Political Strategery

[straight from kos himself at GOS]

Political pop quiz: You are the Connecticut Republican Party, the nation's richest state and a solid Democratic stronghold. Your Democratic opponent has been busted (fairly or not) for lying or exaggerating his military service during the Vietnam War. Do you:

1. Nominate a decorated Vietnam War vet, retired Colonel, and winner of two Bronze Stars, with a proven track record of winning elections in tough political terrain

2. Nominate the teabagger co-founder of the WWE

If you were smart, you'd pick option number one. But the rules said you had to be a Republican...

I think this is goods news for someone, and it's NOT John McCain. Richard Blumenthal should weather this fake-ass controversy and when reality comes into play for voters, he will stomp Linda McMahon. This is another case of the Teabag Wing pulling the GOP too far to the right.

I know voters in Connecticut have proven themselves to be as fucking stupid as any other state last time they chose a Senator, but at the end of the day, I have to think a popular and effective public servant that had astronomical approval numbers should prevail.

Dick of the Week: Massachusetts

Yeah. Seems obvious, right? Here's the thing: I hated Coakley as a candidate and the way the party handled this whole affair. I can easily rationalize the loss away as a wake-up call, a moment of clarity on a path to passing the reform (see previous post), or a punishment for Coakley and her inept, arrogent campaign.

There's the obvious parallel to the voters to the south stupidly reelecting Joe Lieberman, but this was worse. the stakes so much clearer, but that stuff is beating a dead horse. The thing that's not getting enough play for my taste is the fact that Massachusetts HAS FUCKING UNIVERSAL(ish) HEALTH CARE!

The media likes to pretend that this election was a rejection of health care reform—which is wasn't—because clearly polls and past voting and the fact that they fucking gave it to themselves as a state indicate other wise.

But what is burning me up the most, and that I will have the hardest time getting past is the big, giant "Fuck you, I got mine!" these Massholes gave the rest of the country.

No one is talking about that. No one.

What Happens Now

I had a big post breaking down the potential ramifications of the Senate race in Massachusetts for either result almost ready to go when I had to put it down for a couple hours. Now the results are in and you might think that was all wasted.

Wrong.

Most of my conclusions ended up in the same place whether Coakley or Brown won.

In my desperate attempt to find a silver lining in what seemed likely, I ended up comfortable with the feeling that Coakley losing might actually be a good thing. No. I'm not going all FDL and becoming a "kill the bill" fanatic—I want the bill passed, and I'm starting to think the Republican upset might help that process.

Here are the things I think were an inevitable result of this election, no matter who won:

1. Bragging Rights -- The GOP declares the election a referendum on the Democrats at large and Obama in particular. The GOP smells blood in the water and is emboldened in their obstructionism and nihilism and ratchet up the rhetoric. Brown winning also makes their framing an easier sell, but even a narrow Coakley win would have been treated the same way.

2. "This is excellent news for John McCain." -- The media follows the GOP on No. 1. Since Brown pulled it out, they have a collective weeks-long orgasm. That is the result they wanted. It sets up the narrative for the year and the midterms, and makes their lives easy. These underdog and rebellion stories write themselves. But make no mistake: even a Coakley win would've been framed as a loss and a rejection of Obama, because it wasn't a blowout.

3. Massive Diaper Change -- Blue Dog and conservative Democrats shit their pants and run for the fucking hills on EVERYTHING. Funny how that works: A Republican loses? Then they weren't conservative enough, the party hunkers down and moves to the right. A Democrat loses? They weren't conservative enough, the Democrats abandon everything and run to the right like a goddamn bear is chasing them. This effect holds simply because it was close. Doesn't matter who won.

So what does all of that tell you? If Coakley had won 51-49 none of that would have changed. The only difference now is 59 Democrats instead of 60.

And. That. Shouldn't. Fucking. Matter.

This isn't the Republican party. The "60-vote super-majority" never was a given, and never would be. You don't think Evan Bayh isn't drooling at the chance to be the new Joe Lieberman? He just passed his first audition tonight by being the first Dem in front of a camera, scolding the party for drifting too far left.

--

For the sake of Argument, let's pretend for a moment Coakley had won:

The first order of business is Health Care Reform. Coakley's win sends the process right back into the quagmire of gutlessness and stupidity that has taken a a year to get us to this point—which is: still without a pasable bill. So, the existing Senate and House bills would go to conference, and there's no guarantee that what emerged would be as good as either current bill or that it would pass. In general, the longer it takes, the less likely it would pass, but in this climate, do you think after watching the bloodbath in Massachusetts the fence-sitters in the party are going to man-up or dither? The intra-party finger-pointing and second-guessing would be paralyzing in a conference.

And it would only get worse from there. Enough candy-asses are going to run to the right after a race this close, that 60 might be unattainable on any given legislation.

But, since Coakley lost, the mirage of a super-majority is exposed and the pursuit of 60 more futile, it might actually change both the tactics and the strategy from the Democrats. On HCR, the only way to pass the package now is to avoid the conference committee by eliminating the need to combine two bills.

Send the Senate bill as-is to the House, promise House progressives their concerns (mostly budgetary) will be handled in 50+1 reconciliation and have Pelosi gather 218 votes. It then goes straight to Obama's pen.

Failure to pass health care reform is not acceptable and the current scenario actually makes the process of enacting the legislation easier. Yes, it's a ballsier move, but by skipping the conference, the Senate vote has already happened—it negates Brown's 41st vote, or Lieberman's eventual stab in the back, etc.

If Reid, Pelosi and Obama are unable or unwilling to go that route and prevail, then I honestly believe they would not have gotten it done with Coakley's vote either.

Ugly

It doesn't look good for Coakley. Nate Silver:

Right now, our trusty little model of Massachusetts gives Martha Coakley just a 25 percent chance of prevailing tomorrow. Intrade also puts her odds at about 1 in 4. My subjective assessment might be a little better than that, but not much.

People are acting, however, as though 25 percent is the same as zero percent. And -- as disappointing as it might be to be in this position -- obviously it is not. This is not some basketball game where the score suddenly became Brown 75, Coakley 25; a 25 percent chance of winning means, quite literally, 25 percent.

Sorry, Nate. One-in-four, quite literally, is fucking screwed. Way to botch this up Democrats. And I honestly think parachuting Obama in to campaign on the eve of the election was a mistake. No voters like being told what to do by outsiders, and I think it played right into Brown's fake-ass regular guy versus machine politician.

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.

Change I Can Believe In?

TALKING THE TALK
Obama made a speech to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, the other day, and Andrew Sullivan wasn't impressed. Of course he wasn't. He has a visceral hatred for the group for some reason, and he's grown impatient with Obama's talk-to-action ratio. Not that I can blame him...he's got a very personal stake in the matters addressed (aside from DADT). Here's my take: until Obama can increase the action in that ratio, he needs to lower the talk. I (and Sullivan) understand the amount of shit on his plate, and the political challenges Obama faces with all things gay—but that, and the fact he's only nine months in office, only excuses the lack of action. The talk is all up to him. I know an invitation by the HRC is probably impossible for him to decline, but if I were Obama I'd be embarrassed to deliver that speech having walked NONE of the walk.

BOOBY PRIZE
And that is a natural lead-in to the Nobel Prize. My first reaction was the same as most of Obama's critics: "Are you fucking kidding me? What has he done?" Now, with a bit more background on the process, it seems it is not unusual for people to receive the award in anticipation of or for potential actions. That's clearly the case here. Along with a statement about the USA's rejection of the Bush/Cheney regime.

But the timing for this would have been better had Obama had a chance to act on anything of real substance. I understand it's designed to motivate him, but it ends up making everyone involved look stupid. And despite catcalls from the right about this feeding Obama's alleged narcissism, it's probably the LAST thing Obama wanted to deal with right now.

And here's what else...I really don't care to hear another excellent speech about Obama's plans to undo the Bush/Cheney doctrine until he actually does any of it.

UPDATE: Excellent analysis and breakdown by Rachel Maddow.

Profiles in Courage... a.k.a, I Now Have a Book to Sell

Former Homeland Security Secretary and George Reeves lookalike Tom Ridge is blowing the whistle on the Bush Administration:

Among the headlines promoted by publisher Thomas Dunne Books: Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was “blindsided” by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.

Fuck Ridge. If that's how he felt, he should have walked out and held a press conference when it actually mattered. Instead, he wrote it in his fucking diary, stayed on the job for another month, kept his mouth shut and saved it for his book years down the road.

[h/t DougJ at Balloon Juice]

Affirmative Action

I suppose a modicum of credit is due to the GOP for the election of Michael Steele to RNC Chair. A black man running the Republican party might even be more astounding than a black POTUS.

While it might be an obvious "Us, too!" response to the election of Barack Obama, it still represents a big step forward.

On the other hand, let's keep in mind that two weeks ago the RNC was prepared to select the moron from Tennessee who was mailing "Barack the Magic Negro" tapes, and it took six ballots to get Steele elected over this asshole:

...South Carolina party chairman Katon Dawson [...] who until just recently belonged to an all-white country club and has said he got involved in politics as a teenage opponent of busing programs in the 1960s -- not exactly the best face to oppose Barack Obama's agenda.

Still...progress is progress. Mr. Obama has indeed brought change to Washington.

UPDATE: Steve Benen begs to differ...

...no one should exaggerate the significance of the RNC chair. A couple of years ago, Bush tapped Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, a Cuban-American, as chairman of the RNC. Refresh my memory: did that have any impact whatsoever on outreach to Latino voters? Did it make the party seem more inclusive and diverse? I don't think so.

Hey, it's not Bush's fault the party is riddled with metastasized racism...

Worth the Wait

It wasn't out in time to make The Year in Review Review, but better late than never...

THE BEAST 50 MOST LOATHSOME PEOPLE IN AMERICA, 2008.

A sampling:

20. Joe the Plumber

Charges: The Che Guevara of bald, pissed off white men. In a lot of ways, Samuel Wurzelbacher really does represent the average American—basing economic opinions on unrealistic expectations of personal future success, blaming his failure to meet those expectations on minorities and old people, complaining about deadbeats getting his taxes when he isn’t actually paying his taxes, and advertising his own rudimentary historical and mathematical ignorance by warning of creeping socialism in a country whose highest income tax rate has dropped by half in thirty years. “Joe” indeed symbolizes the true American dream—to become undeservedly rich and famous through a dizzyingly improbable stroke of luck. As American folk heroes go, Wurzelbacher ranks somewhere between Hulk Hogan and Bernie Goetz.

Exhibit A: "Social Security is a joke...social security I've never believed in, don't like it. I hate that it's forced on me."

Sentence: After blowing his fifteen minutes and all his money on coke and Thai hookers, an infirm, elderly Joe finds that social security actually is a joke, and is finally forced to snake toilets for a living.

Sheer awesomeness. Mr Furious wants to be the Buffalo Beast when he grows up.

Miscellany

GUYS WHO WEAR $14,000 WATCHES WEIGH IN

Esquire Endorses Barack Obama for President
We thought this election would be a serious fight over the future of this country, but only one candidate showed up.

A good endorsement of Obama column from the editors of Esquire. They are justifiably critical, even harsh, regarding certain aspects of Obama's candidacy (ie: kissing the ring of Rick Warren). But they assemble a devastating indictment of the Bush Era and McCain's complete capitulation to, and eventual bear-hug of, the theocratic wing. Concluding with a compelling case regarding not just the Supreme Court—but ALL the Federal Courts. It's a column that's worth reading...

SPENCE SPEWS
Patton Oswald on the election, the candidates and what a good Ellroy novel it would make...


BLOGROLL UPDATE—IN:

SHAKESVILLE Now with 50% less PUMA! Still annoying (infuriating?) at times, but a near-daily stop for me with plenty of good stuff, or at least good debate.

DANIEL LARISON Heads up, that link takes you to The American Conservative—John Cole and Sullivan link to this guy often, and he's good. Perhaps less pertinent after the election—but, then again, important to keep things honest.


BLOGROLL UPDATE—OUT:

POSITIVE APE INDEX Site of the artist Coop. Infrequent posting, and too little art, design and hot rods in favor of too much wierd biker chick nudity (Angelos alert)

NEIL GAIMAN'S JOURNAL Seemed cool at first...I never go back there

Best. YouTube. Ever.

Brilliant.



Thanks, I really needed that.

[h/t Sullivan]

Linkdump [continually updated]

BACK TO THE FUTURE
Ron Howard's Obama video at FunnyOrDie.

CONVENTIONAL “WISDOM”
Salon.com lists the seven biggest things the political punditry called wrong...I'm not even sure that list gets it right, but I can say I got all but one right (I had a brief period—measured in hours—of panic about Palin), but I was spot-on with 4,5 and 6—and, more importantly, so was Obama.

LESS AGITATING
In an OpEd that appeared at reason.com and FOXNews.com, Radley Balko makes the libertarian case for Obama. Good stuff, and I don't even take issue with his reservations about Obama. Forward to any center-right or true conservative you know.

EPIC PFAIL
Chris Matthews—perhaps making up for lost time and lack of effort—relentlessly pummels a McCain spokesperson on Palin's misunderstanding of the job of VP.

IRRELEVANT
I wouldn't give a shit what al-Qaeda had to say about President Barack Obama, or the price of figs—so I don't really care about this supposed "endorsement" of McCain, and bloggers who waste more pixels on it than I just did are being jackasses.

WHERE'S THE FIRE?
Unbelievable video from a red-light camera in St. Louis...



Nobody was seriously hurt, which seems almost impossible. But, I have to ask...how the hell did that happen? Were they going to two different fires or what? BTW, that could never happen in Asheville as both trucks would be hemmed in by a bunch of Outback-driving stoners.

I Approve This Message

Some pretty good, creative ads in Ohio...



Should be useful combating Joe the Plumber. There are three more: Nuts, Waitress, and Pinch.

[h/t ATK]

A Few Good Apples

In confronting this lying racist douchebag outside a rally, this handful of McCain supporters and a local campaign chair showed a hundred times more class, and, yes—balls, than the candidates and all prominent Republicans combined.

The Obama Era

Ross Douthat via Sully:

...while conservatives can be confident that a President Obama and a new Democratic majority will eventually overreach and create openings for the GOP, they'd be fools to anticipate anything like the series of disasters, political and otherwise, that George W. Bush has presided over. If Obama ends up where Bush is today, then conservatives can campaign any way they damn well please in 2012 and 2016 and be confident of victory. But that isn't likely to happen, and if it doesn't, the Right is going to need a strategy based on something more than base-rallying and media-bashing.

Of course, we need to seal the deal in November, but things are looking pretty good.

I think there is a lot to what Douthat has to say; I am confident Obama will outgovern the Worst President Ever, but it's true that power corrupts and the Dems will have plenty. But more than that, he's missing something that will prevent it from being that easy for Democrats or quite that difficult for Republicans...

What Douthat fails to calculate is the fact that Obama and the Democrats are taking over a sinking ship. They have to clean up the GOP's mess (again) and there will be some tough stretches in the next year or two as the economy recovers. The GOP won't waste a day during that time blaming Obama for the bind the country is in.

It's crap, but they'll do it. It's all they have, and unless the public suddenly becomes more intelligent and discerning, it will work—to a degree.

A large part of how effective that is depends on how the media calls it. I have no faith in them to do anything except try to level the field in favor of the GOP—and I don't just mean FOX and Rush Limbaugh. The mainstream media is utterly worthless at discerning truth vs. bullshit—they merely present both sides as if equal.

The biggest thing in our favor that could overcome all that is Obama himself. He has the communication skills to go right over the heads of the media to make his point if necessary.

MIA

I'm on deadline this week, and Mrs F and the kids are sick. Blogging will be taking a backseat for a bit...

To keep you fired up, here is a photo I just received in an email from my Republican/Borg-drone uncle.

What kind of reality-suspension does it take to buy into that?

At least Obama plans to slap a diaper on that baby—the Republicans have been letting it shit all over the damn house!

Pressure Cookers and a Race Boiled Down

From a reader at Andrew Sullivan's...

[...] One benefit of this long campaign is that it really does show a person's character. And I realized. We have two men running for president right now. One has stayed true to himself throughout despite all the pressure. The other really hasn't or maybe we've just seen what he really was all along.

Obama said at the outset that he wanted a civil campaign on the issues. He said he would avoid the politics of person destruction. He demanded a cool, no drama organization -- much like himself.

He organized a strong team. Set clear goals. Adopted a sound plan and stuck to it. Reasoned, careful. Solid judgment. And in the intense glare of things like Wright and flags pins, he stuck to it all. Above all, Obama really has stayed true to who he is.

McCain on the other hand, despite his calls for a civil campaign, injected personal attacks. He cosied up to the same religious extremist he once decried. People like Hagee. And when that wasn't enough, he brought onto the ticket a evangelical with extreme views on abortion, contraception and sex education -- positions well to the right of most of the people in the Republican Party. And he hired the same polarizing, no-holds-barred political assassins that George Bush unleashed on America and McCain himself.

Senator McCain didn't stay true to himself. He morphed into a right-wing, polarizing ideologue campaign. And why? On the one hand, he's ambivalent about his ambitions, but often he'll lose sight of his values and overreach for the sake of those ambitions. In other words, he falls victim to the allure of power and loses his good judgment. He doesn't stay true to himself.

I dearly hope American's will come to appreciate this about these two men. One has stayed true to the better angels of his nature. One succumbed to the darker angels of his. Which one would make a better president in these sad and trying times?

These facts are so plainly obvious, yet never pointed out in the mainstream.

Last night, McCain pivoted from the blistering attacks of the previous evening and played the role (for the most part) of the kindly old veteran telling tales on a porch swing. He is hoping to prop up the illusion of his Maverick™ and serious statesman image. I hope people wake up and stop falling for it...Too bad I have such little faith in the media and even less in the electorate.

Impressions of Palin

She's very good.

Seriously. Some of that is the context—she shared a stage with some AWFUL speakers—but she blew away the field. She is far and away the best public speaker and presenter on the GOP team, and will clearly be the highlight of this otherwise moribund convention. I fear she will be a terrific motivator for a swath of the party that has pretty much sat on the sidelines until now.

There was a laundry list of bullshit in that speech, but nobody watching that will know it, and no one in the media will call her on it.

Palin brought out pure red meat for the base. Perfectly prepared, and served with a smile. She hit every GOP applause line, and checked off the usual list of imaginary foes, and totally fraudulent talking points.

Her record is thin, her experience lacking, and the substance of her message is crap, but it won't matter, I think she just earned herself a giant fucking pass from the doubters in her party and from a media just waiting to get put back in its place.

John McCain might have made a risky campaign decision, or a bad post-election governing decision, but he clearly made a great casting decision, and I think she just aced her audition.

It remains to be seen how this message is received in the wider, non-convention arena, but she did her job tonight.

She's a gamechanger.

Word of the Day

Palintology: n. The act of digging into a person's background after you select them for a position of great political importance.

[h/t Toast]

Fair Game

I was offline most of the weekend, so I didn't get to see anything as it unfolded, but I've tried to catch up on all the news regarding the race, and I have this to say this regarding Gov. Palin's daughter Bristol's pregnancy...

Generally I'd be hard and fast on the fact that family, especially children, are off-limits. But, like a tv judge, "I will allow" some careful questions on the topic for this reason: the campaign—and McCain and Palin specifically—seem more than comfortable using pregnancy in the Palin family for political points when it suits THEM.

Gov. Palin is supposed to get a gold star for carrying her Downs Syndrome baby to term, even though her own beliefs on the subject make that a no-brainer decision, and the platform position of her party would mandate her having it.

And now, 17-year-old, unwed, 5-months pregnant Bristol Palin is also going to have HER baby, and what's more, according to the McCain camp, "Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby." Well, isn't THAT special? When it comes to every other woman in the country, even victims of rape and incest, it'd be fine with both McCain AND Sarah Palin to make THAT decision FOR them.

Sorry. That doesn't earn a complete and total pass from me.

--

As for the "Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her daughter" crap I saw, I'm treating that as the flip side of the "Obama is a secret Muslim" coin.