his time at Bain. It's entirely fair for Obama to talk about what Bain actually did under Romney's management. The alternative is to let Romney's claims about his record go unchallenged.

You are saying that attacking one's opponent's record constitutes "the politics of personal attack." That's absurd.

[low-tech cyclist]

On an unrelated note, a thing of beauty from today's WaPo chat (via DougJ of Balloon Juice):

Q. BIPARTISANSHIP

I love your blog because you’re one of the few bipartisan centrists who realize that both sides do it, where “it” is pretty much any bad thing. You’re like the post-punk David Broder. Have you always been so fair and balanced or is it something you learn over time as journamalist?
– May 22, 2012 11:14 AM Permalink

A. ALEXANDRA PETRI :

ALL RIGHT, WHO FILLED THIS CHAT WITH PLANTS WHO ARE BEING MUCH TOO KIND?

I’m going to start using “post-punk David Broder” on my promotional materials.

Thank you for saying this. I don’t know how often I succeed at this, but I really, really try. When I finally retrieved my mail after several months of allowing it to suppurate in the mail room, I was pleased to have notes from both sides complaining in strident terms that I was ruining everything. Some weeks the bar swings one way and some weeks it swings the other, but obviously no one party has a monopoly on idiocy. That would make things too easy.

– May 22, 2012 11:30

The comments (at Balloon Juice, not at WaPo) are golden as well.

[Sir Charles]

Bill,

There is nothing wrong with party loyalty. Party is by far the most important indicator of a candidate's world view and policy choices. If we care about such things as universal health care, the social safety net generally, labor rights, reproductive rights, gay rights, the necessary regulation of business, and the protection of the environment, among other things, then we have a clear duty to support and strengthen the Democratic Party. Nothing meaningful can be done in American politics unless the Democratic Party achieves a lasting position of preeminence.

As l-t c states, the notion that going after Bain is a personal attack seems silly. It is no more personal than saying that Romney was a lackluster governor or a remarkably inconstant and opportunistic politician with respect to the great issues of the day.

[beckya57]

Balloon Juice is a treasure.

For anyone interested in the travesty that is the "trend" article, I direct you to Susan Faludi's book "Backlash." It's been around a while, but is still very pertinent. She laid out the revolting nature of these articles--designed to make women who seek any nontraditional role feel guilty and/or anxious--very well many years ago.

As for Booker, Paul Krugman thinks he's cooked his own political ambitions with his recent appalling conduct, and I can only hope he's right.

[Sir Charles]

becky,

I loved Backlash.

I saw Susan Faludi give a reading when it first came out. She was terrific. (And, I must confess, sheepishly, really cute.)

In a just world, someone like Faludi (or Katha Pollitt or Barbara Ehrenreich) would be on the Times Op-Ed pages.

[Bill H]

Sir Charles, I also care about drone wars, killing of American citizens without due process, government secrecy, and a few old fashioned constitutional issues like that. Supporting Democrats tells them its okay with me for them to do that as a trade off for the things that you list, not all of which I buy in any case. It's not.

We don't have universal health care, we have the right for a majority to purchase health insurance, and even that is not universal. Labor rights are a hollow shell of what they once were and Democrats have not done one meaningful active step to enhance them. Regulation of business is a farce and JP Morgan and the Facebook IPO shows that Democrats have made no meaningful improvements in that realm. As to protection of the environment, Obama has opened up more offshore oil drilling than Bush did, even after the Gulf disaster.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Let me welcome Bill, and start arguing with him -- but please stay around. You have a perspective completely different from most of us, and a welcome one. (I don't think we have any ex-military people here, not ones whose service dates from the Cold War at least. And we have few people whose blogroll is so strongly on the Left, Digby, The Political Cat (oh, one reason for checking your blog is your own calico. My Kittenz -- still going strong after his 16th Birthday -- sends his best.), Balloon Juice, Washington Monthly.

Actually, I'll wait until tomorrow to overwhelm you with pruppish babble, but I will quote an old blogfriend I hadn't looked in on in a while -- and you might enjoy him as well, my favorite 82-year old progressive curmudgeon, Morialekafa -- the link is on the side, this is from the last post he made before the current short story:

When I first began this blog, almost eight years ago now, I still had a sense of humor and at least a semblance of imagination. It was not meant to be particularly political. The past ten or so years have changed me into a cynical, somewhat crabby, and increasingly unhappy individual. Where I once might have believed there were good guys and bad guys, perhaps even such a thing as good and evil in general, I have now discovered there are only bad guys, known as Democrats and worse guys, called Republicans.

That last is, of course the trouble. I can agree with everything you have said about Democratic failures -- and can add a few more, like the NC Democratic Party trying to draft Mike McIntire, the absolute worst of the Blue Dogs, for Governor, or Obama's overriding the FDA decision to allow the Morning After Pill to be OTC with no age limit, or the refusal of Democratic candidates to call homophobes homophobes and attack them for it.

I've argued that Obama is closer to the Republicans of Robert Taft -- economically -- than even to Eisenhower Republicans. Even Nixon understood and accepted Keynesianism more than he does. I've said his refusal to actually lead, to set a specific goal for his followers to follow, to get his party behind him and to take the lead on risky positions is shameful.

But Republicans are so much worse -- and yes I am getting tired of defending votes for poor candidates with that response -- but it continues to be true.

My solution is to support Obama -- who doesn't need it -- but tp yell as loudly as my weak voice can that we have to concentrate on Congress, on getting our people elected there -- and getting better candidates to run.

Jayhawk, got a better idea, and I am asking seriously. Naderite dreams are totally unrealistic, the Paulista myth is just that, and Romney is a clown who will -- I insist against everyone else here -- be defeated in a 72, 64, 84 level landslide, and his progressive side is as phony as everything else about him.

So what else can we do? (And, of course the question is open to everyone, its the same one I've been asking in different ways right along.)

[Sir Charles]

Bill,

This is the classic case of making the perfect the enemy of the good, it's the Nader 2000 mentality, and it is a complete underestimation of how bad the Republicans are and how important it is to hold on to the administrative levers of power that accompany the presidency, even if all you are doing is keeping the other guy from doing what he wants to do. The Republicans literally staff the agencies with people who are sworn enemies of the rights that their agencies are typically in place to defend.

Labor rights are a shell of what they have been due to the slow motion time bomb of the Taft-Hartley Act and the vicious anti-union quality of the Republicans -- particularly at the state level. I actually know several of Obama's NLRB appointments personally and you could not have better people on the Board. His Department of Labor is much better as well, albeit chronically short-staffed and underfunded. The only way to change labor's fate will be to change the underlying law and the only way that will ever happen will be with either the end of the filibuster or the election of a super-super majority in the Senate. A mere 60 votes won't do I'm afraid.

We don't have universal health care, but PPACA will get us a lot closer to that goal than anything that the opposition will ever propose.

I think most Americans support the drone war and there really isn't much of a constituency for ending it. As for the al-Alwaki killing, I suspect that you could rent a small conference room and you and Greenwald and the ten other people who are losing sleep over it can get together and congratulate yourselves on your moral rectitude. It really doesn't resonate with the electorate in the least little bit.

Jim,

Your comparison of Obama to Taft is just preposterous. Taft was a reactionary son of a bitch whose first priority when he got in the majority was the destruction of organized labor. As I noted above, he has been able to achieve this from beyond the grave due to what he put in the Taft-Hartley Act, one of the most insidious bits of legislative poisoning ever enacted.

Taft was no Keynsian. Obama in fact has been. For some reason, you completely write off the stimulus bill as though it never happened. It may have been too small for the challenges faced, but it was the biggest single intervention in the economy in terms of government spending in living memory. Obama's continuation of the Bush tax cuts -- however regressive -- and the payroll tax cut also qualify as Keynesian.

Again, there is no way that this election is going to be a landslide. At best Obama basically replicates 2008. At worst he loses. Most likely it ends up being a narrow win somewhere between 2004 and 2008.

Do you really think all of the polling is that flawed?

[Bill H]

Yeah, Jim, I do. Don't support that which you don't support.

My vote is my expression of the principles under which I want my country led, not "the least bad choice." Single issue voting is an error, but when a candidate voices, or practices, a vast array of repugnant policies and I merely respond with, "okay, but the other guy is worse" then how is the elected official and his successors to know that I oppose those policies?

We are looking only at the current election here, unwilling to tell the Democratic Party that they must adhere to the principles that we believe in or we will not support their candidate. Instead, we are telling them that we have no principles that matter to us, thet they can marry themselves to Wall Street, spend outlandishly on war and "national security" and trash civil liberties, and we will still vote for them.

Republicans have been stronger than that for decades. They have been willing to lose elections to tell their party that their principles matter to them. Democrats allow their elected officials to break promises to any degree, and frantically reelect them because they are terrified of "the other guy."

[oddjob]

Not that it's necessarily a surprise, but this story is on the front page of today's Boston Globe:

"The number of Massachusetts supporters contributing the maximum to President Obama’s campaign fund has plunged nearly 50 percent compared with his 2008 fledgling run, reflecting a sharp drop in enthusiasm since the president took office...."

[oddjob]

how is the elected official and his successors to know that I oppose those policies?

And if as a result you've permitted the worse candidate to occupy the White House how have you advanced your cause or made the country a better place to live?

[oddjob]

(I also wish there was another way to address this challenge because it's a valid one, but I don't know what that other way would be given the political system we've been given.)

[Bill H]

oddjob, in the long run it may have made the Democratic Party better by sending it a message that it needs to be more responsive to the people, that it needs to actually be the Democratic Party, as opposed to allowing it to continue as Republican Light. That would make the country a vastly better place to live. We need to think in longer terms than one single election.

Do you think this country cannot survive four years of Romney? You need to have a little more faith in this great nation. It survived Nixon, and it survived George W. Bush.

In any case, I'm not sure what Romney can do that is worse than assasinating American citizens without due process of law.

[Bill H]

"As for the al-Alwaki killing, I suspect that you could rent a small conference room and you and Greenwald and the ten other people who are losing sleep over it can get together and congratulate yourselves on your moral rectitude. It really doesn't resonate with the electorate in the least little bit."

Since I am not a sheep and don't follow the herd mentality, I don't really care what the "electorate" thinks about it. I don't cast my vote in order to be on the winning side, nor to I pick my cause for that reason.

We have a constitution. It spells out the conditions under which our government may end a person't life. Being afraid of that person is not one of those reasons, and the President killing a person without the process spelled out by the constitution is not something that I am simply going to cheer for just beacuse I want to sleep safely in my bed tonight.

And if you used that argument in a formal debate, the judges would vote against you unanimously, and would probably penalize you for invalid argument. "Who cares?" is not a valid debate point.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I have seen a lot of arguments for the position that most of us hold, a groan at Obama's many faults, but a requirement that we support him anyway, but few are as powerful as one on yet another new blog (new to us) that is worth knowing, Ramona's Voices a wonderful -- but painfully slow-loading -- blog from a 75-year old Lifelong Democrat. (I may be doing a little writing for it as well, she invites other people to join -- it's VoiceS not Voice. Maybe I'll finally get that long history piece finished.)

Anyway, the whole piece is worth reading and possibly replying to, but here's a key section:

I'll skip the rest of the conversation, except to add that there was some talk of giving up being a Democrat until 2016, when the opportunity to elect real progressives might present itself. (In other words, they'll be Democrats when and if being a Democrat is cool again, but don't expect them to do anything to make that happen.)

To this dedicated, lifetime Democrat (yes, I've talked about this before) that's like saying they'll give up being an American until America comes to its senses. Being a member of a major political party--one with power and clout and the potential ability to make real societal change--is not a part-time, fair weather pastime; it's a privilege and an obligation. It requires commitment and hard work. It requires a studious analysis of past and present performance in order to understand our role in strengthening our platform and choosing our stable of potential leaders.

It requires that we honor the heroes of our party and work to keep the fruits of their hard labor relevant, sustained and not in vain. It requires that we vet our candidates, draw out the very best, and support them to the hilt.

As Democrats we've signed on to stand firm against our enemies--the enemies of the people--and form a coalition that can't be broken. It's the only way we can fight against the privateers and build our country back again. So we work to maintain our party and when our leaders disappoint us or go against what our party stands for (not unheard of, sorry to say), we're required to set them straight. We never let up. We make them act like Democrats.

What we don't do is pick up our toys and go home. And we sure as hell don't work against our elected leaders and help the other guys win.

[oddjob]

We need to think in longer terms than one single election.

Indeed, but to get the Democratic Party to do that will require the same sort of decades of effort - and money - it required from Movement Conservatives and fundamentalist Christians to get the Republican Party to move as far right as it has.

No one likes the moderates, even though at the end of the day most Americans tend to think of themselves that way. Consequently if you want the Democrats to be Democrats (i.e. liberal populists) you have to find a way to kick the moderates out, just as the right wingers have done in the GOP.

[oddjob]

Tons of that effort by conservatives took place in off years and down ticket elections and in local and state committees' delegate selections. Without that they never would have gotten the clout to move the GOP to the right.

[Sir Charles]

Bill,

When evaluating whether the country can survive four years of Romney, I'd suggest looking at Bush's eight years in office and ask do we really want to go here again? Yes, the country will survive, but in what state? Romney represents all of the worst of Bush without any of the redeeming qualities, such as they were. And the damage that Bush did was really pretty remarkable. We continue to pay for it to this day.

And he will be serving with a fully Republican Congress (if Romney wins, I assure you the Senate will also be Republican) and a Supreme Court that is in the process of becoming an auxillary arm of the Republican Party. One more vote for the right and this Court will do untold damage.

There is an incredible amount of damage that can be done in the near term. The New Deal - Great Society legacy is literally at stake, not to mention things like Roe v. Wade, or DOMA, DADT, and marriage equality. I personally find this stuff vastly more compelling than smoking some radical cleric who essentially declared war on the U.S.

If you want a world in which the Paul Ryan budget is reality, John Bolton is the Secretary of State, and Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are part of an effective working majority, then by all means don't support Obama.

Look, if you genuinely think that the al-Alwaki killing is the most important issue out there and you think it is completely clear cut and wrong, then don't vote for the President. But don't pretend that you speak for vast disaffected masses or that your approach to politics is anything but futile.

We need to command greater than majority support in this country if we want to accomplish progressive ends. So in fact, what other people think matters deeply.

Losing elections is not an effective strategy and I assure you the Republicans have never deliberately lost one yet. But they have the advantage of starting with approximately 40% of the electorate self-identifying as conservatives, while we start with about half that number who identify as liberals. Now I know that such self-identification can be misleading, but I think it is fair to say that we start with a much smaller core group and need to cobble together a much more unwieldy coalition in order to win elections and control Congress.

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

As I note above, if we purge the moderates, we effectively lose the ability to win elections.

The Democrats are I think on the verge of being able to put together a pretty decent liberal-moderate majority for some time to come. But if we try to imitate what the conservatives have done in the GOP, we are doomed. And hell, even with 40% of the electorate identifying as conservative, they are facing real challenges being able to get to 50% in presidential election years. in large part because they have made it clear that they do not want moderates.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Can we 'survive' 4 years of Romney? One word answer:

RATS!
(meaning
Roberts
Alito
Thomas
Scalia)

You worry -- with some justification -- about the constitutional threat posed by the Al-Alwaki killing. I am much more worried that one more appointment by a Romney and we can kiss Lawrence, Roe, and even Griswold goodbye, that we can look at further gutting of Miranda, Mapp, Escobedo, and even Gideon. More Citizens United, more elimination of class action suits. Maybe Brown would survive -- anyone want to bet that the Voting Rights Act would? Anyone sure even Baker v. Carr would not get walked back a little?

My liberalism starts with decisions like these. My constant howling at the "Disaster of 2010" has many roots, but the fact that no one considered the effect that blowing the Senate so badly would have on SCOTUS nominations was the most important one. And barring medical miracles, it seems very likely there will be at least two vacancies in the 2012-2016 period, and I don't want Mitt Romney filling them.

But, Jayhawk, I have one perspective that is rare here, I actually read state blogs. I follow what has been going on in the legislatures, not just the stories that stink so badly the national press or blogs can't help noticing them. And, from voter ID disenfranchising, to vaginal ultrasounds, from 'conception begins after the last period' to attacks on Unions, to Christian Nation preaching, to anti-gay amendments to redistricting gerrymandering -- well, I could include a whole page just on Arizona's contributions. That's the really scary stuff -- and the people behind them will be the people who are finally left filling the empty suit that is Mitt Romney.

It isn't going to happen. (Sir Charles, I think even now the polls overestimate Romney's strength by about 2%, but that if the election were held tomorrow, it would be close. My point is that from here on, Romney can only lose votes and that there is just no poll of voters he can dip in to replace the, His personal qualities, his character, his lies, Bain, etch-a-sketch, we've seen Nasty Newt steal a primary that the Sainted Nate Silver had called as over 80% a Romney win -- in four days. We've seen the desperately underfunded and obnoxious Perpetual Altar Boy wound him so badly he had to outspend him 50 to 1 to survive.

How the hell is he going to stand up to months of well-funded, visibly truthful attacks from the well-funded and well-practised Team Obama? And, as I keep on insisting, he doesn't dare even try a pivot to the center - which wouldn't work anyhow -- because he'd lose more vital base votes, who don't trust him.

And the more the Paulistas grow, the more insane that convention will be -- and hopefully we'll have brains enough to use the platform against them.

Nope, Goldwater, Dukakis, McGovern, all of them had more positives than does Willard. He's peaked, and the steady and growing leak of support can't be patched, and there's no fountain to refill the bucket.

Right now, Obama is at least doing a little

[Paula B]

The best Romney and GOP can come up with for education proposals are school choice and charter schools? It's 1980, all over again!

[kathy a.]

oh, i've missed some lively discussion.

bill -- i hear what you are saying about things happening that one does not support. but i agree with sir charles and others about not letting the quest for perfection be the enemy of the good. there are plenty of ways to express discontent and press for changes without giving comfort to people who would make all our lives vastly worse.

plenty of people are executed in the US without adequate process. some are completely innocent; others maybe not, but they were sentenced to death because the process failed. for more information, see the death penalty information center. there is plenty of bipartisan blame to go around, at the national level as well as in the states still practicing the most premeditated kind of murder there is.

i'd have to be some kind of idjit to think it would help fix the problem to turn my back on the party that offers any hope at all for protecting individual rights. it is absolutely critical that the next justice appointed to SCOTUS not be appointed by a republican. the four-year presidential cycle can be endured; the life term of a justice ordinarily lasts for decades.

i worry about the justices because they have the ability to define the constitution in ways that affect all of us. maybe you don't care about death row inmates -- most people don't, much -- but the same cutting of corners that might hasten their demise means your own kid, or a neighbor, or anybody else has less access to justice. other kinds of decisions affect us in myriad ways -- whether we have personal medical privacy. whether money trumps all. whether someone else's religious beliefs can be shoved down our throats.

the real world requires us to make choices based on the hand we are dealt -- and to consider the real life impact of our choices on others. responsible people need to think not only of our preferences, but of our communities.

there are more effective ways to tell the administration and the democrats that you oppose some of their policies than taking your ball and going home because you are pissed about something. nader 2000: never again.

[Bill H]

"Look, if you genuinely think that the al-Alwaki killing is the most important issue out there and you think it is completely clear cut and wrong, then don't vote for the President. But don't pretend that you speak for vast disaffected masses or that your approach to politics is anything but futile."

You keep reading what you think instead of what I wrote. Where did I say that I think the "al-Alwaki killing is the most important issue out there" or that I believe that I "speak for vast disaffected masses" as you put it? I said that I will not support the first, and I have never, ever claimed to speak for anyone other than myself. Quit judging me by your own inner self, since it was you who claimed that only ten people care about the killing of American citizens. News flash, I can find at least twenty within the circle of my own acquantance in San Diego. And I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about my views of governance and democracy. I care nothing about politics.

I am saying that I have sufficient belief in America to know that it can survive because it is bigger than one man or one political party. You are saying that the nation is so fragile, and democracy so weak, that it cannot survive unless your beliefs are adhered to and your party remains in power. I feel sorry for anyone who lives in your weak and fragile America.

Jim, Obama is doing a little; pathetically little, and that little is being offset by secret deals with Pharma that Medicare drug price negotiation will be excluded from health care reform, and a lack of financial reform that allows the JP Morgan debacle and the Morgan Stanley/Facebook fiasco.

[Sir Charles]

Bill,

I am sure the country will survive. I'd like it to survive with things like Medicare, Social Security, and abortion and gay rights somewhat intact.

I've lived my adult life with conservatives ascendant for a variety of reasons. The real life consequences of that have not been good and I fear that we have not seen anything yet if the current crew gets into power.

A look at the incredibly evil cast of Republican governors elected in 2010 in Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan gives you some hint of what this world would look like -- and with the U.S. armed forces under their control.

There is the very real possibility that one election would be enough to destroy what is left of organized labor in the private sector in this country. It is that vulnerable and it will not be able to reconstitute itself in my lifetime.

[low-tech cyclist]

Do you think this country cannot survive four years of Romney? You need to have a little more faith in this great nation. It survived Nixon, and it survived George W. Bush.

The country, and even the GOP, were in a different place during those administrations than they are now.

The GOP is controlled by radicals who would cheerfully destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and every consumer, environmental, health, financial, or labor protection going back to the Fair Deal, not to mention any aid to poor or unemployed people that they could get away with destroying.

Given control of the White House, the House, and the Senate (and if Romney wins, they'll control both houses of Congress, and of course have a Supreme Court on their side), they can pull every bit of that down in two years. (They'll gut the filibuster if they need to.) And even if they lose control of Congress in a landslide in 2014 as a result, Romney will still have the veto pen, and then we'll have to rebuild all of that from scratch starting in 2017.

Think it'll be done overnight? Hardly. Changing the game will simply move the entire discussion several steps to the right. It would be the work of a generation to get this country back to where it is today.

Sure, the country would survive, just the way it would survive if terrorists set off a nuclear bomb in D.C.

[Bill H]

I'm glad a little sanity returned, Sir Charles, I'm actually enjoying the back and forth here as long as it remains within the realm of logic. I understand and respect your passion, and I wish more of our voting pubic was as committed and involved.

I lived the early part of my adulthood with liberals in control, and do not think that that was free of problems. I actually was a Republican in those days because liberalism was overboard. Reality is that while the middle can never hold and I am no fan or "moderates" by today's standards, extremism in either direction is never desireable.

I've watched this nation go back and forth a couple of times. It is a cycle that repeats endlessly, because the nation always thinks it wants something until it gets it. Then it says "oops" and goes back to what it had.

I hear both you and Jim on the states issues, but conflating that with federal governance is, I believe, an error. It's unclear to me that one has much to do with the other. California had a Republican governor for some years and remained solidly a blue state regardless. In fact Obama carried San Diego county, the forst Democrat to do so since FDR, and California's governor was a Republican at the time.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Bill, will you please respond to the SCOTUS question? Those apppintments don't go away in four years. And the damage they can do isn't as easily reversible as bad laws might be.

And there is one MAJOR flaw in your argument. You assume the Democratic Party is simply smart enough to 'get it,' to understand the message you are sending. Really? History seems to tell me that parties always get the reverse message. Democrats will think they were too far to the Left, not 'insufficiently Progressive" and we might see an Evan Bayh-type in 2016. (I'm hoping, btw, for a Sebelius-Gillibrand ticket.) Good God!, the damn DNC wouldn't even support the recall effort against Walker until it was shamed into it, and they are still willing to 'reward' the NC Party with the convention.

[oddjob]

It's unclear to me that one has much to do with the other.

It's quite typical for successful prominent governors to then run for that party's presidential nomination, so when a particular governor does well his political style may well end up in the White House in the not too distant future.

[Sir Charles]

Bill,

I think that we are in a fairly unusual moment in the history of the Republic -- you have a country in which enormous changes are occurring -- demographic, technological, and economic -- some of which portend a much more cosmopolitan and liberal electorate. At the same time, we have economic conditions in which the average worker has not been so powerless or insecure since before FDR. There are both enormous challenges and possibilities in that environment.

At the same time, we have one of our major parties having essentially abandoned empiricism and pragmatism, something that I don't think has happened since the run up to the Civil War. That Party is committed to a retrograde religious world view on social issues, coupled with an utterly preposterous belief in the unbridled free market, and a reflexive belief in the use of violence abroad. It is a party that threatens to bring utter dysfunctionality to matters like budgeting and the debt ceiling that were once the province of pragmatic horsetrading and compromise.

This party excels though at the political side of the game. When it attains power, it goes for the jugular with respect to its political opponents whether it be unions, private or public, planned parenthood, tort lawyers, or public interest groups.

In short, the GOP, is a remarkably dangerous and endangered party, one which will resort to some pretty extreme things to perpetuate its hold on power or its ability to contend for it. Anything but compromise.

I think that this is a real test for our system.

Yes, California has turned deep blue, but as a state it is almost ungovernable due to the disciplined Republican minority and the legacy of Proposition 13. It has gone from being the cutting edge jurisdiction in the U.S., with first class infrastructure and an educational system that was the envy of the world to being a basket case.

I know that the pendulum swings in politics, but I would argue that the present-day GOP is uniquely dangerous and needs to be beaten back until it moderates.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I don't think the Republicans will or can moderate. I think they have become precisely the same preacher-ridden, conspiracy-loving irrelevancy the Federalists became -- ironically, even the "Illuminati" conspiracy that still is around was first introduced -- and debunked -- during Jefferson's first election.

I think they may run some Blue Dog Democrat next time, and then disappear as a new, center-right party arises and shoves us back where we belong. We can't afford being the 'only sane party' because then we are vulnerable to the right pull of our backers.

[oddjob]

Not to mention its fanatical insistence on maintaining the fantasy that in the USA cutting federal taxes always leads to increased federal revenue, something which has never happened.

[low-tech cyclist]

Bill - I, too, used to be a Republican. Hell, I was a Goldwater Republican into my mid-teens, then more of a moderate Republican as a young adult. I left the GOP with Anderson in 1980, but it took me another 16-17 years to call myself a Democrat.

The Republican Party has not only moved so far to the right that it routinely opposes many policies that Reagan supported, but it's putting real daylight between itself and the Bush Administration as well.

This is not only not your father's GOP, it's not even the GOP of five years ago. It's really rather frightening. This is not an election to vote against Obama on principle, unless you prefer the GOP's principles, because if Obama loses, you'll get the GOP's agenda good and hard, like a punch to the gut.

[oddjob]

I stopped voting for Republicans after 1988.

[kathy a.]

y'all are making me look like a communist.

[Sir Charles]

Me too.

[oddjob]

(I used to be a fundy, too, so it was of a piece.)

[kathy a.]

i campaigned for nixon at the age of 3, and was raised with a promotional can of goldwater in place of pride in the kitchen. so, i should not throw stones.

great point about the near ungovernability of my own fine state, SC. we're working on it.

[beckya57]

I actually worked for a Republican (my congressman) as a congressional intern as a teenager in the 1970's. The party was much, much different then.

I think most of us sympathize with much of Bill's concern about some of the actions of the Obama administration, and with his frustrations with the Dems in general. The Dems are often gutless, preoccupied with looking "centrist" and tough, and betray their backers on many occasions. There also are some valid civil liberties concerns about some of Obama's actions. Having said that, I'll go on to say that the Dems are light-years better than the current Republicans. I agree with the others that this Republican party wants to take us back to the pre-Civil War era, and that if they get to appoint more extreme right-wing judges the country will be stuck with the consequences of the Romney administration for decades. I'm also not convinced the US will survive as a democracy; the record for Presidential democracies with polarized political parties is 0 for whatever--none of them have survived. Not to mention that as a practical matter democracy can't work in conditions of extreme inequality, which we already have and that the Republicans want to make much worse. Bill, I also will challenge your comment about not being in politics to win. I don't understand that at all; if you don't win in politics you can't do anything, and if the Dems don't win millions of people will suffer terribly. This isn't a game, lives are literally at stake, and I couldn't agree more with the piece Prup quoted above--that says it much better than I can.

[Bill H]

"I also will challenge your comment about not being in politics to win. I don't understand that at all; if you don't win in politics you can't do anything,

Again people are reading what they think and not what I wrote. Not only did I not say that "I am not in politics to win," I actually said that "I care nothing about politics." If you don't know the difference between politics and governance then you need to grow up. I don't pick a team and then "fight valiantly for my team to win."

"I'm also not convinced the US will survive as a democracy" and "if the Dems don't win millions of people will suffer terribly. This isn't a game, lives are literally at stake"

Oh, please. For one thing we need to remember that once elected to office presidents essentially never do what they promised as candidates to do. If Obama hasn't taught us that we will never learn it. Republican presidential candidates have been promising for decades to outlaw abortion and no Republican president has even made even a token effort to actually do so.

" You assume the Democratic Party is simply smart enough to 'get it,' to understand the message you are sending."

I don't assume anything of the sort. I am not responsible for what message the Democratic Party gets, I am only responsible for the message I send. I will not support that which I do not support. They have to live with what they do; I have to live with what I do.

When I was younger I thought that I was in charge of outcomes. Today I know that I am only in charge of, andresponsible for, my own actions.

[low-tech cyclist]

Oh, Lordy.

I actually said that "I care nothing about politics." If you don't know the difference between politics and governance then you need to grow up.

And if you don't understand the linkage between politics and governance, you're just wasting our time.

Oh, please. For one thing we need to remember that once elected to office presidents essentially never do what they promised as candidates to do. If Obama hasn't taught us that we will never learn it. Republican presidential candidates have been promising for decades to outlaw abortion and no Republican president has even made even a token effort to actually do so.

And you don't. But WTF anyway:

Who knows what you're talking about with Obama. He's either done or tried to do the things he ran on. We're out of Iraq, he passed something within shouting distance of universal health care, and he tried to pass cap-and-trade. He signed the Lily Ledbetter Act, he tried to close Gitmo, he got rid of DADT, etc.

Republican Presidents may not have outlawed abortion, but they've loaded the Federal courts with judges who would love to overturn Roe.

Reagan and Bush ran on promises to cut taxes, and they did. Clinton ran on universal health care, and he tried to pass it. He did ultimately manage to get SCHIP through Congress.

Democrats try to raise the minimum wage, Republicans try to keep it from being raised. Democrats try to expand access to health care; Republicans try to shrink it. Democrats try to protect Social Security; Republicans try to cut and/or privatize it. Democrats try to raise taxes on the rich, and the Republicans to cut taxes on the rich. Dems try to at least maintain whatever safety net we've got, and the GOP tries to shred it.

Which party is in power matters. And increasingly so over time, as the GOP moves to the right.

And in the case of this election, it hardly matters whether Presidents do what they promised to do. If Romney is elected, he will sign what a Republican Congress passes. They've been trying to pass a lot of stuff this year, like Paul Ryan's budget, for instance. Think they'll stop trying to pass stuff like that once Romney is elected?

If so, don't Bogart that joint, my friend.

[oddjob]

Recent PPP poll suggests Maryland will become the first state in the nation to hold a plebiscite where the voters endorse same sex marriage, and in the wake of Obama's endorsement African American Marylanders are changing their own stances.

[kathy a.]

i wrote something more thoughtful (in my mind, anyway) upstream.

i think obama's been pretty good about governance, given the prevailing conditions. by contrast, W did not give a shit about governance. there is very little reason to think that romney will do anything besides evil for ordinary citizens.

there have been elections where i have had to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of evils. this won't be one of them. for a variety of reasons, my vote against disaster is important, and an obligation i feel as a citizen who cares about the overall well being of my people and my country.

people differ in their priorities. it is hard to disagree with your statement that we are ultimately only responsible for our own actions, at least in our personal lives. perhaps i place a higher value on our collective actions and responsibilities than i do on my right to withhold support for any of the powers that be who do not agree with me 100%. if i was queen of the universe, let me tell you, things would be different. but i am not; i do not have that magic wand. it is my choice to help avert disaster where i can, and to move things along the arc toward justice where i can.

[nancy]

If you don't know the difference between politics and governance then you need to grow up.

Bill H -- Lance Mannion has a good set of commenting suggestions he pulls out from time to time. One in particular I think important, having to do with reading fellow commenters with care and getting to know them because you'll probably keep bumping into them. Apropos here I'd suggest.

And I think l-t-c covered the rest.

Also if you think the GOP hasn't headed directly to any means necessary to undermine Roe , while waiting for the numbers to work in order to fully overturn it, then you can't have been watching the statehouses closely enough.

Oddjob -- That poll is interesting. Bandwagon is filling up, eh.

[kathy a.]

yes, nancy -- i left out how extremely ugly it is to me personally to see the assault on roe v. wade, and on private personal rights generally. it is utterly appalling to see outright attacks on access even to birth control. i may no longer be personally of reproductive age, but i will just be damned if i stand back for those battles.

[nancy]

kathy a. -- My remark was meant in response to: Republican presidential candidates have been promising for decades to outlaw abortion and no Republican president has even made even a token effort to actually do so. @1:44 AM. Token? It's been passed on to the party as a reliable vote-capturer on the state level.

Show me any period of time in recent years when the GOP has made as much progress on this front. They believe it's just a matter of time (and collective memory loss also, I daresay). How many of them have any idea or care what we return to should abortion be made impossible, if not illegal, and access to contraception is obstructed? Bill H seems to think we're being hyperbolic in this discussion. I don't. They mean for what they are saying and doing to actually occur without any consideration of real life social cost.

And well-funded AUL is beavering away as I write.

[kathy a.]

you are so preaching to the choir, for me at least. i've seen state after state doing awful things. the attacks on roe v. wade have lasted a long time, but lately they have legs in a lot of legislatures. and excuse me, but these people now classify hormonal birth control as agents of abortion. they seek to define life as beginning before it begins. they want birth control -- which is basic women's health care -- taken away if the boss has problems with it. don't get me started on the mandatory ultrasounds, or the cutting of funds to agencies like PP, or the insane regulations of clinics. all that on top of picketing clinics, on top of urging their supporters to use their "second amendment rights" against providers.

romney's said a lot of things. among them are things like life begins at conception, and women belong at home making babies. i won't even get started on other economic issues (yes, these are economic issues for women ant their families), except to say that if we need another president who was born on 3d and thinks he hit a triple, romney's your man.

[Paula B]

While looking up some notes on French history today and trying to make sense of the story of Joan of Arc (1412-1431) as well as the broader practice of burning people at the stake in those dark times, I ran across this curious sentence:
Fear of the devil and his works combined with a general misogyny among celibate male clerics to send to their deaths tens of thousands of women accused of witchcraft and of consorting with the devil. (Cultural Atlas of France, 1991)

Just thought I’d drop that on you.

[Paula B]

Oh, and have a nice day.

[kathy a.]

thank you for the historical context, paula. consorting with the devil does make one pause, does it not? depending on one's definitions, a lot of us do that all the time -- not necessarily voluntarily.

[beckya57]

This is in response to Paula's comment. I don't know if any of you are familiar with the Wiccan writer Starhawk, but she's definitely worth reading. Her first book--and I'm sorry, but right now I'm blanking on the name--is largely about the witch burnings and their larger cultural context. I think she'd agree with Paula's quote, and she also says that the witches were often important leaders in their villages, and that much of the motivation for the burnings was political. In her telling, the witches were opposing efforts to take away the villages' land, and that made them a target of the elites of that era. Kind of interesting how the same basic struggles get repeated over and over throughout history....

[beckya57]

The book I was referring to is called "Truth or Dare."

[Bill H]

The remark about governance, politics and growing up was ill advised and offensive and I apologize for it.

What I was driving at was the concept of "picking a side and fighting valiantly for it to win." The founders abhored the concept of political parties, and so do I. I said that I "was a Republican," but that does not mean that I am now a Democrat. In fact, I grew to loathe the whole idea of party politics and consider myself to be of neither party. I never vote by party label.

Nonetheless I enjoy the challenge that the discussion here presents. Challenging and makes me think. The point about Supreme Court appointments is a good one. Let's not forget about "advise and consent" of the Senate, but unquestionably the president has a pivotal role.

In defense of Obama it keeps being said that he "tried to close Guantanamo." As my Navy drill instructor used to say, cleaned up slightly, "Try like hell in one hand and poop in the other and see which one fills up first." And on Guantanamo, which is something which I regard as very important, he didn't try very hard; caved at the first sign of Congressional resistance.

"Within shouting distance of univeral health care?" You have a very loud shout, my friend, they can hear you on Mars.

[oddjob]

Just thought I’d drop that on you.

Wiccans sometimes refer to that era as "the burning times".

[Paula B]

It wasn't the witches that drew my interest but the "misogyny among celibate male clerics" who determined which women had been "consorting" with the devil and which had not. One clue used against Joan was the men's clothing she wore when she led French troops to victory at Orleans. Another was the power she gained as a result her military prowess, power that led to a position in the king's inner circle. Easy to see why they burned her. Luckily for us, today's celibate male clerics make enlightened decisions that affect the lives of women.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[oddjob]

Luckily for us, today's celibate male clerics make enlightened decisions that affect the lives of women.

Touché!

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Bill: Your Gitmo comment, I'm afraid, highlights a problem with your argument. Many of your complaints about Obama are variants of 'he didn't work hard enough or fast enough to reverse Bush or Republican policies,' yet the effect of your position is to strengthen the people who put these policies in place.

Nor does your 'vote for the man, not the party' position cut it -- not today, not with today's Republican Party. We both remember times when there was an overlap between the parties, when there were Republicans who were sane and moderate. I can think of many Republicans that, even if I personally might no have voted for them, I can understand people who did. And that is true even for candidates far more conservative than I could ever be. (In fact, had the Republicans given me the choice of Dick Lugar against Al Gore, I might have voted Republican, desite many of his positions -- and thinking about it, I think he would have handled the post-9/11 better than Bush did or Gore would have.) But that simply is no longer so.

I realize that you tend to brush off comments like this as 'over the top rhetoric.' And you'd hardly be the first person who argues that 'those Republican policies you quote, they are exceptions, Republicans overall are not that bad.' (Hell, it seems like 'creating false equivalencies' is the first test you have to pass to get your "pundit's license.")

It may help to make my point that the Republican Party is no longer 'the loyal opposition' or even the 'sane opposition' if I send you to two stories that have come out just in the last 36 hours.

The first (h/t Steve Benen -- actually a link within a link he provides) is a press release from a group of retired Kansas Republican state legislators who have formed "Traditional Republicans For Common Sense" to oppose the current budget priorities and actions of the Kansas Republican Governor (Sam Brownback) and Legislature. Now, even though Eisenhower came from there, few Kansas Legislators would be considered even Centrists, none are, in the slightest 'progressive.' Yet here is one quote from the press release:

“As former legislators, with over 500 years of collective service to Kansas, we care deeply about what happens to our communities, our homes,” said former Assistant Majority Leader and State Chair of the Republican Party Rep. Rochelle Chronister. “Unfortunately, deep-­‐pocketed special interest groups are spending millions of dollars
attempting to buy the 2012 elections and silence voters. We will not allow that to happen without a fight.”

No, this is not just "one state." A further renunciation of Republican insanity -- I do not feel I am exaggeration -- comes from Michael Fumento, who begins by listing 'credentials' including having written for NRO, WSJ and Forbes -- supporting what were hot-button Conservative issues. But:

But no longer. That was the old right. The last thing hysteria promoters want is calm, reasoned argument backed by facts. And I’m horrified that these people have co-opted the name “conservative” to scream their messages of hate and anger.

Extremism in the defense of nothing

Nothing the new right does is evidently outrageous enough to receive more than a peep of indignation from the new right. Heartland pulled its billboards because of funder withdrawals, not because any conservatives spoke up and said it had crossed a line.

He goes on to list several of the more incredible positions that the New Right has taken -- positions that may be more familiar to the rest of us than to you -- who seems to see Republicans through a California-centric lens, and aren't really aware of what they are doing in states where they do not have to face a Blue Electorate. (California is, in fact, one of the least insane state parties. My own NY State's Republicans have been extremists since Pataki left office. And for one more link -- here's what the Iowa Sate Republican Platform includes. And if you think the comments are out of context here's the whole thing.)

You say:

I will not support that which I do not support. They have to live with what they do; I have to live with what I do.

I'm afraid you don't realize what, in fact, your position does support. I won't be commenting much for the rest of the day, because you've inspired me to draw up a chart of those bills Republican State Legislatures have supported on some key issues; women's health and reproductive rights, labor policy, regulation and deregulation, tax policy, immigration, and voting rights. Now admittedly, I'm not sure of your own position on some of these, but I think you'll be shocked at the extremisim of the bills even in areas you might agree with. (I'll be tossing in occasional discoveries as I work, and I do have home responsibilities -- and the day after both the catbox changing/garbage and a massive 2 Supermarket shopping trip I'm not at my physical best -- my friend and 'driver' does a lot of the heavy lifting -- like over 200 lbs of cat litter and 250 cans of cat food -- we pay him enough that we have to buy large quantities at once to realize any savings -- but it is still a strain.)

Anyway, more later.

[Bill H]

Jim, I don't buy it. Obama "gave the order" to close Guantanamo and then we heard no more about it. When Bush wanted something done he led on the issue. He didn't sit back and accept whatever Congress decided, he pounded the bully pulpit until he got what he wanted. Unfortunately. But the point is he never settled for "Well, I tried." The role of president is to LEAD.

And by voting for the party you reinforce the polarization between the parties. Listen to what you just said, that you will always vote for Democrats no matter what. What is that if not adding to extremism and polarization? A candidate no longer has to do anything but put a D after his name to get your vote.

Just to be clear, the fact that I am not supportive of Obama does not mean that I'm supportive of Romney.

And don't give me that "by not supporting Obama I'm contributing to evil" crap. That is absolute nonsense. In Germany, given the choice between Goebbels and Hitler you don't say that you're supporting one because the other is worse. Neither of these guys is of that category, of course, far from it, but the principle applies. Saying that I have to support your guy because by failing to do so I'm supporting evil is the very worst sort of demagougery. I will respect many arguments, almost any argument, whether I agree with it or not, but that one is blackmail, extortionist and nonsense.

I need to support your guy because of the impact on Supreme Court nominations? Okay, good point. I tend to overlook that and I will reinforce that in my thought process. You have influenced my choice.

I need to support your guy because he supports gay marriage? Okay. I'm not sure that has much impact on federal governance since it is a state issue, but I'll add it to my thoughts.

Etc. But I need to support your guy because otherwise evil wins?

[Sir Charles]

Bill,

Like it or not, political parties are the way by which power is exercised and issue positions tend to cohere not only in the U.S. but in every existing democracy. They bring a kind of order to the process that proves indispensable to governance.

As for the founding fathers, it is true that Washington (to some degree) and Adams eschewed political parties. However, the two people most instrumental in creating our constitutional form of government, Hamilton and Madison, were very much party men. Adams failed in office in large part because of his insistence on not being a party man and to a certain extent his son failed in similar fashion. No one has really tried to govern without a party since.

Actually the "D" after someone's name almost invariably will be an accurate indicator of that candidate's attitudes and positions on a host of issues from Social Security to Medicare to union, gay, or reproductive rights, progressive taxation, and the role of the federal government. Obviously there are degrees and shadings therein and a few anomalies, but by and large voting for the D is going to fulfill most of what you are looking for in a candidate. Similarly, indeed more strikingly, you know that the candidate with an "R" is going to be supporting someone who opposes progressive taxation, is usually anti-union, opposes the use of the federal government to correct economic injustice, will almost invariably be opposed to abortion rights, very likely to oppose gay marriage, and will likely be hostile to environmental regulation. It's about the best shorthand you can find.

Indeed, it was shown throughout the Congress in 2009-10, that the most conservative Democrat voted more liberally than the most liberal Republican. Now that doesn't make Ben Nelson or Evan Bayh a liberal, but it means that in a meaningful sense they are more liberal than either Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins. By and large the rest of the Republican caucus in both the House and Senate ranges from very conservative to insanely right wing.

[oddjob]

I'm not sure that has much impact on federal governance since it is a state issue, but I'll add it to my thoughts.

Historically you're correct, but in 1996 Congress federalized the question of same sex marriage by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, which stipulated that the federal government would not recognize such marriages. Until that law is dead and buried same sex marriage equality is more than a state issue.

[kathy a.]

great point about DOMA, oddjob. repealing DADT -- a federal issue -- is also huge.

i don't pretend to have followed issues around guantanamo all that closely, but to close it requires doing something with the people who are there. my understanding is that the senate blocked funds for transferring prisoners, the 2011 defense appropriations bill contains restrictions on transfers of prisoners, and there have been problems with how to conduct the legal proceedings.

the situation is a mess, but it is hard for me to put the blame squarely on obama's shoulders since it mostly belongs elsewhere. sure, he could have spoken out more -- but it would have been only rhetoric, since there are other impediments to closing guantanamo. and given large domestic problems on several fronts -- the ongoing unemployment rate, assaults on women's health care, fiscal problems galore -- i cannot fault the president for being more outspoken about issues more central to the lives of ordinary americans.

in short (ha!), bill, i don't fault you for being upset about guantanamo. i'd just urge you to consider that this presidential election is about more than one, two, or three issues. and, respectfully, i stand by wanting to avoid a great deal of evil.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

First, no argument about Obama's lack of leadership skills, and his confusion between 'exhortation' and 'leadership' -- something stronger supporters of him also, to me, confuse.

However, the only response to your 'evil' comment -- and I never made that sort of generalization -- is to discuss the specifics in each of several areas, showing you the policies it is necessary to support to win a Republican Party nomination (at least in red states and frequently in red districts in blue states). To avoid making this ten times its length -- and yes, I am capable of going on for that long, ask anyone -- I'll ask you to trust that the statements I am making are based on research, and only challenge those that are specifically questionable to you rather than make me document each statement.

But I really believe you do not realize what the Republican Party has become. The links I posted earlier, the rejection of the current party by so many 'classic Conservative' Republicans, all point that way. More strongly is the comment, repeted by literally hundreds of Republicans, that Rpnald Reagan could not be nominated by today's Republican Party because he was too far to the left.

And that last makes one more point. This Republican Party has renounced the possibility of compromise -- at least theoretically, but there have been very few individual Republicans that have crossed party lines to work with a President who, in fact, would agree -- far more than I -- with your statements against partisanship and polarization.

More later, after a nap and probably some tv watching with Em.

[Sildenafil drug]

I won't go to vote! I don't care