Archive
Tag "politics"

The zen-like calm…

He could have done a little better defending the actual “issue,” but still a very good performance.

Read More

He is a closet-socialist.  He said redistribution of wealth, right here!

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy and the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples…but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted and I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused. I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that. [...]

You know, maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way. Just look at the very rare examples where during the desegregation era, the court was willing to, for example, order changes that cost money to a local school district and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially administrative and take a lot of time. The court is not very good at it and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that as a practical matter, our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.

See!  He’s a socialist!  He said redistribution like 5 times!  And he was talking about crazy redistributive things like funding schools in poor districts with some of other people’s money!  Let those poor folks pay for their own schools, dammit!  I want my school in my rich neighborhood to have a turf football field and chandeliers, while those lazy poor kids learn math without math books!  But worst of all, he’s arguing…against(?)…judicial activism.  And he wants us to enact these socialist policies through…um…democratic institutions…like the legislature…which we kind of already did…a little…whatever.  He’s still a socialist!

Btw, on a more serious note, this interview displays the more serious side of Obama-as-constitutional-law-scholar, which is a whole side of him that you rarely see on the campaign trail (it’s elitist to know a lot about constitutional law).  As a law junkie, I love it.  I mean, can you imagine Bush or McCain speaking substantively about the role of the Warren Court in the segregation era?  Yeah.  Thought so.

Read More

Let’s get to work.

Read More

I was at a bakery today doing some cake testing for my wedding, and they had these cookies with Obama / McCain on them. The baker went on to tell me that they are participating in an unscientific poll for the 2008 presidential election by selling cookies with the candidates on them. For every cookie purchased, they are counting that as 1 vote for that candidate.

While we were in there some lady walked in and purchased 4 McCain cookies. It was officially on at that point.

I’ll try and post the final results in the next couple of weeks.

Read More

So when I first heard Scott McClellan had endorsed Barack Obama, my first reaction was “figures.” I zipped right by it and didn’t think about it again all day. And then I came home, turned on CNN, and watched a few minutes (that’s all I could stand) of Larry King. McClellan was on as an Obama “supporter,” and I was fairly impressed. So then I began to rethink this endorsement a little.

Scott McClellan is, being a former Bush Press Secretary, the kind of guy who knows how to handle the media. He knows how to frame. He knows how to duck and pivot. But most of all, he knows how conservatives think and how they attack. This is a guy who could potentially become a very effective talking-head for Obama. I mean, he was cutting the shit right out of everything that was thrown at him. So this could actually end up being something of real value to Obama.

Read More

John McCain is putting all of his chips on Pennsylvania.

Consider that for a moment.  It displays, in plain sight, how far ahead we are right now.  Pennsylvania has not gone red in the past two decades, and here’s how the Pollster.com average looks right now:

That’s pretty steep.  So what the hell is John McCain thinking?  Well, he’s thinking this:

“There’s a tendency in Pennsylvania for the polls to change dramatically in the final days,” says John Brabender, a top Republican political consultant based in Pittsburgh. “In the governor’s race in 2002, there were polls just a few days out showing [Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell] with a 25-point lead and he ended up losing 50 of 67 counties and won by nine points.”

So it’s a combination of thinking the polls are wrong, and banking on some late movement for McCain, and if it were any other state, I would scoff and tell them to keep dreaming.  But there’s two things that bother me about Pennsylvania.  The first is the Bradley effect.  Now I know the Nate Silver has written over, and over, and over again about this, but I always felt that if the Bradley effect were to still exist, it would show up in either Michigan or Pennsylvania.  So that’s that.

The other is that Pennsylvania is critical for Obama’s electoral math.  The path of least resistance to 270 for Obama was always Kerry states + NM + IA + CO/VA.  Losing Pennsylvania throws a giant wrench into all of that, by dropping out a very critical 21 EVs.  Obama would then need to pick up either OH, FL, NV+VA, or NV+NC.  Now, none of these are impossible, or even improbable, but it definitely makes things more difficult when you have to win NM, IA, CO, NV, and VA all on the same night.

Basically what I’m trying to say is, we cannot lose Pennsylvania; therefore, we must not get complacent, especially when the competition is moving into a full court press.  I urge all of you that are close to PA to make a trip.  Remember how fun it was last time?

Read More

From Politico:

As part of a plan to reinvigorate his flagging campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is considering additional economic measures aimed directly at the middle class that are likely to be rolled out this week, campaign officials said.

Among the measures being considered are tax cuts – perhaps temporary – for capital gains and dividends, the officials said.

Hilzoy slams it:

Because what everyone is really worried about right now is how they’ll manage to pay the taxes on their massive capital gains.

Grasping in the dark…

Read More

This is a big one.  It has found its way into just about every conservative’s talking point repertoire, swiftly followed by the story of “coddling” by Democrats who “blocked” oversight.  This is another one that I don’t have to do much work on, because a news org has rightfully done its job.  From McClatchy:

As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that’s what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They’ve specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie’s and Freddie’s financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren’t true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Check out the article for a point by point breakdown.  If you had to pick one fact to remember, then make it this one:

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Kind of hard to be the sole driver of the crisis when you’re not even the major player…

Read More

Publius wrote a really good post on the fall of the GOP, and possibly paths forward for the beleagered party.  Here’s a taste:

In short, the GOP has made an unholy alliance with the mob — and now the long-term debt is coming due. And they deserve it. After all, it’s not that the GOP establishment merely tolerated them, or treated them like the crazy uncle you basically nod at but ignore. They’ve been riling them up — feeding the hate. They’ve based campaigns on things like gay marriage and immigration and terrorist appeasing. They go on the Rush Limbaugh show, and validate his venom. They tell people who don’t have time to learn otherwise things like giving mortgages to poor minority families caused the housing crisis (Daniel Gross has the appropriate response to that — essentially, “it’s not risky to lend to minority families, it’s risky to lend to rich white people.”)

And you know, it sort of makes sense. If I thought Obama was a Muslim terrorist communist committing perpetual voter fraud, I might get mad too at the prospect of an Obama presidency. And so that’s what you have — a lot of angry, proudly uninformed conservatives out there. And they’re not going away.

Like Mickey Mouse’s brooms in the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, they were summoned for a specific purpose, but are now out of control. They’re like a armed heat-seeking missile gone astray in the water.

Check out the whole thing.

Read More

Read More

The report’s out:

Finding Number One

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides

The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

Here’s the AP’s lede:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — A legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state’s public safety commissioner. The investigative report concludes that a family grudge wasn’t the sole reason for firing Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan but says it likely was a contributing factor.

Palin, however continues to lie.

Gov. Sarah Palin again insisted on Saturday that an investigation by Alaska lawmakers into the firing of her former brother-in-law found “no unlawful or unethical activity on my part,” and added that “there was no abuse of authority at all in trying to get Officer Wooten fired.” (The report did in fact conclude that she had abused the power of the governor’s office.)

So here’s the bottom line.  Palin did something unethical, but not illegal.  Watch conservatives stress the latter, while everyone else with a conscience stresses the former.

Btw, I’m watching Fox News as I type this, and they just covered the story, and it’s just unbelievable to me that anyone can think that this channel is unbiased.  Question from anchor: “So is this thing over, or are we going to have people still trying to say that she abused her power?”  Correspondent: “I think this is effectively over, because people want to talk about real issues like the economy at this point.”

Ridiculous.

Update:

BarbinMD points out this gem:

The McCain/Palin ticket is the first in American history in which both candidates were found to have violated ethics standards before a national election.

Gotta love those reformers…

Read More

McCain finally tries to tame the mob:

I still maintain that McCain wasn’t really going for this angle when he started his Ayers attacks.  I really do feel he was going for the leftist-hippie-America-hater attack, not the scary-secret-muslim-foreigner attack.  It’s just not John McCain to push that.  Look, John McCain has definitely been a downright sleazeball this entire campaign, but one thing has always remained certain:  John McCain thinks John McCain is a decent, honorable man.  He must be able to rationalize to himself that he’s not doing anything wrong.  He needs to be able to reconcile with himself so that he can look at himself in the mirror.  And there’s just no amount of rationalizing (and trust me, I know; my brother is masterful at it) that can make the Obama-is-a-scary-arab-terrorist attack OK.

Now, having said that, John McCain definitely unleashed a monster here, and he did very little to stop it from taking shape.  For that he should be rightly ridiculed.  From the word “Terrorist” John McCain should have done something.  Instead, he let these feelings foment into a hateful mob, which has legitimately scared me.  And if you thing I’m being a little alarmist, check out the story of Yitzhak Rabin.

The fact of the matter is, John McCain let this go on for way too long.  Now he’s finally doing something about it.  It’s about time.

Read More

Jed Report releases another great one:

[Via Sullivan]

Read More

Keep your eyes peeled.  Here’s a taste from the NYT:

By now, the outlines of the matter have been widely reported. Mr. Monegan believes he was ousted because he would not bow to pressure to dismiss Trooper Wooten. The Alaska Legislature is investigating the firing and whether the governor abused the powers of her office to pursue a personal vendetta. Its report is due Friday.

Ms. Palin has denied that anyone told Mr. Monegan to dismiss Trooper Wooten, or that the commissioner’s ouster had anything to do with him. But an examination of the case, based on interviews with Mr. Monegan and several top aides, indicates that, to a far greater degree than was previously known, the governor, her husband and her administration pressed the commissioner and his staff to get Trooper Wooten off the force, though without directly ordering it.

Peace out, Ayers.  Hello, Monegan and Wooten.

Read More

So, I was wrong.  McCain doesn’t seem to be dropping Ayers from the portfolio:

Read More