Er … um … right.
Gay Republican Plans to File for Young Seat
Thank you, Abby Livingston.
(chortle!)
(titter!)
(sigh ….)
Okay, now that I’m done being childish … well, okay, I’m not done being childish. But it’s also because the short article doesn’t explain what the headline means; is Nick Zoller homosexual, or does he come from a place called Gay? I mean, no, really, it’s just a funny headline, but I don’t get its connection to the article.
Anyway, turns out he’s from St. Petersburg, Florida.
The back story: RNC Chairman Michael Steele criticized President Obama for engaging a land war in Afghanistan. (Where is Wallace Shawn when you need him?) The DNC, through spokesman Brad Woodhouse, responded with a press release saying that “Steele bets against our troops, roots for failure”.
Thus prefaced, read on. Glenn Greenwald explains:
As The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent writes, and I couldn’t agree more: “this is Karl Rove’s playbook. I don’t care how often Republicans do it — this blog is not on board with this kind of thing from either party.” Indeed, at The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol revealingly echoed the DNC, demanding that Steele resign for his “affront” to the soliders. Ironically, there was just a vote on war funding last night in the House, and numerous Democrats — 93 of them on a mild anti-war measure and 22 on a stronger one — voted to end the war in Afghanistan, many arguing exactly what Steele just said about the futility of the war. Do the DNC’s Rovian insults mean that these anti-war Democrats are also guilty of wanting to “walk away from the fight against Al Qaeda,” “undermin[ing] the morale of our troops,” and “betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan”?
Replicating the worst of the GOP rhetoric is unfortunately not limited to the DNC. Over on the front page of Daily Kos, Barbara Morrill ends her post about Steele’s comments this way: “What the family and friends of those who died or those who are still fighting there today think is, of course, another story.” A couple of months ago, Jonathan Alter and Keith Olbermann both suggested that criticisms of Obama weaken the U.S. and thus help Al Qaeda. Last October, both the DNC and some progressive groups accused Steele respectively of “siding with the terrorists” and being “downright unpatriotic” because he questioned whether Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize was merited.
I understand and even accept the need to use the other side’s rhetoric against them, though once you start doing that, you forever forfeit the ability to complain when it’s used against you. More to the point: the 2006 and 2008 elections proved that this “against-the-Troops/cut-and-run” rhetoric is now as ineffective as it is ugly. That’s why the GOP lost so overwhelmingly in those elections while relying on those smears; why would the DNC want to copy such ineffective tactics?
No, really. It’s come to this. Read the whole thing. Or, if you really can’t be bothered, and absolutely need the capsule, here you go:
When the DNC, a front page Daily Kos writer and Bill Kristol all join together to smear someone with common language for opposing a war, it’s clear that something toxic is taking place. By all means, the ludicrous hypocrisy and illogic of Steele’s attempt to place all blame on the Democrats for this war should be screamed from the mountaintops . . . but equating war opposition with disrespect to the Troops or cowardice is destructive and stupid no matter who is doing it.
Yes, ’tis true that Michael Steele is exactly the sort of disgrace who can only ever speak truth as a clodhopping political ruse, but there is no reason for respectable society to dwell in the gutter with him.
(Image credit: Apologies to Jimmy Margulies.)
Only vague first impressions; it’s difficult to get any real perspective while so much dust and smoke hangs in the air after the conflagration.
Paul Krugman, before the vote:
So what’s the reality of the proposed reform? Compared with the Platonic ideal of reform, Obamacare comes up short. If the votes were there, I would much prefer to see Medicare for all.
For a real piece of passable legislation, however, it looks very good. It wouldn’t transform our health care system; in fact, Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect. But it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate among us, even as it would do more to control costs than anything we’ve done before.
This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Republican David Frum on the political fallout:
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?
I’m not making any predictions about what happens tomorrow. It’s part superstition, part cynicism, and part that I just don’t want to set myself up for a broken heart.
Nonetheless, others are more … um … I don’t know … bold? … than I. Glenn Grenwald, for instance:
My predictions/views of tomorrow:
Popular vote: Obama – 51.6%; McCain – 47.1%; Nader/Barr/others: 1.3%
Electoral votes: Obama – 321-217 (Kerry states + CO, NM, IA, VA, NC, OH)
States I’m mostly likely to be wrong about: (1) FL; (2) NC; (3) OH; (4) MT; (5) MO
Senate: Dems – 59; GOP – 41 (including Lieberman and Sanders as Dems)
Senate Dem. pick-ups: VA, CO, NM, AK, NC, OR, NH, GA
States I’m mostly likely to be wrong about: (1) GA; (2) MN; (3) KY
House Dem. pick-up: +31
Incumbent losses that would produce the greatest pleasure (among those with a reasonable prospect to lose): (1) Saxby Chambliss; (2) Michelle Bachmann; (3) Marilyn Musgrave; (4) Robin Hayes; (5) Elizabeth Dole; (6) Dave Reichert
Democrats whose defeat would prompt indifference (or even joy): (1) Chris Carney; (2) Tim Mahoney; (3) Nick Lampson; (4) Jim Marshall; (5) Jack Murtha.
Five terms I hope never to hear again for the rest of my existence: (1) Joe the Plumber; (2) Hockey Mom; (3) game-changer; (4) tightening; (5) Sarahcuda.
Three dumbest pieces of already-solidified conventional wisdom among the Right and the media (if Obama wins): (1) The Liberal Media was unfair to McCain; (2) Obama better resist his “liberal impulses” and govern from the center unless he wants to spawn disaster; (3) The Pelosi/Reid Congress is going to pressure Obama to move to the Left.
B.D.'s Last Refuge 