Hamels Tries To Bring The NL East Closer To Equality

The Phillies are 28-25, 2.5 games out of first. Not bad. That's last place right now in the NL East. Remember, today marks the one-third mark in the season. This division is a lot better than even the experts thought, so far. The Mets, off their first ever no-hitter last night from Johan, are one back, along with Miami, the team the Phillies face today. Honestly, after today, there's a chance that EVERYONE is within 1.5 games. That's crowded.

Cole Hamels will try to get number nine today. Ricky Nolasco goes for Miami. Michael Schwimer is back on the team, as Jose Contreras hits the DL with an elbow strain. Vance Worley is back on Monday, and will start against Los Angeles, minus Matt Kemp. Jim Thome and Michael Martinez both had hits for Clearwater in rehab games yesterday. Thome hopes to be ready for the road trip next weekend in Baltimore, where he can DH.

McGloin To Start In Happy Valley

Color me disappointed. Matt McGloin will be Penn State's starting QB this fall according to Head Coach Bill O'Brien. Paul Jones will be the back-up, and Rob Bolden, who's apparently back with the team, will not be anywhere near the field.

Call me disappointed because I wanted Jones on the field. The goal is to win the Big Ten and National Titles at some point, right? McGloin won't get there. Jones was a five-star recruit who I think at least has a chance to be that good. I guess my hope now is that he gets a lot of early snaps and at some point plays into the job.

You can hope, right?

Mitt Goes Their: Take Back OUR Country Style

Yup, he went there.

Mitt Romney is out with a new ad that promises a new focus on the economy, before adding: "But there's something more than legislation or new policy. It's the feeling we'll have that our country's back, back on the right track. That's what will be different about a Romney presidency." 

I have two main issues here.

1. OUR country's back, huh? Romney is basically rejected by Hispanics, African-Americans, younger and unmarried women, young people, and gay people. He trails badly in all those groups. So, his OUR is old, white people, right?
2. I reject any candidate for any office who says they're about "more than legislation or new policy." That's a pile of donkey loaf. The job that Mitt Romney or President Obama will do every day in the White House is a job of enacting policies. This idea that there is something more or less going on is stupid. This IS about policy. Romney just doesn't want to talk about his, because they are essentially the exact same as President Bush's largely discredited policies. 

I'm not going to sit here and say that a policy debate is an easy win for Democrats, or that old, white people don't own this nation as much as the other groups. I'm just going to say that Romney's blatant identity play is pretty disgusting, and his attempt to not discuss his policies, and to instead just say that you should express your anger by voting for him, is pretty much dumbing politics down to the lowest levels.

Gracedale and Majorities

Jon Geeting is up with a piece talking about representative democracy in regards to Gracedale. Jon writes:

A representative form of government is one where the general electorate elects representatives, and then those representatives make the decisions they want to make.

It is not when representatives just take a poll on an issue and do whatever the poll results say. And it is definitely not when representatives just do whatever the small groups who care the most are asking for. That’s a recipe for government by special interest.

“The People” that representatives should have in mind are the 298,101 people of Northampton County, or if you prefer, the 196,308 registered voters registered with the County – much larger groups than the 23,000 petition signers or the 19,695 people who actually voted for the Gracedale referendum.

There’s nothing wrong with special interest groups or coalition politics, but people would be on sounder footing simply arguing that their preferred position is the best solution, rather than claiming to represent a numerical majority when they clearly don’t.

Jon is absolutely right about the math, if you accept that version of the people. If you take the 19,695, it's about 10% of voters, and around 6-7% of people. Is that "the people" though? Let's be truthful here, not all people are in "the people," since they're ineligible to vote for varying reasons (such as age). Presuming that Northampton County is like every other Eastern PA County too, I can tell you that there are not 196,308 voters in our county. At the most, there are 138,304 that have been active (2008's turnout, which was larger than 2004's), and maybe a possible voter pool at this time of 145,000, give or take a few. Now, by that standard, this still is not a majority, true. However, it's worth noting that the more people vote in Northampton County, the more Democrat-friendly it gets.

There's something to be noted here about the Gracedale election. 31,731 people voted in that race. 18,007 of them were Dems, 12,482 were from the GOP. In 2012, a Presidential year, only 26,119, and the GOP's turnout was only 13,111 (Dems dipped to 13,008). The 2010 electorate, a Republican landslide year, only had 33,927, and Democrats represented 19,211, to the GOP's 14,614. The 2009 electorate, again a good GOP year, had just 28,927, with 17,389 being Democrats, and 11,538 being Republicans. In 2008, the high-water mark, 65,171 voted, and 52,115 were Dems. Republicans were at 12,787. All of these are primaries. It's also worth noting that 36,212 people voted in 2011's general (when Dems won everything in the county), 84,038 voted in 2010's general (when the GOP had their way), 38,205 voted in 2009 (when the GOP had their way), and 138,304 voted in 2008.

Essentially, there's a couple of things to note here. One is the consistency of off-year electorates. Non-2008 primaries (to be read, non-historic) draw out between 26,000-34,000, no matter what's on the ballot. One can fairly assume that nothing will change there in 2013. Fall elections are similar too. The difference was almost exactly 2,000 people between 2009 and 2011. Go back to 2007 and there were about 32,000 voters in the top contested race (Barron-Schimmel for Controller). A little over 33,000 voted in the at-large council race. About 33,000 voted for Paula Roscioli for Judge in 2005 too. Around 40,000 voted for Executive that year, the year that John Stoffa was elected. You can fairly say that 26,000-34,000 will vote in the primary, and between 33,000-40,000 are probably going to vote in the fall. In other words, if I were voter targeting for County Executive in 2013, I would probably have the same voters in my voter universe for the primary and the fall (though if you're in a primary, you probably don't want the other party's voters on your list, since they can't back you). In essence the same people always vote.

Second thing to note here is the consistency of the GOP voter. If you're in a primary, there will be between 11,500 and 14,000 Republican voters no matter what. It won't change. In the fall, they don't change much either. Democrats on the other hand do. We actually had 5,000 more vote in 2011 than in 2012, undoubtedly effecting the results of the contested primaries in county. In fact, if I were a Northampton County Dem, I would be concerned- this year's 13,008 was the lowest turnout in quite some time. Next year's primary candidates probably shouldn't use this 13,008 as a barometer, and should instead use the 17,000-20,000 range as their target turnout. The main point is, they are much more sure-bets in the GOP.

The third thing of note is that this county was deep blue with the highest turnout numbers we ever had in 2008, but not blue at all in 2010's low turnout. The more people show, the better Dems do. The county elections don't necessarily follow suit though. Sure, Stoffa's 2005 win was the largest electorate, but the second largest was 2009's Republican sweep. 2011 was very comparable to 2009 though, and it went the exact opposite way. If a lot more people showed up, Dems would win these elections. With that said, there's no clear difference on who is favored if 37,000 show up instead of 35,000.

So what's the point on Gracedale- well, it's that the 2011 Gracedale referendum was not an outlier election. No, it was on point actually with who "the people" actually are. "The people" are the voters, and to a large extent, I think the voters, and their interests (which can include non-eligible voters in their care, such as children), are what they are supposed to care about. There is no reason to expand your ideas of representation beyond that- those people, by not ever voting, essentially consent to the governance of the active voters. So yes, policy is set by 26,000-40,000 voters at the County Level, and there's another 45,000 or so who will show up in every Federal Election year. Beyond that, we can gather there are about 50,000 more who will be there in Presidential years. Beyond that, I'm not even sure the other registered voters are still alive. Had the full 40,000 "county voters" showed up in 2011's primary to vote on Gracedale, the 75% number the victors had may have went up or down, but we don't know which. With that said, the result would not have changed.

This should serve as a shout out to all of the potential County Executive Candidates for 2013 (and the list is long) in Northampton County. If you support selling Gracedale, you are greatly enhancing the odds that you will lose, in a landslide. Now this means little to the Democrats- Mayors Panto and Callahan, and County Councilman McClure, all of whom are rumored to be interested in running, and all of whom say publicly they support Gracedale. John Cusick, long considered the GOP front-runner, and President of Council currently, may not be so lucky. He's on the record against Gracedale at one point, as is virtually everyone they may consider running, with the exception of Peg Ferraro. It may be good politics in the primary for any potential Republican to want to play to the Tea Party folks and come out for selling Gracedale, but it's a death-sentence for the fall.

This does not mean that public opinion is completely set in stone here, though I'd caution it's not likely to change. Just as polls nationally are stagnant in favor of Medicare and Social Security, it's likely that they are stagnant in favor of Gracedale here. The only way that could change is for this county's electorate to move way to the right (highly unlikely, demographically), or for some portion of that 19,695 to change their minds. Where Bernie and Stoffa made their mistake was to come in with a pre-packaged "sell it now" mentality. Had they worked a little harder on the policy (bring in the private management, make every efficiency, find extra savings in talks with the union) first, they may have had a better argument to the voters. I doubt it, but they at least would have looked better politically when they were asking to sell a public good off.

I don't think most people will ever come around to selling though unless they get a Jane Ervin-esque tax-hike (even then, it's hazy). Most people, especially seniors, are really fearful of the nursing home industry. They like having a public option that they know they can afford. Most people understand that nursing homes that are for-profit have to make a profit, no matter what. They're afraid of what that means to their care. I don't see this issue moving much, and I do think it's fair to say a majority wants the home.

Republican "Thinker" Johan Goldberg Goes Batshit

Are young people necessarily dumber than older people? Under law, there are things that seem to say so. You can't drive until 16, vote until 18, and drink until 21. This is not replicated for the very old. They vote very different too. Younger people right now are more socially liberal, and tend to vote more so. Older folks are much more conservative across the board.

So of course, Johan Goldberg, supposed Republican thinking man, thinks that youth votes stupid.

“I am not particularly enamored with (air quotes) ‘the youth.’” said Goldberg in an interview with the Daily Caller, “I don’t think youth politics is something very special or enviable. Personally, I think the voting age should be much higher and not lower. I think it was a mistake to lower it to 18, to be brutally honest.
I think that there is a certain power worship that comes, that finds its expression in the adulation of youth. ‘Well they’re gonna run the country one day, so therefore, we should really kowtow and cater to them.’
My view is, they’re going to run the country one day so we should really explain why they’re so friggen stupid about so many things. It is a simple fact of science that nothing correlates more with ignorance and stupidity than youth. We’re all born idiots and we only get over that condition as we get less young. And yet there’s this thing in this culture where ‘oh, young people are for it, it must be so special!’ The reason that young people are for it is because they don’t know better. That’s why we call them ‘young people.’

He's not done talking stupid.

The fact that young people think socialism is better than capitalism, that’s proof of what social scientists call, ‘their stupidity’ and ‘their ignorance’ and it’s something that conservatives have to work harder to beat out of them, either literally or figuratively, as far as I’m concerned.

This is so fundamentally stupid that it doesn't need much of a response, but here we go-

Goldberg's problem is that he sees the Republican Coalition falling apart. What is the Republican Coalition? The super-wealthy Wall Street Bankers, Oil Men, and Defense Contractors are in it. The Evangelical movement. Older folks. Religious people who are socially conservative. Militant folks. Younger folks are increasingly not in that group. Even young Evangelicals deviate from their parents. They're less anti-government and anti-tax, they don't come out of the Vietnam era and it's divisions, and they're less church going. If Goldberg can have less of these young people voting right now, he's hoping they won't come back later. That's the idea behind voter suppression. Voting is a matter of habit, and if your habit is to stay home, you continue to do that. Jonah Goldberg would love to not have these younger, more enlightened voters end up voting.

 

Picture of the Day: Republican Jesus

The bible according to Rush.

Can You Vote?

Are you registered to vote, but not sure if your state's new laws will stop you? Are you registered but haven't voted since 2008? Are you just not sure about where you are registered to vote?

Well I've found something for you.

Can I Vote is a website that can tell anyone, in any state, their voting status. Check it out if you have any questions. Your vote counts, and you need to know you can exercise it.

For Your Listening Pleasure

Are Romney's Attacks Credible?

There goes your job, on the truck out of country.

Mitt Romney says Barack Obama should get an "F across the board" for his Presidency. Really Mitt? An F for killing Bin Laden even?

The problem with Romney's attacks are that they are no longer credible. We should ignore his company killings at Bain, but should be mad about a company with government loans to start up (Solyndra) going under. We should be mad about him not bombing Iran yet. We should be mad about whatever it is Romney says, but not about his lack of, or in most cases bad, record.

It's hard to take seriously the guy with Bush's B team on Foreign Policy attacking the President who ended the Iraq War and killed Osama Bin Laden. It's hard to take seriously the guy who said Detroit should go under, when he attacks the guy who lead the car industry's renaissance here. It's hard to take him serious on social issues attacking this President, when he said in 1994 he would be to Ted Kennedy's left on equality issues, but now he's opposed to marriage equality.

Here's Mitt's problem. He's not credible on anything, and his governing record is a failed, right-wing one, that matches President Bush's. If I were him, I would keep my attack on the pace of the economic recovery, perhaps the only issue anyone smart could give him an even look on. Any deviation from that is really bad for a guy who has no core, and is willing to sell out to the right-wing for one.

The Big Dog Rolls Into Wisconsin

Look out Wisconsin....

Democratic National Committee officials confirmed Thursday that they’ll send their own heavy hitter, Mr. Clinton, to make the case for replacing the governor. He will fly to Milwaukee to appear with Mr. Barrett at a rally.
In an e-mail about his trip, Mr. Clinton said, “Folks in Wisconsin have been on the front lines of fighting for working, middle-class families across America for more than 16 months. I’m coming to Wisconsin to help Tom and the extraordinary grassroots volunteers on the ground.”

Can Bill Clinton change the result? I don't know to be honest. I do know that if Democrats are going to win, they have turn out in large numbers. Sending Bill Clinton to the biggest city in the state, in the biggest county, is smart. No one can do the things that man can do to a crowd. He's the best. 

Justice Is Done With Edwards: Drop The Case

John Edwards was found "not guilty" on one count, and the others were all declared to be in a mistrial yesterday. The government can re-try Edwards on the other counts, if they want.

I hope they don't. As awful of a person as John Edwards was exposed as, he's no threat to society now. He's a father who should be home with his children, making it up to them that he truly messed up their lives.

The shame is how bad Edwards messed up his. He had so much promise, even after losing in 2008. He would have made the cabinet, he would have been on the talk shows for years, and he may even have had one more run in him. Not now. Now I just hope he can help his kids move on in life. 

For Your Listening Pleasure: DMB- All Along the Watchtower in Central Park

For Your Listening Pleasure- Big L and Jay-Z

The Bush Portraits

Tight In Missouri

Close. Very close.

Obama has a statistically insignificant 45-44 advantage on Romney in Missouri, a result basically identical to our late January poll of the state that found the two candidates knotted at 45%. Obama has just a 44% approval rating in the state, with 52% of voters disapproving of him. But Romney's even less popular with only 38% of voters rating him favorably to 50% with a negative opinion. Independent voters strongly dislike both candidates with Obama's approval among them falling at 41/53 and Romney's favorability at 36/46.

Missouri's not likely to be one of the more consequential states in the Presidential election this year. If Obama somehow takes it it will just be the cherry on top of an electoral college landslide, while a Romney win won't get him anywhere close to 270 electoral votes. But the tightness does speak to the landscape in the state being much different than 2010 when Democrats were crushed at the polls and to Romney's weakness with Republicans there bleeding through to the general election.

If President Obama wins Missouri, as stated above, it's a blowout, probably. My guess is still a Romney win. If this is hard though, and requires him to spend money, then this election could be over then. 

Mitt: Little To Like

On Syria

Talks or guns?

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is killing his own people. I don't think anyone serious debates that. The UN has found people with their hands bound, and a bullet through their head, signaling an execution style killing. Assad's thugs are killing men, women, and children. Former Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan has tried to intervene diplomatically, but it has become clear that he has not moved Assad to step aside.

The Romney folks have said that the President should step in now. They would. Being that they supported the Iraq War, and want to bomb Iran tomorrow, it's not shocking that they would say let's get directly involved tomorrow. Fortunately, the Secretary of State is Hillary Clinton, and she's a lot more thoughtful than the deadweight leftovers of the Bush Administration, and she's exactly the kind of person you want talking to your President about a humanitarian crisis like this. You want the sober-minded, serious, possibly even ambitious (and therefore with something to lose), in the room making the decisions. We have that now.

Let's take the politics out though. Let's say that the past few days have made it look to be probable that Annan's efforts are failing. If that's the case, then the question is, how quickly do you move to the next thing, and what is the next thing? How overwhelming in force do you want to be? Yes, there are children "playing dead" to avoid execution like the other kids, but this happens in a lot of bad places, and we can't invade them all. Just because Annan looks to be failing doesn't mean he has yet, or that you abandon ship, or that you move to invade. I'm not even sure that an invasion is possible.

Let's take the strongest possible case for military intervention, most likely done under the UN Flag, and not being an American "boots on the ground" operation. Remember, Syria's an allied nation of Iran, so it's not a cakewalk to invade. I think the case that Assad is killing his people is clear, and I think in a few weeks it will be clear that diplomacy either has, or hasn't, worked. If it hasn't, you do have positive reasons to do this: Assad is an ally of Iran, and if you remove him, it seems that Israel would feel less threatened by Iran, and less likely to launch an air war at them. So, the best case is that this is justified, necessary, and helpful on multiple fronts. Even then, I think that internal politics would dictate that it will be multi-lateral, which remember, isn't easy with the Russians around.

Take the worst case scenario though- that the opposition forces are weak, fractured, incapable of winning or governing, and maybe not even truly friendly. Maybe Iran starts a regional war. Maybe, despite saying otherwise, the Saudis, Turks, and others aren't that committed to this. Maybe, facing a legitimate army here, this doesn't go well right away and the will isn't there. There's plenty of reasons for doubt.

My main point is kind of two fold. One, I think we're not yet at the point where you pivot, even if it's gruesome. Lots of situations in the world are gruesome, and the Iraq War should have taught us something about pre-emption. Secondly, even when we do something new, we better have thought it out well. You don't run into a tricky situation and screw it up, just to be "tough."

To close though, something to think about- we shouldn't let the UN keep the lead on this forever, if we're not seeing progress. Assad is killing his own citizens. Kids are being killed for no real reason, for no fault of their own. There is no reason why that Syrian life is less worthy, or should be killed by it's government, when we all know full well we would not allow that here. Actions are necessary at some point, and we shouldn't be weak on that.

Rod Thorn Considers Retirement?

Rod Thorn may retire from the Sixers, according to sources. Whatever you think of the architect of two Eastern Conference champs in New Jersey, if he goes now, it would be tough for this team to put together a plan for the draft, dealing with restricted free agents, and free agency. Obviously, this is not good. You need someone running the team to win.

On Doc, Oswalt, Howard, Injuries, and the Phillies

Are you honestly shocked?

Let me preface all of this: Howard and Utley haven't played an inning, Worley, Lee, and Halladay have done DL stints, Thome and Nix are watching baseball and not playing it, Rollins and Qualls have stunk, Victorino and Pence have had their negatives, Joe Blanton is slumping, and they've used about 15 relievers (figuratively, I think?). The Phillies are three games out of first coming home for the weekend. Sure, not on June 1st should you jump to conclusions, but this team is nothing if not resilient.

With that in mind, I want to touch on a couple of thoughts of mine right now about this team.

• Roy Halladay- Well, now Rich Dubee says he's not shocked. Real surprising from this organization, right? It was obvious in hindsight. Halladay's velocity was down in spring training, then it came up in the season, but his command went to hell a few times (Atlanta, the Nationals game, and this last start jump out). He was compensating on his velocity and giving up some command. I know he's 35, but it was obvious that this wasn't just drop-off from aging. I'm glad he is getting a second opinion, and hopefully this team can stay afloat for six to eight more weeks. I also hope they let him heal as much as possible. With that said, I'm concerned. I'm not concerned about Worley replacing the version of Halladay that we had this year. I'm concerned about Worley off an injury replacing a lesser Doc, and this team relying on Kendrick and Blanton. With that said, if this team can stay close until he's back, I think the division is well within reach.
• Roy Oswalt- Yes, I know, "why didn't we sign him?" Because he got $5-6 million guaranteed. He's not worth that to us, at the luxury tax, a little over .500. Texas can take that risk in their position. I don't think it makes them any more of a favorite than they were, but good move. I'm glad we passed, ultimately. I'd have been ok with signing him though too.
• Ryan Howard- He's out for June now it sounds like. Ruben says don't expect him. Honestly, having not started or even announced a rehab assignment yet, this isn't shocking, though I did expect him back in June. 
• Utley and other injuries- Obviously Utley won't be back soon, Mini-Mart isn't doing anything yet, Nix says he'll be a while, and not much else is on the verge. I think it's fair to guess that Vance Worley is back soon, and Jim Thome is probably next after him. Honestly, I'm mostly concerned that Nix and Thome are around for the stretch run, and I'm concerned primarily with Utley and Worley. Chase is well behind last year, and that is cause for concern. I'd expect him later in June at best, and even then, is last year's Chase better than Galvis now? Ponder that for a second. Vance Worley is totally necessary though. If this team can survive June and no Halladay, Howard, or Utley, Worley has to step up next to Lee and Hamels. I have high hopes.

So, the team. They're 27-25, fifth in the NL East, and three games back. If a month from now, these conditions are unchanged (above .500 and within five), I have no doubt this team will be healthier, and will win the division. The road to get there isn't easy though. The next month looks like this:

• Three with Miami (second place)
• Four with Los Angeles (best record in the NL)
• Three @ Baltimore (leading the AL East)
• Three @ Minnesota (so far, awful)
• Three @ Toronto (half game better than us)
• Three with Colorado (They're really bad so far)
• Three with Tampa (Also leading the AL East)
• Four with the Pirates (the pain in our @$$ is three out in the central)
• Finish up @Miami

In other words, this is a tough month of baseball. IF this team is still where it is in a month, it seems more likely that Ryan Howard and Chase Utley will be close to back, Doc could be close behind, Jim Thome might be back, and Laynce Nix could be on his way. 

The thing is, this month could be really bad for us. I think this is the month that can go either way. The Phillies need to step up, and keep up the positive momentum from this road trip. It is really important, mentally to say that this team just beat the Cardinals and Mets five out of seven games. These are teams that get us going. These are good wins. Now keep it up, beat Ozzie Guillen's bunch up, and keep with the logjam in this division, or pass them.

Ridiculous: The Cypher- Black Thought, Most Def, and Eminem

Picture of the Day Two: USA vs. Brazil

We lost, but yeah, USA-Brazil in DC is cool.

A friend of mine tweets this from the club boxes at tonight's USA-Brazil soccer match at FedEx Field.

Picture of the Day One: The NBA Rigged The Draft Lottery

"New Orleans stinks, but we need someone to buy the damn team. Let's give them the dude with the unibrow." - David Stern

This picture was taken before the lottery. Just saying.... even though, I'm not.

Thoughts On Wisconsin

I'm a Democrat, from a union household, so when I talk about Scott Walker, I am biased. I also don't talk much about him on here lately. I wanted to take a minute to talk about Wisconsin though, since the re-call is less than a week away.

I want to start by saying this: I think that if the election were held today, Scott Walker would win with 52%. Unfortunately, I do think this is going to be a huge blow to organized labor, one that may (just may) be mitigated by a takeover of the State Senate, but still a symbolic blow. In other words, I'm predicting a good night for the other side. Unfortunately, Walker raised $20 million, because right-wing billionaires are that committed to his victory. Unfortunately Democrats had to pick a candidate, something the last successful re-call in American (California's Gray Davis), did not have to do ahead of time. In that election, you first voted on whether or not to keep the incumbent, then you picked from a laundry list of others in a "question two" on who replaced him. I'm a fan of Mayor Barrett, but it's easier to run against an opponent, and I feel like some organized labor folks who didn't support him are fine with not winning for him. If this was just about removing Walker, I think they may have won.

Now with that out of the way- about the situation itself.

Scott Walker is a fraud. I can't say that strong enough. He campaigned as a suburban Republican, a moderate who was coming in to keep taxes down. He then went into office to kill labor, and create a right-wing wet dream. If ever someone deserved to be re-called, it was him. With that said, I doubt it happens. I think this took too long, wasn't backed by full commitment, and unfortunately hasn't captured public interest there.

If Walker wins, and I'm on the record expecting that now, it will certainly change my thoughts of Wisconsin. I remember visiting Madison and Milwaukee, both of which impressed me as great towns. In fact, I felt like Milwaukee was the most pro-labor place I had ever been. Wisconsin is blue-collar labor, it is that heritage that made it. If Wisconsin rejects that heritage and is bought by huge ads, that will be changed. This is about Wisconsin's soul in the end- is it for sale to the Walker backers, or is it still who we thought it was?

Picture of the Day: Amercia

A better Amercia may even be true, just not a better America.

The GOP's Flawed Rom-inee

Just the demographic you would expect to back Romney, huh?

In the end, the GOP got the most competitive nominee that they could. If they had picked another option- Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, or Huntsman- the election would be over today, and President Obama would win. By nominating Mitt Romney, the GOP got their own fighting chance, the most generic, least offensive candidate they could pick who their base would accept.

The GOP has nominated a man so generic that he literally brings no new voters to the table, and is very likely to both lose his native-born state, and his home one. Mitt Romney's appeal at this point is pretty much exactly where the generic GOP is: older, whiter, more male. He is boring enough that the GOP hopes that IF the country is really angry come October, he would win. He was the only candidate they had that had a shot at this.

The problem for the GOP is, they nominated a flawed man. Forget his religion, which is mostly a problem with his base. This man is a gaffe machine when the lights are on him, and so is his wife (she just called George Romney a "crazy man" and had to be corrected by her Fox host). They have trouble relating to the blue-collar votes they are counting on. Mitt Romney is just socially awkward. This is generally not the way to win the Presidency.

That's not his biggest problem though. We're talking about a man who doesn't want to talk about his tenure as Governor, doesn't want to talk about his campaigns, doesn't want to talk about his position on the Ryan Budget, but does want to talk about his time at Bain- as long as you don't attack it. The fact is this: Romney has no record of being a "job creator," but he does have a record of being a mediocre Governor. From his record of laying people off to make a profit, to his record of weak job creation in Massachusetts, there's just so much to not like about him.

This will be a close election, and Romney may lead at times, and even get lots of votes. I have little doubt that down in Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Idaho, and any other red-state, he will win by record margins. With that said, where people are moderate and take in the information about both candidates, I think he will be defeated. Mitt Romney is a flawed candidate.

Veterans Not Behind Romney?

I wrote recently about veterans voting for Romney. That appears to be in question. Reuters says President Obama leads them by seven.

I'm not going to get into their methods or samples. It's Reuters and Gallup. Both are reputable.

Getting NIZzy Wit' It

So the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has filed their pre-trial pleadings with the judges, and they say the lawsuit against the Allentown NIZ should be thrown out because.... they sued the wrong guys.

This is a really funny, really brilliant case. They are saying you cannot sue the state because the legislature passes a law like this, or because the Governor signs it, or because the Secretary of the Revenue enforces it. They say you have to sue the ANIZDA (Allentown's created body to run the NIZ). I'm sure the ANIZDA will point out that they neither created this action or enforced it. The effect here is, you can't challenge this.

I doubt this works, but if it does, it's brilliant.

Anyway, when there's real news here, I'll have more to say on it. I expect that this will lose, it will go to trial, and then there will be a debate about the constitutionality of the NIZ. That's the substance here.

This could still be averted by the legislature. Of course, Justin Simmons incorrectly, apparently, thinks the House can't repeal it.

Picture of the Day: Two Peas In A Pod

From TPM and the AP

One man is a media blowhard who says stupid things, bankrupts companies, and goes through wives more than he has a haircut. The other, also bankrupts companies, is a blowhard politician, and laid off workers more often than the other gets haircuts.

I see a ticket to die for!

Why Wolf vs. Trump Matters

In general I think the Washington Media are a bunch of losers who are stuck on issues that 95% of America doesn't care about. However, I do see some value in Wolf Blitzer's smack down on Donald Trump today, and I think this puts it right:

Right now Mitt Romney is saying a great deal of things that are questionably factual at best and downright lies at worst, and is mostly getting away with it. But I think the media could turn on him if he doesn’t do more to condemn these types of remarks.

Until recently, birtherism in the MSM has mostly been dealt with by saying something along the lines of “Mr. Obama has produced his birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii.” But as you exhibited, Wolf Blitzer just told Donald Trump he was “beginning to sound a little ridiculous.” Of course, Donald Trump has been sounding very ridiculous for years, but if Wolf Blitzer (a Very Serious Person if there ever was one) is beginning to recognize that and do so publicly, this may be the first step towards the MSM either demanding that Romney condemn Trump or else turning on him. And I believe that once they turn on him for birtherism, they’ll turn on him in general. And the lies, distortions, and flip-flops that have until now been treated with kid gloves could suddenly become banner headlines.

To be clear, I think if it comes anywhere close to that, Romney will just condemn Trump. But the reason why will not be because he’s losing voters over the issue, but because he’s losing the media.

Most people really don't give a damn who fundraises for you. Most don't care about a lot of things the media does. The media generally though does not cover actual substance. That Mitt Romney has said untrue thing after untrue thing, or contradicted his own record, or ignored his own record as Governor, or claims he was a job creator at Bain, never gets attention, but a complete and utter idiot like Donald Trump can dominate a news day. All of a sudden though, one of the more established guys on the beat, Wolf Blitzer, says hold up, this is really nutty, stupid stuff being said. Now, being that most of these guys just follow each other, this puts the entire merit of the "birther" discussion in question. It never had a shred of truth to it, the President is a natural born citizen, born in Hawaii. Finally, someone questioned why this debate is getting treated fairly.

To put this in perspective. A good friend of mine, a person who probably falls into Romney's voting blocks naturally (he's a white, very active church go'er) said to me today, "so this is what they spend their money talking about now" when he saw this story on the news at the gym. This "birther" stuff is crazy nonsense, and kudos to Wolf for finally saying so.

President Obama, Terrorism, And Veteran Votes

The New York Times wrote a really interesting piece about President Obama's record on national security. The bottom line of it:

Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the president’s own deep reserve.

In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.

They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.”

His first term has seen private warnings from top officials about a “Whac-A-Mole” approach to counterterrorism; the invention of a new category of aerial attack following complaints of careless targeting; and presidential acquiescence in a formula for counting civilian deaths that some officials think is skewed to produce low numbers.

The administration’s failure to forge a clear detention policy has created the impression among some members of Congress of a take-no-prisoners policy. And Mr. Obama’s ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron P. Munter, has complained to colleagues that the C.I.A.’s strikes drive American policy there, saying “he didn’t realize his main job was to kill people,” a colleague said.

In other words, people who are in the know, will tell you this President is tough- really tough- in the War on Terror, maybe to a fault to his supporters. Hardly the old-school liberal wimp, he's taken the fight to the enemy here.

Yet, what is it doing for him? The President is tough, and also has improved the GI Bill on his watch, while putting more money into the VA each year. You would think this would make him a candidate to be the Democrat to take back the veterans vote? Looks like not:

In 2008, military veterans strongly backed Senator John McCain for president. In fact, Mr. McCain’s huge advantage among veterans largely fueled his majority support from men in general.

Mr. McCain, who was a naval aviator during the Vietnam War and spent more than five years as a prisoner of war, received 57 percent of the votes of male veterans while Barack Obama won 42 percent. Among men who had not served in the military, 52 percent backed Mr. Obama and 46 percent preferred Mr. McCain, according to the Edison/Mitofsky national exit poll.

This year, according to analysis of the Gallup daily tracking poll, voters who have served in the military strongly support Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, over Mr. Obama, 58 percent to 34 percent. Nonveterans back Mr. Obama, 48 percent to 44 percent.

The candidates are tied at 46 percent among all registered voters in this sample, based on telephone interviews conducted April 11 to May 24. Mr. Romney has an eight-point edge with men and Mr. Obama has a seven-point advantage among women.

The polling suggests that Mr. Romney’s lead among men is fueled largely by his support from veterans. And Mr. Romney will seek to capitalize on that advantage on Monday, when he campaigns with Mr. McCain at a veterans museum in San Diego.

Men who are not military veterans are evenly divided: 46 percent for Mr. Romney and 45 percent for Mr. Obama. But Mr. Romney is backed by of 60 percent of men who have served in the military; 32 percent prefer Mr. Obama.

The candidate preferences of the 2 percent of women who have served in the military do not differ significantly from those of nonveterans.

A quarter of adult men are veterans, mostly over 60. Less than 20 percent of men under 50 have served in the military. The military draft was in effect from 1940 to 1973, when the United States converted to an all-volunteer military. 

A lot of Democrats have lamented this, but I think they may be jumping to some conclusions. Why?

1. Essentially, the voting numbers look the same as 2008. 
2. The number of veterans hasn't changed by a crazy large number. 
3. Look at the last paragraph. MOST of the these guys are over 60, or Vietnam/Korea/WWII veterans. Vietnam Vets have been largely Republican for years. 

Essentially, most veterans are older and whiter than the nation, so despite the President's efforts, he's not likely to win them. I think it would be a lot more interesting to see how he does with younger veterans and active duty personnel, the people who have most benefitted from his increased benefits for them. This is a big distinction, but also a logical one. How many older vets are using GI benefits? How many are currently benefitting from this President's program? Not much.

In other words, I would not assume that helping veterans and killing terrorists has not been helpful for President Obama. I would say you govern how you feel you should. Politics will be politics. 

President Obama Leads Again In Colorado

New polling, same result in Colorado:

Obama Leads in Colorado

A Project New America poll in Colorado finds President Obama leading Mitt Romney by four points in the presidential race, 48% to 44%.

Now, I list Colorado as a true swing-state. With that said, it is probably the one that is most likely to go Democratic, close with fellow-Western state, Nevada. The more "Western" (Latinos, independents, younger) a state is, the more likely it is to be in the President's column. For instance, the ultimate one, California, is a blowout, with the President up 56%-37%. I believe it is strongly possible that the President will put Colorado and Nevada into his win column- which according to my current math, puts him at 268 electoral votes, or one shy. Romney's problem anyone not old and white is going to be a real pain for him, if he actually intends to be elected President, and not just be really popular in the Southern U.S.

Mitt Romney: Political Coward

Dear Democrats: Stop Being Wimps

Apparently, within the Beltway Democratic circle, the second guessing game has begun. They are questioning if President Obama hit Romney too early. They are also asking if attacking Bain is fair.

Let's be serious here, this stuff doesn't happen in the GOP. Is attacking Romney's Bain record fair? YES! He campaigns on it everyday. Republicans would attack President Obama for killing Osama Bin Laden. You would never see this be in question in the GOP. They would attack, and attack hard.

I'm not saying that the concerns of Democrats like Cory Booker about demonizing private equity aren't well founded. They are. We're not talking about all of private equity though here, we're talking about Mitt Romney. Hit him, hit him hard, and hit him often. Stop being a wimp.

Real Talk On The Koch Brothers

Just the latest example of how the Koch Brothers are ruining American Democracy:

WASHINGTON — The financial firepower that fueled the rise of a network of conservative advocacy groups now pummelingDemocrats with television ads can be traced, in part, to Box 72465 in the Boulder Hills post office, on a desert road on the northern outskirts of Phoenix.

That's the address for the Center to Protect Patient Rights, an organization with ties to Charles and David H. Koch, the billionaire brothers who bankroll a number of conservative organizations.

During the 2010 midterm election, the center sent more than $55 million to 26 GOP-allied groups, tax filings show, funding opaque outfits such as American Future Fund, 60 Plus and Americans for Job Security that were behind a coordinated campaign against Democratic congressional candidates.

And to me, this is the bigger issue:

Because these nonprofit groups are under no obligation to reveal their donors, the sources of their funding has remained a mystery.

The Koch brothers, with a combined net worth estimated by Forbes at $50 billion, are thought to be among the most generous backers of the efforts on the right. They have supported Americans for Prosperity, which, together with its sister foundation, plans to spend $151 million in the 2012 election.

Exactly how the Kochs and their allies are directing their sizable resources is unknown. But an examination of the Center to Protect Patient Rights provides some important clues.

The Kochs have several ties to the center. It is run by Sean Noble, a Phoenix-based GOP consultant who is a key operative in the Kochs' political activities, as first noted by the investigative blogRepublic Report. One of the center's original directors, Heather Higgins, is chairwoman of the Independent Women's Forum, which has received funding from a Koch-controlled foundation. And Cheryl Hillen, a Connecticut-based consultant who raised $2.6 million for the center, was director of fundraising for the Koch-backed Citizens for a Sound Economy.

Koch spokeswoman Melissa Cohlmia directed questions to the center, declining to say whether the Kochs were involved. 

Why can't these guys just run ads as the Koch Brothers? Why did the Court legalize these random groups to exist under a cloud of secrecy? This is everything that is wrong with our campaign finance system. Unlimited money, through shady groups, with no accountability.

Super-Rich Issa Advocates for Romney's Bain Approach To Government, Deep Cuts To Essential Government Functions

Spoken like a truly rich man. From CNN:

(CNN) – Rep. Darrell Issa, a Mitt Romney supporter, on Monday said the experience of closing failing companies and trimming excess waste as a private equity executive could help the presumptive Republican nominee if he becomes president.

Issa's comments came after several weeks of attacks from Democrats, who have painted Romney as a job killing corporate raider for his tenure as CEO of Bain Capital, the firm he founded in 1984. President Barack Obama's campaign, along with his aligned super PAC, both aired television commercials featuring workers at companies that were closed after being taken over by Bain.

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

Issa was asked by CNN National Political Correspondent Jim Acosta whether Romney could better communicate his record at Bain to voters.

"You're going to have some casualties, but that's exactly what we need in Washington and why I'm so delighted to support Gov. Romney," Issa said on CNN's "The Situation Room." "He understands that our government has gotten too big, there are agencies that need to be reformed, closed, combined, something the president has talked about but hasn't done."

Romney has not stated publically if he would close any federal agencies as president. According to NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, he told supporters at a campaign fund-raiser in April he would make the Department of Education "a heck of a lot smaller" and would consider eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He has also said he would cut funding to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Of course, what CNN doesn't mention about Issa:

Darrell Edward Issa (Arabic: عيسى‎ pronounced /ˈaɪsə/; born November 1, 1953) is the U.S. Representative forCalifornia's 49th congressional district, serving since 2001. He is a member of the Republican Party. He was formerly aCEO of Directed Electronics, the Vista, California-based manufacturer of automobile security and convenience products. His district consists of portions of southern Riverside County and northern San Diego County. The district was numbered as the 48th District during his first term and was renumbered the 49th after the 2000 Census. Since January 2011, he has served as Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Issa is a self-made millionaire with a net worth estimated between $220 and $448 million, making him one of the wealthiest members of Congress.^[1][2][3][4] He was a major contributor to the 2003 recall election of Governor Gray Davis. 

See, this is exactly what's wrong about both Issa and Romney. They are fine with cutting the Department of Education down, getting rid of early childhood education, and discontinuing student loans that help educate millions of middle class kids. This things can be cut in their mind, so that they can pay for a tax cut to people like themselves. Wealthy CEO's who can create lots of wealth, but few tangible benefits, let alone jobs, for working class, average Americans, whom are the overwhelming majority of our nation. Their belief, amazingly, is that rich people like them drive the economy and hiring for these common folks. Yet, in practice, they would almost certainly cut jobs if that is what it took to create profits. This is why they think that a company like Bain, who created amazing profits, often at the expense of jobs for people working for their companies, is the kind of experience this nation needs. They want to run the country like a for-profit company. The problem is, that can not work.

You cannot have a "for profit" government. No one will build a "for profit" road into old mining towns that are no longer producing wealth. No one will build "for profit" schools in neighborhoods where achievement is lower. No one will create "for profit" national parks. There is no way to insure food safety "for profit," unless you mean letting the inspectors get bribes to allow more bad stuff. You can't run the EPA, or the Energy Department "for profit." You just can't run a government that way. That's not the point of the government. The point of a government service or program is to provide that to the entire public as well as you possibly can. You can't run the government like Bain.

But I guess a couple of hundred-times over millionaires might think that's a good idea..... for them. 

Happy Memorial Day- Phillies Win 8-4

The Phillies just beat the Mets in New York, 8-4. Cole Hamels went to 8-1 on the year, giving up four runs in eight innings, striking out six, giving up seven hits, and walking one. He's leading the league in wins.

It's Memorial Day. The first real check point in the season. Ryan Howard hasn't played. Chase Utley hasn't played. Jim Thome and Laynce Nix are on the shelf. Vance Worley and Cliff Lee have both been to the DL. Roy Halladay has been mediocre. Jimmy Rollins has been bad at the plate. Chad Qualls has been brutal. With all of that, they're four games out, and 26-24. Here's the NL East standings right now:

1. Washington 29-19
2. Miami 27-22 (-2.5)
3. New York 27-22
4. Philadelphia 26-24 (-4)
5. Atlanta 26-24

Things are tightly bunched, but the main thing is, they haven't been knocked out yet, even with the problems. They're resilient, if nothing else. 

My Memorial Day Message 2012- Part II

I was recently talking to a college girl from New York City, and 9/11 came up. In discussing our recollections of it, and of that time, I remembered everything, vividly. I remember where I was that day, where I watched the planes hit the second tower, which classroom and all. I remembered that I was in Pittsburgh, visiting the University of Pittsburgh, when we began our invasion of Afghanistan. I remembered everything clearly. She then said something bewildering to me.

She was in third grade.

Now, regardless of your opinion on the events of that time, the wars, and anything else, here's the simple facts: Right now, there are 18, 19, 20, and 21 year olds serving in Afghanistan who probably really didn't understand 9/11 when it was happening. They were such young children at that time, and yet, they are fighting in the war that is a response to those events. They are going into combat, and risking their life, in a fight that began before they were able to take the weight of those events on. That is how long this fight has lasted. That is how much has been sacrificed. We ought to be very thankful to all of those who have fought it, of all ages, and mindful that we don't want to see lots of future generations be put into this situation.

All of this should lead to some national reflection. We all were genuinely horrified on 9/11. With that said, ultimately, many of our lives have gone on, only mildly changed. With the exception of those who lost someone in those events, and those who have fought, for the most part, our way of life has gone on. While we claim to have a warrior culture, for the most part we have a culture where all of us benefit from a few warriors. I do not agree with the comments of Chris Hayes this weekend, and feel kind of bad for him that he is so isolated in the DC bubble that he thinks the way he does, but I do kind of think I get what he was trying to say (I also don't subscribe to most of the beliefs of the gentleman writing on that link, but do agree with his overall point about troops). He's saying, I think, that we've made war too easy of a choice in America, because most of us have no connection to it, no one to worry about in it. That we're sending children who may have been as young as first grade on 9/11 into a continued war in a nation that doesn't seem to value us, should make us stop and think. We should be reflecting on where we're at.

Next time you're singing the praises of our troops, and talking about how great their service is, stop and think about just how much they have given, and how many of them are really far from the political debate we've had running for a decade now. These men and women aren't doing this over political ideology. Our support for them should go beyond that too. We owe it to them to give them the kind of nation at home that they earned with their time abroad.