Stick around so we can hit you

By Mustang Bobby

Via Steve Benen, more moaning from the whiny gripers:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) complained on Fox News [Sunday], "All [President Obama] does is go out and make speeches" instead of negotiating with lawmakers like him. Around the same time, on "Meet the Press," Republican strategist Mike Murphy argued that the president should "stop the speeches" and "stop the politicization." Also on "Meet the Press," Republican pundit Michael Gerson complained about the "outside game [Obama's] been pursuing," in which the president hits the road, "beating up on the Congress."

It's not exactly subtle: Obama's GOP detractors aren't happy about the president taking his message directly to the public though outside-the-beltway events.

Then again, it appears the White House doesn't much care.

If your choice was to hang around Washington so that John McCain can yell at you or get on Air Force One and head for Vegas, what would you do?

The truth is that the Republicans really hate it that the president gets out to the people because they know he's really pretty good at it, and besides, every time he tries to sit down and negotiate with the GOP leadership, they kick him in the junk. So it's not a tough call to get the hell out of Dodge. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

"Moderate" Republicans

By Frank Moraes

When it comes to Republican pundits, I'll take an extremist over a moderate any day. At least I know what the extremist believes. The moderate is as likely as not to be a Trojan horse. Read the likes of David Brooks or Michael Gerson. If we went by what they claim to believe, they would be conservative Democrats. Why be "moderate" Republicans? To begin with, there really is no such thing as a moderate Republican. Look in the dictionary for "moderate Republican" and it says, "See Blue Dog Democrat." These supposed moderate Republicans are nothing more than extremists who put a "happy face" on conservatism. They are a kind of political apologist -- making vile policy sound reasonable.

Jonathan Chait deconstructed both of these pundits on Friday. David Brooks spent his column on Thursday asking why we can't all just get along. His answer: all those extremists on the right and left. He notes that for certain conservatives, the answer to every problem is a tax cut. And for certain liberals, the answer to every problem is a tax increase on the rich. Chait notes that this is not true. Democrats have not been pushing for higher taxes other than up to the Clinton era levels while Republicans have not even been happy with the two Bush tax cuts -- they want even more!

Chait didn't discuss a very slippery part of Brooks's comparison. I will admit that I personally (and I would never be elected to government office so it hardly matters) would like to see the top federal income tax rate raised to 50%. And I would like to see the Social Security cap eliminated. So it is true that some liberals would like to raise taxes on the rich a bit. But conservatives don't want to lower taxes in a general sense. Conservatives only care about lowering taxes on the wealthy. They lower other taxes simply to justify this goal. By stating it as Brooks did, he distorts his point from the beginning.

Next up for Chait was Michael Gerson, or as I like to think of him: the bleeding heart neocon. Gerson didn't invent cognitive dissonance, but he sure as hell perfected it. But don't get the wrong the idea; he doesn't need cognitive dissonance; he has such deep wells of untapped denial, he's considering partnering with Exxon. In his column on Thursday, Gerson was disappointed that Paul Ryan has not been clear that his policies wouldn't hurt the poor. Because we (and by this, I mean moderate and not-so-moderate Republicans) don't want to hurt the poor. They care about the poor. When a child goes to bed without dinner, Michael Gerson's feet bleed.

So Gerson wants to know why Paul Ryan didn't just come out and say what Gerson knows in his heart: Paul Ryan would never harm the poor! Luckily, Jonathan Chait had an answer:

He wants a specific assurance that Ryan doesn't plan to roll back government at the expense of the poor and vulnerable? We already have a specific, written assurance that it will come at the expense of the poor and vulnerable. That assurance is called "the Ryan plan." It details absolutely enormous cuts to programs for the poor. And it's not like Ryan was backing away from those cuts in his speech. The Ryan poverty speech was about how throwing poor people off their government-funded nutritional assistance and health care would force them off their lazy butts and make them go get a job, plus private charity something something.

I'm sure now that Chait has explained this, Gerson will see the error of his ways: "Right! Right! Jobs and Salvation Army!" I'm sure his feet will have only bled for a moment!

It is really important to be vigilant against these "moderates." There's no way a Rush Limbaugh or a Todd Akin will take over the country. But a "moderate" who speaks softly and carries an extremist stick? I've got one letter for you: W.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

For Republicans, Obama can do no right. Ever.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Jon Chait had an excellent post yesterday ripping a Michael Gerson WaPo column to shreds -- actually, obliterating it to smithereens, but in a calm, collected way that revealed Gerson's usual partisan inanity and ignorance, even as he masquerades as one of the smarter Republican commentators these days.

Gerson, flailing about, criticized Obama for not doing enough to fix the economy, and to get it moving again. That's a debate worth having, perhaps, but the problem for Gerson, and Republicans generally, is that they don't quite know where to land: He hasn't done enough, but they don't really want him to do much, and what's more they've tried to block him at every turn (stimulus, auto bailout, etc.). Here's Chait summing up Gerson's ridiculously inconsistent argument:

Okay, so first Gerson has flayed Obama for failing to propose a major plan. Then he has argued that we shouldn't have a major plan because the deficit is too big. And yes, the deficit is pretty big, because the Bush administration spent eight years passing a series of major initiatives that were completely funded by debt. And yes, "prospects are poor" for passing a major new stimulus, because Republicans in Congress will never pass the actual Obama plan that Gerson won't acknowledge. In fact, unlike every Bush administration initiative ever, Obama's jobs plan is fully paid for over ten years. Now, it's not paid for in a way Republicans would like, but they would be free to propose other ways to offset the cost of a jobs plan if they so desire to pass something to address the economic crisis. Oddly, they do not.

Somewhere in the middle of writing his column, or possibly after submitting it to an editor, Gerson appears to have become vaguely aware that Obama has proposed an economic plan. So, after repeating his general claim that Obama has no economic plan, Gerson notes, as an aside, that he does have a plan but it's too small.

In other words, it doesn't matter what Obama does. To Republicans, it will always be wrong. Do too little on the economy, he should have done more. Do too much, he's being fiscally irresponsible. Do anything, actually, and Republicans will do everything in their power to stop him. And this applies to other issues as well, not just the economy. Remember how Republicans dismissed the mission to take out Osama bin Laden, saying it was an easy decision for which the president deserves no credit at all?

Basically, this is what disloyal, partisan opposition looks like. The Republican Party is out for itself and itself alone. It's not that it doesn't have it's own policy agenda -- it does, and it's a combination of Ayn Rand and theocracy -- it's that its approach to Obama is complete and utter obstructionism no matter what. Gerson's rambling and largely incoherent column, amounting to little more than throwing darts, just proves the point.

Quotes of the Day: Noonan, Will, Brooks, and Gerson take down The Newt

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The campaign to destroy Newt Gingrich, or at least his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, is well underway.

It's coming from renegades like Ron Paul (who's obviously acting on his own), Capitol Hill establishment types like Pete King (who's obviously playing his part in a more organized campaign), Romney surrogates like Chris Christie (who's obviously doing his pal's bidding), and, of course, from big-time conservative pundits who can see clearly that Newt, an unprincipled egomaniac, would be a disaster for the GOP. For example:

Peggy Noonan: "He is a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, 'Watch this!'"

George Will: "There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich's unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages."

David Brooks: "[Newt] has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with '60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance. He just has those traits in Republican form."

Michael Gerson: "Gingrich's language is often intemperate. He is seized by temporary enthusiasms. He combines absolute certainty in any given moment with continual reinvention over time."

Can you smell the fear? Can you sense the panic? If conservatives of this caliber are going after Newt with such aggressiveness, it's only because he's become such a formidable frontrunner, and because he's gaining such momentum that he may very well be approaching the realm of inevitability.