And now, a shout out from The Hammock of Complacency & Dependency

Paul Ryan's response to the SOTU was a bit disappointing, I have to say. The only republican willing to come up with a Roadmap of specific spending cuts and policy changes was uncharacteristically vague, his words mostly just standard GOP doctrine. (Including swipes at England and Ireland which were just, well, ill-informed and wrong.)

The problem, as always, is that these vague platitudes may sound idyllic to some ears, but only because they are not upfront about cuts and policy changes.

Ryan's language was, most likely, constrained by the party. While I believe he's enthusiastic about his Roadmap, there is little to love in there for economists or the general public. Medicare is basically dismantled, Social Security is privatized (this, from the party that thinks too much regulatory burden has been placed on Wall Street over the last two years), and still the Roadmap wouldn't balance the budget until 2063, and the deficit still wouldn't have been addressed.

But it's really all they have. Rand Paul's proposed legislation will not go anywhere. No one else in the Republican party can name any cuts that impact the deficit in any meaningful way. They have Ryan. But his roadmap won't stand up to scrutiny or politics, and they know it.

So, we are offered pretty platitudes, because accounting doesn't win hearts and minds, in the hope that we'll keep the GOP in the majority, maybe elect a Republican resident in 2012. Keep tax breaks for their friends - and themselves. Let's not forget that congress is overwhelmingly made up of very affluent people.

That's what Ryan gave us. That, and the now-required insult for people like me, people lounging in The Hammock of Complacency and Dependency. I won't argue there's a certain amount of torpor over here, which you could interpret as complacency. But I promise you, this feels nothing like a hammock.

Also too: Joan Walsh. Justin Fox.   Yglesias.

And also likewise, I was going to say something about Bachman, but sometimes, in the face of utter stupidity, words fail. So I'll direct you here, instead.

Matthews nails it

Having a look at the person the Tea Party chose to do their rebuttal, because I don't have the capacity for long-form thought right now.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

They're selling a scriptural version of the founding of this country, promising we can get there again. It's like heaven! It's all bullshit, but Bachman probably doesn't know that. She's honestly crazy. Sal Russo, however, knows it. He just wants tax cuts and libertarian ponies.

Anyway, good TV from Matthews and Joan Walsh.

Sunday schadenfreude- of the primary sort

Part II

To appease, or not to appease? As has been pointed out by plenty of people with brains, memory, and a
basic knowledge of 20th century history, appeasement and dialogue are not synonomous. Not even a little tiny bit.
So it should go without saying, but just in case my republican friends are still unclear on the concept:

All of which begs the question: in regards to the current Middle East and Iranian crises, what would Reagan do (WWRD)?

Aides to and biographers of the nation's 40th president universally note that he had a preference for one-on-one engagement. And in describing the foreign policy of their former boss (or subject) they employ language that reflects, almost point by point, much of the rhetoric coming from the Obama campaign.

In fact, I'll go even further: the next line of the article:

But when asked if he would, if he were alive and in the Oval Office today, meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the bag is mixed.

"I think the same strategy would apply to Iran as currently applies to say North Korea. Reagan would always indicate a willingness to talk but you'd have to have an indication of sincerity on the other party," said Richard V. Allen, Reagan's National Security Adviser. "Reagan would not negotiate with an Iran that had been implicated in the killing of servicemen in Iraq. He would want that stopped and he would use it as a means of getting a negotiation."

Which sounds good until you remember that Reagan's administration secretly sold weapons to Iran after the hostage crisis and while Iran was at war with our then ally, Saddam Hussein.

So, yes, I think Reagan would have talked with Iran. Like Kennedy talked with Kruschev, like Isreal's talking to Syria. He might have even talked to the head of the government, Supreme Leader Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI, instead of endlessly fretting over the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad.