Brian Beutler on the Democrats’ bad week. One thing that should be added here is that a lot of Democratic members of congress are unprepared for the new realities of American legislative life because, for the members, those realities basically suck. The days of weak party discipline and relatively low levels of partisan/ideological alignment meant that life as a member of the US House of Representatives was much more pleasant than was life as a member of parliament in Canada or France or what have you. Consequently, a lot of members would like to believe that with the Big Bad DeLay gone they can somehow resuscitate the grand old days of cross-cutting coalitions and free-agent members rather than the dreary business of party discipline and endless legislative trench warfare.

In the real world, though, the causes of partisan polarization are structural and DeLay and Gingrich were just symptoms, or perhaps smart people who understood how to take advantage of the new realities.

The CIA has unveiled a new Terrorist Buster logo. John McCloskey notes that the logo “evokes the Ghostbusters logo.” The new CIA logo is below on the left:

(HT: Rising Hegemon)

I understand that conservatives are eager for a win, and Bobby Jindal’s election as governor of Louisiana is a win. What’s more, the Louisiana Democrats are no prize pigs, so it’s quite possibly even a deserved win. Still, a lot of the crowing from the right seems a bit odd in light of the fact that everyone knows the Louisiana GOP’s electoral fortunes have been substantially boosted by demographic changes caused by the destruction of Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent failure to rebuild/resettle the displaced people.

Given the large role that the administration’s horrifying mishandling of the destruction of a major American city played in the unraveling of Republican popularity, you might expect a little bit more introspection as to how this all came about. I will say, though, that unlike the Ogonowski special election, there very possibly are some broader implications to this result if only because it shows how Louisiana may be a bright spot in the 2008 Senate races as well.

Commenting on Vice President Cheney’s latest threat toward Iran, National Review Online’s Tom Gross declares that Cheney and President Bush are “deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize” for their belligerent posturing:

They are super-mean about them now, but maybe, just maybe, one day peaceniks in America and Europe will recognize George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as the men who prevented World War Three. Surely then they would be deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize?

The NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez also encourages Lynne Cheney to run for President.

Digg It!

Near the top of his Mitt Romney profile, Ryan Lizza gives a good summary of the former governor’s many political transformations. A man in New Hampshire introduces himself as a hunter and asks Romney what he’s going to do about global warming. Romney notes that “to do that it’s going to take nuclear power, clean coal, more efficient vehicles, and then we’re going to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gases.” Lizza comments:

It was a good answer, but also a strange one. Not long ago, Romney released a glossy pamphlet detailing his positions on major issues. He sounded like Al Gore when talking to the environmentalist in New Hampshire, though his policy book’s treatment of global warming reads more like something from ExxonMobil. In it, Romney refers to the “debate” over “how much human activity impacts the environment”—code words for the global-warming-denial crowd. He offers no plan to “dramatically” curtail emissions of CO2, just an aside that “we may well be able to rein in our greenhouse-gas emissions.” As the governor of Massachusetts, Romney, in December, 2005, pulled out of a Northeast-state agreement on carbon reduction—a plan that he had supported the month before.

This is a habit of Romney’s. Politicians tend to pander, especially during the primary season. Romney’s chief opponent, Rudy Giuliani, also has a history as a pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights Republican. But while Giuliani simply downplays his record on those issues, Romney sells himself as a true convert. He not only shifts positions; he often claims to be the most passionate advocate of his new stances. It’s one of the reasons that his metamorphosis from liberal Republican to committed right-winger seems so jarring. In 1994, in his race for the Senate, he didn’t simply argue that he was a defender of gay rights; he claimed to be a stronger advocate than his opponent, Edward Kennedy. Today, he’s not just a faithful conservative but the only Republican candidate who represents “the Republican wing of the Republican Party.” He brings a salesman’s bravado and certainty to issues. At a debate in May, when asked how he would respond to a hypothetical situation involving the interrogation of a terrorist at Guantánamo Bay, he said, “Some people have said we ought to close Guantánamo. My view is that we ought to double Guantánamo.” Elected as a pro-choice governor in 2002—YouTube is flooded with his passionate advocacy of abortion rights—he now presents himself as the most resolute anti-abortion candidate in the Republican field. A Mormon, he sometimes adopts the religious language of Evangelicals when he is addressing conservative Christian groups. To economic conservatives, he pitches himself as the candidate most strongly committed to slashing spending and taxes. (He’s the only major G.O.P. candidate to have signed a formal anti-tax pledge, the sort of move that his spokesman dismissed as “government by gimmickry” in Romney’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign.) To national-security conservatives, he is the most hawkish. (He says often that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, of Iran, should be indicted under the Genocide Convention, and his campaign has named the former C.I.A. counterterrorism chief, Cofer Black, the vice-chairman of Blackwater, as an adviser.) But, while giving customers exactly what they want may be normal in the corporate world, it can be costly in politics.

The weird thing is that having flip-flopped and pandered a lot, Romney’s campaign seems to feel almost liberated. At this point, it’s not worth worrying that any particular thing will earn their candidate a reputation as a liar, a flip-flopper, and a panderer, because his stances on just a few high-profile issues show very clearly that he is a liar, is a flip-flopper, and is a panderer. Thus, they can feel free to pander and flip-flop on everything all the time. This is a stark contrast to, say, Giuliani or McCain who want to try to both trim their sails on some issues, while seeking credit for being straightforward and honest on others. Team Romney, though, always knows that for their guy Expediency Conquers All.