Predictions For The New Year

We were once in New York City when the new year arrived. Uninterested in being crushed by several thousand people in Times Square, we watched the ball drop on TV. Since then, it’s been my goal to sleep through the festivities; especially when I was on call. Other than an excuse, as if they need any, for young people to get drunk and copulate, I’ve never seen the point. The flipping of a calendar. Whoop de doo.

Admittedly, since the election of Trump, it’s been reasonable, if futile, to hope the next year (or day, or week) would improve upon the last. There’s nothing wrong with hopefulness on any day. But January Oneth is so arbitrary. Why not June? Or, if it must be January, how about inauguration day eve? Every four years: seventy-five percent less meaningless.

Among reviewers of the receding year, there’s none better than Dave Barry. I wouldn’t dare. Nor will I make resolutions, other than forcing myself to pay attention and, when necessary, which is pretty much constantly, to sound alarums.

But I’ll indulge in a few predictions, none of which requires imagination or psychic ability, because next year will be a straight-line continuation of this one. What we’ve become, where we’re headed, is stone-cast: Han Solo in carbonite. Bad stuff will get worse. Good stuff will get better, but it won’t matter. The year will bring unbridgeable division, political poison and paralysis, same as now.

The House committee investigating Trump’s attack on democracy will succeed in proving how corrupt and intent on destroying faith in elections he and his hench were. His enablers, followers, and his dutifully destructive media will continue to dissemble, deceive, and dismiss the seriousness. The clearer it becomes that, as polls showed Trump losing to Joe Biden, they set out to convince the herd that the election would be “rigged,” the less it will matter. Though it’s hard to imagine how much less than it already is. Most Republicans will persist in rejecting the facts like they reject vaccines.

Democrats will keep legislating to improve Americans’ lives and mitigate environmental threats. Seeing politics as a zero-sum game in which the county’s future isn’t a player, Republicans will continue to obstruct. Democrats will beg Joe Manchin to prioritize America over coal; Republicans will cheer him on. Something will get done, though far less than is needed. Republicans’ sponsors will exult; corporations will reward their political purchases, executives, and investors. Kids born into poverty will remain poor. When God closes a window, Mitch McConnell bolts the door.

At the federal level, there’ll be no substantive legislative proposals by Republicans. Out in red states there’ll be plenty, aimed at securing Republican electoral wins, no matter the preference of voters. More rufescent rules will appear, packing election boards with Trumpists or moving election oversight to legislators. Some are already working on allowing themselves to declare winners when they don’t like voters’ choices. Gerrymandering will keep them in control, even where there’s a majority of Democratic voters. Knowing unfettered democracy disfavors them, Trumpists will delight in its crumbling.

Threats of violence against election officials and school board members will continue. More good people will resign. Actual violence, by unmasked patriots, on flight attendants, restaurant servers, and store employees will increase.

In state primaries, Republicans will lose if they don’t repeat Trump’s election Big Lie while characterizing liberalism as a mortal enemy. Use of the terms “socialism” and “communism” will still bear no relation to their actual meanings. Nor will Republicans stop lionizing their worst, whether it’s hate-peddling Congressional demagogues, a delusional, self-important teenage killer, or a guy who insulted President Biden during a sweet call to children, lied about it, and then, realizing his mendacious nastiness made him the perfect rightwing hero, is “praying about” running for office. God’s answer will be of interest.

Climate change will become more undeniable, and, by elected Republicans, more denied. After taking down thousands of anti-vaxxers, Omicron will run its course by Fall. SCOTUS will abort Roe v. Wade. The John Lewis voting rights act will be filibustered to death. The economy will continue to grow at the record pace initiated by President Biden’s American Rescue Plan. Rightwing media will credit Trump and/or focus on inflation. The southern border mess will become slightly less horrible.

Instances of discovered voter fraud will remain in single digits, mostly by Republicans. Impossibly, my grandchildren will become even more endearing. Rand Paul will still define “stealing an election” as legal Democratic voter registration and persuasion by having desirable policy, as opposed to Republican suppression and lying, having none. 

Happy New Year, anyway. Remember: Champagne is quicker than eggnog.

Clever, They Are

It occurs to me: just as Rs have spent the last almost eight years doing everything they can to obstruct President Obama in order to blame him for the consequences of that obstruction, so they've spent, like, decades attacking the Clintons for pretty much everything including the air they breathe, and are now criticizing Hillary for protecting her privacy in certain matters. And, in yet another example of media complacency and complicity, journalists are repeating the trope that this "health thing" wouldn't have mattered if only she weren't so obsessed with a need for privacy.

Yep. They're good. If cynicism were candy, every Congressional R would have diabetes.

[Image source]

Lies As Truth

This is worth a read, not that it's saying anything I haven't pointed out a million times. The RWS™ and Mitt Romney version of President Obama has never existed. Blaming the failure of bipartisanship on him is like blaming floods on the land instead of the storm. This is why the election is so depressing. Lies win. Especially when repeated over and over by a cynical media complex, devoid of any desire for truth, believing they can't win on truth, committed to keeping the electorate as misinformed and fearful as possible. It makes me want to jump off a roof. (Mine, as it turns out, is only two stories high, and the ground is pretty soft right now. Probably just re-break my ankle.)

...Funny how the first group of non-pols that Obama sat down with were leading conservative writers, like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer (the liberals came second); that he asked Rick Warren to give the invocation at his Inauguration; that his stimulus was a third tax cuts (the only big tax cuts Republicans have ever voted against in my memory); that his healthcare reform was not single-payer, but one modeled on Mitt Romney's moderate version in Massachusetts; that he has given Israel more military and technological support than any previous president... 

...Instead, they set out from Day One to destroy him, because they knew that if his moderation and modern cultural identity succeeded, their reactionary radicalism would be sidelined for good. And Rove's method is always to see what your party's own worst flaw is among the public and, with a straight face, accuse your opponent of it.You know what we're fighting in this election? That cumulative, snow-balling, post-modern, cynical faction of deceit and partisan amnesia. If we are to get past the Cold Civil War we are in, the defeat of the rigidly ideological and theological GOP is vital.

The writer is a conservative, by the way; and the article is a response to a right-wing hackette who blames Obama for not reaching out at the beginning, a view entirely untrue but, per usual, swallowed whole by the teabagging electorate. George Orwell, where are you when we need you??

[Image source]

Your Congress At Work

[From Bloomberg Business. Click to enlarge.]

When I mentioned something about this recently, a commenter pointed out Ds control the Senate. Well, yeah. But it's Rs in the House that are the problem. Voting thirty one times to repeal Obamacare. Passing gratuitous stuff for political purposes that they know will be rejected by the Senate. And the Senatorial Rs have filibustered virtually every piece of actual legislation proposed by Ds, taking obstructionism to hitherto unseen levels, making sure Obama gets nothing, and the economy continues to struggle.

Other than their commitment to sabotage, these are seriously unserious people, wholly disinterested in governance or in meaningful attention to our serious problems.

And, fully prepared to turn governing over to these people, no one on the right seems to care.

[Breaking news!!! I may have been too hard on them. The House just passed a resolution condemning the shooting in Colorado, and did so "in the strongest possible terms." Ignoring questions about gun control, the legislation included no actual action. But still: What bravery. What out-neck-sticking leadership in the face of ... nothing. Nice going guys. You inspire our nation.]

[Meanwhile, it'll be interesting to see what the House does about the Bush tax cuts, the Senate having passed, with no R support, a bill to extent the cuts only for those making less than the magical $250K. Rs, as we've just read here, prefer to do just the opposite: raise taxes on those below, and lower them for those above.]

Everything You Need To Know

It couldn't be clearer why we're where we are; namely, heading for disaster. "No matter what" is the operative phrase.

TeabaggRs, who claim sole proprietorship of the Constitution, who'd have us believe they are virtual sperm banks for the founding fathers, seem oblivious to the compromises on which our country was founded. In every article of that teabagger-owned Constitution, vastly disparate views were met somewhere near the middle, because all parties had in mind the creation and sustenance of a viable country. Such compromises were the building blocks of our democracy; now, teabaggRs are building blockheadedness.

It defies understanding. It's damn near indescribable. Not only are so-called Republicans clinging to policies which were at the heart of our recent collapse, they're completely ignorant of the origins of the country they're so eager to destroy. "No matter what."

The Rare Sane Voice

David Brooks, The New York Times' best-known conservative voice, has written a column that is receiving wide notice, with good reason:

The Republicans have changed American politics since they took control of the House of Representatives. They have put spending restraint and debt reduction at the top of the national agenda. They have sparked a discussion on entitlement reform. They have turned a bill to raise the debt limit into an opportunity to put the U.S. on a stable fiscal course.

Republican leaders have also proved to be effective negotiators. They have been tough and inflexible and forced the Democrats to come to them. The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.

[...]

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

[...]

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. ...

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. ...

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. ...

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. ...

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name...

[...]

Over the past week, Democrats have stopped making concessions. They are coming to the conclusion that if the Republicans are fanatics then they better be fanatics, too.

[...]

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

And they will be right.

Couldn't have said it better myself, although god knows I've tried. And tried. And tried. And...

Others have noticed too, of course; some are even conservatives. But these are, you know, thoughtful people. Ones with facts. Ideas. The kind of people, it must be said, that teabaggRs actively ignore. They'd rather stay stupid. They'd rather lie.

Our only hope (contra current evidence) is if there are also thoughtful voters out there, in numbers enough to oust those recently-elected and enormously destructive teabaggRs. And if, against their recent track record, Democrats can find an effective voice, saying the obvious to the oblivious.

And convincing them.

Courtly Men

Most of what I know about courtrooms I learned on TV. (Not everything.) Evidently, lawyers sometimes ask judges for a "sidebar." So here's a sidebar to the recent ruling on the constitutionality of the health care law; something sort of relevant, and very telling.

The judge who ruled, Henry Hudson, in addition to exploring rivers and designing blankets, was, before his federal appointment by G.W. Bush, a highly partisan Republican. Known, among other things, for coercing an Alford plea from a mentally retarded man accused of rape, despite exculpating semen from the crime and offering no apology when another was finally convicted years later; owning stock in a very partisan p.r. firm with ties not only to the health care case but many prominent Republicans who oppose the bill, legitimate questions could be raised about his fitness for the federal bench. Yet he was approved by the Senate, with no filibuster, no secret hold, no grandstanding by Democrats.

This is in stark contrast to the judicial appointments of Barack Obama. They have faced an all-time high level of obstructionism, despite being nearly universally moderate and enjoying broad and bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. Even Republican judges are speaking out at the damage being done to our legal system by this blatant political hackery. (It's of a piece, of course, with their recent obstruction of health care for their Republican-owned heroes, the 9/11 first responders [watch the video in the link if you haven't seen it: it's perfect]; but in the case of judges it threatens our entire legal system instead of, you know, just a few hundred people who risked their lives...)

So, sure, a pox on both their houses. Politicians can be assumed to be assholes until proven otherwise. But, sorry. There simply is no precedent for the assholery of the current crop of Republicans in their willingness to harm the nation in their pursuit of damaging President Obama. In their worst moments Democrats never obstructed George Bush to this extent; and, given that Bush lost the popular vote and had the presidency handed to him by a partisan court in an act of judicial overreach of the first magnitude, they had plenty of reason to have done so.

But Democrats, the party of atheist America-hating communists with no morals, have never acted in such a concerted way to destroy a president while ignoring the most basic needs of fellow Americans. Never. No way. No how. And that Hudson guy proves it.

Republicans

See, conservative columnist David Brooks recognizes, as do I, that the current Republican Party as represented in Congress is damaging themselves and the country. They're not conservatives. They're Republicans. In 2010, there's a huge difference.

Glimmer?

This is intriguing. An organization, calling itself "No Labels," has sprung up with the stated purpose of eschewing the hyper-partisan self-interest, the screaming at each other, that passes for politics nowadays. Were it to take hold, gain some influence, set the tone for real problem-solving when we need it most and are getting it least, I'd have to quit blogging.

A fair trade, I'd say.

The Opportunity of Shared Purpose

No Labels does not believe we need to search for better values or principles.
The solution is even simpler: we must return to the essence of our beliefs. Most Americans in the vital center of our still great country believe that:

Americans are entitled to a government and a political system that works – driven by shared purpose and common sense.

Americans deserve a government that makes the necessary choices to rein in runaway deficits, secure Social Security and Medicare, and put our country on a viable, sound path going forward.Americans support a government that works to spur employment and economic opportunity by encouraging free and open markets, tempered by sensible regulation.

Americans want a government that empowers people with the tools for success – from a world-class education to affordable healthcare – provided that it does so in a fiscally prudent way.

America should be free from discrimination and should embrace the principle of equal opportunity.

America must be strong and safe, ready and able to protect itself in a world of multiple dangers and uncertainties.

The No Labels movement was born out of support for these shared goals, and we are committed to helping our nation remain true to these values that we all profess in an environment, which encourages fact-based discussions.

The sound you hear is the teabaggers and the congressional Republicans saying "La la la I can't hear you" while stamping their feet and falling on the floor in the supermarket aisle.

There's no question a movement like this is needed, and is exactly what I've been writing about here. The antithesis is the current iteration of the Republican party and its teabagging substrate, as well as its screaming propaganda arm known as Fox "news" and its radio sidekicks. Some will say it also includes the Democratic party; I'd aver the facts say otherwise. They've been trying. Weak-kneed, overcomplicated, solicitous, yes. But trying.

Meanwhile the Rs promise -- literally -- to become even worse than they've been.

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans intend to block action on virtually all Democratic-backed legislation unrelated to tax cuts and government spending in the current postelection session of Congress, officials said Tuesday, adding that the leadership has quietly collected signatures on a letter pledging to carry out the strategy.

If carried out, it would doom Democratic-backed attempts to end the Pentagon's practice of discharging openly gay members of the military service and give legal status to young illegal immigrants who join the military or attend college.

This was, by the way, immediately after the meeting with Obama, following which he said he was encouraged. Like Charlie Brown believing Lucy and her football, yet again. Sigh.

So the grownups are congregating elsewhere. Will they gather influence? Will they be heard?

The sound you hear is me, saying "I doubt it."

America-Haters

Seems the only person who claims John Kyl and the rest of the Republican obstructionists of START have America's interests at heart is Barack Obama. The rest, including the most credible conservatives, are mystified. As well they should be:

In an attempt to rally bipartisan support for the treaty, the White House has enlisted the kind of GOP foreign policy wise men that Lugar exemplifies -- among them former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and James A. Baker. But they have had no success with members of their own party, and it has left them scratching their heads over the source of the GOP opposition.

"It's not clear to me what it is," said Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush who noted that this START treaty is not very different from previous ones negotiated and ratified under Republican presidents. "I've got to think that it's the increasingly partisan nature and the desire for the president not to have a foreign policy victory."

This is no small observation. Scowcroft, one of the more respected Republican voices in the national security establishment, is noting, on the record, that he suspects his own party is putting their partisan interests above the needs of the nation. The underlying point of an observation like Scowcroft is that he sees his Republican Party putting petty partisanship above national security.

We're in the process -- to use a phrase that was given the Foxobeckian distortion treatment recently -- of handing back the keys to the guys who drove us off a cliff ("into a ditch" is way too mild.) In all things -- including national security, most amazingly -- they have no interest in the national interest. Only their own. It couldn't be more clear, or more sickening. Respectable Republicans who speak out (and there aren't many) are tossed overboard.

What will always remain unclear -- except, perhaps, to galactic historians digging through the rubble -- is the self-destructive and delusional mania of the voters who returned them to the front seat.

The Enemy Within

I guess I'm not the only one to have noticed: Congressional Republicans would rather destroy America than see Barack Obama reëlected for a second term. Looked at with unfogged eyes, it's apparent that deliberate sabotage of the economy is merely a means to an end.

... tangible improvements in the economy are key to Obama’s re-election chances. And Douglas Hibbs knows that it’s key. And senior administration officials know that its key. So is it so unreasonable to think that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner may also know that it’s key? That rank and file Republicans know that it’s key? McConnell has clarified that his key goal in the Senate is to cause Barack Obama to lose in 2012which if McConnell understands the situation correctly means doing everything in his power to reduce economic growth. Boehner has distanced himself from this theory, but many members of his caucus may agree with McConnell.

Which is just to say that specifically the White House needs to be prepared not just for rough political tactics from the opposition (what else is new?) but for a true worst case scenario of deliberate economic sabotage.

Is it crazy hyperbole to think so? Is it really far-fetched? What would it look like?

You might start with rejecting the advice of economists and oppose any kind of stimulus investments. You'd also want to cut spending and take money out of the economy, while blocking funds to states and municipalities, forcing them to lay off more workers. You'd no doubt want to cut off stimulative unemployment benefits, and identify the single most effective jobs program of the last two years (the TANF Emergency Fund) so you could kill it.

You might then take steps to stop the Federal Reserve from trying to lower the unemployment rate. You'd also no doubt want to create massive economic uncertainty by vowing to gut the national health care system, promising to re-write the rules overseeing the financial industry, vowing re-write business regulations in general, considering a government shutdown, and even weighing the possibly of sending the United States into default.

You might want to cover your tracks a bit, and say you have an economic plan that would help -- a tax policy that's already been tried -- but you'd do so knowing that such a plan has already proven not to work.

It applies across the board. Judges, for example.

It's gotten so bad that, Ian Millhiser writes, a number of Republican judges are now begging the GOP to stop obstructing Obama's nominees....

... Even the most benign, Republican-friendly elements of Obama's agenda, like the new START treaty, are subject to total opposition from the GOP. They use what power they have to prevent government from performing basic duties at any level of efficiency, and then turn around and argue that this reflects a failure of leadership on the part of the president. The pursuit of political power is more important to the party than civic responsibility. It's a testament to the power of low expectations that this hasn't produced more of an outrage, especially since they aren't even pretendingotherwise.

Having made it clear their prime directive is to destroy Obama, not even trying to hide their agenda which might well include a government shut-down, it's not really in question that these guys place their own political goals above the country's best interest. The only question remaining is whether voters will recognize it and, if they do, whether they'll find it abhorrent. And whether the damage done will be too great to reverse.

My guess: no, no, and yes.

Spectrum

This pretty thoroughly demonstrates the whole range of differences between Obama and Bush, and between Republican tactics and normality. It also shows what I consider good about Barack Obama, and what drives me crazy about him.

Not long after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a variety of Democratic lawmakers proposed creating the Department of Homeland Security. George W. Bush, at least initially, balked, fearing a cabinet agency would lead to more oversight.

In time, Bush reversed course, and embraced the idea. But when it came labor laws and the new DHS, the White House and the Democratic Senate majority were on opposite sites. As the dispute intensified, Bush ultimately gave a speech on Sept. 23, 2002, insisting, "The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."...

...Eight years later, Dana Milbank reflects on the incident while noting that it's Republicans who are "blocking a Senate vote on a treaty with Russia that is critical to securing loose nukes and keeping Iran from gaining the bomb."

For Democrats, the opposition's gamesmanship with security should present an opportunity. Republicans seem to have entered a post-post-9/11 era, in which national security is no longer a higher priority than their interest in undermining President Obama. There's no need to resort to the demagoguery once used against Democrats, but neither would it hurt the White House and congressional Democrats to point out that their opponents are trying to weaken Americans' security. [...]

Milbank suggests if the situations were reversed, and Democrats were blocking a nuclear arms treaty negotiated by Bush, the Republican president would not only be questioning Dems' motives, but Republicans "would no doubt be running ads juxtaposing Democrats with Osama bin Laden, or alleging, as they did then, that Democrats are giving 'comfort to America's enemies.'...

...And so we hear a very different tone. Eight years ago, Bush said Democrats don't care if we live or die. Yesterday, President Obama said of Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), "I believe that Senator Kyl wants a safe and secure America, just like I do, and is well-motivated." Obama added, "Senator Kyl has never said to me that he does not want to see START ratified. ... What he said is, is that he just felt like there wasn't enough time to get it done in the lame duck. And I take him at his word."

That's a degree of graciousness Kyl almost certainly doesn't deserve, and one Bush never even considered.

(Sorry about the psychedelic font changes.) I wrote about this recently. The behaviors of both sides are astoundingly and diametrically different, with one being blatantly cynical and hypocritical and the other -- the president, anyway -- eschewing the sort of tactics that everyone knows the Rs would be using were it reversed.

It says a lot about President Obama that he retains the FAR higher ground.

I just wish I knew what.

Obstructionism Gone Wild

To say John Kyl is not a very smart guy and one whose priorities have nothing to do with protecting our country or moving it forward is to say there are Republicans in the Senate. So, no, it's not surprising that the guy, for no reason I can think of, has decided personally to kibosh the nuclear treaty with Russia (with the blessing of the rest of his asinine abettors.)

Republicans had made Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) their point man on the issue -- it's not clear why, since Kyl has no background or working knowledge of the issue -- and he made specific objections to the Obama administration clear. Officials, in response, gave Kyl what he asked for. The deal, they thought, was done.

Over many months of negotiations, the administration committed to spending $80 billion to do that over the next 10 years, and on Friday offered to chip in $4.1 billion more over the next five years. As a gesture of commitment, the White House had made sure extra money for modernization was included in the stopgap spending resolution now keeping the government operating, even though almost no other program received an increase in money.

All told, White House officials counted 29 meetings, phone calls, briefings or letters involving Mr. Kyl or his staff. They said they thought they had given him everything he wanted, and were optimistic about completing a deal this week, only to learn about his decision on Tuesday from reporters.

Kyl wouldn't even give the White House the courtesy of a phone call to let them know he was betraying them and the nation's national security needs. Worse, the dimwitted Kyl, with the future of American foreign policy in his hands, couldn't even give a coherent rationale for why he'd made the decision -- his office would only say "there doesn't appear to be enough time" in the lame-duck session.

This is what happens when serious officials try to negotiate in good faith with Republicans -- they refuse to take "yes" for an answer, they don't have intellectual capacity to explain why, and the entire country has to suffer the consequences.

[Emphasis by your blogger. Because there's never been a truer statement, any time, anywhere.]

I take it back. I can think of a reason, and it would seem to be the only one: Kyl's prime motivation is to make President Obama look bad, no matter the impact it has on our country. Loose nukes? Who gives a sh*t, right? Another arms race? F*ck, yeah! Help from Russia on the Iran problems? Who needs it? (How's that balance-y America-y thing workin' out for ya'?)

Awful doesn't describe these guys. What words do? Can anyone make a reasonable (i.e., not Frankonian, not Foxobeckian) argument for Kyl's action? After they gave him what he said he wanted? I'd love to hear it.

[Well, here's another view, suggesting Kyl's naked dishonesty may have lit a fire under the generally non-flammable Harry Reid. One can hope. And here's an answer to my question from one of the rare R Senators who occasionally makes sense. Not that it puts them in any sort of good light. Quite completely the opposite, in fact. Nor does it offer hope for ratification, now or ever.]

Sun Rises In East

Mitch McConnell, in a slip of the tongue (by which I mean he told the truth), makes clear what Congressional Republicans are all about:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Not, oh, y'know, balancing the budget, fixing health care, creating jobs. Addressing wars, improving education, solving immigration. Not that it was ever in doubt: they have zero interest in actually governing, nor ideas by which to do it.

And the RWS™ pretend it's Obama who hasn't been cooperating.

Nutcase Screwjob

Can we all just agree that John McCain has gone over the edge? One might argue as to when -- I'd say it began in Hanoi -- but that it's true isn't really in doubt. His latest ego-driven move to hurt our country is his single-handed hold on the nomination of James Clapper as director of national intelligence. Maybe it's the word "intelligence" that makes him feel so threatened. And lest anyone think he's taking a sensible stand, the man was approved unanimously in the Senate Intelligence Committee. Unanimous. In these times, that's philosophers' stone stuff.

McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services committee, has evoked his procedural right to hold the nomination of the leader of the intelligence community, which could mean it will be weeks before the opening is filled, as the Senate has only one legislative work week left before it recesses until September.

"Sen. McCain requested a specific report from Mr. Clapper, and, until that report is provided, Sen. McCain will continue to hold his nomination," McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said via e-mail.

So it's pique, a hissy-fit. No matter that there's universal approval of the man; no matter that having a director seems sort of important in these times. John McCain will not be treated with disrespect, I tell you.

Of course, it's not just John McCain. Senate Republicans have held up Obama's nominations, especially for vacant judgeships, at twice the rate Bush's were, even when Democrats were in the majority.

It's pure politics, at its very worst. Screw the country, screw the people's business. We're Republicans, so we simply don't give a shit. It's who we are.

It's simply indefensible. And it's incomprehensible that these people, with this unprecedented level of destructiveness, now and in the past presidency, are claiming the right to take over again. And will probably get it.

I know why it is, and I've said so. But I simply can't stomach that we've become so stupid as a nation. It's as if we (and by "we" I mean "they") actually want to see our country fail. It nearly did. And if they have at it again, it surely will. How can it not, when all they want is to return to the exact policies that brought us down?

In the meantime they'll see to it that no appointments get confirmed. No damn way.

As Opposed To Governing

Count on it. If Rs take back either or both houses of Congress, government will grind to a halt. Because of people like Michelle Bachmann and Darryl Issa, among others. For a party with no ideas, it's twoly perfect: lots of face time in the media, and no need actually to do anything.

“Oh, I think that’s all we should do,” Bachmann said. “I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another. And expose all the nonsense that is going on..."

Making it clearer and clearer, Congressional Rs keep telling us the obvious: they have no intention of governing, and couldn't care less what will happen to our country. And yet, on the backs of people like this, it appears they'll be carried back to power. How sad for us all. What a historic opportunity, wasted.

And Congressional Rs aren't the only ones with fabulous plans.

These are actual people.

Need More Proof?

Could it be any clearer that Congressional Republicans 1) aren't serious about governing and 2) are enemies of science and education? For that matter, isn't it also obvious that Congressional rules are so arcane and bogged down that our country simply can't function as a political entity?

The problem, I think, is that when the rules were made there was an assumption that the minority party, no matter which one it was, would retain a scintilla of decency, and a glimmer of commitment to country above party. Using the phrase heard commonly of late to excuse the most egregious of errors (9/11, oil spills, Iraq insurgency, derivatives crisis...), "no one could have foreseen" the disastrous alignment of a theocratic party, a news organization committed to promoting it, the capitulation of the rest of the media, and the willingness of the electorate to be tagged and teabagged by them. There was even a time, I think, when such a grievous failing would have been understandable. In the barely recalled past, parties talked to one another, and a common desire to do right was assumed, even during disagreement. No more. We have only one serious political party, and, given the way Congress works and the devolution of the public sensibility, that's not a good thing. Our system was built in and depends on good faith.

Here's the latest example of Republican indecency. There was a House bill aimed at raising funding for scientific research and for math and science education. You know, the stuff that might save the future for us... It had passed out of committee and was ready for floor vote. But some Republican congressman -- a Texan, no less -- had a way to stop it. (Science?? My god, what will those Nazi Democrats do next?) It's complicated and simple. Evidently, you can demand a bill get sent back to committee by a "motion to recommit" which he attached to an amendment requiring that money not be spent in salary to anyone found to have watched pornography. So Democrats had two choices: deny the motion to recommit, thereby risk being campaigned against with the claim they'd voted in favor of pornography, or pull the bill off the floor. Brave souls that they are (well, realists, too: sure as hell the claim would have been made and the public would have undipped their bags long enough to drink it in), they pulled the bill.

Now, I have no doubt that there was much high-fivin' going on in Republican cloakrooms; I'm certain the if-Obama-is-for-it-we're-against-it crowd thinks their boys in Congress are cool as hell. But science? Really? (Well, of course. Nowadays, their whole foundation is denialism.)

And thus we see the seriousness, the patriotism, the respectability of our opposition party; the party that wants control again after taking us up too and well over the brink, the party Fox "news" is all about promoting 24/7, the party the teabaggers just love to death. The party that, despite its failings and because of its willingness to distort, dissemble, and deceive, is quite likely to regain power faster than I'd have thought possible.

But that was when I still had residual faith in the electorate and (I can't remember why) hope that the media were up to their responsibilities.

We are so screwed.

The Party Of NO

Come election time, there will be a very clear choice.

Pitching A Fit

The image is from the same site as in the previous post. Another good one.

Clearly there's something really rotten in the state of the Senate when one guy can block legislation. That's minority rules gone wild. Also, it's pretty pathetic that the Ds have, in essence, acquiesced, having little hissy fits but letting the guy go beddie-bye at night. That's filibuster gone even softer than the Rs could have dreamed. (Congressional Ds are nothing if not spineless. Gotta admire the ol' hurler on that score.) In this era of problems potentially fatal to the republic, not to mention the planet, our government simply can't continue to operate under the current Senate rules. And, whereas both parties are perfectly happy with the rules depending on which is in or out of power, if we don't elect enough legislators with the wisdom and guts to make the changes, we may as well toss in the towel. Spend the rest of our savings, have a little fun, then hook up the hose.

On the other hand -- and this makes it even worse -- the guy has a point: he wants the costs of the jobs bill to be folded into the stimulus money. Now he's voted against "pay-go" rules in the past; and, like most Rs, he was fine with the deficits that came from the Bush tax cuts and prescription drug program. So, yeah, he's a hypocrite. (And, I'm told, since being elected, he breathes air.) Plus, there are effects of his action that go far beyond the jobs bill. To make his point by poking it into the eye of so many people is a little raw.

The jobs bill up which he is holding is a pathetic little bill, pared down from a significantly bigger and potentially more effective one on which there'd been some bipartisan agreement, to one made up nearly exclusively of tax cuts; one about which there's little to no enthusiasm from economists. A complete capitulation, in other words, to Republican ideas. Useless and bass-ackwards, just the way they like it. Nevertheless, taking the $18B from the stimulus money, so it doesn't add further to debt, doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me. I admit to not knowing the fine points, or why it might not be possible, if that's the case. Still -- as one who has always believed in the idea of pay-go except in extraordinary circumstances (like the worst economic crisis since the Depression, for example) -- I'd say there's some merit to the guy's demand, even though he seems to be an asshole's asshole.

So here we are, once again, in the throes of stupidity on all sides of the Senate, bounded by outdated and ineffectual rules, with solutions needed, provided inadequately, and still unmanageable. As usual, Jon Stewart explains it best.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Senate After Dark
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

[....Time passes.....] So he just gave up the filibuster, as it seemed Ds were ready to make him stay up all night. But now he's placed a hold on ALL presidential nominees. And, as one of the articles confirms, just a month ago he voted against pay-go rules. So he's still an asshole and a hypocrite, and the Senate rules still suck.

Clever

Saw the above at this website. The blogger has a talent.