The SideTrack

Rep. Chris Herrod vs. Science

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:48:00 +0000

The representative loses.

This is one of the most irritating aspects of the climate debate. So many willing to speak empirically when there is no clear consensus (at most you could say there is a consensus that leans toward man-made influence over the climate, it most definitely doesn't even lean in Herrod's direction).

I'm tired of asking this question, but here goes again. If we can't ever know "for sure" until it may be too late to really do anything about it, and if we are capable of solving this problem -- if if it's on a "just in case" basis -- well, what would an intelligent species do?

Herrod, joined by every "climate expert" Sutherland has ever brought into the state for "Earth Week," will not be representing the "intelligent" side. Don't try to confuse them with all your hippie elitist big words like "science" and "data" and "prediction models."

There's is a world of convenient talking points and oversimplifications.

And they'd like it to stay that way, thank you very much.

News flash to Democrats who voted against the health bill...

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:14:00 +0000

TDS Contributor Robert Creamer (via HuffPo) presents a list of 10 blunders behind the choice of those Democrats who cast a "nay" vote in last Saturday's health care bill circus.

All of them are great points, and many of them are nuggets of thought Rep. Jim Matheson should be pondering.

But there were two sentences that I think perfectly summed up my feelings on why Matheson made a mistake opposing the bill. (emphasis mine)

News flash to Democrats who voted against the health bill: not one of the "tea party" gang is going to support you in 2010. Whether you voted yes or no, they are all going to work their hearts out for your opponent.

To be fair, Matheson will get another chance to be on the right side of this issue, morally, and from an electoral future perspective. But without an energized base, and with his assured ownership of whatever bill passes regardless of how he votes, Matheson is digging down, not up.

Obviously I disagree with Matheson from a policy point of view on this one. That's not the argument I'm trying to make.

I'm just pointing out that he's practicing some very short sighted, even self-defeating strategy running right on an issue he's going to own either way in 2010.

Health Care Subsidies vs. a Public Option

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:11:00 +0000

Another no brainer.

The fight for the public option is inseparable from the fight for better subsidies and affordability. The weaker public option selected by the House saves the government $25 billion. If the House had been able to pass the public option tied to Medicare rates it would have saved $110 billion. To give you an idea, only $602 billion will be spent on exchange subsidies and related spending. Including the weaker public option basically allowed Pelosi to increase subsidies by 4%. If progressives had been successful in getting the robust public option it would have increased subsidies by 18% — a sizable increase.
Despite some incorrect reporting to the contrary, just over half of the people on the exchange will get affordability tax credits. Some people on the exchange will make over 400% of the FPL and roughly a third will be getting employer provided vouchers, not government subsidies, to buy their health insurance on the exchange. Increasing the size of subsidy levels will not help them. A public option, which the CBO said will reduce premiums across the board, will help them. (I suspect CBO is underestimating the ability of the public option to reduce all premiums on the exchange, but that is a different matter.)
The issue of subsidies is important but it is not as important as the public option.

No Brainer

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:15:00 +0000

From the inbox:

Where Are the Real Deficit Hawks?

By David Sirota
Creators Syndicate, 11/13/09

Let's say you're a congressperson or tea party leader looking to champion deficit reduction -- a cause 38 percent of Americans tell pollsters they support. And let's say you're deciding whether to back two pieces of imminent legislation.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the first bill's spending provisions cost $100 billion annually and its tax and budget-cutting provisions recoup $111 billion annually, thus reducing total federal expenditures by $11 billion each year. The second bill proposes $636 billion in annual spending and recoups nothing. Over 10 years, the first bill would spend $1 trillion and recover $1.11 trillion -- a fantastic return on taxpayer investment. Meanwhile, the second bill puts us on a path to spend $6.3 trillion in the same time.

Save $110 billion, or spend $6.3 trillion? If you're explicitly claiming the mantle of fiscal prudence, this should be a no-brainer: You support the first bill and oppose the second one.

Yet, in recent months, the opposite happened.

To read the full newspaper column, go to:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/13/ED4J1AJ8JO.DTL

Perry Challenges Bachmann for Crown

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:15:00 +0000

The bat-shit crown, that is.

“This is an administration hell-bent toward taking American towards a socialist country," Perry remarked. "And we all don’t need to be afraid to say that because that’s what it is.”

Perry praised tea party activists, who have challenged Democrats' moves on healthcare, while demanding reductions in government services.

“If you all think those tea parties didn’t work, then let me tell you something,” Perry continued. “When they all came home in August for those town hall meetings, they got an earful. Then they went back to Washington, D.C. and the Senate voted that public option down in committee with a majority of Democrats in the Senate.”

He also said Obama was punishing Texas by sending them immigrants.

(emphasis mine)

Comedy gold.

Big Dawg on Health Care Reform Bills

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:30:00 +0000

Political Wire:

"We need to put a bill on the president's desk and he needs to sign it, so at the State of the Union he's not explaining why we haven't done health care."

-- Bill Clinton, quoted by the Wilmington News Journal, to Democrats at a Delaware fundraising dinner.

Why? Well, there's this. And this.

Oh and this.

Take your pick.

Journalism in 10

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:14:00 +0000

The Nation magazine has been posting weekly videos from their "Journalism in 10" (years) series, with thoughts from media insiders on what the field of journalism will look like in 5 to 10 years. From the description of the series at The Nation dot com.

It's no secret that American media is in turmoil, with many longstanding fixtures in print journalism either folding or contracting. So what will the media look like in five years? Ten? Each Sunday through the end of 2009, TheNation.com is featuring an exclusive new video series, "Journalism in 10," in which media insiders weigh in on the future of journalism. The series starts this week with The Nation's John Nichols, and includes exclusive videos with Dan Rather, Jane Mayer, Victor Navasky, Marcy Wheeler, Ana Marie Cox, Nick Penniman and Mark Luckie, among many others. Videos are posted each Sunday at TheNation.com and youtube.com/videonation.

Worth the watch. Here.

Tough GOP Choices: When Lying, Foot-Stomping No Longer Works

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:47:00 +0000

Tim F. @ Balloon Juice on the GOP's antics during Saturday's health care debate:

If it was not the most embarrassing display of bad behavior in recent government history, it is only because of everything else Republicans did lately. When lying didn’t work (they want to euthanize granny!) they tried hyperbole (health insurance reform is LITERALLY THE SAME THING AS STALIN TIMES THE HOLOCAUST!). Then they tried lying again. Then lying plus hyperbole, stamping their feet and shouting.
Normally the side that doesn’t have the law on its side, and doesn’t have the facts either, recognizes that you just lose twice if you throw your credibility and reputation into a losing fight. This fight was clearly different for Republicans, and you know what? They’re right. If the GOP had not pushed the Overton Window way to the right compared with where we started when Single Payer was still on the table (ish), Democratic moderates would have no problem supporting the watered down “moderate” compromise that the House finally passed yesterday. The bills would have steamrolled both houses of Congress with decent support from swing-district Republicans if the party had not made it a hill to die on with an emphasis on die.

Bill Kristol had it right in 1994. If Democrats effectively fix health care then Republicans are screwed. Any health care reform that does not suck even worse would effectively be written in stone as soon as it passed. Realigning their issue set to stay relevant could be quite awkward since Democrats already claimed most of the issues that Americans don’t hate. To stay alive Republicans would need to tack somewhere less crazy, but that would motivate Michelle Bachmann’s twenty-some percent of crazy people to go third party. Those two factors would effectively doom Republicans to share a shrinking back bench with the conservative fruitcake party and their pet schmuck Joe Lieberman.
So yeah, Republicans pulled out all the stops on this one.

The question conservatives who support this tactic should be asking themselves is "Ok, so what if this doesn't work?" If you have pinned your reputation on a message that isn't speaking to a majority of voters, isn't winning you elections, and isn't contributing to the creation of policy you can then tout as successful influence of governance, are you still a political party?

No, you're the "fringe." And what happens to the "fringe"? Well, people get tired of hearing from you. The excitement of crazy wears thin. And eventually, voters start expecting you to have something serious to say, or sit down and shut up.

All their eggs are in one paper mache pinata shaped like Sarah Palin's head, and though many of us on the left are enjoying the prospects of the next several years in power, the mere thought of a single party political arena similar to what we have here in Utah happening on a national scale should scare the shit out of even the most die hard of ideologues.

Here's to hoping the GOP outgrows tea-baggers and Club for Growth (who are still campaigning for Democrats, it seems) soon. But not too soon, we've still got a few more 2,000 pg -- gasp! -- SOCIALIST! takeover bills to push through.

OFA's Utah County Listening Tour, Saturday

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:56:00 +0000

(h/t UtahDemocrats via Twitter)

Organizing for America:

Organizing for America, the grassroots effort that grew out of the Obama campaign will be holding a listening tour in Provo to hear from members of the community about what issues are of most concern to them and develop a strategy for organizing in the local community. This will be an opportunity to talk about the issues that are important to you and give Organizing for America State Director Nikki Norton input about the best way to organize for change -- on issues including health insurance reform, energy, education and other important issues -- in your community. Join the conversation and help decide what OFA’s role will be in your local community.

Health Care Bills and Getting Democrats to the Polls for Matheson in 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:43:00 +0000

Tom Jensen @ Public Policy Polling offers some takeaways from polling in NJ and VA regarding final passage of a health care bill and the effects it would have on Republican and Democratic voters.

In short, the damage is done with Republicans. The debate so far has them motivated to come out in opposition to Democratic candidates, whether a bill passes in the end or not.

But the "likelihood" of Democrats coming to the polls seems to depend greatly on final passage.

[...] Democrats might stay at home, like they did this year, without one. Democratic voters need to see that getting control of Washington accomplished something for them to be motivated to get out there next year and keep control of Washington.

At this point the political fallout for Democrats from not passing a health care bill is worse than the fallout from passing one.

To fire Democrats up, they need to see a return on their "investment" in 2008. They need to see that getting control of the House, Senate, and White House actually led to some sort of productive change in direction.

What does this mean for Jim Matheson? Continued opposition to a health care reform bill gets him no where as a congressman, but may benefit him in a future Senate run. He's going to own and face a fired up Republican base whether he supports a final "Senate-ized" bill or not. But by supporting a final bill, he could rally Democrats to support him in greater numbers. He's going to own health care and the Democratic Party's agenda either way, when it comes to opposition in 2010, if this is any indicator (and I think it is):

Instead of thanking Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, for voting with them against his party's health care reform bill, Republicans are lambasting him for also voting against their alternative health bill.

"Jim Matheson proved that he is satisfied with being part of the status quo that includes runaway deficits and rising costs," said a press release by the National Republican Congressional Committee.
That is no thanks at all for Matheson being one of 39 moderate Democrats who opposed his own party's bill, along with all House Republicans but one.

Hard-line voters, activists, and those talking primary challenge will be faced with a decision not so different from past cycles: give up the seat -- or at least risk it -- with a primary challenge, or by letting it all rest on Matheson's name and voting record on less polarizing issues alone, or come out (in smaller numbers) just to keep a "D" in our federal delegation. Philosophically, I think primary challenges are always a good thing, but if one it mounted, it should be understood that giving up the seat to a Republican for the sake of Democratic Party ideals could be the end result. In the end, a decision to primary will rest on activists decision to back Barack Obama's agend, or Jim Matheson's agenda. And to be fair, Matheson's agenda is in sync with Obama's on more issues than when it isn't (in number), but diverges on issues that may be too "key" to the party for hard-liners to accept. But is Matheson dependent on hard-line Democrats? So far, he hasn't been.

Matheson himself faces a decision. Facing the predictable Republican attacks with an energized Democratic base, or "going it alone" with a reputation that has worked for him well so far.

To me, it seems like an needless risk for him to take (again, assuming his challenges will be the same whether he supports the bill or not) on the issue of health care. He's employing a tactic that has worked well for him under Republican administrations. How it will play out when he owns his own party's agenda, regardless of how he himself votes, is another ball game altogether.

Thank Those Who Supported Health Care Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:01:00 +0000

AFL-CIO has a tool online for sending a quick message of thanks, or disappointment, depending on where you're reading this from:

On Saturday, 220 members of the U.S. House of Representatives showed they are on the side of working families, not big insurance companies, when they voted for quality, affordable and accessible health care. Today is our chance to thank them. Click here.

Enter your zip, and speak up.

Melodramatic Conservatives, and their "Convenient Constitution"

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:09:00 +0000

Last night, as results of the House health care vote came through, I was treated to a tweet from a fellow Utah blogger, a conservative, in response. Before opining, I want to apologize for singling Holly out this way (don't take it personally, Holly) to make my argument, and recommend that you all stop by her blog, where there is always a discussion to be had. That said, her tweet, upon news that the House had passed a health care reform bill:

And so dies liberty - to thunderous applause.... I was there to witness more shredding of our Constitution. #utpol

This was a common theme on the #tcot and #iamthemob Twitter threads, and overall one of the most laughable aspects of the "rebirth" of Constitutionally aware and "principle" guided conservatives in the age of Obama. The blatant hypocrisies and over-the-top rhetoric. And too often those of us pointing out their hypocrisy fall too easily to convenient (even if true) arguments such as "where were you when Bush was in office?" So let me point to a few more current examples where liberty was really trampled on, which most conservatives have been silent on.

The Stupak Amendment. This is one of the most common areas of "liberty" hypocrisy from social conservatives. Not only did they support this amendment blocking federal funds for low-income women seeking an abortion, but they would take it a step further, and support a full on reversal of Roe v. Wade. How is making abortion illegal not sacrificing liberty? Even if you stick to the "protect the unborn" argument, you are still taking liberty from one person (the pregnant woman) in order to bestow it on another (the fetus). Spin it any way you wish, it's what social conservatives would like to see. And it's not an across the board defense of liberty.

Gay marriage. There is absolutely no way to spin this one. Social conservatives wish to deny "liberty" to a certain group of people, while ensuring others get to enjoy that same "liberty." All in Jesus' name of course. Regardless of where you fall on the issue, or how a conservative chooses to justify their willingness to deny liberty to another, there is no way to define it otherwise.

FISA revisions, recently extended. Conservative were silent when Bush signed this into law (with the help of a spineless Democratic House, admittedly), and they were silent when Barack Obama supported the "warrantless wiretapping," "blanket warrant," and "dragnet domestic surveillance" provisions added into FISA policy during his campaign, and recently when the House debated and approved extensions of the Patriot Act. How is remaining silent on such unconstitutional policy a "defense of liberty," even if you are justifying it in the name of "fighting terror"? Well, it isn't. It's simply remaining silent as liberty is taken away. Both Bush and Obama have supported such policy, and from bloggers like Holly? Not a peep. Many even still defend the suspension of habeas corpus, setting a precedent for additional loss of "liberty" down the road.

These are just two examples, of many (let's not even get started on Dick Cheney's personal obsession: the expansion of executive powers since the Nixon years), but two examples of issues that most definitely embody the sacrifices of liberties protected in the Constitution, without a single complaint from these glorious, noble defenders of all things "liberty." These are also two examples that occurred in 2009, to avoid any notion I'm making a Bush vs. Obama argument. These are Bush provisions that Obama as re-certified with his support. Did you see a single sign at Glenn Beck's 9/12 rally that even mentioned warrantless surveillance? Yeah, neither did I.

It makes it impossible to take them seriously. If you're going to defend "liberty" above all other principles, then more power to you. I think the world is a bit more complex than such idealistic world-views can account for, but I'm always a supporter of one who stands on principle. But if you're going to simply pick and choose what "liberty" you're going to defend and decry the loss of, well, then you're little more than a partisan hack, complaining when things aren't going you're way, and remaining silent when they are. And all the while, you are perverting what is a noble notion (the defense of the Constitution) with your half-assed observation of when "liberty" has and has not been forsaken.

To declare the death of liberty when something you philosophically oppose (health care with a public option) passes the House, and yet remain silent when the House approves the NSA's ability to record your phone calls, email, and shopping habits without even obtaining a post-facto warrant from an oversight court makes you a hypocrite. I'm not arguing the "right or wrongness" of differing points of view, I'm simply saying that if you are Pro-Life, Anti-Gay Marriage, or supported The Patriot Act, you cannot say that you would never, ever, ever support measures that would dilute "liberty" for the individual. Obviously, you would, but only the one's you agree with in philosophy.

It's impossible to take you seriously. Plain and simple.

The GOP Health Care "Debate"

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:05:00 +0000

Nice (freedom killing job killing illegal immigrant protecting! Grrrr!) "mash-up" video that illustrates the hissy-fit GOPers invoked to cover for their intellectual bankruptcy so far in the health care debate.

House Vote on Health Care Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:32:00 +0000

I'm trying to follow the goings on in the House as closely as possible.

You can follow along via The SideTrack on Twitter.

Many more are doing the same via hashtag #hcr.

Walk the Plank

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:39:00 +0000

Friday night comedy. New ad from the ever-so-in touch American Future Fund.

Astro-turfers Targeting Matheson, Add Your Voice

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:28:00 +0000

Matheson seems to be listening to them too. Utah Health Policy Project in the inbox:

Congressman Matheson and his colleagues will be called to the House floor for a rare Saturday vote on the most far-reaching health care reforms in more than 40 years!

Call Congressman Matheson TODAY and urge him to support H.R. 3962. You can call him toll-free at 1-800-828-0498. Leave him this simple message:
“Please vote in favor of H.R. 3962. This is an historic opportunity to ensure quality, affordable health care for millions of Americans, and Utah needs a voice--your voice--at this critical stage of the process. As a constituent, I will support you when you cast this important vote.”

Rep. Matheson is getting way too many ‘astroturf’ (fake) calls from the opposition, we just learned. To counter this, we need YOU to call him now.

For small business owners, H.R. 3962, brings immense benefits such as cost containment (get more talking points on cost concerns below), insurance reform, tax credits and a robust, competitive health insurance exchange. For all Utahns—whether insured or uninsured—H.R. 3962 ensures affordability for Utah families, provides security for our seniors, does not add to the deficit, and ends discrimination by insurance companies against Utahns with pre-existing conditions. While this bill is not perfect, it is an historic step forward that Rep. Matheson should support.

Saturday’s vote will be historic and we need Rep. Matheson to truly represent his constituents! Call Congressman Matheson TODAY and urge him to support H.R.3962. You can him call toll-free at 1-800-828-0498.

Also tell him “All I want for Christmas is comprehensive health reform." Supporting H.R. 3962 puts us one step closer to giving all Utahns the gift of security and peace of mind that comes with quality, affordable health coverage.

Overestimating the GOP

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:37:00 +0000

PPP:

Just got an e-mail from the party that they're bringing in Doug Hoffman to speak at their Hall of Fame dinner in a couple weeks. The same Doug Hoffman of course who managed to blow a Congressional seat the party had held for over a century.

If the Hoffman model is what they want to emulate they may just find a way to screw it up in a political climate that appears to be very favorable for them. Democrats have kept power in recent years despite one corruption scandal after another because voters in North Carolina think the Republicans are just too extreme and incompetent. You'd think they'd try to learn from those lessons and put a different face forward that could actually appeal to voters in the center but I may have overestimated them.

The question remains is this a duel of strategies within the party, or an inability of GOP leaders to contain and productively direct the tea-baggn' monster they've encouraged since January 20, 2009? TPM has a nice quote that answers the question:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) resists NRSC chairman John Cornyn big-tent strategy on candidate recruitment: "He's trying to find candidates who can win. I'm trying to find people who can help me change the Senate."

Isn't winning elections kind of the first step in that plan, Jim? The GOP seems stuck in the Underpants Gnome plan for success, still. Step 1, recruit the tea bagger. Step 2: ? Step 3: Change the Senate. Meanwhile, Club for Growth, refusing to learn from days-old history and a 20 for 29 special election losing streak, is planning to lose another election in the name of ideological purity.

Genius strategy, if you ask me (the Democrat).

The Unexcited Youth Vote

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:00:00 +0000

Charles Lemos:

The importance of getting the young to turn out cannot be overstated. In New Jersey, 66 percent of those under 30 voted for Governor Corzine. Just 25 percent voted for the Republican Chris Christie. In Virginia given 11 point drop-off and the lack of excitement for the Democrat Creigh Deeds generally, the youth split nearly evenly with Deeds capturing 51 percent to McDonnell's 49 percent.

This is not to blame our poor performance yesterday on the young because there were other factors involved. In Virginia, 15 percent of African Americans turned out compared with 20 percent last year. The bigger factor was both drop-off in the number of independents and their swing to the GOP. Independents made up the smallest part of the electorate turnout in both states - contributing 29 percent of the total vote in Virginia and 28 percent in New Jersey. McDonnell received 62 percent of the independent vote, while Deeds managed only 37 percent. In the Garden State Christie took 58 percent of the independent vote, while Corzine received only 31 percent. This more than anything did Corzine in.

Still, I think this statistic is pretty telling. If the Electoral College vote had been determined by only those 29 or younger, Obama would have trounced McCain 475 to 63. Obama carried this demographic in states like Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, South Carolina, Arizona, Kentucky, Tennessee, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota. Clearly, it pays off electorally speaking to engage the young and make them "part of something."

Part of something like, say, real health care reform? Real climate legislation? Real immigration reform? Changing direction in economic policy? The achievements of this administration are no doubt understated and flying under the media radar, but we are lacking a cohesive goal and definition that existed in 2008, going into 2010.

Stated (over) simply, the youth vote came out for Obama in '08 because the campaign machine itself included them in something that at least in theory stood for something they could get excited about.

What's to get excited about in watching corporate interests water down the reform you helped campaign for? What's to get excited about in watching the leaders you supported make concessions to Olympia Snowe?

The youth vote will come out again if Democrats can give them a reason, tangible and clearly defined, to call themselves activists for Democratic candidates.

More Election Tea-leaves: Anti-Tax (TABOR) Initiatives Lose Big

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:08:00 +0000

More "under the radar" results from Tuesday's election:

Out of all of the election results from yesterday, the anti-tax ballot measures in Maine and Washington (known as TABOR) provide a better political tea leaf into voter attitudes going into the 2010 election cycle than anything else. The good news is, progressives won big on a topic that will likely define the nature of the midterm election.

A central tenant of the right-wing agenda has been rejected with the defeat of TABOR (known deceptively as the "taxpayer bill of rights") in these two states - states that are diverse from each other in almost all respects. Maine's measure went down with a resounding defeat, 60% to 40%, while Washington's campaign came from behind with a 55% to 45% rebuff.

I understand the political convenience of Republicans championing the VA and NJ races as a win, and Democrats wearing NY-23 as a badge of victory. None of those races will predict the sentiment of voters going into 2010, however. These ballot initiatives, though, might give a little more insight (and bad news for tea baggers) into the demeanor of voters, the majority of whom see themselves as moderates living outside of intra-party power struggles.

Turnout will Decide 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:06:00 +0000

Much of the discussion over the Democratic win in NY-23 and the GOP taking the NJ and VA governors races has centered around Barack Obama, and a "repudiation" or "endorsement" of his policies. If anything, the turnout of all three big attention getting races tells us that Barack Obama's 2008 popularity isn't enough for a Democrat to run on in 2009. Not exactly earth shattering news there. In fact, Democrats finished with a win over the trumped up "TEA party" candidate in NY-23, and a net gain in the House. Hard to spin that as a growing "anti-Obama" national sentiment, thought Michael Steele really really really hopes you won't notice that.

But there is an underlying message here for Democrats much more worth the scrutiny. DS:

[...] there is no denying the McDonnell and Christie victories will hurt with redistricting, and of course, the msm will give them 90 percent of the ink and air time. Although niether win was a referendum on President Obama, they do indicate that his coattails have frayed away with time. More to the point, Democrats have a lot of work to do in figuring out how to mobilize turnout in off-year elections -- and wherever they don't have a charismatic candidate leading the charge.

GOTV will be the most important factor for the Democratic Party on a national level. It won't be the TEA parties, or Dick Army. It won't be conservatives running right of conservatives that tips the balance of power in the House. A continued Democratic majority will depend almost entirely on our own ability to get our own out to the polls.

Like a Lead Filled Tea Bag (NY-23)

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:05:00 +0000

Heh. NYT breaking news update, in the inbox:

A staunch conservative conceded defeat to a moderate Democrat early Wednesday morning in a hard-fought contest for New York State's northernmost Congressional seat, a race that exposed divisions among Republicans over how far outside the party's base they should reach as they look to rebuild.

With 88 percent of precincts reporting, the Democrat, Bill Owens, was leading with 49 percent of the vote, while the Conservative Party candidate, Douglas L. Hoffman, had 45.5 percent.

So the wingers run their candidate, undermine the Republican (who isn't wing nutty enough for them), cost the GOP a lot of money defending the Republican against not only the Democrat and the wing nut, and in the end?

The Democrat wins.

Tea Parties. Good for Democrats.

Vote

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:03:00 +0000

If you don't, you can't complain later.

Find out where to go.

Then go.

Now.

Go!

The Future of the Newsroom

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:13:00 +0000

Adapt or face extinction? From E & P:

Ask Jeff Leen of The Washington Post about the state of investigative reporting at his paper and he'll tell you it's as strong as ever. Even after more than 100 news staffers — some of them Pulitzer-minted — took buyouts last year, Leen, the paper's assistant managing editor/investigations, says he still has the seven full-time reporters he's had for the last six years. "We may get squeezed a little bit here and there, but we still have our unit and the ability to pull people from other staffs," he says. "I think you will find that as things squeeze, people will see investigative reporting as the high ground. We have basically held the line."

Rex Smith, editor of the Times Union in Albany, N.Y., says his four-person investigative unit remains, even after his news staff was cut from 127 to 98 this year. He trimmed other things, including the features section Monday through Wednesday, along with television listings and a handful of reporting positions and geographic beats. "We decided that investigative reporting that touches the whole community is more important than what affects a small area," he adds, citing several recent projects including an Albany city parking ticket scandal that led to a state investigation.

"The No. 1 thing readers tell us they want is watchdog reporting," says Randy Lovely, editor of The Arizona Republic in Phoenix, which dropped from 400 news staffers to 325 in the past year but kept its 12-person First Amendment investigative team intact. "I will not cut it. You have to see where else you can nip and tuck."

For Lovely, that has meant fewer copy editors and some upper-management reductions: "The ratio of reporters to editors is higher than it used to be, which I don't love, but I had to do it."

Also described in the article is the collaborative rather than competitive relationship between newspapers and outside sources such as the non-profit ProPublica.

With cutbacks, closing doors, slumping stocks, and reports of intent to bury content behind nail-in-the-coffin online pay walls, reading this article paints a different picture of the future of investigative journalism.

A little creativity and coalition building can keep "watchdog" journalism alive and independent from the bleak future of print journalism. My guess is that those who weather the changing times well will be those who respond to it with new ideas and cooperation with other sources, not those who hope only to maintain the exclusivity of their newsrooms. Milking content for every available dollar may impress your accounting staff, but ignoring the "socialization" (someone organize a TEA party!) of media and dissolving barriers to access is a death sentence.

The commodity of information is evolving, and too many newspaper CEO's are clutching the "intelligent design" approach with a business plan of preordained entitlement. Information flow suffers with each disappearing newsroom (especially local), but something is always poised to fill that gap, as long as people crave news.

Circular Firing Squad

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:14:00 +0000

Trouble a-brewin' for Texas GOP.

It's the Palin vs. Cheney endorsement smackdown.

Should be even more fun than NY-23's Tea bagger vs. corporatist Republican skirmish.

What's the matter with California?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:09:00 +0000

The Monkey Cage might be on to something when it comes to understanding the breakdown of California's legislative process.

MyDD's Charles Lemos takes a more serious approach.