Also Also

On the Precipice of a Coup

There's always something worth talking about going on in the world, but lately it feels like these are momentous times. There's a sense that American political society is balancing on a ledge, looking either to regain its former posture, or topple completely. Broad themes of democracy and authority and formal tension between the branches are at issue, with what seem like lasting effects at stake.

And so we have the two major parties in America: one in full control, albeit under suspicious terms and continuous allegations of scandal; and one that has been, for much of the last five years, unsure of whether it should open its mouth. It was awfully funny that Bush asked Condi for a bathroom pass, but the sad reality is that Democrats have spent much of their minority status discussing between themselves how firmly to ask for the key to the john. Hell, for all I know the Republicans have commandeered all the ground level bathrooms in the House and make the Democrats use the 3rd floor, and so they literally have to ask. They run the building with that kind of hand.

So now we sit at the juncture of several large questions:

• Can the President do essentially whatever he wants in the name of "fighting terror?"
• Are we going to do anything about the corruptive culture surrounding fundraising and lobbying?
• Was there a conspiracy to leak Valerie Plame's name, and is the White House guilty of crimes?
• Is the leadership of the Republican Party in both houses going to fall to ethics breaches?
• And is a guy quite reasonably expected to give Bush a pass on most of this stuff, going to get a lifetime E Ride ticket on the SupremeCourtterhorn?

In this tabeau sits the minority party, admittedly high-functioning eunuchs at best, but potentially well capable of taking control of these issues and shifting the public debate. There's no doubt the Republicans are staggered a little bit, unable to advance any of the President's pet legislation and the continued cloud of legal developments in ongoing scandals. And so there's a void of momentum, one that is waiting for a movement to seize it.

What's the problem? Peter Daou has an excellent piece that does a nice job trying to exonerate them, but really in its implications it shouts "the Democrats are pussies." Simply put, they can't break through the developed memes from the GOP that are uncritically repeated by the largest traditional media outlets. Which--and as I say, I agree with Daou's thesis about poor journalism being a block to successful message outreach--is a wimpy copout. For goodness sakes! Speak up, but speak up clearly and with one voice. You don't get the benefit of being heard handed to you; you have to say things worth hearing.

The western flanks of the Left have been doing their part to hector the media into playing the game more fairly, stunning establishment stalwarts like the Washington Post and Chris Matthews with blogswarms and boycotts. It helped that they were right, but the effect has been to shock the traditional media into recognizing that they are being watched, and the results are getting noticed and called out.

For weeks nigh on months, the progressive community has been pushing for active declarations of opposition from the opposition party. "Pick your battles, and this isn't one," the DLC kept saying. Heck, even Paul Begala went on the Colbert Report to tell Democrats to wake the frig up. Some new candidates for Congress are getting the message and are using it. Responding to attacks reprinted by Ohio media on Paul Hackett's favorable stance towards gay marriage, Hackett stood and revalidated his position:

“I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it. Equal justice under the law for all regardless of who they are and how they were born is fundamental to our American spirit and our American freedoms. Any person or group that argues that the law should not apply equally to all Americans is, frankly, un-American.”

“The Republican Party has been hijacked by religious fanatics, who are out of touch with mainstream America. Think of the recent comments by Pat Robertson – a religious fanatic by any measure – that the United States should assassinate a democratically elected leader in Venezuela, and that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was divine punishment because Sharon wished to trade land for peace.”

“Since the Republican Party has been utterly unable to stand for something positive, they have created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, and have pandered to religious fanatics not to vote for something they believe in, but to vote against their fellow Americans with whom they disagree. Those among us who would use religion and politics to divide rather than unite Americans should be ashamed.”

Ouch. And today, finally, there was a sign, a rumbling really, that something might happen. Massachusett's two Senators decided they'd had enough, and if the leadership wasn't going to organize any kind of movement or statement on the lifetime appointment of Samuel Alito, they would:

Yesterday, Senator Ted Kennedy and I told our colleagues that we supported a filibuster of Judge Alito’s nomination for the Supreme Court. And we weren’t alone. But the bottom line is that it takes more than two or three people to filibuster successfully. It’s not “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” If you want to stop Judge Alito from becoming Justice Alito, use your own email list and organize. We can’t just preach to our own choir. We need to prove to everyone – from our friends and neighbors to our fellow Senators – that the American people know Judge Alito will take our country in the wrong direction, and they expect something to be done about it.

Late? Very likely. Politically motivated? Not improbably. A somewhat melodramatic fit of Quixotic politics? Absolutely. But god bless if it wasn't a sign.

I wasn't kidding when I said Quixotic--three have already come out in favor of Alito (West Virginia's Byrd included, on the same day a wealthy challenger entered the race against him), and three more had hinted their opposition to a filibuster besides. Rumors have flown since then at the sites of the usual suspects, including one indicating that Salazar was reconsidering, one that said similar things about Landrieu, that Reid would support but not whip the caucus. However, Dick Durbin has spent the last two nights spreading the word that it's dead, and most recently Daniel Akaka has cited his opposition to filibuster. And in an additional rumor, Barack Obama is apparently strongly urging colleagues not to filibuster on strategic grounds. [cannot vouch for this source...ed]

Mixed messages, to be sure. Which is essentially the same crime the Democrats have committed for 5 years. There is all weekend to see how the temperature changes, and voice mail boxes can fill while constituent buzz builds...but either way, these feel like momentous times.

--TJ

Wyden to Vote Yea on Roberts as Chief

Yesterday I got a missive from somewhere (MoveOnPAC, maybe?) urging me to call Senator Wyden and counsel him to vote No on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice. Before I did that, I figured I should ask if he'd made a decision yet. He had:

Judge Roberts’ combination of temperament and intelligence  give him the potential to be a conciliatory voice at a divisive  time. He has the skills to reach across the divisions in America to show that justice can be a healing force for the wounds that cut our society so deeply these days. He can help to unify the country by building a record of well-reasoned opinions, grounded in the rule of law, not ideology. He will receive my vote tomorrow to be the next Chief Justice of the United States.

I'm sort of down with that perspective; it reflects a view that seeks to broaden the scope of discussion beyond individual issues and toward a long-term vision of political amity, one that in our current times surely does seem visionary--at best.

Wyden buries the lede here--it's the 3rd to last paragraph in a fairly long statement, one that seems to confirm the speculation that he was seriously on the fence before today. He leads up to his conclusion by discussing his private talk with Roberts, the public testimony, the available record, and various media and advocacy group analyses. He makes good surface points, suggesting that he feels comfortable with a Yea vote because Roberts said he believes in privacy, believes in Griswold, and starts from a position of liberty and state control when it comes to life-end issues. He also takes a bit of a shot at the issue-advocates, saying that their belief that he's "not our choice" is irrelevant to his decision; by definition he's not Wyden's choice, he's the President's. (Wyden does indicate that he wouldn't personally choose Roberts for the job, either. How this virtual shrug on the devils of process  is supposed to salve the wounded base he's addressing here, I'm not entirely sure.)

What concerns me is not what he said, but what he didn't say. By deflecting the base advocates as simply being unrealistic to oppose for opposition's sake, he ignores the reasons WHY they urged him to oppose: the book on Roberts is mighty thin, the White House is holding back many chapters, and what's in the book doesn't match the cover Roberts drew in the Senate hearings this month. Where is the recognition that we don't have much to go on as far as rulings? Where is the outrage that the Bush administration prevented the Senate from making a fully informed judgement? Where is the analysis of why his writings as a scheisster for Reagan don't match what he's saying now?

It's not in there, and as I say that concerns me. The picture that develops of Wyden here is that like many other Democrats, he was disarmed by Roberts' personal style and comfortably couched statements under oath. As Wyden rattles off the reasons he is not worried by Roberts' views because of what Roberts told him, the question arises: why does he believe him? Which is not to suggest that Roberts is clearly a liar, but you at least gotta ask.

Two other things niggle at me about this 'concession' speech. All of the rationale building he puts together is potentially undermined, in my view, by his strong warning that the next nominee may not be so lucky. It suggests that Wyden himself knows he is punting on Roberts, or in the parlance of weak-kneed Senators, "keeping his powder dry." The implication is that his review of Roberts' nomination was not done in a vacuum, but looking ahead to the next battle. Politically I understand the nuance, but ideologically it's suspect: either Roberts is a qualified nominee, or he's not. Saying "I wouldn't choose this guy, but I'll give him a pass and I promise to spend more opposition capital on the next one" suggests that Wyden doesn't even buy his own lengthy rationale.

The reason I bring this up is that I'm suspicious about his motives in conjunction with Oregon's Right to Die statute. Let me be upfront and state that I fully support our death with dignity law, I definitely want both Senators to do their best to protect it from federal intrusion, and I appreciate Wyden's past positions on the issue. But while I applaud his concern for state legislation approved by his constituents, this isn't the first time he's sublimated a national duty for a state one. Wyden mentions the Schiavo affair in his statement; he declares that he believed it was unwarranted to federally intrude on the case with a bill in Congress. What he doesn't tell you directly, is that he went ahead and allowed unanimous consent on the final version of the bill, once assisted suicide in Oregon had been protected from its effects.

And here again, part of Wyden's statement is to reassure voters that he believes Roberts will not futz with Oregon's right to die law--a case among the first he will hear as Chief.  Beyond his suspension of disbelief that Roberts wasn't playing him like a National guitar, one might get the feeling that once his fears were assuaged on assisted suicide, he rolled over on the bigger question. As I said, I'm torn between approving of his strong concern for the vitality of Oregon law, and being dismayed at his "what's in it for me" approach to decisionmaking.

Perhaps taking a cue from Wyden himself, my final inclination is to take what he says as being in earnest, and move on. But in my own example of burying the lede, I'm not real happy with Ron today.

--TJ

Stop the DLC!

[Hey there. Wrist healing, not 100%. Still a pain when I reach for the capital Q, especially. So my post on Quiznos' new Quince Quiche will have to wait... ]

The Left Coaster had something good this morning, along points I made yesterday viz the Hagel remarks: Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, please shut the fuck up:

Sure, what worries the Democrats about taking such a position is the fear that the Mighty Wurlitzer will start the “blame the Democrats for losing Iraq” smears, attacks that are already starting in the right wing blogosphere and punditocracy spewed by people who never wore a uniform and are only to happy to keep their own kids home while they urge other parents to send their kids to die for the PNAC wet dream. Democrats will be attacked no matter what, and we are way past the time when timidity outweighs the safety of our soldiers fighting an ill-conceived war trapped in a botched occupation, an occupation and foreign policy that was hatched not amongst Democrats but squarely within the GOP.

Fear of losing (again) is driving these corruptively centrist Senators to hiss a librarian-volume "shhhhhhh!" at the progressive wing--as if somehow liberals might screw up the master plan for the Democrats to...er, what is the Democrats' master plan again? I can tell you what it should be: "end this stupid war we warned you about beforehand, or we'll kick you and everyone who helped you straight to the curb.

--TJ

Sen. Smith on Iraq Policy: "It Depends"

Having passed along comments yesterday from Sens. Hagel and Feingold on our future policy in Iraq, I suggested it might be a good time to check in with your own Senators to see how they will react to the suggestions that it's time to start planning an endgame. For me, that would be Gordon Smith (R) and Ron Wyden (D). Both are in Oregon now during the August recess, but if you want policy answers you really have to check in with their DC offices. So I did.

Wyden's Portland office was actually able to make some kind of statement as to his position on structured withdrawl: he's for it. If I may paraphrase the staffer, "Senator Wyden does generally support some kind of timetable for withdrawl, yes." (Disclaimer: I mentioned up front to the staffer that I was a Wyden voter, and I mention that to you now). That's rather vague and closer to what Hagel has said than Feingold, but if you suppose some kind of Congressional resolution seeking a drawdown timeframe, I'm fairly comfortable telling you that Wyden's office indicated that he would probably be in favor of it.

Gordon Smith's DC office was, shall we say, a little less forthcoming. I spoke to a staffer this morning, let him know I was a constituent without indicating my support or opposition for him (I voted against him in 2002), and read back Hagel's quote, asking if Smith supported the idea in that statement or backed the President's policy.

At first, the staffer was fairly direct: he noted that his own brother (the staffer's) was in Iraq, and the Senator supported the troops' staying "until the mission was done," and mentioned that the constitution in the process of being drafted was going to be an "amazing" step forward. I asked, "what constitutes 'done'?" That's when the verbal fidgeting began. I got Talking Point #35, "setting an artifical timetable will only embolden the insurgency." (At least he didn't use the word 'terrorists.') I started to offer Feingold's rebuttal that indefinite occupation and the lack of a plan was currently doing an awful lot of emboldening, but then begged off, saying I didn't want to get into a discussion about it; I just wanted to know Smith's position: does he support a structured withdrawl of troops beginning sometime in 2006, or does he support a continuation of Bush's policy on Iraq?

The answer? "It depends." The staffer tried to say that Bush has many different policies on Iraq (which probably wasn't meant to imply a scattershot and desperately short-term vision, even if that's how it sounded), and he couldn't go into which ones he agreed or disagreed with. So I boiled it down: "Let's just focus on one of them, then: does the Senator support more troops, the same number we have now, or fewer troops going into the future?

Can you guess the answer? "It depends." Then came out Bush waffle #48: "That's up to the generals to decide, how many troops they need." I noted that "the generals" had been fairly consistently asking for more troops, all the way back to General Shinseki before the war started. Again I asked, does the Senator believe we should have more troops, fewer troops, or what we have now? "It depends."

Smith's staffer wouldn't commit to begin pulling troops under any timeframe, and he wouldn't commit to support of Bush's current policy (which so far features no pullout plan), either. This is much the same toothless dodge he employed earlier this year on Bush's Social Security plan, refusing to make any statements on what he might or might not favor because "no plan has been presented."

Is Smith going to hide his views under a bushel all the way to 2008, refusing to commit to anything until he's been told what to say?

It depends.

Update, 11AM:
Over at BlueOregon, they're pointing out Smith's below-average SUSA poll showing among all Senators, and culling suggestions for a replacement.

--TJ

How Could Iraq Happen?

Predictably, the president's speech last night has many invoking parallels to LBJ speaking about Vietnam.  Turning back the calender to 1967, this essay by James C. Thompson, Jr., then an east Asia specialist and Harvard historian, provides clues by uncovering 40 year old DNA. 

The entire article is a timely lesson in history repeating itself.  But this closing paragraph, warning future Americans, suggests Thompson was prophetic:

From How Could Vietnam Happen?

There is a final result of Vietnam policy I would cite that holds potential danger for the future of American foreign policy: the rise of a new breed of American ideologues who see Vietnam as the ultimate test of their doctrine. I have in mind those men in Washington who have given a new life to the missionary impulse in American foreign relations: who believe that this nation, in this era, has received a threefold endowment that can transform the world. As they see it, that endowment is composed of, first, our unsurpassed military might; second, our clear technological supremacy; and third, our allegedly invincible benevolence (our "altruism," our affluence, our lack of territorial aspirations). Together, it is argued, this threefold endowment provides us with the opportunity and the obligation to ease the nations of the earth toward modernization and stability: toward a fullfledged Pax Americana Technocratica. In reaching toward this goal, Vietnam is viewed as the last and crucial test. Once we have succeeded there, the road ahead is clear. In a sense, these men are our counterpart to the visionaries of Communism's radical left: they are technocracy's own Maoists. They do not govern Washington today. But their doctrine rides high.

They govern Washington today.

-- Zap

Posting Stalled--Weekend Ramble-- Reading Recommendation

Gregory Djerejian, the author of Belgravia Dispatch, has long been a favorite blogger in the AlsoRight blogroll.  There's about a half dozen links here to blogs which better represent my "right of center, anti-neoconservative, counter-intuitive" positions, all of them from the paleocon Christian community.  But those friendly folks seem convinced all the world's woes are the fault of liberals (who've been basically powerless for five years, making global destruction at their fiendish hands an enormous improbability).  So, demonizing the weak is something I usually avoid, and frankly, detest. 

Djerejian, on the other hand, writes with concern, insight and balance; and generally hasn't the time or space for anger and name calling.  I wish I was equally restrained.  I occasionally disagree with him, but I always appreciate his willingness to address objections before they come.  He writes long detailed posts in order to do so, and considers the issues from multiple angles.  It's refreshing.  I try to do the same, time permitting.

Which is why regularly scheduled posting, from me anyway, will be temporarily stalled.  There's three topics I'm trying to cover.  None of them can be addressed in brief posts, and my tyrannical daughter is ruling the realm this weekend. 

The first topic in the hopper has a working title:  "The Good The Bad and The Ugly-- Fear and Loathing on the Mexican Border."  And it would be best handled by Sergio Leone and Hunter S. Thompson, but you're stuck with me.  The modern day spaghetti western just south of our border deserves a dose of gonzo journalism, which I haven't the talent to emulate.  So a long detailed post on the barbarity will have to do, in good time.  If you've followed my associated commentary, what's coming is most distressing. 

Another topic, which has been alluded to, from time to time, since the conception of this blog, is the Hunt for bin Laden.  A pastime of mine.  You didn't think I was headed to Uganda just for the kids, did you?  That's a big reward!

It's a worthless topic without dispelling the common myths, and I want to remain reality-based.  So, my thoughts go back to 1982 Beirut (therapy for terrorists according to some), get very involved from there, and may someday be edited down to a readable essay.  For now, I recommend The Dread Pirate Bin Laden for ideas I've long endorsed for a serious war on terror.

Finally, I'm studying answers to the question:  "Should we pull out of Iraq?"  This one's getting plenty of attention lately, with officials in both the US and Iraq endorsing withdrawal.  They remain in the minority, and after much reading and consideration, I'm undecided but determined to discuss the possibilities (or lack thereof) in detail.  Djerejian sides with Rumsfeld, as does Torrid, I believe.  So does Juan Cole, who predicts Armageddon if we pull out and aren't saved by the UN.  Don't tell the theocons, or they will demand withdrawal. 

Back to Djerejian and recommending his Belgravia Dispatch (BD).  Currently, he's seeking right leaning names for a list he calls the Conscience Caucus:  Conservatives opposed to torture.  It's disturbing such a list needs to be developed, but give the comments under that post a read.  Really disturbing.  I certainly qualify for the caucus, feel guilty for not addressing the topic more often, and find it astonishing the Left hasn't made serious "moral values" headway in exposing a very unfortunate right wing lapse in American ideals.  Torture is a deadly serious topic that BD has handled indepth, with honor and decency.  If that post isn't gut wrenching and slapping his readers into reality, then maybe Billmon's right and many are just beyond redemption.  Too many. 

Another current post on Troop Morale is a bullseye, but I won't hold my breath for this administration to follow sound advice.  Finally, he's promising (like me) a detailed analysis of the increasing rattling of sabers directed at Syria.  I notice he has Josh Landis in the blogroll, and I hope he considers these comments in his analysis. 

So, why did I write such a long post while complaining about not being able to write long posts?  Because this one was easy, took less than an hour, and those other posts I mentioned require too much thinking for someone with a six year old climbing on his head.  Also also because I know many of our readers from the Left are fed up with the onslaught (understandably so), and I thought BD would be a breath of fresh air, an appeaser. 

I have a question related to sending progressives to BD.  It's been on my mind for a couple weeks.   

Is it just me, or is the Right far more interested in foreign policy than the Left?

I'm well aware of Juan Cole, Marc Lynch, Praktike (BD's good spirited nemesis) and several others, but I bet if we lined up the top 200 blogs left vs. right, we'd see a remarkable disparity favoring the Right in the attention given to foreign affairs.  I also wonder if this doesn't play heavily in presidential elections.  The Executive Branch is empowered to conduct foreign policy, and the extra attention alone may well be worth enough votes to change the outcome of our extremely tight national elections.  You know the idea:  Vote democrat locally, but republican nationally.  Could foreign policy have a major psychological influence in that?  I think so.  Should the Left be a little more attentive?  Obviously, but why isn't it?

Enjoy the links that aren't back to A2.  There may be a test later.  I'm going to teach this kid the proper way to use a slip 'n slide. 

-- Zap

John Danforth Speaks up for OTHER White Christians

A simply brilliant statement of faith and belief comes from former Republican Senator John Danforth today, via the New York Times. I'm sorely tempted to reprint the whole thing, but I'll hold my contempt for copyright laws in abeyance for another day. Here are the highlights, but please do, as they say, read the whole thing:

Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

...

For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith. Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues.

In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.

By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God's truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God's work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today's politics.

For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord's table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.

Call it The Danforth Doctrine. These are the voices that must lead us from our mutual despair.

--TJ

Kumbaya

Religious Right, Left Meet in Middle

The Rev. Rob Schenck is an evangelical Christian and a leader of the religious right. Rabbi David Saperstein is a Reform Jew and a leader of the religious left. Both head political advocacy groups in Washington, and they have battled for years over abortion, gay rights, stem cell research and school prayer.

This summer, each intends to preach a bit of the other's usual message.

Schenck said he plans to tell young evangelicals at a Christian music festival on July 1 that homosexuality is not a choice but a "predisposition," something "deeply rooted" in many people. "That may not sound shocking to you, but it will be shocking to my audience," he said.

Saperstein said he is circulating a paper urging political moderates and liberals to "demonstrate their commitment to reduce abortions" by starting a campaign to reduce the number by half within two years.

Schenck and Saperstein disclosed their plans in separate interviews. They are not working together. The minister remains a die-hard opponent of same-sex marriage; the rabbi staunchly supports a woman's constitutional right to choose an abortion. But both are trying to find common ground between liberals and conservatives on moral issues -- and they are not alone.

After a year in which religion played a polarizing role in U.S. politics, many religious leaders are eager to demonstrate that faith can be a uniter, not just a divider. The buzzwords today in pulpits and seminaries are crossover, convergence, common cause and shared values.

(emph. mine)

That's what I'm talking about; it's what I'm hearing from the pulpit and from the flock.  Everybody sing.

-- Zap

Get Your DeLay On

Sure, it's lazy blogging of the highest order to simply reprint something wholesale, that probably much of the readership has already seen (since they are indeed the coolest readership in the blogosphere). And sure it's pandering of the worst kind to talk about how great your readers are, despite the fact that you've never met 99% of them, and many of them comment only to tell you what a flaked out loser you are. But our mission at Also Also is to provide that kind of committment to quality, 16/5.  (We're pretty much a weekday blog.) So in that spirit of customer service and Internets piracy, a Get Your War On cartoon I laughed at for about 2 minutes solid:

No, thank YOU!

--TJ

Left wing blog praising right wing blog

Mark Schmitt's Decembrist blog is one of the most consistently well-written and level-headed sites cited to the left here.  In my often frustrating quest for balanced discussion between the political spectrums, I came across this almost surreal promotion of hard-right Redstate.org from staunch-left Decembrist.  It's the kind of bridge seeking/building we all could use more of.  Schmitt writes:

... then I came across something truly insightful, on the RedState.org group site, which is the closest thing to a DailyKos of the right. (And by far the most interesting of all the conservative blogs, because it has comments and because the perspectives expressed in the comments and diaries are varied and thoughtful. There is none of that suffocating sense of The-Party-Line that makes so many right-wing blogs feel like reading the Daily Worker in the 1940s.)

Surprising words.  Imagine Glenn Reynolds saying the same about Kos.  Okay, bad example.  I do believe the angry unbalanced discourse has become a serious national issue, and I appreciate Schmitt taking the time to seek out right wing opinions and even support them when they are as sound as what he found at Redstate regarding the filibuster deal.

This morning, "Trevino" wrote that the deal is

about the best possible outcome for the Republicans at this point. Of course, the best possible outcome would have been for this to never have been made an issue at all: the President was having a fair number of his nominees pushed through, and there was not, to my mind, any particularly unusual Democratic obstructionism underway.

This, remember, is from the perspective of someone who identifies himself as a pro-life religious conservative. He goes on:

Historians will look back with no small amount of wonder at this bizarre episode, wherein a majority seized with a maximalist vision of its own power and mission, and facilitated by the personal ambitions of one man, decided to sweep away the institutional checks upon which it itself so recently relied to stymie its opposition's plans. ... Add in the immensely distasteful and unwise mobilization of persons of faith (a demographic in which I count myself) on what was, despite the hype, a tactical rather than a moral matter, and you have all the elements of a profoundly stupid war of choice.

Trevino has alot more to say about the deal, that for the most part I agree with completely and couldn't have said better (so give it a read).  He covers what he believes is the good and the bad, and even discusses the right's co-opting of Christians, which is something worth discussing separately. 

Since I'm mentioning the Decembrist, left or right, Schmitt makes for excellent reading.  This one delves into the psychology and comity of Senate relations that Torrid recently wrote about.

-- Zap