Month: September 2011

Dan Savage highlights a healthcare horror story and opines:

Some folks feel that Brian Williams should've asked Rick Perry about Cameron Todd Willingham—a likely innocent man who was executed in Texas after Perry signed his death warrant—by name [Wednesday night]. I wish that everyone on the stage had been asked about Kyle Willis by name. We're the greatest, richest, most awesomest country in the whole history of the entire world and we can't manage to do what every other Western, industrialized, developed country on earth already does: provide health care for all our citizens.

Dan also notes another victim of an untreated tooth, this time involving a 12-year-old boy whose Medicaid coverage had lapsed.  The Dish ran some less-horrifying stories of dental woe here, here and here.

Greg Marx defends horse-race journalism:

In even the earliest primary and caucus states, voters choose from the options presented by party insiders (or, in some years, ratify the insiders’ choice). If reporters wait for the voters to weigh in to take stock of who’s ahead, they’ll have missed much of the story. If you’re an ordinary voter, that might seem unfair. But one of the features of American democracy is that ordinary voters who care deeply about their party’s choice can, through the commitment of time and energy, influence the insider conversation. And good horse race coverage can help them understand how to do that effectively, by making the conversation transparent.

Bernstein applauds the article. Chart from Pollster.

Remember Courtney Messerschmidt, the 21-year-old neocon phenom we highlighted? As some suspected, she turned out to be a Gay Girl in Damascus-style hoax:

“Courtney Messerschmidt” is a performance art project run out of Georgia. The ringleader in Chattanooga is a 32-year-old man, but he’s joined by a 24-year-old woman who photographs the pieces, a 24-year-old male researcher they’ve nicknamed “Ridiculous Nicholas” who gathers most of the hyperlinks and several others who have formed into what they call an artistic “collective.” While there is a 21-year-old in the group with the name Courtney, “Messerschmidt” is a play on her last name.  According to the registrar at the University of Georgia, she never completed a single credit at the school.

Crispin J. Burke, who has blogged alongside "Courtney," doesn't care. The collective explains itself here.

Today on the Dish, Andrew rallied Obama to step up to his moment of truth on jobs, and he brought it, hard. Readers had the same reaction as Andrew: meep meep motherfuckers, and the blogosphere agreed.

On last night's GOP debate, Dish readers offered their own reax on our Facebook page, and Sally Kohn couldn't see the resemblance of any of the candidates to Reagan. Andrew assessed the Catholic response to the GOP cheers for the death penalty, Huntsman showed his true conservative colors, and Bernstein backed Andrew's (and the GOP's) fear of a Palin candidacy. Bloggers debated the source of Perry's achilles heel, which could very well be foreign policy, but he didn't lose any Tea Party votes on global warming. Edward Glaeser didn't want to credit Huntsman or Romeny with creating or losing jobs, and we wondered if Americans were hungry for the red meat Perry offered on Social Security and Medicare. Weigel wasn't sure Americans know what a Ponzi scheme really is, we were kidding about the corndog photo ops, and male candidates can get fat.

Susan Jacoby warned against sacrilizing 9/11, the internet debated whether al-Qaeda has been defeated, and your 9/11 emotional time-suck here. Egyptian activists might boycott the election, and Jeremy Scahill recounted how we helped create the Somali terrorist organization al-Shabaab.

Andrew credited gay marriage with helping the rise in monogamy, and we examined Mike Lofgren's lessons about obstructing justice in Congress. Casey Mulligan mulled over the hours worked by different age groups, deregulating food trucks makes sense, and infectious disease appears to be a primary cause of the global variation in human intelligence. We assessed the politics of Che and Hitler for hipsters, analyzed Amazon's requirement to pay taxes, and updated our blog etiquette. Megan H. MacKenzie made the case for letting women serve in combat, and a First Class passenger gave his seat up to a serviceman.

App of the day here, MHB here, VFYW here, and FOTD here.

–Z.P.

(Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama addresses a Joint Session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol September 8, 2011 in Washington, DC, to highlight his plan to create jobs for millions of out of work Americans. By Kevin Lamarque-Pool/Getty Images)

PM Carpenter:

Tonight, Obama began his reelection campaign, aiming directly at the problem children, the Republican Party. That may sound like political par-for-the-course stuff, but for Obama it isn't. To me, he sounded rather done with the preposterous business of bipartisanship, at least with these particular boys and girls. No more. He aimed at the GOP's intransigence, its tedious hypocrisy, its do-nothingness and its deliberate defeatism. Obama cajoled and threatened. He essentially demanded all or nothing. He contrasted. He led.

Jonathan Bernstein:

 So as far as things passing Congress, it's not going to be a good speech or public pressure that would do it; it would be finding a way to make it in the interests of House Republicans to cut a deal that gets them things they want, too. Does this package, and an accompanying legislative strategy, do that? I don't know, but that's the question to ask, I think.

Andrew Sprung:

We are told by political scientists that presidential speeches don't move public opinion. But according to a host of polls, people support the individual measures Obama has been pushing — most broadly, they support action to produce jobs.  So the question is whether a president can mobilize popular opinion for proposals that are already reasonably popular.

Kevin Drum:

[S]ure, Congress should pass it right away. But I have to confess that I still don't see the legislative road to passage here. The incentive for Republicans to obstruct everything that comes from the White House remains the same as it's ever been, and it remains as strong as it's ever been. Helping the economy helps Obama's reelection, and that's no good for Republicans. And making sure that everyone in America hates "Washington" is good for Republicans.

Zachary Karabell:

President Obama’s speech to Congress hewed closely to the details that had already been leaked, save for the dollar amounts, which were considerably larger.  Even so, the $450 billion price tag is somewhat misleading in that much of that is not new spending or new tax breaks but rather an extension of breaks and unemployment benefits that are already in place. Given that payroll tax cuts have not generated employment in the past two years, it’s is a stretch to see how they will suddenly do so now. As for unemployment benefits, they are a vital safety net, but that isn’t the same as job generating.

Mark Thoma:

It would be much better to pay for the package when the economy is on better footing than paying for it “by Christmas.” Paying for it immediately will offset some of the stimulus and make it less effective, and I would prefer legislation that triggers new revenue and spending cuts when, say, the unemployment rate falls below some threshold such as 6.0 percent. But political realities rule this out.

Ezra Klein:

Of course, in much the same way that everyone can find something to like in this plan, everyone can find something to dislike. If you believe tax cuts are ineffective during a demand-driven crisis, the plan spends a lot of money on tax cuts. If you don’t believe in infrastructure spending, there’s plenty of it in here to offend you. If government spending goes against your moral code, well, the government is going to spend money. And next week, when the Obama administration releases its deficit-reduction ideas, liberals are going to be a lot less enthusiastic than they are tonight.

Stan Collender:

[T]he president's tone — his seeming anger and impatience — will be the headlines on Friday and, other than 9/11, the primary topic on the Sunday talk shows.  And the banner headlines will be "Pass this now." Advantage White House.

Chart from Calculated Risk.

Two readers make the same point:

To use a sports analogy that applies to coaches who no longer have the authority, respect and attention of his players, I thought Obama was very close to "losing the locker room" this week. He won back that locker room of the American people tonite.

Another cites the Pacino speech above:

After Obama's speech, it's impossible to watch Al Pacino's halftime cri de coeur from Any Given Sunday and not think of the half hour that just passed in the halls of Congress. Pacino's rising and falling tempo, the invocation of team, the equation that the sum is greater than the parts, is reflected in Obama's words. And the challenge to the team ("Now I can't make you do it." "Either we heal as a team or we die as individuals." "Now what are you going to do.") echoes the direct challenge to Congress.

I always tear up watching this scene. Sporting bombast does that to me. But juxtaposing the spirit of the two speeches with the hurt in America right now was a body blow.

Another:

See, here's the point at which he can tap that reservoir of goodwill and rapport that he enjoys with the public, raise the temperature in the room, start calling bullshit (on all sides) and indeed making threats that he's fully capable of backibg up on the pavement –and all of that without coming off as a pleading whiner, a cornered thug, an anarchist/ABM or, for want of another way of saying it, a failed President (I mean, can you imagine Jimmy Carter even trying to pull that off?). In other words, now's the time for fighting –welcome to Campaign 2012.

Readers seem to have been responding in exactly the same way I have. This is a new Obama that has somehow finally matched his campaign rhetoric to a clear policy agenda. He seems utterly unafraid of the GOP. What he needed to do tonight was to restore his authoritah has president against the caviling whining of right and left. And, in my view, he did it with real aplomb. He is not going meekly into the Ailes night. Nor should he. A reader notes:

Whoever downplayed expectations for this speech deserves a medal.

Another observes:

Doesn't Boehner have this look on his face that says, "I'm getting rolled right now…"

Another breathes a sigh of relief:

I was not really looking forward to this speech–I almost didn't watch it. But, as an Obama voter that has been holding out against the friends and family that are depressingly fed up with his inaction (my sister called him a wimp just an hour ago on the phone), I'm excited again.

It turns out he really did have a plan. The contrast between this and the pleading speeches and press conferences he gave around the debt ceiling debate is incredible. He ate his Wheaties this morning.

Another focuses on his debt promise, which was somewhat lost in the drama:

You keep asking for a debt plan and it looks like he's finally going to deliver.  From the speech tonight: "I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan — a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run."  If it comes with the policy ideas and passion he gave to this Jobs Plan …

Or in the words of another, blunter reader:

Meep, meep, motherfucker.

7.57 pm. This was also a speech aimed directly at his own party – rallying the troops, creating a framework for the campaign ahead, betting that things are bad enough that the infrastructure spending and the tax cuts will not alienate debt-concerned independents. In style, the last thing it was was professorial. This was a blunt, potent, confident attempt to win back the hearts of a disillusioned base, while appealing to the center in ways Republicans may feel a little leery of rejecting, given their already deep reputation for obstructionism.

Game on, in other words. Except this isn't a game. And any politician who acts like it is in the next year or so will pay a price.

7.49 pm. This was indeed a speech directed at independents and also at those who fear that America is in terminal decline. It was rooted in patriotism; it was framed to portray Obama as the pragmatic centrist he actually is. And it was not dishonest – these are the choices, short-term and long-term, that we have to make. And we should not be required to wait for another year and a half for action.

One key will be how it's paid for. It seems that Obama is simply insisting that the super-committee should add $450 billion to its remit for long-term spending reductions, including Medicare. I cannot imagine the House GOP agreeing to that. Another key is exactly what infrastructure projects are indeed "shovel-ready" enough to help in the next year or two. But the general idea of building permanent infrastructure as a way to use currently idle labor seems appealingly simple to me – and a classic Depression era maneuver.

7.46 pm. Wow. A threat to take this vision across the country if the GOP doesn't cooperate now. That's Truman-speak. After months of mild attempts to get Republicans to agree, he hasn't caved, and he hasn't demonized them. But he has now upped the ante, and has new fire in his belly. If he can succeed in getting a bulk of the jobs bill through and if the super-committee doesn't fail, we have a chance to turn this economy around.

7.42 pm. Now we get the full-throated defense of government action as part of American history, Republican and Democrat. I think this speech could well turn his own party base around – and frame the coming year on terms more favorable to him than the Republicans.

7.39 pm. The impassioned line to be used against Perry if he's the candidate:

We shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards.  America should be in a race to the top.  And I believe that’s a race we can win. 

7.34 pm. This is the moment when Obama, rather than the GOP, ups the ante. This is what you might call aggressive conciliation. And here's what I'm also hearing: a very stirring appeal to patriotism, to the idea that America can be far better than we have become today. The repetitive comparison between America and China – the appeal to global competitiveness – is one of the best ripostes to the Big Lie that this president isn't somehow in love with this country.

7.29 pm. My own view is that this blend of short term stimulus balanced by serious long term entitlement reform is so obviously the sanest, smartest way forward it will sink in with most Americans. And complementing it with tax reform to give taxpayers a fair shake is the icing on the cake. What's now clear is that he is betting big in the nest year. This is more aggressive than I have seen him since he got elected. There is a steely impatience here that is obviously designed either to get something done now, or, if not, to run a Truman-style anti-Congress presidential campaign.

7.24 pm. After small businesses, a proposal for veterans. This is a cooptation of Republican erogenous zones with strong government action. It is the message he was elected on. He's bringing red ideas and blue ideas for jobs. And now he's touting more tax cuts – daring the GOP to oppose tax cuts for the middle classes. Brilliant line:

I know some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live.  Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away.

He's rocking it.

7.23 pm. A simple message: these are proposals previously backed by Democrats and Republicans. How many times has he now quite sternly said "Pass This Bill"?

7.20 pm. A direct challenge for infrastructure investment – a patriotic challenge. Remember what I said about him staying on the ropes before he comes out swinging? This is not a milque-toast speech or a milque-toast proposal. It's a big bet on the country's desire for action, not debate. And so far, it sounds like something a sane Republican would be happy to support.

7.17 pm. An appeal to pragmatic bipartisanism in the current crisis – effective, and in the details, much more radical than I expected. And the message is even blunter: "You should pass this bill right away." And first off, it's all about tax cuts. Tax cuts. But we haven't quite gotten to the "all of it is paid for" have we?

7.13 pm. A late start. A warm reception. And a poignant admonition to the political and media class about their pettiness and narcissism. An immediate attempt to break through the usual political blah.

He's on tonight.

7.07 pm. A new nugget from the debate last night: Rick Perry physically grabbing Ron Paul and jabbing a pointed finger in his face in a commercial break. A nasty little image for a nasty little man.

6.54 pm. A treat beforehand: Biden and Boehner talking about recent golf games. Yep, they talk about that kind of thing. Biden's expressions were classic, though. There is something about the way he interacts with people that makes me feel at home. I think it's his Catholic Irish character – even when he screws up, even when he can't shut up, even when he's pretty much unbearable. While I'm on this Catholic kick, I should note that culturally speaking, I think Rick Perry is just not going to wear well with white Catholics. The death penalty insouciance and the healthcare callousness will hurt him with that demographic.

I can't say I dislike Boehner either. So far, the Speaker with that wonderful tanned, drinking, smoking face has emerged as personally far more likable than Pelosi.

(Photo: Alex Wong/Getty.)

A reader writes:

Yes, the public is incredibly discouraged about the economy and extremely angry at Washington.  What everybody seems to be missing, though, is that the American people did this (created the dysfunction in DC) to ourselves.  We voted for Barack Obama in 2008, then turned around and elected a huge number of radically conservative (actually, not conservative at all – reactionary) Republican House members in 2010.  What did people think was going to happen?  Was there any thought put into the implications of doing this?  I’m not willing to just blame the Beltway; I also blame the American voter.  We live in a democracy, and elections matter.

Another quotes me:

"It's also useful to see how even despite the horrific numbers, Obama is still beating or matching his likeliest GOP opponents, even if he is slightly trailing a generic Republican." You are right to focus on the specific head-to-head polls. The "generic Republican" number, while not meaningless, is not terribly important.

That question is effectively asking: "Can you imagine a Republican candidate whom you would prefer to Obama?" Apart from committed Democrats, the answer to that is always more likely to be "yes" than "no." Committed Republicans will always say "yes" to that question, and many independents will fantasize about their vision of an ideal candidate – perhaps a fiscally conservative, but socially moderate, reality-based, non-pandering candidate. The sort of candidate who is in the low single digits among Republican primary voters. Ideal candidates don’t run; real ones do. That’s why Obama’s numbers rise 6-7 points when pitted against real candidates.

The problem for Obama comes down to this: How does he both point out how insane the mainstream of the GOP has become and maintain his reputation as the mature, bipartisan, consensus builder? I think he has thus far erred on the side of the latter. If you fail to call out extremism, its unchallenged persistence leads to its acceptance and it becomes normalized. While I agree that Perry seems too extreme now, will he continue to seem so a year from now? Especially if Obama continues to blame "Congress" and "Washington," focusing not on GOP extremism but on a process argument that makes both sides seem equally responsible?

Tonight may be his last chance to draw clear lines between responsible political leadership and what Chris Christie rightly called "the crazies." If he fails to do so, I fear for his chances in 2012.

My take here.

A reader requests:

As you do with PDF links, I'd appreciate a warning when one of your links is to the New York Times site. I'm not a subscriber, therefore I have to limit myself to 20 articles a month.

Taken under consideration. Another throws a flag:

I don't think you're allowed to give the "money quote" to your own piece.

I can if I want. It's my blog. Highlighting a passage of one's own writing is no different than doing so for somebody else, it seems to me.