Steam Powered Opinions

Thanksgiving

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:46:00 +0000

Hope everyone is enjoying their Thanksgiving, I'll be spending the evening down at Invesco.

Let's go Broncos!

MACHINEGUNMINKY | MySpace Video

Life's little annoyances... Comcast edition

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:11:00 +0000

As if I needed another reason to hate Comcast now when you call their 1-800 number you are greeted by Shaq and Ben Stein.

If there is a God in heaven...

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:37:00 +0000

She will let Lou Dobbs run against Robert Menendez for U.S. Senate.

Just in time for Thanksgiving... obesity and poverty blogging

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:31:00 +0000

The folks at Sadly,No! deliver a thorough thrashing to WaPo's Charles Lane.

Hey Andrew, here's that opening you've been looking for...

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:28:00 +0000

Denver Post,

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet suddenly finds himself the darling of liberals on health care reform, but he appears more cautious on the Democrats' other major priority for the year — imposing new regulations on Wall Street...

Bennet last week joined Republicans in warning of "unintended consequences" in the sweeping, 1,100-page bill developed by Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., which establishes a new federal super-regulator as well as a separate agency to protect consumers.
The committee's junior Democrat, Bennet called for coming up with a bill that can win Republican support.

He raised his concerns the same day that Republicans asked for months of new hearings and discussion and warned darkly that passing financial regulatory reform in its current shape would cause "pandemonium in the world."

Here it is, served on a silver platter, an opportunity for Andrew Romanoff to create some daylight between himself and Michael Bennet. Romanoff is not the populist sort but if he wants a shot at winning he needs to seize on an issue and make it his own.

Your liberal media...

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:35:00 +0000

Apparently CNN is serious and this isn't something from The Onion.

Wars cost money

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:00:00 +0000

Time to start paying for them.

Of course this will never pass out of the Senate, it may not even make it to the floor of the Senate for debate. The same Serious Centrists who are telling us that we can't afford healthcare will be leading the charge to defeat this measure. They're budget hawks when the issue is spending money to stimulate the economy in the midst of the greatest economic downturn in generations or corralling our spiraling healthcare costs while increasing access to basic care. When we're discussing blowing up brown people in far away countries, well that's free as far as the Serious Centrists are concerned.

Poor analysis of Bennet healthcare stand from Beltway media....

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:15:00 +0000

I'll use Ezra Klein as an example. First, here's what Michael Bennet said to CNN over the weekend,

“If you get to the final point and you are a critical vote for health care reform and every piece of evidence tells you if you support the bill you will lose your job, would you cast the vote and lose your job?”...
Bennet answered very simply: "Yes."

Ezra's analysis comes in a post titled "Sen. Michael Bennet is not a cynical careerist"

Bennet, it should be said, is a vulnerable senator. He's a moderate Democrat in a swing state who was appointed to his seat with no electoral skills or existing political base. But maybe that accounts for his clarity on this question. Bennet was formerly chief of staff to the mayor of Denver and then superintendent of the city's school system. He has never made the compromises that lead to reelection, nor learned the complex set of rationalizations that lead so many politicians to justify those compromises.

Where to begin?

First, I think that the title to Klein's post is grossly off the mark. Michael Bennet is facing a primary challenge and whatever you think of Andrew Romanoff's chances currently there's no surer way to piss of the Democratic base in Colorado than by failing on healthcare reform. Michael Bennet is certainly aware of this and while he has been consistent on the issue of healthcare it's hardly a sign of his not being a careerist. Quite the opposite really. A smart politician in a primary is going to make sure he is in line with his base on an issue such as healthcare. I'm not saying that Bennet made this statement purely out of cynical career concerns but his statement certainly isn't an example of a politician eschewing career concerns.

Second, Klein makes the all too common mistake of looking at a resume which includes high level political jobs but no elected office and concluding that Bennet is a political neophyte. The man was Chief of Staff to Mayor Hickenlooper, that's a position that clearly required Bennet to learn "the complex set of rationalizations that lead so many politicians to justify... compromises." He was also Superintendent of Denver Public Schools, which is about as political of a job as you will find in this state and obviously requires political compromises, justifications and rationalizations.

How Klein can look at this resume and not see that Bennet's experience is over-flowing with political experience is beyond me. Klein conflates electoral experience with political experience. As Bennet demonstrates you can have political experience without having electoral experience.

Colorado GOP, still totally useless

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:07:00 +0000

Thanks to the Colorado GOP for reminding us that no matter what we may think of Bill Ritter as governor the Republicans are still operating in an alternative universe where the state doesn't need more revenues... or bridges, or roads, or schools...

Not getting it...

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:01:00 +0000

Apparently Jeffrey Goldberg still doesn't understand that American Evangelical support for Israel is rooted in the Evangelical belief in an apocalyptic End Times. They don't love Israel or Jews, they're rooting for their destruction. In other words dear Jeffrey, they are using you for their own salvation. That Jews and Israel die a horrid death via a Holy War in the process is a feature, not a bug.

Bennet gets national attention

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:54:00 +0000

Steven Benen at the Washington Monthly has picked up on Sen. Michael Bennet's clear declaration on CNN that he would vote in favor of health care reform even if it that vote cost him his job.

That sound you hear is the window of opportunity closing on Andrew Romanoff. The former Colorado Speaker of the House depsertaly needs a message and an issue to run on. Thus far Bennet has failed to provide any such opportunities for Romanoff and Romanoff hasn't forced any opening himself.

Ah, weekend....

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:46:00 +0000

Hell-acious week, no time for blogging or even following the news really so here's some quick hits from Saturday morning browsing...

I was thoroughly entertained by this snark filled dressing down of yet another very stupid Matt Yglesias post. Honestly, I wonder sometimes if he's purposefully trolling his readers just for his own personal bemusement.

Matt Taibbi on the culture wars and Sarah Palin, it's a great and insightful take.

Also, leave it to The Onion to really get to the heart of matters.

Nobody knows who Nancy Pelosi is... except voters

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:46:00 +0000

Yglesias pointing to new poll today,

The political press has a structural tendency to overstate the political importance of basically everything that happens. And one of the ways in which they do this is with a tendency to vastly overstate the extent to which people are paying any attention to what’s happening in Washington. 49 percent knowing who Pelosi is isn’t a terribly small share of the public, but that 49 percent is disproportionately going to be composed of strong partisans who don’t swing elections.

I see what he's getting at and I generally agree with him re: the political press. However, the poll in question shows Pelosi with a 49 percent rating was with self-described registered voters. If a poll was released during election season that sampled self-described registered voters it's findings would rightfully be scoffed at. What we really want to know is the number of likely voters who know who Nancy Pelosi is and what they think of her.

SCOTUS takes a pass on Redskins challenge

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:36:00 +0000

Interesting read on the Native American challenge to the trademarked nickname of Washington D.C.'s NFL franchise over at SCOTUSblog. You'll never guess which Justice, in their time on the Circuit Court bench, found that failure to timely challenge assert one's rights was not available as an affirmative defense in cases of offensive trademarks.

It's a highly offensive name, that the team is located in the nation's Capitol is all the worse.

For Sully

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:58:00 +0000

This seemed appropriate seeing as how Andrew Sullivan has turned into an all Palin blog the last 24 hours or so...

12 years ago today...

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:44:00 +0000

I was a freshman in college and made my first trip to Colorado.

Who wants to start the campaign committee?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:17:00 +0000

John Cole,

Seriously, when is this Palin bullshit going to stop? You know who else isn’t prepared to be President? Pauly Shore. How come there are no polls about him?

I'd donate some money to see that. Because really, after Sarah Palin who can't seriously run for president?

"Pauly Shore 2012 - Why the fuck not?"

Don't argue with a Professor

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:13:00 +0000

Seth brings the smarts today,

I've seen no small amount of hand-wringing from Democrats worried about the impact of the current double-digit unemployment on next year's midterm elections. By most estimates, even if there is robust economic growth for the next year, unemployment will still be quite high a year from now, maybe upwards of eight percent.* What kind of effect could this have on the election?

Actually, there's not much evidence unemployment has any effect at all.

I am one of those Democrats and I appreciate someone looking at actual data and getting to the truth. It's something that I try to do but, obviously, I have my own biases and I'm not always objective. From Seth's research it appears that economic growth (as measured by real disposable income) has a statistically significant impact on the presidential incumbents electoral chances. Go check out the full post though, there's some good data in there.

Presidents don't make decisions in a vacuum

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:47:00 +0000

Sully makes a good point as we await Obama's decision on Afghanistan,

One other intuition: Obama has recently clearly been pondering the dreadful responsibility of sending soldiers to war. From the decision to witness the return of coffins at Dover to the un-scheduled solitary trip to Arlington and this week's emotionally cathartic ceremony at Fort Hood: these events, it seems to me, would concentrate any serious, ethical president's mind.

Hard to imagine that seeing the reality of war in such stark terms wouldn't affect someone, much less the Commander in Chief.

Employer speech in union elections and the NLRB

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:47:00 +0000

Today's Wall Street Journal has an article about pro-labor legislation at the state level. They mention an Oregon law which bans employers from holding "captive audience" meetings. That is meetings where employees are forced to sit and listen to various lies and propoganda about the union and which employers use to gauge specific employee's support of the union. (Remember these meetings next time you hear some winger kvetching about the "secret ballot" - there's nothing secret about it.) Employers are up in arms over the law,

"It completely undermines employer speech," said J.L. Wilson, the vice president of government affairs for Associated Oregon Industries, a Salem-based trade group.

This gets to the crux of the major flaw in our labor election process. Specifically, employers are not a party to the election and yet have been afforded various "rights" throughout the election process. An NLRA election is a vote by, for and amongst the workers and it is a vote for self representation or union representation. That's it, nothing more and nothing less and yet we've allowed a sprawling array of employer rights in the election context to develop over the decades.

The employer has an interest in the outcome of the election so much as they'd probably rather not have their employees represented by a union but that's a peripheral interest at best. The employer doesn't appear on the ballot and management doesn't get a vote in the election. Thus logic would dictate that the employer has no freedom of speech rights at stake and certainly no right to hold captive audience meetings.

Let's flip the tables. What would the Chamber of Commerce say about the rights of employees when a company is preparing to select it's directors? What if employees asserted a right to hold a captive audience meeting with shareholders just prior to the election of the Board of Directors?

For some seriously in-depth reading on the topic go find the following law review article,
Craig Becker, Democracy in the Workplace: Union Representation Elections and Federal Labor Law, 77 Minn. L. Rev. 495 (1993)

And yes, Becker is an Obama nominee to the NLRB and this is the infamous article that has had business interests in a tizzy for months.

Dave Schultheis thinks your stupid...

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:21:00 +0000

Words fail,

State Sen. David Schultheis said he didn't intend for a Twitter post accusing President Barack Obama of "flying the U.S. plane right into the ground" and ending with "let's roll" as a threat or a reference to United Flight 93, which crashed during the 2001 terrorist attacks.

"Let's roll" reportedly were the last words of Todd Beamer before he and other passengers tried to gain control of their hijacked jet. The plane crashed into a Pennsylvania field short of its intended target...
Schultheis' full tweet Tuesday was: "Don't for a second think Obama wants what is best for U.S. He is flying the U.S. plane right into the ground at full speed. Let's roll."

He said he was angry about the president's fiscal policies but didn't mean to compare him to the hijackers. The senator's reputation for strong speech gave readers the wrong idea, he said.

" 'Let's roll.' It's a comment people use all the time any more. 'Let's get going. Let's move on. Let's make major changes,' " Schultheis said. "I can see it now. But you're busy doing jillions of things during the day. You sometimes don't analyze every single word."

Let's roll isn't a comment that I hear regularly and when it is used everyone knows it's a reference to 9/11 and Flight 93. The fact that Schutheis used the phrase in a sentence about flying a plane into a ground makes the Senator's assertions in today's Post all the more incredulous.

He analogized the President of the United States to a 9/11 hijacker and implored his Twitter followers to take action as the passengers of Flight 93 did.

Stop lying Senator and simply apologize for what you said. A little personal responsibility would go a long way here Senator. Alternatively someone in Senate leadership could actually mete out some punishment to this cretin. At a certain point the passive acquiescence of Josh Penry and Schultheis' colleague becomes tacit support and endorsement.

Like Kevin Bacon

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:07:00 +0000

Apparently I have a LinkedIn connection to Robert Farley from Lawyers, Guns & Money.

I wonder who it is?

Speaking of bigots...

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:36:00 +0000

Tancredo wanna-be Dave Schultheis' latest nuttery gets picked up by TPM.

Tanc

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:20:00 +0000

He can't possibly be this stupid, can he?

Bill Ritter should be popping champagne.

Markey's vote

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Balboni) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:03:00 +0000

Seth writes about Betsey Markey's "Nay" vote on the House healthcare bill,

It does not do enough to cut health care costs? She wanted the bill to be more invasive into the private insurance market? I find this a tad disingenuous. I seriously doubt that a bill with a more robust public option would have won her support.

But this is the same sort of thing Joe Lieberman keeps saying -- he won't support the current reform because of its costs. Never mind that health care costs are projected to be even greater if the reform fails.

I suppose it's a convenient rationalization. Voters get the idea of things costing too much, and a member of Congress can sound somewhat responsible for rejecting something that's too expensive. But it's not, you know, true.

He's exactly right and it's a little disheartening when Democrats who should know better buy into GOP frames on major issues. That said I feel fairly confident that Markey personally supports healthcare reform and quite possibly would have been fine with a more robust public option - but she'd never state that publicly.

Markey is a first term Congresswoman in a district that, while evolving, is still right of center. An incumbent is at their most vulnerable in the first re-election campaign and I'd bet dollars to donuts that Nancy Pelosi and Markey long ago agreed that Markey would not vote in favor of healthcare reform. That's politics, truth doesn't really matter - it's all about positioning Markey as a moderate for her electorate. In the end the bill passed so Markey's "no" vote was, as a policy matter, substantively inconsequential. As a political matter she's built her moderate credentials.

On balance I'm quite fine with this sort of thing so long as the offending politician is really in a purple or red district. You'll never hear me bashing John Salazar even though his voting record leaves a lot to be desired. When he's needed Salazar is usually there. If positioning himself with the Blue Dogs helps him get re-elected I hold my nose and go along. The flip side of Salazar though is Joe Lieberman. The Last Honest Man is a Senator from a deep blue state who's voting record continues to tack farther and farther to the right. There's no reason that progressives should tolerate that type of behavior.