Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Orlando Cepeda, 76

We do need some good stuff, don't we:

1. Dan Drezner on credibility. I don't keep up on what's happening in IR at all (well, not beyond the bloggers, I suppose), but I'll add that most Americanists think less of the importance of "personal credibility...inside the corridors of power" than Neustadt did. On the other hand, if politicians think it's a big deal, then it is, even if it doesn't actually buy them anything in negotiations. And as long as the value in negotiations is positive, even if it's small? Well, rather have it than not, no?

2. I really do have to watch the Discovery Channel thing on presidential Chiefs of Staff. But I'm not sure I buy Ken Duberstein's claim that they have become celebrities. He wasn't, but Hamilton Jordan was surely more of a celebrity than all but one of Obama's CoS, no? Lucia Graves has the story.

3. Good Josh Barro point on how Obamacare will change things.

4. Interesting reporting from Amelia Thomson-Deveaux on the battle over abortion in New Mexico.

5. And I don't agree with everything Stan Collender says about the budget negotiations, but I always recommend reading him.

What Mattered This Week?

I suppose this isn't a tough one, isn't it? Whichever you want -- I'll just mention the VRA decision to kick it off, as one that mattered...I don't even want to guess at what didn't matter, but I'll be interested to see if there are arguments pro or con on the Texas abortion filibuster.

 So, what do you have? What do you think mattered this week?

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Faye Dunaway, 72. As it happens, I just watched both "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Chinatown" again in the last few weeks; as big a Warren Beatty fan as I am, I do think she's the best thing in Bonnie and Clyde, and when she's in a truly great movie, in Chinatown...well, she'll do until someone else comes along.

Also, some good stuff:

1. Greg Koger: against majority-imposed Senate reform.

2. John Sides on the possible electoral effects of what House Republicans are up to.

3. You've seen it by now, but Ezra Klein reports: no coin.

4. Stan Collender explains the WH strategy.

5. Sarah Kliff on Roe at 40.

6. And the White House response to the Death Star petition.

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Brett Reed, 40. One of my big life mistakes: I didn't go down to Gilman Street when I had the chance. I did, however, spend plenty of time at Golden Gate Fields, which is very close by, and I'm a very big fan of Rancid's song GGF.

Oh -- good stuff:

1. David Roberts on asymmetrical polarization.

2. Greg Sargent on Democrats going on the attack on health care. Interesting.

3. Eric Andrew-Gee on voter suppression in Pennsylvania. See also comments from the Democratic Strategist.

4. And Sarah Kliff on what's happening in the state legislatures about abortion.

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Jeff Kent, 44. I guess I'm duty-bound to root for him for the HOF. Okay.

The good stuff:

1. David S. Bernstein has been pushing a theory about Mitt Romney, the truth, and the business world. It's plausible! I've always said that the most dishonest candidate I remember was Ross Perot, so that fits, sort of.

2. Will Romney wind up getting a reputation with the press as a liar? Paul Waldman thinks about the consequences. My guess: he'll get out-of-touch rich guy, not liar.

3. Irin Carmon on pro-choice mobilization. I'd like to see more evidence, but it is interesting.

4. Greg Sargent has been all over the Limbaugh/birth control story, including a takedown of Rush's conspiracy theory of how Obama tricked him. Must have been the teleprompter!

5. And I like Robert Farley's analysis of the Holder position on US killings of US citizens quite a bit.

Elsewhere: Stabilizers, Romney

At PostPartisan today, I'm fighting the good fight on behalf of automatic countercyclical stabilizers for state and local government spending, following up on a very good Paul Krugman column this morning. I thought maybe calling it the "ultimate wonky policy issue" might get some attention. We'll see.

Meanwhile, at Greg's place I'm warning of the upcoming GOP spin that Mitt Romney's nomination means that Republicans are really moderates after all, and that everyone should ignore all that social issues stuff.

Just to add to that last one: I'm saying that Romney will run on...what shall we call it...a severely conservative platform, and that he will, should he win, govern as a movement conservative. What I didn't discuss in the Plum Line piece is whether his spin will be successful. My guess is that he'll pay less of a penalty than, say, Santorum would -- but that any Republican will pay a bit of a penalty at this point for the general unpopularity of the GOP with swing voters, which presumably has at least something to do with social/cultural issues. As usual, with this kind of stuff we're really only talking about movement on the margins, but of course that might turn out to be very important anyway.

Sunday Question for Conservatives

I know I'm asking a lot of Perry/Romney questions these days, but, well, it does seem like the thing to do. So...

Do you think that as president there would be any difference at all between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney on the following issues: immigration, abortion, health care, Social Security? If so, what would it be? And what's the reason you believe (if you do) there would be a difference?

Write Romney's Paul Revere Gambit!

I've been talking about a new Republican strategy this week, the "Paul Revere" strategy, named after Sarah Palin's recent remarks. Well, named after Palin's entire career, or at least the national portion of it. The idea is that you gain support among movement conservatives by saying something pathetic that is designed to elicit mocking and scorn from as many liberals and qualified experts as possible. That's how I understood Tim Pawlenty's "Google test" -- it was a modestly nice little piece of rhetoric in terms of its immediate reception by Republicans, but a great success in drawing derision.

Doesn't it seem that Mitt Romney could benefit from a Paul Revere strategy? Sure, Romney's presumed strength is technocratic competence, but his big weakness is suspicion that he's not really a full-fledged movement conservative. What better way to get conservative points than to be cruelly mocked by liberal and media elites? And with a Republican presidential debate coming up next week, Romney will have a big stage to use for it. Indeed, with Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich (if he's still a candidate) and other potential loose cannons, Romney has to be worried about being cast as the moderate.

So: anyone have a suggestion for what he should say? Note that the full Revere involves saying something wacky, and then regrouping with an explanation that is still pretty nutty, but sends the proper signals.

I'm thinking that if I were doing Romney's debate prep, I'd try to come up with something on abortion. Remember, Romney's current abortion position is fine with pro-life groups, but as a late convert he's generally not trusted. The idea is to pound in a message that he's really one of them. I'd try to write some kind of crazy, seemingly nonsensical statement that didn't mention abortion at all -- and then, post-debate, defend the original statement by referencing some study or research or myth that is fully and totally taken as an important finding by anti-abortion activists but is considered totally bogus and discredited by pro-choice groups.

Sound good? Anyone want to fill in some of the specifics? Suggest a different topic?

Catch of the Day

Via Julian Sanchez (and by the way I highly recommend following him on twitter), a nice discussion and a Tumblr of images of pregnant women and articles about abortion. Check it out -- and nice catch!

Bad Votes

Excellent posts today by Steve Benen and Matt Yglesias, pointing out that Republican Senators coming out against stripping Planned Parenthood of funding do so only after having voted the other way -- by supporting the House-passed FY11 CR -- only recently.

It sure seems to me that Senate Republicans seriously misplayed their hand when they chose to almost unanimously support the House bill (all but DeMint, Lee, and Paul voted for it).

By getting 44 votes for H.R. 1, Republicans won bragging rights, since the Democrats only managed 42 votes for their substitute. Republicans made a fair amount of hay for a few days, but I can't see what it got them. It's not going to affect the spin war once shutdown gets here, and it's hard to see how it affects the real bargaining over appropriations, once that starts.

On an individual basis, presumably moderates including Brown, Collins, and Murkowski were more concerned about primary challenges than about general election voters. That's reasonable. Single votes on the Senate or House floor only rarely have been shown to affect general election voting (which is mainly driven by party, of course). It's very plausible, however, to imagine a single vote sparking a Tea Party or other conservative primary challenge.

However, by flipping (as the three of them have done) on Planned Parenthood, and presumably on other individual riders attached to the bill, it sure seems to me that they're getting the worst of both worlds.

It's hard to believe that the vote on the House CR is going to be enough to shield GOP moderates from a challenge if they then come out against various provisions of that bill (provisions which, too the dismay of movement conservative activists, won't be enacted into law despite the Great Tea Party Landslide of 2010).  At the same time...look, we can show that individual votes normally don't affect general election results, but usually the votes to examine are more or less consistent with the candidate's promises. Here, we have candidates who ran as moderates on abortion, the environment, and other issues casting votes for extreme measures in the opposite direction. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but I don't think we really have very much evidence on the results of such votes.

Not that I'm saying that Collins will lose in four years, much less Murkowski in six years, based on this vote. Still, while normally I'd be willing to say that GOP Members of Congress right now are correct to be more worried about the effects of single votes on renomination, I can't really say with confidence that votes such as this one will really be harmless in November.

The oddity is that normally parties work hard to shield legislators from such choices. I don't really understand why Brown, Collins, Murkowski and others voted for this one (and why the party wanted them to); they easily could have found Tea Party-friendly reasons to oppose it while also, perhaps more quietly, noted that they disagreed with the various policy riders. For that matter, they could have -- should have, I'd say -- come out against many of the individual spending cuts in the bill while simultaneously complaining that the bill didn't cut enough overall. That's a safe position to take into either a primary or a general election, next year or far down the line.

Dogs, Not Barking

1. Gun control.  Once upon a time, any murderous gun rampage was a "Start your engines" signal to liberals to campaign for new gun control measures.  Perhaps it still happens on the margins of politics these days, but not a peep (as far as I know) from the most prominent mainstream Democrats.

2.  Abortion.  In the Elena Kagan confirmation process (and before that, Sotomayor).  It did get a mention, but almost none, taking a back seat to many other issues.  I agree, however, that abortion probably explains Ben Nelson's vote.

3.  How about: Al Sharpton, or Sharpton's heir.  Is there anyone today playing the role that Sharpton played in the 1980s and 1990s?  At least, with a similar amount of media attention?

4.  Well, of course, when the White House finishes a long day of plotting to take everyone's guns away (see item #1, and really item #2 as well), they relax by plotting to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine.  But surely this one isn't barking because of a media conspiracy to keep it quiet.

Pocket Full of Horses

Warning: this post is really just a juvenile excuse for passing on some political trivia, which I'll save to the last paragraph.

Liberals today are getting worked up about the coming battle over contraceptive coverage under the ACA.   The key article is by Dana Goldstein.   See also commentary from Kevin Drum, who frets that Barack Obama will try to duck the issue, and from Scott Lemieux, who gives the standard feminist argument that (as this fight will, he believe, confir) that anti-abortion politics is all about nothing more than controlling womens' sexuality.  It's worth noting that some pro-lifers would agree with this interpretation, but not all of them, leaving it contested whether or not pro-lifers who claim to be only concerned with "life" issues in fact have a broader agenda.

My substantive contribution is that this is a good excuse to remind everyone how much of government -- how much policy-making -- takes place outside of the "how a bill becomes a law" story.  I don't want to say outside of Congress, because just as it's a mistake to assume that the president is only involved in legislation once it gets to his desk, it's a mistake to believe that Congress's work is done after they pass the bill.  In fact, Members of Congress, committee and subcommittee chairs, will be able to affect upcoming regulatory decisions on health care by holding (or threatening to hold) hearings, by using the budget, and by helping activists and interest groups mobilize.  Of course, those activists and interest groups play a major role, too.  So do presidential appointees, who may or may not follow the president's wishes, and career bureaucrats, who again may have policy agendas of their own.  And this is a fight we hear about because (1) it affects people's lives in obvious ways; (2) there are already-organized groups who believe that they're better off with publicity; and, well, (3) there's sex involved.  So imagine how many government policy fights are going on that don't meet those criteria.

OK, is that enough content added to justify this item?  Hope so, because, really, I just wanted an excuse to remind everyone that George H.W. Bush, during his time as a Member of the House, picked up the nickname "Rubbers" because of his advocacy for family planning. 

Stupak

I have no idea what's going to happen on abortion in the Senate, or (assuming something gets through the Senate) in conference. It seems to me that the bargaining situation is like this:

On the one hand, liberal Democrats in Congress are in a bad position because this (health care) is their issue -- a lot of them probably really agree with the rhetoric we heard throughout the weekend about the historic importance of this bill. Presumably, marginal Democrats could live with themselves quite nicely if health care failed; that makes it easier for them to walk away, and therefore is a bargaining advantage.

On the other hand, moderate Democrats from marginal districts are in a bad position because, whatever they really think about the issue, they're the ones who stand to lose their seats if the bill goes down and Democrats are perceived as incapable of governing. Most liberals are from safe seats. That makes it easier for them to walk away, and therefore is a bargaining advantage.

You may notice that these two things are in conflict, and you would be correct. A lot probably comes down to perceptions (to what extent to marginal Dems feel they would be hurt if the bill goes down?). We know more now than we did -- we know that the numbers look lousy for pro-choice Democrats. On the other hand, Republican rejectionism works against the pro-life side, here; keeping the Stupak amendment will obviously not get any GOP votes for the bill, and whatever the position of the entire House, the Democratic caucus is overwhelmingly pro-choice.

I really can't guess as to where it ends up. I'm sure that Pelosi and the Democrats would love to find a further compromise, and if anyone can find one and sell it I think that the team including Henry Waxman and Rahm Emanuel is the group to do it...but it's not at all likely that the pro-life side is interested in compromise, and not especially likely that the pro-choice side is, either (beyond accepting the "regular" Hyde Amendment style language in the bill before the Stupak amendment was added).

What should liberals do? I think Ann Friedman is certainly correct that the Stupak amendment

...further segregates abortion as something different, off the menu of regular health care. It is a huge backward step in the battle to convey -- not just politically, but to women in their everyday lives -- that reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.

But I also think she's also right that, from a feminist point of view, there are a lot of very good things in the House bill, and she doesn't (in that post) really talk about the big stuff -- that a whole lot of women who have no health insurance now -- because of money, or preexisting conditions, or whatever -- would have health insurance if this bill becomes law.

That said...if it was clear that the votes ran against the pro-choice groups, I would say that their best course is just to accept that they can't get a better bill, but that even the likely compromise bill (which will almost certainly lose many of the things that feminists like about the House bill) is so much better for women that it's worth the backwards step Friedman describes. But it isn't at all clear to me if that's the case. At the end of the day liberals, in my view, are going to have to accept a partial victory and talk a lot about FDR and Social Security and plans to improve on the partial victory in the future. However, since it just isn't clear yet where the fault lines are going to be, there's not much to do other than fight hard for whatever can be done to make it a less partial victory.

My advice to people who want good health care reform? Don't worry about principles; don't worry about the bill doing some nasty things, and especially don't worry about the bill failing to do good things that, in your view, it should do. I'd be concerned with two factors: first, the short-term effect of passing the bill on the 2010 and 2012 election cycles; and, second, getting the big things done in a way that allow future additions. Mess up the former, and you'll hurt your chances for improving the bill for a long time; mess up the latter, and improving it will be that much harder to do.

...and, don't forget that no matter how much worse the bill looks than you want it, at the end of the day, after you've fought for every provision that you care about, after sixty years a partial victory (as long as it doesn't sink the Dems in 2010 and 2012 and as long as it's a framework that can be improved over time) is far, far, better than defeat.