So for those of you who missed it, there was a HUGE dustup today in the media world over the firing/resignation of one of the Washington Post's most popular bloggers. I don't have time to provide background for everyone (assuming there is even anyone still reading this, of course!), but given that it directly applies to my research, I can't help but providing some comments more permanent than the ones you found today in my Twitter stream.

Here, for the record, is a great story on the story from the Village Voice. Also worth your attention is this from Salon, and this from Julian Sanchez, this from Adam Serwer, and this from Kevin Drum. Also, too, this from Marc Ambinder, this from Steve Benen, this from Andrew Sullivan, this from Conor Friedersdorf, and this from Felix Salmon. But absolutely not this from Jeff Goldberg, who seems intent on a near daily basis of confirming just how pathetic and awful a journalist he truly is.

And the point of my post? The Washington Post's ombudsman has already offered a response. I added my thoughts in comments as follows:

Your insistence on maintaining an endless View From Nowhere is what has caused your decline as a newspaper, not the appearance of writers with a point of view. Have you guys ever bothered to stop and consider why in a world of rapidly proliferating information sources people are turning away from you and towards people and organizations who both report fairly and hold a point of view? Has it even crossed your mind that your readers - you know, the ones without whom your organization would have no point? - saw through this false notion of objectivity years, if not decades, ago? If not this, what precisely do you use to explain the epic collapse in trust that newspapers have suffered over the last generation?

Conservatives have been screaming for decades that your objectivity is a false one. In an effort to placate them, you began twisting yourself into endless knots of "one the one hand, on the other hand" journalism. This then led to liberals complaining of your endless need to offer false equivalencies, where every issue has two and only two sides worthy of equal consideration. Rather than step back and ask why an overwhelming majority of your readers are unhappy with the product you are delivering, you instead fell back on the lazy idea that if you are angering "both sides" you must be doing something right. Except - hello?!? - those readers who are angry at you are the only reason you exist! In a world where they had no alternative to the service you provided, one where they were held captive by the constraints of the larger communication environment, your organization could survive their anger. But today it cannot. Now they have options, and when given the choice they are not choosing you. Don't you guys get it? Without their readership, you are nothing more than a fancy test prep service with an interesting heritage. Is that the future you want?

I had thought your hiring of people like Weigel and Klein signaled that you were beginning to understand, but clearly not. At this point I have only a small handful of reasons to read the Post, and all of them are bloggers. I may not live in DC, but I was born and grew up there, and I always considered the Post *my* paper. No longer. And never again. It is not too late to save yourselves, except that you seem to have no interest in trying. It is as if you'd rather die clinging to a failed ideology than consider how and why things have gone so badly wrong. Sad. And more than that, a little bit pathetic.

Also, for those wondering... I am now on page 40 of my dissertation, with the introduction and first chapter nearly complete. My hope is to have these sections both done before I leave for my trip out West on July 2. Right now I'm on target, but just barely. If its done before then I'll post it over in my research section; if not, it will have to wait until early August.

One thing I should have made clear in my previous post but did not: I'm not completely shutting this blog down. I'm just moving my political commentary over to Twitter, where I can do things much more real-time.

This place will now be devoted to my research. As a result, new posts will only happen when I have something new written. Which, as it happens, I have today!

TPM's Josh Marshall put out this call for a Collaborative Big Think to his readers earlier today:

In recent days I've been trying to get my head around what I guess everyone else is trying to get their head around. The catch phrase is the 'anti-incumbent mood' in the country. But I've been wrestling with it because I've always thought that that's sort of pundit-speak that tells us very little or at least too little to give us any real insight into what's happening in our politics. It's still an open question what's going to happen in Arkansas tomorrow. But it seems like a foregone conclusion that Mitch McConnell's handpicked protege is going to get crushed by Ron Paul's son Rand. And in Pennsylvania, all the signs seem to be pointing Sestak beating 30 year incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (D).

We know this is looking like a strong year for the right (though polls suggest perhaps a bit less over the last month or so) and yes, the 'anti-incumbent mood.' But my sense is that there's something deeper and more structural at work in the body politic that accounts for all of this. Perhaps part of it is the disruptive effect of new organizing and communication technologies? Or perhaps there's some more thorough-going ideological disruption afoot that we cannot yet see clearly but will be apparent in retrospect a few years out? Maybe it's just a collective but inchoate response to the still terrible economy?

I'm used to throwing questions out for readers when the questions are more narrowly factual or deal with our individual impressions. But I'd like some help thinking this one through. What's your theory? Am I just over-thinking this one? Or do you have a similar sense that we're all blind men touching different parts of the elephant at this point with only a very limited grasp of what's happening?

Let me know. I'll be posting replies.

Here, for those who care, is my response. It's the most succinct version of my thesis that I've yet produced. Look for a much more developed version of this on this site, both here and in the Research section of the site, by the end of next week.

Josh,

You've hit on a topic here that goes right to the heart of my dissertation project (Boston University Department of Political Science, for the record). You wrote: "Perhaps part of it is the disruptive effect of new organizing and communication technologies?"

That, in a nutshell, is what I'm investigating. But I'm not just looking at the modern period. I'm also examining several moments in the past when something vaguely similar has happened. Centering around presidential elections, that would be 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, 1980, and 2008. These are the elections that in one sense or another have long been defined by historians and political scientists as "critical" to our nation's development. Although much has been written about the impact of these elections on, among other things, party building, presidential leadership, and voter behavior, I believe that insufficient attention has been paid to how changes in the nation's communication ecology in the decade prior to each of these moments fundamentally altered how citizens participate in politics.

In the 1790s, for example, the creation of a national system of Post Roads and Offices, combined with a postal policy deliberately designed to fully subsidize the cost of information transmission though the free exchange of newspapers, created the infrastructure through which activists could create a new political party - Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans - to counter Federalist dominance. As this was happening, our political system went through a period of instability. Much like today's environment, average citizens fed up with the "old" elites used a new form of communication to both find and engage their political foes and allies. Much like today, they did it using language that made elites extremely uncomfortable. And much like today, they eventually pushed many of those elites out the of way.

In looking at our modern era, I'm following Clay Shirky in arguing that it is the dramatically increased efficiency of our Internet-based communication that has opened the door once again to a period of intense activism and partisanship. The more fluid and efficient the communication system becomes, the more unpredictable the political system will be.

What's so striking to me about the modern era is that the efficiency has for the first time in a long, LONG time come about because of a fundamentally decentralizing force. This makes it quite unlike the transformations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, each of which in their own way led to a much more centralized system of communication and information.

Take, for example, the rise of the wire services in the nineteenth century. Although they made the transmission of political news across the nation far more efficient, they did so in ways that shifted the balance of power away from the grassroots and towards media and political professionals, thus directly undermining the system of newspaper politics that made both the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian eras possible. Something quite similar could be said for the rise of radio and television in the twentieth century.

But look at what we have now? That old system of top down, elite driven, hierarchical communication has been blown to smithereens. The new system increases the efficiency for everyone, not just the pros. Rather than serve as bottlenecks through which all information must pass, professionals now are often forced to join a conversation or movement already in progress. And because in politics communicating, organizing, and acting all go hand in hand, the result is a period of tremendous instability.

One last point: This is not a phenomenon of either the left or the right. It is systemic. Increased efficiencies have simultaneously nationalized and localized elections. This means that races can both take on an intensely local flavor AND attract the attention of national activists and audiences. Challenges can and will come from the left, the right, the center, the fringe, or wherever else people in any given district sit who want to see things change. Think Rand Paul. Or Scott Brown. Or Bill Halter. Or Joe Sestak. Or even Nick Clegg.

OK, time to get honest with myself and with you. This blog thing? Its not doing it for me like it used to. Once upon a time, I really really loved it. But now? I... well... I've found something new. It's name is Twitter.

I didn't mean for this to happen. In the beginning, Twitter and I were just friends. But over time, the more I got to know Twitter, the more I wanted to know Twitter. And soon, without ever really realizing what was happening, I found myself spending all of my time with Twitter, and almost none back here at my old home.

So let's call this what. Let's just be honest with each other, OK? I just don't think this is working anymore.

You want my political commentary? You're just gonna have to come follow me over there. I know, I know.... 140 characters. It's just all so... sudden. And fast. And real time. But that's the beauty of it! No more waiting around! No more wondering why I've grown so silent! Because trust me, over there? Over there things are getting busy!

C'mon... I promise.... you'll like it. Really, you will. Here: the first few are on me:

What with Twitter and all, I dont understand why anyone "live blogs" things anymore. Want to know what I think about today's event? Follow me on Twitter!

For the record, here is what Republicans used to mean when they used the phrase "the nuclear option":

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end afilibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005;[1] prior to this it was known as the constitutional option.

The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican ofTennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted byPresident George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.

As you can see, that is in no way comparable to the Democrats proposed use of the reconciliation process to pass health care reform. Also for the record, here is the history of the use of reconciliation over the past 25+ years:

...health care and reconciliation actually have a lengthy history. "In fact, the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process," says Sara Rosenbaum, who chairs the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University.

For example, the law that lets people keep their employers' health insurance after they leave their jobs is called COBRA, not because it has anything to do with snakes, but because it was included as one fairly minor provision in a huge reconciliation bill, she says.

"The correct name is continuation benefits. And the only reason it's called COBRA is because it was contained in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985; and that is how we came up with the name COBRA," she says.

COBRA, which confusingly did not become law until 1986, was actually a much larger bill, including many nonhealth provisions and many other important health provisions as well (see chart). Among them was the so-called Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals that accept Medicare or Medicaid payments to at least screen patients who arrive for emergency treatment, regardless of their ability to pay.

Children's Health

But the budget reconciliation process has been used for more far-reaching health policy changes as well, says Rosenbaum. The expansion of health insurance coverage for low-income children is a prime example.

"In 1980, children who were living at less than half the poverty level in the United States could not get a Medicaid card in half the states if they had two parents at home," she says.

But via a series of budget reconciliation bills, beginning in 1984, Congress began expanding Medicaid coverage. In 1997, also in a budget reconciliation bill, it created the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP. Today, says Rosenbaum, who helped write many of the children's health provisions in those bills, Medicaid and CHIP together cover 1 in every 3 children in the United States.

"So literally we've changed everything about insurance coverage for children and families, and we've changed access to health care all across the United States all as a result of reconciliation," she says.

Medicare Changes

Budget reconciliation has also been an important tool for changing the Medicare program.

"Going back even close to 30 years, if you start say in 1982, the reconciliation bill that year added the hospice benefit, which is very important to people at the end of life," says Tricia Neuman, vice president and director of the Medicare Policy Project for the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Over the years, budget reconciliation bills added Medicare benefits for HMOs, for preventive care like cancer screenings; added protections for patients in nursing homes; and changed the way Medicare pays doctors and other health professionals.

Because the point of budget reconciliation was usually to cut the deficit, the huge Medicare program was nearly always on the chopping block. But there's another reason it became the bill of choice for other far-reaching changes.

"This happened primarily because it was the only train leaving the station, so if policymakers wanted to make a change in health policy, the only way to do it would be to amend a reconciliation bill, and that's really why it happened," says Neuman, a former congressional health policy staffer.

In fact, over the past three decades, the number of major health financing measures that were NOT passed via budget reconciliation can be counted on one hand. And one of those — the 1988 Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act — was repealed the following year after a backlash by seniors who were asked to underwrite the measure themselves. So using the process to try to pass a health overhaul bill might not be easy. But it won't be unprecedented

Want more? Here's more:

...look at the Senate roll call on the conference report for the 1996 welfare reform bill, the most momentous piece of social legislation to become law in the last 20 years. The bill's formal name was the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (italics mine). It was called that because it passed the Senate through budget reconciliation, even though the bill's purpose ("ending welfare as we know it") was only peripherally about trimming the federal budget. Yet McConnell voted for the bill. So did Hatch, Grassley, Snowe, and every other Republican in the Senate. So, for that matter, did most Democrats.

Why did the Republican-controlled Senate use reconciliation to pass welfare reform? Interestingly, when I posed that question to several welfare-reform experts—including one person (Ron Haskins, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution) who's published a narrative history of it—none could immediately remember why. Why couldn't they remember? Because the decision to use reconciliation was one of the least remarkable things about the bill.

Reconciliation has been used to raise taxes. It's been used to cut taxes. It was used (by a Republican-controlled Senate) to create COBRA, the program that compels employers to allow departing employees to buy into their health plan for 18 months. COBRA stands for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (italics mine), signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. Reconciliation was used several times to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor during the 1990s and the early aughts. It was used (again, by a Republican-controlled Senate) to create in 1997 the beneficial Children's Health Insurance Program and the wasteful privatization experiment known as Medicare Advantage. It's been used repeatedly to set federal policy regarding higher education loans and grants. "It's done almost every Congress," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Feb. 23, "and [Republicans are] the ones that used it more than anyone else."

All that said, I'm with Yglesias. If the press is going to go along with this Republican nonsense and stick Democrats with the nuclear option label anyway, maybe we should just go ahead and do what Republicans originally proposed when they invented the phrase and do away with the filibuster entirely. Then we can pass things with a simple majority, up or down vote. Right?

Jon Chait nails it:

I still find it strange how little understood President Obama's political method is. The first person I know who identified it is Mark Schmitt, over two years ago. At the time, many liberals viewed Obama's inclusive rhetoric as a sign that he intended to capitulate the liberal agenda for the sake of winning Republican agreement. Schmitt disagreed. Obama's language is highly conciliatory, he wrote, but the method isn't:

One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in, treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows. And that's not a tactic of bipartisan Washington idealists -- it's a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers, who are acutely aware of power and conflict. It's how you deal with people with intractable demands -- put ‘em on a committee.

Last year I wrote a column making a similar point. Obama uses a similar approach toward Republicans as foreign enemies like the Iranian regime: take them up on their claim to some shared goal (nuclear disarmament, health care reform), elide their preferred red herrings, engage them seriously, and then expose their disingenuousness:

This apparent paradox is one reason Obama's political identity has eluded easy definition. On the one hand, you have a disciple of the radical community organizer Saul Alinsky turned ruthless Chicago politician. On the other hand, there is the conciliatory post-partisan idealist. The mistake here is in thinking of these two notions as opposing poles. In reality it's all the same thing. Obama's defining political trait is the belief that conciliatory rhetoric is a ruthless strategy.

Obama health care summit is a classic example of the Obama method. Once again, skeptics are viewing it as a plot that depends on securing Republican cooperation... That's not the point. Obama knows perfectly well that the Republicans have no serious proposals to address the main problems of the health care system and have no interest (or political room, given their crazy base) in handing him a victory of any substance. Obama is bringing them in to discuss health care so he can expose this reality.

I'm not saying this is some kind of genius maneuver. I'm not even saying it will work. (I wouldn't bet against it, though.) I'm just saying that this -- not starting over, and not pleading for bipartisan cover -- is what Obama is trying to accomplish.

I'm constantly baffled by this too. Its not as if he has kept his community organizer model a secret, right? The problem, I suspect, is that if you asked most DC media people what precisely a community organizer does, they'd have no idea what to say. Or worse, they tell you that its all about bringing people together to hold hands, share their feelings, and sing songs.

But of course its not. There's a reason the right alternates between fear of Alinsky and attempts to co-opt his approach to politics. And trust me, its not because he's some sort of hippie dippie liberal. He's South Side Chicago, for god's sake, and there's nothing DFH about the South Side.

Following up on this weekend's post, it looks like the Republicans have formally responded to Obama's call for a televised health care summit. Ezra Klein breaks out their key questions to the President:

1) "Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over?"

2) "Does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation?"

3) "If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand?"

4) "Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills?"

5) "Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion?"

6) "The President has also mentioned his commitment to have 'experts' participate in health care discussions....Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs?"

7) "Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?"

8) "Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, [be televised]?"

Here's Ezra's advice to the administration:

I think the administration should release a counter-proposal. They will agree to literally every one of the GOP's demands -- including the ones that don't make any sense -- in return for one, simple promise: The final legislation is guaranteed an up-or-down vote in the House and the Senate. No filibusters. No delays. No procedural tricks. If the GOP wants a clean process, I bet a deal can be struck here.

Steve Benen has something similar in mind:

Tell you what, GOP. You take the filibuster off the table as a "show of good faith" and I'm sure Democrats would be willing to take reconciliation off the table as a "show of good faith." What do you say?

If the Obama Administration doesn't counter with this, I'm gonna be pretty disappointed. Because the Republicans most definitely have set themselves up here.

I wrote about this yesterday on Twitter, but its worth expanding a bit here. First, the background:

Racheting up efforts to call the GOP’s bluff on bipartisanship, Obama made a surprise announcement moments ago that he’ll be holding a summit of sorts with leading Republicans at the White House to discuss their ideas on health care reform — and possibly to move forward on legislation with them.

“They’re gonna be coming into the White House next week,” Obama told CBS’s Katie Couric moments ago, in a reference to Republicans, adding that they will be asked to “put their ideas on the table.” This meeting had already been announced.

But then Obama continued that after the recess, he would hold a second “large meeting” of “Republicans and Democrats” to see if there’s a way to find common ground on health care.

At this second meeting, Obama said, the White House, Dems, and Republicans would determine whether there was a bipartisan way forward on specific legislation. He said he wanted to “look at the Republican ideas that are out there” on lowering costs and insuring the 30 million uninsured.

“If we can go step by step through a series of these issues,” Obama said, then “procedurally there’s no reason why we can’t do it a lot faster than we did last year.”

Next, the Republican response, which tells you everything you need to know about why this strategy will almost surely be a success:

In a statement, House Republican leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) said that he looks forward to the discussion, and that he is "pleased that the White House finally seems interested in a real, bipartisan conversation on health care. . . . The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said he welcomed "the opportunity to share ideas with the president," adding that "we know there are a number of issues with bipartisan support that we can start with when the 2,700-page bill is put on the shelf."

White House aides quickly rejected the idea that Obama wants to start over after nearly a year of contentious legislative haggling among members of his party. Officials said the president will come to the health-care summit armed with a merged version of the two bills that Democrats strong-armed through the two chambers with almost no GOP backing.

"This is not starting over," one White House official said, who requested anonymity in order to discuss administration strategy. "Don't make any mistake about that. We are coming with our plan. They can bring their plan."

Ezra's response is part of what I expect we'll hear from Obama during the event:

The GOP spent much of yesterday scrambling to answer Barack Obama's invitation to a televised White House health-care summit. They came up with a dodge. "We know there are a number of issues with bipartisan support that we can start with when the 2,700-page bill is put on the shelf," volunteered Mitch McConnell. "The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills," said John Boehner.

Well, the best way to get to write the underlying legislation is to win the previous election, or maybe the election before that. And the second best way to write legislation is to have enough votes to block passage of the legislation the other party writes. But Republicans didn't win those elections and they don't have those votes. They've got the second-smallest minority in the Senate since the 1970s and they're down 40 seats in the House. It's neat how they think positive thoughts all the time, but the situation is what it is: They can write the legislation when the American people say they can.

The Republicans might want to act like they're the majority, but they remain the minority. That's why they're afraid of this summit: They know that the majority can still pass a bill, and it's in the majority's interests to pass a bill, and they want to keep that from happening. But they can't. Only the Democrats can.

As long time readers know, I've argued for more than a year that Obama's bipartisan outreach strategy was likely to produce one of two results: Either some of the more moderate Republicans will join Democrats to craft the legislation on the President's agenda, or the GOP will work to obstruct everything in a high-risk, high-reward strategy that I am convinced is almost certain to fail over the long term. They chose the second option, and now, after a year of apparent short-term successes, we're about to find out how it all looks in retrospect.

Why? Because no matter how much they might pretend otherwise, Republicans have no health care plan. Sure thing, they've got some fairly small bore proposals for reforming the system, but most of them are already contained within the Senate bill. Obama is calling their bluff. And he's going to do it on national teevee.

As good as that is, it actually gets better. Rep. Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee, has helpfully proposed a budget that among other things abolishes Medicare and privatizes Social Security. And although some of the party's leaders are running from it, the more radical members are actually embracing it. Michelle Bachmann, for example, has suggested that it would accomplish her long sought goal of "weaning" the country off Social Security and Medicare. Today Ryan is doubling down on this proposal, a move that will no doubt accelerate the Democrats plan to force a floor vote on his insane and totally unnecessary proposals (I've written about this a bunch in the past but don't have time for it now - sorry!)

Expect all of this to be featured prominently by Democrats during the upcoming meetings. Because having just spent the better part of a year suggesting that Dems are dangerous because they want to rearrange, and in some cases even reduce, Medicare spending, Republicans have now done a total about to suggest the program be eliminated entirely!

All of which is a long, roundabout way of getting to my main point: Up until now its been impossible to get Republicans on the record with what they stand for. We know what they are against - whatever the Democrats are for, up to and including their own proposals! But now, at long last, they've set down a fairly detailed explanation of what they would do if returned to power. And the Tea Party partisans may think they like it, but trust me, no one else will.

Here's a bit more on the upcoming meetings from around the 'sphere:

Jon Cohn:

Republicans have been complaining that Democrats locked them out of the process. And large swaths of the public seem to agree, even though the argument seems plainly untrue, given the exhaustive efforts Obama and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus made to accommodate Republicans. The public forum will give the GOP one more, high-profile opportunity to air their views--and, no less important, it will give the public a chance to see which approach to health care they really prefer.

Greg Sargent:

A lot to chew on here. Republicans will spin this as proof that Obama has shelved reform, wants to start again, and will only pursue a bill that GOPers sign onto. Liberals will be dismayed at the apparent suggestion that Obama seems to actually be saying that such common ground could form the basis of anything approaching real reform — and that he’s leaving open the possiblity of doing “compromise” legislation with Republicans.

It’s possible, though, that this is all about laying the groundwork for pursuing a Dem-only reconciliation solution later. Such an effort, should it happen, will inevitably be portrayed as yet another partisan back-room effort to ram reform through. So perhaps the White House hopes a very public gesture of bipartisanship and transparency now will undercut those attacks and allow Dems to argue that they had no choice but to move forward alone.

Kevin Drum:

Republicans didn't get 100% of what they wanted. There's no real tort reform in the Democratic bills, at least not the kind that Republicans want, and the other three items are more limited than the original Republican proposals. Still, with the exception of tort reform, I think it's fair to say that GOP negotiators extracted quite a few concessions during the Gang of Six negotiations with Max Baucus. Certainly as much as any party should expect that controls only 40% of Congress.

Barack Obama wants a chance to make that clear to the country on national television. Republicans, understandably, are rejecting his invitation to meet because they're scared silly that he might succeed. But if they refuse to meet at all, they play into his hands as well.

I'm still not convinced this is the right way to go, but there's no question that Obama has put the GOP into a tough position. And since it's basically a PR move, it's largely going to succeed or fail based on how well Democrats and Republicans are able to make their case in the media. Stay tuned.

Steve Benen:

If the summit is really about striking a new compromise, this would seemingly be pointless. But if the summit is about delving into these plans, exploring what is and isn't in the proposal, and making it clear for all to see that Republican ideas have been considered -- and in several instances, embraced -- the gathering has the potential to change public attitudes and score a key public-relations victory.

Indeed, I can imagine a scenario in which the president spells all of this out explicitly -- writing out which provisions are included that make Dems happy, which provisions are included (and excluded) that make Republicans happy, and declaring the whole package a triumph of bipartisan compromise. The GOP will still almost certainly balk, but the result will give Democrats cover and put Republican intransigence on full display.

More Ezra:

I'd expect to see some concessions made to Republicans at the summit. I'd also expect the president to emphasize how many of their ideas are already incorporated into the legislation. But this isn't about the ideas. The White House isn't holding a study session because they're worried they don't have the right answers for the final test.

This is, first and foremost, about defusing the lines of attack that have scared the hell out of Democratic legislators. If you talk to people on the Hill, there's relatively little concern about the substance of the likely compromise, but there's enormous anxiety over the public's belief that the bill is thick with noxious deals, which is fed by the idea that the process has been hidden from the American people. After all, people reason, if the bill was so good, why wouldn't they let C-SPAN into the negotiations? The White House hopes this summit will be a clean break with that narrative.

Second, and more importantly, this creates a next step for health-care reform. The House and the Senate have not been able to agree on a path forward. The president, of course, cannot hold a vote for them. But by setting this summit, he's bought them a few weeks to figure out how to hold a vote themselves. That won't be easy, but it'll be easier with the White House summit giving some structure and narrative to an effort that had collapsed into murky chaos.

Jon Chait:

President Obama's bipartisan health care panel, which he unveiled yesterday, serves two basic purposes. The first is to expose the GOP as lacking any feasible solutions to the problems of access and cost control. The second is to help answer the "backroom deal" perception.... clearly Democrats are spooked by the fear that using reconciliation to patch the Senate health care bill will be seen as somehow sneaky or undemocratic. That's what Obama's panel is about. You have something that's open and televised, and demonstrate that his plan was arrived at because it's the most minimalistic way to achieve what most people see as necessary changes to health care. Then you take out the Cornhusker kickback, fix the House-Senate disagreements and pass the thing.

...but I think this is brilliant. Both on its own, and in comparison to the rest of the dreck that passed for marketing last night:

"The easiest thing to do right now would be to just say, 'Oh, this is too hard. You know, let's just regroup and, you know, lick our wounds, try to hang on,'" the president told the party officials and activists. "We've had a long and difficult debate on health care, and there are some, maybe even the majority in this town, who say perhaps it's time to walk away.

"But here's the thing, Democrats -- if we walk away, we know what will happen. We know that premiums and out-of-pocket expenses will skyrocket this decade and the decade after that and a decade after that just as they did in the past decade. More small businesses will be priced out of coverage. More big businesses will be unable to compete internationally. More workers will take home less pay and fewer raises. We know that millions more Americans will lose their coverage. We know that our deficits will inexorably continue to grow -- because health care costs are the single biggest driver.

"So just in case there's any confusion out there, let me be clear: I am not going to walk away from health insurance reform. I'm not going to walk away from the American people. I'm not going to walk away on this challenge.

"I'm not going to walk away on any challenge. We're moving forward. We are moving forward. Sometimes, we may be moving forward against the prevailing winds. Sometimes it may be against a blizzard! But we're going to live up to our responsibility to lead."

Much more here from Tom Schaller. I'll post the full video when I find it. In the meantime, here's the transcript.

TPMDC:

Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) "roadmap" budget plan -- which calls for balancing the budget in 50 years by privatizing Social Security and Medicare -- could become an excellent political tool for the Democrats, says former Clinton adviser Paul Begala.

Begala, in an interview today with TPM, said Democrats should force the GOP to bring their ideas into the public eye.

"Why don't we put Mr. Ryan's budget up to a vote?" he said. "Make them vote on it."

Democrats, he argued, should stop calling Republicans the "party of no."

"They have ideas, and lots of them. And their ideas ruin the country," Begala said.

What the Democrats have to do, he said, is make the 2010 elections a choice between Democratic and Republican ideas, instead of a referendum on just the Dems. (A point Chuck Todd made earlier this week.) The way to do it, he said, is to highlight those GOP ideas.

Begala said the White House has already begun to do this, with both President Obama and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag mentioning Ryan's budget.

And Congressional Dems have seized on the opportunity to call out the provisions that would privatize Social Security. Reps. Chris Larson and Linda Sanchez have introduced a resolution opposing such privatization, which would force Republican lawmakers to vote on the idea.

And this!

Why on earth would this surprise anyone?

A new Rasmussen poll supplies a very interesting data point in the ongoing debate about the budget deficit: As it turns out, Republican voters would prefer having a deficit if it meant they can get more tax cuts, instead of raising taxes in order to balance the budget.

The national poll of likely voters asked: "Would you rather see a balanced budget with higher taxes or a budget deficit with tax cuts?" A 41% plurality would rather have budget deficit with tax cuts, with 36% calling for higher taxes and a balanced budget. The internals of the poll show Republicans favoring deficits and tax cuts.

"The partisan differences on the questions are notable," says the pollster's analysis. "While 50% of Republicans would rather see a budget deficit with tax cuts, a plurality (46%) of Democrats favor the opposite approach - a balanced budget with higher taxes. Voters not affiliated with either party are evenly divided on the question."

A separate question asked: "Is it possible to balance the federal budget without raising taxes?" Here the answer was Yes 37%, with a No plurality of 42% saying that it is not possible to balance the budget without raising taxes. In the internals, 47% of Republicans think it's possible to balance the budget without raising taxes, to 53% of Democrats who do not think so.

Another Rasmussen number finds that only a very small minority knew the correct answer to this one: "Is the following statement true or false? Most federal spending is spent on only three programs--Social Security, Medicare and national defense." The correct answer is "True," but only 35% answered that way, with a 44% plurality saying false.

"These figures highlight a massive failure of leadership from both Republicans and Democrats among the nation's political elite," Scott Rasmussen wrote in the analysis. "Given the amount of political chatter about the budget in recent years, it is almost beyond comprehension that neither party has seen fit to highlight the basics so that the American people can make reasoned choices on the fundamental issues before them."

Were people not paying attention from 2000 to 2008? Hello? Is this thing even on?

Obama speaks! And the blogosphere wrings its hands.

I don't get it. What's wrong with this?

Mr. Obama said he would first work with Congress to enact a jobs package that would encourage new hiring, which he said was “the thing that is most urgent right now, in the minds of Americans all across the country.” But he also said that he would take the time to refute false statements and misunderstandings about the health care legislation and to hear alternate ideas from Republicans.

After “several weeks” of work, he said, he would be prepared to live with whatever decision is made by Congress, but he also warned that voters, too, would be watching and would decide at the polls in November whether lawmakers had made the right choice.

Mr. Obama still did not chart a specific legislative strategy for moving a bill through Congress...

At the fund-raiser for the Democratic National Committee later on Thursday, however, Mr. Obama said that once Congressional Democrats had worked out their differences and settled on a final bill, he would push for a vibrant, public debate over the health care legislation. He said he planned “to call on our Republican friends to present their ideas.”

“What I’d like to do is have a meeting whereby I am sitting with the Republicans, sitting with the Democrats, sitting with health care experts and let’s just go through these bills,” Mr. Obama said. “Their ideas, our ideas. Let’s walk through them in a methodical way, so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense. And then I think that we have got to move forward on a vote. We have got to move forward on a vote.”

Mr. Obama said that Americans were apprehensive about the health care legislation because there was too much misinformation that he would now work to clear up.

“They are certain that they would have to go onto a government plan, which isn’t true,” the president said. “But that’s still a perception a lot of people have. They are still pretty sure that they would have to give up their doctor. They are still pretty sure that if they are happy with their health care plan, that it’s bad for them. They are still positive that this is going to add to the deficit. So there is a lot of information out there that people understandably are concerned about.”

He continued, “That’s why I think it’s very important for us to have a methodical, open process over the next several weeks, and then let’s go ahead and make a decision. And it may be that if Congress decides, if Congress decides we’re not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not. And that’s how democracy works, and there will be elections coming up and they will be able to make a determination and register their concerns one way or another during election time.”

At one point, as the president insisted that he would continue to fight for the health care bill, the crowd chanted, “Yes, we can! Yes, we can!”

One of the most under-appreciated aspects of the Obama's approach to the presidency is his desire to see congress reemerge as a co-equal branch of government. For people who want action! this can be extremely frustrating, particularly when at most moments it seems Congress isn't up to the task. But let's be real about this, people. It is the Congress, and not the President, that is supposed to be the most powerful brach under our constitution. And although this all may be very frustrating to watch, there's nothing about modern American politics that suggests to me that our presidents have been too weak.

We desperately need Congress to reassert itself in our political system. We desperately need more, not fewer, checks on the executive branch. But I promise you, people, if we get what we need we'll end up with a system that is far more noisy, rude, chaotic, and messy than what we currently have now.

Democracy isn't supposed to be pretty. Its not supposed to be neat. Or tidy. Or fun to watch. It is supposed to require work. And effort. And near constant input from the people. But its been so long since we've lived with anything even remotely approaching a pre-eminent congress that literally no one alive remembers what it might look like.

I hope Obama continues to force Congress to lead. I don't want a president - even one I support! - to be able to dictate to Congress. And I hope Congress continues to get its act together. That's right, I said "continues." Because where you see chaos I see baby steps, and where you see the end I see the beginning. But its a long damn walk from there to there. That change you believed in? It won't come overnight. You're gonna have to keep working, keep fighting. You're gonna have to get back out there this Fall. And then again in 2012. And again in 2014. We're a long, long way down an awful hole, one that took decades to dig, and it'll take at least as long to climb out as it did to empty out.

So call me crazy, but I think this is precisely the right approach to take with the Congress. You wanna hammer Obama on something? Hammer him on his pledge to engage Republicans directly. Hammer him on his pledge to hold a public debate. Hammer him on his promise to "refute false statements and misunderstandings." Make him do it on a daily basis. He's your president. Make him work. Because that's how our system of self-government is supposed to work.

UPDATE: Worth noting - Jon Chait understands the short-term politics of this. The public debate proposal is a "heads we win, tails the GOP loses" proposal. Jon Cohn gets it too. So maybe I should take back. Nice to know I'm in good company here!

Matt Yglesias on "The Ontology of Miranda Rights":

One tick I’ve noticed in conservative discourse on the Underpants Bomber case is the idea that Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the FBI somehow decided to “give” the suspect his Miranda rights, as if they’d somehow created the right to remain silent out of whole cloth. The point of the standard lines about how “you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, etc.” is that these are rights that criminal suspects inherently have in virtue of the American constitution. When a law enforcement officer tells someone he’s arresting that he has these rights, he’s not creating the rights, he’s informing the suspect what the situation is.

What’s more, it can’t be emphasized enough that government agencies need to follow some kind of rules or processes. The accused have rights for the sake of the integrity of the system as a whole—it’s not a courtesy we offer to criminals, it’s a procedure designed to produce reliable outcomes. It’s true that in the specific case of the Underpants Bomber the guy seems so obviously guilty that it’s not reasonable to worry about him being railroaded or framed-up. You really could just skip the whole trial part with no loss of reliability in this particular case. But, again, if you just let law enforcement unilaterally which suspects are “obviously” guilty that would cause all kinds of obvious problems. The United States is a big country with tons of different law enforcement agencies. They can’t run around making up the rules on a case-by-case basis. So you follow the rules in all cases, even when it really is obvious that your suspect is guilty.

The underlying issue here, as I’ve been saying, is that conservatives think that any constraint on the state security apparatus is too much. They believe, contrary to all of the evidence, that the rule-bound criminal justice system can’t or doesn’t function and that things would be better if we scrapped all the rules. And, indeed, in the civilian context they’ve worked steadily and systematically over a period of decades to weaken the constitutional protections as much as possible, and bring us as close as possible to their dream scenario of limitless state-sponsored violence. The desire to push certain categories of people (non-citizens) or certain categories of suspects (terrorists) out of the constitutionally protected realm is just part-and-parcel of that broad-based assault on the idea of a rule-bound justice system.

This is all good, but Matt doesn't go far enough here. What matters isn't just that the constitution guarantees these rights, but that it guarantees them precisely and only because they are necessary to protect "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle" each of us as human beings.

Those natural rights Jefferson, Madison, and the rest wanted to protect? They belong to each and every human being on the planet. Even the ones you don't like. Even the ones trying to kill you. To suggest anything less is to suggest they are neither "natural" nor "God given." And that's not what conservatives mean to suggest, is it?

Loads of stuff stacked in the Clippings folder. Let's clear it out:

Steve Benen riff's on partisanship and political disagreement reminds me of something that a partisan newspaper editor would have written during the 1790s. The elites wanted comity; the rabble wanted them to fight! The rabble won then, and I have no doubt they will win now. It just won't be pretty getting from here to there. But who said it should be! Steve's take:

The goal for congressional Republicans isn't to find "common ground" or "bipartisan solutions" with those they completely disagree with; their goal is to fight for what they believe in, opposing the majority's agenda.

The remarks should make it pretty clear that Republicans have no interest in working with Democrats on finding solutions to pressing policy challenges. But here's the thing that so often gets lost in the discourse: Republicans are the minority party, which means it's their job to oppose the majority's agenda.

"There aren't that many places where [the two parties] can come together"? Well, no, of course not. Democrats and Republicans perceive reality in entirely different ways, and advocate for wildly different solutions to various problems (they don't even agree on which problems exist).

Political Scientist John Sides, on the myth of political "independents" that just WILL NOT DIE:

INDEPENDENTS ARE NOT A “VAST MIDDLE GROUND.”

INDEPENDENTS DO NOT COMPRISE MORE THAN “A THIRD OF AMERICANS.”

How many DAMN TIMES must this be said before this MOST BASIC OF FINDINGS — first explicated at length almost 20 YEARS AGO! — sinks into the heads of pundits.

I will keep linking to this post as long as it takes. To repeat: true, honest-to-God independents are about 10% of the American population. Declining support for Obama among independents accounts for less than a fifth of Obama’s overall decline in support.

As a fellow political scientist, I totally appreciate his need to scream about this. Independents are NOT a vast middle ground, both because they are neither vast nor in the middle. Just because someone describes themselves as independent doesn't mean they actually are. Deeds, people, not words. Deeds.

Greg Sargent offers a nice short chronology of the use of reconciliation under Republican rule:

* The College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, which passed through reconciliation;

* The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, which passed through reconciliation;

* The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which passed through reconciliation;

* The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, which passed through reconciliation;

* The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which passed through reconcilation;

* The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, which passed through reconciliation; and

* The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, which passed through reconciliation.

Wait, I forgot. Its OK If You Are A Republican. My bad.

Professional Congress watcher Norm Ornstein corrects perceptions of the Democratic Congress:

Congress is on a path to become one of the most productive since the Great Society 89th Congress in 1965-66, and Obama already has the most legislative success of any modern president -- and that includes Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson. The deep dysfunction of our politics may have produced public disdain, but it has also delivered record accomplishment.

The productivity began with the stimulus package, which was far more than an injection of $787 billion in government spending to jump-start the ailing economy. More than one-third of it -- $288 billion -- came in the form of tax cuts, making it one of the largest tax cuts in history, with sizable credits for energy conservation and renewable-energy production as well as home-buying and college tuition. The stimulus also promised $19 billion for the critical policy arena of health-information technology, and more than $1 billion to advance research on the effectiveness of health-care treatments.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan has leveraged some of the stimulus money to encourage wide-ranging reform in school districts across the country. There were also massive investments in green technologies, clean water and a smart grid for electricity, while the $70 billion or more in energy and environmental programs was perhaps the most ambitious advancement in these areas in modern times. As a bonus, more than $7 billion was allotted to expand broadband and wireless Internet access, a step toward the goal of universal access.

Any Congress that passed all these items separately would be considered enormously productive. Instead, this Congress did it in one bill.

Lawmakers then added to their record by expanding children's health insurance and providing stiff oversight of the TARP funds allocated by the previous Congress. Other accomplishments included a law to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco, the largest land conservation law in nearly two decades, a credit card holders' bill of rights and defense procurement reform.

The House, of course, did much more, including approving a historic cap-and-trade bill and sweeping financial regulatory changes. And both chambers passed their versions of a health-care overhaul. Financial regulation is working its way through the Senate, and even in this political environment it is on track for enactment in the first half of this year. It is likely that the package of job-creation programs the president showcased on Wednesday, most of which got through the House last year, will be signed into law early on as well.

Most of this has been accomplished without any support from Republicans in either the House or the Senate -- an especially striking fact, since many of the initiatives of the New Deal and the Great Society, including Social Security and Medicare, attracted significant backing from the minority Republicans.

The only ways to think this Congress has been a failure are if you either disagree with these policies or if you aren't paying attention.

Back on bipartisanship, check out this great riff from one of James Fallows' readers:

"The way parliamentary parties maintain their discipline is straightforward. No candidate can run for office using the party label unless the party bestows that label upon him or her. And usually, the party itself and not the candidate raises and controls all the campaign funds. As every political scientist knows, the fact that in the U.S. any candidate can pick his or her own party label without needing anyone else's approval, and can also raise his or her own campaign funds, is why there cannot be and never really has been any sustained party discipline before -- even though it is a feature of parliamentary systems.

"The GOP now maintains party discipline by the equivalent of a parliamentary party's tools: The GOP can effectively deny a candidate the party label (by running a more conservative GOP candidate against him or her), and the GOP can also provide the needed funds to the candidate of the party's choice. And every GOP member of Congress knows it. (Snowe and Collins may be immune, but that's about it.)

"I've missed almost all the punditry this past week... but what I've seen seems almost like a lot of misleading fluff designed to fill the void that should follow an understanding of the foregoing, at least on the subject of 'why no bipartisanship?' There's really nothing more to be said about "why no bipartisanship," once one recognizes the GOP party discipline. On this issue, it's absolutely astounding to blame Obama or even the Congressional leadership (although Pelosi and Reid leave much to be desired otherwise). It's doubly astounding that the GOP did it once before, less perfectly, but with a very large reward for bad behavior in the form of the 1994 mid-term elections. Yet no one calls them on it effectively, and bad behavior seems about to be rewarded again...

"Ironically, the one thing that might lubricate some bipartisanship -- earmarks, or their functional equivalent in specific amendments of general policy -- is becoming unavailable just when needed, and when it might help."

Steve Benen explores how Reagan is so badly mis-remembered:

Reagan's first big tax cut was signed in August 1981. Over the next year or so, unemployment went from just over 7% to just under 11%. In September 1982, Reagan raised taxes, and unemployment fell.

We're all aware, of course, of the correlation/causation dynamic, but as Krugman noted, "[U]nemployment, which had been stable until Reagan cut taxes, soared during the 15 months that followed the tax cut; it didn't start falling until Reagan backtracked and raised taxes."

Want to know what conservative policies look like on the local level when fully put into action? Check out Colorado Springs:

More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.

The parks department removed trash cans last week, replacing them with signs urging users to pack out their own litter.

Neighbors are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to local green spaces, because parks workers will mow them only once every two weeks. If that.

Water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead, brown turf by July; the flower and fertilizer budget is zero.

City recreation centers, indoor and outdoor pools, and a handful of museums will close for good March 31 unless they find private funding to stay open. Buses no longer run on evenings and weekends. The city won't pay for any street paving, relying instead on a regional authority that can meet only about 10 percent of the need.

People hate taxes! And they hate government! But only because they don't realize all the wonderful but largely invisible benefits that government provides.

What would Jesus do? Andrew Sullivan explains:

Christianity, after all, was founded on a culture of marginalization, persecution and martyrdom, not political mastery and imperium. Jesus saw true faith in those without power - the marginalized and despised and powerless. You could argue, in fact, that Constantine's adoption of Christianity as a state religion was an original sin from which Christianity has still not recovered.

The truth is: if your faith is strong, you are indifferent to worldy power and influence. You try to live your faith - which is hard enough - and leave the rest to God.

Jesus repeatedly, insistently refused the political option. Others may be changing the culture in different and disturbing ways; and a Christian will bear witness to this - but primarily by example, not through enforcement on others of a particular doctrine others may not share.

Totally unrelated, but also from Andrew, a great quote from the Judge presiding over the trial of Shoe Bomber Richard Reed:

We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before.

There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist.

You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist.

To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature.

Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You're a big fellow. But you're not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense Trooper Santiago had it right when first you were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were and he said you're no big deal.

You're no big deal...

It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea.

It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's seek that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their, their representation of you before other judges. We care about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties.

Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow it will be forgotten. But this, however, will long endure. Here, in this courtroom, and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done.

The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged, and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom. You know it always will. Custody, Mr. Officer. Stand him down.

Full Video:

-------

No one ever holds pundits accountable. YouTube and other digital video storage and delivery services change that forever. Let's save this one for future reference: