Politics Thread

[Kevin]

What kind of self-respecting US President A) goes on a TV talk show? B ) insults retarded people?

Oh wait, I forgot, he's Jesus H Christ the 2nd.

[HGervais]

Well, Reagan made appearances on Bob Hope & George Burns TV specials while President, President Eisenhower was on The Colgate Comedy Hour and Nixon made his Laugh-In appearance....as for the special olympics remark...not in the greatest taste I will grant you although it is worth noting the comment was more self-deprecating than a slam against people with special needs. And I kind of like seeing a president venturing out of the script every moment washington bubble a little bit. I would much rather have that than somebody who suspended the 1st amendment, okayed assasination teams, authorized wiretapping on US citizens in violation of the law, started a useless & expensive war based on stovepiped information, didn't plan for the meltdown that occured after the invasion, approved torture and joking about not being able to find WMB as he searched under the chairs & cushions of the Oval Office but that is crazy old me.
I mean really...you want attack Obama over certain policies and things his staff is trying to acomplish or trying to punt on, there are lots of things we could discus but to go after the president for a off-the-cuff comment he made that was supposed to make more fun of himself than anyone else, well, I would say you are reading too much Drudge and focusing on really, really small things.

[Future Man]

In other words, he gets another pass. I just hope he never strays that far from a teleprompter again.

[HGervais]

A pass for what? Making a dumb comment that was more about making fun of himself than it was an attack on special needs people? The point, such as it was at 2 in the morning after a long night at work and a couple of beers is pretty simple. Obama going on entertainment program is not without historical precedent, although I doubt if Reagan or Ike were trying to sell some really wonkish policy agenda and if you want to talk about a president doing or saying something to belittle or demean the office of the president, then let's talk about what we just went through the past eight years and it becomes quickly apparent that this wasn't even small potatoes. You want to argue policy or talk about where President Obama is trying to lead the country, then yeah let's go but an off-the-cuff remark, that was self-deprecating in nature and will be forgotten in a couple of days, is what you want to hang your hat on about how he does not respect the office, well, it is just another clear example about how little people on the other side of the aisle have to talk about.

[HGervais]

I mean if you want to talk about what a bad idea the zombie bank is, I'm all over it with you. And I don't disagree with the substance of what Krugman is saying here either. Geitner really does have to go.

[Dunnyman]

In other words, he gets another pass. I just hope he never strays that far from a teleprompter again.

A pass? For making a mistake, and a) Calling the Special Olympics people before it even aired to apologize, b) making no attempt to deny what he said or shift the blame to being "misquoted" or some other nonsense, and c) completely owning up to his dumb mistake?
A pass? For lying us into a trillion dollar war and a)blaming bad intelligence (even though everyone knew it was BS, b)constantly changing stories as to why we were there, c)giving billion dollar contracts to your friends to feed our soldiers poisoned water and spoiled food, d) not giving our troops the level of equipment needed to do the job, and e) watching your fatcat buddies send hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas so any returning soldiers would be unemployed.
Excuse me, who got the free pass here?

On the lighter side of this one, one of the Special Olympics bowlers who has 5 perfect games to his credit has offered to teach Obama a few pointers, and I think it'd be a good idea for Obama to take those pointers to show that special needs or not, those people can be pretty amazing...

[Future Man]

His insensitive remark isn't the problem but rather a manifestation of the problem: he's just not mature enough for the responsibilities of the office. He hasn't even amassed sufficient good judgment to appoint able advisors and cabinet members across the board.

I am glad that Obama now openly agrees that the fundamentals of our economy are strong. Why did he and his buddies in the media so derisively castigate McCain for the same remark last year?

And yes I will never tire of the mantra that Bush "lied" all the while knowing we would find no WMDs. That makes a lot of sense to the tied-dyed crowd but no one else. Wake up and read the grudging headlines, we've won in Iraq and it was a war worth winning.

[Dunnyman]

His insensitive remark isn't the problem but rather a manifestation of the problem: he's just not mature enough for the responsibilities of the office. He hasn't even amassed sufficient good judgment to appoint able advisors and cabinet members across the board.

I just...can't....

[Dunnyman]

His insensitive remark isn't the problem but rather a manifestation of the problem: he's just not mature enough for the responsibilities of the office. He hasn't even amassed sufficient good judgment to appoint able advisors and cabinet members across the board.

OK, I can...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washi ... .html?_r=1
Real mature there W, real mature.... refuse to help Special Olympics because of the Kennedy connection.

[Chris_Sax]

Wake up and read the grudging headlines, we've won in Iraq and it was a war worth winning.

Oh my.

[J.M. Vargas]

Arlen Specter switches parties: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/specter-will-run-as-a-democrat-in-2010/. Smart: avoids potential loss in the primary with hardcore Republicans, neutralizes Democrat opposition and (as the 60th Senate vote when Franken gets confirmed) his vote will gain him favors with the current administration. Political hat trick!

[HGervais]

My jaw hit the ground when I walked into the restaurant for lunch and saw the headline on CNN. Obama is officially the anti-Clinton. Remember 1992? Clinton's approval ratings were in the toilet and several Democrats were switching parties. Obama is at anywhere from 61% to 69%, people who identify themselves as Republicans have dropped down to 21%, the Dems just won their first special election while in early 90s they were losing them left & right and Spector just handed the Dems a supermajority in the Senate. Add into that a pretty grim outlook for the GOP in 2010 where they could easily lose 4 to 6 more seats in the Senate.

GOPers can call Spector all the names they want but at the end of the day a moderate, and fairly reliable Republican vote of 30 years has more in common with the Democrats than he does with his own party. He simply wasn't conservative enough to pass muster with the idelogical zealots. The GOP continues to shrink while it pushes away the very voices who should be helping to rebuild it and allowing the most strident & hardcore to gain more & more control. Reagan would be weeping if he could see what has been done to the GOP in his name.

Is there any doubt it is time for a viable third party?

[J.M. Vargas]

MSNBC is reporting David Souter is retiring from the Supreme Court: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/. What a week for the GOP!

[Future Man]

Let's play the game where we pretend the mainstream media would be ignoring Nancy Pelosi's (to be generous) memory lapses on her waterboarding briefings to the same degree as if she were a Republican Speaker. You know, as oppposed to a barrage of stories on every night's broadcast and in every morning headline and on every weekly cover.

Scrutinize both parties with equal vigor is all I could ever ask of our wonderful newsmedia which I so adore.

[HGervais]

Let's play the game where we pretend the mainstream media would be ignoring Nancy Pelosi's (to be generous) memory lapses on her waterboarding briefings to the same degree as if she were a Republican Speaker. You know, as oppposed to a barrage of stories on every night's broadcast and in every morning headline and on every weekly cover.

So are you saying we should not be talking about torture or just that Nancy Peolsi and other prominent Democrats who were aware of the programs should also be included in those discussions & reports that relate to these illegal activities?

Scrutinize both parties with equal vigor is all I could ever ask of our wonderful newsmedia which I so adore.

I agree. It is my greatest wish that the American media grows a pair and actually starts reporting news again. This big business controlled info-tainment model amalgam does no one any good. If we would have had a truly independent media the past 10 to 15 years we very likely would not have to be dealing with several of the messes we find ourselves in at the moment. To our leaders approving torture as a policy, hopefully these programs will be fully aired out and everyone can see what was done and I also agree those on the other side of the aisle who knew should be held to some kind of account but I also hope you agree that the ones who ordered waterboarding, illegal wiretapping, suspension of Constitutional rights and direct violations of the Geneva Convention should be procescuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[Future Man]

Your response begs too many questions to be countenanced.

[HGervais]

Your response begs too many questions to be countenanced.

What questions? As more & more has come out we know torture was approved at the highest levels of government....and more disclosures are on the way. You opened the door yourself by complaining that Peolsi was not being as actively mentioned in the discussion as Bush or Cheney and I agreed with you. I don't think she bears the level of responsibility as Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzo, Addington, Yoo, Baybee, etc. do but I do think the Pelosi & Harmen links should be much more fully explored by a media that is much more lazy and obsessed by their own access than they are liberal.

[Future Man]

Your response begs too many questions to be countenanced.

What questions? As more & more has come out we know torture was approved at the highest levels of government....and more disclosures are on the way. You opened the door yourself by complaining that Peolsi was not being as actively mentioned in the discussion as Bush or Cheney and I agreed with you. I don't think she bears the level of responsibility as Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzo, Addington, Yoo, Baybee, etc. do but I do think the Pelosi & Harmen links should be much more fully explored by a media that is much more lazy and obsessed by their own access than they are liberal.

Begging the question is another name for circular reasoning. You are declaring things to be torture and from there declaring that they must be illegal regardless of context and also declaring unidentified types of wiretapping to be illegal all without presenting applicable legal authority (i.e., judiclal rulings at the highest levels) to substantiate what you are claiming. My point about Pelosi is that she did not object to waterboarding until it became politcally expedient for her to do so. This tends to detract from the opinions of those that she now shares.

[HGervais]

Begging the question is another name for circular reasoning. You are declaring things to be torture and from there declaring that they must be illegal regardless of context and also declaring unidentified types of wiretapping to be illegal all without presenting applicable legal authority (i.e., judiclal rulings at the highest levels) to substantiate what you are claiming. My point about Pelosi is that she did not object to waterboarding until it became politcally expedient for her to do so. This tends to detract from the opinions of those that she now shares.

I'm not declaring anything. That you don't want to or can't accept it, the evidence supports that torture was this nation's policy under the previous administration. The evidence supports that the previous administration approved wiretapping they knew to be illegal. This has a become a thing that is not open to debate. You look at what has come out and 2 + 2 does indeed = 4. I agree with you people like Pelosi need to be questioned about their silence but I guess I'm wondering what it is you are complaining about? If you don't think the previous administration did anything wrong....and reading most of what you have written around here the past several years that really isn't that much of a stretch...Pelosi gave her silence to things that were okay in your book but only spoke up now out of political expediency..so that what...just makes her a big old hypocrite? The administration did not torture or break the law and Pelosi did not say anything at the time to something you think is okay but is saying something now so in not reporting that to the extent you would like that puts the media in the tank? So if she had objected when she first found out that probably would have meant she was endangering American lives and this country's security by going public with the previous administration's policies in your eyes but by objecting after the fact she is now just a political opportunist. Speakers really should just keep their mouth's shut, then conservative Republicans would have nothing to whine about.

[HGervais]

Well, it's becoming more interesting. Former Senator Bob Graham is saying he was not briefed about waterboarding or EIT either while the CIA is saying that he was. Link here.

[HGervais]

President Obama reaches across the aisle and names Utah governor Jon Huntsman as his choice to be Ambassador to China. Good move for Obama and a good move for Huntsman as I think this makes him a major player for the GOP presidential nod in 2016.

[J.M. Vargas]

^^^ And takes him out of play for 2012. McCain mentioned Huntsman on a TV interview (the infamous one where he deliberately didn't mention Sarah Palin) as one of the GOP rising stars that might have a shot at winning the WH in '12. Seriously, without Huntsman the GOP is left with the likes of Romney/Huckabee/Palin/Palenti/Gingrich/etc. as the front-runners. They all carry a ton of baggage, some less (Palenti) than others. It would take a major Obama f***-up or the economy collapsing for any of these guys to have a shot, most likely Romney if the economy is the dominant issue.

[HGervais]

I agree....barring some kind of disaster or meltdown I don't see any of the current crop of gop stars making a dent come 2012 and while a lot of commentators make mention of Huntsman being a player in 2012 if he had stayed in office I just don't see it. The gop still has not comes to grips with the scope of their failure in 2008 and their reaction thus far has been to demand an even more strident idealogy from its members. I just don't see a moderate like Huntsman winning the nomination in that kind of climate. He is kind of in the same boat as Spector, reasonable enough to win in the general not hardcore enough to get through the primaries. Sad really. In my fantasy world where it takes another election cycle or two for people to realize the gop does not matter on a national level anymore Huntsman is kind of an ideal leader for a freshly minted fiscally sane/socially accepting third party.

[Dan Mancini]

The gop still has not comes to grips with the scope of their failure in 2008 and their reaction thus far has been to demand an even more strident idealogy from its members.

Neither party ever comes to grips with its failures. Ever. Rather, the electorate gets exasperated with the incompetence and corruption of the party in power and begins to see the party it once hated as the lesser of the two evils -- and the tide turns. The current obituaries to the GOP are laughable if only because the same things were being said about the Democratic party 5 years ago.

[HGervais]

The gop still has not comes to grips with the scope of their failure in 2008 and their reaction thus far has been to demand an even more strident idealogy from its members.

Neither party ever comes to grips with its failures. Ever. Rather, the electorate gets exasperated with the incompetence and corruption of the party in power and begins to see the party it once hated as the lesser of the two evils -- and the tides turn. The current obituaries to the GOP are laughable if only because the same things were being said about the Democratic party less than 8 years ago.

I would disagree with that. From a simple number standpoint the Democrats never hit the self-identification lows the gop has and the way the two parties have handled failure have differed wildly. I have not forgotten Rove's "permanent majority" but what you term as laughable I see as different circumstances and different times. Obama is not Bush and he is not Clinton. I honestly believe we have seen a seismic shift in our political system and I don't think it is good for us as a nation. I hope the gop has some kind of realization and understands they are completely out of step with the country and in moving forward look backward with a return to conservative values & ideals but with the current leadership I just don't see it.
And what are you arguing in the selection of that quote Dan? Do you not think thier losses in 2006 & 2008 were huge and do you not think their solution has been to lurch even further to the right?

[TemporalWisdom]

And what are you arguing in the selection of that quote Dan? Do you not think thier losses in 2006 & 2008 were huge and do you not think their solution has been to lurch even further to the right?

That's not necessarily the wrong strategy, depending on the results one wants. The Republican thinking might be to hang on to the most heavily conservative regions while waiting for people to get sick of the Democrats.

"Always two there are. No more, no less." If a new party comes into power, it will replace the GOP. I just can't see three major parties co-existing for long in a three-way tug of war -- one would bite it within a couple years (obviously not the Democrats in this scenario). It's partly because human nature demands we draw a dividing line and say, "You're on one side or the other."

Dan, you're right that power goes back and forth between the two parties, pretty much like clockwork. But you're forgetting that it hasn't always. The Whigs died out long ago, and the Federalists before them. Big changes do happen in our political system, and the Republicans could be setting themselves up for extinction.

You really ought to read The Black Swan, if you haven't.

[Future Man]

Well even if Obama is re-elected I won't feel too bad in that his education on national security is starting to get into full swing and he obviously has a fuller awareness of what it takes to protect this nation than any ivory-tower-armchair Keith Olbermann type could ever hope to have. Obviously he is pulling back on some measures but it now seems to be a difference of degree rather than kind in his thinking.

[HGervais]

Mike...I was saying months ago that you had to look at who Obama was surrounding himself with on the national security front. The man is a pragmatic realist who wants as much consensus as possible. He continues to remind me of Bush 41 on the national security & foreign policy front.

I'm sure you are referring to the reversal on releasing the torture photos...those things are going to see the light of day eventually, as well they should. And the memos are going to come out as well, again, as well they should. I don't know if you noticed but the torture discussion shifted in a major way this week. Cheney & company has been selling the line that these EIT's were all a ticking clock scenario kind of thing but it came to light that instead these EIT's were trying to produce evidence of operational ties between Saddam & Osama as a way to justify the Iraq invasion. THAT is a major shift in degree and it certainly helps underscore why Cheney is out front so much trying to steer the conversation on torture. And btw, isn't it funny how Cheney is saying Obama is putting the nation at risk by discountinuing these EIT practices when for the last 5 years of the Bush administration they were following the same policy?

That's not necessarily the wrong strategy, depending on the results one wants. The Republican thinking might be to hang on to the most heavily conservative regions while waiting for people to get sick of the Democrats.

That does not make any sense. You don't turn off 80% of the country with shrill rhetoric while continuing to offer up a menu of the same kind of policies that pushed people away in the first place and expect them to come back. That is not how you build a majority party. Say what you will about the Democrats but following 2004 the party began to fine tune its message, it searched out & fielded better candidates and it opened up new avenues for both getting that message out there and raising money. There was a clear focus on making the party more attractive to more people. You simply don't see any of that taking place with the gop with them going in the opposite direction. It is of course possible that the Democrats burn themselves and pull defeat from the jaws of victory but with Obama at the helm, I just don't see it. And if Obama & the Democrats do manage to pass major helthcare reform this year, forget about it. I really think we are looking at more Dem gains in 2010 and with those Republican losses I think the need for a new political party is going to become more & more evident. Or I could be wrong.

[Dan Mancini]

And what are you arguing in the selection of that quote Dan? Do you not think thier losses in 2006 & 2008 were huge and do you not think their solution has been to lurch even further to the right?

Where do you infer that I didn't think their losses weren't huge? And what was the Democrats' immediate response to their losses in 2000 and 2002? They lurched left -- far left. To do the sort of trend analysis you're engaging in based on the immediate aftermath of two election cycles is wishful thinking.

Take for instance some of the internals in current polling data. A majority of the American people dig Obama on a personal level. A majority are also, uh, hesitant about many of his policies...especially his domestic policies and his budget priorities. He may win moderates to his expansionist philosophy, or his policy decisions may erode his popularity. Time will tell. The electorate also continues to essentially despise congress (which, more and more they identify as a Democratic body -- something they didn't do in the '08 election cycle even though the Dems held majorities in both houses). Neither of those things are a recipe for death of the GOP.

You also have to take into account that at this time in 2005, no one would have imagined that Obama would be the Democratic nominee let alone the president. Looking at the current field of potential 2012 or 2016 GOP presidential candidates is basically meaningless. Things change in politics -- often.

It's way way way way way too early to be making the sorts of forecasts you're making. 2012 is a long time away; 2016 is an eternity. The GOP is in the wilderness to be sure. But it won't stay there (the parties never do). The shoddy and corrupt behavior of congressional Democrats, alone, tells me that. Hunger for victory always produces the emergence of new leadership (and a shift toward the middle), while holding power always leads to corruption. If you're theory of an eternal Democratic majority is based on the idea that they will always been seen as the centrists to the GOP's far-right extremism, I think you're taking a far too static view of the political landscape.

[Dan Mancini]

Dan, you're right that power goes back and forth between the two parties, pretty much like clockwork. But you're forgetting that it hasn't always. The Whigs died out long ago, and the Federalists before them. Big changes do happen in our political system, and the Republicans could be setting themselves up for extinction.

I'm not forgetting it. I just don't see anything in the GOP's current situation that parallels the collapse of those parties.

[J.M. Vargas]

BTW, missing in the heat of politics is that Huntsman is eminently qualified for China's ambassadorship: succesful rich businessman, well-run state as governor, relatively moderate (but conservative enough), no scandals, etc. And it's not a cushy vanity gig he's been given but a pretty damn important job: ambassador to a growing super power, the country that we do most of our business with and which holds most of our debt. And if an international crisis were to erupt Huntsman would be one of the few people 'in the loop' with diplomatic manuevers going at the highest levels of US-China relations. If the Republicans and media folks (plus us, political junkies) can get past the obvious political equation behind Obama's pick of Huntsman we also have to acknowledge that this is as big a bi-partisan appointment in the Obama administration as keeping Robert Gates as Defense Secretary.

[HGervais]

If the Republicans and media folks (plus us, political junkies) can get past the obvious political equation behind Obama's pick of Huntsman we also have to acknowledge that this is as big a bi-partisan appointment in the Obama administration as keeping Robert Gates as Defense Secretary.

Yeah, it's nice when political calculation and the person with the right stuff dovetail. The more I read up on Huntsman the more impressed I am by him. And let's not forget his political calculation in this. He clearly wants no part of the race in 2012. That a guy who would be one of his party's leading contenders for the presidential nomination in 2012 walks away from that and goes to work for the other party in as high a profile job as this speaks volumes. From both sides it is a pretty interesting marriage with benefits for both parties involved.

[J.M. Vargas]

It is in Huntman's best political interest for the Obama administration to succeed (his profile rises alongside the administration's), and that involves growing/expanding US market's reach into the vast Chinese population or being able to renogitiate the debt. Obama may have bought himself a reprieve in '12 but he just handed his party a potential GOP opponent that they're unable to demonize as 'extremist' or 'out of touch.' If Huntsman's good-enough for Obama and he delivers then even diehard GOP activists will come to realize he's their G.W. Bush but with brains. As a liberal (who relies on the Dems to be the 'ying' to the conservative movement/GOP's 'yang') I'm worried that Obama isn't grooming yet an Al Gore-type torch bearer that will continue his policies when he leaves in '16 (assuming '12 goes as expected) allowing a wide open door for Huntsman to get in. Warner is kind-of assumed will run in '16 but he's as charisma-challenged as Gore was in 2000. Nobody will be able to fill the personality/oratory gap when Obama leaves the White House, but I'm afraid at this point that there are no no good Dem prospects for '16, mirroring the slate of GOP candidates vying for '12.

[HGervais]

LOL...if there is one thing we learned about Obama in the primaries and the general is he is not afraid of a fight. There is the obvious political factor but when you look at Huntsman, you see a guy really qualified for the job. It's to Obama's & Huntsman's credit that they both looked past partisan concerns and made a move in support of the best interests of the nation. As for 2016, as Dan noted earlier, that is a political eternity and I don't even care to think that far out but one name to keep in your mind is Rep. Joe Sestak of PA-07.

[Ptolemy]

Huntsman is a good man. I was ready to hate him when he came on the scene because of the way his party shafted his predessesor - but I've been consistently pleased with the way he runs things here. And I even voted for him last election. I don't see as much politics in this as some of y'all do. There is an important job that needs to be done - and he's qualified to do it. I trust him enough to believe he's taking the job because he's a patriot - not an opportunist. But on the political front, it won't hurt to be out of the country for a few years while the shouting class of his party finish their self destruction and perhaps come to thier senses. 6 or 7 years away from the Palins, the Gingrich's, the Limbaugh's, Rove's, Cheney's, Buttars, Ruzika's, and Coulter's doing something important may be incentive enough. (away, as well from the democratic jackasses too) I know I'd be tempted.

Worried for this state though, the Lt. Governor who is replacing him is a Utah County Republican (shudder!) - who reportedly wasn't too close with the Governor. Pray for us. We may just need it.

[Ptolemy]

It is in Huntman's best political interest for the Obama administration to succeed (his profile rises alongside the administration's), and that involves growing/expanding US market's reach into the vast Chinese population or being able to renogitiate the debt. Obama may have bought himself a reprieve in '12 but he just handed his party a potential GOP opponent that they're unable to demonize as 'extremist' or 'out of touch.' If Huntsman's good-enough for Obama and he delivers then even diehard GOP activists will come to realize he's their G.W. Bush but with brains. As a liberal (who relies on the Dems to be the 'ying' to the conservative movement/GOP's 'yang') I'm worried that Obama isn't grooming yet an Al Gore-type torch bearer that will continue his policies when he leaves in '16 (assuming '12 goes as expected) allowing a wide open door for Huntsman to get in. Warner is kind-of assumed will run in '16 but he's as charisma-challenged as Gore was in 2000. Nobody will be able to fill the personality/oratory gap when Obama leaves the White House, but I'm afraid at this point that there are no no good Dem prospects for '16, mirroring the slate of GOP candidates vying for '12.

I hate what the Republican party has turned itself into as much as all good Americans. On these very pages, I've loudly longed for the complete disintigration of the GOP. But if Huntsman were to run for President, I'd be tempted to vote for him. He's not extremist and he's not out of touch. He really is a compassionate/pragmatic/fair minded conservative. Bet you'd never even heard of such a person before. I can't see any percentage in running against Obama in 2012. Obama is doing everything right and he's going to be a successful President and will easilly rate a second term. America will still need a good leader in 2016 - not as badly as they needed one in 2008, but I can see myself supporting the Gov. Huntsman if he were to run for President. I can't see myself saying that about any other Utahn.

[TemporalWisdom]

That's not necessarily the wrong strategy, depending on the results one wants. The Republican thinking might be to hang on to the most heavily conservative regions while waiting for people to get sick of the Democrats.

That does not make any sense. You don't turn off 80% of the country with shrill rhetoric while continuing to offer up a menu of the same kind of policies that pushed people away in the first place and expect them to come back. That is not how you build a majority party.

A defensive strategy, to keep from losing more ground. But you're right, it's a bad move. One thing in particular is a losing battle; gay issues. Tolerance for other sexual orientations is on the rise and there's no stopping it. Every year senior citizens who think it's yucky die, while open-minded young folks turn eighteen. That's one thing the GOP has done horribly wrong over the last few decades, to let itself become the home for redneck bigots, starting with the Dixiecrats.

Dan, you're right that power goes back and forth between the two parties, pretty much like clockwork. But you're forgetting that it hasn't always. The Whigs died out long ago, and the Federalists before them. Big changes do happen in our political system, and the Republicans could be setting themselves up for extinction.

I'm not forgetting it. I just don't see anything in the GOP's current situation that parallels the collapse of those parties.

So? It's still a distinct possibility. If a single center party can unite some of the moderates and all of the disaffected Republicans, they can push the GOP out.

Obama's election makes that scenario much less likely, though. If a more polarizing Democrat had been elected, disgust with partisanship would more easily reach critical mass.

[Future Man]

That's one thing the GOP has done horribly wrong over the last few decades, to let itself become the home for redneck bigots, starting with the Dixiecrats.

I don't know, I continue to side with Obama on the gay marriage issue.

[HGervais]

I don't know, I continue to side with Obama on the gay marriage issue.

And thank goodness that culture war issue is dying rather quickly state by state. Hopefully a repeal of that idiotic DADT will occur sometime soon.

[Dan Mancini]

That's not necessarily the wrong strategy, depending on the results one wants. The Republican thinking might be to hang on to the most heavily conservative regions while waiting for people to get sick of the Democrats.

That does not make any sense. You don't turn off 80% of the country with shrill rhetoric while continuing to offer up a menu of the same kind of policies that pushed people away in the first place and expect them to come back.

It's not a strategy. It's a reflexive response. You guys are making a series of incorrect assumptions: 1) political parties are always ideologically united, 2) the behavior of political parties is always rational, intentional, and determined by strategic thinking, and 3) a party's platform is determined by a kind of collective conscious, a party brain.

First of all, I wouldn't even say that the Republican party has necessarily veered right-ward. Elements of it certainly have, but there's currently a lot of internal disharmony and disagreement. That's to be expected because there's no real leadership in the party. There never is this soon after major electoral defeat. Which leads us to point #3: Parties don't exit the political wilderness and re-enter the mainstream when they come to their collective senses; they do so when a leader rises up and reinvents the party in his own image. The party coalesces around that leader, and its platform and message becomes focused, coherent, and far more attractive than the fat, lazy, corruption of the party currently in power.

That's why looking at the state of the GOP today and saying they'll never win again, that they're done for all time, is hasty and unwarranted. No, they won't win as they are today, but they won't stay as they are today, either. Not long ago, the Democrats looked very much like a party that would never again pull off a major electoral victory (especially at the presidential level). Then a guy named Obama came along and changed and refocused the party.

[HGervais]

First of all, I wouldn't even say that the Republican party has necessarily veered right-ward. Elements of it certainly have, but there's currently a lot of internal disharmony and disagreement.

Dan I have a lot of respect for you but it is really tough to take you seriously when you make that kind of comment. The GOP has been moving further & further to the right on social issues since the Clinton years and the party is at the point that if you don't pass some kind of idealogical purity test they have little use for you. On the flipside as far as fiscal policy, yeah in the past 8 years they went further leftward than any liberal Democrat could have ever imagined but since the election we have seen movement back in the other direction...almost to comical effect.

That's to be expected because there's no real leadership in the party. There never is this soon after major electoral defeat. Which leads us to point #3: Parties don't exit the political wilderness and re-enter the mainstream when they come to their collective senses; they do so when a leader rises up and reinvents the party in his own image. The party coalesces around that leader, and its platform and message becomes focused, coherent, and far more attractive than the fat, lazy, corruption of the party currently in power.

On a general basis, I agree with you to a point. On a specific, post-2004 case I disagree. A leader stepped forward pretty quickly in Howard Dean and he is the one who remade the party. Along with the Rahm Emmanuel in the House and Dick Durbin & Chuck Schumer in the Senate heading up the election committees they did come to their collective senses. They formulated a stragedy and they put it into motion. The Democrats were going to make major strides in 2008 with or without Barack Obama and they probably would have won the WH with Hillary Clinton. Clearly they made greater gains because of who was at the top of the ticket but without Howard Dean at the DNC, I don't think Obama's candidacy would really have been possible.

That's why looking at the state of the GOP today and saying they'll never win again, that they're done for all time, is hasty and unwarranted. No, they won't win as they are today, but they won't stay as they are today, either. Not long ago, the Democrats looked very much like a party that would never again pull off a major electoral victory (especially at the presidential level). Then a guy named Obama came along and changed and refocused the party.

I'm not saying the GOP is dead & buried. I am saying they are leaderless and what they are offering in a way of message & policy has been soundly rejected but they have thus far refused to see the message delivered to them. They think they need to be even more conservative and less open to change. That is not how you reform, renew & come back stronger. The GOP is in danger as a party, as a brand of politics of if not dissappearing then slipping into irrelevancy. As I have noted, the Democrats could easily hand something to them which would fire them up and flip a lot of those voters who used to self-identify as GOP back into their column. Or someone could appear and galvanize & unite them. It could happen but right now they don't have anyone laying the groundwork like Dean was doing in 2005 and if they don't get started soon 2010 could easily be another very painful year for them. And then 2012...I mean I guess Obama could fall flat on his face but everything I have seen thus far from him tells me that is unlikely. Look I think we need a healthy 2 party system for this country to remain vibrant & accountable and right now we don't have that. I would love to see the GOP regain its position and its sanity but with its current leaders, I don't see it happening. If that continues, then yeah the GOP could easily go away leaving a place for a new party. A party not so rooted in religious dogma but rather one based on actual conservative principles. I'm not saying it will happen two years for now or 4 years from now but as it stands at the moment the idea of a new party isn't just idle fantasy.

[Dan Mancini]

First of all, I wouldn't even say that the Republican party has necessarily veered right-ward. Elements of it certainly have, but there's currently a lot of internal disharmony and disagreement.

Dan I have a lot of respect for you but it is really tough to take you seriously when you make that kind of comment. The GOP has been moving further & further to the right on social issues since the Clinton years and the party is at the point that if you don't pass some kind of idealogical purity test they have little use for you. On the flipside as far as fiscal policy, yeah in the past 8 years they went further leftward than any liberal Democrat could have ever imagined but since the election we have seen movement back in the other direction...almost to comical effect.

I understand all of that, but think about the dissent in the party. Think about the Frums and others calling for more centrism as the way forward. Think about the debates over whether there needs to be a return to or abandonment of Reaganism. My point is that none of this stuff is settled business in the GOP because there's no leader around which the party can organize. You talk like there's unity in the GOP. There isn't. (And, for the record, I agreed earlier that, by and large, the GOP has shifted right -- just as the Democrats shifted left after their defeats at the beginning of this decade. And again it's valuable to remember that just shy of a decade ago, the Democrats looked dead in the water, leaderless, unfocused, and hysterical).

On a general basis, I agree with you to a point. On a specific, post-2004 case I disagree. A leader stepped forward pretty quickly in Howard Dean and he is the one who remade the party. Along with the Rahm Emmanuel in the House and Dick Durbin & Chuck Schumer in the Senate heading up the election committees they did come to their collective senses. They formulated a stragedy and they put it into motion.

Their strategy still required electorate fatigue with Republicans. Prior to that, Dean was spinning his wheels. Again, there's a rhythm to these things -- which is why making long-term judgments based on the current beat is dicey at best.

I'm not saying the GOP is dead & buried. I am saying they are leaderless and what they are offering in a way of message & policy has been soundly rejected but they have thus far refused to see the message delivered to them.

Expecting them to see that message at this juncture is akin to expecting the Democrats to have seen it in '02. It's not reasonable. In fact, the Democrats never really moved appreciably to the center in terms of ideology; they just waited for the great middle that decides elections in this country to move left of center. The long-term problem with assuming the GOP is dead is that history suggests the great middle is prone to eventually slide back just right of center and that a GOP who has experienced minority status for a while will be prone to pander more successfully for their votes.

Here's the mistake that both parties make perpetually: After winning elections, they believe that a majority of the American people agree with their entire platform, and they slide further and further left or right, as the case may be. In truth, the people who ultimately decide elections are centrists with little in the way of long-term political loyalty, and who tend to vote on a narrow group of issues (and those tend not to be hot-button issues like abortion or 2nd Amendment rights). As the party in power (tanked up on hubris as parties in power inevitably become) drifts to one extreme or the other, these voters abandon ship. That's why there aren't permanent majorities in this country. The two parties are polar opposites on enough issues that if the vast majority of the electorate were consistently voting on ideological principle, one or the other of the parties would eventually destroy the other. Instead, we have this constant back-and-forth. And what's hilarious is that every time there's a sea change, the party in power convinces itself that they're so right and the American people love them so much that they're sure to establish a permanent majority this time -- and then a decade or so later, more than half of the country hates them so much they can barely stand to look at them. And the next thing you know we're talking about how they're done and how we need a viable third party alternative.

And then 2012...I mean I guess Obama could fall flat on his face but everything I have seen thus far from him tells me that is unlikely.

While I think it more than likely that Obama will win re-election (because, generally speaking, the American people are rightly hesitant to quit on a president after one term), Obama's challenge is greater than not screwing things up. He came into office with things in bad shape. If the domestic situation doesn't improve, I can easily imagine him being in trouble by 2012 (nobody's going to give a rat's ass about what Bush did or didn't do by the next election cycle). Still, the GOP would have to field a dynamic leader. If you look at the '80 election, Carter got smoked in the end but it took Reagan to do it and the electorate didn't turn on Carter until the very end. In other words, people were unhappy with the sitting president but they weren't going to dump him for the sake of dumping him. They had to be convinced there was a better alternative.

Point is, 2016 is probably a more likely time frame for a party change at the WH level (especially since Biden will never be a viable candidate for the top office). I can see Democratic majorities in the Senate and especially the House shrinking and maybe even disappearing before then, though. Not in 2010, but I wouldn't be surprised to see GOP gains in 2012 with the potential of major Democratic losses in 2014. As a matter of fact, if Obama's economic policies become unpopular (which, based on polling data, I think is likely), I'd expect congressional Democrats to suffer backlash earlier and more severely than Obama.

[TemporalWisdom]

The long-term problem with assuming the GOP is dead is that history suggests the great middle is prone to eventually slide back just right of center and that a GOP who has experienced minority status for a while will be prone to pander more successfully for their votes.

We assume nothing. We're talking about possibilities, nothing more.

There is a problem with comparing the Republican downswing to the last Democratic one. The Democrats were supposedly dying mainly because they were perceived as weak on national security, which was the issue of the day in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Of course that wasn't always going to be true. Anybody who was paying attention could have told you that. But here, while part of the problem was that people were heaping their hatred for Bush on the whole party (which will fade), the Republicans have managed to make themselves even more into the party of intolerance. Do you think social issues will swing back to the conservative side? I don't. Senior citizens tend to be socially conservative, while teenagers tend to be socially liberal, making it a losing battle to take the conservative position. It's self-correcting, though; Most likely Republican politicians will swing to the center to stay with the electorate on these issues. Same is true with supply-side economics. The question is whether the moderate elements will wrest control of the party from the hardcore right wing. If they can't, they'll go off and join another party or start their own. I'd call it unlikely, but not improbable.

Here's the mistake that both parties make perpetually: After winning elections, they believe that a majority of the American people agree with their entire platform, and they slide further and further left or right, as the case may be. In truth, the people who ultimately decide elections are centrists with little in the way of long-term political loyalty, and who tend to vote on a narrow group of issues (and those tend not to be hot-button issues like abortion or 2nd Amendment rights). As the party in power (tanked up on hubris as parties in power inevitably become) drifts to one extreme or the other, these voters abandon ship. That's why there aren't permanent majorities in this country. The two parties are polar opposites on enough issues that if the vast majority of the electorate were consistently voting on ideological principle, one or the other of the parties would eventually destroy the other. Instead, we have this constant back-and-forth. And what's hilarious is that every time there's a sea change, the party in power convinces itself that they're so right and the American people love them so much that they're sure to establish a permanent majority this time -- and then a decade or so later, more than half of the country hates them so much they can barely stand to look at them. And the next thing you know we're talking about how they're done and how we need a viable third party alternative.

No lie. Genius though he was at political maneuvering, Rove was kidding himself.

While I think it more than likely that Obama will win re-election (because, generally speaking, the American people are rightly hesitant to quit on a president after one term), Obama's challenge is greater than not screwing things up.

Yeah, I always knew the honeymoon would be over once people realized that Obama had no magic wand to fix things with.

[HGervais]

Matthew Yglesias sums up pretty well why in shifting the torture debate to what/when Pelosi knew away from what did the Bush administration approve & why could very well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Just when it seemed to many that the right had lost its mojo, give conservatives credit: They're still enormously good at ginning up controversies and controlling the news cycle. Thus a story that was once about the Bush administration's decision to authorize barbaric and illegal acts of torture has successfully been morphed into a to-do about Nancy Pelosi's account of CIA briefings.

As political gamesmanship, it's been masterful. I particularly like the way the right has managed to trot out an endless procession of figures willing to express outrage that anyone would ever hint that the CIA might mislead a member of Congress. From conservatives' incredulous responses, you'd think Pelosi had suggested that little green Martians stole her briefing memos. Obviously, I wasn't in the room with Pelosi and whoever briefed her, but anyone with any recollection of history should be aware that it would hardly be unusual for the country's marquee intelligence agency to do something like that. Indeed, deception of Congress has been a common occurrence in the agency's history, and one former director, Richard Helms, was even convicted of lying to Congress.

The CIA is typically a president's tool of choice when he wants to get someone to do something illegal. When you do something illegal, there's typically a need for a coverup, and with the coverup comes the deception.

None of which has anything in particular to do with a unique CIA penchant for dishonesty. Rather, the crux of the matter is that the CIA is typically a president's tool of choice when he wants to get someone to do something illegal. When you do something illegal, there's typically a need for a coverup, and with the coverup comes the deception.

Helms' conviction related to the Nixon administration's role in overthrowing Salvador Allende in Chile. In the 1980s, CIA Director Bill Casey misled Congress about the Reagan administration's illegal continued support of anti-Sandinista terrorist organizations in Nicaragua. Under George W. Bush, the United States government embarked on the repeated torture of terrorism suspects in violation of American and international law. This fact was kept secret from the American people for the normal reason presidents like to keep illegal activity secret. It's illegal, after all, and "keeping it secret" is what people normally try to do after they commit crimes.

That basic logic hardly amounts to a proof that Pelosi was kept in the dark, and she almost certainly knew more about what was going on at the time than, say, I did. But it does suggest deception is a plausible scenario. And more to the point, it gets us refocused on the real issue here, which is not about what briefings were or were not given to Congress but about the underlying activity that was the subject of the briefings. We've had, for example, a steady drip of evidence, most recently from Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, indicating that one main use of Bush-era torture was to compel people to "confess" to the existence of various ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

And here's where the right's tactical acumen comes up short. Various conservative commentators have expressed their hope that gunning for Pelosi will blunt progressive calls for a "truth commission" to thoroughly investigate what really happened on Bush's trip to the "dark side". Fox's Neil Cavuto said we might be in a "Mexican standoff" wherein Pelosi would agree to drop the idea of investigations to prevent herself from attracting scrutiny. Steven Hayes, Dick Cheney's official biographer, said, "Democrats who have been so enthusiastic about truth commissions have to be stopping and saying, OK, wait a second." What conservatives are missing here is that this is a fight they were winning before they started gunning for Pelosi. Their best ally in this fight was Barack Obama, whose desire to "move forward" rather than focusing on the past had been the subject of much consternation. Had conservatives simply reached out to grab the hand that was being extended to them, they could have gotten what they wanted.

But in their zeal to score a tactical win, the right has made a truth commission more likely not less likely. Obama wanted to avoid a backward-looking focus on torture in part because it distracted from his legislative agenda. But if we're going to be looking backward anyway, thanks to conservatives' insistence on complaining about Pelosi, then the move forward strategy lacks a rationale. And far from forcing a standoff in which Pelosi will abandon her support for an investigation, the right has forced her into a corner from which she can't give in to moderate Democrats' opposition to such a move without looking like she's cravenly attempting to save her own skin.

There's no sign that Pelosi or anyone else is backing off the truth-commission idea. And, indeed, by suggesting that Pelosi could be a target of an investigation, conservatives have helped cleanse the idea of the odor of victor's justice. The question of CIA briefings of congressional leaders would, after all, be a legitimate subject of inquiry. And it's very possible that, done rigorously, Pelosi and other Democrats, such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), could wind up getting a black eye or two. But however bad an investigation might make the members of Congress who were supposed to be preventing illegal conduct look, the people actually doing the misdeeds are going to look even worse. Today, the congressional Republicans look extremely clever. But in a few months' time, we'll look back on this as yet another example of a conservative tactical victory that winds up backfiring. After all, selecting Sarah Palin looked brilliant for a week or two. And the anathematization of Obama's stimulus proposal seemed like an unexpected coup until it wound up pushing Arlen Specter into the arms of the Democrats. Gamesmanship, in short, can only get you so far. But conservatives sure are good at it.

[Future Man]

Obviously despairing of gaining traction with sensible-minded Americans on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques to thwart terrorist plots targeting innocent civilians, the left has had to come up with an entirely new angle. Ho hum.

[HGervais]

Obviously despairing of gaining traction with sensible-minded Americans on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques to thwart terrorist plots targeting innocent civilians, the left has had to come up with an entirely new angle. Ho hum.

You really do like to be lead around like a puppy don't you? The point of torture is torture. The ticking bomb scenario that the rubber-hose right loves to point is more 24 than reality. And believe me Mike, once people start seeing those photos and start seeing exactly what it was that our government authorized, and because of the stunts pulled by the right this week with Pelosi chances just increased massively that they will, they are going to see it for what it is. Torture. War crimes. Enhanced interrogation techniques...what bullshit. Call it for what it is. Tax rates for the top 1% go up and you guys mobilize nationwide protests. Shread the Genava Conventions, tortue and kill hundreds of people, waterboard one person 83 times & another 100 times and its all good. Ho hum. Nothing to see here. If you and your supposed sensible-minded Americans think that is okay you are all seriously soft in the head and are willing to swallow pretty much anything.

[Future Man]

Do you think Truman should have been labeled a war criminal?

[HGervais]

Do you think Truman should have been labeled a war criminal?

The bombing of Japan is an entirely different set of circumstances and anyone with a shread of intellectual honesty knows that. The thing your side cannot point to, no matter how much the pr campaign tries to sell everyone on it, is that torture produces anything of substance that could not be gotten using other methods. All torture produces is information that the person being tortured thinks the torturer wants to hear so that they will stop hurting them. The ticking time bomb scenario is fantasy. The point of torture is torture and no amount of backflips and trying to twist the rationale is going to change that. You are standing on morally & legally toxic ground that is both totally un-American and distinctly un-Christian.

[Future Man]

Do you think Truman should have been labeled a war criminal?

The bombing of Japan is an entirely different set of circumstances and anyone with a shread of intellectual honesty knows that.

What distinctions are you making? Was the potential for loss of American lives--civilians at that--no more dire post 9-11 than in the latter days of WWII?

The thing your side cannot point to, no matter how much the pr campaign tries to sell everyone on it, is that torture produces anything of substance that could not be gotten using other methods. All torture produces is information that the person being tortured thinks the torturer wants to hear so that they will stop hurting them. The ticking time bomb scenario is fantasy.

Should all the memos come out or are you content with only half of the argument being on the table?

[HGervais]

What distinctions are you making? Was the potential for loss of American lives--civilians at that--no more dire post 9-11 than in the latter days of WWII?

I don't know which is sadder...that you ask these questions or that I answer them knowing the act is pointless. History lesson Mike...Japan was not going quit or surrender. Millions of people, Japanese included, were going to die. Truman did the only thing he could do to stop the war. Now please, point to one instance where Truman's actions are the same as Bush/Cheney's. Seven years after Bush/Cheney approved torture, don't you honestly think if they could have proved their actions saved lives it would have somehow leaked out there? Instead we have tortured legal gibberish trying to justify actions our government knew was illegal. And the more we find out, the less it appears these guys were tortured to prevent future attacks but to instead provide intelligence cover for our misguided invasion of Iraq. How do you justify torturing someone on 83 seperate occasions? I mean really, where do you think you have a leg to stand on?

Should all the memos come out or are you content with only half of the argument being on the table?

Everything. Put it all on the table. Let's see who approved what. Let's see what worked and what didn't. Let's see exactly who knew what and when. Let's prosecute those people who deserve it and let's exonerate those people with a cloud over their head who did nothing wrong. Let's shut people like you up for good on this subject so you can find some new misguided thing to whine on and be wrong about.