-
sponsorship
Obama aide Anita Dunn, who started the White House war against Fox, is leaving her post. ... Meanwhile, Obama will give an interview to Fox's Major Garrett. ... Did Fox win? ... Or was it an October fundraising ploy all along? ... If Obama won, his communications shop certainly knows how to magnanimously make it look like he lost. ... Is that what Sun Tzu would do? ... 6:20 P.M.
____________________________
BriarPatch.org: From ABC's Note:
MoveOn.org is launching a round of TV ads this week targeting Democratic House members who voted against the health care bill over the weekend.
Thirty-nine Democrats voted against the bill, though MoveOn is starting by targeting only six fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats: Rep. Mike Ross, R-Ala.; Rep. Jason Atlmire, D-Pa.; Rep. Glenn Nye, D-Va.; Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va.; Rep. Larry Kissell, D-N.C..; and Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C. ...[snip]
A spokesman for the group said MoveOn plans to spend $500,000 on the ads, which come as liberals seek to pressure moderate Democrats in the Senate to support President Obama in his quest for health care reform.
Alert reader T. emails:
If you were a Democratic House Member from a relatively conservative district (especially if you've already taken a bad vote on cap and trade) how much would you pay MoveOn to come into your district and publicize your vote where you stood up to Pelosi and Obama on government-run health care?
True. But doesn't MoveOn know this? They still get to look tough, and raise money. Conservative Dems get to triangulate. It's win-win. ... 7:41 P.M.
___________________________
A very pretty mid-50s FIAT with a body by the late Elio Zagato. Note subtle grille graphics. ... 7:41 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
TTAC asks: Will today's recyclable cars fall apart? ... 5:36 P.M.
___________________________
Are you as sophisticated as Politico? Spot the weak point in Carrie Budoff Brown's optimistic health care reform report:
Reid also said he will deliver a final bill to the president by Christmas, meeting the White House deadline.
"We sure hope so," Reid said.
2:18 P.M.
___________________________
"Abortion Dispute Could Derail Health Bill": Do you really think an abortion dispute will derail the massive health bill? Me neither. I think if the Democrats are scared to pass the health bill they will let an abortion dispute derail the massive health bill. If they aren't too scared, the abortion issue can be finessed with a variety of possible compromises. (Sample: The Stupak Amendment with an opt-out for states that vote explicitly to allow private insurance premiums (on federally subsidized policies) to fund abortions.)
That goes for all the allegedly difficult House/Senate sticking points. Timothy Noah lists four, in addition to abortion: the public option, the government's ability to negotiate drug prices, the size of the lower-income subsidies, the tax that will pay for it all. I'm not impressed. It would take a conscientious conference committee, working in secret, maybe, what, two days to split the difference on most of them? Even if differences can't be split, they can be finessed, or kicked down the road. And even if that's impossible--well,nobody really believes that the left is going to sabotage a once-in-a-lifetime chance at health care reform over abortion, or the "robustness" of the public option, or the ability of illegal immigrants to get insurance.
The problem facing health care reform, as Dick Morris and others have been arguing for months, isn't these tediously subtle legislative complications. They're what we see on the surface. The problem is the crude, primal politics underneath them--the legislature's' "id." It's the fear, among power-lusting Democratic Congresspersons, that if they vote for health care they won't be Congresspersons much past November, 2010 (or that even if they win, they will no longer be in the majority party). They're not worried about Cadillac plans. They're worried about castration.
Note that Obama's House pep talk, according to John Dickerson, focused on the primal politics:
Before the House vote last Saturday, Obama made two key political points to Democratic House members. First, they needed to vote for health care because it would motivate the party base in 2010. Second, those who think they can run away from the president by voting against his signature legislative effort are kidding themselves. The president believes that a key lesson of the Republican rout of Democrats in 1994 was that Democrats who oppose their president can never get far enough away to survive politically. So if you're going to get stuck defending the president, you should get behind his plan and benefit from the political cover he'll work to give those who support him.
Of course, if the fate of health reform in fact turns on such non-wonk, non-policy analysis, reform supporters couldn't help but notice at least two danger signs:
1) The size of the House majority. 220-215 votes. It's hard to believe it was this close--that Pelosi didn't have more votes she could have called on in a pinch. But if (as reported) she really needed to agree to the anti-choice Stupak amendment in order to get past 218, maybe she did pull out nearly all the stops. If so, yikes! The thinness of Pelosi's House majority is a very bad sign--not because it shows the House doesn't have any room to negotiate with the Senate. (If the bill moves to the right by, say, dropping the public option, they'll cave.) It's a bad sign because it shows that even in the heavily Democratic, disciplined, liberal House the primal drive for health care reform just isn't that high. There is no room for more fear.
2) "[Y]ou should get behind his plan and benefit from the from the political cover he'll work to give those who support him," Dickerson has Obama saying. You mean like the cover he gave Jon Corzine in New Jersey? ...
Update: Matt Yglesias clarifies some of the Kabuki--
[I]nsofar as there are members who don’t want to take the political risk of voting “yes” on a comprehensive health care reform bill, but also don’t want to be seen as spiking the initiative, then developing a hard line position on abortion can be convenient. Like say Ben Nelson and Bob Casey say they can’t vote for health care unless it contains Stupak language, and then Joe Lieberman (Freedom of Choice Act cosponsor!) and Olympia Snowe say they can’t vote for health care unless it doesn’t contain Stupak language. Well, then health care dies. And yet nobody has to take the blame for having killed it if a constituent gets mad. [E.A.]
It's also true that if you don't want to take the political risk of voting "yes" on a comprehensive health care reform bill and also don't want to take the political risk of developing a hard line position on abortion then it's in your interest that others, like Ben Nelson, develop that hard line position and cause a train wreck. You can't be blamed, of course. You supported health care! You were nowhere near the scene of the crash! It just kind of happened. Terrible thing, just terrible. ... But maybe you will quietly thank Nelson in your prayers. ... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of course, was accused of engineering just this kind of train wreck on "comprehensive immigration reform" in 2007. ... 2:23 A.M.
___________________________
Is it an accident that Rep. Alan Grayson, despite his respectable resume, turned into a flamboyant hey-look-at-me bombthrower after hiring famously intemperate blogger Matt Stoller as "policy adviser"? (Here's Stoller displaying his laid back personality on bloggingheads.tv.) The NYT, which puzzled on Grayson's transition a week ago, missed this angle. ... Or was Grayson intemperate before--and that's why he hired Stoller (and why Stoller went to work for him)? Hard to see which way causality runs. Could run in all directions, of course. A vicious circle of hotheadedness. ... 1:48 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Canary Ejects from Coal Mine: Robert Reich sure seems to be saying that Obama should have focused on the economy and put off health care reform:
a) Reich's test of success or failure seems to be whether "the Democrats lose one or both houses of Congress in the midterms." His analysis of why this might happen (benefits of health plan won't be felt, lack of jobs will) appears sound. But if Obama had focused on the economy, what measures, exactly, could he have taken to avoid a midterm massacre? A larger stimulus? Obama got as big a stimulus as he could last spring, no? Maybe Reich thinks Obama could have gotten a second tranche earlier this fall if he'd delayed health care. But Reich more or less admits that now it's too late for any measure to have a big impact before the election. So why not get health care reform? The way things are going, it's not like Dems will have another chance in 2011.
b) Reich's clearly still miffed that President Clinton rejected his stimulus plans in early 1993, choosing instead to lower the budget deficit and interest rates. As a result, Reich declares, "the Clinton years produced few if any major social reforms." Hmm. I can think of one. Actually, two and a half (work-oriented welfare reform coupled with the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and medical care for poor children). Even if Reich perversely won't count that as a "social reform," Clinton's rejection of Reich's advice was followed by the longest economic expansion in our history. The combination lowered the child poverty rate from 22% to 16%. Never trust content from Robert Reich.
c) You could say it's a bad sign for Obama if Reich has ejected from the health care express. On the other hand, if there were a theatrical, left-cultivating, personal-branding semi-economist who was going to get attention for himself by jumping ship, it would be Robert Reich. He's sort of a canary in the coal mine in this respect. The canary has jumped! But at this point it's only the canary. ... Any metaphors left? [Shark-ed Well, Reich's chances of returning to power in an Obama administration are now close to zero. Maybe he's jumped that too. ... ] 9:01 P.M.
___________________________
Allthumbsucking: From WaPo reporter Michael Shear's exceptionally gauzy and correct "analysis" of Obama's "challenges"--including handling the aftermath of the Ft. Hood mass shooting:
And the incident -- clearly out of Obama's control -- comes as the president appears nearing a decision to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan. Explaining that decision to the public will be a critical job for Obama during the next several months, and Hasan's actions can only make that more difficult. [E.A.]
"Only"? Really? If Obama wants to send thousands more troops to bottle up radical Islamic terrorists who would like to bring violence to America, it seems as if this violent incident might make explaining it easier, no? ... P.S.: I'm not saying it necessarily makes it righter--just easier to win support for. ... 9:01 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
The Obama Administration will find a way to blow health care reform yet. Mere Rhetoric notes a report that Obama aides plan to address Tuesday's election defeats by resurrecting Orszagism, the doctrine that health care reform is the way to control the deficit because it will enable the government to "bend the cost curve" down without compromising care. From Josh Gerstein:
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insisted Wednesday that the White House plans no changes whatsoever in its legislative strategy or agenda as a result of this week’s contests. However, a White House aide told ABC that the administration will seek to bolster moderates by returning to an argument that health care reform will curb the deficit—a talking point Obama aides have de-emphasized in recent months in favor of a focus on making the insurance system more secure and predictable. [E.A.]
If I recall, the White House had"de-emphasized" Orszagism because those who heard the argument tended to fall into roughly two camps: 1) Voters who thought it was at best pie-in-the-sky and that the government probably couldn't "bend the curve" over the next two decades--the way it hasn't been able to do with Medicare, for example; and 2) Voters who thought the government could indeed "bend the curve" and were terrified by the prospect, because the argument seemed to be that only if the government controlled virtually the entire health system could it really turn the screws start denying treatments initiate a "very difficult democratic conversation" over which treatments were really cost-effective, including treatments at the end of life. ...
It was only when the Orszagism was in fact de-emphasized (over the summer) that opposition to health care reform stopped its relentless upward rise and actually fell for a brief period. Why go back to the debacle of last Spring? Vague policyspeak about curve-bending has already, unnecessarily, cost health care reform the support of the elderly. Does Obama want to give reform's opponents the ammo to drive opposition above the 60% line? Go ahead. Make Dick Morris' day. ...
P.S.: I should make it clear that I am in camp #1--I don't think Americans will tolerate draconian, or even semi-draconian, denials of service. As a result I don't think the curve (which is driven mainly by advances in medicine that yield expensive treatments) will be bent. That's why I'm for health care reform. But Orszagism is still lousy politics, because lots of voters will fall into Camp #2. ...
For more: See kf's extensive fall Orszagism collection. ... 12:06 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Winner: Robopolls. Rasmussen's final poll, showing a 46-43-8 Christie win, was pretty damn accurate. Polls using conventional human operators tended to show Corzine ahead. They were wrong.** ... If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the presitigous N.Y.Times, go with Rasmussen! ... Why this is important: Rasmussen's polls tend to show the highest level of opposition to health care reform. If they accurately predict who will turn out to vote, they may signify big potential trouble for Democrats in lower-turnout mid-term elections. The Democratic Congressional id--at least the part that represents primordial existential fear of non-reelection--is throbbing. Expect a lot more time-consuming negotiating hangups and talk about how we should avoid arbitrary deadlines when it comes to passing Obama's big reform. ... (I still think it will eventually pass, but it may take until next Spring or beyond.) ...
Loser: Health care reform (see above) ...
Loser: Obama, who tried to work his magic for Corzine and discovered it wasn't there. (I don't buy the "he invested his prestige" line. A President is still allowed to try to help in a tight race. But he was clearly not a transformative presence in this one. It was more an Olympics bid situation.)
Winner: The Incumbent Rule--which holds that late-breaking voters do not go to the incumbent. Tarnished in 2004, it's having a Nixon-like rehabilitation in New Jersey. Update: And in New York City. ...
Losers: E.J.Dionne, Walter Shapiro and others caught in the MSM negative-ads worked narrative for New Jersey (which just happened to favor the Democrat). ... Update: Negative ads were losers in Virginia too, says Byron York. ...
Winners: ACORN, SEIU, voter fraud. A close election would have put the spotlight on them, no? I guess that could still happen in NY-23. ... Corollary Loser: John Fund. A close election would have given him six months of well-paying work. ...
Losers: Dems who were planning to argue that a Corzine victory, when contrasted with Deeds' loss, shows the need to stick with "core Democratic values" (i.e. unions) ...
Loser: Card check. Virginia Republican McDonnell didn't fudge on labor's "card check" bill. He bashed it. He won. Virginia is hardly a union state, but neither are the states with Senators who are swing votes on "card check". ...
Losers: Beck, Limbaugh, New Media conservatives who thought the rebellious Reaganite vote was bigger than it turned out to be in NY-23. ... Also Dem-leaning MSM who were planning to use a rebellious Reaganite victory as demonstrating a tea-party takeover of GOP (as opposed to a botched candidate-selection process). ...
Winner: GOP, because now that the rebellious Reaganites have had some serotonin leakage, they might be a bit easier to handle. ...
Winner: Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC. Breath of sanity next to K. Olbermann ...
Perennial loser: Exit polls (see below).
P.S.: Always trust content from kausfiles!
**--Note, though, that robopollster PPP was way off on NY-23. ... 8:33 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Why do I get the feeling that the VNS Exit Polls were way off--in a pro-Dem direction--once again? Answer: Because early evening posts like this one from Marc Ambinder seemed to be hinting at a Corzine victory:
Courtesy of CBS News: If Jon Corzine wins re-election, he can thank women, who gave him a narrow advantage and who voted at higher proportions than men did.
He could have written "If Chris Christie is the new governor of N.J., he can thank men, who gave him a huge advantage ..." But ... he didn't. Did the exit polls show a relatively big Corzine victory? Back in the day when the exit polls were widely leaked, everyone would know what they were and--if they were wrong--they would know that they were wrong. Now they are more closely held--which allows the VNS to keep screwing up and hide its inaccuracy ... Again, if we can't trust the exit poll's bottom line result (presumably due to a subtle bias in which voters pollsters talk to) why can we trust any of the demographic breakouts that scholars, etc. use? Won't they be subtly biased too? ...
Update: A kf source reports
Exits were close in VA and Corzine ahead in NJ.
Pathetic! I guess I was wrong when I said they were subtly biased. ... 7:25 P.M.
___________________________
Hardy Perennial: Stuck in traffic this evening? Why the end of Daylight Saving Time invariably produces giant, gas-wasting jams on local freeways. ... 3:49 P.M.
___________________________
Shorter Nagourney (and you're not missing much): "Best outcome for Democrats: Win ... Worst outcome for Republicans: Losing ...."** ...
**--Those are direct quotes. I am not aware of all internet traditions. ... 3:46 P.M.
____________________________
This is not the market share we paid for: After a big ad campaign, General Motors gets an estimated 21% market share in October. Edmunds.com had predicted 22.4%. Kf analysts not impressed, await scathing TTAC take-apart. .. Update: TTAC punts to its readers, who note a) GM achieved this market share with lots of "incentives" (i.e. price cuts); b) GM introduced several new models, which is a good thing--but new models often produce a sales spike that evaporates within a few months. ... Bailout II still on track. ... 3:22 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
R, Robot: Could this be the election that validates automated polls as more accurate than regular polls conducted by humans? Robopollster Rasmussen may have more riding on the New Jersey results than Obama. Mark Blumenthal (citing Nate Silver) discusses whether the reluctance of some potential voters to answer automated surverys eerily replicates the reluctance of some potential voters to ... vote--in effect giving robo-polls an effective screen for "likely" voters.** .. Also, in an especially exciting development, the Incumbent Rule may make a comeback ... P.S.: If robopolling really does focus accurately on "likely" voters, this latest Rasmussen-heavy health care chart will terrify wavering Democrats. ...
**--Post Election Update: Rasmussen and the other robopollsters were more accurate, but Blumenthal now attributes this to their "simulating a secret ballot, thus pushing voters harder to make a choice" between anti-Corzine candidates Christie and Daggett." Does this mean the robots' "likely voter" screen wasn't any better? ...10:30 P.M.
___________________________
Bonus Conditional CW: If conservative insurgent Doug Hoffman defeats the Democrat in New York's 23d District (after Republican party candidate, Dede Scozzafava, dropped out)--
Old CW: Sure, Scozzafava is a moderate Republican but that's what her constituents want.
New CW: It's a conservative district, what did you expect?
9:49 P.M.
___________________________
kf--Always the Positive Spin: The UAW's Ford workers have rejected contract concessions that would have almost-but-not-quite lowered Ford's labor costs to match GM and Chrysler's new costs, which are said to almost-but-not-quite match Toyota and Honda's. But is that really so bad? It means pattern bargaining is broken. The UAW strategy was always to take labor costs out of the auto industry's competitive equation by making basically the same deal with each of the Big Three. Yet Ford's workers obviously saw that their company was doing better than Chrysler or GM, and they refused to get in line. It's now clear that the fate of even unionized auto workers will vary with the success or failure of their individual employers. They're back to competing against each other, not just against the "bosses." ... P.S.: Too bad the GM and Chrysler bailouts, with their minimal UAW contract concessions, may have given Ford workers an excessively rosy impression of what it really means to have a failed employer. Were Ford workers scared enough to avoid the UAW's too-little-too-late tradition of concessions? Obama has short-circuited bankruptcy's shock-and-awe function. ... And not just in this case. [via RCP] ... 3:33 P.M.
___________________________
That Mid-term CW in Full:
Old CW: Wow, Corzine's a goner. Voters are pissed.
New CW: Mixed message! Mixed message!
Next CW: What do midterms mean, anyway?
2:21 P.M.
___________________________
Uncensored Twitter Vitriol Unleashed! Someone calls Stephen Fry "a bit ... boring." Can't have that. ... More evidence that many celebrities have skins of pre-Internet thinness. It seems plausible that they would have to be insulated--or have their public insulated--from what's really tweeted about them. ... 2:21 P.M.
___________________________
Hostages to Fortune: Mid-term Edition [E.A.]
[NPR Host: ...[N]ext week, the off-year election could be a political weathervane for the Obama administration. ... E.J., what do you - what do you find of interest in next Tuesday's elections?]
I think the weathervane is going to be going in circles in the end. I mean, what you're looking at in New Jersey, an embattled Democratic governor, Jon Corzine, on today's numbers is likely to squeak out a narrow victory. He's run a very, very tough campaign against Republican Chris Christie. It's as if Corzine lost the referendum on himself, then he turned it into a referendum on Christie, and Christie lost that one. And there's a third party candidate called Chris Daggett who's drawing off enough votes that Corzine will come through. And Corzine has hugged Barack Obama.
--E.J. Dionne, All Things Considered, Friday Oct. 30
John Corzine by all estimation is going to be reelected Governor of New Jersey.
--Walter Shapiro, KCRW's Which Way L.A.?, Thursday, October 22 **
Reader submissions accepted. (Email to Mickey underscore Kaus at MSN dot com). ...
P.S. I was sure this Bob Shrum column would yield a potentially embarrassing quote, riddled as it was by the assumption that Gov. Corzine was headed to unexpected victory (because unlike Creigh Deeds he "refuses to yield on core Democratic values.") But it's worded very carefully. ...
**--Maybe Shapiro left out the qualifiers speaking on a radio show? Here's the written version: "Aided by a superior Democratic get-out-the-vote drive, Corzine is now widely expected to prevail ..." 2:16 P.M
___________________________
Too Catty to Twitter--The mask of adopted authority slips: Someone who admits he thought the Ford Fiesta was "already out" --i.e. being sold in the U.S.--is maybe not the go-to expert to explain the "5 Reasons Ford Bounced Back." ... 2:14 P.M.
___________________________
"[M]ore people read the Newark Star-Ledger than watch Anderson Cooper": Jerry Skurnik claims I've failed to see the forest for the lede (about CNN's last place finish). The real story is how few people watch CNN and MSNBC and FOX combined:
And it’s not like the bigger names in Cable are reaching a vast audience either. The “giants” of cable news do much better but still reach a puny number of viewers (O’Reilly, Beck & Hannitty reach 2-3 million a night) in a country where 130 million voted for President last year.
Skurnik claims this reinforces his theory of the growing gap between the "two electorates"--the tiny minority of super/faster informed politicos and the vast mass of less up-to-speed voters. But the driver of the two-electorate phenomenon isn't so much the increased knowledge of the superinformed, its the decrease (or leave-it-until-the-last-minute delay) in the common knowledge of the less informed, no? Sure, cable news' audience is tiny in a nation of 130 million voters. It's small compared to the 20 million who watch broadcast network news. But even that 20 million is small in a nation of 130 million voters! What about the other 110 million? There's your lede! (They used to watch Walter Cronkite or Huntley/Brinkley. Now they don't. Do they remain relatively uninformed, or inform themselves at the last minute--and if so, how? On the Web? If so, where? ... Word of mouth from neighbors? Neighbors in the first electorate? Neighbors who watch cable news? ...)
P.S.: I'm not so sure about Skurnik's near-CW point that
Cable news does sometimes play an important role in our politics. But that’s only when a story they report gets picked up by those parts of the media that bloggers & cable news say is dead or dying.
I suspect Dede Scozzafava might disagree. Did the conservative rebellion in her district gain unstoppable momentum because of coverage in the broadcast and newsprint MSM? ... Update: No! It was New Media! [via Insta] ... 2:12 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Freud 1, Zombies 0: When it comes to ghosts, "the line between believing and not believing is not so firm." Ellen Ladowsky searches for paranormal activity in London. ... 2:21 P.M.
___________________________
Howie's Choice: WaPo ombudsperson Andrew Alexander looks up from his desk and notices that East German figure skating judge press critic Howie Kurtz, who is paid by CNN and covers CNN, has
an inescapable conflict that is at odds with Post rules.
Who knew? ... Next question: Does a weakened WaPo Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli have the ... um, clout to make Kurtz change his beat? Maybe--CNN fame isn't what it used to be! Meaning the chances that Kurtz would quit are probably lower. ...
P.S.: Kurtz says
"My track record makes clear that I've been as aggressive toward CNN -- and The Washington Post, for that matter -- as I would be if I didn't host a weekly program there ... "
BS, BS [several items], BS [4th item], BS, BS, BS [4th item]. ... 12:39 A.M.
___________________________
I realized the other day that I don't really like President Obama. I try to explain here. Maybe it will pass. ... Lack of 'likeability' isn't necessarily a big problem in a President. But if a President thinks he's more or less beloved, it could be. ... 12:35 P.M.
___________________________
Castro: Penn, Si! Hitchens, No! Ann Bardach on how Hitch got bumped while a useful celebrity got the story. ... She also reports that stars like Jack Nicholson and Leonardo DiCaprio are routinely spied on "with sophisticated listening devices and hidden video cameras" when they visit Havana. Do they know? Bardach sees potential blackmail: "Be careful what you say; we may have compromising data on you." ...12:35 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Walter Shapiro: "John Corzine by all estimation is going to be reelected Governor of New Jersey." Really? "By all estimation"? You giving odds with that? I'll take them. Depends on the Daggett vote, no? And the night is young. ... P.S.: Don't forget the Incumbent Rule. ... Update: Maybe Daggett's vote won't fade. Could he pull a Ventura and actually win? Mark Blumenthal clinically examines on this non-crazy possibility. Andy Pettitte's arm is in the algorithm! ... Backfill: Shapiro made the case for betting on Corzine here. .. I may be biased by memories of an incident recounted by Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo:
Supporters of public sector union power have developed a rationale for the government employees' gold-plated perks. The argument is that public employees are the vanguard of the working class. As such, the benefits they achieve will eventually have to be matched by private sector employers. As Carla Katz, the leader of New Jersey's Communications Workers of America, explained to Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger, reformers embrace "the progressive theory that unless you create a substantial wage and benefits package that reflects good jobs and the ability to have a middle-class life style, there will be a perpetual race to the bottom."
Katz not only represents thousands of state employees, she is also the richly rewarded former girlfriend of New Jersey governor Jon Corzine. Katz's influence on Corzine became clear in 2006 when the impassioned governor spoke to a Trenton rally of roughly 10,000 public workers and shouted out: "We will fight for a fair contract." Corzine was of course management in that situation, not labor. [E.A.]
New Jersey taxpayers, who now have to pay for the resulting union pay and benefit packages, must be unusually forgiving. ... .4:15 P.M.
___________________________
How to Fill the Empty Hours After Health Care? Nate Silver writes:
It's becoming increasingly likely that regulation of the banking and financial sector is liable to be the issue that dominates the first half of 2010. Why? Well in the first place, it's badly needed ... [snip] In the second place, it's not clear what else the Obama administration will do on the domestic policy front, once the health care issue gets resolved. Although the unpopularity of the cap-and-trade program is greatly exaggerated -- most polls in fact show it receiving a plurality or narrow majority of support -- the swing districts in 2010 tend to be big carbon emitters. Immigration reform, likewise, is liable to be a less favorable issue for the Democrats in 2010 than it will be in 2012, when we'll have a younger, more diverse electorate in which Hispanics play a larger role as swing voters. EFCA -- the White House's support for which has always been questionable -- almost certainly isn't going anywhere. Movement on gay rights issues is a possibility, but is more dependent on the White House's willpower than its bandwidth. A second omnibus stimulus bill is probably out of the question, although certainly there will be piecemeal efforts -- extended unemployment benefits, greater investments in transportation infrastructure -- that the White House will pursue. Still, for a hard-working White House, that leaves plenty of time on the table for a big-ticket item, and that item will probably be banking reform. [E.A.]
Banking reform. Not "card check" (EFCA). Not "comprehensive" illegal immigrant legalization. Not even "cap and trade." Banking reform. ... And the more time it takes up, the better! ... I'm less worried about my vote for Obama every day. ...
P.S.: But will immigration really be a more "favorable" issue for the Dems in 2012, when they will probably have a smaller margin in the House? Maybe Silver is saying they'll have more incentive to bring it up--their swing district freshmen will already have lost--even if passage will still be difficult. ... Card check, on the other hand, will be both harder to pass and less advantageous to bring up, no? ...
P.P.S.: I still think the issue that "dominates the first half of 2010" is likely to be ... health care. At least the first half of the first half of 2010. We're talking about what happens after that. ... 4:15 P.M.
___________________________
National Review Not Guilty So Fox Not Guilty Too! National Review 's Stephen Spruiell defends Fox against the charge that it is an instrument, not of conservatism but of the Republican Party and (for much of the past decade) the Bushes.
I grow so tired of this smear. National Review gets this kind of thing all the time. Last year, Jonah compiled a nice summary of our dissents from the Bush White House. One could compile a similar dossier in defense of Fox News, but I'm afraid it wouldn't matter. [E.A.]
Oh, go ahead! ... It will be a mighty thin dossier, at least if it doesn't include issues (like Harriet Miers and immigration) where Roger Ailes' network initially, and disconcertingly, appeared to toe and try to hold the Bush line before eventually acceding to its viewers' opinions and allowing dissenting conservatives to express themselves. ... 4:15 P.M.
___________________________
"Howard Kurtz, Missing in Action:" The Left is now on the case of the Biggest Conflict of Interest in Journalism. Writes Michael Massing:
Young people have embraced [Jon Stewart's] show precisely because he’s willing to take on cable news in a way our top media reporters are not. And not just Fox. Last week, “The Daily Show” offered a brilliant expose of the superficiality and hollowness of the journalism practiced on CNN, showing how its anchors allow partisan spokesmen to make all kinds of ridiculous claims without challenge. “We’ll have to leave it there” was the stock response of CNN interviewers to the ludicrous talking points of their guests.
You’ll almost never see Howard Kurtz scrutinize CNN in that way. Of course, he’s employed by the network.
4:58 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
The official what-we-tell-reporters reasons for the White House War with Fox don't quite add up. If the attempt is to get the MSM not to follow Fox stories--well, they weren't following FOX stories before (see ACORN). If the attempt is to keep FOX "off balance," the White House campaign is instead giving FOX extra life. If the attempt is to triangulate-- isn't triangulation is supposed to make you look sensible and moderate? This is making the White House look a bit hysterical, coming just when health care reform seemed a quiet "fait accompli."
Maybe it's all about raising money from the base by riling it up. It's late October, after all. Dems (and Dem consultants) need dollars. And those campaign fundraising dollars haven't been "materializing as much as expected." Just a thought. ... One clue: Does the FOX War last much past Election Day, or does it mysteriously wind down? ... 3:06 P.M.
___________________________
How I Got That Exclusive: What if they proved that 1950's nuclear testing increased cancer among boomers and only Walter Shapiro showed up at the press conference? ... 4:51 P.M.
___________________________
As Nate Silver notes, the Washington Post decided to heavily promote a poll showing voter support for a public option "even though public opinion has been fairly steady on the issue for months." But I can't see anything wrong with the question itself, or the general pro-government shift the poll suggested.
Question 10, however--highlighted by Ezra Klein--looks catastrophically flawed:
10. Which of these would you prefer - (a plan that includes some form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can't get affordable private insurance, but is approved without support from Republicans in Congress); or (a plan that is approved with support from Republicans in Congress, but does not include any form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can't get affordable private insurance)? [E.A.]
Isn't Medicaid is a "form of government sponsored insurance for people who can't get affordable private insurance"? Medicare also covers some of those people, if they're over 65. Lots of state programs for near-poverty families might be considered "government sponsored" health insurance.
Many people might reasonably read this question as asking whether they thought Republican support was important enough to eliminate Medicaid and Medicare and SCHIP, which may be why the alternative that didn't do this got such strong support (51 to 37). Those numbers seem worthless when it comes to illuminating the current debate. (What does "sponsor" mean, anyway? Promote? Subsidize? Control? Run? Even if you put Medicaid aside, is this the famous "public option" they're talking about or just the subsidized health insurance exchanges?) ... [Thanks to reader T.A.] 1:18 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
We have ways of making you stress-free: Someone should write the fictionalized dystopian nightmare of mandatory "wellness" programs foreshadowed in Sen. Ensign's business backed plan to let insurers penalize even those who seek non-employer-based health coverage if they don't participate in healthy life regimens." Like THX 1138, but with brownies. ... Nineteen-Eighty-Fat! ... Ensign says his plan "would guarantee that the incentive is strong enough for Americans to want to participate." ... Next: Marital fidelity incentives! ... 9:33 P.M.
___________________________
It's pretty obvious Jacob Weisberg is right to assert that Fox News is a partisan, non-balanced outfit, more like a 19th century pamphlet than the 20th century "balanced" news outlet it pretends to be. During the Bush presidency, if Karl Rove gave an order, I think it was much more likely to be followed by Roger Ailes at Fox than, say, Christie Whitman at the EPA. I can see why this would lead Democrats to legitimately refuse to let Fox host a debate. But I don't see why this means that non-conservatives need to stop appearing on Rupert Murdoch's network. Are they only allowed to preach to the converted? ... P.S.: Weisberg notes that partisan media organizations like Fox (and now MSNBC) are not only one American First Amendment tradition but are also winning in the TV marketplace. Don't we need to learn to live with them? They aren't going to respond to sanctions. ('OK, we'll do anything. Just don't cut off Mara Liasson!'). ... P.P.S.: It's true that going on Fox and effectively sowing doubt behind enemy lines is something Ailes is likely to only let you do once. So be it. But maybe not, if the ratings are good. ... 8:56 P.M.
___________________________
Nightmare of Vista Not Over! Attention, Fellow Vista-Skippers: We haven't made it yet. Yes, Microsoft is telling us we don't need to wait for the first bug-fixing "Service Pack" before replacing our creaky, precious XP machines with new Windows 7 devices. But they've said that sort of thing before. Given Microsoft's track record, it seems more sensible to wait for them to get it right right out of the box at least once before we start to take them at their world. ... P.S.: The obvious analogy is to .... comprehensive immigration reform! Maybe fancy new employer-based verification systems and "biometric" identifiers (and "virtual" border fencing) really will survive ACLU challenge and then actually function effectively keep out illegal immigrants. But we were given similar assurances in 1986. It didn't happen. Better to wait and make sure the new high-tech enforcement mechanisms work before we take the plunge with the proven illegal-immigrant lure of an amnesty, no? ... 8:26 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Peter Beinart thinks Obama's on track to success. Actually, Beinart understates the favorability of the circumstances. If, like me, you assume that the most desirable and popular part of Obama's agenda is health care reform, while the rest of it is studded with sweeping measures that are controversial at best (cap and trade, "card check" union organizing) and explosive at worst (illegal immigrant legalization)--well, then everything is falling into place like a well-choreographed water ballet!
The kf Plan for Presidential Success:
-- Obama gets health care reform, but not until well after New Year's Day. That leaves no time in 2010 to take up "card check" or "comprehensive immigration reform" before the election season hits. Darn! Even "cap and trade," which as Tom Edsall notes pleases affluent elites a lot more than Obama's low-income base, has to undergo further study. What can you do?
-- The economy picks up, but unemployment remains high enough--and doubts about health care reform among the elderly persistent enough--to get the Dems clobbered in the 2010 midterms. Republicans may even win back the House. All those controversial big Dem bills that got backed up in 2010--well, they certainly won't be enacted by the GOPs. So frustrating!
-- Without a new wave of low-wage immigrants drawn by legalization, meanwhile, the labor market eventually grows tight enough at the bottom to finally raise wages as the economy grows--just in time for Obama's 2012 campaign.
-- Returned to office in an incumbent-friendly year, Obama still faces a GOP-heavy Congress, sharply limiting what he can do. He's forced to shelve much of his ambitious second term agenda--sorry!--and focus on those areas where Republicans are favorably disposed--like reining in the cost of entitlements and expanding charter schools. (As Walter Shapiro once argued--and Bill Clinton proved--having a Democrat in the White House with a Republican Congress is the institutional recipe for controlling the budget. The Democratic President reins in defense spending while the Republican Congress reins in domestic spending.)
I'm only partly joking. Or maybe I'm not joking at all. Losing control of Congress didn't cripple Bill Clinton, did it? It arguably saved Bill Clinton. Having Newt Gingrich in charge of the House allowed Clinton to push off against Republican excess, tame his own party's demands, and actually balance the budget. The difference with Obama is that unlike Clinton he will have accomplished his main goal--health care reform--first, before the drawbridge goes up.
It's all going according to plan. 1:51 A.M.
___________________________
Bailout II Watch: A member of GM's board of directors has admitted that the carmaker's recovery plan is based on it maintaining a market share of above 19%:
"The public plan is 19 percent and change. That is what everything is being based on," [Stephen] Girsky said during a panel discussion at a conference at Columbia Business School.
That's about what GM's share has been recently. But it's been heading in the wrong direction. And if it sinks to 18% ...?
Update: The Big Money's Matthew DeBord sneers at Truth About Cars for "heralding GM’s demise since gas was 30 cents a gallon and Sinatra was headlining the Sands. ... And yet ... GM lives!" Plucky of GM! How did they survive? And to think Truth About Cars was predicting they would go bankrupt! ...
P.S.: DeBord persists in publicizing an auspicious "trend" in GM's market share. Yes, GM's share is up for the last couple of months--but a) again, it doesn't do that much good to have a big share in the months when nobody is buying cars (September) if you have a much lower share during the big clunker sellathon (July and August). Here is a chart with the raw figures. See if you spot a significant pro-GM "trend." I don't. b) You can always boost market share by offering cash-back incentives at the expense of profits. GM's incentives have been large--at an average $3,796, almost three times Honda's; c) DeBord cites an Edmunds prediction of a rise in GM's share to more than 22 percent in October, which is apparently based on visits to GM models on the Edmunds web site. We'll see. GM is shooting off a lot of its advertising wad this month. d) While Buick and Cadillac have "profit potential," the success of Chevrolet is "a question mark," DeBord concedes. But Chevy is where GM's volume sales are. If Chevy tanks, can GM survive? ... P.P.S.: DeBord sees growth. TTAC sees decline. One of them is wrong. My money's not on The Big Money. ... 2:25 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Pajama-Baiting: 1) You have to wonder if the unnamed Obama aide's "take off the pajamas" jibe was not a self-pitying expression of frustration but rather an intentional attempt to goad the liberal blogosphere, giving Obama some anger on the left to push back against, translating into a rise in the polls. Insta-Triangulation whenever he needs it--is that what the left bloggers do for Obama now? ... 2) The worst thing they could do, from this point of view, is to calm down. Don't cut him slack! Go wild. ... 3) This pajama-baiting, near-gaslighting strategy--bloglighting!--would fit the Obama White House pattern of attempting to set up superheated fringe figures as opponents--e.g. establishing Limbaugh, and Beck, and the Birthers as GOP leaders; ... 4) Don't assume it's Rahm! Early in the Clinton administration an inflammatory blind quote from an administration official predicted that the White House would "roll right over" Sen. Moynihan if necessary. It inflamed Moynihan, anyway. Many in the press assumed the quote came from foul-mouthed Clinton aide Rahm Emanuel. My understanding is it didn't. [Update: Moynihan apparently thought it was Rahm--his diaries indicate reporter Michael Kramer told him as much. I'd heard Bentsen. Update II: Kramer has said it was Bentsen, in print.]... Given point (3), I'd suspect Axelrod of the anti-pajamatism.. ... 11:27 A.M.
___________________________
GM Bailout II Watch: Signs are just so darn "good" for New! GM that the company is backing off its commitment to the 2010 IPO that might get the government back some of its money before the midterms, says TTAC. ... Robert Farago suggests a get-past-the-election solution that might hold some appeal for Dems desperate to show progress:
Sure, as mid-term elections approach, the feds may try to game the system, offering some kind of IPO-enabling investor “protection.”
Do you think that will fly--i.e. politically be worth the controversy that making it happen would engender (as opposed to simply delaying the IPO until 2011 and issuing an updated round of optimistic projections)? Me neither. ... :8:12 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet another grand speech. ... And the downside is ... what? That the Nobel Committee feels dissed? ... P.S.: It's not as if Congress is going to think, well, he's won the Nobel Peace Prize so let's pass health care reform. But the possibility for a Nobel backlash seems non-farfetched. ... 2:48 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Lots of fuss lately about Toyota's troubles. ... I suppose there are two ways to look at it. 1) See, even Toyota's in trouble! Hah! ...2) Toyota is panicking and taking corrective action while there is still time as opposed to the Detroit/UAW traditional method of one step (or two, or three) too late. ... P.S.: I'm not saying that this too-little-too-late phenomenon is built into Wagner Act unionism. ... Oh wait. That's exactly what I'm saying. The Wagner Act sets up a clunky, rule-bound bureaucacy of tooth-pulling negotiation--especially when it comes to administering pain--that wouldn't have worked even in the WWII era of massive industrial behemoths if we'd had any competition. It certainly won't work today. ...
Of course, GM once tried to set up a subsidiary with a less clunky, less rule bound bureaucracy--with flexible shifts and profit sharing but many fewer work rules, etc.. The UAW killed it, lest all those efficiency-enhancing innovations spread to other GM factories (where they might have, you know, saved GM). That wasn't what unionism was all about, argued the UAW traditionalists. They were right. Paul Ingrassia has the grim details. [via Hit & Run via Insta]
Update: Fire Mickey Kaus helpfully documents kf's decade-long record of "fact-free-speculation" eerie prescience regarding the Plot to Kill Saturn. ...
P.P.S.: The Next GM/Chrysler Bailout (#2): Pelosi seems to be on board! [Detroit News]
Pelosi said Democrats want automakers to "thrive," and she hasn't ruled out additional support for automakers if they show that they are "viable."
Here's a striking chart suggesting why Bailout #2 might be needed sooner rather than later. ...Toyota is down 19%. But GM is down 45%. ... [via TTAC]
Update: Big Money's Matthew DeBord argues that "signs are actually good" for Detroit's Big Three because "[a]ll are seeing their market share increase," He's apparently referring to this chart, which shows GM's share rising (from about 18.8 percent in July to 19.46 in August to 20.87 in September) while Ford and Chrysler are essentially flat, Unfortunately, many more people bought cars in the cash-for-clunkers months of July and August, when GM's share was down. It doesn't do much good to have impressive market share in September if the market is puny. When you add up all the good and bad months in 2009 to date, in fact, GM's share has fallen from 22.3 in 2008 to 19.6 in 2009. Chrysler's down from 11 to 9.2, Meanwhile, Ford rose from 14.2 to 15.2 (and in the most recent three months is up at 16.4). Honda has gained a tiny bit and Toyota's share is flat. None of that convinces me that "signs" are "good" for GM and Chrysler. (It is suprising that Toyota hasn't capitalized on their distress, which may explain this.) ...12:21 P.M.
___________________________
A big 10-pt jump in relative support of health care reform in Rasmussen's latest poll, which either says something about public opinion or something about Rasmussen. Either way, it's good for Obama, since Rasmussen has been the most pessimistic of the health care pollsters.** ... Maybe everyone is calming down as familiar, boring Senate moderates take center stage. ... P.S.: But the Rasmussen progress is hardly enough to pacify the throbbing Congressional id--health care reform still loses by a 50-46 margin. ...
**--Update: Until this grim new FOX poll.. ...12:20 P.M.
___________________________
Always trust content ... : kf readers are not surprised Gourmet magazine is dead.. They're surprised that Bon Appetit isn't. ... 12:19 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Stupidest question on the latest CBS/NYT poll:**
23. Which comes closest to your view? 1. The U.S. needs to fix its health care system now as part of fixing the overall economy. Or 2. Because of the state of the economy, the U.S. cannot afford to fix its health care system right now.
Unless you want to be a heartless Republican (2) you have to buy not only the basic Orszagist argument the health care reform is the key to solving the deficit problem but the broader argument that it's the key to fixing the entire economy? What if you just think it's something we should do and that we can afford to pay for? ... No wonder respondents were so confused by the poll's barrage of nonsensical, tedious, and guilt inducing questions ("are [health care reforms] confusing to you?") that when the big question (#41) about whether they supported Obama's health plans finally arrived, CBS and the Times managed to produce an unprecedentedly huge number who said they "don't know enough"--47%--rendering the poll basically useless. Congratulations! ... The Paranoid View: For the Times, it was less risky to have a useless poll than one that actually measured where health care stands with voters. ....
Update: Several emailers point out that conservative and libertarian plans to "fix" health care also fall into the poll's vast excluded middle--at least if they aren't necessary for fixing the overal economy or don't have to be done now, but are nevertheless considered affordable. And if you don't think health care needs a "fix" at all--well, you're a total unperson as far as question 23 goes.
**--They've asked this question twice before, in July. Doesn't make it any less stupid. ... 2:34 A.M.
___________________________
Fish Out of Water Uncomfortable in Own Skin! Beck seems phony here, no?*** Something creepily inauthentic about him. ...
***--Except 2/3 of the way through, when he says he's never heard of kf. ... [Thanks to alert reader H.] 2:40 A.M.
____________________________
-
sponsorship
"Orszag Sees Health Law in Six Weeks" (Bloomberg): OMB Director Peter Orszag didn't really predict a health care law in six weeks--he said "The goal would be, yes, over the next six weeks or so, maybe sooner." We know all about "goals." But the 6-week frame is not an accident, because something happens in 6 weeks: elections. If Democrats lose big gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, that could produce a new wave of jitters among already skittish Congressional swing Democrats (a possibility Charles Lane pointed to months ago). That's one of the extraneous factors left out of some sophisticated positive assessments of the bill's chances. Better to get it done before the ax might fall. ... Meanwhile, Ezra Klein says we're on the 10 yard line. Sure! But we are playing 43-man Squamish. ... 1:06 A.M.
___________________________
The Grants of Others: Lynne Munson's suggested NEA apology is a whole lot better than actual National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Rocco Landesman's actual statement, which is just a tad unapologetic and defensive about the Breitbart.com conference call scoop:
a) These were organizations that depend on the NEA for grants. It's not that they were explicitly asked by NEA and other government officials to support the president's policy agenda. It's that they were asked to vaguely but passionately get with the program by people who seemed to have an uncomfortably flimsy idea of the boundaries between promoting the President's public service plans and making art and community organizing ... and supporting the president's policy agenda. Maybe it's all one big activity--the president's "very aggressive agenda" at the national level, with "service" at the local level meaning being an "agent of change" and learning to "connect with ... progressive groups" (as White House official Buffy Wicks put it on the conference call). Praxis! Cue will.i.am. ...
b) I don't read the what's said on the conference transcript as an explicit call to support Obamacare (though several grantees did just that a few days later). It's a call to support the public service initiative. But what if you are a potential NEA grant applicant and you don't believe there should be a public service initiative? Maybe, like the late Jack Kemp, you think it's a waste of talent. That particular political conviction is apparently officially inconceivable. If you share it, don't expect a fat grant anytime soon. Robert Heinlein interpreters hoping to stage a community theater production of Stranger in A Strange Land: The Musical are advised to look elsewhere.
c) It's obviously not just the fault of the one NEA official who participated in the call and has now been relieved of his assignment, but rather a problem in the culture of the incoming Obamaites--at least the incoming Obamaites who are sufficiently low-level and unwonkish to be assigned to the NEA. Maybe Landesman should order a viewing of The Lives of Others to underscore to them what (in admittedly extreme form) people who worry about politicizing funding for the arts are worried about.
d) Sure, the meeting tarnished the NEA but it also tarnished Obama's public service initiative, which now looks like it's being propped up by subtly coerced participation from government grantees, and steered into being an "agent of change" for "progressive" causes. I await the strongly-worded denunciation from prominent fellow national service supporters like Newsweek's Jon Meacham.
e) Who is this "former NEA Director of Communications" that Landesman keeps referring to? Does he have a name? Is he an un-person? Are they airbrushing him out of group photos? Is his name an unpronounceable symbol, like Prince's? Landesman has only been on the job a few days and he's sounding East German already.
5:07 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
SETUP GRAF FAIL! WaPo's Dana Milbank traveled to Richmond, Virgina to watch Republican Whip Eric Cantor talk to his constituents about health care. Seems to have been a boring meeting. Hence Milbank's angle--the New Civility! ("The Health-Care War Gets a Little More Civil.") But to make this a man-bites-dog story, Milbank needed a paragraph explaining why we should have expected something different from Cantor.("The remarkable thing ... is what didn't happen.") Here's what Milbank came up with:
Was this the same Eric Cantor who was shown using his BlackBerry [**] during Obama's speech to Congress? The same one who, on Fox News after the speech, accused Obama of using a "smoke screen" and "hyperbole" and lacking "some adult sense of responsibility"? The very same Cantor who, in the National Review last week, urged Obama to "read the bill" and again raised the problem of illegal immigrants?
Cantor accused Obama of a "smoke screen"? And "hyperbole"? Surely that's against House Rules. ... Maybe the rule against cliched rhetoric so bland David Gergen wouldn't employ it if he'd overdosed on Benadryl! Ha ha ha ha ... Plus Cantor had raised a substantive "problem" with the bill. In an article. In National Review. The man will clearly stop at nothing. Indeed, with that track record, it's "remarkable" if Cantor fails to start foaming at the mouth and chewing on the surrounding flesh. Man doesn't bite dog! ...
**-- Cantor later said he was reading the speech text on his Blackberry and making notes, which is almost believable. ...11:50 P.M.
___________________________
What's Eating Craig Crawford? If this is the embargoed poll that CQ's Craig Crawford claims demonstrates that Obama "owns September" (and is making "significant progress in his media blitz" against the "'dumbikazes' of August") then ... well, I accuse him of "hyperbole." The NBC-WSJ poll shows a plurality opposing the Obama plan by 41-39, which is better than the previous month's 42-36, but not by that much. ... True, the poll was taken far enough out from Obama's big speech that any "bounce" might well have subsided--so this could be a residue of actual increased support. Still! It's small! ... I always thought Crawford was bland and reliable. Has he contracted the MSNBC virus? ...
Update--Three Points and a Cloud of Dust: If Crawford was talking about this poll from Democracy Corps--well, it's the same deal: "Support for Health Care Reform Up Slightly," but still three points behind (47-44). And the Democracy Corps poll was taken much closer to the President's speech--starting only three days after-- meaning that it may reflect a now-dissipated "bounce." ...
Backfill: Nate Silver's informal betting benchmark for speech success, remember, was whether it would "increase approval for the Democratic health care package by 5 or more points"--though it's no clear whether he meant "net" points or an actual 5-point rise in the percentage approving. Obama met the former standard, barely, only in the Democracy Corps poll. On the latter benchmark--a 5 point increase in actual approval--forget it. ... And forget about the "or more." ... Instead, pro-Dem pollwatchers are now spinning madly to make a loss-by-a-field-goal seem like a tie. Silver: "There's certainly not any tailwind of public support behind health care reform -- that was squandered many months ago. " ... 11:49 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
The more I think about it, the more the townhall anti-Obama anger isn't explained completely by the issues (sorry, Frank ). There's also something about Obama himself-. But that something (or the main something) isn't his race. It's that he's a relative newcomer, as Presidents go--an unknown quantity, an enigma, with a short track record and patches of that record left fuzzy. That means opponents can fill in the blanks with ominous possibilities. It makes paranoia more rational, if you will.
For example, a few months ago I went to a discussion of the pending "card check" bill Obama has endorsed (enigmatically!). Talk turned to the bill's astoundingly intrusive provision for federal arbitration of initial labor contracts, which would inevitably involve not only the setting of wages but also the organization of work itself. A conservative law prof said he knew Obama as a colleague, and the Obama he knew wouldn't really want that level of detailed and pervasive (if uncoordinated) government direction of economic enterprises. Was the prof right? I have no idea. In contrast, I think I have a pretty confident idea of where Bill Clinton would come down on that issue. I even have a clear idea of where Jimmy Carter would come down on the issue.**
The uncertainty about Obama made it wildly important that he not do things that would give the most common ominous speculation--that he's way on the left of the possible envelope--any traction. Obviously, Obama's White House understands this. Larry Summers is not a lighnting rod for the right. But the Obama-ites apparently failed to internalize this imperative sufficiently to allow them to exclude the Van Joneses and Yosi Sergants from government with the ruthlessness required in a year when they were asking taxpayers to trust them with administering an unprecedented stimulus package and restructuring Detroit and the financial system--all before transforming the nation's health care system. They've been ruthless, just not ruthless enough. Maybe they were lulled into thinking the MSM would, or could, protect them as it had during the campaign (e.g., when Rev. Wright cropped up). But asking 21st century Americans to rely on the assurances of elites is a good way to produce a populist revolt.
After a few years of Obama, voters will have a surer sense of him on their own and the paranoia should subside. Unfortunately, his biggest legislative fight is now.
__________
**--Of course, one reason a voter might not have a clear idea is that it's been heretofore hard to imagine that mandatory federal arbitration would even be an issue--in recent decades it's been beyond the mainstream pale. If unions didn't like a deal they could strike and try to get a better deal. Then labor got desperate and came up with mandatory arbitration.
Unfamiliar issues + Unfamiliar president = Paranoia.
-
sponsorship
I don't understand this Ezra Klein's explanation of the Baucus bill's "free rider" provision, which seems hideously misguided because it attempts to penalize employers who hire low income workers eligible for health insurance subsidies. Here's Klein:
The penalty itself is a bit confusing, and if anything, even worse than one might imagine: The employer will pay the lesser of A) the average subsidy in the exchange times the number of subsidized workers or B) $400 times the total number of workers. Two examples should clarify this:
Baucus Corp has 100 employees and does not offer health-care coverage. Thirty of the employees receive subsidies on the exchange. The average subsidy that year is $5,000. Baucus Corp woulds pay $400 times 100 employees, as $40,000 is less than $150,000 ($5,000 times 30 employees). Each of those low-income employees is costing Baucus Corp $1,333 more than an employee who didn't need subsidies.
Now imagine that Baucus Corp. only has five employees who need subsidies, and the average subsidy that year is $5,000. In that scenario, Baucus Corp would pay $25,000 rather than $40,000, because $25,000 is less than $40,000. Each low-income worker now costs Baucus Corp. $5,000 more than a worker who doesn't need subsidies.
The problem is the highlighted sentence: It sure looks as if Baucus Corp would pay the same $40,000 penalty if it had only 29 low income employees in its workforce instead of 30. Hiring an additional low income employee, as opposed to a more affluent employee, costs it nothing, not $1,3000. (Indeed, the penalty on Baucus Corp. is the same- -$40,000--regardless of the number of low income employees in its work force unless that number is less than 8, at which point the number of low income employees X $5,000 would be the lower of the two penalties,)
If this reading is right, the provision, while still misguided, may be less misguided than it seems (not more, as Klein implies). For firms with a sizable proportion of low income workers, it would basically function as a straight pay or play tax that increased a fixed amount (in this example, $400) with every new employee hired, whether or not that employee had a low income that qualified him for a health subsidy. The perverse effect would be to encourage firms to either decide to hire lots of low income workers or to hire none of them, concentrating the low income workforce in a relatively few firms. That's crazy, but it's slightly less evil than discouraging hiring of low income workers across the board.
But I could have it wrong. I am getting my information from Ezra Klein! He has great sources, but he's an unreliable narrator. It must be frustrating for the sources. ... 2:46 P.M.
___________________________
54-46 Was My Number, But It's Not Dick Morris': I was thinking that even a smallish majority opposed to health care might be sufficient to bog it down in Congress, as skittish legislative swing votes worry about their own reelections. But health care reform foe Dick Morris seems to believe the numbers aren't quite bad enough (yet) to have that effect.
But, certainly, when opposition to the president's program grows from the current 42-55 disapproval into the 35-65 range, Congress must balk rather than march over the cliff.
It's not clear we'll ever get into the 35-65 range, unless Obama appoints Kanye West as his new spokesman. If that's what it will take for a reform to not pass, then a reform will probably pass. Hope! 3:21 P.M.
___________________________