Blaming the talkers, not the shooters

Is Harry Reid right when he blames the murders and shooting at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood on Republican politicians?

There are some good arguments for leveling some of the blame on them. Many of them aren't moderate in their statements, but instead ramp up the anger at those who support and provide abortions to the women who want them. They don't take the extra few seconds to remind people to try to stop abortion only through rational, respectful discussion. The GOPers as a whole have quite a history of lying about abortion, like 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion. Shouldn't the GOP be held responsible when lies like this influence someone to kill? When I put it like this, yes, it seems they should be partially blamed.

But then I tried a thought experiment--do I feel the same about protest movements that I have more sympathy for? How much do I blame the Black Lives Matter movement for execution-type shootings of police? The answer to that one is easy--I don't blame Black Lives Matter, or the vast majority of their advocates and supporters. A few protesters have encouraged the shooting of police, but very few. And even then, they weren't directly involved in shootings, so they aren't guilty of incitement or conspiracy. I'm not even sure there is a crime for what they did, if all they did is yell.

So, am I going to have a different standard for conservatives and their causes than for liberals and their causes? It might be tempting, but I'm not. People are morally responsible to the lies they tell, or for the hate speech they mutter or shout, but they're not responsible when someone else pulls the trigger--unless they cross the gray line between advocating a position and advocating specific violence.

Am I right about this position? I'm not totally sure. However, I don't want to choose what is expedient, but what is fair.

Is it a lie? Is it incitement?

Image: lifenews. com

Extra. Ed Kilgore, a mildly progressive blogger whom I read often, makes a good argument for assigning more blame. But I'm not convinced, because sometimes the shoe is on the other foot.

Harry Reid tries to doom Paul Ryan with reverse psychology

This trick worked so well for Claire McCaskill when she ran a campaign ad asking if Todd Akin was too conservative. The primary voters in Missouri fell for it, but our Washington pols are supposed to be more sophisticated, right?

So, will Paul Ryan become toast after the blessing by Harry Reid? I don't actually think so. Harry Reid runs Hail Mary political plays with some regularity. Remember the super-secret confidence about Romney's taxes? It didn't work, but he tried it anyway. This is just another example of a Harry Reid desperate move. I'm guessing Paul Ryan's chances are pretty good, and Harry Reid won't be able to change that. But he stills tries.

Image: twogaybullies.wordpress.com

Update 10/21/15. I looks like I'm doing pretty well in my analysis. In a comment at Bernstein, I wrote this:

[Ryan's candidacy for Speaker] is a serious offer, and I think it's going to go through. He's the best hope for the House GOP. If it isn't him, they'll have weeks or months of turmoil, with debt ceiling problems during that time.

He'll probably be able to peel off enough of the hardliners... He's playing hardball by demanding a public endorsement, which might mean getting over half to endorse him. That's a pretty high bar. He might back away from that requirement if he gets enough support.

I also wrote that it wasn't a worrying sign if some Freedom Caucus reps were loud in their rejection, as long as the number didn't go above 20. According to this report, Ryan got support from 70%. I guess that means most are not as dumb as they seem. They can do some (political) calculus.

Who was obstructing whom in the Senate?

The Democrats have been saying since 2010 that the Republicans have been obstructing legislation with endless filibusters. The GOP has been charging the Dems won't talk with the GOP, won't let them offer amendments, and won't allow votes that the GOP would like to take.

Not a surprise, but both charges are true. However, a commenter (somewhere on the internet--it's not important where) suggested that it started with Harry Reid stopping amendments and other votes. If this is true, then Reid is responsible for a lot of dysfunction, in fact a cascade of dysfunction. So I decided to check this out.

It was quite hard to do. The accusation hasn't been generally raised and examined, so I didn't find a convenient summary of the issue. Instead, I found lots of tit-for-tat fighting. So here it is.

Yes, Harry Reid filled up the amendment lists on most or all bills. This pissed off the Republicans, who wanted to offer amendments that put Democratic senators on the spot. The GOP didn't get to do this, but they still managed to defeat lots of these senators in the midterm elections just last week. So, if we identify the goals, they are something like this:

• GOP goal: Make Dem senators take embarrassing votes.
• Dem goal: Protect Dem senators from embarrassing votes.

So, did the Republicans get angry at being stymied, and then start filibustering all nominations? I found one brief mention of the possibility in a Norm Ornstein piece. Mostly, the GOP wanted to make it hard for the Obama administration to appoint officials to carry out their policies. They particularly targeted the Consumer Finance Something Something and the National Labor Relations Board. And also the EPA. The GOP also wanted to restrict the number of judges appointed by Obama to appeals and circuit courts. [Disclosure: I'm not sure what the difference is between appeals and circuit courts, but that information isn't really relevant here.] Almost everything I read talked about the GOP's motivation not being revenge for blockage of amendments, but being attempts to slow or block.

The Dem senators threatened many time to end the filibuster on appointments (except Supreme Court nominees). The GOP backed down several times, then returned to the practice, and finally the Dems went nuclear and ended the rule that allowed the GOP to filibuster. In most of this, there wasn't public discussion/negotiation of what Harry Reid was doing with amendments. The usual GOP stance was that they had every right to exercise oversight of appointments, and they were making sure that inappropriate people weren't being appointed. This excuse was generally bullshit, and was understood this way at the time. To summarize:

• GOP goals: Block the administration personnel and appointed judges. Revenge on Reid for when he blocked Bush nominees.
• Dem goal: End the blockage, end the filibuster if necessary.

So I didn't find that Harry Reid's tactics were the ultimate cause of the appointment blockade. I did find lots of bad behavior spanning decades as each side tried to maximize its advantage, and also tried to avenge the history of insults. It's an ugly feud that only gotten uglier.

ENOUGH ALREADY!

Image: selfdeprecate.com

Tons of Extras. I checked a lot of conservative sources to read their rationale for the blockade of appointments. That explains the imbalance below.

Right:

• The Dems have brought the law of the jungle to the Senate. When the GOP gets control, they should use it to the max.
• Mark Levin against the blockade of judicial nominees, circa 2003: "Nowhere in the Constitution, in the Federalist Papers or in any contemporary writings during the Constitutional Convention or the ratifying conventions can the Senate Democrats find support for their use of the filibuster to block judicial appointments."
• Weekly Standard against it too.
• Yeah, it's revenge for Dems blocking Bush's judicial nominees.
• The next set of obstruction tactics after the nuclear option was exercised.
• Recent: Keep the nuclear option on judicial appointments. It's more in keeping with tradition anyway.

Left:

• The GOP gives blatantly bogus reasons for their actions.
• One of the failed deals.
• The same old argument that nominees aren't qualified.

Neutral?

• Reactions to the Dems going nuclear. Republican apoplexy: You're going to regret this.
• Well-paced history of senators behaving badly for decades, tracing escalation through Frist and Reid. Discussion of the amazing number of maneuvers that can be abused. Blocking amendments--they both did it. Breaking agreements, ditto. I especially enjoyed pages 12-19.
• How that amendment-blocking maneuver works.
• Post-nuclear, but still blocked.

Is this the worst Congressional leadership ever?

Criticizing the leadership of the other party is so common that it's almost a reflex. I don't want to bash Congressional leaders just because I hate their party, which is what so many do. However, I'm seriously wondering whether we have some of the worst leadership ever.

Clearly from my previous posts I'm not a fan of Nancy Pelosi. She ran the House very strictly, and the moderate Democratic strain withered, though it's possible it would have withered anyway. Pelosi's biggest mistake was to pass measures that were too liberal while pretending that they were compromises. Pelosi may make noises like she knows how to compromise, but the actions don't follow. By not moderating her chamber more, lots of her party lost their seats in 2010, but she took no responsibility for it.

I thought Reid was somewhat cannier, and he is. However, I think perhaps he's chosen a path that is also ultimately bad for his compatriots in the Senate. He's always been tricksy with the Senate rules. He seemed the major force behind the Senate blockade of Bush appointments in 2007-8, though he backed off from it. However, the atmosphere never changed, and p. Petty partisan advantage has been the operational environment for the entire Reid tenure. A few times it's abated somewhat, but it always roars back, either with Reid ramping it up himself or in response to GOP provocation. It's been destructive to nearly everyone in the Senate, but Reid hasn't rethought the tactics. He still keeps an iron hand on the bills being debated and the amendments being offered. His purpose is probably to protect his senators from embarrassing votes. He may have won that battle, but he and the vulnerable senators have lost nonetheless.

To me this is a lesson that leaders have to rise above the partisanship at least a little. If they always reach for the partisan advantage, they end up looking grubby and petty and that infects their conference.

The GOP in the Senate don't look any better. Under Mitch McConnell, they ramped up their tactics as the minority. They also appear to relish the chance to inflict even more pain if they gain the majority. They will almost definitely hold those embarrassing votes that have been blocked. Many partisans are hoping to end the filibuster so that the Senate can pass a conservative agenda and force Obama to veto it. I'm far from certain this will happen, but I'd put the likelihood at 60%. That will change the Senate from the deliberative chamber where good deals can arise to a highly partisan operation like the House. It would be a huge loss of the country, but too many partisans are pushing for it without a thought about the long-term damage.

I wonder whether Boehner is the least bad of the lot. Occasionally he makes his conference take those hard votes. He resisted the Tea Party strategy in 2013, eventually giving in and allowing them to shut down the government, just to show them that their strategy was doomed. He seems to be the only top Congressional leader who isn't making his conference more intolerant. Oy, if he's the best of the lot!

Collect the whole set (1 of 4)

Image: conservativedailynews.com

Extra. I started this post two months ago, but was inspired to finish by this news story of a Democratic senator wishing Harry Reid was gone.

Update 10/14/14. Here's a post about how awful Mitch McConnell is, and not because he's a RINO.

Update 10/29/14. Here's another way that Reid has hurt his caucus. By allowing so few votes, senators from more conservative areas haven't been able to separate themselves from Obama and the Democratic norm. They're likely to lose their seats because of it.

Harry Reid blew unemployment extensions and won't admit it

Dems have painted the Republicans in Congress as obstructionist, and that view certainly has a lot of facts behind it. However, there's no iron-clad law that says Dems can't or won't be obstructionist on some issues. The extension of unemployment benefits is a perfect example.

The Dems left this out of the budget deal, perhaps thinking that there was enough support among GOP senators from hard-hit states. Immediately with the new year, Dem senators started negotiating with moderate GOP senators and met them part-way: the Senate would consider a 3-month extension and also an 11-month version (the 3-month version having more GOP support). Also, the extra spending would be paid for with savings elsewhere in the budget. With those terms, 5-6 GOP senators joined the Dem caucus to overcome the first 60-vote choke point.

Then the negotiations feel apart. Harry Reid didn't allow these GOP senators to propose amendments, a nasty majority leader trick that isn't new but that Reid uses often. Do you suppose that would piss off the senators who had just helped on the recent vote? No surprise, it did.

The methods for "paying for" the extra spending were also a sticking point. Harry Reid offered mostly future money from 2024 to pay for the benefits--no current spending would be touched. This is a bad habit with the federal government--assuming future savings or economic growth will make budget fudges balance. I don't know if this ever worked.

So with these two big problems, the deal fell apart. What is the official word from the Democrats? According to Chuck Shumer, the second-ranking Dem in the Senate: "The bottom line is our Republican colleagues don’t seem to get it." That bit of drivel falls apart with one follow-up question: What was the sticking point on the deal?

Come on guys. No one is going to give an unconditional surrender. You have to negotiate! I worry that Harry Reid has an angle on this where he doesn't suffer at all, but he certainly should suffer at least a little.

Image: thepeoplescube.com

Extras.  Just a reminder, I'm not for endless extensions. One year is the maximum I support because 1) people have to adapt to the new reality. 2) Business need to have an endpoint on their contributions for laid-off workers if they're to do any new hiring.

• A very biased news report.
• Seven reasons why long-term unemployment is bad, but not why endless extension of payments is good.

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

Did Romney pay his taxes? Make a bet.

I was just reading this column in the New York Times where the author (someone I don't know) explains why it's crass to make an allegation for which you offer no proof. This is such a big topic now, not because some politician just crossed that line, but because a high Democratic politician finally did. (See below.)

It takes awhile, but he finally mentions that this is a common practice of the rabble-rousers of the "far right." No names mentioned, which is odd considering that this is an article about how it's good to provide some evidence. <Cough, Glenn Beck, Hannity, Michele Bachmann, almost all of Fox news, cough.>

A lot of us have been waiting for the Democrats to take the gloves off. I'd prefer them to massively ridicule the lies of the Republican. But many prefer them to get as down and dirty as the GOP does. I'm content with that too. As a parent, and maybe as a civilized adult, I'm tired of seeing bad behavior go unpunished and unrebuked. I'm glad they're doing something.

By the way, I wonder if Mitt would make a $10,000 bet that he's paid 'his taxes every year, and a lot of them.' If he makes such a wager, take it, run to your bank, get $10,000, and tell him to get out his tax returns and show you. The last time he made such a bet, his opponent backed down. But Mitt was lying. If you get a chance, make Mitt "put up" and don't give him the option of "shutting up."

 Image: abcnews.go.com

Evidence that Republicans don't mind the tactic: Michele Bachmann saying, "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." Yeah, they were so outraged that she was disinvited from the GOP debates. Um, maybe not.

Just desserts for Harry Reid

I've gathered from various news stories over the years that Harry Reid is quite the political innovator. I think he's the one who maneuvered the revised ACA through the Senate using reconciliation, a procedure intended for budget bills.

His latest contribution is being one of the highest official to use the "unnamed source" to cast aspersions on a foe. In this case, the target is Mitt Romney, the weapon is an allegation of massive tax avoidance, and the unnamed source is either a Bain investor or a convenient fiction.

That's all in a day's work for a politician of that stripe. Sarah Palin had her statements about Obama "palling around with terrorists," which is too similar to other political smears for me to worry about subtle differences, such as some people believing "IT'S TRUE!"

What makes this so much fun is that the internet has turned this tactic against Harry Reid in just one day. If you google "Is Harry Reid a pederast," you'll see the buzz. Twitter is atwitter with the rumor, which isn't actually an accusation so much as it's payback or being hoisted on his own petard.

This is what I like to see. A politician does something stupid or questionable. Instead of fake outrage, which I don't think anyone believes, we have a torrent of ridicule, some of which is quite funny. Maybe ridicule fits my personality better. I can enjoy parody 100 times more than a talking head pretending that some outrage could cause the end of western civilization.

Another thing I like about this response: it skewers both the perpetrator AND the method. That's good shooting.

The next un-sourced rumor

Image: abcnews.go.com

Update 8/3/12: According to Romney, the White House is probably behind this. I guess it's now Obama's turn to speculate with or without sources on what Romney's trying to accomplish or avoid. More substance-free campaign fun!!!

Update 9/23/12: Romney dumped his 2011 tax returns on the media world on Friday afternoon, otherwise known as burial time. He has a summary report from an accountancy that claims he's averaged an effective rate of over 20%, but this article points out the very careful wording of the statements and the lack of year-by-year numbers. 

I doubt that Romney's returns would show him to be corrupt and in someone's pocket, as was the case for Nixon (when this disclosure got started). I also doubt that he'll release additional years. However, his loopholes and low tax rates would be emblematic of how the wealthy and corporations avoid tax, yet still complain about bitterly about their tax burden while advocating defense growth and greatly reduced social spending. I still want to see spending reined in until it starts to hurt. I'd also like to see a time when we have a stronger, larger middle class and less reliance on plutocrats for revenue.

Short: Will the Senate go Republican?

The one problem with a sweeping Senate victory is trying to keep all those seats six years later.

So, in 2006, the Dems had a great year, and now, in 2012, they pay the price. I've written before about why I'd like the Dems to hold onto the Senate. But it's not likely. Look at the blue states that would need to stay blue, and then tell me how optimistic you would be.

Graphic: Wikipedia.com

Interested? Current odds at Intrade, overview at Wikipedia, and an older rundown on some of the races at Reuters.

The pulse of Republican regret 2008

In researching the roots of the Tea Party movement, I read many blogs. More illuminating than the posts were the comments. This is a selection, but often they are best read in context, with counterpoints, insults, and disagreements aired in a long stream. One comment can be egregious, next a thoughtful one. Most comments come from HotAir, a conservative multi-blogger site that excludes casual commenters. I highly recommend clicking on the links to get the flavor of discussions.

Here are some of the comments I found significant.

Disappointment with McCain as Nominee Apparent

When we lose in November it will teach us a lesson. We need to nominate a candidate who represents all 3 legs of the stool next time, none of our candidates did that convincingly this time around, not even Fred in reality... We need to get behind guys like Coburn and Demint, they are the future. - HotAir comment 2/5/08

Dirty Tricks on Hated Dems

The Dems are faced with two fantastic options:  If he wins, they will run this boob against an experienced, established, generally liked Senate leader. And The Obama will lose. If the Super Delegates back Hillary they will face riots and that will make me so happy I’ll have to dance around my front yard.
I’ll vote for Hill-rod on the 5th! - HotAir comment, 5/24/08, when Hillary was staying in the race.

Traitors

I DO question his Patriotism, his Judgement, his Americanism, etc. I consider him, and most of the “Democratic” “leadership”, nothing but out, and outright Traitors for their disgraceful conduct during the past 7 years, against this President, the Troops, etc. But Hey, what would I know, I just served in Iraq the first time around in the Marine Corps, lived over their, speak their language, and have analyzed them for the last 30 years. - HotAir comment 7/25/08

Bailout Mania

Harry Reid’s statement shows me that the DEMS are scared $hitless. They don’t have the confidence to say we are/or are not voting for this and Barack believes this and he’s voting this way. NO! He’s telling us what McCain is going to do. He has no idea what McCain’s going to do! Someone else above said it right… I’ll believe it when McCain or at least someone from his own party or campaign tells us he’ll support it.
I repeat… the problem is, we don’t know the details. Who among us has read the bailout plan and would understand it if we read it? I would appreciate getting the chance to read it however. - HotAir comment 9/23/08

Same Story, Different Names

There is already a strong vocal populist opposition, Gingrich adds to it, and the democrats are instictively inclined to not do anything Bush wants done. The democrats have been effective in deflecting any responsibility for their own actions, and the democrats have so effectively destroyed the Bush Administration’s credibility that the democrats could just adjourn congress without being blamed for the results.[emphasis added] - HotAir comment 9/23/08

 The Long Confidence Game

Obama's 'Organizer' Buds Pushed for Bad Mortgages - NY Post 9/29/08

Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
... He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated ... the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.... I submit to you that they [Democrats] understand the consequences... the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. - James Simpson, blogger and former White House economist 9/28/08

The Irony of a 2008 Dream Candidate

My Dream: President Bush appears on national television to give a speech. Standing next to  him are Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney, and Warren Buffett. Dick Cheney says, “I resign.” President Bush says, “I thank Vice President Cheneyfor his service. I appoint Mitt Romney to be Vice-President. He is a skilled financial manager. Just the guy we need right now.

Romney is sworn in as Vice President. President Bush starts talking again. “Right now America needs a leader. Due to my standing in the polls, regretfully, I have lost credibility with the American public. I hereby resign.

Romney is sworn in as President. Mitt Romney starts talking. “Secretary Paulson has done a good job, but people just aren’t listening to him. I hereby fire him. In his place, I appoint Warren Buffett as acting Secretary of the Treasury. I thank Mr. Buffett for serving his country in its hour of need.” Romney and Buffett then get the Paulson plan passed and FDIC insurance limits increased. Romney appoints Ed Morrissey as Vice President. America is saved." - HotAir comment 9/30/08

Too Late to Criticize

Oh, and NOW you want McCain to criticize GW Bush? Where were you when McCain bashed Bush and Rumsfeld in 2004 and 2005? Saying that was proof of what a horrible guy he was, for daring to criticize Bush? How about a few months ago when McCain visited LA with Gov Jindal, and (correctly) said that the Bush administration civilian response to Katrina was incompetent? How about when McCain criticized Chris Cox? Were you one of the people calling McCain a traitor for those criticisms? But you now expect him to take your advice and go on a full on crusade against Bush/Paulson/Pelosi?
Yeah, you want him to win." HotAir comment 9/30/08

Doomed

McCain seems to be resigned not to win. Just this morning, I woke up with the realization that he will not win this thing, no matter what we do. But we MUST vote for him nonetheless. The enemy is too strong to overcome. The Big Temptation of the Pied Piper is too strong to break. And America will follow him to the cave, and then, to Marxist servitude. Yet, we still have to make a stand. We MUST make a stand. - HotAir comment 10/5/08

Equal Opportunity Delusion

Why do the libs always believe that voting out irresponsible repubs automatically means wholesale acceptance of every whackjob democrat plan ever devised? Guess what, Rahm, 2000 and 2004 also saw two consecutive elections where the people “voted for change”, yet you and the rest of the left cried foul.
The libs ALWAYS make this mistake, this time it will cost us plenty before they are done.
Bend over, here it comes. - HotAir comment 11/19/08

Their Mess Now

And just what are you going to say when it all falls apart? “It’s all George Bush’s fault”? What is striking is how smug and clever these people sound right now. Come January, we’ll see how they face reality when it comes up and kicks ‘em right in the nuts.- HotAir comment 11/19/08

The Trouble With Voters

Remember that the voting public are practically brain dead zombies with an average 70 IQ... they go by impressions alone not policies.  - HotAir comment 11/19/08

Pre-Emptive Blame, Before Inauguration

High unemployement.
Low dollar value.
Low consumer confidence.
Gob’ment control of corporations.
I blame Obama. And on 1.20.09, I’ll blame him even more." - HotAir comment 1/9/09

Bambi’s got lots of super lefty ideas to choose from, we’ll all be up to our armpits in a glorious economy before long, I tell you. - HotAir comment 1/9/09

I wonder if the Obama supporters understand that the “you” might include your boss or employer whose company makes over $250,000? ...Wrap that all up in a pretty socialist bow and it’s no wonder that with the messiah in control the pink slips are flying out in record numbers. - HotAir comments 1/9/09

Extra. Over the top Tea Party video. Long on fear, very short on policy.

Republican regret in 2008

The Tea Party narrative is that it sprang spontaneously in early 2009 when a number of conservatives saw what was happening in the new Obama administration and had to act to "Take Back Our Country." So far, I've found out that, unless you believe the Tea Party sprang fully formed in February 2009 (which I disbelieve based on knowledge of physical systems), the roots of the Tea Party lay before Obama was inaugurated and before the election of 2008.

Bush Crumble

The real roots of the Tea Party start after the Democrats gained control of the House and Senate in 2007. With Democrats in control of some of the government, the talk radio conservatives had targets with real power, not just straw men. The Republican nomination race started heating up by April 2007, with Fred Thompson as the conservative favorite. (Note: Most of my information comes from HotAir because the comments are readable, there is more discussion of differing ideas, and the archives are easy to navigate. Since it has links to Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit, pajamasmedia, and similar conservative sites, I took it as representative. Not being a conservative insider, that's the best I can do.)

By fall of 2007, the discontent with the economy, the looming mortgage crisis, torture scandals, and Bush cluelessness and over-promising had grown to the point that is clear that the country wouldn't vote for a Bush clone in 2008.

Pick the Un-Bush

McCain, the maverick who sponsored unRepublican legislation like public campaign financing, cap-and-trade, immigration reform, etc., seemed the most favored of the Republican candidates, at least by the general electorate. After more conventional conservatives--Thompson and Guilani--fizzled in early 2008, it became a two-man race between McCain and Huckabee. McCain won fairly easily.

However, most of the party supported him reluctantly. They hated his previous stance on amnesty for illegals immigrants. In fact, the most common epithet for him was McShamnesty. Huckabee was disliked even more for supporting more generous social programs and being too much a Christian and not enough a conservative. He was also blamed for blocking the only other credible challenger, Romney. This was a surprise to me, but here's a typical comment:

"Ok. Today I sign up on Mitt’s site and donate. If it is McCain v. Hillary in November I pull the GOP lever except for POTUS. That I leave untouched. 4 years of Marxism, then back to conservatism." - HotAir comment 1/29/08

It's important to remember that Romney was seen as a Mr. Fixit with fairly solid conservative credentials in 2008. The requirement for purity didn't exist then. In fact, Romney was a good contrast with the dumb, dependent-on-advisers Bush. He wasn't as popular with movement conservatives as Fred Thompson, but he was more on the ball with policy details. Also, this is before Obamacare became evil incarnate and damned Romney's Massachusetts healthcare program with it.

So in early 2008, McCain was on his way to the Republican nomination, but he was hated almost as much as this woman (image from the HotAir website):

Changing the One (We Hate)

By the February, McCain had sewed up the nomination, but the Democratic race was still going strong. Hillary was slipping from the most-hated throne as Obama ascended to it. By April, Obama was the one to hate, disrespect, and belittle:

'He wants people to believe that he can change the game, but in the three short years he has served in national office, he has done nothing to suggest that. John McCain actually has a track record of working across party divisions and trying to reach solutions on controversial issues; Barack Obama prefers to reserve his “political capital”.' - Ed Morrissey, 4/24/08

"It is all about being labeled in History books: 'Barack Hussein Obama, the First African-American President of the United States of America' THAT IS ALL. Why people can’t get it? Idiocy is rampant in America." - HotAir comment 4/24/08

Self-Awareness

There were flickers of self-awareness during the nomination process. Karl Rove was blasted for giving bad advice to Bush, but he could "only do so much for a guy like GW Bush." The first strong self-criticism came in May:

"Memo to the GOP: we don’t believe your rhetoric any longer. Oh, conservatives still want an end to corruption, a reduction in the size and scope of the federal government, and spending discipline to go with lower taxes. We just don’t believe that many elected Republicans want those goals, nor do we think that current Republican leadership has any real commitment to them, either." - Ed Morrissey, 5/22/08

Even McCain's meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans and Obama's tax plan got some fair discussions.

First Tea in the Harbor

Everything changed with the Wall Street bailout. This is also the first fight in the Tea Party struggle, before it was called the Tea Party. More bloggers and their commenters rallied around McCain, and the vitriol flew at Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

"McCain’s got little choice other than to support the bill. But chalk me up as one who thinks he should demand a “clean” bill. That way, he can demonstrate that he’s casting a vote to protect the American people, not bloat the government even more with pork." - HotAir comment 9/23/08

"I wish someone would run an ad calling out Obama for what he is, a Marxist…The left has pounded home the “fact” that Bush was an idiot for eight years, and the average jughead on the street, it’s all he knows. “Vote against Bush”. The message needs to be changed to “Vote against Marxism”." - HotAir comment 9/30/08

"True conservatives should be against this 'crap sandwich'." - HotAir comment 9/30/08

After the first version of the bailout was defeated in the House, it passed on the second vote on Oct. 1. Votes for the bailout have since been an issue for Republicans facing Tea Party-backed primary challengers. Although at the time conservative opinion was quite split, afterward it was a stain on the record of Republicans if they didn't stand against the big-government bailout. This position ignores the financial crisis the country was suffering, but such nuance doesn't register with the Tea Party.

The campaign just got nastier after that bailout passed with both candidates supporting it. Obama was called a socialist, marxist, black liberationist, empty suit, elitist, the ONE, and media-anointed messiah.

 Regroup and Reload

With the economy in crisis, the expectations of late 2007 came true, and the Democrats sailed to  victory, winning the presidency, more seats in the house, and what looked like a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The one bright spot for movement conservatives was Sarah Palin. She was almost uniformly adored by the conservative blogosphere. They loved that she was the attack dog against the evil socialists in general and Obama in particular. After the election, McCain went back to being panned as a fraudulent conservative.

The day after the election, the movement conservatives actually rallied. There was a gracious concession to the election victors, but only in the polite right-leaning press. In talk radio and the conservative blogosphere, Obama was slammed as viciously as before.

Jeff Flake, an Arizona congressman, summed up the loss this way in the polite press:

Let's face it: We Republicans are now, by any reasonable measurement, deep in the political wilderness... Today the party is defined in the public mind by the Bush presidency... I suggest that we return to first principles. At the top of that list has to be a recommitment to limited government.

Most House Republicans opposed the recent bailout and will be in a strong position to promote economic freedom over central planning ....As surely as the sun rises in the east, the Democrats will overreach. As long as we Republicans... get back to first principles and work like there's no tomorrow, we've got 'em just where we want 'em.

In the impolite talk radio and blogosphere

Limbaugh: "But do you know what the Democrat plan for your 401(k) is?... So far, this is not Obama yet ...the odds are that it will sound attractive to [Obama] because these people are all about expanding government coffers."

Limbaugh: "I do not want unity with President-Elect Obama! ... By the time all this is all over, 57 million Americans will have voted "no" on this stuff! I, for one, do not think it wise to abandon 57 million Americans who want no part of an Obama agenda..."

Jason Lewis: "We are the 'leave us alone' crowd, so naturally we don't gravitate towards government. Unfortunately, you've got this well-funded, merry band of committed socialists who look at government for power. We need people committed to defending free-market capitalism."

MacRanger: "This is a call to fellow conservative bloggers to join together in a coalition with one goal, to return the White House and the Congress to true conservative Republican control.
Let’s get to work!" MacRanger also published his first birther post only after the election, on Nov. 9.

HotAir comment: "Perhaps he doesn’t realize that too much change could bring revolution also.
Ya feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?"

HotAir comment: "If I hear one more person say 'wait ’til he’s been in office a while before you judge him,' I’m gonna smack that individual right in the mouth. If by now, you cannot discern HOW Obama will govern from his past actions,and statements, then ya gotta have the sentience of a fence post.

HotAir comment:  "We can sit here all day and comment on this blog, but we’re preaching to the choir here! The elites in DC and NYC don’t even know we’re here! The left thinks the right voted AGAINST The Big O because of race! They don’t EVEN know how we feel, what we stand for, or the fact we’re highly intelligent people... We’re going to have to get off our butts and away from our computers and take it to the streets. We need a ring-leader obviously! Some one give us a date or series of dates, locations, and tell us what we’re marching for on that particular day (we have so many things to protest), and we’ll do it!

The last comment sounds like the Tea Party, doesn't it? The ideas of no cooperation, stone wall opposition in Congress, and constant vocal hammering were already in the talk radio and blog media well before Obama was even inaugurated. The transition to street protest just got the ideas out in the open where non-conservatives could see it. That was easy to do. Some local conservatives, already networked and already steeped in the language, needed only to organize conservatives from their local areas. The ideas, the talking points, many of the tactics, and the enthusiastic troops were already poised in 2008. They just needed a name and a date. And they got those on Feb. 19, 2009.

The Tea Party may have the narrative that the small-government conservatives slumbered during the big, bad Bush administration, but awoke just in time to hem in the socialist threat from Obama. That's a convenient story if they want to paint themselves as heroes, when actually they were deaf, dumb, or collaborators while Bush pissed away 8 years and trillions of dollars that we can't get back now.

The Unbearable Debt Deal Quantified

As I wrote before, the wily Dems managed to get the Republicans to agree defense spending cuts that they now find unpalatable. Republicans are looking for ways to avoid those cuts.

• One way is for the House, Senate, and whatever president we have in 2013 to agree not to make those defense cuts. That's a pretty big stretch. It won't happen if Obama is re-elected. Even with a Republican president, Democratic senators could block moves to void the defense cuts.

• Another way is for the super committee to agree on another plan that the House, Senate, and president all accept.

The Republicans are now in the weaker position:

• They want to reduce the defense spending cuts.
• They want to maintain Bush tax cuts, which are worth $3.7 trillion over 10 years.
• They have no leverage for either of these goals.

The Democrats are now in the stronger position:

• They have largely accepted cuts to Medicare that are capped at 2% a year.
• The debt ceiling deal protected Social Security and Medicaid from cuts.
• They have leverage using defense spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2012.

Despite their weak negotiating positions, the best offer from the Republicans is:

• $250 billion higher tax revenues through limiting deductions if...
• Tax rates are frozen at below Bush tax rates.

It's no wonder that the Dems aren't agreeing. They hold a lot more leverage now, and the Repubs' offer is paltry. Republicans only seems serious about deficit reductions when social programs pay the price. They can dish out the austerity, but they can't take it. We'll have to see if they'll threaten a government shutdown by holding up appropriations next year. As far as I can see (for what that's worth), that is the only leverage they will have until after the election.

The debt ceiling fight was the historic crisis that prompted me to start this blog. If looks even more historic now. It's quite a reversal for the Republicans. I wonder if that's the price they paid for playing chicken, and which Democrat was responsible for that advantageous outcome.

 Who dunnit?

Despite this apparent win for the Democrats, the 2012 election is still up for grabs. I'm not going to predict which party is going to win, or which party is able to spin this to their advantage. So often, it has been the Republicans, so I won't count them out.