Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
LIGHTNING ROUND: PEAK WINGNUT.
- Lindsey Graham's protestations aside, it seems clear that there's neither the will nor the numbers to filibuster the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. I'm sure that won't stop Newt and Rush from alienating the rest of the country from the GOP, however.
- The president sent a letter to Max Baucus and Edward Kennedy reiterating his support for a public option for what feels like the inevitable health care reform bill that's slowly working its way through Congress. Meanwhile, Ezra Klein helpfully explains the relevance of MedPAC and why it might finally get some teeth, and Greg Sargent documents the Canadian influence.
- It's hard to disagree with the thesis of this Politico piece, that Obama is deliberately poaching GOP moderates for his administration in order to reduce the Republican party down to its core base of Southern supporters.
- The right has predictably been freaking out over a New York Times piece that asserts President Obama believes the United States could be "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." As usual, it helps to read the official transcript in these situations. The jury's still out on whether this is sillier than the latest mutterings coming from Michael Goldfarb.
- Mark Levin, last seen screaming at and berating a woman on the air, has a list of "The World's Most Deranged Bloggers." You'd think it would be a roll call of the Left's most pugnacious but actually it's four conservative pundits who tend to point out that people like Levin are nuts. It's odd to think that Levin, author of a book called "Liberty and Tyranny," apparently knows nothing about either subject, but we'll just call this Jonah Goldberg Syndrome from now on.
- Remainders: Tim Pawlenty suggests he'll do what the Minnesota Supreme Court tells him to do; Dave Weigel watches PajamasTV so you don't have to; and Stephen Colbert edits Newsweek?
--Mori Dinauer
COMMENTS (6)
It's hard to disagree with the thesis of this Politico piece, that Obama is deliberately poaching GOP moderates for his administration in order to reduce the Republican party down to its core base of Southern supporters.
So what's the math here? One Republican in his administration is simply a token gesture verging on an insult; Two Republicans is par for the course; Three is real proof that he wants to reach across the aisle; Four is a harbinger of the end of partisanship in America; And five is proof of a cunning scheme to destroy the opposition party?
I suppose all Obama has to do is lure away 50 or 60 sitting Republican members of Congress and make sure that there's a strong Democrat in place in each case to win the seat.
Of course, at that point, the administration would be a moderate Republican one, not a progressive Democratic one - so maybe it's the Republicans who are suckering Obama and not the other way around.
Posted by: Jinchi | June 3, 2009 7:17 PM
"Obama is deliberately poaching GOP moderates"
Sure he is. But it's only possible because they're sick of being Republicans and are ecstatic to be offered a way out.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 3, 2009 8:03 PM
It's finally time that Muslims get real recognition in America so that the country's thoroughly biased and racist foreign policy against the billion Muslims in the world can at last be challenged. Hasta la vista, Israelistas.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 3, 2009 10:03 PM
I estimate the US has the 40th most Muslims in the world. If the Muslim population grows we'll pass Kosovo.
Posted by: American Citizen | June 4, 2009 8:13 AM
What makes you think that would be a case of suckering? In the days when there were still Rockefeller Republicans, that's a category into which Obama would have fitted very comfortably. I think he knows exactly what he's doing. (And as a progressive I don't like it one bit.)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | June 4, 2009 10:50 AM
Saying that Newt and Rush are going to alienate the public from the GOP is like saying Keith Olbermann and Tom Foley are going to have a significant influence on how the public views Democrats.
The public will judge the Republicans by their performance in Congress and their future platforms, not on radio personalities and ex-Speakers.
Posted by: Adam Herman | June 6, 2009 2:18 AM