Planet Utah

Interesting fact about conservatives, liberals, and romance

If you read this article about Match.com, you will learn that in the Match universe, conservatives are much more willing to date liberals than liberals are willing to date conservatives.

This squares with my experience in life in general; conservatives are generally more willing to accept liberals as good, well-meaning people than liberals are willing to accept conservatives as the same.

Footnote: Don't bother talking to me about the intolerance of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and so on. I'm not thinking of professional politicos and members of the media here. I'm thinking of averages Janes and Joes.

Do the Geneva Conventions address the torturing of metaphors?

Speaking of the debt ceiling events of last night and this morning, freshman member of Congress Steve Womack said this:

“It’s a locker room of team members that are trying to re-huddle. We had to burn a timeout last night. We’ve had to check to a new play, and while I personally don’t think the potential outcome of the new play is as good as we could have had yesterday, we just didn’t have enough players on the field.”

***

Despite the frustration, however, Womack describes House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) as a “great coach” who is “doing what is necessary to keep his team together.”

What will happen?

Even if the House manages to pass a modified version of the Boehner 2 plan tomorrow (Boehner 3?), the Senate has already promised to kill it. Presumably, then, the Senate will pass a bill to the left of the House bill, and kick it back over to Boehner. But if the GOP caucus in the House can barely pass its own legislation (assuming it does), how is it going to sign off on something from a Democratic Senate?

I see only three answers. 

First, it might not. Apparently, there are enough Republicans willing to take their chances on a short-term refusal to increase the debt limit that this might very well happen.

If you ask me, this is incredibly stupid economics and politics. But seeing as how we've never been in this place before, I could be wrong.

Second, it might not, and so John Boehner might cut a deal with House Democrats, bringing along only as many Republicans as are necessary to get the bill passed. One assumes that the vast majority of these Republicans will then face a primary challenge in 2012.

Third, having pushed the situation to the brink, and finding themselves out of time and out of options, House Republicans will hold their noses and vote for the bill that will have come over from the Senate (perhaps with an added fig leaf or two). This will rile up the Tea Party, but House members can say, "Look, we pushed this thing as far as we could and held out as long as we could. We could have caved early--and there was immense pressure to do just that--but we hung on, trying to force a better deal. Our game of chicken didn't work, so we voted to avoid default.* If you have a problem with that, then give us a Republican Senate and president next time."

I have my fingers crossed that Option 3 is the one that will go.

*Technically, we probably won't default; apparently, bond-holders will get paid first. It's really Social Security recipients, soldiers, people waiting on student loans, FBI agents, etc., who have to worry.

An Obamacare lesson for Republicans

In the summer of 2010, I confidently told friends and family that Obamacare was dead. There was no precedent in American politics, I said, for passing such a huge, transformative bill without bipartisan support, popular support, or both. Obamacare had neither.

But the Democrats went ahead and passed it anyway.

Apart from making me look stupid, this helped fuel the Tea Party movement, probably cost the Democrats their House majority and working control of the Senate, suppressed the president's approval ratings, and poisoned relations between the White House and the GOP.

No surprise, really--that's what happens when you take an unpopular, purely partisan approach to an issue of immense importance.

Republicans in Congress ought to think about that as they seek to pass a debt ceiling bill this week.

Negotiating in bad faith

The house I ended up buying in Dallas was not the only one on which I made an offer. There was another one that I really liked, but it was a bit pricey for me. I made a low-ball offer on the chance that the owners might be desperate. They weren't. Then I made a medium-ball offer, which was also rejected. Finally, because I wanted the house, I offered $500 below the list price. This was more than I wanted to pay, more than I felt I could afford, really, but I figured I'd find a way to make it work.

This offer, too, was rejected. So, I walked away, over $500--pennies, really, compared to the total cost of the house. Nobody wants to feel like they're making all the concessions in a negotiation, and the other side is giving nothing. That's how I felt, so I walked.

From way out here in Dallas, Texas, it looks to me as if the House Republicans are like the homeowners in my example: They're not willing to make any concessions to get a debt deal done.

When you think about it, this is a pretty crazy position for them to be taking. After all, Dems control the Senate and the White House. So who are House Republicans to insist that it's their way or no way?

On the other hand, (pretty much) everyone agrees that a deal MUST get done and therefore WILL get done. By this logic, if the House GOP says, "It's our deal or no deal," they'll get what they want.

I worry, though, about what that means for the future--through 2012, and possibly beyond. At least until the next election, we're going to have divided government. How can the White House, the House, and the Senate work together if the House negotiates in bad faith?

It might not be about third place anymore

My storyline about the Republican primary campaign has, to this point, gone something like this:

1. Mitt Romney will get a lot of early votes, but not among social conservatives.

2. A social conservative candidate (Bachmann or Santorum) will get a lot of early votes, but not among traditional conservatives.

3. Seeing things develop as per items 1 and 2, a large chunk of Republican primary voters will look for a "fusion" candidate, one who can appeal to both traditional conservatives and social conservatives, one who does not have Romney's political flaws (Mormonism, vulnerability on healthcare, stiffness, reputation for flip-flopping), and one who isn't seen as a "Christian crazy." 

To this point, I've said that the most likely fusion candidate is Tim Pawlenty.

But if Rick Perry gets in the race, he's instant fusion. That is, he can appeal to Christian conservatives, but, unlike Bachmann and Santorum, neither of whom has any meaningful executive experience, he can appeal to traditional conservatives as well (by running on his Texas record).

If this happens, you'll likely get an early split of voters between Romney and Perry. There will be no need for a fusion candidate...Perry's already it. So, it will be Perry vs. Romney, with people like Bachmann and Pawlenty hanging around only in the hopes of being somebody's running mate.

And who would win between Romney and Perry? If you assume equal resources and equal campaigning skill--about which I have no idea--then I think Perry wins. (Mainly because: (a) he doesn't have Romney's baggage, referenced above; and (b) he'll have a stronger regional base of support than Romney.)

But who knows? If Perry gets in the race, we'll be learning things about him that Perry himself doesn't even know. Think Willie Horton, Whitewater, DUIs, etc.

Bill Keller nails it

Former NYT editor Bill Keller is interviewed in the current edition of Esquire. Speaking of political discussion and debate, he says the following:

It does seem like the country has become much more polarized into camps of people who are absolutely sure, to the point that they are no longer entertaining evidence that contradicts their point of view.

Exactly.

As someone who is passionate about politics, who doesn't shy away from political arguments (even shouting arguments), and finally, who believes in the power of logic, data, evidence, and causal argumentation, the moments of my greatest frustration over the past 15 years have come when I've encountered others who refuse to give even a quarter-inch on a political issue, to make even the tiniest concession, to show even a soupçon of openness to a different point of view.

No one is smart enough to be that certain, and no political worldview has the right answers in every instance.

Republicans can be so frickin' stupid

Since before I was born, I've been a supporter of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And you know what? Republicans have one in the hopper right now. Good news, right?

Unfortunately, the Repbublican BBA doesn't just say that the budget has to be balanced. It says that the budget has to be balanced, AND federal spending must be capped at 18% of GDP.

A balanced budget requirement on its own is very hard to argue against. About the only thing you can come up with is this, "But what do we do in times of emergency? What if we need a trillion bucks to spend on a war with China?"

The obvious answer is this: Every BBA has an emergency override provision. You just have to trust that politicians won't abuse it, and that they'll use it when the country really needs it to be used. (And think about it: Even if they were to abuse it, we'd still be no worse off than we are now.)

The 18% cap is a different story. That opens you up to charges of wanting to dismantle the federal government as we know it. LOTS of people can make principled objections to that. So, by rolling that together with the requirement for budgetary balance, you've effectively added a poison pill to your own bill.

GOP feet must get awfully tired of looking down the barrel of a gun.

Footnote: Of course, there's a reason the GOP is taking this approach. The reason is that if they don't include the spending cap with their balanced budget requirement, Grover Norquist and the Tea Partiers will scream, "Now the Democrats will just try to balance the budget by raising taxes!" 

The honest response to this is as follows: "Yeah, they probably will. And we'll fight them most of the way. But if you think that Democrats, let alone most Americans, are going to sit idly by while we balance the budget through spending cuts alone, you have been drinking aftershave. Even when the economy improves, we'll still be borrowing about 20 cents of every dollar we spend. There is no imaginable political future under which we can simply cut 20% out of the federal budget year after year and remain a viable political party. So yeah, we're going to have to think about some ways of bringing in more money, too."

Farewell, old friend

Regular readers know that I've had a headache since February...a constant, 24/7, unrelenting headache. It has never gone away--not even for five minutes. It's just a question of how bad it is at any given moment.

I went to a new doctor (a neurologist) this week. She threw a bunch of stuff against the wall, but this one stuck, and it's still there now: "You can never have Diet Coke again. I'm talking about for the rest of your life. Maybe we'll get you to a point where you could have a little regular Coke without caffeine. But the brain does not like Diet Coke, so you can't have it any more."

Hearing this, I said, "Let's not jump to any conclusions here, okay? I mean, this could very well be a brain tumor, right? And if it's a brain tumor, I could still have Diet Coke, right? I'm just saying, if it's a brain tumor, we just take out the tumor, and I can keep on drinking Diet Coke, right?"

Some of you understand. (The rest of you are probably coffee drinkers.) Diet Coke is and does so many things. It's cold, it's fizzy, its sweet. It's readily available. It's a perfect way to take a break. It's a perfect way to treat yourself. It's a perfect way to pick yourself up when you're dragging. And all without guilt, because it's inexpensive and it has zero calories...

All of this must have registered on my face at once, because the doctor said, "I know, you're probably hooked on Diet Coke. But look, there are a lot of good alternatives. What about bottled water? Or apple juice? Or maybe even a sparkling juice or water?"

If I had been a black woman, I would have said, "Child, please." As it was, though, I just nodded glumly, seeing the future in my mind's eye--an empty stretch of road 30 years long; a road along which there are no rest stops, gas stations, or convenience stores; a road on which I will get thirsty, will feel down, will need a pick-me-up or a treat, but on which I will never again be able to enjoy a Diet Coke.

Sheila Jackson Lee...still quite stupid

You may have seen this story, in which Sheila Jackson Lee alleges that President Obama can't get the debt ceiling raised because he's black. Her basic "argument" goes like this: "White presidents never have a problem getting the debt ceiling raised..."

Here's what's interesting...black ones don't either, usually. In fact, President Obama got the debt ceiling raised three times during his tenure, and he was black all three times. He's only having a hard time NOW.

Why? Well, here's an explanation:

Why Is This Debt Ceiling Fight happening Now and Not During the Dozens of Other Times It Was Raised?

America’s ever-growing debt has become a more prevalent issue due to two events—the debt crisis in Europe (particularly Greece) and the 2010 midterm elections.

The political fight centers on not so much whether Congress should extend the debt limit, but whether this action should be tied to deficit-reduction measures as well.

As the Washington Post reports, thanks to the emergence of the Tea Party, federal spending and debt are under renewed public scrutiny. Added to that is a new class of Republican legislators who rode into Washington on pledges to cut the government’s bloated spending and debt. “Many congressional Republicans, under the watchful eye of tea party activists, have been loath to do anything that even appears like it could lead to more spending,” The Post reports.

Footnote: Some would argue, as I suspect SJL would, that all the fancy Tea Party talk about deficits, debt, and spending is just coded language that REALLY means, "Let's get the blacks off the dole."

I've already addressed that here.

Plus, Barack Obama himself voted against the debt limit increase under President Bush, and made a pretty damn good case for his position. Presumably, that had nothing to do with race. If SJL is aware of that, she can't be troubled with the logical implications.