...................................................................................................................................................................
Chris Van Hollen: Darrell Issa’s ‘kangaroo court’
By Tal Kopan, March 5, 2014
Rep. Chris Van Hollen said that a Wednesday dust-up between Reps. Elijah Cummings and Darrell Issa during an IRS hearing typifies the “kangaroo court” atmosphere Republicans are interested in.
“What we’re seeing in the House today is a sign of larger dysfunction and partisanship on behalf of Republicans,” Van Hollen said on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown” on Wednesday. “What are we doing today on the floor of the House? For the 50th time, we’re going to vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, to get rid of Obamacare. That is all Republicans in the House want to do. That and this kind of kangaroo court you’re seeing here.”
The Maryland Democrat was responding to a clip of harsh words Cummings had after Issa concluded a hearing featuring former IRS official Lois Lerner. For the second time before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, of which Issa (R-Calif.) is chairman and Cummings (D-Md.) is ranking member, Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment rights to not answer questions about the IRS targeting scandal.
Cummings protested he had more questions after Issa gaveled the hearing closed, prompting a tense exchange.
Van Hollen slammed Issa for conducting a “witch hunt.”
“Darrell Issa has been conducting this political witch hunt for a long time now. He’s frustrated because he hasn’t been able to come up with any evidence of intentional political wrongdoing on the part of the Obama administration, and so he’s getting frustrated and making stuff up,” Van Hollen said, saying Issa also got “four Pinocchios” from fact-checkers on statements he’s made about the Benghazi terror attack. “Whether it’s Benghazi or whether it’s this trumped-up investigation of the IRS, Republicans are desperate.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
"Even by today’s low standard of civility in Congress, calling a hearing and then not allowing minority lawmakers to utter a single word is rather unusual"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Darrell Issa silences Democrats and hits a new low
By Dana Milbank, March 5, 2014
Darrell Issa, chairman of the House committee leading numerous investigations of the Obama administration, found a new way to silence Democratic critics who question his actions: He shut off the microphones.
The California Republican had said that Lois Lerner, a key figure in the IRS targeting of tea party groups, would testify before his House Oversight and Government Reform panel on Wednesday, but instead she refused to answer questions. After Issa forced Lerner to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights no fewer than 10 times, the committee’s top Democrat, Elijah Cummings (Md.), raised his hand to speak.
Issa looked at Cummings, ignored him, adjourned the hearing and slammed down the gavel.
“Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?” Cummings bellowed.
Issa, who was gathering his papers, turned around. “We’ve adjourned,” he said.
“Mr. Chairman, you cannot run a committee like this,” Cummings fumed. “We’re better than that as a committee. I have asked for a few minutes to ask a procedural — ”
Issa had stood up and now pressed a button in front of him that silenced Cummings’s microphone.
But the Democrat, who has a booming voice, continued to speak, and the microphones went back on whenever Issa released his override button. Finally, Issa made a throat-slitting gesture to his staff and said, “Close it down.” The sound system went dead.
Issa and fellow Republicans walked off to cries of “Shame!”
“Mr. Chairman,” Cummings called after Issa, “what are you hiding?”
Said Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.), “He’s taking the Fifth, Elijah.”
Even by today’s low standard of civility in Congress, calling a hearing and then not allowing minority lawmakers to utter a single word is rather unusual. But Issa, now in the fourth and final year of his chairmanship, is an unusual man.
Earlier in his capricious tenure, he banned Democratic witness Sandra Fluke from a panel about birth control, leaving an all-male slate of witnesses and giving his Republican Party a major embarrassment. His hearings have been chaotic affairs in which he talks over members of his panel, and he has often discredited his committee’s investigations by making incendiary accusations that turn out to be unfounded.
His latest: speculating at a fundraiser last month about why Pentagon assets were not mobilized to protect American facilities in Benghazi, Libya, when they were attacked in 2012 because Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton “told them to stand down.” But the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee found that there were no such orders. “Well,” Issa told Fox News’s Chris Wallace when pressed about this on Sunday, “the use in answering questions in a political fundraiser, that was in response to a question, the term ‘stand down’ is not used in some sort of an explicit way.”
On the IRS, similarly, Issa had said that it was “the targeting of the president’s political enemies effectively and lies about it,” and that he would prove it was directed “out of Washington headquarters.” But Issa found no such proof, and on Wednesday he acknowledged that “roads lead to Ms. Lerner.”
Issa told Wallace on Sunday that Lerner’s “attorney indicates now that she will testify” after refusing to do so at a hearing last year. The lawyer denied this, and Lerner did not testify Wednesday — and that would have been the news, if not for Issa’s sound-system antics. Because it was technically a continuation of last year’s appearance by Lerner, Issa didn’t allow opening statements, and he didn’t let his Democratic counterpart speak after Lerner had declined to testify.
“Now you’re turning me off?” Cummings said, incredulously, as Issa pressed the silencing button.
Issa must have realized it didn’t look good for him to be standing and holding the mute button while the ranking Democrat spoke. He briefly sat and allowed Cummings to speak, but then stood and silenced the microphone again.
“I am a member of the Congress of the United States of America! I am tired of this!” Cummings shouted. “You cannot just have a one-sided investigation. .?.?. It is absolutely un-American.”
Issa gave Cummings a look of loathing and said, quietly, “We had a hearing. It is adjourned. I gave you an opportunity to ask a question. You have no question.”
While Cummings continued to read his unamplified statement, Issa walked out and was asked by reporters in the hallway why he shut the sound. “He was actually slandering me at the moment that the mics did go off by claiming that this had not been a real investigation,” Issa said. “This has been a bipartisan investigation.”
Bipartisan: one party to protest, and the other party to unplug the microphones.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Darrell Issa silences Democrats and hits a new low
By Dana Milbank, March 5, 2014
Darrell Issa, chairman of the House committee leading numerous investigations of the Obama administration, found a new way to silence Democratic critics who question his actions: He shut off the microphones.
The California Republican had said that Lois Lerner, a key figure in the IRS targeting of tea party groups, would testify before his House Oversight and Government Reform panel on Wednesday, but instead she refused to answer questions. After Issa forced Lerner to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights no fewer than 10 times, the committee’s top Democrat, Elijah Cummings (Md.), raised his hand to speak.
Issa looked at Cummings, ignored him, adjourned the hearing and slammed down the gavel.
“Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?” Cummings bellowed.
Issa, who was gathering his papers, turned around. “We’ve adjourned,” he said.
“Mr. Chairman, you cannot run a committee like this,” Cummings fumed. “We’re better than that as a committee. I have asked for a few minutes to ask a procedural — ”
Issa had stood up and now pressed a button in front of him that silenced Cummings’s microphone.
But the Democrat, who has a booming voice, continued to speak, and the microphones went back on whenever Issa released his override button. Finally, Issa made a throat-slitting gesture to his staff and said, “Close it down.” The sound system went dead.
Issa and fellow Republicans walked off to cries of “Shame!”
“Mr. Chairman,” Cummings called after Issa, “what are you hiding?”
Said Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.), “He’s taking the Fifth, Elijah.”
Even by today’s low standard of civility in Congress, calling a hearing and then not allowing minority lawmakers to utter a single word is rather unusual. But Issa, now in the fourth and final year of his chairmanship, is an unusual man.
Earlier in his capricious tenure, he banned Democratic witness Sandra Fluke from a panel about birth control, leaving an all-male slate of witnesses and giving his Republican Party a major embarrassment. His hearings have been chaotic affairs in which he talks over members of his panel, and he has often discredited his committee’s investigations by making incendiary accusations that turn out to be unfounded.
His latest: speculating at a fundraiser last month about why Pentagon assets were not mobilized to protect American facilities in Benghazi, Libya, when they were attacked in 2012 because Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton “told them to stand down.” But the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee found that there were no such orders. “Well,” Issa told Fox News’s Chris Wallace when pressed about this on Sunday, “the use in answering questions in a political fundraiser, that was in response to a question, the term ‘stand down’ is not used in some sort of an explicit way.”
On the IRS, similarly, Issa had said that it was “the targeting of the president’s political enemies effectively and lies about it,” and that he would prove it was directed “out of Washington headquarters.” But Issa found no such proof, and on Wednesday he acknowledged that “roads lead to Ms. Lerner.”
Issa told Wallace on Sunday that Lerner’s “attorney indicates now that she will testify” after refusing to do so at a hearing last year. The lawyer denied this, and Lerner did not testify Wednesday — and that would have been the news, if not for Issa’s sound-system antics. Because it was technically a continuation of last year’s appearance by Lerner, Issa didn’t allow opening statements, and he didn’t let his Democratic counterpart speak after Lerner had declined to testify.
“Now you’re turning me off?” Cummings said, incredulously, as Issa pressed the silencing button.
Issa must have realized it didn’t look good for him to be standing and holding the mute button while the ranking Democrat spoke. He briefly sat and allowed Cummings to speak, but then stood and silenced the microphone again.
“I am a member of the Congress of the United States of America! I am tired of this!” Cummings shouted. “You cannot just have a one-sided investigation. .?.?. It is absolutely un-American.”
Issa gave Cummings a look of loathing and said, quietly, “We had a hearing. It is adjourned. I gave you an opportunity to ask a question. You have no question.”
While Cummings continued to read his unamplified statement, Issa walked out and was asked by reporters in the hallway why he shut the sound. “He was actually slandering me at the moment that the mics did go off by claiming that this had not been a real investigation,” Issa said. “This has been a bipartisan investigation.”
Bipartisan: one party to protest, and the other party to unplug the microphones.
...................................................................................................................................................................
“It’s hard to see that the state of Washington has paid a heavy penalty for having a higher minimum wage than the rest of the country”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Highest Minimum-Wage State Washington Beats U.S. Job Growth
By Victoria Stilwell, Peter Robison and William Selway, March 5, 2014
When Washington residents voted in 1998 to raise the state’s minimum wage and link it to the cost of living, opponents warned the measure would be a job-killer. The prediction hasn’t been borne out.
In the 15 years that followed, the state’s minimum wage climbed to $9.32 -- the highest in the country. Meanwhile job growth continued at an average 0.8 percent annual pace, 0.3 percentage point above the national rate. Payrolls at Washington’s restaurants and bars, portrayed as particularly vulnerable to higher wage costs, expanded by 21 percent. Poverty has trailed the U.S. level for at least seven years.
The debate is replaying on a national scale as Democrats led by President Barack Obama push for an increase in the $7.25-an-hour federal minimum, while opponents argue a raise would hurt those it’s intended to help by axing jobs for the lowest-skilled. Even if that proves true, Washington’s example shows that any such effects aren’t big enough to throw its economy and labor market off the tracks.
“It’s hard to see that the state of Washington has paid a heavy penalty for having a higher minimum wage than the rest of the country,” said Gary Burtless, an economist at Brookings Institution who formerly was at the U.S. Labor Department.
Costs, Benefits
Raising the U.S. minimum wage to $10.10 in three steps, as Obama proposes, would reduce employment nationally by about 500,000 workers, or about 0.3 percent, according to a Congressional Budget Office report published Feb. 18. At the same time, the increase would lift 900,000 people out of poverty and add $31 billion to the earnings of low-wage Americans, the report found.
While debate persists on the employment effect, “CBO is as qualified as anyone to evaluate that literature, and I wouldn’t argue with their assessment,” Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said Feb. 27 to the Senate Banking Committee.
Looking past the effect on jobs, increasing the minimum hourly wage to $10.10 would also reduce food stamp expenditures by about 6 percent, or nearly $4.6 billion a year, according to a report today from the Center for American Progress. The Washington-based research institute, which was founded by Obama adviser John Podesta, released its report as the president reiterated his call for a higher wage floor.
Washington voters in November 1998 approved increasing the state’s minimum wage in two stages to $6.50 and tying future annual changes to inflation as measured by the consumer price index.
Groups representing retailers, restaurants and hotels opposed the measure, according to a voters pamphlet on the 1998 election published by Washington’s Office of the Secretary of State. Employment in those industries has increased in the state of Washington since then, Labor Department data show.
Shock Absorbers
One possible explanation: Businesses have plenty of ways besides job cuts to absorb the costs of a minimum-wage increase, according to Arindrajit Dube, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, whose research found no significant effects on employment. Price increases, reductions in profits and savings from lower turnover can help soak up the shock.
“When you put all of these together, then the finding that moderate increases in minimum wages do not appear to have much of an effect on employment is less surprising,” Dube said in an interview.
Not everyone buys that argument. Minimum-wage laws not only reduce employment opportunities and earnings for low-wage workers, they also reduce demand for their labor as it’s replaced by other forms of capital, according to research published in 2008 by David Neumark, an economist at the University of California at Irvine, and William Wascher, an economist at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington.
[snipped]
Gridlock in Congress may mean the debate is waged more immediately by states and cities instead of at the federal level.
State Minimums
[snipped]
New Jersey voters in November approved increasing the minimum wage by $1 an hour to $8.25, tying future increases to the consumer price index. In January, after the raise took effect, private employers added 8,320 jobs in New Jersey, according to ADP Research Institute. That was the fastest pace of job growth since December 2012.
Raising Prices
[snipped]
Those kinds of long-term costs leave economists including Charles Brown undecided in the debate. Brown is a professor of economics at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor who reviewed the CBO’s analytical approach.
“The report does a very careful job of trying to make the best use of the available literature,” Brown said in an interview. “If I balance short-run gains against short-run losses, this looks like a reasonable thing to do. The problem is, we don’t have a good handle on how large those long-run effects are likely to be.”
$15 Minimum
Washington’s relatively benign experience with a higher minimum has encouraged some communities in the state to push for even more.
SeaTac, Washington, a Seattle suburb where the major employer is the region’s international airport, voted in November to raise the hourly minimum by more than 60 percent to $15 for 6,300 people who work at the airport, hotels and nearby businesses.
Companies including parking lot operator MasterPark LLC had said the higher pay might lead to job losses. Since it passed, 140 MasterPark employees have received raises and the company hasn’t cut jobs because that might compromise service, managing partner Roger McCracken said.
“We’re in the valet business -- that means employees,” he said. Instead, the company responded by tacking on a 50-cent daily “living-wage surcharge” to prices.
Seattle’s Mayor
Now, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, a Democrat elected in November, is following SeaTac’s lead as he also promotes raising the city’s minimum to $15. A task force of business and labor representatives, advised by academics from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Washington in Seattle, is meeting monthly and hopes to produce a proposal in April, Murray said in an interview.
The Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metropolitan area ranks 14th in a list compiled by Bloomberg of 50 cities where it’s hard for fast-food workers to gain upward mobility, based on median pay compared with rent, tuition and health-care costs. Advocates such as Murray say a higher minimum would help change that.
“We can’t rebuild this economy if it’s just people who buy 94-foot yachts and play in the derivatives,” Murray said. “You build an economy when a middle class is buying microwaves or flat-screen TVs or the next set of clothes for their kids.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Highest Minimum-Wage State Washington Beats U.S. Job Growth
By Victoria Stilwell, Peter Robison and William Selway, March 5, 2014
When Washington residents voted in 1998 to raise the state’s minimum wage and link it to the cost of living, opponents warned the measure would be a job-killer. The prediction hasn’t been borne out.
In the 15 years that followed, the state’s minimum wage climbed to $9.32 -- the highest in the country. Meanwhile job growth continued at an average 0.8 percent annual pace, 0.3 percentage point above the national rate. Payrolls at Washington’s restaurants and bars, portrayed as particularly vulnerable to higher wage costs, expanded by 21 percent. Poverty has trailed the U.S. level for at least seven years.
The debate is replaying on a national scale as Democrats led by President Barack Obama push for an increase in the $7.25-an-hour federal minimum, while opponents argue a raise would hurt those it’s intended to help by axing jobs for the lowest-skilled. Even if that proves true, Washington’s example shows that any such effects aren’t big enough to throw its economy and labor market off the tracks.
“It’s hard to see that the state of Washington has paid a heavy penalty for having a higher minimum wage than the rest of the country,” said Gary Burtless, an economist at Brookings Institution who formerly was at the U.S. Labor Department.
Costs, Benefits
Raising the U.S. minimum wage to $10.10 in three steps, as Obama proposes, would reduce employment nationally by about 500,000 workers, or about 0.3 percent, according to a Congressional Budget Office report published Feb. 18. At the same time, the increase would lift 900,000 people out of poverty and add $31 billion to the earnings of low-wage Americans, the report found.
While debate persists on the employment effect, “CBO is as qualified as anyone to evaluate that literature, and I wouldn’t argue with their assessment,” Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said Feb. 27 to the Senate Banking Committee.
Looking past the effect on jobs, increasing the minimum hourly wage to $10.10 would also reduce food stamp expenditures by about 6 percent, or nearly $4.6 billion a year, according to a report today from the Center for American Progress. The Washington-based research institute, which was founded by Obama adviser John Podesta, released its report as the president reiterated his call for a higher wage floor.
Washington voters in November 1998 approved increasing the state’s minimum wage in two stages to $6.50 and tying future annual changes to inflation as measured by the consumer price index.
Groups representing retailers, restaurants and hotels opposed the measure, according to a voters pamphlet on the 1998 election published by Washington’s Office of the Secretary of State. Employment in those industries has increased in the state of Washington since then, Labor Department data show.
Shock Absorbers
One possible explanation: Businesses have plenty of ways besides job cuts to absorb the costs of a minimum-wage increase, according to Arindrajit Dube, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, whose research found no significant effects on employment. Price increases, reductions in profits and savings from lower turnover can help soak up the shock.
“When you put all of these together, then the finding that moderate increases in minimum wages do not appear to have much of an effect on employment is less surprising,” Dube said in an interview.
Not everyone buys that argument. Minimum-wage laws not only reduce employment opportunities and earnings for low-wage workers, they also reduce demand for their labor as it’s replaced by other forms of capital, according to research published in 2008 by David Neumark, an economist at the University of California at Irvine, and William Wascher, an economist at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington.
[snipped]
Gridlock in Congress may mean the debate is waged more immediately by states and cities instead of at the federal level.
State Minimums
[snipped]
New Jersey voters in November approved increasing the minimum wage by $1 an hour to $8.25, tying future increases to the consumer price index. In January, after the raise took effect, private employers added 8,320 jobs in New Jersey, according to ADP Research Institute. That was the fastest pace of job growth since December 2012.
Raising Prices
[snipped]
Those kinds of long-term costs leave economists including Charles Brown undecided in the debate. Brown is a professor of economics at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor who reviewed the CBO’s analytical approach.
“The report does a very careful job of trying to make the best use of the available literature,” Brown said in an interview. “If I balance short-run gains against short-run losses, this looks like a reasonable thing to do. The problem is, we don’t have a good handle on how large those long-run effects are likely to be.”
$15 Minimum
Washington’s relatively benign experience with a higher minimum has encouraged some communities in the state to push for even more.
SeaTac, Washington, a Seattle suburb where the major employer is the region’s international airport, voted in November to raise the hourly minimum by more than 60 percent to $15 for 6,300 people who work at the airport, hotels and nearby businesses.
Companies including parking lot operator MasterPark LLC had said the higher pay might lead to job losses. Since it passed, 140 MasterPark employees have received raises and the company hasn’t cut jobs because that might compromise service, managing partner Roger McCracken said.
“We’re in the valet business -- that means employees,” he said. Instead, the company responded by tacking on a 50-cent daily “living-wage surcharge” to prices.
Seattle’s Mayor
Now, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, a Democrat elected in November, is following SeaTac’s lead as he also promotes raising the city’s minimum to $15. A task force of business and labor representatives, advised by academics from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Washington in Seattle, is meeting monthly and hopes to produce a proposal in April, Murray said in an interview.
The Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metropolitan area ranks 14th in a list compiled by Bloomberg of 50 cities where it’s hard for fast-food workers to gain upward mobility, based on median pay compared with rent, tuition and health-care costs. Advocates such as Murray say a higher minimum would help change that.
“We can’t rebuild this economy if it’s just people who buy 94-foot yachts and play in the derivatives,” Murray said. “You build an economy when a middle class is buying microwaves or flat-screen TVs or the next set of clothes for their kids.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Koch-backed groups are once again trying to sway the debate
...................................................................................................................................................................
Harry Reid: Republicans are "addicted to Koch"
By Stephanie Condon, March 4, 2014
Senate Republicans "are addicted to Koch," Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared on the Senate floor Tuesday, railing against the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch (pronounced "coke") for injecting vast sums of money into conservative political campaigns.
The brothers, who lead the energy and manufacturing conglomerate Koch Industries, have created a network of "shadowy" entities, as Reid described them, that raised at least $407 million for the 2012 campaign, according to outside analysis. Ahead of this year's midterm elections, Koch-backed groups like Americans for Prosperity (AFP) are once again trying to sway the debate.
Reid ruffled some feathers last week when he slammed AFP for running ads against the Affordable Care Act that Reid said were dishonest.
"It's time that the American people spoke out against this terrible dishonesty and these two brothers who are about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine," Reid said on the Senate floor last week.
Acknowledging the pushback he received from AFP and conservatives, Reid said Tuesday there's nothing un-American about the Koch brothers' industriousness.
However, he said, "What is un-American is when shadowy billionaires pour unlimited money into our democracy to rig the system to benefit themselves and the wealthiest one percent."
Reid added, "Based on Senate Republicans' ardent defense of the Koch brothers, and the fact that they advocate for many of the same policies the Koch brothers do, it seems my Republican colleagues also believe in a system that benefits billionaires at the expense of the middle class."
The Koch brothers are injecting so much money into campaigns, "Senate Republicans hardly need the NRSC anymore," Reid said, referring to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate GOP's campaign arm. "Besides, the NRSC can't hide its owners identities, like the Koch brothers' funded groups can hide their identities."
By using a network of tax-exempt groups and limited liability companies, political donors like the Koch brothers can, in fact, hide their contributions as well as contributions from others.
Speaking on the Senate floor after Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., pointed out that Democratic backers are also using their financial clout to influence elections. He specifically pointed to hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, who is raising as much as $100 million to push the issue of climate change.
"The truth of the matter is, these American citizens have a constitutional right to participate in the political process," McConnell said. "It strikes me as curious that if we were going to demonize people for exercising their constitutional rights... we would just pick out the people opposed to us and leave out the people in favor of us."
Meanwhile, AFP president Tim Phillips said in a statement that Reid is "desperately trying to shift the public's attention away from the health care law by, once again, attacking David and Charles Koch."
"At the end of the day, these attacks from the left don't change the facts about ObamaCare," he said, "that it's leading to cancelled plans, higher costs, lost access to doctors, and stifling economic growth."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Harry Reid: Republicans are "addicted to Koch"
By Stephanie Condon, March 4, 2014
Senate Republicans "are addicted to Koch," Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared on the Senate floor Tuesday, railing against the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch (pronounced "coke") for injecting vast sums of money into conservative political campaigns.
The brothers, who lead the energy and manufacturing conglomerate Koch Industries, have created a network of "shadowy" entities, as Reid described them, that raised at least $407 million for the 2012 campaign, according to outside analysis. Ahead of this year's midterm elections, Koch-backed groups like Americans for Prosperity (AFP) are once again trying to sway the debate.
Reid ruffled some feathers last week when he slammed AFP for running ads against the Affordable Care Act that Reid said were dishonest.
"It's time that the American people spoke out against this terrible dishonesty and these two brothers who are about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine," Reid said on the Senate floor last week.
Acknowledging the pushback he received from AFP and conservatives, Reid said Tuesday there's nothing un-American about the Koch brothers' industriousness.
However, he said, "What is un-American is when shadowy billionaires pour unlimited money into our democracy to rig the system to benefit themselves and the wealthiest one percent."
Reid added, "Based on Senate Republicans' ardent defense of the Koch brothers, and the fact that they advocate for many of the same policies the Koch brothers do, it seems my Republican colleagues also believe in a system that benefits billionaires at the expense of the middle class."
The Koch brothers are injecting so much money into campaigns, "Senate Republicans hardly need the NRSC anymore," Reid said, referring to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate GOP's campaign arm. "Besides, the NRSC can't hide its owners identities, like the Koch brothers' funded groups can hide their identities."
By using a network of tax-exempt groups and limited liability companies, political donors like the Koch brothers can, in fact, hide their contributions as well as contributions from others.
Speaking on the Senate floor after Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., pointed out that Democratic backers are also using their financial clout to influence elections. He specifically pointed to hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, who is raising as much as $100 million to push the issue of climate change.
"The truth of the matter is, these American citizens have a constitutional right to participate in the political process," McConnell said. "It strikes me as curious that if we were going to demonize people for exercising their constitutional rights... we would just pick out the people opposed to us and leave out the people in favor of us."
Meanwhile, AFP president Tim Phillips said in a statement that Reid is "desperately trying to shift the public's attention away from the health care law by, once again, attacking David and Charles Koch."
"At the end of the day, these attacks from the left don't change the facts about ObamaCare," he said, "that it's leading to cancelled plans, higher costs, lost access to doctors, and stifling economic growth."
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP does a job on attempting to smear Democratic female candidates but Democrats are successfully fighting back
...................................................................................................................................................................
Outrage Over Sexist Remarks Turns Into a Political Fund-Raising Tool
By Amy Chozick, February 27, 2014
In the past few months, Republicans have called Wendy Davis, a Democratic candidate for Texas governor, “Abortion Barbie,” likened Alison Lundergan Grimes, a Senate candidate from Kentucky, to an “empty dress,” criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton’s thighs, and referred to a pregnant woman as a “host.”
Democrats do not just get mad when they hear those words. They cash in.
In fact, they are trying to find even more examples by tracking Republican opponents, their surrogates and conservative news media personalities, then blasting their comments out to supporters to build voter lists and drum up donations, casting aside the well-worn advice to shrug off sexist comments lest they draw attention to gender over issues.
It is proving effective. Emily’s List, the political action committee that backs female candidates who support abortion rights, has raised a record $25 million this election cycle. On Tuesday, the group put out an online petition, “Tell the G.O.P.: Pregnant Women Are Not ‘Hosts,’ ” after Steve Martin, a state senator in Virginia, referred to a pregnant woman as the child’s “host” in a Facebook message.
“Instead of fearing sexist attacks, we wait gleefully for the next one,” said Jen Bluestein, a political strategist who formerly ran communications at Emily’s List.
Republicans are trying to counter with their own war over the so-called war on women, saying that sexist attacks cut across parties and pointing to Democrats’ criticism of Sarah Palin and other conservative women. “They’re exploiting women for their political gain and political playbook,” said Brook Hougesen, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Republicans say that promoting these types of comments is part of a broader Democratic strategy to portray them as out of touch with women in an effort to shift the focus from unpopular issues associated with the Obama administration.
“I’m more than just a set of reproductive organs and I’d like someone to talk to me about how they’ll help my pocketbook and keep my health care plan that I like, and Democrats don’t have a good response to that,” said Katie Packer Gage, deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney in 2012 who recently started a consultancy to advise Republican candidates about outreach to women. “If I were them, I’d want to turn it into ‘Abortion Barbie,’ too.”
With a record number of women in Congress and dozens more on the ballot, gender-charged attacks — stoked by the growth of social media and small-dollar Internet donations — can generate signatures and contributions in an instant. Battleground Texas, a group working to elect Democrats in Texas, for example, quadrupled its Facebook following after posting past comments by the rock musician Ted Nugent in which he had used terms like “fat pig” and “worthless” to describe women. Mr. Nugent has campaigned for Ms. Davis’s Republican rival, Greg Abbott.
Ms. Gage said Mr. Nugent and Erick Erickson, editor of the conservative news website Red State, who referred to Ms. Davis as “Abortion Barbie,” do not represent the Republican Party.
But surrogates’ comments can be effective tools in portraying a candidate as anti-woman, Democrats said. In an email to The Hill newspaper, Brad Dayspring, communications director at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, referred to Ms. Grimes as an “empty dress,” because he said she lacked specifics on policies.
The Grimes campaign promptly sent supporters an email titled “Empty Dress” associating Mr. Dayspring’s comment with Ms. Grimes’s opponent, Senator Mitch McConnell. “Senator McConnell should also know that sexist, offensive remarks will only fire up our campaign that much more,” Ms. Grimes wrote in the email, which included a link to make a donation. Mr. Dayspring declined to comment. Allison Ball, a McConnell surrogate, said Ms. Grimes “only cares about sexism when it’s politically beneficial.”
The turnout among female voters could sway the most significant races this year because, although they outnumber men, women do not vote in midterm elections in the same proportion as in presidential contests. In 2010, 51 percent of female voters chose Republicans, helping the party regain a majority in the House of Representatives. In 2012, women favored Democrats, with 55 percent voting to re-elect President Obama, compared with 44 percent for Mr. Romney.
How female candidates deal with attacks also has implications beyond 2014, particularly if Mrs. Clinton were to run for president in 2016.
In August, Ready for Hillary, a “super PAC” that supports a Clinton candidacy, sent out an email after the Hillary Project, an anti-Clinton PAC, released an online game “that allows viewers to virtually slap the former secretary of state across the face.” Adam Parkhomenko, executive director of Ready for Hillary, promptly pleaded for donations. “Instead of getting mad, we should get organized,” he wrote in the email to supporters. “That’s why I hope you’ll make a contribution today.” The attack led to a 40 percent uptick in web traffic and online contributions to Ready for Hillary compared with its normal daily average.
Traditional wisdom held that a candidate responding directly could seem abrasive, said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. In 2010, Ms. Lake published a study called “Name It. Change It.” that found sexist attacks on a hypothetical female candidate decreased the likelihood of men and women voting for that candidate. But a direct response, rather than making matters worse, made up for that lost ground, and in some cases damaged her male opponent.
The findings were melded into campaign strategy, and by 2012 the approach grew into a fund-raising tool. In 2012, donations to the Obama re-election campaign increased after it spread a comment that Mr. Romney made during a debate about having “binders full of women.” And Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, raised about $1.4 million in a week after her opponent, Todd Akin, used the term “legitimate rape.” Additional donations came in after Mr. Akin compared Ms. McCaskill to a dog playing “fetch” in Washington.
“It comes down to your ability to not just ride the wave, but create the wave,” said Marie Danzig, deputy digital director for Mr. Obama’s 2012 campaign and head of creative and delivery at Blue State Digital, which works with Emily’s List.
An American Bridge tracker in Missouri was monitoring a local TV station when Mr. Akin made the “legitimate rape” comment. The group promptly sent it out to political reporters and on social media.
Such comments, and the policies they’re associated with, helped Emily’s List raise a record $37 million and grow its membership to two million from 400,000 in 2012. Last year, Emily’s List signed up an additional one million members, a record in an off-election year.
Both sides agree there is a tension between capitalizing on a comment because it might raise money and spreading a stereotype, and in many ways 2014 will be a testing ground as to where that line should be drawn. “I think you need to be careful about being too shrill on these matters and understanding what will resonate with your audience,” Ms. Danzig said. “For every ‘legitimate rape’ hit, there are others that don’t go anywhere.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Outrage Over Sexist Remarks Turns Into a Political Fund-Raising Tool
By Amy Chozick, February 27, 2014
In the past few months, Republicans have called Wendy Davis, a Democratic candidate for Texas governor, “Abortion Barbie,” likened Alison Lundergan Grimes, a Senate candidate from Kentucky, to an “empty dress,” criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton’s thighs, and referred to a pregnant woman as a “host.”
Democrats do not just get mad when they hear those words. They cash in.
In fact, they are trying to find even more examples by tracking Republican opponents, their surrogates and conservative news media personalities, then blasting their comments out to supporters to build voter lists and drum up donations, casting aside the well-worn advice to shrug off sexist comments lest they draw attention to gender over issues.
It is proving effective. Emily’s List, the political action committee that backs female candidates who support abortion rights, has raised a record $25 million this election cycle. On Tuesday, the group put out an online petition, “Tell the G.O.P.: Pregnant Women Are Not ‘Hosts,’ ” after Steve Martin, a state senator in Virginia, referred to a pregnant woman as the child’s “host” in a Facebook message.
“Instead of fearing sexist attacks, we wait gleefully for the next one,” said Jen Bluestein, a political strategist who formerly ran communications at Emily’s List.
Republicans are trying to counter with their own war over the so-called war on women, saying that sexist attacks cut across parties and pointing to Democrats’ criticism of Sarah Palin and other conservative women. “They’re exploiting women for their political gain and political playbook,” said Brook Hougesen, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Republicans say that promoting these types of comments is part of a broader Democratic strategy to portray them as out of touch with women in an effort to shift the focus from unpopular issues associated with the Obama administration.
“I’m more than just a set of reproductive organs and I’d like someone to talk to me about how they’ll help my pocketbook and keep my health care plan that I like, and Democrats don’t have a good response to that,” said Katie Packer Gage, deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney in 2012 who recently started a consultancy to advise Republican candidates about outreach to women. “If I were them, I’d want to turn it into ‘Abortion Barbie,’ too.”
With a record number of women in Congress and dozens more on the ballot, gender-charged attacks — stoked by the growth of social media and small-dollar Internet donations — can generate signatures and contributions in an instant. Battleground Texas, a group working to elect Democrats in Texas, for example, quadrupled its Facebook following after posting past comments by the rock musician Ted Nugent in which he had used terms like “fat pig” and “worthless” to describe women. Mr. Nugent has campaigned for Ms. Davis’s Republican rival, Greg Abbott.
Ms. Gage said Mr. Nugent and Erick Erickson, editor of the conservative news website Red State, who referred to Ms. Davis as “Abortion Barbie,” do not represent the Republican Party.
But surrogates’ comments can be effective tools in portraying a candidate as anti-woman, Democrats said. In an email to The Hill newspaper, Brad Dayspring, communications director at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, referred to Ms. Grimes as an “empty dress,” because he said she lacked specifics on policies.
The Grimes campaign promptly sent supporters an email titled “Empty Dress” associating Mr. Dayspring’s comment with Ms. Grimes’s opponent, Senator Mitch McConnell. “Senator McConnell should also know that sexist, offensive remarks will only fire up our campaign that much more,” Ms. Grimes wrote in the email, which included a link to make a donation. Mr. Dayspring declined to comment. Allison Ball, a McConnell surrogate, said Ms. Grimes “only cares about sexism when it’s politically beneficial.”
The turnout among female voters could sway the most significant races this year because, although they outnumber men, women do not vote in midterm elections in the same proportion as in presidential contests. In 2010, 51 percent of female voters chose Republicans, helping the party regain a majority in the House of Representatives. In 2012, women favored Democrats, with 55 percent voting to re-elect President Obama, compared with 44 percent for Mr. Romney.
How female candidates deal with attacks also has implications beyond 2014, particularly if Mrs. Clinton were to run for president in 2016.
In August, Ready for Hillary, a “super PAC” that supports a Clinton candidacy, sent out an email after the Hillary Project, an anti-Clinton PAC, released an online game “that allows viewers to virtually slap the former secretary of state across the face.” Adam Parkhomenko, executive director of Ready for Hillary, promptly pleaded for donations. “Instead of getting mad, we should get organized,” he wrote in the email to supporters. “That’s why I hope you’ll make a contribution today.” The attack led to a 40 percent uptick in web traffic and online contributions to Ready for Hillary compared with its normal daily average.
Traditional wisdom held that a candidate responding directly could seem abrasive, said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. In 2010, Ms. Lake published a study called “Name It. Change It.” that found sexist attacks on a hypothetical female candidate decreased the likelihood of men and women voting for that candidate. But a direct response, rather than making matters worse, made up for that lost ground, and in some cases damaged her male opponent.
The findings were melded into campaign strategy, and by 2012 the approach grew into a fund-raising tool. In 2012, donations to the Obama re-election campaign increased after it spread a comment that Mr. Romney made during a debate about having “binders full of women.” And Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, raised about $1.4 million in a week after her opponent, Todd Akin, used the term “legitimate rape.” Additional donations came in after Mr. Akin compared Ms. McCaskill to a dog playing “fetch” in Washington.
“It comes down to your ability to not just ride the wave, but create the wave,” said Marie Danzig, deputy digital director for Mr. Obama’s 2012 campaign and head of creative and delivery at Blue State Digital, which works with Emily’s List.
An American Bridge tracker in Missouri was monitoring a local TV station when Mr. Akin made the “legitimate rape” comment. The group promptly sent it out to political reporters and on social media.
Such comments, and the policies they’re associated with, helped Emily’s List raise a record $37 million and grow its membership to two million from 400,000 in 2012. Last year, Emily’s List signed up an additional one million members, a record in an off-election year.
Both sides agree there is a tension between capitalizing on a comment because it might raise money and spreading a stereotype, and in many ways 2014 will be a testing ground as to where that line should be drawn. “I think you need to be careful about being too shrill on these matters and understanding what will resonate with your audience,” Ms. Danzig said. “For every ‘legitimate rape’ hit, there are others that don’t go anywhere.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... it is more than clear that the Republican Party is preferred vehicle of ethnocentric whites" and "... the vast majority of Republican voters are white"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Dreaming of a White GOP
In the dreams of one infamous conservative writer, the GOP is the party of white people. But the reality is that the dream has already come true.
By Jamelle Bouie, March 3, 2014
John Derbyshire was a columnist for the National Review before he was fired for defending his racism in print. Now, the erstwhile pundit is writing for white nationalists, and denouncing Republicans for trying to expand their tent and appeal to minorities:
What’s more, on an ideological level, the Republican preference for low taxes, small government, and fewer services is attractive to white voters with high levels of ethnocentrism or racial resentment. To wit, in their book Us Against Them: The Ethnocentric Foundations of American Public Opinion, political scientists Donald Kinder and Cindy Cam find a strong connection between white ethnocentrism and opposition to higher spending on welfare, food stamps, and other public assistance programs. This, however, doesn’t extend to Medicare and Social Security—there, ethnocentrism correlates with higher support.
In other words, the stronger you identify with being white, the more likely it is you want cuts to welfare and other programs associated with minorities. By contrast, you don’t have the same antipathy for our entitlement programs, which lack the same association.
This, it should be said, has a clean fit with the GOP’s domestic approach, which combines traditional entitlement spending with deep cuts to safety net programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance.
To return to Derbyshire’s argument, it is more than clear that the Republican Party is preferred vehicle of ethnocentric whites. But this isn’t to say that the party is prejudiced, or acting with ill-intent. Far from it. Instead, it’s to make this observation: If you oppose spending on minorities, then your interests overlap with the party that opposes spending, period.
Or, put another way, the GOP can reject the Derbyshires of the world, but as long as it sticks to small government conservatism, it can’t avoid them.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Dreaming of a White GOP
In the dreams of one infamous conservative writer, the GOP is the party of white people. But the reality is that the dream has already come true.
By Jamelle Bouie, March 3, 2014
John Derbyshire was a columnist for the National Review before he was fired for defending his racism in print. Now, the erstwhile pundit is writing for white nationalists, and denouncing Republicans for trying to expand their tent and appeal to minorities:
He said “conservatives are the only people in the U.S.A. trying to ‘transcend contentious racial issues,’” but agreed with his “friend” — white nationalist Jared Taylor – that white people should stop trying to get along with black people.
“Whites may as well start asserting themselves and join in fighting for the spoils,” Derbyshire said. “If that’s right, ‘colorblind conservatism’ is a dead end, and the future of the conservative movement is as a home for white ethnocentrism.”What’s funny, of course, is that this isn’t far from the GOP’s current position. Setting aside questions of policy and ideology, it’s a simply a fact that the vast majority of Republican voters are white. In 2012, 87 percent of self-described Republicans were white, according to a pre-election analysis from the Pew Research Center. Likewise, a 2013 survey from Gallup found similar results—89 percent of Republican responders were white, compared to 2 percent who were black and 6 percent who were Latino.
What’s more, on an ideological level, the Republican preference for low taxes, small government, and fewer services is attractive to white voters with high levels of ethnocentrism or racial resentment. To wit, in their book Us Against Them: The Ethnocentric Foundations of American Public Opinion, political scientists Donald Kinder and Cindy Cam find a strong connection between white ethnocentrism and opposition to higher spending on welfare, food stamps, and other public assistance programs. This, however, doesn’t extend to Medicare and Social Security—there, ethnocentrism correlates with higher support.
In other words, the stronger you identify with being white, the more likely it is you want cuts to welfare and other programs associated with minorities. By contrast, you don’t have the same antipathy for our entitlement programs, which lack the same association.
This, it should be said, has a clean fit with the GOP’s domestic approach, which combines traditional entitlement spending with deep cuts to safety net programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance.
To return to Derbyshire’s argument, it is more than clear that the Republican Party is preferred vehicle of ethnocentric whites. But this isn’t to say that the party is prejudiced, or acting with ill-intent. Far from it. Instead, it’s to make this observation: If you oppose spending on minorities, then your interests overlap with the party that opposes spending, period.
Or, put another way, the GOP can reject the Derbyshires of the world, but as long as it sticks to small government conservatism, it can’t avoid them.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"There’s no way voters can be sure those who they elect follow any rule — or law — banning on-the-job campaigning."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Steve Walters: How politicians blur the lines
By Steve Walters, March 3, 2014
SEVERAL YEARS ago, former Democratic Rep. Marlin Schneider showed off his dueling cell phones — one for official state business and the other for political and personal calls.
Wisconsin taxpayers paid for his official cell phone, so what numbers he called and when were covered by the Open Records Law. They were just as much public records as Schneider’s expense accounts, what he paid his aides and what bills he sponsored.
But records of Schneider’s personal cell phone? Off limits.
ONLY A criminal investigator — or a terrorist hunter, now that we know about the snooping powers of the National Security Agency — could get records of Schneider’s personal cell phone.
The Schneider anecdote is relevant after thousands of pages of 2010 emails and court records compiled as part of the John Doe investigation into then-Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and his aides were made public.
The records show, although County Executive Walker insisted he had a policy that banned on-the-job campaigning, aides closest to him ignored it.
Actually, they flaunted it.
“I can make some (fund raising) calls, but I have to be careful here at work,” emailed Walker aide Kelly Rindfleisch to another campaign worker at 3:17 p.m. on March 8, 2010.
A TOP Walker deputy, Cindy Archer, even welcomed Rindfleisch to the secret system of laptop computers and emails by saying they were often used to contact Walker. Rindflesich is appealing her conviction for on-the-job campaigning.
She was one of six aides or associates of Walker convicted of on-the-job campaigning or theft.
Last week, the governor disclosed that he now uses two cell phones — one for official business and one for everything else. And, he used two words — “old news” — to explain why he won’t answer questions about the secret laptop network in his Milwaukee County office. He adds that he was investigated — and never charged — by Milwaukee County’s Democratic prosecutor.
HERE’S A rough paraphrase of what theologian Timothy Keller once observed: Technology now allows us to work all the time, so we work all the time.
Elected officials and their aides, whose jobs depend on their bosses continuing to win elections, are even more prone to blur the line between public and partisan work.
They often jump back and forth as needed, using a second cell phone or second email address, or stepping out of their offices, to put out political fires. Members of both parties do it.
There’s no way voters can be sure those who they elect follow any rule — or law — banning on-the-job campaigning. Instead, those leaders say, “Trust us.”
SINCE WALKER won’t answer questions about how much he used his aides’ secret email system four years ago — when he was running for governor — what policy did he order after being elected?
Last week, a Walker aide provided those rules, which recognize that the line between business and politics blurs at any moment.
“The state ethics code does not restrict when campaign activity may take place for the Governor’s staff, Lieutenant Governor’s staff, and (appointees), provided that staff are working at least 40 hours per week,” the aide said, adding:
“However, the Walker administration has adopted a general policy prohibiting campaign activities between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. If an urgent issue comes up that you cannot address during off-hours, you must obtain pre-approval before engaging in that activity…
“If that activity does not occur during your lunch break, you will be asked to take vacation time…You may, however, take a vacation day to do campaign activities following your normal procedures for requesting vacation time.
“You should never use state resources to do campaign work…You are also not permitted to campaign in state buildings…(A)ny campaign work should be done away from the Capitol or state office building with your own phone, computer, and personal e-mail.”
BUT WHAT if you’re a Walker aide who opens this email from the governor, “We need to continue to keep me out of this (news) story…”
Do you wait until after 5 p.m. to respond? Quickly arrange a one-afternoon vacation? Respond immediately, reminding yourself how many more than 40 hours you worked last week?
And, don’t think this won’t happen. County Executive Walker sent that exact email on March 27, 2010.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Steve Walters: How politicians blur the lines
By Steve Walters, March 3, 2014
SEVERAL YEARS ago, former Democratic Rep. Marlin Schneider showed off his dueling cell phones — one for official state business and the other for political and personal calls.
Wisconsin taxpayers paid for his official cell phone, so what numbers he called and when were covered by the Open Records Law. They were just as much public records as Schneider’s expense accounts, what he paid his aides and what bills he sponsored.
But records of Schneider’s personal cell phone? Off limits.
ONLY A criminal investigator — or a terrorist hunter, now that we know about the snooping powers of the National Security Agency — could get records of Schneider’s personal cell phone.
The Schneider anecdote is relevant after thousands of pages of 2010 emails and court records compiled as part of the John Doe investigation into then-Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and his aides were made public.
The records show, although County Executive Walker insisted he had a policy that banned on-the-job campaigning, aides closest to him ignored it.
Actually, they flaunted it.
“I can make some (fund raising) calls, but I have to be careful here at work,” emailed Walker aide Kelly Rindfleisch to another campaign worker at 3:17 p.m. on March 8, 2010.
A TOP Walker deputy, Cindy Archer, even welcomed Rindfleisch to the secret system of laptop computers and emails by saying they were often used to contact Walker. Rindflesich is appealing her conviction for on-the-job campaigning.
She was one of six aides or associates of Walker convicted of on-the-job campaigning or theft.
Last week, the governor disclosed that he now uses two cell phones — one for official business and one for everything else. And, he used two words — “old news” — to explain why he won’t answer questions about the secret laptop network in his Milwaukee County office. He adds that he was investigated — and never charged — by Milwaukee County’s Democratic prosecutor.
HERE’S A rough paraphrase of what theologian Timothy Keller once observed: Technology now allows us to work all the time, so we work all the time.
Elected officials and their aides, whose jobs depend on their bosses continuing to win elections, are even more prone to blur the line between public and partisan work.
They often jump back and forth as needed, using a second cell phone or second email address, or stepping out of their offices, to put out political fires. Members of both parties do it.
There’s no way voters can be sure those who they elect follow any rule — or law — banning on-the-job campaigning. Instead, those leaders say, “Trust us.”
SINCE WALKER won’t answer questions about how much he used his aides’ secret email system four years ago — when he was running for governor — what policy did he order after being elected?
Last week, a Walker aide provided those rules, which recognize that the line between business and politics blurs at any moment.
“The state ethics code does not restrict when campaign activity may take place for the Governor’s staff, Lieutenant Governor’s staff, and (appointees), provided that staff are working at least 40 hours per week,” the aide said, adding:
“However, the Walker administration has adopted a general policy prohibiting campaign activities between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. If an urgent issue comes up that you cannot address during off-hours, you must obtain pre-approval before engaging in that activity…
“If that activity does not occur during your lunch break, you will be asked to take vacation time…You may, however, take a vacation day to do campaign activities following your normal procedures for requesting vacation time.
“You should never use state resources to do campaign work…You are also not permitted to campaign in state buildings…(A)ny campaign work should be done away from the Capitol or state office building with your own phone, computer, and personal e-mail.”
BUT WHAT if you’re a Walker aide who opens this email from the governor, “We need to continue to keep me out of this (news) story…”
Do you wait until after 5 p.m. to respond? Quickly arrange a one-afternoon vacation? Respond immediately, reminding yourself how many more than 40 hours you worked last week?
And, don’t think this won’t happen. County Executive Walker sent that exact email on March 27, 2010.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Monday, March 3, 2014
"... democracies need strong, successful representation, not politicians who simply do what they believe is right"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Catch of the Day: Politicians With Political Motives
By Jonathan Bernstein, March 2, 2014
The Catch goes to Seth Masket, who writes about the motives for politicians’ actions, using the example of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s veto of a state law that allowed business owners the right to deny service to gay and lesbian customers:
Let me back up slightly. I agree that we want politicians to be motivated by politics, and that the right thing for a politician to do is to represent her constituents.
But representation isn’t a simple matter. It involves a relationship between a politician and constituents, in which the politician makes promises, takes actions in office that are informed by those promises and then explains those actions in terms of the promises.
But promises aren’t merely about specific actions on questions of public policy (“I support marriage equality” or “I support our Second Amendment rights”). They’re also about how a candidate will act once in office. These promises might be explicit (“I will always listen to the will of the people”), or they may be implicit.
My favorite example is a politician who is the “first” of a particular group to run for office and who basically campaigns on ethnicity, implicitly promising to represent that group. Such a candidate would be assailed for breaking his promises if he was caught acting against ethnic type, rather than simply being criticized for voting the wrong way on some issue.
Thinking about representation this way also helps us understand the old tension between “mandate” and “independence” representation -- that is, the difference between whether politicians should vote as their constituents would or whether they should act on their own beliefs. The answer depends, it turns out, on what a politician has promised to her constituents. Has she said that she is an expert on economic development, and that she would do whatever it took to create jobs? Or has she said that she’s “one of us” and will carry the voices of the people to Washington (or Phoenix, or wherever)? The different types of promises imply very different approaches. Moreover, there’s evidence (see, for example, the representation studies by Richard Fenno) that politicians really are constrained by these types of promises.
Again, all of this is “political” in the sense of trying to fulfill promises and, therefore, represent constituents. And as Seth says, this is exactly what we want. In short, democracies need strong, successful representation, not politicians who simply do what they believe is right.
And: nice catch!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Catch of the Day: Politicians With Political Motives
By Jonathan Bernstein, March 2, 2014
The Catch goes to Seth Masket, who writes about the motives for politicians’ actions, using the example of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s veto of a state law that allowed business owners the right to deny service to gay and lesbian customers:
One of the silliest criticisms of a politician’s vote or veto, though, is that they were motivated by politics. Of course a politician’s actions are motivated by politics. Indeed, we want our politicians to be motivated by politics. That means they’re concerned about things like representing voters and not embarrassing their party or their government. That’s part of representative democracy. It’s the politicians who aren’t motivated by politics who are potentially dangerous. Luckily, they tend not to have long careers.Exactly.
Let me back up slightly. I agree that we want politicians to be motivated by politics, and that the right thing for a politician to do is to represent her constituents.
But representation isn’t a simple matter. It involves a relationship between a politician and constituents, in which the politician makes promises, takes actions in office that are informed by those promises and then explains those actions in terms of the promises.
But promises aren’t merely about specific actions on questions of public policy (“I support marriage equality” or “I support our Second Amendment rights”). They’re also about how a candidate will act once in office. These promises might be explicit (“I will always listen to the will of the people”), or they may be implicit.
My favorite example is a politician who is the “first” of a particular group to run for office and who basically campaigns on ethnicity, implicitly promising to represent that group. Such a candidate would be assailed for breaking his promises if he was caught acting against ethnic type, rather than simply being criticized for voting the wrong way on some issue.
Thinking about representation this way also helps us understand the old tension between “mandate” and “independence” representation -- that is, the difference between whether politicians should vote as their constituents would or whether they should act on their own beliefs. The answer depends, it turns out, on what a politician has promised to her constituents. Has she said that she is an expert on economic development, and that she would do whatever it took to create jobs? Or has she said that she’s “one of us” and will carry the voices of the people to Washington (or Phoenix, or wherever)? The different types of promises imply very different approaches. Moreover, there’s evidence (see, for example, the representation studies by Richard Fenno) that politicians really are constrained by these types of promises.
Again, all of this is “political” in the sense of trying to fulfill promises and, therefore, represent constituents. And as Seth says, this is exactly what we want. In short, democracies need strong, successful representation, not politicians who simply do what they believe is right.
And: nice catch!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Political campaign financing fix: a voucher system
...................................................................................................................................................................
This might be our best shot at fixing money in politics
The promise of "Patriot Dollars"
By Mark Schmitt, March 3, 2014
It's the newest idea on political money: Make everyone a donor. It might be our best shot to navigate the shoals of modern campaign finance law, and bring positive change.
Why does this matter now? If the Supreme Court rules as expected in the case McCutcheon vs. FEC, overturning the limit on the total amount of money any one person can donate to all federal campaigns, they will pull out the last cornerstone of the system of regulating money in politics established after Watergate. But even if the Court upholds that limit, there isn't much left of the old system of limits and disclosure. The money that matters now moves outside of the regulated system.
The bigger problem is that there aren't many fresh ideas about how to reduce the distortion of democracy by economic inequality, especially ideas that would also survive the Court's scrutiny. In Washington, the main solutions have been improved disclosure and better enforcement of rules about coordination between campaigns and outside spending groups — both weak attempts to salvage remnants of the old system. Outside Washington, there's enthusiasm about a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United, or declare that corporations aren't people, or some other purely symbolic gesture of futility.
The most promising solutions are in the experiments with public financing, either giving candidates who show broad support a fixed amount to run their campaigns (an innovation that we examined at New America in January), or by matching small contributions, as in New York City's hugely successful system. (In testimony to the New York City Campaign Finance Board earlier this month, I argued that "differences in candidates access to private funds matter less in New York City than in just about any political jurisdiction in the U.S.")
But there is one fairly new idea that has real promise, and it is reflected in a new piece of legislation introduced on Feb. 4 by Rep. John Sarbanes of Maryland, along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which now has 133 cosponsors, including one Republican. It's the idea that every single American can be a political donor, through a voucher that can be used to support any candidate or several, or a party.
The Sarbanes bill, known as the Government By the People Act, would couple a version of the New York City model (which matches small donations at 6:1), with a $25 tax credit for political contributions, so that in effect, every American would have a "free" $25 to contribute to political campaigns.
The idea of vouchers — giving every American adult a coupon that they could use to become a campaign donor — has floated around the edges of the academic conversation about money in politics for several years. Their best-known advocate has been Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman, who in his 2004 book, Voting with Dollars, co-authored with political scientist Ian Ayres, called them "Patriot Dollars." Up the road at Harvard Law School, Lawrence Lessig made vouchers one of several reform solutions he called for in his recent "New Hampshire Rebellion." Vouchers are a major feature of the "American Anti-Corruption Act," a comprehensive model bill developed by the organization, Represent.us. At least some conservatives and Republicans are open to vouchers, a model based on individual control and choice that they have supported in many other circumstances.
While Ackerman's Patriot Dollars would be tangible coupons, the same effect can be achieved through a tax credit, as long as its benefits are available to everyone, including people who don't earn enough to pay taxes. A few states offer tax credits for small campaign contributions, but many are underutilized. Minnesota's system is probably the ideal model: contributions of up to $50 are eligible for a credit, and donors can get the refund immediately, rather than waiting until they file their taxes. Research by the Campaign Finance Institute found that more than 45 percent of campaign money in Minnesota's legislative races came in contributions of less than $100, compared with 3 percent in New York. The Sarbanes bill would begin with a tax credit, but also create a pilot of a more direct voucher.
While small-donor matching systems have great promise in reducing the influence of big donors, making it easier for candidates without access to wealth to run, and encouraging participation, they have two shortcomings, one real and one just theoretical. Both would be fixed by vouchers. The real issue is that even a $50 or $100 political contribution is a big lift for a great many Americans, and for the poor and near-poor, it's inconceivable to spend money just to express their political views rather than for some immediate, tangible benefit. (Of course, poor people might be much better off with better elected officials and more supportive public policies, but that's a distant benefit.) A voucher makes everyone a potential donor, and gives all of us the opportunity to express our political views.
The more theoretical shortcoming of small-donor matching systems stems from the possibility that small donors are more ideologically passionate than the average voter, and thus their contributions might favor candidates who would increase the ideological polarization and dysfunction of Congress and legislatures. This is a key question for further research, but if it is a real concern, it could certainly be offset by vouchers, which would encourage more moderate voters whose views are less strongly held to participate, and encourage candidates to reach out to those average voters.
Vouchers or tax credits might have some shortcomings of their own. They might give an advantage to well-known or well-organized candidates, and it might be hard for new candidates to get to a competitive position on $25 or $50 contributions alone. But in concert with other reforms, they hold great promise as a means to reduce the influence of economic inequality and fight corruption, not with limits but by expanding participation and opportunity.
...................................................................................................................................................................
This might be our best shot at fixing money in politics
The promise of "Patriot Dollars"
By Mark Schmitt, March 3, 2014
It's the newest idea on political money: Make everyone a donor. It might be our best shot to navigate the shoals of modern campaign finance law, and bring positive change.
Why does this matter now? If the Supreme Court rules as expected in the case McCutcheon vs. FEC, overturning the limit on the total amount of money any one person can donate to all federal campaigns, they will pull out the last cornerstone of the system of regulating money in politics established after Watergate. But even if the Court upholds that limit, there isn't much left of the old system of limits and disclosure. The money that matters now moves outside of the regulated system.
The bigger problem is that there aren't many fresh ideas about how to reduce the distortion of democracy by economic inequality, especially ideas that would also survive the Court's scrutiny. In Washington, the main solutions have been improved disclosure and better enforcement of rules about coordination between campaigns and outside spending groups — both weak attempts to salvage remnants of the old system. Outside Washington, there's enthusiasm about a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United, or declare that corporations aren't people, or some other purely symbolic gesture of futility.
The most promising solutions are in the experiments with public financing, either giving candidates who show broad support a fixed amount to run their campaigns (an innovation that we examined at New America in January), or by matching small contributions, as in New York City's hugely successful system. (In testimony to the New York City Campaign Finance Board earlier this month, I argued that "differences in candidates access to private funds matter less in New York City than in just about any political jurisdiction in the U.S.")
But there is one fairly new idea that has real promise, and it is reflected in a new piece of legislation introduced on Feb. 4 by Rep. John Sarbanes of Maryland, along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which now has 133 cosponsors, including one Republican. It's the idea that every single American can be a political donor, through a voucher that can be used to support any candidate or several, or a party.
The Sarbanes bill, known as the Government By the People Act, would couple a version of the New York City model (which matches small donations at 6:1), with a $25 tax credit for political contributions, so that in effect, every American would have a "free" $25 to contribute to political campaigns.
The idea of vouchers — giving every American adult a coupon that they could use to become a campaign donor — has floated around the edges of the academic conversation about money in politics for several years. Their best-known advocate has been Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman, who in his 2004 book, Voting with Dollars, co-authored with political scientist Ian Ayres, called them "Patriot Dollars." Up the road at Harvard Law School, Lawrence Lessig made vouchers one of several reform solutions he called for in his recent "New Hampshire Rebellion." Vouchers are a major feature of the "American Anti-Corruption Act," a comprehensive model bill developed by the organization, Represent.us. At least some conservatives and Republicans are open to vouchers, a model based on individual control and choice that they have supported in many other circumstances.
While Ackerman's Patriot Dollars would be tangible coupons, the same effect can be achieved through a tax credit, as long as its benefits are available to everyone, including people who don't earn enough to pay taxes. A few states offer tax credits for small campaign contributions, but many are underutilized. Minnesota's system is probably the ideal model: contributions of up to $50 are eligible for a credit, and donors can get the refund immediately, rather than waiting until they file their taxes. Research by the Campaign Finance Institute found that more than 45 percent of campaign money in Minnesota's legislative races came in contributions of less than $100, compared with 3 percent in New York. The Sarbanes bill would begin with a tax credit, but also create a pilot of a more direct voucher.
While small-donor matching systems have great promise in reducing the influence of big donors, making it easier for candidates without access to wealth to run, and encouraging participation, they have two shortcomings, one real and one just theoretical. Both would be fixed by vouchers. The real issue is that even a $50 or $100 political contribution is a big lift for a great many Americans, and for the poor and near-poor, it's inconceivable to spend money just to express their political views rather than for some immediate, tangible benefit. (Of course, poor people might be much better off with better elected officials and more supportive public policies, but that's a distant benefit.) A voucher makes everyone a potential donor, and gives all of us the opportunity to express our political views.
The more theoretical shortcoming of small-donor matching systems stems from the possibility that small donors are more ideologically passionate than the average voter, and thus their contributions might favor candidates who would increase the ideological polarization and dysfunction of Congress and legislatures. This is a key question for further research, but if it is a real concern, it could certainly be offset by vouchers, which would encourage more moderate voters whose views are less strongly held to participate, and encourage candidates to reach out to those average voters.
Vouchers or tax credits might have some shortcomings of their own. They might give an advantage to well-known or well-organized candidates, and it might be hard for new candidates to get to a competitive position on $25 or $50 contributions alone. But in concert with other reforms, they hold great promise as a means to reduce the influence of economic inequality and fight corruption, not with limits but by expanding participation and opportunity.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Surely it won’t be long before Brewer does something to offend the liberals, and all will again be right with the world."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Political Insider: Running the numbers in SB 1062’s aftermath
By Republic reporters Mary Jo Pitzl, Alia Beard Rau and Rebekah L. Sanders, March 1, 2014
Senate Bill 1062! How do we love thee? ... Let us count the ways.
The controversial right-to-refuse-service bill, relegated to the scrap heap by Gov. Jan Brewer’s veto, unleashed a torrent of comment, protest, letters, e-mails and mentions in national media.
A few metrics from this flashpoint in Arizona political history:
745,100: Number of YouTube views (as of the end of the workweek) of CNN anchor Anderson Cooper’s interview with Sen. Al Melvin.
$5,000: The estimated out-of-pocket contribution from Fastsigns owner Scott Koehler, who printed “Open for Business to Everyone” signs, as well as banners and placards thanking Brewer for her veto. The figure excludes labor costs.
10: Number of national- and international-media interviews done by the Insider team.
65: Number of amendments Rep. Mark Cardenas said he wanted to introduce to derail House Bill 2153, the House version of SB 1062. Staff members talked him down to 15.
0: Number of cases cited of Arizonans who have been sued for refusing service based on “sincerely held” religious beliefs.
Navigating choppy waters ... Rep. Justin Pierce, on the stump for the GOP nomination for Arizona secretary of state, was happy to announce to a group of Prescott Republican women that he has been selected to speak at this month’s Conservative Political Action Conference meeting. Turns out, Pierce takes the podium a few minutes before New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
How, an audience member asked, would Pierce handle the somewhat delicate issue of serving as Christie’s warmup act without drawing unwanted attention to the governor’s political troubles?
“We’ll just have to cross that bridge when we get to it,” Pierce quipped. Rimshot!
It’s all gone topsy-turvy ... Two years ago, Gov. Jan Brewer was deemed the devil incarnate by Democrats for her finger-wag at President Barack Obama over immigration issues. This week, our Republican governor has become the darling of Democrats for her veto of SB 1062.
Hillary Clinton praised her during a speech at the University of Miami, according to the Associated Press, saying Brewer’s veto showed that “inclusive leadership is really what the 21st century is all about.”
Surely it won’t be long before Brewer does something to offend the liberals, and all will again be right with the world.
Whoopsie ... When everyone and their mother is looking to jump into the race for retiring U.S. Rep. Ed Pastor’s seat, skepticism apparently goes out the window.
Democratic political consultant Israel Torres, who ran in 2006 for secretary of state, fooled his Facebook friends by posting, “I’m in.”
“I’ve talked to my family, my clients and received many calls to run for Congress. After much consideration and prayer, I’m proud to be endorsed by UFCW 99 and UA Pipefitters 469,” he wrote.
The “announcement” spread like wildfire.
Problem was, Torres was being sarcastic, and he had to apologize.
“Thanks for your support but was just playing around ... sorry ... gulp,” he wrote.
Womp! Womp!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Political Insider: Running the numbers in SB 1062’s aftermath
By Republic reporters Mary Jo Pitzl, Alia Beard Rau and Rebekah L. Sanders, March 1, 2014
Senate Bill 1062! How do we love thee? ... Let us count the ways.
The controversial right-to-refuse-service bill, relegated to the scrap heap by Gov. Jan Brewer’s veto, unleashed a torrent of comment, protest, letters, e-mails and mentions in national media.
A few metrics from this flashpoint in Arizona political history:
745,100: Number of YouTube views (as of the end of the workweek) of CNN anchor Anderson Cooper’s interview with Sen. Al Melvin.
$5,000: The estimated out-of-pocket contribution from Fastsigns owner Scott Koehler, who printed “Open for Business to Everyone” signs, as well as banners and placards thanking Brewer for her veto. The figure excludes labor costs.
10: Number of national- and international-media interviews done by the Insider team.
65: Number of amendments Rep. Mark Cardenas said he wanted to introduce to derail House Bill 2153, the House version of SB 1062. Staff members talked him down to 15.
0: Number of cases cited of Arizonans who have been sued for refusing service based on “sincerely held” religious beliefs.
Navigating choppy waters ... Rep. Justin Pierce, on the stump for the GOP nomination for Arizona secretary of state, was happy to announce to a group of Prescott Republican women that he has been selected to speak at this month’s Conservative Political Action Conference meeting. Turns out, Pierce takes the podium a few minutes before New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
How, an audience member asked, would Pierce handle the somewhat delicate issue of serving as Christie’s warmup act without drawing unwanted attention to the governor’s political troubles?
“We’ll just have to cross that bridge when we get to it,” Pierce quipped. Rimshot!
It’s all gone topsy-turvy ... Two years ago, Gov. Jan Brewer was deemed the devil incarnate by Democrats for her finger-wag at President Barack Obama over immigration issues. This week, our Republican governor has become the darling of Democrats for her veto of SB 1062.
Hillary Clinton praised her during a speech at the University of Miami, according to the Associated Press, saying Brewer’s veto showed that “inclusive leadership is really what the 21st century is all about.”
Surely it won’t be long before Brewer does something to offend the liberals, and all will again be right with the world.
Whoopsie ... When everyone and their mother is looking to jump into the race for retiring U.S. Rep. Ed Pastor’s seat, skepticism apparently goes out the window.
Democratic political consultant Israel Torres, who ran in 2006 for secretary of state, fooled his Facebook friends by posting, “I’m in.”
“I’ve talked to my family, my clients and received many calls to run for Congress. After much consideration and prayer, I’m proud to be endorsed by UFCW 99 and UA Pipefitters 469,” he wrote.
The “announcement” spread like wildfire.
Problem was, Torres was being sarcastic, and he had to apologize.
“Thanks for your support but was just playing around ... sorry ... gulp,” he wrote.
Womp! Womp!
...................................................................................................................................................................
For every Koch ad that airs, it allows the Democrats to point out that the Koch-backed candidate will do their bidding in Congress
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why The Democrats Won’t Stop Saying “Koch Brothers”
Majority Leader Harry Reid caused a stir attacking the Koch Brothers on Senate Floor this week, but that’s probably on purpose. “There’s no downside to any elected official in this country attacking the Koch brothers,” said a Democratic strategist.
By Kate Nocera, February 28, 2014
When Majority Leader Harry Reid went to the Senate floor this week to blast the Koch brothers and Americans For Prosperity, calling the personal stories in their anti-Obamacare ads largely untrue, the Republican response was swift.
“An apology is in order,” said Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson in a statement. South Dakota Republican John Thune, too, called for an apology.
No one should be holding their breath: Democrats see attacks on the Koch brothers and any of their affiliates as one of the most effective messaging tactics they have heading into to the midterm elections. Reid didn’t just say the ads were untrue; he called the Kochs “un-American” and accused the billionaire brothers of trying to buy elections.
With the Democratic majority in the Senate on the line and vulnerable House Democrats fretting over Obamacare’s troubles, get ready to hear candidates and committees invoke the Koch name at every opportunity.
“There’s no downside to any elected official in this country attacking the Koch brothers. None, zero, zip,” said Jim Manley, a former Reid aide and Democratic strategist. “You always need a foil, and it’s taken a while for Democrats to get to this, but they are as good as any a foil given their efforts to buy elections left and right in this country.”
One AFP ad featuring a Michigan woman with leukemia, who strongly criticizes Obamacare and says the law “jeopardized her health,” has served as a particular flashpoint between the two parties. Politifact has called it ” misleading and, at best, lacking critical context.” In response, Republicans have claimed the majority leader was essentially attacking the cancer patient.
Despite opening himself up to that criticism, few in the Democratic campaign world see a downside in Reid painting the Kochs as electoral villains.
Democrats involved in House and Senate races told BuzzFeed that internal polling shows high disapproval for the Koch name among the Democratic base and independent voters — even as AFP’s brutal anti-Obamacare ads blitz vulnerable candidates.
“They are a rallying cry for the Democratic base heading into the midterm election and a touchstone for independent voters who are looking at who is funding you as a reflection of where you are standing on the issues,” another Democratic strategist said.
Mark Holden, a senior vice president and general counsel for Koch Industries, said as much in comments to Politico Playbook Friday — though he argued part of the reason is that AFP’s ads “are having an impact.”
“Using the Kochs’ name is part of the Democratic playbook: They use pejorative language and demonize us,” he said. “We saw it in ‘10, we saw it in ‘12, and now we’re seeing it again. Whether Sen. Reid likes it or not, Charles and David Koch have First Amendment rights. We believe in tolerance and civility and respect, and would appreciate some of the same from Sen. Reid and his colleagues. The [Americans for Prosperity] ads are having an impact, which is why the Democrats are reacting the way they are. A lot of the Democrats use it for fundraising — stir up their base. It’s also to intimidate those who disagree with the administration. They see what happens, and it squelches political dissent. That’s why you see the proposed new IRS regulations for 501©(4)s — that’s part of it, as well.”
AFP sees the Democratic attack on the Kochs as a tired argument and one they will not ultimately win.
“They know they cannot defend this law, and no one on the left that has to face the voters wants to defend this law,” said AFP President Tim Philips. “If you can’t defend it, you have to attack and build up a bogeyman. They are making a calculated political decision, it’s wrong and dishonest.”
AFP has already poured tens of millions of dollars into races across the country and is showing no signs that they will let up. And practically every time a new ad goes up, the message in response from Democrats is the same: The special interests and the Kochs are imposing their will. To wit, when AFP announced a $1.4 million ad buy in North Carolina against Sen. Kay Hagan, Hagan’s campaign spokeswoman told Politico the Kochs were trying to “buy a Senate seat because they know Kay will always choose the best interests of North Carolina over their special interest agenda”
Democrats are also looking at past races as a reason to stay on message when it comes to the Kochs. Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, worked on the 2012 campaign of Sen. Sherrod Brown in Ohio where AFP spent millions boosting Brown’s opponent Josh Mandel.
“Having that much money against your candidate by special interest groups makes things more challenging but it allowed us to contrast the agendas of the two candidates,” Barasky said. “They knew Sherrod Brown would never go along with their agenda and Josh Mandel would. Every time an ad went up, it allowed us to say they know Josh will do their bidding in the Senate.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why The Democrats Won’t Stop Saying “Koch Brothers”
Majority Leader Harry Reid caused a stir attacking the Koch Brothers on Senate Floor this week, but that’s probably on purpose. “There’s no downside to any elected official in this country attacking the Koch brothers,” said a Democratic strategist.
By Kate Nocera, February 28, 2014
When Majority Leader Harry Reid went to the Senate floor this week to blast the Koch brothers and Americans For Prosperity, calling the personal stories in their anti-Obamacare ads largely untrue, the Republican response was swift.
“An apology is in order,” said Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson in a statement. South Dakota Republican John Thune, too, called for an apology.
No one should be holding their breath: Democrats see attacks on the Koch brothers and any of their affiliates as one of the most effective messaging tactics they have heading into to the midterm elections. Reid didn’t just say the ads were untrue; he called the Kochs “un-American” and accused the billionaire brothers of trying to buy elections.
With the Democratic majority in the Senate on the line and vulnerable House Democrats fretting over Obamacare’s troubles, get ready to hear candidates and committees invoke the Koch name at every opportunity.
“There’s no downside to any elected official in this country attacking the Koch brothers. None, zero, zip,” said Jim Manley, a former Reid aide and Democratic strategist. “You always need a foil, and it’s taken a while for Democrats to get to this, but they are as good as any a foil given their efforts to buy elections left and right in this country.”
One AFP ad featuring a Michigan woman with leukemia, who strongly criticizes Obamacare and says the law “jeopardized her health,” has served as a particular flashpoint between the two parties. Politifact has called it ” misleading and, at best, lacking critical context.” In response, Republicans have claimed the majority leader was essentially attacking the cancer patient.
Despite opening himself up to that criticism, few in the Democratic campaign world see a downside in Reid painting the Kochs as electoral villains.
Democrats involved in House and Senate races told BuzzFeed that internal polling shows high disapproval for the Koch name among the Democratic base and independent voters — even as AFP’s brutal anti-Obamacare ads blitz vulnerable candidates.
“They are a rallying cry for the Democratic base heading into the midterm election and a touchstone for independent voters who are looking at who is funding you as a reflection of where you are standing on the issues,” another Democratic strategist said.
Mark Holden, a senior vice president and general counsel for Koch Industries, said as much in comments to Politico Playbook Friday — though he argued part of the reason is that AFP’s ads “are having an impact.”
“Using the Kochs’ name is part of the Democratic playbook: They use pejorative language and demonize us,” he said. “We saw it in ‘10, we saw it in ‘12, and now we’re seeing it again. Whether Sen. Reid likes it or not, Charles and David Koch have First Amendment rights. We believe in tolerance and civility and respect, and would appreciate some of the same from Sen. Reid and his colleagues. The [Americans for Prosperity] ads are having an impact, which is why the Democrats are reacting the way they are. A lot of the Democrats use it for fundraising — stir up their base. It’s also to intimidate those who disagree with the administration. They see what happens, and it squelches political dissent. That’s why you see the proposed new IRS regulations for 501©(4)s — that’s part of it, as well.”
AFP sees the Democratic attack on the Kochs as a tired argument and one they will not ultimately win.
“They know they cannot defend this law, and no one on the left that has to face the voters wants to defend this law,” said AFP President Tim Philips. “If you can’t defend it, you have to attack and build up a bogeyman. They are making a calculated political decision, it’s wrong and dishonest.”
AFP has already poured tens of millions of dollars into races across the country and is showing no signs that they will let up. And practically every time a new ad goes up, the message in response from Democrats is the same: The special interests and the Kochs are imposing their will. To wit, when AFP announced a $1.4 million ad buy in North Carolina against Sen. Kay Hagan, Hagan’s campaign spokeswoman told Politico the Kochs were trying to “buy a Senate seat because they know Kay will always choose the best interests of North Carolina over their special interest agenda”
Democrats are also looking at past races as a reason to stay on message when it comes to the Kochs. Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, worked on the 2012 campaign of Sen. Sherrod Brown in Ohio where AFP spent millions boosting Brown’s opponent Josh Mandel.
“Having that much money against your candidate by special interest groups makes things more challenging but it allowed us to contrast the agendas of the two candidates,” Barasky said. “They knew Sherrod Brown would never go along with their agenda and Josh Mandel would. Every time an ad went up, it allowed us to say they know Josh will do their bidding in the Senate.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sunday, March 2, 2014
"I hate it when politics, as it usually does, ends up being about false advertising"
...................................................................................................................................................................
How come the politicians aren't worthy of politics?
By Jack Spillane, March 2, 2014
[snipped]
OK, so don't smirk if you're not a politics nerd, but I really have been wondering whether they'll ever get the smoking gun on Chris Christie in the George Washington Bridge scandal?
Why do I care about the round man, and whether they can prove he knew his capos were closing down the busiest bridge in the world in order to muscle New Jersey's Democratic mayors?
Well, because the Washington insiders have anointed Mr. Christie as the great moderate GOP hope for president in 2016. Moderate and Republican strikes me as an oxymoron in this day and age — I really don't see anyone on the horizon of the true moderate ilk of Nelson Rockefeller or even former Bay State governor Frank Sargent for that matter.
Maybe it's just me.
But the guy with the great alliterative name strikes me as a bully — the kind of smart guy who would embarrass his enemies in a crowd. You know, like high school but on a national scale.
So I'm not all that interested in the terror of Trenton leading the free world.
There I've said it. I'm too liberal for Chris Christie. There must be no hope for the GOP moderates with me.
[snipped]
I'm all for making campaign promises — whether it's Obama promising to close Guantanamo or Deval Patrick promising commuter rail by 2016 or Rebeiro promising to rid New Bedford of the 44 percent council pay raise with automatic cost-of-living increases.
But call me unreasonable but I'm pretty much against politicians forgetting about their promises after they're elected.
Or putting them on the back burner. I don't know, it kind of seems like false advertising to me.
You know, I love politics. Because it's about stuff that really matters. Stuff that affects all of our lives and all that.
But I hate it when politics, as it usually does, ends up being about false advertising. Sort of the way used car salesmen operate or the guys selling you the latest veggie chopper on cable TV.
Because politics should be about changing things, or making things right or better. And all that good stuff that we all love.
Has anyone told the politicians that's what it's about?
...................................................................................................................................................................
How come the politicians aren't worthy of politics?
By Jack Spillane, March 2, 2014
[snipped]
OK, so don't smirk if you're not a politics nerd, but I really have been wondering whether they'll ever get the smoking gun on Chris Christie in the George Washington Bridge scandal?
Why do I care about the round man, and whether they can prove he knew his capos were closing down the busiest bridge in the world in order to muscle New Jersey's Democratic mayors?
Well, because the Washington insiders have anointed Mr. Christie as the great moderate GOP hope for president in 2016. Moderate and Republican strikes me as an oxymoron in this day and age — I really don't see anyone on the horizon of the true moderate ilk of Nelson Rockefeller or even former Bay State governor Frank Sargent for that matter.
Maybe it's just me.
But the guy with the great alliterative name strikes me as a bully — the kind of smart guy who would embarrass his enemies in a crowd. You know, like high school but on a national scale.
So I'm not all that interested in the terror of Trenton leading the free world.
There I've said it. I'm too liberal for Chris Christie. There must be no hope for the GOP moderates with me.
[snipped]
I'm all for making campaign promises — whether it's Obama promising to close Guantanamo or Deval Patrick promising commuter rail by 2016 or Rebeiro promising to rid New Bedford of the 44 percent council pay raise with automatic cost-of-living increases.
But call me unreasonable but I'm pretty much against politicians forgetting about their promises after they're elected.
Or putting them on the back burner. I don't know, it kind of seems like false advertising to me.
You know, I love politics. Because it's about stuff that really matters. Stuff that affects all of our lives and all that.
But I hate it when politics, as it usually does, ends up being about false advertising. Sort of the way used car salesmen operate or the guys selling you the latest veggie chopper on cable TV.
Because politics should be about changing things, or making things right or better. And all that good stuff that we all love.
Has anyone told the politicians that's what it's about?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Brewer-- more mainstream and not as far right as she was in the beginning of her term
...................................................................................................................................................................
Gov. Jan Brewer’s Relentless Move to the Political Center
By Eric Pianin, March 2, 2014
It wasn’t that long ago that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was wagging her finger in President Obama’s face on an airport tarmac as they feuded over immigration policy. The ill will was punctuated after an earlier unpleasant meeting the two had in the Oval Office, and because of some nasty things Brewer said about the president in her new book, Scorpions for Breakfast.
Brewer, a Republican, had succeeded Democrat Janet Napolitano as governor in early 2009 after Napolitano was tapped by Obama to head the Department of Homeland Security. The following year, Brewer became a darling of the right after she signed into law one of the most restrictive immigration laws in the country.
Brewer gradually inched her way from a role as right-wing champion to a more mainstream, business oriented Republican. Her political calculations, especially on sensitive social issues, invariably have been controversial and sometimes surprising.
The turning point came when she agreed to go along with expanded Medicaid under the Obamacare – breaking ranks with many of her fellow Republican governors who have rejected the additional coverage for the poor in their states. Then last Wednesday she vetoed legislation providing a wide variety of religious exemptions to businesses, after major business groups, prominent Republicans and gay rights advocates argued that the law was discriminatory.
Brewer is term limited and has just ten more months remaining in her term. But she has left open the possibility of challenging state law and seeking another term because she served less than half of the last term of Napolitano. Some experts see her moderating move towards the center as an important element of that electoral strategy.
“When she became governor upon Napolitano’s resignation, I think it’s fair to say she wasn’t ready—unpolished, unaccustomed to taking charge in the ways a chief executive must, and too tied to one faction – the anti-immigration activists,” said University of Virginia political professor Larry J. Sabato. “Like many do, Brewer has grown into the job.”
“They are all conscious of history and how they’ll be judged,” Sabato added. “Brewer has improved her image substantially. . . She will need the support of business to win another term if she has the opportunity. Regardless, she’ll finish this term looking a lot better than she started it.”
As she begins what could be the final months of her governorship, “Brewer has signaled that she wants to cement a legacy as a Republican who was dedicated to jobs and the economy, not far right ideological warfare,” according to The Washington Post.
“She has a reputation as a rock-ribbed conservative throughout three decades of elected office,” Chris DeRose, an Arizona-based lawyer and Republican strategist, told The Post. “But I think there is a pragmatism that comes into play when you become governor, especially a governor in your last term.”
Brewer, 69, a former state lawmaker and secretary of state, commanded the national spotlight in April 2010 when she signed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighbors Act, which makes it a misdemeanor for an immigrant to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents and authorizes state and local enforcement of federal immigration laws. The law also cracks down on those who shelter, hire or transport illegal immigrants – a measure that some say subjects illegal immigrants to a virtual police state.
A subsequent bill she signed dealing with racial profiling provoked massive demonstrations in Arizona, Washington, D.C., and many other cities across the country, involving groups both for and against the law. Practically overnight, she became the toast of her party’s conservative right wing and the archenemy of the Hispanic community and their liberal allies.
The turning point in her transformation came in June 2013, when she signed legislation expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act following her victory over conservatives in her own party who opposed embracing a key part of Obama’s health care law.
Brewer had joined with other Republican governors and national figures in fighting Obamacare, but agreed to add more than 300,000 poor Arizonans to the program after the Supreme Court found it was constitutional and Obama was re-elected. Then last Wednesday, she vetoed a highly controversial bill with a provision that would have given business owners a legal defense for refusing service to customers on religious grounds.
The federal government and 18 states including Arizona have so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that provide the courts with uniform standards to apply to individual cases. In part, they require the government to show a compelling justification for interfering in an individual’s or businesses exercise of religious beliefs.
The bill that Brewer vetoed addressed two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation, according to a bipartisan group of law professors who argued that the bill had been “egregiously misrepresented by its critics” as a move to allow businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples on the basis of their religious beliefs.
The lawyers wrote that the bill “would provide that people are covered by the [religious freedom] law when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.”
Brewer said on Wednesday that the bill “does not address a specific or present concern related to a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona, adding that she hadn’t heard a single example of an Arizona business owner whose “religious liberty has been violated.”
Brewer criticized the bill as being too “broadly worded” and said it had “the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve.
The governor’s veto was praised by civil-rights groups, and hundreds of demonstrators who gathered outside the state capitol cheered, hugged and waved flags as they heard about the veto, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Meanwhile, conservative activists said they would continue to press for additional legal protections for private businesses that deny service to gay men and lesbians.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Gov. Jan Brewer’s Relentless Move to the Political Center
By Eric Pianin, March 2, 2014
It wasn’t that long ago that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was wagging her finger in President Obama’s face on an airport tarmac as they feuded over immigration policy. The ill will was punctuated after an earlier unpleasant meeting the two had in the Oval Office, and because of some nasty things Brewer said about the president in her new book, Scorpions for Breakfast.
Brewer, a Republican, had succeeded Democrat Janet Napolitano as governor in early 2009 after Napolitano was tapped by Obama to head the Department of Homeland Security. The following year, Brewer became a darling of the right after she signed into law one of the most restrictive immigration laws in the country.
Brewer gradually inched her way from a role as right-wing champion to a more mainstream, business oriented Republican. Her political calculations, especially on sensitive social issues, invariably have been controversial and sometimes surprising.
The turning point came when she agreed to go along with expanded Medicaid under the Obamacare – breaking ranks with many of her fellow Republican governors who have rejected the additional coverage for the poor in their states. Then last Wednesday she vetoed legislation providing a wide variety of religious exemptions to businesses, after major business groups, prominent Republicans and gay rights advocates argued that the law was discriminatory.
Brewer is term limited and has just ten more months remaining in her term. But she has left open the possibility of challenging state law and seeking another term because she served less than half of the last term of Napolitano. Some experts see her moderating move towards the center as an important element of that electoral strategy.
“When she became governor upon Napolitano’s resignation, I think it’s fair to say she wasn’t ready—unpolished, unaccustomed to taking charge in the ways a chief executive must, and too tied to one faction – the anti-immigration activists,” said University of Virginia political professor Larry J. Sabato. “Like many do, Brewer has grown into the job.”
“They are all conscious of history and how they’ll be judged,” Sabato added. “Brewer has improved her image substantially. . . She will need the support of business to win another term if she has the opportunity. Regardless, she’ll finish this term looking a lot better than she started it.”
As she begins what could be the final months of her governorship, “Brewer has signaled that she wants to cement a legacy as a Republican who was dedicated to jobs and the economy, not far right ideological warfare,” according to The Washington Post.
“She has a reputation as a rock-ribbed conservative throughout three decades of elected office,” Chris DeRose, an Arizona-based lawyer and Republican strategist, told The Post. “But I think there is a pragmatism that comes into play when you become governor, especially a governor in your last term.”
Brewer, 69, a former state lawmaker and secretary of state, commanded the national spotlight in April 2010 when she signed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighbors Act, which makes it a misdemeanor for an immigrant to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents and authorizes state and local enforcement of federal immigration laws. The law also cracks down on those who shelter, hire or transport illegal immigrants – a measure that some say subjects illegal immigrants to a virtual police state.
A subsequent bill she signed dealing with racial profiling provoked massive demonstrations in Arizona, Washington, D.C., and many other cities across the country, involving groups both for and against the law. Practically overnight, she became the toast of her party’s conservative right wing and the archenemy of the Hispanic community and their liberal allies.
The turning point in her transformation came in June 2013, when she signed legislation expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act following her victory over conservatives in her own party who opposed embracing a key part of Obama’s health care law.
Brewer had joined with other Republican governors and national figures in fighting Obamacare, but agreed to add more than 300,000 poor Arizonans to the program after the Supreme Court found it was constitutional and Obama was re-elected. Then last Wednesday, she vetoed a highly controversial bill with a provision that would have given business owners a legal defense for refusing service to customers on religious grounds.
The federal government and 18 states including Arizona have so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that provide the courts with uniform standards to apply to individual cases. In part, they require the government to show a compelling justification for interfering in an individual’s or businesses exercise of religious beliefs.
The bill that Brewer vetoed addressed two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation, according to a bipartisan group of law professors who argued that the bill had been “egregiously misrepresented by its critics” as a move to allow businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples on the basis of their religious beliefs.
The lawyers wrote that the bill “would provide that people are covered by the [religious freedom] law when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.”
Brewer said on Wednesday that the bill “does not address a specific or present concern related to a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona, adding that she hadn’t heard a single example of an Arizona business owner whose “religious liberty has been violated.”
Brewer criticized the bill as being too “broadly worded” and said it had “the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve.
The governor’s veto was praised by civil-rights groups, and hundreds of demonstrators who gathered outside the state capitol cheered, hugged and waved flags as they heard about the veto, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Meanwhile, conservative activists said they would continue to press for additional legal protections for private businesses that deny service to gay men and lesbians.
...................................................................................................................................................................
At least Begich has a sense of humor about the Koch attack ads
...................................................................................................................................................................
Begich: Outside money in politics is the new lay of the land
By Jeremy Hsieh, February 28, 2014
It’s an election year for Alaska’s Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, and there’s been no shortage of television attack ads from groups supporting his opponents.
The first-term senator chuckles and offers a polite apology to television watchers.
“I think that’s the lay of the land now, and I think these outside groups like the Koch brothers, who, you know — the same group that’s laying off 80 employees up in Fairbanks and not figuring out how to clean up the water they’re leaving there — are groups that are gonna just try to influence the politics of Alaska and, try to, you know, buy states,” Begich says.
The Koch brothers are David and Charles Koch of the multibillion dollar Koch Industries, based in Kansas. Begich’s layoff reference is to the imminent closure of Koch Industries’ Flint Hills oil refinery in North Pole. The Koch brothers have spent millions supporting right-wing political campaigns across the country.
“Which is somewhat disturbing in the sense of the political process. But from my perspective, I know Alaskans will focus on what I’ve done, and a larger picture, not just these outside groups that wanna, you know, twist the facts and twist the information for their own political gain,” Begich says.
Begich urges Alaskans to verify information through independent sources and specifically names PolitiFact and C-SPAN‘s websites.
“I think those will be great sources of unbiased, nonpartisan information,” he says.
[snipped]
...................................................................................................................................................................
Begich: Outside money in politics is the new lay of the land
By Jeremy Hsieh, February 28, 2014
It’s an election year for Alaska’s Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, and there’s been no shortage of television attack ads from groups supporting his opponents.
The first-term senator chuckles and offers a polite apology to television watchers.
“I think that’s the lay of the land now, and I think these outside groups like the Koch brothers, who, you know — the same group that’s laying off 80 employees up in Fairbanks and not figuring out how to clean up the water they’re leaving there — are groups that are gonna just try to influence the politics of Alaska and, try to, you know, buy states,” Begich says.
The Koch brothers are David and Charles Koch of the multibillion dollar Koch Industries, based in Kansas. Begich’s layoff reference is to the imminent closure of Koch Industries’ Flint Hills oil refinery in North Pole. The Koch brothers have spent millions supporting right-wing political campaigns across the country.
“Which is somewhat disturbing in the sense of the political process. But from my perspective, I know Alaskans will focus on what I’ve done, and a larger picture, not just these outside groups that wanna, you know, twist the facts and twist the information for their own political gain,” Begich says.
Begich urges Alaskans to verify information through independent sources and specifically names PolitiFact and C-SPAN‘s websites.
“I think those will be great sources of unbiased, nonpartisan information,” he says.
[snipped]
...................................................................................................................................................................
Saturday, March 1, 2014
For better or worse, the tea party movement has made a difference
...................................................................................................................................................................
5 years later, here's how the tea party changed politics
By Tom Cohen, February 28, 2014
Five years ago, not many people knew of Ted Cruz or sequestration or had seen a tricorne hat.
Today, all are familiar in the political arena because of the tea party movement that emerged in 2009.
For better or worse, the coming together of frustrated conservatives fearing American ruin due to rising debt has altered the national discussion to raise the profile of people and policies previously relegated to the right-wing fringe.
Republicans fear tea party challengers in primaries. Democrats complain about the tea party caucus. The fiscal conversation focuses on reducing deficits and even reforming entitlement programs that make up the social safety net.
Here's a kind of "greatest hits of the tea party, volume one":
1) Protesting patriots
[snipped]
2) Obamacare fury
[snipped]
3) Republican control of the House
[snipped]
4) Democratic control of the Senate
[snipped]
5) Ted Cruz and Michele Bachmann
[snipped]
6) New vocabulary
[snipped]
7) Poor John [Boehner]
[snipped]
8) IRS targeting
[snipped]
...................................................................................................................................................................
5 years later, here's how the tea party changed politics
By Tom Cohen, February 28, 2014
Five years ago, not many people knew of Ted Cruz or sequestration or had seen a tricorne hat.
Today, all are familiar in the political arena because of the tea party movement that emerged in 2009.
For better or worse, the coming together of frustrated conservatives fearing American ruin due to rising debt has altered the national discussion to raise the profile of people and policies previously relegated to the right-wing fringe.
Republicans fear tea party challengers in primaries. Democrats complain about the tea party caucus. The fiscal conversation focuses on reducing deficits and even reforming entitlement programs that make up the social safety net.
Here's a kind of "greatest hits of the tea party, volume one":
1) Protesting patriots
[snipped]
2) Obamacare fury
[snipped]
3) Republican control of the House
[snipped]
4) Democratic control of the Senate
[snipped]
5) Ted Cruz and Michele Bachmann
[snipped]
6) New vocabulary
[snipped]
7) Poor John [Boehner]
[snipped]
8) IRS targeting
[snipped]
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... Republican support for same-sex marriage is on the rise" but "... any GOP evolution on gay rights and same-sex marriage ..." won't happen smoothly, never mind Brewer's veto
...................................................................................................................................................................
Inside Politics: Is Brewer part of a GOP evolution?
By John King, February 28, 2014
With the stroke of her pen a few years ago, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer took the lead in a GOP immigration retreat that made it harder for Republicans to win the White House in 2012. Now, she is again at the center of a big national debate, but this time might her signature be part of an evolution helpful to GOP chances in 2016?
At issue then: her support for Arizona's tough immigration law. Brewer signed SB 1070 into law in 2010 and its tough provisions became a national flashpoint and contributed to President Barack Obama's huge advantage among Latino voters.
And now? A Brewer veto is at issue: The governor rejected legislation that would have allowed Arizona businesses to deny services to gay people on grounds of religious beliefs.
Tolerance is an issue for Republicans among key voting blocs, especially independents and younger voters. So some GOP strategists were quick to applaud Brewer for a move they say shows Republicans are listening and adapting to changing times -- and changing views on gay rights.
"It tells us the Republican Party is learning the difference between standing for principle and standing in the middle of a busy intersection," said GOP strategist Alex Castellanos. "In other words, we are learning that futile gestures that have only symbolic impact do the GOP cause more harm than good."
Many social conservatives critical to GOP success vehemently disagree with that take, however, and the shifting tides of the immigration debate in recent years suggest we have hardly heard the last word.
Effects of immigration revolt still felt
Remember, some of the toughest proposals for new immigration steps were a response to a Republican president -- George W. Bush -- and a Republican presidential nominee -- Sen. John McCain. They favored a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented workers, setting off a revolt among conservatives who consider that granting amnesty to lawbreakers.
And that revolt had ripple effects that continue to this day.
Arizona's 2010 legislation was a conservative-led rebuke to the views of Bush, McCain and by then, Obama. Brewer was hardly known as a conservative firebrand, but she signed the law and avoided a backlash from the right as she readied for a re-election campaign.
In 2012, it was Mitt Romney, once a supporter of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy approach, embracing the Arizona law and saying with tough measures those here illegally would "self deport." Now, House Speaker John Boehner, also in general agreement with the Bush-McCain-Kennedy approach, won't bring such a measure to a vote because he knows a vocal minority in his caucus would revolt.
Brewer's veto on the latest Arizona bill drew praise from the Obama White House and from Hillary Clinton, which tells you all you need to know about whether social conservatives will press the issue in the next White House campaign.
"Looking ahead to 2016, there are only going to be more clashes and court cases which will make 'judges' an even bigger issue in the GOP primaries and caucuses," said conservative strategist Keith Appell.
Strategist: Debate is about limiting government reach
Castellanos agrees but sees a changing tone.
"We will still have the debate in the primaries, but it will be less intense," he predicts. "The party isn't changing its values but is learning that we can't be big government conservatives, even when it is convenient for us, on social conservative issues.
"In short, the debate is increasingly about limiting the role of government, where social conservatives and libertarians agree, than about gay marriage, where Republicans don't."
This finding in a recent New York Times/CBS News poll reinforces that latter point: "Over all, Republican support for same-sex marriage is on the rise. In the fall of 2012, just 24% of Republicans backed legalizing the unions; now 40% of Republicans do so."
Romney and Florida Gov. Rick Scott were among major GOP voices who urged Brewer to veto the Arizona gay rights law. But if we have learned anything in recent years, when leading GOP establishment figures say one thing, vocal voices in the tea party and social conservative movement will urge another -- and try to punish those who disagree.
So what happens the 2014 election year -- in the courts and at the ballot box -- will have as much if not more influence on the 2016 intra-Republican debate as Brewer's veto.
"These instances where gay rights clash with free exercise of faith," the conservative strategist Appell said, "will only gin up and activate the conservative base even more in 2014."
Castellanos believes the growing libertarian streak within the GOP will push the party to an eventual resolution of these tensions.
" 'Freedom nationally, values personally,' is where the GOP is going," Castellanos argues.
But, mindful of the continuing immigration divide, what Castellanos doesn't argue is that any GOP evolution on gay rights and same-sex marriage specifically will happen smoothly.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Inside Politics: Is Brewer part of a GOP evolution?
By John King, February 28, 2014
With the stroke of her pen a few years ago, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer took the lead in a GOP immigration retreat that made it harder for Republicans to win the White House in 2012. Now, she is again at the center of a big national debate, but this time might her signature be part of an evolution helpful to GOP chances in 2016?
At issue then: her support for Arizona's tough immigration law. Brewer signed SB 1070 into law in 2010 and its tough provisions became a national flashpoint and contributed to President Barack Obama's huge advantage among Latino voters.
And now? A Brewer veto is at issue: The governor rejected legislation that would have allowed Arizona businesses to deny services to gay people on grounds of religious beliefs.
Tolerance is an issue for Republicans among key voting blocs, especially independents and younger voters. So some GOP strategists were quick to applaud Brewer for a move they say shows Republicans are listening and adapting to changing times -- and changing views on gay rights.
"It tells us the Republican Party is learning the difference between standing for principle and standing in the middle of a busy intersection," said GOP strategist Alex Castellanos. "In other words, we are learning that futile gestures that have only symbolic impact do the GOP cause more harm than good."
Many social conservatives critical to GOP success vehemently disagree with that take, however, and the shifting tides of the immigration debate in recent years suggest we have hardly heard the last word.
Effects of immigration revolt still felt
Remember, some of the toughest proposals for new immigration steps were a response to a Republican president -- George W. Bush -- and a Republican presidential nominee -- Sen. John McCain. They favored a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented workers, setting off a revolt among conservatives who consider that granting amnesty to lawbreakers.
And that revolt had ripple effects that continue to this day.
Arizona's 2010 legislation was a conservative-led rebuke to the views of Bush, McCain and by then, Obama. Brewer was hardly known as a conservative firebrand, but she signed the law and avoided a backlash from the right as she readied for a re-election campaign.
In 2012, it was Mitt Romney, once a supporter of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy approach, embracing the Arizona law and saying with tough measures those here illegally would "self deport." Now, House Speaker John Boehner, also in general agreement with the Bush-McCain-Kennedy approach, won't bring such a measure to a vote because he knows a vocal minority in his caucus would revolt.
Brewer's veto on the latest Arizona bill drew praise from the Obama White House and from Hillary Clinton, which tells you all you need to know about whether social conservatives will press the issue in the next White House campaign.
"Looking ahead to 2016, there are only going to be more clashes and court cases which will make 'judges' an even bigger issue in the GOP primaries and caucuses," said conservative strategist Keith Appell.
Strategist: Debate is about limiting government reach
Castellanos agrees but sees a changing tone.
"We will still have the debate in the primaries, but it will be less intense," he predicts. "The party isn't changing its values but is learning that we can't be big government conservatives, even when it is convenient for us, on social conservative issues.
"In short, the debate is increasingly about limiting the role of government, where social conservatives and libertarians agree, than about gay marriage, where Republicans don't."
This finding in a recent New York Times/CBS News poll reinforces that latter point: "Over all, Republican support for same-sex marriage is on the rise. In the fall of 2012, just 24% of Republicans backed legalizing the unions; now 40% of Republicans do so."
Romney and Florida Gov. Rick Scott were among major GOP voices who urged Brewer to veto the Arizona gay rights law. But if we have learned anything in recent years, when leading GOP establishment figures say one thing, vocal voices in the tea party and social conservative movement will urge another -- and try to punish those who disagree.
So what happens the 2014 election year -- in the courts and at the ballot box -- will have as much if not more influence on the 2016 intra-Republican debate as Brewer's veto.
"These instances where gay rights clash with free exercise of faith," the conservative strategist Appell said, "will only gin up and activate the conservative base even more in 2014."
Castellanos believes the growing libertarian streak within the GOP will push the party to an eventual resolution of these tensions.
" 'Freedom nationally, values personally,' is where the GOP is going," Castellanos argues.
But, mindful of the continuing immigration divide, what Castellanos doesn't argue is that any GOP evolution on gay rights and same-sex marriage specifically will happen smoothly.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Koch model of political activism means that parties no longer control the process
...................................................................................................................................................................
Big-Money Donors Demand Larger Say in Party Strategy
By Nicholas Confessore, March 1, 2014
The Republican donors who have financed the party’s vast outside-spending machine are turning against the consultants and political strategists they once lavished with hundreds of millions of dollars.
In recent months, they have begun holding back checks from Republican “super PACs” like American Crossroads, unsatisfied with the groups’ explanations for their failure to unseat President Obama or win back the Senate. Others, less willing than in the past to defer to the party elders and former congressional staff members who control the biggest groups, are demanding a bigger voice in creating strategy in exchange for their continued support.
Donors like Paul Singer, the billionaire Republican investor, have expanded their in-house political shops, building teams of loyal advisers and researchers to guide and coordinate their giving. And some of the biggest contributors to Republican outside groups in 2012 are now gravitating toward the more donor-centric political and philanthropic network overseen by Charles and David Koch, who have wooed them in part by promising more accountability over how money is spent.
“People are really drawn to the Koch model,” said Anthony Scaramucci, a New York hedge fund investor and Republican fund-raiser, who attended the Kochs’ annual donor conference near Palm Springs, Calif., in January. “It’s adaptive, data-driven, and they are the most propitious capital allocators in political activism.”
The quiet revolt signals a broader shift in the world of big money. Clubs of elite donors in both parties are taking a more central role in shaping policy and campaigns, displacing party leaders and the outside-spending organizations they helped create after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010. And the sheer scale of their spending is almost certain to rewrite the playbook for political campaigns this year, as candidates reckon with the strongly held views of some of the world’s wealthiest people.
The phenomenon is not limited to the right. Super PACs blessed by Democratic congressional leaders have posted strong fund-raising over the last year, bolstered by victories in 2012. But those organizations are now being overshadowed by donors like Tom Steyer, the billionaire who is raising a $100 million political fund with other wealthy environmentalists to battle politicians deemed hostile to climate regulation.
Parties have “lost the ability to control the process,” said Jim Nicholson, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, partly because of legislation that cut the flow of money to party committees. “The party can’t coordinate with these super PACs and neither can the campaigns, so there’s a lot more chaos and disequilibrium in the campaigns. And the party structure clearly has a diminished role because they don’t have the resources they used to have.”
Rob Stein, a founder of the Democracy Alliance, one of the largest clubs of donors on the left, agreed.
“The devolution of the two-party system has begun,” Mr. Stein said. “Money is leaving the parties and going to independent expenditure groups. These now are fracturing the ‘big tents’ of our old two-party system into independent, narrow and well-funded wings.”
[major snippage]
...................................................................................................................................................................
Big-Money Donors Demand Larger Say in Party Strategy
By Nicholas Confessore, March 1, 2014
The Republican donors who have financed the party’s vast outside-spending machine are turning against the consultants and political strategists they once lavished with hundreds of millions of dollars.
In recent months, they have begun holding back checks from Republican “super PACs” like American Crossroads, unsatisfied with the groups’ explanations for their failure to unseat President Obama or win back the Senate. Others, less willing than in the past to defer to the party elders and former congressional staff members who control the biggest groups, are demanding a bigger voice in creating strategy in exchange for their continued support.
Donors like Paul Singer, the billionaire Republican investor, have expanded their in-house political shops, building teams of loyal advisers and researchers to guide and coordinate their giving. And some of the biggest contributors to Republican outside groups in 2012 are now gravitating toward the more donor-centric political and philanthropic network overseen by Charles and David Koch, who have wooed them in part by promising more accountability over how money is spent.
“People are really drawn to the Koch model,” said Anthony Scaramucci, a New York hedge fund investor and Republican fund-raiser, who attended the Kochs’ annual donor conference near Palm Springs, Calif., in January. “It’s adaptive, data-driven, and they are the most propitious capital allocators in political activism.”
The quiet revolt signals a broader shift in the world of big money. Clubs of elite donors in both parties are taking a more central role in shaping policy and campaigns, displacing party leaders and the outside-spending organizations they helped create after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010. And the sheer scale of their spending is almost certain to rewrite the playbook for political campaigns this year, as candidates reckon with the strongly held views of some of the world’s wealthiest people.
The phenomenon is not limited to the right. Super PACs blessed by Democratic congressional leaders have posted strong fund-raising over the last year, bolstered by victories in 2012. But those organizations are now being overshadowed by donors like Tom Steyer, the billionaire who is raising a $100 million political fund with other wealthy environmentalists to battle politicians deemed hostile to climate regulation.
Parties have “lost the ability to control the process,” said Jim Nicholson, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, partly because of legislation that cut the flow of money to party committees. “The party can’t coordinate with these super PACs and neither can the campaigns, so there’s a lot more chaos and disequilibrium in the campaigns. And the party structure clearly has a diminished role because they don’t have the resources they used to have.”
Rob Stein, a founder of the Democracy Alliance, one of the largest clubs of donors on the left, agreed.
“The devolution of the two-party system has begun,” Mr. Stein said. “Money is leaving the parties and going to independent expenditure groups. These now are fracturing the ‘big tents’ of our old two-party system into independent, narrow and well-funded wings.”
[major snippage]
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP is "pro-life"..... but not if somebody needs the life-saving services of an emergency room
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP WOULD BAR POOR FROM HEALTH CARE ALTOGETHER
By Cynthia Tuckere, February 28, 2014
During a Republican primary debate in the last presidential election cycle, there was a dispiriting moment in which tea party audience members cheered at the idea that a comatose uninsured American -- unable to afford health insurance -- would be left to die. That infamous outburst, among others, has prompted GOP bigwigs to try to cut back on primary season debates, hoping to limit appearances that might expose the party's baser impulses.
But that mean-spirited and contemptuous attitude toward the sick is alive and well in the Grand Old Party, as its maniacal (and futile) resistance to Obamacare has made clear. Now, one Republican politician is pushing that callousness to new lows: He wants to bar the uninsured from hospital emergency rooms.
Last week, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal criticized a decades-old federal law that requires all hospitals that receive Medicare funds and have emergency facilities -- and that's most -- to treat any patient who walks in needing care, regardless of his ability to pay. "It came as a result of bad facts," Deal said, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "And we have a saying that bad facts make bad law."
Deal says that many people use emergency rooms unnecessarily, and those patients inflate health care costs. He is factually correct. But there are other facts that undercut his arguments and reveal his hypocrisy.
First off, Deal is among those red-state Republicans who have vociferously opposed the Affordable Care Act, which makes health insurance available to hundreds of thousands of people who couldn't otherwise afford it. If more people had health insurance policies that paid for doctors' visits, fewer would use emergency rooms for routine complaints.
Second, Deal, like many Republican governors, has refused the Medicaid expansion made possible by Obamacare, even though the federal government would pick up 100 percent of the cost for the first three years and 90 percent until the year 2022. That expansion is the best chance many Georgians without means have for getting health insurance.
So, to sum up, Deal hates Obamacare and refuses its Medicaid expansion, which would keep the working poor out of emergency rooms. In addition, he wants to deny them access to emergency rooms unless they can pay. Really, governor? Don't you insist that your values are "pro-life"?
It's no wonder that GOP strategists shuddered when audience members responded so cruelly during the CNN/Tea Party Express debate in September 2011. It portrays the party as pitiless -- a reputation unlikely to attract a majority of voters.
Quiet as it's kept, most Americans support keeping Obamacare, despite the relentless pounding it has taken from Republicans. (And despite a website rollout that was infuriatingly incompetent.) A new poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56 percent of Americans favor keeping it in place, while just 31 percent want to repeal it. (Twelve percent want to replace it with a GOP plan.)
That's likely because most voters, no matter their reservations about Obamacare, know that the Republican Party has no good solution for the millions of Americans who work every day but still don't earn enough money to buy a health care plan. Americans have struggled with the nation's dysfunctional health care "system," and they know it's overdue for an overhaul.
Meanwhile, as the mid-term elections draw closer, the GOP struggles to come up with a plan that pretends to overhaul the health care system. Looking to avoid being painted as mere obstructions, House Republican honchos are working to draw their caucus together behind a bill that would replace Obamacare with a workable alternative.
But the most sincere plan so far -- one offered by Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., Tom Coburn, R-Okla. and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah -- would probably offer policies too skimpy to do any good once a policy-holder gets sick.
Besides, even that replacement idea seems unlikely to draw broad support among the far-right tea partiers, who believe that allowing the uninsured poor to die is the appropriate government response to the health care crisis.
That's a hulking bit of hypocrisy for a party that advertises itself as "pro-life." Deal's latest proposal is one more reminder of how little that label means.
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP WOULD BAR POOR FROM HEALTH CARE ALTOGETHER
By Cynthia Tuckere, February 28, 2014
During a Republican primary debate in the last presidential election cycle, there was a dispiriting moment in which tea party audience members cheered at the idea that a comatose uninsured American -- unable to afford health insurance -- would be left to die. That infamous outburst, among others, has prompted GOP bigwigs to try to cut back on primary season debates, hoping to limit appearances that might expose the party's baser impulses.
But that mean-spirited and contemptuous attitude toward the sick is alive and well in the Grand Old Party, as its maniacal (and futile) resistance to Obamacare has made clear. Now, one Republican politician is pushing that callousness to new lows: He wants to bar the uninsured from hospital emergency rooms.
Last week, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal criticized a decades-old federal law that requires all hospitals that receive Medicare funds and have emergency facilities -- and that's most -- to treat any patient who walks in needing care, regardless of his ability to pay. "It came as a result of bad facts," Deal said, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "And we have a saying that bad facts make bad law."
Deal says that many people use emergency rooms unnecessarily, and those patients inflate health care costs. He is factually correct. But there are other facts that undercut his arguments and reveal his hypocrisy.
First off, Deal is among those red-state Republicans who have vociferously opposed the Affordable Care Act, which makes health insurance available to hundreds of thousands of people who couldn't otherwise afford it. If more people had health insurance policies that paid for doctors' visits, fewer would use emergency rooms for routine complaints.
Second, Deal, like many Republican governors, has refused the Medicaid expansion made possible by Obamacare, even though the federal government would pick up 100 percent of the cost for the first three years and 90 percent until the year 2022. That expansion is the best chance many Georgians without means have for getting health insurance.
So, to sum up, Deal hates Obamacare and refuses its Medicaid expansion, which would keep the working poor out of emergency rooms. In addition, he wants to deny them access to emergency rooms unless they can pay. Really, governor? Don't you insist that your values are "pro-life"?
It's no wonder that GOP strategists shuddered when audience members responded so cruelly during the CNN/Tea Party Express debate in September 2011. It portrays the party as pitiless -- a reputation unlikely to attract a majority of voters.
Quiet as it's kept, most Americans support keeping Obamacare, despite the relentless pounding it has taken from Republicans. (And despite a website rollout that was infuriatingly incompetent.) A new poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56 percent of Americans favor keeping it in place, while just 31 percent want to repeal it. (Twelve percent want to replace it with a GOP plan.)
That's likely because most voters, no matter their reservations about Obamacare, know that the Republican Party has no good solution for the millions of Americans who work every day but still don't earn enough money to buy a health care plan. Americans have struggled with the nation's dysfunctional health care "system," and they know it's overdue for an overhaul.
Meanwhile, as the mid-term elections draw closer, the GOP struggles to come up with a plan that pretends to overhaul the health care system. Looking to avoid being painted as mere obstructions, House Republican honchos are working to draw their caucus together behind a bill that would replace Obamacare with a workable alternative.
But the most sincere plan so far -- one offered by Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., Tom Coburn, R-Okla. and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah -- would probably offer policies too skimpy to do any good once a policy-holder gets sick.
Besides, even that replacement idea seems unlikely to draw broad support among the far-right tea partiers, who believe that allowing the uninsured poor to die is the appropriate government response to the health care crisis.
That's a hulking bit of hypocrisy for a party that advertises itself as "pro-life." Deal's latest proposal is one more reminder of how little that label means.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Dog whistle politics-- the shrill blast “that can be heard by certain folks … a warning about race and a warning, in particular, about threatening minorities.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Six Case Studies in Dog Whistle Politics
By Ian Haney Lopez, February 28, 2014
In his latest book, Dog Whistle Politics, Ian Haney López writes about the subtle, racially coded messages politicians use — “dog whistles” — to harness below-the-surface racial tensions to get elected and to advance policies that are often contrary to voters’ self-interest.
“Think about a term like ‘welfare queen,’ or ‘food stamp president,’” Haney López told Bill. “On one level, like a dog whistle, it’s silent. Silent about race — it seems race-neutral.” But on another level it has a shrill blast “that can be heard by certain folks … a warning about race and a warning, in particular, about threatening minorities.”
We asked Haney López, a law professor at University of California, Berkeley and a senior fellow at the research and policy center Demos, to walk us through some examples of political TV ads aired during the last three decades in which “dog whistle politics” are on display.
Ronald Reagan: “Prouder, Stronger, Better” (1984):
For his re-election campaign against Democratic challenger Walter Mondale, Ronald Reagan’s advertising team created “Prouder, Stronger, Better,” also commonly referred to as “Morning in America.” The ad was a syrupy, Norman Rockwell-esque portrayal of America restored to prosperity after four years of Republican leadership. “This ad is famous for its rosy picture of a new day in the US — but it also has a subtle racial dynamic, for it almost exclusively depicts rural and suburban whites, distancing itself from minorities and urban centers associated with nonwhites,” Haney López told BillMoyers.com. The same could be said of Reagan’s “Train” ad.
George H.W. Bush: “Weekend Passes” (1988):
Haney López writes in his book that George H.W. Bush initially avoided adding a racial element to his campaign against Democrat Michael Dukakis. But when he found himself trailing in the polls, his campaign rolled out an ad decrying the case of convicted murderer Willie Horton, an African-American Massachusetts man who, while on weekend furlough from prison, fled the state and committed several crimes, including stabbing a white man and raping his fiancée. Dukakis, the governor of Massachusetts, had vetoed a measure that would have made convicted murderers like Horton ineligible for the state’s furlough program, which had been created by Dukakis’s Republican predecessor in the early 1970s.
“Willie Horton has star quality… It’s a wonderful mix of liberalism and a big black rapist,” a Bush aide told The New Republic. During the month when the “Horton furor reached its crescendo,” Haney López writes, “12 percent of the electorate switched its allegiance from Dukakis to Bush.”
Jesse Helms: “Hands” (1990):
In one of the most famous cases of political dog whistling, North Carolina Republican Senator Jesse Helms campaigned against Democratic opponent Harvey Gantt’s support of affirmative action in hiring, which Helms derided as racial “quotas.” Gantt, the former mayor of Charlotte, was hoping to be the first black senator elected in a Southern state since Reconstruction. “The ostensible issue here is whether race in general should be used in allocating jobs,” Haney López wrote to BillMoyers.com, “but the clear import is that affirmative action favors minorities and discriminates against whites.”
Bill Clinton: “New Generation of Democrats” (1992):
Three years after the end of the Cold War, the 1992 presidential campaign focused primarily on the economy. But “Clinton did not depend on an economic message alone; rather, he decided to engage in his own racial pandering,” writes Haney López. Clinton campaigned as a ‘New Democrat’: “one resistant to black concerns, tough on crime and hostile to welfare.” Clinton distanced himself from African-American voters and politicians, publicly sparring with Rev. Jesse Jackson. “This ad shows the centrality of dog whistling to the Clinton campaign, putting front and center his promise to end welfare so that it’s no longer ‘a way of life,’ and also his commitment to cracking down on ‘criminals,’” Haney López told BillMoyers.com.
Republican National Committee: “Call Me” (2006):
In Tennessee’s 2006 US Senate campaign, the Republican National Committee gave money to a political action committee to create an ad that, once aired, raised allegations of race-baiting. The 30-second ad satirized Harold Ford, Jr.’s supporters and platforms, featuring one white woman who said she met Ford at a Playboy party. “From the black woman who endorses Ford (an African-American candidate) only because of his looks, to the white floozy who ends the ad asking Ford to call her, this RNC-created ad trades on racial stereotypes,” Haney López argues. “Most explosive was the implication that Ford was open to pursuing sexual relations with white women.” The ad was denounced by politicians on both sides of the political spectrum and Bob Corker, Ford’s opponent (and eventual victor), asked that the ad be pulled from the air.
Mitt Romney: “Right Choice” (2012):
In the run-up to the 2012 Republican convention, Mitt Romney’s campaign reportedly poured half of its advertising dollars into a factually false ad that claimed that Obama had eliminated the “welfare-to-work” requirement and that welfare recipients were given money for doing nothing. Under Obama’s welfare plan, “you wouldn’t have to work and [you] wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send your welfare check,” the ad claimed. “That’s false,” wrote Jonathan Alter at Bloomberg, “but it successfully conjures unemployed people sitting on the couch mooching off the middle class.” The Romney campaign’s understanding of the “language of dependency, entitlement and lack of responsibility” prompted the welfare ads, with their “relatively crude racial demagoguery,” notes Haney López.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Six Case Studies in Dog Whistle Politics
By Ian Haney Lopez, February 28, 2014
In his latest book, Dog Whistle Politics, Ian Haney López writes about the subtle, racially coded messages politicians use — “dog whistles” — to harness below-the-surface racial tensions to get elected and to advance policies that are often contrary to voters’ self-interest.
“Think about a term like ‘welfare queen,’ or ‘food stamp president,’” Haney López told Bill. “On one level, like a dog whistle, it’s silent. Silent about race — it seems race-neutral.” But on another level it has a shrill blast “that can be heard by certain folks … a warning about race and a warning, in particular, about threatening minorities.”
We asked Haney López, a law professor at University of California, Berkeley and a senior fellow at the research and policy center Demos, to walk us through some examples of political TV ads aired during the last three decades in which “dog whistle politics” are on display.
Ronald Reagan: “Prouder, Stronger, Better” (1984):
For his re-election campaign against Democratic challenger Walter Mondale, Ronald Reagan’s advertising team created “Prouder, Stronger, Better,” also commonly referred to as “Morning in America.” The ad was a syrupy, Norman Rockwell-esque portrayal of America restored to prosperity after four years of Republican leadership. “This ad is famous for its rosy picture of a new day in the US — but it also has a subtle racial dynamic, for it almost exclusively depicts rural and suburban whites, distancing itself from minorities and urban centers associated with nonwhites,” Haney López told BillMoyers.com. The same could be said of Reagan’s “Train” ad.
George H.W. Bush: “Weekend Passes” (1988):
Haney López writes in his book that George H.W. Bush initially avoided adding a racial element to his campaign against Democrat Michael Dukakis. But when he found himself trailing in the polls, his campaign rolled out an ad decrying the case of convicted murderer Willie Horton, an African-American Massachusetts man who, while on weekend furlough from prison, fled the state and committed several crimes, including stabbing a white man and raping his fiancée. Dukakis, the governor of Massachusetts, had vetoed a measure that would have made convicted murderers like Horton ineligible for the state’s furlough program, which had been created by Dukakis’s Republican predecessor in the early 1970s.
“Willie Horton has star quality… It’s a wonderful mix of liberalism and a big black rapist,” a Bush aide told The New Republic. During the month when the “Horton furor reached its crescendo,” Haney López writes, “12 percent of the electorate switched its allegiance from Dukakis to Bush.”
Jesse Helms: “Hands” (1990):
In one of the most famous cases of political dog whistling, North Carolina Republican Senator Jesse Helms campaigned against Democratic opponent Harvey Gantt’s support of affirmative action in hiring, which Helms derided as racial “quotas.” Gantt, the former mayor of Charlotte, was hoping to be the first black senator elected in a Southern state since Reconstruction. “The ostensible issue here is whether race in general should be used in allocating jobs,” Haney López wrote to BillMoyers.com, “but the clear import is that affirmative action favors minorities and discriminates against whites.”
Bill Clinton: “New Generation of Democrats” (1992):
Three years after the end of the Cold War, the 1992 presidential campaign focused primarily on the economy. But “Clinton did not depend on an economic message alone; rather, he decided to engage in his own racial pandering,” writes Haney López. Clinton campaigned as a ‘New Democrat’: “one resistant to black concerns, tough on crime and hostile to welfare.” Clinton distanced himself from African-American voters and politicians, publicly sparring with Rev. Jesse Jackson. “This ad shows the centrality of dog whistling to the Clinton campaign, putting front and center his promise to end welfare so that it’s no longer ‘a way of life,’ and also his commitment to cracking down on ‘criminals,’” Haney López told BillMoyers.com.
Republican National Committee: “Call Me” (2006):
In Tennessee’s 2006 US Senate campaign, the Republican National Committee gave money to a political action committee to create an ad that, once aired, raised allegations of race-baiting. The 30-second ad satirized Harold Ford, Jr.’s supporters and platforms, featuring one white woman who said she met Ford at a Playboy party. “From the black woman who endorses Ford (an African-American candidate) only because of his looks, to the white floozy who ends the ad asking Ford to call her, this RNC-created ad trades on racial stereotypes,” Haney López argues. “Most explosive was the implication that Ford was open to pursuing sexual relations with white women.” The ad was denounced by politicians on both sides of the political spectrum and Bob Corker, Ford’s opponent (and eventual victor), asked that the ad be pulled from the air.
Mitt Romney: “Right Choice” (2012):
In the run-up to the 2012 Republican convention, Mitt Romney’s campaign reportedly poured half of its advertising dollars into a factually false ad that claimed that Obama had eliminated the “welfare-to-work” requirement and that welfare recipients were given money for doing nothing. Under Obama’s welfare plan, “you wouldn’t have to work and [you] wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send your welfare check,” the ad claimed. “That’s false,” wrote Jonathan Alter at Bloomberg, “but it successfully conjures unemployed people sitting on the couch mooching off the middle class.” The Romney campaign’s understanding of the “language of dependency, entitlement and lack of responsibility” prompted the welfare ads, with their “relatively crude racial demagoguery,” notes Haney López.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)