Cheer Up, Idiot Democrats!

Just about any competitive athlete, particularly any pro athlete, will tell you that one of the most important things in any competition is to not let your opponents rattle you. Never let 'em see you sweat. Stay calm, stay focused.

Democrats would be well advised to keep this in mind these days. I knew there would be some finger-pointing and blaming going around after the loss in Massachusetts, and that's what I saw today. Some blogger actually blamed Obama. There was the usual sniping that Obama isn't liberal enough, he's alienated his base, etc., from the "progressive" camp, vs. the "liberals don't know how to compromise" argument from the "moderate" camp.

Not only is this tired and cliched, it's stupid and counterproductive. Taking yourself too seriously is an occupational hazard of being a political junkie. I know this, because I have this tendency myself. Taking yourself too seriously is also an occupational hazard of being a philosophy major, and I was one of those, too. One of my antidotes to taking myself too seriously is the motto of this blog (it's right under the masthead).

Democrats lost a seat they had every reason to believe was an easy victory. That was stupid. But Democrats still have large majorities in the House and the Senate. Plus they have the presidency.

Exactly one year ago today, a young African American with a weird name achieved what most thot was impossible, and was inaugurated President of the United States of America.

Guess what, Democrats - he's still President.

I have said this many times before, and I'm sure I will say it many times again: I refuse to be afraid of my political opponents. Unless someone has a gun to my head, I'm not afraid of them.

I am particularly not afraid of my political opponents when my party controls the levers of power.

Apart from the question of just making the decision not to be afraid, I have solid evidence why I shouldn't be afraid of my political opponents: my side is winning. Not just with today's majorities, but over the course of history. We have won decisive victories in terms of feminism, civil rights, and the environment. We are slowly winning the battle for gay rights. I could go on.

Anyone who is angry at or disillusioned with Barack Obama has not been listening to Barack Obama, because a central part of his message has always been this: This is going to be hard.

There are no meaningful victories without setbacks. I keep thinking about Mark Sanchez, the quarterback for the Jets. Last year, he was the quarterback for USC. He had a year of eligibility left, but he went pro. Some questioned his move - his coach, Pete Carroll, was famously upset - but this year, Mark Sanchez is one victory away from playing in the Super Bowl. And he's the quarterback of the Jets!

Never let 'em see you sweat. Never let yourself be afraid of your political opponents. But never underestimate them, either. And never, ever forget that you are an American, and that the arc of history bends towards justice.

Suck it up, Democrats.

Cash For Clunkers Wildly Successful!

The Cash for Clunkers program has proven to be so successful that the money is already gone, in just a week. Ooops! And yet - voila! - Congress is already appropriating more. Funny how that was ready to go. Funny how, even though the House was about to go in recess, they managed to squeeze that in.

I like how the Democrats played this. Apparently Republicans didn't like the original amount, $4 billion, so it was reduced to $1 billion. But that money disappeared in the blink of an eye! Guess what!?!? It's a government program that has worked extremely well. Who woulda thunk it?

One great thing about this program is that no one has mentioned what it really is: welfare for white people. This is the government finding an excuse to shovel money to middle class people, the ones who are buying the cars, and people in the auto industry, from the manufacturers to the dealers. Many of those folks, particularly the ones making the cars, are middle-aged white guys. How many Latina lesbians do you think work on the line at Chevy? Not a whole lot, I'm guessing.

This is important because a subtext of much of our political debate is white resentment towards the government, based on a feeling that Democrats have been using government to redistribute wealth away from white people, particularly older white men, and towards undeserving minorities. This is one reason the "birther" movement is so bizarrely popular - people think Obama is not one of them, and that he is going to use his power as president to take things away from them, and give it to people who look like him - African Americans. That's why there is resistance to health care reform - same thing. When conservatives hear the word "government," they hear "someone who is going to take away my money, and give it to people who don't deserve it."

So this Cash for Clunkers program is a great idea as part of the battle against that idea. When someone gets a check from the government for a new car, it's a little harder for them to argue that the government isn't doing anything for them. The fact that it's wildly popular, and that Congress had to add more money, is icing on the cake, politically - it generates more publicity, and shows Congress actually doing something for the middle class in a very direct way.

One other unmentioned side benefit of this program is that it will be good for health care costs in this country. Newer cars are both more energy efficient and safer. Just about any new car has airbags all over the place, as well as better steering, handling, and braking. Someone in a crash is far more likely to survive with minimal injuries, or even to just survive, in a new car than in a car made 10 or 15 years ago. I have no idea how to calculate the benefits from fewer injuries, but, again, it's icing on the cake - a benefit that we get from this program on top of the benefits we are already getting.

And it's a great example of bipartisanship! According to the NY Times, "Over all, 239 Democrats and 77 Republicans voted in favor, while 14 Democrats and 95 Republicans voted against the measure."

All these great benefits! And only $1 billion! Of course, as Everett Dirksen may or may not have said, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." I would amend to add, a successful government program here, a successful government program there, and pretty soon you're talking about making the government work for the American people!

Voting in California today

There are elections today in California. Some of them are the regular assortment of scattered special elections, runoffs, etc. Those are all location-specific; no statewide offices are at stake. There are several propositions, however, 1A through 1F. They are mostly dealing with the budget - that would be the dysfunctional California state budget that is a huge mess in many ways.

I am a hardcore political junkie, but I have been trying to avoid this one. The cause is not hard to figure out; California law requires a two-thirds majority to pass the budget. Republicans, who are in the minority and probably will be for the foreseeable future, dig in their heels and resist any kind of compromise on cutting spending and/or raising taxes. It doesn't help that our governor is a Republican; there is very little love lost between him and the Republicans in the legislature. Most of them consider him a RINO (Republican In Name Only).

We have a massive budget deficit that I have been trying hard not to think about. Most of the propositions are band-aids over this mess. I voted for most of them, because we have to fund certain things. But I really didn't want to.

Democrats and Republicans are basically playing chicken. Neither wants to blink first. Democrats don't want to cut spending, and Republicans don't want to raise taxes. Republicans think they can win this because they hate government already, so they figure if the state goes off a cliff, they will be proved right.

I, of course, think Republicans are being stupid. A large majority of Californians are Democrats; this sure ain't gonna make them feel better about the Republican party. Republicans probably think that they're well-positioned to hold onto the governor's office in 2010, because they have a couple of very rich candidates running. But Arnold is only there because of a quirk of history. He won election because Gray Davis was one of the least charismatic politicians in California. Then Arnold won reelection because his next competitor - I don't even remember the guy's name - was even worse. Arnold is not just the most famous Republican governor in the country, he is one of the most famous Republican governors in the history of the country. If these initiatives fail, which it looks like they will, he will look even more like a failure than he already does, and he ain't doing well. This will be yet another black mark on the Republican party.

I think the Republican Party has miscalculated what will happen if too many things really do get cut. I think a lot of anger is going to boil over, and it is going to be directed at them.

Polls close in less than 10 minutes. Turnout is expected to be extremely low. We live in interesting times. I think I'm going to be checking out Calitics.com a little more often for the next few months.

Send Rush Limbaugh a message!

The Democratic Party is planning to set up a billboard in Rush Limbaugh's hometown with a message to him. Woo-hoo! Good times! They are considering a number of different messages, and are soliciting input from intelligent, enlightened people everywhere. Vote to send the Republican Party's demagogue du jour a message! I voted for the sign "Rush: Say "Yes" to America," because I believe in being positive and respectful towards your political opponents. Even idiots like Limbaugh.

I would recommend that you vote early and vote often, but you have to sign in to vote, so I think the Democrats may be trying to maintain high standards of electoral integrity on this one. Which, of course, I strongly support. So vote once and tell your friends!

California Has A Budget - Barely

The state of California finally passed a budget a couple of days ago. It's not a pretty sight; there are lots of cuts, and some increases in taxes. Republicans fought the taxes very hard, and demanded cuts in social services and education. For example, the California State University system (which is the second-tier system, below the University of California, but above community colleges) is going to lose 10,000 students. That's just mind-boggling.

Apparently the Democratic leaders in the Assembly and Senate worked together well, which is good. Arnold did a reasonably decent job, but he's also part of the problem; he slashed the vehicle license fee when he came into office, which is part of why we're in the mess that we're in. Arnold has a seriously dysfunctional relationship with most of the Republican party. He doesn't like them, and they don't like him. He's very much a RINO (Republican In Name Only). I think could have been a very good governor if he had had political experience before he was elected. As it is, he's been learning on the job, which has not been an entirely positive experience for the citizens of California. He also doesn't really have a base to mobilize.

Republicans hate paying taxes because they don't see themselves as getting anything in return. They see taxes as going to support poor people in the inner cities. They see money for education going for liberal professors who are critical of Republicans. They see money for drug rehabilitation going to criminals who threw away their chances to be good citizens, and now only deserve jail.

Not all Republicans think this way, obviously, but enough of the ones in the California legislature do to wreak havoc on the state budgeting process. These idiots even negotiated some tax cuts for businesses. That's just absurd. Tax cuts for businesses when we are cutting education? If I were a responsible business owner, I would be furious. I would like a tax cut to hire new people, but what I really need are educated employees. And educated customers who have enough money to buy my products.

A big part of the problem is that the state has become almost ungovernable. A two-thirds majority is required to pass the budget. There are some good leaders in the legislature, but they're very new; Karen Bass, the Speaker, has only been in that position since May. Why? Because of that utterly idiotic idea, term limits. I think term limits is one of the stupidest ideas in the history of politics, but we're stuck with them for now. We don't have the leaders that we used to, guys who had been around for a long time and who could broker deals quickly. Term limits become a self-fulfilling prophecy; voters are angry at their legislators, so they impose term limits, which limits their legislators ability to do their jobs, which makes the voters even angrier. Someone needs to put a stop to this madness.

There may be some good things to come out of this. As Rahm Emanuel says, "Never waste a good crisis." One of the reasons this was finally passed was that one state senator, Abel Maldonado, traded his vote for a promise to open up primaries. It would mean that the top two vote-getters in a primary, regardless of party, would face off in a general election. This takes the power out of the hands of the parties, and puts it in the hands of voters. The hope is that it will reward more moderate candidates, because independent voters would be more likely to vote for them. The parties, of course, hate it.

This is yet another - how many more of these do we need? - example of Republicans failing to come to terms with the exhaustion of their anti-tax ideology. Republicans used to be the party of good management. They have long since abandoned that. They aren't managing, they aren't governing, they're just reacting. Our next governor, let us pray, will be a Democrat with even bigger Democrat majorities. Never waste a good crisis. Particularly if the crisis is in your opposition's electoral strategy.

Slight change in plans for tax breaks in stimulus plan

Obama has changed his stimulus plan slightly, very much for the better, I think. He floated a proposal for $300 billion worth of tax credits for job creation. I wasn't following this very closely, because details will get hammered out after the Inaugural. But this didn't sound right. Tax cuts are not what we need right now, particularly for this kind of thing.

Republicans, of course, liked it, and Obama was making noises about this being a bipartisan effort. Democrats, of course, didn't like it, and shot it down.

I like the way Obama played this. He made nice with Republicans, which, of course, made them feel good. But then Democrats shot down a bad proposal. So Obama is the good cop, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are the bad cops. Which is a role they are used to. What I particularly like about this is that it sends the message that the Democrats are controlling the agenda. Good message to send. Guess what, Republicans? Tax cuts ain't the name of the game any more. Get those delusions out of your system. Repeat after me: tax cuts do not raise revenue. Supply-side economics is garbage.

Big Three lose a battle in Rhode Island

A Federal judge in Rhode Island threw out a lawsuit brought by the Big Three challenging Rhode Island's attempt to impose strict clean-air regulations.

I can't believe that the Big Three are still fighting this fight. It's absurd. Don't they realize what a PR disaster these kinds of lawsuits are? I can appreciate that they don't want a patchwork of differeing state regulations, but one reason that California has higher standards than the rest of the country is that the Big Three have fought higher federal standards for years! The Big Three are going to need help from Democrats, and they sure aren't helping their cause by keeping up the fight against tighter clean air regulations.

They have basically no leverage. Democrats are holding all the cards. The not-so-Big-Three-these-days have to demonstrate that they are changing their ways. John Dingell is no longer in a position to protect them.

Stopping whatever lawsuits like this one are left would be a great way for them to start showing the world that they understand that they are in a new world. It would also be an admission of failure. But that's necessary because they did fail. They lost this fight. Time to throw in the towel.

A cold hard look at Lieberman

Joe Lieberman will be chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. That's old news, but some people are still upset about it, and it looks like this might be one of those touchstone issues that demarcates ideology and alliances. Maybe not quite that dramatic, but it will not be forgotten.

I don't care that much, but I think the issue is worth a second look because of what it says about how Obama intends to govern. One of the primary concerns about letting Lieberman keep his post is that it makes Democrats look weak. I disagree.

Lieberman will tell you that he campaigned for John McCain because he honestly believed that McCain was better prepared to deal with the war on terror. I'm willing to buy that, because it was clearly against his best interest to actually campaign for McCain. If McCain had won, which was always a long shot, Lieberman would have been in his good graces, but the rest of the Senate Dems, who control the Senate, would have been furious with him. From a political strategy standpoint, it really did Lieberman no good to campaign for McCain. Which is why I believe that campaigning for McCain was, for him, an act of conscience; he certainly wasn't motivated by cynical political considerations.

But Lieberman lost his gamble. He ended up with the worst of both worlds: McCain lost, and the Democrats won enough seats that they don't need him as much as they used to, although they still would like to enjoy his company.

He didn't just lose his gamble; he lost a lot of political capital. Even after he kept his chairmanship, he's not the senator he was before. His chances of winning in 2012 are slim at best, so he's not a long-term threat to other senators. Most important, though, he accomplished nothing with his endorsement of and campaigning for McCain. Obama won Connecticut and Florida, the two places where Lieberman's endorsement might have made a difference.

Obama approaches Lieberman from a position of seriously superior strength. Obama put Lieberman in his place just by winning. By not opposing him, Obama put Lieberman in his debt. That is not weakness; that is being aware of your own strengths.

After gambling and losing, Lieberman's grip on his status in the senate was tenuous. If he had lost his chair, he would have been rendered impotent. By saving him, Obama made him powerful again, which is why he is in Obama's debt (and Harry Reid's). He disagrees with Obama on the war, but he's slightly less likely to oppose the new, very popular president if he owes him big time. Supporting the president is a powerful motivating factor in Washington; it's going to be difficult for Lieberman to do so.

But whether or not he would even do so is a different question. At the end of the day, it comes down to policy. There are a number of things that Obama wants to do that potentially involve homeland security, but his most important goals, i.e. ending the war in Iraq, winning the war in Afghanistan, would go through Foreign Relations, now chaired by John Kerry, or Armed Services, chaired by my favorite old pro from Michigan, Carl Levin. Will Joe Lieberman be able to make trouble for Obama? Honestly, I don't really know enough about the influence of the chair of the Homeland Security Committee to make a judgment there. Does Joe Lieberman want to make trouble for Obama?

My guess there is no. He will want to engage Obama in debate, but that's fine, and even healthy. I'm sure there will be some disagreements that are stronger than others; I wouldn't be surprised if Lieberman frustrates Obama now and then. But serious trouble? I doubt it.

Barack Obama was elected President in part because he promised to change the tone in Washington. Part of that means calming down the rhetoric, respecting people who disagree with him, listening to those people, and not picking fights just because you think you're right. Obama is not interested in retribution, particularly for comments made in the heat of the campaign that ultimately turned out to be meaningless.

I once read a story about Abraham Lincoln after the end of the Civil War. He met some Southerners in the White House, and charmed them. His aides were distressed; they had hoped he would punish the rebels. Lincoln replied that he not only gained friends, he lost enemies in the transaction. Joe Lieberman is much more useful to Barack Obama and the other Senate Democrats as a grateful friend than as a bitter enemy. Lieberman might be able to make trouble for Obama as chair of his committee, but he's less likely to do so, given that Obama let him keep it (I'm not going to address to what extent Obama interfered with the drama in the Senate, but I think it's clear that if he had wanted Lieberman gone, he could have made that clear, and he didn't). If he had been kicked out of his chairmanship, he would not have had as good of a position for causing trouble. But he would have been much more likely to do so.

Welcome to an administration that understands how powerful being gracious can be. It's going to take some getting used to.

Begich wins in Alaska

Mark Begich has won the Senate race in Alaska. Congrats to him. So much for Uncle Ted. This can't be good news for Sarah Palin, either. It's a feather in the cap of the netroots. That's 58 Democrats in the Senate, with 2 more races to go. It's a good day.

The New Yorker on the ACORN nonsense

John McCain, and the various elements of the Republican propaganda machine, have suddenly latched onto ACORN as a villain, accusing it of perpetuating voter fraud. This is ridiculous on its face, but, just to provide some context, here's The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg on just why it's absurd.

My two cents is simple: who do you trust more on the issue of minority voting, Democrats or Republicans? Because of course we all know what a great track record Republicans and conservatives have on expanding the franchise to include minorities.

Democrats are better for the stock market

Republicans used to have a reputation for being better managers than Democrats. After all, Republicans are business-oriented, and many of them have experience in business. Democrats, supposedly, are not as interested in business. I think that's one of those stereotypes left over from the '60's. The NY Times provides a most helpful graphic pretty much putting that stereotype to rest. Turns out that, over the past 80 years or so, Democrats have been better for the economy. Much, much better. $10,000 invested with the Democrats would have turned into $300,000. $10K invested with Republicans would have returned $52,000 (excluding Herbert Hoover) and only $11,733, if you include Herbert Hoover. Oops. So all you out there interested in seeing your stock market portfolios go up: Vote Obama.

The Democratic Platform

Marc Ambinder has a copy of the current version of the Democratic Platform. He also quotes a few key passages. I am assuming it will go through a few more revisions before it's actually official (which, I'm guessing, is one of the things that will happen at the convention), but this should be pretty close. The theme is "Renewing America." I participated in a platform brainstorming session with some of my Obama campaign friends. It was fun shooting the breeze about politics for a couple of hours, pretending that we were having an impact. I like to think, or perhaps dream, that someone actually read what we came up with.

College Democrats endorse Obama!

The College Democrats of America have endorsed Barack Obama for president. This is not even remotely surprising, given that most young people are voting for Obama. Normally I wouldn't post about one endorsement, but I like this particular announcement because the President of the College Democrats, Lauren Wolfe, who is a delegate, is from Royal Oak, Michigan, where I lived for about a year. It's not a big place, but it's very cool, and quite hip. One memory of Royal Oak that I have is walking past an independent record store and seeing an unusual album cover plastered all over the window. It was a picture of a naked baby swimming, and reaching for a dollar bill. I remember thinking, "Hmmm, must be some hot new album from a band that I've never heard of." Of course, it was Nevermind, by Nirvana, and went on to sell 10 million albums.

But I digress. I'm pretty sure that record store is long gone, but I learned a good lesson there about noticing details and the importance paying attention to certain key cultural signifiers, like the windows of independent record stores. I think they even sold the album on vinyl.

But I digress again. So that is Royal Oak, Michigan, where Lauren Wolfe is from. Of course, since she's from Michigan, it's questionable whether or not she will be able to vote, since it's not clear whether or not the Michigan delegation will be seated.

My guess is that they will be. Somehow or other, they will be part of the party for the Party. Everyone will be having a good time in Denver, including the people from the insular peninsula states.

Dems feeling special about elections

Democrats have won three special elections in the last couple of months, in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Illinois. All three had been held by Republicans who left, for various reasons. So all three were open seats, but in strongly Republican districts. The GOP should have held on to all three, but instead lost all three. And one of those seats was the seat formerly held by Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the House.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo explains the impact of these three special elections:



One thing Josh doesn't mention (because it isn't his topic today) is that all these retirements and special elections have implications for the future. All of the retiring Republicans have at least some seniority. All of the new Democrats, both the three that won these elections, and however many win in the fall, will be brand new. That means that the Republicans lose a fair amount of expertise and power, while Democrats gain fresh blood. The Democrats, being in the majority, are also in a position to protect the new members. In midterm elections, the President's party generally loses seats, but this time around, in 2010, there's almost no chance that Democrats will lose the House, or the Senate, so expect more Republicans to resign. We're looking at a Democratic majority for a long time to come.

It's interesting to look back on 1994, when Republicans took back the House after 40 years of being in the majority. The reason they won can mostly be attributed to one man: Newt Gingrich. He plotted and schemed for years, and finally got enough people to believe in him that he accomplished a minor miracle, and the Republicans took back the House. One reason he was able to do it was that the Democrats never saw him as a serious threat. They had become complacent, since they had been in the majority for so long. But once they lost it, they started trying to get it back, and eventually did. It will be a long time before Democrats are complacent again.

Of course, Democrats also have to have their act together and get things done. I'm more confident about that now than I have been in a while. I think the Democratic party is attracting some very good people these days.

Democrats! And the Senate! Going great together!

One of the great things about a presidential election year is that there are also lots of other races going on, so, for a political junkie like me, there's just oodles of things to pay attention to. It's like being in a candy store. Particularly this year, when things are looking good for Democrats. Talking Points Memo has a nice post about the races in the Senate. Republicans are defending 9, count 'em, 9, seats. Democrats? One. Uno. A single seat. Right now, the Democrats control the Senate, but just barely, 51-49. If the Democrats pick up several seats, that could be 55-45. And that's actually at the low end of expectations. Regardless, it is going to be easier to pass Democratic legislation next year.