Month: March 2010

by Patrick Appel

Joyner counters Ross:

It seems to me that the chief barrier to bloggers getting elected to public office isn’t so much their typically introverted personalities or lack of access to money but the mere fact that we’ve accumulated a long paper (pixel?) trail of recording every fool thought that’s passed through our minds over the last several years. Even bright, thoughtful, decent types like Douthat and Klein — and Lord knows, Kaus and Joyner — have written things that would kill a campaign dead, dead, dead if it showed up in an attack ad.

As Andrew's blogatical continued, Jonathan Bernstein predicted an eventual comeback for the public option, wondered why the Republicans didn't focus their attack on the individual mandate, surveyed the field of professional intellectuals in public office, vented over the excessive voting in Texas, and riffed on the role of the Senate parliamentarian. 

Alex Massie analyzed Labour's lines of attack, plucked some wise words from the Tory chair, honored the death of Michael Foot, highlighted the remarkable story of a Holocaust veteran, and reflected on the waning role of newspapers. Graeme Wood lauded Brooks' latest column and compiled some crazy Japanese MHBs. Patrick went another round with Larison over the Leveretts.

In other coverage, Obama defied the Cheneys by killing another terrorist leader, Cohn and Ezra sounded off on the president's HCR speech, Chait was cautiously optimistic about the bill, Marc Lynch debated war reporting, Ackerman took down Romney's foreign policy, and Palin lied again.

In marriage news, opponents failed to stop equality in DC (photos here). A Dish reader contrasted the Cheneys with the courage of John Adams. Others chimed in on Catholic Charities' latest craziness. Roger Ebert got some of his voice back. Patrick definitely does not like breast milk. And our MHB is blazing through the blogospheres.

— C.B.

by Jonathan Bernstein

Health care reform junkies: you're probably wondering right now…so, what's the deal with the Senate parliamentarian?  Should I trust Republicans who are telling me that the parliamentarian is just a partisan arm of the majority party?  Or should I trust Democrats that the parliamentarian is neutral?  Isn't there some unbiased source that can help me out here?  And, what is wrong with me that I'm actually thinking about — actually concerned about — the United States Senate parliamentarian?

Can't help you out with the last question, but for the first ones, see this item at the Monkey Cage for the abstract to a new paper by Tony Madonna.  I skimmed the paper so I can't really comment in depth on it but I can tell you that the opening paragraph has an anecdote that features John Randolph, John Quincy Adams, and John Calhoun, and other stories he tells within the paper feature a lot of other interesting, famous (or infamous) Senators, although I'm afraid to say that there's no appearance by Vice President George Clinton as a presiding officer.  Short story: since the Senate hired a parliamentarian, the rulings of the chair have stopped being partisan.

I should add, however, that for the most part this is really a red herring.  The parliamentarian would matter a lot if the Democrats were trying to put the entire bill through reconciliation, but they're not.  I'm not sure what's going to be in the bill and what isn't, but the most difficult issue of which I'm aware are lifetime caps (I don't think it was actually in the Senate bill, and if that's correct I'd think it would be in the patch bill)…do the Republicans really want a vote on that one?  More generally, as I've said before, the actual reconciliation bill is almost all ice cream, no spinach, and even if the Republicans do manage to knock out a couple of items it's not clear to me that it will make much difference in the grand scheme of things, although of course any provision in any law may have serious substantive effects on some people.

by Patrick Appel

Cohn describes Obama's health care speech today. Full text of the speech here. Ezra Klein adds his thoughts:

What's important about this speech is that it didn't leave any paths open. It attacked the Republican bills, the arguments for piecemeal reform, and the idea that procedural impediments are sufficient to excuse the further delay of a verdict. This is the end of the line. There's not a magic alternative behind the curtain or a hard reset that will lead to a harmonious bipartisan process. It all just is what it is. And now it's time for a vote. It's time for health-care reform to either pass or fail.

by Patrick Appel

I'll pass, thanks. The chef's recipe and photos here.

by Patrick Appel

Chait responds to Jonathan Bernstein:

I'm not quite this optimistic. You're still talking about the Democratic Party. Some small thing could go wrong and make them all start panicking again. Even if everything goes right, it's going to be a tight vote, the votes aren't there, and the party might not be organized or cohesive enough to overcome its collective action problem (every member has a strong interest in reform passing, but they can't figure out which members switch from No to Yes to allow that to happen.)

McArdle is amazed at the conservative and liberal divide on whether health care is likely to pass.

by Chris Bodenner

Yes:

(Hat tip: Slog)

by Alex Massie

Tory party chairman Eric Pickles, who, reassuringly, is as rotundly, incurably English as his name might suggest, speaking at a Young Britons' Foundation rally today:

"There is no magic button we can press, no sword we can pull out of the stone to bring back all those thousands of people who voted for us in the 80's and 90's. We can't. They're all dead."

Nicely put. You might win protest votes or triumph in exceptional circumstances but otherwise, all things being equal, if you remain beholden to the household gods of years past then you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. Eventually, one supposes that the Republican party will appreciate this. But not yet, not yet at all.

(Hat-tip: Tory Bear)