The envelope, please
A nutty week in politics, as measured in awards
The envelope, please
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
It was a nutty week like any other, perhaps moreso...
Democratic sleaze pit of the week. Put your hands together for Illinois. The ex-governor, Democrat Rod Blagojevich, was just re-indicted on 24 counts. The new Democratic senatorial nominee (chosen in Tuesday's primary) used to be the veep of a bank that loaned millions to shady characters, including a convicted bookmaker who ran hookers. The new Democratic lieutenant gubernatorial nominee was pinched by the cops a few years back for holding a knife to his girlfriend's neck; this happened shortly after his wife filed for divorce and asked the court for a protection order. Illinois Democrats did manage this week to re-nominate incumbent governor Pat Quinn - despite his chief rival's TV ad, which featured 1987 footage of Chicago Mayor Harold Washington complaining about how Quinn was "a totally and completely undisciplined individual who thinks this government is nothing but a large easel on which to do his PR work." There's no way to know whether Washington still feels this way, because he's dead. No word yet on whether Washington voted in Tuesday's Democratic primary.
Republican smear artist of the week. That would be Mitch McConnell, Senate leader of the No brigade. Even though FBI director Robert Mueller testified on Capitol Hill the other day that the failed underpants bomber has cooperated with the FBI's counterterrorism agents - "It is a continuum in which over a period of time, we have been successful in obtaining intelligence, not just on day one, but on day two, three, day four, and day five, down the road" - McConnell has twice denigrated the FBI agents by comparing them to a certain softball pitcher with suspenders. McConnell on Fox News: "Probably Larry King has interrogated people longer and better than that." McConnell on CNN: "I mean, Larry King would have a more thorough interrogation of one of his witnesses than the Christmas bomber had by the Justice Department." (McConnell also says it's outrageous that the failed bomber is being processed through the civilian court system - forgetting, naturally, that the Bush administration successfully processed roughly 150 terrorists through the courts, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid and al Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui.) Anyway, with respect to McConnell's Larry King analogy: Isn't there something a tad odious about a Republican seeking to score partisan points by denigrating the FBI?
Polling statistic of the week. Every so often, in this space, I find it useful to highlight the baseline obliviousness of our fellow Americans. The latest Pew Research Center poll features a News IQ Quiz, and it's a doozy. How many Senate votes are required to break a filibuster and move legislation to passage? Only 26 percent of the public knows the correct answer (60). And how many Senate Republicans voted late last year to pass the health care reform bill? Only 32 percent of the public knows the correct answer (zero, zip, nada). The shares are even worse among young people (ages 18-29, Barack Obama's strongest '08 cohort); only 14 percent know how many voters break a filibuster, and only 16 percent know that the Senate GOP was a total No on health reform. No wonder the Republicans aren't paying any political price for their obstructions (the latest classic: Alabama Senator Richard Shelby puts a "hold" on 70 Obama nominees because he thinks his state isn't getting enough federal pork). Most Americans simply tune out what's going on.
Grumpy old man of the week. John McCain, of course. Back in 2006, America's "maverick" said that if our top military officials were to agree that gays can serve openly in the military , "then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it, because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to." But after our toppermost military official - Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs - endorsed open service on Tuesday, McCain told a right-wing radio host, "I'm not changing my position." Meanwhile, seven months ago, McCain said this: "The reason why I supported the (gays in the closet) policy to start with (in 1993) is because General Colin Powell, who was then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the one that strongly recommended we adopt this policy in the Clinton administration. I have not heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position." Well, guess what: General Powell has now reversed his position, declaring the other day that "attitudes and circumstances have changed." McCain's response? Nah, that doesn't count, either. It appears that McCain's desire to guard his right flank in the upcoming Arizona GOP senatorial primary (from two right-wing challengers) is compelling him to strip away the last vestiges of his integrity.
Democratic storm warning of the week. The polls have been reporting for months that Republican voters are far more energized than Democratic voters; if true, this "enthusiasm gap" could hurt the Democratic party, big time, in the November '10 congressional elections. And now, thanks to the turnout figures from the Illinois senatorial primaries, we have some tangible voting evidence that the gap indeed may be real. On Tuesday (at last count) 901,618 people voted in the Democratic contest, while 740,133 voted in the GOP contest. That's a very narrow difference, considering the fact that Illinois is a deep-blue Democratic state. Compare those figures with the senatorial primaries in 2004; the Democratic margin was roughly 2-1, with 1.24 million people voting in the Democratic contest and only 662,000 on the GOP side. If the Democrats in Washington want to ensure that their base remains demoralized in the fall, all they need to do is not pass any health reform.
And in closing, just two words: Go Saints.
Joe Funk : from the last blog - "That is akin to saying you must be a Roman Catholic priest to disagree with the Church's teachings. " - funny you picked an article of faith. My response would be that you could disagree with whatever you want. However to actually understand in depth the Church's teachings, how they evolved, and what they were intended to represent you probably would need a degree in divinity, or bible studies, or at least go through a lot of training. Sorry, attending CCD as a child (which I did) does NOT make me an expert on the teachings of the Catholic Church. Now more specifically, you at least need a basic understanding of statistics to evaluate the temperature data, what constitutes a trend, and leveling out the noise in the data (no one would ever expect to have temperature to go linearly up). You mention NASA and GISS data. this is from jan 21, 2010. "2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880. "... Hey, maybe you're right. You don't need to be a scientist. Now unlike you would do, I am NOT claiming that this is "proof" of global warming. It is simply one data point. However, if you string enough together, then it's a trend. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html— still_independent- Mike Welbourn : I agree with Nigel that the NYTimes should not have run the McCain story simply because they were afraid of being scooped. However, do you know that they violated their "two source rule" as you claimed. Probably not. You just didn't like the story. If you know that they did violate that rule, please post some proof of it... As to whom most of my posts are directed? I wouldn't bother to go back over them, but I'd reckon that the vast majority were directed at the SAME two or three conservatives. If the conservatives on this blog (which are the majority, oddly enough) tend to be the most factually challenged, then don't blame me. And a couple of the liberal posters are so incoherent that I don't bother. Let's see. I was against the healthcare bill. I loathe Obama's deficits. I think several departments of the goverment should go away (starting with the dept. of education). I am against renewal of the children's nutrition program. I am morally opposed to abortion. I did not vote for Obama. Or Corzine. Or Lautenberg. Boy, to I tow that liberal line. You conservatives assume that anyone that disgrees with you is a liberal. Or worse yet, anyone that challenges you factually is disagreeing with you philisophically. Maybe it's a perspective thing. If I say, "You know, tax cuts don't pay for themselves", maybe what you hear is "He's against tax cuts". I'm not. But the reality is they don't pay for themselves. In the end, call me what you like, I could honestly care less. Just be warned. In the upcoming midterm elections, and in 2012, I'm the swing vote. I'm where the elction is won. If I'm liberal, then so is more than half the country. .. All that being said, I have no problem debating with you as you seem reasonable.— still_independent
- Joe Funk : sorry, reposted on this thread before reading your response on the last. Any hoo - if i misinterpreted what you meant with the analogy then my apologies. Of course any informed person may have an opinion on the matter and be capable of some level of interpretation of processed data. However, only the specialized can interpret the raw data and offer conclusions. I claim no expertise in the field, but also offer up no conclusions on my own. Nor am I qualified to refute scientific evidence offered up by qualified scientists operating in a peer-review settings. I only combat conclusions offered by my fellow lay people based largely upon logic - such as citing US temperature data as evidence for or against global warming. Finally, I would offer back to you that the "ice age scare" in the 1970s was a media creation - good luck trying to find any scientific papers actually predicting it. There were only a handful by a handful of scientists. There were actually more warming papers than "ice age" papers during the 1970s. In any case, well reasoned debate is a nice change.— still_independent
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- still...remember you, as a lay person, are allowed to contradict the scientific establishment but your supporting data needs to be significantly greater than that required for a dissenting PhD chemist, who in turn would need more data than a dissenting meteorologist, who would need slightly more evidence than a dissenting climatologist. Academia cares about degrees, not science. Some of the best science in the world is done on the fringe by people who have not grown comfortable going to conferences. I still contend the Ice Age guys (safe assumption seeing it was the 60-70’s) were jealous of the ozone folks. Gotta dodge the blizzard (not a cheap dig, just a commuting reality)…until next time.— Joe Funk
- Still Independent- By "peer reviewed" do you mean the cabal of so called "climatoligists" who are on the research grant gravy train and dictate to everyone who who can be " peer reviewed " or not? Please spare me your nonsense.
- JWAD, is it necessary to call those who disagree with you idiots? I voted for Obama, and I have a good education, am fairly well read and have a good command of language. I'm not an idiot, just philosophically at odds with you. That shouldn't make me the enemy. Nor should you be my enemy. Now for a more practical question. How much snow is predicted there? I must say, I get a big smile on my face every time you face another blizzard. Not that I don't feel your pain, but I can say with pleasure that shoveling and driving in that mess are two things I don't miss one bit.— NigeltheMastiff
- swedesoboromike: ah, so now the peer review process is nonsense. Your understanding of what constitutes science and evidence is making more and more sense. Since you seem to view wikipedia as an authoratative source ... "In the case of proposed publications, an editor sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to researchers or scholars who are experts in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers"), nowadays normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system. Usually, there are two or three referees for a given article. These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author; scientific journals observe this convention universally. The editor, usually familiar with the field of the manuscript (although typically not in as much depth as the referees, who are specialists), then evaluates the referees' comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript, and the context of the scope of the journal or level of the book and readership, before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments. .... During this process, the role of the referees is advisory, and the editor is typically under no formal obligation to accept the opinions of the referees. Furthermore, in scientific publication, the referees do not act as a group, do not communicate with each other, and typically are not aware of each other's identities or evaluations. There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve consensus. "— still_independent
- "If the Democrats in Washington want to ensure that their base remains demoralized in the fall, all they need to do is not pass any health reform" -- I believe if the Democrats pass the current healthreform bill they'll be in worse shape with their base than not passing anything. Along with republican voters, large numbers of democratic voters do not like the bill that is being proposed.— Phillysub
- swedesboromike - research grant gravy train? Seriously? Do you ever know what you're talking about? These research grants are hardly large enough to cover basic operational expenses. And they certainly do not provide for extravagant salaries in any sense. Don't believe in climate change? Fine. But stop your stupd lying - it puts you in the flat-earth crowd.— LorettaL
- Still Independent- No, I think I have it quite clear, thank you. The problem is that the source of these errant forecasts and flawed interpretations are biased scientists, working with leaders of groups with the same thing in mind. Their goal is to have a significant influence on governmental policy as it relates to regulating carbon dioxide. A key element to success has been manipulated data and propaganda.
- smike: Flat-Earther, indeed.— LorettaL
- Smike - what was the manipulated data?— JimR
- Smike - what was the manipulated data?— JimR
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
