Take a picture: it's a happy Democrat

Apparently I'm supposed to be very worried and depressed because I'm a Democrat and the Republicans regained control over the House of Representatives on Tuesday. I'm not. 'Bye, Alan Grayson, you nutball. Sorry, hot mob banker. There are even some Dems I'd have liked to see ousted - if you know any Republicans who aren't all "Let's outlaw Spanish!" I'd even vote for them. The only election result that truly disappointed me was Russ Feingold's loss in Wisconsin, but even that wasn't a shock.

Here's the thing... it was two years ago today that Barack Obama won the presidency. On that day, how many people predicted what happened Tuesday? Ok, anyone with a grasp of history knew that the House would swing back at vety the least, but my point is that a lot can change in two years. The House in particular is like the skin on a chameleon - super-reactionary because its entire membership turns over every other year. Just ask Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who were both re-elected after getting shellacked in the midterms only two years earlier. So don't write off Obama. He's still more popular than Congress.

I might be the only Democrat in America who thinks - or at least will admit to thinking - that this is a good thing. Obama is nowhere close to the far-left radical he's been painted as being. And now that House Republicans can plausibly take credit for anything good that happens for the next two years, I predict that we're going to see more cooperation, not less.

So Mitch McConnell should really lay off the "our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office" stuff, unless he's secretly on the DNC's attack ad-production team. Because if Tuesday's vote show anything, it's that this kind of bickering is exactly what Americans DON'T want. We aren't married to one party or another, we just want our country to work again. (Also, the Republicans salivating over the chance to start investigating anything would do well to remember the 1998 midterms, or, as I like to call it, the "We Don't Care Who Blew the President" election.)

While the federal government can't force banks to give credit or businesses to invest or expand, they can set policy that makes it easier and safer to do these things. Instead of name-calling, build roads and light rail systems and invest in tech education. Forget 2012 and think about 2062 for a second.

So I'm not too worried about the national scene. On a state level, though, I'm kind of wary. Democrats have controlled N.C.'s legislature for 112 years, and while changing power can be an opportunity for new ideas, the state Republicans don't particularly inspire me.

Worst. President. Ever.

Ben Quayle has never heard of Warren G. Harding. Or James Buchanan. Or, bless his unlikeable, impeached little heart, Andrew Johnson (the only North Carolinian president that other states don't fight us for).

Or he has, and he's just assuming that the voters in Arizona's 3rd Congressional District have never had a social studies class.

Quayle released an ad last week calling President Obama the "worst president in history." Whether you agree with Quayle or not, you have to admit that it's pretty asinine to give a president an all-time ranking based on his first 18 months in office. And, whether you like Obama's policies or not - worse than any of the string of presidents that let the country degenerate into civil war? Really?

Best/worst president polls are interesting. They're entirely subjective, first of all. Are you measuring likeability? Effectiveness? How do you define "effective," anyway? A small-government type and a the-Executive-Branch-should-lead-the-way type are going to have very different definitions of "effective." Which I suppose is why the 1982 survey (at the link) found that conservative and liberal historians agreed on the top 10 best and worst with the exceptions of LBJ and Eisenhower (best) and Coolidge and Carter (worst).

The color-coded chart on that same Wikipedia page is also revealing... were the "best" presidents (on average) really skewed toward America's founding period, and its "worst" in the years prior to the Civil War? Did they lead historical events, or did those events lead them?

If nothing else, it's a fun exercise. Lincoln wasn't exactly popular during his first term, but now he's universally voted our best president. Truman barely won re-election, and now he's top-10 best. The public ranks JFK higher than historians, but even the experts have him in the top quadrant - and as much as I adore all things Kennedy, I don't think I'd put him that high. Andrew Jackson, LBJ and Woodrow Wilson were strong leaders, but damn, they each did some crappy things. And, sorry, I have to defend Nixon. Yes, his abuses of power were heinous and he deserved every bit of what he got... but the man did do some pretty progressive stuff. He proposed the Environmental Protection Agency and signed the law creating OSHA, for pete's sake.

And, personally, I think there should be a buffer between a presidency and any attempts to assess it long term. you have to be dead 10 years to be considered for a frakking postage stamp, for crying out loud. Is it too much to ask that historians wait until George W. Bush is out of office a full term before declaring him one of history's worst? (For that matter, naming Obama 15th best is just as silly as Quayle calling him the worst.)

And, for what it's worth... Ben Quayle, what if you win? It's January, 2011, and you're the junior-most representative in a Congress that's still probably controlled by Democrats (the House, at least), and if you do somehow manage to get something through committee, you're still the guy who called the president the worst in history. So, you're trying to get the Democrats who control your committee to bring your bill to a floor vote and then vote for it - the same Democrats who are going to be asking the "worst president" to campaign for them a year later. And then, if you're very lucky, you get to ask the "worst president in history" to sign your bill into law.

Get ready for a few years with zero federal appropriations, 3rd Congressional District.

That Boy’s Not Right: Songs Rand Paul should listen to, a lot

Rand Paul’s entire platform seems to be “questioning stuff reasonable people decided 50 years ago.” There was the whole Civil Rights Act thing, and now his apparent ignorance of Harlan County, Ky.’s importance is disturbing.

First of all, imagine if John Kerry, or Barack Obama, had made the mistake of placing “The Dukes of Hazzard”’s setting in Kentucky and not Georgia. We wouldn’t be able to sleep tonight for the cries of “ELITIST!!!!!!!” bellowing on the airwaves.

But I’m far more bothered by Paul’s obliviousness to Harlan’s labor history. Some of the bloodiest civil conflicts in U.S. history took place at coalfields in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Colorado. And I’m not talking about ancient history, either. Florence Reese, who wrote “Which Side are You On” on a calendar page while the sheriff waited outside to ambush her union organizer husband, only died in 1986, and that’s in a part of the country where we still name our kids after Civil War generals. Barbara Kopple directed “Harlan County, USA,” about a miner’s strike, only four years before I was born.

I get it – Paul is a libertarian who privileges the “free market” (a euphemism if ever there was one)* over the people working in that very free market. But many of those people gave their lives in Harlan County over the years, both in the mines and agitating to improve conditions in those mines. For Paul, the guy who wants Kentuckians to send him to D.C. to represent their interests, to be all, “Oh yeah, ‘Dukes of Hazzard’” is a slap in the face.

Of course, this is also the guy who thinks that blown-up mountains would make swell sports complexes. For elk and stuff (provided they don’t need clean water or anything).

And I’m not claiming that unions have a clean history. But I’d rather live in a world where workers can organize than one where bosses-cum-plantation masters get to make all the choices. And regardless of where you stand on organized labor, you can’t just pretend that it’s something a prospective U.S. Senator shouldn’t be vaguely aware of.

So, here’s a playlist for Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, with which he might begin the process of educating himself:
- Season One of “Justified,” just because
- The aforementioned “Which Side are You On” (Pete Seeger cover)
- “You’ll Never Leave Harlan Alive” (Brad Paisley or Patty Loveless)
- “Sixteen Tons” (by Get a Frakking Clue, Rand Paul… just kidding, it’s Tennessee Ernie Ford) (Johnny Cash’s cover is awesome, of course.)
- “The L&N Don’t Stop Here Anymore” (this one’s Kathy Mattea, but June Carter Cash has a kick-ass version on one of the Oxford American Southern Samplers)

*My great-grandfather was a blacksmith in the copper mines of East Tennessee blackballed for taking part in a 1933 strike – so much for his freedom to market – finally employed steadily 10 years later by the New Deal-funded TVA. That’s right. A father of five kids was prevented from finding work by a private company for asking assurance not to die every day – not merely at that private company, but anywhere in town – until a massive federal program gave him a job building a dam in another state. So now you know a lot about me.

Not a Mama, not a grizzly, but I can still growl

Am I the only one who thinks this new web video from Sarah Palin's SarahPAC is just a little condescending?



Titled "Mama Grizzlies," the video has Palin talking in voice over about how this election year will see a "mom awakening," over footage of women at protests, rallies, and otherwise getting involved in the political process. Unless I missed it, the video doesn't show the various women that Palin has endorsed for office, such as Nikki Haley in South Carolina and Carly Fiorina in California.

And - again, unless I missed it - nowhere do we see any non-white women. We also don't see women like Hillary Clinton (our country's third female Secretary of State out of the last four), or our own Governor Bev Perdue, or our female Senator Kay Hagan (who defeated Senator Elizabeth Dole), or our Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, who could well join Hagan in the Senate this year (which I think would make N.C. the only other state besides Maine with two female senators). For that matter, we don't see Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe. We don't see Condi Rice or Madeleine Albright. We don't see Sandra Day O'Connor. We sure as hell don't see Barbara Jordan.

That's what I meant by condescending. Women have *always* been involved in politics, even before we were allowed to vote. To me, this video's sole purpose is to make those few women (some of whom may not in fact have children!) who have never bothered to do their part as citizens feel better about their previous lack of involvement. It's just as annoying as the messages some of the "new left" was putting out circa 2006, which too often tipped into anti-Bush rage. But the problem is that frustration - well-informed or not - is not a substitute for competence.

It's not in any way feminist to suggest that women are automatically better at governing than anyone else, as if we have special woman powers that get super-activated if and when we procreate.

I think it's awesome that more people in general are paying attention to their government, because we need as many voices as possible if we're going to develop fair and effective policy. It's true that there are people who, because of the financial crisis, the wars, fascination with the president's skin tone, whatever, are looking at politics for the first time. That should absolutely be encouraged. But some of those people - because they are new to this - are ignorant of some pretty critical facts. That's not an insult, it's just a product of becoming aware of something you never really followed before.

And what those people - women AND men - need is not some cheering section assuring them that *they're* not the problem, that their outrage is sufficient. What they need is someone who thinks enough of their intelligence and dignity to say, "Welcome to the party! Here's a briefing book."

Is this a joke?

Really, this is like a bad parody. She's from Arizona, even!

Notice how we don't get to see what she actually hit with all those guns...

Sharron Angle: Asshat

My home state may have produced some face-palm-worthy politicians over the years, but I don't think even the likes of Jesse Helms would've gone so far as this. Sharron Angle, the Republican running against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, said in an interview earlier this year (which came to light this week) that she thinks that no one should ever get an abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. Why? Because she's a Christian, that's why.

Well, Sharron, I'm a Christian, too, and I think you're full of it. Shall we settle this with a game of rock-paper-scissors?

Look, I'm not going to tell Angle how she should interpret her beliefs, even if I think her interpretation is deeply flawed, both logically and theologically. (Why does a pregnancy from rape get to be part of God's plan, but a clinic in the pregnant rape victim's hometown doesn't get to be?) But since she's running for public office, I think it's fair to ask how her stated views will affect her votes on legislation.

Angle does not say - at least in this interview - that she believes X is wrong, and therefore the law should also prohibit X. But the fact that she didn't say "My personal beliefs are one thing and the law is another" indicates that she doesn't see a difference between the two. And that's scary. Because we don't elect senators to be our ministers. We elect them to pass laws.

Angle's comments here do nothing to assure voters that she understands her larger responsibilities to the public, aside from her personal feelings. To put this in perspective, the Senate to which Angle wants to be elected has the duty to confirm everyone from Supreme Court justices to ambassadors to Cabinet secretaries, all of whom have to bend over backwards to assure senators, under oath, that their personal feelings will not trump the laws they're being asked to enforce. Why shouldn't a prospective senator have to meet the same standard?

And, on a personal note... I think Angle's comments are ill-informed at best. And that's a phenomenally restrained assessment on my part. Someone who has been sexually assaulted, especially a child (who the stats show was likely victimized by a relative or close family friend), has enough to deal with without hearing a U.S. Senator tell her that she's a sinner. No, Angle didn't use those words. But any religious person will have no trouble drawing the conclusion that, if X is "God's plan," then doing the opposite of X is counter to that plan, a.k.a. sin.

If the people who think as Angle does were truly compassionate toward these victims, they wouldn't be lecturing them from on high about "God's plan." They'd be down on the front lines - the hotlines, the victim services, etc. - and then maybe they'd learn a little humility.

Rand Paul has the freedom to read a history book, and he should use it ASAP

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to do a story for the college’s magazine about an alum who’d written a book about his time as a state attorney in Florida during the Civil Rights Movement – in particular, the battle to integrate public facilities in St. Augustine in the summer of 1964. It was fascinating to hear a first-hand account from someone who’d been intimately involved with the protests and counter-protests of the SCLC and KKK in America’s oldest city.

One of the SCLC’s targets was a motor lodge with a public pool, neither of which allowed black customers. Another was St. Augustine’s public beach, where police literally chased black children out of the ocean during their “swim-ins”. The people who tried to physically integrate these places weren’t just kicked out; they were jailed for trespass, even shot at in their homes and churches.

The period of the Civil Rights Movement is full of stories like this. These incidents – which didn’t take place that long ago – are a big part of the reason that I could never be a libertarian in the mold of Rand Paul.

Paul (son of Rep. Ron Paul) has had an eventful week. He won the Kentucky Republican Senate primary on Tuesday, gave an interview to NPR where he vacillated on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and has now spent the rest of the week explaining that, while he “abhors” racism and probably would’ve voted for the law, he disagrees in principle with federal laws (also including the Americans with Disabilities Act) that tell privately owned businesses what to do. (I’m sure it was taxing, but wussing out on “Meet the Press” is just silly.)

Paul’s libertarianism has its appeal. But the “vote with your dollars” argument only works for people who HAVE the dollars, not to mention the freedom to use them without having to worry about the Klan fire-bombing their home. I don’t think Paul is a racist, but I do think he’s in desperate need of a history lesson.

The Civil Rights Act – debated, endlessly filibustered and finally passed during the same summer that the St. Augustine police were keeping the world safe for all-white swimming pools – has as its legal basis the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. If you’re the owner of a hotel, gas station, restaurant or any other business serving people traveling for business, then you can’t discriminate. (Well, you can, but there’s now a legal basis to sue you.) In other words, it’s an infringement on the federal government’s right to guarantee safe interstate travel if everyone can’t find a place to stay, eat, pee, etc.

This is probably not something you think is an issue if you’re not one of those people who, because of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., ever has to worry about finding a place that will welcome you. But it was a very real concern for African Americans (ever hear of sundown towns?), and unfortunately still IS an issue for too many people. (And Sen. Lindsey Graham agrees with me!)

The libertarian fantasy world aside, there is no such thing as a totally private business. Did you get a loan to start your restaurant? Do you get tax credits for your business? If it catches on fire, do you put it out with your own water hose (which is of course fed by the well that you dug with your own two hands)? Is your restaurant’s safety enforced by local police? (The sheriff in St. Augustine in the 60s was a member of the Klan, which I’m sure had no impact whatsoever on how black travelers “trespassing” in an all-white restaurant were treated.)

The Civil Rights Act may have been primarily concerned with racial discrimination, but there’s no doubt that it helps all of us. With no Civil Rights Act, and no later laws built on its precedent, what’s to stop a bank from refusing me a mortgage loan because I’m a woman, or not extending student loans to women or minorities? You can’t pull yourself up by the bootstraps if you can’t afford boots.

Or, as Sen. John Kyl put it: “I hope [Paul] can separate the theoretical and the interesting and the hypothetical questions that college students debate until 2 a.m. from the actual votes we have to cast based on real legislation here.”

Quickies

Too busy/tired/unfocused to write lately (including a clever intro to this post), so pretend these are all long, thought-out, witty entries fulll of insightful links instead:

- Tim Tebow's Super Bowl ad: he totally has a right to his opinion, but it's BS for CBS to ok this ad from Focus on the Family having rejected other "advocacy" ads (including those from other religious organizations. And PS, Sarah Palin, SHUT UUUUUUUUUUP. You're hearby never allowed ever again to brag about "choosing life" for yourself until you can come up with another word for "choice," since that's exactly what you'd take away from other women.

- Scott Brown: not a referendum on anything other than who people in Massachusetts wanted repping them in the Senate. Having done GOTV calls in local elections, I know that "protest voters" do exist (people who vote for Republican city council candidates b/c they don't like Obama) - but most people are smarter than that.

- Obama's proposed spending freeze: bad idea. Pissing off your base while not saving that much money. Don't cave to the deficit hawks.

- Rehiring David Plouffe: good idea. Wish it could've happened sooner.

- "Burr's Brigade": actually, I probably will write more about this later. Further proof that conservatives would rather fetishize military service than lower themselves to take part in it.

- Super Bowl: Go Saints! And somehow Peter King will still find a way to talk about Brett Favre for the next two weeks.

- Speaking of football... Having watched far more broadcast TV than normal over the past three weekends, I am prepared to shoot my TV set and burn down Madison Avenue if the following commercials aren't immediately retired: the Toyota one with the emo couple who can't find their retarded dog (he's prob as sick of those damned squeaky toys as I am); the one where the husband whose wife blew their Chase reward points on a dress without his consent takes her on a ski vacation and she still acts like a brat (bonus points for sensationally annoying background music); the one where people would be incapable of writing garage band songs/designing ugly clothes/dancing on subway platforms/fighting in the street, etc., without their Blackberries (even though all you need is love); any commercial where Howie Long looks like he's going to chop me up and hide my body parts in his extra-roomy Chevy (seriously, what's with the pedophile smile?); the one for that local car dealership starring seemingly everyone the dealer knows wearing reject Halloween costumes plus some ostensibly cute little kid who can't speak English; that supremely irritating Bud commercial showing all the various ways people carry multiple beers, which only serves to remind me of Bank of America Stadium's per-person beer limit.

Friends with money

There was a scene late in Monday’s season premier of “24” where ex-FBI agent Renee Walker is getting ready to go back under cover with a group of Russian gangsters she’d busted a few years previous, and our man Jack Bauer is trying to get her to go over the details of their fictional backstory. Renee, whose black eyeliner indicates that now she’s all edgy and stuff, snaps at Keifer that it doesn’t matter how detailed or well-rehearsed the story is. The gangsters will take one look at her and decide whether or not she’s legit.

I thought about that scene again this evening, listening to the news continue its freak-out over a) Scott “Cosmo” Brown’s 4-point victory in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, and b) the Supreme Court’s ruling today striking down some restrictions on corporate campaign contributions. (At the moment, Keith Olbermann’s in the next room telling me that it’s “this century’s Dred Scott decision.” Really? C’mon Keith, chill the frak out.)

While money will always play a role in who wins an election (not only allowing a campaign to buy ads and other materials, but signaling relative strength), the choice of candidate and strength of the ground organization will continue to be a bigger factor.

Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate in the Massachusetts election, didn’t run TV ads until about a week and a half ago. Worse than that, it’s been widely reported that she took a laissez-faire­ approach to knocking on doors and shaking hands. Had she flexed her ground game, she might’ve learned that voters even in flaming liberal Massachusetts are worried about spending, and that national health care reform doesn’t particularly resonate with them since they already have a state mandate to buy coverage (an initiative of former Republican governor Mitt Romney).

Face time with voters is always what wins elections, and it always will. Want to counter the message put out by corporate propagandists? Prove them wrong with your record, and then recruit volunteers to tell your story. If you aren’t willing and able to do that, then you probably don’t deserve to win.

I say, bring on the corporate propaganda – but only on the condition that their lobbies aren’t allowed to hide behind PACs with innocuous-sounding names like “Concerned Americans for America” or crap like that. If Blue Cross wants to send out mailers opposing health care reform, they need to carry, in bright red 16-point font, “Brought to You by the People You’re Paying $1,000 a month.”

"Let Bartlet be Bartlet"

I'm starting to think Aaron Sorkin is psychic... Back in the first season of "The West Wing," we got an episode about a president (a former college professor) mired in mediocrity after his first year in office; his administration had tried compromise on issues in order to walk the line in the middle of the road, and the result was a conventional wisdom that he was a disappointment (though he did succeed in nominating a Hispanic Supreme Court justice).

Cal Cunningham enters U.S. Senate race

Cal Cunningham, a veteran and former state legislator from Lexington, had initially demurred... but a healthy grassroots movement encouraged him to enter the race against Sen. Richard Burr next year. Along with N.C. Secretary of State Elaine Marshall and Kenneth Lewis, Cunningham will run in the Democratic primary next year.