The Dish

Frum wants another form of campaign finance reform:

As Peter Wallison argues in his great book on party finance, the real evil of American politics is that politicians must beg interest groups for the money to finance their campaigns. What we need is not “less money” and CERTAINLY not less speech – but more distance between donor and recipient. The mechanism for that is the political party. Reformers should be focusing on lifting limits on the flow of money from parties to candidates and restoring the role of the parties as the funders of campaigns. Instead of Candidate Smith asking Donor Gonzalez for money – and Donor Gonzalez asking for a favor in return – party chairman Robinson will ask thousands of donors for money on behalf of a slate of candidates, who will never know precisely whose gift was directed to them. That step will diminish corruption and the appearance of corruption.

The outlawing of speech by corporate groups on the other hand only diminishes liberty.

From tonight's Insider:

Levi reveals that he is working on a tell-all book about his experience with the Palin family, "I am in the process of doing it." What is he planning on revealing? "Everything. All."

A reader writes:

You wrote:

… "[Obama's] major problems right now are a) an apoplectic and incoherent opposition that feels it is doing something by randomly harnessing populist frustration in a recession and playing the Rovian politics which is all they know and b) a useless bunch of disorganized morons and cowards who make up the Congressional Democrats"…

With all due respect, this totally ignores the fact that 100% of Senate Democrats support healthcare reform (all 59 of them), but because of the antiquated, undemocratic filibuster rule, which is being used as a daily weapon by Senate Republicans, we aren't able to pass it.  As a Chief of Staff to a Democratic Senator, I can't tell you how dispiriting it is to read stuff like what you wrote–and which I read on other weblogs and hear from my friends…

I understand the anger at not passing healthcare reform–hell, I feel it, too–but folks' anger should be focused on 1) the tool that is being used to obstruct passage, and 2) those who are using the tool!  There needs to be a movement to change this rule–and believe me, it won't be easy (it's my understanding it takes 67 votes to change Senate rules)–but you can play an important role in helping folks understand the need to do so.  However, calling us a "useless bunch of disorganized morons and cowards" because of our inability to reach 60 votes–a very difficult goal to reach when you don't have a single Republican willing to support you–is neither fair nor accurate.

The one thing the Cheneyites and Rovians have is nerve. They assert everything with utter certainty and confidence even though their record is appalling. Conservatives and liberals of doubt don't think or act that way. We are aware that we can be wrong; we try and analyze our own mistakes; we try to give a fair hearing to the other side.

This can lead to an assumption that we are wusses. Or weak. But of course the opposite is true. It is the strong who can entertain doubt and the weak who cannot. Cheney is not a strong man; he is a bully hiding his own rank moral and political and national security failure.

The whole point of the Obama candidacy – why he matters – is that he is a liberal of doubt. But he also showed in the campaign that this was a strength. And when he needed to, he revealed a ruthlessness and radicalism and won.

And that is why this moment is so vital.

He must not just rally the House Dems, he must rally the country. He must bring us back in. And we must back him up. This is not just about a centrist comprehensive health reform bill. It is about defeating an entire brand of cowardly, cynical, spin cycle bullshit that has brought this country down and promoting an adult and reasonable discourse that grapples with our problems.

That's what we elected him for. If he caves now, if he does not mount a huge effort to retain this bill, he will have surrendered on that critical ground. He will have lost his nerve. And if we cave now, all that work we did, all that energy, all that hope, will be squandered as the old politics gets its hands on our collective throats again.

I refuse to believe he has given up; and I refuse to believe we will. This moment is too important as a fulcrum on which this country's future hangs for him or us to give up now. The polls show a divided country. At this point in the adminstrations of my idols, Reagan and Thatcher, the polls were overwhelmingly against them. They faced them down and won.

Mr President, fight. Show you're a fighter. And start to enjoy it.

Massie showcases a clip.

A scene from yesterday:

Boies: You are saying here that after same-sex marriage was legalized, the Netherlands legalized incest and polygamy?” Tam: “Yeah, look at the date. Polygamy happened afterward. “Who told you that? Where did you get that idea,” Boies asked incredulously.

“It’s the Internet,” he said. “Another person in the organization found it and he showed me it … I looked at the document and I thought it was true.”

Polygamy is not legal in the Netherlands, but the idea that it is became an urban myth of sorts in 2005 after a man and two women signed a private “cohabitation contract” while wearing wedding garb. Consensual incest between adults is no longer prosecuted in the Netherlands, but close relatives are not allowed to wed.

From France, natch. And far far too risque and NSFW for the Dish. But it makes you laugh and manages to add a sexiness to a condom – which is quite a combo.

Nate Silver unveils his Senate race ranking model:

Between the surprise in Massachusetts, and races like California and Indiana which are potentially coming into play, there's about a 6-7 percent chance that Republicans could actually take control of the Senate, and another 6 percent chance or so that they could wind up with a 50-50 split. On the other hand, there's still a 7-8 percent chance that the Democrats could regain their 60th seat if the national environment shifts back in their direction.

Drezner doesn't see Obama as a foreign policy president:

Even if he could claim successes, foreign policy achievements — particularly of the non-military kind — during an economic downturn are pretty much a dead-bang political loser. Why? Because even successes suggests that the president cares more about the rest of the world than his own countrymen. Think about it. The last time a sitting president focused on foreign affairs in the middle of a recession was George H.W. Bush. That was great from a policy perspective, but a political disaster for Bush.

Increasingly I wonder whether Garry Wills wasn't right. Maybe Obama should be prepared to risk being a one-term president, and actually make a difference in that one term rather than trying for two in this climate. And if he made such a difference, maybe two terms would come anyway.