Currently browsing posts filed under "Politics"
Follow this category via RSSFederal employees making more amidst recession…
The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.
Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.
The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.
The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.
I wonder if any Ephs working for the government can comment about this. I’ll be posting it on WSO to see what current students think about this, and whether or not it will influence future career decisions. Full article after the break.
Read more
Salute and respect
David Kaiser makes the case for repealing DADT in response to this editorial by Gen. McPeak.
Intelligence?
The Obama government is being severely criticised for its failure to prevent the young Nigerian of the Christmas Day attack from flying to the United States. Some critics assume that the Kingdom of the Netherlands recently joined the American Federal union as the fifty first state, and that Amsterdam airport like Boston or Chicago is under direct control of our government. Their ethnocentrism is telling. The anger at the lapse reflects a persistent American belief: if we are not invulnerable to the misfortunes that beset other nations, we should be.
The performance of the Bush administration before 11 September of 2001 was miserable. A judge denied the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s request to listen to the telephone of one of the later 11 September attackers, on grounds that the FBI kept asking for wire tap warrants in cases it could not sustain. President Bush himself instructed his National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, that he had heard enough of Al Quaeda’s threats and wished to hear no more.
The American combination of arrogant complacency and administrative ineptitude has historical precedents. Read more
Is There An Imperial Exit?
(this article by Prof. Norman Birnbaum ‘46 was originally published in El Pais, 28 February 2010)
We know, thanks to biographers and historians (and novelists) how the United States constructed its modern empire. Now that its costs are so high, however, and the nation increasingly divided again on how to deal with the world, we Americans know neither how to keep it or withdraw from it.
After continental conquest and continuous warfare, our modern imperial epoch began in 1898, at Spain’s cost. US participation in the war of 1914-18 (like the war with Spain) provoked domestic opposition. German and Irish immigrants were instinctively dubious, agrarian populists and urban socialists were ideologically so. Still, war intensified the assimilation of the millions of Europeans who had arrived before and after the turn of the century. Wilson, the son of a Calvinist pastor, depicted the US as a new Israel—chosen to write history anew, and most Americans assented.
The US emerged from the First World War as global banker and manufacturer. The nation plunged into consumer capitalism, and Armstrong, Chaplin and Hemingway carried our culture nearly everywhere. The isolationists between the wars were not a coherent bloc. Some were motivated by ethnic resentment of the Anglo-Saxon elite, others by politial suspicion of the ruling class, others were ancestors of the later unilateralists. Unimpeded by much public attention, three very internationalist Secretaries of State from the older elite, Hughes, Kellog, Stimson, extended American power by enlisting finance and industry in the task. The military prepared assiduously for the next Great War. Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 began his Presidency as a cautious internationalist.When he succeeded in bringing the nation into war in 1941, he drew upon the banks, law firms and universities to command the new warfare state. The public, remote from the conduct of foreign policy, agreed that war was necessary to defend the economic and social substance of the nation. Read more
Bilious Purging
Bill Bennett ‘65 takes on Glen Beck.
There’s a lot to say about CPAC. This morning the major papers are highlighting Glenn Beck’s speech. I like Glenn a lot and I think he has something to teach us. But not what he offered last night.
…
Third, to admit it is still “morning in America” but a “vomiting for four hours” kind of morning is to diminish, discourage, and disparage all the work of the conservative, Republican, and independent resistance of the past year. The Tea Partiers know better than this. I don’t think they would describe their rallies and resistance as a bilious purging but, rather, as a very positive democratic reaction aimed at correcting the wrongs of the current political leadership. The mainstream media may describe their reactions as an unhealthy expurgation. I do not.
A year ago, we were told the Republican party and the conservative movement were moribund. Today they are ascendant, and it is the left and the Democratic party that are on defense — even while they are in control. That’s quite an amazing achievement. But anyone who knows the history of this country and its political movements should not be surprised. America has a long tradition of antibodies that kick in. From Carter we got Reagan. And from Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama we took back a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, with midterm elections on the horizon that Republicans and conservatives are actually excited about, not afraid of.
To say the GOP and the Democrats are no different, to say the GOP needs to hit a recovery-program-type bottom and hang its head in remorse, is to delay our own country’s recovery from the problems the Democratic left is inflicting.
Indeed. One of the reasons that I voted for Obama is that I hope/predicted that we would see precisely this sort of dynamic.
EphBlog readers will certainly disagree about the Tea Partiers, but surely we can agree that Bennett is a better/smarter conservative than Beck.
Ruining Lives and Livelihoods
Instead of interrupting Dick Swart’s excellent post about the World War II internment of Japanese-Americans, I thought it useful to move the discussion to a new thread. Start with this item in the Daily Messages:
This message was sent to Students, Faculty, and Staff on February 19, 2010 by Rebecca Ohm, Williams College Libraries.
Message:
Executive Order 9066 On this day in 1942, Franklin Roosevelt signed Exec. Order 9066, authorizing “removal of resident enemy aliens”, to what were described as “military areas”. U.S. citizens or not, thousands of Japanese-Americans were interned in these camps, ruining lives and livelihoods in the process. MORE: http://www.williams.edu/messages/show.php?id=12644 from Rebecca Ohm, Williams College LibrariesMessage details:
For more on this dark period in U.S. history, explore the extensive library collections on this aspect of WWII; search FRANCIS http://francis.williams.edu/ for subjects: Japanese Americans — Evacuation and relocation, 1942-1945 Japanese Americans — Reparations World War, 1939-1945 — Japanese Americans
This is a cute little example of political correctness at Williams because it pretends that there is only one reasonable position to hold: That internment was evil. In fact, as with most controversial issues, there are two sides. Curious about the other side? Start with In Defense of Internment: The Case for ‘Racial Profiling’ in World War II and the War on Terror by Michelle Malkin. Note especially the seriousness with which Malkin engages her academic critics.
Best part? The Williams libraries do not own a copy of Malkin’s book! Wouldn’t want to confuse the students . . .
UPDATE: Just to clarify, I don’t mean to accuse Rebecca Ohm of political correctness. I don’t know her. But every member of the Williams library staff that I have dealt with has been knowledgeable and cordial. Instead, I think this Daily Message illustrates an attitude that is widespread at Williams, as Professor Sam Crane’s comment demonstrates.
Guess Who Taught at Williams …
… the slightly (to put it kindly) unhinged Obama basher of the moment, John Drew. (If you don’t believe him, you can even see his Williams ID … and be sure to check out who, unsurprisingly, tracked him down in the blog comments … actually, I’m surprised that he and David weren’t buddies during their mutual tenure at Williams). Drew has achieved some minor notoriety in the extreme right-wing blogosphere via his claim that President Obama expressed … gasp … Marxist sympathies late one evening when Obama was a college sophomore. Awww, snap! What is his claim based on? An unverifiable description of a single conversation that Drew purportedly had with a teenaged Obama, some 30 years ago. I can certainly recall, with precise clarity, every conversation I had during chance meetings with strangers in the Perry keg line.
This guy’s blog and twitter feed read like they were written by Colbert staffers as a right-wing parody:
- self infatuation? Check … “My own credentials, by the way, were somewhat spectacular since I was the winner of the William Anderson Award from the American Political Science Association in 1989″ [yes, certainly "spectacular" to have published, apparently, a total of zero scholarly works other than various versions of a thesis written while in graduate school, and to hold down a series of part-time jobs at esteemed institutions like the University of Phoenix ... this guy's resume makes Bernard Moore look like James MacGregor Burns]
- paranoid belief that any and all personal failure is explainable by the pernicious effects of affirmative action (including a demand for “reparations” because he was born white)? Check.
- religious-style “conversion” from the evils of Marxism to the righteous ways of Conservatism? Check.
- distaste for Obama’s perceived meterosexuality and attempt to link any critique of Obama, no matter how attenuated (or nonexistent) the connection, to Tony Rezko or Jeremiah Wright? Check.
Only a matter of time before this guy is doing the rounds with Hannity, Beck, O’Reilly, Coulter, Palin, and the rest of the hate-Obama brigade … I love, in particular, that Drew states that he is an “award winning” political scientist who taught at a few of our nation’s “formerly prestigious institutions.” I can only assume that he considers Williams to be “formerly” prestigious, unlike his more recent employers, like Hope International (the seventh best Christian business school in the country!) and UoP.
UPDATE: ID photo added by DK, along with material below.
Read more
The US And Iran
This essay, by Professor Norman Birnbaum ‘46, was originally published in the Berlin daily Die Tageszeitung (taz) as >>Krieg gegen Teheran?< <.
The Iranian leadership is learning, haltingly, the aggressively manipulative flexibility occasionally shown by the USSR in relations with the west. When, under Khrushchev especially, it indicated a willingness to discuss a western proposal, the western capitals became confused, even panicked. The Iranian offer to discuss uranium enrichment abroad has provoked the US and the ever dutiful Europeans to denounce Iranian deceit. There is no western strategy for Iran—only non-negotiable demands, and condemnation, provoking Iranian erraticism.
The US has three immediate options with respect to Iran. The unilateralists nostalgic for the ideological simplicity of Bush and Cheney and,the Israel lobby (it could be renamed the Likud lobby, as signfiicant segments of American Jewry doubt the competence of the Israel politicians now in power) propose to attack Iran, with no delay, after demanding instant cessation of Iran’s nuclear projects. That Iran is developing nuclear weapons is an item of faith for those who make no apologies for using falsified evidence to justify war on Iraq. For them, a prior attack by Israel is neither necessary or desirable. The Israel elite doubts that Israel by itself can successfully attack Iran, and prefers to let the US do so. The previous Israel Chief of Staff, the air force general who led the inconclusive war with Hezbollah, has just warned his nation against over estimation of its capacity to strike Iran.
Tragic figure
Evan Miller ‘06 defends someone that, quite frankly, I didn’t expect to see anyone defending.
Open Thread On SOTU
I continue discussions with folks at EphBlog and at Williams about the best way to foster political discussions among the Ephs. In that spirit, let us try an open thread about President Obama’s State of the Union speech. Got an opinion? Tell us in the comments.
Extra credit for any Eph references!
UPDATE: McDonnell reply here.
And just because Obama is done speaking does not mean that the political conversation needs to end here. What was the most surprising/enjoyable/annoying part of either speech for you?
The Prisoner in the White House
At my request, Norman Birnbaum ‘46 will be sharing some of his articles with EphBlog. Here is the first. – DK
After a year in office, the President seems—rather like most of his predecessors—a prisoner in the White House. The New York Times, not conspicuous for its irony, has just written that, other matters permitting, he hopes to do something about unemployment.
Failure to reverse it would indeed make his re-election very difficult in 2012, and is likely to result in large Republican gains in the Congressional elections of November 2010 when the entire House of Representatives and a third of the Senate will be at stake. The victory in the special election to choose a successor to the late Senator Edward Kennedy in Massachusetts (held exactly one year after the President’s assumption of office) of an unknown and not visibly gifted local politician who campaigned as exponent of the ordinary people’s virtues against the vices of the political elite, shocked the Democrats—who became aware of the danger too late to avert it. The President’s approval ratings in the public opinion polls are not worse than that of many of his predecessors at this period of the Presidency (at the end of January, half the public thought he was performing to their satisfaction) –but the contrast with the large expectations he evoked earlier, the returned confidence of the Republicans and demoralization and pronounced division amongst the Democrats, is very striking.
The relationship between domestic and foreign policy in American Presidencies follows no very standard pattern. In general, a President whose standing in domestic matters is high is freer to maneuver in foreign affairs. That is not always the case, and Lyndon Johnson, a very successful and major domestic reformer, knew that the Vietnam War was unwinnable but did not act on his insight because he feared being attacked as weak. Yet in 1964 he had won a very convincing victory against his opponent, Senator Goldwater (whom he charged with planning to do what Johnson promptly did in 1965, expand the war in Vietnam.) Nixon, per contra, entered the White House in 1969 with a reputation for unmitigated bellicosity, and proceeded to open relations with the People’s Republic of China (refused by the US, absurdly, since the Communists’ assumption of power two decades earlier), engaged in serious negotiations with the Soviet Union, and in effect abandoned our south Vietnamese client state to its fate. As the last President Bush became increasingly mired in what struck an American majority as an interminable and for many, unnecessary, war in Iraq he found that despite his re-election in 2004, he had no majority for his domestic priorities, permanent and structural rather than incidental reductions in expenditure for the American welfare state.
The Obama Presidential majority of November 2008 clearly sought a new beginning in our politics, but how many of the President’s voters shared his complex and differentiated foreign policy perspective is not at all clear. He took his election as a mandate to announce policies which would have been inconceivable under Bush and unimaginable had McCain won: reconciliation with the Islamic world, new beginning of cooperation with China and Russia, an end to hegemonic bullying in the western hemisphere, an invitation to the European Union to propose its own initiatives in world politics (of which it proved incapable), US cooperation in serious measures to control environmental destruction, a new US initiative to bring Israel and the Palestinians to a settlement, and negotiations with Iran on its nuclear project. Read more
Historical Perspective on Citizens United
Good essay from Prof. David Kaiser:
Political speech was free, or almost free, when the first amendment was passed, in two different ways: not only did the law now protect it, but the production and distribution of written materials (the only ones then available) was extremely cheap. In the early nineteenth century, yours truly might have started and turned out a weekly broadsheet almost as easily as I now turn out this blog. The point is not whether material like Hillary can be produced–of course it can, although it testifies to the decline of American political discourse in the last half century–the point is who will have the money to advertise it and broadcast it on cable television. Just as Anatole France remarked that the law impartially forbade both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges, the law now impartially allows David Kaiser, the heads of Citibank and Goldman Sachs, and Glenn Beck to make their views available on television to audiences of millions. The problem is that only three of them will be able to do so. The reformers of the 1900-80 era did not need rocket science to figure out that increasingly expensive modern forms of communication would obviously give incredible advantages to the rich and powerful and thus had to be regulated to give ordinary citizens a chance to be heard. A 5-4 Supreme Court majority has now thrown out a century of tradition and returned us to a form of political Darwinism (see my earlier posts on social Darwinism several years ago, easily located by a search at the top of the page.)
The current crisis in American life, I have been saying here now for five years, will lead either to a kind of New Deal revival or to a return to the Gilded Age. Karl Rove understands this and cited William McKinley as his political hero. The court just brought us immensely closer to a return to McKinley’s age.
Those like me who never have and never will abandon the New Deal principles they learned in their youth inevitably mourn the likely eclipse, for the rest of our lifetimes, of those principles. But once again my training as a European historian at least enables me to say that things could be much, much worse. Although the Republicans have frequently bent the law (most notably in 2000 and again this week), they have successfully undid the work of our parents and grandparents mainly through legal means. There is no Fascist movement or dictatorship on the horizon (although one could still emerge.) It was the America of the Gilded age to which my paternal grandfather came around 1900, making my own life possible. The liberal tradition will survive, even if will only be revived years after the Boom generation has passed from the scene. (I do not exclude the possibility that my own side might still prevail even in this crisis, but it does not look at all likely.) If the Founding Fathers managed to design a system that can preserve essential liberties and survive even severe swings to the right and left, they will still deserve our thanks.
Emphasis mine. Read the whole thing here.
The central theme of the recent book Packing the Court by Prof. James MacGregor Burns is the undemocratic and unconstitutional rise of Supreme Court power. He writes (emphasis mine):
In retrospect, the court has far more often been a tool for reaction, not progress. Whether in the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century or the Gilded Age at the turn of the twenty-first, the justices have most fiercely protected the rights and liberties of the minority of the powerful and the propertied. Americans cannot look to the judicial branch for leadership.
Confronted with what he calls “unelected and unaccountable politicians in robes”, Burns proposes that the only way to break judicial power is for the democratic branches of government to challenge it, either through a constitutional amendment, or a somewhat more daring strategy:
Confronted by a hostile court repeatedly striking down vital progressive legislation, a president could declare that there is no place in a modern democracy for unelected judges to veto twenty-first-century laws. The president would announce flatly that he or she would not accept the Supreme Court’s verdicts because the power of judicial emasculation of legislation was not – and never had been – in the Constitution. The president would invite the partisans of judicial supremacy to try to write that authority into the Constitution by proposing a constitutional amendment. Through their representatives in Congress and the state legislatures, the American people would be given the choice denied them in 1803: to establish in the Constitution the power of judicial supremacy, or to reject that power. Only by this route could judicial rule be legitimated, “constitutionalized.” In the meantime, until the matter was settled, the president would faithfully execute the laws the Supreme Court had unconstitutionally vetoed.
It would be a risky strategy, an open defiance of constitutional customs and the myths and mysteries that have long enshrouded the court. Traditionalists would be outraged. Professors of law would express their concern in learned treatises. Powerful interests with a stake in the status quo – business groups, conservative lawyers, and their supporters in the political class – would spearhead a campaign of opposition. There might even be demands for impeachment. In the ensuing turbulence, though, the president would have an enormous strategic advantage. He would need only to sit tight. The burden would be on his adversaries to initiate the new and momentous amendment to the Constitution and to obtain a mandate for judicial rule. For once it would be the foes of reform, not the reformers, who would have to go through the constitutional hoops of amendment, with all the traps and delays.
Above all, it would be a test of leadership, of the president’s ability to mobilize followers behind a transformational goal, as FDR had so markedly failed to do in 1937. He would present the idea for what it was – a revolutionary challenge to judicial business-as-usual, to minority rule by a handful of judges, a fight for the Constitution as the people’s charter, not a lawyer’s contract.[...]
If judicial rule was not ratified by the people in the amending process, the Supreme Court’s exclusive grip on constitutional interpretation would be broken. Shorn of its supremacy, the court would still retain crucial tasks. It would still be called upon to interpret ambiguous statutes, adjust conflicting laws, clarify jurisdictions, and police the boundaries of federal-state power – virtually all of its present responsibilities except that of declaring federal laws unconstitutional. It would simply be brought closer to the role the Framers originally envisioned for it.
Quotation above taken from the Epilogue, “Ending Judicial Supremacy”, to Prof. Burns’ book.
Burns seems to expect that a constitutional crisis of this magnitude will occur at some point in the future, perhaps in the near future. With Citizens United, the opportunity for the democratic branches of govt. to reform judicial power may have occurred before even he would have expected it. What are the chances that the Democratic leadership in Congress and the White House will challenge the court?
Feed Us Happy-Talk
I enjoyed this letter in the Transcript.
To the Editor:
A year ago, if we had read in the paper that employers were hiring again, that health care legislation was proceeding without a bump, that Afghanistan suddenly became a nice place to take your kids, we would’ve known we were being lied to. Back then, we recognized that the problems Obama inherited as president wouldn’t go away overnight.
During his campaign, Obama clearly said that an economy that took eight years to break couldn’t be fixed in a year, that Afghanistan was a graveyard of empires and would not be an easy venture for us.
Candidate Obama didn’t feed us happy-talk, which is why we elected him. He never said America could solve our health care, economic and security problems without raising the deficit. Instead, he talked of hard choices, of government taking painful and contentious first steps towards fixing problems that can’t be left for another day.
…
It’s time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work and that a president can’t just wave a magic wand and fix everything.
Ellie Light
Williamstown
Indeed. The College Democrats ought to invite Ellie Light to give a talk on campus. I bet that it would be very interesting . . .
Coakley reflects on loss
From The Boston Globe:
(thanks to nuts for the link)
Vote
If you are a resident of Massachusetts, you should probably vote today.
Scoff at soybean subsidies, hwc? I think not …
The Eastern Bias shows up once again in these elitist pages filled with the spewlings of trust fund bunnies!
Soybean subsidies keep the Midwest economy going with food on the table for families and the world filled with plastics and culinary imitations, while EphBlog readers complain about the recent increase in the fresh tuna price at Dean and deLucca!
Question those senatorial hopefuls, hwc! And be sure to include the all-important soybean conjecture!
As fraudulent as Bush
Andrew Sullivan reads the Globe op-ed penned by Martha Coakley’s Republican opponent Scott Brown:
His Globe piece is presumably a good way to assess his platform. And it highlights all the bankruptcy of the current conservative establishment. Take a couple of issues. He starts by listing national problems:
Public debt has reached $12 trillion and counting, and Washington politicians want to borrow trillions more.
His solution?
My plan for the economy is simple: an across-the-board tax cut – in the tradition of John F. Kennedy – for families and businesses that will increase investment and lead to immediate new job growth. More tax increases will hurt our recovery. That’s why I have taken a no-new-tax pledge. My opponent will raise taxes.
Does anyone see the contradiction here? Without any tax increases, indeed with more taxcuts, the spending reductions required to reduce the debt will be fantastic: massive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and defense. Where does he outline these spending measures? Nowhere. Fiscally, he’s as fraudulent as Bush.
More absurdity here:
It’s time to admit that while the $787 billion stimulus had the best of intentions, it failed to create one new job.
Even if you believe that stimuli are wasteful or inefficient, I know of no sane economist who believes that $800 billion did not create one new job.
Then he’s in favor of the Massachusetts universal health insurance reform, on which Obama’s is based, but for some reason against the one for the country. Why?
But the healthcare bill under discussion in Washington is not good. It will raise taxes and increase spending. If you are a senior on Medicare, it will lead to a half trillion dollars in cuts to your care.
So Brown supports health care exchanges, a mandate, and universal care … but opposes healthcare exhcanges, a mandate and universal care. He is worried about the debt but actually opposes the proposed cuts in Medicare that can make universal insurance affordable – let alone the cuts necessary to bring us back from the fiscal abyss.
He is, in other words, a parody of the brainless bush Republican, mixed with Romney-like cynicism.
Attention Ephblog: Not all political writers hate Coakley ‘75!
In case the…biases…of certain ephblog authors weren’t clear to you already, consider the following views of Coakley:
Left wing media supports Coakley .
Or this evidence that her opponent might be a dick/IRS cheat . Apparently, the health care coverage is less important than the fact that he’s making his staffers pay their own taxes so he can avoid payroll tax.
Or there’s Vicky Kennedy’s endorsement to consider .
Or the huffington post gets mad at centrists flip flopping .
And now, back to your regularly scheduled ephblog…
Coakley ‘75 Down 4% in Senate Race
If you had told me last month that Martha Coakley ‘75 might lose her race for the Senate, I would have said you were an idiot. Perhaps I am the idiot.
Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.
Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.
“It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”
Unbelievable (almost). Losing Curt Schilling probably doesn’t help, nor telling Catholics that they should not work in emergency rooms.
I want Coakley to win because she is an Eph. But I also remember Gerald Amirault. Do you? Amirault remembers Coakley.
Toss-up
Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight is a remarkably good polling analyst. When he calls it a toss-up, I tend to believe him.
Here’s the Pollster.com aggregated chart:
Hate-filled opportunism
Brother Spotless is angry.
Coakley ‘75 lead down to 2
According to Rasmussen Reports.
via David Weigel, who notes:
All of that comes after Coakley, roused from what Democrats admit was a fairly lazy campaign, launched new TV ads.
The really surprising thing about this poll? While Brown has made his campaign explicitly about the chance Massachusetts voters have to block the health care bill, Rasmussen finds a solid majority of voters in support of the bill. According to the internals, 52 percent of voters back “the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats” to only 46 percent who oppose it. A plurality, 41 percent, of voters say the stimulus package has helped the economy–only 23 percent say it’s hurt. Coakley’s bumbling campaign can’t close the deal with an electorate that agrees with her on the issues.
Also, thanks to Cameron Henry ‘09 for pointing us to this article:
GOP candidate in Mass. Senate race says he raised $1.3M in 24 hours
MA-Sen: Was I Wrong?
At least two new polls are out since my last post on MA Attorney General Martha Coakley’s ‘75 race against GOP State Senator Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special for the late Ted Kennedy’s senate seat. The righty blogosphere (see local outpost RedMassGroup.com) is going nuts over this one from PPP, showing Brown with an astonishing one-point edge over Coakley. David reports that Michelle Malkin is ecstatic (which I refuse to verify for myself), and local righty blog RedMassGroup reports a Scott Brown moneybomb is in the works and the third largest paper in the commonwealth, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, has endorsed Brown.
Of course this other poll, commissioned by the Boston Globe, has Coakley ahead by around 15 points. RedMassGroup blogger Rob Eno had this to say about the Globe’s poll:
The Boston Globe/UNH poll shows Coakley up 15 points among what they call likely voters. However even their poll shows the race tied amongst motivated voters. This is a special election. Motivated voters go to the polls. Non-motivated voters do not.
But this is spin, at least to a certain extent – the poll report from the UNH survey center does show a 47-47 dead heat between Coakley and Brown amongst voters who report being "extremely interested” in the race (the word “motivated” is not used – cute spin, though!), but Coakley crushes Brown among voters reporting being “very interested.” Since “interested” =! “motivated”, who’s to say what the difference in turnout motivation will be between those who report being “very" interested and “extremely” interested?
Another fun tidbit from the poll report – Coakley seems to do best in Western Mass AND “inside 128” [non-Mass people: that means Greater Boston, essentially], with weaker support in Central Mass and the Metrowest suburbs. My admittedly limited understanding of Mass politics makes me think that’s kind of odd, since Republicans are supposed to do better the further away from the Boston area and I-495 you get… Perhaps she’s got the native-daughter factor working for her, since she’s from North Adams? Can someone with more [read: any] experience in Mass politics maybe comment on this, correct me if I’m wrong, and add some nuance either way? Also, some on-campus relevance – since Coakley’s support is that strong out in Western Mass, and she’s from Western Mass, they should have a strong turnout operation for Coakley out there. Current Ephs, get involved. It’s fun! And important. But fun!
With the crazy variation in these polling numbers, and given the fact that it’s a special election…this campaign will probably end up being a nailbiter through to election day, even if it ends up as a twenty-point blowout, because nothing is certain, and there are a lot of Democrats in Massachusetts (and everywhere, really) who are upset with the way Democrats in DC have been handling things – as evidenced by the recent resignation (and reregistration as an independent!) of the town Democratic chairwoman in Framingham, MA.
Is Martha Coakley ‘75 Really Vulnerable?
David emailed me pointing out that “the latest right-wing meme is that she’s vulnerable”, following that Rasmussen poll that has Martha Coakley ’75 leading Republican Scott Brown in the race for the late Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat. Is she that vulnerable? From the Christian Science Monitor:
A Jan. 4 Rasmussen poll of likely voters found Coakley leading her Republican challenger, state Sen. Scott Brown, by a smaller margin than expected – nine percentage points.
In the poll, 50 percent favored Coakley and 41 percent chose Senator Brown. The general election is Jan. 19.
Coakley was strongly favored coming out of the Dec. 8 primary due to the heavily Democratic nature of Massachusetts: Blue voters outnumber their red counterparts 3 to 1 in the state.
It’s funny how points is considered huge in some races and small in others. Maybe it’s a bit of a surprise in a state with a 3:1 Democratic registration advantage, but nine points is still nine points. But polls aren’t elections.
In elections with low turnout – and special elections like this one usually qualify – it’s true that such leads can evaporate when the election goes to the ballot box. We saw that on election night in my home state of New York last November, when challenger Bill Thompson made up most of a 14+ percentage point deficit (looking at the Pollster average) to nearly unseat NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg (see Pollster.com’s graph here). The gap separating Thompson and Bloomberg was just 4.6% on election night.
That being said, I remember most of the crazy upsets and near-upsets from election night ‘09 favoring insurgents against incumbents – times are tough, and people, more than being angry at any particular political party (though there’s definitely some of that) are angry at the folks in charge of things. So, for example, 2009 was a very bad year to be an incumbent county executive in my neck of the woods.
This is where I tend to disagree with comments like this, from a consultant cited in the CSM article:
“He’s offered himself up as a protest candidate: ‘If you don’t like the way things are going in Washington, vote for me,’ ” says Dan Payne, a Massachusetts-based Democratic media consultant. “The winds are blowing against the Democrats right now.”
Granted, the Democratic brand has taken a big hit, but my bet is voters blame those in charge way more than newcomers – so, while incumbent Senator Chris Dodd in Connecticut bowed out rather than face a very tough reelection fight, Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is expected to hold that seat for Democrats easily.
Coakley ’75 is an attorney general running for U.S. Senate, not an incumbent senator being flogged with the Senate’s recent run of incredibly bad press. So I don’t think she’s in for the world of hurt folks in the media think Democrats will be facing. As for whether this poll indicates she’s in danger – nothing’s certain in politics, and a great field campaign combined with low turnout and a demotivated Democratic base could potentially pull an upset, sure. But I wouldn’t bet on it, and I’m sure Coakley’s campaign is working hard and taking no chances.
I hope someone on campus is organizing to get out the vote for Coakley, though! Working to get out the vote on election day is something everyone should do at least once.
“The real Mayor of Spring Street”
Project webpage is up and running. It will be interesting to see what angle the Williams students take for this research? Judging from the pictures on the webpage… I think they are getting a feel for the larger metaphor.
Update: Sign up to follow the blog for the Real Mayor here. If you have “stories or anecdotes” to tell about the gas station or Art, the researchers are looking for input.
“Leadership in the Black Community”
Five members of the Congressional Black Caucus, a prominent African-American entertainer, and two African-American alums of Williams are coming to campus in a week for an event almost exactly one year after last fall’s CBC Roundtable.
The Participants are:
- Andre Carson, the youngest Democratic member of the House and the second Muslim to serve in Congress, after Keith Ellison. He previously worked for the Indiana Department of Homeland Security.
- John Conyers, the second longest serving incumbent Congressman, and is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
- Danny Davis, a member of Congress since 1996, who also has the dubious honor of being considered by Rob Blagojevich as a possible replacement for President Obama. Bernard Moore, the event’s initiator, is a Senior Policy Adviser for Congressman Davis.
- Barbara Lee, a member of Congress since 1998, is the current Chair of the CBC, and was the only Member of Congress to vote against the Authorization of Force after the September 11th attacks.
- Diane Watson, who joined Congress in 2001 after a long time in California’s State Senate and a brief Ambassadorship.
- Bill Cosby needs no introduction.
- Wole Coaxum ‘92 is a Senior Vice President at JPMorgan Chase.
- William Spriggs ‘77 is Chair of Economics at Howard University and Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Labor.
Video of last fall’s event is here.
Too close to call
From the Seattle Times:
The Seattle’s mayoral race is too close to call, with environmentalist attorney Mike McGinn leading T-Mobile executive Mallahan in the first count of ballots released by King County tonight.
With 85,000 ballots counted, McGinn is currently up by 910 votes.
As McGinn came out to talk at his party at The War Room, supporters burst into huge cheers, hugged and high-fived chanted of “We like Mike.”
If the results hold it would be an upset for McGinn, who was outspent by more than 3-to-1, opposed by the city’s biggest business and labor groups, and seemed to back down on his biggest campaign issue — opposition to the deep-bore tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct — two weeks ago.
King County Elections officials predict a 56 percent turnout. In Seattle, a total of 210,000 votes are expected.
The McGinn campaign says it’s not too late to vote.
More images from the McGinn war room at the Stranger.
Democracy Blogging
- Mike McGinn ‘82, who is running for mayor of Seattle, reminds you to please mail or drop off your ballot: You can drop your ballot at any of King County Elections’ drop boxes by 8 PM on Election Day.
- Dan Blatt ‘85 analyzes the race in NY-23.
- Mass MoCA says VOTE VOTE VOTE: “Too-close-to-even-hazard-a-guess elections for mayor in North Adams, Pittsfield, Northampton and probably many other towns and cities across the country that aren’t necessarily on our radar mean that voting is probably the most important thing you can do today.”
- From Greylocknews: WilliNet to carry live commentary on N.A. mayoral election from 7 p.m. Tuesday / Twitter tag: #namayor
- From Chap Petersen ‘90, Virginia State Senator and Creigh Deeds backer: “Please everyone get out and vote. Polls are open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. in their usual locations.”
- Marc Lynch published an article in The National about what happens when Islamists don’t get to be democrats.
- Derek Catsam ‘93 provides an update on elections in Tunisia and Mozambique, as well as other African political news.
- Ken Dilanian ‘91 looks at the impact of US foreign aid to promote democracy in Egypt.
- Martha Coakley ‘75 received an endorsement from the Massachusetts Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus.
- Stephen O’Grady ‘97 writes a heartfelt essay on why he’s voting No on 1 in Maine, which concludes thusly (read the whole thing):
We have, sadly, not always lived up to the promise of our forefathers. It took us 191 years to guarantee people the right to marry irrespective of the color skin they were born with. It is my sincere hope that we don’t deny committed couples the right to marry for another 191 years based on the sexual preference they were born with.
I am fortunate that the law says that I may marry the person that I love. I cannot imagine what I would do if it said otherwise. Please. If you are registered here in Maine and you believe in the rights that make this country worth dying for, vote No On 1.
O’Grady also posts this video of WWII vet and lifelong Republican Philip Spooner:
- Stephen Rose ‘58: Prepping for A Democratic Bloodbath
House scrutinizes fake lobbyist letters
Some readers may recall Morgan Goodwin ’08’s earlier protests about the naked fraud by lobbying firm Bonner and Associates. NPR had a story on the fraud today, featuring a photo of Morgan in an astroturf suit (click for larger), angry quotes from the chair of the House global warming committee, and a weaseling apology/denial of responsibility from the head of Bonner and Associates:
(h/t Andy Goldston)
Also, Stephen Colbert did a segment on this story a couple of weeks ago:
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Tip/Wag – Coal Lobbyists, George Takei & Crispycones | ||||
|
||||
Today, Morgan and other activists are conducting a sit-in at the Environmental Protection Agency to protest mountaintop removal coal mining in West Virginia. Live-blog here.
Nobel reax
Dan Drezner ‘90 stops laughing long enough to write up the secret deliberations of the Nobel committee (Neil Patrick Harris was robbed!)
Derek Catsam ‘93 and Vermando ‘05 try to make a case for the prize. Chad Orzel ‘93 thinks that they’re trying to make American right-wingers’ heads explode. More discussion on WSO.
Sam Sommers ‘97 has an interesting psychological take:
Most of the pro-Obama crowd I’ve read, heard from, and talked to is surprised as well. And nervous to boot. Because even the most ardent Obama supporter has to admit that he’s still shorter on accomplishment than on promise, and they’re worried that this award will only fuel the fire of the style-over-substance critique.
If you ask me, this is the issue that should concern the Nobel Committee, given their apparent goals for today’s announcement. Because, yes, source credibility matters. But so does your audience. And when your preaching surprises and even distresses the choir, you may have a backlash problem on your hands. Not to mention the risk that all your future selections will be dismissed out of hand as well in some quarters, based on the precedent of this year’s choice.
Currently browsing posts filed under "Politics"
Subscribe
Williams Record- Campbell enjoys athletic and academic success
- Light humor makes Black Comedy a success
- Kain scores 1000th as men’s hoops wins two
- Walk on the wild side at Winter Carnival
- Women’s swim, dive improves to 6-0
- Men’s swim, dive dominates MIT field, routs Middlebury
- Women’s basketball falls just shy of upset bid at No. 3 Bowdoin
- Will it ever fade?
- Students a sight for sore eyes
- Women’s ice hockey looks strong
- College News Releases
- Williams College Nurses Travel to Haiti to Provide Relief to Earthquake Survivors
- Williams Theatre Professor Set Designer for Young Jean Lee's "Lear" at SOHO Rep
- Geologist's Personal Revelations of "Heroic Engagement with the Earth" Published ...
- Williams College Names Philosophy Professor William Dudley as Next Gaudino Scholar
- Williams Faculty Lecture Series Continues on March 11 with an Examination of Thomas Kuhn and ...
- Athletics
- Fletcher Brooks USTFCCCA New England Region Women's Coach of the Year.
- Williams in 12th with 6 races to go at NCAA Championships
- Blake Schultz Wins Prestigious Jostens Trophy
- Ephs set to host NCAA Sectional this weekend
- Eph Women in Sweet 16: Live Stats, Webcast, Schedule & Preview
- Nine Ephs Gear Up to Compete at NCAA Championships
- Eph Men Win 2nd Straight USTFCCCA X-C Scholar Team of the Year
- Ephs to host Men's NCAA Basketball Sectionals Friday & Saturday