Romney and Cain tied for lead: Another look at the sad state of the Republican presidential race

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So far, it doesn't seem all that sexual harassment is hurting Herman Cain. According to the latest Gallup poll, Cain is tied for the lead with Romney at 21 percent, nine points ahead of Newt Gingrich and ten points ahead of Rick Perry. Ron Paul is fifth with 8 percent, while Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman round out the field with 3, 2, and 1 percent respectively.

Based on the Gallup numbers, I provided some thoughts on the sad state of the Republican presidential race last month. Here I go again:

-- I wrote last week that Cain is done:

He'll continue to poll well, for a time, but support for Cain is really nothing more than protest support from conservatives who don't like the other alternatives to Romney (Perry, mainly), and, as more and more about Cain comes out (these sexual harassment claims, the abject ignorance of world affairs, etc.), even most of conservatives who make up the GOP base (those who don't care about sexual harassment and who take pride in their ignorance of world affairs, etc.) will abandon him. Where they go is another matter. Perry? Maybe. (If he can get it together, which is hardly a sure thing.) It's just hard to see Cain remaining not just on top but anywhere near the top for much longer.

I stand by that, but, needless to say, he's hanging around and still doing (i.e., polling) quite well. This may be because most Republicans don't care about the allegations. (Apparently sexual harassment isn't a big deal to them. Which tells you a lot about them. Not good things, I might add.) But it may also be because the other right-wing alternatives to Romney, specifically Perry and Bachmann, have fallen badly out of favour. And that's really all Cain is: a protest candidate. The question is how far he can go as such. If Perry ever gets his act together, he may well rise again, consolidate conservative support, and pose the toughest challenge for Romney, but, as of right now, Perry's act is a joke.

Over time, as more and more comes out (about groping, for example), I suspect that Cain's support will drop. If he stays around, though, his lack of seriousness (as Chait has argued, he's not even running a real campaign) will ultimately hurt him, as will his policy superficiality and abject ignorance of world affairs and pretty much everything else. I realize that the Republican base prides itself on anti-intellectualism, if not abject ignorance, but some of Cain's support will surely slip away as, like Perry thus far, he is further deemed unfit for the presidency even by some of his current supporters.

-- I have written numerous times about Romney's generally poor showing in polls, poor by the standards of anyone supposedly a frontrunner, and about how low his ceiling seems to be. And what do we see here? Just 21 percent. Need we say it again? Conservatives, who make up the bulk of the GOP, do.... not... like... Mitt Romney. Actually, that's putting it nicely. Here's what Dear Leader Rush said about Romney a while back:

Romney is not a conservative. He's not, folks. You can argue with me all day long on that, but he isn't. What he has going for him is that he's not Obama and that he is doing incredibly well in the debates because he's done it a long time. He's very seasoned. He never makes a mistake, and he's going to keep winning these things if he never makes a mistake. It's that simple. But I'm not personally ready to settle on anybody yet -- and I know that neither are most of you, and I also know that most of you do not want this over now, before we've even had a single primary! All we've had are straw votes. You know that the Republican establishment's trying to nail this down and end it. You know that that's happening, and I know that you don't want that to happen, and neither do I.

And then there's Huntsman, easily the most sensible candidate the Republicans have, who called Romney "a perfectly lubricated weathervane." 

Look, Romney may win the nomination. He's got great ground campaigns all across the country; he's been planning for this ever since '08, and so effectively has been running for president for at least six years (as he ran for the '08 nomination as well and so started that campaign long before that); he has a solid national profile; the media seem to like him; he's widely considered to be, among the leading candidates, the only sensible choice; he's generally considered to be "electable"; and, while he may not have the momentum of the true frontrunner, let alone the air of invincibility and inevitability that comes with being a consistent frontrunner, there is a certain sense that the nomination is his to lose, that he's probably the best choice, however imperfect.

But if he does win, it will only be by default -- that is, only because the rest of the part, the anti-Romney majority, imploded, failing to vomit up a legitimate contender. (Again, it was thought to be Perry, but, no, not so far.)

-- Gingrich is hanging around, too, and showing signs of improvement. He was way back at 4 percent in August. Now he's up at 12. Is this sustainable? Well, sure. There's no reason he can't poll 8-12 percent nationally. He likely won't do as well on a state-by-state basis in the primaries, when it's about awarding delegates as opposed to expressing general preference, but it would appear that he's well-positioned to be a kingmaker. And I suspect that's what he wants to be. He'll see how things play out, then throw his weight behind Romney or Perry (or, yes, Cain). Basically, Gingrich knows he won't be president. His campaign all along has been largely about expanding the multi-million-dollar Gingrich brand, to profit off politics, but it's also been about influence. Gingrich wants to be the "ideas" man of the GOP. He wants to go on the Sunday-morning talk shows and spew his usual partisan bullshit. He wants to be... influential. I thought he'd be out of the race early, not least after much of his campaign staff left him, but the weakness of the field has kept him alive.

-- Perry, oh Perry. I really thought he'd get his act together and return at least to Romney-level support, if not to the lead once again. Let's just say I'm having my doubts. (Though I still think he can do it.)

-- Paul? Whatever. He'll get his 8-15 percent support, likely closer to 8 than to 15. He's a renegade in the GOP, occasionally to his credit. Those who love him really, really love him. But he's more thorn than rose to Republicans.

-- Bachmann. Santorum. What's the point?

-- Huntsman. Alas.

-- Let me just end how I ended that post a month ago: If things don't go well for Republicans next year... Rubio-Haley 2016? You read it here first.

The inevitability of a brutal 2012 campaign season

By Richard K. Barry

In an otherwise insightful piece, Charles Babbington had an article recently at The Huffington Post with the following headline: "2012 Presidential Race Expected to Be Close, Campaign Likely to be Brutal."

I suppose there may be some disagreement at this point that the race will be close, though I doubt it. This country is pretty much split down the middle, and the past three years of the Obama Administration have done nothing to change that.

But on the point that the campaign is also likely to be brutal: ya think?

From day one conservatives have launched attack after attack on Obama that he is literally not really an American. And that even if he is legally an American, his values are not American, whatever that means.

Rather than having a good faith policy debate about, for example, the optimal size and role of government, conservatives came flying out of the gate, with the help of Fox, and Rush Limbaugh and so many other right-wing crackpots, with arguments that America had very nearly been taken over by an enemy force and that it had to be taken back (and perhaps, it was not infrequently implied, by force).

Yes, as Babbington rightly points out, there are policy differences between left and right, the kind that typically occupy debate amongst Democrats and Republicans, and these will surely play a central role in the campaign.

The differences typically take the form of blind reliance on free market mechanisms from the right and arguments for a robust role for the state from the left. Yes, we all know that.

To that extent, as Babbington writes:

The Republicans have their script: they just need to pick the person to deliver it. It will portray Obama as a failed leader who backs away when challenged and who doesn't understand what it takes to create jobs and spur growth.

Well, yes and no.

If Romney is the Republican candidate, the GOP will probably try to frame the debate in terms of "savvy businessman" vs. "community organizer."

And if the economy remains weak, as it no doubt will, and if the job numbers continue to be poor, this approach is going to be the GOP's best shot to take the White House and other races.

Problem is that the other dynamic at work, the one that won't go away, is that Obama is not just the wrong person for the job, that he doesn't have the skill set, but that he hates America, that he is foreign to our way of life, literally and figuratively.

The Tea Party anger may be expressed as frustration about the functioning of the economy, but its passion has always been fueled by this type of culture war.

This may be why Romney consistently fails to catch fire with enough of the GOP base to put the competition away. This may be why pretenders like Trump, Palin, Perry, Bachmann and Cain are tried on for size at fairly regular intervals.

Romney is not a cultural warrior and the radical right, the truly energized segment of the party, knows it.

Yes, things will get ugly in 2012, but not because of traditional left-right policy disagreements. They will get ugly because 2012 will be a battle for the soul of the nation, as the radical right sees it. And that can't be waged from the perspective of dry policy prescriptions. It can only be fought on the basis of what it means, they would say, to be a real American.

Though I believe Romney will be the nominee, and that he will try to marginalize the culture war narrative in his campaign, the radical right won't let him do it. This has become too important to them.

Romney, as the nominee, will be fighting a two front war: Obama on the left largely on economic policy, and the Tea Party and fellow travellers on his right who think they are fighting an epic struggle to reclaim the America they have lost.

It's going to be ugly, but not in conventional terms. Romney hopes he has a winning script, I'm just not sure he can limit the discussion in ways he might like. In fact, I'm sure he can't.

In politics as in life, any time your opening gambit is that your opponent is a fraud, things can only go downhill.

The practical question is the extent to which swing voters / independents are going to see this kind of ugliness as counterproductive, especially in a climate in which they are legitimately fearful for their economic survival.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Cutting Off Your Nose To Spite Your Face

By Carl

 

When Teabaggers talk about the high price of public employees, I wonder if this is who they mean?

Ginny Townsend, 41, took a job in January as a nursing assistant in the state-run home for veterans here. Technically, she works for a private company that supplies some employees to the veterans home under a [Michigan] state contract. She makes $10 an hour, about half the wage of the public employees working at the facility.

“I love my job, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here,” Ms. Townsend, a former home health care aide, said on a recent afternoon as she cheerfully delivered fruit and a newspaper to an 85-year-old resident in a sun-drenched solarium.

With the national unemployment rate at roughly 9 percent, Ms. Townsend says she feels lucky just to have a job. But on her low wages, she is barely scraping by. She said she was raising four grandchildren under 11 with her unemployed sister and could not support them without the $300 in food stamps she collects every month.

Do a little math here: $10 an hour works out to less than $23,000 a year, so $20 an hour works out to a little over $45,000 a year. Undoubtedly, with benefits and insurance costs, and of course profit, her employer is being paid about $20 an hour for each full-time equivalent (not all employees would work a full time shift). The average private care worker in Michigan is paid $12.25 per hour.

On top of this, she takes down $300 in food assistance each month or $3,600.

In other words, the state pays $55,000 or so for a $50,000 employee. OK, the state incurs other expenditures like pension contributions and other benefits mandated by collective bargaining, but the differential is clearly not as grand as Teabaggers would have you believe. call it $55,000 for a private contractor's employee versus $60,000 for a public worker.

But Townsend's case highlights the real danger in offsourcing jobs to contractors: Contractors are going to hire the cheapest, underpaid workers, which means they will hire less qualified workers, since even average workers will earn $12.25 per hour, which means that the quality of care will diminish while also draining state resources in other ways (unemployment benefits, food assistance, and so on.)

The savings, in other words, is minimal at best and likely a real waste of state resources.

 

This is not to say that the state should never outsource work. There are some jobs the private sector will do better than the public sector, and if the area is non-critical, it seems to be those are areas where outsourcing might commence. But no one wants to see the public security and health risked for a false profit.

 

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

NFL 2011: Week 9 picks

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm a bit under the weather this weekend, dealing with a sinus (as Al Michaels might say), and so I won't be providing my usual lengthy commentary this week.

Plus, I'm extremely anxious about tonight's Steelers-Ravens game. Can we win? Sure. Last weeks' decisive win over the Patriots was one of the best games I've ever seen Pittsburgh play. Belichick and Co. had shown again and again that they knew how to beat the Steelers, but the plan on both sides of the ball was brilliant. A spread offence, where possible, putting the ball in the hands of Big Ben out of the shotgun and allowing him to make plays with probably the best Steelers receiving corps I've ever seen, at least going back to Swann and Stallworth and the glory days of the '70s (when I was too young to appreciate fully what those teams were doing), confusing the Pats' overmatched defence (one without a pass rush and with a terrible secondary), along with aggressive man coverage on defence, slowing down Brady and one of the most potent passing games in the league. On offence, they finally did what I'd been hoping they'd do all season. On defence, they adjusted, something Dick Lebeau doesn't get nearly enough credit for, playing to stop New England's strengths while not handcuffing their own stars (Woodley, for example, was having a huge game before going down to injury).

The Ravens have struggled in recent weeks, losing to Jacksonville in embarrassing fashion two weeks ago and then barely squeaking by Arizona last week. But they'll be up for the Steelers, as they were in Week 1, and with injuries debilitating the Steelers' defence (Woodley and Farrior will be out, but Harrison may be back), I'm just not sure they can stop Ray Rice, and Flacco, who has been mostly awful lately, may be able to do enough to put points on the board. But it's on the other side of the ball that the worry really sets in. The Ravens' defence has been for the most part incredible this year, and Suggs and Ngata in particular are Steeler killers (so to speak). They can spread the offence again to try to take advantage of a secondary that isn't as good as the front six or seven, but Ed Reed finds a way to make turnovers and Roethlisberger won't have nearly as much time as he did last week against the Pats.

Yes, I'm picking the Ravens. I'm also making some picks that seem to be utterly crazy, perhaps due to cold medication.

Anyway, let's do this...

As you may know, my associate editor Richard, a friend of ours nicknamed Comfortable Kid, and I are tracking our picks this year, with posts going up each Sunday at 11 am. We get one point for each correct pick, along with two bonus points if we get our Upset of the Week right. If we get our Lock of the Week wrong, we lose two points as a penalty. Below you'll find our picks, plus comments. First, though, here's how we're doing so far:

Last week

MJWS: 9-4 (plus upset, minus lock) = 9 points

RKB: 9-4 (plus upset, minus lock) = 9 points

The Kid: 7-6 (minus lock) = 5 points

We all picked the Saints as our lock. We were all wrong. The NFL is craaaaaaaazy. Who the hell can figure out what's going on from week to week?

Season to date

RKB: 80-36 (4 upsets right, 2 locks wrong) = 84 points

MJWS: 80-36 (3 upsets right, 2 locks wrong) = 82 points

The Kid: 70-46 (2 upsets right, 4 locks wrong) = 66 points

Here are this week's games:

N.Y. Jets at Buffalo

Seattle at Dallas

Atlanta at Indianapolis

Miami at Kansas City

Tampa Bay at New Orleans

San Francisco at Washington

Cleveland at Houston

Cincinnati at Tennessee

Denver at Oakland

N.Y. Giants at New England

St. Louis at Arizona

Green Bay at San Diego

Baltimore at Pittsburgh

Chicago at Philadelphia

Stickings' Pickings

Picks: N.Y. Jets, Dallas, Atlanta, Kansas City, New Orleans, San Francisco, Houston, Cincinnati, Oakland, N.Y. Giants, St. Louis, Green Bay, Baltimore, Philadelphia.

Yes, I'm going with both Big Apple (or, should I say, New Jersey?) teams in big-time upsets this week:

-- The Bills looked really good against the hapless 'Skins last week, but I think Rex Ryan will find a way to slow down Buffalo's high-flying offence. The Jets have the corners to shut down Fitzpatrick and Co. Fred Jackson has been outstanding this season, but he alone won't be enough. Meanwhile, while I think the Bills D is rounding into respectable form, the Jets may have just enough firepower to pull this off on the road.

-- Brady and Belichick coming off a bad loss in Pittsburgh, where they were thoroughly outplayed? In the past, this would have meant "fuck you" mode for the Patriots. But this year? Not what that terrible defence. They can't rush the passer and can't cover anyone. And -- gasp! -- Eli Manning is actually playing well and is actually deserving of respect. Crazy, eh? The key battle will be between the Giants' fantastic D-line, led by Tuck, Umenyiora, and Pierre-Paul and the Patriots' good-but-not-as-good-as-usual O-line. If the G-men can get to Brady consistently, if they can even get enough pressure to knock him off his game, it could be two bad losses in a row for the Patriots.

Other thoughts:

-- Miami is a lot better than its o-fer record and may put up a good fight at Arrowhead, but I was really impressed with the Chiefs' D last week against the Chargers.

-- It's always risky taking a west-coast team playing on the east coast, but the 49ers are a lot better than the Redskins.

-- I'm really not sure about Cincy-Tenny. (Tenny?) Andy Dalton has been playing well, but the Titans have a good enough secondary to slow him down. And Chris Johnson has to get it doing at some point, no? (No? Really? He sucks this much?) Still, I'm going Bengals.

A lot of good games this weekend. Enjoy.

Lock of the Week: Dallas.

Just too much talent for Seattle. Yeah, the 'Boys crapped out last week against the Iggles, but they'll be back this week in a blow-out win over Tarvaris Jackson, Charlie Whitehurst, the the very awful Seahawks.

Another good pick would be Houston, who should crush Cleveland. And the Falcons over the Colts, of course.

Upset of the Week: Jets? Giants? Jets? Giants? Or how about the Rams (ex of L.A.), who should be able to beat the Kolb-less Cards (ex of St. Louis). San Diego could beat Green Bay. Yes, could. Or how about Baltimore? I've already discussed the Ravens-Steelers matchup -- do the Ravens really qualify as an upset? Yes, by our standards. The Bears? Could they beat Philly? Er, uh, sure. Why not? Same with the Bucs, who are up against a rather inconsistent Saints team. Tebow? No way he and the Broncos beat Carson Palmer and the Raiders, but you never know.

Anyway, I'll go with:

Baltimore. (If I were feeling luckier, I'd take the Giants. I'm picking them anyway, but that's a much longer shot than the Ravens. Same with the Jets.)

Barry's Tea Leaves

Picks: Buffalo, Dallas, Atlanta, Kansas City, New Orleans, San Francisco, Houston, Cincinnati, Oakland, N.Y. Giants, St. Louis, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia.

Lock of the Week: San Francisco.

Upset of the Week: N.Y. Giants.

Bills vs. Jets: Sometimes I just can't pick teams that I hate, even if reason demands it. The Jets are coming off a bye and should be well rested. The Bills creamed the now hapless Redskins, which could mean complacency. I don't care. Can't stand Rex Ryan. Pulling for the Bills, so, yes, I pick Buffalo.

Dallas vs, Seattle: Again, Dallas really has to win this one. The Eagles are coming on and the Giants are playing okay too. On pure desperation against a weak opponent, the Cowboys will win, or Romo will be working as a bag boy at Piggly Wiggly before the end of the season (if his ribs can stand it).

Falcons vs. Colts: Man, I used to love the old Baltimore Colts. Unitas, Berry, Mackey. I hate to see a proud franchise suck this much. Falcons, of course.

Kansas City vs. Miami: On the one hand, given how well the fish played the Giants for much of last week, they're due for a win. On the other hand, the Chiefs have gone a long way to right a ship that looked like it was sinking in the early going. I'll say Kansas City but won't be surprised if the Dolphins get their first win here. I'm using Jackie Battle to replace Ahmad Bradshaw, so I hope the Chiefs can generate some yards.

New Orleans vs. Tampa Bay: My gut tells me that the Saints are on their way to a disappointing season, especially if their O-line can't protect Brees. On the other hand, the Bucs sometimes remember how to win. Still, the Saints are going to be so pissed off after last week's loss. So, Saints.

San Francisco vs. Washington: No brainer. The Niners are flying and the Redskins have crashed to earth like we knew they would. Playoff-bound indeed. Kudos to me for seeing San Francisco as a contender early on.

Texans vs. Browns: No way to pick against the Texans here. I've never been a Cleveland fan, but I sure wouldn't mind it if they could field a decent team every now and again. A great city.

Bengals vs. Titans: Hard to call this game. Could be very close. Both teams playing well, but both offenses are struggling and the Bengals are playing some D. Going with the Bengals.

Oakland vs. Denver: Tebow should be a no-go at QB for the Broncos. He's pathetic. Can't throw the ball in the NFL. Might make a good tight end. Maybe Palmer has learned a few plays by now. Gotta go Raiders.

St. Louis vs. Arizona: Who cares? Is it true that Kolb may not play? Again, who cares? Rams have done the odd surprising thing this year, so I say St. Louis.

Green Bay vs. San Diego: Just on the odds of going undefeated, the Pack has to lose to someone, but not these guys. Nope. Green Bay.

Pittsburgh vs. Baltimore: It's all about timing. The Steelers are playing good ball right now. The Ravens not so much. Going with the Steelers.

Philadelphia vs. Chicago: The Eagles have been hot and cold. Now I hear they are the second-best team in the NFC even though they're two games behind the Giants in the NFC East. Give me a break. Still, they should beat Chicago.

Giants vs. New England: With or without Bradshaw, who has been spotty all year anyway, Eli will throw to Manningham and Cruz all day on a weak Patriots secondary, and the Giants' D will put Brady on his ass more than once. G-Men!!!

Comfortable Kid

Picks: Buffalo, Dallas, Atlanta, Kansas City, New Orleans, San Francisco, Houston, Cincinnati, Oakland, New England, St. Louis, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia.

Lock of the Week: Houston.

Cleveland has yet to face a half-decent quarterback this year and Texans QB Matt Schaub has been playing reasonably well of late. Texans RB Arian Foster is also a monster on the ground. With Peyton Hillis being a complete mess so far this season, I think Houston will win by at least 10 points or so.

Upset of the Week: St. Louis.

Not sure how I feel about this pick, but you have to think the Rams are riding a bit of a high after beating the Saints last weekend. (Give me a break, by the way. That was ridiculous.) Arizona is without QB Kevin Kolb -- who isn't any good anyway -- and will be starting a guy I've never heard of. I'll take the Rams here to upset the Cardinals. 

(Photos: The two NY/NJ QBs -- the Jets' Mark Sanchez and the Giants' Eli Manning. Each could lead his teams to a big-time upset this week.)

Karen Carpenter -- one of the best voices of all time

Music on Saturday @ The Reaction

By Richard K. Barry

I have a lot of fun kibitzing with younger colleagues about the fact that I apparently haven't listened to any new music for the past 30 years.

Now, of course, it's not really true, but my musical sensibilities are older, to say the least.

Just for fun, I've decided to post a video to make my "critics" crazy. Certainly there will be no shortage of razzing, but who cares? Bring it on.

In my defence, my choice was voted #94 on Rolling Stone's list of greatest all-time singers. Hard to believe, but we are talking here about Karen Carpenter of The Carpenters.

Crazy, I know. But the girl could flat out sing.

The Rolling Stone article about this is fascinating. You can find it here.

Among those providing testimonies are Elton John, Madonna, and John Fogarty, although Fogarty admits that as great as her sound was, you might not want to say so in public -- just wouldn't be cool.

Sorry, John. I'm going to publicly admit that I have always been a Carpenters fan. Lucky for me, I have no cool to lose.

The song below is "We've Only Just Begun," from 1970. I guess you'd have to call it their signature hit. Her voice is incredible; the harmonies exquisite.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Top Ten Cloves: Possible new fees banks will start charging

By J. Thomas Duffy


News Item:  Banks likely to try range of new fees


10.  The Kardashian Charge - Get divorced after 72-days, fees, fees, fees ...


  9.  Don't have your own Deposit or Withdrawal Slips? ... Just rent one of the banks, for a fee


  8.  ATM's will have "Coin Slots" (like old public pay phones) if you want to use them


  7.  HuffPo Model:  You can work at the bank, not get paid salary - and get charged with a fee


  6.  Need to speak to the Bank Manager? ... You can book time with him, for a fee ...


  5.  Fee for just walking into the bank


  4.  Don't have a pen to write out deposit/withdrawal slip? ... Bank has one, for a fee ...


  3.  The Jeopardy Fee; You didn't phrase your transaction request in the form of a question


  2. Car loans, instead of based on amount/time/years/, will be based on cars' weight


  1.  Groucho Marx Fee - Don't know the Secret Word, it will cost you a $100 fee


 
(Image courtesy of Tom Priest at "In a Nutshell")


Bonus Riffs


Will Oremus: Fee-Market Capitalism - Bank of America learns it has to be more subtle about screwing its customers.


Lauri Apple: More Banks Scrap Debit Card Fee Idea


Even The S.E.C Thinks Goldman Sucks!

Cross posted on The Garlic: All The Cloves Fit To Peel

Does the Tea Party want its Wall Street back?

By Richard K. Barry

I hadn't thought much about this small piece of the political dynamic around Occupy Wall Street (OWS), but I think it is true that the Tea Party movement is frustrated that their earlier criticism of high finance in America is being taken over by OWS (as different as those critiques are).

As Ryan Grim at The Huffington Post writes:

The Tea Party was founded on a sense that something ephemeral had been stolen by someone and that a movement was needed to "take the country back." Occupy Wall Street is now getting the media attention the Tea Party believes is rightfully theirs, and the perceived slight can only inflame the movement's sense of victimhood. They didn't just lose a country as they knew it. Now they've lost coverage on CNN too.

But the idea that the Tea Party, aligning itself with Republicans and fiercely critical of Democrats and the Obama Administration, could also think that its critique of Wall Street makes sense is bizarre.

How could they fail to understand that creating conditions for Gordon Gekko levels of greed and wealth accumulation is what the Republican Party has always been about? Do they really think that Democrats are the party of privilege?

Conservatism in America is at the best of times confusing, as it combines populist elements with theoretical rationalizations for great concentrations of wealth and power, but Tea Party anger at OWS really forces us to unpack some of this.

As I understand it, there is a perception on the part of the right that the American capitalist system, suffering as little regulation as possible, is a thing of beauty, providing fair and equal access to prosperity, and that its occasional failure is only the result of the nefarious activities of the few as well as the unhelpful interventions of liberal politicians.

I sometimes think, in this context, of the support 18th-century British parliamentarian Edmund Burke gave to the grievances of the American revolutionaries. It was not, he argued, a revolution at all but rather an attempt to bring things back to a previous condition of fairness. The system, he might have said, was fine. Bad actors had interfered with the goodness of the natural flow of things.

But, for the Occupy Wall Street protesters, and those who support their goals, the system is most certainly not fine. Gross inequalities are a built-in feature of the way we currently allocate resources and, for those of us who think it is important that we live in a society where everyone has enough, some pretty big things would have to change.

To put a fine point on it, the Tea Party movement would seem to be saying, "We want our Wall Street back," implying that we need only go back to a time when there were no bad men and women profiting from subprime mortgage crises and government regulation didn't gum up the works. But of course there will always be bad men and women who wish only to line their pockets in spectacular ways, and without government regulation things would only be worse.

Let's face it, whatever the Tea Party movement's critique of Wall Street, it was always incoherent and few paid attention to it. Even if only at an intuitive level, the OWS position seems to make sense to a lot of people. On its face the mere fact that so much of the wealth in our country is controlled by so few is not acceptable. If the reply from the super wealthy is that those are the rules of the game, then the rules should be changed. Why is that so hard to understand?

Note to the Tea Party: Wall Street has always been corrupt and, just as with all those other vaguely articulated notions of an America that once was, the good Wall Street is not real.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

"Moondance" and the coolness of autumn

By Richard K. Barry

In the late 1970s, I was working at an NPR radio station in Oswego, New York, writing and reading the news on the hour. It was something I did while attending university, more or less for the hell of it. There was certainly no money in it. 

Late one night, about this time of year, the DJ and I got talking about songs that reminded us of autumn. We realized pretty quickly we couldn't think of many.

For some reason, Van Morrison's "Moondance" was all that came to mind. It's a little spooky, a little haunting. Halloween-like. A very cool tune. Cool enough to make you feel the season change. I don't know. Anyway, that's what I thought of and that's what the DJ put on the air during the late night shift on that particular evening at WRVO - 89.9 Oswego, New York.

Here's a clip of Van the Man doing the song at the 1980 Montreux Jazz Festival.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Photo of the Day: Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador

By Richard K. Barry

It is hard to explain Newfoundland and Labrador to Americans. Hell, it's hard to explain it to Canadians if they've never been there.

It's a beautiful place, though historically a very poor place until more recently, as offshore oil revenues have pumped significant money into the region.

Part of its previous economic decline can be traced to the overfishing of the cod stocks in the surrounding Atlantic Ocean. A long and complicated story, a part of which has to do with the decline of what are called the outports, which are any ports not St. John's, the provincial capital and principal city.

As an American, I've come upon my knowledge of Newfoundland and Labrador through my wife, who was born and raised there. We go back as often as we can for so many reasons: the people, the scenery, the music, the incredible local culture in general.

One of the aforementioned outports is a place called Bay de Verde, a small community up the coast from St. John's, where my wife's mother was born.

The picture above is of this place taken very recently by my sister-in-law. By the look of things, you wouldn't think much has changed over time.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

A post on the Kardashian-Humphries divorce, the saddest event in American history

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Looking for something really good to read this afternoon? I highly recommend Molly Lambert's "The Kardashian Divorce Fiasco: Blame Mom" at Grantland's Hollywood Prospectus blog.

No, I don't care about the Kardashian-Humphries split, seemingly part of a grotesque money grab on the part of the Kardashian Klan, but I do care about what it says about American culture. Not good things -- not good at all. And Lambert provides some astute observations:

People will get sick of Kim Kardashian eventually, because her career is predicated on novelty and her primary talent (being hot, which she is) is transitory. After one possibly staged marriage fails, she becomes the Kim who cried wolf. E! is not exactly in the business of building lasting careers. Rumors that Kris H. was "cast" in order to ensure Kim underwent her first marriage before the dreaded age of 30 have yet to prove true or false, but faked relationships are as old as Hollywood itself (they are as old as 1853). The endless Kardashian family spectacle serves to take focus off the real issues by distracting us with shiny ass-shaped lures. And as long as we continue to pay attention, we lose. Because we all tuned in to her stupid wedding special and allowed her to be a star, Kim Kardashian is the 1 percent and we are all bottom-feeders.

The problem is, there are many, many Kim Kardashians -- with lesser asses, perhaps, but with the same "talent" for achieving and maintaining superficial celebrity status, making shitloads of money, and, if only for a brief time, dominating popular culture.

Which means that the bottom-feeding will continue, and worsen, without an end in sight short of cultural and perhaps civilizational apocalypse.

Shame on Cain

By Capt. Fogg

That's right, Mr. Cain, you're a victim, but I doubt we can agree about what you're the victim of. If you bumble and fumble and contradict yourself about political stances in some strange pantomime of someone who might have reasonable solutions to real problems rather than doggy treats thrown to the barking mob: if you elected to join the minstrel show hoping to win over the racists and rednecks with a little soft shoe and a big grin: if you thought slashing jobs at a pizza chain made you eligible to tell us how to run the world, why sure, you're your own victim but most of us are too tired of it to be saintly and forgive you.

But a "high tech lynching?" Don't make me laugh, and besides Clarance Thomas made that trope a dopey joke a long time ago. You're just the rude, crude and blatantly phoney burlesque of a candidate to dress up accusations of sexual harassment in stylish credibility and denying things we know that you know or breaking into a song isn't going to convince mama that those porn mags under your mattress belonged to someone else. Talking about lynching in this context is like digging up all the real victims and lynching them again.

Why so pessimistic, Nate Silver? Isn't Obama still the favorite?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Political numbers guru Nate Silver wrote yesterday (in a long but interesting piece) at the Times that "Obama has gone from a modest favorite to win re-election to, probably, a slight underdog." He bases this on the fact that the president's approval rates are fairly low, as well as on the fact that the economy is in terrible shape. I encourage you to read the whole piece, but he concludes:

It is early, and almost no matter what, the election will be a losable one for Republicans. But Obama's position is tenuous enough that it might not be a winnable one for him. 

The numbers are certainly not in Obama's favour at this point, and the economy does indeed suck, but there's more to this than Silver suggests, and there are other variables at work. As Jon Chait writes:

Silver's key assumption is that Obama's approval rating is likely to hover around 43 percent, where it currently stands. Obama is an incumbent presiding over a terrible economy. That is typically a recipe for doom. On the other hand, the terrible economy started under his predecessor, whom large numbers of Americans continue to blame. What's more, the opposition party remains wildly unpopular, with a majority of Floridians recently saying they believe Republicans are deliberately sabotaging the economy...

Obama has a chance to have his approval rating rise simply by drawing a sharp contrast against the Republican nominee. In other words, incumbent approval rating isn't something that's independent of the opposing candidate. Voters may shape their view of the incumbent by making a comparison.

I think that's right. Basically, approval ratings consider Obama in a vacuum -- do you approve or not? But an election isn't a vacuum. An election provides a choice. If next year's election were a pure referendum on Obama, then maybe, just maybe, he'd lose (though I suspect not). But it won't be. Instead, it will pit the president against a Republican. That Republican may have some centrist appeal, like Romney, or may not, like Perry. Either way, the Republican alternative to Obama will be deeply flawed, either an extremist or, in Romney's case, an ex-moderate posing as a conservative and playing to the GOP's right-wing base who is widely loathed in his own party and who has little credibility given his long history of flips and flops.

Simply put, "Obama: Yes or No" is much different than "Obama or Romney/Perry." In the latter case, that is, in the election, the president will have an enormous advantage given the unpopularity of the Republican Party and its extremism and the lack of strong appeal of the Republican candidate to any constituency outside a certain part of the GOP -- for Perry, the right-wing base; for Romney, the somewhat more moderate but still deeply conservative establishment.

As well, Obama is an outstanding campaigner. He will draw sharp distinctions between himself and his Republican challenger, shaping the election's dominant narratives, and will likely energize voters much as he did in '08 -- perhaps not to that degree, but I suspect more than his detractors expect. He's got appeal that no one on the Republican side can even approach.

For more on this, I highly recommend this post by our friend Zandar:

I'm going to say the selection of any single Republican makes him the favorite again.

Yes, that sounds about right.

Romney says he's been "as consistent as human beings can be"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Seriously. Apparently without a trace of irony:

"I've been as consistent as human beings can be," the presidential candidate said in a meeting with the editorial board of New Hampshire's Seacoast Media Group. "I cannot state every single issue in exactly the same words every single time, and so there are some folks who, obviously, for various political and campaign purposes will try and find some change and try to draw great attention to something which looks like a change which in fact is entirely consistent."

In a long line of bullshit statements, this may be Romney's bullshittiest.

Herman Cain threatens legal action even as sexual harassment story gets bigger and bigger

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I think it's hilarious that, according to WaPo, the Herman Cain campaign is "considering legal action" against Politico over its report of sexual harassment allegations.

Obviously, it's just a lot of bluster, a way to try to deflect attention from the story that is sinking Cain.

And that story is getting bigger and bigger:

Herman Cain flatly denies the most serious allegation facing him – that he made an unwanted sexual advance toward a female employee at a work event – but POLITICO has learned new details making clear there were urgent discussions of the woman's accusations at top levels of the National Restaurant Association within hours of when the incident was alleged to have occurred.

The new details – which come from multiple sources independently familiar with the incident at a hotel during a restaurant association event in the late 1990s – put the woman's account even more sharply at odds with Cain's emphatic insistence in news media interviews this week that nothing inappropriate happened between the two.

And this is just one of the allegations. There are at least three -- and, one imagines, there could be many more.

And there's more:

 

POLITICO has learned that one of the women who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment at the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s received a payout of about $45,000 as part of her settlement – significantly more than the two or three months' salary Cain initially recalled the woman obtained.

You don't get a settlement like that for nothing. And, once more, it would appear that Cain was lying.

How are you enjoying the implosion of Herman Cain?

This day in history - November 3, 1913: The United States introduces an income tax

By Richard K. Barry

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture of the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations.

On November 3, 1913, the first American citizens received information about the new national income tax including the fact that a married man living with his wife, who is in receipt of an income of $5,000 pays $10 a year and if his income is $10,000 he pays $60 a year.

Not much to say about this. I'm surprised Republicans don't have plans to wear black arm bands on Capitol Hill. Maybe they do.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

11/02/2011 -- The Great Palindrome

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you weren't aware, and not many were, yesterday was a hugely significant day... for palindrome enthusiasts:

Today might not seem any more special than yesterday or the day before, but it is a once-in-10,000-years event. Nov. 2, 2011, written out numerically, is 11/02/2011, which on its own makes it a very rare eight-digit palindrome date, meaning that it can be read the same way frontward and backward.

But, as one scientist has found, there's much more to this date that makes it truly one of a kind.

This century features a relative wealth of eight-digit palindrome dates; today is the third date so far, and there will be nine more. In fact, we live in a relative golden age of palindrome dates: Before 10/02/2001, the last eight-digit palindrome date was Aug. 31, 1380 (08/31/1380).

"Eight-digit palindrome dates are very rare, and are clustered in the first three or so centuries at the beginning of a millennial, and then don't show up for 600 to 700 years, until they appear as a cluster in the next millennium," said Aziz Inan, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Portland who crunches palindrome dates in his spare time.

Wait... there's more:

"If you look at the date as a number, 11022011, it has very special properties," Inan explained. "It is the product of 7 squared times 11 cubed times 13 squared. That is impressive because those are three consecutive prime numbers. No other palindrome date, up to A.D. 10,000, is like that.

"Not only that, if you write it out as 72 x 113 x 132, you'll notice that even the superscript power numbers – 232 – are a palindrome."

I don't mean to come across as sarcastic. This is actually quite interesting -- from a purely mathematical perspective.

Although, what if you write it 11/2/11? That's a palindrome, but not nearly as rare. (Hey, today's 11/3/11!)

Or what if you write it 11/2/2001, which isn't a palindrome?

Or if you write it the British (and often Canadian) way: 02.11.2011. Now that's not interesting at all. (Or am I missing something?)

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it.

What's behind the improving polling results for President Obama?

By Richard K. Barry

President Obama hasn't had a lot of good polling news lately, but things might be changing.

According to a new poll by Quinnipiac University, Obama's approval / disapproval rating is running almost even nationally, up from a negative 41-55 split just a month ago. And perhaps even more important, his matchup numbers with potential GOP opponents is stronger as well.

As TPM reports:

President Barack Obama seems to be improving in voters' eyes almost across-the-board," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in a release. "He scores big gains among the group with whom he has had the most problems - whites and men. Women also shift from a five-point negative to a four-point positive."

He also leads all GOP challengers outside the poll's margin of error, beating Romney by a 47-42 margin and Perry by a 52-36 margin, and leading Cain and Gingrich by double digits.

TPM speculates that the improvement may have something to do with Obama's "heavy travel schedule" of the past month, during which he promoted his "major jobs package" in key swing states in the Midwest, South, and Mountain West:

When Congress stalled on the jobs package, the President moved on to “We Can’t Wait,” a series of executive orders that he says will help alleviate some of the economic hardship, from new rules on foreclosures to helping with student loan debt.

Okay, that could be a part of it. It's also true that the more America sees of the clowns running for the GOP nomination, the less impressed they are likely to be. Perhaps the Occupy Wall Street income inequality message is starting to resonate with more and more people. Maybe the President's foreign policy success in Libya is part of it -- or some not totally discouraging recent job numbers. Hard to say.

Whatever it is, it's good news for the Democrats, and I'm sure David Plouffe and company will take it. (If you don't know, Plouffe was the chief campaign manager for Obama in 2008, and he's back on the job. That's him pictured above).

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)