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.

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.

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.

Consumer Watchdog Running for Congress in MN

Sunday's Saint Paul Pioneer Press gave a black eye to the Minnesota Virtual High School by revealing they recently terminated Shelley Madore, a candidate for Congress, after she reported taxpayer fraud at the charter school. Madore's campaign provided little comment about her charges or the school's reactions, noting the investivation was on-going.

Former MN Representative
Shelley Madore

"When I shared it, I was terminated..."

former MN State Rep. Shelley Madore

Voters in the south Twin Cities Metro area have a choice between the former legislator/watchdog and an unemployed former roofer who "fell into politics" (after falling from a roof) in the upcoming August 10th primary. The winner will challenge incumbent GOP Representative John Kline in the November election.

FEC filings by Madore's opponent Powers have omissions and inconsistencies that might be a story in and of themselves, but what is there reveals he has ample personal assets to loan his campaign $35,000 dollars, giving him the edge in money raised and cash on hand - though both campaigns are struggling to attract donations with so much press attention on other Minnesota races. Twin Cities media has focused on both Tarryl Clark's bid to unseat Michelle Bachmann and the hotly-contested 3-way gubernatorial primary contest, devoting scant coverage to the Congressional primary on the other site of the metro.

The Pioneer Press story characterizes both 2^nd District Democratic campaigns as limping into the primary. The Star Tribue ran a brief article in late July describing Madore's opponent as having a "sketchy résumé" in their first coverage of the primary in months.

"His only income in 2009 was $28,000 in unemployment insurance, according to a financial disclosure report filed in Washington."

from: DFL candidate has sketchy résumé as contractor

24 July 2010

Madore's campaign has made little reference to her opponent's extended unemployment or reliance on his life story rather than policy statements to influence voters, preferring to highlight concrete differences such as Powers failure to hire union workers back when he ran his small business versus her solid voting record as an effective state legislator and endorsements from local and national organizations.

Teacher's unions seem particularly delighted to have a candidate with experience in both the legislature and public education on the ballot: Madore counts endorsements from the National Education Association (NEA), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and Education Minnesota among her growing list.

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.

Will the RNC replace Michael Steele with a hockey-mom?

GOP strategists are surely already considering who can best replace their controversy-laden RNC Chair - their principle questions are the timing and who will be able to insure the media spotlight stays on the party's message while inspiring both donors and voters, particularly the vocal, visible Teabaggers. Perhaps this time they'll turn to a woman?

After all, the most recent crop of Naval "Sailors of the Year" were all female, and women make up more than 50% of the U.S. population while turning out to vote more consistently than men.  In fact, if Representative Bachmann weren't seeking re-election she'd surely be in the running, but she'll have to wait her turn as elite GOP strategists have to be aware of the looming November election as they consider their "short list."

Who can inspire big donors? Who can keep the media focused on the GOP's talking points? Who has a photogenic face and comfort in front of the cameras?  Who has the balance of national recognition and all these other elements, and is available to step up and step in when the next gaffe strikes Michael Steele down?

The Thrilla from Wasilla.

It's what she's been waiting for. It won't matter that she's blown any credibility on international affairs, or quit her post as Governor --  the chair doesn't direct policy or even write speeches; the job responsibilities are largely smiling for the cameras and memorizing scripted phrases while insuring a good turn-out for fund-raising events.

I'm sure there are other possibile choices, not to mention that the GOP loves how she distracts the rest of the pundits already pondering future presidential hopefuls.  But the GOP still has Romney and Huckabee, plus Pawlenty and Coleman coming out of "middle America" with records they can ostensibly run on to work with  thus leaving the hockey mom free to court publicity without anybody questioning her readiness or suitability to be Commander-in-Chief.

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.

Why do gun-rights advocates trust the GOP?

That was one of the big deals during the campaign, and it continues to echo through the Teabaggers sites, and on the signs at Tea Party rallies. You'd think the Democrats had "abolish the 2nd amendment" as a platform to hear the NRA and their lobbyists talk.

It's true, the President has some concerns he's been up-front with relating to assault weapons - the sort of rifle that has no place in the sport of hunting.

But when was the last time the government actually took away people's weapons in any sort of mass sweep of the citizenry, such as Obama's opponents seem to fear he'll do?

Oh, right, it was back in 2005. September of 2005, according to ABC news; it was under a Republican administration, of course, so it didn't provoke the outcry it might have.

"Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!"
After all, former President George Bush is nominally a Texan, and if a Texan says you should give up your guns, that's different - right?

I mean, after all, Bush's Vice President was even a hunter - right?

It makes you wonder, doesn't it?

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

Tom Hayes: Is Gary Hart downplaying the threat?

I disagree that the tea-baggers and others referred to in Hart's Huffington Post OpEd today, "Getting the Government We Seem to Want," hurt only themselves - by acting to disrupt civil discourse and undermine the effectiveness of our government they drag the country toward a path that will parallel the outcomes of "no taxes but no government" as currently practiced in Somalia.

"...the cynics and trolls who scream like banshees at town hall meetings and scan the blogosphere to post cynical put-downs of their country's government are hurting no one but themselves."

I'm forced to disagree: They hurt me. They hurt everyone else living in the U.S. In fact, it goes beyond today; such actions threaten the well-being, liberty, standard of living, and the intent of the founding fathers when they inserted the language pertaining to "pursuit of happiness" for my descendants (and yours, and theirs.)

I do share Hart's concern that, "the most qualified Americans will continue to choose not to serve their country and we will continue to be weaker for it."

Under the adopted camouflage of the Boston Tea Party, which was about the unfair nature of being taxed without representation not anarchy, these short-sighted, loud-mouthed, anti-government anarchists threaten the values predicating, and described in, the Constitution of The United States.

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

Tom Hayes: The profit motive is great, but...

There was a time when the concept of community was strictly geographic - in practical terms, what happened to people who directly affected your chance of survival was what mattered. Money and technology have profound ramifications for how we see communities and how they function.

We're all utterly interconnected.

Here's an overview, with excerpts, of the recent article, "Communities of Interest" describing the debate over health care insurance reform from a moral and community perspective at the Actualizers blogsite:

In the richest, most technologically advanced nation in the world, the United States of America, we are debating the merit of extending health care coverage to tens of millions of our closest friends and neighbors by making it affordable. Tens of millions of American citizens have no health care insurance.

Yet, rather than examine the successes in other countries and adopting their best practices, big business interests in this debate are spending millions of dollars every day (collected from health care premiums) to influence the men and women in Congress, who are sorely outnumbered by the lobbyists. It's a travesty - a sham - that makes a mockery of the alleged reliance on free markets to insure efficiency and improvement of goods and services.

One way or another, we pay.  One way, with only some of us insured, we not only pay for the costs of treating the uninsured, including potentially their bankruptcies, we also pay 8-digit salaries and bonuses to CEOs and lobbyists who profit from rising costs that have outstripped inflation for three decades.  Those costs do get spread across the area where the insurers do business, of course.

There's certainly no "perfect" system, and there's big money riding on keeping things "as is,"  but one thing has become obvious to even the most casual observer:

There's lots of room for improvement in the current scheme, for finding a fairer way to distribute the costs while controlling the expenses, and the benefit of improvement will flow to you, and me, and our community - no matter if you think of community as the neighborhood, the city, the country, or the planet.

The "profit motive" is great. It brings consumers choices for fair trade coffee, and tea parties, and "out-of-season" blueberries, and Blackberries™, and a veritable plethora of choices for our transportation, wardrobes, and more. It also brings the cost of MRIs down in Japan, by orders of magnitude when compared to what we pay in the USA - why is that? Because we've let the system of paying for health care mimic a competitive market, and fallen for the eristic rhetoric that preserves the profits of these gargantuan companies, sometimes operating as virtual monopolies. In practice it's not possible for a consumer to make a real, let alone well-informed choice, about health care costs or insurance.

The Congressional Budget Office has notified Congress that tethering a public option to Medicare reimbursement rates would save the government $110 billion! That's more than even a "public option" in which the government has to negotiate rates with doctors and other health care providers, which the GOP seems so opposed to. There are LOTS of ways to improve the bottom line -- but the bottom line is:
It's time to get the profit motive out of health care insurance.

Read more?

"We don't want the government to do anything."

That's the mindset of some folks, despite the fact the U.S. Constitution actually calls for government to manage things such as defense, domestic tranquility, etc. In a way, it's interesting - it's utopian:

I don't need anybody regulating the food I buy, I don't need anybody checking the efficacy of the drugs I use, I'm never going to need a fire-fighter or a policeman, I don't need roads and bridges maintained by some big agency, no not me, I'm fine with private "free market" solutions to everything, including education, defense, and immigration.

Call it a little naive, maybe, but... the sound bites seem appealing until you ponder little things such as: who deals with pollution in the streams you fish in, or how a family living in a hut copes with forest fires, hurricanes, or immigration (at least there'd be no more illegal immigrants.)

Read more... and Digg it!