1-1-11

Ah, well, I let 2010 expire without commenting these past few days. Every time I thought back over the year, it just seemed too complex to sum up; there were too many highs, too many lows, too much ambiguity about what it all meant. There was just no way to capture it in a few words. So, unable to say it all, I opted for nothing.

Here are a few things I'm hoping we'll see in 2011:

1. Boehner and McConnell will be so busy trying to keep the Tea Party freshmen within the GOP agenda, that they won't have much time for Obama bashing. Meanwhile, the newly emboldened moderate Republicans will form a coalition and cooperate with the Democrats to get some meaningful legislation done, preferring to break with the party on some issues rather than be lumped with the radical fringe . Yes, I'm a dreamer, optimistic to a fault. But I did say this is what I'm hoping for, not what I expect to happen.

2. The Federal Court that heard the Prop8 case will decide that the defendents had no standing to appeal and let the lower court decision stand; it will also uphold the plaintiff's arguments, in effect saying they would have upheld the lower court decision on merits. This will lift the stay and allow same-sex marriages in California, even if it is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Assuming the National Organization for Marriage will appeal (and they will), then the U. S. Supreme Court will decline to hear the case. And that will be that.

3. Some way will be found to end the war in Afghanistan, so that by the end of 2011 we will be out of there as well as Iraq. I don't know how it will happen -- can we risk losing Pakistan as well, with their nuclear bombs?

4. As people begin to benefit from the health care reform, public opinion will shift, they will realize that the Republicans sold them a bunch of lies -- and the tinkering they will be bound to attempt might actually make some improvements.

5. The economy will swing upward, and it won't just be Wall Street but millions of jobs as well. Obama will choose a replacement for Larry Summers who will convince him to listen to more progressive economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, both Nobel Prize winning economists. Elizabeth Warren's stature within the administration will grow, and she will get full support for her efforts in consumer protection regulations.

6. Somehow, without a major natural disaster to convince them, conservatives will quit being so pigheadedly dumb on global warming -- and cooperate to start making a difference.

7. Somewhere out there in progressive-land, some charismatic television commentator will emerge as the counterpart to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Rachel Maddow is the best we have now; she's terrific, but she may just be a bit too brainy for Joe Six-pack. Same for Jon Stewart. It may have to be someone that we liberal, educated people will cringe over from time to time, because s/he will have to have enough mass appeal to get a mass following.

But it will have to be someone who thinks clearly, challenges the lies without alienating the masses, and who has a way of debunking the debunkers so that people will listen.

OK. Now I guess I've gone round the bend in Ga-Ga Land. But it's my dream, isn't it?

Ralph

Screaming headlines

I've sounded off before about sensational headlines -- and not just in the tabloids or FoxNews. The Huffington Post contributes its share of whipping up unjustified fervor.

The latest was just now. Their home page headline screams in large type, bright red in color:

"Police Fatalities Jump 37% in 2010."

The article tells of the really awful statistic that 160 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in 2010 (and a few days to go). As you read, your mind starts trying to relate it to . . . . . what?

Easy availability of guns? It did say there was also an increase of shootings. Or the economy? The writer favored this explanation -- in that police forces have been cut back in some places due to budget shortages, and officers are being asked to do more with less.

Not until the 7th paragraph, however, does this interesting fact come out: The reason there was a 37% jump in 2010 is that last year's total of 117 was a 50 year low. It was 2009 that was the anomaly, not 2010. Nor does 160 represent a real long-range increase -- It has topped 160 five times in the past ten years, including 240 in 2001. It routinely topped 200 in the 1970s.

To be perfectly clear: I am not condoning police deaths. Even one is too many.

That headline was not wrong: it did rise 37% over 2009. But that's not the real story and it creates a false sense of fear and despair. The real story is that there has been a long-range decline in police deaths, with a sudden drop in 2009 that has now returned to the more expected rate.

Why wasn't the article written from that angle? Obviously, this is a more attention-grabbing headline. And it's all about competition for readers, I guess. Didn't journalism used to be about reporting the news honestly?

Again, I'll plug Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot's book, The Numbers Game: The Commonsense Guide to Understanding Numbers in the News, in Politics, and in Life." It's all about exposing just such misleading use of numbers and statistics. And highly readable.

Ralph

Obama and 2012

Huffington Post's Sam Stein examines the prospects for a primary challenger to President Obama in 2012. He finds it highly unlikely. Even in the nadir of the post-2010 election, when talk of a challenger was highest, there were no obvious takers who hadn't already said they would not.

Now that his star is rising again, it seems even less likely. Comparing Clinton's prospects at the same point: 78% of Democrats say they want Obama to be the nominee in 2012, compared to Clinton's 57% in 1994.

What would be the prospects of winning from a position to the left of Obama, given that the winner will face a conservative GOP opponent? And would there be any viability to a third party candidacy?

Of course, I'm talking about political realities and winning the presidency, not what progressive policies I would like for a president to be able to get for us. The reality is that, for the foreseeable future, a centrist or slightly left of center position is the most we can hope to elect.

That doesn't mean I'm completely against someone running to keep the progressive message out there and possibly force the nominee to adopt a more liberal stance -- just not so much that it would cost us the election.

In an interview with The Valley Advocate earlier this year, Rachel Maddow defined her political position as "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform."

Such are the times we live in. I would like to change it. Obama would like to change it. It ain't gonna happen over night.

Ralph

The outrage of " balanced"

Stung by charges that much of television reporting lacks any semblance of professional journalistic standards, some producers started touting "balance" in their reporting. FoxNews even made it the slogan of their ultra-biased news reporting.

Catching the words but missing the tune, they made it even worse by simply interviewing someone from both sides of a controversy, but still without any attempt to analyze the differences or challenge the obvious distortions.

Now, in an exit interview as he's giving up his long career as TV interviewer, Larry King has done just the same thing, criticizing Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow equally for "preaching" their points of view; whereas he, Larry, praises his own style, saying he never learned anything while he was talking, so he tried to just listen to his interviewees.

So: Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow are just alike, huh, only mirror images in their political views?

Bullshit. Hannity does exactly what King says. He preaches his own views, distorting what he needs to in order to sell those views.

Rachel Maddow, on the other hand, clearly has views; and she is not shy about letting them be known. But hers is one of the most honest news analysis shows, because she let's the other person present his views and she listens carefully, very carefully -- and then she challenges the logic, the facts, the conclusions. She also tells them where she does agree. In other words, she actually does journalism -- she subjects the report to analysis based on knowing her facts and using her skill in logical challenges. But first she gives the other side a fair hearing.

To equate the two as two opposite peas in a mirror-image pod is just what's wrong with TV news reporting and analysis today. Rachel is the one who does it right. Hannity is an echo-machine, preaching to the gullible and those who want to hear only the lies they already believe.

Here's what I really admire: instead of dumbing down and paranoia-ing up the show for popular appeal, as FoxNews does, Rachel and her producers depend on the appeal of truth, of hard-hitting but straight logical thinking and well-informed questioning. It's encouraging that there really is an audience for that -- and growing.

And, yes, I am biased. Rachel is the kind of person I admire: super-bright, articulate 37 year old, the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes Scholarship. She is candid about being lesbian, but she doesn't flaunt it or trade on it. It's just who she is. She's a graduate of Stanford University and went on to get her PhD in politics from Oxford University. Hers was the only cable news show to be nominated for the 2009 Television Critics Association Award. The interview when she recently had Jon Stewart on her show was a delight -- one to watch over and over. The two brightest people in TV news, albeit Stewart's official status is comedian.

And, yes, my beliefs also happen to agree with Rachel's positions, almost always. But it's not just bias; it all stands the test of logic and scrutiny for truth.

Ralph

Conservative praise for Obama

Charles Krauthammer, the conservative pundit, writes in today's AJC: "Obama achieved what seemed impossible 2 months ago."

Not that he likes the results, of course, but his praise for Obama's accomplishment shines through.

Riding the lamest of ducks, President Barack Obama just won the Triple Crown. He fulfilled (1) his most important economic priority, passage of Stimulus II, aka the tax cut deal . . . (2) his most important social policy objective, repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"; and (3) his most cherished (achievable) foreign policy goal, ratification of the New START treaty with Russia.

Politically these are all synergistic. The bipartisan nature of the tax deal instantly repositioned OBama back to the center, and just when conventional wisdom decided the deal had caused irreparable alienation from his liberal base, Obama almost immediately won it back -- by delivering one of the gay rights movement's most elusive and coveted breakthroughs. . . .

Then came START, which was important for Obama . . . because treaties . . . carry the aura of presidential authority and diplomatic mastery.

Krauthammer goes on to detail what's wrong, from his perspective, with these actual pieces of legislation, but he then concludes:

The great liberal ascendancy of 2008, destined to last 40 years (predicted by James Carville), lasted less than two. Yet, the great Republican ascendancy of 2010 lasted less than two months. Republicans will enter the 112th Congress with larger numbers but no longer with the wind -- the overwhelming Nov. 2 repudiation of Obama's social-democratic agenda -- at their backs.

"Harry Reid has eaten our lunch," said Senator Lindsey Graham . . . . Yes, but it was less Harry than Barry. Obama came back with a vengeance. His string of lame-duck successes is a singular political achievement. Because of it, the epic battles of the 112th Congress begin on what would have seemed impossible just one month ago -- a level playing field.

And that is a conservative Republican speaking.

Disappointed progressives will not be assuaged, probably. Their retort is likely to be: why hasn't he done that sooner on other issues, or why hasn't he used that political power and skill to get better deals on these pieces of legislation?

Good questions. It may just be that Obama is smarter than us all and knows that you have to pick your times and your battles. It's pretty hard to argue with the overall achievement in 2010, especially given the crowd he had to deal with.

Ralph

Obama the Un-wimp

Obama has been criticized, particularly by disappointed and angry progressives, for not fighting for some of the issues he promised to get passed. At times, I have felt the same wish for him to make it happen and to not cave in so easily in compromise.

It was Keith Olbermann who put it so pithily in his scathing critique of Obama for agreeing to tax cuts for the wealthy: "This President negotiates down from a position of strength better than any politician in our recent history."

But along comes the New Start nuclear disarmament treaty, and we see a different kind of Obama performance. What makes the difference is hard to say: the issue? the way he's feeling that week? a vast complex array of other things being considered? I don't presume to know.

Here's what the New York Times' Peter Baker said in an article on 12-23-10:

Some aides counseled Mr. Obama to stand down. Losing a treaty vote, as one put it, would be “a huge loss.” But Mr. Obama decided that afternoon to make one of the biggest gambles of his presidency and demand that the Senate approve the treaty by the year’s end. . . .

Along the way, he had to confront his own reluctant party leadership and circumvent the other party’s leadership. He mounted a five-week campaign that married public pressure and private suasion. He enlisted the likes of Henry A. Kissinger, asked Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany to help and sent a team of officials to set up a war room of sorts on Capitol Hill. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had at least 50 meetings or phone calls with senators. . . .

Even in the final 10 days, the effort appeared in danger of collapsing. The insistence of Democrats on passing unrelated legislation allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military upset the Republican conference and may have cost the White House five or more votes on the arms treaty. Administration officials worried last week that they did not have the required two-thirds majority in the Senate, and as late as Sunday, the president’s aides wondered whether to call off the vote. . . .

“The president made a gutsy decision that he was willing to lose it, and that was a gutsy decision,” said Senator John Kerry. . . . “Everybody said it wasn’t going to happen. Even colleagues on our side said it wasn’t going to happen.”. . .

[When key Republican senator on arms control, John Kyl, signaled that he wasn't going to support it after all] “There were people here who thought that was it, we were going to call it a day,” recalled one White House official. There was no Plan B. But Mr. Obama, who often disappoints supporters by not responding to Republicans more aggressively, decided this was a moment to fight. “He decided that he would settle on nothing short of full Senate ratification,” said another official.

Starting in that meeting, they laid out a strategy. Mr. Biden was supposed to meet two days later with several Republican luminaries. Instead, Mr. Obama would host the meeting and make a public pitch for the treaty. The White House ripped up plans for the weekly radio and Internet address to make it about New Start. Then Mr. Obama flew to Lisbon for a NATO meeting, where he encouraged European leaders to speak out for the treaty. . .

[Instead of continuing to press Mr. Kyl, they went after other Republicans.]

“It was very tricky, and it almost broke it apart,” Mr. Kerry said. “That was part of the overall high-stakes poker. A lot was hanging on different things.”

In the end, the gamble paid off on Wednesday with a 71-to-26 vote in the Senate to approve the treaty, called New Start, with Russia, culminating what turned out to be the biggest battle over arms control in Washington in more than a decade.

Some will give the credit to Joe Biden, scoffing at the idea that Obama fights for anything. Biden was a key player in persuading reluctant Republicansl but, if Baker is telling the truth, it was Obama who made the decision to fight for it out and out, and it was Obama who kept them to the task when nearly everyone else was ready to give it up.

So, why not do it more often? I don't know.

Ralph

Barney Frank

Barney Frank has the distinction (some say) of being the brightest person in Congress. He's also the funniest. Today there is a clip of a reporter interviewing him about how the repeal of DADT is going to impact the troops -- asking what about straight soldiers having to shower with homosexuals?

How shocking, Barney mocked. "What do you think happens in gyms all over the United States. In the Congress? In colleges? People shower with homosexuals everyday. . . We don't get ourselves dry cleaned; we tend to take showers when we go to the gym, when we play sports."

"The idea that there's something new about showering with homosexuals . . . remember, under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the policy was that you would be showering with homosexuals. You just weren't supposed to know which was which. So there was no change in that. The notion that knowing that someone is gay, as opposed to knowing that there are gay and lesbian people, you just aren't supposed to know who they are, that somehow that makes a difference, is a bit silly."

The reporter persisted, and Barney finally retorted: "Do you think that gyms should have separate showers for gay and straight people?"

Good point. Game. Set. Match.

Ralph