• Make Them Eat Their Words

    Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math Ezra's finishing up college this week, so the weekend crew is coming in a bit early. And just in time for Tom Reynolds (R-NY) to suggest that the GOP give up on Social Security. Reynolds runs the NRCC, the body responsible for coordinating recruiting and campaigning for all the House Republicans. And he has no interest in forcing increasingly vulnerable House Republicans to go into re-election having voted to tear Social Security into pieces. Without a vote, it's time to dig through all the public statements from Bush's winter and spring tour where he kept touting privatization. Anyone who stood on a podium with Bush and shilled for his plans, anyone who said they supported tweaking Social Security, anyone who suggested we haved a "gender adjustment" to benefits, needs to have his or her statments crammed down his or her throat from August to November of 2006. So start combing through Nexis searches now, so that we're ready when the bell...
  • Heads Up

    I've got finals to do today, so no blogging from me. I'll invite my weekenders to start now or, in any case, there'll be plenty of original content again tomorrow. For now, if you're bored, read the post below this one, my parody of Glenn Reynolds, or my bit on Privatizing FEMA.
  • Reconstruction Czar Rove

    Sometimes it genuinely feels like Bush sits in a back room and makes decisions based on what would piss off Democrats the most . Bolton fit that category, and making Rove special reconstruction head does as well: Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort, which reaches across many agencies of government and includes the direct involvement of Alphonso R. Jackson, secretary of housing and urban development. Josh , blood pressure rising and steam beginning to pool in his eardrums, says this proves that the reconstruction will be a wholly inefficient and politically-run effort. Well, yes, but only because this administrations' DNA happens to be a double helix with one strand inefficient and the other being blatantly political. But I don't think they're making a special effort here. If they were, Karl Rove would from behind the scenes while Rudy, Colin, Clinton, Rice, Zinni, someone...
  • Da Speechifier

    I'll have more on the speech tomorrow. For now, it was good -- real good. In fact, if you closed your eyes and cleared your mind, you would've sworn a Big Government Democrat was on the podium. And then, when you open them back up, you read TLaura's blog (which is great , by the way) and are dumped right back in reality: Too fucking perfect. According to David Kuznet at TNR, it wasn't Gerson who wrote the masterpiece. It was Bush's new head speechwriter, William McGurn. Just how completely phony was the speech? McGurn is a former editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page! All that big-government-conservatism, your-government-is-there-for-you pap Bush was spouting had been penned by one of those WSJ drown-it-in-the-bathtub, government-is-the-enemy hyper-libertarians, whose ex-colleagues have, among other things, been urging Bush to use Katrina as an excuse to push school vouchers on the exiled flood victims moving into other communities! Oh Democrats, Democrats, wherefore art...
  • The Republican War on Science

    Chris Mooney is everywhere. The Daily Show , Fresh Air , the papers, the internet ...and everywhere he goes, his hosts say the same thing: Buy his book. And guess what I'm going to say? Buy his book. Bunches of other bloggers have reviewed it, so I'm not going to spend too much time recapping the basics, but in short, The Republican War on Science is about the right's multipronged effort to devalue, contradict, and drown out scientific evidence that discredits their agenda. And since their agenda has become wholly business-oriented and/or religiously motivated, Republicans have had too start waging war against empiricism a lot .
  • President What's Next?

    If we're going to attack Bush for being childish, not knowing the diplomatic protocol for a pee break is really the least of our worries (incidentally, Bush should've just asked me, as, according to Google, I am the authority on all things bladder-related). I'd be much more concerned with the apparent merging of his ADD and Great Man of History pretensions. When I was kid, I figured life must be episodic, and if I could just land a job as a hero, I could do something stupendous every week ! But, as it turned out, doing great things takes lots of work, meticulous planning, and a fair amount of drudgery. You can't save the world in 30 minutes, rest at the ranch for a fortnight, and return, next Tuesday, for a new installment of My Fantastically Exciting Life. Remaking the world requires you to stay up late. With Iraq decidedly unsaved, Bush now knows that. But if this is right, it may not matter. What worries me is that he's already extracted his Manichean satisfaction from that...
  • Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye

    Apparently, The NY Times is locking their op-ed writers behind a subscription wall tomorrow, $50 for the secret password. If they can charge for their content, I can reprint mine. So here, fresh from May 16th, is my opinion on this:
  • How to Anger Friends and Lose Influence With People

    You know, I never wanted Bolton -- I don't trust folks with such aggressive facial hair -- but I figured he'd be on a short leash, a neutered sop to the neocons. And so watching him bark, growl, and tear through the UN Reform process, killing a document we should have wanted, derailing progress on nonproliferation that we benefit from...It doesn't brighten my mornings. But even so, I still believe him symptom rather than cause. Bolton's a boil on the ass of our foreign policy, a hacking cough and chunky phlegm afflicting our Diplomatic Corps. No fun, to be sure, but not the underlying problem, either. For that, you should look to the accelerating worthlessness of America's signature on a treaty. Examples range from the big, like our split from the ICC and Kyoto Accords, all the way down to the small, like our gleefully illegal rejection of NAFTA's rulings on softwood. This is from The Economist:
  • You Know You've Made It When...

    Faithful readers will recall the merriment and rejoicing that came when we found I was google's first hit for "what does it mean when I pee and it hurts?" Guess what!? More good news. Yesterday, I got a hit from "What does it mean when I pee blood?" I'm first there too. You could, theoretically, piss some hemoglobin, dash to the computer, slam the question into Google, press "I'm feeling lucky", and end up at my coverage of Hurricane Katrina! This blogging thing is really awesome.
  • As Goes My Party, So Goes Yours

    In his Prospect column this week, Matt wrote: The other possibility is that Republicans are so convinced that government is inefficient and full of people who don't know what they're doing that it just doesn't occur to them to do it any other way. In response, Wil Wilkinson said : Naturally, Matt is implying that there is some other way to do it. But, no. The Republicans are right; that's just how government works. The problem with the Republicans is that they, being invested with power, are insufferably opportunistic hypocrites. They're not uniquely prone to cronyism. They're just prone to being in power, which is the enabling condition for the cronyism to which all political types aspire. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Clinton's nomination of the incredibly qualified James Lee Witt totally blow Wil's theory to shreds? Because considering the decidedly non-constant nature of the dynamic Wil describes, this strikes me as but another chapter of "Republicans who ideologically...