Ezra with the rote "there is no bully pulpit" stuff. Drum with a bit more thought. Digby nailing it:

Of course presidents can't really "persuade" people of the opposing party in a polarized environment, for all the reasons Ezra lays out in his piece. But I feel as if this whole argument is about doing something that nobody but President Obama, op-ed writers and some of his more fervent followers ever thought was possible in the first place. They're the only ones who believed that the Republicans were going to fall at his feet and work together in bipartisan harmony --- or that his magical powers of persuasion would create a groundswell of support among Independents and rank and file Republicans.

When progressives called for President Obama to make speeches it wasn't with the goal that he lift his poll numbers or get Mitch McConnell to sign on. Indeed, that's the opposite of what they wanted --- the "Grand Bargains" required to get such a deal are worse than nothing at all from their perspective. The reason they wanted him to make speeches was to mobilize his followers to help "persuade" their representatives to pass progressive legislation --- or even just reaffirm his commitment to shared goals and educate the public about what those goals are. The administration abandoned any notions of doing this shortly after the election[. . . .] But Ezra's piece reaffirms that this is the way major change happens in this environment, so you can't really blame the progressives for pushing it. That's what they wanted --- major change. And in a bit of an ironic surprise, Ezra demonstrated that in this case, the progressives were the pragmatic sorts calling for "what works" --- not the president.

See also my 8 million posts on the PPUS and the "Theory of Change."

Speaking for me only

Back in 2006, then Senator Obama decided to hand out advice to Democrats and liberals on "how to talk about religion". It was a textbook example of triangulation repackaged as the "post partisan unity schtick." It didn't work:

President Obama warned against "using religion as a bludgeon in politics," pushing back against critics who have accused him of waging a "war on religion" through recent policy decisions.

[. . .] "When we start using religion as a bludgeon in politics, we start questioning other people's faith, we start using religion to divide, instead of bring the country together, then I think we've got a problem," Obama told Des Moines's local NBC affiliate, Who TV. [. . .] Obama was responding to recent accusations that he is engaged in a "war on religion" through recent actions such as the contraception mandate.

No magic bullet for Obama on dealing with the Radical Right. It makes his 2006 speech all the more ridiculous now:

Don’t believe the accounts of HBO's movie Game Change that say the film humanizes Sarah Palin. The story line is exactly the opposite. Sarah Palin, as we all knew, was a desperate Hail Mary Pass by John McCain, completely unvetted and incompetent for the job of Vice President. The film confirms this. It also portrays her as ignorant beyond our wildest imagination and verging on mental illness, veering between bouts of catatonia, manic behavior and paranoia, coupled with having mini-meltdowns.

By all means watch it. Even though it confirms much of what we already knew, it still produces chills. Had McCain, then 72 years old, won the election, this woman would have been next in line to be President. My review is below [More...]

Kevin Drum considers whether fight from progressives might work:

If this is right, it's bad news for Bob, who's consistently argued against the Foxification of the left and for a tough but fundamentally factual approach to fighting the modern right. But Suzy is suggesting that although the key to success in Virginia was partly better organization, it was mostly about using more incendiary language. Likewise, in the case of Rush, the key to success had nothing to do with his odious point of view. It was all because we could highlight a single word — slut — that enraged people.

I don't know if this is correct. I'm just tossing it out for comment. But politics has always been about emotion, not cool logic, and maybe these two recent examples suggest that liberals are rediscovering that lesson. We'll see.

We'll see? We've SEEN. (To be fair, Kevin is asking whether Dems will remember this.) Fighting Dems and Fighting Progressives -standing up from a crouched posture, has always worked best. Kevin might want to revisit the debate on the "American Taliban".

Speaking for me only

The Senate is debating it now, viewable on CSpan2. Presently, Senate David Vitter (R-La) is discussing how a conscience clause will protect his natural right to wear a diaper with a prostitute.

Hatch talking about religious liberty - begging the question - what about polygamy?

Bob Casey proves that he is not worthy of progressive support. Votes in favor of Blunt Amendment. (Manchin and Ben Nelson other Dems in favor of Blunt, but we already know they make no claims to being actual Dems or progressive. They've been on their own all along. Bob Casey claims otherwise.)

Blunt Amendment defeated 51-48. Pathetic that it was close.

Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones reports that a vote on the Blunt Amendment, which will allow employers to opt out of providing any form of health insurance coverage they object to, will happen soon, perhaps tomorrow.

Erick Erickson is criticizing Mitch McConnell for providing Dem Senators "cover" by offering the Blunt Amendment:

On its surface, it is a good amendment. It will allow religious employers to opt out of the new Obamacare mandate on contraception and abortifacient drugs. But strategically, it is another lame effort by Senator Mitch McConnell to let Senate Democrats in swing states absolve themselves of any blame for what Barack Obama has done.

Erickson assumes Democratic Senators will vote for the Blunt Amendment. It would surprise me if any Dem other than Ben Nelson would do so. More importantly, I think it should disqualify any Dem from support if they did. The DSCC has issued a petition against it:

STEPHANOPOULOS: [JFK's speech on church state separation] has been read, as you know, by millions of Americans ... Why did it make you throw up?

SANTORUM: Because the first line, first substantive line in the speech says, "I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute." I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country. -ABC News

(Emphasis supplied.) More on separation of church and state here.

It's becoming clear that the old Republican political Wurlitzer is simply not what it used to be. Check out yesterday's story to circulate - the OMB director gaffedbecause he insisted the Obama Administration had not raised taxes and would not raise taxes on any person earning $250,000 or less. That's a gaffe? In a campaign year? Here's the theory, as transmitted through Politico:

On Wednesday, acting Office of Management and Budget Director Jeffrey Zients appeared to tell the House Budget Committee that the individual mandate isn’t a tax. Which could be a bit of a problem, since the Obama administration is defending the mandate before the Supreme Court by arguing that it is a tax — for legal purposes, anyway.

Oh noes! The ACA is sunk in the Supreme Court now! seems to be the political theory. Needless to say, this will have no effect on what the Supreme Court does. (Hell, I even have a stalwart conservative judge's legal opinion to explain why it does not matter in the legal process.) But in theory, it could matter politically - Republicans are arguing that the Obama Administration will not raise taxes on persons making $250,000 or less. I would think that the Obama Administration would be happy about this. I'm not sure what political purpose it serves Republicans.

Karl Rove must wonder how stupid the people running the GOP Wurlitzer are these days.

Via CaseyOR, John F. Kennedy on September 12, 1960:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

[. . .] I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

[. . ..] And in fact,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom[. . . .]

More . . .

E.J. Dionne writes:

Some conservative Catholics still insist that the relief from regulation that Obama offered is not enough. I hope they reconsider, especially since the Catholic service providers most affected by the revised rule welcomed it. What bothers liberal Catholics about the arguments advanced by some of our conservative friends is that the Catholic right seems so eager to focus the church’s witness to the world on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research and, now, perhaps, contraception that they would effectively, if not necessarily intentionally, relegate the church’s social justice work and teaching to second-class status.

That may be what bothers liberal Catholics, but what should bother progressives is the idea that religious doctrines are being used to attempt to limit women's rights and good public policy. Since the beginning of this controversy, Dionne has been willing to sacrifice women's rights and the progressive value of a government engaged in good policy in order to placate religious demands on a secular government.

If Dionne could find it in himself to say 'yes, accommodate religious concerns about public policy if you can, but if you can't, religion cannot dictate secular public policy,' then he can articulate a coherent progressive position. But he seems unable to say this. Dionne writes:

President Obama's announced accommodation" looks ok to me - women get the contraceptive coverage that good science and public policy require. The perceived need to offer a fig leaf to religions (the insurance companies pay) is grating, but the substance is what matters most.

Planned Parenthood and Catholic Health Association both approve. The bishops are formulating what their objections are. Surely having to pay for contraceptive coverage is not the problem.

Appeasing folks who will never support you seems a fool's errand to me, but I can't object in this case as the substance stays intact. As a larger issue of chasing fool's gold, well, my views on that are a matter of record.

Komen sez "never mind":

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives. [. . .] Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

Planned Parenthood accepted the apology: