Douthat’s piece makes clear [that] the status quo is really a cop out. Instead of holding heterosexuals up to a rigorous standard of conduct—no divorce, harsh & unforgiving attitude toward infidelity—we’re going to discriminate against the gay and lesbian minority and then congratulate ourselves on what a good job we’re doing of upholding our ideals.

Matthew Yglesias, on the marriage double standard.

Barack Obama understands that if people ignore George Will and believe the planet is getting warmer rather than cooler, that this will make him more politically popular. He also knows that people might believe scientists about something like this. His problem is that while American scientists are all ready to coordinate their message in order to advance a foreign agenda, JournoList doesn’t have the reach necessary to extend this kind of partisanship to foreign scientists. Fortunately, though, foreigners hate America. And foreigners know that Obama’s death panels and general socialism will cripple the US economy. So in order to boost Obama’s fortunes, they’ve gotten 48 countries’ worth of scientists together to promote this lie. Fortunately, George Will still has the guts to call it like it is and the Post—and dozens of other papers across the country—still publish his bold work. Kudos.

Matthew Yglesias explaining it all

Is Afghanistan important? Sure. Does it matter? Sure. Is the performance of a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Khost Province more important to the long-term interests of American citizens than the performance of the Riverside County Public Schools? I don’t think so. Are American efforts in Afghanistan achieving some humanitarian purposes? Sure. Is building a T.G.I. Friday’s at Kandahar Air Base a better way of undertaking a humanitarian mission than increasing appropriations to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria? It’s almost silly to even ask the question.

Matt Yglesias, being absolutely right even leaving aside the relative dollar-for-dollar impact of the two programs directly compared.
And but so this comparison will never be made in this country as it currently stands. And won’t ever be unless somebody, somewhere starts talking about the underlying factors intelligently. It’ll take years of that conversation to get to a point where a national politician could then address this issue in a meaningful way, at least publicly.
Obama, perhaps the only politician in my lifetime that actually seems suited to undertake such a rational long-play, shows absolutely no inclination to do it. So I doubt this happens now or ever. Smiles everyone, smiles!

I think the case for [repeated government shutdowns] happening is twofold. One is that conservative politics is now much more dominated by a set of overlapping, competing media figures who are more interested in ratings than in majorities. The other is that if John Boehner has the courage of my convictions, he’ll believe that a government shutdown will risk sending the economy into a double-dip recession and that ultimately Barack Obama will be blamed for the bad results regardless of what polling says in the moment.

Matthew Yglesias, with emphasis on “ratings” and “Obama will be blamed”: yep, yep, yep, a million times yep.

I know at least 7 [GOP] senators, who I will not name, but were made to make a commitment under threat of losing their chairmanships, if they did not support the leadership on every procedural vote, every single thing we did, from the important to the not so important, required (for the first time in modern American history) […] required 60 votes. All the sudden a majority became 60 instead of 50

Joe Biden, reflecting on GOP obstructionism.
I’d argue in a similar vein as Yglesias: it’s not remarkable at all that the GOP extracted this kind of stern loyalty. What’s remarkable is that The Democrat did not. Not even on procedural votes can Democratic Leadership count on the caucus voting in lockstep (and then being free to vote their conscience on final passage).
Likewise, such fealty is also not required on keystone issues such as healthcare insurance reform, or more recently on FinReg. Say what you will about whether or not Feingold is in the right by withholding his vote for FinReg (in favor of some theoretically better but functionally nonexistent “other bill”), the fact of the matter is that in so doing, he’s empowered Code Brown to set the agenda for FinReg, and The Democrat has dutifully sent the bill to the American Taxpayer instead of the largest banking interests in the world. And now will get to take the blame for it. Because, rest assured, the GOP will run on that. And won’t be troubled in the least by the facts that they were directly responsible for that change and many, many others just like it. The facts do not matter.

I’m not trying to say that the spill is George Bush’s fault, just like the hurricane itself was not George Bush’s fault. But the mentality that government not only can’t successfully regulate business but has no place attempting to do so, that corporate insiders know better than experts, and that people can deal with disasters on their own is a conservative one.

The problem is that conservative failures spawn more conservatives: When conservatives cripple government, and then government fails, people believe government is incapable.

Ali Frick (who is subbing for Matt Yglesias). I’d add: Which is exactly what the conservatives actively wrecking the government want to happen.

Just as conservative legislative politics isn’t really about free markets conservative judicial politics isn’t really about restraint. The rhetoric is just rhetoric, and the reality is that conservative politics is about conservatism—about entrenching the power and influence of the dominant economic and sociocultural groups.

Matt Yglesias, noting something that most people seem to have a hard time keeping inside their skulls

Realistically what I think is going to happen is that almost no significant legislation of any kind will pass until 2017, by which point the GOP will [likely] control both the White House and the Senate and immediately eliminate the filibuster via the “nuclear” approach [meaning 50 Senators vote in favor of an opinion on the part of the President of the Senate that the super-majority is unconstitutional; thus the filibuster ceases to be]. Republicans, to their credit, tend to prioritize their vision of the national interests over issues of process and ego. Democrats, by contrast, seem to have mostly gotten into politics in order to bolster their own sense of self-righteousness and aren’t especially concerned with whether or not their conduct in office is efficacious.

Matt Yglesias, positively bubbling over with optimism for the country. If the filibuster goes in my lifetime, I think this is exactly how it will transpire, though: as the first action of a Republican controlled Senate serving a Republican President.
Yglesias is also 100% right that the credible threat of filibuster reform is more potent and much more likely to end in real reform than the actuality of that process (meaning: pushing a bill to end it with everyone knowing 67 votes aren’t out there). Democrats can never get these concepts through their heads, though. So forget about it.