PMC Commentary

Cochran, a really peeved McDaniel & Co., and third-party time

The party, it seems, is over. Dead. Long live the party. The tea party.

In one of its multiple post-primary stories, Politico bundles several "takeaways" from Thad Cochran's astonishing victory (it sure as hell astonished me, anyway) over Chris McDaniel, but the death of a party within a party--and its rebirth elsewhere--isn't one of them. And that, it furthers seems, is a shocking oversight, since in an accompanying Politico story there is this, from the South Mississippi Tea Party's chairman:

It makes you want to quit being involved. I never believed a third party would work, maybe that’s the only way to get rid of the corruption of Washington, the corruption of the Democratic Party, the corruption of the Republican Party.

A third party. That's the ticket--two tickets; a mortal split in the conservative movement. The Republican Party simply cannot survive--or, rather, reestablish itself--as a national party as long as it suffers the tea party's drag of ever-rightward radicalization. It was doomed, and the GOP's sober strategists knew it. Internal war was inevitable, and it has come.

Aside from mountains of Chamber money and super-PAC targeting of potential electoral allies (Democrats, many black), Cochran's forces assaulted the McDaniel camp with accusations that the tea partier in Washington "would cut off federal funding for public education," writes Politico, and "that he would be an uncertain vote on [federal] emergency storm relief." Little wonder, then, that last night McDaniel characterized his loss as the revenge of conventional liberalism wrapped in sheepish Republican cloth.

Nothing infuriates the tea-party base as the thought of humane and responsible governance, which in the diseased brew of far-right toxicity is called "corruption." Hence the South Mississippi Tea Party chairman's open speculation about a third-party movement.

Yet the host party could still be doomed, even after the jettisoning or self-amputation of tea-party fanaticism from its ranks. That's the kicker. A third-party tea party would split the conservative vote in conservative and swing districts alike; red states would hemorrhage all solidarity against conservative Democratic candidates; and, in general, the national GOP's philosophically antique, Hayek-embracing, Billy Sunday-pounding and anti-science platform has, as noted, already devastated its presidential pretensions.

If the GOP can hang together until its far-right geezers are among us no more, then it can survive. Otherwise, electorally speaking, divided conservatism cannot stand.

 

A lot off the top, please

A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, Mary Lou, and I've gotta go buy some pruning shears before our musty abode becomes hopelessly engulfed by weeds the size of sequoias.

I did have some deep, Pulitzer-winning thoughts on the McDaniel-Cochran brawl, but survival in our little house of jungle-like horrors supersedes them. Besides, Mississippi is renowned for fucking itself, which rather tips off the brawl's outcome anyway--hence my imposing analysis would be but a redundant yawn.

See you later.

 

Voter fraud exists!

Republicans aren't bullshitting us. From WisPolitics.com:

Robert Monroe, a 50-year-old Shorewood health insurance executive, was charged Friday with 13 felonies related to his voting a dozen times in five [Wisconsin] elections between 2011 and 2012....

He was a supporter of Gov. Scott Walker and state Sen. Alberta Darling, both Republicans, and allegedly cast five ballots in the June 2012 election in which Walker survived a recall challenge.

But that's not the best part. No the best part is this, which I simply must remember the next time I'm indicted on a dozen or so felony counts:

Monroe claimed to have a form of temporary amnesia and did not recall the election day events when confronted by investigators.

 

When you just can't lose

Jon Chait reminds us of some 2008 research from psephologist Michael Tesler, who "measured the degree to which race dominated the public consciousness during Clinton’s 2008 primary campaign. The Democratic primary campaign split racial liberals against racial conservatives, to the point where Clinton’s intrinsic qualities became nearly irrelevant."

Why does Chait call up the old research? To make a point about 2016: Despite Hillary's rolling book-tour gaffes--assume for the moment they're all real, and all serious--her "intrinsic qualities" as a politician will be nearly irrelevant in two years.

She has the name, the demos, the money, and most of all, as did Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, she'll have a splendidly inept, party-dividing general-election opponent. I'm hoping for Mitt again--ahhh, those were the days of exponential GOP ineptitude, Jennifer Rubin! and self-writing posts--but I'd certainly settle for another Bush, and yes if there's a god he'll give us Rand Paul.

Not even the Christian god could conjure up a Cruz nomination, nonetheless lavish prayer for the mother of all miracles can't hurt.

But back to the main point. Given today's unflinching partisan divide and polarization-lock in Democrats' favor, Hillary will waltz to the White House, gaffes and all, real or not. They're fun to marvel at, but in the long run they'll make not a whit of difference. She may be a lousy politician, but against Republicans' strutting of historic ineptitude and internal divisions, that's "nearly irrelevant."

 

The graciousness of Darrell Issa

Do they come any slimier?

The [IRS] hearing was tense from the outset. Mr. Issa was displeased even before Mr. Koskinen could take his oath. When the congressman asked the commissioner to raise his right hand to swear to tell the truth, he scolded him, "A little higher, thank you."

Can they come any slimier?

 

Hillary and the right: yes and no

Brian Beutler:

Republicans have a tremendous incentive to treat every misstep or perceived misstep as a grave, self-inflicted wound, whether that's really the case or not. As Clinton has traveled the country promoting her book Republicans have filtered her every utterance through their gaffe-o-meters, hoping a new blunder will crowd each news cycle. In the process, they've successfully fostered the narrative that Clinton's political chops are rusty, and her instincts ill suited for the current political moment.

Can't argue with that. Her book tour is what it is: grimace-worthy. What Beutler then adds, however, is, I think, an egregious misreading of the opposition:

On the right, the result is a sincere but mistaken belief that Clinton's candidacy is tanking. That she's an informidable opponent. An all but vanquished foe.

My assessment is that the right is treating every HRC misstep as a grave wound because they're absolutely terrified of a Hillary Clinton candidacy. Karl Rove is palsied with fear and his fellow strategists have, by now, learned how to read polls and plot a vastly imbalanced electoral map. They're lashing out early and often at Hillary not because they see her as weak and incurably wounded, but precisely because they know she is not--and there's not a damn thing they can do about it but what they're doing: ineffectively howl. 

 

Obama, FDR, and time for some note-taking

"I voted for him because he said, 'Give me four more years and I will fix everything,' but nothing is being fixed."

That, from a thirty-something Massachusetts Democrat. This, also from a Democrat, in Iowa:

"I used to have hope. I had hope when I voted for Obama, but it’s changed."

Both quotes are from the NYT's coverage of its latest poll, a study in presidential decline and national dismay. Fifty-eight percent now disapprove of Obama's conduct in foreign policy--not long ago, his singular strength in public opinion--while his overall job approval rating is down to 40 percent.

It is far from uncommon that a second-term president should suffer popular doubt and growing weariness. Voters buy the tub-thumping hype--in Obama's case, implied rather than overt--of one-man salvation shows; then five or six years in, when all still isn't "fixed" and thus hope begins to drain, they turn on the savior.

But what's striking about the NYT-CBS poll, similar to others, is that this supremely competent president's approval rating is now in the statistical territory of the infinitely incompetent George W. Bush. The latter earned his plunging approval--W.'s policies, both domestic and foreign, increasingly clashed with public opinion--while the former's disapproval only clashes with substantial public agreement. Obama's foreign policy of non-adventurism finds a national embrace, just as his domestic policies, from a higher minimum wage to improved environmental controls, are in accord with national sentiment.

Which, it seems to me, tells us one very important thing: President Obama has a severe communication problem.

He of course never promised that he would "fix everything" (indeed quite the opposite), and hope is draining because the electorate's underlying comprehension of in-place obstacles to change and progress (the you-know-who crowd) is shaky at best. Yet rarely does Obama convey to the public the fundamentals of our dreadfully stagnant status quo. In network interviews he perforce plays catch-up to events, and in his public appearances he tends mostly to unveil executive initiatives.

In brief the public is missing the bigger point--why we are where we unsatisfactorily are--because Obama fails to address it, to explain it, to pound it. FDR prospered politically in the worst of times because he carefully and repeatedly explained, in the simplest of terms, just what in God's name was going on. Understanding fostered hope, as well enduring confidence in the 32nd president. The 44th should take notes.

 

Is Hillary truly witless? Seems hard to believe.

Earlier today I accused the press of "inaccurately and unfairly" interpreting Hillary Clinton's remark to the Guardian newspaper--"We pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off"--as witless. I made the accusation in Hillary's defense because I couldn't conceive of any politician being so out of touch with Middle America and its middle incomes as to imply, for instance, that $8 million book advances make not a "truly well off" American.

But, I may have jumped the gun. We have Hillary's words--"unlike a lot of people who are truly well off"--but we don't have the interview's recording of Hillary's words, which can mean several different things. Consider these inflectional differences, beginning with a flat inflection:

... unlike a lot of people who are truly well off.

That's much different from,

... unlike a lot of people who are truly well off.

As well as,

... unlike a lot of people who are truly well off.

Or even,

... unlike a lot of people who are truly well off.

The first passage carries no connotation of witlessness; the words in no way attempt to distance her from the monied class. The second and third inflections do, rather obscenely; and the fourth, also inflected, is somewhat less offensive than the second and third, but still a bit eerie in its defensiveness.

In other words, given just the print version, we have no way of knowing what Hillary actually said. Seems to me the Guardian should release the audio version. (I'm assuming there is one.) I have tweeted the interviewer (@Edpilkington) with a request. I would encourage you to do the same. We have a right to know if Hillary is truly witless.

 

A tin-horn dictator and a prop

In this NYT pool photo, Kerry appears to be literally propping up Maliki.

You have to admire the editorial judgment used in choosing that particular photo.

 

On Iraq, the mental torture of nice-sounding phrases

The New Yorker's Dexter Filkins keeps slipping into what I see as a fantasy: visions of a harmonious Iraq, whose present disharmony seems mostly one of Obama's shortcomings:

American diplomats and military advisers can’t save Iraq and they can’t govern it, but the decision by President Obama to return to Iraq amounts to a recognition that there was work left unfinished. It’s likely to be a long and difficult job.

That would be one helluva condemnation of Obama's Iraq policy to date, if the wording of Filkins' indictment actually meant something in reality. It doesn't. These are empty phrases: an unfolding "decision" as a "recognition" of a major policy error, "work left unfinished," a "long and difficult job."

There should be no period between "unfinished" work and a "long and difficult" job, because if the difficult job of permanently stabilizing Iraq is thrust into our hands, it will be forever unfinished. Filkins wisely obliterates that connection with a simple dot, while more overtly conceding that we can neither save nor govern Iraq. I guess that means short term as well?

He doesn't say. Yet anything shorter than the long term is no real recognition of needing to tidy up unfinished business, for that's the sort of business that would be long and difficult. Right? Right. And it's Iraqis who must do what only Iraqis must do, implies Filkins, if it's long-term stability they desire.

So what recognition, exactly, of which difficult job among what vaguely unfinished work are we talking about? You got me. Filkins' assessment bends and loops like the universe. Heading out in a straight line, we end where we started.

 

Kerry in Iraq, Americans on Valium

This is the most worrisome development I've yet read:

So great are the concerns [over ISIS] that Mr. Kerry stressed on Monday that if American action is taken soon--President Obama has said that he is considering airstrikes--it should not be interpreted as a gesture of political support for Mr. Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government, but rather as a strike against the ISIS militants.

That's not a sucking sound you hear. It's a flush, or will be, anyway, if the U.S. intervenes prior to a Maliki departure.

The only unknown is at what level of preposterousness regional Sunni governments would treat Kerry's assurance that American airstrikes are not "a gesture of political support for Mr. Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government." To read that is to laugh at it. In combination, Maliki remaining in power and U.S. bombs bursting in air walk and most definitely quack like a duck of American support. How else could it be read?

"American officials ... do not want to be seen as taking sides in a sectarian conflict," says the NY Times story. Rescuing a multi-ethnic, Sunni-Shia Iraqi government would be an impartial act of counterterrorism. But rescuing the sitting government--the one whose incompetence, corruption and sectarian malignity have brought ISIS' advancing success on its head--would incontrovertibly be to "take sides."

It would not end well. In fact, it might not end at all.

 

Hillary is waving her '08 flag

The brain staggers at Hillary Clinton's Romneyesque gaffe-proclivities.

Americans worried about income inequality "don't see me as part of the problem," she informed the Guardian over the weekend, "because"--brace for superfluous italics--"we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off."

To that she added, "we've [achieved financial success] through dint of hard work," which is of course what she should have said as a stand-alone observation.

Hillary had already conceded that her earlier definition of "dead broke" lacked a lot in the "artful" rhetorical department. Now this--this ghastly muddle of the "truly well off."

The interpretive problem isn't so much "well off" as it is "truly," as well as "unlike." Hillary was doubtless including herself and her husband among the very well off--many in the press are parsing her words inaccurately and unfairly, I would argue--but her adverbial usage of "truly" denoted a virtuous or otherwise distinct separation from them, and her preceding "unlike [others]" only underscored that separation.

Again, she probably didn't mean it that way. But Mitt Romney didn't mean to say that corporations are real people, either--although that is precisely what he gifted the opposition: an infinitely easy verbal passage to twist and disfigure into a derisive joke about abject out-of-touchness.

Handling the political problem of Hillary's wealth should have been among her incipient campaign's first orders of business. That she has lacked a sound, stock answer in successive interviews indicates a return to her fundamental problem of 2008: Hillary is a lousy politician.

 

Republicans' part ownership of today's Iraq

The NY Times' superb overview of events leading to President Obama's total, 2011 withdrawal from Iraq includes this crucial aside: "Obama was locked in tense deficit negotiations with Republicans and the cost of a residual force weighed on the discussions."

You remember 2011, that inaugural year of tea-partying Republicans' fiscal aggression. Deficit-cutting was paramount. It subdued all reasonable talk of relieving unemployment, of priming any pumps, of revitalizing the economy. It was not only the central focus of political debate, it was the singular focus of political debate. We must, shrieked Republicans, slash spending--and they would have their way, even at the costs of a functioning government and global financial stability.

Congressional Republicans wanted most everything cut or reined in, from baby formula to job training programs to Pentagon budgets to, ahem, U.S. embassy security. Scalpels were tossed and meat axes were taken up, while warnings of grim consequences to all this budget slashing were dismissed by the slashers as but an addiction to big spending and bureaucratic waste.

In the magical workings of the supply-siding, tea-partying mind, we could have it all, and then some--peace, prosperity and national security--and all without paying for it. The only consequences to gutting the government would be benign ones, insisted the slashers.

That was the hand the American electorate handed to President Obama in 2010. The budgetary axes were taken up the following year with immediate blowback to the struggling economy. In the year after that came Benghazi, largely an unpredictable tragedy of geopolitical circumstances, but in part a result of security miserliness. Between came the necessary "weighing" of "residual force" costs in Iraq--a force that virtually all congressional Republicans now insist was as crucial as their indispensable budget slashing. The hypocrisy chokes.

Don't mistake. I'm not now arguing that a remaining force was advisable. Obama's decision to withdraw in toto was, I believed then and believe now, as prudent as it was ultimately forced by an uncooperative Iraqi prime minister and parliament. Yet cost was a factor in Obama's decision making--and the germ of that factor lay in Republicans' insistence on budget slashing.

Consequently, they're part owners of Obama's total-withdrawal decision--although the most unattainable goal in this world is to get Republicans to ever admit any participation in that which they so melodramatically decry, be it Iraq, Benghazi, or the economy.

 

"Jersey Boys"--good fun

Good history has an angle, and good historians always find one--a hook, a catch, some fresh explanatory approach to a familiar tale. Good films and good filmmakers are much the same, which is what made Eastwood's 1992 Unforgiven so remarkable. He presented an Old West good guy in dark, almost Shakespearean terms.

Eastwood's Jersey Boys, unfortunately, lacks that kind of methodological hook. It's Frankie Valli and the boys from beginning to end, mostly chronological fare expressed in anticipated ways.

Still, if you're a sucker for period films, as I am, you'll want to see it. The doo wop is fun, as are "American Bandstand," the "Ed Sullivan Show," shady record producers, old-neighborhood hoods, and, in one otherwise insignificant scene for many, a storeroom stocked with cigarette cartons--Kent, for instance, several packs of which I recall my father stuffing in his suit jacket every morning when I was but a tad. Odd how flashes of minor remembrances come back so powerfully. Real-life Proust.

Jersey Boys is good fun and light history. You'll enjoy it, even if you didn't live through it.

p.s.: It's rated R, but don't be afraid to take your teenager to it, should, that is, you happen to have one. It's rated for language only, and as I've always explained to my daughter, "it"--you know, it--is just language.

 

Neoconservatism is now little more than a botheration

In a WaPo op-ed ghost written by one among the capital's limitless supply of "senior fellows" (why are there no "junior fellows"?), former senator Joe Lieberman haunts again:

The United States has been able to degrade the terrorist threat in Afghanistan and the neighboring tribal areas of Pakistan in recent years. But there is every reason to think those gains will be reversed unless we keep up the pressure. That will be very difficult in the absence of a military presence on the ground in Afghanistan--just as we have seen in Iraq, where al-Qaeda-linked networks were decimated during the 2007-08 surge, only to return with a vengeance after U.S. troops left in late 2011.

[A]s in Iraq, the complete withdrawal of our troops will remove a critical stabilizing factor from Afghanistan’s still-fragile politics, create a vacuum that encourages neighboring states to step up unhelpful interference and heighten the danger that the country will slide back into civil war.

Neocon logic is clear enough. Just as we should intervene in Syria, in Nigeria, and perhaps in Yemen and Somalia (merely examples; one is free to pick any trouble spot on the globe), we must re-intervene in Iraq; then we must stay in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Yemen and Somalia, as well as Afghanistan, which we haven't yet left. Since "civil war" always threatens in tribal and sectarian hellholes such as Afghanistan and Iraq, we never should leave. Indeed, we never can, according to neocons' clear logic. For that would create a "vacuum." 

What's less clear is how we afford all this intervention and re-intervention and permanent encampment, or whence our militarized, world police force. Clarity could come from neoconservative advocacy of higher taxes and a return of universal conscription--but alas on these practical measures, neocons are silent.

Yet what is muddiest of all is the pool of domestic support for all these interventions and endless encampments. At best, the pool is notional; in reality, the pool is empty. It's not that the nation merely lacks an appetite for neocon strategery these days. It is, rather, that the nation harbors an active distaste for such adventurism.

Nonetheless, neocons are untroubled by trivialities--exhausted resources, exhausted manpower, and exhausted patience. Instead, they just keep writing pesky op-eds, proposing the inelegantly absurd.