The Technocrat

Mike Bloomberg is an impressive manager of New York City. He’s certainly no Republican. Matter of fact, if I were to think about it long enough, I could convince myself he is the finest Democratic mayor in the country based on his creative, forward-looking solutions. He the very picture of progressive idealism made real by competent governance. So, I was gratified to learn he awoke to the reality that he has no home in the GOP and adjusted his political affiliation to officially unaffiliated last week. Way to go, Mayor Mike. Later is better than never.

Of course, it would seem slightly less disingenuous if that act wasn’t sandwiched in between a Newsweek cover including him and Mr. Independent (but still Registered Republican) Gov. Schwarzenegger and NYTimes articles describing the extensive efforts by Bloomberg aides to analyze previous independent bids for the presidency and strategies to gain ballot position throughout the U.S. There’s no doubt, Bloomberg has the money to make some serious noise and, potentially, impact the 2008 race in ways at least equal to Perot’s 1992 bid.

Still, he protests. Despite building up the hype machine with trips to critical 2008 states and frequent statements slamming the sad state of affairs that is the American body politic today, he denies any interest in the oval office whenever the question is put to him. Earlier this week, he went so far as to say he would run only if he were the last person on earth. Somehow I doubt that. If he truly wanted to shut down the speculation, he would stop appearing on national magazine covers and traveling to corporate campuses to catcall the parties. Going further, he would tell his team to stop sending signals, public or otherwise, that he plans to be a candidate. Even better, he could ask that whomever is placing Google Ads that link to his official candidacy (for no apparent office — how tantalizingly mysterious!) site on popular news blogs like PoliticalWire. Someone writes those checks, someone approves the ads, and, knowing how Bloomberg likes to brand just about everything (his most recent book was titled “Bloomberg on Bloomberg”), can there be no doubt that someone reports into Bloomberg?

I find blatant political opportunism repugnant. I’m a diehard Democrat, was when I lived in Georgia, will be when I go back. Unlike some people, Mike Jacobs I’m looking at you, I don’t manipulate my party affiliation for crass opportunism. More importantly, though, I respect public officials, regardless of party, who use their office to come up with solid, serious, real solutions to real problems. Mike Bloomberg was an opportunist when he switched parties in 2001 from Democratic to Republican because the latter provided him a straighter shot at the nomination. With the tragedy of 9/11 as a back-drop, and the help of millions of self-funded campaign $, he managed to overcome the city’s strong Democratic lean and continue Republican dominance of the mayor’s office. Despite governing as anything but your standard party member, he helped coax the GOP to hosting their convention in New York City in 2004. With that excuse behind him, he easily could have righted his political affiliation prior to the 2005 campaign to its proper home in the Democratic party or the half-step he recently took as unaffiliated. But he didn’t. He waited. His aides planned. He denied.

And then it just so happens, during a summer slow-down in campaigning and fund-raising announcements, that he decides to make his party adjustment now? I don’t buy it.

Mike, you’re a fantastic mayor, but the cloying opportunism belies a narcissism that equals that of your predecessor and betrays your true intentions. I believe doing well by the people of New York City certainly matters to you, but the more your flirtation with higher-office makes transparent your base ambition, the more you risk adding an asterisk to your legacy. Do you want that footnote to read, “Mayor Bloomberg’s second term in office was sullied when he announced an independent bid for the presidency, which, despite achieving little more than 5% in the popular vote, swung the election to the GOP.”?

“It’s a TV show. If you can’t handle TV questions, how are you going to stand up to Iran, and North Korea, and the rest of the world?” - Tim Russert, quoted by DC Fishbowl (via PoliticalWire)

Tim. Come on. First, you should know better than to parrot not only a standard Republican line, but the line of Fox News’ own Roger Ailes, who commented in March: “The public knows if a journalist’s question is unfair. They also know if a candidate is impeding freedom of speech and free press. If you are afraid of journalists, how will you face the real dangers in the world?”

Does anyone, and I mean anyone, truly believe Fox News’ domestic coverage* isn’t swung to the far right? Just a quick scan of MediaMatters‘ compendium of Fox News mistaken coverage reveals that all these “mistakes” and “omissions” conveniently slam or otherwise malign Democrats. There are over 1,800 incidents documented, some minor, some not so much, but a theme develops throughout: Fox News editorials, which are plenty from morning to night, and live news coverage almost always spotlight, support, and pet the Republican view while slamming, questioning, or demeaning the Democratic perspective.

This is not to suggest the other networks are angels on this score or should suffer questions of bias going in another direction, but it is to suggest this: Fox News is a mouthpiece for the Republican party and the administration. It is well within their right to produce it and even more so the right of its loyal viewers to watch it. That does nothing to take away from the fact that it is a network narrowly produced to target a narrow audience — one disproportionately Republican and one disproportionately, perhaps not entirely coincidentally, misinformed according to a recent report.

So, you have a network that maligns Democrats or mis-names, mis-titles or otherwise manages to miss them or their points entirely in any debate scenario that has, without a doubt, the fewest Democrats among its audience of any network. So, why, exactly, would any serious Democratic presidential feel the need to appear on its debate?

This debate is designed by Ailes, and his beltway power-circle friends like Russert, to validate Fox News as a legitimate presence on the media scene. It’s not. There are legitimate news outlets like The Wall Street Journal that manage to effectively and consistently separate opinion from journalism. Until Fox News manages the same, no Democrat should feel the need to grace them with their presence, presidential candidate or otherwise.

* I happen to know a Fox News international correspondent and have viewed her coverage as well as that of her compatriots on that side of the house. (Web-based, selective viewing, mind you.) Based on those cursory views, I can honestly suggest the international coverage lacks the partisan patina that glows from their domestic political coverage.

I just don’t understand the GOP. Collectively, I think they are a party with an identity crisis.

Let’s start with Libby: To review -

• Libby is among several Administration figures who outed CIA covert agent Valerie Plame
• He lied about it, repeatedly, under oath
• He is found guilty of perjury
• And a sentence is applied
• Result? Not only do multiple “friends and family” send letters entreating the (GOP-appointed) judge presiding the case to go lenient on Libby, but the rank & file light up talk radio to demand he be saved, as if he were being punished unfairly by one of those crazy activist judges they always get their dander up about

Now, rewind to 10 years ago:

• A President lies about an affair
• A Special Prosecutor, appointed by said president, having found nothing surrounding the supposed Whitewater “scandal,” determined it in the nation’s best-interest to spend $80m+ investigating said affairs
• The President is found guilty of perjuring himself about the affair
• A President is impeached by the House of Representatives
• As collateral damage: A sitting Vice President loses votes in the subsequent general election

I was among a sizable portion of my party’s rank & file, if not a majority, that felt, while patently unfair and a tragic waste of the country’s time and tax dollars, the President did this to himself and was guilty of perjury no matter what the definition of “is” was. It was not a proud time for the Democratic party.

Fast-forward ten years, and the GOP base, the 28 percenters that will not yield their blind defense of the Administration or its endless corner-turning in Iraq, demands a pardon for Mr. Libby, who, again, committed two illegal acts, one for which he was indicted and the other not, but both related to a matter of national security: The outing of a covert agent working to protect this country from acts of terrorism.

So, again, I just don’t get the GOP hard-core base, but I do have a theory as to why they are this way.

Could it be that admitting Libby was in the wrong and deserves jail time for lying under oath would be to acknowledge that wanton acts of illegality, in the interest of partisanship no less, deserve punishment? Going further, would they then have admit there are other illegal acts, committed by multiple officials up and down this administration, that deserve the same style of serious law & order treatment handed down in this case?

Denial can be a powerful force.

UPDATE: I stand corrected. In a search to discover who, if any, of the Republican candidates would stand behind justice being served in this instance, I came across this piece in TPM Cafe. According to it Former VA Governor Jim Gilmore and, the increasingly/comparatively sane, Congressman Ron Paul affirmed Libby should be sent to the big house. That’s 2 out of 10 so 20% for the rule of law in the Republican primary.

There’s little doubt: Violent crime is on the rise in the ATL. According to this Creative Loafing column, other cities, including my current burg, put one in more danger, but it’s not the best company to have for Atlanta: “You’re three times more likely to get murdered in ATL than NYC. One in every 4,416 Atlantans was murdered in 2006. However, three crime-plagued cities were more lethal death traps – Detroit (one in 2,121), New Orleans (one in 2,661) and Washington, D.C. (one in 3,441).” And comparative metrics, which many suggest is a poor way to evaluate the real safety situation on the ground of a given city, aren’t the most frightening. The trends are even worse.

2006 saw 110 murders in Atlanta, a 20 incident increase over the previous year. What’s worse, by their own admission and audit, the police department under-reported violent crime offenses for years. I lived in Atlanta for years, moved to DC, moved out of DC for the easier parking of what we laughingly call “North” Bethesda (which is, in fact, Rockville), and am now planning a return to Atlanta. Some of these figures, I have to admit, are disconcerting, but not nearly as disconcerting as some of the stories surrounding them: a man is shot near Piedmont Park, a progressive blogger is stabbed on Ponce (and is refused access to a phone when he asks a gas station attendant for help, to add insult to injury — literally), and a man is shot walking home from bars in Little Five.

So, is this a matter of police incompetency, mayoral inattention, or simply the logical, inevitable extension of systemic poverty in some sections of town finally seeping into others?

So, at&t tells me. With the white-hot coverage heating up, I find myself coming back to the essentials and top on that list: the keyboard. Of all the question marks about the “god device,” and there are many (no MMS, no 3G, no third-party applications), the on-screen keypad is the biggest bogey. The NYTimes offered a number of perspectives, but implies that, if anyone could do it right, it would be our friends in Cupertino. Of that, I have no doubt, but Cupertino has been wrong before and, yes, under Mr. Jobs’ current stint of leadership. (Anyone remember the cube?)

Why does the keyboard matter? Well, let me count the ways in an average day and most of it have to do with multi-tasking. The classic and penultimate example: Dialing in the car. Everyone says they don’t drive one-handed, but that’s right up there with accurately detailing clothing donations on your tax returns. Everyone does it and an increasing number do much worse: Text and email while driving. While we would all do better without the last subset of mobile usage, there’s no denying the common, everyday need to pick up your phone and dial without looking. That simple, necessary, requirement of cellular’s enduring “killer app,” voice calls, will determine how high the return rate on the iPhone is and whether I will be a happy iPhone buyer or not.

Well, mobile-web friendly, at least. With a tip of the hat to developer Alex King, this site is now automatically converted and accessible via any mobile browser. Very slick.

Tier 1: Largely Unchanged; Tier 2: What’s Up, Richardson?

Been a while since I have posted so I thought I would drop on in and provide an update to my last rundown of the Democratic candidates. What’s amazing is how little has changed and what has changed has been those who have exited: Bayh, Kerry, and Vilsack. Even more amazing, is the fact that most of my partisan compatriots remain happy with the field we have, especially when considering the ongoing relative confusion on the other side of the aisle. So, here we go.

Tier 1:

1. Hillary. Okay, so maybe I was foolish/naive to think she wasn’t running last November. That one is long-since settled. From Day 1, Sen. Clinton’s campaign has been run with near clockwork precision, as befits a campaign powered by some of the smartest DC has to offer. Solidifying her position is polls that, despite occasional blips, put her in the lead nationally and in every upfront primary state, save Iowa. If I were to guess, she’s going to hold that lead throughout the summer.

2. Obama. The 1Q numbers annoited him the de facto alternative to Hillary, although I don’t think that’s necessarily a permanent position or the net sum of his campaign, which has been staffing up nicely and started fleshing out the Senator’s positions on the issues of the day, most recently health care. While some critics complain of “wonkiness” that pervades some speeches, the “rock star” status continues to draw enormous crowds. Converting those throngs into dedicated rank & file activists is the challenge facing the Obama campaign.

3. Edwards. The “haircut incident” could have been handled better or, preferably, avoided altogether. (Seriously, presidential candidates are supposed to look good, but who needs a $400 shampoo & cut anyway? The best way to deal with mistakes is to not make them and this is one they could have avoided.) Nevertheless, I have a tough time writing him off for two reasons: He continues to leverage his independence (from current office and the Beltway convention wisdom that comes with it) to great effect and there is a percentage of the public, especially in Iowa, that digs him and doesn’t seem to sway. Granted, it’s 17% in many states, but it’s in the lead in Iowa. If Iowa matters, and it certainly did last round, Edwards matters.

Tier 2:

4. Dodd. This isn’t some sort of allegience to my homestate. Dodd has just been impressing. He pulled off what I thought was a fairly statesmanlike performance in the first debate, managing to come off as 50% more genuine than anyone with half his time in the Senate and he stepped way out in front of the crowd, including his fellow Senators Clinton and Obama, on the Iraq resolution. Up until last week, I would have granted this slot to Gov. Richardson, but…

5. Richardson… is imploding and I don’t know why. From his gaffes (who would even think of saying they support the Red Sox and the Yankees) to his MTP performance (I think even Russert was dozing off), Richardson has been acting like he doesn’t want this and is purposely sabotaging himself. Aside from the ads, which, admittadly, are brilliant and an uptick in metrics in several primary states, I think the Governor’s campaign is struggling.

6. Biden. He’s there, he’s Joe, he’s on Fox with Kucinich and Gravel. ‘Nuff said.

Wildcards: Aren’t many and I know, I know, everyone keeps including Al in the poll mix. I’m confident he’s not running. Why? If I had access to this much research, not to mention three slick Apple Cinema Screens, I wouldn’t think about running either.

Us and DC… Well, it just wasn’t working out.

For reasons personal and professional we’re heading back to Atlanta.

First, the professional: Cindy was accepted to Emory’s PHD program for Health Services Research & Health Policy. Me, I am lucky enough to be able to continue to work for SinglePoint virtually.

The personal: Our primary take-away from DC will be a wonderful set of friends. Outside of that, however, the DC area never quite gelled for us. Why? I could go on about the joys of DC area living (the Beltway, battling interns for parking in Adams-Morgan on a Thursday night, tourists), but what it came down to was Atlanta’s style of work/life balance.

We miss cheap, quality tex-mex. We miss endless afternoons at Little 5′s Brewhouse. We look forward to affordable housing. Most importantly, we miss our friends. When we left Atlanta in 2003, we left behind a group who, despite temptations, couldn’t escape the standard of living Atlanta provides.

Finally, there’s the politics: We acknowledge that, for the rest of the country, Georgia is the deepest of red states. From a distance, and based on the metrics, I can understand this perspective. These critics don’t know who we know, though. The dedicated Young Democrats of Georgia and, particularly, Atlanta are growing in number and increasingly professional, for lack of a better term. To be sure, the GOP is enjoying their moment and will undoubtedly remain a challenging force to overcome, but I know the Young Dem’s. And by the time the “young” moniker is dropped I have no doubt Georgia will turn just a bit more blue.

So, Atlanta, we can’t wait to see you. Brewhouse sometime in August?

Site has been moved over to WordPress. Will work to get the archive over… LMK what you think of the new look.