Headline of the day:

At Politico: GOP looks for ways to stop the rape comments

Yes, that might help with the party's image.



posted by Quiddity at 1/14/2013 09:06:00 AM

Bob Sehieffer doesn't understand what's going on in Washington D.C.:

Which is why he hosts Face the Nation.

On Sunday, January 6, there was this exchange: (emp add)
Somewhat later there was Bob's opinion segment where he lamented the friendly relations between Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, among others.

It's as if Schieffer is unaware of Mann and Ornstein's book ("It's Even Worse Than It Looks") detailing the radical rejectionism of Republicans in the last half-decade (at least). 

Howard Kurtz is aware of the book, but he played the innocent in an interview this same weekend. It was one of the very few times the duo have been invited to news programs since their book came out half a year ago.




posted by Quiddity at 1/07/2013 06:20:00 AM

The proposed estate tax:



posted by Quiddity at 1/01/2013 11:20:00 AM

Rewrite:

Taking today's story and replacing some elements, you might have a story from the future.

Contrast with this:
Which will it be?



posted by Quiddity at 1/01/2013 12:20:00 AM

Jonathan Chait is surprised at Obama's negotiating over taxes:

Some weeks ago Chait argued that Obama had learned his lesson during the 2011 debt ceiling fight and would bargain tough with Republicans this time over the fiscal cliff (sorry, can't find the link to that essay).

At the time, it seemed a little naive of Chait, since Obama has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to "pre-concede" to Republicans. Frequently, the only thing stopping a bum deal from going through was Republican opposition - usually from hard-line Tea Party types.

Now the focus is on the fiscal cliff and tax rates. Chait has written that Obama should take advantage of his tactical position, let the Bush rates expire, and work from there.

But that's not what we've been reading lately. Chait now reassesses:

Why Is Obama Caving on Taxes?

Excerpt:

The discouraging thing about the “fiscal cliff” negotiations is not that they have gone into the eleventh hour, or that they may go into the new year, or even that they won’t resolve the long-term budget deficit. It’s that President Obama has retreated on his hard line on taxes. ...

Now, by all accounts, Obama is prepared to extend the Bush tax cuts up to $400,000 a year. Or maybe more. ...

The erosion signals not only a major substantive problem in its own right, but it also raises disturbing questions about Obama’s ability to handle his entire second term agenda.

The odd thing about the retreat is that Republicans had all but conceded eventual defeat on the issue. ...

What happened? The administration’s line seems to be that Senate Democrats undercut, or were going to undercut, Obama’s position. ...

... if Obama fears trying to hold a line that Senate Democrats have abandoned, it’s just as likely they fear the same about him. Obama’s history of foolish negotiating with the Republican Congress gave Democrats every reason to fear he might fail to hold firm on his own line — the burden lay with Obama to prove otherwise. And two weeks ago, when Obama made a concession to Boehner that he would let the Bush tax rates stay in place on income up to $400,000, he gave them every reason to doubt him.

... the effect of Obama’s concession to Boehner — which of course went unrequited — was to reset the tax debate at a new, more GOP-friendly level.

Worse, exposing Obama’s willingness to move his seemingly unmovable demand emboldened Republicans to demand even more. If they could push the line to $400,000, why not $500,000? Maybe cut Social Security too?The negotiating style Obama has displayed in these instances is what poker players call “tight-weak.” A tight-strong player avoids throwing in his chips, saving them for a big hand, which he plays aggressively in hopes of a huge win. A loose-weak player plays lots of hands, bluffing frequently. Tight-weak is the worst of all worlds — when you have a weak hand, you lose, and when you have a strong hand, you fail to maximize your position.

... the tax cuts are the one area where he enjoys overwhelming leverage over the Republicans. Their only threat is to block extension of tax cuts on income under $250,000, a wildly unpopular stance countless Republicans have acknowledged they could not sustain for long without courting an enormous public backlash. This is the hand where Obama needed to collect all the chips.

Instead he is allowing Republicans to whittle down the sum by essentially threatening to shoot themselves in the head. And this is the most ominous thing about it. The big meta question looming over Obama’s term is whether he has learned to grapple with Republican political hostage-taking. Hostage-taking is not simply aggressive or even irrational negotiating. It is the specific tactic of extracting concessions by threatening to withhold support for policies you yourself endorse, simply because your opponent cares more about the damage. Republicans agree that the debt ceiling must be lifted, but forced Obama to offer them policies he opposed because they believed he cared more about damage to the country than they did.

Obama claims, and seems to genuinely believe, that he won’t let Republicans jack him up over the debt ceiling again. But if Republicans could hold the middle class tax cuts hostage, they’ll try to hold the debt ceiling hostage. Indeed, they will probably discover other areas of traditionally routine policy agreement that can be turned into extortion opportunities.

Obama may think his conciliatory approach has helped avoid economic chaos. Instead, he is courting it.

This episode is not over yet, but it does appear that Obama's Ahab-like obsession with cutting a deal makes him a poor bargainer. There have been a number of theories as to why this is so. They are mostly psychological profiles, and somewhat speculative. But the bottom line is that Obama does not come off as a strong fighter for core Democratic party principles. It's been a source of frustration for liberals, and will likely be that way for the next four years.

UPDATE: Chait Tweets:




posted by Quiddity at 12/31/2012 09:40:00 AM

What will the NRA do?

These were Bob Schieffer's remarks on CBS This Morning on Thursday, Dec. 20:

I think one of the things this hinges on, what tact the National Rifle Association will take tomorrow when it holds its news conference. Somehow or another it seems to me this debate has to focus on putting common sense back into all of this. We don't ban cars, we have speed limits. There's a reason you can drive 75 miles an hour in the open desert and a reason we drive 25 miles an hour when we're in a school zone. It seems to me, if we could approach this in that way we could do something to at least make it harder for deranged people to get their hands on such weapons with such killing power. I'm waiting to see what the National Rifle Association will take tomorrow. If they bend somewhat I think they can play a very constructive role. But I think we're going to have to see what they say.

Now that the NRA has spoken out, calling  for armed security guards in schools and decrying "gun free zones", let's see if ol' Bob Shieffer will say if that's a "common sense" approach to the issue or not when he interviews someone from the NRA this coming Sunday.



posted by Quiddity at 12/21/2012 10:32:00 AM

Remember this:

Rumblings about a potential deal Obama may strike with Republicans:

---

On Tuesday afternoon, HuffPost asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney what Democrats who promised not to touch Social Security would tell their constituents if they voted for Obama's proposal.

"Let's be clear: This is something that the Republicans have asked for and as part of an effort to find common ground with Republicans, the president has agreed to put this in his proposal," replied Carney. "He has agreed to have this as part of a broad deficit reduction package that includes asking the wealthiest to pay more so that we can achieve the kind of revenue targets that are necessary to a balanced approach to deficit reduction."
---

They asked for something.  Common ground.

What emerges could end up being extremely volatile. Expect a war between the "establishment" and the rest of us.



posted by Quiddity at 12/18/2012 10:08:00 PM

Bad logic:

I have been following this closely, particularly the reaction and arguments from the "pro gun" side. They are literally insane, in that their reasoning is entirely fallacious. One of their favorite tricks is to examine a particular case (like the one in Connecticut) and either claim that gun restrictions could have been evaded, or alternatively, that there is a scenario where Rambo steps in and stops the crime. But in life things are rarely so cleanly cause-and-effect, which is why aggregate numbers (aka statistics) are the proper way to determine what works or not. The record is clear. In places (like Australia) where semi-automatic rifles and pistols are banned - along with a substantial buy-back program - homicides decline substantially.



posted by Quiddity at 12/16/2012 09:29:00 AM

This was posted on July 20 of this year:

Garance Franke-Ruta on the recent news:

The age of new media being now well-established, it goes a little something like this:

First we get the shaky camera phone videos and the tweets. Then the distraught eyewitness interviews and 911 call recording. Quickly, the shooter is identified. Politicians issue statements of shock and sorrow. The shooter's parents, if interviewed, are confused and abashed or else hide. The social media forensics begin. People with the same or a similar name as the shooter are harassed. There is speculation he is part of a right-wing group, or an Islamic terrorist, or a former Army veteran. The FBI and the armed forces check their records and issue denials or confirmations. Calls for better gun control efforts are issued once again. Defenders of the Second Amendment fight back immediately, or even pre-emptively. The victims of the shooting are blamed in social media for being where they were attacked. More eye-witness interviews. The shooter's parents are castigated. Survivors speak. Warning signs are identified as the alleged shooter's past is plumbed. We ask if violent movies are to blame for his actions. Or cuts to mental-health services. And talk about what kind of country we are, if we have culture of violence. The death toll fluctuates. International voices from countries where guns are heavily regulated shake their heads at us. People leave piles of flowers and teddy bears at the shooting site. There are candlelight vigils, and teary memorials. Everyone calls for national unity and a moment of togetherness. Eventually, the traumatized community holds a big healing ceremony. It is moving, and terribly sad, and watched by millions on TV or online. A few activists continue to make speeches. The shooter, if still alive, rapidly is brought to trial. There is another wave of public discussion about our failures, and the nature of evil. Politicians make feints at gun-law changes, which fail. And then everyone forgets and moves on. Everyone, that is, except the survivors.

Until the country want's to push back against the NRA and others in that camp, this will continue.



posted by Quiddity at 12/14/2012 01:28:00 PM

Illinois ban on carrying concealed weapons overturned:

posted by Quiddity at 12/12/2012 02:43:00 PM

No "false equivalency" at CBS Evening News:

No equivalency at all.  In a report on Michigan's Right to Work law, there was this graphic.




That came from the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, a staunchly anti-union organization (and they say so on their website).

But no equivalent graphic of income or benefits from a pro-union outfit.



posted by Quiddity at 12/12/2012 10:20:00 AM

Right wing radio on unions:



posted by Quiddity at 12/11/2012 08:02:00 PM

An insight to the Obama administration thinking about the economy:

From an interview at the Washington Post: (emp add)

Ezra Klein: My experience is that the very rich are open to higher taxes in the context of a deficit deal....But they don't like the idea that their money should be redistributed simply because they have too much of it....And so that's part of the tension: They don't like why Obama is raising their taxes. And they certainly don't like the lack of admiration he's showing while trying to do it. They see it as punishing their success.

Chrystia Freeland: I completely agree. I think Obama and the economists around him have a very sophisticated understanding of both globalization and the technology revolution and the impact they're having on the world economy and the way they're creating these winner-take-all spirals. The positive scenario, which I think is a bit pollyannaish, is all you need to do is improve the education system and change the skill set and all will be well. And even that takes a lot of investment and a lot of time. But there's actually the possibility that in order to have a healthy middle class, you're going to need to have a more redistributive society, at least for awhile.

If the Obama administration sees globalization contributing to winner-take-all and other pathologies, they are embarking on the wrong approach with redistribution. Their neo-liberal solution is to let the market work pretty much without restraint and at the end of the day provide financial assistance to the economic losers. This can, over time, lead to something called "pity charity liberalism" which is described as "[giving] some sort of ex post compensation for brute bad luck instead of giving workers agency or power". That is very bad politics, unsustainable, and wickedly hard to calculate.

A better approach would include measures to wall-off those elements of globalization that diminish domestic labor's economic power. One is tariffs. That puts the compensation up-front in the process, with industries paying workers higher wages because there is no outsourcing/imports escape hatch.

Regarding the "pollyannish" notion that all this country needs is a better educated workforce, that's been the common refrain for a couple of decades from people like Steve and Cokie Roberts, and has been show to be wildly off the mark as developing nations produce just as many skilled workers with which to compete.



posted by Quiddity at 11/29/2012 09:52:00 AM

The 2012 election two weeks later:

The re-election of Obama and the gain in Senate seats by Democrats has definitely shaken up conservatives. There have been many lamentations about how the country is headed for the toilet, that the voters were bribed - or stupid. And a casting around for a quick fix (e.g. immigration reform).

The Republican party, by so securely tying itself to a diminishing demographic, is in trouble.

Reading the remarks by prominent right wing bloggers and listening to various right wing radio hosts, they are, at least for now, totally unwilling to change their policies and politics. Yet it does seem as if their time is passing, if not already past.

They come off much like monarchists lamenting the end of the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany.

There were monarchists for a few decades after World War I, but they eventually dwindled to almost zero and never had a chance of getting their way.

Unless the Republicans make a big move away from their current policy/demographic mix, they risk the same future.



posted by Quiddity at 11/21/2012 01:53:00 PM

The 2012 election aftermath:

It's still a little early to be making a full assessment, but the 2012 election seems to have really shocked Republicans and their conservative allies. Many of them are lamenting that the country is not center-right, as they had been led to believe, and is now center-left. Also, that the country is headed for severe decline with the "takers" now in control (and who will tax the "makers").

Much of that is due to the fact that the election was incorrectly declared to be "the most significant of our time" and that Obama was hell-bent on bringing socialism - or worse - to these shores. That's nuts, since Obama is in the mold of a centrist Democrat or moderate Republican. But that doesn't capture audiences and so the extreme portrayal won out.

A few days ago Peggy Noonan wrote that back in 2009, the Tea Party did Republicans a favor (!) by not starting a third party but this year they were a hindrance, what with candidates like Richard Mourdoch losing a safe senate seat in Indiana, and a general hostility to entitlements that many Americans support.

The Tea Party was, and remains, bad news for the Republicans. Instead of starting a third party, which might have faded away, the Tea Party contingent (which is very connected with what David Frum calls the "conservative entertainment complex") took over the Republican party. Or at least has parity with the establishment/business wing. Their extreme candidates have lost at least four senate seats in the last two years. They have cowed other Republicans who are scared of a primary challenge, like the ones that unseated Robert Bennett of Utah and Richard Lugar of Indiana. They are ideological and cannot compromise on anything. The recent talk that what they do is "constitutional", and by implication what others want to do is unconstitutional and hence invalid-on-first-principles shows the contempt for the democratic process. Their notion of bipartisanship was to have Democrats concede everything.

How much of this is a reaction to Obama, the man, is debatable. Racial animus does not appear to be the primary motivation, although there will always be Limbaugh and Drudge to use that angle on a subset of voters. But what is clear is that there was a last-gasp attempt to undo the New Deal and Great Society (the latter mainly civil rights and Medicare) while there was a chance. There was a chance this year, but it was always a bit of a long shot. And that effort failed.

It's not clear what will happen next. There is the usual big talk about shutting down businesses or leaving the country, but for most of the Tea Party crowd, that's not an option. Instead, they will be watching Hannity and others push for immigration reform and other intensely disliked policies. That will further alienate them and it wouldn't be a surprise to see that they retreat from politics for a decade or more.
posted by Quiddity at 11/12/2012 11:06:00 AM

The picture says more than the title:

Romney looks pretty worn out.


posted by Quiddity at 11/05/2012 09:21:00 PM

2012 Presidential election prediction:

These look like the reasonably secure states for both candidates. Not sure about New Hampshire or Virginia (shown as undecided in map)




posted by Quiddity at 11/05/2012 08:46:00 PM

From Romney's speech today:

You know that if the President is re-elected, he will still be unable to work with the people in Congress. ... The debt ceiling will come up again, and shutdown and default will be threatened, chilling the economy.

When cooperation is required for essential government activities, and one party refuses to cooperate and blames the other party for that failure, it is politically effective if nobody is aware of the details.

Two problems:

• The press doesn't do a good job of informing the public.
• A lot of the public gets their news from misleading sources (e.g. Fox News Channel).

posted by Quiddity at 11/02/2012 03:35:00 PM

Chris Christie's positive statements about Obama on several television interviews yesterday:


What Christie did was inoculate Obama from whatever minor screw-ups that take place in the next week. There will be a failure to get resources somewhere, which is inevitable in situations following a huge storm, but Christie's grand statement of praise speaks to the larger view.

Christie also undercuts Romney's persistent charge that Obama isn't a leader. What does a leader do? One thing is help expedite lower-level agencies and set them on the right path. Christie said that's what Obama did.

Right wing radio is countering by bringing up Benghazi: If he's so on the ball with Sandy, why did he mess up with Benghazi. That's not going to work with constant pictures of flooded subways, downed trees, boats on dry land, and damage along the shore. The visuals - and there are literally millions of them - will be the focus by the media for quite some time.


posted by Quiddity at 10/31/2012 01:26:00 PM

This has been obvious for some time now:

Ezra Klein tells us:

Mitch McConnell and John Boehner’s strategy worked

I’ve spent the morning reading various endorsements of Mitt Romney for president, and they all say the same thing: Mitch McConnell and John Boehner’s strategy worked.  

Okay, that’s not quite how they put it. But it’s precisely what they show. In endorsement after endorsement, the basic argument is that President Obama hasn’t been able to persuade House or Senate Republicans to work with him. If Obama is reelected, it’s a safe bet that they’ll continue to refuse to work with him. So vote Romney! 

That’s not even a slight exaggeration. Take the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s largest and most influential paper. They endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008. But this year, they endorsed Romney. 

Why? In the end, they said, it came down to a simple test. “Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate.”

Klein goes on to cite other editorials that share that view.  It has been abundantly clear that obstructionism works if nobody calls attention to it.  And nobody does.  The press has largely abandoned that role of informing people about why things are the way they are.  The Obama administration hasn't complained all that much, given its peculiar obsession with bipartisanship and finding common ground.

Of interest, the op-ed and book that came out in May of this year by Mann and Ornstein - two fair minded observers - made the case that what has happened in recent years is the ascent of a radical Republican politics.  And after the book came out, were they invited to the Sunday shows?  No.  Are they cited anywhere?  No.  Part of that is because their book is an implicit criticism of the press' failure to highlight this change in the Republican party, and the press will ignore criticism of what they do.
posted by Quiddity at 10/31/2012 01:02:00 AM