...................................................................................................................................................................
Politicians must lead people, not follow money
By Raymond L. Flynn, October 9, 2014
Spending as much time as I have recently at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, with my daughter Maureen, you get to meet a lot of fascinating people. Some are undergoing treatment, others- are supportive relatives and many are highly trained medical staff.
You certainly get to know some pretty courageous and determined people for sure. When serious sickness hits a family or friend, it really puts the true meaning of life in focus.
In our conversations, I also learned firsthand the many chaotic situations taking place around the world, usually told by the people from those countries. The more I learn, the less I am inclined to believe politicians, Democratic or Republican.
We hear more squabbling in Washington — about the VA hospitals, the IRS, foreign policy — than we do working toward shared solutions. Who needs more turmoil? There’s enough of it to go around already.
As an Iraq War veteran said to me at the hospital while watching the news the other day, elected officials don’t seem to get it. They don’t have the spirit of answering the call for the taxpayers who pay their salaries. Soldiers serve no questions asked, he said, yet politicians seem to put the voters last.
“I only wish they had some experience and were more interested in working together,” the former soldier told me.
I believe there’s a reason why elected officials aren’t as in touch with their constituents. Our elected officials are no longer put in office by average Americans, but by big special interest money. Whoever has the money buys the TV and radio ads and therefore wins the election.
Super PACs have taken over the election landscape, pushing the town meetings and house parties to the back. That’s what real people with real problems are talking about.
It was a long day for everybody at the cancer center, but listening to a young father say to his wife while walking out of the hospital, “One day at a time, dear Jesus. We have to have hope,” gave me hope.
Despite politics, we must still be optimistic. Maybe things will get better. We’re Americans.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Campaigns have degenerated into “my billionaire can whup your billionaire.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Slamming the door on TV political ads
By Phil Power, October 8, 2014
Looking at the political ads now infesting the airwaves reminds me of a disastrous dinner party crowded with ill-mannered, mostly out-of-town guests.
“The meat’s overcooked,” intones the rotund Midwesterner. The beautifully coiffed lady from New York sniffs, “How could you possibly serve brussels sprouts? You know I don’t like them.” Then the hard-charging venture capitalist from Silicon Valley chimes in: “I don’t like chocolate mousse. I prefer a souffle of baby kale.”
If you’re like me, you’d be strongly tempted to ask the whole lot to leave, slam (and lock) the door, and settle back with a strong drink in hand. But that’s what we’re getting on television these days, via a torrent of mostly out-of-state funded ads clogging the airwaves.
Written warning
One drew a splendidly snarky written warning last weekend from the Michigan Truth Squad, a fact-checking service from the Center for Michigan, the nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank I founded eight years ago. The ad, “Say Yes to the Candidate,” sponsored by the College Republican National Committee, tries to follow the premise of “Say Yes to the Dress,” a TLC cable TV reality show about women choosing a wedding gown.
The Truth Squad post begins, “A young woman identified only as Brittany glows when she stands before friends in ‘the Rick Snyder,’ a fitted, strapless gown, with a sparkly belt at the empire waist …
“Brittany beams under her multicultural friends’ approval, but as frequently happens on the show, there’s a fly in the ointment: Brittany’s sour-faced mother, who proclaims, ‘I like the Mark Schauer. It’s overpriced and a little outdated, but I know best.’
“We’re calling this one a warning because we don’t have a category for ‘silly’,” the post concluded. What’s interesting about this ad is there are nearly identical spots running on behalf of GOP gubernatorial candidates in Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Colorado and Arkansas. Not content with inflicting a very silly ad on countless Michigan voters, the college Republicans apparently are insisting on pulling the same stunt — called “clever” by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus — all around the country.
This is a perfect example of why the infestation of out-of-state political ads is so irritating and (I hope) hurtful to the candidate they’re supposed to support. In fact, this one seems clearly to have done so, as it has been roundly denounced as sexist.
Gov. Rick Snyder, clearly embarrassed by the ad, which apparently ran without his approval, was quoted in the Macomb Daily as calling it “dumb and offensive.”
When I talked awhile ago with both Republican and Democratic state party chairs about the avalanche of out-of-state ads, both complained that national party poobahs and assorted bored billionaires were messing with their attempt to make their campaigns locally relevant to Michigan voters.
That was, by the way, before anyone had seen the “say yes to the dress” ad, so I figure they knew what they were talking about.
More to come
Sadly, there’s likely more, much more, of this stuff coming. Much of it may not be as silly as the wedding dress spot, but it may be even more offensive. Rich Robinson at the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, a nonpartisan outfit that tracks political spending, said to date both parties have spent more than $51 million between them on TV advertising for both races for U.S. Senate and governor.
With almost a month before Election Day, you know there are millions more in the pipeline. Why are they doing this?
Well, as easy (and fun) as it is to criticize the tidal wave of partisan advertising, sad to say, it seems to work.
My billionaire vs. your billionaire
As Robinson said last week, instead of the campaigns being contests between differing political agendas or even the differing personalities of the candidates, they’ve degenerated into “my billionaire can whup your billionaire.”
Fortunately for me, my absentee ballot arrived at my house over the weekend. I’m going to vote just as soon as I finish wriing this, so I can hit the “mute” button on the TV remote.
Somehow, when it comes to picking our leaders, there should be a better way.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Slamming the door on TV political ads
By Phil Power, October 8, 2014
Looking at the political ads now infesting the airwaves reminds me of a disastrous dinner party crowded with ill-mannered, mostly out-of-town guests.
“The meat’s overcooked,” intones the rotund Midwesterner. The beautifully coiffed lady from New York sniffs, “How could you possibly serve brussels sprouts? You know I don’t like them.” Then the hard-charging venture capitalist from Silicon Valley chimes in: “I don’t like chocolate mousse. I prefer a souffle of baby kale.”
If you’re like me, you’d be strongly tempted to ask the whole lot to leave, slam (and lock) the door, and settle back with a strong drink in hand. But that’s what we’re getting on television these days, via a torrent of mostly out-of-state funded ads clogging the airwaves.
Written warning
One drew a splendidly snarky written warning last weekend from the Michigan Truth Squad, a fact-checking service from the Center for Michigan, the nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank I founded eight years ago. The ad, “Say Yes to the Candidate,” sponsored by the College Republican National Committee, tries to follow the premise of “Say Yes to the Dress,” a TLC cable TV reality show about women choosing a wedding gown.
The Truth Squad post begins, “A young woman identified only as Brittany glows when she stands before friends in ‘the Rick Snyder,’ a fitted, strapless gown, with a sparkly belt at the empire waist …
“Brittany beams under her multicultural friends’ approval, but as frequently happens on the show, there’s a fly in the ointment: Brittany’s sour-faced mother, who proclaims, ‘I like the Mark Schauer. It’s overpriced and a little outdated, but I know best.’
“We’re calling this one a warning because we don’t have a category for ‘silly’,” the post concluded. What’s interesting about this ad is there are nearly identical spots running on behalf of GOP gubernatorial candidates in Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Colorado and Arkansas. Not content with inflicting a very silly ad on countless Michigan voters, the college Republicans apparently are insisting on pulling the same stunt — called “clever” by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus — all around the country.
This is a perfect example of why the infestation of out-of-state political ads is so irritating and (I hope) hurtful to the candidate they’re supposed to support. In fact, this one seems clearly to have done so, as it has been roundly denounced as sexist.
Gov. Rick Snyder, clearly embarrassed by the ad, which apparently ran without his approval, was quoted in the Macomb Daily as calling it “dumb and offensive.”
When I talked awhile ago with both Republican and Democratic state party chairs about the avalanche of out-of-state ads, both complained that national party poobahs and assorted bored billionaires were messing with their attempt to make their campaigns locally relevant to Michigan voters.
That was, by the way, before anyone had seen the “say yes to the dress” ad, so I figure they knew what they were talking about.
More to come
Sadly, there’s likely more, much more, of this stuff coming. Much of it may not be as silly as the wedding dress spot, but it may be even more offensive. Rich Robinson at the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, a nonpartisan outfit that tracks political spending, said to date both parties have spent more than $51 million between them on TV advertising for both races for U.S. Senate and governor.
With almost a month before Election Day, you know there are millions more in the pipeline. Why are they doing this?
Well, as easy (and fun) as it is to criticize the tidal wave of partisan advertising, sad to say, it seems to work.
My billionaire vs. your billionaire
As Robinson said last week, instead of the campaigns being contests between differing political agendas or even the differing personalities of the candidates, they’ve degenerated into “my billionaire can whup your billionaire.”
Fortunately for me, my absentee ballot arrived at my house over the weekend. I’m going to vote just as soon as I finish wriing this, so I can hit the “mute” button on the TV remote.
Somehow, when it comes to picking our leaders, there should be a better way.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... David and Charles Koch use their vast fortunes to fund efforts that damage the civil rights of minorities ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
7 disturbing facts about the Koch brothers’ civil rights history
By Terrell Jermaine Starr, October 8, 2014
Charles and David Koch are notorious for amassing a business empire well-known for destroying the environment and hijacking the political process to ram their privatization and business agenda on the country. But what is equally egregious about their political activities are their efforts to dismantle years of civil rights progress. The Bridge Project, a non-profit organization devoted to “opposing the conservative movement’s extremem ideology and exposing its dishonest tactics,” recently released a 16-page report on the Koch brothers’ funding of groups that have been accused of suppressing minority voter turnout, destroying unions (particularly in Wisconsin) and attempting to get rid of Social Security.
Here are seven jaw-droppers from the report:
1. Kochs’ union-busting efforts hurt African American mobility.
Though unions have been known to increase the economic mobility of African-American workers, Koch-funded organizations have been very active in destroying anything that’s left of them. Koch-backed organizations like Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Reason Foundation have long viewed public sector unions with disdain. In 2011, collective bargaining was ended in Wisconsin after the state legislature passed Act 10.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the passage of the law earlier this year, after unions in the state filed a lawsuit, claiming the law violated workers’ right to free assembly and equal protection. The Koch-backed entities helped finance Gov. Scott Walker’s election campaign—the most profile political leader in the state to lead anti-union efforts.
2. Koch brothers’ secret billionaire summit hosts known racist.
According to the Nation, the Koch brothers hosted a secret summit on June 16 at the St. Regis Monarch Bay resort, in Dana Point, Calif. Besides a number of notable Republican politicians in attendance, one of the most controversial men giving “dinner remarks” was Charles Murray, a co-author of The Bell Curve, a book which argued that blacks and Latinos have lower IQs than Asians and whites.
A $25 million donation to the United Negro College Fund won’t erase the fact that the Kochs felt comfortable enough to share their space with a man who believes that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites.
3. Koch-backed organization blasts AARP over its opposition to Minnesota voter ID amendment.
The Koch brothers fund the 60 Plus Association, a non-profit senior citizen advocacy group, according to the Center for Public Integrity. In 2012, the 60 Plus Association blasted AARP for speaking out against voter ID laws, which require voters to present a photo ID at the polls. 60 Plus Association’s chairman and founder Jim Martin applauded Minnesota seniors who cut “up their AARP membership cards in protest of the organization’s opposition to the Minnesota Voter ID amendment.”
4. The Kochs fund climate-change denial research that hurts poor communities.
A Drexel University Study reveals that the Koch brothers were active in funding climate change denial efforts, especially in 2007 and 2008. Since then, the brothers have not made public their contributions, if any. Frontline reports that according to a UN report published in 2013, poor communities (of which minority populations are heavily represented) will be hurt the most as a result of climate change:
It starts with a drop in food production. Climate change has already reduced wheat and maize yields in tropical and temperate regions, along with some rice and soybean crops, according to the UN. “All aspects of food security are potentially affected by climate change, including food access, utilization, and price stability,” the report noted. That’s expected to worsen as climate change continues, it said.
Limited food means rising prices for basic staples, leaving the poor malnourished and more vulnerable to disease. It also raises the risk of conflict as groups clash over dwindling resources, and others migrate to new areas, either because they’ve been displaced by extreme weather or decided to move in search of better living conditions.
Why would anyone want to deny this?
5. The Koch brothers are against raising the minimum wage.
President Barack Obama has called for Congress to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.00, but the Republicans have pushed back against his efforts. Another adversary in the battle against a higher minimum wage are the Koch brothers. In an ad financed by the Charles Koch Foundaton, a narrator argues that, if you’re making $34,000 or more, you’re in the 1 percent. Though the ad doesn’t mention the minimum wage, the message was clear: You’re making enough money already. Let it be.
Since the 1990s, the Kochs have given at least $23.3 million to think tanks focusing on attacking the minimum wage. Raising the miminum wage would create a “culture of dependency,” they claim. A huge share of America’s minorities would suffer under this agenda.
6. David Koch ran on presidential ticket that called for ending Social Security.
According to the Bridge Project report, David Koch ran for vice-president with Ed Clark on a 1980 libertarian ticket that called for Social Security to be abolished. Clark reportedly said in a press release that Social Security “is the most serious threat to the future stability of our society next to the threat of nuclear war.”
Though it would later be defeated, it is clear the Kochs aren’t friends to minorities in the arena of civil rights.
7. The Kochs’ father was an original member of an anti-civil rights organization.
Fred Koch, father of David and Charles, was one of the first members of the John Birch Society, an organization based in Wichita, Kan., that was known for its anti-civil rights campaigns and spreading paranoia about communism, according to the Progressive. Fred Koch, according to the New Yorker, had this to say about communists and African Americans:
Indeed, like father, like son.
There are many more details in the Bridge Project report addressing how David and Charles Koch use their vast fortunes to fund efforts that damage the civil rights of minorities, but like all of their other abuses, they are too numerous to bullet-point here.
Check out the full report for more details.
...................................................................................................................................................................
7 disturbing facts about the Koch brothers’ civil rights history
By Terrell Jermaine Starr, October 8, 2014
Charles and David Koch are notorious for amassing a business empire well-known for destroying the environment and hijacking the political process to ram their privatization and business agenda on the country. But what is equally egregious about their political activities are their efforts to dismantle years of civil rights progress. The Bridge Project, a non-profit organization devoted to “opposing the conservative movement’s extremem ideology and exposing its dishonest tactics,” recently released a 16-page report on the Koch brothers’ funding of groups that have been accused of suppressing minority voter turnout, destroying unions (particularly in Wisconsin) and attempting to get rid of Social Security.
Here are seven jaw-droppers from the report:
1. Kochs’ union-busting efforts hurt African American mobility.
Though unions have been known to increase the economic mobility of African-American workers, Koch-funded organizations have been very active in destroying anything that’s left of them. Koch-backed organizations like Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Reason Foundation have long viewed public sector unions with disdain. In 2011, collective bargaining was ended in Wisconsin after the state legislature passed Act 10.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the passage of the law earlier this year, after unions in the state filed a lawsuit, claiming the law violated workers’ right to free assembly and equal protection. The Koch-backed entities helped finance Gov. Scott Walker’s election campaign—the most profile political leader in the state to lead anti-union efforts.
2. Koch brothers’ secret billionaire summit hosts known racist.
According to the Nation, the Koch brothers hosted a secret summit on June 16 at the St. Regis Monarch Bay resort, in Dana Point, Calif. Besides a number of notable Republican politicians in attendance, one of the most controversial men giving “dinner remarks” was Charles Murray, a co-author of The Bell Curve, a book which argued that blacks and Latinos have lower IQs than Asians and whites.
A $25 million donation to the United Negro College Fund won’t erase the fact that the Kochs felt comfortable enough to share their space with a man who believes that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites.
3. Koch-backed organization blasts AARP over its opposition to Minnesota voter ID amendment.
The Koch brothers fund the 60 Plus Association, a non-profit senior citizen advocacy group, according to the Center for Public Integrity. In 2012, the 60 Plus Association blasted AARP for speaking out against voter ID laws, which require voters to present a photo ID at the polls. 60 Plus Association’s chairman and founder Jim Martin applauded Minnesota seniors who cut “up their AARP membership cards in protest of the organization’s opposition to the Minnesota Voter ID amendment.”
4. The Kochs fund climate-change denial research that hurts poor communities.
A Drexel University Study reveals that the Koch brothers were active in funding climate change denial efforts, especially in 2007 and 2008. Since then, the brothers have not made public their contributions, if any. Frontline reports that according to a UN report published in 2013, poor communities (of which minority populations are heavily represented) will be hurt the most as a result of climate change:
It starts with a drop in food production. Climate change has already reduced wheat and maize yields in tropical and temperate regions, along with some rice and soybean crops, according to the UN. “All aspects of food security are potentially affected by climate change, including food access, utilization, and price stability,” the report noted. That’s expected to worsen as climate change continues, it said.
Limited food means rising prices for basic staples, leaving the poor malnourished and more vulnerable to disease. It also raises the risk of conflict as groups clash over dwindling resources, and others migrate to new areas, either because they’ve been displaced by extreme weather or decided to move in search of better living conditions.
Why would anyone want to deny this?
5. The Koch brothers are against raising the minimum wage.
President Barack Obama has called for Congress to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.00, but the Republicans have pushed back against his efforts. Another adversary in the battle against a higher minimum wage are the Koch brothers. In an ad financed by the Charles Koch Foundaton, a narrator argues that, if you’re making $34,000 or more, you’re in the 1 percent. Though the ad doesn’t mention the minimum wage, the message was clear: You’re making enough money already. Let it be.
Since the 1990s, the Kochs have given at least $23.3 million to think tanks focusing on attacking the minimum wage. Raising the miminum wage would create a “culture of dependency,” they claim. A huge share of America’s minorities would suffer under this agenda.
6. David Koch ran on presidential ticket that called for ending Social Security.
According to the Bridge Project report, David Koch ran for vice-president with Ed Clark on a 1980 libertarian ticket that called for Social Security to be abolished. Clark reportedly said in a press release that Social Security “is the most serious threat to the future stability of our society next to the threat of nuclear war.”
Though it would later be defeated, it is clear the Kochs aren’t friends to minorities in the arena of civil rights.
7. The Kochs’ father was an original member of an anti-civil rights organization.
Fred Koch, father of David and Charles, was one of the first members of the John Birch Society, an organization based in Wichita, Kan., that was known for its anti-civil rights campaigns and spreading paranoia about communism, according to the Progressive. Fred Koch, according to the New Yorker, had this to say about communists and African Americans:
In a self-published broadside, Koch claimed that “the Communists have infiltrated both the Democrat and Republican Parties.” He wrote admiringly of Benito Mussolini’s suppression of Communists in Italy, and disparagingly of the American civil-rights movement. “The colored man looms large in the Communist plan to take over America,” he warned. Welfare was a secret plot to attract rural blacks to cities, where they would foment “a vicious race war.” In a 1963 speech that prefigures the Tea Party’s talk of a secret socialist plot, Koch predicted that Communists would “infiltrate the highest offices of government in the U.S. until the President is a Communist, unknown to the rest of us.”While it’s not always fair to draw connections between children and their parents, the Progressive reports that Charles Koch became a lifetime member of the John Birch Society until resigning in 1968. The Society operated the American Opinion Bookstore, which stocked books attacking Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil rights movement and Earl Warren as pegs of a communist conspiracy.
Indeed, like father, like son.
There are many more details in the Bridge Project report addressing how David and Charles Koch use their vast fortunes to fund efforts that damage the civil rights of minorities, but like all of their other abuses, they are too numerous to bullet-point here.
Check out the full report for more details.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The era of women's leadership is on the horizon.
...................................................................................................................................................................
When 4 Women Explain Politics To 1 Man, Good Things Are Bound To Happen
By Sam Stein, October 8, 2014
In some matter of time -- maybe soon, maybe not -- America will be led by women.
It's not just because they make up more than half of the population, or because their numbers in Congress keep growing, or because Hillary Clinton is the most likely next president, or because men have basically f---ed up the country and people are getting tired of it. Those all matter. So too does the fact that topics once categorized and set aside as "women's issues" have become prominent tenets of our national debates, from contraception and education, to equal pay laws and domestic violence.
And so, with the era of women leadership on the horizon, the team at Drinking & Talking figured the time was ripe for preparation (okay, just Sam thought this). We convened a panel of experts: Laura Bassett, political reporter at The Huffington Post; Jennifer Bendery, a HuffPost White House and congressional reporter; Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro Choice America; and Shaunna Thomas, co-founder and co-executive director of UltraViolet. And for the first time in our lengthy history (six shows), we had on a member of Congress: Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.)
Over drinks, including an unseemly amount of Manischewitz wine (we taped on Rosh Hashanah), we cover a lot of ground, including whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg should retire from the Supreme Court, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's (D-N.Y.) revelation that she was harassed in Congress. Most significantly, we answer the most fundamental question of our time: What, exactly, is mansplaining?
Enjoy!
Watch the video.... Here's an index of key moments in the discussion:
...................................................................................................................................................................
When 4 Women Explain Politics To 1 Man, Good Things Are Bound To Happen
By Sam Stein, October 8, 2014
In some matter of time -- maybe soon, maybe not -- America will be led by women.
It's not just because they make up more than half of the population, or because their numbers in Congress keep growing, or because Hillary Clinton is the most likely next president, or because men have basically f---ed up the country and people are getting tired of it. Those all matter. So too does the fact that topics once categorized and set aside as "women's issues" have become prominent tenets of our national debates, from contraception and education, to equal pay laws and domestic violence.
And so, with the era of women leadership on the horizon, the team at Drinking & Talking figured the time was ripe for preparation (okay, just Sam thought this). We convened a panel of experts: Laura Bassett, political reporter at The Huffington Post; Jennifer Bendery, a HuffPost White House and congressional reporter; Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro Choice America; and Shaunna Thomas, co-founder and co-executive director of UltraViolet. And for the first time in our lengthy history (six shows), we had on a member of Congress: Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.)
Over drinks, including an unseemly amount of Manischewitz wine (we taped on Rosh Hashanah), we cover a lot of ground, including whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg should retire from the Supreme Court, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's (D-N.Y.) revelation that she was harassed in Congress. Most significantly, we answer the most fundamental question of our time: What, exactly, is mansplaining?
Enjoy!
Watch the video.... Here's an index of key moments in the discussion:
0:10 - What Is Mansplaining?Listen to or download the audio below:
6:21 -"Notorious R.B.G." (Ruth Bader Ginsburg)
11:30 - Kirsten Gillibrand Blows Up The Boys Club
16:03 -"Oh sweetie, you sound so good." (Gwen Moore On Campaigning)
17:23 - "Someone will touch you in a weird way ..." (Harassment In Politics)
20:30 - "Girlfriend, you've got to vote." (Democrats Depend On Women)
22:37 -- A few good men. (Women's Rights In Congress)
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Politics is not the profession for the modest. ... politicians sometimes go a step too far and exaggerate what they have accomplished, sometimes losing all credibility ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Political Exaggerations: Stretching the Truth Is a Tradition in American Politics
By Rich Rubino, October 8, 2014
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006) said: "Modesty is a vastly overrated virtue." Politicians have apparently taken Galbraith's words to heart.
Through advertisements and meetings with voters, they are quick to trumpet a litany of accomplishments and virtues. Most recently, the Republican nominee for governor of Georgia, David Perdue, told Morehouse College students that his father, in his role as a superintendent of Schools, desegregated the Houston County schools. Perdue said his father "integrated I think the first -- if not the first or second -- county school system in Georgia, and he did it before they had to. He did it right after he got elected, and he did it because it was the right thing to do." Perdue failed to mention the fact that the desegregation plan was instituted after the NAACP successfully challenged the "Freedom of Choice" plan instituted by the Houston County School Board, which allowed but did not mandate integration.
Perhaps the most egregious exaggeration in U.S. political history of a candidate's background was the yarn spun by William Henry Harrison, who was elected President in 1840. Harrison was raised in a patrician family. His father was once Governor of Virginia. Yet Harrison brilliantly styled himself as "one of us." He dressed the part of a humble down-home candidate and boasted of the fact that he had lived in a log cabin. While it was true that Harrison once lived in a log cabin, it was only briefly after retiring from government service. Contrary to popular belief at the time, he was not born in a log cabin. Yet this tactic helped Harrison get elected. In fact, one of Harrison's supporter, Whisky distiller E.G. Booze, sold whisky in log-cabin-shaped bottles during the campaign to promote this master narrative (This is where the word booze came from.) Harrison's ploy worked and he was elected president. However, he was not able to do much as President, as he died of pneumonia just 31 days after his inauguration.
Lyndon B. Johnson had a fascination with the Alamo. His father, Samuel Johnson Jr., wrote legislation to give control of the Alamo to the Daughters of the Republic of Texas. In 1966, while visiting troops in South Korea, Johnson accurately said that there is a picture of his father inside the Alamo. He then went a step too far by mendaciously claiming that his great-great-grandfather had died in the Alamo. In actuality, the great-great-grandfather that Johnson was referring to was a real-estate trader who died at home. When confronted with this inaccuracy, Johnson creatively told Press Secretary George Christian:"You all didn't let me finish. It was the Alamo Bar and Grill in Eagle Pass, Texas."
Perhaps the most famous political exaggeration has been grossly exaggerated in and of itself. When someone asks the question: "Who invented the Internet?" someone will invariably quip: "Al Gore." It is popular belief that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. This belief however is false. In reality, Gore told Wolf Blitzer on CNN: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Gore was referring to his role as the lead sponsor of the 1991 High-performance Computing and Communications Act, which appropriated $600 million for high-performance computing and co-sponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992. Critics chided Gore for his statement and falsely claimed that Gore had said he "invented the Internet." U.S. House Majority leader Dick Armey (R-TX) joked: "If the vice president created the Internet then I created the Interstate."
However, Gore has exaggerated other facts in his past. During his failed 1988 bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Gore told the Des Moines Register that in his early days as a reporter for the Nashville Tennessean, he got "a bunch of people indicted and sent to jail." However, it was later revealed that Gore's reporting resulted in just two municipal officials being indicted, and neither was jailed.
Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also has a history of exaggerating the facts. During his two Presidential campaigns, Romney continuously claimed that as governor of Massachusetts he made the "tough choices and balanced the budget without raising taxes." Romney was referring to the $3 billion budget shortfall he inherited when he assumed office in 2003. Romney did not mention that he raised over $500 million in "fees." Romney also raised corporate taxes under the guise of closing corporate loopholes and truncating local aid to the state's municipalities. This forced municipalities to cut services and/or raise property taxes on their residents.
Similarly, in 2007, Republican Presidential aspirant Mitt Romney told a voter: "I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." It was later revealed that Romney had only hunted twice in his life. Romney later said: "I'm not a big-game hunter. I've made that very clear. I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will."
Candidates with military experience often brandish this experience on the campaign trail, and occasionally get themselves into trouble. During his 2008 bid for an open U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut, it was revealed that the Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal had on two occasions claimed he served as a Marine "in Vietnam." Blumenthal had in fact served in the Marines during the Vietnam era, but never served in Vietnam. He apologized for the remarks and despite this exaggeration was elected to the Senate by twelve points.
An amusing exaggeration came from Mark Roosevelt, the Democratic nominee for Massachusetts Governor in 1994. In an interview with the Boston Globe, he made the following comment about his tenure in the Massachusetts State Legislature: "A record of accomplishment probably unsurpassed by any legislator in the 20th century in Massachusetts." Roosevelt later retracted the comment, stating: "I can be sanctimonious." Roosevelt lost the Gubernatorial election, garnering less than 30 percent of the vote.
Politics is not the profession for the modest. To a great extent a politician has to be a salesperson. He/she must master the art of bragging about himself over and over again without overdoing it, appearing supercilious.
It takes a certain personality type to be ready, willing, and able to repeatedly tell voters of his/her stellar attributes. As the aforementioned cases reveal, politicians sometimes go a step too far and exaggerate what they have accomplished, sometimes losing all credibility. Robert Strauss, who served as chairman of the Democratic Party, captured this phenomenon of political exaggeration best when he said: "Every politician wants every voter to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Political Exaggerations: Stretching the Truth Is a Tradition in American Politics
By Rich Rubino, October 8, 2014
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006) said: "Modesty is a vastly overrated virtue." Politicians have apparently taken Galbraith's words to heart.
Through advertisements and meetings with voters, they are quick to trumpet a litany of accomplishments and virtues. Most recently, the Republican nominee for governor of Georgia, David Perdue, told Morehouse College students that his father, in his role as a superintendent of Schools, desegregated the Houston County schools. Perdue said his father "integrated I think the first -- if not the first or second -- county school system in Georgia, and he did it before they had to. He did it right after he got elected, and he did it because it was the right thing to do." Perdue failed to mention the fact that the desegregation plan was instituted after the NAACP successfully challenged the "Freedom of Choice" plan instituted by the Houston County School Board, which allowed but did not mandate integration.
Perhaps the most egregious exaggeration in U.S. political history of a candidate's background was the yarn spun by William Henry Harrison, who was elected President in 1840. Harrison was raised in a patrician family. His father was once Governor of Virginia. Yet Harrison brilliantly styled himself as "one of us." He dressed the part of a humble down-home candidate and boasted of the fact that he had lived in a log cabin. While it was true that Harrison once lived in a log cabin, it was only briefly after retiring from government service. Contrary to popular belief at the time, he was not born in a log cabin. Yet this tactic helped Harrison get elected. In fact, one of Harrison's supporter, Whisky distiller E.G. Booze, sold whisky in log-cabin-shaped bottles during the campaign to promote this master narrative (This is where the word booze came from.) Harrison's ploy worked and he was elected president. However, he was not able to do much as President, as he died of pneumonia just 31 days after his inauguration.
Lyndon B. Johnson had a fascination with the Alamo. His father, Samuel Johnson Jr., wrote legislation to give control of the Alamo to the Daughters of the Republic of Texas. In 1966, while visiting troops in South Korea, Johnson accurately said that there is a picture of his father inside the Alamo. He then went a step too far by mendaciously claiming that his great-great-grandfather had died in the Alamo. In actuality, the great-great-grandfather that Johnson was referring to was a real-estate trader who died at home. When confronted with this inaccuracy, Johnson creatively told Press Secretary George Christian:"You all didn't let me finish. It was the Alamo Bar and Grill in Eagle Pass, Texas."
Perhaps the most famous political exaggeration has been grossly exaggerated in and of itself. When someone asks the question: "Who invented the Internet?" someone will invariably quip: "Al Gore." It is popular belief that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. This belief however is false. In reality, Gore told Wolf Blitzer on CNN: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Gore was referring to his role as the lead sponsor of the 1991 High-performance Computing and Communications Act, which appropriated $600 million for high-performance computing and co-sponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992. Critics chided Gore for his statement and falsely claimed that Gore had said he "invented the Internet." U.S. House Majority leader Dick Armey (R-TX) joked: "If the vice president created the Internet then I created the Interstate."
However, Gore has exaggerated other facts in his past. During his failed 1988 bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Gore told the Des Moines Register that in his early days as a reporter for the Nashville Tennessean, he got "a bunch of people indicted and sent to jail." However, it was later revealed that Gore's reporting resulted in just two municipal officials being indicted, and neither was jailed.
Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also has a history of exaggerating the facts. During his two Presidential campaigns, Romney continuously claimed that as governor of Massachusetts he made the "tough choices and balanced the budget without raising taxes." Romney was referring to the $3 billion budget shortfall he inherited when he assumed office in 2003. Romney did not mention that he raised over $500 million in "fees." Romney also raised corporate taxes under the guise of closing corporate loopholes and truncating local aid to the state's municipalities. This forced municipalities to cut services and/or raise property taxes on their residents.
Similarly, in 2007, Republican Presidential aspirant Mitt Romney told a voter: "I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." It was later revealed that Romney had only hunted twice in his life. Romney later said: "I'm not a big-game hunter. I've made that very clear. I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will."
Candidates with military experience often brandish this experience on the campaign trail, and occasionally get themselves into trouble. During his 2008 bid for an open U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut, it was revealed that the Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal had on two occasions claimed he served as a Marine "in Vietnam." Blumenthal had in fact served in the Marines during the Vietnam era, but never served in Vietnam. He apologized for the remarks and despite this exaggeration was elected to the Senate by twelve points.
An amusing exaggeration came from Mark Roosevelt, the Democratic nominee for Massachusetts Governor in 1994. In an interview with the Boston Globe, he made the following comment about his tenure in the Massachusetts State Legislature: "A record of accomplishment probably unsurpassed by any legislator in the 20th century in Massachusetts." Roosevelt later retracted the comment, stating: "I can be sanctimonious." Roosevelt lost the Gubernatorial election, garnering less than 30 percent of the vote.
Politics is not the profession for the modest. To a great extent a politician has to be a salesperson. He/she must master the art of bragging about himself over and over again without overdoing it, appearing supercilious.
It takes a certain personality type to be ready, willing, and able to repeatedly tell voters of his/her stellar attributes. As the aforementioned cases reveal, politicians sometimes go a step too far and exaggerate what they have accomplished, sometimes losing all credibility. Robert Strauss, who served as chairman of the Democratic Party, captured this phenomenon of political exaggeration best when he said: "Every politician wants every voter to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
With no legal justification, political parties have social welfare groups, which exist solely as vehicles for nervous donors who want to stay in the shadows.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT: ... Voters should not have to rely on a computer slip to known the names of the donors, their affiliation, and the amount they contributed. ...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Secretly Buying Access to a Governor
By The New York Times Editorial Board, October 7, 2014
Addicted to each other’s power and money, the political parties and their corporate donors are constantly trying to enlarge their relationship out of sight of the American public. An accidental Internet disclosure last month showed that the stealthy form of political corruption known as “dark money” now fully permeates governor’s offices around the country, allowing corporations to push past legal barriers and gather enormous influence.
This has been going on nationally for several years, of course, after wealthy interests claimed that a series of legal decisions allowed them to give unlimited and undisclosed amounts to “social welfare” groups that pretended not to engage in politics. (The tax code prohibits these groups from having politics as a primary purpose.) Now it turns out that both the Republican and Democratic governors’ associations have also set up social welfare groups — known in the tax code as 501(c)(4) associations — with the purpose of raising secret political money.
Thanks to the computer slip, discovered by the liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, we now know some of the people and corporations that secretly contributed to the Republican organization, known as the Republican Governors Public Policy Committee. The names are familiar and include executives of the Southern Company, the big utility; the Edison Electric Institute, which represents power companies; Aetna, WellPoint and several Blue Cross affiliates, all large health insurers; Amplify, Rupert Murdoch’s education sales division; and multiple lobbyists.
In exchange for their private donations, “members” of this group were invited to a symposium last year on energy, education, health care, the environment and other issues at the Omni La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, Calif. There they were allowed to meet with (and lobby) some of the highest-ranking officials and regulators in states with Republican governors — the people who make big decisions on regulating utilities, setting environmental standards, and determining education policies.
Executives who made public donations to the Republican Governors Association (which is not a social welfare group and has to disclose its contributors) also were allowed to attend. Companies that gave at the highest level (more than $250,000) included Exxon Mobil, the Corrections Corporation of America, Pfizer and the Koch companies. The documents say big donors are given “the greatest opportunity possible to meet and talk informally with the Republican governors and their key staff members.”
The Democratic Governors Association does exactly the same thing, regularly providing access to top state executives in exchange for large contributions. It remains unclear, however, who is giving money to the Democratic association’s secret money group, which is camouflaged as the Center for Innovative Policy. (Not to be confused with the Center for Policy Innovation, which is run by the Heritage Foundation.)
There’s absolutely no legal justification for any political party to have a social welfare group, which exists solely as a vehicle for nervous donors who want to stay in the shadows. But whether the money is secret or disclosed, both parties are routinely selling access to the nation’s governors and their staffs to those with the most resources. Those without a checkbook can stay in the back of the line.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT: ... Voters should not have to rely on a computer slip to known the names of the donors, their affiliation, and the amount they contributed. ...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Secretly Buying Access to a Governor
By The New York Times Editorial Board, October 7, 2014
Addicted to each other’s power and money, the political parties and their corporate donors are constantly trying to enlarge their relationship out of sight of the American public. An accidental Internet disclosure last month showed that the stealthy form of political corruption known as “dark money” now fully permeates governor’s offices around the country, allowing corporations to push past legal barriers and gather enormous influence.
This has been going on nationally for several years, of course, after wealthy interests claimed that a series of legal decisions allowed them to give unlimited and undisclosed amounts to “social welfare” groups that pretended not to engage in politics. (The tax code prohibits these groups from having politics as a primary purpose.) Now it turns out that both the Republican and Democratic governors’ associations have also set up social welfare groups — known in the tax code as 501(c)(4) associations — with the purpose of raising secret political money.
Thanks to the computer slip, discovered by the liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, we now know some of the people and corporations that secretly contributed to the Republican organization, known as the Republican Governors Public Policy Committee. The names are familiar and include executives of the Southern Company, the big utility; the Edison Electric Institute, which represents power companies; Aetna, WellPoint and several Blue Cross affiliates, all large health insurers; Amplify, Rupert Murdoch’s education sales division; and multiple lobbyists.
In exchange for their private donations, “members” of this group were invited to a symposium last year on energy, education, health care, the environment and other issues at the Omni La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, Calif. There they were allowed to meet with (and lobby) some of the highest-ranking officials and regulators in states with Republican governors — the people who make big decisions on regulating utilities, setting environmental standards, and determining education policies.
Executives who made public donations to the Republican Governors Association (which is not a social welfare group and has to disclose its contributors) also were allowed to attend. Companies that gave at the highest level (more than $250,000) included Exxon Mobil, the Corrections Corporation of America, Pfizer and the Koch companies. The documents say big donors are given “the greatest opportunity possible to meet and talk informally with the Republican governors and their key staff members.”
The Democratic Governors Association does exactly the same thing, regularly providing access to top state executives in exchange for large contributions. It remains unclear, however, who is giving money to the Democratic association’s secret money group, which is camouflaged as the Center for Innovative Policy. (Not to be confused with the Center for Policy Innovation, which is run by the Heritage Foundation.)
There’s absolutely no legal justification for any political party to have a social welfare group, which exists solely as a vehicle for nervous donors who want to stay in the shadows. But whether the money is secret or disclosed, both parties are routinely selling access to the nation’s governors and their staffs to those with the most resources. Those without a checkbook can stay in the back of the line.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The best one: "You're always left wondering how much of the story to believe."
...................................................................................................................................................................
10 Ways Politicians and Toddlers Are Alike
By April McCormick, October 7, 2014
With midterm elections less than a month away, politicians are ramping up the TV ads, the mudslinging, name calling and well, bullsh*t. As I was watching my 15th political commercial in less than an hour, it dawned on me, those ads were no different than watching toddlers at their finest hour.
Below are 10 ways toddlers and politicians are alike, especially around election time...
1. They don't play well with others.
2. They like telling on people.
3. They depend on other people to clean up their messes and teach them how to behave.
4. They want to be just like mommy and daddy when they grow up.
5. They like being the center of attention.
6. They like getting dirty.
7. They're shameless.
8. They throw tantrums when they don't get their way.
9. They are constantly changing their mind.
10. You're always left wondering how much of the story to believe.
...................................................................................................................................................................
10 Ways Politicians and Toddlers Are Alike
By April McCormick, October 7, 2014
With midterm elections less than a month away, politicians are ramping up the TV ads, the mudslinging, name calling and well, bullsh*t. As I was watching my 15th political commercial in less than an hour, it dawned on me, those ads were no different than watching toddlers at their finest hour.
Below are 10 ways toddlers and politicians are alike, especially around election time...
1. They don't play well with others.
2. They like telling on people.
3. They depend on other people to clean up their messes and teach them how to behave.
4. They want to be just like mommy and daddy when they grow up.
5. They like being the center of attention.
6. They like getting dirty.
7. They're shameless.
8. They throw tantrums when they don't get their way.
9. They are constantly changing their mind.
10. You're always left wondering how much of the story to believe.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Nothing like being the least-hated leader in the most-hated institution in America."
...................................................................................................................................................................
The least-loved political leaders in America aren’t named Barack Obama
By Aaron Blake, October 7, 2014
Want to be despised by the American people? Forget becoming president; you should be a party leader in Congress.
The most unpopular folks in Washington, it seems, are the two leaders of the Senate and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Witness the following.
First, here's a new Gallup poll, showing that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has never had a worse image among the American people. His favorable/unfavorable split has shifted from 41/27 (a net-negative-14) earlier this year to 45/21 (negative-24).
Next, Gallup's data on Boehner. Boehner's current 28/50 split is only marginally better than his previous worst — 27/51, in October 2013.
What was happening on October 2013? The government shutdown, of course.
A big reason for the erosion in Boehner's support is that Republicans are increasingly taking a dim view of him. As it stands, they are only marginally more favorable towards him (46 percent) than unfavorable (40 percent).
Even as recently as 2012, Boehner was quite popular among Republicans.
Lest you think Americans' wrath is reserved only for those leading the majority parties, there's Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). A poll released Monday by Democratic pollster Democracy Corps shows McConnell is in about the same spot as Reid — if not worse.
Here's their data, which is based upon people rating their warmth toward each man on a scale of zero to 100.
All three men listed above, it should be noted, have a bigger gap between their unfavorable ratings and their favorable ones than President Obama. And that's despite being less well-known.
Now, do Americans really dislike these three men that much? Maybe not. We're guessing that the vast majority of people don't pay much attention to any of them and are simply registering their distaste with Congress as a whole. After all, if you hate Congress, how can you love the people who are in charge of it?
These aren't the first leaders, of course, to earn the scorn of the American people. Back in 2010, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was the GOP's favorite punching bag — arguably more so than Obama — and had the image ratings to prove it. Her 29 percent favorable rating and 56 percent unfavorable rating combined for a worse image than any of the three men above have today.
But want to guess who is the most popular congressional leader today?
It's Nancy Pelosi. Gallup showed her in April with a 33 percent favorable rating and 49 percent unfavorable rating, while GOP-leaning automated pollster Rasmussen Reports in August showed her favorable rating seven points higher than any of the three men mentioned above.
Nothing like being the least-hated leader in the most-hated institution in America.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The least-loved political leaders in America aren’t named Barack Obama
By Aaron Blake, October 7, 2014
Want to be despised by the American people? Forget becoming president; you should be a party leader in Congress.
The most unpopular folks in Washington, it seems, are the two leaders of the Senate and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Witness the following.
First, here's a new Gallup poll, showing that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has never had a worse image among the American people. His favorable/unfavorable split has shifted from 41/27 (a net-negative-14) earlier this year to 45/21 (negative-24).
Next, Gallup's data on Boehner. Boehner's current 28/50 split is only marginally better than his previous worst — 27/51, in October 2013.
What was happening on October 2013? The government shutdown, of course.
A big reason for the erosion in Boehner's support is that Republicans are increasingly taking a dim view of him. As it stands, they are only marginally more favorable towards him (46 percent) than unfavorable (40 percent).
Even as recently as 2012, Boehner was quite popular among Republicans.
Lest you think Americans' wrath is reserved only for those leading the majority parties, there's Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). A poll released Monday by Democratic pollster Democracy Corps shows McConnell is in about the same spot as Reid — if not worse.
Here's their data, which is based upon people rating their warmth toward each man on a scale of zero to 100.
All three men listed above, it should be noted, have a bigger gap between their unfavorable ratings and their favorable ones than President Obama. And that's despite being less well-known.
Now, do Americans really dislike these three men that much? Maybe not. We're guessing that the vast majority of people don't pay much attention to any of them and are simply registering their distaste with Congress as a whole. After all, if you hate Congress, how can you love the people who are in charge of it?
These aren't the first leaders, of course, to earn the scorn of the American people. Back in 2010, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was the GOP's favorite punching bag — arguably more so than Obama — and had the image ratings to prove it. Her 29 percent favorable rating and 56 percent unfavorable rating combined for a worse image than any of the three men above have today.
But want to guess who is the most popular congressional leader today?
It's Nancy Pelosi. Gallup showed her in April with a 33 percent favorable rating and 49 percent unfavorable rating, while GOP-leaning automated pollster Rasmussen Reports in August showed her favorable rating seven points higher than any of the three men mentioned above.
Nothing like being the least-hated leader in the most-hated institution in America.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"The real-world narrative Democrats should tell is about the spending of the Koch brothers and their agenda ... they are the ultimate personification of big money with a bad agenda."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Four Weeks Out: What Will Be the Narrative of Election 2014?
By Mike Lux, October 7, 2014
Almost every election year has a driving narrative that determines how voters (and, just as importantly, those who choose not to vote) are thinking headed into the election. Four weeks from November 4, the narrative of this election remains muddled. There are so many issues, so many contradictory trends in play, that no one knows for sure what election day has in store for us or what the key voters will come to view as the story of this election. That is especially true in presidential election years, but it is also true even in most off-year elections.
In 1994, the early missteps of Clinton and the perceived corruption of Democrats who had been a majority in the House fired up Republican base voters and depressed Democratic turnout: Republicans swept into control of both the House and Senate. In 1998, the over-reach and obsession of the Republican House with the Lewinsky scandal allowed Democrats to make a compelling case that it was time to move on and deal with the country's real problems. The result was that for the first time since 1823, a president's party picked up seats in the House in the 6th year of his presidency. In the wake of 9-11 in 2002, security against terrorism drove the election discussion, and the Republicans had a good year. In 2006, the combination of Bush's incompetence and Republican corruption made for a big Democratic year. And in 2010, the rise of the tea party to "take back the country" was the dominant narrative, firing up a Republican base that turned out in big numbers.
The closest thing to a narrative today is that President Obama is facing a world of troubles. Pundits are assuming there will be low Democratic turnout and a bad year for Democrats. But things are more complex than that. In a fascinating memo from Stan Greenberg and James Carville's Democracy Corps and Page Gardner at Women's Voices Women's Vote Action Fund, they suggest that there is a modest but nonetheless quite significant trend toward Democratic candidates in the battleground Senate races. Obama's approval rating is beginning to go up; the Democratic base is more engaged; and key constituencies like unmarried women are starting to move toward the Democrats. They argue that a populist message especially focused on women voters' top economic concerns and attacking the big money corporate interests that want to "make sure CEOs paid no higher taxes and that their loopholes are protected, while working men and women struggle" moves these razor-tight races an average of 4 crucial points, from -2 to +2.
Driving that kind of populist message, while focusing heavily on getting out the vote among Democratic base voters, may well give all those pundits predicting a big Republican day four weeks from now a big surprise. But messaging is not the same thing as narrative in the same way that tactics are not strategy. Democrats should be driving the story of the corrupting influence of big money in politics. As the DCorps memo states: "It is hard to understate the intensity of the response to the role of big money."
I think the message the DCorps memo suggests is a great message for Democrats, but we can't only have a good message: I also believe that we need a narrative based on what is happening in the news. The narratives I listed above were driven by real world events: the massive failure of health care reform and the check overdraft scandal in 1994; the impeachment fight in 1998; the response to 9-11 in 2002; the failures of Katrina and the Iraq war, and indictments of several House members in 2006; and the noisy demonstrations and town hall confrontations of the Tea Party in 2010.
The real-world narrative Democrats should tell is about the spending of the Koch brothers and their agenda, which they laid out at their secret meeting in June: no minimum wage, no Social Security, no public education or student loans, lower taxes for the wealthy, and less regulations. "Because we can make more in profit," said their so-called "grand-strategist" Richard Fink.
The story is powerful and intriguing: secret meetings at a luxury hotel with the most powerful Republicans in the country; crazy speeches about bizarre and extreme secret agendas; hundreds of millions flowing into vicious attack ads; secretive front groups of all kinds funded with the billionaires' money. This is like one of those Star Chamber kind of movies, a secret cabal of billionaires trying to take over our government. But this is real, and it is on tape.
While it is true that Democrats have seized on messaging against the Koch brothers, they haven't developed an overall strategy for attacking their agenda that is resonating with the media, which in turn would mobilize voters.
Now most voters don't know who the Koch brothers are, but they are the ultimate personification of big money with a bad agenda. What candidates across the country have been finding is that they can quickly explain who they are, what their agenda is, and how the candidate they are supporting supports that agenda. There are already a bunch of states where the Koch money is the biggest message point the Democrats have been using. The four GOP candidates for Senate and the candidate for governor in Arizona, who all spoke to the Koch secret meeting in California have faced an enormous amount of Koch-related local news stories, discussion by Dems in speeches and debates, and at least 13 different TV ads. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's ties to the Kochs have been hugely detrimental to him in his bid for re-election. And in the MI and AK Senate/Gov races and NC Senate race, the Koch agenda has been a huge part of the on-going campaign debate for a variety of reasons.
Beyond these individual races, a lot of groundwork has been laid to allow us to make this a national narrative even at this late date, due to the work of Harry Reid, other Democratic legislators, and many groups to make the Kochs an issue. The series of stories on the Koch audio tapes that The Undercurrent and other major media publications broke and all the ensuing campaign ads and demonstrations are crucial to this effort.
In the states mentioned above, this narrative is already working. In a challenging cycle where Democrats have been fighting tough trends, we are holding our own in part because of the story being told about the Kochs and their ties to the candidates. The day the big McConnell/Koch story first came out, there was a poll out showing Grimes down seven points, and other polls showing her in trouble. But three recent polls now show her up by one, two, and four points. Before the original news broke in June that Tom Cotton had gone to the Koch retreat, Mark Pryor was thought to be in very tough shape. A lot of people were on the verge of giving up on the race. Now, Pryor is back to an even playing field, and new Koch-related ads are hitting Cotton all the time.
In Iowa, Braley has made a lot of mistakes and has had a very tough time, but with the Koch issue out there gaining traction, he seems like he is back in the ballgame. And in Colorado, with NextGen and other environmental groups leading the fight on the Kochs, Udall is still very much in play against a candidate Republicans and pundits thought would be incredibly tough to beat. In another heavily Republican state, Alaska, Begich has stayed close by repeatedly pounding on the Kochs. In Michigan, what was supposed to be a very tough Senate race has opened to a solid lead for the Democrat because he has successfully tied the Republican to the Kochs. It is clear that in this final month, the controversy over the Koch brothers is going to be one of our best chances, if not the best chance, for winning these races.
One final important thing to note: The DCorps memo notes that McConnell is far better known nationally and his favorability ratings have gotten worse, evidence that all the news about his secret speech to the Kochs is not playing well nationwide.
We have a great message going into these final four weeks. What national Democrats need to do is tell the story about the big money spent by the Kochs to further their awful anti-American agenda, so that we give this election a narrative that fires up our base and discourages Republicans.
Check out this video of the highlights of all the news about this Koch brothers' meeting. It has become a big national story, and we should keep pouring fuel on the fire.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Four Weeks Out: What Will Be the Narrative of Election 2014?
By Mike Lux, October 7, 2014
Almost every election year has a driving narrative that determines how voters (and, just as importantly, those who choose not to vote) are thinking headed into the election. Four weeks from November 4, the narrative of this election remains muddled. There are so many issues, so many contradictory trends in play, that no one knows for sure what election day has in store for us or what the key voters will come to view as the story of this election. That is especially true in presidential election years, but it is also true even in most off-year elections.
In 1994, the early missteps of Clinton and the perceived corruption of Democrats who had been a majority in the House fired up Republican base voters and depressed Democratic turnout: Republicans swept into control of both the House and Senate. In 1998, the over-reach and obsession of the Republican House with the Lewinsky scandal allowed Democrats to make a compelling case that it was time to move on and deal with the country's real problems. The result was that for the first time since 1823, a president's party picked up seats in the House in the 6th year of his presidency. In the wake of 9-11 in 2002, security against terrorism drove the election discussion, and the Republicans had a good year. In 2006, the combination of Bush's incompetence and Republican corruption made for a big Democratic year. And in 2010, the rise of the tea party to "take back the country" was the dominant narrative, firing up a Republican base that turned out in big numbers.
The closest thing to a narrative today is that President Obama is facing a world of troubles. Pundits are assuming there will be low Democratic turnout and a bad year for Democrats. But things are more complex than that. In a fascinating memo from Stan Greenberg and James Carville's Democracy Corps and Page Gardner at Women's Voices Women's Vote Action Fund, they suggest that there is a modest but nonetheless quite significant trend toward Democratic candidates in the battleground Senate races. Obama's approval rating is beginning to go up; the Democratic base is more engaged; and key constituencies like unmarried women are starting to move toward the Democrats. They argue that a populist message especially focused on women voters' top economic concerns and attacking the big money corporate interests that want to "make sure CEOs paid no higher taxes and that their loopholes are protected, while working men and women struggle" moves these razor-tight races an average of 4 crucial points, from -2 to +2.
Driving that kind of populist message, while focusing heavily on getting out the vote among Democratic base voters, may well give all those pundits predicting a big Republican day four weeks from now a big surprise. But messaging is not the same thing as narrative in the same way that tactics are not strategy. Democrats should be driving the story of the corrupting influence of big money in politics. As the DCorps memo states: "It is hard to understate the intensity of the response to the role of big money."
I think the message the DCorps memo suggests is a great message for Democrats, but we can't only have a good message: I also believe that we need a narrative based on what is happening in the news. The narratives I listed above were driven by real world events: the massive failure of health care reform and the check overdraft scandal in 1994; the impeachment fight in 1998; the response to 9-11 in 2002; the failures of Katrina and the Iraq war, and indictments of several House members in 2006; and the noisy demonstrations and town hall confrontations of the Tea Party in 2010.
The real-world narrative Democrats should tell is about the spending of the Koch brothers and their agenda, which they laid out at their secret meeting in June: no minimum wage, no Social Security, no public education or student loans, lower taxes for the wealthy, and less regulations. "Because we can make more in profit," said their so-called "grand-strategist" Richard Fink.
The story is powerful and intriguing: secret meetings at a luxury hotel with the most powerful Republicans in the country; crazy speeches about bizarre and extreme secret agendas; hundreds of millions flowing into vicious attack ads; secretive front groups of all kinds funded with the billionaires' money. This is like one of those Star Chamber kind of movies, a secret cabal of billionaires trying to take over our government. But this is real, and it is on tape.
While it is true that Democrats have seized on messaging against the Koch brothers, they haven't developed an overall strategy for attacking their agenda that is resonating with the media, which in turn would mobilize voters.
Now most voters don't know who the Koch brothers are, but they are the ultimate personification of big money with a bad agenda. What candidates across the country have been finding is that they can quickly explain who they are, what their agenda is, and how the candidate they are supporting supports that agenda. There are already a bunch of states where the Koch money is the biggest message point the Democrats have been using. The four GOP candidates for Senate and the candidate for governor in Arizona, who all spoke to the Koch secret meeting in California have faced an enormous amount of Koch-related local news stories, discussion by Dems in speeches and debates, and at least 13 different TV ads. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's ties to the Kochs have been hugely detrimental to him in his bid for re-election. And in the MI and AK Senate/Gov races and NC Senate race, the Koch agenda has been a huge part of the on-going campaign debate for a variety of reasons.
Beyond these individual races, a lot of groundwork has been laid to allow us to make this a national narrative even at this late date, due to the work of Harry Reid, other Democratic legislators, and many groups to make the Kochs an issue. The series of stories on the Koch audio tapes that The Undercurrent and other major media publications broke and all the ensuing campaign ads and demonstrations are crucial to this effort.
In the states mentioned above, this narrative is already working. In a challenging cycle where Democrats have been fighting tough trends, we are holding our own in part because of the story being told about the Kochs and their ties to the candidates. The day the big McConnell/Koch story first came out, there was a poll out showing Grimes down seven points, and other polls showing her in trouble. But three recent polls now show her up by one, two, and four points. Before the original news broke in June that Tom Cotton had gone to the Koch retreat, Mark Pryor was thought to be in very tough shape. A lot of people were on the verge of giving up on the race. Now, Pryor is back to an even playing field, and new Koch-related ads are hitting Cotton all the time.
In Iowa, Braley has made a lot of mistakes and has had a very tough time, but with the Koch issue out there gaining traction, he seems like he is back in the ballgame. And in Colorado, with NextGen and other environmental groups leading the fight on the Kochs, Udall is still very much in play against a candidate Republicans and pundits thought would be incredibly tough to beat. In another heavily Republican state, Alaska, Begich has stayed close by repeatedly pounding on the Kochs. In Michigan, what was supposed to be a very tough Senate race has opened to a solid lead for the Democrat because he has successfully tied the Republican to the Kochs. It is clear that in this final month, the controversy over the Koch brothers is going to be one of our best chances, if not the best chance, for winning these races.
One final important thing to note: The DCorps memo notes that McConnell is far better known nationally and his favorability ratings have gotten worse, evidence that all the news about his secret speech to the Kochs is not playing well nationwide.
We have a great message going into these final four weeks. What national Democrats need to do is tell the story about the big money spent by the Kochs to further their awful anti-American agenda, so that we give this election a narrative that fires up our base and discourages Republicans.
Check out this video of the highlights of all the news about this Koch brothers' meeting. It has become a big national story, and we should keep pouring fuel on the fire.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Republicans will get even more help from their big guns from the past two elections: the tax-exempt nonprofit groups Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads GPS."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Democrats Winning Big Money, GOP Winning Big Secret Money
By S.V. Date, Octoer 6, 2014
Democrats this election have done a good job attracting a lot of big donors, but Republicans appear to have the big advantage when it comes to big secret donors.
The strength of Democratic House and Senate fundraising committees — and their supporting superPACs — has been a surprise development this cycle, even as the Senate seems poised to flip to Republican control and the House is almost certain to remain under GOP leadership.
Now Republicans will get even more help from their big guns from the past two elections: the tax-exempt nonprofit groups Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads GPS.
Americans for Prosperity, founded by the industrialist billionaire Koch brothers, has already been running tens of millions worth of ads attacking Democratic senators in key states. Now it says it will also run ads specifically telling voters to defeat those Democrats on Nov. 4. It will not reveal how much it intends to spend, but earlier media reports suggest the group's total outlays this election could be near $300 million, although that figure includes voter registration and turnout efforts.
Crossroads GPS, co-founded by GOP operative Karl Rove, is on track to raise some $75 million this election, according to spokesman Paul Lindsay, and will spend at least $23 million of that in the final two months of the campaign in six states, including $9.5 million in Colorado alone.
Democrats and liberals, in contrast, have focused on superPACs that disclose the name of every donor who gives more than $200. Tom Steyer, the San Francisco investor and climate change activist, has given $40.9 million to his NextGen Climate Action Committee and $5 million to Senate Majority PAC, according to an NPR review of Federal Election Commission records. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has donated $6.9 million to his pro-gun control Independence USA PAC and $2 million to Emily's List's Women Vote superPAC.
The 10 Biggest Super PAC Donors To Date
Donor Super PAC Amount
Thomas Steyer NextGen Climate Action $40,900,000
Michael Bloomberg Independence USA PAC $6,860,912
NextGen Climate Action Senate Majority PAC $5,500,000
Thomas Steyer Senate Majority PAC $5,000,000
Fred Eychaner Senate Majority PAC $5,000,000
Senate Majority PAC Put Alaska First $4,663,000
Michael Bloomberg Senate Majority PAC $2,500,000
Fred Eychaner House Majority PAC $2,500,000
Working for Working Americans Senate Majority PAC $2,250,000
Michael Bloomberg Women Vote (EMILY's List) $2,000,000
Source: NPR analysis of Federal Election Commission data
But in terms of groups that keep their donors secret, Patriot Majority USA and the League of Conservation Voters are the only Democratic-leaning nonprofits that have spent more than $1 million on election-related activity so far, with each reporting about $7 million in spending to the FEC.
How much these politically oriented nonprofit groups will actually raise and spend won't be known until next spring, when their annual filings to the Internal Revenue Service come due. But while those documents show how much was raised and how it was spent, the names of the donors will likely remain secret forever. That actually is the only advantage for donors — there is no tax deduction or other financial benefit to giving to these groups rather than to superPACs.
In the 2012 election cycle, for example, Crossroads GPS spent $71 million on ads directly advocating against a Democratic candidate or for a Republican one. But it spent $94 million on ads attacking President Obama and Democratic members of Congress.
The difference between the two approaches might be unnoticeable to the typical voter. A so-called "issue ad" will recite all the terrible things a senator has done, and then urge viewers to call that senator's office to register their displeasure. An "express advocacy" ad will recite those same terrible things, but then tell the viewer to vote that senator out of office.
Though slight, the distinction makes all the difference in the world, at least in the way the FEC and the IRS interpret election and tax law. By using words like "vote" or "defeat" or "elect," an ad is seen as attempting to sway an election. Ads that don't use those words are merely educating the public on "issues." The IRS has ruled that nonprofit groups must spend the majority of their money on "social welfare" functions — such as educating the public — in order to maintain the tax status that enables them to keep their donors' names secret.
Advocates of campaign finance reform and many Democrats argue that the loophole allows the wealthy to influence elections without public accountability, thereby undermining the "who-gave-who-got" premise behind disclosure laws. Many conservatives argue that disclosure laws unfairly silence their donors because they fear public criticism and boycotts of their businesses.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Democrats Winning Big Money, GOP Winning Big Secret Money
By S.V. Date, Octoer 6, 2014
Democrats this election have done a good job attracting a lot of big donors, but Republicans appear to have the big advantage when it comes to big secret donors.
The strength of Democratic House and Senate fundraising committees — and their supporting superPACs — has been a surprise development this cycle, even as the Senate seems poised to flip to Republican control and the House is almost certain to remain under GOP leadership.
Now Republicans will get even more help from their big guns from the past two elections: the tax-exempt nonprofit groups Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads GPS.
Americans for Prosperity, founded by the industrialist billionaire Koch brothers, has already been running tens of millions worth of ads attacking Democratic senators in key states. Now it says it will also run ads specifically telling voters to defeat those Democrats on Nov. 4. It will not reveal how much it intends to spend, but earlier media reports suggest the group's total outlays this election could be near $300 million, although that figure includes voter registration and turnout efforts.
Crossroads GPS, co-founded by GOP operative Karl Rove, is on track to raise some $75 million this election, according to spokesman Paul Lindsay, and will spend at least $23 million of that in the final two months of the campaign in six states, including $9.5 million in Colorado alone.
Democrats and liberals, in contrast, have focused on superPACs that disclose the name of every donor who gives more than $200. Tom Steyer, the San Francisco investor and climate change activist, has given $40.9 million to his NextGen Climate Action Committee and $5 million to Senate Majority PAC, according to an NPR review of Federal Election Commission records. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has donated $6.9 million to his pro-gun control Independence USA PAC and $2 million to Emily's List's Women Vote superPAC.
The 10 Biggest Super PAC Donors To Date
Donor Super PAC Amount
Thomas Steyer NextGen Climate Action $40,900,000
Michael Bloomberg Independence USA PAC $6,860,912
NextGen Climate Action Senate Majority PAC $5,500,000
Thomas Steyer Senate Majority PAC $5,000,000
Fred Eychaner Senate Majority PAC $5,000,000
Senate Majority PAC Put Alaska First $4,663,000
Michael Bloomberg Senate Majority PAC $2,500,000
Fred Eychaner House Majority PAC $2,500,000
Working for Working Americans Senate Majority PAC $2,250,000
Michael Bloomberg Women Vote (EMILY's List) $2,000,000
Source: NPR analysis of Federal Election Commission data
But in terms of groups that keep their donors secret, Patriot Majority USA and the League of Conservation Voters are the only Democratic-leaning nonprofits that have spent more than $1 million on election-related activity so far, with each reporting about $7 million in spending to the FEC.
How much these politically oriented nonprofit groups will actually raise and spend won't be known until next spring, when their annual filings to the Internal Revenue Service come due. But while those documents show how much was raised and how it was spent, the names of the donors will likely remain secret forever. That actually is the only advantage for donors — there is no tax deduction or other financial benefit to giving to these groups rather than to superPACs.
In the 2012 election cycle, for example, Crossroads GPS spent $71 million on ads directly advocating against a Democratic candidate or for a Republican one. But it spent $94 million on ads attacking President Obama and Democratic members of Congress.
The difference between the two approaches might be unnoticeable to the typical voter. A so-called "issue ad" will recite all the terrible things a senator has done, and then urge viewers to call that senator's office to register their displeasure. An "express advocacy" ad will recite those same terrible things, but then tell the viewer to vote that senator out of office.
Though slight, the distinction makes all the difference in the world, at least in the way the FEC and the IRS interpret election and tax law. By using words like "vote" or "defeat" or "elect," an ad is seen as attempting to sway an election. Ads that don't use those words are merely educating the public on "issues." The IRS has ruled that nonprofit groups must spend the majority of their money on "social welfare" functions — such as educating the public — in order to maintain the tax status that enables them to keep their donors' names secret.
Advocates of campaign finance reform and many Democrats argue that the loophole allows the wealthy to influence elections without public accountability, thereby undermining the "who-gave-who-got" premise behind disclosure laws. Many conservatives argue that disclosure laws unfairly silence their donors because they fear public criticism and boycotts of their businesses.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Monday, October 6, 2014
Crowdpac-- creating a "better marketplace ... that would enable people to better find candidates that match their point of view."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Crowdpac Helps Small Donors Find A Perfect Match In Politics
By Paul Blumenthal, October 7, 2014
Combining a unique data set with a nonpartisan outlook, a new organization called Crowdpac hopes to break out of the pack of political campaign innovators with a feature that helps ordinary people find and contribute to candidates who share their views.
Crowdpac, an online and open campaign fundraising hub, resembles the progressive fundraising platform ActBlue in that it allows anyone to start a fundraising page to donate to their chosen candidates. Instead of being focused on one political party or persuasion, Crowdpac uses a data-driven formula developed by Stanford University professor Adam Bonica that draws from sources that include campaign contributions and public statements that place political candidates on the traditional liberal-conservative spectrum on a variety of issues.
Crowdpac's new feature, launched Tuesday, enables users to group candidates they support into their own slate for others to donate to. The new feature will allow donors to give a lump sum to the entire slate, rather than choosing individual candidates. The process essentially provides anyone with the ability to form a joint fundraising committee, a common vehicle used by political parties to direct contributions to their favored candidates.
Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor, campaign finance reform advocate and head of the pro-reform super PAC Mayday PAC, is one of a few big names planning to create a Crowdpac slate. Lessig, whose slate will feature the four remaining candidates Mayday has endorsed, is joined by California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and the Women's Campaign Fund in starting their own slates.
Crowdpac is spearheaded by Bonica and Steve Hilton, a former aide to British Prime Minister David Cameron. Hilton told The Huffington Post that he had long had the idea for Crowdpac, but it didn't take off until he taught at Stanford and was introduced to Bonica's data and formulas determining political ideology.
Crowdpac data combines campaign contributions made to and by a candidate, public speeches from the floor of a legislature or to a Facebook or Twitter profile, bill sponsorship and voting records. Its formula can determine an accurate ideological placement for that candidate. The Crowdpac formula is unlike others because it adds to voting records with behind-the-scenes ideological markers in campaign finance records.
"Voting records are not the most informative in trying to find out where a politician lies," Hilton said. Not only do they exclude non-incumbents, but legislative votes are often highly orchestrated affairs designed to create a political narrative for elected officials running the show.
"Everyone is aware -- highly aware -- of the scrutiny that voting records have," Hilton said. "They pay great attention to present them in a way that's helpful."
That is not the case with campaign contributions, which are "much harder to manipulate," according to Hilton. It provides a voter with a sense of where the politician stands "when no one is really watching."
This kind of ideological sorting and pairing for users may seem like it would further balkanize American politics, but that is not Hilton's intent. He said he sees Crowdpac and its new features as a way for people, especially those not already politically active, to easily navigate the political process in a way that takes them to candidates who do not fall easily into ideological or party labels.
"There's a growing group of people who don't feel well served by the narrow party system," Hilton said.
This is "not well reflected in the basic Republican-Democratic divide," according to Hilton. Crowdpac would create a "better marketplace ... that would enable people to better find candidates that match their point of view."
Take, for example, the libertarian Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.). Amash ranks as maximally conservative on nearly every issue, but maximally liberal on intelligence and surveillance issues. Or look to Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), an anti-war, anti-abortion, anti-Wall Street conservative lawmaker who defies contemporary classification. According to Crowdpac, Jones ranks close to the middle on many issues, save for gender equality, where he is very conservative.
These classifications provide a more nuanced view of each political candidate that could match views held by many members of the American public, according to Hilton. He said he hopes this helps leads donations according to donors' interests -- not those dictated from the parties or the big donors who fund them.
"There are lots of great organizations who are campaigning for transparency and reform of the system and we're very much in touch with those people," Hilton said. "We're not making a judgment on any of those longer-term aims, but here is something practical that we can do today to dilute the power of the big donors and boost the power of small donors."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Crowdpac Helps Small Donors Find A Perfect Match In Politics
By Paul Blumenthal, October 7, 2014
Combining a unique data set with a nonpartisan outlook, a new organization called Crowdpac hopes to break out of the pack of political campaign innovators with a feature that helps ordinary people find and contribute to candidates who share their views.
Crowdpac, an online and open campaign fundraising hub, resembles the progressive fundraising platform ActBlue in that it allows anyone to start a fundraising page to donate to their chosen candidates. Instead of being focused on one political party or persuasion, Crowdpac uses a data-driven formula developed by Stanford University professor Adam Bonica that draws from sources that include campaign contributions and public statements that place political candidates on the traditional liberal-conservative spectrum on a variety of issues.
Crowdpac's new feature, launched Tuesday, enables users to group candidates they support into their own slate for others to donate to. The new feature will allow donors to give a lump sum to the entire slate, rather than choosing individual candidates. The process essentially provides anyone with the ability to form a joint fundraising committee, a common vehicle used by political parties to direct contributions to their favored candidates.
Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor, campaign finance reform advocate and head of the pro-reform super PAC Mayday PAC, is one of a few big names planning to create a Crowdpac slate. Lessig, whose slate will feature the four remaining candidates Mayday has endorsed, is joined by California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and the Women's Campaign Fund in starting their own slates.
Crowdpac is spearheaded by Bonica and Steve Hilton, a former aide to British Prime Minister David Cameron. Hilton told The Huffington Post that he had long had the idea for Crowdpac, but it didn't take off until he taught at Stanford and was introduced to Bonica's data and formulas determining political ideology.
Crowdpac data combines campaign contributions made to and by a candidate, public speeches from the floor of a legislature or to a Facebook or Twitter profile, bill sponsorship and voting records. Its formula can determine an accurate ideological placement for that candidate. The Crowdpac formula is unlike others because it adds to voting records with behind-the-scenes ideological markers in campaign finance records.
"Voting records are not the most informative in trying to find out where a politician lies," Hilton said. Not only do they exclude non-incumbents, but legislative votes are often highly orchestrated affairs designed to create a political narrative for elected officials running the show.
"Everyone is aware -- highly aware -- of the scrutiny that voting records have," Hilton said. "They pay great attention to present them in a way that's helpful."
That is not the case with campaign contributions, which are "much harder to manipulate," according to Hilton. It provides a voter with a sense of where the politician stands "when no one is really watching."
This kind of ideological sorting and pairing for users may seem like it would further balkanize American politics, but that is not Hilton's intent. He said he sees Crowdpac and its new features as a way for people, especially those not already politically active, to easily navigate the political process in a way that takes them to candidates who do not fall easily into ideological or party labels.
"There's a growing group of people who don't feel well served by the narrow party system," Hilton said.
This is "not well reflected in the basic Republican-Democratic divide," according to Hilton. Crowdpac would create a "better marketplace ... that would enable people to better find candidates that match their point of view."
Take, for example, the libertarian Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.). Amash ranks as maximally conservative on nearly every issue, but maximally liberal on intelligence and surveillance issues. Or look to Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), an anti-war, anti-abortion, anti-Wall Street conservative lawmaker who defies contemporary classification. According to Crowdpac, Jones ranks close to the middle on many issues, save for gender equality, where he is very conservative.
These classifications provide a more nuanced view of each political candidate that could match views held by many members of the American public, according to Hilton. He said he hopes this helps leads donations according to donors' interests -- not those dictated from the parties or the big donors who fund them.
"There are lots of great organizations who are campaigning for transparency and reform of the system and we're very much in touch with those people," Hilton said. "We're not making a judgment on any of those longer-term aims, but here is something practical that we can do today to dilute the power of the big donors and boost the power of small donors."
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Koch sisters-- the anti-Koch brothers! "... we have our voices, and believe that together they are even more important than the special interests and their vast wealth."
...................................................................................................................................................................
People before profits
By Joyce and Karen Koch, October 6, 2014
You’ve probably heard of the Koch Brothers but have you heard of the Koch Sisters? Well we are Joyce and Karen Koch. While we share the same last name, we’re nothing like those guys.
Unlike the Koch Brothers, we don’t have a lot of money. We don’t spend hundreds of millions of dollars on political candidates who will pad our pockets and we don’t have governors and senators who heed our every beck and call. Instead, we have something even greater; values that the American people overwhelmingly support.
Like us, most people agree that money shouldn’t dominate the political spectrum. They agree that people should come before profits. And they don’t want their political leaders to look out for only the millionaires and billionaires while the rest of us struggle to scrape by.
It was because of this shared belief that we launched the Koch Sisters campaign. In just a few short weeks, we’ve been amazed by the response we’ve gotten and how many others have joined to become a “Koch Sister” too. There are now more than 1,700 Koch Sisters! Thousands more have sent us letters and emails, pictures, Facebook messages and tweets. They are in unison opposing the unrelenting quest of a select few to buy our elections and rig the system in their favor.
Quite frankly, the passion and the excitement we’ve generated has given us a bit of a shock. We knew we were doing the right thing, but we had no idea so many people would be so ready to link arms with two average women they’d never met. I mean, we had no idea what to expect when we decided we should stand up to the greed of big money donors. But the outpouring of support and solidarity shouldn’t have surprised us at all.
You see, the Koch Sisters campaign isn’t about electing one candidate or supporting one issue. And it’s certainly not about us. It’s about standing up to the way our politics have been polluted. Every day on the TV, we see nasty campaign ads paid for by outside organizations that are awash in cash from anonymous donors. These donors want to create a world, satirized in American Bridge’s Kochville, where profit comes first and all else be damned. While dark money may dominate the American political and legislative spectrum, the values and ideals behind it do not.
The vast majority of Americans agree. They are Koch Sisters, not Koch Brothers. Like us, they want good jobs, affordable education, and real opportunities to get ahead. They think that if you work hard, you should be able to support your family.They value the promise of Social Security and the support they get from Medicare. They don’t believe profits only belong to CEOs. They’re tired of the rules being rigged so only the big corporations get richer while working families get left behind.
Unlike the Koch Brothers, we don’t have billions of dollars to commandeer elections. Instead, we have our voices, and believe that together they are even more important than the special interests and their vast wealth. While the Koch Brothers wield unprecedented and unrivaled money to pollute America's politics, we have and always will support the strongest political force in America: working people.
So we’re going to continue to speak out as this mid-term election approaches and travel the country rallying against the Koch Brothers and the destructive impact of their corporate cash. Everywhere we go, we find more Koch Sisters waiting for us with open arms.
This isn’t about demonizing two brothers who are out to demonize those who stand in their way. This is about raising awareness about who is paying for nasty attack ads that are designed to take our country in the wrong direction. This is about raising awareness about the perverse state of American politics. This about inspiring people who want a better society to stand up and say, ‘it’s time for change.’
If you agree that money shouldn’t buy influence and that each American should have the same chance to choose their leaders, then join us! Help us create a real democracy so we can all be a nation of Koch Sisters!”
...................................................................................................................................................................
People before profits
By Joyce and Karen Koch, October 6, 2014
You’ve probably heard of the Koch Brothers but have you heard of the Koch Sisters? Well we are Joyce and Karen Koch. While we share the same last name, we’re nothing like those guys.
Unlike the Koch Brothers, we don’t have a lot of money. We don’t spend hundreds of millions of dollars on political candidates who will pad our pockets and we don’t have governors and senators who heed our every beck and call. Instead, we have something even greater; values that the American people overwhelmingly support.
Like us, most people agree that money shouldn’t dominate the political spectrum. They agree that people should come before profits. And they don’t want their political leaders to look out for only the millionaires and billionaires while the rest of us struggle to scrape by.
It was because of this shared belief that we launched the Koch Sisters campaign. In just a few short weeks, we’ve been amazed by the response we’ve gotten and how many others have joined to become a “Koch Sister” too. There are now more than 1,700 Koch Sisters! Thousands more have sent us letters and emails, pictures, Facebook messages and tweets. They are in unison opposing the unrelenting quest of a select few to buy our elections and rig the system in their favor.
Quite frankly, the passion and the excitement we’ve generated has given us a bit of a shock. We knew we were doing the right thing, but we had no idea so many people would be so ready to link arms with two average women they’d never met. I mean, we had no idea what to expect when we decided we should stand up to the greed of big money donors. But the outpouring of support and solidarity shouldn’t have surprised us at all.
You see, the Koch Sisters campaign isn’t about electing one candidate or supporting one issue. And it’s certainly not about us. It’s about standing up to the way our politics have been polluted. Every day on the TV, we see nasty campaign ads paid for by outside organizations that are awash in cash from anonymous donors. These donors want to create a world, satirized in American Bridge’s Kochville, where profit comes first and all else be damned. While dark money may dominate the American political and legislative spectrum, the values and ideals behind it do not.
The vast majority of Americans agree. They are Koch Sisters, not Koch Brothers. Like us, they want good jobs, affordable education, and real opportunities to get ahead. They think that if you work hard, you should be able to support your family.They value the promise of Social Security and the support they get from Medicare. They don’t believe profits only belong to CEOs. They’re tired of the rules being rigged so only the big corporations get richer while working families get left behind.
Unlike the Koch Brothers, we don’t have billions of dollars to commandeer elections. Instead, we have our voices, and believe that together they are even more important than the special interests and their vast wealth. While the Koch Brothers wield unprecedented and unrivaled money to pollute America's politics, we have and always will support the strongest political force in America: working people.
So we’re going to continue to speak out as this mid-term election approaches and travel the country rallying against the Koch Brothers and the destructive impact of their corporate cash. Everywhere we go, we find more Koch Sisters waiting for us with open arms.
This isn’t about demonizing two brothers who are out to demonize those who stand in their way. This is about raising awareness about who is paying for nasty attack ads that are designed to take our country in the wrong direction. This is about raising awareness about the perverse state of American politics. This about inspiring people who want a better society to stand up and say, ‘it’s time for change.’
If you agree that money shouldn’t buy influence and that each American should have the same chance to choose their leaders, then join us! Help us create a real democracy so we can all be a nation of Koch Sisters!”
...................................................................................................................................................................
It's very simple, "... pastors can endorse candidates and preach whatever they want if they give up their tax exemption."
..................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* When churches abuse their honored position as spiritual counselor, they should certainly lose their tax exempt status. The very nature of their position requires listeners to be vulnerable. To throw political speech into that is abusive, wrong and is actually against the scripture (sinful). Black, white or diverse.
* Why would you listen to someone telling you who to vote for and at the same time teaching you that the earth was created in six days, is less than 10,000 years old and that snakes used to talk? Consider their credibility not to mention their sanity.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Preaching Politics, Pastors Defy Ban
By Tamara Audi, October 5, 2014
Pastor Jim Garlow began his preaching with a Scripture-filled discussion of Jesus’ disgust with hypocrisy—typical fare for a Sunday sermon. But the conservative pastor finished with an exhortation to his congregation of nearly 2,000 to oppose Carl DeMaio, the openly gay Republican candidate for the state’s 52nd congressional district.
Mr. Garlow said he opposes Mr. DeMaio not because he is gay, but “because of his activism against certain things. I want babies protected in the womb.
“I want marriage defined as one man one woman. You can’t have the advancing of the radical homosexual agenda and religious liberty at the same time. One will win, one will lose,” Mr. Garlow said from his Skyline Church pulpit in a rural area east of San Diego.
The evangelical Protestant pastor’s sermon had a political agenda, and a larger legal goal: It was an intentional violation of the law forbidding churches to engage in certain political speech meant to force U.S. courts to confront the issue. Churches registered as 501(c)3 nonprofits risk losing their tax-exempt status if they appear to endorse or oppose candidates from the pulpit.
For the past seven years, hundreds of churches have intentionally delivered political sermons to address the issue on “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” an annual event organized by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based conservative group that fights for religious accommodation claims.
Nearly 1,500 pastors nationwide agreed to preach politics Sunday, the Alliance said. So far, the Internal Revenue Service hasn’t revoked tax-exempt status for participating churches, said an Alliance spokeswoman. This year’s event comes during an election season when issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion, continue to draw attention.
A Pew Research Center study released last month showed that nearly three-quarters of Americans believe religion is losing influence in the lives of Americans, and that more citizens want religious leaders to weigh in on political issues.
It also comes months after the IRS assured an atheist group that it is enforcing the political speech regulation on churches. That group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, agreed to the dismissal of a 2012 federal civil lawsuit against the IRS over the issue after receiving indications from the government that the IRS “has a procedure in place…to initiate church tax investigations/examinations,” court documents said.
Churches that want the IRS prohibition repealed argue that it unfairly restricts the constitutional right to free speech. “There should not be pulpit police,” the 67-year-old Mr. Garlow said in an interview.
Critics of the movement say pastors can endorse candidates and preach whatever they want if they give up their tax exemption.
“They want to have their cake and eat it too,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, noting that her group also is a registered 501(c)3, and obeys the regulation.
But some church leaders have complained the regulation is unclear and say “vague and unequal enforcement” has led to pastors pulling back on social commentary that could be construed as political, said Kerri Kupec, a spokeswoman for the Alliance Defending Freedom.
While most participating in this year’s event appear to be conservative evangelical churches likely to support socially conservative Republican candidates, Mr. Garlow said he is fighting for the rights of liberal churches, too.
“If a member of the IRS gets this sermon or is listening,” Mr. Garlow said from his pulpit of 19 years, “sue me.”
The Skyline Church illustrates the increasingly intertwined nature of religion and politics in the daily lives of many worshipers.
Mr. Garlow told congregants he is going so far as to endorse Mr. DeMaio’s Democratic opponent, Rep. Scott Peters. Mr. Garlow said he’s advocating “defensive tactical voting” to protect the Republican Party from “damage” and warned that if Mr. DeMaio is elected religious conservatives will “be left without a home.”
How far Mr. Garlow’s influence extends remains to be seen in the tight race.
Dave McCulloch, a spokesperson for the DeMaio campaign, said Sunday: “Carl DeMaio believes in individual rights and freedoms and his position does not change based on political calculation or the audience he is speaking to.”
Skyline Church worshipers on Sunday could register to vote in the lobby and meet former Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Rick Santorum, who was visiting to discuss a new movie produced by his Christian film company.
Mr. Santorum said he supports pastors’ endorsing candidates from the pulpit. “Just because you’re a church doesn’t mean you lose your First Amendment rights,” he said. “[Church leaders] have an obligation to influence the government.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* When churches abuse their honored position as spiritual counselor, they should certainly lose their tax exempt status. The very nature of their position requires listeners to be vulnerable. To throw political speech into that is abusive, wrong and is actually against the scripture (sinful). Black, white or diverse.
* Why would you listen to someone telling you who to vote for and at the same time teaching you that the earth was created in six days, is less than 10,000 years old and that snakes used to talk? Consider their credibility not to mention their sanity.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Preaching Politics, Pastors Defy Ban
By Tamara Audi, October 5, 2014
Pastor Jim Garlow began his preaching with a Scripture-filled discussion of Jesus’ disgust with hypocrisy—typical fare for a Sunday sermon. But the conservative pastor finished with an exhortation to his congregation of nearly 2,000 to oppose Carl DeMaio, the openly gay Republican candidate for the state’s 52nd congressional district.
Mr. Garlow said he opposes Mr. DeMaio not because he is gay, but “because of his activism against certain things. I want babies protected in the womb.
“I want marriage defined as one man one woman. You can’t have the advancing of the radical homosexual agenda and religious liberty at the same time. One will win, one will lose,” Mr. Garlow said from his Skyline Church pulpit in a rural area east of San Diego.
The evangelical Protestant pastor’s sermon had a political agenda, and a larger legal goal: It was an intentional violation of the law forbidding churches to engage in certain political speech meant to force U.S. courts to confront the issue. Churches registered as 501(c)3 nonprofits risk losing their tax-exempt status if they appear to endorse or oppose candidates from the pulpit.
For the past seven years, hundreds of churches have intentionally delivered political sermons to address the issue on “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” an annual event organized by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based conservative group that fights for religious accommodation claims.
Nearly 1,500 pastors nationwide agreed to preach politics Sunday, the Alliance said. So far, the Internal Revenue Service hasn’t revoked tax-exempt status for participating churches, said an Alliance spokeswoman. This year’s event comes during an election season when issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion, continue to draw attention.
A Pew Research Center study released last month showed that nearly three-quarters of Americans believe religion is losing influence in the lives of Americans, and that more citizens want religious leaders to weigh in on political issues.
It also comes months after the IRS assured an atheist group that it is enforcing the political speech regulation on churches. That group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, agreed to the dismissal of a 2012 federal civil lawsuit against the IRS over the issue after receiving indications from the government that the IRS “has a procedure in place…to initiate church tax investigations/examinations,” court documents said.
Churches that want the IRS prohibition repealed argue that it unfairly restricts the constitutional right to free speech. “There should not be pulpit police,” the 67-year-old Mr. Garlow said in an interview.
Critics of the movement say pastors can endorse candidates and preach whatever they want if they give up their tax exemption.
“They want to have their cake and eat it too,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, noting that her group also is a registered 501(c)3, and obeys the regulation.
But some church leaders have complained the regulation is unclear and say “vague and unequal enforcement” has led to pastors pulling back on social commentary that could be construed as political, said Kerri Kupec, a spokeswoman for the Alliance Defending Freedom.
While most participating in this year’s event appear to be conservative evangelical churches likely to support socially conservative Republican candidates, Mr. Garlow said he is fighting for the rights of liberal churches, too.
“If a member of the IRS gets this sermon or is listening,” Mr. Garlow said from his pulpit of 19 years, “sue me.”
The Skyline Church illustrates the increasingly intertwined nature of religion and politics in the daily lives of many worshipers.
Mr. Garlow told congregants he is going so far as to endorse Mr. DeMaio’s Democratic opponent, Rep. Scott Peters. Mr. Garlow said he’s advocating “defensive tactical voting” to protect the Republican Party from “damage” and warned that if Mr. DeMaio is elected religious conservatives will “be left without a home.”
How far Mr. Garlow’s influence extends remains to be seen in the tight race.
Dave McCulloch, a spokesperson for the DeMaio campaign, said Sunday: “Carl DeMaio believes in individual rights and freedoms and his position does not change based on political calculation or the audience he is speaking to.”
Skyline Church worshipers on Sunday could register to vote in the lobby and meet former Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Rick Santorum, who was visiting to discuss a new movie produced by his Christian film company.
Mr. Santorum said he supports pastors’ endorsing candidates from the pulpit. “Just because you’re a church doesn’t mean you lose your First Amendment rights,” he said. “[Church leaders] have an obligation to influence the government.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans are very selective about regulating businesses, preferring not to-- unless of course the business is an abortion clinic.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Dodged the question as they do not have an answer
* How about an article about a fact Prince Riebus has ever gotten right?
* You want a blank screen?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Reince Priebus Dodges Tough Questions About Texas Abortion Law
By Laura Bassett, October 6, 2014
Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, tried Sunday to defend the Texas anti-abortion law that shut down 13 clinics this week. But he avoided discussing what the law actually does.
"The issue for us is only one thing, and that's whether you ought to use taxpayer money to fund abortion," Priebus said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
The law in question has nothing to do with taxpayer funding of abortion. It requires all abortions in Texas to take place in ambulatory surgical centers, or mini-hospitals, and requires all abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The law also bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and limits how doctors can prescribe medication abortions.
Since the first provision of the law went into effect nearly a year ago, all but seven of the 44 abortion clinics in Texas have been forced to shut down or stop offering the procedure.
Chuck Todd, the host of "Meet the Press," asked Priebus why Republicans "don't like a lot of regulations on businesses, except if the business is an abortion clinic." He noted that the new law has effectively closed 80 percent of the abortion clinics in Texas.
Priebus dodged the question.
"The fact of the matter is that we believe that any woman that's faced with an unplanned pregnancy deserves compassion, respect, counseling, whatever it is that we can offer," he said.
UPDATE: 2:56 p.m. -- A RNC spokeswoman said Priebus was not specifically referring to the Texas law when he spoke about taxpayer-funded abortion. The chairman "made a point to distinguish where the party stands on the broader issue," she said in an email to The Huffington Post.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Dodged the question as they do not have an answer
* How about an article about a fact Prince Riebus has ever gotten right?
* You want a blank screen?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Reince Priebus Dodges Tough Questions About Texas Abortion Law
By Laura Bassett, October 6, 2014
Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, tried Sunday to defend the Texas anti-abortion law that shut down 13 clinics this week. But he avoided discussing what the law actually does.
"The issue for us is only one thing, and that's whether you ought to use taxpayer money to fund abortion," Priebus said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
The law in question has nothing to do with taxpayer funding of abortion. It requires all abortions in Texas to take place in ambulatory surgical centers, or mini-hospitals, and requires all abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The law also bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and limits how doctors can prescribe medication abortions.
Since the first provision of the law went into effect nearly a year ago, all but seven of the 44 abortion clinics in Texas have been forced to shut down or stop offering the procedure.
Chuck Todd, the host of "Meet the Press," asked Priebus why Republicans "don't like a lot of regulations on businesses, except if the business is an abortion clinic." He noted that the new law has effectively closed 80 percent of the abortion clinics in Texas.
Priebus dodged the question.
"The fact of the matter is that we believe that any woman that's faced with an unplanned pregnancy deserves compassion, respect, counseling, whatever it is that we can offer," he said.
UPDATE: 2:56 p.m. -- A RNC spokeswoman said Priebus was not specifically referring to the Texas law when he spoke about taxpayer-funded abortion. The chairman "made a point to distinguish where the party stands on the broader issue," she said in an email to The Huffington Post.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sunday, October 5, 2014
"The new campaign ... draws attention to some of the more ridiculous claims made by influential Christian Republicans."
...................................................................................................................................................................
American Atheists challenge Christian Republicans via social media
By Michael Stone, October 4, 2014
#AnotherChristianRepublican: American Atheists are exposing absurd and disturbing statements made by leading conservative Christians in a new social media campaign.
The new campaign, conducted via the American Atheists, Inc. (Official) Facebook page, draws attention to some of the more ridiculous claims made by influential Christian Republicans.
Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Marco Rubio and Justice Antonin Scalia are all targets in the new #AnotherChristianRepublican campaign.
American Atheists, Inc. (Official) offered the following brief explanation of their new social media campaign:
...................................................................................................................................................................
American Atheists challenge Christian Republicans via social media
By Michael Stone, October 4, 2014
#AnotherChristianRepublican: American Atheists are exposing absurd and disturbing statements made by leading conservative Christians in a new social media campaign.
The new campaign, conducted via the American Atheists, Inc. (Official) Facebook page, draws attention to some of the more ridiculous claims made by influential Christian Republicans.
Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Marco Rubio and Justice Antonin Scalia are all targets in the new #AnotherChristianRepublican campaign.
American Atheists, Inc. (Official) offered the following brief explanation of their new social media campaign:
The Republican Party recently put out a commercial saying what Republicans really are (white, black, young, old, Prius drivers, New York Times readers, etc.).
Unfortunately, religious diversity didn't make the cut.
We thought you should see what some ACTUAL Republicans who have been elected to office (and a Supreme Court Justice) really believe.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... most of the problems that rightly concern and even terrify us are not caused by partisan politics and will not be solved by partisan politics."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Security breaches neither caused nor cured by politics
By Susan Estrich, October 6, 2014
When you hear Rep. Darrell Issa, one of the president’s harshest Republican critics in the House, demanding to know whether the president is safe, it’s tempting to believe, at least for a moment, partisan politics has been put to one side in what should be a united and nonpolitical commitment to the safety of our president and his family.
Tempting, but like so much in Washington, there seems to be no escaping the politics.
Democrats are worrying out loud — which is to say on television and in print — the Republicans will (and are) using the security lapses as one more opportunity to paint the Obama administration as incompetent.
The press has spent almost as much time, or more, on the politics as it has been trying to figure out what the real problems are.
A “two-fer” — that’s what one Democrat called it in The New York Times, describing the politics and meaning that Republicans get to sound off on security (a serious and important topic) and make the Obama administration the target of their attacks, even if it was the president and his family who were potentially at risk.
Yes, it’s true the president appointed the head of the Secret Service, Julia Pierson, three years ago.
But he hardly instructed her to cut corners on his safety or that of his wife and children. And yet there was the president’s press secretary (the day before Pierson resigned) seeking to deflect aggressive questioning about who knew what and when — as if the president were trying to understate or dismiss or downplay an issue where he, quite literally, is the one with the most to lose.
Pierson had to go because, as the Greeks say, the fish rots from the head, and when you’re the head of an agency that has been publicly humiliated, you go. That doesn’t mean the security breaches were the product of anything she did, let alone the fault of the president or his party.
Presidents are loath to criticize the Secret Service for many reasons, including that these are the men and women who risk their lives to protect the president and his family and are with them 24/7.
The president’s security is an American issue, not a Democratic or Republican one. So is the arrival of Ebola, not only in the form of one case in America, but also in the outbreaks in cities across Africa with no capacity to handle it. So is the spread of Islamic extremism, and campus sexual assault and virtually every other issue that anyone — and I mean anyone who isn’t playing politics inside the Beltway — worries about.
Try this test. Pick up your local paper and tell me: How many of the issues that people in your community are concerned about are “partisan” issues? We may have different approaches, but outside of Washington, they rarely bear a party label.
What to do, we ask each other, and shake our heads.
Oh, my goodness, we say, when we hear the president’s house — or our next-door neighbor’s — was broken into.
Of course, this is an election season, and a host of close races may end up deciding who controls the Senate, which may end up determining who serves as attorney general and who is appointed to other key positions.
Elections matter. There are differences between the candidates.
But what the security breach — like the awful beheadings, like the spread of Ebola — should remind us is most of the problems that rightly concern and even terrify us are not caused by partisan politics and will not be solved by partisan politics.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Security breaches neither caused nor cured by politics
By Susan Estrich, October 6, 2014
When you hear Rep. Darrell Issa, one of the president’s harshest Republican critics in the House, demanding to know whether the president is safe, it’s tempting to believe, at least for a moment, partisan politics has been put to one side in what should be a united and nonpolitical commitment to the safety of our president and his family.
Tempting, but like so much in Washington, there seems to be no escaping the politics.
Democrats are worrying out loud — which is to say on television and in print — the Republicans will (and are) using the security lapses as one more opportunity to paint the Obama administration as incompetent.
The press has spent almost as much time, or more, on the politics as it has been trying to figure out what the real problems are.
A “two-fer” — that’s what one Democrat called it in The New York Times, describing the politics and meaning that Republicans get to sound off on security (a serious and important topic) and make the Obama administration the target of their attacks, even if it was the president and his family who were potentially at risk.
Yes, it’s true the president appointed the head of the Secret Service, Julia Pierson, three years ago.
But he hardly instructed her to cut corners on his safety or that of his wife and children. And yet there was the president’s press secretary (the day before Pierson resigned) seeking to deflect aggressive questioning about who knew what and when — as if the president were trying to understate or dismiss or downplay an issue where he, quite literally, is the one with the most to lose.
Pierson had to go because, as the Greeks say, the fish rots from the head, and when you’re the head of an agency that has been publicly humiliated, you go. That doesn’t mean the security breaches were the product of anything she did, let alone the fault of the president or his party.
Presidents are loath to criticize the Secret Service for many reasons, including that these are the men and women who risk their lives to protect the president and his family and are with them 24/7.
The president’s security is an American issue, not a Democratic or Republican one. So is the arrival of Ebola, not only in the form of one case in America, but also in the outbreaks in cities across Africa with no capacity to handle it. So is the spread of Islamic extremism, and campus sexual assault and virtually every other issue that anyone — and I mean anyone who isn’t playing politics inside the Beltway — worries about.
Try this test. Pick up your local paper and tell me: How many of the issues that people in your community are concerned about are “partisan” issues? We may have different approaches, but outside of Washington, they rarely bear a party label.
What to do, we ask each other, and shake our heads.
Oh, my goodness, we say, when we hear the president’s house — or our next-door neighbor’s — was broken into.
Of course, this is an election season, and a host of close races may end up deciding who controls the Senate, which may end up determining who serves as attorney general and who is appointed to other key positions.
Elections matter. There are differences between the candidates.
But what the security breach — like the awful beheadings, like the spread of Ebola — should remind us is most of the problems that rightly concern and even terrify us are not caused by partisan politics and will not be solved by partisan politics.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... the era of cheap shots, where the mean-spirited personal attack is more valuable than the substantive political debate."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Examining Lattegate: Why political pissing matches must end
By David Steury, October 3,2014
Last week, a scandal broke in Washington. A major instance of inappropriate interaction between the Executive Branch and the Armed Forces surfaced, shocking Americans from Berkeley to Bangor. The incident, which involved players from enlisted men all the way to the top of the chain of command was the latest in a series of controversies that have shrouded the federal government in a cloud of shame.
What was that scandal, you ask? The Commander-in-Chief made an unconscionable display of disrespect towards our men and women in uniform. What specifically? Now that you make me say it…he forgot to take his cup of coffee out of his hand to salute while disembarking Marine One.
The reasonable observer sees this picture: a Commander-in-Chief who had just recently started bombing a radical organization that has made a nasty habit of beheading journalists, steps off his helicopter wondering when the Ebola virus would hit America. He distractedly bungles a custom that’s been around for a tenth of our nation’s history by failing to transfer the beverage that, if I were him, would be keeping me alive, to his other hand. Whoops. Then he gets back to the business of blowing up people who have stated that they not only want to destroy the United States but have also begun a rapid conquest of Iraq and Syria.
But in today’s polarized and caustic political environment, such a silly mistake is taken by an extreme and unfortunately large fringe as further evidence for why the President—elected twice by the American people and grateful beneficiary of the American dream—is a traitor and uses the American flag as a Kleenex.
What in any sane political climate would garner a couple laughs and a shout-out on late-night television attracted attention from multiple cable news networks and (allegedly) serious political figures like Sarah Palin and Karl Rove.
It seems to be the era of cheap shots, where the mean-spirited personal attack is more valuable than the substantive political debate. Many Americans seem to truly believe that this President’s mundane actions are threatening their way of life, and have resorted to the basest of rhetorical tactics to assert their points.
In targeting mistakes like a bungled salute or resorting to name-calling—like Fox’s in-house quack Keith Ablow did this summer when he called Michelle Obama fat on national television and went on to assert that she “dislikes America”—the extreme element of the debate appeals to the worst side of people and introduces controversy where none belongs.
When the debate is consumed by irrelevant bits and pieces, the marketplace of ideas ceases to function and is replaced by a rhetorical cage fight. In the blogosphere, all too often a Hot Air writer will call the President a socialist and then someone at the Daily Kos will fire back that, well, Michele Bachmann is an utter psychopath. Pundits at Fox and MSNBC ridicule one another and compete to see who can accuse the other of hating freedom more. Instead of analyzing the policies proposed by each side, the political process is reduced to a pissing contest on the national scale.
Distractions like lattegate (apparently, it was actually a chai, enraging Karl Rove, who apparently can’t say chai without visible discomfort) degrade the national political discussion and lead citizens and media elites to waste time slinging mud instead of learning how the person for whom they cast a vote will work for them and for the nation.
Focusing on such silly things and calling each other names fuels the discontent that many Americans feel towards our political system and trivializes the political process.
We shouldn’t focus on which cup was in whose hand while they did what. Clearly, we should focus on the contents of that cup.
I, for one, am disgusted that it was not coffee.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Examining Lattegate: Why political pissing matches must end
By David Steury, October 3,2014
Last week, a scandal broke in Washington. A major instance of inappropriate interaction between the Executive Branch and the Armed Forces surfaced, shocking Americans from Berkeley to Bangor. The incident, which involved players from enlisted men all the way to the top of the chain of command was the latest in a series of controversies that have shrouded the federal government in a cloud of shame.
What was that scandal, you ask? The Commander-in-Chief made an unconscionable display of disrespect towards our men and women in uniform. What specifically? Now that you make me say it…he forgot to take his cup of coffee out of his hand to salute while disembarking Marine One.
The reasonable observer sees this picture: a Commander-in-Chief who had just recently started bombing a radical organization that has made a nasty habit of beheading journalists, steps off his helicopter wondering when the Ebola virus would hit America. He distractedly bungles a custom that’s been around for a tenth of our nation’s history by failing to transfer the beverage that, if I were him, would be keeping me alive, to his other hand. Whoops. Then he gets back to the business of blowing up people who have stated that they not only want to destroy the United States but have also begun a rapid conquest of Iraq and Syria.
But in today’s polarized and caustic political environment, such a silly mistake is taken by an extreme and unfortunately large fringe as further evidence for why the President—elected twice by the American people and grateful beneficiary of the American dream—is a traitor and uses the American flag as a Kleenex.
What in any sane political climate would garner a couple laughs and a shout-out on late-night television attracted attention from multiple cable news networks and (allegedly) serious political figures like Sarah Palin and Karl Rove.
It seems to be the era of cheap shots, where the mean-spirited personal attack is more valuable than the substantive political debate. Many Americans seem to truly believe that this President’s mundane actions are threatening their way of life, and have resorted to the basest of rhetorical tactics to assert their points.
In targeting mistakes like a bungled salute or resorting to name-calling—like Fox’s in-house quack Keith Ablow did this summer when he called Michelle Obama fat on national television and went on to assert that she “dislikes America”—the extreme element of the debate appeals to the worst side of people and introduces controversy where none belongs.
When the debate is consumed by irrelevant bits and pieces, the marketplace of ideas ceases to function and is replaced by a rhetorical cage fight. In the blogosphere, all too often a Hot Air writer will call the President a socialist and then someone at the Daily Kos will fire back that, well, Michele Bachmann is an utter psychopath. Pundits at Fox and MSNBC ridicule one another and compete to see who can accuse the other of hating freedom more. Instead of analyzing the policies proposed by each side, the political process is reduced to a pissing contest on the national scale.
Distractions like lattegate (apparently, it was actually a chai, enraging Karl Rove, who apparently can’t say chai without visible discomfort) degrade the national political discussion and lead citizens and media elites to waste time slinging mud instead of learning how the person for whom they cast a vote will work for them and for the nation.
Focusing on such silly things and calling each other names fuels the discontent that many Americans feel towards our political system and trivializes the political process.
We shouldn’t focus on which cup was in whose hand while they did what. Clearly, we should focus on the contents of that cup.
I, for one, am disgusted that it was not coffee.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... the number of tight races for governor indicates that the election is less about party preferences and more about bipartisan voter dissatisfaction."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why so many governors are scared of Election Day
By Francis Barry, October 5, 2014
An unusually large number of incumbent governors could go down to defeat this November. Democrats in Colorado, Connecticut and Illinois — and Republicans in Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maine, Michigan and Wisconsin — are in tight races. Pennsylvania’s Republican governor, Tom Corbett, has been all but written-off, and one Democratic incumbent, Hawaii’s Neil Abercrombie, has already fallen in his party’s primary. Even if Republicans recapture the Senate, the number of tight races for governor indicates that the election is less about party preferences and more about bipartisan voter dissatisfaction.
Historically, incumbent governors are slightly more likely to be defeated than members of Congress, but their re-election rates still hover around 80 percent. It has been 20 years since six governors (five of them Democrats) were swept from office as part of the Republican wave of 1994. But the better comparison for 2014 may prove to be to 1978, when seven governors lost — the most in any election over the past 40 years — despite an economy that was growing at a healthy clip.
President Barack Obama is right that the country’s 54 straight months of job growth is “the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history.” Yet it’s also the longest recovery to feel like a recession, with the possible exception of 1975-1979, when the benefits of 4 percent average annual growth were negated by high unemployment, inflation and interest rates. A July 1978 poll — in the midst of a 40-month economic expansion — found that 58 percent of the public thought the economy was getting worse. They were proved right.
Today, unemployment, inflation and interest rates are all low, but so are economic growth and public confidence. A recent poll found that 72 percent of Americans think the economy is recession. Workers, unlike economists, measure recessions in personal income, which has been flat or declining in real dollars, and in job prospects, which are increasingly centered on lower-wage work.
In 1978, economists were debating how to lower the Misery Index, which measured inflation and unemployment. Today, they are debating whether we have entered a period of “secular stagnation,” characterized by long-term low growth. The argument probably won’t be resolved for years, if ever. In the meantime, a recovery that feels like recession — let’s call it a recessery — is dragging on, and hope for change has faded.
In October 2012, a Wall Street Journal-NBC poll found that 45 percent of Americans thought the economy would get better over the next 12 months — the highest level of confidence since September 2009. Today, only 27 percent feel that way, and only 23 percent think the country is moving in the right direction, reviving a sense that a national feeling of malaise, the curse of the Jimmy Carter years, has returned. As long as that feeling persists, more incumbents will face a tougher-than-usual road to re-election.
That is especially true for governors, who as chief executives are ultimately responsible for their states’ economic conditions. While the economy is not the only issue that matters in campaigns, poll after poll shows that improving the economy is the most important issue for voters — and governors cannot count on party loyalty to save them.
Of the 12 governors who are most in danger of losing (or have lost already), seven hold office in states won by their party’s presidential nominee in 2012 — and eight are Republican. Even if Republicans defeat the seven Democratic senators who represent red states — and two red state Republican senators (Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell and Kansas’ Pat Roberts) manage to survive — talk of a Republican wave may be tempered by gubernatorial losses. For incumbents in both parties, this is a bad year to be facing a well-organized and well-financed challenger.
Thus far, incumbent governors have largely escaped the consequences of the country’s economic troubles. The full toll of the financial collapse did not become clear until late in the 2008 election cycle, leaving opponents little time to galvanize support. Four years ago, three of four swing-state incumbents were defeated, while 10 incumbents won — not a great year for governors, but not a disaster either. Two years ago, things were looking up, helping all six incumbent governors — and Obama — keep their jobs.
This year, if the mood of voters does not improve, the governors could have their worst night since 1994 — or even 1978. The difference between a recessery and a recession matters a great deal to economists and incumbents, but not to voters.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why so many governors are scared of Election Day
By Francis Barry, October 5, 2014
An unusually large number of incumbent governors could go down to defeat this November. Democrats in Colorado, Connecticut and Illinois — and Republicans in Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maine, Michigan and Wisconsin — are in tight races. Pennsylvania’s Republican governor, Tom Corbett, has been all but written-off, and one Democratic incumbent, Hawaii’s Neil Abercrombie, has already fallen in his party’s primary. Even if Republicans recapture the Senate, the number of tight races for governor indicates that the election is less about party preferences and more about bipartisan voter dissatisfaction.
Historically, incumbent governors are slightly more likely to be defeated than members of Congress, but their re-election rates still hover around 80 percent. It has been 20 years since six governors (five of them Democrats) were swept from office as part of the Republican wave of 1994. But the better comparison for 2014 may prove to be to 1978, when seven governors lost — the most in any election over the past 40 years — despite an economy that was growing at a healthy clip.
President Barack Obama is right that the country’s 54 straight months of job growth is “the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history.” Yet it’s also the longest recovery to feel like a recession, with the possible exception of 1975-1979, when the benefits of 4 percent average annual growth were negated by high unemployment, inflation and interest rates. A July 1978 poll — in the midst of a 40-month economic expansion — found that 58 percent of the public thought the economy was getting worse. They were proved right.
Today, unemployment, inflation and interest rates are all low, but so are economic growth and public confidence. A recent poll found that 72 percent of Americans think the economy is recession. Workers, unlike economists, measure recessions in personal income, which has been flat or declining in real dollars, and in job prospects, which are increasingly centered on lower-wage work.
In 1978, economists were debating how to lower the Misery Index, which measured inflation and unemployment. Today, they are debating whether we have entered a period of “secular stagnation,” characterized by long-term low growth. The argument probably won’t be resolved for years, if ever. In the meantime, a recovery that feels like recession — let’s call it a recessery — is dragging on, and hope for change has faded.
In October 2012, a Wall Street Journal-NBC poll found that 45 percent of Americans thought the economy would get better over the next 12 months — the highest level of confidence since September 2009. Today, only 27 percent feel that way, and only 23 percent think the country is moving in the right direction, reviving a sense that a national feeling of malaise, the curse of the Jimmy Carter years, has returned. As long as that feeling persists, more incumbents will face a tougher-than-usual road to re-election.
That is especially true for governors, who as chief executives are ultimately responsible for their states’ economic conditions. While the economy is not the only issue that matters in campaigns, poll after poll shows that improving the economy is the most important issue for voters — and governors cannot count on party loyalty to save them.
Of the 12 governors who are most in danger of losing (or have lost already), seven hold office in states won by their party’s presidential nominee in 2012 — and eight are Republican. Even if Republicans defeat the seven Democratic senators who represent red states — and two red state Republican senators (Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell and Kansas’ Pat Roberts) manage to survive — talk of a Republican wave may be tempered by gubernatorial losses. For incumbents in both parties, this is a bad year to be facing a well-organized and well-financed challenger.
Thus far, incumbent governors have largely escaped the consequences of the country’s economic troubles. The full toll of the financial collapse did not become clear until late in the 2008 election cycle, leaving opponents little time to galvanize support. Four years ago, three of four swing-state incumbents were defeated, while 10 incumbents won — not a great year for governors, but not a disaster either. Two years ago, things were looking up, helping all six incumbent governors — and Obama — keep their jobs.
This year, if the mood of voters does not improve, the governors could have their worst night since 1994 — or even 1978. The difference between a recessery and a recession matters a great deal to economists and incumbents, but not to voters.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)