By Jeff Smith, on Wed May 23, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET  I saw Bobby Jindal speak in New Orleans a few years ago and I was very impressed. He was personable and loose – the opposite of how he came off during his big national television debut. He demonstrated obvious policy chops but was also quite smooth during the grip and grin. Given his resume and evident intellect, he eliminates any potential for Palin-esque surprises.
And he brings a ton of Indian money, although that’s probably the last of Romney’s worries.
I don’t, however, think he’s the best choice, for a few reasons.
 First, he does nothing to reduce the gender gap. Second, he doesn’t help in the Appalachian hollows in swing states like Ohio and Virginia where both Romney and Obama have struggled to connect; in the eyes of those voters he’s just as “exotic” as Obama.
By Jonathan Miller, on Tue May 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET “Bring it to the Table” is a web and documentary project that seeks to bridge political divides in an increasingly partisan era. At a time when it’s so easy to filter out ideas that don’t sit well with us, they aim to get liberals speaking to conservatives–and conservatives speaking to liberals.
Take a look at the video below, and if you like what you see, I encourage you to click here to learn more about the Kickstarter campaign.
By Artur Davis, on Tue May 22, 2012 at 1:30 PM ET  Last week, The Chronicle of Higher Education waded headfirst into the culture wars by terminating one of its bloggers for a column excoriating the black studies discipline and calling for its end. The saga around Naomi Schaeffer Riley has ignited a predictable back-and-forth, from the partly organic, partly organized attack by the left on the original piece, to conservative bloggers who have defended her against political correctness run amuck.
I’m of two minds about the controversy. Most of the assault against Riley does seem like shop-worn viewpoint censorship. As even a liberal critic like Eric Alterman has pointed out, labeling the essay as “hate speech” is a frivolous, overwrought charge, and Alterman is right to recognize that a formal response by the black studies faculty at Northwestern which alludes to past discrimination against black college applicants seemed simultaneously pointless and defensive about the capacities of some of the department’s students—who, of course, are not even all black.
 But the Riley essay does not strike me as the best line of defense for admirers of intellectual candor. It is not exactly an exercise in rhetorical grace: there is a talk-radio style bluntness to its 500 odd words that is dependent on name-calling: “left wing victimization claptrap”, “liberal hackery”, a parting shot that practitioners of black studies should defer to “legitimate scholars”. Substantively, the essay’s thesis, that a Chronicle article exposed an intellectual sloppiness in the black studies field, is overly reliant on examples from three dissertations to make a vastly more far-reaching point. Even if two of the papers seem hopelessly polemical and one of them sounds hopelessly opaque, it’s a stretch to indict an entire discipline on such a thin foundation. The whole thing feels like an impressionistic hit dashed off to meet a deadline.
Read the rest of…
Artur Davis: The Blogger and Black Studies
By John Y. Brown III, on Tue May 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET  Life “Superscores.”
With the SAT and ACT, no matter how often you take the tests, colleges only get your “Superscore” (the highest score obtained in each of the individual sections).
I’ve thought about this a lot lately.
Who am I to disagree with professional test writers at the College Board? They are much smarter than I am.
And so….I have decided to apply this Superscore philosophy to every area of my life–both going forward and recalculating old scores.
Suddenly, my life is looking a whole lot better in most every category. Ha!
And to think, the problem was I was simply scoring it wrong.
I can’t wait to explain to my beloved wife, Rebecca, later today that if we take my “high score” in every category over the past 20 years, I’m in, like, the 97th percentile among husbands (not just “satisfactory”).
She is going to be so excited!!! Can’t wait to see the expression on her face!
By Kristen Hamilton, RP Staff, on Tue May 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET
If you thought Facebook’s IPO had nothing to do with fashion, boy, were you wrong. [Racked]
Check out the trailer for The Carrie Diaries; will you be tuning in? [Fashionista]
Rocking a Chanel sticker on your face: chic or just plain crazy? [Racked]
Would you shop at a Victoria Beckham store? [The Cut]
By Jordan Stivers, on Tue May 22, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET  Last month, we introduced a new feature at The Recovering Politician: the Gen Y “He Said; She Said” debates.
“He” is Zac Byer, a longtime staff contributor at the RP, an outspoken Republican, and currently works for one of the leading minds behind GOP national strategy, Dr. Frank Luntz. “She” is Jordan Stivers, a passionate Democrat who currently serves on the communications committee of the newly formed Young Democrats of America Faith and Values Initiative. As you might be able from the picture at left, “He” and “She” are dating. Or talking to each other. Or in a relationship. Or whatever Gen Y calls these types of relationships.
Anyway, enjoy their debate about Hope and Change:
JORDAN: This week, I read an article by the senior editor of The Atlantic in which he explains why he thinks Obama is losing, though the election is six months away. He says it’s not because voters don’t like Obama, or don’t think he is qualified, but because he has “simply failed to bring the change he promised.” I’ve heard this argument quite a few times, mostly from Republicans, who, as soon as President Obama was elected made it their main objective to create as many obstacles to bipartisan success as possible. My Senator, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is one of these. He openly stated that he planned to do everything in his power to make President Obama a one-term President. What a winning attitude.
 I was an enthusiastic supporter of President Obama in 2008 in part because of the bipartisan environment he wanted to create, but also because I trusted his instinct to lead us in a direction that would make the United States more of a place of opportunity for young people like me, and for the many people that were used to finding themselves without any power in the political process. I believe that in that second objective, he has delivered the change he promised. Through health care reform, the JOBS Act, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and now his open support of marriage equality, he has brought more positive change to this country than President Bush did in his two terms.
Of course I wish that Congress could actually function and compromise the way the founders intended, but why their dysfunction is being laid entirely on President Obama’s shoulders I don’t understand. The people who should be held responsible are Speaker John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Harry Reid. The politicians and pundits who are complaining that not enough change has happened are the same people who were actively trying to prevent change from happening, for purely political reasons. Any sucess for Obama meant a loss for them. What they did not consider is what would be a success for Americans as a whole. Instead of mocking the words “hope” and “change,” Republicans should realize that those words mean a lot to people. The only way things can change for the better and people who are downtrodden by the economy can have hope again, is for Republicans and Democrats to work together.
ZAC: Working in language and message consulting, I agree that words “mean a lot to people.” And clearly, in 2008, “hope” and “change” carried a particular significance surpassing any presidential campaign mantra. But here’s the issue — words can only take us so far. There must be actions to bolster the message, otherwise the latter only amounts to hollow rhetoric.
The JOBS Act was a rare symbol of bipartisan cooperation…but it started as a House Republican priority that Senate Democrats and the President realized they couldn’t say no to without falling on the sword.
To say Obama has delivered the change he promised through his health care reform is tantamount to a baseball owner saying the new pitcher he signed has changed the franchise before he has even thrown his first pitch. Nancy Pelosi herself said it’ll be a matter of time before anyone truly understands the consequences of the legislation, and I don’t expect the Supreme Court to go quietly into the night.
And I applaud Obama for finally putting principle before politics and admitting that he supports same-sex marriage. An evolutions? Good grief! If I was a Democrat who cared strongly about that issue, I’d be downright angry that the only reason why Obama made his declaration of support two weeks ago was because Biden did what he’s been doing for over thirty years. Real courage would have been an announcement in support of same-sex marriage in 2008, no matter the electoral consequences. Be that as it may, I don’t expect his announcement to change much at all, as this will remain a states’ issue (as even Obama desires it to be).
Ultimately, we head into November 2012 staring down $5 trillion more in debt, unemployment stuck above 8%, and a failed $800 billion stimulus.
I’ll be the first to admit that the cooperation from the congressional Republicans has been minimal at best. But, when you look back at Obama’s first two years in office, what’s your assessment? He worked with Democrat majorities in both the House and the Senate, and rode a wave of public support into the White House. Are you truly satisfied with how he and his counterparts prioritized — Cash for Clunkers, health care, and Solyndra instead of legislation aimed at relieving the burdens on small business owners and job creators, or incentivizing businesses to keep jobs in America, or tackling entitlement reform?
Read the rest of…
Gen Y “He Said; She Said” on Hope and Change
By Jonathan Miller, on Mon May 21, 2012 at 1:30 PM ET
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET One isn’t the loneliest number that you’ve ever heard, after all. Sometimes it can mean a lot.
On my business page on Facebook which I recently updated…(click here for the page)…it’s off to a slow start and I don’t think there’s much more I can do with it.
Or even want to with it.
It’s one of those things I felt I needed to do because it looks bad if you don’t have one.
But it is depressing when I check it in the morning and it lists the number of “likes” and then always lists “People talking about this” And every morning it says the exact same number of people are talking it: “0.”
As in Zero. Or to translate verbally, nobody.
I understand and didn’t expect anyone to ever talk about it…but does Facebook really need to have than showing on the page? Can they make that optional?
Or better yet, is there a way I can add another “measurement” piece next to it that reads “Number of people thinking about this.” And have the number 1 next to that one.
I mean, heck, if I’m checking to make sure no one is talking about it, I should at least get credit for me “thinking” about the business. Right?
By RP Staff, on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:00 AM ET Last night, at the annual GOP Lincoln Day statewide dinner, Agriculture Commissioner James Comer — a rising star himself — welcomed Brown to the party from the dais, sparking a long and warm ovation.
And Sunday morning, Johnny appeared in the pages of the Courier Journal (Louisville) with the King himself — the longtime leader of Kentucky Republicans, U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell.
Johnny’s father — and forgive us, we have already forgotten his name — was said to be kvelling, although he wasn’t sure what the Yiddish term meant.
By RP Staff, on Mon May 21, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET Vibe magazine ran a fascinating profile on contributing RP and former RNC Chairman Michael Steele. Here’s an excerpt:
MICHAEL STEELE, THE FIRST BLACK CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, HAS BEEN PILED ON AND PUNCH-LINED BY HIS OWN PARTY. NOW OUT OF POWER, STEELE REVEALS THE BACKSTABBING, THE MONEY GRABS AND RACE TROUBLES AT THE RNC. BUT CAN THE HIP-HOP-LINGO-SPEWING POLITICO FIND HIS WAY BACK IN THE HEEZIE?
MICHAEL STEELE, THE CONTROVERSIAL former head of the Republican National Committee, folds his tall frame into a booth in a Midtown Manhattan hotel restaurant. Before he can complete his thought—one of the many bits of evidence he’ll stack against the Republican establishment he picks the fruit out of his oatmeal and sighs. “I’m sorry,” he says, with a shake of his head. “I don’t know why people put shit in oatmeal.” He fishes out a few more pieces. “I don’t even know what this stuff is. And why is it in my oatmeal? Ugh.”
It’s just after 9 a.m., a few days away from Christmas, and Steele has been up since some ungodly waking hour. He spent the first part of the day on the alarmingly tame set of MSNBC’sMorning Joe—a political gabfest for early risers and cable news junkies. All the pieces of the man were on full display: the pinstripe suit, the broken wreath of hair trimming his crown, the wire-rimmed glasses, the grizzly mustache and the penchant for lacing his talks with hip-hop vernacular.
Click here to read the full article.
|
The Recovering Politician Bookstore
|
First, he does nothing to reduce the gender gap.
