By Artur Davis, on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET  Ira Shapiro’s recent work on the late seventies, “The Last Great Senate”, has the gift of good timing. It hits bookstands during a time when its thesis–that Washington was occupied by political giants, moderates, and thoughtful deal-makers until far-right Republicans dragged it into the mud–is the conventional wisdom du jour. As a narrative, the book also reads well, which is no small accomplishment, given its dive into the nuts and bolts of policy battles that are only dimly recalled: Jimmy Carter’s conservation initiatives and his failed stimulus are not exactly the stuff of lore. As Shapiro reminds, there actually was an ample amount of substance and rigor in many of those debates, and the quality of the fight seems, in Shapiro’s telling, richer than our current sound-bite clashes.
 Click on the book cover to order To be sure, there is much that is admirable about this book from one of the most credentialed public policy lawyers in DC. It’s worth asking though, whether Shapiro’s underlying theory of senatorial decline and right-wing liability really holds up as a description of the last thirty odd years. Two threshold criticisms: first, the supposed dark ages after 1980 contain a lot more bipartisan accomplishment than Shapiro acknowledges. While his epilogue makes a nod to a series of eighties era achievements, including a refinancing of Social Security, a work-over of Title VII, tax reform, immigration reform, and the patent protection that enabled the generic drug market, it’s a run of success that Shapiro seems to dramatically understate and which is at odds with his premise. If Shapiro is right about the sources of dysfunction, a Republican lurch to the right and the surge of cut and slash ad wars sponsored by conservative cash, the eighties should have been one long pattern of gridlock. The fact that they weren’t gives Shapiro’s case fits that he doesn’t really address.
Read the rest of…
Artur Davis: Seventies Night on Capitol Hill
By John Y. Brown III, on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET  Having teenagers is a gift.
Not necessarily a gift that I would have picked out for myself. For example, like brides-to-be pick out for their bridal registry.
More like a sort of gag gift. That gets a knowing laugh at a party when opened but not as big a laugh as you’d hoped.
Because you begin to realize it’s not really a gag or a gift. So you put it in the corner and hope your spouse will know what to do with it and put it away for you. And not tell you where it is.
But you find it and after ignoring it many times you decide one day pull it out and read the instructions. And realize unlike most gifts, it doesn’t come ready-made.
The gift depends entirely on how much time you spend working on it. Like a Rubik’s Cube. You never figure it out.
But working on it makes you a smarter person—while simultaneously reminding you how incredibly dumb and limited you are. And makes those watching you play with it–your teenagers–realize they don’t have to be that smart or talented or together to make it in this world.
And they love you (and learn a lot) by watching you try–in front of them.
And they –your teens–are amused that you try to teach them the secrets of the Rubik’s Cube while daily failing to figure it out…And shocked when you get mad at them for not listening.
After all, why should you be mad? You’re playing with your gift.
By Jeff Smith, on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET  Kansas played like Santorum last week.
They were outmatched, but they came from behind and almost made a game of it.
Time after time in the last 5-6 minutes, they had a shot to pull within five points and really make it a nailbiter (think MI, OH, IL).
And yet, every time they had a shot to get close and throw the outcome into doubt, they blew it – missed layups, errant passes, unforced turnovers.
 Kind of like Santorum’s errant foray into contraception before the MI primary, his inability to make the ballot in VA or field full slates in Ohio or Illinois, his inexplicable and time-consuming trip to Puerto Rico in advance of Illinois.
When Kentucky hit the big trey w/ just under a minute to play, it was the nail in the coffin.
You just can’t give a team that’s more talented, deeper, and steadier than you so many chances to put you away. Similarly, tonight was probably the nail in the coffin.
Read the rest of…
Jeff Smith: Has Rick Santorum Maxed Out?
By John Y. Brown III, on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET “Funny awkward” or just “awkward”
Sometimes when I’m out and see someone I know out of the corner of my eye, I just don’t have the energy to say hello… so I pretend I don’t see them. And hope they don’t see me.
We are likes two ships passing in the dark of night (or light of day, really).
Sometimes, though, I’ll see them catching a quick glimpse at me. But also choose not to say hello because they are preoccupied with something and don’t have the energy or time to speak to me.
Once I know they have seen me and not said hello, I get uncomfortable. There is a chance they have also seen me see them and know that I failed to say hi when I had the chance.
So, I slyly “pretend” to have just seen them and act surprised (like I’m spotting them for the first time) and say hello. They–in return–act like they are just seeing me for the first time and say hello.
But what if their “fake first time hello” is less enthusiastic than mine? You can’t help but wonder if that be considered a slight? Or just life as it is in our hurried world? It’s the latter, of course.
That’s when I feel the whole exchange is “funny awkward.”
And when that happens, I admit, there’s a part of me that wants to point out that I did notice they saw me about a minute ago and could tell they didn’t want to talk to me.
Just so I know that they know…that I knew.
But I don’t. Because that would be just plain “awkward.”
And probably the last time we’d ever pretend not to see each other in public again…. before pretending to see each other for the first time and striking up a conversation.
By Artur Davis, on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET Hillary Clinton must know that there are at least three ways she might have been president.
Had she been modest enough to return home to build a Senate candidacy, rather than relocate to New York, she would have been handed the 2004 Illinois seat; and the young legislator named Obama who actually won that year might have become, say, a precocious lieutenant governor aiming higher, and the Democratic nomination would have been hers for the asking four years later.
On the flip side, had she been more immodest, she would have sought the presidency earlier, in 2004, a year when the Democratic field was weak and George W. Bush was vulnerable. Had she been a shade luckier, in 2008, Florida and Michigan would have saved their primaries for Super Tuesday, and the comfortable wins they gave her would have been decisive instead of being discounted under the byzantine nominating rules of that cycle.
 It’s enough narrowly missed fortune to haunt even a happy, contented soul who has power and fame to spare. Whether or not she feels cheated by destiny, though, Clinton can’t help but hear the drumbeat: the one from female activists who regret their coolness toward her in the last race; the one from Democratic insiders who don’t like the shape of a 2016 field of national novices; and the one from a surprising combination of the grassroots and the elite who aren’t bound to either party but harbor this quaint notion that for once, the most supremely qualified individual ought to advance to the presidency.
Read the rest of…
Artur Davis: Hillary Nostaligia
By Jeff Smith, on Mon Apr 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET  Nice analysis by Virginia Young of the politics/policy behind teacher tenure reform nationally and in Missouri. [St. Louis Today]
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Apr 9, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET I try to think each night before going to bed of what I’m grateful for that day.
One item on tonight’s list is not having to have any more “birds and the bees” talks with my children.
I was reminded tonight of my first attempt which did not go the way I had planned.
Finally ready for the talk (me, that is), I launched into it with my son when he age 9. I thought he’d be fascinated and want to know details and pepper me with curious questions.
Instead he interrupted me, “OK. Stop. I don’t want to hear anymore. That’s just gross. You act like picking your nose is gross–well, that’s way grosser. You have to promise me it won’t happen again until I’ve moved out of the house to go to college.”
So, the conversation that had begun with me anxious about trying to explain human reproduction and nervous I’d fail, ended up with me proud that my son was already planning to go to college at age 9.
I guess it all worked out somehow.
By Krystal Ball, on Mon Apr 9, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET  There’s a concept in sports of playing down to the level of your competition. This occurs when a strong team struggles to beat a weak team because they do not play at their best. Mitt Romney is a vastly superior candidate in terms of organization, skills, and resume than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich (let alone Herman Cain and Rick Perry). Romney’s not as strong as, say, a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, but he should have had no trouble dispatching a group of competitors who struggle to even qualify for the ballot, fund their travel, and fill out their delegate slates in key states. Romney’s been playing down to the field and it’s badly damaged his chances for victory in November.
 In playing down to a subpar field Romney has taken extreme positions that he won’t be able to Etch A Sketch away. In order to box out Rick Perry, he staked out the most extreme position on immigration of anyone in the field and badly damaged his standing with Latino voters. In order to box out Rick Santorum, Romney was forced to support the Blunt amendment which would allow employers to deny women preventative healthcare, to make a lot of noise about eliminating Planned Parenthood, and to support so-called “personhood amendments” like the one that Mississippi voters rejected as being too extreme. The result has been a stunning decline in the governor’s support among women, particularly women of child-bearing age. The latest USA Today/Gallup poll shows that Romney’s support among women under 50 in 12 key swing states has dropped 14 points in a single month. Over the same period he went from beating President Obama by 2 points in swing states to losing to him by 9. Romney may want to use a Men in Black style mind-eraser trick once he’s through the primary but Democrats are unlikely to allow voters to forget where Romney stood in order to box out his far-right competitors.
Read the rest of…
Krystal Ball: Mitt Romney Has Been Playing Down to his Competition
By Jeff Smith, on Fri Apr 6, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET The first Recovering Pol to fall off wagon turns in nice first quarter fundraising report:
Andrei Cherny tops $400K in 7 weeks in Arizona Congressional bid. [The Hill]
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Apr 6, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET I’d like to issue a formal, written and heatfelt apology to all dogs I’ve ever make beg for treats.
When I was a boy, I found it amusing and felt a sense of power and control when I could hold a tantalizing but small treat just far enough away from reach to make the innocent animal to strain to stand on his hind legs–sometimes even expecting the dog to “dance” –before finally tossing the tiny morsel in the air as a reward for my amusement.
I am truly sorry.
Now that I am an adult, I hate it when other adults I work for do this to me (figuratively speaking).
It’s awful and I hate it.
And unlike most you dogs, I’m not very good at it and don’t look very cute doing it.
But I do it anyway.
|
|
