A couple of items from Think Progress on Friday give an indication of just how far off into space the GOP is likely to go the next two years. Both go to the subject of their incredibly non-existent grasp of the Constitution and related matters of basic legal reality. First was the matter of Iowa Congressman Steve King, who's the incoming chairman of the immigration subcommittee, with a novel approach to getting rid of birthright citizenship: simply declare that undocumented immigrants aren't subject to the jurisdiction of US laws--the same as foreign diplomats. You see, the children of foreign diplomats born here aren't US citizens, so if we pass a law giving undocumented workers the same legal status, their children won't be citizens, either! Neat, huh? Of course that also means they can't be arrested for murder, but worth the trade-off, right?
if the ruling of a court is wrong, and it's fundamentally wrong, and you have two branches of the government that determine that it's wrong, then those other two branches supersede the one
"Two against one! Two against one!" This is a five-year old's "grasp" of separation of powers, which is to say, no grasp at all. It would be insulting to idiots to call Huckabee one.
The two crazy ideas actually fit together in a way. From an interview King did with Fox News' Bill Hemmer (courtesy of Think Progress):
HEMMER: The critics are going to say "why deny citizenship to a child?" Your argument is what?
KING: Well it's really pretty simple. There is an industry that has grown up out of this that pregnant woman come into the United States illegally so that they can have a family that's anchored to their citizenship and anchored to American benefits.
HEMMER: You can find countless examples of that I'm certain. [...] But you would need a Constitutional amendment to do away with this. That is a huge mountain to climb.
KING: I don't agree Bill. Let me say that when you look at the scholarship on this - and I don't present myself as a lead scholar - but I listen to some of them however and I read the text of it: all persons born within the United States and subject to jurisdiction thereof shall be American citizens. [...]
HEMMER: So you would argue that it's the language and the interpretation of the amendment?
KING: I would say so. That clause is there. If it weren't there, then I think they would have a case. But the proper way to go about this is: pass the law banning birthright citizenship and then certainly the people on the other side will litigate...and we'll fight out on the other side of this what the will in the Supreme Court is.
But of course, using Huckabee's logic, who cares what the Supreme Court says? Two against one, remember? Of course there is the little matter of the Democratic-controlled Senate, and the Democratic President. But hey, that's what impeachments are for, right? And there's enough conservadems in the Senate.... You can see where this is going, right? Just pick whatever crazy ass result you want to achieve, and bend or break every single law or principle that stands in the way. This is, quite literally, the direction that GOP as a whole is headed: Government by pure (or impure) id.
The recent firing of Juan Williams by NPR for comments made on the Fox News and his affiliation with that network has created an interesting sidebar to this now all too familiar affair. The renewed scrutiny of NPR for its alleged liberal bias has resulted in an interesting byproduct. That byproduct is an increased level of attention now being paid to Fox, its parent the News Corp., and its wealthy conservative CEO, Rupert Murdoch.
The practice of allowing candidates to solicit campaign contributions while appearing on Fox News is a significant departure from what is generally considered television news broadcasting. Mr. Murdoch has abided this practice along with his own well-publicized million dollar contributions to Republican campaign organizations and other efforts to promote positions on the far right. That raises a fundamental question: Is Fox a legitimate news organization or has it morphed into something between a news organ and a political action operation even to the point of being considered a shill? A shill is defined as: "a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty." A political action committee is defined as:"a type of political committee organized to spend money for the election or defeat of a candidate." Mr. Murdoch has a record of promoting conservative ideas no matter what the cost. He has continued to prop up the conservative "The New York Post" in spite of its staggering losses to the tune of between $15 million to $30 million. According to Business Week magazine: "The Post has lost so much money for so long that it would have folded years ago if News Corp. applied the same profit-making rigor to the tabloid as it does to its other businesses." What then is the purpose of the continued support of a newspaper the commentary of which often resembles old-fashioned agitprop? There can only be one logical explanation and it's because the Post represents Mr. Murdoch's primary organ for presenting the conservative line in what is one of the bluest regions in the country and he is willing to spend whatever it takes to do so.
The argument that Fox News has become somewhat of a political operation is more than apparent when one examines the following evidence. Former Ohio Republican Congressman and now candidate for Governor, John Kasich, appearing during prime time on "Hannity" was given time to solicit campaign contributions while on the air saying:" If you have extra nickels or dimes, please send it our way." According to Brian Stelter of the New York Times this is not the first time Kasich has used an appearance on Fox to raise money for his campaign. Quoting Stelter: "The channel was the subject of an election complaint in Ohio because Mr. Kasich was able to ask for money and display his Web site address during an interview in August on "The O'Reilly Factor," Fox's biggest prime time talk show. Mr. Kasich used to host a weekend show on Fox, and Mr. Murdoch has called him a friend." Moreover Stelter points out that Fox employees have engaged in more direct political action both on and off the air: "Sometimes the most outspoken of the Fox hosts go out and raise money directly. Mr. Hannity has headlined several fund-raisers for Republicans this year. And just last week, Mr. Beck donated $10,000 to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce to defend it against criticism from President Obama - and challenged his radio listeners to donate as well." Beyond these various forms of political action is the fact that several likely candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination are presently on the Fox payroll or regularly appear on the network, including Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.
When you look across the political spectrum to Fox's chief rivals: MSNBC, CNN and NPR you see several object lessons in how competing news organizations have different values. Political action at MSNBC, for example, is much more constrained, to the point that there is very little deviation from what could considered legitimate news reporting and commentary. Again quoting Stelter: "All this political activity has spurred at least a little bit of hand-wringing at the channels. NBC News, which operates MSNBC, recently reiterated its rule that employees may not engage in political activity, but said it had carved out an exception for some MSNBC hosts." To date whatever exceptions exist at MSNBC, they are not even remotely close to the on the air solicitation of funds, public activities related to fund raising by network commentators or the employment of prospective presidential candidates on the network's payroll which is presently the case at Fox. At NPR political activity of any variety is virtually nonexistent. In the final analysis what we have witnessed at Fox News is the evolution of a news organization into something beyond what is commonly considered political reporting and commentary into something short of a political action committee, a sort of quasi-political news organ if you will. That said shouldn't the Fox News Network scrub the subtitle of "Fair and Balanced" from its headline banner seeing as it can no longer legitimately make that claim in light of the fundamental transformation that has taken place within the Fox organization?
During Netroots Nation, we are running Golden Oldies plus a few surprises. Regularly Scheduled programming will resume on July 26.
A Matt Stoller Golden Oldie
Tue Dec 25, 2007. Original HERE.
Here's Ezra Klein expressing a fairly common sentiment among both Democratic base voters and Democratic elites.
As a result of my post defending Obama this morning, I'm getting a bunch of links along the lines of "Ezra Klein, no fan of Obama..."
This is, to be sure, my failure as a writer, so just to be clear: I'm impressed with all three of the major Democrats, and, for that matters, most of the other Democrats not named "Bill Richardson."
Ezra is happy with the Democratic candidates; most Democratic voters share Ezra's views. I don't (and neither do a few others). The issues we are dealing with today - health care, jobs, even a war in Iraq - are literally the same issues we dealt with in 1992. How can that possibly be considered progress? A real progressive candidate would take an apolitical problem and turn it into a mainstream political subject. None of our candidates have done that. Here are five easily mainstreamable problems ripe for the picking. There are more of these, I'm just picking at five that touch on the national security state, secrecy, economic injustice, and attacks on our civil liberties.
Subject: End the War on Drugs
Factoid: There are 1 million people put in jail for doing what Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George Bush have done.
Marijuana is America's largest cash crop, and it is responsible for around 225,000 arrests a year. Overall, the war on drugs incarcerates around 1 million people a year. Direct spending on the war on drugs this year is $50 billion dollars, about $600 a second. Around half of high school seniors have consumed marijuana (pdf). Simply put, why do some people go to jail for marijuana and cocaine, and others run for President?
Subject: End corporate media ownership:
Factoid: General Electric, a major defense contractor and conglomerate, owns NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC.
Our media is owned and controlled by a few major companies. One of them, GE, has major defense contracts, and strong incentives for war. It also has huge interests in the financial industry. Why is this company controlling our news content again, while we are in two wars? And why did the FCC just relax ownership requirements in local areas, again?
Subject: End American empire
Factoid: As of 1998, America had troops stationed in 144 countries around the world.
There are any number of ways to talk about this issue, from disparities of foreign aid to complaints about the IMF to the war in Iraq to the CIA and blowback. The bottom line is that America has troops everywhere in the world, it's expensive, the way it is done now is a bad idea, and we need to bring them home and return to being a republic. That or we need to figure out how to be a responsible international power again and get rid of the Blackwater-style military we are building and the gunrunning vigilante CIA-style Cold War and post-Cold War nonsense.
Subject: End the war economy:
Factoid: Money for Iraq keeps passing in 'emergency' legislation to avoid being subject to budget rules.
For some reason, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans argue that they are fiscally responsible while ignoring their votes to spend 700-800B a year on war. Libertarian charlatans like energy expert Amory Lovins think that the corporate sector and the military sector are legitimate parts of the state, but that other spending is wasteful. The whole notion of the military not being a part of the overall government is crazy, and reflective of a huge, corrupt, and Soviet-style misallocation of capital through secret budgets and fear.
Subject: End the cradle-to-prison superhighway
Factoid: 2 million people are in prison in America, by far the highest total of any other country in the world.
Think slavery has ended? Think torture is 'new'? Think again. With two million people in prison, and tens of thousands of sexual assaults every year, prison is a huge industry and a horrendous abridgment of the idea that is America.
Touching on any of these massive injustices in our economic infrastructure is something no candidate has systematically done. Only John Edwards has remotely addressed the concept of the war on terror, in a somewhat half-hearted way, and he has made 'poverty' a somewhat commonly repeated theme, though not in any meaningful sense. Clinton and Obama are disgracefully absent on these topics. Ironically, Bill Richardson, aside from his great work on residual forces, has also said that the 'war on drugs is not working', which reflects perhaps a more executive oriented and confident worldview. Chris Dodd has also advocated for marijuana decriminalization, which is a less aggressive but still laudable sentiment, especially in light of his work on core constitutional issues.
So anyway, while the insider wonk community is happy that their issues seem to be taken care of, and Democratic base voters like the different candidates we have, I find that actual progressive reframing of our political system is appearing only at the margins of our secondary candidates like Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd, and among crazy white supremacist types like Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Each of the five hinges I've discussed starts with the verb 'end', and that was not planned when I started this post. I think it means that we must end a chapter in American history, and begin a new one.
Restoring healthy communities, healthy citizens, a healthy global order, healthy local media, and a healthy sustainable economy are the key drivers of where need to go as a country. The cancerous symptoms are all around us, and leading Democratic Presidential candidates are too corrupt and morally crippled to even begin talking about them. But we'll get there.
A Matt Stoller Golden Oldie
Tue Dec 25, 2007. Original HERE.
Here's Ezra Klein expressing a fairly common sentiment among both Democratic base voters and Democratic elites.
As a result of my post defending Obama this morning, I'm getting a bunch of links along the lines of "Ezra Klein, no fan of Obama..."
This is, to be sure, my failure as a writer, so just to be clear: I'm impressed with all three of the major Democrats, and, for that matters, most of the other Democrats not named "Bill Richardson."
Ezra is happy with the Democratic candidates; most Democratic voters share Ezra's views. I don't (and neither do a few others). The issues we are dealing with today - health care, jobs, even a war in Iraq - are literally the same issues we dealt with in 1992. How can that possibly be considered progress? A real progressive candidate would take an apolitical problem and turn it into a mainstream political subject. None of our candidates have done that. Here are five easily mainstreamable problems ripe for the picking. There are more of these, I'm just picking at five that touch on the national security state, secrecy, economic injustice, and attacks on our civil liberties.
Subject: End the War on Drugs
Factoid: There are 1 million people put in jail for doing what Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George Bush have done.
Marijuana is America's largest cash crop, and it is responsible for around 225,000 arrests a year. Overall, the war on drugs incarcerates around 1 million people a year. Direct spending on the war on drugs this year is $50 billion dollars, about $600 a second. Around half of high school seniors have consumed marijuana (pdf). Simply put, why do some people go to jail for marijuana and cocaine, and others run for President?
Subject: End corporate media ownership:
Factoid: General Electric, a major defense contractor and conglomerate, owns NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC.
Our media is owned and controlled by a few major companies. One of them, GE, has major defense contracts, and strong incentives for war. It also has huge interests in the financial industry. Why is this company controlling our news content again, while we are in two wars? And why did the FCC just relax ownership requirements in local areas, again?
Subject: End American empire
Factoid: As of 1998, America had troops stationed in 144 countries around the world.
There are any number of ways to talk about this issue, from disparities of foreign aid to complaints about the IMF to the war in Iraq to the CIA and blowback. The bottom line is that America has troops everywhere in the world, it's expensive, the way it is done now is a bad idea, and we need to bring them home and return to being a republic. That or we need to figure out how to be a responsible international power again and get rid of the Blackwater-style military we are building and the gunrunning vigilante CIA-style Cold War and post-Cold War nonsense.
Subject: End the war economy:
Factoid: Money for Iraq keeps passing in 'emergency' legislation to avoid being subject to budget rules.
For some reason, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans argue that they are fiscally responsible while ignoring their votes to spend 700-800B a year on war. Libertarian charlatans like energy expert Amory Lovins think that the corporate sector and the military sector are legitimate parts of the state, but that other spending is wasteful. The whole notion of the military not being a part of the overall government is crazy, and reflective of a huge, corrupt, and Soviet-style misallocation of capital through secret budgets and fear.
Subject: End the cradle-to-prison superhighway
Factoid: 2 million people are in prison in America, by far the highest total of any other country in the world.
Think slavery has ended? Think torture is 'new'? Think again. With two million people in prison, and tens of thousands of sexual assaults every year, prison is a huge industry and a horrendous abridgment of the idea that is America.
Touching on any of these massive injustices in our economic infrastructure is something no candidate has systematically done. Only John Edwards has remotely addressed the concept of the war on terror, in a somewhat half-hearted way, and he has made 'poverty' a somewhat commonly repeated theme, though not in any meaningful sense. Clinton and Obama are disgracefully absent on these topics. Ironically, Bill Richardson, aside from his great work on residual forces, has also said that the 'war on drugs is not working', which reflects perhaps a more executive oriented and confident worldview. Chris Dodd has also advocated for marijuana decriminalization, which is a less aggressive but still laudable sentiment, especially in light of his work on core constitutional issues.
So anyway, while the insider wonk community is happy that their issues seem to be taken care of, and Democratic base voters like the different candidates we have, I find that actual progressive reframing of our political system is appearing only at the margins of our secondary candidates like Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd, and among crazy white supremacist types like Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Each of the five hinges I've discussed starts with the verb 'end', and that was not planned when I started this post. I think it means that we must end a chapter in American history, and begin a new one.
Restoring healthy communities, healthy citizens, a healthy global order, healthy local media, and a healthy sustainable economy are the key drivers of where need to go as a country. The cancerous symptoms are all around us, and leading Democratic Presidential candidates are too corrupt and morally crippled to even begin talking about them. But we'll get there.
In a recent Washington Post article titled "A Good Time to be a Conservative"; Mr. Kristol made a bold assumption, claiming the "center of gravity" within the Republican Party would shift farther to the right, propelled in that direction by a collection of conservative personalities from beyond the Beltway. Indicating a lack of faith in the G.O.P.'s elected leadership, Kristol says: "Even if Republicans pick up the House in 2010, the party's big ideas and themes for the 2012 presidential race will probably not emanate from Capitol Hill. The center of gravity, I suspect, will instead lie with individuals such as Palin and Huckabee and Gingrich, media personalities like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and activists at town halls and tea parties. Some will lament this -- but over the past year, as those voices have dominated, conservatism has done pretty well in the body politic, and Republicans have narrowed the gap with Democrats in test ballots." Kristol's logic is derived from two polls. First, the Gallup Poll of October 26, 2009 that puts the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as conservatives at 40 percent, and an earlier Rasmussen Poll indicating that the only 2012 Republican presidential prospects polling double digits are Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. When one looks inside the numbers, it would appear that there are more than a few flaws in Mr. Kristol's math and intuitive reasoning.
The Gallup results show that the net increase in the percentage of people identifying as conservatives had taken place within that subset of the electorate classified as independents. Quoting Gallup: "Changes among political independents appear to be the main reason the percentage of conservatives has increased nationally over the past year: the 35% of independents describing their views as conservative in 2009 is up from 29% in 2008. By contrast, among Republicans and Democrats, the percentage who are "conservative" has increased by one point each." In spite of the shift in independents identifying as conservatives, the actual percentage of voters who identify with the G.O.P., which is the defacto conservative party, has fallen to historical lows. The latest political identification polling results available on Pollster.com reveals that just 25 percent of those polled identify themselves as Republicans. That percentage improves when registered and likely voters are polled, but the G.O.P. still trails the Democrats here as well. To date, had independents firmly embraced the principles of the conservative movement generally or the G.O.P. in particular, the percentage of voters identifying as Republicans would show a marked increase and so far that is not the case. I would argue that the shift to the right among independent voters is far from solid and is conditional, being subject to a set of factors that will likely change by the time of the 2012 election. In fact an even newer Gallup Poll reveals just how transient independent political attitudes actually are. That poll: "Race for 2010 Remains Close; Democrats Recover Slight Lead", which came out on December 14 states: "The current generic-ballot results are similar to those Gallup found in July and October of this year, and indicate that the Republican gain observed just after the Nov. 3 elections was not sustained. Shifts in candidate preference for Congress typically occur primarily among independents, whose "unanchored" status makes them much more vulnerable to short-term events in the political environment than are those who claim allegiance to either major party." I would go beyond the latest Gallup findings to suggest that the number of independents identifying as conservatives will decrease proportionately to the degree to which the G.O.P. moves to the right, especially if the Republican Party finds its public image welded to the personalities of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party crowd.
In his reliance on the results of the above cited Rasmussen Poll, Mr. Kristol is in effect betting the house on a collection of would be candidates that, in spite of polling in the double digits, leave much to be desired when it actually comes to getting elected. Kristol is one of Sarah Palin's most passionate cheerleaders, but in suggesting that the future of the conservative movement might lie in the fortunes of Ms. Palin, he seems to be gambling on a horse not worth the wager. Mid-December poll results from both Pollster.com and Polling Report.com show Palin registering an unfavorable rating of 48 percent. An ABC poll of November 15th showed that 53 percent of respondents would not vote for Palin with 60 percent saying she was not qualified to be president. More damaging still is a CBS poll of November 15, which revealed that 62 percent of those Republicans polled felt that Palin lacked the ability to be an effective president. At the time of Palin's resignation from elected office, Republican strategist Mike Murphy opined: "If the Sarah Palin we perceive today wins the nomination in 2012, the G.O.P. will lose. Most Americans don't think Palin is ready to be President. The base loving you is not enough to get you elected." Conservative columnist Michael Gerson, reflecting on Palin's resignation said: "She really alienated women and the college educated on both coasts and that is not how you rebuild the Republican Party." The reality is that the Republican Party cannot hope to win without the support of independent voters, whom Palin clearly alienates and whose ranks are, according to Pew Research, now at a seventy-year high. Recently, two Republican heavyweights: Haley Barbour, former Chairman of the RNC, and Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) both declined to endorse a 2012 Palin presidential bid when they appeared on MSNBC and Fox News.
In spite of the fact that Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have double-digit support among Republicans, none of them breaks a 40 percent favorability rating among voters generally, except Huckabee. However, Huckabee's 40 percent approval rating was registered before Maurice Clemmons, an inmate pardoned by Huckabee, gunned down four police officers in late November. That said, we might see a decline in Huckabee's overall standing in the polls. Poll numbers aside, in the 2008 Republican primaries, Huckabee was only able to win in the south and thus his viability as a national candidate is questionable. Furthermore, Huckabee's past equivocation on the topic of evolution works to his detriment when it comes to appealing to that large segment of the population that believes in science as well as religion. Mitt Romney, as a result of his Mormon faith, had problems with the evangelical base of the G.O.P., which plays a crucial role in the early primary states of Iowa and South Carolina. Moreover, Romney may well run into formidable headwinds from the far right as a result of his relatively moderate approach to politics and policy positions. Newt Gingrich, who's favorable ratings are the lowest, at 14 percent, has a closet full of skeletons of his own which led in 1998 to his stepping down as the Speaker of the House and his departure from Congress altogether. Needless to say these issues will surely be resurrected and they will be in the forefront of the debate in the event that Gingrich becomes a serious presidential contender.
It is in his rather absurd suggestion that the G.O.P.'s center of gravity might travel further to the right as a function of the influence of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or the Tea Party Movement, that Kristol, having slipped his moorings to reality, has embarked on what can only be considered a voyage of political fantasy. Neither Limbaugh nor Beck are particularly compelling personalities beyond the realm of their audience. Both traffic in the sensational, often blurring the lines between fact and fiction with their primary purpose being incendiary commentary rather than legitimate hard news analysis. The media watchdog, Media Matters for America has compiled fifty-three pages of citations detailing Limbaugh's distortion of facts or their deliberate misrepresentation for political purposes. For Glenn Beck there are forty-two pages. The latest NBC/WSJ poll (June 2009), which I was able to find on Limbaugh's popularity, showed that 50 percent of those responding viewed him in a negative light. A similar poll in September showed Glenn Beck registering a positive rating of just 25 percent. In spite of the fact that both Limbaugh and Beck have a committed following, accurately measuring the true size and composition of their respective audiences and the extent to which they actually reflect more than a thin slice of this country's political spectrum is almost impossible. Paul Farhi of the Washington Post attempted to plumb the length and breadth of Limbaugh's audience and therefore his influence, in a March 2009 article: "Limbaugh's Audience Size? It's Largely Up in the Air." Relying on interviews with media industry sources, Farhi claims that Limbaugh's audience fluctuates between 14 to 30 million, depending on the issues of the day. Quoting Michael Harrison of "Talkers Magazine", Farhi puts Limbaugh's average audience at 14.25 million listeners per week, which is just under 5 percent of the population. Glenn Beck's audience is far smaller and his largest audience to date was roughly 3.4 million viewers on September 15, 2009, which amounts to just 1.1 percent of the population.
When it comes to the Tea Party Movement, it is equally difficult in coming to an agreement as to just how many people are involved here and to what extent they really reflect more than a microcosm of American political life. According to the conservative Americans for Tax Reform, a pro-Tea Party group, just 578,000 people participated in the 2009 April Tax Day Protests. Their website does not display figures for the July 4th protests nor does FreedomWorks.com or any other pro-Tea Party website that I came across. The largest number I remember seeing is in the neighborhood of 215,000 protestors. Regarding the September 12th Washington D.C. protest rally, Talking Points Memo described the turnout as follows: "FreedomWorks, the main organizers of the Tea Party event in Washington this past weekend, has dramatically lowered its estimate for the size of the crowd at the event from 1.5 million, a number the group now concedes was a mistake, to between 600,000 and 800,000 people -- though this is still substantially more than the tens of thousands that most mainstream media outlets have estimated, and which FreedomWorks wholeheartedly rejects." Thus if we add up the total attendence at all three Tea Parties, using the higher estimates, we come up with a gross attendence of roughly 1.6 million or just one half of one percent of the population.
What the math reveals is that the actual number of people who either participate in Tea Parties or who listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, presumably many do both, is a rather small percentage of the overall population, even considering that portion that would identify as conservative. That said, its a bit of a strectch to assume that such a statistically insignificant number of people is either enough to move the Republican Party further to the right or that it is likely to do so.
There is one final flaw in Kristol's analysis and that is his ignoring the rising tide of moderates within the party that are opposing any suggestion that the G.O.P. needs to be purified of any moderate tendencies via litmus tests that even Ronald Reagan would fail, that political orthodoxy should be the face of the G.O.P. or that Republicans can only win elections when they embrace ultra conservative ideas. The now formidable array of moderates seeking to stem any drift to the far right encompasses a spectrum of Republican notables from sitting Senators to strategists and political commentators including: Olympia Snowe, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Bob Inglis, Mickey Edwards, Christie Todd Whitman, Newt Gingrich, Tom Ridge, Colin Powell, David Frum, Andrew Sullivan, Kathleen Parker and a host of Republican strategists. Gingrich, appearing on Meet the Press (5/24/09) stated that the G.O.P. has to be "broad enough to incorporate divergent views and can't be purged to the smallest conservative base." Tom Ridge stated that the G.O.P. "needs to be less shrill and less condeming of those who don't hew to a far right view." Following the departure of Arlen Specter from the Republican Party, Olympia Snowe, in a New York Times editorial opined: "There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and contiuing to retract into a regional party. Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities." At an April debate over the future of the G.O.P. Lindsey Graham made the following observation: "We are not losing blue states and shrinking as a party because we are not conservative enough. If we pursue a party that has no place for someone who agrees with me 70 percent of the time, that is based on an ideological purity test rather than a coalition test, then we are going to keep losing." I could go on, but anyone who has been paying any attention to the civil war within the Republican Party knows that there are more than enough voices and intelligent arguments being made to more than call into question the logic and wisdom of people like Bill Kristol and their fanciful notions that the redemption of the G.O.P. lies in the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or the rank and file Tea Party participant. All one has to do is examine the results of the 2009 off-year elections and what is evident is that where Republicans won elections, in the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, they did so by running moderate campaigns that played to the centrist voter. In contrast, the great and financially costly effort by the far right in trying to influence the congressional election in New York's 23rd Electoral District resulted in a conservative failure with a Democrat capturing a seat held by the G.O.P. since as far back as the Civil War.
Over the course of his career, William Kristol is a man who has backed more political losers and also-rans than winners and it would be nothing less than disastrous for the Republican Party to heed his advice or put any stock in his predictions. Kristol worked for former Secretary of Education William Bennet, the voice of personal responsibility during the Reagan Administration, who subsequently lost much of his credibility when he admitted to losing over a million dollars in Las Vegas slot machines. He was Vice President Qualye's Chief of Staff. Kristol managed the failed Senatorial campaign of Alan Keyes in 1988 and Keyes would go on to fail twice more in seeking a seat in the Senate and then two more times when running for president. Kristol championed the pardon of Scooter Libby and the nomination of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate, a decision that McCain's staffers would later admit to be his single biggest mistake. But it is in an examination of Kristol's unabashed cheerleading for the War in Iraq that his predictive abilities are revealed to be so totally lacking. It was Kristol who predicted that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power would unleash a chain reaction of democratic reform across the Middle East that to date has failed to materialize.
Bill Kristol represents that desperate sort of conservative that can't abide the dynamics of political change wrought by the election of Barack Obama. Likewise, the relatively rapid decline in the influence of Neoconservatives since the 2004 election can't bring him much joy either. To my mind, Bill Kristol falls into that category within the Conservative Movement that is firmly wedded to the notion that their orthodox ideology is the only one acceptable for America and that anything else is either politically irrelevant or treasonous. Kristol's faulty logic gives rise to the notion that he is engaged more in wishful thinking than objective political analysis. His prediction as to future direction of the G.O.P. amounts to nothing more than a political "Hail Mary pass" in hoping beyond hope, that somehow or other the Republican Party can be moved to embrace the orthodoxy of the far right. In my opinion, having watched him over the past decade and read his articles, he seems to be increasingly assuming the role of a shill for ultra conservative ideas, becoming as a result less objective in his political analysis. Republicans would be well advised to part company with Mr. Kristol, least they find themselves facing a future of continued electoral defeat and a decline in the party's appeal among that now indispensable factor in American politics, the unaligned independent voter.
The fight for 2012 is here. Beltway media insiders rejoice!
Who's it going to be? Spunky Sarah? Moneyed Mitt? Holy Huckabee? Some dark-horse candidate flying under the radar? One thing is for sure: While the media clamors for every tiny detail in the looming battle for the Republican presidential nomination, the real fight for 2012 is taking place right before their very eyes.
At a book signing this week, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee once again spoke truth to power and rejected two lies spread by the gay liberal media: 1) that the gay movement is a civil rights movement and 2) that violence against "homosexuals" is a big deal. Huckabee then shed light on the issue that nobody else will touch with a 10-foot pole: the gay violence perpetrated against Christians. It turns out that far from being the victims of hate crimes, the gays are the real haters and the true criminals.
Hucakabee explained, "there is a difference between the civil rights movement of African-Americans who were essentially hosed down in the streets by Bull Connor in Birmingham and beaten with their skulls crashed in on the bridges of Selma for being black, not for their behavior, not for anything other than their race."
Duh! Good point. Are gays really that persecuted? Show me a gay who had his skull cracked. Name one! 21-year-old Matthew Shepard was robbed, pistol-whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote area, and left to die, which he did. He had brain damage and a fractured skull, but it wasn't cracked. Besides, Shepard was in Wyoming, and nowhere near Selma, so it's so not comparable. And Shepard, like the other homosexuals he represents, aren't attacked for their race, they are attacked for their behavior. So, if they don't want to get attacked, they can just choose to be straight.
One potential 2012 scenario I have been considering for the past week is that his biggest threat to re-election in 2012 might come from a third-party, rather than from Republicans. This threat would be in the mold of a more populist and likeable Michael Bloomberg, or a more informed and less insane Ross Perot, rather than a minor party such as the Greens or Libertarians rising from obscurity. He would be male, white, extremely wealthy, have no real downticket support, center-right (possibly hard right-wing on economics), and fueled by corporate, big media, bi-partisan elitist, punditry disgust with Barack Obama. I term this the "billionaire king" scenario, and in the extended entry I describe how it could play out.
Partial transcript from an interview with CNSNews.com:
Huckabee: ... You know, it's interesting, the California decision as well as the Massachusetts decision, I don't think should ever have been implemented by the governors, Schwarzenegger and Romney. They were both decisions that the governors simply could have said the court has said that we have to do it, but let them enforce it. Because those were administrative decisions that had to put that in place and there was no mandate.
Jeffrey: Right, but Governor Romney actually went ahead and certified same-sex marriages without an act of his state legislature.
Huckabee: It should never have happened. It should never have happened. And while we want to blame the courts-
Mike Huckabee won a lot of respect--along with anger from from some of the folks you want to see angry--for supposedly presenting a new direction for the Christian Right... a more Christian direction, in fact, with concern for the economically left behind. Indeed, there's always been substantial sentiment in this direction amongst the rank and file. But he never did figure out how he'd pay for it--it's soooo hard to choose amongst the favored GOP tax scams.
Now, however, the other shoe drops, as he jokes about Barack Obama being assasinated.
Don't know quite what to think about this one. CNN is reporting that while speaking at the NRA this morning, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee responded to a loud noise offstage by making a joke about Barack Obama trying to evade a gunman.
"That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak," said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. "Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor."
Ironically, I am showing "Ghosts of Mississippi" right now to my US History and Government classes.
Jokes about black political leaders avoiding gunfire, from a southern governor. I usually have a pretty good sense of humor, but I don't get it.
They have absolutely no sense of shame. None.
Keep in mind, this is the very best they've got. This is as good as it gets from the so-called "Christian Right."
Military hawks are known for adopting the strategy of shoot first and ask questions later. Political hawks often use the same approach when it comes to campaigns tactics: they go aggressively negative early to defeat their rivals as swiftly and decisively as possible. The problem is that political hawkishness may have some of the same pitfalls as military hawkishness: the propensity to over-commit and to land in quagmires from which there is no easy escape.
Hillary Clinton's political hawkishness, the ease with wish she has been willing to go negative in the form of her "kitchen sink" offensive may have precisely that consequence. By launching every attack her campaign can think of at Barack Obama over the last two weeks, Clinton has raised a multitude of issues--everything from national security credentials to experience, from real estate deals to ethics--for which she may be standing on quite precarious ground. Now, having raised these issues herself, she has no choice but to answer a series of very difficult and very damaging questions about her own history and qualifications.
There can be no doubt that Clinton has demonstrated the effectiveness of political lethal force. Hillary's "3am" ad truly seems to have moved votes in the final days before Tuesday's election, helping her secure popular vote victories in Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas. Five years ago in Iraq, coalition forces briskly toppled Saddam's government, with the same degree of effectiveness as Hillary's attacks that halted Obama's 12-state winning streak. But like in Iraq, Hillary now has to answer the question "What next?" Hillary's constant refrain that she is ready to lead on day one has now given way to questions about what will happen on day two. Her recent barrage has left her extraordinarily vulnerable to potent counter-attacks and a death by a thousand cuts.
In Iraq, the US occupation is probably doomed to failure, though it's leaders refuse to concede defeat. No matter how many ways the Bush administration shuffles and reshuffles the body counts, no matter how much taxpayer money they pour into the occupation and surge, the dream of stability in Iraq (to say nothing about Bush's visions of Jeffersonian democracy) seems more and more fleeting with each passing day. Iraq has long since been declared a quagmire by both the American and global press.
Hillary now faces an equally insurmountable challenge. At the end of the day, it is the pledged delegate race that truly counts. The simple reality is that superdelegates are not going to overturn the results of the pledged delegate contest. No matter how many ways Hillary's campaign tries to slice and dice the demographics or spin her campaign's victories, most pundits who have looked at the states ahead have already projected that there is no way for Hillary to recover a pledged delegate lead. Her promises of a Clinton restoration will soon ring just as hollow as Bush's mantra to "stay the course" and claims that we have "turned the corner," or for that matter McCain's constant refrain that "the surge worked." We can now see clearly that hawkishness, whether military or political, can deliver early victories but fails to bring promised change over the long haul.
Hillary needs an exit strategy from the campaign as badly as the United States needs an exit strategy from Iraq. Like Bush, McCain and the Republican base, Hillary, Bill, and their supporters categorically refuse to recognize this very basic reality. Perhaps, by some miracle she undoubtedly hopes, things will get better and she can retake the lead. Mike Huckabee learned last night that relying on miracles is not a strategy for success. It seems that both Bush and Hillary are determined to run out the clock, no matter the financial and political cost, and no matter damage it does to their party and to the country in the process.
Change will not come easy, Obama has repeatedly warned. It looks as though we're going to have to wait a bit longer for change.
Christian Reconstructionism advocates that a wide variety of alleged infractions of Biblical Law be punished by stoning. On the website of The National Reform Association, a leading reconstructionist website that Rod D. Martin contributed a number of pieces of writing to between 1998 and 2002, one can find a piece of writing entitled:
It's exactly what you might think - the title is descriptively accurate.
An endorsement, from Mike Huckabee, on the website of TheVanguard.org - an effort currently bring billed as a right-wing answer to MoveOn, of Huckabee's former Arkansas "Policy Planning and Research" adviser Rod D. Martin, should bring heightened scrutiny of Huckabee's possible Christian reconstructionist leanings, because Rod D. Martin has numerous connections to the Christian reconstructionist movement to the extent that leading reconstructionists call Martin a fellow leader.
The first stage of the convoluted delegate selection process to the Republican national convention will take place tonight. While I don't expect it will receive much coverage--there are only about 30 stories discussing the caucuses on Google News right now, and 13 of them focus on Ron Paul's trip to the state--the results will provide significant insight into the state of the Republican nomination campaign none the less. With only eleven precincts across the entire state, turnout will be extremely low and limited to die-hard activists. With John McCain and Mitt Romney making the strongest pushes here, it will help to determine if John McCain's recent victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina has allowed him to turn a corner with the party faithful or not:
By most indications, the most organized pushes for delegates came from U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
For his part, McCain held a meet-and-greet function at the Camelot Club in Baton Rouge in late December, where handlers were able to get a bit of in-person delegate work done. With members of the national press hunkered down in a waiting area, McCain met privately for a brief period with several donors and members of the transition team of Gov. Bobby Jindal, a fellow Republican.
Romney has taken a more modern approach to herding delegates. His campaign oversaw a mass e-mail drive earlier this month that reached out to conservative voters and asked them to run as delegates for the Louisiana Republican Convention. In a response sent from the originating e-mail address, Alan Philip, Romney's regional political director, wrote that the names targeted for the drive were gleaned from lists compiled by old GOP campaigns in Louisiana. In particular, he cited the recent and failed attempt by term-limited state Sen. Craig Romero, R-New Iberia, to capture the 3rd Congressional District.
Tonight, 105 delegates to the February 16th state convention will be chosen. On February 16th, those 105 delegates will be trimmed down to 44 of the state's 47 national delegates (three delegates, representing the senior GOP leadership in the state, have already been chosen). Unless a candidate receives over 50% of the vote in the February 9th Louisiana primary, all of these delegates will be officially unpledged, and not obligated to support any candidate on the first ballot of the national convention. However, since the delegates signed up to support a candidate in today's caucuses, we will know the candidates which each of the delegates favor.
Now, with little media, and with the delegates almost certain to be officially "uncommitted," it may not seem like anything is at stake here. However, as I discussed yesterday, McCain has struggled in low-turnout party caucuses and conventions like these, while Romney has thrived. If McCain is able to win the most delegates to the state convention, it will be a strong sign that he can indeed perform well in caucus and convention states, thus greatly improving his chances to become the nominee. However, if Romney wins, especially if he wins by the wide margins of his Wyoming and Nevada victories, it will be a confirming sign that McCain will struggle mightily in caucuses and conventions around the country, and that Romney is indeed the choice of the party faithful (remember that Bush Sr. introduced Romney when he made his big speech on Mormonism). With numerous caucus and convention states between now and February 9th--Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Washington, West Virginia--Romney can potentially use them as a rich delegate farm, combined with a Florida to California strategy, to emerge as the delegate leader after February 9th. From that point, he would be positioned to take the nomination on March 4th with a double win in Ohio and Texas.
So, even without media, and even without official delegate selection, tonight's result will reveal quite a bit about the state of the Republican nomination campaign. Don't expect Huckabee to play well here, since he is not nearly as well liked by the party faithful as Romney, and since Louisiana is mainly a Catholic state rather than an evangelical one. However, Paul's dedicated activists should once again do better than expected, just as they did in Iowa and Nevada. If the results from Nevada are replicated here, a crushing Romney victory combined with Paul edging out McCain for second, that will be the best possible sign that the Republican nomination fight will go on for a long, long time.
I've followed with great interest all the various debates, in the MSM and the blogosphere, about the Republican party meltdown, and how the "three-legged stool" of the R. coalition is at odds with itself. The consensus in the MSM seems to be that the field is so split because no one of the candidates can unify the various splinter groups.
The three legged stool is typically described as consisting of 1) the neocon/strong national defense contingent; 2) the fiscal conservative contingent; and 3) the theocon/fundamentalist contingent.
Romney and McCain both have problems with the Theocon contingent, despite heavy pandering. Huckabee seems to be winning that portion of the Republican electorate (Thompson's splitting of the S.C. contingent notwithstanding). I would therefore propose/theorize that Huck's real agenda, at this point, isn't so much to win the nomination, but to become the king-maker, in much the same way that many are proposing that John Edwards might wind up in that capacity on the democratic side. Huckabee seems to be in a much better position to pull it off than Edwards, however.
On the Republican side, it obviously appears to be shaping up as Romney vs. McCain. The traditional media's love affair with McCain naturally continues unabated, so they were hyping his South Carolina win. But Romney's dominating victory in Nevada was more impressive to me than McCain barely holding off Huckabee in South Carolina, especially considering that McCain's best buddy Thompson delivered the victory by drawing a share of the Southern evangelical vote.
At this point, I'm betting on Romney to take this thing. He has a lot more money than McCain, and in Florida and February 5th states, that matters a lot. And as wounded as the GOP establishment hasproven to be, they still have the resources and clout to make a difference in all these big states on Super Tuesday.
Florida looks pretty damn interesting. Huckabee will get his core evangelicals, even as everything else for him fades away. Guiliani is pouring everything he can into the state, and I'm sure Floridians have appreciated the attention. McCain still has the media fawning over him every day, and he'll get his usual "it's his turn, I know him the best, he's a war hero" vote. And Romney will have the conservative establishment coalescing behind him as the last chance to beat McCain.
On the Democratic side, I would caution everybody rushing to say Clinton's got it. She's clearly and firmly re-established her front-runner status, but what happens over the course of campaigns every day really does matter. Momentum doesn't matter very much at this point, and if Obama runs a smarter campaign than he's run so far, or if Hillary makes even a modest sized slip, Obama still has a chance.
Having said that, Obama and the Obama campaign continue to perplex me. Floating along on their lofty post-partisan hopefulness, they give you the impression that they are too noble to do what it takes to win. This whole Reagan thing was Obama acting like an above-it-all professor of history, analyzing things from the mountain top without thinking about the effect that the Reagan presidency actually had on people, or what his effect his words might have on the Democratic primary electorate.
The reason Obama lost New Hampshire and Nevada is that he is floating so high above the nasty world of partisanship and politics that regular voters, especially the blue collar voters who actually face the gritty realities of the real world, are rejecting him. Obama was perfectly positioned to go on and win this thing after Iowa, not because of momentum but because he was convincing voters that he would actually change their lives. But this high brow crap is killing him.
STATE BLOGS
