Divided We Stand United We Fall

Carnival of Divided Government Quattour et Trîcênsimus Special Turkey of a Dollar Edition

2009-11-25T00:01:00.000-08:00

Graphic ripped from Won Park,
with apologies to Norman Rockwell,
served up by DWSUWF

Welcome to the 34th edition of the Carnival of Divided Government- The Quattour et Trîcênsimus - Special "Thanks to Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke Our Dollar is a Turkey" Edition.

Time to be Thankful
Even as the Administration, the Fed and our Congress destroys the value of our currency and by extension, our standard of living.

DWSUWF has much to be thankful for. I am thankful for CNBC, which is the only network where you can get beyond the sound bites, the mindless partisan sniping, and actually learn what is going on with our government policies and the consequences for the economy, jobs, the dollar, our standard of living and the future of our country. Case in point - this week on CNBC we learned about the consequences of devaluing our currency by printing money to service insane debt created by wild spending...

[apologies for the formatting - I don't know why CNBC video "embeds" add all this blank space, and I can't figure out how to fix it]

... after all, since we are coordinating with central banks the world over, and since every other country of significance is also ~~stimulating their economy~~ devaluing their currency, we are safe in the smug assumption that there is nowhere else to go but the dollar. Our leadership arrogantly assume the dollar can continue to rest on its reputation as the reserve currency of last resort, as we continue to print more and more and more. Two problems with this plan - 1) No one has yet figured out how to print gold, copper, steel, or oil - 2) Everybody else in the world is not stupid.

So China is hoarding commodities, and India, Russia and other countries are buying gold specifically to hedge against the dollar. It would seem we are migrating toward a global gold standard whether we in the US want to participate or not. In the meantime the US continues to play Russian roulette with our currency and standard of living.

Let us again turn to Peter Schiff, who was right in 2006, was right in 2008, and who now tells us what to expect in 2010 and beyond. Three for three??

Frightening. But any investor would be foolish not to listen to what he has to say.

I am also really, really thankful that Scared Monkey posted this clip from SNL, which is quite possibly the single best bit that SNL has ever done:

Just get it over with!

My side hurts from laughing.

I am thankful that one year from now, we will be reviewing the results of the 2010 midterm elections and what they portend for the 2012 presidential campaign. As some may recall, only one year ago, Barack Obama ushered in the new permanent realignment of the American political landscape. With that election we learned that the United States was actually a center-left country. We learned that the Republican Party if not already dead was doomed to succumb to the inevitable demographic shifts in the populace and that ideas like fiscal restraint are so last century and irrelevant. Having learned all of this from the 2008 election we can only assume that the recent 2009 GOP gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia are attributable to the last spasms of a dying GOP corpse. And in that context I am thankful to Professor Jacobson's penetrating analysis of the 2009 race:

"Republican Bob McDonnell has been projected the winner of the Virginia Governor's race. Proving that even a small, unpopular, fringe party which does not appeal to moderates or independents, can win over a large, popular, mainstream party. The secret? More votes."

Finally, I am thankful that as we turn our eyes to the 2010 midterms, the prospect for and value of divided government is once again getting its due from the political chattering class. Which, thankfully, finally brings us back to the Carnival.

As explained in earlier editions, we have adopted Latin ordinal numeration to impart a patina of gravitas reflecting the historical importance of the series. In this the Carnival of Divided Government quottor et trîcênsimus (XXXIV), as in all of the CODGOV series, we select volunteers and draftees from the blogosphere and main stream media writing on the single topic of government divided between the major parties (leaving it to the reader to sort out volunteers from draftees). Consistent with this topic, the primary criteria for acceptance in the carnival is to explicitly use the words and/or concept of "divided government" in submitted posts. A criteria that, to our endless befuddlement, is ignored by many of the bloggers submitting posts, which sadly results in DWSUWF reluctantly ignoring their fine submissions.

Carnival

We begin with Gene Healy, blogging in the Small Government Times and offering "Three cheers for divided government":

"The Framers tried to craft a constitution that gave politicians proper incentives to check each other. “Ambition [would] counteract ambition,” as James Madison saw it, with congressmen keeping presidents honest and vice-versa.

Things haven’t worked out as planned. Too often, party loyalty trumps constitutional fidelity, as evidenced by former House speaker Denny Hastert’s self-image as a “lieutenant” of George Bush rather than a guardian of congressional prerogatives.

But when different parties hold the legislature and the executive, the Madisonian system works better. Divided government leads to many more congressional investigations into presidential misconduct, and, as two University of Chicago scholars demonstrated recently, “the White House’s propensity to exercise military force steadily declines as members of the opposition party pick up seats in Congress.” When politicians wax sentimental about “the wisdom of the American people,” it’s usually a good idea to hold on to your wallet. If we’re so smart, who’s to blame for the clowns we elect?

But when it comes to separating the purse and the sword, we may be brighter than expected. A good chunk of us deliberately split our tickets. In 2004, two political scientists crunched the numbers, estimating that more than 20 percent of American voters were “cognitive Madisonians.” In plain English, these voters consciously tried to “divide power and balance policy.”

Hear. Hear. While DWSUWF agrees with the sentiment, we don't believe that there are 20% of us who make this decision consciously. If there were, we would not now be under full sail with One Party Rule navigating the ship of state onto the rocks of financial ruin. But if we few, the Dividists, who do vote consciously for a separation of power between the parties keep beating the Dividist drum, we may yet get there.

One problem is that too many of that 20% think like Ann Althouse, who is still rationalizing her vote for Obama, despite understanding the benefits of divided government in "How much worse does Obama have to get before Althouse decides McCain would have been better?" :

Here's my original 2008 election post-mortem — "How McCain Lost Me". Excerpt, beginning with a quote of something I'd written just before the election:
"Usually, I prefer divided government, but that doesn't mean I need to support McCain. I've seen McCain put way too much effort into pleasing Democrats and flouting his own party, and I can picture Obama standing up to the Democratic Congress and being his own man. What, really, will he owe them? McCain, by contrast, will need them. And we've seen that he wants to be loved by them. "
...Yes, yes, I know. The "clarification" is killing us, and once we're dead, there's no coming back. And Obama isn't standing up to the Democratic Congress, unless he's doing it in some really subtle way that one day I'll appreciate.

I just threw up a little bit in my mouth. She knows that divided government works to restrain the growth of spending. She know that Single Party Rule leads to abuse of power and reckless spending. Yet she still voted for Single Party Rule and continues to rationalize her decision. No matter how many times I read her rationalization, I still can't figure out why. Somebody help me. Does she make any sense at all in this post?

John Batchelor looks ahead to next year's midterms in "Scripts for 2010":

"The Republicans enjoyed Executive and Legislative majority rule rarely in the 20th century, and the results were deeply foreboding or dire, such as the 1907 Panic, or the 1929 crash, or the Iraq war. The Democrats enjoyed the same with sluggish to damning results, such as the First War, the Great Depression after the bank failures of 1933; the Second War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War. Divided government has long been the best scenario to confront the surprises of foreign policy and domestic lunacy. It reminds of the Churchill remark about democracy, the best of a bad museums of governance. Is there a good prospect for divided government for the 112th Congress in a year's time. Negative. Long shot."

Agreed. The GOP simply dug themselves too deep a hole to get out in one election, but they'll certainly make up ground in 2010. If they can pick up two or three seats in the Senate, their structural advantage in 2012 gives them a great shot to retake the Senate and restore divided government 2012, even if Obama is re-elected. Barring a "Mark Foley" or "Dan Rostenkowski" type scandal with a similar level of corruption from Democrats exposed immediately before the election, the GOP will pick up seats, but will remain a minority in both houses in 2010. It is just too hard to unseat incumbents.

One of Seven, blogging at the South Bend Seven patiently explains why "There's a reason they call it Oppostion.":

"I say viva la oposición because (1) a divided government is a friend of Liberty, and (2) it's arrogant to think, as the party in power always does, that the opposition is opposed because they're stupid or hate America or don't care, rather than actually having different opinions."

Stunning how that 48% that did not vote for Obama in 2008 refuses to just go along with the sweeping mandate of the 52% landslide majority that did.

Speaking of elections , DaveG at Race 4 2012 considers the meaning of the 2009 special election results and assesses the mood of the country as we look forward to the the next two election cycles. The mood he finds? - decidedly "Anti-Establishment":

"Tonight was a victory for many things. It was a victory for the Republican Party, a sorely needed win by a party that was left for dead just one year ago in the wake of a supposed national Democratic realignment. It was a victory for those who believe in divided government, who recognize the extremism and corruption inherent in one-party rule... But first and foremost, tonight was a victory for the anti-establishmentarian sentitment that is currently permeating the American political psyche — a sentiment which was present in full force just one year ago and that was misinterpreted then, and probably will be misinterpreted now, as an ideological mandate instead of what it really is: discontent with the decimation of the American Dream and a belief that the elites and the political establishment, regardless of party, have the blood of the Republic on their hands."

I see a "malaise" speech in our future.

FLG, blogging at Fear and Loathing in Georgetown, is stunned to find himself in agreement with a A Charles Blow column in "A First":

"FLG completely agrees with the first clause because he believes Americans have a preference for divided government. He also agrees with the second clause, but not for all the reasons Blow cites. Blow's conclusion is that the Democrats haven't enacted enough of their agenda and they are beset by obstacles that make them unpopular. FLG says the agenda is unpopular and the obstacles are in their way largely because of that unpopularity."

Not to mention just plain bad legislation and heart-stopping spending.

Steve Vaillancourt at Red Hampshire finds hopeful signs in recent Rasmussen polls as does our favorite Scared Monkey - "Republicans up 6 points in generic ballot...":

"Rasmussen also discovered that, perhaps as an indication of how badly things are going now, voters favor “divided” government. Only 30 percent think it’s good when one party controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency. 45 percent have come to believe that divided government is the answer, something I’ve long believed in. Dynamic tension prevents the mischief of big government spending and control of our lives."

Positive news, particularly about the divided government attitudes. Whether that translates into votes remains to be seen. The generic ballot is a notoriously poor indicator of House of Representative election results. People don't vote for or against generic candidates, but they do vote for incumbents 97% of the time. Perhaps focusing on dividing the government is the way to overcome incumbent inertia.

Hal at Right Thinking from the Left Coast has been a consistent divided government advocate as long or longer than DWSUWF and like DWSUWF holds that view regardless of whether it is Dems or Reps with Single Party Rule. We also find ourselves sympathetic to Hal's Heidi Klum hope in "A clean sweep in the land of lovers":

"I would not be surprised at all if Obama goes the Clinton route—remaining somewhat popular, winning re-election, but being utter death to Congressional and Gubernatorial Democratic candidates. I love divided government. I could live with Obama as President and a Republican Congress. But then again, I could also live with getting daily neckrubs from Heidi Klum. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily going to happen."

True. But it gives us hope. At least for the divided government thing. Hope for those Heidi Klum neck rubs? - not so much.

Craig Farmer has a warning for Democrats at New Liberal - "Democrats will lose power if health care fails":

"Add to all of this the natural tendencies toward divided government, and the natural political cycles that general punish the party of the newly elected President in the next off-year election and Demcrats should get the message: Pass a good health care bill. The best one you can think of. It may be your last chance for generation. If you do a good job, you will minimize the drop off on our side in terms of turnout, and may actually convince indepedent voters to stay the course. Anything else may be a disaster. "

I've got news for Craig. Democrats will lose even more power if this disaster of a trillion dollar incomprehensible health care abomination passes without any political cover from Republicans.

The admin at "Truth Daily"appears seriously confused while gushing about the president in "Obama tells Congress 'Get a mop":"

"This man is tough. There can be no doubt about that. He commands respect. So what do you say Republicans, are you going to end this divided government, shut your pie holes and “get a mop?”

First, we do not have a divided government. The definition of divided government is when one party does not hold the executive branch and majorities in both legislative branches. So here is your daily truth - The Democrats hold the White House. The Democrats have an 80+ vote majority in the House of Representatives. The Democrats have a 60-40 filibuster proof plurality in the Senate. That is the definition of One Party Rule.

Mathematically the Republicans can obstruct nothing this President does or wants. Only Democrats in Congress can obstruct this President. The worst (or best) thing you can say about the Republicans is that they are choosing not to help President Obama overcome Democratic obstruction. The Republicans are under no obligation to provide the Democrats political cover as they pass extraordinarily bad legislation and bankrupt the country. Hope this lesson helps you add a little more truth in your daily blogging dose. You are welcome.

In my favorite post of the Carnival, maybe of the year, maybe of all-time, Allan Bevere gets religion and confesses in "I Humbly Repent of my Wayward Ways":

"Up until a couple of years ago, I was a big fan of divided government, that is, one political party in the White House and the other party in charge of Capitol Hill. But then something happened-- I caught a strange virus. I started to believe that having only one party in power might prove to be very productive for our government and, therefore, by extension the American people. So, we had six years of Republican rule in both the legislative branch and the executive branch of government. Now we currently have the Democrats in charge. In watching both parties going wild with total power in their hands, I write this post to publicly repent of my wayward ways. I have returned to the true faith of believing once again in divided government and the holy process known as gridlock."

You are forgiven my son. We welcome you back to the Dividist flock with open arms. For penance, say three "Hail Madisons" and reread Federalist #51.

Finally, a history lesson from Mary Kate Cary writing in US New and World Report with an analysis of "Why Obama Needs a Big Republican Victory in 2010":

"As conservative as Reagan was, he governed from the center because he had to work with a Democratic Congress. Similarly, within days of that "liberating" night in 1994, President Clinton met with political strategist Dick Morris. The two started to map out his policy of "triangulation," in which Clinton would be the apex of the triangle, working between and above the two parties. It turned out that Newt Gingrich and the House Republicans played more of a role in ensuring Clinton's re-election than any of the Democrats on Capitol Hill did.

Gingrich has been watching what Pelosi's been doing, and he gave some advice to the current president last week. "Obama faces a choice," he wrote. "He can attempt to run a left-wing government against the American people. Or he can govern from the center with a large majority of Americans supporting him. He can have either his left angry or the American people angry." Gingrich knows that divided government would bring Obama to the center, just as it did Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

Democratic control of the House, Senate, and White House hasn't been a boon to Obama. It has been a bust. His best chance for re-election in 2012 is a massive GOP takeover of the House and Senate next year. Everybody wins."

I love waxing nostalgic about divided government under Bill Clinton - Ah, the good ol' days.

Miscellany

Traditionally, we conclude this Carnival by including one "off-topic" submission, as a grudging acknowledgment and proxy for the many off-topic submissions received. Off-topic in this context meaning - no mentions of "divided government" or gridlock.

For this edition we offer Everett presenting a nugget of truth from Friedrich Hayek on the road to serfdom in "The Danger of Ambiguous Legislation" posted at Honest Inquiry. :

"This point is quintessentially non-partisan. The passage of ambiguous legislation leading to policy decided not by elected representatives but by bureaucrats, or left to judges, would seem to define the last 60 years no matter which party dominated politics."

And with that we conclude this edition.

Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for all of the submissions (on-topic or not).

Since this carnival is focused on the topic of Divided Government, and seeing how voters spectacularly rejected the idea in the 2008 election with no real prospect of restoring divided government before 2012, this carnival has been on a reduced publication schedule. Look for DWSUWF to pick up the pace in the new year, with the next edition of The Carnival of Divided Government quinque et trîcênsimus (XXXV)- Special Two Day Hangover Edition on or about 01-02-2010. Submit your blog article at carnival of divided government using our carnival submission form.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

NOTICE: In the past, this blog has taken the time to post Technorati tags at the end of every post. We used Technorati because it provided a great service - It allowed me to easily find blogs that link to me, and to notify blogs that we have linked to them. The new Technorati no longer performs this function. At least not for this blog. I have no idea what the new Technorati is supposed to do, but it does nothing for DWSUWF. I hope to find another service that picks up what Technorati left behind. So we'll drop our Technorati sidebar widget, and leave them with this last tag: New Technorati Sucks

District 23 - Politics, Proxies, Predictions.

2009-11-03T12:56:00.000-08:00

UPDATED: Friday November 06, 2009
It had to be District "23". This obscure upstate New York Congressional district is getting a lot of national attention, and deservedly so. So many interesting elements - where to begin?

The MSM usually describes it as a conservative Republican district (reportedly no Democrat has represented the district since 1859), but OTOH we learn from the same source that the district voted 52-47 for Obama in 2008. 52% - 47% - the exact percentage of the Obama's national popular vote victory - so does that make District 23 a proxy for the national electorate?
There were three candidates for the house seat now there are two. The hand-picked Republican machine candidate has dropped out and endorsed the Democrat.
On election eve - a third party Conservative candidate is leading the Democrat by 6% points, with 18% undecided. 18% undecided on election eve? Really?? These voters have got to really hate the two choices they have left to still be undecided so late.
The results for this district are a referendum on the Obama administration. Or not.

There is enough pontification, broad sweeping conclusions and evolving conventional wisdom in this district to provide fodder for a dozen blog posts.

A few weeks ago, when Democrat Bill Owens took a lead in the (then) three-way race, the NY Times considered the race "pivotal". Now? - not so much:

"It is probably not wise to draw broad lessons from Tuesday’s results about what might happen in next year’s midterm Congressional elections and high-profile governor’s races."

Then, conventional wisdom was that Independent Hoffman and Republican Scozzafava split the conservative vote and opened the door for Owens. More likely, Scozzafava and Owens are so similar politically, that they split the moderate vote and opened the door for Hoffman - the only true fiscal conservative in the race.

Frankly, my libertarianish views are probably more closely aligned with Owens than they are with Hoffman - particularly on social issues. However if I lived there I would have to vote for Hoffman - it is the only way to cast a vote in opposition to the ruinous financial policies of this president. Even if I liked Owen better, he is a Democrat first and would just fall into partisan line on spending, deficits and taxes. We'll see how District 23 feels about it, but (since Nate Silver is reluctant) I can't help but weigh in with a this quick post and a prediction while the votes are being cast -

The combined 24% Scozzafava and undecided vote will - of course - be determinative. I figure it this way - If people are still saying they are undecided at this point - they really really hate the two choices they have left. So... They will either 1) Not vote, or 2) Waste their vote with a protest for Dede - or - hold their nose, flip a coin and cancel themselves out splitting between Hoffman and Owens. Lets say the Dede protest vote drops to 4%, and that leaves 20% to split. If we assume these undecided to be mostly fiscal conservative, I expect that will skew the split to Hoffman. Even if they agree with Owen's socially moderate positions, it'll be too hard for them to pull the trigger for another rubber stamp vote for the reckless and destructive fiscal policies of this president and congress. Owens needed to distance himself from Obama and Pelosi, just like McCain needed to distance himself from Bush. He didn't. Biden's last minute rally didn't help - he most likely reinforced the connection to the insane administration spending.

So I say the 20% remaining undecided splits 11% to Hoffman and 9% to Owens, and my final prediction:

Hoffman (I) 52%
Owens (D) 44%
Scozzofava (R) 4%

I'll update later, with some more thoughts as the votes are counted.

UPDATE: Friday, November 6, 2009

As pointed out by the commentariat, this update is a bit late. The reason is a plumbing catastrophe that is of no interest to the reader but is consuming a large portion of my life. Regardless, as commenter Roy notes, my prognostication skills leave something to be desired. the NY 23 final results:

Candidate Party Votes Pct.

Bill Owens Dem. 66,526 49.0%

Doug Hoffman Con. 62,308 45.9

Dede Scozzafava Rep. 6,986 5.1

Candidate	Party	Votes	Pct.
Bill Owens	Dem.	66,526	49.0%
Doug Hoffman	Con.	62,308	45.9
Dede Scozzafava	Rep.	6,986	5.1

As far as my predictions are concerned, I clearly let wishful thinking override my own analysis. In hindsight, it should have been obvious that the independents who were sufficiently concerned about administration spending to overlook Hoffman's positions on social issues and his weakness as a candidate would have already been in Hoffman's poll totals. So it should not have been surprising that the remaining 24% "undecided" and disaffected Scozzafava supporters broke more heavily for Owens. They simply hated Owens less than they hated Hoffman. My bad.

While the election was not predictable, the reactions are. Some on the right are calling this a victory, seemingly ignoring the more conventional definition of victory - you know - getting more votes. Some on the left are positively gleeful describing a social vs. fiscal conservative "civil war" which sound a lot like more wishful thinking. Others offer a bit more thoughtful and circumspect analysis of the win. In general, it seem moderates are satisfied with the result in NY 23. It all still begs the question - Why did Owen win? Commenter Roy has one answer:

"People voted for Owens because of the candidate, the man, and the issues he stands for."

Interesting hypothesis. It could happen I guess. Still... I expect in an election as fractured and close as this one, it is the feet on the ground that make the difference. I understand from an unnamed source that the Dems recruited, relocated and paid top dollar for the best field operatives they could find for this election.

Only battle tested vets from the 2008 Obama campaign were considered for this front line effort. Hard core, hard working, committed mercenaries willing to do the kind of grunt work on the phones and on the street that make the difference in local elections. Democratic congress critters with close 2010 elections in conservative districts would do well to recruit operatives with the 2009 Owens campaign on their resume. A few hundred of these carpetbagging political street fighters will more than cancel out dozens of carpetbagging national political drive-by pundits, politicos, and media windbags.

Other lessons that can be teased out of NY 23:

It is still practically impossible for a 3rd party to win an election for federal office.
The fusionist social conservative/fiscal conservative alliance is as necessary a condition for GOP electoral victory now as it was in Reagan's era - validating yet again Ryan Sager's thesis from his excellent 2006 book "The Elephant in the Room".
Anyone who thinks social conservative issues should take priority over fiscal conservative issues in the next election, are not paying attention.

The Owens victory was important, if for no other reason that it permitted Democrats as well as Republicans to claim victory on Tuesday. What it didn't do, is permit anyone to continue to beat the dead horse that the Obama election represented a transformational permanent realignment in the political landscape.

The final word on the real meaning of Tuesday's election will be spoken - not by the words of pundits or politicians, but by the actions of the blue dog Democrats. Particularly those facing re-election in previously Republican districts in 2010. Dems like the man Fox anchor Neil Cavuto called "the biggest of the blue dogs" - Pennsylvania Representative Jason Altmire. In this recent interview with Cavuto, Altmire very diplomatically explains why he probably won't support Pelosi's health care bill:

CAVUTO: "...if voters and candidates a signal that they have had it it with runaway spending, the runaway beneficiaries could be the very fiscally conservative democratic congressman... you guys were arguing for finding a substantive way to pay for healthcare reform... Now - how crucial was this election."
ALTMIRE: "I'm in the process of going through the bill talking to my constituents and trying to make a determination. To determine if moving the ball forward is the best course of action... I'm not convinced that this bill is it, whether it is substantially different enough that's going to allow me to vote for... I think the discussion on the income tax increase is misguided and misplaced as part of the health care bill. There's no question that they've increased the threshold. They've done the same on the small business aspect. It still takes a punitive approach. It's my opinion if you don't offer health care to your employees as a small business owner, it is not that you don't want to, it's because you can't. And the better approach is to help small businesses afford is not to penalize those that don't. So I do still have some concerns."

Sounds like a "no" vote to me. Let's see how he votes, and for that matter - how Owens votes on the Obamacare bill.

For if there is one thing of which we be certain, it is that predicting anything related to "23" is fraught with uncertainty.

Racism increases 67% since January

2009-09-14T13:23:00.000-07:00

UPDATED: 18-Sep-09

Pollster.com charts the dramatic increase in racism this year.

This is a difficult post to write. But some issues, no matter how distasteful, must be faced squarely. Sadly, the numbers speak for themselves. Racism is on the rise in this country.

Why the dramatic rise in racism now? I cannot answer that. Perhaps the problem was here all along and we simply chose not to see it. It was easy to ignore in the months following the election when Obama's approval rating was at 70%. In the euphoria of his election, many of us became too complacent about racism. With a 70% approval rating for the President elect, we were all too willing to overlook the 30% of racist Americans who remained. It was an easy mistake to make, the racists were outnumbered by more than two to one.

Few now remember that November 2008 to January 2009 was the golden age of the new post-racial post-partisan America, ushered in by the election of our new President. Our pundits in the mainstream media helped us to understand and appreciate the deep import of the election, and the possibility of finally turning the page on our racist past.

Maureen Dowd - Nov. 9, 2008:

"..we have images to share that are harmonizing, not polarizing -- black and white students cheering and celebrating in front of the White House and the warm and fuzzy obsession about what kind of hypoallergenic puppy Sasha and Malia will get. It's cool that President-elect Cool has gotten everybody chatting, even if it's awkward small talk. And it's fun, after so many years of unyielding barriers, to feel sentimental."

Joe Klein in Time - Nov 5.2008:

"Obama's victory creates the prospect of a new "real" America. We can't possibly know its contours yet, although I suspect the headline is that it is no longer homogeneous. It is no longer a "white" country, even though whites remain the majority. It is a place where the primacy of racial identity — and this includes the old, Jesse Jackson version of black racial identity — has been replaced by the celebration of pluralism, of cross-racial synergy...It is a country that retains its ability to startle the world — and in a good way, with our freedom. It is a place, finally, where the content of our President's character is more important than the color of his skin."

Keith Olbermann - Nov 5, 2008:

"But it has seemed to me that every study that's ever been made about prejudice between groups of people, and it doesn’t matter if we’re talking racial or religious or ethnic or societal or any kind of other differences between people, when you personally know someone of the so-called other group, your likelihood to be prejudiced or doubtful of them seems to drop from about 90 percent to about 10 percent. In some respects, a president-elect, soon we expect to be the president of the United States, is almost a figure in the family of everybody in the country, almost as well known as some at least distant relative. Will this have a material impact in knocking down what remains of prejudice in this country?"

That was then. This is now. What happened? Perhaps it was just too easy to sweep the problem under the rug. To simply pretend the problem was not there.

Here are the facts. Racism has been rising steadily over the last few months. In recent polls, President Obama's job approval number has dropped from 70% to 50%. This means the percentage of racists in this country has risen from 30% to 50% - a 67% increase in only eight months! Even more alarming, close to one out of two Americans are now racist. We have reached a tipping point. If this trend continues, the racists will soon be in a majority. Now, more than ever, we need the pundits and sages of the mainstream media to speak out. Racism is so insidious, so deep rooted, that we may not even know whether we are racists, unless or until bloggers and pundits make that determination through psychoanalysis.

Some of those same strong media voices who were sweeping the racism problem under the rug in January, are sounding the alarm now that the full scope of the problem has been realized.

Dowd - Sep 13. 2009:
Representative Wilson shouting from the floor? = Racism

"I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.. But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president ...convinced me. Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it."

Bravo, Maureen. How brave, this extraordinary willingness to make specific accusations of racism on the basis of nothing more than the imaginary voices in her head. Of course, it would be even braver if she lived in a country, where, unlike here, she and her paper could be sued for slander. Sadly, some do not appreciate her principled stand against imagined racism. What are we to make of those such as blogger Clifton, who shamelessly asserts: "There is enough real racism in the world as it is; you are not helping anyone by making shit up!" Clearly Clifton is a racism denier.

KLEIN on Scarborough- Sep 11. 2009:
Protests in opposition to Obamacare? = Racism

"But the fact is that those kind of heinous arguments I think are a minor chord in the Democratic party, and they have been in the Republican party, but they are far more of a major chord. And I think that a lot of this, especially out in poor middle class white American is based in racial fears."

Joe, keep speaking out. The administration is in denial over the real reason for the opposition to their policies. Your clear dispassionate analysis may yet snap them out of their dangerous delusions. What could they be thinking? Could anyone really believe that - a President who signs an earmark stuffed budget that quadruples the deficit, pushes through an almost $1T pork laden stimulus package that does not stimulate, takes over car companies, bails out investment bankers, institutionalizes the Bush/Cheney unitary executive, is pushing massive new energy taxes and wants an additional $1T in new health care entitlements - would raise strong opposition? Nonsense. Who could be opposed to such enlightened policies? The opposition is obviously racist. That is the only rational explanation.

OLBERMANN - Sep 8, 2009 "[video]:
Forced resignation of Van Jones? = Racism

"...in the Candyland world of racism dressed up as anything else, they will believe anything about the president and they will believe any rationalization, no matter how transparent, that what they‘re feeling is not racism... The White House green jobs adviser Van Jones resigned in the middle of a storm in a tea pot over the holiday weekend... A former chair for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights John Anner who was a friend of Mr. Jones has said what many are thinking here to quote it, “It struck me why go after this guy. He‘s a minor player. He has no power, no budget. Why take him? It‘s because he looks like Obama and he has all of those same attributes of being well-educated and he‘s an electrifying speaker with an elite education.”

I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude to Keith Olbermann for stepping up yet again. The attacks on Van Jones is so clearly rooted in racism that one would have to assume that anyone who would even suggest otherwise, must also be a de-facto racist. In this context, it was particularly shocking to me that Willie Brown, Democrat, former Mayor of San Francisco, frequent MSNBC contributor, and a man who worked directly with Van Jones would sadly be revealed to be a racist. From his column Sunday:

"The only question I have about Van Jones' resignation as the White House green czar is why didn't they call me before they hired him. You would think that, as part of the vetting process, they would have called the mayor of the city where he was from. I would have said, "Yeah, I know a lot about him. He's really a pain in the ass. When he ran Bay Area PoliceWatch, he slanted every case to make the cops look as bad as possible. And while he might be talented enough, he's totally and completely unreliable."

Willie Brown - a racist. Who knew?

With these brave media voices speaking out, perhaps we can beat back the scourge of racism once again. While we may never again return to the golden age of November 2008 to January 2009 when only 30% of the country were racists, perhaps we can at least reverse the trend and insure that the racists remain a minority of the voters in this country. Before it is too late - like -before the next election.

UPDATE - 18-Sep-2009:
Some additional notes on this post. As often happens, the idea for this piece emerged from a recent comment thread at Donklephant, where I am a co-blogger. An expanded version of this post (including Jimmy Carter "piling on" with more racism accusations) was cross-posted at Donklephant where it stimulated an even more interesting comment thread - check it out.

Andrew Sullivan accepted the trackbacks for this post, which is as close as he gets to permitting unedited critical commentary on his blog. That stimulated more traffic and comments here than usual, and for that we are appreciative. Thanks.

This post was also linked at The Crossed Pond, generating another interesting comment thread that is worth a read, as it also includes a comment from your loyal blogger independently scored as a rare TKO. It also includes a great comment by Rojas, quoted here as a succinct summary and punctuation mark for this topic:

Rojas at The Crossed Pond:

I guess what I find amazing about this discussion is that we are treating the racism claim about Obama’s opposition as if it were some kind of productive conversation starter.

It isn’t that, nor is it intended to be by those that offer it. It seems to me that whenever and wherever this argument is initiated, those initiating it do so in order to de-legitimize Obama’s opposition in its entirety and stop the policy conversation. Opponents are not portrayed as being influenced by a racial agenda, but as being controlled by it. The entire purpose is to deny them the sanction of reason so that their arguments may be ignored.

And that is garbage. Pure, unadulterated swill. If opposition to the policies of the President is going to be categorized in racial terms, then no national discussion is possible; there can be no negotiation with a fundamentally irrational opponent.

The tenor of the discussion over the last few weeks has put paid to any claim that Obama can be the first “post-racial” president, or any kind of transcendental figure on the issue. His own supporters have demolished that promising myth.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Democratic , Barack Obama, Maureen Dowd, racism, Health Care, Keith Olbermann, mainstream media.

Live Blogging the Live Bloggers - President Obama's health care speech to Congress

2009-09-09T16:45:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the latest in the continuing series of "Live Blogging the Live Bloggers". As announced earlier today, this edition the first live attempt to cover bloggers covering a non-presidential debate. A series first inspired by the question DWSUWF asked covering a Republican debate over two years ago:

"There are plenty of bloggers covering the event live tonight, but is anyone covering the live bloggers? DWSUWF rushes in where other, more sensible bloggers, fear to tread. "

Our intent is to select a variety of bloggers from across the political spectrum, and live blog their live blog efforts. I don't know who we will include, but will start with some bloggers we have used before, in the hopes they will be live blogging again tonight.

======

PREGAME

Vodkapundit - Stephen Green: "But of course I’ll liveblog the President’s Big Address tonight... The first martini goes in the shaker around 45 minutes before the show starts, refilled as often as necessary. This will be the fifth or sixth one of these since Obama was sworn in, and I’m getting the gray hairs (and raggedy liver) to prove it.”

DailyKos - McJoan:"It seems pretty clear that the public option won't be taken off the table, which will piss off the White House's new BFF Olympia Snowe, who despite all of her negotiating with the White House has apparently has decided that triggers just aren't enough and the public option has got to go. On the other hand, he apparently isn't going to make the majority of Dems in Congress--who have passed four bills out of committee with the public option included--too happy, either."

Donklephant - Justin Gardner: - "...what we’ll hear tonight is Obama trying to reset what a “public option” means so that his White House can go with a localized version (aka co-ops) that only happens if universal coverage doesn’t happen in a state."

Stinque:"If we read the colonic bag correctly, the “public option” is dead. Even if it passes the House, it won’t survive the conference committee. Instead, some future public plan will be “triggered” if certain standards aren’t met after a suitably long period of time... All of which is to announce that Barry’s going to say something tonight that won’t make a damn bit of difference, and we’ll be revving up our Open Thread/Hemlock Tasting Party at 7:45 p.m. ET. À votre santé!"

Andrew Sullivan: "Mark Blumenthal isn't a big fan of instant polls, like the ones we are likely to see tonight after Obama's speech tonight. The polls are skewed because those who watch such speeches are likely to be supporters of the president, and historically these sort of speeches don't tend to move approval ratings."

Reason - Suderman: "Philip Klein and my former colleague Greg Conko have a new paper out making the case against the current batch of health-care reform proposals - they fully recognize that the current health-care system is a disaster, and that the reforms they propose wouldn't necessarily ensure that those with chronic preexisting conditions have access to health insurance. But, they say, the current patchwork of ill-thought-out government regulations of the health care market is so problematic—and, in fact, exacerbates our health care problems so much—that it must be fixed before addressing the few remaining problem cases."

DWSUWF - Allright, I've got this thing cued up and some live bloggers identified. But not sure if any of the usual libertarian suspects will be live blogging. Real-time adjustments may be necessary...

======

"I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last."

Vodkapundit - Stephen Green: "And here comes the President, running on Clinton Standard Time. Bush’s speeches were almost uniformly dreadful, but he was at least punctual. Judging by his reception, President Obama remains very popular with people who have no intention of voting for his proposals.”

DailyKos - McJoan:" Meaningful, comprehensive healthcare reform is one of the key reasons Dems have got a huge majority in the House, a supposedly workable majority in the Senate and the White House. There's a good argument that continuing to hold those majorities after 2010 is going to depend on how well Obama and Congress deliver on this one issue. Not that there's any pressure on him, or anything. It's just the future of the nation and the prospects for his party riding on it."

Donklephant - Nick B: - "Obama’s not actually planning on covering everyone. The plan is that 3% would still refuse to buy insurance, even with an individual mandate. By “cost-cutting” Obama means mostly that health costs will not continue to grow at double-digit rates a year. The projections are that they will continue to grow that quickly, and these projections are already factored into the budget. There are some actual cost-cutting measures in the bill (such as dumping Medicare Advantage) as well."

Stinque: - Chicago Bureau: "Uh-oh — he’s got TELEPROMPTERS. Look out, America!"

Andrew Sullivan: "The way he said "determined" suggested to me he meant it. He's all-in. A note on the recession just to show he has not forgotten the economy in favor of healthcare. And a nice reminder of the dreadful economy he inherited."

CatoInstitute twitter: "Obama determined to be the last pres to take up health care? R U kidding? We'll need to reform it every year if the gov't is in charge. - MC"

DWSUWF - Switching to CATO, computer is slow, too many sites using live feeds, doesn't everyone have television?

======

"...everyone does their part."

Vodkapundit - Stephen Green: “…unless everybody does their part…” My part consists of… the people under my roof. Now you go do your goddamn party. Mmmkay - “Misinformation.” Well, that’s a step up. Pelosi called protestors Nazis. The President thinks of you as mere liars."

DailyKos - McJoan: - ""Improving our healthcare system only works if everyone does their part." That has to include the insurance industry, too."

Wonkette: "Politicians tend to get hyperbolic to achieve short-term goals. CUT THIS OUT YOU GUYS...The Plan is all about security, providing health care for people who don’t have it, and health care will cost less for people who do. See? Problem solved. Everyone turn on Dancing With the Stars."

Andrew Sullivan: "This is the campaign Obama, appealing to the center against the old politics. Classic Obama pivot: describe the right and the left and then say he is in the middle. And the Burkean twist: "I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch."

CatoInstitute twitter: "Obama won't put bureaucrats btwn U & your doctor except for the bureaucrats he proposed to put between U & your doctor"

DWSUWF - Ok - the live part of this "live blog" is not working out that well. The pizza just arrived. I need a beer. Lets just call this a pseudo-live blog and I'll dribble out a few more updates over the next couple of hours.

Whited Sepulchre - "BTW, the goal of live-blogging these things is to have them posted the minute the speech is over, just to prove you can think and type that quickly. In geek circles, you get extra points for being able to do this. "

DWSUWF - Yeah ok, thanks for that Allen. I understand you like the designated hitter rule. Nuff said.

======

"public option"

Vodkapundit - Stephen Green: "Eff me. The president is LECTURING people he needs to win over. How’s that gonna go over, you think? He’s trying to sell the Government Option as a “choice” still. But of course. The over/under on the Government Option crowding out everything else is about five years.”

DailyKos - McJoan: - "Not so good: weak defense of public option. Did a good job of defining it as the center by calling single payer the "left," but by arguing that it wouldn't really do that much, "Let me be clear, only an option for those who do not have insurance, less than 5% of Americans will sign up," isn't much of a strong defense of the public option."

Wonkette: "I want a public option to keep the health insurers “honest.” BUT BUT BUT trust me, it will be like… the shittiest plan… no one will even be able to sign up… STOP YELLING AT ME, LONE WINGNUT."

Stinque - Nojo: "Rahm’s been pushing the public option off the gangplank all along. He doesn’t care about results — he wants a deal... My Progressive friends, talk to Rahm’s hand."

Andrew Sullivan: "His description of the public option - that it can provide more efficient treatment because it doesn't need to make large profits and because it will have less overhead - is the best framing I've heard. He's framing the public option in the conservative language of competition and consumer choice."

CatoInstitute twitter: "Gov't doesn't compete with private producers. It drives them out of business--with an inferior product!"

Whited Sepulchre - "Now he gets to "the public option". He says consumers do better when there is "choice" and "competition"... you can't compete with an organization that can print its own money. Totally false use of the word on Obama's part. The post office, Amtrak, etc etc etc woulda gone under years ago if it weren't for government subsidies. And that's what yer gonna see with Obamacare....The public option would only be for those who don't have insurance. He thinks less than 5% of Americans would sign up. And the public option would have to pay for itself with money printed on the spot. Somehow. I know it blows your mind to think the money would just appear, but it will happen."

DWSUWF -This is what I heard the president say - "The public option will not be in the legislation. You know it. I know it. Barack Obama knows it. Rahm Emmanuel knows it. Bob Dole knows it. The right knows it. The left knows it but need to kid themselves for a while. We are letting them down gently. It's ok. They love me anyway."

======

"...how we pay for this plan"

Vodkapundit - Stephen Green: "Obama promises not to “add a dime” to the deficit. I’m not supposed to drop the f-bomb here, but your about to get f*cked on your taxes. I apologize. Obama, however, won’t apologize. Sorry if tonight’s drunkblog is crankier than usual. But I drank too much last night, and woke up in an ice-filled bathtub minus my tonsils and my feet.”

DailyKos - McJoan: - "What's good so far: called out "lies" in the debate. Reminding everybody that the Bush tax cuts and wars created huge deficits."

Wonkette: “I will pay for shit, unlike you people, who did not pay for various wars and corporate giveaways, ever.” Republicans make some weird sound in response. MEHHHGNNGNNGNG."

Stinque - Chicago Bureau: “More than material things.” TAX INCREASES FOR EVERYBODY! Suck it, GOP."

Andrew Sullivan: Now that's the truth: "Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for – from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. " [ DWSUWF adds -Not to mention a $900B Stimulus bill and a 9,000 earmark budget I signed - thereby taking the the trillion dollar deficit I inherited and doubling it in two months!!!]

Cato Institute twitter: "Mr. President-if you can find $600 billion worth of waste in existing gov't programs, why do you want to create another?"

Whited Sepulchre - "You know, that might be possible. Let people go to nurses and other practitioners for care. Get the damn lawyers out of it. Go here for details. It'll never happen. Now he's talking about how much waste and care there are in Medicare and Medicaid. They're going to eliminate that waste. Woulda done it sooner, but they wanted to save the waste so it could be eliminated now. During this crisis. I think that's what he said. I'm on beer #5. This is hurting more than I thought it would."

DWSUWF - Of all the arguments I hear from Obama and Democrats, I think the very dumbest, is when they try to explain away Obama's quadrupling the deficit, by pointing at Bush's doubling the deficit. What exactly are they saying? Bush was bad, so we can be worse? Bush committed a venal sin, so we can commit a mortal sin? What is it? Simple fact - If you accept that the Bush administration was bad on spending and deficits -AND THEY WERE - Then you must accept that the Obama administration is far far worse in a much shorter period of time. Is that really what they are trying to say?

Hmmm. Apparently my caps lock key is sticking.

======

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it."

Vodkapundit - Stephen Green: "For the record, I’m disgusted. And I need another drink. If I’m feeling up to it, I’ll post a little Oh I’m So Wise summary later tonight at VodkaPundit.com. Or possibly not. But here’s the short version: Obama will see a brief spike in the polls, but not enough. He delivered a divisive speech to a divided nation — and that’s no way to spur a divided Congress into action.”

DailyKos - DemFromCT: - "That's a powerful cap to an important speech which will help Obama's positioning as a bipartisan figure and as a grown-up discussing serious things. By itself, The Speech won't do a thing. But he's better off now than a few hours ago."

Wonkette: “Well that wasn’t so bad. How would we even know? We were just typing the whole time. The end of the speech seemed rather good, though. Secret death letters from Ted Kennedy! Of course all of the news will just be about the obnoxious wingnut shouting. He will have a goddamned show on Fox News by Saturday."

Stinque - Chicago Bureau: “FINAL VERDICT — he did the best he could under the circumstances. He took back the momentum. But, yes: if the future mimics the past, it will not work out. But this gives him the higher ground. Best outcome possible. Let’s see what the Sunday douchebags (St. Bob of Schieffer excepted from that douchebag remark) have with this."

Andrew Sullivan: "A masterful speech, somehow a blend of governance and also campaigning. He has Clinton's mastery of policy detail with Bush's under-rated ability to give a great speech. But above all, it is a reprise of the core reason for his candidacy and presidency: to get past the abstractions of ideology and the easy scorn of the cable circus and the cynicism that has thereby infected this country's ability to tackle pressing problems. This was why he was elected, and we should not be swayed by the old Washington and the old ideologies and the old politics. He stands at the center urging a small shift to more government because the times demand it."

Cato Institute twitter: "There are too many Americans counting on us to succeed." Yes. Drug industry lobbyists. Health insurance lobbyists, etc... -M. Cannon"

Whited Sepulchre - "He's doing a great closing here. It's emotional B.S., but very well-written. Going faster than I can type. Oh, BTW, most of this won't kick in until after the next Presidential election. Did you know that? And that Congress and most federal employees will be exempt? If you remember those things when listening to this rhetoric, you hear it in a whole new light. I'm just sayin'. "

DWSUWF - Done. NYT coverage and transcript is on the tubes. I'll just sip this 15 year old Laphroiag, sleep on it and update with any great thoughts that may or may not emerge between now and then.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Barack Obama, Congress, public option, debate, Health Care, debate, live blogging

The post after 09/09/09 09:09 will be live blogging the live bloggers covering the President's speech to a joint session of Congress.

2009-09-09T09:09:00.000-07:00

Announcement: DWSUWF will be reprising the wildly popular "Live Blogging the Live Bloggers" series tonight.

It has been almost a year since this blog's last LBTLB effort. Tonight's coverage will be notable for several reasons. For one, this will be the first LBTLB not covering a political debate. We are not sure how well the format will work in a non-debate setting. But then, we were never sure how well it worked in a debate setting.

For those unfamiliar with the form, we select a variety of bloggers from across the political spectrum, and live blog their live blog efforts, ~~ripping~~ copying selections of their content and pasting it here. I don't know who we will include tonight, but bloggers we have ~~ripped~~ used before, include Daily Kos from the left, VodkaPundit or Ed Morrissey at HotAir from the right, either David Weigel at Reason or the Atlantic's Megan McArdle for a libertarian point of view and Moderate Voice or Donklephant as a voice from the center. Snark has also been drawn from Wonkette and/or Stinque as needed. Suggestions for potential live blogging sources are welcomed.

There are risks. DWSUWF is assuming that many other bloggers will indeed be live-blogging the President's speech. If not, we will have no one to ~~rip~~ quote and the whole concept crashes and burns in an epic fail. We expect this will not be a problem. After all, it is the bottom of the ninth and expectations are high for this historic speech which is clearly a last ditch effort, and a game changer that will reenergize his health care reform effort. Unless of course, it is too late to turn it around.

Finally, this post is notable because the fortuitous combination of date, timing, and numerology permit us to offer this video of the Beatles and the longest set up for the least funny, and most forced video pun in the history of blogdom. You are welcome.

UPDATE: We are off and live-blogging - sort of.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Beatles, debate, Health Care, debate, live blogging

Carnival of Divided Government XXXIII - Special Labor Day Edition

2009-09-07T10:32:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the 33rd edition of the Carnival of Divided Government- The três et trîcênsimus Special Labor Day Edition.

Labor Day - The unofficial end of summer. A holiday first imported from Canada in 1882 and made official by Grover Cleveland in 1894. Bloggers taking note of the day include Jules Crittendon “I’ll celebrate the way I usually do … working, and damned glad I have a job” , Shay Riley is taking the day off, while for Walter Brasch it is a day for a historical screed, and Stephen Green reminds us "Also steak". Your loyal blogger is working his ass off trying to get this Carnival posted, so he can move on to beer and grilling a skirt steak that has been marinating for 24 hours (seasoned for fajitas).

As explained in earlier editions, we have adopted Latin ordinal numeration to impart a patina of gravitas reflecting the historical importance of the series. In this the Carnival of Divided Government três et trîcênsimus (XXXIII), as in all of the CODGOV series, we select volunteers and draftees from the blogosphere and main stream media writing on the single topic of government divided between the major parties (leaving it to the reader to sort out volunteers from draftees). Consistent with this topic, the primary criteria for acceptance in the carnival is to explicitly use the words and/or concept of "divided government" in submitted posts. A criteria that, to our endless befuddlement, is ignored by many of the bloggers submitting posts, which sadly results in DWSUWF reluctantly ignoring their fine submissions.

Carnival

We begin with a remarkable letter from President Dwight D. Eisenhower, sent in reply to one Robert J. Biggs, a WWII veteran. Biggs wrote the president looking for more strength and certitude from Ike, saying Americans needed "more of the attitude of a commanding officer who knows the goal and the mission and states, without evasion, the way it is to be done." Ike took the time to write a long, thoughtful and honest letter to Mr. Biggs:

"As you know, for four years our government has been a divided government, with the Administration confronted by a Congress controlled by the opposition--and the two working, if not in opposition, at least at cross purposes much of the time. An example is the sparring that seems to go on constantly over our defense situation--and specifically over our missile position. It is difficult indeed to maintain a reasoned and accurately informed understanding of our defense situation on the part of our citizenry when many prominent officials, possessing no standing or expertness except as they themselves claim it, attempt to further their own ideas or interests by resort to statements more distinguished by stridency than by accuracy."

As an exercise to the reader, DWSUWF suggests rereading the above paragraph substituting "health care reform" for "missile position" and "defense situation". Ike continues, explicitly defining the burden and responsibility that our messy, democratic, divided government puts on the citizenry:

"Even if this division in the government did not exist, I doubt that citizens like yourself could ever, under our democratic system, be provided with the universal degree of certainty, the confidence in their understanding of our problems, and the clear guidance from higher authority that you believe needed. Such unity is not only logical but indeed indispensable in a successful military organization, but in a democracy debate is the breath of life. This is to me what Lincoln meant by government "of the people, by the people, and for the people. ... But while this responsibility is a taxing one to a free people it is their great strength as well--from millions of individual free minds come new ideas, new adjustments to emerging problems, and tremendous vigor, vitality and progress."

The legion of bloggers and pundits complaining about the tone of the health care debate, and the difficulty of passing a health care reform bill of which the hoi polloi seems insufficiently appreciative, would be well advised to re-read Ike's letter. Hat tip to Septimus at The Whig Blog who found and excerpted this link in a recent New York Times Op-Ed by Max Blumenthal.

This excerpt of Ike's letter is offered in response to Gal Josefsberg, who submitted the slightly off-topic "Open Letter to our Elected Officials" to this carnival looking for a little more strength and certitude from our elected officials:

"Stop talking to us about policy and holding town hall meetings, and start inspiring us. Give us the great speeches you are capable of giving. Coin a phrase like “America Reborn” or “Rebuilding America”. Give us a symbol like Rosie the Riveter."

Ok Gal - You get a twofer. Rosie the Riveter at the top of this post, and President Eisenhower's reply to a virtually identical request from over a half century ago.

In DWSUWF's most recent post we noted a multi-year multi-election theme to be found in the financial press and broadcast media - to whit - investors prefer divided government and this preference is reflected in the stock market. While we doubt a statistical correlation will stand up to scrutiny, it is undeniable that a preponderance of investors believe a correlaton exists.

Randy Goldring is a financial consultant in Southern California. He draws some obvious parallels to the Clinton administration and professes his belief in a a divided government/stock market correlation in his post "Deja Vu All Over Again":

"I see Republicans making tremendous gains in the 2010 Congressional mid-term elections. They might even retake the House. A Republican party that many said was on life support just six months ago, would then become the incremental brakes on the steamroller that is Obama’s agenda... I believe that towards the end of next summer, signs of a Republican resurgence in the mid-term elections will be a tremendous stimulant to stock prices. Americans seem to prefer divided government."

The frequently used "seems to prefer divided government" construct always sticks in my craw. If voters truly like it better, rather than "seems to prefer", why not consciously vote for it every time?

DWSUWF favorite Ryan Sager is not looking for correlations between divided government and markets. Blogging at True/Slant, he is looking for any correlations with presidential popularity, and determines divided government is not correlated, but in fact - "It's the Economy Jackasses":

"Even when we have divided government, views of Congress and the president move in tandem. Clinton was under threat of impeachment by Gingrich and his GOP majority, yet people’s views of the president and of Congress stayed positively correlated. Why? Because voters aren’t deciding independently how they feel about President Clinton and the Republican majority — they’re simply expressing an opinion about how they feel toward government in general. And how they feel toward government in general comes back to the economy. And, presidential blow job or no, the economy was awesome."

Ryan links to an interesting bit of divided government scholarship written by Matthew Lebo for Congress and the Presidency. We'll be adding it to our sidebar scholarship links.

McQ at QandO Blog sharpens the horns of a dilemma currently impaling Congressional Dems, particularly those from conservative districts, in "The Political Hazards of HealthCare Reform":

"As they finally did with George Bush and the Republicans, I believe Americans are again realizing not just the benefit but the necessity for divided government to keep both sides “honest”. Government needs a bit of competition too. And if Democrats ram health care reform legislation through, whether with our without Republican support, they’re most likely to see such “competition” become reality in 2010."

DWSUWF agrees with McQ's analysis, but is not as optimistic. It is just too difficult to unseat incumbents in the House of Representatives. Barring a "Mark Foley" level of scandal or similar level of corruption from the Democrats exposed immediately before the election, the GOP will pick up seats, but will remain a minority in both houses in 2010. 2012 is another story.

Professor Peter von Nostrand is blogging at Bull by the Horns, but appears to be shoveling something from the other end of the animal in his post "This Seems Wrong":

"I'm not saying you're a bad person if you love yourself some DG, (Divided Government) but I am more in favor of ~~a party~~ Democrats holding most of the keys to power at one time so that accountability is more straight forward. And of course, anyone who knows anything about the role of Southern Democrats in the 20th century - or "Blue Dogs" now - knows that even unified government is can be divided enough already."

I'd think a professor would be a bit more rigorous about definitions. A great deal of scholarship has been invested in books and papers exploring the repercussions of "Divided Government" using this definition: One party does not hold the executive branch and majorities in both legislative branches. A government divided between liberal Democrats, centrist Democrats, conservative Democrats, corrupt Democrats and Democratic ideologues is a definition of a different state - "One Party Rule".

John Pitney, author of Epic Journey takes note in his blog of Gary Andres' Weekly Standard article (as did DWSUWF) and finds it to be diametrically opposed to the expectations set in his book - "United vs. Divided Government":

"In 2008, voters opted for unified Democratic control of the government. That outcome, however, guarantee the Democrats a lock on Washington for years to come. On the contrary, Gary Andres argues, divided government may loom."

Yeah- I'm betting Gary got that one right. We are just not hearing that much about the U.S. being a "center-left country" or a "permanent realignment" in the electorate like we were when his book was published earlier this year.

Jennifer Rubin writing in Commentary is wondering "Would a GOP Congress Help?":

"Whether it would be good for him and his presidency is another story. Plainly he and the Democrats lack the internal discipline to come off the left ledge of their party. The gap between the still center-right public and the president is vast. So the theory goes, better to have moderation “forced” upon him. But divided government, as we saw following the Republicans’ losses in 2006, doesn’t necessarily make for a successful period of governance for the president. Obama can’t be forced to be an effective chief executive. It is easy to imagine an increasingly irritated and beleaguered Obama in a constant political food fight with Congress if Republicans roar back in 2010."

Like many conservatives, Jennifer pooh-poohs the benefits of our short two year reprieve of divided government after the six years of Single Party Republican Rule. As DWSUWF pointed out at the time:

"Divided government is not a cure-all, but the fact is - our divided government state since 2007 has begun to reverse the damage of the 2001-2006 One Party Rule. Six years of abusive single party control is not going to be undone by 20 months of divided government. Yet, as a direct consequence of electing a divided government in 2006, we have a new Secretary of Defense, a new Attorney General, a marginal improvement in both the Patriot Act and FISA vs. the Bush/Cheney versions, a great deal more oversight revealing many of the abuses of the six years of single party control, a revised strategy in Iraq resulting in an improved security situation, and a reduction in the rate of spending growth rate in 2007. These improvements, though marginal, are not insignificant. It is the nature of divided government that improvements will be incremental and that is exactly what we have seen thus far."

Unfortunately, even those marginal improvements have almost all been reversed since the imposition of Single Party Democratic Rule. It just seems so painfully obvious to DWSUWF what voters need to do.

Pat Howard, managing editor for the Erie Times, attempts to steer the paper on a centrist course, but is explicit about his preferences in "Where politics meet technology, its hard to escape the noise":

"I consider myself an Independent, with views roughly typical of conservative Democrats or moderate Republicans. I'm registered as a Democrat because that party's primaries are the votes that count in the city of Erie, where I live. I prefer divided government -- the presidency and Congress split between the two parties -- because overreaching by zealots both left and right is what worries me most."

As do I Pat, as do I.

As noted here before, there is a lively on-going discussion of the merits of divided government at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen. Most recently, Scott Payne weighed in using his native Canada as an analog to advance his thesis in "Divided and Conquered":

"Here in the frozen tundra, because we have a Parliamentary style of government with five major parties (depending on who you ask), we also have the possibility of forming a a minority government — the ultimate in divided government. And, in fact, for the past five years, Canada has had a minority government in power. In theory, if we follow Mark’s reasoning, this should lead to a more stable and responsive government of the people, by the people, and for the people... Stable my eye.

Now, I know that this is not a scenario that would play itself out in the context of US politics as y’all don’t have a parliamentary system where government can fall due to a vote of non-confidence, but the point here isn’t so much about procedure as it is about the atmospheric impacts that divided government can have on political discourse in general. The fact of the matter is that the divided state of government in Canada has not led to a sense that government is either more stable or more responsive, but rather a general feeling of frustration at government’s ineffectiveness and inability to serve the people it is supposed to. And while government gridlock might be the stuff of dreams for libertarians like Mark and Jaybird, for a majority of Canadians (and I would dare to speculate a majority of Americans) said government inaction due to partisan bickering is an extremely sore point."

An interesting comparison.

First point - It is not clear to DWSUWF that a "stable government" should be considered a primary objective in any country. Totalitarian governments are notoriously stable, sometimes for decades, until they suddenly become unstable due to revolution, war, or economic collapse. It strikes me a "stable government" is the exact opposite of a "responsive government" in a dynamic pluralistic society.

Second point - Speaking strictly from the POV of this blog, the analogy is not relevant. To be clear, this is not a criticism of Scott's post, which was drafted into this carnival. This blog advocates and promotes the benefits of a divided government for the United States federal government. As a matter of interest, we'll comment on other governments, whether state, local, or foreign - but advocate only for divided federal government in the US. The reason is simple, it is only the US federal government where we feel there is sufficient scholarship on divided government that we can comfortably predict the beneficial results of that state.

Third and most important point - The distinction between the Canadian example and the USA, is that our constitutional government was designed from the ground up to be a divided government as explained clearly by constitutional architect James Madison in Federalist #51. If partisan unity overrides the checks and balances built into the Constitution, then our government is not working as designed.

Historian Joseph Ellis coined a beautiful phrase that succinctly sums up how our unique constitutional government is conceived - the "enshrinement of argument". Once again, I am compelled to quote myself from a prior carnival:

"What a perfect phrase to describe our Constitution and our national zeitgeist - "the enshrinement of argument". In this political season, with the mind numbing and meaningless appeals to "unity" amid the disparagement of partisanship, polarization, and debate, it is useful to recall that this country was built (and the constitution designed) on the expectation and promotion of continuous conflict and argument. For the founders, "unity" and "government power" was a dangerous mix to be feared and avoided. It smacked of monarchy. Checks, balances, divided government and pitting "ambition against ambition" was exactly the state they sought to enshrine."

A parliamentary government, by contrast, is designed to elect a unified government for as long as the electorate considers said government to be representative of the majority. Once could argue that a divided government is contrary to the spirit and design of a parliamentary system, while a unified government is contrary to the spirit and design of the U.S. Constitution.

Norbert Sluzewski makes exactly this point in his history lesson posted at Naked Liberty -"Know your America - the 16th Amendment":

"But what was most remarkable about the Constitution’s structure was that it created no single source of power. With the distribution of authority among the executive, legislative and judicial branches, this distributed structure of checks and balances recognized an inherent human flaw that: If given the opportunity to avail himself of excesses, man inevitably will. Even the most benevolent monarchy or dictatorship eventually succumbs to this flaw. The Founders uniquely understood this and sought to establish a Republic in which no single man, group, state or other entity could dominate or unduly influence the direction of the nation."

Unfortunately, what they did not anticipate, was that single party discipline can overcome and negate the "distributed structure of checks and balances" between the executive and legislative branches. An oversight that can only be rectified by voters electing a divided government. Every time.

Miscellany

Traditionally, we conclude this Carnival by including one "off-topic" submission, as a grudging acknowledgment and proxy for the many off-topic submissions received. Off-topic in this context meaning - no mentions of "divided government" or gridlock.

For this edition we offer Vichuda presenting "Indonesia Unite Against Terrorism" posted at Kota Medan Guide, and a reminder that patriotism and unity in the face of terrorism is not a uniquely American quality:

"Since the terrorist attacks with suicide bombings to 2 luxury hotels" JW Marriott and Ritz Carlton Hotels in Jakarta, the online community has united to show their support to fight against terrorism especially Indonesians.By using Twitter, everyone has united by twittering the word #indonesiaunite with their comments to pass on their support with their personal messages."

And with that we conclude this edition.

Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for all of the submissions (on-topic or not).

Since this carnival is focused on the topic of Divided Government, and seeing how voters spectacularly rejected the idea in the last election with no real prospect of restoring divided government before 2012, this carnival has been on a reduced publication schedule. Instead of monthly, we have been publishing quarterly or - you know - whenever DWSUWF feels like it.

But, with independent support for Obama falling away, with the Democrats deciding whether they are one party or not, with the specter of divided government rising from the grave, we are again going to pick up the pace.

Look for the next edition of The Carnival of Divided Government quattuor et trîcênsimus (XXXIV)- Special Halloween Edition on or about October 31. Submit your blog article at carnival of divided government using our carnival submission form.

Carnivalingus

Some other Carnivals and links of interest:

Bobo presents "The Bobo Carnival of Politics" at The Bobo Files.
Stefanie presents "All Things Eco #64" at Focus Organic.
Andrew presents "The Humidity Carnival of the Vanities" at Dodgeblogium.
Leo presenst the "Carnival of the Liberals #95" at Neural Gourmet.
Kerry presents the "Public Option Now Blog Carnival" at The FBM.
Brad presents the "Blog Carnival 08.25.09" at The Campaign Season.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, CODGOV, blog carnival, Labor Day, libertarian, 2010 election, Health Care

Investors Love Divided Government - 2009 Edition

2009-09-05T14:33:00.000-07:00

Chart from Brinyi Asscociates

Attributing stock market moves to political processes is a dicey proposition at best. That does not seem to deter either the right or left, who are always quick to jump on any day to day fluctuation in the market as either a validation or refutation of a particular policy in the news.

That said, it is undeniable that what happens in Washington D.C. does have a profound effect on Wall Street. A recurring sentiment expressed in financial print and broadcast media is that markets love gridlock and divided government. Whether or not a correlation can be statistically proven to be true, it is in the nature of markets that if a preponderance of the investor class believes a correlation to be true, then it is true. At least, for a period of time as a self fulfilling prophecy.

In what has evolved into an annual post, DWSUWF has reported on this recurring theme in 2006 (and again), 2007, 2008 and now 2009. This latest entry is from CNBC "Squawk Box" last week. It starts as a health care discussion but tacks in another direction:

"Airtime: Fri. Aug. 28 2009 | 5:10 AM ET
Tony Crescenzi, of Pimco, and Jim Iuorio, of TJM Institutional Services, share their thoughts on health care reform."

Interesting to note that the meme is consistent regardless of whether we have Republican or Democratic single party rule in place.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: libertarian , Democrat, Divided Government, Republican, investor, markets.

Fwd: Something worth forwarding - at the request of David Axelrod

2009-09-02T11:01:00.000-07:00

The blogosphere and MSM are buzzing with excitement and twittering in anticipation of the new, improved, updated and revised administration strategy to pass health care reform. As leaked to Ambinder yesterday, Politico reports today that Presidient Obama will be "specifying what Obama wants to see in a compromise health care deal" and "is considering detailing his health-care demands in a major speech as soon as next week".

I am glad the President is finally going to be speaking out on health care reform. We are well overdue to hear from the President on this issue. It has been quite a while since his major health care reform speeches on June 15, July 17, his major health care reform press conference on July 22, his heath care reform town hall meetings in Wisconsin (June 11), at the White House (June 24), North Carolina and Virginia (July 29) , New Hampshire (Aug 11), Montana (August 14), Colorado (August 15) and maybe a few other major speeches and media events that I might have missed.

This time the President will be telling us what he wants to see in health care reform now, as opposed to what he wanted to see during the campaign, or David Axelrod's chain-mail missive of August 13 outlining in detail what the administration expected to see from health care reform then.

Speaking of which - I am doing my part. I have been diligently forwarding David's chain-mail to every e-mail address I can find as he requested me to do. I can see now why he felt it was so important to get the President's message on specific health-care reforms out as quickly as possible, since he probably knew they would be changing the list of what is really important next week. Since the Axelrod e-mail may soon be declared inoperative, I've decided to post my forwarding e-mail introduction here as a public service while it still is the ObamaCare feature list of record. Please feel free help the President and David Axelrod by copying, pasting and forwarding to everyone in your e-mail contact list.

Dear Friend, Family, or Complete Stranger whose e-mail address happens to be in my possession,

Two weeks ago, I received the "longest most important e-mail " that David Axelrod has ever sent. I was flattered to learn that President Obama's closest political adviser considered me a friend. I know this because he started the letter with the salutation "Dear Friend". Later I was disappointed to learn that he did not sent this e-mail to only his friends. In fact the e-mail was sent to any e-mail address that could be either be legitimately or illegitimately acquired by the chief White House political officer. No matter. I still appreciate the sentiment.

David suggested in this letter we "start a chain email of our own" on the topic of health care reform, and asked me to forward his e-mail to everyone I know. He was quite insistent, concluding the note by saying "So what are you waiting for? Forward this email". Now, I've always thought an unsolicited e-mail broadcast to millions of accumulated e-mail address fit the definition of "E-mail SPAM" and was considered bad form, rude, and kind of illegal. But - my spam filter did not flag David's e-mail - so I guess it was ok.

I frequently find chain-letter style e-mails in my in-box, as well as exciting business opportunities from Nigerian bureaucrats who have stumbled on secret bank accounts and soliciting my help to transfer funds to the U.S. However, because I thought chain e-mails epitomized bad e-mail etiquette, I never forward the chain e-mails (although I do sometimes forward the Nigerian e-mails). I don't even forward the ones that say I will be cursed with bad luck if I break the chain. I take that risk and have probably lost several hundred dollars in lucrative football parley wagers as a consequence. But I digress.

This chain letter was different. This chain letter came from the White House, from the President's closest adviser. I've always thought that if the White House asks you to do something, as an American, you should do it. If it is unpatriotic to show up at a town meeting and complain about the President's policies, surely it is unpatriotic to directly refuse a personal White House request like this, is it not? So I am forwarding David's e-mail to you, my close friend, family member, or complete stranger whose e-mail is in my possession and I would like you to forward it to all of your friends, family and any other e-mail addresses you happen to have in your possession.

I do have one concern. I received this e-mail directly from David Axelrod two weeks ago, and have yet to receive any additional copies from my friends, family or complete strangers. This would indicate that this viral chain e-mail is not working as well as the White House and David Axelrod hoped. Perhaps I can help.

Many of the viral chain e-mails I receive share certain characteristics. Either they are humorous, or they are pornographic, or they contain virulent partisan rants. David's e-mail is - to be quite honest - boring. Boring e-mails rarely become viral. Since David Axelrod is humorless, and sending paparazzi photos of starlets is inappropriate for the White House, this only leaves the partisan rant. David did make an effort in the letter. It was pretty clever to claim that opponents of the President's healthcare plan were "spreading all sorts of lies and distortions" shortly before David Axelrod himself started spreading all kinds of lies and distortions in the same letter. Good one David! But just not good enough to go viral. To go viral you need a rant that has a little more vitriol and energy. As an example - maybe something like this:
"David Axelrod is a corrupt Chicago machine political hack and a lying sack of shit. He was instrumental in cutting a deal with big pharma promising to protect their profits, gutting ObamaCare in exchange for millions in advertising funds that coincidently flowed to his ex-partners in his ex-firm where his current son is currently employed and from whom he is currently receiving buyout payments."
The above paragraph is for illustrative purposes only.

I have a few other suggestions for David. His e-mail is confused about which are the myths and which are the reforms. Next time, he should have someone read it before sending it.

Also, it is best not to outright lie. Like when David says in this e-mail that ObamaCare "reform will stop rationing" of heath care. Nobody believes a whopper like that. Not even the most kool-aid addled Obamite. Proponents can argue that it will be better rationing than occurs now, and the opponents will argue that it will be far worse rationing than occurs now. But no one (except David Axelrod) argues that reform means no rationing of healthcare at all. A statement of belief in Santa Claus of that kind of undermines everything else one has to say, except maybe to a two year old.

My final suggestion for David Aexlrod to improve his chain e-mail is this... If he is going to insist on spamming a sales pitch, it should be for a product that Americans are vaguely interested in buying. Now, I could be wrong, but if I were to guess what the American people are looking to buy, it would be something that can be articulated pretty simply and emerges from some basic American values of fairness and common sense. I’d say it is really about these three things:
Every American gets a baseline level of solid health care. No one is left behind.
No American need be at risk of financial ruin or bankruptcy because they get sick.
The program is manageable and fiscally responsible. Americans want to feel reasonably certain we won’t see mushrooming costs like with Medicare and the prescription drug plan.

That’s it, David., that is all that is needed - not long lists of half truths, dubious benefits, or even a set of ginsu steak knives. Interestingly, ObamaCare HR 3200 at best accomplishes one of the three, while the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act (S 391) actually does accomplish all three. Perhaps that will be a better choice for Mr. Axelrod's next chain e-mail promoting ObamaCare 2.0.
Hopefully this was helpful. I am linking a short slide presentation to highlight the difference between ObamaCare and Wyden-Bennett for his future reference. It is also embedded in an allegorical tale linked here for the enlightenment and education of anyone who would like to learn more about a widely ignored bipartisan healtcare bill that offers real reform without bankrupting the country.

And remember - David Axelrod would like you to do your patriotic duty and forward this to all of your friends, family and any other e-mail addresses you happen to have in your possession whether they asked for it or not.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Your Friend, mw

Dear Friend,

This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”

So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.

Thanks,
David

David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President

P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform

Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

This email was sent to mw AT dividedwestandunitedwefall DOT com
Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Democratic , Barack Obama, Wyden-Bennett, Sales 101, Health Care, David Axelrod, HR 3200.

Take two placebos and call me in the morning.

2009-08-31T22:35:00.001-07:00

This story has little or nothing to do with politics, but I guess we can say it is health care related. I just found it so interesting I had to post it here.

Most people are familiar with the "placebo effect." A patient who believes they are being treated for an ailment can show improvement or be cured even if the treatment consists of sugar pills. This is the hurdle pharmaceutical companies must clear when testing a new drug. To be proven effective, a drug must be shown to be more effective than a placebo. Apparently that hurdle is getting higher.

Steve Silberman reports in Wired that placebos are statistically getting stronger and more effective:

"Last November, a new type of gene therapy for Parkinson's disease, championed by the Michael J. Fox Foundation, was abruptly withdrawn from Phase II trials after unexpectedly tanking against placebo. A stem-cell startup called Osiris Therapeutics got a drubbing on Wall Street in March, when it suspended trials of its pill for Crohn's disease, an intestinal ailment, citing an "unusually high" response to placebo. Two days later, Eli Lilly broke off testing of a much-touted new drug for schizophrenia when volunteers showed double the expected level of placebo response.

It's not only trials of new drugs that are crossing the futility boundary. Some products that have been on the market for decades, like Prozac, are faltering in more recent follow-up tests. In many cases, these are the compounds that, in the late '90s, made Big Pharma more profitable than Big Oil. But if these same drugs were vetted now, the FDA might not approve some of them. Two comprehensive analyses of antidepressant trials have uncovered a dramatic increase in placebo response since the 1980s. One estimated that the so-called effect size (a measure of statistical significance) in placebo groups had nearly doubled over that time.

It's not that the old meds are getting weaker, drug developers say. It's as if the placebo effect is somehow getting stronger."

This is a problem for Big Pharma, who are spending millions designing drugs that are not as effective as the astonishing curative power of belief in a sugar pill. Silberman described the effect in a CNBC interview on Monday:

With billions at stake, drug companies are apparently tinkering with a pill's color, shape, name and labeling in the hope of building a better, more effective um... placebo. Again from the article:

"The most important ingredient in any placebo is the doctor's bedside manner, but according to research, the color of a tablet can boost the effectiveness even of genuine meds—or help convince a patient that a placebo is a potent remedy."

Hmmmm...

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away." - Philip K. Dick

x-posted at Donklephant.

Divided and Balanced.™

Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Placebo Effect , Big Pharma, CNBC, drugs, Health Care, WTF, reality.

A K.I.S.S. for Wyden-Bennett ObamaCare Sales 101 - Lesson #4

2009-08-26T04:44:00.000-07:00

UPDATED: 03-Sep-09
Something has been bothering me. A few days ago, in a long post I touted my skills as a software sales professional and offered the President 3 remedial lessons in sales. He obviously needed help with his health care pitch. E.D. Kain linked to the post, called it a "good idea" (thanks!), quoted the most salient paragraph, and posted it under the title "Keep it simple, stupid".

Here is the problem - K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) is a fundamental principle of a good sales pitch. Important enough that we'll call it Lesson #4 in our continuing education series for the President. It was a lesson that I completely ignored in my post.

E.D. Kain did what I should have done. He extracted the most important point of my post - the simple fact that Wyden-Bennett bill (a.k.a. the Healthy Americans Act) is much closer to the Health Care Reform solution that Americans were interested in buying, as opposed to the HR 3200 hairball that the President was selling. That was the key selling point. And I buried it on the second page and last paragraph of a long post.

Like I said, it's been bothering me ever since.

What to do? I need to correct that error and here it is. It has been a while since I put together a Powerpoint sales presentation. Google Docs offers free presentation software in the cloud, the app is a little light on bells and whistles, but functional. Good enough for me to offer this penance for my previous sales sin:

A K.I.S.S. Presentation - only 4 simple slides (excluding title and credits) distilling the reasons why Wyden-Bennett is the better health care reform solution now:

This presentation (and/or the graphic at the top of the post) is for the use of anyone who wants it.

Of course, it was impossible for me to leave well enough alone, so there is a more complicated 11 slide presentation linked here, and embedded in a somewhat more allegorical post at Donklephant.

Yes, we are tilting at windmills. But while the Presidents enjoys a little R&R and retools the healthcare strategy, more and more Democrats are offering unsolicited advice, some better than others. Other Democrats are setting expectations that this will take some time. Who knows? Perhaps there is time enough to reach a full gallop and knock that windmill down.

For our next lesson - I may have some suggestions for David Axelrod on how to write a viral e-mail. [DONE - LINK HERE]

UPDATE 28-Aug-09
I think I am channeling Charles Krauthammer. Or he is cribbing from me. Or we think alike. Or we are on the same synchronistic harmonic convergence vibe. Or something. Check out this quote from his WaPo column today:

"...selling pain is poor salesmanship. Promise nothing but pleasure -- for now. Make health insurance universal and permanently protected. Tear up the existing bills and write a clean one -- Obamacare 2.0 -- promulgating draconian health-insurance regulation that prohibits (a) denying coverage for preexisting conditions, (b) dropping coverage if the client gets sick and (c) capping insurance company reimbursement. What's not to like? If you have insurance, you'll never lose it. Nor will your children ever be denied coverage for preexisting conditions."

He invokes the poor Obama salesmanship theme as in this post, the recommendation to move from ObamaCare 1.0 to ObamaCare 2.0 as in the slide presentation above, and then we have a strikingly similar quote from my Donklephant post:

"Universal coverage for all, catastrophic illness protection for all, no increase in the deficit and no net new taxes. What’s not to like?"

Weird.

It is more effective when he puts it together concisely in one paragraph. The lesson to learn? - the hardest sales lesson of all.

Keep it simple stupid.

UPDATE: 03-Sep-09
Added link. Fixed typos.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Democratic , Barack Obama, Wyden-Bennett, Sales 101, Health Care, Keep It Simple Stupid, HR 3200, Republican.

It's baaaaaack... Divided Government rises from the grave.

2009-08-24T14:13:00.000-07:00

After having an electoral stake pounded through its heart last November, after being exposed to the searing media morning light of a "permanent realignment" in the "center-left" American electorate, with a silver bullet in the brain of a "broken GOP brand", and with a garlic necklace strangling it's "sixty's culture war" neck, the corpse of "Divided Government" seemed dead and buried in the media for the foreseeable future.

But last week the undead meme was walking again:

The GOP's Best Weapon In 2010
History Makes The Case For Divided Government
By Gary Andres

"Inclement political weather rocked President Obama and his party this summer. Falling poll numbers and growing voter misgivings open the door for big Republican gains in next year's midterm elections.

But more storm clouds gather. With Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, the GOP can now use voter distrust of unified party control (the same party in charge of the presidency and Congress) as a tool to make major gains in next year's elections--a political weapon both parties could only unsheathe irregularly over the past half century.

Why are voters choosing to neuter a political party after it consolidates power? "Policy balancing" is part of the explanation, according to Fiorina. Does this mean voters say something like, "I voted for a Democrat for president, so now I'll choose a Republican to balance things out." Probably not. He believes voters engage in something a little less premeditated. "While not consciously choosing divided government, people may have a vague appreciation of the overall picture that plays some role in how they vote. People could be voting as if they are making conscious choices to divide government even if their individual decisions are well below the conscious level," Fiorina writes."

Morris Fiorina is a political scientist that wrote the definitive text on Divided Government, titled appropriately enough - "Divided Government". His comment in this piece goes directly to the raison d'être for this blog. To seek an answer to the never-ending DWSUWF question - "Rather than trusting the partisan balancing choice to a subconscious impulse, would we not be much better off if a few percentage of the electorate simply voted consciously for divided government?" Every time. Without exception.

And on that topic, two more recent articles on the same general theme:

Swing time is coming for Dems, GOP
By: Noemie Emery Examiner Columnist

"Calibrating the balance between the state and the free enterprise system is a delicate business, which is why the "big" and "small" government parties tend to take turns in power, so they can absorb and fine tune one another's achievements, and undo each other's mistakes. When the out-party wins power, it is given a mandate to tweak the controls and make a slight change in the country's direction, the key words being "slight change" and "tweak." Confronted with excess, the country enforces its own equilibrium, as when the Republican Congress crashed into Bill Clinton, frustrating both, but pleasing the country, creating welfare reform and a roaring economy. Divided government is a substitute for a conservative temperament, which is why it is frequently popular. The way things are going, it may shortly be with us again."

THE REAL REASON AMERICANS ARE ANGRY
It's the big government, stupid.
by Matt Welch

"It's been a hilarious August, watching media supporters of President Obama's health care package puzzle over the obscure motivations of the noncompliant Americans rallying against it.

"Racial anxiety," guessed New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. "Nihilism," theorized Time's Joe Klein. "The crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy," historian Rick Perlstein proclaimed in the Washington Post.

While the commentariat's condescension is almost comical, the whole evil-or-stupid explanation misses the elephant in Obama's room: Americans of all stripes, it turns out, aren't very keen about the government barging into their lives."

One side benefit of watching the undead specter of divided government continue to haunt the media - We're just not hearing about how the United States is really a "center-left" country any more.

It may be a bit early for these proclamations and conclusions. We are still more than a year away from the midterms. But if this keeps up, DWSUWF may have to restore the Carnival of Divided Government to a monthly publication schedule.

I still think it will take until 2012 to get there, but when Chris Dodd, Arlen Specter, and Harry Reid are all in trouble, we can safely say that divided government has risen from the grave.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: libertarian , Democrat, Divided Government, Republican, Liberal, Conservative.

The Audacity of Axelrod

2009-08-19T13:11:00.000-07:00

The mainstream media is starting to take a closer look at this guy. So it begins...

Timothy Burger - Bloomberg:

"Two firms that received $343.3 million to handle advertising for Barack Obama’s White House run last year have profited from his top priority as president by taking on his push for health-care overhaul. One is AKPD Message and Media, the Chicago-based firm headed by David Axelrod until he left last Dec. 31 to serve as a senior adviser to the president. Axelrod was Obama’s top campaign strategist and is now helping sell the health-care plan."

Ken Vogel - Politico:

"Critics of President Obama’s health-care overhaul are zeroing in on his senior adviser David Axelrod, whose former partners at a Chicago-based firm are the beneficiaries of huge ad buys—now at $24 million and counting—by White House allies in the reform fight. The unwelcome scrutiny, largely from Republicans, comes at an inopportune time as Obama seeks to shore up support for health care reform. It revolves around two separate $12 million ad campaigns advocating Obama’s health care plan that were produced and placed partly by AKPD Message and Media, a firm founded by Axelrod that employs his son and still owes Axelrod $2 million."

Stephanie Condon - CBS

"The White House and the pharmaceutical industry are pushing back against allegations that one of President Obama's senior advisers is personally benefiting from industry cooperation on health care reform. On Tuesday, the House Republican Conference published a one-page talking points memo that says, "Even as President Obama campaigned on a platform of change and transparency, recent dealings between the pharmaceutical industry and the administration raise serious questions as to whether the drug lobby is helping to bankroll a multimillion dollar severance package for one of the president’s senior advisors."

If there is one thing that any close political adviser to a sitting president should have learned by now, it is this lesson: It is not necessarily actual conflict of interest or impropriety that bites you in the ass. It is the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety that is political poison. While not always fatal to a political career, it is always very damaging to a presidency. This was true for Bert Lance. True for Michael Deaver. True for George H.W. Bush and the hordes associated with Iran-Contra. True for the legions touched by Whitewater. True for Dick Cheney. True for Karl Rove. And it will be true for David Axelrod.

As Hugh Hewitt points out, there is a direct comparison to the Dick Cheney/Halliburton connection that had the left up in arms:

"It should take about ten minutes this morning for Robert Gibbs to provide details of Axelrod's "retained interest" in his old firm --the term used by Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg when he was blasting Dick Cheney vis-a-vis Halliburton-- and Axelrod's participation in negotiations with any interest that is providing money to any group providing money to his old firm. With those facts in hand there are scores of D.C. lawyers who can comment on whether any of the many ethics laws governing the financial interests of senior advisors to the president have been violated."

Predictably, the right is all over this like a bad rash (From Memeorandum: American Spectator, Hot Air Michelle Malkin, Ben Smith's Blog, protein wisdom, The Jawa Report, Dr. Melissa Clouthier, Atlas Shrugs, RedState and Pajamas Media). So far, it is a minor blogstorm of positively smug and somewhat unseemly glee. Their enthusiasm for the the story will give the left an opportunity to dismiss this story as right wing "politics of destruction". That would be a mistake. There has been too much smoke around David Axelrod for too long. Too many stories like this. The "appearances of impropriety" continue to pile up.

Like with Jimmy Carter, the press is eager to reverse perceptions of fawning and favorable treatment of Barack Obama. They will find it easier to attack someone close to Obama rather than the popular president himself. This is the role that Bert Lance played in the Jimmy Carter administration. How Obama handles the Axelrod affair may very well turn into a bigger test of his presidency than than the health care debate. This is the lesson of the Jimmy Carter Presidency.

Axelrod is a very smart guy. He knows how to cover his tracks. He knows how to walk the line. That is why it is so surprising that he still chooses to walk so very very close to the ethical edge. Maybe it's a Chicago thing. I've been following him for some time and think he has crossed that line more than once:

October 28, 2008 - Barack Buys an Election:

"One wonders how Axelrod takes a leave from a co-located consulting firm with only three partners and where he is the “A” in ASK Public Strategies. Did they divide the office with blue tape on the floor and keep Axelrod on one side? Does he wear blinders and earplugs when in the office? But I digress... Also among ASK's clients? You guessed it. From Business Week:
"Among ASK's other clients: AT&T. The telecom company, formerly known as SBC Communications, had been a customer, Sedler confirms, when it requested ASK's help to defeat a broadband referendum..."
And why shouldn't AT&T hire Axelrod's firm? After all, the "S" in ASK is David Axelrod's partner Eric Sedler:
"Prior to joining ASK Public Strategies, Sedler served as a Public Relations Director for AT&T Corporation, managing the company’s offices in Chicago, Atlanta and Miami. In that position, he was responsible for directing the company’s corporate public affairs campaigns in the central and southeastern United States."
So AT&T gives a lot of money to ASK. Some of that money is in David Axelrod’s pocket, as one of three partners in ASK. But David Axelrod is on “leave” from ASK. Nothing to see here. Move along."

November 6, 2008 - Comment on Donklephant:

"He is twice as good Rove or if you prefer, twice as bad as Rove. Same difference. Definitely this is “Barack’s Brian” like Rove was to Bush... It would be real interesting to know who ASK’s clients are now, but the client list on their web page came down when Axelrod went to work on the Obama campaign. Axelrod said he was on leave from ASK, but again this is an organization that shares office space and has the same partners with the political consulting firm where he was still working. How does that work? In this new role shouldn’t we know who the ASK clients are? Shouldn’t we know the exact nature of his financial relationship with ASK both now and during the campaign? Where is the transparency?"

Last week - The Audacity of Astroturfing:

"The MSM mostly gave him a pass during the campaign as he claimed he was on leave from ASK (while working in the same office for the co-located political consulting firm AKPD) and said he had no intention of being part of the administration. I highlighted this relationship during the campaign, when I though it a little too cozy that ATT was a big client of ASK, and Senator Obama conveniently flip-flopped on Telecom Immunity. But nobody really cared about that, so let's move on... Per the Sun-Times, when he accepted the position with the administration in January, he "sold" his stake for $3M to be paid out out over 5 years. It was also disclosed that he received a partnership check of $151,914 from ASK in 2008. That was in 2008, when he was on "leave" from ASK. I guess it was a paid leave. So in 2008, ATT money went to ASK and ASK money went to Axelrod. Nothing to see here. Move on.

Let's walk through this buyout again. ASK Public strategies is a going concern, and will continue to have funds flow from their corporate "astroturf" clients into their coffers. Then money from the ASK coffers will flow into "Astroturf King" David Axelrod's pockets to compensate him for the buyout over the next five years, - coincidentally - exactly enough time to get past Obama's first term and election campaign. Of course, by then, he may get tired of politics, and ASK may want sell his share of the partnership right back to him. Who knows? It could happen. Audacious."

Yes, I am stealing this post title from myself. I think I can make a legitimate claim to being "patient zero" of a hot new blogospheric pandemic infection - ADS (Axelrod Derangement Syndrome). Does anyone really believe that this will be end of the revelations about David Axelrod? Barack Obama would be well advised to put some distance between himself and his favorite political adviser. When the Axelrod time bomb goes off, there will be collateral damage.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Chicago , Barack Obama, Health Care, ATT, Jimmy Carter, David Axelrod, audacity, graft.

Sales 101 - A primer for the Salesman in Chief

2009-08-14T00:01:00.000-07:00

We've seen and heard President Obama at town halls, press conferences, interviews, Saturday radio chats, industry summit meetings and delivering the keynote speech at medical conferences. All focused on health care reform, all covered breathlessly by the new and traditional media. No one can accuse this president of being AWOL in the health care debate.

Some might suggest that yet another Obama presentation on health care reform is as welcome as watching another Sham-Wow! commercial. Overexposure has its risks as well as rewards.

Yet, despite his popularity, despite his much vaunted communication skills, despite his persuasive logic, despite his ubiquitous presence in the media, when the needle of popular sentiment has moved at all, it has moved in the wrong direction for the President's version of reform. The Salesman in Chief can't seem to close the deal with the American people. Moreover, the pundit class across the political spectrum are assessing the President's sales skills, and finding them wanting:

Sell Me!
Kevin Drum - Mother Jones

"...it's all about how it's sold. Everything has to have a constituency if it's going to get passed.... you do have to sell, the same way any salesman anywhere sells stuff. That means understanding your audience, figuring out what they're afraid of, promising them something that will make them better off, overcoming their objections, and then convincing them that they have to call now to take advantage of this one-time offer! Every pitchman on late night TV understands this. Why don't we?"

Obama's sales pitch still needs work
Concord Monitor

"As articulate as he is, Obama nonetheless had a hard time convincing doubters. And doubts are understandable. The president chose not to emulate the Clintons by drafting a reform proposal. Instead, he left it to Congress to craft a health care bill. The result, at this stage, is five competing bills and confusion that's made selling health care reform hard and demonizing it easy. Obama needs to make his case more convincing."

Sales Pitch...
Steve Benen - Washington Monthly

"...when it comes to the success or failure, if the sales pitch were more effective, we'd be talking about how Republicans are trying to figure out how to justify opposing a popular, once-in-a-generation reform package that is obviously, desperately needed. We're not having that conversation at all... For what it's worth, I get the sense the White House recognizes where the administration has come up short on its sales pitch, and is trying to adjust accordingly. Expect a better sales job in August than July. Whether it's too late remains to be seen."

Obama is failing on health reform
Clive Crook - Financial Times

"Mr Obama’s second failure is even more surprising: one of salesmanship. He still pitches for comprehensive reform, but with apparently weakening conviction. In his televised talk on the subject last week, he seemed almost bored. Worse, the president’s message is at odds with the product taking shape in Congress. This is all about controlling costs, he says: without reform, healthcare will bankrupt the country. That would be an excellent line if Congress was seriously trying to build control of costs into its bills, but it is not. Widening coverage is the priority. So it should be, you might argue – but in that case the president has to sell access and health security as things worth paying for, an entirely different proposition."

One More With Feeling
The New Republic

"...more than one commentator came away from Barack Obama's prime-time press conference complaining about the professor-in-chief's tedious explanations...The focus on policy minutiae has crowded out part of the big picture. Health care has become almost entirely a technical discussion, rather than a personal one. It's all about deficit neutrality and bending the curve, instead of making sure every American can get affordable medical care."

In many ways, this is puzzling. The President is justifiably known for his oratorical skills and power to persuade. What is going here? Even the President seems confused. From a Time interview...

"I will say that this has been the most difficult test for me so far in public life, trying to describe in clear, simple terms how important it is that we reform this system. The case is so clear to me...And when you just start hearing the litany of facts, what you say to yourself is this shouldn't be such a hard case to make, because the American consumer is really not getting a good deal." - BHO

Ah... there it is. There's the problem. He's not selling. He's making a case. I guess that should not be surprising. The President has never been in sales. He has never been in business. The president is trained as a lawyer. He is not selling health care reform, he is trying a case on health care reform. Now there are some superficial similarities between a lawyer trying a case and salesman closing a deal - both involve crafting and presenting a persuasive proposition. But there are big differences.

Case in point. If a lawyer overwhelms his opponent with a brilliant, persuasive and unassailable argument in front of a jury, he is going to win the argument, and likely win the case. On the other hand, if a salesman overwhelms a prospect with a brilliant, persuasive and unassailable argument, he is going to win the argument, but lose the sale.

Most people who have never been in sales, do not really understand sales. They think they do, but what they understand is a caricature of sales.

I can help. I was in sales and sales management for a lot of years, selling big complex and expensive enterprise software solutions to large organizations. I can't help much with the policy specifics of the health care reform legislation, but I can help diagnose the sales problems of our president and offer a prescription.

First, by way of disclosure - my current take on the plan itself. I am still trying to get my arms around the various, sundry and generally bad policy permutations presented so far. If I had to put a stake in the ground, I'd lean toward the Wyden-Bennett bill, which is apparently not getting any serious consideration. E.D. Kain offers an effective pitch and the subsequent discussion at Ordinary Gentlemen has been persuasive. The president could learn something about presenting a complex sales from those boys.

I am dead-set against the H.R. 3200 hairball that is apparently the bill of choice being pitched by the President. Partially because I don't understand it all (not for lack of trying), partially because I do understand it and don't like it, and partially because it is clear the President does not fully understand it and is selling smoke. I am seeing a used car salesman pitching a Shelby Cobra Mustang, but when I ask for test drive, he puts me in a car seat mounted in a frame without an engine, tires or steering wheel. And it's wildly expensive. And I think he is offering predatory financing. Guess what? I'm not buying.

Let's get back to salesmanship.

This is a teachable moment Mr. President.

Welcome to sales 101.

Lesson One - Selling is a lot easier if you have the right product.

There are some other choices in the legislature besides H.R. 3200. You may want to reconsider which product will have the best chance of selling to the American people. As you found out, it is possible to be successful selling a lemon (like the stimulus porkfest), but it hurts your credibility and makes the next sale a lot tougher. If the prospect is not buying the Lincoln Town Car you are selling, you have two choices. You can keep pitching that Lincoln, convinced that you know better than the prospect what they really need. That always ends badly. They'll just leave the showroom never to return. Alternatively, you can forget the Lincoln, start pitching the Fiesta, and you might have a sale by the end of the day.

Lesson #2 - There is a difference between Salesmanship and Hucksterism.

A professional salesperson works to match a product pitch to a prospect's requirements and budgets. A huckster only cares about the features of the product, and will pitch those features endlessly, regardless of whether the prospect has a need for the features or can afford them. When I look at Axelrod's talking points, I can't help but think of the penultimate huckster pitch, the Ginsu steak knife:

Tired of dealing with Insurance Companies? Fed up with forms? Paying too much for doctor visits? Have we got something for you... Obamacare! Just look at what the amazing Obamacare does! Obamacare eliminates expensive co-pays! Obamacare covers your children, no matter how old they are! You can never run out of coverage with Obamacare. What would you pay for this kind of security? But wait! There's more! Pre-existing conditions? No Problem! Your coverage can never be denied! And there is even more! All your preventive care is FREE FREE FREE! Now what would you pay? Would you pay $2 trillion? $3 trillion? $4 trillion for this peace of mind? STOP! You won't have to pay any of that!! For a limited time only you can have Obamacare for the low low price of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS! Send no money now! If you act in the next 30 days we will borrow it all from the Chinese and then make your kids and rich neighbor pay it back! This is a limited time offer. Don't wait! Act now!!

This approach works well with Ginsu knives on late night TV. For selling a comprehensive solution to Health Care reform? Not so much.

Lesson #3 - What you are selling is not as important as what your prospect is buying.

Enterprise software is a malleable product. It does a lot of stuff and can be customized to meet the specific needs of the client. Generally, it does much more than a client needs, with a large percentage of Enterprise software features not needed at all. If a salesperson focuses on the small percentage of features that actually solves the client business problem, they can usually get the sale. If they spend their time extolling all the wonderful features of the software, whether relevant to the client or not... they don't get the sale.

Mr. President, you and the Democratic party believe you have a mandate from the American people to reform healthcare. I believe you are correct, and said as much before the election. However, a mandate is not a blank check. It behooves you as the mandate grantee to have some appreciation of what the granter is offering.

Expressed in sales terminology, it is far more important to understand what the client wants to buy, vs. hammering them with a pitch of what you want to sell them. The continuing erosion of support for H.R.H. 3200 (House of Representatives Hairball 3200), clearly shows that what you are selling, is not what the American people are buying.

I could be wrong, but if I were to guess what the American people are looking to buy, it would be something that can be articulated pretty simply and emerges from some basic American values of fairness and common sense. I'd say it is really about these three things:

Every American gets a baseline level of solid health care. No one is left behind.
No American need be at risk of financial ruin or bankrupt because they get sick.
The program is manageable (not transformational) and fiscally responsible. Americans want to feel reasonably certain we won't see mushrooming costs like with Medicare and the prescription drug plan.

That's it, Mr. President. We don't need "Free! Free! Free! Preventive Care!" or a set of Ginsu steak knives to sweeten the deal. Put together a package that does these three things, pitch them clearly and simply, and you'll close the sale.

Interestingly, Wyden-Bennett S391 accomplishes all three. HRH 3200 at best accomplishes one of the three. Just sayin...

Class dismissed. Check back Mr. President. We'll be continuing your sales education in a future post.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Democratic , Barack Obama, Wyden-Bennett, Sales 101, Health Care, David Axelrod, HR 3200.

The Audacity of Astroturf

2009-08-10T09:01:00.000-07:00

The Democratic leadership made "astroturfing" a hot topic of conversation in the blogosphere and MSM. They've been quick to characterize vocal opponents of the current incarnation of Health Care Reform as faux protests, as examples of manufactured rage, as "astroturfing", specifically referencing scenes like this one at Michigan Congressman John Dingell's recent town hall forum:

So, what is "astroturfing? From Wikipedia:

"Astroturfing is a word in English describing formal political, advertising, or public relations campaigns seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous "grassroots" behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf."

The administration charge is not new. Lloyd Benson is credited with coining the term in 1985, and wikipedia further points to an early example in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar with 'Cassius conducting what might be considered an astroturfing campaign on Brutus: he leaves letters where Brutus will find them encouraging Brutus to act against Caesar, purportedly from concerned citizens but really written by Cassius himself "in several hands".'

Unsurprisingly, the Chairman of the company that manufactures the fake grass and trademarked the name is not amused, but I digress.

Are these protests examples of astroturfing funded by the health care industry? Or is something else going on? Is it wise for the administration to slap this pejorative on their opposition? Or is it this administration that is doing the astroturfing? In this post I'll provide a selection of views from across the political spectrum about the protests, but will broaden the topic to a more general essay on the care and feeding of astroturf.

From the left:
This Kos diarist attended the Dingell Town Hall as a supporter with a "cut to the front of the line" pass, regrets being outnumbered by opponents and concludes they are all insane.

Matt Yglesias explains that the reason irrational opponents outnumber rational supporters at these meetings, is that the rational supporters are waiting to learn what is actually in the bill. Matt is certain that the supporters will outnumber opponents once the bill is out, even though he does not know what will be in the bill.

Boo Man at Booman Tribune thinks it is perfectly fine for protesters to exercise their first amendment rights, unless, of course, they don't understand what they are protesting. So I guess protesters need to be given a competence test first... or something.

From the administration:
The administration and Democratic leadership weigh in to explain exactly what the opposition is all about.

Robert Gibbs disses the "Brooks Brother Brigade" and calls the opposition "manufactured anger" all paid for by the official administration designated demon of the day (cue scary music) The Insurance Companies.

Barbara Boxer picks up on the sartorial theme, explaining that you can tell the protesters are fake, because - well- they are too well dressed.

Harry Reid waves a piece of astroturf as a prop to dismiss opposition "as phony as this grass."

Nancy Pelosi agrees that it is all phony astroturf and throws in a few nazi references to boot.

Finally, the DNC runs an ad to make sure everyone knows that the opposition to the President's healthcare plan are just an ugly angry mob that storms out on to the streets at the beck and call of (cue scary music) The Insurance Companies - or something.

Not from the left:
This kind of partisan political posturing (like astroturfing itself) is par for the course. Pretty much the same old tried and true game of demonizing opposition to rally your team and get your bill passed. Not exactly "hope and change", more like "same ol' shit", but it doesn't bother me. It can create problems though - if you don't finesse it just right.

One problem is when Democrats start believing their own BS. Then you get situations like this - where a Democratic Representative at a town hall meeting calls out one of the "manufactured", "astroturf", "hijacker", "mob" participants that is disrupting the meeting...

... only to later learn the guy asking the question is a Doctor, Democrat, constituent, and is just trying to get a question answered.

Another possible problem is when union members and other Obama supporters (not astroturf - genuine grassroots) spontaneously begin showing up in numbers at Town Hall meetings and take White House rhetoric from political strategists David Axelrod and Jim Messina to "punch back twice as hard" a little too literally.

Not all Democrats are buying into the Axelrod strategy. Claire McCaskill was quick to distance herself from the White House with this tweet:

“I disagree that the people showing concern over some healthcare proposals are “manufactured” Real folks, strong opinions.”

Not sure what she is thinking. Why wouldn't she want to get on board insulting and belittling her constituents?

The Audacity of Axelrod
This is where it gets surreal. We have the administration and leading Democrats throwing the "astroturf" pejorative at Republicans and (cue scary music) The Insurance Companies and yet - the guy who practically invented the term "astroturfing" ...The guy who is known as "The Astroturf King"... is none other than Obama's right hand man and political adviser - David Axelrod.

Recall that prior to the campaign Axelrod was a founding partner in two firms co-located in the same office. One, the political consulting firm hired by the Obama campaign, and the other ASK Public Strategies - the gold standard in astroturf consulting firms (Axelrod is the A in ASK).

The MSM mostly gave him a pass during the campaign as he claimed he was on leave from ASK (while working in the same office for the co-located political consulting firm) and said he had no intention of being part of the administration. I highlighted this relationship during the campaign, when I though it a little too cozy that ATT was a big client of ASK, and Senator Obama conveniently flip-flopped on Telecom Immunity. But nobody really cared about that, so let's move on.

How about an update now that the Astroturf King is Obama's right hand man in the White House and his bio has disappeared from ASK's website?

Per the Sun-Times, when he accepted the position with the administration in January, he "sold" his stake for $3M to be paid out out over 5 years. It was also disclosed that he received a partnership check of $151,914 from ASK in 2008. That was in 2008, when he was on "leave" from ASK. I guess it was a paid leave. So in 2008, ATT money went to ASK and ASK money went to Axelrod. Nothing to see here. Move on.

Let's walk through this buyout again. ASK Public strategies is a going concern, and will continue to have funds flow from their corporate "astroturf" clients into their coffers. Then money from the ASK coffers will flow into "Astroturf King" David Axelrod's pockets to compensate him for the buyout over the next five years, - coincidentally - exactly enough time to get past Obama's first term and election campaign. Of course, by then, he may get tired of politics, and ASK may want sell his share of the partnership right back to him. Who knows? It could happen.

Audacious.

UPDATE:
Just when you think it cannot get more surreal, we move into Salvador Dali territory. Although Democratic leadership is decrying the "astroturfing" of town hall meetings, well funded Democratic non-profits are actually advertising and paying people to show up and demonstrate for Obamacare. Which is pretty much the definition of astroturfing. Or maybe to paraphrase Richard Nixon "Its not astroturfing when we do it."

Pheistyblog has it (among many others): "Astroturfing: Make $$$ doing something you love!"

H/T - Fausta

There is nothing wrong with this activity. It is just the breathtaking hypocrisy of Democratic leadership demonizing the protesters for activity that does not hold a candle to the astroturfing efforts they have underway.

I have a couple of unemployed nephews that recently graduated from college. I'll send them this list. The administration may not be fostering the creation of many private sector jobs, but they do appear to be stimulating the market for astroturfing.

Cross-posted at Donklephant.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: libertarian , Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, astroturf, Health Care, David Axelrod.

2010 Senate Race Redux - Divided Government When?

2009-08-06T11:23:00.000-07:00

Shortly after the November election, I posted an analysis on the prospect of restoring divided government in 2010 or 2012. This summary/conclusion is paraphrased from that post:

After the 2008 election (with 8 seats still undecided) the Democrats picked up an additional 20 seats and will have a crushing 81+ seat majority in the House. Given the difficulty of changing majorities in the House, there is almost no likelihood of Republicans retaking the majority before 2014 and probably longer (even with hurricane force political winds at their back the Democrats only picked up about 20 seats in'08 - do the math). That leaves the Senate as the only determinant of whether divided government can be restored in 2010. In 2012, either re-taking the Senate or the presidency are possibilities for restoring divided government, as the house will likely remain out of reach...

In 2010 The Democrats will again have a structural advantage. 34 Senate seats will be contested. Of these, 19 are held by Republicans and 15 are held by Democrats. To retake the Senate, the Republicans would have to hold all their seats, and take more than half of the Democratic seats up for re-election. Obama and the Democrats would have to screw-up on a scale of how the Republicans screwed up in 2000-2006. They would have to pile up a record of corruption and incompetence in two years comparable to what the Republicans did in six. I won't say it is impossible, but it does seem unlikely. The best the Republicans can expect in 2010 is to either hold serve, not lose any more seats, not lose the filibuster, or pick up a couple of seats and narrow the Democratic Majority.

In 2012 the Republicans will finally have a huge structural advantage in the Senate elections. Of the 33 seats contested, 24 are held by Democrats and 9 by Republican. From this distance, the Republican seats look safe, and after four years of One Party Rule by Democrats, the electorate may be ready for some changes. If the Republicans can pick up two seats in 2010, they will only need to take six of the 24 Democratic seats to regain the majority.

Conclusion / Predictions
We will have One Party Rule under the Democrats for at least four years.
The next opportunity to restore divided government will be in 2012.
The Republicans will have two ways to get there, so I will go out on a limb and make the prediction that divided government will be restored in 2012, either through the Republicans winning the presidency or (more likely) a majority in the Senate. If the latter, we will be in the interesting situation that we have a divided congress, and regardless of which party wins the presidency - a divided government. That's a good thing.
No telling what shape the country will be in by then.

DWSUWF stands by the overall thesis of that post, but a few things have changed. Time for an update.

First, based on the completely insane deficit spending in the first six months of Single Party Democratic Rule, we now have an answer to the last bullet. We will be in very sorry economic shape by the 2012 election, with a debased currency, wild inflation, and eclipsed by China (or far along in the process) as the pre-eminent economic engine on the planet. The only question now is whether the continuing Single Party Democratic Rule will make it even worse.

Second, there have been some changes in the structural elements of the 2010 Senate races. Republican Arlen Specter changed his party affiliation, and the Missouri race was finally decided. With Al Franken now in the Senate, there are 60 Senators who caucus Democrat and 40 Senators who caucus Republican. With special elections in New York to replace Hillary Clinton and in Delaware to replace Joe Biden, we now have 36 Senate seats up for grabs in 2010, with 18 held by Republicans and 18 held by Democrats. Perversely, the Republican hand in 2010 was strengthened by their unrelenting poor performance in 2008-09. Instead of defending 19 of 34 seats as outlined in my previous post, they are defending 18 of 36 seats, exactly like the Democrats, and on a structurally even playing field in 2010. They are in too deep a hole to have any chance of retaking the majority in 2010, but if they can take 2 or 3 seats, they will be in an excellent position to retake the Senate in 2012 when they will have significant structural factors in their favor.

As such, DWSUWF believes that the Senate remains the best chance to divide this government in 2012. While Barack Obama's poll numbers have predictably eroded from the stratospheric level he enjoyed earlier in the year, he still has a deep reservoir of goodwill and personal popularity with voters. He is personable, likable, smart, and as Joe Biden noted - "clean and articulate". Predictions three years out are probably foolish but barring some as of yet unrevealed scandal close to the President, DWSUWF expects him to be reelected.

This means the best chance to restore fiscal rationality in 2012 is for Republicans to take the Senate, and that will take two election cycles. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, so lets get started. The first step is for Republicans to pick up a couple of seats in 2010. Two races have my early interest.

Pat Toomey is a solid fiscal conservative. His primary challenge to Arlen Specter is widely attributed to be the reason Specter changed his party affiliation. Ironically, if Specter survives a Democratic Party primary challenge, he could still easily lose to Toomey in the general election. I like Toomey's chances. I like what he says about divided government. And I really like the way he acquitted himself in a laughably hostile Hardball appearance on Tuesday August 4:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Does Chris Matthews think birthers are a litmus test for the GOP?
Pat Toomey's Senatorial campaign is DWSUWF's first recommended candidate contribution for the 2010 election and a link to his campaign will soon appear in the sidebar.

Another campaign of interest - Democratic Senator Chris Dodd's Connecticut seat. This blog had some positive things to say about Chris Dodd during his brief presidential run. That was then. This is now. A lot of questions emerged about his close relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide Financial and cozy relationships with banking lobbyists. Net net - This is a race that should be a slam dunk and a safe seat for Democrats, but is now up for grabs. Recent polls show that Dodd is trailing former Republican congressman Rob Simmons. Simmons would be a fine choice. But there is another interesting challenger in Connecticut. Money manager and financial soothsayer Peter Schiff is also considering a run for this seat.

Your loyal blogger describes himself as a "libertarian leaning independent". There are few libertarian voices in our federal government, but they do exist, and they are beacons of clarity and integrity in the fog of Congressional rhetoric. During the 2007 Iraq funding debate, DWSUWF took note of speeches by Ron Paul and Jeff Flake as welcome examples of intellectual honesty and clarity. We could use a libertarian voice in the Senate. Peter Schiff could be that voice. I have no idea whether he has a chance, but he's got money, and I'd like to see him run. He certainly will make the campaign more interesting, as well as inject ideas into the national political dialog that otherwise may never emerge above noise level. I will be contributing to his "moneybomb" effort tomorrow and encourage like-minded DWSUWF readers to do the same.

~~Divided and Balanced.™~~
~~Now~~ ~~that~~ ~~is fair.~~
I, for one, welcome our new Democratic Party Overlords.

Technorati tags: Republican, Democrat, 2010 election , 2012 election, Divided Government, Arlen Specter, Pat Toomey, Peter Schiff, Senate, libertarian

Best Blog Post Title Of The Week

2009-07-31T21:30:00.000-07:00

Maybe - best of the month.
Maybe - best of the year.
Maybe it is simply...

Best. Blog. Post. Title. Evah.

D.A. Ridgely at Positve Liberty:

"Free Money Program Proves Surprisingly Popular"

From the New York Times:

The House of Representatives voted to provide an emergency $2 billion for the “cash for clunkers” program on Friday, and the White House declared the program very much alive, even though car buyers appear to have already snapped up the $1 billion that Congress originally appropriated.

Refresh my memory. When exactly did Congress decide the word “emergency” means “popular with voters”?

My 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee V8 is officially rated as 16 mpg in the city and 18 mpg on the highway. Average 16 mpg. The free money cutoff for SUV's is 15 mpg.

No soup for me.

NOTE: Lost track of where on the intertubes I found this animated graphic. Happy to credit the source here if anyhone knows who created it.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: libertarian , Barack Obama, Bailout nation, Insanity, Stimulus, Democratic, cars, Cash for Clunkers.

Arlo Guthrie: "We need a loyal oppostion"

2009-07-29T22:45:00.000-07:00

While I am trying to get my arms around the health care debate (screed under construction), how about a little musical interlude?

Arlo Guthrie in a New York Times Magazine interview last Sunday:

NYT: Where are you politically these days?
Arlo Guthrie: "I became a registered Republican about five or six years ago because to have a successful democracy you have to have at least two parties, and one of them was failing miserably. We had enough good Democrats. We needed a few more good Republicans. We needed a loyal opposition."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Live at The Guthrie Center Church October 11, 2008...

...and at Woodstock in 1969:

Per my last post, we still need a few more good Republicans.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: libertarian , Arlo Guthrie, Divided Government, Bailout Nation, Republicans, 2010 election.

Everything that is wrong with Republicanism in one easy headline:

2009-07-28T08:01:00.000-07:00

"F-22 RAPTOR CAN STILL SHOOT HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA DOWN IN FLAMES"

Since my divided government obsession had me registering, supporting and contributing Democratic for the 2006 election, then registering, supporting and contributing Republican in the 2008 election, I am bombarded by political e-mail solicitations from across the political spectrum. Most of the e-mail is moved unread straight to the trash bin. Every once in a while, a subject header will get my attention. Like the one that pulled up the screenshot e-mail pictured here.

Yes. It really says that. I am not going to link to the "Pray in Jesus Name Project" (PIJNP) that paid Human Events to have their message delivered into my e-mail inbox. However, the subject line did its job, and I did feel compelled to read it - just to understand what kind of madness could possibly flesh out that headline. I thought at first it must be a parody. Alas - no.

First, some background. An amendment to strip funding for production of the F-22 Raptor was approved in the Senate and excised from Defense Authorization bill under threat of veto by Obama. The F-22 is an expensive fighter without a mission in today's world. It does not fly in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The Air Force does not want or need more F-22's. Defense Secretaries and Joint Chiefs under both Democratic Republican and Democratic presidents have tried to kill further production. Both Clinton and Bush tried and failed to kill it. Obama finally did. Just barely.

I read the PIJNP e-mail, so you don't have to. As near as I can tell, the idea is to get F-22 Raptor funding reinstated in the defense bill while it is in conference, for the express purpose of triggering an Obama veto, so that the Leahy Hate Crime amendment attached to the Defense Authorization Bill would also fail as collateral damage. Or something like that. Perhaps they have a chance.

This group, and this e-mail appeal may not be worth the attention I'm giving it. but, they seem to have money for heavy internet advertising, claim to have driven 350,000 petition signatures, and some people are paying attention, so... its worth a look.

What are we to make of what is being advocated in this e-mail appeal? Some possibilities.

One - Face Value
If we take this at face value, we have social conservative religious zealots that actually believe that the "Homosexual Agenda" is a threat so dire, that it is worth risking: a veto of the defense budget; diverting defense resources needed for the wars we are actually fighting; and completely wasting $1.75 billion of taxpayer funds on an unneeded weapons program. All to stop the homosexual agenda and sacrificing both conservative fiscal and security principles.

Two - Conspiracy Theory
Lockheed Martin has been pretty darn effective in gaming the procurement process to continue this particular weapons program. Lockheed arranged for Raptor components to be built in 44 states. As a consequence, 40 Senators voted to continue the program, including liberals like Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and Chris Dodd. A majority of the Nancy Pelosi Democratic House of Representatives voted to continue the program. Could Lockheed, a member in good standing of what John McCain calls the "military industrial congressional complex" be taking the "game" to another level by using this organization as a front group? Recall that many believe the 2004 homophobic campaign against gay marriage generated enough additional Republican voter turnout in Ohio to swing the electoral votes for that state and lost the election for Kerry. Is it possible that Lockheed would front a homophobic social conservative organization simply to drive faux grass roots support for a unneeded weapons system? Seems unlikely... but who knows?

Regardless, this points to the continuing conservative conundrum faced by limited government advocates and deficit/spending hawks. The only electoral mechanism that can have an actual effect on practical policy in the short term, is for libertarians, fiscal conservatives and limited government advocates to support Republican legislators in 2010 and 2012 to divide this government.

The fusionist alliance between fiscal and social conservatives (GOP factions described by Ryan Sager as" libertarians" and "evangelists" in his excellent book "The Elephant in the Room"), has been the path to electoral success for Republicans in recent decades. Others describe the alliance as three legs of a tripod supporting the GOP platform - fiscal conservatives , social conservatives and security conservatives. But how can fiscal conservatives and libertarians make common cause with social conservatives if they are actively working to undercut the two other legs (fiscal and security conservatives)?

I don't know how representative the "Pray in Jesus Name" project is of the social conservative rank and file. I pray in Jesus name that they are not the norm. But whether they are religious zealots, a front for cynical corporate manipulation, or straight con-men, having fellow travelers like the "Pray in Jesus Name Project" doesn't make it easy to cast a vote for divided government and fiscal responsibility in 2010. But, as Samuel Johnson noted, "The prospect of being hanged focuses the mind wonderfully". As does the absence of any other options to constrain spending by this administration. if there is only one path to get to your destination, it is a good idea to take the path.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: libertarian , F22 Raptor, Divided Government, Conservatives, Republicans, 2010 election.

The League of Divided Gentlemen

2009-07-24T12:03:00.000-07:00

The boys over at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen found a divided government ball in the closet and started kicking it around the field a bit this week. The timing is good.

Consciously or not, voters clearly and decisively rejected any notion of divided government in the November election. However, there are equally clear indications of buyer's remorse emerging in the electorate. The right wing is quick to grasp at any straw and, as usual, get it wrong by focusing primarily on President Obama. This is a mistake for several reasons. First, Obama is a likable and popular president and will likely continue to enjoy that personal popularity. Second, he is not running for office in 2010. If in 2010 Republicans attempt to make up ground by simply trying to tie Democratic legislators to Obama, they will miss an opportunity to begin rebuilding their brand. I submit the remorse is not about Obama. It is about One Party Rule.

Pat Toomey is getting it right. Some credit his entry as a primary challenger to Arlen Specter as the reason Specter deserted the Republican ship and became a Democrat. Toomey fired an opening salvo and struck a direct hit below the waterline of Specter's new Democratic lifeboat, when he eloquently made the case for divided government. To the amusement of Brad at The Crossed Pond, Specter immediately dropped 20 points in head to head polls (comparing the May poll of Specter vs. Toomey in a Republican primary to a recent poll now showing a dead heat between Republican Toomey vs. Democrat Specter in a general election). I cannot help but think the growing disdain for one party Democratic rule is a factor in those results. If this is an early indicator of voter sentiment, we can expect "divided government" to be a hot topic in the 2010 midterms [Note to self: Get back to work on your book project].

Ordinary Gentleman Mark Thompson builds a nice intellectual foundation to kick off the 2010 divided government discussion by asking the question "Is Divided Goverment more responsive?". I'll skip right to his conclusions:

"This isn’t to say that divided government is a cure-all that ensures that all our problems will be competently dealt with. Instead, it’s just to say that divided government makes three things more likely: 1. Where there is no national consensus on the existence of a problem, no legislation will try to fix that alleged problem; 2. Where there is a national consensus on the existence of a problem, legislation will be strongly pushed that seeks to solve that problem; and 3. Legislation that passes will be the result of good-faith negotiations about how best to solve the problem.

Conversely, unified government makes it more likely that: 1. There will be more legislation where only one side of the political spectrum sees the existence of a problem; 2. There will be less legislation where there is a consensus on the existence of a problem since solutions to that problem will, in some instances, be politically inconvenient to the party in power, while the party out of power will have little incentive to push meaningful reform for which the party in power will be able to take credit; and 3. Legislation that becomes law will be significantly undermined, possibly to the point of being counter-productive, by intra-party horse trading and more concentrated interest group influence."

Mark is diving headlong into an area of divided government theory that DWSUWF has studiously avoided. He speculates about the actual mechanism whereby divided government delivers better governance and legislation. In general, DWSUWF has been more interested in promoting the empirically documented benefits of a divided government state and advocating a voting heuristic to exploit them, as opposed to wondering "Why does divided government work?".

As usual, the commentariat at the League are equally informative and stimulating. This last is a bit self serving, as your loyal blogger could not resist weighing in with a few observations. Notable among the comments were these two remarkable admissions -

"Alright, you’ve [mw] got me half-convinced that I’m wrong about the value of a voting strategy."- Mark Thompson

"I think mw may be right that I am overselling the difficulty of determining how to vote for divided government." - Michael Drew

Your blogger is unaccustomed to this kind of affirmation and does not know how to react. I think it best if I just take the rest of the day off. Before I go I'd like to offer Mark a token of appreciation as a charter member in the yet-to-be-posted 2010 Coalition of the Divided ("half-convinced" is good enough for DWSUWF) - Mark, please accept the semi-original graphic at the top of this post, just in case you want to swap out your avatar on your next divided government post.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: libertarian , Arlen Specter, Divided Government, Buyer's Remorse, one party rule, 2010 election.

Stimulus funds flowing through a "Pipeline to Nowhere"

2009-07-21T11:45:00.000-07:00

Graphic from the North Coast County Water District -
Water Recycling Project Plan

As promised, DWSUWF is following up on an earlier post regarding the potential Pacifica "Pipeline to Nowhere." First, know that your loyal blogger fully understands that in the greater scheme of things, $2m of stimulus funds is less than a drop in the gigantic porkfest bucket that is the Obama Stimulus plan. But... having noticed a potential issue for a local project that has not received much attention, I feel I should try to ensure that at least this one little $2M drop of taxpayer funds does not get wasted.

Work with me here... this is going to be a deep dive into the weeds of this one stimulus project. I will make this as clear and concise as I can.

The Project
Here is the project as described on the Department of the Interior "Recovery Investments" website:

Pacifica Recycled Water Project - Pipeline, North Coast County Water District Pacifica, Calif. Reclamation ARRA Funding: $2,203,750 Total Project Cost: $8,815,000
Local Contact: Kevin O’Connell, Project Manager
Funding will be used to construct new facilities including 3.5 miles of pipeline, a 400,000-gallons storage tank and a new pump station. The project will provide recycled water to irrigation users that currently draw water from the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System, and thereby reduce users’ dependence on existing potable water supplies.

So we have an $8.8 million water pipeline project, of which $2.2 million will come from stimulus funds. We learn from a San Mateo County Times article that the remaining cost will be split between the San Francisco Public Utilities commission and the North Coast Water District using low interest construction loans from the State of California. It should be noted that both municipalities, the county and the state are facing enormous budget shortfalls and have no money to waste. We also learn from the article that 78% of the water flowing through the pipeline will be used to irrigate the Sharp Park Golf Course. The course is currently being irrigated with water from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir with good potable water that can be better used elsewhere.

So far so good. Regardless of ones political posture on the stimulus package itself, and unlike a lot of the pork, waste and just plain stupid expenditures emerging from the Recovery.gov website, this project clearly meets the criteria of what the stimulus package was promoted to accomplish. It is an infrastructure construction project. It will create 275 jobs. It helps relieve the growing pressure on the San Francisco Bay area watershed. It's recycling water during a drought. It is a needed project. What's not to like?

The Problem
Sharp Park Golf course is located in Pacifica but owned by the city of San Francisco. Legislation has been introduced in San Francisco (Item 090329) to close Sharp Park and turn it into a nature preserve in order to protect an endangered garter snake and frog (both of which have lived in harmony on the course property for 70 years).

This legislation was submitted by San Francisco supervisor Ross Mirkarimi at the instigation of a well heeled out of state ecology organization with a reputation for intimidating municipalities with their high power legal machinations. They have funded a glossy website filled with half-truths promoting a phantasmagorical photoshopped vision of a "restored" Sharp Park. Nowhere in the website do they explain in detail where the money is going to come from to realize this wildly expensive and poorly thought out fantasy. The only organized opposition to this is an underfunded local grass roots organization of bay area golfers, preservationists and Pacifica residents who are fighting the good fight to save Sharp Park - a historically significant landmark golf course designed by Alister MacKenzie.

The SF Board of Supervisors is currently awaiting a study due at the end of the month, and will then decide the fate of Sharp Park. Common sense dictates that a simple plan be developed to insure the golf course continues to operate in harmony with the red leg frog and the garter snake. That would make perfect sense. But we are talking about the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, egged on by well funded extremist eco-bullies, so - no telling what will happen. They could very well close the course.

Here is the point. If the Supes decide to close the Sharp Park golf course, the approved stimulus water recycling project will literally be a "Pipeline to Nowhere. " There will be no reason to waste $2.2 million of stimulus funds and another $6 million of California funds on this project.

The Prescription
Common sense dictates that a pipeline project to irrigate a golf course should not proceed if the golf course is to be closed. If there is no commitment by local, state, and federal leaders to the continued operation of the beneficiary of the pipeline (the Sharp Park Golf Course) the stimulus funds should be redirected. Again, this pipeline project is a good project that will help the community, create jobs, save water, and is a good use of stimulus funds, if there is a commitment to the Sharp Park Golf Course. So - what will it take to get that commitment?

This blog has a limited (if loyal) readership. However, I will do what I can to put a spotlight on the potential of funding a "Pipeline to Nowhere." Faced with public embarrassment, public officials will generally take the path of least resistance. In this case that path is a simple rational common sense approach:

Commit to the continuation of the Sharp Park golf course.
Implement procedures at the course to further protect the snake and frog.
Build the pipeline to irrigate with recycled water.
Find a way to inoculate Pacifica and San Francisco against abusive lawsuits from the eco-bullies in Tucson.

For a change, why not try to solve this problem before the money is wasted? To that end, over the next 24 hours I will be forwarding versions of this message to the following officials and organizations:

Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco
Mayor Julie Lancelle of Pacifica
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Representative Nancy Pelosi (8th District)
Representative Jackie Speir (12th District)
Senator Diane Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
Vice President Joe (Stimulus Sheriff) Biden
Government Accountability Office - Fraudnet
Department of Interior - Office of Inspector General
Anyone else who might shine some additional light on this project

Feel free to chime in. I'll also try to get some reporters, and other blogs interested.

To borrow a phrase from the Bravo Channel - let's see what happens.

UPDATE:
Pacific Riptide has been covering the pros and cons from a Pacifica perspective. They have a link to a video of Mayor Julie Lancelle recounting the history of this political battle to local Democrats last Saturday . She is fighting the good fight. Pacifica is lucky to have her as mayor.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.
Technorati tags: Sharp Park , Barack Obama, San Francisco Values, Insanity, Stimulus, golf, Pipeline to Nowhere, Red Legged Frog.

I can't add anything to this: Guest WaPo OpEd on "Obama's predicament"

2009-07-19T00:01:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while you run across something so well written, so precisely articulated, and so perfectly spot-on, all you can do is cut and paste. From Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch opining in the Washington Post:

"The key to understanding Obama's predicament is to realize that while he ran convincingly as a repudiation of Bush, he is in fact doubling down on his predecessor's big-government policies and perpetual crisis-mongering. From the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists to gays in the military to bailing out industries large and small, Obama has been little more than the keeper of the Bush flame. Indeed, it took the two of them to create the disaster that is the 2009 budget, racking up a deficit that has already crossed the historic $1 trillion mark with almost three months left in the fiscal year.

Beyond pushing the "emergency" $787 billion stimulus package (even while acknowledging that the vast majority of funds would be released in 2010 and beyond), Obama signed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill and a $106 billion supplemental spending bill to cover "emergency" expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan (and, improbably, a "cash for clunkers" program). Despite pledges to achieve a "net spending cut" by targeting earmarks and wasteful spending, Obama rubber-stamped more than 9,000 earmarks and asked government agencies to trim a paltry $100 million in spending this year, 0.003 percent of the federal budget.
Such is the extent of Obama's magical realism that he can promise to post all bills on the Internet five days before signing them, serially break that promise and then, when announcing that he wouldn't even try anymore, have a spokesman present the move as yet another example of "providing the American people more transparency in government."

What the new president has not quite grasped is that the American people understand both irony and cognitive dissonance... Don't pretend that a budget that doubles the national debt in five years and triples it in 10 is the work of politicians tackling "the difficult choices." Americans have a pretty good (if slow-to-activate) B.S. detector, and the more you mislead them now, the worse they'll punish you later."

The only thing I question is that last highlighted bit. For all the smarmy cynicism and sarcasm, the authors have a real optimism about the American electorate. I wish I could share their Pollyanna faith in my fellow citizens. The more I see, the more I fear that most Americans fall into the one condition not covered by the Abraham Lincoln homily. Obama/Axelrod are well on the way to proving that that you can indeed fool most of the people most of the time.

[NOTE: I did find something to add - a couple of self serving links to the embedded quote]

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Their lips are moving, Barack Obama, deficit, Constitution, FISA, Democrats, Unitary Executive, bailout nation.

Robert McNamara Remembered - lessons from a liberal technocrat

2009-07-14T11:23:00.000-07:00

"I come to bury Caesar not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones.
So let it be with Caesar."
- William Shakespeare (Marc Antony's eulogy)

Marc Antony's intent was masked by his words, and the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth are the opposite of what Shakespeare knew to be true. As a rule - it is the good that men do that live after them. We are reluctant to speak ill of the dead. We prefer to celebrate the song and dance man, but forget the child molester and drug abuser. So let it be with Michael. But what of Robert? Almost lost among the Michael Jackson Memorial media circus last week was the notable death of Robert McNamara. Perhaps he is an exception to the rule of remembering only the good men do.

Robert McNamara died in his bed on Monday July 6th. Words like those of Shakespeare's Antony, words crafted to deceive, words considered only as a means to a political end, are words that seem particularly apropos when remembering Robert McNamara.

McNamara has been a frequent topic on this blog. The recurring theme and the unanswered question: What did he know to be true about the Vietnam War, when did he know it, what actions did he take and fail to take as a consequence, and why did he chose not to tell the American people what he knew? It seemed an important lesson for today. From a September, 2006 post:

In 1995, Robert McNamara (widely referred to as "the architect of the Vietnam War") writing in his memoir "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam", revealed that as early as 1967 (with 25,000 American dead) he no longer believed that America could win the war in Vietnam, and as a direct consequence of expressing that view, resigned (or was fired) from the LBJ administration. This McNamara quote is excerpted from Harold P. Ford's analysis "Thoughts Engendered by Robert McNamara's In Retrospect":
"We were wrong, terribly wrong... Enemy morale has not broken . . . . It appears that [the enemy] can more than replace his losses by infiltration from North Vietnam and recruitment in South Vietnam. . . . Pacification has if anything gone backward. As compared with two, or four, years ago, enemy full-time regional forces and part-time guerrilla forces are larger; attacks, terrorism and sabotage have increased in scope and intensity. . . . In essence, we find ourselves--from the point of view of the important war (for the [hearts and minds] of the people)--no better, and if anything worse off. This important war must be fought and won by the Vietnamese themselves. We have known this from the beginning . . ." Robert McNamara -"In Retrospect" (pp. 262-263).
Neither McNamara nor LBJ chose to share that insight with the American public. Ultimately it took 50,000 American lives for a majority of Americans to learn that their government could not be trusted on the reasons for, nor the "light at the end of the tunnel" progress in, Vietnam. It is reasonable to posit, that if McNamara had recognized in 1968 that his loyalty was owed first to the American people, and second to the LBJ administration, had communicated what he knew then to the American people, we might have seen a better end, a quicker end, and fewer deaths and casualties in Vietnam.

McNamara had a bit more nuanced view of his own actions. While he acknowledged his analysis and the consequent administration decisions on Vietnam were dead wrong, while he regretted his support of that war, he remained unapologetic about putting loyalty to his president ahead of his obligations to the American people. He had no problem rationalizing his decision to keep the American people ignorant of what he knew to be true about that war.

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer was one of the few broadcast news outlets not distracted by the Michael Jackson death-a-palooza, and explored this very question on the night of his death. An excerpt:

The full segment includes interviews with documentarian Earl Morris and biographer Deborah Shapley. Also interesting, the complete 1995 interview between Macneil and McNamara, as well as a spirited round table discussion between a young Senator John McCain, George McGovern, McGeorge Bundy and Robert Scheer, also available on the PBS site:

Recommended viewing.

The picture of Robert McNamara that emerges from the interviews, the book and the documentary differs from contemporaneous reporting when his memoir was published. There is no contrition on display. No quest for redemption is in evidence as some suggested at the time. This is the technocrat, the policy wonk, the engineer poring over the wreckage of an airplane he designed and offering observations on why it crashed and burned. His hope for his memoir:

"I hope what it will do is cause us to examine what happened then and try to prevent it in the future."

Examining the McNamara lessons can drive a blogger to drink. So let us start at our favorite watering hole, The Repeating History Bar. Here we find another senior administration official choosing personal loyalty to a president over their duty to the American people. Many have compared McNamara to Rumsfeld. I have done so myself. But in the context of the lessons learned from McNamara and Vietnam, the more apt comparison is Colin Powell. From a more recent post:

Colin Powell enabled the GWB administration to garner the support needed to put us on this course [in Iraq]. I suspect that Colin Powell, out of misplaced loyalty, like McNamara on Vietnam, failed to be forthright and honest with the American people about Iraq. Should Colin Powell, in future memoirs, like McNamara, proclaim that he knew that the Iraq occupation was a wrong policy, he will, like McNamara, have blood on his hands for every day that passes between the time that he recognized the mistake, and the day he finally comes clean with the American people. It took McNamara 27 years. How long will it take Powell?"Make no mistake. It was a critical decision point, a nexus in history, when in 2002 Colin Powell walked into the Oval office to advise the President. As he related to Tim Russert:
"when I took it to the president and said, “This is a war we ought to see if we can avoid,” I also said and made it clear to him, 'If, at the end of the day, it is a war that we cannot avoid, I’ll be with you all the way.' That’s part of being part of a team."

Powell understood that this was the wrong path. Powell understood that the rationale for action in Iraq did not pass muster on the lessons he extracted from Vietnam, the Powell Doctrine. Powell could have told Bush that he did not support the policy and resigned. Instead Colin Powell enabled George W Bush to make the decision to prosecute the occupation, much like McNamara enabled LBJ to expand our footprint in Vietnam. Colin Powell sold the war to the American people. After Cheney and Bush, Powell is the man most responsible for the war decision.

That lesson went unheeded. How about another lesson? A cautionary tale about the hubris of having the "best and the brightest" liberal ideologues run the country:

ROBERT MACNEIL: You say you were prompted to write this book because you were heartsick at the cynicism, even the contempt with which people view their political institutions today. How did you think this book might dispel that cynicism?
ROBERT MCNAMARA: I hope it will explore why the leaders did what they did. My associates were properly described by that pejorative term, "the best and the brightest." They were young, intelligent, well-educated, hardworking, dedicated servants, they're people in their government, and they were wrong.
Now, I think, if our people understand that, then we can talk about, why were they wrong? How can we avoid similar errors in the future?
ROBERT MACNEIL: But as you document, if the best and the brightest that Kennedy and Johnson could muster year after year made the mistakes you admit and they refused to listen to their critics, to use your phrase, "were blind prisoners of their assumptions," and in the process sent nearly 60,000 Americans to their deaths, would that not confirm or deepen people's cynicism about government today?
ROBERT MCNAMARA: Well, no, I think -- I hope what it will do is cause us to examine what happened then and try to prevent it in the future.

The last administration did not learn from the lessons of McNamara. One wonders - Could our brand spanking new administration comprised of today's "best and the brightest" liberal ideologues learn anything from Robert? Perhaps they need no lessons, after all they are so supremely confident in their intellect and ability that they:

Believe the country is best served by accumulating power unto themselves far beyond what is proscribed in the constitution.
Think they can safely manage the currency and economy destroying Frankenstein monster of massive spending and deficit on a level never attempted before.
Are perfectly comfortable preempting and substituting their judgment for that of the market.
Know exactly how the automotive industry should be structured, how many car companies we should have, which should succeed, which should fail, how many dealers they need, and what kind of cars they should build.
Understand the rule of law does not apply to them and should really be considered purely advisory.
Can, of course, re-design the entire health care system, supremely certain that they can cut costs and improve care without rationing services.
Oh - almost forgot. They can also pacify Afghanistan.

Nothing to worry about there.

Rest in Peace Robert McNamara.

Your political and intellectual heirs are in charge.

UPDATE: McNamara's favorite poem

A punctuation mark for the man and the post...

The Palace - Rudyard Kipling

"WHEN I was a King and a Mason - a Master proven and skilled
I cleared me ground for a Palace such as a King should build.
I decreed and dug down to my levels. Presently under the silt
I came on the wreck of a Palace such as a King had built."

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Afghanistan, Colin Powell, Michael Jackson, , Vietnam, Robert McNamara, Iraq, hubris, The best and the brightest, Barack Obama.

Stimulus dollars to be spent irrigating a golf course that will be closed.

2009-07-09T17:36:00.000-07:00

It looks like the Obama stimulus package that does not stimulate finally found a local "shovel ready" project to stimulate:

Pacifica golf course, parks to use recycled water
By Julia Scott
San Mateo County Times

"PACIFICA — A local water treatment plant will soon be piping 50 million gallons of treated, recycled water to the Sharp Park Golf Course and other sites in Pacifica thanks to a $2.2 million grant from the federal government. The North Coast County Water District, which serves potable water to Pacifica and part of San Bruno, got word last week that a shovel-ready project 10 years in the making had been greenlit by the grant, paid for by the federal stimulus package... The SFPUC will use 78 percent of the water to irrigate Sharp Park (the golf course is in Pacifica but owned by San Francisco) and therefore owes a larger part of the debt."

Just one little glitch - the city of San Francisco is hell bent on closing the course:

Snakes to inherit Sharp Park golf course
Bruce Balshone
San Mateo Public Policy Examiner

"Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi introduced legislation (see item 090329) aimed at turning the Sharp Park Golf Course in Pacifica into a biological reserve, much to the dismay of golfers and Pacifica city leaders. The venerable course, which opened in 1931 was designed by famed architect Alister Mackenzie and landscaped by John McLaren, is actually owned by the City and County of San Francisco despite sitting squarely within the City of Pacifica."

As an enthusiastic patron of the local public golf courses, I have been following the San Francisco Golf Wars with a rooting interest. Generally I would not post a local story on this blog, but with stimulus dollars now literally being showered on the golf course, the story does take on a national flavor. This is not a done deal. We are awaiting the results of a study designed to impartially validate and rationalize the pre-determined conclusion of the board of supervisors. To whit - demolishing a historic landmark to protect endangered species that have been quite happy living under the stewardship of the self-same golf course for the last 75+ years.

I sure hope those endangered frog and garter snakes are real thirsty, because they are about to get a lot of very expensive water. One wonders if the stimulus bill watchdog - Joe Biden, knows that taxpayer dollars are being spent to irrigate a golf course that may soon not exist? I wonder if Mayor Gavin Newsom and the San Francisco Supervisors will be in as much of a hurry to close this course if local stimulus dollars and jobs hang in the balance? Stay tuned...

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.
Technorati tags: Sharp Park , Barack Obama, San Francisco Values, Insanity, Stimulus, golf, Pork.

Demographics über alles

2009-07-03T08:51:00.000-07:00

Michael Murphy is the most recent to flog the popular political theory that we are witnessing a "permanent realignment" in the electorate favoring Democrats. In a recent Time column, he predicts an ice age for Republicans:

"...the numbers tell a clear story; the demographics of America are changing in a way that is deadly for the Republican Party as it exists today. A GOP ice age is on the way. Demographic change is irritating to politicos, since it works on elections much as rigged dice do on a Las Vegas craps table: it is a game changer... In 1980, Latino voters cast about 2% of all votes. Last year it was 9%, and Obama won that Hispanic vote with a crushing 35-point margin. By 2030, the Latino share of the vote is likely to double. In Texas, the crucial buckle for the GOP's Electoral College belt, the No. 1 name for new male babies — many of whom will vote one day — is Jose. Young voters are another huge GOP problem. Obama won voters under 30 by a record 33 points. And the young voters of today, while certainly capable of changing their minds, do become all voters tomorrow."

I have been hearing about the permanent realignment theory for years and have never been comfortable with it. Occasional commenter Superdestroyer has been an early advocate of this view, as exemplified in comments here as well as at The Moderate Voice and other blogs. To me it smacks of racism, and I find this notion of ethnicity as an absolute determinant of electoral destiny to be offensive. The explicit assumption is this: Since Latino's voted overwhelmingly Democratic in the last election, they will always vote Democratic. Moreover, minorities will always vote based predominantly on their race, and not as individuals. I just don't accept the premise. As a consequence, I was pretty dismissive of Superdestroyer when he did make an appearance here. Now I find his thesis is mainstream conventional wisdom. Who knew?

Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics also isn't buying it. In his post "There are no permanent majorities" he recaps the arguments against the conventional "permanent realignment" wisdom, invoking the American voters preference for divided government as one of several thoughtful and well documented reasons not to put too much stock in the theory...

"Americans are seemingly very reluctant to give true majorities to either party. Since FDR left the scene, Americans have given unified control to a party for four years or more only three times: 1949-52, 1961-66, and 2001-06 ... I don’t know if this is part of a conscious effort on the part of Americans to achieve divided government, or if governing America is an impossible task, such that the President’s party always gets punished. There’s certainly a strong argument for the latter – after all, no President since Teddy Roosevelt has left office with more Congressmen of his own party than he had the day he entered office. Regardless of the cause, the fact that unified government is so rare should give further pause to those who expect our current arrangement in Washington to survive for an extended period."

That said, Murphy does have some very good advice for the GOP:

"Young voters need to see a GOP that is more socially libertarian, particularly toward gay rights... Latinos need to see a quick end to the Republican congressional jihad on immigration... the GOP should support practical immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship."

Reasonable arguments and sensible advice. This approach, combined with common sense fiscal responsibility ( Like the rhetoric that Obama ran on in the campaign, but has now been completely abandoned by the President and the Democratic party) should appeal to any rational voter - regardless of skin color or ethnic identity.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Democratic , 2010 election, Divided Government, Republican, demographics, latino.

UPDATED: 04-July-09 Added links and fixed typos.

Under My Thumb.

2009-07-02T00:01:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the Senate Al! As the 60th Democrat in a filibuster proof Democratic Senate... with no meaningful opposition in Congress to every statist liberal wet dream... what could be more appropriate than "Under My Thumb"? Rock On!

Now, some think Al Franken was never much of a comedian, but he does a damn good Jagger. I just wonder if Mick would make as good a Senator as Al makes a Rolling Stone?

Try as I might, I can't get too worked up over the filibuster proof 60 vote threshold now finally reached by the Democrats in the Senate. Yeah, it puts a punctuation mark on complete Democratic one party rule, but the reality is that Franken is carrying "coals to Newcastle". In the wake of his certification, we are treated to the spectacle of Democratic Party hand-wringing , right-wing wishful thinking and incoherent blogospheric nonsense framing the 60 vote milestone as less than meets the eye. I guess the idea is to lowerthe expectationsof the left that they may not get every single thing they want passed.

These stories are partially right. The 60 vote plurality does not really mean all that much, but it is not for the reasons they state. It is because unchecked single party rule was already a fait accompli after the November election. As I've said here before, if there is anything we learned from the last administration, it is that buying two or three or four Republican Senators for any given vote is never a problem. Obama and Rahm and Axelrod understand that, even if the blogosphere and MSM do not. If there was any doubt about the effectiveness of the dwindling Republican minority, it was eliminated with the passage of the enormously wasteful ~~stimulus bill~~ Democratic Party Porkfest in February. The die for this administration was cast with that bill.

The damage is already done. Senator Al Franken will not make a meaningful difference. This single party Democratic government has already committed to trillions of new spending while quadrupling the deficit. They've dug a financial hole that can only be filled by imposing new economy-throttling taxes and unleashing the inflationary and currency devaluing monetary printing presses. These are the simple facts. Before Senator Al Franken, or after Senator Al Franken, the only thing that can restrain the Democrats now are the Democrats. So far... not so good.

At least with Al in the Senate we can expect a little entertainment as the Democrats drive the country off the economic precipice. Wouldn't it be cool to see Al Franken reprise this performance on Monday, on his first appearance on the floor of the United States Senate?

Or even better, a rendition of -"I can't get no satisfaction."

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: libertarian , Al Franken, Divided Government, Rolling Stones, single party rule.