Skip to content

Was Willard Wired?

In the interest of fairness (and in Willard’s case it’s hard to be interested), I must report that my source for the claim that Willard’s handlers admitted he takes direction at debates from a remote puppeteer (a la George Bush), now reports that his source is suspect.

This doesn’t mean that he wasn’t wearing a wire, only that there has been no admission. I guess I’m actually inclined to believe he wasn’t wearing a wire, since it would be far easier to just update his internal programming before every appearance.

Poor George, people are ignoring his economic miracle

We adjourned our Charter Revision Commission early enough to allow for members to watch the State of the Union. I’m no masochist, so I won’t be tuning in. In fact, I’ll soon be turning in, because I’m dead tired.

But I did want to point out this very interesting phenomenon, which Dean Baker points out at the American Prospect.

The New York Times reports this morning:

Mr. Bush has spent years presiding over an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of most presidents. Yet much to the consternation of his political advisers, he has had trouble getting credit for it, in large part because Americans were consumed by the war in Iraq.

There’s a similar lead in an article in the Day, which was culled from the Washington Post:

For years, President Bush and his advisers expressed frustration that the White House received little credit for the nation’s strong economic performance because of public discontent over the Iraq war. Today, the president is getting little credit for improved security in Iraq, as the public increasingly focuses on a struggling U.S. economy.

Apparently, the strong economic performance is proven by the fact that Bush and his handlers say there has been strong economic performance. The facts (in the form of average annual GDP growth), to which we reality based folks still cling, seem to state otherwise:

President Bush’s growth record is better than his father’s, but it is worse than the record of every other president in the last half century. It’s not clear why [other presidents] would be envious. It is also not clear what his political advisers have to complain about.

Yet complain they do, and in the fact free zone that is our mainstream media, that’s good enough. If they say economic growth has been strong under Bush, why look at the facts. After all, would Bush or his handlers lie to us?

Addendum: the other premise of these quotes is wrong too. Bush is not getting credit for the “improvement in Iraq” because 1) the surge has not succeeded on the terms on which it was sold, and 2) everyone suspects, and rightly so, that the situation will go south again soon.

Willard wearing a wire

Willard Romney’s campaign confirms that he wears an earpiece so that his handlers can feed him debate responses. I wonder if he wears it in other venues, and whether they tailor his responses to suit the audience of the moment.

The Day hearts USA Today

Today we readers of the Day are invited to vote among several new “looks” for the Day, each of which is a variation on the USA Today theme of less is less. Each dedicates more space on the lead pages (not sure about inside pages) to useless graphics. Needless to say, “none of the above” is not an option.

Perhaps it doesn’t matter. Of late, the Day has been following the Courant’s lead in headlining fluff. Recently, for example, we were treated to a front page story about a local lad who felt compelled to realize himself by going into the trade of boxing. It is not clear why we dedicating one’s life to bashing and getting bashed merited a front page, and of course, adulatory story.

The sad thing about all this is that there is no excuse for the trivialization of journalism at the Day. It is owned by a charitable trust. One purpose of the trust was to:

“preserve the newspaper as, to paraphrase Bodenwein’s will, a protector of the public interest and defender of the people’s rights.”

Too rich to fail

Query: should it make us feel better to know that the folks in the bottom 99% of the top 1% sometimes take a hit quite like that we bottom 99ers so often take from them? (Can you follow that?)

In today’s Times we learn that the guys most directly responsible for losing billions at the top financial institution (who often walked away with multi-million dollar severance packages) are being actively sought for high paying jobs to wreak destruction elsewhere, while the folks at the bottom of that section of the totem pole who were laid off due to the fallout from the havoc caused by those exalted few have few if any prospects for finding new jobs:

Under the stewardship of Dow Kim and Thomas G. Maheras, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup built positions in subprime-related securities that led to $34 billion in write-downs last year. The debacle cost chief executives their jobs and brought two of the world’s premier financial institutions to their knees.

In any other industry, Mr. Kim and Mr. Maheras would be pariahs. But in the looking-glass world of Wall Street, they — and others like them — are hot properties. The two executives are well on their way to reviving their careers, even as global markets shudder at the prospect that Merrill and Citigroup may report further subprime losses in the coming months.

Who can blame them. After all, no one but the looney left saw this one coming. In any event, they have precedent on their side:

Perhaps the most notorious example of failure leading to prosperity is John Meriwether. Ousted from Salomon Brothers in 1991 for his role in a bond trading scandal, he became a co-founder of Long Term Capital Management, the hedge fund that nearly collapsed in 1998, rattling markets worldwide. He has since founded a second fund, JWM Partners, with assets of around $3 billion.

More recently, Brian Hunter, the energy trader at Amaranth Advisors whose disastrous bets led to the disintegration of that $9 billion hedge fund, is now advising a private equity fund called Peak Ridge on starting a hedge fund. Howard A. Rubin, a trader at Merrill Lynch, who lost $377 million in 1987, quickly landed a job at Bear Stearns, where he had a successful career.

But for the relatively hapless folks occupying the lower rungs, things don’t look so good:

The quick comebacks of these executives stand in stark contrast to the plight of the hundreds of investment bankers who have received pink slips in the last two weeks. They also illuminate a peculiar aspect of Wall Street’s own version of a class divide. Senior movers and shakers often land on their feet, no matter how egregious the losses tied to them. The industry rank and file, however, from mergers-and-acquisitions bankers at Bank of America to sales executives in Citigroup’s hedge-fund servicing business, see their jobs eliminated despite being far removed from the subprime crisis.

Groton Dems pass resolution-but this is really yet another rant about the spineless Dems

I am proud to report that on Thursday our Groton Democratic Town Committee passed a resolution calling on our state legislators to require a special election in the case of a Senatorial vacancy. Based on the feedback we’ve gotten from some of those legislators there is no chance that our veto proof majority will pass such a statute because:

1. A couple of state legislators who plan to run for governor don’t want their own wings clipped, in the unlikely event they get elected; and because;

2. It wouldn’t “look good” for the Democrats to engage in such a raw exercise of political power, because it might look like an exercise of political power. Apparently it would be tacky to take advantage of political power. They’ll leave that to the governor.

Thus we see that our state legislature is pretty much the same as our national legislature: victims of the battered legislator’s syndrome. We see it in this morning’s Courant, where the Democrats whine about the fact that Jodi Rell is calling them soft on crime for not passing a “three strikes” law which has proven unworkable everywhere it has been tried. We see it in our national legislature, where Harry Reid is in the pre-cave stage on the FISA debate.

The Kennedys were reputed to live by a “Don’t get mad, get even”, code of conduct. That’s something that the Democrats here in Connecticut should consider whenever Rell engages in this type of political hit job. They have the power to hit her back where it hurts, but they have to be willing to do so. Instead they whine, and worry about whether they will “look good”, which they never do, since no one looks that good when they’re on their knees.

Republicans, on the other hand, don’t seem to care about whether they “look good”. In the U.S. Senate they are engaged in an exercise in raw political gamesmanship, threatening to filibuster any amendment to the FISA bill so that George Bush can excoriate the Democrats during the State of the Union address. Harry Reid appears to be maybe, finally, timidly learning that the proper response is to fight back, but unfortunately his method of “fighting” retains too much of the whine to do much good. He doesn’t understand that most of the country has long since accepted the fact that George Bush is a congenital liar, so no one would really be shocked, more likely they’d be pleasantly surprised, if Reid simply said that George Bush is lying about the FISA bill and he’s demanding telecom immunity only to make sure he can cover up his own criminal behavior. Not only would that constitute a bit of push back, but it’s the truth.

I’d say there’s a 90% chance that Reid will find some way to cave and give Bush what he wants. Here in Connecticut, the legislature will continue to get whipsawed by a third rate governor. Lucky for them, on the “three strikes” issue, they’ll likely find that it’s an issue about which voters will show more maturity than the politicians or the press.

UPDATE: A commenter asks if I have the language for the resolution. I actually drafted the resolution, but all the inflammatory stuff I put in about Lieberman was removed, as well as a lot of other whereases, so it’s now definitely the work of a committee. It reads as follows:

Whereas, Connecticut law currently provides that if a
U.S. Senate seat becomes vacant the Governor selects a
replacement who serves until the next federal election
and

Whereas, no person, not even the Governor should have
the power to select the person who will represent over
two million citizens of the State of Connecticut in
the United States Senate;

Now, therefore, we, the Groton Democratic Town
Committee, urge our legislators in the Connecticut
House of Representatives and the Connecticut Senate to
use their veto proof majority to amend Connecticut law
to provide that U.S. Senate vacancies shall be filled
by special election.

UPDATE TWO: In view of the comments below, I should add that the Town Committee also cut language (the “other whereases” to which I referred) about the possibility of Dodd leaving the Senate from the resolution. In my own view, he would be an ideal VP choice if Obama got the nomination, and he could certainly ably fill a top Cabinet position. While I admire and respect Andy Maynard, I respectfully disagree that now is not the time to do this. Not only is it the right thing to do, but there will never come a time when it is done except when the sitting governor is a member of the party in the minority in the legislature. It will always draw charges that it is politically motivated. Almost everything Rell does is politically motivated (witness the ‘soft on crime’ stuff referenced in the post), and it hasn’t seemed to hurt her at all.

Friday night Zappa

A couple of days ago I thought I’d try to find some Frank Zappa for a Friday night concert. What brought Frank to mind was this post on Americablog, that featured this video appearance of Frank on Crossfire.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc[/youtube]

He makes them all look sort of stupid, doesn’t he?

Zappa was a musical genius, but he’s not everyone’s cup of tea, and the pickings on youtube, though many in number, are rather sparse from a musical variety point of view. I’m no prude, but I’m not interesting in offending, so some of the classic stuff is sort of off limits. Then there’s the bizarre, such as the clip here of a very young and conservatively coiffed Zappa on the Steve Allen Show playing the bicycle. Yes, you read that right. Steve actually had Zappa on for almost 15 minutes (the video is in two parts). I finally settled on this, which features some great guitar playing.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_i_HVBD9ks[/youtube]

Choosing delegates

A recent commentor asks about the way in which delegates are apportioned in the primaries. I did some digging, and here’s what I found. Start with state law:

Sec. 9-473. Notification by party chairmen of delegates allotted. Not later than the fourteenth day before the day of the primary, the chairman of each party shall certify in writing to the secretary the number of delegates to which such party is entitled pursuant to its rules. If such rules provide that such delegates are to be chosen from districts, the chairman shall also certify the number of delegates allocated to each district and the number to be selected at large, if any. Such rules may (1) prescribe a formula for the allocation of delegates to candidates based upon the percentages of the total votes cast for such candidates at the primary, or (2) require all delegates shall be allocated to the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes notwithstanding such candidate’s percentage of the total votes cast for all candidates. If such rules prescribe a formula for the allocation of delegates to candidates based upon the percentages of the total votes cast for such candidates at the primary, the chairman shall also certify such formula and all information necessary for the application of such formula to the results of the primary. The chairman shall furnish to the secretary, upon request, a written interpretation or explanation of any application of such formula.

As I read this, the state gives the parties the right to allocate votes on an apportioned basis, or hold a winner take all primary. I then went to the Connecticut Democratic Party’s truly awful website, and after following some non-intuitive links, found this pdf (Connecticut Delegate Selection Plan) which sets forth the delegate selection rules. As I understand it from a quick read delegate are chosen on a district level basis, with districts with a higher level of Democratic voters in the last two elections getting more district delegates. The district delegates must accurately reflect the preferences of the voters within that district. This language from the Selection Plan sums it up:

The Connecticut presidential primary election is a “binding” primary. Accordingly, delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated so as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential (or uncommitted) preference of the primary voters in each district. The National Convention delegates and alternates selected at the district level shall be allocated in proportion to the percentage of the primary vote won in that district by each preference, except that preferences falling below a 15% threshold shall not be awarded any delegates or alternates.

So, unless I’m missing something, the district delegates will reflect the percentages in that district. You can probably hypothesize some bizarre circumstances in which a candidate received a disproportionate number of votes (when compared to his or her statewide results) but it seems unlikely that in practice there would be any wildly inappropriate outcomes. It may be that a similar system was the cause for the fact that Obama got more delegates in Nevada (I think it was Nevada) than Hillary, despite his second place showing.

Finally, a candidate must make a threshold showing in order to get any delegates. I.e., if you get 1% of the vote, you are not getting one percent of the delegates. The threshold changes depending on the percentage of the vote obtained by the winning candidate. The default threshold is 15%, but in the case where no one gets more than 15%, the threshold is the percentage obtained by the leading candidate, minus 10%

Connecticut chooses 31 district level delegates. The balance of the delegates include 11 super delegates, and some at large delegates chosen by a committee made up of district level delegates, so presumably the at large delegates should reflect the electoral results, unless by the time they are selected one or more candidates have withdrawn. Here’s a table from the Selection Plan (click to enlarge).

delegates.jpg

So, to answer the commentor’s ultimate question, a vote for someone other than Hillary or Obama is worth casting, so long as 15% of the voters in your district agree with you.

Documenting the lies

The Center for Public Integrity has created a database of all the lies told by Bush, his puppeteers, and his cronies in the run up to war. Some of the pages seem to be blank, at least when I went there, but there’s still plenty of material. Take a walk down memory lane, look for your very favorite lie, or as the site calls them, “false statements”.

New rules in the Senate

Harry Reid teams up with Mitch McConnell to lecture Chris Dodd: only Republicans get to declare filibuster and win. Democrats, members of the majority party, members of Reid’s own party, have to actually filibuster. New rules: it takes 60 votes to get something Democrats want; it takes only 51 to get something Republicans want, and to this day, it takes only a word from George Bush, the worst and most unpopular president in history, and he gets what he wants.

What are Hillary and Obama, alleged supporters of Dodd’s filibuster, actually going to do to support him? Nothing, most likely, though a word from either would probably stop Reid in his tracks.

More on this here and here.