Back Alley Media

I usually tend to think that the Obama administration has done a good job, and that criticisms of its alleged poor negotiating skills are unfair, considering the constraints the White House is under (i.e. the other party having won the last election). But yesterday’s dust-up over the timing of a joint session of Congress for the economic speech was what the sports writers call an “unforced error.”

If Obama was deliberately trying to preempt the Republican debate, it was a dumb idea considering that petulant members of Congress (some of whom are in fact running for president and will be participating in that debate) have the power to block or delay a joint session.

If Obama and his staff were unaware of the Republican debate, someone dropped the ball somewhere.

Now the White House looks weak because they were forced to change the time of the speech. What’s more, it looks like the speech is now going to conflict with the NFL season opener. Forced to choose between those two options, I know which one I’ll be watching.

The most awesome thing to come out of today’s Virginia earthquake (and it’s got some competition), is this Politico article about how gleeful the Washington, DC earthquake-preparedness lobbyists are this afternoon.  Reminds me of the classic “bear patrol” episode of The Simpsons.

Come to think of it, a lot about politics these days reminds me of that episode of The Simpsons.

Gadhafi’s government appears to have fallen. CSPAN all too briefly aired some Al Jazeera footage of Benghazi and Tripoli, FOX News is airing Reuters video, CNN has a live computer feed from a correspondent at the reporters’ hotel. But if you’re watching MSNBC, as far as you’re concerned, this isn’t happening — they’re airing some stupid “Caught on Tape” show.

Long ago I gave up on calling these channels “news” networks, but you’d expect them to air compelling live video feeds when they are available. At least most of them are doing so.

The ongoing Tar Sands Protests at the White House continued today, with three or four dozen more arrests. Looking ahead to Tar Sands Action’s schedule for the coming weeks, it seems they’re actually doing something pretty clever: featuring key constituencies on particular days of the protests. Tomorrow (Monday) is Nebraska day; Tuesday is for Montanans; Wednesday for the Gulf Coast; the following Wednesday is for Appalachia, and so on.

One of the key pieces that needs to fall into place if meaningful climate change legislation is to be enacted is movement in public opinion in these (and a few other) key geographic regions. That’s one reason I’ve often been skeptical of protests that target Washington, Copenhagen, and so forth: no amount of protesting will cause elected officials to budge if their constituents don’t. Alarums from the Maldives, however poignant, won’t change Lindsay Graham’s mind unless a bunch of South Carolina voters change their minds too.

These Tar Sands tactics, though, I like. They’re also featuring a number of non-geographical constituency groups, like faith leaders, youth, and indigenous peoples. Good for them. I still think a good next step would be to take the battle *to* Nebraska, South Carolina, Florida, etc. But one can’t do everything at once.

Sixty-five people (or 70, depending on whether you believe the cops or Tar Sands Action) were arrested today outside the White House in the first day of a planned two weeks of protests against a proposed 1700-mile pipeline that would link Alberta’s Athabasca oil sands (pictured) with Texas refineries.  Some activists have played up the potential for a pipeline rupture and subsequent disaster a-la the 2010 BP spill, but the larger issue is, as Henry Waxman wrote in a letter to the Obama administration last year, “This pipeline is a multi-billion dollar investment to expand our reliance on the dirtiest source of transportation fuel currently available.”

Here’s hoping that this gets a lot of attention – and that it leads to similar activism beyond Washington in those states with, say, key Senators who helped kill climate legislation last year.

(Image: Athabasca oil sands photo from NASA Earth Observatory.)

The Justice Department is investigating whether S&P may have improperly rated mortgage securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis. We know that they did. But we also know that Moody’s and Fitch did as well. It’ll be interesting to see where this all leads, but I’m sure accusations will fly, not that they won’t be completely without merit. That said, I hope justice is served.

Everyone – including some Republicans, apparently – is all upset that Rick Perry is accusing Ben Bernanke of treason because he might take action to revive the flagging economy. It’s hard for me to summon new outrage, though, because this kind of thing has been standard Republican practice for quite a while. Anne Coulter even has a book on it.

I’m with revolutionary hero Patrick Henry: “If this be treason, make the most of it!”

(Engraving: Benedict Arnold, actual traitor.)

And Pawlenty should do some serious reassessment, considering the effort he expended on this. I didn’t see his lame speech, but if it was as bad as his debate performances, some retooling is in order. And to Bachmann and her Bach-minions, congrats! But nobody is as crazy as straw poll-goers, so don’t get too cocky.

Yeah, I lied and ended up following up the Ames Straw Poll proceedings, though I didn’t plan it that way. Actually, I was multi-tasking. Really!

Putting myself in the shoes of the “typical” Iowa Republican — and granted my knowledge of what the average Joe thinks is incredibly superficial and about as informed as that of someone like Mark Halperin — the best speech, by far, was delivered by Rick Santorum. Along with his pitch that true conservativism is not just fiscal but also social, he argued, quite convincingly in my opinion, that he is the most experienced to deliver on hard promises, having led the effort to reform welfare under the Clinton administration. Point, Rick Santorum.

Be afraid, be very afraid, of Thaddeus McCotter. Holy moley.

Ron Paul’s speech may have alienated his libertarian base with his unexpectedly brash pandering to Iowa’s social conservatives on abortion. Kind of a waste pitch, in my opinion, as any strong voters on this issue are going to go with Santorum or Bachmann.

Worst speech, and worst candidate, by far — Tim Pawlenty. Went down the checklist of GOP talking points and cliches (uncertainty, American exceptionalism, yada yada), and undoubtedly inspiring no one. If he does well at Ames, it’s only because every vote was bought and paid for. Literally.

Bachmann did an okay job, breaking no new ground. It’s a little jarring hearing her cite her past experience as an IRS tax attorney. Good for her for openly acknowledging her shameful past, but it’s just a matter of time before one of her desperate opponents (Pawlenty or, more likely Romney?) exploits this aggressively.

The actual winner will be revealed shortly…

You won’t get any play-by-play of today’s ridiculously over-hyped event here. (Although Dillon might feel otherwise…)  Nate Silver this morning tries to argue that Ames “actually matters,” citing 2 anecdotal examples where it did, and 2 where it didn’t — but there are some fancy graphs and tables!  Sure, I suppose — but much in the same way, I’m sure you could argue, with some nice graphics, that Mark Halperin’s post-debate grades “actually matter,” too.

That said, here’s hoping for a 5th place finish for Tim Pawlenty!

Earlier today, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Obama health care reform’s individual mandate. In practical terms, this is just one more step towards what will be a Supreme Court decision to decide whether Congress overstepped its constitutional powers in mandating that all Americans purchase health insurance in 2014. What’s more interesting to me is the absolute incoherence of the 11th circuit’s opinion. Previously, courts that have ruled against the mandate have hung their hat on the question of whether or not the non-purchase of insurance constitutes “economic activity”. This is based on a standard for defining “commerce” that the Supreme Court has enumerated in various places, most famously the case of U.S. v. Lopez (1995). The rule is, Congress can regulate: Continue reading →

I’m surprised it hasn’t been much remarked upon (perhaps understandably since his poll standing confers him to the back of the back of the pack), but clearly the lost opportunity of the evening was Huntsman raising his hand with the gazillion other Republican presidental candidates refusing to accept a deficit reduction deal that was 10:1 in spending cuts-to-tax increases. He got some traction as the “serious candidate” for being the only Republican candidate on record for supporting the deficit ceiling deal, but now much of that “gravitas” has been lost.  I didn’t watch the debate, but it sounded like Huntsman was nervous, and maybe be raised his hand in an instinctive peer pressure moment.  I wouldn’t be surprised if today. the campaign is ruing the missed opportunity and the candidate kicking himself.

UPDATE: An Andy Sullivan reader agrees.

Is awesome, whether he knows it or not.

Soon on FOX. Liveblogging in the comments.

First Monday Night Countdown of the season, followed by the first preseason game on ESPN, and then just about the time the second stringers go in, the Republican presidential debate. I’ve got plenty of popcorn on hand for the most entertainment I’ve had in one night for quite a while.

In what kind of world do we live in where it’s considered bad form to hold a grudge against a guy who fired you? Especially when the firing action itself was not exactly carried out in the best of form, and when the supposedly begrudging comments were phrased in the most oblique way possible. Please.

There’s a little bit of a debate going on to what extent the proceedings of the debt reduction “super-committee” should be open to the public. Actually, it’s not really much of a debate. Both John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have advocated for a “transparent” process, and the Atlantic’s Josh Green, with a nod of support by his colleague James Fallows, provides a strong argument (plea, actually) that the proceedings be held behind closed doors — the inevitable result, otherwise, that “all participants will feel obliged to posture all day long.” The counter-argument is that public deliberations will act as a counterweight against heavy lobbying pressure. I agree that’s a problem, but not sure that’s the solution.

It’s too late now, but running with the secrecy begets true deal-making argument of Green and Fallows, perhaps a more novel approach would be if the actual voting on the debt deal was by secret ballot — with the record of who voted for what released at a designated time in the future, say 5 years from now. We could even have fully public deliberations under such a scenario, and to counter the problem of lobbyist influence, there should be real-time disclosure of lobbying contacts/expenditures by both the lobbyists and the lobbied — something that should be required in any case.

As it stands, it seems almost certain that any debt deal reached by the commission would be the result of a single lawmaker crossing party lines, be it Portman, Baucus or even, as some are suggesting, Kerry). I think that’s quite unlikely to happen the way the committee is currently structured, as surely the strongest instinct of any politician is survival and the fear of being run out of town.

The latest on the ongoing brutal crackdown in Syria is that the Obama administration is planning, within days, to publicly call for Assad to step down. As should be obvious by the… ongoing brutal crackdown in Syria, it’s hard to believe that anybody with half a brain actually believes he’s going to heed this call. And yet, here we are.

The last time the White House publicly called for a leader to go, it was Libya’s Qaddafi, and now here we are, engaged in a military stalemate against a two-bit regime. That’s not going to happen this time around, though arguably military intervention against Assad is more justifiable on simple moral and humanitarian grounds.

As tragic as the Syrian situation is, it’s one that the United States is completely powerless to impact in a positive way, and it’s a mistake to pretend like we can. And when Assad ignores the White House’s call, it would not be incorrect to say it harms U.S. prestige and standing.

Assad is a vile person. He has lost all legitimacy among the international community and, we must assume (considering that Syria is a diverse place with numerous ethnicities, factions, and loyalties), his people, and thus he should go — and saying exactly that would be right and just. But to declare he must go, with the inevitable response of crickets chirping, would be a big mistake.

In naming Senators Kyl, Toomey, and Portman to the deficit reduction supercommittee, minority leader Mitch McConnell has avoided placing gang-of-sixers in this position of power. (Reid’s choices of Murray, Kerry, and Baucus similarly avoid the Gang of Six.) Interesting.

If there’s going to be a reasonable deal struck in this panel, it will probably include most or all of the Democrats, plus Portman and perhaps no other Republicans. Portman is no liberal, but he understands budgeting (having served as OMB director), won his seat in 2010 with a resounding 20%-plus margin of victory, and was to the left of the median Republican when he was in the House of Representatives (see the ranking at Keith Poole’s VoteView.com). He’s also interested in tax reform, an issue that Democrats have done their best to link to matters like revenue-enhancing loophole closures.

Two out of three seats is close, but doesn’t give Democrats control of the state senate. Next up are two more recall elections next Tuesday, this time challenging two Democrats. Using past elections as our guide once again, it looks as if Robert Wirch (SD-22; 2008 vote: 67%) is relatively safe. Jim Holperin (SD-12; 2008 vote: 51%) could be vulnerable, though. Whatever the makeup of the senate after next week, the Republicans will still control all three branches of Wisconsin’s government.

If my unscientific sample of Facebook postings is any indication, some liberals are crying fraud over the results of the Darling race yesterday. This is irresponsible in the absence of concrete proof, especially since the election results overall reflected past voting patterns.

The larger question is, do Democrats and union activists pursue a recall of Walker come January, when he becomes eligible for recall under state law? Some experts, notably UW political scientist Charles Franklin, are predicting a slackening of enthusiasm for such a move now that the senate battle has been lost.

I’m not so sure about that. One could easily make the opposite argument: without a Democratic senate to block him, a Walker recall becomes all the more important. Undoubtedly a recall petition will be filed, and securing the 540,000 signatures necessary to place a recall on the ballot is quite achievable considering the governor’s sinking approval rating (at 37% in a mid-July Badger Poll). Other questions remain, however, chief among them being, who will run against him?

“He’s a strong and serious person. He has the gravitas to be president; the presence we need in a commander-in-chief”

“Republicans are looking for a true conservative. There are questions that hover over each of the other candidates”

He’s “a Southern-fried Reagan.”

“You had a lot of people who were searching and looking for a candidate and feeling like they were going to have to settle for someone. You don’t have to settle with [him].”

Looks like there’s a groundswell of support for this Republican late-entry into the presidential campaign! No doubt he’ll throw his hat in the ring and blow the lid off the place! (Sorry about the mixed metaphors.)

But these quotes refer not to this year’s late entry, Rick Perry, but to the last cycle’s late entry: Fred Thompson. And look how far he got. Point being, it’s always easy to theorize about how great someone is before they actually show up and start campaigning. Not that Perry is the same as Thompson, but we’ll see.

(In order, quotes from: Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/28/07; Austin American-Statesman 7/25/07; Dallas Morning News 7/25/07; St Petersburg Times, 7/14/07)

Speaking of Perry, courtesy of the Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf, look out for more of this gushing manliness nonsense from our media:

“Perry, a former Air Force pilot with the rugged veneer of a ‘Bonanza’ cast member, sat unperturbed with a plastic bag full of popcorn in his lap and rhapsodized… today, in his ostrich-skin cowboy boots with popcorn tumbling down his shirt while talking up Sam Houston and Christianity and oozing sufficient levels of testosterone to detonate a Geiger counter…”

Yeah, well, somehow, it just doesn’t write as well when you say “Perry, a former Air Force pilot and Texas A&M yell-boy with the rugged veneer of a ‘Bonanza’ cast member…” Please. Just stop.

At least new to me.  Much has been made of the superficial comparisons of Rick Perry (who appears set to announce his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination this weekend) to George W. Bush — both Texas governors, cowboy boot-wearing swaggerers who like to show off their purported religiosity, both seemingly not too bright. Not true, say closer observers of the Texas scene!  Bush and Perry actually have a poor/distant personal relationship, and while the same observers acknowledge now that the Connecticut-born Bush’s larger-than-life Texas persona may have been affected to a certain extent (now they tell us!), Perry, on the other hand, is the real deal!

Perhaps.  But reading Rick Perry’s Wikipedia entry today, I learned that, like Bush, the very manly Perry was also a college cheerleader, or if you will, a yell-leader. Nothing wrong with that, of course. The picture above seems to be the only photo of this exuberent phase in the life of the young Rick Perry.

Today’s the day six Republican state senators in my home state of Wisconsin face recall votes. Past is prologue, so here’s how they did in the 2008 elections, last time they were up:

SD 2 – Cowles: Unopposed

SD 8 – Darling: 51%

SD 10: Harsdorf: 56%

SD 14: Olsen: Unopposed

SD 18: Hopper: 50%

SD 32: Kapanke: 51%

This record suggests that if the Democrats are going to pick up the three seats they need, it’ll most likely be Hopper, Kapanke, and Darling that will need to go down to defeat. People in Wisconsin seem to think that Kapanke, especially, is toast – and polls seem to back this up. The current conventional wisdom is that Olsen, who represents a district that includes Ripon, where the Republican Party was founded in 1854, is also vulnerable.

Massive, shocking sums of money have been spent by outside groups in these races, but since this spending has occurred on all sides, the usual presumptions about a district’s past history being the best guide are likely to apply.

It’s an article of faith that the Republicans have never met a tax that they’re not in favor of cutting. It’s also false — case in point, their apparent unwillingness, or shall we say, lack of enthusiasm, for extending the temporary payroll tax cut passed last November.

There’s a number of theories out there as to why, among them if Obama’s for it we must be against it, or that they’re willfully trying to destroy the economy ahead of the 2012 elections. Maybe some or all of that’s true. But the payroll tax, of course, only impacts incomes under $100,000, and is your prototypical regressive tax. It would, in other words, primarily benefit poorer people and would have minimal effect on rich people, especially those that earn most of their income from capital gains.

The payroll tax of 12.4% is normally shared equally by both employee and employer, and under the December agreement last year, the payroll tax cut shaved 2 points off of the employee contribution for one year, on the theory that psychologically they would spend the extra piece of their now-bigger paychecks.  Obama paid a big price for these 2 points for 1 year, agreeing to extend for 2 years the Bush tax cuts.

So now the Republicans are opposed to extending the payroll tax cut for another year, and yet I’m quite sure that if the tax cut were enacted on the employer side, they would be all for it.  Businesses would now have the cash to invest, yadda yadda, notwithstanding the fact that corporate America is flush with cash.

I’m quite skeptical of the Westen thesis that has been getting a lot of airplay, but this is the type of issue that I wish Obama would give more voice to.  Instead, he’s trying desperately to find room for compromise.  But if he staked out a position with obvious merit, both in its economics and yes, its politics as well, he might actually move the other side closer to him and open up the possibility of a compromise.