Month: March 2010

Steve Lombardo's thoughts:

T]his is going to be a very good year for the GOP. But there's a big difference between gaining 25 seats in the House and gaining 40 seats: picking up 40 seats would give the Republicans a narrow majority. Call it the "15 seat gap," and it's almost entirely dependent on a) perceptions of the economy and b) perceptions of the President's performance. It's clear that an electoral wave has been building since last fall. The problem for Republicans is that at some point a wave must crest. And so the question that begs to be asked is this: are we seeing the crest of the wave now or is it still gaining strength and getting bigger? There is conflicting data on this.

With the Massa implosion, the revival of healthcare's fortunes, the Cheney-Kistol over-reach, the fact that the public thinks Obama is being more reasonable than the GOP, the relative buoyancy of Obama's ratings, his continued success against al Qaeda, withdrawal from Iraq … I'm much more bullish on the Dems this fall than most. I could be wrong of the economy swoons again, and if the Dems cannot pass healthcare.

But in many ways, the narrative on healthcare is now working to Obama's advantage. He's been badly bloodied, but if he endures and wins, that makes his victory look like that of an underdog. That always plays better than the man who walks on water.

From the Wall Street Journal today, by Scott Rasmussen, Republican pollster, and Doug Schoen:

One of the more amazing aspects of the health-care debate is how steady public opinion has remained. Despite repeated and intense sales efforts by the president and his allies in Congress, most Americans consistently oppose the plan that has become the centerpiece of this legislative season.

In 15 consecutive Rasmussen Reports polls conducted over the past four months, the percentage of Americans that oppose the plan has stayed between 52% and 58%. The number in favor has held steady between 38% and 44%.

And yet the latest YouGov poll, reflecting the direction of many others, now shows a majority favoring reform, 53 – 47, as I noted yesterday. And Pollster's poll of polls, excluding Rasmussen's outlier numbers, favoring the old, white and Republican, show a dramatic rise in support this past month, as the consequences of getting nothing at all begin to sink in:

Even if you include Rasmussen's consistently outlier polling, as Chait notes, you get this:

San Diego, California, 6.58 am

Johann Hari again writes against the tide:

While I witnessed these early stages of ecocide, I imagined that American green groups were on these people's side in the corridors of Capitol Hill, trying to stop the Weather of Mass Destruction. But it is now clear that many were on a different path — one that began in the 1980s, with a financial donation.

A reader:

I can't really comment on the bulk of Mo'Nique's speech, but I can comment on the first thing she said – thanking the Academy for recognizing that it was about the performance, not the politics. The reference was to the entertainment industry politics of winning an Oscar — the endless schmoozing, wining, dining, advocating both actors and studios do to promote a particular performance during awards season. Mo'Nique didn't play by the standard Hollywood rules. Instead of attending countless cocktail parties, she pretty much stayed in Atlanta, taping her BET talk show and leading her life.

But again, the point is that she was self-congratulatory about it during a speech that was supposedly "about the performance." Another writes:

I think the obvious intent of MoNique's message of the performance mattering and not the politicking was about the Hurt Locker producer. He was banned from coming to the Oscars altogether for his unheard of politicking to the people with votes at the Academy. That is what I took that line to mean.

Another:

Um, I really have no strong opinion on whether Mo'Nique was smug and self righteous or not as I think it's largely a matter of perception. But I wanted to state for the record that the black Mammy is not, in any way, a positive representation of black womanhood.

The Mammy is demeaned and demeaning and the very idea that your reader could think of it as a positive representation of black humanity is a nod to the casual dehumanization caused by the legacy of white supremacy.  The figure of the Mammy is void of any personhood outside her relevance to the lives of white people. She is not even Mommy to her own children, but only Mammy to the white people she serves. Her existence only in the realm of servility is what makes Hattie McDaniel's character (rather than her portrayal, which, obviously, was brilliant) cringe-worthy. That your reader can't see that kind of freaks me out and makes me question how far perceptions of black Americans in general and black women in particular have come.

Another:

The fact that Mo'Nique said at the backstage press conference that she was just a stand-up comedian who happened to win an Oscar sort of indicates that she wasn't in full on self-important mode about the award.

And finally:

Mo'Nique probably named Hattie McDaniel for one main reason: she owns the rights to Hattie McDaniel's life story and is planning to portray her in the very near future. Even the flower in her hair in tribute to McDaniel was calculated toward this. It was done in homage to her, yes, but it was also a bit of self-promotion (during a speech in which she condemns Hollywood's self-promotion … so there you go).

Clive replies:

Yes, it is Congress's job to legislate. Obama was right not to draft a law and then present it to Congress saying, pass this. But there was a middle way between a Hillary-like fait accompli and failing to exercise meaningful guidance and supervision. The public's low opinion of Congress made it essential for Obama to act as a chief sponsor of the legislation. It was not enough for him to say, just give me something to sign. Voters wanted more from him than that.

Well, as I said, the September speech was about as good as it gets. But I also think Clive missed Obama's mojo. He has strategy.

He did not want to be tied to a bill's specifics so as to be the target of attacks when they did not make it through the process. He is trying to restore constitutional balance after the presidential protectorate of Bush-Cheney and parliamentary thuggishness of Tom DeLay. With a super-majority in the Senate and a big majority in the House, this made a lot of sense. He also had a huge amount on his plate – as I'm sure Clive appreciates.

His apparent lassitude was criticized in exactly the same way throughout the campaign. But he knows when to make the close. He's doing it now in defense of a bill he has made the final touches to. But wait till the fall when he will campaign on this change with the ferocity and passion of 2008. If this still falls apart, of course, I'll revisit Clive's critique, just as I would have revised my admiration of his campaign if Clinton had finally pulled it off.  But she didn't, did she? And in the last month, support for fundamental reform has begun to grow and grow.

Captured by my husband in DC on Monday.

Alex Seitz-Wald files the latest insanity:

BECK: Why were they asking the race question [on the census], you said when, in 1790? … Right, they want to know, do you count as three-fifths? … Well that’s not right. One. One. ‘I’m not three-fifths, I’m one. Whites are not worth than me.’ Now reverse it, why are they asking this question today?

CO-HOST: Because minorities are worth more than whites.

BECK: Exactly right. So you will get more dollars if you are a minority. … At least in 1790, they were doing it to slow the South down on slavery. To try to stop it as much as they can. Today they are asking the race question to try to increase slavery. Your dependence on the master in Washington. No way, don’t answer that question.

Mukasey piles on while defending Yoo and Bybee. Sargent thinks Cheney is enjoying the attention:

The criticism helped Cheney get a week’s worth of nonstop free media coverage for the outlandish smear that the Obama administration is stocked with terrorist sympathizers. All because her group released a cheap-as-dirt Web video. Think she cares about a bit of lawyerly handwringing? Nope.

Just as so many of Cheney’s friends don’t know what happened to Dick, I must say I feel the same way about Liz, whom I have known as an acquaintance for fifteen years. Obviously, defending her father must be the overwhelming impulse – and the fact that Cheney presided over the worst terrorist mass-murder of Americans on American soil in history – despite explicit warnings – must weigh deeply.

Also the fact that he forced through intelligence that humiliated the US and destroyed the rationale of a war that killed and maimed so many thousands for so long at such cost and for so little, if any, gain. Also, of course, and far more gravely, his imposition of torture and culpability for war crimes – a fact, not a judgment, a fact that will make him one of the most despised figures in American political history in due course.

The final over-reach into McCarthyism, and the attack on some of the most basic principles of American justice, seem to me the logical outcome of truly desperate people. I do not blame her for loving her dad, and wanting to defend him. But a lving dad would not allow his daughter to behave this way, to tarnish herself so indelibly in the defense of the indefensible.

I have been on this case for almost a decade, but in the end, they are destroying themselves – morally, politically and historically.