Sordid Political Tales

By Dave

Got your bowl of popcorn? Good, your gonna need it. New York Magazine has an excerpt from the ultra-juicy, super-gossipy Game Changer, a new book by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin about the 2008 election.

The excerpt deals with the wild, tragic insanity between John and Elizabeth Edwards and the affair that led to the implosion of the Edwards campaign. Seriously, it reads like a episode from a political All My Children, that's how crazy it is. But it's also kinda heart-breaking and by the end you can't help but feel really bad for everyone involved.

Are Democrats "Dropping Like Flies"?

By Dave

Steve Benen, at the Washington Monthly, says not anymore than Republicans:

In the House, 14 GOP incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while 10 Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Does this mean Republicans are "dropping like flies"?

In the Senate, six Republican incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while two Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Is this evidence of a mass Democratic exodus?

Among governors, several incumbents in both parties are term-limited and prevented from running again, but only three Democrats who can seek re-election -- Parkinson in Kansas, Doyle in Wisconsin, and Ritter in Colorado -- have chosen not to. For Republicans, the number is four -- Douglas in Vermont, Rell in Connecticut, Crist in Florida, and Pawlenty in Minnesota. (Update: the GOP number is five if we include Palin in Alaska.)

So, to review, Republican retirements outnumber Democratic retirements in the House, in the Senate, and among governors. The preferred Republican/media meme of the day doesn't match up well against reality.

If anything, I think this just goes to show that given the recession and the enormity of problems facing the nation, now is a bad time to be an incumbent from any party.

Why Was It a Surprise?

By Dave

Something has been bothering me about Ritter dropping out. According to the Post,  

U.S. Sen. Mark Udall and U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette announced they would call a meeting of Democrats in the state's congressional delegation, along with Colorado Democratic Party chair Pat Waak, for 1 p.m. today to "discuss how to go forward as a party."

Does this scare anyone else? Everyone seems totally blown away. Could it be that literally no one knew?! That Ritter didn't talk about this with anyone. How could it be if he was feeling this way, why wasn't he working to ensure that the most qualified Democrats in the State were lined up ahead of time? Why wasn't he convincing Romanoff to run for Governor, instead of waging an insurrection against Sen. Bennett?

If Ritter wants to spend time with his family, that's totally fine. If he doesn't want to run for reelection, also fine. But why was this a surprise to party insiders? Why wasn't handled better?

How Are Things Changed?

By Dave

Marc Ambinder, at The Atlantic, sums up today's retirements:

Colorado is a tough state for Democrats. Senate incumbent Michael Bennet has an even chance, at best, of retaining his seat, and Ritter has suffered from an erosion of his base support at a time when he's been forced to  make unpopular budget decisions. Democrats may fare better if ex-House Speaker Andrew Romanoff decides to run for governor and not challenge Bennet in the Senate primary.

On balance, Republicans today gained a foothold in North Dakota, and Democrats increased their likelihood of keeping their Senate seat in Connecticut. Privately, senior White House officials have communicated to Dodd their belief that his position was untenable. A sinecure or administration position is likely.

Bottom line: from a micro perspective, the GOP gains nothing from today. From a macro perspective, anytime three major Democratic party figures retire...ain't good for that party.

No, it is not....

Bad News Day for Democrats

By Dave

Today saw a number of high-profile retirements within the Democratic Party including Sen. Dodd (D-CT), Sen. Dorgan (D-ND). And just recently Colorado's Governor Ritter announced he will not seek re-election. According to The Denver Post, he is stepping down to spend more time with his family. 

This news comes as a shock. Clearly the polling indicated that the race would have been a bruising battle, and it's not a good time to be an incumbent anywhere in this country. But I think Ritter would have had a decent shot at reelection. He's done a great job on the green energy front, has governed consistently as a moderate, and has done a pretty admirable job facing the State's budgetary mess.

This all opens the door for a lot of speculation about who will run in Ritter's place. I've heard Hickenlooper's name thrown about. He's very popular in Denver but I'm not sure how well he can carry the rest of the State. Ken Salazar is also a possibility but Salazar's got a pretty cushy job as head of the Interior. Would want to leave it for a chance at being Governor? If he did, he's well liked in CO and would probably have a decent shot. Andrew Romanoff's name is also being mentioned. I actually think he's a good choice but he's pretty invested in his Senate run.

Any other names come to mind?

Are Term Limits Bad?

By Dave

Ezra Klein thinks so:

The product of this verges on the comical. As a California budget-watcher pointed out to me, when you get Arnold Schwarzenegger in a room with the leadership of the Senate and Assembly, Schwarzenegger has the most budget and legislative experience in the room. A guy who was starring in Terminator films as recently as 2003 is now the most seasoned elected official during one of the worst crises California has ever had. Term limits are one of those ideas that sound good in theory but are madness in practice. You wouldn't want to go to a hospital filled with medical residents or stock a sports team with an ever-changing cast of rookies. Legislating is hard. We need to give people time to learn how to do it.

In the mind of the public, term limits are a way to flush the political system. But Ezra's right, it takes time to learn the ins-and-outs. Another unintended consequence of term limits is that they give more power to career lobbyists. This happens in a couple of ways.

First, term limits transfer institutional memory away from elected people and to the lobbyists. While your representative will only keep their job for a few short years, a career lobbyist will have been there for a long time. If they're good at their job, they will have made in-roads with the staffers and behind-the-scenes players, and chances are they will be pretty well liked and generally respected. More importantly, they will know the issues inside-and-out in way a newbie politician couldn't. When their issue comes up, that lobbyist will have much more influence than if they were dealing with a seasoned politician.

Second, term limits change the incentives for an elected official. If elected life is no longer a potential career, the incentive is to leverage your elected years into another job. This shouldn't be a surprise. Everyone does this with their job. Politicians do this by trying to turn one elected office into a higher one. But if you're a Senator, who has no chance of being President, and term limits are going to push you out of office, where is there to go? Well, the incentive will be to leverage your influence into a high paid job when you are done. This is another win for lobbyists who can promise these jobs in return for legislative favors. If you think this a problem now, wait until term limits are instituted.

Lobbyists aren't evil people, even though we tend to vilify them. That aside, legislative power cannot and should not rest with them. It should be with our elected officials. The danger is the more we chip away the more we expose the system to unintended consequences which may actually produce worse results.

Conservatives Love/Hate Avatar

By Wade

Was reading this article from the LA Times, and could barely contain my eye rolls when I read the following excerpts from conservative bloggers:

...conservative commentator John Podhoretz called the movie's clash between heavily armed humans and an indigenous tribe of aliens as "anti-American, anti-human."

...A headline on a piece by John Nolte, editor of Andrew Breitbart's conservative Big Hollywood site, declared the movie wasn't for Heartland America: "'Avatar' Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC Revenge Fantasy."

...On the Drudge Report, the headlines made clear the film was viewed as a misguided stealth missile of liberal rhetoric, not a popcorn entertainment.

This last comment infuriates me the most. The idea that mainstream cinema ought just be mindless and banal, entertaining enough to get the most buttcheeks in the most chairs chomping the most popcorn is so perfectly in line with some conservative viewpoints that I have to wonder whether or not they're just screwing with us. It reminds me of a conversation a friend of mine told me about, where he was at a party where there happened to be several older conservatives involved with public education. One of them imparted the wisdom that "students need to just pick something and get through college, there's no room for that finding yourself bullshit, we have to keep up with China and India." A wonderful sentiment that seems to span across industries. Don't bother with individuality or what you really think, screw all that stuff, just do whatever makes the biggest numbers pop up in your bank account. Remind me who hates freedom again.

It seems even with the conservative high council making a stink over Avatar, their constituents don't care. Over a billion dollars and still going, and I know I'm going to see it again. Of course, Podhoretz of the Weekly Standard has to justify just how out of touch he is by insulting the intelligence of, well, Joe Six-pack.

One reason for the disconnect between the bloggers and the box office may be the simple fact that the movie about big blue aliens didn't feel all that connected to modern-day politics once the spears and dragons started flying. "A lot of people see 'Avatar' as a 22nd-century story and they don't analogize it," Podhoretz said in an interview. "They see that the guy turns into a 10-foot-tall blue guy. Whatever political message in it sails over their heads...If [average] people come out and say this is really vile and disgusting and defames our military and defames our country, that would have a different effect. But no one's really saying that."

Get over it, dude. Avatar's a great movie. It may have cliche archetypal characters, it may be predictable, and it may be ham-fisted with its politics, but goddamn is it pretty. I really think that a lot of what these conservatives are pissed about is that Cameron does point out some significant issues that we're facing today. I find it laughable that Podhoretz believes there are people who would be able to miss the message when it's three stories high and three-dimensional. What a twerp.

Old-Fashioned Racism

By Dave

Clearly, as has been stated by like a million Republican's, opposition to the President is in no way based on racism. I mean, so what that Joe "You Lie" Wilson also liked to defend confederate flags and was part of a Pro-Confederate group with wacky leaders, or that Rush Limbaugh sings "Barack the Magic Negro", and who cares that Teabaggers like to carry signs like this and this and this and this. And come on, does the fact that someone recently hung Obama in effigy in Georgia really mean that people are racist?....

...Yes. It does.

I acknowledge that people have legitimate policy differences with the President but the undercurrent of anger within the Republican party as well as the veiled threats of violence, and yes, racism are a problem. Honest Republican's and conservatives are responsible for calling this behavior out before it becomes too extreme.

Unrest in Iran

By Dave

People have been taking to the streets en masse in Tehran today. They are burning police cars and stations and calling for freedom in Tehran. Today is the Day of Ashura in the Muslim World. It is a day of mourning for the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali, the grandson of the prophet Muhammad. While it is a religious day of mourning, it is also a day that has taken on greater political significance over time.

The people of Tehran have turned the day of Ashura into a day of protest against the Khamenei regime. The regime has struck back and brutally attacked protesters. Hundreds have been arrested, many have been injured and about 8-10 people have been killed in clashes with security forces, including opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi's nephew.  The Obama administration has condemned the 'unjust suppression' of protesters. 

It's easy enough to recognize these protests are not insignificant, but it's hard to tell where this is all leading to. This is an unusual place for the Khamenei regime to be. They are not used to such sustained and widespread opposition. If nothing else, today's actions show incredible desperation on the part of the regime. But will these protests culminate in a '79 style regime change in Iran? Or is that too western-centric a hope?

Either way, the footage coming out of Tehran has been heartbreaking and inspiring. The courage of the protesters, in the face of such brutality and violence, is nothing short of awe-inspiring. My heart goes out to all of the families of someone slain today.

Also I've found Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish is one of the best places to follow this. If you're not checking in regularly, you should be.  

Riddle Me This

By Dave

Riddle me this: If the health bill is nothing but big giveaways to the insurance companies, why are they still trying to kill the bill?

Big insurers are still hoping to influence some language in the legislation before Congress sends it to the president. But one thing is clear: The initiative is poised to change their industry more than any other sector of the U.S. health-care system, with huge potential to disrupt profitability.

On the Precipice of Health Care Reform

By Dave

In a few hours, I am expecting to wake up to a nice cup of coffee and the news that the Senate finally, actually, for real passed a health care bill.

Of course, the next step will be a conference committee since it sounds like the House is not interested in ping-ponging it. Which is fine because it will probably create a better bill. However, look for the media to drum up ratings and suspense to suggest this process is fraught with peril and that the bill is still in constant danger of being destroyed. It's all true.

But in relative terms, the hard part is over. Everything else is window-dressing and, I don't care who you are, you don't burn down a house because you don't like the color of the window shades. You just keep nagging your spouse with snarky asides and one-liners until they get changed. Such is the nature of American politics.

So I say, it's time to prematurely celebrate! It could come back to bite me, but what the hell? I'm optimistic.

Oh and all you naysayers Mitch McConnell: suck it! Woo! Merry Christmas, Baby!

Seeing the Light

By Dave

Hallelujah! Finally coming around, Howard Dean tells Rachel Maddow that he no longer wants to kill the bill:

“Honestly, to see the Republicans up there carrying on the way they are, I basically concluded that maybe we should pass this thing … If the Republicans hate it, there must be some good to it.”

Dean says he changed his mind because the bill has improved in the last week. Dean's always been a hothead, so this is hard for me to read. A public option wasn't added, which is what he said he wanted, so what changed this week? Well, Reid's Manager Amendment is the only thing I can think of. And while this made some important changes, it seems more like fine-tuning to me. So was there a method to Dean's madness or did he simply come off too strong against the bill without thinking? My guess is that it's the latter. Does anyone have a sense on this?

Anyways, in the end, I can't be too mad I'm only mildly upset, no harm was done. In fact, it might have given more leverage against conservative Dems, like Ben Nelson. Dr. Dean welcome back, I'm glad you've seen the light!

Thank You Gawker!

By Dave

Gawker sums up my exasperation with liberal dissatisfaction and outrage at Obama. The title says it all: News of First Major Progressive Legislation in 30 Years Enrages Liberals:

Look — we like Alan Grayson. We will defend him against those centrist "oh but Democrats have to play nice" assholes who say he goes too far when he says truthful things about Rush Limbaugh. Alan Grayson gives good quote and is a credit to the House of Representatives. He should continue to let his freak flag fly.

But jesus, christ, an Alan Grayson 2012 primary challenge against Obama? Obama, who is not just "Bush-lite" but Bush-same! (Remember when Bush attempted to negotiate an international climate deal, pass a jobs-focused economic stimulus, reform the nation's health care industry, and come up with a hopefully coherent plan to end the Afghanistan war in one year? And remember how his attempts at all those things were stymied by an uncooperative and undemocratic Senate, but he still managed to make real and tangible gains on each of them? Oh, no, you probably don't remember that because it was a joke we were making about how you have lost all sense of perspective.)

I mean seriously, I'm going to scream if I have to hear Olbermann, Markos, or anyone else rant about how this bill does nothing at all. Nothing except insure an additional 30 million people, heavily regulate insurers, reduce the deficit, etc, etc, etc.

Come back to Earth, people! I understand. Liberals are passionate people. We care. We want to make the world a better place. But just because it doesn't happen overnight doesn't mean you pick up your toys and go home. We have to learn to start confronting the world as it is, not the world we wish it was. Rahm Emanuel is right, the only nonnegotiable principle here is success. If you want to change the world, this is the game you play. You move the ball a little bit down the field at a time. You put points on the board.

Choices

By Dave

In response to left-wing bill-killers, The Wonk Room put together this excellent graphic of the benefits of reform, even suboptimal reform, when compared to the status quo:

H/T Ezra Klein

Historic Health Care Vote

By Dave

And so it begins...Health care reform has entered its final descent. At 1:18 am EST, the Senate made the first in a series of votes that will mark the passage of significant historic health care reform in this country. It is the largest social expansion since the Great Society programs. I've got to hand it to Harry Reid. He is on the cusp of achieving something pretty monumental. I've joked that passing health care reform in the Senate was harder than getting a rich man into heaven, but he seems about to do it.

The final vote went pretty much as expected, straight down party lines with no Republicans on board. So those months of placating the Olympia Snowe's of the world seem to have been all for naught. But c'est la vie. If we can pass it without them, so be it. Besides as a group, the Republicans have been 100% committed to pulling out whatever tricks they can to halt this legislation, including, just recently, praying for Democratic Senators to be unable to show up for the vote. The current refrain is that things are moving too fast, which, ironically, was the same refrain heard back at the beginning of summer. If working on this for eight months is fast, I would hate to see what slow looked like. 

We're not out of the woods yet, there's a lot that can still trip this bill up, but we can see a light at the end of the tunnel. And what we saw today was pretty impressive.

Unassaillable Logic?

By Dave

Newt Gingrich, the brains of the Republican Party, pulls out the old "because it snows in winter, global warming must be a hoax" argument via twitter:

newtgingrich As callista and i watched what dc weather says will be 12 to 22 inches of snow i wondered if God was sending a message about copenhagen
newtgingrich After the expanding revelations of dishonesty in climategate having a massive snow storm as obama promises our money to the world is ironic

newtgingrich There is something jimmy carter like about weather service upgrading frrom winter storm to blizzard as global warming conference wants US $

 H/T Media Matters

An Upside to Opposing the Bill?

By Dave

While I feel strongly that killing the health care bill would be a tragic loss for the American people, not to mention a blow to this administration and the Democratic party, there may have been one upside to the recent outburst by the left: It may have given Ben Nelson less leverage to negotiate his position. Here's Nate Silver:

While the very nature of last-minute negotiations makes it hard to draw straight lines from point A to point B, it seems likely that if the kill-billers had not pushed back so hard against Lieberman, the bill would have been worse -- maybe much worse. It's sometimes said that a good compromise serves to make everyone equally unhappy. I'm not quite sure if that's the case here, but it does seem that Lieberman pushed things very close to the brink, to the extent that Nelson didn't have much leverage. Allow states to opt-out of their Medicaid obligations, for instance, as Nelson was said to have desired, and the unions might have gone from neutral to outright hostile to the bill, the opposition in the progressive blogosphere would have become nearly universal, and even the "wonk bloc" -- people like Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn and Paul Krguman and myself -- might have said this was a bridge too far. Nelson certainly could have voted to kill the bill outright, but he wasn't going to succeed in making it substantially more conservative.

To the extent that the backlash by the left was a signal to conservative Dems that a pound of flesh had been exacted and no more would be tolerated, I say more power to 'em. However, to the extent that progressives really want to kill the bill because it lacks a public option, I still say that's downright crazy.

Andres Duany Interview

By Dave

Great interview with one the father's of "New Urbanism" Andres Duany. Duany talks about the problems with implementing Smart Growth strategies. I found this bit particularly thought-provoking:

BUILDER: What is the biggest impediment to smart growth?
DUANY: Citizen participation in the planning process is probably the biggest roadblock. If you ask people what they want, they don’t want density. They don’t want mixed use. They don’t want transit. They don’t even want a bike path in their back yard. They don’t want a grid that connects, they want cul-de-sacs. They can’t see the long term benefits of walkable neighborhoods with a greater diversity of housing types. This book is a quick read and is dedicated explicitly to them. It’s for the people, not for planning professionals.
BUILDER: Proponents say that smart growth can’t happen effectively without regional-scale planning because so much of it is about connectivity. How do you reconcile citizens’ rights to have a say in their communities with the need for big-picture thinking and decision-making?
DUANY: There is a theory of subsidiarity that considers at what level a decision is properly made. Most of today’s planning decisions--large and small--are made at the wrong level. Take transit. You do not ask the neighbor next to a 16-mile bikeway whether they want a bikeway in their back yard because they will say no. That’s a decision that needs to be made at the regional level. Conversely, let’s say you want to have free-range chickens to provide eggs for you and your neighbors. Right now that’s controlled by municipal ordinance. City zoning codes say no chickens, when really this is a decision that should be made at the block level, because chickens affect the block, not the whole city. Then you have municipalities enforcing rules about what color you can paint your house, which is ridiculous. That’s the wrong level of decision making.

At the One Yard Line

By Dave

Big news today! The Democratic Caucus has struck a compromise with Ben Nelson over abortion and it looks like Reid has his 60 votes. They are now scrambling to get this done before anything else can derail it. Here’s Reid’s schedule:

• 1 a.m. MONDAY – To end debate on “a manager’s package” that includes all the latest changes to the bill. 60 votes required.
• 7 a.m. TUESDAY – To approve the manager’s package. Simple majority required.
• Also TUESDAY – To end debate on Mr. Reid’s original health care proposal, as amended by the manager’s package. 60 votes required.
• 1 p.m. WEDNESDAY – To approve Mr. Reid’s original proposal. Simple majority required.
• Also WEDNESDAY – To end debate on the finalized health care legislation. 60 votes required.
• 7 p.m. THURSDAY, Christmas Eve (or anytime after the prior vote if all senators agree) – To approve the final bill. Simple majority required.

The Nelson compromise essentially tries to keep federal money from subsidizing insurance plans that cover abortion procedures. Apparently, it give states the ability to 'opt-out' of receiving those funds. It's by no means an optimal compromise. The Pro-Choice Caucus is obviously upset, but it sounds like it is less bad than the Stupak Amendment.

Speaking of Stupak, it sounds like he may try to block the Nelson language, if that's what comes out of the conference committee. In order to pose any real threat, Stupak needs to keep 45 of the 64 conservative House Dems who helped push his amendment. I don't think it's clear yet who in his coalition couldn't as easily be satisfied with the Nelson compromise. But my guess is, that at this point Stupak's opposition will be a minor roadblock.

Whether the weather....

It really isn't a surprise that Bill Kristol thinks Ben Nelson should filibuster health care reform because it might snow.

Everyone knows it's classical neoconservative theory that when the chance of percipitation in DC gets above 50% we should screw the poor and go to war.