Obsidian Wings

The Too-Clever-By-Half Filibuster Strategy

by publius

I’ve been away and am catching up with news. But I did see Peggy Noonan’s interesting observation about the Protect-Bush-First thinking within the Washington GOP establishment:

But maybe Mr. Bartlett's attitude illustrates a larger reality. The Bush people don't seem to spend much time on loyalty to the party per se, only to their guy. Who after all is looking out for the Republican nominees, for the group of them? They are the future of the party. The Washington GOP apparatus is focused on the president[.]

One example of what the Nooner is talking about is the Senate’s strange filibuster-everything strategy. Frankly, I think it’s counterproductive and helps Bush at the expense of the national party.

Unlike the Democrats last session, Senate Republicans don’t need to filibuster to stop a bill. Bush is their safety net -- he can veto everything that comes out. But even though it's unnecessary, the Senate GOP keeps right on filibusterin’. I can think of at least two reasons why. First, it protects Bush from the embarrassment of having to veto popular bills. Second, it helps the party more generally by keeping popular Democratic bills under the public radar. Filibuster votes, after all, generate less press than vetoes.

The latter strategy, however, may be too clever by half. One byproduct of bottling everything up is that the only bills that make it out are those with overwhelming congressional support -- bills like stem cell research and SCHIP. And because Bush’s vetoes (thanks to the Senate) are so rare, they draw disproportionate press attention to issues that inflict the greatest political harm on Republicans -- particularly among swing voters.

A better strategy would be to simply let everything -- or much more -- go up to Bush for a veto. For one, the more vetoes Bush issues, the less significant they become. They’ll start falling back from page A1 (top right column) to wherever the Post puts Walter Pincus articles (A52 I believe -- right behind the Home Depot coupons). Second, allowing the bills to go to the White House would let vulnerable Senate Republicans support popular legislation, while simultaneously (and perhaps ostentatiously) distancing themselves from a deeply unpopular president. In short, Bush could take more of the heat.

And that brings me back to Nooner. Given how many vulnerable Senators there are, I don’t understand why the White House won’t take one for the team. If they cared more about party and less about protecting Bush, they would call Susan Collins and say, “Go ahead and vote for cloture. Send it up and we’ll take the heat. It’s more important to keep the seat than protecting Bush from getting his hands dirty.” But instead we get endless filibustering -- mostly for the protection of a President who will never be on the ballot again.

One last point -- while I’m through talking about Malkin for a while, the Democrats have to be secretly thanking her -- and her comrades -- for significantly escalating an issue that helps Dems every second it’s in the news.

Look At The Dancing Lady!

by hilzoy

Via Kevin Drum: this test of whether you're right- or left-brained is very cool. I've always wondered which side of my brain is dominant: I have some very left-brain features -- logic, words, realism -- and some very right-brain ones -- emotion, "big picture", imagination, and spatial perception, at which I am unexpectedly good. If this test is to be believed, my right brain dominates: the dancer always goes clockwise unless I make a special effort to make her change course -- the best way, for me, is to start by looking only at her feet -- and even then, she reverts to clockwise pretty quickly. It actually looks as though she stops and changes direction, which my left brain (logical, reality-based) assures me is not possible.

And you?

Consider this an open thread.

Noted Without Further Comment

by publius

Krauthammer:

I could never vote for her because the Clintons' liberal internationalism on display in the 1990s -- the pursuit of paper treaties and the reliance on international institutions -- is naive in theory and feckless in practice.

Scalia as Bauer

by publius

I can't believe I'm just seeing this, but everyone should check out Dahlia Lithwick's foray into animation. I think I'm opening class tomorrow with it. (It's a small part, but I liked the Ginsburg clerk the best).

Super Kabuki Watch - Immigration Edition

by publius

A question for ya. Let’s say you’re the Bush administration. Let’s say you have no real interest in cracking down on illegal immigration. But, you’re getting a lot of heat from parts of the base. What do you do? This is a cynical interpretation for sure, but maybe you write administrative rules so draconian that you know (and secretly hope) a court will strike them down. When the court does so, you get the best of both worlds – it appears like you’ve done something, but your actions have actually accomplished nothing.

Just a thought.

You write Malkin, I read Hillary

It's now clear (SAT time): 

Michelle Malkin : Obsidian Wings

as

Hillary Clinton : Republican party

Malkin is the one common enemy that unites all the warring factions. 

In any event, before I slink back into that long night of semi-permanent retirement, let me offer the following two thoughts:

1.  Malkin is not the conservative community.  Nor is she the Republican party, or even a representative sample of a fraction of its membership.  She's an former VDare writer with a blogospheric megaphone, perfect teeth, and a persecution complex.  She also doesn't realize that the first rule of scandals -- and she's in one -- is to change the subject. 

Moving on.

2.  It would be nice to have a genuine discussion of health care in this country, including how we could protect folks like the Frosts without expanding government coverage (or, if coverage must be expanded, being smarter about it). 

Why Coulter is Better Than Malkin

by publius

If you haven’t read Michelle Malkin’s odd, rambling response to Ezra Klein’s debate challenge, it’s well worth the price of admission. Not so much for the substance, but for the sheer rage dripping from it. It’s also interesting from a psychological perspective. In fact, Malkin's response distinguishes her in interesting ways from Ann Coulter, who tends to get (wrongly) lumped together with Malkin in people’s minds. But Coulter is actually far more interesting, even if her writing is substantively more objectionable.

I’m obviously speculating, but I think Coulter is essentially an act. She’s extreme, sure. What she says is abhorrent, agreed. But I think she’s carved out a niche for herself where her interests aren’t necessarily aligned with the conservative movement. She’s a self-promoting outrage artist -- her goal is not to promote an agenda but to stoke the fires. For instance, I have no doubt she was nothing but ecstatic about the public reception to her Edwards comments.

The point is that when Coulter sits at home at night, I suspect she conceives of herself as an entertainer. A shock-artist, sure -- and someone who is deliberately offensive. But, an entertainer nonetheless. And more to the point, she knows what she’s doing. She’s fully in control.

Malkin, on the other hand, is a completely different animal. On some level, she fancies herself a serious, populist, investigative journalist. Her ambition is much greater than Coulter’s. For instance, she’s traveled to Iraq. She drives out to see the Frosts' house. She wants to break and advance stories like Rathergate, Beauchamp, etc.

Kevin Drum made the very astute point that the whole SCHIP uproar was not merely the rotten core surfacing, but was an attempt to relive the glory days of Rathergate. That was their moment -- the formula they use to obtain maximum glory. And that’s what Malkin wanted to accomplish. She desperately wanted to break news; to shame the hated press; to defeat those awful Dems.

Unlike Coulter, Malkin is on board with the movement. She’s a true believer. And she believes in herself as well -- she (subjectively) sees herself as having journalistic integrity, dedication to facts, etc. That’s why she’s gone off the deep end with this SCHIP stuff. The pushback has touched a nerve and it’s clearly getting to her. If Malkin only cared about stirring up outrage, she wouldn’t be this upset.

Coulter, by contrast, is smarter and far smoother. She couldn’t care less about any pushback -- she wants the pushback. That’s why it’s rarer to see Coulter engage in defensive, rage-filled rambling. Attacks don’t make her mad -- even if she’s factually wrong. She’s not a believer in the cause, or her journalistic integrity -- she’s an entertainer. Malkin, however, does care on some level. She craves to be respected. And she knows on some level that she’s been knocked down on the canvas -- and she’s deeply embarrassed. But, she’s decided to double down rather than acknowledge the mistake and move on to other battles. It’s as if she were the commander-in-chief or something.

Point Malkin

by publius

I originally agreed with Ezra Klein on this whole SCHIP business. But after reading this measured, articulate, and well-reasoned post, I think Malkin convinced me.

In all seriousness, that post is either the most brilliant conceptual art in the history of blogging, or it's the most rage-filled sputtering nonsense I've ever read (and I've read a lot of blog posts).

The First Rule of Holes

.... is when you're in one, stop digging.

(Yes, yes, I'm on semi-permanent hiatus.  But I make a special exception for Malkin, who, as John Cole rightly relates, "is a gaping asshole and everything that is wrong with the Republican party.")

UPDATE:

Compare:

"I certainly am not convinced that a government-run system is the answer, but I do agree with Krugman that there are serious problems with our health insurance system, particularly in the market for individually-purchased (non-group) coverage.

"After my husband quit his job earlier this year (to become a full-time stay-at-home dad), we had a choice. We could either buy health insurance from his former employer through a program called COBRA at a cost of more than $1,000 per month(!) or we could go it alone in Maryland’s individual market. Given our financial circumstances, that “choice” wasn’t much of a choice at all. We had to go on our own."

Contrast:

"The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets. Maryland’ s S-CHIP program does not means-test (correction: I meant to say assets-test>. The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.  ...

....

"This family made choices. Choices have consequences. Taxpayers of lesser means should not be forced to subsidize them."

Yes, Michelle, "choices have consequences" -- except when there's "not much of a choice."  Moron.

I have mixed feelings about SCHIP:  it is a creeping entitlement.  In a different political world and with a real alternative from the Republicans -- which Bush hasn't provided, natch -- I could very well oppose the proposed expansion.  Under the circumstances, however, I wouldn't choose to die on that particular hill.  I certainly wouldn't choose to go out like a idiot.

(H/T, Ezra Klein.)

UPDATE 2:  Malkin, in her inimitable style, links this post with the following:

Look! The wingnut complained about the health insurance market! Ergo, she is a HYYYYPPPPOCRITE. And stupid! And a Nazi bitch!

I'm also, apparently, now a "fellow traveler" of Klein's, which will come as news to folks who actually know what they're talking about.

In any event, I didn't accuse Malkin of hypocrisy.  I accused her of stupidity.  People do make choices and choices do have consequences, but, as Malkin might have learned by her own experiences -- but, apparently, did not -- sometimes the alternatives are unpalatable. 

Now, in Malkin's case, she could choose "a very high-deductible plan" without losing her home.  But what if she couldn't do that. Should she still bear the "consequences"?  Should taxpayers? 

A single anecdote -- whether it be from Malkin's past or about the Frost's -- is not an empirical study.  A single anecdote shouldn't shape policy.  Rather, an anecdote is useful for illuminating the issue, and identifying the potential costs and benefits.  Malkin won't -- or can't -- do that.  As a "journalist," she has chosen to live or die by her example du jour.  And now she's seeing the consequences of that choice. 

Why Armenia?

by publius

Somebody help me out with this Turkey/Armenian resolution. I feel like I’m missing something. It seems like such a colossally stupid thing to do. Turkey is a key ally, and this is a particularly important time for good relations. I’m not saying that should excuse human rights violations. But it did happen decades ago – it’s not like there’s an urgent pressing need for this (as opposed to say the horrors in Congo). What is more urgent is that Kirkuk may well explode soon, and Turkey/Kurdish tensions are simmering. Why gratuitously piss off Turkey?

I guess I’m most curious about the underlying politics driving this. I can understand the vote in France – I assume it had anti-EU undertones. But here, it seems weird that the whole thing is being driven by high Armenian populations in a couple of congressional districts (yes, Pelosi is one -- but is that enough?). Also, I know the Armenians have their own lobby, but are they really this powerful? So powerful that Congress will act even if it jeopardizes stability in northern Iraq.

What am I missing here? I feel like I’m watching Syriana having missed the first half hour.

[UPDATE: David Schraub has more - and takes a different view.]