Month: September 2010

Douthat discounts Palin:

It is extremely unlikely that the political landscape in the winter and spring of 2012 will resemble the political landscape in the autumn of 2010. Even setting aside the unpredictability of economic developments, foreign-policy crises, and everything else that could shift the ground beneath our feet, the reality of having a more empowered Republican Party in Washington and a weaker President Obama in the White House will almost certainly work profound changes on the country’s mood — and yes, in the mood of the Republican base as well. (It’s hard to be quite so fired up and furious about socialism when Washington is mired in gridlock, and it’s hard to be quite so outraged at RINO perfidy when you’ve kicked a lot of the RINOs out of office.)

The temper of conservative politics in the fall of 1994, the off-year election cycle that most resembles this one (it was a year, as Rich Lowry notes, when a former homeless man defeated the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee), bore little resemblance to the temper of conservative politics in 1996, when Bob Dole cruised to the Republican nomination over more base-pleasing candidates like Pat Buchanan and Phil Gramm.

Ross may be right, but I think he ignores just how much more radical the GOP base has become since 1994, how enraged they have become over the years by what they see as condescension and betrayal by their own elites, and the rise of Fox News and the Malkin/Reynolds blogosphere and Levin-style talk radio. I also think that the people to whom Palin appeals will be as economically distressed in 2012 as they are now, since their jobs are overwhelmingly the ones that are gone for ever.

Ross has fed and ridden this tiger for a while now. He cannot pretend it’s a pussycat any more.

The Kaiser Family Foundation has created what Kate Pickert calls "a surprisingly helpful" cartoon explaining the healthcare bill:

Kaiser also has a useful implementation timeline. Elsewhere on the healthcare front, Suderman highlights an unintended consequence:

[Democrats] built a provision into the law telling insurers that, starting this Thursday, September 23, they could no longer turn down child for a child-only health policy because of preexisting conditions. In effect, though, that means that children who are already sick won’t be turned down, which, yes, sounds very nice — and would be if it were feasible and not likely to lead to insurance gaming.

Here’s the problem: It also means that parents attempting to enroll their children in these policies might have the option to wait until the last minute to pick up coverage and then drop that coverage immediately thereafter. …

And so at least six large insurers have decided to stop offering these policies entirely.

Ta-Nehisi dissents:

On close reading, neither Andrew nor Jack are offering a defense so much as they are changing the subject. The question at hand is something along the lines of, "Does Martin Peretz exhibit a pattern of bigotry?" Andrew and Jack, instead, are addressing a question along the lines of "Is Martin Peretz a great journalist?" With respect for both Andrew and Jack, this is obfuscation. Ty Cobb was both a great baseball player and a bigot. The notion that we must choose between the two, that one mitigates the other, that good people don't do deplorable things, that deplorable people don't great things, emanates from our own inability to understand that bigotry is not strictly the preserve of orcs… If Peretz is not a bigot, then the word has no meaning.

He proceeds to pick through TNR's writing on race during Marty's tenure.

 Mark Greenbaum argues that divided government would be better for Obama than the alternative:

[W]hat Democrats now see as their best-case scenario in November's elections — holding the House by perhaps a handful of seats — might actually be the worst thing for them. They would maintain ownership of the economy with limited ability to split up any blame, while Republicans in the Senate, boosted by significant gains, would prevent them from achieving anything significant over the next two years.

I couldn't agree more. Between Boehner and Obama, it would be no contest, and Obama's conciliatory skills would come to the fore.

By the way I think Obama's absolutely right not to engage Palin directly. She is a farce and a coward and cannot be engaged by intelligent adults. Any treatment of her as a serious figure worth actually debating when she has yet to make a single argument on any substantive or complex policy question is futile and counter-productive. The president needs to create a better narrative as to why his policies are the best the country can do with right now – his most evident rhetorical and political failing right now – not give this farrago of Facebook fantasies the stature she craves.

Patrick Buchanan plays it in an unexpected way, denigrating president Obama for failing to give black Americans preferential treatment:

[W]hile conservatives always get one of their own on every national ticket, and all of their own on the Supreme Court, African-Americans seem to settle for a few back-of-the-bus Cabinet seats. Say what you will about the right. But if their party took them for granted the way Democratic presidents take black constituents for granted in plum appointments, there’d be a whole lot of shakin’ going on.

Of course, if Obama ever did give blacks preferential treatment, Buchanan would be the first one to seize on the matter in the most demagogic way imaginable. And insofar as Democrats do take black constituents for granted, it is due in no small part to the fact that those constituents are powerfully averse to voting for the party of Pat Buchanan, who has replaced the outright racism of his early career with a new affinity, suddenly shared by so many on the right, for race-baiting.

Today on the Dish, McCain stooped to a new low by stalling the repeal of DADT, while gay soldiers continue to sacrifice. We compared the Tea Party to its establishment counterparts and investigated the Palin model of doing business. Serwer pointed out that "individual liberty" extends to marriages – whether they involve children or not – and Boaz called out conservatives for ignoring divorce. Andrew unearthed the reality behind O'Donnell on wanking.

There was little progress made on punishing torture in Iraq, even if atrocities are committed by our own soldiers; but waging a different sort of war on Congo's rebels could offer a smarter way forward. The recession may be winding down but unemployment isn't (a reader shared his own view) and taxing pot may solve our revenue woes. Climate change critics stayed quiet over record summer temperatures.

Skip Gates defended Marty, Pat Buchanan played the race card, and a reader backed artisanal foods. Cool ad here, MHB here, and dissent of the day here. Bristol tapped "virgin territory", Kenny Powers mastered the art of seduction, and Antoine Dodson laughed all the way to the bank. VFYW here, and a stump-worthy window contest here.

— Z.P.

The brother of a soldier slain in Afghanistan reacts negatively to a recent PBS segment that showed graphic footage from a firefight in that country:

Footage included a soldier getting shot in the head; fortunately his helmet slowed down the bullet. Another soldier lost part of his arm. It was as if this were just a segment from an action film or a so-called reality show. But this is real life. The wounds are not special effects. They won’t go away when the cameras are turned off. The families of these soldiers could see them in danger and being wounded. And somehow, it’s all right to expose audiences, including families, to this very real brutality being done to U.S. soldiers; but the same audiences are too fragile to hear the f-bombs that, in such circumstances, are very understandable.

He asks if the segment should’ve been shown at all:

….these are selective facts. Did they show footage asking the soldiers whether they have any positive interactions with the Afghans? Did they ask the soldiers what they think of their mission? No, and they didn’t even allow them the expression of an f-bomb. So much for hearing the soldiers in their own voices. Instead, they were exploited by the graphic images of their activities. As the saying goes, if it bleeds, it leads. But if an audience is too fragile to hear certain words, surely it’s too fragile to see real life casualties.

Segments like this convey nothing but fear and futility. They give no context to the situation. To me it seems that they undermine the concerns of our soldiers insofar as they create greater fear and anxiety for families, precisely what the soldiers don’t want, all in the name of journalism so slanted that it looks more like propaganda aiding the enemy.

With respect for the loss suffered by the writer, it is long past time that the American media stopped shielding us from the brutal realities of war. The shocking nature of what our troops and innocent Afghan civilians face is an argument for confronting it ourselves. If every neocon had had to face what Michael Ware saw, they might even be able to grapple with remorse, or re-thinking. The Dish stands by its policy of airing every image that illuminates the truth of war.

McCain simply denies the fact that private emails are still being searched in order to persecute and expel gay servicemembers – a documented fact. Jim Burroway pulls no punches:

This was never a serious attempt to pass legislation in the best interests of the American people. It was nothing but political theater, and everyone on both sides were eager actors in the drama. All the Senators had a role to play, and everyone played to the audience. Even the White House had a bit part. They issued a statement calling for an end to the fillibuster, but according to SLDN’s Trevor Thomas, there was no lobbying behind the scenes.

And now that the vote was taken, the play moves on to its second act: everyone now gets to go home and use it on the campaign trail. Republicans, even those who support DADT’s repeal, will be able to brag that they stood up to the evil Democratic machine. Democrats will be able to blame the evil Republican machine for blocking legislation that three-fourths of the American population agree on.

Sickening – from the Dems, the GOP and the Obama administration. And some wonder why so many are just sick of politicians. I am sick to my stomach with John McCain, that’s for sure. A reader argues:

Andrew, 57 of 59 dems vote to repeal DADT and this is the Democrats fault? Every single Republican votes against it and this is the Democrats’ fault? I understand and share your frustration that this idiotic law is still on the books, but the fact is even if the two no votes had switched sides, all we would’ve needed was a single republican vote and didn’t get a single one. One party has voted nearly unaminously for repeal. The other voted unanimously against. I think it’s pretty clear where the blame lies.

Point taken. I am not excusing the Republicans, as my disgust with McCain makes clear. But when the Dems had 60 votes for a full year? And if they had taken this issue up on its own before a pre-election season – without attaching it to this bill, also laden with election year goodies?

And I repeat, this is not an electoral liability. It has very strong public support and even the Wall Street Journal supporting it. All I can say is that if Obama ends his first term still firing gay servicemembers, he will reap the whirlwind from gay voters and our families. And if we do not get a successful vote in this Congress, Joe Solmonese must resign.

His filibuster held. Barring a lame-duck Senate taking action after November, it seems increasingly possible to me that, even if the Pentagon review advocates an end to the persecution of gay servicemembers, the House, dominated by large numbers of extreme Christianists after January, will refuse to allow gays to serve openly.

I think this could be a huge deal for the relationship between gay voters and the Democratic party. Over 75 percent of the public wants the ban ended, and yet even when the Democrats control both Houses and have a president opposed to the policy, they failed to end it in two years. Why? Because, sadly, it was not a real priority; and because the main lobby group, the Human Rights Campaign, is so enmeshed in the Democratic party establishment, it has no clout at all.

We should not give up; and we should lobby the Senate furiously after the election to end the ban in a less febrile political environment. Maybe they will and this will end well. But maybe it won't. It rips me up to think of those servicemembers out there still living under this threat, and appalls me that their lives and sacrifices could be cynically used by Senator McCain to pander to the far right to secure re-election.

(The video above is my worrying about just such a complacent scenario a year ago. I hope I am still proven wrong.)