About this time every year, news media and entertainment organizations float even thinner skeleton crews than many already run on a normal basis. That results in a proliferation of "Best Of" lists and "Top Story Of The Year" lists littering the media landscape, like holiday decorations strewn about. Some few even attempt to look into the future of the next year, though most of their attempts are usually nothing more than poorly written fiction.
There a few, however - like us - that are still on the job as the holiday draws near.
Thankfully, polling guru Nate Silver and his team at FiveThirtyEight.com are also working through the holidays - and their first look at the 2012 political race is anything but fiction.
In fact, Nate released FiveThirtyEight's first polling-based Iowa GOP Caucus forecast Tuesday night, and in short, the GOP race is without question... wide open.
While Nate's conclusion isn't entirely surprising, the data that Nate released early was very surprising - as it shows that any of five different candidates could legitimately win the Iowa caucus.
To savvy political observers, the conclusion that either Gingrich, Romney, or even Ron Paul could win the Iowa event hasn't been that big of a stretch. The latest poll from the well-known pollster Public Policy Polling released late yesterday proves that while Gingrich's surge appears to have peaked and may now be falling, Rep. Ron Paul may be the GOP's first flavor of the month in 2012.
We agree with many of you - the political horse race IS ridiculous, and attempting to forecast the winner may seem even more ludicrous. There are some very serious problems U.S. citizens should focus on solving - not to mention the potential horrors facing those in politics, economics and media in Europe.
If you truly want to see a political "Ghost of Christmas Present" that will set your hair on end, try imagining the dreams of France's President Sarkozy or Germany's Angela Merkel.
For the Republican Party, though, there's a political ghost of their own that's been waiting in the wings for years, that they'll finally be forced to face in 2012.
To put it bluntly, Republicans don't know how to play as a team anymore - and they're tired of pretending they do.
For much of the last twenty years, the Republican Party has increasingly marched in lock-step, and ostracized or shouted down any dissension within its ranks. Reagan's so-called "Eleventh Commandment" - "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican" - has become an ideological straight-jacket of orthodoxy that has strangled the sense out of much of the Republican Party.
For many in the Democratic Party, watching the upcoming battle royal on the right may be just the kind of political present they've asked political Santa to deliver for years.
Still, if we were in the Democratic Party hierarchy, we'd wait before any champaign corks were popped.
What Nate Silver's data says, and what our own experience tells us, is roughly the same thing that we've always said in political races before they're finished: It ain't over 'till it's over.
There's only a couple of things thing we're certain of when looking at next year's political races: they won't be dull - and they won't be clean.
Batten down the hatches, folks. 2012 looks to be a bumpy ride.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Of Matchsticks And Money
As the holiday season blooms in full force, we're enjoying some of our favorite holiday songs and stories, as we hope you are. Something we've noticed in past years, however, struck a chord with us today, as we were scanning the recent political news.
In many of those traditional holiday tales - from Hans Christian Anderson's Little Match Girl to Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol - the theme, whether good or bad, is how things are now and how they might be, if only the protagonist acted differently. Strangely, Americans are facing a similar choice themselves when it comes to the problem of money in American politics. The difference is that the horrors we're all seeing as the 2012 races approach aren't just the ghosts of future elections - they're a terror that's already here, and getting worse.
Just yesterday, a federal appeals court in Wisconsin followed the misguided lead of the U.S. Supreme Court in their Citizens United decision last year, striking down a state law limiting how much any one person can donate to independent political action groups. With decisions like these, wealthy individuals, political lobbying groups, and corporations have effectively reduced elected officials of either major political party to little more than pets on leashes.
Even as the winter of our political discontent continues to grow less hospitable to good government, an independent U.S. Senator and a Democratic member of the U.S. House may have begun to bring light to legitimate campaign finance reform.
In case you missed it last Friday, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to help shrink the influence of money in politics. If you think we've made mention of similar proposals earlier this year, we have. There were no less than five similar measures proposed in 2011, though most of them have loopholes Santa can drive a sleigh through. This one is different.
The Sanders amendment in the Senate is the identical twin to an amendment proposed by Florida Representative Ted Deutsch in the U.S. House. The amendment plainly and clearly states that the Constitution ONLY fully protects and outlines the rights of "natural persons" - real-life, flesh and blood human beings. No corporations. No unions. No amorphous outside political groups that can take as much money as they want, without disclosing clearly where that money came from. Those groups have severe limitations under this amendment, different from natural persons - because outside groups, unions, and especially corporations are not people.
We're well aware a constitutional amendment as proposed by Sanders and Deutsch is an incredibly small light in the darkness, a massive challenge to pass at any rate, let alone quickly.
That said, any number of great American leaders, from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln, to even our most recent leaders, have faced off with big banks and corporations. These groups have attempted to control far too much for the benefit of far too few, leaving most of us to shiver in the cold. Still - some of our leaders have attempted campaign finance reform. Some have even been successful for a short time.
Just as Scrooge questioned whether the terrifying future he was confronted with was what he truly had to live with, so too our future doesn't have to be one where only those with the most money have freedom.
Do we shiver in the alley, looking on as the fat cats treat our politicians like their pets? Or do we follow the lead of those like Sanders and Detusch, who reach out to help us, even at their own peril?
The choice is still ours. Let's hope we all make the best decision in 2012.
In many of those traditional holiday tales - from Hans Christian Anderson's Little Match Girl to Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol - the theme, whether good or bad, is how things are now and how they might be, if only the protagonist acted differently. Strangely, Americans are facing a similar choice themselves when it comes to the problem of money in American politics. The difference is that the horrors we're all seeing as the 2012 races approach aren't just the ghosts of future elections - they're a terror that's already here, and getting worse.
Just yesterday, a federal appeals court in Wisconsin followed the misguided lead of the U.S. Supreme Court in their Citizens United decision last year, striking down a state law limiting how much any one person can donate to independent political action groups. With decisions like these, wealthy individuals, political lobbying groups, and corporations have effectively reduced elected officials of either major political party to little more than pets on leashes.
Even as the winter of our political discontent continues to grow less hospitable to good government, an independent U.S. Senator and a Democratic member of the U.S. House may have begun to bring light to legitimate campaign finance reform.
In case you missed it last Friday, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to help shrink the influence of money in politics. If you think we've made mention of similar proposals earlier this year, we have. There were no less than five similar measures proposed in 2011, though most of them have loopholes Santa can drive a sleigh through. This one is different.
The Sanders amendment in the Senate is the identical twin to an amendment proposed by Florida Representative Ted Deutsch in the U.S. House. The amendment plainly and clearly states that the Constitution ONLY fully protects and outlines the rights of "natural persons" - real-life, flesh and blood human beings. No corporations. No unions. No amorphous outside political groups that can take as much money as they want, without disclosing clearly where that money came from. Those groups have severe limitations under this amendment, different from natural persons - because outside groups, unions, and especially corporations are not people.
We're well aware a constitutional amendment as proposed by Sanders and Deutsch is an incredibly small light in the darkness, a massive challenge to pass at any rate, let alone quickly.
That said, any number of great American leaders, from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln, to even our most recent leaders, have faced off with big banks and corporations. These groups have attempted to control far too much for the benefit of far too few, leaving most of us to shiver in the cold. Still - some of our leaders have attempted campaign finance reform. Some have even been successful for a short time.
Just as Scrooge questioned whether the terrifying future he was confronted with was what he truly had to live with, so too our future doesn't have to be one where only those with the most money have freedom.
Do we shiver in the alley, looking on as the fat cats treat our politicians like their pets? Or do we follow the lead of those like Sanders and Detusch, who reach out to help us, even at their own peril?
The choice is still ours. Let's hope we all make the best decision in 2012.
Monday, December 12, 2011
The GOP And The First Rule of Holes
While we're certain that most of you were busy this weekend getting ready for any number of holiday festivities, shopping for gifts, and enjoying a few holiday concerts, the Republican candidates for President had yet another debate Saturday night, this time in Iowa. In case you'd forgotten in the midst of the holiday hubbub, the 2012 Iowa Caucus will be held three weeks from tomorrow, so - in theory - a political debate might have made sense.
Indeed, it might have made sense, if any of the contenders had used the event to prove they were ready. Instead, most of the Republican field spent the evening digging themselves deeper in their own political holes.
For Mitt Romney, his debate performance was clearly upstaged by his snap response to Rick Perry over a claim that Perry has made previously - and been proven to be wrong about twice before. Even so, Romney couldn't keep his cool after Perry pushed him, offering to bet $10,000 to Rick Perry to prove that Perry was lying.
Of course, that drew an immediate avalanche of post-debate attacks, from Romney's fellow candidates and the Democratic National Committee. Romney's snap reaction may have proven more than just how much more wealthy and disconnected than he is from the average American. It may have also broken the Mormon prohibition on gambling, and brought Romney's biggest problem issue - the right-wing reaction to his religion - to the forefront again.
While the general consensus was that Newt Gingrich won Saturday night's debate, he did so by directly attacking one of the other candidates, Romney - which Gingrich himself said multiple times this year that candidates shouldn't do. That proven hypocrisy by Mr. Gingrich is no surprise to anyone who remembers that the former Republican Speaker of the House was also the first U.S. House speaker in history to be reprimanded by the House for ethics violations. This took place less than five years after Newt engineered the so-called 'Republican Revolution' of 1994.
Mr. Gingrich completely put his foot in his mouth, however, when he not only called Palstinians an "invented people", but then proceeded to childishly make faces and mouth "No", even as Mitt Romney tried to give Ginrich a way to not be quite so insulting. If Newt is the historian he's claimed to be, he shouldn't need to be reminded that every nation of people is technically an invented people, since government is a social invention.
The rest of the GOP field had their own problems at the debate and the lies were coming so fast and furious from every candidate, ABC should have re-categorized the entire event as a fiction fest.
In short, the latest GOP debate only served to hurt the entire field, as most of their recent campaigning has done.
The biggest proof of this is the latest NBC/Marist poll that was released over the weekend. While Gingrich may have opened up a big lead over Romney in South Carolina - a Republican bellweather - the most striking numbers were noticed by Josh Marshall of TPM.
Right now, just weeks before the Republican primary in South Carolina, President Barack Obama leads BOTH Gingrich and Romney, the dueling GOP frontrunners. That lead - in deep-red, Republican South Carolina - has happened over the last couple of months, and appears to be trending to increase for the President as 2012 begins.
Our only advice for the 2012 GOP field is to follow the words most often attributed to British politician Denis Healey.
"The first law on holes," Healey said, " is when you're in one, stop digging!"
Indeed, it might have made sense, if any of the contenders had used the event to prove they were ready. Instead, most of the Republican field spent the evening digging themselves deeper in their own political holes.
For Mitt Romney, his debate performance was clearly upstaged by his snap response to Rick Perry over a claim that Perry has made previously - and been proven to be wrong about twice before. Even so, Romney couldn't keep his cool after Perry pushed him, offering to bet $10,000 to Rick Perry to prove that Perry was lying.
Of course, that drew an immediate avalanche of post-debate attacks, from Romney's fellow candidates and the Democratic National Committee. Romney's snap reaction may have proven more than just how much more wealthy and disconnected than he is from the average American. It may have also broken the Mormon prohibition on gambling, and brought Romney's biggest problem issue - the right-wing reaction to his religion - to the forefront again.
While the general consensus was that Newt Gingrich won Saturday night's debate, he did so by directly attacking one of the other candidates, Romney - which Gingrich himself said multiple times this year that candidates shouldn't do. That proven hypocrisy by Mr. Gingrich is no surprise to anyone who remembers that the former Republican Speaker of the House was also the first U.S. House speaker in history to be reprimanded by the House for ethics violations. This took place less than five years after Newt engineered the so-called 'Republican Revolution' of 1994.
Mr. Gingrich completely put his foot in his mouth, however, when he not only called Palstinians an "invented people", but then proceeded to childishly make faces and mouth "No", even as Mitt Romney tried to give Ginrich a way to not be quite so insulting. If Newt is the historian he's claimed to be, he shouldn't need to be reminded that every nation of people is technically an invented people, since government is a social invention.
The rest of the GOP field had their own problems at the debate and the lies were coming so fast and furious from every candidate, ABC should have re-categorized the entire event as a fiction fest.
In short, the latest GOP debate only served to hurt the entire field, as most of their recent campaigning has done.
The biggest proof of this is the latest NBC/Marist poll that was released over the weekend. While Gingrich may have opened up a big lead over Romney in South Carolina - a Republican bellweather - the most striking numbers were noticed by Josh Marshall of TPM.
Right now, just weeks before the Republican primary in South Carolina, President Barack Obama leads BOTH Gingrich and Romney, the dueling GOP frontrunners. That lead - in deep-red, Republican South Carolina - has happened over the last couple of months, and appears to be trending to increase for the President as 2012 begins.
Our only advice for the 2012 GOP field is to follow the words most often attributed to British politician Denis Healey.
"The first law on holes," Healey said, " is when you're in one, stop digging!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)