I’ve had a longstanding problem with using much modern political satire in the classroom, because I have a hard time finding good examples from the right side of the political aisle. Conservative satire seems so rare to begin with, and most of it that you can find is just too clumsy, ineffective, unfunny and/or (oops!) racist that it isn’t worth it. (And no, Sarah Palin, Rush calling Democrats “retards” does not qualify as satire.)

But leave it to the Republican National Committee (the people who brought you Michael Steele’s hip-hopping genius) to give us GOP Valentines.

Now, you might be thinking, “Isn’t it troubling when even Republicans in love can’t stop thinking about their hatred of libruls long enough to send a Valentine’s Day card?” But I think any attempt at humor from the GOP that doesn’t involve watermelons should be applauded.

My favorite, after the jump.

(more…)

I’m not sure how Ezra Klein got into this series where he’s rehabilitating the GOP’s image, but he’s found another Republican Senator who seems to be breathing air, not fire. He’s Johnny Isakson, and he has this to say about Sarah Palin’s comments equating end-of-life planning with forced euthenasia:

I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.

It’s almost like these Senate Republicans want their party to be able to win another Presidential Election sometime in the next decade. Or that they’re actually interested in having adult conversations about the issues. Weird.

I can’t remember who said this, but somebody was recently writing that the Senate isn’t where there’s going to be trouble, it’s the House of Representatives. This interview, coupled with that of Sen. Lindsey Graham the other day, would seem to bear that out.

I don’t understand health care all that well. I do know that the town hall mobs are pretty lousy for public discourse, whether they are a natural outgrowth of conservative angst, or incited by conservative radio hosts/bloggers (who, by the way, probably have health insurance). This is one of those times when it would be nice to have sane, forceful, persuasive leaders on the Republican side.

I recently gave Lindsey Graham some flak for his patronizing treatment of Sonia Sotomayor (who Graham ended up voting for, by the way). But here, in this interview with Ezra Klein (who does understand health care), Graham comes off as quite reasonable. It’s worth reading what a sane conservative has to say on health care, and to compare to the insane conservatives (two words: “death panel”).

Here’s Graham’s first answer, on whether a deal can be struck:

The bargain that will eventually be made is that Republicans will give in to the idea that every American should have coverage, and it should be mandated. There’s resistance to that because it runs counter to some of the doctrine. Democrats need to understand that there won’t be a public option any time soon, if ever. The public option in many ways has become what “amnesty” was for immigration reform, or “privatization” was for Social Security.

Read it up.

Michael Steele is asked a straightforward, softball question, and cannot even come up with some boilerplate answer:

Tones, themes, and approaches they can do. Just don’t expect, er, governance.

So the Young Republicans are going to elect a new president. I know what you’re asking: does it include a scandal? Yes!

Thirty-eight-year-old Audra Shay’s campaign to become the next chairman of the Young Republicans went from obscure to infamous over the past week, after The Daily Beast revealed details of posts of her Facebook account. Specifically, a thread where one of her friends posts that ““Obama Bin Lauden [sic] is the new terrorist… Muslim is on there side [sic]… need to take this country back from all of these mad coons… and illegals,” and Shay responds eight minutes later with: “You tell em Eric! lol.”

But here’s the scandal nobody’s talking about: the president of the Young Republicans can be thirty-eight?

Arlen Spectre (D-Pennsylvania)

The Spectre (D-Pennsylvania)

So Arlen Specter has bailed on the Republican party. I expect he used his cosmic future-gazing powers to foresee that the GOP will soon be a regional party centered in the South and rural Mid- and Mountain West. Not the way I expected the Democrats to hit 60 votes, but so be it.*

John Dickerson seems awfully convinced this is great news for Obama, but I’m probably not the only one who’s unsure about that. Dem #60 won’t be a reliable vote on things like card check (not that I have a problem with that), so while it doesn’t really get them out of any filibusters they couldn’t already get the votes on. Worse, it lets the Republicans go around a year from now when it’s another election year (…sigh…) and say, “the Democrats have a supermajority in the Senate, we need more checks and balances” when little has changed except symbolism.

Still, 60 Democrats is 60 Democrats. And you have to feel for a guy like Specter, who had to feel less and less at home in the party of torture, tax cuts for the wealthy, and hopes for Obama’s failure. I remember driving home from school a couple of years ago with my buddy Hoob, hearing Specter on NPR saying something that sounded reasonable, and us saying, Arlen Specter is now one of the good guys? Arlen Specter? And now it’s official. As Obama said to him on the phone today, “We’re thrilled to have you.”

And what’s left of the decimated moderate GOP (I’m sorry, is Lindsey Fucking Graham now the moderate GOP?) is speaking up, trying to wrest control of their party. I wish them luck. We need two sane parties in this country.

* Assuming that Al Franken continues to win his court battles against Norm Coleman. At this pace, however, Coleman may just try to string it out in the judicial system until the seat is up again in five years.

** Hat tip to Nick at Hide the Elephant for the HTML lesson.

In response to my favorable opinion of Meghan McCain, a dissenting reader writes:

Following your thinking to its conclusion, there would be no difference between Republican and Democrat, so why would that trouble you? Many of us rightwing nutjobs think we’re already there and are working overtime to fix it. The Republicans got their butts handed to them because they acted too much like the Dems, not because they don’t act enough like them. Those that voted against the Rs are now seeing what they really voted for. We’ll see together in 2010 how that works out.

1. I don’t see that as the logical conclusion at all, as there are still many principled disagreements to have about those other issues. Now, if you think social issues are more important than how the economy, energy, military, etc., then I could see a case for claiming Democrats and Republicans were the same.

2. Who said I was troubled by it?

3. While I agree that Republicans broke type on spending during W’s two terms, they pretty much stuck to the script on tax-cutting, on the gutting of regulation, and on environmental and cultural issues. But I do understand why “they voted us out because we weren’t being conservative enough” is a story that helps the right feel like they’re fixing the problem without actually having to question whether some of their beliefs seem a bit fringe-y to a lot of people who might otherwise be persuadable.

4. I feel pretty confident that digging in on traditionally “conservative” positions on cultural issues is the path to a permanent minority, but Democrats will be perfectly happy to have Republicans try it.

No, not that one.

Now, assuming that you set aside the fact that she sounds like she’s in the first half of her twenties, this is a message that can at least remove some of the stigma of being a conservative right now, which will be necessary before the Right can get the socially-moderate Center to listen to them again. If a person can call herself a “progressive Republican” with a straight face and say, essentially, “don’t worry about that older generation,” it can gradually change the face of what it means to be a Republican at all. At the very least, it could take social issues off the table, not because left and right suddenly agree, but because people who don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned or who want their gay friends to have the right to marry can say to themselves, “Well, the party IS becoming more moderate,” and turn their attention to the economy, the military, etc.

This is both a good thing for liberal social causes and a bad thing for Democrats. If Republicans become more palatable to the center on social issues, the Dems lose their biggest stick to whack them with. They’ll have to have better policies than, “Oh, did AIG get bonuses we don’t like? That’s okay, we’ll just tax 90% of them! Happy now?” Uh… no.

Of course, the K-Lo’s and Kristols and Limbaughs and Hannitys of this world will want to strangle young McCain before she makes it out of her political cradle anyway, so let’s see how this plays out within the party first…

Those of you hoping the Republican Party would edge away from the cliffs of insanity after getting beaten mercilessly in the last two elections…

…meet Glen Beck.

(more…)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.