Kausfiles: A mostly political weblog.

Obama's Dems: So It's Quotas and Welfare Again?

American voters say 55 - 36 percent that affirmative action should be abolished

Backfill: Jennifer Rubin explains how explicit race quotas in contracting survived the Supreme Court's 1995 Adarand decision, which many people (me too) thought had killed the practice. "Strict scrutiny" isn't what it used to be. ... No doubt Justice Sotomayor will clean up this mess.

 **--You wouldn't know if you relied on the L.A. Times, which apparently hasn't covered the CalTrans quota controversy (though its competitors have). ... 1:40 A.M.

Why was Pennsylvania relatively unscathed by foreclosures in 2008 while neighboring Ohio was hammered? A friend at a conference I recently attended pointed out the contrast. I don't know the answer, but it might be instructive. ... Update: Thanks to Tom Maguire, who forwards a newspaper article and a summary of three Fed studies on the topic. Regulatory differences are suspected. ... 1:54 A.M.

___________________________

Los Angeles Democrats have succeeded in using the state's fiscal crisis to recreate welfare, some thirteen years after the hated federal AFDC entitlement was abolished. The local Dem-controlled Board of Supervisors is proposing to pay mothers for "caring for their own children"--which was the original idea of the welfare program when it was inserted into the New Deal's cash-granting structure in 1935. It seemed to make sense--caring for children is a type of work, after all. Except that subsidizing non-working parenthood--especially single motherhood--turned out to be a recipe for epic social disaster (something that was predicted by not a few dissenting antipoverty activists back in FDR's day). In 1996, Congress finally decided the better policy was to require mothers receiving welfare to work, outside the home, even if that was more expensive than just mailing them checks. At the time, the favored liberal Democratic battle cry was a demand for more day care. But now the Dem Board of Supervisors'  proposes to cut the day care and just mail out the checks again, at least to all mothers with two children under age 6. (Message: Have a second kid and you don't have to go to work!). 

Doesn't Obama's HHS Department have some say in this? Does he really want to resume subsidizing the culture of dependent single motherhood? ... P.S.: If he plays his cards right he could come out for both welfare and quotas in the same week, and give the GOPs a fair shot. ... [via Drudge] 2:07 A.M.

___________________________

WaPo media critic Howard "I'm A Star--The Rules Don't Apply to Me" Kurtz, who failed to disclose that he is paid by CNN when he defended CNN in an online chat this week, promises to disclose in the future:

"That was an oversight and won’t be repeated."

We've heard that tune before! ... P.S.: My beef with Kurtz isn't so much that he has a giant crippling conflict of interest (one that would never be tolerated for a Post reporter writing about, say, GM). It's that he has a giant crippling conflict of interest while he runs around chastising other journalists for minor conflicts of interest. Franklin Foer called him an "East German figure skating judge." He once tried to zing me for an Amazon Associates payment of $1.92 (which I'd overzealously disclosed). ... P.P.S.: The Post's Omblogger Andy Alexander produces a laboriously crafted corporate PR-style paragraph defending his employer--

An archival examination of his writings for The Post shows that when CNN has received a significant mention in his columns or stories, they typically end with this disclosure: "Howard Kurtz hosts's CNN's weekly media program, ‘Reliable Sources.'" [Weasel-word emphasis added.]

a) BS; b) What about stories trashing CNN's competitors (without 'significantly' mentioning CNN)? c) This isn't the sort of conflict--getting a paycheck from one of the companies you are covering--that disclosure is held to cure, according to the normal rules of journalism. ...

Update: Bill Wyman argues--and he has a good example--that what Kurtz doesn't write about matters just as much. ... 2:36 A.M.

___________________________  

Imagine how cool President McCain would be in the Iran crisis. ... Would he go on TV to declare "we are all Moussavists now," or suspend all government activities while he parachuted into Tehran? ... 3:08 A.M.

___________________________

You Can Count on Specter!

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

They Have a Sense of Humor:  

"Senator Specter Increases Number of Democrats Opposing 'Forced' Choice Act"-- from the anti-"card check" Workforce Fairness Institute.  

Meanwhile, Jennifer Rubin, giving advice to her enemies, thinks Big Labor would be crazy not to primary Specter. Is she being Machiavellian--i.e. if they run someone against him, he'll be annoyed and won't flip to endorse some form of "card check" as Peter Kirsanow fears? ... P.S.: Her commenters think she doesn't know Pennsylvania politics. ... Ambinder is ambivalent. ... P.P.S.: My guess is that there still aren't enough votes for a bill that includes a) a way for unions to avoid secret elections and b) mandatory arbitration--Specter has already given cover for moderate Dems to voice their doubts about those provisions. But who knows about a rewritten "compromise" bill?  And I have been wrong before. ... 6:26 P.M.

___________________________ 

Gays in the military, Dems, GOPs reach foreign policy consensus, Meghan McCain "limiting herself to tweeting about visiting Girl Scout troops," no mention of immigration:  Walter Shapiro makes McCain's "First 100 days" seem much better than they actually would have been. ... 6:24 P.M.

___________________________

Happy New Sneer

Friday, January 2, 2009

New Yorker's Sasha Frere-Jones has found a way to make himself readable--limit himself to 140 characters at a time. Unfortunately it seems to be a stunt, not a hard technical limit. [Via Rachel Sklar]  4:16 A.M.

___________________________

Footnote to a footnote to a footnote: Those closely reading the complaint in the Vicki Iseman libel suit against the NYT (and who isn't, really) may notice a quote from Matt Yglesias on page 21, calling the Times' Iseman story "a pretty shameful attempt to set up a Kaus-like presumption of guilt." Q: What's that "Kaus-like" all about? A:Yglesias was almost certainly referring to this 2007 kf post, which isn't about McCain and Iseman but about John Edwards and Rielle Hunter. It argued that Edwards' initial denial of the National Enquirer's original story was too sharp and confrontational (he'd said it was "made up") which was "not necessarily a smart move for a politician in Edwards' position." Yglesias thought I had assumed Edwards' denial was b.s. (which of course it was). I claimed I didn't assume his guilt--that even if Edwards was innocent it would be unwise for him to directly attack his accusers, lest that spur them redouble their efforts and make it a two-day story or worse. I admit it was difficult to avoid assuming Edwards' guilt since I pretty much knew he was guilty.

P.S.--Yglesias wrong, so very wrong: In the event, Edwards' denial spurred the Enquirer to redouble their efforts and they nailed him. ... Meanwhile, Yglesias had argued: "No doubt by now we've had all the legitimate news organizations in the country looking into it and it seems that . . . nobody can come up with any evidence." It turned out, of course, that "legitimate" news organizations hadn't spent a lot of effort looking into it. ...

Whatever you do, do not let this man speak for the Center for American Progress Action Fund! ... 3:17 A.M.

___________________________

1) Immigrants are leaving Southern California. 2) Crime is falling in Southern California (contrary to criminologists' 'hard-times=crime' predictions). 

Is there a connection? I don't know. But don't expect the Los Angeles Times to even ask. ... [Thanks to alert reader R.] :2:07 A.M.

___________________________

I missed "The Music of Seal on Ice" TV special. Did someone liveblog? ... 1:44 A.M.

____________________________

You're No LGM, or even FMK: Exhausted by 24 hours of nonstop mindless piece-rate sneering, Gawker's Alex Pareene resorts to one of the oldest tricks in the book! (But you'll have to be nastier than that to make me link, buddy!) ... 1:39 A.M.

___________________________

Kausfiles' Moment of Hope (It's Brief!)

Winner--The Newsom Rule: The Newsom Rule holds that it's almost always a bad idea for politicians to gloat that their side has won "whether you like it or not." That's what S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom did after a temporary gay marriage victory. Now California voters--influence by ads featuring Newsom's giddy, egomaniacal video boast-- have by a narrow margin stuck a gay marriage ban into the state constitution. ... [Is the Newsom Rule like Godwin's Law--ed Saying that anything is like Godwin's Law is itself a violation of Godwin's Law, I think] 4:19 P.M.

___________________________

Book Him on Three Counts of Failure to Transcend: Everyone wants to praise McCain's "gracious" concession speech. But it was shockingly  tin-eared--especially the good-for-you-black-people beginning:

This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight.

He went on and on--as if Obama's victory was all about race and not about a rejection of McCain or Republican governance. As if even if it had to do with race its rejection of bigotry was mainly of interest to African Americans as opposed to all Americans. As if the most important characteristic of the man most Americans chose over McCain was his skin color, etc. ... I know I'm overreacting, but McCain's tone seemed almost tribal. ... Maybe the problem was his distancing, clanging choice of pronoun--"theirs." Not "yours," let alone "ours." ..  3:26 P.M.

___________________________

Winner: Pork! Champion bacon-conduit Ted Stevens defeats challenger, despite a fresh multiple-count felony conviction, while death-to-earmark Skywalker McCain crashes and burns ... 1:35 P.M.

___________________________

Winner: Mike Murphy. The McCain loss unfolded pretty much exactly as he predicted back in August. ...

Loser: Mike Murphy. Nobody's resented more than a dissenter who turns out to have been right. ... 1:34 P.M.

___________________________

I See. I Saw. I Didn't Get 60:  Hmm. As Obama surged to victory, further down on the ballot things were drifting in the opposite direction. Politico:

But as NRCC staffers returned to work Wednesday morning, many of them were breathing sighs of relief. A 20- or 22-seat loss is hardly a victory, but it’s not the sea-changing — and majority-robbing — 30-seat loss the Republicans suffered two years ago. Just a week ago, the NRCC staffers were braced for worse. But they say they saw the Democrats’ wave crest just a little too early — and that it was starting to recede as voters went to the polls. [E.A.}

See-Saw Effect, anyone? ... P.S.: Specifically, this would be the Downballot Hedge version of the See Saw, in which swing voters compensated for the bold, hopeful risk they took on Obama (including for overcoming any race prejudice)  by gravitating back toward Republicans in their local Senate and House races.  ... P.P.S.: Sorry, Mike! ... For background, search this post for "vertical ticket splitter," and search here for the original mirror-image version of the See Saw proposed by Reader M.  ... 1:32 P.M.

___________________________

Grant Park: I was struck by two lists of virtues used by Obama in his acceptance speech--or rather by two omissions on those lists. [Emphasis added]

1.

To those who would tear this world down – we will defeat you.  To those who seek peace and security – we support you.

"Peace and security." Not "democracy" or "freedom." This is someone who doesn't want to seem in any way a neocon idealist.

2.

And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright – tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

No mention of "equality"--not even social equality. Nor "equality before the law." This is someone who doesn't want to seem in any way a leftish "redistributor." ... 1:51 A.M.

___________________________

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Kinsley:

People who want divided government are afraid of politics.

I dunno. Maybe we're just afraid of card check. ... 6:09 P.M.

___________________________

kf Moment of Hope: The News. ...  6:04 P.M.

____________________________

Thank You, Ohio!

Props: If California's Proposition 11--redistricting reform--passes, that will be at least a partial redemption of Gov. Schwarzenegger's reformist promise, squandered in his disastrous 2005 "year of reform."  Prop. 11 doesn't apply to Congressional redistricting--Nancy wouldn't allow it. It only applies to state officeholders. But it's a start. ... Drug policy expert Mark Kleiman is torn about Prop. 5, in theory designed to end incarceration of non-violent drug offenders. (He calls it a "crock," but might vote for it anyway).  ...  Race preference opponent Ward Connerly comes out strongly against the anti-gay-marriage initiative (Prop. 8)--and without kausfiles' tortured legalism:

In an interview today with The Times, Connerly said he made the decision without telling the No-on-8 campaign consultants, and against the wishes of some of his political advisors.

“There are times when you have consider who you are,” Connerly said.

Connerly, whose wife is white, noted that when he got married in 1962, “the government in many parts of our country did not legally allow us to do that. I have never forgotten that.”

Kevin Drum has generally sensible recommendations on the other California ballot questions. (The only one I'm torn on is Prop. 4, for Patterico's reasons.) ... 2:49 P.M.

___________________________.

My Obama Hangup: My main hangup in voting for Obama today is his support of "card check" legislation that would eliminate the secret ballot in union recognition elections. That would be both a violation of democratic priinciples and a practical drag on the economy, threatening to spread Detroit/UAW-like inefficiencies while reviving the wage-price spiral of the '70s. 

If Obama wins, and Democrats gain the expected majorities in Congress, "card check" will be hard to stop. I'll even concede that it will be harder to stop "card check" under Obama than it would be to stop the equally significant, equally misguided "comprehensive immigration reform" under McCain. But there's still a chance--even a good chance. It's not easy to defend "card check" in public. Will Democrats want the public to know that carrying Big Labor's water was their first priority upon gaining unified control of the government? Press coverage won't help their cause. Some moderate Democratic Senators--Mark Warner?--might balk at cloture-time.

But suppose "card check" passes, and unions mount their expected organizing campaigns. If the new law has the expected semi-disastrous consequences, its impact will be partially self-limiting (unionized firms will lose business). And Democrats won't be able to avoid accountability for any economic deterioriation. It will certainly be a lot easier to reverse "card check" than reverse the impact of a failed immigration semi-amnesty. Misguided labor laws can be repealed (think Taft-Hartley). If a failed immigration law legalizes 12 million new Americans and attracts another 12 million illegals hoping to become legal, that will create irrevocable 'facts on the ground"--including millions of new voters and political support for further amnesty.

Isn't a focus on these discrete legislative issues inappropriate, given the grand election themes of war, peace, justice, liberty, hope and change? Not really. If you look at what Clinton actually accomplished in his 8 years, you could be excused for giving a prominence to the welfare reform of 1996--a prominence vastly exceeding the issue's coverage in the press. The same would be true of "card check," though I suspect with a different historical verdict. Both laws alter fundamental economic institutions, with consequences that tend to outlive presidencies.

Still, Obama's virtues outweigh the threat of this one bill. He promises to calm down the world in a way John Kerry, say, could not--and I supported Kerry in 2004 largely because of his global hatred-lowering potential. His choice of advisers, so far, is confidence-inspring. It's hard to predict what he'll do once elected--maybe he'll replace Jason Furman with Amiri Baraka. But all indications suggest he's a steady, inclusive, perhaps overly cautious and conventional leader. (Examples: Jim Johnson as veep-vetter, Joe Biden as VP--and: John Kerry,rumored to be Obama's Secretary of State. A Trifecta of Usual Suspects.) And don't forget health care.

Time to go vote for him. With hope, even. 10:45 A.M.

___________________________,

Sister Sagjah: There was some sniping when Mary Battiata suggested an Obama victory might render unfashionable

heavy gold, medallions, below-the-butt denim, the whole hip-hop gangsta fashion habit.

Here's Obama in Nevada last Saturday (in an interview broadcast Monday):

"I think people passing a law against people wearing sagging pants is a waste of time. ... [snip] Having said that, brothers should pull up their pants. You are walking by your mother, your grandmother, your underwear is showing. What's wrong with that? Come on. There are some issues that we face, that you don't have to pass a law, but that doesn't mean folks can't have some sense and some respect for other people and, you know, some people might not want to see your underwear -- I'm one of them." [E.A.]

It's not clear anyone will pay attention to Obama on this. But it's not clear they won't. ...12:44 A.M.

___________________________

Monday, November 3, 20008

Thank you, Ohio! Tomorrow, if all goes as expected, Democrats should pause to be grateful that John Kerry didn't get 70,000 more votes in Ohio in 2004. What would have happened if Kerry had won? 1) He would have presided over a slow motion loss, or continuing stalemate, in Iraq. No way Kerry would ever have approved the "surge." 2) He would also have presided over the current housing and financial collapse that has both broken economic growth and, apparently, destroyed any chances of the incumbent party retaining the White House.  Democrats don't bear the main blame for this crisis, but is there any reason to think they would have prevented it? I can't think of one. We'd be looking at a Republican wave instead of a Democratic sweep. ... 7:46 P.M.

___________________________.

The Tamar Jacoby Prize:  The Republican candidate for president seems poised to lose the Latino vote despite his longtime championing of illegal immigrant legalization. Some would argue this demonstrates the poverty of attempting to win the Latino vote by championing illegal immigrant legalization. (Maybe Latino voters, like other Americans, worry mainly about the economy, the war, and schools.)  But sophisticated policy journalists know this is plodding, linear thinking. The coveted kausfiles Tamar Jacoby Prize goes to the first writer to argue, as if it were self-evident, that McCain's abject failure pursuing a Rovian Hispandering strategy dramatically vindicates the Rovian Hispandering strategy. ...  I mean, that strategy must be right, because unless politicans are convinced of it, you know, there's not much hope of actually passing illegal immigrant legalization, which is bipartisan and therefore good. ... [Offer void where applicable. Tamar Jacoby and members of her immediate family are eligible!]  3:34 P.M.

___________________________

MSNBC's "First Read" on how the early voting results seem to mirror its overall poll results:

One more thing: 30% say they’ve already voted, and those voters break [for Obama] by an identical 51%-43% margin.

Hmm. Is this breakdown in early voting really such good news for Obama? You'd think, given the enthusiasm gap between the two candidates' supporters, that Obama voters would tend to be early voters. That means the voters left to vote on election day will be the more undecided, more pro-McCain voters, no? The final results should be less pro-Obama than the early results. Which means if the early voting is 51-43, then the overall MSNBC poll showing a 51-43 Obama edge is off--and Obama is actually  less than 8 points ahead, no? Just asking!  ...  2:24 P.M.

____________________________ 

Greg Sargent is shocked by John McCain's "lying."** Those of us who opposed McCain's campaigns for illegal immigrant legalization--sorry, "comprehensive reform"--are maybe less shocked. McCain routinely lied during the immigration debate when it suited him--saying the illegals he legalized would "not be in any way rewarded for illegal behavior" (BS), that they'd have to go to the "back of the line behind everybody else" (not the most important line), and that he does "not support nor would I ever support any services provided to someone who came to this country illegally" (BS he does and BS he did). ... He got away with this serial dissembling because most reporters thought he was on the right and compassionate side of the issue. And, of course, that he got away with it may help explain why he dissembled in the first place--he knew he wouldn't be punished by the press if he deceived to get what he wanted. ... Now he knows he'll be punished, but he feels he has no choice (if he's going to get what he wants). ... That's a distinction, I guess. But not necessarily a moral one. ...

**--If the "lie" Sargent complains about isn't good enough for you, here's a better one. ...12:26 P.M.

___________________________.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Dept. of Heterodoxy: Anti-liberal, anti-Obama, anti-LAT blogger Patterico comes out against California's Prop. 8, which would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage (after the state Supreme Court ruled the constitution required gay marriage):

I am angry about the California Supreme Court’s attempt to take this matter out of voters’ hands, and part of me wants to support the measure just to flip the bird to the justices. Ultimately, however, I support the right of homosexuals to marry one another, and so I will be voting no.

I'm pretty sure I will too, for similar reasons. The problem is that if the state Supreme Court is sustained in creating this right, it will be inevitably tempted to create other, more problematic constitutional rights. ("Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them," says a man who may soon be in a position to insure this "expansion" picks up steam.) We'll wind up in a Rose Bird world in which almost all significant disputes involve contending "rights" and are therefore to be decided by judges, not voters. ... I'd vote for a ballot proposition that merely reversed the Court and kicked the gay marriage issue back to the legislature and the voters. But that's not what we're being asked to vote on. We're being asked to keep the matter out of the legislature's hands--just in the other direction. ... P.S.: Patterico got 267 comments. Those are HuffPo numbers, no?  ... P.P.S.: Patterico also supports California's animal rights Proposition 2.  Come home, Matthew Scully! ...

Update: Alert reader G.D. notes that the gay marriage issue was already out of the legislature's hands even before the Court ruling, thanks to Proposition 22, which amended the Family Code in 2000 to define marriage as man-woman only. Because it passed as an initiative statute, Prop. 22 could not have been simply overturned by the legislature. Prop. 22 was what the state Supreme Court overturned, declaring that it violated the state constitution.  Prop. 8--being voted on Tuesday--would write the gay marriage ban into the state constitution, thus overturning theCcourt. But--a big caveat--it would only take a majority vote on another constitutional initiative, in the future, to overturn Prop. 8. The California Constitution is easy! ... Which leads to G.D.'s implicit question: What's the big difference between the solution of merely reversing the Court decision--which would leave an initiative statute (Prop 22)  in place that could only be overturned by a majority of the voters--and Prop. 8's solution, which would leave a constitutional ban in place that could also be overturned by a majority of voters? Either way, there's a ban, the state Court couldn't reverse it, but 50% + 1 of the voters could.  My answer:  I'm willing to vote to overturn the Court's decision, rendering the state constitution mute on the subject of gay marriage. I'm not willing to write a gay marriage ban into the constitution. I'm for gay marriage. I wouldn't vote for the statutory ban of Prop 22 either. Why ask me to do it--especially if you could achieve the same practical effect by just reversing the Court's decision? ... And of course you could write an inititiative constitutional amendment that voided both the Court's decision and Prop. 22, leaving the issue for the legislature to decide. ... 10:38 P.M.

___________________________ 

Isn't it pretty clear that the reason Obama is contesting McCain's home state of Arizona isn't to humiliate McCain or because Arizona might actually be decisive (those scenarios are fairly complicated) but as a media strategy to generate Election Week MSM stories about how McCain is on the defensive, etc.--stories that will demoralize Republicans and help Obama win the real battleground states? ... P.S.: It's working. On MTP, Tom Brokaw had "Arizona" at the top of his list of contested states, as part of a how-things-have-changed-for-McCain analysis. It's almost as if the MSM is playing along! .. .8:46 P.M.

___________________________.

Not over! At this point in New Hampshire, had Hillary even cried yet? No. ... [Don't give McCain any ideas--ed. He's tried A! He's tried B. ...] ... P.S.: Remember that the Two Electorates Theory (those not following the election are less well informed than in the past) plus the Feiler Faster Thesis (they can inform themselves very quickly at the last minute) = Volatility and Unpredictability. ... 7:35 P.M.

___________________________ 

Shocked for Barack!

No Ring. On to the DNA test! ... 1:22 P.M.

___________________________

Everybody's Pitching In (7)! Barbra Streisand is doing her part [in a non-profit, non-endorsement way of course] ...  1:15 P.M.

___________________________

Are we sure that when Obama was talking about judge-led "redistributive change" that "the real context" for his remarks was the inherently limited debate over Charles Reich's "New Property"--i.e. whether government benefits (like welfare) could be denied without various procedural safeguards like as hearings--as Emily Bazelon argues?  Didn't Harvard Law Prof. Frank Michelman famously attempt  to import into the Constitution John Rawls' Theory of Justice--in order to require the provision, not just of procedural rights, but of actual welfare benefits? My memory might be off, but I think he did! Obama was certainly talking broadly enough to include this ambitious, unsuccessful liberal effort:

[T]he supreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the warren court it wasnt that radical ... it didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constituion at least as it has been interpreted and the warren court interpreted it generally in the same way that the constitution is a document of negative liberties  

Since Obama is rejecting the idea of pursuing "redistributive change" through the courts, what difference does it make whether this change was narrow and procedural (Reich) or dramatic and substantive (Michelman)? Answer: It matters because Bazelon's version minimizes the extent to which liberal legal activists actually wanted to redistribute wealth through the courts--and might one day again if they think they can get away with it. That possibility seems very remote, I agree. But as David Bernstein argues, it can't be completely discounted despite Obama's criticism of judge-led redistribution, because Obama's criticism was largely pragmatic, and the pragmatic equation could change:

There are two basic possibilities. One is that Obama might believe that appointing far left Justices to the Court would be unlikely to accomplish much in the long-term, and could ultimately harm the progressive agenda, and his own presidency, by reviving "unelected judges imposing their will on the American people" as a Republican campaign theme. The other possibility is that Obama, intoxicated by victory, and having the very healthy ego that all successful politicians have, will decide that the election of a very liberal African-American president, along with large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, signals that the social and political winds have shifted sufficiently that the Supreme Court could successfully launch an activist liberal agenda, and he will nominate justices accordingly. But there is nothing in either Obama's radio remarks, his voting record in the Senate, or his public statements on judges to suggest that he objects in principle to the equalitarian "living Constitution" of Brennan, Warren, et al., and there is much to the contrary. [E.A.]

3:36 A.M.

___________________________.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008  

Obama Infomercial: Effective! (And I hate Real People). ... Made Obama seem normal. .... Huge gap between what he says he'll do ("restore fairness") and his actual initiatives (tax credits). ... Was that Joe Biden or his SNL caricature saying "Whoa!"? .... 5:40 P.M.

___________________________

Who Let Rachael Larimore in? Slate's quadrennial exercise proving that just because you're open about it doesn't mean it's not embarrassing is up.  Slate is voting 55-1 for Obama over McCain, with one additional vote for Bob Barr. With those numbers, it's getting hard to agree with founder Michael Kinsley:

No doubt it is true that most journalists vote Democratic, just as most business executives (including most media owners) vote Republican, though neither tendency is as pronounced as their respective critics believe.

Not "as pronounced" as our "critics believe"? You mean Sarah Palin thought it would be 56-1? How much more pronounced could it get? ...

Memo to Don Graham: As long as we're going with the O by a 55-1 margin, why not drop the now-ludicrous MSM-style pretense of non-partisanship and reap the financial rewards of partisanship that available on the Web-- like, say, the Huffington Post? ... P.S.: Slate itself is a bad name, in this respect, since it implies a blankness, a void of strong preferences that (fortunately) isn't there. But I guess it's too late to change that. ... 4:37 P.M.

___________________________

Shocked, Shocked for Barack! The cheapest out if your'e a previously McCain-friendly pundit who wants to endorse Obama is to say you like McCain but can't vote for him because you're revolted by his campaign. It's an out elaborately developed by Joe Klein at Time, and it's an out Anne Applebaum takes in Tuesday's WaPo.  Applebaum claims she's not reacting against McCain's "campaign" but rather to "institutional" deterioration in his "increasingly anti-intellectual, no longer even recognizably conservative" party. But all the examples she cites come from his campaign (Palin) or campaigning that's not even his (Sean Hannity's anti-Obama telecasts).. ...

The problem with the "I'm repulsed" argument is that while it's eminently respectable it's unserious. The campaign will be over soon. There is no reason to think McCain has actually changed what he wants to do on, say, immigration. Applebaum doesn't offer even a speculative argument as to why, with the election safely behind him, President McCain would have to truckle to his party's anti-amnesty contingent. That's because he wouldn't. He'd be much more likely to make immigration the basis for his first and perhaps only foray into bipartisanship--in effect, truckling to the pro-legalization forces. Nor has McCain "spent the past four months running away" from his longstanding immigration position. He's spent the past two months reasserting it.

I think Applebaum knows this. She's not a fool. If she really thinks that McCain's pre-campaign immigration policies--or his budget policies, or his torture policies--are right for the country, then she should be for McCain. Even if he's trying to win by running anti-Ayers ads. Even if his supporters "repulse" her. It's hard to believe that this repulsion isn't a convenient cover for some unstated, perhaps unconscious, pro-Obama imperative (or maybe simply for the imperative to come to a decision). ...  2:54 A.M.

___________________________

Tuesday, October 28, 2008  

If you're looking for evidence of a "Bradley"-like effect--in which preelection polls can be wildly off--one place to look is the polling on Ward Connerly's Civil Rights Initiative in Michigan. According to Connerly (in answer to an email query) 

Some polls had us losing by 10 points the weekend before the election. We won by 16.

Results here. ... It seems clear, in that case at least, voters told pollsters the respectable PC answer they thought pollsters wanted to hear. ... Barack Obama was one of those campaigning (in radio spots) for the respectable PC side that lost. ...  P.S.--Is McCain Yorty? Sherry Bebitch Jeffe argues (as have others) that there was no Bradley effect in Tom Bradley's 1982 gubernatorial race--the alleged ur-example. In Bradley's 1969 mayoral race against Sam Yorty, on the other hand .... 5:07 P.M.

___________________________.

Everybody's Pitching In for Barack!

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Everybody's Pitching In! (5): Family Guy is doing its part! With "provocative concepts and biting humor"! ... 1:15 P.M.

___________________________.

Leon Wiesletier, in the course of endorsing Obama in The New Republic

I must say that the Ayers affair rankles me, because I would not shake the man's dirty hand; and the fact that Obama was eight years old at the time of the Weather Underground is no more pertinent to his moral and historical awareness than the fact that he was six years old at the time of the King assassination.

Too off-message for Mr. Doubt. Three Atlantic interns have been assigned to investigate. ... But Sullivan is right about this extremely effective video. 1:06 P.M.

___________________________

Everybody's Pitching In! (4): The Simpsons is doing its part! ...  1:25 A.M.

___________________________

Bob Kerrey is not doing his part!

If this thing was running the other way, if Obama was taking the public money and McCain had opted out and raised $150 million in September, do you think The New York Times would have an editorial against it?

1:21 A.M.

___________________________ 

Everybody's Pitching In! (3): Men's Health is doing its part! ... 12:53 A.M.

___________________________.

In 2005, Californians passed 75 percent of bond measures, according to L.A. Weekly's Jill Stewart, who thinks they might rebel this year. Especially if they read the fine print. ... 12:42 A.M,

___________________________

Everybody's Pitching In! (2): Daniel Craig is doing his part! ... 12:07 A.M.

___________________________

Friday, October 24, 2008

Patterico's blog has been hijacked. I think they'll soon learn that they hijacked the wrong man! .. Here's his new URL. ....  11:53 P.M.

___________________________

Thursday, October 23, 2008

 Everybody's Pitching In! I got home to find a staccato message on my phone machine from a Republican friend: 

OK. So depressed about this election that I had to go to Baskin-Robbins and just buy a pint of ice cream and some caramel cones for [my son].

And of course, of course, I get there trying to drown my sorrows, and the flavor of the month is

"Whirl of Change."

"Whirl of Change" with a little Democratic donkey sign.

It's like peanut nougat ice cream with chunks of chocolate enrobed in more chocolate.

And I think it's also some kind of horrific multiracial metaphor.

But anyway so "Whirl of Change." Flavor of the month at Baskin Robbins.

I can't even listen to NPR. I get two NPR's and I switched the channel to the other NPR which usually isn't political and they were talking about the Davenport Zither Society and it was great. Fantastic.

I listened to that for like twenty minutes.

Baskin-Robbins is doing its part!  ... 

Background: Here. ... 12:52 P..M.

___________________________

I never understand poll results like this: "[L]ess than a third of voters" in three swing states said the Ayers and ACORN issues "would affect their votes." This is interpreted by TIME, and others, as a sign that McCain's Ayers and ACORN attacks aren't working. But if the attacks really did move a bit "less than a third"--27% or 30%--of voters into the McCain column, they'd be fantastically effective. ... Obviously, the attacks haven't done that. Most of the 27%-30% of affected voters were probably McCain voters anyway. But the poll doesn't tell us how many weren't. If even a third of that 27% were undecided voters, that could have a huge impact in a close race. Nor does the poll tell us how much these voters votes are being affected, or even in which direction the "affect" cuts. (Maybe the attacks produced sympathy for Obama.) All this is assuming voters are being improbably, brutally self aware and honest about what's affecting them. .... To be sure: I don't think the Ayers and ACORN attacks should be especially effective. I doubt they are especially effective. But poll numbers like this don't tell us one way or another. They're manufactured news designed to give the impression that lines of attack the MSM doesn't want to work aren't in fact working. ..1:13 A.M.

___________________________.

Is it just my weakness for off-message Dems, or is Kirsten Powers continuing her bizzare hot streak with this column (on Biden's undercovered gaffes)? She's becoming the shikse Krauthammer! ... 12:44 A.M.

___________________________

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Ride My See-Saw: I am encouraged to learn that the See-Saw or Hedge Effect, first suggested to me by emailer M., may have non-trivial grounding in professional polling analysis.  .... To recap: M suggested that voters (especially white, swing voters) who don't vote for Obama may feel guilty about it and compensate by voting for Democrats in downballot races (Senate and Congress).  But the converse of this theory is equally interesting--voters who do pick Obama, may compensate or hedge for what they feel is a bold, guilt-expiating risk by picking Republicans downballot.  In this theory, Obama and downballot Dems are on a see-saw: The better Obama does, the worse the downballot Dems do, and vice versa. ... The technical term for these voters, I've learned, is vertical ticket splitters. They normally constitute a small ("maybe 8-10%") but important part of the electorate. M's point would be that this year their numbers are augmented--more people will be vertical ticket splitters because of the presence of Obama, who is not only an African American candidate--whom you might feel guilty about not picking--but a relatively unknown candidate whom you might want to hedge against, especially if you voted for him to avoid feeling guilty about not picking him (and then felt guilty about that).** ... The conventional, expected realization of the See-saw Theory would see an underperforming Obama squeak through a victory while downballot Dems roll up huge, realigning margins in Congress. But the SeeSaw could swing the other way as well. ... Indeed, the See-Saw Theory is mighty convenient for those of us who want Obama to win but fear a big Dem Senate majority (which might quickly enact "card check" and other misguided leftish reforms). It means we can root for an Obama blowout while simultaneously and realistically hoping for a non-overwhelming Democratic congressional margin. ... Go Obama! Go guilt-ridden vertical ticket splitters! ...

**--Note that a significant portion of these ticket splitters won't necessarily be consciously attempting to produce a divided government. They just feel guilty! Or insecure. ...1:21 P.M.

___________________________

My neighbors here in beautiful, rich West L.A. are busy setting up phone banks to call into neighboring swing state Nevada. I'm not sure that will help! The "smooth, half-price margaritas" could prove especially counterproductive. ... 2:22 A.M.

___________________________

Did David Geffen leave Dreamworks so he could buy the Los Angeles Times? Just asking! ... Maybe a better question would be: Is there a price at which Geffen couldn't resist buying the LAT? ... 12:47 A.M.

____________________________

Psst! It's Only Zogby--but while Zogby's national telephone tracking poll shows Obama opening up an 8 point lead, his online state by state polls are not following suit. They have McCain moving ahead in Nevada 51.5% to 44%, behind in Colorado by only three-tenths of a percent, close in Virginia, New Hampshire, and Florida. I assume this is more a commentary on the accuracy of online polls than on the state of the race. Interesting either way! ... [Thanks to reader A.] 12:31 A.M.

___________________________

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Mr. Gravitas: What was troubling about Biden's loin-girding gaffe, as Ace of Spades notes, wasn't the idea that Obama would be tested. It was the notion that we shouldn't worry because he has Joe Biden as his backup! ("I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know.") ... And here I was giving Biden a pass for his "I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do" resume-inflating, campaign-ending 1988 embarrassment. ... P.S.: It's Obama's fault. Obama picked him. It was a hack choice with known dangers, which are even now being realized.  ... 1:25 P.M.

___________________________

Recommended: Tim Noah's 2001 piece on William Ayers' memoir Fugitive Days. A searing and timely review!  Noah certainly seems like another pro-Obama Democrat who wouldn't have served on a board with Ayers. He describes Ayers as "self indulgent and morally clueless" and generally thinks we should treat the ex-Weatherman as a pathetic joke. ... Is Noah really 100% comfortable with a Democratic candidate who didn't? ... Backfill: Turns out Noah addressed this question earlier this year, providing some useful background (especially a link to this Ben Smith piece). You can decide for yourself whether Noah confronts the issue or punts with a joke about a game in which anyone can be connected to anyone else! I still think it's creepy the way Ayers and Dohrn are accepted in Chicago, and Obama's acceptance is part of that creepiness. I also think that if Obama wasn't running for President Noah would admit this. ... P.S.: What is it with Chicago? Is it Australia? Do they have to take anybody they can get there? I always thought L.A. was Australia.. ... 2:54  A.M.

___________________________

Patterico embarrasses the L.A. Times yet again. ...  2:12 A.M.

___________________________

Monday, October 20, 2008

At Swampland, Joe Klein has formally entered full Pro-Obama BS Mode.** I'll get there too--I promise. But not for days! ... Meanwhile, the normally level-headed Mike Murphy writes:

As a great McCain admirer, I am sad to say it, but the truth is the video of Powell's endorsement will boil across You Tube and do great damage in these closing days of the campaign.

"Boil across You Tube"? It's not even boiling across HuffPo. It's not, you know, compelling viewing. Maybe if you put some cats in it. .... My guess isn't that the Powell endorsement will fade quickly. My guess is it's already faded. ...

**--I look forward to Klein's return to normalcy after November 4. A Klein make-up-with-McCain post--blaming the shameful besmirching of McCain's honor on Steve Schmidt--should appear sometime around November 10. Unless McCain writes it first. Or, you know, wins.... 11:57 A.M.

___________________________

Why was I undecided at this point in 2000? It seems crazy to me in retrospect, given George W. Bush's performance. At cocktail parties recently, I've been unable to explain why. .. Well, here's my explanation at the time. It turns out I was worried about the combination of a Dem Congress and a Dem president. That was egregiously wrong ... or eerily prescient! (See next item). ... 12:08 A.M.

___________________________

Sunday, October 19, 2008

In an hour long interview with Charlie Rose last week (as accurately summarized in The Hill)

[Nancy] Pelosi dodged a question about whether Democrats would be able to bring about universal healthcare. Pelosi instead cited electronic recordkeeping as a preliminary step. 

So we don't get health care but we do get card check? And immigration semi-amnesty? Is there a market where I can bet on Republicans in the 2010 midterms? ... Of course, maybe Pelosi is hiding the ball and really plans an ambitious health care agenda. But then what else is she hiding the ball on? ... P.S.: Note that Pelosi adopts the new, Luntz-style tough-sounding language on immigration:

“I’m just saying register so that we know who you are,” said Pelosi, who added that for those who are not willing to register: “You got to go back.”

Register or go back! Of course, if you are an illegal immigrant and you register and nothing happens--i.e. you get to stay--then you've in effect been granted a form of legalization or amnesty. ... This reminds me of the stage in the welfare reform debate when defenders of the old AFDC dole began to adopt the language of its critics without the substance--demanding "work" programs that really only mandated registering for work that was never actually required. Of course, they managed to sustain a wildly unpopular welfare program for several decades using this con. ... 8:22 P.M.

___________________________

The Power of the Preexisting Story Line: On Meet the Press, Chuck Todd unveiled NBC's latest polling results in three states--relatively, maybe even shockingly, good news for McCain, it seemed to me. McCain's ahead in Ohio by a point (a week ago the polls on RCP had him down five). Yikes. He's ahead in West Virgina by six--despite Obama's well-publicized moves to contest the state. Yet on the Meet panel, only Joe Scarborough seemed to react to acknowledge the cautionary news for Obama contained in these polls. Everyone else seemed to hew to the anticipated story line--how Powelll gives a boost to Obama, where the McCain campaign went wrong, etc. ... Hello? ... In order to preserve the Obama-on-the-march theme, poor Chuck Todd is reduced to arguing:

 Obama is closer in West Virginia than McCain is in Wisconsin. That sort of tells the story of how this map has shifted, Tom.

If Obama loses in the Electoral College I'm sure it will comfort him to know he lost the states he lost by less than he won the states he won. ... P.S.: I know Obama doesn't need either Ohio or West Virginia to win. Still. ...  If Obama's behind in Ohio just when the economy may be about to not dominate the news for two weeks, that can't be a good sign. If he's not ahead now, when will he be?  ... P.P.S.: Mark Halperin calls the Powell endorsement "crushing news" for McCain.  I dunno. If you were McCain, would you rather have Powell stay neutral or be up a point in Ohio? I think I'd take Ohio. ... 8:08 P.M.

____________________________

McCain's Last Stunt?

If (like me) you want to feel better about Barack Obama, try reading conservative Bradford Berenson's Frontline comments on Obama's performance at the Harvard Law Review. Excerpt: 

I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on the Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use the modest powers of his position to advance the cause, whatever that was. They thought, you know, finally there's an African American president of the Harvard Law Review; it's our turn, and he should aggressively use this position, and his authority and his bully pulpit to advance the political or philosophical causes that we all believe in.

And Barack was reluctant to do that. It's not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. ... [snip]

It confirmed the hope that I and others had had at the time of the election that he would basically be an honest broker, that he would not let ideology or politics blind him to the enduring institutional interests of the Review. It told me that he valued the success of his own presidency of the Review above scoring political points of currying favor with his political supporters.

12:23 A.M.

___________________________

Friday, October 17, 2008 

The Last Stunt is Always to Drop All the Stunts: Hmm. If, as Mike Murphy argues, 1) McCain's negative campaigning hurt him, and 2) his brief moments of non-negativity before the debate were helping him--something Gallup seems to support--but if 3) his renewed and MSM-amplified negativity during the debate turns out to have hurt him again, is there time left before the election for McCain to flip back again and 4) dramatically drop the attacks and make a direct, affirmative case for his presidency? The Feiler Faster Thesis says "yes," as it usually does. There are two whole weeks to go! ... But what does McCain do with the second week?  ... P.S.: Republican incumbent Norm Coleman pulled this very stunt in Minnesota. Is it working for him? Quinnipiac has him only 2 points down. ... 4:15 A.M.

___________________________

Mark Krikorian, who knows as much about immigration politics as anyone, sticks by his conclusion that McCain, not Obama, would be "more likely to get an amnesty through Congress." His reasoning is similar to that of Democratic Rep. Artur Davis: Without a Republican in the White House actively promoting legalization, Republicans in Congress will be free to coalesce in opposition to any Obama legalization push. ... You also have to wonder: If even John McCain's lifelong (and only temporarily suspended) campaign for legalization doesn't get him much support among Hispanics--who currently seem to prefer Obama 2-to-1--will Republicans in general finally give up on the cynical Rovian dream of using immigration liberalization to win over that growing ethnic group? ... 3:23 A.M.

______________________________

Thursday, October 16, 2008 

I forgot to ask Bob Wright if he'd serve on a board with William Ayers. ... I think I know what his answer would be regarding Luis Posada and Eduardo Arocena.. ...P.S.: Wright calls Sarah Palin's "palling around with terrorists" charge against Obama

one of the most despicable acts in the history of American campaign politics.

and even issues a challenge to come up with something more despicable. ... Bloggingheads commenters rise to the occasion. ... Update: Maguire offers some useful sober skepticism on Obama's "palling" defense. ... 11:52 P.M.

___________________________

USA Today editorializes against "card check."  The more attention this issue gets, the less chance it has of passing, you'd think. It's hard to publicly defend getting rid of the secret ballot. ... I'd like to see Obama try it. (Since he's for "card check," shouldn't he be asked to explain his position?) ... P.S.: No wonder Democrats  would want to rush "card check" through, in the early days of his presidency, before too many people notice--and when press reports are likely to be buried under a crush of other news. ... 5:10 P.M.

___________________________

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 

Final Debate:  Before I get spun: 1) McCain did himself some good in this zero-sum game because in the first half of the debate he seemed sunny, yet had Obama on the defensive; 2) But not enough good; 3) Specifically, McCain failed to drive home the risk of placing so much power and trust in a relative unknown. Why couldn't he say, "I know I'm behind by a few points. But do you really know what you're getting with Sen. Obama?" Everything else in this campaign has been so crudely explicit--with talk by Obama of a "pivot" and appeals, not to "the people" but to "Joe Sixpack" and "the middle class." You'd think McCain could just come out and say, "Message: Buyer's Remorse!" ... 4) Obama's answer on the have-you-ever-bucked-your-party question was strong.  His answer on Ayers was weak, all the weaker because he seemed to think it was strong;  ... 5) "Senator Government." McCain's best line was an accidental slip. 6) Also liked "Bresh of Freath Air." So true!  ... 6) Bob Schieffer made McCain look young and vigorous. 7). But you had to love the way that sly old Schieffer snuck in a few unexpected questions to throw the candidates off and reveal their true characters! ... Oh wait, He didn't do any of that!  Instead he made utterly predictable stabs at vague, CW-approved topics, as if he was trying to out-bore Brokaw. He succeeded. ... He made Jim Lehrer look like Jim Cramer! ... Is this the end of the MSM Dinosaur Moderator? ...Next time: Chris Buckley and Glenn Loury! ... 8) Most telling passage:. Two times, if I remember right, McCain rattled off long lists of occasions when he had gone against his party, and each time he left off "immigration," his most salient anti-GOP heresy. (He brifely mentioned it later in a more anodyne context.) Once Obama had an opening to back up his charge that McCain was an unreliable champion of "comprehensive immigration reform." He didn't take it. This suggests that both candidates recognize that pushing "comprehensive immigration reform"--i.e. legaliztion--is a loser with the general electorate. Or it's at least very risky. Both would confine it to targeted appeals to Latinos on Spanish language radio and TV, which most voters never hear about. No Hispandering in public! .... Don't you agree, Tamar? .. 9) A crude translation of McCain's initial salvo on the economy: The problem is that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac tried, by buying up mortgages, to encourage home ownership in the face of economic reality. So we need a new Fannie Mae to buy up mortgages and encourage home ownership in the face of economic reality! ...10) McCain constantly calls for "transparency." Is that a word voters understand, or is it Beltway code? ... 11) Obama's praise of the new DC school chancellor  is certainly a coded appeal--an appeal to people like me. Chancellor Rhee is not a teachers' union favorite. ... 12) How many parents of autistic kids could there be? ... 13) If polling produces a "Bradley Effect," in which ordinary citizens will say whatever they think is PC in front of a lone pollster, won't CNN-style "dial groups," in which voters record their reactions in front of a massive TV audience, produce a Super-Bradley Effect? ... 14) McCain on his health plan:

Now, 95 percent of the people in America will receive more money under my plan because they will receive not only their present benefits, which may be taxed, which will be taxed, but then you add $5,000 onto it, except for those people who have the gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies that have to do with cosmetic surgery and transplants and all of those kinds of things

So in John McCain's America you don't get life-saving transplants? Sounds more like Great Britain. ... One reason I tend to favor government-provided health insurance is that I know that in the U.S. the political pressure will always be to pay for expensive, complicated medical treatements, and I don't mind if 40% of our GDP goes to complicated medical treatments. ... 15) Obama used the word "invest"--as in "invest in the American people"--quite a bit. This is a liberal cliche that sets my teeth on edge, but I don't know if that's true of swing voters. On the other hand, "spread the wealth around" could have widespread appeal! (McCain thought it obviously could mean only static, pie-slicing redistribution, but as a slogan it might also mean something like "more generalized growth," no? Update: In fact, that seems to have been the way Obama used the phrase. He said, "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.") ... 6:50 P.M./updated 9:15 P.M.

___________________________

Obama's Fast Labor Payoff: kf hears from a trustworthy non-Republican source (with access to actual insider information) that the Dems are getting set to pass "card check" legislation fast next year, right out of the box, assuming Obama wins and the Democrats get their expected big Senate majority. The legislation--which would eliminate the secret ballot in union organizing elections, allowing union organizers to gather signed cards person-to-person--is cheap, in budgetary terms. And it's very, very important to organized labor. ...Obama's political history suggests he's not a "fight the power" kind of guy. He's an "accommodate the power" kind of guy. It's highly plausible that he'd be willing to pay off this debt to Big Labor up front if they push him hard enough. ... Since I think "card check" legislation is a potential near-disaster economically (unions are engines of adversarial bureaucracy and the mainspring of the wage-price spiral) and procedurally (the secret ballot certainly seems like a key way to avoid intimidation) this is not good news. ... P.S.: Would it be a good move for Obama? Bill Clinton got into trouble, right after he took office, when in the middle of a troubled economic situation his first priority seemed to be gays-in-the-military. Obama likewise risks having it look like his first priority isn't helping the average citizen but helping a key Democratic interest group. ... In Clinton's case,, that damaging first impression was maybe unfair (the gays issue just happened fo flare up). In Obama's case it won't be. ...[Thought you were pro-Obama--ed Yes. But I am, as they say, concerned!  Not scheduled to enter full pro-Obama BS mode for at least two more weeks.] ... 4:58 P.M.

___________________________

Now it can be told: Former LAT employee Tim Cavanaugh on the paper's Edwards coverage:

The L.A. Times desperately wanted to avoid this damaging story, dressed up its desires in media-diligence drag (we were told not to comment until the paper's reporters were through looking into the matter), and as a result was beaten and humiliated in its own backyard.

They even somehow got blogger Andrew Malcolm to claim he was happy to be gagged. ... .12:34 A.M.

___________________________

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 

Next stunt, please (cont.)!  Another obvious possible McCain stunt: Go back on Letterman. Apologize. Self-deprecate. Hug. Big ratings. .. .10:52  P.M.

___________________________ 

It's hard to stop a gravy train:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the troubled mortgage giants that were recently taken over by the government, are expected to continue donating to charity, the Federal Housing Finance Agency has assured nonprofit groups in the Washington metropolitan area.

Matt Cooper and Michael Kinsley have failed. ... [via NewsAlert ] 8:29 P.M.

_______________________________

Immigration causes global warming! ... Well, in that case ....7:21 P.M.

___________________________ 

The rich and powerful Getty Museum's idea of "the political fray": a debate between theatrical left-wing artist Robbie Conal and theatrical left-wing columnist Dan Savage! ... And they say the art community is a bunch of theatrical left-wingers talking to each other. ... Take it away, Andrew Breitbart. ...P.S.: Well, they could always discuss Savage's muscular foreign policy vision! ... 7:21 P.M.

___________________________

The Surprise October Surprise: The "October Surprise" that might help McCain wouldn't be a new bin Laden tape, or an Al Qaeda attack, but rather a medium-sized setback in Iraq, no? One of McCain's problems is that voters aren't paying much attention to Iraq--because it looks from our distant vantage point like the war is finally on a glide path to an honorable U.S. drawdown of troops. How much damage could Obama do?  But if suddenly the near-term outcome in Iraq seems to be in doubt, voters could decide that McCain has shown better judgment on recent strategy in the war. ... Of course, if the U.S. Iraq project suffers a huge setback, McCain's support for the "surge" would look distinctly less prescient. Hence, "medium-sized." ... 3:05 A.M.

___________________________

Fear of 60

What does a tasered possum sound like? Harry Shearer has the answer. ... P.S.: Yes, he does Mr. Burns too. ... 2:43 A.M.

___________________________

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

George McGovern makes an ad on "card check":

I've always been a champion of labor unions, but I fear that today's union leaders are turning their backs on democratic workplace elections. I've listened to all their arguments and reviewed the facts on both sides. Quite simply, this proposed law cannot be justified.

Can I vote for him? ... Done it before! [via Insta] 12:58 A.M.

___________________________

Mark Halperin almost nails Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs on the Ayers issue--"It is the case that Barack Obama at least implicitly seems to be saying 'It's Ok to have professional associations with someone who was a terrorist and by some measures is an unrepentant terrorist'"--but Halperin doesn't know to stop talking. As a result, it sounds like an argument as opposed to a question followed by fumfawing or evasion. ... P.S.: Note Gibbs' pissed-off close. .. 12:31 A.M.

__________________________

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

McCain/Obama Debate #2: Before I get spun: A dull debate in a dead room. Each stole the other's theme: Obama called for service to country, McCain for a "cool hand on the tiller" even as he seemed like a hyperactive hand himself. A tie helps Obama, and this probably wasn't even a tie. ... 1) Obama's great weakness is that he's an unknown with an unusual (i.e. strange) background. By painting him as a big-spending liberal, McCain oddly made Obama seem less strange, and more acceptable. Voters are used to dealing with big spending liberals--and they also may think that the there's not enough money for that much big spending anymore anyway. 2) Speaking of spending, McCain rails against Obama's "$860 billion" in proposed "new" spending, yet McCain wants the government to buy up all the bad mortgages in the country, give all homeowners new purchase prices and protect them from their ill-advised decisions? Sounds very expensive. Update: I was just on Tavis Smiley's TV show with Rep. Maxine Waters, who said the money to do what McCain wants to do is already in the bailout bill. But it sure sounded to me like McCain was proposing a big new initiative. More: He thought he was. "Aides to McCain told reporters" it will cost $300 billion. Waters' point may be that the existing bailout bill already authorizes such purchases; ... 3) "That one." Heh. Not racist--seemed to me like an attempt by McCain to avoid being too confrontational (by saying Obama's name) that wound up seeming more hostile than saying Obama's name would have been. ... 4) Obama still refers to economically pressured Americans as "you" rather than "we." He says, "Maybe you don't go out to dinner as much. Maybe you put off buying a new car." That's all? Is Obama trying to make the economic hardship he's talking about sound minimal? ... 5) McCain was badly hurt by the camera angle--shooting him from above only made him look short and scuttling. ... 6) Worst format ever? Could be! Can't believe McCain wanted more of these things. ... 7) Was it awful because it was a fake town hall debate, as Maxine Waters and Slate's Jack Shafer contend? It certainly managed to keep the worst aspects of the town hall format--the phony empathy competition between the candidates as they either ignore questions or treat them as prompts for stock answers--while leaving out the worthwhile aspects--spontaneity and risk. In the process it reduced its Real Average Americans to props in the earnest empathon! 8) Brokaw didn't help by adding his own little bien pensant suggestions on top of the cherry-picked high-minded audience queries. At least when Brokaw moderated debates in 1988 he would harangue the candidates about "means-testing" Social Security, a substantive proposal. Now he wants only "a date certain to reform Social Security and Medicare within two years"--a bipartisanist gimmick ... 8) McCain has his own gimmick:

___________________________

Monaco, gritty center of automotive innovation. ... 11:35 A.M.

___________________________

Monday, October 6, 2008

Rezko Alert! Federal prosecutors have moved to delay sentencing of former Obama fundraiser Tony Rezko, the Chicago Tribune reports. ... The obvious suspicion is that he's talking. Or at least talking about talking ... Update: Full Tribune story. ... Of course this will also have the effect of pushing Rezko's sentencing past the election--eliminating one potentially bad bit of publicity for Obama. .. And according to the Trib's sources, Rezko "has not yet made a firm deal." ... See also the timeline on the local NBC affiliate's blog, where Steve Rhodes writes: "[S]ubstantively, Obama's long and intimate relationship with Rezko is of far more import than the spectacle of Jeremiah Wright and the (mostly) nonsense of Bill Ayers. ... Obama's house deal with Rezko was indeed shady." ...

P.S.: Everybody seems to agree that the main target of the federal probe is sitting Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. But that doesn't rule out the possibility that prosecutors might also extract something from Rezko about Obama. ...

P.P.S.: Barring some dramatic development, like an indictment, voters may find the accusation that Obama is really a Chicago political hack more comforting than troubling. Better than a strange Third World Madrassa Man!** We're used to dealing with Chicago political hacks.

** Previous anti-Obama meme, discredited but not necessarily forgotten. ... 5:08 P.M. link

___________________________

He's Lost Alter! New York's John Heilemann, as evidence of a media shift against McCain, offers this:

Jonathan Alter, Joe Klein, Richard Cohen, David Ignatius, Jacob Weisberg: all former McCain admirers now turned brutal critics. Equally if not more damaging, the shift has been just as pronounced, if less operatic, among straight-news reporters. Suddenly, McCain is no longer being portrayed as a straight-talking, truth-telling maverick but as a liar, a fraud, and an opportunist with acute anger-management issues.

I know Jon Alter. Jon Alter is a friend of mine. He's very good at what he does--I couldn't do it. He wrote an excellent book, has a lot to say. But he's not exactly someone you look to as a political weather vane. Alter is totally for Obama and has been since the beginning of the campaign. If Jon has "turned" brutally against McCain in the final weeks of the campaign that is as predictable as the Giants going into a prevent defense with a two touchdown lead and a minute to go.** ... But of course he hasn't "turned"--missing from Heilemann's piece is any evidence of Alter favoring McCain at any earlier point in the campaign, let alone evidence of Alter favoring McCain once he was the nominee running against Obama. The same goes, to a lesser extent, for his fellow Chicago Dem (and head of the Slate Group) Jacob Weisberg. Nor is it exactly surprising that Klein, Cohen and Ignatius would be on Obama's side in the end. ...

It's one thing to have pro-Democratic, pro-Obama media favoritism: That's just the way it is. Political reporters have opinions. Better blatant than latent.

It's another to have that very favoritism used as evidence that McCain is blowing it, losing his reputation for "integrity" and his "gold plated brand." ...

P.S.: It might seem as if the MSM reaction against McCain's shift to negativism has "driven the final nail into his coffin," as Heilemann suggests. The Feiler Faster Thesis says no--given the speed with which the country now processes information, there's plenty of time for several dramatic twists and turns, including lead changes. Obamaphiles (in the press and elsewhere) are deluding themselves, I think, if they think they can ride the economic crisis and the reaction against negativity to victory in a month. Plus Obama's not that far ahead.

**--I worked with Alter at Newsweek in the 1988 campaign. We were for Dukakis. ... 1:57 P.M. link

___________________________

Fear of 60: If there's a good chance that the Dems will achieve a theoretically filibuster-proof majority of 60 in the Senate, shouldn't that change the dynamic of the race? It certainly changes the nature of the prospective Obama presidency. It means he might come under intense pressure to do something big about health care. And it is a blazing arrow pointing in the direction of the Employee Free Choice Act, more commonly known as "card check," which would constitute a fairly fundamental revision of our basic economic laws in a direction designed to unionize a large chunk of the economy (at the cost of doing away with the secret ballot in union certification elections). ... Currently about 12.6% of all U.S. jobs are unionized, though that includes the union-heavy public sector. How much of the economy would be organized after the secret ballot is eliminated? At the Dem convention I heard figures ranging from about 15% to 25% (the latter estimate derided by some as extreme). ... .

Since I think a dramatic increase in unionization is not the way to help those on the bottom of the job market--it's more likely to introduce inefficiency and inflation, compared with the proven Clintonite remedy of achieving a low unemployment rate--the looming 60-Dem threshold evokes mixed feelings, if not actual dread. I think I'd rather have Obama win a big victory while the Dems struggle to a narrow win in Congress than what we're likely to get--namely the reverse. (It's a measure of Obama's troubling weaknesses that he's lagging so far behind the underlying Dem legislative wave.) ...

This morning some idealistic, well-scrubbed 10 year olds down the street were raising funds by selling "Obama Lemonade." Do they know it's really Card Check Lemonade?!...

Mickey's Assignment Desk: It would be good to have a seat by seat analysis of: a) Whether all 60 prospective Dems will actually side with labor to break a card-check filibuster--or whether some independent-minded Dems might defy union-enforced orthodoxy and join the McGovern wing of the party. b) Whether the unions even need 60 Dems to pass the card check bill. Maybe they could rely on liberal GOPs like Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, or Olympia Snowe to break a filibuster even if the Dems win only, say, 58 seats. [Update: Collins, at least, is anti-card check, I'm told.] ... 1:38 A.M. link

___________________________