Maddow blogger shovels it

I really like Rachel Maddow. But even her bloggers can shovel it once in a while. Here's an example.

Steve Benen criticizes Republicans for complaining about the length of some pieces of legislation. You might remember when the Affordable Care Act was going through Congress and Republicans were complaining that the bill was so long that no one really knew what was in it. And you might remember a picture I borrowed and published of that zany congressman from Iowa, Steve King, carrying a copy of it on his shoulder.

Benen writes, "When opponents of a bill are reduced to talking about the literal, physical size of the legislation, they've completely given up on the pretense that public policy matters. If opponents of immigration reform want to debate the merits of the proposal, great. But focusing on pages and pounds is the absolute worst form of debate."

Benen makes some good points. He says that we live in a complex world, so legislation will also be complex, and it is the job of those in Congress to read, understand, and evaluate it. In addition, the format of legislation makes it look significantly longer than it actually is. "For example, if the immigration bill is about 1,075 pages, in terms of the number of words, it's about half the length of Sarah Palin's first book," writes Benen.

Benen goes wrong, however, in his penultimate paragraph. He writes, "So why does this talk persist? I think it speaks to the post-policy anti-intellectualism that too often plays a role in conservative commentary. Big bills must be bad bills because they're, you know, big."

That, I think, is unfair. The greater the length and complexity of a bill, the more time is needed to read, understand, and evaluate it. Now, Republican complaints about the Affordable Care Act were pure bullshit. They had plenty of time to study that bill. But I can imagine cases in which the length and complexity of a bill could be a legitimate concern, and certainly there have been actual cases in which it has been. The USA PATRIOT Act, for example, became law a mere one and a half months after 9/11, and it's 132 pages, single-spaced. Could our elected officials think clearly about that bill, while Attorney General John Ashcroft is warning them "that further terrorist acts were imminent, and that Congress could be to blame for such attacks if it failed to pass the bill immediately"? I doubt it.

But Benen seems to think that there are no good reasons for concern over the length of a bill. Well, I think he's shoveling it.

"What's in it for me?"

In Book II of Plato's Republic, Glaucon presents an argument that justice is good only for the sake of what comes from it, and not for its own sake. That is, those who have a reputation for being just are rewarded, and that's the only thing that makes justice worth doing.

I agree with Socrates that justice is good both for its own sake and for the sake of what comes from it.

I believe Glaucon's argument is based on the following claim:

If a person is motivated to perform an action, then that person must believe that performing that action is in her own self-interest. 

I believe that there are plentiful counterexamples, i.e., cases in which a person is motivated to perform an action, and yet the person does not believe that the action is in her self-interest. Doing what morality requires is often not in our self-interest, and yet those of us who are not sociopaths are strongly motivated to do what morality requires anyway. But most people I talk to can't seem to understand how it could be possible that a person is motivated to do something that is not in her self-interest. Why is that?

Here's a quick and rough speculation. Most people around here are Christians, and Christians are taught to believe that human beings are intrinsically and necessarily flawed creatures. No matter how virtuous we become, we will always be sinful. Sin is turning away from God, and God requires that we love our neighbor. Human beings are incapable of doing God's will perfectly, so even the most virtuous among us will succumb to what Kant called self-love when given a chance to help our fellow human beings. Christianity is so cynical about human nature that it holds that human beings must be bribed to be virtuous. But the promise of heaven merely appeals to self-interest. Christians are taught from the very beginning to wonder about any action, "What's in it for me?"

This might explain how the Republican Party succeeded in uniting certain libertarians and fundamentalist Christians. Because libertarian followers of Ayn Rand ask the very same question: "What's in it for me?" They have the same dreary view of human nature, but they worship it as the pinnacle of human virtue. For them, our only moral obligation is self-interest, and altruism is morally perverse. Since they share this view of human nature, it's not surprising that they are often allies.

This is one area in which atheism does better. An atheist does not do the right thing in the hope that she will be rewarded in the afterlife. Many atheists do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, and that's it. There's nothing really mysterious about this to me. It is actually unremarkable. I do not need to be bribed, and I do not need to be rewarded. The mere fact that it is morally wrong to perform a particular action is itself sufficient reason not to do it, and that's that.

P.S. Lesli, I'm disappointed that I can't read your blog anymore. Can we make some kind of arrangement? If the character of your blog has changed and we cannot, that's all right. Please let me know. Thank you.

David Brooks: the voice of sanity

Here's an excellent column from New York Times columnist David Brooks. If only more Republican politicians thought like Brooks does.

The Mother of All No-Brainers

By David Brooks

Published: July 4, 2011

The Republicans have changed American politics since they took control of the House of Representatives. They have put spending restraint and debt reduction at the top of the national agenda. They have sparked a discussion on entitlement reform. They have turned a bill to raise the debt limit into an opportunity to put the U.S. on a stable fiscal course.

Republican leaders have also proved to be effective negotiators. They have been tough and inflexible and forced the Democrats to come to them. The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.

Moreover, many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.

Over the past week, Democrats have stopped making concessions. They are coming to the conclusion that if the Republicans are fanatics then they better be fanatics, too.

The struggles of the next few weeks are about what sort of party the G.O.P. is — a normal conservative party or an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independent voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

And they will be right.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html

It takes one to know one

This morning, little Moe Lane is as delighted as a school boy that Mark Halperin called President Obama "kind of a dick."

First of all, it takes one to know one, Moe. And secondly, the president was not being a dick; you're being a dick, Moe.

Moe Lane's approach to blogging involves a now-familiar combination of assholery and asshattery.

In "Obama’s class warfare… against Obama’s stimulus program," Lane attributes the following statement to President Obama: "I've said to Republican leaders, 'You go talk to your constituents and ask them, "Are you willing to compromise your kids' safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?"''' Obama uttered these words during his press conference yesterday. (But in what context? More on that later.) Lane's source, NationalJournal.com, argued that Obama is engaging in class warfare:

If President Obama's news conference accomplished anything on Wednesday afternoon, it underscored, in striking tones, his strategy for winning the debt ceiling fight with Republicans: Make it a clash of classes.

• Rich versus Poor.
• Us versus Them. 
• Those who support children, food safety, medical research and, presumably, puppies and apple pie versus the rich fat cats who don't.

In Obama's world, Democrats are for kids and Republicans are for corporate jets. 

As a sidenote, I should point out that if Obama is engaging in class warfare, it's not as if he fired the first shot. The class war has been in progress for decades now, and the plutocracy is unfortunately winning. Republicans accuse Democrats of engaging in class warfare in order to get public opinion on their side and thereby manipulate Democrats into laying down their arms. In general, Republican politicians think that sacrifices for the general welfare must be borne by the middle class. Do they really expect us to take this lying down?

In any event, if you want to know what Democratic and Republican politicians are for, just look at what they want to spend money on.

Anyway, Lane calls the president "shameless" and "clueless" for making the statement:

It’s shameless because President Obama has only one rhetorical trick, and that’s to demonize everybody who disagrees with whatever faux-Hegelian position he’s ended up taking on any given day.  It’s particularly clueless because what the President apparently doesn’t know is that the latest iteration of the tax break in question was put into place as part of Barack Obama’s own 2009 “stimulus.”

First of all, I actually read most of Hegel's The Phenomenlogy of Spirit, and I have no idea what Lane is talking about. What is a "faux-Hegelian position"? That sounds like pseudo-intellectual bullshit to me. Secondly, how does Lane express factual disagreements without demonizing the people with whom he disagrees? What advice would he give the president? Is Obama being too "uppity" for his taste? Republicans want to cut government programs and hand out tax breaks to wealthy people. That's a fact. Lane needs to learn the difference between challenging Republican positions and demonizing Republicans.

Lane accuses the president of hypocrisy. He cites a Fox News story from February 2009 as his source, though I quote it at greater length than he:

Just a few months after lawmakers scolded auto executives for flying to Washington in private jets, Congress approved a tax break in the stimulus package to help businesses buy their own planes.

The incentive -- first used to help plane makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks -- sharply reduces the up front tax bill for companies who buy assets like business planes.

The aviation industry, which is cutting jobs as it suffers from declining shipments and canceled orders, hopes the tax break in the economic-stimulus bill just signed by President Barack Obama will persuade more companies to buy planes and snap a slump in general aviation that began last year.

"This is exactly the type of financial incentive that should be included in a stimulus bill," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., in an interview. His state lost at least 6,900 jobs at Cessna and Hawker Beechcraft, both based in Wichita. 

So, according to Lane, the president is a hypocrite for supporting tax breaks for businesses that buy aircraft in 2009 and condemning similar tax breaks in 2011.

Has Lane been living under a rock for the past two years? Though many Americans are still hurting badly, the recession is over, and the domestic political focus has shifted from stimulus spending to cutting the deficit. Lane assumes that the present political and economic climate is more or less the same as it was over two years ago. That's just stupid.

Further, Lane seems to assume that if a person supports a tax break at one time, that person must support that tax break at every time or else be a hypocrite. That's also just stupid. The fact that a tax break is appropriate at one time doesn't show that it's appropriate at every time.

For whatever reason, Lane is reasoning like a child or someone who is brain-damaged, not because he himself is a child or brain-damaged, but because it serves his political purposes to simplify this debate.

Lane points out that Republicans did not support the stimulus bill that contained tax breaks for aircraft purchases. So it seems odd to him that the president is scolding Republicans for supporting tax breaks for businesses now. But Republican politicians were against the stimulus then (even though one third of it was in the form of tax cuts) and in favor of tax cuts now because their default position is to be against whatever that black guy in the White House advocates.

Before I finish, I should provide you with the context of the quotation from the president's press conference that Lane is moaning about:

So the question is, if everybody else is willing to take on their sacred cows and do tough things in order to achieve the goal of real deficit reduction, then I think it would be hard for the Republicans to stand there and say that the tax break for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we’re not willing to come to the table and get a deal done. Or, we’re so concerned about protecting oil and gas subsidies for oil companies that are making money hand over fist — that’s the reason we’re not going to come to a deal.

I don’t think that’s a sustainable position. And the truth of the matter is, if you talk to Republicans who are not currently in office, like Alan Simpson who co-chaired my bipartisan commission, he doesn’t think that’s a sustainable position.  Pete Domenici, Republican, co-chaired something with Alice Rivlin, the Democrat, says that’s — he doesn’t think that’s a sustainable position. You can’t reduce the deficit to the levels that it needs to be reduced without having some revenue in the mix.

And the revenue we’re talking about isn’t coming out of the pockets of middle-class families that are struggling. It’s coming out of folks who are doing extraordinarily well and are enjoying the lowest tax rates since before I was born.

If you are a wealthy CEO or a . . . hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they have ever been. They’re lower than they’ve been since the 1950s. And you can afford it.  You’ll still be able to ride on your corporate jet; you’re just going to have to pay a little more.

And if we — I just want to emphasize what I said earlier. If we do not have revenues, that means there are a bunch of kids out there who are not getting college scholarships. If we do not have those revenues, then the kinds of cuts that would be required might compromise the National Weather Service. It means that we would not be funding critical medical research. It means that food inspection might be compromised. And I’ve said to some of the Republican leaders, you go talk to your constituents, the Republican constituents, and ask them are they willing to compromise their kids’ safety so that some corporate jet owner continues to get a tax break. And I’m pretty sure what the answer would be.

Look, I'm not in love with this president. He hasn't been as liberal as I would have liked. But Lane is just being a dick. If you read the quotation in context, the president's position on deficit reduction is actually quite moderate: cut government spending, but tax those who are doing extremely well in this economy so that we don't need to cut programs that huge numbers of Americans rely on. The position is obviously more moderate than the Republican position, which appears to be to address the deficit merely by crippling and eliminating whole government programs.

Moe, stop being a dick.

Republicans sense that they now have an opportunity to turn back the clock to pre-New Deal America, and they're attempting to seize it. I think that they're actually making a huge mistake. Even Paul Ryan acknowledges that failing to raise the debt ceiling will result in cuts to "vital programs."  And consider the following diagram:

Everyone knows someone who has benefited from at least one of these programs. I've benefited from three of them. But as the diagram shows, many people don't know that they have benefited from government social programs. One way to inform them of that fact is to start hacking away at their budgets. Do Republican politicians really believe that their party won't pay dearly one day for the kinds of cuts they want to make? Have they forgotten those Tea Partiers who urged them not to touch their Medicare? While their ability to alter our perceptions of reality with political spin is impressive, it is not unlimited.

Update. Here's Andrew Sullivan's reaction to Halperin's (and Lane's) claim that the president was being a dick:

In the negotiations with the Republicans, Obama and the Dems have offered a couple of trillion in cuts. The Republicans have refused even to discuss increasing tax revenues in return. For the president to react with understated anger strikes me as perfectly natural and overdue. 

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills

Over the weekend, there were two votes in the Senate. One would have extended Bush-era tax cuts, but only on incomes of $200,000 or less for individuals and $250,000 or less for couples. The other would have extended the cuts, but only on incomes of $1 million or less.

Republicans decried the votes as pure politics, in spite of the fact that they have on other occasions insisted on the principle that judicial nominees, and bills as well, deserve an up-or-down vote. Remember that phrase? According to former Republican Senator Bill Frist (the guy who can magically diagnose persistent vegetative state merely by viewing videotape of a patient), "Until [George W. Bush] took office, Democrats and Republicans alike were firmly opposed to all filibusters, and said so repeatedly. We had a tradition based on mutual respect and restraint" (my emphasis). Like any principle that no longer serves their interests, however, the up-or-down vote has been abandoned by the GOP.

Now there is news of another potential compromise: in exchange for an extension of unemployment benefits, all Bush-era tax cuts will be temporarily extended for perhaps two years.

Let me just repeat this for you, since I can hardly fucking believe it myself. The Republicans, who have been complaining about deficits ever since Barack Obama won the election in 2008, are negotiating to extend both unemployment benefits and tax cuts. Together, both measures will add to the deficit. And this from the party that delayed extending unemployment benefits on multiple occasions on the grounds that they were not paid for.

Extending unemployment benefits will stimulate the economy, and they would be paid for by allowing tax cuts for the very wealthy to expire. The Democratic plan is obviously better for both the deficit and the economy. And it is the more moderate plan, since only some of the tax cuts are allowed to expire, in deference to the GOP fantasy that tax cuts are always good for the economy. (Some, like former Reagan OMB director David Stockman, think they should all expire.) Balancing the federal budget is also good for the economy. I'm no economist, but I do remember what the economy was like under the last president to balance the budget.

Democrats can't get what they want, in spite of the fact that the facts and the polls are on their side.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

A Certain Conservative Delusion

One of my Facebook friends posted a link to this column on RealClearPolitics by Arnold Ahlert entitled "Why Dems are Going Down in November." It's rife with the usual right-wing internet boilerplate. (Did you know that health care reform is the "absolute epitome of ideological, public-be-damned arrogance"? I guess I was supposed to be happy with Republicans doing absolutely nothing to reform our health care system beyond passing Medicare Part D. I just love paying $322 for half an hour in a recovery room!) But there is one point in particular I wish to take issue with here. Ahlert writes:

Progressive contempt for the values and traditions which make this the greatest country on earth can no longer be disguised. An American president who "believe(s) in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism" has made it plain that this is not a great nation which needs tweaking, but a fundamentally flawed one needing a complete progressive make-over. Once one understands this basic premise, everything this administration and Democratically-controlled Congress does makes sense. All of it centers around the ridiculous premise that America owes the world an apology for any number of shortcomings, many of which can only be alleviated by government-mandated "social justice." That would be the same social justice which demanded-and still demands-that Americans manifestly unqualified to own homes be given mortgages, regardless.

What is this shit about progressive contempt for American values? What makes Ahlert think that he speaks for American values? President Obama has lived American exceptionalism; he is a product of it, a manifestation of the American Dream and the belief that any American can reach the limit of her potential, no matter how modest her beginnings. If anyone is invested in American exceptionalism, it is President Obama, not some rube who blogs for the New York Post.

For too long, conservatives have gotten away with claiming that they have some kind of monopoly on American values, when in fact it is conservative ideology that contradicts it.  Rather than insist on rules of fair play that make it possible for everyone to flourish, conservatives insist upon deregulation and its attendant anarchy which preserves the advantage the very wealthy enjoy in the "free" market. Conservatives claim that they represent family values, and yet consistently make it more and more difficult for actual families to tread water in this economy, by resisting health care reform, increases in the minimum wage, extensions of unemployment benefits in a recession, and so on.

Ahlert claims that Democrats feel the need to apologize to the world for American shortcomings. He hopes that you will infer that Democrats feel the need to apologize for America. Ahlert thus implicitly identifies America with the policies of the Republican Party during the reign of Bush II. In fact, we do need to apologize to the world for the actions of the renegade Bush II administration. But those actions were not representative of America, and to apologize for them is not to apologize for America: to apologize for them is to apologize for the actions of those brought under the influence of an insane ideology by radical terrorist Muslims and opportunistic neocon politicians.

You don't represent American ideals, Arnold: you represent a political party that will do virtually anything to regain power and make government work for corporate elites at the expense of ordinary folks like me.

Democrats will go down in November, but Ahlert is out of his mind if he thinks that it's because Republicans have a monopoly on American values.

Another Inconvenient Truth

There's been an interesting conversation happening about why the GOP is the only major right-of-center political party that doubts the science behind global warming. . . . This isn't a very popular statement, but there is a role for elites in public life. Just like I want knowledgeable CEOs running companies and knowledgeable doctors performing surgeries, I want knowledgeable legislators crafting public policy. That's why we have a representative democracy, rather than some form of government-by-referendum. But of late, the elites in the Republican Party are abdicating their roles, preferring to pander to the desire for free tax cuts and the hostility to Al Gore than make tough and potentially unpopular decisions to safeguard our future. —Ezra Klein, "The Failure of Conservative Elites"

What are you smoking, Leon?

According to grammarian Leon H. Wolf, "Meghan McCain’s book [Dirty Sexy Politics] is an active attempt to split the Republican Party in two and thereby destroy its ability to win elections."

(By the way, I find it hilarious that the anal Wolf cannot allow the name of McCain's book to appear in his attack piece without a comma between "Dirty" and "Sexy.")

If the Republicans fail to win big this November, is that really McCain's fault? Or someone else's?

Holly Bailey of Yahoo! News writes:

With polls showing significant GOP momentum this fall, Republicans in recent weeks began to believe they had a real chance of retaking control of the Senate in November. But a major primary upset at the hands of a tea party insurgent on Tuesday may have put the Senate GOP's dreams of a majority at serious risk. 

In the biggest electoral surprise of the night, conservative activist Christine O'Donnell defeated longtime GOP Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware's Republican Senate primary. Castle, a moderate who once served as the state's governor, had been so favored to win in November that his decision to run had reportedly influenced Democrat Beau Biden, son of Vice President Joe Biden, to abandon plans to seek his father's old seat.

But with O'Donnell's come-from-nowhere win Tuesday night, top Republicans in Washington now see virtually no chance the GOP will be able to pick up the Delaware seat this fall. As a result, they admit their already slim chance of winning back Republican control of the Senate is likely dead. 

"It's hard to see a path for us," one senior Republican official, who declined to be named while discussing party strategy, told The Upshot. "Never say never, but it has become much harder for us after tonight." 

The burden of proof is on anyone who would deny this. Tea Party candidates are typically less moderate and therefore less electable in the general election. McCain is being raked over the coals precisely because she is urging the Republican Party to moderate itself and its positions. And McCain is the threat?

What are you smoking, Leon?

No, and cut taxes.

Here's a fun quiz!

You are a Republican. What solutions do you propose for the following problems?

1. The economy is pulling out of recession, but growth is sluggish. Some fear that another recession is possible. 
2. The federal budget deficit is soaring. 
3. Health care costs are skyrocketing, and many people are uninsured. 
4. Many suspect that the goal of Iran's nuclear program is the production of nuclear weapons. 
5. While considered by many to be physically attractive, your vice-presidential candidate appears to be no more intelligent than your average college sorority member. 
6. It seems that you just can't get rid of the crabgrass in your yard, no matter what you do. 
7. The older you get, the more difficult it becomes for you to to achieve an erection. 
8. You're out of ideas. 

If your answer to (1) through (8) was "Cut taxes," you win! 

If your answer was, "Say 'no,'" you also win! 

What are Republicans going to run on in the Fall? According to The Daily Caller, a Republican advocacy group, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, will release an agenda today "made up mostly of things they think Republicans should oppose or eliminate." 

Among other things, Crossroads GPS "calls on the GOP to 'stop' the Bush tax [cuts] from expiring at the end of the year." 

According to Think Progress, Mike Pence was on Fox "News" recently, and when asked "what, besides tax cuts, he would do to turn the economy around, Pence at first dodged, but then said tax cuts for the rich would be the way to go." Besides tax cuts, then, tax cuts are needed to stimulate the economy. 

President Obama and many Democrats would like to extend the Bush tax cuts on the middle class and allow the Bush tax cuts on those with household incomes exceeding $250,000 to expire. Over the weekend, John Boehner said, "If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I'll vote for them." 

Other Republicans begged to differ. According to NPR, Jon Kyl of Arizona "accused Democrats of 'pitting Americans against each other.'" Kyl said that "We don't want to punish anyone for being successful — that class warfare went out of style when the Cold War ended. I don't think it has a part in our debates." 

Let's look at Kyl's statement a bit more closely. Kyl claims that raising taxes on the wealthy is punishing them for their success. Is Kyl suggesting that it would be more appropriate to tax the middle class for their lack of success? Assuming that revenue is constant, any taxes not paid by the wealthy will have to be paid by everyone else. So, if wealth is a measure of success, then the middle class have failed, and they should be punished for that failure by being required to pay higher taxes. Who, exactly, is waging class warfare here? 

Republicans, you have been bitching and moaning about the deficit ever since Obama was inaugurated. If you suddenly want to balance the Federal budget, rather than offer us vague proposals like ending "wasteful 'stimulus' spending and pork-barrel earmarks," tell us exactly what you're going to cut, and run on that this November. Oh, and stop saying that tax cuts need not be offset by budget cuts. 

Republicans: budget cutters or hypocrites?

Source: Business Insider

Source: Matthew Iglesias 

The Associated Press reports that election-year politics is preventing Democrats from repealing any of the Bush tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire in January.

According to the AP, "Worried about the fragile economy and their own upcoming elections, a growing number of Democrats are joining the rock-solid Republican opposition to President Barack Obama's plans to let some of the Bush administration's tax cuts expire."

President Obama wants to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent and allow the tax cuts for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000 to expire.

In response to a new jobs report, Obama said this morning that "we need to take further steps to create jobs and keep the economy growing including extending tax cuts for the middle class and investing in the areas of our economy where the potential for job growth is greatest."

As the charts above clearly show, the Bush tax cuts will become the biggest contributor to the Federal budget deficit. Clearly, we have some reason to allow them to expire. However, tax cuts probably stimulate the economy somewhat, and so we have reason to keep them in this slow economic recovery. (Interestingly enough, the tax cuts Obama has been calling for may be among the most stimulative. Naturally, the GOP opposes them.) Obama's position on the issue is moderate and reasonable: allow some of the tax cuts to expire, and ask those who are best able to afford increased taxes to shoulder them. (For more on the second chart, read Ezra Klein's "Your Deficit in Charts." For more on the first chart, read the corresponding Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report.)

According to the AP, the increased tax burden on middle-class families would be significant:

Taxpayers making between $40,000 and $50,000 a year would get hit with an average income tax increase of $923 next year. Those making between $50,000 and $75,000 would face an average increase of $1,126, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. 

As the AP reports, Republicans would rather "make all the tax cuts permanent, adding nearly $4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade."

Are these the same Republicans who have been complaining about the deficit?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Deductible Me
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

All right, Republicans. Here's how it works: if you want to cut the deficit, you must either raise revenues, or cut spending. So, this is my question: what are you going to cut from the budget, Republicans? Or is it that you're simply hypocrites?

The cowardice and ignorance of the Party of No

I find it amusing that Sarah Palin is claiming that President Obama does not have cojones, when it is she, and a lot of other pathetic Republicans, who are cowering in fear at the very thought of a mosque in Manhattan.

According to Slate's William Saletan, who is completely correct about this, by the way, "the threat to our values isn't coming from the mosque. It's coming from those who want to stop it."

Those opposed to the project argue that the mosque ought not to be built out of respect for and sensitivity to the feelings of those victimized by the events of 9/11. They argue that a mosque would be an Islamic symbol of victory over a conquered land. They argue that we have no obligation to allow the mosque to be built, since some Islamic nations do not recognize a similar right of Christians to build churches on their soil. And some argue that it would be disrespectful to allow murderers to build a mosque so close to Ground Zero.

All of these arguments fail miserably, yet so many Americans find them compelling. (Just read the comments made by readers of stories about the project on Yahoo! news.) Let's grant that the facts asserted in these arguments are true (and they may not be), and let's consider these arguments in reverse order. The Cordoba Initiative has no relation to the 9/11 hijackers, who died years ago. To say that murderers would be building it is to say that all Muslims are just like the 9/11 hijackers. That's like saying that your Lutheran neighbor is just like David Duke. And appealing to the worst behavior of other nations to justify exceptions to our own Constitutional principles is obviously dangerous and short-sighted. And what does it matter if some Muslims take mosques to be symbols of this or that? Christians conquered this land; in the process, they massacred who knows how many Native Americans and herded the rest into reservations. Now that land is littered with churches. Doesn't every religion erect their churches on conquered soil? Should we be more sensitive to and respectful of the feelings of Native Americans and demolish all of them? I'm sorry, victims of 9/11: our Constitutional principles are more important than your feelings. And your feelings are probably grounded in ignorance about Islam, so I don't have much respect for those particular feelings to begin with.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's summarized the Constitutional issue beautifully:

Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

Unfortunately, many Americans have been rendered incapable of rational thinking by Republican politicians and responsibility-free talkers and bloggers who frighten them out of their wits and hope to benefit politically from all of this (like this coward). So they won't listen. But they should.

Certain Republicans want a religious war. Take that prick Newt Gingrich, who is considering running for President. Gingrich said,

Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term “war on terrorism” is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists. 

Gingrich fails to mention that Christians also use non-violent methods to achieve their totalitarian goals. Converting non-believers is a common religious practice. (I owe that point to my spouse.) Christians have also used violent methods: recall the bloodshed in Northern Ireland. And yet Gingrich targets only Islam. Gingrich has also said that the planned mosque is part of an "Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization." (Way to take it to the brink, Newt.) Newt also writes,

Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for "religious toleration" are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact no Christian or Jew can even enter Mecca. And they lecture us about tolerance.

In his comment on Gingrich's note, Scott Crevier located the fundamental problem with Gingrich's approach. Cervier wrote, "I like you Newt, but can't say I fully agree with you on this one. I just don't think we can stoop to the level of behavior of the Saudis. We're bigger than that." Exactly. American tolerance in the form of freedom of religion is nothing to be ashamed of; neither is it mere political correctness, as some now charge. I can think of no better victory for American values and exceptionalism, and no better public relations nightmare for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda than a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. (Some conservatives claim that President Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism, but it is actually conservatives who have trouble believing in it. The fact that a salute to American exceptionalism and Alexis de Tocqueville's experience of the "budding fruits of freedom, individual liberty, equality of opportunity and a people absolutely free to practice religion however they chose or not to practice any religion at all" appears on Breitbart's Big Government blog is hilarious when you think about it.)

And if you think it's alarmist to say that Gingrich wants a war, consider the fact that he's lamenting the fact that we're not at war with North Korea and Iran. No, I am not making this up.

But Newt's race to the bottom is exactly what Islamic extremists have wanted, and the Republican Party is doing everything it can to give it to them. As Saletan writes,

To rally Muslims against the United States, Bin Laden has repeatedly claimed we're at war with Islam. President Bush, recognizing Bin Laden's game, always exalted Islam as a peaceful religion and framed the U.S. response as a "war on terror," not on Islam. Gingrich says Bush is wrong and Bin Laden is right.

So if you wondered if the Republican Party could get any more idiotic than George W. Bush, you now have your answer. And if you want to know who is with the terrorists, look no farther than those who would reject American freedom of religion in favor of fear, ignorance, and bigotry.

America, I am so disgusted with you right now, I could puke. Let's get it together and use our freaking heads.

The sociopathic wing of the Republican Party does it again

Confused by the coverage of Shirley Sherrod's resignation from USDA and the reasons for it? Perhaps that's because the story was completely fabricated by Fox "News" and Andrew Breitbart and now you're trying to separate truth from fiction. Let Rachel Maddow help you sort it out.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And if fabricating a story weren't bad enough, when the truth about Shirley Sherrod came out and it was revealed that Sherrod was not a racist working in the Obama administration but was rather a person who learned almost a quarter century ago that all the poor deserved her help, Fox "News" attacked the Obama admnistration for "railroading" an innocent person. This again proves that the people at Fox "News" and other assorted conservative thugs have a sociopathic disregard for the truth and that their only goal is to do whatever they can to bring down the Obama administration.

Everyone at the White House needs to grow a pair.  They must not capitulate to the reprehensible machinations of conservative thugs like Andrew Breitbart, Sean Hannity, and Megyn Kelly any longer. The gutless Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack actually asked for Sherrod's resignation before the truth about this smear could surface. This must end. Everyone working for President Obama must stand up to these thugs and make people see them for what they are.

Of course, they have done more than see to it that an innocent person lost her job. As a result of this deception, they have put Vilsack in an embarrassing position, they have turned Sherrod against the NAACP, and they have kept liberals occupied with this shit storm when they could have been talking about important issues, like jobs. It's all in a day's work for the sociopathic wing of the Republican party.

Update: William Saletan's piece for Slate on this mess is well worth reading.

Congressional Republicans have souls?

Here is what Rep. Alan Grayson had to say about Republican efforts to block the extension of unemployment benefits to more than 2.5 million people out of work:



According to Arthur Delaney of the Huffington Post, Rep. Steve King responded by saying that by passing the extension, we'll be borrowing from the Chinese to "pay people not to work."

Let's say this once again, for the benefit of Republicans in Congress: people aren't working because there are no jobs. Businesses are not hiring. We have been in a recession. Where have you idiots been the past two years? If you're against borrowing money from China, stop trying to borrow money to pay for tax cuts for your wealthy friends.

A Few important videos from The Rachel Maddow Show

Here are two videos, both from an episode of Rachel Maddow's show that I watched last night.

Remember how outraged conservatives were about some alleged wrongdoing by ACORN a while ago? As it turns out, the whole thing was made up by Fox "News," and the actual wrongdoers were the two people who made the ambush video.  Here it is: 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Surely you've heard about how Republicans have become deficit hawks now that the other party is in the White House. And they're willing to deny unemployment benefits to those who can't find jobs unless those benefits are paid for and don't add to the deficit. As it turns out, Republicans aren't worried about the deficit at all, since they are willing to add to the deficit to pay for—you guessed it—tax cuts. Here it is:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republicans renew commitment to free market . . . for "Christians"

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Wish You Weren't Here
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Republican apologizes to all those nice people in charge of BP

The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports that Republican Congressman Joe Barton apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward today for all the trouble the United States has put him through lately:

I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown -- in this case a $20 billion shakedown -- with the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the American people, participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history, which has no legal standing, which I think sets a terrible precedent for our nation's future. I'm only speaking for myself. I'm not speaking for anyone else, but I apologize. I do not want to live in a county where anytime a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, [it is] subject to some sort of political pressure that, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. 

So what we have here is an American Congressman apologizing to BP rather than the other way around. The absurdity of this is mind-boggling.

Let's be clear about what Barton is saying. To shake someone down is to commit extortion. And to extort someone is "to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power." A slush fund is defined as "a fund for bribing public officials or carrying on corruptive propaganda" and "an unregulated fund often used for illicit purposes." Is paying reparations to Gulf Coast residents harmed by the spill "illicit"? Does Barton have evidence that a crime has been committed? Or is he making some lame attempt to blunt the potential political windfall for the president of actually holding BP accountable for their horrific, almost unimaginable mess in the Gulf?

Even if we grant that the escrow account "has no legal standing," it doesn't follow that it is illegal. (I'm not a lawyer, by the way.) There would be nothing wrong, for example, with the president reminding BP of its moral obligation to make those harmed by the spill whole again, or as whole as is possible. There would be nothing wrong with reminding BP that it is in their own long-term self-interest to do that. It seems to me that persuading BP to agree to the escrow account is akin to settling out of court. If Barton has his way, however, my neighbor and I would have to get the authorities involved if she ran over my dog; it would be wrong of us to handle it on our own.

What would Barton say if I, acting as a private citizen, were caught somehow spewing 24 barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico every minute, and the president had hauled me into his office and demanded that I make everyone affected whole? I doubt that he would be apologizing to me. I haven't given him any campaign contributions, after all. Could all the money Barton has received from oil and gas have something to do with this? Who at BP has he been sleeping with?

Not only are Republicans embarrassing themselves by kowtowing to BP, their own party can't seem to agree on how to address the problem. (To be fair, Rep. John Boehner appears to have distanced himself from Barton's apology.) We are told in the same story that Rep. Tom Price has written, "These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this Administration's drive for greater power and control." And yet Minority Whip Eric Cantor seems to think that the president ought to plug the leak himself:

I don't want to, nor does anybody want to pile on the president, but what people need right now is leadership. And this speech just did not demonstrate that there is a plan to help the people right now who need it most. . . . We've got a real environmental catastrophe right now, and there is no demonstrative thing to point to where this president says, "We've got a plan. We're going to get it done." 

When reminded about the escrow account, Cantor said:

What we did not hear last night . . . is a fix to the problem. . . . Why isn't the president calling our allies, calling sources that he's got to go in and bring the necessary equipment in place to do everything we can to stave off this environmental disaster of epic proportions?

Well, which is it, then? Is the president obligated to take greater control of this thing as Cantor suggests, or would that be wrong, as Price claims? Whatever he does, the Republicans aren't going to like it. There is no way for Obama to win, because it is so important to Republicans that they themselves win in November.

This just in: Sen. John Cornyn says that he shares Barton's concerns about the escrow account. "I think it's comforting to know that there will be resources set aside and available to pay for legitimate claims," but "this has really become a political issue for the President and he's trying to deal with it by showing how tough he's being against BP." So perhaps it's good for the president to be tough against BP, as long as he's not showing how tough he's being against BP? Let us know when the results from the focus group are in, Big Bad John.



And take off that fucking cowboy hat, poseur.

(Oh, and by the way, responsibility-free talkers and bloggers, support for the new health care reform bill has hit a record high. Assholes.)

Stay Classy, South Carolina Republicans!

South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley

I am going to make a point about the uproar over Nikki Haley in South Carolina, and I am not aware that anyone else has made the same point.

First, some background. Nikki Haley is a Republican running for governor of South Carolina. According to her campaign internet site, she has been endorsed by Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Jenny Sanford, wife of disgraced current South Carolina Republican governor Mark Sanford. She claims also to have been endorsed by several Tea Party organizations. She will face off with three other Republicans in a primary next Tuesday.

The problem for Haley, who has been married for 13 years, is that she has been accused of having two extramarital affairs in the past three years. Lobbyist Larry Marchant claims to have indulged in a one-night stand with Haley in Utah in 2008. This revelation came shortly after Marchant resigned from the campaign of Republican Andre Bauer, who is also running for governor of South Carolina. Political blogger and former spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford Will Folks claims that he had an affair with Haley in 2007.

Perhaps these allegations are, as Haley has put it, "disgusting politics." Neither Marchant nor Folks have offered any evidence that would support the allegations. Haley has even said that, if elected, she will resign if the allegations are proven true. Perhaps these allegations are made by Republicans who want to outmaneuver Tea Partiers and marginalize them. And South Carolina does have a reputation for dirty politics.  South Carolina gave us the the smears that ended John McCain's campaign for president in 2000. But I don't want to focus on the truth or falsity of these claims; I want to focus on something else.

Though I cannot confirm their affiliations, I think it likely that both Folks and Marchant are Republicans. Haley is obviously a Republican.  Either Haley or Folks and Marchant are lying. Therefore, no matter who is telling the truth, we have another situation in which a Republican is being deceptive for political purposes.

And it doesn't stop there. Republican South Carolina State Senator Jake Knotts just called Haley a "raghead," and said that having a raghead in the White House is enough.  Knotts claims that the comment was made "in jest," which is just the sort of thing a racist usually says when called out. According to Talking Points Memo,

The last we'd heard from Knotts was last September when he accused unnamed forces behind disgraced Governor Mark Sanford of spreading rumors that Knotts' favored candidate for governor, current Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, is gay.

I guess they don't take too kindly to homosexuals and Indians in the Palmetto State.

What is the moral of all of this? Even if Haley is innocent of adultery, the Republican Party in South Carolina seems to be a haven for low-lifes. That's the real story.

On a tangentially related note, Fox "News," the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, has been accused of treating Kellie Pickler "like a prostitute." On Fox and Friends, host Brian Kilmeade asked Pickler, "Will you do me a favor, and offer your services to Chris Wallace? . . . Excuse me—offer yourself to Chris Wallace?" (Follow the link to find out what Wallace seems to think about women in general.) In spite of all the family values talk from Republicans, they make fine sleaze merchants, don't they?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Fox & Friends' Lingerie Football Romp
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

(This is where Lori Ziganto accuses me of being anti-women.)

(Note: the title of this post was inspired by the title of this Talking Points Memo post.)

Update. Jake Knotts has tried to clarify his remarks about Nikki Haley.  He didn't mean to call her "a raghead."  He actually meant to call her "a fucking raghead."

Lori Ziganto's semantic games

Recently, Lori Ziganto has recently attempted to redefine the term "feminism." Ziganto most recently writes,

I was taking the term feminist back, not because it’s a necessary or even a desirable term, but so that the LEFT can no longer use it and can no longer continue to use identity politics as a wedge and a way to put people in race based and gender based boxes.

Regarding the meaning of that term, Ziganto writes,

Sarah Palin and the women of the GOP are “true feminists,” in the original intent of the word, yes. And the fact that the faux feminists on the Left are so up in arms about them using the term, which they have bastardized beyond recognition, attests to that fact.

I wonder if any of her readers have wondered what Ziganto means by "feminism"? What is "the original intent" of that word? If "faux feminists" have "bastardized" that term "beyond recognition," then surely Ziganto knows what its original meaning was. And though I do not have encyclopedic knowledge of Ziganto's collected prose, I have read many of her feminism-related posts, and I do not recall her ever defining the term for us.  So, what was the original intent of the word?  I have a feeling that Ziganto will never answer that question for us, for either she actually doesn't know and only claims to, or she believes she knows but will learn that she is actually mistaken.

But certain passages in Ziganto's latest post about feminism are suggestive of what meaning she has in mind. Ziganto writes:

My point was that conservative women are strong, capable and are fed up at having faux feminists (who are actually Femisogynists) constantly claim that they speak for us as they strive to turn all women into perpetual victims, at the mercy of big strong daddy government. We are also tired of motherhood being diminished and considered a detriment instead of an attribute.

Ziganto also writes:

We don’t rely on a victim mentality; we rely on ourselves and the love of our families. We don’t invent sexism with insane claims that marriage itself is sexist. We have no problem taking our husbands’ names, as we aren’t cuckoo pants and thus, realize that marriage isn’t some nefarious plot, but rather a loving bond. We want to share our name with our children, whom we don’t consider punishments.

Ziganto also criticizes "faux feminists" for embracing metaethical moral relativism and with it a tolerant attitude toward the oppression and abuse of women in certain Islamic countries.

So who is the enemy, according to Ziganto?  Her post suggests that the enemy

1. Accepts metaethical moral relativism, 
2. Strives to turn all women into perpetual victims, 
3. Relies on a victim mentality rather than themselves and the love of family, 
4. Supports leaving women at the mercy of big strong daddy government, 
5. Believes that marriage itself is sexist, 
6. Is opposed to women taking their husband's names, 
7. Fails to realize that marriage is a loving bond, 
8. Considers children to be punishments, and 
9. Diminishes motherhood.  

(The "real" feminists, then, are just the opposite.)  Now, we ought to ask at least two questions: first, does anyone satsifying Ziganto's description actually exist? and second, if so, are they representative of feminists?  To the first question, it is probably safe to answer in the affirmative.  There are around seven billion people on the planet, so surely someone satisfies this description.  To the second question, however, it is safe to answer in the negative.

Unlike Ziganto, I have offered a definition of feminism.  According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Classical liberalism or libertarianism . . . holds that women and men are self-owners capable of acquiring property rights over things. As such women and men, equally, have the right to freedom from coercive interference with their person and property. This right to freedom from coercive interference consists in, at least, rights to freedom of conscience and expression, freedom to control what happens to one's body, freedom of association, freedom to acquire, control and transfer property, freedom of contract, as well as the right to compensation when rights are violated. The state's role is, exclusively, to protect citizens from coercive interference by protecting their rights. Some reject even a limited state, however, holding that nongovernmental means of protecting rights are to be preferred.

The classical liberal or libertarian feminist simply holds that classical liberalism is true.  Now, the careful reader will note that this feminist view entails virtually nothing on Ziganto's ridiculous list.  As a feminist myself, the only item on Ziganto's list I might endorse is (6).  But think about it: why must a woman take her husband's name?  Why shouldn't the man take his wife's name?  The practice is obviously completely arbitrary and therefore without merit and indefensible.

As a feminist who rejects metaethical moral relativism, I am opposed to any effort anywhere in the world to oppress and abuse women.  I do not favor making women into perpetual victims; I do favor uncovering the ways in which society makes women into victims so that it can be addressed by the law.  Leaving women at the mercy of government is not the same as believing that government ought to protect the equal rights of all citizens, including women.  I don't believe that marriage is sexist, but I believe that many marriages are.  The right to freedom to control what happens to one's body also guarantees a woman's right to be a mother if she autonomously chooses.  Ziganto's inclusion on the list of the idea that children are punishments is based on her willful misunderstanding of a statement made by President Obama and is therefore a piece of partisan political bullshit that I shall not address.  And finally, to actually suggest that feminists fail to recognize the value of the loving bonds with family members and spouses is absurd.

By suggesting that the list is representative of feminism, Ziganto has already redefined the term.  Her argument against feminism is in fact a semantic game.  By changing the meaning of "feminism" so that it refers exclusively to radical forms of feminism which may not have any actual adherents, she is committing the straw man fallacy. Think about it: which form of feminism is more likely to have more adherents, a moderate form, or a radical form?  And by trying to take the term back, as she puts it, Ziganto is doing the very thing she abhors, i.e., using identity politics as a wedge.

This isn't the only semantic game Ziganto has been playing lately.  Ziganto recently published this adolescent attack on Meghan McCain.  Now, McCain and I aren't exactly playing on the same team, but I have a hell of a lot more respect for McCain than I do Ziganto because McCain is usually more nuanced in her thinking. Regarding Rand Paul's primary win in Tennessee, McCain writes:

Paul’s nomination could have been a moment of triumph for the Tea Party movement, as well as for Republicans, but instead it was an embarrassment. And I felt the disappointment firsthand, given that I agree with and support numerous things the Tea Party represents. Like many Americans, I’m angered by the intense spending going on under the Obama administration. But when the movement was given the opportunity to present specific solutions and answer real questions, its leaders nominated someone who—yet again—revealed weird, racist undertones, no matter how he wants to spin it. 

I respect Paul’s ideological commitment to libertarianism, of which it’s quite obvious he’s a die-hard supporter, even if there are reasons there’s no real libertarian senator. And I, too, believe that the government should stay out of people’s lives as much as possible. Yet Paul seems to be taking these beliefs to an extreme, one that’s making even fellow Republicans uneasy.

Why Does Paul give McCain the willies?  Immediately after his primary victory, Paul did an interview with Rachel Maddow in which he seemed to indicate that the government has no right to prohibit private discrimination on the basis of race.  This put him at odds with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is rather extraordinary.

McCain goes on to indicate which team she's on:

Paul’s role within the Republican Party (if any) has yet to be determined. But one thing I am sure of is that, until we start nominating candidates who have more realistic views of the complex world we live in and stop seeing things strictly in black and white (no pun intended), we are going to continue losing elections and becoming punch lines for late-night talk-show hosts.

So, plainly, McCain is urging the Republican Party to moderate its stances for its own good.  That seems like excellent advice to me.

How did Ziganto take this advice? Well, she said the following, among other things:

As always, Meghan McCain is concerned only with Meghan McCain. And being thought of as “cool” and “hip” and “edgy” so that the right people, in her mind, will like her. She has yet to learn that they only pretend to like her as long as they can use her to bash Republicans. She obviously doesn’t realize yet that is the only reason she is paid – such a depressing thought – for her alleged writing.

She also has yet to learn that the “I’m so brave, I speak my own mind” line doesn’t work when one always takes the easy route and never, ever says anything actually brave. You see, Meghan, you can’t claim to be an individual nor a rebel. You have proven yourself to be a sheep — in cute shoes, yes, but a sheep nonetheless.

That's right, Ziganto went straight for the ad hominem fallacy dangling in front of her mind like a carrot. Even if McCain's motivation for writing is the desire to be thought of as cool, hip, and edgy, her analysis may be perfectly sound.  But there's something more interesting going on here. McCain probably doesn't give a flying fuck what Ziganto has to say about her.  But surely McCain's attempt to combat the radicalization of the Republican Party has its significant detractors.  David Frum was made to pay for his opposition to the epistemic closure of the Republican Party.  Some would plausibly say that Frum's willingness to call out Republicans took courage.  Well, then, how could Ziganto characterize McCain's willingness to challenge the radical elements of the Republican Party as anything other than courageous? How can that be the "easy route" for McCain? Her father was the Republican Party's nominee for President in 2008, for fuck's sake, and only after shedding his maverick reputation to become one of the most conservative members of the Republican Party.  For Ziganto, the brave thing to do would be to simply go along with the people in charge of the Republican Party right now—the people who led the party to their Waterloo over health care reform, the epistemically closed Party of No that panders to Tea Partiers who would take the party even further to the right.  That would be brave, if by "brave," we meant "cowardly."

People like me use people like Frum and McCain to bash Republicans like Ziganto and Paul, i.e., right-wing extremists. And we should. Such work is noble, for it hastens the day when rational, mature, principled conservatives will take their party back.

(By the way, what does Ziganto mean when she refers to McCain's "alleged" writing?  Does she mean to say that McCain's writing isn't actually writing?  Is she serious?)  

David Frum, "Waterloo"

March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

Source: http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo