Dems Again Fail to Learn Lessons in Advertising

"We didn't sell it well enough" seems to be the mantra of Democrats - who had one of the most productive legislative sessions in recent history - after their recent trouncing in the polls.

And now they're at it again, as Nancy Pelosi is once again taking over the top spot in the House for the Democrats.  Despite being ridiculed as the most liberal House member when she first became Speaker.  Despite the fact that her liberal reputation (deserved or not) is the antithesis of the fiscal conservatism that swept the nation and the elections.  Despite the fact that she was the electoral leader on the the wrong side of a transformative election, in which voters roundly decided that their will wasn't being reflected in the policies coming out of Washington.

To these voters, her nomination is just another "%#@& you".  Some House Dems get it, while most seem to have acquiesced to protect their own position within the party.  Perhaps, however, it's time for these Congresspeople not to worry about their place in their party, but their party's place in governance.

Washington Post's (Partially) Misleading Graphic: Can Anyone Do Better?

A nice little graph today by the Washington Post, where you can sort each Congressperson by the amount of campaign contributions from the Health Care industry, and relate that to their predicted vote on the health care bill.

When you do so, you'll find that Charlie Rangel - who received the most in campaign contributions from the health care industry - is actually voting against the bill.  Of course, as the chair of the powerful Ways and Means Committee - overseeing things like Medicare and Social Security - Rangel is bound to receive more cash from the health industry, and relatively more contributions overall.

A better measure would certainly be the percentage of all the congressman's contributions furnished by the health care industry.  That would help control for the fact that powerful people get more funds and are less susceptible to one industry pulling its support.   One could argue that this still doesn't control for the germaneness of the industry (in Rangel's case, for instance), but this shouldn't matter in a measure of financial influence.  After all, the fact that they're on a more germane committee doesn't make that money any less attractive.

Seriously ADL? Seriously?

After the Israelis embarrassed Joe Biden and effectively scrapped his initiative to start new talks, Netanyahu rightfully apologized to Biden and ordered to probe to see that better procedures were followed.  Not to be outdone, however, Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, announced that the ADL was "shocked and stunned" the "gross overreaction" of the administration, and noted that "One can only wonder how far the U.S. is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians."

Guess what ADL?  When Israel screws up and publicly humiliates the vice president, you give the administration two choices: say little and once again reinforce the idea that the United States is a biased participant in the peace process, or rebuke the incident and yes, maybe gain some greatly needed trust from the Palestinian side.  Israel's relationship with the United States is strong and won't be in jeopardy anytime soon.  So if the US needs to save a little face because and gain a little bit of credibility at the negotiating table, let them have it, won't you?

Representative Ballsy?

A friend turned me on to this self-promoting article by Freshman congressman Alan Grayson.  Congressman Grayson obviously knows one of the most one of campaigning's most treasured secrets: Americans just love it when politicians speak about themselves in the third person (see "Bob Dole") and do it with unabashed egotism.

Apparently the self-appointed spokesperson for the progressive left, he'll leave his party w/ lots of splainin' to do when he loses.  Call that prediction #2.

Our First Prophesy?

CNN reports today that the House will take up health care legislation piecemeal.  I'm going to make a giant leap and file this under the first Center Wing prophesy.  Now if only Hillary and Rudy were the prez candidates in 2008, I'd be two for two.  (Note to political scientists: never predict presidential races months in advance, no matter how much your friends press you on it.  You'll just look like an idiot later.)

Time to Finish the Filibuster?

With Democrats on the verge of losing their supermajority in the Senate, the notion that the filibuster should be axed is once again making headlines.  (Note: I refuse to call this the "nuclear option," as it's often referred to, and exacerbate such hyperbole.)  In effect, it would allow Democrats to pass the health care bill with a simple majority rather than the 60% currently required.  The filibuster, to be sure, is not enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, but rather within the rules of the Senate.  In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that a simple majority would be sufficient to change the Senate rules, allowing the Democratic majority to scrap the filibuster altogether.

It's also important to note that the filibuster (and the cloture rule that allows for it to be nixed by 3/5ths of the Senate) has not been consistent throughout the Senate's history.  And while historically it's been used as a last resort, its use has grown exponentially in recent years, especially by the Republican minority.