Romney Didn't Beat The Spread

Romney's victory in Florida is, to be sure, impressive. He took everything but north and (very) central-south Florida. Where he didn't win outright, he mostly split. It's a convincing win and, going into Mitt-friendly February it could be enough to quash Newt's fund-raising for good.

From Talking Points Memo (TPM)

But there are some storm-clouds on the horizons of his triumph. Let's take a look:

1. Turn out was low. Where Iowa (+3% over 2008) and New Hampshire (+6%) were on their way up, South Carolina was a huge +35%. Florida then dropped by 14% and, while those are just percents, when you add up total number of voters, Florida is freakin' huge: the sum total for 2012 vs. 2008 is down by a whole 4% even given the higher numbers in 3 of the 4 voting states. Nate Silver notes that there was a ballot measure that was key to turn-out in '08 but still ...
2. Newt + Santorum (45.3%) is basically a tie with Romney's 46.4%. This means when / if one of them drops the other stands to get enough lift to be "back in the game." While Gingrich has vowed to go all the way to the convention, some of his, erm, practices (see below) might end him sooner. This is actually good for Romney as, so long as Santorum thinks he has a "second life" he'll keep on fighting--but it bodes ill for the future where he might suddenly be facing a land-slide against him.
3. The Tea Party--especially the southern Tea Party--is not sold on Romney. Yeah, this month is all the western states--but those southern states may get their vote. The Strongly Support Tea Party vote went to Gingrich 45%  to 43%--and while Romney won "Somewhat Support" 50% to 28% if this race settles on Tea Party vs. the Establishment (and people like Sarah Palin are trying to do just that) then would it mean that (a) later in the cycle Romney could get clobbered or--more likely--the later states would be (b) a lot more expensive. Look at north Florida for a preview of what the south might look like: if you squint it looks like Newt Gingrich!
4. Nasty: There's a Newt Robo-call (he's disavowed knowledge) saying: "As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher." That's nasty. Again: this probably hurts Newt more than Mitt in the long run--but if that suppressed turn-out is due to voter-dissatisfaction with the negativity of the campaign in general and Newt doesn't leave? That could, as they say, "leave a mark."
5. Romney's air game was expensive. Romney outspent Newt by a hell of a lot in Florida and it showed--but while he can likely keep that up through the primaries if the other candidates choke on fund-raising he won't be able to do that to Obama who will have, if not 1bn to spend, somewhere close enough. That's worrying some voters who see Romney's Florida-advantage as cash--one he won't be the alpha-dog with in November.
6. He didn't blow-out South Carolina. He won by 15 points which is impressive--but not by what Newt won in SC. Granted, Florida is both much larger and a key swing-state so this means a lot more but given the spending amount it may mean that psychologically Newt feels bloodied but not beaten.

What Does It Mean?

I was listening to National Pravda Radio--Er--I mean National Public Radio--last night as they were doing the primary coverage and one of the commentators said that Newt's big win in South Carolina came with the debates where he stood up to the liberal media and, notably, a black reporter (Juan Williams) and said everything that the conservative Republicans had been dying to say--said things they never thought a candidate would say--and they voted for him in droves.

When he choked in both Florida debates his narrative faltered. That, combined with a coordinated attack by Romney overwhelmed his comparatively rag-tag operation. Worse: while he "ought to" be the favorite of pragmatic evangelical voters, Erick Erickson thinks that the truth is that they care more about Newt's three wives than beating "a Mormon." 

This could mean that Newt, as the Not-Romney, is still just a place-holder and, while it might not eventually be Santorum either ... it might not be anyone. Maybe ... it's just Mitt?

What Do I Think?

I'm not sure how much war-chest Newt's campaign has--can he afford to keep the pressure up? That's key because so long as Mitt is slinging mud at Newt and forced to "roll around with the pig" he keeps Romney from doing two things:

1. Attacking Obama. There's nothing Mitt would like more (especially now) than to train all his rhetorical guns on the target everyone can agree on. This will boost Mitt's positives like nothing else he could do with his base. So long as Newt is out there sucking up his oxygen, though, he can't.
2. Pivot. In the GOP you run to the right in the Primary and then run to the middle in the general (for the Democrats, of course, the direction is reversed). However, if Newt is there pressing Romney hard he has to go further and further right--clearly further than he feels comfortable with. The sooner he can ease up on the right-wing sloganeering the better the chance that he won't have terminally injured himself with moderates and independents. The good news is that he's already perceived as a flip-flopper so people may believe he'll do "the right thing" no matter what he says (Obama benefited from something similar: he was a blank-slate historically speaking so a lot of people assumed he was some kind of super-leftist despite him saying he was a moderate). On the other hand, the GOP base isn't happy with that and they want to hear him say things like he'll bomb Iran or build a military "so strong no one will think of challenging us"

The one thing I am waiting to see is whether Newt really does stick it out--or, if he loses enough momentum, he falters.

Divider In Chief

The statement that Obama is "the most divisive president ever" has never been very resonant with me: when I look at his policies I see a mish-mash of right and left--even his signature healthcare plan, The Affordable Healthcare Act (which we all know as ObamaCare) was taken from mainstream Republican thought of a decade or two ago. He's been friendly with big business, bailed out the banks (TARP wasn't his--but he agreed to it and did his own version) and has waged war quite effectively--even more effectively--than his Republican predecessor.

If he was in bed with his green energy friends, Bush II was in bed with his oil-energy friends (Halliburton). If his stimulus didn't "do enough," charges that it "didn't do anything" are at odds with what we know of the facts (over 1MM jobs created according to the CBO).

He desegregated the military--but did it by eschewing judicial solutions over a home-grown approach. He hasn't even come down as pro-gay marriage.

Plus, people always like to argue that "Now is the worst time in history" or "We live in the end-times" or whatever. The rhetoric in the early years of the country was as vicious and partisan as anything we've ever seen today. It was overtly religiously centered and pulled no punches.

However ...
This Gallup Poll shows historic levels of polarization in partisans for a 3rd year president. Make no mistake: Bush II's 8th year still well tops anywhere that Obama is--but it's worth nothing that (a) this trend is likely to amplify as the year and the campaign continues and (b) Bush II's negative popularity is still impacting politics 3 years later (Jeb Bush is considered a non-starter because, well, Bush).

What if things Really Are Different This Time?


Why Would That Be?
I googled Why Is Obama The Most Divisive President Ever" and looked at the top results. Here's what I found (minus articles about him trying to be less divisive or general divisiveness discussion). Allen Schanman of Boca Ration (my home town!) writes a letter to the editor. Here's a section:

He espouses economic equality, just like the socialists and communists have always done before him. A failed economic theory that has never worked, in which the most productive are suppose to support the least. All under government supervised outcomes which are never achieved. He wants the government to redistribute the earnings and wealth of our citizens based upon what bureaucrats in Washington think is “fair”, through manipulation of the tax system.

I'm not sure he knows what communism is. A site called Flopping Aces has a lengthy post which goes into several sections: 1. He uses divisive rhetoric ("Bring a gun to a knife fight", "Get in their faces!", and "It's time to fight for it!") 2. He has "targeted" various groups for "ridicule" including groups such as Bankers (whom the president calls "Fat Cats"--a term I feel certain bankers have never heard applied to them), African Americans (he tells them to stop complaining--again, new stuff for them, I think), and even Americans (whom he tells us have gotten 'a little bit soft and lazy and lost our competitive edge'). One might almost think that with his 360-degree ridicule hose he'd be more of a common enemy and a uniter than divisive. But I do see what he's getting at here. 3. The Anti-Business thing. More about that in a minute. On the Free Republic there is this quote:

“All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”

It turns out that rather than being ascribed to Obama--or even a staffer--it may have come from a user-generated comment on a website. But no matter.

Oddly enough, I had trouble finding cites to Obamacare and the recess appointments which, you would think, would be pretty divisive.

What Does It Mean?
On the rhetoric front I'm going to have to say I'm not sure that trying to rally your people to fight is particularly bad--especially since I wasn't on the shout-down-Palin crowd for her cross-hairs Gifford flyer. If someone on the right wants to make the call that calls to 'fight' are over the top they had better decry Palin first and foremost. The only person who got beat up by an Obama supporter that we know of was the girl who faked it.

Likewise the ridiculing and instituting communism charges are, well, ignorant. Communism and socialism hasn't changed since the Hermitage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney all came out with their pro-mandate statements. Marxism hasn't changed since 2008 where RomneyCare wasn't a problem for a presidential candidate. To think that these words are anything but labels is, uh, ... uhm ... well, hateful rhetoric? Meant to--uh--fire up the base?

Well .

On the 99% #Occupy stuff though, maybe there is a problem: is Obama dividing the country that way? It's a fascinating charge. Dave Mustaine of Megadeath charges Obama with being divisive:

“I think it’s really dreadful what’s happening. I’ve never, in my 50 years of being alive, listened to an American president try and turn one class of people against another class of people. I’ve never heard a president say, ‘Go down and join the protesters down at Wall Street,’ knowing that there are Nazis down there, knowing that there are people down there who are trust-fund babies, that are super, super wealthy and they’re going down there and pretending that they really care; they just wanna be part of the ‘movement.’”

Is he right? Well, for one thing ... he's not right. Obama, so far as I can tell, never said that. In a post titled Obama Comes Out In Full Support Of Occupy Wall Street Anarchy the quote is (from the article, which is what the author alleges Mr. Obama said):

"Referring to protests that have spread from Wall Street to London, Rome and elsewhere, Mr Obama said: “Dr King would want us to challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonising those who work there.” Mr Obama had previously said the protests “express the frustration” of ordinary Americans with the financial sector."

Did this guy even read his own post? Write it? Maybe the blogger just did the headline?

But beyond whatever Obama has or hasn't said: if Obama's tactics were to divide the 99% from the 1%, while that would be a division--to be sure--it could hardly be said to be "ripping the country apart"--unless the Republican Party --the whole elephant and it's supporters is there for the 1% (or, to be fair, maybe they just don't want anyone kicked out of the great American experiment. Let's test that: Gay marriage and integration into the military ... Hmm.).

What Do I Think?
I'm pretty unimpressed with the class-warefare angle. For one thing, it's calling Obama a Marxist without actually using the term. As the GOP realizes they can't--the sane ones, anyway--get away with that nonsense (it's too inflammatory!) they just pick a euphemism and roll on that.

Also, we're told, the GOP is the pro-everyone (but gays) party: they're the uniters of Real Americans^TM. If that was true, how come Gingrich--the guy who's at the top in the national polls right now (if only for today) is slinging anti-Bain stuff like it's going out of style? Could it be (a) that the position is nuanced or (b) that one's virtues are heavy and therefore the first thing jettisoned when the airship looses altitude. Either way isn't good because if Newt can be nuanced the Democrats can be too (and Obama).

The last few presidents that I have been aware of: Clinton, Bush II and, and Obama have been disliked viscerally by the opposite bases. In the case of Clinton this was comedy (the list of people the Clinton's had silently killed, for example). In the case of Bush II it was disturbing (Truthers). In the case of Obama it has become an actual movement.

That progression--the "weaponizing" of [Politician] Derangement Syndrome--is what I think might be 'different' now. We have a model--the Tea Party and the Arab Spring--that did not and, due to the facilitation of technology, probably could not exist in the past. Small organizations have easy access to the most powerful media in the world (anyone can cut a video and then distribute it to millions of people). Instant communications haven't just helped you find your kids at the mall--now you can organize a food tent. Electronic money movement for the masses doesn't just delivery Kindle books immediately to your iPad--it can also be used to donate to far-flung movements.

Email and other forms of electronic communication get the word out--even to the older Tea Party generation. If you can make a T-shirt, Cafe-Press can monetize it. If you can articulate a slogan, Twitter and a hash-sign can make it global.

With media outlets like Fox News and MSNBC--not to mention Pajamas Media and other on-line services--it should be no surprise that there is a growing divide. David Frum says 'We used to say you were entitled to your own opinion--but not your own facts. Now everyone feels entitled to their own facts.' I think that's accurate: my worldview is very different from the people's I read online--very different than that of my close friends--and all of us, with a mouse click, can be armed and loaded with talking points ranging from insightful to dubious to fraudulent--but who cares?

At the end of the day, the engine that drives this is emotion and the global economy is a dark engine that is pumping out misery right now. Our dialog--the dialog that wraps and frames the entire race is a reflection of that signal and the technology enablers that we use to have that conversation amplify it (the same way that instant movement of money 'amplified' the 'amount of money' in the world when the Electronic Funds Transfer network was set up).

Good luck.

Who's Afraid of the Fed?

--Or--
  

My father asked me to do a post on the Federal reserve because he'd heard some of the conspiracy theories about it. So I did some research. Ron Paul wants to get rid of it--he suggested a return to "Honest Money" (the Gold Standard) and people are saying the Federal Reserve is a rogue entity, control the US Money Supply from its shadowy fortress. What is it? How does it work? Is it ... out of control?

The Federal Reserve Bank 
The Federal Reserve System is the term for the central banking system of the united states. Almost all nations have some kind of central banking system and this one is ours.

How Does It Work?
It's like this--the Fed, through 12 Federal Reserve Banks around the country sets the interest rate for loans to major banks thereby controlling the supply of money to them and thereby the nation. As this money is, yes, a loan, it gets repaid by the banks with interest--and therefore makes a profit. Furthermore, as it issues stock which is owned by those banks ... it's ... well, is it a PRIVATE company? Making billions of dollars in profit?! With NO congressional oversight!? And maybe all that stock is owned by the Rockerfellers and Rothschilds and what-not. Overseas foreigners? The Illuminati? This thing has to be stopped?

To Start With? 
No. The Federal Reserve does issue stock--but it isn't even remotely normal stock. Stock holders (the huge banks) don't control it with those stocks. It may not be sold, traded, or used as collateral for a loan. Dividends are fixed by law at 6% per year. Secondly the Fed does make a profit. A big one. Like 24.9 billion dollars last year. Isn't that a conspiracy? Only if you leave out that it paid 24.5 bn to the US Government. The rest went to the banks as their dividends and operating expenses. Horrors.

What about NO OVERSIGHT!? Uh. No. Congress controls and audits the bank. It is true that it does not need to seek permission to take action (set interest rates, etc.)--but it can have it's mission changed and controlled by Congress. The President can't remove the chairman--but most capitalist economies have fairly autonomous central banks. And they work most of the time. Who appoints the Fed Chairman? A shadowy force from Indonesia ... President Obama. If you're gonna buy into one conspiracy theory you might as well buy into all of them.

What's The Conspiracy?
So I'm going to take a minute here to talk about two things: What/Why people hate the Fed--and then how to think about things if you find that you've bought into this. Dad, if you are reading this, read them both.

Why Do People Hate The Fed?
There are several reasons to hate the Fed--but it cones down to two of them. The first is that since the US moved from the Gold Standard (which, by the way, the existence of the Fed pre-dates) the fear has been (in some quarters) that we would spiral into hyper-inflation in an orgy of printing dough. The Fed is actually there to stop that--but some people have never gotten over it. The other reason people hate it is that, going way back, there is a belief that the bible prohibits fiat money (money that is not backed by gold) and is "dishonest." The actual passages that support this are all about not using tricked scales to cheat people--but it gets evolved into a hatred for all kinds of complex money tricks. This echoes what we see today in "Islamic banking" where the products have to comply with fundamentalist Islam to be sold to the believers.

How Do I Stop From Believing This Stuff?
Today there is a vector for conspiracy theory that is unlike any other: the Internet. How is a person to know if information they are being told is true or not? How can you be sure anything I wrote up there is true or not? I had to wade through several pages and, ultimately, had to take the word of the website of the Federal Reserve itself to an extent in the end. I also used Wikipedia--and anyone can edit that. So how can you believe what I wrote? Well, I believe it because I've read all kinds of shit on the Internet and I have a good sense for conspiracy theory. But what if you don't (or what if I'm wrong?).

Here's what you need to do: Apply Ockham's Razor--that's the philosophical tool that says "The simplest answer is preferred." Conspiracies are complex things--a shadowy government organization that makes billions of dollars selling money to the US when we freakin' print our own money doesn't make much sense. The idea that Congress would allow a group that could set the prime interest rate to exist without oversight would be, well, shocking.

This goes for 9/11 conspiracies too: a government plan involving scores of people (demolition squads, planners, controllers, etc.) and requires that no one talk in the face of abomination--is complex. Believing in conspiracies requires delicate webs of trust. It requires (often) armies of faceless killers who, there is no evidence, have ever existed. Maybe it's because I've known plenty of real special forces guys that I know they wouldn't take on missions to kill civilians without thinking about it for themselves (and no matter what you may have heard, these guys are not chosen because they are ultimate order followers--they are all chosen for intelligence and performance characteristics ... and mental stability--something that anyone participating in a 9/11 cover-up would lack).

Weapons of Mormon Destruction

Florida Votes
Today Florida will vote (I was walking the dogs this morning at around 5:30 AM and a random guy drove by asking me where the Community Center was) and the turn-out is expected to be large. The big questions are:

1. Will Mitt Romney win by 20+ points or, at least, more than he was beaten by in South Carolina?
2. Will Santorum finish ahead or behind Ron Paul? (The RCP average shows Rick Santorum ahead--but not by much).

In the end, none of this matters that much as Newt will (most likely) remain in the race through the grim drought of February, hoping for a March Super Tuesday resurgence and Santorum has pledged to remain in the game as well  (conspiracy theory: Mitt has paid him or offered him a cabinet job to do so. Maybe, like, 30 minutes of Mitt's annual income would suffice?).

The question is what does Newt do next? He doesn't have debates to fall back on--there won't be one until the end of February--and while he'll appear in the remaining states he needs to bash the heck out of Mitt Romney in order to keep the second part of his narrative going (the first part is: I'll attack the left-wing media. The second part is: I'll attack everyone else).

The main gig on McCain was that he refused to "attack Obama." He refused to call him an Islamist, a Marxist, Indonesian-born, and all that jazz. He didn't play Rev. Wright screaming "God Damn America" over images of airplanes flying into the twin towers (I've seen that video on YouTube and I'm glad it didn't make it to general air-play).

The fact is, McCain knew what the RNC also knows: doing that--getting really dirty is the ultimate Hail Marry play. It's like going "All In" in high stakes poker--it works every time until it doesn't. The probable back-lash from that sort of thing is hard to control and while McCain was going to lose--and it was pretty clear in the end--the risk-to-benefit analysis probably didn't involve playing bumper-cars with the slim chance he did have.

But the base won't hear it.

Likewise, Newt has been demonized (as has Mitt) for "attacking from the left" because of his assault on Bain Capital (and Romney's use of Social Security against Perry).This is destructive. Possibly very much so. Some quotes:

In all of this, I get the real sense that there are wounds opening up that will not be healed by November of 2012.

and  from here:

But the poisonous practice of irresponsible smears is an issue that is bigger than Gingrich, Romney or any other candidate of either party.

There have long been reports of people who decline to be nominated for federal judicial appointments because that means going before the Senate Judiciary Committee to have lies about their past spread nationwide, and the good reputation built up over a lifetime destroyed by politicians who could not care less about the truth.

The same practices may well have something to do with the public's dissatisfaction with the current crop of candidates in this year's primaries -- and in previous years' primaries. Character assassination is just another form of voter fraud.

So I want to look at the weapon that, so far, Newt hasn't used: the Mormon card.

You Tube: What Mormons Really Believe
 Before I get anywhere near this I want to be clear on a few things. The first is that I have nothing against Mormons--as far as I am concerned they are as Christian as I am. Secondly, I know almost nothing about their faith or creed. Oh, sure, I know what people say about them--but as far as I can tell every religion has something the others find weird in it and, being no expert ... well, I don't know. In any event, this is not about what's true. Political attack ads do not trade in truth but in truthiness--the appearance of being true. Whether or not anything here is factual, kind of factual, or a well-entrenched lie is besides the point--the allegations themselves are the ones that do the damage, not the weight of facts behind them.

If you put the above search-string into Google, this is what you get:

But let's look at the key, damaging elements of Mormonism to Mitt Romney.

1. The Nicene Creed: The Nicene Creed is a litmus test of Christian belief that is used to separate the True Christians from the Heretics. By some, anyway. Mormons do not believe the Nicene Creed (so I am told) and therefore, if you belong to a church that uses it--they're heretics. Plain and simple. You can read here to get some fire and brimstone: "  I say to you in Christ name not to vote or support for a Mormons for such as these. No Jesus will not punish you while you are living but after death when you come before Him for judgement He will say to you " be gone from Me you evil one for I do not know you and say to His Angel on His left cast them into hell". Jesus will not bless or help anyone who commits evil acts. In the United States of America can not expect any blessing from God for the evil politicians the vote into office and in the evil way they are running the country."
2. The Black Thing: Black people are, according to the church's detractors, said to be "cursed by God." To be sure there is some tangled history there. Until 1979 blacks couldn't hold high church offices--according to Wikipedia, anyway. That's pretty darn recent. Also, Romney is a high official in the church and did missionary work in France. He arrived in France in 1966 while whatever rules there were were still in effect. Presumably, if it came up, he may have preached that blacks were dirty and cursed by God--or whatever the doctrine actually was. I'll say again, I don't know for sure--but imagine the attack ads.
3. Polygamy--His Mexico Family: The story is that Mitt Romney's great grandfather went to Mexico to avoid prosecution for polygamy. If true--and the sources seem credible (he had four wives?) the fact that Romney decries polygamy and has never visited his family there may not matter. Indeed, from the Republican Party Platform of 1856 one of it's founding planks was " Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery."

This would all make for a blistering attack ad and the one thing we're probably lucky about is that Newt would likely not survive it (whether or not he would stoop to doing it--which I'm unsure of, but tend to doubt). 

What Do I Think?

I think that the Mormon card will likely remain off the table due to the almost assured nature of the blow-back. But if he decided to? Approximately one third to 40 percent of the Deep South voters are "evangelical." These are the people who would, likely, be swayed by that--but the unsavory taint of polygamy and racism would also be, well, very, very damaging if they could make it stick. 

I think it's actually a good thing that we don't see this stuff in play. And despite my love for political combat, I hope this bullshit stays in the launch silos.

The Ides of March

This weekend I watched Sony Picture's The Ides of March. This is my take on the politics and political maneuvering in the movie more than a movie review and as I will go over the plot in detail, to say that it contains spoilers would be a gross understatement.

The Ides of March

The movie takes us to Ohio days before the March 15th (the Ides, of course) Democratic Primary between George Clooney, the "good guy" favorite and  Michael Mantell, the opposition. On Clooney's team is a political veteran played by Philip Hoffman and the star of the movie, Ryan Gosling--a wunderkin political operator who is instrumental in running Clooney's campaign.

As Team Clooney is poised to win, Gosling gets a call from the other side's campaign lead Paul Giamatti--who wants a secret meeting with him in a restaurant. Against his better judgment he goes and is told that in Ohio's open primary the independents and conservatives are going to come out in force to pick Mantell over the Democratic favorite. Furthermore, the governor of Ohio, who will be very important, is in the bag for Mantell and Giamatti wants Gosling to switch teams and come work for Mantell.

Troubled, Gosling doesn't take the bait but also doesn't tell his boss, Hoffman that he's been to meet with the enemy. When the governor of Ohio both refuses to sign on with Team Clooney but also is told Clooney's whole strategy, this winds up giving it all to Team Mantell.

In the interim, Gosling sleeps with a beautiful intern and, over the course of covert romance, discovers that she, also, has slept with ... the very married George Clooney. And she needs 900 bucks for an abortion. Gosling takes her to a clinic and when he returns (telling her she's out of the campaign for good) he gets fired by Hoffman for disloyally meeting with Giamatti. Furious and vindictive, Gosling threatens to tear the whole campaign down. He goes to Giamatti only to be told he was played: Giamatti won't hire him now and never really intended to hire him in the first place (unless he'd jumped ship immediately). He just wanted to disarm the Clooney campaign.

When Gosling returns and goes to the intern's hotel room discovers she has committed suicide. He takes her cell phone--which has calls to Clooney on it--and successfully blackmails Clooney into both firing Hoffman (who was utterly loyal and prized loyalty above all else) and signing Gosling on for his presidency.

The film ends on a somber note with Gosling having 'sold his soul' but, probably, getting to work in the White House.

Was It Good?
It got a good score on the Rotten Tomatoes Tomato-Meter. I found it well crafted if kind of slow. Clooney always plays the same guy--and he's good as that guy--but he's still the same guy. It does get slightly old, I guess.

The Politics

President Clooney
One of the articles of faith amongst Republicans is that Hollywood is leftist. I have to say I find some truth to that. After all, Hollywood keeps making message films (Rendition, Lions for Lambs, Stop Loss, etc.) that "no one is watching." Furthermore, the presidents portrayed by Hollywood--and I'll include The West Wing in this group--who are heroic tend to be, to my mind, populist democrats. Arguing for things like term limits on politicians is a gimmie. Saying we need to get off of oil and on to clean power is only questionable if you cite global warming--if you bash the Middle East (and thereby Arabs) you get a strong sell across the spectrum.

Clooney is a left-wing Democrat's wet dream of a candidate. He's an atheist--something that, even within 20 years would never fly. He's got correct, soulful answers (for the left) on abortion ("I personally wouldn't do it but I'm not making that decision for anyone else") and he speaks strongly, eloquently and with Clooney's charisma.

I found that telling and even a bit naive. Real national-leader candidates are usually cautious about playing to the base. I suspect that the movie comes on strongly so that we'll buy him as not-like-all-those-other politicians and therefore be more shocked when it turns out he (like Clinton) was sleeping with the intern. We aren't: we're a little disappointed he's not killing people because it would make the movie more exciting.

 Operation Chaos-ish
The idea that the opposition would storm an open primary to prop up the weaker candidate is not new: Rush Limbaugh proposed/declared Operation Chaos. This was call for his listeners to go to open primaries and vote for Hillary to either keep her in the running as long as possible (McCain won't beat up Obama so she has to!) or even have her win. According to at least some poll watchers no evidence was found of this having any impact.

If Limbaugh--the most successful talk radio show in the world--couldn't do it there is no reason to think a whispering campaign could. Worse--or more naive--the idea that "traffic jams" could be staged and secret instructions could go out on a large scale without everyone knowing about it is ridiculous. In short, the whole "Clooney is going to lose Ohio and doesn't know it" angle seemed laughable. Now, the movie does mention Operation Chaos so you know they know what's going on--which makes me wonder if they assumed I would fall for it. I wouldn't. Enough fake traffic jams to effect an entire state's primary would send the whole opposition team to jail.

The Intern
They say the one thing you can never-never-ever-EVER do is sleep with the intern. "They'll get you for that." Well, yeah--the Republicans will. Ask Clinton, whom we're expected to remember ... and nod sagely about. We even get a loving Clooney-and-Wife shot just to set up how married he is.

I will assume we were to think of John Edwards and his bizarre affair on the road on his campaign. This kind of stuff does happen and, as we saw, the cover up does not involve rich, powerful men having the women disappeared (believe me: if Edwards could snap his fingers and have the woman he slept with gone, I'm sure he would've). With Cain we saw that even a good slate of allegations can bring down a campaign--even without proof.

So, fine: if political conspiracy thrillers want to predicate their bad behavior on sex? I'm good with that.

But did it have to be an intern?


The Play
Clooney, facing blackmail, has to fire his chief strategist and go with the brilliant but un-tested Gosling instead. He decides to do it (even though his logic, correctly, tells him that the blackmail threat isn't as strong as Gosling says it is). I did like that: even though Clooney could've called the bluff, he lost his nerve.

That's human--and real.

But I still don't think it'd have happened. Here's why: although campaign strategies are fairly straightforward a a high level (look at Romney's air and ground game) in practice they are fiendishly hard to execute. See how, for example, Gingrich fails to get on the ballot in each state--and fails to show up on time in numerous Florida venues. This isn't because the ballot requirements are harder than running a 4-minute mile--it's because getting 10k signatures and vetting all of them requires organization. It requires persistence and management.

The skill of administration is the skill of getting stuff done--making sure it happens. A bad-ass chief executive is not only very rare but, when the machine is in motion, very, very hard to replace. Turning over your chief of staff in the middle of a rough campaign would not simply be trading names on the door of the office. It would mean a stop-gap in which the coordination would be shot. Remember: when Clooney kicks Hoffman out of his car with a 2 minute conversation there is no transition. Gosling certainly does not know everything Hoffiman was doing: Gosling is up until 3:00 AM coordinating his own stuff next door to Hoffman who stays up until six. And then goes the next day on coffee.

When campaigns switch leaders it's a near-collapse. It's often irrecoverable once you're deep in the game. Yes: Clooney is up and expected to win the primary (and then the election as the Republicans "have no one")--but I think he'd be betting surviving-the-scandal vs. throwing his whole campaign up in the air and taking shots at it with a rifle. I think that calculation would've gone against Gosling if there was any doubt, which there was.

In Conclusion
I was a little bored and found The Ides of March a little naive and a little too willing to show us its "cliffnotes" versions of recent political scandals to try to gain credibility. I think it does show a pretty good depth of understanding of how a campaign works and it certainly paints its characters well. But if you want verisimilitude and insight? Watch Recount.

I'm hoping for better when Game Change comes out this year.

The Battle for the Soul of the Republican Party

It's coming down to the bitter--and will be bitter--end of the Florida primary as the vote will be tomorrow. The polls show Romney with a sizable lead in the sunshine state and I see no reason he won't put double digit numbers up over Newt. Blow-outs are usually highly uninteresting unless it's the underdog doing the blowing out and Romney, as rich as the past 8 presidents combined and a leader in '08 whose "turn it is now" is hardly anyone's idea of an underdog. So what's interesting about this race? 

What's interesting is two-fold: (1) The strategy and tactics that Romney used to beat Gingrich and (2) the fact that Gingrich has Sarah Palin and Herman Cain lined up on his side making him the Tea Party candidate.


STRA-TEA-GER-EY
Facing the possibility of a second loss in Florida which would cede all momentum and possibly the whole campaign to Gingrich, Team Romney, re-organized and re-tooled to go after Newt. This took the form of a far more aggressive Romney both on the stump and in the debates and, on the ground, applied pressure all over Newt with Romney supporters showing up at his rallies to heckle and rebut him. It also involved mega-bucks media-saturation ad-buys. This in-your-face blanket coverage has proven devastatingly effective dropping his favorability in SoFla from 23 points down to 10.

This is good tactics for Romney because it shows the base that he can take it to an opponent--even get personal (the link has a Romney staffer saying this isn't just about winning but about "destroying Gingrich"). This, frankly, is what the Republicans--base and otherwise--want to see in their candidate. They want someone who is angry at Obama and will bring with the holy fire of the righteous. Newt promised that--and Romney said Obama was "a nice guy but in over his head."

 No more Mr. Nice Guy.

It also shows that Team Romney can handle a complex multi-pronged attack plan in one of the largest and most difficult political terrains in existence. Florida is a big state with multiple segmented demographics (democratic south Florida, the Republican cow-corridor, the Southern-State Pan-handle). It has special interest in the form of Hispanic voters and expensive media. And did I mention, it's big. As a purple swing state, Florida is crucial to the election for both parties. If Romney can dominate here he can dominate everywhere he needs to.

It's a powerful argument for electability-by-competence.

 Romney also hired a new debate coach (the coach Michelle Bachmann used--and whatever her issues, she was pretty sharp in terms of execution in the debates) and used his staffer's relationship with The Druge Report to fill it with anti-Gingrich material.

Basically this is complex integrated "combined arms" approach where Team Romney makes a coordinated on-message assault on Gingrich and, well, wins. It puts Obama on notice that when they're up against Romney it isn't going to be any kind of cake-walk. That is, unless something goes terribly, terribly wrong.

The Tea Party and The Soul of the Republicans 
The only problem is that however much Romney is up he's still not more beloved by the base. Oh, they may be voting for him--but almost half would prefer a new candidate. The big news, however is that Sarah Palin has, yet again, all-but-officially endorsed him. Say what you will about Sarah, she has found a way to endorse someone 'several times' making the headlines each time. She says what's on a lot of people's minds:

Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

A lot of people are thinking the same thing. In fact, Herman Cain--a Tea Party champion even after his fall from grace (although less so now that he did his stage appearance for Colbert) just endorsed Newt on that basis.

What Does It Mean? 
Under normal conditions I would be especially impressed with the base "rising up." As we saw with the PUMAS in '08 (disgruntled Hillary voters who swore they would sweep in McCain as a lesson to the Democrats) it's mostly all talk and no (effective) action. The percent of people willing to waste their vote to send a message no one will get is small--and that small number creates a "death spiral" where, when you think about joining in, you go "But there's so few ... I'd be wasting my vote and no one would get the message anyway--or get the message we're a bunch of losers who deserve to be ignored!"

However the Tea Party is not in that category. They have (1) made their mark (the 2010 elections) and (2) they have shown they're willing to go down with the ship by backing an on-paper ludicrous candidate (O'Donnell, Angle). This means they're not so easy to ignore. Plus, hey, I hear they're funded by Koch brothers.

I don't think all the Tea Party support in the world can help Newt win in Florida at this point--and the few races in Feb mostly favor Romney as well (heavy Mormon western states) but if Gingrich keeps at it, when the tide turns to the south? Well, he might find some stronger tea waiting for him. It also doesn't help Newt that Santorum isn't giving up. Santorum is almost certainly pulling votes (evangelicals) that Newt would get the lion's share of--and while they won't all go to Gingrich (family values voters? Uh, not likely Mr-Three-Wives) if Romney doesn't become more likable it's Newt or Ron Paul and we know who scares evangelicals more.


What Do I Think? 
I think the tastiest possibility out of this mess is that Gingrich could go 3rd party in a kamakazi strafing run against Romney. I didn't think this was likely for Ron Paul--and would be pretty meaningless for Trump at this point--but Newt? If the partisan sniping gets hotter Newt may keep his supporters well into the race. Newt has already shown a penchant for Mutually Assured Destruction (taking on Clinton's impeachment while Newt, himself, was having an affair) and making it personal. Romney, by going directly after Newt in the debates (and schooling him badly in the last one) and having his supporters show up at the rallys? That makes it personal. Also, consider this: the narrative in Newt-supporters minds is that, like with classic Han Solo Star Wars, Romney "fired first." The argument is that Romney "attacked from the left" against Perry by scaring old-folks with Perry's Social-Security-Is-A-Ponzi-Scheme statement (which, uh, was in Perry's book--so I'm not sure why it should be off limits) and then going in for the "Alinskyite" politics of personal destruction against Newt in Iowa--something "only the left" does.

 A poster on one of the blogs asked tellingly: "When can we stop calling them leftist tactics and just start calling them tactics." To these guys, however Newt has sinned with is anti-capitalist attack on Romney's record at slash-and-burn Bain Capital, Romney started the fight and now is playing directly out of Obama's book as well. Newt, for his part, has some nasty attack ads out that are, I think, designed to wound Romney so bad he'll be unelectable in November. I think that's Newt's bet right now: hurt him so badly there is no choice other than Gingrich.

If that's the case, well, I don't know if it's possible--but it'd be scary for me as a GOP insider to watch happen. I believe the smart money says Newt will do no such thing--and that, if he did, his decision to run 3rd would happen late enough in the race for most of the base to have decided on Mitt anyway--but the possibility is still there ... and fascinating.