More Thoughts on Issues of the Day

More random thoughts on issues of the day:

• President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today.  While I am a supporter of his, what has he done to win this already?  Keep in mind that the nomination deadline was 12 days after Obama took office (the deadline is February 1).  I think there is a good possibility that Obama could earn this prize later in his term as president, but he doesn’t seem to have done much yet other than lay out some goals and set a tone.
• State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano was out of line yesterday.  He yelled “You lie!” and “Kiss my gay ass!” to Governor Schwarzenegger yesterday during a speech the governor was making to a Democratic fundraiser in San Francisco.  Apparently the governor was not expected.  It was, after all, a Democratic fundraiser and Schwarzenegger is a Republican.  But Ammiano was out of line.  This kind of attack should have no place in American politics.  It doesn’t matter if emotions are running high.  That kind of thing is just not needed.  The only (slightly) redeeming factor is that Ammiano’s outburst did not come during a joint session of Congress.
• Apparently the National Republican Congressional Committee thinks that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to be “put in her place” and said as much yesterday.  Do they not see how offensive that is?  Do they not see how sexist that is?  I’m not exactly a huge Nancy Pelosi supporter, but this just isn’t right.
• Charlie Rangel needs to resign.  Now.  Every day he doesn’t (and every day the House Democratic leadership continues to protect him), the chances grow that he’ll cost the Democrats in next year’s mid-term elections.  “The Republicans did it, too!” (with Tom DeLay) is not a good defense.  Sure, the Republicans are hypocritical in their posturing.  So what?  It only matters what Rangel did and the appearance of Democrats improperly protecting their own.
• Julian Bond is right on in his op-ed in today’s Washington Post.  LGBT people still do not have equal rights in America.  As he points out, our “…struggle is no less necessary, nor worthy, than a similar struggle fought by blacks several decades ago. Now, as then, Americans are denied rights simply because of who they are.”  It’s past time we had equal rights.  It’s also past time for Obama (and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) to actually do something to help get those rights passed in Congress

Obama’s Speech and Joe Wilson’s Disrespect

Finally, I think I’m starting to understand the president’s plan for health care.  President Obama’s speech last night went a long way to reassure me about his plans.  It sounds like I can get behind his plan.  The fight isn’t over, though; Obama still has to get this plan through Congress.

President Obama mustered all the force of his famous eloquence – including a stirring tug at the bonds of friendship between Republican senators and their late Democratic colleague Edward Kennedy – to push the reset button on health care Wednesday night.

Casting himself in the political center and shedding his earlier technocratic style for a powerful appeal to “the American character,” Obama outlined in a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress how everyone, insured and uninsured alike, small businesses and large, could gain from his proposals.

He sought to bridge the deep rift among Democrats over a public insurance option that threatens to send him and his party to a devastating defeat.

“We did not come to fear the future,” Obama said. “We came here to shape it.”

Seizing authorship for the first time of what the White House now calls “the Obama plan,” Obama made flexibility, not ultimatums, the order of the day and “stability and security” for all the mantra.

It’s still hugely expensive at $900 billion over 10 years, but it is necessary to have health care reform.  Costs are rising too fast and too many people are uninsured to sit around doing nothing.  I think everyone can agree on that, even if they can’t agree right now on how to get there.  But that will come, especially if the debate is vigorous and respectful.

That brings me to Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) and his “you lie!” shout while the president was speaking.  Wilson disrespected himself, his office, Congress as a whole, President Obama, and the office of the president of the United States.  I feel disrespected as a result.  There is no place for heckling the president during an address to a joint session of Congress.  What was Wilson thinking?

From Dana Milbank’s Washington Sketch column:

As President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, the nation’s rapidly deteriorating discourse hit yet another low.

It happened at 8:40 pm, just after the president vowed to lawmakers that his health-care reform proposals would not provide benefits to illegal immigrants. As millions of Americans watched from home, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted at the president from his fifth-row seat: “You lie!”

Murmurs of “ooh” filled the stunned chamber. Nancy Pelosi’s chin dropped. Obama moved on to the next sentence in his speech, about how no federal money would be used to fund abortion. “Not true!” came another shout.

The national debate, already raw for years, had coarsened over the summer as town hall meetings across the country dissolved into protests about “death panels” and granny-killing. Guns were brought to Obama appearances. A pastor in Arizona said he was praying for Obama to die.

But even by that standard, there was something appalling about the display on the House floor for what was supposed to be a sacred ritual of American democracy: the nation watching while Cabinet members, lawmakers from both chambers and the diplomatic corps assembled.

Wilson was only the most flagrant. There was booing from House Republicans when the president caricatured a conservative argument by saying they would “leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.” They hissed when he protested their “scare tactics.” They grumbled as they do in Britain’s House of Commons when Obama spoke of the “blizzard of charges and countercharges.”

When he asserted that “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” there was scoffing and outright laughter on the GOP side. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.) shook his head in disbelief. Several Republicans shouted “What plan?” and Rep. Louis Gohmert (Tex.) waved at Obama a handwritten poster he made on a letter-size piece of paper: “WHAT PLAN?” Gohmert then took that down and replaced it with another handmade poster that said “WHAT BILL?”

The irony was that Obama had used his speech to offer a significant concession to Republicans and to break with liberals in his own party. There was a cool silence in the chamber as the president told “my progressive friends” that the “public option” they treasure as part of health-care reform could be sacrificed in favor of other ideas.

[snip]

When Obama addressed the charge that he plans “panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens,” someone on the GOP side shouted out “shame!” The president went on: “Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical.” “Read the bill!” someone shouted back. Obama mentioned those who accuse him of a government takeover of health care. “It’s true,” someone shouted back.

The antics continued when Obama urged opponents to “come to me with a serious set of proposals.” About 20 Republican members raised copies of the GOP health-reform proposal over their heads. They raised their props again when Obama criticized those who think “it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it.”

Even as Obama delivered a tribute to the late senator Ted Kennedy, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga), a leader of House conservatives, perused his BlackBerry. Shortly before the speech ended, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) walked out to beat the rush.

Above all, though, was Wilson’s effrontery. From the reaction in the chamber — one Democrat could be heard calling for him to be thrown out — Wilson knew he had stepped in it. He shrugged, then consulted his BlackBerry. He puffed out his cheeks to exhale and licked his lips.

Toward the end of Obama’s speech, the text of which was handed out before the congressman’s outburst, was a fitting rebuke of the sort of behavior Wilson had just exhibited. When “we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter,” Obama said, “we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.”

As Obama spoke these words, Wilson twiddled his thumbs, then took his BlackBerry from its holster to consult it yet again. The speech ended, and, as his colleagues applauded, Wilson beat a hasty retreat.

An incensed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel went up to GOP Reps. Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Paul Ryan (Wis.) to complain about the outburst. “No president has ever had that happen,” Emanuel said. “My advice is he apologize immediately. You know my number.”

Wilson did as Emanuel advised. After all that shouting, it’s a wonder he wasn’t too hoarse to place the call.

It doesn’t much matter to me that Wilson apologized.  His behavior was loutish and had no place being directed to a president addressing a joint session of Congress.  But then, he was in good company from the rest of the Republicans.  The one bright side, as Joel Achenbach points out:

Politics is a game of momentum; the Republicans very likely surrendered it by trying to emulate the angriest of their constituents.

It’s fine to be angry, and it’s fine to disagree.  But that doesn’t give anyone the excuse to heckle the president.  I’ve called over and over for real ideas from the Republicans.  Instead of that, we get more and more anger and vitriol.  And the country suffers for that.  I said it yesterday: It’s time to take a deep breath, remember that we’re Americans, and try — just try — to set aside some of the anger and do what’s best for the nation.  I know that’s a lot to ask for from politicians.  But the times demand it.

White House Blasts Enzi

Robert Gibbs laid into Senator Mike Enzi, who is a member of the “Gang of Six” negotiating health care reform.  Gibbs said that Enzi was repeating “generic Republican talking points.”  It’s about time.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs laid into Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi Monday for repeating …  

… ”generic Republican talking points” in the GOP’s weekly radio address.
 
“It appears at least in Sen. Enzi’s case, he doesn’t believe there’s a pathway to get bipartisan support and the president disagrees,” Gibbs said. “Sen. Enzi’s clearly turned over his cards on bipartisanship.”

That’s all fine, and it really is about time that President Obama call it like it is.  But why not take on Chuck Grassley, who is raising money against health care reform while allegedly negotiating a solution to health care reform?

Chuck Grassley is facing a potentially difficult primary challenge in 2010. As such, he’s been working hard to cover his right flank. That would all be fine except for one thing: As ranking member of the Finance Committee, Grassley is responsible for developing a workable compromise on health-care reform. But as this fundraising letter (pdf) shows, Grassley is running against health-care reform back in Iowa.

The Republicans are not negotiating in good faith.  Why does Obama keep touting the benefits of bipartisanship?  He’s the only guy in Washington trying to be bipartisan, it seems.  Everyone else is polarized just like usual.

Of course, the negotiations in the Senate appear to be breaking down, so this is moot in practice.  But it matters a great deal to how President Obama deals with Congress and how strong he appears to be.  Right now he looks weak.

I still think something will pass this fall.  But what?  Will it be anything like what the president wants? 

President Obama’s political future relies on this.  I’m ambivalent on health care reform.  I don’t know how I feel about it yet.  Maybe it’s because I don’t know how it would work.  And maybe that’s part of the problem with how Obama is perceived at the moment.  But Obama said that this is his defining issue.  That’s a lot of political capital at stake.  How successful he is during the rest of his presidency depends on this.  I want the president to succeed. 

By the way, it would be nice if the Republicans would negotiate in good faith.  Something is going to pass.  I hope it contains the best ideas of both parties.  But the Republicans need to act in good faith.  And the White House needs to call it out when they don’t.

Beck: Obama is a Racist

Surprise, surprise.  Fox News is again making news as one of its commentators calls President Obama a racist.  It’s more of the same from a tired conservative “movement.”

Fox News Channel commentator Glenn Beck said he believes President Barack Obama is a racist. Beck made the statement during a guest appearance Tuesday on the “Fox & Friends” morning show. He said Obama has exposed himself as a person with “a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.”

[snip]

Beck’s statement was challenged on the air by Fox host Brian Kilmeade, who noted that most of the people who work for the nation’s first black president are white.

“I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people,” Beck said. “He has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.”

Beck wondered, during the discussion, what other president would immediately jump on the police for their actions in the case.

[snip]

Bill Shine, Fox News senior vice president of programming, told the TVNewswer Web site that Beck had “expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions.

Who cares what else he wondered.  People like Glenn Beck spout off and make controversial comments all the time.  The more controversial the better, it seems, because that drives people to watch which drives ratings and advertising money.  But you don’t get to call our mixed-race president a racist and then try to justify it as weakly as Beck did.  It’s a specious comment.

As for Mr. Shine, I know – as I mentioned above — how the television business works.  But these commentators add nothing to any civilized debate.  I think that as the Republican Party becomes more and more a party of the Deep South, and as long as Fox News remains that party’s mouthpiece, we’re going to see more racial attacks on Obama.  It feeds the Republican meme of stoke fears, obstruct, obfuscate and detract from any civilized debate.

I’ve said over and over that we absolutely need a strong, viable opposition party in America.  It’s vital to our country that policy is debated by voices from both sides of the aisle and that compromise is a part of the legislative and governing process.  But the Republicans, for about the last six years or so (and maybe even since 2001, when Bush/Cheney started stoking fears), have shown themselves to be anything but strong.  They’re out of ideas and they’re showing it by launching specious ad hominem attacks on Obama, such as calling him a racist.

If the Republicans can’t be the strong loyal opposition that we need, perhaps it’s time for a conservative third party to step up.  Perhaps its constituency could be all those Republicans who feel that the Republican Party left them as it sunk further and further into the gutter and started courting “values voters” and attacking individuals and groups of people for their inherent characteristics instead of providing real ideas and real alternatives.  I guarantee you that if a party like that came out — or if the Republicans finally remember who they’re supposed to be — I’d listen to that party’s platform and would give it a real look.  So would many, many others.

So what’s it going to be, Republicans?  More of the same idiotic stuff we’ve seen the last few years, or something meaningful?  I suspect I know the answer already.

No By Proxy

Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday by a 13-6 vote.  All Republicans on the committee, except Lindsey Graham, voted no.  I’m actually surprised that Sotomayor got a Republican vote at all.  But that’s not the point of this post.

Why can’t the Republican senators show up and vote in person?  If you want to vote “no”, that’s your right, but at least do it in the light.  Show up and cast your own vote in person.

It looked bad enough that only one Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court on Tuesday. What made the proceedings shameful, though, is that half of the senators voting no couldn’t be bothered to stick around and cast their votes in person.

The clerk called out the name of Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). “No by proxy,” responded Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.)?

“No by proxy,” said Sessions.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)?

“No by proxy,” said Sessions.

You could see why they might want to hide. Supreme Court confirmations have for years felt the strengthening tug of partisanship, but the absent Republicans voted to reject a nominee even while acknowledging that her judicial record is, as Cornyn put it, “in the mainstream.”

About that “strengthening tug of partisanship,” it’s time the Senate got back to voting on a nominee’s qualifications for the job, not the politics of it.  Let’s face it, if Obama had nominated John Roberts, Obama wouldn’t have gotten much more support than he did for Sotomayor, who seems well qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.  Yes, Democrats voted based on politics, too, which doesn’t make what the Republicans did with Sotomayor any less wrong.

And, if you want to be an obstructionist (as Republicans seem wont to do these days), show up and vote in person.  “No by proxy” is weak and is a cop out.  Not only are the Republicans the party without ideas, they’re also the party without a backbone.

Mark Sanford in Another Hypocritical Shocker

Color me surprised.  Mark Sanford has been shown to be even more of a hypocrite than he already proved to be by heading to Argentina to be with his mistress.  (I even felt some sympathy for him, too; he genuinely seemed to be in love with her.  How could I not appreciate that, even while feeling incredibly bad for his wife and sons?)

This time The Politico has researched Sanford’s travel records during his time as governor of South Carolina.  His travel records show that he has travelled quite well, flying business class and first class on the taxpayer’s dime.  I honestly don’t begrudge a high-profile politician travelling in business or first class and staying in pricey hotels.  (He took trips to China on a trade mission and Munich.)  But Sanford is the guy who famously slept on a cot in his office during the time he was in Congress and has his staffers use both sides of sticky notes.

Aside from the damage done to his standing as a social conservative, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s recent admission of an extramarital affair may end up tarnishing another of his political credentials — his carefully honed reputation as a tightfisted steward of taxpayer money.

A POLITICO analysis of hundreds of pages of state travel records requested to explore the circumstances of his affair found that in his 6 1/2 years as governor, Sanford traveled frequently and in a style markedly at odds with his political persona.

The records detail more than $468,000 worth of state-funded travel for Sanford and show that he routinely billed taxpayers for high-end airline seats, racking up more than $44,000 on business- and first-class tickets. He often stayed in pricey hotels that far exceeded the rates he imposed on other state employees.

[snip]

Still, the picture that emerges from the records conflicts with Sanford’s image as a politician who is especially stingy with taxpayer cash and vigilant about the costs of taxpayer-funded travel.

After winning a seat in Congress in 1994, he publicly agonized over accepting a $10,000-taxpayer-funded trip, telling a local paper, “I know politically it’s not the right thing ever to go on any trip.”

While running for governor in 2002, Sanford zeroed in on travel spending, criticizing Democratic incumbent Gov. Jim Hodges for “lavish spending” on airfare and hotel rooms.

“If I become your governor,” he asserted in a radio ad, “I’ll fix that problem in Columbia.”

Indeed, in his first year as South Carolina’s chief executive, Sanford moved quickly to implement his campaign promise by urging state employees to sleep two to a hotel room while traveling on state business.

Later, he called out an unnamed state employee for staying in a New York hotel for $269 per night — which he pointed out at the time was $61 above the federal rate — and a state consultant for billing the state $375 a night for a three-night stay in a Phoenix hotel to attend a conference. 

His 2008-2009 budget proposal again targeted taxpayer-funded travel and projected $2.8 million in savings by reducing the travel costs across state agencies. A summary from his office states “it is clear that some [agencies] have not used taxpayer dollars in the most efficient manner possible.”

Yet records of the state-funded trips taken by Sanford as governor suggest that his arrangements often ran counter to the state Budget and Control Board’s travel expense guidelines.

Those guidelines dictate that “travel by commercial airlines will be accomplished in coach or tourist class, except where exigencies require otherwise.”

But on the now-infamous June 2008 South America trade mission, where Sanford slipped away to meet his Argentine mistress, the governor’s airfare consisted of four business-class flights for which the state paid $8,687.

By contrast, the Commerce Department official who accompanied Sanford to Buenos Aires flew coach, at a cost of $1,910 to the taxpayers (the official’s itinerary included one less short leg, since he did not accompany Sanford to Cordoba, Argentina, for a day of dove hunting).

[snip]

Among a group of Republicans who called for Sanford to step down after he admitted to the extramarital affair, Martin predicted Sanford’s supporters were “going to be very disgusted to learn that he’s been somewhat of a big spender when it comes to his own personal travel while at the same time insisting that state government be on a starvation diet.”

That’s really the problem.  Sanford orders his state employees to be extremely careful with taxpayer money — which is a laudable thing to do — but then he turns around and spends buckets of taxpayer money on his travel.  Two-faced, to say the least. 

Perhaps this is all normal for any governor’s travel.  But Sanford professed to be different.  He supposedly slept on a cot in is congressional office to save taxpayer money.  He put policies in place as governor to specifically target and minimize taxpayer-funded travel.  And then he went and spent loads on his own travel.  He had to know that these are public records and that it could come out.  But, like his extra-marital affair, he assumed that it would all stay quiet.

If I were a citizen of South Carolina, I’d insist that Sanford resign.  He’s shown himself to be unfit for any elected office.

Sarah Palin Resigns

Sarah Palin gave notice to Alaska over the weekend, saying that she would resign her governorship effective July 25.  She also will not seek re-election in 2010.  So just what is she thinking?  No one knows for sure, although many people are trying to figure it out.  I don’t get it myself.

Palin, 45, the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate who has an ardent following among conservatives, had been expected to announce Friday that she would not seek re-election after her term ends in 2010. But, surrounded by her family, she blindsided even Alaska political veterans when she announced in a meandering statement that she will step down July 25 and turn over the reins to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

[snip]

Palin, who has been the target of a series of ethical complaints in Alaska, delivered a rambling and defensive announcement surrounded by her family, and didn’t pinpoint a reason for the decision. She said she would be “taking my fight for Alaska in a new direction.”

“My choice is to take a stand and effect change and not just hit our heads against the wall,” she said. “We know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time.”

Palin noted that she had intended to announce she wouldn’t run for a second term, but “I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks … then I thought, that’s what’s wrong.”

“They hit the road, they draw a paycheck, they kind of milk it, and I’m not going to put Alaska through that … the same old politics as usual.

“All I can ask is you trust me with that decision,” Palin said. “I cannot stand here as your governor and allow the millions of dollars and all that time to go to waste, just so I can hold the title of governor.”

Even many of her supporters called quitting her job in midterm an act of political insanity – hardly an argument for a presidential candidate trying to demonstrate the capacity to tackle the nation’s toughest problems. And the timing of the announcement of such a major decision was puzzling – on the start of a three-day holiday when important news tends to get lost.

Though Palin said she had been considering her decision for weeks, state officials told Alaska media they were completely surprised by the announcement.

The move is the latest in a series of headline-making events for Palin and ignited a debate about whether it would extinguish – or fire up – her presidential aspirations.

“That’s the $64,000 question: Is she fed up with politics, or does it put her in a stronger position to run for president?” Whalen said. Voters “may forget if you leave your job, but they don’t forget every time you leave the state and an ethics complaint is filed. Alaska, as much as she loves her job, becomes an enormous burden if she wants to run for other office.”

Palin referred in her announcement to the ethics complaints, which she has dismissed as politically motivated.

It’s an unorthodox move to be sure, if she wants to run for president in 2012.  You would think that retaining the office of governor would give her a “bully pulpit” of sorts.  But she’s giving that up.  But why?  I can’t see that this move helps her politically, even though she remains quite popular with the Republican base.  It looks to me like another indication that she is not ready to be president and that she never will be.  (Incidentally, this also makes McCain look even more irresponsible in picking her to be his running mate.)

There has been some speculation that because her personal legal bills are about $500,000, she needs to get a talk show or write a book or go on the speaking circuit, or some combination of all of those.  Does it give her an opportunity to rebrand herself as someone who is ready to be president?  Maybe.  But I doubt it.

I’m mystified by this move.  Why would she do this?  I really don’t get it.  What do you think?  Is she crazy, or crazy like a fox?

Reviving the GOP

The Republican Party is in the wilderness, in its “Lord of the Flies” period.  As it tries to find its way back into the light (and into political power), it is casting about — somewhat wildly — looking for a new national leader.  It doesn’t have much to choose from at the moment. 

A large part of the reason for that is how the GOP sold itself out to the “Religious Right” and to social conservatives.  That strategy worked quite well and kept the Republicans in the White House for twelve years under Reagan then Bush the Elder, and another eight years under Bush the Lesser.  But the wedge issues — abortion, gay rights — are not working like they did.  Everyone agrees that the number abortions must be reduced, even if they don’t agree on how.  Gays are gaining acceptance as more and more people get to know us and see that we’re actually people living staid lives.

So the GOP looks for its leader.  And because they’ve sold out to the moralists and have been proven to be human, they don’t have a leg to stand on.  From Maureen Dowd’s column over the weekend:

The Republican Party will never revive itself until its sanctimonious pantheon — Sanford, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Palin, Ensign, Vitter and hypocrites yet to be exposed — stop being two-faced.

That won’t be easy for them.  And honestly, I can’t see any of the Republicans that Dowd named being able to do that.  They’re too tainted by their own scandals, their own peccadilloes, their own humanity. 

I don’t doubt that Mark Sanford loves Maria.  He’s a man adrift, cut loose from the things that kept him in line — his faith, his marriage, his office.  He did that most human of things — he fell in love.  (And no, that does not excuse his infidelity.)  In a way, that makes the argument for same-sex marriage as well as anything the gay rights movement could say. 

It’s time for the Republicans to move away from the Christianists, as Andrew Sullivan calls them, and move back into the American mainstream.  Enough sanctimony and piety.  It’s nearly always false anyway, and the American people see it for what it is.  The GOP is not going to win anything if they don’t.  They’re not going to be a vigorous, honest loyal opposition if they don’t.  That, as I’ve said before, is bad for the country.

Sanford Represents More Bad News for Republicans

Leaving aside the sordid details (and what is it with all this crying in Argentina?  I suppose we have to thank Andrew Lloyd Weber for this) of Mark Sanford’s affair (you can read the emails between Sanford and Maria at The State), this latest revelation from a prominent Republican further extends the GOP’s time in the wilderness (quoted article below from this New York Times link). 

Coming a week after John Ensign’s confession that he had had an affair with the wife of a staffer (she was also a staffer of his), this is another bombshell the Republicans just didn’t need.  The Republicans’ search for a national leader just got extended.  Sanford was, by all accounts, seriously thinking of running for president in 2012.  That dream now appears to be over.

Republicans were just starting to breathe a little easier.

The news that Senator John Ensign had had an affair with a former aide who was married to another former aide was fading. Polls showed some voter impatience with President Obama’s policies, if not with the president himself. And the Politico, the insidery Web site that is widely read in the capital’s political precincts, even featured an article exploring the possibility of a Republican Party comeback.

Then Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a fiscal conservative seen by many Republicans as an attractive standard-bearer for the next presidential campaign, went missing. Worse, he returned.

His confession on Wednesday that he had been in Argentina with a woman not his wife — and not hiking the Appalachian Trail as his staff had said Monday — was another jolt of bad news for a party that has struggled to get off the ropes all year.

That it was the second such confession in little more than a week from a potential Republican presidential contender — Mr. Ensign had been exploring a run in 2012 as well — left party leaders dazed. They spent Wednesday alternating between gallows humor and yet another round of conversations about what the party stands for and who will give it its best shot to retake the White House.

“Personal circumstances over the course of the last week have managed to shrink the front line of the 2012 possible-contender list by 30 percent,” said Phil Musser, a former executive director of the Republican Governors Association.

Who does that really leave as viable candidates for the Republican nomination in 2012?  Tim Pawlenty?  Bobby Jindal, who showed that he wasn’t ready with his disastrous response to Obama’s speech to Congress?  Newt Gingrich, who has all kinds of baggage?  Sarah Palin, who really isn’t ready and can’t seem to form a coherent thought?  Mitt Romney?  Mike Huckabee?  Haley Barbour?  I honestly have a hard time seeing any of these Republicans as viable candidates in the general election against Obama.

One by one, those who have been publicly discussed as possible Republican candidates in 2012 have stumbled.

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana suffered a political setback after even his fellow conservatives harshly critiqued his televised response to Mr. Obama’s prime-time address to Congress in February. The speech, which was supposed to provide a moment to shine in front of a national audience, instead became fodder for late-night comedy.

Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the former Republican vice-presidential nominee who was eviscerated by some of her own political aides at the end of last year’s presidential race, continued to get national attention, but hardly the kind likely to help convince voters that she would be a substantive candidate. The father of her unwed teenage daughter’s baby feuded openly with the Palin family, and the governor exasperated some Republicans in Washington with her off-again, on-again plans for headlining a fund-raiser there.

After basking in glowing reviews among political pundits this year, Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, had to apologize for a post on Twitter in which he called Mr. Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, “racist” for saying that she hoped Latinas would be generally better equipped to make judicial decisions than their white male counterparts.

Another possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. of Utah, fell out of contention when he accepted Mr. Obama’s offer to become ambassador to China, robbing the party of a rising star.

All of their troubles have served to improve the prospects of other contenders who have generally stayed out of the spotlight this year, or have ventured into it only gingerly, like former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

So, as I asked above, who does that leave?  For me, there really are no leaders of a national caliber in the Republican Party at the moment.  I know that 2012 is a long ways off, and that the mid-term elections next year will be telling.  But who’s the Republicans’ leader?

I’ve lamented this fact before.  A strong loyal opposition is essential in our democracy.  The country is not served well if one party — Democrat or Republican — has total power in Washington.  We need good ideas from both sides of the aisle on issues from defense to foreign policy to health care to economics. 

“I think there is somewhat of an identity crisis in the Republican Party,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an evangelical group in Washington. “Are they going to be a party that attracts values voters, and are they going to be the party that lives by those values?”

I think the answer to Perkins’s last question is “no.”  The Republicans need to move past trying to attract “values voters” and using issues like gay rights as wedge issues.  They need to stand for conservative values — smaller government, for one.  They need to stop people like Tony Perkins from taking over the party again. 

It’s time for the Republicans to take a hard look at themselves and figure out what, exactly, they believe in and who they want to have carry the banner.  Then they need to tell the American people.  If it resonates, they’ll win.  It’s painful for them right now, but they should take this opportunity to figure it all out and then emerge stronger from this political winter.

UPDATED: Gov. Mark Sanford’s Jaunt

The question isn’t whether South Carolina Republican governor Mark Sanford has the right to take time off.  He unquestionably does.  The issue is that he essentially disappeared into the ether, without telling his staff (or his wife and children) where he was going.  I can tell you that — in my house — that would be a large problem between my partner and me, if I were to run off for almost a week without saying anything or getting in touch.  She’d let me have it, and she’d be right to do so.

The issue is a bit deeper for him, though.  He disappeared without telling his family or his staff.  He’s also the highest-ranking elected official in South Carolina.  He’s back now, of course, and not from the Appalachian Trail (as his staff said), but from Buenos Aires, Argentina.  He has a duty to the people of South Carolina.  No disasters appear to have happened during his absence, but something could have happened.  Hurricanes, for example (and yes, I know it’s early in the season), have been sighted in South Carolina from time to time.  He has a duty to tell his staff where he is and where he can be reached.  Buenos Aires is, after all, a long plane ride away from South Carolina.

Did he lie to his staff about where he was going?  Did he not tell them anything?  He clearly couldn’t be bothered to tell his wife.  And what was he doing in Argentina, and whon was he doing it with?

The issue, really, is his apparent lack of responsibility.  This, from a guy supposedly interested in running for president in 2012.  If I lived in South Carolina, I’d be wondering what made him think he could just disappear — poof! — without saying anything.  And I’d sure think twice before I voted for him for anything (including dog catcher) again.  And I were his wife, I’d sure be waiting to have a conversation with him when he got home.

UPDATE: Mark Sanford, Mr. Family Values, was in Argentina to visit a woman with whom he had been having a secret affair.

After going AWOL for seven days, Gov. Mark Sanford admitted Wednesday that he’d secretly flown to Argentina to visit a woman with whom he’d been having an affair. He apologized to his wife and four sons and said he will resign as head of the Republican Governors Association.

“I’ve let down a lot of people, that’s the bottom line,” the 49-year-old governor said at a news conference where he choked up as he ruminated with remarkable frankness on God’s law, moral absolutes and following one’s heart. His family did not attend.

The woman, who lives in Argentina, has been a “dear, dear friend” for about eight years but, Sanford said, the relationship didn’t become romantic until a little over a year ago. He’s seen her three times since then, and his wife found out about it five months ago.

He told reporters he spent “the last five days of my life crying in Argentina” and the affair is now over. Sanford, a rumored 2012 presidential candidate, refused to say whether he’ll leave office.

“What I did was wrong. Period,” he said.

You just have to love the honesty by which some politicians live.  These, of course, are the same people who will excoriate another person for who he or she loves.  I don’t care a bit about the affair.  That’s between Sanford, his family, and the woman.  This country (and, indeed, history) are rife with examples of politicians who can’t seem to keep their zippers zipped.  But it’s one more example that points out the hypocrisy these politicians — especially Republicans — have.  You just have to love it.