I’m always bemused by this type of analysis of the 2008 election from the right. In the piece Dan Riehl tries to argue the case that Palin was mismanaged by the McCain campaign, and as if they had only let Sarah be Sarah she might have saved the effort.

Bull.

While Palin energized some of the conservative base in a way McCain never could, she also solidified in the minds of many independents the idea that it would be insane to have John McCain anywhere near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (and for any liberals not energized already by the Obama campaign, Palin had a Bush-style effect in kicking our butts into gear — she still has this effect). The minute Palin was outside of the stage-managed world of the convention, it became clear just how stupid she was, and the sort of Jerry Springer style drama she had lived in in Alaska. Her fumbling of the easiest questions asked of a presidential or vice presidential candidate – seriously, how hard charging is a question about what newspapers and magazines you read – reinforced earlier frames from the Obama campaign about McCain’s unsuitability for the Presidency.

People were inclined not to vote for John McCain, and for any voters out there whose opinions could be swayed, the choice of Palin became a concrete example of why they shouldn’t. They were willing to take the gamble on Obama, because the chaos of McCain/Palin was far too scary.

But conservatives now hold up Sarah Palin the way they hold up conservatism. We are now told that our previous, very conservative president didn’t fail due to his conservatism. Conservatism is never at fault. And in their eyes neither is Sarah Palin. Her incompetent answers, her wacky positions on policy, her inability to engage on any level resembling a serious public leader, in their eyes is not a flaw of any sort. For them, America failed Palin, not the other way around.

And if she runs in 2012 and the inevitable landslide loss for her comes, America will have no doubt failed Sarah Palin again. Thank God.

UPDATE: As is if to prove my point, Palin argues that to crack down on a nuclear Iran we have to do something about “Iraq”.

UPDATE:
NY-23: “The first Dem Congressman since before electricity was invented.”
— Jaim

No matter how hard I try. You’re so unpredictable.

Virginia: Creigh Deeds sucked it, hard. Deeds did his damndest to discourage the voters that turned out for Obama last year while McDonnell ran a good campaign. My guess is this election was far more about traditional NoVa gripes about things like traffic in addition to the economy, but it remains to be seen. In 2012, I would still bet on Virginia to go Democratic, however.

New Jersey: This one surprised me, I thought Jersey would pull this out again. But while a Republican win there is a legit good win for them, indications are this was a corruption plus bad economy play again. New Jersey isn’t about to go South Carolina on us. Christie will probably end up like Bob Ehrlich did in Maryland: A republican goofball in a Democratic state that doesn’t much listen to him.

Maine Marriage: This one is still up in the air, but it probably says that at some point we need to go at the gay marriage issue from the federal level, because the states keep going back and forth on it. I don’t see that happening under President Obama or this congress, however. This is a long fight.

NY-23: Oh, snap. TEABAG FAIL. As I write this, Fox is calling it for the Democrat Owens, and from what I read that’s likely to hold up. But for this race to be even close is a big failure for the conservative movement, even more so than for the Republican party. This is a +30% seat they should win easily, but they were so damned concerned about purity control they kicked themselves in the nuts. As I said previously, when Dems were out of power we encouraged Dems to show some gumption but we also knew that in some areas you had to take the stakes of the tent and expand them to their near-breaking point. Thats how parties build majorities. Then you have the latitude to whittle down your ideology.

Hoffman had the support of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Fred Thompson, and the entire Teabag movement. At best he is in a tight race, and a likely loss.

The much vaunted Tea Party movement probably just increased Nancy Pelosi’s power by one.

OVERALL: A setback at the gubernatorial level for Democrats, you always want governors to be the local vanguards of enacting progressive change. I don’t think this is any sort of serious repudiation of President Obama, although the resources he put in backing Corzine makes the slightest of blemishes. The probable loss in Maine is also a pushback on the larger progressive movement, leaving the issue of gay marriage still up in the air (also makes me think the movement should follow the civil rights folks and also work through the courts instead of costly referendums).

NY-23 is egg in the eye of the teabag movement and especially con leaders like Sarah Palin. I do hope that this does not dissuade them from picking off viable Republican candidates squishy RINO moderate Democrat-lite candidates in order to help elect Democrats crush far left Democrat-party ideologues.

Lesson for Dems: Put up candidates with guts. Deeds ran a squish campaign and got squish results. He opposed cap and trade and said he would opt out of the public option. Way to suppress the base vote, dude. Also, I love negative ads more than most, but I don’t remember any from him I love negative ads more than most, but I don’t remember any positive ads from him*. Try that.

*(I miswrote this sentence, initially. I think Deeds did not run enough positive ads about himself to balance out the warranted negative ads vs. McDonnell)

President Obama is overwhelmingly popular in every region of the country except for the south. I am surely this is all entirely due to his economic policies and his radical social agenda and not any other thing at all, certainly not the color of his skin no way sir.

Dede Scozzafava’s decision to endorse the Democrat and not the far-right Conservative party candidate in NY-23 will probably not help Bill Owens, who was a long shot to win a +30 Republican seat. But it tells you what you need to know about the current Republican party.

They are purging those who do not march in lockstep with their core identity, and while in some instances there is is the need for some idealogical cohesion (witness the ongoing ill-feelings between moderate and progressive Dems like myself versus the conservative Democrats), the Republicans don’t have the elasticity the Dems currently do. As I said numerous times before electoral success in 2006 and 2008, first you get the majority then you go for a more cohesive idealogical movement. The Democrats have the kind of wiggle room right now where if we lost some of those conservative Dems in the House, it would probably produce a net improvement in the legislation the body produces — and the leadership would remain the same.

The Republicans and the conservative movement, led by such bright bulbs as Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, are whittling down a base that already is the minority of Americans. In a time where American parties should be expanding the GOP is contracting. They show no interest in moderation, racial inclusivity, or movement on gender issues.

In the past I and other progressives supported candidates that in normal circumstances would make us roll our eyes. Why? For a change, the left was playing the long game. Every Stephanie Herseth or Heath Shuler you elected was one step closer to a Speaker Pelosi. Every Bob Casey was a step towards Leader Reid (and while the outcome of that fight is less than ideal, Reid is still preferable to the Mitch McConnells of the world).

Like every one of their “policy” positions, conservatives are supporting the quick fix. Sure, purging the party feels good to them, but a the end of the day they just push more away.

Which can only mean one thing: Sarah Palin 2012.

Please?

She threatens their claim to the moral high ground and their assertion that women voters belong to the Left.

Well, let’s go to the tape.

In 2008, women voters went for Obama over McCain by a margin of 56%-43%.

In 2004, an election Democrats lost, Kerry beat Bush with women by 51% to 48%.

In 2000, women preferred Gore 54% to 43% over Bush.

It’s not a baseless claim to say women voters are heavily favor of a liberal Democratic agenda – the facts make it clear. If left to women, our last three presidential elections would have been relatively easy wins for the Democrats (and not just one out of those three). But then again, liberals think and practice the principle that the sexes are actually equal.

“I choose to fight. Stand and fight, stand and fight!”
– John McCain

Conservatives had it easy for several decades. The Democratic left of the ’70s and ’80s was in full retreat, convinced by the Reagan revolution that they had no serious place in the American political spectrum. Occasionally there were flashpoints, like Ted Kennedy being so mean to Robert Bork, or for other Democrats not rolling over for the nomination of Clarence Thomas — who retreated into identity politics when his sexual harassment was revealed.

But those were exceptions. Cons set the parameters of the discussion, they said the worst they could about the left and the left was mute, foolishly assuming that the mainstream media might do their jobs and debunk the lies that pass for discourse on the right. Of course that didn’t happen.

We had a moment of false hope when Clinton ran for president, as the war room was conceived of to fight back versus the smear machine – but at best it neutralized elements of it. The right was still able to impeach Clinton and the mainstream press just kept on carrying the water.

Then came the Bush presidency, 9/11, and the Iraq War. At that moment, the Democratic party essentially ceased to exist for all intents and purposes. They went along with the entire Bush program with nary a protest. It wasn’t until the blogosphere came along and began to fill the coffers of pols who refused to back down like Howard Dean did the left regain it’s capacity to fight – the same spirit that fought against racism and sexism in some of the seminal battles of the American story.

Now we’ve got a Democratic administration who has simply pushed back against the day-in-day-out smears of Fox News, as well as a congressman who is telling the basic truths of the GOP’s non-plan for health care reform. For this, the mainstream press rushes to Fox’s defense, while the Republican noise machine expresses OUTRAGE that a Democrat would do to them what they’ve done for the last 20+ years.

Oooooh, scary.

Here’s hoping this fighting spirit becomes the natural position of the left. No more cowering, go toe to toe. Don’t turn off what offends you, but refute it and yell it from the highest mountain. When they punch you in the gut, you rhetorically beat them in the face until they can’t stand anymore.

I chose to fight.

There’s an interesting layout here in the WSJ that goes contrary to the current narrative. Net year is likely to hinge politically on the employment/economic outlook. I would guess that we’ll start seriously seeing our way out in the next six months, and that will help the Dems and the President.

If anything my gut tells me the Dems will lose a few seats next year, but nothing to endanger control of both chambers.

You should also know that I am usually wrong about these things.

Actually, I don’t know anything about Greek politics (I don’t even like gyros). I don’t know if this is a move to the left or right, really. And even if it is, its generally not a move that maps onto our right-left paradigm (even our liberal party is quite to the right of Europe).

Next year, you’ll probably see a lot of this with the likely victory of the Conservatives in the UK. Of course, UK conservatives make Democrats look like Birchers. Don’t expect an end to the NHS or any other British social programs. At best, they’ll be tougher on immigration and “knife crime”.

One way — perhaps the best way — to demonstrate someone’s lack of toughness or strength is to attack them and show they are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves — thus the rough slang I used above. And that I think is a big part of what is happening here. Someone who can’t or won’t defend themselves certainly isn’t someone you can depend upon to defend you.

This has traditionally been a way for Republicans to attack Democrats, but while it remains to be seen how the string plays out, its also a good way to look at how President Obama is trying to set up the GOP via his speech last night.

Republicans have an inane ability to create noise over made up things, ie. “lipstick on a pig” or “death panels”. But in combat versus the President they seem to do pretty poorly when pressed into combat in the reality based community.

Last night the President said directly to the Republicans that he’s willing to work with them on these issues as long as they check the crazy at the door and come at the issues realistically. As we’ve seen for the last, oh, 40 years the GOP is tragically incapable of doing so. In fact, their base – unlike the liberal base – rewards them in proportion to how stupid they are. The Republicans still don’t see how acting the fool doesn’t work with the rest of normal America (they don’t laugh people like Sarah Palin out of the room, they think she’s a legit contender for not for assistant dog catcher but for the presidency).

That gives the President room to tell America “sensible solutions to grand national problems sold here”. And right about now America is well aware that we have some big national problems that need fixing.

*SLAP*

All part of the game

The federal government is already spending billions for Pratt & Whitney to develop engines for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Why spend billions more for General Electric to do the same?

‘The alternate engine not only qualifies as procedural pork, it is also a waste of money on the merits,’ Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said in July in announcing an advertising campaign.

But when a video was posted on YouTube, it showed that it was paid for by GE’s competitor in the long-running, $100 billion war over the F-35 engine: Pratt & Whitney.

(via)

The host of an upcoming fundraiser for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Daniel Mongiardo has told potential contributors that their donation will buy access to the Lt. Governor and Governor.

In an e-mail to potential donors, businessman Ray Hardebeck of Covington said individuals should give $1,000 if they want ‘access or have special needs that need to be discussed with the Governor and Lt. Governor.’

I don’t think public financing of elections is really workable, but stories like this make me reconsider my position.

Indeed, activists made trouble in 2005 by asking Congressmen tough questions about policy. Activists are making trouble now by shouting Congressmen down so they can’t be heard.

It’s exactly the same thing, right?

Seriously, I’ve been searching through news reports on the Social Security town halls, and I can’t find any examples of the kind of behavior we’re seeing now. Yes, there were noisy demonstrations — but they were outside the events. That was even true during the first month or two, when Republicans actually tried having open town halls. Congressmen were very upset by the reception they received, but not, at least according to any of the report I can find, because opponents were disruptive — crowds booed lines they didn’t like, but that was about it.”

If you look at the videos of these meetings, its not like they disagree with what the members of congress say – they don’t want them to say anything at all. They’re like the teabaggers, they’re just pissed they lost the election last year.

Ezra Klein

In my chat today, a reader asked me to respond to Megan McArdle’s lengthy case against national health insurance. The problem is that, well, there’s not a lot to specifically respond to. In 1,600 words, she doesn’t muster a single link to a study or argument, nor a single number that she didn’t make up (what numbers do exist come in the form of thought experiments and assumptions). Megan’s argument against national health insurance boils down to a visceral hatred of the government.

If you’ve ever taken the time to watch congressional activity on C-SPAN, particularly in the House, you see this a lot. There are people, Democrats, talking about important things of serious significance. I don’t even necessarily agree with these people all the time, but there’s no disputing the fact that they’re talking about an issue, and then a conservative Republican will get his or her turn at the microphone and begin a conversation about how Barack Obama has enlisted a legion of robots to drain us of our blood. They say these things, and then thanks to the rules of decorum in congress the other side can’t bust out laughing or scream “what the fuck”. They just have to go back to what they were discussing. On earth.

My prediction so far is that the GOP will pick up a few seats in the House next year, but nothing to seriously affect the balance of power. What people – especially on the right – fail to notice, regularly, is that a good portion of dissatisfaction with congress comes from many in the electorate believing it isn’t being progressive enough and not from some misplaced teabaggery.

Flashback

Patrick Ruffini 9/18/2008: “Yes, Obama Turning Down Public Financing is Still an Epic Mistake”

10/18/08: Obama Shatters Fundraising Record

Conservative bloggers and commenters like to insist that I cry racism all the time, and I’m pretty sure that part of that is due to my trademark bluntness (if someone’s being racist, I say so). So be it. They’re wrong on everything else, why stop now?

One of the continuing themes we’re seeing with the conservative movement’s attempts to recover from the last two elections is a search for leadership. The problem is that structurally conservatism has a strong tendency to gravitate towards the known – a mindset that’s part and parcel of an ideological movement that thinks America’s best days were in 1950.

As such, the new leadership of the GOP looks a lot like the old leadership – Gingrich, Limbaugh, DeLay, etc. Add to that I guess Ralph Reed who wants to start up the old Christian Coalition in some fashion. Of course, Ralph’s problem is that he left the Coalition in disgrace to the point where they lost their non-profit status and he got entangled with now-jailed conservative lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Oh, he also had a disastrous run for Lt. Governor.

Political parties in America tend to have their success when they face down what ailed them and come up with fresh voices and fresh takes on the issues. It could be the Reagan revolution, Clinton triangulation, Dean’s 50 state strategy, or some other fundamental change in how the party operates but the right seems to be locked in to retread action. Even George W. Bush tried for a while to at least dress up old school conservatism in the cloak of “compassion”. Sarah Palin isn’t subtle enough to do that with her clear desire to whip up the tired old culture war of us vs them.

Unlucky for us, conservatism failed America again under the last president, but unlucky for them as a movement they think the blind are the perfect navigators for the blind.

Yay, Politico named you to a perfectly arbitrary list! Look, I don’t have any serious problems with Rep. Edwards and she has so far demonstrated the kind of values I want to see in my Rep. that we weren’t seeing in Al Wynn. But trumpeting insidery lists from Politico is the path to faildom. Politico, in the larger sense of people in congress working for us, does not matter one bit. In fact, its an impediment to getting things done in congress thanks to the noise it shoots out.

Members of congress shouldn’t be trumpeting it when Politico lauds them. In fact, the less Politico is involved in congress, the better for democracy.