Was I prepared for what happened at the Capitol?

I knew Jan. 6 was going to be a big day. As with the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, the fans were planning to turn out. This wasn't going to be a flop. It was going to be major. 

I wrote to a friend that I was going to make a shopping run in the evening unless things went 'batshit crazy.' That's what I wrote Tuesday, Jan. 5. 

By Jan. 7 or later, I was trying to recapture what my expectations were. Here's what I've been able to reconstruct.

Background on rallies

There had been a very large Trump rally on Nov. 14 that was overwhelmingly peaceful. It could have been like that, but I didn't think it would stay that calm. After all, Trump had been gearing up the rhetoric, and appeared to be getting more reckless instead of more resigned. The prior Saturday, Trump called the Secretary of State of Georgia to pressure him to find 17,800 votes and give the election to Trump. This was nuts for a number of reasons. 

1. The Secretary of State had been vocal about the issues, how he had investigated them, and how very little fraud was found. This included a hand recount and a second machine recount.
2. It was too late. The vote results had been certified by all the powers in Georgia, so it was official.
3. The Electors had already met and voted. 
4. There wasn't any time for reversing the certification and having a new certification giving the votes to Trump. 

Getting desperate?

So it was clear that Trump wasn't bowing to the inevitable. On Monday, Jan. 4, he floated the idea that Mike Pence would do the right thing and throw out Biden votes. Again, Trump ignored the evidence that Mike Pence would do no such thing. The idea had already been floated, and Pence was clearly not embracing it. 

So Wednesday was the day that Congress would certify the votes from the Electors, and Joe Biden would officially be the next president. 

Trump seemed to hope that he had a way to prevent that, but was there a legal route left to do that? All legal routes, except a very farfetched one, had been exhausted. The farfetched legal route was that Electoral College votes would be challenged in Congress, the challenges debated, both houses of Congress would throw out enough votes so that Biden didn't meet the 270 vote threshold, and then both houses of Congress would vote to declare Trump the winner. 

Did Trump really believe he and his mass rally of supporters could influence Congress to that degree? Maybe Trump believed, maybe he didn't. 

Maybe Trump didn't care about whether the route was legal or not. Maybe he would have been happy to have his mob take hostages and demand that Congress award the presidency to Trump. Certainly some of the mob were planning to do that. It's ironic because they also claimed to be fighting for the Constitution at the same time they were clearly using force and violence to exert their will upon Congress. That's not very constitutional. 

So what did I really expect? 

I expected Trump supporters to surround Capitol Hill. I expected a lot of shouting and grandstanding. I didn't expect that they would break in and have mobs roaming through the Capitol. But my definition of 'batshit crazy' was mobs holding hostages and demanding that Congress declare Trump president. Also possibly kidnapping members of Congress from their homes, on the way to the Capitol, or family members of Congress people. I didn't think it was likely to go that far, but it was on my radar. 

And Trump's mobs got 80% of the way there. However, they didn't take hostages, and they didn't get to make demands based on holding hostages. They probably would have done this, but the Capitol police weren't going to allow them to do that. The police would shoot to kill before they would allow hostages to be taken. So it was the strength of the police, and their willingness to use deadly force, that prevented the worst batshit scenario. 

But not just the police. The mobs weren't armed for the most part, and they weren't planning to use deadly force. The use of force by the police drew a line that the mob wasn't willing to cross. The next time there's a mob like this, they will most likely know in advance that they are have to cross that line. 

Cyborg with zipties for distinguished members of Congress

Image: cbsnews.com

Finally there is a real voter fraud scandal

Conservatives have been lying about voter fraud for nearly two decades. Or let me clarify. They have vehemently been making unsubstantiated claims repeatedly. Their goal seems to be to cast unwarranted doubt on any Democratic victories, and has nothing to do with telling the truth about election processes. So calling them liars is completely deserved.

Finally there is a big, undeniable voting fraud scandal. It has nothing to do with false impersonation or non-citizens voting. Instead, it involves the area that is most rife with fraud, which is absentee ballot voting. Why haven't the GOPers focused on this before? Because they're liars and were hoping to institute measures that nominally hurt Dem voters.

In this scandal, consultants for a GOP candidate running for a house seat hired a known local operative to round up absentee ballots. He paid relatives, neighbors, and friends to help with the work, which involved knocking on doors, getting people to sign the ballots, walking away with unsealed ballots, and filling them in later. Maybe I need to add 'allegedly.' However, there are numerous affadavits about the activities, including how the operative would get a $40K bonus if his candidate won. It looks very likely that a new election will be called. This is rare, but the level of fraud is substantial and the candidate thoroughly tainted. It would be travesty to certify the election, and it appears that will not happen, so a repeat election will be necessary.

This happened in North Carolina, but it could easily have happened elsewhere. The fraudsters are on the GOP side, but it could have been otherwise. However, make no mistake, the GOP chased other non-frauds and ignored this sort.

Will GOPers change their talking points about voter fraud? One would hope, but that wouldn't be typical of the GOP. They cling to their lies.

Image: ajc.com

Short: Analysis of Trump's campaign strategy

I've written about Trump's ridiculous political strategy that worked to secure him the GOP nomination. This view is from a different angle, which is how Trump is going to keep voters interested in him. So it's more a media strategy than a political strategy. Short, pithy, informative, and funny in a gut-wrenching way.

Image: salon.com

Trump finally starts running against Hillary--SPLAT!

Donald, with his usual grandiose bragging and blather,' implied that he was beating Hillary, and that he hadn't "even started yet."

As of June 22, he has now started. He gave a speech about Hillary and "the stakes in this election." It was the usual bragging from Donald. The country's a mess, but it can be fixed, but "only by [him]." Yes, he actually claimed that, but it's so typical that he thinks he is the savior. (Look here at the transcript.) Too bad he's so unclear how he'll do this without causing trade wars-- possibly even global instability on the order of our last massive recession.

What's funny about his speech is how many of his complaints about Hillary also apply to him:

• "Hillary Clinton who, as most people know, is a world class liar..." (Trump thinks he's world class in everything, so just add 'liar' to the list, since he's deserving.)
• "Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft." (Trump has done with with his various businesses, including casinos, real estate developments where he cashed in and others lost their investments, and, of course, Trump U.)
• "She made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests – in less than 2 years – secret speeches that she does not want to reveal to the public. (How about Trump and his secret tax returns?)
• "But she doesn't have the temperament or ... the judgement, to be president." (Trump talking about temperament and judgment? Hahahaha.)
• "Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs, and effectively let China completely rebuild itself." (Oh my God! It wasn't the corporations who shipped jobs overseas, it was Hillary!)
• "But Hillary Clinton learned nothing from Iraq, because when she got into power,she couldn’t wait to rush us off to war in Libya." (First, the war in Libya started as a revolt by Libyans, Second, Trump claims to have a different way to fight wars, and win oil, that's so much better--if you believe in him and fairy dust.)

I can't wait for the commercials blasting Trump. He provides so much ammunition. We'll probably get a dozen reasons not to support him each week, and still not run out of fodder.

Image: slate.com

Extra. Another author's take on the same speech. Very readable and worthwhile.

Interesting factoid: How Trump was shut down in Chicago

What I knew about Trump's rally in Chicago is that he complained about protesters disrupting it. He tried to get mileage out of it, but it wasn't a huge event in a campaign where we have all sorts of Republicans running scared, and you have Donald insulting people left and right. If you can't show pictures of a horribly mangled person or a flag-draped coffin, it's no more than a blip in this campaign.

So it was interesting to learn that the protesters got hold of a lot of bona fide tickets. There were hundreds of them inside the arena and thousands outside. Most of the insiders were playing mum, planning to disrupt the rally while Trump was speaking. However, some protesters (there was more than one organized group plus freelancers) were starting their protests early, and being hustled out. Among the Trump supporters (roughly 6000), there was a lot of suspicion. Perhaps security got wind of what was likely to happen, and cancelled the rally.

There were fist-fights after the announcement (purportedly--no pictures that I saw). If anyone was seriously hurt, it didn't make the news. Trump called the protesters thugs, but they weren't very thug-like if so few engaged in fights. The Trump supporters weren't too thuggish either.

The reason I looked into the details is because Jonathan Chait wrote a scare piece about how leftists who are against free speech squelched the rally. Nothing I read made me worry that the protesters wanted anything but to express their opinions in a very noticeable way. Most were even hoping to avoid battery, so I think Jonathan Chait should calm down.

Trump was probably right to cancel the rally. It would've been a big embarrassment for him, one way or another. Nonetheless, I hope to see more big counter-demonstrations against Trump. Maybe I'll even go to one.

Image: pbs.org

Extras. A couple other reports about the rally. Breitbart is one of many that play up violence that didn't even occur (yet and/or at all). Some violence that did occur.

Short:The cost of aiming at Trump

Trump isn't playing by the old rules where you have to behave with the decorum as a potential president should. He's going a more populist route of 'telling it like it is' and getting his hands dirty. When so few politicians tell any unvarnished truth, these flashes of truth are thrilling.

I cheered when Trump when he said this to Ted Cruz:

"You are the single biggest liar."

I would have loved it even more if Trump had pointed out specific instances when Cruz was a huge liar.

One consequence of this occasional detour into truth-telling is that donors are more worried about putting their money where their political leanings are. For anyone thinking of contributing to an anti-Trump campaign, he may not hesitant to:

• Sue you.
• Tweet nasty lies about you.
• Tweet nasty truths about you. 
• Tweet nasty photos of you.
• Ditto, but concerning your family members too.

Yeah, that might make you pause, and put away your checkbook.

Trump acquired and tweeted pictures of this reporter/anchor

Image: youtube.com

Extra. I missed this. Rubio called Cruz a liar before Trump did, according to this article. I sorely wish I could get onstage at one of these debates and call them all liars, providing details, of course.

He who must be defeated

For some GOP/conservative voices, he who must be defeated is either 1) Donald Trump, or 2) Ted Cruz.

National Review had an all anti-Trump edition. Let's see--the complaints against Trump are: his boorish behavior, doubts about his conservatism, doubts about his policies should he win, his ego, his lack of understanding about constitutional rights, etc. After reading all these critiques by conservatives, it's a good idea to read of a critique of their critiques. Jonathan Chait skewers the complainers, and throws all the criticism back at them--it's a fun read!

But maybe Cruz is even worse. National Review didn't say so, but some luminaries among the GOP did. That list starts with Sen. Orrin Hatch, Iowa governor Terry Branstad, Sen. Dan Coats, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, and finishes with has-beens John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Bob Dole.

If you really hate one or the other, it's not hard to jump on one of these bandwagons. But what do you do if you're terrified of both Trump and Cruz? How do you decide who is the bigger menace to the GOP? Evidently, not even the GOP knows how to decide that. (Not that I have an answer--I have no fucking idea why either is such a threat other than the famous observation that suckers are born every minute.)

Enemy No. 1

Image: insideedition.com

Extras. Another witty, delightful column by Jonathan Chait with a heart-warming chuckle at the end. Don't worry, be happy. Also, Donald the newbie to bigotry. I guess Donald wins the prize for column-inches, clicks, and news-minutes.

Update 1/24/16. Two more articles worth reading. The best and clearest article states that purists, pundits, ideologues, and heads of ideological organizations support Cruz and want to defeat Trump (because he's a loose cannon and private operator who might do anything, even something liberal). The people who want to be able to make deals, that is, the operatives, lobbyists, and pragmatic elected officials, remember Cruz shutting down the government and aiming at default, and they rather work with someone who'll make deals, so Trump is less scary. So that's the breakdown of who and why. For a few extra anecdotes and fun quotes, read this article too.

Update 1/30/16. This excellent readable article does a better job explaining why conservatives shouldn't support Trump than National Review did. Of course, it does that by telling how conservatives keep on being duped. NR can't exactly say that.

Short: Textbook example of secret campaign donors

Here's a great example of what they've gotten from the Citizens United decision. This Politico article shows how Joni Ernst, the newly elected senator from Iowa, got a huge helping hand from an organization called Trees of Liberty. You can easily skip the first portion of the article and scroll down to where they discuss Trees of Liberty.

The story is chilling. Trees of Liberty pretended to be a social welfare organization, but it spent most of its funds on advertising. It avoided being called out as a political organization by pulling "down the television ads just before the calendar reached the one-month election countdown."

The only good news is that Trees of Liberty is a 501c(4) organization, so those secret donors weren't able to deduct their contributions. That's not much consolation when a few fabulously rich people can flood our political system with money, and 'liberty' means their liberty to do so.

When the Tree of Liberty was a tree, not a slush fund.

Image: bostoniansociety.blogspot.com

Last outpost of crazy: Joke candidate surges

The two appropriate responses to much of this presidential campaign so far are laughter or suicide. Today I laughed so hard I was lucky that I didn't have a stroke. Of course I'd heard about the candidacy of Deez Nuts, who I assumed was a rapper. Today I read more about him. Okay, he's actually a 15-year-old Iowa boy. That's a good joke, but not apoplexy-inducing.

What was so funny? The straight-faced verbiage in the Wikipedia article. I'm going to quote in order to capture it for posterity and before someone edits it:

In polls conducted by Public Policy Polling in Iowa, Minnesota and North Carolina in mid-August 2015, he polled at 8, 8 and 9 percent respectively, garnering the attention of the media... 

...an analyst at Public Policy Polling... [noted] due to a fringe of the population with a penchant towards anti-establishment candidates, "You could call [the third party candidate] anything, and they would get their 7% or 8%."

But the following bit brought on the longest laughing fit I've had this year:

Relationship to Limberbutt McCubbins

Nuts polled his fans on his Facebook page on August 13, 2015, asking whether he should reach out to fellow joke presidential hopeful, Kentucky feline Limberbutt McCubbins, for a possible Nuts/McCubbins ticket. Nuts has acknowledged McCubbins as an inspiration for his presidential run.

Something cracked when I read the phrase "Kentucky feline." A reporter would list a candidate as a Kentucky senator or Kentucky governor, but to refer to a joke candidate was a Kentucky feline is pure brilliance.  That sentence is not only informing us about a joke candidate, but taking down the practice of 'objective reporting' at the same time. If only that was close to enough to tip the scales in favor of sanity. At this point in this presidential campaign, sanity is the clear loser.

v

Image: memegenerator.net

Extras. What is Deez Nuts originally? Maybe a hip-hop term, maybe not. Fucked if I can tell, and not worth my time to figure out. Finally, one more tidbit for posterity:

 Image: kingbach.tv

Boring, predictable, bad

It's a third of the way through August, and I've written only one blog post. Why? Because the Republicans are predictably awful and the Democrats are keeping quiet so that they don't blow it. Nothing much is happening unless you consider what spews from Trump's mouth as something worthy of attention.

I haven't watched the Republican debate yet, but the biggest news from it is whether Donald Trump implied that Megyn Kelly was bitchy to him because she was having her period. This is the actual quote from his complaint the day after the debate:

"She... she gets out there and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions. And you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever..."

I doubt that Donald Trump is beyond implying that Megyn Kelly was menstruating, but he's denying the implication now, tweeting that he meant her nose.

This was the biggest story from the debate, as of Monday August 10. That is sad. No wonder there's nothing fit to write about.

Image: pinterest.com

How dare blacks vote!

Chris McDaniel is planning to sue for a new run-off election for the Senate nomination in Mississippi. He, a Tea Party candidate, lost his run-off primary against Thad Cochran, an old GOP establishment type. Cochran was a long shot at winning until he used a clever, and legal, plan to get blacks to vote for him in the run-off. The plan worked.

Howls from the Tea Party, and even from their supporters in the UK. The loudest complaint is that the GOTV messages for black voters were "tinged" with racism. As though there aren't any tinges of racism in Tea Party campaigns. Nothing like black votes are bought with goodies from social programs, that they're happy to suck on the teat of government, that they're stupid voters, that they support Obama just because he's black, that Obama is not an American and actually hates America. There's nothing racial there.

What's so ironic is to label this statement as out of bounds:

"Say ... no to their disrespectful treatment of the first African-American president" 

Yet Tea Party supporters routinely say things like this:

"You know Barry, ... most people don't like you because you are a narcissistic, idiotic, anti-American moron."

The Tea Party treatment of Obama has been extremely disrespectful. People can argue about whether it's infrequently racially motivated or not, but it's clearly disrespectful. The TP is extremely disrespectful to lots of people, or they might get a better reputation.

If the black voters were already familiar with the Tea Party and knew it was a calm, level-headed, polite group, the ads against the Tea Party would have been ineffective and clearly seen as lies. However, the sense that the Tea Party has been disrespectful of the president correlates highly with real-life experience. That's what we usually call 'truth.' (By the way, it's also clear that tons of Dems are extremely disrespectful to conservatives, too. The crap doesn't flow just one way.)

The worst exaggeration (from a radio ad) was this:

"If the Tea Party, with their racist ideas win, we'll be set back to the 50's and 60's... Say no to the racist agenda of Chris McDaniel and the Tea Party."

That's on a par with typical Tea Party tripe about Obama/Dems hating America, and wanting to drive the country into the ground. I'm pretty sure I've heard that a million times.

However, the ads and robocall didn't stick only to racial issues. It tried to convince listeners with other relevant concerns like obstruction, cuts to public education, food programs, disaster relief, etc. That, like the comments about disrespect, sounds pretty accurate too.

Maybe instead of griping, the Tea Party should start inoculating itself against racial charges by: 1) being explicitly non-racist, and 2) caring about black people's concerns.

Image: kingsjester.wordpress.com

Extras. Listen to the robocall and the radio ads that ran on black-centered stations. The Tea Party not only hates Obama, they often hate everyone who voted for him or other 'liberals.' That's a lot of hate. According to this TP group, it's anti-American to say anything good about Islam. For a bit of balance, here is a potty-mouthed anti-TP organization.

Short: Tea Party Babies

Some Tea Partyers are the biggest whiners. They say some horrid things about their opponents, like they're ruining the country, or they plan to reduce Americans to slaves of the government, and such. But they whine like two-year-olds if you put up a fight or show that they have some faults.

Here's what was said about a Tea Partyer who allegedly helped someone sneak into a nursing home and take unauthorized pictures of Senator Cochran's old, crippled, demented wife:

"It was an attack on a good man that is well respected... It’s shocking to those in the state who knew the demeanor and quiet dedication of the real Mark Mayfield. He ... didn’t deserve that kind of treatment."

This "great Christian man" killed himself rather than face the criminal charges. And it sure wasn't his fault! This time, personal responsibility has nothing to do with it!

Image: time.com

Somewhat related: The Tea Party in Mississippi is extremely (always extreme with the TP) angry about Cochran's successful appeal to black Democrats to vote for him in the primary. Opinions are mixed about whether the GOP establishment and the Tea Party can make peace after Cochran's win.

The Republican clown car in Mississippi

I've been reading about the GOP primary in Mississippi for senate for several weeks. Supposedly it's the nastiest race in the entire country. I think it's most inept, like the Keystone Cops.

First, we have an old Senate hand, the 76-year-old Thad Cochran. He's GOP establishment, I suppose, so the Tea Partiers want to pick him off and install one of their own. I don't know anything about Cochran's record or whether he's still a political force. He's certainly not one of the big names in the Senate. The biggest news story I read about him was that he doesn't know much about the Tea Party. That strikes me as strange, especially since he's in the politics business. Maybe he's getting a little out of touch or senile, or maybe there's some other explanation (like he focuses on other more important issues).

His opponent, Chris McDaniel, 41, wants to be another Tea Party superstar like Ted Cruz. (My opinion of Ted Cruz is that he's all flash and no serious thought, so we definitely don't need another of that kind.) Unfortunately for McDaniel, a rabid Tea Party supporter filmed Cochran's senile wife in her nursing home, which is not only in bad taste but also against the law. The supporter and several others have been arrested and charged.

It probably should have been easy to defeat Cochran... unless you ended up looking more unsavory than him. That's what this supporter managed to do. It was emblematic of the Tea Party's desire to unseat all RINOs by any means possible, and it showed how they'll cross the line without a second thought. In the primary, the Tea Party challenger didn't win an outright majority and now has to compete in a runoff with Cochran (probably, not definitely). This looked like it should have been a win for the Tea Party, and that supporter blew it. What an amazing self-inflicted wound.

Image: wsj.com

The Empire RINOs Strike Back!

The Tea Party supporters threatened to primary establishment Republicans. Then their supporters warned the establishment not to fight back. I had read so many comments telling the Chamber of Commerce to stay out of the primaries, telling other groups not to endorse, etc.

Well, what do you know? The establishment has decided not to sit down and let only the Tea Party campaign. Instead, they are doing what professional politicians do--making deals, lining up supporters, buying airtime for spots attacking opponents, and generally trying to win their primaries. Oh, the infamy!

This long article talks mostly about the primary race in North Carolina, but uses that race as a template for what is being repeated in lots of GOP primaries. The strategy doesn't sound complex--just use the usual tactics. It isn't clear why the establishment candidates weren't doing this in prior primaries, but it's evident they aren't holding back this year. Well, OF COURSE. You shouldn't come to a fight unarmed. And your opponent shouldn't expect you to. That's how it's done in the real world.

Image: heavy.com

Extra. Palin isn't endorsing yet in North Carolina or Kentucky despite pleas for her to. Why not?  Because she stands on principle. (The principle that she wants to smell like a kingmaker, not a loser.)

Update 5/6/14. This is a great rundown of other races with a listing of what groups are supporting which candidates.

The Political Lie Machine: Bottom feeding filter fish

According to a former BFFF (bottom feeding filter fish, or what I'll call 'scum suckers'), there is a good market for dirt on Democrats. Of course I've seen it. Someone sent Breitbart the video of Shirley Sherrod, either already cut or with suggestions on how to cut it. Same with the tape of Al Sharpton.

The libs and progressives do it too. Here's a case of wacko legislation just barely associated with a Republican state representative that went from Think Progress to Boston Globe, MSNBC, and Reason, and probably others.

Can you imagine if your job was to sift through millions of bytes of reports, etc., trying to find nuggets that have smear potential? Truth and reliability being optional, of course. Wow, that's the perfect job for a sociopath. Maybe it's even cheaper now with so many tech-savvy people needing a job (any job) to pay the rent.

I was able to find articles about two firms that do this kind of work: Bridge (working for Dems) and America Rising (working for GOP). They even faced off in the Virginia gubernatorial campaign last year. Check out their handiwork.

Can we do anything about this situation? No, not a thing. It would be like trying to wipe out lies--it can never be done. My recommendation is don't get caught up in it. Use your best arguments against an opponent, not the trashiest ones.

Image: ign.com

Fun quotes:

"Their function in the media ecosystem is to launder dirt fed to them by Republican operatives..." -- the former scum sucker mentioned above

"Sure, HuffPo plays them [stupid Republican reps] up, for the same reason they have a whole staff devoted to finding and posting sideboobs. It's clickbait for the online hordes." -- Kevin Drum

"He was fired ... for being behind a website spreading rumors that then-Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley ... was having an extramarital affair." -- Bethesda Magazine about a campaign sociopath who recently "resurfaced" 

Extras. Read about 'rising star' campaign sociopaths. 

Short: What's this 'Aqua Buddha' thing?

There are some snickers about Rand Paul and 'Aqua Buddha.' Am I supposed to know what this is? Is it more or less important than Clinton and a blue dress?

I don't want to look like an out-of-the-loop fool, so I fired up Google and found the answer to this mystery ...

It's definitely worth a few snickers. Rand Paul pulled a college prank 30 years ago, someone dug it up, wrote an article about it, and then his senatorial opponent stupidly cast doubts about Rand Paul based on this ancient inconsequential incident. Rand Paul correctly rained scorn on the opponent when he brought it up during a debate.

Be sure to check out the links because everyone should have a good laugh. But I have a follow-up question: what is the future for 'Aqua Buddha?' I think this is just the beginning. We may have decades of Aqua Buddha fun in store for us.

Image: downwithtyranny.blogspot.com

Obama cleans out his closet

A few weeks ago, I took note of an interesting fact--Lois Lerner, an official at the IRS, solicited the question that started the whole IRS story. She called a journalist and arranged for her to ask the question. That's interesting, but it doesn't mean Lois Lerner is a whistleblower. The Inspector General's report on this IRS faux pas was due to be released, so she was perhaps trying to get ahead of it. Maybe she was launching the news of a Friday afternoon in hopes that it gets lost amid the weekend vacation luggage.

But another curious thought wandered through my gray matter. Perhaps Obama is doing some significant cleaning. He's trying to take care of some messes well before the 2016 election and even before the 2014 midterms. And it seems like there are plenty of messes that need sorting. Closing Guantanamo was one he could announce without shame, but it seems that there are plenty of others. So the story about the AP subpoena is out, the same about a Fox reporter (for records and a leak back in 2009), and now another leak about electronic communication tracking. 

I wonder what other misbehavior will surface in the next 5 months. If there are more IRS peccadilloes, and Obama's staff knows about them, they should be coming out. There are probably more surveillance surprises (or non-surprises). Libertarians are going to have a lot of grist to grind. Maybe this is also a safer way to start a national conversation about how much to roll back surveillance without election year grandstanding. Obama gets cover if he reduces surveillance, but if the reaction is heavily pro-surveillance, he's covered for the status quo. 

For people who think that the Obama administration is getting blasted right and left, consider my interpretation--that the Obama administration is quietly revealing its dirty secrets so it can be renewed and clean for its Redemption Tour in 2014. It's also setting the stage for the next Democratic president. 

The history of the administration is one without a large number of embarrassing leaks (except for the paranormal phenomenon of Wikileaks). The most well known leaks, about the drone program, have burnished Obama's stature as a tough Commander-in-Chief. My impression is that the Obama administration has been tighter and more honest that other administrations. Leaks have been surprisingly tightly controlled. Where they weren't beneficial (perhaps encouraged), the leakers were prosecuted harshly.

********************************************************

That's what I wrote last week before the leaker (about the data mining capabilities of the NSA's formerly secret program called PRISM) declared his identity. I wasn't surprised about this exposure. It doesn't seem that anyone was surprised.

In one way this fits the pattern I had noticed. On the other hand, this leak seems to have been initiated by a 29-year-old computer whiz working on his own timetable, so not a "scheduled" leak to help clear out the closet. However, the subject is one of the skeletons in the closet that Obama would like to bring into the open, but is most likely incidental to the leaker himself. Nonetheless, I'm not ready to let go of my hypothesis--that Obama will be cleaning the skeletons out of the presidential closet. (This may be bias on my part toward thinking my theories are brilliant.)

I expect that the cleaning will continue, with a peak sometime during the summer and tailing off well before Thanksgiving. If this is planned cleaning up of secrets/scandals, the new disclosures shouldn't last beyond Thanksgiving since Obama would want the whole of 2014 to be as clean as possible for the midterm elections. He needs to avoid being pulverized (or shellacked) as he was in 2010.

I will know that my hypothesis is wrong if the leaks continue past Thanksgiving, if the scandals reported are more serious in the fall than those leaked in the summer, or if top advisers and cabinets members start leaving in droves. Those are signs of uncontrolled releases of information, not the controlled releases I postulate.

Image: placeofmine.com

Also interesting: Less mining than you think, says Google among others.

Meme-errific politics

As the GOP scrambles to reinvent itself without losing its base, we can all expect some entertaining moments. Here's something to watch for: the RNCC is going to create a BuzzFeed-style site that will be filled with youth-oriented political propaganda memes.

I suppose that if you could find some smart, funny, young conservatives with an edgy sense of humor, it could work... except for the censorship that will almost inevitably occur and will turn the site into stale, over-salted popcorn.

I don't know whether internet memes were influential in the 2012 election or not. This post (from the hard news outlet of the Cheezburger network) tracks a bunch of memes, capturing many fun moments of the campaign. I tried to read the article, but the images are so snappy and distracting, I couldn't follow the narrative. I had the same problem with this article from The Verge, a site that's new to me. I'm left in this situation: "You're so pretty, now what did you say?"

There were a few clues to understanding memes buried deep in this dialogue/post (skip down to the "Buzzfeed effect" right above the Mordor meme.)

"Consider the Buzzfeed effect, a term I just made up: in the wake of major cultural events, for example the Presidential debates, you have a nest of insanely influential organizations acting as ex post facto gatekeepers who have the power to make a meme by saying that something IS a meme... Specific moments are turned into GIFs, which then spread through the online ecosystem and end up representing/becoming emblematic of entire speeches/ debates/ events. ...the political leanings of the GIF creators become a factor, because their personal preferences are "encoded" ... into the GIFs they're making—for example, choosing moments that are more flattering to Biden than to Ryan, or cutting the frames in a way that makes Obama look imperious."

Sorry, everyone, but this is new to me. I usually get my news via NPR, a bit of TV, a lot of internet verbiage, and as little video as possible. I don't aim  for the '2 screen experience' where I'm watching the debate and following what's trending at the same time. However, my sweetie is quite the twitter-fiend who keeps me informed. I remembered screwing up my face at the "binder full of women" comment. Within 5 minutes, my sweetie was reading me twitter jokes about it. So maybe it's not completely unknown to me.

What does this mean? I don't know. The picture right below keeps erupting into flame. How am I supposed to be able to come to a logical conclusion? Aaaaagggghhhh!

Images: theawl.com

Maybe I now understand why the GOP cares about this stuff and why they hope to have a better plan for the next election. However, I doubt that you can cover up lies, bad policies, and lack of honesty with some clever graphics. Whatever you try to hide, it ain't going to stay hidden. I think and hope that's the lesson from the raging internet inferno.

Grand promise of "Get out the vote"

Getting your voters to the polls is the bane of many campaigns. The numbers (and wishful thinking) say you can win if you can turn out many more of your supporters while your opponent only does as well as last time.

It seems that every political faction uses this great hope to explain why they can win, but few actually deliver. Well, I'm tired of the argument. Mike Huckabee is the latest politician to reach for this argument. He's pulling it off the shelf as he tries to keep the GOP as socially conservative as possible, even after their losses in the 2012 election.

No dice, Mike. I don't believe you have an extra 6 million SoCon voters whom you can get to the polls. But more importantly, Allahpundit at HotAir runs the numbers casting doubt on this too (same link). He shows that the SoCons are voting in large numbers for the GOP candidate, those numbers haven't dropped, so a logical conclusion is that few SoCon voters are sitting it out.

Although I'd love to vanquish this type of argument for good, it's not easy to do. American elections typically have turnout of 60%, so large numbers of untapped voters definitely exist. That doesn't even include citizens who haven't registered to vote but would be eligible.

Obama is the only candidate I know who has actually succeeded in greatly increasing his votes through registration and GOTV efforts. There's always been more potential among Democratic constituencies for higher turnout, but Obama turned the potential into actuality where others haven't been able to. However, he's not going to hand his secrets or his organization over to the Democratic Party as a whole.

This doesn't bother me at all. If he's the one who built the machine and knows how to drive it, he should be the driver. It's all too likely that no one else can keep his machine in working order. Anyone who owns a Rolls would be crazy asking me to fix it, and lots of Dems are less savvy than I am, even the ones who've gotten elected. So, Mr. Obama, hang on to those keys. I hope you can keep your machine polished and in good working order. If others want to repeat your success, let them built a machine themselves.

Image:   theobamadiary.com

Extras. Other views on why the GOP lost:

• Decent argument that it was the lost Libertarian vote.
• Round-up on who didn't vote--tries to look factual, but it's mostly interesting speculation.
• Long but readable article blaming it on the campaigns.
• God chose not to intervene. God may be less reliable than GOTV efforts.

Good news from the GOP, Part 2

I didn't get to say this in the previous post, but the GOP's offer to delay the debt ceiling vote for three months seems very significant to me. Obviously the three months aren't significant, but the possibility of a positional or tactical change in the GOP is.

The change I sense is that the GOP is trying to scale back its demands. That's not surprising since they lost the election. However, they didn't scale back their demands in December, or on the basis of pollling all during 2011-2. At first after the election, they still tried to maintain the Bush tax cuts, then tried to maintain all the tax rates, before they finally gave in. Then they vowed to get as many spending cuts as they could in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.

A common thread here is what I'll call a "maximalist position." The GOP seems to aim for the biggest payoff they can get. That's normal, I suppose, but contrast that with the Dems, who gave in on tax increases in August 2011, and readily allowed the higher threshold for tax increases during the fiscal cliff negotiations. The Dems haven't held up for the maximum return.

Why are the GOP working to hard to extract the maximum they can from their position? I have a theory. Most of the GOP converted very late to fiscal conservatism, like in the second half of 2008. Having wasted so much time, including their own period of political hegemony (House, Senate, presidency), they had to quadruple their efforts to cut back government.

If this sounds like I'm trying to mock the GOP (and I think it could be interpreted that way), you'll have to take my word that I'm not mocking them. I sincerely believe there was a realization among conservatives that they had slept through their chance to streamline government, but they were awake now, and want to make up for that missed opportunity.

So small government talk went into overdrive. Maintaining the Bush tax cuts and lowering government spending were twin objectives. However, on the spending side there had been a lot of ground lost, with the budget doubling between 2000 and 2009. That can largely explain the desperation of the GOP to fight all spending and to emphasize spending cuts.

My theory has its flaws. Many Republicans don't seem to mind defense spending, and even supported higher defense spending. Increased spending on Medicare wasn't attacked, and savings were criticized instead. The GOP may want spending cuts, but not enough to actually detail what they should be. Frankly, there are a lot of holes in my theory. Perhaps fiscal discipline is only a campaign cry for the GOP. However, there is something about the intensity of the desire to cut spending that this theory captures.

In contrast, some conservatives, in particular Charles Krauthammer, are talking about lowering their sights and trying for fewer cuts. Part of the idea is partisan, to let the Democrats run wild and expose how much they'd love to spend. But another thread may be that some in the GOP are recalibrating what they can achieve, and backing away from the maximalist position. Perhaps if they try to do less, they'll actually succeed in gaining more of their agenda in the near future and in future elections. That would be ironic, to achieve more by aiming for less.

Image: lolriot.com

Extra. Another time I thought the political scene was changing. I was wrong then, but it was fascinating how much did change, but not as I predicted.