The Last Installment...and why they're wrong

Today's frame job by the AP:

Poll: Climate for GOP keeps getting better (AP)

AP - Tilted toward the GOP from the start of the year, the political environment has grown even more favorable for Republicans and rockier for President Barack Obama and his Democrats over the long primary season that just ended with a bang.

It's bullshit. Complete bullshit.

While it is true that the numbers appear worse, these polls really don't mean a thing. And as far as the just completed primary season that "ended with a bang?" That "bang" was the GOP shooting itself in the foot. The victories of Tea Party candidates aren't a reflection of anything but a fracture within the Republican party. Is there a single instance where the Tea Party candidate has actually enhanced the GOP's chances in a race? I haven't seen one. Just yesterday, the Tea Party effectively handed Joe Biden's old seat back to the Democrats by nominating a candidate that stands no chance of winning at the expense of a legitimate Republican that would probably have easily won.

The AP story goes on to use only words like "beleaguered," "dreary" and "dispirited" regarding Democrats, and trots out some polls and statistics that don't necessarily lead to the conclusions they draw...

As Illinois kicked off the primary season Feb. 2, there was little talk even among Republicans that power in the House was in reach, much less in the Senate. But the national landscape has only has worsened for Democrats.

[1] The unemployment rate was 9.7 percent; it's 9.6 now.

[2] Half of the country said in January that the country was on the wrong track; 57 percent say that now in the new AP-GfK poll.

[3] About 42 percent of the country disapproved of Obama's job performance; half does now.

[4] Democrats had a 49 percent to 37 percent advantage over Republicans on the party that voters want to see control Congress; the GOP now enjoys a 55-39 lead among likely voters.

[5] Republicans have steadily gained ground on economic issues and now have a slight advantage on handling the economy, the federal deficit and taxes. They improved their standing in the past month even as Obama stepped up his efforts to persuade the public to give Democratic solutions more time to work.

[6] At the same time, 40 percent of likely voters call themselves tea party supporters, and most of them lean toward Republicans while nearly two-thirds have a deeply negative impression of Democrats. That means the GOP could be in strong shape on Nov. 2 if tea party backers turn out and vote Republican. That's what they've been doing so far this year: The grass-roots, antiestablishment movement can claim wins in at least seven GOP Senate races, a handful of Republican gubernatorial contests and dozens of House primary campaigns.

Let's take these apart one by one...

1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's an improvement. It still sucks, and is not where it should be... but they act as if the number is in double figures.

2. In their sampling of two dates (Feb 2 and today) they neglect to mention that the poll they refer to actually is a graph that shows the gap closing over the last month and the overall trend for the year is still overall upward.

3. Worthless statistic. I disapprove of Obama's job performance—Congress' too—but I'm sure as shit not voting Republican! These polls are always going to be skewed by capturing Dems critical of their own party—something zombie Republicans don't do, and the media cannot seem to fathom. I hate many of the Democrats in Washington—doesn't mean I want them replaced by Republicans.

4. This is because of the steady drumbeat of coverage like I've shared the last three days. This poll question is self-fulfilling.

5. See above. No one when actually presented with information on the economy during Republican vs Democratic control could ever possibly reach this conclusion. Which is why stories such as this never include that type of useful information.

6. "40 percent of likely voters call themselves tea party supporters" That's fucking impossible. Unless they are asking these poll questions outside a Palin rally. Seriously. No. Fucking. Way.

That's it. the purpose of this AP story is to drive a narrative. Nothing else. there's no there, there.

R.I.P. NPR

When I left Michigan for North Carolina nearly two years ago, I also said goodbye to NPR. The lack of decent public radio in Asheville, as well as having only a five-minute commute meant my daily briefings in the car to and from work were a thing of the past.

Since moving back to Michigan, and having an hour commute as well, I've had a chance to get reacquainted with NPR and Michigan Radio.

I wasn't missing much.

The bullshit I heard on the radio today was infuriating. The show was “Here & Now” (from Boston's WBUR), and since today is April 15, they had a segment on taxes...and I quote, “When the money magically disappears from our checks, what happens to it?” I was immediately wary of what was to come, but the host introduced some guest from a “non-partisan tax research group” to break it down.

This host was already beginning to channel her inner-Sarah Palin, and the assclown she brought in as an expert guest might as well have been Glenn Beck or Grover Norquist. She asked him "how does the government spend that tax dollar?" And the first thing out of his mouth ass, is:

“Most of the money is transferred to...uh...other people.”

Now first of all, everyone knows the number one expenditure is defense. To reach his conclusion, this guy rounds defense spending down from the actual 23% to 20%, and then he lists social security (note: 20%) and medicare & medicaid (note: 19%) together, and somehow comes up with 56¢ (!) of that tax dollar going to “what the federal government calls entitlements.” And why explain that the spending on SS is mandatory and covered by its own dedicated stream, and goes to people that have already paid for it.

Even if there is somehow a case to be made for his math, his framing is pretty damn obvious—hard-working Americans are paying for lazy (and probably brown) people.

He also manages to get a dig in on how much government employees are paid. Nice.

Over the next few minutes, as he addresses other minutiae, he repeatedly beats on the welfare horse.

“[defense] is the next biggest chunk after that big 56% entitlement chunk...”

“...the vast fiscal flows out in entitlements...”

Then he proceeds to lament the deficit and points his finger Obama as the source of all of those problems.

He also references the Bush tax cuts a couple times (in a good way) and neglects to mention Obama has lowered taxes, and trots out the bogeyman of rates returning to Clinton-era rates if Obama lets the Bush cuts expire.

When the discussion turns to state taxes, it's more of the same, as he laments the progressive policies of some states who tax households above $200K more.

All the way through this the host nods along, occasionally parroting a point or two, and that's it.

Fuck that shit. That’s the kind of garbage I’d expect to see on Lou Dobbs.

And when I went to the npr.org site to find the link to this piece, I saw on the front page a bogus “he said/she said” regurgitation about whether the word “bailout” is fair to describe the Democrats finance reform. (Its not.) No analysis, no facts, no actual reference to the substance of the legislation. Just five or six quotes—the first batch all seem to be right from Frank Luntz's clubhouse.

Anyway. That's just a snip from today. I did hear an interesting discussion on the Supreme Court with Nina Totenberg later, but on balance, I am finding myself outraged at NPR far more than feeling informed.

Democracy Sure Was Fun While It Lasted

This country is well and truly fucked.

[TPM] In a ruling that has major implications for how elections are funded, the Supreme Court has struck down a key campaign-finance restriction that bars corporations and unions from pouring money into political ads.

The long-awaited 5-4 ruling, in the Citizens United v. FEC case, presents advocates of regulation with a major challenge in limiting the flow of corporate money into campaigns, and potentially opens the door for unrestricted amounts of corporate money to flow into American politics.

From the decision:

By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker’s voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.

As TPM points out, "At the heart of the ruling, now available here (pdf), is a judgment by the Court that the law cannot distinguish between corporations and individuals in prohibiting speech - so free speech rights that apply to the latter must also apply to the former."

(Supposed liberal) Justice Kennedy actually referred to corporations as a "disadvantaged class" and that they were being denied the rights of the individual?

Fuck that, sideways. If corporations are to be granted all the rights of the individual citizen, then in turn, corporations will now be taxed as individuals in the highest bracket now, right?

Right?

Plenty of excerpts from the majority opinion and the dissent, here.

All Politics is Still Local

Tomorrow morning pundits of all stripes—from the right wing blowhards on FOX and AM radio to the "balanced" teams of analysts on CNN, etc—will look at the results of today's election results and try desperately to divine some message about how the country thinks about President Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

As if the specific issues facing a single state and the governor they choose is directly tied to how strongly Obama or some Senator from another state across the country support a public option...or a rural upstate New York district's choice of Congressman means Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin will be the next Administration.

It's bullshit. No matter which side is spinning. The reality is that this will prove to be a classic case of "all politics is local," and that's really all it means.

Here's MY take on three of the races Nate Silver considers worth following...

New Jersey Governor -- The incumbent Democrat is a Goldman Sachs bazillionaire—he's probably lucky not to be hanging from a lamppost. That fact alone might doom any candidate these days, but Corzine must be a pretty shitty governor to get thumped by the man who seems poised to win: Chris Christie is a GOP thug with a history of abusing the power of his office and crippling people by driving his car the wrong way down the street. All this tells me is people in New Jersey get what they deserve for always electing corrupt assholes.

Virginia Governor -- It's close to Washington D.C.? Is that why it means something? Every time some jerkoff in the media tells you that McDonnel the Republican won by XX percent, remember that the state's residents still support Obama even more. And also remember that McConnell never identifies himself as a Republican in his ads or on his homepage.

The never-before-heard-of New York 23rd Congressional District -- Sarah Palin and her Dick Armey kneecapped the Republican candidate and pushed a teabagger Independent ("Conservative" party) candidate on voters. The actual Republican then endorsed the Democrat—which, of course, FOX misreported as endorsing the Conservative. Either way, it's academic—this seat hasn't been filled by a Democrat for over a hundred and fifty years.

Don't worry, everyone from Chris Matthews to Joe Lieberman will tell you that for some reason the fact that the GOP is eating their own in the deepest red districts, should somehow worry liberal Democrats 1,200 miles away? This result means nothing about the national mood. After next week you'll never here from this place again.

UPDATE: The Democrat appears to have actually won NY-23!!

Am I suddenly going to flip and declare this an endorsement of Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank? No. All this means is rural, small-c conservative New Yorkers didn't appreciate a bunch of assholes from Alaska and Texas telling them they aren't pure-enough Republicans.

On the plus side, it makes Sarah Palin look even more stupid—no easy task. It also underscores the fact that no matter how much hype surrounds her as a GOP savior—when people actually step into the voting booth and draw the curtain, even in a Republican stronghold, they fucking flee. Even better? Palin and the national party still won't get it.

Sunday Comics

Click to embiggen...

[h/t Bob at ATK]

Screw Job

It's another deadline week, so posting will be sparse... I haven't had time to read the details of the GM bailout and forced Chrysler merge, but my gut reaction is...

"Bullshit."

Yes, viewed in a vacuum, I say the government gets to dictate terms when they bail you out. If that means, "fire your board," or "your shareholders get a haircut," that's fine. Don't take the money if you're not willing to abide.

But the fact that the auto companies—companies that nation-wide employ hundreds of thousands of people in good living-wage jobs manufacturing real, durable, tangible goods that contribute to the economy in myriad ways—are getting a trial by fire from the Obama team. Last I checked, the Big Three didn't blow through everyone else's savings (well, excepting Dodge Avenger owners) and drive themselves and the economy over a cliff with borderline-illegal high-stakes gambling. At least at the end of the year Detroit can point to several million cars as a result of their business.

Meanwhile, the greed cancer-infested financial sector that engaged in an unregulated spree of graft and thievery is getting comparatively soft, kid glove treatment and a bailout approach that seems hell-bent on preserving the previous, fatally flawed system and those who run it. Oh, and did I mention an exponentially higher price tag?

This double standard is fucking bullshit. Automakers get raked over the coals for how they flew into D.C. while Wall Street thieves walk away with taxpayer-funded bonuses totaling in the billions.

Someone explain to me how this doesn't sound exactly like something that would have happened under the previous administration.

UPDATE: Mike's spent some more time thinking/reading/writing about this...

UPDATE 2: And so has The Michigan Posse.

Quote of the Day

From John Cole's Being a Republican Means Never Having To Know What the Hell You Are Talking About:

Now, if you read Bob Owens during the campaign, you would have thought that Obama’s first priorities as President would have been to institute Sharia law, unionize ACORN and pay them 100 dollars an hour to go door to door taking away shotguns from white people, and then burn down every small business and build a mosque in its place. But, the times have changed, and now Owens informs us that President Obama is looting the treasury to send your tax dollars to companies that were by law forbidden from contributing to his campaign but he is sending them the money anyway, and even better, Obama managed to do it while Bush was President.

Quote of the Day

Obama advisor David Axelrod in response to WATB Andy Card moaning that the Obama crew is somehow denigrating the presidency because they wear "shirt sleeves in the Oval Office."

We're wearing short sleeves because we have to roll up our sleeves and clean up the mess that we inherited."

Got that, asshole?

Sorry, that's all you get from me these days...slammed at work. Stupid job.

Mitch Writer & The Detroit Wheels

A good column from Mitch Albom on the hypocrisy and posturing by Congress regarding the auto industry.

[h/t Bob]

This is Bull-Cit

Robert Reich wonders aloud why, now, Citibank is about to get bailed out, while the automakers are still left out in the cold...

I can't come up with a good reason, and neither can he.

Big Huge Oil

CNBC:

HOUSTON - Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, reported income Thursday that shattered its own record for the biggest profit from operations by a U.S. corporation, earning $14.83 billion in the third quarter.

In completely unrelated news, gas prices have suddenly dropped over a dollar a gallon the week before the election.

Point of Fact

It is now less than a week until the election, and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has still never held a press conference. And it is clear that the McCain campaign has no intention of ever having one.

Someone potentially a heartbeat away from becoming leader of the free world has never faced unscripted questions from reporters. Fluff interviews (Hannity, etc.) and slightly-less-than-fluff one-on-one, pre-taped interviews (Couric, Gibson) do NOT count.

Four or five weeks ago when people like Andrew Sullivan were complaining about the same thing it seemed improbable that McCain/Palin could get away with it.

They have.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Check My Math. Please

My calculator isn't big enough to handle the math, and it's been far too long since I had to do math unassisted...

So this "bail-out" is pretty much like handing my family a bill for $10,000. Is that about right? One trillion dollars divided by approximately 100,000,000 households?

Are you fucking kidding me?

And this isn't even going to buy us any assets like the S&L bailout did, or even any regulation or accountability?

This is handing the Bush Administration a blank check to dole out as they see fit?

Do I have all that right?

Where the fuck is Obama's ass-kicking ad on this?

McCain's Reputation Precedes Him

Andrew Sullivan fails to discern the difference between The McCain Myth and reality:

The notion that Barack Obama has no bipartisan achievements in the Congress is untrue and unfair [...] But it is equally true that the kind of bipartisan initiatives that McCain has pioneered have had much more far-reaching scope and were more likely to piss off his own party. Tim Pawlenty, who is probably going to be McCain's running mate auditioned and made the case yesterday:

Look at Senator McCain's record on the big issues of our time. Changing the strategy in the war, being for climate change, cranking down on pork barrel spending, being against earmarks, reaching across even on things that are controversial like campaign finance reform. as a United States Senator. Not casting a vote as a state legislator, but leading, being the person that's in the middle of it.

Gang of 14, that Senator Obama was against, that gave us Justice Roberts and Alito... Senator Obama was even against that. Senator McCain was right in the middle of it, Leading that bipartisan charge. again, whether it's energy, whether it's ethics, whether it's reform, whether it's spending, Senator McCain time and time again has been saying I'm willing to lead, I'm willing to take risks. We have not seen that kind boldness from Senator Obama.

I think that's true.

No, Andrew, it's not. Only looking at McCain's reputation as a "maverick" can you say that crap is true. The reality doesn't support it.

Gang of 14? I regard that as a horrendous capitulation by the Democrats, and NO risk for McCain or the Republicans involved. Bush and the GOP got the Justices they wanted AND neutered the Democrats. Getting a handful of cowardly Dems to cross over and join a Republican initiative does not a "bipartisan initiative" make.

Energy? I'll grant McCain that he strays from the GOP on this (less oil, more nukes—which I don't have a problem with, btw), but he is still heavily industry/corporate-oriented in his solutions, and I'm not sure he or Pawlenty can point to anything McCain's actually accomplished here besides demagogue.

McCain IS out in front of his party on global warming—though that's not saying much— and the cynic in me suspects this is a moderate-appeal campaign stance only, and he will not DO anything about it.

Ethics? Is this separate from "reform?" I think there is plenty going on right now with his campaign to torpedo the substance of this. I don't even have to go back to his corrupt past with The Keating Five.

Reform? Perhaps he means McCain/Feingold? This is crap, too. While it was risky at the time to pursue—only in regard to his party, not popularity—I think his naked abuse of the system and manipulation of loopholes he crafted negates any "credit" he earns here.

Spending? Gas tax pander. Next?

Perhaps Pawlenty would like to expand on the countless instances when McCain "talks" a "risk-taking/maverick" line but fails to follow through—each and every time... Like, perhaps... on torture. McCain has used his POW status as a bludgeon to silence any critical analysis of his positions here, but despite whatever pre-vote postures he and Lindsay Graham take, they have upheld the Administration every time on this. Every single time.

I have linked repeatedly to Sullivan over the last year, mostly for his stuff on Obama, but he clearly has a higher-than-deserved regard for McCain. He regularly mentions how this is the best matchup for America and democracy because McCain is the bee's fucking knees. It's not true. While McCain is certainly the best that's going to come from the GOP, there is a world of difference between McCain and Obama, in addition to the issues.

Mattel Act Like Brats Over Bratz™

BUSINESS: Barbie's Mattel Sues Maker of Bratz Dolls

Morning Edition, June 3, 2008 · The popular Bratz dolls have been taking the spotlight away from Barbie. But toy-making giant and Barbie parent Mattel says it owns Bratz. The companies are in court, fighting over the exact moment that the designer came up with the idea for Bratz.

As a member of the (lately) much-maligned "creative class" I have a stong opinion/reaction to this. This sounds like a classic work-for-hire case. Mattel contends that the guy who "invented" Bratz did it during his tenure at Mattel—therefore it belongs to them.

Carter Bryant, the toy designer, maintains that he came up with the concept during an 8-month hiatus from working at Mattel [link]:

Bryant came up with the Bratz concept in August 1998 when he visited his family in Missouri and saw magazine ads featuring caricatures resembling what eventually became the Bratz dolls.

The case is now at the forensics level as they try to analyze the ink from his sketches...Seriously.

Here's the deal. "Work for Hire" sucks. For a company to be able to lay claim to a person's imagination is a crock. If Mattel could prove that Bryant was on-the-clock working on development for a new line of slutty dolls as part of his job, I'd say they have a case. But they want to claim anything you think of during the time you are employed—not just while at work, but the duration of your employment is their intellectual property.

If I wake up in the middle of the night with a brilliant idea, it should be mine. And unless I take it in to the office, and sell my boss on investing the company's resources in it, it should remain mine. Bryant never brought his idea to Mattel, though he did return to work there. He took his ideas to a new, young company—while still working at Mattel—and when the new company, MGA, bought in, he quit Mattel, and Bratz went on to kick the fifty-year-old Barbie's ass down the toy aisle.

Sounds to me like a creative guy came up with a good idea on his own, recognized that it would never fly with Mattel, took it somewhere else and was successful. That is how it should be.

Now Mattel is looking sounding like a sore loser and looking to stifle the competition. Lumbering behemoth, dinosaur companies that refuse to change with the times or recognize trends, and also treat their talent like drones, should get gnawed on by smaller innovators.

--

Other than rooting for this David to triumph over Goliath, I think Bratz are crap, and my daughters will never have them.

It's Raining Kitchen Sinks

I hope we can stop hearing about Barack Obama enjoying some kind of immunity in the media now, because it's clear that honeymoon is over and he is taking fire from ALL sides now.

• McCain is go after him with bullshit about Rev. Wright, and being the "candidate of Hamas."...

• Hillary's calling him chicken for refusing to participate in a moderator-less debate where she'll be even more free to make random mentions of Hamas and Farrakan...

• Newsweek's cover feature is on Obama's "elite problem" and their cover uses the fucking arugula vs. beer...didn't I explain this shit in my open letter to the media?

• And now Reverend Wright has returned Obama's loyalty by fucking him over something fierce...It's now time for Obama to Sister Souljah the hell out of that guy. This is a HUGE moment that I think could save or bury his campaign. It should be a non-issue, but it seems clear his opponents and the media have decided to define him on this.

This is a perfect storm of bullshit that really does scare the shit out of me coming right before two big primaries.

I'm too swamped to blog now, more to come soon...