Friday Talking Points (159) -- Firing Up The Base

[ChrisWeigant]

Normally, I begin these articles with a few words on the most amusing idiocies of the week, served up by both the political world and the media universe. This week, however, we have two very serious subjects to tackle (although I will slip a little media-bashing in at the end, I promise) -- our next war, and the nuclear crisis in Japan.

It looks like we're about to enter our next war, which could begin literally at any moment (the bombs have not yet begun to fall, as I write this). We're already militarily involved with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, so Libya will actually be the fifth country America's military will be engaged with. Whether this will turn out to be a good idea or not is an open question, but within the next day or so we'll be patrolling the "no-fly" zone, with United Nations approval. The media, of course, will go along for the ride. There's nothing like some video of cruise missiles launching and fighters taking off from an aircraft carrier to boost ratings, right?

If I sound a bit pessimistic, well, I apologize. I've previously come out against the idea of the no-fly zone, for two main reasons: it is open-ended, and it might not achieve the main objective. I'm now a little more optimistic on the latter, since the U.N. resolution goes farther than just declaring a no-fly zone, it actually seems to authorize attacking the Libyan ground forces from the air. This means it may be more effective at providing a safe haven for the rebels than simply barring Libyan aircraft from the skies.

The open-ended nature of the no-fly zone still worries me, though. Not because it would be particularly difficult to smash Ghaddafi's air force to smithereens, but because it is going to tie up American military assets at a time when they are already stretched pretty thin, and at a time when they might be needed elsewhere quickly. But I've really said most of all that before, so I'll just note my misgivings and move on to the other big story of the day.

One week ago, Japan was hit with a multi-layered tragedy of almost unimaginable proportions. The country was shaken by the largest earthquake they've ever had -- a stunning 9.0 on the Richter scale -- and then hit by the first tsunami to be accurately and extensively recorded on camera. The images and video of the wall of water were truly sobering. Sure, we've all seen Hollywood movie versions of natural disasters many times before, but this was reality -- real people were dying down there, by the thousands. As I said, sobering.

The quake and the tsunami dominated the news for the first few days, but soon the focus shifted to the ongoing nuclear power plant crisis. This is where the vapid and shallow nature of the mainstream media came shining through in all its ugly glory. American "journalists" have the science I.Q. of your average meatloaf, apparently. And even though they've had four or five days to brush up on some facts, they are still on television every night, failing miserably to communicate what exactly is going on, what exactly the dangers are, and what exactly is being done about them. The only ones who seem to be able to speak intelligently about the situation are on (no surprise) public television -- which is ironic, considering the Republican attempt to de-fund public broadcasting.

Here's a quick test for whether you are being fed speculation and fluff, or whether you are being told real information: Are there numbers involved? If so, then thank a scientist (and the editor or producer who allows such science on the air, I guess).

In other words, I'm getting a little tired of yelling at my television screen: "WHERE are the freakin' NUMBERS?!?"

Because I am addressing the blow-dried "journalist" segment of the population here, I will use small words. You see, there is this thing called "science." What science does, it measures stuff. It puts numbers on things, usually using a scale so that comparisons can be made. Nuclear power is, actually, part of this "science" stuff. Radiation is, actually, measurable. Your viewers would benefit if you started communicating these measurements on the air.

Sigh.

The Japanese media, from what I can tell, are indeed providing this information to their public. Japanese journalists are, apparently, smarter than your average American journalist, and can handle the concept of measuring things, and numbers.

In America, the only number the "journalists" have grasped is the single-digit scale of how bad the accident is. Initially the accident was called a "4" on a scale that goes up to "7." Now, they're calling it a "5," but the anchors are much more interested in determining whether it is "worse than Three Mile Island, or even Chernobyl" than they are in actually quantifying the danger in Japan.

There are a number of different measurements which could be used. The old (pre-metric system) measurement of the dosage of nuclear radiation for humans was the "rem." This has been updated to the metric "Sievert." Japanese media report the radiation danger using "millisieverts" (1/1,000th of a Sievert) and "microsieverts" (1/1,000,000th of a Sievert) per hour. These numbers can easily be compared to normal background radiation (which we all get a dose of every day), and the tried-and-true "chest X-ray" example ("the equivalent of two chest X-rays"). It takes about ten seconds to explain the concept -- ten seconds the American media has so far not spent.

The raw radioactivity could be measured another way, in "curies" (or millicuries, etc.). Either way, using numbers gives people a way to compare the situation, day-to-day, and can be used to calm worries about how much radiation has been picked up by the winds and is now hitting the West Coast of America.

To date, the only numbers I have seen from the American media have come from PBS' NewsHour. Every single other media outlet I have seen has been content to use such non-specific terms as "there are high levels of radiation near the plant" or "low levels of radiation have been measured in Tokyo."

Which is why I'm going to end this introduction with a plea, to the American mainstream media: Please, please, for the love of intelligent conversation about real data, please report the numbers. Pretty please?

Oh, and someone needs to remind you folks of one other important issue: the word "fallout" has a very specific meaning, when talking about radiation in the atmosphere. Very specific. It is not a generic word, when speaking of nuclear explosions. Please stop using it generically, because your casual use of the term is freaking me out. Dig into the archives -- back into about the 1950s -- and read up on what the definition of "fallout" actually is in these situations. Please.

 



Democrats, as I noted earlier in the week, are actually playing a bit of political offense these days, although it remains to be seen if any of it will bear legislative fruit any time soon.

Before we get to that, though, there were two people who deserve an Honorable Mention this week. The first was President Obama, for two very personal appearances. The first was a surprise visit to pay his respects to the last World War I veteran, who died recently and was lying in honor at Arlington National Cemetery. For some unfathomable reason, Congress did not allow Corporal Frank Buckles the honor of lying under the Capitol Rotunda, but this slight was ameliorated somewhat by the president personally paying his respects to the last survivor of a brutal war. Later in the week, Obama personally visited the Japanese embassy to sign a condolence book for the victims of the multiple disasters. Both of these were purely symbolic gestures, but symbolism has a place in both military honor and diplomacy. Obama, by not sending an underling, showed great respect to Buckles and to Japan.

Also deserving of an Honorable Mention was Representative Bruce Braley, who chairs the Populist Caucus in the House, for voting against adjourning Congress for yet another week-long vacation. From his press release:

"We can't go home; we've got work to do. We have a responsibility to pass a real budget and create jobs. After three months in power, we have yet to see a single job-creating bill come to the House floor under the Republican majority -- instead, they've offered a spending bill that kills 700,000 jobs. This is no time to go home and put off our work for another week."

Couldn't agree more myself.

But the real winner of the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award is Representative Jan Schakowsky, who sponsored a bill to levy a surtax on millionaires this week. This idea has the support of over eighty percent of the public, and it's about damn time some bold Democrat stepped up and created a bill to tax the uber-wealthy. Chances for passage are uncertain (to say the least), in a Republican-led House. But that doesn't mean the effort shouldn't be attempted.

For proposing what "The American Public" truly wants from Washington, and for boldly laying out how we could cut the deficit by almost $100 billion each and every year in one swift stroke, Representative Schakowsky has earned the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. More power to her, and more power to her bill!

{Congratulate Representative Jan Schakowsky on her House contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.}

 



Not all bills being proposed by Democrats are good ones this week, however. Senators Jon Tester and Ben Nelson are coming down solidly on the side of the banks, rather than the consumer. They're fighting to keep debit card "swipe fees" as high as humanly possible, rather than allowing the law which limits them to 12 cents or less to take effect.

With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans? Sigh.

But Tester and Nelson only qualified for a (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week, because once again there was an obscure story with odious overtones which muscled every other disappointing Democrat aside this week. The Detroit Free Press tells the story of two Michigan Democrats (county-level party officials, no less) who are being charged with felonies for their dirty tricks:

The indictment alleges that the pair attempted to place two county commission candidates, Aaron W. Tyler and Ruth Ann Spearman, and a state senate candidate, Johnathan M. Young, on the ballot without the candidates' knowledge. The two men forged the signatures on the affidavit of identity and falsely swore under oath to qualify them to run, the indictment says.

The two men charged -- former Oakland County party chairman Michael McGuinness and former county operations director Jason Bauer -- put fake "Tea Party" candidates on the ballot to split the Republican vote in an election. This is not only despicable, it is also illegal. And deeply disappointing.

For their "dirty tricks" campaign, this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award goes out to both Michael McGuinness and Jason Bauer. For shame, guys, for shame.

{I could not find current contact information for either of these Democrats. If anyone has their contact info, please post it in the comments.}

 


Volume 159 (3/18/11)

A story has been floating around inside the Beltway for a few weeks now, most recently in the Huffington Post, who ran it with the headline "Obama Team Looks For New Ways To Fire Up President's Base." The re-election team is, apparently, just waking up to the fact that Obama has a wee bit of a problem with his base voters.

But there are two opposing ways to read Obama's problem with his base -- that the problem is overstated, and that the problem is understated. How you read it really depends on your own feelings about President Obama. While what the White House famously called "the professional Left" is disillusioned and disappointed with the president, in extremely strong terms at times, the actual fact is that most Democratic voters think he's doing OK. Polling shows that Obama's approval rating among Democrats has declined slightly over the past two years, but it is still extremely high.

Meaning that Obama's problem with his base isn't as bad as it may seem. On the other hand, his problem with the most politically active Democrats is probably worse than it may seem. Feelings run deep on Obama's betrayal of some key campaign promises, and many on the Left have all but given up on Obama following through (and not endlessly compromising) on some of his stated principles.

While Obama may be able to turn out the voters in 2012, his real problem is that the most committed and politically active Democrats -- the ones he has the deepest problem with -- are also the ones who form the rank and file of a political campaign. The people who knock on doors, make phone calls, and do all the other donkeywork (pun intended) of a political campaign are the very ones who may have given up on Obama.

Meaning Obama's going to have to get some other people excited about the prospects of re-electing him president, or he's going to have to get some people to change their minds about him.

Today, instead of our usual talking points (where we offer up suggestions for how Democrats should frame these issues), we're going to have a special talking points list just for President Obama. If his re-election team really is worried about his base, then they should take a moment and listen to the specific problems the base has with Obama.

I'm going to attempt to give voice to a few of the problems Obama faces within the Democratic Party, here. The first six items in today's list give voice to some Democratic groups, as if they were sitting down with Obama for a heart-to-heart. These aren't the only issues out there, I should mention, just the first six that came to mind. And then, just to be fair, the last item will be Obama's response to one Democratic faction in particular. I felt Obama, in this fictional conversation, should at least have a chance to push back a little.

Without further delay, here is a list tailor-made for the White House to work on, if Obama is truly interested in firing up his base once again.

 

   Stop insulting us

We'll begin on a generic level, with a complaint that really should be addressed. This is one of those things that Obama could do in about ten seconds -- without requiring Congress or anyone else to do anything.

"Mister President, allow me to speak for the Left. I have no authority to do so, since 'the Left' is not exactly an organization which clasps hierarchy to its breast. To be quite honest, the Left is closer to the Will Rogers maxim ('I'm a member of no organized political party. I am a Democrat.') than it likes to admit, at least publicly. But, putting all of that aside, I have to say, if you're looking to excite your base over the prospects of your re-election, the best thing you've so far done is to send Rahm Emanuel back to Chicago. Let the Windy City bask in the heat of 'Rahmbo' for awhile, and free yourself from his insidious influence. Is it complete coincidence that ever since Rahm exited the West Wing, the steady stream of insults hurled at the Left have all but ceased? I think not. Speaking for the Left, we're used to being disappointed. We're used to being disillusioned, even. We're used to our hopes and dreams being dashed on the hard, cold rocks of what is politically possible in Washington, D.C. But what is inexcusable and completely uncalled for is the gratuitous and reflexive insults which have issued forth from your White House Chief of Staff for the first two years of your term, under Rahm's leadership. From being labeled 'fucking retards' to all the other demeaning language from the White House, we have had to put up with this abuse ever since you got elected. And now you wish us to rally behind you? Seriously? Well, I can tell you, the first thing you've got to do to repair the breach with the Left (who marched countless miles to get you elected) is to swear that the era of insulting us is over forever. That's all you have to do -- just swear to us that if you earn another four years, that not once in that time will you compare the Left to the mentally-challenged, or hurl any other playground-level insult. If you can't manage even that, then why should anyone vote for you?"

 

   Tax the millionaires

Did I mention that 81 percent of the public agree with this idea?

"Mister President, allow me to address what you should do to position yourself in the best possible stance you could take, when considering the 2012 political landscape. I can sum it up in three quick words: tax the millionaires. You have already set up this fight for 2012, with the deal you cut with Republicans last December, so you're already cognizant of the implications, I assume. As recent polling shows, the idea of imposing a surtax on millionaires is the most popular idea among the public to reduce the deficit -- to the tune of over eighty percent! Getting behind this issue and pushing it hard in the upcoming campaign would go a long way towards regaining some of that 'populist' flavor that your first campaign had, don't you think?"

 

   Put on your comfortable shoes

Obama's missing an opportunity right now to fire up one large and important segment of his base. He really needs to address this, and soon.

"Mister President, we're waiting for you to put on your 'comfortable shoes' and stand shoulder to shoulder with some Union members. A real battle is being fought in the very Midwestern states you're going to need to push you across the finish line next year. Unions are under attack. And Union members are not only a large part of the traditional Democratic base, they are also probably the most organized segment of that base. If you want to inspire thousands of people to volunteer for your campaign next year, the easiest thing you could do would be to offer up some very vocal support of the Unions, right about now. We were disappointed that the Employee Free Choice Act wasn't passed when Democrats controlled Congress, but now we are under siege by Republicans at the state level. You can win us back -- but you've got to start speaking out for Labor and the core principles of the Democratic Party, loudly and often."

 

   Why so silent on women's issues?

A lot of women's votes got Barack Obama elected the last time around. The time has come for Obama to earn those votes again. Because Republicans are trying to dismantle women's rights in any way they can.

"Mister President, women's rights in this country are being targeted by Republicans at the state level and at the federal level. And yet we have not heard your voice on the subject, yet. When are you going to start fighting for Planned Parenthood funding, and against all of the insidious ways Republicans are chipping away at abortion rights? There is certainly no lack of these attacks on a woman's right to choose right now. We appreciated the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay law, but that was quite a while ago. Take a look around at what Republicans are proposing right now, and you'll soon see how fierce this attack is. Women's' rights are a key plank in the Democratic Party's platform. With two daughters, this should be a natural issue for you to champion. In the last election, you said you'd be in our corner. So why haven't you spoken out on the issue yet? Why should we work to give you a second term if you are not there when we need you to be?"

 

   Main Street versus Wall Street

This one is quite likely the best thing Obama could be fighting the good fight on. It would certainly excite the Democratic base, that's for sure.

"Mister President, why are you not giving Elizabeth Warren more support? The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is one of the best ideas to make it into law during your term, and you hired exactly the right person to set it up. But the agency is already under attack by Republicans in Congress who never wanted to see it set up in the first place. They're trying everything they can think of to strip the C.F.P.B. of its power and its budget. This is one of the best issues you've got going forward, because the lines are so clearly drawn. On the one side is Elizabeth Warren, fighting hard for Main Street and the consumers of America. On the other side is Wall Street, trying to kill this agency before it even gets going. You could not design a better populist issue if you tried. It's clear-cut, and it is great politics for you -- because there are far more American consumers than there are bankers on Wall Street. You should be trumpeting the work that Elizabeth Warren is doing every single chance you get -- and, by doing so, define the Republicans as the 'party of Wall Street.' This should really be a no-brainer, Sir."

 

   End the wars

This one kind of covers two subjects. Or, more accurately, one subject and one Democratic group. They may not be as interrelated as I make it seem, but then I'm running out of talking points, so that's just the way it got written.

"Mister President, you may have lost the brigades of youth who volunteered for your last campaign. These young adults were starry-eyed at your prospects, and a large number of them who worked very hard for you feel extremely betrayed, on a wide number of issues -- such your handling of America's wars and our national security, for example. You may not get these young people back, I'm sorry to say. But most young adults go through a 'disillusionment' phase politically. It's actually pretty natural and ordinary. Luckily for you, America's youth will have grown four years during your next election, and a whole raft of new college students will take their place, demographically. Your challenge is to excite those people who were in middle school and high school during your last campaign, because they are the ones who will now be old enough to cast their first votes. It's going to be more of a challenge to get this new wave of young Americans excited about electing you than it was last time around, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. For starters, you can stick to the timetable and pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of this year, and start winding up the mess in Afghanistan this summer. That would certainly help your prospects with America's youth."

 

   One group who should be enthusiastic

As I write this, I'm picturing President Obama sitting and taking it all in. But, in my mental image, when I got to one group of Democratic Party regulars, my fictional Obama leapt out of his chair and had something to say. Because he's right -- one group of Democrats have gotten an enormous amount of their agenda made into reality during Obama's term. At times, they have been very vocal about the pace of such change, but they've gotten more accomplished than pretty much any other Democratic group, so I had to let my fictional Obama rant on.

"Gay rights people? You're still upset with me? Come on! I mean, really! All these other Democratic groups have a legitimate beef with me, take a look if you don't believe me.... But seriously, I promised to be a 'fierce advocate' for your rights, and it's about the best follow-through I've done on any of my campaign promises to a Democratic group. Sure, you guys and gals weren't exactly ready to trust me when I came into office, because I expressed my own personal reservations about gay marriage, but ever since then, you guys have made out like bandits compared to the rest of the Democratic base. I mean, I know I moved too slowly for a lot of you in the first year or so of my term, but since then I've managed to push through the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' -- over the objections of a lot of Democratic faithful, who didn't want to see me cut a tax deal with the Republicans -- and now my Justice Department has declined to defend a major part of the 'Defense Of Marriage Act' in federal court. I've even admitted in public -- which cost me, politically, for backtracking -- that my views on gay marriage were 'evolving.' So what more, exactly, do you want from me? I mean, if you people aren't fired up and ready to help my campaign, who the heck should I expect to be? I have done more in the past two years to help gay rights than any other president in American history. And by orders of magnitude -- not just by some sort of small increments. So I really would like to see all of you gay rights advocates out there enthusiastically helping me to get re-elected, because you folks have gained more items on your personal agenda than any other faction of the Democratic Party. So, who's with me?... "

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

[Demeter]

1. Define "Base"

Chris, while it is true that the GLBT community has gotten more out of this President than any other President, or any other group (aside from Wall St), they represent maybe 10% MAXIMUM of the voting population directly and/or indirectly affected: not enough to do anything, let alone run for office.

Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that they are one-issue focused, either. I'm sure they are just as pissed off as the rest of the nation at the unemployment, war, Gitmo, bankster, push to nuclear, etc, etc, as the rest of the Democrats.

The Tea Party/GOP fundies are the ones who focus on one insane rage to the exclusion of everything, including their personal self-interest--not the Democrats.

In fact, it could be this inability to focus that is the Democratic Archilles Heel. Or it could just be the reality that after 30+ years of GOP and DINO/DLC presidencies, EVERYTHING is falling apart and needs immediate attention.

Your prescription for Obama is spot on.

But the odds of him taking that bitter medicine is even smaller than those for getting my stubborn, senile father to voluntarily take his diabetes and water pills...and believe me, Dad will die without this medication. It's enough to make you weep for yourself, your parents, your country, the world...

[dotymed]

2. Good "talking Points" Chris

However, you did not mention something that is is working against President Obama in a BIG way.
His choice of cabinet members to lead us out of this economic mess are the very same people(?) who put us in this mess.
Obama has kept a "fox(es) in the hen-house" for the two tears he has been president. Summers, Geithner, Bernanke and dozens of others are keeping the "trickle down" economics of Reagan, as gospel.
We need economists whose main goals are improving the financial condition of the poor (and those quickly becoming poor) and of course the LOWER middle class.
We need regulations to restrict the pillaging that has gone on for the past 12 years, unchecked.
You mentioned the Elizabeth Warren led commission. I do not think that is enough.
People have heard the eloquent speeches about "Wall Street Excesses" by President Obama, we need to see ACTION.
It would be great if President Obama addressed this years award winning (best) Documentary, INSIDE JOB." Lets hear his "side" of this ongoing rape of America.

INSIDE JOB was the most Disturbing Documentary I have ever seen. (Even worse than the dolphin massacre documented last year.)
I implore every DU'er to watch this documentary and please share it with as many people as possible. Even though many of us know the facts shown in this documentary, to have them all connected and shown to us as they actually happen, is (at the least) very disturbing and informative.
I really think that if all Americans watched this, even tea-baggers, we would find common ground and a purpose to "take to the streets, to demand our government back."

[russspeakeasy]

5. Inside Job will make you cry, then, really piss you off.

[indy legend]

3. President Obama had better address these issues or.........

...........he will find a large segment of his base truly fired up............for the primaries!

[russspeakeasy]

4. My thanks for a most meaningful post.