The No Party

161 thoughts on “The No Party”

1. You’re right, CB, we should be debating Kerry’s health plan and Clark’s foreign policy ideas and Edwards’s suggestions about tort reform. The press should run long articles describing what Durbin has to say about the Downing Street Memo, what various wings of the Republican party think about that, etc. Democrats should stop ignoring the fact that their non-debated amendments don’t get any airtime and force the nightly news to pay attention. We should have a national debate about the current Republican big idea: low taxes, high govt spending. Drop me a line when it happens.

2. There’s only one thing to say to this continuing exercise in blind quixoticism:
   *yawn*
   Other than that, what rilkefan said.

3. “they don’t feel the need to articulate and promote their ideas on how to improve the country rather than simply oppose its opponents.”
   Probably a typo.

4. yawn. what rilkefan said. wake me up when the GOP stops looting and ruining the country.

5. For starters, it matters who you mean by “the Democrats”. Consider the Dem. primaries: there were all sorts of good ideas floating around. The trouble was that none of them got any airtime at all. I know Clark best: he had this absolutely great service plan which was utterly unlike anything else out there. Later on he proposed a tax plan; when I explained it to the two nice women who come to clean my house, they registered to vote for the first time just to vote for the guy who proposed it. And yet, oddly enough, these never got any play at all. Why? It was more important, in the eyes of the media, to ask him (in EVERY interview): what about whichever general it was who doesn’t support you? — I mean, he gave speeches about these, he tried to bring them up, etc., but unless you watch each and every one of his speeches, you’re dependent on what the media choose to report, and they didn’t choose to report policy.
   Consider the Presidential campaign: Kerry had a really interesting and innovative health care plan (can’t find the old campaign web site, but it’s described quite well here; other research comparing it and the Bush plan can be found here.) It was really good; and I recall a bunch of speeches about it. Again, very little coverage.
   Consider the current Congressional Democrats: as I noted here, the Democrats’ current planned response to the nuclear option is to force ten bills of theirs onto the calendar for a vote. Now, all but one of these bills are (imho) quite good, but I had only heard of one of them previously, and I actually follow this stuff. This makes sense, more sense than the media not covering issues in the campaigns: until the Democrats adopted this strategy in response to the nuclear option, there was precisely zero chance that these bills would ever get a hearing, so why would anyone cover them? Still, they were there.
   And finally, on Social Security: our plan is to address other, more pressing issues (e.g., the deficit) first while we wait to see whether there actually is a problem, rather than rushing to cut benefits before we’re sure they need to be cut. It’s a perfectly good plan, I think, especially since any of the ‘stitch in time saves nine’ fixes out there involve building up the Social Security surplus now so that we can draw on it later, and I do not trust this President or this Congress to honor the bonds in the trust fund. So I have no confidence that if we put more bonds there, that would actually solve anything.

6. And, of course, Harry Reid’s body has not been invaded by Tom Daschle. Conservatives’ views about Reid have become identical with what were once their views about Daschle. Why this might be, I have no idea (she said, rolling her eyes heavenward.)

7. The Democrats have ideas, but the GOP is in power so they control the narrative, and their ideas are very, very, very bad. If someone ran up to you and asked to kick you in the shin, you’d probably have your very own “No” caucus right there.

8. “Democrats have done damn little to sell their ideas to me or to the American public.”

   When was the last time a physicist tried to persuade you that perpetual motion is impossible? Where do you get the idea that others are responsible for educating you?

   Go ahead. Run enormous budget deficits. Trash the environment. Make a mess of foreign policy. You guys have the ball. Play.

9. Definitely, Charles. When Clinton proposed his health plan, did Republicans go negative? No, they sat down at the table with him, brought their own ideas, and hammered out the reform that solved the problems and gave us the health care system we enjoy today. Oh, wait a minute…

10. Consider the Presidential campaign: Kerry had a really interesting and innovative health care plan…
    Was I the only one who, after watching the second debate I think it was, laughed at Kerry’s endless repetition of “I have a plan” only to go to his website and find that, by gum, he actually did? And was I the only one struck by the utter poverty of Bush’s “plans” — I use the term loosely — in comparison?
    But I’m back to making the same arguments against Charles’ meme-driven obsession, all of which seem destined to utter uselessness,* thereby proving yet again that what the Democrats lack aren’t policies, but a marketing campaign so potent it can bore its way into your skull and block out anything that might challenge its memetic contagion. So much for the marketplace of ideas.
    * This is, what, the sixth time I’ve tried to point out the utter BS of his central slogan? It didn’t work before — hell, he didn’t even engage it before — so I doubt anything will come of it now.

11. And, for the record, as someone who (to her own amusement) ended up writing most of a position paper during the last campaign, and carefully put in some actual good ideas (in this case, steps to minimize the number of stem cell lines actually needed for research, by trying to make the process of finding out about and then getting access to existing lines as easy and transparent as possible), I have to say: we try. I didn’t exactly think that the whole world would grind to a halt in amazement when Wes Clark’s policy on stem cells was announced — in fact, I anticipated the very level of indifference that the world actually showed — but I don’t think the problem was not trying to be innovative and have ideas.

12. I wasn’t in the US for most of Bush’s anti-Kerry campaign (and most of the time I was, I was hiking the Grand Canyon and happily out of earshot of all of it) but what struck me during that campaign was the number of anti-Kerryites who would say “I’m against Kerry because of this!”
    And it would be pointed out to them that (1) they were taking the right-wing spin as if it were an accurate report of something Kerry actually did or said, and (2) that in fact if they were opposed to this kind of thing (whatever it was) Bush was actually a much worse example of it.
    And it would be ignored – because, as I came to realise, pointing out facts did no good: the facts didn’t stand a chance against the power of faith.
    And it would appear that the power of faith is still with us – though I suppose at least this is a generically anti-Democrat post, rather than an anti-Clinton or anti-Kerry. Still just as counterfactual, though.

13. Off-topic note: Newsweek has backed off their story about the Qur’an desecration. I am really, really glad if it’s not true, and have updated that post.
    Back to your regularly scheduled argument 😉

14. As others have so aptly quipped above, yawn. Like most of Charles’ posts, this is inept memetic engineering masquerading as an attempt to engage in real constructive debate. I’m sure there are mouth-breathers who will be fooled by his use of question-begging to spread the prima facie lie that Democrats have no plans or positive agenda, but judging by the upthread comments, it’s not anyone here.

15. Even going back to Bush’s first tax cut, it was a Democratic proposal that led to the $300 rebate – really the only part of the cut that made sense as a stimulus. Also note that Democrats have proposed, and continue to propose, alternative changes to the estate tax, and to Medicare. But these are rejected out of hand.
    anarch’s comment about the debates reminded me of Kerry making a number of suggestions, and Bush leaning forward and whining, “But there’s a tax gap.”
    And are you really seriously lamenting the “energy wasted” over the filibuster? Why is the argument over the filibuster more the fault of the Democrats than the Republicans? Is it “obstructionism” to try to block a few nut cases from getting on the bench?
    This really illustrates the point. Republicans make a proposal – take the bankruptcy law for example – and shut the Democrats out of making any amendments. Democrats then oppose the law and are accused of being “obstructionists” or the Party of No. This is ridiculous.

16. Doesn’t salesmanship imply the ability to convince someone to buy something they don’t really need? That’s certainly not what I want the Dems to have.

17. Right on Charles.
    After all, this is the Universe where the issues of the day are prioritized based upon their actual relevance and urgency. Where various well reasoned technocratic policy proposals are debated on their merits. Where Sunday morning talk show producers go out of their way to reveal and expound expert consensus positions on issues (and wouldn’t think of searching far and wide for lunatic fringe opposition voices in order to provoke talking head screaming matches). Where schemes to “privatize” highly successful and popular programs or invade far away lands without provocation (or exit strategies) are literally laughed off the air.
    Oh, wait, this is the Other Universe isn’t it?

18. “Go ahead. Run enormous budget deficits. Trash the environment. Make a mess of foreign policy. You guys have the ball. Play.”
    So good it needed to be said again.
    The Grand Old Pranksters don’t want any debate, much less an honest one. The Pranksters control the House and Senate – not just in votes, but deciding which bills make it out of committee, and what gets debated on the floor. Democratic proposals get tossed in the trash. Literally.

19. You know, sarcasm aside I’m actually genuinely curious what’s going through your head when you write a post like this, Charles.
    It’s certainly true that Democrats mostly lack the message discipline and single minded fanaticism of the current Republican crop, but that’s not exactly a bad thing, and you’re saying a lot more than that.
    Just hypothetically, suppose Party A starts insisting that it is absolutely vital that we blow up the Moon. Do you understand that this doesn’t actually obligate Party B to come up with their own detailed 347 page plan for blowing up the Moon? That saying, “NO! That’s crazy, and there are more important things to be talking about” is actually a perfectly appropriate response? That that response is not “obstructionism”?
    Pretend this doesn’t resemble any current situation, and that you don’t know who Party A and B are. What are your answers?

20. “Harry Reid’s body has been invaded by the spirit of Tom Daschle. Barbara Boxer has become the Senate version of Jim McDermott. And like a virgin vigorously protecting her maidenhead, Nancy Pelosi says “no” all day long.”
    I can predict Your childish one-liners from the current GOP talking points about Reid and Polosi. Your not interested in an honest debate and you never have been.

21. BSR: civility. It’s not just a good idea; it’s the law.

22. “Perhaps since they’re talking mostly amongst themselves, they don’t feel the need to articulate and promote their ideas on how to improve the country rather than simply oppose its opponents.”
    Okay so it is a grammatical error of a pronoun not matching what it refers it to. In any case, leave it in.
    I really like it.

23. Right, so that the Democrats are making a mistake by arguing against a guy who fixed intelligence and scuttled chances of renegotiating the NPT, instead of “arguing for change at the UN”. Bolton’s not the agent that could cause change at the UN, he’s utterly unsuited to be our chief diplomat to the UN. Opposing him is the patriotic thing to do.
    And, uh, saying the majority of America’s not on the Democrats’ side on the fillibuster issue, when in polling, a sizable majority are against the Senate Republican’s attempts to short-circuit the rules even more? Or did you mean they should go back to the old fashioned way of preventing judges, with blue slips and anonymous holds, and all the other things that the Republicans used to block many, many, many more than SEVEN of Clinton’s nominees?
    And I’ll take the bleating about “the Democrats must present ideas!” more seriously if and when you actually, y’know, read any of the ideas that’ve been put forward over the past five years, and not covered by breathless editorials or had multi-million dollar presidental PR tours laid out for them.
    This isn’t commentary. This isn’t discussion about the issues, this is crude memetic engineering, trying to repeat the same “obstructionist” rhetoric often enough that it seems true. Or at least merited, I mean, after all, “if there’s smoke there’s fire,” right? Or a bunch of guys with smoke bombs.

24. But if Democrats want their power back, the proper way to do it is to actually win elections . . .
    Every single Democrat in Congress right now won an election, Charles. My goodness, if they hadn’t, how do you suppose they got there? And, having won their elections, they deserve to be treated as equals with the Republican majorities in each house. But they aren’t.
    When Democrats suggest several amendments to the bankruptcy bill, or to a proposed Mann Act-style abortion bill, they are offering ideas. When the Republicans dismiss all the former out of hand, and read the latter into the record as if they’re designed to protect sexual predators, what, exactly, do you expect the Democrats to do? Keep playing a game they’re bound to lose and be treated like chumps? Or simply do their level best to keep the current crop of nimrods from dragging the country down further?
    Seriously. This may be the most un-insightful juvenalia dressed as serious commentary I’ve ever seen on ObWi. And after your rather well-researched AIDS post . . . well, blind hogs and truffles and whatnot, I suppose.

25. Sheesh, Phil don’t you know that Democrats appear in Congress by spontaneous generation, from piles of hair and dust? Honestly.

26. Lighten up folks. It’s clear enough that when Republicans start whining about how Dems aren’t putting forward enough ideas, it’s because they recognize the utter bankruptcy of their own.

27. I agree CharleyCarp. While this comment will be overly harsh, a small part of me believes that these kinds of posts are made in order to create an echo chamber so that any point that arises from discussion here can safely be dismissed. While florid insults can have a certain attraction, I’d suggest that everyone move it back a notch.

28. It’s funny that you bring up the UN, Charles. Almost everything that I hear about the UN from Republicans is no, no, no! Republicans like Bolton aren’t making positive proposals for reforming this international institution. They’re trying to undermine it. It’s all “Oil for food!” and “Annan is corrupt!” and “Don’t give them authority over Americans!” Even here, you’re mostly just bashing the UN: “This rudderless organization is corrupt, incompetent, lacking in moral authority, and too often works against the interests of the United States and the free world.” But what’s your positive proposal for reform? Well, you want power for your side – a leader who agrees with you & Bush about the War on Terror – but that hardly counts as a positive idea. You do have one real suggestion, a “Democracy Caucus,” but that does not exactly get to the heart of the improvements that the UN needs.
    Of course this is a caricature of the Republican position on the UN. There are serious ideas for reform out there, although they aren’t central to the big shouting match. But, as other commenters have ably shown, there are plenty of Democratic ideas out there for reform of the UN and many many other issues. They just aren’t central to the big debates, since the party in power is setting the agenda. You could blame this on the democrats (they lack message discipline) or the republicans (they aren’t engaging with the democrats’ ideas) or the media (they aren’t publicizing the democrats’ ideas) or just the whole damn system.
    If you want to be involved in more serious discussions about democrats’ ideas, you should be reading sources like the lovely new blog, Democracy Arsenal, where they’ve recently been addressing competing ideas for reforming the UN.

29. You’d never know from this post that Dems in the Senate actually represent more people in the country than R’s.
    You’d also never know that Dems in the House are routinely denied the opportunity offer amendments and substitutes that would allow debate and votes on alternative ideas.
    Dems aren’t required to accept Charles Bird’s formulations of what the most important issues of the day are, and we’re not required to come up with ideas to address your top reform priorities.
    Frankly, I think the whole post is BS, and the only thing I take away from it is the utterly sexist description of Nancy Pelosi as acting like “a virgin vigorously protecting her maidenhead.”

30. It would be entirely defensible for the Democrats not to bother proposing bills for some of the reasons given above. The thing is, they haven’t stopped. Not even close, and I’m not even talking about the ten issue . Jon Corzine is leading the fight to do something about Darfur. Durbin is absolutely tireless on veterans’ issues, and did everything he could have done to de-crappify the bankruptcy bill; he also finally got his anti-torture amendment passed and is one of five Democratic Senators opposing rendition. There’s the bill about verified paper ballots. There’s the efforts to fund Iraq through a normal bill that allows real oversight & reform instead of an emergency supplemental. There’s the efforts to impose legal limits on interrogation by U.S. troops. There’s bills to make modest improvements in health care. To increase Pell Grants for the first time in years and years. To allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. PAYGO. To establish a cap and trade system for CO2, to raise CAFE standards. To encourage microbicide research for AIDS in Africa. To designate ANWR and Red Rock in Utah as wilderness areas. The SAFE Act, to take out the more invasive and unnecessary provisions of the PATRIOT act. This is off the top of my head. There are too many others to even begin to list them.
    This, even though the overwhelming majority of these bills do not receive a committee vote.
    If you want to really know what’s going on in Congress don’t listen to the consultant-ocracy with axes to grind, just because they confirm your prejudice. Read the Congressional Record, if you want to know what’s going on in Congress–it’s organized by subject headings and it’s usually evident where the interesting parts will be that day, if anywhere.
    I understand why you haven’t heard of these things. The press pays no attention at all. I don’t blame the press, either. They don’t have a chance in hell of passing. It is the standing policy of the House not to allow a vote on a bill that is not supported by over 50% of the Republican caucus. Given that they can’t possibly pass, the press might do one article on page A13 when they’re introduced if that.
    But if you knew a damn THING about Congress, you’d know that the fact that you hadn’t heard about these things didn’t mean that they didn’t exist.
    Or, you do know, and don’t care, and are looking for another way to spin “sit down and shut up because we have the divine right to get our way” such that it looks like something other than what it is. Because I know you’re not too thick to realize why allowing the majority party to break the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster matters to the Democrats if you spent even 30 seconds of independent thought about it. But it’s easier not to bother, and just repeat everything that confirms your preconceptions.
    (I admit, the Democrats have not nominated their own candidate for UN ambassador. Those rascally Democrats.)

31. While this comment will be overly harsh, a small part of me believes that these kinds of posts are made in order to create an echo chamber so that any point that arises from discussion here can safely be dismissed.
    I suspect that this is a consequence rather than an intent, but you’re probably right. Of course, a subsidiary question is whether anything can prevent those who wish to regard this place as an echo chamber from doing so… but that’s a topic for another time.

32. Also: I’m curious to know whether you can defend, on the merits, a single thing that the Democrats have obstructed or attempted to obstruct this legislative session. Explain why they were wrong to oppose it. The bankruptcy bill, the Bolton nomination, the REAL ID act (not that they were actually allowed to vote on that), the Janice Rogers Brown nomination, the social security plan such as it is….pick any one of those things and explain why it was good for the country.

33. I’m curious, too:
    The fact is that his better plan for Iraq wasn’t much different than the one Bush already had in place.
    I could have sworn that Bush didn’t have a plan until eventually he defaulted into what Kerry said and, for that matter, what about half of the liberal blogosphere had been saying all along. Anyone remember the details here?

34. Bush’s plan was to depose the Baath regime in Iraq.
    After the UN didn’t come through, he left it up to the military guys to figure out how to do this. This worked better for the 2003 war, and the first Gulf War than in a war where the president, think Johnson or Nixon, was calling all the shots.

35. Jesus, DaveC, you just make it too easy sometimes. “After the UN didn’t come through”? On what authority, and by what law, does the UN have the power to depose governments?
    And “Bush’s plan was to depose the Baath regime in Iraq” is another good one. On what authority, and by what law, does George Bush have the power to unilaterally decide to depose a government?
    And even if you can come up with an answer to the first two – without, mind you, parroting GOP talking points and the lies Bush used to sell the war in the first place – don’t you think it might have been a good idea for Bush to also have a plan for what happens after the regime is deposed?
    Because “they will greet us as liberators, with rose petals” is not a plan. It’s a dumbass fantasy.
    Just like “Mission Accomplished” was a dumbass fantasy.
    And “We’ll turn the corner after Baghdad falls… no, wait: when Saddam is captured…no, wait: when sovereignty is handed over… no, wait; when Fallujah is leveled…no, wait: after the elections…no, wait: when we have 125,000 – er, 100,000 – er, 75,000 – er, 50,000 – um, some Iraqi security forces ready to take over” were all dumbass fantasies.
    All fantasies. All dumbass fantasies. All dumbass, criminally negligent fantasies. All dumbass, criminally negligent fantasies that have killed 1600+ Americans and 100,000+ Iraqis and hundreds of aid workers, contractors, UN workers, and journalists; physically or psychologically maimed a few hundred thousand more people; and cost us $300 billion and counting.
    And we still have no idea how long we’ll be there. We can’t even secure a freaking highway, for Christ’s sake.

36. Folks, y’all are missing some merit in Charles’s post. Regardless of how things look to Democrats (or Republicans), I believe that to a lot of swing voters, the Dems *don’t* “stand for anything.”
    People tend to believe (wrongly, in practice) that they already know what the Republicans stand for, in terms of positive policy positions: low taxes, low gov’t spending, anti-abortion, etc., etc. As I said, these beliefs are wrong in practice, but people *think* they’re accurate.
    To the extent that “Democrat” calls anything to mind in the typical noncommital swing voter, it’s the sterotypes that the Republicans have pasted to us—“liberal,” soft on defense, tax-&-spend, secular humanist, etc., etc. Again, inaccurate, but part of the conventional wisdom. Note that these aren’t policy positions so much as negative stereotypes.
    I think the Bird Dog is right when he says or implies that the Dems have a greater burden on them to outline their real policies & goals. As it is, the Repubs are working to add “nay-sayers” to our list of stereotypes, & god knows they’ve had plenty of success in the past.
    So many of the comments above are versions of “but we DO have positive proposals, etc.” It’s not that Kerry, for ex., didn’t *have* real policy proposals; but Charles is right, Kerry DIDN’T sell them. We may doubt, in retrospect, whether Mr. Kerry’s virtues include the ability to sell ice water in hell. Having all the good ideas in the world is useless if you’re not getting them out there.
    Another theme: “but the media is against us.” Right. It is. And it will stay that way until Dems win the stereotype war. Most journalists are (1) lazy and (2) panderers to the conventional wisdom. The Dems have to fight to get their ideas out there.
    How to do this is anyone’s guess, but as Bird suggests, it needs to be a continual topic of discussion. (I tended to think Kerry needed more substantive commercials, each closing with his website address to get people away from relying on TV. Whatever.) But as long as Dems stay defensive & won’t acknowledge that—in losing to a [many expletives deleted] like George W. Bush in 2004— the party was doing SOMETHING wrong, then we will continue to lose.

37. Anderson: I agree. (And while I thought Kerry was miles better than Bush, my heart truly sank when we nominated him. I mean, I’m from Massachusetts. I am very familiar with Kerry. And I though, no, no, NO! Not that he isn’t a thoughtful guy, but getting his points across clearly is not his strength. And he has all the charm of an oyster.)
    Still, I have no idea how to do it. And the press is worse than unhelpful. My favorite example is this: I once wrote a reporter at Business Week to correct a factual error he had made about Clark. (The reporter, covering a speech, wrote that Clark supported turning our efforts in Iraq over to the UN; in that very speech, Clark had said the opposite: “it is simply unrealistic to have the United Nations take over this daunting task – it’s not able and it’s not willing.” The reporter corrected this in the web edition). — Since I was writing him anyways, I noted that he had criticized Clark for being worried about the deficit, as though this showed some sort of economic naivete. I wrote:

    “I was somewhat puzzled by this passage from your article: “after a long period of growth, forecasts for the deficit are starting to shrink. One minute, we’re looking at the Deficit Clock in Times Square, wondering about how our grandkids are going to pay for this mess. The next minute, the deficit has turned to surplus, and we’re retiring the 30-year bond.” Perhaps I misunderstand, but you seem to imply that there is some reason to think that the deficit might actually turn into a surplus without any major change in our fiscal policy. I know of no budget projections that support this claim. Moreover, the idea that the deficit will simply disappear becomes even less likely if we assume that those of Bush’s tax cuts that are supposed to expire will not be allowed to do so, and less likely still if new tax cuts are passed.”

    He replied:

    “As for the deficit, I think there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that current fiscal policy has helped spur economic growth, job creation and a lower deficit forecast. If left in place, I see no reason why current fiscal policy won’t continue to help. I think the prediction that tax cuts would turn out to be a scourge on the economy is simply mistaken.”

    For starters, that doesn’t actually address what he had said in his article, which was that the deficits were going to go away by themselves. For another, what he wrote me is just plain ignorant. (I mean: it’s true that Bush’s fiscal policy helped spur growth, though I would have added: there were ways to spur it more at far less cost. But it’s not true at all that tax cuts, unaccompanied by spending cuts, aren’t a scourge on the economy, via the deficit.) So what we’re left with is: an article in which a reporter basically makes fun of someone for saying something that is not just true, but obviously true — that the deficit is a serious problem — and implies that the person he’s making fun of doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And this was on the economy, in Business Week.
    And don’t even get me started on Maureen Dowd, whose column on Clark’s sweater and how it showed a deep failure to connect with women voters via his wardrobe (not his tax plan, not anything of any importance, but his sweater) I have yet to forgive.
    Grr.

38. I don’t blame Democrats for not suggesting someone for the UN. We should just withdraw and be done with it. 😉

39. Doesn’t salesmanship imply the ability to convince someone to buy something they don’t really need?
    No LJ, it doesn’t, at least not to anyone who understands and is successful at sales.
    Good salesmanship about teaching a prospective customer why your product or service is valuable to them, their co-workers and their company (or family if you prefer).

40. Strangely, crionna, that doesn’t actually contradict what LJ said…

41. crionna
    Sorry if my comment came off like a anti-salesman crack, I just went for the short version rather than a lp version of ‘while I realise the day to day need for salesmen to tell us that we need certain things, and the possibility that what someone sells may really make a difference in our lives,but…’
    I also thought that Chas participated on some level in the Dean or some other Dem campaign (in support, not throwing rocks at the bus), but even as I type those words, I’m thinking I have something messed up.

42. Sad fact: the media will not report thoughtful Democratic initiatives, because the Democrats are not in power. Modern media are largely corrupt and have become mere lickspittles for their Republican masters. Blaming the victim (the Democrats) won’t help. Fighting back will, but much depends on timing. DailyKos is right – join the battle of visions next year, maybe, but not this year.

43. You’d never know from this post that Dems in the Senate actually represent more people in the country than R’s.
    Unfortunately, after floating this one myself on an earlier post, I actually sat down and did the math, and it isn’t true.

44. Last time I looked James Carville as a spokesman of the Dems was a little like Paul Ruebens as a spokesman for the Actors Guild.

45. Phil, the numbers I saw you post in the comments here were for the House. Did you also do it for the Senate?

46. Last time I looked James Carville as a spokesman of the Dems was a little like Paul Ruebens as a spokesman for the Actors Guild.

    Yet, Ann Coulter continues to be the official spokesman for all Republicans. Odd how that works.
    I’ve been AFK for quite a while, now. I was going to write something about the flushing-the-Q’uran story, but things have changed a bit since then. MY initial reaction, though, was something like: my toilet won’t even flush what it’s supposed to, sometimes. A book? No way.
    But there was always the possibility that it was an outhouse-style toilet, so I kept my yap shut. The Slartibartfastian pause giveth, and it taketh away.

47. KC, I did, here: In any case, for the record — and assuming that in split states we can split the population equally — the breakdown by population is R – 144,765,157, D-148,026,027.
    That 4 million person difference advantage in the Senate for the Democrats — whatever it’s worth, which isn’t much in terms of how things work — doesn’t offset the 23 million person advantage in the House for the Republicans.

48. Slart:
    I don’t know what the classified report referred to in the Newsweek story says (or, more correctly, the one the unnamed source meant to cite, not the one he erroneously cited) but the story circulating among prisoners and those recently released employs a bucket used for urine and feces, rather than a flush toilet. There’s a collection of information at http://www.cageprisoners.com
    CC

49. This is just another example of the up-is-down, in-is-out, black-is-white brain function of the right side of our collective American cerebral cortex.
    Look at the last one hundred years: every piece of legislation that moved the country forward, addressed an issue of lasting significance, solved or mitigated a problem, and has positive historic significance, has come from the liberal side of the political spectrum. This includes LaFollete’s efforts since he was a liberal in terms of his day.
    On the other hand, what is the vision of the future on the current Republican leadership? Their goal is to go back in time over one hundred years to the 1970’s and 80’s and re-create the Robber Baron oligarchy. Of course they don’t say so, because they never say what they really mean. Their intent is clear, however, from their legslative initiatives.

50. Fair enough, Phil, but Doh’s statement was specifically about the Senate, not Congress as a whole, so you were wrong to say it isn’t true.
    I am curious about why you included nonvoting delegates, though presumably that didn’t really affect the result. Eleanor Holmes Norton does represent me as well as she can, I suppose, but it’s not very meaningful representation since she doesn’t have a vote. There’s a reason our license plates say “Taxation Without Representation”.

51. I agree with Carville and Begala on this one, but as a parallel course of action to go with sturm and the drang and the rhetorical savagery.
    I also believe Democrats should preemptively “blow up the moon” on occasion just to test how much the Republican Party loves their ideology and rhetoric about blowing up the moon. And, if that doesn’t work, blow up the sun.
    “And like a virgin vigorously protecting her maidenhead..” I knew, I just knew, that as soon as liberals embraced abstinence, the Republican lexicon would suddenly discover the fun in promiscuity with a Luntzian inflection. (a provisional smiley face)
    On the Quran thing: When someone discovers the truth (you know, facts) about this one way or the other, someone also explain to me how it is we “know” anything about secret places like Guantanamo, run by folks who have spent years defiling the language to cloak the reality of their actions, and by folks who have spent decades convincing me that every tax, every regulation, every utterance, every action by the beast government is wrong, misguided, incompetent, corrupt, and all of the other lovely terms in the Luntzian universe.
    I’m left only with my self-reverential bias. Everyone else seems to have nothing but the facts. But how do you know?

52. And, of course, Harry Reid’s body has not been invaded by Tom Daschle. Conservatives’ views about Reid have become identical with what were once their views about Daschle. Why this might be, I have no idea.
    Hilzoy, perhaps it’s because of what Harry Reid is doing (Bolton and judicial nominee filibusters) and saying (Bush is a loser, Clarence Thomas is a lousy writer, etc.). I’m not denying that Democrats didn’t have plans and position papers and so forth (or that you believe that Democrats wear the white hats on the issues), but it’s a matter of what gets through, and what is getting through are big loud nays. Offense AND defense. And special teams (which would be effective rapid responses against attacks). Bill Clinton was real good at special teams.
    When was the last time a physicist tried to persuade you that perpetual motion is impossible? Where do you get the idea that others are responsible for educating you?
    Cute analogy, Kevin, but the responsibility of the Democratic Party (and GOP) is to sell, not for me to eat my porridge.
    I’m sure there are mouth-breathers who will be fooled by his use of question-begging to spread the prima facie lie that Democrats have no plans or positive agenda, but judging by the upthread comments, it’s not anyone here.
    There was no “prima facie lie” because I didn’t write that, Catsy. It boils down to prioritizing.
    Doesn’t salesmanship imply the ability to convince someone to buy something they don’t really need?
    That is a distortion of salesmanship, LJ, and a sad way to look at an honorable profession. Every time any politician gets on the stump, he or she is selling something. We don’t need cell phones or laptops or push-button rollup windows, but the qualities of our lives are better and more productive because some folks went out there and made the pitches.
    Why is the argument over the filibuster more the fault of the Democrats than the Republicans?
    Because Democrats are the ones who launched a series of tactical nukes by filibustering circuit court nominees, a tactic never before done in American history, Bernard.
    Just hypothetically, suppose Party A starts insisting that it is absolutely vital that we blow up the Moon. Do you understand that this doesn’t actually obligate Party B to come up with their own detailed 347 page plan for blowing up the Moon? That saying, “NO! That’s crazy, and there are more important things to be talking about” is actually a perfectly appropriate response? That that response is not “obstructionism”?
    I try to avoid hypotheticals as much as possible, Jack, but if you see Party A as the Republicans, it does not mean that the opposition party should just settle for saying no.
    I can predict Your childish one-liners from the current GOP talking points about Reid and Polosi. Your not interested in an honest debate and you never have been.
    I’m sorry you feel that way, BSR.
    Every single Democrat in Congress right now won an election, Charles.
    Yep, Phil, and every single Democrat right now (that ran against a Republican) not in Congress lost an election.

53. But what’s your positive proposal for reform? Well, you want power for your side – a leader who agrees with you & Bush about the War on Terror – but that hardly counts as a positive idea.
    That is your opinion. To me, replacing Kofi with someone competent and who understands the world around him or her is a supremely positive proposal. Why is it that no Democrats have called for Annan’s removal?

54. Yep, Phil, and every single Democrat right now (that ran against a Republican) not in Congress lost an election.
    Yep, Charles, and every single Republican right now (that ran against a Democrat) not in Congress lost an election. Is any of this actually supposed to prove anything, or is it starting to sink in yet that the pithy “Win elections” doesn’t contain as much wisdom as you presumed it might?
    Because Democrats are the ones who launched a series of tactical nukes by filibustering circuit court nominees, a tactic never before done in American history, Bernard.
    A more introspective person might start asking himself why there are so many vacancies on the circuit courts in the first place. I don’t expect you to do so.
    KC, I included nonvoting delegates just because I had the full House list in front of me, and it was trivial to include the information.

55. –Why is the argument over the filibuster more the fault of the Democrats than the Republicans?
    -Because Democrats are the ones who launched a series of tactical nukes by filibustering circuit court nominees, a tactic never before done in American history, Bernard.
    You say “filibuster,” I say “blue slip.” Can we call the whole thing off?

56. Why is it that no Democrats have called for Annan’s removal?
    Ahem…I have.

57. A more introspective person might start asking himself why there are so many vacancies on the circuit courts in the first place. I don’t expect you to do so.
    Intellectual arrogance is an unpleasant and undesirable personality trait, especially when such a person makes wrong assumptions. A Karnak Award for mindreading by liberals to you, Phil (yes, I know you claim that you’re not a liberal). Because I didn’t write about circuit court vacancies does not mean I was unaware of it or that I accepted or agreed with the present situation. You should actually try to make counterarguments rather than get personal and try to insult the other person’s intelligence.

58. You say “filibuster,” I say “blue slip.” Can we call the whole thing off?
    Yes!
    Ahem…I have.
    Thank you, Edward. I wish more Democrats, especially the leadership kind, were with you on that.

59. Why is it that no Democrats have called for Annan’s removal?
    Really, why should they? Republicans don’t like the UN and don’t want to work with the UN. John Bolton is hardly Kofi Annan’s moral superior. Republicans aren’t serious about making the UN a better institution, so why do you think Democrats–(actual office-holding Democrats, not bloggers)–must be serious for you?

60. In what sense was the 2004 election a “shutout”? Is every election in which the party that wins the White House also gains in the House and Senate a shutout?
    Is the idea that the game has one point for each of the three that you control? Is the term “shutout” often used for games with such low scores?

61. “Because I didn’t write about circuit court vacancies does not mean I was unaware of it or that I accepted or agreed with the present situation.”
    So, I assume, you’ll write a post about how the Republican party is the “party of no”?

62. We don’t need cell phones or laptops or push-button rollup windows, but the qualities of our lives are better and more productive because some folks went out there and made the pitches.
    Err, if you are going to respond, you might want to read down to note if any other points were made subsequent to that by the writer. I realize that you want to engage everyone who takes up what you write (which is an honorable notion) and time is limited, but the primal notion of your post that ‘salesmanship’ is more important that ‘representation’ deserves a little closer examination.
    I’m not trying to turn this into a salesman is a huckster versus a salesman is an honorable and respectable profession (hell, read Arthur Miller if you want that) but to point out the foundation of what you posted is based on a rather strange reading of what a ‘representative’ is supposed to do, and have you retreat into a defense of being a salesman might be appropriate for Willie Loman’s wife, misses the point. The primary portion of the job description of a ‘representative’ is to defend the interests of the people s/he represents, which is probably why salesmen often go chuck the job title and go with ‘sales representative’, because they want to suggest that what they think you need is same as what your interests are when in fact they are not necessarily. When you base an entire post on a sleight of category such as this one, and then defend it on the premise that being a salesman is ‘an honorable position’, it suggests that you really haven’t examined the premise all that closely.
    If you want to inflate ‘salesmanship’ to cover everything under the sun, that’s your business, but you should realize that when you do that, you not only deprecate salesmanship, you deprecate the things that you are naming as salesmanship. If I had to explain to my 6 year old that one reason why she shouldn’t hit her 10 month old sister because that it invariably leads the the aforementioned sister crying, I would note that by your definition, that would be salesmanship, in that I am ‘selling’ my daughter a notion. And if she doesn’t ‘buy it’? Certainly my ability as a salesman/parent should be reviewed, but it doesn’t absolve my daughter of responsibility and it doesn’t make her walloping her sister value neutral (I should note that this is NOT a problem in my household, just a suitably at hand example)
    The question then remains at what point does the salesmanship (and therefore the spin of it all) stop? Or do you think it never stops and the person that is the best at it deserves to win?

63. “Why is the argument over the filibuster more the fault of the Democrats than the Republicans?
    Because Democrats are the ones who launched a series of tactical nukes by filibustering circuit court nominees, a tactic never before done in American history, Bernard.”
    You miss my point, Charles. You wrote,
    So much energy spent over a stupid wanking Senate rule, so much energy wasted.
    This statement makes none of the usual arguments about “unprecedented,” etc. It just says the fight over the filibuster is a waste of time. It suggests, pretty clearly, that this waste could be avoided if the Democrats just didn’t filibuster, and let the nominees in question be confirmed.
    But the waste could just as easily be avoided if Republicans quit worrying about it, let these nominees go, and accepted a 90% confirmation rate, or better still if Bush simply avoided nominating extremists.
    Let’s put this in more general terms. Bush proposes some legislation. Democrats dislike some of the provisions and block the bill trying to get changes. Now come Bill Frist and Charles Bird and others to label the Democrats “obstructionists.” But they are no more obstructionists than the Republicans are. Either side could get the bill passed by conceding the other’s points. It is simply wrong, as a matter of simple logic, to claim that only one side is obstructing passage.

64. Who was it (on the Left) who recently called the Democrats/Left the “bookless party”?
    I thought it was apt.
    This general sense thet they are devoid of ideas.

65. Who was it (on the Left) who recently called the Democrats/Left the “bookless party”?
    That was Martin Peretz of the New Republic, who was ironically quoting Galbraith discussing conservatism in the early 60’s. We all saw what happened with that. I think 2040 is going to give you guys such a shock…
    TNR is behind a subscription wall, but I think the essay you refer to is
    this one

66. People who consider Martin Peretz to be “on the Left” these days are widely thought to have an impaired sense of direction. Yes, there is surely someone to the right of Mr. Peretz, but even that doesn’t make him “on the Left.”

67. A Karnak Award for mindreading by liberals to you, Phil (yes, I know you claim that you’re not a liberal).
    If you’re going to call me a liar, Charles, grow some balls and do it directly. If you can’t, I’ll dismiss this as just your usual reactionary silliness. I’m not required to establish my bipartisan bona fides to your satisfaction, and if that bothers you, tough merde.
    Because I didn’t write about circuit court vacancies does not mean I was unaware of it or that I accepted or agreed with the present situation. You should actually try to make counterarguments rather than get personal and try to insult the other person’s intelligence.
    OK, Charles, since you’re incapable of taking the logical step, I’ll do it for you: If the Republicans hadn’t spent the entire decade of the 1990s, when Clinton was trying to fill vacancies, a) arguing that we have too many judges anyway, and why do we need all these judges?, and b) blue-slipping nominees before they could even get out of committe, I’d be more inclined to listen to them now about how unfair the Democrats are being and how urgent it is that we fill vacancies now with these particular people. And I further see no reason for the Democrats to roll over on the people they consider the most extremist when they’ve confirmed the vast majority of Bush nominees. And I super-duper further see it as the height of disingenuousness for you to suggest that they should roll over, since your ability to read the FactCheck link — I assume you did read it? — shows that you know that the Republicans are a bunch of frigging liars on this issue.
    Let me ask you something, Charles: When was the last time you actually took the effort to find about, and later highlighted publicly, a good idea from the Democrats?

68. “You say “filibuster,” I say “blue slip.” Can we call the whole thing off?”
    “Yes!”
    But why is it Hilzoy has to bring up the Blue slip rules, something you are very well aware of. Instead of honestly addressing the blue slip and other rule changes that prompted teh Democratic action you simply state “-Because Democrats are the ones who launched a series of tactical nukes by filibustering circuit court nominees”, as if that happened in a vacuum. You are simply not capable of having an honest arguement, and you have no desire to either, that should be obvious to anyone here.
    “Ahem…I have.”
    “Thank you, Edward. I wish more Democrats, especially the leadership kind, were with you on that.”
    Same old Charles, pretending that the Democrats are setting the agenda in a Republican contolled congress. Pretending that Frisk hasn’t used the “Nuclear option” to stroke his supportera up for the past month. Pretending that Delay hasn’t joined in Frist’s efforts to fan those flames.
    I know your not that stupid, so I’ll call you what you are, extremely dishonest.

69. Thank you, Edward. I wish more Democrats, especially the leadership kind, were with you on that.
    I should clarify this though (now that work has calmed down a bit). I feel Kofi can no longer be effective because of the food for oil scandal. That is the types of people the head of the UN needs to listen to him/her (e.g., heads of states in powerful democracies) can too easily dismiss any of his rebuffs to them by pointing back and saying, yeah, but what about the food for oil scam…hmmm?
    Who I would like to see replace him won’t make many on the Right any happier though. I’m quite fond of the idea of Bill Clinton getting that position.

70. “bookless party”
    Yeah, that’s a hoot, considering the anti-intellectual streak of American conservatism, especially prevalent today. Anyway, I’m trying to big up “the redeless party,” as in “Redeless Republicans.” Maybe I’ll write a poem about it.

71. I know your not that stupid, so I’ll call you what you are, extremely dishonest.
    I’m going to ask that claims of “dishonesty” be considered off limits around here. You gain nothing by it, you can’t actually prove it, and it just pisses people off…mostly me.
    You can state your case and ask the other person to address what appears to be discrepancies or inconsistencies to your heart’s content without resorting to this very offensive conclusion. Therefore, anyone calling anyone else “dishonest” (or similarly implying that a person is lying) will be temporarily banned from this point if I see it. Even if you do conclude they are lying…prove it…don’t just assert it. In fact, don’t assert it at all. Let your proof speak for itself.
    Civility demands you give people the benefit of doubt without impugning their integrity.

72. Yeah, that’s a hoot, considering the anti-intellectual streak of American conservatism

    Not to be confused with “anti-intellect”.

73. What Edward (just) said.

74. Therefore, anyone calling anyone else “dishonest” (or similarly implying that a person is lying) will be temporarily banned from this point if I see it.
    In that case, I’m publicly calling for Charles to clarify his statement to me, ” A Karnak Award for mindreading by liberals to you, Phil (yes, I know you claim that you’re not a liberal).”

75. There’s a difference between a mindreading charge and a dishonesty charge, Phil, but I’ll let Charles clarify his own statement.

76. I’m asking for clarification on the second half, Edward, since Charles appears to be insinuating that there’s a difference between what is true and what I am claiming.

77. Got ya…fair enough.

78. Charles, I could just as easily say that, to me, replacing Bush with someone competent and who understands the world around him or her is a supremely positive proposal. But you take this kind of anti-Bush sentiment as evidence that the Democrats are obstructionist naysayers who are fighting for power itself rather than ideas. So why would you take the Republicans’ anti-Annan sentiment as anything more than a fight for power?

79. “You say “filibuster,” I say “blue slip.” Can we call the whole thing off?”
    “Yes!”
    Clarification: I meant the argument over the Dems being an unacceptably obstructionist party, not the decision to filibuster a couple of circuit court judges.
    Minus the vitriol, I’d second BSR’s point: there’s something fundamentally wrong with claiming that Democratic behavior on these issues is outside the norm of proper conduct for an opposition party.
    Charles’ argument is particularly misguided given the Republicans decision, after the 2000 election, to change the rules in such a way that the Dems have no choice but to filibuster extremist nominees.

80. Even if you do conclude they are lying…prove it…don’t just assert it. In fact, don’t assert it at all. Let your proof speak for itself.
    Civility demands you give people the benefit of doubt without impugning their integrity.
    I have to vehemently disagree with this call. When someone /demonstrates/, again and again, that they are arguing in a deliberately dishonest and disingenuous way, they need to be called on it. One of the great problems in both our media and politics is the inability to simply come out and call out a lie for what it is. I’ve watched /you/ complain about this phenomenon before.
    Charles is well aware of GOP’s history of torpedoing Clinton’s judicial nominees without allowing them an up-or-down vote, and they did it to far more of them–his own party’s actions are, in fact, the reason why there are currently so many openings to be filled. He is well aware of the history of the filibuster, because the /facts on record/ have been pointed out to him time and time again. This isn’t mindreading, it’s simply a fact: Charles /knows/ these things.
    Charles also knows that the Democrats have proposed plenty of positive alternatives to the GOP agenda. He knows this not only because he reads Democratic web sites, but also because these proposals and plans have been pointed out to him many times, particularly during the election. He also knows that his own party, as the current majority, has the ability to control what legislation is brought to the table, and has worked to actively prevent Democrats from bringing their alternatives up for a vote. Charles /knows/ these things. He can’t /not/. And yet he goes on to write things like this:
    The Democrats continue to be the “No Party” instead of the “Better Ideas Party”. Republicans propose, Democrats oppose. Instead of “ask not what your country can do for you”, it’s another round of Fight Club.
    If someone knows something is true, and then goes on to assert that the opposite is true, what is that?
    I’ll tell you what it is: dishonesty. And if calling dishonesty out for what it is earns me a temp ban, then do what you must. But I’m telling you right now that it is bad policy–civility is an admirable goal, and I appreciate what Obsidian Wings is supposed to stand for, but I place a much higher value on truth, and on not allowing blatant lies to stand unchallenged.

81. Not to be confused with “anti-intellect”
    Indeed. Might as well confuse peanut butter and peanut sauce.

82. One of the great problems in both our media and politics is the inability to simply come out and call out a lie for what it is. I’ve watched /you/ complain about this phenomenon before.
    There is a significant difference, as we’ve noted here before, between the people who write and comment here and those in the public realm though. The posting rules are designed to protect the people who write here.
    What Charles is offering in this thread is spin, yes, but not a “lie,” per se. He made his case. Rip it to shreds, but leave the ad hominem arguments for those other blogs that don’t care if people of the other side ever understand why they feel some way or other. You know where he’s coming from. You understand his POV. Teach him why this assertion is wrong if you can. But give him his due. He’s not a liar.
    There’s one thing I’ve learned in blogging: things that I am absolutely convinced are true can be shown to me to not be true. I can assert the most ludicrous idea without wanting to be dishonest and without realizing why it might strike someone else that I’m intentionally lying.
    Charles put forth an argument and doesn’t accept the conclusions some are arguing prove he “knows” are true. Just because someone tells you something, doesn’t mean you have to accept it as true. I refuse to accept as true that Bush isn’t systematically trying to dismantle Social Security. Even if he came out tomorrow with a solution that truly strengthened it, I’d be convinced he changed his mind or is up to something else devious. Just because someone tells me he’s not trying to dismantle it doesn’t mean I “know” it’s true.
    Charles also knows that the Democrats have proposed plenty of positive alternatives to the GOP agenda.
    This is a good example. Charles can’t have missed the examples pointed to here or elsewhere, but just because you and I think they are “positive alternatives” doesn’t mean he sees it that way. They might be horribly negative alternatives to him.
    All I’m saying is give him the benefit of the doubt that he means what he says….that he’s not intentionally be dishonest.

83. …that he’s not intentionally be dishonest.

84. I waited a day to comment here, since my first impulse was to simply indulge in some easy (Bird-)Dog-kicking and flay CB for this reflexive Democrat-bashing, but on re-reading his post (and the subsequent comments), I came to the conclusion that, at least in concept, he is quite right. Ideally, in a two-party system like ours, yes, it would be a much better situation, for the Congress, and the country as a whole, if the political dialogue truly was a “duel” of ideas and plans: and the more thought-out the better. To castigate the current Democratic Party leadership for a lack of a positive “agenda” is certainly a legitimate critique (and one that I, a Democrat, can agree with wholeheartedly!).
    But to put this critique forth in the form he has, which seems to be to criticise Dem “obstructionism” and naysaying without, apparently, any reference to the significant and crippling-to-the-minority changes in Congressional procedures that the Republicans enacted after their House takeover in 1995 – and the results these changes have effected on the whole process of legislation in this country – is, if not “dishonest” (and I do not think it is), disingenuous at best. And I think I’m being generous in that estimation.
    Charles seems (unsurprisingly) to ignore the reality of political life in contemporary Washington, where both Houses of Congress are in control of Party dedicated mainly to forwarding a set and inflexible agenda: first and foremost, to consolidate political power; and secondly, to marginalize the opposition and render it incapable (mostly via parliamentary rules changes) of having ANY influence on the “process”of legislation. Thirdly, to then utilize their political leverage to force their program – mainly that of remaking the nation’s economy in the 21st Century into a rehashed version of the 19th’s – on the country, all the while “making [their] own reality” and blithely ignoring and and all criticism. (And not coincidentally, frantically flogging whatever “cultural” (i.e., prejudice) issues they can dredge up to distract the voters from their program of economic Royalism).
    It would be nice if NOT, as it is now, the Majority Party wasn’t under the discipline and control of a clique of self-righteous radical ideologues motivated primarily by greed for money and contempt for their opposition – but since it is, “Just Saying NO” is as good strategy for now as any. If there really were any chance that the Congressional Republicans would do anything other than simply sneer at and dismiss any Democratic plans or intiatives, then they should be articulated and brought forward. But as it, why waste the energy?

85. Edward_, we appreciate your heroic efforts to keep the tone ObiWi elevated. But I want to be sure I understand what you’re saying when you defend Charles.
    Take this, for example:
    “Charles can’t have missed the examples pointed to here or elsewhere, but just because you and I think they are “positive alternatives” doesn’t mean he sees it that way. They might be horribly negative alternatives to him.”
    Do you really know what you’re implying here? You seem to be saying that:
    (a) Charles’ complaints (about the Democrats not offering their own policies) can be regarded as “True” because Charles doesn’t like the Democratic policy proposals.
    (b) And, because Charles doesn’t like the Democratic policy proposals, those policy proposals do not, in effect, exist, as far as Charles is concerned;
    (c)therefore, when Charles says he doesn’t know of any Democratic initiatives or policy proposals, he is telling the truth, for certain values of “truth” – i.e., the value of Charles having his own solipsistic universe wherein whatever he doesn’t like doesn’t exist.
    I just want to be sure that I understand you properly, Edward_. Because that is either the most pettifogging, desperate-to-be-nice reasoning I have encountered lately, or it’s a near-genius bit of subtle sarcasm.

86. …that he’s not intentionally be dishonest.
    All your base are belong to us!

87. Charles, I wonder if perhaps you’re confusing the terms “ideas” and “ideology.” I find the former much better for making informed and enlightened decisions, but extremely boring and lacking the attention they deserve. Conversely, I find the latter an extremely poor tool for making good decisions, but exceedingly easy to soundbite and popularize.
    It seems to me that many Republicans support adherence to an ideology as a good thing. But is it really a good thing?

88. Talk about “near-genius bit of subtle sarcasm.” That’s one impressive, if bumpy, path to your conclusion, Casey. I’d deconstruct it, but I have other fish to fry…let me see if I can do this in less time:
    This is where Charles began:
    Nevertheless, the Democrats have done damn little to sell their ideas to me or to the American public.
    […]
    The prevalence in the Democratic Party is obstruction and opposition, not “we have a better plan”, followed by actually spelling out what that better plan is.
    He’s using generalizations to stake out some rhetorical ground (in a nutshell, arguing that Democrats are not leading, but not letting the Republicans lead either).
    And to some extent I, as does JayC obviously, agree that the overriding message from the Democrats is negative and this is a problem. Of course the overriding message from the Republicans during Clinton’s term was negative as well, so it probably goes with the territory of being the minority.
    Yes, we could list all kinds of specifics to refute this generalization, but in the end Charles can still claim, honestly, that we’re not reaching him. And I personally accept that he means this.
    Look at what the Republicans did during Clinton’s years for an example of what might reach him. Until the Dems, as minority, offer their version of the “Contract with America” Charles can claim, honestly, that w’re not getting our positive alternatives out there in a fashion that sells them to him (or a host of others obviously).
    Sometimes, hidden in your opponent’s criticism, is something you really need to hear.

89. Look at what the Republicans did during Clinton’s years for an example of what might reach him.
    Okay, so the Democrats should bring up every financial and sexual scandal Bush has ever been remotely involved in? Make Margie Schoedinger a household name? Demand a special prosecutor to investigate the Harken Energy Corporation insider trading scandal, and why the son of the President was never prosecuted at the time – with George W. Bush’s and George H.W. Bush’s involvement with BCCI as a material subject for further investigation?
    Do you really think that the Democrats behaving to George W. Bush exactly as the Republicans behaved to Bill Clinton would reach Charles? I don’t. I think Charles would just maintain his faith that (a) Bush did nothing wrong and (b) it doesn’t matter anyway.

90. Edward_, when somebody says that, first you figure whether or not they’re reachable. My reading of blogs and watching of the last few years has persuaded me that there’s about 40% of the American publich which is not reachable (barring a depression or the war getting much, much worse). Especially as there’s an effective right-wing noise machine to punch out useful soundbites (notice how the Newsweek story is being greedily seized by rightwingers who had no problem with anything that the administration said about Iraq, WMD’s or Saddama bin Hussein).
    There’s a point where somebody’s statement that we’re not getting through to him doesn’t mean that we should try harder, but rather that we should write that person off as a waste of effort.

91. Do you really think that the Democrats behaving to George W. Bush exactly as the Republicans behaved to Bill Clinton would reach Charles?
    I gave a very specific example of something the Republicans did that apparently did reach Americans, their conserted effort to present an alternative via Newt’s “Contract with America.” Now I objected to quite a few of the details when it first came out, but as a positive step, one that went beyond just obstruction, it was pretty impressive.
    I think we’ll see something like that emerge soon. You’ve got brilliant minds on the Dems side and they see the truth in what Charles is saying. Look to Obama, look to Clinton, they are building credibility and offering ideas that can reach beyond the left…anyone who wants to take back the majority should understand why they’re doing that IMO.

92. Until the Dems, as minority, offer their version of the “Contract with America” Charles can claim, honestly, that w’re not getting our positive alternatives out there in a fashion that sells them to him (or a host of others obviously).
    All right, I’ll back into the breach one more time: if Charles had simply said that the Democrats have a problem with salesmanship or marketing their ideas, none of this furore would have arisen. [Hell, most of us in this thread have made that argument at some time or another.] He didn’t. He said that those ideas do not exist. That Democrats are purely obstructionist, that they are the party of No — perhaps the stupidest talking point to emerge from the bowels of the GOP, and that’s saying something — blah di f***ing blah di blah.
    Here’s the point: he knows this to be false. He knows this to be false because we’ve corrected him every single friggin’ time he’s raised the issue on ObWi — and like I said, by my count I think this is the sixth time it’s come up — and heck, the very first post on this thread is calling him on this BS yet again. Does any of it stick? Does it ever alter his position? Does he ever even engage this?
    No.
    Even if he merely wanted to claim that Democrats aren’t reaching him, he’d still be wrong (or at best right on a technicality): there are about five or six Democrats on this thread alone who have, in the past, repeatedly tried to explain both Democratic ideas and why they’re better than those of the Republicans. It’s like watching a two-year old cover his ears than complain he can’t hear you; the problem doesn’t lie with your inability to scream louder, it lies with the fact that the kid is covering his ears.
    Sure, the Democratic party sucks at salesmanship. Sure, the current crop of progressive ideals have yet to be boiled down to a postage stamp. And most importantly, sure, the Republicans have managed to co-opt most of the terms we’d like to use and doesn’t that suck for us. [Tom Delay leading the party of “moral values”? That’s almost enough to trigger the Second Coming of Jesus just so he’d have a chance to roll in his grave.] You want to say that, fine, go ahead. Don’t like our ideas? Fine, critique them. But do not say that the Democrats have never said “we have a better plan” when it is pointed out time and time again that Kerry’s debate performances were filled with such claims, or that the other Democratic candidates had nothing to add to the debate. Do not say that Republican proposals are, ipso facto, good when it is pointed out time and time again that many of those proposals are strictly worse than doing nothing. And do not pretend that somehow the Republican and Democratic ability to set agendas are comparable when it is pointed out time and time again that that same Republican majority you’re so enamored of spends four years eviscerating the ability of the Democrats to even contribute to, let alone create, policy.
    And don’t even get me started on the comparative ability to propagate their ideas through that laughably termed “liberal” media, pace rilkefan‘s first post on this thread.
    [For that matter, don’t pretend that “Liberals are convinced they’re right on the issues [of the filibuster], but the problem is that the majority of America is not on their side” when the polls indicate otherwise. You don’t speak for the majority of Americans, Charles, and your posts would be better served if you remembered that.]
    Face it, Charles: the Democrats are, right now, the minority party. They have no ability to set the agenda, in large part because of those “stupid wanking” rules you seems to think so unimportant. Given the insanity of the GOP leadership in Congress (and the concomitant monomania of the GOP White House), the Dems are rightfully obstructing the more extreme elements of the GOP’s agenda while — just to remind you — letting the bulk of it pass without real protest and sometimes even support. [Too much of it, IMO, but that’s political life for ya.] If you cannot understand and accept this fact, then you need to reconsider what the “Opposition Party” means to you… and whether you really think the practice of an Opposition Party is palatable to your ideology, instead of merely paying lip-service to its theory.
    And, of course, face the most important fact of all: the Republican leadership in the Congress — and possibly a large fraction of Republican voters, although that’s a more tendentious claim that would require more careful study than I have time for right now — is not interested in Democratic ideas. They’re not interested in debate, period, unless it’s phrased in the form of servile agreement. Screw any form of Hegelian dialectic; your idyllic notions of what should be happening in Congress (and with which I largely agree, btw) simply do not apply, and the Republicans are to blame. Until you realize that fact, and until you start helping to curtail it, any criticism you make of Democratic “obstructionism” will be laughable on its face. Insanity should be opposed; zealotry should be obstructed; and the Democrats, now that they’ve recovered some of their spine, have begun to do just that. [While, just to reiterate in case you’re actually listening, letting through the moderate portions of Bush’s agenda.] And more power to them.
    In short: your argument is groundless and without merit. As you know, because it’s been pointed out time and time again how bankrupt it is. Much like “democranami” or whatever linguistic abortion you concocted, though, it seems as if you’re so delighted by the phrase “Party of No” that you refuse to listen to the truth. Which is a real pity, because you’re a smart, passionate guy and I hate to see such talent wasted.

93. Anarch,
    Brilliantly stated, very compelling case. I’ll note that you did not resort to calling Charles “dishonest” per se either.
    That’s important, IMO, because doing so allows your opponent to shut down and tune out. By doing the hard work you’ve done here, you’ve firmly dropped the ball in Charle’s court.
    Again, brilliant and very worthy.

94. Wow, avoid the computer for a weekend and you miss a lot of invective …
    Perhaps there’s nothing left to add, but since the overall tendency has been Bird-bashing, I’ll say this: if the Dems were doing what’s necessary to get their ideas out, it wouldn’t even be possible for Charles to complain they’re not doing it. Come on, we’ve got George Soros writing the checks! We should have our little paperback platform in every bookstore in the country!
    (One could get a good SNL skit out of “Democrats arguing over what to call their version of the ‘Contract With America.'”)
    I myself would like to have some clearer idea of what my being a Democrat means, than simply “keeping the stupid Bushies from ruining the country.” I’ve been reading up on FDR to get some old-time religion …

95. Anderson,
    righteous comment.
    I hope other Dems may consider that Charles is actually doing them a favor with this post.

96. Edward: You’ve got brilliant minds on the Dems side and they see the truth in what Charles is saying
    What truth? As Anarch points out – as virtually everyone on this thread has pointed out – there is no truth in what Charles is saying in this post.
    I know you’re a nice guy who wants to think the best of people… but asserting that Charles is speaking truth when in fact he’s… ah, the Houyhnhnms: “saying the thing which is not” … is not bringing the debate forward.
    Once in a while, Charles manages a well-researched, well-argued, thoughtful post. This isn’t one of those times: it’s a rehash of utter nonsense that Charles knows is utter nonsense. Being nice about his failures is treating him like a child who’s got to be told “Yes, we love your fingerpainting, let’s stick it up on the fridge” regardless of what a messy blob it is. Charles is an adult: treat him like one.

97. Yes, Anarch’s statements were very “ouchy”, as in right on the mark, effective, eloquent, and all other good things my comments never are. In fact, I retract my comment above, except for the funny parts, should they exist.
    I expect Charles to retract every word of his post momentarily. Big 🙂
    But seriously, is there in the history of political blogging (to limit the discussion) a single instance of anyone retracting an opinion post and admitting that it was completely, every word, wrong? And then maybe for good measure throwing in the big towel of actually agreeing with the opposition so much that they switch party affiliation.
    Answer, I think. Von on the conduct of the war and his vote for Kerry. That test wasn’t hard enough.

98. Jes,
    I disagree.
    I think Charles is spinning this, and is, as noted, perhaps a bit too fond of his own wordmanship at times, but overall he has made a valid point. It’s not as absolute as he’s claiming (and that’s really what the bulk of the objections are focusing on), but the Dems do seem to be having trouble conveying the perception that they have a unified vision for the country. As Anderson noted: if the Dems were doing what’s necessary to get their ideas out, it wouldn’t even be possible for Charles to complain they’re not doing it.
    Just because I believe they’re infintely preferable to the GOP as it stands doesn’t mean beans if a majority of Americans are not equally convinced. That’s the reality of the situation. Again, Charles is doing us a favor here.

99. Edward: but the Dems do seem to be having trouble conveying the perception that they have a unified vision for the country
    If that was actually what Charles had said, that would have been a better argument. But it’s not what he said: it’s your very nice interpretation that this is what he must have meant. If that’s what Charles meant, he’s had plenty of time to update/correct his post. But he hasn’t. Therefore I credit him with saying what he meant to say, and not what you have intelligently and kindly credited him with saying.
    Perhaps what you are asserting Charles must have meant to say is actually the post you need to write? If you feel it needs to be said that the Democratic party have failed to present a unified vision of what America should be, then write that post. But it helps no one to respond to what Charles is saying as if he wrote the post you want to read – still less to criticize others for responding to what Charles actually wrote, rather than to your interpretation of what you think Charles must have meant to say.

100. still less to criticize others for responding to what Charles actually wrote,
     That may be fair, but I still stand by my insistence that “dishonest” in response to assertion is uncivil as too often applied here.

101. “Brilliantly stated, very compelling case. I’ll note that you did not resort to calling Charles “dishonest” per se either.”
     Sure he did Edward. Read the last paragraph again;
     “In short: your argument is groundless and without merit. As you know, because it’s been pointed out time and time again how bankrupt it is”
     Dress it up however you want, he just called Charles a liar. I have much respect for you Edward, for your patience and moderation, but all your doing is making yourself look foolish in trying to have an honest arguement with someone that is tremendously dishonest in most everything he posts here. If someone can come here once a week and post that 2+2=3, repeatively, over the protests of the commentariat and known repeated facts, what is the point of having any discussion if that constant and purposeful misinformation is not called out for what it is, a lie?
     “I think Charles is spinning this, and is, as noted, perhaps a bit too fond of his own wordmanship at times,”
     I think your being naive. Charles didn’t think up any of this, it is simply the latest GOP talking point that he is filtering down to ObWi, as he always does.

102. BSR,
     I know what you’re saying, but you’re not recognizing that the truth as you see it is hardly worth the damage your willing to inflict to assert it. Civility demands compromise.
     Let me make this clearer. Chasing Charles off this site will result in me leaving too. The experiment will have failed as far as I was interested in it. I’m fighting for my own place here. There are plenty of sites where we lefties can pat ourselves on the back and reassure ourselves we’re superior. There are very few places where left and right attempt to share their beliefs in a central forum and make allowances for each other as the price we pay to co-exist reasonably peacefully. I don’t see Charles as dishonest. Honestly, I don’t. I see him as a warrior in the battle I’m happy to be a warrior in too. Spinning his arguments to hopefully get his point across in an entertaining and, yes, provacative way. This isn’t life or death here folks.
     Why on earth those not interested in battling him don’t just ignore him mystifies me.

103. if the Dems were doing what’s necessary to get their ideas out, it wouldn’t even be possible for Charles to complain they’re not doing it.

     I agree that Democrats could be doing a better job of selling their ideas, but since when has reality had anything to do with Bush supporters’ ability to make statements? You might as well say it’s not possible to portray people wounded in Vietnam as cowards, or not possible to say that you’re for smaller government when you’re presiding over gigantic increases in government spending, or not possible to say you’re opposed to torture while rewarding those who promoted it.

104. FTR, I don’t think Charles is being dishonest, I think he’s refusing to acknowledge certain truths that don’t mesh with his current idee fixe.* There’s a fundamental difference between believing A while saying B, and believing B despite all the evidence for A.
     That said, I think this…
     Edward: I think Charles is spinning this, and is, as noted, perhaps a bit too fond of his own wordmanship at times, but overall he has made a valid point…
     …is false. Contained within Charles’ post is a valid point, one which I and numerous others have already ceded — the Democratic marketing mechanism is thoroughly broken, and part of fixing it will be to render our ideals down to a few pithy phrases you can fit on a postage stamp — but that’s neither the premise nor the purpose of the post. Rather than constructively addressing this problem by suggesting ways in which the Democrats can promulgate their ideas (and thus hopefully renew some of the Hegelian dialectic of which we’re both fond) he’s only giving the appearance of constructivity while essentially saying that the way for the Democrats to market their ideas is to buy into the Republican ideology wholesale; indeed, I’m not even convinced he’s acknowledged the existence of Democratic policies with anything more than lip service. And, of course, he’s ignoring the fact that the breaking of the dialectic has come almost completely from the Republican leadership in the Congress and, to a lesser extent, the Republican leadership in the White House.
     To be clear: I think Charles’ argument is bunk and he should be called on it whenever he makes it. [See, e.g., above.] I don’t, however, think that it originates from a place of dishonesty, nor do I believe that he is making these arguments in bad faith. I would, in fact, be very interested to hear what he has to say about how the Democrats should market their ideas… provided he is willing to acknowledge that a) those ideas exist, b) they’re not a priori stupid, c) they reflect a differing of priorities, not an absence of thought (see, e.g., the UN), and d) this is not even remotely a level playing field at the moment. Charles himself may never agree with our proposals, but I think we all agree that the country will only be strengthened by a real, serious discussion amongst the people of the United States in which all people listen to all arguments from all around the political realm, even if they never agree.
     But for that to happen, we must call him to task for the bankruptcy of the original post and spur him to do better. Others have done so; my effort simply happens to be longer and more pointed.
     * And just so we don’t go around giving ourselves airs, this is a flaw we’re all prone to on occasion.

105. Anarch,
     I guess you weren’t here for the election in 2004. The Dem’s lost for the exact reasons that Charles posted. Please continue to ignore that fact. It bodes well for the Republicans.

106. I guess you weren’t here for the election in 2004. The Dem’s lost for the exact reasons that Charles posted.
     No they didn’t, as I expanded upon at great — some might say inordinate — length. None of which, I note, you acknowledge or address.

107. I realize that you want to engage everyone who takes up what you write (which is an honorable notion) and time is limited, but the primal notion of your post that ‘salesmanship’ is more important that ‘representation’ deserves a little closer examination.
     First, I do not respond nor do I want to engage with everyone. You should know better. My comment on salemanship was merely a response to yours, LJ. Let’s not over-intellectualize it. Representing constituents and deciding the course of big picture party strategy are distinct issues.

108. He said that those ideas do not exist.
     No, I didn’t write that, Anarch. Re-read the 3rd paragraph in the post. Read my response to hilzoy. What you’re not getting is my point that giving voters something vote for should be given higher priority. The implication is that said ideas do exist.
     This statement makes none of the usual arguments about “unprecedented,” etc. It just says the fight over the filibuster is a waste of time. It suggests, pretty clearly, that this waste could be avoided if the Democrats just didn’t filibuster, and let the nominees in question be confirmed.
     But the waste could just as easily be avoided if Republicans quit worrying about it, let these nominees go, and accepted a 90% confirmation rate, or better still if Bush simply avoided nominating extremists.
     I know what I wrote in the post, Bernard, but you asked me an off-topic question in comments and I answered it. You can broaden definition of obstructionism to include Republicans, but it doesn’t take away the from the fact that when the choice comes to blockage v. better alternatives, the former is the chosen course. Yes, I know it’s hard for the minority to chose the latter. That’s why I gave the Contract With America example.

109. What Anarch said.
     There may be a core of (somewhat unoriginal) insight in this post, but it is buried beneath layers of unecessarily inflammatory language, a subtext implying that opposition is immoral, a bizarre assertion that bloggers shouldn’t criticize Bolton without giving equal time to bashing Kofi Annan, and so on.
     I’d love to find a blogger that could well articulate contemporary Republican positions and engage in thoughtful, honest discussion. So far, Charles isn’t he.
     With that, I just realized this whole thing could be turned on its head. If it’s clear that Democrats haven’t been doing particularly well of late at getting their message across, it’s equally clear that Republicans have been doing a pretty crappy job of making the *justification* for most of their policies clear to me, 49% of America, and most of the rest of the world.
     The stated rationales for Social Security “Reform”, War in Iraq, nomination of Bolton (or at least continued support of Bolton after problems came to light), extraordinary rendition, crippling of stem cell research, gutting of environmental regulation, banning of gay marriage, etc., etc., mostly just don’t make any sense. I’m left to decide for myself whether Republican leaders are actually insane, or whether there is just some sinister hidden agenda. Why would Democrats in Congress, 49% America, and ~90% of the rest of the world, oppose these policies if they’re so great? What are the Republicans going to do about their own image problem? Charles? Anybody?

110. Well, Jack,one answer to your last question might be simply “nothing” – since it is arguable that most Republican officeholders and officials in Washington today simply don’t give a rat’s *ss about any “image problem” – since, to them, their “image” is, in any way that might matter, irrelevant. As I pointed out above, the current GOP leadership, including most pointedly the Executive Branch, is a clique of self-referential ideologues who have “gamed the system” to the point where as long as 50%-plus-one of the voters/Congressmen/Senators/Justices can be relied on to carry out or support their agenda, they have absolutely no need to pay attention to any Opposition whatsoever – even if they had any inclination to. For evidence, check out the commentary following the 2000 election – especially the frothful sneering from GOP/RW sources at any and everyone who might have dared even suggest that George W. might have even the least blot on his “mandate”. Nothing has changed.

111. but you asked me an off-topic question in comments and I answered it.
     I don’t think it was off-topic. You raised the issue of the waste caused by the filibuster in the context of complaining about Democrats’ obstructionism. My point is that Republicans are just as responsible for the situation as Democrats. And if you’re talking only about the effort put in by bloggers, well, I bet I can find a lot of equally wasteful repetition on conservative blogs.
     You can broaden definition of obstructionism to include Republicans, but it doesn’t take away the from the fact that when the choice comes to blockage v. better alternatives, the former is the chosen course.
     Have you read the comments here? If you’re simply saying Democrats have been ineffective at salesmanship, I’ll buy it. if you’re saying they haven’t tried to put forth ideas, you are simply mistaken. In fact, Democratic ideas have generally been blocked by, guess who, Republicans. Why aren’t they the Party of No?
     Let’s just pick one little thing. No transporting a minor across state lines for an abortion without parental approval. You think maybe bus drivers should be exempt? Democrats do. I don’t think a bus driver ought to go to jail for not checking to see if any passengers are pregnant. Is that an idea? Yes. But it was blocked, in a particularly idiotic and offensive way, by Sensenbrenner. Just an example, Charles. Not all such blockage is done in quite so insulting a fashion, but an awful lot of it happens.

112. So CB’s gripe is, basically, that the Dems are standing athwart history yelling “Stop!” 🙂
     If only more Republicans could recapture the spirit of H.L. Mencken, who said of Coolidge that “he had no ideas, and was not a nuisance,” and meant it as a great compliment, and was entirely right to mean it that way.

113. One more thing:
     …when the choice comes to blockage v. better alternatives…
     Today’s show is brought to you by the letter Q, the number 9 and the phrase FALSE DILEMMA.

114. My comment on salemanship was merely a response to yours, LJ. Let’s not over-intellectualize it.
     This is a small nit, and I think that others have pointed out some other valuable things, so I don’t want to detract from that, but please note that I did post at 4:01 AM specifically about the point you address _before you addressed it_. If you had posted it immediately after the earlier post, fine, but doing it in a ‘let’s give a wrap up to all the comments’ kind of post creates the illusion that you are responding when you are, in fact, going over ground that has already been worked over. The illusion of response is precisely the opposite of a true discussion (or what Anarch refers to as the ‘dialectic”) and doesn’t really do anyone any good. I will assume, given that your response is dated at 10:53, that you just missed my further comment and felt I hadn’t said anything further. But it would be nice if you acknowledged that rather than accuse me of over-intellectualizing things.

115. Thanks Charles for doing your bit to present your point of view to a fairly hostile crowd here.
     I think obstructionism is good if done in moderation. I would agree with you that there is an excess of it at this time.

116. If you’re going to call me a liar, Charles, grow some balls and do it directly.
     I didn’t call you a liar, directly or indirectly. The Karnak Award is, descriptively, a prize for mindreading by liberals. I merely acknowledged that you don’t consider yourself a liberal, as you’ve so oft stated.
     Second point. You crossed the line when you went beyond the issues and chose personal attack. I reserve the right to defend myself (or not) whenever that happens and to defend myself as forcefully as I see fit. I would expect any front-page writer to do the same.
     OK, Charles, since you’re incapable of taking the logical step, I’ll do it for you:
     There you go again. Personal attack. Fine, Phil, if that’s the way you want it. I used judicial nominations as an example for the central theme of the post. Since judicial nominations are not central theme, I’m not obligated or compelled to write a separate post or subpost on the issue, expounding on the history or the ins and outs of it. Because I choose not to write about a particular aspect of a segued conversation or didn’t answer in sufficient detail by Philian standards, does not mean that the issue has not been contemplated. But to answer a couple of points:
     a) arguing that we have too many judges anyway, and why do we need all these judges?
     I’m not aware that Republicans argued that back in the 1990s, and if they did, they would’ve been wrong.
     b) blue-slipping nominees before they could even get out of committee
     I’ve always been against blue-slipping and have said so repeatedly in multiple venues. The fact of the matter is that, yes, Republicans behaved less than honorably when they were in power during the Clinton presidency, and so did Democrats when they were in power during the Bush I presidency, and so did Democrats when they were in power during the Bush II presidency. The filibustering, however, raised the ante. Democrats have now chosen a tactic never before done in American history for circuit court nominees. They launched a series of tactical nukes. Frist & Co. may have called it a nuclear option, it’s really a nuclear response.
     I know your not that stupid, so I’ll call you what you are, extremely dishonest.
     More personal attacks. Pathetic, BSR. No, I’m not pretending that Democrats control the agenda. Of course they don’t. You’re not getting what I’m saying.
     But why is it Hilzoy has to bring up the Blue slip rules, something you are very well aware of. Instead of honestly addressing the blue slip and other rule changes that prompted teh Democratic action you simply state…
     Because the history of judicial nominations isn’t germane to the central theme in this thread.
     I’m quite fond of the idea of Bill Clinton getting that position.
     We actually agree on that, too, Edward.

117. Chas
     I am not sure who you are responding to, and I don’t think you do either. I understand that you feel personally insulted by some of the comments, and I’m sorry you feel that way. But clipping out a bunch of comments from different people and responding to them as a set really doesn’t do much good. If you feel that some points were too personal, mark those off, and either as the hivemind to decide, or ask the person to apologize or just ignore them. If you are going to deal with multiple commentators in one post, at lesat say who is saying what. If ‘defending yourself’ means increasing the level and frequency of personal attacks, Edward might as well turn out the lights now.

118. For what it’s worth, I don’t think I did bring up blue slips.
     Also, fwiw, I think personal attacks are out of bounds. It is not worth it.

119. lj: careful what you wish for.

120. Rather than constructively addressing this problem by suggesting ways in which the Democrats can promulgate their ideas (and thus hopefully renew some of the Hegelian dialectic of which we’re both fond) he’s only giving the appearance of constructivity while essentially saying that the way for the Democrats to market their ideas is to buy into the Republican ideology wholesale; indeed, I’m not even convinced he’s acknowledged the existence of Democratic policies with anything more than lip service.
     No, I don’t believe Democrats should buy into “Republican ideology wholesale”, Anarch. Consider this. Back in 1993-1994, Republicans didn’t control the agenda. Far from it. In the House, they were treated like second class citizens, or perhaps illegal immigrants. There were all kinds of maneuvers by the leadership that kept the minority from influencing legislation. So how did it all change in 1994? The atmosphere was not much less polarized back then. It wasn’t just attacking the opponent that turned the tides.
     if you’re saying they haven’t tried to put forth ideas, you are simply mistaken. In fact, Democratic ideas have generally been blocked by, guess who, Republicans.
     No, I didn’t write that, Bernard. The issue prioritizing, not that they didn’t put forth any ideas at all. Again, how did it happen in ’94? When Republican ideas were rebuffed repeatedly by the Democrats back then, how did they do it? They made a concrete 10-point plan to effect change. They didn’t go through Congress. They couldn’t. They went national and appealed directly to American voters. They used other avenues such as talk radio. Yes, they attacked, but they also offered something. Just because one party holds power doesn’t mean there’s a muzzle on the minority party.
     One comment, LJ. Sometimes I read a whole thread before I write comments, but sometimes when there’s a whole host of adversarial comments I answer them as I go. I’m a little outnumbered here.

121. “I’m a little outnumbered here.”
     True. And a bad bad thing. I’m thinking about not posting comments of a political nature here in future to do my small part to even the balance.

122. Edward Let me make this clearer. Chasing Charles off this site will result in me leaving too.
     …rather than trying to find a right-winger who’s prepared to argue as honestly as you do, and face up to the consequences?

123. One comment, LJ. Sometimes I read a whole thread before I write comments, but sometimes when there’s a whole host of adversarial comments I answer them as I go. I’m a little outnumbered here.
     I understand, but by not acknowledging restatements and discussion, it is just going to make the adversarial comments increase rather than decrease. I think there is a very interesting discussion lurking here about how much ‘salesmanship’ is appropriate to public policy as well as how much ‘salesmanship’ is demanded on the part of the minority party. But you seem to come from the notion that the Republicans have the ideas and the Dems don’t and several have pointed out that this is problematic. Yet rather than deal with this, you pick up the thrown gauntlet because you have to “defend yourself’.
     Like Anarch, I have no doubt that you are coming from an honestly held position. But I believe that you let your rhetoric carry you away. I look at the title or the rather tasteless comment about Pelosi, and wonder ‘is it really worth engaging?’ If we break it down and try to point out where we have problems, you claim it is ‘over-intellectualizing’.
     There certainly isn’t a panacea to solving all this, but as the front-page poster on this, you are basically the prime mover, so I do believe that the ball is in your court.

124. rilkefan: True. And a bad bad thing. I’m thinking about not posting comments of a political nature here in future to do my small part to even the balance.
     In lieu of a response to Charles (for the duration, at least) can I ask you to expand on that? I’ve certainly refrained from posting on political threads when I felt that my piece had already been said and that anything further would merely be piling on; I haven’t, however, felt any need to abstain from political discourse altogether.

125. You really, really seem to be missing my point on this judicial nominations thing, Charles. Yes, I know it’s just an “example” of whatever it is you think you’re trying to say, but it’s an important example, because you’re aware that the Republican leadership in Congress is lying about this issue, and you’re willing to spin it into “simple Democrat obstructionism” anyway. The vast majority of Bush court nominees have sailed right through; the Democrats concentrate on a few nominees that they feel are beyond the pale, and this is “obstructionism?” Give me a break.
     Secondly, you (and other conservatives who are willing to roll over and spin the talking points) keep bringing up this “unprecedented” crap, without an explanation as to why it would be wrong? In what situations, exactly, is it OK and not OK? I suspect the answer is “When it keeps the party I support from getting something it wants,” which is not a princpled answer.
     Finally, if there’s ever a time when I would expect the minority party to use filibusters, it’s the issue of judicial appointments, if they feel that some candidates are so far beyond the bounds of reasonable jurisprudence that they cannot be permitted to sit on the Federal bench. These are lifetime appointments, and if the only way to stop them is the filibuster, so be it.
     To try and distill all of that down into “simple obstructionism” just boggles the mind.
     The Karnak Award is, descriptively, a prize for mindreading by liberals. I merely acknowledged that you don’t consider yourself a liberal, as you’ve so oft stated.
     In that case, I award you the Simpleminded Reductionism Award for Fascists. What’s that? You’re not a fascist? Well, I know you don’t consider yourself one, anyway.

126. The Karnak Award is, descriptively, a prize for mindreading by liberals
     Why is it only for liberals? It can’t be that conservatives never mind read. Do they have better reasons to make inferences about the mental states of liberals?

127. My reading of CB’s post went kind of like this:

     Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah back to 1993-1994 when the Democrats had the presidency and both houses of Congress. While Republicans had previous success on the presidential and Senate levels, it ran up against the 40-year long brick wall of a seemingly insurmountable Democratic majority in the House. There was plenty of dissatisfaction with Clinton and the Democrats in 1994, and there was clearly plenty of ammunition for politicking against the party in power. But the tipping point was the Contract With America, which gave American voters enough reason to vote for Republicans as against Democrats, a strategy which changed blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

     And my reaction was – “You know what? He’s right. That was a really effective tactic.”
     The rest of it? Garden variety rightist “I disagree with your ideas, therefore they don’t exist” yammer, easily disregarded.

128. Oh, and as for the hair-pulling and soul-searching about personal attacks and tone, I’m pretty sure that this post was not intended to provoke a peaceful, contented response from the lefty posters here (“asbestos suit” and all that). I mean, the point of the post is “Democrats are a rudderless party of knee-jerk obstructionists with no ideas beyond standing in the way of the Republican future, and they should cut it out, or win more elections, or something.” Tut-tutting at the lefties for flaming CB in response to a post like this is . . . well, lets just say its a little disingenuous. CB is, if nothing else, extremely good at distilling everything that lefties find absolutely maddening about those on the right into a very pure essence, and he revels in it. Mr. Bird is 151 proof, and I guess I mean that as a compliment.
     But c’mon. Of course there was/is a firefight in the comments to this one.
     And as for the dishonesty foofaraw, CB did pretty clearly imply that Phil was lying about being a bipartisan, so dinging Phil and not Charles was a bit off. Charles should explicitly state his disbelief in Phil’s political self-identification, or retract the implication.

129. Well, more importantly, st, Charles needs to learn that there are more than two categories of people in the world; to wit, “people who believe everything that I do” and “liberals,” and to stop sorting people who disagree with him about something into the latter group reflexively, especially when I’m fairly certain that he means the word “liberal” as an insult.
     It isn’t my fault that he can’t conceptualize a category for someone who supports gay rights, abortion rights, property rights, gun rights, broad free speech rights, and all kinds of other things; but all the same, I’m not going to sit and be on the receiving end of his cutesy-poo award names and uninformed miscategorizations without biting back.
     lj, Charles has claimed that conservatives don’t mind-read. Pretty funny, considering.

130. gay rights, abortion rights, property rights, gun rights, broad free speech rights
     Amen, brother. Where is our party? I mean, the democrats are deeply flawed, but the current GOP, so far as I can tell, are just crazy. And don’t say libertarian, ’cause I’ve heard that pitch, and I’m not buying.

131. Charles,
     I’m having a hard time seeing what we disagree about. You seem to agree that the Democrats do have ideas. I agree with you that the Democrats are doing a poor job selling them.
     So what’s all the business about obstructionism, etc.?
     BTW, I can’t resist adding one small point about the Contract with America:
     It called for a rule requiring a three-fifths majority to pass tax increases. No straight up or down votes there. No sir.

132. LJ and Anarch
     Sorry I couldn’t respond, I was busy, you know…selling 😉

133. But you seem to come from the notion that the Republicans have the ideas and the Dems don’t and several have pointed out that this is problematic. Yet rather than deal with this, you pick up the thrown gauntlet because you have to “defend yourself’.
     LJ, I wrote in the post and repeatedly in comments that it’s not that Democrats don’t have ideas, but that they should place higher priority on giving something that Americans should vote for, a better balancing of the negative and the positive. I believe the focus of the party’s strategy is misplaced. I brought up the UN as an example because, by opposing Bolton but paying practically no attention to the serious fundamental problems at the UN, it leaves the tacit impression that the Democrats are not only pro UN but pro status quo. Kos has been veritably silent on the issue except for Bolton, and it gets close to half a million hits a day. Because of that, I think their emphasis misguided, considering the time and energy and money expended. Others disagree, and some think I’m dishonest for saying so. Sigh. I didn’t intend to inflame anyone in my responses here, but there’s been some misconstruing going on, apparently including from yourself. Again, the issue is not that Democrats don’t have ideas, it’s a matter of giving higher prioritization to ideas. To me, the setbacks in 2002 and 2004 were a clear sign that perhaps other tacks should be taken. I fully accept that Anarch (and perhaps yourself) thinks I’m out to lunch on the matter, and I’ll just say that we respectfully disagree.
     I also think further discussion on salesmanship is worthy, and I didn’t intend to shut you down on that. My apologies.
     Why is it only for liberals? It can’t be that conservatives never mind read.
     Because in my experience, mindreading has come from a massive majority of liberals. The rest has come from Phil and a few conservatives. Phil is a prolific repeat offender, which is why I initially thought he was a liberal. He has strenuously objected to being called such, and I recognized his objection to that. Mindreading is a lazy and counterproductive practice because it diverts discussion from the topic at hand and veers into claiming certain intentions and thoughts in my head that were never there in the first place. It changes the conversation from the issue to the person, and I object to that form of dialogue. I call people on it because I’m trying to steer back to the topic and away from speculation and ESP. If someone wants to know more about my thinking or agenda or what have you, the polite thing to do is ask.

134. me: True. And a bad bad thing. I’m thinking about not posting comments of a political nature here in future to do my small part to even the balance.
     Anarch: “In lieu of a response to Charles (for the duration, at least) can I ask you to expand on that?”
     I would not feel comfortable being the lone liberal commenting at a blog inhabited by a broad spectrum of conservatives. Lately I’ve been commenting some over at John Cole’s blog Balloon Juice so I can interact with a wider range of views. My self-centered impression of this thread is:
     my comment
     some comments seconding me
     several dozen comments of varying politeness and pointedness before CB can respond to any of the above.
     Some strife.
     Your well-written but extremely pointed comment.
     More strife.
     A continued lack of conservatives chiming in.
     The above exchange.
     Maybe the strife would have been less likely if just a few comments (say, Bernard‘s from 11:11) had been posted for CB to respond to at a time. I can’t in good conscience call e.g. hilzoy‘s first comment “piling on”, but I don’t think this site is a multi-spectrum place any more. And perhaps one way to steer things back is for some of us liberals to hold our tongues on occasion – which I propose to try, esp. since you speak for me 95% on political matters.

135. Charles: Because in my experience, mindreading has come from a massive majority of liberals.
     Having missed the opportunity the last time Charles posted this, I’d be remiss if I didn’t do so now:

     “Slave is an Ephebian word. In Om we have no word for slave,” said Vorbis.
     “So I understand,” said the Tyrant. “I imagine that fish have no word for water.”

     And with that, and pace rilkefan‘s (very flattering) 4:28pm post, I’ll withdraw from this thread.

136. Yes, I know it’s just an “example” of whatever it is you think you’re trying to say, but it’s an important example, because you’re aware that the Republican leadership in Congress is lying about this issue, and you’re willing to spin it into “simple Democrat obstructionism” anyway. The vast majority of Bush court nominees have sailed right through; the Democrats concentrate on a few nominees that they feel are beyond the pale, and this is “obstructionism?” Give me a break.
     I understand Democrats have their reasons for opposing certain judicial nominees, but the pesky facts remain, Phil. They have chosen to employ a tactic never before used on circuit court nominees to obstruct their even being voted upon. I understand that the original intent of the filibuster was to extend debate, giving an opportunity for the minority party to add amendments and influence legislation. In practice, the history of it has been for purposes of blockage, and quite a few filibusters have been less than noble. In the case of judicial nominees, there is no opportunity to amend or tweak, it boils down to aye or nay, so filibustering is expressly obstructionistic. There are 26 examples in the Senate where filibusters cannot be put into action. Adding a 27th will not end the republic. If the nominees were as extreme as they’re being portrayed, it shouldn’t be that difficult to pluck off six moderate/liberal Republican Senators and vote ’em down.
     Secondly, you (and other conservatives who are willing to roll over and spin the talking points) keep bringing up this “unprecedented” crap, without an explanation as to why it would be wrong? In what situations, exactly, is it OK and not OK?
     Far as I’m concerned, the Constitution trumps Senate rules. The phrase “advise and consent” is right there in black and white, so the Senate is abdicating its responsibility when it stops at at “advise”. It doesn’t matter which party is responsible for denying the “consent” part of the clause, it’s still an abuse of the Constitution.
     I suspect the answer is “When it keeps the party I support from getting something it wants,” which is not a princpled answer.
     Mindreading again, Phil. Why do you keep doing that? I don’t care which party does it, obstructing and delaying nominees is wrong. Nominees should be moved through the Judiciary Committee without undue delay, and if they pass muster in committee, then the Senate should vote on them. There’s your principle, Phil, one that’s worked just fine for over 200 years. That’s why I was against my own party when they obstructed and delayed Clinton’s nominees, and it’s why I’m against the Democrats and their tactics against Bush’s nominees. Blue slipping became a travesty when it transformed from a guideline in the late 1980s to something completely different in 1990s and onward.
     In that case, I award you the Simpleminded Reductionism Award for Fascists.
     Consider this a posting rules warning.
     Charles needs to learn that there are more than two categories of people in the world; to wit, “people who believe everything that I do” and “liberals,” and to stop sorting people who disagree with him about something into the latter group reflexively, especially when I’m fairly certain that he means the word “liberal” as an insult.
     There you go again. Liberal or no, the fact is that you have the unpleasant and frustrating habit of mindreading and misconstruing what you think I believe. FTR, when I call Edward or hilzoy a liberal, for example, I’m not insulting them nor do I consider the term “liberal” an insult. As far as I’m concerned, “liberal” and “progressive” are interchangeable. I also don’t consider liberals or liberalism the enemy, I just oppose politically a good chunk of liberal ideology.
     Nor do I believe that there are two categories of people in the world, Phil, but thanks for distorting and, yes, mindreading yet again.

137. Charles Bird wrote:
     “Far as I’m concerned, the Constitution trumps Senate rules. The phrase “advise and consent” is right there in black and white, so the Senate is abdicating its responsibility when it stops at at “advise”. It doesn’t matter which party is responsible for denying the “consent” part of the clause, it’s still an abuse of the Constitution.”
     I’m not sure I understand what Mr. Bird is saying here, it appears to be that he’s saying the phrase “advise and consent” means the Senate can advise the President on judicial appointments, but must consent to them? Which is clearly not the meaning, otherwise what would be the point of having the Senate consider judges at all?
     And has been mentioned many times, the only reason these judges are being fillibustered is because the Senate Republicans have removed every other option for the minority to prevent extremist judges from being appointed. The blue slips, holds, and various other boring parlimentary mechanisms that had been used for many many years. That would seem to be to be more unprecedented than the minority using the only tool left to them to block the judges. Especially as, IIRC, at least a couple of the 7 (out of 200some) judges being fought over were ones that had been blocked the first time Bush tried to appoint them. Bush re-nominated them after the Republicans won a couple of seats. And others have spelled out the reasons why several of the judges are utterly inappropriate, including on the front page here.
     And color me confused, but what sort of “positive alternative” are the Democrats supposed to offer to people like Janice Brown? Offer up their own suggestions for judges? They could, I suppose, but they don’t have the power to do anything like that, and I have no belief that Bush or the Republicans in Congress would do anything other than laugh. Spell out why they’re bad nominees? It’s been done, numerous times. There is no “positive alternative” that can be offered up on judicial nominations.

138. it appears to be that he’s saying the phrase “advise and consent” means the Senate can advise the President on judicial appointments, but must consent to them?

     I’d say he probably means something like “must not be prevented from consenting to them”, rather than “must consent”.

139. Far as I’m concerned, the Constitution trumps Senate rules. The phrase “advise and consent” is right there in black and white, so the Senate is abdicating its responsibility when it stops at at “advise”.
     Nominees should be moved through the Judiciary Committee without undue delay, and if they pass muster in committee, then the Senate should vote on them.
     The Constitution says no more about committees than it does about filibusters. Nominees blocked in committee are denied a vote just like those who are filibustered. In fact, it takes far fewer Senators to do this than it does to filibuster. So this business about the Constitution requiring a vote is nonsense. Or are you prepared to argue that killing nominations in committee is unconstitutional?

140. Slartibarfast wrote:
     “I’d say he probably means something like “must not be prevented from consenting to them”, rather than “must consent”.”
     Well, if by consenting to them, you mean having the full senate vote on if they consent to them being a judge or not then I can sort of understand, except I don’t think it’s right. It seems obvious to me that many things can and have prevented the Senate from “consenting” to quite a lot of judges. Leaving aside the blue slips and state holds and other assorted methods that Mr. Bird acknowledges were abused in the 90s, wouldn’t the Judicial Comittee itself be keeping the Senate from “consenting” by not passing judges out? And pre-90s, the other parlimentary methods of keeping a judge from reaching a full vote. Or the old informal rules that kept either side from nominating judges unless they could get 60 votes (usually)? I don’t see how “advise and consent” means “must have a full floor vote on” every judge. Completely leaving aside the issues of whose fault anything is or who’s “obstructing” or not. Wouldn’t it be up to the Senate to determine what “advise and consent” means, and to do it by their floor rules and tradition? Which is what the whole nuclear option comes down to, as I understand it.
     And sorry for dragging things off on this tangent, but it’s been mentioned numerous times, and it’s in the news lately.

141. Leaving aside the blue slips and state holds and other assorted methods that Mr. Bird acknowledges were abused in the 90s, wouldn’t the Judicial Comittee itself be keeping the Senate from “consenting” by not passing judges out?

     Certainly. But I found I’ve stepped far beyond my nominal mind-reading abilities, so…Charles?
     Oh, and public announcement: I don’t really care all that much about this issue. What we have now is the result of setting up branches of government so that political maneuvering takes priority over the actual running of the government. To me, this is the most jsut about the most boring thing imaginable.

142. I understand Democrats have their reasons for opposing certain judicial nominees, but the pesky facts remain, Phil. They have chosen to employ a tactic never before used on circuit court nominees to obstruct their even being voted upon.
     And? Seriously — the first time that anything is done is, well, the first time. Should nobody ever do anything just because it’s “never before [been] used?”
     In the case of judicial nominees, there is no opportunity to amend or tweak, it boils down to aye or nay, so filibustering is expressly obstructionistic.
     Yes, it is, and there are cases where that’s appropriate. I’d expect the Republicans, were they in the minority, to do the same thing if a Democratic president nominated, say, an unreconstructed Marxist or something to the Federal bench.
     If the nominees were as extreme as they’re being portrayed, it shouldn’t be that difficult to pluck off six moderate/liberal Republican Senators and vote ’em down.
     >>>snort<<< Right. If there's one thing the moderate Republicans have shown, it's a willingness to break ranks on the big partisan fights. I'll say this -- the Republicans have the best party whips in history. Big time. Far as I’m concerned, the Constitution trumps Senate rules. The phrase “advise and consent” is right there in black and white, so the Senate is abdicating its responsibility when it stops at at “advise”. It doesn’t matter which party is responsible for denying the “consent” part of the clause, it’s still an abuse of the Constitution.
     You have got to be farking kidding me. Implicit in the power to consent is the power to withhold consent, Charles. You think that “consent” devolves to up-or-down. Fine. I think it’s more than that, and I think the minority party has a special responsiblity to keep the kooks out. If it takes a filibuster, that’s what it takes.
     Consider this a posting rules warning.
     Gee, suddenly you’re all concerned about sorting people into categories in which they don’t belong. And getting juvenile “awards” for things that have nothing to do with you. Imagine.
     Nor do I believe that there are two categories of people in the world, Phil, but thanks for distorting and, yes, mindreading yet again.
     Then maybe you should remember that the next time you decide to slot me into one, eh?

143. and I think the minority party has a special responsiblity to keep the kooks out

     Actually, I think both parties bear a special responsibility to keep the kooks out. But then it doesn’t sound quite so special.

144. I can assert the most ludicrous idea without wanting to be dishonest and without realizing why it might strike someone else that I’m intentionally lying.
     I understand, Edward_, but why assert ludicrous ideas so often ? ;^)

145. You’re right, Slarti, they both do carry that responsibility. But when the majority decides to abdicate, someone’s gotta carry the burden.

146. “…it’s not that Democrats don’t have ideas, but that they should place higher priority on giving something that Americans should vote for, a better balancing of the negative and the positive. I believe the focus of the party’s strategy is misplaced. I brought up the UN as an example because, by opposing Bolton but paying practically no attention to the serious fundamental problems at the UN, it leaves the tacit impression that the Democrats are not only pro UN but pro status quo.”
     I do believe that, right or wrong, being “pro UN” and “pro status quo” are both examples of being “for” something. What you want is for them to be “positive” by being “anti status quo.” And to prove they are “pro” by not being “pro UN” — in your own words — presumably, the opposite of being “pro UN” is to be “anti-UN.” So they should prove the’re being “positive,” by being anti-UN. (By sheer coincidence, that works out to, apparently, your position.) That’s — regardless of the merits — a curious formulation, isn’t it, Charles?
     (Naturally, anyone who thinks of the UN so simply as to be simply “pro” or “anti” it is, uh, not expressing much depth of understanding of its strengths and weaknesses, its praiseworthy aspects and its problems.)
     “I would not feel comfortable being the lone liberal commenting at a blog inhabited by a broad spectrum of conservatives.”
     Notice it’s been a while since I posted at Winds of Change (although I very well might start again at some time).
     “I understand Democrats have their reasons for opposing certain judicial nominees, but the pesky facts remain, Phil. They have chosen to employ a tactic never before used on circuit court nominees to obstruct their even being voted upon.”
     Etc. This is very noble of you to defend the rights of the majority, Charles. For the sake of strengthening your credibility on the fairness of your analysis, could you help some of us out with a cite or two from you during the Clinton Administration, when you perhaps protested the way the Republican Senate refused to have up or down votes on some sixty-odd Clinton judicial nominees, both by “holds” the Republicans now find unConstitutionally objectionable, and by simply refusing to hold a committee vote? Where was “up or down! Up or down!” then, and what did you have to say about it? Did, in fact, the Republicans block votes on over six times as many judicial nominees as Democrats have under President George W. Bush?
     “Adding a 27th will not end the republic.”
     I do agree. And if the Senate decides to do so now, it shall be interesting to see the results when, however sooner or later, the Democrats are eventually in the Senate majority again.
     “Far as I’m concerned, the Constitution trumps Senate rules. The phrase “advise and consent” is right there in black and white, so the Senate is abdicating its responsibility when it stops at at ‘advise’. It doesn’t matter which party is responsible for denying the ‘consent’ part of the clause, it’s still an abuse of the Constitution.”
     This paragraph, however, I literally don’t follow. In either party’s case, “consent” obviously also means “or does not consent,” or it has no meaning at all. And since I’m sure we don’t believe in a “living Constitution” where things that aren’t written there are read into them by activist interpreters, could you cite the words in the Constitution that disallow filibusters, please?

147. “I’ll say this — the Republicans have the best party whips in history.”
     Possibly you just want to argue “in U.S. history,” Phil? (Or not?)

148. And color me confused, but what sort of “positive alternative” are the Democrats supposed to offer to people like Janice Brown?
     A fair question, Nate. My suggestion would be to fight like hell against her on the Senate floor and try to peel off six Republican Senators and, longer term, work to win a Democratic majority in 2006, which is pretty much how it used to be before the Democrats ratcheted up the ante. The bottom line is, if the nominee is really that extreme, then there should be enough moderate/liberal Senators out there who will vote nay. If you can’t persuade enough from the other side, then maybe that person isn’t that extreme and the real issue to do with power politics and denying potential supreme court contenders a seat in the circuit court. With the filibustering, you’ve lost the moral high ground because of the excessively obstructionist tactics. I repeat again, the strategy failed in 2002 and 2004, yet here you are doing the same thing all over, and its giving me a bad case of deja vu. By filibustering, you’ve can’t use confirmed appointees as political ammunition in the next election cycle. Taking another page from history, the 1995 budget impasse was a major Republican failure because Americans aren’t that keen on excessive gridlock, and voters penalize those who are seen as causing the shutdown. But if you want an expressly “positive alternative”, how about lobbying for reform of blue-slipping and for adding more fairness to the rules? How about reasonable time limits for consideration of nominees?
     I take the meaning of advise and consent as: the president appoints (with or without recommendations from Senators) and the Senate votes up or down. If a nominee is voted down in committee, the consent provision is still fulfilled. After all, given the composition of the committee, why waste the rest of the Senate’s time with a floor vote when he or she’s already been shot down?

149. Gee, suddenly you’re all concerned about sorting people into categories in which they don’t belong.
     If you will recall, I expressly recognized your non-liberal status. I took pains to not call you a liberal. So what sorting? What slotting? The Karnak Award is based on behavior, not personality. If a conservative tries it on me, I’ll call him or her on it. I called Thorley on it at least once in a thread on Redstate. You have consistently delved into mindreading in this thread, not to mention in past threads on multiple occasions. I’m sorry you feel the need to stoop to it, but if you continue to debase the conversation with your imaginings, I will call you on it. The posting rules warning is also based on behavior, specifically your consistent abuse and vilification for its own sake.

150. If you will recall, I expressly recognized your non-liberal status
     OK, Charles. “Yes, I know you claim not to be a liberal” is “explicit recognition.” Whatever. As long as we’re both in agreement that that’s the new standard for “explicit recognition”, I hope you’re willing to live by it.

151. “…and, longer term, work to win a Democratic majority in 2006, which is pretty much how it used to be before the Democrats ratcheted up the ante.”
     So you have no problem with the majority not allowing votes via the use of holds, and committee chair perogative, then?
     “The bottom line is, if the nominee is really that extreme, then there should be enough moderate/liberal Senators out there who will vote nay.”
     How do you derive “should” in this context, Charles? Are you suggesting that reason, not partisanship, is largely how the Senate does work? This really does — and I’m not trying to be rude, so help me understand, if you would, how I might be wrong in this suggestion — seem to be question-begging, adopting your premise to prove it. Why is it not simply equally true that “The bottom line is, if the nominee is really that moderate, then there should be enough moderate/liberal Senators out there who will vote yea?” Beyond, assuming, of course, that one’s own side is reasonable, whereas Those Other Guys are simply all extremists?
     “If you can’t persuade enough from the other side, then maybe that person isn’t that extreme and the real issue to do with power politics and denying potential supreme court contenders a seat in the circuit court.”
     Alternatively, perhaps the Democratic position “isn’t that extreme and the real issue is to do with power politics and prempting a fight over a seat on the Supreme Court.” Perhaps not, but how would you prove one version or another is the correct one without assuming either the answer or that, gosh, my party is the voice of reason, but that other party is led by crazy extremists? (Myself, I wouldn’t attempt to argue with you simply by assertion, so my question is what other argument are you offering?)
     “With the filibustering, you’ve lost the moral high ground because of the excessively obstructionist tactics.”
     How is blocking 7 whole nominees (10 if you count the three who withdrew) more of a morally “higher ground” and less “excessively obstructionist” than blocking 65? How were the filibusters of H. Lee Sarokin in 1994 and Abe Fortas in 1968 not filibusters, and “excessively obstructionist”? Surely not simply because they were Republican? How was the filibuster of 14 Republican Bob Smith trying to block a vote on 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Richard Paez in 1999 not a filibuster? Because it failed, and cloture invoked? Does winning provide the “moral high ground”?
     “By filibustering, you’ve can’t use confirmed appointees as political ammunition in the next election cycle.”
     What’s the difference in effect here between the successful filibuster, and using holds or committee chair perogatives? (And we both know that, generally speaking, appointments are of little effect in swaying national elections in the following cycle; if not you’re making an argument as to why the Senate should never oppose an appointee from a President of the opposing Party, aren’t you?
     “Taking another page from history, the 1995 budget impasse was a major Republican failure because Americans aren’t that keen on excessive gridlock….”
     Yes, blocking 7 or 10 judicial nominees is just like shutting down the federal government. That’s why the former has always been treated by the public as identical to the latter.
     Or possibly not even remotely. Right?
     “If a nominee is voted down in committee, the consent provision is still fulfilled.”
     If the Senate is required to provide a committee vote, I’m sure you can provide some historical cites for this “requirement,” can you not?

152. If a nominee is voted down in committee, the consent provision is still fulfilled. After all, given the composition of the committee, why waste the rest of the Senate’s time with a floor vote when he or she’s already been shot down?
     Wow. That’s weak. Opposition from, what is it, ten or so, Senators in committee is good enough to satisfy the alleged constitutional requirement and send the nominee packing, but opposition from forty-one who filibuster isn’t. Quite a theory.
     Of course, you might be saying that the committee vote is just a reflection of the final vote. Considering the phrase “given the composition of the committee” I suppose that is what you are saying. But then all the business about peeling off votes from the other side really doesn’t work.
     Let’s try. Assume a Democratic President and Republican Senate. President submits nomination, which is voted down in committee. But according to your argument #1, if it’s a good nomination, the Democrats might well be able to get enough votes on the floor to confirm. But according to your argument #2, the rejection in committee means they can’t, presumably because the votes are strictly on party lines.
     You’re getting pretty tangled up here. Let’s simplify. Either the Constitution mandates a floor vote or it doesn’t. Which do yopu think it is?

153. And to prove they are “pro” by not being “pro UN” — in your own words — presumably, the opposite of being “pro UN” is to be “anti-UN.” So they should prove the’re being “positive,” by being anti-UN.
     Well, look at it another way, Gary. If there is stone silence from the Left on the current condition of the UN, yet high decibel levels on John Bolton, what exactly is the message the Democrats are sending? To me, the message is that reforming the UN comes a distant second to fighting political proxy battles on Bush’s foreign policy. I know that Bolton is an imperfect person for the job and he’s a well documented hardass. But the fact is that he is there to do the bidding of the president, and his performance will be measured on how well he does that bidding. This is a failed opportunity for the Democrats because instead standing strongly on the side of reform, instead of clamoring for UN to clean house, instead of pushing for a larger Democracy Caucus, instead of demanding that a clueless leader be replaced, instead of calling for immediate action on Darfur–all of which are eminently positive proposals and in our interests–the “no” route was chosen. You guys picked the wrong battle.
     For the sake of strengthening your credibility on the fairness of your analysis, could you help some of us out with a cite or two from you during the Clinton Administration, when you perhaps protested the way the Republican Senate refused to have up or down votes on some sixty-odd Clinton judicial nominees…
     Well, Gary, since I didn’t start writing any sort of political commentary until after 9/11, I can’t help you with cites. Either you believe me or you don’t. Your call.
     In either party’s case, “consent” obviously also means “or does not consent,” or it has no meaning at all.
     Then the filibuster is an abjection of “consent” or “does not consent”. I take the meaning of the clause as being a decision one way or the other. So when the Democrats deny even getting to that decision point, it still falls short of the Constitution. That is why I support a timely process, a reworking of the blue slips, etc., no matter the party in power.
     To answer your final query, as you know, there are no words in the Constitution expressly allow or disallow filibusters.

154. I like the idea of working to win a Senate majority on the basis of Justice Brown’s confirmation to the DC Circuit. I mean, I’m sure the voters of DC will be energized to throw out their Republican Senators for allowing this to happen . . .

155. “You guys picked the wrong battle.”
     Me guys? I take it you need cites for my on the record opinions about the UN, and you’ve read nothing whatever I’ve written about Darfur? (And if you’re seriously claiming “the Left” [who do you mean? Communists? Readers of the Nation?; bloggers who were for John Kerry?] has been silent and not called for “immediate action” on Darfur, what would you take as a reasonable falsification?)
     “Well, Gary, since I didn’t start writing any sort of political commentary until after 9/11, I can’t help you with cites. Either you believe me or you don’t. Your call.”
     I’ll take your word as an honest commentator, then, Charles. Tell me that you spoke up in personal conversation during the Nineties, objecting to the Republican methodology in not confirming 65 of Bill Clinton’s judicial nominees, and your position here is based upon your non-partisan sense of fairness, and not simply on a partisan position.
     “Then the filibuster is an abjection of ‘consent’ or ‘does not consent’. I take the meaning of the clause as being a decision one way or the other. So when the Democrats deny even getting to that decision point, it still falls short of the Constitution. That is why I support a timely process, a reworking of the blue slips, etc., no matter the party in power.”
     So are you or are you not saying that the Republicans non-confirmation of 65 judicial nominees was or was not just as much something to be condemned? Please forgive me if I’m being repetitive, but I’m still unclear what your position is. (What does “support… reworking blue slips, etc.” work out to in what your position is? Rework with what end result?)
     “To answer your final query, as you know, there are no words in the Constitution expressly allow or disallow filibusters.”
     Yes, indeed. So what the heck are you talking about when you say “So when the Democrats deny even getting to that decision point, it still falls short of the Constitution” two sentences prior? It falls short of the no-relevant-words in the Constitution? What the hey? Is it in a penumbra somewhere?

156. Oh, and incidentally, Charles? “You guys picked the wrong battle.”
     Mind-reading. Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk. (Or, go on, tell me I’ve never the UN. Or Darfur, Darfur, Darfur, Darfur, or the UN on Darfur, or Darfur, or Darfur, or the UN, or or the UN, or … need I go on? There are dozens and dozens of other posts on my blog critiquing the UN, and about Darfur (let alone my literally hundreds of comments on other blogs and on Usenet).
     “You guys.” Right.
     “Mindreading is a lazy and counterproductive practice because it diverts discussion from the topic at hand and veers into claiming certain intentions and thoughts in my head that were never there in the first place. It changes the conversation from the issue to the person, and I object to that form of dialogue. I call people on it because I’m trying to steer back to the topic and away from speculation and ESP. If someone wants to know more about my thinking or agenda or what have you, the polite thing to do is ask.”

157. Gary,
     I misspoke with the “you guys” reference. I should have been more specific and made reference to the movers and shakers in the Democratic Party, not including yourself (if I may make the dangerous assumption that you’re not a mover and shaker within the party).
     So are you or are you not saying that the Republicans non-confirmation of 65 judicial nominees was or was not just as much something to be condemned? Please forgive me if I’m being repetitive, but I’m still unclear what your position is.
     My position is that I’m in favor of an expeditious judicial confirmation process, no matter which party holds power. If the president nominates, then the Senate is responsible for working through the slate without unreasonable delays.
     Tell me that you spoke up in personal conversation during the Nineties, objecting to the Republican methodology in not confirming 65 of Bill Clinton’s judicial nominees, and your position here is based upon your non-partisan sense of fairness, and not simply on a partisan position.
     I may or may not have. Probably not. I wasn’t politically active before 9/11, and conversations involving politics were far and few between. Except for posting and commenting on various weblogs, I’m not politically active now.

158. “…(if I may make the dangerous assumption that you’re not a mover and shaker within the party).”
     That’s a fair and undangerous, or at least correct, assumption; my political activities, beyond writing, have been entirely minor.
     Thank you for acknowledging your “misspeaking.”
     “My position is that I’m in favor of an expeditious judicial confirmation process, no matter which party holds power. If the president nominates, then the Senate is responsible for working through the slate without unreasonable delays.”
     I’m going to, I think, give up for now attempting to press you for your views on what processes you specifically favor or disfavor, unless you encourage me otherwise, since I don’t see a lot of room for optimism that you’ll soon make clear what your views are, but instead seem likely to continue to respond with utter vagueness such as this. I’d love for you to prove my pessimism unfounded, though, and see you actually make clear whether, say, you favor any sort of Senatorial holds, or not, or allowing committee chairs to not bring a nomination to a vote, or not, and how you, if you do, reason as to how the rules should be more restrictive of minority rights on judicial nominations than other executive nominations, or bills in general.
     As it is, your lack of specificity leaves me simply unable to tell how much I might agree or disagree with you, let alone where.
     “I wasn’t politically active before 9/11, and conversations involving politics were far and few between.”
     I have a question about this, but I’m trying to figure out how to ask it in a way that doesn’t suggest rudeness, which I neither desire here nor is necessary. I’ll try this, tentatively: if you’ve only been political active, and participated in political conversation for approximately three and a half years — and I’m assuming you’re somewhere over the age of, say, 23, though perhaps I’m all wrong on that — what strengths would you say that perspective brings to contemporary political discussion? Weakness? (Mind, I’m not suggesting that it’s other than good for people to take up a political interest at any time in their life, however recent or late; I do ask from the perspective of someone who started becoming acutely politically conscious and a voracious reader on the subject at about age 9-10 (1968), which means your POV, regardless of politics, is apt to be a bit alien to me.)
     However, I’m not dropping, for now, this:

     “To answer your final query, as you know, there are no words in the Constitution expressly allow or disallow filibusters.”
     Yes, indeed. So what the heck are you talking about when you say “So when the Democrats deny even getting to that decision point, it still falls short of the Constitution” two sentences prior? It falls short of the no-relevant-words in the Constitution? What the hey? Is it in a penumbra somewhere?

     Possibly you could respond on this please? And are you still maintaining that “Democrats have now chosen a tactic never before done in American history for circuit court nominees”? Or are you willing to acknowledge that you were misinformed on that? (I presume it’s even more unlikely that even if you dropped that claim, you’d drop arguing that the distinction you’re making between such a dreadful tactic, and Republican tactics on Clinton nominees is in any way significant, although I suspect — perhaps unfairly! — that you would be unlikely to maintain the same position were the names “Clinton” and “Bush” reversed in the actual fact.)

159. I forgot:

     Tell me that you spoke up in personal conversation during the Nineties, objecting to the Republican methodology in not confirming 65 of Bill Clinton’s judicial nominees, and your position here is based upon your non-partisan sense of fairness, and not simply on a partisan position.

     Thank you for answering the first part of the question. Could you possibly also respond to the second part?

160. rilkefan, Anarch, praktike,
     CB is right. Single Dems (Kerry, Clark, Edwards) do have various good ideas, but the Party has too many of them and has therefore no Main Idea.
     The Dems still think their Party is a debating club, where everybody is entitled to an own opinion. Sure, he is, but that’s before the party decides what it’s position is.
     The Republicans are much better at speaking in unison, either through consensus or enforcement. They are distributing talking points to unify the message.
     The most effective way to create the Party’s message is to let he leaders craft it and get the rest of the party to repeat it. The Dems wouldn’t do that because that would be ‘authoritarian’.

161. ideas = products. When I say ‘Main Idea’ in fact I mean to say ‘total product’, including marketing.
     After reading the rest of the comments I agree that the problem can be as well described as lack of “marketing campaign so potent it can bore its way into your skull”.
     It’s the lack of coordination, lack of talking points repetition. Do you remember when the Daily Show made a feature in which they lined up all the talking heads saying “out of the mainstream” about Kerry and Edwards? It looked funny, but that’s what I call excellent coordination.

Comments are closed.