Agreed with Jesse across the board—-seeking consensus is a juvenile, naive tactic

Every parent with half a brain knows this to be true.  I constantly force compromise for the sake of compromise on my kids, because they’re children, and learning to share is an important skill.  It’s also important for them to learn what’s important and what isn’t, and who gets to play with a particular toy isn’t all that important.

But the world of grownups is supposed to deal in important issues.  When the decisions that come out of Congress will literally alter the number of preventable deaths in this country, it’s more important that the right decision is made than it is that the emotional toddlers in the debate don’t get their underdeveloped feelings hurt.

When we aren’t being governed by children, we’re being governed by people who think catering to the children is the right thing to do.

God only knows what sort of things party leadership did to Judd Gregg to convince him that Obama has cooties.

I figured it was just that Gregg realized the same thing everyone else did - he’d be playing right into the Democrats’ hands if he took it.  No Republican senator from a Democratically governed state is going to accept a worthless token position in the Obama administration just to make the Dems look better and possibly cement a filibuster-proof senate.

Oh, I’m sure at bare minimum he was told that he wouldn’t be accepted back into the party as a candidate ever again.

It’s possible that promises were made, but I suspect threats, because it’s just more emotionally satisfying for Republicans to use the stick instead of the carrot.

It’s also more in keeping with their past actions. Look at what happened to Gingrey when he dared to acknowledge that Limbaugh just might be a problem for Republicans—he got smacked down and stomped on and was on tv the next day sucking up. It was pathetic.

Gregg got surprised when Rove told him that he’d use the files gleaned from eight years of control over the FBI to air Gregg’s dirty laundry in public. This is the reason that so many Dems who aren’t already wholly-owned subsidiaries of our corporate overlords are loathe to take a stand on important issues. Gregg was just blindsided because he couldn’t have imagined that such files were kept on and could or would be used against Republicans.

I’d love to see the Republicans told to sit in a corner while the Dems govern, but those files are pretty extensive. And for the record, I don’t think the Dems are being blamed for the lack of bipartisanship anywhere but in PunditWorld: if you look at the Kos polls, it appears that ordinary Americans have figured out what’s going on.

I remember that Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi and I’ve been thinking about it since Obama rolled out the stimulus bill. I’m sick of Republicans in Congress acting like toddlers. Politics is all about compromise and if they don’t understand that then they need to find jobs where they can make unilateral decisions all day long. I hope their behavior hurts them politically, but who knows if anyone outside of political blogs is even taking note. The way the Republicans are acting is exactly why I wasn’t filled with hope and optimism when Obama was sworn in because I was afraid this kind of crap would happen. These obstructionist legislators just plain need to go.

let anti-choicers win, knowing that any women that they know will be able to obtain legal abortion and screw the rest of us.

I’m not sure if this is what you’re directly referring to, but I’m guessing the idea is that if Roe were reversed, most blue states would still keep abortion legal, and well duh people in red states can just come to the states where abortion is illegal, so thus it’s pretty much win-win for the liberals? 

Which is of course the dumbest idea ever, which could only be thought up by people who’ve lived their whole lives in the Northeast, where interstate travel means a couple hours on I-95, rather than the cross-country trek that would be required to get from someplace like South Dakota to any even vaguely magenta part of the country.

Oh, I’m sure at bare minimum he was told that he wouldn’t be accepted back into the party as a candidate ever again.

I’m actually rather impressed at how the Republicans (and Eric Cantor) have been threatening any potential turncoat into submission.  (I agree with Incertus that the stick approach is probably preferred.  Do they have any carrots to offer now anyway?)

I also wonder how long it will remain a viable strategy—not that I’m holding my breath that, say, the people of Georgia will wonder why they have 2 useless senators who do nothing but posture and obstruct legislative progress and vote them out of office.

The real story is not that Democrats aren’t trying hard enough to be bipartisan, it’s that Republicans have decided to shut down all attempts at bipartisanship, knowing Democrats will get the blame.

What’s really fascinating is that although the media is playing the blame game to the hilt, the people don’t seem to be buying it.  Not only is Obama still popular, the Democrats have gained a couple of points and the Republicans have lost a couple.

This is what’s fascinating to me:  the media has lost control of the story, and they don’t even seem to realize it.

“Which is of course the dumbest idea ever, which could only be thought up by people who’ve lived their whole lives in the Northeast, where interstate travel means a couple hours on I-95, rather than the cross-country trek that would be required to get from someplace like South Dakota to any even vaguely magenta part of the country.”

...not to mention, of course, that if Roe were overturned it would be about 5-mins before a bill was being introduced in Congress to make abortion illegal at the federal level. 

Without Roe (and possibly even with it), the states won’t be given the “choice” or whether to keep abortion legal or not, at least not for long…

I have a bit of a different take on it.

The game the GOP is playing here, is a solid strategy. It’s not a GOOD strategy, but I think that it’s at least coherent. What they’re doing, is playing to the most strongly opinionated members of their base, with the assumption that those people are “opinion leaders” in their communities, and will be able to cause a lot of local sway. Limbaugh and Fox News and TownHall and all that other good stuff is used to transmit the messages to these leaders to be sent to their local communities.

The problem for them is that they’re really not “leaders” often they’re just intimidators. The GOP is left playing to its base, and they can’t ratchet down the rhetoric, because to do so is to invite a revolt from their base (look at all the rumblings about primary challengers to anybody who voted for the stimulus bill). Mind you, the left does similar things in targeted cases….but the difference between targeted and blanket..well…they’re obviously different.

They’ve been targeting their hardcore supporters as supposed “opinion leaders” since 2005 or so. Does anybody else remember the specific targeting of “Alpha Mothers”?

“Gregg got surprised when Rove told him that he’d use the files gleaned from eight years of control over the FBI to air Gregg’s dirty laundry in public.”

This sounds paranoid at first, but when one considers that Louis Freeh worked very hard and very long to turn the FBI into a wholly-owned GOP subsidiary it becomes less tinfoil hat and more “I’d be very surprised if it wasn’t so”.

feel like the Democrats have been accused non-stop for six years of hoping for “defeat” in Iraq, even though the accusers never point to a real example of a Democrat actually expressing such hope.

I think the more mouthbreathing Republican set get confused between “The Iraq war will go badly and ruin our country,” and “I hope the Iraq war does go badly and ruin our country.” 

This is why Republicans are so big into keeping books out of libraries, teaching to standardized tests, cutting funding for writing and other creative pursuits, painting a love of language as a sign of gayness, and keeping English classes as dry and boring as possible (Beowulf! Diagramming sentences!  Whee!).  That way, it becomes less and less likely that most people will be able to distinguish between different verb tenses.  Thus, they can keep twisting the language to their own benefit with nobody noticing.

That way, it becomes less and less likely that most people will be able to distinguish between different verb tenses.

I fear they may have already succeeded on this front.

I respectfully disagree. Consensus - meaning a result everyone can live with rather than one everyone agrees with completely - is a worthy goal for grown-ups. It just doesn’t work with juvenile spoiled brats like the Republicans who would rather smash the toys than be constructive.

I also disagree with your assessment on who is getting the blame. There have been quite a number of polls that show that out in “real” America, outside D.C. and the big media echo chamber, people view Obama as doing the the right thing and view the Republicans as being obstructionist turds. Obama’s popularity remains very high while the Republicans in Congress are approaching Cheney levels.

Obama is operating from the position of strength, so all these moves by the Republicans are ultimately like a toddler throwing a tantrum. Let them exhaust themselves flailing their arms and legs. They are absolutely tone deaf when it comes to the ultimate effect of all their games, which is how they lost power in the first place. They’ll slip even further from it given enough leeway.

Ding, Opop!  If Roe were overturned, people of means in blue states would have no obstacles, and the daughters and mistresses of red state anti-choice politicians could get their abortions while vacationing in NYC.

Consensus is good, as long as all sides are being reasonable. When one side starts being a bunch of wankers, though, compromise has to be dumped in order to get things done.

And yes, of course Gregg was threatened. Why else would he announce he’s retiring from the Senate?

Well it wouldn’t be hugely impossible to get an abortion that way if you lived in a “red” state like New Hampshire - you’re only a couple hours, at most, from a state blue enough to virtually guarantee legal abortion.  Even if you lived in remote parts of PA, or the upper south, a weekend trip to a blue state wouldn’t be out of the question.

Except of course that, even growing up in a fairly small state which is fairly close to the East Coast, visiting a place like New York seemed about on par with visiting the moon.  Even growing up in a fairly well off family which took vacations regularly.  My family back in Louisiana doesn’t really visit New York now, even with a couch available for the asking.

Not to mention the more commonsense things like, duh, it would only be a matter of time before it became illegal to “transport a female across state lines for the purposes of killing a pre-born infant”.

Consensus is a pipe dream, and it’s not just because Republicans are children. When there are fundamental differences, consensus will never happen.  That’s what I argue today on RH Reality Check about pro- and anti-choicers.  We fundamentally disagree on whether or not women are human, and thus “consensus” will only be reached when one side gives in.

This isn’t precisely on topic, I know, but I had the coolest thing happen this Presidents Day: The Obamas flew right past me aboard Marine One on their way back to O’Hare this morning. *waving hello*

I’m secretly relieved that the GOP is pissing all over Obama’s attempts at bipartisanship. They look like petulant whiners who oppose bipartisanship and give him the cover he needs to say “Screw ‘em, I’m passing my legislation without them.”

Didn’t a lot of the pre-Roe states that banned abortion also ban travelling across state lines to get one?  Not that this was particularly enforceable, but it placed yet another risk on top of the onerous burden of having to travel. 

Oh man.  Googling tells me that the GOP Congress passed, and Bush signed, the Child Interstate Abortion Act of 2005.  (How did I miss this?)  A federal law that essentially requires states to enforce the restrictions of other states that apply to minors.  If your state has no parental consent law, a minor from another state that does cannot legally travel to your state to circumvent the law in her home state.  Kind of like a Fugitive Slave Act for teenage girls.

Naturally this only applies to minors, but who wants to bet how long further restrictions on adult women appear at the state level if Roe is overturned by the Roberts court?  How long until a new federal CIAN law gets applied to adults?

Hmmm, somehow I doubt that of the 49 states that ban prostitution, any of them have laws against men in their states travelling to Nevada and visiting a brothel.  Nor do any of those upstanding moral Christian Republicans seem to be pressing for a federal ban on such.  Funny thing, that.

i don’t know phoebe fay, i thought the same thing too, but i’ve run across a surprising number of people (especially of the young adult 20-mid 30s set) who are swallowing the media stories hook line and sinker. i’ve gotten into more than one accidental arguments with casual friends, mostly because they are relatively ill-informed and because, for some reason i can’t discern, a lot of them are still buying that whole “liberal media” bunch of crap. it’s beyond infuriating, i have to say.

on the bright side though, i’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t at least grudgingly admire obama. which is at least a step in the right direction.

Consensus is a worthy goal when different parties are bound to each other for the long term and are both affected by the consequences and fallout of the decisions. When you are a legislator, however, you aren’t directly affected by any legislation (you aren’t going to lose your job, get sent to iraq, etc.), and the only people you’re answerable to are your constituents who themselves may have very different interests than everyone else. Plus, your goal is pointed more towards not cooperating with an eye towards retaking power in the future, and there’s no reward for “getting along” if you think you have a shot at more power in the near future.

The drafting of policy is not a zero-sum game, but elections and political positioning are zero-sum games, so there’s no way consensus should be expected.

The problem is that most of our experience in negotiation is related to things like negotiations with our families and business partners: examples where everyone is, in some way, bound to each other and with a stake in the interests of the other partners, so we project that idea of what negotiation is all about onto how we think Congress would act.

Libertarian, you seem to have a philosophical objection to the feds banning abortion and seem to feel that opposing a federal ban on abortion, based on a principle of federal non-interference in states’ affairs, is “good enough.” Since we have to deal with what will actually happen, which is that the federal government will keep trying to pass laws against abortion, then it is more preferable to simply maintain the status quo of legal enshrinement of abortion rights. You’re working on a lot of hypotheticals in order to get to your “ideal world” (in which states may ban abortion but the federal government may not). Since that ideal world doesn’t exist, it’s ridiculous to start pining for an overturning of Roe on the premise that it will occur under the conditions you ideally hope they will.

Well, I wouldn’t call it “philsophical”, because that implies that there was thought involved.

Do you maybe mean “offer the olive branch”, or were you implying with “fig leaf” that the Dems have offerred Repubs a way to cover their naked shame?

And hey…I liked Beowulf.

Libertarian, once, really, you accept Griswold, then you’re faced with a situation where you have to agree with Roe and Webster that the government may not place any “undue burdens” on women seeking abortion. And, given the 14th amendment, that goes for the states as well as the feds. You can construct an ideal fantasy world for yourself in which everyone acts just so to reflect your beliefs, but judges tend to know better they have to deal with real, actual governments and legislators. You can’t object to the reality of the fact that the congress will immediately attempt to pass a national ban on abortion by saying, “well, ideally they wouldn’t be able to do that, and the states would.” Even your libertarian ideology should point you to the idea that you can’t depend on the virtue of governments to simply support libertarian ideas but that governments need to be prevented from ever passing laws that conflict with your libertarian ideas in the first place.

I think that Roe is effectively overturned in most red states, because of lack of access and obstructionist laws. Only women with the financial and relationship means to overnight it a day’s drive from their hometown can get abortions in deepest red state areas. For everyone else, it might as well be illegal for how easy it is.

Of course, with medical (non-surgical) abortion options increasingly available, I think it keeps this problem from getting out of hand like it did pre-roe.

Once again, a stupid libertarian has managed to take over a thread by making inane comments and glorying in all the attention he gets for being stupid.  Someone ought to do a psychological study on what drives that kind of behavior.  Why do some people get off on being annoying and stupid?  It’s like Sawyer on “Lost”.

Couple things….

Note that the Republican Defectors were from the Northeast where the Republican Party is an endangered species.  Thus confirming that the Deludocans are a regional party which means death to the Party.

If the Dems couldn’t have gotten 60 votes they could have used the Nuclear Option.  The filibuster is NOT in the Constitution.

The intelligent strategy for the minority is to allow the Dems to do what they want without filibustering and say “on your head be it.”  It it doesn’t work they got “I told you so.”  If it does work they’re screwed but that would be true in any case.  Appearing obstructionist is not wise in time of crises but then they are Republicans….

Libertarian is a libertarian. Of course he deals in hypotheticals and shit like that. The real world refuses to comply with his fantasies. And of course it’s not his body at risk.

I love the idea that the men who made sure the government can’t search your house without a court order, or station troops in your house, or stop you from giving your opinions, or seize your property without compensation, etc., really never intended privacy to be a fundamental right.

So a cop needs a search order from a judge to enter your house and see if you have something illegal, but if the same cop thinks you’re having the wrong kind of sex, or using a condom, or planning to get an abortion, the front door’s wide open and the feds will look the other way while you do what you need to do to protect society…is that about right, Libertarian?...

Anyone still willing to call themselves a libertarian after this public and damning of a repudiation by reality over a steady 8 year period is clearly immune to both reality and shame and a sign of either intense mental illness or an attempt at disingenuous posturing to cover up an ideology even more universally despised and abhorrent. Either way, so not worth it.

On the topic at hand, yes. It’s why I actually want the Fairness Doctrine back and full campaign finance reform and a Proportional Representation government. We wouldn’t be hearing the same “liberal media” and timid “responses” looking at “both sides of the divisive issue” if leftists were actually allowed on TV to just point out the facts for a half hour. It’s like the CNBC snafu where they finally invited the people on who had been right all along and desperately tried to distract them into making stock reccomendations so they wouldn’t talk about the long overdue overhaul of the economic system. The attitudes in Europe and on the ground as well as the way the Nordic countries have weathered the storm really show the prevailing winds. Some big changes are coming and those who guard the status-quo are shit-pantsingly terrified.

Well, one happy benefit is that libertarians are completely irrelevant to the equation when discussing our current political situation. Libertarian blog commenters chiming in on the matter are just attention seeking to say “me too! me too!” to try to convince us that they still matter. The biggest political stumbling block we face is that the Republican party is full of crazies and the gullible, and our political proceeses need to adjust to accomodate this fact. The “libertarian alternative” that people keep trying to bring up is all well and good when dealing with hypothetical discussions, but at the moment we have actual problems to deal with.

Of course Roe v. Wade was decided because women in conservative states couldn’t access abortion if they couldn’t afford to travel.  The original “Roe” was pretty much indigent, had been raped, and could barely afford an abortion, let alone travel expenses to California.

If John Cole’s comment trolls are to believed, that’s exactly what happened. I feel like the Democrats have been accused non-stop for six years of hoping for “defeat” in Iraq, even though the accusers never point to a real example of a Democrat actually expressing such hope. So we got to hear the outrage without even having to commit the offense.

Conservative deflection again.  They know how they would behave with a Democrat in office:  hoping for him to fail, just barely falling short of cheering on increased casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.  So, of course, they accuse us of this while Bush is in office and immediately start in on it once a Dem takes over.

I say this place should take the stance PZ Myers is planning to adopt: be a libertarian fuckstick, disrupt a thread, get banned.

I see libertarian as a whetstone - he comes in, spouts the party line, and we get to sharpen our fangs on him.

I have a slightly different take on this than some of you: I agree that the general public is hip to how obstructionist the Rethugs are being right now, and that the GOP are potentially playing with fire. Whether the bastards see this a calculated risk or are just genuinely incapable of behaving in any other way by this point is another issue altogether, natch.

But I think that some of you are also on thinner ice than you seem to realize, particularly those of you who are chuckling indulgently, “Well, the Republicans are behaving like children and the voters will see that,” smiling serenely at the thought of massive GOP loses in the next midterm elections without the Democrats having to do a damn thing other than acting like victims…just as they usually do: “Oh, we can’t do nuthin’, ‘cause th’ bad men will be mean to us! Boo hoo hoo!” Really? Y’all think that’s a winning strategy? It didn’t exactly work wonders for Dukakis, Gore or Kerry, yet you think Obama’s supposed popularity will carry the day if - and I do stress the IF here - he does nothing but continue to lick the Rethugs’ boots while they stomp on his face? All in the name of “bipartisanship” and “centrism”, of course.

Digby quite correctly pointed out just recently that Obama’s popularity is not a magic bullet. The evil little shitstain who just vacated the White House may now be one of the most despised Presidents in history, but he had approval ratings in the 90’s at one point. I think Obama’s victory was entirely due to people wanting him to fix things, and his popularity (real or otherwise) had sweet fuck-all to do with him being elected. If he responds to the ongoing crisis with the typical DLC triangulating bullshit, he will fail. And he’ll deserve to.

I agree with what a few people have already said about consensus: it is a very worthy goal to reach, better than “majority rule,” when you have a group of people consensing who have at least a basic common understanding of what their goals and principles are, and who are mature enough to understand that you don’t always get what you want, compromise is important to be able get things done AND to reach consensus, etc. Most of the good organziational groups I’ve worked in, whether in huge corporations or small non-profits or oversight boards or what have you, worked best and most productively under consensus. Consensus does not work, however, if there are spoiled obstructionist brats around, much less if they are “half” of the conversation.

And for the record, I don’t think the Dems are being blamed for the lack of bipartisanship anywhere but in PunditWorld: if you look at the Kos polls, it appears that ordinary Americans have figured out what’s going on.

And in the event that you need a good comeback when some asswipe Republican says, “But, but, but… it’s a DAILY KOS poll!!! It’s BIASED!” hit them up with Gallup’s numbers…

Congressional Dems have 48% approval versus 41% disapproval ratings.

In contrast, Congressional Repubs have 31% approval versus 64% disapproval ratings.

And of course… 2/3 of the country approves of the guy in the Ovala Office, and less than 1/5 disapprove of him.

John D., the difference here is that Obama doesn’t play the victim or expect people to support him out of sympathy. He actively enjoys outwitting the bad guys, and so he’s in a stronger position than the losing Democratic candidates you mention.

It’s entirely possible, of course, that he’s just gotten lucky every single time he’s come under Republican attack, but I’m at the point where his success is beginning to become a pattern.

I think that when Gregg saw that (a) the $800B non-stimulus barrel of pork was going to pass

The stimulus bill was disclosed all the way back in November after Obama had won, and versions of the bill were already in the legislative pipeline when Gregg accepted the nomination.  It was also fairly clear at that point that some version of the bill at around $800 Billion would soon get passed given the amount of power wielded by Democrats in Congress.

Gregg knew about all of this when he agreed to take the job.  This wasn’t news to him.

Your theory is a FAIL.

DTG, it’s entirely possible that Gregg doesn’t pay attention to policy proposals issues by Obama when he was president elect and had no clue what was going on until he was threatened by members of his own party. It’s a bit unfair for you to claim that Gregg “knew about all of this” when he agreed to take the job. I think you’re ignoring the fact that Republican politicians are some of the most ignorant mo-fos on the face of the earth. In fact, I think that Libertarian could even maintain his “libertarian cred” by agreeing with me, since part of their conceit is that all politicians are dumber than they are.

<blockquote>Similarly, I understand some legislators wish to give DC representation, even though the Constitution speaks only of states having representation, and DC being governed by the Feds.  The Constitution won’t stop legislators from trying (hell, it doesn’t stop much of anything these days).<blockquote>

Bullshit.

Except in cases in which the Constitution clearly prohibits something, it should not be interpreted as a prohibitive document; the fact that the Constitution only expressly guarantees states’ rights to representation should not be interpreted as a prohibition of representation to federal areas which are not states.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which expressly forbids Washington, DC from having Congressional representation.  So attempting to frame an argument that the District should not be represented because it would be “unconstitutional” is absolute BS.

I’m always amazed when anonymous jackholes on the internet base their entire legal worldviews on the contention that their own personal interpretation of the Constitution is axiomatically and inherently superior to that of THE SUPREME FUCKING COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

You can scream plays at your TV all day long, but there’s a really good reason you’re not actually a head coach in the NFL.

Completely valid point about Monday morning QBing, and as far as Roe is concerned, I believe absolutely they got it right, but be careful in your defense of SCOTUS.

You seem to be implying that the High Court should be viewed as nearly infallible, and well… all I can say is Bush v. Gore.

Why isn’t DC a state? There never seems to be a good reason outside the slave-state/free-state style politics that have Repubs scared that as long as they’re racist, it’s guarantee reps for the Dems. Same with Puerto Rico.

They’re both long overdue, basically only delayed because it would knock Repubs further from legitimacy and thus would be seen as “poor politics”.

Why do the “state’s rights” assholes always crawl out of the woodwork on something that the right believes in and which the left doesn’t?  I don’t see these worms giving a damn about marijuana liberalization or increased state regulation in the fiscal and environmental fields or increased privacy rights for all citizens or other “liberal” concepts.

Libertarian:  I’ve said it before and I say it again: You’re just a bloody conservative.  I’ve been watching you post for quite some time now and have seen nothing to indicate that you really want to accept the either/or elements of true libertarianism.  You’re just another right-winger who wants the leashes off the pet objectives of the right wing and the cuffs on the pet objectives of the left.  Pathetic.

Wanna see what a real libertarian looks like?  Try Balko over at the theagitator.com.  Until then, in the words of Milligan’s Sgt.-Major, please say three hail marys, take a deep breath and stop wasting our bloody time.

Why isn’t DC a state?

Count the white people in this picture!

Obama doesn’t play the victim or expect people to support him out of sympathy. He actively enjoys outwitting the bad guys, and so he’s in a stronger position than the losing Democratic candidates you mention.

Damn skippy.  After this stimulus battle, Obama has the political cover to push through anything he wants despite Repug mewling.  All the Democrats have to say is that they tried to work with the Repubs in a bi-partisan manner, made compromises on the stimulus bill that they asked for, and they still all refused to cooperate.  Throw in the fact that it’s a stated goal of the GOP to make Obama fail, and the Dems can easily justify shutting out the vast majority of Repubs in Congress.  This will work until such time that a large number of the Repugs come over to work with Obama, but if Repugs do so, they alienate their base of screeching, bedwetting, racist morons.

Obama just holds out his fist and lets his opponents smash their own faces into it.  In truth, America hasn’t seen political genius on this level for a long while, and we’re pretty goddam lucky that he mostly on our side.

And hey…I liked Beowulf.

I did too, actually.  I also liked diagramming sentences.  I’m a lit/English/grammar nerd.  The current curriculum appeals to people like you and me. 

What it doesn’t do is create a widely literate populace with a healthy respect for language and literature.  A populace that can largely understand the nuances that divide “I think X will happen” and “I hope X will happen”.  It also hobbles the media, cultural programming, political rhetoric, and the like. And creates fertile ground for know-nothing-ism. 

If replacing Beowulf and piddly pedantic grammar only copy editors will ever really need to know with something a little more interesting will make for a more literate and cultured populace, I’m willing to sacrifice it.  I can always dash out to the nearest bookshop and pick up a copy of Beowulf if I’m dead set on reading it.

smiling serenely at the thought of massive GOP loses in the next midterm elections

Uhhhh, dude.  Srsly.  It is February of 2009.  The results of the last election have only just taken effect less than a month ago (and in the case of Minnesota, they’re still sorting it out!).  Can we please have a short breather before we have to get our panties in a twist about the elections almost 2 years from now?  Plz? 

I don’t think anybody is complacent yet about what the midterm election cycle will bring.  However, it is way, way, WAY too early to start worrying about that for those of us who aren’t congressional staffers and serial campaign workers.

“A populace that can largely understand the nuances that divide “I think X will happen” and “I hope X will happen”.  “

Shit, all they need to do is watch the Star Trek where Spock gives the quiet verbal smackdown of noting that saying that one understands is not the same as saying that one approves.

I have all kinds of new proof for my oft-stated contention that the only people dumber than libertarians are ravers.

felagund:
At least when a raver takes ecstasy (s)he knows that (s)he’ll get stoned.  Economic libertarians believe that if you deregulate the wolves then the sheep will be happy.