What to do about guns

We're all still processing the horrific news out of Newtown, Connecticut last Friday. I've meant to comment here for days but can never quite think of what to say. I have a six-year-old. This crime hits too close to home. The loss those parents are dealing with I can imagine, but I recoil from. I don't want to imagine it. It's too hard, too painful. All I can do is pray for them.

But as time passes the discussion of how to prevent such a horror will continue. Of course gun control advocates like myself recognize that we now have an opportunity to address a problem that time and time again our country has turned away from. It's been too hard to face, this reality that 30 people a day die from gun violence. We'd rather bicker about fiscal cliffs or watch a football game.

But the killing goes on, and now a tragedy of unimaginable magnitude has shook us to our core. So finally, we're talking about it.

Some of my gun-loving, conservative friends have gone silent since the shootings in Newtown. Others have posted a string of statements about how useless gun control laws are, how we need guns to protect ourselves from incidents like these, and how you'll have to pry their cold dead fingers, etc. etc. etc.

Those latter folks probably are not going to contribute meaningfully to this conversation. Their minds are made up. Not that I don't try to convince them, but I'm kind of masochistic about these things. I don't know when to quit.

But the majority of Americans are not extremists. They recognize there is a time and place for compromise.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has suggested some practical beginning steps. As the mayor of New York, where he claims stricter gun laws have lowered the rate of gun crimes, he has some credibility.

I think his list is a great place to start, and I'll add a few thoughts of my own:

I recognize that a new assault-weapons ban is going to be a tough one for the gun-loving community to swallow. But I think something along those lines is going to be necessary, along with a limit on high-capacity clips. We should probably stop selling guns and ammo over the internet altogether.

More important than the hardware itself is the access. There simply can no longer be any excuse for the many loopholes in background checks for gun buyers. Every purchase, whether it be gun show, retail site, or private transaction, must have a background check. If the systems aren't in place, we need to put them in place. If states aren't doing a good job of enforcing the law, they need to be compelled to do so. This is the most obvious place to start, and one which surely most Americans can agree on.

People who buy guns should be trained on how to use them, how to store them safely, how to prevent them from being misused. We require training to drive a car. We should require training to use a firearm.

We should also have efficient and manageable systems for tracking guns. The NRA has used its influence to make it almost impossible for law enforcement to track guns used in crimes. This has to be addressed. If we can license cars in a way that law enforcement can instantly find their owners, we can do the same with guns. No excuse for delay on this one, either. For the NRA to continue to resist this is for them to admit that they are basically a lobby for criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

Although it's a touchy subject, I'd like to see prospective gun purchasers screened for mental illness. There are surely basic tests that can flag anti-social and overtly violent tendencies. Although it will be tough to know where to draw lines, we should have a system for "red-flagging" anyone who falls below a certain threshold.

Speaking of mental illness, we certainly should include improved mental health resources and policies as a part of this process. In this state and others, disturbed individuals have murdered others after their families have sought in vain to have them institutionalized. There needs to be more discussion on how to balance the rights of mentally ill individuals with public safety. And there needs to be public dollars to help treat them and care for them.

I am not completely opposed the idea of arming teachers. Although I think it's ridiculous to expect teachers to pack heat, I could see one or two teachers or administrators per school taking special training and having a secured firearm in their office (not a classroom). I suspect most teachers oppose this idea but the bottom line for me is the safety of the children and I think this could be a possible solution. Better yet would be an armed security guard at each school in the nation. Any solution along these lines would be very expensive and a terrible statement about our society. But that statement has really already been made, hasn't it?

There are lots of other ideas out there. It's time to start talking about them and enacting them. Doing nothing is not acceptable.

Obama Delivers Change

If you had told me, say, ten years ago, that an African-American president, vilified by huge swaths of southern and midwestern Americans as a socialist who doesn't really love his country, would run on a platform that included higher taxes, gay marriage, and easing restrictions on illegal immigrants, I would have had a simple reaction.

"Are you out of your freaking mind? That idiot will lose in a landslide."

If you had told me further that campaign finance laws would be gutted so that billionaires and corporations could donate unlimited amounts of money, and that hundreds of millions would be pledged for campaign ads against this candidate, that the No. #1-rated cable news network would abandon all pretense of being fair and balanced and launch a jihad against the candidate, that voting laws would be changed in a number of states in a clear effort to discourage turnout by young people, minorities, and the elderly, I would be shaking my head in despair.

I am not in despair today.

By running a smart, modern campaign that focused on winning swing states and getting a broad coalition of voters to turn out; by presenting a message that appealed both to Americans' sense of fairness and their economic self-interest; by providing steady, competent leadership over his first term that stood in stark contrast to the bizarre caricature of Obama that has been pushed relentlessly by Fox and other right-wing media outlets, President Obama convinced Americans that he could be trusted, and conversely, that his detractors could not.

When he first ran for President, Barack Obama talked a lot about change. He said semi-mystical stuff like, "We are the change we seek." This approach earned him some mockery from the right; notably in the form of Sara Palin--who is almost the complete opposite of Obama in many ways--when she said, "How's that hopey-changey stuff working out for you?"

Turns out it's working fine. Barack Obama did bring change, but he would not have been returned to office if the electorate hadn't itself been part of that change. America is changing. The electorate last week was younger, less white, less male, less conservative, less likely to be regular church-goers, than the electorate of past years. There are still white male voters like myself who will vote for Obama, but what allows him to win is that the rest of America prefers him strongly over what the Republican party offered this time around.

And it's not just demographics. It's ideas, positions, that are changing. Republicans can no longer win by bashing immigrants. They can no longer win by promising tax cuts. They can no longer win by rousing their base with anti-gay laws. I have to say, when the GOP-dominated Minnesota Legislature passed constitutional amendment referendums on gay marriage and voter ID last spring, I thought the cause was lost. I braced myself for both measures to win in November. But as time went on, I saw an amazingly energetic and committed marriage equality movement take shape in this state. The Voter ID debate was more muted, but with a savvy strategy (don't say Voter ID is wrong, say it's poorly written and needs to be fixed) and some effective late advertising, the anti-voter ID forces surged in the last weeks. And both amendments were defeated.

And it's my suspicion that the GOP's strategy of exclusion is itself one key as to why turnout was so favorable to Obama and Democrats last week. In Minnesota, there is evidence that the marriage and voter ID amendments actually increased turnout and brought more "No" votes to the polling booth--voters that also supported Obama and returned the Minnesota's Legislature to complete DFL control for the first time in decades. Nationally, it seems reasonable that the media attention given to voter-ID laws and the suppressive effect they have drove minorities and young voters to be even more motivated to vote.

The country still faces grave challenges, not the least of which is gridlock. Many in the GOP will retrench and return to their obstructionist ways, knowing that their safely-red districts will reward them for it. As time goes by, though, it seems likely that these dead-enders will become increasingly irrelevant.

But even with the difficult issues we face, Obama's promise is being fulfilled. We have seen change in America. Better yet, we have seen progress.

Final Predictions

President of the United States:

As of today, Obama leads nationally by 0.4 percentage points nationally, according to Real Clear Politics. Yes, this is a close race.

But the race is not decided by the national vote, it's decided by the electoral vote, and there Obama leads in 10 out of the 12 states listed as battleground states by RCP. We can speculate all day (and some will) about voter enthusiasm, margins of error, ground games, expanding the map, and independent voter share, but clearly, being ahead is better than being behind.

I find that RCP polling averages give a little more weight to R-leaning pollsters, so I'll use them instead of HuffPost/Pollster, or the folks at Talking Points Memo. Just from the RCP analysis; if we choose an arbitrary cutoff point, say anything at 2 percent or above for Obama, give him those states and give Romney *not only* the states where he leads but the states where Obama's lead is below 2 percent, what do we find?

Obama wins the electoral college: 281 to 257.

I personally think Obama has a good chance to win Virginia and Colorado (303-235) and would not be shocked if he also won Florida (332-206).

The polls could be wrong. There could be a Romney wave, or Obama voters could not turn out as expected. I'd be shocked to see Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania end up in the Romney camp. But a Florida/Ohio/Colorado combination could get Romney there.

In the end, I'll give Romney Virginia and Florida, and predict a 290-248 Obama win. I expect the winner of the electoral college will win the popular vote. If not, well, I believe there is some historical precedent for that.

Minnesota Races

Frankly, I'm no expert on these; I haven't followed the polls closely. But I'll take a shot. I never bet against Michele Bachmann, so I'll predict she holds on for a win. Ellison wins. Walz wins. Peterson, Paulson, & Kline (not a folk group) -- they return to Congress. The really interesting race is Chip Cravaack (R) versus Rick Nolan (DFL). I'm inclined to think Nolan, a former congressman, can turn this traditionally DFL district back to blue, but after hearing the two debate, I'll admit that Cravaack seems smart and in-touch with the district. He may pull it out.

Amy Klobuchar will win by perhaps the biggest margin of any Senate race this cycle as she tromps Kurt Bills. Bills is a sincere and smart guy, but seems out of his depth. His somewhat radical stands (he got the nomination after the state Republican party was taken over by Ron Paul followers) have not helped at all. Another example why embracing its libertarian wing has really been a handicap for the Republican Party. The R's would have a Senate majority if they didn't keep having to deal with Tea Party and Libertarian candidates who are just clearly outside the mainstream.

Constitutional Amendments
In Minnesota, voters are being asked to vote on whether to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriages, and to require a photo ID system for voting. Both amendments are horrible ideas for this state, where gay marriage is already illegal (sadly) and one of the best voting systems in the nation would be thrown ass-over-teakettle with the passage of the amendment in question.

Unfortunately, both types of referendums have a history of passing. This year, a large campaign that includes the business community, part of the faith community, and a wide range of Minnesotans have rallied to solidify opposition to the marriage amendment. I believe it will be blocked. I am less optimistic about the photo ID amendment, and I predict it will pass narrowly. Polls show a close race on both, which is encouraging, but I suspect voter ID will pass. Then it will be up to the courts and next year's Legislature to either find a way to block it or make it less onerous. We'll see.

Well, that's all I got. Please feel free to share your predictions in the comments section.

And VOTE!

Republicans buy the Brooklyn Bridge

One of the things that has struck me as this campaign has wound down is how Republicans have come to embrace Mitt Romney, a man who in some ways embodies everything they hate about politics and politicians.

It has always seemed to me that conservatives and Republicans have tended to hold politicians to higher and possibly more unrealistic standards than, say, Democrats or the mythical independent voter.

Republicans claim to be disgusted by political spin. They can't stand flip-floppers. They disdain anyone who can be seen as a career politician. They are cynical and distrusting of politicians because, as they sometimes say, they're all a bunch of liars who just tell people what they want to hear.

Enter Mitt Romney.

I mean, really. Mitt's record is so full of flip-flops, about-faces, doubletalk and dishonesty, it seems redundant to go over it all again. Abortion. Health Care. Cap and Trade. Gun Control. Over and over again, Romney has changed his position to fit the race and the moment he's in. He's told outright lies, been called on it, shrugged and repeated the lies again.

And yet conservatives have seemed to embrace him here in the last months and weeks of the campaign. It this just a sign of how desperate they are to defeat Obama?

I have to say, at one point I didn't expect this race to be close. Yet Romney pulled it together and came into that first debate with a whole new persona and approach, and suddenly it was game on. The electorate saw a moderate, articulate, passionate candidate, who bore little resemblance to the Mitt Romney who appeared at the Republican National Convention. And that seemed to make the difference.

And I think the subsequent bump in the polls was enough to bring along the Republican base, because they started to hope. They decided that if Romney really could pull it off, they could live with a little betrayal of their principles. It's a human thing; goodness knows those on the left have put up with flawed candidates. One of those flawed candidates has been Obama's best surrogate, and Barack's going to owe Bill big time when this is all over.

So they let go, and let Mitt. They trusted him. That's all a candidate can ask for, and Romney responded with a sometimes-inspired (sometimes not-so-much, as in the foreign policy debate) October that brought us to this: a very close race, in doubt until almost the end--some would say still a tossup on the day before.

Still the irony is something I find striking. The epitome of a slick, say-anything candidate, supported and loved by his principled, no-spin-zone base. Politics is truly strange.

Post-pre-debate musings, Veep preview edition

Well, I called that one!

Just chalk it down to my signature brand of Xtreem Punditry (TM) that after I posted a entry saying that nothing much would happen at last week's presidential debate and that it was unlikely to change the race... well, you know what happened.

So basically if Obama loses it's my fault, because I jinxed him.

At the risk of sounding even MORE out of touch, I still don't know why words like "disaster" and "debacle" have been used frequently to describe Obama's performance. I thought he was thoughtful, articulate, and maybe a little too cautious. I thought Romney was energetic, aggressive, and just all over the place with his contradictions, inaccuracies, and reversals. But neither really did anything surprising or, I thought, very memorable.

That's why I get the big bucks, obviously.

So now that I've been historically wrong about the first debate, let me stick my neck out further on the VP clash coming up tonight.

I predict a high viewership, not just because people want to see if Biden can redeem the ticket to some extent, but because conservatives find Biden a kind of catnip, he's the guy they can't get enough of, they hang on his every faux pas (and to be fair there have been a few) and awkward comment. They probably don't like to admit it but they love the guy. He's their George Bush (either one), kind of a doofus, highly likely to embarrass the country in some novel and entertaining way.

Except of course, that's perception and not entirely the reality. Biden is also an experienced statesman who can be quite insightful and inspiring. Don't know which guy will show up tonight, maybe both. But I'm not betting against him.

Ryan could also surprise us. He's a smart guy, he could certainly *sound* convincing in talking about debt and deficits. There's plenty of data out there that he's practiced at spinning in ways that strengthen the GOP's position. Whether Biden can stay with him is a good question. What Ryan has to watch out for is the classic rookie mistakes: talking to fast, letting his voice get too whiney, going off on tangents... I would expect him to be well-prepared but it is a lot of pressure on a guy who has never been on a stage quite like this one. His convention speech was the closest thing and he did... OK. Lots of arguable claims of course--the difference is the fact checker will be on stage with him. How that goes will be very interesting.

The first debate was won by the guy who showed the most energy and personality. It's possible the second one will go the same way. Which of these two candidates is more likely to pass that test?

Everybody, now: TIME WILL TELL...

Pre-debate musings

I haven't done a ton of commenting on the presidential race because, frankly, it's been a little boring. President Obama has maintained a solid, if sometimes small, lead. He's looking very good in the swing states that will determine the electoral vote. The weak economy continues to be his biggest burden, and there have been some problems with foreign policy as well. But overall, he's been able to stay on track and in the lead.

Romney has continued to look like a weak and over-matched candidate, exactly the way Kerry did in 2004. Like Kerry, he's managed to get the base behind him, but their dislike of Obama is much stronger than their affection for Romney. And he's made some appalling mistakes: the "47 percent" tape is an example. It's true that he made those remarks behind closed doors; what's just as true is that they are inexcusable in any context. Would Ronald Reagan have made remarks like that? I don't think so.

The bottom line is that the unhappiness that Americans feel with the job Obama has done is not strong enough to overcome their distrust of a candidate who seems out of touch, unqualified, and temperamentally unsuited to leading this country. I understand that Mitt Romney has done some impressive things in his career. Inventing Obamacare, for example. But after all this time, all this campaigning, does anyone really feel like they know him or know what kind of president he'll make?

And yet this was the best the Republican Party could offer this year. As doomed as Mitt seems, can you imagine how Gingrich or Perry would be doing now? When your party insists on being out of touch with reality, when it is willing to write off whole chunks of the electorate (and the GOP has been doing just that since long before Romney launched his campaign), when it is bereft of any ideas outside of cutting taxes and letting the market (chance) decide, you end up where the GOP is now. Very popular with a minority, confounding to the rest of us, and simply unable to amass a winning coalition of voters.

Can the debates change that? I don't see how. No matter what your opinion of Obama is as a debater, it seems unlikely that he won't be able to stay on his talking points and maintain his "no-drama" demeanor. The guy is a basketball nut--he is very familiar with the concept of running out the clock.

And at this point, that's all he needs to do.

Post-conventional thoughts

("Well, Barack, there you go again...")


I still think "Talk to the Chair!" would make a great bumper sticker.

No?

OK, so some final thoughts on the 2012 nominating conventions.

First of all, both parties really, REALLY want the female vote. I mean, both of them spent a lot of time and energy saying "We love the ladies!" Not in so many words, of course. But close. From Ann Romney's "I LOVE YOU WOMEN!" to the Dems’ lineup of women speakers, the female voter has never been courted, so to speak, so fervently.

With the Dems that meant a lot of talk about reproductive rights and a star turn for Sandra Fluke, who, after the despicable way she's been treated by certain media figures, deserves a little adulation.

Being pro-choice is always something that's mentioned at D conventions, but I don't think I've ever seen so much screen time for NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc, and so much use (by Democrats) of the word abortion. This was one of many examples of what I believe was the most unapologetically progressive/liberal conventions I've ever seen the Dems give. It was kind of nice to see them not trying to water down their stances so much. They were loud and proud, and it was refreshing. Now, does that mean they feel confident, or does it mean they have bought into the "fire up the base and hope a few independents break our way" school of thought that has become popular lately? Probably the latter; maybe both.

It’s really hard to be objective about these events, it might be my (ahem) bias, but the D convention seemed much more fired up and energetic than the R one. Of course, that may be because the average age of D delegates was about two decades younger.

And I think it’s pretty clear that the Democratic convention was better run, with better speakers. Ann Romney was good; Michelle Obama was great. Paul Ryan was not so good. Bill Clinton gave probably the best speech I’ve seen at a convention in years. (Although Sarah Palin’s speech was pretty memorable in 08). I wanted Obama’s speech to be great; it was merely very good. Mitt Romney did pretty well—I thought the sections about his family were very good—but his slick gipperisms and the general lack of content did not impress.

And there were odd moments at the Republican convention. I mean, yeah, Clint Eastwood, chair, yadda yadda. That was bizarre and embarrassing for the GOP. (I love the never-say-die partisanship of some of the pundits, though: “Clint was brilliant!” “It was really funny!” Riiiiiight.)

But what about the weird juxtaposition of Ann Romney saying: “I want to talk to you about love”—followed by Chris Christie saying, “Pick respect over love”? It was a clash of messages, and it seemed strange. Obviously, the planners didn’t coordinate the speeches, and just as obviously, didn’t vet Eastwood’s “speech” at all. Both sides like to claim they’re going to be the “adult in the room.” Wouldn’t an adult have seen the huge downside risks to giving a primetime slot to a guy unaccustomed to public speaking—who doesn’t even have a speech written out??

Which begs the question, if this is how they run a convention, how will they run a country?

Fear built this

Dinesh D'Souza's hatchet-job of a movie is drawing big crowds in America's heartland. You can get a taste of it from the trailer below--the ominous music, the dark tones, the barely-articulated suggestions of conspiracy and other-ness. The real giveaway is a series of scenes, cut so quickly as to be almost subliminal, of an African-American family playing the archtypical American game, Monopoly. We see the dice roll, we see the game pieces ending up in jail, we see the family erupt into conflict, dashing the game to the ground. Subtle, and yet not subtle at all.



D'Souza has said in interviews that he is following the example of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" in releasing a political documentary during an election year. Many years ago I debated family members over Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," challenging them to give the filmmaker a chance by viewing the movie. I'm afraid I'm unlikely to follow my own advice anytime soon. The thought of giving money to an enterprise as dishonest and ill-intentioned as this one makes me feel a little sick. So maybe I owe my relatives an apology. But I suspect that D'Souza owes us all one.

It's only Medicare but I like it!

Is the Romney/Ryan plan for Medicare really that bad? This is a question that has been bothering me lately. It's easy to quote the standard talking points in opposition--the end of Medicare as we know it, thousands more in medical costs shifted to seniors, and have I mentioned VOUCHERS???

But consider: the cafeteria-style plan offerings that that the R/R proposal envisions are not much different from the insurance exchange model that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) calls for. And, the R/R team swears that if you want old-style Medicare, you can keep it! How bad can that be, really?

But it's probably not the ACA we should thinking about when trying to get a handle on the R/R Medicare changes. After all, the ACA is basically trying to expand the current, mostly-for-profit health insurance system to the uninsured population. The R/R proposals for Medicare, on the other hand, would shift people already with health coverage from a single-payer system to a new, private system with multiple choices of payers.

It does remind me a little of Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage (also known as Medicare Plus) was an effort to bring free-market efficiency to the Medicare health system by giving private health plans subsidies if they would offer HMO-type insurance products to Medicare enrollees.

With Medicare Advantage, plans could get higher reimbursements from the federal government. Suddenly, new plans were springing up everywhere, offering exercise classes and free hearing aids, adding the preventive services you find with HMOs—really it was a pretty good deal for the seniors who had that option. But some areas—especially rural or poor areas—simply did not get Medicare Advantage options.

The Medicare Advantage approach was really a bonanza for the insurance plans. Their Medicare book of business became one of their most profitable. In places like Florida and New York, where Medicare reimbursements were already higher, the plans did really, really well.

(As a sidenote, this is where the controversy over the Medicare cuts under the ACA come in. The Obama team, when looking at how to pay for the ACA, recognized that the “incentives” offered to the plans, along with some other reimbursements, looked a lot like the wasteful, bloated government spending that certain tea-partiers and deficit hawks are always complaining about. It really was a prime example of where budgets could be cut without seriously affecting the care given. So they did it. They negotiated cuts with both hospitals and health plans and found $500 billion in savings, partly by reducing those generous Medicare Advantage payments.)

So how does this relate to Romney and Ryan’s plan for Medicare? Well, it may be that the R/R team will come up with some incentives for private plans to participate in this voucher system they envision, and we’ll see another boom just like the Medicare Advantage one.

But maybe as time goes on and medical costs go up, private plans will find it better for their bottom lines to drop out of the Medicare business. Or they may start raising copays and deductibles, just as they have been in the regular marketplace.

And almost certainly, there will be Medicare enrollees who are not attractive to the private system. Those from rural, poor areas may have not choice but to stick to the traditional fee-for-service, just as in the Medicare Advantage example. And since all the wealthier, healthier seniors will now be on private plans, what will that do to traditional Medicare?

There are a lot of questions, not the least is how will R/R make all this attractive to private plans. After all, higher reimbursements would be a sure budget-buster, and they’re trying to CUT government spending.

So, we have a choice. We can stick to a proven, successful model, Medicare, cut some waste, and still have some tough choices to make down the road to ensure the system’s finances remain sound as the baby boomers retire.

Or we can try a new, untested system. One that has many unanswered questions and unclear consequences. The Medicare Advantage experiment generates mixed reviews—it hasn’t worked for everyone, and it hasn’t held down costs.

Changing a system as big and important as this one is a gamble.

I guess the question is, do you feel lucky, Gramps?

Well, do ya?

I understand why Obama is saying bad things about Romney, but why is Romney insulting me??

Barack Obama come to office promising to change the tone in Washington, and I think we can all agree that he has failed to do that. Doesn't make him a bad president, doesn't erase the positive things that he's done, but hey, he doesn't bat 1,000. We still have a pretty ugly partisan divide in our politics these days.

This election season, many have been bemoaned the negativity of the presidential campaigns. Some say the negativity is "the worst ever." To my mind the attacks on both Romney and Obama don't hold a candle to how Sen. John Kerry was treated in 2004. And the 2008 campaign also got pretty nasty, with the thinly-disguised appeals to racism in Palin's disdain for community organizers and similar comments from Rush Limbaugh, etc. But as Obama himself has noted, handling that sort of bile is part of the job. Politics ain't beanbag, and presidential contests have often been nasty since the days of our Founding Fathers.

So let the charges and counter-charges fly. Politicians say bad things about each other, rain is wet, etc. etc.

What I want to know is, why does Mitt Romney think so lowly of me?

Romney is applying for the job of President of the United States. If he wins, he's going to play a large role in controlling our country's finances for at least four years, and his policies will affect my kids' economic future for possibly the rest of their lives.

If he wants my vote, he damn well better tell me something about his personal finances.

This isn't some ancient nit-picking like Obama's college transcripts or whether Bush flew enough hours in pilot training. It's not even a letter-of-the-law thing like Obama's birth certificate. This is directly pertinent to Romney's entire rationale for running for president. It's directly relevant to the argument this country is having over taxes.

And yet Romney is refusing to release anything close to the standard amount of tax returns for a presidential candidate. What's worse, his own father released 12 years of returns when he ran for president. Yet Romney is only releasing two (hasn't fully released even that much, yet). And when asked why, he all but says, "You don't need to know."

That's insulting.

Romney's official answer to why he's not being transparent about his finances is that the more he releases, the more ammo Democrats will have for their attacks. Well, yeah. That's called being a presidential candidate. You are under a microscope for a reason. Your record is examined. Your family is scrutinized. Your every word is picked over. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should do something else with your time.

I believe politicians should have some basic areas of privacy. But their financial background ain't one of them. For a presidential candidate to come in, say "I'm going to operate by a different set of rules," and then complain when people aren't satisfied with that just reinforces every cliche of elitism, arrogance, and regal entitlement that Romney has struggled with since Day One.

If this is the way Romney treats us when he's a candidate, how will it be if he's elected? What kind of transparency and openness can we expect from this man who wants to run our country? What kind of leadership can we expect in time of crisis, when there may be information that doesn't make his administration look good? Will he be honest and forthright with us?

We're not frickin' peasants, Mitt. We're your bosses. Give up the damn tax returns.

Ryan to get over

OH! A surprise pick! The GOP candidate is going to shake up the race! He's selected someone who is going to excite the base!

Hey, are you feeling sense of deja vu? 'Cause I am.

But before we go any further, can we please take a moment of silence--with NO giggling!--for Tim Pawlenty? Damn, that guy must feel cursed. Always the bridesmaid, never the VP. He was *this* close with McCain, and now again this year... I wouldn't blame him if he says "screw it, I'm going to take a nice vacation this fall."

Paul Ryan is a smart guy and really I don't blame him for being obsessed with debt and deficits. As someone who thinks Ayn Rand was a fool, I can't get behind his solutions. But I think this is a very interesting pick, and he is not another Sara Palin, at least. He's been on the national stage a while, and is not going to be flustered by someone asking what magazines he's read lately.

Dems are crowing that this pick is a sign of desperation, and I think it's true if the dynamics of the race were the same as the pre-European trip, we'd be talking about Pawlenty or Portman today. But Mitt has been taking a beating, and even if you dismiss the polls as a temporary blip, you know things are bad when a candidate for President of the United States is on national TV, complaining about how unfair the other guy is being and suggesting that they call a truce on talking about each others' finances. As if, Mitt.

Conservatives, ironically, are also crowing about the pick. But I'm not sure all Republicans are. Right-leaning site Real Clear Politics, in an analysis that looks at both good and bad points to the pick, does include this line: "It opens up an Obama landslide scenario for the first time."

Still, Ryan is a talented politician. I don't think you can ever underestimate the positives that a young, handsome, energetic candidate brings to a race. We all like to think that such superficial things don't influence us, but we're probably not being honest when we do so. So maybe he can give Romney a boost. The real question is whether mainstream Americans, those mythical independents and those who are leaners on either side, will buy the austerity and safety-net slashing that Ryan is selling. Can the Romney campaign survive throwing itself spread-eagle on the third rail of politics, as one blog colorfully asked? I don't know. I know a lot of conservatives who eat that kind of crazy up with a spoon. They really think Social Security and Medicare are a bad idea and we'd be better off without them, although I don't see them sending back the checks.

But will the voters in the middle embrace the radical vision Ryan has? I have my doubts. But what is beyond doubt is that the campaign just got more interesting.

Romney heads back to the USA

There were suggestions in a few of the political blogs that some of Mitt Romney's advisors did not want him to go on his recent trip overseas. "Why take the focus off the economy?" they asked. That, after all, is his strongest issue. Going overseas would just be a distraction. This isn't a foreign policy election, after all.

I'm thinking they feel vindicated after Mitt's less-than-stellar performance. It is true the media loves to jump on gaffes and little mistakes, and to be fair Mitt's mistakes were not terribly consequential, except perhaps the part about insulting the Palestinians. To say that a country undergoing occupation and economic sanctions is poor because of CULTURE is pretty strange.

But overall, it's hard to see this as being a decisive point in the election. Romney didn't come off well, but this will be a foggy memory come November. Still, it's part of a narrative that the Obama campaign can use--"Sure Romney's a great businessman, but there's more to the job than that." Given the reaction of the foreign press, it's an argument with some power.

Why can't more political ads be like this?

I think this is a pretty good ad. Clever how he works the "build that" theme in there, isn't it? The simple answer to the question is that going negative works, and both sides have been trying hard to define the other in negative terms early in the election. But it's good to see (finally) some positive ads from both Obama and Romney starting to show up.

"You didn't build that"--and Obama didn't say that.

The controversy over Obama's "You didn't build that" quote is one of the more remarkable political controversies I've ever seen.

It is further evidence that political ideology can quite literally make people blind--or in this case, deaf. I've watched the conservative blogosphere go nuts over this quote, despite the fact that there's nothing really controversial or disputable about it. Obama is saying that business owners didn't build the infrastructure they depend on to do their business. He is making the point that no man is an island, that society, ie, government is a necessary part of any individual's success.

He is not saying that a business owner did not build his own business. That's absurd on its face. No one would say that.

But the conservative side of the spectrum is so eager to hear something dumb, something ridiculous, something self-damaging from Obama, that they are willing to ignore what he actually said, and instead hear something that he didn't say.

The two lines that are at the heart of the quote are this:

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."

Anyone who listens to or reads the quote should be able to understand what Obama is saying. I'll print it in full below. All the examples surrounding "you didn't build that" fit exactly into the point that things like infrastructure take public investment.

But from this simple statement that some things we can't do on our own, the right has exploded into a frenzy--accusing Obama of hating business, hating free enterprise, not being American.

It's a disturbing spectacle. And it will play a role in this race. No matter how distorted, unfair, untrue their reading of the quote, the right has embraced it, and will continue to believe it, just as many of them believed John Kerry somehow lied about being a Vietnam Veteran.

Whether the public at large, and not just the extreme right, gets suckered into this false history is the bigger, and more ominous, question.



Full Obama quote:
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

Will Romney Pick Pawlenty??

I bragged in 2008 of going 2 for 2 in predicting VP picks, and I sorta did; jumping on the Biden bandwagon when it was becoming increasingly obvious that Obama had figured out how to double his profile on Saturday Night Live, and suggesting that McCain might want to look at Palin (that's kind of a prediction, right?) to shake up the race, which is what he did.

My chances of going 2-2 in this election cycle are excellent--I am confident that Biden will once again be on the Dem. ticket. And I think there's about a one-in-three chance that former MN Governor Tim Pawlenty will be the pick of Mitt Romney.

It's a rather astonishing turn of events. Pawlenty fell off everyone's radar rather quickly after his presidential campaign sputtered to a halt in Iowa. Pawlenty was doing OK until he coined the term "Obamneycare" and then, inexplicably, refused to stand behind it during a debate (see below). Not having the courage of your convictions is a fatal flaw in politics, and there was much debate over why Pawlenty would back down so meekly and quickly over what was actually a pretty accurate description.

I know, I'm always complaining about conspiracy theories, but I just can't help but wonder, did Romney's people get to Pawlenty in between his comment and the debate? Did they promise, well, something??

Oh, probably not. It would make a great story, though. More likely Romney just likes the cut of TPaw's jib. Pawlenty is actual quite a good media person, he seems like a likable guy, he's smart and, on occasion, funny. He does well with evangelical voters. He won't deliver Minnesota, but those type of VP coattails are probably overrated. Yes, he's a boring white guy, but he's a nice boring white guy, and BWGs are pretty obviously all Romney's going to seriously consider anyway.

I mean, when your competition is Bobby Jindal and Rob Portman, you've got to like your chances, right?

Romney/Pawlenty 2012. Has a nice ring to it.

Is Obama Swiftboating Romney?

The topic of Mitt Romney's ties to Bain Capital continues to be a big controversy in election coverage. It has prompted an Obama TV ad (below) that has progressive pundits standing and cheering, with some declaring the election is effectively over. Yeah, it's a little early for that.

It's also raised comments that the Obama campaign is, in effect, "Swiftboating" Mitt Romney--if that term is defined as turning a perceived strength into a weakness. In 2004, Bush, Rove, and their election surrogates did just that with John Kerry's military record, by finding some people willing to raise very scurrilous and mostly false accusations and suggestions. The end result was a Republican convention where thousands of the GOP faithful mocked a Vietnam war veteran's service to his country by waving bandaid-covered fingers. It was a shocking display.

If you separate the strategy from the tactics, then I guess the Obama attacks could be called Swiftboating. The Obama campaign is going right at Romney's main claim for running--he sadly isn't running on his experience as governor, because then he would have to talk up the successes of Romneycare. (This has to be one of the first times a presidential candidate has taken his biggest governing success and basically turned his back on it. It really is an amazing development.) So he's running as someone who is going to get people back to work, fix the economy, and central to that is his career at Bain. It doesn't matter to me too much whether he actually stopped running the company in 1999 or 2002, but there is a contradiction in what he's said and what the paperwork shows. And beyond that, if he wasn't doing anything at the company, it looks pretty strange that he was pulling down $100,000 a year for it.

Every day the Obama campaign can keep the conversation focused on these topics is a huge win for them. And as others have noted, when the Romney campaign is spending its time complaining about the Obama campaign and demanding apologies, they basically look weak. It's just another way that this year's election is a bizarre echo of the 2004 campaign, with the roles switched. I never would've guessed we would be comparing Bush to Obama, but there are similarities here. Weird.

To me, the distortions and falsehoods that the Bush campaign raised about Kerry are much worse than raising questions about Romney's business practices (even though I think most of us would agree he probably didn't do anything illegal). Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. Romney has been a very successful businessman, but there are legitimate questions about how he practiced his business. But I suppose how you see this could depend on your political point of view. Nonetheless, it's quite ironic that the shoe is now on the other foot. I wonder how Rove and his compatriots like them apples?

Obama in Ohio

An interesting and concise recap of an Ohio campaign swing by Obama. Tapper brings up some interesting points and shows off his cowboy boots. I'll keep an eye out for anything similar on Romney campaign stops.

I Believe in Miracles




(Where did you come from, baby? How did you know I needed you?)

When I left for a week in the north woods, unplugged, with no TV, radio, internet, etc., I knew that the Supreme Court would rule that week on the Affordable Care Act. Biggest health care story, possibly, of my career and I was unplugged.

But thanks to another camper who refused to leave his iPhone at home, along with Al Y., who passed on the word to me, I found out Thursday morning that the Supreme Court had upheld the ACA. I bent the rules a bit myself that morning by borrowing Al's Sony Walkman (!!!) and listening to some NPR coverage of this rather shocking turn of events.

Despite how I thought the SC should rule, despite what seemed like (at first) near-universal agreement among constitutional scholars, despite years of precedent and some of the sitting justices' own rulings, it seemed the court was poised to overturn the law. Most people expected them to strike down all or at least part of it.

Instead, the ACA was almost completely upheld--the ruling did throw a brushback pitch at the Commerce Clause and gave states an out for expanding Medicaid (if they are foolhardy enough to take it), but overall this was a big win for the ACA. And the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts was the deciding vote is something that nearly no-one predicted.

Since coming back home and plugging back in, I've engaged in some spirited debates on the ruling and what it means. The law's opponents talk about freedomz and taxehs and tirenny, but The Complainers, as I've dubbed them, have lost the battle, and possibly the war. Yes, Obama could lose in November, and the architect of Obamacare, Mitt Romney, could make a run at repealing or overturning all or part of the ACA.

But I'm enjoying this victory in the here and now. A law that could truly improve our nation and address one of our biggest economic and moral shortcomings has prevailed in the Supreme Court. Tens of millions more Americans will have the economic security and health care that they deserve. Lives will be saved. And yes, the bill will have to be paid. This is America. We can pay it, if we want to. And incidentally, it's nice have a president with the political will to tackle one of our biggest problems.

As for my new best friend, Johnny R., it will be fascinating if we ever get the real story of his apparent change of heart. One thing I am sure of, Roberts did not act because he was afraid of what the New York Times might say. I generally agree with those who say Roberts simply recognized ruling against the ACA would damage the court long-term, because it would come across as partisan and because history would not look kindly at the anti-ACA reasoning. But I have to say, the current Supreme Court has not really seemed too concerned with appearing partisan and activist. Possibly this was just a bridge too far for Mr. Roberts, and he mutinied. (get it?)

Anyhow, the struggle continues. There is much that could be improved about the ACA, and there are many battles ahead. And the flood of misinformation about it shows no signs of abating. But we've cleared a major hurdle.

Thanks John, for doing the right thing.

About those exit polls

Larry Sabato has another great post, this one in part about the Wisconsin recall election. I love Sabato's stuff, it's very informative and insightful while quite nonpartisan at the same time. Not an easy trick in this day and age. (You'll have to scroll down at Sabato's blog to see the posts mentioned here)

I've been noting with dismay the amount of conspiracy theorizing and delusional ranting by some on the left who question the results of the Wisconsin recall election--in part because early exit polls showed a 50-50 split, rather than the healthy margin of victory that Walker ended up with. I've remarked to others that some Dems sound just like Republicans--after they lose--with their cries of voter fraud. But Sabato has a very reasonable explanation:

"The Wisconsin recall is yet another example of the limitations of exit poll results, which are not always accurate, at least in their top-line, horse race numbers. The first waves in the Wisconsin exit poll showed a 50-50 race, so the early reporting and projections on TV bore little relation to the reality of the tabulated vote. Could we all make a note to discount the top-line results of the November 6 exit poll -- and the news media's breathless projections derived from it? They were wrong on election night 1992, forecasting a big Clinton victory when it turned out to be a quite modest five percentage point (43%) victory over President George H.W. Bush. Then there was that not-so-minor snafu back in 2000 with the exit poll in Florida. And exit polling in 2004 created the Kerry administration for several hours; the unadjusted results showed Kerry winning handily in almost all the swing states, to the chagrin of President George W. Bush's campaign staffers.

"The truth is, Republicans disproportionately distrust the media and pollsters, and many won't be interviewed coming out of the ballot stations. Apparently, there's no good way to correct for this."

For the presidential race, Sabato does some neat number-crunching on independent voters and notes that many are women who are quite unhappy with Obama--but who say they are unlikely to vote. On the other hand, there are significantly large numbers of unregistered voters out there--who tend to be young and nonwhite--who would vote strongly for Obama if his team could get them registered and to the polls.

OK candidates, I think you know what you have to do.

Some Post-Recall Thoughts

The Wisconsin recall election is over; Scott Walker won.

That's a bitter pill to swallow for some, but it's the reality, and there's plenty to be discussed in the aftermath. Here are a few thoughts:


Money Talks
Some will write off the Walker win to his 8-1 advantage in fundraising. And having the money to saturate the state with his message certainly was a big help to Walker. We continue to see the threat that the Citizens United ruling has posed to our democracy. Even some on the right have raised concerns about a system that simply allows the most wealthy to have the loudest voice. Whether we can move the country toward meaningful campaign finance reform is a tough question. Unfortunately, the media is part of the problem. Elections are a cash cow for broadcast media in particular, and with print media withering on the vine, media companies are likely to welcome revenue from any source they can find. It's hard to imagine that will not influence coverage of this issue.

But I wonder if it's a little too easy to write this victory off to Walker's advantage in advertising. It's not like the issues weren't discussed at length, over time, in a variety of mediums. This wasn't really a case of voters being blinded by personality or a slick message. Living in Minnesota, I wasn't subjected to the advertising barrage, but I wonder if this was really the deciding factor.

The Generation Gap
I continue to think the biggest, and most underappreciated, political divide in the country is that between people under 40 and those over. Walker's strategy clearly included working up the resentments of older voters who no longer had school-age kids. A lot easier to put down educators when you're not dealing with them on a regular basis, and a lot easier to call for tuition hikes when you're not the one saving up college costs. Another possible big blunder on the Dems' side was the decision to hold this election in the summer, while college students were not in school and more difficult to organize.

Are Unions the Problem?
There are a lot of reasons to dislike Scott Walker's policies and approach to governance, but at essence this was perceived as a fight between unions and the governor. And most people aren't in unions. Should we say, "We just have to educate people about the positive contributions unions make" ?? Didn't we try doing that for the last six months? This is a problem that I have no answer for at the moment. Most people aren't in unions, and it's easy for politicians like Walker to use that as a wedge issue, suggesting that those in unions have it better than the rest of us--so why be sympathetic to them? The simple fact is, those in unions do, in some ways, have it better than some of us. Of course, the obvious question is why should we be in a race to the bottom in terms of wages and benefits? But that, apparently, is not how people are thinking of the issue.

It's a tough time for unions. One thing I feel pretty sure of: the Obama administration is not counting on the "ground game" and Democratic support that unions have traditionally been credited for. Whatever they can deliver will be appreciated, I'm sure, but the Obama Admin seems much more focused on its own efforts such as OFA.

Which brings us to another point.

Do Not Underestimate the Power of the Dark Side Republican Ground Game
The GOP got people to turn out to the polls in huge numbers. Huge. Democrats like to think they have the superior ground game but there's really little evidence of that in recent elections. All the hard work that campaigns put into getting people to the polls is important, but you have to win the messaging side as well. This was an election where the failure was with the message, and possibly the candidate, not the turn-out-the-vote effort.

OK, So Why Did the Democrats' Message Fail?
The Dem message was: "Walker is a big ole Meanie!" The Walker message was: "I'm only a big ole meanie because I have to be to fix our messed up government!"

Walker has done a masterful job of convincing people we need to take some strong medicine to fix the problems we face. Where he is kind of evil is the way he targets unions, teachers, college students, etc., as the people who have to take the medicine. But it's an effective message and obviously people responded to it. We're in for a very scary election if Mitt Romney is anywhere near as effective as portraying himself as a "reformer" who makes tough decisions.

And I do think the Dems had a little bit of an uphill climb because some voters simply did not think a recall was appropriate. Allegations and likely future indictments aside, Walker did not break any laws, was not obviously corrupt, and wasn't involved in a personal scandal. He was a duly elected official pursuing his policies, and he had the support in the Legislature to pass most of his agenda. I'm agnostic on whether his opponents were "right" to recall him. But obviously some voters had a problem with it on principle.

What Does this Mean for the Fall?
Looking at this from a national perspective, this recall election hurts Obama, but not as much as if he had been actually supportive of Barrett or made any effort to help him. I don't know why exactly Obama made the calculation, but obviously from the beginning he saw little or no upside to becoming involved in this dispute. That is no doubt disappointing to many, but as events have turned out, it might have been the right call. If he had gotten invested and the result had been the same, every.single.pundit.on.TV would be talking about what a devastating loss this was for Obama. That's not the headline today.

I think there's no doubt Romney will try to take a page from Walker's playbook and portray himself as the guy who will make tough decisions in order to fix big problems. It's a little harder sell, considering who Romney is and what his record as governor was, but it blunts the criticisms about his history with Baine--sure, people got hurt but on a larger scale he did more good than harm, right?

Obama needs to get out in front of this and co-opt that message. He can point to the auto industry bailout, the Stimulus Act, even the ACA, as tough decisions that pissed some people off but were good for the country in the long run.

Second-guessing an effort like this is easy. Armchair pundits such as yours truly can pick apart any effort with the benefit of hindsight. What shouldn't be forgotten is the hard work people put into this and the difficult realities that we're left with. Hopefully those who supported the recall effort will get over their dissappointment and keep working for the things they believe in. If the fight was worth fighting yesterday, it's just as worthwhile today.

The core of the problem

I don't think it will happen, but Norm Ornstein's reasonable, well-researched thesis should be something that EVERY voter reads and thinks about this election season.

"We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges."

He's a little short for a Storm Trooper

The state's GOP continues to make news, with the Ron Paul Rebel Alliance creating the latest stir. ("The tighter you squeeze your fist, the more delegates will slip through your fingers.")

This amusing tho occasionally too snarky recap of the state Republican convention is a great inside look at how the party is united in hatin' libruls but not so much in other ways...

The bottom line is a Ron Paul-approved candidate won the party's endorsement to take on Amy Klobuchar for Senate (good luck with that) and the Paulites in general kind of took over the show. The author is clearly not a fan but nontheless manages to capture the moment, including a kind of sad encounter with a couple of Log Cabin Republicans. Here are a few of the better lines:

"Their fury is hard to fathom. The delegates and their families seemed like ordinary, reasonably successful middle-class people. There was a broad age range — yes, Democrats, young people were there in force and there were plenty of women, too, no matter the vaunted war against them. Some people wore suits; others came in jeans and flip-flops. Dads and moms rocked strollers in the back of the hall. They could have been an audience at a summer band concert. Oh wait, except there were no blacks. Well, almost none. I spotted two..."

"They all embraced small town life and 'Christian values' which made me feel left out, what with being Jewish and all."

"'President Paul! President Paul! President Paul,' screamed the crowd as he took the podium. That seemed beside the point since he had suspended his campaign only a few days earlier."

"Back in the hall, would-be delegates to the national convention were delivering one-minute pitches about their suitability. They were all asked whether they would support the nominee of the party. The subtextual clause would have been, if uttered, 'even if it's the hateful Romney.' Most said yes, but some laid on caveats, such as 'if he abides by the laws in Exodus' or 'if he follows the Constitution.'"

...The laws in Exodus?

Also, here's something from Daily Kos, which of course is a very liberal site, but it's one of the better big-picture explanations I've seen of what the Paul Rebellion means nationwide, with relatively little partisan sniping...

Dayton vs. the GOP revolution

It's been interesting to watch the political changes in Minnesota and Wisconsin over the past two years.

How's that for an understatement?

In both states, we saw something of a Republican revolution at the polls in 2010. In Wisconsin, Scott Walker was elected Governor, with a Republican-majority legislature. In Minnesota, Mark Dayton barely squeaked by to win the Governor's mansion for the DFL, but Republicans scored a historic win by taking both the House and the Senate.

We all know what's happened in Wisconsin since then. And we're just weeks away from seeing if the huge backlash that Walker inspired will be successful in ousting him from office.

Minnesota has not grabbed national headlines the way Wisconsin did, but politics here has been almost as lively. Dayton and the Republicans have clashed repeatedly, with the mild-in-appearance Dayton showing a surprisingly tough and confrontational side when faced with the Tea Party approach of state's GOP leadership. Dayton has thrown some real punches, and the GOP here, despite having some very strong-willed characters of its own, has not fared well, in part because the party has shot itself in the foot a few times.

In the last year, the GOP has weathered a sex scandal--which resulted in the Republican Senate leader resigning, and financial scandals, which badly undercut its message on being the best party to manage state government. Going bankrupt is not a good way to convince voters you're good with fiscal matters.

Who knows how much those issues affected the GOP's game in St. Paul, but Dayton for the most part seemed to outmaneuver them, despite the fact that he led the minority party. He got the stadium bill passed--with a bigger margin than most expected. He got a pared-down bonding bill--not as much as he wanted, but he always said he was willing to compromise on that one.

He also stood firm on not draining the state's financial reserves by vetoing the GOP's tax bills. He vetoed the first large tax-cut bill, despite the GOP's threats of torpedoing the stadium bill in retaliation. Then at the very end of the session, he vetoed a second, smaller tax-cut bill for the same reason—because it would lead to larger deficits and not spread the tax-cut goodness fairly to all Minnesotans, instead focusing on business tax cuts. If you think you hear a skeptical tone, you do. Since I moved to Minnesota, I’ve seen wave after wave of tax cuts, all promising to improve the economy. Usually, the economy has gotten worse.

But I digress. We were talking about Dayton vs. the GOP. And so what is the result of this clash-of-the-titans spectacle? Well, a recent Survey USA Poll suggests that Dayton is in pretty good shape at the moment; the GOP, not so much.

The poll shows Minnesota voters approve of the job Dayton is doing, 56 percent to 33 percent. The state Legislature, however, has a 21 percent approval rating to a 67 percent disapproval rating. Ouch. Now, that may reflect in part some dissatisfaction with the Vikings stadium deal, which is a bipartisan affair--plenty of DFL voters don't like the stadium deal.

But though the poll shows some of that ambivalence to the stadium deal, it also shows that when given a choice, the voters surveyed were relatively supportive: 43 percent saying they support building a new stadium, 36 percent saying renovate it, and 16 percent saying forget it. That's better than I would've expected.

(A note here to my progressive friends who have been bending my ear about how terrible it is to publicly-finance a stadium. I understand the argument, but there are certain realities to any business. And in the business of pro sports, the bottom line is that if Minnesota kept punting this issue down the road (football reference!) the owners would've eventually gotten a much better offer, with the NFL's blessing. And then it probably would've been too late. Maybe some would've been OK with losing the Vikings to make a point. But Minnesota has lost sports teams before, and what did that accomplish? Did it change anything?)

Two other small items from the poll: Obama leads Romney 52 percent to 38 percent in this survey, and 52 percent of Minnesota voters agree that same-sex couples should be allowed to get married. 42 percent disagreed. It's too early too throw any parties about those numbers, but they are encouraging. The constitutional referendum on the same-sex marriage issue gives Minnesota the chance to make history by being the first state to vote down a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

It's early. The Survey USA reading is just one poll. And who knows what will happen over the summer and into the fall. But right now it looks as though the Tea Party brand of Republican politics has not done well in either Minnesota or Wisconsin, two heartland states that gave that approach a chance in governance.

And I think it's fair to say Dayton has given a masterful example of how to counter a Legislature that is diametrically opposed to your political philosophy—while still accomplishing some of your main goals. It’s an impressive performance, though not unprecedented. After all, Tim Pawlenty wrote the book on being a successful Republican governor in a state capitol dominated by Democrats. But I don’t think anyone expected Dayton to have this kind of success. It remains to be seen if the GOP can keep their revolution alive after a session in which they were not terribly effective.

Thanks Mr. President, now, will you campaign against the marriage amendment in Minnesota?

In November, Minnesotans get a chance to make history by being the first state to reject a discriminatory, anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. Such an amendment has never failed in a vote; it would be a sign of real progress if Minnesota changed that trend.

The GOP-controlled Legislature did an end run around the state's systems of checks and balances by pushing through two amendments that will be on this fall's ballot: one banning gay marriage, the other restricting voting access (Voter ID). I find them both to be pretty horrible laws. Minnesota has one of the most open and accessible voting systems in the country, and as a result has led the US in voter participation. The GOP is trying to change that, due to alleged voter fraud that they never seem to be able to prove beyond a handful of isolated cases.

But that's another topic. I do think Obama deserves credit for finally coming down on the side of fairness and equality for all Americans. It took too long, but there are political risks with that stance and Obama is not a big risk-taker. As others have noted, he probably just decided it was something he couldn't credibly put off any longer. (Thanks for opening your big yap and making history, Joe Biden!) I don't think gay marriage should be one of the top issues of the campaign, but I hope Obama is willing to talk about the Minnesota amendment and will urge its defeat.

For further reading check out the Minnesotans United for All Families site.

Now with more Chilton...

Finally figured out a way to embed the song that inspired this blog's name. My HTML skills are now caught up with the turn of the century. Yeah, I know the page is sort of a mess, but it's readable, and that's all I ask. Enjoy!

Is it time for Dick Lugar to go?

I've always liked Dick Lugar, senior (and then some) Senator from Indiana. He's been a great Senator and a great American. And in principal, I am very supportive of moderate Republicans who turn off Tea Party types. Goodness knows we need more of those people. But Lugar is very likely to lose his seat after today's GOP primary.

I happen to have met Dick Lugar. And therein lies the problem. I met Sen. Richard Lugar when I was a high school student, when he came and ran a couple miles with our cross-country team. Pretty cool, huh? We were impressed. But that was more than 30 years ago. And he was already in the Senate. Lugar is the longest-serving Senator in Indiana's history. And you can make a pretty good case that even though his experience is second-to-none, there has to be a time when new blood is needed.

What compounds the problem in Lugar's case is that he hasn't kept a residence in Indiana for many years. He has a farm there--which apparently he doesn't, or didn't, visit often. When he came back to the state he stayed in a hotel. To me, this is a bit more than just a problem with appearances.

His primary opponent, Richard Mourdock, seems halfway smart and capable, though typically for this scenario, extremely right wing. (Tea Party support, NRA favorite; your basic nightmare.) My gut feeling is that Lugar’s much-discussed friendship with Obama is less a problem than his nonresidency. That seeming disregard for his roots is a career-killer in a state like Indiana, where people are sensitive to even the smallest slight.

The fact that Lugar even has a primary challenge is another depressing example of the GOP’s continued move to extremism. But Lugar can’t just blame political trends. He made a very bad blunder in taking his home state for granted.

I confess--I liked Santorum

Oh, stop it.






So it took a while for the whole thing to wind down, but with Gingrich's weird (what about his campaign was *not* weird?) concession speech, we've just about closed the book on the GOP 2012 primaries.

I included the video clip above because I love Shep Smith's brutal honesty--all too rare on any cable channel--and it raises a point that I think really did not get enough attention.

Why were some of these guys ever, EVER, taken seriously as presidential candidates?

I mean, come on, Herman Cain? If you're talking about reality-show contestant, maybe. An entertaining speaker, OK. But a serious candidate for president of the United States?

Rick Perry was a dumber George W. Bush and yet still thought this country would go for him. Think about that--Or don't, he obviously didn't.

And Gingrich? How could anyone, especially those in his own party, think his candidacy was a good idea?

This isn't hindsight being 20/20. I was appalled at some of these candidacies from the beginning. Gingrich in particular is a disgraced former politician who damaged his party, has been consistently wrong about everything from foreign policy to education, and has exposed himself not only as a hypocrite but as a shameless shill who will say and do anything to get on television.

A few years ago, when it seemed his political career was effectively over, he was happily appearing at wonkish policy conventions, endorsing things like cap and trade and early iterations of Obamacare. Gingrich Badger didn't give a sh*t: he could pick up the check, get treated like a big shot, sell a few books—he was happy as a clam. But then Fox News started treating him as a go-to pundit when they wanted scathing put-downs of Obama, and his delusions of grandeur kicked in, again.

I'll be honest, I thought Rick Santorum was also kind of a joke at the beginning of this process. But something happened. Santorum went out and campaigned, and low and behold people responded. You can be appalled at his message, and scared that we have people who embraced it, but there was nothing fake about this guy. He had a vision, he articulated it, and people responded. He connected with people, in a way that a Gingrich or a Cain would never really try. I have to respect that.

You can also respect, to some degree, Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a classic third-party candidate. He's radical, idiosyncratic, and has a fervent if small following. It just shows how savvy he is to realize that he has to keep calling himself a Republican in order to get on Fox News. If not for that, he'd be totally ignored.

I know, the process had to play out; this is our system. But what an indictment of our political and media cultures that these frauds and con men could get this far as presidential candidates, simply because they had money and almost unlimited access to television cameras.

Politics, as usual

Well, with the winding down of the Republican primaries I guess we have to start thinking seriously about Obama vs. Romney.

Yeah, it's gonna get ugly.

So to try to spare some of my Facebook friends, I am firing up the ole' Mod Lang blog. No doubt I'll continue to annoy FB peeps with harangues on global warming, gun control, voter ID, health care, etc.

But I'll try to shift more of that stuff over here, especially when it comes to presidential politics and political campaigns in general.

Let's see how rusty my html skills are, shall we? (Talk about getting ugly.)