Reading this edition of the comic strip “Zits”…
  Yes, it’s another one of those “visual representation of a figure of speech” strips that this cartoonist (Jerry Scott and Jim Borgman) does with regularity.  Its chief virtue is that it is not a “talking heads” gag — and shows off the the form of the strip.  Its chief defect is a sort of “yeah, whatever” to the joke itself.

I do find the sentence that Jeremy is reading kind of interesting.  “Incoming Republicans lead a congressional move that forced James Buchanan to”…

Details on congressional movements during the James Buchanan Administration leading up to the Secessionist Crisis and the Civil War are sketchy to me.  Certainly a good amount of gridlock after the 1858 midterm brought the Republican Party into power, though it was nothing like the chaos that ripped about the Franklin Pierce Administration.

Urm… the historical legacy of James Buchanan was one of inaction — he’s considered the worst president because he let the Secessionists at the end of his term take off and begin… seceding.  I’m just wondering what the nascent Republican Party forced him to do.

Can I get the conclusion to that sentence?  If nothing else, it might give some suggestions for the current Obama Administration.

There is a sort of comedy within the netherworlds of the Conservative media on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (commonly and crudely referred to as “Obamacare“, and which I’ve tended to call DoleRomneyObamaCare).  Every single glitch gets magnified and pounded upon.  This is indeed funny — a showcase of stock images of happy kids within the government’s material on the exchanges — but in the end, pretty damned meaningless.

Given the nature of the act and the high amount of deference it gave to state implementation, I had understood that the thing would work well enough but imperfectly  in states whose governors care to implement it (every state with a Democrat in the governor’s seat and every state where a Republican governor has to fret about a possible loss to a Democrat), and not terribly well in those states that don’t care to implement it (erm.  Largely the South.)  Regrettable all this, but I can only shrug on that score.  Interestingly, I see a convergence of arguments on the act — where some conservative commentators (George Will and Charles Krauthammer) have long argued that this is but a halfway measure to the dreaded single payer system, liberals are now pointing to their fellow “ugh.  Just a boon to Insurance Companies” partisans that this act is best seen as but a halfway measure to the glorious single payer system.

The unforeseen wrinkle has been lobbed: Republican Irresponsibility.  A product, and I see this explanation from a source that is highly sympathetic with it (Reason Magazine) of Citizen’s United bringing about a force that supersedes Republican Party Whip, gerry-mandered districts that puts a large number of Republicans in a position of having no left flank to worry about, and the Hastert Rule — informally reasonable proposition of Majority of the Majority needing to agree on the bill before it gets to the floor — but in the guise of the moment flexibility is imperative.

Counter to this otherwise fine dailykos post How A Bill becomes a Law — it’s not an ill-gotten majority the Republicans have in the House; it’s ill-retained.  Regrettable feature of a Census year victory.  (This is a better summary.)

And now I see this smattering of smug “nope.  Not affecting me” commentary — from people sort of on record as considering anyone who a shutdown of the government in immediate tangible norms (as opposed to your equivalent of “a bit more flight risk”) as — well, as Alan Greenspan wrote the NYT on Atlas Shrugged — “parasites”.  (Maybe a riot coming, unlike previous shutdown occurrences, because of our increased level of socialism.)

Your bit of a political calculus — quite apart from the fluctuating poll numbers and the insulation of the individual House members.  Obama’s numbers are doubtful to go up, even if the Congress goes down, and the Republicans go way down.  Which leaves to doubt that this would imperil a House majority significantly.  Put another way — if you lose a few seats in the midterms, who cares?  Did the Republicans really get smacked in the 1998 midterm elections… really?  And unfortunately, it’s hard to figure out how the party would lose much more than that.  This may be the more real meaning behind the point that Lemmings don’t commit suicide.  So, actually, even under that debunking of myth, the analogy still holds.

And then there’s this curiosity.  Why it’s Obama’s fault.  The Reason writer should know better than the simplification of an “Obama can drone strike abroad”, which is the libertarian equivalent of the Republican hoo-haing of “Sure, he can negotiate with Iran’s President, but not Boehner?”  Boehner states that at the end of the day, German Chancellor Angela Merkel will be calling Obama to ask “What the Hell is going on?” and not Boehner.  History records these years as being under the directive of Obama.  Lazy history, of course, but history nonetheless.
Recently I overheard a conversation of a Republican trying to convince an apolitical person with soft support of Obama of the wrongness of Obama.  And I heard this quick jab, “Well, we got our nation’s credit rating knocked down.”  Indeed, one of the Credit Agencies.  The report on the current decision mostly (though not entirely) blamed Republican intransigence as the immediate cause (the long term reasoning goes back further than Obama, of course).  Another credit agency stated earlier they’d follow suit with a Government shut-down — too many signs of institutional dysfunction.
The good news on this score, is to look back to history — see: The Government Shutdown of 1879.  No one much remembers Hayes, and what history books record are societal changes.  Reconstruction is over… corporate hegemony falls into place.  AND…

To sum up what of Obama as of now… Basically I think it’s time Obama follows Bill Clinton’s prior call to invoke the 14th Amendment.  If not that, there’s the Trillion Dollar coin.  Both ideas are asinine, but asinine times call for asinine measures.

In hindsight, the biggest Senate race of 2008 was the Texas Republican Primary between David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz.  From the outside, this “establishment versus Tea Party” figure seemed just to be just two wackadoodle Right wingers, but as things have turned out — urm.  (“Like 9/11, Let’s Roll.”  — Er… Congratulations?)

The two relevant election results.

07/31/2012  TX US Senate – R Runoff  Lost 43.20% (-13.60%)
05/29/2012  TX US Senate – R Primary  Won 44.67% (+10.58%)

The first one was the one that David Dewhurst really needed to get to that 50 point 1 to avoid the run-off, because… the depleted and more true believer run off turnout would just overwhelm the “Republican Establishment” vote.  If I recall, he was really shooting for the moon on immigration at this juncture.  As so happens, he failed — by 7 percent… final total — he, 43, Cruz 33.  Skip ahead those 2 months, and in a 2 man contest, Dewhurst was still at 43.  (The Democratic Primary was a hoot, though an irrelevant hoot.)

A few months ago, the National Review questioned why “Liberals and Democrats are obsessed with Ted Cruz” and suggested it was because he defied stereotypes with his Ivy League pedigree and etc.  To wit you mostly just scratch your head… no, one’s interest in Ted Cruz comes from him being an influential and powerful figure in a political party, and one whose aims are destructive to the country’s best interests.  Your liberal obsession with him hinges on the conservative obsession with him.

So, what do we see in David Dewhurst right about now?  The last “Hey Hoo!’ story was a relatively low level but definitely notable bit of influence peddling in trying to get his daughter out of trouble with the police.  Peg it into the background, mention it often, but know ye this: there will be Democratic politicos who pull the same entitled crap.
And he made more national news and notes in having to finally got the Texas legislator to restrict abortion, over the objectives of Wendy Davis.
And today we see that he’s taking his part in sharpening up Texas’s redistricting lines — a large part in the bane of our problems in the House.

But beyond all that… today we some Texas figures who love Ted Cruz want him to join him in the Senate, by making a primary fight against John Cornyn.  Because… — hm?

More importantly, would Texans be better served with him at the helm of the Texas Senate or with him as a Senator in Washington, doing the will of the Republican base unlike Sen. John Cornyn?

Naturally the comments section in this brings out the lines of your Republican base charging Dewhurst with being a “RINO” — though how he stacks up against “RINO” John Cornyn is not quite dwelt on — some comments directed to liberal nay-sayers about “Freedom” and “Texas!  Woop!”  (Some variation of this, actually.)

Another oddity… your crude bit of partisan thumb-nose sneering.

Now, for those of you on the left that are reading this (I’m talking about you Scrambled Brains and others), the caricature you have of Ted Cruz supporters is wrong. Incorrect. Idiotic. Whatever adjective you choose.
Check out Ed’s Linked In. Please. I beg you. I’ll wait. And if those big words scare you, I can understand.

Hm.  Actually the distinct aura of populism and elitism can be seen in the great Hamiltonian Party / Theocratic Party merger of 1968 — which was, in retrospect, the creation of the modern Republican Party.

Or, I could consult how liberals viewed the emerging conservativism in the 1950s (rebooted in the 1960s).  See the Daniel Bell edited book The New American Right.  Skip to the sections where it compares the old rich to the nuevo rich (particularly in Texas) with the old rich having some sense of noblesse oblige where the nuevo rich are status conscience and still afraid they might lose their wealth, and thus define Socialism down to … urm… John Cornyn and, depending on whether he’s running against… David Dewhurst.  but maybe the Hamiltonian Theocrats will hold their nose on that one.

Some variation of the old “Rip Van Wrinkle” idea is played out by a couple of novels I’ve read recently.  One feeds off the repeating assassinations of Upton Sinclair, the other runs William Howard Taft for President in 2012.

The Upton Sinclair book is highly recommended; the Taft one less so.

Something about the book rings false.  Can I accuse the story of being pestered with contrived plot devices?  The Independent Congresswoman Rachel Taft.  How did that come about?  Granted, William Howard Taft is a forgotten President, and granted forgotten Presidents are better remembered than Historically Important Senators, but … we do know that Taft’s son, Robert, looms large in the Senate echelon, and in the history of Conservative Republican Politics.  (Though, a bit like William Howard Taft, it would be interesting to focus on what this means in a linear history; both politicians get a little bit more complicated than that.)  The most recent iteration of the Tafts in politics — Ohio governor — crashed and burned off of corruption charges — which is a far cry from the stolid character of the most recent iteration in this book, Rachel Taft.  Do these historical details just get in the way of telling a story such that they just have to be thrown asunder?

Your other plot device … Apparently Citizen Kane in this book’s narrative was originally set to concern William Randolph Hearst, but was changed by the now somewhat obscure Orson Welles to William Howard Taft due to political pressures.  This gives Taft things to sign in the 21st century, and your irony of the reluctant President’s most public imprint being a fictionalized megalomaniac.  Before the Public goes on to use him as an empty vessel, and re-interprets his record into modern times according to their individual political beliefs and biases.

So that’s Jason Heller’s “Taft: 2012”.  The concept’s there, but it falters — feels oddly didactic.  But it’s a quick enough read, so go ahead.  Also has a neat website, for what that’s worth.   I wonder if some of my problems wouldn’t be solved if the figure that came back to life wasn’t, like, Chester Arthur instead.

Chris Bachelder’s “US” avoids such problems.  And, now that I think about it, it’s probably a more inspired premise which can’t get too bogged down in making points about electoral politics.  Just make some fun at the earnestness of Upton Sinclair, and create “in a world” where Upton Sinclair springs back to death after getting killed — and in such a world it would naturally follow that a sub-culture would spring up of people perpetually killing him off for politics and hobby.

And there’s your retro-Progressive Era politics in fiction for you.

This is weird.

The Conservative Tory British publication, the Spectator, and the the liberal British Labor publication, The New Statesman, both portray the Labour Party leadership as …

… Wallace and Gromit.

At the same time.

I can’t be the only person who noted this.  And… sure enough, I’m not.  And…

The Specatator cover’s Gromit is Ed Balls, the other major figure in British Labour.

A quick google search of the usages of Wallace and Gromit with current British leadership suggests some historical characterizing over the years of  of Wallace to Miliband and Gromit to Cameron — see here for not any picture, but a description.  Why?  I don’t know.  Why not?

A curious note of horror from the libertarian magazine Reason about a “balls in the booth” poll of British Labour politicians — “Socialism” beating out “Capitalism”.  And…

It is hardly a surprise that the majority of Labour Party members shown in the video voted for socialism. However, there are some particularly disturbing parts of the video, namely the young woman who said, “I don’t think anybody benefits under capitalism” and the two young men who mention their support for something called “responsible capitalism,” as if “capitalism” wasn’t quite good enough or entails some degree of irresponsibility.

How do I parse this?  I don’t see this quick jump from “hardly a surprise” to the somewhat boilerplate explanations.  Also, the horror of the young men calling for something called “responsible capitalism” — which strikes me as a fair statement, as capitalism is indeed not good enough, tends to suggest some degree of irresponsibility, and in parts and places has to be regulated.

It’s not even that I expect the Reason blogger to agree with that sentiment; I just don’t expect it to god-smack him that someone would suggest it — particularly when he’s already come out on record and in a blase way of non-shock as not being surprised that Labour Party members would vote for Socialism over Capitalism.  (What’s this I hear about Scandinavian countries and their peculiar love for something called “Democratic Socialism”?  Well, that’s a ways north and a different political culture altogether.)

Two more notes on this issue — reading the New Statesman recently, counter-arguing the points of “look what the Labour Party is advocating right now” — I see some suggesting that a few long since abandoned in practice measure and relic of the party’s pre-“New Labour” neo-liberal Tony Blair reformation past that smacks of socialism principles have now been stricken-ed from the Party charter.  Whatever the horrors of American libertarians looking abroad to Labour Party decisions on their economic policies, it can’t measure up to it’s Thatcher – era charter, when conventional wisdom holds the party retreated to its liberal bases and drew up something some members of the party described as a “Suicide Note”.  (Though, as these things go, this brings us to the withering criticism of Blairite / Gordon Brown New Labour as soulless and Nixonian — see Christopher Hitchens.)

Which brings us to issue number two.  To situate the politics of the leaders of the two nations.  Who’s advising the current British Prime Minister David Cameron, your leader of the Conservative Party, as he moves to his re-election campaign?  Barack Obama adviser Jim Messina.  And why not?  They both stand for not dismantling their country’s health care programs.