Is the War Over?

Dave Weigel certainly thinks so. I disagree. I think the War will continue with battle lines currently being drawn. Just wait until the freshman actually take their seats and start voting on things. Thats where all the campaign slogans in the world and pie-in-the-sky promises actually hit the sausage maker that is the US Congress. Decisions will have to be made.

A few points:

Weigel wrote a piece this morning on Slate about how there is no "civil war" in the Republican party. As evidence he says:

"The incoming Republican majority in the House and the Tea-stained Republican caucus in the Senate are being portrayed as large and unwieldy, ready to be split by debates over foreign policy and social issues. It's an irresistible story. It's just not true yet. Not even the people who spark the debates think they're setting off a massive intraconservative battle." 

Well, first of all these Representative-Elects have not been seated yet, therefore they have not yet been asked to vote on anything and/or make any hard decisions which may require compromise. As I have said before, one thing that I think will define the Tea Party Congress is their lack of ability to compromise because they are "true believers", not just in a religious sense (which they are) but also in a dogmatic sense. They are fundamentalists and one thing that is true about fundamentalists of all stripes is that they know the truth, they are right and you are wrong so there is no middle ground. That is what is going to happen when the Tea Party comes to Congress.

Weigel also goes on to claim that the Tea Party Congress will not focus on social issues. This is the biggest bunch of malarkey I think I have ever read. There is no way this is true. Tea Party is just the rebranding of the conservative wing of the party. They may claim that social issues will not be a big deal, but don't you think social issues are a big deal to the voters who put the Tea Party in power? The Republican establishment may want to gloss over the social stuff, but I think the activists on the Right are going to push social issues hard, just like they always have. Even Weigel quotes the granddady of the Tea Party, Senatory DeMint, as saying "[Y]ou can't be a fiscal conservative and not a social conservative". And he doesn't think this will be used as ammunition to the legions of activists DeMint helped recruit?

Now, I may be reading Weigel too closely. Subsequently, I saw this tweet from him:

In March, Olympia Snowe voted against an earmark ban. Today, she voted for it. Tea Party FTW. http://slate.me/hI48JD

To which I responded:

@daveweigel no civil war, re: snowe and earmarks? or has one side (tea party) already won?

And his follow-up:

@Poster_Nutbag Yep, the Tea Party won already.

Now, that could be sarcasm from Weigel, but I don't think so. It does, however, contradict his article from earlier in the day about how there is no civil war and there never was, that both sides of the Republican Party are and will be getting along splendidly. I think Snowe's flip-flow is proof positive that is not true. And you will see more and more of this as the Tea Party takes control, but don't believe for a moment that there will be no pushback from the establishment who realize that governing, policy, and winning elections are more than Tea Party slogans and insane platforms.

Weigel on Slate here. You can also follow him on Twitter @daveweigel.

The Weekly Standard on "Sarah Palin's Alaska"

There is a link to this piece in the complete David Frum article that I posted about previously, but this is something that must be read to be believed. This is THE WEEKLY STANDARD absolutely CRUSHING Sarah Palin. If you don't think the establishment is scared to death of this woman, this is all the proof you need. The Weekly Standard created her, for gods sake!

Article here.

Frum Hits It on the Head

How do you kill the monster you created? What if you can't? In the Terminator movies, it was man who created SkyNet which eventually became self-aware and launched the nukes on its own, creating the post-apocalyptic world where machines, not man ruled the earth. Ditto for the Matrix. So what will happen with Sarah Palin? How can the Republican Party kill her (killer her politically, not actually kill her. I feel I need to make that distinction so some Palinista doesn't find this blog and claim that I actually think the Republican Party will literally kill Sarah Palin) with the least amount of bloodshed? If you go for the jugular (again, figurative) and try to take her out vicious and quick, you risk alienating her most ardent supporters who make up most of the Republican base. If you take the long-view and try to bleed her over time, you run the risk of not finishing the job and letting her live to fight another day. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Either way: this battle will be a lot of fun to watch. As Frum says:

But in Palin’s case, the myth rings true. There really is a GOP party establishment. That establishment took up Palin as a useful tool in 2008, deployed Palin as an edged anti-Obama weapon in 2009 – and is now horrified to see that they may have set in motion a force possibly too powerful to halt when its time has ended. The story of the behind-the-scenes struggle to squelch Palin – and her ferocious determination not to be squelched – will be the big GOP-side story of the coming year.

His full piece here.

Who Will Blink First: Boehner or the Newbies?

Here is a good test for you, newly elected, first-term Republican House members. Will you a) do as your leader (Boehner) commands or b) stick to your guns and not vote to increase the debt ceiling? Now, I understand you ran against this sort of "reckless Federal spending", but do you realize what would happen if you voted against raising the debt ceiling? Actually, I think you do know what would happen and part of me, correct that - most of me, thinks you would be really happy to vote against the debt ceiling and have the United States default on its debt, because that wouldn't create any problems at all.

So there you have it. You can fulfill your wet dream of having the US default on its debt or you can cave into the demands of party leadership and do the right thing. Either way, you are screwed. Good luck with that. My favorite part is when Boehner asks them to act like adults. Ha!

“I’ve made it pretty clear to them that as we get into next year, it’s pretty clear that Congress is going to have to deal with this,” Mr. Boehner, who is slated to become House speaker in January, told reporters.

“We’re going to have to deal with it as adults,” he said, in what apparently are his most explicit comments to date. “Whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations and we have obligations on our part.”

From the Wall Street Journal.

Just Remember What Happened to Bennett

I have to give it to Orrin Hatch (aside from being much bigger in person than I imagined. Dude is 6' and solid). He had an up close and personal look at how his colleague, Bob Bennett was taken out in the Republican primary this year because he had the audacity (!) to actually work with Democrats to find a solution to health care reform. But, as is the M.O. of the Republican Party today, the price for acting like an adult, more of then than not, is being cast as a heretic and/or apostate. It remains to be seen if the Party will extract the same revenge on Hatch for acting in a similar manner. His crime:

This morning, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) introduced the “Empowering States to Innovate Act.” The legislation would allow states to develop their own health-care reform proposals that would preempt the federal government’s effort. If a state can think of a plan that covers as many people, with as comprehensive insurance, at as low a cost, without adding to the deficit, the state can get the money the federal government would’ve given it for health-care reform but be freed from the individual mandate, the exchanges, the insurance requirements, the subsidy scheme and pretty much everything else in the bill.

Wyden, with the help of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), was able to build a version of this exemption into the original health-care reform bill, but for various reasons, was forced to accept a starting date of 2017 -- three years after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act goes into effect. The Wyden/Brown legislation would allow states to propose their alternatives now and start implementing them in 2014, rather than wasting time and money setting up a federal structure that they don’t plan to use.

In general, giving the states a freer hand is an approach associated with conservatives. On Wednesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) sent a letter to the Republican Governors Association advocating exactly that. “The most effective path to sustainable health care reform runs through the states, not Washington,” he wrote. If it’s really the case that the states can do health reform better, Wyden and Brown are giving them a chance to prove it.

If the past teaches us anything about the future, Hatch better watch his rear (or, more accurately, his right).

Ezra Klein here.

Miller vs. Murkowski vs. Fox

Two great tweets from Josh Marshall that I would like to share regarding Lisa Murkowski's apparent victory over Joe Miller and Miller's (and Fox's) resistance to acknowledging reality. Just a little food for thought:

Murkowski must have won because i think only Fox is letting the Miller guy come on to say he wants a recount.

Followed by:

also, in case like Miller vs. Murkowski does Fox have to hold executive level meeting to determine who to be biased for?

There have already been articles written about the role Fox will play in the upcoming 2012 Dancing with the Republican Presidential Candidates, soon to be airing in prime time on your television. A number of potential Next Greatest Republican President Stars have contracts on Fox (Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich) while some (actually only Romney and the current elected officials like Pence, Christie, and Pawlenty) don't. How will Fox decide who, as Josh says, to be biased for? If its not Palin, god help them. The Palinistas will be out with knives drawn. With their "you're either with us or against us" ideology, it'll be tough when "against us" is themselves.

When Is an Earmark Not an Earmark? When its in Michelle Bachmann's District, Natch!

Is consistency too much to ask from these people? I mean, really. You don't like earmarks. Dumb position, but OK, whatever. You are entitled to that position. But this? I don't know if it's "teh crazy" or "teh st00pid". More like "I think that the people that believe this shit are all st00pid, except for me because I get to decide the rules because I am Michelle Bachmann". To wit:

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) hates earmarks. Despises them. On her website, she calls the earmark system "little more than a political favor factory at taxpayer expense." But when it comes to her own district, she's in favor of a little earmark "redefinition." Because what isan earmark, after all?

"Advocating for transportation projects for one's district in my mind does not equate to an earmark," Bachmann told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune yesterday.

"I don't believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark," Bachmann continued. "There's a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway."

Yes, there could be no viable economic reason for a Congresscritter to want a "tea pot museum" (subliminal shot at the Tea Party, perhaps?) in their district. But highways, which as we all know are free and pay for themselves, as opposed to wasteful spending on silly things like rail and other forms of public transportation which have zero economic valuel, are exempt from the definition of an earmark because...well, because!

Consistency, people, consistency. Is that too much to ask?

TPM.