Politics

by hilzoy

John McCain, man of science:

“At a town hall meeting Friday in Texas, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., declared that “there’s strong evidence” that thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that was once in many childhood vaccines, is responsible for the increased diagnoses of autism in the U.S. — a position in stark contrast with the view of the medical establishment.”

I have criticized Jake Tapper, who wrote the ABC new piece, but he did the right thing here by linking to a lot of evidence that McCain is just plain wrong. That last link is particularly interesting: a study has shown that diagnoses of autism continued to rise even after thimerosal was removed from most vaccines, which makes it pretty unlikely that thimerosal is responsible for that increase.

This matters. Measles can have serious complications:

“Measles itself is unpleasant, but the complications are dangerous. Six to 20 percent of the people who get the disease will get an ear infection, diarrhea, or even pneumonia. One out of 1000 people with measles will develop inflammation of the brain, and about one out of 1000 will die.”

As I write, there’s an outbreak of measles in San Diego. None of the children who got measles had been immunized. Those kids did not decide for themselves to buy into a discredited theory about the dangers of vaccines: their parents did. Moreover, while infants are generally protected against measles by maternal antibodies for their first 6-8 months, they are not vaccinated against measles until they are 12-15 months old. This means that there are a few months when they are susceptible to measles. This window would be a lot less dangerous if every child was vaccinated, since these kids would never encounter children who got measles because their parents were idiots.

Mark Kleiman points out that McCain has also advocated discontinuing methadone after 6 months, which also flies in the face of available research. And, moving from science to other issues, the WSJ notes that McCain has apparently disowned his own Social Security policy:

Read more

by hilzoy

As a number of people have pointed out, it’s very odd that people like Tim Russert assume that Barack Obama is under some sort of obligation to denounce (and refuse reject!) Louis Farrakhan, but John McCain can accept the support of John Hagee, who has said that “I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans,” without anyone but us lefty bloggers so much as batting an eye. And Hagee wasn’t the only evangelical given to hateful comments with whom McCain campaigned during this week alone:

“McCain also campaigned in Ohio this week with Rod Parsley, a television evangelist who leads a group called the Centre for Moral Clarity. McCain called Parsley — who has suggested that adulterers should be prosecuted and compared members of the abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood to Nazis — a “spiritual guide”.”

I think Glenn Greenwald is right: it’s about race.

“White evangelical Ministers are free to advocate American wars based on Biblical mandates, rant hatefully against Islam, and argue that natural disasters occur because God hates gay people. They are still fit for good company, an important and cherished part of our mainstream American political system. The entire GOP establishment is permitted actively to lavish them with praise and court their support without the slightest backlash or controversy. Both George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sent formal greetings to the 2006 gathering of Hagee’s group.

By contrast, black Muslim ministers like Farrakhan, or even black Christian ministers like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are held with deep suspicion, even contempt. McCain is free to hug and praise the Rev. Hagees of the world, but Obama is required to prove over and over and over and over that he does not share the more extreme views of black Ministers.”

But it’s even stranger than that. The two cases are different, and different in ways that ought to make McCain have to denounce Hagee a lot more than Obama had to denounce Farrakhan. Before Farrakhan ever announced his support for Obama, Obama was on record denouncing his views, and in particular his antisemitism. Obama did not solicit Farrakhan’s support, appear with Farrakhan, or put out press releases announcing it.

If someone vile — some white supremacist, for instance — endorsed John McCain without McCain having solicited the endorsement, and after McCain had criticized that person extensively, that would be analogous to Farrakhan endorsing Obama. I think it would be insane to demand of politicians that they denounce anyone who endorses them under such circumstances. Perhaps if there were some unclarity about their views, a statement would be useful. But in a case in which it’s perfectly clear that the candidate in question flatly disagrees with the person who has endorsed him, I can’t see that that’s necessary.

But Hagee’s endorsement of McCain wasn’t like that. McCain didn’t just happen to be endorsed by Hagee; he appeared with Hagee at a joint press conference when that endorsement was made:

“”I’m very honored by Pastor John Hagee’s endorsement today,” McCain said at a news conference. “He has been the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement in many areas, but especially, most especially, his close ties and advocacy for the freedom and independence of the state of Israel.””

That’s very different. The real analog to Hagee’s endorsement of McCain, I think, is not Farrakhan’s endorsement of Obama; it’s the flap over Donnie McClurkin, the gospel singer who ” has detailed his struggle with gay tendencies and vowed to battle “the curse of homosexuality,””, and who was invited to participate in some Obama events in South Carolina. The comparison is instructive.

Read more

by publius

McCain’s general election campaign is not off to a smooth start. First, his opening salvo focused on Obama’s commitment to public financing promises — whoops. Next, his campaign responded to the (grossly irresponsible) NYT article with an impulsive, overbroad “never helped any lobbyists ever” denial – thus opening himself to more unfavorable press.

These tactical misfires won’t sink his campaign by any means. They do, however, raise larger concerns. Simply put, McCain hasn’t proven himself to be a good campaigner yet. In fact, there are many reasons to think that he’ll actually campaign poorly.

I’m a big believer in the “primaries matter” theory. Elections are Darwinian environments – and candidates tend to win for a reason. Tactics matter, as does an ability to tap into the larger Zeitgeist (i.e., structural forces matter too, but good campaigners recognize and tap into those underlying currents). For this reason, candidates who look great on paper (Dole, Rudy, HRC) lose if they run wretched campaigns. Similarly, candidates who don’t look so hot on paper can compensate with superior campaigning skills. In short, people who win tend to run superior campaigns. Not always, but generally.

At first glance, you might think McCain’s primary victory is evidence of his own campaigning skills. But I don’t think so. His victory (for unique reasons) doesn’t necessarily show his Darwinian chops. Despite all his experience, McCain remains in many ways a roll of the dice.

Consider 2000. While he had some initial success due to fawning press coverage (which is probably his key “skill”), the ultimate result was a spectacular flameout in South Carolina and beyond. The South Carolina tactics were despicable, sure. But Republican primaries aren’t pretty. He knew the players involved and should have been better prepared. More to the point, you can’t win a Republican nomination when you ostentatiously demonize key coalition members, as he did. Personally, I applauded the criticism of Jerry Falwell, but I’d have been cringing if I were his campaign manager.

Moving on to 2008, the stars aligned perfectly for him. Ross Douthat has made the case more eloquently than I have, but McCain’s victory had a lot to do with luck. First, his rapid ascent helped him avoid embarrassing media moments. Remember that, for most of 2007, McCain was ignored. Thus, he wasn’t subject to the type of exacting scrutiny that Romney and Rudy (and, to a lesser extent, Fred Thompson got). He had to keep things together for a month rather than a year – a much easier task.

Second, his victory was less than overwhelming. McCain won a relatively small plurality among a sharply divided field. His victory had less to do with his savvy campaigning, and more to do with (1) a conservative base split between Romney and Huckabee; (2) Rudy’s rapid collapse and strategic blunders; and (3) Thompson’s silly last stand in South Carolina. None of this establishes that McCain is a bad campaigner. The point is that his victories don’t necessarily establish that he’s a good one.

Read more

by publius

It’s hard to express how happy – nay, gleeful – I was to see the House recess without caving on FISA. The outburst of backbone literally brought tears of joy to my eyes. At last, I thought, Congressional Dems have exorcised the ghosts of 2002 and that most wretched of midterms – the winter of Dems’ discontent.

Looking back with some perspective, though, I think the 2002 election actually scarred Republicans far more than it did the Democrats. If there’s a party that needs to do some 2002 ghost-exorcisin’, it’s the GOP.

The story of how the 2002 election scarred the Dems is of course quite familiar. It’s not so much the thrashing itself, but the manner of the thrashing that scarred them. Remember that the GOP’s campaign strategy didn’t just beat them, it reduced them to shivering petrified little cowards who spoke of prescription drug benefits on the eve of war. (To this day, the image of Gephardt in the Rose Garden makes my blood boil – and isn’t that Edwards back there too?).

The abject humiliation is what traumatized the Congressional caucus – and that same fear resurfaces during the endgame of each national security debate. Nobody wants to risk that again.

At the same time this fiasco played out, the liberal base’s anger grew in direct proportion to its elected leaders’ cowardice (it even drove some to start blogging). This anger hasn’t really gone away – it’s been repressed, but it still lurks beneath. And that’s why the base pushes Congress so passionately when these issues come up. It’s 2002 all over again in their heads. Neither Congress nor the base wants another 2002 – it’s just that they have very different ideas about how to avoid it. (On an aside, this is more than a subtext of the opposition to Hillary Clinton – too many images of Gephardt float around her candidacy).

So that’s the Dem side of 2002 – but all that’s been said. What’s more interesting, then, is the negative effect of 2002 on the Republicans.

Read more

by hilzoy

Herewith, the last installment of the More Than You Ever Wanted To Know About Clinton and Obama’s Legislative Records Project: the co-sponsored amendments from the 109th Congress. As before, I list only amendments that they are described as having co-sponsored as early as possible: in the Congressional Record if that’s available, on the first possible day when they could have co-sponsored if not. The point of this is to exclude as many bills as possible that they signed onto without working on them. However, the list that remains surely includes some bills that they did not work on.

As before, I also exclude amendments that are ceremonial (e.g., naming post offices, directing that coins be struck, etc.); bills that are of merely local interest (counting bills about NYC and 9/11 as being of more than local interest); bills that simply state policy or require a report; and bills that appropriate less than $50 million and do nothing else not covered in one of the earlier exclusions. The point of these exclusions is to remove bills that I think would be relatively easy to pass, since they require very little of Congress, and to prevent my having to type in the names of all those post offices.

Earlier bits of this: Sponsored bills and amendments, co-sponsored bills from the 110th and 109th Congresses here, and co-sponsored amendments from the 110th Congress here. The point, obviously, is to make it as easy as possible for anyone who wants to compare the candidates’ legislative records to do so.

Just in case anyone is wondering: no, I haven’t lost my mind. I had done a lot of this before, and today I was sick in exactly the sort of way that makes me think: I’m not good for much, so I might as well get a mind-numbingly boring task out of the way.

Read more

by hilzoy

For all you policy junkies who were absolutely riveted by my last post, here’s more: a list of substantive bills of which Clinton and Obama were original co-sponsors in the 109th and 110th Congresses, and a list of substantive amendments of which they were original co-sponsors in the 110th. (The amendments in the 109th is what I haven’t finished yet.)

This list undoubtedly includes too much, since it’s possible to co-sponsor a bill you did not help write. I just don’t know how to narrow it down further. It’s probably a good idea to look at how many co-sponsors each bill has: in the case of S. 761, which has 69 co-sponsors, the fact that Clinton was among them is less likely to be significant than in the case of a bill for which she is the only co-sponsor. Where the Congressional Record helps, I note that fact.

Methodology: I list only bills/amendments that they are described as having sponsored as early as possible: in the Congressional Record if that’s available, on the first possible day when they could have co-sponsored if not. I exclude bills/amendments that are largely ceremonial (e.g., naming post offices, directing that coins be struck, etc.); bills that are of merely local interest (counting bills about NYC and 9/11 as being of more than local interest); bills that simply state policy or require a report; and bills that appropriate less than $50 million and do nothing else not covered in one of the earlier exclusions.

Read more

by hilzoy

This is just a follow-up post to publius’ last. I have been trying, off and on, to compare Clinton and Obama’s legislative records. Various people have compared their voting records — see, for instance, here — but it occurred to me that it would be interesting to see not just how they voted, but what legislation they had actually gotten passed, as a guide both to their priorities and to their effectiveness. When I started, I had no idea what I’d find; I did this partly to find new facts and thus minimize the chances that I was being biassed.

I haven’t finished this yet: a serious examination of this question requires looking not just at the legislation each of them sponsored, but at the legislation they co-sponsored. Thus, for instance, I know that Obama had a big role in the legislation known as “Lugar/Obama”, which was sponsored by Richard Lugar, and in a whole raft of ethics bills, many of which were sponsored either by Harry Reid or by Russ Feingold. I imagine the same is true of Clinton. But it’s tricky trying to figure out which bills they co-sponsored because they actually worked on them, and which they co-sponsored just because they thought the bill was a good one. I haven’t finished this yet. (Note: if anyone can think of an easy way to do this, above and beyond reading through the Congressional Record for clues, please let me know.)

However, I present for your delectation and edification (and uglification and distraction!) a list of all the bills sponsored by either candidate that actually became law. (I omitted resolutions.) Short version: neither has passed anything this Congress, which seems to be because bills take a while to wend their way through committee. In the 109th Congress, Clinton’s bills were all pretty insubstantial; Obama had one substantial bill, on the Congo. In the 107th and 108th Congresses, Obama wasn’t there, so comparisons are not possible; nonetheless, Clinton’s legislation seems pretty thin to me.

I also added a list of all the amendments each has passed in the 109th and 110th Congresses that meet certain criteria that I spell out below (designed to eliminate things that are easy to pass and thus require little skill, and also to minimize my typing.) Why the 109th and 110th? Because they are the two Congresses for which direct comparisons between Clinton and Obama are possible, and at a certain point I decided not to bother with the earlier ones.

To reiterate a point I made above: this list omits everything they have co-sponsored. This means that it is not a list of every piece of legislation they have written and gotten passed: Senators can play very important roles in writing legislation they merely co-sponsor. It’s just a starting point, but not, I hope, entirely without interest.

Read more

by hilzoy

I haven’t written anything either about Obama’s massive victories in Virginia, Maryland, and DC or about the new spate of stories about Clinton’s campaign, since I haven’t wanted to seem as though I was piling on. But the latter, especially, seem to me to raise pretty serious questions about Clinton’s candidacy.

Its initial rationale, as best I could tell, was that Clinton was inevitable. That idea has presumably gone glimmering. Next, we got the claim that Clinton was the candidate with “35 years of experience making change”; the one who was “ready to lead on day one“.

Those 35 years of experience have always been a bit murky to me. Hillary Clinton’s seven years in the Senate have been pretty undistinguished. Fifteen earlier years were spent working full-time as a corporate lawyer, and while Clinton served on various worthy boards and panels during that period, and by all accounts did quite well on them, it’s hard to see how much time she could have spent on them while also having a full-time job. Eight were spent being first lady, during which time her major undertaking was the catastrophic attempt to get health care reform passed. And while I do give her full credit for the two years she spent working for the Children’s Defense Fund, and the Watergate Committee, I’ve always been a little puzzled by the idea that I should vote for Clinton because of her experience.

The one thing that argued for real managerial skill was the fact that Clinton seemed to be running a pretty good campaign. That idea seems to me to have been destroyed over the past few days. Even if every single word in every single story about the campaign is due to disgruntled staffers being unfair and petulant, you’d still have to ask questions like: how did a campaign that raised over $115 million in 2007 burn through all that money with only a third place showing in Iowa to show for it? Why did the campaign not plan for the possibility that they would not wrap up the nomination on Super Tuesday? Why did they have no resources, and practically no field campaign, in place in any of the February caucus states? (Marc Ambinder’s answer: “a lack of money”. Again: how could that have happened given how much money they raised?) These are major unforced errors.

The stories coming out of the Clinton campaign provide an explanation for this, and it’s not pretty.

Read more

by publius

Although I reject the whole “nothing counts until March 4” argument, I have been looking ahead to the Texas Democratic primary. Quite understandably, Clinton wants to make Texas the firewall. It is, after all, the most Clinton-friendly of the remaining big states – on paper anyway.

The problem for Clinton, though, is that Texas has an extremely arcane delegate allocation system that is structured in a way that will help Obama. The system won’t necessarily help him win, but it will help him avoid the type of blowout that Clinton so desperately needs. In short, Texas may not be much of a firewall at all.

Below, I’ve attempted to provide a basic summary of how the Texas primary will work. Be warned though – it’s extremely dense. Some who’ve sought its truths have never returned. But I, dear reader, risked it — for you. Like Virgil before me, I will guide you through the Inferno that is the Texas Democratic primary. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here . . .

Read more