Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC, the McLaughlin Group, Dem, said on “Countdown” that Ann Coulter doesn’t really believe much of what she says. She fancies herself a comedienne, he says.
I don’t what’s worse: that she means it or thinks it’s funny. Or that O’Donnell is letting her off the hook.
This race might be interesting.
There’s a story about a Republican consultant — I don’t remember the name — who upon seeing George W. Bush give a concession speech on TV — I believe it was his congressional race in 1978 — said, “There’s a winner.” The sound wasn’t even turned up, but he liked the body language, thinking Bush’s body said confidence.
I don’t know whether I buy that body language is why people elect presidents, but certainly they way one performs on TV is important.
I make the following comments without having seen the second half of the interview. The video link at MSNBC is flawed and ends with the commercial break in the interview.
In last night’s “Hardball” debate, Harris Miller looked a little stiff. In personal appearances, I’ve thought Jim Webb was stiff. In the remaining days, there’s not much to do about TV appearances, but somebody should have trained Miller better. He needed to lower his head, turned his shoulders every so slightly and occasionally and very briefly looked downward from the camera. That being said, his performance wasn’t bad.
Webb had the advantage to be in the studio, which any politician should opt for when possible. Listening to the question and responding over an earpiece is harder than locking eyes while a person asks a question. Webb looked less stiff, though hardly at ease. He also didn’t perform badly.
Chris Matthews, however, was horrendous. Why people can’t deal with him is beyond me. His constantly interrupts in virtually every interview he does, even with his round table discussions with other journalists (though I don’t really put Matthews in that profession). There’s a way to for interviewees to deal with that effectively.
Every politician should memorize his answer for times like this. One easy way to respond to Matthews badgering is to answer a question with a question. When haranguing Webb about immigration, the first thing you say is, “Which question do you want me to answer first?” Matthews is predictable; he always interrupts. Another ahe answer for every such instance is this:
“Mr. Matthews (never Chris), I think your listeners care about this issue and want to hear a reasoned discussion. Your rudely interrupting your guests doesn’t help. I don’t think it serves listeners to hear a shouting match. So I will respect, listen to you and respond to your questions. I would appreciate your doing the same.”
On the immigration issues, he could have gone farther.
“Polls show that people understand the complexity of the immigration issue. They know we depend on immigrants for many of our goods and services. And our systems for verifying citizenship are notoriously inadequate. And your saying we should do a background check on people we might hire as to paint out homes or mow our grass just because they have an accent or are of a different color than us is bigotry in its worse form. My grandfather had a Scottish accent til the day he died, but he was a naturalized citizen. I think you owe immigrants an apology.”
I made the last part up, but if Webb had any dead relative who was a naturalized citizen, who could prove him wrong? And Matthews didn’t say color but let him correct you; he’s now on the defensive.
Turning the tables on an interviewer, when done calmly and respectfully not only puts a Chris Matthews type guy on the defensive, it gains you credibility and respect from the listeners for putting a blowhard in his place.
The downside, of course, is that you’ll never likely get invited on his show again. Which, come to think of it, is not much of a downside.
The U.S. Senate today failed to fully repeal the estate tax. As with the gay marriage amendment vote yesterday, proponents of eliminating what many have called the most progressive of all American taxes fell shorter than expected with 57 votes, mostly along party lines. Sixty votes were needed for cloture.
And as they did with the marriage amendment yesterday, key mainstream media helped Republicans by repeating their spin. The AP:
WASHINGTON — Senators voted Thursday to reject a Republican effort to abolish taxes on inherited estates during an election year with control of Congress at stake.
GOP leaders had pushed senators to permanently eliminate the estate tax, which disappears in 2010 under President Bush’s first tax cut, but rears up again a year later.
A 57-41 vote fell three votes short of advancing the bill. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the Senate will vote again this year on a tax that opponents call the “death tax.”
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate on Thursday killed a bill backed by President George W. Bush that would have permanently repealed estate taxes.
The Senate vote of 57-41, mostly along party lines, was three shy of the 60 needed for the measure to advance. The House of Representatives had previously passed a bill to wipe out what Republicans call the “death tax.”
Republican backers had acknowledged they were short of votes for full repeal, but they had hoped for an election-year debate and planned to offer an alternative that would have reduced the tax rate and exempted all but the wealthiest estates from the tax.
The New York Sun even put the GOP spin in its headline.
It’s one thing to allow the GOP to call it a “death tax;” it’s something else when the media does it for them. Would they call it the “Inherited Wealth Tax,“ “Future Investment Tax,” “Common Good Tax” or any other name those of us who support the tax would have it?
Today, on the Diane Rehm Show, the discussion on the estate tax included Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute arguing for repeal. He said it “suppresses savings and investment and business growth.” But that’s hogwash.
A recent Congressional Research Service report found that the estate tax’s net impact on private saving is unclear — it causes some people to save more and others to save less — and that its overall impact on national saving is likely quite small. “[I]f the only objective [of eliminating the estate tax] were increased savings,” the report concluded, “it would probably be more effective to simply keep the estate and gift tax and use the proceeds to reduce the national debt.”
Edwards goes on to say that it’s “a tax on wealth accumulation, which means savings.” You would think Rehm would call him out on that. It’s foolish. Accumulating yachts and mansions isn’t savings; it’s consumption. That’s what they’re passing on.
Edwards also said small business owners won’t work as hard to develop their business if they can’t pass it on. Again, there is no proof of that. While people certainly build businesses to make money, entrepreneurs are also driven to “succeed.” The hard work and success are ends in themselves to many; they don’t set a dollar goal and then quit when they get there. How many people have you known who say, “I’m going to stop working because I don’t want to give anymore to the government”? It’s absurd.
Edwards made the same tired arguments about families selling their farms to pay the tax. Leonard Burman of the Urban Institute pointed out that there are already “valuation discounts” in the tax law that help farmers and small business owners protect their businesses.
Edwards later complained how farmers must pay lawyers to help them avoid the tax. So do they pay it or avoid it? If they have a way to avoid it, elimination of the estate tax unnecessary.
Burman also said the estate tax “taxes income that was never taxed during people’s lives.” Maybe tax lawyers can explain that one to me.
Nevertheless, yesterday’s short item on NPR’s “All Things Considered” provided the best framing for this issue, despite the host’s using “death tax’ in the intro. Nelson Aldrich, author of Old Money: the Mythology of American Wealth, was interviewed. His namesake was a U.S. senator, whose daughter married John D. Rockefeller.
Aldrich argues that inherited wealth contradicts the American value of the “self-made man” and the idea of “standing on your own two feet.” Americans generally don’t value “old money.”
Maybe we should heed the words of Andrew Carnegie who said, “I would as soon leave to my son a curse as the almighty dollar.” The context of the quote is useful.
Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Neither is it well for the state. Beyond providing for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well hesitate, for it is no longer questionable that great sums bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients. Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best interests of the members of their families and of the state, such bequests are an improper use of their means.
It is not suggested that men who have failed to educate their sons to earn a livelihood shall cast them adrift in poverty. If any man has seen fit to rear his sons with a view to their living idle lives, or, what is highly commendable, has instilled in them the sentiment that they are in a position to labor for public ends without reference to pecuniary consideration, then, of course, the duty of the parent is to see that such are provided for in moderation. There are instances of millionaires’ sons unspoiled by wealth, who, being rich, still perform great services in the community. Such are the very salt of the earth, as valuable as, unfortunately, they are rare; still it is not the exception, but the rule, that men must regard, and, looking at the usual result of enormous sums conferred upon legatees, the thoughtful man must shortly say, “I would as soon leave to my son a curse as the almighty dollar,” and admit to himself that it is not the welfare of the children, but family pride, which inspires these enormous legacies.
The narrative for the inheritance tax, then goes something like this:
Americans have always believed in the self-made man. Each of us should contribute to society and reap the rewards, including money, when we do so successfully, lawfully and morally. But even then, we must recognize that when we succeed financially, there is likely to be a large role that American society has played in helping us become rich. Americans support schools and universities with their tax dollars. American workers provide the labor that make businesses succeed. Our transportation, communications and energy systems are supported by American tax dollars.
Therefore, it seems at the end of our lives, while we should certainly be allowed to pass on enough money to help the next generation get started in their own quest to contribute to society, we should repay society and help all Americans achieve the same dream. But that next generation isn’t entitled to massive wealth they had no role in earning.
Kudos to John Bull of the Daily Press for his article about the MoveOn ads in the Drake-Kellam campaign. He makes an attempt to critique the ads’ truthfulness and explain the charges.
MoveOn.org’s first attack on Drake accused her of taking oil company campaign contributions and voting against price-gouging legislation. Actually, she voted for the price-gouging bill, but MoveOn.org said she didn’t vote for amendments that would have strengthened the measure.
The second ad accused Drake of voting to benefit pharmaceutical companies in approving a complaint-ridden drug coverage program aimed at seniors. But she didn’t cast such a vote and wasn’t in Congress at the time.
The latest ad accuses Drake of voting to protect defense contractors who were granted no-bid contracts to manage aspects of the war in Iraq, and which have made huge profits.
The ads claim Drake accepted $27,000 in campaign contributions from defense contractors – including $1,000 from Halliburton, which used to be headed by Vice President Dick Cheney – while voting to protect them from stiffer penalties for overcharging the federal government.
On the other hand, Jon Frank of the Virginia-Pilot, like most journalists, is content to allow the two sides to trade charges without evaluating them.
Bad, Press, Bad!
The controversy over the a Webb campaign flyer was perhaps predictable as it is sad. It all revolves around this cartoon the Webb campaign apparently used at a campaign event.
The image made Smolen, who is Jewish and Stafford County’s Democratic chairman, uncomfortable.
“I don’t think whoever did the cartoon caricature meant this as an ethnic slur,” he said, “but the effect of it was very troubling.”“That doesn’t look so good. There’s no question to me that’s replete with anti-Semitic stereotypes,” said Mark Feldstein, an associate professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University. “I’m not someone who readily cries anti-Semitism, but I think it’s hard to look at this and not see a number of anti-Semitic stereotypes plugged into this ad, from the hook nose to the ‘antichrist’ to the money-grubbing character.”
Bruce Newman, a professor of marketing at DePaul University and editor of the Journal of Political Marketing, said it reminded him of 1930s German propaganda, where the Jewish character was subtly made out to be the thieving villain.
“It very much crosses the line,” said Newman, who is Jewish. “I’m speaking with my professional hat on now. It’s a modern-day caricature of the quote-unquote villain, the one who’s out to make life difficult and hurt people in the town. I’ve seen literature from those days and this offends me quite a bit.”
If you look at the flyer, well, you’ve got to be looking for prejudice to find it. The antiChrist characterization was made by a columnist for InformationWeek, one of the most influential high-tech industry publications. There is nothing in the column that’s anti-Semitic. And though it’s only a fair caricature of Miller, the cartoon–which Webb bloggers think is so hilarious but isn’t–doesn’t even exaggerate his nose. The money from the pockets could as easily been from Congressman William Jefferson’s. Would you call that racist? Are we not to criticize any Jewish politician if we think his or her policies are designed to enrich an industry?
But too often, the anti-Semitism charge is meant to stop all debate. Whether it’s disagreement with Israel over its policy toward Palestinians or a disagreement over trade policies, if you disagree with someone who happens to be Jewish, someone will find a way of calling you anti-Semitic. Give me a break.
In the course of the couple of hours since my post below, I learned that I made a mistake: Supporters of the marriage amendment actually had one less vote this time than in 2004. At least, I think that’s right. I relied on a report by Catholic web site that I either read wrong or it was wrong. Problem is the link isn’t working. In any case, here is the 2004 vote.
Meanwhile, the AP must have checked the facts, as they have completely re-written the story, reframing it has a definite loss for amendment supporters. But in versions written by the same reporter apparently within minutes of one another, amendment backers either lost or gained one vote since ‘04. Here’s the lead of the AP story as it appeared on the Forbes web site. Emphasis mine.
The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing a defeat to President Bush and Republicans who hoped to use the measure to energize conservative voters on Election Day.
Supporters knew they wouldn’t achieve the two-thirds vote needed to approve a constitutional amendment, but they had predicted a majority of votes. Instead, they fell one short, 49-48.
That was one vote more than they got last time the Senate voted on the matter, in 2004.
“We were hoping to get over 50 percent, but that didn’t happen today,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the amendment’s supporters. “Eventually, Congress is going to have to catch up to the wisdom of the American people or the American people will change Congress for the better.”
“We’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
Wednesday’s vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally in the Senate. The 2004 vote was 48-50.
Here’s how it appeared on the Yahoo news site.
The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing an embarrassing defeat to President Bush and Republicans who hoped to use the measure to energize conservative voters on Election Day.
Supporters knew they wouldn’t achieve the two-thirds vote needed to approve a constitutional amendment, but they had predicted a gain in votes over the last time the issue came up, in 2004. Instead, they lost one vote for the amendment in a procedural test tally that ended up 49-48.
“We were hoping to get over 50 percent, but that didn’t happen today,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the amendment’s supporters. “Eventually, Congress is going to have to catch up to the wisdom of the American people or the American people will change Congress for the better.”
“We’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,” said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan.
Wednesday’s vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally in the Senate. The 2004 vote was 50-48.
Washington Post Fred Barbash says it was one vote less than last time.
Let’s see how the cable shows & MSM frame it throughout the rest of the day. And let’s hope a Democrat other than Sen. Kennedy gets quoted.
The U.S. Senate failed to pass the marriage amendment this morning. Meanwhile, the Dems shot themselves in the foot.
Often, the first story, most likely an AP wire story, on a breaking issue helps define the argument for the echo chamber that is the evening cable gabfests. Which is why it’s so important to have your message ready when the news breaks. Especially in this case, where the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
The amendment backers got some help from the AP writer, Laurie Kellman. She led with an arguably inaccurate framing of the issue.
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but supporters said new votes for the measure represent progress that gives conservative Republicans reason to vote on Election Day.
The 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally by the full Senate. The amendment’s failure was no surprise, but supporters said the vote reflected growing support among senators and Americans.
“We’re building votes,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who is among supporters of the ban who were not in the Senate when the amendment was last voted on in 2004. “That’s often what’s required over several years to get there, particularly to a two-thirds vote.”
In fact, they got only one more vote than they did in 2004. That’s hardly represents progress for an issue that conservatives says is steamrolling in their favor.
Much farther down in the story is the Democrats’ self-inflicted wound. The trigger was pulled by the Dems’ resident hothead.
“The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. “A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law.”
Se. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) had the perfect comeback.
In response, Hatch fumed: “Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?”
Again, defining supporters of the amendment as bigots–whether or not they are–is not they way to change their minds. A much better reply would have been:
“Those who wanted to restrict the rights of American citizens could muster no more votes than they essentially did last time. Marriage in America can indeed be strengthened. But we do it by building stronger families and stronger communities that help all Americans deal with the stresses of everyday life. We don’t do it by preventing gay people from being a part of that process. The American constitution has always been about inclusion, not exclusion. The Senate, today, agreed.”
Building resonant themes, and articulating them confidently, is what I believe helps win elections, whether they be for president or the House of Delegates. Sure you need the ground troops to get out your voter. In a House race you can actually reach out and touch a sizable portion of your electorate. But to get people, especially independent voters and the moderates from the other party, you need to create an impression that you’re a good person who will work for what you can confidently articulate are the voters’ best interests.
Building that message takes time. Most folks know what Republicans stand for: smaller government, strict moral values, less taxes. But Democrats can’t put what they believe into simple themes, partly because they’re spending their time trying not to offend specific interest groups. Even if that weren’t true, it is a given in the media and, consequently, in the minds of the voters. To overcome it, they need a campaign to build themes, not wonkish policy ideas, that people can embrace.
This, from Joe Klein’s Politics Lost: How American Democracy Was Trivialized by People Who Think You’re Stupid.
[Karl] Rove’s assumption [in planning the Bush 2000 campaign] was that voters had three basic questions about a candidate: Is he a strong leader? Can I trust him? Doe he care about people me?
…Everything flowed from that; every paragraph in the stump speech, every radio spot and direct mail piece was vetted on its relevance to those questions. The last of these three–Does he care about people like me?–was always toughest for a Republican, and Karl Rove had spent the past fifteen years learning how to convince dyed-in-the-wool Texas Democrats, especially suburban women, that Republicans really did care about them. Yes, Bush would run on the same themes that every Republican had run on since Reagan: Military Strength, Lower Taxes, Traditional Values. Beneath these, however, was a Bush-Rove addendum to Traditional Values: “compassionate conservative.” Specific issues were adopted by the campaign only as they illuminated that theme–and this was the big difference from the Democrats.
[Bush friend and media consultant Mark] McKinnon could easily imagine his old [Democratic] colleagues hunkered down and sweaty, arguing over the precise details of Gore’s position on global warming–labor needed this, the tree huggers wanted that. Democrats had trouble seeing the forest for the tree huggers: Republicans didn’t sweat the details. Oh, the Republican business interests would get their wish list agenda–especially tort reform, a Bush-Rove favorite. And the religious right would get a nod–funding for faith-based social programs–and a wink on hotter issues like abortion and gay rights. And the National Rifle association just knew that Bush was with them all the way. But the essence of the campaign was the presentation of personality, not policy. Indeed policy was often merely a tactical reaction to Democratic initiatives. Gore had had an elaborate prescription-drug plan for the elderly; Bush was for that, too, and arguably with a better general principle–take care of the poorest old people first–but with none of Gore’s heavy sluggish details. Two or three national reporters might sift through the entrails of the competing drug plans and declare Gore more comprehensive. But there wasn’t a single, breathing swing voter in the fifty United States who would make his or her presidential decision on the basis of which candidate had the better prescription plan for the elderly.
McKinnon was amazed that Democrats had never quite figured this out. In fact, they had it ass-backwards. A guy like {Democratic consultant] Stan Greenburg would take a poll to learn which issues people cared about–inevitably, jobs, healthcare, education–and then the Dems would try to figure out the best ways to talk about those policies. They would use these abstractions–government initiatives!–to sell their candidate to the public that no longer trusted government. The character of the candidate, they believed, would be inferred from the quality of his policies. How quaint. In the television era, fleeting impression counted for far more than cogent policies. Fleeting impressions were all most people had time for. Presidential politics was all about character…or rather, the appearance of character. Did he (or she) seem strong? Trustworthy? Car about people like me? The utter simplicity of it was astonishing: it wasn’t about the economy, stupid.
It was about the appearance of caring about the economy, stupid.
Some may argue that the appearance of caring has been shattered by breathtaking incompetence. But the question still remains: How do Democrats deliver the appearance of competence?
For Virginia Democrats, the House GOP leadership has certainly demonstrated its willingness to let the state infrastructure crumble to hold fast to their principles. But what are the Democrats principles, other than we’re willing to spend taxpayer money to fix things?
Apropos of my post this morning, Frameshop has good post about framing the gay marriage debate. I can’t get the permalink to work, but it’s the only post yesterday.
