Ages ago, in another political era entirely, 1989, newly elected President George H W Bush (now with the nickname “Poppa”) plucked the House Minority Whip out of the Congress — some guy from Wyoming named Dick Cheney — for installation in his administration.  This spurred a major Republican Leadership fight between one Edward Madigan of Illinois and one Newt Gingrich of Georgia.  You know who won.  On the purely “moderate” to “conservative” voting pattern, the lines in this intercessine battle did not make too much sense.  Tom Delay out of Texas, for instance, backed Madigan.  And Representative Olympia Snowe from Maine, considered then as now a Republican “Moderate”, backed the combative Newt Gingrich.  The winning appeal was against a complacent and comfortable Republican minority, viewing the leadership as protective of its entity without fighting for new partisan battles.  The choice worked out for the Republicans, so far as it went, though that list of insults to fight the sudden appearance of a Democratic President at that point where a Republican Congress appeared went a bit overkill “enemy of normal Americans” — leading to Clinton’s re-election.

Newt Gingrich was last seen on the losing side of an intercessine battle, backing Scozzafava against the Movement Conservative’s Cause Celebre, Mr. Hoffman.  It is tempting to say Gingrich had found his role reveresed visa vie the Republicans — now the establishment being Insurrected — to ape your Paul Krugman cries that this surely is a sign of the Republican Party’s insanity where Gingrich is now the “Moderate”.  But, as always, it’s not that simple.

Polls show Olympia Snowe’s ratings amongst Maine Republicans have fallen, such that she would now be vulnerable to a primary challenge in, I guess, 2012.  I would not know what effect this polling has on her, if it rattles her at all, but I do have one suggestion: Do not switch parties, please.  If things go topsy turvy, look over to Rhode Island where Lincoln Chaffe is the favorite for governor, running now as an Independent.  I see this inching from various Democratic partisan bloggers suggesting that she do so — she’d be better than Lieberman in getting to 60 votes, after all.  Actually, I saw that as far back as after the 2004 election as “Path for Democratic Party Recovery”, with one good Liberal blogger rejoinder asking “What?  Are you crazy?  What the Democrats need is to become the Republican Party of 1990?”

It is that “Big Tent, All Comers” logic which produced that paradox of the most completely Democratic Party controlled Washington passing a House bill with the most anti-abortion measure on a federal level in a generation, one probably slated for hasty demise but leave that as it may.  It is a logic that produces this strangest of logjams in the Senate — how does one keep this coalition, with various Senators beholden to various interests, in tact?  The problem with a Democratic Party swallowing in Snowe is a continued loss of its populist bearings, seding that to a disturbing degree to your outraged Tea Party contingent, attidunal wise and marketing purposes if nothing else.  The Democrats need no more Specters.

The political equilibrium is a bit insane right now between the two parties.  The good news is, on the Democratic side, a few Heath Shulers and Walt Minnicks are about to be shedded in 2010.  The only thing I can think for the Republican Party is — well, some of the governors have the responsibilty of actually governing, which usually chastines a party that on the national level is more tactically allied to this.  A stab at an answer to this question of why the noxious throws at Charlie Crist when he’s no different than Jeb Bush — Crist had the unfortunate desire to try to be productive when Obama was just elected, the new partisan object of disgust quickly and naturally consolidated against — and also… he’s a bit gay.

I half wonder if the Stupak Amendment wasn’t made to fail, to give a good handful of the most conservative democrats (apparently a lordly more of them than you’d expect — a few of  them I genuinely have to wonder why they are Democrats) one bonafida in their districts — as they garnered a full ten members of Congress to the vote — in re-election, some roosters coming home to roast off of 2006 strategy in particular of “Fit the District” slotting (one that was best represented with Senator Bob Casey in Pennsylvania), and really probably an unnecessary over-reach in the gauge of bringing about a “Big Tent” with a bit too reflexive mood in picking the more “moderate” or conservative candidate in various primaries.

They don’t call these things “Wedge Issues” for no reason.

All the while, with the suspicion that it will be blown up down the road.  These congress members get their Issue Wedge checked off to stand proud and proclaim themselves “Not a Libural”, and while the repercussions of the Issue having been thrown out there in the first place are pretty toxic politically, it’s less toxic for the cynical Democratic cause of the “Democratic Party Incumbent Racket” than not getting a damned Health Care bill passed.

Know your Caro, from the second volume on Lyndon Johnson Master of the Senate — a quick google search to get a quick encapsulation of some of the important cynical wheel-deeling:

Caro lays out the cajoling, wheeling, dealing, strong arming, and compromising in the fight for the civil rights bill as well as the complicated linkages between the civil rights bill and other legislation to obtain LBJ’s winning coalition. Among other things, Johnson brokered a deal between Western Democrats who wanted public power and conservative Southern Democrats who wanted the most watered down civil rights bill possible. The Southerners voted for a public power bill they had previously opposed, but did not filibuster the emerging civil rights bills once key changes were made. The Southerners opposed the bill on the floor and voted against it, but would never used the one weapon which could have killed it entirely. The Western Democrats got their public power (at least in the Senate) and supported watering down the civil rights bill which would not hurt them politically back home in that era. Northern Democrats eventually were reconciled to the fact that some bill was better than nothing and Southern Democrats were reconciled to the fact that some bill was inevitable.

The key matter in my half-baked political theory:  You know why the Southern Democrats voted for the Public Power?  The Public Power, at least in the crucial Southern Powerbrokers’ minds, was not meant to Stand.  It would be killed just down the road, in our rather noxious Senate system, though the Western Democrats would still be able to trump it in their elections.  But it was an important show of strength of reliability at that juncture.
Of course, things might have been able to work out better for a real civil rights bill if, at Vice President Nixon’s entreaty to Senate Liberals such as Hubert Humphrey at the start of the session, they had gone ahead and killed the Filibuster.  It rhymes familiarity to the current debate as the Democratic leadership holds out 60 Senators — or else ponders Reconciliation.

Then again, the Stupak Amendment has that “throw a bomb into the proceedings” feel to it — an issue that had been neutralized, your Bob Casey, Jr. roaming about for some party splinters.

Worth noting in this duo of Weekly Standard Covers — apparently the GOP is Sarah Palin, flanked by the modern day incarnations of Andrew Jackson and William Jennings Bryan, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.  Populists them all.

tap tap tap.

I’ll give this one up: I already stated that I don’t think Jon Corzine’s defeat adds up to much in the “Donkey versus Elephant Game” – though it’s good to be rid of that one, perhaps, and the air of Plutocracy ala Goldman Sacchs.  (In regards to plutocrats and one item I saw last week being batted about, slightly contrarian-wise:  I’d like to hope that “millionaires” would be over-represented in the Congress — you’d hope it would be made up of, you know, successful people.  I suppose we’d hope for a few more people from poorer background “made good”, but beware of that too: Tom Delay fits that category.)

You know his victory in 2005?  It came pretty much because of George Bush.  No longer was he able to tug behind a nationalized message of anti-Bush sentiment, he was exposed and defeated.   So maybe there is something to be said about Corzine’s defeat after all in the D versus R game that even skeptical I can throw to the Republicans as meaning a good sign for 2010: there are Democrats up for re-election who fit Corzine’s profile in swatches and switches.  The problem might be that the strange desire to stick in people fitting Doug Hoffman’s profile — though even that might be massaged: a tact of awareness of the locality as against the chief movement conservative causes should float in percentage margins, right?

Let us now take a note of this list of Congress critters — Democrats who voted against the House Health Care Bill — and come back in a year to see how much this staved off re-election disaster.  Another way of looking at this is geographically, and with a good guage on geographic size a rough rural / urban dividision — note that the Southern and border state Democratic vote favors the “no”.

 Jason Altmire D PA-4,   John Adler D NJ-3,  Rick Boucher D VA-9, Allen Boyd D FL-2,  Brian Baird D WA-3,  John Barrow D GA-12, Dan Boren D OK-2,  John Boccieri D OH-16,Bobby Bright D AL-2,  Ben Chandler D KY-6,  Travis Childers D MS-1,  Lincoln Davis D TN-4,  Artur Davis D AL-7,  Chet Edwards D TX-17,  Bart Gordon D TN-6,  Parker Griffith D AL-5,  Tim Holden D PA-17,  Stephanie Herseth Sandlin D SD-1,  Dennis J. Kucinich D OH-10,  Larry Kissell D NC-8, Suzanne Kosmas D FL-24, Frank Kratovil Jr. D MD-1,  Mike McIntyre D NC-7,  Jim Matheson D UT-2,  Jim Marshall D GA-8,  Charlie Melancon D LA-3,  Betsy Markey D  CO-4, Eric Massa D NY-29, Michael E. McMahon D NY-13, Walt Minnick D ID-1,  Scott Murphy D NY-20,  Glenn Nye D VA-2, Collin C. Peterson D MN-7,  Mike Ross D AR-4,  Ike Skelton D MO-4,  Heath Shuler  D NC-11,  John Tanner D TN-8, Gene Taylor D MS-4,  Harry Teague D NM-2.

The other thing I’d need to know is the list of Congress critters classified as “Blue Dogs” not on this list — who voted for the Act — and see how much that one staved off re-election disaster.  It is also worth noting that Dennis Kucinich chose to vote “no”, coming from the opposite direction with his party dissent.

Than there’s Joseph Cao, the lone Republican vote for this bill, and the man who made mince-meat of John Boehner’s claim that “The only bi-partisan vote is the one against” the bill.  I hate rhetoric like that one.  We’ll come back in a year and see if his job was saved.  I suppose that he’s likely going to be elected out of office will be shown by Republicans that this tact is senseless electorally, but in all honesty I always think that Cao should take his term of office as a bit of “funny money”, a license to vote as he sees fit without too much concern for figuring out his re-election prospects.

Well, it’s good to have an answer, I guess.:

“Why did you do it?” one television reporter asked.

“Because they left me to rot,” Rodriguez said.

In tough times like these, when one person might find a livelihood at the mercy of Unemployment from a former employer who well within their bottom line need to not – it is sometimes surprising there aren’t more of these.  Cries of “Keep your chin up” become meaningless when tangible needs need to be met.
Of course, also in times like these, mental health resources dry up a tad.

Over to Fort Hood, and as I ponder the futility of partisans making it a sheer D v R issue thrown by way of the Drudge Report, there are a few approaches more sane people have made in  making sense of the senseless.  A econd and third tour of duty  with little rest time make a sane person mad, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder — in this case, a second-hand PTSD.  The Muslim slurs added up, I suppose, enough to the point where it’s the only story for some movement conservative types in the “War on Terror”.

Do you believe this guy?

Now, as the entire House of Representatives and a third of the Senate prepare for next year’s midterm elections, some moderate Democrats are wondering whether they can afford to follow President Obama’s ambitious legislative agenda on such controversial issues as healthcare and climate change. One said the results were a “wake-up call.”

“There are going to be a lot more tensions between the White House and Congress,” predicted Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition of fiscally conservative Democrats. “They’ve been under the surface so far — and they’re going to come out in the open.”

The answer is no.  I don’t believe Jim Cooper and his select handful of Blue Dog Democrats.  To recap the elections of 2009: New Jersey: one unpopular Democratic Governor defeated by an unpopular Republican Incumbent in a state where the Republicans had been knocking on the door for all of Bush’s terms — they were due, and the state no longer had Bush to kick around.  Virginia: the Democrat gave Democrats no reason to vote, proclaiming he might just use the opt out provision for the Public Option.  If Virginia gives a cautionary lesson, it cautions every which way.  Maybe he wouldn’t have won anyway, but it’s also worth pointing out that quite a few voters would rather vote without having it diagnosed in terms of the Obama versus Opposition Party Game — a Governor, not a Message.
And, frankly, had Health Care been passed in the Summer, Corzine probably would have been re-elected.

So, we have either that most rarefied of political altitudes, that swallows crap whole, or we have the search for an excuse from those weird Centrist Nibbling Creatures.  The good news is the worst of them, the ones we can absolutely count on not being part of the 218 votes Pelosi is shifting around for right now, will be taken out in the next election in the “Republican Resurgence” (an election year that, unlike their heralded victory of 2009 will likely result in them gaining a handful of Congressional seats instead of losing a seat) — goodbye to Walt Minnick.

The question regarding Virginia: so the Democrats nominated a bad candidate.  Were either of his two main primary opponents any better or more appealing?  Terry McAuliffe is full of baloney, surely, and imported a false “Clinton versus Obama” contest that was best ignored.  Despite his baloney, or maybe because of it, he did have a pulse, though, and probably would have had a pulse in the general.  Enough that he would have done better than Deeds.

I have the basic theory that the Democrats need an Alan Grayson.  It is the theory of balance — the nature of partisanship is such that the parties will sling shots at each other, and a whole mass of people will deem it all as “politics as usual”.  Nature abhors a vaccuum, and absent any sling-shot throwers, the “politics as usual” anti-partisans will just craft the storyline from the sling-shot throwers on the right to create in their heads a balance.  The meta-narrative needs two to tangle to stand up.

The first comments that attracted attention to Alan Grayson aren’t too much worth mentioning at this juncture.  His “apology” “to the dead” only mis-fired due to a single word he probably shouldn’t have used — but I don’t even want to draw attention to that one.

The comment that I want to defend is the “K Street Whore” phrase.  It received a bit of a knock from some of his usual defenders — the question is: would he have used that same term if he was referencing a male?

The answer is: Soitenly.
Theoretically we might have the problem with him with that phrase due to the

One problem, though, with him and that attendent controversy.:

But on Tuesday Mr. Grayson did offer what he called “my sincere apology” to Linda Robertson, the adviser to Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke whom he called a “K Street whore” last month on the nationally syndicated ” Alex Jones Show.”

On the ” Alex Jones Show,” Mr. Grayson said: “This lobbyist, this K Street whore, is trying to teach me about economics.”

The convroversy-causing comment was made on the Alex Jones Show???  That’s… disappointing.  Even if, listening to the interview, I see that Jones has tamped himself down.  I suppose Mr. Jones has a sort of dichotemy in his head when dealing with guests — he’ll leave the more insane for Texe Marr and Webster Tarpley.

But regarding Mr. Grayson, your websites worth knowing:

A group of outraged Florida voters has launched the Web site MyCongressmanIsNuts.com in a drive to oust Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson. […]

The site is raising money to defeat the Orlando-area congressman and the site’s organizers describe it as a “more appropriate alternative” to Mr. Grayson’s CongressmanWithGuts.com. […]

He also set up his own Web site – NamesOfTheDead.com – that claims to list people who have died without health insurance.

Start buying up domain names like that for resale.  There’s money there, I tells you.