James Carter made a marvelous catch today. Rand Paul was interviewed on WMAL-AM, out of Washington DC. And he got to bitching about what’s on everyone’s mind: Ashley Judd. She’s kind of like the modern Al Franken; everyone wants to know how events of the day will affect her, Ashley Judd. Thinking of starting a relationship? First ask yourself, “How will this affect her, Ashley Judd?” Driving to the supermarket? “Will she, Ashley Judd, be on the road? What would she, Ashley Judd, think of that plan?” Rand Paul cares about what might affect her, Ashley Judd.[1]

Rand Paul even cares about what she does. He’s even willing to give her political advice. When asked about some talk that she might run against him in 2016, he said, “She’s way damn too liberal for our country—for our state. She hates our biggest industry, which is coal, so I say, good luck bringing the ‘I hate coal’ message to Kentucky.”

Carter notes that Kentucky’s junior senator doesn’t seem to know what the state’s biggest industry is. It isn’t coal. In fact, coal isn’t even in the top 10 industries in the state. Check out his article for two different tables showing that coal is 13th by GDP and 15th by employment. He adds, “Shouldn’t a senator be embarrassed to make a mistake like this? And shouldn’t someone besides me be reporting it?”

Here is the interview:

Afterword

During the interview, Rand Paul says a whole bunch of other things that are deceptive and even down right false. Neither he nor his father understand much about the Constitution or the economy. They are blinded by ideology.

[1] If you’re not aware of the Al Franken Decade, then this should clear things up:

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve been incarcerated… I’d have fifteen cents.

—John Lyshitski
Let’s Go To Prison

Bill Maher has more followers on Twitter than anyone else I follow. Guess who has the second most? Nate Silver.

I know what you’re thinking, “The election is over; who cares about Nate Silver?” Everyone who ever cared as far as I know. Plus a few odd people like Dick Morris and Karl Rove. And the reason is simple: Silver continues to pump out really interesting and even useful information.

This evening, for example, he brought us this surprising headline, Alaska: Future Swing State? Let’s look at the data.

In 2000, Al Gore lost Alaska by 31 points. In 2004, John Kerry lost by 26 points. In 2008, Barack Obama lost by 22 points. And this year, he lost by 14 points. Correlation is not causation, but still.

There are other things. Alaska has one of the highest percentages of independent voters. And it has elected democrat Mark Begich to the Senate. And you know about Lisa Murkowski. So there’s that. And then there is (like elsewhere) a demographic change. Alaska’s population is growing and most of these people are coming from California, Oregon, and Washington. What’s more, although the state is fairly conservative economically and with regards to fossil fuel, they are not that religious.

Of course, Alaska only has 3 electoral votes. But still, it is nice to see the bluing of America.

It’s sad whenever someone who is not actively evil dies. So I’m sad that Dave Brubeck died. But here’s the thing…

He wasn’t great. Don’t get me wrong: he had his moments. He was a very capable jazz pianist. But Bill Evans he wasn’t. But here’s another thing…

If I could be Bill Evans or Dave Brubeck, I would pick Brubeck in a second! First, he got 40 years more. Second, he had a regular, happy life. Other than the music, the same cannot be said for Evans. (There’s nothing like an expensive heroin and then cocaine habit to make the regular parts of life a hell of a lot harder.) So Brubeck had the better life and that should be enough without all of us kissing his metaphorical ass.

There is one thing I really like about Brubeck as a musician: Paul Desmond. He is what made the Dave Brubeck Quartet really work. And he is the reason why 99% of you even know who the hell Brubeck is. Desmond died 35 years, 6 months, and 5 days ago—just for the record, since you didn’t even notice.

Here is the Quartet playing their most famous tune with its writer on alto sax:

Afterword

I know you want it:

Hear the difference? (And if you don’t, please don’t tell me.)

David Weigel posted an article on Slate earlier today, Marco Rubio Mentions the Middle Class 35 Times in One Speech. But that’s not really what it’s about. But it does get to the heart of the matter. You see, Rubio mentioned the middle class, but never really engaged with the concept.

As I’ve noted before, this is par for the course when it comes to Republicans. Their idea of reaching out to groups that aren’t already part of their coalition is to talk nice. There will be no changes to policy! I understand where they’re coming from. Republicans have been very good over the past several decades at convincing people who have very contrary interests to vote for them anyway. Why wouldn’t they think it will continue to work? And the sad thing is that they may well be right.

This is SOP: take traditional Republican positions and claim that they are good for the middle class. So Weigel notes that Rubio just reworks his standard speech except that “stuff that Republicans wanted to do already becomes stuff that will help ‘the middle class.'” And just look at what that stuff is!

Rubio says, “Sound monetary policy would also encourage middle class job creation.” This is just the old “job creator” canard dressed up. The Federal Reserve has a duel mandate: keep inflation low and employment high. But Republicans don’t like this. They want the Fed to have a single mandate: keep inflation low. The claim is that this will help employment by helping the “job creators.” This is supply-side economics: the money will tinkle down on the poor.

The whole “job creator” myth is just a repackaging of the old supply-side economic theory. But everyone knows that there is very little to supply-side economics and that under most circumstances it is just plain wrong. So the Republicans try to sell the same old snake oil under a different name.

Weigel mentions a number of other Rubio zingers. But the main thing is that he’s trying to claim that the same old Republican policies that everyone knows just enrich the wealthy are really good for the middle class. And I think we must all call out this deceitfulness every time we see it. It will keep us busy!

This morning, Jonathan Chait published an article, Obama’s Refusal to Deal Paving Way for a Deal. It starts, “Most of the news coverage of the ‘fiscal cliff’ has come from the perspective of soothing bipartisan centrism, a point of view dramatized most explicitly by CNBC’s hysterical countdown to January, festooned with slogans urging the two parties to ‘Rise Above.'” Chait is ridiculing this and noting that it is exactly because Obama is being firm in these negotiations that we are likely to see a reasonable deal. This, of course, is what we liberals have known all along; it took the centrist Obama 3 years to figure it out. Of well. Better Nate than lever.[1]

Chait’s article is quite worth reading because he explains how things are likely to go from here. But I’m more interested in this chorus of calls for bipartisanship. And you know what I think of that: bipartisan consensus can bite me. Bipartisanship is what is always called for by two kinds of people: those who know nothing and those in the middle. Let’s look at each.

Those who know nothing think that the two sides are fighting like football teams: it’s all a game. But as much as I may despise Republican policy ideas, I don’t doubt that these people really do believe that the world would be oh so much better off if only we kept piling money and gifts on the rich and powerful. (That is the idea behind tinkle down economics.) The two sides are the two sides because they disagree. They don’t disagree for sport.

Now we come to those in the middle. I really hate these arrogant bastards.[2] Their claim is that they’re open minded and are just being objective. This is the basis for all mainstream political coverage. But even when coverage is truly centrist (it is usually just socially liberal and economically conservative), it is no less ideological. So when centrists say the two sides should just compromise, what they are really saying is exactly what the extremists on each side are saying: I want it all my own way!

Making reasonable compromises is a good thing. Giving up something you can live without in order to get something you can’t live without is a good idea. Minimizing your losses when you are in a bad negotiating position is a smart move. And giving a weak opponent a way to save face is noble. But compromising for its own sake is madness.

Afterword

I can’t help but notice that the mainstream media are much more hysterical in their calls for compromise when the liberals are in a strong position. I don’t recall anyone telling Boehner that he should be more reasonable when he claimed he got 98% of what he wanted. And for the hundredth time: 98% wasn’t good enough. What’s more, Boehner didn’t not follow the noble course. But now that things are reversed, Obama is supposed to.

[1] This is from a joke. It is an example of what Wikipedia calls anti-humor. In this case, it tells a very long story leading up to a spoonerism of “better late than never”: “better Nate than lever.” Feel free to make up your own story!

[2] Arrogant Bastard Ale is excellent. Highly recommended!