I'm enjoying Jon Chait's blogging chez TPM. He notes today that America's elderly are by and large opposed to privatization because they're nice people who care for their families and fellow Americans. I can't help thinking, though, that the way Bush sneers, "you'll get your checks" has to bother a lot of these folks. It bothers me. It just sounds so ... condescending. Nasty, even.

That said, apparently according to John Zogby (and Nadezhda) there is, in fact some empirical support for the Mallabyian conventional wisdom that the Democrats need to do something to show that they, too, believe in some kind of opportunity society.

First, choose an aspect of popular culture that you find offensive. This can be anything from Janet Jackson’s breast to “Desperate Housewives” to low-cut jeans. Label it un-American, and claim it is a symptom of the downfall of society. Then completely ignore the fact that popular culture is created by market forces and that most large media and entertainment corporations are owned by conservatives and contribute heavily to the Republican Party. Now you are free to blame popular culture, and by extension, the downfall of society, on liberals.

Yes, yes, the culture war trumps the class war and Hillary is making all the right moves. But it's still a big sham worthy of mockery. Don't tell anyone.

via Tim Blair, of all people.

I think he did. But I'm not sure. Is he serious? Should I laugh at this, or be grossly offended? Chait? Yglesias? DeLong? How do you feel about being compared to Yasir Arafat?

Grow up, bloggers, he says:

If the plutocratic G.O.P. is ever to be defeated, Democrats will have to win the confidence of the American people that they are a tough party that will vanquish our enemies. That is why Joe Lieberman is so vital to the donkey. If those on the left have their honest disagreements with him or any other Democrat, that is fair and to be expected. However, the Moose would argue that those voices on the left who would transform the party into a dogmatically left-wing party serve the wishes of Rove and company in a profoundly significant way.

Worth noting is that the adult Moose does not engage with substantive criticism of Joenertia's own sloppy embrace of plutocracy and the Moose's weak defense thereof. Of course, the Moose is rarely ever substantive: all is political in Mooseville.

Also worth noting is that Joe Lieberman's value to the Democratic Party in terms of burnishing its image is highly, highly questionable, since he mainly serves as a foil and an enthusiastic voice in favor of some of the most questionable aspects of Bush adminstration policy. Joe Biden is an example of a hawkish Democrat who also voted for the bankruptcy bill (being the Senator from MBNA and all), yet arouses much less intraparty ire.

So to the estimable Moose, I would ask: why is that?

... see also Matt Yglesias' response.

In the spirit of Sunshine Week, I've decided to come out of my hidey-hole as regards domestic policy and recommend this piece by Josh Marshall. Reading it has left me with a palpable sense of disgust and powerlessness. What can I do about it? I'm pretty damn sure that destroying NPR is not the answer.

I can't help but think that MoveOn.org really ought to be training its guns on this broader issue rather than on the John Bolton nomination, as lousy a choice as he seems to be. Likewise, the ACLU is busy suing Donald Rumsfeld. I suppose it's not a question of either/or and Bolton and Rumsfeld are surely worthy of attention in many ways, but still, I find it odd that what seems to really animate both organizations is opposition to the Bush administration's foreign policy rather than the underlying culture that enables it--call it Pravdafication, Putinization, whatever. Maybe DailyKos will awaken from its self-indulgent navel-gazing and pitch in?

{update to fix typo & double-posting}

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.

Buried in his post on "The Kilgore Switch" is this gem:

I think the next time Bush utters his favorite line, "I won't negotiate with myself," someone should say, "I don't blame you -- I wouldn't negotiate with you either."

Not that anyone would actually get the opportunity to debate Bush on this issue ... but still.

Zing!

This is usually Digby's beat.

J. Dubs gamely attempts to rebut yet another dumb Powerline post:

So why are the Democrats filibustering Pryor? My guess -- because he is a man of principle and because they hate Alabama.

But here's the thing: speaking for myself, I actually do hate Alabama, which is in many ways the last bastion of all that is wrong with the racist and backwards Old South. It's right up there with Mississippi.

I could talk about tax policy and lack of investment in education, blah blah blah. But here's a personal anecdote.

I was in Mongomery last year, for the wedding of a friend of mine. The country club where the reception was held had just reversed its official policy of excluding blacks and Jews from membership five years ago. I was told by the groom that the unofficial policy still remains. The band at the reception was a really hopping all-black jazz group. My friend Kevin, who is black and in the crowd with me, was asked more than once whether or not he had the urge to get up and sing with the rest of the fellas.

And this was the creme-de-la-creme of Alabaman society.

So yes, I do hate Alabama.

But seriously, is this supposed to be some kind of new form of argumentation whereby you cite evidence that completely eviscerates your point and then claim you're right?

Public television, its supporters say, is especially important for people who cannot afford cable or satellite television. But 62 percent of poor households have cable or satellite television, and 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

George Will to 38% percent of poor households: you do not exist.

As for his larger point ... really now. Television completely sucks in terms of transmitting actual information and ideas, and everyone knows it. And come on, George Will has PBS written all over him! Bowties? Also funny how Will mentions BBC America in his list of other channels worth watching.

PBS is the last DJ.

A Thought: Maybe he's just lashing out because his show is cratering?