 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
|
|
 |
kausfiles.comSeptember 20, 2010 3:45 PM The kausfiles blog has moved to Newsweek--here. Or you can type in www.kausfiles.com which will soon be switched to bounce to Newsweek. ... Thanks ... 3:48 P.M. ___________________________  September 16, 2010 7:40 PM Just a note--Pols Gotta Eat: Delaware GOP Senate primary victor Christine O'Donnell has been accused of "living on campaign donations--using them for rent and personal expenses." This might sound illegal but it's not necessarily. Sure the Federal Election Commission regulations go on and on about how a campaign can't use contributions to pay for the candidate's personal expenses--including food and rent. But the regs explicitly allow candidates to pay themselves a salary (as long as it doesn't exceed what they made "as earned income in the previous year"). Trust me, that's a provision I was eyeing eagerly when I ran for Senate, though I never had enough surplus money to pay myself anything. ... Given that candidates can pay themselves money and then use that money for personal expenses, I find it hard to get too worked up about O'Donnell's alleged transgression. ... P.S.: Apparently the FEC woke up and realized that if you prevent candidates from paying themselves, and prevent friends from giving them money to live on, and prevent employers from giving them cushy no-show jobs, then only idle rich people could afford to be full-time candidates. ... The downside of the "salary" rule is that it opens the door for professional loser candidates who run year after year, milking their small flock of die-hard contributors. ... Hmmm. ... P.P.S.: I would think the 'previous year income' limit on candidate salaries might be unconstitutional, given that it operates viciously against poor candidates--it means Mitt Romney-CEO types can help themselves to hundreds of thousands of dollars out of campaign contributions while a minimum- wage worker who runs for the very same office violates the law if he pays himself $18,000 a year. ... O'Donnell might have been on solid legal ground, then, even if she paid herself more than the $6,000 she allegedly earned as a marketing consultant last year. ... P.P.P.S.: Is it just me or are the "Craziest Things Christine O'Donnell Has Ever Said" not really all that horrifying? I think my greatest-hits reel would be worse. ... 9:50 P.M. ___________________________ September 15, 2010 1:45 PM I debate Slate's Timothy Noah about his big series on income inequality. ... 3:53 P.M. ___________________________ September 4, 2010 1:30 AM The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) may have hit on a brilliant strategy for making the looming Democratic rout look like a demonstration of raw union power: 1) Find a moderate Democrat who is going to lose anyway in the GOP wave; 2) Ostentatiously refuse to support him because--in a desperate attempt to save his hide--he once departed from the labor line on one issue or another; 3) When he loses in November, take credit for his defeat. ('See, that's what happens if you defy us!') ... P.S.: This is actually a bear-market variation on an old Ralph Nader trick: If you find out the government is going to do something on Tuesday, call a press conference Monday to demand that it be done. ... 1:41 P.M. ___________________________ September 3, 2010 3:05 AM If Carly Fiorina wins California's U.S. Senate race, it won't be because of her debate performance Wednesday night. 1) Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer's long-telegraphed attacks--that as Hewlett-Packard CEO Fiorina outsourced jobs and pocketed a huge multimillion dollar severance when she was fired--had some power. Maybe they could be answered effectively, but they weren't. 2) Fiorina seemed like a rookie trying to master the debate format. Reminded me of me trying to master the talk radio format. Not as easy as it looks! In particular, Fiorina could have done a lot more to hang the "failed" stimulus around Boxer's neck. (At the after-debate appearances, Fiorina did much better. Esprit d'espinnier.) 3) Boxer's breathy surface phoniness seemed more familiar and comfortable than Fiorina's squirmy surface phoniness. (I say surface phoniness because don't think either candidate is that phony underneath. Boxer really is as liberal as she seems, while Fiorina's positions may be inconveniently convoluted--and conservative--because they reflect what she actually thinks.) ... P.S.: I thought Boxer prevailed despite her demagogic claim that if "comprehensive immigration reform" doesn't pass the "11 million [undocumented] people here who are living in the shadows ... would have to be deported." I'm talking about who won here, not who was right. Boxer's bogus claim wasn't countered. (Why bogus? Because they could keep on "living in the shadows.") ...3:45 A.M. ___________________________ August 15, 2010 11:30 PM This could be bigger than the mosque flap--remember, MSM nightly news broadcasts cater to seniors (their remaining audience) and love cancer cure stories: For the first time, an FDA approved anti-cancer therapy may not be covered by Medicare. Do you think people on Medicare will stand for that sort of thing? I don't--which is why Peter Orszag's (and Ezra Klein's!) predictions of trillions saved thanks to the health care bill's anti-democratic cost controls have always seemed bogus.** ... Update: The relevant federal panel (the CMS) appears to have opened a "national coverage analysis" to decide by next June whether to pay for the drug (Provenge). If they think this will get it out of the news they are kidding themselves, I suspect. ... Here is a protest letter from the American Society of Clinical Oncology arguing that Medicare's required to cover the therapy if it is FDA-approved. ... In this case, the therapy appears to work but is expensive--costing about $750 for each extra day of life. ... **--Naive or cynical? You make the call! .... [via Althouse via Instapundit] 11:40 P.M. ___________________________ August 15, 2010 8:25 PM How to predict if "New"GM--as bailed out and restructured--really is a "sustainable" company?** Here's one way: The company is launching the new Chevrolet Cruze into the highly competitive compact car market. It will be built at GM's once-infamous Lordstown assembly plant in Ohio, a UAW-organized facility that now makes the depressing, not-very-reliable Chevy Cobalt. Ask yourself: Will the Lordstown Cruze ever be able to match, say, the Honda Civic, produced in Marysville, Ohio without the UAW's involvement? If you say "no," then I'd say GM has not been saved by the Obama administration. ... P.S.: I say "no." Update: An early mixed review of the Cruze is here. **--I'm deeply suspicious of the dramatic, positive financial results GM is turning out in the run-up to the desperate, hurry-up IPO the administration would like to see before the November election. We'll see how suspicious the market is. ... 8:51 P.M. ___________________________ Boxer down 5 in Survey USA poll. ... Hey, Jon Alter! You still think the Democrats can't lose the Senate? ... P.S.: According to NYT's Joe Nocera, GOP nominee Carly Fiorina's tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard was not as disastrous as commonly believed!. ... One thing I found surprising this week was learning that to many H.P. observers Ms. Fiorina no longer seemed quite so bad. It was actually her strategic vision that Mr. Hurd had executed, I heard again and again. Her problem was that while she talked a good game, she lacked the skill to get that big, hulking, aircraft carrier of a company moving in the direction she pointed. P.P.S.: Nocera also calls her "Carleton 'It's All About Me' Fiorina." ... P.P.P.S.: No management skill? Talks a good game? Egomaniacal glory-hound? Sounds like a made-to-order U.S. Senator! But to get away with the Daniel Patrick Moynihan don't-come-to-me-to-get-your-highway-built Senate act, it helps to be as charming as Moynihan was. Fiorina seems to rub people the wrong way--people she worked with on the McCain campaign as well as at H-P. ... 9:25 P.M. ___________________________ Visionary media leader Jon Klein moves from triumph to triumph: CNN ratings down 43% compared with last summer. (Fox News down only 9, and MSNBC only 7.) ... 10:25 P.M. ___________________________ Dreidel buries lede: Marc Ambinder reports that administration economists are at least thinking about a payroll tax holiday. ... A good idea, it seems to me, if the government can actually get away with raising the tax later to make up for the shortfall. But its biggest advantage is speed--the ability to pump up demand in the economy at the first sign of recession. It's a little late for speed. ... 11:02 P.M. ___________________________ Paul Steiger, editor of ProPublica, pays himself $571,687? Irresponsible unions have got nothin' on the Journalism-Respectability Complex. ...1043 P.M. ___________________________ Who writes @FredThompson's witty twitters? He's got a million of 'em. Too many! I smell ghost. ... 10:45 P.M. ___________________________ August 10, 2010 5:30 PM [UPDATE: Fundraising is now over. Link removed. Thanks very much for the last minute help--debt has been erased, books seem to be in balance.] Tonight is the last chance to make a contribution to the storied Kaus for Senate campaign. We will be shutting down the contribution page tomorrow. Thanks. ...7:37 P.M. _____________________________ August 8, 2010 10:30 PM So Michelle Obama vacations in Spain with her daughter and an expensive posse, leaving her husband alone on his birthday and undermining his party's political chances (bad recession 'optics'). This is the sort of story on which I suspect there are three levels of perception: 1. Unsophisticated: Jeez, they must have had some kind of fight. She's pissed! This is a big 'screw you.' 2. Sophisticated and well informed: At their level everyone is too smart and experienced to let any kind of spat affect state affairs. These things get planned out well ahead of time by staff. Only the unsophisticated jump to conclusions on the basis of crude external appearances. 3. Real Insider: Jeez, they must have had some kind of fight. She's pissed! This is a big 'screw you.' 10:38 P.M. ___________________________ The Dog That Didn't Focus Group: Democrats' talking points for summer campaigning don't even mention health care reform. Wow. ... I'm still in favor of the bill that passed. It's a historic achievement. (We can fix it later if necessary.) But what does it say about the President's salesmanship that his party doesn't dare bring up what he spent the first half of his term accomplishing? ... 11:08 P.M. ___________________________ August 8, 2010 12:25 AM Jack Shafer twitters: "Is there a roadmap to the @kausmickey and @daveweigel bickering? I can't follow it." As an experimental public service, here is an attempt to make the bickering in question comprehensible. Background: Republicans have been warning that Democrats might try to pass big legislation (including "cap and trade," "card check," "immigration reform") in a "lame duck" (post-election) session of Congress. On Thursday Weigel wrote "This just isn't going to happen," arguing that Republicans have "repackaged unresolved questions about congressional schedules into an imaginary Democratic "power grab."" A couple of days earlier I'd argued that it was Democrats themselves (including Senate Majority Leader Reid) who raised the prospect of an ambitious lame duck session when they were trying to pump up their interest group base--and that it was a possibility that had to be taken seriously.
DW: @kausmickey GOP response falls under the "what else are they going to say" heading. Very good at staging process fights no one expected. MK: daveweigel er, he could say "we have work to do. If we're going to get this done we have to keep electing Democrats. So GOTV." DW: kausmickey If I found evidence that this was possible, I'd have written that. Reporting indicated that it was a mirage. MK: daveweigel So everyones doing what they're expected to. But you only mock one side. In fact you barely mention Dem pandering. MK: Contra @daveweigel-Lame duck fuss isn't just GOP base-rousing. If U oppose immig. amnesty U worry abt lame duck--it's amnesty's last chance. MK: Yo @daveweigel You found no "evidence" because as you admit you ignored immigration. And my anti "card check" source worries--sez not mirage
16 Comments. | Click here to leave a comment. | Permalink August 3, 2010 5:30 PM From Politico's piece on the Republicans' public worry that if they make big gains in November, Democrats will attempt to pass big legislation such as immigration reform and labor law reform ("card check") in a lame duck session: Hmm. ... Where might Republicans have gotten this chesty fundraising fantasy? Here's the lede from a Peter Nicholas L.A. Times piece that ran on June 30. It's headlined: "Obama renews immigration push." Reporting from Washington — It would be a revival worthy of Lazarus, but President Obama is making a renewed push for an immigration overhaul, possibly during a lame-duck session of Congress after the November election — when members would no longer face an imminent political risk for supporting it. Obama met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in the State Dining Room on Tuesday and discussed a strategy for passing a bill that had seemed dead for the year. ... Nicholas continues: With conservatives energized, angry and likely to storm to the polls, Democrats fear they will lose even more seats in Congress than a president's party typically does at the halfway point in his term. Voting on an immigration bill in a lame-duck session has some advantages in proponents' eyes. Outgoing members of Congress would have little reason to fear backing a controversial bill. And those who won might be more likely to support it, since they wouldn't have to face voters for another two years — when Obama is up for reelection and likely to draw progressives to the polls. In addition, if Republicans make major gains in November, an immigration overhaul could be impossible in 2011 or 2012. [E.A.] What about "card check," the fading top priority for many labor unions that would let them avoid secret ballots in organizing elections? Here's a June 24 story in "The Hill": Harkin hints 'card-check' bill could move during lame-duck session of Congress Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) suggested Thursday that Democrats might attempt to move "card-check" legislation this year, perhaps during a lame-duck session. You get the picture. Democratic legislators and their aides are trying to have it both ways--pumping up the possibility of an ambitious "lame duck" session when they're in base-pleasing mode, then calling it a fantasy when their opponents take them seriously. Suggested defensive sound bite: "We were only pandering!" P.S.: I'm not at all sure they were only pandering. To reach that conclusion, you'd need to know how many Republicans might defect on a last-chance cloture vote on immigration--and whether any of the rumored "card-check" compromises might clear the same hurdle. You'd also need to be sure there's no ingenious reconciliation-like way around cloture during a lame duck. A scenario that seems especially troubling--for those of use who think both big "reforms" are very bad ideas--is this: Dems lose lots of seats in the mid-terms, but fewer than expected, retaining control of both House and Senate. They spin this better-than-expected result into an actual victory of sorts. The press goes along. Then Pelosi & Co. decide to ride this wave of popular "vindication" in the lame duck--avoiding the need to deal with their diminished post-January majorities while at the same time claiming they aren't defying the voters. ... Update: Emailer M: "Especially because if Pelosi hangs on as Speaker after November, she will do so while claiming that the only guys defeated weren't really Democrats in the first place. It's a mandate for progressives!" Let's go to the videotape: Brian Faughnan has more links, with Democratic Majority Leader Reid talking on camera to Netroots Nation about using the lame duck session to pass "comprehensive immigration reform" (amnesty). Reid also mentions energy legislation as a lame duck possibilty. ... "Congressional leaders have said recently that there’s no ‘secret plan’ to pass controversial measures during a lame duck session,' notes Faughnan, who agrees with them. "[I]t’s not a secret at all; they talk about it everywhere." __________ **--“We’re a long way from deciding what, if anything, we’re going to do in a lame duck.” There's a convincing denial! 6:16 P.M. ___________________________ From Beast's Lauria and Grove, covering the Newsweek sale: In fairness to Harman, many moguls, from Si Newhouse (The New Yorker) to David Bradley (The Atlantic) have had the patience to take their money-losing gems all the way into the black. ... The Atlantic is in the black? If so, they buried the lede. I'm skeptical. ... 11:57 P.M. ___________________________ July 30, 2010 10:55 AM the careerism issue is this: it placed a very specific clique at the center of the washington journalistic ecology, created an echo chamber where it reified a worldview where matt yglesias and ezra were unqualified great successes and their methodology was above reproach. it solidified the ubiquity and centrality of ezra klein. P.S.: Here's a crude test: In this group of 400 "center to left" writers, did even one agree with George McGovern about keeping the secret ballot in union elections? If they agreed, did they dare say they agreed? ... 1:21 P.M. 15 Comments. | Click here to leave a comment. | Permalink July 27, 2010 2:20 AM You can't argue that there's a careerist element lurking beneath the surface of Reihan Salam's latest defense of Journolist. It's pretty much right there on top. Salam explains that Ezra Klein's secretive off-record web group represented the rise of "a generation of youthful bloggers" who were "feisty liberals" instead of cranky middle aged neolibs and New Dems. The Journolist let them solidfy as a "team," harness their "collective brainpower," get advice from their elders. It "may even have greased the wheels of professional advancement for some of them." treated the list like a dive bar, swaggering in and popping off about what was “really” happening out there, and snarking at conservatives. Why did I want these people to like me so much? Or else, as he puts it elsewhere, he used the site as an "idea latrine." Similarly, Journolist seems to have provoked my friends Sarah Spitz--who produces a great local radio show--and Jonathan Zasloff into making statements they undoubtedly wish they'd never made, even in private (and that they'd never have made in public). "Journolist" was all about careerism from the get go. Salam's defense both confirms it and fits right in. Update: Salam responds, with alarming modesty. "I didn’t intend to suggest that I thought JList was a good thing. Indeed, my instinct is to be very critical." Could have fooled me! ... P.S.: Mainly Salam disputes the charge that he had a "careerist motivation rather than a nice guy motivation." Being a nice guy is of course one of the most insidious Darwinian strategies, but fair enough. ... It must have been the "shut up" that threw me off. ... P.P.S.: See also Salam's entry in the comments. ... 2:44 A.M. ___________________________ July 20, 2010 11:55 PM Just got the report from my treasurer, and the campaign still has a small (approx. $5,000) debt. Should have lightened up on the walking-around money! In any case, if you want to help retire it, you can go to the contribution page, which will remain active for a few more days. No big deal. But thanks. ... 12:08 A.M. ___________________________ Rep. Obey and the teachers' unions vs. Obama's "Race to Top" reform--Round II. ... 12:12 A.M. ___________________________ So the Obama White House itself studied whether extended unemployment benefits have discouraged people from going back to work? What did they conclude? It's hard to believe that long-term unemployment benefits, however justified on humanitarian grounds, don't discourage people to settle for the jobs that are available. And if stimulus is what we care about--well, you'd think stimulus spending would be most effective if it didn't come in the form of benefits that required non-work. ...
through your life you travel, as through your life you roam, you won't never see an outlaw drive a family from their home." Really? I deny it. ... P.S.: Woody Guthrie. Great American. Wildly overrated. ... July 16, 2010 3:40 PM Dick Morris has the answer, I think, to the Robert Cruickshanks of the world who claim that this is a "base" election--that is, the Dems' "real task is to drive the base to the polls." Morris: But Obama is making his troubles worse by his insistence on focusing on his minority voters to the exclusion of even the white liberal electorate. Consider Obama's decision to sue Arizona over its immigration law. The general electorate backs the Arizona statute by 59-29 according to the FOX News poll. But 38% of Democrats support it as well (50% oppose it). ... In other words, sometimes the "base" strategy makes sense--but it's a complicated calculation that depends on the size of the base and the number of swing voters you lose on each issue. It's particularly difficult calculation for a Democratic president since the party's loudest interest groups--i.e. the base itself--and most strident supporters are always arguing that it's a "base" election in order to stampede the President into pushing their agenda. Effective presidents know when to stand up to these perennial demands. Obama appears to have caved in too readily. ... P.S.: What's Obama's plan for turning out the Dems' African-American base again? Stoking up Latinos by attacking anti-illegal immigration measures is more likely to turn off blacks, no? I haven't heard of a lot of sympathy for low-wage illegals among lower-skilled or unemployed black workers. ... P.P.S.: Two months ago Cruickshank declared that "most indications are that [Sen. Barbara] Boxer's already" captured "the middle." Really? ABBP: It will always be base-pleasin' time for Cruickshank. ... 5:59 P.M. ___________________________ July 6, 2010 11:30 PM On page 85 of his excellent quick-history, The Promise, Jon Alter discusses Obama's 2009 stimulus bill: The biggest frustration involved infrastructure. Obama said later that he learned that "one of the biggest lies in government is the idea of 'shovel-ready' projects." It turned out that only about $20 billion to $40 billion in construction contracts were truly ready to go. The rest were tied up in the endless contracting delays and bureaucratic hassles associated with building anything in America. [E.A.] a) Good that Obama is still learning, but the realization that the expensive projects he repeatedly assured Americans were "shovel-ready" actually weren't comes a little late, no? The economy needed stimulating 18 months ago. How many unemployed Americans could have had jobs for the last year and a half if Obama had realized the House Dems' "shovel-ready" pitch was a crock and pursued other, quicker forms of stimulus--like an instant payroll tax cut? b) Did Obama really not know this back in January, 2009? I mean, Alter's book pretty convincincly demonstrates that the President is a very smart man. But a smart man would have to have had virtually no contact, direct or vicarious, with government not to realize state and federal construction projects are bound up with time-consuming rules (like the Davis-Bacon Act's "prevailing wage" requirements) that undermine their Keynesian utility. ... He could have asked Alter, for example. And here I thought the coming to power of the Democrats was a voyage of discovery only for their youthful journalistic enthusiasts. ... 12:01 A.M. ___________________________ HSA--The Good News: Looks like they can still get porn! ... But maybe I missed an earlier memo. 12:39 A.M. ___________________________ Now They Tell Us: From CNN's hardy perennial piece on the about-to-awaken Latino vote, quoting Antonio Gonzalez, president of the William C. Velasquez Institute-- Gonzalez said there are two reasons for the upward march: Latinos are the fastest-growing group demographically, and for the past generation, there's been a strong push to improve participation. Still, he said, claims that Latinos played a major role in swinging the presidential election for Obama were "over-reported." Latinos have a solid enough population to swing state and local elections, but "Latinos alone can't swing presidential elections," he said. [E.A.] 1:51 P.M. ___________________________ June 28, 2010 9:35 PM Some twitters about recent events here. ... What I think about "Journolist" here and here. ... 9:40 P.M. ___________________________ June 24, 2010 5:10 PM More fears of a "mad duck" Congress, and White House: 1) Amnesty by executive order? I've been worried about something like this for a while. Call me paranoid! Call Numbers USA paranoid. 2) "Card check" for Christmas? That's Sen. Harkin raising the possibility, not right-wingers trying to raise money. What if Big Labor offers to pay off Sen. Lincoln's campaign debts .... My theory has always been that the worse a drubbing the Democrats take, the more likely it is that they'll try to make changes in December that would be impossible in the next Congress. ... 5:41 P.M. ___________________________ June 21, 2010 11:00 PM Orszag leaving before the curve hits the fan. ... 11:04 P.M. _____________________________ June 17, 2010 2:10 PM Why "Triangulation" is Better Than "Transcendence": (There's a discussion of this question in a new bloggingheads.tv chat with Bob Wright.) The Democrats' left wing seems to be getting quite upset with President Obama's apparent decision to preserve a key elements of his "brand"--that is, his "transcendence" of partisan politics--at the expense of active fight-back against Republican obstructionism, etc. "Transcendence" has become Obama's poll-driven sin, we're told--the same way we were told that "triangulation" was Bill Clinton's sin. But when it comes to boosting your own popularity at the expense of ticking off the left, triangulation has it all over transcendence, for at least two reasons. 1) Transcendence is wimpy. Obama says he's for "comprehensive immigration reform," including legalization. He just doesn't seem to be doing much to get it done. He says he's for "card check"--i.e. helping unions organize by letting them bypass the secret ballot. Hey, it's not his fault if the idea's dying a slow, agonized death on his watch. But the President's failure to achieve publicly stated goals doesn't exactly make him look strong. He won't stand up to them, yet he can't help them. He won't even stand up to them to the extent of telling them, explicilty, "Look this isn't going to happen. The voters aren't there."** He doesn't want to risk upsetting his "base"--which seems wimpy too. As a result, instead of pushing back against left and right he becomes the punching bag for left and right. Contrast this with Bill Clinton's "triangulation"--at least his most important triangulation, on welfare reform. Clinton explicitly campaigned with a position--"end welfare as we know it"--that drew a line against those in his own party. Yes, he fudged on just how radical a reform he'd accept (mainly because Republicans initially wanted to pass a bill he'd be certain to veto). But he didn't stop publicly pushing for some dramatic reform, and he got it. 2) Triangulation is transparent: After all Obama's feckless lip service to labor's goal of a "card check" bill, who knows what he really thinks about the proposed legislation? If he came out and told Big Labor, for example, that it just isn't a good idea to impose mandatory federal arbitration on newly organized workplaces--but that maybe he likes the idea of speeding up elections--that would not only look presidential (and be presidential), it would also let the voters know where all the players stand. They could make up their own minds. But that would be triangulating (pushing off against left and right). Obama prefers to float along passively, somewhere in a gauzy cloud of hope and "transcendence." But where, exactly, is hard to tell. Voters don't have a good handle on what he's up to, which breeds a damaging distrust. Is he bailing out Detroit, for example, in ways that favor his union backers and the Detroit firms his government now owns? Is there a tacit "industrial policy" of extra-vigorously pursuing safety investigations against the bailed-out companies' main competitor, Toyota? Was there a secret deal that required electric car maker Tesla to let itself be organized by the UAW if it was going to keep getting government subsidies? I tend to think the answer is 'no' to many of these questions--that Obama wants to get the government out of the auto business ASAP, for instance. But with Obama's true attitude so transcendently vague, you can't blame voters for being suspicious and thinking otherwise. Tea Party Paranoia--"Transcendence's" Unwanted Child. ... **--Jonathan Alter makes a similar point about Obama's failure in the health debate to tell the left, explicitly that the votes weren't there for a "public option." 3:02 P.M. ___________________________
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Contact:
Kaus for Senate
1601-B Oakwood Ave.
Venice, California 90291
(310) 577 3141
| Paid for by Kaus for Senate |