Archive

  • RAHMBO.

    RAHMBO. I think Ryan Lizza more or less has the goods in his rejoinder to Rick Perlstein 's piece , which had played down Rahm Emanuel and played up the netroots in assessing who should get the lion's share of credit for the Dems' House gains. Lizza points out that most of the candidates Perlstein cites as examples of netroots-backed and largely DCCC-ignored campaigns actually received plenty of financial and strategic support from the DCCC. Certainly, as in the case of John Hall in New York and many others, the DCCC attention and money came relatively late in the campaign as the races began to tighten and the DCCC expanded its roster of targets, and one can thus argue both that activists are the true source of such eventual victories and that the DCCC should have done more sooner; but each individual candidate always wants more resources from the DCCC and always thinks they're not getting enough fast enough, and weighing counterfactual claims becomes pretty difficult. At any rate, I...
  • ROVE, MANDATES, AND...

    ROVE, MANDATES, AND POWER. I agree with Matt and Garance (who has a new blog ) regarding Karl Rove -- 2006 should finally put to rest the idea that having a better record running national elections than Bob "Losing Pitcher" Shrum makes you some kind of super-genius. I would add to Matt's analysis and say that even as it turned out, the 2004 outcome was in context highly unimpressive -- a wartime incumbent in a decent economy against a candidate nobody regarded as strong should do a lot better than the small margin Bush eked out. (The justly maligned Shrum actually had a better campaign, in that context.) Matt also makes a good point , however, when he says that while Rovism was problematic as an election strategy it was more successful at achieving (admittedly appalling) policy ends. The one important insight Rove had is the fact that the "mandate" is a concept with no content and does not in and of itself produce any constraints. While the Broders and Kleins of the world were...
  • VIEW ON GATES FROM INSIDE THE CIA.

    VIEW ON GATES FROM INSIDE THE CIA. I just talked with someone we'll call a former senior intelligence official about the end of Rummy and the era of Bob Gates at the Pentagon. He's not very keen. Asked about Gates's rocky relationship with Dick Cheney, the ex-official comments, "That's for sure, with Cheney. Each time you think Bush realizes that Cheney doesn't give him the best advice, he just takes it. It's hard to see anyone defeating Cheney for Bush's mind." So what does that mean for changing course? Not going to happen. "The hope what's going to happen with Congress -- gridlock, and that's not such a bad thing. You know, when you're in a hole, stop digging." Also, what's it mean that Gates was accused of cooking intelligence in the 1980s? "Well," the source laughs, "that's what they're looking for, and so they've found the perfect guy." --Spencer Ackerman
  • GATES AND THE UNDEAD.

    GATES AND THE UNDEAD. Sometimes, I bore the youngsters with tales of the Iran-Contra scandal, and I scare them with stories of how the Undead -- Abrams , Negroponte , etc. -- from that festival of criminality still walk the earth. Because its crimes went largely unpunished, it's in Iran-Contra where we clearly see not only the embryonic stages of the rogue authoritarian Executive, but also the very worst ways of dealing with it. The investigations of Iran-Contra -- whether it was the toothless Tower Commission or the feckless congressional probe that bungled the job so badly that it provided even Ollie North a loophole to dive through -- were an abject failure of the Great Men Of The Beltway theory of dealing with serious constitutional problems, a/k/a the Lee Hamilton Is McGyver Proposition. Hamilton helped make sure that Iran-Contra didn't too badly discombobulate the status quo, and now he's working on the problem of what to do in Iraq. I am not reassured. Anyway, the scandal had...
  • WHAT NOW?

    WHAT NOW? William Arkin has some of the smartest comments I've seen on what the Democrats' victory should mean for foreign policy: There is not going to be an immediate pullout from Iraq. It will take time, and there will have to be a plan for what happens the day after. A stubborn administration will have to be convinced -- and then forced -- to accept the war's over. The Democrats will have to take responsibility for the consequences of their demand to end the war. In the ways of Washington, Democrats in the House will hold high-profile hearings to prove their point and punctuate their displeasure with the administration. It will be a tricky balancing act for them: Renewed accountability and oversight on the one hand to distinguish themselves from the rubber stamp; not appearing to be floundering and without a plan on the other. Certainly in the short term, expect Democrat warrior-than-thou action to shift defense spending to the little from the big: more direct support for the...
  • THE DISENTHRALLING.

    THE DISENTHRALLING. The new Democratic congressional majority has no job more critical right now than forcibly disenthralling the national Republican party from its worst instincts, and from its reliance on the worst in American politics as its primary enabling mechanism. It has fouled the national discourse. It has blighted the national politics. It created the conditions that made the current Executive cargo cult not merely possible, but inevitable. (It's hard to know where to begin, but it might help if important government officials stopped taking these folks seriously .) For example, long ago, after being publicly humiliated by the Scopes verdict and the attendant national hooting, extremist American Protestantism sensibly withdrew from the national stage. However, in the 1970's, it came roaring back, thanks in part to the genius of Richard Viguerie . However, its revival was as a useful tool in the profane context of politics. Its revival was cultural and political, not...
  • FREE AT LAST.

    FREE AT LAST. Having listened all day yesterday to the bleatings on wingnut radio, I was struck by the let's-make-lemonade-out-of-all-this- Santorum happy talk bubbling forth from the superstars of Radio Wingnuttia. They were happy -- nay thrilled -- not to have to defend any more the boobs, hucksters, and ideological turncoats of the Republican congressional majority. Neil Boortz was overjoyed, and Rush Limbaugh sounded like he was only eight milligrams short of religious ecstasy. Which reminded me of this stirring passage from a great national leader: Relieved from the necessity of guarding cities and particular points, important but not vital to our defense, with an army free to move from point to point and strike in detail the detachments and garrisons of the enemy, operating on the interior of our own country, where supplies are more accessible, and where the foe will be far removed from his own base and cut off from all succor in case of reverse, nothing is now needed to render...
  • Investment Advice Based on Projections of Exploding Health Care Costs

    It just keeps getting worse. The NYT's "Economic Scene" is giving advice on investment based on the assumption that income tax rates may increase by 80 percent (that's percent, not percentage points) in the future. What is the basis for this projection? The basis is deficit projections that assume that per capita health care costs rise to 4 or 5 times the level in countries like Canada and Germany. While this is not impossible, the best investment advice to give people planning retirement under such circumstances is to move to a country with a working health care system. Arghhhh, why does the NYT print such nonsense? -- Dean Baker
  • Alternative Minimum Tax : Millions, Billions, Whatever

    The NYT told readers today that reducing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) would "involve a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue." Hmmm, where could we find that money? Actually, they meant hundreds of billions -- that's what the bill would be over a ten year budget horizon. Depending on the exact fix, you're talking in the neighborhood of 1-2 percent of projected revenue. The more important mistake is that the article doesn't really explain what is going on with the AMT. The AMT was put in place in the 80s to ensure that wealthy taxpayers could not abuse tax shelters to completely escape tax liability. It was intended to only apply to the highest income taxpayers, however it was never indexed to inflation. Congress has always voted to raise the levels at which the tax kicks in, but on the books, it is fixed indefinitely at its current level. This means that when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projectes revenue, they make their projections assuming that the AMT...
  • POSTED ON TAP ONLINE.

    POSTED ON TAP ONLINE. Ezra debunks the goofy "conservatism won" spin. Eric Alterman reminds us of SecDef pick Robert Gates 's Iran-Contra past. And Spencer bids Rummy farewell -- and warns Iraq-hawk incompetence dodgers that they've just lost their favorite whipping boy. --The Editors

Pages