Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

These days, even the boring Republicans are nuts.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

You are so fucked. Still, I wish you the best of luck.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Since we are repeating ourselves, let me just say fuck that.

Following reporting rules is only for the little people, apparently.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

If rights aren’t universal, they are privilege, not rights.

Never give a known liar the benefit of the doubt.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

Second rate reporter says what?

Their freedom requires your slavery.

DeSantis transforming Florida into 1930s Germany with gators and theme parks.

Petty moves from a petty man.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

Fundamental belief of white supremacy: white people are presumed innocent, minorities are presumed guilty.

75% of people clapping liked the show!

It is not hopeless, and we are not helpless.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

Everything is totally normal and fine!!!

If you don’t believe freedom is for everybody, then the thing you love isn’t freedom, it is privilege.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

Let the trolls come, and then ignore them. that’s the worst thing you can do to a troll.

You are here: Home / America’s House of Lords

America’s House of Lords

by | 104 Comments

This post is in: 

James Fallows has another excellent post on the death-spiral fallacy of “bipartisanship” in modern American politics:

I got this note from someone with many decades’ experience in national politics…
__
“Bipartisanship in the American sense means compromising on legislation so that a sufficient number of members of Congress from BOTH parties will support it, even if (as is typically the case) a few majority party members defect and most minority party members don’t join… It can’t happen if the minority party members vote as a block against major legislation. And that can happen only if the minority party has the ability to discipline its ranks so that none join the majority, which is the unprecedented situation we’ve got in Congress today.
__
“The way parliamentary parties maintain their discipline is straightforward. No candidate can run for office using the party label unless the party bestows that label upon him or her. And usually, the party itself and not the candidate raises and controls all the campaign funds. As every political scientist knows, the fact that in the U.S. any candidate can pick his or her own party label without needing anyone else’s approval, and can also raise his or her own campaign funds, is why there cannot be and never really has been any sustained party discipline before — even though it is a feature of parliamentary systems.
__
“The GOP now maintains party discipline by the equivalent of a parliamentary party’s tools: The GOP can effectively deny a candidate the party label (by running a more conservative GOP candidate against him or her), and the GOP can also provide the needed funds to the candidate of the party’s choice. And every GOP member of Congress knows it. (Snowe and Collins may be immune, but that’s about it.)
__
“I’ve missed almost all the punditry this past week… but what I’ve seen seems almost like a lot of misleading fluff designed to fill the void that should follow an understanding of the foregoing, at least on the subject of ‘why no bipartisanship?’ There’s really nothing more to be said about “why no bipartisanship,” once one recognizes the GOP party discipline. On this issue, it’s absolutely astounding to blame Obama or even the Congressional leadership (although Pelosi and Reid leave much to be desired otherwise). It’s doubly astounding that the GOP did it once before, less perfectly, but with a very large reward for bad behavior in the form of the 1994 mid-term elections. Yet no one calls them on it effectively, and bad behavior seems about to be rewarded again…
__
” … a Dem could run against that GOP incumbent by pointing out that the GOP opponent lost X or Y or Z project or policy benefit for his or her district or state by insisting on voting down the line with the GOP. ‘Put his party above his constituents,’ might be the charge, or ‘Put Michael Steele above you and me.’ But so far, the Dems don’t seem to have cottoned onto this. They could go into the 2010 elections not just challenging the obstructionists in the GOP, but showing the electorate what the price of obstruction has been for real people back home.”

Fallows’ whole post is well worth reading, along with his cover article “How America Can Rise Again” (which I discussed here last week). Obama’s been compared to a lot of previous presidents, but it’s beginning to feel like his closest analogue may be Teddy Roosevelt — the progressive Republican whose bold measures to keep America during its first Gilded Age from devolving into another failed banana republic basically split his own party and reversed the social polarity of both major parties. The question may be whether President Obama has the character (in the old-fashioned sense) to defy his own inherently conservative instincts by going after “the malefactors of great wealth” and working to preserve our joint natural resources even when such preservation won’t be seen as “profitable” for another couple of generations.

Reader Interactions

104Comments

  1. 1.

    Rhoda

    In similar news, Max Baucus attempting to eff up the jobs bill like he did health care.

    Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Dick Durbin of Illinois have been working intensely on a jobs bill for more than a month, talking with relevant committee leaders and other members and dispatching aides to dozens of other meetings in the hopes of crafting a bill that could get through the Senate quickly. And when they walked into a meeting in the office of Reid (D-Nev.) on Jan. 22, they thought they were about to cross the finish line — the Dorgan-Durbin plan would be blessed by the small group of senators in the room, presented to the full Democratic Caucus on Jan. 28 and then taken straight to the floor for a vote. But Montana Sen. Max Baucus had other ideas. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, where the health care bill was debated for months last year, surprised the senators gathered in Reid’s office by suggesting he wanted a chance to mark up portions of the bill under his committee’s jurisdiction before it went to the floor, according to several people who attended the meeting. “Everybody was caught off guard,” said a Democrat in the room, granted anonymity to speak candidly about a private meeting. One Senate Democratic source said even though Baucus had endorsed the Dorgan-Durbin proposal, he was pinpointing ideas in their plan and advocating moving specific items first — including some that aren’t in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. He later indicated that he would be willing to move the bill directly to the floor if top Democrats agreed to that approach. In the meeting, two attendees later said, Durbin seemed skeptical about going Baucus’s route, questioning why money for states, firefighters and police should be left out of the first package. No consensus was reached, and Reid told the senators — some of whom were clearly frustrated — to think it over and come up with a revised strategy, sources later said.

    Read the whole thing; the general gist is that Baucus has a smaller bill that does less and therefore won’t help the party that he wants to put up for a vote. And there are conservadems nervous about having another partisan vote. And I am once again wondering how Reid gets through the day without committing hari kari because this shit is bananas. B A N A N A S.

  2. 2.

    cleek

    Obama is neither a rabble-rouser nor a strong-arming maverick. he remains, to everyone’s constant amazement, an even-keeled pragmatist.

    as to why the press doesn’t talk about the GOP’s obstructionist party-discipline… well, that would require them to first teach all their viewers about how our government actually works. and, that’s not good entertainment.

  3. 3.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    “the malefactors of great wealth”

    I keep waiting for Obama to use that phrase. Saint McCain likes to refer to (and picture) himself as a “Teddy Roosevelt Republican”. Hit him with the fucking rhetorical chair.

  5. 5.

    mvr

    This doesn’t take a super-long attention span to understand. But someone would have to explain it a few times, and who is going to do that?

    Not anybody who is more concerned with making money that anything else I’m afraid.

  7. 7.

    General Winfield Stuck

    which is the unprecedented situation we’ve got in Congress today.

    The Gilded Age was a split along class and wealth lines. I think the split we have now pre dates that to the pre civil war congresses. It is base values and world view and re emergence of southern resentments at being collared into following a Constitution they have never agreed with in some very fundamental ways and rights and doctines conveyed by that document. Their resentments fall largely along religious, class, race based values the south has never really stopped lamenting the loss of their Aristocratic way of life and the caste like system that came with it.

    In other words, it’s not all economic, but something deeper and more ominous that is behind the chasm we see developing and the near mutinous reaction from wingers in Congress, especially the Senate, where the filibuster and cloture motion rains supreme and can stop the whole show as it stands today.

    I really don’t know what can cause it to reverse before spinning out of control. This split in mind and spirit between large sections of our country has existed since the founding and before. But the Civil War caused it to go underground largely and national disasters and emergencies have kept things glued together somehow./ Up until now

    I think the wingers are going to get back into power, sooner than thought, what with the SCOTUS decision and dems playing too nice and not getting into average Americans faces to educate them. And when the wingers do take it back next time, we are in for some scary shit. Demographically, they are screwed in 15 years or so, and they know it. Will make Bush/Cheney seem like tea with the freaking queen.

  10. 10.

    jenniebee

    I’m trying to figure out if the party discipline angle is so obvious everybody just took it as given and expected that bipartisanship is a compromise dire enough to overcome party discipline, or if this is a case of not seeing the water you swim in.

  13. 13.

    beltane

    Why is everything in italics? Italics are elitist and make me feel like I’m a malefactor of great wealth, without the wealth.

  14. 14.

    El Cid

    I think Max Baucus ought to be allowed to have the jobs bill for 8 – 14 months to discuss in a sub-sub-sub-committee of the Finance Committee comprised of 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat (Baucus).

    After the 8 – 14 months Baucus can then produce something which is unlikely to be passed. Harry Reid can declare it the best we can achieve.

    We can carry on this way until we have 30 Democratic Senators.

  18. 18.

    Martin

    What am I thinking, that’s way too witty for these douchebags, they’ll never understand it.

    Wait, how the fuck did that get on the screen…

  19. 19.

    CalD

    I intend to personally strangle the very next person I catch saying “House of Lords” in reference to the US senate. There’s no excuse for being that stupid.

  21. 21.

    DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio

    This is an excellent post.

    Fallow is a great read.

    It’s true that the GOP is a cartel, and that the Democratic party is just an association. The GOP apparently has figured out a way to govern from a minority position, and has done this in a remarkable quick turnaround (only 4 years ago, they had congress and the white house). You have to give them credit, today they have neither but that doesn’t seem to daunt them.

    Give them credit, and then hold them accountable. Hold them accountable for the damage they did under Bush, and for the damage they are doing now.

    And doing that is going to take something like unity on the part of the Dems. If the Dems cannot manage something like unity, then the bad guys win.

    Of course, if the BJ commentariat is any indicator, that unity is going to be awfully hard to come by.

    And it looks like somebody didn’t close their “em” tag.

    There, I did it for you.

  23. 23.

    Kryptik

    The problem with calling the GOP out for their abuse of the principle of bipartisanship is that they will get all help from their enablers in the press in painting the Dems as horribly partisan and evil commies, per usual.

  25. 25.

    Chad N Freude

    Applying the scientific method to the Great Italics Invasion . . .

    Does this work?

    EDIT: YES! ! !

    EDIT 2: Let the plaudits begin!

  29. 29.

    Martin

    @Rhoda:

    Max Baucus attempting to eff up the jobs bill like he did health care.

    He’s not fucking it up. He’s just persistent. He won’t stop until he has a bipartisan bill that will get 61 Republican votes in the Senate. He’s no quitter!

  30. 30.

    Citizen_X

    I intend to personally strangle the very next person I catch saying “House of Lords” in reference to the US senate.

    The Senate’s the House of Lords, the Senate’s the House of Lords! Nyah nyah, you can’t do anything–it’s in italics, so I didn’t say it, I thought it!

    Edit: oh crap, italics are off! Now I have to hide!

  31. 31.

    El Cid

    The problem is that the Republican Party is pretty much unified in the fundamental motivations of their elected members, whereas the Democratic Party consists of a mix of elected leaders, some of whom really, really oppose on a fundamental level the policies and ideas of the others.

  35. 35.

    Chad N Freude

    Closing the italics after the text is gone.

    EDIT: That was intended to be a play on barn door and horse, but it just looks stupid. Sorry.

  36. 36.

    General Winfield Stuck

    This is an excellent post.

    seconded and who has failed to make the requisite virgin sacrifices to the great FSM to keep wordpress running smooth?

  37. 37.

    jl

    @General Winfield Stuck: Tunch is hungry again, and acting out. Cole never told us that he did in fact get Tunch out of the computer, we have no verifiable recent Tunch pics, so it obviously did not happen. We are all Tunched.

  38. 38.

    r€nato

    The epitome of the death of bipartisanship for me, was the very recent vote by the Senate on re-instituting the ‘pay as you go’ rules which were in effect in the 90s and which, I believe, contributed greatly to the fiscal sanity of the Clinton years.

    The vote? 60 Dems ‘yea’, 40 Republicans ‘nay’.

    Really? Is there something about this bill that I’m not aware of? How on Earth could all 40 ‘fiscally conservative’ Republicans be against ‘pay as you go’? Every single stinking last one of them? There was not one single Republican who thought it was a good idea to for new bills which require government spending, to have a funding source?

  39. 39.

    Tax Analyst

    I could have fixed the italics problem if only someone had told me about it.

    That’s OK…I don’t want to hog all the glory ALL the time.

    (Sigh)…guess I’ll just go change the color of the sky now instead. Better do it before I take my meds, though. It never seems to work after they’ve been taken.

  40. 40.

    General Winfield Stuck

    @r€nato:

    Republicans be against ‘pay as you go’?

    Because they believe it is a devious dem plot to later insist on the need to raise taxes. That is the motivating force for their oppo to PG rules. I think. They do support, or many of the wingers, giving the presnit line item veto power. The problem is doing it in a way to not run afoul of the Constitution.

  42. 42.

    DougJ

    Grover Norquist said bipartisanship was like date rape.

    He was half-right: it’s like being date-raped by David Broder.

  43. 43.

    r€nato

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    is that their rationale, or your idea of what their rationale is?

    Because I would think that every Republican would love to run against a Democrat who proposes tax rises.

    I also think every Republican would love to (and does) run on a platform of government spending without having to pay for it with taxes, e.g., selling our grandchildren into debt bondage to the Chinese and Japanese.

  45. 45.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    I just watched David Gergen on Colbert (Tivo’d from last week). He explained that Brown/Coakley was all about people being tired of “hyperpartisanship and backroom deals”, in other words, Republicans and ConservaDems, but I think Gergen (Broder Jr) not only can’t say this, but can’t even bring himself to think it.

  46. 46.

    General Winfield Stuck

    @r€nato:

    is that their rationale, or your idea of what their rationale is?

    I ended my comment on this with “I think”. But I have heard wingnut speeches on the Senate Floor alluding to this. And wingnuts are cynical, but not so much as to let dems raise taxes just so they can run against them on that. Their base will only care that they let the dems raise taxes in the first place.

  47. 47.

    Annie

    The Democratic leadership fails at “educating the public,” while Republicans succeed. They long ago took ownership of the type of rhetoric that resonates with large sections of the US public — faith, family, individual responsibility, national security, small government, etc. All terms and concepts that when analyzed mean absolutely nothing if place against Republican policies, and individual practices. The Republicans have succeeded at “dumbing down,” the American public, which shows why so many people — the teabaggers for example — happily and loudly end up voting against their own interests. Only Republicans could have succeeded at marches against government-sponsored health care, while many of the marchers have government-sponsored health care. Only Republicans could have succeeded at national security, all the ignoring that fact that Iran is much stronger because of Iraq, and that torture not only hurts us abroad, but goes against all of our supposed belief in religious values and practices. Again, how often has the media brought us back to the fact that Republicans like Bachman have gotten rich from government subsidies.

    How much of our current political environment would be different if the Democratic president wasn’t black is open to discussion, but certainly it has feed into the public being educated by people like Glen Beck and Rush and Hannity and numerous “birther sites,” that exploit things like Obama’s birth as proxies for his being black.

    It’s time for the Democratic leadership to hit the road and make events like last week not one-off discussions, but as a reason for strong dialogue on the role of government in our lives, and the fact that when Republicans governed, we all suffered.

  48. 48.

    change we can believe in, my ass

    @cleek:

    An “even-keeled pragmatist” or a politician who makes cynical promises that he doesn’t intend to keep — cf. Patriot Act, FISA (this as a senator, a good predictor of his pragmatism as president); just recently, Holder and no accountability for torture.

    He was “pragmatic” (ie, cynical and self-serving) when he raised hopes that are now being disappointed.

  49. 49.

    General Winfield Stuck

    @Annie:

    It’s time for the Democratic leadership to hit the road and make events like last week not one-off discussions, but as a reason for strong dialogue on the role of government in our lives, and the fact that when Republicans governed, we all suffered.

    Hell yes, though I’m not hopeful they will. Good comment Annie, I agree with most, if not all of it.

    The wingers have brought Vaudeville back with a wingnut political theme, and the rubes eat it up. Gawd hep us.

  50. 50.

    Tax Analyst

    @J. Michael Neal:

    Doug J said:

    it’s like being date-raped by David Broder.

    J.Michael Neal said:

    Hey, now! This is a family blog!

    Family blog? What, so now you’re advocating incest?

    That’s pretty low, even for a Balloon Juice commenter.

  51. 51.

    suzanne

    @Max:
    SERIOUSLY.

    Why, I have a big, heavy, metal-framed Barcelona chair I would be THRILLED, I say, THRILLED to donate to the Smacking-Douchebag-Rethuglicans-With-Mid-Century-Modern-Soshulist-Home-Furnishings cause.

  52. 52.

    Wile E. Quixote

    @Kryptik:

    The problem with calling the GOP out for their abuse of the principle of bipartisanship is that they will get all help from their enablers in the press in painting the Dems as horribly partisan and evil commies, per usual.

    Who cares about the press. The press is going to fuck the Democrats regardless of what they do, so why not at least call the Republicans on their bullshit? This has the advantage of energizing your base, something the Democrats suck at and of at least forcing Republicans to start denying things or explaining themselves.

    I’m really tired of this “the Democrats can’t do anything because of the press and we’re just impotent and it’s only a matter of time before the Republicans take over again” mantra. I wish that the people who keep pointing this out would do something useful with their lives like going down to a hospital and filling out an organ donor card and then shooting themselves in the head.

  54. 54.

    sparky

    It’s time for the Democratic leadership to hit the road and make events like last week not one-off discussions, but as a reason for strong dialogue on the role of government in our lives, and the fact that when Republicans governed, we all suffered.

    strictly speaking, not true. you pay for the GOP’s party afterwards, not during.* aside from cranks i don’t recall much of the electorate complaining as their home prices climbed into the ether. nobody wants a lecture when they have a hangover.

    but, the other, larger problem is that the Ds have relatively small room to move in as well. aside from social issues, their money spigots would dry up in a second if they ever tried serious reform. which is why you will never see any.

    oh, and i think Taft is closer to the mark than TR. though i have never seen Obama in a bathtub, so i could be wrong there….

    *unless, of course you are killed by the national security state, but as that is a true “bipartisan” enterprise, you can’t allocate those deaths.

  56. 56.

    J. Michael Neal

    @Martin: Marginally better. It has all the same repulsive imagery, but at least doesn’t imply that I’d go on a date with David Broder. Talk about someone I have no interest in having a beer with.

  59. 59.

    Mike in NC

    Grover Norquist said bipartisanship was like date rape.

    Unlike economics and taxation, that’s probably a subject that Norquist is an expect on.

  60. 60.

    General Winfield Stuck

    @sparky:

    strictly speaking, not true. you pay for the GOP’s party afterwards, not during.* aside from cranks i don’t recall much of the electorate complaining as their home prices climbed into the ether

    I’d say both. Bush’s and the wingers poll approvals locked in at about 30 percent for three years before obama. The electorate was not thrilled with Bush’s economic recovery because it only involved the upper crust. Wages did not rise along with corporate profits and the jobs created were shitty ones. This was true to Plutocrat designs, or Bush’s base.

    It is never too late to start talking straight unvarnished, undecorum talk to the American people. It doesn’t have to be Huey Long like populist ranting and raving, but it has to be without dems usual hemming and hawing with their personal namby pamby individual pseudo intellectual smarminess. It needs to be direct and consistent and impersonal. Just the fax mam, just the fax.

  61. 61.

    Annie

    @sparky:

    While I take your points, particularly when we “pay” for a party’s mistakes, I will hold firm to the belief that Republicans control the narrative because they own rhetoric that resonates with large segments of the US public.

    If you take away the rhetoric, Republicans have little to run on…I believe strongly that the Democratic leadership cannot succeed until they take back some of the rhetoric and show how empty Republican rhetoric is when pushed up against their actual policies. Funds and support for Democratic policies would increase if large portions of the US public understood how Republicans on the one hand advocate one thing, and on the other hand when they are in the position to govern, act differently.

    The Democratic party has never, ever, controlled the narrative.

  62. 62.

    Kryptik

    @Wile E. Quixote:

    I never said that it should keep Dems from doing anything. But it still shows just how broken the modern conception of ‘bipartisanship’ in America is.

  63. 63.

    Annie

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    Thanks. I think that only a born and bred member of the
    Steeler family could have provided such a well articulated political position, and the rhetoric to support her position.

    Could a Brown’s fan have done as well?

    Kisses to Charlie. Should I send him a terrible towel?

  64. 64.

    williamc

    @Kryptik:

    This is something that has always bothered me about politics and the press, and its something we joke about all the time but seems to be what actually is going on in the media: its ok if you’re a Republican and conversely, always to be questioned if you’re a Democrat not thinking like a Republican. Think about the last decade. The Republicans cut taxes on the wealthy and pretty much no one else, twice, start two overseas wars, and birth the largest entitlement program in a couple decades with Medicare Part D, all without paying for any of them and running spectacular deficits the whole time, and whenever anyone left-of-center pointed out the recklessness of it was shouted down with “blah blah 9/11, terrorist sympathizers”, all while programs that actually benefit regular folks were being cut at both the Federal and State level. Yet the Dems run the same type deficits for 2 years and they are raising taxes (when they cut taxes all year on the not-rich), spending money on pork (money to the states, infrastructure investments, and now Jobs), and taking our country away from us (says the assho!es). They used the same language back then (tax cuts will cut the deficit and help the economy grow! kill the evil unions and empowered big business will provide for all that the American worker needs!), it all failed spectacularly, and now they are rebooting the 1994 playbook to start the passion play all over again. Thank gawd the political press is so sports analogy centered and only cares about who’s winning/who’s losing or they might understand enough about public policy to realize that the wingnut basket they seem to have all put their eggs in is made of spun sugar and is not very sturdy…

  65. 65.

    Annie

    @williamc:

    Exactly. But the Republicans always seem like the winners, no matter what they propose and what policies they pass. They are masters of spin — somehow whatever they do passes the faith, family, small government, individual responsibility, national security, test. For the media it is easy — they bring in big bucks.

    Republicans are beyond having to explain what they actually do — they own the narrative and therefore, they can do pretty much anything — because “dumbing down” the US makes money. And, money know controls the media. And, media know responds to their interests. It is an incredible circle that the Democratic leadership cannot break until they hit the road, storm the media, and take back the narrative.

  71. 71.

    KG

    You know what’s funny, if you pay much attention to what the wingers say, they believe that the press is going to fuck over their guys (or gals, in the case of Palin) and give the Dems a pass. I would like to think that if both sides believe the media is going to fuck them over, then the media is probably doing it right (this is a form of the “if nobody likes the settlement, then it was a good settlement” theory).

    But honestly, I think both sides get a pass more often than not because the press is worried about keeping their contacts inside the beltway.

    Perhaps the problems with the press and politics are two sides of the same coin, and we can’t fix one without fixing the other.

    As for historical parallels for Obama, instead of calling him the next Taft or the next FDR or the next TR, let him be the first Obama. (and as a side note, I don’t buy the Taft comparison, Taft, from what I recall, wasn’t really ever interested in being president and wanted a seat on the Supreme Court)

  72. 72.

    Yutsano

    @KG:

    As for historical parallels for Obama, instead of calling him the next Taft or the next FDR or the next TR, let him be the first Obama.

    The funny part about comparing presidencies is that it gives the sense that Obama can’t come up with any new solutions. He has to determine what he’s going to do only based upon what has happened in the past rather than frame his decisions based upon the conditions of the present. Of course the vast majority of this is bullshit, it’s just a way for the Village to frame his accomplishments and setbacks in familiar terms instead of as their own extant happenings.

  73. 73.

    Lupin

    “The question may be whether President Obama has the character…” etc, etc.

    A year, or 18 months, ago that was a valid question.

    Today, Obama has proved that he is, and always will be if the past is any indication, a weak and ineffectual president.

  76. 76.

    Martin

    @Yutsano:

    And can you give us some direct examples to justify your claim?

    Obama didn’t give the state of the union with the severed head of Goldman Sachs CEO on a spike on the podium, ergo Black Jimmy Carter.

  78. 78.

    Yutsano

    @Tattoosydney: I can only imagine how the work must have piled up. I’ve been trying to keep our wifey entertained especially after her visit to your side of the International Date Line. I take it the honeymoon went smashing then? (And I don’t mean from just the copious amounts of alcohol consumed)

  80. 80.

    Tattoosydney

    @Yutsano:

    All good. Internet access in Lisbon was very restricted, so I had to spend my time drinking and eating instead of Balloon Juicing. It was a magnificent holiday I thought would never end – some great restaurants and hotels, saw lots of friends, improved our Portuguese significantly, and didn’t murder each other. The perfect honeymoon.

    ETA There was also much shopping. My suitcase was 34 kilos on the way home. Yay for business class.

  83. 83.

    Yutsano

    @Tattoosydney: It does sound nothing short of fantastic. Sigh. Nothing quite that exciting coming up for me, just a quick jaunt south for a good friend’s wedding. I MIGHT sneak up for a day or two of the Olympics (it’s only a six hour drive to not go would feel like some kind of sin plus I REALLY want to watch Ohno skate) but no set plans in that regard yet. I did put in for a promotion at work so gonna see what occurs there. If nothing comes of it my timeline is until the wedding then I’m on serious job hunt.

    Just out of curiosity how long did you two sleep when you got back? And how badly did the puppeh miss you?

  89. 89.

    WaterGirl

    @Martin: @Yutsano: I just re-read it, and I have to agree. I hate to leave you here all alone, but it’s time for me to head to bed. Maybe Martin is still here, just being quiet? Night, night.

  90. 90.

    TenguPhule

    Obama didn’t give the state of the union with the severed head of Goldman Sachs CEO on a spike on the podium while telling the 41 Majority GOP to “Get Fucked, Bitches!”, ergo Black Jimmy Carter.

    Corrected.

  91. 91.

    TenguPhule

    There’s really nothing more to be said about “why no bipartisanship,” once one recognizes the GOP party discipline.

    There are only two ways to end a cult.

    Both of them leave no survivors.

  92. 92.

    Wile E. Quixote

    @TenguPhule:

    There are only two ways to end a cult.
    __
    Both of them leave no survivors.

    I can live with that. I can drive the tank to smash into the compound or mix the Kool-Aid, just let me know where and when.

  94. 94.

    WereBear

    @Annie: Yes, this is true.

    exploit things like Obama’s birth as proxies for his being black

    and this is what I hope is our last national spasm of guilt that dates back to our founding. Every flareup, from John Brown to the Civil War to Nixon to now, all have sprung from us not facing what we have done.

    No matter when this comes up, the Usual Suspects whine and moan. It’s time we had a national referendum on how little attention they should get for it.

  95. 95.

    Napoleon

    @Lupin:

    Today, Obama has proved that he is, and always will be if the past is any indication, a weak and ineffectual president.

    Ain’t that the truth.

  96. 96.

    matoko_chan

    @Annie:

    But the Republicans always seem like the winners.

    Ummm……nope.
    They lost on civil rights.
    Bigtime.
    I say, let them filibuster.
    The GOP filibustered against civil rights for blacks for 57 days.
    They will look like obstructionist assholes, like they were revealed as racist pricks during civil rights legislation.
    The filibuster has no power as a threat if it can’t be used.

  99. 99.

    Tom

    If only there was a mechanism for making our house of lords as irrelevant as the UK’s house of lords. Sometimes, having an unwritten constitution is a major plus.

  100. 100.

    Rick Taylor

    Via Steve Benen, Republicans in the senate unanimously filibuster the nomination of the solicitor general. I guess this means the Republican principle that use of the filibuster is sacrosanct except when it comes to nominations is no longer operative? Or maybe it’s only judicial nominations.
    __
    By this point back when Democrats were the minority, Republicans were threatening the nuclear option and used it to wrest compromises over some nominations; and the provocation was not nearly so great. Democrats ought to be doing at least as much now.

  101. 101.

    Rick Taylor

    The GOP filibustered against civil rights for blacks for 57 days.

    __
    If I understand correctly, the rules were different back then. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can correct me, but it used to be that a filibuster brought all work in the senate to a halt. The rules were changed to allow them to switch to another bill when one was being filibustered. It’s time to change the rules again.

  102. 102.

    sparky

    @Annie: agreed as to the rhetoric. but i think to capture whatever ideological space there is to the left of Republican rhetoric, there has to be a substantive change in non-GOP rhetoric. for example, Obama saying “you don’t have to change your health insurance” eliminated the potential for a different kind of rhetoric on that topic. my point is that when you start out with an incrementalist rhetorical strategy the fail is baked in.

    given the essential conservatism/population imbalance in Congress and the need to appeal to a vast swath(e) during presidential elections, it seems to me that to access the space you are talking about requires either (1) a take no prisoners frontal attack on the GOP (ex: just say they are lying and be done with it)–and yes, that would be “ugly” but eventually it works, though it can have high costs associated with it or (2) run as if it doesn’t matter if you win. this was the original Nader strategy, and though he has turned into a sad caricature of himself, the original premise was not a bad one. you see the same thing in primaries when someone like Kuchinich runs. incidentally, i would drop the assumption that the rhetoric has to match deeds. the GOP (and now Obama) have shown pretty clearly there is no correlation as far as the mass of voters are concerned.

  103. 103.

    sparky

    @sparky: this of course assumes that anyone is interested in substantive change or consolidating power via a different kind of strategy. my take is that the Ds and Rs have decided that this particular Punch & Judy show serves both of them just fine. why upset your friends when you can just split the pie amicably?

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks