John Hinderaker Shows How To Be a Flack: Be Less Honest Than Bush

Hinderaker:

bama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn’t raise his standards, he will exceed Bush’s total before he is inaugurated.

Bush:

As his presidency nears its end, a reflective President Bush suggested Tuesday that he regrets some of his more blunt statements on the war on terrorism over the last eight years and said he wishes he had not spoken in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner only a month after U.S. troops in Iraq were deployed.

“I regret saying some things I shouldn’t have said,” Bush told CNN’s Heidi Collins when asked to reflect on his regrets over his two terms as president. “Like ‘dead or alive’ and ‘bring ‘em on.’ My wife reminded me that, hey, as president of the United States, be careful what you say.”

Plenty of others have commented on the substantce of both statements, but it’s especially jarring to see them back to back.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama and Keith Ellison: Fact Checking

Andrew Sullivan accurately derides this piece by Scott Johnson as “It is the highbrow equivalent of the Obama-Is-A-Muslim-Terrorist emails. Except it isn’t even that highbrow. It’s a strange attempt to draw parallels between Congressman Keith Ellison’s career and Barack Obama’s.”

I can personally fact check one point made by Johnson, and want to push back on another point:

Johnson claims::”both Ellison and Obama were the leftward-most viable candidates running for the Democratic Party endorsement, and both won endorsement against heirs apparent.”

Hilalry Clinton ran to the left of Obama in the primaries on domestic policy, and John Edwards ran to the left of both of them - and was certainly viable as a candidate in a way that Dennis Kucinich was not (Kucinich is the only other candidate Johnson mentions by name).

But that’s just triviality, really.

The one point I can fact check personally is Johnson’s claim that “Despite the natural alliance that should exist between them, Obama has scrupulously avoided Ellison.” As his only data point, he notes that Obama did not want Ellison to address a mosque. It seems that given the shady sites wrongly linking Obama to being a Muslim, Obama would think that sort of event would be counterproductive.

Indeed, I can think of three events personally that I saw Ellison address Obama, two of which I even live blogged:
1) Obama’s Minneapolis event in the primaries. Would Obama want to hide from Ellison, but still have him address 20,000 people?

2) Obama’s rally the night he won enough delegates to win the nomination in St. Paul. Ellison was in the building, and shook hands with the crowd. 

3) Event as University of Minnesota Law School this year. Ellison spoke there, and in his remarks included why he endorsed Obama. I can’t prove this, obviously, but I think Occam’s Razor is on my side.

And a bonus fact check from Google:

4) Doing a quick check of Google, Ellison campaigned plenty for Obama. There’s even video on Obama’s site.

Sphere: Related Content

Defenestration Powerline Blog: Hinderaker Needs A History Lesson On His Own Blogging And Campaigns

John Hinderaker over at Powerline blog apparently has little conception of history - both United States electoral history and his own as a blogger.

Today, he lambastes Sullivan and other Palin critics as sexist in a post titled “Barbarians at the Gates — of the White House.”  He begins:

I don’t think there is any precedent in our history for the shameful manner in which the Left has treated Sarah Palin.

Oh, yes there is silly man.  Putting aside recent elections for a moment, campaigns in the distant past were incredibly vicious with far more abusive charges being thrown around by supporters and journalists.  But, I don’t really have the patience to detail history that Mr. Hinderaker clearly has no desire to learn.  Perhaps he would be more interested in some of his own historical contributions to the precedent of treating female candidates in a “shameful manner?”

In a post written by a different Powerline blogger mocking Pelosi’s book, Know Your Power: A Message To America’s Daughters, Mr. Hinderaker chimed in by comparing the ‘girl power’ theme of Pelosi’s book to the Spice Girls, and asks which spice girl Pelosi would be.  Here’s a different Powerline post, again not written by Mr. Hinderaker, criticizing Pelosi’s family/career management.

How about Mr. Hinderaker opining on previous female presidential candidates?  I’m sure his criticisms were limited to policy/substantive disagreements, I mean they must have been, otherwise, how could his sensibilities be so affected by all the recent anti-Palin hullabaloo?  Speaking about Carole Mosereley-Braun back in 2003, Hinderaker wrote:

I suppose it hardly needs be said that if Ms. Moseley-Braun were a one-term Senator of the white male persuasion, defeated in his re-election bid and unheard from since, it would not occur to anyone to suggest him as Presidential material. Think Larry Pressler. Only I think he served two terms. In fact, the only reason why Ms. Moseley-Braun is taken even remotely seriously by anyone is that she is a black woman. Will the day ever come when we can put this hypocrisy behind us?

Oh, so many levels of wrongness.  The absurdity behind his call to put hypocrisy behind us is axiomatic and reinforced by the whiny, historically inaccurate post that is the subject matter of this defenestration.  But, serving in the U.S. Senate for 6 years doesn’t qualify someone as serious presidential material, unless they’re a black woman; however, serving as the Governor of Alaska for 2 years does qualify someone as serious, regardless of their gender?  By Hinderaker’s own standard, it seems that Palin is deserving of 3x as much mockery than Braun because she has held a high office for 1/3 the time that Braun has.

Hinderaker missed one of the Democratic primary debates back in 2003, but coincidentally enough, he was more than happy to re-post Andrew Sullivan’s thoughts on Mosely-Braun’s performance:

Moseley-Braun is a complete embarrassment. She has nothing to say except “I’m a black woman.” She is, of course, an insult to black women, most of whom do not respond to life’s problems by reiterating ancient boilerplate about helping kids and moving forward.

I bet Mosely-Braun would be relieved to know that the harsh criticism she received from the likes of Hinderaker didn’t actually take place, because, all of the criticism Palin has received is totally unprecedented.

I could continue offering examples of ridiculous criticisms espoused by Hinderaker and others at Powerline blog, but I think I’ve demonstrated my point on both accounts.  Hinderaker not only ignores election history (or just doesn’t know it), but he also ignores his own.  Back to his post…

He sharply criticizes Andrew Sullivan’s recent “Red, White and MILF” post and then adds:

I can remember when Sullivan was a respected journalist, not a gutter smear merchant and borderline pornographer. His descent exemplifies the Left’s decline in recent years to a baboon-like level of discourse. The vileness of much of what passes for political “argument” on the Left has to be seen to be believed. The worst impulses of human nature have been not just unleashed, but rewarded. If you haven’t looked at web sites like Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post and Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish, you have no idea what the phrase “gutter politics” really means.

Nowhere has the vileness of the Left been more sickening than in its treatment of Governor Palin.

Now, let me be clear.  I think some of the criticisms levied at Gov. Palin are completely ridiculous and have sexist motivations behind them.  Not the majority, but some.  No need to go into detail here, since it isn’t relevant for this post, also, I don’t think it is a particularly big factor in her political treatment.  Nevertheless, I agree that Sullivan peddling videos that mix sexual overtones and Palin are completely absurd.  I abhor that kind of stuff, regardless of which candidate is on the receiving end.  I also applaud anyone, including Hinderaker for being sensitive to sexism and being willing to point it out when he sees it.

That said, the inferences and conclusions that Hinderaker draws from Sullivan’s post are result of logical leaps the distance of the Bering Strait.  To an extent, I agree that left-leaning sites on the blogosphere can get pretty nasty at times, but in fairness to them and as exemplified by Hinderaker’s own past absurd criticisms: how long can they be expected to stand idle while baboons toss feces at them, before they climb into the cage and get baboon-like in retaliation?

Again, I agree that the standard for what passes as political argument these days can be depressing and mind numbingly low at times (for a great example of vile in the political area, take a look at this email penned by Hinderaker).  But, Hinderacker and the other folks at Powerline are complicit in the peddling of this Novocaine.  If he at least acknowledged his own past writings that are similar in kind to the ones that he is lambasting, I would not be defenestrating Hinderaker right now, but praising his self awareness.  He didn’t.  So the verdict?  Defenestration.

(Given Mr. Hinderacker’s evidenced lack of historical knowledge, here’s some background on the inspiriation for our defenesetration of blog’s section, so he’ll know what we are talking about)

Sphere: Related Content

Homogenizing The Electorate: Look At The Data, Not an Imaginary Story

 

Data is the lifeblood of not only analysis, but also of conscience. The more information you have, the better informed your opinion can be, presumably. For Jennifer Donohue of the Huffington Post, facts should be disregarded in lieu of a good story, which most often insults anyone who thinks rationally about issues.

Jennifer Donahue supported Sen. Clinton in the primaries, and seems to be upset that she did not win. That’s obviously a fair opinion to have - I have close relatives who feel the same way. But she seems intent of yelling about it at odd junctures. For instance, she wrote the following one month ago,

Young voters, 18-29 years old, are registering at a higher rate than any other age group. They gave Obama the nomination, despite consistent national polling that showed Senator Clinton ahead from the start.

Now the same polling shows a dead heat, after a month of showing McCain ahead. The only way to understand current polling data is to discard it.

Young voters surely helped Obama, but Clinton did not hold leads throughout the process: the Gallup tracking poll was very much split. In the end, the accepted opinion from even inside the campaign is that the failure to contest caucus states cost Obama.

But it’s not just that. The article is about cell phone voters. There’s been some very good stuff done by Pollster and Nate Silver on cell phone voters. But 500 words about how the youth will all send a protest vote on the economy is both useless and pointless, and it seems gratuitous to drag Clinton’s defeat as a jumping off point.

Finally and most importantly, her conclusion is absurd. Disregarding poll numbers is a trap. They should not be disregarded, they should be adjusted, or considered within the margin of error. Polls are not an all or nothing affair - either being accurate or being useless. Quite the opposite. Each poll has a use, but factors including the sample size, question wording, target audience, etc. must be considered. Again, I point to Pollster and Silver, and a number of others. (Tom Jensen’s PPP blog is very informative.)

She continued the trend of marginalizing the data today:

There is still a gender split in New Hampshire. Husbands are shaking their heads, annoyed by what they feel is the hijacking of McCain’s message by the far right. But sleeping next to them are their wives, who shout Sarah and “drill, baby, drill” at the same rallies they drag their husbands to.

These women are not Democrats. They are Republicans and “Undeclared” voters. Four out of five Democrats in New Hampshire have lined up behind Obama, regardless of gender. If McCain were to win New Hampshire, much of the credit would have to go to Palin for energizing Republicans and independent voters.

She’s apparently a big fan of identity politics, which I loathe on face. Moreover, the data just isn’t there to support her strange assertions.

From the UNH poll today, which Jonathan Martin calls the best around. Here are some statistics, aside from the topline numbers showing Obama up 54-39.

Favorability ratings:

Candidate	Favorable	Unfavorable
Barack Obama	61%	29%
Joe Biden	54%	27%
John McCain	48%	42%
Sarah Palin	39%	48%

The poll also broke it down a bit demographically (download the report from the page linked above):

6. Obama and Biden get their highest favorability ratings from Democrats, young voters, those with higher levels of education and proponents of legal abortion.
7. McCain and Palin get their highest favorability ratings from Republicans, older voters, religious voters, and abortion opponents.

To hear Donahue tell it, everyone pails in comparison to the popular Palin. In reality, she’s consistently the candidate with the worst favorability ratings. All that is true is that she has excited the base. That has uses - more excitement will have more turnout. And it would be really useful in a 2004 type election that was only about the base. But that’s not this year. Women are smarter than to just side with Palin because of “drill, baby, drill.” In fact, I’m offended a bit at how Donahue portrays these women voters, who are apparently smarter than she thinks they are.

Specially regarding Obama’s favorability - since Donahue makes it the crux of her argument, here’s some breakdowns:

Demographic	Favorable	Unfavorable
Men	58%	32%
Women	64%	26%
Republicans	22%	59%
Democrats	91%	6%
Independents	65%	22%

Donahue says Palin is the powerhouse in the state. Her numbers:

Demographic	Favorable	Unfavorable
Men	44%	45%
Women	35%	51%
Republicans	77%	13%
Democrats	11%	77%
Independents	36%	43%

Barack Obama is more popular than Sarah Palin by far. Moreover, the lynchpin of her argument is that women are flattered by Palin but men are not. That is also incorrect - she’s consistently more unpopular among women than men is virtually every poll I have looked at.

What Jennifer Donahue does is not journalism. It’s homogenizing the electorate into one story that may or may not be true (in this case, it’s most certainly not true) for the sole purpose of telling a story to fit her agenda. The agenda in this case seems to be questions Obama’s appeal among independents or to promote implicitly the conception of identity politics. Unfortunately for Ms. Donahue, women in real life have not been drawn to candidates solely by identity politics, because they valued principles more. Now, when principles and idealism overlap, THEN you see the results of identity politics (I’m sure GOP women will turn out at a high rate this year, just like the African American vote).

But identity politics is not a component to swing voters. It’s a sweetner at the end.

Frankly, when I think of the GOP base, I don’t think of New Hampshire. It has gone to the GOP when the GOP seems more moderate. When it’s a base election (as in 2004) recently, it succumbs to it’s demographics and tends to be more Democrat. Point being, there’s very man reasons to think John McCain could compete there, under different circumstances. There’s very few reasons to think Sarah Palin in an asset in the state.

Why did she speak to bigger crowds? Because she appeals to the GOP base that was even to the right of McCain in the primary. That’s the reason. But you can’t get a long form essay out of that, so instead we get this hypothetical story about women being turned on like Rich Lowry by Palin. Shameless.

Sphere: Related Content

Drude Report Influence Wanes…

Drudge has been working overtime for the McCain Campaign the past few week. Unfortunately for him, his influence is seriously waning.

Indeed, a new power is rising.  In September 2008, HuffPo and Politico both beat drudge beat drudge (with HuffPo dominating).  Eric Boehlert, who granted is a biased source, offers his account of why Drudge has waned recently…

The reason is simple. Because of the unprecedented economic turmoil, we’re now in serious

times. (Fifty thousand home foreclosures this year, in the state of New Jersey alone, is serious business.) And the Drudge Report doesn’t do serious. The American public’s attention has shifted from the campaign to the economy, and that’s why the Drudge Report remains largely irrelevant to that unfolding story.

In fact, nearly two-thirds of Americans (63 percent) claimed economic conditions or the stock market drop were the news story they followed most closely during the second week in October, compared with just 24 percent who selected the campaign. Meanwhile, the credit crisis has unleashed waves of voter anxiety.

As long as those patterns hold, Drudge finds himself in no-man’s-land with no levers of power to pull.

I can’t say that it’s necessarily a bad thing that Drudge’s influence is waning.  We have consistently criticized his absurdity throughout this campaign (see here and here), and as of late, he’s really far from reality.

Sphere: Related Content

CNN’s Algorithms Demonstrate Americans And Press Just Don’t Care?

Today, Lehman filed for the biggest bankruptcy in history ($613 Billion), new details about Cheney’s role as vp emerged, Merril Lynch was bought out by Bank Of America, fears about Washington Mutual grow, AIG - one of the world’s largest insurance companies - struggles to to stave off failure…

I could go on, but I won’t.  Look at the above list, think about some other things going on in the world at this moment, and now take a look at CNN’s front page from today:

Yup, that’s right America.  Don’t worry about anything.  The big story today is that OJ is giving a thumbs up!  Since everything is fine, why don’t you take a look at one of their top stories instead; perhaps “Celebrity Worship: Good for your health?” would be a wise choice?

Just for comparison, I took at look at CNN’s Global Edition.  Not surprisingly, their front page doesn’t treat their readers as though they belong at the kid’s table on Thanksgiving:

Maybe it’s time for news outlets to focus on news?

Sphere: Related Content

Ridiculous Metaphors And Hyperbole: The Press Has Gone Nuts

Mike Allen of Politico begins today’s article as follows:

Locked in a political death match with 52 days to live, the presidential campaigns went nuclear on what looked to be a quiet Saturday, with stumping curtailed because of Hurricane Ike’s catastrophic overnight hit on Houston.

Death Match. 52 Days to Live.  Went Nuclear.  Is this really what our national dialogue has been reduced to?  Some sillyness is just self evident.  Is it possible to tone down the hyperbole and absurd metaphors a bit?

This kind of word choice is even more ridiculous when its juxtaposed with a reference to the catastrophy of Hurricane Ike.

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton To Be DNC Nominee?

If you’re confused by the title, don’t ask me, ask The New York Times.  They are currently running a Google ad with the headline “Clinton To Be DNC Nominee.”  And people wonder why they say print is dead…

Here’s a screenshot of the ad:

Sphere: Related Content

Keith Olbermann: Hypocrite?

It’s a strong title, I realize that, but it’s well suited given the self righteous fury that he tends to put on display.  While watching MSNBC during the convention, I saw a commercial where Olbermann rails against partisanship.  In it, Olberman says:

“We as citizens must at some point ignore partisanship, not that we may prosper as a nation, but that merely we may function as a nation.” [video]

As someone who is nonpartisan, I support the notion and in many respects would agree with it.  However, hearing that from Olbermann was striking, especially when I thought about an entry in his Daily Kos diary where he pretty much states that his mission is to help get Obama elected.  Back in June, Olbermann got into a little dust up with Josh Greenwald over Obama and FISA, in one of his responses Olbermann writes about softening his coverage of the issue so as not to hurt Obama:

Thus, as I phrased it on the air tonight, obviously Obama kicked the left in the teeth by supporting the bill. But anybody who got as hot about this as I did would prefer to see a President Obama prosecuting the telecoms criminally, instead of seeing a Senator Obama engender more “soft on terror” crap by casting a token vote in favor of civil litigation that isn’t going to pass since so many other Democrats caved anyway.

I’m fine with Olbermann supporting Obama.  My issue isn’t with that.  Rather, my issue is with pretending to be something that you have already acknowledged you are not.  You can’t argue for the necessity of nonpartisanship, while at the same time boosting that you soften your coverage on one candidate because you believe it’s more important for that person to get elected.  Sorry, that doesn’t make you nonpartisan.  If Olbermann wants any help on this subject, he’s more than welcome to drop us a line for advice, otherwise, pull the ad.  To anyone that pays attention, it just makes hurts his credibility.

Sphere: Related Content

A Note About The “Tensions” Between Obama And Clinton Supporters…

There’s an awful lot of discussion about the rift in the Democratic party, the anger among Clinton supporters and general Clinton “drama.”  Dont buy it.  Yes, there are a significant number of Clinton supporters that are very upset about Obama being the nominee.  However, the reality of the tensions between the camps is not anywhere near the degree that it is being portrayed.  The story is being completely overblown and it’s probably the result of two major factors: 1) A lack of historical knowledge (conventions in the past have been significantly more controversial, with much stronger tensions between internal camps) and 2) Clinton drama sells and the media has largely made it clear that profit and not information is their primary motivation.

Some examples of the silliness out there (the overwhelming majority of the aforementioned ridiculousnes can be found on cable news)…

• Justin Gardner criticizes HRC for knowing that her critiques would be used against Obama by McCain in the general election.  Because, Obama didn’t run critical ads against HRC, right?  I’m not sure why her critiques against Obama in the primary (which by historical counts weren’t that harsh) are still an issue.
• The Guardian’s Michael Tomasky is really upset by all the Clinton drama, especially after reading reports that some Clinton people won’t be staying in town for Obama’s speech.  So, to demonstrate how ridiculous all the drama is, he throws a hissy fit.  How dare those selfish Clinton advisors/staffers who spent countless hours fighting in a primary leave before watching Obama’s speech live and in person, I mean, my goodness, the room may not even be filled now.  Let me get this straight, apparently, the Clintons are being bad because some supporters don’t want to stick around for Obama’s speech? This is the best the press can do to gin up the controversy even more?  Sigh
• The National Review has a laughable list of the 20 ways that “Hillary is being snubbed.”

Sphere: Related Content

Sullivan Begins To Turn On Obama

Andrew Sullivan thinks outloud about the “hubris of Obama:”

A few things have unsettled me these past couple of weeks about the Obama campaign. It is not the small adjustments to previously-held positions - FISA, the Second Amendment, Iraq. It’s a sense that Obama’s ample self-regard is lapsing into hubris. The signs of this are pretty trivial on the surface, but they are troubling nonetheless.

I can undestand calling Obama’s recent statements on the 2nd Amendment and Iraq “small adjustments.”  But it’s a big understatement to call Obama’s switch on FISA a “small adjustment;” it wasn’t a small adjustment, it was a significant departure from a previously held position.  I understand the political reasons for doing so.  But, let’s call it what it is.  The discussion shouldn’t be about whether it was a major departure from a previously held position.  Rather, the debate should be whether or not the political gains are worth the cost.

Sullivan goes on to criticize Obama for the Obama seal (which the campaign dropped fast), moving his convention speech outside and for allowing his daughters to be interviewed.  He concludes:

Any one of these misjudgments would be a trivial lapse - and we all make mistakes. It’s the combination that concerns me - and the possibility that this campaign is becoming far too cocky for its own good.

I point this out for a few reasons:

• First, we have been saying for some time that Obama runs the risk of alienating supporters with some of his campaign tactics (see our most receent podcast for a thorough discussion).
• Second, if a die-hard supporter like Sullivan is already becomming irritated with Obama, I wonder how widespread that sentiment is amongst Obama supporters.  I don’t think that this sentiment is widespread, bu I do think (as I have been saying for a few weeks) that it has the potential to, unless some adjustments are made.
• Third, it’s yet another reason to support the conention that Andrew Sullivan is completely overrated.  He is too often either dead wrong or overstates a case so much that he has to constantly reverse himself down the road.  Although, it usually takes Sullivan a bit longer than a few weeks to realize how wrong he was.  I guess now that Hillary’s out the race, Sullivan’s blind support for Obama just doesn’t give him the same thrill anymore.

Sphere: Related Content

The Case That Divided Government is Irrelevant

One of the rationales brought up by people this election season for voting for John McCain is that with Democrats in control of Congress and the White House, this would create a problematic scenario. I think this idea is mostly ridiculous.

Michael Merritt lays out what he considers unified government:

What is unified government? I define this as the executive and legislative branches being controlled by the same party. In Congress, it means that both the House and Senate have comfortable enough margins of power to get their agenda passed swiftly without too much work.

I disagree with this characterization. One party has total control only if they have 60 members of the Senate, one reasons liberals are going crazy over that number this year. This is exceptionally unlikely to happen this year. Nate Silver projects that there is only about a 17% chance of that happening given the electorate.

Republicans did also not have 60 members in the Senate. So what happened? All of the partisan elements of Bush’s domestic agenda the past six years were either thwarted (Social Security) or co-opted by Democrats for various reasons (Tax Cuts, Energy Bill, FISA). The less partisan bills (No Child Left Behind, post-Katrina Bills) were in many cases co-authored by Democrats. There are other bills, such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Medicare Bill that fit into both categories to a certain extent. None of these depended on who held a majority in Congress; if Democrats had a slim lead on Republicans, much of the same would happen. The FISA Compromise in the Senate right now is indicatibe of that. The immediate effect of a new President in domestic policy is regulatory power; ability to set new standards, to appoint partisans to regulatory commissions, and whatnot. That is usually unhindered by Congress, except in extreme cases. This was similar for the Clinton administration: the partisan health care attempt failed, even with a majority of Democrats.

Moreover, in terms of foriegn policy, the development the past 50 years has strongly favored the President over Congress. Indeed, Bush has been able to do almost whatever he wanted in foreign policy, even after the Democrats took back Congress in 2006. Bill Clinton initiated the Kosovo campaign in the middle of being impeached.

The ultimate point is that in domestic policy, divided government is overrated. If one party has a supermajority, than they can accomplish very partisan things, such as what Democrats did in the early 60s. But there is little evidence that slight majorities change things dramatically either.

Merritt lays out other reasons.

1) Corruption

So why is having unified government so bad? Well, for starters, it leads to all sorts of corruption. You only need to look at the Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay and Mark Foley scandals to see what can happen when politicians get too comfortable with their own power. … As well as scandals in Congress, scandals in the executive branch can also go unchecked with unified government. Just look at the U.S. Attorney scandal, treatment of enemy combatants, and others.

Corruption is a worry not for divided government, but for parties that have any power whatsoever. As appealing as it would be if no party had power, that seems unrealistic. Moreover, it’s not just Republicans that have a monopoly on corruption; Democrats like William Jefferson are not squeaky clean, either.

As for Merritt’s second argument, Democrats have done absolutely nothing constructive regarding those scandals that they could not have done in the minority. Issuing unanswered subpoenas for instance. At best, you could argue that Democratic pressure made Alberto Gonzalez resign. But not even Republicans were not happy with him at the hearings.

2) Breakdown of Checks and Balances:

Merritt states:

Next, and arguably the worst, unified government creates a system where checks and balances break down, and the legislative and executive branches begin to take the country in too far of the wrong direction. Whether it’s more toward socialism or more toward laisse-faire capitalism doesn’t matter. When government is unified, the debate necessary to quash bad legislation just isn’t there, and the executive and party in control of the legislature can enact whatever they want without too much effort. Keep in mind that I speak of the kind of unified government that some commenters here are afraid of. That which has a large majority in the House (which the Democrats don’t quite have now but come close) and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (which the Democrats don’t have now and probably won’t have even after this November).

As I noted above, the facts do not back this up; not at all. This type of strong push one way or another only occurs when one party has a supermajority, implicitly meaning that the people want the country to move in that direction. The reason is simple; the founding fathers created a system in the Senate that would check undivided government itself. Merritt completely glosses over this; he admits it exists, but does not want to trust it.

Less Partisanship:

At least with divided government, both sides are forced to compromise, at least in theory. This is in theory because it depends on how partisan minded your two parties are. If you get even one party that is unwilling to concede anything, then nothing gets done, as has often been the case with the current make-up of Congress. Yet, the partisanship we’ve seen isn’t so bad that we see no legislation come out of it. The Farm bill is just one example of where both parties got together to pass legislation.

This is also true when the same party is in control of Congress and the White House. I’ll take the Farm Bill and raise him every other bill I’ve mentioned: Tax Cuts, Energy Bill, Katrina Bills, No Child Left Behind, Medicare, etc. Even the poorly organized Democrats were able to negotiate somewhat with those. Moreover, even with undivided government, when negotiation failed, bills did not pass (Social Security).

Furthermore, I think the Farm Bill is a terrible example. Farm issues and immigration are two specific issues that naturally cut across both party lines. Support and Dissent on the bills is never aligned specifically by party. You find liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans agreeing to hate the Farm Bill, for instance. Somehow, I don’t think that what Merritt had in mind was that bipartisanship would emerge as a cabal of bipartisan representatives agreed to take money for their states.

There surely is some impact of divided government at the very margins. But that difference is dwarfed by the foreign policy differences between the candidates, even as their Iraq policies converge. It’s for that reason that I’ve defined myself as a foreign policy voter; if you want to effect a domestic policy, work and donate to Congress. For this Presidential election, too much is on the line in foreign policy to base a vote on marginal impacts of a divided government.

Sphere: Related Content

Partisan Hacks: Rachel Maddow ‘Would Bet’ That McCain Chooses Jeb Bush As VP

Appearing on yesterday’s Race For The White House on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow discussed the likelihood of John McCain choosing Jeb Bush as his running mate.  She stated:

Joe Scarborough: Rachel, you know, George W. Bush is like kryptonite to Republicans this year.  But, is Jeb Bush, the good Bush to be standing next to in 2008?

Rachel Maddow: Well, Floridians like Jeb Bush and it seems like John McCain likes Jeb Bush.  I mean everything you hear, I don’t know either of the candidates personally, right - I’m not an insider person who is getting that sort of information.  But, the people who are close the candidates, when they talk about who John McCain personally likes, who he has good chemistry with, they talk about Jeb Bush.  I think that when you hear McCain sort of bring up Jeb Bush unprompted in conversation, when you see Jeb Bush make this detour in Mexico City to go see McCain today - I think they’re testing just how important Jeb Bush’s last name is.  Because, if he had a different last name, I think there’s no question he would be right at the top of the list for McCain.

Scarborough: …But Rachel, you’re not saying that McCain could possibly pick Jeb Bush as his vice president, are you?

Maddow: If I had to bet, and I don’t bet, but if I had to bet today I would bet on Jeb Bush.  I honestly would.

It’s worth noting that last summer, Maddow put forth a conspiracy theory, which involved Cheney resigning for medical reasons and being replaced with Jeb Bush, who could then run for president as an incumbent VP.  Onto, yesterday’s comment…

To begin, the mere suggestion that McCain would choose Jeb Bush as his running mate is unbelievably silly.  I don’t care what side of the aisle you are on, if you’re on television you shouldn’t say things this absurd.  But, to Maddow’s credit, she did warn everyone how willfully ignorant she was.  After all, she acknowledged that she wasn’t an insider and has no specific information to support her senseless contention.  However, if you break down her analysis, it’s pretty obvious that she was solely saying it for political reasons, since, the more you tie McCain to Bush (either directly or indirectly, the better for the Democrats)…

She does provide a reason for her conclusion though: McCain is testing Jeb’s last name by meeting with him in Mexico City.  I’m not entirely sure how a meeting that took place in Mexico City with significantly less coverage than it would have gotten back in the US somehow satisfies or signifies testing Jeb’s name.  It actually doesn’t make sense.  But, that’s okay, because it doesn’t need to.  It only needs to link Bush and McCain.

It’s a shame when people, like Maddow, who spend so much time complaining about partisan hacks neglect to realize just what a hack they’ve become themselves.  In my opinion, anyone that prefaces a statement with something to the effect of ‘I have no idea what I am talking about, but…’ should not be allowed to finish that thought on a televised news program.  I guess I’m just reaching for the stars though…

Sphere: Related Content

Bloggers Gone Wild, Stop Paying Attention…

I realize that this isn’t terribly important, but I feel that it’s worth mentioning because it is indicative of the frenzy taking place on the internet lately vis-a-vis Clinton/Obama and serves as a reminder to all to be wary of what you read.

Eric from TPM (an overall great source) posted the audio for a Clinton campaign policy call that was held earlier today.  The call was a policy only call and was intended to discuss the unveiling of Clinton’s breast cancer policy; it’s pretty clear that this was not the frequently held strategy call.  Despite this, Eric makes a largely unsupported inference, writing:

The daily Clinton campaign conference call, usually consisting of the daily slam against Obama followed by a freewheeling Q and A, took an unusual form this morning.

Instead, the call was purely about policy, focusing exclusively on questions about Hillary’s new initiative on breast-cancer awareness — perhaps because the campaign is determined not to have to answer any more questions about Mark Penn’s departure.

As someone that sits in on these calls and has been recording them with regularity before it became the hip thing to do, I take umbrage with the unbelievably inaccuracy in Eric’s post.  This isn’t the first policy call that the Clinton campaign has held.  Today’s policy call was very similar in format and tone to previous policy calls.  Granted, the fact that the campaign didn’t have its typical call to discuss the state of the race, is certainly worth noting.  But, the suggestion that things were radically different on today’s call because of Penn’s resignation is just completely baseless.  Moreover, it generates confusion amongst readers/listeners, by glossing over distinctions that would otherwise be relevant.  Yes, the Clinton campaign failed to hold its state of the race call today to avoid questions about Penn.  But, no, today’s call is not something completely out of place.  Unfortunately, even good sources like Donklephant in a frenetic attempt to keep up with the pace of coverage neglected to analyze TPM’s conclusion and consequently reiterated a completely false suggestion.

I am truly beginning to wonder just how many people are paying attention anymore.  I recognize the perils of blogging and the strong desire to keep up with the pack.  But, it’s also worth noting that truly good content takes hours of research and fact checking (JW’s backgrounder on Penn’s history is a good example of the kind of blogging that needs to occur more frequently).

Anyway, I just wanted to clear up the confusion created by TPM.  As a side note, you can listen to all of the campaign conference calls and read the accompanying press release for context at 2008Central.net [LINK].

Sphere: Related Content

Harwood To Candidates: Stop Whining About Press

In an open memo to presidential candidates, John Harwood tells them to stop whining about the press:

One of the familiar themes of modern day politics is whining about the role of the press. Losing candidates often resort to this as an explanation for their lagging performance.

We’ve heard it plenty from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which says the press has been too hard on her and too easy on Barack Obama. We heard it from Obama–after he lost Ohio and Texas to Clinton. We’ve heard it from various of John McCain’s rivals, who say he benefits from a friendly press corps. We heard it from obscure candidates in both parties, who say if only the press paid attention they’d go better at the polls.
Well, guess what? The twists and turns of this campaign have gone a long way toward debunking all that whining.

For the most part, his memo is fine, albeit a bit oversimplified. However, I can accept his underlying premise. Then he went and took a massive leap by concluding:

The lesson of all this: we in the press cover the events of the campaign, we don’t create them.

Sure, I certainly think Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Chris Matthews: Limbaugh Will Let Hillary Clinton Win So He Can Be “Government In Exile”

In an exchange with Howard Fineman and Michelle Bernard on today’s Hardball, Chris Matthews suggested that Limbaugh would let Hillary Clinton win in order to become the government in exile:

Howard Fineman: McCain is relying on the idea that if he does get the nomination, the prospect of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be enough to unite the conservatives. I don’t necessarily think that’s the case. Sometimes conservative activists get in a mood where they prefer to loose…

Chris Matthews: Right.

Fineman: …They prefer to lose…

Matthews: Yes! Yes!

Fineman: …They want to Lose. They love to lose.

Matthews: I just think that’s so true. Michelle, I think these guys like Rush Limbaugh, who I think is a great professional at what he does, would love to be the government in exile, have a democrat like Hillary Clinton, especially Hillary Clinton as president. And he would be in heaven for four years, putting her in hell.

Michelle Bernard: No one is going to unify the Republican party more than Hillary Clinton, you know. Let’s make that clear. I’ve got to actually agree with…

Matthews: No, I mean let her win the presidency, so that guys on radio can dance for four years on her grave. I mean, they’ll just love it.

This is multidimensional nonsense. It’s pretty clear that for the safety of others, going forward, MSNBC should only allow Matthews to use NERF on Hardball.

For context, in the subsequent segment, Matthews reads a letter from former Speaker Tip O’Neil’s daughter that praises Barack Obama and states that Tip would support Obama if he were alive. Matthews goes on to talk about the cut of Obama’s jib.

*sigh*

Sphere: Related Content

Stop Listening To Andrew Sullivan, Part 2 of Many…

As I already discussed, this post is part of an ongoing series urging caution for readers of Andrew Sullivan (under the larger topic of our “Defenestration of blogs”). Yesterday evening, I sent Andrew an email responding to a specific post of his, but more generally, I was simply requesting a higher level of discourse with regard to his election coverage [full email after the jump].

However, something Andrew wrote today underscores the inconsistency in his appeals from the past months; he pleads:

McCain represents a chance to remake the GOP on reformist lines, just as Obama represents a chance for the Democrats to escape the sleaze and cynicism of the Clintons. Maybe the Republicans, unlike, it appears, the Democrats, have the courage to choose the future over the past, to break a dynasty rather than entrench one. I sure hope they do.

For months, Andrew has argued against the current state of politics. He has urged his readers to transcend the vitriol of the past 15 year or so years…to rise above their own emotional investments in a particular candidate or issue…to demand more of their politicians and leaders…

In and of themselves, these are all very valid appeals. However, what good are they, when the very person urging them fails to demonstrate these principles in action? Perhaps on other topics, Andrew provides reasoned discourse. But, when it comes to discussing the 2008 election and specifically some of the personalities in the election, he does nothing but add to the divisiveness. While reciting his own vitriol, his calls to transcend the status quo are tantamount to those people on group emails who hit “reply to all” in order to complain about being on the email…he’s just enhancing the problem that he properly recognizes.

I’m not necessarily arguing for or against the specific positions that Sullivan advocates. What I am arguing against is the inconsistency between his message/appeal and his rhetoric. Yes, we need to demand more from our politicians…it’s true. But, we also need to demand more from the people that are tasked with informing us and from those who shape the national dialogue. If we’re really going to transcend the bitterness of the past/present, then we’re either going to need to start looking for new voices in the media, demand more from the present ones or some combination of the two.

My point, can very simply be boiled down to: practice what you preach.

I really don’t think it’s impossible for Americans to have a higher level of discourse and by this I mean more substantive and less personally divisive. Perhaps, this is because I truly do not believe that America is as absurd as those in the mainstream media would suggest. However, since they’re the ones shaping the conversation…they’re also the ones partly responsible for dragging it down. Indeed Andrew (and others), demand more…but first…start with yourself.

And my email from yesterday: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Stop Listening To Andrew Sullivan, Part 1 of Many…

From now on, every time Andrew Sullivan posts something about the 2008 election that’s just absurd, I will post a reminder to refrain from listening to him.

His most recent anti-Clinton drivel (and I am certainly not a Clinton apologist) boils down to the following: There’s a poll that shows Obama doing better in a general election against Giuliani or Huckabee than Clinton, therefore “the argument seems to be over.  On the basis of electability…”

Quite honestly, I’m really stunned at the sweeping overstatements and gross oversimplification that Andrew consistently applies to his calculus when assessing the political race.  Indeed, there are some very good arguments as to why Obama may be (and is probably) more electable than Sen. Clinton, but a poll about the general election right now definitely is not one of them.

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »