Donna Brazile @ CNN: SOTU as Prom

Always insightful, author, strategist, and professor Donna Brazile talks about the sudden, good-natured "civility" exhibited by Congress for tonight's State of the Union in an OpEd column today at CNN - How State of the Union became a prom. There remain two problems she's glossing over as she concludes, charitably...

"We don't all have to agree with each other, but for the good of the country, it's important that we sit together as Americans. After all, this could be good for the country, too."

Professor Donna Brazile, CNN Conributor

25 Jan 2011

First, it's patently political posing -- plain old posturing -- a ploy for the attention and implied praise of the pundits that probably won't impact one Congressional debate or vote, but will probably garner that holy grail, media coverage for most of the players.

Secondly, focus on the mechanics, or logistics, or whatever you want to call this staging of seating arrangements, inevitably detracts from time people spent reflecting on the President's actual message. Granting that GOP strategists are delighted to direct public attention to anything but President Obama's hour in the limelight, particularly in the wake of his speech dealing with the tragedy in Tuscon, it seems curious that their Democratic counterparts are being pulled in.

The narrative of tonight's State of the Union speech is fast becoming "they played so nicely together." Count the minutes in the coverage leading up to the State of the Union and particularly the post-speech dissection, bearing in mind that every minute spent on how members of Congress arranged their seats is akin to watching the royals - "Congress-watching" lacks substance, although it's probably easier for most pundits on the spur of the moment than genuine analysis.

I don't need to relive Joe Wilson's "You lie!" moment, but I've watched politics too long to fall for this pre-planned mugging for the cameras and the echo-chamber media, either. When they control the information the GOP wins the messaging battle; who wins if they can distract from the President's powerful post-Tuscon message by getting the media to talk about who sat with whom, and possibly draw a few extra eyeballs to the dueling GOP/Tea-Party responses?

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community. You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.

In response to TEARS FOR A KING

In her column yesterday reflecting on the meaning of celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, Tears for a King, Michelle Dianne asked some pointed questions.

"We’re celebrating? From the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire to the molehills of Mississippi, freedom still fails to ring for millions of Americans and we’re celebrating?"

Michelle Dianne
17 January 2011

Let's define celebrate: to observe or commemorate, typically but not necessarily in a public way, an event, drawing attention to remind others what matters.

The quintessential example is likely "personal" non-holiday birthdays, which rarely (if ever) focus on the woman who gave birth, but instead serve as a reason to express affection, or at least acceptance, without eliciting suspicion of an agenda: we can say, or hear, "Happy Birthday" without looking for motivation beyond "You're OK in my reckoning," even between near strangers. It's a low-cost, low-risk social exchange.

Celebration takes on another dimension altogether when we celebrate an official holiday - when we observe the birthday of a political or religious figure that choice conveys our recognition of their enduring impact - the significance of their contributions to many lives.

In that sense King's holiday is celebration-worthy and, though I might sooner have chosen the anniversary of an event, I accept that his accomplishment went well beyond any one appearance or speech; for all he brought to the consciousness of both oppressed people and those who chose to look the other way, I applaud the Powers That Be (or, that "were" in this case) for ensuring we officially, collectively reflect on and commemorate the impact and importance of his philosophy, commitment, and courage.

It is right, in other words, that children in the United States in particular -- children who might otherwise never so much as hear King's name -- have reason in every school in the nation to learn how awful and un-equal things really were despite the lofty language in our Constitution and the so-called integration of our Armed Forces. History doesn't repeat itself, but people who don't know history may well repeat some mistakes rather than learn from them.

"The other day R. Lee Gordon asked the African American community on Facebook what it will take to put the “B” back in *Lack Unity; the brother got only two responses. Think about that and answer me this: What are we celebrating?"

Michelle Dianne
17 January 2011

I'm fervently in favor of celebrating King's life and the changes his actions stimulated; marking his birthday spreads the awareness, it keeps us from glossing over the past, and conveys that he's as relevant to our story as the officially-most-revered of our Presidents. What we celebrate is that the courage and certainty of King's actions moved us farther, faster in a critical direction than we'd have made it without him. King's holiday is an affirmation of our "all men are created equal" aspiration, and the power of people to grow and improve.

So while her closing question implying we may be making a mistake -- implying the need to think more about the meaning of the day -- was a good one, with much yet unaccomplished, with miles to go and promises of our founding fathers still un-met this cold, snowy January, I submit it is more important to ask routinely either, "How can/does our celebration inspire continuation of the progress toward true equality?" or, "What would Martin do?"

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village, though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening
Robert Frost

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Tom Hayes: Tom Toles has no problem with anger in politics

In your search for quick gratification and summary information do you follow political cartoonists, such as Tom Toles at the Washington Post? Toles gets it, which is why he won the Pulitzer Prize.

Or maybe he won the Pulitzer because he does more than craft insightful cartoons - maybe it's because he includes commentary that's getting attention because of his cartoons; he draws you in with the visual imagery, but that's really just an appetizer.

That's arguably the case with today's offering, "Damage Level." Tom Toles is gifted in the art of the communication; he creates images that convey compelling perspectives, well-suited to our hurried approach to modern life.

But if you skip the accompanying explication you're in danger of sampling too shallowly. Go ahead, click on it, the "Damage Level" cartoon is reproduced much too small here to appreciate. Take the time.

Toles doesn't have a problem with anger in politics, and he didn't win the Pulitzer just because he can draw.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

The word is Nigger

Michelle Diane has penned a heartfelt, cogent, timely response to the politically-correct, navel-gazing frenzy which Auburn Professor Alan Gribben stirred up with the planned release of a re-written, sanitized version of Mark Twain's work.

”We may applaud Twain’s ability as a prominent American literary realist to record the speech of a particular region during a specific historical era, but abusive racial insults that bear distinct connotations of permanent inferiority nonetheless repulse modern-day readers...”

Professor Alan Gribben, Wall Street Journal Interview

Writing at the new michellediane-naked blog, she bluntly goes beyond what most mainstream media pundits bother to explore, urging her readers to tear down the curtain on a step backwards deceptively cloaked in gentle political correctness. This is not an academic discussion, the effects of which will be confined to ivory towers and American Literature classes.

"...America needs to keep saying it until America stops living it. Hold it up as a mirror on the realities that be. Demand that neither they nor we can hide behind a politically correct “N” until criminals like Haley Barbour can no longer circumvent ethics, even simple human decency, in the name of political gain."

Michelle Diane, in

The "N" Word Deception

I'm not in a position to comment on Gribben's motivation, but if we ascribe the best of intentions to his undertaking one must still be wary of the constant reality of unintended consequences - and Michelle Diane is a voice well-worth heeding on this topic. If she persists, hers will be a blog well-worth following; her forthright perspective is clear, well-articulated, and more importantly thought-provoking.

Read it.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Lock & Load: Violence in the Crosshairs

In the aftermath of the shooting in Tuscon the irony looms: those who tout the 2nd Amendment usually insist that ready access to handguns, possibly concealed, will limit the probability of gun violence. A Second Amendment "solution" yesterday would have meant a crowd armed and hair-triggered enough to be ready to defend the Congresswoman when her assailant aimed at her - as the pro-gun pundits vociferously insisted might have prevented deaths in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, for example. One could only hope they'd all have the talent to aim very carefully in such crowded conditions that even a trained sharp-shooter might feel tested, since the deaths and injuries at a grocery store in Tuscon were arguably incited by the implied acceptability of such "2nd Amendment solutions."

I'd surely hate to be Jesse Kelly, Gifford's opponent in the recent election who tied defeating her to coming to shoot a "fully automatic M-16" to remove her from office, or Sarah Palin (who used a gun-sight rendering to target 20 candidates she wanted defeated, including Giffords) right now. It must be distracting for them both to work out ways to not feel guilty about this travesty.

So, while it's true that guns don't kill people, (people kill people) it does behoove us to consider culpability for incitement; there's more to being an American patriot than whipping up media ratings in support of your particular political agenda - or at the very least, we should agree that their ought to be. If we can agree that yelling fire in a crowded, darkened theater is unacceptable, then surely we can agree that inciting to violence is not responsible public discourse, much less a valid means to attain elected office.

This was an assault on the best system of government the world has ever brought to life. With all due respect to the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, violence is not a solution - it's a symptom. If you don't like how our system works, that's fine with me - feel free to move to Somalia, or anywhere else that doesn't use elections to determine what the government can do and who represents us. If you're staying, though, buy in.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

GOP suddenly pro-Earmark (or is that pro-Pork, perhaps?)

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, during the last time Republicans controlled Congress (which started in 1994, based on the "Contract With America") there were about 1300 earmarks for nearly $8 billion - at a time when we had a budget surplus under the Clinton administration. Then by the final year of GOP control a decade later (2005) their were 10 times as many earmarks totaling over $27 billion, and a record budget deficit - which the elite pundits are still trying to blame on Obama.

You can learn more about the man the Democrats call the “Prince of Pork” -- GOP Congressman Hal Rogers (KY-05) -- as he takes over chairmanship of the House Appropriations Committee by reading various articles online; he's brought so much money for Kentucky that they've renamed the former Daniel Boone Parkway the Hal Rogers Parkway.

Citizens Against Government Waste named Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) their "Porker of the Month" in August, somehow without mentioning the word nepotism.

“Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) August Porker of the Month for sponsoring legislation that could give federal funding to his daughter’s nonprofit organization, which promotes overseas wildlife protection for cheetahs.”

It's probably a coincidence that his daughter is the Grants Administrator of the Cheetah Conservation Fund.

But there's good news.  This sort of spending (millions to a fund based in Namibia) won't lead to bigger government. It's just $5 million a year to a non-government agency based overseas.

Look, I'm not saying conservation and cheetahs aren't important, it's just a question of priorities.  The GOP voted down a one-time payment of $250 to Senior Citizens... but that's another story.  My point is, it's about priorities, and once they capture a majority naturally the GOP priorities have changed to ensure their donors will help them get re-elected.

At least they haven't flip-flopped on tax-breaks for the rich.

I know, right?

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

The Loving Story

A racially-charged criminal trial and a heart-rending love story converge in the history of Richard and Mildred Loving. Their struggle for respect and dignity is set against a backdrop of historic anti-miscegenation sentiments in the United States. With the help of two young, ambitious lawyers driven to pave the way for social justice and equal rights through a historic Supreme Court case, "Loving v. Virginia" overturned lingering bans on interracial marriage in sixteen states.

Told through never-before-seen cinema verité footage of the Lovings and their lawyers, with other authentic footage of the times. Together with oral accounts and interviews with their family and friends, the film captures their saga – from their courtship, to their arrest and exile, to their preparation for the 1967 Supreme Court case.

THE LOVING STORY is a journey into a poignant love story set against the turbulent backdrop of race relations in America. It was the turning point for marriage equality in the United States; the premiere will be in early 2011, and interested supporters can be a part of the final production phase.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

GOP Midterm Mandate? Not so much...

We know that the voters who turned out tended to be older, richer, and whiter than the U.S. population as a whole, but a new McClatchy-Marist poll suggests the majority of Americans didn't give the GOP any mandate - in fact, they tend to lean toward taxing the rich, and tweaking the health care reform, not extending the Bush Tax cuts and repealing what opponents insist on calling Obamacare.

For instance, while the survey did find that mandates for buying health care don't sit well with voters, some of the other changes, such as the end to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, enjoy the support of 2/3 of those surveyed. From the article:

Another 35 percent want to change it to do more. Among groups with pluralities who want to expand it: women, minorities, people younger than 45, Democrats, liberals, Northeasterners and those making less than $50,000 a year.

Not surprisingly there's broad support for asking the wealthy to pay a fair share on tax day, too. But the mainstream media seems intent to echo the Republican's claim that they've got an overwhelming mandate, and ignoring both the folks who point out that the pundits are glossing over the actual data and the reality that the current President actually lowered taxes for most Americans - just not ratings friendly stories, you see?

What the Republicans have got is success turning out voters in a mid-term election, and despite their protests that "the media" has "liberal bias" they've got control of the reports that get air-time. I'll give them credit for that.

Read more about the results at McClatchy. 

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Rangel declared "guilty" on most ethics charges

The bi-partisan panel of the House ethics Committee considering charges against Representative Charles Rangel (NY-15) has determined that the veteran Democrat and former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is guilty in 11 of the 13 counts of breaking House rules they were investigating.

Rangel's appearance yesterday before the subcommittee was highlighted by a self-non-defense, arguing that he needed additional time and funds to be properly represented. The subcommittee, chaired by another Democrat, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA-16), was extraordinarily indulgent of Representative Rangel's repeated pleas; Rangel asserted spending approximately $2 million to date on his defense, but that expecting it might still cost half as much again his lawyers were unprepared to move forward, and that any "donated" defense provided by others would likely run afoul of FEC campaign donation limits.

The full House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will hold a hearing to determine punishment and announce their recommendation to the full U.S. House of Representatives.

Consequences for Rangel could range from a House vote deploring Rangel's conduct to a fine and denial of privileges.  The so-called ethics committee is the only House committee exactly split between the two parties, and last acted to admonish then-Represenative Tom DeLay (TX-22) which seems to have resulted in then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert removing three Republicans. Reactions by Democrats arguably left the panel hobbled and ultimately unable to act in the cases of DeLay, Jim McDermott (WA-7), and the infamous Abramoff lobbying scandal, which resulted in such distrust of the GOP that they lost their majority in the 2006 elections.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

One week later - NOT a post-mortem for Democrats

Democrats took a shellacking, and it's partly my fault -- not because I took time away from journalism to help manage a Congressional Campaign against an incumbent Republican in Minnesota's Second Congressional District, rather because I failed to engage more people in the process.

Look, both major parties have a collection of loyal supporters who consistently identify as a Democrat or a Republican, and many of them turn out reliably to vote even in non-Presidential elections. Polls prior to November revealed Democrats were dis-spirited, Republicans were angry, and those coveted swing-voters (and the capital "I" Independents) had largely lost their enthusiasm.

It wasn't about facts, of course, it was about spin. Logic would suggest (if not mandate) more voters would align with Democrats - Obama had wrenched the economy out of a death-spiral, lowered taxes for most people, lowered the deficit, lowered the troop presence in Iraq, started the process of restoring the cost-benefit ratio of our health care system, and jobs were finally being created faster than they were getting lost.

Meanwhile, the media gave play to every story blaming the state of the economy on Democrats or the White House (hey, they didn't say they believed the story-teller, they just reported that's what was being said, right?) and let the Republican talking points about lower taxes creating jobs echo over and over even though that correlation has been dis-proven repeatedly: it certainly hadn't done so while Bush was in office for 8 years (but hey, the media never said they believed that, or talked about the wealth-gap, and they even let a few people point out that demand is the more logical driver of job-creation, but lots of photogenic people with convincing smiles and voices were talking about how taxes and uncertainty kept rich guys from wanting to hire people. They "covered" what was being "said" right?)

Bush oversaw record growth in government? Well, obviously that's the Democrats fault for caving in, don't they know how to run a filibuster? I mean, big government is bad, right? Unless it provides for our military defense, or social security, or Federal disaster recovery funds, or interstate highways, or border patrols and immigration enforcement, or keeping our toys from being painted with lead, or.... oh never mind.

Earmarks, we all know earmarks are bad, right? They account for nearly 1% of the Federal budget, and if there's one thing we know it's that if we all had 1% more of our money that goes to taxes we'd be just fine now, right? Not so much?

The point is: voting is not about logic. Advertisers have known that logic lets us rationalize our choices for centuries, and modern politicians have long understood there are two fundamentally different parts of holding elected office: there's the campaign - which doesn't remotely test the skills necessary to govern, that's the GETTING into the office part though - and then there's the rest of it, the actual wielding of power while in office.  Successful politicians master both, although there's no one "right" way to do either.

I failed to engage or electrify enough voters in my area; so the cable-TV watching middle class, convinced to vote by a carefully-crafted message laden with buzzwords focus-tested by so-called Conservative strategists that Obama and his "agenda" were leading the country to ruin, elected Republicans in droves in Minnesota.

Remember 2000, when we elected Bush? He was the sort of guy people thought they'd like to have a beer with. Now Minnesota voters face a recount for the Governor because they were reassured by a guy who tried to lower drunk-driving penalties after he got cited for that very offence, because he's told them the $6 BILLION deficit our current (Republican) governor proclaimed as a crisis is mostly just an accounting and spending problem... although he can't explain just how that's going to work, but it's very, very reassuring that somebody knows it can be fixed if voters just trust Republicans.

Post-mortem? No, if there was logic in the outcome of the November 2nd elections it might rise to that level; from here on the ground in Minnesota, looking at the numbers, and the facts, it's a wake-up call for Democrats: they were out-strategized. (Yes, I know, I made that word up. You're one of those logical people, aren't you?) Worse yet, there were voices they could have heeded.

Voters were, in a word, hoodwinked. Democratic politicians lost ground by losing lots of elections to a bunch of slick, experienced, successful Used Country Salesmen. And right here in Minnesota, it's partly my fault.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community. He'll be more active again here at Zennie's now, unless maybe there's a vote recount in an important election in Minnesota.  Oh, wait...

Incumbent too timid to debate in MN District 2

According to the campaign spokesman of former MN State Representative Shelley Madore, currently running for Congress in Minnesota's Second District, they received a formal response Monday from GOP incumbent Congressman John Kline (R-MN) rejecting an opportunity to debate her in front of a live audience in the Second Congressional District at any time that was convenient to him.

"Only 12% of voters believe most members of Congress are more interested in helping people than in helping their own careers. Seventy-six percent (76%) say most in Congress put their own careers first. Skepticism has remained this high since October."

From Congressional Performance

Rasmussen Reports

In a year when incumbents are on shaky ground, Kline is keeping his head down. "It saddens me that the voters of this district will have one 25-minute radio interview just one week before the election as their only opportunity to evaluate our ability to best represent them in Washington," said Madore discussing the incumbent's reluctance to make time to appear before district voters. Kline's voting record is more conservative than Michelle Bachmann (MN-6), and his district gets back less than half the federal taxes they pay now that Kline's anti-earmark ideology has painted him into a corner when it comes to helping his constituents.

"Rep. John Kline has been in office for eight years; he seems to take for granted that his seat is secure despite the 18% public approval rating for members of Congress. I believe the voters of this district have had enough of elitist Washington politics.

I have appeared at FarmFest and the Goodhue County Veterans candidate forums and will participate in two Transportation Alliance candidate forums in the next two weeks, all of which John Kline has refused to attend. In his response, John Kline cited his conversations with voters at community events over the summer. I have spent the last nine months listening to voters' concerns about jobs, health care, transportation and education funding. These are serious times and demand a serious candidate willing to work for your vote."

Former Minnesota Representative Shelley Madore

Madore's campaign has reportedly conveyed an additional offer made Monday by the Burnsville Chamber of Commerce to host a debate, seeking an opportunity for voters to compare and contrast the two candidates and their records in a setting where the public can see and judge both.

According to Rasmussen incumbents are in trouble, and Kline's lack of initiative for projects within the district while he continues to vote for earmarks inserted by other members of his party leaves him open to questions from the voters. His record of voting against funding for veterans has led some to accuse him of supporting war without supporting the warriors. Madore's 35 Cent Tour has successfully explained to Minnesotans that not all earmarks are pork, and at least one survey suggests swing voters (those who report they have not stuck strictly to one party in the past) believe Kline needed to do more than repeat talking points if he wanted to represent them in Congress again - and I'm inclined to believe them.

Thomas Hayes is a political strategist, entrepreneur, and journalist currently working for the Madore for Congress campaign in Minnesota's Second Congressional District. He contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community, and helped the Madore campaign to a convincing upset victory in the August primary.

Beck admits he lied to the rally August 28th: it was easier than telling the truth.

As Steve Krakauer of Mediaite explains, Keith Olberman caught Glenn Beck's "white lie" told to the crowd at the August 28th rally:

...he didn’t actually hold George Washington’s first inaugural address. He just had it held in front of him.

Beck's discussion on his show, admitting the lie, seeks to make light of it because the full explanation is "clumsy" in a speech. So, he says, "They caught me."  He recounted a trip to the Archives, but...

"...you can’t touch them..."

Glenn Beck

Keith Olbermann caught him telling a lie. He wants people to laugh it off; Beck says it's no big deal in his quasi-retraction, the equivalent of artistic license.

At a certain level, Beck's doubters are unsurprised by the irony that he'd stoop to fabrication to maintain his credibility with his audience. The problem remains that Beck followers are unlikely to even hear the correction, let alone to believe it if and when they do. We'd all like to think that presented with a truth, logic will dictate what most people believe - but Beck's realized that oldest truth: that a lie can run around the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on.

"Tell the truth," Glenn Beck exhorted the crowd on the National Mall, "and then expect it from others." But not, for heaven's sake, from a Fox Network entertainer in pursuit of ratings. But he probably did at least go to see the Archives building, I suppose. He wouldn't lie about that, would he?

Thomas Hayes is a political strategist, entrepreneur, and journalist currently working for the Madore for Congress campaign in Minnesota's Second Congressional District. He contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

MN voters going Blue

Republican incumbent John Kline's getting worried in Minnesota's Second District, because with all eyes on the Bachmann race, a pro-business Democrat, former MN State Representative Shelley Madore, has a message that resonates with fiscally conservative voters.

Madore, recently endorsed by Clean Water Action, ascribes her primary victory earlier this month to her "35 Cent Tour" highlighting that an imbalance of federal tax dollars promoted by Kline is undermining job creation and business investment. The facts support her position.

While Minnesota averages 77¢ back for every dollar we spend in federal taxes, the Second is only getting back 35¢ - which moves the burden for key projects in the community onto other revenue sources, such as property taxes.

"Mr. Kline has refused to request Federal tax dollars for important community projects, even when asked by our trusted county, city and school leaders...”

Shelley J. Madore

There's a belief that Republican ideology is better for the business climate.  Madore's opponent has also adopted an "earmarks are all pork" theory that's clearly costing his district a fair share of federal dollars.

Last week, in "How does Minnesota stack up in business taxation? Pretty well, it turns out" Sharon Schmickle (minnpost blog) pointed out the facts and figures indicate Minnesota's effective tax rates for businesses are somewhat less than neighboring Wisconsin, Iowa, or South Dakota, and substantially less - approaching HALF - the effective rate in North Dakota.

Yet North Dakota's unemployment rate is the lowest in the country right now.

So if lowering taxes and keeping federal dollars out of the state or the District is the secret to creating jobs, why have 10,900 manufacturing jobs moved from MN's 2nd District to China?  That's the worst record for any Congressional District in the state.  Minnesota's population is growing, but Madore's District been shedding jobs on John Kline's watch, and he's just throwing political double-talk at the problem.

If sounding reasonable by relying on Republican talking points equated to "good for the District" John Kline would be just fine: his presentation of GOP rhetoric is polished, and his re-elections prove it's been persuasive in the past. But the fact is he's quietly voting for his ideological theory, not the people of the Second District, and now Madore has got the attention of the media - and the voters.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

茶分心 - Tea Party Distraction

Many of the pundits and commentators have been speculating, uttering for public consumption variations on a disingenuous theme: the Tea Party threatens to undermine the grand old Republican party. Are you falling for it? Nothing could lead you further from the truth.

Ask what motivates those who echo this "conventional wisdom"

In the case of most employed in the media the answer is simple enough, they seek attention because their producers use ratings as the primary metric - corporate media thrives on advertising revenues, which rise and fall with ratings. Relatively few fans realize credibility takes a back seat to celebrity -- logic is overwhelmed by the profit motives of the "business" of news coverage.

The goal of an expert political commentator has some of that same need for attention, interwoven with the complex agendas of using their pulpit to at once distract and mislead their opponents, hopefully to such an extent they become depressed and disenfranchised, while inspiring and energizing those who contribute to their party's success via both votes and on-going media "success."

Consider the two major factions

In the case of a political strategist the goals, at least, are clear even though the strategies and tactics often defy attempts by the pundits to explain, let alone forecast.  The political strategist cares not - the pundits are a tool, and persuading them to portray the process in a way that conveys advantage to the strategist's cause doesn't require the understanding and consent of the media, although that willingness to play along (as the Fox network is generally charged with doing during the previous administration) has obvious benefits.

Both major parties seek to expand their influence and control. Since voters often forego logic when deciding who to empower, the original goal of a political party has to bow, at least in part, to pragmatic reliance on persuasion to preserve their bureaucratic turf.

The Democrats would be delighted if more people accept that the Tea Party signals the decline of the GOP no matter what the party strategists may or may not believe.  The Republicans party's goal is to use the coverage to suggest that either the mood of the country is more right-leaning than it was as the electorate swung from supporting Bush administration initiatives to sweeping Obama and Democrats into office, or that voters who feel that way are shrugging off their lethargy and energized enough to matter nationwide in the looming elections - although we hear over and over that all politics are local.

What does the Tea Party represent?

The Tea Party ideology may have had legitimate, grassroots origins, but it's now a tool of right-wing strategists who spread the story of their concern that it attracts extremists and all manner of unsavory and under-educated bigots while disingenuously stressing the threat to the GOP if Republicans don't accommodate and react. The appeararnce of a growing third party movement even further to the right than the Republicans sets up the GOP strategists to market their candidates as "middle of the road" moderates in the political spectrum. Brilliant not simply as strategic ploy, but also because it's lately become impossible to continue winning votes by touting the GOP brand as compassionate,  fiscally conservative, or good for small business interests.

On most ballots in November, though, there will only be Democrats and Republicans; the GOP will have invested in looking sensible and middle-of-the-road in their coordinated advertising campaigns while many Democrats will rely on voters to make the logical choices.  Logically, of course, more voters are aligned with what Democrats have accomplished and Democratic candidates advocate. But compared to the media coverage of Tea Party rallies replete with misspelled signs and hats festooned with tea bags the Republicans will seem close to most voter's self-image: sensible and moderate.

The Tea Party is now, above all else and quite regardless of the beliefs and goals of its founders or participants, an excellent marketing tool to reposition and re-brand the GOP in advance of the 2010 general elections.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Spinning Surveys -- keep thinking

You've probably seen recent stories that over 40% of Republicans -- or an even higher fraction of Tea Partiers -- think the current President wasn’t born in this country. You may also have heard Rush Limbaugh talking about what the people surveyed think in dramatic (or even bombastic) terms. It's spin.

Here's the thing:

No matter if you’re listening to Limbaugh, watching cable TV, or reading about it in Salon or your favorite blog-site, the surveys only tell you what people say, not what they think. Pundits are free to theorize about what the survey means, but to go beyond and tell us what people are thinking? That is plain, unmitigaged guessing, and it's almost certainly motivated by the desire to keep ratings up and make money from ads - which sadly relies all together too much on spin intended to keep you coming back for more, no matter if the source is right-leaning or left-leaning politically.

Allegedly expert commentators and media darlings alike may choose to infer the Republicans responding to such surveys “think Obama wasn’t born in America,” but it’s equally valid to infer they simply wish that he wasn’t -- you could even suggest they want you to think they think he wasn’t born here, but the fact remains that all you know is what they've said.

The data, the facts, are how those people responded, nothing more. You can’t know what a person is thinking; that's why the American legal system, for instance, is predicated on actions, not media coverage, commentator speculation, or inferences drawn by partisan pundits paid to keep ratings up.

Keep thinking.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Ronald Reagan must be rolling in his grave

Former U.S. Representative David Stockman (R-MI), who served as Ronald Reagan's first director of the Office of Management and Budget, used the forum of the Sunday New York Times to unmask and rebuke Republican members of Congress and their elite messaging strategists who cling to claims to be fiscal conservatives.

"Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy."

David Stockman
31 July 2010

Describing current and recent GOP tax rhetoric "a mockery of traditional party ideals," Stockman says these policy doctrines have led to four "great deformations" of the U.S. economy over the past four decades, starting when the Nixon administration ignored the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world while "Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one."

"By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier."

David Stockman
31 July 2010

Doubtless this is why so many who lately vote against Republican policies and politicians describe themselves as socially liberal yet fiscally conservative. The GOP has been abusing the trust of their base, successfully waging a PR war on the truth: relying on either the inattention, and/or gullibility of voters who have fallen for their appealing "brand ideology" without realizing this rhetoric is entirely at odds with actual GOP goals and actions for the past 4 decades.

That's the real threat to the Republican Party, which is now gleeful for media coverage of Tea Party events so far to the political right they may fool swing voters into thinking the GOP looks as though they occupy the middle-ground. Stockman's Op-Ed article is a must read for all who take politics seriously enough to vote.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Pawlenty's "red hot smoking wife" a calculated tittilation

A topless First Lady?

While it’s arguably inappropriate, sexist objectification of his spouse to bolster his career when lame-duck MN Governor Pawlenty describes her as his “red-hot smoking wife,” I disagree with Wonkette’s characterization that it’s “two years early.” If Obama hadn’t started early he might not be President, and remember Pawlenty isn't exactly breaking new ground: Senator McCain tried to woo votes from Harley riders by suggesting his wife enter the topless Miss Buffalo Chip contest in Sturgis in 2008.

If voters made their choices rationally the political calculus of candidates and campaigns would be very different. Pawlenty used his wife to further his personal goals. Voters often rationalize when interviewed, but research proves the decisions are more often based on emotion than intellectual evaluation.

Campaigns get longer and more costly all the time because mainstream media producers see candidate spending as helping their own bottom lines. In other words, it’s also arguably a conflict of interest to base so much of the determination of a campaign’s viability on successful fund-raising. True, in many cases advertising is a crucial factor, and we all accept that one of the keys to advertising success is repetition across a wide range of media to generate the maximum number of impressions. Yet wouldn’t it be refreshing for a network or newspaper to cap the dollar amount on political ads they’d take at some reasonable level?

Voters report they’re actually annoyed by the saturation of TV as elections approach; in some cases the result seems to be tuning out altogether. Meanwhile where are the balancing stories about what the candidates have actually accomplished, how a candidate runs an efficient and fiscally restrained campaign focused on issues instead of fund-raising, or which ads are to distract from facts or obscure their votes while echoing slogans and talking points in much the same way Budweiser hammers away with their “King of Beer” message.

Pawlenty knows “earned” media coverage is less costly than buying ads, and he’s got the recent examples of Palin and Bachmann proving the press loves provocative statements more than substantive discussion. Any “news” outlet is reliant on ad revenues, which are in turn driven by ratings.

Look how quickly most mainstream media companies jumped on the Shirley Sherrod story – a hint of controversy and the race for viewers/readers was on without what we used to think of as journalistic integrity, all in pursuit of the mighty dollar. Pawlenty certainly doesn’t want the national press talking to disgruntled Minnesotans or economists about how his “no new taxes” mythology has driven down quality of life and scuttled the state budget.

Look for conflicts of interest in coverage, and follow the money if you want to understand Pawlenty — but don’t underestimate either his political savvy or the impact his “red-hot smoking wife” may have on voters and donors.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.