Multi Medium

Quote Of The Day

From Politico’s story about the GOP’s reform plans if (when) they retake control of the House:

They make clear that they plan not only to change the top-down management style of Speaker Nancy Pelosi but also to pare back the excesses and power plays that occurred during the 12 years of Republican control under Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay.

A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Ha.

Right.  “We’ve learned our lesson, we promise we won’t be dicks anymore.”  That sounds totally plausible, on account of the Republicans are so much more moderate and reasonable now.

This is totally going to suck for Obama and the Democrats, but, well, they’ve kind of earned it.  Unfortunately it’s going to suck for the rest of us too, and we didn’t.

Add comment September 2nd, 2010 at 07:14am Posted by Eli

We Get E-Mails

Well, I don’t – or at least not this one, because I cancelled my OFA membership in disgust after Obama and the Democrats sold out on the public option.  But I know progressives who did:

Eighteen years ago, shortly after graduating from law school, I helped lead a voter registration campaign in Chicago that generated record turnout on Election Day.

That experience taught me one of the most important lessons I ever learned as a community organizer: When people promise that they’ll do something — like voting — they are far more likely to do it.

That’s why one key part of our Vote 2010 plan this year is to get folks like you from across the country to commit to vote, to make sure we get as many people as we can to cast their ballots this fall.

But getting the commitments we need starts with your own promise to make it to the polls and cast your ballot.

Will you please commit to vote in the 2010 elections?

Over the next 82 days, volunteers across the country will spend countless hours calling voters and knocking on their doors, asking them the same question.

And you can bet that I am counting on you to join them in talking to voters in your community.

This election offers a stark choice. We Democrats are hard at work trying to move America forward, repairing a decade of damage and growing an economy based on the Main Street values of hard work and responsibility.

We’ve fought for and won historic reforms to our health care system, a victory 100 years in the making, and to Wall Street, the most sweeping overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression.

But after years of policies that landed us in the worst recession since the 1930’s, the Republicans who got us there have not come up with anything different from the policies of George W. Bush.

We simply cannot afford to go backwards or let them repeal our reforms. And making sure we can continue moving forward starts with your own promise to cast your ballot in these elections.

Please commit to vote this fall:

http://my.barackobama.com/Commitment

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Aw.  Isn’t that nice.  I guess the “P.S. I hate your liberal guts, you pot-smoking dirty hippie retard” at the end must have gotten cut off by an e-mail glitch or something.  That’s okay though, we all got the message anyway.

3 comments August 13th, 2010 at 11:20am Posted by Eli

It’s Not Just Hyperbole

Conservatives really are crazy:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper’s policies, particularly his efforts to boost bike riding, are “converting Denver into a United Nations community.”

“This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed,” Maes told about 50 supporters who showed up at a campaign rally last week in Centennial.

Maes said in a later interview that he once thought the mayor’s efforts to promote cycling and other environmental initiatives were harmless and well-meaning. Now he realizes “that’s exactly the attitude they want you to have.”

“This is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms,” Maes said.

He added: “These aren’t just warm, fuzzy ideas from the mayor. These are very specific strategies that are dictated to us by this United Nations program that mayors have signed on to.”

Maes said in a later interview that he was referring to Denver’s membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, an international association that promotes sustainable development and has attracted the membership of more than 1,200 communities, 600 of which are in the United States.

I guess the UN will be using its famous black helicopters to force everyone to ride Hickenlooper’s Communist UN Bikes.  When they’re not busy fluoridating the water to contaminate our purity of essence, that is.

Add comment August 5th, 2010 at 07:13am Posted by Eli

The Wages Of Selling Out Is Mistrust

No one could have anticipated…

Almost four out of five Americans surveyed in a Bloomberg National Poll this month say they have just a little or no confidence that the measure being championed by congressional Democrats will prevent or significantly soften a future crisis. More than three-quarters say they don’t have much or any confidence the proposal will make their savings and financial assets more secure.

A plurality — 47 percent — says the bill will do more to protect the financial industry than consumers; 38 percent say consumers would benefit more.

Or this…

A majority or plurality disapproves of Obama’s management of the economy, health care, the budget deficit, the overhaul of financial market regulations and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted July 9- 12. In addition, almost 6 in 10 respondents say the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause. The Senate is scheduled to begin voting on the financial regulation bill today.

Almost two-thirds say they feel the nation is headed in the wrong direction, an even more sour assessment than in March when 58 percent felt that way. Two-thirds of independent voters are pessimistic, while just 56 percent of Democrats offer a vote of confidence.

Great going, guys.  You alienated your own base without doing squat to entice conservatives.  That’s really going to work out well for you in November.

Add comment July 15th, 2010 at 07:12am Posted by Eli

Strategery! Part I

Steny Hoyer explains that the Democratic strategy this year will be to run against the disastrous Bush policies that the Democrats completely failed to oppose.  Combine that with a message about how the Democrats can’t get anything done because of Republican opposition, and that should be a winning message for sure.

Add comment July 14th, 2010 at 07:22am Posted by Eli

Republicans Persist In Their Inability To Take It

This is just too hilarious…

In recent weeks, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has circulated information to local reporters about Republican candidates in close races. Among the claims:

– That Jim Renacci of Ohio once owed nearly $1.4 million in unpaid state taxes.

– That David Harmer of California received $160,000 in bonus and severance pay from a firm that got a federal bailout.

– That Jon Runyan of New Jersey got a legal break in property taxes for his 25-acre homestead by qualifying for a farmland assessment thanks to his four donkeys.

(…)

“When the issues are cutting against you, it is typical for a party in trouble to resort to other means,” said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “With the unemployment rate unacceptably high and President Obama’s approval rating falling, they have nothing left to run on other than character assassination.”

Yes, that’s right: The party of Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe, Dan Burton, Ken Starr, and the Swift Boat Vets is complaining about Democrats resorting to character assassination to compensate for unpopular policies.  I dunno, maybe the Republicans would be more understanding if the Democrats just made shit up like they do.

Also, it’s a shame the story focuses entirely on House races and doesn’t mention that the Republican’s serial liar nominee for the Illinois Senate makes the right-wing caricature of Al Gore look like George Washington.

Add comment July 8th, 2010 at 08:14am Posted by Eli

The Obstruction Card

It looks like Obama and the Democrats are going to go all in on the “we’re trying to fix the economy but those OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICANS won’t let us!” strategy for the 2010 and probably 2012 elections, probably because bragging about a cheesecloth financial reform bill and a healthcare bill that forces people to buy private insurance is not going to be real compelling:

President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress are hoping that voters will punish Republicans in the midterm elections for obstructing his efforts to extend unemployment benefits, expand lending to small businesses, and increase aid to struggling state and local governments.

“Republican leaders in Washington just don’t get it,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly video address on Saturday.

I suppose that approach could work, but only if the voters forget all about the previous eight years, where Bush was able to ram through just about everything he wanted despite far narrower congressional majorities (except gutting Social Security, which Obama is now working on).  Given that majority and minority parties had the same tools available to them, why is it that Republicans are able to either block, cripple, or  pervert everything the Democrats try to do to repair Bush’s damage, yet Democrats were helpless to do anything to prevent it while it was being inflicted?

Either the Democrats were too ineffective and weak (or just clueless) an opposition to muster 41 Nays then, or they’re hiding behind a phony 60-Yea requirement now.  Neither explanation inspires a great deal of confidence – what’s the point of voting for Democrats if they can’t pass anything worthwhile when they’re in power or block anything terrible when they’re not?

Obama’s fascination with budget austerity (as embodied by his catfood deficit reduction commission) is not encouraging either:

Mr. Obama’s political aides have tended to emphasize voter worries about the deficit, while his economic advisers have been urging additional stimulus spending.

The thing is, voters are worried about the deficit because they think it’s the reason that the economy’s in the tank and unemployment is almost 10%.  Get the economy humming and hiring, and I can guarantee you that the average voter won’t give a damn about the deficit.  But if you combine a slow economy and persistent unemployment with talk about cutting Social Security, you’re not going to be lauded for your hard-nosed fiscal prudence – no, it’s just going to be further “proof” that Obama hates old people and wants to kill Grandma.  Good luck with that, geniuses.

Add comment July 5th, 2010 at 01:20pm Posted by Eli

Co-Wanker Of The Day (Part 1)

Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle:

As Talking Points Memo’s Justin Elliott described in a June 15, 2010 story, Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle was a member of the Independent American Party of Nevada during the 1990’s, from 1992 to 1997, during which time the IAPN engaged in bizarre anti-gay agitation and campaigns to legalize discrimination against homosexuality. Describes Elliott,

The small party attracted considerable controversy in 1994 when it took out a newspaper ad titled “Consequences of Sodomy: Ruin of a Nation,” which suggested HIV could spread through the water.

It wasn’t a fluke. As Elliott’s TPM story goes on to detail,

During the period that Angle was a member, the party bought a red, white, and blue 16-page advertising insert in several Nevada newspapers to promote an effort to add a clause to the state constitution stating that “objection to homosexuality is a liberty and right of conscience and shall not be considered discrimination relating to civil rights,” according to a 1994 article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The so-called Minority Status and Child Protection Act would have explicitly allowed discrimination against gay people in jobs and housing.The party then picketed a newspaper, the Reno Gazette-Journal, that refused to run the ad.

Angle apologists will no doubt try to claim that Sharron Angle’s stance towards homosexuality and gay rights has changed since the 1990’s, but that’s not going to be so easy given that, according to Angle’s current official biography, “She is proud of her past chairwomanship of We the People Nevada PAC that sponsored the Property Tax Restraint Initiative.”

The We The People PAC had a web presence from 2003 to 2007, during which time its statement of principles web site page declared, “The radical homosexual movement and other groups seek to destroy the traditional family structure which is the underpinning of society. Their agenda should be opposed.”

I’m always kind of mystified by any claims about the existence of a vast gay conspiracy in a country where only a few gay people can get married, where they can be legally discriminated against, and where they’re not allowed to serve openly in the military or even donate blood.

Least. Effective. Conspiracy. Ever.

Also, Sharron Angle is a despicable fanatic.

Add comment June 18th, 2010 at 07:16am Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Up-Is-Downism

Chris Matthews compares Blanche Lincoln to Norma Rae:

What gave me hope last night was that we saw voters don’t like to be pushed around any more than I do. A lot of labor money went into the Arkansas Senate primary. It produced a lot of drama – stand-alone, who’s-side-are-you-on drama – and a real hero. Women celebrated in the pro-labor film “Norma Rae;” the irony is that the heroine, the Norma Rae, last night in Little Rock was the Democratic senator who labor tried to beat. Norma Rae’s name in this picture is Blanche Lincoln.

That’s right: Blanche Lincoln is a scrappy populist pro-worker underdog who took on Bill Halter’s mighty union-hating labor juggernaut, with no one at her side but Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, the Chamber Of Commerce, and the entire Democratic establishment.  Truly this is an upset for the ages.

Add comment June 10th, 2010 at 08:16am Posted by Eli

Wankers Of The Day

“Senior White House officials”:

A senior White House official just called me with a very pointed message for the administration’s sometime allies in organized labor, who invested heavily in beating Blanche Lincoln, Obama’s candidate, in Arkansas.

“Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members’ money down the toilet on a pointless exercise,” the official said. “If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November.”

Yes, stupid organized labor, trying to get rid of one of their bitterest enemies in the Senate Democratic caucus, what could they possibly have been thinking?  (Does anyone else wonder if perhaps a lot of swear words were edited out of this totally anonymous “senior White House official”’s quote?)

But wait, there’s more…

WH anger at labor predates tonight. Pelosi/Reid/Obama did a lot for labor and labor repays them by wasting $10 million. That’s their [c]laim.

Sure, that sounds reasonable, if you define “a lot” as “stringing them along with empty EFCA promises to retain their support for an increasingly shitty and public-optionless healthcare bill.” Besides, labor’s support for Halter wasn’t really  about what Pelosi/Reid/Obama did for labor, it was about what Blanche Lincoln did for labor.  Or rather, against labor.

4 comments June 9th, 2010 at 07:32am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

Pennsylvania AG and Republican Gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett:

Tom Corbett, current Attorney General of the state of Pennsylvania and Gubernatorial Candidate, has subpoenaed Twitter to appear as a Grand Jury witness to “testify and give evidence regarding alleged violations of the laws of Pennsylvania”.

The subpoena orders Twitter to provide “any and all subscriber information” of the person(s) behind two accounts – @bfbarbie and @CasaBlancaPA – who have been anonymously criticizing the man on the popular micro-sharing service.

According to the subpoena (embedded below), the information that Twitter is ordered to provide includes “name, address, contact information, creation date, creation Internet Protocol address and any and all log in Internet Protocol address”.

Because using your government office to prosecute and harass your political critics isn’t an abuse of power at all…

I hope this wanker goes down hard in November.

Add comment May 20th, 2010 at 11:27am Posted by Eli

Democrats Still Haven’t Learned

Yesterday’s NYT:

In 2008, when Mr. Obama’s candidacy galvanized Democrats and intrigued the nation, nearly 4 in 10 Americans declined to vote. Even at peak interest, the American appetite for democratic rituals is hardly universal.

Without a presidential race to lead the ballot, the appetite is even weaker. The last time more than half of the eligible citizens voted in a midterm election was nearly three decades ago, in 1982, census figures show.

Students of modern political history point out that this is often a problem for Democrats. Their less-affluent constituency traditionally goes to the polls at lower rates.

“We usually do well when the turnout is low,” said John Morgan, a longtime Republican demographic specialist.

(…)

Elections with low turnout can allow parties to tilt the outcome substantially through small shifts in the composition of those voting.

In the 1994 midterms, for example, overall turnout as a proportion of eligible citizens dropped slightly. But since Representative Newt Gingrich’s party was energized that year and President Bill Clinton’s was downcast, the result earned the moniker “Republican Revolution.”

“You can have a big-wave result,” Mr. Cook said, “without a big wave of voters.”

Multi Medium, 2/14/06:

Republicans understand that voters in “the base” turn out if motivated, and the undecideds in the middle do not. Consequently, they tailor their electoral strategy to pumping up their base to maximize that turnout, and they don’t worry about the middle all that much because they’re proportionally less of a factor. The Democrats, on the other hand, repeatedly throw their base under the bus in pursuit of those fickle undecideds who probably aren’t voting anyway.

In other words, Republicans understand that turnout is a force multiplier. Democrats are satisfied with just being ahead in opinion polls, implicitly assuming that voter turnout is homogeneous.

And this is why the ballot results never quite live up to the poll results for the Democrats. The Democrats are alienating voters by chasing after non-voters.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  The Republicans and the Democrats continue to race to the right, for complete opposite reasons.  The Republicans may scare off everyone except their crazy base, but they don’t care because they know the crazy base will turn out.  The Democrats may alienate everyone except a few people in the middle who won’t vote, but they don’t care because, well, they’re corporate-owned idiots.

GOTV and boots on the ground are all well and good, but if no one’s excited about what you’re selling and what you’ve done, it’s not going to translate into as many votes.  This is why Republicans usually do better in elections than they have any right to.  The GOP got crushed in 2006 and 2008 because so many people were passionate and energized against Bush’s failures, but Obama and the Democrats squandered all of that energy by deciding to be GOP Lite instead of actually keeping the promises that got them elected.  And now they’re about to pay the price.

Add comment May 18th, 2010 at 11:39am Posted by Eli

Strategery!

Man, the Republicans really want to make sure that no Latino ever votes for them again until the end of time, don’t they?  They pass the racial-profiling/show-me-your-papers law in Arizona, and they’re trying to pass it in Texas and Missouri, so it’s not like the GOP can claim that AZ is just one bad apple.  And then you’ve got this winner who wants all driving tests to be in English only, and Lindsey Graham throwing a tantrum and threatening to sabotage a bill with his own name on it if the Senate considers immigration reform.

Considering how large and fast-growing segment of the population Latinos are, this seems like a recipe for electoral suicide, unless the GOP has a plan to keep Latinos from voting.  Oh.  Right. Nevermind.

Add comment April 30th, 2010 at 07:16am Posted by Eli

Good Luck With That.

The DNC unveils its Genius Strategy for victory (or at least slightly less humiliating defeat) in November:

3)      Heavy targeting of first time 2008 voters.

There were 15 million first-time voters in 2008, or “surge” voters.  The demographic study shows that they are predominantly young, minority, and/or new Americans. The goal is to increase their turnout by 8-12% over what you would normally expect in the off year.

Here’s what I did not hear: I did not hear whether or not these first time 2008 voters had been polled to see if they still love us (I use the royal “us” to denote some combination of Dems/Obama). During the campaign, expectations were raise extremely  high, that it is impossible for me to believe that there has not been some let down, some buyer’s remorse.

Might they be mad at us because there is no single payer? Because EFCA is DOA? Because DADT was not repealed the first week of the new administration? Because everybody didn’t get a real live unicorn for Christmas?  I think before I ran out to target one group that does not have a long track record of voting my way, I would want to just double-check that they were still on my side. On the other hand, I am a lawyer and therefore cautious by nature. YMMV.

Yeah, somehow I don’t see the “energize the people you disappointed” strategy as being a huge winner.  What’s the motivation to send any of these Democrats back to Congress if they’re not going to do anything worthwhile?

Add comment April 27th, 2010 at 11:23am Posted by Eli

Lamest First Amendment Argument Ever

You have got to be kidding me…

Arizona voters approved the creation of Clean Elections in 1998. Participating candidates collect a certain number of $5 donations and agree not to accept money from special-interest groups in exchange for a lump sum of public money to fund their campaigns. Candidates can get additional public funds if an opponent running as a traditional candidate spends more money than the Clean Elections candidate received initially.

Those matching funds are the focus of a lawsuit filed in 2008 by the Goldwater Institute on behalf of several Republican candidates, including state Treasurer Dean Martin, Sen. Bob Burns of Peoria, Rep. John McComish of Phoenix and Rep. Nancy McLain of Bullhead City. The traditional candidates argued that they limited their own campaign spending to avoid triggering additional public contributions to Clean Elections opponents, chilling their own freedom of speech.

U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver agreed, issuing a ruling in January that matching funds violate First Amendment freedom of speech because they cause non-participating candidates to limit their campaigning, fundraising and spending.

Clean Elections supporters appealed. In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed to allow the Citizens Clean Elections Commission to continue matching funds for participating candidates until the court could rule. That same month, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request that matching funds be halted.

So it should be okay to outspend your opponent so copiously as to drown them out, but not okay for them to receive public campaign financing so they can keep up with you?  Admittedly, I am not a lawyer, but I can’t believe a judge actually ruled favorably on such a transparently bullshit argument.  There is literally nothing preventing these candidates from spending more money other than the desire to prevent their opponents from receiving more money.  That’s a far cry from actual suppression of free speech.

Add comment April 12th, 2010 at 07:19am Posted by Eli

Finally I Agree With Rahm

Rahm is absolutely right:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been telling Democrats a win on the health issue will reverse the slide in public opinion, just as passage of another controversial proposal, the North American Free Trade Agreement, lifted President Bill Clinton in the polls.

Yes, I’m sure healthcare “reform” will help Obama and the Democrats this year just as much as NAFTA helped Clinton and the Democrats in ‘94.

Rahm’s promise reminds me of the assurances that Dubya would bring his CEO expertise to the White House to do for America what he did for his oil companies.

Add comment April 1st, 2010 at 07:14am Posted by Eli

No, No. Anything But That.

Quote Of The Day:

All this is good news for Republicans; defeating the Senate’s top Democrat and a key architect of Obamacare would be a huge victory for the GOP.

Oh no.  Please don’t take away our Harry Reids.  The Democrats would simply fall apart without his powerful and savvy leadership.  Please, have mercy, spare us from this terrible fate.  O woe, whatever shall we do.

Add comment March 30th, 2010 at 11:22am Posted by Eli

NYC’s 2010/2012 Election Preview

NY Daily News reports that one of the reasons Bill Thompson narrowly lost his bid for NYC mayor is that only 20% of the city’s 338,000 first-time voters who voted for Obama turned out to vote for him.  Which begs the question: What happens in November, and in 2012, when those voters don’t show up nationwide?  Because I really don’t see any way that Obama’s going to convince them to turn out again after he completely failed to deliver on everything he promised them.

All that optimism, all that enthusiasm, all that, yes, hope, is gone for good, dead by Obama’s own hand.  I wonder if he thinks he’s going to be able to crank it up again somehow – he’s going to be in for an unpleasant shock if he does.

4 comments March 8th, 2010 at 11:31am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

Blanche Lincoln:

“The larger message being sent to the administration and Congress is: You are with us or you are against us,” said Patterson, Lincoln’s campaign manager. “The left feels frustrated after eight years [of President George W. Bush] their agenda should be at the forefront and should be passed in its entirety in the first year. That didn’t happen and that anger, some of that is being magnified in our race.”

This might – I repeat, might - be a plausible defense for the Obama administration, which can claim that it’s had to make unpalatable compromises because its awesome progressive agenda has been obstructed by Congress, but it is disingenuous at best coming from one of the obstructors herself.

Instead, Lincoln’s campaign manager pretends that his boss is just some kind of innocent bystander, caught up in “the left’s” overall frustration with Congress, and not one of the primary causes of it.

3 comments March 8th, 2010 at 07:10am Posted by Eli

Question Of The Day

Does The Obama Administration Even Want To Win In November?

Johnson’s bafflement is an excellent companion piece to Scarecrow’s.

My take on it is that a Republican-controlled (or Republican + Blue Dog-controlled) Congress gives Obama an excuse to pursue the Republican policies that he apparently wants to pursue anyway.  “Oh gee, I really wanted to do something about healthcare/unemployment/financial shenanigans/global warming/EFCA/DADT, but my hands are tied by all those Republicans.  How about some nice shiny tax cuts?”

What I don’t get is how Obama actually thinks that leading his party into a rout in 2010 and then using that as an excuse to govern like a full-blown Republican is going to win him any votes in 2012.  Maybe he’s counting on the Republicans nominating someone terrifyingly, unelectably insane.  Which is not completely out of the question.

Add comment March 6th, 2010 at 01:11pm Posted by Eli

Epic Win

This. Is. Awesome.

Republicans like a politician who stands up for what he believes — even if he believes the Republican Party is populated by a bunch of “knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.”

The candidate leading the Florida GOP primary to determine who will take on Rep. Alan Grayson, the Democrat who represents the Orlando-based district, is none other than Grayson himself, according to a poll paid for by his campaign. Grayson is a freshman congressman who has drawn scorn from the GOP and has quickly built a nationwide following of progressives.

The poll has Grayson leading the 13 Republicans — among Republicans — with 27.8 percent of the vote. The congressman who mocked the GOP health care plan by saying that it amounts to telling people not to get sick and if they do, to die quickly, received more support than all of the Republican candidates combined.

No GOP candidate scored above 3.7 percent; 57.7 percent said they were undecided.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Oh yeah, he’s really in Desperate Electoral Peril all right.

I know it’s his own poll, but if the numbers are even close to right it’s hugely embarrassing for the Republicans.  It’s also some pretty brilliant and creative campaign messaging.

1 comment March 5th, 2010 at 11:24am Posted by Eli

Republicans Trying To Level The Midterm Playing Field

I can only assume that the GOP is worried that it might regain control of the House…

House Republicans don’t have an official budget yet. But they have what amounts to a first draft. The official budget will be released in March or April and will be authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee in consultation with the other Republicans on the Committee. But Ryan has released a budget he’d like. And it’s actually fairly detailed. And if you read it, which we have, you start to wonder why Democrats aren’t making a bigger deal out of it.

What’s in it? A few interesting things.

First, it calls for big cuts in Social Security benefits for everyone currently under 55 years of age. On top of the cuts it also calls for privatizing Social Security.

Basically the exact plan President Bush tried in 2005. Next, it calls for the full privatization and phasing out of Medicare. It’ll be replaced by a system of vouchers in which instead of getting Medicare you get a voucher to buy un-reformed private insurance.

Weirdly, with all that, the draft GOP budget doesn’t get the federal budget into surplus until sometime after 2060, which seems like a pretty long time. But isn’t this sort of a big deal? House Republicans are poised to run in 2010 on slashing or abolishing the two most popular federal government programs — Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, right in the middle of a prolonged recession and right after a stock market crash is a great time to sell Americans on privatizing Social Security.  And 60+% support for the healthcare public option must mean that everyone hates Medicare and wants it destroyed.  And releasing a plan that takes 50 years to eliminate the deficit is especially brilliant when you’ve spent the last year demagoguing about how it’s murdering our grandchildren.

If the Democrats can’t make hay with “Here’s what the Republicans/my opponent wants to do to your retirement if they get elected” messaging in November, they deserve to lose.

P.S. I can’t believe Serious People are still spouting this ridiculous point-missing zombie lie.

Add comment February 4th, 2010 at 07:58pm Posted by Eli

Just What California Needs

Remember what happened the last time Americans elected a failed CEO?  If a candidate is promising to apply their business and leadership skills to public office, that’s not such a great thing if they don’t have any.

Add comment February 4th, 2010 at 11:28am Posted by Eli

This Can Only Be Good For John McCain

To me, what’s most striking about these poll numbers is not that McCain’s overall approval rating in AZ is at 40%, but that the story offers up his 52% approval rating among AZ Republicans as its “but it’s not all bad news for McCain” graf.

Add comment January 29th, 2010 at 09:10pm Posted by Eli

A Modest Proposal On Campaign Finance Reform

Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres have a suggestion on how to (mostly) get around the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision:

While Congress can’t issue a broad ban on all companies, it can target the very large class that does business with the federal government and ban those companies from “endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office.”

A 2008 Government Accountability Office study found that almost three-quarters of the largest 100 publicly traded firms are federal contractors. If Congress endorsed our proposal, these companies — and tens of thousands of others — would face a stark choice: They could endorse candidates or do business with the government, but they couldn’t do both. When push came to shove, it’s likely that very few would be willing to pay such a high price for their “free speech.”

The Roberts court is skeptical — to put it mildly — of campaign finance restrictions. But it is still highly unlikely that the justices would strike down a law targeting federal contractors. All nine recognize that Congress may restrict free speech when there is a significant risk of corruption. That risk is obvious when corporate speakers are simultaneously doing business with the government.

(…)

Our proposal requires only a modest extension of existing law. Federal contractors already are not allowed to “directly or indirectly . . . make any contribution of money or other things of value” to “any political party, committee, or candidate.” This provision arguably bars Big Pharma from launching a media campaign in favor of a candidate who supports its special deals, thereby “indirectly providing” the candidate something “of value.” But it doesn’t cover the case in which contractors threaten to spend millions to oppose senators and representatives who refuse their excessive demands. There is a need, then, for a new statutory initiative: The same anti-corruption rationale that may prohibit contractors from spending millions in favor of candidates requires a statutory prohibition on a negative advertising blitz.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but this sounds pretty reasonable to me.  Of course, constitutional or not, our corporate-owned Congress still has to pass it.

1 comment January 27th, 2010 at 11:26am Posted by Eli

Harold Ford’s Awesome Plan For Success

Harold Ford Jr. lays out a brilliant four-point plan for how Obama and the Democrats to fix the country and make everyone like them again:

1. Tax cuts.

2. Tort reform.

3. Immigration reform for the right kind of immigrants.

4. Budget cuts.

Oh yeah, I’m sure those will be a big hit with the Democratic base.  I hope he features them prominently in his primary campaign against Gillibrand.

Add comment January 25th, 2010 at 06:57am Posted by Eli

Harry Reid And I Have Something In Common!

Apparently we both want him out of the Senate:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said late on Friday that he supports Ben Bernanke for a second term as Federal Reserve chairman.

(…)

“While I will vote for his confirmation, my support is not unconditional,” Reid said in a statement. “I know Chairman Bernanke is committed to transparency and accountability, and that is why I will hold him to the highest standards of both.”

So…  Harry is going to support the Bush-appointed Fed chairman who ignored all warnings about the housing bubble which crashed our economy, and who believes that preventing as-yet-nonexistent inflation is more important than his responsibility to lower our 10% unemployment rate? While running for re-election in the state with the second-highest unemployment rate in the country?

Yeah, good luck with that.  His opponent’s campaign ads will practically write themselves.

Add comment January 23rd, 2010 at 03:26pm Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Spin

Newt Gingrich explains that the Citizens United ruling is a huge win for ordinary citizens because rich people and corporations will give you millions of dollars of campaign support to oppose them. Fascinating.

BLOCK: You’re saying that this ruling affects the average citizen expressing his or her voice, as opposed to corporations being allowed to spend freely.

Mr. GINGRICH: Im saying that it allows you to have a middle-class candidate go out and find allies and supporters who are able to help them match the rich. And able to help them match the incumbent. Remember, incumbents run with millions of dollars in congressional staff, congressional franking, congressional travel. And they have all the advantages of being able to issue statements from their incumbent office. And the challenger – the person out there who’s the citizen who’s rebelling, who wants to change things – is at an enormous disadvantage in taking on incumbents.

This will, in fact, level the playing field and allow middle-class candidates to begin to have an opportunity to raise the resources to take on the powerful and the rich.

Is there a Hall Of Fame for spin?

Add comment January 23rd, 2010 at 01:26pm Posted by Eli

Ralph Nader’s Smirking Revenge

It is truly amazing that anyone can look at a shocking Democratic loss in Massachusetts and conclude that it’s a backlash against liberal overreach.  Does anyone really seriously believe that Obama and the Democrats have been too liberal for Massachusetts? Really?  Especially when they’ve fallen far short of enacting the platform they were overwhelmingly elected on?  But if one doesn’t trust logic and common sense, one can always check the polling:

HEALTH CARE BILL OPPONENTS THINK IT “DOESN’T GO FAR ENOUGH”

• by 3 to 2 among Obama voters who voted for Brown
• by 6 to 1 among Obama voters who stayed home

(18% of Obama supporters who voted supported Brown.)

VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OPTION

• 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown
• 86% of Obama voters who stayed home

OBAMA VOTERS WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER

• 57% of Brown voters say Obama “not delivering enough” on change he promised
• 49% to 37% among voters who stayed home

Oh yeah, that’s a real clear call for centrism, all right.

Here’s what I’m seeing: In 2000, Ralph Nader basically ran on a platform of “Republicans and Democrats are all corporate whores, there’s no real difference between them.”  The economy was in great shape at the tail end of a pro-corporate but generally successful Democratic presidency, so his message fell on deaf ears.  If it ain’t broke, etc.

Then Dubya and his pet Congress subject us to eight years of truly disastrous policy that enriches corporations and wealth at the expense of everyone else.  By 2005, America is thoroughly sick of it and starts voting Republicans out en masse in 2006, culminating in a Democratic president and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress in 2009, not to mention a frightening economic collapse engineered by years of unconditional corporatism.

And what happened?  Nothing.  This Democratic president and overwhelmingly Democratic Congress continue to coddle, protect, and bail out the same corporations who crashed the economy while doing nothing for their victims.  Americans swept in the Democrats expecting change and reform, and got more of the godawful corporate same.  If ever there was a time for them to be receptive to Nader’s message that both parties are indistinguishable corporate whores, it would be now, when the economy is struggling and the Democrats are following the same corrupt and foolish path as the Republicans (whose awfulness is still very fresh in everyone’s minds).

I don’t know that it will be Nader himself (in fact, I expect it won’t be), but to me it looks like the conditions are ripe for a populist throw-all-the-bums-out third party to make an impact in the 2012 election cycle.  I don’t know whether it’ll be tea partiers from the right (that’d be my bet) or greens from the left, or even some weird coalition of both, but someone is going to capitalize on the “I voted for the Democrats and nothing changed, but I don’t want the Republicans back either” frustration that’s bubbling up out there, mark my words.

1 comment January 21st, 2010 at 11:35am Posted by Eli

Electoral Politics In A Nutshell

If the voters think you’re accomplishing most of what they think you promised to accomplish, you’ll probably get re-elected.  If they don’t, you probably won’t.

Obama managed to charm voters into believing that he had promised more than he actually did, but so far has delivered far less than he actually promised.

Here’s a partial composite list of things that Obama promised, or that those who voted for him think he promised:

• Universal healthcare that doesn’t suck
• Financial reform to restructure Wall Street and punish its malefactors of great wealth
• Jobs/economic stimulus/mortgage relief
• Shifting the tax burden back towards the rich
• Emphasis on green energy and jobs/significant reductions of greenhouse emissions
• Government transparency/restoration of respect for the Constitution and rule of law
• Reduction of lobbyist influence
• Abolition of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
• Closing of Gitmo
• Withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan
• Accountability for Bush administration criminals

I can’t think of a single item on this list that Obama has come even close to achieving, or even made a good-faith effort to achieve.  I’d say that he was comparatively most successful on jobs and economic stimulus, but 10% unemployment isn’t exactly something to brag about.

Obama and the Democrats got their performance review yesterday.  If they don’t start showing some serious improvement in the quality of their work product over the next nine months, a whole bunch of them are going to get fired.

Add comment January 20th, 2010 at 07:23am Posted by Eli