THINKING RICK PERRY IS AN ASSHOLE IS THE LAST ACCEPTABLE PREJUDICE!
At National Review Online, Rich Lowry explains that you'd better like Rick Perry, dammit, because if you don't, you're guilty of a hate crime:
Let the Perry Hatred Begin
Texas governor Rick Perry is about to stride purposefully through every cultural tripwire in the country.
He may not become as despised as Sarah Palin, but that's because he'll never be a pro-life woman -- the accelerant for the conflagration of Palin-hatred. The disdain for Perry won't burn as hot, but it'll burn just as true. He’ll become a byword for Red State simplemindedness in the New York Times and an object of derision for self-appointed cultural sophisticates everywhere.
You could be mistaken for thinking that Perry set out from his infancy to trample on certain eastern sensibilities. Born in nowheresville Texas to a family of cotton farmers. An Eagle Scout. Attendance at Texas A&M, where he was a "yell leader" -- basically a male cheerleader -- and in ROTC. After earning a degree in animal science and serving in the Air Force, he entered politics and eventually ascended to the governorship in the wake of another hated Texan -- George W. Bush.
... Perry is a great partisan of Texas and has mused about its leaving the union. He's an evangelical Christian who unembarrassedly prays in public and for his state. He's a tea partier who extols the Constitution and seeks a drastically limited federal government. He's a law-and-order conservative in a state that still executes people.
It'd be almost impossible to come up with a background and cluster of affiliations so provocative. Texas has all the negative charge for liberals that Massachusetts does for conservatives....
So, um, does that mean right-wing hatred of the Bay State -- where I was born and raised -- is also a hate crime?
Oh, that can't possibly be true. Only liberals are hatemongers, after all. Proof of our narrow-mindedness: we'd never vote for someone from "a state that still executes people," would we? And we're such haters that we hate people who hate America enough to want to secede from it! Clearly, we hate those America-haters because we hate America!
But our hateful hate isn't just hate-filled; it's politically dangerous:
The cultural static around Perry could well distract from his core economic message. He'd do well, as he began to do in his announcement speech, to cast his personal story and his state in terms of aspiration. Rural life, the Scouts, the military, and his faith inculcated in him the virtues necessary for success, and he lived in a state wide open and free enough for him to rise.
Yes, because, if you're poor and not connected, you can't possibly rise unless you live in a state that's culturally conservative and right-wing and free. Why, look at Barack Obama -- he grew up a nobody, too, but he did it in liberal Hawaii, and as a result his ambitions were thwarted. He'll never amount to anything!
Perry will be branded as a backward, dimwitted, heartless neo-Confederate. A walking, talking threat to the separation of church and state who doesn't realize people like him were supposed to slink away after the Scopes trial nearly 90 years ago.
Oh, those liberal pro-Bill of Rights, pro-objective-science bigots. They're the worst kind.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
PALIN WITH A PENIS
What could be more Palinesque than engaging in rhetorical overkill and then, even in face of criticism from fellow Republicans, refusing to walk it back?
Rick Perry campaign not disavowing implied threat to Bernanke
I asked Rick Perry's spokesman if the campaign is offering clarification of his widely discussed suggestion yesterday that Texas would offer some "real ugly" frontier justice to Fed chairman Ben Bernanke if he were to print money between now and election day.
The spokesman, Mark Miner, emailed me this:
As The Hill noted last month, Perry and Palin are close friends and mutual admirers. I think the two seem quite similar in many ways. I think it's quite possible that Perry's successful, media-magnet campaign rollout was his equivalent of Palin's '08 campaign speech -- and what follows for him on the national stage may bear a similar resemblance to Palin's time in the big leagues. In other words, he's going to inspire a lot of loyalty, but on the other hand he'll rarely back down from an opportunity to say or do something outrageous and self-aggrandizing, even if it's detrimental to his national ambitions, and he'll never qualify or apologize for one of his over-the-line remarks.
If I'm right, then it's going to turn out that Perry, not Michele Bachmann, is the Palin twin in this race. And that really might not work out very well for him.
What could be more Palinesque than engaging in rhetorical overkill and then, even in face of criticism from fellow Republicans, refusing to walk it back?
Rick Perry campaign not disavowing implied threat to Bernanke
I asked Rick Perry's spokesman if the campaign is offering clarification of his widely discussed suggestion yesterday that Texas would offer some "real ugly" frontier justice to Fed chairman Ben Bernanke if he were to print money between now and election day.
The spokesman, Mark Miner, emailed me this:
The Governor was expressing his frustration with the current economic situation and the out of control spending that persists in Washington. Most Americans would agree that spending more money is not the answer to the economic issues facing the country.The important thing here is that this is the Perry camp’s official considered response — and he is not disavowing the implied threat in his original remarks....
As The Hill noted last month, Perry and Palin are close friends and mutual admirers. I think the two seem quite similar in many ways. I think it's quite possible that Perry's successful, media-magnet campaign rollout was his equivalent of Palin's '08 campaign speech -- and what follows for him on the national stage may bear a similar resemblance to Palin's time in the big leagues. In other words, he's going to inspire a lot of loyalty, but on the other hand he'll rarely back down from an opportunity to say or do something outrageous and self-aggrandizing, even if it's detrimental to his national ambitions, and he'll never qualify or apologize for one of his over-the-line remarks.
If I'm right, then it's going to turn out that Perry, not Michele Bachmann, is the Palin twin in this race. And that really might not work out very well for him.
I'M NOT SURE THIS READS AS "STRONG AND WRONG"
Fox Nation links to this post from the right-wing blog Freedom's Lighthouse:
Rick Perry Responds to Attack by Mitt Romney: “Give Him My Love (Blows Kiss)” – Video 8/15/11
...Here is video of Texas Gov. Rick Perry being asked about criticism from Mitt Romney today that Romney has experience creating jobs in business while Perry does not. Perry blew Romney a kiss and said, “Give him my love” several times....
See, this is why I think Perry might underperform. One of the comments to my last post about Perry was "Strong and wrong, baby" -- an allusion, of course, to Bill Clinton's famous remark, made after the Democrats lost seats in the 2002 midterms: "When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's week and right."
But to me this feels different from "strong and wrong." It feels different from the style of the guy a lot of people understandably think of as Perry's doppelganger, George W. Bush -- or at least from the Bush who led the GOP to electoral victories in 2002 and 2004.
That guy had a lot of people convinced that he wasn't just a smirking frat boy, that he thought seriously about serious matters. I don't know if Perry can do serious. Perry, in this, comes off as a grown-up version of the Brad Pitt character in Thelma and Louise. At the height of his success, Bush was mostly able to suppress that.
Perry comes off as unable to resist the temptation to try to jab opponents in the ribs -- a style I associate with now-departed, ultimately ineffectual Democrats like Alan Grayson and Anthony Weiner. I know very few of you agree with me on this, but I've always felt that Grayson and Weiner misunderstood what makes assertive, unapologetic Republicans so successful. It isn't loudness or brattiness, it's faux-sobriety. It's the ability to cloak partisan sophistry in tones of sorrowfully for the Republic, our liberal counterparts seek to destroy America in the following ways.... People you think of as verbal bomb-throwers -- Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Chris Christie -- routinely adopt this tone for most of their attacks. They don't smirk. They really don't yell all that much. If you agree with them, they can actually seem like the adults in the room.
Perry doesn't get that. He doesn't even try to fake gravitas. And I think it just might limit him on the national stage.
Fox Nation links to this post from the right-wing blog Freedom's Lighthouse:
Rick Perry Responds to Attack by Mitt Romney: “Give Him My Love (Blows Kiss)” – Video 8/15/11
...Here is video of Texas Gov. Rick Perry being asked about criticism from Mitt Romney today that Romney has experience creating jobs in business while Perry does not. Perry blew Romney a kiss and said, “Give him my love” several times....
See, this is why I think Perry might underperform. One of the comments to my last post about Perry was "Strong and wrong, baby" -- an allusion, of course, to Bill Clinton's famous remark, made after the Democrats lost seats in the 2002 midterms: "When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's week and right."
But to me this feels different from "strong and wrong." It feels different from the style of the guy a lot of people understandably think of as Perry's doppelganger, George W. Bush -- or at least from the Bush who led the GOP to electoral victories in 2002 and 2004.
That guy had a lot of people convinced that he wasn't just a smirking frat boy, that he thought seriously about serious matters. I don't know if Perry can do serious. Perry, in this, comes off as a grown-up version of the Brad Pitt character in Thelma and Louise. At the height of his success, Bush was mostly able to suppress that.
Perry comes off as unable to resist the temptation to try to jab opponents in the ribs -- a style I associate with now-departed, ultimately ineffectual Democrats like Alan Grayson and Anthony Weiner. I know very few of you agree with me on this, but I've always felt that Grayson and Weiner misunderstood what makes assertive, unapologetic Republicans so successful. It isn't loudness or brattiness, it's faux-sobriety. It's the ability to cloak partisan sophistry in tones of sorrowfully for the Republic, our liberal counterparts seek to destroy America in the following ways.... People you think of as verbal bomb-throwers -- Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Chris Christie -- routinely adopt this tone for most of their attacks. They don't smirk. They really don't yell all that much. If you agree with them, they can actually seem like the adults in the room.
Perry doesn't get that. He doesn't even try to fake gravitas. And I think it just might limit him on the national stage.
HEY, I KNOW: LET'S ELECT A PRESIDENT WHO STARTS BAR FIGHTS!
I'm less interested in the literalness of Rick Perry's threat than in the question of whether non-Texan Americans are really going to want to sign on for a four-year ride with a guy who seems as if he drives too fast and issues fight threats to strangers in bars:
Texas Governor Rick Perry, who entered the presidential campaign on Saturday, appeared to suggest a violent response would be warranted should Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke "print more money" between now and the election. Speaking just now in Iowa, Perry said, "If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y'all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion." Treason is a capital offense.
I guess this kind of thing works in Texas. It works regionally elsewhere -- not just in the South (Jesse Helms threatening Bill Clinton) but here in New York City (Mayors Giuliani and Koch both talked more or less like this on a regular basis).
But none of those guys ever became president, and if some people in the heartland still wish Giuliani would run, it's because they first saw him in tragic mode, not in the borderline-personality-disorder mode that we endured every day here in New York. Americans want a steady hand at the tiller -- they don't always get that (Richard Nixon, Bush/Cheney), but we've never had a president who campaigned on shoot-from-the-hip impulsiveness.
Maybe George W. Bush came closest, but under Karl Rove's tutelage he became reasonably skilled at seeming to care, in a thoughtful way, about big ideas like freedom. If you fell for it, you bought the notion that it wasn't all about him. For Perry, it is all about him, and he thinks it's your problem if you don't like the fact that he seems to have a screw loose. We still haven't restricted the franchise to swooning reporters, so I think Perry's going to have a problem taking this approach all the way to the Oval Office. And we'll see about the nomination. (I think it could be just the right approach to winning the nomination, given the hunger of the crazy base for a punch-throwing champion, and if that's the case, the combination of teabagger delight and a thrilled, quote-hungry mainstream press will leave Perry having to tack his style more than his message to the right in the general election -- something that, by then, may be impossible to do credibly.)
I'm less interested in the literalness of Rick Perry's threat than in the question of whether non-Texan Americans are really going to want to sign on for a four-year ride with a guy who seems as if he drives too fast and issues fight threats to strangers in bars:
Texas Governor Rick Perry, who entered the presidential campaign on Saturday, appeared to suggest a violent response would be warranted should Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke "print more money" between now and the election. Speaking just now in Iowa, Perry said, "If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y'all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion." Treason is a capital offense.
I guess this kind of thing works in Texas. It works regionally elsewhere -- not just in the South (Jesse Helms threatening Bill Clinton) but here in New York City (Mayors Giuliani and Koch both talked more or less like this on a regular basis).
But none of those guys ever became president, and if some people in the heartland still wish Giuliani would run, it's because they first saw him in tragic mode, not in the borderline-personality-disorder mode that we endured every day here in New York. Americans want a steady hand at the tiller -- they don't always get that (Richard Nixon, Bush/Cheney), but we've never had a president who campaigned on shoot-from-the-hip impulsiveness.
Maybe George W. Bush came closest, but under Karl Rove's tutelage he became reasonably skilled at seeming to care, in a thoughtful way, about big ideas like freedom. If you fell for it, you bought the notion that it wasn't all about him. For Perry, it is all about him, and he thinks it's your problem if you don't like the fact that he seems to have a screw loose. We still haven't restricted the franchise to swooning reporters, so I think Perry's going to have a problem taking this approach all the way to the Oval Office. And we'll see about the nomination. (I think it could be just the right approach to winning the nomination, given the hunger of the crazy base for a punch-throwing champion, and if that's the case, the combination of teabagger delight and a thrilled, quote-hungry mainstream press will leave Perry having to tack his style more than his message to the right in the general election -- something that, by then, may be impossible to do credibly.)
Monday, August 15, 2011
REALLY? DID A LOT OF OUR PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS LOOK LIKE GAME SHOW HOSTS?
Steve Benen flags Richard Cohen's latest column, in which the Washington Post pundit and weathervane predicts great success for Rick Perry, in part because Perry (in Cohen's words) "actually looks like a president."
Steve says:
And why does Perry "look like a president"? Presumably for the same reasons Romney [allegedly] does -- he's a handsome, middle-aged white man.
I realize perceptions like these become ingrained over the course of many decades, and these media observations are not intended to be racist of misogynistic. Handsome, middle-aged white men have been the presidential norm for generations. I get that.
I don't get that. How many of our past presidents have actually looked like local news anchormen or game show hosts? How many of them have actually had that bland, lowest-common-denominator small-screen semi-handsomeness?
The storied presidents of the past -- Washington, Lincoln, the Roosevelts -- were average-looking at best. Even in the modern era, when we expect our presidents to have "charisma," many of the most consequential have been plain or unattractive: Eisenhower, LBJ, and Nixon, for instance, all of whom won landslide electoral victories despite their looks. Even the recent presidents who've been regarded as having sex appeal by their most fervid fans -- JFK, Clinton, Obama, W -- haven't been classically handsome. (Though regarding George W. Bush, Karl Rove may beg to differ.)
And how is blandly handsome our national standard? Really, how many presidents have we had who looked like Chuck Woolery?
Who were they? I can't name them.
Steve Benen flags Richard Cohen's latest column, in which the Washington Post pundit and weathervane predicts great success for Rick Perry, in part because Perry (in Cohen's words) "actually looks like a president."
Steve says:
And why does Perry "look like a president"? Presumably for the same reasons Romney [allegedly] does -- he's a handsome, middle-aged white man.
I realize perceptions like these become ingrained over the course of many decades, and these media observations are not intended to be racist of misogynistic. Handsome, middle-aged white men have been the presidential norm for generations. I get that.
I don't get that. How many of our past presidents have actually looked like local news anchormen or game show hosts? How many of them have actually had that bland, lowest-common-denominator small-screen semi-handsomeness?
The storied presidents of the past -- Washington, Lincoln, the Roosevelts -- were average-looking at best. Even in the modern era, when we expect our presidents to have "charisma," many of the most consequential have been plain or unattractive: Eisenhower, LBJ, and Nixon, for instance, all of whom won landslide electoral victories despite their looks. Even the recent presidents who've been regarded as having sex appeal by their most fervid fans -- JFK, Clinton, Obama, W -- haven't been classically handsome. (Though regarding George W. Bush, Karl Rove may beg to differ.)
And how is blandly handsome our national standard? Really, how many presidents have we had who looked like Chuck Woolery?
Who were they? I can't name them.
I AM SHOCKED -- SHOCKED! RABBLE-ROUSING IS GOING ON HERE!
My favorite line from that Wall Street Journal op-ed about Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry:
Mrs. Bachmann, the Minnesota Congresswoman, has emerged from cable-TV land in recent months to be a viable competitor. She is telegenic, a hard worker, and has planted herself at the front of the tea party parade in hostility to all things Washington.
Eeeeuwww -- she "has emerged from cable-TV land." Gosh, what cable channel could we be talking about here? Could it be ... Fox News, the Journal's corporate cousin?
And she's "planted herself in front of the tea party parade" -- you mean like (again) Fox News?
Shorter Murdoch media: "All that stuff we told you for the past two years -- you know you weren't supposed to take that literally, don't you?"
My favorite line from that Wall Street Journal op-ed about Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry:
Mrs. Bachmann, the Minnesota Congresswoman, has emerged from cable-TV land in recent months to be a viable competitor. She is telegenic, a hard worker, and has planted herself at the front of the tea party parade in hostility to all things Washington.
Eeeeuwww -- she "has emerged from cable-TV land." Gosh, what cable channel could we be talking about here? Could it be ... Fox News, the Journal's corporate cousin?
And she's "planted herself in front of the tea party parade" -- you mean like (again) Fox News?
Shorter Murdoch media: "All that stuff we told you for the past two years -- you know you weren't supposed to take that literally, don't you?"
IN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE, TIM PAWLENTY WOULD BE ... ER, TIM PAWLENTY
Dave Weigel looks at Tim Pawlenty and hints at what he thinks might have been -- but I don't agree that Pawlenty ever could have been anything except what he is now:
If things had gone a little differently in 2008, John McCain would have ignored the advice of Lindsey Graham, and his gut, and chosen the safest possible running mate. That would have been Tim Pawlenty, the two-term governor of Minnesota. Graham's predicition was that Pawlenty would perform fine, and help the ticket to a seven-point loss -- which is what McCain got anyway. But a Vice Presidential Candidate Pawlenty would have become, by default, a national star.
Er ... maybe. Yes, he would have become well known -- but well known enough to overcome the tides of history and the mass delusion in his own party? Read on:
McCain didn't choose Pawlenty. He chose Sarah Palin, which started the GOP base's love affair with an uncompromising, wildly-swinging mother of five. Pawlenty remained governor, ending his term with a successful confrontation with Democrats, and entering the 2012 presidential race as the candidate most pundits could see a rational path to the presidency for. But the Republican base thought it caught a glimpse of the next Ronald Reagan in 2008. In 2009 and 2010, it fell in love all over again with Tea Party politicians who declared total war on Barack Obama. It was also ready, in a way it had not been ready before, to give its presidential nomination to a woman. There might have been an opening for Michele Bachmann anyway.... The rise of Palin, though, created a need and a certainty among Republicans for an exciting female conservative candidate.
OK, now Weigel has really lost me. Is he arguing that if Palin hadn't come along, the idea of supporting a woman for president would never have occurred to wingnuts? So who was Palin's Palin? Who gave them the idea that Palin was their savior? Hillary Clinton? Margaret Thatcher? Jeane Kirkpatrick? Does he really believe that the crazy base needed to be jolted into supporting someone demographically precedent-setting for them (with the implication being that there would be no Michele Bachmann ascendancy without Palin)? So how do you explain their flirtation early this year with Herman Cain? How do you explain Allen West's popularity on the right? Is that a reaction to the Clarence Thomas nomination fight in really, really slow motion?
Palin didn't make Pawlenty's 2012 campaign untenable. At best, if he'd been the Republicans' #2 in '08, this year he'd have been what Joe Lieberman was in the '04 Democratic race -- a wannabe star who was left behind by changes in the party. It's not an exact analogy because I think Pawlenty in '08 would have tried to be the fake wingnut he tried to be this year -- McCain tacked further right, you'll recall, and I'm sure he would have wanted Pawlenty to do the same -- and the phoniness of that act would have been obvious four years earlier.
I'm saying all this because you really can't blame Sarah Palin for dragging the party to the right -- that was already happening in the McCain campaign; Palin just did it more sincerely and train-wreck-compellingly than Pawlenty would have. If you want to blame anyone, blame the Kochs and Dick Armey and the rest of the proto-teabag crowd (hello, Murdoch and Ailes) for looking at Obama's election and concluding that the way to respond was massive extreme-right resistance and Astroturf Alinskyism, using Ayn Rand's novels as sacred texts. In retrospect it was clear that the party was going to head that way no matter what, Palin or no Palin. It had been drifting that way anyway, under the tutelage of Murdoch and talk radio; the tea party movement just accelerated the trend.
So, in short, it was FreedomWorks and Fox that killed T-Paw's candidacy, not Sarah Palin.
Dave Weigel looks at Tim Pawlenty and hints at what he thinks might have been -- but I don't agree that Pawlenty ever could have been anything except what he is now:
If things had gone a little differently in 2008, John McCain would have ignored the advice of Lindsey Graham, and his gut, and chosen the safest possible running mate. That would have been Tim Pawlenty, the two-term governor of Minnesota. Graham's predicition was that Pawlenty would perform fine, and help the ticket to a seven-point loss -- which is what McCain got anyway. But a Vice Presidential Candidate Pawlenty would have become, by default, a national star.
Er ... maybe. Yes, he would have become well known -- but well known enough to overcome the tides of history and the mass delusion in his own party? Read on:
McCain didn't choose Pawlenty. He chose Sarah Palin, which started the GOP base's love affair with an uncompromising, wildly-swinging mother of five. Pawlenty remained governor, ending his term with a successful confrontation with Democrats, and entering the 2012 presidential race as the candidate most pundits could see a rational path to the presidency for. But the Republican base thought it caught a glimpse of the next Ronald Reagan in 2008. In 2009 and 2010, it fell in love all over again with Tea Party politicians who declared total war on Barack Obama. It was also ready, in a way it had not been ready before, to give its presidential nomination to a woman. There might have been an opening for Michele Bachmann anyway.... The rise of Palin, though, created a need and a certainty among Republicans for an exciting female conservative candidate.
OK, now Weigel has really lost me. Is he arguing that if Palin hadn't come along, the idea of supporting a woman for president would never have occurred to wingnuts? So who was Palin's Palin? Who gave them the idea that Palin was their savior? Hillary Clinton? Margaret Thatcher? Jeane Kirkpatrick? Does he really believe that the crazy base needed to be jolted into supporting someone demographically precedent-setting for them (with the implication being that there would be no Michele Bachmann ascendancy without Palin)? So how do you explain their flirtation early this year with Herman Cain? How do you explain Allen West's popularity on the right? Is that a reaction to the Clarence Thomas nomination fight in really, really slow motion?
Palin didn't make Pawlenty's 2012 campaign untenable. At best, if he'd been the Republicans' #2 in '08, this year he'd have been what Joe Lieberman was in the '04 Democratic race -- a wannabe star who was left behind by changes in the party. It's not an exact analogy because I think Pawlenty in '08 would have tried to be the fake wingnut he tried to be this year -- McCain tacked further right, you'll recall, and I'm sure he would have wanted Pawlenty to do the same -- and the phoniness of that act would have been obvious four years earlier.
I'm saying all this because you really can't blame Sarah Palin for dragging the party to the right -- that was already happening in the McCain campaign; Palin just did it more sincerely and train-wreck-compellingly than Pawlenty would have. If you want to blame anyone, blame the Kochs and Dick Armey and the rest of the proto-teabag crowd (hello, Murdoch and Ailes) for looking at Obama's election and concluding that the way to respond was massive extreme-right resistance and Astroturf Alinskyism, using Ayn Rand's novels as sacred texts. In retrospect it was clear that the party was going to head that way no matter what, Palin or no Palin. It had been drifting that way anyway, under the tutelage of Murdoch and talk radio; the tea party movement just accelerated the trend.
So, in short, it was FreedomWorks and Fox that killed T-Paw's candidacy, not Sarah Palin.
STRAIGHT INTO THE LIBERALISM FILTER
Don't get your hopes up about the impact of Warren Buffett's New York Times op-ed "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." It doesn't matter that his points are made in a compelling fashion:
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn't refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone -- not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 -- shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
It doesn't matter that what he writes is directly relevant to Topic One in our current domestic debate. It doesn't matter that he know more about how to getting rich in this country than the entire Ayn Rand Fan Club that is the modern GOP.
You know how your e-mail program has a spam filter? Our political discourse has a similar filter -- it's a liberalism filter. And that's "liberalism" broadly defined. Buffett's op-ed will go straight into that filter because (a) he's said this kind of thing before on many occasions and (b) he was an Obama supporter in 2008, so even though he embodies capitalist success, he's not deemed a "real" capitalist.
Oh, I forgot (c): the right has a simple, knee-jerk response to any call by the wealthy to raise taxes on their own class: Well, if you feel that way, rich guy,nobody's stopping you from from writing a big check to the Treasury voluntarily. Doug Bandow dishes out the boilerplate at The American Spectator's blog:
But if this is true, why do Buffett and the other rich people so ready to pay more have to be told to pay more? Why don't they just pay more on their own?
(In answer to that: um, why do you people at the Spec put a price on your magazine? Why don't you just tell your readers that they ought to know how much it's worth and pony up voluntarily? What, are you afraid your most loyal subscribers would stop paying if you told them they didn't have to? Funny how that works.)
Buffett will get a little attention for this, and then what he's saying will disappear into the memory hole, as it's disappeared every other time he's said it. If he wants to have some impact, he needs to bring together (or someone needs to bring together) a much larger group of rich people -- including people who aren't associated with what are regarded as hippy-dippy notions of business virtue (so no Ben & Jerry, and no Howard Schultz of Starbucks, who's getting a similar fleeting bit of attention with a campaign to stop donations to politicians by his fellow rich people). The group needs to include some right-wing hard-asses. Ideally, it would be the whole freaking Chamber of Commerce, or a majority of the Fortune 500 CEOs.
I'm naturally pessimistic, and I hope I'm wrong about this. But I've heard Buffett say this too many times in the past, to no effect. I've heard it from Bill Gates Sr. as well. If it somehow hits a nerve this time, then I guess doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result isn't always insanity.
Don't get your hopes up about the impact of Warren Buffett's New York Times op-ed "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." It doesn't matter that his points are made in a compelling fashion:
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn't refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone -- not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 -- shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
It doesn't matter that what he writes is directly relevant to Topic One in our current domestic debate. It doesn't matter that he know more about how to getting rich in this country than the entire Ayn Rand Fan Club that is the modern GOP.
You know how your e-mail program has a spam filter? Our political discourse has a similar filter -- it's a liberalism filter. And that's "liberalism" broadly defined. Buffett's op-ed will go straight into that filter because (a) he's said this kind of thing before on many occasions and (b) he was an Obama supporter in 2008, so even though he embodies capitalist success, he's not deemed a "real" capitalist.
Oh, I forgot (c): the right has a simple, knee-jerk response to any call by the wealthy to raise taxes on their own class: Well, if you feel that way, rich guy,nobody's stopping you from from writing a big check to the Treasury voluntarily. Doug Bandow dishes out the boilerplate at The American Spectator's blog:
But if this is true, why do Buffett and the other rich people so ready to pay more have to be told to pay more? Why don't they just pay more on their own?
(In answer to that: um, why do you people at the Spec put a price on your magazine? Why don't you just tell your readers that they ought to know how much it's worth and pony up voluntarily? What, are you afraid your most loyal subscribers would stop paying if you told them they didn't have to? Funny how that works.)
Buffett will get a little attention for this, and then what he's saying will disappear into the memory hole, as it's disappeared every other time he's said it. If he wants to have some impact, he needs to bring together (or someone needs to bring together) a much larger group of rich people -- including people who aren't associated with what are regarded as hippy-dippy notions of business virtue (so no Ben & Jerry, and no Howard Schultz of Starbucks, who's getting a similar fleeting bit of attention with a campaign to stop donations to politicians by his fellow rich people). The group needs to include some right-wing hard-asses. Ideally, it would be the whole freaking Chamber of Commerce, or a majority of the Fortune 500 CEOs.
I'm naturally pessimistic, and I hope I'm wrong about this. But I've heard Buffett say this too many times in the past, to no effect. I've heard it from Bill Gates Sr. as well. If it somehow hits a nerve this time, then I guess doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result isn't always insanity.
THE LAST SHALL BE FIRST
First of all, thank you again, Zandar.
Now, as for the antics of the weekend, I love it that Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul scored nearly 30% of the vote each in the Ames straw poll and the result is that we're told it's now a two-person race -- Perry vs. Romney. Look, that may be how it ultimately turns out, but give the Ames winners a little credit. Bachmann is the only candidate in the race who seems to know how to campaign like an A-lister while doing voter appeal exclusively like a teabagging holy-fool outsider -- I know Perry is supposed to be able to do both, but he may slick it up, whereas so far Bachmann seems to be purely, authentically crazy, which is what this crowd wants.
Everything that people like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain have occasionally done well, Bachmann is doing well on a consistent basis. She knows what the base wants, she know how to make it sound well thought-out even though it's lunacy and gibberish, and she seems to have no fear of anyone else in the race -- I suspect she's going to go right after Perry just the way she went right after Pawlenty, and she might have the ability to do him serious harm, largely because she just can't seem to imagine herself failing. Or maybe she'll take on Romney next.
And as for Paul, why couldn't he exceed expectations, at least in the early states? He also has no self-doubt, and the base is coming around to his cockamamie views on money. The isolationism is a drawback, but this is going to be an election about domestic issues, right? And, like Bachmann, he's indier-than-thou, as they used to say in the rock world -- no one thinks of him as Establishment, and that's got to help him.
But the expectation that it's going to be down to Romney and Perry now is just the late summer version of what George Will wrote in March:
Let us not mince words. There are at most five plausible Republican presidents on the horizon -- Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Utah governor and departing ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, former Massachusetts governor Romney and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty.
Yup, Pawlenty was Will's #5. Tee-hee.
Will went on to write:
So the Republican winnowing process is far advanced. But the nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons.
The careless, delusional, egomaniacal, and spotlight-chasing people Will thought were sullying things for their betters have, needless to say, taken over the asylum, and, to judge from Obama's poll numbers, America may well entrust one of them with the nuclear launch codes, just because it's "time to give someone new a chance."
Meanwhile, sure, I suppose it makes much more sense that this thing will ultimately be decided by Establishment money (and, for instance, by the press smelling that money and deciding to take sides -- here's Politico doing that this morning, unabashedly in Perry's favor), but I wouldn't bet the house on that. Bachmann just keeps coming back, even after awkward moments. It could be that she's Clinton '92 or Obama '08 for angry, mean, stupid people.
And if she doesn't have enough mojo to stop Perry (and the starburst-seeing reporters he attracts), I think she could at least be the second-last candidate standing. I'm starting to think this might not get down to Romney vs. an anti-Romney -- I think Bachmann, Perry and to a lesser extent Paul might finish Romney off early. I think it might get down to those three and, ultimately, to Perry and Bachmann.
First of all, thank you again, Zandar.
Now, as for the antics of the weekend, I love it that Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul scored nearly 30% of the vote each in the Ames straw poll and the result is that we're told it's now a two-person race -- Perry vs. Romney. Look, that may be how it ultimately turns out, but give the Ames winners a little credit. Bachmann is the only candidate in the race who seems to know how to campaign like an A-lister while doing voter appeal exclusively like a teabagging holy-fool outsider -- I know Perry is supposed to be able to do both, but he may slick it up, whereas so far Bachmann seems to be purely, authentically crazy, which is what this crowd wants.
Everything that people like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain have occasionally done well, Bachmann is doing well on a consistent basis. She knows what the base wants, she know how to make it sound well thought-out even though it's lunacy and gibberish, and she seems to have no fear of anyone else in the race -- I suspect she's going to go right after Perry just the way she went right after Pawlenty, and she might have the ability to do him serious harm, largely because she just can't seem to imagine herself failing. Or maybe she'll take on Romney next.
And as for Paul, why couldn't he exceed expectations, at least in the early states? He also has no self-doubt, and the base is coming around to his cockamamie views on money. The isolationism is a drawback, but this is going to be an election about domestic issues, right? And, like Bachmann, he's indier-than-thou, as they used to say in the rock world -- no one thinks of him as Establishment, and that's got to help him.
But the expectation that it's going to be down to Romney and Perry now is just the late summer version of what George Will wrote in March:
Let us not mince words. There are at most five plausible Republican presidents on the horizon -- Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Utah governor and departing ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, former Massachusetts governor Romney and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty.
Yup, Pawlenty was Will's #5. Tee-hee.
Will went on to write:
So the Republican winnowing process is far advanced. But the nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons.
The careless, delusional, egomaniacal, and spotlight-chasing people Will thought were sullying things for their betters have, needless to say, taken over the asylum, and, to judge from Obama's poll numbers, America may well entrust one of them with the nuclear launch codes, just because it's "time to give someone new a chance."
Meanwhile, sure, I suppose it makes much more sense that this thing will ultimately be decided by Establishment money (and, for instance, by the press smelling that money and deciding to take sides -- here's Politico doing that this morning, unabashedly in Perry's favor), but I wouldn't bet the house on that. Bachmann just keeps coming back, even after awkward moments. It could be that she's Clinton '92 or Obama '08 for angry, mean, stupid people.
And if she doesn't have enough mojo to stop Perry (and the starburst-seeing reporters he attracts), I think she could at least be the second-last candidate standing. I'm starting to think this might not get down to Romney vs. an anti-Romney -- I think Bachmann, Perry and to a lesser extent Paul might finish Romney off early. I think it might get down to those three and, ultimately, to Perry and Bachmann.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
COKIE'S LAW REDUX
One of Digby's better contributions to the documentation of the decline of American journalism is Cokie's Law, named after ABC and NPR talking head Cokie Roberts: If you tell a lie enough so that low-information viewers believe it, it becomes growing conventional wisdom, then the truth at hand, and then finally accepted fact. Lemkin catches Cokie's Law in action on "The S&P Downgrade means we have to cut SS/Medicare".
Pretty disturbing if you think about it. What does that mean? The new Village Serious Centrists have a battle cry:
And that's where we end up, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Al Gore invented the Internet, we were downgraded not because of the GOP, but because of Social Security.
And God help me, I don't see how there's any other way this plays out otherwise. None. There's no plan B here, and along with SS/Medicare we're going to see more massive cuts in government programs. President Obama's not going to be able to stop them because enough Democrats in Congress will agree with the narrative, just like Iraq, Afghanistan, torture, Gitmo, etc.
Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
One of Digby's better contributions to the documentation of the decline of American journalism is Cokie's Law, named after ABC and NPR talking head Cokie Roberts: If you tell a lie enough so that low-information viewers believe it, it becomes growing conventional wisdom, then the truth at hand, and then finally accepted fact. Lemkin catches Cokie's Law in action on "The S&P Downgrade means we have to cut SS/Medicare".
But it won’t matter. The facts do not matter. Cokie’s Law, the ironclad rule that anything, any information be it merely incorrect or proven to be an outright lie or pure fabrication, once “out there” must be reported as though it is fact. Period.
Pretty disturbing if you think about it. What does that mean? The new Village Serious Centrists have a battle cry:
“S&P downgrade caused massive loss of wealth in DJI; therefore Social Security and Medicare must be cut; elimination is the GOP’s preferred outcome, therefore the “sensible center” is merely devastating cuts followed on every few years with more “sensible” cuts until we reach said elimination. This is the only Serious Position possible on the issue when one considers the facts of the S&P downgrade and its devastating impact on the Dow. Why, some say that as much as $1T in wealth evaporated. We simply must act to cut Social Security. Everyone knows it is the problem here.”
And that's where we end up, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Al Gore invented the Internet, we were downgraded not because of the GOP, but because of Social Security.
There will be nothing else. No other opinion will be allowed, and if directly challenged by the reality of the situation, reporters and pundits will characterize the truth as simply one other fringe “opinion” that the dirty fucking hippies are pushing again, and no better or worse than the obvious fallacy that was created by them simply because said fallacy has been widely reported. When (and if) directly challenged on the ontogeny of said MSM-created fallacy, they will elect to “leave it there,” declare it “complicated,” or, in the case of Cokie herself, sputter about it being “out there.” You heard it here first.
And God help me, I don't see how there's any other way this plays out otherwise. None. There's no plan B here, and along with SS/Medicare we're going to see more massive cuts in government programs. President Obama's not going to be able to stop them because enough Democrats in Congress will agree with the narrative, just like Iraq, Afghanistan, torture, Gitmo, etc.
Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE...
But not a drop to drink, since Republicans have cut taxes and revenues at the state and federal level to the point where we can't even afford to fix our water pipes as a country anymore and it's not helping that record heat is busting pipes across the country either.
So what's the solution? Well, we don't dare raise taxes on our precious American "job creators" so instead, a basic human right like water becomes the latest regressive tax on those who can afford it the least.
It doesn't matter. Not only as a country have we given up on the poor and middle class, but we're making sure the Americans who can least afford to see their water bills jack up right now are the ones bearing the cost of these replacements, but that they will be done in such a fashion that the owners of the water utilities raise prices enough to profit off this. In places where water utilities are still run by the government, we've cut revenues to the point where they have no choice but to raise rates...because we dare not raise taxes.
When corporations pay zero in taxes, when the wealthiest Americans have the lowest tax burden in decades and use it to enrich themselves, then complain the rest of us have no right in a democracy to demand more from them, this is what happens.
Government small enough to "drown in a bathtub" also can't get the water to the tub because the pipes are broken.
But not a drop to drink, since Republicans have cut taxes and revenues at the state and federal level to the point where we can't even afford to fix our water pipes as a country anymore and it's not helping that record heat is busting pipes across the country either.
Critical water pipelines are breaking from coast to coast, triggered by this summer's record high temperatures. It's not a phenomenon or coincidence, experts say. It's a clear sign that Americans should brace for more water interruptions, accompanied by skyrocketing water bills.
The heat wave of the past few weeks has burst hundreds of crucial pipes in California, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Indiana, Kentucky and New York, temporarily shutting off water to countless consumers just when they needed it most.
"It's one of the worst summers," said Debbie Ragan of Oklahoma City's Utilities Department. As days of 100 degree-plus temperatures bake the region, the utility reports 685 water main breaks since July alone. That's an estimated rate of four times normal. To keep up with repairs, Ragan said, workers have been putting in 12-to 16-hour shifts 24/7.
"It's the heat and the high water usage," Ragan said.
So what's the solution? Well, we don't dare raise taxes on our precious American "job creators" so instead, a basic human right like water becomes the latest regressive tax on those who can afford it the least.
The Replacement Era is going to be expensive. The EPA estimated that between 2007 and 2027, drinking water utilities will have to invest $334 billion on new infrastructure.
The problem is worsened by the timing of it all. There's budget-cutting talk at the local, state and federal level. Hawkins called it a "quadruple hit."
"I don't see that there's any way, other than rate increases for most cities given the size of the financial need," Hawkins said. "If we're not able in parallel to demonstrate how we're efficiently using the dollars we're collecting, I think this industry is in for huge challenges with our customers."
Water officials in Pittsburgh are considering raising rates more than 13% for infrastructure improvements. In Cleveland, authorities increased water fees for the same reason. Leaders in Baltimore took similar action.
"With this increase, we can either stop drinking water, stop showering, stop doing the laundry or get out of the city," complained a reader on CNN affiliate WBAL's website. "The mayor and City Council need to realize that we along with other homeowners are the tax base, and if we leave, they're up the creek!"
It doesn't matter. Not only as a country have we given up on the poor and middle class, but we're making sure the Americans who can least afford to see their water bills jack up right now are the ones bearing the cost of these replacements, but that they will be done in such a fashion that the owners of the water utilities raise prices enough to profit off this. In places where water utilities are still run by the government, we've cut revenues to the point where they have no choice but to raise rates...because we dare not raise taxes.
When corporations pay zero in taxes, when the wealthiest Americans have the lowest tax burden in decades and use it to enrich themselves, then complain the rest of us have no right in a democracy to demand more from them, this is what happens.
Government small enough to "drown in a bathtub" also can't get the water to the tub because the pipes are broken.
FINALLY READY TO FIGHT
Sorry about yesterday, folks. Unavoidably detained most of the day, but we're here today.
The NY Times floats a trial balloon that the White House may finally be ready to go after Republicans on blocking any and every measure to improve the economy and create jobs.
Chuck Schumer is correct. The lame duck session tax fight and especially the debt ceiling fight proved that there is no compromise with the GOP in 2011. It's simply not possible. President Obama bent over backwards and the terms were still unacceptable to the GOP. The deal that had to be worked out in order to stave off default still resulted in Republicans getting the country's credit rating downgraded due to childish petulance.
This is absolutely the right thing to do. The White House needs to put concrete measures on the table, and Democrats in the House and Senate need to back these measures. If the Republicans block them and in fact refuse to let them even come up for a vote in the House like they have been, then it's time to call them out for doing so.
Republican popularity is in the low 30's right now, far lower than the Dems and the President (both in the mid-40s). This is a fight the Democrats need to have, and need to win on.
Too bad I don't believe it will happen.
This is what the White House has been doing for the last year or so...and it's failed miserably. Voters care far more about jobs than deficit reduction and here the NY Times is basically lying. That's because as I explained yesterday, the Village has their own agenda and that agenda is to sell SS and Medicare cuts.
The President would be better served by going along with his party here. I'm hoping he still has a choice. I don't believe he'll be given one.
Sorry about yesterday, folks. Unavoidably detained most of the day, but we're here today.
The NY Times floats a trial balloon that the White House may finally be ready to go after Republicans on blocking any and every measure to improve the economy and create jobs.
Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe, and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, want him to maintain a pragmatic strategy of appealing to independent voters by advocating ideas that can pass Congress, even if they may not have much economic impact. These include free trade agreements and improved patent protections for inventors.
But others, including Gene Sperling, Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, say public anger over the debt ceiling debate has weakened Republicans and created an opening for bigger ideas like tax incentives for businesses that hire more workers, according to Congressional Democrats who share that view. Democrats are also pushing the White House to help homeowners facing foreclosure.
Even if the ideas cannot pass Congress, they say, the president would gain a campaign issue by pushing for them.
“The president’s team puts a premium on being above the partisan fray, which is usually the right strategy,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate. “But on this issue, when he knows what the right thing to do is, and when a rather small group on one side is blocking any progress, you have to be willing to call that group out if you want to get anything done.”
Chuck Schumer is correct. The lame duck session tax fight and especially the debt ceiling fight proved that there is no compromise with the GOP in 2011. It's simply not possible. President Obama bent over backwards and the terms were still unacceptable to the GOP. The deal that had to be worked out in order to stave off default still resulted in Republicans getting the country's credit rating downgraded due to childish petulance.
This is absolutely the right thing to do. The White House needs to put concrete measures on the table, and Democrats in the House and Senate need to back these measures. If the Republicans block them and in fact refuse to let them even come up for a vote in the House like they have been, then it's time to call them out for doing so.
Republican popularity is in the low 30's right now, far lower than the Dems and the President (both in the mid-40s). This is a fight the Democrats need to have, and need to win on.
Too bad I don't believe it will happen.
But there is little support for such an approach inside the administration. A series of departures has left few economists among Mr. Obama’s senior advisers. Several of his political advisers are skeptical about the merits of stimulus spending, and they are certain about the politics: voters do not like it.
Mr. Plouffe and Mr. Daley share the view that a focus on deficit reduction is an economic and political imperative, according to people who have spoken with them. Voters believe that paying down the debt will help the economy, and the White House agrees, although it wants to avoid cutting too much spending while the economy remains weak.
As part of this appeal to centrist voters, the president intends to continue his push for a so-called grand bargain on deficit reduction — a deal with Republicans to make even larger spending cuts, including to the social safety net, in exchange for some revenue increases — despite the strong opposition of Congressional Democrats who want to use the issue to draw contrasts with Republicans.
This is what the White House has been doing for the last year or so...and it's failed miserably. Voters care far more about jobs than deficit reduction and here the NY Times is basically lying. That's because as I explained yesterday, the Village has their own agenda and that agenda is to sell SS and Medicare cuts.
The President would be better served by going along with his party here. I'm hoping he still has a choice. I don't believe he'll be given one.
Friday, August 12, 2011
"DEMOCRATS SUCK LESS" MESSAGE RESONATING WITH NEW YORK VOTERS
The New York Post thinks it has dire news for President Obama:
NY turns negative on Bam
... A stunning new survey gives the president a negative approval rating in the Empire State for the first time, with just 45 percent approval and 49 percent disapproval among voters, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll.
That's a sharp turnaround from June, when Obama's New York popularity was a healthy 57-38.
In the 2008 presidential election, Obama carried New York with 63 percent of the vote....
Then you read on and discover this:
But according to Quinnipiac, Obama in his re-election bid next year would still take 49 percent of the vote in New York state versus a generic GOP challenger's 34 percent.
So New York voters think Republicans suck more. Which they do. I'll take that.
****
By the way, if you go to Quinnipiac's own write-up of the New York poll, and then to the write-up of the previous poll, you see that Obama's numbers have gone down in most groups a moderate amount -- but among men, they've plummeted. In the last poll, New York men approved of Obama's job performance 57%-39%; now it's down to 38%-56%. (Among women, the drop was much less, from 56%-38% to 52%-43%.)
A 19-point drop among New York men in less than 7 weeks? What's up with that? Is this about blue-collar male anger as the economic downturn drags on? Is it about wanting to see toughness at the negotiating table? Are we going to see this in polls nationwide?
And on that Obama-vs.generic-Republican question, New York men are more pro-GOP now (now: Obama 42%, GOP 39%; in June: Obama 53%, GOP 30%), while New York women are slightly more pro-Obama (now: Obama 56%, GOP 28%; in June: Obama 53, GOP 31%). One gender seems to respect strength while the other is turned off by intransigent brattiness, I'd say.
The New York Post thinks it has dire news for President Obama:
NY turns negative on Bam
... A stunning new survey gives the president a negative approval rating in the Empire State for the first time, with just 45 percent approval and 49 percent disapproval among voters, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll.
That's a sharp turnaround from June, when Obama's New York popularity was a healthy 57-38.
In the 2008 presidential election, Obama carried New York with 63 percent of the vote....
Then you read on and discover this:
But according to Quinnipiac, Obama in his re-election bid next year would still take 49 percent of the vote in New York state versus a generic GOP challenger's 34 percent.
So New York voters think Republicans suck more. Which they do. I'll take that.
****
By the way, if you go to Quinnipiac's own write-up of the New York poll, and then to the write-up of the previous poll, you see that Obama's numbers have gone down in most groups a moderate amount -- but among men, they've plummeted. In the last poll, New York men approved of Obama's job performance 57%-39%; now it's down to 38%-56%. (Among women, the drop was much less, from 56%-38% to 52%-43%.)
A 19-point drop among New York men in less than 7 weeks? What's up with that? Is this about blue-collar male anger as the economic downturn drags on? Is it about wanting to see toughness at the negotiating table? Are we going to see this in polls nationwide?
And on that Obama-vs.generic-Republican question, New York men are more pro-GOP now (now: Obama 42%, GOP 39%; in June: Obama 53%, GOP 30%), while New York women are slightly more pro-Obama (now: Obama 56%, GOP 28%; in June: Obama 53, GOP 31%). One gender seems to respect strength while the other is turned off by intransigent brattiness, I'd say.
SONGS OF INNOCENCE, SONGS OF EXPERIENCE
National Journal's Beth Reinhard says Michele Bachmann acquitted herself well last night, though Reinhard has a caveat or two:
... The congresswoman from Minnesota managed to duplicate the spark and spunk she showed off in the last GOP primary debate -- in spades -- backing up her improbable surge in the most unpredictable Republican race in decades.
Right at the start of the debate, the petite, lone female candidate coolly turned toward her fellow Minnesotan, Tim Pawlenty, and compared the former governor's record on cap and trade and health care to that of President Obama. She remained placid when Rick Santorum and Ron Paul lashed out at her instead of focusing their blows on the race’s unofficial front-runner, Mitt Romney.
... Can she compete with the boys in the big league? Yes, she can.
Detractors will find plenty to criticize in Bachmann's latest performance. If she wanted to dispatch those, like Pawlenty, who contend that her two-and-a-half terms in Congress have left her with a thin record, Bachmann didn't help her cause by citing, as one of her signature accomplishments, the "lightbulb freedom of choice act." ...
Oh, please. That's genius. Bachmann is trying to appeal to voters who believe two things:
1. Figuring out what the government is doing is hard work, and
2. Government sucks.
Boiling it down to something simple and kitchen table-y -- and then defining her stance as a fight against liberal fascism -- is what makes it vivid for the people she wants to reach. Accusing Democrats and liberals of lightbulb totalitarianism is like accusing the government of excessive spending and framing the issue not in terms of what the government actual spends trillions of dollars on, but in terms of some $50,000 grant to a scientist who's studying cow flatulence. HAR HAR HAR! They're wastin' your hard-earned money to study cow farts! It doesn't matter that the cost is a drop in the bucket, or that the study is probably a very useful examination of atmospheric methane caused by high-yield factory farming. It's a kneeslapper! The gummint is so dumb!
I start to wonder whether Bachmann's lack of accomplishments in Congress will actually be helpful for her in the primaries, and maybe even (if she gets that far) in the general election. She has some political experience under her belt, but not enough to have actually done much (ick!) governing -- and since a lot of voters think everything about government is icky, they probably see that as a point in her favor. She's not tainted by much of anything that takes place in this arena. (You could say the same thing, I suppose, about Barack Obama in 2008 -- that he didn't bear the mark of shame that comes from actually having done a lot of governing.)
So we'll see if she can keep this up. -- and eventually we'll see if she can play the plucky-innocent card against someone tougher than Tim Pawlenty, namely Rick Perry.
****
And yeah, I know: at the same time, she keeps claiming she's taken the lead in fighting TARP, the debt ceiling increase, the health care law... But maybe her ineffectuality cuts both ways. Nobody remembers seeing her at the table in those battles, the way we see, say, Boehner and Cantor and Ryan and Reid all the time when we're watching Congress squabble. So she was there, but voters didn't see her there, doing stuff they don't like, namely negotiating and legislating.
National Journal's Beth Reinhard says Michele Bachmann acquitted herself well last night, though Reinhard has a caveat or two:
... The congresswoman from Minnesota managed to duplicate the spark and spunk she showed off in the last GOP primary debate -- in spades -- backing up her improbable surge in the most unpredictable Republican race in decades.
Right at the start of the debate, the petite, lone female candidate coolly turned toward her fellow Minnesotan, Tim Pawlenty, and compared the former governor's record on cap and trade and health care to that of President Obama. She remained placid when Rick Santorum and Ron Paul lashed out at her instead of focusing their blows on the race’s unofficial front-runner, Mitt Romney.
... Can she compete with the boys in the big league? Yes, she can.
Detractors will find plenty to criticize in Bachmann's latest performance. If she wanted to dispatch those, like Pawlenty, who contend that her two-and-a-half terms in Congress have left her with a thin record, Bachmann didn't help her cause by citing, as one of her signature accomplishments, the "lightbulb freedom of choice act." ...
Oh, please. That's genius. Bachmann is trying to appeal to voters who believe two things:
1. Figuring out what the government is doing is hard work, and
2. Government sucks.
Boiling it down to something simple and kitchen table-y -- and then defining her stance as a fight against liberal fascism -- is what makes it vivid for the people she wants to reach. Accusing Democrats and liberals of lightbulb totalitarianism is like accusing the government of excessive spending and framing the issue not in terms of what the government actual spends trillions of dollars on, but in terms of some $50,000 grant to a scientist who's studying cow flatulence. HAR HAR HAR! They're wastin' your hard-earned money to study cow farts! It doesn't matter that the cost is a drop in the bucket, or that the study is probably a very useful examination of atmospheric methane caused by high-yield factory farming. It's a kneeslapper! The gummint is so dumb!
I start to wonder whether Bachmann's lack of accomplishments in Congress will actually be helpful for her in the primaries, and maybe even (if she gets that far) in the general election. She has some political experience under her belt, but not enough to have actually done much (ick!) governing -- and since a lot of voters think everything about government is icky, they probably see that as a point in her favor. She's not tainted by much of anything that takes place in this arena. (You could say the same thing, I suppose, about Barack Obama in 2008 -- that he didn't bear the mark of shame that comes from actually having done a lot of governing.)
So we'll see if she can keep this up. -- and eventually we'll see if she can play the plucky-innocent card against someone tougher than Tim Pawlenty, namely Rick Perry.
****
And yeah, I know: at the same time, she keeps claiming she's taken the lead in fighting TARP, the debt ceiling increase, the health care law... But maybe her ineffectuality cuts both ways. Nobody remembers seeing her at the table in those battles, the way we see, say, Boehner and Cantor and Ryan and Reid all the time when we're watching Congress squabble. So she was there, but voters didn't see her there, doing stuff they don't like, namely negotiating and legislating.
IN WHICH I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH MIKE HUCKABEE
I rarely agree with Mike Huckabee on issues, but regarding the political wisdom of Rick Perry's tactics, I think Huckabee might have a point:
Mike Huckabee is giving a big thumbs-down to Rick Perry's campaign rollout, telling Fox News that the Texas governor's decision to announce on the day of the Iowa straw poll is a big "tactical blunder."
The problem, said the former Arkansas governor and 2008 Iowa caucus winner, is that Perry's Saturday kickoff in South Carolina shows disrespect to the Iowa process.
"It's a tactical blunder ... The people of Iowa work very hard to make the straw poll the biggest political moment in the summer," Huckabee said. "If you have a candidate who says, 'You know what, I'm not gonna be there, I'm gonna be over in South Carolina, trying to pull as much attention as possible away from your big event' -- I'll tell you, the people of Iowa are gracious, loving, kind people, and they’re not gonna take kindly to someone, in essence, dissing their big event. Which is what it will be reviewed as in the state of Iowa."
I would put it somewhat differently. I'd say that Iowa and South Carolina are the Heathers of our presidential election system --for years I've watched residents of these two unrepresentative states insist that they are owed months and months of deference from anyone who wants to be president. I've watched them insist that they're entitled to multiple face-to-face encounters at coffee klatches. I've watched this from a large, populous, financially powerful state that has absolutely no influence on who gets elected president -- we New Yorkers may as well be disenfrachised at presidential election time. But if you want to be president, you'd better do as Heather Iowa and Heather New Hampshire insist -- you'd better pat the butter cow and eat the fried things on sticks and trudge through the snows and do as the residents say.
That's why I think Perry might be making a mistake. He's offending Heather Iowa by not according it the respect it thinks it deserves. It's probably OK that he's making a late entry, but he should have made it with a deep sense of deference to Heather #1. They really might make him pay for it.
I rarely agree with Mike Huckabee on issues, but regarding the political wisdom of Rick Perry's tactics, I think Huckabee might have a point:
Mike Huckabee is giving a big thumbs-down to Rick Perry's campaign rollout, telling Fox News that the Texas governor's decision to announce on the day of the Iowa straw poll is a big "tactical blunder."
The problem, said the former Arkansas governor and 2008 Iowa caucus winner, is that Perry's Saturday kickoff in South Carolina shows disrespect to the Iowa process.
"It's a tactical blunder ... The people of Iowa work very hard to make the straw poll the biggest political moment in the summer," Huckabee said. "If you have a candidate who says, 'You know what, I'm not gonna be there, I'm gonna be over in South Carolina, trying to pull as much attention as possible away from your big event' -- I'll tell you, the people of Iowa are gracious, loving, kind people, and they’re not gonna take kindly to someone, in essence, dissing their big event. Which is what it will be reviewed as in the state of Iowa."
I would put it somewhat differently. I'd say that Iowa and South Carolina are the Heathers of our presidential election system --for years I've watched residents of these two unrepresentative states insist that they are owed months and months of deference from anyone who wants to be president. I've watched them insist that they're entitled to multiple face-to-face encounters at coffee klatches. I've watched this from a large, populous, financially powerful state that has absolutely no influence on who gets elected president -- we New Yorkers may as well be disenfrachised at presidential election time. But if you want to be president, you'd better do as Heather Iowa and Heather New Hampshire insist -- you'd better pat the butter cow and eat the fried things on sticks and trudge through the snows and do as the residents say.
That's why I think Perry might be making a mistake. He's offending Heather Iowa by not according it the respect it thinks it deserves. It's probably OK that he's making a late entry, but he should have made it with a deep sense of deference to Heather #1. They really might make him pay for it.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
ALL THE RIGHT ENEMIES, IF YOU WANT CRAZY RIGHT-WINGERS TO VOTE FOR YOU
Lefties are talking about how Mitt Romney shot himself in the foot by telling hecklers at an Iowa campaign appearance that we shouldn't raise taxes on corporations because "corporations are people." Me, I'm thinking that the guy is smarter than he looks -- an embarrassing story broke this morning about his decision to cite tax increases as a good thing in a report to Standard & Poor's during his term as governor of Massachusetts, Rick Perry is grabbing headlines ... and now Romney, at just the right moment, gets someone to throw him a pitch he can hit deep to (far) right field. Awfully good timing, that.
ABC's Note tells us:
Romney's appearance in Iowa today was a great example of what happens when a candidate decides to take questions at an unscripted campaign event -- in this case the infamous Des Moines Register Soapbox near the main gates of the fair.
Hostile fairgoers planted themselves in the front row as Romney spoke, and both sides got fired up.
Did he go to this event hoping for a confrontation, so he could prove his wingnut bona fides? I don't know. In any event, helped himself in the near term.
As for the long term, well, I would dearly love it if all of non-right-wing America felt revulsion at the notion that huge corporations are jes' folks that need to be treated with the utmost courtesy and respect, even if they're wallowing in cash while the rest of us are struggling. Problem is, I don't think there are very many Americans, outside the engaged left, who are appalled at corporate personhood. I fear this won't be very useful against him if he's the nominee -- and meanwhile, I think it makes him look like a tough guy and a victim in the campaign for the nomination (and, to wingnuts, tough guy and victim is the perfect combination).
****
Incidentally, I notice that in a clip of the Iowa event posted by Think Progress, Romney says this:
We want to make sure people do pay their fair share. Half the people in this country pay no income tax at all.
People too poor to pay income tax pay plenty of other taxes, of course, but that hasn't stopped people like Michele Bachmann from arguing that poor people should pay income tax as well, and thus face a tax increase. We weren't surprised when Crazy Michele proposed that -- but is Romney proposing it now as well? Think it might be a good time for someone to request a yes or no answer to that question?
****
UPDATE: Zandar reminds us that Republican supercommittee member Dave Camp, who's currently being touted as a possible vote for a "balanced" approach to deficits, is another one of those who believe that the poor relly ought to pay income tax, so they'll have "skin in the game."
Lefties are talking about how Mitt Romney shot himself in the foot by telling hecklers at an Iowa campaign appearance that we shouldn't raise taxes on corporations because "corporations are people." Me, I'm thinking that the guy is smarter than he looks -- an embarrassing story broke this morning about his decision to cite tax increases as a good thing in a report to Standard & Poor's during his term as governor of Massachusetts, Rick Perry is grabbing headlines ... and now Romney, at just the right moment, gets someone to throw him a pitch he can hit deep to (far) right field. Awfully good timing, that.
ABC's Note tells us:
Romney's appearance in Iowa today was a great example of what happens when a candidate decides to take questions at an unscripted campaign event -- in this case the infamous Des Moines Register Soapbox near the main gates of the fair.
Hostile fairgoers planted themselves in the front row as Romney spoke, and both sides got fired up.
Did he go to this event hoping for a confrontation, so he could prove his wingnut bona fides? I don't know. In any event, helped himself in the near term.
As for the long term, well, I would dearly love it if all of non-right-wing America felt revulsion at the notion that huge corporations are jes' folks that need to be treated with the utmost courtesy and respect, even if they're wallowing in cash while the rest of us are struggling. Problem is, I don't think there are very many Americans, outside the engaged left, who are appalled at corporate personhood. I fear this won't be very useful against him if he's the nominee -- and meanwhile, I think it makes him look like a tough guy and a victim in the campaign for the nomination (and, to wingnuts, tough guy and victim is the perfect combination).
****
Incidentally, I notice that in a clip of the Iowa event posted by Think Progress, Romney says this:
We want to make sure people do pay their fair share. Half the people in this country pay no income tax at all.
People too poor to pay income tax pay plenty of other taxes, of course, but that hasn't stopped people like Michele Bachmann from arguing that poor people should pay income tax as well, and thus face a tax increase. We weren't surprised when Crazy Michele proposed that -- but is Romney proposing it now as well? Think it might be a good time for someone to request a yes or no answer to that question?
****
UPDATE: Zandar reminds us that Republican supercommittee member Dave Camp, who's currently being touted as a possible vote for a "balanced" approach to deficits, is another one of those who believe that the poor relly ought to pay income tax, so they'll have "skin in the game."
THEY WERE ALL IN LOVE WITH DYING, THEY WERE DOING IT IN TEXAS
John Cole reads this fawning, jackboot-craving Rick Perry interview by Mark Halperin and concludes that Perry has a lock on the GOP nomination:
... I guarantee you that Perry will be the nominee. He's the right kind of ignorant, bigoted, religious nut that will attract the religious fanatics, he’s a gun loving cheerleader who speaks the secessionist code and the teabaggers will love him, he'll talk constantly about deregulation and lower taxes and the money will be on board, and as you can see from this syrupy sweet interview with Halperin ... the only decision for the media bobbleheads is whether they will spit or swallow....
So brace yourself for a year's worth of stenographers wistfully discussing Perry's tan, accent, or whatever it is they will choose to fall all over themselves with this time.
Hmmm ... maybe. I don't think Halperin is really the bellwether he'd like to be -- he hasn't been very influential these past few years, and he's also capable of missing the mark when he's kissing up to the right. (Back when he was asking Hugh Hewitt to meet his interns from Bob Jones University, he was apparently oblivious to the fact that the cool intern source for wingnuts, starting with those in the White House, was Patrick Henry College, not Bob Jones.)
Remember, it was only a few months ago that the Beltway groupthinkers were all asking themselves whether Haley Barbour was too Southern to run successfully against Obama. I'm absolutely not ruling out a hypocritical 180 by these clowns, but I'll see Barbour's praise for the White Citizens Councils and raise you Rick Perry's long-standing ties to neo-Confederates (and I mean real neo-Confederates, not just people who want to secede because the damn gummint's too big).
On the other hand, those neo-Confederate ties aren't getting much play, nor (as Rachel Maddow keeps reminding us) are Perry's ties to Dominionists and other extreme religious rightists. So, yeah, the Villagers may just decide to ignore everything that doesn't fit a Perry-crossover narrative. (By the way, if you want to read the article on Perry and the New Apostolic Reformation movement that was cited on last night's Maddow show, it's here.)
On the other hand, these days, all the Kewl Kidz at the groupthink table are looking for some Friedmanesque rational person who can just get everyone to see reason (and, presumably, rubber-stamp Simpson-Bowles or some other "grand bargain," and solve all our other problems magically the same way). Perry's not even going to pretend to be that guy. Romney, however, will absolutely try to be that guy -- I don't know if he can survive the primaries, but the fact that he's still at or near the top in the GOP polls tells me that he just might, and if he does, he's the kind of guy the Beltway media can crown as our new centrist savior (no matter how many far-right positions he adopts). He could thread the needle; my guess is that Perry can't, or won't.
So I'm not ready to crown Perry yet.
John Cole reads this fawning, jackboot-craving Rick Perry interview by Mark Halperin and concludes that Perry has a lock on the GOP nomination:
... I guarantee you that Perry will be the nominee. He's the right kind of ignorant, bigoted, religious nut that will attract the religious fanatics, he’s a gun loving cheerleader who speaks the secessionist code and the teabaggers will love him, he'll talk constantly about deregulation and lower taxes and the money will be on board, and as you can see from this syrupy sweet interview with Halperin ... the only decision for the media bobbleheads is whether they will spit or swallow....
So brace yourself for a year's worth of stenographers wistfully discussing Perry's tan, accent, or whatever it is they will choose to fall all over themselves with this time.
Hmmm ... maybe. I don't think Halperin is really the bellwether he'd like to be -- he hasn't been very influential these past few years, and he's also capable of missing the mark when he's kissing up to the right. (Back when he was asking Hugh Hewitt to meet his interns from Bob Jones University, he was apparently oblivious to the fact that the cool intern source for wingnuts, starting with those in the White House, was Patrick Henry College, not Bob Jones.)
Remember, it was only a few months ago that the Beltway groupthinkers were all asking themselves whether Haley Barbour was too Southern to run successfully against Obama. I'm absolutely not ruling out a hypocritical 180 by these clowns, but I'll see Barbour's praise for the White Citizens Councils and raise you Rick Perry's long-standing ties to neo-Confederates (and I mean real neo-Confederates, not just people who want to secede because the damn gummint's too big).
On the other hand, those neo-Confederate ties aren't getting much play, nor (as Rachel Maddow keeps reminding us) are Perry's ties to Dominionists and other extreme religious rightists. So, yeah, the Villagers may just decide to ignore everything that doesn't fit a Perry-crossover narrative. (By the way, if you want to read the article on Perry and the New Apostolic Reformation movement that was cited on last night's Maddow show, it's here.)
On the other hand, these days, all the Kewl Kidz at the groupthink table are looking for some Friedmanesque rational person who can just get everyone to see reason (and, presumably, rubber-stamp Simpson-Bowles or some other "grand bargain," and solve all our other problems magically the same way). Perry's not even going to pretend to be that guy. Romney, however, will absolutely try to be that guy -- I don't know if he can survive the primaries, but the fact that he's still at or near the top in the GOP polls tells me that he just might, and if he does, he's the kind of guy the Beltway media can crown as our new centrist savior (no matter how many far-right positions he adopts). He could thread the needle; my guess is that Perry can't, or won't.
So I'm not ready to crown Perry yet.
ELECTIONS -- HOW DO THEY WORK?
This has just become sad, and embarrassing to watch:
After a more than two-month hiatus, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is planning to crash the presidential party once again with a heartland-themed re-launch of her "One Nation" bus tour this week in Iowa, according to a Palin fundraising email obtained by CNN.
Palin is bringing her Constitution-draped bus to the Iowa State Fair, just 30 miles south of where the Republican presidential field will take the stage on Thursday for a presidential debate in Ames.
It's not yet clear which day the tour begins, but her surprise arrival in Iowa will happen before the closely watched Ames straw poll. Palin is not on the straw poll ballot....
If she really is planning to make a melodramatic late entry into the presidential race, I can't fathom what she's thinking, because her polling -- including her Fox polling -- is even worse than you imagined:
At the other end of the scale, about 7 voters in 10 think former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would not make a good president....
About 7 out of 10 -- and, actually, that's a slight understatement. Check out the numbers -- the percentage saying she wouldn't make a good president is a whopping 75%, and is above 70% in both genders, in all age groups, across the economic spectrum, and among independents. In fact, a more than 2-to-1 majority of conservatives, a majority of Reopublicans, and even a plurality of teabaggers say this. Read her horrible numbers (click to enlarge):
I love the fact that Fox had to release these numbers for her and then run a disclaimer at the end of the poll story:
Sarah Palin is a Fox News contributor.
****
Now, will she draw crowds on this tour? Yeah, I guess. But to me she's become the political equivalent of what the Insane Clown Posse are in music. ICP are despised by every music fan -- except the ones who worship them. The haters are far more numerous than the cultists, but the cultists are enough to keep ICP afloat. The only difference is that the guys in ICP seem self-aware. They know they're not for everybody. Palin has no notion of the limits of her appeal. So maybe ICP is a bad comparison -- maybe she's more like late-model Charlie Sheen.
This has just become sad, and embarrassing to watch:
After a more than two-month hiatus, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is planning to crash the presidential party once again with a heartland-themed re-launch of her "One Nation" bus tour this week in Iowa, according to a Palin fundraising email obtained by CNN.
Palin is bringing her Constitution-draped bus to the Iowa State Fair, just 30 miles south of where the Republican presidential field will take the stage on Thursday for a presidential debate in Ames.
It's not yet clear which day the tour begins, but her surprise arrival in Iowa will happen before the closely watched Ames straw poll. Palin is not on the straw poll ballot....
If she really is planning to make a melodramatic late entry into the presidential race, I can't fathom what she's thinking, because her polling -- including her Fox polling -- is even worse than you imagined:
At the other end of the scale, about 7 voters in 10 think former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would not make a good president....
About 7 out of 10 -- and, actually, that's a slight understatement. Check out the numbers -- the percentage saying she wouldn't make a good president is a whopping 75%, and is above 70% in both genders, in all age groups, across the economic spectrum, and among independents. In fact, a more than 2-to-1 majority of conservatives, a majority of Reopublicans, and even a plurality of teabaggers say this. Read her horrible numbers (click to enlarge):
I love the fact that Fox had to release these numbers for her and then run a disclaimer at the end of the poll story:
Sarah Palin is a Fox News contributor.
****
Now, will she draw crowds on this tour? Yeah, I guess. But to me she's become the political equivalent of what the Insane Clown Posse are in music. ICP are despised by every music fan -- except the ones who worship them. The haters are far more numerous than the cultists, but the cultists are enough to keep ICP afloat. The only difference is that the guys in ICP seem self-aware. They know they're not for everybody. Palin has no notion of the limits of her appeal. So maybe ICP is a bad comparison -- maybe she's more like late-model Charlie Sheen.
CAN'T ANYBODY HERE PLAY THIS GAME? UM, MAYBE DEVAL PATRICK?
Exquisite timing for this freedom-of-information document release, which reveals that Mitt Romney is a dirty filthy touter of tax increases just hours before the debate that precedes this week's wingnut-purity-test GOP straw poll in Ames, Iowa, and also just as the debt supercommittee in D.C. is taking shape:
Romney's Pitch to S&P Boasted of Revenue Raisers
Former Gov. Mitt Romney boasted this week that when he led Massachusetts, he presided over an increase in the state's bond rating, a contrast to President Barack Obama, who saw Standard & Poor’s downgrade U.S. debt.
But Mr. Romney had an advantage that Mr. Obama sorely wanted but could not get from Congress: tax increases and the closing of tax "loopholes." ...
That's from The Wall Street Journal. But Politico's story notes that these documents weren't released by the Obama administration:
Taxes key to Mitt's '04 pitch to S&P
Gov. Mitt Romney lobbied the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's in 2004 to raise his state's credit rating in part because Massachusetts had raised taxes during an economic downturn two years earlier.
The claim was part of a presentation to the ratings agency obtained by POLITICO under a state freedom of information law from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance....
So it was the president's friend Deval Patrick, or someone else in Massachusetts, who released this at an ideal time to sandbag Obama's strongest potential challenger.
Well played, Governor.
Nice to see that someone knows how to play political hardball. And you always seemed like such a mild-mannered guy. Maybe you could fly down to D.C. and give some lessons.
(And, yeah, I suppose this was coordinated with allies in D.C. -- but when was the last time you remember the Obama administration on its own slipping the shiv into a political opponent so deftly?)
Exquisite timing for this freedom-of-information document release, which reveals that Mitt Romney is a dirty filthy touter of tax increases just hours before the debate that precedes this week's wingnut-purity-test GOP straw poll in Ames, Iowa, and also just as the debt supercommittee in D.C. is taking shape:
Romney's Pitch to S&P Boasted of Revenue Raisers
Former Gov. Mitt Romney boasted this week that when he led Massachusetts, he presided over an increase in the state's bond rating, a contrast to President Barack Obama, who saw Standard & Poor’s downgrade U.S. debt.
But Mr. Romney had an advantage that Mr. Obama sorely wanted but could not get from Congress: tax increases and the closing of tax "loopholes." ...
That's from The Wall Street Journal. But Politico's story notes that these documents weren't released by the Obama administration:
Taxes key to Mitt's '04 pitch to S&P
Gov. Mitt Romney lobbied the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's in 2004 to raise his state's credit rating in part because Massachusetts had raised taxes during an economic downturn two years earlier.
The claim was part of a presentation to the ratings agency obtained by POLITICO under a state freedom of information law from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance....
So it was the president's friend Deval Patrick, or someone else in Massachusetts, who released this at an ideal time to sandbag Obama's strongest potential challenger.
Well played, Governor.
Nice to see that someone knows how to play political hardball. And you always seemed like such a mild-mannered guy. Maybe you could fly down to D.C. and give some lessons.
(And, yeah, I suppose this was coordinated with allies in D.C. -- but when was the last time you remember the Obama administration on its own slipping the shiv into a political opponent so deftly?)
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
HIDE THE BABIES -- DAVID BROOKS HAS ANOTHER BIG IDEA
The subscription-only Publishers Lunch announces that Random House has signed up...
NYT columnist and #1 NYT bestselling author David Brooks' two new books, the first on humility, looking at the gale force wind of self-preoccupation, self-celebration, and self-enhancement that has come to dominate every aspect of our lives, and at how the idea of humility, defined as the opposite of self-preoccupation, and informed by a new and more accurate view of human nature, can open up new and better foundations for community, commitment, and life purpose in a changing world....
No word on what the second book is going to be, but a Brooks book on humility is frightening enough.
A search through his archives suggests that Brooks has been ruminating on humility for a while, and, in typical Brooks fashion, his thinking on the subject can lapse into incoherence. In an April 2010 column, he praised a hypothetical humble CEO (it's David Brooks, so, naturally, being a CEO is what makes you an average person):
Alongside the boardroom lion model of leadership, you can imagine a humble hound model. The humble hound leader thinks less about her mental strengths than about her weaknesses. She knows her performance slips when she has to handle more than one problem at a time, so she turns off her phone and e-mail while making decisions. She knows she has a bias for caution, so she writes a memo advocating the more daring option before writing another advocating the most safe. She knows she is bad at prediction, so she follows Peter Drucker's old advice: After each decision, she writes a memo about what she expects to happen. Nine months later, she'll read it to discover how far off she was.
A little more than a year later, Brooks wrote this in a blog post about humility:
Humility is not modesty either, Tangney argues. The modest person has a moderate view of himself, but may still think about himself all the time. Humility is better seen as the opposite of narcissism. The narcissist has a damaged sense of self and is consequently self-centered a great deal of the time, reacting in defensive ways to ego threat.
Did you follow that? A humble person, according to the blog post, doesn't think about him- or herself all the time, and isn't constantly worrying about "ego threat" ... but a "humble hound" CEO constantly engages in exercises that focus on the self and how the self performs tasks -- which is totally not thinking about oneself and the threat to one's ego all the time! No, seriously it isn't! Both are good, and both are examples of humility!
Elsewhere in Brooks's archives we get this, from 2009, about our loss of national humility:
On Sunday evenings, my local NPR station airs old radio programs. A few weeks ago it broadcast the episode of the show "Command Performance" that aired the day World War II ended. "Command Performance" was a variety show that went out to the troops around the world.
On V-J Day, Frank Sinatra appeared, along with Marlene Dietrich, Jimmy Durante, Dinah Shore, Bette Davis, Lionel Barrymore, Cary Grant and many others. But the most striking feature of the show was its tone of self-effacement and humility. The allies had, on that very day, completed one of the noblest military victories in the history of humanity. And yet there was no chest-beating. Nobody was erecting triumphal arches.
"All anybody can do is thank God it's over," Bing Crosby, the show's host, said. "Today our deep down feeling is one of humility," he added....
At that point, Brooks had clearly just bought a humility hammer, so everything looked to him like a humility nail. Now, I've listened to some of this broadcast -- you can listen to it here -- and yes, it's strikingly somber. That reference to "humility" does come up early.
But aren't there other explanations for why the broadcast might be somber -- for instance, the fact that this was a brutal war in which we'd lost 400,000 troops in four years? And possibly there was a sense on the part of the armed forces that triumphalism would be counterproductive in a broadcast going out over open airwaves in countries that had in some cases just been defeated by the U.S. and its allies?
And for that matter, what does a government-sanctioned broadcast tell us about our national level of humility at that time? President Obama's speech after Osama bin Laden was killed was humble, somber, and non-triumphal -- but the spontaneous celebrations in the streets looked like, well, a bit like V-J Day in Times Square or other images of the stateside reaction to the end of the war.
But David Brooks knows that if you have an audience that thinks you're credible and you simply assert a Big Idea at the top of your lungs -- not really a humble thing to do, needless to say, but we'll pass over that -- people will think you're right just because you've asserted it. One of the letters written in response to Brooks's World War II column read as follows:
David Brooks reminds us of something worth thinking about: the "Greatest Generation" would never have called itself "The Greatest Generation."
Yeah, but the aging members of that generation bought the book that called them "the Greatest Generation," didn't they?
The subscription-only Publishers Lunch announces that Random House has signed up...
NYT columnist and #1 NYT bestselling author David Brooks' two new books, the first on humility, looking at the gale force wind of self-preoccupation, self-celebration, and self-enhancement that has come to dominate every aspect of our lives, and at how the idea of humility, defined as the opposite of self-preoccupation, and informed by a new and more accurate view of human nature, can open up new and better foundations for community, commitment, and life purpose in a changing world....
No word on what the second book is going to be, but a Brooks book on humility is frightening enough.
A search through his archives suggests that Brooks has been ruminating on humility for a while, and, in typical Brooks fashion, his thinking on the subject can lapse into incoherence. In an April 2010 column, he praised a hypothetical humble CEO (it's David Brooks, so, naturally, being a CEO is what makes you an average person):
Alongside the boardroom lion model of leadership, you can imagine a humble hound model. The humble hound leader thinks less about her mental strengths than about her weaknesses. She knows her performance slips when she has to handle more than one problem at a time, so she turns off her phone and e-mail while making decisions. She knows she has a bias for caution, so she writes a memo advocating the more daring option before writing another advocating the most safe. She knows she is bad at prediction, so she follows Peter Drucker's old advice: After each decision, she writes a memo about what she expects to happen. Nine months later, she'll read it to discover how far off she was.
A little more than a year later, Brooks wrote this in a blog post about humility:
Humility is not modesty either, Tangney argues. The modest person has a moderate view of himself, but may still think about himself all the time. Humility is better seen as the opposite of narcissism. The narcissist has a damaged sense of self and is consequently self-centered a great deal of the time, reacting in defensive ways to ego threat.
Did you follow that? A humble person, according to the blog post, doesn't think about him- or herself all the time, and isn't constantly worrying about "ego threat" ... but a "humble hound" CEO constantly engages in exercises that focus on the self and how the self performs tasks -- which is totally not thinking about oneself and the threat to one's ego all the time! No, seriously it isn't! Both are good, and both are examples of humility!
Elsewhere in Brooks's archives we get this, from 2009, about our loss of national humility:
On Sunday evenings, my local NPR station airs old radio programs. A few weeks ago it broadcast the episode of the show "Command Performance" that aired the day World War II ended. "Command Performance" was a variety show that went out to the troops around the world.
On V-J Day, Frank Sinatra appeared, along with Marlene Dietrich, Jimmy Durante, Dinah Shore, Bette Davis, Lionel Barrymore, Cary Grant and many others. But the most striking feature of the show was its tone of self-effacement and humility. The allies had, on that very day, completed one of the noblest military victories in the history of humanity. And yet there was no chest-beating. Nobody was erecting triumphal arches.
"All anybody can do is thank God it's over," Bing Crosby, the show's host, said. "Today our deep down feeling is one of humility," he added....
At that point, Brooks had clearly just bought a humility hammer, so everything looked to him like a humility nail. Now, I've listened to some of this broadcast -- you can listen to it here -- and yes, it's strikingly somber. That reference to "humility" does come up early.
But aren't there other explanations for why the broadcast might be somber -- for instance, the fact that this was a brutal war in which we'd lost 400,000 troops in four years? And possibly there was a sense on the part of the armed forces that triumphalism would be counterproductive in a broadcast going out over open airwaves in countries that had in some cases just been defeated by the U.S. and its allies?
And for that matter, what does a government-sanctioned broadcast tell us about our national level of humility at that time? President Obama's speech after Osama bin Laden was killed was humble, somber, and non-triumphal -- but the spontaneous celebrations in the streets looked like, well, a bit like V-J Day in Times Square or other images of the stateside reaction to the end of the war.
But David Brooks knows that if you have an audience that thinks you're credible and you simply assert a Big Idea at the top of your lungs -- not really a humble thing to do, needless to say, but we'll pass over that -- people will think you're right just because you've asserted it. One of the letters written in response to Brooks's World War II column read as follows:
David Brooks reminds us of something worth thinking about: the "Greatest Generation" would never have called itself "The Greatest Generation."
Yeah, but the aging members of that generation bought the book that called them "the Greatest Generation," didn't they?
AMERICANS WANT COMPROMISE. DO THEY KNOW THEY DIDN'T GET IT? DO THEY KNOW WHY?
Gallup tells us that Americans -- teabggers excepted, naturally -- want the debt supercommittee to play nice:
Americans Want New Debt Supercommittee to Compromise
Only Tea Party supporters take hard-line stance
Six in 10 Americans say members of the new bipartisan "supercommittee" mandated to find new ways of reducing the federal budget deficit should compromise, even if the agreement reached is one they personally disagree with. This includes a majority of Republicans, independents, and Democrats. A majority of Tea Party supporters, however, say the committee should hold out for a plan they agree with, even if no agreement is reached....
Americans told Gallup the same thing last month about the congressional negotiations:
Two-thirds of Americans would like government officials to agree to a compromise plan on the debt and budget deficit negotiations now underway. Fewer than 3 in 10 want lawmakers who share their views on the debt and budget deficit to hold out for their desired plan. A majority of Republicans, independents, and Democrats favor reaching a compromise....
But here's what I want to see polled: Do Americans know Democrats compromised, and how much? Do they know how little Republicans compromised?
Polls suggest that voters are noticeably more negative about the GOP now than they were before the debt negotiations became the main topic of news conversation in this country. That suggests that there's at least some awareness of who was most responsible for the brinkmanship.
But is that really the case? What percentage of Americans think Republicans were intransigent? And what percentage think Democrats were? Do Americans really know? And do either Democrats or members of the press think they have an obligation to make that Americans know?
What's appalling is that Tom Friedman doesn't seem to know. I'm going to ignore the main point of his column today, in which he imagines a joint appearance by President Obama and congressional leaders in which they all agree to give a little so we can attain ... the Simpson-Bowles "Grand Bargain." I'll just point out that in Friedman's fantasy, John Boehner says the following:
To my Tea Party colleagues, I say: thank you. Your passion helped spur the nation to action, but the country cannot be governed, and our future secured, by bowing solely to the passions of any single group -- liberal or conservative. I know that the Tea Party activists are true patriots and they will work with us as well.
But the Tea Party activists aren't true patriots and won't work with anyone except those who accept the tenets of the One Truth Tea Party Faith. Regardless of what Friedman's ideal is, what's truly dangerous about him is that he doesn't recognize this basic fact. On this, he's a low-information voter.
But I suspect there are a lot of such voters. I'd just like a measurement of how many there are.
Gallup tells us that Americans -- teabggers excepted, naturally -- want the debt supercommittee to play nice:
Americans Want New Debt Supercommittee to Compromise
Only Tea Party supporters take hard-line stance
Six in 10 Americans say members of the new bipartisan "supercommittee" mandated to find new ways of reducing the federal budget deficit should compromise, even if the agreement reached is one they personally disagree with. This includes a majority of Republicans, independents, and Democrats. A majority of Tea Party supporters, however, say the committee should hold out for a plan they agree with, even if no agreement is reached....
Americans told Gallup the same thing last month about the congressional negotiations:
Two-thirds of Americans would like government officials to agree to a compromise plan on the debt and budget deficit negotiations now underway. Fewer than 3 in 10 want lawmakers who share their views on the debt and budget deficit to hold out for their desired plan. A majority of Republicans, independents, and Democrats favor reaching a compromise....
But here's what I want to see polled: Do Americans know Democrats compromised, and how much? Do they know how little Republicans compromised?
Polls suggest that voters are noticeably more negative about the GOP now than they were before the debt negotiations became the main topic of news conversation in this country. That suggests that there's at least some awareness of who was most responsible for the brinkmanship.
But is that really the case? What percentage of Americans think Republicans were intransigent? And what percentage think Democrats were? Do Americans really know? And do either Democrats or members of the press think they have an obligation to make that Americans know?
What's appalling is that Tom Friedman doesn't seem to know. I'm going to ignore the main point of his column today, in which he imagines a joint appearance by President Obama and congressional leaders in which they all agree to give a little so we can attain ... the Simpson-Bowles "Grand Bargain." I'll just point out that in Friedman's fantasy, John Boehner says the following:
To my Tea Party colleagues, I say: thank you. Your passion helped spur the nation to action, but the country cannot be governed, and our future secured, by bowing solely to the passions of any single group -- liberal or conservative. I know that the Tea Party activists are true patriots and they will work with us as well.
But the Tea Party activists aren't true patriots and won't work with anyone except those who accept the tenets of the One Truth Tea Party Faith. Regardless of what Friedman's ideal is, what's truly dangerous about him is that he doesn't recognize this basic fact. On this, he's a low-information voter.
But I suspect there are a lot of such voters. I'd just like a measurement of how many there are.
A NEWSWEEKLY WOULD NEVER DO A SCARY, CREEPY COVER OF A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, OR A MAN!
Time magazine, April 20, 1992:
****
Also, since I guess we're still talking about the Michele Bachmann Newsweek cover image and cover copy (here are Paul Waldman and Ta-Nehisi Coates having their say), I was searching for the use of the word "rage" on covers of newsweeklies and found this, from October 25, 1993:
There's "rage" being used in a non-negative way -- but as a reference to youthful feelings. I think one criticism you could level at the "Queen of Rage" tagline for Bachmann is that it suggests that, in Tina Brown's view, Bachmann isn't sitting at the grown-ups' table.
Some right-wingers would nod in agreement at that. But I think it cuts both ways. It suggests that, in Brown's view, Bachmann and the teabaggers are unwashed and immature, so serious people don't really need to take them seriously -- when, in fact, the 'baggers just cleaned the left and center's clocks in the debt negotiations. It's a judgment based on style rather than content; to me the frightening thing about modern-day rightists isn't that they yell a lot or act crazy, it's what they want to do (and actually will do if they're not stopped).
Coates says, alluding to one of Bachmann's most reprehensible pronouncements:
It goes without saying that I would have picked a different picture, mostly because I don't enjoy spectacle. Everyone takes unflattering photos. But not everyone believes that emancipation would have been inhumane. I don't much like watching media go for the face. I've always prefered the jugular.
In other words, attack her on ideas, not on superficialities. That was the point Jon Stewart made last night as well, in a segment that began with a critique of the cover image, but ended with a recitation of some of Bachmann's most chilling pronouncements.
(By the way, did whoever uploaded the Stewart clip to The Wall Street Journal's Speakeasy blog actually watch it to the end? The blogger praises the first part -- "It's a rare moment when Comedy Central funny newsman Jon Stewart agrees with his faux Fox News Channel foes" -- then acts as if the last part doesn't exist.)
Time magazine, April 20, 1992:
****
Also, since I guess we're still talking about the Michele Bachmann Newsweek cover image and cover copy (here are Paul Waldman and Ta-Nehisi Coates having their say), I was searching for the use of the word "rage" on covers of newsweeklies and found this, from October 25, 1993:
There's "rage" being used in a non-negative way -- but as a reference to youthful feelings. I think one criticism you could level at the "Queen of Rage" tagline for Bachmann is that it suggests that, in Tina Brown's view, Bachmann isn't sitting at the grown-ups' table.
Some right-wingers would nod in agreement at that. But I think it cuts both ways. It suggests that, in Brown's view, Bachmann and the teabaggers are unwashed and immature, so serious people don't really need to take them seriously -- when, in fact, the 'baggers just cleaned the left and center's clocks in the debt negotiations. It's a judgment based on style rather than content; to me the frightening thing about modern-day rightists isn't that they yell a lot or act crazy, it's what they want to do (and actually will do if they're not stopped).
Coates says, alluding to one of Bachmann's most reprehensible pronouncements:
It goes without saying that I would have picked a different picture, mostly because I don't enjoy spectacle. Everyone takes unflattering photos. But not everyone believes that emancipation would have been inhumane. I don't much like watching media go for the face. I've always prefered the jugular.
In other words, attack her on ideas, not on superficialities. That was the point Jon Stewart made last night as well, in a segment that began with a critique of the cover image, but ended with a recitation of some of Bachmann's most chilling pronouncements.
(By the way, did whoever uploaded the Stewart clip to The Wall Street Journal's Speakeasy blog actually watch it to the end? The blogger praises the first part -- "It's a rare moment when Comedy Central funny newsman Jon Stewart agrees with his faux Fox News Channel foes" -- then acts as if the last part doesn't exist.)
I FEAR THAT VOTERS STILL CAN'T QUIT THE GOP
For weeks I predicted that the blame for a 98%-GOP debt deal would fall on Democrats, or on "everyone," and that any anti-incumbent anger would focus on the president's party and spare the Republicans. Then a couple of polls released yesterday seemed to suggest that I was wrong about that.
Public Policy Polling had this poll about the debt deal, conducted in the presidential swing states of Colorado and North Carolina:
With such an unpopular deal it's hard to really crown a political 'winner' but to the extent there is one it's Barack Obama. Here's why Obama's the nominal winner. Among voters who support the deal, they're more prone to give Obama the credit than Congressional Republicans. And among voters who oppose the deal, they're more inclined to blame the GOP than the President....
The biggest indication that Obama came out ahead on this one may be in polls we'll release later this week though- Obama is ahead of Mitt Romney in both of these states.
Really? Obama ahead of Romney in Colorado and North Carolina, a traditionally Republican state Obama barely won in '08? Can it be that voters actually cut through all the Beltway prattle about the entire system being broken and actually grasped that (a) the Republicans did most of the harm and (b) the people running to oppose Obama in 2012 are members of the same party as the people who held us hostage in Congress?
The other, better-publicized poll, from CNN, suggests that that's exactly what's happening:
... According to the survey, favorable views of the Republican party dropped eight points over the past month, to 33 percent. Fifty-nine percent say they have an unfavorable view of the Republican party, an all-time high dating back to 1992 when the question was first asked.
The poll indicates that views of the Democratic party, by contrast, have remained fairly steady, with 47 percent saying they have a favorable view of the Democrats and an equal amount saying they hold an unfavorable view.
... The poll indicates that Americans' views of the tea party movement have also turned more negative, with 51 percent saying they have a negative view of the two-year-old limited government and anti-tax grassroots movement, with favorable ratings dropping from 37 percent down to 31 percent....
(By the way, I realize that everyone in Lefty Land except me has taken potshots at Drew Westen's New York Times piece on Obama's rhetorical failures, but can't this be seen as the exception that proves the rule? The president actually did make a prime-time speech about this issue, and did identify Republican intransigence on taxes as a big part of the problem. Maybe it worked? Maybe it would work if he did this kind of thing more often, on the air in the evening hours?)
So the public is starting to get it now. That's terrific.
But what will the practical electoral outcome be? Here's The Hill on the CNN poll:
Voters are more unhappy with the Republican Party now than they were when the Republican-led House voted to impeach then-President Clinton, according to a new CNN poll released Tuesday....
The last time CNN polled the GOP out of favor with more than 50 percent was in 1998. The House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton on Dec. 19, 1998, and a survey taken between Dec. 19-20 that year found 57 percent unfavorable toward the Republican party. In January, that number fell to 52 percent, and has not been that high again until this month....
Voters presumably were angry with the GOP for pushing impeachment prior to the 1998 midterms, and to some extent they took it out on Republicans at the polls -- Democrats actually won seats, something that rarely happens to a party with a sixth-year president in office -- but Republicans still retained the House and the Senate. And then, two years later, Republicans held on to the House and Senate again, and gave George W. Bush just enough votes to allow him to steal an election.
So that previous peak of anti-GOP feeling failed to produce an anti-GOP wave election -- twice.
It takes a lot to get voters to turn on the Republicans. It doesn't take nearly as much as it does to get them to turn on Democrats, because an anti-Democrat narrative is broadcast 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in good times and bad, on cable TV and talk radio.
****
And so in Wisconsin there was enough anti-GOP feeling driven by local (and presumably national) issues to send a couple of state senators to an early retirement, but Republicans will still control the state Senate:
Wisconsin Democrats have fallen just narrowly short of an ambitious goal -- the attempt to pick up three state Senate seats through recall elections and take a majority in the chamber. As of early Wednesday morning, with six incumbent Republicans on the ballot, Democrats have defeated two -- but narrowly missed out in two others....
This would get Democrats from their previous 19-14 minority, following the 2010 Republican wave, to a 17-16 margin....
Nate Silver notes that these districts, on average, are more Republican than Wisconsin as a whole, so maybe a three-seat pickup was a lot to expect. On the other hand, every district with a recall election went for Obama in 2008. So an anti-GOP wave was theoretically possible.
But we're not there yet. And I fear that the only way you can ever get an anti-GOP wave is to have a GOP president who's an unqualified disaster. Voters don't have a well-established narrative in their heads of a Republican Party that's extremely bad for America on an ongoing basis. But they always have ready access to such a narrative about Democrats.
For weeks I predicted that the blame for a 98%-GOP debt deal would fall on Democrats, or on "everyone," and that any anti-incumbent anger would focus on the president's party and spare the Republicans. Then a couple of polls released yesterday seemed to suggest that I was wrong about that.
Public Policy Polling had this poll about the debt deal, conducted in the presidential swing states of Colorado and North Carolina:
With such an unpopular deal it's hard to really crown a political 'winner' but to the extent there is one it's Barack Obama. Here's why Obama's the nominal winner. Among voters who support the deal, they're more prone to give Obama the credit than Congressional Republicans. And among voters who oppose the deal, they're more inclined to blame the GOP than the President....
The biggest indication that Obama came out ahead on this one may be in polls we'll release later this week though- Obama is ahead of Mitt Romney in both of these states.
Really? Obama ahead of Romney in Colorado and North Carolina, a traditionally Republican state Obama barely won in '08? Can it be that voters actually cut through all the Beltway prattle about the entire system being broken and actually grasped that (a) the Republicans did most of the harm and (b) the people running to oppose Obama in 2012 are members of the same party as the people who held us hostage in Congress?
The other, better-publicized poll, from CNN, suggests that that's exactly what's happening:
... According to the survey, favorable views of the Republican party dropped eight points over the past month, to 33 percent. Fifty-nine percent say they have an unfavorable view of the Republican party, an all-time high dating back to 1992 when the question was first asked.
The poll indicates that views of the Democratic party, by contrast, have remained fairly steady, with 47 percent saying they have a favorable view of the Democrats and an equal amount saying they hold an unfavorable view.
... The poll indicates that Americans' views of the tea party movement have also turned more negative, with 51 percent saying they have a negative view of the two-year-old limited government and anti-tax grassroots movement, with favorable ratings dropping from 37 percent down to 31 percent....
(By the way, I realize that everyone in Lefty Land except me has taken potshots at Drew Westen's New York Times piece on Obama's rhetorical failures, but can't this be seen as the exception that proves the rule? The president actually did make a prime-time speech about this issue, and did identify Republican intransigence on taxes as a big part of the problem. Maybe it worked? Maybe it would work if he did this kind of thing more often, on the air in the evening hours?)
So the public is starting to get it now. That's terrific.
But what will the practical electoral outcome be? Here's The Hill on the CNN poll:
Voters are more unhappy with the Republican Party now than they were when the Republican-led House voted to impeach then-President Clinton, according to a new CNN poll released Tuesday....
The last time CNN polled the GOP out of favor with more than 50 percent was in 1998. The House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton on Dec. 19, 1998, and a survey taken between Dec. 19-20 that year found 57 percent unfavorable toward the Republican party. In January, that number fell to 52 percent, and has not been that high again until this month....
Voters presumably were angry with the GOP for pushing impeachment prior to the 1998 midterms, and to some extent they took it out on Republicans at the polls -- Democrats actually won seats, something that rarely happens to a party with a sixth-year president in office -- but Republicans still retained the House and the Senate. And then, two years later, Republicans held on to the House and Senate again, and gave George W. Bush just enough votes to allow him to steal an election.
So that previous peak of anti-GOP feeling failed to produce an anti-GOP wave election -- twice.
It takes a lot to get voters to turn on the Republicans. It doesn't take nearly as much as it does to get them to turn on Democrats, because an anti-Democrat narrative is broadcast 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in good times and bad, on cable TV and talk radio.
****
And so in Wisconsin there was enough anti-GOP feeling driven by local (and presumably national) issues to send a couple of state senators to an early retirement, but Republicans will still control the state Senate:
Wisconsin Democrats have fallen just narrowly short of an ambitious goal -- the attempt to pick up three state Senate seats through recall elections and take a majority in the chamber. As of early Wednesday morning, with six incumbent Republicans on the ballot, Democrats have defeated two -- but narrowly missed out in two others....
This would get Democrats from their previous 19-14 minority, following the 2010 Republican wave, to a 17-16 margin....
Nate Silver notes that these districts, on average, are more Republican than Wisconsin as a whole, so maybe a three-seat pickup was a lot to expect. On the other hand, every district with a recall election went for Obama in 2008. So an anti-GOP wave was theoretically possible.
But we're not there yet. And I fear that the only way you can ever get an anti-GOP wave is to have a GOP president who's an unqualified disaster. Voters don't have a well-established narrative in their heads of a Republican Party that's extremely bad for America on an ongoing basis. But they always have ready access to such a narrative about Democrats.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
MITT ROMNEY WEARS EARTH TONES
I can't seem to arrive at a coherent set of thoughts about "Obama Plan: Destroy Romney," Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin much-talked-about Politico story, so here are a few disconnected reactions.
First, I confess to being partly pleased somebody in the Democratic Party wants to try a bit of turnabout-is-fair-play on the Republicans -- I wish it were people in charge of getting bills through Congress rather than campaign staff, but I'll take what I can get. Smith and Martin think this is supposed to send me to the fainting couch, and I gather it actually has sent some lefties there, but to a great extent it just seems like just deserts for Republicans:
And so the candidate who ran on "hope" in 2008 has little choice four years later but to run a slashing, personal campaign aimed at disqualifying his likeliest opponent....
In a move that will make some Democrats shudder, Obama's high command has even studied former President George W. Bush’s 2004 takedown of Sen. John Kerry, a senior campaign adviser told POLITICO, for clues on how a president with middling approval ratings can defeat a challenger....
Obama's reelection campaign will portray the public Romney as inauthentic, unprincipled and, in a word used repeatedly by Obama’s advisers in about a dozen interviews, "weird." ...
"Presidential campaigns are like MRIs of the soul," said [David] Axelrod. "When he makes jokes about being unemployed or a waitress pinching him on the butt, it does snap your head back, and you say, 'What's he talking about?'"
"It's not just a matter of dodging the debate, not just a matter of flip-flopping and putting his finger to the wind -- it is that he’s not comfortable in his own skin, and that gives people a sense of unease," added a Democratic consultant expected to be involved in the reelection campaign.
After Dukakis, after Gore, after Kerry, part of me would very much enjoy seeing the Republican be the one who's banished from the cool table in the junior-high cafeteria that is our infantile political system. If we can't run our politics like grown-ups, at least let the immaturity work in our favor for once.
But I'm not sure it'll work -- Republicans and many in the Beltway elite think of Obama as weird. He's not universally seen as the Cool Guy anymore -- not by a long shot. There's an allusion in the article to Romney's switch to "skinny jeans" -- but Obama has been mocked for his choice of jeans on more than one occasion.
Smith and Martin speculate that "weird" is, or could become, a euphemism for "Mormon." Jane Hamsher, I see, is playing judge and jury and has already convicted Obama on this charge. I see nothing in the Politico article that says that that's where the campaign is going -- but, as John Cole says, in anticipation of Village reaction,
...the fact that none of Obama's advisers mentioned religion is ALL THE PROOF YOU NEED THAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT RELIGION.
I fully expect by the end of the week to hear Halperin and the other bobbleheads decrying this outrageous attack on Romney's religion.
The rest of what's discussed in the Politico piece seems like exactly how a Romney candidacy should be approached -- a lot of talk about his ideological flip-flops, a lot of talk about the job-killing in his business career. I'd still prefer an attack on him as a Republican, and thus a representative of the party that's clearly destroying America, but I guess we're not ready for that, or at least the Obama campaign isn't.
I can't seem to arrive at a coherent set of thoughts about "Obama Plan: Destroy Romney," Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin much-talked-about Politico story, so here are a few disconnected reactions.
First, I confess to being partly pleased somebody in the Democratic Party wants to try a bit of turnabout-is-fair-play on the Republicans -- I wish it were people in charge of getting bills through Congress rather than campaign staff, but I'll take what I can get. Smith and Martin think this is supposed to send me to the fainting couch, and I gather it actually has sent some lefties there, but to a great extent it just seems like just deserts for Republicans:
And so the candidate who ran on "hope" in 2008 has little choice four years later but to run a slashing, personal campaign aimed at disqualifying his likeliest opponent....
In a move that will make some Democrats shudder, Obama's high command has even studied former President George W. Bush’s 2004 takedown of Sen. John Kerry, a senior campaign adviser told POLITICO, for clues on how a president with middling approval ratings can defeat a challenger....
Obama's reelection campaign will portray the public Romney as inauthentic, unprincipled and, in a word used repeatedly by Obama’s advisers in about a dozen interviews, "weird." ...
"Presidential campaigns are like MRIs of the soul," said [David] Axelrod. "When he makes jokes about being unemployed or a waitress pinching him on the butt, it does snap your head back, and you say, 'What's he talking about?'"
"It's not just a matter of dodging the debate, not just a matter of flip-flopping and putting his finger to the wind -- it is that he’s not comfortable in his own skin, and that gives people a sense of unease," added a Democratic consultant expected to be involved in the reelection campaign.
After Dukakis, after Gore, after Kerry, part of me would very much enjoy seeing the Republican be the one who's banished from the cool table in the junior-high cafeteria that is our infantile political system. If we can't run our politics like grown-ups, at least let the immaturity work in our favor for once.
But I'm not sure it'll work -- Republicans and many in the Beltway elite think of Obama as weird. He's not universally seen as the Cool Guy anymore -- not by a long shot. There's an allusion in the article to Romney's switch to "skinny jeans" -- but Obama has been mocked for his choice of jeans on more than one occasion.
Smith and Martin speculate that "weird" is, or could become, a euphemism for "Mormon." Jane Hamsher, I see, is playing judge and jury and has already convicted Obama on this charge. I see nothing in the Politico article that says that that's where the campaign is going -- but, as John Cole says, in anticipation of Village reaction,
...the fact that none of Obama's advisers mentioned religion is ALL THE PROOF YOU NEED THAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT RELIGION.
I fully expect by the end of the week to hear Halperin and the other bobbleheads decrying this outrageous attack on Romney's religion.
The rest of what's discussed in the Politico piece seems like exactly how a Romney candidacy should be approached -- a lot of talk about his ideological flip-flops, a lot of talk about the job-killing in his business career. I'd still prefer an attack on him as a Republican, and thus a representative of the party that's clearly destroying America, but I guess we're not ready for that, or at least the Obama campaign isn't.
YEAH, BUT WHERE ARE THE WAVE-MAKERS?
More on the Gallup poll I talked about in the last post, this time from USA Today:
Another "wave" election that could dramatically change the capital's political makeup may be building, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.
Only 24% of those surveyed say most members of Congress deserve re-election, the lowest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 1991. Fifty-six percent say their own representative deserves another term, similar to the levels just before tumultuous elections in 1994, 2006 and 2010 that changed control of the House or Senate....
Yeah, but here's what happened in those years that seems very unlikely to happen in 2012: the out party worked very, very hard to nationalize the campaign and focus it on the party in power's failings. Republicans in '94, Democrats in '06, and the Republican/teabagger/Koch/Fox hydra-headed beast in '10 all ran nationwide against the very notion of the party in power, or at least (in '06) against its most prominent policies.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's hard to imagine President Obama making the 2012 campaign a campaign primarily against the GOP. He's not going to be Truman in '48 -- instead, he's going to run against some vague idea of D.C. finger-pointing and factional squabbling; he's not going to run on the slogan Vote Democrat because Republicans are horrible. He's going to run as the reasonable man; he and other Democrats might run, in some vague way, against massive entitlement cuts (if they still can do that after the supercommittee process has run its course), and maybe in favor of "balance" going forward, and vague notions of clean energy and education and so on -- but they're unlikely to say Republicans are the problem, and there's no way in hell they're going to have a wave if they don't.
Someday (2014?) Democrats could conceivably have a 2010 of their own -- they could run new candidates promising red-meat progressivism, the way the GOP ran tea-party types promising red-meat conservatism; they could say they know the party lost its way and abandoned core principles, the way the teabaggers did. It would help, of course, if progressive Democrats had had a noise machine for decades spinning out a progressive narrative; it would help if they had a very popular TV channel pumping out 24/7 propaganda throughout the campaign; it would help if billionaire donors wanted to fund such a campaign (though, of course, that would defeat the purpose). None of that is the case. So I'm not holding my breath waiting for a Democratic wave anytime soon.
More on the Gallup poll I talked about in the last post, this time from USA Today:
Another "wave" election that could dramatically change the capital's political makeup may be building, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.
Only 24% of those surveyed say most members of Congress deserve re-election, the lowest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 1991. Fifty-six percent say their own representative deserves another term, similar to the levels just before tumultuous elections in 1994, 2006 and 2010 that changed control of the House or Senate....
Yeah, but here's what happened in those years that seems very unlikely to happen in 2012: the out party worked very, very hard to nationalize the campaign and focus it on the party in power's failings. Republicans in '94, Democrats in '06, and the Republican/teabagger/Koch/Fox hydra-headed beast in '10 all ran nationwide against the very notion of the party in power, or at least (in '06) against its most prominent policies.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's hard to imagine President Obama making the 2012 campaign a campaign primarily against the GOP. He's not going to be Truman in '48 -- instead, he's going to run against some vague idea of D.C. finger-pointing and factional squabbling; he's not going to run on the slogan Vote Democrat because Republicans are horrible. He's going to run as the reasonable man; he and other Democrats might run, in some vague way, against massive entitlement cuts (if they still can do that after the supercommittee process has run its course), and maybe in favor of "balance" going forward, and vague notions of clean energy and education and so on -- but they're unlikely to say Republicans are the problem, and there's no way in hell they're going to have a wave if they don't.
Someday (2014?) Democrats could conceivably have a 2010 of their own -- they could run new candidates promising red-meat progressivism, the way the GOP ran tea-party types promising red-meat conservatism; they could say they know the party lost its way and abandoned core principles, the way the teabaggers did. It would help, of course, if progressive Democrats had had a noise machine for decades spinning out a progressive narrative; it would help if they had a very popular TV channel pumping out 24/7 propaganda throughout the campaign; it would help if billionaire donors wanted to fund such a campaign (though, of course, that would defeat the purpose). None of that is the case. So I'm not holding my breath waiting for a Democratic wave anytime soon.
OBAMA: ENOUGH ELECTORAL VOTES TO WIN?
I've been very critical of the president lately, but if Gallup is right, his public supports is holding up surprisingly well. Gallup's headline yesterday on this subject was "Obama Job Approval 50% or Higher in 16 States and D.C.," but to me the key statistic was this: Obama's approval exceeds his disapproval in a total of 20 states and the District of Columbia -- and if you add up the electoral votes in these states, you get 286, more than the 270 he'll need to win next year.
There's a lot wrong with this analysis, of course. Obama's being measured on his own, not against a specific or even a generic GOP opponent. I also think, as I've said before, that Obama's general job-approval numbers may hover at a relatively high level (given the nation's travails) until a flesh-and-blood alternative to Obama is identified via the GOP primary process, at which point, if that person seems to offer hope (assuming things in America don't get better, which is a safe assumption), Obama's numbers are likely to go down. (If the alternative seems like a barking loon -- Bachmann, maybe Perry -- Obama may be home free.)
I'm also skeptical about some of Gallup's numbers. Obama's up 48%-44% in Georgia? Really? Hell, this poll has him at 45%-47% in Mississippi. Either there's a massive, long-term disconnect between public opinion and voting patterns in these states ... or Gallup's state samples are too small and/or skewed to be reliable.
So maybe this is remarkably good news for the president. Or maybe it's not.
I've been very critical of the president lately, but if Gallup is right, his public supports is holding up surprisingly well. Gallup's headline yesterday on this subject was "Obama Job Approval 50% or Higher in 16 States and D.C.," but to me the key statistic was this: Obama's approval exceeds his disapproval in a total of 20 states and the District of Columbia -- and if you add up the electoral votes in these states, you get 286, more than the 270 he'll need to win next year.
There's a lot wrong with this analysis, of course. Obama's being measured on his own, not against a specific or even a generic GOP opponent. I also think, as I've said before, that Obama's general job-approval numbers may hover at a relatively high level (given the nation's travails) until a flesh-and-blood alternative to Obama is identified via the GOP primary process, at which point, if that person seems to offer hope (assuming things in America don't get better, which is a safe assumption), Obama's numbers are likely to go down. (If the alternative seems like a barking loon -- Bachmann, maybe Perry -- Obama may be home free.)
I'm also skeptical about some of Gallup's numbers. Obama's up 48%-44% in Georgia? Really? Hell, this poll has him at 45%-47% in Mississippi. Either there's a massive, long-term disconnect between public opinion and voting patterns in these states ... or Gallup's state samples are too small and/or skewed to be reliable.
So maybe this is remarkably good news for the president. Or maybe it's not.
Monday, August 08, 2011
NEWT GINGRICH, VICTIM OF MISOGYNY
I see NOW is defending Michele Bachmann:
One of presidential candidate Michele Bachmann's major political opponents is defending her against what it says is blatant sexism on the part of Newsweek magazine.
Monday, the National Organization for Women (NOW) spoke out against Newsweek's most recent cover, which features an extreme close-up of Michele Bachmann and the title "The Queen of Rage."
"It's sexist," NOW president Terry O'Neill told TheDC. "Casting her in that expression and then adding 'The Queen of Rage' I think [it is]. Gloria Steinem has a very simple test: If this were done to a man or would it ever be done to a man -- has it ever been done to a man? Surely this has never been done to a man."
Well, yes, actually it has been done to a man:
Right-wingers will continue to whinge about being accused of a level of anger that's greater than lefty anger. They won't acknowledge that this is happening because they actually have a level of anger that's greater (by far) than lefty anger.
Oh, and since the "R" word is now deemed offensive, I guess the people who recorded this song owe an apology to all their fellow teabaggers:
I see NOW is defending Michele Bachmann:
One of presidential candidate Michele Bachmann's major political opponents is defending her against what it says is blatant sexism on the part of Newsweek magazine.
Monday, the National Organization for Women (NOW) spoke out against Newsweek's most recent cover, which features an extreme close-up of Michele Bachmann and the title "The Queen of Rage."
"It's sexist," NOW president Terry O'Neill told TheDC. "Casting her in that expression and then adding 'The Queen of Rage' I think [it is]. Gloria Steinem has a very simple test: If this were done to a man or would it ever be done to a man -- has it ever been done to a man? Surely this has never been done to a man."
Well, yes, actually it has been done to a man:
Right-wingers will continue to whinge about being accused of a level of anger that's greater than lefty anger. They won't acknowledge that this is happening because they actually have a level of anger that's greater (by far) than lefty anger.
Oh, and since the "R" word is now deemed offensive, I guess the people who recorded this song owe an apology to all their fellow teabaggers:
OBAMA'S LIGHT, UNDER A BUSHEL
Jonathan Chait and Steve Benen weren't particularly impressed with Professor Drew Westen's New York Times article "What Happened to Obama?," which chides the president for failing to push for progressive change and failing to rally the country to that kind of change. Chait cites one refutation in particular:
The most inexcusable factual errors in Westen's essay have been documented by Andrew Sprung, who points out some of the occasions Obama has used exactly the kind of rhetoric Westen accuses him of refusing to deploy.
Benen says, contemptuously,
Perhaps most notably, Andrew Sprung scrutinized Westen's piece and discovered that Obama has publicly and repeatedly stressed some of the identical messages Westen wanted to hear from the president. Maybe the professor missed those speeches; maybe he didn't check.
Here's the problem, though: Sprung's post includes four quotes that echo messages Westen says he wishes Obama had emphasized -- but three of the four took place when practically no one in America, apart from the Beltway journalist/wonk/politician community, was paying attention, for the perfectly understandable reason that the remarks occurred during most people's workday.
Sprung twice quotes a speech the president gave at Georgetown University on April 14, 2009 -- at 11:30 in the morning. Once he quotes remarks made near the end of an all-day health-care summit; the quoted excerpt came during an afternoon session. Only once does Sprung quote a prime-time speech, in this case a health care address on September 9, 2009 -- one that, in fact, temporarily raised public approval of Obama's health care approach.
But Obama's prime-time addresses and news conferences are very rare -- it's as if he doesn't want the words heard, or doesn't understand that the average American isn't going to kick back after a hard day's work and watch a six-hour unedited C-SPAN rebroadcast of a health care confab.
So, no, the existence of these remarks isn't proof that Obama is communicating well with the populace -- unless you're talking about the populace of Wonkistan.
Jonathan Chait and Steve Benen weren't particularly impressed with Professor Drew Westen's New York Times article "What Happened to Obama?," which chides the president for failing to push for progressive change and failing to rally the country to that kind of change. Chait cites one refutation in particular:
The most inexcusable factual errors in Westen's essay have been documented by Andrew Sprung, who points out some of the occasions Obama has used exactly the kind of rhetoric Westen accuses him of refusing to deploy.
Benen says, contemptuously,
Perhaps most notably, Andrew Sprung scrutinized Westen's piece and discovered that Obama has publicly and repeatedly stressed some of the identical messages Westen wanted to hear from the president. Maybe the professor missed those speeches; maybe he didn't check.
Here's the problem, though: Sprung's post includes four quotes that echo messages Westen says he wishes Obama had emphasized -- but three of the four took place when practically no one in America, apart from the Beltway journalist/wonk/politician community, was paying attention, for the perfectly understandable reason that the remarks occurred during most people's workday.
Sprung twice quotes a speech the president gave at Georgetown University on April 14, 2009 -- at 11:30 in the morning. Once he quotes remarks made near the end of an all-day health-care summit; the quoted excerpt came during an afternoon session. Only once does Sprung quote a prime-time speech, in this case a health care address on September 9, 2009 -- one that, in fact, temporarily raised public approval of Obama's health care approach.
But Obama's prime-time addresses and news conferences are very rare -- it's as if he doesn't want the words heard, or doesn't understand that the average American isn't going to kick back after a hard day's work and watch a six-hour unedited C-SPAN rebroadcast of a health care confab.
So, no, the existence of these remarks isn't proof that Obama is communicating well with the populace -- unless you're talking about the populace of Wonkistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)