No Prix Fixe or full menu today — kitchen’s closed early. But I wanted to make a comment or two about the once-secret video of Mitt Romney that’s saturated the airwaves over the last 24 hours…
Frankly, I have no idea what Mitt Romney truly believes. The talking heads seem certain that Romney’ closed-door comments represent his actual convictions. I’m not convinced. He was addressing a small group of high-roller donors who love to feel like they’re getting their $25,000-a-dinner’s worth. Trust me — Romney’s stump speech a signed picture wouldn’t pay for that undercooked beef wellington they served. So, to please his check-writing audience, Romney felt the need to say something “fresh,” to be “bold.” Instead of giving them the usual talking points (or, better yet, insights into the policy plans he hasn’t shared with anybody else), he threw some red meat to the crowd and hoped they’d bite.
Please don’t be confused here. In no way am I defending Romney. Actually, I’m criticizing him for something which, I believe, is far worse than the socio-political view he espoused that night. Simply put, the man has no core principles. He’s a practical, numbers-oriented business man. And he’s perfectly suited for the board room or corner office. I’m not so sure about the Oval Office.
We need leaders who say what they mean and mean what they say. This video cements my belief that Romney simply says what he says depending on the audience, only to later to explain what he means because then he’ll have had ample time to realize what the prevailing opinion wanted him to mean. If that sounds convoluted, it’s because I’m having such a hard time wrapping my hands around him. For all his shortcomings, at least you knew where George W. Bush stood. For heaven’s sake, you could actually find firm ground on which to agree or disagree with him.
It’s a conceit of journalists who must take a stand by a deadline that one speech in a campaign could ever be decisive, even one as prodigiously brilliant as Bill Clinton’s opus in Charlotte. Add to that the fact that half the speech—maybe its most blistering half regarding Republicans—happened after 11 EST, as well as the variable that the man delivering it is not on the ballot and governed for his six best years in a manner strategically and philosophically distinct from the man he was defending. (I won’t even revisit my point on this site a few days ago that an admittedly powerful address shredded and disguised facts shamelessly).
Republicans would be wise, however, to recognize that Clinton’s central theme, “‘we’re all in this together’ is a far better philosophy than ‘you’re on your own’”, happens to be the single most compelling weapon that Democrats will wield this fall, far more effective than spinning Barack Obama’s record on job creation, and much more lethal than point by point engagement on who does what to Medicare. The argument is an all purpose indictment that suggests that a Romney-Ryan administration might not have much of a moral core—and that the default result would be policies that deregulated Wall Street at risk to the rest of us, threw the vulnerable off the safety net, or hoarded prosperity so tightly that it barely trickled down to the middle.
To be sure, the Obama iteration that society is a connecting web of responsibilities is too complex for its own good and comes close to reimagining individual success as not all it’s cracked up to be. The formulation is one Republicans have mastered rebutting, aided by Obama’s ill-advised articulation that “you didn’t build that.”
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: Clinton’s Best Case
But the evidence, as of this writing, is that Obama gained measurable ground last week, at least before being hit by another set of poor jobs numbers. Whether the gains last, or fade as other Obama bounces have done this year, depends on how effectively Team Romney pivots to reenter the conversation this week, and how much the dark economic clouds dominate post-convention coverage. It is fair, though, to conclude that Democrats used their week more effectively than their Tampa counterparts.
Part of the difference, obviously, is the bravura speechmaking of Bill Clinton, who seems destined to hold two spots of prominence in this era: the last universally popular president and the sole politician of his generation who mastered the technique of persuasion. In a time span in which Barack Obama and George W. Bush won the presidency primarily by selling themselves, and in Bush’s case, and perhaps Obama’s, held the office by relying on their opponent’s deficiencies, Clinton alone has the gift of arguing for a theory of government and policies that match it.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: The Democrats’ Fury
By Lauren Mayer, on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 2:00 PM ET
The possibility of someone showing up to vote under an assumed name had never occurred to me until this election season, when Republicans just happened to uncover the danger of fraudulent voting.
And how odd that it apparently only happens in swing states! And who cares that there isn’t any evidence of actual fraud so far? It surely COULD happen, so isn’t that worth the potential disenfranchisement of lots of already marginalized voters?
Oh, so a sizeable percentage of people don’t have photo IDs and they’re expensive and inconvenient to obtain – isn’t waiting in line at a DMV part of the joy of citizenship?
Thinking about fake identities inspired me to turn into a faux blues singer to address this issue . . . .
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
Why I am a Democrat.
Heading home from the Democratic National Convention I had a few minutes to kill and decided to type out why I think I’m a Democrat.
Part of it, of course, is inherited—in two senses. Your family’s politics, like your family’s business and religion, tend to have a long shelf life for future generations. It’s easier to go along than buck the family. There’s also a temperamental inheritance. Both major political parties, I believe, attract certain disposition types —characteristics that we largely inherit genetically. No, not a desire for lower taxes or building strong infrastructure—at least not directly. But an inclination to be trusting or skeptical; hopeful or protective. Or just not caring if one side of our jacket collar is flipped up.
Then there are the cultural and temporal factors that help determine our politics. More people who came of age in the 1930s became Democrats. More who came of age in the 1980s became Republicans.
But these are not the interesting or singular characteristics that cause a person like me, after all the more conventional factors are set aside, still to walk toward the democratic team when choosing sides. I think that’s a more deeply personal matter that we don’t take enough time honestly to understand.
Oh, and for the record, I don’t buy all this nonsense about Republicans and Democrats not being able to get along. If that were true, Republicans and Democrats would stop getting married to each other so frequently! Like married couples, we need each other. Each side has strengths and weaknesses and is better together than alone. But also like married couples, a little more understanding of each other (and a good counselor) can go a long way. I mean seriously, if Democrats could do a better job of “mirroring” what we believe we hear Republicans say; and if Republicans could do a better job using “I-statements,” we would be well on our way to a more functional polity. Or at least a fun weekend together. Which is why I am writing about why I am a Democrat. Like most people, it’s not really about ideology. I believe ideology is a byproduct of more core personal qualities and traits we possess. And it’s easier to accept differences if we understand these differences are more fundamental to who we are and impermeable— rather than merely malleable ideas that, like a fly, we seem merely to have randomly alighted on. And so with that intro, here goes.
For me, I am a Democrat because I am a “tinkerer”, a “wobbler,” and a “blender.” And on most days, these are positive traits, at least in my mind. And they are at my core.
Read the rest of… John Y’s Musings from the Middle: Why I Am a Democrat
This afternoon, The RP spent an hour on “Our Times with Craig Barnes,” a weekly radio program, broadcast on KSFR 101.1 FM, Santa Fe every Saturday at 9:00 am MST. They discussed No Labels, the party conventions, and even a little poker.
“Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. – Isaiah 1:18.
“I seldom think of politics more than 18 hours a day.” Lyndon Johnson
The next few months the political discourse will continue to get worse as a tight presidential race brings out the worst in both parties.
Unfortunately, that’s not unusual and remains a sad commentary on our modern politics. And in the modern world of social media – it is going to show up on Facebook.
So for those of us that politics is a passion – how do we manage our passion in a way that is respectful to those who don’t agree with us or could care less.
One thing that needs changing is the nature of political discourse. That’s a whole different note. I respect anyone who disagrees with my views – and I want to hear their views. I want to hear their perspective. I respect their views – and don’t doubt their patriotism or faith because they disagree with me. Unfortunately, a lot of people have spent the last four decades attacking politicians and then wonder why nobody trusts or believe in our government.
I’ve been a partisan Democratic activist (with the exceptions of times when I was in the media and it was a conflict of interest and tried hard to be very fair) since I was 18. Those who know me knows it is a passion.
Most of the time, my posts are designed to educate those who agree with me. I’m not trying to pick fights or debunk someone else. I have scores of fellow Democratic activists who are friends on here – including two running congressional campaigns.
But if our nation is going to move forward, both parties really need to listen and listen to each other. And as much as I enjoy hearing that one of my friends won a campaign Tuesday, I also want to read that my friend from middle school went to the National Tea Party rally. And if I chat with my friend Tony Boone, I know we’re going to talk football and the Oakland Raiders and he’s going to talk about motorcycles and probably bash the president. It’s okay. I respect his opinion.
Facebook reflects who we are and what we are doing now. A lot of people I grew up with are just now grandparents. I’m seeing a lot of grandchildren pictures. A lot of our kids are playing sports and we’re bragging on that. Lindy Suiter is going to talk about Racer basketball. Neal Bradley is going to be witty. Michael Buehle is going to talk Notre Dame football. Brian Clardy is going to talk history and African-American culture and wines and jazz and Democratic politics. Bryon Counsell is going to tee off on my politics. John Y. Brown III and I come from way different backgrounds, but when I read what he is writing, I realize we have a lot in common. And faith comes from Baptist preachers and Catholic priests.
But they are all my friends. They are all the fabric of my life – and the fabric of America. I need to hear – and more importantly, listen to all their voices. That’s why I talk politics – and talk politics on Facebook.
And by the way, the Bible verse was President Johnson’s favorite.
In the early 1990s, Democrats dominated both houses of the Missouri Legislature. State Senator Danny Stapleswas a typical member of the majority party: an old-school pro-gun, pro-life Democrat from southeast Missouri who operated a resort on the Jack’s Fork River. He hailed from Eminence (pop. 600) and explained his aggressive political style thusly: “Ya don’t get nuthin from the Sears catalog ‘less ya ask for it.”
But in 1992, Missouri voters passed a law limiting legislators to eight years in each chamber. Current legislators weren’t grandfathered, and so incumbents’ days were numbered.
Rodney Jetton didn’t vote on the term limits law. In 1992, he was a 24-year-old Marine stationed in the Middle East. The son of a Baptist preacher in rural Marble Hill (pop. 1,502), he hoped to seek office upon returning stateside. In 2000 — the year that the full impact of term limits kicked in — the ambitious young firebrand won a seat in the House. More than half the representatives elected that year were freshmen, and most were Republicans. After nearly 50 years in the wilderness, Republicans had a shot to regain the majority.
Jetton wasn’t your typical freshman. He boarded the bus for the ritual freshman state tour with a 100-page document in his hand that he immediately presented to Minority Leader Catherine Hanaway. It was a plan to retake the majority. He forecast which districts were winnable and which weren’t. He broke down how much money it would take to win them. And he offered a roadmap for how to do it: emphasize guns and abortion to woo socially conservative Democrats like those who had long supported Sen. Staples, and use tort reform to dry up corporate contributions to Democrats (and eventually, to drain the coffers of trial attorneys). Hanaway, no dummy, recognized native political talent when she saw it. She put Jetton in charge of candidate recruitment and training.
Jetton recognized something very important: The old-line Democrats like Staples were respected in their communities. These were communities in Northeast and Southeast Missouri full of people like Staples: farmers and small businessmen, laborers and tradesmen, mostly descended from the hardscrabble Virginians who had trekked across the hills long ago. They were Democrats because that’s what you were if you lived in Virginia before the Civil War. These yellow-dog Democrats coalesced with Democrats from St. Louis and Kansas City to provide durable statewide majorities for most of the 20th century, with Republican strength concentrated in the Bible Belt counties in Southwest Missouri.
The more retrograde the political debate, the more progressives left or never came in the first place. And the more progressives left or stayed away, the more conservative the electorate became, and the more reactionary the debate.
But by 2000, times were changing. As many scholars and journalists have chronicled, the national Democratic Party had, since the mid-1960s, increasingly lost touch with the old-line Democrats, who continued supporting local Democrats but had long since stopped backing them at the national level. Jetton intuitively understood that the way to these men’s political hearts was through their gun racks. And he knew that the way to their wives’ hearts’ was through the local preacher — that’s where the life issue came in. He established a clear partisan cleavage on cultural issues that, until then, had existed only in federal and statewide elections. In just two years, he went from minority-party backbencher to speaker pro tem.
In order to solidify this new cleavage, Jetton needed interest groups like the NRA, Missouri Right to Life (MRL), and the Missouri Family Network. They helped, but their support did not come cheap. The NRA, for instance, first demanded passage of concealed-carry legislation. But that proved insufficient, and the group ultimately spearheaded passage of a so-called “castle law” that even allows drivers to shoot (and kill) anyone who reaches into their vehicle.
MRL wanted to ban the procedure conservatives call partial-birth abortion. Then they wanted parental consent, and worked to make it so cumbersome for abortion clinics to operate that nearly every one in the state had to close. Missouri soon had some of the strictest abortion laws in the nation. Still not satisfied, MRL sought to criminalize scientific research on stem cells.
No hot-button cultural issue escaped attention. Laws prohibiting gay marriage were now deemed insufficient, so Republicans demanded a redundant constitutional amendment (which garnered 72 percent of the vote). It wasn’t enough to crack down on undocumented immigrants in the workplace. Republicans demanded a constitutional amendment making English the state’s official language, though there was no evidence anyone had ever conducted state business in any other language (until, of course, the day I filibustered that proposed amendment in French).
Read the rest of… Jeff Smith: What’s the Matter with Missouri?
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
What do you believe is the most significant exchange in a TV political debate show over the last 25 years?
As for me, there are a whole lot of answers that come to mind. Serious–in fact, grave–points being made by serous leaders. Important policy being heatedly debated by brilliant minds, new ideas breaking through and the like.
But I would select a very different moment that called out the most popular debate show of this period for what it –and copycat shows like it —really are: much more tv theater playing for ratings than genuine debate seeking out the truth. And the guest did so in a very human and effective way.
I spent a good chunk of my young life voraciously absorbing these tv political debate battles. But eventually I began to tire of them and feel a similar disappointment to when my grandmother explained to me at age 7 that tv wrestling wasn’t all real. I didn’t feel deceived. But did feel disappointed that I was manipulated and didn’t know it.
Give me Firing Line with William F Buckley, Jr. Give me Charlie Rose. Give me Dick Cavett. Give me—a conversation with a friend or family member over coffee that isn’t measured in decibels but is instead an honest exploring of an idea without fear of it leading to a conclusion that is inconsistent with the political narrative I embrace. Give me a conversation in which I learn something new rather than reinforce a comfortable but mundane position I don’t even fully embrace if I were honest with myself.
Give me, in short, an honest moment. Like the video clip below.
And please don’t let Jon Stewart’s politics cause you to miss the non-partisan point he makes. Yes, he does revert to some low brow tactics, but he brilliantly and successfully makes as important a point as any that face our citizenry today, in my view.
We are a divided nation today in part for substantive political policy ideas we disagree on– but also, I believe, in part because we all mimic what we see and have adopted the belief that to engage in political dialogue means we musta eviscerate our “opponents” arguments at all costs–including personal insults and clever debating tactics in order to “win” at any cost. But I can’t help believe that we are all really losing something more valuable as we engage in this corrosive pastime.
This is my choice for most important tv political debate moment in the past 25 years:
No Prix Fixe or full menu today — kitchen’s closed early. But I wanted to make a comment or two about the once-secret video of Mitt Romney that’s saturated the airwaves over the last 24 hours…
Please don’t be confused here. In no way am I defending Romney. Actually, I’m criticizing him for something which, I believe, is far worse than the socio-political view he espoused that night. Simply put, the man has no core principles. He’s a practical, numbers-oriented business man. And he’s perfectly suited for the board room or corner office. I’m not so sure about the Oval Office.
