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.

visual of the day

speaker of the house john boehner (r-OH) addressing anti-abortion demonstrators yesterday at the nation's capitol, on the 39th anniversary of roe v. wade, speaking into a microphone that looks like ... wait for it ... a coat-hanger.

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

post of the day

i simply decided to steal this post outright since it hit exactly all the right notes — notes that need to be hit. will the white house hear them? more importantly, will obama deliver the much-needed coda? ¹

vilsack will review decision to fire sherrod by brooklynbadboy MSNBC is reporting that agriculture secretary tom vilsack has now decided he wants to conduct a review of the facts with respect to ms. sherrod: vilsack's statement came after the NAACP posted the full video of sherrod's comments tuesday night and retracted its earlier condemnation of her. "i am of course willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the american people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner," Vilsack said. so, if i have this correctly, breitbart and fox news burps, she get's fired immediately. CNN and the NAACP release the undisputed facts, and now there must be a thorough review. (facepalm) i want to return to something the white house keeps saying in response to ms. sherrod: shirley sherrod, a former USDA employee who resigned after a controversial video surfaced, told CNN tuesday that members of the obama administration "harassed" her and demanded she resign her post immediately. in an interview with CNN, sherrod said she repeatedly fielded calls on monday during a long car ride, during which officials insisted that she pull over to the side of the road and quit her post. "they asked me to resign, and, in fact, they harassed me as i was driving back to the state office from west point, georgia yesterday," sherrod told CNN. "i had at least three calls telling me the white house wanted me to resign...and the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it." ... sherrod said the final call came from cheryl cook, an undersecretary at the department of agriculture. sherrod said white house officials wanted her to quit immediately because the controversy was "going to be on glenn beck tonight." "we did not pressure USDA or ms. sherrod," a white house official reportedly wrote in an email on tuesday to the washington Post. i guess the buck stops somewhere else. the white house needs to get off this stance and start showing some sympathy toward ms. sherrod. she has, clearly, been done terribly wrong by the white supremacist fringe of the republican party. the white house acts like they are afraid of a bunch of bigots. martin luther king, jr. would be sickened by how this white house has behaved toward this woman. some racist bigot makes an accusation against her and they don't even waste one minute before firing her without review. yet when the truth comes out, they don't re-hire her on the spot. then, and only then, are they willing to conduct a review. disgusting. if they have the decency to offer her the job back, i hope she turns it down. i wouldn't want to work for people who were so easily pushed around by a by an internet skinhead like breitbart or a certified nutcase like beck. the white house should at least apologize to ms. sherrod and accept responsibility for how this kind and lovely public servant has been treated. that would be the minimum of something to show breitbart and the rest of his skinhead crew that decent americans will not be intimidated by the likes of scum like them. you know what is so pathetic about all this? now that the truth has come out, glenn beck, the same glenn back who had the administration cowering in fear, is attacking the administration over firing her in the first place: how and why would you force the resignation of someone who is just relating a story of 24-year-old incident to make a point? how many times when a controversy comes up have we heard that someone was "misquoted" or they "misspoke" or we're told that "the only point they were simply making was that ..." and then some point that bears no resemblance to the one they made; or they were just "taken out of context?" now here's a possible actual example of someone taken completely out of context and they immediately get rid of her. can you believe this white house is being pushed around by these people? update: it appears ms. sherrod sees the old boss in a different light: the woman at the center of a racially tinged firestorm involving the obama administration and the NAACP said wednesday she doesn't know if she'd return to her job at the agriculture department, even if asked. "i am just not sure how i would be treated there," shirley sherrod said in a nationally broadcast interview. i agree. now get yourself a damn good attorney ms. sherrod.

---

1) face it, obama: breitbart and beck were aiming for you when they went after sherrod and they've so far won that much at least, since it's now squarely on you to snatch their victory from the jaws of your defeat — and on center stage where everyone can see.

presidentin' made easy: palin 2012

so easy, in fact, a moose gal could do it:

her candidacy would require almost none of the usual time sinks that force politicians to jump in early: power-broker schmoozing, schedule-intensive fundraising, competitive recruitment of experienced strategists, careful policy development.

we should probably expect her to run again in 2014.

(hat tip to mistermix.)

the art of the backdown

house minority leader john boehner (R-OH) forecasting the 2010 midterm elections (apr 30):

inskeep:	i understand you're saying it's difficult to model this election. but when you look across the 435 seats in the house of representatives, how many seats are in play right now?
boehner:	well, typically, you are correct. there would be some limited number of seats in play. let me remind you that scott brown won the ted kennedy senate seat in massachusetts. if scott brown can win in massachusetts, there isn't a seat in america the republicans can't win. and what we're seeing every day is the playing field widen, widen beyond anything we've seen around here during my 20 years.
inskeep:	how wide is the playing field now, as far as you're concerned?
boehner:	at least 100 seats.
inskeep:	you think there are 100 seats in the united states that could change hands one way or the other.
boehner:	i do.

RNC political director gentry collins (may 11):

our scoring as of today has us looking at about 130 house seats as potentially competitive. ... just to be clear, i'm making no claim that we are going to pick up 130 house seats.

boehner (may 25):

whether we can get to a majority or not, is a steep climb. ... i do think that we have a reasonable chance.

house GOP deputy whip and NRCC recruiter kevin mccarthy (may 27):

mccarthy said that top GOPers have told him they hope to win in the neighborhood of 37 seats rather than 40 so they're in a stronger position to have good back-to-back cycles and win the WH in '12.

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.

sarah palin speaks: "i had a dream"

(photo of gaylord opryland by kbilancini via flickr)

---

* see? it's all in good fun, y'betcha!

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?