Toomey is NOT De Mint's Lapdog?

According to the NYT, Toomey is a new kind of Republican Freshman- a moderate?

The evidence- he supported repeal of DADT and he was neutral on the Obama-Republican tax deal/compromise/capitulation. And he had Susan Collins at a fund-raiser even though she is pro-choice. Overwhelming evidence.

On the side that he is a free market ideologue: he was president of Club for Growth whose idea of the best economy is somewhere around 1870 when the railroads owned the country and unions could be dealt with by Pinkerton's thugs. He does not "believe" in climate change. He wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He wants to privatize social security (which went GREAT for Chile for example). He mocks sensible gun legislation ("My idea of gun control is steady aim.").

He is clearly an experienced politician. He won 51% of PA's vote. He wants to get re-elected. I won't hold my breath that he will resuscitate the moderate wing of the Republican party which looks more like a few limp chicken feathers than a wing these days.

Recommended reading on manufacturing in America

Given what's going on with manufacturing in central PA, the following Reuters article about the American auto and other manufacturing industries seems highly relevant reading:


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BF28720101216?pageNumber=1

Polis Sci 101 and 102

Someone sent me the link to David Brook's latest column in which he confirms his status as columnist most likely to shallowly borrow from social science theory. This time it is network theory, something I know about. He uses the terms "cluster" and "network" to describe two worldviews. Clusters are only linked to each other and do not have the links nor inclination to forge coalitions. "Networks" are the opposite. The clumsiness of his borrowing aside, what really got me revved up was my correspondent's suggestion that this was an incisive analysis with the subject line: "Poli Sci 101."

Link to Column: "Obama's Very Good Week."

My response:

First, this is typical commentariat (which Brooks is a clear part of). You look at the event sof thsi week and then proclaim the world is as it is NOW is ho wit must have always been and will always be. Obama CAMPAIGNED in 2008 on not extending tax breaks for the wealthiest. He and congressional Dems dithered for two years and then put this off until the lame duck session. So poor political strategy and not delivering on one of his signature campiagn issues led to a situation where he had a poor hand and weak leverage. And I am supposed to congratulate obama for that?

As far as I know, on most core issue for progressives, a label I will wear less reluctantly than others, Obama and his team not only did the leas t they could do, but often went out of their way to piss on us for asking for more. Health reform, foreclsoure moritorium, Afghanistan, Iraq, DADT, taxes, a bigger stimulus and so on. So, I'll tell you poli sci 102: you do not win elections without a BASE and a COALITION. While some part of 2010's schellacking may have been due to normal historical shifts, part of it was lack of enthusiasm in his base. The shut up and get in line attitude towards one's base does not work well unless you deliver more.

Brooks says:
"You don’t have to abandon your principles to cut a deal. You just have to acknowledge that there are other people in the world and even a president doesn’t get to stamp his foot and have his way. "

Well, that seems like exactly the strategy of the Republicans. Stamp their foot and demand no START treaty, no unemployment insurance, no DADT until they get the estate tax. Boehner or McConnell said their primary goal is to unseat him. So, stamping their foot until they get their way seems to be what they are doing. Obama coddles them. And, the media and the commentariat coddle them. It is supposed to be Obama who needs to build bridges and be a network liberal instead of a cluster liberal. Fine. Where are the network Republicans he is supposed to do this with? So, I'll stomach no lectures from sanctimonious wankers about how Obama or the Democrats are the source of hyper partisanship. It is the Republicans and the way the media thought framework enables this (which I think the Conservative movement created by making the media jump at the thought of being called liberal). And see, somehow, for me to suggest this as valid fact gets chalked up in Brooks and the commentariat's world view to me being a "far leftie" or "cluster leftie" because they don't have the stomach to take a stand or to have any accountability to history.

No one in the chattering classes suggest the Republicans should moderate, should be network conservatives.

Blue Dogs Whine Instead of Bark

Way more detail about the process than I found elsewhere. I am particularly irked by Blue Dogs who a) run by demonizing the left; b) took way more DCCC money than they raised even though they cow tail to rich business interests and then; c) lost while running AWAY form the accomplishments of the last 2 years calling the thoroughly centrist policies "excessive" and then finally d) blaming Pelosi for their problems.

Just-defeated Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) rose in Tuesday’s caucus meeting to declare that Pelosi is “the face of our defeat.” He told his soon-to-be-former colleagues that “we need new leadership.” ...

Democrats who side with Pelosi are upset with the moderate Blue Dog Democrats, many of whom were the beneficiaries of big spending by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Some of them could hardly have been competitive without the party’s money.


The DCCC spent nearly $60 million on Blue Dogs and centrist New Democrats during the 2010 election cycle, according to federal election reports. Meanwhile, Blue Dogs contributed only $1.9 million of their $9.6 million in dues goals, according to the latest DCCC dues report.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45215.html#ixzz15X6WdYil

Support the DISCLOSE Act

MoveOn.org is pushing a petition for Congress to pass the DISCLOSE Act. If corporations are going to be able to pour money into elections and ballot initiatives, they shouldn't be able to do so anonymously. Now is the time to act, before the 2012 election cycle kicks in.

http://pol.moveon.org/discloseact/

Yesterday's tax cut game

Here's Austan Goolsbee's explanation of the difference between President Obama's and the Republicans' ideas for how to deal with the expiring tax cuts (2 minutes). Republicans are trying to frame it as "raising taxes." President Obama is focused on maintaining all the cuts for lower 95% and going back to something closer to the Clinton-era rates for the top 5% (making over $250,000 per year). Goolsbee's appearance on the Colbert Report helped get this chart to a bigger audience.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/29/white-house-white-board-cea-chair-austan-goolsbee-explains-tax-cut-fight

What's the message?

The message from Election 2010 seems to be "it's still the economy, stupid." Even with the DOW over 11,000 and the threat of a great depression averted, everyone knows that the economy is in trouble and jobs are hard to find. In the exit polls, 9 of 10 cited the economy as the top issue. The argument that the unemployment rate would have been even worse without the Recovery Act never gained any traction. Democrats played defense and never went on the offense with a message about the largest tax cut in history, the end of health insurers being able to dump you when you get sick, targeted tax cuts to small business, etc.

Locally, I thought Trey Casimir had the best summation in today's Daily Item:

“If Chris Carney, who is pro-gun, anti-abortion, a military man, has a positive rating from the NRA, if he can’t get elected around here, nobody with a ‘D’ after their name can get elected around here,” Casimir said.

I would add that Carney did not run a great campaign this time, but the polling averages (see FiveThirtyEight.com) suggested a 6 point Marino win, and it was about a 10 point Marino win. Even if he had run a pitch perfect campaign, he might well have fallen short this time. It was appropriate to raise questions about Marino's past conduct, but the voters wanted to see a focus on the economy and the future, especially in the last couple weeks of the campaign. That never happened, and the charge that Marino was somehow unfit to serve did not sway the voters.

In the "I was wrong" category, it turned out that Joe Sestak made his race with Pat Toomey very close (did those ads showing Toomey with the Chinese flag actually work?), whereas Russ Feingold lost badly to millionaire and political neophyte Ron Johnson in Wisconsin. No one seems to have a good explanation why Feingold slipped so badly after three terms. My only theory was that he did not have the "likeability" factor that can sometimes be the difference. He always seemed a little bit too sure that he was right. Of course, he was also badly outspent and was targeted with unrelenting negative ads. He was favored for reelection until the negative ads drove down his poll numbers.

One other comment: It's going to be difficult to get anything done about a severance tax on natural gas extraction since governor-elect Corbett has dug in against it. But that will be a topic for another day. I read this week that wind turbine companies are laying off people and shutting down production: low natural gas prices have made clean energy too expensive in relative terms. Why am I pretty sure that we are not pricing the real costs of natural gas into the product?