Planet Abell

I can't help but think that many of my liked-minded friends have completely missed the point of last night's debates. It doesn't matter how much dissembling Romney might have done, or how preposterous the internal logic of his statements may add up to. The moderator's role is a sideshow — moderators are a stupid modern convention that clever politicians know how to play. Debates are not about policy discovery. They are theater. That is all. It's all about heart. The day before, and the day after — that's the time to score the head. On stage it's all about your media training. What makes so many Obama supporters angry is that the distance between head and heart were so wide. But there is nobody to blame for that, and for the appearance — the performance — that conveyed. I saw Felix Salmon today (thanks again for RT'ing, even if, as you explained, it must have been a mistake / the result or boredom or all you have left to do when your own Twitter...

One of the most important modern advances in journalism — courtesy, mind you, of the ethics of blogging -- is the opportunity for writers and publisher to own up to mistakes in the same place, time and fashion where the mistakes were made. Journalists have always had an obligation to correct their errors, of course. Not all have, of course. And the truth can be elusive, even a matter of opinion sometimes. But what isn't up for debate is requirement to tell the same audience you deluded that a) you were wrong and b) here's the truth. Not to pile on, but newspapers haven't always been too good at this. Even when they have grudgingly acknowledged error, they did so in an error section that only the curious few bothered to check, often exposing themselves to the story in question for the first time. Once the paper was out it was out, and gone. Fish wrap. No sane publisher was going to spend valuable paper and ink to re-print old news, just so an error could be acknow...

Two things I don't get about Romney's self-defense of his tax situation: 1) A rate of 14% is "fair" because the funds being taxed — capital gains — have already been taxed on the corporate level. Huh? Capital gains are on realized profits from the sale of real property. If I buy a share of stock for $10, and I sell it for $15, my capital gain is $5. And if I held that share for more than a year, I am taxed at a rate of 15% on that $5, not an whatever rate my earned income is subject to. But, who paid a tax on the any of this before I did? Or, looked at in reverse: Every dollar is taxed by the person or entity which owned it at one time. My employer pays taxes on the money his company earns, then pays me from what's left over. I pay tax on that, and spend some at the supermarket. The supermarket pays tax, and its employees ... and so on. The fact that someone pays tax on that dollar upstream is as irrelevant as the fact that someone will pay tax on that dol...

Bernd Debusmann raises an interesting point in his latest Reuters column : Does the VP selection of Paul Ryan mean that GOP presidential candidate Romney has conceded the so-called Latino vote? Put aside the usual caveats — that voting blocs are usually more complicated than we assume, that they are motivated by single interests and swayed by personality and tribalism — and Debusmann makes a convincing case Ryan is perhaps the least likely to help with Latinos "Of all the potential running mates Romney could have picked from." There has been plenty said about the importance of the Hispanic vote independent of the veepstakes during this endless campaign, but very little analysis about Ryan in this context since his VP candidacy was announced Saturday morning. The "Hispanic vote" looms large in electoral analysis. Bush garnered  more than 40%  of the Hispanic vote in his 2004 win, but John  McCain only 31%  in his 2008 loss. Both showings were conside...

It isn't true that Romney "owes it" to voters to release more tax returns than he has and has said he would. In politics only two things rule: the law (a very forgiving standard) and your image. If Romney doesn't release more than two years of federal tax returns and he wins, ergo, he didn't owe anybody anything. And if he loses it will be difficult to impossible to assess the extent to which opaqueness contributed to defeat. But Romney has a bigger problem. Emphasis on the word "Big." Clearly, Romney has calculated that — at this moment in time, anyway — it is better to hold his ground than to give way. This may change, of course, which would present new challenges (is Romney, yet again, cowering to pressure in a very unpresidential way? Is this just another head-spinning flip-flop?). A host of conservative commentators and at least one  two elected officials have urged Romney to just do it. The most recent is the National Review, whose editorial...

Lost in the Shocked Shocked outrage over the outsourced order for US Olympic opening ceremonies uniforms (Really? THIS is what animates bi-partisanship in Congress?) is the fact that these garments were made in China even though an American company got the order. Nobody thought to ask Calvin Klein where the clothing would be made, probably because it occurred to nobody that "Made in the USA" was more important than price. Or because virtually none of the clothing Americans wear is made in America, or has been for a long, long time. And this is why the attack on capitalism, as the Romney folks put it, will redound to Obama's benefit. Capitalism is not patriotism. Capitalism is not social engineering. Capitalism is not about national boundaries. Capitalism is about making money by providing goods and services for which there is a demand. If you are good at it, lots of people get jobs. If you are bad at it, lots of people lose their jobs and you (and perhaps lots of ...

O bama will win convincingly. Hillary will place, pushing Edwards to third, but Obama's margin of victory will exceed his eight points over both in Iowa, and his near cornering of the market of self-described independents will be a dominant general election narrative. Hillary will portray the loss as entirely media/momentum driven, citing the only five days since Iowa (she has already begun to put out the message that the race really beings in California). Edwards, who has declared he is in the race through the convention, just needs to stay in the hunt, and he will. If he remains in the race much past New Hampshire it will only serve to emphasize Obama's claim as the more legitimate agent of change versus Clinton. The Democratic nomination is now Obama's to lose. Still, for the superstitious, consider these facts: One -- and only one -- modern-day candidate has lost both Iowa and New Hampshire and gone on to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency: Bill Clinton ...

Obama wins with a materially significant number over Clinton. It is not a blowout; Clinton will frame her second-place as a victory of sorts and battle on indefinitely. Edwards is third and will be the first of the top tier to drop out, shortly after New Hampshire. Huckabee wins handily; it is seen as a rebuff to the Republican field in general and Robotman Romney in particular. But his victory is, in the long run, meaningless. The story becomes a very difficult set of numbers from which to extrapolate hope for any GOP candidate beyond New Hampshire. As the smoke clears, the Republican with the most reason to be optimisic, through only slightly, is McCain. That might be fleeting, since Granite State Independents seem to be breaking for Obama -- perhaps a precursor to the "Big Story" of the general election. Full disclosure: I was a McGovern volunteer and was shocked that he lost, and I also predicted a comfortable victory for Kerry. Maybe I'm due ...

(Disclosure: edited 2/26 for typos) Something has been bothering me about the field of Republican presidential hopefuls, and it isn't the absence of Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich. This is it: Since 2000 (a political eternity) there has been no doubt about an open GOP ticket for '08. Dick Cheney made clear he was not going to run for president after a presumptive two-term Bush administration, leaving no heir presumptive. And yet there is no young, vibrant Republican in the mix or even mentioned as a dark horse. No conservative media darling whose candidacy is so audacious, so presumptuous, it just might work. There is room in the tent -- witness talk of Thompson and Gingrich, who poll better than some announced candidates in some polls, and even whispers of a third-party putsch by Michael Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel . Of the presumed leaders John McCain is a re-tread and, thanks to his support of the of Bush war strategy, a far cry from the "rebel" he was perceived of a...

I 'll have to wait for "The Daily Show" to come up with the official count of how many times Ronald Reagan's name was dropped, but other key facts by my personal reckoning: Chris Matthews lost control at about 8:44 Three questioners, each with his own schtick (reading from a monitor?), is a distraction It is OK to be against stem cell research (even with Nancy Reagan staring you down in the front row), for congressional intervention in matters like the Schiavo case and to use the need for "victory" in Iraq as the catchall answer to any question about the war -- including a very pointed one about dealing with an endless supply of enemy recruits. I had never seen Mitt Romney in an extended forum (if you can call 60 seconds long) or on TV doing anything other than defending himself in sound bites, so I can appreciate now what his supporters see in him: a smooth, prepared, articulate candidate of dare-I-say presidential Why is it that only the fringiest of the c...