The unknown territory of a contested convention

Supposedly the last contested convention was the 1976 GOP convention. I don't remember it, That means I have no compass for guessing what will happen at the GOP convention if no candidate collects a clear majority.

So here's the closest thing to signposts that I've found. Bernstein writes that the delegates and the candidates will run the convention. The candidates are pretty well known by now, but what about the delegates? Who are they, who are they loyal (or disloyal) to, and what will their motivations be? Perhaps Cruz has enough on-the-ground infrastructure to ensure that his delegates are loyal, but can Trump? I can't even guess.

Another possibility (likely is my gut feeling) is that Trump and Cruz together will control the convention. Any establishment hopes for avoiding Awful#1 and Awful#2 will be dashed. My guess is that Cruz will be offered and will accept the nomination for vice-president. I didn't think of this myself, but once I read it, it seems absolutely perfect. They've been buddies before. They can go back to being buddies with all smears forgotten in mists of amnesia. They will share their hatred of the RINO, lying, feckless establishment, and their absolute certainty of victory... If I watch, I'll want to puke.

To avoid puking, I'd like to pretend that the GOP establishment and good sense will prevent this. But looking at the disarray in the GOP leadership, I can't imagine it will happen. It's quite hopeless. We'll be looking at a convention and a general campaign without precedent in my lifetime. So hold on tight.

Image: waregeneology.com

Extra. Read about the 1976 GOP convention, which was contested. Ford was ahead of Reagan, but neither had a lock. Nonetheless, there were clear signals early that Ford would win. 

The Political Lie Machine: Self-serving predictions

Contrary to an abundance of evidence, Hillary Clinton isn't running for president, or at least she won't be running.

That's according to some hackish journalist writing for the conservative Washington Times. Let's see what he says: She doesn't have the fire in the belly. She doesn't want to spend her golden years working 16 hours a day and sleeping in unfamiliar beds. He theorizes that there's a "hard blue flame" that drives the winners, and declares Hillary doesn't have it.

Excuse me, but did George Bush (either of them) have a hard blue flame? No, they didn't. They were candidates of convenience. It's a bunch of bullshit to think tremendous, unabridged ambition is required to become president.

Of course the article correctly claims Hillary has a mountain of negatives. This is true, but it's also true of every other candidate for president. Their opponents dearly wish that these negatives would disqualify the hated candidate. But it just doesn't seem to happen.  From reading Bernstein, I know the qualifications you need to win a nomination, but there's no clear list of what 1) disqualifies candidates, or 2) ensures you win the general election.

It used to be that a divorced candidate couldn't win high office, yet Reagan disproved that. It used to be that no woman or black or hispanic could win, but that obviously isn't true anymore. People want to believe that no one with such-and-such a black mark can win the presidency, and then they conveniently fill in the disqualifying event. But it just isn't so. Probably every single president has at some point been declared disqualified, and those predictions were wrong, wrong, wrong. This is just a particularly stupid example of the genre.

Image: washingtontimes.com

The pro-torture political party of America

It's disgusting that we have one party in this country that seems to be in favor of torture, despite our constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishments and our commitment to the Geneva Convention. Well, it's hard to say how committed some conservatives are to the Geneva Convention since it's obviously foreign.

We also have one party that's against torture, which is the Democratic Party.

This is ridiculous. I can't believe that we have people who are gung-ho on torture. I guess it's been too long since World War II and the horror of the Nazi and Japanese death camps. Someone needs to remind the Republicans of what torture is and why it's immoral.

The stranger part is that there's a partisan divide. It seems as though most people just follow their party's line. Do devout religious people who are Republicans support torture? I suppose some do, if Sarah Palin is to be believed.

Jonathan Bernstein, one of my favorite bloggers, is deeply worried about this partisan divide. He's afraid the GOP will permanently become the 'torture' party. Whenever a GOP president is in the White House, he'll issue an executive order allowing torture just like all GOP presidents have issued changes on birth control and abortion in US-funded foreign aid programs. So a change of party will bring back the torture protocols or suspend them, just like changing the curtains in a house.

I hope JB is wrong, and that the next GOP president doesn't do that. After all, we've managed without torture for 6 years now, so maybe we won't need to torture under the next president either. But I'm worried. Very few Republicans have joined John McCain in denouncing torture. Instead, they've lined up to denounce Democrats for being unAmerican in talking about it. Their argument seems to be:

1. It's not torture. It's perfectly legal 'enhanced interrogation.'
2. Talking about it exposes the US to unfair and untrue charges that hurt our reputation.
3. How dare you care about terrorists more than our soldiers and citizens who might be targeted by foreigners who are angry about this. 
4. We have to do this, but we also have to keep it quiet. 
5. Correction. Republicans can talk about it proudly, but dissenters have to keep quiet.

I remember a simple rule of thumb for whether something is torture: if you don't want it done to American POWs, it's torture. If you can countenance our enemies (Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Un, Stalin) doing it to our guys (including you or your adult children in military service), then it's not torture. Somehow, I don't think these GOP supporters would be volunteering for being chained to a ceiling or a nice long session of waterboarding . . .  minus the safe word, of course.

Image: sean-chandler.blogspot.com

Extras. So many. Background article on the torture report by the Senate committee headed by Dianne Feinstein. The irony of Dick Cheney saying that the torture report is deeply flawed because the committee didn't interview CIA operatives. The irony is that the architect of this repugnant policy would claim a report is deeply flawed.

Jonathan Chait (excellent writer, generally good arguments) reams the GOP for their hypocrisy on evil. An examination of a flaw in the report--of course the president knew about the torture. The strategy of torture-defenders. John Brennan, current head of the CIA, not denying pretty much everything in the report--watch the whole video. Yep, the CIA tortured interrogated with enhanced methods that they aren't using anymore.

WaPo on the importance of keeping a taboo on torture. Oops, this wasn't an anomaly: our history of being torture instructors to Latin America. A convincing article against torture in The Economist that I read years ago but still remember. An even better quote from another article:

"The most relevant case is Israel, where the ticking-bomb rationale has been used to justify the 'physical coercion'...  This practice has never been explicitly legalised, but received something close to legal sanction after a commission headed by a former [Israeli] Supreme Court justice recommended in 1987 that 'moderate physical pressure' in interrogations should be allowed after psychological pressure had failed. For years after that, the Israeli Supreme Court declined to take torture cases. But the abuse of Palestinian prisoners became so widespread, and so routine, that in 1999 the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the coercive methods employed by Shin Bet, the security service, were illegal. Nevertheless, according to human-rights groups, the regular torture of Palestinian detainees has continued."

When you start to torture, it spreads beyond the limited cases where it might be justified. This is true among the British questioning IRA suspects, among the Israelis, and among the US intelligence services. Where hasn't this happened? This was the most compelling argument I found against torture, no matter how awful the prisoner is. It seems to be a guaranteed slippery slope to practices that any moral person would find repugnant.

Update 12/20/14. Here are some conservatives who care about torture. They are also very religiously-minded. I'm glad to find them.

Update 1/29/15. The CIA knew it was going to be breaking laws against torture, and asked for immunity from prosecution. This was before the weasly torture memos.

Moderating forces and their opposites

I'm a moderate and I want a moderate political party. Why isn't there one I can join, goddammit?

I asked this question on a recent 'question day' that Jonathan Bernstein hosted. His answer is that forces within a political party are more often centrifugal (fleeing the center and moving toward one side). People get involved in parties because they really want a particular policy on an important issue. They are passionate, and they pull the party that way. The non-passionate aren't involved, don't vote in primaries, and show up only at the end--at the general election. Then the moderates are disappointed with the choices, but they weren't involved in earlier decision-making, so maybe they shouldn't be complaining.

It's true. I'm a member of a political party, but I'm not exerting myself in an attempt to pull the party in my direction. I suppose I shouldn't complain, but I still will. Maybe I'll start thinking about how to get involved in my party and push them in my direction.

Luckily, there are moderating forces that act on parties. Hooray!!! Nate Silver writes that parties become more moderate in their candidate selections after they've lost a few too many election. Yes, they wise up, stop listening to those passionate wackos, and choose someone less frightening to the center. Why does it take a bunch of losses? Why are the lessons unlearned after a few wins? I don't unlearn lessons.

Or maybe I do... Perhaps, when things are going well, I forget some of those humbling lessons, like not to be troll, or don't overestimate my value to my employer.

Perhaps I'm starting to understand why parties are the way they are. But I still object.

Image: apod.nl

The invisible primary clarifies everything

I learned this concept from Jonathan Bernstein, the only political commentator who has stayed interesting to me. (Others, like Josh Barro, seem great, but it only lasts for a short time.)

The invisible primary is the contest before the presidential primaries start. It consists of potential or declared candidates visiting early primary states, talking, occasionally staking out positions, occasionally attacking one another, wooing donors, and most of all wooing the important party players who have influence on swathes of voters, usually within one state.

I've learned a lot about the Republican invisible primary, but not so much about the Democratic version. Maybe in 2020 it will be in play, but 2016 isn't looking too likely.

Here are links to some of good posts on the invisible primary. If you don't know this concept yet, you have a wonderful learning experience in store:

• Bernstein on watching the developing party agenda.
• Long but great article about the GOP invisible primary. Very readable.
• How someone decides to jump in.
• Related to Rand Paul.

Image: examiner.com

I'm tired of America

You should be able to guess from the title that this post will be a rant.

I'm so tired of all the political hate. It's getting harder and harder to have a reasonable online conversation. My favorite political blogger, Jonathan Bernstein, got a new job at Bloomberg. His posts are still good, but the comment sections are overrun with idiotic trolls who can't put together an argument so they live and breathe insults.

Over at National Review I'm attacked and down-voted for not being in lock-step with liberal-bashing when it's done in a petty way. "Thou shalt hate liberals" reigns at National Review.

Common Language - Gone

I also notice that the words conservative commenters use have different meanings from what I'm used to. Take the word 'Marxist.' To me, it means someone who wants to abolish private property, seize all wealth over, say, a few thousand dollars, seize all business assets, and generally do what the Soviets did in Russia. To most commenters over there, a Marxist is anyone who advocated higher tax on the wealthy. Maybe just supporting progressive tax rates, like we already have, makes you a Marxist.

If you talk about inequality, a very squishy topic, you're probably a Marxist. If you say that money should be spread around ... Marxist. If you say the middle class should be stronger and getting more money, maybe you aren't a Marxist, but how is that different from saying that money should be spread around?

Now I'm also having trouble with the word 'confiscation.' It's a favorite term there. To me, it means the government taking a sizable portion of a person's money or property, or taking any portion that it doesn't have a legal right to. To others, it's any taxation. I'm sorry, but I can't call any and all taxation 'confiscation.' It has to be excessive--beyond what has been normal for the past several decades. So I think a 70% income tax rate is confiscation, and taking of saved assets is confiscation, but a 25% to 35% taxation rate on income doesn't fit the definition.

General Respect - Gone

I'm having a hard time at the soft-left sites too. The problem there isn't the meaning of terms, but the idea that anyone intelligent could disagree with the standard leftist platform. To some, it makes no sense that someone would want smaller government instead of bigger government.

The partisanship and the hate is not abating--not with the most recent elections and not with the slight uptick in employment. If anything, it is becoming more entrenched. I suppose I'm glad that we don't have political street demonstrations where people are beaten up and killed, but it's happening metaphorically on the internet. People loathe each other, and don't give a damn what happens to someone on the other side.

Considering Other Viewpoints - LOL

They also loathe any different ideology. We used to have an ideal that this country is a forum where different ideologies can compete and be judged. I guess that is over, and each side thinks its ideology has been proven (yes, proven) superior. Anyone who doesn't agree is either a shill, corrupt, a rentier, a leech, or what-have-you.

Worst of all, I don't see any way that this situation is going to get better. The different political sides show no signs of rapprochement, and a buoyant economy isn't going to rush in and save us. We are stuck with all these people we hate, and nothing is going to fix it.

I wonder what we did last time this happened? Are there any good ideas from the past?

Image: thejimmyzshow.blogspot.com

Smallest nuclear blast ever

Finally the Democratic Senate got fed up with the GOP blocking just about every damn nominee. They voted to end the Senate rule that allows filibustering of judicial nominees, with an exception that still allows the filibuster of Supreme Court nominees.

Earlier this year, the GOP backed down in the face of the Dems going nuclear. Why not this time? Here's the best answer I've seen:

"It could make the difference for a Republican, in that they no longer have to tag team to break cloture on nominees they want to let through, so there won't be as many ads to run about how 'so and so says they're a conservative, but they voted with Obama 327 times!'" -- Plain blog commenter

This identifies the real reason for the change in the GOP position. It was getting harder for the GOP to stop their own filibusters even when they reached unthinking, foot-stomping stubbornness. So now they've allowed the Dems to render that problem moot. (Update. Bernstein make the same argument here, but it comes from a professional and highly educated political observer.)

No other writer came up with this analysis. The MSM was treating it as no big deal. At the Daily Kos, it was mostly cheers for the defeat of those obstructionist Republicans. HotAir was loud, negative, and scattered. Some pointed out the hypocrisy of the Dems, a few looked forward to using the same power when the GOP reclaims the Senate, a few quoted Limbaugh's laughable analysis that the rules would last only for the Dems' advantage, and then revert. George Will laments the end of a "deliberative" Senate and the beginning of a coarse, 'majority dictates' Senate that is not bound by rules, but by expediency. 

RedState had a different take--it wants the end of all cooperation in the Senate in retaliation. The Senate won't pass anything inconvenient like an immigration bill, a farm bill, a continuing resolution--zip. Except that no true conservative trusts the squishy Senate RINOs, certainly not at RedState or HotAir

Thank God for that clear-eyed commenter who understood why the change happened now. In the long run, perhaps George Will will be proven right--we might deeply regret this change. But I don't know a way around it because the Senate has already slid so far down the slope. 

Image: tripadvisor.com.au

Short: But what is the alternative to...

What are the alternatives to Obamacare? I ask this question regular. What would have been the alternatives to the stimulus or alternative composition of the stimulus? Who were the alternatives to Mitt Romney? I definitely asked that question.

But here's a question I didn't ask: If you're a Republican, what alternatives do you have? There aren't many Republicans making good policy suggestions, but you don't just want to fold. Ted Cruz is offering an alternative, and he's one of the few doing it. At least that's what Bernstein writes.

There is something to this argument. However, a big reason that there aren't more Republicans making suggestions is that either:

1. The GOP have pretty much run dry on ideas.
2. Republicans with ideas are staying mum because they don't want to draw the attention and ire of the very vengeful Tea Party. 
3. (Holding place for other possibilities. I'm sure there are others that I can't think of.)

So maybe I have to disagree with Bernstein. Maybe the biggest problem isn't that the GOP isn't offering any alternative ideas to Cruz's approach. The problem is the Tea Party will rip apart anyone who offers a different idea. They are the equivalent of a Somali militia, I guess... maybe... really? I'm afraid maybe it's true.

Image: mw.nl

Extra. The Economist is kinder. They compare the Tea Party to the Students for a Democratic Society or Joe McCarthy. The author wants to compare them to some unnamed totalitarians (Stalin, anybody?), but doesn't want to get spammed be inflammatory.

Roundup: Still no Tea Party Plan

So the House surprised watchers by sending a hopeless funding bill to certain dismemberment in the Senate. The Senate even has a timetable for the dismemberment (Cruz yaks on Tuesday through Wednesday noon, cloture vote Wednesday, strip out Obamacare defunding Friday or Saturday, pass it, send it back to House for possible rinse and repeat). The Senate, anticipating the reaction from the House, might make it a short term funding bill only through November or December.

What is the Tea Party plan now? I went looking for it, inspired by Bernstein's very detailed guess about what would be happening in the House concerning the continuing resolution and debt ceiling votes (worth reading).

So this is what I found.

HotAir is telling its TP audience that Boehner's response will be a bill to delay Obamacare. HotAir warns that there will be a shutdown, but that will just light a fire under the lazy Senate.

Several voices are telling Tea Partiers that it's hopeless. Since they lost the election, Obamacare is going ahead and it can't be defunded. When John McCain tells them, the TP is defiant. Erick Erickson at RedState is defiant. He seems to think Cruz has a plan, but forgets to say what it is. At Breitbart, a columnist with that reality message is labeled a progressive, and the message is derided. Elsewhere at Breitbart, it's hooray for Cruz.

There are no signs that the Tea Party has a plan and even realizes the need for a plan. There's no discussion that "we do this, then they'll do that, then we'll counter with this." Nothing like that at all. These people are absurd in their lack of awareness that other people exist and have power. How did they get to be so oblivious? Jennifer Rubin, who is usually worthless, explains that they wrongly extrapolate their media share.

So are there any indications of what the Tea Party will do next? No. However, the ball will soon be back at the House, so the House leadership is trying to figure out its next move. They haven't ironed it out yet, as time ticks away to October 1. Politico reports the next House bill might delay the implementation of Obamacare. That would be another hopeless volley, and shutdown would follow. Perhaps the Washington Post report is more accurate--that the House might do something with a debt-limit increase and lots of sweeteners for GOP causes. It's not reported what the plan for funding is.

So it's all as clear as mud right now, 4.5 days away from the end of statutory funding. Thank you, Tea Party.

Image: citizenchris.typepad.com

Same day update: A preview of the proposal from the House shows one aspect of the Tea Party plan. They plan to make the fight as bloody as possible in non-contact politics. See the likely new demands. The Tea Party will be stabbing and nicking anyone who isn't a complete supporter. And they've invited their ravening friends to watch.

Update 9/27/13. Still no plan. House GOP to meet Saturday.

Missing: Real fiscal negotiations

. . . chasing a fetish instead

For some unknown reason, the GOP decided to forego fiscal negotiations in the run-up to the appropriations for next year, and focus only on defunding Obamacare. They turned Obamacare into a fetish and focused all their energies on it.

Obamacare is certainly not the only political fetish. In fact, politics is full of fetishes. Each party tries to raise up their fetishes and burn those of their opponents. Here are a few fetishes off the top of my head: assault weapons ban, balanced budget amendment, green jobs, DADT, "real Americans," ...

Actually, I ran out of fetishes sooner than I would have thought. To me, a fetish is a practically useless but politically powerful piece of policy or jargon. In actuality, it doesn't matter, but politicians latch onto it for political grandstanding. Obamacare doesn't really fit this definition, since it will have real consequences, but it has been turned into a fetish because politicians have inflated its symbolism to a great degree.

Negotiate or bust

So, back to the point. Instead of doing some horse-trading on funding this and that, cutting hither and thither, the GOP has wasted months on Obamacare. They did manage to pass a bill in the House cutting 5% from the food stamp budget, but that's it. Maybe someone in the GOP (not you, Rand Paul) remembered to make up a prioritized list of other cuts, and will whip it out after the Obamacare offensive is defeated. If not, the GOP will yet again be caught out with no negotiation strategy. This happened in December '11, Feb '12, Dec '12, and March '13. When will the GOP learn?

The Dems, of course, like spending as much as they can get away with, so they aren't taking up the slack and suggesting their own cuts. Nancy Pelosi says there's nothing more to cut, but also that the Dems will work with the GOP to make government more efficient and end duplication of services. Her negotiation strategy is "you go first." This cynical strategy isn't good for the country at all, but those hopeless Republicans don't have anything better.

I hope we can get back to the situation in 2011 when the Tea Party was pushing for some real cuts, and they weren't going to back down. That was a realistic goal and it worked.

Right now they're engaged in a folly, and they seem to be throwing more energy at it than they had in 2011. Why are they flushing away their power on an unattainable goal? The only answer I have is that they don't know and don't care what is achievable and what isn't.

Perhaps we were damned lucky that they focused on budget cuts in 2011 and not Obamacare. Maybe it was just dumb luck, and not any wisdom at all. If the Tea Party chooses its goal irrationally, they are going to be a bull in a china shop until they're shot down. On the basis of 2013 vs. 2011, I'm not ready yet to declare the Tea Party totally irrational, but that's definitely on the list of possible explanations.

So, to the Tea Party, please go back to demanding some fiscal restraint. Show that your 2011 rational choice wasn't an aberration.

Image: washingtonpost.com

Extras. The food stamp cut mentioned above was 5% of a $80 billion budget that's doubled since 2008. The stimulus increased the grants, but that is also due to end, which may mean the total cuts are larger, perhaps on the order of 10%. The Dems are screaming about "food insecurity," which means one person in a household skipped as few as one meal a month due to food availability. Fetish, anyone?

Bernstein: GOP is "post-policy"--they have no proposals. Josh Barro complains about the lack of rational healthcare reform ideas among the GOP. Yeah, I noticed that.

Short: Why I love Plain Blog

The matchlight flares up blindingly.

Suddenly I see so clearly why I like (love?) the Plain Blog about Politics. Here it is:

• It's based on data. In particular, the author (a PhD and professor) has a deep knowledge of US political history, and he takes a data-driven approach. 

This is a refreshing difference from the mostly ideological approach that political writers take.  Here's the author, Jonathan Bernstein, destroying the idea that a loss on the Syria vote will destroy the Obama presidency:

...there's one permutation that absolutely, no question about it, would destroy the rest of Barack Obama's presidency is: a disastrous war. Ask Lyndon Johnson or George W. Bush. Or Harry Truman...   

None of the other permutations [including losing a Syria vote] are anywhere close to that kind of threat to the Obama presidency. Presidents lose key votes which are then mostly forgotten all the time. They pursue policies which poll badly, but are then mostly forgotten, all the time. There are important things to say about all of that, because "mostly" isn't completely. But the first thing to get right when considering the effects of Syria policy on the rest of the Obama presidency is that the scale of a Vietnam or an Iraq (or a Korea, for that matter) overwhelms everything else we might talk about.

However, it wasn't reading the blog that brought on this epiphany. I was pursuing an argument on another blog where I'm trying to get a blogger to alter his view of Obama's fiscal program. How am I trying to do this? With data. 

Do your views conform with the data, or do you have to ignore the data (ignore facts) to maintain your political position? Everyone should be asking themselves that ALL THE TIME. Sadly, that isn't what happens.

Leak: For them, Norquist is a RINO

OK, folks, I have no idea how politics is done, so this was eye-popping. You see, to be infulential (I mean influential) in politics, you have to host a weekly members-only strategy session where you talk about who's not pulling their weight, who stabbed you in the back, what words to use to attack someone, and what everyone has to accomplish before next week.

This is like Journolist, but for conservatives. The problem is that there's more than one of these members-only conservative networks. Norquist has had one for twenty years, but now there's an upstart that hates Norquist as a compromising-squish-establishment-fake-conservative. Wow. The right keeps moving so fast that we normal people can't keep up with what's extreme nowadays.

The people behind this ultra-conservative scout troop include Justice Clarence Thomas's wife, defunct representative Allen West, Ted Cruz, and a bunch of, ahem, journalists from Breitbart.

How do we know this? Someone got hold of documents from their private Google site and leaked the whole thing to Mother Jones. Just as I keep saying, whatever you want to hide, it ain't gonna stay hidden.

A good introduction is here, but be sure to read the long version to find out how the powers-that-be craft the news memes you can't stand. One. More. Second.

Oh, and they hate Karl Rove too.

Image: motherjones.com

Extra. Why are we bombarded with so many talking points? Per the Leesburg grid:

"Where this really gets interesting is when you're covering points faster than the opponent can create them. This puts them 'behind the eight ball,' and they never seem to create their own ideas; they only respond to yours."

Please, God, no, it's actually designed that way.

Update 7/30/13. Jonathan Bernstein of PlainBlog (still fascinating during these doldrums--great job!) says:

"Really? You're telling me that the same right-wing kooks who were publicly hyping Benghazi! and publicly urging Boehner and Issa to 'make this supposed scandal a top-priority' were...also doing the same thing when the TV cameras weren't on!"

He makes a valid point--none of this is particularly surprising or a scandal. I still found the information fresh, especially to know who's in the group and who's not.

Rant: Kevin Williamson is still lying about race

I was extremely pissed off last year about Kevin Williamson's lying piece about how the GOP was so great on civil rights and the Dems (all of them mentioned by name) were horrible.

Well, Williamson has another one. It's not as bad this time because it contains an interesting story about Goldwater helping with desegregation--and all these stories are worth knowing... when they are actually true. But Williamson isn't content to tell the true tales of the good GOP, he must bash each and every Democrat. So Lyndon Johnson isn't the president who pushed for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. No, he "was gutting anti-lynching laws and assuring Democrats that he would offer those 'uppity Negroes' 'just enough to quiet them down.'"

The gospel according to Williamson is that Dems never did anything to help blacks gain their civil rights. AND THAT IS A CONTEMPTIBLE LIE. Did I ever say that I HATE LIES? I think I did.

The good news is that lies aren't winning elections so much anymore. That is wonderful--that the lies aren't winning. So you liars out there, your days are numbered. Whatever you try to hide, it ain't going to stay hidden.

Hat tip: Bernstein and The American Prospect

Hey Kevin, I found some missing Democrats.

Image: wikipedia.org

Continuing resolutions and continuing stonewalls

I like to write about significant issues, not the outrage du jour (currently whether or not the White House threatened Bob Woodward and all the petty partisan point-scoring around that non-issue).

So I won't be writing much for a while. It's strange to have written almost 400 posts, and now have nothing to say. But I don't want to endlessly repeat my complaint that neither party will seize the wide-open middle ground and actually propose a centrist spending plan.

Here's what will happen with the biggest issue in Washington, the federal  government budget:

• The GOP will continue their typical non-specific (Ryan) budget proposals, with lots of dollars removed from social programs, but no details on how that will translate to benefit reductions.
• The Dems will continue their proposals for larger budgets fueled by tax increases on the wealthy and budgetary sleight-of-hand to hide the growing deficits in the proposal.
• There will be NO POSSIBILITY OF RECONCILING these proposals.
• Just before a government shutdown on March 27, Congress will reluctantly pass a Continuing Resolution that follows the same budget we have now, with no replacement for the sequester and no reforms on the huge Medicare expenditures.
• The only bit of uncertainty is how long the Continuing Resolution will cover--six months or one year.

THIS IS PITIFUL. Our elected officials have reduced themselves to one decision: how long to keep the status quo going. We aren't getting much for the salaries we pay them.

The only silver lining is that neither the GOP nor the Dems can implement their respective destructive programs. So these doldrums are the price for avoiding the catastrophe we'd have from following one or the other partisan fantasy. I can live with that, but I'll need a new hobby since blogging on politics will be mighty sparse. Suggestions?

Better than blogging

Image: maxshertz.com

Extra. There is still one blogger who's doing well. Kudos to Jonathan Bernstein at Plain Blog (a good example here).

Update 3/17/13. The length of the Continuing Resolution isn't even in doubt. It will be 6 months, which takes us to the start of the 2014 fiscal year.

Is the GOP for Simpson-Bowles?

One of the biggest surprises in the GOP campaign is the attack on Obama for not supporting the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan (capsule history and summary here). This is so surprising that Ryan's accusation against Obama caused mild-mannered political scientist Jonathan Bernstein to throw F-bombs, in capital letters no less.

So, being who I am, I wondered when this became a talking point for conservatives. They sure weren't embracing Simpson-Bowles in early 2011. So when did it stop being a corpse and start being a stick with which to club Obama?

Here's what I found.

• First, May 26, 2012. Newsbusters. Art Laffer on Bill Maher talking about the economy. The commentary is that the left didn't like SB because of entitlement cuts, and Obama followed the left of his party. Maybe so, it was already dead, due to insufficient congressional support. Obama wasn't even the coup de grace.

• The real spin starts on 8/15 with a piece for Fox News website. This is a balanced article about the political positions. Ryan lead opposition to SB, and Obama punted. The article said that Obama should have pushed the topic 2010-2011. Agreed.

• Breitbart.com had a story on 8/19. A cabal of political advisers encouraged Obama to let Paul Ryan go first, and then Obama would look sensible in comparison. The post says that Obama should have been the leader. Ha, ha. I think the political advisers were probably right. At that point, it was too late to lead on the issue for that year--the new GOP majority in the House had their pitchforks out and torches lit, so SB wasn't going to be considered. As Bill Maher says, Simpson Bowles would have gotten cooties if Obama endorsed it then.

I find it very hypocritical of Ryan, Breitbart, etc. to criticize Obama over his handling of SB since the GOP were even worse. The report came out as the new Tea Party Republicans were chomping at the bit to use their new power in the House. They tried a lot of brinksmanship on major funding bills and over the debt ceiling. Delicate negotiations or reasoned discussion of this bipartisan plan weren't on the agenda for the House GOP.

Funny - is Simpson-Bowles on the agenda now? (Ssh, it's just a prop.)

 Ryan honoring Simpson-Bowles in the breach - his partisan plan

Image: breitbart.com

Extra. The House reaffirmed its negative opinion of Simpson-Bowles in a 382-38 vote in March 2012.

Not all gaffes are equal

It was a tough day for Republicans. On Sunday, the GOP candidate for Senate from Missouri made a big-ass mistake. He said that he doesn't believe that women can get pregnant from rape due to some bodily defense unknown to people who actually study human biology. Therefore, any woman claiming she got pregnant from a rape is probably a liar, and doesn't deserve to have a safe, legal abortion. Besides, even if she was telling the truth, her baby is innocent and deserves to live... never mind how traumatic the pregnancy might be... and even if the woman is a 12-year-old girl.

Some Republicans are pissed that this gaffe may cost them the Senate seat, and they're wailing about how unfair it is that gaffes stick to them but not to Dems.

Clearly, I'm not too sympathetic. To some people, this is just a little 'oopsy' like "57 states" or "put y'all back in chains" or "I like firing people."

This is different. It's not like saying the wrong word or using a questionable metaphor, or forgetting to fill a sentence with enough clauses so the words can't be taken out of context. This guy meant what he said. This has been his belief and reflects a policy objective that he would legislate if he could.

It would be scary if he could actually follow through, which he can't. What IS scary is that someone this dogmatic about abortion, reproduction, sex, and rape could be elected to the Senate. In 2010, the idiocies known as Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle were defeated, not by GOP primary voters, but by general election voters. We'll have to count on general election voters again. Let us pray, yet again, to be saved from the foolishness of some of our fellow citizens.

  Christians wooing women voters?

Image: mediaite.com

Also interesting. Bernstein on what the party can do.

Short: When you aren't the target audience

Bernstein had a great, timely reminder that the general public is not always the target audience for all parts of the campaign. He writes about the rumors that the Romney campaign is going to start 'vetting' Obama. By vetting, they mean it the way Breitbart meant it, which is digging up any past action or association that looks at all radical or socialist. "Palling around with terrorists" will make a resurgence.

However, this part of the campaign is not for general consumption, but a special mooshy dessert for the GOP loyalists who can't get enough of Obama as foreign agent provocateur. It'll run mostly on Fox and the conservative blogosphere, but not on the general airwaves in the swing states. At least, that's what I'm guessing. I don't live in a swing state, so I can't find out easily by turning on my TV anytime between Labor Day and Election Day. Ah, spared the excitement!

Image: nicedeb.wordpress.com

The Campaign: Team insignia

Bernstein wrote a post on Obama's announced support of same-sex marriage and the effect it had on black opinion. In the post, he talks about how people usually support the position they think reflects the team's position:

So it’s not exactly that Obama influenced black opinions, would be my guess. It’s that African American voters who really don’t care very much one way or another about the marriage issue — but do consider themselves on Team Democrat — are now aware that marriage equality is the normal position of that team.

So, I had to wonder--how much of campaigning and connecting with voters is about sending signals about  team affiliation?  I think it's a lot. Just think of all the GOP candidates pledging not to raise any taxes. Or the Dem base in fits of joy when Obama says that the problem is not Medicare and Medicaid and the Ryan budget plan is "unserious."

It explains why so many Republicans say that Obama is a Muslim--it sends the anti-Obama signal. It explains why our blog pages are filled with repeats of the same talking points--commenters use them to identify as Team Democrat or Team Conservative or Team Libertarian. It also explains why I gets blasted so much--if I'm not sending out the right team signals, I must be from Team Enemy.

Maybe someday there will be a team that's a good enough fit for me, and I'll join that team. Then what I say will be identifiably That Team. But when I differ with that team, I'll probably have the same problem as now. However it might be just 10% of the time, not 95% of the time. Or maybe I'd still be identifiable, the way we can identify "gay conservative" or "liberal Catholic" now.

But that is a digression. The real question is how to move past projecting the team's signals to actually discussing issues and influencing people's political decisions. I don't know HOW to do this. Any ideas?

 Team Glee--A Dem franchise from the looks of it

Photo: dailytrojan.com

Extra: Is being a loyal team member the same as tribalism?

Short: Bernstein takes down the GOP civil rights claims

This could be a "History for Amnesiacs" post if I had done the research. But instead, it's a Bernstein self-Catch of the Day wherein he catches a guest writer for the National Review fibbing about the GOP's and Dems' roles in the civil rights struggles. A current conservative talking point is that the Dems were segregationists and the GOP were heroes in the civil rights struggles (scoff, scoff). And, of course, Robert Byrd was KKK, DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT!!!!!!!

The comments by Kylopod and Anon are informative. The comments by the NRO writer (Kevin Williamson) are lies, and that's what I call them right there. Plain writing and zero deference for liars--that's what I strive for.

Update 2/15/13. This is a better analysis of the GOP's admirable role in civil rights legislation and their strategies in the 60's and beyond. There was a time long ago when the National Review aimed for truth about civil rights.

Update 6/14/16. Another interesting article about party alignment on civil rights issues. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but it's definitely worth reading. Note how it doesn't discuss anything beyond the 1960's. Are we supposed to assume GOPers are still for segregation?

Update 11/15/19. No surprise, but I still see conservatives pretend that the racial sins of the Democratic Party in the past are somehow still relevant and operative now. Then, a breath or two later, they'll deny there was a Republican southern strategy. This isn't new, but it's an oldie that keeps turning up. Bruce Bartlett proposed this view in the book Wrong on Race. Kevin Williamson (writer for the National Review) and too many commenters keep this fable going.