Margaritaville

Margaritaville

Saturday, February 7, 2009

'Are These Folks Serious?'

Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, and Ryan Powers
The Progress Report
February 6, 2009

ECONOMY

'Are These Folks Serious?'

Yesterday, President Obama strongly condemned members of both political parties for characterizing the economic recovery package before Congress as a "pork" spending plan for pet projects: "[W]hen you hear these attacks deriding something of such obvious importance as this, you have to ask yourself, 'Are these folks serious?'" Despite the loss of 600,000 jobs last month alone, debate over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has been reduced to petty bickering over extremely small portions of the overall recovery plan. Marching to Rush Limbaugh's drumbeat, conservatives spent all week on cable news caricaturing tiny portions of the bill -- including provisions that they had previously supported -- in order to score political points and embarrass the Obama administration. But these antics have distracted Washington from "the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss." Today, The Progress Report takes a step back and looks at the key principles that should guide the construction of any compromise on the economic recovery package.

IT SHOULD BE IMMEDIATE: In recent days, congressional conservatives have expressed a desire to slow down deliberation over the economic recovery plan. But as National Economic Council Director Larry Summers reiterated yesterday, "We do not have time to wait." He called comprehensive and immediate economic recovery legislation "imperative for our economic security." Evidence of the need for immediate action is clear. Today, the Labor Department reported that the U.S. economy lost 598,000 jobs in January alone, raising the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent. Yesterday, the Labor Department reported that 626,000 Americans applied for unemployment benefits for the first time last week, a 26-year high. These grim reports add to the 2.6 million jobs lost in 2008, 59 percent of which occurred in the last quarter of 2008 alone. And the rate at which job losses are increasing is reaching historic highs. Indeed, in the first 12 months of the current recession, unemployment rose by 2.6 percent -- "the fastest such increase since the recession that started in January 1970." The effects of these increasing job losses can be seen rippling through the economy in the form of increasing credit card default rates, record decreases in the value of homes, and near record high levels of household debt.

IT SHOULD BE BIG: Last weekend, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) explained his opposition to the current recovery proposal by complaining, "[T]his is the largest spending bill in history." Congressional Republicans made similar complaints again and again throughout this week, but such rhetoric reveals an obvious ignorance of economic policy. Indeed, the size of the spending bill is not arbitrary, but rather is based on the current and expected gap between the nation's economic capacity and its actual economic output. As the Center for American Progress explained, "We are now in a situation where the private sector is unable -- or unwilling -- to use all of the available productive capacity: able people aren't working, machines sit idle, and cubicles stand empty." As a result, there are "millions of families who are cutting back due to layoffs, fear of layoffs, lower home values, or reduced retirement savings," and "demand for goods and services in the entire economy falls." As demand falls, companies are forced to cut back production and employment further, causing additional decreases in demand. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman explains that economists generally find that every "excess point" of unemployment above the rate that is expected in a healthy economy leads to 2 percent gap between the nation's actual economic output and its potential economic output. To prevent this gap from increasing indefinitely, the government must step in to temporarily increase demand and close the nation's economic output gap. Because unemployment is so high and demand continues to spiral downward, the current package before Congress -- if anything -- is too small.

IT SHOULD LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR LONG-TERM GROWTH: Conservative policymakers and uninformed members of the traditional media suggest that the current economic recovery package is not "stimulative" because it includes spending on public welfare programs that have both short-term and long-term benefits. They argue that relying on tax cuts would provide fast-acting and long-lasting stimulative effects. In reality, tax cuts are less stimulative than public spending. Further, cutting taxes -- unlike spending on social programs -- permanently increases the budget deficit. Instead, and as the current recovery package is slated to do, investment in America's future energy, health care, and education infrastructure puts Americans to work now and yields economic, environmental, and social benefits for years to come. While conservatives characterize the effects of such spending as being "too slow," the current proposal is designed to be fast-acting, but also maintain large (and needed) stimulative benefits through 2010. Unfortunately, a group of moderate senators, led by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME), aim to cut at least $80 billion from the the recovery package with large cuts to science, agriculture, energy, and education. 

Copyright 2009 ThinkProgress

Friday, February 6, 2009

On the Edge

Paul Krugman
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
February 6, 2009

A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to economic recovery. Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old clichés about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts.

It’s as if the dismal economic failure of the last eight years never happened — yet Democrats have, incredibly, been on the defensive. Even if a major stimulus bill does pass the Senate, there’s a real risk that important parts of the original plan, especially aid to state and local governments, will have been emasculated.

Somehow, Washington has lost any sense of what’s at stake — of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again.

It’s hard to exaggerate how much economic trouble we’re in. The crisis began with housing, but the implosion of the Bush-era housing bubble has set economic dominoes falling not just in the United States, but around the world.

Consumers, their wealth decimated and their optimism shattered by collapsing home prices and a sliding stock market, have cut back their spending and sharply increased their saving — a good thing in the long run, but a huge blow to the economy right now. Developers of commercial real estate, watching rents fall and financing costs soar, are slashing their investment plans. Businesses are canceling plans to expand capacity, since they aren’t selling enough to use the capacity they have. And exports, which were one of the U.S. economy’s few areas of strength over the past couple of years, are now plunging as the financial crisis hits our trading partners.

Meanwhile, our main line of defense against recessions — the Federal Reserve’s usual ability to support the economy by cutting interest rates — has already been overrun. The Fed has cut the rates it controls basically to zero, yet the economy is still in free fall.

It’s no wonder, then, that most economic forecasts warn that in the absence of government action we’re headed for a deep, prolonged slump. Some private analysts predict double-digit unemployment. The Congressional Budget Office is slightly more sanguine, but its director, nonetheless, recently warned that “absent a change in fiscal policy ... the shortfall in the nation’s output relative to potential levels will be the largest — in duration and depth — since the Depression of the 1930s.”

Worst of all is the possibility that the economy will, as it did in the ’30s, end up stuck in a prolonged deflationary trap.

We’re already closer to outright deflation than at any point since the Great Depression. In particular, the private sector is experiencing widespread wage cuts for the first time since the 1930s, and there will be much more of that if the economy continues to weaken.

As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out almost 80 years ago, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself. As dollar incomes fall in the face of a depressed economy, the burden of debt becomes harder to bear, while the expectation of further price declines discourages investment spending. These effects of deflation depress the economy further, which leads to more deflation, and so on.

And deflationary traps can go on for a long time. Japan experienced a “lost decade” of deflation and stagnation in the 1990s — and the only thing that let Japan escape from its trap was a global boom that boosted the nation’s exports. Who will rescue America from a similar trap now that the whole world is slumping at the same time?

Would the Obama economic plan, if enacted, ensure that America won’t have its own lost decade? Not necessarily: a number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger. But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that’s why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective — to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts — are so destructive.

So what should Mr. Obama do? Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. What matters now, however, is what he does next.

It’s time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation’s future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge. 

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Dick Cheney all but calls Barack Obama a terrorist sympathizer

Brilliant at Breakfast
February 5, 2009

Message to Dick Cheney: You are not in power anymore, and at least for now, your doctrine was soundly rejected by the American people.

Lawrence O'Donnell on Countdown last night, calling this kind of crap for what it is:

It must be to Cheney's eternal disappointment that he didn't get to feed off the blood energy of a few thousand more dead Americans while he was in office. Perhaps that's why he's in the wheelchair -- he's starving to death without being fed a regular diet of human souls.

2009 copyright brilliantatbreakfast

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Joe the Plumber advises GOP-ers

BocaGuy: What will they try next?


Alex Isenstadt
Politico
February 2, 2009

Fresh off his stint as a war correspondent in Gaza, Joe the Plumber is now doing political strategy with Republicans.

When GOP congressional aides gather Tuesday morning for a meeting of the Conservative Working Group, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher – more commonly known as Joe the Plumber — will be their featured guest. This group is an organization of conservative Capitol Hill staffers who meet regularly to chart GOP strategy for the week.

Wurzelbacher, who became a household name during the presidential election, will be focusing his talk on the proposed stimulus package. He's apparently not a fan of the economic rescue package, according to members of the group.

If nothing else, GOP aides are using the appearance to get staffers to attend the 9 a.m meeting.

“In case you weren’t planning to attend CWG tomorrow morning, you might want to reconsider because Joe the Plumber will be joining us!” Kimberly Wallner, an aide to South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, wrote in a message to her e-mail list this afternoon. 

Last month, Wurzelbacher did a brief stint as a war reporter for 
the conservative web site pjtv.com.

© 2009 Capitol News Company LLC 

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

The leaderless GOP

Joan Walsh
salon.com
MONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 2009 

Sorry, Michael Steele, but it's going to be a while before you're anything more than the figurehead frontman of a shipwrecked Republican National Committee. Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh remain the leaders of your party, and most Republicans are happy that way. A Rasmussen poll out today found that fully 55 percent of Republicans polled think their party should be "more like" Palin.

The nominal topic Dick Armey and I were set to debate on "Hardball" last week, before our conversation went off the rails, was the Democrats' role in making Limbaugh and Palin the public faces of the party. But I thought the framing was off. Democrats have had almost nothing to do with the growing prominence of either GOP entertainer emerging from the Republican wilderness; Palin and Limbaugh are hogging the limelight themselves. Just in the last week we saw the launch of SarahPAC, Palin's new fundraising vehicle; we saw her pallin' around with elitists and stalking Barack Obama at the stuffy Alfalfa Dinner; and today she's composed an Op-Ed backing (surprise!) drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Meanwhile, Limbaugh had his own Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, with a farcical approach to an "Obama-Limbaugh" stimulus proposal, and he's continuing to use his radio show to campaign against the Democrats' stimulus bill.

Despite his cliffhanger election to run the RNC, Steele couldn't compete for media attention with Palin or Limbaugh this week. And even when he gets the spotlight, he barely makes sense. On MondaySteele parroted dumb GOP anti-stimulus talking points, telling CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job," ignoring the millions of Americans currently employed in government jobs, not to mention the military. (I don't expect Steele to know anything about fabulous Depression-era successes like the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps, but the existing government workforce seems like something Steele should be familiar with.)

The only thing sadder than the GOP's leadership deficit is its ideas deficit, and the two afflictions are related. Imagine if, as RNC head, Steele got together with other party mavericks (if they exist) to draft a stimulus package he thought might actually reach African-American and working-class voters, one that didn't rely merely on the voodoo of tax cuts but also included stimulus spending that would put unemployed and underemployed workers in new jobs. I'm not saying it would work, but it would be interesting to hear a pragmatic GOP alternative. Instead Steele's just another Republican talking head mouthing "tax cuts, tax cuts" like a zombie, while the economy continues to shed jobs and the nation heads for harder times. Similarly over the weekend, GOP Sen. Jim DeMint was absolutely stomped on ABC's "This Week," with not only Barney Frank but also with corporate chieftains blasting his assertion that only tax cuts can create jobs.

"We have to decide if we want to be a free market economy and let the money stay there or be a government-directed economy, which is where we're headed with this plan," DeMint argued. FedEx CEO Fred Smith countered: "No question about it, the infrastructure of the country has been underfunded for a long time ... it certainly would be a wise thing to invest in all kinds of infrastructure," while Google CEO Eric Scmidt came back with: "I'm worried that tax cuts alone won't work because people are not paying any taxes because they're not making any money."

Still, the stimulus fight is tougher than it should be for Democrats. Clearly the best ally the Republicans have is the economic illiteracy of the pundit class in America. I'm watching NBC's Chuck Todd say the Democrats have lost the "message war" over the stimulus, because it's now just seen as a "spending bill." There's no way for a stimulus bill not to be a spending bill; the point is that the economy is such a wreck the government becomes the spender of last resort. This had merely been a stupid GOP talking point until 10 minutes ago; now it's becoming a stupid media talking point. Funny how that works.

Meanwhile, this morning MSNBC's Joe Scarborough began railing about how the plan's rebates to working people who don't earn enough to pay income taxes (though they do pay sales, payroll and property taxes) amount to "socialism." Let's get this straight: It's socialism when government gives money to workers whose jobs don't pay enough to keep them out of poverty, but it's not socialism when the government bails out greedy, failed banks? I guess not, especially if the bailout forces don't impose limits on executive compensation or play a role in managing the bailed-out enterprises. That's actually called lemon socialism, as Paul Krugman notes, in which "taxpayers bear the cost if things go wrong, but stockholders and executives get the benefits if things go right." Obama knows better than that.

I think the Democrats are being hurt by a few political complications right now. It's not good that we're debating how to spend the second "tranche" of the awful TARP program at the same time as we're having the stimulus debate; I think the inequities and inefficiencies of TARP are smogging the atmosphere for the as-yet-unfinished stimulus bill. We all heard about a desperately needed $700 billion bailout bill a few months ago -- it rewarded bad behavior and, worst of all, it didn't work. So why should Americans be any more optimistic about the separate (and it's hard to keep straight that it is separate) stimulus bill Obama has championed?

I also think Obama and the Democrats need to break three or four categories of spending out of the bill, and crusade for them daily, in real-life, real-job, real-money terms. This mess is complicated, and I'm not suggesting that Obama demagogue or exaggerate, but what the plan will accomplish is getting lost in debate over tax cuts and tax credits, shovel-ready vs. forward-looking projects, and confusion over the stimulative role of direct grants to the states. There is so much confusion and ignorance at work here, only some of it willful.  Obama has an enormous educational and not merely political task in front of him this week, and he can't expect much help from most of the media.

Copyright ©2009 Salon Media Group, Inc.

Monday, February 2, 2009

Four Less-Reported Pieces of Hugely Good News

Let's kick the week off with four pieces of less-reported but nonetheless significantly awesome headlines.

David Sirota
Open Left
February 2, 2009

OK, it's Monday, so let's slough off our national case of the Sundays and kick the week off with four pieces of less-reported but nonetheless significantly awesome headlines -- and requisite kudos to President Obama:

1. "Defense Official: Obama Calling for Defense Budget Cuts": 
Fox News is reporting that "a senior U.S. defense official" is saying that the Obama administration "has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion." Fox News may be trying to use this story to whip up the "weak on national security" offensive against Obama, but if public opinion data is any indication, it won't work. What you rarely hear from a Pentagon-worshiping media is that the American people believe we spend way too much on defense right now. According to a 2007 Gallup poll, "the public's view that the federal government is spending too much on the military has increased substantially this year, to its highest level in more than 15 years." The poll found a plurality - more than 4 in 10 Americans - now saying the government is spending too much for national defense and the military. Likewise a 2005 PIPA poll shows that, if given the chance, Americans would make deep cuts to the bloated defense budget and redirect most of the savings into domestic programs like health care. Big kudos to President Obama for starting to take on the long-overdue process of reducing defense spending.

2. "Obama's Order Is Likely to Tighten Auto Standards":
In a move mixing progressive federalism with sound environmental policy, the New York Times reported last week that President Obama ordered his administration to approve applications from states that wish to raise their auto fuel efficiency standards. Again, this is long-overdue - and Obama gets big kudos.

3. "Main Street Reviles Wall Street Bonuses": 
The Washington post reports that the Obama administration has - finally - subscribed to the idea that "companies on the federal dole should be forced to radically cut their dividends." Progressives have been pushing for this since the bailout debate began - there's absolutely no reason why taxpayer money should subsidize bank dividends.

4. "Obama Signs Pro-Labor Executive Orders": Dow Jones reports on Obama signing a package of executive orders repealing those by Bush that effectively allowed all sorts of anti-union behavior by federal contractors. These aren't hugely significant in terms of their economy-wide impact, and they are absolutely no substitute for priorities like the Employee Free Choice Act, but they certainly do set down markers about the constructive relationship this White House wants to build with organized labor.

I'd say the significance of these three pieces of news are in the proper order in terms of importance. They are certainly all significant, but if Obama is really serious about getting the defense budget under control, that would be monumentally huge, because it would provide the federal government the additional revenues needed to fund almost every other major priority in front of our country.

Good on ya, Barack - more like this please.


© 2009 Independent Media Institute.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Herbert Hoover Lives


Frank Rich
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
Febuary 1, 2009


HERE’S a bottom line to keep you up at night: The economy is falling faster than Washington can get moving. President Obama says his stimulus plan will save or create four million jobs in two years. In the last four months of 2008 alone, employment fell by 1.9 million. Do the math

The abyss is widening. Of the 30 companies in the Dow Jones industrial index, 22 have announced job cutssince October. Unemployment is up in all 50 states, with layoffs at both high-tech companies (Microsoft) and low (Caterpillar). The December job loss in retailing is the worst since at least 1939. The new-home sales rate has fallen to its all-time low since record-keeping began in 1963.

What are Americans still buying? Big Macs, Campbell’s soup, Hershey’s chocolate and Spam — the four food groups of the apocalypse.

The crisis is at least as grave as the one that confronted us — and, for a time, united us — after 9/11. Which is why the antics among Republicans on Capitol Hill seem so surreal. These are the same politicians who only yesterday smeared the patriotism of any dissenters from Bush’s “war on terror.” Where is their own patriotism now that economic terror is inflicting far more harm on their constituents than Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent W.M.D.?

The House stimulus bill is an inevitably imperfect hodgepodge-in-progress. Obama’s next move, a new plan to prevent the collapse of America’s banks, may prove more problematic still, especially given the subpar record of the new Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, in warding off calamity while at the New York Fed. No one should expect the Republicans to give the new president carte blanche, fall blindly into lock step or be “post-partisan.” (Though that’s exactly what the G.O.P. demanded of Democrats with Bush: You were either with him or with the terrorists.)

But you might think that a loyal opposition would want to pitch in and play a serious role at a time of national peril. Not by singing “Kumbaya” but by collaborating on possible solutions and advancing a policy debate that many Americans’ lives depend on. As Raymond Moley, of F.D.R.’s brain trust, said of the cross-party effort at the harrowing start of that presidency in March 1933, Hoover and Roosevelt acolytes “had forgotten to be Republicans or Democrats” as they urgently tried to rescue their country.

The current G.O.P. acts as if it — and we — have all the time in the world. It kept hoping in vain that the fast-waning Blago sideshow would somehow impale Obama or Rahm Emanuel. It has come perilously close to wishing aloud that a terrorist attack will materialize to discredit Obama’s reversals of Bush policy on torture, military tribunals and Gitmo. The party’s sole consistent ambition is to play petty politics to gum up the works.

If anything, the Republican Congressional leadership seems to be emulating John McCain’s September stunt of “suspending” his campaign to “fix” the Wall Street meltdown. For all his bluster, McCain in the end had no fixes to offer and sat like a pet rock at the White House meeting on the crisis before capitulating to the bailout. His imitators likewise posture in public about their determination to take action, then do nothing while more and more Americans cry for help.

The problem is not that House Republicans gave the stimulus bill zero votes last week. That’s transitory political symbolism, and it had no effect on the outcome. Some of the naysayers will vote for the revised final bill anyway (and claim, Kerry-style, that they were against it before they were for it). The more disturbing problem is that the party has zero leaders and zero ideas. It is as AWOL in this disaster as the Bush administration was during Katrina.

If the country wasn’t suffering, the Republicans’ behavior would be a laugh riot. The House minority leader, John Boehner, from the economic wasteland of Ohio, declared on “Meet the Press” last Sunday that the G.O.P. didn’t want to be “the party of ‘No’ ” but “the party of better ideas, better solutions.” And what are those ideas, exactly? He said he’ll get back to us “over the coming months.”

His deputy, the Virginia congressman Eric Cantor, has followed the same script, claiming that the G.O.P. will not be “the party of ‘No’ ” but will someday offer unspecified “solutions and alternatives.” Not to be left out, the party’s great white hope, Sarah Palin, unveiled a new political action committee last week with a Web site also promising “fresh ideas.” But as the liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas ZĂșniga observed, the site invites visitors to make donations and read Palin hagiography while offering no links to any ideas, fresh or otherwise.

For its own contribution to this intellectual void, the Republican National Committee convened last week under a new banner, “Republican for a Reason.” Perhaps that unidentified reason will be determined by a panel of judges on a TV reality show. It had better be brilliant given that only five states (with 20 total electoral votes) now lean red in party affiliation, according to Gallup. At this rate the G.O.P. will be in Alf Landon territoryby 2012.

The Republicans do have one idea, of course, but it’s hardly fresh: more and bigger tax cuts, particularly for business and the well-off. That’s the sum of their “alternative” stimulus plan. Obama has tried to accommodate this panacea, perhaps to a fault. Mainstream economists in both parties believe that tax cuts in the stimulus package will deliver far less bang for the buck than, say, infrastructure spending. The tax-cut stimulus embraced a year ago by the G.O.P. induced next-to-no consumer spending as Americans merely banked the savings or paid down debt.

We also now know conclusively that the larger Bush tax cuts, besides running up record deficits and exacerbating income inequality, were also at best a placebo on our road to ruin. In a January survey of economists, including former McCain advisers like Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Mark Zandi, The Washington Post determined that the job growth the Bush administration kept bragging about (“52 straight months!”) was a mirage inflated by the housing bubble. Job growth — about 2 percent — was in fact the most tepid of any eight-year period “since data collection began seven decades ago.” Gross domestic product grew at a slower pace than in any eight years since the Truman administration.

But even if tax cuts alone could jump-start a recovery, they couldn’t do the heavy lifting that Obama has promised and the country desperately needs: a down payment on a new economy to replace our dilapidated 20th-century model and bring back long-term growth. The Republicans don’t acknowledge the need for this transformation, or debate it in good conscience, preferring instead to hyperventilate over the contraceptives in a small family-planning program since removed from the stimulus bill. All it takes is the specter of condoms for the party of Vitter, Foley and Craig to go gaga.

The Republicans’ other preoccupation remains Rush Limbaugh, who is by default becoming their de facto leader. While most Americans are fearing fear itself, G.O.P. politicians are tripping over themselves in morbid terror of Rush.

These pratfalls commenced after Obama casually told some Republican congressmen(correctly) that they won’t “get things done” if they take their orders from Limbaugh. That’s all the stimulus the big man needed to go on a new bender of self-aggrandizement. He boasted that Obama is “more frightened” of him than he is of the Republican leaders in the House or Senate. He said of the new president, “I hope he fails.”

Obama no doubt finds Limbaugh’s grandiosity more amusing than frightening, but G.O.P. politicians are shaking like Jell-O. When asked by Andrea Mitchell of NBC News on Wednesday if he shared Limbaugh’s hope that Obama fails, Eric Cantor spun like a top before running off, as it happened, to appear on Limbaugh’s radio show. Mike Pence of Indiana, No. 3 in the Republican House leadership, similarly squirmed when asked if he agreed with Limbaugh. Though the Republicans’ official, poll-driven line is that they want Obama to succeed, they’d rather abandon that disingenuous nicety than cross Rush.

Most pathetic of all was Phil Gingrey, a right-wing Republican congressman from Georgia, who mildly criticized both Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to Politico because they “stand back and throw bricks” while lawmakers labor in the trenches. So many called Gingrey’s office to complain that the poor congressman begged Limbaugh to bring him on air to publicly recant on Wednesday. As Gingrey abjectly apologized to talk radio’s commandant for his “stupid comments” and “foot-in-mouth disease,” he sounded like the inmate in a B-prison-movie cowering before the warden after a failed jailbreak.

“It’s up to me to hijack the Obama honeymoon,” Limbaugh soon gloated, “and I’ve done it.” In his dreams. He has hijacked what’s left of the Republican Party; the Obama honeymoon remains intact. The nightmare is that we have so irrelevant, clownish and childish an opposition party at a moment when America is in an all-hands-on-deck emergency that’s as trying as war. To paraphrase a dictum that has been variously attributed to two of our most storied leaders in times of great challenge, Thomas Paine and George Patton, the Republicans should either lead, follow or get out of the grown-ups’ way.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company