Tuesday, May 13, 2008

gone fishin'

World Headquarters for the DWSUWF Blog is once again temporarily relocating to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan for a couple of weeks. We'll be opening the family camp on the lake, enjoy some early season fishing, and break out the shotguns for the traditional spring mosquito hunt. It is important to hit them square with the first shot and score a clean kill. If you just wing them, they get real mad.

We will also be taking the opportunity to once again attempt to kick-start a non-blog related writing project and the blog sidebars are also in need of a good spring housecleaning. The blog will not really be on hiatus, as I expect to still get out a few posts as the spirit moves me and the bass, bluegill, pike, and brookies permit.

Frankly, I can't post about this Dem primary any more. How long can you listen to Chris Mathews and Keith Obamamann kvetch about Hillary Clinton staying in the race? It'll get more interesting when the general election kicks off in earnest this summer.

Finally, I just learned that playing golf is a political statement showing contempt for President and the current administration. I may try to drop my handicap a few strokes.

The next edition of the Carnival of Divided Government Tres et Vîcênsimus (XXIII) - Independence Day Edition, which we will declare on or about the Fourth of July. We have a long stretch from now until then. Submit your blog article at carnival of divided government using our carnival submission form. Past posts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Carnival of Divided Government

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

And all the king's horses and all the king's men...

In late February, I wrote that Clinton still had a clear path to the nomination, as long as the Clinton "story" was intact:

"As long as she wins the popular vote The Story stays intact. The Story is all that matters to her campaign now. The Story that Clinton wins all the big states except Illinois. The Story that momentum has shifted. The Story that Hillary Clinton is the new "comeback kid". That story is all that is needed to provide political cover for the superdelegates to vote for Clinton at the convention. Even a 200 elected delegate lead for Obama is the equivalent of a dead even tie, as long as The Story is intact."
The Story indeed remained intact after the Ohio and Texas primary. The Story remained intact after the Pennsylvania primary. Last night, in North Carolina and Indiana, The Story turned into Humpty Dumpty, and came tumbling down. Although she finished with a narrow victory in Indiana, her momentum was broken, and more importantly, the popular vote plurality is now out of reach. Obama's big popular vote victory in North Carolina, combined with her razor thin margin of victory in Indiana, means that the Michigan and Florida totals no longer matter.

Even if Clinton includes Michigan and Florida in her totals, Obama will finish with a popular vote plurality. The Obama campaign can now be magnanimous, agree to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, count the votes, and it still does not matter. With no momentum and no popular vote plurality, there is no story. With no story, there is nothing to keep the superdelegates from declaring for Obama. Humpty Dumpty is not getting put back together.

In that same February post, we quoted Mary Matlin on Meet the Press with this refinement to the The Story:
"If she wins both states, even fractionally, she can say he [Obama] can't close the deal." - Mary Matlin
He didn't close the deal in Ohio, Texas, and the media began asking the same question first posed by Mary Matlin. He didn't close the deal in Pennsylvania despite outspending Clinton three to one, and more questions were asked. Last night, Obama closed the deal. No more questions. We have a presumptive Democratic Party nominee.

A few additional thoughts on last night's results ...
"She's got one thing working for her, that is the near death experience phenomena this year - every time it looks like the perils of Pauline., the trains coming, she has a rescue." - Mike Murphy
In Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania the Clintons explicitly stated that if they did not win, the race was over. The voters chose to continue the contest. In Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton told the voters that they could "change the game" and give her the nomination. The voters chose to end the contest in Obama's favor.
  • Finally, we learned that in 2008, Rush Limbaugh using his radio pulpit to rally his audience in support any Presidential candidate, whether Republican or Democrat, is the kiss of death. He called for his "dittoheads" to support Romney over McCain, and failed. Strike one. He called for his "dittoheads" to vote for Clinton over Obama to extend the nomination process, and failed. Strike two.

McCain can only hope and pray that that Rush Limbaugh keeps his word that he will support the Democratic nominee over McCain in the general election.


Sphere: Related Content

Friday, May 02, 2008

Visitor 50,000

Early this morning, at 1:18 AM California time, DWSUWF was graced by our 50,000th visitor. It took us two years to see this milestone, which places us in the second (or third or fourth) tier of political blogs. Some political blogs get this many visitors every week or month, but still - 50,000 is notable for us. It took nine months for our 10,000th visitor to find us, six more months to capture the attention of our 25,000th visitor, but only 10 more months more to double that milestone to 50,000. If we can double again in 10 months, we'll be looking for visitor 100,000 early in 2009.

So what do we know about visitor number 50K?
He/she lives in Glasgow, Scotland and was busy googling at 9:18 AM in the morning, wanting to know who sang the song "United We Stand, Divided We Fall", and found us from this query. From there, our visitor landed on the DWSUWF post "A Good Death", which contained all the words in his/her query. That post was a tribute to Cornish immigrant Rick Rescorla, who fought heroically as a US Marine in the battle Ia Drang in Vietnam, and died saving others in the South Tower of the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001 - probably while singing the "Defiant Men of Harlech". I don't think that is what our visitor was looking for. More likely, he/she was looking for "The Brotherhood of Man":




What else do we know about our visitor?
He/She uses a PC with Microsoft Windows XP, Internet Explorer version 6.0, and a screen with 800 x 600 resolution. Based on their ISP, our visitor is likely either a student or faculty at Cardonald Community College, and according to Sitemeter's latitude longitude, lives near the intersection of Brereton and Boyd Street, and is about to be run over by a lorry on Boyd Street:

Our visitor has a fifteen minute driving commute along this route to get to the college, with that PC screen resolution, and that musical taste, and an obsolete browser, I'm guessing our visitor is in the faculty age group. Finally, since our visitor is only about a kilometer from Hampden Park...

... he/she is probably currently scheming how to get tickets for the upcoming Scottish Cup Final on May 24. Thanks for the visit, and ...

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Barack Begets Boomer Backlash

UPDATED: 02-May-2008

Why don't you all f-fade away
And don't try to d-dig what we all s-s-say
I'm not trying to cause a b-big s-s-sensation
I'm just talkin' 'bout my g-g-generation
This is my generation
This is my generation, baby
My Generation - The Who

I was not going to post about Democratic campaign for a while. One, I am among the 60%, and two I thought it was time to try to get this blog re-focused on the divided government meme. But just when I thought I was out of it, they pulled me back in. The Obama/Clinton contest is just too darn entertaining.

First, I have said before, and I'll say again - I like Obama. I like his intelligence, I like the way he talks, I like the way he thinks, I like his 20o2 position on the war and I particularly like the fact that he is a Bear fan. It is easy to feel good about Barack Obama. That does not change the fact that a prospective Obama presidential administration is a cipher. There is simply not enough resume' or experience to see an Obama Presidency as anything but an unbreakable code whose meaning is fundamentally unknowable now. No one can know what an Obama presidency will be like. He might be a great president. He might be a disaster. He might even be... Jimmy Carter. Personally, I'd rather see him seasoned as VP for four or eight years before I could vote for him. Yes, I like Obama, but the nonsense coming from Obama supporters who project their hopes and dreams onto the Obama blank slate is another matter all together. Most entertaining of all, is the earnest outrage/righteous indignation/and the audacity of wishful thinking on the part of Obama acolytes.

Lets talk about Jeremiah Wright.

The Difference Between Wright and Wrong.
I am not a very religious person, and that may be the reason I have never really understood the level of intense media coverage given to Reverend Jeremiah Wright's comments. My view is that a pastor like Jeremiah Wright (or Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell or Ted Haggard) are all in the entertainment business. I am not questioning their religious beliefs or those of their followers, I am just saying there is no denying the importance of the performance aspect of what they do. If they know their audience, and are sufficiently entertaining while fulfilling the spiritual needs of their parishioners, they are rewarded with a growing ministry and expanding contributions. It's a show. As such, I don't think it makes any more sense to hang the quotations or views of a Jeremiah Wright performance standing at the pulpit on Barack Obama sitting in the pew watching it, than it does to hang the political views of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jane Fonda on anyone who has sat in a theater and watched "Conan the Barbarian" or "Barbarella" (their respective finest efforts). But that is just me. Obviously, I have a minority view on the subject, since that the media punditry and blogosphere cannot seem to get enough of the story and are continually trying to make exactly that connection between Wright and Obama.

To his credit, Obama made it clear from the beginning that his campaign was not about race. Still, he ha not ignored race as an issue, and has arguably done more to build bridges across the racial divide than any candidate in recent history. At the same time, Obama makes no bones about driving a wedge dividing the electorate along generational lines. Attacking the values of the baby boomer generation has been a core theme of his campaign, since before he was a declared candidate. The theme was outlined in his book, "The Audacity of Hope" and in this January, 2007 New York Times story:
"Mr. Obama calculates that Americans of all ages are sick of the feuding boomers and ready to turn to the generation that came of age after Vietnam, after the campus culture wars between freaks and straights, and after young people had given up on what überboomer Hillary Rodham Clinton called in a 1969 commencement address a search for “a more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living.” In his second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama is critical of the style and the politics of the 60s, when the psyches of most of his potential rivals for the White House were formed. He writes that the politics of that era were highly personal, burrowing into every interaction between youth and authority and among peers. The battles moved to Washington in the 1990s and endure today, he says. “In the back and forth between Clinton and Gingrich, and in the elections of 2000 and 2004,” he writes, “I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation — a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago — played out on the national stage.”
When he announced his campaign in February, 2007, he explicitly called for "a new generation of leadership" and used the word "generation" 12 times in a 20 minute speech. He has reinforced this theme ever since, including this interview last November:
"I think there is no doubt that we represent the kind of change that Senator Clinton can't deliver on, and part of it is generational," Mr. Obama told Fox News yesterday about the difference between himself and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. "I mean, Senator Clinton and others, they've been fighting some of the same fights since the '60s, and it makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done."
Driving this generational wedge is both a strength and weakness of the Obama campaign. When he announced his candidacy, I wrote sarcastically that Obama was declaring "war on Boomers" but there may be more truth than sarcasm in that observation. Certainly, it is easy to find a deep well of resentment among post-boomer generations, whether you want to call them Gen-X, Gen-Y, Gen-Z, Whining Crybabies, or whatever.

They are tired of reading about boomers, living in a culture shaped by Boomers, and hearing about how Boomers invented sex, drugs and rock & roll. For some reason, they seem particularly bitter about having to financially carry the aging Boomer population on their back for most of their working life. They think of the boomer generation as narcissistic and self-indulgent. Who knew? Frankly for Boomers like myself, it is hard to understand this attitude, as they do not seem to appreciate that we are, in fact, the only generation that matters, and how truly fortunate they are to experience our era with us.

Be this as it may, Obama exploiting this generational divide has manifested in odd ways. For example, Obama has no problem giving a speech lumping the eight years of the Clinton administration with eight years of the Bush43 administration as one big undifferentiated status quo to be discarded into the dustbins of history:
"How many years – how many decades – have we been talking about solving our health care crisis? ... In every election, politicians come to your cities and your towns, and they tell you what you want to hear, and they make big promises, and they lay out all these plans and policies. But then they go back to Washington when the campaign’s over. Lobbyists spend millions of dollars to get their way. The status quo sets in."
Now, there is no conceivable common thread between the Bill Clinton administration and the Bush43 administration, except that they are both Boomers. Interestingly, Obama has also seen fit to praise Reagan, Bush41, and JFK in another speech, while ignoring Bill Clinton. The common thread - Obama is rhetorically pitting Presidents of the "Greatest Generation" vs Boomer Presidents Bill Clinton and Bush43. It is kind of pincer movement with pre-boomers and post-boomers out-flanking the boomers. And it is an effective working strategy. At least it was, until the .Jeremiah Wright Comeback Tour over the weekend.

A few weeks ago, I compared Jeremiah Wright's statements to some of Geraldine Ferarro's controversial comments. Then I was focusing on the disparity of coverage by Obama campaign strategist Keith Olbermann who had lambasted Clinton in a"special comment" for not sufficiently denouncing Ferarro, but then gave Obama the kid glove treatment over Wright's statement a few days later. I didn't realize it then, but in the context of the latest Wright kerfluffle, the generational nature of the divide is coming into clearer focus:
"[Cinton's] core support comes from feminists and professional women who lived and fought the good fight against real hard-core sexism in the 60’s and 70’s. It was a different kind of sexism than we see today. Much more blatant. Impenetrable glass ceilings and widespread legal exclusion from many professions and career opportunities was the norm. Sexual harassment and a hostile workplace for women was an accepted work environment. The women who fought to change these conditions are women who have seen a lot, and done a lot, and made a real difference in our country. Women like Diane Feinstein, Gloria Steiman, and Geraldine Ferraro. So... Geraldine Ferraro makes a comment about Obama in support of Clinton and is slapped down by Keith Olbermann and others. Gloria Steiman makes a comment about Obama in support of Clinton and is slapped down by Keith Olbermann and others. Diane Feinstein makes a comment about Obama in support of Clinton and... so it goes. These are women who have earned our respect, and are just not getting it from the Obamites and pundits like Olbermann. It is women like these, who - right or wrong - believe that this is their time - their one shot to see a culmination of a lifetime of struggle for women’s rights - and, right or wrong, have a sense of entitlement in this presidential race."
What was true for the feminists, is also true for those, like Jeremiah Wright, who fought against racism for their entire lives, whether they took that fight to the streets, the courts, or the pulpits. You don't have to agree with their words (which I don't) or try to justify their statements (which I won't) or even understand their views. But they are fighters one and all, and deserve some measure of respect for a lifetime of struggle against injustice. One does have to wonder how the former parishioners of the Chicago Trinity Church, or the Detroit NAACP members who applauded Wright's speech and gave him an award, now feel about Obama after he throwing Wright overboard. Perhaps Obama has been targeting the wrong generation all along. Both Wright and Ferraro (and McCain), fall into the generational group identified as The Silent Generation, which pre-Boomer and post-"Greatest Generation". Let me take this opportunity to nominate the Silent Generation as Worst-Name-Ever.

Some bloggers, like Digby take a personal, almost Shakespearian view, of what they consider to be Wright's betrayal, a view reinforced by the New York Times story. Others, such as Kyle Moore followed John Kerry's lead and took an easy shot at the media. Andrew Sullivan reports on generational angst in letters from readers. AJ Strata, expressed a similar generational view that reflects this angst and Obama's generational campaign theme. I am not sure whether AJ is an Obama supporter, but I suspect his perspective is shared by many who are:
"How much longer do the delusions of an aging and wailing generation have to poison this country? My generation and my kids generation don’t see races, they see people, friends, neighbors who happen to have different genetic codes. I am blessed to live in a neighborhood which is richly diverse, and we respect each other based on where we have come to be - Americans living the American dream and raising our families amongst some of the best people on the planet... Thankfully what my kids and their friends see is a dinosaur who is bleating out his tired cries as he prepares to leave this world to their generation - who are going to simply look upon him as that crazy uncle who never did find a way to live in, and enjoy, the modern world. Reverend Wright may be stuck in the middle of the last century, but out children are building the world of the 21st century and have interest in moving backwards. Their friends are too dear to them to give them up for Ol’ Jeremiah and his disconnected rants."
It is interesting that while AJ asserts that he and his kids "don't see race" but just "friends and neighbors" they do see "the delusions of an aging and wailing generation.." with that entire generation characterized and generalized as "dinosaurs" that are poisoning the country. There also does not seem to be any acknowledgment that these "dinosaurs" may have had something to do with creating that modern diverse tolerant neighborhood that AJ's kids so enjoy today.

Look I'm not saying that AJ is wrong. There is certainly an element of truth in what he is saying. But if AJ, or Keith Olbermann, or Barack Obama, or the Huffington Post, or Markos Moulitsas or anyone else, think that people like Jeremiah Wright or Geraldine Ferraro or or for that matter, Hillary Clinton - are going to stop fighting or sit by the sidelines and be quiet because Obama supporters think it is time for them to step aside and shut up... well there is some delusion going on there, but it is certainly not on the part of Jeremiah or Geraldine or Hillary.

It very well may be time for Barack and the next generation to take the reigns of power. But not if he or his supporters expect Boomers to step aside and hand it to him. If he wants the reins now, he is going to have to rip it out of their hands.

UPDATE: 02-May-2008

I cross-posted this at Donklephant. Karl at Protein Wisdom linked to it with some observations on generational politics in his post"Election 2008: Don’t try to d-dig what we all s-s-say":
"I have also noted a 16-year cycle of “change” elections since WWII that may be a related phenomenon. Reading the complaints of Andrew Sullivan’s Gen Y readers, it is slightly amusing that they think the “old farts” don’t get Obama’s appeal to their idealism about politics. In reality, the “old farts” get it, but have seen versions of this movie before, per the 16-year cycle. "
An interesting and amusing comment thread ensues, including some back and forth on who really is or is not a "Boomer" and interesting related links on generational politics, including Joshua Glenn's Brainiac post "Obama: boomer or post-boomer?":
"The Globe was way ahead of Sullivan on this point, actually. Back in February, Peter Canellos, the paper's Washington bureau chief, argued that "much of what's striking about Obama's campaign ... can be better read in generational, rather than racial, terms." I applauded Canellos's perceptivity in a series of Brainiac posts."
Joshua the proceeds to develop a new generational dating scheme based on a 10 year cycle, placing your loyal blogger at the end of the Boomer cycle, and Obama firmly in Generation X.




Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Carnival of Divided Government - Duo et Vîcênsimus -Terrible Two Birthday Edition


Welcome to the April 23, 2008 Carnival of Divided Government Duo et Vîcênsimus - the "Terrible Twos" Birthday Edition.

Introduction

As explained in earlier editions, we have adopted Latin ordinal numeration in order to impart a patina of gravitas reflecting the historical importance of the series. In this, the Duo et Vîcênsimus edition (XXII), as in all of the CODGOV series, we select volunteers and draftees from the blogosphere and main stream media on the singular topic of government divided between the major parties (leaving it to the reader to sort out volunteers from draftees). Consistent with this topic, the primary criteria for acceptance in the carnival is to explicitly use the words and/or concept of "divided government" in submitted posts. A criteria that, to our endless befuddlement, is ignored by many of the bloggers submitting posts, which sadly results in DWSUWF reluctantly ignoring their fine submissions.

Happy Birthday to us.

Two friggin' years. We will see our 50,000th visitor in the next few days which puts us firmly in the second (third?) tier of political blogs. Since that first post at 11:23 on April 23, we have posted 203 posts, and over 230,000 words. Cripes - that is like three books. I could've written something real. Maybe it is not too late, there has got to be a 60,000 word book in this mess somewhere. Yeah, I'm getting a little cranky as the blog heads into it's "Terrible Twos". I vaguely recall reading about a blogger burnout syndrome named after a popular blogger who just walked away from their blog after two years. Does anyone remember the name of that blogger? I wonder if that is what happened to Jon Swift? Anyway, I'm not feeling that way. We'll be pressing on, but may need to take a short hiatus and assess where we go from here. But in the meantime, lets go to the ...

Carnival

Todd Seavey is calling out those who claim to be libertarian but seem be waffling on the clearly libertarian benefits of free-trade and divided government in "How Crypto-Democrat are some Libertarians?" posted at ToddSeavey.com:
"So, to my libertarian friends who are either indifferent to the Dem/GOP distinction or who actively root for “divided government”: Are you still happier with a Democratic rather than Republican Congress after the Dems’ torpedoing of a free trade deal with Colombia — the sort of deal that at least some of my Dem/GOP-indifferent libertarian pals have rightly pointed to as more important than tiny variations in the size of the federal budget and thus a good indicator of whether the government is moving in the right direction? And if you still prefer divided government, are you consistent enough to be eagerly rooting for McCain rather than for NAFTA-bashing Obama/Clinton? Or, if not, are you de facto supporters of the Democrats (and thus opponents of trade — and thus not clearly libertarians) when you get right down to it?"
Todd is asking the right question. The libertarian swing vote, organized around the concept of divided government, was instrumental in determining the outcome of the 2006 mid-term election. If this election becomes a Democratic Party rout, then the libertarian swing vote simply will not matter, it'll just get swamped. However, if it is a close election, it could be determinative in 2008 as it was in 2006. If - and it is a big "If" - the libertarian swing vote remains consistent and committed to divided government. While it is the right question to ask, I suggest it is too early to ask it. We need to get past the Democratic primary sideshow, find out who the candidate will be, and learn whether events in Basra will overtake the the campaigns.

Hall 10000
is one of those libertarian leaning conservatives who was calling for a Democratic divided government vote in 2006. Or at least his co-blogger Lee was. Regardless, Hal has no question about whether divided government will still be a good idea in 2009, as he outlines in "Government Will Heal Your Wounds, Part II" posted at Right Thinking from the Left Coast:
"The best year of the Bush presidency has been that last one. Divided government is not only a good way to restrain the behavior of Congress, it defuses any messianic tendencies emerging from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue—tendencies which date back to at least FDR."
He references and reinforces an excellent argument quoted by an Andrew Sullivan reader:
"This is not an argument for Clinton or McCain, of course, but I'm now heavily in favor of McCain. I at least want some balance of power between the executive branch and Congress and think McCain's simply the only choice left, despite my many disagreements with him, too. But I just cannot be seduced by Obama's rhetoric. I'm still surprised that you find hope in him. I just think he's playing us all."
Jonathon Rauch is also thinking about the promise of Barack Obama and is asking if it he represents "A New Politics? Or a New Pandering?" at the National Journal:
"But there's also a kind of pandering in what Obama is doing. A few years ago, a pair of political scientists, John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, looked at evidence from surveys and focus groups and drew some fairly startling conclusions. Most Americans, they found, think there are easy, straightforward solutions out there that everyone would agree on if only biased special interests and self-serving politicians would get out of the way. They want to be governed by ENSIDs: empathetic non-self-interested decision makers. This is pure fantasy, of course. But indulging it is Obama's stock-in-trade. In today's Washington, the only way to get sustainable bipartisanship -- bipartisanship over a period of years, not weeks -- is with divided government, which Obama and a Democratic Congress obviously can't provide. True, Hillary Rodham Clinton can't provide that either. He might be better than she at working across party lines (although in the Senate she has been quite good at it, arguably better than he -- and John McCain has been best of all). But to promise "a new kind of politics" borders on chicanery."
One is tempted to say something pithy about "all of the people, some of the time", or "some of the people, all of the time".

Jonathon Rowe is going to go the big "L" route, but is expressing a divided government preference in "Weirdest Anti-Obama Rant Ever" posted at Positive Liberty:
"Not that I support Obama; after last week’s events, I’m beginning to think Hillary preferable. Though I’ll hold my nose as usual and vote Libertarian so you can’t blame me for whom America puts in the White house. If Hillary wins, though, I hope that the Republicans take back Congress so we have divided government as we did in the 90s. Get out of Iraq. Rethink foreign policy along fighting terrorism/national security lines, not “nation building” or spreading democracy. And have a divided government where none of Hillary’s big government policies get passed. Put Bill in charge of overseeing a pro-business economic atmosphere as he did in the 90s. Maybe we’ll see surpluses again one day. Am I dreaming?"
Yes you are Jonathon. The problem with your formulation, is there is no way for the Republicans to re-take either the house or Senate in 2008. In fact, the Democrats have a reasonable chance of even securing a 60 vote filibuster-proof plurality in the Senate. The simple reality, is that if you want to continue the positive liberty promoting aspects of divided government, you cannot get there from here by voting Democrat for President, or wasting your vote on the Libertarian candidate.

Bob Benenson does the congressional analysis on "Jigsaw Politics: House GOP Looks For Help In A Lot Of Tough Places" posted at CQ Politics:
"It has always been hard to measure how many American voters give much consideration to whether they prefer a federal government run completely by one party or a government in which a president of one party serves as a check on a Congress run by the other. But unless something changes drastically in this year’s campaigns for control of both chambers of Congress, the public will face a clear choice on the question of “united” versus “divided” government — because continued Democratic majorities in both the Senate and House appear nearly certain when the 111th Congress is elected this fall and convenes next January."
Uh-huh.

Mike the Actuary is also watching the Democrat kerfuffle, and notes with interest that "Karl Rove Offers Strategy for Dem MI/FL Delegate Mess", but concludes that maintaining a balance of partisan power is a more important calculation than who won the latest primary - posted at Mike the Actuary's Musings:
"Even though I’d prefer to see divided government (if the Dems will control Congress, I’d prefer to have a Republican in the White House), I’ll try to not pay too much attention to the electoral vote projections until convention season; the numbers have to be distorted by the Hillary-Obama brawl."
Daniel Larison points out the difficulty of trying to understand what the election of any of these three presidential candidates will mean for issues like immigration in his post "The Worse, The Worse" posted at Eunomia:
"Significant majorities want restrictions on the level of immigration, but they have little effective representation in Washington, and they will have an opponent in the White House no matter who wins. In anticipation of my later remarks, I should say that I find it remarkable that all of us, myself included, have gone round and round on conservatives and Obama and have scarcely touched how far to the left Obama is on immigration; he makes McCain seem like a Minuteman by comparison. On this question, divided government may prove to be a restrictionist’s best friend given the bad alternatives."
Kinda breaks your heart doesn't it. Snicker.

James Peyser
reviews Mickey Edwards book Reclaiming Conservatism in the Boston Globe:
"Edwards writes that neoconservatives and the religious right have wrecked the conservative movement by driving it away from its core beliefs in individual liberty and divided government, in favor of an activist, mostly sectarian, social agenda, and an imperial presidency bent on global adventurism. The greatest villains in Edwards's story are George W. Bush and Newt Gingrich. According to Edwards, Gingrich destroyed the bipartisan collegiality of Congress by ruthlessly pressing GOP colleagues to toe the line in his all-against-all war to win a Republican majority. When Bush took office, this heightened sense of party loyalty meant that the Republican-controlled legislature was now a handmaiden to the executive. After 9/11, Bush took advantage of a supine Congress to seize unprecedented, and to Edwards's mind, unconstitutional powers - to disastrous effect, most notably in Iraq."
Yeah. Sounds about right. Edward's book is now in my Amazon cart.

While we are on book reviews, Will Wilkinson has reviewed the first three pages of "Larry Bartel's Unequal Democracy", where Larry makes the remarkable claim that financial inequality in America can be blamed exclusively on Republican presidents- posted at The Fly Bottle:
"Fascinating if true! But, congress writes the laws, not the president. So why not look at the party tilt of congresses rather than presidents? Or the alignments between the party controlling congress and the part in the White House. What happens under divided government, I wonder. This is not to say that presidents don’t have a lot of policymaking power, especially given the massive growth in the size and power of the bureaucracies under executive control. The cabinet agencies’ considerable discretion in creating and enforcing regulations and their ability to selectively apply and enforce legislated mandates should be troubling — in itself and independent of issues of partisan slant — to those, like Bartels, who start with Dahl’s “Who governs?” question."
Laslo Weger presents "Modern Tribalism" posted at Outsider's View
"As with other things, the modern tribalism has its positive and negative aspects. A positive aspects would include competition and balance. These are important forces in our society. The proponents of the divided government principle will list (and rightly so) a number of very positive consequences of the situation when the president and at least one part of the Congress are from opposite parties. Regrettably, the changes in people's mindset render that positive aspect less and less relevant."
I have seen no evidence that the positive benefits of divided government (restrained spending growth, better oversight, more careful legislation, better governance, and real reform that lasts longer than the next administration) are made any less relevant by people's mindset or Laslo's interesting thesis.

Miscellany

Traditionally, we conclude this Carnival by including one "off-topic" submission, as a grudging acknowledgment and proxy for the many off-topic submissions received. Because it is our birthday, this time, we are not. Only on-topic submissions this month. Its our birthday. Deal with it.

And with that we conclude this edition. Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for all of the submissions (on-topic or not). The next edition will be the Carnival of Divided Government Tres et Vîcênsimus (XXIII) - Independence Day Edition, which we will declare on or about the Fourth of July. We have a long stretch from now until then. DWSUWF will be doing some traveling, including some fishing in Michigan and relaxing in the South of France, and over that time considering the future of this blog and the content therein. This is not a formal hiatus, but things may slow down for a bit. Submit your blog article at carnival of divided government using our carnival submission form. Past posts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Carnivalingus

Finally, some recent carnivals and compilations of note:
Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Sphere: Related Content