"Will the viewers who complained to the FCC about @adamlambert at the AMAs have anything to say about @pink at the #grammys?"
Answer: No. But if she did, I'm sure she'd be defended by traditional, old guard gay media... unlike Adam Lambert, who has the stab wounds in the back to prove it.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Seth Meyers
On Saturday Night Live last night:
On Friday President Obama appeared before House Republicans in a historic televised Q & A and performed so well, afterwards GOP aides said that allowing cameras to roll like that was a mistake. Come on Republicans, are you on such a Scott Brown high you thought you could take down Barack Obama by debating him? You realize debates are why he is President, right? Seriously, all you do is complain how Obama is all talk and then you invite him to a forum that is literally all talk. That's like saying lets see how tough Aquaman is once we get him in the water. I'm not saying you were out classed but the whole thing was like the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the guy charged at Indiana Jones with the sword and he just shot him.A reminder, courtesy of reader omen, that C-SPAN will rebroadcast the President's Questions at 9:40 Eastern. But if, like me, you'll be watching the only awards show that has less class than the Emmies, here's the President's bravura performance. He ought to do this every week.
Juan Cole
Exxon is more likely to take advantage of the Supreme Court's traitorous ruling than the Saudis, if only because the company's future relies on the U.S. not being energy independent. A few billion in political ads and a couple of hundred thousand more dead American soldiers are worth sustaining the addiction.
It will be interesting to see if the oil and gas corporations directly come after Green candidates in November and shape Congress in their image. I don't think that is the Saudis' style, but it is that of Exxon-Mobil and other energy giants. (The Saudis tend to lobby already-elected high officials behind the scenes rather than doing grassroots work, and in that way are the opposite of the Israel lobbies).
The other thing is that some Saudis have an interest in green energy, including the oil minister. Look up the Empty Quarter on google if you want to guess why. And, Saudi Arabia is moving forward with solar-powered water desalinization plants, which if they can be built and operated economically, might save the arid Middle East from decades of further warfare (Israel-Syria-Jordan, Yemen, Turkey-Iraq, etc. are all looming water wars waiting to happen if there isn't such a breakthrough).
So it is not actually in the Saudis' interest to prevent the USG from throwing research money at solar energy, since they will be able to produce a lot of it and continue to get rich from energy production, and because they need it themselves for effective water plants of the future.
Serena's inspiration?
The Aussies:
Williams, meanwhile, left with a satisfied grin after again defying the critics who had seen her less than brilliant play in the early rounds and who believed she would struggle to get the job done in the final. Yet again she saved her best for last, serving superbly as she moved alongside Billie Jean King on the list of all-time grand slam champions. Williams said it had been inspirational to have King watching from the stands but that the real motivation came from elsewhere. "I think everyone was [cheering] for Justine," she said. "But you know what really helped me out? This one guy was like, 'You can beat her, Justine; she's not that good.'
"I looked at that guy and I was like, 'You don't know me,' " she said, wagging a finger for extra effect. "I think I won all the games after that because that's totally rude."
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Mel Gibson's new movie
Didn't take #1 away from Avatar. Per Nikki Finke:
Way more questions surrounded the Warner Bros-distributed Edge Of Darkness starring Mel Gibson in his big screen comeback in front of the camera after an 8-year hiatus. All week Industry chatter focused on whether the director, unquestionably brilliant behind the camera, can regain the star status he enjoyed before that July 2006 drunken anti-semitic rant damaged his public image. But how this new pic performs may relate more to Mel's present day status as an aging action star whose appeal now lies mainly with older males. Produced and financed by GK Films, the Martin Campbell-directed Edge Of Darkness on Friday debuted exactly as Warner Bros expected: the studio this morning told me it received a "b+" CinemaScore and opened to $5.6 million Friday from a wide release of 3,066 theaters for what should be an $1.5M weekend. "We outperformed every vendor who projects via tracking," the WB exec said. But was that lowered expectation good enough? Well, a younger and scandal-less Gibson opened the R-rated crime story Payback to $21M back in 1999. On the other hand, maybe Mel fans who spent Friday night at Shabbos dinner will be first in line tonight for his new pic.
More John Edwards sex tape news
If you didn't believe it existed before, Rielle Hunter's affidavit will change your mind.
Still more from People:
Still more from People:
Andrew Young, the ex-aide to embattled two-time former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, says he has an alleged sex tape depicting the former senator and his then-mistress Rielle Hunter – and that the tape is in a safe-deposit box.In other news, Dave Matthews says he would have refused to play at a recently widowed President John Edwards' Rose Garden reception following his marriage to Rielle Hunter:
"We were offered millions for that stupid tape," he tells PEOPLE. He says he and his wife Cheri found the tape in "a box of trash filled with crinkled paper and tapes" left behind by Hunter. He says they never considered selling it: "We couldn't live with ourselves."
"He didn't ask me," Dave told Access Hollywood.
And if he had, it would have cost him:
"I would make a fair bet that I would have said no to such an offer," Dave smiled.
"Or, I would have charged him some incredible amount of money," Dave added with a chuckle.
Mark Anthony Neal
Professor of Black Popular Culture at Duke University and one heck of a writer, responsible for that Teddy Pendergrass quote and this one on Richard Pryor:
Remembering Teddy Pendergrass
Yet another singer whose life was destroyed by black homophobia. Luther Vandross, Sylvester and Donnie Hathaway might have been waiting to receive him with their hands outstretched at the pearly gates. Without the vicious community watching, he might have reached out.
Students
Are students:
President Obama visited the Verizon Center today to watch the basketball game between Georgetown and Duke, where the Hoyas are up 46-33 at the half.The President's play-by-play here.
POTUS is sitting just feet from the court in a cushioned folding chair, pool reports, just to the right of a line of shirtless students in gray and blue body paint screaming out their support for the home team.
After one of those fans began a r-rated chant following a referee’s call he disapproved of, another student cut him off: "Dude, the President of the United States is right there!"
Oprah and Leno
This was the most interesting part of the exchange, more for what it reveals about Oprah than what it does about Jay:
Friday, January 29, 2010
Andrew Young on 20/20 tonight!
No, not the former U.N. ambassador and mayor of Atlanta who once said in support of Hillary Clinton that Bill had "gone with more black women than Barack."
It's the Andrew Young who just wrote his memoirs of the John Edwards campaign. With any luck, Babs will be doing the interview.
UPDATE: Damn, no Barbara Walters. She'll be doing the Jenny Sanford interview next week.
It's the Andrew Young who just wrote his memoirs of the John Edwards campaign. With any luck, Babs will be doing the interview.
UPDATE: Damn, no Barbara Walters. She'll be doing the Jenny Sanford interview next week.
Which states voted Democratic in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008?
I count 17: CA, WA, OR, MN, WI, IL, MI, PA, NY, ME, MA, VT, CT, RI, NJ, DE, MD.
Multiply 17 by 2, and you have 34 senators who come from reliably blue states. The other 26 are in for a re-election fight every time, unless they've achieved sufficient stature to achieve re-election in a state like Robert Byrd's West Virginia, where Bush won by about 15 points.
Then there are other cases like Byron Dorgan and Tom Daschle: moderates who are downright radical relative to states that went for Bush by 20+ points. These senators have stature, but the nature of their states means that when they are faced with a tough political environment and/or a well known opponent, they're in trouble. Bush's landslide, coupled with a tough opponent, the state's sole congressman, killed Daschle's re-election hopes. All the pork he brought to his state as Senate majority leader was forgotten in the onslaught.
Something similar happened recently to Byron Dorgan. He won re-election even in 2004 by a 68-32 margin but with token opposition. This year's poisonous climate for Democratic encouraged incumbent GOP governor John Hoeven to make a run for it, and polling had Dorgan down by 20 points. He retired from the Senate.
All of which is to say that progressives' anger about Senate Democrats is partly about the Founding Fathers, who gave one-congressman states like North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska as many senators as California, which has 50-60 times their population. There are more solid red states than solid blue states, and each has two senators. The few Democrats from those solidly red states are never safe, as Daschle, Dorgan and so many others tragically attest to.
And that's one reason Democrats find it difficult to find even 50 senators for genuine progressive change in the Senate, much less 60.
Yes, it sucks. If you don't like it, get some petitions together to amend the constitution to ban the Senate or make its representation population-proportionate. Of course, you'll never get the 67 senators required to get that amendment through the Senate. So you'll have to get enough states to assent to that amendment on their own (not that you could, because there are too many small states) and trigger a constitutional convention, something the extreme right has pushed for decades, to rewrite the entire Constitution. Such an event might or might not ban the Senate. The only thing we can be sure of is that it would ban gay marriage.
A proportional representation, parliamentary system of government with an elected President, perhaps along the French model, is what the left blogosphere is really pushing for. It's hardly an awful model, but like any constitutional edifice, its corollaries will structure future outcomes, as surely as ours has.
The bottom line is that at least part of what all of us hate about American politics derives not from our horribly corrupt campaign financing regime but the Constitution itself. Put the two together, and you have 2009. And 1994. But not 1980. Jimmy Carter screwed up his Presidency all by himself.
Multiply 17 by 2, and you have 34 senators who come from reliably blue states. The other 26 are in for a re-election fight every time, unless they've achieved sufficient stature to achieve re-election in a state like Robert Byrd's West Virginia, where Bush won by about 15 points.
Then there are other cases like Byron Dorgan and Tom Daschle: moderates who are downright radical relative to states that went for Bush by 20+ points. These senators have stature, but the nature of their states means that when they are faced with a tough political environment and/or a well known opponent, they're in trouble. Bush's landslide, coupled with a tough opponent, the state's sole congressman, killed Daschle's re-election hopes. All the pork he brought to his state as Senate majority leader was forgotten in the onslaught.
Something similar happened recently to Byron Dorgan. He won re-election even in 2004 by a 68-32 margin but with token opposition. This year's poisonous climate for Democratic encouraged incumbent GOP governor John Hoeven to make a run for it, and polling had Dorgan down by 20 points. He retired from the Senate.
All of which is to say that progressives' anger about Senate Democrats is partly about the Founding Fathers, who gave one-congressman states like North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska as many senators as California, which has 50-60 times their population. There are more solid red states than solid blue states, and each has two senators. The few Democrats from those solidly red states are never safe, as Daschle, Dorgan and so many others tragically attest to.
And that's one reason Democrats find it difficult to find even 50 senators for genuine progressive change in the Senate, much less 60.
Yes, it sucks. If you don't like it, get some petitions together to amend the constitution to ban the Senate or make its representation population-proportionate. Of course, you'll never get the 67 senators required to get that amendment through the Senate. So you'll have to get enough states to assent to that amendment on their own (not that you could, because there are too many small states) and trigger a constitutional convention, something the extreme right has pushed for decades, to rewrite the entire Constitution. Such an event might or might not ban the Senate. The only thing we can be sure of is that it would ban gay marriage.
A proportional representation, parliamentary system of government with an elected President, perhaps along the French model, is what the left blogosphere is really pushing for. It's hardly an awful model, but like any constitutional edifice, its corollaries will structure future outcomes, as surely as ours has.
The bottom line is that at least part of what all of us hate about American politics derives not from our horribly corrupt campaign financing regime but the Constitution itself. Put the two together, and you have 2009. And 1994. But not 1980. Jimmy Carter screwed up his Presidency all by himself.
"The Proof's In The Poll Results"
Scott Rasmussen has every right to crow about the accuracy of his results. That's particularly true when his results are compared to old media pollsters, who, unlike Democrat-identified PPP and Republican Rasmussen, failed to identify the shift in the Coakley/Brown race. Democrats ought to criticize themselves rather than Rasmussen's partisan but otherwise damn good polling outfit.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The iPad won't just change bookselling
It will change the book itself:
Looking out to the future, I think the odds favor the iPad. As an author myself (of a book about a sixties film producer), the idea of converting my dead tree book to something with short film clips and even musical examples makes me giddy. As a consumer, I'll want to get books that have those kinds of features.
In the early days of technology, new inventions tend to mimic the old. The TV was really a small movie screen, with radio quality audio. In fact, a lot of early TV was really old radio shows repackaged with pictures, i.e. Jack Benny and the Lone Ranger.
The Kindle mimics the book reading experience. It does it well, with a crisp display and an easy-to-use interface. Apple seems to want to take the experience beyond just mimicking a book, to create a new experience. Publishers will have to extend themselves to meet those goals, and so will authors.
In the short term, these gradual changes will be invisible, and I'll happily keep using my Kindle. In the long term, devices like the iPad will win us over and evolve our relationship with our media, just as the iPod did.
It has begun
The biggest pro-Saudi administration ever appointed Scalito and Roberts to the Supreme Court.
In Citizens United, the Republican justices sold America out to every foreign corporation that's willing to pay to play .
Who's the first to pay? Who else? The Saudis. And whose 2010 campaigns will they fund? The Republicans.
Are Democrats smart enough to tie the stench of foreign money to treason and opposition to energy independence, and tar the Republicans with all three? Don't hold your breath.
In Citizens United, the Republican justices sold America out to every foreign corporation that's willing to pay to play .
Who's the first to pay? Who else? The Saudis. And whose 2010 campaigns will they fund? The Republicans.
Are Democrats smart enough to tie the stench of foreign money to treason and opposition to energy independence, and tar the Republicans with all three? Don't hold your breath.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Josh Marshall
SOTU reaction:
9:35 PM: Listening to this litany, I'm reminded how Republicans are on the wrong side -- just politically, let alone on policy -- of most signature issues in a populist economic moment. I think there were zero Republicans standing up on any part of Obama's financial reform agenda -- something that polls exceedingly well in addition to being good public policy.
CBS Instapoll results
Positive would be an understatement:
• 83% of speech watchers approve of the proposals the president made in his speech tonight. 17% Disapprove.
• 70% of speech watchers think Barack Obama shares the same priorities for the country as they do. 57% thought so before the speech.
• 59% of speech watchers think that Barack Obama has a clear plan for creating jobs. 40% thought so before the speech.
• 72% of speech watchers approve of Barack Obama's plans for dealing with government spending. 28% Disapprove. .
• 56% of speech watchers think Barack Obama's economic plans will reduce the budget deficit in the long run, and 71% think they will help ordinary Americans.
Liveblogging the State of the Union
9:06 POTUS in the house.
9:08 John Roberts' tight smile as he greets Barack Obama whose inauguration he fouled up, and whose presidency he seeks to undo.
9:09 A courtly bow to the Speaker.
9:11 Where's Joe Wilson tonight?
9:12 Starts off weighty: history and words of unity. Good move.
9:13 Tim Geithner looks shocked to find out that one out of ten Americans is out of work. He doesn't know any of them!
9:15 Why is Wall Street being rewarded? Americans are tired of the partisanship and the pettiness. Americans want Democrats and Republicans to work through their differences. This is, of course, what Obama does best. And it is a different way of working through the populist moment. This is what independents want to hear.
9:16 Great all-American stuff. Even Republicans have to stand up for this. The justices stand up but don't applaud. Because, you know, they're above politics... except when they select a president.
9:18 "We all hated the bank bailout." Carl Levin and Dianne Feinstein stand up and applaud. Obama defends the bailout. Geithner smiles beatifically.
9:19 Nelson doesn't applaud for the fee on the banks. Lieberman has his hands together, but isn't quite sure whether to applaud or not. Depends which party he'll be part of in 2012.
9:21 Obama details his tax cuts. "I thought I'd get some applause for that one." Confused Republicans, slow on the take, don't know what to do.
9:23 If Eric Cantor is going to be in the first row of congressional Republicans, he should try to look a bit less smug.
9:24 "Jobs should be our focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight." Republicans might regret their standing ovation.
9:26 Take $30 billion of the TARP money and help lend to small businesses via community banks. Republicans, intent on looking partisan, stay seated. Bad move.
9:27 Eliminate capital gains tax on small business. Whoa.
9:28 Put Americans to work by building infrastructure. If the Preident had spent the stimulus package on concrete projects and let the states go bankrupt, at least Americans would have given him credit for the jobs. Have you noticed how when you go to a national park, people mention FDR when you notice the trails? Obama won't get any credit for the stimulus jobs. This is a belated realization of that huge strategic error.
9:29 "How long should America put its future on hold... China isn't waiting." These nations are rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making investments in clean energy.... Well I do not accept second place for the United States of America." Good stuff.
9:32 What does that mean? First, financial reform. The lobbyists are trying to kill banking reform. If the bill doesn't fix the problem, "I will send it back until we get it right."
9:35 Republicans stand up for nuclear power. Of course. Is there anything Mr. Burns likes that they wouldn't stand for?
9:36 The nation that leads clean economy will lead the global economy. And America must be that nation.
This is so much the speech the President should have given last year. These were the themes he campaigned on, but he never tied his first year strategy back to his campaign. Today, he is finally beginning to.
9:37 A focus on exports. That should be easier with a worthless currency.
9:39 A shout out to Bush's Colombia free trade bill delights Republicans. An arcane reference that few will get.
9:40 Now we get to the education section. Education as an anti-poverty program. Again, the strategy of this speech is to link every initiative back to the economy. Smart, smart, smart. But it would have been smarter not to have lost a year not doing so.
9:41 Kill the subsidy to banks for the student loan program. Instead, a tax credit to parents and more Pell Grants. Faster forgiveness for student loans for those who engage in public service. And colleges should cut their costs, too.
9:42 From Twitter: @marcambinder Writes Josh Green: "Obama articulates Republican policies better than Republicans do."
@pwire: Republicans sitting for popular soundbites - taxing banks, cutting taxes, stop moving jobs offshore - will be prized footage for Dem ads
@markos @mediagadfly: I enjoy how he keeps appealing to the gop's insatiable craving for global dominance
9:44 "Now let's clear a few things up." A defense of health care reform.
9:47 "I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber."
9:48 If anyone has a better plan, "Let me know. I'm eager to see it." Nice.
9:49 Oh oh, here comes the spending freeze. But first, an excellent review of Bush's financial profligacy.
9:51 My take on the freeze is that it's insubstantial, not least given all the programs the President has already announced (and his refusal to touch 80% of the budget, since he's not touching entitlements and can't touch interest). It's his way of using a Republican tactic: repeat something often enough and people will believe it's true. Did he leave defense out of what won't be touched? I can think of some military bases in South Carolina, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi that might be worth closing.
9:53 "This can't be a Washington gimmick." Nice one, Mr. President. "I refuse to pass this problem to another generation of Americans." He's used a similar line on all the other pressing problems, but the truth is health care does more for the long term debt problem than any of this stuff.
9:55 We didn't do anything for eight years, thinking our problems would go away. A vicious slam at the Bush years.
9:57 We face more than a deficit of dollars but a deficit of trust. But we can't stop there. Lobbyist disclosure. For White House and Congress.
9:58 The President gives Kennedy and Roberts a good scolding for selling the country out to foreign corporations. The Court knows the President knows what he's doing and why, but it's fun to watch anyway. A tired Ginsburg looks stoic, but you know she must have enjoyed it.
9:59 Publish all earmarks. No one outside the Beltway knows what an earmark is.
10:00 "What frustrates the people is a Washington where every day is election day." Great, great stuff. "I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics."
10:02 "Saying 'no' to everything may be good short term politics, but it is not leadership."
10:03 Obama pivots to security.
10:06 "We will have all our combat troops out of Iraq by this August."
10:07 "This war has ended. And all of our troops are coming home."
10:09 Following in Kennedy and Reagan's footsteps on nuclear weapons. Nice.
10:10 Iran's leaders "too will face growing consequences." From whom? Vague wording, deliberate no doubt.
10:12 538 tweets: "Republican refusal to stand up & clap for centrist policies that poll at 70%+ shows why they don't have 2010 locked up by any means."
10:13 We're all created equal. DADT coming? My civil rights division "is once again prosecuting civil rights violation and employment discrimination." Slam!
10:13 Military does not react to the call for the end of DADT. Bad optics, but I'm not sure for whom.
10:16 "I campaigned on change... I never said change would be easy, or that I could do it alone." The easiest thing is to play it safe. If people had done that 50 years ago, "we wouldn't be here tonight." He evokes Bill Clinton: "It's nothing compared" to what regular Americans have suffered over the last year. Patrick Kennedy in tears.
10:20 "We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize the moment."
This was as good a reset we hoped for. I give it an A. But between DADT, the end of the Iraq War, a call for a tax on banks, a call to finish health care reform, clean energy, and a jobs bill, it's safe to say that most of the left on the blogosphere will give it an F.
9:08 John Roberts' tight smile as he greets Barack Obama whose inauguration he fouled up, and whose presidency he seeks to undo.
9:09 A courtly bow to the Speaker.
9:11 Where's Joe Wilson tonight?
9:12 Starts off weighty: history and words of unity. Good move.
9:13 Tim Geithner looks shocked to find out that one out of ten Americans is out of work. He doesn't know any of them!
9:15 Why is Wall Street being rewarded? Americans are tired of the partisanship and the pettiness. Americans want Democrats and Republicans to work through their differences. This is, of course, what Obama does best. And it is a different way of working through the populist moment. This is what independents want to hear.
9:16 Great all-American stuff. Even Republicans have to stand up for this. The justices stand up but don't applaud. Because, you know, they're above politics... except when they select a president.
9:18 "We all hated the bank bailout." Carl Levin and Dianne Feinstein stand up and applaud. Obama defends the bailout. Geithner smiles beatifically.
9:19 Nelson doesn't applaud for the fee on the banks. Lieberman has his hands together, but isn't quite sure whether to applaud or not. Depends which party he'll be part of in 2012.
9:21 Obama details his tax cuts. "I thought I'd get some applause for that one." Confused Republicans, slow on the take, don't know what to do.
9:23 If Eric Cantor is going to be in the first row of congressional Republicans, he should try to look a bit less smug.
9:24 "Jobs should be our focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight." Republicans might regret their standing ovation.
9:26 Take $30 billion of the TARP money and help lend to small businesses via community banks. Republicans, intent on looking partisan, stay seated. Bad move.
9:27 Eliminate capital gains tax on small business. Whoa.
9:28 Put Americans to work by building infrastructure. If the Preident had spent the stimulus package on concrete projects and let the states go bankrupt, at least Americans would have given him credit for the jobs. Have you noticed how when you go to a national park, people mention FDR when you notice the trails? Obama won't get any credit for the stimulus jobs. This is a belated realization of that huge strategic error.
9:29 "How long should America put its future on hold... China isn't waiting." These nations are rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making investments in clean energy.... Well I do not accept second place for the United States of America." Good stuff.
9:32 What does that mean? First, financial reform. The lobbyists are trying to kill banking reform. If the bill doesn't fix the problem, "I will send it back until we get it right."
9:35 Republicans stand up for nuclear power. Of course. Is there anything Mr. Burns likes that they wouldn't stand for?
9:36 The nation that leads clean economy will lead the global economy. And America must be that nation.
This is so much the speech the President should have given last year. These were the themes he campaigned on, but he never tied his first year strategy back to his campaign. Today, he is finally beginning to.
9:37 A focus on exports. That should be easier with a worthless currency.
9:39 A shout out to Bush's Colombia free trade bill delights Republicans. An arcane reference that few will get.
9:40 Now we get to the education section. Education as an anti-poverty program. Again, the strategy of this speech is to link every initiative back to the economy. Smart, smart, smart. But it would have been smarter not to have lost a year not doing so.
9:41 Kill the subsidy to banks for the student loan program. Instead, a tax credit to parents and more Pell Grants. Faster forgiveness for student loans for those who engage in public service. And colleges should cut their costs, too.
9:42 From Twitter: @marcambinder Writes Josh Green: "Obama articulates Republican policies better than Republicans do."
@pwire: Republicans sitting for popular soundbites - taxing banks, cutting taxes, stop moving jobs offshore - will be prized footage for Dem ads
@markos @mediagadfly: I enjoy how he keeps appealing to the gop's insatiable craving for global dominance
9:44 "Now let's clear a few things up." A defense of health care reform.
9:47 "I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber."
9:48 If anyone has a better plan, "Let me know. I'm eager to see it." Nice.
9:49 Oh oh, here comes the spending freeze. But first, an excellent review of Bush's financial profligacy.
9:51 My take on the freeze is that it's insubstantial, not least given all the programs the President has already announced (and his refusal to touch 80% of the budget, since he's not touching entitlements and can't touch interest). It's his way of using a Republican tactic: repeat something often enough and people will believe it's true. Did he leave defense out of what won't be touched? I can think of some military bases in South Carolina, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi that might be worth closing.
9:53 "This can't be a Washington gimmick." Nice one, Mr. President. "I refuse to pass this problem to another generation of Americans." He's used a similar line on all the other pressing problems, but the truth is health care does more for the long term debt problem than any of this stuff.
9:55 We didn't do anything for eight years, thinking our problems would go away. A vicious slam at the Bush years.
9:57 We face more than a deficit of dollars but a deficit of trust. But we can't stop there. Lobbyist disclosure. For White House and Congress.
9:58 The President gives Kennedy and Roberts a good scolding for selling the country out to foreign corporations. The Court knows the President knows what he's doing and why, but it's fun to watch anyway. A tired Ginsburg looks stoic, but you know she must have enjoyed it.
9:59 Publish all earmarks. No one outside the Beltway knows what an earmark is.
10:00 "What frustrates the people is a Washington where every day is election day." Great, great stuff. "I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics."
10:02 "Saying 'no' to everything may be good short term politics, but it is not leadership."
10:03 Obama pivots to security.
10:06 "We will have all our combat troops out of Iraq by this August."
10:07 "This war has ended. And all of our troops are coming home."
10:09 Following in Kennedy and Reagan's footsteps on nuclear weapons. Nice.
10:10 Iran's leaders "too will face growing consequences." From whom? Vague wording, deliberate no doubt.
10:12 538 tweets: "Republican refusal to stand up & clap for centrist policies that poll at 70%+ shows why they don't have 2010 locked up by any means."
10:13 We're all created equal. DADT coming? My civil rights division "is once again prosecuting civil rights violation and employment discrimination." Slam!
10:13 Military does not react to the call for the end of DADT. Bad optics, but I'm not sure for whom.
10:16 "I campaigned on change... I never said change would be easy, or that I could do it alone." The easiest thing is to play it safe. If people had done that 50 years ago, "we wouldn't be here tonight." He evokes Bill Clinton: "It's nothing compared" to what regular Americans have suffered over the last year. Patrick Kennedy in tears.
10:20 "We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize the moment."
This was as good a reset we hoped for. I give it an A. But between DADT, the end of the Iraq War, a call for a tax on banks, a call to finish health care reform, clean energy, and a jobs bill, it's safe to say that most of the left on the blogosphere will give it an F.
The John Edwards sex tape
Oh. My. God.
"It is not a coincidence that John announced that Francis Quinn is his biological daughter with Rielle," said the source. "He knows many secrets are coming out this week and with the book. There will be a lot of surprising things revealed over the next few weeks."Still more:
The source said Young believes the sex video, which he described as very graphic, was filmed when Hunter was already pregnant.
The insider also said that Edwards will do his best never to let it be seen, unless he needs the money.
Young reveals Hunter also woke up in Edwards' bed after he kicked off his campaign in New Orleans. She told Young she felt "just like his First Lady."And she did rescue the world... from a John Edwards Cabinet post.
Hunter gave frequent, cringe-inducing accounts of sex with the man she called "Love Lips." And she became increasingly demanding as she went into hiding to bear Edwards' child, Young writes in the book, out Tuesday from Thomas Dunne Books.
Young describes Edwards as "barely under control" the first time the two men discussed Hunter's pregnancy.
Edwards called Hunter a "crazy slut" and questioned who fathered the baby. He asked Young to help talk her into an abortion, but she wanted the baby. She believed the child was the reincarnated spirit of a Buddhist monk who would rescue the world.
Sitting at the intersection of technology and liberal arts
Quite a sales pitch.
11:30: "Do we have what it takes to establish a third category of products?" Jobs asks. "We think we've got the goods. We think we've done it." One reason why: more than 75 million people "already know how to use the iPad," thanks to them buying iPhones or iPod touches. Another: Apple has more than 125 million accounts on the iTunes Store and App Store all enabled for one-click buying, which ought to help grease the skids for the iBooks store.
11:34: Jobs delivers his closing argument--"It's our most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device at an unbelievable price"--and offers his thesis of Apple's role as sitting at "the intersection of technology and liberal arts." Then he invites the audience to a hands-on area next door to try out an iPad. So that's my next move--and that's a wrap for the event. Post your questions in the comments and I'll see what I can get answered.
The rewards of conciliation
Obama picks Bush's Fed chief. Republicans now get to play the populist card against a man they voted to confirm. Left holding the bag? Why, the President, of course. And the Democratic legislators who back him.
The President should ditch Geithner and Bernanke by 5 pm, announce their high-profile replacements, and go massively populist tonight. It's time to see some vision and firmness from a President who seems to have lost both. He may not have another chance to (positively) change perceptions of his leadership before the election.
Republican senator said Tuesday that documents showing Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernake covered up the fact that his staff recommended he not bailout AIG are being kept from the public. And a House Republican charged that a whistleblower had alerted Congress to specific documents provide "troubling details" of Bernanke's role in the AIG bailout.The Fed chief isn't evil but he's hardly indispensable. And there's no political upside to his renomination.
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), a Bernanke critic, said on CNBC that he has seen documents showing that Bernanke overruled such a recommendation. If that's the case, it raises questions about whether bailing out AIG was actually necessary, and what Bernanke's motives were.
The President should ditch Geithner and Bernanke by 5 pm, announce their high-profile replacements, and go massively populist tonight. It's time to see some vision and firmness from a President who seems to have lost both. He may not have another chance to (positively) change perceptions of his leadership before the election.
Some first iPad thoughts
From ExploreMusic's Alan Cross:
• You do have to admit that the thing does look cool. And to think that the cheapest one will cost less ($499 USD) than I paid for my 20GB iPod back in the day.
• There are over 75 million iPhones and iPod Touches in the wild, so that means 75 million people already know how to use this thing. And with 125 million iTunes accounts and more than 12 billion downloads, the audience is there.
• I’m surprised that there was no connection to the cloud. I would have bet that after the Lala purchase, Apple would have made your iTunes purchases available to you wherever you are. I thought that might be the One More Thing announcement. No dice. Not right now, anyway.
• No TV subscriptions. That’s coming, though, once the TV networks realize where things are going. That means no watching ExploreMusic-TV on Aux-TV. Not yet, anyway.
• This is the real beginning of the end for traditional printed music magazines. Circulation has been sliding for years now as people moved to the Internet for their music info and gossip. I can’t wait to see how (if?) mags like Rolling Stone, Q, Mojo and all the rest of them adapt. No more waiting for that monthly issue. And no more being two months behind when it comes to the UK publications. Can you imagine music magazines that update constantly?
Conclusion? If there’s one thing we’ve learned since the Regency TR-1—the very first transistor radio in 1954—it’s not the device itself, but it’s what the device allows us to do and the behaviors that result. Continue to expect many unintended and unforeseen consequences.
Don't get rid of the phone
Get rid of the mistress!
At the beginning of Edwards' relationship with Hunter, Young claims Elizabeth was aware of her husband's previous affairs and developed an elaborate system to keep tabs on him.
"She would call his room in the middle of the night to make sure he was there. She would put up acronyms for whoever would call in so that a casual woman or whatever couldn't get through and she would change them regularly. She would leave instructions at the hotel front desk for a woman not to be transferred other than her into his room," Young told ABC News.
Young said she would even monitor the cell phone records of Edwards' staff.
"That's how he started using my phone, or he would call my phone and I would do a three-way call into Rielle's phone so that Elizabeth couldn't see that he was talking to Rielle," Young said. "She would call me and say, 'Why were you and John talking for an hour?' And I would say, 'Basketball.'"
Edwards also had a "secret" cell phone, according to Young, which was called "the bat phone." Young said he typically answered the phone and took the phone at night for safe keeping, but in October 2006, when Edwards returned from a five-day trip to Uganda with Hunter, Elizabeth answered a call and heard a woman's voice on the line.
"[Edwards] went to bed and Elizabeth answered the phone and didn't say anything and Rielle just started saying lovey-dovey ... They [the Edwards] had a knock down brawl & He said that Elizabeth made him call the number back immediately and supposedly end the affair. And, of course, he used my phone to call [Hunter] to tell her it was ok," recalled Young.
At that point, Young told ABC News Elizabeth must not have known who was on the phone because for "several months after that, Rielle's name was on the daily schedule traveling with the senator."
Professors who can't teach?
John Judis on the spending freeze:
First, if it was done to appease bond traders (where have we have heard that before?), it is ridiculous. Interest rates aren’t exactly soaring these days. It is not 1993. Second, whatever the administration’s motive--whether it was to appease bond traders or tea-partiers--and whether the effect on the actual budget is large or small, the administration’s announcement is an admission of abject failure. Obama was, after all, a professor, as were two of his main economic advisors, Larry Summers and Christina Romer, but in the past year, they have failed utterly to explain to Americans (let alone the bond traders) how deficits function in recessions. Yes, it is hard to do so, but no harder than it was for Ronald Reagan to explain to middle class Americans how regressive tax cuts would actually benefit them. For better or worse--and mostly the latter--Reagan actually tried to explain to Americans what his policies were about. The Obama administration has abdicated. Where are the charts? The graphs? The ads that patiently explain deficits and recessions? The stories, the anecdotes? And it’s not just the budget. It’s the health care plan as well. Or the need for financial regulation. Obama turns out to be a wonderful orator, but, to date, a lousy professor.
Big surprise
Seven Democratic senators and Lieberman come out against reconciliation, including one I hadn't counted on when I made my list, Mark Begich of Alaska. I always figured he knew he was a one-termer and therefore, incorrectly, assumed his vote.
Seven Senate Democrats and one independent, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, cautioned that they were wary of using reconciliation to push ahead with health care reform. Some said the maneuver would show Americans that Democrats had not learned from the Massachusetts election.That leaves us with 52 Democratic senators, and that's not counting Carper, Webb, Hagan, Johnson, Warner, and Baucus. Lose three of those six, and reconciliation is out.
Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu said she was “leaning against supporting” reconciliation, unless it is used narrowly. “But it would have to be completely transparent and advertised well in advance what those changes are.”
Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, perhaps the most endangered Democrat up for reelection this year, issued a statement saying she “will fight against any attempts to push through changes” to the Senate bill through reconciliation.
“I will not accept any last-minute efforts to force changes to health insurance reform issues through budget reconciliation, and neither will Arkansans,” Lincoln said.
Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor said reconciliation is “certainly not my first choice. I’m not real wild about using that procedure that way.” If it came down to killing health care reform or using reconciliation, Pryor said he will “cross that bridge when I get to it.”
Alaska Sen. Mark Begich said he had “strong reservations.” Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson said Democrats should pass a series of smaller health care bills, and Lieberman said Democrats needed to reach out one last time to Republicans before moving ahead with reconciliation.
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill said she would not rule out supporting reconciliation. But, she said, she was “not open” to using the maneuver for a comprehensive fix to the Senate bill. And regarding the more narrow, two-step process envisioned by Democratic leaders, McCaskill said: “I don’t think it’s a good idea.”
A scaled-back approach is the path she said she favors. “I think it is better for us to take a bite at the apple that is substantial but not as big.”
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Employee Free Choice Act is dead
Thanks to Massaschusetts union members who voted for Scott Brown. This turns out to be fairly important, after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision gave unions an unrestricted right to support individual candidates. The death of EFCA effectively ends their bid for more influence in American politics, at the time they could least afford it.
In fairness, corporate Democrats like Blanche Lincoln did much to damage the bill's prospects months ago. But it's hard to see even a diluted version moving forward now.
In fairness, corporate Democrats like Blanche Lincoln did much to damage the bill's prospects months ago. But it's hard to see even a diluted version moving forward now.
You think cell phones are safe?
You might want to think again. A simply horrifying article in February's GQ.
New Orleans Saints fans' biggest conundrum
Party here or party there?
For those like Curtis Paulina of Abita Springs, who's roughing it at a state park in North Miami Beach with a satellite dish and a flat screen, getting tickets is not even the priority.It surely is.
"It feels like I've got to be with them in that town, whether I'm at the game or not," he said.
Yet many Saints loyalists stood their ground, wondering how any party in South Florida could measure up to a hometown bash during the heart of Carnival season, where brass bands and impromptu street parades are a given. For them, it's less about the actual game and more about feeling the indomitable spirit of the city behind the team.
"You can give me tickets and I wouldn't go," said Dean Kliebert of Mandeville, finishing up a late lunch at Parkway Bakery and Tavern in Mid-City. "We've been through so much " and now it's here. It's like, I wouldn't want to be in any other place." [...]
One of the skeptics was Uptown resident Tim Duncan, Paulina's co-worker at a New Orleans engineering firm.
Over a long lunch at a packed Parkway Tavern Monday afternoon, Duncan and his family said they knew the real party would be in New Orleans. They simply want a redo of last week's NFC Championship game, a potluck with friends in their living room near Audubon Park. Miami, he said, won't have a chance to compete.
"It's a catharsis," Duncan said. "For everyone to hunker home or go to friends' houses and say, 'Look, we rebuilt our house, this is where we are, we're watching the Super Bowl five years after Katrina. We're back.' That's a big deal."
Reconciliation: the road to 50
Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson say no,. With Lieberman off the bus, that brings us down to 56 who'll even consider it. As I've written earlier, I don't see 50 votes for anything but the slightest of sweetening, especially once the media starts calling it "the nuclear option."
The Supreme Court and Jewish-American politics
Interesting:
James Besser talks to a political scientist about the decision, and how it will affect American Jews. His argument, and it sounds valid, is that the influx of direct corporate spending will dilute the power of interest groups—including Jewish ones—that, under the current system, take in money and then spend it where and how they choose. Moreover, the sheer amount of money now likely to come into the system from corporations will minimize the impact of individual donations. Besser paraphrases:Jews are big political givers, based mostly on the issue of Israel—but that could quickly be dwarfed by the mega-millions corporations are now likely to spend in pursuit of their special interests, starting with profits and limiting government regulation, he said.You could go a step further: arguably, those interests whose groups were the most powerful beforehand actually stand the most to lose from the decision. They have a farther distance to fall. Which would, given their current power, be bad for the Jews.
Jewish campaign givers aren’t going away and Jewish political clout isn’t in jeopardy. But there’s little question this week’s Supreme Court decision will transform American electoral politics by adding to the campaign finance muscle of the biggest corporations—and diluting the influence of everybody else. And that includes Jewish and pro-Israel givers.
Monday, January 25, 2010
SRWare Iron
Why use it instead of Google Chrome?
The following features are built into or enabled by default in Google Chrome, but are removed or disabled by default in Iron:Download it here.
A unique ID for identifying the user.
A timestamp of when the browser was installed.
RLZ identifier, an encoded string sent to Google on search queries or every 24 hours.
Google-hosted error pages when a server isn't found.
Automatic address bar search suggestions.
Bug tracking system, sends information about crashes or errors.
Google Updater automatic installation.
DNS pre-fetching is disabled by default.
Does not load a Google search page a few seconds after the browser opens.
Deadly Haitian Quake in the Seismically Active Caribbean - NYTimes.com
Where's the next big quake going to be ? Not far from the last one:
But about 100 miles to the northeast is a long segment of a similar fault, the Septentrional, that has not had a quake in 800 years. Researchers have estimated that a rupture along that segment — and again, they have no idea when one might occur — could result in a magnitude 7.5 quake that could cause severe damage in the Dominican Republic’s second-largest city, Santiago, and the surrounding Cibao Valley, together home to several million people.
Barack Herbert Hoover Obama?
Brad DeLong finally loses it over Obama's deficit reduction plan.
As one deficit-hawk journalist of my acquaintance says this evening, this is a perfect example of the fundamental unseriousness of Barack Obama and his administration: rather than make proposals that will actually tackle the long-term deficit in a serious way--either through future tax increases triggered by excessive deficits or through future entitlement spending caps triggered by excessive deficits--he comes up with a proposal that does short-term harm to the economy as an alternative to tackling the deficit in any serious and significant way.This comes on the heels of Paul Krugman's equally devastating told-you-so.
As another points out, it is hard to imagine a less competent legislative operation: it would be one thing to offer a short-term discretionary spending freeze (or long-run entitlement caps) in return for fifteen Republican senators signing on to revenue enhancement triggers. It's quite another to negotiate against yourself by attacking employment in the short term. The fact that the unemployment rate is projected to remain stable over the next year means that there is a 30% chance it will go down, a 40% chance it will stay about the same, and a 30% chance that it will go up--and whatever it turns out to do, the administration's budget has just given it an extra 0.5% bump upwards.
The politics of Bernanke
Scenarios:
1. Bernanke reaches 60 plus votes across party lines, no filibuster. Victory for the President, kind of, since supporting him is already a sign of being with the banks. Victory for Senate Republicans, who get to say they are bipartisan on everything but matters of principle, like healthcare.
2. Bernanke is filibustered, Republicans provide the critical votes to get him past 60. Pyrrhic victory for the President, victory for Senate Republicans, whether or not they backed his renomination.
3. Bernanke is filibustered by Democrats and Republicans together. A defeat for the President on the eve or just after of his attempt to regain control of national debate with the State of the Union. A victory for individual Democrats and Republicans who face re-election or primary challenges in 2010, like Barbara Boxer and John McCain.
4. The President pulls the Bernanke nomination. A defeat for the President, but if he drops Geithner simultaneously in favor of economists who are not seen as Wall Street stooges, this could be huge moment in reshaping of his and the Democratic Party's image. Senate Republicans still win for killing the nomination, but the country wins, not only in terms of better policy outcomes, but because a Fed chair appointed by a Democratic president might be at least somewhat take into account the 2012 political cycle in her decisionmaking.
When you renominate a Bush holdover and Republicans go populist on you for backing him, you've already lost, politically. The President has no winning move here. The best thing to do is to pull the nomination, citing Republican opposition (so that the President comes away looking somewhat bipartisan), and then name someone who won't cause a market crash but a) doesn't look like a Wall Street whore and b) didn't have a hand in causing the 2008 meltdown.
Probabilities: Option 1, 53%. Option 2, 41.9%. Option 3, 5% Option 4: 0.1%
1. Bernanke reaches 60 plus votes across party lines, no filibuster. Victory for the President, kind of, since supporting him is already a sign of being with the banks. Victory for Senate Republicans, who get to say they are bipartisan on everything but matters of principle, like healthcare.
2. Bernanke is filibustered, Republicans provide the critical votes to get him past 60. Pyrrhic victory for the President, victory for Senate Republicans, whether or not they backed his renomination.
3. Bernanke is filibustered by Democrats and Republicans together. A defeat for the President on the eve or just after of his attempt to regain control of national debate with the State of the Union. A victory for individual Democrats and Republicans who face re-election or primary challenges in 2010, like Barbara Boxer and John McCain.
4. The President pulls the Bernanke nomination. A defeat for the President, but if he drops Geithner simultaneously in favor of economists who are not seen as Wall Street stooges, this could be huge moment in reshaping of his and the Democratic Party's image. Senate Republicans still win for killing the nomination, but the country wins, not only in terms of better policy outcomes, but because a Fed chair appointed by a Democratic president might be at least somewhat take into account the 2012 political cycle in her decisionmaking.
When you renominate a Bush holdover and Republicans go populist on you for backing him, you've already lost, politically. The President has no winning move here. The best thing to do is to pull the nomination, citing Republican opposition (so that the President comes away looking somewhat bipartisan), and then name someone who won't cause a market crash but a) doesn't look like a Wall Street whore and b) didn't have a hand in causing the 2008 meltdown.
Probabilities: Option 1, 53%. Option 2, 41.9%. Option 3, 5% Option 4: 0.1%
Letter from Alan Grayson
I've been thinking a little more about the Supreme Court's decision. This ruling gives foreign powers more rights than U.S. citizens. Imagine that! Aramco, a corporation owned by the Saudi Arabian government, will have enormously more influence in choosing your senator than you will. That's one thing that I meant when I said that "if we do nothing, you can kiss this country goodbye."
This will not stand. It cannot stand. There are too many Americans who love this country and won't allow it to happen. And you are one of them.
We are making a movement. If you have a moment, join over 80,000 people and sign our petition to support the "Save Our Democracy" platform at www.SaveDemocracy.net. And then a mighty voice will rise up from the land.
This will not stand. It cannot stand. There are too many Americans who love this country and won't allow it to happen. And you are one of them.
We are making a movement. If you have a moment, join over 80,000 people and sign our petition to support the "Save Our Democracy" platform at www.SaveDemocracy.net. And then a mighty voice will rise up from the land.
Disturbing data from PPP
The Democratic Party will need to depend on its least reliable midterm voters to avert a blowout.
Congressional Democrats continue to have a higher approval rating at 32% than the 24% of their Republican colleagues, but that's mostly because Democrats are more likely to rate their own party well than Republicans are. 66% of Democrats express support for their Congressional leadership while only 50% of GOP voters do for theirs. Continuing a long running trend voters who don't like either party plan to vote Republican by a 59-20 margin, which is why the GOP can continue to be unpopular and still have successes at the polls.
Turnout from racial minorities is going to be huge for Democrats this fall because they actually trail 53-31 among white voters. The only thing keeping the generic ballot competitive is their 88-12 lead with African Americans and 67-27 one with Hispanics. Minority turnout is always important for Democrats but with their level of unpopularity among white voters right now at an extreme level it's going to be even more important than usual.
The relationship of generic ballot numbers to actual election outcomes varies from cycle to cycle but this is just another data point indicating that a GOP takeover of Congress is plausible, quite a contrast from even a few months ago.
Justice Stevens on the Republican court's lunacy
And how it sold the United States to the highest bidding enemy nation:
“The majority blazes through our precedents,” he wrote, “overruling or disavowing a body of case law” that included seven decisions.
Justice Stevens, who served in the Navy during World War II, reached back to those days to show the depth of his outrage at the majority’s conclusion that the government may not make legal distinctions based on whether a corporation or a person was doing the speaking.
“Such an assumption,” he wrote, “would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by ‘Tokyo Rose’ during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders.”
The reference to Tokyo Rose was probably lost on many of Justice Steven’s readers. But the concluding sentence of what may be his last major dissent could not have been clearer.
“While American democracy is imperfect,” he wrote, “few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”
Pence Leads Bayh by 3
Fact: Bayh has been no friend to progressives over the years. Fact: if elections were held today rather than November, Democrats could lose not just their 58 seat near-supermajority in the Senate but their 50 seat majority as well. Did you hate Lieberman and Nelson as the 59th and 60th vote? Try their being the 49th and 50th.
Bad news for Democrats
Beau Biden won't run for the Senate, which means Mike Castle has a clear path to the seat... unless incumbent Ted Kaufman changes his mind and decides to run for election in his own right, which would be fantastic.
Geithner: You better confirm Bernanke
Or the markets will fall. This is presumably tone-deaf Timmy's attempt to salvage the nomination, but it's a lot closer to sabotage.
What is Harold Ford really up to?
After today's op-ed, it's pretty obvious he doesn't even want to win the Democratic primary. Is he actually trying to pull a Lieberman and run as an independent down the road? Or is all this just an application for a fatter bonus from his current employed, Bank of America Merrill Lynch?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Maurice Ferré
Facing Kendrick Meek in the Florida Democratic Party, he's smart enough to do what Martha Coakley didn't attack an unpopular system from the left, while appearing to be principled. That's what the present political moment requires, which is why outsiders have a huge advantage right now.
This comes from a recent Ferré campaign email:
This comes from a recent Ferré campaign email:
"I am supportive of healthcare reform and believe Americans urgently need it," said Ferre. "Unfortunately, the current bills before Congress do not live up to the promises that President Obama and Democrats promised the American people in 2008."
"I formally changed my position on the pending healthcare bills in Congress because President Obama's 2008 healthcare proposal has been so badly bastardized in Congress that it's nothing better than a goldmine for special interests," said Ferre, who gave a speech reflecting his stance on health care at the South Dade Democratic Club at 7:30pm on Tuesday, before the polls closed in Massachusetts.
Ferre supports a plan that would ensure that health insurers cannot deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions or drop them mid-treatment and provide coverage to everyone regardless of sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, income, health, work or marital status.
"We need a plan that removes anti-trust exemptions, protects Medicare, and keeps costs down; a plan that allows everyone in the United States to have suitable healthcare," said Ferre.
"It is unthinkable that Congress would pass a bill that mandates all Americans buy coverage from insurers, when the discussion should have been focused on changing insurers' unscrupulous ways and lowering costs," said Ferre. "Instead, insurance companies stand to gain 30 million new customers. Campaign contributions and the fear of losing elections have led Democrats to reward failure and to miss the entire point of healthcare reform."
Outright opposition to the bill in the way Ferré frames it would have harmed Coakley, since her support for the President got her a lot the majority of late deciders. But if she had bothered to campaign and express her support for changes to existing health care legislation, she would have excited progressives, and sausage production-hating independents. And she wouldn't have lost the union vote 53-47.
Ferré is smart enough to know that this debate will be over by the time of the general election. By positioning himself as an honest outsider in tune with progressive ideals, he has (only slightly) better odds at beating Kendrick Meek in the Democratic primary and facing Crist-vanquisher Marco Rubio, in what could be a classic Senate race.
Obama: Style and Substance
Jon Meacham gets this right:
This is not an apology for the president. He has grandly failed so far in doing what presidents must do, which is to lead the nation emotionally as well as rationally. It would be great if politics were fact-based, but it is not, and it is surely not nuance-based. What works in a classroom or a think tank does not work on Capitol Hill or in the White House. Obama sometimes seems to be running the Brookings Institution, not the country.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
"Why take half a loaf when you can have a quarter?"
The case for passing the Senate bill alongside reconciliation is now made.
DeLong on blocking Bernanke
Bad move, he argues.
First, a correction to the story: it's not 60 votes, it's 51--for there are many more people who want to be on record as opposing Bernanke than who actually want the Federal Reserve to be headless on February 1.
Second, I think Boxer and Feingold have fallen into a trap. If Bernanke's nomination fails, it will be because of a combination of left Democrats and right Republicans. Why would right Republicans vote against the nomination of a Republican-appointed hard-money Republican? So that they can then vote against financial regulatory reform without taking political damage. "You are too friendly to the banks!" their opponents will say. And they will respond: "Oh yeah? Your president wanted bank-friendly Ben Bernanke to stay at the head of the Fed. AND WE BLOCKED HIM!!"
Boxer and Feingold, it seems to me, are enabling the future Republican ability to block financial reform without taking political damage from it.
Conan's goodbye
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Republican Supreme Court
First step to a Chinese and Saudi takeover of the U.S. government. Once they take over the government, they can send U.S. soldiers to fight their wars. Not that our present wars don't serve their interests as it is.
But it’s one thing for U.S. firms to have their say. What about foreign companies that operate U.S. subsidiaries? Many of these, like American businesses, are owned by ordinary shareholders — but a host of others are owned, in whole or in part, by the foreign governments themselves.
One prominent examples is CITGO Petroleum Company — once the American-born Cities Services Company, but purchased in 1990 by the Venezuelan government-owned Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. The Citizens United ruling could conceivably allow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has sharply criticized both of the past two U.S. presidents, to spend government funds to defeat an American political candidate, just by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing his target.
And it’s not just Chavez. The Saudi government owns Houston’s Saudi Refining Company and half of Motiva Enterprises. Lenovo, which bought IBM’s PC assets in 2004, is partially owned by the Chinese government’s Chinese Academy of Sciences. And Singapore’s APL Limited operates several U.S. port operations. A weakening of the limit on corporate giving could mean China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and any other country that owns companies that operate in the U.S. could also have significant sway in American electioneering.
Federal election law has long prohibited any foreign national from directly or indirectly making “an independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.” And the Supreme Court’s ruling does not explicitly address the issue of foreign corporations. However, in his dissent in Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens cautioned that the decision “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”
Some legal observers fear the ruling would open up the floodgates for any corporation operating in the United States, no matter who owns them. J. Gerald Hebert, executive director and director of litigation at the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, told the Center for Public Integrity that the existing prohibition on foreign involvement does not refer to foreign controlled domestic corporations. “With the corporate campaign expenditure ban now being declared unconstitutional, domestic corporations controlled by foreign governments or other foreign entities are free to spend money to elect or defeat federal candidates,” he believes.
Health care experts: Pass the bill
Per TPM:
Nearly four dozen of the nation's leading health care luminaries--including Jacob Hacker, the man who brought the public option to light--are urging the House of Representatives to pass the Senate health care bill, and quickly pass a separate bill to modify it: an approach favored by some members of Democratic leadership, major unions, and reform advocates.
In a stark message to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and her health care lieutenants--Reps. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Henry Waxman (D-CA), and George Miller (D-CA)--the experts say it's time for the House to act.
"Both houses of Congress have adopted legislation that would provide health coverage to tens of millions of Americans, begin to control health care costs that seriously threaten our economy, and improve the quality of health care for every American," reads a letter, obtained by TPMDC. "These bills are imperfect. Yet they represent a huge step forward in creating a more humane, effective, and sustainable health care system for every American. We have come further than we have ever come before. Only two steps remain. The House must adopt the Senate bill, and the President must sign it."
"Some differences between the bills, such as the scope of the tax on high-cost plans and the allocation of premium subsidies, should be repaired through the reconciliation process," the experts say. "Key elements of this repair enjoy broad support in both houses. Other limitations of the Senate bill can be addressed through other means."
Why were anti-abortion group quiet about Scott Brown?
Because they had a different objective:
Apart from the parental notification requirements, Brown sounds a lot like Obama (at least the iteration of his position toward the end of the 2008 campaign and into his administration). But for a Republican, that "people of good will on both sides of the issue" talk is hardly going to make the pro-life movement swoon. Yet Brown's campaign pledge to vote against abortion funding in health care reform (and, of course, his opposition to reform generally) led the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony list to proclaim this morning that his victory was a "WIN for women." Not because he meets the organization's stringent anti-abortion requirements for its full support (think Sarah Palin) but because he serves the movement's goal in the short term: kill health care reform.
Abe Foxman of the ADL
On Limbaugh's anti-Semitism:
Rush Limbaugh reached a new low with his borderline anti-Semitic comments about Jews as bankers, their supposed influence on Wall Street, and how they vote.
Limbaugh’s references to Jews and money in a discussion of Massachusetts politics were offensive and inappropriate. While the age-old stereotype about Jews and money has a long and sordid history, it also remains one of the main pillars of anti-Semitism and is widely accepted by many Americans. His notion that Jews vote based on their religion, rather than on their interests as Americans, plays into the hands of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists.
Krugman
Quoted in full, with apologies:
As things fall apart on the health care front, one thing you keep hearing is the idea of doing reform in pieces — start with something popular, like banning discrimination on the basis of medical history, then do the hard stuff later.
I have another proposal: let’s save money by making stools and chairs with only one leg.
As I’ve written before, the pieces of reform are interdependent. You can’t do one or two pieces on their own. Ban discrimination based on medical history, and you get an adverse-selection death spiral, in which healthy people opt out and premiums soar. You can’t solve that without both requiring that healthy people buy insurance and helping those with lower incomes afford the premiums. In short, you basically end up with the Senate bill.
By, for and of corporations
The Republican Supreme Court. Dahlia Lithwick:
While Stevens is reading the portion of his concurrence about the "cautious view of corporate power" held by the framers, I see Justice Thomas chuckle softly. (Scalia takes on this argument in his concurrence.) Stevens hammers, more than once this morning from the bench on the principle that corporations "are not human beings" and "corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires." He insists that "they are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."Lyle Deniston of SCOTUSblog:
But you can plainly see the weariness in Stevens eyes and hear it in his voice today as he is forced to contend with a legal fiction that has come to life today, a sort of constitutional Frankenstein moment when corporate speech becomes even more compelling than the "voices of the real people" who will be drowned out. Even former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is "to confuse metaphor with reality." Today that metaphor won a very real victory at the Supreme Court. And as a consequence some very real corporations are feeling very, very good.
Suppose that General Motors Corp., troubled that a candidate for Congress from Michigan was too favorable to the United Auto Workers, decided to do everything in its corporate power to defeat that candidate. So, aside from spending huge sums of its own money (none of it federal bailout money) to influence the outcome, it went to the office of the voting registrar in downtown Detroit. It sought to sign up, affirming that it was a citizen and resident of Michigan. Denied registration, it sued, claiming that, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it was a “person,” and, as a “citizen,” it was entitled to equal protection under the election laws. Would the Supreme Court buy that?
General Motors might already be halfway to winning its lawsuit. It has been understood, for decades, that corporations are “persons” under the Constitution. And nothing the Supreme Court said Thursday undermined that notion. If anything, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred new dignity on corporate “persons,” treating them — under the First Amendment free-speech clause — as the equal of human beings. [...]
The rehabilitation of the corporate “person” almost certainly was a project that five of the Justices were prepared to embrace. It could be argued, indeed, that the Court put the case over to the current Term for a second argument, focused on corporation’s rights under the Constitution, as part of that project. There was not a hint that those five, in the end, were in any way moved by the suggestion at that second argument by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that the Court may have been wrong for a century about awarding “personhood” to corporations.
GOP=Foreign corporations
Every time you vote for a Republican, you're enabling the future Chinese takeover of the United States. The Republican majority on the Supreme Court today finished the job that Republican congressmen and senators have aimed at for years:
Another question, and this one the Court explicitly said it was not deciding, was whether foreign corporations with operations in the U.S. — placed under the same restrictions as domestic ones — might now be able to claim the same First Amendment protection if they want to spend large sums to try to influence U.S. federal elections. Perhaps that is one example of the next generation of campaign finance lawsuits.Republicans are the first to claim patriotism, but their real base isn't evangelicals. It's foreign stockholders, not just of health insurance companies, but "American" (but increasingly foreign-owned) banks that are fleecing taxpayers.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Scott Brown
If Ted Kennedy found out that the first results of Martha Coakley's loss were 1) the House sending healthcare to the President's desk, followed by reconciliation to sweeten it, 2) the White House bringing back Paul Volcker and announcing sweeping banking reform, 3) a straight up condemnation of the Supreme Court by the Obama Administration and 4) the death of the Bernanke nomination, he'd be pritty, pritty happy.
If the Senate plan isn't passed by the House, reform is probably dead
As Josh Marshall wrote, there is no plan yet. House members aren't sure what to support, and the Senate is not going to touch the subject again if the House rejects a plan that passed with a now impossible 60 vote supermajority. If you want reform, call your representative (not someone else's whom you feel is somehow more important), and tell them to pass the Senate bill. If not, health care reform is dead for at least a quarter century.
And once it's passed, let's raise hell again... and talk about reconciliation until we're blue in the face, till the bill is sweetened to our liking.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall's quote:
And once it's passed, let's raise hell again... and talk about reconciliation until we're blue in the face, till the bill is sweetened to our liking.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall's quote:
My strongest sense however is not so much that decisions have been made to drop reform as that it's something like a matter of survivors walking around -- half dazed -- after some sort of natural disaster. There is no plan. It actually seems highly, highly fluid and possibly susceptible to dramatic change if any of the key players assert themselves. But I'm not sure there's anyone really ready to do that, unless rank-and-file Democrats and Reform supporters assert themselves.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Senate to House: "We're not revisiting health care"
Not surprising. Sixty senators went on record supporting a bill. No comprehensive bill can be as good now, with Snowe as the 60th vote. In the absence of the House passing the Senate bill, I don't think even 40 Democratic senators will feel up to using reconciliation to ram a five-year health care reform through.
The health care debate has been poisonous to the image of Democrats across the country: the hard left is unimpressed by the bill because it isn't progressive enough, and the right has convinced independents that Obama wants to take away their doctors and bring the government into health care. That government intrusion, which in practice meant the horribly named public option and Medicare buy-in, wasn't just stripped by Lieberman. I count several co-conspirators who were just relieved Joementum did the dirty deed for them: Bayh, Lincoln, Nelson, Landrieu, Baucus, Carper, and Conrad.
Note, incidentally, that list of eight senators. With Coakley's defeat, that brings us down to 51 non-corporate Democrats. Even if you went the reconciliation route, all you would need is two among the following senators to jump ship: Webb, Hagan, Johnson, McCaskill and Warner. Given his comments yesterday, Webb would be a likely candidate, and Warner as well.
If the House kills the Senate bill, I only count about 40 sure votes for a comprehensive Senate bill that's more progressive than the original one, 48 tops. And that's leaving aside the parliamentarian's judgments as to what will pass procedural muster under reconciliation.
That's why Senators will not revisit health care if the House kills the Senate bill. The most we will get is a unanimous vote in both houses to end the practice of dropping people from insurance coverage once they get sick. Republicans will hail this as a triumph of common-sense reform, and they will be rewarded by voters for stopping the more costly provisions of "Obamacare," namely government subsidizing people's (private) insurance coverage to the tune of $200 billion a year.
Coakley's defeat and the panic among red state representatives also means that even if the House were to start from scratch, whatever new bill Pelosi cobbled together would be to the right of what was passed during what appeared to be a more favorable political environment.
The rules for reconciliation
Fuzzy, for better or for worse.
The Byrd rule states that legislation is unfit for reconciliation if it "produce[s] changes in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision." I asked Jim Horney, a budget expert at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, how you define "merely incidental." And what, exactly, is a "provision"?
He sighed. A provision, he said, is "not defined anywhere. It goes well below a title or section of a bill and even below a paragraph. But exactly what it is nobody knows." And the Senate rules offer no more clarity on the definition of "merely incidental." Asked if anyone had developed an accepted meaning, Horney seemed almost apologetic. "No," he said. "Absolutely not."
The matter is not simply academic: The Byrd rule allows senators to challenge the acceptability of any provision (undefined) of a reconciliation bill based on whether or not its effect on government revenues is "merely incidental" (undefined). Thus, if you enter reconciliation with a health-reform bill, it's not clear what's left after each and every provision -- however that is defined -- is challenged and a certain number of them are deleted altogether: the tax portions, certainly. And the government subsidies. But is regulating insurers "merely incidental" to government revenues? How about reforming hospital delivery systems? How about incentives for preventive treatment? Or the construction of a public plan? An individual mandate?
It's hard to say. The ultimate decision is left up to the Senate parliamentarian, whose rulings are unpredictable. Under George W. Bush, Republicans managed to ram tax cuts, oil drilling, trade authority, and much else through reconciliation. But they were as often disappointed: The GOP leaders fired two successive Senate parliamentarians whose Byrd rule rulings angered them.
Taken as a whole, the uncertainty of the reconciliation process transforms it into a game of chicken: If Republicans refuse to cooperate with health reform and force Democrats to resort to reconciliation, no one knows what will emerge out of the other end. Republicans might have no input, but Democrats will be at the mercy of an obscure bureaucrat's interpretation of an undefined Senate rule. It's the legislative equivalent of deciding a bill on penalty kicks.
The blogosphere's catch-all solution: reconciliation
Here's a thought. Yes, it only takes 50 votes to get health care expenditure provisions that will expire in five years (though no actual permanent, binding laws). But can you get 218 votes in the House for this (temporary) dream legislation? After yesterday, the answer is no. The House couldn't even get a majority for Medicare plus 5, and barely passed the weaker version of the bill.
And you won't get 50 in the Senate anymore either; there were only 47 or so firm votes for the public option to begin with, and it's an open question as to whether a serious version of it could have been created through reconciliation.
Not passing the Senate bill kills health care for a generation, probably more. The piecemeal approach being proposed by Bill Delahunt will please Republicans, however, since they will get to pick the parts that everyone agrees with, like pre-existing conditions, and drop the parts that help the poor, like the $200 billion a year subsidy. Then they'll be able to tell voters they were for health care reform, just not the increased spending and "government-run healthcare."
Once an enforceable law is in place, we can use reconciliation to sweeten this bill to our heart's content. And as I wrote late last year, the bad parts of the bill practically guarantee that once it's law, it will be sweetened... forever.
And you won't get 50 in the Senate anymore either; there were only 47 or so firm votes for the public option to begin with, and it's an open question as to whether a serious version of it could have been created through reconciliation.
Not passing the Senate bill kills health care for a generation, probably more. The piecemeal approach being proposed by Bill Delahunt will please Republicans, however, since they will get to pick the parts that everyone agrees with, like pre-existing conditions, and drop the parts that help the poor, like the $200 billion a year subsidy. Then they'll be able to tell voters they were for health care reform, just not the increased spending and "government-run healthcare."
Once an enforceable law is in place, we can use reconciliation to sweeten this bill to our heart's content. And as I wrote late last year, the bad parts of the bill practically guarantee that once it's law, it will be sweetened... forever.
Roxanne Conlin gets it
This comes from the Iowa U.S. Senate candidate's fundraising email:
In America we have systems like speed limits, no passing zones, and air traffic control because they keep us all safe. When Senator Grassley deregulated Wall Street he threw open the doors to unrestrained greed and recklessness.
Communities across our state are now suffering from home foreclosures, farm foreclosures, and bankruptcies. So many of our friends -- who were just years away from retirement -- watched their savings vanish.
Senator Grassley and his colleagues in Washington allowed the greed on Wall Street to put all of us in jeopardy. Iowans lost homes, jobs, and dreams of retirement. We wouldn't board a plane without air traffic controllers on duty or drive on a road without speed limits. The irresponsible deregulation of Wall Street put us all at risk, and this November we can hold them accountable.
Last week several hundred supporters sent a message to Chuck Grassley telling him to restore oversight through the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). We know these Wall Street guys are going to do everything they can to increase their already outrageous bonuses. They will hurt us all by putting unfair conditions in the fine print of our credit cards, using disingenuous introductory rates and then jacking up our fees.
Together, we can stop them.
Iowans should expect their Senator to be looking out for them. With your support and generous contribution, Iowans will finally have someone looking out for them and not for Wall Street.
Snark
From Josh Marshall:
It proved to be pretty hard to get any cooperation from senate Republicans on health care in 2009. But now that they're chastened, it should be easier to get a few of them to come across the aisle.
What issues worked for Scott Brown?
Torture, for one:
Scott Brown's top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, told reporters this morning that Brown's demand that terror suspects be tried outside civilian courts had proven a more powerful issue than health care in the Massachusetts senate race.@benpolitico quotes Fehrnstrom as saying Brown raised $12 million online. Patrick Ruffini: "$12 million, is I believe, the biggest online fundraising event for any statewide candidate, R or D, ever."
Brown said during the campaign that he didn't believe the Christmas Day bomber should be tried in civilian courts, and said he didn't think waterboarding is torture. He ran an ad arguing that Constitutional rights don't apply to terror suspects.
"National security was a more potent issue than healthcare based on the polling we saw, on dealing with terrorists as ordinary criminals versus enemy combatants," said Fehrnstrom. It was "an issue that worked for us across the spectrum," he said, with the timing of the attempt putting it into particular relief. "
This sounds really dumb
On the surface:
The White House National Security Council recently directed U.S. spy agencies to lower the priority placed on intelligence collection for China, amid opposition to the policy change from senior intelligence leaders who feared it would hamper efforts to obtain secrets about Beijing's military and its cyber-attacks.But note:
The National Security Council staff, in response, pressed ahead with the change and sought to assure Mr. Blair and other intelligence chiefs that the change would not affect the allocation of resources for spying on China or the urgency of focusing on Chinese spying targets, the officials told The Washington Times.Gaining a diplomatic advantage while keeping espionage allocations constant, or even increasing them? That's smart.
But administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the new policy is part of the Obama administration's larger effort to develop a more cooperative relationship with Beijing.
A U.S. official who defended the policy change said "everybody involved understood the absolute importance of China as an intelligence priority."
"This is a case in which the assignment of a relative number — one or two — wouldn't mean, or change, a damn thing. And it didn't." The official said the U.S. government "has to keep its eyes on a host of threats, challenges and opportunities overseas. That's how it works."
MoronMore on Pat Robertson and Haiti
By Dianne Diakité of Emory University:
American ignorance of Vodou beliefs and practices aside, I am befuddled by Robertson’s lack of reflection on what his tall tale of Haiti’s unpaved road to hell inevitably registers about the nature of the Christian God. Where was the almighty Christian God when Haiti’s founding patriots and defenders of human liberty allegedly “swore a pact to the devil?”
There is something sinister at work when a god who is purportedly all-loving, just and powerful over human history is reconciled effortlessly with the jarringly asymmetrical social and historical arrangements like the transatlantic slave trade and ensuing slave economies in the Caribbean and the Americas. If racial slavery of this sort was an expression of “God’s” good nature, then how should we understand the devil’s nature in this theological schema?
Robertson would say that Haiti’s centuries-long struggle for freedom, sovereignty, and dignity is indeed a demonic project—but it would have been hard for captive Africans in Saint-Domingue to embrace the divine character of their colonizers’ Christian God. What the colonial ruling class understood to be either divine or demonic in the Christian pantheon, the enslaved African laborers had to have understood as one and the same evil force.
While the details concerning how Vodou traditions played a role in fortifying Haiti’s foundational freedom fighters during the revolutionary period are inconclusive, the devil is not in the details of this narrative; and there is no dispute about the fact that Vodou is. Pat Robertson is now reading a page from the same narrative fiction that his White racist Christian predecessors scripted soon after the birth of the Haitian Republic. But the re-naming of Vodou’s divine community with the moniker “devil” only reminds us that twenty-first century North America has no shortage of contemporary counterparts to the slave-breaking masters who claimed the right to re-name the human beings they believed they owned. [...]
What the “voodoo” of popular America and Pat Robertson actually demonstrates is an index of their very own Christian heritage. More than anything it is a sordid effigy of the Western body of Christ as experienced by commodified African bodies. It is a register of the most pervasive expressions of Western Christian culture encountered by captive Africans and their descendants since the first Christian chapels were erected at Elmina, Cape Coast, Ouida, Gorée, and other commercial slave dungeons along the Atlantic coast of Africa beginning in the fifteenth century.
In the end, I must concur with Mr. Robertson: “Something” did “[happen] a long time ago in Haiti, and people [do not] want to talk about it.” Enslaved Africans asserted their humanity, religious freedom and political sovereignty and, under the influence of sour grapes, Western powers have sent one ‘earthquake’ after another Haiti’s way ever since.
More Coakley
Coakley didn't just fail in getting turnout in minority neighborhoods. She also failed to carry union voters, in no small part because they were never a priority for her campaign:
Even though progressive voters didn't turn out for Coakley, this skewed electorate still approved of the President.
Thus there was a rather large subgroup of voters who approved of the President but not the governor. These center-left voters are key to winning statewide office in Massachuetts. These are the left-leaning independents who elected Weld and Romney, in a misguided attempt to check the power of a highly corrupt Legislature and state Democratic Party apparatus. This 15% chunk of the electorate absolutely hated Martha Coakley:
A different candidate would have had a shot at that Obama-supporting chunk of the electorate. Even a third of that vote would have kept the seat in Democratic hands. And that's not counting the higher union and minority turnout Capuano or Khazei would have gotten by, you know, bothering to show up to campaign in their neighborhoods.
In the end, Brown pulled off the upset in large part because he won unaffiliated voters by a 73% to 25% margin. The senator-elect also picked up 23% of the vote from Democrats. [Our polling shows that 53% of voters in Massachusetts are Democrats, 21% Republican and 26% not affiliated with either party.]
Coakley also barely carried a usually reliable Democratic constituency. Union workers went for her by just six points, 52% to 46%.
Even though progressive voters didn't turn out for Coakley, this skewed electorate still approved of the President.
Fifty-three percent (53%) approve of the way that Barack Obama has handled his job as President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) approve of the way Deval Patrick has handled his job as governor of Massachusetts.
Thus there was a rather large subgroup of voters who approved of the President but not the governor. These center-left voters are key to winning statewide office in Massachuetts. These are the left-leaning independents who elected Weld and Romney, in a misguided attempt to check the power of a highly corrupt Legislature and state Democratic Party apparatus. This 15% chunk of the electorate absolutely hated Martha Coakley:
Among those voters who approve of the president’s job performance but disapprove of the governor’s, Brown won 93% to seven percent (7%). These voters accounted for just over 15% of all voters.
A different candidate would have had a shot at that Obama-supporting chunk of the electorate. Even a third of that vote would have kept the seat in Democratic hands. And that's not counting the higher union and minority turnout Capuano or Khazei would have gotten by, you know, bothering to show up to campaign in their neighborhoods.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Kos on Coakley
Yup:
Teddy never took his voters for granted, no matter how big an icon he was in the state. Brown didn't take them for granted either. He was aggressive, engaged, effective, and ... lucky as all shit. It's not every day you get to go up against a candidate who takes everything for granted, neglects to negatively define you, and heads out for vacation while the race is still on.
There's several messages to learn from this fiasco, but chief among them -- if you decide to run for office, then respect the freakin' voters and work your ass off for their vote. They are angry, frustrated, and looking for a sign that you get their concerns. Going on vacation doesn't cut it. Campaigning your heart out gets you a good of the way there.
Josh Marshall
On DLC Democrats, ready to jump ship on health care reform:
Here's an unnamed "presidential advisor" quoted in Politico who should get a promotion: "The response will not be to do incremental things and try to salvage a few seats in the fall," a presidential adviser said. "The best political route also happens to be the boldest rhetorical route, which is to go out and fight and let the chips fall where they may. We can say, 'At least we fought for these things, and the Republicans said no."
I cannot say this enough. The policy front speaks for itself. But the meta-politics is real. It's a big. But it's something Democrats have great difficulty with. For a whole variety of reasons voters clearly have a lot of hesitation about this reform. I think the polls make clear that the public is not against it. But the reticence is real. If Dems decide to run from the whole project in the face of a single reverse, what are voters supposed to draw from that? What conclusion would you draw about an individual in an analogous situation in your own life? Think about it.
From a Coakley supporter
No surprise:
There is a huge difference between those of us who are absolutely 100% committed to voting for Coakley and those of us who actually like her.
I voted for Capuano in the primary, and if the polls were projecting a likely Coakley victory, I wouldn't have voted.
I got a call from the Martha Coakley campaign and told the volunteer, "Yeah, don't worry, I'm really mad at her, but I'll vote for her." The volunteer burst out, "I'm mad at her too!"
More proof
That Martha Coakley was the worst candidate ever:
Tucker Carlson has this report from spinmeister extraordinaire Frank Luntz:Just about every election night, Republican pollster Frank Luntz assembles a focus group of likely voters to help predict election results. Tonight you can see Luntz interview an assembly of Massachusetts voters on Fox at 9:10 p.m. EST.
But you probably won’t see all the work that went into it. As of late this afternoon, Luntz was still scrambling to balance his focus group with supporters of Democrat Martha Coakley. “I just lost another one,” Luntz growled over his cell phone from a hotel ballroom at Logan Airport. In the last 24 hours, six Coakley voters have dropped out. By contrast, Luntz hasn’t lost a single supporter of her opponent, Scott Brown.
The problem isn’t money. “They’re getting paid well,” Luntz says, “probably more than they’re making at their jobs. And they still don’t want to do it.”
Instead, says Luntz, they’re ashamed. “They don’t want to be on television defending Martha Coakley. It’s passé. It’s socially unacceptable. I never dreamed I’d see Democrats in Massachusetts embarrassed to admit they’re Democrats.”
More proof Coakley lost
She needed to make up for Brown's overperformance in the suburbs by winning Boston big. Right now Brown is doing better than Romney in Boston, where Coakley is, shockingly, barely ahead. What a disgrace.
Dave Wasserman
Is with the Cook Political Report. His tweet from five minutes ago: "Cook Report does NOT officially call races, but if I were working for a network I would have enough #s to project: Brown Wins"
It's ten till 8
I don't think we'll decrease turnout at this point.
So let me just say that Massachusetts voters have suffered Martha Coakley for well over a decade. She ran the most arrogant, incompetent campaign for statewide office in the modern history of the state.
Assuming her defeat, the nation has lost a 60th senator and a vote for the progressive agenda. But Massachusetts has gained public life free of a woman who is to this day best known for prosecuting a child. Good for Massachusetts. I just wish they had done so in the primary, and that the rest of us didn't have to pay the price.
So let me just say that Massachusetts voters have suffered Martha Coakley for well over a decade. She ran the most arrogant, incompetent campaign for statewide office in the modern history of the state.
Assuming her defeat, the nation has lost a 60th senator and a vote for the progressive agenda. But Massachusetts has gained public life free of a woman who is to this day best known for prosecuting a child. Good for Massachusetts. I just wish they had done so in the primary, and that the rest of us didn't have to pay the price.
A simple lesson from today's election, whoever wins
In Senate races, candidates count. A good 30% of the electorate will look at the person, not just party affiliation. There are a whole lot of states that vote Republican in presidential elections but have Democratic senators: Montana, the Dakotas, Arkansas, Missouri, West Virginia, Nebraska, and Louisiana. Inverse examples begin with Maine, but in 2005 there were many, many more, as there will be again in 2011.
So the quick takeaway: in Senate races, candidate quality often trumps the partisan divide.
Prescription: Democrats need to dump Evelyn Lincoln, Michael Bennet, and Kendrick Meek. And maybe consider Wes Clark.
Hackery will not cut it, not in an inimical election cycle.
So the quick takeaway: in Senate races, candidate quality often trumps the partisan divide.
Prescription: Democrats need to dump Evelyn Lincoln, Michael Bennet, and Kendrick Meek. And maybe consider Wes Clark.
Hackery will not cut it, not in an inimical election cycle.
Follow the markets
This is what you get when you vote for an "independent Republican." A big payoff for Big Insurance.
UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH) opened at $34.56. So far today, the stock has hit a low of $34.50 and a high of $35.90. UNH is now trading at $35.13, up $1.38 (4.09%). Over the last 52 weeks the stock has ranged from a low of $16.18 to a high of $33.99. Shares of UNH are rising with other health insurers this morning ahead of today's special Senate election in Massachusetts. If Republican State Senator Scott Brown wins the election to replace the late Edward Kennedy, Senate Democrats would lose their filibuster-proof majority, which could thwart healthcare reform efforts opposed by health insurers.
Deeply disturbing
The reason Coakley is in trouble is because voters have fundamentally misread Scott Brown:
Consider this: 41% of Massachusetts voters either think that Brown is a liberal or moderate and with them he holds a 79-18 lead. 59% think he's a conservative and with them Martha Coakley has a 63-32 lead.
Brown is doing well with the voters who don't think he's a conservative and badly with the ones who think he is.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Sign of life
In Haiti:
Meanwhile, Col. Cormi Bartal, a doctor in the Israeli Army’s newly established field hospital here, pulled back the flap of a tent serving as the hospital’s pediatric section and pointed to a woman, Guerlande Jean Michel, 24. She identified a sleeping newborn on her cot, one of the first born in the city after the earthquake, and spoke in a halting voice. “This is my child,” said Ms. Jean Michel, a primary school teacher. “His name is Israel.”
Hooray
SRWare's Iron is Google's Chrome browser with privacy safeguards. Already the best browser for PC's, it has now finally been released for Mac.
"Every vote matters"
Coakley's final message to voters: I'll support the President.
We'll have the rest of our lives for recriminations. But tomorrow, if you're a Massachusetts resident, vote. And if you're not one, get someone to vote.
We'll have the rest of our lives for recriminations. But tomorrow, if you're a Massachusetts resident, vote. And if you're not one, get someone to vote.
That said, it would be better to win
If only because we may need that extra seat as a buffer after November. So make a few calls today if you can.
What would a Scott Brown victory mean?
Two things right off the bat. The first one is the loss of a not-so-filibuster-proof majority. The second, a debilitating media narrative: that Coakley's loss was a referendum on the President, even though he has a 25 point net positive approval rating in Massachusetts.
There are, however, some silver linings. The first is that in certain ways not having a filibuster-proof majority is politically advantageous to the President. If you have 60 votes, the pressure is on you to deliver every single one of them. If you have 59, the pressure is suddenly on the minority party not to be obstructionist. Remember, Obama may be unpopular, but he's way more popular than the Republican Party as a brand. Republicans are doing well in these elections because the economy is creating an anti-incumbent wave, not because people like them.
After Obama gets hit hard with the initial media narrative, a new one will emerge: the President only has 59 votes and needs a vote from the other side. As Democrats begin to focus on a raft of populist measures in preparation for 2010, filibustering Republicans could suddenly find themselves the focus of the type of scrutiny they never received last year, when GOP politicians got to coast by saying, "The President can't even get his own senators on board." The Washington mantra of bipartisanship will now start biting the Republican Party in rather unsavory places.
Today comes even better news. If Coakley loses, the House may pass the Senate version in exchange for a promise to use reconciliation to expand health care. It will take 60 senators to repeal the new law; it will only take 50 to expand it.
The use of reconciliation following passage of a health care bill was always progressives' dream scenario. It's about to be foisted on us... by the teabaggers.
There are, however, some silver linings. The first is that in certain ways not having a filibuster-proof majority is politically advantageous to the President. If you have 60 votes, the pressure is on you to deliver every single one of them. If you have 59, the pressure is suddenly on the minority party not to be obstructionist. Remember, Obama may be unpopular, but he's way more popular than the Republican Party as a brand. Republicans are doing well in these elections because the economy is creating an anti-incumbent wave, not because people like them.
After Obama gets hit hard with the initial media narrative, a new one will emerge: the President only has 59 votes and needs a vote from the other side. As Democrats begin to focus on a raft of populist measures in preparation for 2010, filibustering Republicans could suddenly find themselves the focus of the type of scrutiny they never received last year, when GOP politicians got to coast by saying, "The President can't even get his own senators on board." The Washington mantra of bipartisanship will now start biting the Republican Party in rather unsavory places.
Today comes even better news. If Coakley loses, the House may pass the Senate version in exchange for a promise to use reconciliation to expand health care. It will take 60 senators to repeal the new law; it will only take 50 to expand it.
The use of reconciliation following passage of a health care bill was always progressives' dream scenario. It's about to be foisted on us... by the teabaggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
