Just 18 months ago, the Iowa Supreme Court declared that the state's law that defined marriage as between one man and one woman violated the constitution. It was unanimous, and thus gay marriage has been legal in Iowa since then.
Tuesday, three of those seven judges were up for a "retention" vote to retain their positions, and they all received a "no" vote. This does not change the court decision, but it was a brazen move by out of state anti-gay activists -- financed largely by the National Association for Marriage -- to intimidate judges nationwide with the threat of ouster for such votes. Their next move will be to try to get another case to come before the Iowa court and result in a repeal of that decision by a different panel of judges (these three will be replaced).
A little research explained how this "judicial retention vote" works in Iowa. It is a much better system than we have in Georgia, which is competitive elections between opposing judges. Although they are usually officially non-partisan, voters are left having to make choices that should not be left to politics, which leaves a whiff of trading independence and integrity for popularity and votes. Someone with a grudge against a judge for a particular decision could finance an outrageously expensive campaign against that judge. And, if they have to raise a lot of money to finance a contested campaign, just how independent can they remain?
In the Iowa system, judicial appointments are based on merit. An impartial commission selects a list of recommended judges from which the governor makes appointments. At the end of a judge's term, voters get a chance to vote yes/no on whether they should be retained for another term. If the vote is yes, they simply serve another term. If a majority vote no, then a replacement is appointed by the governor from among others the commission has rated on merit. It sounds like a good balance between an independent judiciary based on merit and still giving the people some voice.
Enter the the National Organization for Marriage, which spent $1 million to defeat these three judges. In contrast, as is usual, the judges did not raise money or campaign for retention. The same thing could happen in any state that elects judges -- but it would be worse because then the winner would be someone chosen by the anti-gay opposition to run without having to meet merit standards. In Iowa, at least there's a good chance that the replacements will make similar decisions on future cases, because their appointments will be made on merit rather than campaign promises or backing. But the message will extend from Iowa to judges in other states where they will face opposition in elections.
Gay rights groups are decrying this as a NOM attempt to intimidate judges and politicize the (supposedly) independent judiciary. The NOM president is crowing about sending the message "that support for gay marriage is a career-ending position for judges and legislators." Legislators are fair game for being voted out because of positions they have taken; it's clearly a partisan, political position. But this does raise serious questions about an independent judiciary if judges can be intimidated from interpreting the law as they see fit.
Ralph
Friday, November 5, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Bush reviewed
The New York Times' Michiko Kakutani is first out with a full-length review of George Bush's memoir, "Decision Points."
We've heard some of the advance leaks about (1) Bush saying his biggest mistake was in reducing the troop level in Iraq too soon; (2) Cheney offering to be replaced on the 2004 ticket, which Bush decided against; and (3) acknowledging that he personally authorized waterboarding and would do it again "to save lives"; (4) his ending the book characterizing his current status as the guy who walks his dog Barney "with a plastic bag on my hand, picking up that which I had been dodging for the past eight years."
While acknowledging some interest for its glimpses of personalities involved and the confirmation of much of what we have known about Bush from other writers like Bob Woodward, the reviewer focuses more on what Bush skips over without discussing: cherry picking intelligence, aggrandized executive power, shortchanging the war in Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq, the problems at Guantanimo, the role of his deregulatory free market policies in the financial crisis, and the infighting within his own administration. He repeatedly refers to being "blindsided" about major developments, as though he weren't in charge but merely at the mercy of his minions.
The most quotable paragraph from the review is this:
I don't. The country would have been so much better off if the president had been someone whose ideas of what is right are influenced by intelligence, knowledge of history and culture and economics, curiosity about all aspects of policy decisions, and the capacity for reflective thinking. The country suffered greatly from this little man's lack of all of those qualities.
Ralph
We've heard some of the advance leaks about (1) Bush saying his biggest mistake was in reducing the troop level in Iraq too soon; (2) Cheney offering to be replaced on the 2004 ticket, which Bush decided against; and (3) acknowledging that he personally authorized waterboarding and would do it again "to save lives"; (4) his ending the book characterizing his current status as the guy who walks his dog Barney "with a plastic bag on my hand, picking up that which I had been dodging for the past eight years."
While acknowledging some interest for its glimpses of personalities involved and the confirmation of much of what we have known about Bush from other writers like Bob Woodward, the reviewer focuses more on what Bush skips over without discussing: cherry picking intelligence, aggrandized executive power, shortchanging the war in Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq, the problems at Guantanimo, the role of his deregulatory free market policies in the financial crisis, and the infighting within his own administration. He repeatedly refers to being "blindsided" about major developments, as though he weren't in charge but merely at the mercy of his minions.
The most quotable paragraph from the review is this:
Despite the eagerness of Mr. Bush to portray himself as a forward-leaning, resolute leader, this volume sometimes has the effect of showing the former president as both oddly passive and strangely cavalier.He says he left office satisfied that "I had always done what I believed was right." Many of his friends and supporters will think that was good enough.
I don't. The country would have been so much better off if the president had been someone whose ideas of what is right are influenced by intelligence, knowledge of history and culture and economics, curiosity about all aspects of policy decisions, and the capacity for reflective thinking. The country suffered greatly from this little man's lack of all of those qualities.
Ralph
More election facts
The analysis continues, with some interesting facts coming out:
1. According to DemocracyforAmerica.com, 94% of the Progressive Caucus retained their seats, while only 47% of the Blue Dog Democrats did. Analyzing the progressives who won and those who lost, they conclude this message: "For Democrats to win in the future, they need to fight for the people they represent and stop cutting deals to water down reform with the same corporate interests who will turn around and spend unlimited amounts of money to defeat Democrats year after year."
2. Jane Hamsher points out that this should not be taken as a triumph for the Republican party. Voters' allegiance to party is probably weaker than ever. "Independent voter" is the fastest growing constituency in the country. This was more of a revolt against who's in control -- and it could switch back the other way just as easily. As she says, "Republicans who think their agenda has just been given a massive public endorsement are delusional -- their primary virtue is that they were an opposition party to an unpopular president whose programs aren't making people's lives better at a time of economic insecurity."
3. Mickey Nardo is right in his comment to my "Losses and wins" blog, saying that Obama never expected that the economy would be his to fix. He came in to do big, progressive things; and he just couldn't realize he needed to switch priorities and fix the economy instead of fixing health care. Sure, he was right that you couldn't fix the economy without fixing health care; but he needed to do some triage first and do life-saving techniques before attempting major surgery. If the patient dies before you get to the OR, the surgery isn't going to help.
In the end, those in swing districts who voted for health care did worse than those who voted against it. And similar votes may linger like unexploded mines, waiting for those who will be up for re-election in 2012; and in the senate, twice as many Dems will be up for re-election as Repubs, which makes the Dems' senate control much more vulnerable than in 2010 -- and with fewer seats to lose. In 2012, lose 3 seats and they lose control of the senate.
4. It's interesting that Wall Street hardly reacted at all to the election. The Dow-Jones went up about 0.2% today. That's nothing, when we've seen swings of 3% or 4% in one day as reaction to some economic news. I would interpret that to mean that investors don't expect much to change, one way or the other. Makes you wonder at some interpretations that big business was the big winner. I expected the market to go up like crazy.
5. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) defeated Rep. Fitzpatrick in 2008 by a narrow margin, riding in on the Obama sweep. Fitzpatrick beat him in the 2010 rematch, riding the GOP tide in PA that also defeated Joe Sistak. Murphy distinguished himself in his single term by volunteering to spearhead the drive to repeal DADT in the House -- and he did, effectively, although it didn't survive the Senate . . . yet. He was the ideal champion: Iraq war vet, straight, but gay friendly. He said at the time that he knew it could make him a one-term congressman, but the principle was that important to him. It looks like that probably wasn't what defeated him but the more general drive to send in a more conservative team.
6. The House picked up a fourth openly gay member, David Cicilline, mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, keeping Patrick Kennedy's seat in the Democratic column. He won't bring an additional vote on gay issues, though, because Patrick Kennedy was one of the most reliable supporters of gay rights.
Ralph
1. According to DemocracyforAmerica.com, 94% of the Progressive Caucus retained their seats, while only 47% of the Blue Dog Democrats did. Analyzing the progressives who won and those who lost, they conclude this message: "For Democrats to win in the future, they need to fight for the people they represent and stop cutting deals to water down reform with the same corporate interests who will turn around and spend unlimited amounts of money to defeat Democrats year after year."
2. Jane Hamsher points out that this should not be taken as a triumph for the Republican party. Voters' allegiance to party is probably weaker than ever. "Independent voter" is the fastest growing constituency in the country. This was more of a revolt against who's in control -- and it could switch back the other way just as easily. As she says, "Republicans who think their agenda has just been given a massive public endorsement are delusional -- their primary virtue is that they were an opposition party to an unpopular president whose programs aren't making people's lives better at a time of economic insecurity."
3. Mickey Nardo is right in his comment to my "Losses and wins" blog, saying that Obama never expected that the economy would be his to fix. He came in to do big, progressive things; and he just couldn't realize he needed to switch priorities and fix the economy instead of fixing health care. Sure, he was right that you couldn't fix the economy without fixing health care; but he needed to do some triage first and do life-saving techniques before attempting major surgery. If the patient dies before you get to the OR, the surgery isn't going to help.
In the end, those in swing districts who voted for health care did worse than those who voted against it. And similar votes may linger like unexploded mines, waiting for those who will be up for re-election in 2012; and in the senate, twice as many Dems will be up for re-election as Repubs, which makes the Dems' senate control much more vulnerable than in 2010 -- and with fewer seats to lose. In 2012, lose 3 seats and they lose control of the senate.
4. It's interesting that Wall Street hardly reacted at all to the election. The Dow-Jones went up about 0.2% today. That's nothing, when we've seen swings of 3% or 4% in one day as reaction to some economic news. I would interpret that to mean that investors don't expect much to change, one way or the other. Makes you wonder at some interpretations that big business was the big winner. I expected the market to go up like crazy.
5. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) defeated Rep. Fitzpatrick in 2008 by a narrow margin, riding in on the Obama sweep. Fitzpatrick beat him in the 2010 rematch, riding the GOP tide in PA that also defeated Joe Sistak. Murphy distinguished himself in his single term by volunteering to spearhead the drive to repeal DADT in the House -- and he did, effectively, although it didn't survive the Senate . . . yet. He was the ideal champion: Iraq war vet, straight, but gay friendly. He said at the time that he knew it could make him a one-term congressman, but the principle was that important to him. It looks like that probably wasn't what defeated him but the more general drive to send in a more conservative team.
6. The House picked up a fourth openly gay member, David Cicilline, mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, keeping Patrick Kennedy's seat in the Democratic column. He won't bring an additional vote on gay issues, though, because Patrick Kennedy was one of the most reliable supporters of gay rights.
Ralph
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Macro-politics
You know the adage: "All politics is local." Well, that's true in the sense that even the national race for president is colored by thousands of local conditions, local personalities, and local efforts.
But there are also over-arching principles -- macro-politics, if you will -- that sometimes seem to be the more important factor.
So what was the most important factor in 2010?
Not the Tea Party, not Obama, not Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, not the huge infusions of cash from anonymous wealthy conservatives, not big business/big bank/big Pharma lobbying, not Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.
Here's the answer: The economy. Remember that other adage, coined by James Carville? "It's the economy, stupid."
Here we are at midterm, when the president's party always loses seats in Congress -- and the economy is still in shambles and unemployment is still close to 10% nationally. And the Democrats control all three branches of government. You're going to lose BIG.
Add in one other macro-political factor: when things are going badly, the American electorate tends to want to divide political power. So they gave control of the House to the Republicans, while leaving the Senate under Democratic control -- but just barely, and without the filibuster proof supermajority.
If the economy had been better, the losses might have been less. But, despite all the noise and all the hoopla and all the money -- this election has been about The Economy, Stupid.
Ralph
But there are also over-arching principles -- macro-politics, if you will -- that sometimes seem to be the more important factor.
So what was the most important factor in 2010?
Not the Tea Party, not Obama, not Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, not the huge infusions of cash from anonymous wealthy conservatives, not big business/big bank/big Pharma lobbying, not Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.
Here's the answer: The economy. Remember that other adage, coined by James Carville? "It's the economy, stupid."
Here we are at midterm, when the president's party always loses seats in Congress -- and the economy is still in shambles and unemployment is still close to 10% nationally. And the Democrats control all three branches of government. You're going to lose BIG.
Add in one other macro-political factor: when things are going badly, the American electorate tends to want to divide political power. So they gave control of the House to the Republicans, while leaving the Senate under Democratic control -- but just barely, and without the filibuster proof supermajority.
If the economy had been better, the losses might have been less. But, despite all the noise and all the hoopla and all the money -- this election has been about The Economy, Stupid.
Ralph
Losses and wins
It was bad . . . it could have been worse.
A few observations:
1. The crazy women and the wealthy women lost: Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, Meg Whitman, Carla Fiorina, and Linda McMahon.
2. The GOP takeover of the House was huge -- probably will wind up with about a 65 seat turnover -- but still short of the tsunami of 70+ that some had predicted.
3. There were some really significant wins for the Democrats in the Senate: Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer held their seats in close races, and Patty Murray has a slight lead in her still undecided race in WA. Michael Bennett's race is CO is too razor-thin to call but could still win. They also won the closely watched races in West Virginia and Delaware.
4. And some very significant losses in the Senate: Russ Feingold in a decisive defeat and Blanche Lincoln, as expected. They were sort of bookends: Feingold the stubborn progressive who stuck to his principles, and Lincoln who angered the Dems by voting against party in some close votes but wound up not pleasing the other side either in a very conservative state. And there were the losses in Pennsylvania (Joe Sestak) and Illinois (Obama's old seat), both of which looked like possible wins early in the evening.
5. One group was especially vulnerable: the Blue Dog Democrats. This was a group of moderates/conservatives who won in districts that usually elect Republicans. It was Rahm Emanuel's strategy as head of the re-election committee in the House in 2002 to encourage conservates to run as Democrats in those districts; their wins in 2002 gave the Dems control of the House, but they were maybe more trouble than they were worth, voting against health care reform. Easy come, easy go. Of the 46 up for re-election, 23 lost their seats, reverting to the Republicans that usually represent those districts.
6. But so were progressives: Russ Feingold in the Senate; Alan Grayson, Tom Periello, and Mary Joe Kilroy in the House.
7. Being gay seemed to be a non-factor in this election cycle: Barney Frank won in a hotly contested race, as did Tammy Baldwin. Patrick Murphy who, though not-gay became known as the Iraqi veteran who championed gay rights in the House, lost. But Lexington, KY elected a gay mayor over the incumbent. I guess the economy and "government take-over" eclipse everything. What a fine day when being gay has become a non-issue politically.
8. Nathan Deal is the next governor of Georgia. What can I say?
(a) he was the Republican choice, and this is a very Republican state;
(b) the voters are afraid of a Democrat promising change;
(c) they just don't care about a few ethical lapses.
It's a sad day, but I don't think he will be terrible; he just won't be very effective in the job at a critical time economically.
9. The morning after, somehow I just don't feel so bad about it all, after all. Maybe it's the relief of finally having this awful and awfully expensive election over. But it's more than that. There is something cathartic about it. Even though I wanted every Democrat to win, I was fed up with the gridlock, frustrated with them all that they couldn't seem to break the impasses, disappointed in Obama's inability to convey his message. The people have spoken, and the message was clear: this is not working; do something different.
So now we start over. Maybe David Brooks will prove prophetic and the Republicans will now take a more responsible stance and actually work with Obama to get some things done.
One thing is clear: the Tea Party did have a huge impact, but they didn't take over Washington. The GOP leaders are not going to let them run wild. The want to use their fervor but channel it into what's possible.
The bottom line: it has been proven, once again, that the American people like a divided government. So now the Democrats control the Presidency and the Senate, and the Republicans control the House. Maybe that's not a bad thing.
Ralph
A few observations:
1. The crazy women and the wealthy women lost: Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, Meg Whitman, Carla Fiorina, and Linda McMahon.
2. The GOP takeover of the House was huge -- probably will wind up with about a 65 seat turnover -- but still short of the tsunami of 70+ that some had predicted.
3. There were some really significant wins for the Democrats in the Senate: Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer held their seats in close races, and Patty Murray has a slight lead in her still undecided race in WA. Michael Bennett's race is CO is too razor-thin to call but could still win. They also won the closely watched races in West Virginia and Delaware.
4. And some very significant losses in the Senate: Russ Feingold in a decisive defeat and Blanche Lincoln, as expected. They were sort of bookends: Feingold the stubborn progressive who stuck to his principles, and Lincoln who angered the Dems by voting against party in some close votes but wound up not pleasing the other side either in a very conservative state. And there were the losses in Pennsylvania (Joe Sestak) and Illinois (Obama's old seat), both of which looked like possible wins early in the evening.
5. One group was especially vulnerable: the Blue Dog Democrats. This was a group of moderates/conservatives who won in districts that usually elect Republicans. It was Rahm Emanuel's strategy as head of the re-election committee in the House in 2002 to encourage conservates to run as Democrats in those districts; their wins in 2002 gave the Dems control of the House, but they were maybe more trouble than they were worth, voting against health care reform. Easy come, easy go. Of the 46 up for re-election, 23 lost their seats, reverting to the Republicans that usually represent those districts.
6. But so were progressives: Russ Feingold in the Senate; Alan Grayson, Tom Periello, and Mary Joe Kilroy in the House.
7. Being gay seemed to be a non-factor in this election cycle: Barney Frank won in a hotly contested race, as did Tammy Baldwin. Patrick Murphy who, though not-gay became known as the Iraqi veteran who championed gay rights in the House, lost. But Lexington, KY elected a gay mayor over the incumbent. I guess the economy and "government take-over" eclipse everything. What a fine day when being gay has become a non-issue politically.
8. Nathan Deal is the next governor of Georgia. What can I say?
(a) he was the Republican choice, and this is a very Republican state;
(b) the voters are afraid of a Democrat promising change;
(c) they just don't care about a few ethical lapses.
It's a sad day, but I don't think he will be terrible; he just won't be very effective in the job at a critical time economically.
9. The morning after, somehow I just don't feel so bad about it all, after all. Maybe it's the relief of finally having this awful and awfully expensive election over. But it's more than that. There is something cathartic about it. Even though I wanted every Democrat to win, I was fed up with the gridlock, frustrated with them all that they couldn't seem to break the impasses, disappointed in Obama's inability to convey his message. The people have spoken, and the message was clear: this is not working; do something different.
So now we start over. Maybe David Brooks will prove prophetic and the Republicans will now take a more responsible stance and actually work with Obama to get some things done.
One thing is clear: the Tea Party did have a huge impact, but they didn't take over Washington. The GOP leaders are not going to let them run wild. The want to use their fervor but channel it into what's possible.
The bottom line: it has been proven, once again, that the American people like a divided government. So now the Democrats control the Presidency and the Senate, and the Republicans control the House. Maybe that's not a bad thing.
Ralph
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
'Round midnight . . .
Sorry, I just couldn't resist the title. I was about to comment on some wins and losses at the midnight hour, as I head off to bed -- and the great Thelonious Monk title, made so popular by Ella Fitzgerald, popped into my head: "'Round Midnight."
So here, 'round midnight are some results:
Of hot senate races, the Democrats won in West Virginia, Delaware, California and are leading in Colorado, Nevada, and Washington. Republicans won Kentucky, Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
The Republicans will take the House with 60 or more seats flipping. Not the tsunami some had predicted, but still pretty bad. Barney Frank held on to his seat after a tough race. Two Dem seats in GA flipped to Repubs. Do-nothing Deal seems to have won GA's governor race.
The two multimillionaire, self-financing women in California both lost: Fiorina to Boxer for the senator and Whitman to Brown for governor.
And Lexington, KY elected its first gay mayor.
Ralph
So here, 'round midnight are some results:
Of hot senate races, the Democrats won in West Virginia, Delaware, California and are leading in Colorado, Nevada, and Washington. Republicans won Kentucky, Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
The Republicans will take the House with 60 or more seats flipping. Not the tsunami some had predicted, but still pretty bad. Barney Frank held on to his seat after a tough race. Two Dem seats in GA flipped to Repubs. Do-nothing Deal seems to have won GA's governor race.
The two multimillionaire, self-financing women in California both lost: Fiorina to Boxer for the senator and Whitman to Brown for governor.
And Lexington, KY elected its first gay mayor.
Ralph
Let's hope he's right . . .
Early reports coming in are of unexpectedly high voter turnout -- far beyond the usual midterm elections. What that could mean is not clear. It could mean the Democrats have managed to inject last-minute enthusiasm -- or fear of the Republican takeover. Or the crowds could be Republicans, and we'll see a tsunami rather than just a storm.
Either way, it's unlikely that Nancy Pelosi will be House Speaker next January. John Boehner is already talking confidently about their strategy and expectations. And it could be worse. He and the other leaders, as opposed to the noisy Tea Party crowds, seem to have a measure of maturity and practicality about what they can accomplish. This is the subject of David Brooks' NYT column today. I hope he's right -- assuming, that is, that the basic assumption of a Republican win materializes.
Brooks writes:
If Brooks is right, if this is what these GOP leaders are saying in private and to political columnists, then there's some hope that a different attitude may prevail and some stuff might actually get done.
All in all, though, I'd rather we keep control of both Houses.
Ralph
Either way, it's unlikely that Nancy Pelosi will be House Speaker next January. John Boehner is already talking confidently about their strategy and expectations. And it could be worse. He and the other leaders, as opposed to the noisy Tea Party crowds, seem to have a measure of maturity and practicality about what they can accomplish. This is the subject of David Brooks' NYT column today. I hope he's right -- assuming, that is, that the basic assumption of a Republican win materializes.
Brooks writes:
Two years ago [when the Democrats took control of the House], Democrats waxed romantic. This year, the Republicans seem modest and cautious. . . . We have to be careful not to get carried away, says Lamar Alexander . . . We have to beware of unrealistic expectations, emphasized Senator Joh Kyl . . . Republicans can't accomplish big things without Democratic help. They can't defund Obamacare on their own their or pass a new tax law."Could it be that "Hell NO" John Boehner was just grandstanding? That Mitch McConnell's recent boast -- that Republican strategy will be to see that Obama is a one-term president -- was just cheerleading for voter turnout? Maybe.
Many Americans are still skeptical about us," acknowledged Eric Cantor. . . . We can't do anything that might unsettle them, like shutting down the government. Instead, Republicans need to offer reassurance. . . .
Republican leaders are also prepared to take what they can get, even if it's not always what they would like. Republicans woudl like to extend all the Bush tax cuts until the sun fizzles out. They're willing to take a compromise extension of two or three years.
. . . The predictable response to all this gradualism is that the Republican leaders may want this, but there is no way the fire-breathing Tea party-types are going to cooperate. . . .
But the leadership-versus-the-crazies storyline is overblown. . . . The No Compromise stalwarts like Senator Jim DeMint have a big megaphone but few actual followers within the Senate.
Over all, if it is won, a Republican House majority will be like a second marriage. Less ecstasy, more realism.
If Brooks is right, if this is what these GOP leaders are saying in private and to political columnists, then there's some hope that a different attitude may prevail and some stuff might actually get done.
All in all, though, I'd rather we keep control of both Houses.
Ralph
Monday, November 1, 2010
Finally, tomorrow . . .
The verdict will soon be in, and as of now predictions are all over the place. Late momentum by some of the Democratic candidates brings hope that it won't be so bad. And then I read last night that some experienced Democratic political consultants have privately predicted a loss of up to 70 House seats. This would be a midterm defeat of historic proportions.
I'm going to try to quit torturing myself with "maybe's" and hoping against hope that it won't be so bad. Instead, let's look at the consequences I've also been reading commentary about.
1. There is actually a political advantage to losing control of at least one house. It puts Republicans in the position of some responsibility to try to solve problems instead of just saying no. And when they obviously don't have quick fixes either, the people will stop blaming it all on the Dems. One commentator went so far as to say that losing both houses would ensure Obama's re-election in 2012.
2. There's some thinking that many of the losses are going to be the Blue Dog Dems from conservative districts that usually elect conservatives. It was they who caused some of the biggest road blocks to getting progressive legislation passed. Except for losing control of the committees and the agenda, the voting might not be that much different.
3. Republicans are happy for the Tea Party zealots to fire up the enthusiasm, but they have no intention of allowing them to take over and have much influence. As with the social conservatives in past elections, they are being used to win votes, not to change their policies. The Repub leadership doesn't want to appear too extreme, because their eye is really on solidifying their gains in Congress and taking the White House in 2012. Doing anything too extreme would backfire on that plan.
4. Perhaps some significant wins in the election will be cathartic and disperse some of the anger that's poisoning our political process. At least all those relentless TV ads will be gone (here in GA we'll have a few more weeks leading up to the run-off).
Or am I just whistling past the graveyard?
Here's the most depressing thing I've read in all this. Tomorrow, the largest block of potential voters will be those who stay home and don't bother to vote. And by a survey, as compared with those who do vote, they will be younger, blacker, and more liberal. That apparently is typical, and it gives the false impression that the country is right of center. The analysis of this poll suggests that is not true, that it is a false impression based on voting patterns.
That may be true. Buy opinions don't count; it's the votes that count.
Should we wear black tomorrow?
Ralph
I'm going to try to quit torturing myself with "maybe's" and hoping against hope that it won't be so bad. Instead, let's look at the consequences I've also been reading commentary about.
1. There is actually a political advantage to losing control of at least one house. It puts Republicans in the position of some responsibility to try to solve problems instead of just saying no. And when they obviously don't have quick fixes either, the people will stop blaming it all on the Dems. One commentator went so far as to say that losing both houses would ensure Obama's re-election in 2012.
2. There's some thinking that many of the losses are going to be the Blue Dog Dems from conservative districts that usually elect conservatives. It was they who caused some of the biggest road blocks to getting progressive legislation passed. Except for losing control of the committees and the agenda, the voting might not be that much different.
3. Republicans are happy for the Tea Party zealots to fire up the enthusiasm, but they have no intention of allowing them to take over and have much influence. As with the social conservatives in past elections, they are being used to win votes, not to change their policies. The Repub leadership doesn't want to appear too extreme, because their eye is really on solidifying their gains in Congress and taking the White House in 2012. Doing anything too extreme would backfire on that plan.
4. Perhaps some significant wins in the election will be cathartic and disperse some of the anger that's poisoning our political process. At least all those relentless TV ads will be gone (here in GA we'll have a few more weeks leading up to the run-off).
Or am I just whistling past the graveyard?
Here's the most depressing thing I've read in all this. Tomorrow, the largest block of potential voters will be those who stay home and don't bother to vote. And by a survey, as compared with those who do vote, they will be younger, blacker, and more liberal. That apparently is typical, and it gives the false impression that the country is right of center. The analysis of this poll suggests that is not true, that it is a false impression based on voting patterns.
That may be true. Buy opinions don't count; it's the votes that count.
Should we wear black tomorrow?
Ralph
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Steele lowering expectations
Michael Steele, the embattled chairman of the Republican National Committee, is sort of a loose cannon, often making statements that he has to retreat from later or that cause consternation among his base. So we need to not put too much significance on this, but . . .
This morning on CNN's "State of the Union" he was clearly trying to lower expectations for his party's taking control of the House. Pointing out that if they get the 39-seat conversion they need to have a majority, that is a victory. But also, if they take 37 seats, that is also success.
Well, yes, of course. But that puts a different cast on it from recent GOP boasting about taking the gavel away from Nancy Pelosi, as though it was a done deal.
My personal gut feeling is that it's not going to be quite as bad for the Democrats as has been predicted. The latest revision of the HP prediction is a 90% chance that the Dems will retain control of the Senate; and down to a 77% probability that the Repubs will take control of the House.
Tuesday night can't come soon enough. The country is exhausted from this way-too-long and way-too-expensive and way-too-trivia-focused compaign.
Ralph
This morning on CNN's "State of the Union" he was clearly trying to lower expectations for his party's taking control of the House. Pointing out that if they get the 39-seat conversion they need to have a majority, that is a victory. But also, if they take 37 seats, that is also success.
Well, yes, of course. But that puts a different cast on it from recent GOP boasting about taking the gavel away from Nancy Pelosi, as though it was a done deal.
My personal gut feeling is that it's not going to be quite as bad for the Democrats as has been predicted. The latest revision of the HP prediction is a 90% chance that the Dems will retain control of the Senate; and down to a 77% probability that the Repubs will take control of the House.
Tuesday night can't come soon enough. The country is exhausted from this way-too-long and way-too-expensive and way-too-trivia-focused compaign.
Ralph
Staying too long ?
One of the pitfalls in my profession is keeping at it too long, letting the mental declines of memory and judgment that come with aging begin to intrude before you realize it, and your patients or colleagues have to tell you that you're losing it and should quit.
I guess it's sort of like when do you take away Grandpa's car keys?
Journalists are apparently not immune to mental decline either, and some don't know when to quit. Perhaps the Washington Post contract with David Broder doesn't have a clause covering such things as when he should quit.
David Broder used to be called the Dean of Political Journalists, or something like that, and he was known as an astute political observer. But for some time now he's occasionally taken really loony positions on things or said something outrageous. I'm not the first to suggest his retirement is overdue.
Now, he has all but suggested the solution to the economy is to go to war with Iran. Well, not quite. But he says we should talk about it and prepare for it -- and that will boost both the confidence and support from the right for President Obama (they like saber-rattling, which Cheney's Dubya was so good at), and at the same time boost the economy as it gears up to make all those expensive tools of war. He points, of course, to the well-known economic boom that came with World War II and helped restore the still-lagging economy from the Great Depression.
I'm opposed to mandatory retirement at a certain age. Daniel Schorr was still as sharp as a tack and making cogent commentary when he died at 84. Elliot Carter personally conducted the premier performance of his new classical musical composition to celebrate his 100th birthday.
Broder is only 81. And I, of course, am still going strong at 78 (minus 6 weeks).
But, it's time for David Broder to hang it up.
Ralph
I guess it's sort of like when do you take away Grandpa's car keys?
Journalists are apparently not immune to mental decline either, and some don't know when to quit. Perhaps the Washington Post contract with David Broder doesn't have a clause covering such things as when he should quit.
David Broder used to be called the Dean of Political Journalists, or something like that, and he was known as an astute political observer. But for some time now he's occasionally taken really loony positions on things or said something outrageous. I'm not the first to suggest his retirement is overdue.
Now, he has all but suggested the solution to the economy is to go to war with Iran. Well, not quite. But he says we should talk about it and prepare for it -- and that will boost both the confidence and support from the right for President Obama (they like saber-rattling, which Cheney's Dubya was so good at), and at the same time boost the economy as it gears up to make all those expensive tools of war. He points, of course, to the well-known economic boom that came with World War II and helped restore the still-lagging economy from the Great Depression.
I'm opposed to mandatory retirement at a certain age. Daniel Schorr was still as sharp as a tack and making cogent commentary when he died at 84. Elliot Carter personally conducted the premier performance of his new classical musical composition to celebrate his 100th birthday.
Broder is only 81. And I, of course, am still going strong at 78 (minus 6 weeks).
But, it's time for David Broder to hang it up.
Ralph
Send In the Clowns: Stewart & Colbert
My favorite comment on today's political scene: "Send in the Clowns," because it's the comedians who come closer to doing real journalism these days than the talking heads on TV, especially cable news programs. As in Shakespeare: it's the fool who can speak truth to the king. It's also an ironic comment, given that so many real politicians act like clowns, ie the ones whose antics are often outrageous.
So now we've had the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" and it sounds like a winner on many counts. We always like to have crowd estimates, so this one is estimated by the park service to be "well over 200,000." News organizations put it at 210,000 (CBS) to 250,000, compared to 87,000 for Glenn Beck's rally.
Stewart's plan was clear: attract a crowd, give them some entertainment, talk a little but keep it lite and inspiring. Not red meat politics. The main thing was the simple presence of people who came to have a good time, in peace, and with a measure of sanity.
Stewart's closing message was simple but elevating: the media elevates the trivia and fans the flames of fear and hate, but most Americans go on, day in and day out, getting things done, cooperating with each other, and living in harmony. As images of slow-moving traffic played on giant screens behind him, he closed by using the metaphor of cars merging to go through the Lincoln Tunnel between NY and NJ:
So now we've had the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" and it sounds like a winner on many counts. We always like to have crowd estimates, so this one is estimated by the park service to be "well over 200,000." News organizations put it at 210,000 (CBS) to 250,000, compared to 87,000 for Glenn Beck's rally.
Stewart's plan was clear: attract a crowd, give them some entertainment, talk a little but keep it lite and inspiring. Not red meat politics. The main thing was the simple presence of people who came to have a good time, in peace, and with a measure of sanity.
Stewart's closing message was simple but elevating: the media elevates the trivia and fans the flames of fear and hate, but most Americans go on, day in and day out, getting things done, cooperating with each other, and living in harmony. As images of slow-moving traffic played on giant screens behind him, he closed by using the metaphor of cars merging to go through the Lincoln Tunnel between NY and NJ:
These cars -- that’s a school teacher who thinks taxes are too high…there’s a mom with two kids who can’t think about anything else...another car, the lady’s in the NRA. She loves Oprah…An investment banker, gay, also likes Oprah…a Latino carpenter…a fundamentalist vacuum salesman…a Mormon Jay Z fan…But this is us. Everyone of the cars that you see is filled with individuals of strong belief and principles they hold dear -- often principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers.
And yet these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze one by one into a mile-long, 30-foot wide tunnel carved underneath a mighty river…And they do it. Concession by concession. You go. Then I’ll go. You go, then I’ll go. You go, then I’ll go -- oh my god, is that an NRA sticker on your car, an Obama sticker on your car? Well, that’s OK. You go and then I’ll go…"Sure, at some point there will be a selfish jerk who zips up the shoulder and cuts in at the last minute. But that individual is rare and he is scorned, and he is not hired as an analyst.
Because we know instinctively as a people that if we are to get through the darkness and back into the light we have to work together and the truth is, there will always be darkness. And sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the promised land. Sometimes it’s just New Jersey. But we do it anyway, together.
If you want to know why I’m here and what I want from you I can only assure you this: you have already given it to me. Your presence was what I wanted. Sanity will always be and has always been in the eye of the beholder. To see you here today and the kind of people that you are has restored mine. Thank you.
Lovely. Clowns do it best, sometimes.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
