CNN Poll: Americans prefer Democratic policies

CNN:

Despite the bruising battle over their health care reform proposals, congressional Democrats have maintained an advantage over their Republican counterparts on one key measure, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday indicates that a bare majority of Americans, 51 percent, believe that the Democrats' policies are good for the country, with 46 percent saying that those policies would take the country in the wrong direction.

By contrast, 53 percent of people questioned in the poll say that the GOP's polices would move the nation in the wrong direction, with 42 percent saying Republican policies are good for the country.

"The numbers for both parties are virtually unchanged since late August, just before President Barack Obama's health care speech to Congress opened the latest round of debate on this divisive issue," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

So, after a summer and fall of full-tilt teabagging, we find the electorate pretty much where it was before on whether Democratic or Republican policies are better for the country.

This is hardly surprising. Democrats actually have policies. The Republicans have none. Tax cuts, deregulation, and tort reform are not policies. They are talking points.

Similarly, the GOP's lack of policy solutions is aggravated by its lack of a positive contribution to our country's political discourse.

You can't persuade people to see your point of view when all you have to say is, "NO," "HELL NO," and "WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE????"

Poll: 'Tea Party Tops GOP on Three-Way Generic Ballot '

This is enough to keep you awake at night if it's your job to get Republicans elected to congress.

Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican.

In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.

'Zombie Reagan raised from grave to lead GOP'

In 2007, I wrote that maybe the GOP would have better luck nominating a picture of Ronald Reagan for the 2008 presidential race (And with what we know now, they probably wouldn't have done much worse than they did).

The Onion goes a step farther.


Nice Bobby Jindal cameo, by the way.

The Teabagger Party, Pt. II

I noted last week what looked like an ominous development for the Republicans: that the teabagger movement has started moving beyond its original premise (savaging Obama for daring to win 2008 presidential election) and has actually begun producing candidates in an attempt to move the GOP more to the right.

The example I cited was a teabagger candidate who was threatening to siphon votes away from the establishment Republican candidate in a special congressional election in New York. It seemed that it was the wrong time to empower a loud, large minority of hard-right activists at the same time the GOP was strategizing to regain some of the ground it lost in the 2006 and 2008 congressional elections.

The Politico's Alex Isenstadt writes about this dynamic today in a piece titled: "Tea partiers turn on GOP leadership".

It’s an unusual predicament for the Republican Party, since the conservative-oriented issues that animate Tea Party activists once seemed destined to make the movement a valuable auxiliary to the Republican Party.

While there’s little evidence of tea party activist support for Democratic candidates, the specific notion of electing a GOP majority hasn’t ranked high on their agenda either.

[...]

In a handful of states, tea party activists have zeroed in on House Republican incumbents and have launched primary challenges in protest of their past support for the controversial Wall Street bank bailout.

[...]

For some, supporting insurgent campaigns or waging primary bids just isn’t a strong enough signal to send to a Republican Party that has abandoned core conservative policies.

Erick Erickson, founder and editor of the influential conservative blog RedState, has urged tea party activists to “put down the protest signs” and stage takeovers of local Republican parties.

This is consistent with what I observed last week:

The teabaggers are the Club for Growth crowd on steroids, but without the smarts. The GOP unleashed them at precisely the wrong time. A loud, scary, extremist base actually producing candidates is the last thing the Republicans can afford if their goal is to fight back from a 177-seat minority in the House and a 40-seat minority in the senate.

[...]

The teabaggers constitute a vocal, know-nothing contingent with a massive sense of entitlement. They’re not fighting to regain a congressional majority. They think they are fighting to “take their country back” from MarxistFascistHitlerMuslamObama. They couldn’t care less if their presence in an election threatens to siphon votes from the establishment Republican candidate. They are True Believers, and if you ain’t for ‘em, you’re agin ‘em.

Good luck stuffing that crazy genie back into its bottle, GOP.

But Isenstadt, in focusing on the teabaggers' desire to move the Republican Party farther to the right, misses an important part of why this phenomenon could be detrimental to the GOP. The very presence of a Tea Party candidate in a tight race could siphon enough votes away from the establishment Republican candidate to throw the election to the Democrat. And this is exactly what the organizers of the movement seem to be agitating for.

“We will be a headache for anyone who believes the Constitution of the United States … isn’t to be protected,” said Dick Armey, chairman of the anti-tax and limited government advocacy group FreedomWorks, which helped plan and promote the tea parties, town hall protests and the September ‘Taxpayer March’ in Washington. “If you can’t take it seriously, we will look for places of other employment for you.”

“We’re not a partisan organization, and I think many Republicans are disappointed we are not,” added Armey, a former GOP congressman.

This threat looms as we speak in the special election in NY-23 and in the U.S. Senate race in Arkansas. There, incumbent Democrat Blanche Lincoln is polling behind four potential challengers from the right, including the head of the Arkansas T.E.A. Party who was three points ahead of her in a recent survey by Rasmussen.

An insurgency like that could split the Republican vote enough to allow even an unpopular Democratic incumbent to squeak past for a win.

Insurance industry plays its hand against health reform

After months and months and months of backbreaking work to produce a watered-down health reform bill that the insurance industry would not oppose, the Senate Finance Committee is expected to vote Tuesday on the Baucus bill.

And just in time for that vote, wouldn't you know it, the insurance industry is promoting a report that says the Baucus bill will increase insurance premiums for American famlies.

And that report is the subject of stories in this morning's New York Times and Washington Post.

NYT: Insurance Industry Assails Health Care Legislation

In a blistering new attack, the health insurance industry said Sunday that health care legislation drafted by Senate Democrats would drive up premiums, rather than making coverage more affordable, as the White House contends.

A lobby for the industry, America’s Health Insurance Plans, focused its criticism on a bill likely to be approved Tuesday by the Senate Finance Committee.

“The overall impact will be to increase the cost of private insurance coverage for individuals, families and businesses above what these costs would be in the absence of reform,” said Karen M. Ignagni, president of the trade association.

WaPo (front page!): New Bill Would Raise Rates, Says Insurance Group

After months of collaboration on President Obama's attempt to overhaul the nation's health-care system, the insurance industry plans to strike out against the effort on Monday with a report warning that the typical family premium in 2019 could cost $4,000 more than projected.

The critique, coming one day before a critical Senate committee vote on the legislation, sparked a sharp response from the Obama administration. It also signaled an end to the fragile detente between two central players in this year's health-care reform drama.

Industry officials said they intend to circulate the report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers on Capitol Hill and promote it in new advertisements. That could complicate Democratic hopes for action on the legislation this week.

So, after a summer of pursuing consensus with Republicans and the insurance industry, the Democrats find themselves facing steadfast opposition from... Republicans and the insurance industry. How can this be? Who could have predicted that when it came time to pick sides, these constituencies would pick its own sides? I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the for-profit insurance industry would choose in the end to protect its profits rather than support reducing them for the public good.

The GOP proved conclusively some time ago that they were not interested in negotiating in good faith over health reform. Now that the insurance industry has shown its hand, it is time for the Democrats to get up from the table.

Pass the kind of bill that will make real, positive changes for the American people. Scrap all the giveaways to the health industry. Shred all the compromises designed to get Republican votes that are not and never were going to materialize. Send a bill to the president's desk that includes a strong public option. For that matter, the Dems might as well make it Medicare for Everybody. Why not? What's the worst that could happen, that it would be opposed by Republicans and the insurance industry?

Schedule the most progressive elements of the bill to take effect on January 1, 2010, so that by the time the mid-term elections roll around, people will actually have started to see some benefit from the changes.

And when AHIP and the GOP start screaming, tell them to go to hell.

Senators reject GOP's Papieren, bitte amendment on health bill

If health reform passes, you will not be required to show your papers when applying for coverage.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa said his amendment would have helped cut fraud in health care programs for low-income people. It would have required applicants to present a government-issued ID when applying for Medicaid or the children's health care program.

But Democrats said unscrupulous medical providers — not beneficiaries — are usually the ones responsible for fraud. They said current ID requirements for beneficiaries are strong enough. The vote was 13-10, against the amendment.

I remember when conservatives used to think that a national ID requirement was a bad thing.

But, as with so many of their so-called principles, that was then.

'Defund ACORN Act' may be unconstitutional

The Congressional Reasearch Service signals what some already knew. The GOP's Defund ACORN Act could be seen a Bill of Attainder, which is prohibited by something called the Constitution.

A bill of attainder — which is prohibited in Article 1 of the Constitution — is a law targeted to hurt or help an individual. If a bill is regarded primarily as punitive, instead of being strictly regulatory, it could be interpreted as an attainder bill, according to legal experts.

“While the Supreme Court has noted that the courts will generally defer to Congress as to the regulatory purpose of a statute absent clear proof of punitive intent, there appear to be potential issues raised with attempting to find a rational nonpunitive regulatory purpose for this legislation,” CRS legislative attorney Kenneth R. Thomas wrote in an executive summary of the 15-page analysis.

“Thus, it appears that a court may have a sufficient basis to overcome the presumption of constitutionality and find that it violates the prohibition against bills of attainder.”

Health reform and immigration becoming linked in media narrative

Nice work validating yet another right-wing narrative, Max Baucus and Kent Conrad.

Health care negotiators in the Senate pressed for a way to ensure that illegal immigrants can't get access to government-funded insurance, a contentious issue now front and center after a Republican congressman's outburst during President Barack Obama's speech.

The issue is one of several thorny problems that came up as a small group of negotiators on the Senate Finance Committee met Friday morning. Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., is aiming to finalize legislation on Obama's health overhaul by next week — though whether it's bipartisan or not remains to be seen.

Right-wing nutcase shouts stupidly at the president when the president states a fact: that illegal immigrants will not be covered under a proposed health plan. Right-wing noise machine rallies around right-wing nutcase despite, or maybe because of, the fact that he is wrong.

Next obvious step: Democrats cave in to non-existent pressure to solve non-existent problem thereby validating right-wing nutcase and the noise machine that loves him.

Why do the Democrats have to keep learning over and over and over again that you gain nothing by caving in to right-wing nutcases? When has it ever worked?

Iraq - Democrats caved in to Bush on the grounds that if they didn't the Republicans would call them Soft on Terror. What happened after they caved? The Republicans called them Soft on Terror.

Torture - Democrats caved in to Bush on the grounds that if they did not, the Republicans would call them Soft on Terror. What happened after they caved? The Republicans called them Soft on Terror.

Warrantless Surveillance - Democrats caved in to Bush on the grounds that if they did not, the Republicans would call them Soft on Terror. What happened after they caved? The Republicans called them Soft on Terror.

And it's not only national security. The dynamic applies to domestic policy as well.

Taxes - Democrats caved into to Bush on tax cuts for the wealthy. It did not stop the Republicans from calling them Tax-and-Spend Liberals in the next election cycle.

Again and again and again, Democrats surrender to the Republicans in the hope that doing so will blunt the GOP's ability to hurl smears at them. Again and again and again the GOP pulls all the old smears out right on cue to predictable effect.

It was only after the absolute and undeniable failure of the Republican approach to governance that the Democrats took control of congress despite same old tactics of character assassination. The Democrats' inclination to surrender without a fight did nothing to prevent the attacks. After six years of conservative failure, voters just didn't buy it anymore. But by then, the damage - to our economy, our security, our national prestige - was done. Now, the Democratic president and the Democratic majority in congress are spending most of their time and energy trying to clean up the Republicans' mess.

Now, on health reform, we have weakness and capitulation making things even more difficult on the Democratic Party's signature issue. The only apparent reason for the surrender is to pre-empt Republican smears about publicly-funded health care for illegal immigrants. But we already know that nothing - nothing - will stop the Republicans from making those accusations. After all, H.R. 3200 specifically prohibits federal payments for undocumented aliens and that didn't stop a right-wing nutcase from calling the president a liar during a joint session congress.

How stupid can you be, Max Baucus?

Apparently, at least stupid enough to think that surrendering is a winning strategy.

Obviously we'll find out who wants to support the (bill) and who doesn't," Baucus said. "I'm hopeful that there will be bipartisan support. And I'll keep working on it frankly over the weekend, on the telephone talking to people, so on and so forth."

Yeah, good luck with that.

Abject Stupidity

One day in the not-too-distant future, we will shudder when we remember that this insanity is what dominated the discourse on one of the most significant public policy issues of our lifetimes.

A registered nurse charged that there would be 'legal genocide' if health-care reform passes -- and questioned whether Obama was born in the United States. Other opponents complained of a loss of individual freedom they saw as inherent in the reforms. There were angry denunciations of the drain on the system from 'illegal aliens.' And throughout the nearly two hours, there were repeated expressions of distrust of the government.

This is what happens when you sit back and allow today's Republican Party - a howling asylum of birthers, deathers, teabaggers, and garden-variety nutjobs - to define the terms of any debate.

For shame, Democrats. Clothe yourselves in sackcloth and ashes and repent for ignoring your mandate and squandering this once-in-a-generation opportunity.

It's enough to make you want to burn the party to the ground and start over.

GOP congressman says health reform bill is too long

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) says he has read every page of a House health-care reform bill and finds it unacceptable.

His main objection?  It is too long.

He described the package on health reform as a 1,017-page document. He said it was delivered near midnight and put up for debate at 9:30 a.m. the next morning, before many had the chance to read it. Poe said he has read all 1,017 pages.

It is longer than War and Peace and not near as funny, said Poe.

First things first.  Matt Yglesias points out that at 1,017 pages, the bill Poe is referring to is not, in fact, longer than War and Peace.

I have not read all 1,107 pages of the bill since that's not actually an enlightening way to understand legislation. I have, however, read War and Peace and it's longer than that. The Signet Classics edition is 1,456 pages. The Vintage Classics edition is 1,296 pages. The Penguin Classics edition is 1,424 pages. Even the relatively brief Norton Critical Edition rolls in at 1,200 pages.

But Poe's lack of familiarity with Tolstoy's tome aside, what does the GOP congressman's criticism even mean?

What does the length of a piece of legislation have to do with its merit?  Isn't the most important thing what a bill says, rather than the number of pages it contains? 

Would Poe be more disposed to support health reform if the Democrats could bring it in under 1,000 pages, regardless of what's in it?

But don't be surprised if this content-free critique actually gains some traction in the media.  The news biz seems to love arbitrary benchmarks, and the villagers might not be able to resist the temptation to challenge Democratic lawmakers to keep all bills at 999 pages or less. 

It wouldn't be any more random than the $1 trillion cap that some in congress have adopted as their only apparent guiding principle on health reform.

GOP Underpants Gnomes' Healthcare Plan

Phase 1: Repeat standard free-market talking points

Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: Healthcare!

Prominent South Carolina Republican says Michelle Obama related to gorilla

The racist id of the Republican Party isn't making much effort to hide itself these days.

The latest example: Rusty DePass, a former Richland County, S.C. GOP chair, who remarked on his Facebook page that First Lady Michelle Obama was likely related to a gorilla that had escaped from a zoo in Columbia.

He wrote, "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors - probably harmless."

Upon the exposure of this racist buffoon's remark, said racist buffoon offered a non-apology and proceeded to suggest that Mrs. Obama had, somehow, brought the insult on herself.

Busted by South Carolina political blogger Will Folks on his FITNEWS blog, DePass told WIS-TV in Columbia, "I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest."

Then he added, "The comment was hers, not mine," claiming Michelle Obama made a recent remark about humans descending from apes. The Daily News could find no such comment.

[...]

Eric Davis, the current chairman of the Richland County Republicans, said his predecessor should get a pass. "Everyone says stupid things they regret later. I think the world should move on," he said.

Yes, that's exactly the right note to strike, Mr. Davis. Move along, nuthin' ta see heah but a good ol' boy comparing the First Lady of the United States to a lower primate.

You know what's really sad? I doubt that this Eric Davis is being disingenous. I suspect that he genuinely cannot comprehend why anybody would be find anything offensive about what DePass wrote.

Your Republican Party folks, in the Year of Our Lord 2009.

How's that minority outreach going, GOP?

Sen. John Cornyn goes onto foreign soil to criticize his leader

In this case the leader is Rush Limbaugh, and the foreign soil is NPR.

[h/t AMERICAblog]

A top Senate Republican is taking aim at recent statements from conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich suggesting Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a "racist."

"I think it's terrible," Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told NPR's "All Things Considered" Thursday. "This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent.”

Both the popular radio host and former GOP House Speaker have suggested Obama's pick for the high court is a racist while referencing a 2001 speech at Berkeley during which Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

One can appreciate Cornyn's dilemma.

As chair of the NRSC, his job is to get Republicans elected to the United States Senate. Any mammal with its brainstem intact can figure out how hard that will be if the GOP continues to alienate moderate, independent, and Hispanic voters with the racist spittle spewing from the mouths of Limbaugh, Gingrich, Tancredo, and their ilk. The right-wing reaction to the Sotomayor nomination has been deranged. Elected Republicans have been trying their best to step softly around their desire to oppose a Democratic nominee while not appearing to oppose the first Latina nominee. The base isn't making it easy for them, to say the least.

But there is stepping softly, and then there is stepping into the lion's den. That's what Cornyn did by criticizing Limbaugh on National Public Radio, of all places. Conservatives consider NPR enemy territory. What Cornyn did yesterday was a lose-lose, a massive strategic error. The GOP base will interpret it, correctly, as an attempt to appeal to centrist Democrats and moderate Republicans by visiting the so-called liberal media to express his disapproval of the unhinged rantings of Limbaugh and Gingrich. The problem is that he won't win over anybody who isn't already on his side, and he will infuriate the base by appearing to betray conservatism itself.

Cornyn has already triggered fury among right-wing blogs and other elements of the base by endorsing Charlie Crist in the 2010 Florida senate race. The right-wingers want ultra-conservative Marco Rubio to get the nomination. They are apoplectic that the NRSC took sides in the Republican primary. They have even started a movement called Not One Red Cent to punish the senatorial campaign committee by starving it of funds.

Cornyn is insane if he thinks these people will be open to persuasion about the need to appear reasonable in order to win elections. That's what happens when you spend 25 years obliterating the very idea of nuance. It is not available to you when you need it.

I expect that Limbaugh will savage Cornyn during his broadcast today. By the time the sun goes down, the good senator's office will issue a "clarification" of his remarks. That's if he doesn't call in to the program to beg for Limbaugh's forgiveness in person.

Republicans oppose judicial filibusters as a matter of principle

Hold the GOP to its principles on every judicial nominee's right to an up-or-down vote.



Click here to see other Republican senators who agree with Senator Hatch that judge Sotomayor deserves an up-or-down vote on her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Rush Limbaugh resigns as 'titular' head of GOP; obviously has no idea what that word means

Somebody should get Rush Limbaugh a dictionary app for his iPhone.

Limbaugh says he is resigning as the "titular head of the Republican Party." He says he never sought the job, and doesn't want it anymore, and is therefore abdicating the position and anointing Colin Powell as his replacement.



Except that nobody who knows the meaning of the word "titular" has referred to Limbaugh as the "titular head' of the Republican Party. The titular head of the Republican Party is RNC Chair Michael Steele. He holds the title. He is, therefore, the 'titular head' of the party.

I guess what Limbaugh is trying to say is that he no longer wishes to be the de facto head of the Republican Party.

Too bad for him, and especially bad for the GOP, that it's not up to him.

Michael Steele: 'No more looking in the rear-view mirror'

Except for continuing to talk about what some guy who was elected president almost 30 years ago would have done.

"Ronald Reagan never lived in the past. Ronald Reagan was all about the future. If President Reagan were here today he would have no patience for Americans who looked backward. Ronald Reagan always insisted that our party must move aggressively to seize the moment, he insisted that our party recognize the truth of the times and establish our first principles in both word and deed. As conservatives we must stop acting like we don’t really believe in our principles. Too often we act as if we are scared to apply our timeless principles to today’s problems and challenges… For Reagan’s conservatism to take root in the next generation we must offer genuine solutions that are relevant to THIS age.”

"Genuine solutions for THIS age," like what, Michael? Tax cuts? Pro-business regulatory policies?

Yeah, that has "comeback" written all over it.

GOPbonics - How Michael Steele "rolls"

There's nothing sadder than an aging hipster
- Lenny Bruce

How 'bout some Colt .45?
- Chris Tucker

National Committee chair Michael Steele on why he wears his hat backwards, or some nonsense.

“You wear your hat one way. You like to wear it, you know, kind of cocked to the left, you know, because that's cool out West,” Steele said. “In the Midwest, you guys like to wear it a little bit to the right. In the South, you guys like to wear the brim straight ahead. Now, the Northeast, I wear my hat backwards, you know, because that's how we roll in the Northeast.”

“But what do you recognize?” Steele asked. “We all are wearing the hat that says ‘GOP’ because that's what we believe. That's who we are.”

I don't know what bothers me the more about this buffoon - the hoary political cliches or the pathetic, aging hip-hopster lingo. Who does he think he's persuading with any of it?

And how ironic is it that at this moment in history, when we have a black president whose ethnicity is the least interesting thing about him, the Republican Party is trying to reach young people and minorities by speaking down to them with ghetto slang?

Seriously, is he tweaking the base and the party establishment with this GOPbonics crap, or does he really think this silliness will get young people to give the Republican Party a second, or even a first, look? Urban slang is fine for what it is... if you're doing nothing more consequential than hanging with your homies. But if you're trying to communicate a serious message to people, you'll make more progress by speaking English.

I, for one, have had about enough of the Michael Steele New Urban Minstrel Show. And if it annoys me this much, I can only imagine how the white, working class base and the big-money GOPers are reacting.

Frankly, from a purely partisan perspective, I hope he keeps it up. He'll just bury the Republican Party even further down in the remainder bin of history.

I just don't want to have to listen to any more of it.

Pure GOP

David Frum takes stock of his party and despairs.

The Specter defection is too severe a catastrophe to qualify as a “wake-up call.” His defection is the thing we needed the wake-up call to warn us against! For a long time, the loudest and most powerful voices in the conservative world have told us that people like Specter aren’t real Republicans – that they don’t belong in the party. Now he’s gone, and with him the last Republican leverage within any of the elected branches of government.

For years, many in the conservative world have wished for an ideologically purer GOP. Their wish has been granted. Happy?

Steele says women have the right to choose abortion

Michael Steele is finished as chair of the Republican National Committee.

The RNC obviously had no problem with Steele's very thin record of accomplishment. They were not apparently bothered by the Hip Hop outreach to blacks and Hispanics. He even got a second chance after daring to speak a cross word about Massa Limbaugh.

But there are deviations from GOP orthodoxy and then there are deviations from GOP orthodoxy.

Declaring abortion a legitimate choice would be an example of the latter.

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?

Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

Explain that.

The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?

Yeah. Absolutely.

Don't get me wrong. I think he's right, and I applaud his willingness to say that as leader of the Republican National Committee.

That having been said, there is no amount of walking back that will save Steele from the firestorm that is probably erupting already among the people who really decide what happens in GOP politics. Nobody but nobody in the Republican Party is going to let him get away with one those "I didn't say what I was thinking what I was saying," type of apologies on this one.

Steele went on to say that pro-choicers "absolutely" have a place in the "big-tent" Republican Party. I guess we'll see about that.

I'll be surprised if he still has that job by the end of the day.

Obama is defeating the Republican Party

John Cole Tim F. notes that Rush Limbaugh's ascendance to the head of the GOP appears to have been orchestrated by none other than the leader of the Democratic Party.

Percentage-wise not a lot of Americans love Rush Limbaugh. The folks who do, though, love him a lot. Without those drooling dittoheads the GOP would fight Greens and Larouchies for folding chairs on election night. It goes without saying that a guy who never has to worry about elections and controls the beating heart of a party will have slightly different incentives than public officials have to worry about. Still, the party would only worry about a noisy ignoramus with Limbaugh’s potential swing in the unlikely event that the faithful have nobody left to love.

Obviously in a world of Reagan and shining white knights named Bush that would never happen. Still, if it did happen, there’s always a chance that a skilled Democrat could figure out that conservative lizard brains always rally around their icons, and it would be awfully tempting to bait an ego like Rush to claim his place at the top of the Republican pecking order. I know it sounds crazy. But if that happened it would get awfully hard for (comparatively) sensible apparatchiks to stuff their big fat drug addicted genie back in a bottle.

When President Obama made his remarks about congressional Republicans listening to Rush Limbaugh, the pundits couldn't wait to get on TV and opine about what a strategic mistake he was making. The president was elevating a talk show host! What a mistake to pick a fight with Rush Limbaugh!

Well.

Those folks were just as right as the people who knew that Obama couldn't win the nomination and then the election without taking the low road against Hillary and then McCain. Remember that? He was playing too nice. He needed to take the gloves off. He needed to hit them harder, harder, harder!

And yet, today, we call him "Mr. President."

And during the stimulus fight, everybody (including me) just knew that the president was going to fail by reaching out to Republicans. He needed to freeze them out, to make sure they knew who was boss!

Then he went on to win passage of a bill that was practically identical to what he proposed, and along the way exposed the GOP as the nihilists that they are.

Now, the president has managed to put the ugliest face imaginable on the national Republican Party. The de facto leader of the GOP is a loud, ignorant, libertine hypocrite who preaches austerity and abstinence to his followers while indulging himself with every excess that money can buy.

With his subtle, almost off-handed appeal to Limbaugh's vanity, Obama set in motion a series events that gave the leaderless Republican Party the worst leader it could possibly have right now: a man who explicitly rejects ideas and policies as the means of regaining the trust of voters. Rather, he is convinced that extremist right-wing ideology, which the American people have forcefully rejected now in two successive elections, is the key to his party's success. And he and his followers will tolerate no deviation from that orthodoxy. Good luck with that.

And it is becoming apparent that all of this has been instigated, if not engineered, by President Obama.