Pawlenty and Balanced Budget Amendment

Republicans

The problem, as I see it, is that they have lost sight of their goal, insofar as their goal is to affect policy. If that were the case, then making deals with a Democratic president who can force enough Democrats in Congress to go along, is the optimum strategy. That is exactly what Democratic leaders did with Republican presidents from 1953 to 1974. Now, Republicans are focused solely on regaining power and care nothing about the substance of policy. That is why their current strategy is both rational and stupid at the same time.

Ed, First let me say that I

Ed,

First let me say that I concur with your observation and lament the degree to which many Republicans have boxed themselves in at the ideological extreme -- or perhaps better stated, at the "ideological-sounding talking point" extreme (whether or not a given policy position actually reflects the ideological extreme). And as you'll see below, I do concur that there are relatively few positions Republicans can take to bash Democrats (as a whole) that are both legitimate and likely to be taken by Republican candidates.

But don't you think Democrats have been acting similarly, becoming more boxed in and beholden to the far left and related constituencies, agendas and "positioning" (to use a marketing term)? Witness all the Democrats who opposed the Conrad-Gregg budget commission under pressure from voices on the left who screamed that such a commission would lead to cuts in entitlements (true, if the commission succeeded, but a blatantly irresponsible position for the left -- and Democratic members of Congress -- to take). Can a critical mass of Democrats sign on to anything including or implying significant cuts in eligibility or benefit forumulas for Medicare and Social Security? Can they support anything the unions strongly dislike (e.g., equal treatment if/as health benefits become taxable)? How about the trial lawyers (e.g., malpractice reform)? etc.

As for your question, "what else [has a Republican candidate] got?", assuming you mean arguably legitimate points (rather than just misleading rhetoric), for one thing he could claim that he'll try to prevent the Democrats from increasing social spending -- particularly an expensive new healthcare entitlement per healthcare "reform". But even with healthcare "reform", the arguments from some Republicans are nonsensical in that they erroneously imply we can have some parts (community rating [even with some limited flexibility] and guaranteed issue regardless of pre-existing conditions) without others (individual mandate and substantial spending on related subsidies).

It is very unfortunate, though, that Republicans have demagogued Medicare such that just about anything that may reduce projected spending is now even more of a third rail to members of both parties. That said, apparently some Republicans are willing to advocate future Medicare benefit spending caps (via vouchers) that imply that seniors will incur a much higher share of costs per Paul Ryan's proposal http://www.thehispanicconservative.com/paul-ryan-on-medicare.html

They could also argue that the recovery would have been stronger (and less taxpayer money spent inefficiently) if their preference for a more tax-cut-oriented stimulus had been adopted, a point I think is legitimately debatable, with room for reasonable disagreement.

With Obama increasing our effort in Afghanistan, Republicans don't have their usual "Dems are weak on national security" argument, unless the relative stability in Iraq deteriorates by November. They'll use Gitmo, but I don't think that will get them much outside the base they already have. Of course, if there is another Islamic terrorist strike inside the U.S. that would be a wild card in public opinion on the national security issue, if only due to the tendency to blame leaders for what happens on their watch (same for the economy).

I assume some will latch onto the "gays in the military" thing, and probably tie it to national security, as in "This is not the time to disrupt cohesion in the military and impede recruitment." I don't know whether or not (or to what extent) the premise that gays serving openly would harm cohesion or recruiting and thus military effectiveness is valid/invalid. I'm fairly ignorant on the matter.

Of course I'm leaving out all the crap that is expected but which I consider clearly misleading baloney (the kind of stuff that gets slammed by fact-checkers such as websites Politifact and Factcheck), rhetoric that they most likely wouldn't act upon if they could (e.g., preventing spending from growing over the coming years and decades; threatening Iran with military strikes), making mountains out of molehills (budgetary and other), clearly reckless positions that don't even hold water (e.g., sweeping tax cuts to supposedly improve our fiscal future), unjustified discrimination (fighting marriage equality for same-sex couples), etc.

So in a nutshell, the only argument that occurs to me as legitimate ideological (or practical) arguments and positions related to policy choices with big stakes (whether or not one shares the policy preference) would be if a Republican has the guts to support Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal and/or if a Republican takes the position of essentially no healthcare "reform" that would expand coverage much or address the matter of pre-existing conditions (just tort reform re: malpractice, access to health insurance plans across state lines, and other relatively minor "reforms").

And if you're a democrat

You blame all the problems on the other guy.

I'm sick of it all. It really doesn't matter who is at fault. The problem doesn't go away because somebody else caused it. I've read a bunch of different sites in the last few days and 90 percent of the comments are about whether this party or that party is good.

Now is the time for a pox on both their houses.

Republicans were irresponsible. So were Democrats and I don't care who was more irresponsible. The simple question for both sides is what you are going to do now other than argue about who is at fault.

So far, neither side is doing anything. The President's budget raises spending even further from his budget of last year and $500 billion over the CBO projections of a week ago (based on his FY 2010 submission). The democrats argue you can solve the problem by cutting the military and raising taxes on the rich (you can't). The Republicans argue that you can solve the problem by cutting spending (you can't). Both sides spend a lot of time talking about waste, which while real, is rounding error.

If you want solutions, everyone is going to have to give. I see no indication that either side is willing to give on what matters to them. Until they do, there's nothing left to do but wait for the crisis/crash.