Goodbye
Posted: December 8, 2011 Filed under: politics Leave a comment »I’m closing down this blog. My new personal blog is here, and you can continue to read my stuff over at ShortFormBlog and The Daily.
Nobody Debunks Larry Kudlow Like Larry Kudlow
Posted: June 17, 2011 Filed under: politics | Tags: bush tax cuts, taxes, tim pawlenty Leave a comment »Here’s Larry Kudlow, explaining why Tim Pawlenty’s tax-cutting proposal will be good for the economy:
Smaller government, lower tax rates, fewer economic regulations, and sound money were tried down through the 20th century by Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan. These policies worked. Over the past decade, however, the historic postwar U.S.-growth baseline of 3.4 percent per year has been dismantled. Through 2010, actual growth is nearly 20 percent — or close to $3 trillion — below the historical norm. Pawlenty is saying we have to do our best to close that humungous [sic] output and jobs gap.
Students of history will remember that, for most of the last decade, George W. Bush was president. And for all of the last decade, the tax cuts signed by Bush–which dropped marginal tax rates to historic lows–have been the law. So, if the slowing of the US economy coincided with an enormous tax cut, that would seem to imply the exact opposite of what Kudlow believes he’s arguing. Am I missing something?
Why Huntsman is Well-Positioned, In Three Words
Posted: June 13, 2011 Filed under: politics Leave a comment »
For someone who one day aspires to be president, Jon Huntsman is in a pretty enviable position, as almost every conceivable 2012 scenario ultimately works in his favor–even the scenarios in which he loses. This is how I see it:
1. He runs but fails to get the nomination. This is okay, because it positions him to be next-in-line to run in 2016 (or later, if Obama doesn’t get re-elected).
2. He runs, fails to get the nomination, but ends up as the eventual candidate’s VP. Huntsman would be a good counter-balance to someone like Bachmann or Cain. If he runs as VP but loses, that’s okay, because it positions him to be next-in-line in 2016. If he runs as VP and wins, that positions him to be next-in-line in 2020 (assuming the candidate at the top of the ticket ran for re-election–but now we’re getting ahead of ourselves).
3. He decides not to run. This probably won’t happen, but if he doesn’t run, it positions him to be…you can finish this sentence, right?
4. He runs, gets the nomination. A win for obvious reasons.
The old adage that Republicans nominate the next-in-line in presidential primaries is a little bit overstated, but there’s no denying that being seen as an early front-runner can help a candidate gain traction when they might not otherwise (there’s no way Romney would have gotten as far as he has this cycle, for instance, had he not been the runner-up last time around). Anyway, I can think of but one losing scenario for Huntsman:
1. He runs, does poorly in the primaries, and is passed on as VP. Let’s say Huntsman comes in sixth place in New Hampshire, one of his must-win states. This would make it a lot harder for primary voters to take him seriously in 2016. He has to at least make a respectable showing; otherwise, he’ll just be remembered as the moderate guy in Obama’s cabinet who entered the race late and never gained any traction.
Oddly enough, that last one might actually be the most likely: he’s currently pulling 1% or so in most polls.
Hats-Off
Posted: April 18, 2011 Filed under: journalism, politics Leave a comment »Karl Rove is, without question, the most skilled sophist I have ever seen.
Bill and Donald
Posted: April 17, 2011 Filed under: journalism, politics | Tags: 2012, bill o'reilly, birtherism, donald trump Leave a comment »Two individuals have attracted my interest as of late.
Donald Trump
After watching a Donald Trump interview all the way through, I’m starting to think that his political skills are underrated, whether or not he actually intends to run for President. Say what you want about him, but he comes across as confident, comfortable, and genuine (regardless of whether or not he’s being genuine). This isn’t something you can say of most elected officials. However, he also comes across as extremely arrogant, which might work if he mixed in some occasional humor and self-deprecation, but he doesn’t. Trump talks about policy with an almost annoyed confidence, as if he’s wasting his time explaining himself to you and only complete idiot would even consider disagreeing with him. That kind of thing doesn’t play too well on a national stage, and so while I could see him getting the nomination (it’d be a stretch, for sure), I don’t think he’d stand a chance against in the general. Ultimately, he’s just too negative.
That being said, if Donald Trump ever chooses to run for congress, I believe he would have an excellent chance.
Bill O’Reilly
One of the Trump interviews I watched was on Fox News, conducted by none other than Bill O’Reilly. My feelings on O’Reilly are pretty much in line with most liberals/moderates/thinking individuals. That being said, there are two occasions on which I’ve seen him adopt a tone of criticism toward the hard right. The first was in the aforementioned interview with Donald Trump; the second was in a segment he did debunking a few smears against Obama.
Now, what specifically surprises me about this is that, while O’Reilly occasionally adopts a moderate stance, he’s usually refrains from actively criticizing conservatives, and it’s even rarer that he actually defends Obama. This seems to me a significant trend, and I can think of two explanations for it. One would be that Fox News is beginning to fracture internally between the hard-right and the insane-right, and O’Reilly is choosing the more “moderate” side. The announcement that Glenn Beck’s show is ending, coupled with reports of internal frustration in the studio with Beck, make me wonder if there’s a little civil war going on. If there isn’t, perhaps O’Reilly perceives or anticipates one, and is acting in accordance to try and emerge as the more “reasoned” voice of the network.
That’s the optimistic scenario, as I’d like nothing more than to see O’Reilly become an integritous, trustworthy news anchor and commentator. The more cynical assessment is that O’Reilly’s actions are in complete accordance with Fox News’ role as the PR wing of the Republican Party. That is, the network perceives Trump, and birtherism and related memes, as posing a serious threat to the GOP’s national image, and are attempting to discredit =it. This seems be more likely, although it would baffle me as to why Fox would perceive birtherism as a threat, as opposed to any of the other countless bits of bullshit they’ve peddled over the years. Regardless, I’m curious whether this is indicative of any long-term change on O’Reilly’s part, or simply a fluke.
Larry David vs. Mitt Romney
Posted: March 29, 2011 Filed under: politics Leave a comment »I can watch “Curb Your Enthusiasm” without wincing. I can watch both versions of “The Office” without wincing, I can’t watch Mitt Romney speak without wincing.
T-Paw To The Rescue?
Posted: March 6, 2011 Filed under: politics | Tags: gop 12, haley barbour, mitt romney, newt gingrich, romneycare, sarah palin, tim pawlenty Leave a comment »
Lawrence O’Donnell made an interesting observation last night: out of the entire GOP presidential field, the only candidate without a major, potentially disqualifying flaw seems to be…Tim Pawlenty. This runs counter to conventional wisdom, which says that Pawlenty will never get anywhere because he’s too bland. But I think O’Donnell is onto something.
Every GOP candidate for President has at least one enormous downfall that would make either the primaries or the general very difficult. Mitt Romney has the health care bill he passed as Massachusetts Governor. Jon Huntsman has his background as a member of Obama’s administration. Newt Gingrich has his troubled marital history (as well as the pro-climate change commercial he did with Nancy Pelosi a few years back). Sarah Palin has…well, Sarah Palin. Haley Barbour doesn’t exactly have one singular Achilles Heel, but rather a few medium-sized problems (his lobbying on behalf of immigration reform, the race controversies he seems to wade into every week or so) that, when taken collectively, amount to a pretty intractable uphill climb.
But what does Pawlenty have? Well, he’s perceived as bland and uninteresting, and has relatively low name recognition. Okay. But this is an issue of demeanor, which is something that can be changed, as opposed to issues of track record, which cannot be changed. Pawlenty can take speech classes, hire image consultants, start saying controversial things, or any number of things to rehabilitate his “boring” image. Romney can’t un-pass Romneycare. Gingrich can’t go back in time and un-divorce his two cancer-stricken wives. Jon Huntsman can’t erase the last two years he spent as Obama’s Ambassador to China. And so on.
The possible exception to this is, oddly enough, Sarah Palin. She, like Pawlenty, has a problem of personality, not track record (although she’s done and said plenty of things that could come back to haunt her). She’s a polarizing figure, but I can’t think of one particular thing she’s done that she’ll have to constantly defend or explain.
But Palin’s personality problem is different than Pawlenty’s. The difficulty facing Palin isn’t that she has low approval ratings (although she does); it’s that she has low undecideds, meaning that most everyone knows and has made a decision about her. Pawlenty’s relatively low name recognition gives him a lot of room to grow (and in fact, as his name ID has risen, so have his approval ratings).
To be sure, I still only see Pawlenty winning as a sort of compromise candidate, a default choice rising from the ashes of everyone else after they either self-destruct or destroy each other. But he doesn’t have an albatross on his neck, and that’s undoubtedly an asset for a Republican this cycle.
The Republican “Response” To SOTU
Posted: January 26, 2011 Filed under: politics | Tags: paul ryan, sotu 1 Comment »I’ve always found it strange that we refer to the opposition party’s speech following the State of the Union as the “response,” since it’s written prior to the delivery of the speech it’s supposedly responding to. That being said, I tried to take Rep. Paul Ryan’s speech as seriously as I could. He had a tough act to follow, with President Obama having given what I would call one of the best speeches of his presidency.
“I’d like to share with you the principles that guide us,” Ryan said midway into the speech. Later, he stated that Republicans “hold to a set of simple convictions.” This language encapsulates well the theme of his response: Here’s the Republican ideology. Here’s what we value. Here are the philosophical differences between us and the Democrats. It’s understandable why Ryan, and indeed any Republican, would take this approach. The (purported) Republican platform of limited government and lower taxes sounds very appealing when presented as a set of values and abstracts.
Of course, when you get into the nitty-gritty of actual Republican policy, it’s not quite as attractive. People like the sound of small government, but they sure love big government when it’s giving them their Medicare checks. Tax cuts sounds like something everybody can get behind, but only when you don’t mention that it’s the millionaires who will be getting the vast majority of those cuts. And of course, everyone can agree that we should eliminate wasteful government spending, as long as it’s not Social Security, defense, education, police departments, military investments, or immigration enforcement that’s getting the axe.
“We believe a renewed commitment to limited government will unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs and opportunities for all people, of every background, to succeed and prosper.” Okay, but what specifically comprises this “renewed commitment?” What legislation will reflect that? I don’t know. Ryan doesn’t say. ”Spending cuts have to come first,” he says, without specifying a single spending cut that he’d support. Sure, I can get behind cutting unspecified wasteful spending; I’ll just assume that the programs I personally find most wasteful will be the ones getting cut.
In short, it’s easy for Republicans to talk about tax cuts and small government in the abstract, because they don’t have to get into the specifics that will undoubtedly turn many people off. I know this might just sound like a garden variety argument against the authenticity of Republican populism, and I think that’s appropriate, given that Ryan’s speech was just garden variety Republican rhetoric. I know he’s perceived to be a smart guy in the GOP, but there was nothing of substance or thought here.
On the upside, Ryan was far more civil with his rhetoric than your average Republican Congressperson these days. And I mean it when I say that this is a commendable thing, and really does make a difference. He didn’t speak in apoplectic terms (well, okay, he did say that our “day of reckoning…is around the corner,” but that was an exception). He appeared friendly and likable in a mostly unforced way (and was certainly more civil than his colleague, Paul Broun).
But it’s the substance of these things that matters, and the substance of Ryan’s speech was entirely unsubstantial. He spoke in terms of ideals and values, not policy or legislation. I don’t think I heard a single specific policy recommendation during the entire speech; saying Republicans will replace ObamaCare BaucusCare with “fiscally responsible, patient-centered reforms” doesn’t count as specific. It was just, like so much Republican rhetoric about the deficit, hot air.
“It’s no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high,” Ryan explained. Of course, that statement is entirely unqualified; how’s he measuring the size of government? The number of agencies? Percentage of employed workers in the public sector? Domestic spending over the last year? He doesn’t say, but it sounds like an impressive statistic.
The Optics of Palin’s Response
Posted: January 12, 2011 Filed under: politics | Tags: gabby giffords, sarah palin, v for vendetta Leave a comment »I don’t have much to say about the Gabby Giffords shooting that hasn’t already been said, but I’d like to focus on Sarah Palin’s full response to the shooting.
Putting aside the substance of her response, aren’t the optics very strange? Here you have an unelected yet enormously influential political leader accused, fairly or unfairly, of indirectly contributing to the attempted assassination of an elected official. Other than a very brief consolation issued the day of, this leader remains silent in the days following the shooting, despite calls for her to address the issue more formally, and respond to accusations that she played some sort of role. Finally, three days later, she issues…a video response?
Think about it: in the midst of a national tragedy, when politicians across the country are speaking out against violence on talk shows and book tours, and as the country itself is engaging in a national dialogue on the role that violent rhetoric plays in politics, this particular politician decides to stay holed up in her home state, geographically isolated from the rest of the country, and respond by video. Regardless of whether or not she wants to run for President, is this really a good way to connect with the American people?
Of course, a response in this medium is to be expected from Palin; it’s merely the logical extension of her current media strategy. And I think that’s why this new video strikes me as so weird: if anything, a sextuple homicide and the attempted assassination of a Congressperson should be enough to get Palin out of her shell. But it’s not. So what if there were a major terrorist attack on US soil, or some sort of cataclysmic natural disaster? Would Palin respond by staying in Alaska and issuing a video response?
I don’t necessarily mean to criticize her for this behavior. I just think it’s weird and slightly unsettling, because I can’t help but think of the totalitarian leader in “V For Vendetta,” who isolates himself from both the public and his fellow politicians, and only speaks via a large video feed focused squarely on his face.
Hi, I’m Back (Sort Of)
Posted: January 12, 2011 Filed under: administrative Leave a comment »Hello, friends. I’ve decided that, between my day job, my gig at ShortFormBlog, a few other ventures and my social life, I don’t have it in my to commit to updating this blog regularly. However, I still find that I regularly have a lot to say about what’s going on in the political world, so I’m going to resume posting here, albeit irregularly. There will be no regular posting schedule, but I’ll let y’all know whenever I find the time to throw something up here. Thanks for sticking with me.
