the gop finally settle on an impeachment strategy

carnival cruz

ain't i just the devilish thang?

CRUZ: Would [Senator Feinstein] deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing to the Second Amendment, in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures, could properly apply only to the following specified individuals, and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the law?

FEINSTEIN: Let me just make a couple of points in response. One, I'm not a sixth grader. Senator, I've been on this committee for twenty years. I was a mayor for nine years, I walked in, I saw people shot. I've looked at bodies that have been shot by these weapons. I've seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered.

Look, there are other weapons. I've been up close — I'm not a lawyer, but after twenty years, I've been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn't mean that weapons of war, and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I, you know, it's fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I've been here a long time, I've passed on a number of bills. I've studied the Constitution myself, I'm reasonably well educated and I thank you for the lecture.

Incidentally, this does not prohibit. You used the word prohibit. It exempts 2271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so — so I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views.

"wolf!" they cried, this time with feeling

even as the benghazi gasbags crumple under their own morbidly obese weight, from the outset it was never possible to take republicans seriously on it. first, the point man just wants to throw his weight around in front of the cameras one last time before the next senate takes it away from him. second, four years ago the GOP proudly and loudly proclaimed that their number one priority was to make obama a one-term president. to win 2012 obama needed to fail. at everything. thus began a nonstop and ultimately futile campaign of single-minded obstruction, condemnation and sabotage of every act, nomination and proposal obama has attempted to make. that is now historical fact. the GOP came to raze him, then to bury him. in all of four years obama wrested from them but a single moment of respite — after disclosing the death of bin laden, where even the most rabid partisans could find no safe purchase from which to continue their attacks.

when a party adopts a nakedly self-serving program of categorical obstruction, they also loudly announce that the merits of any particular issue do. not. matter. one. whit. quite foolishly they surrendered all credibility on anything and everything they object to, since they were planning to object anyway. everything becomes a "crisis" and the critics become the old men that cried wolf. so despite their loud moral opprobrium at the deaths of four americans, does anyone believe, had benghazi never happened, that the GOP would not now be organizing some kind of "crucial" hearings about some other administration "scandal"? does anyone believe, had rice's name never been floated, that the GOP would not now be obstructing this nomination, as they have every other?

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 ...

she who denied it, supplied it

there is an apocryphal story that is told about former president lyndon johnson, who built his reputation as the most effective majority leader in the senate's history on his no-holds-barred style of political warfare. the tale is placed during his first congressional race, when he purportedly directed one of his aides to spread rumors about his opponent that alleged a too-familiar knowledge of barnyard livestock. the aide balked at the assignment, protesting that no one would believe the stories, to which johnson countered: "i know that, but i just wanna hear the s.o.b. deny it!"

... which brings us to connecticut teabag darling christine o'donnell and her first television ad in her long-shot senate campaign:

"i'm not a witch ..."

o'donnell's problem is, of course, that the charges of witchcraft she's now forced to publicly deny can't be blamed on shameless political opponents.

the art of the backdown

former white house spinmeister karl rove sizing up delaware republican senate primary winner christine o'donnell (sep 14):

i've met her. i wasn't frankly impressed by her abilities as a candidate ... one thing that o'donnell is now going to have to answer in the general election that she didn't in the primary is her own checkered background. ... there were a lot of nutty things she has been saying that don't add up. ... why did she mislead voters about her college education? how come it took nearly two decades to pay her college bills so she could get her college degree? how did she make a living? ... we were looking at eight to nine seats in the senate. we are now looking at seven to eight in my opinion.

it does conservatives little good to support candidates who at the end of the day while they may be conservative in their public statements do not event the characteristics of rectitude, truthfulness and sincerity and character that the voters are looking for. ... but we also can't make progress if we have candidates who got serious character problems, who cause ordinary voters who are not philosophically aligned with us to not vote for our candidates out of concern of what they said and what they do. ... but look, she attacked him by saying he had a homosexual relationship with a young aide with not a bit of evidence to prove it. ... she had already previously spread the rumor. come on! look, she's got a chance now. let's you and i have a private side bet on this one. i think at the end of the day she has to answer these questions in a way that people of delaware find convincing or we are going to find ourselves with somebody who says conservative things, but doesn't have the character that the people of delaware want to have.

i believe the questions [about] why she had a problem for five years with paying her federal income taxes, why her house was foreclosed on and put up for sale, why it took sixteen years to settle her college debt and get her diploma while she went around for years claiming she was a college graduate," rove said. "i think a lot of voters in delaware are going to want more than she is offering to them right now, and we'll see.

conservative pundit michelle malkin:

might as well have been olbermann on MSNBC. the establishment beltway strategist couldn't even bother with an obligatory word of congratulations for o’donnell. ... rove came across as an effete sore loser instead of the supposedly brilliant and grounded GOP strategist that he’s supposed to be. expect more washington republicans to start sounding like tea party-bashing libs as their entrenched incumbent friends go down.

conservative blogger dan riehl:

... fox should suspend him and investigate. ... rove was working behind the scenes on behalf of the castle campaign to negotiate a deal that would have led to some delaware tea party groups not supporting christine o'donnell, while giving mike castle a pass. especially given his comments on fox news tonight, until this is resolved, it seems impossible to trust rove as an objective analyst. in terms of the conservative movement, we should not simply ignore him, but proactively work to undermine rove in whatever ways we can, given his obvious willingness to undermine us.

conservative bitch-slapper rush limbaugh (sep 15):

this is about conservatives taking back the republican party. ... who the hell are they, anyway, to anoint or disanoint somebody as electable or not electable? i'm in charge of that! ... that's always been my purview and nothing's changed. ... look at the petulant attitude. 'screw you — christine o'donnell wins, she's on her own. you're on your own.' ... we're going to throw in the towel here? why not fight for it?

christine o'donnell (sep 15):

[rove] is the same so-called political guru that predicted i wasn't going to win. and we won and we won big. so i think, again, he is eating some humble pie and he is just trying to restore his reputation.

anti-establishment teahadist karl rove (sep 16):

i, i don't like being called the establishment. i've supported marco rubio and todd tiahrt and a lotta — sarah palin and i tuesday night backed kelly ayotte in new hampshire, so before you start calling me that establishment guy be, be careful. ... i'm helping raise fifty million dollars, three million of which we've already spent on behalf of sharron angle in nevada so be careful when you call me an establishment republican. i'm not certain what that is. ... no, no, look, i'm a huge tea party fan. i've enjoyed meeting with people as i go around the country, i've got a great many friends who i've made during the book tour and leaders in the tea party movement. in fact, i met christine o'donnell when i was in delaware last december to do the sussex county christmas day, GOP christmas day party and in one of the interesting parts, i got to meet with about twelve tea party leaders from southern delaware and had a wonderful conversation. this has given us energy, enthusiasm and in many instances it's given us highly qualified candidates who are going to be able to take the fight to the democrats this fall. ... look, i, i endorsed [o'donnell] the other night, i said i'm for the republicans in each and every case. i mean, i was one of the first to do it. look, i'm also helping her. i've gotten so many people have written me an e-mail saying i'm irritated with you, saying what you said the other night, i'm giving her a campaign contribution, i'm sending her a lotta internet contributions. ... fox had one thing wrong on election night. we mistakenly said that the republican senatorial committee said they weren't going to send her my money. i called rob jesmer, the executive director of the committee, the morning after and said "why the heck did you say that?", and he said we never said that, in fact we're cutting a check, the maximum we're allowed to give her, $42,000, and we're raising money from the PACs, and campaign funds and republican senators, including cornyn and mcconnell to send her additional cash immediately.

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 art of the backdown iii

kentucky's spanking-new libertarian teabagging senate nominee rand paul opining on that part of the 1964 civil rights act that he would have tried to "modify":

well, there's 10 — there's 10 different — there's 10 different titles, you know, to the civil rights act, and nine out of 10 deal with public institutions and i'm absolutely in favor of ... one deals with private institutions, and had i been around, i would have tried to modify that. ... should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? should we limit racists from speaking? ... i don't want to be associated with those people, but i also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it.

rand spokesperson jesse benton:

civil rights legislation that has been affirmed by our courts gives the federal government the right to insure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race. dr. paul supports those powers.

finally:

i've never really favored any change in the civil rights act ... they seem to have unleashed some of the loony left on me.

---

update: greg sargent @ the washington post underscores why the question of what's in paul's heart is neither irrelevant nor a matter of sheer speculation:

i think people still aren't focused enough on the core issue at the heart of the controversy over rand paul's comments about the civil rights act. specifically: paul, the darling of the tea partyers and one of the highest profile GOP senate candidates in the country, cannot bring himself to say — clearly and unequivocally — that the federal government should have the power to prohibit private businesses from discriminating on the basis of skin color, religion, or national origin. sure, paul has now said he would have voted for the civil rights act. and his spokesman has clarified under questioning that, yes, paul believes the federal government should have this power. but paul himself can't manage to say this. he visibly doesn't want to say this. it's remarkable..

a washington dictionary

sen•ate |'senit|

noun

a private club for old, out-of-touch, rich white men, convened for the sole purpose of spending everyone else's money:

"i've never used an ATM, so i don't know what the fees are," [nebraska senator ben nelson (D-NE)] said, adding that he gets his cash from bank tellers, just not automatic ones. "it's true, i don't know how to use one." "but i could learn how to do it just like i've ... i swipe to get my own gas, buy groceries. i know about the holograms." by "holograms," nelson clarified that he meant the bar codes on products read by automatic scanners in the checkout lanes at stores such as lowe's and menard's. "i go and get my own seating assignment on an airplane," nelson said. "i mean, i'm not without some skills. I just haven't had the need to use an ATM."

ORIGIN middle english : from old french senat, from latin senatus, from senex 'old man'.

pea-shooter 1, blimp 0

the best line from friday's much anticipated and overly hyped capitol hill sudden-death cage match bipartisan health care reform summit was president obama's response to house minority whip eric cantor, with a gratuitous assist by the daily show's jon stewart:

obama: we could set up a system where food was probably cheaper than it is right now, if we just eliminated ... meat inspectors.

absolutely effortless. like taking down a blimp with a pea-shooter.

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?

from ridiculous to sublime

digby @ hullaballoo:

... saying that it "covers everyone," as if there's a big new benefit is a big stretch. nothing will have changed on that count except changing the law to force people to buy private insurance if they don't get it from their employer. ... nobody's "getting covered" here. after all, people are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. whether those reasons are good or bad won't make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to aetna or blue cross that they previously had decided they couldn't or didn't want to write. indeed, it actually looks like the worst caricature of liberals: taking people's money against their will, saying it's for their own good.

david waldman @ daily kos:

this is, of course, quite true. to sell a bill that imposes a federal mandate on you, individually, to buy insurance from a private provider doesn't "expand coverage," it expands tax penalties. ... what do we think people hear when they hear that this bill, would "provide 29 million americans health care"? why not a bill that would "provide 29 million american families with a home of their own" ... provided they buy themselves one? that, or course, would be ridiculous. but let's add just a little more ridiculousness. what if we "provided" millions of american families with homes of their own... provided they buy themselves one... or else face a penalty under federal law? see? from ridiculous to sublime!

a snake prepares his escape hatch

dana bash:	any chance joe lieberman would run [for reelection] as a republican [in 2012]?
joe lieberman:	i don't know what i'll run as. i like being an independent, so that's definitely a possibility, but i'd say that all options are open.
dana bash:	really?
joe lieberman:	yeah. it's unlikely that i would run as a republican, but i wouldn't foreclose any possibility ...

i'm shocked

... just shocked, i tell you, that lucy yanked the football away again:

in a move that senior leadership aides say has left them stunned, sen. joe lieberman (I-CT) has told senate majority leader harry reid (D-NV) that he will filibuster a tentative public option compromise unless it's stripped of its key component: a measure that would allow people aged 55-64 to buy insurance through medicare.

must see teevee

franken fries flunkie:

defections have consequences

the senate dealt a blow tonight to sen. arlen specter's hold on seniority in several key committees, a week after the pennsylvanian's party switch placed democrats on the precipice of a 60-seat majority. in a unanimous voice vote, the senate approved a resolution that added specter to the democratic side of the dais on the five committees on which he serves, an expected move that gives democrats larger margins on key panels such as judiciary and appropriations. but democrats placed specter in one of the two most junior slots on each of the five committees for the remainder of this congress, which goes through december 2010. democrats have suggested that they will consider revisiting specter's seniority claim at the committee level only after the midterm elections next year.

maybe arlen shouldn't have spent his first week as a democrat voting like a republican.