Two Ledes, A Body Paragraph, And A Tweeted Mashup Sum Up American Politics

The first lede is from today's New York Times:

Fewer than four hundred families are responsible for almost half the money raised in the 2016 presidential campaign, a concentration of political donors that is unprecedented in the modern era.

The vast majority of the $388 million backing presidential candidates this year is being channeled to groups that can accept unlimited contributions in support of candidates from almost any source. The speed with which such “super PACs” can raise money — sometimes bringing in tens of millions of dollars from a few businesses or individuals in a matter of days — has allowed them to build enormous campaign war chests in a fraction of the time that it would take the candidates, who are restricted in how much they can accept from a single donor. [emphasis mine]

The second, from yesterday's Wall Street Journal re-frames the numbers:

Billionaires are bankrolling the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign to an unprecedented degree, with at least 40 of the wealthiest Americans plowing $60 million into super PACs aligned with the top tier of candidates.

The torrent of super PAC money is revolutionizing presidential politics in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals into these outside groups.

Super PACs backing 17 presidential candidates raised more than $250 million in the first six months of this year, roughly doubling the $125 million raised by the candidates for their campaigns, disclosure reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission show. [emphasis mine]

The New York Times also provides a body paragraph that makes one think that contemporary elections exist so that the real-life equivalents of Randolph and Mortimer Duke can wager a dollar on the outcome:

Many of the country’s biggest donors are not only financial peers but also friends, members of an elite class of contributors who gather at a series of enclaves around the year, from the Club for Growth’s annual Palm Beach retreat on the right, to the closed-door meetings of the liberal Democracy Alliance on the left. Some live or work in the same buildings in New York or Chicago.

The mashup in this tweet seems to capture contemporary politics fairly accurately even if done technically poorly.

Bush / Clinton 2016 pic.twitter.com/uadrxMlSGA

— General Boles (@GeneralBoles) August 1, 2015

Koch Brothers To Open Permanent Americans For Prosperity Office In South Dakota

From this Washington Post article:

Americans for Prosperity, the on-the-ground wing of the network of conservative organizations spearheaded by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, will open new state chapters in South Dakota and Alaska in coming weeks, the group’s president said.

I confess this report surprises me. I thought the Koch brothers group already had a permanent office wherever South Dakota Republican legislators caucus in the Pierre.

Another Tool To Track Who Contributes To Congresspersons And Senators

OpenSecrets.org may be the gold standard when it comes to checking  political contributions, but Lifehacker.com points out that a new site, Contribution Explorer, reorganizes some of Open Secrets' data into an easy to read format:

After you put in a name, the web site lists the total contributions and breakdown by industry. It presents the information in an overview format, so it won't break down the individual or company contributions but it's good for a quick glance. Contribution Explorer pulls data fromOpen Secrets, which has more details, but Contribution Explorer is much easier to read. If all you want is a general sense of how much money a politician has raised and from what sources, check out the link.

Open Secrets has far more details, but it takes some work to ferret all of them out.

Senator John Thune's Page on Open Secrets

Contribution Explorer allows basic information to be readily accessible.

John Thune's Page on Contribution Explorer

According to this Dan Nosowitz post, voters will soon be able to follow the money:

The next phase of the project will include the voting record of each member of Congress alongside their contribution history, and the industries that publicly support/oppose the legislation. Once I have this, I can then begin to determine the relationship between when contributions are coming in and when votes are occurring.

I should add that I got an error message several times as I tried to access Contribution Explorer to write this post. I'm guessing the Lifehacker traffic caused a bit of an overload that should die down in a few days.

Was Herseth Sandlin's Decision About The Money?

I'm a Facebook conscientious objector, so I saw the Herseth Sandlin announcement late. There's Madville Times commentary and comments; and DWC commentary and comments.

All seem to ignore, this Bob Mercer post from yesterday morning:

The Federal Election Commission approved the plan and also terminated the Herseth Sandlin campaign committee effective March 15, 2011. That meant her committee didn’t need to continue filing FEC reports but needed to keep records and copies of her reports available for three years. The FEC acceptance of the settlement plan also meant that if she became active again as a federal candidate she would need to re-register with the commission. The net result was the campaign committee was shut down, ending its ability to raise funds, and she personally owed $12,000 to the company. The only reported contributions her committee received in that final round of fundraising before termination were $1,000 from Linda Lea Viken of Rapid City and $250 from Bert Douglas Kollars of Dakota Dunes. That money, plus $50 of un-itemized contributions, was combined with the carryover cash to pay off all of the other remaining obligations.

If Herseth Sandlin was so sort of cash after losing to Noem that she dissolved her campaign committee, one has to wonder if she the money people she needed to back her were not coming up with the cash.

Republicans are going to make a big push to take the Senate. They will need to win the South Dakota seat that Tim Johnson now holds to accomplish that goal. Those Republican efforts will bring more money than usual to the state. That effort will mean that the Democratic nominee was going to have to raise and spend more money.

If fundraising wasn't there when she was an incumbent against Noem, is it it that far fetched to believe Herseth Sandlin may have decided to sit out an election that would have necessitated raising far more money?

A Minor Musing About The South Dakota Senate Race And Money

Jon Ellis reports that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is urging Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin to run for South Dakota's open U.S. Senate Seat. He hints that the DSCC has reservations about Brendan Johnson's electability:

Problem is, there are grave concerns among national Democrats about Johnson’s viability. Since he’s an unknown quantity in national circles, the powers that be in the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are leaning, perhaps even heavily leaning, for Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

That would indicate to me that Herseth Sandlin has expressed interest in the race, but that she is reluctant to face Johnson in a primary. If the DSCC can keep Johnson out of the race, Herseth Sandlin would be the candidate.

Ellis's Argus colleague David Montgomery reports that Herseth-Sandlin is "having conversations" about running.

Former Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is seriously considering a run for the U.S. Senate and plans to make her decision in the next few weeks, she told the Argus Leader this past weekend.

Herseth Sandlin, a Democrat who represented South Dakota in the U.S. House from 2004 through 2011, said she’s getting “encouragement” to run from both South Dakotans and national Democrats and is “still trying to make what’s going to be a very hard decision.”

Some of the conversations with the DSCC undoubtedly concern money. According to The Hill, the DSCC is raising far more funds than its Republican counterpart:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) hauled in $13.7 million in the last three months, nearly doubling the amount the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) brought in during the same period.

The DSCC brought in $5.2 million in March, while the NRSC raised $3.2 million in March and $6.9 million for the quarter. The DSCC has $8.4 million cash on hand, while the NRSC has $5.3 million in the bank.

In addition, Tim Johnson reportedly has $1.2 million to hand out to the politician and charity of his choice.

It truly is all about the benjamins in this material world.

South Dakota Political Fortune, Fundraising, And Facial Hair

Last evening Gordon Howie announced with less than definitive certainty that Bill Napoli "appears to be running" for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate:

Reliable sources confirmed that former state Senator Bill Napoli met this week with a group of supporters, (who are part of a fund-raising committee) to discuss the Senate race against former Governor Mike Rounds.  The group agreed on a targeted amount of money to be raised for a Napoli candidacy.  While the exact amount was not released, Napoli has been heard saying that a serious challenger to Rounds would need at least a million dollars.  An anonymous attendee confirmed that nearly half of the targeted amount had already been committed by late Thursday.

The post is accompanied by this photo that was used on Napoli's 2007 SDLRC page:

Former South Dakota Legislator Bill Napoli

I've already mused that Napoli will have an uphill fight, but it may even be more difficult than I had originally thought. The photo and a recent video reminded me of a Slate article subtitled "Why don't politicians today grow beards?" Justin Green, the article's author, points out few bearded politicians get elected and fewer still have a positive reputation:

A few politicians have managed to win elective office in spite of their hairy visages. Moderate, beard-having Ohio Republican Steve LaTourette has been a House stalwart since 1995. Who liked Rep. David Obey's beard? The voters of Wisconsin's seventh district did: They elected its wearer to 21 consecutive terms before Obey retired in 2011. Sen. Tom Coburn sometimes wears a beard, and its occasional appearance is eagerly awaited by Hill types. Coburn's beard even has its own tribute Twitter account, which boots up whenever the senator's whiskers begin to sprout. (Sample tweet: "i've asked tom to spend a few minutes combing me before tonight's #SOTU, i must maintain my supple virility.")

But mostly, a list of contemporary bearded politicos is a roster of the inept and inessential. There’s former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, who’s currently embroiled in a massive financial scandal. Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings was impeached and removed from office while serving as a federal judge in the 1980s. Ex-New York governor David Paterson’s three-year tenure did much to improve the fortunes of Saturday Night Live. Cantankerous Alaska congressman Don Young, known as “Mr. Pork,” has seemingly been ostracized from the beard community. ("Young is kind of a disgrace to beards around the world," wrote one member of a beard-centric message board). The oddly bearded jurist Robert Bork is the only person in the last 40 years to have his Supreme Court nomination rejected by the Senate. Ben Bernanke is the first beard-wearer to chair the Federal Reserve; he is currently one of the most-loathed men in America.

On the other hand, Napoli's facial hair may help him raise funds. There's a new PAC for hirsute politicians:

Led by Jonathan Sessions, a 30 year member of the Missouri Board of Education, the Bearded Entrepreneurs for the Advancement of a Responsible Democracy (BEARD for short) seeks to make Capitol Hill more facial hair friendly, regardless of political ideology. “With the resurgence of beards in popular culture and among today’s younger generation, we believe the time is now to bring facial hair back into politics,” Sessions has stated. Looking back, it's been well over a century since we had our last bearded president (Benjamin Harrison) and almost just as long since a major presidential candidate rocked the bearded look (Charles Evans Hughes, 1916, BOOM History!) It's nothing short of a national tragedy.

The PAC does not focus solely on presidential politics.

The BEARD PAC wants you to run for office, and reverse the trend of baby faced orators making all the big decisions. Currently there are only 13 members of Congress on the Hill who consistently have facial hair. It's time America had a real man leading. At least one with the confidence, swagger, and testosterone to rock a beard.

It's unclear if the group will take politics seriously:

"We're as serious as the opportunity to raise unlimited funds and spend them toward campaigning with little accountability," [Sessions] said with a laugh.

The group does take beards seriously, and Napoli meets their criteria:

As to how much facial hair constitutes a beard? Mustaches are out, but goatees count, Sessions said. A beard review committee is being formed to evaluate beards on a case-by-case basis, he said.

"If a candidate has the dedication to grow and maintain a quality beard, that shows a dedication to quality service," Sessions said. "Now, we're not endorsing every bearded candidate, but the right bearded candidates who can best serve the population they represent."

I have no idea if beards matter to most South Dakota voters or if Napoli will seek funding from the BEARD PAC. For that matter, no one knows if the BEARD PAC will actually raise or donate money. It is important, however, to remember that nothing in politics escapes notice.

Forget The Drama; Show Me The Money

There's really only so much Brendan and Stephanie drama one can read before it sounds like high school cafeteria gossip. I suspect the rumor mill will soon gin up some Mike and Kristi drama. If lunch duty has taught me anything, these popular kids will all find prom dates eventually.

I do, however, find the money story that may be developing interesting. The Senate Conservatives Fund (SFC), a Jim DeMint sponsored astroturf group,  is seeking an alternative to presumptive candidate Mike Rounds. The group has deemed Rounds too "moderate."

The Republican Liberty Caucus of South Dakota has taken to Twitter to support the SCF. (I'm guessing that this group is not affiliated with the national Republican Liberty Caucus that currently lists Russel Means as a chapter contact person.)

This attack continues the one Gordan Howie began last month. Howie has paraphrased Bill Napoli, Howie's preferred candidate, and claimed Rounds is "a mud puddle… two feet wide and two inches deep." More recently, Howie has claimed that Karl Rove represents the "left-wing of the Republican party." This charge presumably begins the effort to denounce the outside money Rove's Conservative Victory Project might bring to a South Dakota Republican primary to head off a candidate like Napoli.

The Republican establishment has not been silent. First, it reminded Napoli that that the Interwebs preserve everything:

The only problem is, as nice a guy Bill is, he’s got some baggage. Don’t get me wrong. I personally like Bill. He’s funny, and a genuine, self-made man. He’s completely original and authentic. You can’t help but like him.

But. And I would counsel him, that’s a big but. Bill’s got some words that will follow him into any race for higher office. Especially in one of the top US Senate Races in the country.

It has also decried outside money. The outside money they disparage, however, may come from the SCF.

. . . it’s all well and good for them to say that they’ve got a million dollars for you. But the problem is that it’s likely to be one million dollars spent from a PAC they control, and will be spent in a manner that they dictate, such as attack ads. While the candidate struggles to raise enough money to keep the phones and lights on, the other group is going to be spending that million blasting Mike Rounds.  Which doesn’t do the poor soul they got to run a damn bit of good, especially if he or she can’t get on the air with their own ads.

I hope the race doesn't reprise the "follow the money" line. I'd prefer to contribute to the candidate that did the best cover of  "It's All About The Benjamins":

Now, what y'all want to do

Want to be ballers, shot callers, [political] brawler. . .

South Dakota Gets A New Koch Shipment

David Montgomery reports that a conservative PAC has deemed Mike Rounds too liberal. Pat Powers gives his take here.

The PAC, Senate Conservatives Fund uses the usual boilerplate:

SCF is a grassroots organization dedicated to electing strong conservative leaders to the United States Senate. We do not support liberal Republicans and we're not affiliated with the Republican Party or any of its campaign committees.

SCF seeks to bring bold conservative leadership to Washington by supporting candidates who have the courage to fight for the timeless conservative principles of limited government, strong national defense, and traditional family values

The organization claims that it "helps candidates by raising support from thousands of freedom-loving Americans across the country, and by running hard-hitting radio and television ads in key battleground states."

According to OpenSecrets.org, Senate Conservatives Fund is affiliated with former Republican South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint.

In 2012, the PAC's largest contributors include Koch Industries, RJ Reynolds Tobacco, Microsoft, and Comcast.

As a football fan, I prefer natural grass to Astro Turf; I feel the same way about politics. Whether I vote for Rounds, some other Republican, or the Democratic nominee in a general election , I'd prefer that South Dakota's parties, not some astroturf group, select their nominees.

Quotation Of The Day: Average Voter Vs. Political Elite Edition

David Frum posts a provocative question from one of his readers:

Here you paint what you seem to imply is a portrait of a typical GOP delegate. Sounds fair enough to me, although I'm probably not the best judge because I'm not a movement 'conservative.' But you're describing a 'little guy' -- I can imagine him as a guy who owns an auto parts store in Anytown, Iowa, and belongs to a Tea Party. Listens to Rush and Hannity on the radio at the store, goes home to an evening with Greta and Bill O'Reilly, and listens to his pastor from a church pew on Sunday. We all know the messages he's consuming pretty much 24/7, whether we agree with them or not. You hold him up as an object of study and example for comment by those here (right and left) and, depending on our politics, we either mock or cheer his ideas.

But while we're dissecting Mr. Average Delegate, you're not asking us to look at the motives, attitudes, and methods of the people funding the GOP who are pouring billions (and have been for decades) into 'informing' Mr. Delegate. Once again, just as in the wake of the bank meltdown, we are encouraged to focus on the little guy and never pull back the curtain on the real power in the party. What are the elite's motives? What are their goals? Why have they worked so long and spent so much money to be sure Mr. Delegate is looking at his neighbors rather than the bankers/CEO's or their wholly-owned politicians when he assigns blame for his declining fortunes? Why does he believe the teachers who educated his children and the firefighters who would save his store are moochers because of their 'lavish' benefits, while the incompetent bankers who received trillions of our tax dollars when their casino collapsed have his best interests at heart? What is the elite's end-game, their vision of our future?

The ultimate political question of the election is not what Obama or Romney will do in the next four years. The die for many policies has been cast, and there will be little difference in what either will be able to accomplish. Even if they could make major changes, their advisers, especially their foreign policy advisers,  come form the same school of thought.

All voters show be asking the last question that Frum's interlocutor poses: what is the end game for elites giving millions if not billions of dollars to Republicans or Democrats?

Does Mitt Romney Want Public Schools To Fail

There's a cheap philosopher joke that goes something like this:

Irishmen's surnames begin with the letter "O";
Barack Obama's surname begins with "O";
therefore, Barack Obama is an Irishman.

It is with some trepidation, therefore, that I begin with the following phrasing:

Mitt Romney is an venture capitalist.
Some venture capitlists want public schools to fail in order to make a profit:

The investors gathered in a tony private club in Manhattan were eager to hear about the next big thing, and education consultant Rob Lytle was happy to oblige.

Think about the upcoming rollout of new national academic standards for public schools, he urged the crowd. If they're as rigorous as advertised, a huge number of schools will suddenly look really bad, their students testing way behind in reading and math.

Writing for Business Insider, Stephanie Simon continues:

The K-12 market is tantalizingly huge: The U.S. spends more than $500 billion a year to educate kids from ages five through 18. The entire education sector, including college and mid-career training, represents nearly 9 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, more than the energy or technology sectors.

I'm not going to conclude that Mitt Romney wants public schools to fail. I will merely note that his experience as a venture capitalist is the centerpiece of his campaign; therefore, I do wonder if he will side with those who want to make a profit or those who point out that what is profitible is not necessarily educationally sound when those principles come into conflict.

Quotation Of The Day: Politics In A Nutshell Edition

I will admit to selectively editing this David Halperin paragraph about for profit colleges, I inserted the future tense phrasing and removed politicians' names,  That being said, the original sentiment strikes me as a wonderfully concise statement of everything that's wrong with Washington or, on a smaller scale, Pierre.

There is stalemate in Washington on holding this industry accountable, because the big money that it spends on lobbying, lawyering, and campaign contributions has bought the allegiance of many congressional Republicans and  Democrats and [will] thwart. . . [any] determined reform efforts. . . .

The most frightening thing is that stalemate may be a better alternative than letting those who have been heavily lobbied and financed do the will of their handlers.

NFL Team Makes Political Contribution

A football team donates to Jan Brewer's PAC:

The Arizona Cardinals have yet to win a Super Bowl, but they’re champs when it comes to super PACs.

A $5,000 donation last month from the Cardinals to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s JAN PAC committee appears to be the first time a National Football League club has institutionally contributed to a federal super PAC, which may raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions — even sports teams

Brewer's PAC doesn't seem do deal with sports issues unless one believes that Obamacare will make it more difficult for millionaires to get ACL surgery or proper treatment for a concussion:

A PAC spokesperson could not be reached for comment, although JAN PAC’s website states that the super PAC is “dedicated” to four goals, including “securing the border and restoring integrity to our immigration system,” “fighting ObamaCare,” “creating jobs – getting Americans back to work” and “reducing the size of government.” The super PAC formed in October. Brewer frequently takes to national television to tout these positions and has notably sparred with President Barack Obama, earning her accolades from conservatives in particular.

Travis Waldron points out that there may be other reasons for the Cardinals political interests:

The Cardinals’ donation to Brewer isn’t huge, and given the nature of Brewer’s PAC (aptly named JAN PAC), why the team made the donation now is unclear. The implications for the future, however, aren’t hard to imagine, as the franchise’s choice to get political demonstrates how the Court’s decision in Citizens United, together with subsequent decisions expanding the allowance of corporate campaign cash in our elections, has changed the game for professional sports franchises the way it did for other corporations.

Across the country, professional sports franchises have negotiated various tax breaks and other public financing deals to get what they want — new stadiums, improved infrastructure, a more generous split of gameday (and non-gameday) revenues. The deals are popular with politicians, who soak up the promises of economic boosts and who, faced with threats of the team moving to a new city, are scared to be part of the group that let the team walk away. Popular as they may be, though, the deals leave taxpayers footing the bill when they fail to provide the promised economic boom, instead pushing cities and states into debt.

A Curious Quiet And A Potential Irony

I try to keep up on issues, so yesterday when I came upon the "Where Are the Pro-Life Reactions to the Romney/Stericycle Story?", I felt chagrin that I had no idea what Stericycle is.  A quick click revealed that Stericycle is"a medical-waste disposal firm that has been attacked by anti-abortion groups for disposing aborted fetuses collected from family planning clinics."

The Argus Leader mentions the company in a June article "Where recalled products go to die." There seem to be no articles about Romney, Bain, or pro-life protests.

Bain Capital invested $75 million in Stericycle in 1999 near the end of Romney's tenure with Bain.  Romney, was, however, involved with the purchase:

The document also states that Romney "may be deemed to share voting and dispositive power with respect to" 2,116,588 shares of common stock in Stericycle "in his capacity as sole shareholder" of the Bain entities that invested in the company. That was about 11 percent of the outstanding shares of common stock. (The whole $75 million investment won Bain, Romney, and their partners 22.64 percent of the firm's stock—the largest bloc among the firm's owners.) The original copy of the filing was signed by Romney.

Another SEC document filed November 30, 1999, by Stericycle also names Romney as an individual who holds "voting and dispositive power" with respect to the stock owned by Bain. If Romney had fully retired from the private equity firm he founded, why would he be the only Bain executive named as the person in control of this large amount of Stericycle stock?

Romney may have a rather easy out; in 1999 he was probably pro-choice.  He claimed to be choice in his 1994 race with Ted Kennedy, and he claimed to be pro-choice in 2002.

On the other hand, he still cashes checks from Bain.  According to his financial disclosure form:

[Romney's] most lucrative assets in 2011 were his investments in Bain Capital. Nineteen different Bain investments are worth a total of at least $4.5 million, but are likely far more valuable because two of those assets are simply described as worth more than $1 million. Federal disclosure rules do not require candidates to list the precise value of assets or earnings, instead relying on broad ranges of wealth.

Although intended to be rhetorical, thequestion about why pro-lifers are quiet is valid. The irony lover in me, however, has a few different questions:

1. Do Romney's Bain investments still include Stericycle?
2. When Romney changed his position on abortion, did he return any money he made from Stericycle?
3. If not, are we experiencing an election in which a pro-life candidate is going to use money he made indirectly from abortion related profits to attack a pro-choice president?

Quotation Of The Day: Sick Days And Super PACs Edition

I needed a sick day today.  These Ezra Klein paragraphs about super PACs make be believe I may need a few more in November,

In contrast, even at the end of the campaign, many potential voters will know very little about their congressional candidates. They will be susceptible to ads telling them terrible things. Some of those candidates won’t have the resources to fight back.

No one knows that better than the candidates themselves. Both incumbents and potential challengers realize that a deep-pocketed PAC could decide their race. So when they get a call from that PAC’s director urging them to support this or that, they’re that much likelier to listen. The result, then, isn’t just that moneyed interests can throw congressional elections. It’s that they wield more influence after the election — and they can exercise that power without spending a dollar.

Imagine a super PAC funded by financial interests — “United for Economic Growth,” say — that, seeing tax reform legislation on the horizon, makes it known that it will spend $500,000 or more against candidates who support limiting the deductibility of corporate debt. That’s a small enough issue that most Americans don’t follow candidate positions on it. It’s an issue where there isn’t an organized set of interests on the other side. And it’s an issue where most politicians themselves don’t have very strong or even developed opinions. My guess is United for Economic Growth would get its way in Congress without having to spend much money at all.

Wisdom, Fools, And Cliches: Quotations, Photo, And Minor Musing

Alan Jacobs quotes George Orwell,

In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a “party line.” Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestoes, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases — bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder — one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker’s spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.

In short, political cliches and hacks have existed for a long time.  It's odd that they haven't updated their catch phrases much since 1946, but changing eliminating buzz words would demand original thought.

Of course, some may wish to become walking cliches.  David Frum posts this slide of Rick Perry.

Given the nature of political cliches, I'm certain the base is now solidified.

Season of Miracles??

Michele Bachmann was right.  We are seeing acts of God.



She was wrong about the source.  In I Kings 19:11 the prophet Elijah faced an earthquake and wind, but saw a different source.

And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:

 When it comes to God's utterances, I'll put my money on Elijah over Bachmann.  God wasn't talking through the earthquake or hurricane, but that doesn't mean he's not talking.

The Republican presidential candidates are all supposed to sound like this: corporations are people.

Mitt didn't add that they're individuals under a court decision that allows them to give him nearly unlimited sums of money.  Still Republicans are supposed to sound like this.  Corporations are good.  Mitt even added to the line later. According to a Wall Street Journal report,

“I said ‘corporations are people,’ and the Democrats said, ‘Oh, he’s in big trouble now saying something like that,’” Mr. Romney said. “Well don’t they understand that we work for corporations?” Mr. Romney made his fortune as co-founder of the private equity firm Bain Capital.

Suddenly miracles have started to happen.  Sarah Palin started making sense.  That same Wall Street Journal article reports,

[Romney's speech] was a marked contrast from the approach Ms. Palin took during her speech in Indianola, Iowa, Saturday. After repeatedly accusing President Barack Obama of steering government to benefit corporate campaign donors, she turned to her party’s presidential candidates: “To be fair, some GOP candidates, they also raise mammoth amounts of cash,” Ms. Palin said. “What, if anything, do their donors expect for their investments?”

News reports have shown that some donors to Texas Gov. Rick Perry received state appointments. And this year, he has been slammed anew by many conservatives for a 2007 executive order requiring sixth-grade girls in Texas to get a vaccine made by Merck & Co. to help prevent cervical cancer; Mr. Perry’s former chief of staff is a lobbyist for Merck. Mr. Perry later said that was a mistake. When Ms. Palin was asked afterward her speech if she had Mr. Perry in mind, she replied, “I want all of our GOP candidates to take the opportunity to kill corporate capitalism that is leading to this cronyism, which is ruining our economy.”

Hearing Sarah attack corporations is as big of a miracle as hearing Balaam's donkey talk.  The full account is here.

Then last night on The Daily Show, Republican presidential candidate Buddy Roemer, decried money in politics and corporations' influence: "Corporations. . . don't give a damn about the rest of the America."  Of course, he wasn't invited to the Republican debate tonight, but still a Republican candidate is strongly attacking money in politics and corporations. (Roemer's attack on corporations starts about 3:50 in.)
                       

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Buddy Roemer
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

If the Cubs win the 2012 World Series, I will know God is shouting at us.

Classic Television Explains Contemporary Politics

This is how the Tea Party sees itself.

 

This is how both Republicans and Democrats see the Tea Party.  The Republicans focus on Ellie Mae and Jed along with his money.  The Democrats focus on Jethro's 6th grade eduction and Granny's medical practices.

This is how both Democrats and Republicans see the intelluctuals who produced the ideas that inform the Michele Bachmann wing of the Tea Party.  Hayek does not fit this category.

Democrats and Republicans both see Republicans as stars of Dallas; Republicans view themselves as Bobby Ewing; Democrats see them as J.R.  The rest of us hope that Jock Ewing comes back from the dead and keeps both of the wayward. spoiled, rich cowboy sons in line. (Sorry YouTube won't let me imbed the video. I'm guessing the problem is caused by the fact that a cable channel plans a Dallas update next summer.)

Many politicians claim they came from here.

They are producing a future that comes from here.

I Ask 20 Political Questions (Part 1)

For the Tea Party

1. You claim that your founding principle is love of freedom and states rights.  Where were you when the Patriot Act, the biggest legislative threat to individual liberty of the 20th Century was passed?  I heard no outcry then.  The same question goes for NCLB which threatens states rights in the same way the Patriot Act threatens political liberty.

2. If you reach your goal of reducing the federal government to the level that it was before the Civil War, what's your plan to deal with corporate power? 

3. Have you forgotten that corporations performed the actions that lead to the Great Recession?  You do remember that we now live in a world where some corporations are now too big to fail?  Does it ever scare you that that fact probably means corporations' success may be as toxic to the common person as their failure was?

4. Why are your leaders such jerks?  I'm thinking about Eric Cantor in particular, but a large number of your national spokespeople remind me of drunken louts sitting in fine restaurants and ruining the meals of other patrons through boorish behavior.

5. Have you read Animal Farm?  You do realize that the allegory applies not only to the Soviet Union but to any group that claims to provide political salvation.  The symbolic pigs who take over any movement eventually become the corrupt men that they expel from the metaphoric farm paradise.  You do know that?  Are you taking any steps to try to prevent that from happening to your movement should you achieve success?

For the Democrats

6. You claim that Republicans and Tea Party members are anti-science and anti-intellectual.  In short, you claim they are foolish, but they cleaned your political clocks in the debt ceiling fight.  If I may paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi, who's the bigger fool, the fool or the fool who loses political fights with the fool?

7. President Obama, you do realize that the ends don't justify the means, don't you?  Do you understand that driving a dictator from power doesn't justify ignoring the Constitution or the War Powers Act?

8.  On the subject of Libya, do you remember what happened to your predecessor when he hung out the "Mission Accomplished" banner a wee bit early?  Can you avoid that mistake even though you couldn't avoid the temptation to not follow the Constitution?

9. South Dakota Democrats, you do realize that Will Rogers was joking when he said that he wasn't part of any organized party; he was a Democrat?  You do understand that if you're going to defeat Noem who is going to get at least two-thirds of the West River vote, you need to get a really strong candidate?

For Republicans

10.  You don't want to close tax loopholes that favor corporations or let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, but you seem willing to let the payroll tax break expire at the end of the this year.  Why are you willing to end tax breaks for the common people but not the rich?

All answers need to be done in complete sentences.  Neatness counts.  Part 2 will be assigned later in the week.

Political G.D.I. and Proud of It

Some of the comments on The Madville Times frat boys tend to be drunken louts post reminded me that I have always been an independent.  I don't join frats, churches, political parties, or any social club that claims they would have me as a member.

My status as a political independent concerns The New Republic's Michael Kazin.  According to Kazin, people of my ilk are "really just a confused and clueless horde, whose interest in politics veers between the episodic and the non-existent."  Further, political independents, according to Kazin, "seem to be more myopic than moderate."  In fact, "our next holders of state power might end up being chosen by a minority that seems to stands for very little—or, perhaps, for nothing at all."  This myopic minority is composed of creatures that so frighten Kazin that he despairs "come 2012, they [independents] just might be the ones to decide the future course of the republic."

Let's begin with the idea of a "minority" being a "horde."  Somehow, those two terms do not seem synonymous. Further, John Sides shows that this minority is small and shrinking. "The number of pure independents is actually quite small -- perhaps 10% or so of the population. And this number has been decreasing, not increasing, since the mid-1970s."

Further, Kazin ignores a phenomena that David Roberts calls "post-truth politics: a political culture in which politics (public opinion and media narratives) have become almost entirely disconnected from policy (the substance of legislation)."

Roberts goes into more detail when he asserts that politicians'

rhetoric doesn't have to bear any connection to their policy agenda. They can go through different slogans, different rationales, different fights, depending on the political landscape of the moment. They need not feel bound by previous slogans, rationales, or fights. They've realized that policy is policy and politics is politics and they can push for the former while waging the latter battle on its own terms. The two have become entirely unmoored.

In short the American political system, according to Roberts, has created a situation where "there are no more referees. . . .[there] are only players" because "[t]here are no Reasonable People behind the curtain, pulling the strings."  America's "political system is choked with veto points, vulnerable to motivated minorities, insulated from public opinion, and flooded with money."

Roberts analysis indicates that the problem isn't that independents stand for nothing or are easily confused.  Perhaps it's that we realize that the parties' rhetoric will not be put into practice.  With the exception of preserving their political power, it seems that the political parties, not independents, stand for nothing.

Is Kristi Noem Under the Influence of the Lobbying Industry?

I wanted this blog to be a Noem and Palin free zone.  I really did, but this Washington Post article got me angry.

Among the Republican freshmen with big PAC receipts were Reps. Diane Black (Tenn.) with $178,000, Nan A.S. Hayworth (N.Y.) with $170,000 and Kristi L. Noem (S.D.) with $169,000.

Noem scheduled at least 10 Washington fundraisers in the first quarter, according to invitations compiled by the Sunlight Foundation. An e-mail obtained by the foundation included nine events, including a pizza lunch and two dinners asking for a $1,500-$2,000 donation from attendees. A Noem spokesman declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Stivers.

How many South Dakotans paid to eat pizza with Representative Noem?   How may South Daktoans have $1500 to eat dinner with her?  How is this upholding a vow to shake up Washington?  What's the difference between this shake up and a shake down?

The article notes that this fundraising is not unique to Republicans.

Overall, fundraising among the large GOP freshman class is below the average raised by new Democratic members in the first quarters of 2007 and 2009, after elections when liberals won big gains in Congress. Two years ago, Democratic freshmen raised $287,000 on average, while the figure this year for the new GOP lawmakers was $176,000.

Let's be clear; the your guy is more corrupt than my girl defense isn't really a defense.  Someone who robs 9 banks is not a law abiding citizen just because someone else robbed 10 banks.  Being under the corporate influence is wrong for both Democrats and Republicans.  Both are equally guilty of putting money ahead of constituents.  It's sad but not surprising to see Noem at the front of the gravy train even though she promised to be a new breed of politician