Image via CrunchBase

This new survey pointed out by Gawker this morning doesn’t really tell us anything new – that Republicans outnumber Democrats on Twitter – that much was pointed out by the Los Angeles Times and others back in August.

But, in case this is news to you, here are some of the basics:

60% of the members of Congress with Twitter accounts are Republicans, and that fully half of all congressional Twitterers are House GOP members. The study, which was conducted in August of last year is limited to U.S. senators and House members, shows GOP pols out-Twittering Democrats in virtually every category: A whopping 67% of all congressional “Tweets” are written by Republicans.

First, I think this actually says very little about the House members who are themselves Twittering, because very, very few politicians with Twitter accounts actually operate them themselves; they’re generally managed by some communications staffer. That being said, the poll also found that GOP Twitterers also tend to have many more followers than their Democratic counterparts. I suppose I should be disappointed by this, but instead, it only looks like proof that Republicans are indeed only interested in stirring up people’s passions against their opponents, and care little about actual governance. All of the Republican tweets I see highlighted by others or featured in news stories are ones in which they’re bashing a Democrat or the White House, rarely are they sending out tweets to tout important legislation they helped pass.

For further insight on this issue, I went to an expert: my best friend, Elizabeth Brotherton, who co-writes the Heard on the Hill column for Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill. Beth covers congressional silliness for a living, y’all. Here are some of her thoughts:

While most Members of Congress on Twitter still use the new media tool in an old-fashioned sense (i.e., read my press release) several Members have really embraced it. Usually, these are Members who post their updates themselves, as opposed to designating a staffer to do it. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is probably the queen of Twitter, posting updates on everything from her Congressional work to her latest trips to Target. She was one of the first to embrace Twitter, and has millions of followers (and is, I should point out, a Democrat.) Others who use it well include Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who just today posted a tweet on the trouble he had getting back to DC because of the storm; Rep. Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who posts regular updates on her legislative priorities and her new granddaughter; and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a freshman member who has embraced Twitter to help raise his profile in Congress. …

I think one of the reasons there aren’t as many Democrats on Twitter is because when you are in charge, you need to maintain a sort of, sense of prestige. I think some Dems fear that Twitter will make them look less serious, and that is why you don’t see Harry Reid tweeting about his flight back from Nevada or where he went for dinner, for example. However, for politicians looking to be heard – either because they lack seniority or because they want back into power – Twitter is among the easiest ways to get your message out there. And Republicans certainly have done that.

And, to be sure, there are House Twitterers – both Democrat and Republican – who use the medium for acts of navel-gazing (gasp! on the Interwebs?!) There are also some useful politician tweets out there: Portland Mayor Sam Adams, for example, often takes to Twitter to update Portlanders about emergency weather conditions or construction projects that might hamper commutes.

The American Prospect’s Paul Waldman suggests that Republicans have jumped on the Twitter bandwagon because they’ve consistently been behind when it comes to using the Internet effectively:

It’s possible that the experience of being behind in most kinds of Internet organizing for the last few years made Republicans particularly eager to jump on board the latest Web 2.0 thing. So when that young staffer says, “Hey, we should totally get the Congressman on Twitter!”, the Congressman himself says, “Yes, I should be on this Twooter you speak of. Make it so!”

Waldman’s assessment ties in nicely with another Web usage survey pointed out by fellow True/Slanter J. Maureen Henderson, which found that teens are using Twitter far less than adults. There you have it. Nothing will chase young people away from something more than a group of  mostly aging white men embracing it.

If you really want to be entertained by congressional tweets, I suggest you try any of the less authentic but decidedly more hilarious Twitter accounts that have been set up to imitate or mock House members. There’s @demonsheep, which sends out tweets intended to be from the possessed sheep in Senate candidate Carly Fiorina’s new ad, and @NudeScottBrown, an incarnate of the new senator from Massachusetts from his Cosmo centerfold days.

Image via Wikipedia

The soon-to-be released remake of “We Are the World,” a mega-collaboration of artists to benefit Haiti, will feature one hip-hop star who has been out of the limelight as of late; and another who is on his way out.

Kanye West, who I noted was conspicuously left out of the lineup to perform at the Grammys despite having a prominent role in the song “Forever,” took part in the charity single. Lil Wayne did also – perhaps the last time the rapper will be in a recording studio before he begins a stint in prison.

The hip-hop community was well-represented on the performer list for “We Are the World,” which was once again organized by Lionel Richie, Quincy Jones, and other industry veterans who helped spearhead the effort the first time around. Hip-hop veteran LL Cook J helped craft a good chunk of the rap lyrics, at the request of Quincy Jones. Among the hip-hop stars contributing were: will.i.am, Wyclef Jean, LL Cool J, Akon, Snoop Dogg, Busta Rhymes, Kid Cudi and Bizzy Bone. They joined performers from various other genres, including Barbra Streisand, Josh Groban, Celine Dion and Pink.

I know what you’re thinking – it’s about time Snoop Dogg and Barbra Streisand finally got around to working together.

Jones told the media in a statement:

“Twenty five years ago, the entertainment industry showed the power of community to help our fellow man when we recorded ‘We Are The World’ to bring relief to those suffering from famine in Ethiopia. And while the need to assistant Africa continues, today the country of Haiti is suffering immeasurably from the destruction due to the recent earthquake and is in immediate need of relief that will last long after the television cameras have left. As artists, we have joined together on this 25th anniversary and in the spirit of ‘We Are The World’ to help meet that need.”

The remake will premiere this Friday, during the opening ceremony for the Vancouver Winter Olympic Games

Image via Wikipedia

Much has been written about how the last season of “The West Wing” – in which a young, relatively inexperienced minority candidate beats an older Western-state GOP senator to seize the presidency – mirrored the actual presidential election of 2008.

According to a Washington Post op-ed that ran in the run-up to the 2008 election, the similarities between Obama and the fictional Matthew Santos were not coincidental:

the Santos-Vinick campaign was invented in mid-2004, about the time Barack Obama gave his acclaimed speech at the Democratic convention. David Axelrod, Attie’s friend and now Obama’s chief strategist, suggested that Obama was a “rock star” politician whose profile was perfect for Attie’s needs. Since NBC had already signed Smits to play the part, the character became Hispanic.

There were other freaky parallels too, ones that the “West Wing” creators couldn’t have predicted – for example, in a last-ditch effort to appeal to his base, Republican Arnie Vinick ditches his campaign manager in favor of a family values-preaching, sexy, outspoken woman. Or that Santos would finally pull ahead when a last-minute catastrophe made him seem more trustworthy than his opponent (on the show, it was an explosion at a nuclear power plant that Vinick had helped create; in real life, it was of course the crashing economy).

Now that Sarah Palin made clear this weekend that it would be “absurd” for her to not consider a run against Obama in 2012, it’s entirely possible that the next election could again become a repeat of a familiar “West Wing” storyline – the one in which the sitting president, a former professor and all-around smarty pants, runs against someone who is, well, less smart (I’m trying to choose my words more carefully, lest I be labeled one of those condescending liberals).

I wrote last week about how much Obama’s recent showdown with members of the GOP resembled the “West Wing” episode in which President Jed Bartlet destroys Republican candidate Bob Ritchie in a debate. Who knows whether the same thing would happen if Obama and Palin were to hold a debate (she didn’t implode, like some predicted, when pitted against Joe Biden) – there could certainly be another reference to Alaskan schoolchildren being forced to learn “Eskimo poetry” like there was on that episode.

It’s far too early to tell how 2012 will shake out. But if things do come down to Obama vs. Palin, I sure hope that real life can mimic art yet again.

Image via Wikipedia

Earlier I pointed out a Washington Post op-ed making the Internet rounds in which Gerard Alexander condescendingly characterizes all liberals as condescending. It’s a sentiment that other conservative talking heads like George Will and Charles Krauthammer have echoed.

But the tie between conservatives and condescension got even more pronounced – and decidedly more bizarre – at the Tea Party convention taking place in Nashville this weekend. There, Tom Tancredo declared that Barack Obama was elected by “people who could not even spell the word vote or say it in English.” So, the overwhelming majority of liberals and independents who turned out in historic numbers to elect our president did so because they are blindingly stupid. Like, can’t spell their own names stupid. I’m not sure whether Tancredo is suggesting that I’m stupid because I’m liberal; or that I’m liberal because I’m stupid.

Tancredo also insisted that we need a civics literacy test in order for people to be eligible to vote. This is, of course, the kind of racist logic that was outlawed in Supreme Court decisions like Guinn v. United States in 1915 and Smith v. Allwright in 1944; in addition to numerous pieces of voter-related legislation, including the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which notably, received a 25-year extension granted by President George W. Bush in 2006).

The irony of all of this is that Tancredo’s characterization of all liberals as illiterate fools who don’t deserve a place in our democracy was just a warm-up before the Tea Party’s main act, Sarah Palin. There, the party-goers showered “Run, Sarah, Run” cheers on a woman who needed to have explained to her – multiple times – the difference between North Korea and South Korea. A woman who was unaware of the distinctions between World War I and World War II. A woman who, despite having studied journalism, could not name a single publication she reads regularly. A woman who couldn’t describe who we were fighting in Iraq, even as her son was being sent there. This is the woman picked to lead a movement claiming that liberals are too stupid to vote.

I suppose that’s a special kind of logic that I’m too intellectually feeble to understand, what with my brain being crippled by liberalism.

Slate’s Jacob Weisberg hits closer to the truth by suggesting that we’re all to blame for our collective push toward childish ignorance:

A lot more people are watching American Idol than are watching Glenn Beck, and our collective illogic is mostly negligent rather than militant. The more compelling explanation is that the American public lives in Candyland, where government can tackle the big problems and get out of the way at the same time. … The politicians thriving at the moment are the ones who embody this live-for-the-today mentality, those best able to call for the impossible with a straight face. …

Our inability to address long-term challenges makes a strong case that the United States now faces an era of historical decline. Our reluctance to recognize economic choices also portends negative effects for the rest of the world. To change this story line, we need to stop blaming the rascals we elect to office and start looking to ourselves.

Image by dionhinchcliffe via Flickr

I don’t think I’ll ever get over the Washington Post piece in which Charlotte Allen suggested all women are morons, or the fact that the editors there ran it. Now, the op-ed page is telling me I’m a terrible person for a reason other than posessing two X chromosomes: because I’m liberal.

This is a problem, writes Gerard Alexander, because liberals

appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration.

Got that? We’re odious because we think our values, our way of approaching the world and its problems are correct, and those of conservatives are wrong. That seems not so much condescending as basic logic. Should we be liberal because we think those values are incorrect? Wouldn’t this logic in fact suggest that the author doesn’t even think his own views are valid, or at least not based on solid reasoning? If so, why would the Post run such a piece?

And yes, there are occasions when conservatives seem to be shunning established science and fact, or willfully ignoring the views of experts for their own non-expert, politicized ends. So what is so bad about finding that wrong?

Ezra Klein, himself a member of the Post’s op-ed page, wondered on Twitter: “Would the Post have published a piece entitled ‘why conservatives are morons?’ Genuinely curious.” Similar sentiments were voiced after the Allen piece was published: Would the Post have published a piece suggesting all Asians are stupid? All Jews?

It’s a preposterous premise. And, just like the Allen piece, it’s just as offensive that the editors there chose to single out a specific group as worthy of derision as it is that one person wrote the piece to begin with. These pieces pass through many hands on their way to the page, and it’s so disheartening that no one in that chain spoke up loud enough to say, “Do we really want to alienate people this way?”