ryanpowers.net

Free Zip Code Database

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:25:06 -0400

"Van Jones set a standard that Beck would never impose on himself"

Sun, 06 Sep 2009 21:17:00 -0400

"Van Jones set a standard that Beck would never impose on himself":

I’m not sure what to think of this whole Van Jones situation. Clearly he ought to have read that 9/11 petition more closely. I, however, agree with my former überboss John Podesta that Jones set a standard for himself that his detractors would never set for themselves. Among other things in his statement on Jones’s resignation, Podesta points out:

Clearly, Van was the subject of a right-wing smear campaign shrouded in hypocrisy. Van’s chief tormentor Glenn Beck, who spent weeks engaged in vicious name-calling, retains his perch at Fox News after calling the president a racist who has “a deep-seated hatred for white people.” [In resigning,] Van has set a standard that Beck would never impose upon himself.

My fear now is that Beck, et al will smell blood. If they can create — from nothing — a similar state of affairs to that which existed for very fact-based reasons in Bush’s second term, the right-wing will succeed in crippling the Obama agenda. Who’s next on their hit list?

Seriously though, if there is one thing that John Bolton taught me, it is not to embolden thy enemies with appeasement. Get ready for a bigger, stronger, faster Beck.

Olby's New Specs...

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:59:19 -0400

Olby's New Specs...:

Keith Olbermann debuted some new eye glasses tonight. This is of particular interest to me because I’m looking to replace my current set of old man frames (which I happen to share with, among others, my father and Sen. Harry Reid). Olby last Friday vs. tonight:

I like Olby’s new look, but I’m afraid if I go for something similar, I’ll be investing, once more, in the stylings of a man twice my age.

Update on Paul Farmer and USAID from Kristof

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:31:53 -0400

Update on Paul Farmer and USAID from Kristof:

So I hear it’s final: Dr. Paul Farmer will not run USAID, after all. … I’m not exactly sure what went wrong, but I think the vetters had reservations about things he had said, and he developed reservations about whether he could do more good inside government or outside. I still think the proper response is to throw the vetters overboard — if a saint like Farmer can’t get through, who can? — but in the meantime we need an administrator for USAID.

Why Conservatives Love Jon Stewart

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:28:52 -0400

Why Conservatives Love Jon Stewart:

Conservatives like Stewart because he’s providing them a platform to reach an audience that usually tunes them out. And they often find that Stewart takes them more seriously than right-wing political hosts, who are often just using them to validate their broad positions, do. Stewart will poke fun, but he offers a good-faith debate on powder kegs — torture, abortion, nuclear weapons, health care — that explode on other networks. “Shepard Smith did the same discussion [on torture],” says May. “He kept yelling me at me: ‘This is where I get off the bus! Not in my name!’ He wasn’t arguing with me. It was just assertions and anger. That’s not what Jon deals in.”

This is also why I think MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow succeeds where Keith Olbermann fails. Maddow wants to engage with those who disagree with her. (via Big Contrarian)

Whackos

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:38:49 -0400

Whackos:

Brendan Nyhan argues that there’s evidence of whackos on both sides of the political spectrum. I’m not sure that this is a perfect comparison, but take it for what it is worth:

When asked how likely this was, 16% of Americans said it was very likely and 20% said it was somewhat likely that people in the Bush administration “assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East.”

There is an undeniable symmetry to the misperceptions, which skew in the expected partisan directions in both cases. The total proportion of incorrect or don’t know responses among Republicans on Obama’s citizenship (58%) is virtually identical to the proportion of comparable responses among Democrats on a 9/11 conspiracy (54%).

Media Matters responded to a similar, but different claim last week.

CFR's Laurie Garrett on Obama's failure as yet to name a director for USAID

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:04:12 -0400

CFR's Laurie Garrett on Obama's failure as yet to name a director for USAID :

Also laments the “merry-go-round” nature of Paul Farmer’s recently-rumored “appointment”:

Nearly nine months into the Obama Administration we have absolutely no solid indication either that the White House intends to name a director for USAID, or that the agency will be given the sort of budget and political clout that health and development advocates insist are essential to making U.S. foreign assistance work. It’s shocking. The merry-go-round we’ve been on regarding Paul Farmer’s “appointment” has been disheartening.

One reason, I think that it is so shocking that we still don’t have a director for USAID is that a significant amount of the agency’s stated mission is supporting economic growth. During such a significant global recession, it would seem that the administration would want USAID to be as effective as possible. No one expects IMF style interventions, but development assistance is of extreme importance to many countries and the Obama administration seems to be looking the other way.

Marc Lynch called out by The Game

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 12:55:12 -0400

Marc Lynch called out by The Game:

Ackerman highlights a recent interview The Game did with a New Zealand publication:

In a recent Foreign Policy article, George Washington University Professor Marc Lynch, likened the feud to the battle of global hegemony — with Jay Z in the role of the United States, and The Game as the “erratic wildcard”: Iran and North Korea.

The Game asks for an explanation of why that’s not a favourable comparison, before likening Lynch to Greenland — isolated from the top writers in the world — and Jay Z to Iceland “coz he’s gone cold”.

Obama has yet to name administrator for USAID

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:34:52 -0400

Obama has yet to name administrator for USAID:

Natalie Ondiak makes the case of USAID reform:

As it now stands, USAID cannot be an equal leg on the stool. It is not a cabinet-level agency and it has well documented personnel and capacity deficiencies. It is unclear what the relationship between USAID and the State Department will be. But if the State Department retains budget authority and the USAID administrator reports to the Secretary of State, the agency will be a stepchild at best.

Gelman reminds us...

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:59:26 -0400

Gelman reminds us...:

He writes, “[A]s we all know, it’s easier to be counterintuitive and wrong than counterintuitive and right.

The threat to the Post comes from within..

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:36:25 -0400

The threat to the Post comes from within..:

Remember that time Ian Shapira got angry at Gawker for linking to and promoting an article that he wrote in the Post? Shapira complained, “How long did it take Gawker to rewrite and republish it, cherry-pick the funniest quotes, sell ads against it and ultimately reap 9,500 (and counting) page views?” As it happens, Gawker often doesn’t have to cherry-pick the quotes itself… for that they rely on the Washington Post PR department:

But if you’re going to fixate on blog links as the death knell of the industry, we have a lead for you: The threat is coming from inside the building. Nearly every day — 26 times in July alone — a Washington Post staffer not only sends us links to its expensive reporting but even pulls out the most interesting quotes so as to make it easier to pirate. I have strong feelings about revealing the identity of any Gawker tipster, but in this case it seems the public interest is simply too pressing and we must reveal this threat to journalism: Maria Cereghino, Manager, Communication, Washington Post Media

Public Policy Polling: 41 percent of Virginia Republicans don't believe Obama was born in U.S.

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:53:10 -0400

Public Policy Polling: 41 percent of Virginia Republicans don't believe Obama was born in U.S.:

From their latest polling in VA:

*Among Virginia Republicans 41% think Barack Obama was not born in the United States, 32% think he was, and 27% are not sure.

*Among supporters of [Republican candidate for Governor] Bob McDonnell 36% think Obama was not born in the US, 33% think he was, and 31% are not sure.

*Obama’s approval rating with people who think he was not born in the US is 12%.

Their overall numbers on the Deeds vs. McDonnell are due out today, but they preview the results saying, “Creigh Deeds is not doing well.” (via Blue Virginia)

Benen on Malkin's appearance yesterday on ABC News

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:13:59 -0400

Benen on Malkin's appearance yesterday on ABC News:

Apparently not satisfied with Michelle Malkin being wrong on Fox News, ABC News decided they wanted her to be wrong on their network too. As Benen notes, they were not disappointed:

Larry Katz, the Harvard labor economist and Clinton administration economist Malkin pointed to with such enthusiasm, apparently disagrees with Malkin. If fact, shortly before Malkin was on ABC, the New York Times reported that Katz believes additional unemployment benefits offers necessary assistance to struggling families and can even add quick fiscal stimulus to the economy.

In other words, Malkin’s source, who she cited repeatedly, seems to think Malkin’s wrong.

AP: Franken loves his 'policy role'

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 07:47:22 -0400

AP: Franken loves his 'policy role':

One significant fact that was apparently missed by both the media and some members of the Senate during Sen. Al Franken’s longer-than-anticipated run for the Senate is that the man is obsessed with policy. As Yglesias recently wrote, “Most comedians probably aren’t very well-informed about policy issues, but comedians do have both the time and the means to inform themselves if they’re so inclined, and Franken very much was and is so inclined.”

And that inclination is bearing out as Franken quickly earns the respect of his colleagues. But one thing that got me was the AP headline. Given that 90 percent of what the Senate does is make policy, why are we congratulating any particular Senator for being interested in it. It shows that the AP greatly underestimates Franken or has come to expect Senators to lack any interest in making policy. If it’s the former, shame on the AP. If it’s the latter, shame on the Senate.

Alter makes the case for blocking health care reform

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 07:25:03 -0400

Alter makes the case for blocking health care reform:

The champions of the status quo have much to defend:

I had cancer a few years ago. I like the fact that if I lose my job, I won’t be able to get any insurance because of my illness. It reminds me of my homeowners’ insurance, which gets canceled after a break-in. I like the choice I’d face if, God forbid, the cancer recurs—sell my house to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment, or die. That’s what you call a “post-existing condition.”

The Death of Journalism (Gawker Edition)

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:39:39 -0400

The Death of Journalism (Gawker Edition):

I just want to point out that Shapira’s main complaint appears to be that when a website links to or quotes coverage from the Post, it may not help add to the Post’s revenue stream. But I wonder if Shapira thinks about how to help add to the revenue stream of the institutions, people, and businesses that he writes about when he publishes stories about them in the Post. Shapira covers the Virginia/Metro area. Gawker covers media and culture. They both make money off their coverage and expend significant resources doing so.

About Ryan Powers

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:38:14 -0400

Ryan Powers is a Visiting Research Associate at the Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations at the College of William and Mary. He writes about domestic and foreign policy, international relations, and political science. Previously, he served as a Research Assistant at the Center for American Progress where he blogged for ThinkProgress.org. You can email him at .

RSS feeds for International Relations Journals

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 07:31:08 -0400

RSS feeds for International Relations Journals:

A great list of RSS feeds for 15 of the top IR journals from Christopher Albon (via The Monkey Cage).

Getting What They Paid For: The Health Insurance Industry and the Blue Dogs

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:10:25 -0400

The Washington Post has a pretty good story today documenting how one of the greatest impediments to passing strong, progressive health care reform in the House — the Blue Dog coalition — has experienced an upsurge in campaign contributions in recent months, from among others, the health insurance industry:

[T]he [Blue Dogs] set a record pace for fundraising this year through its political action committee, surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June. More than half the money came from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries, marking a notable surge in donations from those sectors compared with earlier years, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity. […]

A look at career contribution patterns also shows that typical Blue Dogs receive significantly more money — about 25 percent — from the health-care and insurance sectors than other Democrats, putting them closer to Republicans in attracting industry support.

Great. Not exactly earth-shattering revelations, but good to see the Post giving the Blue Dogs a hard time. What I wanted to remark upon, though, is the defense offered by founding Blue Dog member and current health care lobbyist Charles Stenholm. He explains:

The idea behind giving to a group like the Blue Dogs is that you believe that they will agree with your positions most of the time. … The same is true for liberals or anyone else. It’s normal in politics.

The business of influence and access peddling in Washington is often thinly veiled in pseudo-respectable claims that industry groups donate to candidates who they believe are predisposed to agree with their public policy priorities. But I think it is more accurate to say that industries donate to individuals who they perceive as predisposed to being bought. Indeed, if the health insurance industry really based its contribution decisions on who they thought would be more likely sympathize with their desire to keep the health care system as it is, they would do well to always direct a majority of their cash to GOP candidates. But they don’t.

Apparently viewing House candidates as commodities to be bought, they appear to invest in the party that they believe will be in a position to most directly affect their industry’s future. The hope it seems is that their contributions will make their industry’s calls to stall reform a bit louder than the public’s calls for significant changes to the health care system in the U.S.

Take a look at this graph of health insurance contributions to members of the House since 1990 that I complied using data from OpenSecrets.org. In every House campaign cycle in the last 20 years the health insurance industry has invested quite literally in the status quo — choosing to funnel a majority of their campaign funds to members of the ruling party in the House:

The swing in contributions is particularly pronounced in the 2008 campaign cycle when promises of health care reform from Democratic House candidates were not in short supply. While the figures are for the Democratic caucus as a whole — not the Blue Dogs in particular — the point remains the same: the health care industry is not investing in agreeable philosophies as Stenholm claims. Rather, they are investing in power, influence, and access.

This is hardly a novel point on my part. But I think it’s important to keep in mind as we watch individuals who campaigned on and for the Obama agenda work to block or water down that agenda in the House. While I have not looked at the data, I expect there would be similar trends in the Senate.

On Taxes and Patriotism

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:20:19 -0400

Professor Stephen Walt had an interesting post yesterday over at Foreign Policy pondering the implications of how the debt obligations of the U.S. resulting from the current recession and President Obama’s health care agenda might impact our foreign policy stance. He suggests that perhaps the realities of our debt will necessitate the a reductions in the sacred cow of defense spending :

One of the great triumphs of Reagan-era conservatism was to convince Americans that paying taxes so that the government could spend the money at home was foolish and wrong, but paying taxes so that the government could spend the money defending other people around the world was patriotic. Ever since Reagan, in short, neoconservatives supported paying taxes to promote a U.S.-dominated world order, while denouncing anyone who wanted to spend the money on roads, bridges, schools, parks, and health care for Americans as a “tax and spend liberal.” But if I’m right about the emerging fiscal environment, that situation may be about to change.

I think Walt is correct about this percieved dichotomy, but I think the notion that paying taxes for domestic goods isn’t viewed as patriotic is overplayed. When, for example, Vice President Biden called the rich paying higher taxes ”patriotic” earlier this year, he was castigated in the press. But if you look at the survey data that speaks to the Biden question, it shows two imporant things:

The vast majority of Americans – 72 percent – “completely agree” that paying one’s “fair share” of taxes is “every American’s civic duty.” Another 22 percent of Americans “mostly agree” with that statement.
The vast majority of Americans – 74 percent – believe the rich ought to be paying more taxes.

Add to this the fact that Biden was calling for a tax increase that would have left taxes on the highest income Americans still lower than those under Ronald Reagan and Biden’s remark seems fairly unremarkable.

This brings me to my second point, which is that despite the outrage provoked by high-profile politicians calling for higher taxes, I think progressives ought to lay the groundwork for such increases. Indeed, Walt is focused on how the revenue pie might be allocated, but what about increasing the size of the revenue pie? The programs that Obama wants to implement are, in my view, necessary. As such, we ought to be willing to pay for them.