Ezra Klein writes:

Health-care reform isn't getting repealed this week. It's getting re-debated. The GOP's control of the House -- and thus of at least some of the agenda -- gives them a second opportunity to make their case against the bill. It also, however, puts the Republicans in a position Democrats will recognize immediately: They're behind a specific piece of health-care legislation with sweeping implications, some of which are popular, and many of which are not.

(Emphasis supplied.) I disagree. The Republicans are getting behind being AGAINST the health bill. Ezra imagines some debate where the Media talks about what it would be like without the health bill. Good luck with that. The fact is Obama and Democrats do not know how to win a policy debate. President Obama is well liked personally and his numbers are up after his very "Presidential" performance regarding the Tucson tragedy (especially in comparison to the GOP), but he has changed no one's mind on any issue in his Presidency. More . . .

The utter failure of The Deal will continue to be evidenced as the debate about "cutting the deficit" accelerates. While the WaPo article subject of my post below is indeed quite stupid, stupid is the norm for "policy debate" in the Beltway. The Deal has empowered the stupid. Consider this from the WaPo article:

The urgent need for policymakers to reduce the deficit was underscored Thursday, when two major rating agencies expressed discomfort with the country's financial condition. [. . .] In view of the recent extension of tax cuts enacted during the George W. Bush administration, the report said, "the outlook for near-term stabilization of U.S. government debt ratios is not promising."

(Emphasis supplied. ) That would be The Deal. So what can be done? Why massive cuts in spending of course:

Hilarious WaPo story:

President Obama's refusal to raise taxes for the vast majority of Americans [. . .] is making it difficult for him to achieve his goals for reducing the budget deficit, according to administration and congressional sources. [. . .]

"It's a tremendous letdown," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "The purpose of the fiscal commission is to give politicians cover to do hard things, to pull back from the promises they can't stick to and to be a game-changer that promotes the real policies we need to fix the situation. If the White House returns to the stale debate over untenable promises about what they won't do, then they're not even letting the fiscal commission help them."

Ha! Riiiight, OBAMA's reluctance to raise taxes on the middle class is the problem. Republicans are lining up to raise taxes. If The Deal proved anything, it was that, right? Sheesh. Where were these Serious People during The Deal debate?

This is possibly the stupidest article I have ever read. Of course, it represents the highest order of Beltway thinking and will lead to the conclusion that we need massive spending cuts.

Speaking for me only

Great Krugman column:

[C]ommentators who pine for the days of civility and bipartisanship are, whether they realize it or not, pining for the days when the Republican Party accepted the legitimacy of the welfare state, and was even willing to contemplate expanding it. [. . .] But that was then. Today’s G.O.P. sees much of what the modern federal government does as illegitimate; today’s Democratic Party does not. When people talk about partisan differences, they often seem to be implying that these differences are petty, matters that could be resolved with a bit of good will. But what we’re talking about here is a fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government.

Politics and democracy is the vehicle for a society to decide on the policies that will be employed. Essential to that process is debating these differences. Does it matter that people be "civil" when debating these differences? Not to me, but I am not opposed to it. But it is important to understand that no matter how nice folks are to each other in the political arena, the important thing is to understand what people are advocating for in terms of policy.

Speaking for me only

Atrios has long said, rightly in my opinion, that:

It's long been the case that what really gets the Republican base excited is anything that pisses off liberals. There are genuine policy differences, of course, but to get an audience of Republicans on their feet and cheering you need to mention something, no matter how pointless, which pisses of liberals. It's the glue that keeps them together.

For whatever reason, Sarah Palin seems to be the figure that most pisses of "The Left," to borrow Jennifer Rubin's construction. As I noted in my post below, the past 4 days have been disastrous for Sarah Palin. Does this qualify as a "victory for 'The Left'" by the Rubin metric? And a defeat for "The Right" using the Atrios metric?

Speaking for me only

One of the difficult aspects for the Media regarding the Tucson tragedy was that it was largely taken out of its it political score keeping comfort zone. To do so would of course have been "injecting politics" into a tragedy. Yesterday, the keeping score approach was unavoidable, as it started with Sarah Palin and ended with the President of the United States. The President and his party scored big yesterday. Which makes this post from Jennifer Rubin rather bizarre:

Why were the last four days a mini-disaster for the swampland of the left? It boils down to: facts, response and time. [. . .] So, for my friends on the left: facts count. You can't spin a narrative and not be expected to be called on the underlying, flawed premise.

I'm not sure what Rubin is talking about. "The Left" lost? I did not know "the Left" was playing. My appreciation of the week is that Sarah Palin and the Tea Party "lost" and President Obama and Beltway Dems "won." Put it this way, a few more "wins" like this and we won't have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore.

Speaking for me only

Sarah Palin released a videostatement on her Facebook page on the Arizona shootings. In it she used the words "blood libel" and quoted Ronald Reagan (out of context.) Her blood libel reference:

Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them"... "Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."

A sample of reactions is here.

I don't really care what Sarah Palin thinks. It's time for the media to stop reporting and analyzing every attempt she makes to insert herself into the national news.

On a brighter note, every time Sarah Palin speaks, she manages to make herself more polarizing and further decreases her chances of getting a sufficient majority of Republican voters to support any future political bid for national office. She is no more electable today than she was in 2008. She will not get her party's nomination for 2012. Why keep feeding her lust for attention?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said on Fox News Sunday today that the mass shootings in Arizona yesterday are "unrelated" to Arizona's gun laws: "The weapons don't kill people, it's the individual that kills people." - TPM

This issue of gun control laws has basically been swept aside since the Brady Law debate days of 1994. Indeed, the gun rights advocates have so swept the field that it is hard to find any gun control advocates at all. I am one of the few. As opposed to Rand Paul, my view is that making obtaining a gun more difficult may have had an effect on yesterday's tragedy, and prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit would also have had an effect. Arizona does not require a permit to purchase a handgun nor does it require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Fox News reported:

Update 2:04 pm: Press Conference: University Hospital spokesman: Ten patients were brought in to the hospital, one, a 9 year old child, died. 5 are in critical condition, 5 are in surgery. The Congresswoman is in the recovery room, spokesman is optimistic about recovery. He says she is responding to commands. The bullet went through and through (right through her brain.) She's going into intensive care. She's under anesthesia still.

Update 1:44 pm MT(TL): 5 of the 11 people shot are confirmed dead. No word on Rep. Giffords' surgery outcome yet. A news conference is about to begin. Arizona's Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll was shot and killed. The shooter was born in 1988. His name is Jared Laughner and he is from Tuscon.

Update 1:15 pm MT(TL): MSNBC now reporting a federal judge was also shot.

Update(TL): Live streaming news at 12:36 pm MT: Congresswoman Giffords is in surgery at University Medical Center. 11 people were shot, 4 are dead, 7 are still alive.

Breaking - U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat from Arizona, was shot during a public forum in Arizona on Saturday. At least five other people were also shot. [More....]

The worst news yet about the Republicans gaining control of the House: Uber-crime warrior James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has been named Chair of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

What a joke considering the purpose of the Judiciary committee:

“The House Judiciary Committee is often referred to as the guardian of the Constitution. Our members have a solemn duty to protect the principles of liberty, equality and justice for all Americans.

Sensenbrenner is a menace. He's a one-man disaster for justice. Examples: His 2005 "five years for passing a joint" bill ", officially called the "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005", H.R. 1528. It created a new group of mandatory minimum penalties for non-violent drug offenses, including a five year penalty for passing a joint to someone who's been in drug treatment.

It was also a "Snitch or Go to Jail bill", providing for a two year jail sentence if you observe or come across information about drug distribution near colleges and do not report it to authorities within 24 hours and provide full assistance investigating, apprehending, and prosecuting those involved. [More...]

Unlike just about everybody else in the blogs, I really do not care that Bill Daley will be the next Chief of Staff. I'm not sure it matters really -- Obama does what he wants anyway. I do think that Greg Sargent has hit on something about the Daley pick though:

Now that Daley has been picked, there will be a fair amount of commentary to the effect that Obama has wisely received this message [that he was too much of a "socialist"] and is in the midst of a course correction.

Indeed, Daley will be Obama's Dick Morris symbolically. I wonder if Daley will try and get credit as Obama's Dick Morris? That is mildly interesting to me.

Speaking for me only

Jed Lewison writes:

Boehner is doing his best to pretend that he has a strong hand, but let's not forget, if he were to actually carry out his threat and block an increase in the debt limit, the United States would go into default on its debt. [. . .] So unless Boehner's absolutely insane, he's running a complete bluff. [. . .] If Boehner ultimately goes along with a hike in the debt limit without securing the spending cuts that he promised to the tea party, teahadists will be furious. On the other hand, if Boehner decides to block the debt limit increase, sending the United States into default and shutting down the federal government, the rest of the country will be even angrier.

Behind Door Number 3 lies the 3rd Hand that apparently Lewison does not think possible - President Obama capitulates to GOP demands to cut spending.

Me, I'll take Door Number 3 as the most likely outcome.

Speaking for me only