The Cult Of Orignalism

From my piece in Creative Loafing,

The 17th Amendment was debated for the country's first 100 years. And it has worked for the past century. But the current claimants to the priesthood of conservatism choose to ignore all history between the then and the now. In their world, only that which was written in the beginning can define today. Genesis defines the course, Revelation the destination, and all between is vague parable and psalm.

I hope that those on the Republican side of the fence will see the criticism as constructive. Honoring the past is one thing; obsessing about it is another. One way preserves the conservatism envisioned by Burke and others. Down the other lies the Whigs, Copperheads, etc.

P.S. I always knew I needed a real editor and I was fortunate my first official one was a good one. Thanks TW.

Quote For The Day

This one hits a little close to home.

The Republican Party of Reagan who defended gay rights in the 1970s, of Bush 41 and even parts of Bush 43 is now emphatically and increasingly a party of the fanatical Christianist right, based in the South, and dedicated not to conservative politics but to dogma, theological and political.

At first glance, it may seem overwrought, but is it? Too often these days, conservatism is not a philosophy, it's not even an ideology; it's a checklist. And in a Republican dominated state like Georgia, it is easy to be convinced it is the one true way. Fortunately, there are those who see beyond the bounds of current dogma and insist on saving the philosophy if not the ideology before it rots from the innards.

Of course, those few are usually called RINOs, if not outright liberals.

Quote Of The Day

From the bearded one; on the hesitancy by the majority of the GOP establishment to call out Rush Limbaugh:

He is their Sistah Soldja. And the GOP awaits its Bill Clinton.

I listened to El Rushbo the other day. A schedule change around lunch time and his move to the premier radio station in my town led to this unholy convergence. I snickered mostly. He still peddles the same brand he did in 1996 when Bill Clinton was the devil and America was being "held hostage".

Now it's all about "the regime".

But no matter how absurd he becomes, no matter how stagnant his audience becomes, he remains a whistle stop on the tracks of the GOP express. It wouldn't take too many people bypassing him to make him a ghost town.

But as the linked article implies, who will be first?

Electoral Time Machine

An old saying - be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

There is serious talk of changing the way Presidential electors are selected. All states with the exception of Maine and Nebraska are winner take all with whichever candidate winning the popular vote also winning the entire number of electors.

Maine and Nebraska apportion their electors based on popular vote in individual Congressional districts.

With the Republican Party now having lost consecutive Presidential elections, critical states won by President Obama but controlled by Republican legislatures are considering switching to the Maine/Nebraska model.

In Georgia, oddly enough, this type of change would award three additional electoral votes to President Obama. Not so oddly enough, there is no talk in Georgia of switching to this type of system.

In Virginia however, where President Obama became the first Democratic President since FDR to win consecutive elections, the talks are hot and heavy. In the Old Dominion, under this type of system, Mitt Romney would have received 9 elector votes to President Obama's 4 despite losing the statewide vote handily.

National Republicans aren't shy about their intentions and this leads normally even tempered analysts like University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato to exclaim,

corrupt and cynical maneuver to frustrate popular will and put a heavy thumb — the whole hand, in fact — on the scale for future Republican candidates

Due to the last redistricting, there is little doubt that flipping a half dozen key states to this system would give the Republican Party a huge advantage in 2016. But what about beyond? We've already seen the unintended consequences of "voter id" laws which energized the Democratic base in swing states like Florida.

We only have to look thirty years in the past to ponder the what if's of the future.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan stomped Jimmy Carter; setting the stage for the Reagan Revolution. Today, we still feel the echoes of that thunderous election.

Reagan beat Carter, 489 to 49

But what happens if you apply the Republican party's new scheme basing it on party control of individual congressional districts in the 95th Congress?

Carter wins, 283 to 221*

The modern Republican nightmare of a Carter second term.

Now obviously, given how many Reagan Democrats switched sides in 1980, Reagan would have won many Democratically controlled districts. However, you cannot deny, the race would have been much closer, the mandate would not have been nearly as strong and there's a pretty good chance Carter would have won.

Given the backlash voter id created, Republicans should consider what might happen in those state houses where this new plan is enacted. It might turn Republican legislatures seen as destiny driven into battlegrounds against a re-invigorated opponent.

And after 2020, it might be Democrats controlling those district lines and ultimately those electors.

*Total does not add up to 538 due to vacancies where party could not be determined

There's Two Parts In Partnership

The Falcons stadium deal has created much thunder but, in my opinion, not a lot of heat.

A quick recap. Falcon's owner Arthur Blank wants a new retractable roof stadium. His proposal is the team will foot $700 million of the deal and Georgia/City of Atlanta will fund $300 million via bonds issued by the Georgia World Congress Center authority.

The rub is the GWCC only has statutory authority to issue $200 million in bonds. Obtaining the additional $100 million would require the legislature to raise the borrowing cap.

This unusual situation has led advocates on all sides to question the need for any new stadium when $300 million or even $100 million could be used by the City of Atlanta in other areas like the Belt Line or MARTA.

Those are legitimate questions that need to be posed. However, considering the funds in play are generated by the city of Atlanta but are designated to service state owned facilities, speculating on how they could be used solely by the city is where the heatless thunder arrives.

Last night, WABE reported Governor Nathan Deal and Mayor of Atlanta Kasim Reed have schemed a way around the deadlock by using city backed bonds to float the extra $100 million.

This has caused stadium opponent Charlie Harper, editor of Peach Pundit, to draw a line in the sand,

And the City will soon come to the state asking for help with issues that do affect the entire region, and those in the suburban part of the region will point to the distruction (sic) of a Dome with 20 years of functional life remaining and laugh.

The issue which Charlie refers is transportation.

To which I glibly replied.

Because as we all know, they really have needed an excuse to say no over the past 40 years.

Apparently Charlie believes there is an opportunity here to put aside differences held in the past and tackle the difficult questions. Yet, while promoting a partnership between the State and City to solve our thorniest problems, over the past weeks he has castigated the Mayor for not stepping up and showing "leadership".

But here's the problem with that thought, every partnership needs a partner. What exactly has Atlanta received in the past when it has reached its hand out?

• Atlanta asked the state for money to assist MARTA. Not only was Atlanta, Fulton and Dekalb told to pound sand, but the state created its own oversight board and dictated to MARTA how it would spend its own money


• Atlanta, Fulton and Dekalb asked the state to help the region's only Level One Trauma Center (Grady Hospital) and was again told to pound sand


• The Legistlature created the 2012 TSPLOST in an "effort" to untangle some of the transportation knots but once it became politically unpopular, washed their hands of it and left Mayor Kasim Reed as practically its only defender. Guess who got bloodied when it went down to defeat?

So here's my question for Mr. Harper. If we truly need a partnership, and I agree we do, when does the legislature plan to show any inclination to add their part to the partnership?

We're Number 5!

Today is one of those rare days where you don't want to be number one.

Mother Jones, a liberal website, has published its 50 Worst State Legislatures and the scoundrels down at the Gold Down stepped in at number five.

Highlights from the top five:

• Tennessee - Justifying a bill banning discussion of homosexuality in schools, a legislator explained to a radio station that everyone knows that the AIDS epidemic began when a man screwed a monkey.
• Oklahoma - A bill banning the use of aborted fetuses in food.
• New Hampshire - It's the third largest English speaking legislature in the world. Given that many people, it's inevitable you will come up with bills like the one requiring any state law to quote the Magna Carta
• North Carolina - Don't believe in climate change? Simple solution, write a bill mandating sea levels to not rise.
• Georgia - Obama mind control lectures. Comparison of women to livestock. Welcome to my home state.

Whenever there is an examination of the crazy, some one always says, both sides have plenty of crazy (if you're Republican you will likely mumble something about truthers) and that is true. But the fact is one side shows a particular pattern that the other does not and that creates a very real problem.

There are many people in this world, your humble scribe included, who trend towards conservative philosophy and therefore would naturally fit within the Republican party. However, we feel that we have no home there because the only home available is the Thanksgiving dinner where everyone at the table is the crazy uncle.

Quote Of The Day

From a commenter at liberal Blog For Democracy

" What the hell, we suck you know, shoot for the moon!"

For the second Presidential election in a row, the Democratic President out polled the average statewide Democratic candidate by about 5 points.

Repost: An Appeal To Moderates

Originally written November 19, 2008.

Moderates by their very nature avoid conflict.

For this reason, they spent the last 20 years operating in the shadows, sacrificing principle for the comfort of power as the radicals stomped across the landscape. They said all the right words and when necessary attended the appropriate services at the chapels of venom.

In 2000, when their standard bearer, John McCain was publicly flogged by the so called righteous, they said little.

For 8 years, they stood aside as their bloody brethren ripped at the Constitution - wetting their talons with torture and imprisonment.

In 2008, finally some ventured to speak against yet another disastrous choice and were met by a mob carrying stakes and kindling.

The witch fires have illuminated the shadows. There can be no more standing to the side as the looming beast now feeds on its own.

***

The beast is a chimera of many parts and it is on these parts which you must strike.

Sarah Palin - Fortune made her the face of the radicalism. She is not as some say unintelligent. Her weight on the campaign was not a lack of intellect but a lack of intellectual curiousity. It is not that she doesn't know the participants in the North American Free Trade Agreement - it is that she doesn't seem to care. She embraces the spirit of know nothingness which now grips your party. This standard bearer must be banished or you will wander in the wilderness for generations.

Abortion - You have lost your voice because those under 30 no longer hear you. They consider this most divisive issue settled and wish to move forward. If due to personal belief you must remain with this issue, you must concede reasonable exceptions. To do otherwise will guarantee those you need most will simply pass you by.

Talk Radio - Recently the voice of the beast was asked if there is room in the Republican party for moderates - Rush Limbaugh responded "We want their votes but they'll never be one of us". A brighter line was never set. If Democrats are the enemy to be fed upon, moderate Republicans are merely the ground the beast walks across. Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin and all those who cry for blood must be rejected. You must stop appearing on their shows. You must stop parroting their insanity. The last two elections have shown the market is rejecting their brand of rabble rousing. Assist the market in hastening their demise.

The Despair of KnowNothingness - Reason must prevail over the heart of the beast. If someone asks you if you believe in evolution, you must say yes, but you leave these issues to science and it does not bear on faith. If someone asks you if you believe in global warming, you must say yes, but add the task will be difficult and we must seek solutions that better us all. You must discount the brand of dishonesty which claims to hold the one true knowledge at the expense of those whose life work is the quest for knowledge.

***

Now, it is on this ground where you must fight - for it is good ground.

Gun Rights - Heller rightly established the Second Amendment as an individual right and not a collective one. You will find allies across the ideological landscape who are gun owners and believe that owning guns is not a sin. But do not seek them in the halls of the N.R.A. Seek them in the hunting camps of Georgia, the small businesses in D.C. and the indoor target ranges of L.A.

Property Rights - If Heller was absolutely right, Kelo was absolutely wrong. The mere idea that the government can swoop in and take a person's property without a fare-thee-well is more abhorrent than any of the issues the radicals put forth as critical. Forget promising platitudes of nominating judges who rule on "strict construction". Promise judges who understand that as with guns, property is a right of the individual and not the collective.

Business - If you must be the party of business then do so. There are plenty of people who understand the economy doesn't work without big business. But also be the party of small business. It may be the Wal-Marts which make our nation a partner in the global economy, but it is the mom and pop restaurants which make every small town in this country a partner in the whole's greater success. Support small business loans. Support microloans. Offer support to all rungs of the ladder and those who you need most will help raise that ladder to new heights.

Spending - Yes, we must talk about taxes but for the love of all that is good, let us talk about spending first. When John McCain talked as a spending hawk, CNN's fancy dial-a-vote devices went through the roof. When he wandered back into the land of the beast, they fell through the floor. The people want smaller government. They want more local control. They will understand the hard choices to be made. Instead of promising a tax chicken in ever pot, promise we won't have to sell Oregon to pay off the Chinese. It is for their children and their children's children. Every parent understands sacrifice to make the next generation's world better. Talk to your constituents like the adults they are and they will listen.
***
Not that long ago, I had a conversation with Republican State Senator David Shafer. We met in a not unusual way. He disagreed with something I wrote on embryonic stem cells. Sen. Shafer and I agree on nothing about right to life issues. However, once we set aside that deadly conflict, a conversation emerged on the future of Grady Hospital. I learned more about the issues of local health care in this half hour conversation than any number of position papers, activist marches and stormings of the Grady board meetings ever taught me.
All it took was momentarily setting aside the differences in order to discuss areas where we agreed. It was in that country, not yet touched by the beast, where we not only found common ground but solutions.

It is in these refuges of reason where the battle can be won. But first you must be willing to make your stand. The time for the stalwart has come. The engagement is at hand and the decision must be made - do you fight for this good ground?

My Morning Charlie

I've been expecting this article from Charlie Harper. He's a Republican; he's a syndicated columnist; of course he's going to write an article justifying his obvious choice next Tuesday. Half the time, much to the chagrin of his fellow partisans, Charlie surprises. Not today.

Forever, will today's column be known as the jelly bean column. Charlie is not one to normally succumb to mythology, but the pull of Reagan is difficult for any modern Republican to resist.

In those "glory" years of the 80s when we saved the economy from the Great Depression brought on by the feckless Carter and shot laser beams through red, white and blue lenses to obliterate the Berlin Wall, President Reagan's fondness for jelly beans was legend. A former smoker, he used the sugar nubs to curb the cravings. He was also known to use them, along with his aw shucks, Will Rogers (without the Communism) ways, to seduce Democrats into agreeing with his agenda.

Despite living in the post-partisan world after the 2000 election, after 9-11, after Katrina, after the largest economic collapse since the Great Depression, apparently there are people who still think jelly beans are magic.

Let's dig in.

America faces a stark choice for this Presidential election.  Despite third party groups who choose to paint the contrast between the Republicans and Democrats as two versions of the same flavor, there is perhaps a difference in philosophy between these choices that is greater than any election since 1980, and possibly even since 1972.  In many ways this contest has been ongoing for four full years.  Such is the nature of campaigns these days.  Tuesday, it is again time to choose.

 The  shibboleths here are not surprising. Want to paint someone a liberal? Call up the recently deceased McGovern. Want a shadow of failure, summon the scolding Carter. On the one hand you have arguably the most liberal candidate Democrats have ever nominated; who won exactly one state in 1972. On the other hand, you have a Democrat whose administration was forever stained with the perception of weakness on foreign policy.

Then on the hand of reality, you have a President, elected with the largest majority since 1988, who proposed the same health care policy Republicans proposed in 1994 and 1996, who agreed to cut taxes, whose foreign policy has included the promised pull down of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh. And yeah. Ordered the death Osama Bin Laden.

Do I have to replay the last debate where, except for brief calls of that rare beast named nuance, Romney practically agreed with every facet of the current President's foreign policy?

Yep. Just another weak, socialist, scolding liberal. Quite the stark choice.

Americans do not vote against incumbent Presidents easily.  In the last 50 years only two have lost a re-election bid.  We are a nation that likes to criticize, but often still prefers the known status quo to the fear of the unknown.  As too many corporate management consultants are overpaid to say, “we fear change”.

 True.

Yet with the backdrop of the housing market collapse and interconnected banking turmoil of four years ago, change was not only desired but demanded.  Along with it, we were given the promise of hope.  The two words coupled together were enough to capture the imagination of a fearful public who had no idea what problems were ahead of them.  They were delivered by a reassuring telegenic messenger – A fresh face who offered stark contrast of the status quo which had failed so dramatically and abruptly.  The American people embraced the idea of change.

 Also true.

We were short changed.

 ZINGER!  On to the real meat.

The President who promised to bring the parties together summoned Republican leaders for a bi-partisan photo op outside the white house early in his Presidency.  When one spoke up to offer a contribution, the President responded on camera with a dismissive “I won”.  It was but one of many early signals that the rhetoric of the campaign would not reflect how this President would govern.

Actually, we were short changed on this anecdote. The Republican leader who offered a "contribution" was the recently defeated John McCain who essentially offered the idea the President should pursue his party's platform even though it had been soundly defeated just a few weeks before.

This is a popular brick in the wall of Republican myth - Obama never tried to work with us. Peggy Noonan recently rolled out the canard, "He misread his Republican opponents from day one. If he had been large-spirited and conciliatory". Apparently, Peggy forgot how President Obama snubbed the Republican press by meeting with them in January 2009 to discuss issues; truly an amazing piece of political amnesia as she was there.

Then there's that guy that prayed at the Inauguration.  The pro-life, anti-gay marriage preacher from Texas.

Sideshows you say? Well, there was also that time in January 2010, with the healthcare battle looming, when he met Republican leaders and took their questions for hours. Maybe the Republicans have a point; maybe Obama does want to convert us to a European style of government. He certainly takes as many questions from the opposition as leaders in a Parliamentary system.

Ronald Reagan's first budget passed with the support of 62 Democrats. President Obama's stimulus package passed with exactly 0 Republican votes. If only he had more jelly beans.

Instead of working together the President remained distant and alone.  Bob Woodward, who has chronicled the inner workings of virtually every administration since Watergate writes in his new book the amazing distance President Obama has between himself and members of Congress from both parties.  His dramatic rise through political ranks left him little time to forge the friendships and alliances that may be unseemly to some who reject the notion of any backroom dealing, but are in reality quite critical to the way Washington works.

More jelly beans. See above.

His challenger, by contrast, was Governor of the most Democratic state in the country.  He has been an executive in government, corporate, and non-profit settings.  He understands that speeches filled with hope and idealism are nice, but unless there is a tactical and realistic way to implement those ideas, as well as metrics to gage their success, then words are, in fact, just words.

Which is why he as Governor of Massachussetts, Romney used his veto power over 800 times and was overriden by the Democratic legislature over 700 times.  Not a lot of jelly beans there.

The President, whose actual record is in stark contrast to the promises made as a candidate and during his first year, has instead chosen to abandon hope and change for an attempt to characterize Mitt Romney as someone who is aloof and out of touch.  Romney, in response, spent most of the early part of his campaign – including the critical infomercial that is what political conventions have become – to sell himself as a person instead of focusing on his agenda.

Promises versus record. Economic stimulus passed - check. Healthcare reform passed - check. No longer use torture - check. Draw down of forces in Iraq - check. Draw down  of forces in Afghanistan - delayed but by 2014 will be a check. Got Osama Bin Laden - check. Yes., that's quite a stark contrast. Disagree with policies if you must, but pretending the President hasn't delivered on major promises is myth building at its finest.

The debates, written off by many pundits as events that no longer matter, allowed the candidates to face off and for once, revealed much of their contrast in style and substance.  In the first debate, voters were able to see a candidate who has had to sell his ideas to investors, legislators of opposing parties, and taxpayers.  They were also able to see the response from a President whose career has been one of speeches filled with lofty rhetoric but often lacking in substance.  One who has been surrounded by a bubble of yes-men for four years who seems out of practice with having genuine conversations with those who disagree.

Most of the speeches I hear contain lofty rhetoric, but they also contain the checklist of accomplishments I've laid out. As far as yes men, maybe true. We'll hardly know until the years down the road when the books are written. But I look back at that first term and see Bush Defense Secretary Gates and former  rival Hillary Clinton and I find it hard to spot sycophants; men or women.

Whichever of these men is chosen to serve our country for the next four years will face a daunting challenge of moving a legislative agenda through a hyper-partisan Congress while facing the will of a sharply divided electorate.  With the challenges we face, however, we cannot afford four more years of gridlock.

Mostly true, but about that gridlock thing. Charlie etal. seem to be stuck in one gear - the only way to solve gridlock is give us all the power. Funny, four years ago, I heard many of the same people say the only way to reign in out of control government was divided government. Now, the only way to reign in out of control government is to give complete control to one party. One question - how's that working for you in Georgia, Charlie?

I will be voting for the person whose experience in bringing together those of opposite parties extends beyond speeches and into actual experience demonstrated in the Governor’s Mansion in Massachusetts.  Mitt Romney is my version of hope and change.

I haven't said who I will vote for yet, but I will say this - I'm leaning towards the moderate Republican.

The Only Debate Coverage You'll Ever Need

Thoughts From Outside The Bubble : Mulligan

I barely watched the debate last night. I barely glanced at twitter. Foreign policy debates are jet fuel for the irrational; even reasonable people go round the bend.

With two weeks to go in the most bitter election we will see in our lifetime, I'm avoiding confrontations with friends who have become partisan zombies.

Cowardice maybe, but at this point, I value friendship more than politics.

Could be worse. I could live in a swing state.

Myth Of The Day

The last time a Georgia politician sought help in developing bi-partisan solutions to tackle the big problems, it was 2008 and Newt Gingrich. A few months later, I attended the first American Solutions bi-partisan hootenanny and enjoyed the conciliatory tones of a key speaker - Sean Hannity. A few years later, the emails I regularly received from Newt's folks were of a decidedly less than conciliatory "Democrats and Obama are evil" flavor.

Funny how movements want you to sign up to solve things eventually evolve into mailing lists for whatever purpose the money changers and polemicist deem worthy.

Now, here comes former 9th District candidate and radio personality Martha Zoller with something called fixthedebt.org. Martha is very serious about about taming our debt, to the point she challenges us to work together, "no matter whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat".

To underline her "concern", Zoller says the Federal debt is "Currently at $16 trillion, and with no signs of slowing". (italics mine)

Of course, this is false.

Take a look at the above chart. After peaking at just over $1.4 trillion in 2009, except for a plateauing in 2011, the deficit has gradually reduced. 2012 is estimated at just over $1.0 trillion; the lowest it has been since President Obama was inaugurated.

This is how myths (and mailing lists) are created.

More Thoughts From Outside The Bubble

Two weeks ago, without watching the Presidential debate, I analyzed my twitter feed to determine who I thought "won". You can read my initial attempt at this new methodology here.

Last night, I did the same. I could have watched the debate, but it is interesting to not watch, avoid the noise and try to sort out the signal from a different data set ( apologies to Nate Silver, I promise a plug later ).

Once again, my twitter feed consists of three subsets: partisan Republicans, partisan Democrats and fairly objective analysts. Here's my off the cuff thoughts from last night:

-It was obvious the President was more aggressive earlier. I didn't even need to see all the partisan Democrats in jubilation, it only took one Andrew Sullivan tweet.

-Early on it was apparent the aggressive/defensive posture's from the last debate switched. As I posited before, to me this is an indication of winner vs. loser. Defensive doesn't work well in close in combat. Examples below.

- I knew it was going badly for Romney, or perhaps more accurately, well for Obama when partisan Republicans swarmed to the comfort of the most familiar canard: media bias. Add on to that the heuristic that he who blames the moderator loses and things headed south pretty early.

-The ultimate tell of dwelling on the minutiae is a losing position was the number of people clock counting. When you are moaning about one side getting an extra 4 minutes ( oh the humanity! ), larger points are flying by faster than Felix Baumgartner

-About that "act of terror" thing.  Both camps are right. Both camps are wrong. And Candy Crowley was right to walk it back. But walking it back misses the larger point and ultimately leads a larger sin. But more on that later.

And with that I'll leave you with more words of advice from Nate Silver;

There is a more subtle form of bias, however, that a lot more of us are prone to. That bias is to look at all the data — except for the two or three data points that you like least, which you dismiss as being “outliers.”

By the way, I'm currently reading Silver's "The Signal And The Noise". It's fascinating and I highly recommend it.

The Whiplash

I spoke yesterday of the whiplash, well there is no better example than this,

Mitt Romney told the Des Moines Register that he has no plans to push for legislation limiting abortion

Following the red meat wallow of the political conventions, traditionally candidates have slowly edged towards the middle. After the Republican convention, Romney continued to whip the base into a frenzy and the wise people inside the D.C. bubble scratched their collective pointy heads; how can he not do what we expect him to do?

Well, here it is, but not exactly how the pointy heads envisioned. From a debate performance filled with policy positions that would have most Tea Partiers screaming to this latest modification of his abortion position (although a staffer walked it back almost immediately), it is apparent Romney is not going to walk to the middle, he's going to turn left and scream towards the middle.

We don't normally see this type of abrupt grasping and anything new leads to questions. The two important in my mind.

-Will the Republican base, which was castigating Romney on these very issues just six months ago (arguably three months ago!), continue to succumb to the euphoria of the post-debate high and give him a pass?

James quick answer: Yes. Republicans fall in line. He's winning the beauty contest and at this point in the game that matters more than single policy issues - including abortion.

-Can the Obama campaign take advantage of the "new Mitt"?

James quick answer: Maybe. Navigating to the middle is usually a high wire act for a challenger. Romney's bull rush has momentarily befuddled the President's campaign, but there is opportunity to point out opportunism.

27 days to go. 

Elections Are Worse Than Ebola

From an Andrew Sullivan reader, in response to the ur-blogger going round the bend over President Obama's poor debate performance.

it took a failed war and Abu Ghraib for you to turn on the incompetent mediocrity that was George W. Bush, but Obama now seems to be old news because he was uninspiring on the television? 

After reading Sullivan's wailing last night, I seriously considered backing off politics for the next four weeks.

Elections have a debilitating effect on people. Already I've had to make one deal with a friend to not speak of it until after its over (a pledge both quickly broke). But this particular election seems to be infecting even reasonable people. I expect some level of crazy as even the normally rational succumb to partisan fever, but there's something about this election which is turning people into whirling, tarantella spinning, spewing, thrash monkeys.

But I won't. It's too enticing. Just have to be careful to not let any of the contagious spittle splash on my person.

For those on both sides who tend to get caught up in the whiplash, here's a little non-Buddhist chant you can recite over a candle or whatever floats your boat as you try to maintain some facsimile of humanity:

-Mitt Romney was never as bad as people made him out to be.

-President Obama has never been more deadly than right before he lunges out of a hole of his own creation.

-Every candidacy has a near death experience and that goes for incumbents too.

-Ebb and flow. Ebb and flow.

Thoughts From Outside The Bubble

Due to a fortunate conflict, I was unable to watch the debate last night. And still I woke this morning and all the world was well. As my friend Rusty said on Facebook this morning, cutting back the steady push of news and politics has been beneficial to the health of this news junky.

But the jones is strong and I could not stay away completely. Last night, instead of participating in the nerd equivalent of the NFL playoffs (people drunk and screaming at televisions but with less violence), I monitored my twitter feed.

As you might expect, my feed is a mixture of partisans from both sides, analysts from both sides with a few straight up journalists thrown in.

It was a very different experience from my past exposures to the ugly irrational thing that is the debate game and there were some trends that I think are enlightening.

-It was obvious they were in the weeds very early. Past history has shown that unless your name is Bill Clinton, getting into the detailed policy debates don't work for an incumbent. Debates are more about appearing "Presidential"

-As the debate progressed, the trend became one side of partisans getting more aggressive, more bloodthirsty and the other side getting more defensive. As with most everything in life, defense in the middle of close combat is an eventual loser. Examples below.

-Example One from the Republican side. A normally rational individual snarked that it was "quaint" that a candidate who ran on the nebulous hope and change has a problems with Mitt Romney's 57 point plan. A ridiculous straw man but campaigns are built on ridiculous straw men. It's an effective talking point.

-Example Two from the Democratic side. A particularly excitable person proclaimed that Mitt Romney's statement on Big Bird cost him the election. That's just ridiculous. Good rule of thumb - when your supporters start focusing on minutiae, you're losing. (Just look at 2008 with a rational eye. Rezko, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, etc)

-When Bill Maher starts making teleprompter jokes, President Obama is obviously not doing well.

Bottom line - based on my twitter feed, I knew Mitt Romney would be "declared the winner" before the spin room even opened. But does it matter? There's lots of ways to look at it but I leave you with the words of one of the few rational  players in the game; Nate Silver


-My own instant reaction is that Mr. Romney may have done the equivalent of kick a field goal, perhaps not bringing the race to draw, but setting himself up in such a way that his comeback chances have improved by a material amount

Must Read Of The Day

From self-described "centrist liberal" Mark Lilla,

Unlike the crybabies at MSNBC and Harper’s Magazine, we never bought into the campaign’s hollow “hope and change” rhetoric, so aren’t crushed that, well, life got in the way. At most we hoped for a sensible health care program to end the scandal of America’s uninsured, and were relieved that Obama proposed no other grand schemes of Nixonian scale. We liked him for his political liberalism and instinctual conservatism. And we still like him.

It's yet another riff on the fever dreams of the current "conservatives". Don't let the references to Hegel and Maimonides throw you off. The piece is as humorous as it is cutting and incisive.

The Maker Revolution

A blogger, a professor and a labor statistician walk into a bar - no, this is not the opening to the worst joke in the world - and ponder what is going on in the economy.

When the fever sweat of politics is wiped away and the rheumy eyes are cleared, serious people have known for some time that something serious is going on with our economy. And the scary thing is  very smart people aren't sure why.

That chart up there is all the recessions since 1948. There is an undeniable trend of slower and slower recovery. 

The two big economic booms of the past 150 years, manufacturing and the internet, seem to be petering out and we face the frightening question of, what's next?


These large questions occasionally filters down to the street where those three guys in that terrible joke opener sit on a Saturday, drinking a beer, wondering exactly what's going to fix this.

Chris Anderson of The Guardian may have the answer to how we avoid the possibility of becoming a "nation of bankers, burger flippers and tour guides".

And then there is the first generation of 3D printers. These take "geometries" on screen (3D objects that are created with the same sorts of tools that Hollywood uses to make computer generated movies and turn them into objects that you can pick up and use.

Anderson's column is much broader than the wonderment of things that act like the replicators on Star Trek. His thesis is innovations which powered the internet revolution (and in many ways fueled the service economy explosion) have reached the stage where they can be applied to manufacturing. And the possibility of putting manufacturing directly in the hands of entrepreneurs allowing them to not only dream, but actually create, is truly exciting and it is not too strong to say, could ultimately save the entire economy.

We've had an Industrial Revolution and an Internet Revolution. Get ready for the Maker Revolution.

Oh Lord. Someone's About To Make It Much Worse

Since the infamous video of candidate Mitt Romney was broadcast across the internet, only the softheads failed to realize it was probably recorded by someone hired to work the party. Based on some pretty obvious clues, it may have been the bartender. And the deputy dogs are tracking him or her down.

Leder of course isn't pleased, and Goldman reports, "He is in the process of narrowing down the suspects and is contemplating contacting law enforcement."

Leder is the high powered donor who hosted the party.

Bad enough people immediately began blaming "the help".

Think what you will about the act possibly being illegal, does a campaign who's candidate recently said nearly half the population "believe that they are victims" want to deal with the image of a $10 an hour food service industry work being frog marched off to jail?

Quote For The Day

From Conor Friedersdorf at the Atlantic,

In fact, this "47 percent" incident reflects a larger pattern in Campaign 2012. The base of the conservative movement develops a message that plays well internally, and inexplicably thinks it'll be persuasive to the general electorate if only it is trumpeted widely; Mitt Romney slavishly conducts himself as the base wishes; and then the talking points turn out to be as unpopular with swing voters as you'd expect.

I watched my twitter feed with bemusement yesterday as once again the "experts" were shocked a Republican would say these things. I always think, do they not read the same blogs I do? Do they never listen to talk radio? Because if they did, they would realize in the right wing base, the 47% meme is more than a casual throwaway statement; it is mantra.

And as Conor correctly points out, not only are these beliefs more than talking points, to the segment who are currently steering the Republican party, they are gospel (I hear it daily, have made monetary wagers on it and spent a couple of hours last Saturday having someone question my sanity when I posited his fervently desired outcome might not happen).

And like any true believers, the folks who absorb these sermons believe they will work! And that may be the craziest thing of all.