Obama and the House Republicans

I was feeling pretty good about Obama's performance with the House Republicans, but wondered how the other side felt. So this morning I clicked over to the National Republican Congressional Committee site to see what they had to say.

Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Hmm.

Well, they were taking the president to task for not listening to their ideas. So I clicked over to their news release page to see what policy ideas they were offering.

Nothing. Nada. Zip.

On the page were a series of releases trumpeting bad economic news, bad poll numbers about the stimulus bill (didn't that happen a year ago?). The only positive news on the page was about Republican prospects in the 2010 election.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, I thought. So I glanced back at the top navigation bar. There must be a section for "Issues."

Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Nothing about how House Republicans propose ending two wars, reducing the deficit or creating jobs.

Every time I look for evidence the GOP offers serious governing alternatives to the Democrats?

Noting. Nada. Zip.

Dan Balz and the GOP

WaPo writer Dan Balz has a front page piece today that begins:

"One year after hitting bottom in the aftermath of President Obama's elections, Republicans have taken their first concrete steps toward recovery."

Balz's story then goes on to highlight how seriously F'd up the Republicans are, making mockery of his lede. Someone should punch his editor.

Okay, yes, the GOP won in VA and NJ, but those victories were pegged more by candidates than the party. The GOP was lucky that it ran against two lackluster Dems and the Republican candidates ran better campaigns than their opponents. It's difficult to see how you can draw Party-wide "concrete steps" from such victories. Especially when Nov. 3 also saw the loss of a House District that has been in GOP hands almost since the GOP was invented. And, as Balz himself points out:

"But New Jersey and Virginia voted against the party holding the White House in the past six gubernatorial elections and are therefore unreliable harbingers of the 2010 campaign."

Duh. Well, that inconvenient truth doesn't prevent the Washington Post and the rest of the MSM from treating those victories as "concrete steps" towards a GOP rebirth.

I think the portent most important for 2010 is the NY House race. The Republican loss there defied history, while their wins in NJ and VA were with history's tide. The GOP, by giving in to the most scurrilous of the tea baggers and birthers will push away moderating voices. And continue to lose.

Republicans are taking concrete steps alright. Concrete tied to their heels as they step cluelessly on water.

Republicans: Not a Political Party: It's an SNL Skit

I think after 2008 the GOP must have decided that trying to win elections and govern in today's troubled world was just too much of a drag. And they noticed how much everyone loved those SNL skits during the election. People hated Sarah Palin; but they loved Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin.

So I think they have secretly decided to mount a perpetual SNL satire in real time.

What else can explain:

1) The Michael Steele goofiness
2) The Bobby Jindal speech
3) Renaming the Democrats the "Democrat Socialist Party"
4) Rush
5) Newt
6) The Cheney self-parody

And now, this:

National Review Online's Mark Krikorian: "Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English... and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn't be giving in to."

The National Review? Really? You have stooped to this? William F. Buckley must be rolling in his grave.

It's all so lame it has to be a joke.

Right?

So it must no longer be about the votes. It's about ratings. They want us to laugh.