ROMNEY: ON WEALTH, STILL SAYING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT GOP VOTERS WANT TO HEAR
Mitt Romney continues to get really damaging coverage on the issue of his wealth, though I say that not for the reason you'd think (unless you're a regular reader of this blog):
Mitt Romney Has Some Down-to-Earth Tastes, He'd Like You to Know
Like the stars in Us Weekly, Mitt Romney wants voters to know that he is just like them.
Mr. Romney has tried the new $4.39 Carl's Jr. jalapeno chicken sandwich ("delicious"), celebrated the Reagan Library debate with fast-food burgers and fries (again, Carl's Jr.), and dug into a Subway flatbread sandwich while sitting in an airport terminal ("better than the usual campaign diet of morning donuts").
... Mr. Romney ... has begun something of a self-initiated product-placement regimen in his campaign -- to sometimes awkward effect -- branding himself with less-than-luxury everyman labels.
... But to aides and friends of Mr. Romney, the situation is more complicated. They say this -- the Southwest flying, self-deprecating, penny-pinching guy -- is the real Mitt, the one they know in private....
... aides recall Mr. Romney sitting in coach while offering his frequent-flier upgrades to staff members, or hanging out atop a coin-operated washer and dryer on the road, waiting for his clothes to dry....
The conventional wisdom on this is that it makes Romney look phony. That's probably true, even though his behavior may not actual be phony. (If he's really like this, he wouldn't be the first rich guy to pinch pennies.)
I say -- as I've said a couple of times before -- that he should wallow in his wealth, at least for now. That's what GOP voters want him to do. They believe (even if he doesn't) that wealthy white Republicans got to where they are because they deserve4d their success. God wanted them to be rich. When he tries to downplay his wealth, he's mocking God.
****
By contrast, I go over to the Click column at Politico and I see that there are two items today about Rick Perry's ties to Hollywood celebrities -- one about Perry's friendship with Russell Crowe and one about Dean Cain, the former TV Superman, endorsing Perry (on Fox News, naturally). That's not directly about wealth per se, but it's about glamour and hoity-toityness, but glamour and hoity-totyness Republican-style. Perry senses that GOP voters don't hate money and Tinseltown glamour -- they just hate the fact that Democrats have these things -- so the Perry campaign clearly wants these stories out there.
If you're a Republican and you have access to all this, then go ahead and flaunt it. Worked for Reagan, didn't it?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
GOD HAS A PLAN FOR YOU, DEAD MAN WALKING
I look at the still-popular and clearly ineradicable death penalty in America, especially after the execution of Troy Davis, and I see a connection to the American views and values teased out by a recently published poll on religion in America. The link isn't obvious, and what I'm about to say may seem illogical, but I'll stand by it:
About one in five Americans combine a view of God as actively engaged in daily workings of the world with an economic conservative view that opposes government regulation and champions the free market as a matter of faith.
"They say the invisible hand of the free market is really God at work," says sociologist Paul Froese, co-author of the Baylor Religion Survey, released today by Baylor University in Waco, Texas.
"They think the economy works because God wants it to work. It's a new religious economic idealism," with politicians "invoking God while chanting 'less government,'" he says.
"When Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann say 'God blesses us, God watches us, God helps us,' religious conservatives get the shorthand. They see 'government' as a profane object -- a word that is used to signal working against God's plan for the United States. To argue against this is to argue with their religion."
Now, you'll say that the death penalty is "big government," just like government intervention in the marketplace, so America's dominant religious conservatives should oppose capital punishment. But we know how that works when it comes to foreign policy -- military intervention (at least when initiated by conservatives) isn't "big government," either. It's morality. It's God working through government. It's barely seen as "government" at all. So it's OK.
What America's dominant religious conservatives oppose, I think, isn't government per se, but government showing mercy. What the free market does is God's will. What the criminal justice system does is God's will (at least when it's punishing people). So don't mess with it.
Elsewhere in the survey, there's this (PDF):
Most Americans believe that God has a plan for them.
... Even though Americans who believe strongly in God's plan earn less and have less education, they are the most likely to believe that the United States' economic system is fair without government intervention. Specifically, Americans who believe strongly in God's plan are much more likely to believe:
• The government is intrusive (Fig. 4)
• Healthy people don't deserve unemployment benefits (Fig. 5)
• Anything is possible through hard work (Fig. 6)
• Success = ability (Fig. 7)
If you think we all get what we deserve, and you think government social-service programs are "big government" intervention but the criminal justice system isn't really government at all, then you'd assume that all the people who end up on Death Row belong there -- they put themselves there (success = ability, therefore failure = lack of ability). A wrongful conviction isn't intrusive government. Reversing a wrongful conviction is intrusive government. God's way is for you to wind up where you deserve to be. Whereas human mercy, whether it's unemployment insurance for the "undeserving" or a pardon from the clemency board, is sinful.
And so we're a nation of Rick Perrys, executing without doubt.
(Survey via Balloon Juice.)
I look at the still-popular and clearly ineradicable death penalty in America, especially after the execution of Troy Davis, and I see a connection to the American views and values teased out by a recently published poll on religion in America. The link isn't obvious, and what I'm about to say may seem illogical, but I'll stand by it:
About one in five Americans combine a view of God as actively engaged in daily workings of the world with an economic conservative view that opposes government regulation and champions the free market as a matter of faith.
"They say the invisible hand of the free market is really God at work," says sociologist Paul Froese, co-author of the Baylor Religion Survey, released today by Baylor University in Waco, Texas.
"They think the economy works because God wants it to work. It's a new religious economic idealism," with politicians "invoking God while chanting 'less government,'" he says.
"When Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann say 'God blesses us, God watches us, God helps us,' religious conservatives get the shorthand. They see 'government' as a profane object -- a word that is used to signal working against God's plan for the United States. To argue against this is to argue with their religion."
Now, you'll say that the death penalty is "big government," just like government intervention in the marketplace, so America's dominant religious conservatives should oppose capital punishment. But we know how that works when it comes to foreign policy -- military intervention (at least when initiated by conservatives) isn't "big government," either. It's morality. It's God working through government. It's barely seen as "government" at all. So it's OK.
What America's dominant religious conservatives oppose, I think, isn't government per se, but government showing mercy. What the free market does is God's will. What the criminal justice system does is God's will (at least when it's punishing people). So don't mess with it.
Elsewhere in the survey, there's this (PDF):
Most Americans believe that God has a plan for them.
... Even though Americans who believe strongly in God's plan earn less and have less education, they are the most likely to believe that the United States' economic system is fair without government intervention. Specifically, Americans who believe strongly in God's plan are much more likely to believe:
• The government is intrusive (Fig. 4)
• Healthy people don't deserve unemployment benefits (Fig. 5)
• Anything is possible through hard work (Fig. 6)
• Success = ability (Fig. 7)
If you think we all get what we deserve, and you think government social-service programs are "big government" intervention but the criminal justice system isn't really government at all, then you'd assume that all the people who end up on Death Row belong there -- they put themselves there (success = ability, therefore failure = lack of ability). A wrongful conviction isn't intrusive government. Reversing a wrongful conviction is intrusive government. God's way is for you to wind up where you deserve to be. Whereas human mercy, whether it's unemployment insurance for the "undeserving" or a pardon from the clemency board, is sinful.
And so we're a nation of Rick Perrys, executing without doubt.
(Survey via Balloon Juice.)
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
IF IT DOESN'T FIT INTO A PLEASING NARRATIVE, IT DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN
Here's the money quote (in more ways than one) from an interview Bill Clinton gave (for some ungodly reason) to Newsmax:
I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending until we get this economy off the ground.
I've put three of those words in bold in an attempt to overcompensate for just about every media outlet that's quoted this, because even as they're quoting it, they're pretending the "cutting spending" part was never uttered.
Newsmax's own headline: Ex-President Clinton to Newsmax: Raising Taxes Won't Work
Politico headline: Bill Clinton: No more taxes now
Business Insider headline: Bill Clinton Breaks With Obama, Says No To New Tax Hikes
USA Today headline: Clinton: No new (Obama) taxes?
Does some kind of selective aphasia prevent these media outlets from processing the "cutting spending" part? Clinton's talking about a theoretical America in which Republicans never demanded and got multiple rounds of budget cuts. He's saying those cuts weren't the right approach. He's saying we shouldn't be cutting spending now because the economy is in such a parlous state.
But no, we're going to pretend we heard that over a bad cellphone connection that was breaking up when he got to the "cutting spending" part. Because criticizing neo-Hooverism is politically incorrect, and we can't even acknowledge that a person we consider mainstream ever uttered such an incorrect critique.
Here's the money quote (in more ways than one) from an interview Bill Clinton gave (for some ungodly reason) to Newsmax:
I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending until we get this economy off the ground.
I've put three of those words in bold in an attempt to overcompensate for just about every media outlet that's quoted this, because even as they're quoting it, they're pretending the "cutting spending" part was never uttered.
Newsmax's own headline: Ex-President Clinton to Newsmax: Raising Taxes Won't Work
Politico headline: Bill Clinton: No more taxes now
Business Insider headline: Bill Clinton Breaks With Obama, Says No To New Tax Hikes
USA Today headline: Clinton: No new (Obama) taxes?
Does some kind of selective aphasia prevent these media outlets from processing the "cutting spending" part? Clinton's talking about a theoretical America in which Republicans never demanded and got multiple rounds of budget cuts. He's saying those cuts weren't the right approach. He's saying we shouldn't be cutting spending now because the economy is in such a parlous state.
But no, we're going to pretend we heard that over a bad cellphone connection that was breaking up when he got to the "cutting spending" part. Because criticizing neo-Hooverism is politically incorrect, and we can't even acknowledge that a person we consider mainstream ever uttered such an incorrect critique.
IS ROMNEY PICKING UP BACHMANN'S VOTES? AND IF SO, WHY?
I usually ignore Rasmussen polls, but I'm wondering if there's value in looking at the new Rasmussen poll of the GOP primary field and the one released in mid-August -- after all, Rasmussen's results seem extremely skewed but not invented outright, so they may reveal real trends even if they're inaccurate. (What I mean is, I think Rasmussen polls honestly but oversamples right-wingers, and that would seem to matter less in an all-GOP poll.)
The Rasmussen numbers for the three most-discussed GOP candidates are as follows:
Perry: 29% in August, 28% now
Romney: 18% in August, 24% now
Bachmann: 13% in August, 8% now
So:
Perry down by 1
Romney up by 6
Bachmann down by 5
That's curious, because here are the extremely similar changes in Gallup polls conducted in August and this month:
Perry up by 2
Romney up by 7
Bachmann down by 5
Hunh? Is Bachmann losing voters to Romney? The Mormon not-quite-hardliner is getting the evangelical hardliner's voters? Former supporters of Ms. Purism Before Electability are abandoning her for Mr. If You Don't Like These Principles I Have Others? Is this really possible? (While Perry, whose numbers seem stable, isn't picking up voters from his hardline soul mate?)
Why would it happen? Is it a consequence of Perry's gender gap -- women don't take to him, so women who are abandoning Bachmann are latching on to Romney? Do Bachmann and Romney share a non-Southern affect that appeals to similar blocs of voters? Do voters really not care about issue positions? Is all this a coincidence?
I'm stumped.
I usually ignore Rasmussen polls, but I'm wondering if there's value in looking at the new Rasmussen poll of the GOP primary field and the one released in mid-August -- after all, Rasmussen's results seem extremely skewed but not invented outright, so they may reveal real trends even if they're inaccurate. (What I mean is, I think Rasmussen polls honestly but oversamples right-wingers, and that would seem to matter less in an all-GOP poll.)
The Rasmussen numbers for the three most-discussed GOP candidates are as follows:
Perry: 29% in August, 28% now
Romney: 18% in August, 24% now
Bachmann: 13% in August, 8% now
So:
Perry down by 1
Romney up by 6
Bachmann down by 5
That's curious, because here are the extremely similar changes in Gallup polls conducted in August and this month:
Perry up by 2
Romney up by 7
Bachmann down by 5
Hunh? Is Bachmann losing voters to Romney? The Mormon not-quite-hardliner is getting the evangelical hardliner's voters? Former supporters of Ms. Purism Before Electability are abandoning her for Mr. If You Don't Like These Principles I Have Others? Is this really possible? (While Perry, whose numbers seem stable, isn't picking up voters from his hardline soul mate?)
Why would it happen? Is it a consequence of Perry's gender gap -- women don't take to him, so women who are abandoning Bachmann are latching on to Romney? Do Bachmann and Romney share a non-Southern affect that appeals to similar blocs of voters? Do voters really not care about issue positions? Is all this a coincidence?
I'm stumped.
MAYBE RALPH WILL FIND US AN UNDEAD PRIMARY CHALLENGER
I'm a little late getting to the story of Ralph Nader's attempt to find a primary challenger for Barack Obama, but I see that Dave Weigel posted the Nader group's letter and one of the signers is "Jean Houston -- Anthropologist and Author of The Possible Human and The Possible Society."
Anyone remember the name? Here, let me remind you:
First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton held imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi as a therapeutic release, according to a new book written by Bob Woodward, says a report in Sunday's edition of The Chicago Sun-Times.
... the adviser was Jean Houston, co-director of the Foundation for Mind Research, which he describes as a group that studies the psychic experience and altered and expanded consciousness.
The book portrays Houston as an influential adviser who urged Mrs. Clinton to write her book, "It Takes a Village and Other Lessons Children Teach Us," and in the process "virtually moved into the White House" for days at a time to help with revisions, the Sun-Times reported....
Eleanor Roosevelt as Obama's primary challenger? That would certainly be thinking outside the box.
I'm a little late getting to the story of Ralph Nader's attempt to find a primary challenger for Barack Obama, but I see that Dave Weigel posted the Nader group's letter and one of the signers is "Jean Houston -- Anthropologist and Author of The Possible Human and The Possible Society."
Anyone remember the name? Here, let me remind you:
First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton held imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi as a therapeutic release, according to a new book written by Bob Woodward, says a report in Sunday's edition of The Chicago Sun-Times.
... the adviser was Jean Houston, co-director of the Foundation for Mind Research, which he describes as a group that studies the psychic experience and altered and expanded consciousness.
The book portrays Houston as an influential adviser who urged Mrs. Clinton to write her book, "It Takes a Village and Other Lessons Children Teach Us," and in the process "virtually moved into the White House" for days at a time to help with revisions, the Sun-Times reported....
Eleanor Roosevelt as Obama's primary challenger? That would certainly be thinking outside the box.
I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THE PALIN NUMBERS
McClatchy-Marist has a new poll out with the usual (mostly) grim news for President Obama:
A new McClatchy-Marist poll finds that Obama looks increasingly vulnerable in next year's election, with a majority of voters believing he'll lose to any Republican, a solid plurality saying they'll definitely vote against him and most potential Republican challengers gaining on him....
While most of the Republicans have gained on Obama, he still leads all of the announced candidates....
But this result is bizarre -- it completely contradicts every other comparable poll result I've seen this year:
The biggest gain came for Palin, the former Alaska governor who hasn't yet announced whether she'll jump into the fast-changing race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
After trailing Obama by more than 20 percentage points in polls all year, the new national survey, taken Sept. 13-14, found Palin trailing the president by just 5 points, 49-44 percent. The key reason: She now leads Obama among independents, a sharp turnaround.
Real Clear Politics lists 34 polls taken this year of a head-to-head matchup between Palin and Obama. In every single one, Obama led by double digits. In 24 of them, he led by at least 15 points.
The last McClatchy-Marist poll of this matchup was taken in early August. Obama led Palin by 21. Now it's 5? She's closed 16 points of the gap in six weeks? Really?
By comparison, Obama had a 5-point lead over Romney in August and has a 2-point lead now. That makes sense. Obama had a 19-point lead over the not-quite-declared Perry in August and has a 9-point lead now. That makes sense. Obama had a 17-point lead over Bachmann in August and has a 13-point lead now. That makes sense.
The Palin numbers don't make sense. I don't believe them -- not until some other pollster replicates them. I think it's just a bizarre and unrepresentative sampling of "independents" (we're told that Palin "now leads Obama among independents, a sharp turnaround").*
****
However, I will note that this poll was taken in the two days after the last presidential debate -- the one in which Rick Perry supposedly took a lot of serious hits -- and Perry's leading Romney among Republicans and GOP leaners, 30%-22%. In the August poll, Romney led Perry 21%-18%. Still waiting for that Dean-scream decline from Perry....
****
*TO CLARIFY: If I had to guess, I'd assume that the pollsters ask two or three questions trying to determine whether a respondent is affiliated with a party, then whether the respondent is a leaner. I'm guessing this poll picked up way too many "independents" who insist they have no leaning even though they're down-the-line litmus-test Fox/talk radio/teabag ideologues.
McClatchy-Marist has a new poll out with the usual (mostly) grim news for President Obama:
A new McClatchy-Marist poll finds that Obama looks increasingly vulnerable in next year's election, with a majority of voters believing he'll lose to any Republican, a solid plurality saying they'll definitely vote against him and most potential Republican challengers gaining on him....
While most of the Republicans have gained on Obama, he still leads all of the announced candidates....
But this result is bizarre -- it completely contradicts every other comparable poll result I've seen this year:
The biggest gain came for Palin, the former Alaska governor who hasn't yet announced whether she'll jump into the fast-changing race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
After trailing Obama by more than 20 percentage points in polls all year, the new national survey, taken Sept. 13-14, found Palin trailing the president by just 5 points, 49-44 percent. The key reason: She now leads Obama among independents, a sharp turnaround.
Real Clear Politics lists 34 polls taken this year of a head-to-head matchup between Palin and Obama. In every single one, Obama led by double digits. In 24 of them, he led by at least 15 points.
The last McClatchy-Marist poll of this matchup was taken in early August. Obama led Palin by 21. Now it's 5? She's closed 16 points of the gap in six weeks? Really?
By comparison, Obama had a 5-point lead over Romney in August and has a 2-point lead now. That makes sense. Obama had a 19-point lead over the not-quite-declared Perry in August and has a 9-point lead now. That makes sense. Obama had a 17-point lead over Bachmann in August and has a 13-point lead now. That makes sense.
The Palin numbers don't make sense. I don't believe them -- not until some other pollster replicates them. I think it's just a bizarre and unrepresentative sampling of "independents" (we're told that Palin "now leads Obama among independents, a sharp turnaround").*
****
However, I will note that this poll was taken in the two days after the last presidential debate -- the one in which Rick Perry supposedly took a lot of serious hits -- and Perry's leading Romney among Republicans and GOP leaners, 30%-22%. In the August poll, Romney led Perry 21%-18%. Still waiting for that Dean-scream decline from Perry....
****
*TO CLARIFY: If I had to guess, I'd assume that the pollsters ask two or three questions trying to determine whether a respondent is affiliated with a party, then whether the respondent is a leaner. I'm guessing this poll picked up way too many "independents" who insist they have no leaning even though they're down-the-line litmus-test Fox/talk radio/teabag ideologues.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
"I LOVE A MAN IN UNIFORM," THEY HARRUMPHED
I knew that Michael Barone had become a deranged Democrat-hater, but this Barone blog post is unusually embarrassing, even for him:
Jim Webb versus Barack Obama?
My friend Paul Rahe, professor of history at Hillsdale College, was among the first to see through the David Brooks depiction (now withdrawn with the confession "I'm an Obama sap") of Barack Obama as a pragmatic centrist compromiser. In his most recent blogpost, Rahe calls for Senator Jim Webb, the Virginia Democrat elected in 2006 who is not running for reelection in 2012, to give a speech denouncing Obama's latest economic program and to run against him in the Democratic primaries. In the past Webb has placed principle above party, resigning as Ronald Reagan's Navy secretary because of policy differences, leaving the Republican party for the Democrats because of his opposition to the war in Iraq. Why not again? Over to you, Senator.
It's easy to see what we have here: a lifelong ink-stained wretch and a career academic having jackboot fantasies about a military man, disguising their overcompensation as principled scorn for an upstart pup who's threatened their rich friends and benefactors.
The link to Professor Rahe's post is busted in Barone's post, but here's the correct link and an excerpt, which stinks of condescension and concern trollery:
... When [Obama] hired [chief of staff Bill] Daley, I figured that he had decided that it was time for adult supervision. But the adolescent in the White House is clearly incapable of accepting that. He would not only rather be right than victorious; he is unwilling even to contemplate the possibility that he might be wrong....
As an American, ... I cannot wholeheartedly welcome the suicide of one of our two major parties....
Were I a Democratic Senator, I would give a speech denouncing the most recent proposal put forward by President Obama. I would denounce it on principled grounds as an unjust attack on the investors and entrepreneurs who actually create jobs in this country....
I could even put a name on the Democratic Senator who should do the job. Jim Webb was a genuine war hero during Vietnam. He did yeoman service as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. His political career has, however, been a disaster. He allowed his anger -- some of it justified, some of it not -- at the manner in which George W. Bush was conducting the war in Iraq lead him into a pact with the left wing of the Democratic Party, and after 2008 he was a reliable vote for the so-called "stimulus" bill, for Obamacare, and for Dodd-Frank. He has done his country considerable harm; he has a lot to answer for; and I suspect that, on his better days, he knows it. When not enraged, Jim Webb is as sharp as they come. It is now time that he do penance for his sins -- and by way of doing penance he could do his country and his party considerable good.
Jim Webb should give the speech, and he should run in the primaries against the President. He would not win the nomination, but the effect of his presence would be electric -- and it would sow the seeds for the Democratic Party’s rebirth as a party ready and willing to participate in our great national project of restoring constitutional government. All that Webb would really have to do is to stand up and say, "The Emperor has no clothes!"
I love the way Rahe combines hero-worship with an accusation of near-treason -- "He has done his country considerable harm." Way to butter the guy up, Paul.
Webb has indeed criticized the president's plan, but he's an idiosyncratic guy -- some of his rhetoric over the years could almost be construed as class warfare:
... Black America and Scots-Irish America are like tortured siblings. They both have long history and they both missed the boat when it came to all of the larger benefits that a lot of other people were able to receive. There's a saying in the Appalachian Mountains that they say to one another and it's, "if you're poor and white, you're out of sight."
...If this cultural group could get [around] the same table as Black America, you could change populist American politics. Because they have so much in common in terms of what they need out of government.
That's not the Webb these guys are fantasizing about, of course. They're fantasizing about a Flight Suit Bush, a warrior/corpocrat, but one who's actually ducked real bullets while wearing a uniform. Me, I'd love to see the reaction to Webb if he ran for president in Democratic primaries reading from Barone and Rahe's coddle-the-rich script, especially in towns with double-digit unemployment. Yeah, I bet the response would be electric.
I knew that Michael Barone had become a deranged Democrat-hater, but this Barone blog post is unusually embarrassing, even for him:
Jim Webb versus Barack Obama?
My friend Paul Rahe, professor of history at Hillsdale College, was among the first to see through the David Brooks depiction (now withdrawn with the confession "I'm an Obama sap") of Barack Obama as a pragmatic centrist compromiser. In his most recent blogpost, Rahe calls for Senator Jim Webb, the Virginia Democrat elected in 2006 who is not running for reelection in 2012, to give a speech denouncing Obama's latest economic program and to run against him in the Democratic primaries. In the past Webb has placed principle above party, resigning as Ronald Reagan's Navy secretary because of policy differences, leaving the Republican party for the Democrats because of his opposition to the war in Iraq. Why not again? Over to you, Senator.
It's easy to see what we have here: a lifelong ink-stained wretch and a career academic having jackboot fantasies about a military man, disguising their overcompensation as principled scorn for an upstart pup who's threatened their rich friends and benefactors.
The link to Professor Rahe's post is busted in Barone's post, but here's the correct link and an excerpt, which stinks of condescension and concern trollery:
... When [Obama] hired [chief of staff Bill] Daley, I figured that he had decided that it was time for adult supervision. But the adolescent in the White House is clearly incapable of accepting that. He would not only rather be right than victorious; he is unwilling even to contemplate the possibility that he might be wrong....
As an American, ... I cannot wholeheartedly welcome the suicide of one of our two major parties....
Were I a Democratic Senator, I would give a speech denouncing the most recent proposal put forward by President Obama. I would denounce it on principled grounds as an unjust attack on the investors and entrepreneurs who actually create jobs in this country....
I could even put a name on the Democratic Senator who should do the job. Jim Webb was a genuine war hero during Vietnam. He did yeoman service as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. His political career has, however, been a disaster. He allowed his anger -- some of it justified, some of it not -- at the manner in which George W. Bush was conducting the war in Iraq lead him into a pact with the left wing of the Democratic Party, and after 2008 he was a reliable vote for the so-called "stimulus" bill, for Obamacare, and for Dodd-Frank. He has done his country considerable harm; he has a lot to answer for; and I suspect that, on his better days, he knows it. When not enraged, Jim Webb is as sharp as they come. It is now time that he do penance for his sins -- and by way of doing penance he could do his country and his party considerable good.
Jim Webb should give the speech, and he should run in the primaries against the President. He would not win the nomination, but the effect of his presence would be electric -- and it would sow the seeds for the Democratic Party’s rebirth as a party ready and willing to participate in our great national project of restoring constitutional government. All that Webb would really have to do is to stand up and say, "The Emperor has no clothes!"
I love the way Rahe combines hero-worship with an accusation of near-treason -- "He has done his country considerable harm." Way to butter the guy up, Paul.
Webb has indeed criticized the president's plan, but he's an idiosyncratic guy -- some of his rhetoric over the years could almost be construed as class warfare:
... Black America and Scots-Irish America are like tortured siblings. They both have long history and they both missed the boat when it came to all of the larger benefits that a lot of other people were able to receive. There's a saying in the Appalachian Mountains that they say to one another and it's, "if you're poor and white, you're out of sight."
...If this cultural group could get [around] the same table as Black America, you could change populist American politics. Because they have so much in common in terms of what they need out of government.
That's not the Webb these guys are fantasizing about, of course. They're fantasizing about a Flight Suit Bush, a warrior/corpocrat, but one who's actually ducked real bullets while wearing a uniform. Me, I'd love to see the reaction to Webb if he ran for president in Democratic primaries reading from Barone and Rahe's coddle-the-rich script, especially in towns with double-digit unemployment. Yeah, I bet the response would be electric.
VOTERS SAY, "THROW THE BUMS OUT." MAYBE THIS IS WHAT THEY MEAN.
I've been skeptical, and ultimately it may turn out that I was right to be skeptical, but if Public Policy Polling is right, Elizabeth Warren really has a shot:
Elizabeth Warren has had an incredibly successful launch to her Senate campaign and actually leads Scott Brown now by a 46-44 margin, erasing what was a 15 point deficit the last time we polled the state in early June.
Warren's gone from 38% name recognition to 62% over the last three months and she's made a good first impression on pretty much everyone who's developed an opinion about her during that period of time. What was a 21/17 favorability rating in June is now 40/22- in other words she's increased the voters with a positive opinion of her by 19% while her negatives have risen only 5%.
The surprising movement toward Warren has a lot to do with her but it also has a lot to do with Scott Brown. We now find a slight plurality of voters in the state disapproving of him- 45%, compared to only 44% approving. We have seen a steady decline in Brown's numbers over the last 9 months....
Dave Weigel thinks the GOP shouldn't have reacted to the announcement of her candidacy by trying to portray her as an elitist. Perhaps -- though that doesn't seem like a sufficient explanation of her poll surge. Adam Sorensen of Time offers several reasons she might do well:
Warren will have many advantages in this race: an unpopular Congress, deep-pocketed national liberal donors lined up around the block, President Obama at the top of the ballot, and, most importantly, a heavily Democratic Massachusetts electorate.
I've got to go with #1 there -- Obama's popularity has been slipping lately. Massachusetts, though usually Democratic, elects a lot of Republican governors and is not always liberal. And I worry about an anti-fat-cat candidate trying to get rich people's donations.
But an unpopular Congress? Now you're talking. And so if this poll is accurate, maybe what it says to the Democratic Party is: stop running so many party hacks. If you want to win a seat, maybe you should be looking to any plausible candidate who isn't thoroughly rooted in the system.
Voters are sick of "the bums." They want to throw "the bums" out. I think what they mean is the same damn set of pols they see on every ballot. The Dems ran just such a career pol in NY-9 and got shellacked. Maybe this is the way to go? Run more people who don't reek of hackery?
I've been skeptical, and ultimately it may turn out that I was right to be skeptical, but if Public Policy Polling is right, Elizabeth Warren really has a shot:
Elizabeth Warren has had an incredibly successful launch to her Senate campaign and actually leads Scott Brown now by a 46-44 margin, erasing what was a 15 point deficit the last time we polled the state in early June.
Warren's gone from 38% name recognition to 62% over the last three months and she's made a good first impression on pretty much everyone who's developed an opinion about her during that period of time. What was a 21/17 favorability rating in June is now 40/22- in other words she's increased the voters with a positive opinion of her by 19% while her negatives have risen only 5%.
The surprising movement toward Warren has a lot to do with her but it also has a lot to do with Scott Brown. We now find a slight plurality of voters in the state disapproving of him- 45%, compared to only 44% approving. We have seen a steady decline in Brown's numbers over the last 9 months....
Dave Weigel thinks the GOP shouldn't have reacted to the announcement of her candidacy by trying to portray her as an elitist. Perhaps -- though that doesn't seem like a sufficient explanation of her poll surge. Adam Sorensen of Time offers several reasons she might do well:
Warren will have many advantages in this race: an unpopular Congress, deep-pocketed national liberal donors lined up around the block, President Obama at the top of the ballot, and, most importantly, a heavily Democratic Massachusetts electorate.
I've got to go with #1 there -- Obama's popularity has been slipping lately. Massachusetts, though usually Democratic, elects a lot of Republican governors and is not always liberal. And I worry about an anti-fat-cat candidate trying to get rich people's donations.
But an unpopular Congress? Now you're talking. And so if this poll is accurate, maybe what it says to the Democratic Party is: stop running so many party hacks. If you want to win a seat, maybe you should be looking to any plausible candidate who isn't thoroughly rooted in the system.
Voters are sick of "the bums." They want to throw "the bums" out. I think what they mean is the same damn set of pols they see on every ballot. The Dems ran just such a career pol in NY-9 and got shellacked. Maybe this is the way to go? Run more people who don't reek of hackery?
RICK PERRY: GUESS WHAT? STILL NOT THIS YEAR'S HOWARD DEAN
Hey, kids -- remember how, after the last Republican debate on September 12, all the smart people told us that Rick Perry got manhandled and mauled and pummeled and roughed up? Politico told us that attacks by Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul left Perry bloodied and bruised. National Journal told us Perry lit a fire in Mitt Romney's belly and now Romney was coming on like gangbusters. Fred Barnes exulted in Romney's attack on Perry's Social Security talk and described the debate as "Romney's win." Oh, and then Andrew Sullivan and Texas Monthly's Paul Burka discussed whether Sarah Palin did even more damage by (momentarily) accusing Perry of engaging in "crony capitalism" when he approved mandatory HPV vaccination in Texas.
So, um, how's the mugging victim recuperating from this devastating gang attack? Let's look at the first poll taken completely after the debate:
Rick Perry leads Mitt Romney by 31% to 24% in a new USA Today/Gallup poll of Republican presidential nomination preferences....
These results are from a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Sept. 15-18....
So Perry's number has actually gone up since the last Gallup poll, in August, when he was at 29%. Some pummeling.
I shouldn't be too smug about this. Romney has made some significant gains since August (from 17% to 24%). The person who's in a world of hurt is Michele Bachmann, who's dropped from 10% to 5% and is rapidly heading for Jon Huntsman territory.
It's possible that Romney will succeed in making this a two-man race. Still, I'm sticking with my theory that Perry's not going to be stopped. He's survived "Ponzi scheme." He's survived HPV (with a little help from Bachmann's fable-spinning). A recent attack on him as a TARP supporter has apparently had no traction. His opponents had better find one of these legendary gay lovers of his fast, because I'm not sure what else they can throw at Slick Rick that could possibly stick to him.
Hey, kids -- remember how, after the last Republican debate on September 12, all the smart people told us that Rick Perry got manhandled and mauled and pummeled and roughed up? Politico told us that attacks by Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul left Perry bloodied and bruised. National Journal told us Perry lit a fire in Mitt Romney's belly and now Romney was coming on like gangbusters. Fred Barnes exulted in Romney's attack on Perry's Social Security talk and described the debate as "Romney's win." Oh, and then Andrew Sullivan and Texas Monthly's Paul Burka discussed whether Sarah Palin did even more damage by (momentarily) accusing Perry of engaging in "crony capitalism" when he approved mandatory HPV vaccination in Texas.
So, um, how's the mugging victim recuperating from this devastating gang attack? Let's look at the first poll taken completely after the debate:
Rick Perry leads Mitt Romney by 31% to 24% in a new USA Today/Gallup poll of Republican presidential nomination preferences....
These results are from a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Sept. 15-18....
So Perry's number has actually gone up since the last Gallup poll, in August, when he was at 29%. Some pummeling.
I shouldn't be too smug about this. Romney has made some significant gains since August (from 17% to 24%). The person who's in a world of hurt is Michele Bachmann, who's dropped from 10% to 5% and is rapidly heading for Jon Huntsman territory.
It's possible that Romney will succeed in making this a two-man race. Still, I'm sticking with my theory that Perry's not going to be stopped. He's survived "Ponzi scheme." He's survived HPV (with a little help from Bachmann's fable-spinning). A recent attack on him as a TARP supporter has apparently had no traction. His opponents had better find one of these legendary gay lovers of his fast, because I'm not sure what else they can throw at Slick Rick that could possibly stick to him.
FACTS ABOUT FAT-CAT FATNESS ARE EMBARRASSING THINGS
From an AP "fact check" of the arguments underlying the president's call for the so-called Buffett tax:
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service.
Excuse me -- if any millionaires paid zero federal income tax, then it's inaccurate to say that there "may be" millionaires with a lower tax rate than typical middle-income workers. There are millionaires with a lower tax rate -- period, full stop. By definition, there are more than a thousand of them -- at least. So avoid the conditional, please. (The AP "fact check" doesn't tell us about millionaires who pay some federal income tax but not very much, though surely there are a number of those as well.)
****
There's also this, in the "fact check":
Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.
If you read this looking for "the facts," you might conclude that that 15% rate is unfair, but only to somewhat less rich people, those who make more than $379,150. What the "fact check" leaves out is that it's unfair to middle-income people. Here are the current marginal tax rates. Notice how much -- or, rather, how little -- money you can make and still be paying federal income tax (on at least some of it) at a higher rate than hedge-fund fat cats paying 15%:
Single Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]
10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus
25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus
28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus
33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus
35% on taxable income over $379,150.
Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule Y-1, Internal Revenue Code section 1(a)]
10% on taxable income from $0 to $17,000, plus
15% on taxable income over $17,000 to $69,000, plus
25% on taxable income over $69,000 to $139,350, plus
28% on taxable income over $139,350 to $212,300, plus
33% on taxable income over $212,300 to $379,150, plus
35% on taxable income over $379,150.
Make $65 grand as a single person and you're paying 25% on nearly half your income, while the hedge-fund guy pays 15% on his $65 million. AP could have told us that, but it's an inconvenient fact.
From an AP "fact check" of the arguments underlying the president's call for the so-called Buffett tax:
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service.
Excuse me -- if any millionaires paid zero federal income tax, then it's inaccurate to say that there "may be" millionaires with a lower tax rate than typical middle-income workers. There are millionaires with a lower tax rate -- period, full stop. By definition, there are more than a thousand of them -- at least. So avoid the conditional, please. (The AP "fact check" doesn't tell us about millionaires who pay some federal income tax but not very much, though surely there are a number of those as well.)
****
There's also this, in the "fact check":
Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.
If you read this looking for "the facts," you might conclude that that 15% rate is unfair, but only to somewhat less rich people, those who make more than $379,150. What the "fact check" leaves out is that it's unfair to middle-income people. Here are the current marginal tax rates. Notice how much -- or, rather, how little -- money you can make and still be paying federal income tax (on at least some of it) at a higher rate than hedge-fund fat cats paying 15%:
Single Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]
10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus
25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus
28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus
33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus
35% on taxable income over $379,150.
Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule Y-1, Internal Revenue Code section 1(a)]
10% on taxable income from $0 to $17,000, plus
15% on taxable income over $17,000 to $69,000, plus
25% on taxable income over $69,000 to $139,350, plus
28% on taxable income over $139,350 to $212,300, plus
33% on taxable income over $212,300 to $379,150, plus
35% on taxable income over $379,150.
Make $65 grand as a single person and you're paying 25% on nearly half your income, while the hedge-fund guy pays 15% on his $65 million. AP could have told us that, but it's an inconvenient fact.
NEEDLESS TO SAY, DAVID, YOU'RE ALSO A REPUBLICAN SAP
This morning's David Brooks column is a plaintive wail entitled "Obama Rejects Obamaism." It begins:
I'm a sap, a specific kind of sap. I'm an Obama Sap.
It goes on to talk about how that awful Barack Obama -- Brooks's sometime hero -- is now rejecting Brooksian conservatism.
When the president unveiled the second half of his stimulus it became clear that this package has nothing to do with helping people right away or averting a double dip. This is a campaign marker, not a jobs bill...
He repeated the populist cries that fire up liberals but are designed to enrage moderates and conservatives.
What Brooks doesn't recognize about himself is that he's also a Republican Sap. He actually believes that compromises and bargains, even inches-from-the-rightward-extreme Grand Bargains, are possible in this climate. He ignores the radicalism and intransigence of his own party, the nature of which seemed to dawn on him temporarily at fleeting moments in the past. Of Obama's jobs speech, he writes (emphasis added):
This wasn't a speech to get something done. This was the sort of speech that sounded better when Ted Kennedy was delivering it. The result is that we will get neither short-term stimulus nor long-term debt reduction anytime soon, and I’m a sap for thinking it was possible.
No, David. You're right that we will get neither short-term stimulus nor long-term debt reduction anytime soon, but it's not the result of Obama's proposals. It's the result of Congress's makeup and governing philosophy. These people wouldn't agree to anything genuinely stimulative at this moment, and they'll never, ever agree to anything that genuinely reduces the deficit, because even if we cut spending their way, in a Perry presidency with GOP majorities in both houses, the Republicans (and Blue Dogs) will use the spending cuts as an excuse for another round of massive tax cuts skewed toward the rich and large corporations. Revenues? They don't need no stinking revenues.
More:
He talks about fundamental tax reform, but I keep forgetting that he has promised never to raise taxes on people in the bottom 98 percent of the income scale.
That means when he talks about raising revenue, which he is right to do, he can't really talk about anything substantive. He can't tax gasoline. He can't tax consumption. He can't do a comprehensive tax reform.
Really? He can't? No, David -- no one could. Not with this sorry lot in Congress. Leaving aside any discussion of the wisdom of the proposals on this list, they're simply not possible. Grover Norquist wouldn't allow it. The Koch brothers would fund primary challenges to any Republican who supported, say, a financial incentive to switch to less polluting fuels, or tax reform that wasn't a smokescreen for slipping the rich more breaks (like an elimination of the capital gains tax).
Sorry, David -- it's your guys who have their heels dug in. Obama is just imitating them.
This morning's David Brooks column is a plaintive wail entitled "Obama Rejects Obamaism." It begins:
I'm a sap, a specific kind of sap. I'm an Obama Sap.
It goes on to talk about how that awful Barack Obama -- Brooks's sometime hero -- is now rejecting Brooksian conservatism.
When the president unveiled the second half of his stimulus it became clear that this package has nothing to do with helping people right away or averting a double dip. This is a campaign marker, not a jobs bill...
He repeated the populist cries that fire up liberals but are designed to enrage moderates and conservatives.
What Brooks doesn't recognize about himself is that he's also a Republican Sap. He actually believes that compromises and bargains, even inches-from-the-rightward-extreme Grand Bargains, are possible in this climate. He ignores the radicalism and intransigence of his own party, the nature of which seemed to dawn on him temporarily at fleeting moments in the past. Of Obama's jobs speech, he writes (emphasis added):
This wasn't a speech to get something done. This was the sort of speech that sounded better when Ted Kennedy was delivering it. The result is that we will get neither short-term stimulus nor long-term debt reduction anytime soon, and I’m a sap for thinking it was possible.
No, David. You're right that we will get neither short-term stimulus nor long-term debt reduction anytime soon, but it's not the result of Obama's proposals. It's the result of Congress's makeup and governing philosophy. These people wouldn't agree to anything genuinely stimulative at this moment, and they'll never, ever agree to anything that genuinely reduces the deficit, because even if we cut spending their way, in a Perry presidency with GOP majorities in both houses, the Republicans (and Blue Dogs) will use the spending cuts as an excuse for another round of massive tax cuts skewed toward the rich and large corporations. Revenues? They don't need no stinking revenues.
More:
He talks about fundamental tax reform, but I keep forgetting that he has promised never to raise taxes on people in the bottom 98 percent of the income scale.
That means when he talks about raising revenue, which he is right to do, he can't really talk about anything substantive. He can't tax gasoline. He can't tax consumption. He can't do a comprehensive tax reform.
Really? He can't? No, David -- no one could. Not with this sorry lot in Congress. Leaving aside any discussion of the wisdom of the proposals on this list, they're simply not possible. Grover Norquist wouldn't allow it. The Koch brothers would fund primary challenges to any Republican who supported, say, a financial incentive to switch to less polluting fuels, or tax reform that wasn't a smokescreen for slipping the rich more breaks (like an elimination of the capital gains tax).
Sorry, David -- it's your guys who have their heels dug in. Obama is just imitating them.
Monday, September 19, 2011
MULTIPLE BIRTHERS EMERGE (OR REEMERGE) FROM THE SLIME
There are three -- count 'em, three -- birther stories in the news right now. (Four if you go back to last week.) First there's this, from World Net Daily:
Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told WND he has assigned a five-member "Cold Case Posse" to investigate the authenticity of Barack Obama's birth certificate....
As WND reported, Arpaio is responding to a complaint brought to his office by representatives of the Surprise Tea Party in Surprise, Ariz., who have expressed in writing their concerns that the voting rights of Maricopa County residents in the 2012 presidential election could be compromised if Obama were to use a forged birth certificate to establish his eligibility under Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution....
The identities of the five individuals assigned to the Cold Case Posse investigation of the Obama birth certificate are being withheld from the public, in order to protect the individuals involved from both public reaction and from questions that are certain to arise from the media....
Then this, from the Sacramento Bee:
A leading figure in the "birther" movement is mulling returning to the California ballot in another bid for statewide office.
Republican Orly Taitz, who ran in the GOP primary for secretary of state last year, said today she is "absolutely" considering challenging Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein in 2012....
And this, from Politico:
Legendary singer Pat Boone still isn’t convinced that President Obama was born in the U.S.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Boone, a member of the Beverly Hills Tea Party, attended a California GOP event on Friday night and expressed his skepticism about the president’s birthplace.
Asked if believes Obama was born in the U.S., Boone said, "I don't. ... I was in Kenya about a year and a half ago and everybody there says, you know, your president was born here." ...
Taitz is thoroughly marginalized, but Arpaio and Boone aren't -- Rick Perry personally called Arpaio earlier this month, and Arpaio subsequently received a phone call from Mitt Romney and had a meeting with Michele Bachmann. (Arpaio was Romney's "honorary Arizona chairman" in 2008, though Arpaio hasn't endorsed anyone yet this year.) And as for Boone:
Boone endorsed nearly 90 congressional contenders and recorded robocalls that went to an estimated 7 million households during the 2010 midterms. He writes a weekly column for the Republican-aligned website Newsmax and serves as the lead spokesman for the 60 Plus Association, a group that bills itself as the conservative counterpart to AARP. He's now wading into the contentious debate over entitlement reform....
When they picked up their phones last fall, millions of seniors heard a friendly Boone on the other end -- a familiar, comforting voice from the past just checking in to let them know that Tim Scott or Kristi Noem or Stephen Fincher was running for Congress and, well, they ought to vote for them....
Boone, who's known to cram Fox News appearances into his schedule, takes pride in how active he is on behalf of the conservative cause and for candidates like [Allen] West --- the controversial freshman House Republican who, Boone argued, would make a good vice presidential candidate....
In the GOP, Boone and Arpaio -- two birthers -- are thoroughly mainstream. Oh, and so is Donald Trump, the once and (who the hell knows?) possibly future birther, whose ring was kissed last week by Rick Perry (or as Trump calls him, "Jim" Perry).
****
(Taitz story via Rumproast.)
There are three -- count 'em, three -- birther stories in the news right now. (Four if you go back to last week.) First there's this, from World Net Daily:
Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told WND he has assigned a five-member "Cold Case Posse" to investigate the authenticity of Barack Obama's birth certificate....
As WND reported, Arpaio is responding to a complaint brought to his office by representatives of the Surprise Tea Party in Surprise, Ariz., who have expressed in writing their concerns that the voting rights of Maricopa County residents in the 2012 presidential election could be compromised if Obama were to use a forged birth certificate to establish his eligibility under Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution....
The identities of the five individuals assigned to the Cold Case Posse investigation of the Obama birth certificate are being withheld from the public, in order to protect the individuals involved from both public reaction and from questions that are certain to arise from the media....
Then this, from the Sacramento Bee:
A leading figure in the "birther" movement is mulling returning to the California ballot in another bid for statewide office.
Republican Orly Taitz, who ran in the GOP primary for secretary of state last year, said today she is "absolutely" considering challenging Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein in 2012....
And this, from Politico:
Legendary singer Pat Boone still isn’t convinced that President Obama was born in the U.S.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Boone, a member of the Beverly Hills Tea Party, attended a California GOP event on Friday night and expressed his skepticism about the president’s birthplace.
Asked if believes Obama was born in the U.S., Boone said, "I don't. ... I was in Kenya about a year and a half ago and everybody there says, you know, your president was born here." ...
Taitz is thoroughly marginalized, but Arpaio and Boone aren't -- Rick Perry personally called Arpaio earlier this month, and Arpaio subsequently received a phone call from Mitt Romney and had a meeting with Michele Bachmann. (Arpaio was Romney's "honorary Arizona chairman" in 2008, though Arpaio hasn't endorsed anyone yet this year.) And as for Boone:
Boone endorsed nearly 90 congressional contenders and recorded robocalls that went to an estimated 7 million households during the 2010 midterms. He writes a weekly column for the Republican-aligned website Newsmax and serves as the lead spokesman for the 60 Plus Association, a group that bills itself as the conservative counterpart to AARP. He's now wading into the contentious debate over entitlement reform....
When they picked up their phones last fall, millions of seniors heard a friendly Boone on the other end -- a familiar, comforting voice from the past just checking in to let them know that Tim Scott or Kristi Noem or Stephen Fincher was running for Congress and, well, they ought to vote for them....
Boone, who's known to cram Fox News appearances into his schedule, takes pride in how active he is on behalf of the conservative cause and for candidates like [Allen] West --- the controversial freshman House Republican who, Boone argued, would make a good vice presidential candidate....
In the GOP, Boone and Arpaio -- two birthers -- are thoroughly mainstream. Oh, and so is Donald Trump, the once and (who the hell knows?) possibly future birther, whose ring was kissed last week by Rick Perry (or as Trump calls him, "Jim" Perry).
****
(Taitz story via Rumproast.)
PULL UP THE LADDER NOW THAT I'VE CLIMBED UP
I imagine you already know what GOP congressman John Fleming said this morning:
Multi-Millionaire Rep. Says He Can’t Afford A Tax Hike Because He Only Has $400K A Year After Feeding Family
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) appeared on MSNBC with Chris Jansing this morning to attack President Obama's new deficit reduction plan, which includes some tax increases on the wealthy. Taking up the typical GOP talking point, Fleming said raising taxes on wealthy "job creators" is a terrible idea that kills jobs because many of these people are small business owners who pay taxes through personal income rates.
Fleming is himself a businesses owner, so Jansing asked, "If you have to pay more in taxes, you would get rid of some of those employees?" Fleming responded by saying that while his businesses made $6.3 million last year, after you "pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment, and food," his profits "a mere fraction of that" -- "by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over."
Will it surprise you if I tell you that Fleming -- an M.D. -- got his secondary and professional education at government-run institutions?
Fleming attended the University of Mississippi and was admitted to their medical school in Jackson after his junior year.
... the military got him ... when sudden family difficulties made it necessary to recruit the funding to finish medical school.
"I accepted one of the first scholarships back in 1972," said Fleming. "I was knocking on the recruiter's door the next day."
He completed medical school and his residency with the Navy at Camp Pendleton Navy Hospital....
More:
He also trained at the drug and alcohol treatment unit at the Navy Regional Medical Center in Long Beach. Serving in the Navy after his residency, Fleming practiced military family medicine on the island of Guam. There from 1979 to 1981, he was the director of drug and alcohol treatment and chairman of the Navy's Family Advocacy Committee. Thereafter, he performed similar duties in Charleston, South Carolina.
Oh, and he wrote a book based on -- surprise! -- government research:
Fleming also is a published author, having recently released the book "Preventing Addiction: What Parents Must Know to Immunize Their Kids Against Drug and Alcohol Addiction."
"This book is based on research conducted recently by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which says that children who drink alcohol before age 15 have a five-fold risk of addiction greater than kids who begin drinking after age 15," he said.
At a certain point in his life he was ready to start making money, as a physician in private practice and as a franchiser (Subway sandwich shops, UPS Stores) -- until, of course, he went back on the government payroll after being elected to Congress in 2008. Oh, and I'm forgetting the four years he spent as Webster Parish coroner (1996-2000).
But now he doesn't actually need what government offers, so he heaps scorn on any effort to collect more money to keep government running. Of course.
I imagine you already know what GOP congressman John Fleming said this morning:
Multi-Millionaire Rep. Says He Can’t Afford A Tax Hike Because He Only Has $400K A Year After Feeding Family
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) appeared on MSNBC with Chris Jansing this morning to attack President Obama's new deficit reduction plan, which includes some tax increases on the wealthy. Taking up the typical GOP talking point, Fleming said raising taxes on wealthy "job creators" is a terrible idea that kills jobs because many of these people are small business owners who pay taxes through personal income rates.
Fleming is himself a businesses owner, so Jansing asked, "If you have to pay more in taxes, you would get rid of some of those employees?" Fleming responded by saying that while his businesses made $6.3 million last year, after you "pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment, and food," his profits "a mere fraction of that" -- "by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over."
Will it surprise you if I tell you that Fleming -- an M.D. -- got his secondary and professional education at government-run institutions?
Fleming attended the University of Mississippi and was admitted to their medical school in Jackson after his junior year.
... the military got him ... when sudden family difficulties made it necessary to recruit the funding to finish medical school.
"I accepted one of the first scholarships back in 1972," said Fleming. "I was knocking on the recruiter's door the next day."
He completed medical school and his residency with the Navy at Camp Pendleton Navy Hospital....
More:
He also trained at the drug and alcohol treatment unit at the Navy Regional Medical Center in Long Beach. Serving in the Navy after his residency, Fleming practiced military family medicine on the island of Guam. There from 1979 to 1981, he was the director of drug and alcohol treatment and chairman of the Navy's Family Advocacy Committee. Thereafter, he performed similar duties in Charleston, South Carolina.
Oh, and he wrote a book based on -- surprise! -- government research:
Fleming also is a published author, having recently released the book "Preventing Addiction: What Parents Must Know to Immunize Their Kids Against Drug and Alcohol Addiction."
"This book is based on research conducted recently by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which says that children who drink alcohol before age 15 have a five-fold risk of addiction greater than kids who begin drinking after age 15," he said.
At a certain point in his life he was ready to start making money, as a physician in private practice and as a franchiser (Subway sandwich shops, UPS Stores) -- until, of course, he went back on the government payroll after being elected to Congress in 2008. Oh, and I'm forgetting the four years he spent as Webster Parish coroner (1996-2000).
But now he doesn't actually need what government offers, so he heaps scorn on any effort to collect more money to keep government running. Of course.
MAKING OBAMA A WAR PRESIDENT
When talking about the Obamas deficit plan, Paul Ryan threw out a lot of catchphrases yesterday, hoping one would stick:
On "Fox News Sunday," Mr. Ryan said it would add "further instability to our system, more uncertainty, and it punishes job creation."
"Class warfare," he said, "may make for really good politics, but it makes for rotten economics."
My first reaction was that denouncing "class warfare" was old-school knee-jerk Republicanism, good for firing up the base but not so good anymore for appealing to the middle. The other talking points -- warnings about "instability" and "uncertainty," the invocation of those before whom we prostrate ourselves in the hope they'll engage in "job creation" -- seemed much more likely to connect with swing voters. Cokie Roberts, of all people, expressed skepticism about "class warfare" talk this morning on NPR:
That's a term that they have tested over and over, and they think it works for them, but probably not in this environment, when people are quite mad and feeling like the fat cats are getting everything.
But I never like to assume that Republicans have made a messaging mistake, because they so rarely do. (It's one of the few things they're good at, and they're very, very good.) I think the entire phrase "class warfare" is intended to fire up the base, but "warfare" is meant to undermine President Obama's attempt to portray himself as the adult in the room, the reasonable man, the person who'd actually like to put an end to partisan warfare. And of course, a black guy with ties to '60s bomb-throwers who engages in "warfare" ...
So it's the main part of the message even if one of the two words is, for part of the target audience, a throwaway.
When talking about the Obamas deficit plan, Paul Ryan threw out a lot of catchphrases yesterday, hoping one would stick:
On "Fox News Sunday," Mr. Ryan said it would add "further instability to our system, more uncertainty, and it punishes job creation."
"Class warfare," he said, "may make for really good politics, but it makes for rotten economics."
My first reaction was that denouncing "class warfare" was old-school knee-jerk Republicanism, good for firing up the base but not so good anymore for appealing to the middle. The other talking points -- warnings about "instability" and "uncertainty," the invocation of those before whom we prostrate ourselves in the hope they'll engage in "job creation" -- seemed much more likely to connect with swing voters. Cokie Roberts, of all people, expressed skepticism about "class warfare" talk this morning on NPR:
That's a term that they have tested over and over, and they think it works for them, but probably not in this environment, when people are quite mad and feeling like the fat cats are getting everything.
But I never like to assume that Republicans have made a messaging mistake, because they so rarely do. (It's one of the few things they're good at, and they're very, very good.) I think the entire phrase "class warfare" is intended to fire up the base, but "warfare" is meant to undermine President Obama's attempt to portray himself as the adult in the room, the reasonable man, the person who'd actually like to put an end to partisan warfare. And of course, a black guy with ties to '60s bomb-throwers who engages in "warfare" ...
So it's the main part of the message even if one of the two words is, for part of the target audience, a throwaway.
APPARENTLY THERE ARE SOME LIMITS TO SELF-RELIANCE IN PERRY COUNTRY
From today's big New York Times story about Paint Creek and Haskell County, Texas, where Rick Perry grew up:
His parents, who are still active members of the community, always attending church and often stopping by the senior center's lively free lunch program, usually travel to Austin to see their son, friends said.
I'm sorry -- is it nasty of me to highlight that? Look, maybe Perry's parents volunteer. Maybe they choose to pay. I'm sure they show up for the company, not really for the free food.
But still. I'm sure there's some government money involved in the provision of these free lunches, either directly or indirectly. To hear folks like Rick Perry talk, taking something provided by the government that you should provide for yourself, or your family should provide for you, is anathema to people where Perry comes from, anathema like turning vegan or attending a gay wedding. It's unthinkable. (Medicare and Social Security excepted, of course.)
But there it is: socialism, not just where Perry lives, but provided to his own family.
From today's big New York Times story about Paint Creek and Haskell County, Texas, where Rick Perry grew up:
His parents, who are still active members of the community, always attending church and often stopping by the senior center's lively free lunch program, usually travel to Austin to see their son, friends said.
I'm sorry -- is it nasty of me to highlight that? Look, maybe Perry's parents volunteer. Maybe they choose to pay. I'm sure they show up for the company, not really for the free food.
But still. I'm sure there's some government money involved in the provision of these free lunches, either directly or indirectly. To hear folks like Rick Perry talk, taking something provided by the government that you should provide for yourself, or your family should provide for you, is anathema to people where Perry comes from, anathema like turning vegan or attending a gay wedding. It's unthinkable. (Medicare and Social Security excepted, of course.)
But there it is: socialism, not just where Perry lives, but provided to his own family.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
STEVE CHAPMAN'S SLIGHT CHANGE OF HEART ON HILLARY CLINTON
Here's Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman, from his new column "Why Obama Should Withdraw":
... Obama might do his party a big favor. In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket.
The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can't be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president's.
It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama's reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.
As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she's been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she's never been accused of being a pushover.
Not only that, Clinton is a savvy political veteran who already knows how to run for president. Oh, and a new Bloomberg poll finds her to be merely "the most popular national political figure in America today."
Now here's what Steve Chapman had to say in 2007 about his new favorite politician, the "less reviled" "figure of stature" and "savvy political veteran" Hillary Clinton:
Everyone knows Hillary Rodham Clinton, and everyone has a different reaction to her. Some find her as irritating as fingernails on a chalkboard. Some find that she makes their skin crawl. Some run screaming from the room. And some want to drink a gallon of rat poison while lying across a railroad track.
...many people in both parties see her as ideologically repellent. Conservatives think she's an arrogant busybody with an addiction to big government. The left regards her as a cynical trimmer who can't admit when she's wrong.
... many people, again in both parties, just can't stand her. You want a uniter, not a divider? Hillary has a way of uniting people who ordinarily would be pelting each other with eggs.
I know that every Hillary-hater on the right (which is basically everyone on the right) was ordered to do a 180 on her the moment it became clear in 2008 that Obama had the delegate math on his side. But this is a somewhat more neck-snapping turnabout than most, no?
Here's Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman, from his new column "Why Obama Should Withdraw":
... Obama might do his party a big favor. In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket.
The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can't be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president's.
It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama's reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.
As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she's been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she's never been accused of being a pushover.
Not only that, Clinton is a savvy political veteran who already knows how to run for president. Oh, and a new Bloomberg poll finds her to be merely "the most popular national political figure in America today."
Now here's what Steve Chapman had to say in 2007 about his new favorite politician, the "less reviled" "figure of stature" and "savvy political veteran" Hillary Clinton:
Everyone knows Hillary Rodham Clinton, and everyone has a different reaction to her. Some find her as irritating as fingernails on a chalkboard. Some find that she makes their skin crawl. Some run screaming from the room. And some want to drink a gallon of rat poison while lying across a railroad track.
...many people in both parties see her as ideologically repellent. Conservatives think she's an arrogant busybody with an addiction to big government. The left regards her as a cynical trimmer who can't admit when she's wrong.
... many people, again in both parties, just can't stand her. You want a uniter, not a divider? Hillary has a way of uniting people who ordinarily would be pelting each other with eggs.
I know that every Hillary-hater on the right (which is basically everyone on the right) was ordered to do a 180 on her the moment it became clear in 2008 that Obama had the delegate math on his side. But this is a somewhat more neck-snapping turnabout than most, no?
TANENHAUS: WE'RE IN THE LAST DAYS! GOSSIP IS BEING USED TO SELL POLITICAL BOOKS!
So I'm reading the Sunday Review section of The New York Times, and I really think Sam Tanenhaus is taking the publicity campaign for Joe McGinniss's Sarah Palin book way too seriously, regarding it as a sign of the decline of Western civilization:
... Mr. McGinniss and his publisher, Crown, a division of Random House, have evidently borrowed the strategy pioneered in 2010 with the release of "Game Change," John Heilemann and Mark Halperin's backstage account of the 2008 election.
In that case, too, the subject seemed to have been wrung dry. The election had been thoroughly, not to say obsessively, reported in real time. Yet on the strength of gossipy scooplets released ahead of time, "Game Change" climbed to the top of best-seller lists.
"The Rogue" has likewise been preceded by a sprinkling of tangy, scandalous morsels....
WELCOME to the world of 21st-century book promotion, specifically the promotion of political books. Thanks to a change in the cultural weather -- from the Internet to reality TV -- a form of journalism that once emphasized narrative, analysis or both, seems to have devolved into a subspecies of celebrity exposé....
Oh, please -- does Tanenhaus think there's never been gossip in political books before? Does he think gossip was never used as the prime means of selling such books? Let me remind you how we first heard about Bob Woodward's book The Choice:
First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton held imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi as a therapeutic release, according to a new book written by Bob Woodward, says a report in Sunday's edition of The Chicago Sun-Times.
The first lady declined a personal adviser's suggestion that she address Jesus Christ, however, because it would be "too personal," according to Woodward's book, "The Choice."
The book, which is still to be published, takes a behind-the-scenes look at the Clintons, as well as Bob and Elizabeth Dole....
That was in 1996.
And that was hardly the first political book sold with gossip -- hell, it wasn't even the first Bob Woodward book sold that way. Twenty years earlier, there was this:
And despite the fact that we seem to be a depraved and decadent populace who live for cheap and tawdry gossip, the publicity campaign for McGinniss's doesn't even seem to be working -- as I write this, the book is #58 at Amazon, which means it's being outsold not just by Heaven Is for Real and the movie tie-in edition of The Help, but by Ron Suskind's Confidence Men (#21) and The Black Banners by Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent who interrogated many terrorism suspects after 9/11 (#53). Narrative enough for you, Sam? Hey, even the Mitch Daniels memoir is doing better than the Palin book (#48); I don't know if it's rich in narrative and analysis, but I strongly doubt it's selling on the basis of gossipy scooplets.
So I'm reading the Sunday Review section of The New York Times, and I really think Sam Tanenhaus is taking the publicity campaign for Joe McGinniss's Sarah Palin book way too seriously, regarding it as a sign of the decline of Western civilization:
... Mr. McGinniss and his publisher, Crown, a division of Random House, have evidently borrowed the strategy pioneered in 2010 with the release of "Game Change," John Heilemann and Mark Halperin's backstage account of the 2008 election.
In that case, too, the subject seemed to have been wrung dry. The election had been thoroughly, not to say obsessively, reported in real time. Yet on the strength of gossipy scooplets released ahead of time, "Game Change" climbed to the top of best-seller lists.
"The Rogue" has likewise been preceded by a sprinkling of tangy, scandalous morsels....
WELCOME to the world of 21st-century book promotion, specifically the promotion of political books. Thanks to a change in the cultural weather -- from the Internet to reality TV -- a form of journalism that once emphasized narrative, analysis or both, seems to have devolved into a subspecies of celebrity exposé....
Oh, please -- does Tanenhaus think there's never been gossip in political books before? Does he think gossip was never used as the prime means of selling such books? Let me remind you how we first heard about Bob Woodward's book The Choice:
First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton held imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi as a therapeutic release, according to a new book written by Bob Woodward, says a report in Sunday's edition of The Chicago Sun-Times.
The first lady declined a personal adviser's suggestion that she address Jesus Christ, however, because it would be "too personal," according to Woodward's book, "The Choice."
The book, which is still to be published, takes a behind-the-scenes look at the Clintons, as well as Bob and Elizabeth Dole....
That was in 1996.
And that was hardly the first political book sold with gossip -- hell, it wasn't even the first Bob Woodward book sold that way. Twenty years earlier, there was this:
And despite the fact that we seem to be a depraved and decadent populace who live for cheap and tawdry gossip, the publicity campaign for McGinniss's doesn't even seem to be working -- as I write this, the book is #58 at Amazon, which means it's being outsold not just by Heaven Is for Real and the movie tie-in edition of The Help, but by Ron Suskind's Confidence Men (#21) and The Black Banners by Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent who interrogated many terrorism suspects after 9/11 (#53). Narrative enough for you, Sam? Hey, even the Mitch Daniels memoir is doing better than the Palin book (#48); I don't know if it's rich in narrative and analysis, but I strongly doubt it's selling on the basis of gossipy scooplets.
THIS EXISTS: CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS IN AMERICA
I'm feeling uncharacteristically optimistic about the juxtaposition of this...
President Obama on Monday will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials.
... and this:
People from all over the country gathered in Lower Manhattan Saturday to voice their frustration with both the economy and Wall Street.
Thousands marched....
Word of the “Occupy Wall Street” protest spread over the Internet....
At one point, CBS 2 we caught a glimpse of Police Commissioner Ray Kelly driving through the controlled chaos....
With all the pressure there is on political figures to avoid what's always sneeringly called "class warfare," the fact that the president -- the fact that this president -- is increasingly acknowledging the vast difference between the rich and the rest of us is a hopeful sign. I know this proposal can't get passed. I know it's mostly an attempt to draw a line in the sand as his reelection campaign gets under way. But I like the fact that he thinks this is a political winner. I like the fact that it puts a question back on the table that the right and center thought had been asked and answered: no, perhaps we Americans haven't all decided that we really, really like the rich and regard them as heroes and "job creators" and people who need to be cosseted and coddled because if we don't cater to their every whim they'll be too weak and wounded and sickly and depressed ever to get out of bed and try to make even more money by building businesses and hiring people to do jobs.
The protests were organized by Anonymous, among other groups, and I'm just happy to see Anonymous branch out from an emphasis on information-wants-to-be-free-ism to a broader focus on the basic power structure of the world -- secrecy is a symptom (and I happen to think it's not always a symptom); it's not the disease. The disease is abuse of power. I'm also happy to see a protest focused on big issues rather than on candidates we hope will resolve all the big issues for us. The electoral system doesn't offer much hope right now -- at best, a hope for slower decay (which is why it's still worthwhile to vote Democrat).
Something has to give the powerful a reason to think that they need to worry about the anger of ordinary citizens who aren't right-wing. Maybe this is a start.
****
And yes, I realize I've written as if the labor protests in Wisconsin and elsewhere never took place. So I'll call this protest the next step -- a protest not against a specific set of abuses but against systemic acceleration of inequality in general. That's really what's needed now.
I'm feeling uncharacteristically optimistic about the juxtaposition of this...
President Obama on Monday will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials.
... and this:
People from all over the country gathered in Lower Manhattan Saturday to voice their frustration with both the economy and Wall Street.
Thousands marched....
Word of the “Occupy Wall Street” protest spread over the Internet....
At one point, CBS 2 we caught a glimpse of Police Commissioner Ray Kelly driving through the controlled chaos....
With all the pressure there is on political figures to avoid what's always sneeringly called "class warfare," the fact that the president -- the fact that this president -- is increasingly acknowledging the vast difference between the rich and the rest of us is a hopeful sign. I know this proposal can't get passed. I know it's mostly an attempt to draw a line in the sand as his reelection campaign gets under way. But I like the fact that he thinks this is a political winner. I like the fact that it puts a question back on the table that the right and center thought had been asked and answered: no, perhaps we Americans haven't all decided that we really, really like the rich and regard them as heroes and "job creators" and people who need to be cosseted and coddled because if we don't cater to their every whim they'll be too weak and wounded and sickly and depressed ever to get out of bed and try to make even more money by building businesses and hiring people to do jobs.
The protests were organized by Anonymous, among other groups, and I'm just happy to see Anonymous branch out from an emphasis on information-wants-to-be-free-ism to a broader focus on the basic power structure of the world -- secrecy is a symptom (and I happen to think it's not always a symptom); it's not the disease. The disease is abuse of power. I'm also happy to see a protest focused on big issues rather than on candidates we hope will resolve all the big issues for us. The electoral system doesn't offer much hope right now -- at best, a hope for slower decay (which is why it's still worthwhile to vote Democrat).
Something has to give the powerful a reason to think that they need to worry about the anger of ordinary citizens who aren't right-wing. Maybe this is a start.
****
And yes, I realize I've written as if the labor protests in Wisconsin and elsewhere never took place. So I'll call this protest the next step -- a protest not against a specific set of abuses but against systemic acceleration of inequality in general. That's really what's needed now.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
POLITICAL IVY LEAGUERS: COMPARE AND CONTRAST
Kathleen Parker in a Washington Post column today:
... Democrats ... pride themselves these days on being members of the "smart" party. Indeed, the Ivies do seem to be mass-producing Democrats, including the last two Democratic presidents.
Um, Kathleen? The Ivies also produced the last two Republican presidents, George W. Bush (B.A., Yale, 1968; M.B.A., Harvard, 1975) and George H.W. Bush (Yale, 1948). But why let the facts get in the way of a nasty quip?
Kathleen Parker in a Washington Post column today:
... Democrats ... pride themselves these days on being members of the "smart" party. Indeed, the Ivies do seem to be mass-producing Democrats, including the last two Democratic presidents.
Um, Kathleen? The Ivies also produced the last two Republican presidents, George W. Bush (B.A., Yale, 1968; M.B.A., Harvard, 1975) and George H.W. Bush (Yale, 1948). But why let the facts get in the way of a nasty quip?
CONDESCEND MUCH, KIM?
Kim Severson of The New York Times sets out to write a story about the fight to save Troy Davis from execution in Georgia and decides the story is all about how frivolous and trendy the campaign is:
...Like others involved in the case, [NAACP president Benjamin Jealous] credits Mr. Davis's sister, Martina Correia, a media-friendly former soldier who has long argued that the police simply got the wrong man, with keeping the story alive....
Altogether, it had the makings of a story that has grabbed many armchair lawyers and even the most casual opponent of the death penalty.
The list of people asking that the Georgia parole board offer clemency has grown from the predictable (Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Indigo Girls) to the surprising, including 51 members of Congress, entertainment heavyweights like Cee Lo Green and death penalty supporters including William S. Sessions, a former F.B.I. director, and Bob Barr, a former member of Congress, and some leaders in the Southern Baptist church. (Unlike some other states, in Georgia the governor cannot commute a death sentence; only the parole board can.)
Propelled by a recent flood of digital media including Twitter traffic and online petition requests, the case has become fodder for discussion in fashionable Atlanta bistros, Harlem street corners and anywhere living room sleuths gather in their search for another Casey Anthony trial to dissect....
(Emphasis added.)
The subtext seems to be that expressing concern about Davis's fate is about as substantial an act as impulsively switching to the latest yoga trend. This might not be so bad if Severson could bring herself to lay out the evidence for and against Davis's guilt in anything more than bare-bones form, but she can't -- beyond being told that "there was very little physical evidence and no DNA and a case built largely on witnesses who changed their story," we learn no details. This is a life-and-death story turned into a Styles of the Times piece. It's an embarrassment.
Kim Severson of The New York Times sets out to write a story about the fight to save Troy Davis from execution in Georgia and decides the story is all about how frivolous and trendy the campaign is:
...Like others involved in the case, [NAACP president Benjamin Jealous] credits Mr. Davis's sister, Martina Correia, a media-friendly former soldier who has long argued that the police simply got the wrong man, with keeping the story alive....
Altogether, it had the makings of a story that has grabbed many armchair lawyers and even the most casual opponent of the death penalty.
The list of people asking that the Georgia parole board offer clemency has grown from the predictable (Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Indigo Girls) to the surprising, including 51 members of Congress, entertainment heavyweights like Cee Lo Green and death penalty supporters including William S. Sessions, a former F.B.I. director, and Bob Barr, a former member of Congress, and some leaders in the Southern Baptist church. (Unlike some other states, in Georgia the governor cannot commute a death sentence; only the parole board can.)
Propelled by a recent flood of digital media including Twitter traffic and online petition requests, the case has become fodder for discussion in fashionable Atlanta bistros, Harlem street corners and anywhere living room sleuths gather in their search for another Casey Anthony trial to dissect....
(Emphasis added.)
The subtext seems to be that expressing concern about Davis's fate is about as substantial an act as impulsively switching to the latest yoga trend. This might not be so bad if Severson could bring herself to lay out the evidence for and against Davis's guilt in anything more than bare-bones form, but she can't -- beyond being told that "there was very little physical evidence and no DNA and a case built largely on witnesses who changed their story," we learn no details. This is a life-and-death story turned into a Styles of the Times piece. It's an embarrassment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)