Tag Archives: Washington Post

George Will: I Don’t Know Anything About California Either!

I don’t know the last time George Will has actually set foot in California, but his complete hash of a column about the state suggests he doesn’t know a thing about it.  Most of it is a rehash of the same tired, false conservative tropes – that job creators are fleeing the state (not, um, true), that state spending is out of control (not, um, true), that public employees and their unions are bankrupting the state (California has the second-lowest number of full-time government employees per capita among all states, so, wrong again, George).  But putting that aside, it is simply astonishing that anyone could write an entire column about California budget issues without bothering to mention the inconvenient fact of the 2/3 requirement for budgets and taxes.  Will’s notion that the Democratic legislature has made the state “liberalism’s laboratory” cannot be reconciled by the conservative veto over any tax hikes or budget solutions.  

Unsurprisingly, Will (who probably got paid handsomely by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to write this drivel) rejects the May 19 ballot measures, as do Calitics.  But he completely and totally misreads the issues facing the legislature, the structural constraints upon them, and the solutions necessary to move the state forward.  Showing himself to know nothing about California, maybe Will should stick to lying about climate change repeatedly.

The Washington Post Gets It All Wrong

Californians know how important a second stimulus is, which is why it is so frustrating when publications closer to the city where these decisions are made fail to understand or simply neglect many of the facts associated with a second stimulus package.

Last week the Washington Post Editorial Board came out with an editorial blasting a second stimulus package as an unnecessary election year ploy:

We understand the political logic of a second stimulus; the economic case is less convincing. Any fiscal stimulus must be targeted, timely and temporary. That is, it must put money in the hands of people who are likely to spend it quickly — while not committing the federal government to new long-term spending.

Naturally to make their case the Ed Board selectively picks and chooses which parts of the stimulus package to highlight.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called for a $50 billion package, possibly including increases in food stamps and home heating assistance as well as more Medicaid money for states and new infrastructure spending. Fleshing out Ms. Pelosi’s concept, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) has unveiled $24 billion in proposed energy, infrastructure and disaster relief money.

We’ll move beyond the fact that many people think supplemental medicaid funding is a really good idea to the more pressing point; the Wapo Editorial Board failed to mention or mention only in passing two plans that many experts say should be the staples of any second stimulus package; aid to states and infrastructure spending. AWall Street Journal article from last month (subscription only) shows Congressional leaders getting on board with the idea so I am lost as to why it received no attention in the Op Ed:

The bill, which would likely include spending on road projects and aid to stated, isn’t expected to come up in the House until September

We proved earlier this year that stimulus checks on their own are not the solution to the nation’s economic woes. However not recognizing the obvious need for help that states have been screaming about over the last several months is just irresponsible. Not to mention their editorial reads just barely on the sane side of illogical.

Their suggestion that we don’t know the effects of the first stimulus yet is asinine. The Post even admitted this on Thursday. On page 10 of the Washington Post Express they ran an article entitled “Stimulus Checks Run Out”

Analysts said retail sales would have been more feeble without the $92 billion in rebate payments the government sent out in May, June, and July. Those checks helped to counter plunging home prices, rising unemployment, and soaring gasoline prices.

The bulk mailings are now over, though, leaving economists worried about what will happen next.

WaPo can’t have it both ways. They can’t report that the stimulus checks are running out but then opine that we shouldn’t have a second stimulus because we don’t know the effects of the first.

And sure gas prices have been falling over the last couple of weeks, but today’s national average for a gallon of gasoline is still $3.77. Am I glad its down from the high of $4.11 that we saw in mid July? Yes. Am I convinced that this means I don’t have to worry about gas destroying my wallet? Absolutely not.

According to the Fuel Gauge Report, gas is still $4.07 in California where their budget crisis has gotten so bad that over 200,000 state employees had their pay rolled back to minimum wage. It’s $3.89 in Michigan, where unemployment is skyrocketing. Its $3.98 in New York where Governor Patterson has been forced to slash medicaid by $500 million this year and $1 billion next year. The relief at the pump will be short lived because state governments don’t have the resources to ensure normal citizens won’t feel the pain of floundering state economies.

The Washington Post should know better. After all, the situation is going from bad to worse in their own back yard. A Richmond Times Dispatch article has Governor Kaine says the budget shortfall could surpass $1 billion. This coming on the heals of cutting $2 billion out of the budget this year. He says he’s going to apply the same formula:

Kaine said he probably would apply the same basic principles to the next round of economies that he did previously — to not cut across the board but target more precisely areas that can be reduced. Some lawmakers and lobbyists aren’t sure that’s possible.

I’m not sure thats possible either. There are a limited number of areas that can be reduced before you start having to cut education, public safety, health, and other essential services. We may be months away from the endgame, but counties and cities are bracing for the worst.

“We expect, and are preparing for, very bad news,” said Michael L. Edwards, a lobbyist for the Virginia Association of Counties.

What the Washington Post fails to understand is that dealing with the nations economic problems has to go beyond fixes for the individual. I would love to receive another check in the mail but it’s not what’s going to fix this thing. The real solutions lie in federal aid to the states and spending on infrastructure, two moves that will help states who are being forced to make dramatic cuts to essential services and potentially create jobs in states were there are far two few of them. These solutions received little to no attention in the Op Ed, which is really the biggest flaw of all in the piece.

“Flag City” Just Another Media Myth About Obama

From today’s Beyond Chron.

Yesterday’s Washington Post had a front-page piece on Findlay, Ohio – the “Flag City” – where small-town voters in the ultimate swing state still believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim.  What the Post didn’t report is that Findlay voted 2-1 for George Bush in 2004, and in 2006 rejected Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown (who won a landslide victory statewide.)  It’s just the latest example of the media projecting the myth that the Presidential race is somehow close, and grasping for non-existent trends to keep it alive.

But reality says otherwise.  Women and Latinos who supported Hillary Clinton are flocking to Obama, despite the narrative that Democrats are “divided.”  State-by-state polls consistently show Obama on his way to surpassing 270 electoral votes – with hints that November could become a rout.  Even national polls with Obama ahead by double digits are dismissed as “outliers,” along with the constant reminder that Michael Dukakis blew a 17-point lead (without any context of two very different candidates).  The media won’t admit that the Presidential race is over, and Obama is going to win.

Eli Saslow’s Washington Post article was the worst example of “journalism by anecdote” – where a handful of interviews in a town most readers have never heard of is supposed to suggest a national electoral trend.  Apparently, some Findlay residents believe that Barack Obama is “a gay Muslim racist born in Africa who won’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance.”  That Findlay’s official nickname is “Flag City, USA” only feeds the perception that it’s Middle America – and the fact that it’s in Ohio (whose electoral votes swung the last election) suggests that where goes Findlay, so goes the nation.

But the Post failed to do what took me about five minutes to look up online.  According to past election results, Findlay doesn’t represent Ohio – much less the nation.  In 2004, George W. Bush got 11,866 votes there compared with 5,724 for John Kerry – a two-to-one margin that far outpaced Bush’s statewide victory.  Even in 2006, when Ohio swung Democratic and booted out a longtime Republican Senator, Findlay stuck with the G.O.P. incumbent by a twelve point margin.

If the Post interviewed voters in Harlem to gauge what’s going on with the Obama-McCain race, they would be ridiculed for asking a sample of voters who don’t “represent” America.  But here they get away with painting a picture of this election based on a small Republican town.

Saslow’s piece did indicate one statistic that’s supposed to alarm pundits about Obama’s chances in November – one in 10 Americans falsely believe that the Illinois Senator is a Muslim.  But more Americans than that believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, or that Iraq was linked to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  When we hear malicious rumors meant to undermine Obama’s candidacy, journalists fail to ask if those who believe them would ever support him in the first place.  As Randy Shaw wrote, Barack Obama is perceived as a weak candidate because he’s failing to get the racist vote.

But anyone who closely follows the election online knows that Obama has solidified the Democratic Party base – and is on a clear path to winning the presidency in November.  After Hillary Clinton suspended her primary campaign and endorsed Obama, pundits wrote (and still write) stories about disgruntled Hillary supporters who will vote for John McCain in the November election.  Women are not supposed to vote for Obama because, according to Geraldine Ferraro, he’s run a “terribly sexist campaign.”  Latinos are supposedly too racist to vote for a black candidate – and pundits say a sizable number will vote Republican (ignoring the party’s xenophobic jihad on immigration policy.)

But the facts are getting into the way of that theory.  A recent poll shows Latinos breaking 62-28 for Obama over McCain, with other polls showing similar results.  When you consider that Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, it’s obvious that Latinos are deserting the G.O.P. in droves.  Along with labor’s unprecedented get-out-the-vote effort to target that community in November, Obama is likely to pick up either Colorado, New Mexico or Nevada – and possibly all three states.

And McCain has more to worry about Republican women deserting him than vice versa.  Not only have Democratic women united behind Obama, but polling shows McCain’s anti-choice record (once women hear about it) is going to be a huge liability.  “I’m sure there are female Hillary Clinton voters who will go for John McCain in the general election,” said Katha Pollitt in The Nation, “but I don’t think too many of them will be feminists. Because to vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane.”

Obama will win the general because he has a solidified lead in all the states John Kerry won in 2004 – even swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  While the blue states won’t be enough to win the Presidency, it prevents Obama from having to play defense – giving him 252 electoral votes in the bag and shifting the battle into traditionally Republican states.

To surpass the magic number of 270, Obama just needs to win all the Kerry states, Colorado (where he’s been consistently ahead in the polls) and Virginia (whose demographic shift favors Democrats.)  But Obama is likely to also win Iowa and New Mexico (Gore won both), and he’s ahead in Ohio – regardless of what people in “Flag City” believe.  Florida will be tough but winnable, while Nevada, Montana, Missouri and North Carolina are all still in play.  Even Georgia – where Obama is firing up the state’s many black voters and young voters, coupled with former Congressman Bob Barr playing spoiler for McCain – could generate an upset and help Obama win that state.

But what’s even more encouraging is how Obama’s strategy differs from John Kerry.  In 2004, Kerry’s chances dwindled as the campaign zeroed in on fewer swing states – precluding the odds of winning and not leaving much room for error.  When he stopped advertising in Arkansas and Missouri to focus on Ohio, he reduced his supporters in those states to mere bystanders.  But that won’t happen this time – with superior resources and more grassroots supporters, Obama is running a “50 state strategy” that will give all his supporters something to do.  The campaign is even putting money in states like Texas where they have virtually no chance of winning – but a little help could put Democrats running in targeted races over the finish line.

Nevertheless, the mainstream media still acts like this is a horse race – even when their own national polls show Obama winning by double digits.  Newsweek recently had Obama up by 15 points, while the Los Angeles Times had him up by 12 points – but the press dismissed these polls as mere outliers.  Of course, polls are just a sample of the electorate — and you can never be sure if a single poll is a fluke or an accurate trendsetter.  But when a series of polls start showing the same pattern, it becomes impossible to ignore.

Naturally, nervous Democrats refuse to believe that these latest polls show Obama is going to win – because they’re still haunted by the ghost of Michael Dukakis (who famously blew a 17-point lead in 1988.)  But Obama is not like Dukakis, Kerry or Gore – who failed to excite their base and resisted fighting back at the right-wing noise machine.  Not only has Obama proven a willingness to be a “street-fighter” in this campaign when he faces attacks, but the Democratic base is likely to turn out in droves for him – regardless of what they think his chances are at prevailing.

Because the media is fixated on the narrative that Democrats are divided and Obama is a “weak” candidate, they focus on any sign of his vulnerabilities without an overall context of what it means for the presidential race.  The fact that some voters in “Flag City” think that Obama is a Muslim doesn’t mean he will lose Ohio – and it certainly doesn’t belong on the front page of the Washington Post.  Democrats should work hard for Obama in the general election regardless of what the odds are – but they shouldn’t let the media’s myth cow them into believing John McCain has a shot.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco. He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

More on the Delegate Count

The best thing in the world about CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen is that the best way to reach her is through her Facebook page.  So she got back to me pretty quickly when I asked about this delegate situation.  I was wrong about a couple things.  The vote has not been certified, although I was led to believe that the counting had to stop within 30 days of the voting, which would have been March 4.  In fact, that may be true; but the county registrars have a few days left to report their results.  Also, it’s up to the state Democratic Party to award the delegates, but that’s based on the certified vote count in the respective districts.  The upshot is that the counties have to report by March 11, and Secretary of State Bowen will certify the vote by March 15.  Then the CDP will award delegates based on that.

So the numbers are still subject to change slightly.  But none of this should obscure the fact that, based on the current numbers, the delegate count is 203-167.  And the zombie lie that it’s different has spread to the pages of the Washington Post:

To be sure, Team Obama’s small-state strategy may have been the candidate’s only option against a far-better-known opponent, and it has worked. In the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests that Obama’s campaign staff had hoped to merely survive, Obama and Clinton just about broke even. He won more delegates in Kansas and Idaho than she won in New Jersey. Her big win in California — with its net gain of 41 delegates — was negated by his wins in Georgia and Nebraska.

Except the net gain is currently 36 delegates, but what the hell do I know, I’m not some big-city editor.

WaPo on Tauscher

(Oh, sweet, Ms. Tauscher has also narrated a slideshow. Apparently, the bankruptcy bill was A-OK with her conscience. There’s also going to be a chat tomorrow at 8AM California time on politics, and I’m sure this topic will come up. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

In what can only be described as a delightful day in the life of Ellen Tauscher, the Washington Post took a front-page look at the contest in CA-10.

Tauscher was reelected with 68 percent of the vote, but she said she takes this threat seriously; she has already used it in fundraising appeals. And though she has always highlighted her independence — shortly before the election, she warned Democrats not to “go off the left cliff” — she’s now emphasizing her party loyalty.

She was once the only California Democrat to oppose Pelosi’s campaign for leadership, but she now marvels that the speaker’s performance has been “absolutely perfect — and she looks so beautiful doing it!” Tauscher’s Web site no longer features photos of her with Bush or Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), who lost a Democratic primary of his own last year.

Follow me over the flip.

I spoke to Michael Grunwald for this article (my quotes appear in the middle of the article), and while the quotes seem grammatically akward, they are fairly representative of our discussion.  The authors explore Tauscher’s strengths (pork and fundraising) and weaknesses. 

They spent a little time talking to Markos, but they don’t mistake him for a “raving idealogue”, opting for a softer sheen on the right’s new boogey man:

That’s why Kos has promised “a vicious fight for her seat.” He’s often portrayed as a raving ideologue, but he’s really a savvy strategist; he has no problem supporting conservative Democrats in conservative districts such as new Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.). But he sees no need to tolerate a DLC type in Tauscher’s district, where Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) received 58 percent of the presidential vote in 2004. And he said that primaries are the only way to force incumbents with safe seats to pay attention to constituents.

“We’re creating real democracy,” he said.

Sure, some might call challenging an incumbent risky, or dangerous.  But, is a little democracy really more dangerous than this:

Tomorrow, the House will consider S. 256, The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act. We write to let you know that final passage of the Bill will be a key vote for the NDC and to encourage you to support this common-sense, bipartisan legislation. (Calitics)

Yeah, I know that incumbency is powerful, and incumbency makes the world go round.  But the primary is part of the American Democracy.  The primary is frequently the only time voters can influence their representatives.  But, as Hilda Solis  and Marcy Winograd can tell you, sometimes the tough fights are the ones you need to take on.