On Romney's $10,000 Bet

Yeah, that ain't good for him.

There is something in the human brain that craves structure.  It's why we look at the billowing clouds of the towers on 9/11 and see Satan's face or Jesus's face on a waffle.  It's why we create stories like the Kennedy assassination conspiracies or Area 51.

We need story to make sense of a patternless world.

And Romney's story increasingly is a sucky one.  He's the rich kid who expects things to be given to him.  He gets petulant when challenged, even by Fox News.  He's Pete Du Pont or Steve Forbes with better hair and a killer jawline.

And while the "establishment" can overlook this, voters can't.

When I talk to young teachers, I tell them that there is no substitute in the classroom for authenticity.  You have to create a classroom persona that is authentic to you.  You are a performer, but it has to be a genuine performance.

Politics is the same way.  And Romney's persona is stuck to him.  His efforts to change that only make him look inauthentic.

Nobody bets $10,000.  You either bet $10 or you bet $10,000,000 in that situation.  Either of those and what you're really saying is, "Put your money where your mouth is."  But $10,000 from a guy who spends that much on his hair suggests that he really wanted to make a bet for that amount.  Now of course he's a Mormon and doesn't gamble, so his defense was that he made up a number that sounded large.  But $10,000 is an amount that a rich person thinks a middle class person thinks is a big number.  It manages to show him as both a rich, privileged prig and a patronizing prick.

Well played, Willard.

Romney 2012 = Giuliani 2008.

Hello, ESPN?

The majesty of sport

ESPN should fire the lamentable Gregg Easterbrook, who is mildly snarky and scientifically illiterate and hire tbogg in his place.

http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2011/12/12/oh-thats-god-he-thinks-hes-steve-boras/

http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2011/12/11/the-end-times-ultimate-battle-between-good-evil-poulan-weedeater-bowl/

All Sorts Of Interesting Argument At Balloon Juice

Maybe it's just because I don't want to start writing class comments, but I found the threads over at Balloon Juice really interesting this morning.

One was a question of how far off base Gingrich was in saying that the Palestinians are a "made up people".  There was a fair amount of lefty caterwauling about imperialism and so on, but a few commentators were making some important points.

Basically, my feeling is that if we use the words the way social scientists define them, there is no Palestinian "ethnicity".  Palestinians are ethnically Arab.  You are born Arab, it's ascribed to you, not chosen.  A group of Arabs with long historical ties to the former Roman province of Palestine have taken the national identity of Palestinians.  In that sense, Gingrich is right.  Palestinians are a made up group.  But all national groups are "made up".  All national groups create for themselves a narrative of their national existence, usually tied to place and ethnicity.  There is a great deal of debate, for instance, as to whether there is a single American nationality, or simply American citizenship.

And it's citizenship that the Palestinians are trying to get.  Citizenship - or membership in a state - is what is being denied them.

The second thread was about whether or not the filibustering of executive branch appointees could be ruled unconstitutional.  "Advice and consent" does not describe what the Senate is doing now.  They are explicitly refusing to have a vote on whether or not to confirm Cordray to the CFPB in order to extort changes in established law.

I guess I can see some, small merit in preserving the filibuster for lifetime judicial appointments, especially at the Supreme and Circuit court level.  But filibustering executive appointments seems a rampant abuse of the system and should be challenged in courts.

OK, time to write comments.

How's Your NFL Team Of Choice Doing?

The NFL is a remarkable going concern.

Right now, I'm basking in the glow of my team, the Falcons, making a dramatic comeback against a team they should not have been trailing.  The "Any Given Sunday" phenomenon works really well.

Certainly in the NBA or the majors, no team is expected to win everyday.  No problem, get'em tomorrow.  There are 162 games in a major league season.  Unless your Boston or Atlanta *sigh* any one game doesn't matter.  But with only 16 games, every NFL game is potentially huge.  Denver is riding a QB who throws like a cricket bowler because he has a great defense Jesus loves him.  But every game of the Tebow era was one play from disaster.  The Patriots won be a touchdown against the hapless Redskins.  New Orleans and Houston barely survived their games.  OK, the Packers are beating the snot out of the Raiders, but for the most part, it really is any given Sunday out there.

Fun stuff.

Tonight's Debate

Yeah, another one.

First one with Newt so far ahead, though.

Two things to watch for (not that I'll be watching).

First, will Romney got all Pawlenty on us, or will he go as hard after Gingrich as his surrogate have started doing?

Second, Gingrich is, frankly, playing the attacks brilliantly.  He's laying down Reagan's Eleventh Commandment and trying to be the bigger man.  Given that his main problem is impetuousness and meanness, what better way to say, "Hey, I'm a new Newt, bathed in the blood of the lamb."  If he maintains his cool while Romney loses his, game over.

Um, Gross

Rick Santorum describes himself as a "solid block of cheese"?

Given Santorum's Google problem I think we can anticipate a defamation lawsuit from the American Dairy Farmer's association.

Welcome, GOP, To The Circular Firing Squad Phenomenom

For years, the nominating process of the Democratic Party was dominated by the ghosts of Daley's Chicago.  I guess it can all go back to Will Roger's famous quip, "I don't belong to an organized political party; I'm a Democrat."  But the '70s and '80s were times of raucous conventions, floor fights and special interest pandering.

Clinton changed that in '92.  His convention was incredibly well stage managed, so much so that Ross Perot temporarily dropped out of the race in response.  Meanwhile, the Republicans gave Pat Buchanan a prime time speaking slot to unleash the GOP id upon America's living rooms.  Nevertheless, the GOP did manage to continue to preserve their reputation that was best articulated by James Carville: "Democrats have to fall in love with their candidates, Republican just fall in line."  The GOP nominating process was inevitably determined by party elders in smoke filled rooms.

In 1996, it was Bob Dole's turn.  In 2000, seeking a younger face, the party selected Dubya and crushed the McCain uprising.  In 2008, though, you could sense the ability of the party elite to shape the field slipping away.  Partly because they knew they were likely to lose, they just didn't seem to settle on an "heir" and push that guy over the finish line.  They flirted with Giuliani, but his various apostasies and foibles were simply too much.  Huckabee and Romney just didn't fit the mold, so they settled on McCain rather late.  It was not the coronation that so many GOP nominating processes resemble.

Now, with economic indicators suggesting they should be able to challenge Obama, they want a candidate who can win.  And it's pretty clear who their "best" candidate is.  It's Willard.  He's a perfect generic candidate with a square jaw and nice hair, but unlike Governor Goodhair, he actually has higher brain functions.  The party elite can read a poll and Romney matches up better against Obama than do any of the other inhabitants of the traveling freak show that is Decision 2012.

So what we are seeing now is a concerted effort by GOP opinion makers to shove Newt under the bus.  The attacks go something like, "I knew Newt Gingrich, Newt Gingrich was a colleague of mine, Newt Gingrich should not be allowed anywhere near power ever again."  Former compatriots from the House are lining up to shake their heads sadly and sagely and lament how they'd LIKE to support Newt, but honestly, the dude is just a dick.

This, I think, is at the root of the punditry's basic disbelief that Newt can win the nomination.  Everyone THEY know is telling them Newt can't win.  He has, as Charlie Pierce puts it, Dickhead Tourettes.  He is compulsively unable to not utter bizarre formulations of the World According To Newt.

The problem that the DC GOP establishment and associated punditry have is that they have created a monster.  They were fluffing the Tea Party as true patriots, arming themselves against the assault of Islamo-Social-Fascism.  They were "real Americans" who refused to let government mess with their Medicare.

Problem is, those yahoos in their tri-corner hats have now completely taken over the GOP.  They don't want Romney, because they have spent the last two year working themselves into a frothy lather over ObamaCare, which was basically a GOP idea promulgated by Romney.  Plus, magic underwear.

So what will happen?

First, Mitt has launched a full bore attack on Newt.  (Let's take a moment.  Mitt and Newt?  Suddenly Barack seems like a normal name.)  If Newt wins the nomination, those attacks can't be taken back.  The party establishment will never really warm to Newt.  Notice how the money-machers have largely sat out the primaries?  Where are the bundlers?  Where are the "Pioneers"?

If Mitt is able to steamroll Newt out of the nomination, do you think all the Romney hating GOP rank and file members will suddenly become enthusiastic for the Multiple Choice Mormon?  Not to mention that Romney - in an effort to hold of Gingrich - has had to not only embrace Ryan's toxic plan to end Medicare as we know it, but kiss it, nuzzle it and buy it a fancy dinner before a night out dancing.  In order to outflank Gingrich, Romney has to embrace some of the most toxic ideas in the GOP firmament.

Finally, Mitt's entire plan was to be the "Anointed" one, the GOP Heir Apparent.  He never really rose to the bait of the lesser Not Romneys.  True, he did smack down Governor Goodhair, but there are 8th graders who can do that.  But now he has to actually go on Fox News and get pissy with Bret Baier.  He has hidden himself from the media, now he's going to have to engage it.

And frankly, Mitt's electability is largely ephemeral, I think.  He has not had to compete with someone as bright as he is.  Newt and Obama are not Perry or Bachmann.  He gets whiny when challenged.  And the basic attack on Mitt from the Democrats will be Bain Capital, 24-7.  Mitt will be the Wall Street guy who bought up businesses and laid people off.  He's the rich stiff who doesn't like to be challenged.

There's no way to tell how this will play out, because the GOP hasn't really had to deal with this in decades.  But it strikes me that the GOP may be headed for the wilderness that the Democrats experienced in the '70s and '80s, as they twist themselves into pretzels trying to accommodate the anti-abortion nutcases and the anti-gay and anti-hispanic bigots and the supply side dead-enders and the 1% and the aging white population of which Gingrich is, in fact, the perfect representation.

Hey, a guy can hope.

UPDATE:  Here's a chart from Nate Silver at the Times.  It shows how common this terrain was for Democrats and how unprecedented to the GOP:

Oh, Just Shoot Me...

Were you perhaps wondering if - just maybe - Penn State was innocent in the Sandusky horror show?

Well, they're guilty.  How do I know?

They hired Lanny Davis.

Just Cut And Paste

They Started the Fire

by John Cole

The thing to remember about the chaos ensuing in the GOP primaries, where each week a different candidate is the new new savior before publicly shitting the bed, is that this is all the fault of the Republican party itself. They allowed the party to create this alternate reality about, well, everything that happened the last decade. They are the ones who encouraged their party to believe that a center-left Democrat is actually an America hating socialists. They are the ones who made this mess, so when they are all horrified when each week a different candidate looks the fool by pandering to the base, remember, they are the ones who encouraged the base to think all this crazy shit.

UPDATE: Longer version of the same idea here:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/iowa-debate-december-10-6613783

Wasted Valuable Grading Time To Read This

http://www.happyplace.com/4173/the-best-responses-to-celebrities-on-twitter/page/10

Hilarious.  At least as the vestiges of civilization are drowned in a sea of 140 character soundbites, we can all have a good chuckle.

In Your Exam, Stealing Your Brain Cells

YAY!

Currently giving exams to terrified AP students who know this will go on their PERMANENT RECORD!!!1!

There has been a lot of talk in our school about the efficacy of exams - as opposed to a paper written outside of class.  As an AP teacher, I don't really have a choice, as my students have to be prepared for the AP exam in May, but even without the college board breathing down my neck, I still favor the exam format.

The argument against the exam is that it prioritizes memorization over thought.  Or to the degree that students DO have to think during an exam - say when they are writing essays on the exam - it still relies too much on speed and remembering why Martin Van Buren was not a successful president.

And in the Age of the Great Gizoogle, memorizing information is not the skill it once was.  I use Wikipedia in class all the time to find out things like the 2009 Mexican midterm election results or the exact wording of the Intolerable Acts.

But a good exam should not be about trivia.  It should be about comprehension.  Recall is part of that, of course, but recall is not unimportant.  And while cramming for an exam is not all that productive long term, the more often they learn a thing, the more likely it is to stick.

The downside is that the next three days are going to suck for me, but that's a small price to pay for how much my students are suffering now...

News Of The World

Even as I prepare to administer my Comparative Government exam tomorrow, I look ahead to teaching Russia upon our return from vacation.  And things are getting interesting in Russia.

First of all, there's a certain challenge in teaching a course based on institutions when those institutions undergo change.  Two examples: Britain's First Past The Post electoral system disadvantages the third party Liberal Dems, and therefore Britain never has coalition governments unlike other Parliamentary...what?  They did?  Nevermind.  And then you have Iran.  Iran has a weird hybrid of republic and theocracy.  But the wide spread fraud in the last election has ended any pretense that Iran might have had towards free elections.  Previously, there were limits in who could run, but the elections were not presumed to be fraudulent.  You can't say that anymore, and now Iran is rumored to be considering a move to a Parliamentary system.

I say all this because Russia is in the grips of an important moment in their national history.

We presume in America that officials "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed".  That legitimacy necessarily flows from the ballot box.  But that's not alwats the case.  Mexico, for decades, had a regime kind of similar to Iran, in that the elections were on the up and up, but the PRI controlled the list of candidates, the way the Supreme Leader does in Iran.  And similar to Russia, there were other parties on the ballot, but no one presumed they would be anything more than minor nuisances to the ruling party.

In the 1980s, Mexico saw its petro-economy collapse.  This greatly undercut the popularity of the PRI, which based its legitimacy on the stability and prosperity that it brought the Mexican people.  So, the PRI began to commit widespread electoral fraud.  Now, the Mexican people have a stronger identification with "democracy" than do the Russian or Iranian people, so they took this very hard.  Their choices may have been limited under the PRI, but it was still their choice.  Fraud removes that choice.

This is what we saw in Iran with the Green Movement.  The choices in Iran have always been limited - Khatami and Mousavi and others were not going to overthrow the Islamic Republic - but the people at least had some choice.  The fraud that swept Ahmadinejad back into power took that away from the people and stripped away any pretense at representative government.  And at the moment, Iran teeters on the brink between military dictatorship and a reformulated, parliamentary Islamic republic.

Russia does not have the deep roots of electoral politics that Mexico (or even Iran) has.  Elections have always been problematic there.

But they have had elections.  Putin won those elections, because he is very popular - or was - and did not need to resort to fraud.  He might make it impossible for his opponents to win - see how he hounded Gary Kasparov out of the race the last time through - but he didn't screw with the voting.

It is now abundantly clear that he did this time around.

Now maybe (probably?) the Russian people simply don't care enough about the idea of democracy to be affronted by this naked act of fraud.  The Mexican people did, and they eventually forced the PRI to abandon its fraudulent ways, which directly led to the election of the PAN's Vicente Fox in 2000.  We don't know what the long term effect will be in Iran.

But Russia stands at a very important moment.  As we undergo what might be called a fourth wave of democratization in the Middle East, Russia looks to be sliding back deeper and deeper into authoritarianism.

What will the Russian people do about it?

No, Your Excellent Idea Is Pretty Much Crap

Tom Friedman has an idea!

Third parties... What are you doing to do?

Now, certainly third parties have a place in American history.  In the 19th century, they usually arose because one of the two main parties were not addressing an important issue.  The perfidy of Masons.  The spread of slavery.  The peril of the Irish.  The desire to inflate the currency.  The struggles of farmers.

I guess you can even look at George Wallace as addressing the needs of white supremacists.

Ross Perot was somewhat different.  To his credit, he did focus attention and energy on the deficit.  But his was also a top down, personality driven enterprise driven by ego.  And then there's Ralph Nader, but I repeat myself.

Now, there is a lot of talk about third parties this year.  In some ways, the Tea Party could function as a third party if Willard Romney wins the nomination.  If they were to bolt (which is doubtful), they could function as a third party.  More likely evangelicals will bolt, but that's an example of grassroots third parties.  Similarly, if OWS coalesced around a candidate, they could be a third party.  At least in part, that's what Obama's speech yesterday is trying to head off.

But that is different from Americans Elect.  This is a top down, third "party" effort flogged by people like Tom Friedman.  They want a sensible technocrat.  Someone who works with both sides of the aisle.  Someone who doesn't pander to the extremes.

No one seems to have told them that guy is already President.

The other problem with this line of thinking (and this is true of all the recent third parties since the Progressive Party), is that it presumes that a president without a party can govern.

Our government is simply not wired to work that way.  Congress certainly isn't wired to work that way.

We had a president without a party once.  His name was John Tyler.  I am reasonably certain he was not carved onto the side of Mount Rushmore.  Tyler's presidency was a mass of dysfunction, as he was expelled from the Whig party for apostasy.  Tyler was a Whig because he opposed Andrew Jackson, not because he supported the Whig policies of Henry Clay.  So when he succeeded Ol' Tippecanoe (and Tyler, too!), he quickly exposed himself as a man torn between parties.

To a certain degree, Jimmy Carter became a man without a party, as Washington Democrats simply couldn't put up with him.  That turned out well.

Governments function because of institutions.  Parties are powerful institutions.  The idea that you can summon forth a knight in shining soundbites to win with presidency and slay the dragon of deficits and win the crusade against partisanship is narcissistic folly.  (Did I mention this is Friedman's idea?)

Partisanship exists because there are different opinions on how to run the country.  Arguing between the parties is not a symptom of dysfunction, it's a necessary part of making decisions.  However, once the arguing is finished, compromise becomes necessary.  As the GOP showed - yet again - yesterday, they will filibuster ANYTHING Obama puts forward, even moderate judges.

The problem is not that Washington is a partisan place, but that one party has decided not to compromise at all on anything.  THAT is the root of the dysfunction.  Electing Bloomberg won't solve that.

Now, conceivably a third party in the legislature would be interesting, but you'd have to change our electoral laws (to one of instant runoffs between the top two finishers) and change the rules of Congress.

But aside from THAT... cake.

Obama Would've Made A Good Blogger

http://news.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/obamas-teddy-roosevelt-speech---full-transcript.php?ref=fpblg

Worth reading.

Is Popcorn Good For A Cold?

I am sick, because of course I am.  I have a ton of work to do, a wrestling meet to lose tomorrow, exams to prepare, review sessions to plan, comments to write, exams to grade, children to monitor.  Of course I feel like warmed over poo.

I had a nice bowl of soup at lunch.  Chicken, of course.  So good for the back of my throat which has been worked over with a cheese grater.

But I have to say watching the GOP crack up is the Christmas gift that keeps on giving.

Everyone who works or knows Newt Gingrich is agog at his recent ascendency.  Lindsey Graham, who was the Brutus to Newt's Caesar, is now trying to patch things up, because Newt's probably more popular in SC than Huckleberry is at the moment.

Meanwhile, the GOP congressional leadership has been so gobsmacked by his rise, that they haven't noticed that - oh, yeah - we have to pass a budget.  What could be a better monument to the resurrection of Newt Gingrich than a full-on governmental shutdown?  The Crazy Caucus wants to attach all sorts of riders to defund ACORN and abolish the Department of Education, but then they won't vote for it anyway, because it doesn't have exemption from criminal prosecution for people who shoot abortion doctors in their churches.

So, Boehner knows he needs Democratic votes for a bill that his crazier members are loading up with crap.

Meanwhile, the GOP seems unwilling to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits because... well, I guess because it's offset with a surtax on the 1%, but really it's because they are now literally incapable of doing ANYTHING that resembles governing.

So, within a month, we could see A) Newt Gingrich win Iowa with Mitt Romney finishing third.  B) The GOP shutting down the government for Christmas, C) The GOP cutting off UI and raising taxes on the middle class.

Golly gee willikers!