Breitbart's Final Smear

Andrew Breitbart's "last laugh" seems to be more of a hiccup. Before he died, Breitbart promised to release damning video from Barack Obama's college years. "I have videos," he told the collection of birthers, racists, and other assorted nuts at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). "This election we’re going to vet him."

This is the story of an empty threat laid bare by unforeseen events. It's becoming clear that Breitbart didn't have any damaging video, but that's not stopping his fans from clamoring for it. And that's a bit of a problem.

Brett Smiley, New York Magazine:

Breitbart.com's explosive, blockbuster video that would expose Barack Obama as a radical commie who wasn't vetted by the media was almost entirely hype.

Breitbart.com's editor-in-chief Joel Pollak and editor-at-large Ben Shapiro appeared together on Fox News Wednesday night with Sean Hannity to discuss the one-minute teaser clip released earlier today in which a younger Barack Obama, president of Harvard Law Review, spoke to a group at a rally about racial equality among the Harvard Law staff. The demonstration was led by professor Derrick Bell, who took an unpaid leave of absence in protest of a lack of female black professors at the school.

"Open your hearts and open your minds to the words of professor Derrick Bell," Obama said in 1991.

And that was it.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Limbaugh's 'Slut' Comments Bring Out the Most Self-Destructive Tendencies of the GOP Base

Right now, the GOP is in a bit of a tailspin. The base seems to be at the stick and they're determined to point the nose straight at the ground. They'll show that stupid planet -- they'll crash this thing right into it and then we'll see who's boss!

A quick spin through the rightwing blogosphere shows a widespread political tone-deafness beyond any I think I've ever seen before. Rush Limbaugh's "slut" comments and subsequent non-apology have thrown them into a complete frenzy of boneheadedness and mindless rage. It's really something to see. They're riding this political loser all the way to the pavement.

I don't want to get too psychoanalytical -- mostly because I'm not qualified -- but you really have to wonder if the recent death of Andrew Breitbart figures into all this. Breitbart was popular on the right, they have no one to blame for his death, and all that emotion has to go somewhere. So it's pointed at innocent bystanders; Sandra Fluke and the people who agree with her. Breitbart's dead, Limbaugh's "under attack"... It's not hard to see the fear and rage that's always there finally boiling over as a result. If you read the comment threads to some of the wingnut blog entries, you'd think it was 9/11 all over again.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

No End in Sight

Ezra Klein calls last night's primary contest in Michigan a "win that made Romney look weak." In delegate math, a win is a win and Team Romney's probably happy to take it, but I've written before about polls influencing polls. The candidate is losing his electability argument and last night's performance didn't do much to revive it. If people are looking for a candidate who can win, he didn't inspire confidence. His weak win in one race may affect voters in later ones. This morning, much of the punditry are taking the "he didn't lose" point of view, rather than the "Romney won" side. He's not the winner of last night's primaries, he's the survivor. And Romney didn't help himself much on that point in his victory speech, as Klein points out:

...Romney was right in his victory speech. “We didn’t win by a lot, but we won by enough and that’s all that counts,” he said. His advisers might have preferred if he'd omitted that unusually honest look into the dynamics of the campaign. But Romney did win by enough. He remains the frontrunner. He remains strong enough to dissuade any new entrants. Which means the status quo continues. Romney vs. Santorum. The Republican Party will continue to have nowhere else to turn and independent voters will continue to see a side of Romney they don't much like. You can argue that Michigan produced three kinds of winners last night. Romney, who didn't lose. Santorum, who almost won. And the Obama campaign, which gets to sit back and watch this primary go on for that much longer.

And "that much longer" means beyond Super Tuesday. If anyone drops out of the race after then, it'll probably be Ron Paul (or maybe Gingrich -- more on that later), since he probably won't win any states. And it may not be a big Romney night, either. He's heading for a huge landslide in Massachusetts and a sizable win in Vermont (the RealClearPolitics polling average in those states is +48 and +19 respectively), but other candidates are looking at big wins too. Ten states are up that night and RCP has polling averages for six. Of that six, Mitt takes two.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Santorum Contracepts Logic

We start the day's festivities off with a chorus of boos. At last night's GOP debate in Arizona, moderator John King read a question, submitted online, to the candidates. "Since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why?" King asked, to a round of boos.

It seems like an obvious question. The GOP has been working overtime to make headlines with it, so why would the audience boo? Were they booing contraception? Or was it that someone would bring it up? John Aravosis has what's the best explanation I've read so far:

So then why did the GOP debate audience last night boo CNN for asking a question about birth control? The reaction suggested the crowd felt it was a "gotcha" topic. But how could it be? It's the GOP that made this a huge topic of debate the past few weeks. Or is the audience embarrassed by the issue, because they're losing badly on it in recent polls (even Catholics agree with President Obama over their own bishops)?

Well, if you're too embarrassed to be asked about social issues, then don't put them at the top of your agenda. I'd have liked to have seen John King fight back a little on that one.  He should have asked the candidates if they think it's fair to ask about birth control, then tripped them up with their own statements over the past two weeks about President Obama's contraceptive insurance plan.

I think he's right -- the whole thing has turned into a PR fiasco and Republican voters would rather forget it ever happened.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

GOP Voters Find Romney as Exciting as a Saltine

The New Hampshire primaries are today and, if polling is to be believed, Mitt Romney may be looking at a landslide. This is probably fortunate for Team Romney, since it may wipe the taste of a humiliating Iowa squeaker from their mouths. Then again, Mitt's trajectory has been downward in the Granite State in recent days, so it's possible that he may not get his monstrous win. Still, barring a miracle, Romney will win.

While the media have been talking about Romney's "inevitability" as the GOP nominee, the other narrative has been the Republican voters' inability to get behind him. While polls show him winning in New Hampshire, I haven't seen one that has him cracking 50%. If this primary battle is what the media has portrayed it to be -- Romney vs. Not-Romney -- then Not-Romney still has the numbers, if not the candidate. As a result, Mitt Romney's rise seems to be accompanied by a consequence; waning GOP enthusiasm.

Part of the reason for the Iowa squeaker was that evaporating enthusiasm. Where turnout for the caucuses was expected to reach 140,000, 122,000 showed up. Romney won by eight votes, making it the tightest win in caucus history. And the number of registered Iowa Republicans has declined from 21.1 percent in 2008 to 19.9 percent now.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Sweeping Up After Iowa

I'm tempted to say that the big winner in last night's Iowa caucuses was not-Romney. Newt Gingrich -- the old not-Romney -- got 16,251 votes. Rick Santorum -- the new not-Romney -- pulled in 30,007. Mitt Romney barely won, with 30,015 (we won't include Ron Paul as a not-Romney, because Paul voters were almost certainly voting for Paul, not against Romney). It's probably too simplistic to say that, had there been a single not-Romney, he would've won with by 16,000 or better, but I don't think Mittens would've won. I doubt anyone on Team Romney is feeling extremely triumphant today. The phrase of the day is probably "a win is a win." They're probably right. The Iowa caucuses aren't even representative of Iowa.

A few other observations from around the web:

Michael Li: Wow. Paid media $/vote so far: Santorum $1.65, Bachmann $8, Romney $113.07, Gingrich $139 Paul $227, Perry $817. [Numbers calculated last night with about 80% of the vote in]


Associated Press: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has won most of the delegates in the Iowa Republican caucuses, edging former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Romney won a projected 13 delegates and Santorum won 12. Texas Rep. Ron Paul was shut out.


Paul Begala: The Romney-inevitability stories will now be tempered by chin-stroking about the candidate's weakness. He is basically tied with a guy who supports banning contraception and another guy who attacks the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If Mitt Romney can't beat them, he ought to find another party to run in.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

GOP Enthusiasm and The Clown Show Effect

When I look at polling, I tend to use myself as a model. I look at the question and think about how I'd answer it. Maybe that's not the best way to go about it. I suppose I'm not always the average voter.

For example, take voter enthusiasm polls. For myself, enthusiasm is pretty much irrelevant. I go out and vote regardless of how stoked I am about it in any particular cycle. Using myself as a model, voter enthusiasm would be a meaningless stat. But other people apparently react differently to their own enthusiasm. The polls really do seem to reflect the final turnout.

Which is why a new Gallup poll must have Republicans feeling a little uneasy. When respondents were asked, "Thinking ahead to the election for president next year, compared to previous elections, are you more enthusiastic than usual, or less enthusiastic?" 49% of "Republicans and independents who lean Republican" reported being more enthusiastic. This compares well with the 44% of Democrats and dem leaners who say the same.

And it's at this point that the good news ends for the GOP. Their enthusiasm has dropped nearly 10% from September, when it was at 58%. Call it the "clown show effect."

CONTINUE TO POST>>

GOP Disaster Relief Hostage Scheme Backfires

It's all but official; the House Republican Caucus is in a state of leaderless chaos.

The Hill:

The House stunned Republican leaders Wednesday by rejecting a temporary spending bill that would have funded the government through Nov. 18.

The vote failed, 195-230, after Democrats pulled their support for the bill and Republican leaders were forced to scramble for enough votes entirely within their own ranks. Four dozen conservatives voted against the bill because it left spending levels for 2012 higher than the cap set in the House GOP budget.

The defeat hands leverage to congressional Democrats in a dispute over federal disaster funding. Democratic leaders objected to a GOP provision cutting funding from a Department of Energy manufacturing loan program to offset additional money for disaster relief.

The House and Senate must pass a spending bill by Sept. 30 to keep the government running into the next fiscal year. Both chambers are scheduled to be out on recess next week.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Not the "Greatest Country in the World," But Getting There

Is the United States the greatest country in the world? Not if you look at the facts. Our infant mortality rate is worse than forty other nations, we rank in the middle of all nations in terms of income inequality, and we compare poorly with the rest of the world when it comes to people living in poverty. "America is the greatest nation in the world" is something you're supposed to say if asked, maybe even believe, but by most measures it simply isn't true.

Which is why progressives exist. People on the right like to point to progressives' skepticism about this whole "greatest country in the world" stuff to paint us as America-haters. This is poor logic. The person who loves something is the person who's willing to do the work to fix it when it starts falling behind. Leaving everything be and hoping for the best is laziness, not love. Progress means there's always room for improvement, while conservatism believes that everything is fine the way it is -- in fact, it's the belief that things are worse than they used to be. Which explains why they're all busy trying to undo the 20th century.

And it explains why real progress toward real liberty sticks in their craw. As Don't Ask, Don't Tell ends today, it's important to mark a milestone of American progress toward being the greatest country in the world.

Associated Press:

Just as the formal repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy took effect, Navy Lt. Gary Ross and his partner were married before a small group of family and friends.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Winning the GOP Primary in Wingnutopia

Gallup reports a new poll using a somewhat misleading headline; "With Huckabee Out, No Clear GOP Front-Runner." The reason I say this is somewhat misleading is because there wasn't a clear frontrunner with Huckabee in. The GOP field this year is a mix of no-names, frootloops, and finger-in-the-wind flip-floppers. The Gingrich campaign is (perhaps prematurely) already being declared dead in the water, a victim of the candidate's mouth. Anyone who remembers Newt's days as speakers won't be surprised -- he was always one to speak before thinking, assuming that every random thought was brilliant and worthy of great attention. His current situation must seem very familiar to him.

What we do see in the Gallup poll is a sort of split between the more pragmatic primary voters who recognize their candidate has to win a general election and the true-believers, the 'baggers, and the talk radio-informed who demand nothing short of wingnut purity. In that poll, leading the pack -- albeit barely leading -- are Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin. That would be the same Sarah Palin who recent polling shows would lose even to Dennis Kucinich (a "rout," in the pollster's words) in the general election. In short, be prepared for a lot of "who's the soul of the Republican Party?" articles, because the answer to that question isn't extremely clear.

And Newt's reportedly washed-up campaign? Scoring third right now.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Ron Paul is not the Second Coming

Every time I write about Republican candidate Ron Paul, someone comes along and pastes some article into the comments on my blog. Generally, these are breathless spams gushing about how Ron Paul is going to save America. But the truth is that Paul has some pretty wacky ideas, to say the least. He's a very special, very unique kind of libertarian who seems to believe that the only thing that government should do is make abortion illegal.

And he's not even very consistent on that point. NARAL Pro-Choice America shows that his voting record on reproductive rights varies wildly from "good, but could improve" (75% in 2005) to "Jerry Falwell would be jealous" (0% in 2003). Currently, he scores 65%. NARAL calls his record "anti-choice." According to Paul, "Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty... A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs..."

The individual liberty of the woman isn't an issue, I guess. In fact, when it comes to issues of individual liberty, Ron Paul isn't really a fan. He argues that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because nothing in the Constitution, as he sees it, applies to abortion. But he votes against same sex marriage -- when nothing in the Constitution would go against it.

His stand on health care is similar to Bush's -- if you're not insured, don't get sick. He's supported health savings accounts, but with most people having trouble putting money aside as it is, these accounts are pretty much nothing. He voted to sustain Bush's veto of stem cell legislation.

As I said, Paul -- like most libertarians -- believes that the federal government should do pretty much nothing. His answer to almost every problem is to hand it off to the states. As a result, he scores poorly on environmental issues. The League of Conservation Voters gives him only a 25% voting record. The problem with this "let the states do everything" attitude is that every state doesn't have its own evironment. Pollution generated in one state winds up in the air and water of another. A federal response to environmental issues is the only effective way to handle these problems. Paul lets his ideology take precedence over reality -- a problem our current president has.

I'm not the only concerned with his environmental record. Environmentally, Ron Paul is a nightmare.

Daily Kos:

Ron Paul may be a Republican, but he's certainly not a Republican for Environmental Protection. That fine organization gave Paul a shameful 17 percent rating on its most recent Congressional Scorecard (warning: PDF). He doesn't fare much better in the eyes of the American Wilderness Coalition or the League of Conservation Voters. Paul's abysmal record on the environment is driven in large measure by his love of sweet, sweet oil: in the 109th Congress alone, he voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from MTBE contamination lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, to allow new offshore drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay royalties to the government for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Par for the course for a man who called the Kyoto accords "bad science, bad economics and bad domestic policy" and "anti-Americanism masquerading as environmentalism."

Yes, he is against the war and the BS "War on Terror," but to be honest with you, that's pretty much the only thing he's got going for him in my book. We're facing what might be the greatest environmental challenge we've ever faced and Ron Paul is not the guy for the job.

I suppose if you were absolutely, positively determined to vote GOP, you could do worse than Ron Paul. But it's an indictment of the current Republican party that you probably couldn't do any better. They all suck and Ron Paul only sucks slightly less than the rest of the field.

What bothers me is that a lot of people on both sides of the aisle are treating him as if he were the second coming. He's not. He's just your average paleoconservative of the Pat Buchanan type. In a field of neocons, this makes him stand out. Other than his stand on the war, his views are virtually identical to any other conservative's. The hero worship for this new saviour of the Republican party is completely unwarranted.

As I said, every time I write about Ron Paul, someone comes along and spams my blog. Knock yourself out. Tell me that I've blasphemed St. Ron. But nothing I've written here is untrue and my opinions on this candidate are unlikely to change. He's lousy on the environment, he's lousy on women's rights, he's lousy on health care, he's lousy on gay rights.

The only issue he isn't lousy on is the war and terrorism. That's not good enough.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; elections; 2008; republican; abortion; environment; gay rights; Ron Paul doesn't walk on water