Whither Dubya?

I kind of feel sorry for President George W. Bush.

Earlier tonight, the Republican National Convention featured a loving short video highlighting President Reagan's greatest hits and soundbites, followed by a speech by Newt Gingrich and Mrs. Gingrich III about how awesome Reagan was. I get that the RNC is trying to draw a not-so-subtle parallel between President Carter and President Obama, making Mitt Romney the Reagan in this equation. Conventions are a lot like pep rallies, so there's always a fair amount of "remember how great it was when WE ran things" at all of them. For instance, if there's not at least one reference to a Kennedy at the Democratic convention next week, I'll eat my hat.

But just when I was thinking that it doesn't say very positive things about the Republican Party that the apex of their influence was a man who left office when I was in the second grade, because they've had two presidents from their party since then and it would be weird not to acknowledge that, here comes..........Jeb Bush.

And this doesn't NOT make sense, because Jeb was the governor of Florida, after all, and we're in Tampa. And it's not like President George Bush is going to come speak at the RNC because he's in his 80s, and even for a superhero that's getting up there. The RNC needed a representative of the Bush family, and they went with Jeb.

But it kind of sucks that there's exactly no place for President George W. Bush at this convention. Because he didn't even get to appear in person at the 2008 convention, and this was a man who, whether you voted for him or not (and I didn't), did serve this country as president for eight years. He did it with the whole-hearted support of the GOP, including current VP nominee Rep. Paul Ryan, who voted for all of the Bush Administration priorities that are killing our budget today.

President Bush did, and tried to do, good things while he was in office. He's the last Republican in recent memory to tackle immigration reform in a realistic way, for instance. It's stunning to see people like Ryan flip-flop from full-throated support of everything Bush sent to Congress to pretending that his presidency didn't exist. And, if you ask me, pretty weasely. It says far more about the Paul Ryans of the world than it does about George W. Bush.

Since we're still talking about this for some reason...

Does anyone else think Jon Stewart and Herman Cain need their own TV show?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

That's the third part of Cain's interview last night on "The Daily Show," when he and Stewart got into it over the debunked-yet-still-repeated claim that the Obama Administration is in any way lessening the work requirements of people receiving funds under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program. Give Cain credit for (sort of) admitting that he was wrong, which is something the Romney campaign still hasn't managed.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, the administration's act of tweaking the TANF regulations - in response to requests from their state administrators - is a good thing, not to mention a textbook conservative thing. Before last month, states that wanted federal TANF funds had to abide by a one-size-fits-all approach. Now they have the flexibility to act almost as entrepreneurs testing different approaches to see what's effective for them. The policy change leverages the ability that a state has to act as a laboratory for something new and different. Nevada can try something that might work later in Alabama... or might not, in which case both Nevada and Alabama can keep doing the different things that work for them. It's the exact opposite of a single federal entity saying "Nope. One way only."

Still waiting on Cain to put on that Code Pink shirt, though.

Quickie: Urgency of the Moment

It did occur to me earlier today that four years ago was the day that Barack Obama gave his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president. But I'd forgotten that his speech was also on an anniversary for our country's history.

So, now it's 49 years to the day since the March on Washington. And it's still remarkable to think about how far our country can come in a generation.

We're a young country, so nearly 50 years out of 236 since the 1776 Declaration of Independence represents a big percentage of our existence. Even if it's only a generation.

It makes me wonder what we're capable of in another 50 years. It makes me wonder what my grandchildren will take for granted as "of course."

Giant Leaps

It's a good thing I'm not called on to be a panelist on the Sunday morning news talk shows I love so much. Because this morning Mary Matalin would've made me drop an f-bomb on live national TV.

Matalin was part of an all-female-plus George Will panel on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." At the very end of the show (just under the 42 minute mark at this clip), they spent a few minutes on the death of Neil Armstrong, the first person to walk on the surface of the moon. George Will said something really wonderful about how the moon landing represented a time when America was a country that could do big things, and that we want to think of ourselves as that kind of country again. Then Stephanopoulos and Jennifer Granholm mentioned Armstrong's lifelong humility about being the one man representing the work of so many. Then comes Matalin.

Here's exactly what Matalin said:
"Or, to be inspired by yourself. Because what he (Armstrong) did for a generation, including girls, he was an early feminist. He gave you the sense that in America, if you have the drive and the dream, you could be anything you wanted to be. I grew up wanting to be an astronaut, as a girl. That's the difference between conservatives and liberals. We think we can do it."

Oh, then Greta Van Susteren needs to bring Newt Gingrich into the discussion for some reason.


Here's exactly what I said, watching this:
"The f***? Yeah, with tens of billions of federal dollars, you can do it. A**hole."

What Matalin said makes absolutely no sense. What does it even mean? Is she saying that only conservatives can inspire people to do great things? Like, want to be an astronaut, but not actually put in any of the work required to be one, maybe? That "thinking" is so awesome, but the "doing" part, which might require public funding... not so much? Does Mary Matalin believe that Neil Armstrong built the lunar module in his backyard? Because I've always labored under the delusion that he received his training as a pilot from Uncle Sam, then flew a taxpayer-funded machine to the frakking moon.

What Matalin said offends me. Not as a liberal, but as a American. George Will was right. As someone born in 1980, I look at historic events like the moon landing, World War II, the Civil Rights Movement and the like with enormous pride, but also with a kind of wistful envy. I'm not naive enough to believe that my parents and grandparents lived in an idyllic America where no one ever fought. But I admire them for putting aside their differences to accomplish great things. Like Will said, I want those things for myself, and for my children. And yet here when we're talking about one of the greatest moments not just in American history, but in the history of humanity, here comes Mary Matalin to remind us of those very few places where we differ.

And Matalin was diplomatic compared to Fox News' Monica Crowley, who interrupted the "let's all feel good about that time we sent a human being to the surface of the moon" party to tweet a completely inaccurate claim that President Obama wants NASA to become an agency devoted to Muslim relations, or something? Honestly, I have no idea what she's talking about. Apparently, the NASA chief said in an interview with Al Jazeera that the agency needed to have better relations with Muslim countries (probably reasoning that an entity whose job it is to send things to orbit around the planet needs to be friends with countries at strategic spots around that same planet). Anyway, the Obama Administration disagreed. But apparently that doesn't matter to people who report the "news" in another galaxy.

So... whenever there's a mass shooting where it turns out that the shooter bought all his guns and ammo totally legally, and anyone remotely suggests that we should look at reasonable reforms to our gun laws, they're accused of politicizing a tragedy. (Which never made sense to me... If my cat repeatedly jumps on my counter to knock my antique wine glasses in the floor, and I think that I should either move my glasses or get rid of my cat, is that "politicizing"?) But, a pioneering explorer dies and more than one conservative talking head takes that opportunity to take potshots at the party that's actually in favor of public funding for education, and no one seems to notice.

Well, I did. And personally I thought that the death of a great (and as far as I know, apolitical) American was not the time to go into this... But, since Matalin and Crowley brought it up:

If a Democratic president hadn't pledged to go to the moon by the end of the 60s, and if another Democratic president hadn't made it happen... if NASA were proposed for the first time in 2012, the Tea Party wing of the GOP would go totally, epically apeshit. Taxpayer dollars for spaceships! Billions! If this is so viable, then why isn't some private developer pursuing it? If NASA were on the table today, people like Mary Matalin and Monica Crowley would be all over themselves to burn it to the ground, based on their extensive experience in... talking on TV. The woman who waxed poetic about inspiration would rip the Apollo program with the same language used to ridicule research into solar and geothermal energy - and Mary Matalin knows it.

That's the difference between liberals and conservatives. We're not arrogant enough to think there are only two of anything in the universe.

A very serious error

One of the things about my field that's so sobering is just how fast a reputation can be sunk. Call it the Tiger Woods Attack, or Paterno Syndrome. Everyone who does what I do knows that you can spend years (not to mention scads of cash) building a rock-solid public image, and that the failure to respond properly to even the smallest mistake can wash it all away.

That's been Todd Akin's day today. Over the weekend, Akin, who's running for the U.S. Senate from Missouri, said some very dumb things in a TV interview. An early adopter of the Tea Party, Akin had been leading the Democratic incumbent, Claire McCaskill, in polls. And now he's got the head of the GOP ticket disavowing his remarks and the national party pulling its funding from his race. Now, this is a race that the GOP needs to win in order to flip control of the Senate - so, if the national party basically telling Akin to step out of the way is the "damage control" version of the solution, you KNOW he's toast.

And he should be. This isn't a case of someone who speaks publicly all day long flubbing verbally a single time. Saying that rape victims' bodies have magical sperm-zapping powers isn't mis-speaking. It's evidence of ignorance so deep-seeded that this man has no business anywhere near the authority to pass legislation that impacts 300 million Americans. If a candidate for national office said publicly that we need to strengthen the EPA so that dinosaurs don't get food-poisoning, no one would question that he's a crackpot.

Akins isn't disqualified for office because he's anti-choice. He's disqualified because he's an idiot. He's called his initial remarks "a very, very serious error." No word on whether he thinks the error is what he said - or what he seems to believe.

Is it Crazy Time already?

When I started seeing campaign ads on TV back in April, I thought it was odd. It made sense for some of the local races in our May primary, but does President Obama really need to let me know right after Easter that he’s running for re-election? Anyway, I guess that’s what we can expect now that we’re officially a battleground state. (That, and reacting to news that the vice president is coming to town with, “Huh, Biden again?”)

Is it me, or does it seem early for the presidential contenders to be going negative? And, while I went into a lot of detail about a recent Romney ad yesterday, the Obama supporters aren’t totally innocent here.

I haven’t seen this ad on TV yet. Called “Understands,” it features a former steelworker whose mill was bought by Bain Capital and later closed. Years later, his wife developed cancer, didn’t get treatment until it was extremely advanced, and then died three weeks after her diagnosis. I feel for this man; it’s awful losing someone that way. But that doesn’t change the fact that this ad is grossly misleading, and kind of intellectually insulting. For one thing, as the LA Times and other have noted, the mill where he worked was on its way to shutting down anyway, with or without Bain, and – here’s the kicker – his wife had health insurance from her own employer! Oh, and Mitt Romney wasn’t even running Bain at the time.

This ad makes it sound like Romney personally rolled into town to chain closed the mill’s doors, instructing his underlings to leave the employees as forlorn as possible. “They don’t look sad enough,” Romney Warbucks says, twirling the end of his mustache. “Let’s take away their health insurance. This man’s wife is terminally ill, huh? Even better!”

It’s important to note that “Understands” was paid for by Priorities USA Action, NOT the Obama campaign or the Democratic Party. Priorities USA Action is a super PAC that supports Obama’s re-election, but by law can’t coordinate with his campaign.

By contrast, Romney personally approved, and the Republican National Committee paid for, the “Obama doesn’t like working” ad that I wrote about yesterday. Romney also approved, and the RNC paid for, this ad, "Be Not Afraid."

I wrote yesterday that Romney was doubling down on the whole culture war thing and that I didn’t understand why he thought that would help him win – but man, he’s REALLY going down this road, isn’t he? And I still don’t understand it. Romney had a valid line of attack questioning Obama’s handling of the economy, an issue for which the Obama campaign never really developed a solid answer, and he’s ditched it in favor of running on “values”? Every single poll I’ve seen all year says the same thing: the number one issue on voters’ minds is the economy. When the people whose votes you’re trying to get straight up tell you, “This is the thing I care about the most,” and your response is, “That’s nice. Let’s have a prayer,” – well, good luck with that.

By the way, it should go without saying that “Be Not Afraid” is as inaccurate on its face as the welfare ad was. The provision in the ACA that requires employers to cover contraceptive care for women is as accommodating to religious objections as it can be and still function. Employers who have a moral objection to paying for an employee health plan that includes birth control simply don’t have to pay for it – their insurance provider does. Now, why these employers have these moral objections, and why they think their employees should have to abide by their personal beliefs are subjects for another post.

The point is that, bottom line, the ACA does not do what Romney says it does in this ad. And even if it did, it’s a stretch to characterize that as an “attack on religion” – actually, calling it a stretch is an insult to the concept of a stretch. And what’s up with highlighting the Lech Walesa quasi-endorsement? I’m going to tell you this as a 32-year-old who started reading Newsweek when I was 11 (AND THAT IS WEIRD) that practically no American under age 40 even knows who Lech Walesa is, let alone what on earth he might have to do with religious freedom. (To the kids: Community organizer. )

The people who will respond to that particular dog whistle are the ones who believe the Soviet Union collapsed not because Communism is an ineffective economic system, but because it’s EVIL, and only President’s Reagan’s prayers could beat it. These are the same people who are only pro-Israel because they think that as soon as Israel is whole again the world can end and Jesus can come back. In other words, the super-evangelical Christians that have always thought Romney was too moderate. By chasing them, Romney continues to alienate voters who don’t really want the president to try and be their minister. (Yes, pandering to evangelicals worked in 2004 for President Bush – barely – but that was in a contest against John Kerry, who excited exactly no one.)

I know what you’re going to say, and you’re right – I am being harder on the Romney ad than the pro-Obama ad. Both are based on ludicrous premises, and verge on outright lying. Both are unfair attacks not on the opponent’s policies, but on his character. But the difference is that Obama had nothing to do with “Understanding” – with producing it or paying for it to air. Romney at some point looked at the welfare ad and this “Obama hates God” ad and said, “Yep, looks fine to me.” And then the Republican Party paid to air it. That may sound like hair-splitting, but I think a distinction that matters.

What worries me is, if the campaigns and the PACs that back them are getting this nasty in early August, what do they have planned for the next three months?

The day Mitt Romney cracked

Mitt Romney has a new TV ad, y’all.

Ordinarily I watch political ads more as an intellectual exercise than as anything I think might actually influence me, because they’ve just gotten so over the top. (Seriously, here – consider TV ads as nothing but starting points for you to do your own research into a candidate’s past votes/positions/statements/possible cult involvement.) But this one I noticed. And not in the usual “Hmm, I wonder which Super PAC is paying for this one” way. (For the record, this one says it’s paid for by the Republican National Committee, authorized by Romney himself.)

Called “Right Choice,” the ad focuses on a little-noticed policy change from last month regarding the administration of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, colloquially known as “welfare.” President Clinton’s 1996 welfare reform created TANF for states to administer themselves under a set of federal guidelines (as opposed to welfare administration coming from the federal level). For one thing, states are required to document that a percentage of welfare recipients are working or attempting to work, and that there are time limits on how long someone can qualify for welfare.

It’s a good thing that states have more flexibility to handle their own welfare programs, isn’t it? Republicans certainly thought so back in 1996, when Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott negotiated with Clinton – pressured him, really – to develop the reform act.

In fact, the Republican Governors Association pushed for even more flexibility in 2005, writing Congress a letter which said in part, “Increased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit and the ability to coordinate state programs are all important aspects of moving recipients from welfare to work.” 29 Republican governors signed that letter… including Mitt Romney (back when he had a job).

This year, states have continued to ask the Department of Health and Human Services for more flexibility on things like what is classified as “work.” Again, this idea that states have different needs and circumstances, and therefore shouldn’t have to abide by one monolithic standard handed down by Washington – isn’t that idea fundamentally a conservative one?

So why, after HHS issued a memo on July 12 notifying states that HHS would be willing to grant waivers of some existing TANF requirements, does a Romney-approved TV ad claim that President Obama is personally dismantling the 1996 reforms? Here’s what the memo says:

HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF…The Secretary will not approve a waiver for an initiative that appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families…Waiver requests must include an evaluation plan.

Basically, states asked the federal government if they could try new, possibly more efficient ideas that aren’t specifically listed in a 16-year-old reform law, and ONLY under the condition that any of these new ideas were as effective as what they’ve already been doing at transitioning welfare recipients to work. And the federal government said, sure. What HHS didn’t say is “If you guys want to just hand your TANF money to whoever, that’s cool.” So why does this Romney ad basically say that’s exactly what the Obama Administration is doing? Why, after criticism of the ad, is Romney doubling down on insisting that Obama’s trying to undo the 1996 reforms?

Either Romney can’t read, or he’s decided that digging up a memo from one government agency to others about a fairly minor policy change (that – AGAIN – these states had requested) is just the thing to make perhaps a whole 32 percent of Americans like him, instead of 31 percent.

When I first saw this ad last night, what I felt (aside from a “WTH” record-screech) was that this was it – that was the moment that I knew for sure that Romney is going to lose this election.

Yes, it’s early August, and elections don’t really heat up until after the nominating conventions a month from now. Yes, Mitt Romney hasn’t even announced his running mate, which (as 2008 showed) can totally change the game. Yes, Romney’s raising more money. Yes, it’s true that an awful lot can still happen between now and Nov. 6. And yes, Obama has a serious issue with the economy and Congressional gridlock on pretty much every domestic issue.

But when you as a candidate stake days of your messaging on an attack so flimsy it can be shot down with 90 seconds of Googling, it’s a sign of desperation. It’s just like in 2008 when the McCain campaign said “we have to start questioning Obama’s associations.” Watch that ad again. Romney’s not warning that changing TANF standards will raise federal expenses or something like that. He’s warning us that Obama wants to help those lazy poors take our hard-earned money. A memo accompanying the ad's release said that Obama "hopes states will consider approaches that remove work participation rate requirements all together." The HHS men doesn't say that, and more importantly, why would it? Why on earth would a president WANT people not to work? For Romney to suggest that of Obama is just insulting. Romney’s going full-on culture war, and with a 20-year-old issue at that. And that is NOT the move of a man who believes that his positions on the issues can win him the election.

The ad seems tailor-made to resonate with working-class white people, especially men. But a) Romney already has them, and b) the ad’s more profound effect will be to alienate everyone who’s not a working class white man with barely concealed race/class resentment issues, and there are many, many more of us. Also, independent voters absolutely hate shrill divisiveness bordering on paranoid delusion – just ask Sarah Palin, reality TV personality, why she’s not Sarah Palin, vice president.

America’s a different place then it was the last time the “welfare queen” myth actually helped someone get elected. This ad feels like an end-game move, the type of thing a campaign would whip out in the last week before the election to try and move the needle before the other side has a chance to refute it with actual facts. For the Romney campaign to go with this line of attack three months before Election Day, when there’s still plenty of time to point out what blazing BS it is… that’s just weird. But it’s the fact that Romney’s so emphatically planted himself in the fact-free camp, at the expense of voters who know better, that’s going to cost him the election.