What the Fug?

TW: It appears the Dems will lose Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat and even if Coakley should pull it out it still speaks volumes. We get the governance we deserve as I say over and over. I must say I am disillusioned with America. I thought after eight years of destructive and paranoid bullshit emanating from the White House that folks might have actually been ready for some new approaches. Apparently not.

If folks think, Beckian/Limbovian/Cheneyesque/Foxy/Palineolithic soaked teabaggery is a viable governance strategy then our nation really deserves to slide quickly down the slope that was greased so effectively by eight years of W Bush/Cheney.

A friend of mine has been saying for awhile that what Americans really want is a modern Caesar, perhaps he is right. Wake up for crissakes!! Obama and this Congress were never given a chance to do anything much less screw things up. Yet somehow all of the BS induced by cutting taxes for the wealthy, cutting regulations regardless of their impact, making war like a hegamon and seeing if we could inject ever larger doses of religion into folks lives etc. etc. is the Dems' fault. "We waaaaant smaller guvmint" unless of course it entails more prisons, torture on demand, sacrificing liberty without remorse in an utterly futile pursuit of perfect security and bellicose foreign policy. Universal health care, who cares? But by God do not put MY bennies at risk. Do not institute measures that just might bend the cost curve.

24/7/365 opposition appears to be a very viable electoral strategy be very careful what you ask for. There will be one clear way to break gridlock- Caesarian methods.

Perhaps the Massachusetts loss will wake up the folks who apparently thought pulling one lever last year would fix everything. But that is almost certainly wishful thinking on my part.

From Andrew Sullivan:
"...there's no compromise with the current GOP. They make Gingrich look like Pope John XXIII. If they got back majorities in the Congress, there will be no debt reduction; there will simply be nihilism until they can try to beat Obama in 2012.

Secondly, there's a lie masquerading as analysis going around. And that is that the health insurance bill is some sort of radical idea, fomented by "radical leftists", etc etc. This is propaganda. In fact, the final bill is exactly where a sane compromise is to be found: near-universal coverage; no single payer; no public option; reforms for pre-existing conditions and other injustices; cost control mechanisms; Medicare cuts; deficit reduction. 16 years after the Clintons tried, it's a more moderate bill. It was widely debated in the campaign. It isn't perfect. It needs work. But it's a start.

The blame for the delay lies fundamentally with a GOP that is still intent on putting power before country, and decided the day Obama took office that he was such a threat to their beleaguered brand that they would oppose everything he proposed, demonize him as much as possible, forgo any cooperation, and then try to blame him for the recession, the wars, the unemployment, and the debt he inherited ... while never actually proposing any serious alternative on any of them.

It is a nihilist, populist, primal scream. And if the Massachusetts result is interpreted as a vindication of that strategy, we will have thrown away a very rare constructive moment for targeted government action to tackle the deep problems - healthcare access and cost, too much reliance on carbon energy, an empire bogged down in two quagmires, a debt that will soon threaten this country's currency - in favor of news cycle, tactical Rovian bullshit..."

Cynical Demagougery

TW: This piece summarizes the Republican candidate for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat's views. What exactly do folks think they are going to get with a person like Scott Brown. Apparently many folks buy into the fantasies of cut taxes in order to cut the deficit, let Medicare spending continue rise far above inflation but somehow provide universal care, and that all of the government action to stave off GD 2.0 was a waste of $ because the economy would have magically corrected itself despite the fact that by the end of September last year we were on the verge of a completely locked up financial system.

I realize folks like to bitch and whine and think if they just keep throwing the bums out nirvana will arrive but really. You think these type folks would do better?

From Andrew Sullivan:
"His Globe piece is presumably a good way to assess his platform. And it highlights all the bankruptcy of the current conservative establishment. Take a couple of issues. He starts by listing national problems:

'Public debt has reached $12 trillion and counting, and Washington politicians want to borrow trillions more. '

His solution?
'My plan for the economy is simple: an across-the-board tax cut - in the tradition of John F. Kennedy - for families and businesses that will increase investment and lead to immediate new job growth. More tax increases will hurt our recovery. That’s why I have taken a no-new-tax pledge. My opponent will raise taxes.'

Does anyone see the contradiction here? Without any tax increases, indeed with more tax cuts, the spending reductions required to reduce the debt will be fantastic: massive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and defense. Where does he outline these spending measures? Nowhere. Fiscally, he's as fraudulent as Bush.

More absurdity here:
'It’s time to admit that while the $787 billion stimulus had the best of intentions, it failed to create one new job.'

Even if you believe that stimuli are wasteful or inefficient, I know of no sane economist who believes that $800 billion did not create one new job.

Then he's in favor of the Massachusetts universal health insurance reform, on which Obama's is based, but for some reason against the one for the country. Why?

But the healthcare bill under discussion in Washington is not good. It will raise taxes and increase spending. If you are a senior on Medicare, it will lead to a half trillion dollars in cuts to your care.

So Brown supports health care exchanges, a mandate, and universal care ... but opposes healthcare exhcanges, a mandate and universal care. He is worried about the debt but actually opposes the proposed cuts in Medicare that can make universal insurance affordable - let alone the cuts necessary to bring us back from the fiscal abyss.

He is, in other words, a parody of the brainless bush Republican, mixed with Romney-like cynicism. "
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/scott-browns-mindless-oped.html#more

Every Senator Counts

"All of you all over the country -- please remember that Senate seats are not about a particular state. They're about our country. Every vote I take is not about South Carolina. It's about the United States of America."
-- Sen. James DeMint (R-SC), quoted by The State.

TW: DeMint challenges Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma as my least favorite U.S. Senator (Burris being an unelected short-timer gets a mulligan). But this quote is spot on, anyone who puts on blinders and votes for their senator merely based on local parochial issues is bringing the rest of us into their little world at the expense of the greater good.

Governing an Entire Nation

TW: If the economy does not get markedly better the Dems will face a tough time in 2010, it has always been so regardless of the incumbent party. That said as long as Obama's numbers, which ultimately are the metaphor for the overall Dem numbers regardless of what folks might say, hold with the above; then the Dems and Obama will be fine. These numbers tell me that the Fox/Limbaugh wing of the American populace truly do not like our POTUS. As for the rest they appreciate (mostly) what the guy is trying to do.

2010 Election Challenges For the Dems?

TW: I do not post much on the 2010 (much less 2012) elections because I just think too many things will change between now and then. Partially just because it makes convenient media (conflict/change etc. the mother's milk of media), some hopeful folks are talking about a 1994 redux whereby the Republicans would re-gain control of at least the House of Reps.

I find this unlikely. My thoughts are as follows:
1) The approval for the Dems is falling, but so is approval for Repubs. Until and unless the Repubs define viable alternative policies (so far they define few if any alternatives much less viable ones). The 1994 Repubs had the highly effective marketing tool if substantively bereft device known as the Contract with America. Nothing close exists yet although there is plenty of time for something to evolve.
2) Demographics today are much different than 1994 in favor of the Dems
3) There is a minority of Americans who hate the concept of Barack Hussein Obama. They are fired up. There is a mushy middle. And then there is a minority of Americans who love the concept of BHO, we remain fired up too.
4) The piece that remains to be determined is the economy. If the economy continues to falter or worse, then yes things could get ugly for the Dems. But then I ask what exactly do you think the Republicans would do with the economy? Cut spending amidst a deflationary, demand contraction? Cut taxes and increase the deficit structurally even more? De-regulate Wall Street further?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/everyone_hates_the_republicans.html

This POTUS Speaking To Kids B.S.

TW: My previous post displayed an Economist blogger's lamentation. I follow with my own. Either the Dems suck at media, the Repubs are great at media or our country is pathetic. Somehow a POTUS giving an innocuous speech to schoolchildren has morphed into socialist indoctrination. He is the POTUS for goshsakes, if he wants to speak to our schoolchildren about just about anything he should be able to. POTUSes have been doing so for decades but now it is indoctrination (I will not bother with some of the Fox video and yes I know some Dems whined in 1991 about HW Bush but it was tepid lame "why is he spending $26K to make a video for kids instead of solving unemployment" a far cry from our children cannot be exposed to socialism).

This POTUS is now assumed to have nefarious motives regardless of his actions, why is that? I really do not know. This is the whacked strain of the campaign- he hangs with terrorists (Bill Ayers), he hangs with black nationalists (Rev. Wright), he is not really American (birthers)- going- becoming the baseline for the opposition.

I just read our disgrace of Chicago columnist in the Chicago Tribune, John Kass who replaced Mike Royko years ago (Mrs. Blogger thinks he is a very little man trying to compensate). He goes on a full bore rant aligning himself against the doctrinator Obama basically calling him a communist wannabe. If a parent is so damn insecure about their own kids then look in a mirror. Given the environment to which children are exposed at the homes of many of those shrieking the loudest about this stuff, I strongly doubt a few minutes from BHO will harm them to irreparably.

Charlie Cook a respected political poll is saying things are lining up for another potential wave election- bad economy, angry/motivated opposition, unpopular war etc. He may be right which is a concerning prospect since the opposition rather than going through any kind of molting stage to become less bombastic and more moderate (as I predicted might happen) has doubled down on bombast, economic populism and cultural extremism. That would be an interesting congressional coalition, one that would have gained office by unleashing a populist streak. Putting those genies back in the bottle are easier said than done.

From NBC:
"Finally, here's one more thought about the entire controversy over Obama's education speech on Tuesday: Since the White House has said the text of the speech will be available for 24 hours before he delivers it and since they altered the lesson plan language, why is this still a controversy? The ability of the conservative media machine to generate a controversy for this White House is amazing. In fact, this is an example of a story that percolates where it becomes harder and harder for some to claim there's some knee-jerk liberal media bias. (Does anyone remember these kinds of controversies in the summer of 2001?) The ability of some conservatives to create media firestorms is still much greater than liberals these days."

Update: A teachers lamentation
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/by-patrick-appel--a-reader-writes----you-say-you-are-ignoring-the-furor-over-obamas-school-talk-because-it-is-a-fake-story.html

Gerrymandering Is Cancerous To Democracy

TW: Gerrymandering is hardly new (it is named after Eldridge Gerry a Revolutionary War era congressman after all). But as the piece points with modern technology combined with very detailed census data, engineering districts for political gain has become highly sophisticated and correspondingly damaging to American politics. The above chart shows how striated the congressional districts have become. The ratios reflects the Dem/Republican split in each district based on the 2004 Bush/Kerry vote (2008 data is not yet available). As one can see the two tails are steep while the middle is very low. Meaning most districts are highly partisan one way or the other with Dem districts being the most partisan. Many of those Dem district being minority districts where Republican legislatures with the connivance of Democratic incumbents have drawn very partisan districts ensuring Dem wins in those limited districts but removing minority voters from more competitive districts (with the ascendancy of Democrats over the past couple of election cycles I am sure the Dems will return the favor).

Gerrymandering is another bi-partisan conspiracy. The chart above in a more "democratic" world would be far flatter where Dems and Republicans were not shoved into electoral ghettos but spread in a more geographically relevant manner. If one is interested in good governance, then Gerrymandering should be anathema to you.

From 538.com:

"Write Brownstein and Bland: "One reason for the drop in recent years is the increasing sophistication of redistricting software...The trend has also been fueled by a resurgence in straight-ticket voting as each party's electoral coalition has grown more ideologically homogeneous since the 1960s." (Translation: Republicans cleared out many moderate House Democrats from the South and Plains states while Democrats this decade finally got around to returning the favor, so to speak, by clearing out House Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest.) And this is why the 2010 elections matter so much, because control over map-making is at stake."

It Is All Part Of the Cleansing Process

TW: Have mentioned before, today's Republicans remind me of 1970's and 80's Democrats who spent twenty years pining for the good, old FDR days even though times and events had moved on. Part of their evolutionary process was shooting their own moderates as independents gravitated to the Republicans leaving the primaries open for the more lefty folks.

The Republicans may go through some of the same again in 2010 (certainly 2008 had some of this as well). It is part of the cleansing process by which a party eats it own moderates, then loses more general elections before figuring out like all others that moderation usually wins. If Arlen Specter runs against a Dem in PA he will likely although not certainly win, if Pat Toomey runs against the same Dem he will almost certainly lose. Yet, Pat Toomey may win the Republican primary in 2010.

Good for us Dems, not so much for the Republicans although as I said it is part of the process by which the ideologues will lose their grip on the party. Pat Toomey would fair no better than Rick Santorum did in 2006 leaving the Republicans to either suck on their thumbs or start listening to the David Frum's of their party.

From Economist:
"AFTER flirting with the decision for months, Pat Toomey, a former congressman who has spent four years at the helm of a group that funds conservative challengers to moderate Republicans, is running against Arlen Specter.

The senior senator from Pennsylvania, one of three Republicans who voted for Barack Obama's stimulus package, has tried to stave off a challenge by siding against Democrats on labour legislation, introducing a flat tax reform, and flirting with home-school activists over a constitutional amendment to protect their rights. No dice. In a March poll Mr Specter only scored 27% of the Pennsylvania Republican primary vote. No incumbent senator can avoid attracting some sharks with numbers like that.

The importance of primary battles can be overblown, but this one is as meaningful to Republicans as Joe Lieberman's unsuccessful quest to win his party's nomination in 2006 was for Democrats. Mr Specter defeated Mr Toomey in a 2004 primary because of moderate voters, more than 100,000 of whom have since become Democrats and independents. If the Republican base stays on its current course it will deal the senator a humiliating defeat. Good for Republicans who think the party lost to Barack Obama because it wasn't conservative enough; bad for Republicans who want to recover in the liberal northeast."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/04/fin_de_specter.cfm

How the Diehards Gain Control

TW: Speaking of polling, strong majorities support bi-partisanship in theory yet little is practiced, why? This piece discusses some of the dynamics which drive the partisanship. I have posted on the California mess, the national government is not that far behind.

From Jon Alter at Newsweek:
"...The big question is: even if they think the stimulus is a rotten piece of sausage, why wouldn't more of them want to help their ailing constituents? Why not team up with a honeymooning president whose popularity is three times that of his predecessor?

Part of the answer is baldly political. Republicans hope to break the new president's momentum—make him "fail," as de facto GOP chairman Rush Limbaugh urged—so they can say "I told you so" in November 2010.

Part of the answer is principled. As Obama said at his press conference last Monday, some are just philosophically opposed. He was too gentlemanly to add that they are also economically and historically ignorant. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell even claimed that government spending didn't get us out of the Great Depression. What does he think did? Tax cuts? New Deal programs reduced unemployment nearly in half (if you include government jobs) and the Depression ended when the government intervened heavily in the economy at the onset of WWII

...And a big part of the answer is structural. The underlying explanation for the failure of bipartisanship is our flawed primary system. It sounds strange, but few Republicans fear being beaten by a Democrat; they come mostly from deeply red areas and have high odds of surviving a general election. The real fear is an upset in a Republican primary

...The American primary system, now about 100 years old, is disturbingly antidemocratic. It disenfranchises independents, who make up about a third of the electorate and aren't allowed to vote in most party primaries. It pushes candidates in both parties to the extremes, which polarizes the debate in ways that don't reflect the centrist views of the vast majority of Americans. And it allows a tiny handful of activist voters to determine who runs the country.

...Even in the civic-minded states of Iowa and New Hampshire, nonpresidential primary turnout was about 9 percent of registered voters (OK, they were burned out from their intense presidential contests). In Connecticut, it was 14 percent. South Carolina got up to 17 percent and California, 28 percent.

...Merely allowing independents to vote in party primaries hasn't done much to address the problem. The best remedy is a truly open primary, where the top two vote getters square off in the general election, even if they are both from the same party. This sounds radical

...Not surprisingly, interest groups and party regulars tend to hate the idea.

...Obama won the White House because of a talent for strategic political thinking. As he looks to victories beyond the stimulus package, he needs to attract mini-Baracks to Washington—fresh, temperate voices in both parties. It's a long-term project, but he could start by offering a new birth of freedom for independent voters and political aspirants trying to move the country out of the valley of the wing nuts."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/184771

2008 Senate Turnover Sets the Table For 2010

TW: Have been meaning to post about the state of the Senate for 2010. One of the self-regulators in American politics is the new POTUS' party using sitting Senators to fill slots in the new administration. Those slots frequently become pick up opportunities for the opposition party. This year the Dems are opening up four Senate seats, all of which would have been heavily favored retentions in '10 but all of which will now at least become somewhat competitive.
(Obama IL/Biden DE/Salazar CO and Clinton NY).

The corollary occurs when the opposing party is also the Congressional minority party with limited prospects of changing that status, when this happens retirements almost inevitably occur. It happened after '06 in front of the '08 election and it appears to be happening again in front of '10. Brownback KS, Martinez FL and now Bond in MO have all dropped out. There will be more before all is said and done. Just as importantly recruiting efforts become very challenging when a party is faced with likely minority status and a popular (so far) incumbent.

From the Economist:
"YOU wouldn't know it to read the all-Roland-Burris-all-the-time headlines, but these are still dark times for Republicans. The news that Kit Bond, a four-term Republican senator from Missouri, will not run for re-election, opens up a seat in a state that basically broke 50-50 for John McCain and Barack Obama.
The Republicans have a deep enough bench to replace Mr Bond, but his relatively early retirement (he turns 70 in March, practically Benjamin Button-ish in Senate terms), alongside Jeb Bush's decision to pass on the Florida Senate race, reveals what Republicans won't admit out loud: They don't think 2010 is going to be a comeback year.
Could there be a turnaround by the end of this year or the start of 2010 if President Obama stumbles? Of course. But Republicans are not yet banking on it.