First off, happy May Day to everyone!

OK, with that out of the way, we must (sadly) turn our eyes to the Republican Party. Because they appear to be losing all touch with reality, so it's best to keep an eye on them at this point. For starters, they are calling a special Republican National Committee meeting in the next month to vote on (as if they could) forcing their opposition to change their name to what is variously described as the "Socialist Democratic Party" or the "Democratic Socialist Party" (as well as variations where they intentionally leave out the "-ic" just to twist the knife).

I'm serious -- you just can't make this stuff up. The most pressing thing to the GOP right now is throwing a tantrum. No wonder the public is leaving their party in droves.

During this party meeting, in addition to the all-important issue of having a meaningless vote on a rightwinger's wet dream, they are also going to have a return of their party leadership battle, as the faction that lost attempts to take away the power of the purse from chairman Michael Steele. While unified in their hatred of all things Democratic, they are going to show some more party unity... by refighting a factional power struggle.

Steele, meanwhile, just agreed with a caller on a radio show that Barack Obama is a "magic Negro." Again, you just can't make this stuff up. Steele, if you've been in a coma for a few months, is African-American himself.

Continue Reading »

President Barack Obama certainly covered a lot of ground in his third prime-time press conference last night. For once, almost every question he was asked was a fairly intelligent one, and the media pack seemed to have settled down quite a bit from their initial post-recess elementary-school behavior. Obama was asked about many substantial issues, and gave many substantial answers. He announced new policy directions, and clarified some vague stances he has had recently, all of which is newsworthy today.

But everyone else is talking about all of that, which frees me up to talk about talking. Specifically, the verbal framing of a few issues by our president. Obama has always been excellent at doing so, only slipping up a few times on the campaign trail; so it is to be expected that he would continue doing so as president. And last night, he continued to show his verbal skills, by reframing three particular issues (you could probably count more, these are just the three that struck me the most).

Framing is important for a politician, because if you frame the issue early enough on, then everyone (even your opponents) start talking about it using your terminology, and you have won half the battle already. Case in point: the "surge" in Iraq.

Obama's first example of framing wasn't as strong as it could have been, but it was strong enough. [Note: all these quotes come from the official transcript of last night's press conference.]

Continue Reading »

I have to start off with an admission. My name is Chris W., and I'm a poll-watcher. It's a habit I started a while ago, and then it just got completely out of control during the election season (which was slightly more than two years long this time around). And now I just can't stop myself.

But while checking FiveThirtyEight.com or RealClearPolitics.com or Pollster.com, I've always laughed at anything which lists itself as an "internet poll." Because their results should be taken with a very large grain of salt. I realize some might say that about all polls, but even the skeptic has to admit that some polls are more accurate than others. Internet polls are so inaccurate, though, that they don't even belong on the spectrum of honest polling at all.

Time magazine just proved this point beyond any doubt. They just released the results of their online poll for "The World's Most Influential Person," and a 21-year-old college student who goes by the name "moot" won first place.

Continue Reading »

This column is brought to you by the number 60.

And, of course, Arlen Specter.

Senator Specter's announcement today that he is switching parties and joining the Democrats is the political equivalent of an earthquake. Because, much like Jim Jeffords becoming an Independent (and caucusing with the Democrats) it changes the entire balance of power in the Senate. Or, to be more accurate, will change, when Al Franken is finally seated.

Specter realized this, and craftily jumped ship now, so he could honestly say "this does not give the Democrats 60 votes in the Senate." Because, technically, he is right. For the time being, it will give the Democrats 59 votes. Until Norm Coleman exhausts his legal challenges and Al Franken is seated. Which will give Democrats the magic number of a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.

Continue Reading »

Barack Obama continues to ride a wave of public support as we approach the magic "100th day" of his presidency. Since I wrote about his 100 days (94 days, actually) last Friday, today I'd like to take a magnifying glass to a recent public opinion poll from ABC and the Washington Post. Because there are some interesting things contained within it which are being lost in all the "100 days" frenzy.

The big number in the ABC/Post poll is Obama's job approval rating, which they pegged at a whopping 69 percent, with 26 percent disapproving. That is almost seven in ten, with only one in four disapproving, and is quite simply astonishing. But to be fair, this number is higher than other reputable polls taken this week, but not by much. CNN had Obama's approval/disapproval at 63/33, Gallup had it at 65/29 (see either RealClearPolitics or Pollster for more polling data).

Continue Reading »

I admit, I am getting the jump on the rest of the media here, by writing my "First 100 Days" article six days early (some would say five days early, but they would be wrong). I have jumped this particular gun already, I should point out, having already written one article (after Obama's first week in office) entitled "Obama's First 168 Hours." So today we are going to pre-empt the usual Friday Talking Points article this week with a special edition on President Obama's "First 100 Days," since everyone will be talking about it starting this weekend.

Originally, I thought about breaking Obama's achievements down into: "The Good," "The Bad," and "The Ugly," because it's so catchy (it's almost like they should name a movie that, or something). But upon further reflection, this doesn't adequately cover the material, and so instead we will use the categories: "The Good," "The Bad," and "The Monumentally Stupid (Media)." After a short overview, we'll get to the individual categories.

Continue Reading »

Welcome back to my pre-emptive strike on the thousands of journalists preparing their "Obama's 100 Days" articles for next week. How many of them will count wrong and publish one day early (his first day in office, depending on how you measure, ended at noon 1/21/09)? Time will tell. So while I will be publishing my own take on "Obama's First 94 Days" tomorrow, we continue today with a look back at President Obama's immediate predecessors. Yesterday's article examined Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan's first 100 days (and how they were seen at the time in the media). Today we take a look at George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

Continue Reading »

It is "first 100 days" season in Washington. This is when lazy journalists (I include myself in that designation) write about an artificial timeline first instituted for Franklin Roosevelt's presidency. The roundness of the number, and the ease at fashioning a "hook" to your storyline prompts a flood of "100 days" stories for each and every president.

But before I get to writing mine (which will appear this Friday), I'd like to take a look back at Obama's closest predecessors and how the media saw their first 100 days in office. What is striking is how often the media gets it wrong when measuring up new presidents. What seems negative at the time can later be viewed positively by the consensus of history, and vice versa. So all journalists should approach the subject with some humility, and consider how often their snap judgments turn out later to be wrong.

Today's article will look at the first 100 days of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan. Tomorrow's article (to be posted at ChrisWeigant.com) will look at George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. And then Friday I'll jump into the fray and write about Obama's first 100 days, which will likely prove later to be wrong in many ways, when read years from now.

Continue Reading »

OK, I fully admit that's a provocative title for me to write. To be more accurate (and a lot less sensationalistic) it should probably read: "In Support Of Dick Cheney's Call To Declassify The Evidence To Prove Whether Torture Worked Or Not." Call me biased towards openness and knowing what was done in the American public's name, but I support Cheney's recent call for more (not less) disclosure in this case. Whether it makes logical sense to anyone's argument about the subject or not.

The right's argument currently is that President Obama's release of the Bush Torture Memos was "dangerous" and "irresponsible" and put our national security at risk, and even may have been aiding our enemies. This is not overstating their case -- if anything, it understates their case. The release of the memos was dangerous and naive, they argue, and was solely a political move designed to embarrass former president Bush. In other words, Obama sacrificed American national security for politics. Keep this in mind, we'll return to this argument later. But first....

Enter Dick Cheney. Now, for those of us who are accustomed to loudly humming "Darth Vader's Theme" from "Star Wars" every time Cheney is shown, an interesting side note from Maureen Dowd needs attention. She actually asked a man who should know something about the subject -- George Lucas himself -- and here is what he had to say on the matter:

Continue Reading »

President Obama called last week for simplifying the United States income tax code. This issue may be too big for even Obama to succeed at changing, though. Because while politicians love to rail against the briar patch that is our tax code, and love to call for "reforming" or "simplifying" it, very little progress is ever actually made at doing so. But there's an easy one-step solution for this systemic problem that would go a long, long way towards simplifying the thousands of pages of instructions from the Internal Revenue Service. This idea could fit on a postcard: "Force Congress to do their own taxes. With no help. And then immediately audit all of them, and post the results publicly."

But before we get to the solution, let's take a look at the problem. Our tax code is complex, by design. There was a great overview last week on the Huffington Post which explains why this is so. In a nutshell: the tax code is written by Congress (who writes all laws). Corporations lobby Congress for favorable language in the tax code, which will benefit only them (or, at the most, only their industry). This language is purposely intended to be as obscure as possible, to hide what they're doing from everyone else (who might object to such favorable treatment as being "unfair"). Most people don't read even one-tenth of the whole tax code when filling out their own returns, which further obscures such favorable treatment. Which leaves everybody with extremely puzzling and obscure verbiage outlining how taxes are to be paid.

Continue Reading »