If the GOP field were a Top Chef, they would be Hosea

So now it's Santorum?

Clearly the GOP has gotten on the fast train to crazy town.

Not that I care much what Republicans do, but this guy is unelectable, and somebody should think about mentioning it to the GOP voters.

(While old Santorum has stayed away from the jaw-droppingly dumb things he's said in the past, the New Republic has compiled a list of Santorum's greatest hits. If you ever feel that Dan Savage has been too hard on Rick, read it.)

Maybe it's because Top Chef was on last night, but I couldn't help but think about which candidate would be which Top Chef -- until I had a realization:

They're all Hosea Rosenberg.

If you don't remember Hosea, he was the Top Chef that nobody liked much. He wasn't particularly talented or memorable -- except that he cheated on his girlfriend on the show with Leah (who was not only taken, but living with her boyfriend at the time.)

It seemed impossible that Hosea would ever become Top Chef -- until he did.

He mastered the TC phenomenon of never quite doing a bad enough job to get kicked off -- but never doing a good job, either. The guy who should have won (Stefan) did slightly worse in the finale, and Hosea got the top prize pretty much by default. (It felt mind bogglingly frustrating at the time.)

And that pretty much sums up the GOP presidential contenders. They all share at least two of Hosea's three bad qualities. It's just a question of who will out-worse the others.

(1) His loose morals.

Newt Gingrich seems to have that one down pretty pat. But I would also argue that Mitt Romney's willingness to say anything -- anything! -- depending on who's listening to him suggests a certain liberal relationship with the truth.

(2) Nobody likes him.

Willard Mitt Romney -- desperate to be liked. As a result (and for other reasons) despised.

Newton Leroy Gingrich. The most despicable serious candidate in modern times. Every member of Congress who has any memory beyond 2000 knows just how dangerous a guy this is -- as well as nasty, vindictive and unappealing. A small number of tea party supporters think he'll destroy President Obama in a debate (they are mistaken), but that is the extent of his support.

Rick Santorum. So openly homophobic and anti-choice that nominating this guy would be the equivalent of just giving up on any Independent votes.

(3) He's always second worst.

This describes Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. All three of them are a joke. They only become credible when you look at all three of them together. (Ron Paul is a different discussion.) A real statesman -- someone with experience, decent looks, a conservative voting record and the ability to form a complete sentence -- would blow these guys out of the water.

And yet it hasn't happened.

One of these guys will be the GOP nominee (provided we don't get a brokered convention) -- and 2/3rds of the GOP will feel it is the equivalent of giving the prize to Hosea.

They'd be right. All three are Hosea.

The future craziness of the GOP

A while ago I decided that nobody out there in schlubland really wanted to hear my peculiar brand of politics. Besides, this country has too much political punditry. (Seriously, when did people start talking about the state of the union or the GOP debates the way they used to talk about the Mets? "You see the debate last night? Boy, Newt really stepped in it. He's through. Definitely will be eliminated by Super Tuesday.")

But now that the GOP nominating process is drawing to a close (winner: Mitt Romney) and the national election stage is set (my money is still on President Obama to win) I suppose I'm entitled to sound off just a little on the silly season.

A liberal like me should be breathing a sigh of relief. While I can't stand the man it looks like the GOP is turning to (Mitt) and I think he's probably a loser in November, he's considered the "moderate" conservative in the race. And as the choice of the party establishment this is a hopeful sign that the GOP is turning down the temperature on all their tea party nutsiness. They're serious about governing again. Whoever is President in November, be it Romney or Obama, the country will not go off a cliff.

I beg to differ.

While I'm hardly in the predictions game, I will make one (because I haven't seen anyone make it): It's going to get a lot worse for the GOP before it gets better.

After all the ugliness of campaigning, nominations and a general election are over, there are two possible scenarios here that I envision for the GOP, neither of them are all that good.

(1) Mitt Romney wins the presidency.

The GOP will have learned a very bad lesson; namely, they don't have to contribute to the recovery, they don't have to think seriously about governing, they don't have to do anything other than obstruct, obstruct, obstruct and they'll get their way.

And rather than moderating their impulses, I think a win in November will embolden them. They will demand that President Romney, whom they don't trust in the slightest, take a series of loyalty tests. They will want healthcare dismantled -- period. They will want originalists on the federal bench -- period. They will want money to the EPA, the arts, public education and everything else slashed to the bone. They will want a Paul Ryan budget pushed through and if it means dismantling medicare, good!

Of course, much of this will depend on President Romney's behavior -- but I don't have a lot of optimism there. A man of such colossal ambition as Mitt Romney will want a second term. He certainly will not wish to have a primary challenge from his right. (The man doesn't do particularly well on the campaign trail in the first place.) But the right wing of the party will be watching him very closely. And if he doesn't do something meaningful to prove his bona fides, they are going to make his life hell.

Once again, the goal posts in American political life are moved further to the right.

(2) President Obama is reelected.

Obviously, this is the scenario I would favor. But I hardly think it will return the GOP to earth. If anything it will make them crazier for the following reasons:

(a) They have already been down this road before.

Last cycle, the GOP held their nose and voted for a man they loathe and despise: John McCain. The man every Democrat liked. (Until they really had to vote for him.) The man who opposed the Bush tax cuts. The man who wrote the dreaded McCain Feingold legislation. The one Republican the base of the party could not stand.

(b) If this happens to them a second time, they will feel that moderation is a mug's game. Maybe if they stuck to their guns they would have pulled off a victory.

It's sort of an insane argument. (So the electorate rejected a moderate Republican for not being conservative enough by going instead for a liberal Democrat?) But it's one that's taken seriously by the true believers.

(c) The "sticking to their guns" argument is crazy -- but not completely crazy. Yes, an excited base can swing an election. Particularly if it's close. And my bet is that 2012 is going to be close.

Of course, while a reasonable person would say that a Romney/Obama election will be a hell of a lot closer than a Gingrich/Obama election, the base won't believe that unless it actually happens. Should Romney lose, there will be a great many recriminations of his problems as a candidate (The Onion, as always, summed up this problem perfectly in their article Romneymania Sweeps America) but I thought Rick Santorum (of all people) summed up Romney's problems in the debate the other night -- Romney neutralizes the most salient criticism of President Obama: healthcare.

Healthcare reform is very unpopular (I think it should be popular, but that's a different discussion.) Nominating the guy who came up with the idea isn't going to make much headway with the average voter if you're trying to offer a contrast to the president.

You're already starting to see how the craziness will manifest itself. Grover Norquist is already (ALREADY?!) talking about impeaching President Obama in 2014 if he lets the Bush tax cuts expire. You will hear a lot of that in 2013 if Obama is reelected. (Jonathan Chait predicted a second term impeachment a long time ago.)

And even if President Obama is not impeached, in this scenario the right wing of the party will say to the moderates: We went moderate in '08, we got Obama. We went radical in '10, we got Congress. We went moderate in '12, we got Obama again. So we're nominating a radical in 2016.

A lot can happen between now and 2016, but I think the GOP is going to have to nominate a radical and lose hard before it snaps them to their senses. But it will not bode well for the country in general. Sigh.

Life imitates Onion headlines

Rumors of extramarital affair end campaign of presidential candidate who didn't know China has nuclear weapons

Thus spake The Onion in a headline that was:

a) 100 percent true.

b) Not needing a follow-up story to go with it.

I weep for my country.

Of course, I will happily cast my vote next November for Barack Obama (yes, I still think the guy is a ninja) so I'm not following the GOP nomination process too closely...

But, seriously, how did we get this far?

The front-runner for the nomination of one of the two major parties in this country did not know that our biggest world rival has nuclear weapons. (Which they've had for, uh, almost half a century.) That's Sarah Palin-level ignorance.

And this is not even mentioning his incomprehensible ravings on Libya...

But I suppose Americans love a circus. And that's what they're getting. The cynic in me feels a little disappointed Herman couldn't stay in a little longer -- he was the most entertaining of the bunch. (Minus, of course, The Donald.)

First as tragedy, then ....

In looking at my political crystal ball for 2012, I would advise my readers to think back a few election cycles. Because I see 2012 unfolding in more or less the same way.

In 2004, the Democratic party had a choice to make:

They could nominate a fiery, articulate, half-nuts former governor of Vermont for the presidency. This would send the Democratic base into spasms of ecstasy -- and probably go down in crushing defeat come November.

Or they could nominate John Kerry.

Kerry -- a smart guy, a capable guy, a nice guy -- was simply too milquetoast to compete against the likes of George W. Bush. And he went down in defeat, too.

Am I crazy, or is the GOP doing pretty much the same exact thing right now?

The Howard Dean role is this time being played by Herman Cain. He strokes the GOP id in just the right way: He gives angry, half-crazy speeches. He favors a flat tax. (Which is wildly popular with the GOP base, much like Dean's opposition to the Iraq War.) He's socially conservative. And he takes the charge that the tea party is racist off the table.

He is the tea party's dream candidate. And if he were to be nominated, he would give President Obama a 1964-sized landslide victorty.

The John Kerry role is being played by Mitt Romney.

Mitt has three problems that Kerry had.

1) Mitt has taken a few mainstream positions which makes him more electable in a general election, and makes him despised by the base. (The base held their noses because of Kerry's Iraq War vote.)

2) David Brooks said yesterday Romney had a "Stepford problem" -- which, again, was one of Kerry's massive flaws. (Not that he looked like a hot robot, but that he was hopelessly inauthentic.)

3) They were both flip-floppers.

I suppose (2) and (3) are intertwined. I actually think flip flopping can be a good thing. If circumstances changed, it's only sensible that you should change your position. But the fact that all of Mitt Romney's flip flops were very politically convenient, makes nobody believe that he really holds these positions. They think he will govern like a quasi-liberal.

I think this is a mistake.

Whether Mitt Romney really holds pro-life or anti-health care positions is largely irrelevant. If he is elected president, he will have to take big steps to assure the conservatives that he's one of them. The GOP will not allow him to nominate judges to the federal bench that they do not sign off on. For someone who is already distrusted, they will never accept on faith that he is nominating good conservatives. (Don't believe me? Harriet Miers would like a word.)

Does anybody really believe that Romney is a man of political courage, who will stare down the grassroots activists and rainmakers in his party?

All this leads me to think that when Romney is eventually the nominee (tea party spoilers aside) the battle of 2012 will look very much like Kerry versus Bush. Expect a very close electoral map.

A last word about Rick Perry & the death penalty

Not to belabor the point, but along with the great New Yorker story about how Rick Perry sent an innocent man (Cameron Todd Willingham) to his death, there was another one that I feel is worth bringing up:

The case of Anthony Graves.

Graves, who had been on death row since the early 1990s was recently freed after the obvious flaws in his case came to light. (One should definitely read Texas Monthly's Herculean account of the case.)

Of course, Governor Perry has taken almost all the wrong lessons from this horrific miscarriage of justice.

Perry proudly points to Graves as an example of the system working.

There are almost no words to counter this. But if you read the original article about how nearly every cog in this machine failed (and how it was close to two decades after he was first thrown in jail that his case was thrown out) it was a stunning thing to say. But it certainly speak to Perry's fitness to executive office.

"No sir, I've never struggled with that at all."

I'm sure nobody out there in schlubland wants to hear your humble correspondent sound off on the death penalty. (Actually, unlike most of my other liberal opinions I'm for it in principle. Against it in practice.)

But whether you're for it or against it, there was something absolutely ghoulish in Rick Perry's answer to last night's death penalty question -- and the deafening applause when the number of the executed (234) was trotted out.

If the death penalty is necessary, it should be a grim business. A necessary evil. And we should never applaud its use.

Moreover, the fact that Rick Perry didn't lose a wink of sleep over this is just disgusting. Two years ago, the New Yorker took great pains to show that at least one of these men was probably innocent.

If you haven't read it yet, the story of Cameron Todd Willingham makes you want to shout at Perry, "Why the hell not?"

Turdblossom shits all over Rick Perry

Former Bush speech writer, Matt Latimer, pens a column on Karl Rove's disdain for the new savior of the GOP, Rick Perry.

The inside baseball here is tantalizing.... but not quite tantalizing enough. If I were Latimer's editor, I would have thrown it back to him.

I've read the thing twice, and while, yes, I believe that this hatred exists, I still don't quite understand what the cause of it was.

As far as I can tell, the animus is based on three things (which are really all the same thing):

1) Perry has succeeded without Rove's blessing.

While one should never diminish the power of the petty dispute, this would seem to me to be so minor as for me to say that, no, I don't believe it. If it really is true I'd demand that someone who knows both parties (on or off the record) confirm this with evidence.

2) It's about money and succession.

Fine. And what are the details of this, please?

Yes, these sorts of things might be too insidery for the rest of the world to care. But that's the meat of great drama, isn't it? What money are we talking about? Who's money? The GOP's? The big donors? This whetted my appetite.

3) It's a plain old piece of Texas political muscle flexing.

As in, "You think you're in charge down here, Rick Perry? Think again!"

OK, maybe that's it. I understand that local political fiefdoms obey different rules in different ways. But one would think that a man like Rove, who ran a national campaign, wouldn't care so much about local Texas politics once his political showhorse (Bush) had left. I suppose that people as driven as Rove never forget the details. (It partly explains their personal success.) But I'd like to know more. I feel there has to be some incident that someone could point to.

The most perplexing thing about this, of course, is that Rick Perry is George W. Bush. (Perhaps without the breeding and with about 15 to 20 fewer IQ points.) One would think that this would be the kind of folksy Texan Rove would be behind with every fiber of his being. And maybe that's the biggest reason Rove can't stand him: The caricature is unbearable. (Which might explain why the Bush family hates him, too.)

Bam!

Although I've sort of vowed to keep politics off this blog (sort of) I would like to commend President Obama on his kickass speech this week.

The President ripped into Paul Ryan's ridiculous plan to gut Medicaid and Medicare -- and thank goodness.

For a great takedown on Ryan's plan, read Michael Kinsley's column. Or, actually, you should maybe read the President's speech.

Naughty or NIssa?

Ryan Lizza has a must-read article in this week's New Yorker about the extremely shady background of the new chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Goverment Reform (and car alarm king), Darrell Issa.

You remember Issa -- in addition to being the guy who funded Gray Davis' recall in 2003, he's the congressman who recently told Rush Limbaugh that President Obama's administration was "one of the most corrupt presidencies in modern times." (A claim so absurd that Issa himself started walking it back almost immediately.)

Well, it turns out that in addition to his penchant for demagoguery and impolitic dumbness he's also (probably) a criminal.

There is strong circumstantial evidence that he is a car thief; an arsonist; guilty of insurance fraud; that he fired one of his employees by while pointing a pistol at him (as well as other weapons charges). In a more charitable interpretation, he is just extremely, extremely unlucky -- while also being extremely, extremely lucky. (Isn't it lucky that three weeks before his factory burned to the ground he upped his fire insurance? And managed to take all important and relevant documents out of the building?)

Certainly, Issa would not be the first person in politics who broke a law or two when he was a teenager. But the list of sketchy actions that Issa is said to have committed is long. And it stretches well into his adulthood.

And this is the guy with subpoena power?

Not so lame after all...

Is it me, or are the Democrats kicking serious GOP keister in this lame duck session?

Exhibit A: The tax compromise.

Sure, Dems like me didn't like giving windfalls to Warren Buffett.

But any bill which Jim DeMint hates must have something going for it. (Also, the more I read about it, the more this sounds like an exceedingly clever second stimulus. In which case, my hat's off to you, Mr. President.)

Exhibit B: Don't Ask Don't Tell.

An already historical presidency just upped its game! DADT is dead -- and it was about frickin' time.

This is a major piece of civil rights legislation (possibly the biggest ever tailored to the LGBT community) and the President, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and even the dread Joe Lieberman deserve to take a victory lap. (It doesn't change my contempt for Lieberman... But, yes, my hat is also off to the gentleman from Connecticut.)

Exhibit C: START looks like it's a go.

How the hell did that happen?!

At the beginning of the month Jon Kyl was saying that it was dead, and now it's back?

Of course, START might be the most important thing in this lame duck session. It is essential in terms of keeping loose nuclear material under safe watch and getting Russia to apply diplomatic pressure towards Iran. Killing the treaty looked like sheer partisan lunacy.... and, yet, it looked like that was precisely what would go down.

Well, thank goodness cooler heads prevailed. Hats off to Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and all the former GOP national security topdogs who lobbied the senate to make this happen.

Exhibit D: 9/11 Responders.

I'm not 100 percent sure if the GOP -- or the pundits for that matter -- realize just how badly they fucked up on this bill.

This is the easiest vote the GOP ever took. Healthcare and benefits for the guys who ran into the World Trade Center on the darkest day our Republic has ever endured to save their fellow Americans. It's difficult to even try to imagine a more no-brainer piece of legislation.

And the GOP held it up because....

Wait, what was the reason again?

Oh, yeah. They weren't sure how to pay for it. After all, their priority was to pass a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. (Sorry -- I mean "small business owners.")

Now it looks like the responder's bill is back on the table before congress adjourns. And they're saying it will probably pass.

So let me get this straight: The GOP voted against popular legislation (extremely popular in their own base!) that's going to pass anyway, because they thought they had to take care of tax cuts first.

I can't wait to hear how they try to explain this away.

While I generally hate those sorts of "gotcha" moments, no party has so richly earned a slew of attack ads come 2012 that Dems should scream from the top of their lungs: THE REPUBLICANS HATE OUR 9/11 HEROES!

THE REPUBLICANS COULDN'T FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GIVE HEALTHCARE TO 9/11 RESPONDERS ON THE SAME WEEK THAT THEY WERE GIVING BILL GATES AND WARREN BUFFETT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAX CUTS!

So, finally, my hat's off to you GOP. You played your cards reasonably well in 2009/10. You captured the House and a number of Senate seats. But you gave us a nice little parting gift. Something that I don't believe the public will forget. Merry Xmas!

Weeper of the house

All right, here are three reasons why John Boehner's recent crying jags are unbearable.

(1) They're extremely vain.

When he cried on election night, he wasn't crying because the GOP had won some sort of great victory or because it was an affirmation of GOP values or some other such nonsense.

"I spent my whole life chasing the American dream," he said, his voice cracking.

So this is all about you, John? This is your moment? Please spare us.

(2) They're kinda phony.

Not that I believe that Boehner is faking it on his 60 Minutes interview. (It looks way too lame to be faked.) Nor do I believe he was faking it when he wept at getting a pro-life award. Or when he watches a child give the pledge of allegiance. (Both true.)

But he's crying about hokum symbols of Americana and religion.

Has Speaker-elect Boehner ever cried at, oh, say actual human misery? When he was shouting "Hell no!" to healthcare reform earlier this year, did he shed any tears over people who are denied insurance coverage? Or who go into bankruptcy because they can't pay their medical bills?

(3) It's so lame.

Didn't anybody ever tell this guy that the term "crybaby" is not a positive thing?

And (this is only partially tongue-in-cheek) are we really entrusting this much power in a guy who can't keep it together for a Lesley Stahl interview?

What. A. Baby.

Bluffing?

It's been a rough week for the President. Many are saying President Obama got outplayed in the tax cut negotiations by the GOP. (At least two articles appeared impugning the President's poker playing skills.)

To be honest, I'm not sure.

I admit that my love of the president does not always make me the most sober judge. While I don't think a tax cut for the rich makes any sense, policy-wise, the President was probably right when he said that raising taxes on the vast majority of Americans would have been disastrous.

That was what FDR did in 1937 when he was trying to counter inflation and balance the budget. The result was a serious recession in which unemployment spiked.

Giving a big xmas gift to the wealthy might feel unbearable, but it is more bearable than throwing millions of hard up people off unemployment. Obama also got a big payroll tax cut. These are not insignificant gains.

Yes, we're all going to sigh when we have to pay for all this down the road, but we've got to keep our priorities straight, and making sure nothing disturbs the recovery is the priorty right now.

However, the interesting thing I keep hearing is that this episode might embolden a primary challenge against the President from the left.

To continue the poker metaphor, I think the left is bluffing. But, if they're not bluffing, let me say this:

It would be the best thing that could happen to Obama.

"But Max," I hear you saying, "all the recent one-termers lost because they faced a primary challenge within their own party."

"Yes," I reply, "I see you've been watching plenty of cable news. I'm impressed."

It's true, that George H. W. Bush got a challenge from the right by Pat Buchanan. Jimmy Carter got Ted Kennedy from his left. Gerald Ford was dogged by Ronald Reagan. And these challenges from the right and left wings of their parties certainly sapped support.

But three things:

1) I do not see a credible alternative to Obama in the Democratic Party. (It can't be just that Joe Blow shows up and puts his name on a ballot. There needs to be millions of supporters for this to have an effect.)

2) For better or worse, it's not the fact that Obama is insufficiently left wing that is driving down his poll numbers. If anything, it was his healthcare legislation. The more he gets challenged on the left, the more attractive he looks to the center.

3) The primary challenge wasn't the reason these presidents lost. These presidents got primary challenges because they were doing a shitty job and probably would have lost anyway. If Ted Kennedy hadn't challenged Jimmy Carter, I'm still confident Carter would have still screwed up in the general.

I also think that you're starting to see the seeds of Obama's reelection this week for two other reasons:

a) With the payroll tax cut, Obama got, as David Leonhardt wrote, a "second stimulus." If, as Leonhardt reported here, this shaves a half-point to a point off unemployment, it will be well worth it and redound to his credit in 2012.

b) The GOP is not going to last very long without a major blowup.

You're starting to see it already. They stopped the signing of benefits for 9/11 responders? Seriously?

I actually asked one of my right wing friends how they could possibly do such a thing. He gave me a response which was credible, I suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that this kind of thing makes them look crazy. (Which of course they are.) It's a political loser for them. As are the hundreds of other tricks they're about to try, given the level of wackos that were just elevated to the House in the 112th Congress.

Not that I know anything, but you heard it here first.

Celebrity Republicans

BuzzFeed has a list of 40 celebrity Republicans...

Most of them were the ones you'd expect.

I mean, who didn't know that Sly Stallone and Jon Voight vote Republican?

However, there were a few surprises.

James Earl Jones is a Republican? For real? As is LL Cool J? And Sarah Michelle Geller?

The only name that sort of broke my heart was Adam Sandler. I already sort of knew he was one. He's included a number of ridicuously suck-upy bits about Rudy Giuliani in his movies. (Giuliani had a cameo in the otherwise fine Anger Management.) And I seem to remember him saying some kind things about George W. Bush.

But Sandler can't break my heart over his political leanings...

Cary Grant already beat him to it when he addressed the Republican National Convention in 1976. (Not that Grant was some kind of nut -- he defended his friend Charlie Chaplin from the charges that he was a Communist and condemned McCarthyism. And according to wikipedia he made the immanently sensible statement that movie actors should avoid discussing politics.)

Of course, if this list were talking celebrities from the beginning of Hollywood, it sorely lacking. Not only is Grant absent, but so is Jimmy Stewart and (runner up for my favorite celebrity Republican) John Wayne.

Nevertheless, it was deeply satisfying for a Democrat like me to see who clocked in at number 40:

Mel Gibson.

Vote early - vote awesome

Fellow schlubs and schlubettes: Don't forget to vote!

For anyone who's been reading this blog, it's no secret which party I'm supporting.

Several of the pundits have been saying that this Republican surge will actually redound to President Obama's credit in 2012. It'll keep his policies moderate (goes the wisdom), and it will force the Republicans to act sensibly.

I disagree.

While I'm resigned to this Republican wave happening, it will not do the country any good. I believe it will do quite a bit of damage. This is for numerous reasons (most of which will be obvious) but here are the most important ones:

1) The Republicans who are being sent to Congress this election cycle are not reasonable people.

Sharron Angle (whom I suspect will be the next senator from Nevada) is a true nut. She wants to privatize social security (just think of what that would have meant during the Lehman Brothers collapse!). She opposes a woman's right to choose, even in cases of rape and incest. She wants to dismantle the department of education. She wants to withdraw the United States from the UN...

This is a dangerous, completely unserious person. (She makes George W. Bush like like a freakin' intellectual, for chrissake!) How the hell is the inclusion of this lunatic going to moderate the GOP?

The answer is: It won't.

2) The Republicans are learning all the wrong lessons.

The Republicans helped wreck the country -- and two years later (because of a media blitz, a particularly loud and mobilized group of teabaggers and because of a slower economic recovery than had been hoped) they're poised to get back at least one house of congress. They got this because they weren't reasonable. Instead of working with the President, instead of compromising and governing, they threw up road blocks. They did everything possible to make sure that President Obama failed. They acted like whatever they did wouldn't matter.

And they're being rewarded for it.

Excuse me for thinking that this will be interpreted as a sign that they should keep doing the same thing. (You're already seeing signs of this. Mike Pence said that there would be no compromise with the administration and already said he wanted to rollback healthcare.)

3) There is still so much more work to do -- and the GOP refuses to do it.

The second Obama stimulus will never happen now. Likewise, cap and trade is dead and buried. There are big, serious problems that the GOP has no interest in tackling, and they likely will go unsolved now.

None of this is to say that Obama's political future is thereby in jeopardy. I think he remains the likely favorite to win reelection in 2012. And, frankly, I think the GOP is simply so dangerous that (if I may borrow a sentiment from Mitch McConnell) I'll consider keeping them out of the White House to be achievement enough. But President Obama's administration will not be able to produce nearly the kinds of legislative triumphs they've achieved in its first two years.

My suspicion is that after tomorrow, the Obama administration will pivot to a foreign policy based presidency. (Which is fine -- there is a tremendous amount of unfinished work waiting for them.) But this is not going to be good for anybody.

Nevertheless, whoever you're supporting, please go out and vote!

Now, if you'll excuse me, my polling station is waiting.

What a bunch of frauds...

"You can't make a representation and claim you didn't make it -- it shouldn't work that way."

- Judd Gregg

Amen, Senator Gregg.

I really hope everyone watches this youtube, passes it around, and refuses to let the GOP get away with their unapologetic, unabashed dishonesty.

And now let us hear form Max Gross on political matters...

If anybody out there wants to take any bets on the 2012 election, I'm willing to take Barack Obama.

This comes after multiple people I know (all of whom are educated on political matters) have said to me that they are very worried about President Obama's chances for reelection in 2012.

"I don't think he's got it sewn up at all," one friend of mine said to me recently.

"He doesn't have a chance in hell of getting reelected," said my father.

Well, my father's never correct on these matters -- so I'm not worried.

And, yes, I will admit that the President has had a rough couple of months. There are any number of mistakes President Obama could make that would sink his reelection. And I'm not convinced that he will win the overwhelming victory he won in 2008. He's going to have to work like hell to keep those GOP-tilting states like Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Indiana in his column. But Obama has one big advantage that I think will push him over the finish line:

The Republicans don't have a credible alternative.

Let's recall his potential challengers:

Mitt Romney. At this point, my money is on the Mittster to get the nomination. The GOP has a tendency to reward strong second placers in the next cycle, and while Mike Huckabee was technically second place in 2008, the Mittster is doing his best to make everybody think this was not the case.

I also think that given the fact that Romney is a reasonably smart guy, and a somewhat competent governor, he would probably be the GOP's wisest and most credible alternative. (He would also be the most responsible pick... Like that matters.) But Romney has, in my mind, at least three fatal flaws.

1) His Mormonism.

It's a shame that this should count against him -- but it does. (I don't think it's a total disqualifier, but he's going to need every last vote in 2012 and this will harm him.)

2) Health care.

The Mittster's Massachusetts health care bill was essentially the blueprint for Obamacare. This means he is going to have to face a choice -- attack his own stewardship as governor, or cede the healthcare debate to Obama. Either way, Mitt is screwed.

3) He is the most transparently phony politician I've ever seen.

I actually think phoniness shouldn't be a disqualifier in and of itself. (I remain proud of my 2004 vote for John Kerry.) But when half of your own party thinks you're a shameless panderer, you're in big trouble.

Sarah Palin. There's a part of this old Democrat that lies in bed at night with visions of Sarah Palin winning the nomination dancing in his head... Because if she is the nominee, as Daniel Larison recently predicted, Obama wins a 1984-level landslide.

Palin has great appeal to the fringe right -- and no appeal to anyone else.

While Rich Lowry might feel his heart going pitter pat every time she speaks, the majority of the country thinks she's a bubble headed moron, who couldn't finish out a single term as governor and couldn't handle an interview with Katie Couric. I know numerous right wing Republicans who agree with her on every issue -- and yet can't stand the fact that she's the face of their movement. "She's right," someone I know who was active in the GOP said to me, "but she doesn't know why she's right -- and that worries me."

Mike Huckabee. Yet another 49 state triumph for President Obama.

The New Yorker had a piece a week or two ago saying that he was the frontrunner -- to which my response is: get real.

Mike Huckabee has one thing going for him: He's by far the most likable candidate that the GOP has right now. But every time Huckabee talks about something substantive, he winds up on the scary extreme of an issue. (Fair tax? Really?) Or he invokes God in a way that would make George W. Bush blush. (He once credited divine intervention with his improving poll numbers.)

Yes, we might want a nice guy as our pastor. But do we trust him with America's economy? With wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? With serious problems like climate change and immigration? I think the answer would be a resounding no.

Tim Pawlenty. This would be the GOP equivalent of nominating John Kerry. He's a lot less crazy than Palin or Huckabee. But he is so lukewarm that very few people would be filling the streets to elect him president. There was a reason that John McCain didn't pick him to be his running mate.

I don't think Bobby Jindal is ready for prime time yet. Likewise, I think Scott Brown is, as of right now, no real threat. It's one thing to do very well in a special election, but to start running for president he'd have to do so in early 2011 and I just don't think he has spent enough time in the spotlight for that. (Although, similar things were said about President Obama -- so you never know.) The one candidacy that truly worries me is that of David Petraeus. It looks to me like Petraeus isn't very interested in running (and Obama might have neutralized this threat by asking him to take control of Afghanistan -- which might have been his greatest political trick yet) but if Petraeus turns around Afghanistan and announces his retirement next year, then President Obama should be worried. Otherwise, I think he just has to sit back and watch the GOP immolate itself.

Manzi up!

I've come today to praise yet another Republican: National Review's Jim Manzi, who has not quite entered David Frum's level of banishment from the GOP, but hasn't endeared himself to the party graybeards.

(I'm a little late getting to this ... but it drifted onto my radar after I went to a dinner this week where Manzi was the speaker.)

The controversy began when Manzi dressed down conservative loudmouth, Mark Levin, saying that the chapter in Levin's book Liberty & Tyranny (I refuse to link) on climate change is a lot of bunk.

Manzi has since been attacked as a tree-hugging, latte-sipping squish.

The irony in all this is that essentially Levin and Manzi would vote the same way on climate change legislation. (No!) But for critically different reasons.

Levin doesn't believe that climate change is manmade. And that it isn't a problem. (I think. I admit, I haven't read his book. Nor would I.) It is the argument of a fantasist.

Manzi believes that climate change is manmade. And it could be a very serious problem. But it isn't catastrophic, as of right now. Moreover, the cost to fix it would be so onerous that we should make sure it is, indeed, a catastrophic problem before we proceed with costly legislation.

I don't necessarily agree with Manzi, but I can attest he is a very serious man. He graduated from MIT and has a scientist's training in physics and chemistry. He is not some wild-eyed freak who is arguing that up is down, black is white, and that the data hasn't been telling us what every serious scientist in the world says it is.

I'll even give Manzi one better -- he's right that if we're going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on this problem, we had better be damned sure that we're spending it on the right things.

Moreover, Manzi would give my side a concession: If it looks like climate change is worse than most scientists are predicting (he says a 2 to 4 degree warming over the next 100 years) we should, indeed, spend the money sooner rather than later.

In short: Manzi is offering a serious argument. ("I didn't disagree with the idea of climate legislation," Manzi said, "my thinking was, 'You said it was going to cost how much?!'")

I asked Manzi what he conceded was the $64,000 question: OK, we might be able to live with the earth 3 or 4 degrees warmer in 100 years. But if the trends continue, won't it be 12 or 15 degrees warmer in 300 or 400 years? (Which would be catastrophic.)

Yes, he said.

The dinner that I attended had a Harvard-trained environmental economist who fell on the other side of the spectrum. (He believed that climate change would be worst than many scientists were speculating.) And the back and forth between the two of them was spirited, exceedingly technical and fascinating.

But it did make me come to realize one thing: Democracy simply doesn't work on this level. As long as morons like Levin can rally his troops by saying that global warming is a hoax and powerful schmucks like Jim Inhofe inhabit the halls of congress, nothing can really be done on these problems. Levin and Inhofe shouldn't be debating these issues. Nor should I, quite frankly. People who can understand the data should be the ones at the center of this debate. (But there's no sense believing that will ever happen.)

Frum Schlub to Stud

If you haven't been following the whole David Frum drama that's been unfolding in Washington over the last week, it offers possibly the best window into the dysfunctional state of the Republican Party available.

To recap as quickly as possible: David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush (and man who had a hand in writing the infamous "Axis of Evil" speech) posted a column on the healthcare vote saying that it was so much worse for the Republican party than anyone was saying -- and that the legislation could have been much better, if only the GOP has been willing to work with Obama.

Days later he was fired from her perch at the American Enterprise Institute.

Of course, the substance of what Frum is saying is undeniably true. There is no universe in which the healthcare bill's successful passage isn't a major defeat for the GOP. And President Obama was so desperate for a bill he could call bipartisan, that he would have changed the legislation much to the GOP's liking, if they were willing to meet him halfway. They didn't. They lost.

Getting fired for saying this -- which is about as uncontested a truth as you can come up with -- is pretty astounding. The GOP is lashing out. And what's more of a shame is that they're lashing out against one of their most interesting minds.

Prior to this dust-up, I didn't know much about David Frum, other than the fact that he was a speechwriter for Bush. But I did notice a few columns he wrote during the 2008 campaign which were a lot smarter than the standard party grist. And that he recently wrote a long article in Newsweek attacking Rush Limbaugh, which was pretty dead on. But since this whole scandal started unfolding, I read his book Comeback, and looked at a couple of TV appearances on youtube, and I must say this:

The guy is brilliant.

I still disagree with him on 70 percent of what he's saying. But he is eminently sensible. His thinking about America and her problems doesn't have the same jingoistic varnish that you hear from most of the figures on the right. He faces American decay squarely. And he says some things that are shocking to hear out of a Republican mouth.

Of Republican icon Ronald Reagan: "The most dangerous legacy Reagan bequeathed his party was his legacy of cheerful indifference to detail. Yes, it worked for him. It worked for John F. Kennedy to run the presidency buzzed on painkillers. Kennedy's ability to beat the odds is not a model to be emulated, and neither is Reagan's. The next Republican president needs to master details, understand his options, and make his decisions with care."

On healthcare: "Why shouldn't we claim universal health insurance as our issue, while holding fast against state control and government monopoly?"

On taxes: "The days of broad, across-the-board, middle-class tax cutting are over."

Wow.

Of course, Frum has plenty of contempt and criticism for the Democratic Party, too. And plenty of Frum's criticism of the Democrats I would describe as unfair. (Some are uncomfortably fair.) Moreover, I'm somewhat wary of trusting his numbers, because I've noticed more than a few mistakes and misreadings. (For a small example: "In 2004," Frum writes, "George Bush won seven out of the 10 most [income] equal states in the country, including Nebraska, Utah and Indiana. John Kerry won three out of the four most unequal including New York, California and Louisiana." Of course, John Kerry did not even come close to winning Louisiana. He lost six out of seven congressional districts, and the popular vote 42 to 56 percent.)

But you shouldn't really read Comeback with an eye towards correcting the record. Most of Frum's mistakes are insignificant. And, even when I disagreed with him, I found that most of the time he had a good-faith argument that was worth making, even if it wasn't necessarily correct.

His TV appearances are no less interesting and enlightening.

Andrew Sullivan posted this clip of Frum from Canadian television which left me practically slack-jawed. It's downright refreshing to see a party man this disarmingly frank. I never quite know whether Bill Kristol believes what he's saying. Kristol will always toe the party line -- at least when a television camera is on him. And that's not David Frum. Frum is an empiricist. When a Republican says something stupid, Frum seems to believe it's worth calling the person out on it, party loyalties be damned.

In a way, I'm surprised that a man like Frum would choose to delve into the grittiness of party politics. I'm surprised that he's not the lone conservative teaching at some west coast university writing books and not a person who actually speaks to heads of state, who makes official visits, who has a say in the political strategy of the Republican Party (as well as the policy side). Frankly, he seems too smart to make politics -- with all its theater, all its silliness, all its deference to populist dumbness -- his profession.

But I will say this: It's a genuine shame that David Frum is being shown the door. Yes, if the GOP had more guys like David Frum, they'd be a much more formidable force. But they'd also be a much better force. The next time the Democratic Party loses a big election, I'd much rather have a guy like Frum running things than Glenn Beck.

Nevertheless, congratulations, David. I hereby name you schlub of the week.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

I might have had it with the Democratic party.

No, this is not a defection to the GOP. (Never!) Nor is it an abandonment of President Obama. On the contrary, the Democratic Party is becoming as much of an obstacle to our president as the Republican Party. (Well, that's a slight exaggeration.) And this is maddening. For the last year, I thought I was watching the GOP in a slow death spiral. I've now come to believe both parties are in the same death spiral -- the only real difference is the Democrats have one, lonely man trying to hold them up.

Last night I had to endure a spiel from a NYC high school teacher about what a phony, crappy leader President Obama is -- claiming that Obama was a weak, "horrible president."

I had to restrain myself from slugging the guy in the gut and shouting "Fuck you, asshole!"

The criticism of Obama from the left and right of the Democratic Party is literally driving this schlub to distraction. Both sides are complete morons.

Yes, there are large elements of the progressive side of the party who have made the realization that Obama is our last best hope. That he is their best bet for getting some kind of health care reform passed. That he will be the best way to dismantle the Bush era assault on civil liberty. That he will end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan sensibly and intelligently.

But there are large swaths of progressive idiots (like NYC teacher) who would rather sink the ship than not do things their way. (In this, they resemble the Republicans.)

"He's shown no leadership!" NYC teach said. "If Hillary Clinton were president, at least she'd do battle with the Republicans, and I think we'd have healthcare right now!"

All emotion -- not a whit of thoughtful analysis.

Let's forget, for the moment, that Barack Obama's presidency gets an automatic B-plus because he's not the reckless lunatic we had 13 months ago. Let's forget just how close to the brink the economy was when Obama took over. Let's forget the quick, smart and extraordinarily savvy steps he took to get the stimulus bill passed. Let's forget that the GOP is acting with complete and utter disregard for the consequences.

Let's just talk about healthcare.

Do these people not remember the last time HRC tried to ram through healthcare? Clearly not. Or, if they do, they'll say something along the lines of "Well, she learned from her mistakes." My answer to that is: Barack Obama has played healthcare like he, too, learned from the Clinton Administration's mistakes.

The big criticism was that the Clintons (and HRC specifically) was too authoritarian about the way they presented a take-it-or-leave-it bill to congress. The Clintons convened conferences of doctors and healthcare experts and overruled a lot of their suggestions.

The result was that the bill didn't even reach the floor.

Obama made sure congress had a big role in drafting the legislation, and made sure that the finished product passed the smell test for doctors and health care economists. There has been little (if any) criticism from those quarters about the finished product. Almost everybody insists that these are very good pieces of legislation.

Look: I'm somewhat pessimistic about the chances for healthcare reform after the special election in Massachusetts. I'd say the chance of it happening have tilted towards defeat rather than victory. If and when it dies, even a stalwart supporter like me will concede that Obama suffered a major defeat.

But I still feel that the only reason that this bill has to fail is if Democrats refuse to sack up. (Which, so far, appears to be what they're doing.)

They can whine about blaming Obama all they want, but it's their own fault if they can't vote for a bill that both chambers of congress passed. They'll go down, they'll go down hard, and they won't even have a good bill to show for it at the end of the day.

But Obama will probably be fine.

He's not up for election in November. They are. He is only doing the things that he promised to do during the campaign. He is still personally much more popular than the GOP or any member of congress. Right now, the GOP doesn't have anybody -- not Sarah Palin, not Scott Brown, not Mitt Romney -- who could credibly challenge him. Will somebody emerge in the next three years? Will his numbers continue to go down?

It's possible, but I tend to doubt it.

So what will happen? Democrats will lose a lot of seats in November. They'll probably retain the majorities in both chambers, but they'll have the wind knocked out of them and a lot of the urgency will leave the Obama agenda. Another wasted opportunity that the Democrats won't get again for a generation. Truly: these guys are a bunch of morons.