Archive

  • 1994=2004

    With DeLay sinking ever deeper in his ocean of ethical violation, DCCC chief Rahm Emanuel has decided to capitalize: Democratic House leaders are casting about for squeaky-clean congressional candidates — even if they’re long shots — to challenge prominent GOP incumbents who have been tainted by news reports of their allegedly unseemly connection to lobbyists. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) strategy, still in development, aims to make ethical charges the touchstone of those campaigns and would use several high-profile local races to create a national image of corruption in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives. Several Democratic lawmakers and aides said that Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) will be the first target of this new strategy. Explicitly borrowing from the anti-corruption planks in Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America,” and hoping to replicate the 1994 watershed victory that followed, the new plan suggests that Democratic leaders believe they need to...
  • Auditing the Tax Plan

    I'm not sure Brad Plumer's comments on CAP's tax reform plan are fair. While he's right that raising revenues to 17.2% of GDP isn't enough to close the deficit, this plan isn't really a tax proposal ready for implementation, it's a tax proposal ready for prime time. The aim of it, quite overtly I think, is to offer Democrats something that is responsible (though not perfect), that is attractive, that gives most Americans tax cuts, that broadens the tax base, that solves Social Security, that's pretty progressive, and that lays out a vision of what tax reform should look like. This way, Democrats can spend their time on the Sunday shows debating whose proposal offers larger tax cuts, more help to the middle class, and more incentives for the poor (as in the restoration of the EITC for single-parents who get married), rather than whether tax reform is a good idea or not. We need to be responsible in what we put forth, but considering our ability to pass the plan is roughly commensurate...
  • Color Me Puzzled

    Kevin takes another dive into the why-women-don't-blog waters and surfaces with some theory-backing mermaids from the op-ed pages. He also catches this from Dahlia Lithwick : And so a clutch of women are left on the pink margins of the page, to wring our hands and, well, discuss among ourselves. The subtext will thus remain that anyone choosing to speak out on this is somehow hysterical or overemotional; that this is not a "serious" problem since serious people (i.e., men) aren't addressing it. All of which practically guarantees that nothing will be done about defining, measuring, or redressing the issue in the long term. Claims that no man wants to step on the landmine of political correctness, gender stereotyping, and identity politics should not justify bowing out of the conversation. Maureen Dowd, Deborah Tannen, and Anne Applebaum are smart, serious people. They have taken the time to initiate a conversation. They deserve serious responses from men and women alike. It's striking...
  • Big Media Me

    Tomorrow, I'll be on MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast , doing a round-the-blogs segment. It'll be the 5pm Eastern/2pm Pacific show, towards the middle of the hour, so those who'd like to see me live should tune in. Oh yeah, did I mention it's live? If I call MSNBC CNN, Monica Crowley Michael Crowley , or otherwise make some horribly embarassing gaffe that blackballs me from media forevermore, it'll all be caught on tape. So tune in for me and the possibility of wacky hijinks! How can you lose?
  • Freedom From Fear

    If you read nothing else today, make it Mark Schmitt's piece on merging the security theme Democrats are finding in Social Security with opportunity. I've been beating this drum for awhile (and others have been pounding on it long before me), but it couldn't be more important. The Democrats are currently trapped in a war of outdated critiques. Will we move towards an archaic populism that pretends we can stop outsourcing, or will we embrace a Republican-lite philosophy of corporate cronyism? We've apparently settled on a weird state between the two, and so we spend a few months after every election yelling at each other over the incoherence of our position. There is, as Joe Klein would term it, an information age (or post-industrial) populism ready to be assumed by the first party to grab it. Better yet, it fits perfectly with the current priorities and crusades of the Democratic party. Simply put, the government exists to reduce risk to the worker so they have more freedom to take...
  • Parties Matter

    Responding to me, Matt writes : the politics of security are largely about image (the politics of everything are), but the important thing to note is that you can't just whip up some issues and an "image" cooked to order when it comes time to run a presidential campaign. You need to have some idea of what it is you're trying to market, and some experience with various people actually trying to market it. And perhaps most important of all, one key element of "image" is not looking uncomfortable discussing these topics, and one easy way to do that is to actually be comfortable and confident that you know what you're talking about and understand where you want to take the country. That's absolutely correct. One reason it's so much easier for Republicans to be judged tough on security is that any of them can do it, no experience required. Ronald Reagan was a former actor and Governor of California who was elected during the height of the Cold War. His foreign policy background didn't...
  • Globalization Express

    Emptywheel calls in with a hell of a post on the people who act as globalization's foot soldiers. A must-read.
  • Condi and Karen

    During today's press conference , Bush said something striking about Karen Hughes' new position: I applaud Secretary Rice's decision to include Karen in the process. I thought that was very wise of her to call upon Karen's talents. This could be nothing more than his usual M.O of pretending total ignorance over everything that happens in government (I still love watching him talk about the privatization plan he doesn't have right before he defend the plan he's put forth), certainly wouldn't be the first time he acted like newborn babe stunned by the strange workings of Washington. But assume he's being honest, that Rice actually did generate the idea to bring Hughes into the fold. Pretty fucking smart. I'd take that as evidence that Rice is making determined moves to consolidate her power in the administration. Bring Hughes in, treat her well, and suddenly you have the only force able to counterbalance Karl lined up on behalf of Condi's proposals. It'd make intra-administration...
  • Announcement

    Finals suck. That is all.
  • Tax Reform -- Now With 50% Less Yawning

    I'm going to second Matt on this one -- the Center for American Progress's brand-spankin-new tax proposal is really very good, even to an untrained eye like my own. Those of you wanting the full rundown can find it here (warning: 32 page PDF), but most will probably opt for the two page executive summary . Democrats would be smart to find themselves a few days lull during the Social Security fight and switch gears to blitzing for tax reform. Our tax reform. Because CAP has released a proposal that is, in fact, very good politics. Most Americans would love to see the SS portion of their payroll taxes eliminated, with Social Security now being funded through a guaranteed 2.25% allocation of GDP and a removal of the payroll cap on the employer side. Very smart politics, and very relevant to the current battles. And by changing the subject from Social Security and to tax reform, Republicans can no longer accuse us of lacking a plan, but the subject switch will help bog down the...

Pages