We know what the GOP is against: Obama. But what is it for, exactly?

Turns out that Republican voters don’t have a satisfactory answer to that question. Results from a Washington Post poll:

Republicans and GOP-leaning independents are overwhelmingly negative about Obama and the Democratic Party more broadly, with nearly all dissatisfied with the administration’s policies and almost half saying they are “angry” about them. About three-quarters have a more basic complaint, saying Obama does not stand for “traditional American values.” More than eight in 10 say there is no chance they would support his reelection.

Fewer than half of the Republicans and Republican-leaners surveyed by The Washington Post see the party’s leadership as taking the GOP in the “right direction,” down sharply from this time four years ago. About four in 10 are dissatisfied with the policy proposals being offered by congressional Republicans, and similar numbers see the current crop of GOP legislators as out of touch with their problems and personal values. Nearly a third say the Republicans in Congress are not standing up for the party’s core values.

On one hand, the poll also revealed that these voters consider Sarah Palin the GOP figure who best represents Republican Party values, so maybe the rest of us shouldn’t be rooting for the party to get its act together.

On the other hand, conservatives have been celebrating President Obama’s declining popularity as though it makes a Republican resurgence all but inevitable. But it seems they only have half the equation in hand; if the Republican Party’s own base isn’t sure that the party is headed in the right direction, why should the rest of us trust the GOP?

Conservatives respond to food stamps and deepening poverty with a boldly imaginative new program: “Get a job, deadbeat.”

Interesting article in today’s New York Times about the widespread — and growing — use of the food stamp program. Basically, there used to be a welfare stigma attached to the program. But now that lots and lots of people use it  there’s not so much stigma anymore. (The Times doesn’t say this directly, but the subtext is that even white people in the suburubs are using the system now, so it’s OK!)

What jumped out to me, though, was the response of a prominent conservative think tank to this news:

“Some people like to camouflage this by calling it a nutrition program, but it’s really not different from cash welfare,” said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, whose views have a following among conservatives on Capitol Hill. “Food stamps is quasi money.”

Arguing that aid discourages work and marriage, Mr. Rector said food stamps should contain work requirements as strict as those placed on cash assistance. “The food stamp program is a fossil that repeats all the errors of the war on poverty,” he said.

What is this, the 1990s?

I was against the welfare reform that Congress passed and President Clinton signed during that decade. I thought it would leave millions of people high and dry. While the economy was rolling, I was wrong. There were jobs — even menial ones — out there for the taking. But the economy isn’t rolling anymore, and there aren’t enough jobs to go around.

Unemployment is above 10 percent. The “underemployment” rate — which includes people who’ve given up looking for a job, or people who are working part-time but want full-time work — is above 17 percent.

Despite this, though, conservatives still are on the lookout for welfare queens. From the Times story:

So far, few elected officials have objected to the program’s growth. Almost 90 percent of beneficiaries nationwide live below the poverty line (about $22,000 a year for a family of four). But a minor tempest hit Ohio’s Warren County after a woman drove to the food stamp office in a Mercedes-Benz and word spread that she owned a $300,000 home loan-free. Since Ohio ignores the value of houses and cars, she qualified.

“I’m a hard-core conservative Republican guy — I found that appalling,” said Dave Young, a member of the county board of commissioners, which briefly threatened to withdraw from the federal program.

“As soon as people figure out they can vote representatives in to give them benefits, that’s the end of democracy,” Mr. Young said. “More and more people will be taking, and fewer will be producing.”

Right. Ninety percent of beneficiaries are below the poverty line, but the one person who owns the fancy car somehow becomes emblematic of the program for conservatives. It was ever thus.

If the economy and jobs situation improves dramatically, we should expect to see a drastic reduction in the number of people using the food stamps program. If not, I can take seriously conservative concerns about creating a sluggish, dependent, democracy-hating citizenry through food programs for the poor. Until then, the conservative response to bad economic times will just look churlish and unimaginative. The problem with the economy is not that people don’t want to work for their money. It’s that the money — and jobs — aren’t there anymore. Republicans should focus their objections on that situation.

David Obey’s Afghanistan war tax

If the war in Afghanistan is really crucial to our national security — and worth sending an additional 34,000 troops to get us deeper into the fight — then David Obey is right: We ought to be paying for it instead of putting it on the national credit card:

Congressman Dave Obey along with 10 other Democratic House members are sponsoring the surtax to pay for the war in Afghanistan. Obey says if President Obama goes along with the recommendation by Afghanistan NATO Commander General McChrystal and adds more troops…it’ll cost $900 billion dollars over the next ten years. That’s the same cost as proposed healthcare overhaul.

“The difference is, we’re not being asked to pay for that war but we are being asked to pay for healthcare.”

Sounds right. I don’t expect this to go anywhere because tax increases of any kind are notoriously difficult to pass, and I can’t imagine that Congress — in what’s about to be an election year — would want to pass an unpopular tax to support an increasingly unpopular war. And certainly there’s the not-unreasonable argument that new taxes in this economic climate will only make recovering from the recession more difficult. I get that.

But if ramping up the war is in fact crucial to our national security — and that’s the only reasonable justification for increasing our involvement there — then isn’t it worth it to take an economic hit for the duration? If it’s not — if we’re not will to sacrifice a little bit of our comfort for it — then how crucial is it?

In the age of the all-volunteer army, in fact, it’s too easy for the public at large to get disconnected from our wars being fought thousands of miles away. Yes, Afghanistan is getting more unpopular — but what is anybody doing about that besides letting a couple of Democratic congressmen gripe? Putting the war between the citizens and their pocketbook might make them think harder — and act more decisively — about which wars we need and which wars we don’t.

Thanksgiving: The Muppets do ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’

Posting will be light the rest of the holiday week. In the meantime: Enjoy.

(Hat Tip: Chris Krewson)

ACT UP protests the shortage of AIDS housing in Philly

How I spent my lunch hour:

To become president, Sarah Palin needs to not be Sarah Palin

Matthew Dowd crafts a strategy for Sarah Palin’s 2012 run for the presidency. Bullet point No. 1:

– Quality over quantity. You don’t need to “tweet” quite so much. You don’t need to be at countless rallies and photo ops. Instead, seek out substantive platforms where you can relate to people in a thoughtful, measured way. Appear on Sunday shows every now and then, sit down with Charlie Rose and editorial boards, and give serious speeches on your approach to the world in the 21st century.

This presumes, of course, that Palin actually has a serious approach to the world in the 21st century. That she’s given enough depth of thought to the issues of the day that she can hold her own on Sunday shows, Charlie Rose and editorial boards. And not to keep pounding a point home: We haven’t seen evidence that she’s really done or ready to do any of that.

At some point you realize that the “Sarah Palin” of some conservatives’ fever dreams about 2012 isn’t actually Sarah Palin, woman from Alaska and actual human being. She’s a symbol, a vessel, a living embodiment of the thumb in the eye conservatives would love to give those elitist liberals. That’s why we keep seeing these columns suggesting that Palin really could have a shot at the presidency in 2012 … so long as she’d buckle down and stop being Sarah Palin. Maybe conservatives should find a vessel that isn’t quite so empty.

And this is why Microsoft is evil

This is an interesting approach to free-market competition, no?

Microsoft and News Corp. have met about plans to help the media company “de-index” its Web sites so that their stories could not be detected by Google. News Corp., the Rupert Murdoch company that controls The Wall Street Journal, approached Microsoft, according to the Financial Times. But Microsoft has gone to other publications offering its services to remove their sites from Google’s search engine, the paper said. “This is all about Microsoft hurting Google’s margins,” said one online publisher.

A lot of newspaper publishers seem to think they’d be making more money if only Google wasn’t linking to their product. That seems insane to me, but that’s not what is weird about this story. It’s about Microsoft taking on its competitor … by actively trying to make its competitor’s product worse.

When we hear paeans to the free market, it’s usually about consumers benefiting because competitors strive to offer better products or better service or better pricing. What Microsoft is doing, though, is akin to Burger King competing with McDonald’s by openly spitting loogies into Big Macs. Making Google less useful might drive search consumers to Bing, Microsoft’s search engine, but it will also make it more difficult for consumers to find the news and information they want and need. And that, once again, is why Microsoft is evil.

Our huge national debt

Yikes:

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.

In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The potential for rapidly escalating interest payouts is just one of the wrenching challenges facing the United States after decades of living beyond its means.

There’s a reckoning coming. And it isn’t going to be fun for any of us.

You can’t be fat if you want to graduate Lincoln University

This is probably going to mortify a few people:

Real life keeps getting more like ‘South Park’ all the time: The Dog Whisperer is now the Child Whisperer

New York Times:

The suggestion that the Dog Whisperer is also a Child Whisperer of sorts has popped up — sometimes couched as a joke, but, well, not really — in parents’ forums like blogs, online discussion boards, magazines, Twitter feeds and podcasts. Some parents are starting to take notice.

“When we started watching his shows, we had intended to apply his advice toward our dogs,” said Amy Twomey, a blogger on parenthood for The Dallas Morning News who is raising three children under 10 with her husband, Matt. “But we realized a lot of ideas can be used on our kids.”

And: South Park in 2006

I have no idea what to say.