Look No Further


Slate and Reason have released the presidential preferences of staff and contributors, and in the latter case, "other people important to the libertarian universe of ideas."  

Slate political editor Dave Weigel has a particularly intriguing explanation of his view of the candidates:

I'm copping out. On about half of the issues that I care about, Barack Obama has been a massive improvement on George W. Bush. Drone warfare or lie-based land wars in the Middle East? U.S. attorneys running junk cases against "voter fraud," or the DOJ trying to expand the vote? Endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment, or refusing to defend DOMA in court? I agreed with an economic stimulus in 2009, as did the forgetful Republicans, who just disagreed about what should go in it. But Obama's a mediocre executive who's never figured out how to overcome opposition in Congress. I think Romney could be a great executive. If we fell into some Greece-like receivership, and a coalition of bankers installed a dictator to manage our economy, Romney would be perfect. Give him a Democratic Congress and you'd bring out his best instincts. My problems: If you trust John Bolton and Dan Senor to speak for you, who are you going to fill the government with? If you agree to a Balanced Budget Amendment that would require a California-style supermajority to raise taxes, what other dumb fiscal decisions will you make?

So I'll vote for the Libertarian ticket, which I agree with on everything besides the scale and speed of spending cuts, and the first third-party team that actually seems competent enough to run a country. (Let's face it, Nader voters. Would you have trusted him to run anything larger than a make-your-own-salad franchise?) But I guess I'm pulling for a 269-269 electoral vote split, which would give us a chastened President Romney and let us keep the greatest vice president in history, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.

It's hard to understand why anyone who recognizes the Balanced Budget Amendment as a "dumb fiscal decision" would vote for a libertarian like Johnson.   Equally intriguing, though, is his remark "But I guess I'm pulling for a 269-269 electoral vote split, which would give us a chastened President Romney and let us keep the greatest vice president in history, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr."

I hesitate to disagree with anyone who has a higher regard for Joe Biden than Barack Obama but it is hardly a sure bet that a 269-269 division in electoral votes would produce "a chastened President Romney and let us keep" Vice-President Biden.  While the new, undoubtedly Republican-controlled House undoubtedly would select Mitt Romney as the nation's 45th President, selection of the Democrat as v.p. by a Democratic-controlled Senate is far less certain.

In all likelihood, the Democratic Party will retain its "control" of the Senate.  But it is unlikely that it will improve on its 53-47 majority and there would be enormous pressure on Democrats (most center or center-right) from GOP-leaning states, such as Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, and West Virginia, to vote for Paul Ryan.   The temptation, which eventually persuaded Al Gore to concede the 2000 presidential race (when he actually garnered a plurality of votes in Florida), to succumb in the interests of a mythical "national unity" would be difficult to resist for Democrats eager to claim the mantle of bipartisanship for a re-election battle.

Obviously, the likelihood that there will be an even split in the Electoral College is fairly remote, though perhaps more likely with an apparent 270-268 Obama advantage (with a supreme effort by Republicans to flip an elector) than in an apparent 269-269 outcome.   Nearly as likely is the result that that such a split "would give us a chastened President Romney."   Right-wing Republicans, i.e., the Party majority, understand that they would need merely to whisper in Mitt Romney's ear two words:  "primary challenge."     George W. Bush hardly received a mandate in 2000- and we got deregulation, two new wars (including one completely unrelated to the threat of terrorism), and tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires to fight for those wars.

There is no need to wish for a "chastened" President Romney when we already have a chastened President Obama.     The lawyer, community activist, communicant of Jeremiah Wright's church, and the first black President in American history, in an interview shortly before the Des Moines Register endorsed Romney, assured the daily

Number four, I want to reduce our deficit. It’s got to be done in a balanced way. I’ve already cut a trillion dollars’ worth of spending. I’m willing to do more. I’m willing to cut more, and I’m willing to work with Democrats and Republicans when it comes to making some adjustments that bring down the cost of our health care programs, which obviously are the biggest drivers of our deficit....

It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.

Chastened? The man already has accepted a good chunk of the GOP wish-list and the election hasn't even concluded, much less negotiations begun.That's the same guy who in the first presidential debate stated "I want to talk about the values behind Social Security and Medicare, and then talk about Medicare, because that's the big driver of our deficits right now" and "So my approach is to say, how do we strengthen the system over the long term? And in Medicare, what we did was we said, we are going to have to bring down the costs if we're going to deal with our long-term deficits, but to do that, let's look where some of the money's going."   Not the unsustainable cost increases of health care (as, admittedly, he has at other times) but the mounting cost of the the more efficient Medicare.

Weigel (who will be voting for neither Romney nor Obama) and others hope that a President Romney is 'first-debate Romney' rather than 'primary campaign Romney.'  But in the incumbent, we have not only a centrist, pragmatic president but one who pledges to "walk Mitch McConnell's dog, wash John Boehner's car" if he is re-elected.






Share |

They Need Some Reason For Supporting Romney


Can you guess what comes next?

1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28....

If you came up with 36, you will understand the reasoning of the Des Moines Register, David Brooks, David Frum, and Buzz Bissinger in endorsing Mitt Romney for president.

In its endorsement, the editors of the Des Moines Register maintain

One of the biggest obstacles either candidate faces is partisan gridlock in Congress. It appears unlikely either party will have enough votes to have its own way without bringing over members from across the aisle.

Early in his administration, President Obama reached out to Republicans but was rebuffed. Since then, he has abandoned the effort, and the partisan divide has hardened. That has hampered not only the economy, but the entire country. We remain a nation of red states and blue states.

Having acknowledged that President Obama has sought compromise with the GOP, the paper goes on to argue "Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate."

The editors, claiming Obama "has abandoned the effort" to reach compromise, evidently forgot that the President had told them three days earlier

It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.  

Bissinger, an excellent author, terrible radio talk show host, and contributor to The Daily Beast, endorsed Mitt Romney on that site in part because "I am not sure Obama really wants to be president in any practical way. He hates the rolling up of sleeves and schmoozing that is politics.  I respect his principles, the way he does not veer from them, but politics is not principle whether we like it or not.  It is friendliness and compromise."

Yes, the chief executive who watered down, shaped and modified the Affordable Care Act to secure GOP votes (which he nonetheless never received) is a man of "principles" who does not compromise.

Bissinger's perception of President Obama bears a similarity to other, more accomplished columnists who, unlike Bissinger, actually are conservative and Republican.    The New York Times' David Brooks, who cites Obama's "moderate and sensible agenda," believes in a second Obama administration

The first order of business would be the budget deal, averting the so-called fiscal cliff. Obama would first go to Republicans in the Senate and say, “Look, we’re stuck with each other. Let’s cut a deal for the sake of the country.” He would easily find 10 Republican senators willing to go along with a version of a Grand Bargain.

Then Obama would go to the House. He’d ask Eric Cantor, the majority leader, if there were votes for such a deal. The answer would probably be no. Republican House members still have more to fear from a primary challenge from the right than from a general election challenge from the left. Obama is tremendously unpopular in their districts. By running such a negative presidential campaign, Obama has won no mandate for a Grand Bargain. Obama himself is not going to suddenly turn into a master legislative craftsman on the order of Lyndon Johnson.

There’d probably be a barrage of recriminations from all sides. The left and right would be consumed with ire and accusations. Legislators would work out some set of fudges and gimmicks to kick the fiscal can down the road.

But under President Romney

Republicans would begin with the premise that the status quo is unsustainable. The mounting debt is ruinous. The byzantine tax and regulatory regimes are stifling innovation and growth.

Republicans would like to take the reform agenda that Republican governors have pursued in places like Indiana and take it to the national level: structural entitlement reform; fundamental tax reform. These reforms wouldn’t make government unrecognizable (we’d probably end up spending 21 percent of G.D.P. in Washington instead of about 24 percent), but they do represent a substantial shift to the right.

At the same time, Romney would probably be faced with a Democratic Senate. He would also observe the core lesson of this campaign: conservatism loses; moderation wins. Romney’s prospects began to look decent only when he shifted to the center. A President Romney would look at the way Tea Party extremism had cost the G.O.P. Senate seats in Delaware and Nevada — and possibly Missouri and Indiana.

To get re-elected in a country with a rising minority population and a shrinking Republican coalition, Romney’s shape-shifting nature would induce him to govern as a center-right moderate. To get his tax and entitlement reforms through the Democratic Senate, Romney would have to make some serious concessions: increase taxes on the rich as part of an overall reform; abandon the most draconian spending cuts in Paul Ryan’s budget; reduce the size of his lavish tax-cut promises.

Brooks concludes "If Obama wins, we’ll probably get small-bore stasis; if Romney wins, we’re more likely to get bipartisan reform. Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans."    He counts this as the best reason, the reason to vote for Mitt Romney.  Seriously.

Similarly, David Frum, drummed out of the American Enterprise Institute a couple of years ago for insufficient fealty to the right-wing cause, concedes "I'd like to believe the David Brooks theory of  the Romney presidency: that Romney will pivot away from Tea Party Republicanism as soon as he is elected. I don't see much evidence in support of that theory, alas."   But he later adds

The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve.

Congressional Republicans, who support Romney and whom Romney supports without qualification or reservation, ought to be tossed out in 2014.  They represent the same extremist philosophy espoused by Mitt Romney on his way to their party's nomination.  So let's elect him.

These Romney partisans are sparse in their criticism of the incumbent's policies and seem to believe those of his challenger for most of the past year-and-a-half are destructive.  Frum, for instance, recognizes "Mitt Romney's campaign has been one long appeasement of the most selfish and stupid elements of the Republican coalition, and the instinct for appeasement will not terminate with the counting of the votes next Tuesday."   

Critiquing the "vote for Romney or else" rationale, Paul Krugman explains

So we shouldn’t worry about the ability of a re-elected Obama to get things done. On the other hand, it’s reasonable to worry that Republicans will do their best to make America ungovernable during a second Obama term. After all, they have been doing that ever since Mr. Obama took office.

During the first two years of Mr. Obama’s presidency, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, Republicans offered scorched-earth opposition to anything and everything he proposed. Among other things, they engaged in an unprecedented number of filibusters, turning the Senate — for the first time — into a chamber in which nothing can pass without 60 votes.

And, when Republicans took control of the House, they became even more extreme. The 2011 debt ceiling standoff was a first in American history: An opposition party declared itself willing to undermine the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, with incalculable economic effects, unless it got its way. And the looming fight over the “fiscal cliff” is more of the same. Once again, the G.O.P. is threatening to inflict large damage on the economy unless Mr. Obama gives it something — an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy — that it lacks the votes to pass through normal constitutional processes.

Would a Democratic Senate offer equally extreme opposition to a President Romney? No, it wouldn’t. So, yes, there is a case that “partisan gridlock” would be less damaging if Mr. Romney won.

As Krugman concedes, a Democratic Senate would not "offer equally extreme opposition to a President Romney."   But we are "close to accepting protection-racket politics," he observes, if Mitt Romney is elected on a platform of "nice country you got here.  Shame if something were to happen to it."



Share |

These 14 Electoral Votes No Longer Certain


The Democratic nominee for president has captured the electoral votes of New Jersey the past five elections and Nate Silver has calculated the likelihood of recent history repeating itself this month as 99.8%.   That was, however, as of earlier today and is subject to change, given that

The New Jersey Department of State issued a directive on Saturday ordering county elections officials to permit New Jersey registered voters displaced by Hurricane Sandy to vote electronically.

The directive also is intended to assist displaced first responders, whose emergency recovery efforts away from home would otherwise make voting a challenge, according to a Saturday afternoon press release.

“This has been an extraordinary storm that has created unthinkable destruction across our state and we know many people have questions about how and where to cast their vote in Tuesday’s election," said New Jersey Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno.

"To help alleviate pressure on polling places, we encourage voters to either use electronic voting or the extended hours at county offices to cast their vote,” Guadagno said in the release. “Despite the widespread damage Hurricane Sandy has caused, New Jersey is committed to working through the enormous obstacles before us to hold an open and transparent election befitting our state and the resiliency of its citizens.”

To vote electronically, displaced voters may submit a mail-in ballot application either by e-mail or fax to their county clerk. Once an application is approved, the clerk will electronically send a ballot to the voter by either fax or e-mail in accordance to the voter’s preference. Voters must return their electronic ballot either by fax or email no later than 8 p.m. on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 6.

Voters can download a mail-in ballot application for their county by visitinghttp://nj.gov/state/elections/voting-information-vote-by-mail.html . A list of county clerk websites, phone numbers and fax numbers are available by visiting http://nj.gov/state/elections/voting-information-local-officials.html .

Separate directives issued today enable displaced voters and first responders to vote by provisional ballot at a polling place in a county other than the voter’s county of registration. The deadline for county clerks to receive mail-in ballots has been extended to Nov. 19 for any ballot postmarked on or before November 5, 2012. Mail-in ballots post marked later than November 5 will not be accepted.

County elections officials have also been directed to print a sufficient number of provisional and emergency ballots to accommodate voters.

Voters are encouraged to take advantage of extended office hours at county elections offices to cast their vote early and in-person. Registered voters can obtain and cast their ballot in-person at their county elections office up until 3 p.m. on Tuesday. County election offices are to remain open, at a minimum, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. throughout the weekend, until November 5. 

Voters who have a mail-in ballot and choose to deliver their ballot to the county elections office in person must present their completed ballot to their county elections office no later than the close of polls on Tuesday.

The vast majority of New Jersey households include at least one computer.   However, that is far less likely in the homes of black and, to probably a lesser extent, Hispanic families.   And a good chunk of the 47% so despised by Mitt Romney lack a computer and in some cases, access to one.

Guadagno was elected lieutenant governor in 2009 as the running mate of Chris Christie, who recently became the heartthrob of fans of Barack Obama.  She then was appointed by the new governor as Secretary of State, from which position she now has issued a directive enabling the affluent of New Jersey a better opportunity to vote than poor residents, who are disproportionately minority.

The numbers don't lie.   Absent voter suppression or other efforts to skew the vote in an unconventional manner- as now has been accomplished in New Jersey- this election is over.  But it is not.

Share |

Victory Despite, Not Because


An accurate narrative will emerge in the very unlikely event Mitt Romney emerges as the victor next Tuesday.   Romney ran a good, or at least workmanlike, campaign, the pundits will say, while Barack Obama ran a horrible campaign.

More likely, Barack Obama will earn a majority of electoral votes.  Although there will be limited applause for his campaign, we will hear everywhere of an imaginary awful campaign conducted by his opponent.

It has already begun.  Veteran Democratic strategist Bob Shrum cites the Republican's brazenly dishonest Jeep ad, rebutted by both Chrysler and parent company Fiat, as well as Romney's claim during the second debate "I- I think interesting the president just said something which- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror."   The former governor was immediately corrected by moderator Candy Crowley, who, anticipating the inevitable firestorm from Republicans who can't handle the truth, later unconvincingly corrected her correction.   Too little, too late, fortunately.

Shrum notes the error of having "let an unscripted Clint Eastwood conduct a farcical debate with an empty chair."   But there is little evidence that this bit of low, tasteless comedy hurt the campaign in anything but the slightest degree.  Romney came out of the convention behind but other factors, including the backdrop of Hurricane Isaac, which forced a one-day postponement of the affair and cast an unavoidable pall on the festivities, probably played a greater role.

Then came Denver.   The first presidential debate lifted Mitt Romney five, possibly even six, points in the polls, in part because pundits had built up the upcoming event as one which might have a seismic impact.   (I was surprised, having argued that the first debate would not prove terribly significant.)  Romney's favorability rating shot up as some pliable voters evidently concluded that the Republican presidential nominee was, in fact, a legitimate aspirant to the highest office in the land.  Additionally, the talk which  abounded before Denver that the big money people were considering abandoning an unwinnable presidential race for more credible congressional efforts ceased once Romney put on what was considered a dominating performance.

Mitt's momentum has stalled and even reversed.   But statistical guru (or, as some Repubs imply, gay partisan) Nate Silver while explaining why an Obama victory is probable remarked "Mr. Obama's polls are worse than they were in the period in between the conventions and the debates.  But they're better than they were immediately after Denver; he's gained back one percentage point, or perhaps a point-and-a-half, of what he lost."  Net, Mitt Romney has gained approximately four points from that first debate, probably the signature moment of the presidential campaign, which probably will be mostly neglected in the wake of an Obama victory.

Shrum argues Romney's "colossal mistake on Libya in the second debate also prepared the way for the real October surprise, the bromance between" Obama and New Jersey governor Chris Christie.        But there is little evidence (from Shrum or otherwise) of any connection between Libya and the Obama-Christie affair, other than an indirect one:  Romney slipped up on Libya, his numbers declined, and Christie decided Obama would be re-elected.   Far more likely are the other explanations.  Perhaps the New Jersey governor was angling for an introduction to his idol, Bruce Springsteen; Christie, once spurned for the V.P. slot, was itching for an opportunity to sabotage the Romney campaign, so as not to foreclose his own chances in 2016; the GOP governor was seeking political advantage for his re-election campaign in a state with relatively few Republicans; the state's chief executive was, uncharacteristically, acting in his state's best interests.

Arguing "the fault is not just in the party but in himself," Shrum maintains

Romney made some unavoidable mistakes embedded in the DNA of today's GOP.  He assumed, correctly, that in the primaries he had to pander on social issues to the religious right- and on immigration to a party that has become the modern incarnation of nativism.  He can plead in mitigation that he had no choice- and if that is so, look for another Republican defeat in 2016.   On Nov. 7, Romney may be asking himself:  What does it profit a Mitt to gain a nomination and lose his chance to make history in the White House?"

The former private equity manager did, clearly, "pander on social issues to the religious right- and on immigration" and, to a lesser extent, to the donor base of the party, exemplars of the 1%.    But having gained (aided by his V.P. selection, whose net impact on the campaign cannot be determined until the election results are in) the full support (though not the trust) of the popular and corporate bases of the party, Romney made a brilliant strategic calculation, executed in one 90-minute competition.   The right-wing partisan of the primary season became the candidate advocating that any health care reform be "done on a bipartisan basis" and claiming his Medicare proposal originated with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden and President Clinton's chief-of-staff.    The primary season's candidate of the 53%, appalled that most elderly persons, the poor, and a fair swath of the middle class don't pay federal income taxes,  now asserted "regulation is essential," slammed the $716 billion reduction to the Medicare program his running mate had advocated in the House, and assured independent and centrist voters "we can care for the poor."

Ah, the 47%.   Back in May, 2-3 months before the Republican National Convention, a candidate for the nomination of one of the two major political parties in the nations said

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.  All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.  That that's an entitlement.  And the government should give it to them.  And they will vote for this president no matter what.  And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48- he starts off with a huge number.  These are pople who pay no income tax.  Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.  So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich, I mean that's what they sell every four years.And so my job is not to worry about those people- I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

It's Politics 101) and possibly the first rule of politics) to ask people for their vote.  Here Mitt Romney- before he was nominated and began his general election campaign- said to nearly half the electorate:  I'm not going to address your needs, so don't even think about voting for me.    It was a message which dovetailed neatly with an individual who made hundreds of millions of dollars by getting companies to accumulate huge gobs of debt, virtually requiring them to strip jobs and the pensions of those who kept them, and which companies specialized in shipping  jobs abroad, including many to Romney's favorite boogeyman, mainland China.

And what was the response by that man's opponent?   During the second debate, he made his case about concern for the 47%; in the first and third debates, nothing.   And the word "Bain" never crossed Barack Obama's lips in any of the three, in front of the three biggest audiences of autumn.  Perhaps this was the price the candidate had to pay for the active support of Bill Clinton, who is chummy with the private equity set.   However, Clinton instead probably was acting out of an interest in fostering the presidential prospects of his wife.

Barack Obama will be re-elected against a foe who, aside from his family (or at least his wife) apparently no one is personally fond.  But contrary to what we will probably hear from Bob Shrum and others (especially others), he has been a terrible candidate and will not have defeated Mitt Romney, but a party whose professed, radical ideology is out of the mainstream of American thought.




Share |

Same Old Tune


Jeffrey W. Robbins, chairperson and professor of religion and philosophy at Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania, writes, in paragraphs opening and closing his op-ed in philly.com

Don't look now, but with only a few days left until the presidential election, one of the most potentially explosive and divisive issues has not become a factor:  religion...

With all the partisan bickering and mounting challenges we face, might this be a sign that the religious tolerance enshrined in our Constitution, and fought for by our Founding Fathers for practical and principled reasons, has finally become a reality?  We'll have to wait and see- and maybe even hope and pray- but I, for one, am heartened.

Haven't we heard this before?    From many people we have and in this case, from the often wrong, always thoughtful, John McWhorter, who maintained in a column titled "Racism In America Is Over"

The question someone like me has been asked to answer several times a week since Nov. 5 has been, "Are we now in a post-racial America?"

Giving an answer requires that we know what the question really refers to: whether America is past racism. Moreover, the point is largely racism against black people, i.e., Barack Obama, i.e., the people who are America's eternal shame, and so on. We are not really thinking about racism against Arabs. Most of us have a sense that the Asian pitching in on how the question applies to her is vaguely beside the point.

So, in answer to the question, "Is America past racism against black people," I say the answer is yes.

Of course, nothing magically changed when Obama was declared president-elect. However, our proper concern is not whether racism still exists, but whether it remains a serious problem. The election of Obama proved, as nothing else could have, that it no longer does.

Nice try, John- no, really nice try, arguing merely that the election of Barack Obama demonstrated a significant decline of racism in America, rather than, as many conservatives did, that his election proved that racism had died in the nation.

However, The Guardian of the United Kingdom recently reported

Racial prejudice in America is more widespread now than when President Barack Obama became the country's first black president in a historic 2008 vote, a new survey has shown.

In a poll of racial attitudes by the Associated Press news agency, researchers found that more Americans have attitudes that are both implicit and explicitly racist than when the same survey was conducted four years ago...

When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56%, up from 49% during the last presidential election.

"As much as we'd hope the impact of race would decline over time … it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago," said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor who worked with AP to develop the survey...

The survey also found that some 79% of Republicans expressed explicit racial prejudice compared to 32% of Democrats.

The implicit test too showed that 64% of Republicans had racial prejudice compared to 55% of Democrats, while independents came in at 49%.

The explicit racism test asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about black and Hispanic people.

In addition, the surveys asked how well respondents thought certain words, such as "friendly", 'hardworking", ''violent" and "lazy" described blacks, whites and Hispanics.

The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character.

The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character. Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.  

I don't have sufficient details to determine whether the survey accurately determined racial attitudes, whose likely impact on the outcome of the presidential race is probably fairly complicated.   But let's not be overly cautious:  however precisely the survey measured racial preference (including pro-black sentiment), it found more negative attitudes of Americans toward blacks than it did four years ago.   As Jerry once (under)stated on Seinfeld, "this can't be good."

Selection (by less than 60% of actual voters) of the first black president in United States history did not prove that racial animus has ended, or even diminished, in the nation.  We didn't need a survey by a news organization to prove that, though it was helpful, especially in view of Americans eager to convince themselves in 2008-2009 that we can relax, having proven wrong all those people who had accused them of being "racist."

Now an accomplished academic hopes that the absence of discussion of religion in this campaign "is a sign that the religious tolerance enshrined in our Constitution... has finally become a reality.

It neither proves nor even suggests anything of the kind.   Each campaign is ignoring the elephant in the room for its own strategic purposes and the media is following suit, wary of raising an issue which neither side itself appears to have introduced.   Sure, Mitt Romney, demonstrating underrated political agility, during the primary campaign did tell a sympathetic audience that he believes both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are "probably inspired."   Conveniently, his supporters there and elsewhere recognized that as shorthand for "divinely inspired," while the media was unsuspecting. In the general campaign, Romney has wisely avoided repeating the contention now that he is appealing to a broader array of voters.

Mitt Romney was a leader, albeit among many, in his church.  Yet, intimidated into silence, the media has taken a pass on any consideration of the impact of the candidate's faith on his personality, character, or political ideology while leaving voters largely ignorant about the religion of the man who may be the next President.      If the importance of religious values had been acknowledged (or at least considered), victory or defeat for Mitt Romney still would not have proven tolerance.    In its absence, the outcome on Tuesday will suggest nothing at all about religion in America.  



Share |

Taser In Context

In Charlton, Iowa in June, 2010, police "handcuffed and hog-tied" a 34-year-old woman after they pulled her and her boyfriend over because they believed she was the victim of domestic abuse.  She survived.

In San Bernardino, California, on November 15, 2011 a woman called police because she couldn't calm her 29-year old son, a schizophrenic who was having a seizure.  Shot by a police officer with a taser, the man died.

On June 20, 2011 a Thetford, Vermont man called a local hospital and threatened to kill himself and others.   Police responded, one thing led to another, and the man ended up dying from "sudden cardiac death due to conducted electrical weapon discharge."

That same month, a 25-year-old Tukwila, Washington man, whom his mother stated (according to this news report) "had been diagnosed as being bipolar and having PTSD after a confrontation with police in which he was tased six years ago," called police after a fight with his sister.   Officers arrived, tased the man, and he died.

A lawsuit scheduled for April against TASER International stems from the death of a 24-year old Chicago man, then attending Miami (Fla.) University, who was tased outside of a bar by police responding to a fight.

Most recently, a New Mexico policeman has Tasered a ten-year-old intermediate/junior high/middle school student

on a playground because the boy refused to clean his patrol car, the boy claims in court.

Guardian ad litem Rachel Higgins sued the New Mexico Department of Public Safety and Motor Transportation Police Officer Chris Webb on behalf of the child, in Santa Fe County Court.

Higgins claims Webb used his Taser on the boy, R.D., during a May 4 "career day" visit to Tularosa New Mexico Intermediate School.

"Defendant Webb asked the boy, R.D., in a group of boys, who would like to clean his patrol unit," the complaint states. "A number of boys said that they would. R.D., joking, said that he did not want to clean the patrol unit.

"Defendant Webb responded by pointing his Taser at R.D. and saying, 'Let me show you what happens to people who do not listen to the police.'"

Webb then shot "two barbs into R.D.'s chest," the complaint states.

"Both barbs penetrated the boy's shirt, causing the device to deliver 50,000 volts into the boy's body.

"Defendant Webb pulled the barbs out [of] the boy's chest, causing scarring where the barbs had entered the boy's  skin that look like cigarette burns on the boy's chest.

"The boy, who weighed less than 100 lbs., blacked out.

"Instead of calling emergency medical personnel, Officer Webb pulled out the barbs and took the boy to the school principal's office," the complaint states.

Higgins says the Tasing gave the boy post-traumatic stress syndrome, and that "The boy, R.D., has woken up in the middle of the night holding his chest, afraid he is never going to wake up again."

She adds: "No reasonable officer confronting a situation where the need for force is at its lowest, on a playground with elementary age children, would have deployed the Taser in so reckless a manner as to cause physical and psychological injury."

She seeks punitive damages for the boy for battery, failure to render emergency medical care, excessive force, unreasonable seizure, and negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention.

Higgins and R.D. are represented by the Kennedy Law Firm, of Albuquerque.

There have been numerous other incidents the past few years.   Digby, who has been on top of the issue for years, argues Officer Webb "was only telling the truth.This is what happens to people who don't 'listen to the police.' Even if they are having epileptic fits, are mentally ill, drunk, on drugs or are otherwise unable to comply."  But she is, uncharacteristically, missing the point.  Rather than shooting because of a challenge to his authority, Webb, it appears, employed (or at least aimed) the weapon out of a reckless sense of humor.   Courthouse News Service reported he "pulled out the barbs and took the boy to the school principal's office."

That demonstrates probably the greatest danger in widespread use of the taser by law enforcement personnel.   It kills less often than bullets and no doubt seems to the public, nearly all of which has not experienced it, and to many police officers as a "clean," almost inoffensive, way to subdue the unruly and disobedient.  It's unlikely that the same officer who joked  'Let me show you what happens to people who do not listen to the police,'" pulled the trigger, and then whisked the victim to the principal's office, would have pulled out a standard revolver.    Abuse is easy and may be rampant.   (Children cleaning the assigned vehicle of a public servant as part of 'career day' is a problem in itself.)

There is no consensus on the danger stun guns pose and it is critical to gain clarity on the physical and psychological impact of the weapons.  Though most states permit a police officer (and, alarmingly, the public) to possess a taser, not all do, reflecting different attitudes toward the citizenry they protect.   Prohibition, according to this pro-taser website,  exists in five states:    Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island (and the District of Columbia).   Like the death penalty, applied relatively freely in a few states, rarely in others, and barred in others, the taser is not a national problem, but one of individual states.    So when viewing crime and the response of the State to it, we need to remember: it's a state thing, not a national thing.






Share |

Vicious Partisan

Jeb Bush whines again:

The second this thing this election is about is about doing things – not talking about them, not pointing a finger, not trying to divide us, but to focus on practical solutions to begin to solve the problems that we have so that we can restore our footing and our greatness so that we have a chance for more people to be successful in life. in order to do that, Washington has to begin to come together. Do you honestly think that this president is capable of bringing people together? (No, crowd yells) His entire strategy is to blame others – starting with my brother, of course. Basically, he blames every possible thing rather than having the humility to be able to reach out and to find common ground.

This may be primarily an attempt, as the former Florida governor made in his speech at the Republican National Convention, to defend brother George.  But really, President Obama criticized as not "capable of bringing people together" because "his entire strategy is to blame others?"

During the three presidential debates, Obama assiduously avoided criticizing Republicans or even drawing contrasts between Republicans and Democrats.  In the second presidential debate, he uttered the word "Republican" three times.   In the most biting criticism (on comprehensive immigration reform), he savaged the GOP by asserting "we can't- we have not seen Republicans serious about this issue at all.  And it's time for them to get serious on it."

At another point, Obama charged "And that- don't take my word for it, take the executives at GM and Chrysler, some of whom are Republicans, may even support Governor Romney.  But they'll tell you his prescription wasn't going to work."   And in brutalizing form, he claimed also "I have sat down with Democrats and Republicans at the beginning of my term.  And I said, let's fix this system, including Senators previously who had supported it on the Republican side."

That was crass partisanship compared to the President's behavior in the first debate, when he maintained "And, you know, yes, have we had some fights between me and the Republicans when- when they fought back against us reigning in the excesses of Wall Street? Absolutely, because that was a fight that needed to be had."  Otherwise, the President railed against the GOP by declaring "First, we've got to improve our education system and we've made enormous progress drawing on ideas both from Democrats and Republicans that are already starting to show gains in some of the toughest to deal with schools."  A bit later, he assailed the GOP when maintaining "And I worked with Democrats and Republicans to cut a trillion dollars out of our discretionary domestic budget."

In the final debate, President Obama summoned his divisive persona and unloaded all his partisan bitterness and rancor, referring to Republican, Republicans, or GOP... well, not at all.

But just as Mitt Romney made a 180 degree turn from partisan right winger to the accommodating centrist which characterized his debate performance, so might Obama merely have been putting on an agreeable face during the debates.  

Except not, because statements from the President since those events have made his remarks at the debates seem caustic by comparison.   Interviewed recently by the Des Moines Register, Obama explained

It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I've been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.

It gets worse.    Interviewed by independent/centrist talk radio host Michael Smerconish of WPHT Philadelphia (who has interviewed Obama a few other times), the leader of the Free World and Commander in Chief of the Armed Services was asked about his interest in reaching such a deficit reduction deal with the GOP.   "I'll wash John Boehner's car, I'll walk Mitch McConnell's dog," the President astonishingly replied.

And now, most photogenically, there is the Obama-Christie love fest, in which Barack Obama effusively praised New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as one who "has put his heart and soul into making sure the people of New Jersey bounce back even stronger than before." Next year, the New Jersey Republican will be facing a Democrat seeking to block his re-election and will find Obama's kind words rather satisfying in campaign ads.

It is a measure of our times and of the reaction to Obama's entreaties that, following its discussions with the candidates, the Des Moines Register (which had endorsed a Democrat for President in the last twelve elections), endorsed Mitt Romney.   More telling, it did so by contending "Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate."

Earlier in this presidential campaign, before Bill Clinton came out swinging for Obama, Republicans delighted (however disingenuously) in unfavorably comparing the incumbent President to the 42nd President.  Years beyond the administrations of (Bill) Clinton and Obama, in some far off distant time, there will be a Democratic president unabashedly pursuing liberal/progressive goals by way of an agenda supportive of the lower and middle classes.  Then, Republicans will wax nostalgic for that time, beginning in 2009, that the nation had a Democrat whom they will tell us was oh, so laudable.




Share |