I am an enormous fan of The Decembrist's commentary on the intersection of policy and process. He has few competitors -- in or out of the blogosphere -- when it comes to insights on political strategy. But those of us who are political junkies love tactics as well. And Mark Schmitt's most recent contribution is a delicious item on how Harry Reid is, at least so far, running tactical rings around Senator Frist.

Much of Frist's problems may stem from a single personal weakness -- or perhaps more accurately, the lack of a strength shared by those Senate leaders who have been most formidable, such as LBJ. Frist isn't a one-on-one "listener," with the result that he is guilty of the cardinal sin for a Senate leader -- he doesn't know where his votes are or where they may be a week from now if the scene shifts slightly.

When combined with the fact that Frist is being pulled every which way by the various constituencies he needs to mount a presidential campaign, the picture is not a pretty one.

Ezra Klein proposes that Senate leadership positions should be reserved for those who forswear any immediate presidential ambitions.

So if future Senates want themselves to function, they should pass a new rule: no majority leader or minority leader is allowed to run for president in the next presidential election. If you hold the position in 2005 and resign in 2006, no go until 2012. If you become majority leader in 2009, you got to bracket your hopes until 2016. You've got to be out of the leadership for four whole years before you can run for president. Hopefully, that'd keep the opportunists from running and help install those who care about, and like, the Senate as an institution.

Someone who lives and breathes legislating, and loves nothing better than to talk with his colleagues about it. Sounds old-fashioned, but it just might work. Harry Reid, anyone?

Billmon has sussed it out. And unfortunately, I don't think there's a bit of tinfoil in his narrative -- just the natural logic of power and and an example of the dynamics of competition when interest groups obtain political controls over markets. A cautionary reminder for Democrats as well, I should add, even when they rationalize their own interventions as being on the side of angels.

It's been said before, but it's worth expressing again as we, along with such estimable elephants as Episcopal Minister, former Senator and UN Ambassador John Danforth, contemplate the last gasps of responsible conservatism. Kevin Drum, a braver man than I, has apparently been poking around the Heritage Foundation's website and finds that the Lysenkosphere continues to encroach upon the Laffosphere. Michael Lind tells in Up From Conservatism that his moment of departure from the "conservative movement" was when the rightist punditocracy refused to stand up to Pat Robertson and his paranoid ravings about the "New World Order," which borrowed if not plagiarized outright from a 19th century anti-Semitic tract. It was already clear to Lind at that point (the book was published in 1997) that principled conservatism was dead, consumed or subsumed by angry populism and low-church fervor. In Lind's mind, the Republicans had already become the party of William Jennings Bryan, where they had once been the party of Lincoln.

By the way, I hope Billy Kristol enjoys his new team. It looks like even David Brooks is hinting at his discomfort, but the once-readable Weekly Standard is headed in the opposite direction. A pity.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg, meanwhile, is not worried about Republicans, though as far as I can tell he doesn't make a convincing case that conservatism is intellectually healthy and coherent. See also Matt Y's comments.

Wow. Is this really the best they can scrounge up?

President George W. Bush today announced his intention to nominate one individual and designate one individual to serve in his Administration: The President intends to nominate Timothy D. Adams, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of the Treasury (International Affairs). Mr. Adams recently served as Policy Advisor for the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign. He previously served as Chief of Staff at the Department of the Treasury. Prior to joining the Administration, Mr. Adams served as Policy Director for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign. Earlier in his career, he co-founded and served as Managing Director of The G7 Group, a Washington, D.C. based consulting firm. Mr. Adams also served as Deputy Associate Director of the Office of Policy Development at the White House during President George H. W. Bush's Administration. He received his bachelor's degree and two master's degrees from the University of Kentucky. The President intends to designate Arnold I Havens, of Virginia, to be the Acting Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.

At least John Taylor had a PhD.

Recently, I haven't had a lot to say about much other than the Middle East, so I'll just agree to endorse 87% of what Kevin Drum has to say about domestic policy from here on out. For the record, Republican leaders are bad, and Joe Lieberman is annoying. Social insurance is good, single-payer health care is inevitable, America's crime, infrastructure, child development, and urban policies are national scandals. The so-called war on drugs is self-defeating. Many prominent social conservatives are scary, annoying, and/or hypocritical, and the GOP plays Lucy and Charlie Brown football games with them all the time. The environment is good and we should expend more of our GDP (via "free market" approaches where possible) to save it because we'll regret not doing so later and it will cost more to reverse the damage we're doing. Most farm and energy exploration subsidies are bad. The bankruptcy bill is appalling. We should have nationwide non-partisan redistricting. Tom DeLay has no soul. That's about it.

Maybe I'll pull an ogged and write up a couple "time capsule" posts while I'm thinking of it.

A highly unusual moment of insight from Dick Morris:

So why did the GOP not deliver the mortal blow when they could have easily done so? My guess is that the White House stopped them from doing so. Bush and Rove must have sent signals to lay off the cloture rule. Only an intervention of that order of magnitude would have been sufficiently effective to vitiate the carefully laid plans of the Republican majority.

But if the administration did intervene and stop the emasculation of the filibuster on judicial nominations, why did it do so? Why would the president voluntarily make it easier for Democrats to torpedo his judicial nominations?

President Bush and Karl Rove probably figured that they did not want the power to appoint judges without opposition from the Senate Democrats. They realized that without the filibuster there was nothing to stop them from nominating judges who would cling to a hard right-wing agenda on Roe v. Wade and other issues, permanently alienating much of the country and driving a stake into GOP efforts to reach out to independents and women.

Bush needs the filibuster so that he can nominate judges who will not drive a wedge into the politics of America. He needs an excuse to tell his far-right friends why he is not naming a new Clarence Thomas or William Rehnquist or Antonin Scalia to the court. Bush grasps that such an appointment would be a step that would shatter the unity he is achieving after his reelection. And he needs the filibuster to keep the loyalty of his base even as he disappoints their most earnest expectations.

Bush might submit a nominee who would trigger a filibuster when the Supreme Court vacancy comes. He might then be forced to name a more moderate alternative. Or he might circumvent the process entirely and name a nominee acceptable to all, as Bill Clinton did. But, in any case, Bush needs the filibuster. That’s why it is still on the rulebooks.

Right ... so worried about unity, that W. In any case, he's probably right about the Lucy holding a football strategy at work here.

UPDATE: James Joyner thinks Bush is a "true believer" who would like nothing better than to nominate another Scalia type. Actually, I think Scalia compares favorably to the latest crop of extremist nominees. There is one point to be made, in any case: Bush has pretty consistently pushed a maximalist, no-compromise negotiating strategy on judicial appointments, and gotten his way on the vast majority without having to resort to the "nuclear option." That's always his style, because he doesn't negotiate with himself. Or something.

Am I the only one mystified as to how someone can write an entire treatise about how the Republican party has successfully used the culture war to advance its economic agenda, and then advocate that the culture war somehow does not actually trump the class war?

Sorry, Yuval (and Paul Krugman by extension), but I think that the Moose has the big picture right here, as does, sadly, Ramesh Ponnuru.

I'm not sure what to do about this--Hillary Clinton's reframing of the abortion issue as one of preventing unwanted pregnancies seems like a smart move--but I'm pretty damned sure that "more cultural liberalism" is not the answer.

... on the other hand, there is definitely something amiss in Kansas.

UPDATE: See also Ed Kilgore's reply to Armando of DailyKos, which in my view shows a more productive way of interacting with the "netroots" than the Moose approach (though I agree with his overall "culture trumps class" argument), which in addition to being problematic in some of its details, raises more hackles than awareness.

Stick to intraneoconservative food-fighting and liberal strawman-demolishing.

Noam and Matt do the dirty work.

Our august host may differ here.

Last year I spent a lot of time pouring over pdfs and budget tables, and in addition to being instructional and vaguely entertaining (keep in mind that I'm a nerd) it was a character-building exercise. I think that a lot of folks would benefit from doing the same.

Still, like Kevin Drum, I'm not inclined to do much budget-blogging this year. I've become too cynical. Reading stuff like this all over the place doesn't help. I do find it interesting to watch some Democrats embrace federalism and contemplate a state-oriented strategy (here's the latest example, but there have been many others). It surely makes one wonder what the point of belonging to a political party is: is it to win, to advocate for certain programs, to push for certain principles, or to protect your own? Perhaps it can be said that the parties have neither permanent constituencies nor permanent methods, but merely permanent interests. In any case, I'm coming to despise them both (OK, mostly the GOP). Aside from the social security fight, domestic politics is becoming less and less interesting to me. Is it outrage fatigue? Resignation?

Maybe these guys can solve the problem, but I doubt it until this other issue gets solved.

UPDATE: Hilzoy, Brad and Max, however, can at least muster the will to condemn the clown show. Good for them.

... the other major blogosphere Brads are doing yeoman's work, too.

I guess that's the last time Bill Thomas goes on Meet the Press ... this was in my inbox today (below the jump):

{UPDATE 1-25-04} by nadezhda: Also after the jump, my response to what was a perfectly civil and innocuous query from praktike. Just in case anyone was losing sleep over what I think about Social Security and how it fits more broadly into "what should be done" in the economic and social policy arena, you can learn everything you ever wanted to know and were afraid to ask.    more »