Juan Williams reveals that the White House is calling the Republicans' opposition to Obamacare "the original sin."

Here's Juan Williams this morning on "Fox News Sunday":

"The fact is that Obama is the only president we have."

"We can’t abdicate our position in the world for the next three years. So Republicans will have to resist the temptation to weaken him when the cost is weakening the country. A party that for at least two generations has held high the banner of American leadership and strength should not cast a vote that obviously risks a damaging erosion of this country’s stature and credibility abroad."

 From Bill Kristol's explanation of why "yes" is the correct answer for Republicans.

"While the old guard of the Republican Party was out playing footsie with the president, the new kids in town were talking to the American people about liberty."

Let's get back to yesterday's Rush Limbaugh show. Here's my post about the interview with Rand Paul, noting Paul's accidental revelation that he's no follower of Rush Limbaugh. But before that happened, there was this opening monologue:

[T]he establishment decided to go out to dinner last night.  Obama took McCain and Lindsey Graham and some others, went out to dinner....

Obama, a 20-vehicle motorcade to go to a restaurant for dinner.  A 20-vehicle motorcade to go to a restaurant while the White House tours are shut down because of the sequester....

The establishment goes out, when they got back home they found all the furniture out on the front porch.  The kids had gone crazy.  The kids had thrown a giant party while the establishment was out doing whatever they were doing.  While the old guard of the Republican Party was out playing footsie with the president, the new kids in town were talking to the American people about liberty...

"He did a disservice, a disservice to a lot of Americans to make -- make them fear they're in danger from their government. They're not! They're not!" McCain said, quote, "American citizens have nothing to fear from their government."...

Now, I'll tell you what's happening here, folks, among many other things. McCain and some of these old guard guys are jealous.... Well, right now, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have captivated everybody, and these old guard guys -- these old bulls -- are getting jealous.....

"Mr. Obama's was a White House that had—and showed—no respect for Republicans trying to negotiate with Republicans."

"Through it all he was confident—'Eric, don't call my bluff'—because he believed, as did his staff, that his talents would save the day. They saved nothing. Washington became immobilized."

Peggy Noonan, drawing on Bob Woodward's "The Price of Politics."

Also at the link: Noonan's analysis of the first debate and her basis for believing that the Obama we saw there was the "real Obama."

We are the 99%/You are the 47%.

Yesterday was: 1. The 1-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street protest movement, where the chant was "We are the 99%," and 2. The day we got the video of Mitt Romney talking to his affluent donors and saying "There are 47% who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. These are people who pay no income tax."

The percentages are different, but the us/them attitude is similar. It's a way of speaking politically: There are X% of us and Y% of them, and the recognizing the comparative size of the 2 groups tells us what our politics should be.

The people within group X and group Y aren't all alike, but the speaker is choosing to portray them as alike, because it's a step in an argument about what supposedly needs to be done. The claim of representing 99% is especially ludicrous, but the effort is to focus anger on the evil 1%, who elicit no sympathy at all. But it doesn't make sense for other people near the top not to worry that the greedy mob — the takers — are coming after them... which is why the 99% can't possibly be the 99%, because the top end of the 99% can see that it too is under attack, and they won't want the bottom end of the 99% speaking for them.

That's the flaw in the 99% chant: There's no credible threat that all 99% will vote together. Some of those Occupy protesters dreamed of revolution, but we've still got a democracy, and the only serious question is how many of the 99% will vote for the Democratic Party's candidates. The Democratic Party used a modified version of what the protesters were saying. That's what Elizabeth Warren articulated in her famous "underlying social contract... take a hunk of that and pay forward" rant. Obama was trying to make the same move when he inelegantly said "You didn't build that" — the 4 words the Republicans built their whole convention around.

Romney supporters can hardly complain when Obama supporters seize upon his 47% quote and use it any which way they can.



It's the most knuckle-bustin', gut-wrenchin', brain-scramblin', butt-bruisin', lip-splittin' brawl of all time.

"President Obama appears to be enjoying a bounce in the polls following last Friday’s jobs report."

Says Rasmussen, reporting the daily Presidential Tracking Poll with Obama at 47% and Romney at 45%.

This is only the second time in more than two months of daily tracking that Obama has reached the 47% level of support. Prior to today, he had led Romney on only one of the preceding 34 days. Romney led by four on Friday morning just before the jobs report.

Obama needs that economic good news, so look at this, in the NYT:

A rising number of manufacturers are canceling new investments and putting off new hires because they fear paralysis in Washington will force hundreds of billions in tax increases and budget cuts in January, undermining economic growth in the coming months.

Executives at companies making everything from electrical components and power systems to automotive parts say the fiscal stalemate is prompting them to pull back now, rather than wait for a possible resolution to the deadlock on Capitol Hill.

No one wants the economy to be bad, but Republicans have a political self-interest in the economy looking bad until after the election. That's not a normal "stalemate"!

"[N]early 60 percent of Republicans cannot point to a single candidate [for the 2012 presidential nomination] about whom they are enthusiastic..."

Says the New York Times, citing a Times/CBS News poll:

Only those possible contenders who regularly appear on television — or have made bids before — are well known enough to elicit significant views from their fellow Republicans....

The poll would seem to reflect the late start to the Republican primary season, with many of the major likely candidates seeking to hoard their money and avoid making any missteps that they might have to live with later, when voters go to polls or caucus rooms.

Is this a bad thing for Republicans?

Arguably not: hoard their money and avoid making any missteps... as the article says. Why become conspicuous now and get knocked down? Why fight amongst yourselves? Why commit to positions when the economy and other matters are in continual flux? Why struggle to draw attention to yourself when Obama holds and controls the nation's attention? Let him make mistakes, let those mistakes accumulate, and decide how and when to use those mistakes against him?

[Donald] Trump has been getting considerable attention as a possibly strong contender, but just about as many Republicans view him favorably as view him unfavorably — 35 percent favorably and 32 percent unfavorably— and nearly 60 percent of Republicans interviewed said they did not believe he was a serious candidate. (Far more of all voters view him unfavorably — 46 percent — than view him favorably, 25 percent.)

Yes, exactly. Let Donald Trump attract attention for now. He'll go away later. Let him take all the shots no one serious wants to take responsibility for.

"The Republicans won by default. And their prize is nothing more than a two-year lease on the House."

"The building was available because the previous occupant had been evicted for arrogant misbehavior and, by rule, alas, the House cannot be left vacant."

Krauthammer.

What's with the GOP's "utter lack of triumphalism"?

"In 1994, riding their previous tsunami, Republicans literally danced in the Washington streets and partied for 48 hours. In 2008, Democrats wept and sang. There was none of this last night, even though the GOP victory might have been larger and more decisive than either of those."

Why so somber?
	They know they aren't really popular. Just the alternative to something despised.
	Jubilation has a way of biting you in the ass 2 years later.
	Things are so bad that it would be in bad taste to look all happy.
	They won't really be able to do anything and want to keep expectations low.
	The Rally to Restore Sanity restored sanity.
	These people are genuine adults, acting like adults.
pollcode.com free polls

Look at this GOP website.

It's interactive!

Via CNN:

The Republican National Convention launched a website blasting what it considers Obama's "leisure activities or missteps" during the oil disaster, like playing golf, attending concerts and vacationing in Asheville, North Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; and now Maine."

Obama has also faced criticism for scheduling a trip up north, instead of vacationing in the Gulf, as he advised other Americans to do.

Aw, come on, what is the problem? Republicans will complain about anything. Why aren't they happy to see him doing things other than governing. That government is best which governs least....

Heavy-handed RNC ad.

Ludicrous or appropriate? Silly or genuinely scary?

President Obama goes to the GOP retreat and purports to promote the "absolutely essential... the process of disagreement."

I said I was going to watch the the video of Obama's speech to the GOP retreat and the the Q&A session. (Transcript.) Here's my edit with commentary, beginning with the frist thing that made me laugh:

I've said this before, but I'm a big believer not just in the value of a loyal opposition, but in its necessity. Having differences of opinion, having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security; that's not something that's only good for our country, it's absolutely essential.

It's only through the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out and good ideas get refined and made better. 

Would the bad ideas have been tossed out of the health-care plan if the congressional Democrats had gone through a "process of disagreement" that included the Republicans? It's way too late to talk about some kind of "absolutely essential" process that the Democrats never even considered following back when they thought they had an invincible supermajority. Republican support is a necessity now, but not because of some dialectical ideal of policymaking proceeding by debate. You need the votes now, and you didn't then.

The only thing I don't want -- and here I am listening to the American people, and I think they don't want either -- is for Washington to continue being so Washington-like.

The people reacted and are continuing to react to what the Democrats did with their supermajority. The objection isn't to discord and obstruction. The objection is to the rule of a single party rule that has seen fit to ram through policies people don't want.

You're telling the Republicans to be more acquiescent, right when they are well-positioned to win elections in the fall. And isn't that what the people want, a better balance of conservatives and liberals in Congress? And isn't that the way to get to real bipartisanship, with a second party that has some voting power? You're only saying what you are now because Scott Brown won in Massachusetts and took away the overweening power of the Democrats in the Senate.

... I don't believe that the American people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job security.

But you really are focusing on reelecting Democrats here. It is about their job security, as you see Republican challengers on the horizon.

Let's dig into the Q&A:

PENCE: ... Republicans offered a stimulus bill.... It cost half as much as the Democratic proposal in Congress. And using your economic analyst models, it would have created twice the jobs at half the cost. It essentially was across-the-board tax relief, Mr. President.... [W]ould you be willing to consider embracing... the kind of across-the-board tax relief that Republicans have advocated...?

I cut down that question to its essence, so I've made it look easier to see than it was, but does Obama answer the question? The closest he gets is:

OBAMA: ... 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts. Small businesses got tax cuts. Large businesses got help in terms of their depreciation schedules... [T]he notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs -- why would I resist that? I wouldn't. I mean, that's my point, is that -- I am not an ideologue.... The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.... There may be other ideas that you guys have....

Pence cuts through the verbiage, and restates he question clearly:

PENCE: Mr. President, would -- will you consider supporting across-the-board tax relief, as President Kennedy did?

Obama's answer:

OBAMA: ... I think is important to note, you know, what you may consider across-the-board tax cuts could be, for example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars.... [a]nd... if you're calling for just across-the-board tax cuts and then, on the other hand, saying that we're somehow going to balance our budget, I'm going to want to take a look at your math and see how that -- how that works. Because the issue of deficit and debt is another area where there has been a tendency for some inconsistent statements.

AKA "no."

RYAN: ... [W]hy not start freezing spending now? And would you support a line-item veto and helping us get a vote on it in the House?

OBAMA: ... [I]f you either increased taxes or significantly lowered spending when the economy remains somewhat fragile, that that would have a destimulative effect and potentially you'd see a lot of folks losing business, more folks potentially losing jobs. That would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off....

With respect to the line-item veto, I actually -- I think there's not a president out there that wouldn't love to have it....

Obama cuts Paul Ryan off when he starts to explain why this new version of the line-item veto is unconstitutional. (The Clinton-Era Line Item Veto Act was unconstiutional.)

CHAFFETZ: [W]hen you stood up before the American people multiple times and said you would broadcast the health care debates on C-SPAN, you didn't. I was disappointed, and I think a lot of Americans were disappointed.

You said you weren't going to allow lobbyists in the senior-most positions within your administration, and yet you did. I applauded you when you said it, and disappointed when you didn't.

You said you'd go line by line through the health care debate -- or through the health care bill. And there were six of us, including Dr. Phil Roe, who sent you a letter and said, "We would like to take you up on that offer. We'd like to come." We never heard a letter. We never got a call. We were never involved in any of those discussions.....

OBAMA: ... I think it's a legitimate criticism. So on that one, I take responsibility.

All right! Guilty as charged. But are you going to do anything about it now? That's what "responsibility" really means. Not just, yep, we did that.

BLACKBURN: [T]hank you for acknowledging that we have ideas on health care. Because, indeed, we do have ideas. We have plans. We have over 50 bills. We have lots of amendments that would bring health care ideas to the forefront....

And if those good ideas aren't making it to you, maybe it's the House Democrat leadership that is an impediment instead of a conduit....

OBAMA: Actually, I've gotten many of your ideas. I've taken a look at them...  If you can show me and if I get confirmation from health care experts, people who know the system and how it works...  I'm game....

If you look at the package that we've presented -- and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating -- we were in the process of eliminating.

For example -- for example, you know, we said from the start that -- that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you've got, you can keep it; that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decisionmaking. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

Snuck in...

[F]rankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot.

That made me laugh... but he just admitted that things got snuck in, so that does sound like a plot, and "Bolshevik" is just a funny way to say: I know this looks really left-wing to you. The question remains: Is it?

[W]e've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality.

I'm not suggesting that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

Now, Obama is known for his rhetoric, and any politician uses rhetoric. The Republicans have to say too much government.  It's very effective, and it matches their ideology. Of course, it's annoying to the Democrats.

It's not just on your side, by the way. It's -- it's on our side as well. This is part of what's happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do.

That's a fine point, but scrape away the nasty tone that's sometimes there, and politicians still need to state their ideological positions clearly. People need to know that the 2 parties are different. If Obama really believes in the ideal he stated at the outset, that there is an essential process of "real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security," then there needs to be crisp definition of conservatism and liberalism.

If you're going to say people need to be compliant and lawmaking shouldn't be tough, then you don't what happened to your ideal of the "absolutely essential... the process of disagreement"?

"The Democrats have total control."

Via Memeorandum, which links to a criticism by Greg Sargent of a minor aspect of this ad. The major thing I'm seeing here a very effective ad for the Republican Party. Of course, you can't beat something with nothing. The Republicans need more than the fact that the Democrats are scary. But the ad resonated with me. Now, Al Franken as the face of that scariness may be a bit silly. And, actually, I don't think you need to go all emotive to get the desired effect. I think I'd be more scared by a straightforward presentation of facts, recited by a sober voiceover, and no music at all.

Obama to congressional Republicans: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

Ha ha. Obama is being alpha, and he's deliberately tweaked that other alpha who just loves to hear his name invoked by his enemies. I'm picturing Rush delirious with glee, pacing the cavernous rooms of his mansion, booming out monologues to his kitty cat Pumpkin, as he waits for Monday noon to finally roll around. This will be good.

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," [some Obama official explained.] "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

Rush Limbaugh's position is that he doesn't want things done:

I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him.... I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it. ...

I'm happy to be the last man standing....Yeah, I'm the true maverick... You know, I want to win. If my party doesn't, I do. If my party has sacrificed the whole concept of victory, sorry, I'm now the Republican in name only, and they are the sellouts.

IN THE COMMENTS: Jason says:

The moment I heard Obama said those things about Limbaugh I went out and subscribed to Limbaugh's 24/7 service (giving him money). And sometimes Limbaugh makes me angry, but now that the government is against him he has to be cool. Like cigarettes or machine guns or heck, even drugs.

AND: Limbaugh responds in writing, kind of screwing up the suspense...

[Obama] is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me.... To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts....

Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."