Month: August 2012

Noam Scheiber reports that Joe still wants the presidency:

[An] Obama veteran argues that Democratic primaries these days are more about inspiring the base than cashing in chits. Of all the potential 2016 contenders—Clinton, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo—the second operative says Biden is worst positioned to do that: "Biden’s story is thirty years past due. He was a young hotshot in 1988." It’s not that rank-and-file Democrats don’t love Biden—they do. But they love the image of him soaping up his Trans Am in the White House driveway, clad in nothing but jean shorts—as The Onion famously spoofed him—not the image of him manning the Oval Office controls.

Stephen Von Worley plots the clout of burger chains by areas of geographic conquest:

The colors now represent the three most influential chains at each point, weighted by cumulative force at a 4:2:1 ratio, where black is McDonald’s, red Burger King, yellow Wendy’s, magenta Jack In The Box, periwinkle Sonic, cream Dairy Queen, green Carl’s Jr., and cyan Hardee’s. Together, you can think of these tweaks as elegantly exposing the subtle contours of market dominance, then splattering them with the individual restaurant locations.

Earlier version of the map here.

The origin of the ubiquitous symbol remains a mystery:

One theory is that medieval monks, looking for shortcuts while copying manuscripts, converted the Latin word for “toward”—ad—to “a” with the back part of the “d” as a tail. Or it came from the French word for “at”—à—and scribes, striving for efficiency, swept the nib of the pen around the top and side. Or the symbol evolved from an abbreviation of “each at”—the “a” being encased by an “e.” The first documented use was in 1536, in a letter by Francesco Lapi, a Florentine merchant, who used @ to denote units of wine called amphorae, which were shipped in large clay jars.

Today on the Dish, Andrew explained why Clinton must "punch hard" and made the case that "every sane conservative" should vote for Obama. After Chait argued that the current GOP has met the end of its era, Andrew live-blogged the "historical second first day of the convention," as Colbert had it (upon whose show, incidentally, he appeared tonight).

Andrew also pondered Romney's willingness to embrace his role as a religious authoritah – particularly given that, as a reader pointed out, Romney's a "high priest." He then speculated on the RNC Thursday-night mystery guest as David Von Drehle considered Ann Romney's rhetorical approach.

In more convention coverage, Mark Thoma ranted about the GOP's self-defeating, hypocritical take on infrastructure spending, Dolan agreed to close out the DNC as well, and Shafer and Jarvis debated the value of conventions. While the blogosphere dissected the GOP's just-resurrected fixation on the gold standard, a Romney staffer poo-pooed fact-checking. But mind you, only partisans watched any of this.

Meanwhile, Mike Lofgren broke down the difference between income and payroll taxes, Monica Potts outlined five things governments do best and a pro-Obama super PAC released an ad on Romney's Massachusetts record.

Elsewhere in the world, Roy Robins took in the slaughter in South Africa, cartels ran money through big banks and a cancer sufferer shared her experience savoring sex. James Parker parsed "asshole," the frozen north melted and readers debunked Max Fisher's Psy interpretation. David Dow and Dylan Matthews weighed the value of harsh punishments, Chinese pigs rutted, and the eskimo-ified Ecce Homo drew adoring masses.

Boomers watched ever-more movies, readers aired views on Lance Armstrong, and Michael Wood analyzed Philip Larkin's "rear-guard nationalism." Readers then offered more views on condoms, Jesse Bering shed light on female ejaculation and the sun set ruddily. And while a syphilis outbreak plagued the porn industry, Jack Lowe judged coporate logo value and readers ultimately found Cork. MHB here, VFYW here, and FOTD here.

– G.G.

(Photo: Peter Mackin, an alternate delegate from Michigan, prays during the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Tampa, Florida on Monday, August 27, 2012. By Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images.)

Juan Williams thought that Ann Romney looked like a "corporate wife":

David Frum saw a different speech:

I can't remember a better convention speech by a would-be First Lady than Ann Romney delivered tonight. She was herself warm and charming – and she was thus utterly convincing when she argued for her husband's character and capacity for empathy. She is so human — a splendid survivor of two terrible diseases — that when she speaks for her husband's humanity, she carries all before her.

Kevin Drum, on the other hand, thought that "Ann Romney was almost entirely unable to humanize Mitt":

She talked about the things he had done, but hardly at all about the kind of person he is. There was a brief reference to Mitt being "warm and loving and patient" — and helpful to friends in trouble — but after that it was all about Mitt being hardworking and successful. In other words, pretty much the corporate drone we all think he is. I doubt very much that this really helped the Republican cause with women much.

Elspeth Reeve examines one of Ann Romney's anecdotes:

Ann Romney talked about living in a basement apartment while Mitt Romney was in grad school, but as David Shuster notes, they were living off stock options. Christie just mentioned moving into a "studio apartment" with his wife when they were first married. I hope one day I can look back on my young person's middle class real estate experience as stark poverty. 

Tomasky's reaction to the speech:

She was, to give her some credit, the first speaker of the night who tried to reach out to non-conservative voters. She wasn't bad by any means, but it won't be remembered in two or four years, even if he does win.

Will Wilkinson gives the GOP high marks in general:

A few members of the GOP junior-varsity squad were a bit rough, and did not manage to distinguish themselves, but overall I think it was a successful night of conventioneering. The Republicans' attempt to make their party appear not to be entirely one of white men did not seem to me to descend into mere tokenism. Ann Romney's case for her husband as a man you can trust–a man who does not fail–was heartfelt and emotionally compelling, even if the man himself rarely is. 

Howard Kurtz thought Christie's speech subpar:

It was an odd approach for a keynote speech. Yes, it contained the requisite praise, but Romney was almost an afterthought. There wasn’t a personal line about Mitt. It was as though the two had never met.

Jonah Goldberg is on the same page:

I thought Ann Romney’s speech started too slow and unsure but the second half was simply terrific and very effective. Christie’s speech, however, I thought was a mild disappointment. It was clearly rushed at the end and felt undisciplined and self-indulgent throughout (it took a very long time to mention the nominee).

Josh Barro fact checks Christie's "hard truths":

[A] hard truth Christie absolutely will not tell is that every one of his budgets has been unbalanced by more than $2.5 billion. When Christie said tonight he has signed “three balanced budgets,” he wasn’t telling a hard truth — he was using bad accounting to hide a hard truth.

And Chait calls Christie's speech "an awfully strange way to attack President Obama" but "a decent way to tout the record of Chris Christie":

Why Romney would give Christie the best speaking slot of the convention to lay out such a self-serving argument, I cannot fathom.

11.10 pm. Oh, by the way, check out the Colbert Report. Think of my interview as a prebuttal.

11 pm. I like Christie and his presentation was terrific. But I didn't buy his case. Maybe others will. All in all, I thought Ann Romney was a stand-out star, and Christie did his job – mainly touting himself as a future nominee. But his physical presence does, sadly distract. His face seemed to pour like lava over his collar. But he was punchy, fun, female-friendly, and described a party that I wished exists, but doesn't.

10.58 pm. I feel as if I am behind the looking glass. Another statement:

Tonight, our duty is to tell the American people the truth. Our problems are big and the solutions will not be painless. We all must share in the sacrifice. Any leader that tells us differently is simply not telling the truth.

So Christie is presumably for Obama. On the debt, the Republicans believe that some should be spared pain and not have to "share in the sacrifice": the very wealthy and the Pentagon. Only the poor and the old and the sick have to make sacrifices. The wealthy and the defense contractors can sleep soundly. No sacrifice for them. Obama, on the other hand, favors cuts in Medicare (and has enforced them), cuts in defense, and increases in tax revenues from the very wealthy. Only Obama wants to share the sacrifice.

10.56 pm. Another key sentence:

We believe it's possible to forge bipartisan compromise and stand up for conservative principles.

Which translates into no new tax revenues; increased defense spending; and Medicare cuts in the distant future. Where is the compromise in the GOP platform? The meaning of that sentence seems to me to say rather simply that "We believe it's possible to force Democrats to adopt every single GOP idea and refuse to offer them anything in return and that's bipartisanship."

10.55 pm. Key sentence:

Their plan: whistle a happy tune while driving us off the fiscal cliff, as long as they are behind the wheel of power while we fall.

Why would anyone in politics want to do that? Christie is describing is not found in reality. Maybe Obama is misguided – but does he really want to wreck the country? Who believes that but Limbaugh fans?

10.50 pm. After a night of categorical lies, Christie tells us to face the truth.

10.49 pm. Chris Christie is attacking politicians who attack!

10.46 pm. As Christie proudly declares that he's a momma's boy, have you noticed how many moms there have been mentioned tonight? This is an entire evening geared toward narrowing the gender gap a little. And perpetuating lies.

10.37 pm. Well, I don't see how she could have done much better than that. But observe what she is really saying: Trust Him. He Will Not Fail. It's a form of leader-reverence, devoid of substantive content. Of course her job was not to talk policy and she definitely humanized her husband. But there was a sense of very Mormon deference to the leader.

10.36 pm. It is great to hear a sentiment of genuine Christianity from the stage: that charity is best done quietly without any hope of praise or reward. The opposite of Christianism.

10.33 pm. More "built this" bull. I knew it was the biggest error of Obama's entire career, given the cynicism of his opponents. But Romney was offered Bain Capital by Bain himself. And was assured that he would not lose a cent of his salary if he failed. He was the son of a successful businessman and governor.

10.33 pm. Is Ann Romney suggesting that the Obamas are bad parents?

10.30 pm. What she and Mitt have is a "real marriage." Who has a fake one, one wonders?

10.30 pm. Drudge has the Christie transcript.

10.26 pm. A great line (from memory): "We're not dumb enough to think there are easy answers; but we are smart enough to know there are better answers." Easily the most persuasive line of the night. And, of course, Obama could say: yes. But the Republicans blocked the better answers.

10.23 pm. Ann Romney just came out as a lesbian, I think. "I love you, women!" But she's pouring it on a little thick, don't you think? Not exactly nuanced.

10.19 pm. She really is a Mormon: she's so excited. This whole thing is just fabulous. And she wants to talk about love. The presentation is so far extremely effective. She really is a performer of real talent – and the GOP is betting corectly: she is by far the best way to soften Romney's image. And she is so well-spoken, with a Julie Andrews style and a Sarah Palin wink.

10. 18 pm. Why the right is so degenerate: because the intelligentsia endorses lying. Tobin at Commentary on "We Built That":

Americans know that the president who rammed ObamaCare and the so-called stimulus down the throats of a reluctant country is addicted to big government solutions. The president was only speaking from his heart when he gave his memorable critique of individualism. It wasn’t really a gaffe because it was just Obama discussing his core philosophy about society. “We built it” sticks because it is nothing more than an illustration of the real divide between the two parties. Journalists and maybe even some in the television audience may be weary of it, but not as much as the president will be before this campaign is over.

10.15 pm. Another Latina. Twofer.

10.12 pm. I can't say I found Haley that galvanizing – or her rhetoric persuasive. Seriously, Obama is also "destabilizing" the military? What part of the fictitious kitchen sink has been left behind. But we're getting Mrs Romney next. Btw, here's the final platform.

10.05 pm. Nikki Haley repeats the lie about how Obama said that small business owners "didn't build their businesses". The lie is now a premise for further lies. So Obama is actually chasing industry overseas.

10.02 pm. Another lie about welfare reform – adding that Obama "gutted" it secretly in the middle of the night. And another obvious lie: Not a single Republican idea in Obamacare? How about the individual mandate? Healthcare exchanges?

But here's what's staggering about this dude: he has turned his own lie into an accusation that Obama – and every fact-checker in the business – into an alleged lie by Obama!

This is what a cold civil war looks like: making shit up entirely to create an illusion of reality. No engagement; no real argument; no actual debate. Just fantasy.

10 pm. If this is the dude to talk black Americans into turning against Obama: no deal.

9.58 pm. A window view from New Orleans at 5 pm:

9.56 pm. While Artur Davis plays the Hollywood card, we discover this:

9.52 pm. A "war on small businesses"? Really? Why would any president want to do that? And what evidence does Cruz provide for it? None in the speech. And it wasn't that great an idea to get the Republicans to chant "Yes, We Can!" ironically. They don't do irony very well, these peeps.

Still I can see why Cruz is going places.

9.50 pm. I find my mind digressing to Santorum's hand gestures.

9.48 pm. Cruz is not attacking Obama directly. "Extremely talented"? Wow. I thought he was an affirmative action fraud. Amazing line: "Government takeovers of great parts of the economy." You mean rescuing the auto industry?

9.46 pm. Both Santorum and Cruz are hyping the immigration theme. It's a faint gesture toward the kind of Latino inclusion Rove once dreamed of. And given the extremism of the GOP position on illegal immigration – 11 million people must self-deport – a little, well, ironic.

9.45 pm. This Cruz guy can sure deliver the platitudes, can't he? He's got a great ease on the stage – but, man, the script is painful.

9.40 pm. Santorum was movingly genuine in his pro-life fanaticism. But he also critically played up  the welfare lie. Next up: the base's new star: Ted Cruz.

9.38 pm. The fact-checking of Boehner's speech is brutal as well. This is a convention based on lies, it appears. Kessler:

House Speaker John Boehner’s speech starts out with just about every out-of-context quote used by Republicans to bash President Obama. Two of his examples were featured in our Gaffe-check videos: “The private sector is doing fine” and “If you’ve got a business, “you didn’t build that.”

Such gaffes are effective when they reinforce an existing stereotype—in this case, the notion that Obama is hostile to private enterprise. But as our videos show, both of these quotes were taken out of context.

This seems a natural next step for a fundamentalist party, inventing its own reality, insisting on its own truths, and simply refusing to acknowledge reality. There is a case to be made against Obama; but what we have been hearing so far is an attack on a president who exists entirely in the imagination of the GOP base.

9.34 pm. Santorum is saying that Obama has "waived the work requirement for welfare". This is a lie – spoken by the runner-up for the nomination. It is a lie. The waivers have been routine for state experimentation. Many were sought by Republican governors. They were designed to ensure more efficient ways to get work as part of the welfare requirement.

Santorum is a devout Catholic. So why is he lying out loud on national television? And why is he stirring up racial division by lying? If you ever thought the guy had some integrity, you now know he doesn't.

9.33 pm. A reader writes:

Tonight's theme at the RNC is We Built That. The Republicans should also post that under the national debt counter they have above the podium.

Another:

One of the RNC's "We Built That" profiles of American small-business owners includes a short spot with Sam Sakata, owner of Sakata Farms. Sakata is a plain-spoken, laconic guy who expresses disappointment with Obama but little vitriol. But one sentiment he never expresses? A sense of gratitude or humility for the $79,430 worth of Federal subsidies he received during the first five years of his business.

9.31 pm. Santorum speaks as if Obama needs to be taught what it is to be an American. The whole night so far has been reiterating every bald-faced out-of-context lie about the president.

9.30 pm. First tweet of the night:

9.28 pm. The "thick strong hands" bit of Santorum's stump speech is now under way.

9.25 pm. Jesus. They're taking a quote from Obama about bumps in the road toward recovery and having regular Americans complain that they are not "bumps in the road." Cheeseville. But here's Rick!

9.20 pm. Apologies for the late start. The car taking me back from the Colbert Report got completely lost and I had to get out and walk. Anyway, I'm back here and all I am hearing are minority voices. A Latino businessman is up now and complaining that the stimulus didn't create a windfall.

(Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty.)

Partisans mostly:

In general, political scientists find that the biggest effect of major campaign events is to activate partisan predispositions. The campaign as a whole has this result, but the effect may be even more dominant for conventions and debates that require one to self-select to be a viewer. This activation effect is driven by that fact that those most interested in politics are also the most likely to have strong existing views (see here and here). A very large portion of those who tune in are political junkies/activists who made up their minds long ago or those who are at least partisan enough that watching these events reminds them what they like about their party and dislike about the other one. 

Pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA has a non-Bain ad out in five states, focusing on a former Romney supporter's disappointment over his performance as governor (amount of money behind ad unknown):

Liberal Super PAC American Bridge released a web video rounding up convention speakers' previous attacks on Romney:

For its part, the Obama campaign put out a web video that they call a Romney "infomercial", while the Romney campaign has a new Spanish (subtitled) language ad out (ad buy size/scope unknown):

The RNC meanwhile is previewing one of its convention videos airing tonight in Tampa. It's another attempt to wean off disaffected Obama voters:

And in downticket news, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) released a new positive ad (it doesn't mention Todd Akin), while Akin himself is trying to reclaim the narrative with this Huckabee-starring web video that happily attacks McCaskill:

Lastly, the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List is launching a campaign against Obama, starting with a $150K buy in Missouri running this ad, in which a woman who survived an abortion makes a case against the president (heads up: she's a close-talker):

Ad War archive here.

Matthew O'Brien ponders why the GOP mainstream seems to be taking Ron Paul's pro-gold standard arguments seriously (the platform will include a commission to explore the "fixed value for the dollar").

When we peg the dollar to gold we have to raise interest rates when gold is scarce, regardless of the state of the economy. This policy inflexibility was the major cause of the Great Depression, as governments were forced to tighten policy at the worst possible moment.

Krugman drives home another danger: deflation.

So if we’d had a gold standard operating in this crisis, there would have been powerful deflationary forces at work; not exactly what the doctor ordered. Now, the gold bugs will no doubt reply that under a gold standard big bubbles couldn’t happen, and therefore there wouldn’t be major financial crises. And it’s true: under the gold standard America had no major financial panics other than in 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, 1907, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933. Oh, wait. 

Noam Schieber notes that gold standard supporters aren't simply Paulites:

Paul Ryan himself has pushed a proposal that's similar, except arguably more ruinous to the economy. And Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, who co-chairs the party’s platform committee, insisted the gold flirtation didn’t arise as a sop to Paul. “These were adopted because they are things that Republicans agree on. The House recently passed a bill on this, and this is something that we think needs to be done,” she told The Financial Times. 

So why is the mainstream party embracing an ideology that would be economically ruinous and has little appeal outside of the Tea Party? Eric Rauchway's view:  

On balance, Keynes thought deflation was worse: “it is worse in an impoverished world to provoke unemployment than to disappoint the rentier.” Unless, of course, you’re Paul Ryan, in which case nothing is worse than disappointing the rentiers. Indeed, the whole Ryan schtick, involving brows furrowed over deficits and inflation, exists to ensure that the class of people eyeing their investment returns are not only not disappointed, but further and more richly sated. Changing the distribution of wealth would be far worse than inhibiting its production, and Ryan, in his certainty that nothing is worse than inflation, would rather the latter than the former.

Due to increasing artificial light, nighttime in urban areas is moving from black to red:

In places where natural light dominates the night sky, clouds typically make those skies darker, just as they do during daylight hours. But the researchers found that the opposite is true in urban areas: Clouds actually magnify the sky glow effect by reflecting more artificial light back down to Earth. They also discovered that sky glow doesn’t just affect night time brightness—it affects the color of the sky as well.

It’s well known that the daytime sky is blue because the atmosphere scatters shorter blue wavelengths of light more than longer red wavelengths. Similarly, the team found that the shorter wavelengths of artificial light are scattered more easily. But in the case of light coming from street lamps below, that means that much of the blue light is sent out into space, while more of the red light is reflected back down to Earth from the atmosphere and cloud cover. The result is that nights in urban areas have a reddish glow.

Besides ruining our stargazing, the move towards redder skies also messes with our circadian rhythms.

(Photo by Dennis Skley)