Oh Canada!

10:33 pm EST April 4th, 2012 | News | 46 Comments

Your humble host is quoted in this Maclean’s article about First Lady Michelle Obama, check it out!

Today’s Politics In One Word: Slicing

2:06 pm EST March 23rd, 2012 | Politics | 71 Comments

It is rare in the modern era for a single, decisive mistake to end a political career. The only recent examples of this happening are probably the disclosure that Eliot Spitzer used prostitutes or that Anthony Weiner used Twitter too often.

But the last time a megaton-bomb level mistake truly destroyed a presidential candidate was probably Gary Hart’s philandering. Four years later we saw the first campaign to survive a similar scandal, when Bill Clinton bounced back from the Gennifer Flowers revelations to become the “comeback kid” in New Hampshire.

Howard Dean lost his race for the Democratic nomination in 2004 not solely from the infamous “Dean scream,” but from a series of events – external and internal – that told voters he wasn’t ready yet to be the party’s standard bearer. Remember “Howard Dean: Destiny or Disaster?” followed five months later by “Doubts About Dean”?

Otherwise, the single scandal has more or less been rendered impotent in modern American politics at the presidential level. Instead, it works this way: A narrative begins forming around a politician, then events and his or her own actions work to reinforce that narrative.

Writing in Columbia Journalism Review, Brendan Nyhan attempts to debunk the effect of the Romney “Etch A Sketch” gaffe by pointing out that other gaffes didn’t result in a negative effect in the polls.

But he’s wrong.

Sure, when John Kerry said he voted for the Iraq War before he voted against it, that didn’t immediately hurt him in the polls. But it reinforced the image of Kerry promoted by the Bush campaign as a serial vacillator, unsure of his own opinions and willing to change them at a moment’s notice. This framing of Kerry worked particularly well in contrast to the image they were selling of Bush at the time: He may not be the smartest guy in the room, but he knows who the bad guys are and is doing everything possible to kill them. In contrast with Kerry’s “flip flopper” that was a good message to help win the election.

For the record, I’m not arguing that this was the sole factor in Bush’s re-election win. The economy and other factors were at play as well, of course. But the narrative that Kerry wouldn’t stand up for a strong position was one the Bush campaign team used again and again, and Kerry didn’t help with his frequent gaffes and complicated voting history in the Senate.

It’s a pattern we’ve seen several times in recent presidential elections. In 2000 it was Al Gore who got sucked into the narrative black hole. In 2008 it was the McCain campaign’s erratic behavior, compounded by Sarah Palin’s inadequacy, that helped the Republican party to lose the White House. There wasn’t any single day or moment where John McCain lost the plot – not even the day when he said “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

Rather, it was a sustained narrative. The campaign suspension, the choice of Palin, the erratic debating, the way he carried himself on the trail.

As the old saying goes, it was death by a thousand paper cuts.

For example, the events on the ground in Iraq were almost singlehandedly responsible for upending the image of Bush as resolute war president to incompetent, bumbling commander in just two years. There wasn’t any single Iraq event responsible, it was just the steady drumbeat of bad – often horrifying – news that took its toll.

My personal theory is it takes a lot to pull out of one of these spirals. Often, when the narrative takes hold the media becomes a willing accomplice, picking up on errant remarks and decisions that seem perfectly reasonable in context (to the politician, at least) but when held up as an example of the growing narrative it can have a devastating effect.

So the “etch a sketch” incident on its own will have little effect on Romney’s political fortunes. But it is one more incident that can be added to the pile of incidents that says “Mitt Romney is a craven political opportunist without any core values.” It is just the latest in a series of moments that communicates inauthenticity on Romney’s behalf that you can see reflected in opinion polling over time.

And that will hurt him in the long run, cut by cut.

ICYMI

1:23 am EST March 23rd, 2012 | News | 36 Comments

Rush Limbaugh has hired a crisis manager. Almost like his show is facing some sort of… crisis.

Killabuster

11:30 pm EST March 20th, 2012 | Politics | 55 Comments

Ezra Klein’s article in the New Yorker makes a pretty good case, in my opinion, for totally killing the filibuster. At the very least we should kill the phony filibuster that both parties have utilized in the Senate to hold up legislation. Make them actually stand and talk a bill to death, rather than take the easy way out.

We’ve reached a point in polarization — particularly with the GOP’s swing to the hard right — where we effectively have a parliamentary system without having a parliamentary government.

Let’s end the filibuster. Sure, this means that should the Republican party gain control of the legislature they can imposte their agenda via a party-line vote. So be it.

We should be honest, this is how many people believe our system works already. They don’t understand the arcane Senate rules where you need 60 votes in order for something to pass with a 51 vote majority.

Killing the filibuster will allow both parties to get things done and for the opposing party to appeal to the electorate in response — deciding to go ahead with or repeal legislation.

Let’s finally get some things done, for better or worse.

Stand For Something, Or Fall

11:46 pm EST March 16th, 2012 | Liberals | 82 Comments

First, go read Milt Shook’s piece on progressives, the Democratic Party, and how to win.

Okay. So, I totally disagree.

First, some background. As a progressive I concede I have things better than a lot based on who represents me in congress. First there’s Rep. Donna Edwards, then Sen. Ben Cardin and Sen. Barbara Mikulski. All good, progressive Democrats. Of the three, the one I tend to have the most issues with is Sen. Cardin due to his support for some absurd pro-newspaper tax and the SOPA nonsense. Nothing that makes him utterly compromised, just bones of contention. So, I have it good at the federal level. My representatives all believe in science, common sense economics, and civil rights.

Before the 2006 election, I was very much in Milt Shook’s camp. As far as I was concerned, anybody with a (D) after their name was good enough. I no longer believe that is the case.

Two reasons why: First, the rapid dissolution of the Democratic House majority. It lasted for all of four years. Compare to 40 years of Democratic control, then 12 years of Republican control in the previous 52 years. It was a rapid decline.

Secondly, even when Democrats had the majority in the House and the brief “supermajority” in the Senate, President Obama’s agenda was regularly usurped not by the opposition but by his own party. The size of the stimulus, the content of health care reform, etc. were subject to whims not only of the opposition party, but often from the blue dog faction of the Democratic party.

Wouldn’t life have been easier and the legislation more advanced if Obama had a progressive majority to work with?

That’s what I favor. Rather than voting for a Democrat and being scared off by the boogeyman of a conservative Republican, Democrats — and especially progressives within the Democratic party — should be working towards offering up strong progressives rather than slightly more humane Republican conservatives.

Will these candidates always win? No. Are there districts that are too conservative to crack? Quite possibly.

But I have this crazy idea that Democrats should stand up for certain, basic, Democratic Party ideals.

For me they include (but are not limited to): Preserving and defending social security, defending a woman’s rights to choose, being pro-civil rights, economic policies that balance growth with opportunity, and a national security policy that keeps the country safe and our morality intact.

Your mileage may differ.

What I don’t believe in is supporting candidates simply because they are Democrats.

I personally didn’t believe Ned Lamont was the best candidate, but in the 2006 Connecticut primary I found his position on the Iraq War far more in line with progressive principles than Joe Lieberman’s warmongering.

Right now in Nebraska the field has been cleared for Bob Kerrey, despite his previous advocacy for some form of cuts to social security, which I think should be a no-go.

Regardless of the issues, I think we progressives have to stand up for something more than “whatever the Democratic party offers me.”

That involves running progressive candidates at all levels, critiquing politicians for their anti-progress positions, and in general making up noise so that the party begins to understand that progressives have a say.

In 1964 after they lost in a landslide, conservative Republicans didn’t fade away. They didn’t start recruiting more Rockefeller Republicans in order to moderate. Instead, they got more conservative — to the point that today’s conservatives would consider late ’60s Republicans on par with Chairman Mao.

This also allows Republicans better allies once elected, a luxury leaders like President Obama haven’t been afforded. The right knows that whether it’s South Carolina (Haley) or New Jersey (Christie), its party faithful wants conservatives. Right now, Democrats know that whatever they give, progressives will lap it up out of fear of the conservative boogeyman.

That shouldn’t be good enough anymore. We should demand better.

Remedial First Amendment For Conservatives (And Bill Maher)

9:18 am EST March 11th, 2012 | Conservative | 207 Comments

Here, in full, is the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Our constitution explicitly says that you can say whatever you want to say without government interference. What it does not guarantee is any sort of platform to make that speech. The first amendment does not guarantee a right to a radio show, a tv show, a newspaper column, a website, or a stage show. It says that you can say things and the government has no right to squelch that speech.

Why do people not understand this? Conservatives, upset at the growing advertiser boycott of Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech, insist his first amendment rights are being infringed upon. No, they aren’t. Limbaugh is as free as a bird to be as hateful and misogynistic as he wants to be. That said, if people object to his speech and communicate those sentiments to his advertisers and they in turn choose to disassociate themselves from him — nobody’s rights are being infringed.

The market that conservatives claim to love so much, is in fact working.

Washington Redskins Give Up Future Of The Washington Redskins

10:18 pm EST March 10th, 2012 | Sports | 11 Comments

“I hope he poops rainbows.”

That was my first thought when I read the news that the Washington Redskins had given up their 2012, 2013 and 2014 first round draft picks for a 22 year old man who last season played for a college football team that went 10-3.

Everyone I’ve spoken to about this who watches college football assures me that Robert Griffin III is great. Maybe he is. Maybe.

But unless he is the clone of Joe Montana I fail to see how any player is worth three first round picks.

Spurned by Peyton Manning (thank God) it appears Dan Snyder has decided for the 20,000th time to give up the future of the Redskins in favor of building something that lasts. As a lifelong fan, I’m tired of it. Since the Redskins last won the Super Bowl in 1992, every team in our division except the Redskins has played in the Super Bowl.

This includes the flipping Arizona Cardinals, who aren’t even in the NFC East anymore.

The closest the Redskins have gotten has been the second round of the playoffs. Every year they put substandard product on the field and it is embarassing. There are people in their twenties who have never seen the Redskins play in the Super Bowl.

Between my birth and my fifteenth birthday the Redskins won 3 Super Bowls.

I bleed burgundy and gold, and I hope to goodness I’m totally wrong. If I am, I’ll be the first to wear an RGIII jersey and kiss his feet and argue for him to be immortalized in Canton.

Snyder better open his checkbook and get Griffin an elite wide receiver, because another year of Santana Moss isn’t going to cut it. And an offensive line to protect their new franchise QB couldn’t hurt.

But three first round picks (plus more) for an untested college quarterback from the Big 12? Ugh.

Topic: Redskins

Illegally Leaking Classified Data Isn’t “Aggressive Journalism”

10:40 am EST February 23rd, 2012 | Media | 117 Comments

ABC’s Jake Tapper makes what I think is a bad comparison here as he takes the Obama administration to task for praising “aggressive journalism” while at the same time pursuing prosecutions against those who have leaked classified data. Tapper tells White House spokesman Jay Carney that “You want aggressive journalism abroad; you just don’t want it in the United States.” But an apple is not an orange.

Leaking classified information is illegal, and you should be prosecuted for doing so. I thought the Bush administration was right to prosecute leakers like this (by the way, they were doing the leaking themselves – Bush, Scooter Libby). Even if you believe that there is a moral right to releasing the classified data, it is a crime.

Now, I’ll certainly agree that the government classifies far too much information. The way to the heart of this problem is a policy of selective classification, whereas the government currently errs in favor of far too much secrecy.

VIDEO: Who Doesn’t Need A Gun That Can Take Out A Helicopter?

5:10 pm EST February 13th, 2012 | News | 42 Comments

Yes, you can buy a gun powerful enough to take out a helicopter. Without a background check. This is insane.

Hundreds of thousands of guns are for sale, on hundreds of websites. We responded and set up meetings at popular shopping malls. We bought everything from a police-grade pistol to a semiautomatic assault rifle. We did it over and over again, even hinting that our buyer is a criminal.

Within 12 hours, we bought eight dangerous guns – even a 50-caliber weapon so powerful it could take down a helicopter.

Remember, at gun stores, background checks are required, but online – nothing. Believe it or not, in most states it’s completely legal.

The Tea Party Loves Socialism, Fakes Otherwise

11:25 am EST February 12th, 2012 | Conservative | 43 Comments

Conservatism is a fraud.

This interesting article from the NY Times backs up what many on the left have said for some time. The right is jam-packed with hypocrites when it comes to the social safety net. They aren’t, in fact, rugged individualists out of some Ayn Rand novel, but in fact just like everyone else — benefitting from the safety net they demonize as socialism.

Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government.

He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.

Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

Moron. All of them. It’s all about “mine, mine, mine” when in fact all of us are paying for their collective assistance. Conservatives claimed it was a “straw man” when President Obama talked about tea party protestors yelling that the government should get out of their social security, but it is a very real thing. Just like those Republican members of congress who described the stimulus as tyranny, but were right in front of the cameras when stimulus projects opened in their district.

I hate that these people are so hypocritical, that they’ve got an army of morons who — if they just stopped to THINK for a second, could make this country even better.