the political circus

the heartbreak of conservatism

romney unplugged

(original artwork by alex ross)

fox news:

bill o'reilly: i don't understand what the controversy is. i think mr. romney should campaign on this point. if i'm governor romney, i run with this all day long.

sean hannity: it is romney unplugged as the GOP presidential nominee delivers one of his sharpest critiques yet of president obama and the entitlement society that he enables.

stuart varney: i think this will be seen as a win for romney.

pollster nate silver @ fivethirtyeight:

after a secretly recorded videotape was released on sept. 17 showing mitt romney making unflattering comments about the "47 percent" of americans who he said had become dependent on government benefits, i suggested on twitter that the political impact of the comments could easily be overstated.

"ninety percent of 'game-changing' gaffes are less important in retrospect than they seem in the moment," i wrote.

... since then, however, mr. obama has gained further ground in the polls. as of thursday, he led in the popular vote by 5.7 percentage points in the "now-cast," a gain of 1.6 percentage points since mr. romney's remarks became known to the public.

it's hard to tell whether this recent gain for mr. obama reflects the effect of the "47 percent" comments specifically. but the most typical pattern after a party convention is that a candidate who gains ground in the polls cedes at least some of it back.

instead, the more pertinent question seems not whether mr. obama is losing ground, but whether he is still gaining it.

... what we can say with more confidence is that mr. romney is now in a rather poor position in the polls.

... the overall story line, however, is fairly clear: mr. romney is at best holding ground in the polls, and quite possibly losing some, at a time when he needs to be gaining it instead. further, it's increasingly implausible for mr. romney to attribute the numbers to temporary effects from the democratic convention. mr. obama's probability of winning the electoral college advanced to 83.9 percent in the nov. 6 forecast, up from 81.9 percent on wednesday.

what it all comes down to

a debt ceiling carol

now that all the shouting's over — for a few hours at least — i believe it's time in the program for our musical number ...

giddy-ap (updated* yet again)

the donald is trumping his GOP competitors.

the billionaire real estate mogul has taken a rather shocking nine-point lead in a national poll of the hypothetical republican presidential field, according to a new survey by public policy polling ...

(us news and world report)

congrats to the billionaire toupee life-support system and born-again birther (and apologies to isaac asimov):

"there is an old fable," said hardin, "as old perhaps as humanity, for the oldest records containing it are merely copies of other records still older, that might interest you. it runs as follows: "a republican horse having a democratic wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy lived in constant fear of permanent minority status. being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek a strong ally. whereupon he approached a birther, and offered an alliance, pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the birther. the birther accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately, if his new partner would only co-operate by placing his greater speed at his disposal. the horse was willing, and allowed the birther to place bridle and saddle upon him. the birther mounted, hunted down the wolf, and killed him. "the horse, joyful and relieved, thanked the birther, and said: 'now that our enemy is dead, remove your bridle and saddle and restore my freedom.' "whereupon the birther laughed loudly and replied, 'the hell you say. giddy-ap, dobbin,' and applied the spurs with a will."

(* see "giddy-ap" from january 2008 and "giddy-ap upated" from september 2010)

thank you for your concern

con•cern troll |kən'cərn trōl|

noun

a creature out of greek mythology; a pretend pal, notorious for bearing gifts of dubious merit:

one and done: to be a great president, obama should not seek reelection in 2012

president obama must decide now how he wants to govern in the two years leading up to the 2012 presidential election.

by douglas e. schoen and patrick h. caddell
the washington post

in recent days, he has offered differing visions of how he might approach the country's problems. at one point, he spoke of the need for "mid-course corrections." at another, he expressed a desire to take ideas from both sides of the aisle. and before this month's midterm elections, he said he believed that the next two years would involve "hand-to-hand combat" with republicans, whom he also referred to as "enemies."

it is clear that the president is still trying to reach a resolution in his own mind as to what he should do and how he should do it.

glad you asked, mr president! we just happen to have a great idea you're just gonna love ...

this is a critical moment for the country. from the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, america is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. under these circumstances, obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. the only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.

to that end, we believe obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.

that's right! quit — for the sake of the country! look how happy everyone is after sarah palin quit!

if the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. but by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.

we do not come to this conclusion lightly. but it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. the midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the obama presidency. and even if it was not an endorsement of a republican vision for america, the drubbing the democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in obama and his party. the president has almost no credibility left with republicans and little with independents.

... and no one cares what democrats think!

the best way for him to address both our national challenges and the serious threats to his credibility and stature is to make clear that, for the next two years, he will focus exclusively on the problems we face as americans, rather than the politics of the moment — or of the 2012 campaign.

quite simply, given our political divisions and economic problems, governing and campaigning have become incompatible. obama can and should dispense with the pollsters, the advisers, the consultants and the strategists who dissect all decisions and judgments in terms of their impact on the president's political prospects.

obama himself once said to diane sawyer: "i'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." he now has the chance to deliver on that idea.

no need to thank us, obama ... this was all your idea! really!

in the 2008 presidential campaign, obama spoke repeatedly of his desire to end the red-state-blue-state divisions in america and to change the way washington works. this was a central reason he was elected; such aspirations struck a deep chord with the polarized electorate.

obama can restore the promise of the election by forging a government of national unity, welcoming business leaders, republicans and independents into the fold. but if he is to bring democrats and republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party, but as somebody who stands above politics, seeking to forge consensus. and yes, the united states will need nothing short of consensus if we are to reduce the deficit and get spending under control, to name but one issue.

because, after all, we can't — and shouldn't! — expect republicans or anyone else to rise above politics!

forgoing another term would not render obama a lame duck. paradoxically, it would grant him much greater leverage with republicans and would make it harder for opponents such as senate minority leader mitch mcconnell (r-ky.) — who has flatly asserted that his highest priority is to make obama a one-term president — to be uncooperative.

and why would the GOP back down? duh! because we say so, that's why!

and for democrats such as current speaker nancy pelosi (calif.) — who has said that entitlement reform is dead on arrival — the president's new posture would make it much harder to be inflexible. given the influence of special interests on the democratic party, obama would be much more effective as a figure who could remain above the political fray. challenges such as boosting economic growth and reducing the deficit are easier to tackle if you're not constantly worrying about the reactions of senior citizens, lobbyists and unions.

moreover, if the president were to demonstrate a clear degree of bipartisanship, it would force the republicans to meet him halfway. if they didn't, they would look intransigent, as the gop did in 1995 and 1996, when bill clinton first advocated a balanced budget. obama could then go to the democrats for tough cuts to entitlements and look to the republicans for difficult cuts on defense.

on foreign policy, obama could better make hard decisions about iran, north korea and afghanistan based on what is reasonable and responsible for the united states, without the political constraints of a looming election. he would be able to deal with a democratic constituency that wants to get out of afghanistan immediately and a republican constituency that is committed to the war, forging a course that responds not to the electoral calendar but to the facts on the ground.

if the president adopts our suggestion, both sides will be forced to compromise. the alternative, we fear, will put the nation at greater risk. while we believe that obama can be reelected, to do so he will have to embark on a scorched-earth campaign of the type that president george w. bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election, which divided americans in ways that still plague us.

and why would anybody else back down? duh! because everyone loves a quitter, that's why! (and because we say so!)

obama owes his election in large measure to the fact that he rejected this approach during his historic campaign. indeed, we were among those millions of democrats, republicans and independents who were genuinely moved by his rhetoric and purpose. now, the only way he can make real progress is to return to those values and to say that for the good of the country, he will not be a candidate in 2012.

should the president do that, he — and the country — would face virtually no bad outcomes. the worst-case scenario for obama? in january 2013, he walks away from the white house having been transformative in two ways: as the first black president, yes, but also as a man who governed in a manner unmatched by any modern leader. he will have reconciled the nation, continued the economic recovery, gained a measure of control over the fiscal problems that threaten our future, and forged critical solutions to our international challenges. he will, at last, be the figure globally he has sought to be, and will almost certainly leave a better regarded president than he is today. history will look upon him kindly — and so will the public.

and everyone gets a pony!

it is no secret that we have been openly critical of the president in recent days, but we make this proposal with the deepest sincerity and hope for him and for the country.

[snicker]

we have both advised presidents facing great national crises and have seen challenges from inside the oval office. we are convinced that if obama immediately declares his intention not to run for reelection, he will be able to unite the country, provide national and international leadership, escape the hold of the left, isolate the right and achieve results that would be otherwise unachievable.

---

patrick h. caddell, who was a pollster and senior adviser to president jimmy carter, is a political commentator. douglas e. schoen, a pollster who worked for president bill clinton, is the author of "mad as hell: how the tea party movement is fundamentally remaking our two-party system."

ok, everyone can stop laughing now.

giddy-ap (updated*)

congrats to christine o'donnell and her fellow triumphant teabaggers (and apologies to isaac asimov):

"there is an old fable," said hardin, "as old perhaps as humanity, for the oldest records containing it are merely copies of other records still older, that might interest you. it runs as follows: "a republican horse having a democratic wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy lived in constant fear of permanent minority status. being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek a strong ally. whereupon he approached a teabagger, and offered an alliance, pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the teabagger. the teabagger accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately, if his new partner would only co-operate by placing his greater speed at his disposal. the horse was willing, and allowed the teabagger to place bridle and saddle upon him. the teabagger mounted, hunted down the wolf, and killed him. "the horse, joyful and relieved, thanked the teabagger, and said: 'now that our enemy is dead, remove your bridle and saddle and restore my freedom.' "whereupon the teabagger laughed loudly and replied, 'the hell you say. giddy-ap, dobbin,' and applied the spurs with a will."

(* see "giddy-ap" from january 2008)

video of the day

i know it's still early folks, but ...

.

coda

for as long and as often as we've heard ordinary folks dismiss political operators with a disgusted "a pox on both their houses!", it is still very easy to separate the democrats from the republicans, just by listening to their apologies. can you tell which is which?

1) tom vilsack:

... i started off by extending to her my personal and profound apologies for — for the pain and discomfort that has been caused to her and to her family over the course of the last several days. ... and then i asked if she would be interested in figuring out a way forward that would take advantage of the extraordinary life experiences that she's had ...

2) andrew breitbart:

[ ... crickets ... ]

a majority of one

and to think, come november, the playing field may never be this good for democrats for a long time after ...

from the booman:

there is a very narrow window in the senate where certain very limited things can be done. it is possible to pass bills on our most pressing issues when the democratic party is united and willing to settle for whatever it is that one republican will allow.

the soon-to-be-senator from minnesota

disclaimer: those who've known me for a long time would never accuse me of developing a mancrush on anybody (not that there's anything wrong with it ...), and really, it's not, but ... there's something about the way al carries his oddball pretend-irascibility (or is it an irascible pretend-oddballity?), even while working the audience to convince us he's no carpet-bagger, a performance that somehow cleverly morphs itself into something bordering on a kind of — dare i say it — adorability?

(of course, smacking bush around does kinda help seal the deal and reminiscing about all the decider's unappreciated genius has become somewhat fashionable at the moment ...)

letterman:	ladies and gentlemen ... al franken!
	[franken walks onstage, bows, sits] always a pleasure, al.
franken:	always a pleasure for me.
letterman:	so where do they tape your microphone?
franken:	[bends to look at his crotch] well, dave ...
letterman:	heh, heh, heh ... well now, i don't wanna ... i don't wanna bore you, but you might find some of this tedious ...
franken:	yeah ...
letterman:	... but i find it fascinating, ah, a while ago, six months ago? three months ago? a year ago ... you and your wife moved ...
together:	to minneapolis ...
franken:	... that's right.
letterman:	you're originally from minnesota. how's that goin'?
franken:	... great. great! great, i do my show from there. y'know, i'm the hardest working man in show biz politics, and uh ...
schaefer:	[laughing] ... it's a new category to me! hahaha!
franken:	yeah, yeah, and, in fact this thing i'm doing tomorrow night, the reason i brought it up, is it's a big fund-raiser for my group "midwest values PAC" ...
letterman:	at the state theater ...
franken:	yeah, and we're raising money for democrats, y'know, it's called "midwest values" because i feel, i, y'know, i lived here for a long time ...
letterman:	thirty years or so in new york.
franken:	yeah, and uh, but i always felt like a midwesterner, always felt like a minnesotan. you must feel like —
letterman:	y'know, i do, and i feel like i'm at home. i love indiana and i feel that that's a great part of me.
franken:	yeah, and that's ... your values are rooted there, and uh, that's what our PAC is about, and uh, that's because i think democrats win ... on values. we stand for things, for example: ah, accountability. like, uh, bush finally, like a couple weeks ago, uh, was with tony blair, admitted that he made some mistakes ... in iraq. right. [applause] and all he said, he said "i said some things wrong. like, i shouldn't have said 'bring it on.'"
letterman:	right.
franken:	which is kinda common sense, another midwest value: don't goad the enemy to attack you. [laughter]
letterman:	right.
franken:	y'know, and it's all that swagger thing, like, at the ... remember at the republican convention he said: "some people see me, and, uh, [adopts bush drawl] they see a swagger, certain swagger. well, in texas we call that walkin'." in minnesota we call that "being a jerk." [applause] y'know. walk with, with uh ...
letterman:	... dignity ...
franken:	... some humility ...
letterman:	yes, humility, right.
franken:	... humility. ah, bush, y'know, says like he's a big jesus guy. well, jesus didn't walk with a swagger. he didn't go like, [adopts bush drawl] "see that water i turned into wine?" [points to self] "me. that was me."
letterman:	heh — not a show-off ...
franken:	[still in character] "see that blind guy over there? that uh, he's not bumpin' into things any more? [points to self] jesus." [laughter]
letterman:	wasn't a blowhard ...
franken:	[still in character] "yeah. that big boulder i rolled, y'know, in front of, i rolled that outta the entrance to that cave where i was dead and now i'm alive? eh?" [puffs out chest] "bring it on!" [applause] y'know, it's easy — that wasn't jesus. that was ... walk with some, some ... humility.
letterman:	that's right.
franken:	you can be strong, you can be courageous —
letterman:	exactly.
franken:	— it's not, that kind of bluster isn't strong. that's not strength.
letterman:	now, uh, from where you sit, what are your other observations regarding, now we're nearly halfway through the second term of the bush administration. what are your observations generally of, about things now?
franken:	he's ... he's in the toilet. actually, lorne michaels said something very funny to me. he said that jee— uh, ah, that bush ... [laughter, applause] ... i had jesus on the brain!
letterman:	we all do.
franken:	great, great prophet, jesus.
letterman:	yeah.
franken:	as my rabbi told me, he had a lot of great ideas. none of them knew. s'what my rabbi used to tell me. anyway, ah, bush. lorne michaels said to me, "looks like a, a guy whose show's just been cancelled, but he has nine more to do." [applause]
letterman:	heh, i know that feeling.
franken:	you know that feeling?
letterman:	yeah, absolutely.
franken:	like, i mean, obviously the war's just going terribly. uh, if he's going to admit those mistakes, he should have admitted a couple other things. for example, ah, when he said, y'know, that the war on terror is a crusade. that was stupid.
letterman:	poor choice of words.
franken:	it sent the wrong message to a lot of people. muslims, mainly. and, uh, y'know the only defense i can thing of for him is that, um, y'know he didn't know there had been a "crusades". [laughter]
letterman:	[unintelligible]
franken:	y'know, he wasn't a great student. he's admitted he doesn't do a lot of reading. so i think that the thing he needs to do is hold himself accountable. i think he needs to go on TV and admit the mistakes he made. that he kind of ... misled us ... into the war, didn't send enough troops, uh, disbanded the iraqi army by telling them, y'know, by telling 300,000 guys: "you're fired! we're not gonna pay you, get the hell outta here! and take your weapons with you!" [laughter] and say: "i'm sorry i tortured — we tortured people." that turned out to be a mistake, because, y'know, their families don't like it. they get angry. basically, this would be, this is the short version. it'd have to be a six-hour speech he'd have to tell, s'what i'm saying.
letterman:	[laughing] ... six hours ... now, i want to talk to you about your experience with the american military. and recently you gave the commencement at west point.
franken:	it wasn't the commencement. it was just a ...
letterman:	just a "how'ya doin'?" you just dropped in ... ?
franken:	it was, it was sort of in-between.
letterman:	OK. we'll be right back here with al franken, everybody.
	[commercial break]
letterman:	... and i said, mistakenly, you'd given the commencement at west point, and i think, uh, president bush actually gave the commencement.
franken:	yeah, they just ask him to do the commencement, i just ...
letterman:	you were not there for the commencement.
franken:	... gave the sol feinstone lecture on the meaning of freedom. this is last — i had my book out at the time, "the truth, with jokes", this was, i was at west point. it was an audience not so different than this one. [laughter] uh, except, it was all cadets.
letterman:	that's right. that would be the one small difference.
franken:	yeah and i was supposed to talk about the meaning of freedom, and my book "the truth, with jokes" was out at the time and basically, after jollying them up with some jokes, um, i got them on my side, and i told them that the president had lied us into the war, and uh, i said you can't have freedom without the truth. you can have freedom without jokes, as the dutch and the swiss have proven. [laughter] but, they um, gave me a standing ovation, and they —
letterman:	really?
franken:	yeah. i think that, i really admire them, as you said, i've gone over a number of times on USO trips and — a lotta people think that it's dangerous. it's not. i remember that — you're surrounded by the USO, by ...
letterman:	the army.
franken:	by the, yeah, by the ... you're embedded and they don't want anyone in the USO to get ... a coupla years ago i'd done my first one in iraq. i was at a party in hollywood and there was all these celebrities there and i got a little bit overwhelmed and i went to sit in the library and i was — i thought i was alone and i hear this voice: [in deep low voice] "hey, al ..." yeah, i looked around and it was sylvester stallone.
letterman:	oh ...
franken:	and i said, uh "hey ... uh ... sylvester." 'cause i didn't know ... [laughter]
letterman:	riiight ...
franken:	and he said, [in deep low voice] "i understand you went on one of them USO tours." i said "yeah it was great." he said [deep] "yah, well, i was supposed to go, but i didn't." and i said "well, why didn't you go?" he said [deep] "well, i thought it might be too dangerous." i said "well, it's not really that dangerous ..." i said exactly just what i said to you and he said [deep]"yah well lemmee ask ya this: was there ever any moment when you felt in danger for your life?" [laughter] and i said well, OK we did have one point where we took helicopters from baghdad to tikrit and then back again, and some ... had been shot down, so i thought maybe one-in-ten-thousand chance that — [deep] "yah well, that's why i didn't go." [laughter] i said to him "weren't you, weren't you friggin' rambo?" [laughter, applause]
letterman:	friggin' ... friggin' rambo ...
franken:	i didn't say "friggin'", but ...
letterman:	[unintelligible] rambo ...
franken:	he was actually very honest and said [deep] "yah, but i like my life. i got a good life." that's how i got the west point guys on my side. i told them that story.
letterman:	yeah, that's a pretty good story ...
franken:	true story.
letterman:	what's he doin' in the library, fer god sakes ... ? [laughter]
franken:	uh, i, ah ...
letterman:	honestly, that's bizarre.
franken:	he might've followed me in.
letterman:	uh, just wanna quickly, ah, because we're all interested in your political future, if you have one, perhaps running for office, and i think the interesting thing, and important to point out, is you've been married for quite a few years and that's very important. you should use that in your campaign. people like, uh, marriage solidarity. and you certainly represent that, you and your wife have been married how, how long?
franken:	um, thirty years, many of them happy. [laughter, applause]
letterman:	that's good.
franken:	thank you. thank you.
letterman:	don't be afraid to use this, for your campaign.
franken:	um, i credit fear.
letterman:	hm.
franken:	yes, i just, ah, am afraid of being alone. and uh, we have kids. that's —
letterman:	that's good, sure.
franken:	really ... i, uh, i find her incredibly annoying in a lotta ways. [laughter]
letterman:	talkin' about your wife now?
franken:	yah, um ...
letterman:	you might wanna soft-pedal this out on the campaign trail ...
franken:	yeah ... well, it's little things! it's just always little things. she does a lot of like ... she decides to say stuff to me as soon as i've walked out of the room. so i spend a lot of time saying: "i can't, i can't hear you!" [laughter] but we ... "i'm in another room!" and um ... y'know, but we, we met, uh, freshman — can i tell you the story of my, uh ... when my daughter was six years old — 'cause kira's segment was so lovely — i was at my daughter's teacher, when my daughter was six years old, asked her to write a story, asked every kid to write a story how their parents met. and, so, um, we told her: we met freshman year in college at a mixer, i said i saw your mom across the room gathering these, uh, other girls to leave. she was trying to get 'em to leave and i loved the way she like, was taking charge. in retrospect ... [waves hands dismissively] ... and anyway, um, i said — and she was beautiful! she was beautiful! y'know, beautiful, so i asked her to dance, then i, uh, bought her a, got her a ginger ale, and then i escorted her to her dorm and asked her for a date. so my daughter wrote: "my dad asked my mom to dance, bought her a drink and took her home." [applause] and ...
letterman:	hehhehheh, well ... nothin' wrong with that either! tomorrow night at the state theater in minneapolis. i'm sure it'll be an enjoyable evening.
franken:	it, um ... the website, just in case you wanted to get tickets in minneapolis, midwestvaluespac.org, and that, that is not to be confused with liveorg.org, which is where you get live organs ...
letterman:	heh heh heh. alright ...
franken:	... live human organs, which is another one of my ...
letterman:	no, you wouldn't wanna get those —
franken:	our organs are human.
letterman:	yeah, that's right. good.
franken:	midwestvaluespac.org.
letterman:	thank you very much, al. always a pleasure. nice to see you.
franken:	thanks.

(hat tip to one good move)

the gauntlet is thrown

steny is all talk, no action. they would have passed it today if they could. stalling for time. pure 100% propaganda.

we'll know tomorrow who's all talk, won't we?

good answer

joe scarborough and friends do their vapid best to get tom hanks, "the nicest guy in hollywood", to pile on obama:

joe:	... and [james carville] said: "what the obama people don't understand is washington always wins."
mika:	[nodding in agreement.]
joe:	is this one more depressing example — for you 1 — of how, with the obama administration, washington always wins?
tom:	we, ah, we're in the first year of what is going to be — what is going to be one the most difficult administrations in our history. we're at a place where world history is traveling around us. we're going to be fine and i think we've elected a wise, calm man who wants to get things done. common sense will out.
mika:	i don't disagree with that. i do think there may be people out there who would say, "well it's easy for you to say, easy for us to say", but there are a lot of people out there with no job and they have been looking for months and months and months and they may feel like this president is not completely connected with their plight.
tom:	well, maybe they, maybe they can elect [invent?] a time machine and they can go back and vote for john mccain, in which case i'm sure everything would just be hunky-dory right now.
mika:	ahh ... good answer! okay ...

---

1. ... because grown-up talk like that would naturally depress someone like you, tom, a naive liberal hollywood fantasist, and not someone like me, joe scarborough, a smug and savvy washington insider who, like a real democrat like my buddy carville, knows who's really running things ...

o captain!

whenever a leader faces a crisis of confidence, it often takes an extraordinary demonstration of the very qualities that originally inspired confidence to reinvigorate one's demoralized troops. such was president obama's friday trip into the lion cage — at the invitation of the lions.

the daring and unlikely high-wire animal-taming act seems to have thrilled the crowds for the time being. it most certainly thrilled the press:

mike madden @ salon:

obama's trip to the retreat started off slowly, with a speech that could have worked almost anywhere with only a few edits ahead of time. and then the question-and-answer session got started, and the event turned into a spectacle, the kind of thing that hasn't been seen in american politics in years — and probably won't again, once the people responsible for putting it together go back to look at the video. (which is too bad, because nbc does have an opening for a 10 p.m. show, and this was a lot more watchable than leno.) rarely has his administration done such a good job of bluntly underscoring the differences between what obama wants to do and what republicans would prefer if they had power. the president was funny and disarming, but he defended his policies fiercely, and he tiptoed up to the line of calling republicans liars to their faces ... the whole thing basically went like that: republican asks obnoxious question rooted in glenn beck-ian talking points; obama swats it away, makes the questioner look silly, and then smiles at the end. it got so bad, in fact, that fox news cut away from the event before it was over. democratic operatives around washington watching it had pretty much the same reaction: "where the hell has this guy been?"

mark ambinder @ the atlantic:

obama's question time: an amazing moment the moment president obama began his address to republicans in baltimore today, i began to receive e-mails from democrats: here's an except from one of them: "i don't know whether to laugh or cry that it took a f$$@&$* year for obama to step into the ring and start throwing some verbal blows... i'm definitely praying at mass on sunday morning that this obama doesn't take another 12 month vacation." this e-mail comes from a very influential democrat. accepting the invitation to speak at the House GOP retreat may turn out to be the smartest decision the white house has made in months. debating a law professor is kind of foolish: the republican house caucus has managed to turn obama's weakness — his penchant for nuance — into a strength. plenty of republicans asked good and probing questions, but mike pence, among others, found their arguments simply demolished by the president. (by the way: can we stop with the obama needs a teleprompter jokes?) ... republicans may have wished they had spoken to john mccain about what happened to him in the presidential debates before they decided to broadcast this session. the president looked genuinely engaged, willing to discuss things. democrats believe that he tossed away the GOP talking points and lack of real plans into a bludgeon against them. "the whole question was structured by a talking point," he told jeb hensarling. obama took the blame for not living up to some of his promises on transparency in health care negotiations. he displayed a familiarity with republican proposals that seemed to astonish those who asked questions of him. and at the end, republicans rushed up to him, pens and photo cameras in hands, wanting autographs and pictures. mused one mid-level white house official: "this really is the best thing we've done in a long, long time".

ezra klein @ the washington post:

obama's Q&A session with the house republicans was transfixing. what should have been a banal exchange of talking points was actually a riveting reminder of how rarely you hear actual debate — which is separate from disagreement — between political players. this was a surprise. the session was clearly proposed so that obama could appear to be taking real steps to reach out to republicans. that implied warm feelings and a studied unwillingness to cause offense. but that was not the event we just saw. instead, obama stood at a podium for an hour and hammered his assailants. that makes it sound partisan and disrespectful. but it wasn't. it was partisan, but respectful. there's a value in proving that you understand the other side's ideas deeply enough to disagree with them. and that was the message of obama's session. not that the republicans were right. but that he'd looked hard enough at their ideas to realize they were wrong. ... amazed that obama knows offhand that ryan wants medicare vouchers. more amazed he can explain it offhand. this is a command performance. yesterday, i interviewed david axelrod and was struck by his inability to explain how the white house would highlight the the difference between disagreement and obstruction. today's session, if it becomes a regular event rather than a one-off, provided part of the answer. he'll debate them directly. but that may be tough to do. republicans are already spreading the word that they made a mistake allowing cameras into the event. apparently, transparency sounds better in press releases than it does in practice. but if this is to be the last of these we see for a while, make sure to take the time and watch it, or read the transcript. it's some of the best political television i've seen in memory.

steve benen @ the washington monthly:

i'm reasonably certain i've never seen anything like it. GOP house members were fairly respectful of the president, but pressed him on a variety of policy matters. the president didn't just respond effectively, he delivered a rather powerful, masterful performance. it was like watching a town-hall forum where all of the questions were confrontational, but obama nevertheless just ran circles around these guys. i can only assume caucus members, by the end of the Q&A, asked themselves, "whose bright idea was it to invite the president and let him embarrass us on national television?". note, however, that this wasn't just about political theater — it was an important back-and-forth between the president and his most forceful political detractors. they were bringing up routine far-right talking points that, most of the time, simply get repeated in the media unanswered. but in baltimore, the president didn't just respond to the nonsense, he effectively debunked it. republicans thought they were throwing their toughest pitches, and obama — with no notes, no teleprompter, and no foreknowledge — just kept knocking 'em out of the park. it's easy to forget sometimes just how knowledgeable and thoughtful obama can be on matters of substance. i don't imagine the house republican caucus will forget anytime soon — if the president is going to use their invitation to score big victories, he probably won't be invited back next year. nevertheless, the white house should schedule more of these. a lot more of these.

matt yglesias @ think progress:

it was sort of like prime minister’s questions and it revealed, simply put, that barack obama is a lot smarter and better-informed than his antagonists. a lot. he very calmly and coolly dismantled them. to me, personally, it’s not a surprise. i debated policy with mike pence once and the guy is a stone-cold idiot. that was a years ago and i’ve been surprised since then to learn that conservatives consider him an unusually sharp policy mind and i take leading rightwingers at their word about that. but it’s the kind of thing that i think most americans aren’t aware of. obama knows what he’s talking about. a lot of the members of congress you see on TV all the time talking smack don’t. that’s not always clear to people since the TV anchors interviewing them usually also don’t know what they’re talking about. judd gregg’s whining freakout on MSNBC yesterday punctured the illusion of calm confidence and so did obama’s back-and-forth.

richard adams @ the guardian:

obama eats republicans' lunch ... i think we can confidently predict this is the last time the republicans invite the president to a similar format. indeed, because the hall the republicans are holding their event seemed to have just a single TV camera, obama literally took the spotlight away. republican questioners showed up as shadowy figures, and when caucus leader mike pence kicked off the republican questions at first he couldn't be heard at all. at the end, shaking hands with the president, pence's face looked as if he'd sucked a lemon for an hour — and in a way he had. ... the net effect is that obama looked serious, reasonable and intelligent. the republicans got to sound like whiners, complaining about various pet peeves and chewing over their old laundry list of tax cuts and opposition".

jed lewison @ daily kos:

check out this video of fox news bailing out on president obama's Q&A session with more than 20 minutes left to go. now if that ain't evidence that president obama cleaned the GOP's clock ... well, then i don't know what is.

when people start thinking you have no plan

... it's usually because you have no plan:

the white house had no contingency plan for health care reform if democrat martha coakley lost the special election in massachusetts, and officials did not discuss the possibility a democratic loss would dramatically imperil their legislative efforts, a top adviser said today. president obama's senior advisor david axelrod said there "wasn't much discussion" about an alternative path to passing health care with just 59 democrats in the senate because there was "widespread assumption was that that seat was safe." "the truth is the flares went up about 10 days before that election," axelrod said during a briefing today with reporters and opinion-makers. "there wasn't much discussion about the implications if the thing went the other way," he said.

this time, it royally sucks being right, but jesus aytch christ, just what other conclusion was possible? not only did no one in the entire party appear to know what was going on, but they all were yelling at each other and scaring the kids.

the ghost of condoleeza rice should frighten everyone.

it's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a plan fails when you're trying to make a plan work.

of mice and democrats

the obama legislative agenda was built around an "advancing tide" theory. democrats would start with bills that targeted relatively narrow problems, such as expanding health care for low-income children, reforming pentagon contracting practices and curbing abuses by credit-card companies. republicans would see the victories stack up and would want to take credit alongside a popular president. as momentum built, larger bipartisan coalitions would form to tackle more ambitious initiatives.

here's another theory:

any strategy that depends on your enemy doing what you want is doomed to fail.

so what's plan b?

convince the rest of us that just because you control three branches of government by overwhelming majorities doesn't mean you're not completely helpless:

it is mathematically impossible for democrats to pass legislation on our own. senate republicans [need] to come to the table with ideas for improving our nation and not obstructionist tactics.

this plan, of course, is based on the theory that the enemy will be shamed into helping you win when they realize they've kicked your butt ...

o captain

captain picard and dr. crusher, on the run on a hostile planet and victims of a mutual telepathic link courtesy of their captors:

crusher:	[stops in her tracks]
picard:	what is it?
crusher:	i'm not sure whether we should go over this hill or that one. the topography on this map is a little vague.
picard:	let me see. [scans map, then points] this way. [begins walking]
crusher:	you don't really know, do you?
picard:	what?
crusher:	i mean, you're acting like you know exactly which way to go, but you're only guessing. do you do this all the time?
picard:	no ... but there are times when it is ... necessary for a captain to give the appearance of confidence.
crusher:	[shakes head in amused epiphany]

this is what every leader pretends no one knows: never let anyone, not your enemies — but most importantly not your own crew — see you sweat. if you do, they won't be your crew much longer.

knowing that every leader knows this rule, what are we to make of the democratic leadership's reaction to the cloakley loss in massachusetts?

well, after months of analyzing senate procedural kabuki while being assured of the intricate tri-dimensional chess being played, we can now say with confidence that the democrats aren't sweating. no, the lieberman ratfuck was sweating. we are well past that.

even taking account of the ready-made obituaries rolled out with the morning headlines, after a race that had spiraled noisily out of control for weeks, it's excruciatingly clear the democrats never prepared for the loss. evoking the worst of the previous administration, there was no plan b. even before the votes were in, fingers were wagging and there was plenty of blame to go around, but no coordinated spin, no coherent message and absolutely no composure whatsoever.

ladies and gentlemen, this is open panic.

yesterday i asked, rhetorically: does the democratic caucus now limp along like a supermajority minus one or charge ahead like a majority plus eight? after all, there's always a chance democrats might not live up to their much-maligned image. i didn't have long to wait for my answer:

massachusetts election means that senate republicans have more responsibility to govern, not obstruct we welcome scott brown to the senate. while senator-elect brown's victory changes the political math in the senate, it does not change the challenges are country faces or the need to address them. we remain committed to strengthening our economy, creating good paying jobs and ensuring all americans can access affordable health care. senate republicans have an obligation to the american people to join us in governing our nation through these difficult times and to help clean up the mess they left behind. it is mathematically impossible for democrats to pass legislation on our own. senate republicans [need] to come to the table with ideas for improving our nation and not obstructionist tactics. saying "no" might be a good political strategy but it does nothing to create jobs or help improve the lives of struggling americans. we understand that there is great anger, anxiety and frustration among voters as the economy continues its recovery. that is why senate democrats will continue to do everything that we can to strengthen our economy, put americans back to work, reform wall street and address the health care crisis. republican hypocrisy on debt limit puts our economy, seniors and veterans at risk failing to raise the debt limit would undermine our nation's credit worthiness, badly weaken our economy and put social security and veterans benefits at risk. in 2001, america enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. republicans squandered those surpluses by spending wildly on massive tax breaks for the wealthy and special interests, leaving president obama with a $1.3 trillion deficit on the day he took office last year. now, as the time comes to take responsibility for those mistakes, senate republicans want to pass the buck. senate democrats didn't create this problem — we are simply cleaning up the fiscal mess that we inherited from the last administration in order to avoid the economic catastrophe that would be created if the united states defaulted on our debt. when they were in control, senate republicans voted seven times to raise the debt limit and refused to pay for the costs of major initiatives. their claims of fiscal purity do not square with their record of wasteful spending and excess. increasing the debt limit does not authorize a single penny of new spending — it allows the government to pay bills already incurred. standing against this measure would demonstrate yet again that senate republicans have no real plan to solve our nation's economic challenges they helped create. republicans, now more than ever, have a responsibility to work with us to move our nation forward with economic policies that continue us on the path to recovery.

charitable supporters will give them credit for attacking the party of "no!" but no crew wants to follow a captain that cries "uncle!" and begs his abusers for help.

sigh. looks like it's supermajority minus one full speed ahead, folks.

engage.

headline of the day

the village voice:

scott brown wins mass. race, giving GOP 41-59 majority in the senate

not so super majority?

so the big question is: does the democratic caucus now limp along like a supermajority minus one or charge ahead like a majority plus eight?