Barack Obama and Bipartisanship

Conservatives for Obama:

Conservatives, hungry for hope, may vote for Obama, by Melvyn Krauss, Commentary, Project Syndicate: John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee for president, likes to say that he was a "foot soldier" in the Reagan Revolution. So was I, working out of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. But ... I don't intend to vote Republican this November. I am voting for Barack Obama.

Meritocracy is at the core of American conservative beliefs. So let's face it: George W. Bush has been the worst US president in memory. His administration has been inept, corrupt, and without accomplishment. After this performance, why give the Republicans another turn at the helm?

Let's give the other party a chance, even if its policies are not exactly what conservatives may like. In America, we call it "throwing the bums out."

When meritocracy is downgraded, as it has been during the Bush years, bad things happen. Worst of all, racism has flourished, because productivity and social utility have become less effective in protecting targets of discrimination.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in America's current debate over illegal immigration. It is not so much the illegality of their entrance into the United States that riles many conservative Republicans; it's the migrants themselves, especially Hispanics who can't speak English. Never mind that Hispanic migrants are among the hardest-working people in the US. ...

Sadly, the Republican Party has been hijacked during the Bush years by sloganeers using code phrases like "illegal immigration" and "protecting the middle class" to mask their racism; and "economic incentive effects" to justify tax policies that are blatantly tilted to the rich. Responding to this politics of hate, Obama likes to call himself a "hope monger," not a "hate monger." It's a great line and it applies. Hope always sells well in America. Reagan understood that...

The hope that Obama is holding out for Americans is one of reconciliation - racial, political, between the wealthy and the poor, and between America and its allies. This is powerful stuff...

Just as Reagan had his "Reagan Democrats" who were attracted by his message of hope after the malaise of the Jimmy Carter years, Obama will have his "Obama Republicans," attracted by the hope of national reconciliation and healing. ... When conservative Republicans support liberal Democrats (Obama has been rated the most liberal member of the US Senate), "the times they are a-changin,'" as Bob Dylan wrote 45 years ago. ...

Indeed, I personally know a successful US hedge fund manager who is quite conservative and consistently votes Republican, but who is thinking of supporting Obama. ... There appear to be many Republicans and independents who feel the same way. Obama can lose these people, however, if he forgets that he is a reconciler, not a class warrior, and goes from tilting toward the poor to soaking the rich.

In any case, America's allies should feel relieved by how the presidential election is shaping up. America needs Obama, but McCain is a reasonable alternative. He is no Bush, and conservative Republicans' hatred of him is his badge of honor. He would stand up to the haters at home (including those in his own party) and to the terrorists abroad. That's a lot better than what we have today.

And here's the latest from Obama. This is from Brad at Sadly No:

Gulp, by Brad, Sadly No: Is it too late for me to take back my Obama vote?

Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.

I’ll be so depressed if he takes this “bipartisanship” nonsense seriously. Personally speaking, I’d like any Democratic candidate to spend their whole first day in office standing atop the White House roof dressed in pirate garb shouting “NOOOOOOOO PRISONERS!!!!!” at the top of their lungs. I want someone who will appoint Rudy Ray Moore as a Supreme Court justice, who will punish the Keyboard Kommandos by passing a Constitutional amendment banning Cheetos and Funyuns, and who will look into every Republican’s eyes and tell them that he drank their milkshake. HE DRANK IT UP!!!

As I’ve said before, there are more important issues facing this country than my bloody-minded quest for revenge. But even if Obama doesn’t plan on systematically destroy every Republican by using the Justice Department to slap them with bogus corruption charges, he could at the very least not appoint any to his cabinet. And while it’s true that Hagel and Lugar are some of the least objectionable Republicans out there, they are still Republicans. They bear the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored.

No prisoners, Hussein X. Please don’t disappoint me.

Is it time for me to rethink my partisan tendencies and lack of trust, or is Obama making a big mistake?

Update: PGL at Angry Bear says "Obama is doing the right thing."

Update: Robert Waldmann says "Brad at Sadly No is Sadly naive."

Comments

[Gene O'Grady]

Off the time of my head, Chuck Hagel is one of two or three republicans to come out of the last eight years deserving something of a decent reputation, at least on some issues, but Lugar has basically rested on his laurels without a single significant protest while things went to hell.

So yes to the one, no to the other.

[RW]

Well, as long as St. Reagan is being invoked (again), might as well return to one of his best and probably most accurate epigram: "Trust ...but verify."

[save_the_rustbelt]

"Sadly No" appears to be written for people with low IQs or serious substance abuse problems.

So why is it quoted in this blog?

[Mark Thoma]

Because I know you visit here, and it seemed to be written just for you.

[Benjamin]

As others have pointed out, Obama says that Clinton is unqualified to be President because of her vote for the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq. Yet identical votes apparently make Hagel and Luger qualified for Dept. of Defense and State. We could be in for a huge disappointment if Obama is elected.

[robertdfeinman]

I'm always reminded of the scene in Indiana Jones where Jones is facing a sword wielding attacker in a North African(?) marketplace. Just as the audience is getting ready to view a carefully choreographed fight scene Jones whips out a pistol and shoots him.

This is how I view "bipartisanship". The "liberals" are always willing to discuss and incorporate those on the other side into the legislative process, but the "conservatives" believe that the ends justify the means. Just look at the current situation in congress, the GOP has filibustered more bills in the last session than has ever happened before.

There cannot be "bipartisanship" when only one side plays by the rules. I don't think this means that the Dems should adopt the same scorched earth tactics that the GOP has used over the past 14 years, but there is no reason to give them senior positions in a new administration until they have demonstrated a willingness to participate, not just obstruct.

It is not the corruption or incompetence that is the problem, it is the GOP's willingness to trash the legal framework of government. To cite only one current example, there have been legal restrictions against ex post facto laws since before the creation of the US constitution, yet congress is seriously considering granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies.

I have a short essay on the philosophical basis of the rule of law based upon the writings of Franz Neumann. Here is one version of his basic principles:

1. All men are equal before the law.
2. Laws must be general, not specific (this rules out bills of attainder).
3. Retroactive laws are illegitimate.
4. Enforcement must be separate from the decision-making agencies.

[ The full essay is Saving Democracy ]

The GOP led congress and executive branch have violated every one as I detail in the essay. If the GOP wants to be part of a new administration they need to demonstrate "bipartisanship" now, before the upcoming elections.

I don't know if Obama is naive, hopeful, or calculating, but it would seem that the GOP is assuming naiveté.

[hari]

Is this the real TRUTH?
I'll believe it only when he's inaugurated - not before.
Bipartisanship is not a problem because in EU almost all countries are today ruled by coalition of centre-right or centre-left parties. That's really NOT the issue. The issue will depend on what platform the party decides to go out to election. The platform will decide wheather room for bipartisanship exists or not...

The rest of it simply nonsense for now.

[2slugbaits]

Obama is playing an incredibly smart game here. The reason he should bring in moderate Republicans isn't because bipartisanship is a wonderful thing. He should bring them in because that's a great way to undercut the party discipline that holds the GOP together. Smart Republicans will look around and see that if they play ball with the Democrats from time to time, and if doing so will get them political goodies that they won't get if they stick with their leaders, then at the margin some Republicans will split away. Obama is attempting to create an alternative moderate leadership within the GOP that can compete with the hardliners running the party today. That means he has to give a few Republican moderates some little power bases independent of the GOP leadership. It's very clever and the kind of thing FDR would have done. If you think he's sharing power, then you've got it all wrong. He's driving a wedge right down the middle of the GOP.

About a year ago I had a chance to meet Obama's chief political strategist going back to his community organizer days in Chicago. I'm about as cynical as they come, but his political acumen was uncanny beyond anything I'd ever seen before. And he never appears on TV. I saw him again a couple of months ago when he was with Michelle Obama and he was even sharper than I had remembered.

[billyblog]

Melvyn Krauss says:

"Obama can lose these people, however, if he forgets that he is a reconciler, not a class warrior, and goes from tilting toward the poor to soaking the rich."

It would be interesting to test Mr. Krauss' pain threshold for "soaking the rich." Does "soaking the rich" mean, for example, letting the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% or so in terms of income and the dividend and capital gains rate tax cuts expire?

[pgl]

What 2slug said. I already provided my answer over at Angrybear and this was a really easy call for me. As Brad DeLong might say - Hagel and Lugar are two of the grownups in the GOP.

[anne]

There is not a non-partisan bone alive in me just now, but I know and trust and appreciate Lincoln Chafee, several lunches there, while I appreciate Chuck Hagel as well and even Susan Collins.... Richard Lugar, oh well, but Obama knows lUGAR well.

[Shane Taylor]

Is it time for me to rethink my partisan tendencies and lack of trust, or is Obama making a big mistake?

It is time to build extra-party structures to argue for the change you seek from the party. Contributing to the Physicians for a National Health Program is the least I intend to do, but more must be done if Obama is to be held to his speeches. To swipe another Reagan epigram, it is simple, not easy.

One means for depolarization, without being anti-democratic, would be to abolish the filibuster.

[Bruce Wilder]

If George W. Bush left the next inauguration in handcuffs, for a prolonged Cuban vacation prior to his trial at The Hague, I'd be deliriously happy. I don't really expect to be deliriously happy.

But, if in the same way that Pink is the new Black, Obama sets the mark for the new Hoover Institution conservatism, well, that's a start.

[anne]

"Sadly, the Republican Party has been hijacked during the Bush years...."

Sadly, as we shall find out shortly the Republican Party is precisely what we have seen during the Bush years and the notiion that it is really some other creature is rubbish. Bush is and has been a definitive Republican. That leaves a few Republicans about the edges, but Republicanism is what we have got.

[billyblog]

2slugbaits says:

"That means he [Obama] has to give a few Republican moderates some little power bases independent of the GOP leadership. It's very clever and the kind of thing FDR would have done."

It is charming, in a way, that Sluggo (you can call me Billy) is already absorbing Barack Obama to that rarefied Pantheon which includes FDR.

But the way I read the history of the New Deal, FDR was an extremely partisan Democratic leader vis-à-vis the Republicans. And they, of course, reciprocated the attitude.

Fortunately for FDR he had sizable Democratic majorities in Congress to pass his programs.

Yes, FDR was a master of divide and conquer. But that was generally on an intra-party basis, with the Republicans for the most part on the outside looking in.

Here is a link to an example of that sort of strategy on a "minor" bill that was making its way through Congress in 1935.

Note that the Republicans voted to a man – and there were only 7 of them against 18 Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee – against both the "System of Voluntary Old Age Annuities" and the "System of Mandatory – [that's Mandatory with an M] – Annuities" provisions of the proposed bill.

And also note that the real internal battle in the Committee was among the Democrats.

Oh, and that "System of Mandatory Old Age Annuities"? You know, the one with the M word that Obama Obaminates when Hillary uses it – though it's somehow OK for him to use it for the <19 year old population?

That's the one that became Social Security.

But then Sluggo did protect himself by framing his point in terms of the teasingly counterfactual verbal string: "would have done." You know, the imperfect never-happened subjunctive.

OK, Sluggo, go to work and see how many instances you can scrape up of FDR playing kissy face with the Republicans during the 1930s. I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll be able to come up with a few. But what you may have a bit harder a time doing is sustaining a revisionist account which suggests that FDR was above partisan politics – a veritable Barack Obama avant la lettre, as it were.

Pesky things those historical facts.

[dd]

"His administration has been inept, corrupt, and without accomplishment."

The Bush administration has been hugely success at Republican objectives and with many accomplishments for the core upper 1% constituency from increased income inequality to privatization of core government functions to empowering corporations with traditional government powers to politicizing every government agency to a needless war bountiful in its profit distribution to a deficit driven government bent on destroying the social safety net to tax breaks for the wealthiest to a Katrina disaster turned Republican triumph to stagnant wages providing cheap labor to dwindling benefits boosting corporate profits to dismantling consumer protections to an ineffectual Congress to a compliant Supreme Court to a balance of power so shifted that the executive branch operates without oversight.
These are impressive accomplishments from a very adept administration. A little honesty from conservative intellectuals would be most welcome.

[dd]

Sorry, forgot the most impressive accomplishment for the core of the core constituency: Oil futures hit 103.05 on Friday.

[2slugbaits]

billyblog,

In many ways the Republicans were less of a problem for FDR than the conservative Democrats. LBJ faced similar problems. In the 1930s-1960s you could divide the political world up into four major camps and politicians could play one group off against the other in ways that cannot be done today. I don't think Obama is looking to negotiate with Republicans; I think he's trying to weaken the grip that hardline GOP leaders hold over some of their less extreme members... the ones that Karl Rove referred to as "catch and release" Republicans. See the difference?

[2slugbaits]

billyblog,

If you want an example of the kind of thing Obama might do, look no further than the way Reagan undercut the Democratic leadership's control of the House in 1981. He specifically targeted conservative Democrats, gave them all kinds of bribes and political independence that broke the back of the Democratic leadership. For example, Reagan insisted that some of his signature legislation had to have the name of a Democratic co-sponser as the first name in the bill. A good example was Gramm-Rudman. Phil Gramm was a Democrat at the time. This was the "boll weevil" strategy and it worked quite well for Reagan and the Republicans.

[odograph]

I'm a lapsed Republican (I think Kevin Phillips coined that).

My reaction to the first selection was "that's what I'm talkin' about!"

The second made me sad. The answer to 8 years of emotional irrationality is to flip it, and do it in reverse?

Do that, and you might end up with some (moderate and rational) lapsed Democrats.

[superdestroyer]

Since the Republican Party will not be around much longer due to demographic changes on top of the incompetence of the Bush Administraiton, the real question is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state.

What will the Democratic Party be like when all of the former Republicans start voting in the Democratic Primary? Which special interest groups win and lose in a one party state?

[RW]

Anne and dd, that is so: Bush really was the quintessential Republican leader and his administration probably did more to discredit and dismantle government while rending the social fabric, rewarding patronage and fomenting war than any I can think of; Jackson and Harding combined as it were.

It really was a criminal enterprise in important respects, even beyond what might be considered to be impeachable violations of oath-of-office; amazing we couldn't seem to muster the wherewithal to deal with these aberrations in a timely fashion rather than waiting to appoint a clean-up and reconstruction crew later.

[James Killus]

Rustbelt confuses substance abuse with having a sense of humor. It's a mistake often made by those with no sense of humor. To address the situation, I recommend better drugs.

The obvious thing about the runup to the election and the election itself is that we can't know. That is the result of the concerted assault on the very idea of truth that has been the watchword of Conservative ideology ever since they noticed how far truthtelling got Barry Goldwater.

Would either Obama or Clinton cry havok and let loose the dogs? We can't know. But, once again, I remind myself that it would be nice to have a President who isn't a criminal thug, and either Democrat will manage that. Whether they will punish the crimes of the last 7 years is a different question, and we must remind ourselves that sometimes crimes go unpunished.

[Michael Cain]

Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war...

This, plus the collective comments, make it sound like people believe Hagel is a moderate Republican. Other than being sane on the subject of Iraq, his voting record is anti-choice, anti-labor, anti-social insurance, anti-separation of church and state, and anti-most any regulation of big business. Consider him for Defense, perhaps, but only if he agrees to be silent on absolutely all other topics.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Michael Cain,

Krauss would no doubt approve of Chuck Hagel. They have similar views on immigration which appears to be Kruass's chief issue with the mainstream of the Republican party.

[LJM]

I'm for not repeating the mistakes Clinton made to appease Republicans, by appointing Bill Cohen to be SOD and then he wanted to push Wes Clark out and his guy into the SACEUR job just as Wes won the war for Kosovo. Clinton didn't even know what had happened to Gen. Clark until it was too late. Now that retired general friend of Bill Cohen's is in business with him. I've had enough of Republican cronyism.

If we're going to get a new New Deal, as Krugman wrote about in his latest book, we need Democrats to have a majority in everything to make it worth the while of Republicans to want to work in a bipartisan fashion as was the case during the last New Deal.

I really hope people understand the concept of voter's remorse.

[Bruce Webb]

Obama is going to be a huge disappointment to progressives. Obama is our best hope to launching a progressive wave that swamps Congress. On balance I'll take a Democratic wave a d the capture of the youth vote for the long term.

[Lee A. Arnold]

I have talked to older Republican women who would never vote for Hillary who think Obama is surprising, exciting, and would be good for the country. Of course Obama is part of the foreign policy establishment and promising to appoint Lugar or Hagel also manages to undercut one of McCain's biggest selling points. So expect McCain to choose someone like Kay Bailey Hutchinson for VP. This is going to be a very close race for the White House.

[Bruce Webb]

Well that was a little Delphic.

Clinton Rules were and are tremendously unfair. That being said I an ready to return Hillary to her day job as Senator from New York and future Majority Leader and Bill to his role as fundraiser in chief to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Library. It's not like we would be losing either from public life. The turnout numbers are stunning and while I think Obama is over credited here we are more likely to get huge turnouts top to bottom for Democrats with Obama at the top of the ticket are going to be stunning. Give me an extra 29 Congressmen, an extra five Senators, and control of an extra six or so State legislatures in the wake of redistricting after the 2010 census and I'll take it. Obama opens that opportunity and despite my personal preferences Hillary doesn't. I don't have to like it, it is time to transition beyond the Bush/Clinton era, young people don't want to hear it. Tough for Hillary but it is not like she and Bill don't have good day jobs.

[Jim]

Obama would select Supreme Court justices that would leave the court deadlocked on Roe V Wade, which to me is a good idea. Even if he turns out to be the second coming of Jimmy Carter (likely) and McCain would be the better President (very likely) I am willing to put up with 4 years of amateurish incompetence in order to get justices who value the rights of humans over blastocysts.

[donna]

As I keep saying about those of our Republican friends who are so anti-government, if you don't believe in government, don't run for office. Republican efforts to destroy the rule of law ought to disqualify them from public office all by itself.

I'm rather miffed that we no longer have an attorney general willing to follow the law, for instance.

The corruption might be tolerable if they were at least competent, but the total lack of any redeeming value whatsoever is that they are simply no fun at all anymore. I've long ago stopped being amused by the idiocy and simply want it to be over.

[dale]

The rich have been doing quite well in recent years. The whole field has been tilted their direction. So I think more than a little class warfare is desirable. In terms of economics and in terms of democracy. To not do the right thing in terms of economic populism in vain hopes that the modern Republican party is redeemable seems foolish.

But he could do two things at once- stick to his populist, commuinity organizer roots- while also reaching out to the not-insane branch of the Republican party. If the non-insane branch of the Repubs want to do the right thing they can do so out of principle- not on the backs of ordinary Americans. That way we might really find out it there is such a thing as a reasonable Republican.

[Raymond Saade]

I don't understand why any progressive would have a problem with Chuck Hagel as Sec. of State or SecDef. On foreign policy he is too the left of many Democrats.

Not many people remember but Chuck Hagel and Lincoln Chafee were the first two Senators to call for a ceasefire in the Israeli war against Lebanon. He has also referred in the past to the Palestinian people being "chained down" by the Israelis, effectively saying that terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology.

Liberals may not like Hagel on many issues but on foreign policy I would say he would be pretty pragmatic and liberal.

[Farrar]

I remember Dick Lugar from way back when we were in Navy OCS together. Obviously he doesn't remember me because he always lets his admin assistant respond to my emails (which I have sent in appreciation of the infrequent reserves he has expressed on Bush Iraq policy). Of all the OC's in our platoon, he was probably the most reserved and quiet. Other OC's made it known that he was from an important Indiana family and had been a Rhodes Scholar.

At that time, Dick was so un-charismatic, that a few years later, I was amazed to see him on the cover of Time magazine as mayor of Indianapolis, and billed as Nixon's favorite mayor.

All this to explain why I have followed Lugar's career more closely than that of other politicos, even though I know very little about Indiana.

He is best known for his foreign policy work and initiatives, most of which I have seen as positive, except for his early support of the Iraq war, and his subsequent failure to demarcate himself clearly enough from Bush policy. He is now a bit too conservative on foreign policy issues for my taste, and like many of us old duffers, probably still a prisoner of the Cold War mentality.

We should also remember him as a former Chair of the Senate Agriculture committee, and that he has consistently voted in favor of limiting subsidy payments to large producers, even though the Lugar family farming interests probably benefit from such subsidies.

He has been an all-too-loyal party man, and might not accept an Obama appointment. Also he is pretty old.

On the other hand, his prestige and respect on both sides of the Senate aisle would be a plus in conducting domestic as well as international negotiations on two important issues -
- withdrawal from Iraq
- reduction of farm subsidies.

Thus, I could very well see Lugar as Secretary of State or of Agriculture, where his active involvement could serve to limit the effectiveåness of Republican attacks on these two issues.

[Rohan Swee]

Re the "Republicans for Obama" phenomenon. On the one hand are principled, traditional conservatives who, disgusted by the war and Bush's foreign policy (and, well, just about everything about Bush), are attracted to Obama's no-spin anti-war stance. On the other are those who can see the eroding Republican power base and know that maintaining their preferred policies will require a change of venue.

As an example, I note Krauss's reference to the immigration debate. At this stage in the game, whenever I hear this issue framed and dismissed as one of "racism", the "cheap labor shill" red flag immediately flips up in my brain. Krauss's rhetoric here is pretty much indistinguishable from GWB's. Now, you really couldn't buy a better corporate whore or cheap labor shill than Bush, but the Republicans in Congress (most of whom share his views) are losing their base and their power and can no longer deliver the goods on this or other issues. Obviously, this brand of "conservative" needs to adapt to new political realities to keep business as usual going, and Obama seems to be the way they're betting.

[anne]

Remember, what is important, more important than all else is to find a way to use a rotten sexist metaphor to make a point. Sexist is evidently critical in thinking, the more rotten the sexism the better.

[anne]

Interesting how the term w---- repeately has to be used, simply has to be used, insult on insult must be at the expense of degrading women. Insult so routinely used as to make a mock apology for being a blog w---- when a blog is suggested to simply show how much disdain we have for an institution or person by insulting the person or institution as a woman.

[billyblog]

2slugbaits says:

"If you want an example of the kind of thing Obama might do, look no further than the way Reagan undercut the Democratic leadership's control of the House in 1981."

First, I accept Sluggo's implicit clarification that he did not want to suggest for a moment that FDR had a single postpartisan bone in his body. I was worried for a minute that Sluggo might have been absent from history class on the day they went through the New Deal.

As to the above suggested analogy with how Reagan co-opted the Democratic leadership in Congress in the 1980s? The analogy is flawed because there is every expectation that the Democrats will still be in control of the Senate and the House in 2009 when a Democratic president takes over, hardly the same situation as when Reagan took over in 1981.

Though we, of course, hope the majority margins are wider.

And here Bruce Webb's comments are on point. Namely, he is apparently willing to swallow hard on policy, as between Clinton and Obama, if, as is his expectation, Obama has longer coattails than Hillary Clinton would. Indeed, Obama supporters -- disinterestedly of course -- have been vocal in saying, along with Karl Rove, that Hillary would have negative coattails. Though I am not suggesting Bruce is one of those sorts of people.

Some further comments.

I hope Bruce is right.

But I fear he may not be.

Don't get me wrong, I think Obama will still win this thing. But anyone who thinks – and I am not implying Bruce thinks this -- that the Republicans will roll over and let this campaign be run as a postpartisan hopefest is in a fantasy world. If Obama's advisors think this, he should replace them quickly.

Obama will win, but only if he changes the tone – and the Republicans will make the first move on this and basically force him to change the tone – of the general from a postpartisan love-in to a bare knuckled brawl.

My enduring regret is that, even if that happens – and it will -- Obama will have staked out some needlessly progressive-diluting positions in the primary season – no mandates in healthcare and Social Security "in crisis," to cite the two most lachrymose ones -- that will box him in during the general election and hobble his legislative strategy – if he indeed really has a legislative strategy – once he gets into office.

And the talk about reaching out to the likes of Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar?

Before drawing too many conclusions about their "characters," check out their voting records. I mean, that's what they're paid to do. Spineless in Lugar's case on Iraq, despite his occasional murmurings. And, as already noted above by Michael Cain, Neanderthal in terms of a progressive agenda on Hagel's part. Though, to be fair to Hagel, the Hagel-Dodd initiative on a National Infrastructure Bank is progressive and does merit serious consideration.

Actually, one of the better things Obama could do in terms of trying to inch closer to a filibuster proof majority in the Senate is to cajole a Republican senator to accept a minor cabinet post. And make sure that senator is from a state with a Democratic governor where the governor appoints the replacement to fill out a departing senator's remaining term.

In this respect, Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana, is up for reelection in November and is vulnerable. So a Lugar cabinet appointment would make sense in that way if Daniels is defeated. But Hagel is retiring so that you get nothing from Nebraska via this route.

Quiz time.

1. How many Democrats does George W. Bush currently have in his Cabinet?

2. How many has he had in total in his 7 years in office?

Answer to 1: Zero.

Answer to 2: 1, Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation 2001-2006.

OK, now I have to get over to today's post on the Krugman Op-Ed. I can almost hear the Obamistas screaming at the top of their lungs: "If Obama does not win the Presidency in 2008 it will be because Paul Krugman couldn't STFU and not write his terribly divisive column of March 3, 2008."

Either that or some version of how it was Hillary who cost the Democrats the 2008 election.

It ain't gonna happen, folks, but it could be a squeaker.

[anne]

Beyond an invitation for Republicans to participate, which a few may choose to do, I find no reason at all to believe Republicans will be less than a vehement opposition to changing policy directions, an opposition that must be politically countered on each grudging point.

[Farrar]

Anne -
Yes, let's liberate ourselves from sexist images. At least I had thought that whores could be male as well as female.

[Cyrille]

anne, surely you are able to read beyond the first letter and would, without a moment of hesitation, be able to differentiate between the words "whore" and "woman", right?

[anne]

Remember, what is importasnt is to repeat a vile sexist insult to show just who we really are.

[anne]

Remember, we have a vile sexist word that can be used to strike fear at women so we must show the sorts of creeps we really are by repeating the word over and over. Creep-dom being taken to new levels. Creep on.

[billyblog]

Anyone who suggests that "whore" does not have, always has had, and always will have a gender reference deeply embedded in its connotation in any context in which it is used is either:

1. Not a native English speaker;

2. Disingenuous;

3. Jesting;

4. Stupid.

Notice, for example, the way in which the language refers to a male who literally sells himself for sex. We call him a male prostitute. Note the indelible gender reference of the semantic base for the descriptor.

That speaks reams.

We might metaphorically refer to him as a whore. But only metaphorically. And even here the primary analogate is irredeemably gender based.

Sorry, guys, I don't make up the semantic rules, I just report on them.

[Rohan Swee]

I got all the way to Cyrille's comment of 7:46am before it dawned on me that Anne was referring to *me*. I think. The thing is so bizarre I'm still not absolutely sure.

Well, whatever. Whoreson out of creep-dom that I am.

[billyblog]

Anyone who wrote the first sentence that I wrote in my previous post might be thought to be either:

1. Not a native English language speaker; or

2. Stupid, at least episodically.

Since 1 is false, 2 must be true, so let me hasten to correct my grammar.

"Anyone who suggests that "whore" does not have, has not always had, and will not always have a gender reference …

.
.
.

3. Jesting; or …."

I know, altogether too fussy. But I didn't absorb all those raps on the knuckles in grade school to so easily forget the lessons I was supposed to learn.

[anne]

Remember, what is always important is not only to use a rotten sexist insult but to follow that by showing just how rotten the insult really was as the insult is repeated and even worsened. There is a willingness to smash at and intimidate women that is astonishing, taken as a right by some for whatever bizarre reason.

Continue then to show off what rottenness really amounts to, since I am so impressed.

[kthomas]

anne is very sensitive, but more importantly, she's right.

On this blog, the use of such language has no place, no matter the intent. Let's not lower the bar, just try to keep it well-mannered.

[anne]

Thank you; but I am really puzzled at how easily our language works against us, not a little but a lot as we create and re-enforce stereotypical understandings. I have the sense that the stories we tell actually shape who we are becoming, and stories can be self-harmful even if we are little conscious of them even effecting us.

[WangoTango]

anne, you self-parodying parody of all parody. Notice the hatefullness in the hate of anne's vindictive vindictitude. See the sexist language in the language of all things nonsensical noticed by out great and fearless leader...

the one... the only... anne.

PS- I love ya, baby!

[James Killus]

John McCain is as dedicated and conservative a Republican as was/is Bob Dole. Actually, Dole had it better, since big business knew he had their interests at heart, whereas McCain is considered something of a loose cannon in business circles.

This has been reflected in fundraising, where Clinton and Obama have each raised much more money than McCain.

The Presidential race is not going to be a "squeaker." But the Senate races will tell the true tale. A filibuster-proof Sentate would be mighty interesting.

[Cyrille]

Anne, political correctness is a great disease of the US left, please don't help spread it.