I just wonder....

...how many years of his tax returns did Congressman Ryan have to provide to the Romney team as part of the vetting process?

Just saying.

In answer to your question

Mark Kleiman asks:

Aren’t there any grown-ups left in the GOP?

No.

Next, please....

I miss Teddy...

... Roosevelt, that is.

Here's an excerpt from a 1910 speech that seems prescient.

Party Orthodoxy and Craziness

Glenn Greenwald hits a home run.

Quote of the day

America needs two viable, principled political parties--Democrats vs. Republicans. Not Democrats vs. the Stoopid Puppet Dittoheads.

--John A. Farrell, US News & World Report

That's not what it says....

Jonathan Bernstein, a guest blogger for Andrew Sullivan, has an extremely off-base post about the alleged supermajority needed to pass anything, and why California's supermajority-to-pass-the-budget is a particularly bad idea.

His basic point, of course--that requiring a supermajority to pass the budget has caused all sorts of gridlock, the ability of a committed minority to hold the majority hostage, etc. And he's right. But he seems to think Congress also requires a supermajority for almost everything:

While most things are subject to a supermajority in the Senate...

No. Not correct.

The Constitution specifies that legislation passes by simple majority. The filibuster and the 60-vote rule to cloture aren't in the Constitution; they're Senate rules, and only apply if invoked. As has been discussed in earlier posts, this week, on the same blog, the "filibuster everything" approach of this Congress is an historical aberration. The historical norm was to filibuster only on major issues of principle; starting in the early 90s the filibuster was used more, but this Congress is on track to shatter all records, with triple the record number of filibusters of previous Congresses already.

But that indicates that the GOP has determined its best electoral chances lie in causing total gridlock. I'm not sure I agree with them on that, but that's another question. Back to Bernstein:

There's a reasonable argument that Congress should need a supermajority to pass ordinary bills.

As much as I enjoy Heinlein's "The more impediments to legislation the better" outlook, I'm not sure I agree. At any rate, while such an argument might exist, Bernstein hasn't made it, and it's not what the Constitution envisioned. Simply assuming that "of course Congress needs a supermajority to pass most legislation" indicates a depth of historical ignorance that Bernstein's other writings didn't suggest.

Again, his point that even if you need a supermajority for most things, the budget is the worst place to require the supermajority, because the budget simply must be passed, is correct in my view. (And I'm sure he'll sleep better knowing he has my approval...) But the "supermajority" isn't a requirement on the federal level at all, at least not in the sense he seems to be using it. As a practical matter, in the face of a GOP that's going to maintain lockstep even if it drives the country over the cliff? Yes. But that's an argument for changing Senate rules.

[sigh] Of course, changing the Senate rules requires an even bigger supermajority of Senators...


Update: A followup post indicates that his first post wasn't quite what he meant (possible), that I misinterpreted it (more likely), or that he had a sudden epiphany (listed for the sake of completeness). At any rate, he points out, correctly, that the 60-vote rule isn't included in the Constitution and probably wasn't forseen by the Founders.

But to extrapolate [...] to the idea that the Senate was intended to have a 60 vote filibuster rule is...well, Yglesias calls it abject nonsense, and that seems fair to me.

Culture & Politics

Andrew Sullivan linked to an interesting follow-up by Julian Sanchez on the politics of resentment. Sanchez is making the point that the resentment isn't a psychological diagnosis, and isn't necessarily a code for something else, that the internet has allowed previously marginalized groups to suddenly find each other and organize in a way they couldn't before. But I think the bit Sullivan excerpts isn't the most relevant point in the article; it's this one:

People have read racial undertones into the rallying cry “I want my country back!” and its cognates—probably because this is a strange way to present opposition to a policy agenda, however misguided you might find it. The instinct is right, but I think the conclusion is wrong: Race—and communism, as Tim Curry would remind us—is another red herring. What we’re seeing is the natural sentiment of people who think of themselves as quintessentially American looking at an American popular and public culture that presents them as marginal.

Yes. That's the biggest reason why so much of the politics of the right currently involves resentment of so-called elites, exclusion by "the mainstream media" (um, hello, FOX gets higher ratings than CNN or MSNBC), and an insistence that "real Americans" agree with them--and by implication, anyone who doesn't, therefore isn't a real American.

I don't see things improving for at least another full election cycle. The GOP right is currently where the Democratic left was after Reagan shellacked them--dazed, confused, out of ideas, and not quite believing that the old truths aren't holding anymore. The craziness has to burn itself out, and the remainder has to grow up.

And the sooner, the better. Yes, I'm an unabashed lefty partisan, but a healthy democracy needs a healthy opposition party, and today's GOP isn't it. They've adopted the tactics of the old left--identity politics, a political catechism that must be accepted without question, a total unwillingness to consider any other view as being anything other than hopelessly corrupt--and charged it up on tribal identification, with a good healthy dose of religious fervor and nativism. And, like the old left, have become more concerned with all of the above than the realities of governing or of addressing the problems in front of us today, rather than the problems of 30 years ago. (1980's Democrats couldn't quite grasp the idea that the heyday of the civil rights movement and the Great Society were over; today's GOP wants to apply Regan's platform from 30 years ago to today's problems.)

But the GOP seems short of grown-ups at the moment; it's all tribal politics and red meat for the base. If it's got to burn out before it starts to change, then run, Sarah, run!

Edit/addendum: incredibly minor nit-pick. Tim Curry would remind us that it's socialism that's the red herring.

Least Surprising Headline of the Day Award

And today's award goes to CNN:

Dear Michelle Bachmann...

You claim that when you speak out against White House policy, you're targeted by the media.

Actually, it's not that.

It's that when you spout half-informed moonbat conspiracy theories, people laugh at you. You're being "targeted" only because you're good for ratings, and not in a way you'd like.

There's a difference.

Elevating the Debate

Wonkette sums up my feelings about Chuck Grassley's indignant twitters to/about Obama, which have the depth & tone you'd expect from a teenager:

We are all stupider for having read this.

Seriously, go read the twits in question. They read like something an overprivileged teenager would write. This clown is a U.S. Senator? Yes, the 140-character limit of Twitter doesn't lend itself to pensive asides or elaborately-built-up arguments, but this is absurd.

Proof once more of the dictum from the founding fathers (I don't remember if it was Jefferson or Madison, and could be wrong about both of them). Democracy doesn't ensure the people get the leadership they want, but it does ensure they get the leadership they deserve.

[h/t: Andrew Sullivan]

Memo to Kathleen Parker

Just a few quick comments on your column today:

1) Yes, I'm sure you're getting angry mail from annoyed right-wingers. BUT, your response:

Yes, absolutely, let's start censoring people who entertain ideas and opinions that make us unhappy. Now there's a sure path to enlightenment!

while satisfyingly high on the snark scale, isn't accurate, and I think (hope) you know it. You're confusing censorship and criticism (or threats to boycott). Refusing to read your column and censoring you aren't the same thing. Not even close. If you make public commentary, you're going to have people who disagree with you. Why, even I myself have on occasion been criticized by regular readers of this blog--both of them. (In my case, I don't confuse censorship and obscurity.)

2) A bit of info. You write:

The most common complaint I've heard lately is that when people on the right criticize each other, the left uses that to its advantage. (The right would never do such a thing.)

You're quite right to be skeptical about the right not using disorganization of its opponents to its advantage. Yes, the left has its share of circular firing squads. But the right has been very skillful at exploiting them (anyone else remember Limbaugh's 'Operation Chaos'?).

Also, I'm told, the left doesn't eat its own the way the right does. . . . Whether assertions about the left's sturdier loyalties are accurate, I can't say.

I can. They're not. And this isn't new. Truman said, "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat." Remember the drama when David Geffen suggested Hillary might not be the one? Howard Dean becoming DNC Chair?

But one could argue that eating one's own -- that is, being willing to say what's true even when doing so is not in one's immediate self-interest -- is not a defect but rather an imperative that conservatives might wish to claim as their own.

Here, of course, you're quite right. One's commitment to the truth should be paramount, even when that truth is embarrassing or inconvenient. Alas, we live in an imperfect world.

Oh, and please walk down the hall and point out to Harold Meyerson that while some post-election schadenfreude is in order, and I'll admit to indulging a little myself, it's actually in our long-term best interest for the GOP to get its act together. (Jettisoning the Faux Noise wing of the party would be a first step, I agree, and a welcome change.) But: A healthy democracy needs a healthy opposition party. Today's GOP isn't it. As Meyerson points out, it's a regional, narrow, race- and class- defined party with strong elements of anti-intellectualism, Know-Nothingism, and xenophobia. They need to get their act together to force some discipline onto the Democrats, who certainly don't seem capable of disciplining themselves some day.

(Case in point: Why are we debating whether Lieberman should keep his chairmanship, after he campaigned for the GOP, questioned the competence and basic loyalty of the Democratic nominee, lied about the nominee's voting record, and did NOTHING during his previous term as committee chair? Because, apparently, expecting him to pay a price for misbehavior would make Lieberman feel bad, and that would make people all frowny.)

The Republican party can use this as an opportunity for soul-searching and rebuilding. If they follow the Democratic model, though, they'll have to lose another round of midterms and possibly a presidential election (Sarah in '12!) before they get serious about it.

In the meantime, while I can take some pleasure in watching them go through the process, I can only hope they get through the process relatively quickly.

Guffaw-worthy quote of the day

Second, the political culture of the Democratic Party has changed over the past decade. There's a fierce new anger among many liberal Democrats, a more militant style and an angry intolerance of dissent and criticism.

--David Frum, today's Washington Post

Project much?

Quote

If the conservative movement in America is mostly about getting the federal government off our backs, then why does the Republican platform promote constitutional amendments to force prayer in schools, force women to have children they do not want and make it a crime to express political dissent by burning a flag?

Rack Jite

video moment of the day

Did anyone else catch the CNN camera pointing at someone in the back holding up a banner saying "MCCAIN VOTES AGAINST VETS"?

Alternate Reality Land

Cindy McCain bio film: "It was love at first sight." No mention that John was married to someone else at the time.

Cindy McCain: A woman picks a husband by what kind of father he'll be, and she hit a home run in John. No mention that John's kids were raised by his FIRST wife... the one he committed adultery on, then dumped. Spare me about what a good family man he is.

Paeans to individual responsibility, after a night mocking those who organize citizens to take care of themselves.

Did you know McCain was a hero in Vietnam?

Did she just claim with a straight face that he wasn't a Washington insider?

And that he always speaks the truth no matter what the cost?

Who, exactly, is she talking about again?

Oh, Snap! Part 2

Since last night, the Republicans have reported a burst of new donations, with $1 million in contributions since yesterday.

The Obama campaign reports raising $8 million since last night, and on track to have raised $10 million by the time John McCain takes the stage tonight.

It does indeed appear that the base has been energized--for both parties.

[h/t: Marc Ambinder, by way of Andrew Sullivan]

Quote of the day

Actually from yesterday, but I just stumbled on it this morning:

Obama hasn't confused his base for the country. These guys don't seem to know the difference.

--Ta-Nehisi Coates

Palin's speech: the morning after

A lot (most) of it was the same culture-war GOP boilerplate we've been hearing for years. And it didn't address any of the substantive issues. It wasn't anything we haven't heard before. And as the Republicans have reminded us, there's a lot more to the job than giving good speeches. She's got a background in broadcasting, we know she's good at reading copy written by someone else. Giving a good speech doesn't qualify her for the job.

The Republicans were never going to just lay down and die. They're going to fight back, and not give up power easily. No one does, why should they be different? Yes, Palin's speech was infuriating. But it wasn't, to use this year's over-used phrase, "game-changing."

It rallied the base; it was clearly aimed at the people in the convention hall, and it clearly succeeded with them. But if I were a middle-of-the-road voter, doing relatively OK but a little worried about my mortgage payment, OK with being in Iraq but not happy with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo...would I have heard anything there appealing to me? Or just standard GOP culture-war boilerplate?

Addendum: A bit of linkage:

PZ Myers: This is how we will lose

WaPo: In a more diverse America, a mostly white convention

Gail Collins, NYT: Palin seems an awful running mate, until you look at the alternatives

NYT blog: Still one step behind (apparently written before Palin speech)

AmericaBlog: Sarah stretches the truth

RBC: Palin was at 2006 Alaska Independence Party Convention

CNN's online quick poll:

How do you rate Republican VP choice Sarah Palin's convention speech?

Thumbs up	43%	81618
Thumbs down	34%	64820
Didn't watch	22%	41694
Total Votes: 188132

Oh, and as for Romney's ripping into "liberal" Washington: who exactly does he think has been in charge for the last 8 years?

Quote of the day

"If the Obamas had a 17 year-old daughter who was unmarried and pregnant by a tough-talking black kid, my guess is if that they all appeared onstage at a Democratic convention and the delegates were cheering wildly, a number of conservatives might be discussing the issue of dysfunctional black families."

--Byron York

[h/t: Andrew Sullivan]

And the nation yawned...

Overnight reaction to the conventions, based on CNN online survey, the holy grail of political polling:

What did you think of the GOP convention's Tuesday night program?

Thumbs up					26%	23444
Thumbs down					27%	25038
Didn't watch					47%	42875
Total Votes: 91357