Playground Politics

Faith isn't for campaigns. It's for churches.

2012-11-09T10:47:00.000-06:00

It is fascinating to hear Romney insiders refer to the candidate as "shellshocked" at his loss:

Romney and his campaign had gone into the evening confident they had a good path to victory, for emotional and intellectual reasons. The huge and enthusiastic crowds in swing state after swing state in recent weeks - not only for Romney but also for Paul Ryan - bolstered what they believed intellectually: that Obama would not get the kind of turnout he had in 2008.

They thought intensity and enthusiasm were on their side this time - poll after poll showed Republicans were more motivated to vote than Democrats - and that would translate into votes for Romney.

As a result, they believed the public/media polls were skewed - they thought those polls oversampled Democrats and didn't reflect Republican enthusiasm. They based their own internal polls on turnout levels more favorable to Romney. That was a grave miscalculation, as they would see on election night.

Why fascinating? Because there was so much data available from independent sources that contradicted everything the Romney campaign was telling itself. For instance, read my previous post about the last Marquette poll, or this snippet that I posted elsewhere the day before the election:

Yesterday's CNN poll has Romney winning "independent" voters by 24 points, but Obama winning "moderate" voters by 21 points.

The same poll shows the favorability rating for the Democratic Party at -20 for independents and +28 for moderates. For the Republican Party? +6 for independents, -25 for moderates.

So what does that tell us? That very likely, many people who are identifying as independent are not actually moderate. They're conservatives who are choosing, for one reason or another, to not identify as Republicans.

The press, unfortunately, all too often conflates the words "independent" and "moderate" when in reality, independent voters are often not moderate at all. Partisan identification swings quite a bit and is influenced by lots of factors, including the popularity of party leaders. Go to the average Tea Party rally and you'll find lots of conservatives who don't identify as Republican. But when push comes to shove, they're going to vote Republican nearly 100% of the time. They're not independent, even if they think they are.

Ideological identification, however, has been relatively constant over the last 20 years. About 40% of the electorate identifies as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 20% as liberal.

What does all of that mean? If ideological identification hasn't changed between 2010 and 2012, Barack Obama probably wins - because the polling at large is weighting accurately for ideological identification.

There's only one logical conclusion to reach and yet everyone in the Romney campaign appears to have missed it. I don't have a Ph.D. in statistics or a fancy election model. But any logical person with internet access could find the same data and would draw the same conclusion. That still makes me smarter than Romney's pollster Neil Newhouse, and the rest of the his gang that blew millions on creating and justifying a model in which Romney was ahead. I mean, look at the size of those rallies! Romney couldn't be behind, could he? Inconceivable!

Why did they miss it? Because they actively chose to deny reality.

Rather than confront the data that actually exists (whether it's CATO pointing out the economic benefits of illegal immigration or scientists around the world acknowledging SOME human role in global warming), today's conservatives are all too happy to construct a parallel universe and deny anything that doesn't fit into their view of the world.

The Romney campaign was no different. It was the political equivalent of denying evolution, or arguing that dinosaurs never existed or that the earth is 6,000 years old. It was the Creation Museum of presidential campaigns; a place where those in denial of science (in this case, math) could seek refuge from a world that looks at them with increasing skepticism.

For those of you who supported Romney, with your time, your money, or your vote, I feel bad for you. You deserved a candidate and a campaign that used real data rather than manufacturing data to support a predetermined outcome. Perhaps the Romney campaign could've won if it would've employed an intelligent strategy over the last three weeks, instead of patting itself on the back for a job well done and embarking on a premature multi-state victory tour.

Faith isn't for campaigns. It's for churches.

For those grumbling about the Marquette poll

2012-11-03T02:33:00.000-05:00

(A brief return from a lovely election-season blogging hiatus because this Chicken Little conservative meme "THE POLLS ARE SKEWED! THE POLLS ARE SKEWED! is just so tiresome.)

The partisan self-ID in the latest Marquette poll (Obama +8, Baldwin +4) broke down as 34D/33I/29R. Marquette also asks voters to describe their political views. The responses were as follows (as percentages):

Very conservative: 11
Conservative: 31
Moderate: 32
Progressive: 14
Very progressive: 7
Don't know/other: 5

For the sake of argument, let's then assume that we can assign those ideological viewpoints in a linear manner from Republican/conservative to Democrat/progressive. We would have the following breakdown:

Republican (11 very conservative, 18 conservative)
Independent (13 conservative, 20 moderate)
Democrat (12 moderate, 14 progressive, 7 very progressive)

That, in and of itself, is not so hard to fathom. Many conservative voters (especially Tea Party types) like to cast themselves as political independents even though their voting tendencies are anything but. This is well chronicled and supported by a Pew study from June shows that Republican identifiers have decreased by 23 percent since 1990, while independent identifiers increased by 31 percent. Democratic identifiers? Nearly constant at 32 percent. (When leaners are included, Democrats maintained a 48-40 advantage on party ID.)

The Marquette poll mirrors almost perfectly Gallup's own annual polling on the question of political ideology, in which 40% of those polled identify as conservative, 35% identify as moderate, and 21% identify as liberal. That ideological breakdown is also slightly MORE generous towards conservative inclusion than exit polling in swing states in 2010, a year in which Republican enthusiasm was remarkably high and Democratic enthusiasm was remarkably low. Remember, exit polling isn't a model of likely voters; it's a measurement of actual voters.

Now, surely one could argue that perhaps conservatives are more motivated, but how much more advantage can one squeeze out of a scenario in which conservative identifiers outnumber liberal identifiers by a 2-to-1 ratio? Is it really a reasonable expectation, for instance, that over half of those who vote in Wisconsin on Tuesday will identify as conservative? In a state that, up until 2010, only elected a Republican not named Thompson once in a high-profile statewide race in nearly 20 years? (Sorry Jack Voight, you don't count.)

If a huge Dem adjustment were made then presumably the ideological breakdown would've also have skewed well to the left of what other national polls have reflected on that topic. That is, unless we assume that the likely voter pool is way more conservative than it was in 2010, which would also require one to argue that the enthusiasm gap is even greater now than it was in 2010.

Except nobody is arguing that. If anything, the prevailing argument is that after three wave elections, this is a reversion to the 2000/2004 mean.

Do I think Obama +8 is likely? About as likely as Rasmussen's preferred outcome, which would seem to be the outlier in the other direction. Obama +3 to +6 seems about right. Hats off to Romney if he can do better than that. But I would expect Vegas to give me a sizable payout for putting any money on the challenger.

While I appreciate the hopes to which conservatives are clinging in the face of a lot of bad data, I'm a firm believer that statistics usually don't lie and faith is best reserved for churches. As for me, I'll be voting for Gary Johnson. Both your major candidates suck anyway.

GM confused about how market works

2012-09-17T11:49:00.001-05:00

Here's a great way for GM to get its largest shareholder to start selling: stop whining and start doing what you have to do to boost the stock price.

DETROIT—The Treasury Department is resisting a push by General Motors Co. to sell the government's entire stake in the auto maker—the latest source of tension between two unlikely partners thrust together at the depths of the financial crisis.

U.S. taxpayers kept the nation's largest auto maker by sales afloat with a $50 billion bailout in 2009 and now own 26.5% of the Detroit company.

But GM executives have grown increasingly frustrated with that ownership, and the stigma of being known as "Government Motors." Executives have said the U.S.'s shadow is a drag on its reputation and hurts the company's ability to recruit talent because of pay restrictions. Privately, executives are also irked at the continued curbs on corporate jet use.

A judge temporarily overturned my law...

2012-09-15T16:18:00.001-05:00

... give me money.

Almost dead Hollywood star to captivate GOP convention by standing, breathing on his own

2012-08-30T17:24:00.000-05:00

Straight from the Department of Tone Deafness, someone at the RNC thinks a good idea for a political party that has a persistent and troubling problem with younger voters is to parade an 82-year-old Hollywood has-been out as their big surprise speaker.

Was the decaying corpse of a 101-year-old Ronald Reagan not available for a "Weekend at Bernie's"-style appearance? We all know the near-dead are big fans of the GOP. How is emphasizing that to swing voters a winning effort?

Take a look at this recent photo of Clint Eastwood for all the evidence you need.

Oh wait, that's the guy from HBO's "Tales from the Crypt"? Could've fooled me.

Where in the world has the Recess Supervisor been?

2012-08-29T16:41:00.000-05:00

Please stay in, Todd Akin...

2012-08-20T15:33:00.000-05:00

... oh please please please stay.

Rep. Todd Akin (R) of Missouri apologized for his recent comments on rape but said he was staying in the race for US Senate, saying “I have not yet begun to fight.”
Representative Akin offered his apology on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s radio show Monday afternoon, his first interview since comments over the weekend in which he referred to “legitimate rape” in response to a question about his views on possible allowances for abortion.

“Rape is never legitimate, it’s an evil act that’s committed by violent predators,” Akin said Monday. “I used the wrong words in the wrong way. What I said was ill-conceived and it was wrong – and for that I apologize.”
But Akin said he would not heed the call of several prominent Republicans to drop out of the race to replace Sen. Claire McCaskill, widely believed to be the most vulnerable Democratic Senate incumbent this year. The Real Clear Politics average of recent polls shows Akin with a 48 percent to 43 percent lead over Senator McCaskill.

Akin was the choice of Missouri conservatives and deserves to stand on the November ballot, warts and all. If he is, Missouri will get one of two outcomes.

1. Todd Akin loses.
2. Missouri embarrasses itself before the nation.

But more importantly, the GOP gets another chance to learn the lesson it refuses to grasp. If the party doesn't start disowning its lunatics more aggressively and calling bullshit on its own members, it loses its own credibility on the broader playing field. There's no excuse for nominees like Todd Akin, Sharron Angle, or Christine O'Donnell. There's no excuse for Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, James Lankford, and Renee Ellmers to be in Congress. And all of this happens because the GOP is too scared of the crazy know-nothings within its own party to tell them to either shut up or go away.

Giving the GOP establishment an easy out by replacing the candidate of the conservative base with some handpicked party loyalist merely removes the consequence from the action.

Where in the world is the Recess Supervisor, Day 1

2012-08-15T15:44:00.000-05:00

Also, some travel-related snark...

- When did society decide it was okay for middle-aged men to dress like eight-year-olds when traveling? Seriously, leave your giant straw hats, short-sleeved print shirts, and convertible pants at home. The t-shirts and Crocs look doesn't work any better. Unless you're going on a safari you look ridiculous. And I'm pretty sure that where I am, we're not hunting elephants.

- When you're traveling in a group of Southerners, you don't combat everyone's stereotype of southerners when you loudly speak on the plane how you think the language of your soon-to-be host country sounds goofy. Just shut up. This is why the world thinks Americans are stupid.

A primary night question

2012-08-14T17:02:00.000-05:00

I have no idea who is winning the GOP U.S. Senate primary, but that isn't even my greatest curiosity tonight.

What I'm really looking forward to seeing is how badly Mark Pocan destroys Kelda and whether Kelda mans up and concedes tonight or if she just cuts another negative ad to explain away her 30-point loss.

Recess Supervisor Revisits Soul-Crushing European Socialism

2012-08-13T22:40:00.000-05:00

Just a quick note to let you know that things might be a bit spartan around here for the next three weeks. I'm off to the other side of the pond to see some things and do some things that I've always wanted to do and see. I've been fortunate that my career has taken me lots of places but it's time to start checking off some of what's left.

According to many Republican politicians, all of Europe is the same socialist cesspool and is based roughly on the Epcot World Showcase. Thankfully, I stopped listening to Republican politicians about seven years ago. Maybe you'll even get a picture or two, a la Owen's "Where in the World?"

To my readers, I hope you enjoy the rest of your summer as much as I suspect I'll be enjoying mine.

PIMCO: Not such a fan of Paul Ryan

2012-08-13T15:17:00.000-05:00

PIMCO is the world's largest bond investor, and its concerns are valid based on history:

In recent history, conservatives have always thrown deficit reduction under the bus in the name of lower taxes. Reagan did it, Bush did it - is there good reason to believe that a Romney/Ryan ticket would be any different? After all, Paul Ryan voted for every major piece of the Bush fiscal agenda.

Paul Ryan is Mitt Romney's Sarah Palin

2012-08-11T13:55:00.000-05:00

After a brutal recession and a lackluster recovery, Mitt Romney today still polls behind President Obama, usually around the outer fringe of the margin of error. The Romney campaign has been less than impressive, filled with silly press snafus and lacking anything resembling a credible agenda.

Romney thus far has hinged his entire strategy on saying as little as possible about his plans, wishing and hoping that not being President Obama would be enough. Thus far, it's only sufficient to get him consistently within 3-5 points of the president.

The selection of Paul Ryan recognizes that what the Romney campaign has been doing hasn't been working. Romney couldn't afford to take a milquetoast placeholder like Tim Pawlenty or Rob Portman. He needed someone who would polarize the race, not reinforce the status quo.

Paul Ryan is Mitt Romney's Sarah Palin; a high-risk, high-reward proposition. It's the kind of pick you make when you're behind, not when you're ahead. It's not bold by choice; it's bold by necessity.

Furthermore, the selection if Paul Ryan is a sure sign that the Romney campaign has figured out its drab message about the importance of private sector experience hasn't been whipping the masses into a frenzy. You don't get more career politician than Paul Ryan, a guy who's barely spent a day in his adult life working outside the sphere of government. I don't have a problem with guys like that; most of our nation's greatest political leaders have made a career of public service. Romney, however, does have a problem with it, and has made a point of it repeatedly. Ryan undermines that entire narrative, which means Romney must be prepared to refocus his message.

Paul Ryan's record is interesting. He certainly has emerged as a strong leader in the GOP who isn't afraid to put actual ideas on the table. That's refreshing in our current political environment. At the same time, he was also a reliable vote for every budget-busting proposal that George W. Bush put in front of Congress, which should force all of us to ask whether Ryan's recent leadership isn't simply the leadership of opportunism; of having bold plans when one knows that one's plans will never be enacted.

Romney's selection of Ryan changes the narrative. It gives Romney a detailed economic plan, and a vocal and intelligent advocate for it. It changes the storyline, for now. What remains to be seen is whether it will make a difference in the end.

I say something nice about Eric Hovde

2012-08-10T12:33:00.002-05:00

Hovde's absolutely right about this.

In explaining his opposition to the pledge to Green Bay conservative radio talk show host Jerry Bader, Hovde argued, as have many liberals, that Norquist’s pledge simply protects the status quo, in which politically connected corporations carve out giant loopholes in the tax code. When anybody attempts to close those loopholes, Norquist brands them as “tax hikers.”

“Behind the story with Grover Norquist is he’s funded by giant corporations that have created loopholes in our tax system,” said Hovde. “We need to lower the rates, but we also have to get rid of the corporate welfare. How is a small business going to compete if they’re trying to compete against General Electric, that in some years, pays nothing because they can buy off Washington politicians?”

How much does big business spend annually on lobbyists and campaign contributions just to game the system in their favor and against their competitors, screwing individuals and small businesses in the process?

If Hovde said this and nothing but this, he'd be a badly needed voice in a Senate caucus filled with pretend conservatives who are all too happy to do the bidding of their corporate overlords.

Lessons in media

2012-08-10T11:50:00.000-05:00

The people making the news don't get to decide when society is done talking about something.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is so tired of talking about Mitt Romney’s tax returns, he said Friday he’s done discussing them.

“Oh boy, we’re going down this road again?” he said, when asked about the returns on CNN’s “Starting Point.”...

“Any second we spend not talking about how this president failed in his mission, the mission to fix this economy, he campaigned on this economy, he hasn’t accomplished a darn thing,” Priebus said. “We’re worse off. That’s the issue, and I’m not spending any more time talking about this issue.”

Yeah, actually you will be. When you get to stop talking about it is up to Gov. Romney.

Haven't I seen you before?

2012-08-06T13:28:00.000-05:00

I just ran into one of Tammy Baldwin's commercials and I kept having deja vu. Light blue sweater, soft cadence, poofy blond hair.

And then it dawned on me. I have seen this approach before!

Is the U.S. Senate big enough for two Stuart Smalleys?

Amtrak: 1,000,001 ways to lose money

2012-08-06T11:00:00.000-05:00

I'd like a hamburger and a giant side of red ink, please.

WASHINGTON – Amtrak loses millions on its food and beverage service, and a congressional committee wants to know why.

The company's food and beverage cars have lost $833.8 million over the last decade, including $84.5 million in 2011, according to testimony at a congressional hearing Thursday.

The reason: the difference between Amtrak's costs and what it charges passengers. For example, taking overhead into account, each cheeseburger costs Amtrak $16.15 and each can of soda costs $3.40. But Amtrak charges passengers only $9.50 and $2 for those items...

Ted Alves, inspector general of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, said most of the losses come from Amtrak's 15 long-distance routes. Some losses come from theft.

I'm a huge proponent of rail in high-density urban areas where it's convenient and it makes sense. That doesn't describe any long-haul east-west route in the U.S. Planes win on cost and speed, so from a competitive standpoint, these long-haul routes can only compete on experience. And by the numbers, there aren't enough people willing to pay for the novelty of rail travel.

Just shut these routes down already and focus on the routes people use.

Romney backs Obama proposals to create 12 million jobs

2012-08-05T16:09:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney is doubling down on his claim to create 12 million jobs in his first term.

Conveniently, Moody's already projects that 12 million jobs will be created between 2013 and 2016...

Nonetheless, in a press release today, the Romney campaign claimed that this new plan would create 12 million new jobs. “My plan will turn things around and bring the economy roaring back, with twelve million new jobs created by the end of my first term,” Romney said.

I ran this claim past Mark Hopkins, a senior analyst at Moody’s Analytics. His conclusion: according to his firm’s projections, the economy is already set to add 12 million jobs in the next four years, provided a series of policy outcomes take place, such as a long term deficit deal that includes tax hikes on the rich and cuts to entitlements.

Hopkins tells me:

The current Moody’s Analytics baseline forecast is for payroll employment to increase by 12 million jobs from the start of 2013 to the end of 2016 (134 million to 146).

If Romney is elected and the trajectory of the U.S. economy plays out according to script, obviously he’ll be able to take credit for those 12 million new jobs.

However, the economic assumptions embedded in our forecast include only an extension of Bush-era tax rates for those under 250K, which is more closely aligned with the Obama administration’s position. We also assume a bipartisan deal to scale back sequestration and achieve a long-run fiscally sustainable path, with Democrats accepting reforms to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for the increase in top tax rates.

In effect, therefore, Romney is essentially promising no more jobs than we currently expect to gain under proposals similar to those advanced by the Obama administration. There’s not enough in Romney’s plan to estimate how many jobs it would create. If he’s saying the net change will be 12 million jobs, that’s exactly what we’re estimating without Romney’s plan.

In other words, Romney's promising Americans the 12 million jobs that would be created if we just did what Obama wants to do.

Should we be surprised? He won't release his tax returns. He won't detail the exemptions and credits he plans to eliminate to pay for his tax overhaul. He won't come clean with details on anything. Why would this be different?

But I thought government didn't create jobs?

2012-07-29T02:11:00.000-05:00

It's funny how we always hear from conservatives and their assorted interest groups that government spending doesn't create jobs, until it comes to our bloated defense budget, in which case WHAT ABOUT THE JOBS?

Unless Congress and the White House can agree on a plan to reduce the federal deficit, Wisconsin stands to lose more than 11,000 jobs from military spending cuts scheduled to begin in January.

That's according to a new study by a national manufacturing trade group, which says many of the job reductions could occur at big defense contractors, compounded by losses at hundreds of smaller companies that supply products and services to the defense industry.

In a fragile economy, policy makers should take steps to prevent $500 billion in defense spending cuts that, nationwide, could result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs, according to the study from the National Association of Manufacturers and the University of Maryland.

"Congress needs to make the tough decisions on spending to address our debt crisis. But these decisions cannot be made at the expense of our economic and national security," said Jay Timmons, president of the Washington, D.C.-based trade group.

More pro-business action from Wisconsin conservatives?

2012-07-28T02:43:00.000-05:00

So much for streamlining regulatory and approval processes for businesses. I guess that doesn't count when the business produces something conservatives hate, like renewable energy.

Despite state rules that eliminate virtually all local control from the application process, state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) said Thursday he thinks there’s “a fairly good chance” that Town of Sherman officials can stave off development of a wind farm in their community that seems almost universally opposed by residents.

“I think there’s a fairly good chance that they can keep this from moving foward,” Grothman said. “They have to provide an avenue for some windmills, but it doesn’t have to be easy. Ultimately, companies don’t like to set up shop where they don’t feel welcome.”

Grothman suggested, as did many of those who spoke before the Town Board on Tuesday night at the Silver Lake Fire Hall, that town officials impose bonds and fees and stretch out the process as long as possible in hopes the state Legislature may revisit rules that govern wind farm development.

“In January, (when the Legislature reconvenes) we may be able to make it more difficult,” Grothman said.

Yeah, this is exactly the kind of certainty businesses need to be getting from GOP officials.

This is why you can't give Senate Democrats nice things.

2012-07-25T00:31:00.001-05:00

They just break them as soon as they get them.

Madison - State Sen. Tim Cullen quit the Senate Democratic caucus Tuesday, saying Senate Democratic leader Mark Miller had snubbed him by refusing to give him a meaningful committee chairmanship.

"It's an insult to my district," Cullen of Janesville said. "I'm going to leave the Senate Democratic caucus. I will be bound by nothing they decide."

Cullen said his relationship with Miller has long been rocky, and that at one point recently, Miller hung up on him when they discussed committee assignments.

Miller declined interview requests but issued a statement saying he was disappointed in Cullen's action.

"Senator Cullen turned down the chairmanship of the Committee on Small Business Development and Tourism," Miller said in his statement. "He told me that if that was the committee offered to him, he would rather chair no committee at all. It was an important committee as small business is the economic engine for Wisconsin."

First of all, Miller's full of garbage. Small business is notoriously one of the worst committee assignments in the Legislature because everything important to small business can (and will be) routed to another committee with overlapping jurisdiction. Health care? To Health. Health insurance? To Insurance or Health. Job training? To workforce development. Tax policy? To Finance. Regulations? To JCRAR.

Tourism is the better end of that deal because then you get access to their lobbyists. But given Cullen's district, what does that get him?

Second, could Miller really not keep Cullen happy? As I talked about last week, every Senate committee is like a church potluck of random, unrelated goodies. How hard is it for Miller to say "you know what, let's work with your interests and see what we can do?" If Miller couldn't fix this situation it's because he was choosing not to fix it.

The thing that blows my mind is that during my time in the Legislature, Miller always seemed like a smart and reasonable (albeit progressive) guy. Is he getting browbeaten into making these idiotic decisions by the intractable and obnoxious loudmouths on the fringe of his party? Or is he coming up with this stuff on his own?

Palin family values

2012-07-23T13:40:00.001-05:00

From one generation to the next...

Bristol Palin’s son Tripp is 3 years old. And at an age when most children are mastering bowel control, the correct application of the indoor voice, and the distinction that Cheerios go in the mouth and not up the nose, young Master Palin has also clearly been working on his vocabulary. In a new clip from his eponymously titled Lifetime reality show “Life’s a Tripp,” Tripp pitches a meltdown as only a 3-year-old can, smacking his Aunt Willow, declaring “I hate you” to her and his mother, and capping it off by telling Willow, “Go away, you faggot. I don’t like you.” You what?

It’s a word the Palin family already knows its way around. We noticed it nearly two years ago, when the sisters Palin leapt into a Facebook fight to defend her family’s honor after a mutual friend named Tre critiqued “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” as “failing so hard.” First, Bristol declared Tre a “typical shit talker.” Then, the then-16-year-old Willow had a few choice – and misspelled – words of her own, informing him that “Haha your so gay. I have no idea who you are, But what I’ve seen pictures of, your disgusting … My sister had a kid and is still hot … Tre stfu. Your such a faggot.” See, when you lob the word “faggot” at someone on Facebook, eventually, someone who sleeps on Bob the Builder sheets is going to throw it right back in your face.

Tommy's convenient chronology

2012-07-23T09:52:00.001-05:00

On July 20, we get this from Tommy Thompson:

July 20, 2012

Eric Hovde
Mark Neumann

Dear Messrs Neumann and Hovde,

Every single dollar in advertising my campaign has spent to date has been solely about my record and my vision for the country. Only Jeff Fitzgerald and I could say that.

In the last few days I see the attacks flying on television. Yesterday, not only was I falsely attacked by you, Mr. Hovde, in a television ad, but then you personally questioned if I am even intelligent enough to be a U.S. Senator. And after all of that, today you absurdly claim to be responding to me. Clearly you made your new attack ad against me well before any of this happened, and you did not let the truth get in the way of your consultants’ carefully laid schedule to create a wholly made for TV myth.

Gentlemen, this brand of politics is what is wrong with this country.

On July 21, we get this from Tommy Thompson:

Are we really supposed to believe that what was said on July 20 was said without knowing what would happen on July 21?

Hovde to MJS: Waaaaaaaaah nobody is nice to me!

2012-07-23T01:31:00.000-05:00

Hovde: I'm too busy for democracy

2012-07-22T20:26:00.000-05:00

This guy can't explain anything without sounding like an arrogant prick.

"I'm a person that's spent 75% of my life in an airplane, flying around the U.S., flying around the globe," Hovde, a community banker and hedge fund manager, told the Journal Sentinel last week. "You know a lot of what I've been up to. I built homeless shelters for street kids in Kigali, Rwanda; Mombasa, Kenya; Winneba, Ghana; Mexico City; Huanuco, Peru."

Records show that Hovde registered to vote in Washington, D.C., in 2004, two years after he built his 7,700-square-foot mansion there. Of the 11 elections held in D.C. since he registered, Hovde voted in just two of them - the 2004 and '08 general presidential campaigns.

In the last presidential contest, Hovde said he voted for Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona. He did not vote in the GOP primary between McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

It's not just his busy schedule that has kept him away from the ballot box. He also pointed to the dearth of conservative Republicans in elections in the nation's capital.

"I'm a conservative in D.C. Do you understand that?" Hovde asked. "When it comes to a vote in Washington, D.C., and you're a conservative and your only choice is a liberal Democrat and a liberal Democrat; it's a little discouraging."

First he was gloating about how his charity work made him better than you. Now he's using it as an excuse for not voting, like the guy never heard of an absentee ballot.

If Hovde plans on winning next month's primary, he's going to need to improve at responding to negative attention. His willingness to empty his own bank account in an attempt to reinvent himself has Thompson's attention, Neumann's attention, and the attention of the press, who will continue to rough Hovde up because he gift wraps them a story every time he opens his mouth.

Fox Poll: GOP voters want Condi as VP

2012-07-21T15:20:00.002-05:00

And, just like last summer, we learn that almost nobody wants Tim Pawlenty. Still.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the top choice as Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate among both American voters overall as well as among Republicans.

Thirty percent of voters would like to see Rice on the ticket with Romney, according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday.

She receives the same level of support among Republicans -- 30 percent select her as their top choice for Romney’s running mate.

That far outdistances the number of Republicans who choose Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (19 percent), New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (8 percent) or Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan (8 percent).

Fewer still would pick Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (5 percent), Ohio Sen. Rob Portman (3 percent), Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (3 percent), New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (3 percent) or former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (2 percent).

Nobody wants Sen. Portman either, but my bet is that either Pawlenty or Portman is the choice. Pawlenty has been extremely loyal to Romney and Portman has a free pass. Portman's shared downside with Rice is his extensive history and involvement with the Bush family, which Romney may not be eager to re-litigate as part of his campaign.

But I know it won't be Rice because that's who I'd like, and the GOP hasn't done anything I'd like since around 2000, when it began its deficit loving, war mongering, gay hating descent into anti-intellectualism.