Month: February 2010

Dan Savage takes stock after the latest signs of movement from the White House:

Great, good, feeling hopey again about the repeal of DADT. But, again, Obama could suspend the enforcement of DADT today while Congress works on a solution, just as his head of Homeland Security suspended enforcement of the widow's penalty while Congress works on a solution. And Obama described the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as abhorrent and promised to repeal it but his administration nevertheless defended the law in court. But I'm prepared to take yes for an answer, of course, on DADT. As depressing as the lack of movement on the big promises—end DADT, repeal DOMA—there has been action on ending the HIV Travel Ban (set in motion by the Bush administration), and hate crimes legislation.

I am waiting to hear what Gates and Mullen say before offering any judgment. But I do believe this strategy is potentially the best one. Apart from bigotry and paranoia, the only real argument for those who support allowing gays to serve under constant threat of persecution is that the military leadership supports it. If the defense secretary and the chairman of the joint chiefs explain why they no longer support it, and why it isn't working, and build their own strategy to end it, we have both a chance to do the right thing, strengthen the military and minimize the Christianist hatred and blow-back.

Sam Stein relays some promising rhetoric:

“I believe we ought to pass comprehensive health care reform and we ought to do it now and there is a way to do it,” [Arlen] Specter said. “I provided the 60th vote. We passed it in the Senate. Let the House accept it, simultaneously with a bill to make certain changes through reconciliation and 50 votes. There will be no disagreement about taking away the giveaway to Nebraska and Louisiana and the other inappropriate measures but let’s move ahead and let’s move ahead now.”

I guess I know now what my political identity now means: I’m a Specter conservative. Which forces me to be, for the time being, an honorary Democrat.

Ezra Klein parses Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal:

I wouldn't balance the budget in anything like the way Ryan proposes. His solution works by making care less affordable for seniors. I'd prefer to aggressively reform the system itself so the care becomes cheaper, even if that causes significant pain to providers. I also wouldn't waste money by moving to a private system when the public system is cheaper. But his proposal is among the few I've seen that's willing to propose solutions in proportion to the problem. What Ryan is doing is dangerous because it answers the question of how you solve the problem. Whether or not you like his answer, you have to give him credit for stepping up to the chalkboard.

Massie lays into the conservatives:

[The poster] wants to make a serious point about the seriousness of the deficit and then contradicts that seriousness by promising that the Tories won’t cut anything that’s popular. Then it asks us to take this as a sign of the party’s seriousness about confronting long-term serious problems. Consequently, the poster, rather unfortunately, demonstrates a lack of seriousness.

Tom Ricks ponders whether "AQ Khan and the Bush administration together inadvertently have brought Arab-Israeli peace to the Middle East":

I wonder if something fundamental is going on in the Middle East. That is, Iran is getting more powerful, and that scares the Arab states. So they seem to be turning away from worrying about Israel and focusing more on Iran as it moves toward becoming a nuclear power.

John Corvino demolishes it.

Blumenthal studies what Americans believe about the health care bill and speculates:

What if Congress were to quickly pass the existing legislation or, alternatively, just let it drop? How would voters react? This topic was the subject of a lot of discussion over the past week, from voices such as Megan McArdle and (since I filed the column) from Nate Silver and Jonathan Chait. Looking forward, we are on much more shaky and speculative ground but I find Chait most persuasive in arguing that the rationale for Democrats to move forward and pass the bill is that they've already voted for it and thus "already own the downside." They will be attacked for "having voted for tax hikes and Medicare cuts and death panels" regardless of the outcome.

Responding to this video by Rob Tisinai, R.L.G at DiA follows the stated concerns of anti-gay activists to logical conclusions:

[E]ven if you accept that abuse of boys is a gay act (which I most certainly don't, but this is for the sake of argument) and protecting children is your overriding concern, the fastest way to stop child abuse is to demolish the closet. No closet, no stigma, and all those closeted men will stop abusing boys and head down to the Jolly Farmer and meet a grown-up. Again, this isn't going to happen because a) paedophilia is not a gay thing, it is a clinically disordered attraction to children, usually of both sexes, and b) because the people making these claims will never abandon their prejudice, even if it would save children.

Tisinai follows up on the video here.

Matthew Continetti bets against the bill:

It is extremely unlikely that Pelosi will be able to corral the votes necessary to pass a modified Senate bill. The president seems to understand this; in his State of the Union address, he waited a half an hour before mentioning health care. The White House's top priority is a $100 billion jobs bill; once that passes, look for the administration to focus on education and energy. So why the happy talk? As long as the liberal base thinks health care reform could pass, they won't launch a full-scale revolt against the president and the Democratic leadership.

Sargent is being told that the delay is procedural:

The problem in question has been noted before, but it’s gotten lost in the noise: Senate aides say they are unsure how to pass a reconciliation fix to the Senate bill before it’s signed into law, as some House Democrats want.

“How do you fix a bill that hasn’t been passed yet?” one senior Senate aide asks me, stressing that reconciliation is different than the amendment process, which obviously does allow for bills to be fixed before passage. “That’s the fundamental problem.”

Karen Tumulty has more.

Today on the Dish the Obama administration seemed more capable than the Bush people in fighting terrorism. It also showed its seriousness on nuclear energy and crop subsidies while John Judis revealed Obama's under-the-radar reforms. Megan, on the other hand, explained why his tongue is tied over Bush's fiscal record. Budget reax here, here, and here.

Bruce Schulman, Austin Frakt, and Jon Chait kept building the case to pass HCR. Fallows featured a dismal view of our political system, Greenwald mourned the rule of law, Ackerman tackled Hayden over torture, Bruce Bartlett picked apart Pawlenty, Norm Geras and Larison discounted Blair's testimony, and Jonathan Bernstein downplayed campaign narratives. Andrew despaired over Holder's decision on the OPR report.

Aaron Belkin previewed the DADT announcement tomorrow while Adam Serwer showed the progress already made. Mike Pence professed his Christianism against gays while Andrew expressed the traits of Christian confidence. George Packer just said no to media drugs. The Dish posted two messages to the tea-partiers. In Grammy-blogging, Pink and Rush Limbaugh rocked the house.  Weekend wrap here. Crazy stop-motion here.

— C.B.