WE ARE THE CHILDREN! Even Dowd didnt take the bait. Last night, Our Own Scholar did: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2009
The unfortunate logic of sixty votes: In this slightly maddening post, Steve Benen discusses Obamas approach to the sixty-vote Dem Senate.
Benen adopts a framework Ed Schultz seems to thunder about every night. It drives us crazy when Schultz does it. Benen drove us to action.
Democrats have sixty votes, Benen writes. Why dont we act more aggressively?
If Republicans had sixty votes in the Senate, what are the odds that GOP leaders would make a series of concessions to Democrats? Answer: The odds would be slim. But the reason for that difference in approach is fairly obvious.
Duh. As everyone knows except liberal leaders, the logic of the Senate currently tilts toward conservativestoward the GOP. It does so because small rural states get two senatorsthe same number the giant states get. Sparsely-populated Wyoming gets two. So does over-flowing California.
And uh-oh! At present, small rural states tend to be conservative. This means that the Senate system strongly favors conservativesand thus the GOP. Under current arrangements, a Republican president with sixty senators would almost inevitably be more powerful than Obama currently is.
Until we watched Schultz tear his hair every night, we thought everyone knew this.
Duh. To reach the magic number of sixty, Democrats have to elect a bunch of senators f rom red states. On balance, these red-state Democrats are substantially better than the Republicans whom they defeated. But they tend to be more conservative, more corporate-friendly, than their blue-state Democrat counterparts.
The current 60-Democrat Senate includes a long list of red-state Dems. Ben Nelson (Nebraska) is one example. Max Baucus (Montana) is anotherand lets not forget Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas). Have you possibly heard such names bollixing up the drive for a public option?
George Bush never had sixty senators. Amazingly, Obama does. But if Bush had ever gotten to sixty, it would have been a stronger, purer ideological bloc than the group Obama is working with. Obamas sixty includes a whole batch of red state Senate Dems. But then, there is virtually no way for Democrats to elect sixty senators without including a bunch of red-staters. Had the GOP elected sixty under Bush, there would have been fewer blue-staters. This is unfortunate, but its just bone-simple Senate logic.
How unfair is Senate math and logic? Consider some recent elections:
In Campaign 2000, Gore defeated Bush in the popular vote, although the margin was slight. But Gore won only 21 states in the process; Bush won 29. In other words: In an evenly-split electorate, Senate math tended to split 58-42, GOP.
In Campaign 2008, Obama beat McCain by more than seven points. Even then, he won only 28 states. In other words: Even with the country tilting strongly Dem, Senate math tended to split only 56-44, Dem. Let this serve as a reminder: Its very hard for Dems to get 60 without electing red-staters.
How unfair is Senate math? Consider what happened in the 2004 Senate elections:
Roughly one-third of the Senate was up for election, as is always the case. And yay! Democratic candidates won a healthy majority of the popular vote in those races. In those Senate races, 44.7 million people voted for the Democratic candidates; only 39.9 million voted for the Republicans. The Democratic candidates thereby out-polled the Republican candidates by 5.5 percent. (Wikipedia data. Click here.)
In those Senate races, Democratic candidates won a substantial majority of the popular vote. And guess what? Democrats lost a net of four Senate seats in the process! (Republicans went from 51 seats to 55.) How could that possibly happen? Simplifying a bit, Democrats piled up those votes in big huge populous states. (Examples: California, New York, Illinois.) Republicans won victories in little small states. (Examples: Idaho, Utah, Alaska.) Senate logic is very crueland at present, it favors the other party.
Night after night, weve watched Schultz rant: You know what George Bush would have done if hed gotten 60 votes!
Life is unfair, we think at such times. When will Schultz explain why?
Benen on Brzezinski: We strongly recommend this post by Benen, and the July 6 post which preceded it (click here). Mika Brzezinksi has been defiantly unintelligent on Morning Joe since the program began. Luckily, she has a chic bobits why shes onbecause her work is an unending marvel.
WE ARE THE CHILDREN: In a ceremony broadcast from Los Angeles, we were asked to remember the days when we were told that we were the world. For ourselves, we recalled the video which showed various people, of various races, all blending into each other.
We like to pretend that were driven by love. But last night, on our TV machine thingy, Our Own Rhodes Scholar, dressed in her waders, was asking the question which follows. She asked her question of Mark McKinnon, one of the biggest hustlers in American politics. McKinnon is Maddows latest peculiar choice as a regular guest.
In fairness, wed assume that Maddow wasnt lying when she made the inaccurate highlighted statement. Well assume she simply got tooken:
Just gaze on Our Rhodes Scholar now!
Sorry, losers! You really have to be a simpletonand an assto keep pimping that DSM diagnosis at all, as Our Own Rhodes Scholar did in this question to her new regular friend. In fairness, Maddow is quite inexperienced in politicsand it persistently shows. After all, even Maureen Dowd didnt pretend that Purdum was citing some people who worked with Palin when he played the pure/perfect fool and peddled that tired old diagnosisthe one thats more often applied to Obama. (To read Dowds column, click this.) Purdum, a very dishonest guy (Bill Clinton), may have been trying to give that impressionbut Dowd, whos apparently smarter than Maddow, didnt go for the feint. Below, we show you what Purdum, a scumbag (Bill Clinton), actually wrote in his piece. Just for the record: This two-paragraph passage has the look of a Ceci Maneuver:
Youll note that Purdum doesnt say that his [two] psychiatric sleuths were people who worked with Palin. He may have been trying to give that impression, given the highlighted statements propinquity to what he says at the end of that previous paragraph. But trust us: If [two] people who actually worked with Palin had told Todd Purdum they thought she was nuts, Purdum would have said so, quite clearly, in unmistakable language. If [two] people who actually worked with Palin had been looking her up in the DSM, that would have formed Purdums headline. Dowd apparently understood thatand didnt buy his insinuation (intended or otherwise). Maddow, who may be less savvy than Dowd, may not have understood this.
Maddow, who may be dumber than Dowd, played the fool in repeating this DSM nonsense at all. But she also embellished what Purdum saidthen sat on TV, in her waders, asking her latest slippery friend if he thought Palin was perhaps a little off, or literally a little wrong.
Dear Rachel tried to be kind in her choice of wordsas she stood there in her waders, saying, Oh please please please please! Look at me!
But then, what a gang of hacks and pimps now run the emerging progressive firmament! Yesterday, we swayed together in L.A., saying our ethos is built around notions of love and understanding. But peddlers like Maddow have worked hard this week to showcase the tribal stupiditythe reflexive tribal hatredwhich seem to lie at the sorry heart of the emerging pseudo-progressive world. After chatting with her slippery new friendand no, McKinnonn didnt think that Palin is a little off, literally a little wrongMaddow clowned her way through a hapless discussion with Ana Marie Cox, who is now tasked with being polite while Maddow asks strings of unintelligent questions about domestic politics. (Last night, Cox had to tell her thick-headed host several times: John Ensign was never a contender!) In particular, Maddow clowned about Palins claim that she was quitting her job due to a barrage of ethics complaints. In her actual complaint, of course, Palin claims these are nuisance complaints. But so what? Treating her viewers like low-IQ fools, Maddow pretended that she didnt know that. McKinnon played along.
A real news program might have tried to evaluate that claim by Palin. But Rachel Maddow, Our Own Rhodes Scholar, simply pretended she didnt know what Palin has been claiming.
Maddow is a grasping person. Then too, theres Our Own Economics Professor. In L.A., it was all about seeing ourselves in the other, into whom we might seamlessly blend. By way of contrast, for Our Own Professor, it was about taking tribal pride in this perfected ignorance:
Our Own Professor has been trying to figure why Palin is loved in wingnut world. Other professors might grasp something obvious; if you start out defining a group of people as wing nuts, youre not likely to figure out how they see the world. In our view, Palin was the worst candidate everwill almost certainly be the same if she runs for the White House. But anyone with two IQ points to rub together could come up with some obvious reasons why conservatives like her. Two quickies: They feel she lived her values when she gave birth last year. They admire the way she took out King Frank Murkowski in 2006, when he was her states reigning Republican governor.
Duh. How hard are such things to fathom? We liberals would love to see a Democratic pol living out our own liberal values; perhaps because we see it so rarely, Our Own Professor couldnt conjure it as a possible reason. And liberals did love it, for obvious reasons, when a regular person went after King Joseph Lieberman, almost turning him out of office; Our Own Professor cant seem to recall, even as he strains for reasons why wing nuts might love Sarah. But then, even as we swayed in L.A., Our Own Professor was preaching that ancient tribal hatredthe prehistoric tribal hatred in which one clan cant even imagine how those in the other clan might feel. The tribal hatred in which weak, small minds boast of their weakness and smallness.
In Los Angeles, images of different people blended into each other. In Philadelphia, Our Own Professor boasted that he cant perform such a move of the mindthat he is prehistoric, unwell. (In fairness, he probably knows that the other clans limbic brains dont work right.)
You saw endless crap in the ether this week, endless crap which was being served by us pseudo-progressives. (Palin could be the GOP nominee yet, by the time we get through with this garbage!) Were dumb as rocksand proud of the fact that we cant imagine. Indeed, weve reached the point where Our Own Rhodes Scholar is dumber than Maureen Dowd!
We are the world? We are the children? In the sense defined by Lord of the Flies, we have that second part right!
Speaking of who isnt right: After Maddow trashed the world in April, we read through quite few of the profiles which have been written about her. We had quite a few reactions to what we read, but for the most part, we didnt present them. Its very unwise for rubes like us to wade into those DSM watersespecially if were such perfect marks that we get taken in by a hack like Todd Purdum.
In our view, Maddow seems to be quite a package, based upon the things we read. (In her defense, shes quite young.) For connoisseurs, we especially recommend her final explanation for why she broke down and bought that TV set, thus depriving herself of the Great Distinction which seemed to lead every profile. (For some wonderful comedy, just click here. In our reading of the profiles, Maddow always finds a way to save the claim that shes just a bit better than others.) But heres the bottom line: Our Own Rhodes Scholar is so inexperienced, she may not realize that Purdums a hack! Even Dowd didnt buy his feint about who said that Palin is nuts. Omigod! Even Dowd saw through his construction!
How low a point has our movement reached? Unless she was simply lying last night, Our Own Rhodes Scholar didnt.
The soul of a scumbag like Purdum: Purdum is truly one of the worst, as Bill Clinton explained. (He even looks like Milbank!) How slick and slippery are people like this? Consider the highlighted sentence in this passage about Palins gubernatorial campaign:
She apparently didnt like preparing for debates back then either, Purdum happily snarks. Unfortunately, he has already reported, one page earlier, that Palin did prepare hard in 2008 for her VP debate, miraculously avoiding disaster. (We were quite disappointed.) Purdum describes a three-day prep session in Arizona: Palin worked hard, and the results were adequate. McKinnon, who helped her during that prep, said similar things last night.
Palin worked hard, Purdum says on page 2 (on-line). By page 3, hes implying the opposite. But creeps like Purdum exist to snarkand to invent better worlds for VFs blue-state subscribers.