By RP Staff, on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET We’ve got some good news to share regarding our site’s most popular writer, contributing RP Jeff Smith, from St. Louis Today:
 Since leaving federal prison, former Missouri State Sen. Jeff Smith has carved out a new life in New York, teaching politics and offering commentary on the election season.
And now, more than two years after the charges that torpedoed his own career in office, Smith is officially free from the federal government’s tether.
A U.S. District Court judge in St. Louis this week ordered an early end to Smith’s post-prison probation…
Smith, now a professor at the New School in Manhattan, has not been shy about discussing his time in prison — in fact, his writing on his incarceration has drawn attention because of its frankness.
His legacy has also not been forgotten in Jefferson City, where his term ended abruptly after he plead guilty to federal conspiracy charges.
In his address on Wednesday to begin the legislative session, House Speaker Steve Tilley, a Republican who visited Smith in his Kentucky prison, highlighted Smith’s experience as a reminder to legislators to make time for those that matter most.
“Focus your time on the people who love you for who you are,” Tilley said, “and not what title you have attained.”
By RP Staff, on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET  Contributing RP Jason Atkinson was featured this week in a television piece commemorating the one-year anniversary of the Tucson tragedy that left six people dead and critically injured Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Giffors, who has miraculously recovered, was a fellow classmate of Jason’s (and The RP – pictured behind Giffords) in the inaugural class of the Aspen Institute’s Rodel Fellows program.
From KDRV News Watch 12:
The tragedy in Tuscon that took the lives of six people and injured many more, resonated with Americans across the country.
For one state lawmaker, it was his friend Gabrielle Giffords who fought to stay alive that morning and has been recovering ever since.
State Senator Jason Atkinson studied along side Giffords for two years. The two developed a friendship which broke through their political barriers.
Sunday he looked back on that morning and said there are lessons to be learned.
January 8, 2011 Senator Atkinson received a phone call telling him to turn on the television.
“Between watching television and being on the phone with friends we just couldn’t believe what had happened,” said Senator Jason Atkinson.
His colleague and good friend Gabrielle Giffords was shot and many others in the same condition.
“I was worried about Gabby and that terrible injury,” said Atkinson.
Click here for the full story.
By RP Staff, on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM ET OK, folks, round two of the 2012 GOP presidential primary, which means round two of the fearless predictions of our recovering politicians.
Last week, our RPs boldly made their Iowa caucus prognostications, and with the exception of RP staffer Zack Adams (who predicted the correct finish of the top 6 candidates) and Artur Davis (the only contributing RP to predict the correct order of the top 3), well…let’s say they are lucky to get a second chance. But this web site is all about second acts, right?
And we ask you to join them in the comments section as well. No fun prizes, but instant fame and glory to the reader who is the closest.
So, here goes the New Hampshire experiment:
The RP: Romney 39; Paul 19; Huntsman 17; Santorum 12; Gingrich 11; Roemer 1; Perry less than 1%. Ron Paul let me down — big time — last week, but I still have confidence that the independents will keep him in a solid second place. And I predict that the media darling, John Huntsman, will underperform. And my big surprise: Buddy Roemer ekes out 6th place from under Rick Perry’s nose. Oh, yeah, and Mitt Romney wins big. Yawn.
Paul Hodes (contributing RP and former New Hampshire Congressman): Here goes from the Granite State…Romney 34; Huntsman 19; Paul 18; Gingrich 14; Santorum 12; Perry 3
Zac Byer (RP Staff): 1st – Mitt Romney (32%); 2nd – Ron Paul (19%); 3rd – Jon Huntsman (15%). [Click here to read his Zac’s full report from Manchester, New Hampshire.]
Jason Grill: 1. Romney (Needs at least 35% or a 10 point win); 2. Huntsman (The candidate with the best chance to beat President Obama in the general); 3. Paul (Another third place finish, but still relevant); 4. Gingrich (Edges out Rick, but Tick…Tick…Tick…SC is next. Boom); 5. Santorum (No Iowa magic tonight); 6. Perry (Already hunkered down in SC for his last stand)
Greg Harris: Romney – 35; Huntsman – 21; Santorum – 16; Paul – 13; Gingrich – 11; Perry – 4
Steve Schulman: With apologies to Frank Sinatra…Mitt Romney – If he can’t win it here, he can’t win it anywhere…Ron Paul – He’ll do it his way…Jon Huntsman – Strangers in the night…Rick Santorum – Please don’t talk about him when he’s gone…Newt Gingrich – Fly him to the moon, let him play among the stars…Rick Perry – Ain’t that a kick in the head…And too bad Michele Bachmann dropped out … that lady is a tramp!
Read the rest of…
The RPs Predict the New Hampshire Primary
By Greg Harris, on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
“Any man today can lay claim to being filmed”
–Walter Benjamin, The work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
 Time Magazine recently named “The Protester” its 2011 “Person of the Year.” In a year defined by an Arab Spring where the people of Africa and the Middle East risked life and limb to demand democracy, and Americans “Occupied Wall Street” to reclaim democracy, Time’s choice made perfect sense.
But I submit that a strong runner up for “Person of the Year” should be “Social Media”—that is, “Facebook,” “Twitter,” and handheld devices (PDA’s, etc). No, these social media tools aren’t actual people, but they provided the tools for the protesters to organize and reveal to the world their plight.
 When studying for my doctorate, I immersed myself in the Frankfurt School of philosophy . Many of its leading thinkers were weary of the rise of technology as a tool for totalitarians. Theodor Adorno even warned of a “culture industry” wherein consumerism masks itself as choice, instilling a false sense of personal freedom when there was no real freedom.
A dissenting view within the Frankfort School came from Walter Benjamin, who believed new technologies (in the context of his writing, the increased use of film and photography) could have a political effect that could be liberating if placed in the hands of the people. Benjamin, a Jew fleeing from the Nazis, committed suicide when it appeared he was going to be captured and sent to concentration camps. At a time when Hitler was in power and using film for purposes of mass propaganda, Benjamin’s technological optimism, in context, seems surprising.
Read the rest of…
Greg Harris: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised; It Will Be Tweeted
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Jan 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM ET  John Y.’s Closing Argument
[John Y.’s Provocation; The RP’s Rebuttal #1; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #2; Rod Jetton’s Rebuttal #3; Krystal Ball’s Rebuttal #4; John Y.’s First Defense; Rod Jetton’s Response #1; Jeff Smith’s Rebuttal #5; John Y.’s Second Defense; Ron Granieri’s Response #1; John Y.’s Third Defense; Artur Davis’ Rebuttal #6; Jeff Smith’s Response #1; Rod Jetton’s Response #2; Jason Atkinson’s Rebuttal #7]
Final counter, counter, counter rebuttal.
 I’ve enjoyed mixing it up and teasing it out—for fun and with friends.
We’re all tired and need a wrap on this. Look, all I’m saying is that I won’t be surprised if Mitt Romney shows up at the next NH debate with a headset mic a la Anthony Robbins.
He can pull it off, look great, impress listeners. Heck, I’ll even buy his CD set. He’ll score points for fashion and suave, but lose votes—again.
Or, as Krystal Ball so succinctly put it, instead of convincing voters “he’s perfect” to be their next president, Mitt will seem “too good to be true.” A subtle but important distinction for recovering politicians.
So, no, Mitt probably doesn’t need to punch out Rick Santorum Tony Soprano style (even if he wants to). But he darn sure better muss his hair and stay away from headset mics as America focuses in to finally decides if Mitt is real enough — and not too good enough — to be president.
Remember, we voters can sometimes steal a page from Goldilocks, as we all look for the presidential candidate that is neither too big nor too small, neither too hot nor too cold. But just right. And just right for the times we face.
By Jason Atkinson, on Mon Jan 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM ET  Jason Atkinson: Rebuttal #7
[John Y.’s Provocation; The RP’s Rebuttal #1; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #2; Rod Jetton’s Rebuttal #3; Krystal Ball’s Rebuttal #4; John Y.’s First Defense; Rod Jetton’s Response #1; Jeff Smith’s Rebuttal #5; John Y.’s Second Defense; Ron Granieri’s Response #1; John Y.’s Third Defense; Artur Davis’ Rebuttal #6; Jeff Smith’s Response #1; Rod Jetton’s Response #2]
Some people just deserve good things in life. Ya, we know Mitt’s daddy owns the car dealership and got a Corvette for his 16th birthday, but after all, he looks like the quarterback. He is not like the rest of the kids in shop class, English, debate or pep-band. He is just a little better. He doesn’t have to one-up, he was born up.
In 1920, Warren Harding looked like Presidential timber too and campaigned on the thriller banner of “normalcy.” Some people just “got it go’n on.” Not like the rest of us who have had to pull our selves up the hard way, make hard calls, and pay the personal price for our political decisions. Mitt has always had someone else pay, or someone else’s money to pay. Mitt Harding has the look and was smart enough to choose the right parents. People want to have their picture taken with him, but don’t really want to talk to him, akin to taking picture at a car show.
So back to Harding: He looked like President, so let’s run him for President. The key to that borrowed historical back room quote is “who” is part of “let’s?” History showed us who with Teapot Dome.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Presidential Leadership: Jason Atkinson Rebuts
By Rod Jetton, on Mon Jan 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET  Rod Jetton’s Second Response
[John Y.’s Provocation; The RP’s Rebuttal #1; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #2; Rod Jetton’s Rebuttal #3; Krystal Ball’s Rebuttal #4; John Y.’s First Defense; Rod Jetton’s Response #1; Jeff Smith’s Rebuttal #5; John Y.’s Second Defense; Ron Granieri’s Response #1; John Y.’s Third Defense; Artur Davis’ Rebuttal #6]; Jeff Smith’s Response #1]
Jeff is so right about the difference between presidential races and state races. It is much easier for one candidate to have the resources to buy those down-ticket races.
While we have been asking about how a candidate is perceived by disinterested voters, I do think we should remember that the opposing campaign also has a chance to impact those perceptions. A good media buy with cutting ads can hurt a candidate. What the Bill Clinton camp did to Bob Dole in 1996 is a good example.
By Jeff Smith, on Mon Jan 9, 2012 at 2:30 PM ET  Jeff Smith‘s First Response
[John Y.’s Provocation; The RP’s Rebuttal #1; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #2; Rod Jetton’s Rebuttal #3; Krystal Ball’s Rebuttal #4; John Y.’s First Defense; Rod Jetton’s Response #1; Jeff Smith’s Rebuttal #5; John Y.’s Second Defense; Ron Granieri’s Response #1; John Y.’s Third Defense; Artur Davis’ Rebuttal #6]
I think we should delineate between presidential elections and most other types — gubernatorial, House, Senate, etc. Presidential campaigns are exceptional. The candidates (especially in years like this when there are 38 debates) face a lot of scrutiny; they are inspected closely by the media, party activists, and to some extent rank-and-file voters (at least in the early states).
This, however, is not the case in most races. As long as candidates for House can raise $1-2M and candidates for US Senate or Governor can raise $5-10M, they can communicate effectively and thoroughly via TV ads. So I think that in those races the most important things are money, name ID, and surface likeability – as opposed to substantive ideas that can be put into action. This is because candidates with money are able to circumvent the press and the scrutiny of said ideas, and can saturate the airwaves with ads penned by others in which they mouth 30-60 seconds of reassuring bromides.
By Artur Davis, on Mon Jan 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM ET  Rebuttal #6: Artur Davis
[John Y.’s Provocation; The RP’s Rebuttal #1; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #2; Rod Jetton’s Rebuttal #3; Krystal Ball’s Rebuttal #4; John Y.’s First Defense; Rod Jetton’s Response #1; Jeff Smith’s Rebuttal #5; John Y.’s Second Defense; Ron Granieri’s Response #1; John Y.’s Third Defense]
I’m a Johnny-come-lately to what sounds like an incredible conversation, so I will wade in very selectively, with these random observations:
- I like Jeff’s observations if only because they are the best explanation for why a decidedly average looking guy like me didn’t go further! More seriously, I think we will forever remain on the lookout for an explanation of what makes winners in politics. If it were all looks and charm, Kennedy crushes Nixon, instead of beating him by a vote per precinct; I’ve seen the charming losers–I vividly recall from my candidate recruitment days at the DCCC, a Nebraska guy whose looks had female staffers rearranging their schedules to meet him; the voters were less enraptured than the staffers and the online world; he lost by about 20 points — and I’ve seen the winners whose charisma would’t carry them past the corner next to the punch bowl in most other settings.
- My best guess is that for all our jaded reasons not to believe it, issues do matter, but sometimes only in the most reductionist sense–“does the guy or lady believe in people like me?”;”is this person going to deliver on the one or two things I really value?” I deliberately don’t use the word trust, by the way, because I think the trust quotient is so low in politics today that relying on it proves too little. I also don’t mean to endorse the very test I describe — part of leadership is sometimes deciding to deliver not on the one thing you care about, but the one thing that really will work better. Sometimes, “believing in people like me” means leading too narrowly, and shortchanging the broader good for one faction.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Presidential Leadership: Artur Davis Rebuts
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Jan 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM ET John Y.’s Third Defense
[John Y.’s Provocation; The RP’s Rebuttal #1; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #2; Rod Jetton’s Rebuttal #3; Krystal Ball’s Rebuttal #4; John Y.’s First Defense; Rod Jetton’s Response #1; Jeff Smith’s Rebuttal #5; John Y.’s Second Defense; Ron Granieri’s Response #1]
Great point, Ron, but let me play the contrarian’s contrarian on looks and politics and point out that although I brought up the issue and am trying to make the case that we need to think more deliberately and deeply about the candidates than we do, I still seem to vote for the better looking ones myself.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s important to be deep when discussing presidential politics, but don’t underestimate the shallow. Not because of shallow voters.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Presidential Leadership: John Y. Defends
|
|
