"When this debate ends, you will notice that I will not be shaking his hand tonight."

Rand Paul:



ADDED: Jonathan Chait, a commentator with no affinity for conservatives, writes:

The ugliest, most illiberal political ad of the year may be this one, from Kentucky Democrat Jack Conway:

... The trouble with Conway's ad is that it comes perilously close to saying that non-belief in Christianity is a disqualification for public office. That's a pretty sickening premise for a Democratic campaign.

Consider that the ad has more to do with the question of whether Rand is weird than whether he's irreligious. But, ironically, Conway has made himself seem creepy for throwing all this crap at the screen.

AND: Conway stammers through an attempted explanation of his ad:



AND: Here's a montage of nastiness:

Jonathan Chait makes a Special Olympics joke!

He wisecracks "Mitch Daniels Wins The Fiscal Special Olympics."

What is stupider than being stupid while calling other people stupid? You'd think Obama fans would at least learn from Obama's mistakes.

Jonathan Chait calls Evan Bayh a "wuss."

He thinks he's "just pathetic" that Bayh is quitting because he "hates the Senate" and "hates the left bloggers."

Ooh. Chait is angry. Bayh is angry. The Democrats are an angry, angry party now. They won, and then they all got so angry with each other. It's hard being a liberal. You want so much for so many people, and then you don't get it. It hurts. It hurts a lot.

"If the Democrats let health care reform die, they'll be looking at a turnout cataclysm."

Says Jonathan Chait, reading the tea leaves that come in the form of the Illinois primary results. ("GOP primary turnout is up 11% over 2004. Democratic turnout has dropped 29%.)

Liberal commentators doggedly push the theory that whatever happens, the heathcare bill must be passed. Ezra Klein works that theme here:

Today's televised session between Barack Obama and the Senate Democrats wasn't encouraging to those of us hoping the Democrats are spending their time worrying about how to pass the health care bill. There were questions on the deficit, on jobs, on partisanship, on energy and on judicial nominees. No one bothered to ask about health-care reform....

To Obama's credit, he valiantly twisted questions on things like jobs and partisanship into opportunities to talk about health-care reform....

If we don't pass this, he told the assembled Democrats, "I don't know what differentiates us from the other guys."...

Without healthcare, you don't know the difference between Republicans and Democrats?! There are 2 ways to respond to that:

1. National security, taxes, social issues, that $3.8 trillion budget, etc. etc.

2. Since people are drifting toward the Republicans, won't being more like them help you (despite what Jonathan Chait says)?

"Obama's Dull, Cheap, Successful Speech."

"President Obama’s speeches have always been notable for both their exquisite prose and their unusually high intellectual level."

You know what, Jonathan Chait? You are wrong. Obama's speeches have always been bland. Look into your own head to discover why you heard "exquisite prose" and "unusually high intellectual level."

The Senate finally passes the health care bill — and the question is, for people who wanted the bill to pass: How good or bad are they supposed to feel?

Liberals mull nuancefully:

"There is so much that is wrong with it -- and the way it was made -- and, at the same time, so much that is right that you just have to shake your head in despair and in wonder." — David Broder.

"At the moment of ... historical triumph, liberals are retreating from politics into languor, rage, and other incarnations of anti-politics. One day they may look back upon this time with longing." — Jonathan Chait.

"It's been a long time since the legislative system did anything this big, and people have forgotten how awful the victories are. But these are the victories, and if they feel bad to many, they will do good for more. As that comes clearer and clearer, this bill will come to feel more and more like the historic advance it actually is." — Ezra Klein.

Mickey Kaus leaks a JournoList thread.

We've discussed JournoList here before. (Remember? It seemed to trigger Ezra Klein's bizarre tweet that there were "a lot" of anti-Semitic commenters on my blog.) There are 300 journalists hanging out with each other on the list. Is that a bad thing? Are they coordinating their stories, losing their independence and sharp edge? Well, they aren't so coordinated that they can all keep the list secret, and here's what Mickey got hold of. They seem pretty tedious and unattractive. I don't mind if they keep it private, very private. That said, if there's anything on the JournoList about me — some scurrilous charge of anti-Semitism, perhaps — please pass it on.

ADDED: "The JournoList Sure Has A Lot Of Anti-Semitic Commenters."

"Although I thought Ann's Rush apologism was unseemly and unfounded, I have to say I basically agree with Jon Chait..."

Eve Fairbanks reflects on our Bloggingheads encounter and displays the high regard TNR folk have for other TNR folk.

And what exactly is Apologism? (Homophone fans see "Apollo jism.") Wikipedia says:

Apologism is the metaphysical philosophy that argues that it is wrong for humans to attempt to alter the conditions of life in the mortal sphere of influence. It is opposed to the idea that absolute "progress" is a desirable goal for the pursuit of human endeavors...

Apologism stands solidly in opposition to the metaphysics of meliorism, which states that absolute "progress" is the desirable goal of all human endeavors. Apologism is not to be confused with apologetics.

Oh, I'm sure it all makes sense over at TNR as explained by Jonathan Chait or some other genius. Over here, we will quaff the nectar of the gods and allow the unseemliness to rage on.