Thursday, March 7

Thursday Olio: Good Measure Edition

• For one thing, if there's a better argument at this moment against American Exceptionalism than the "resurgence" of Jeb "People Say 'The Smarter' Like That Took Work" Bush I don't know what it would be. Nobody asked for Jeb Bush, did they? Or nobody who wasn't stupid enough to've also backed his brother? The  Daily Beast [Caution: Daily Beast] wants to know whether he can "Save the GOP and End Its Emerging Civil War?" This is one of those interesting moments in life when A Particular Person (or media Titan) asking A Particular Stupid Question actually answers the Question for you, for all intents and purposes.

[Rereading the above, it occurs to me that I grew up before there were Star Trek nerds, or D&D clubs, so, depending on outlook, it may've been that you had Some Nerd, or Know-it-All, damning himself with Questions for Teacher that Involve Azimov Quotes every five fucking minutes from second grade on. It was a rare thing for me. The one I recall is when that smug little Know-it-All Philip, who insisted on being called Philip, not Phil, raised his hand, rose (he was the only motherfucker ever did that), and informed our second grade teacher that all the Harlem Globetrotters were from Holland.

[Little fucker wasn't even smart. Just a Know-it-All.]

So if The Beast wants to know, then we all know what the answer is.

I'm sure you're already aware that Bush is out there simultaneously plugging and distancing himself from his new book. And if nothing else, it's time to salute the only Republican who may've foreseen the results of the 2012 Presidential elections. I mean correctly. Either that, or he's the first slimy bastid who had a book ready to go just in case, which makes him an Entrepreneurial hero to his party. Sharp move either way. For a Bush.

Is there someone out there who won't admit that Jebbie did, in deed, lose the 2008 and 2012 Republican primaries, not by not running but by being so bad a bet he couldn't raise money? He "didn't run" like Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour didn't run. Well, in 2008 Jeb was a Bush, which made him technically ineligible. But otherwise.

And now, suddenly "Jeb can speak Spanish", "Jeb's wife is Mexican-American" and "He has several children currently in South American prisons" is a selling point. Salve those wounds, Governor! The Nation That Rejected Your Ass Every Time It Was Offered needs you!

• Here's the only thing I feel like saying where "Rand Paul" can be inserted, as opposed to something being inserted in "Rand Paul". I enjoy Folly. I enjoy participating in it, occasionally even by design. I'm in favor of Folly qua Folly, and Folly with some serious point behind it. It makes a fine pennant, but it's a piss-poor battle flag. And it's even worse in a sham attempt to get more Xanax.

There is absolutely no reason, none, why any half-literate citizen of the United States should imagine that a declarative statement from the Attorney General, the President, or anyone with a microphone would mean diddly about future actions. I know Republicans want to forget George W. Bush, but fed cryin' out loud. The Bush administration announced in the spring of 2002, if not before, that it had the right to send US troops into Iraq, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and San Francisco based on how it chose to read forty-year-old UN resolutions. Which, of course, are the gold standard of World Government Pronouncements so far as the Republican party is concerned. And it could do so regardless of what the Congress did. Dick Fucking Cheney simply announced that he was no longer Vice President, he was Vice President Plus.

Sure, sure, we have one-third of a million men and women locked up for drug offenses, a fair number of 'em put there without the use of drones, and not an insubstantial subgroup of whom got there because we've been violating the Posse Comitatus Act since the early 80s. But, sure, it's the best use of Official Libertarianism's bully pulpit to defend against the possibility of the EPA catching some rancher dumping diesel into a river somewhere.

• Who said What on the Where now?



It is the stated opinion of No Less An Expert Than Dee Dee Myers that if the Republican House has "8% approval" it is unseemly to try to press a political advantage which might make it alter its War of Obstruction.

Just the kind of thinking we could use in the U.S. Senate, doncha think?


Wednesday, March 6

Wednesday Olio: Barnyards And Epithets Edition

• I meant to get to this by yesterday at the latest, so, briefly, kudos to Charlie Rose, the always unfortunate Norah O'Donnell, and CBS legal analyst Jack "People's Sexiest News Anchor Emeritus" Ford for coverage of the nursing home CPR-refusal story. After we returned from 100 words worth of dish soap from the Vice President of The Assisted Living Federation of America, all three agreed that a big part of the problem--perhaps its base, perhaps the lurking sinkhole underneath--was--drumroll--liability lawsuits. Ha. Didn't see that comin', did ya? And probably never thought about it quite that way, have you? Remember to send CBS a nice thank-you note. 

Horse. Shit. Horseshit. It's no more fucking liability that what they gladly accept by taking money from people. Or opening their doors to the public. Or owning private property. But it's an idea which must be served--by Charlie Journamalism Rose--because in the absence of clear, demonstrated, serious-felony-level criminality every business-owner is a hard-scrabble saint. 


[Just for fun, what level of the Apocalyptic meltdown do you think would be required for any one of those three to claim that living in circumstances where a) there's an Assisted Living Federation of America, and b) where there's an Assisted Living Federation of America which can be absolutely certain its voice will be heard on national network news if its brand is even slightly threatened contributes to unresponsive 87-year-olds being left for the taxpayers' meatwagon?]


The justifiably malignable O'Donnell was the only one of the three who expressed the idea that there might be a human element involved in here somewhere, in line just behind Profitability, Shareholder Considerations, and Profitability again, if we just peer over the top, probably. Fortunately there just wasn't time to flesh that idea out. Might there be ethical concerns which actually trump Your Bosses Orders? Every slope in American public life is slick as snot these days, for the high-priced Press.  

• Yesterday evening local teleprompter readers were teasing a story about "dog flipping", which made me think probably what you think it made me think. 

I never did any cow tipping; the closest I got was a snowy high-school weekend ice skating on a pond on Bud McGreavy's grandfather's farm with six or seven other people, which was probably dangerous enough without the blotter acid we'd consumed.

Which, by the way, this was pre-cutesy-names-for-blotter-acid days. "Orange sunshine" was the only term I ever heard, and the only thing I saw was more "Construction paper reddish". I've never bothered to make a study. Was it different in different regions? This is just the view of the suburban Midwestern lysergic aficionado in the early 70s. Later I saw Mr. Natural and another stamp-deal thing, which I forget, but I was insufficiently excited by the minutia of drug-taking. It was during my active career that names of pot varieties went from The Legendary to Shit Names Made Up By Some Bartender. As "Panama Red" to "Maui Wowie". My friend Jack and I used to register our indifference by telling any of the stoners who asked that ours was "Yugoslavian Primo, grown in Tito's palace courtyard and smuggled in through Cuba". Most just nodded. 

Where was I? Oh, ice skating and tripping balls, as they say today. There were some dairy cows about forty yards away at a gate who were, if I remember correctly, chewing cud.

There was a decent-packing, fairly substantial snow cover, and everything looked magical even without the goggles. I packed a snowball--not hard--and hurled it cow-ward, as boys who are hallucinating are wont. It hit the brown one square on the fucking snout in a burst of white powder like a blown-on dandelion. You could not have placed a shot like that better for maximum cow disruption. The poor darlin' emitted a cow yelp (of surprise; I was as fucking surprised as she) and flew off, if a cow can ever be said to fly, even without snow. I spent a week waiting for karmic retribution. 

This reminds me: it's a bit late to complain, but I was always the guy who was called on to be sensible whenever minds were bent or blown. I did twice the hits of those other weenies, but I had to be the one to say "Okay, the light is green, we can walk across the street now," or "No, don't go kiss the policeman," and all that other stuff. I think what really accounts for the brevity of my LSD career is not the drug experience, but the paperwork.

Memories. Some day they'll be the only things you have left. If you're lucky.

Ummm, cows, uh, oh, dog-flipping. So the news is pimpin' the big Dog-Flipping Arrest story, and after the break it turns out the dude's middle-aged, the catchphrase means something like "dog reselling", if you're one of dwindling number of English speakers left, and not a larking punk with a lever and fulcrum; a couple had spotted their stolen--allegedly stolen--German shepherd in connection with him somehow. Let's say Facebook. Police investigated, and:
During a search of Jones’ home on Feb. 15, ACC Officer Theresa Redmon and IMPD East District officers found guns and four dogs, including two purebred German Shepherds.
He's a "serious violent felon", so the guns are a crime. In addition:
[Authorities] allege he kept the animals in deplorable conditions in his Eastside home and if he could not sell the dogs, he simply let them loose…. 
Jones also ran a dog obedience school in his living room. He allegedly bred his customers’ purebreds with the dogs he had acquired on the Internet.
And the local hairdo explains that these Dog Flippers Go In For purebred dogs because they can sell them for Top Dollar, and not out of some weird street fealty to accepted breeding standards, which was my bet.  Which, number one, may not be Grade A bullshit, but is something less than factual. And, second, if we bother to excise the alleged dognapping that's pretty much Mitch Daniels' economic recovery plan. I'd say it was Mike Pence's, but he doesn't have one. 


• Big day yesterday for City/County Councilor José Evans, who 1) became a Republican, and 2) a Latino.
Look, it's a fucking humor blog. And if anyone is offended, I apologize for the brief Geraldo Rivera image I experienced. Evans, a second-term councilman, has been active in both camps, and done well by his constituencies. He's a politician, in other words, and one who got re-elected. He seems nice enough, and I'm sure he's a responsible pet owner. It's just that his Big Party Switch got played as Republicans Make Inroads with the Hispanic Community, rather than a, uh, career opportunity. And okay, so his explanation:
“I’ve become frustrated with political games being played by the Democratic Party, the lack of ideas, the infighting.”

may not pass the Laugh Test, exactly, but we'll take him at his word. The man is scheduled to meet with Reince Priebus today, so it's not like the transition will be painless. 

Evans is serving his second term representing Pike Township, formerly white, formerly Republican enclave. This prompted my favorite local political moment of the year so far, not counting the unintentional humor of a General Assembly session, when the Marion country Democratic chairman said he'd helped get Evans elected twice, and was looking forward to helping another Democrat win next time. 

Monday, March 4

Dear Ann

March 4, 2013

Ann Lois Romney
Charities, Horseshows, and Charity Horseshows, LLC.
Utah, USA

Dear Ann:

I don't wish to be snarky with you. Really. There are plenty of professional comedians for whom you types are both Bread and Butter, and far be it for me to steal another's sustenance. (I am a poor man, and so can afford to be reasonably honest.) Rather, I have two pieces of advice for you (three if you count "Please, please, please run for the Senate"), and this brings up the first. Maybe you could try to gain a little self-awareness. Talking to an entire nation as if you were speaking to The Help is inexcusable. Hell, it's inexcusable with The Help, Ann. And you know it. What I think you do not realize--you're a cosseted woman, Ann--is that the President of the United States is the president of all its citizens. Including the unsightly, the unpleasant, and the less than profitable, many who, in return, don't give a shit about your tap-dancing horse. And here's the thing, Ann: it was incumbent, you should pardon the expression, upon you to understand them. At least a little. The only skin the Poor have in the game is their own, ma'am.

And it's not that hard; every wealthy person in America who isn't wholly wedded to Wealth (and there are a few, but not as many as would self-identify) can do it. Human empathy. Human empathy that takes the extra step to understand, precisely because it does so from the "superior", or comfortable, position. Let alone from that required of a First Lady. Were you intending to fake it, or is there some There inside you which was somehow buried during the campaign? Great convention speech, by the way. I'm sure the Bay State would enjoy two or three a day between now and the end of June. Y'know, and get to know the real You.

Could I just mention something I held back during the Recent Unpleasantness out of civility, first, and also because I think you're too shallow, too self-obsessed, and too inconsequential to bother much with? I was born during the first Eisenhower administration, and despite the slow start there've actually been a greater number of impressive First Ladies in my lifetime than Presidents. Michelle Obama's a good one. Maybe you two girls should get together some time and swap stories about what crap Life and The Media have thrown at you. Roselyn Carter and Betty Ford. Lady Bird. Jackie. That's five more than there have been really good Presidents. I'll leave out Hillary if you'll agree I can leave out the Bush women and Nancy Reagan to save myself typing. Except to note that two of those were horrible human beings, and the other killed a man.

You weren't going to improve the list, Ann. I'm sorry, it's a harsh judgement. But it's irrespective of politics (although yours aren't particularly helpful, Ann. What was your theme gonna be? Reading? The Awful Media? Improving the Quality of our Culinary Education?).

The second thing, Ann, is that your husband was treated with kid gloves in the campaign. Yeah, some of them were used to punch him--there's a whole internet out there beyond Pinterest, Ann--but the networks handled him pretty fairly overall.

Well to me, anyway; in your interview you noted that We All see bias against us when we look at Media coverage. You were laughing when you said "Happy to blame the Media". I wanted to give you the benefit of every doubt there, Ann. Your pull quotes started getting splashed around, not too flatteringly, and I made a point of listening to you, twice through. Some of what you said is getting overblown. That's the breaks. You want to chair Failed Candidates' Wives for Media Accuracy go right ahead.

But your attitude is clear, Ann. Standard Republican/Wealthy Person political chitchat and personal aggrandizement. You ha-ha are happy ha-ha to blame the Media, but the fact is that you blame the Media. At least in part. At the very least to the extent that a Republican insider thinks so. Human nature assisted by four decades of Media-bashing victimhood on the Right. Ha ha. Got it.

The campaign controlled access. The campaign took Mormonism off the table. The Media, on the other hand, gave you lotsa free airtime to spread your positive message about your Very Special Husband. Maybe you could'a done a little better job. Yes, I know. I'm fired.

And Your Very Special Husband chose the message. He chose to flip out of his flops in 2008, and since then he'd gone in for some Serious pandering. You aren't exempt from responsibility for those things, just because you're wealthy. Wealth just makes it seem that way to you.

Your V.S.H. was roughed up a lot more by his fellow "Presidential" Republicans than by those awful Chicago people. Not to mention him blowing several toes off each foot all by himself. He wasn't liked by the dominant wing, or "wing", of his own party. Did he ever run in first place in the polls,before his Last Challenger Standing (I don't remember, now. Gingrich? Santorum? Cheney?) gave up the ghost? He's lucky Huckabee didn't run. Do you all think Huckabee would'a kicked Mitt's ass? I do. Huckabee could'a come in like Perry did, all gangbusters from the Guns 'n' Jesus wing (or "wing"), only he wouldn't'a stepped on his dick. Not right away, anyhow. Huckabee commanded the seas to part and people to eat chicken sandwiches. Your guy tried to convince half the population to stay home. Your Man trailed, at points, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Donald Fucking Trump. He'd have only beaten Mitch Fucking Daniels by a hair. Your Man is a dud. May or may not be a great guy, personally, and probably is a good neighbor, at least until your landscaping man mows the lawn in a pattern not approved by the Homeowners' Association. You lost. Please do not, ever again, go on the teevee to talk about how truly great this country would be if only voters had been 7% smarter.

Please do not let the word "Sequester" exit your lips in public. Ever again. Unless that's the name of some dressage move.

Show-off campaigns that manipulate the Media have been around a long time, Ann. Longer than your husband's political career. Farther back, even, than the days you ate dinner off that ironing board. Don't gripe about it now. Really. The woman whose husband was a painstakingly-constructed, and awful, candidate for the role of The Politician in some Utah-financed classroom film should be the last person to complain about how the Media portrays things.

I liked getting to know the two of you better, though. More personal, somehow. Hey, maybe you could prevail upon Willard to do this every year. The Imaginary State of the Union Under the Romneys?

Yours in civility,

J.B.S. Riley


Thursday, February 28

Thursday Olio: Some Some Slight Slippage May Be Experienced

•  Miss Teen Delaware resigns after her hardcore porno surfaces. And for what it's worth I'd like to join the chorus telling her to buck up. Lots of young women have entered pageants and still gone on to useful, productive lives. [/rimshot]

• I have a horrible, public-school-grade cold. Forget zinc, vitamin C, or even chicken soup on this one. This is the only thing that's helped so far:



Doc Pomus wrote it.

"According to Rich Lowry in Politico" is a phrase which proves Chomsky's idea that mastering the fundamental structures of language allows you to invent statements more horrible than you thought possible.
The McCain ad dubbing Barack Obama the biggest celebrity in the world back in 2008 was deadly accurate. What Republicans didn’t consider is that being a celebrity is a priceless asset in contemporary America. 

Yes, because what Republican ever heard of Ronald Reagan?

(I gotta tell ya, I googled Lowry to see how long after the Reagan presidency he was born, because I've been living under the impression that he was fourteen years old. Which, it turns out, he is, just not chronologically. He's forty-four. For fuck's sake. This is the sort of shit Republicans are telling themselves about necessary reform:
Of course, it wasn’t too long ago that Democrats seemed to be in dire straits. The party agonized over appealing to “values voters” after 2004. Little did they know eight short years later, they would run a successful reelection campaign partly on limitless abortion and free contraception. The Bush-era Democrats didn’t do much rethinking.

You're a party of cowards. Intellectual and otherwise. Work on that for a decade.)

In other advice columns news Weigel, having failed to convince Karl Rove to just give up altogether (plucky human spirit for ya, eh?), declares victory because some guy in Ioway isn't gonna run against Steve King.

So Unkka Karl's now down to his last $250 million tax-exempt dollars and his iPhone full of billionaires. On the other hand, this really is the closest thing to a victory libertarians have ever pulled off. Just explain to me why th' fuck you want to inherit the Republican party.

• And th' snarkin' is easy: "Why are American beers so weak?"

I'm not gonna bother. Lemme just note that, first, if you think of beer as an Alcohol Delivery System, and find it deficient in potency, move on to the harder stuff and shut th' fuck up, or just sit sobbing quietly to yourself. The real question, if any, is Why is this stuff so unpalatable? Which can be further subdivided into "Don't you have a myriad of choices these days, unless you'd also like to complain that every last craft-brewer and boutique bottler imagines that ten times the hops means ten times the quality?" and "Why do so many people enjoy watery corn squeezins?"

Just for the record, the answer is "Why do people eat at McDonald's?" and "Why is it lawful in the US to label any trash fish stuck in your nets 'Dover sole' for mercantile purposes?" We're a Zen koan kinda society, somehow.

And, no:
German-American brewers made some alterations to their mother country’s traditional beer, as any beer aficionado knows. Fearing that American drinkers wouldn’t appreciate the malt-heavy Bavarian lager, they substituted American-grown grains like corn and rice for some of the barley, lightening the beer’s flavor.

Got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that corn was cheaper'n dirt, huh?
Modern American beer enthusiasts tend to sneer at the two or three mass-produced beers that have dominated the industry for decades,

They probably just need the exercise.
but their success has little to do with corporate trickery, market manipulation, or the effects of Prohibition on smaller brewers. Nineteenth-century Midwestern lagers simply beat other styles of beer in the American market.

Stylistically, maybe. But it's the post-war consolidation/gobbling of local and regional breweries that allowed three giants to dictate quality, or, rather, lack thereof; ingredients got cheaper and cheaper as profits grew. See also chocolate, cattle feed, and journalism. Laying that off on the consumer is rubbish; the next generation, offered little choice in the matter, has no grounds for comparison. The fact that there is such a thing as craft beer is the semi-miracle.

• I can't leave without mentioning how much I enjoyed hearing Barbara Harsha, of the Governors' Highway Safety Association, on NPR the other day. The topic was that report that teen driving deaths are up almost 20% in a year, and Harsha's task was to explain away most states' refusal to do anything about distracted (i.e. fucking phone in each ear) driving. By ignoring it. Which she accomplished by blaming the increase on the fact that the economy has improved, plus those stringent new requirements the Governors of the Various States, Commonweals, and Taxing Bodies had placed on teen drivers have now been factored into the market, as it were. Pressed to respond to the suggestion that "everyone around the office" at NPR had concluded that cell phones were a big cause, Harsha explained how difficult it is to get reliable information from dead people.

This is why hiring spokeswomen makes good sense. Most of 'em will not find themselves face-to-face with their reflections the next morning with the apparatus of throat-slitting at hand.

Wednesday, February 27

A Note On Fourteen Hundred Words Explaining The Unintelligible


David Weigel, "The Passion of Rand Paul: Why the senator was against Chuck Hagel before he was for him". February 26

FIRST, someone more With It than I needs to tell me if the kids went and changed the definition of Why on the Twitter, and I haven't found out about it yet. For the past several thousand years Why, in its various Indo-European guises, has sought to explain, or elicit an explanation of, reason, cause, or motive. Does it still? Likewise, over the centuries, specialized fields of study, like "Science", or "Rhetoric", or "Advertising" have developed sets of guidelines as to what constitutes an acceptable answer, or at least a response. So that, for example, "Because he won an election that way" is not an answer to "Why is Ted Cruz an Anti-Fluoridationist Bugwit?" if Senator Cruz was that sort of bugwit before he ever ran for anything.

Or if, for example, there's a big intellectual tsimmes in the lofty groves of college sophomore Paultard libertarianism (but I repeat myself!) over Rand Paul's, uh, facile votes over the Hagel nomination (in case you weren't able to stay awake, for some reason:  against cloture of the debate, but for Hegel's confirmation), then repeating Paul the Younger's second response, the one which tried to change the subject after his first response was rendered pre-inoperative, does not explain Why? Possibly What? as in "What kind of bullshit was that?

(For the record, it was Paul's vote which prevented cloture, which he explained by referencing the "unanswered questions" echoing through the canyons of Ted Cruz's mind, and following that up by agreeing with Hugh Hewett that Hagel's theoretical connection to non-existent terrorist organizations was potentially troubling. When this raised the ire of Some Guy Who Imagines Republico-Libertarianism Has Principles, or that the Senate's most principled opponent of foreign aid should, at the very least, not carry water for Bill Kristol's Israel First group, Paul explained that what he really meant was that Hagel was theoretically for a theoretical draft.)

Okay, look: you don't care. I don't care. No ant-farm of explication changes what happened. Rand Paul saw an opportunity to join other Republicans in pointless dickery, because that's their most important product these days. The masses did not rise up as a result and, as usual, the Dickfest quickly became a Step-on-your-Dickfest. Upon which Paul, with a weekend's worth of wisdom now under his belt, changed his vote when it no longer mattered, and declared himself the real defender of Liberty, because it's a secret. That's why.



Monday, February 25

Monday Olio: Up Yours Edition

Amanda Marcotte notes the latest funny business with Ladytown now moving through the World's Third-Worst State Legislature™, because reproductive rights are the one bit of madness they can't bring themselves to put a cork in, you should pardon the metaphor. And because it's the one Christianist thingy they know Mike "Missing" Pence can't veto, or shelve for next year.

And we'd be remiss here if we didn't add that last week Karen Celestino-Horseman (via Doug Masson ) noted that the Double Ultrasound bill was sponsored by Senator Travis Holdman, who also sponsored SB 0373, which, and I quote, "Makes it unlawful recording of [sic] agricultural or industrial operations," with "intent to harass, defame, annoy, or harm".

Don't take my legal advice, but it was these same jokers who, a couple decades back (okay, not the identical jokers) who decided to rid the state of adult bookstores and wound up, instead, making them all change their names to “Museum of Adult Literature”. So look into getting your lady parts declared an agricultural or industrial operation, just in case.

• Every so often I open a Weigel piece, not because I think he's going to write an unequivocal declarative sentence about the Republican party, but just to see if I can figure out what position he wants the reader to fill in for him. "Why Sen. Ted Cruz gets rewarded for saying a lot of things that no one would take seriously anywhere else," is what the subhead promises to suss out, but--near as I could figure--what we get, fourteen hundred words later, is "But once he entered politics,Cruz’s fireworks and dazzle simply worked." Which to my mind wouldn't be much of an explanation even if you could demonstrate his supposed incandescence did anything beyond "winning him a crackpot seat in Texas".

That sort of thing is what I expected; what caught me short was this:
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, viewed by the right as an accidental senator who rigged the Republican primary to make sure she’d face Todd Akin, compared Cruz to Joe McCarthy.

That took only 80 words to get to, and can anyone explain what Claire McCaskill's reelection campaign, as seen through the eyes of "the right", has anything to do with anything?

It's like there's an entire generation of Facile Libertarians out there permanently pissed-off they didn't get to make Clinton blow-job jokes.

Both sides do it:
That reality also underscores what Republicans, and some Democrats, say was a major miscalculation on the part of President Obama. He agreed to set up the automatic cuts 18 months ago because he believed the threat of sharp reductions in military spending would be enough to force Republicans to agree to a deficit reduction plan that included the tax increases he favored

All right, looky: I'll go to my grave, perhaps this afternoon, insisting that Barack Obama's First Hundred Days was the great Flushed Down the Crapper Opportunity of the hapless post-Reagan era. We do not have political men who think this way anymore; we have consultants, who thought, in November 2008, about positioning themselves for 2012. The great dream of the Civil Rights Movement made flesh, and instead of furthering the Cause its first inclination was to reach across the aisle to the party built on opposing it ever since. That might'a been a good play--it wasn't the best--but when that hand was smacked down in response it was time to start playing rough.

Is there any question that the President knows who he's dealing with now? I'm not buying his conversion to Liberal. He made a deal last year he thought he needed as breathing space for the campaign; now he's using the Pulpit to force the House Republicans' hand. And they've decided they'll stand pat, and take the hit when things really do turn to shit. Not to mention the fact that these are only "minuscule" cuts, laughable fractions, not a "solution" to the Deficit. Republicans used to understand that the American public was equally determined to get all the services it did as it was not to pay for them. That argument turns shortly.

Meanwhile, doesn't this remind anyone of 2009? The Republican party seems to imagine that once it has distilled the latest issue to a bumpersticker ("Hysteria!") it has won the day.

Sunday, February 24

George Eff Will, The Jose Canseco Of Baseball

George Eff Will, "The manufactured crisis of sequester". February 22

LET'S begin, appropriately, in a previous century: George Eff Will is a fucking affirmative action hire, a National Review body double for William Fuhbuckley raised to actual national prominence ostensibly to counteract the horrible leftist slant of mass-market news, but more likely because one of those dreadful Carter people seated Katie Graham below the salt one evening.

Will's the oldest living specimen of the species (unless you count fellow former NatRev sinecure Fr. John McLaughlin, S.J., among the living, and PBS as a mass-market), and the first beneficiary of the No Tag Backs rule which accompanied the right-wing ballast the national press took on: because the Poor Right had been in the wilderness for so long--not through any fault of its own, but because of the unreasonable liberal bias in favor of sex education, fluoridating water, and anti-lynching laws--rightists such as Will were allowed to hurl complaints without ever being cross-examined, asked to produce evidence, or risk having their feelings hurt. Will's been on This Week now longer than David Brinkley had been alive when the program started, and the worst he's ever had to face was the differing opinions of Beltway insider liberals like Sam "Gentleman Farmer" Donaldson.

You'll recall, if you were cursed to live through it the first time, that Ronald Reagan was "President" for "eight" years, and was allowed to play the Washington outsider for all of them.

And, look, in addition to atrophying rhetorical skills, isolation is simply contraindicated when your bloodline includes raging xenophobes, backwoods religious maniacs, hallucinatory monastics, and anyone who puts Atlas Shrugged on their desert island book list.
Even during this desultory economic recovery,

from the worst global financial meltdown since the 1930s, the direct result of Republican economic plerophory, defanged government oversight, crony capitalism, and the elevation of Greed to founding principle of the United States
one industry thrives

Healthcare? Investment banking? Unlicensed gun sales?
the manufacture of synthetic hysteria. It is, however, inaccurate to accuse the Hysteric in Chief of crying “Wolf!” about spending cuts under the sequester.

Wait, "Hysteric in Chief"?
He is actually crying “Hamster!”

Jesus, George, that's weak for an American Thinker blog.

Could you, at the very least, put a small amount of effort into coming up with your own take on the President's side? "Hysterical!", "Frantic!", "Armageddon!". You, Jenny, Lady Noonan, Rich Lowry...
As in: Batten down the hatches — the sequester will cut $85 billion from this year’s $3.6 trillion budget! Or: Head for the storm cellar — spending will be cut 2.3 percent! Or: Washington chain-saw massacre — we must scrape by on 97.7 percent of current spending! Or: Chaos is coming because the sequester will cut a sum $25 billion larger than was just shoveled out the door (supposedly, but not actually) for victims of Hurricane Sandy! Or: Heaven forfend, the sequester will cut 47 percent as much as was spent on the AIG bailout! Or: Famine, pestilence and locusts will come when the sequester causes federal spending over 10 years to plummet from $46 trillion all the way down to $44.8 trillion! Or: Grass will grow in the streets of America’s cities if the domestic agencies whose budgets have increased 17 percent under President Obama must endure a 5 percent cut!

Care to place a little bet on how long it'll be before we hear how vital it is that we have two aircraft carriers in the Gulf to threaten Iran? (It's two.)

For cryin' out loud. I've got no problem if you want to argue from a partisan perspective, but it shouldn't preclude being accurate or sensible.

Where do we begin? The sequester is a joke, but not a particularly funny one, because it's The One About The U.S. House of Representatives, and we've all heard it. The numbers were picked out of someone's ass, and the concept behind it was that once Republicans had swept Barack Obama out of office last November, we'd simply return every last bristle and fried rind to the the military budget, and gut social programs to make up the difference, and then the GOP would ride out the midterms, hope two Court liberals died, and 2016 would usher in the New Golden Age.

And here's the interesting thing about that, George, apart from the fact that you think it should still happen, even though it didn't: Ronald Reagan, the Most Popular Politician Since Jesus, didn't touch Social Security. Newt Gingrich's Revolution didn't. I'm not sure what the Bush II administration did domestically, but it wasn't that. Rabid Republicans have taken the government to the brink of shutdown three times, and all three times there's been a resounding denunciation across the land. Which has led, as we all know, to the party becoming more and more certifiable.

The sequester's a joke, but the cuts are real. That's why you've been hiding from specifics for thirty years, and now it has caught up with you. You relied on "hysteria" about budgets to win elections but you didn't really believe the rhetoric. You just wanted to cut money to blah people and environmental protection. There wasn't any way that would have dealt with deficits, because 1) you'd have continued cutting tax rates alongside; 2) you'd have let the Defense establishment back up twice as many trucks to be filled at Fort Knox; and 3) and most importantly, because there's not that much there there. Domestic spending is real. It's not all intended to save the snail darter, the way you've gotten away with pretending for so long.
The Defense Department’s civilian employment has grown 17 percent since 2002. In 2012, defense spending on civilian personnel was 21 percent higher than in 2002. And the Truman must stay in Norfolk? This is, strictly speaking, unbelievable.

Oh, for chrissakes, now I have to read the Washington Times for you?
“The department’s civilian growth is largely tied to key strategic initiatives, including improved acquisition practices, increased medical support for our troops and their families, and greater protection of our [information technology] systems,” said ArmyLt. Col. Elizabeth Robbins, a Pentagon spokeswoman. 
“As a result, there were increases in the acquisition workforce, the medical support staff, and the cyber/IT staff. There were also military-to-civilian conversions to get the military back to their primary responsibilities, and as a cost-saving measure, the department insourced contractor positions to civilian positions,” she said.
This buildup is the shit your guys wanted, George. As well as The American People. Now it's off, because you needed a new tune, or because the Republican level of cognitive dissonance reached critical mass four years ago? Or just because, as always, you think it'll all happen by magic anyway?
The sequester’s critics correctly say it is not the most intelligent way to prune government; priorities among programs should be set. But such critics are utopians if they are waiting for the arrival of intelligent government. The real choice today is between bigger or smaller unintelligent government.

How rare and wondrous is the argument with only one side!

Good thing idiot government always makes the right decision when it comes to saber rattling, though.
Obama, who believes government spends money more constructively than do those who earn it,

Isn't it time you recused yourself, George?
warns that the sequester’s budgetary nicks, amounting to one-half of 1 percent of gross domestic product, will derail the economy.

Do I have to read the New York Times for you?
Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, a Republican, warned in a letter to President Obama on Monday that the automatic spending cuts would have a “potentially devastating impact” and could force Virginia and other states into a recession, noting that the planned cuts to military spending would be especially damaging to areas like Hampton Roads that have a big Navy presence. And he noted that the whole idea of the proposed cuts was that they were supposed to be so unpalatable that they would force officials in Washington to come up with a compromise. 
“As we all know, the defense, and other, cuts in the sequester were designed to be a hammer, not a real policy,” Mr. McDonnell wrote. “Unfortunately, inaction by you and Congress now leaves states and localities to adjust to the looming threat of this haphazard idea.”
 
Sorry if I'm spoiling your hysterics about hysterics.
A similar jeremiad was heard in 1943 when economist Paul Samuelson, whose Keynesian assumptions have trickled down to Obama, said postwar cuts in government would mean “the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.” 
Federal spending did indeed shrink an enormous 40 percent in one year. And the economy boomed.
Amazing proof that someone you can label a Keynesian was wrong in 1945. Somebody tell Amity her next book's arrived.

In other news, this ain't 1945. That 40% reduction? Eighty-nine percent of it was the cut in military spending. Maybe that was the magic? Meanwhile, there was that little matter of pent-up spending after years of rationing (and full employment), plus the fact that the U.S. was the only major power whose economy, and whose infrastructure, didn't lie in ruins. Other than that, I suppose the situations are identical.
Because crises are government’s excuse for growing, liberalism’s motto is: Never let a crisis go unfabricated. But its promiscuous production of crises has made them boring.

Yeah, no one loses his head about anything these days.
Remember when, in the 1980s, thousands died from cancers caused by insufficient regulation of the chemical Alar sprayed on apples? No, you don’t because this alarming prediction fizzled. Alar was not, after all, a risk.

Yeah, right. Big conspiracy, big hysteria, according to the paid mouthpieces of Big Anti-Regulation. Fact: Alar is a human carcinogen. The fact that it would require enormous exposure before one reached toxic levels of Alar does not make it risk-free. There is such a thing as cumulative risk. There is such as thing as Better Safe than Sorry. Fact: Alar was detected in applesauce and apple juice, infant foods which caused the American Academy of Pediatrics to call for the ban. We ignore the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics and listen to John Stossel? That's the road to sanity? Fact: Alar was used on apple crops for purely cosmetic reasons. It made apples "look pretty". That's not a reason to poison applesauce, Mandrake. Children's applesauce.

One would get the impression, if one didn't know better, that you folks actually think that "unintelligent government" is a good thing.
Remember when “a major cooling of the climate” was “widely considered inevitable” (New York Times, May 21, 1975) with “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation” (Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976) which must “stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery” (International Wildlife, July 1975)? Remember reports that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973)? Armadillos were leaving Nebraska, heading south, and heat-loving snails were scampering southward from European forests (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974). Newsweek (April 28, 1975) said meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that cooling would “reduce agricultural productivity.”

Remember when Ronald Reagan was going to reduce the Federal debt?

I remember when the continents, and the Universe, were thought to be static. And so what? Science doesn't claim to be perfect. That's your Church.

Tell ya what else I remember: it was only after all that that the extreme environment of Venus was understood, and explained, by the Greenhouse Effect. Like the man said, difference of opinion may make horse races, but it won't stop a glacier from melting.

Sorry you've got more hands stuck in cookie jars now than you have hands, George. Sorry that we're apparently going to have to wait until the public takes it in the ass before it starts screaming about public services. Is it hysterical to note that the minuscule cuts of the sequester are just the first step where you people are concerned? Good luck peddling this shit for the next four years.


Friday, February 22

From Denial To Bargaining

David Weigel, “The Most Misleading Number About the Tea Party and the Senate”. February 22

READER, leave us imagine that in 2010 you traded your job as a libertarian blogger at The Washington Independent for a job as an independent blogger at the Washington Post, a once-great metropolitan newspaper now recapitulating that metropolis' ontogeny in reverse (precapitulating?) by morphing into a fetid swamp. And by design or inclination you become that paper's de facto Teabagger expert. Or maybe it's just because you know the hundred members or so personally.

Any road, in 2010, in the rapidly-shrinking Rational world, the Teabag movement is already known for two things: phony claims of being a sui generis, grassroots, non-partisan movement, and getting coverage exponentially greater than its actual numbers. So of course your plan would be to act like you never heard any of this, because reporters are always the last to know. And, not coincidentally, to ride the well-financed wave of bullshit propelling the "movement" to the forefront of American political debate shoutiness.

But, small problem, you're caught in flagrante email saying nice things to other hip young up-and-coming political bloggers about their choice of eyewear and homosexual tendencies. [Note, reader, that at this point we have to assume that some sizable part of this story is true, else the way ahead is impassible and oer'flown with contrails.] This causes you to be "fired" by the Post. turned into a "liberal" hero by none other than Keith Olbermann, who would know, then "rehired" by the Post. Because of course it does.

And, just in time for the "historic" midterm Republican victory of 2010 to be attributed to the sui generis, grassroots, not-quite-as-non-partisan Teabag movement.

One problem remains: this is all still nonsense, at its core; no political observer whose memory or understanding goes back further than 2004 can possibly believe it, and no one with a half-assed current assessment of American politics can mistake the Teabag party for anything other than a cluster of boils. A Republican cluster of boils.

So you're stuck, right? You have, like Thurber, struggled painfully for an entire semester of Freshman biology trying to resolve what you see, or don't see, through a microscope into some sort of expected image and then, at the last minute, manage to produce a drawing of your own eyeball. Except that, by accident, good karma, or shrewd calculation, you've chosen to be a journalist. So it doesn't count.
In one of the 500 "both sides share the blame" columns that National Journal is required to run every day, Charlie Cook repeats the least useful "data point" about the Tea Party's role in dragging down the GOP. 
In 2010, the GOP lost five of the seven Senate contests The Cook Political Report rated as toss-ups going into Election Day; in 2012, it lost eight of 10. When a party loses 13 of 17 toss-ups over two elections, it has a problem. In many cases, Republicans nominated horrifically flawed candidates who didn’t quite self-destruct but were too weak to win. In other cases, they nominated candidates who did self-destruct. And when these problematic candidates pulled the pin on the grenade, other GOP office-seekers in their states became collateral damage. 
In 2010, yes, Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell blew elections that Republicans were on track to win. (The Nevada race that Angle lost was less of a sure thing—Harry Reid is underestimated as his enemies' peril. But we'll go with it.) In 2012, Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin lost elections that other Republicans could have won, but Todd Akin was not endorsed by any major national or local Tea Party organization.
Just the Republican primary voters of Missouri. And Rick Santorum. And Steve King. And Michele Bachmann. And David Barton, Jim DeMint, Phyllis Schlafly, Pete Sessions, Jim Jordan, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee…
Okay, so, on to that "eight of 10" number from 2012, from the final pre-election Cook report. Akin's race wasn't on that list—by election time, Cook rated the race as a "likely" Democratic win. Mourdock's race was on the list. But look at the other close races lost by Republicans: Montana, North Dakota, Virginia, Massachussetts, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Maine. In the first four, they nominated current or former Republican legislators, not Tea Party candidates. In Wisconsin, they nominated a former governor who defeated Tea Party candidates in the primary. In Connecticut, they nominated a multi-millionaire who ran to the left. And in Maine, they nominated a fairly centrist Republican who tried, and failed, to win a three-way race against a Democrat and an Independent supported by Democrats. As Ramesh Ponnuru keeps writing, most GOP Senate candidates, even in places like Texas and Montana, ran behind Mitt Romney.

Well, this seems to be our week to reanalyze the 2012 Senatorial races. Bit of interest at the beginning here, in how Cook's list of Tossups differs from Newt's list of Coula Shouldas (Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida), as the latter had no apparent interest in close races where Republicans had nominated anyone to the left of Dick Nixon, but, remember, Professor Gingrich is a licensed and compulsive fabulist.

Seven losses with no possible connection to the Teabag party? Well, Tommy Thompson is pretty much the definition of a mainstream Republican (like Paul Ryan isn't?), but he was running in a state already luxuriously pre-conditioned by Koch dealers. Maine, Massachussetts? Not exactly states where Teabagging has made sweeping inroads. Connecticut? Does Linda McMahon even count?

That leaves Montana and North Dakota, where Republicans ran seated House members, which ought to count for something, and Virginia, where they ran George Allen, who is a kook.

Of all those races only North Dakota was really close. So let's agree that, generally, Charlie Cook's post-election predictions are better than his pre-election ones.
The gaffe/Tea Party theory of Republican defeat is just too pat, too easy. George Allen didn't lose by 6 points because Loudon County independents got spooked about Todd Akin. Believing that lets Republicans put off any real questions about internal reform.

Flummery. With the possible exception of Warren/Brown, though I doubt it, more Americans knew "Todd Akin" as a Republican running for the Senate than any of the people on either of those lists. Ditto Richard Mourdock, although in truth Mourdock was already losing in Indiana when something triggered that sexual reverie of his. These guys dragged down the Republican brand, by being the Republican id, in public. They didn't rewrite other states' races, maybe, but they sure energized voters. Mostly Democratic voters.

Teabag candidates--again, assuming their existence arguendo--are shouty, unlikeable, and they roll around like loose ball bearings. They might win elections where that describes much of the electorate, and they might win elections by chance when they manage, like Mourdock or Akin, to beat marginally-saner candidates in the primary. And, well, and that's it. They aren't making any inroads. They might be holding some Republican office holders' feet to the fire, but they aren't doing much more than threatening a reduction in campaign war chests, aka retirement funds. Their numbers may be small--up from "imaginary"--but they're a serious problem nationally, and they're what's preventing "internal reform". That, and the fact that "Teabagger" is just another name for Red State wingnut.


Wednesday, February 20

A Surfeit Of Loons

Kevin Robillard, "Newt: Rove effort like 'Chicago machine'". February 20

I DON'T know which is better news for the Republic: Karl Rove getting his latest comeuppance ("You're going to need more than one lesson, Mr. Kane.") at the hands of the paint drinkers and snake handlers who are the only reason his party got near enough to power for him to become a household epithet, or the fact that that party is still getting advice from Newt Gingrich.

Or maybe we should thank Politico for keeping the likes of Gingrich and Huckabee alive decades after what little political relevance they once possessed. I spent much of this morning trying to come up with four Democrats who've been as successful at success as those two are at failure. I started with Bill Clinton, and I ended with Bill Clinton.

Let's leave the comedy of Newt Fucking Gingrich complaining about billionaire money deciding Republican races to write itself. It's always important to take notes while the Professor is speaking:
“While Rove would like to argue his ‘national nomination machine’ will protect Republicans from candidates like those who failed in Missouri and Indiana, that isn’t the bigger story. Republicans lost winnable senate races in Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. So in seven of the nine losing races, the Rove model has no candidate-based explanation for failure."

Lessee…lost Montana 49-45 to incumbent Democrat…lost North Dakota 50-49, incumbent Democrat retired, Republican primary challenge…lost Ohio 50-49 to incumbent Democrat…lost Wisconsin 51-46 after incumbent Democrat retired and Republican primary challenge…lost Pennsylvania 54-45 to incumbent Democrat…lost Virginia 53-47 after incumbent Democrat retired…lost Florida 55-42 to incumbent Democrat. Yeah, those are totally like losing the seat Dick Lugar would have carried by 30 points because the Club for Growth decided to kick him downstairs. And McCaskill was an incumbent, too, except one who was headed for the dump until the party nominated a guy from the spirit world. Good analysis, though. Run with it, Newt. Please. In 2016.

Tuesday, February 19

Tuesday Olio: I'm Not In The Office At This Time Edition

• Evangelical disk jockey and Attempted Governor of Indiana Mike "Choirboy" Pence closed his office Friday for "out of office staff meetings". Which seems to have caught every professional and semi-pro observer of the Indiana statehouse by surprise. A Pence nuncio later announced that the meetings had long been scheduled, and blamed the confusion on a Post-It Note falling off the door, or something.

The great risk here, perhaps not readily apparent to the non-Hoosier, is that local political reporters might get into the habit of noticing what the governor is doing, and reporting on it, without having his office explain it all to them first, the way it's been done for the past eight years.

• Pence did stick his head out long enough to gripe about his 10% tax cut (which he is not getting, a fact known to anyone who's been awake at any time during the past month except, apparently, Mike Pence). He pointed out that the previous General Assembly had given tax breaks to estates and businesses, and none to "average" Hoosiers. And he said it as though it was an oversight, rather than their intention. Somebody really needs to pull the man aside and explain things. Or give him a road map to Kansas.

• I ♡ Pierce:
It is a capital mistake of analysis to believe that the reckless, self-destructive vandalism of the Republican base is a function of the country's twice having elected the current president. Certainly, there are things about this president that, ahem, sharpened the anger and gave a tight focus for the abandoned wrath. But it did no start with him nor will it end with him, and I think Rothenberg knows it.

Except for the rancid race-baiting and manic xenophobia, nothing has been aimed at this president that wasn't aimed for nine years at Bill Clinton. In place of birtherism, we had Vince Foster and the Mena airport. The insular conservative media within which people today talk about the president's Kenyan roots and his disguised Muslimhood was formed around the hot central core of conspiracy theorizing and preposterous slander that shaped the reaction to the Clinton presidency.

Let's note, first, that you aren't gonna throw the Teabag "wing" out of Mississippi, nor Indiana, goddam it, no matter how much money Karl Rove can still scrape up. But how much longer is anyone going to be able to pretend that this party isn't in the hands of abject lunatics, a condition which has obtained for decades? And not just from the first whiff of Bill Clinton's musk, but from the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. It's beyond laughable to see Karl Rove's doughy pink phiz makin' with the "unelectable conservatives" routine. What fucking party has Karl Rove been a member of his entire, Nixon-minus-the-genius career? What fucking Republican party did Karl Rove belly up to in 1969, at the University of Utah? Now he doesn't like yahoos, misogynists, and overt racists?

Andrew Hartman:
The liberals of the education reform movement, often more surreptitiously than the overstated former Washington D.C. Chancellor of Schools during Democratic Mayor Adrian Fenty’s term in office Michelle Rhee, have for decades advanced negative assumptions about public school teachers that now power the attacks by Christie, Walker, Kasich and their ilk. This is particularly true of Teach for America (TFA), the prototypical liberal education reform organization, where Rhee first made her mark. The history of TFA reveals the ironies of contemporary education reform. In its mission to deliver justice to underprivileged children, TFA and the liberal education reform movement have advanced an agenda that advances conservative attempts to undercut teacher’s unions. More broadly, TFA has been in the vanguard in forming a neoliberal consensus about the role of public education—and the role of public school teachers—in a deeply unequal society.


TFA goals derive, in theory, from laudable—if misguided—impulses. But each, in practice, has demonstrated to be deeply problematic. TFA, suitably representative of the liberal education reform more generally, underwrites, intentionally or not, the conservative assumptions of the education reform movement: that teacher’s unions serve as barriers to quality education; that testing is the best way to assess quality education; that educating poor children is best done by institutionalizing them; that meritocracy is an end-in-itself; that social class is an unimportant variable in education reform; that education policy is best made by evading politics proper; and that faith in public school teachers is misplaced.
Lemme tell ya, "misguided" is a nice word.

For Teach for America, the Sinn Féin of TFA, and Michelle Rhee's first big tax exempt/taxpayer assisted scam, which now "advises" those Indianapolis public schools the state didn't take over directly (then hand to Mayor Gomer F. Ballard when Republicans lost control of the Superintendent of Public Instruction's office last November) the word is "clueless".

If these people have liberal impulses (Even the Democrat Michelle Rhee!), it's the impulse to give the help an hour off to vote, after patiently explaining to them how they ought to go about it.


Thursday, February 14

The Autotune Party

John Dickerson, "What Mitt Romney Can Teach Marco Rubio". February 13

OH, first: Shorter Maggie Haberman: "Republican consultants generally agree that Mark Rubio's Phony Salesman in the Headlights routine won't be remembered for all eternity."

Maybe it's just the ever-sunny optimist in me, but I have a vague and happy thoughtbubble, the size of a child's balloon, that the Middle Way "movement" in this country, the whole anti-partisanship, undecided voter mindset, is turning away, not from the Republican party, which even it has had to recognize for some time now as the source of the problems it was complaining about, but from the Beltway insider view of the problem. Which, if I may summarize, is that there aren't enough John McCains in the Congress.

Maybe it is just me, but when I do watch the Sundays, instead of letting Piece do the heavy lifting for me, or when (as he did) I happen to run into Morning Joe politischmoozing Cokie Fucking Roberts and Michael Fucking Steele, I feel less inclined to nickname all the guests Fuckwad than I do to marvel at the slow-motion disintegration going on. Like you, I have no idea why it's taken so long. I just, somehow, have the sense that the put-upon Middle of the country, that portion of it which isn't certifiable, has begun to recognize the con. And that even the courtly Press has begun to recognize that as a problem.

Okay, while I'm thinking about it: last time I jumped off from a John Dickerson piece he somehow got the notion that I write preambles, rather than ambles, and mistook my utter lack of any sort of compass, magnetic, personal, or moral, for a personal disagreement. He was very nice about it, and I suggested, in response, that a grown man should know better than to scratch every mosquito bite until it bleeds. My manners, I know; I'm stuck with 'em at this point. Leave us save everyone's time but yours, Reader, and note that the above isn't a comment about John Dickerson's column, or John Dickerson generally, or as a concept. It's about David Fucking Gregory.

Meanwhile, our point is that there's no rehabilitating Marco Rubio, not outside the Beltway. Not because he can't control his thirst, not because he thinks autobiography is a fiction genre, but because he's an obvious carnival talker *.
What's worse for your political ambitions, being labeled a wimp by Newsweek or a savior by Time? Marco Rubio, the freshman senator from Florida, has been stuck with the savior label and it has several disadvantages.

None of which matter, because, really, Time. It's like wondering what his political future is now that he's lost the endorsement of Crocheting Monthly.
After Rubio delivered the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address, commentators said he had simply mouthed standard GOP talking points.

Probably because that's what he did.
As Jonathan Martin pointed out, Rubio's speech—thick with references to his humble origins and common touch—was designed to send the signal that he was the polar opposite of Mitt Romney.

Hard to believe someone at Politico caught wind of that.
The story of Rubio, his ambitions, and how they play out is about more than just the fortunes of one charismatic Republican.

It's also his first foray into magic realism.
Rubio is one of the architects of the Republican future. Like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Rep. Paul Ryan, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie,

Really? Because, apart from Governor Christie's rather remarkable architectural feat of shape-shifting something that size when his own constituency suddenly needed a strong central government--okay, maybe that's more like "hydraulic engineering"--I'd as soon hire the firm of Moe, Larry, and Curly. Hell, Moe, Larry, and Curly Joe DeRita.
Every day Rubio is taking soundings about what the GOP will allow and what the larger electorate will allow. The risks he takes and the reactions they provoke from his fellow-travelers will tell us something about where the party is headed.

So will a functioning sense of smell.

Look, don't get me wrong; I've lived through the political popularity of Ronald Reagan and Mitch Daniels, and at least three resurrections of Richard Nixon. I know anything's possible. I also know that Marco Rubio can take all the soundings he wants, train his crew 18 hours a day, and buy the best admiral's hat he can find, and his boat will still be on the rocks, and the scuppers overflow'd, and the only functioning lifeboat will already contain the Koch brothers, Rush Limbaugh, and two or three anti-abortion activists waving Bushmasters. I look forward to his finessing that for the next three years.
Still, the criticism of Rubio’s State of the Union response asks too much too soon. The GOP is not ready to announce a sweeping new direction, (it may never be ready) and Rubio isn't in a position to launch a thorough rebranding right now anyway. Even if he was, 10 minutes after the State of the Union would be the wrong time to do it. Still, if Rubio is going to add new energy to the GOP, he'll have to find a venue where he can make a much more compelling case for the party's signature principle: the promise and glory of smaller government.

First, right, it "may" never be ready. On the plus side, it is perfectly placed in case the 19th century returns.

Second, can't we just say it? The Republican party is frickin' insane, to the point that Insanity is the party's signature principle. The current Republican message isn't "smaller government" (and perhaps the party would be better off if they'd been called on that little fiction thirty years ago); it's "feces-hurling psychosis". The proper venue for that message is "Post-war apocalyptic hellscape." Marco Rubio's not ready for his closeup, but his party ain't ready for even small adjustments, and small adjustments ain't gonna get the job done.
Whoever the transformational figure is, he or she is going to have to build a bridge between the old and the new. That requires at least two tasks: challenging orthodoxy and giving special voice to it. If you can sing the song of American exceptionalism and free enterprise in a way that pleases your party base, then you can push the envelope on immigration without fear of being called a RINO or consorting with Karl Rove.

Really, if the threat of being seen consorting with Karl Rove has to be avoided at all costs, winning elections is the least of the GOP's problems. And if "getting right on immigration" is the key to winning national elections then let's all just give up.
The party was going up against Obama. The script was pre-written. Plus, Rubio is already clashing with conservatives over his immigration reform plans. To the extent he has other provocative ideas (and he may not), it doesn't make sense to create more tumult while you're trying to make rocky progress on immigration.

It's interesting how this is imagined to be the Republicans' "problem" with Hispanic voters. Figure out a way to seem only half as bigoted and hateful, sprinkle on a little eau de bootstrap, and hello White House.
Rubio's case wasn't that nearly savior-worthy. It affirmed the bounties of the free market, but he spent most of the time explaining why Obama's big government was bad. An amazing story about the wonders that would flow from smaller government would be more appealing and persuasive. Bromides about unleashing sectors and removing regulations are tired and threadbare.

Yeah, except there aren't any. The wonders of small government, "right to work", and indifferent regulatory environments are on display throughout the south. Republican programs and prescriptions aren't untried; they're failures. This country has been vacillating between Reaganomics and Reaganomics Lite for thirty-five years now; if they're so magical why are we still having this conversation? If the great swath of red-meat Republicans are going to be motivated by Neo-Whiggism why isn't Romney President?

C'mon, Marco Rubio doesn't lead his party. I doubt anyone does, and I sincerely question if anyone can as presently constituted. Marco Rubio is somebody's idea of what a Republican Presidential candidate should look like in 2016. Nothing more. God knows weaker candidates have managed to get nominated, and win. But if Rubio has to cross a minefield just to get the Republican rank-and-file to go along with the idea that undocumented persons are yet persons then it's reasonable to ask what, besides money, could possibly motivate him. And what, besides someone's idea of "electability", possibly recommends him? Sure, sure, there are a hundred reasons why he gave a lackluster performance the other night auditioning for the role of the Great Off-White Hope. ** Most of them involve the fact that his message lacks luster. Or honesty. Or coherence. Best wishes constructing one that does in the next two years, and not being hounded off the stage in the first Republican debate. (If any.)

Meanwhile, y'know, yes. It's petty, and juvenile, and beneath our dignity to note that Boy Wonder, v. 3.0, fell as flat Tuesday night as did Paul Ryan and Bobby Jindal before him. Because it's no sin to be thirsty. Just to read from a teleprompter.

______________

* "Barker" is not the correct term. Not among carnival folk. Believe me, I married one.

**Swiped, shamelessly, from Big Hank53.

Wednesday, February 13

“The Saddest Words Of Tongue Or Pen: Mitch Daniels’ First SOTU That Might've Been.”


I ♥ Pierce:
Accepting Daniels as a budgetary whiz required you to drink enough Sterno to forget that he had been the Budget Director for George W. Bush, which was like running the soda fountain at Jonestown.

To which we would add only that imagining Daniels' record in Indiana is much of an improvement requires a good slug o' napalm n' lime as well, beginning with the "deficit" he supposedly inherited, and ending, well, once all the bills are in for that gasification plant, the half-completed, wholly unneeded I-69 extension, and the bills for suing and being countersued by IBM over the Family and Social Services Administration boondoggle. Plus whatever else has faded from memory. Leave us note here that Indiana received a $3.8 billion lump sum payment when Daniels slicked the consortium that bought the Chicago Skyway into leasing, for the next seventy-five years, the only access to their property from the east. That's roughly 15% of the state's annual budget. Daniels spent it all; I think I must'a slept through that part of the presentation back in '05. (Though I do remember that a year later the Daniels PR machine was griping about how the "unexpectedly poor bond market" was forcing them to downsize the anticipated Asphalt Miracle they'd promised.)

As it turned out, that Miracle consisted of using 6.8 decades of other people's ("Our Children, and Their Children") money to puff up Mitch Daniels' economic record, in hopes of erasing Mitch Daniels' existing economic record. Throw in the $8.8 billion in Federal stimulus money he objected to in "principle" but took anyway, and the $2 billion and counting owed the Feds over his mismanagement of unemployment, and Mitch Daniels actually got to spend nine years of state revenue in eight. A cynic might begin to wonder what drawer that $2 billion surplus he left us is actually in.

The current Indiana General Assembly is hard at work 1) trying to divine Mike Pence's divine intentions, and 2) trying to come up with a different name for a tax increase so we can maintain the roads we already gots, let alone finish the work the Daniels administration so nobly half-advanced. My own suggestion ("Sue Mitch Daniels for the $200 million the next four years should have to spend, even if that Toll Road money never earned a dime in interest") seems to've fallen on deaf ears. If he's not good for it personally, I'm sure Purdue's got some stuff he could auction off.

I'm not gonna forget Mitch Daniels; hell, I'm the only guy in Indiana still trying to get Kindly Doc Bowen (1973-1981) thrown in the hoosegow. Even if I wanted to, the Indianapolis Star seems convinced the man is still politically relevant. Or else it's just nostalgic for his patented brand of Non-Answer; regardless, the sumbitch is still getting more column inches than Pence (who, in fairness, may be getting hard to spot, as he appears to be getting more and more translucent, but maybe that was just the approach of Lent). Last week they sent someone around to get Daniels' thoughts on the legislature's seeming determination to Get th' Fuck Out From Under the Detritus of the Daniels Administration Before Anyone Notices, and he replied something about how different political circumstances may call for different approaches. Some True Believer. My response, shown of swears, is that if the Bible requires a Constitutional Amendment ("When we get around to it") to protect the Imaginary Heterosex Monogamy it commands, how much more do we need one to protect against false witness, which really is in there?

Besides, who can escape memories, without an assist from Nature, whether welcome or not? I was delivering some food to my dad the other day, and, as usual, the teevee was blaring news. It wasn't FOX, for once; maybe he switches to the locals at noon. And the hot-button story was the Indianapolis Motor Speedway ("Home of the 500") asking the state for $5 million a year to help with improvements.

"I can't believe they're doing that!" he shouted. (Not in anger, just in hard-of-hearingness.)

"Dad, we spent three-quarters of a billion in taxpayer money on that football barn. That caused the Simons to demand, and get, an extra $10 million a year so they can afford to keep the stadium we built them swept. Where do you think they got the idea?" I shouted back, mostly because "shout" is the preferred volume for our political discussions.

For sixty-five years it was the stated position of the Hulman family that it wouldn't ask the state for money. Which is being held against them now, in some quarters--mostly those same quarters which were happy to build stadia for privately-owned sports franchises, and rebate taxes for ten years for businesses which promised to move into the state while Mitch Daniels needed vapor job numbers.

Where d'ya think they got the idea? Not from Mitch Daniels personally, but, then, Daniels did have to run around to the front of the parade when the Republican-Democrat mayor of Indianapolis--and Daniels' chief rival for the 2008 elections--asked the legislature for small-scale local casino gambling to pay for the deal he'd already worked out with the Colts. The Daniels-controlled legislature upheld the Biblical principle ("Thou shalt not sport over cards, or other games of chance, except on something that looks like a boat, or a dog track, until Republicans need those funds for their own purposes."), as well as their own, and got the doughnut counties to saddle themselves with a tax as well. With Daniels in charge, and Mayor Bart Petersmythe safely seated below the salt, the state managed to bring in the project only $100 mil or so over the (revised) estimates of $650 million.

Only problem was that, under Peterson's plan, the deal included a $50 million emergency operating fund. Just after the state inked the deal it was discovered that that money had been misplaced, somehow. Then it rained, the place leaked, and lost about 1/3 of its electrical system. No problem, though. The taxpayers were good for it.

Yeah, I won't pretend I'd'a wanted to see a Mitch Daniels SOTU, though it might've been amusing to see him try some of that Big Brain execufyin' without the legislature and press in his pocket for once. Same as it would have been entertaining to watch him take the beating Mitt Romney got instead, or to hear him duke it out onstage with Newt and Santorum. I don't believe the man really thought about running for President, just about refilling his campaign coffers after buying all the airtime in Indiana for the first ten months of 2008.

Besides, what's in a name? "Lucas Oil Canyon" would be just as Grand, wouldn't it?