Rule of thumb

Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) has the unmitigated gall to whine:

Alexander also complained the White House has cut Republicans out of talks.

"Either they don't know how to operate in a bipartisan way or they don't want to operate in a bipartisan way," he said.

The Republican Party thinks it has the right to be an abusive spouse. No matter what lies and abuse it heaps upon the Democrats, no matter what slanders and borderline threats it utters against President Obama, it expects to be politely, even timorously, invited to the table to negotiate. Good faith isn't even up for negotiation.

The rule of thumb: When ugly partisans pick up the stick of bipartisanship, they're asking you to let them smack you around.

Sine qua non

Without an effective public option, there is no effective health care reform. That's why the Republicans are against it.

Of millstones and McConnells

For Mitch McConnell (R-Squirrel Brains, KY), it's all Duhbya's fault that the Republican Party is unpopular. Mitch himself? Didn't screw up at all.

Never mind that McConnell worked in lockstep with Duhbya for his entire disastrous reign, that he believes in the exact same platform as Duhbya, and that he even forgot his jealously guarded Senatorial prerogatives by dropping even the pretense of Congressional oversight of the Executive. McConnell's not going to take responsibility. He's from the party of everyone else's personal responsibility.

Instead, here's what we'll hear from Tobacco Mitch:

• He's disappointed that Obama's not so "bipartisan" that he agrees with the Republican right. Y'know, like Joe Lieberman. Or David Broder. I applaud anything that disappoints McConnell.
  
• Republicans do, too, have a budget, just not one that requires any liberally biased arithmetic. They can call it a blueprint all they want; you still couldn't build a house from it, not even a house of cards. What it really is is a cocktail napkin dressed up as a ... fancy cocktail napkin.
  
• He's proud to lead the party of no. He'd filibuster anything. Continuing resolution? Isn't it time to try Newt Gingrich's excellent adventure again and shut down another Democratic government?
• The Republicans in Washington are not going to change their ossified minds about anything.
  

John Boehner on the Republican side in the House is even worse. You'd think since the votes he controls are impotent that he'd at least have time to put together a more plausible wingnut budget.

Except that there's no way to get Republican bullshit to add up without repealing the math facts that grade schoolers learn before the fourth grade...

Democrats' fault

The AIG "retention" bonus scandal is the Democrats' fault, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. They had the power to prevent it, and they took just such a measure out.

Never mind that the Bushists in the fall were just as bad. I voted for change from that dismal, corrupt bunch, and this doesn't qualify.

Let's see what they do about it.

(One lesson to remember: In America, executive compensation is not about performance. It's about sweetheart deals. The government should be preventing those - they're bad for capitalism.)

Final vote still to come

Harry Reid's canvassing for more Republican votes for the stimulus. Great, though it's not great that it's in the news. It's clearly not a deal that the Republicans have stopped fighting, and it's good the Democrats are still engaged in defending it against betrayal.

The real story is what the Republicans are doing. Just because Tom Delay is gone doesn't mean they're not twisting arms and hammering their three turncoats (believe me, that's how they see them).

The GOP got to Judd Gregg, after all. What he said two days ago about continuing to serve in the Senate makes no sense set next to what he said yesterday - his probable retirement in 2010. What he's saying now makes no sense in light of his pursuit of the job of Commerce Secretary.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell welcomed Gregg's withdrawal.

"Sen. Gregg made a principled decision to return and we're glad to have him," McConnell, R-Kentucky, announced. "He is among the smartest, most effective legislators to serve in the Senate -- Democrat or Republican -- and a key adviser to me and to the Republican conference. It's great to have him back."

What did the Republican enforcers tell him to make him end his political career?

Lieberated

Duhbya used to say that elections have consequences. Now the phrase is all over the left blogosphere.

I'm ready to apply it to Joe Lieberman. If Harry Reid is not, time for a new Senate Majority Leader. (Hillary?)

Holy Joe made his choice. He repeatedly reaffirmed his choice. He made it visibly and publicly and very loudly. We all heard it. It's not as though he didn't know.

Here's what I would offer: Back-bencher with last choice of committee assignments and no committee chairs or subcommittee chairs. No capacity for mischief. You want to be a member of the majority caucus? That's the deal, revocable any time we get tired of your bullshit. Take it or leave it.

Believe me, that deal is way too magnanimous.

Laws, appropriations, who cares!

Picking up a theme seen around the liberal blogs, where does the Fed's authority to bail out all these financial institutions come from, obligating taxpayers to many billions in new debt that we already can't afford? When did Congress approve the takeover of Freddie and Fannie? When did Congress extend rescue authority to insurance companies? Or did it come from the Authorization to Use Military Force, the way every other power the government wants was allegedly ceded by the Legislative branch?

The roots of our democracy and our liberty are in law. Without law, we are already sliding into arbitrariness and government by personality.

I'm not arguing against strong measures in the financial markets, including some bailouts. I'm saying that there's a lawful way to do it, and of course the Bushists are not pursuing the messy, difficult business of actually framing a law that allows them to do these things legally. They just don't care.

The largest irony is yet to come. There will come a time again some distant day in the future when Republicans are well-regarded again. At that time, after the worthless assets have been paid off to their foolish investors, the GOPers will suddenly realize that it's creeping socialism for the government to actually hold the valuable assets, and they will stamp their feet and wail that those assets should be privatized in a fire sale to their cronies.

And they'll all get rich yet again.

Update: The Bushists didn't even brief Congress on the AIG bailout. Congress, we don' need no stinking Congress.

Republicans, meanwhile, are already setting up their complaints to cash out in the future.

Is there a downside?

The Democratic Senate isn't actually accomplishing anything with its slim majority. I say throw Lieberman out on his ass and let the Republicans have him. In 2009, with an expanded Democratic majority that can rewrite the filibuster rules, he can be a caucus of one and spend all his time bemoaning the lack of tripartisanship. The hell with him.

Could lose his chair? Could?

If Joe Lieberman still has any leadership role in the Democratic caucus come 2009, I'll probably explode. My preference: Show him the door.

Unless of course he's vote number 60!

Lieberman's only hope

Harry Reid has to keep smarmy jerk Joe Lieberman in the caucus of Senate Democrats. I don't have a lot of confidence in Reid, I'm sure he'd rather not be biting his tongue. I'm sure he'd rather not be choking down Lieberman's consistent bullshit.

Come 2009, there's only one scenario in which Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats: 59 Democratic Senators. Otherwise, he's out on his Fox-beloved ass. Let him caucus with John McCain and the Republicans.