I came across that quote approximately seven months ago and it settled into my chest like a branding iron… or a sleeping cat. Either way, it was hard to breathe.

I spent a lot of time wondering how often I’d set sail for new destinations and how often I’d splashed along the shoreline, pretending that I’d set sail. I spent a lot of time looking at previous posts I’d written in various venues and came to hate all but a few, for which I reserved a special kind of loathing only writers and Catholics know about. And I spent a lot of time asking myself just what the hell I thought I was doing.

At the end of that period of time, I resolved to be a less shitty writer/blogger and set out in search of this fish we call: talent. And in order to do that, I argued, I was in need of new beginnings.

Coates Bateman and True/Slant offered one such beginning. They gave me a home and some pay and more than a little encouragement. In the stark wilderness that is the Internet, a smart wayfarer does well not to dismiss the discovery of an outpost like True/Slant. You only find so many rivers in the course of your travels, you know?

Many of the outgoing contributors to this site have asked what True/Slant’s legacy will be or for what it will be remembered or what the lessons we ought to take from its near year and a half life are. I don’t know the answers to those questions. Any website that involves more than two hundred people is bound to be sort of like an electron: it depends how and when you look at it.

But the highest common denominator is what I personally think the legacy/remembrance/lesson that is/was True/Slant should be.

The explicit idea behind this site was that if you engage quality writers, give them some space, and let them do their thing, they will generate quality content. The bet that Lewis Dvorkin, Coates Bateman, Michael Roston and the rest of the True/Slant team made was that people would respond to that quality.

They were right.

Left to our own devices, we — all of us — tended towards the highest common denominator, not the lowest. In a sea of free pornography and moronic You Tube comments, that fact is a subtle miracle all its own. It is a real and tangible reason to hold out a thumbnail of hope. And it repudiates much of what we hear and are told about ourselves on an almost continual basis.

That is ultimately what I will take away from my short experience at True/Slant. That new lands are possible, but it takes work. When you set sail, you have to mean it. And when you lose sight of the shore, you’ve only really just started.

So, if after today you want to find me, you’ll know where to look. I’m right beside you, still trying to work up the courage to set sail.

Cheers,
Scott

To be clear, I’m all for the kind of passion Weiner is showing here, but let’s direct it properly. Don’t get into a shouting match about procedure. As emotionally satisfying as it may be to watch, raging against the GOP opposition machine’s successful efforts to tie Dems in knots just makes Dems look whiny, weak and impotent.

And in a follow up, Sargent goes on to say,

All I’m saying is that raging against successful Republican efforts to block individual Dem initiatives isn’t enough. Raging about GOP obstructionism in general isn’t enough, either. The point is that Dems need to build an effective larger case that transcends individual issues and reckons more directly with the strategy underlying all the GOP obstructionism.

I think Greg is operating with too blunt a scalpel, here. I understand his point, but I think that ultimately he misses the point of Weiner’s rant, which, I’ll add, didn’t not strike me as even remotely, “weak”, “whiny”, or “impotent”.

By my lights, Harry Reid is engaged in exactly the kind of strategy that Greg is looking for. Calmly and carefully, Reid is bringing a variety of bills to the floor and either chalking up a Democratic win or building a substantial case for Republican obstructionism. It’s a subtle, long-play game and, as mentioned previously, I think Reid is rolling it out just about perfectly.

Some might offer that this reflects more on Senate Republicans than House Republicans, but I honestly don’t think that fine a distinction is going to matter a great deal to the average voter. The point here is to build a case about, as Greg notes, the underlying Republican strategy. What are the members responsible for in regards to their Party.

But, turning Greg’s argument on its head, that type of strategy isn’t enough. It is, as they say, necessary, but not sufficient. As Gallup has hastened to point out with each of their generic ballots that have shown Democrats in the lead, there remains a substantial enthusiasm gap between Republican and Democratic voters. In short, Democrats have a deflated base that needs to get riled up and find a reason to get out to those polls and vote.

Harry Reid’s cool and calm strategy isn’t going to work in this regard. And while fear of losing the House and the Senate might generate some momentum, voters need more positive reasons to be motivated at the polls and, perhaps more importantly, in campaign offices. This is where Weiner’s rant becomes useful.

Weiner picked an issue he feels strongly about and in which it is hard to find fault: providing medical care for those rescue workers affected by 9-11. It doesn’t get much more altruistic than that in America these days. And Weiner’s point is not so much to argue about procedure, which puts voters to sleep, but rather to reassert the case that Democrats are on the right side of history here. That Democrats are the good guys.

There has been so much conceding and strong rhetoric followed by tepid incrementalism that I think a lot of the Democratic base has started to question just to what extent they are the good guys. And progressives’ full court press, as much as I’ve participated in and agree with it, doesn’t help with that doubt.

What Weiner is as much as saying here is, “We’re the good guys! You’re the bad guys!” And that, frankly, is what rank and file Democrats need to hear leading up to the midterms.

Case in point: check out the reaction that the rant got from Balloon Juice commenters. I know that “respectable” Democrats don’t want to believe that their base contains a considerable number of people who are precisely like the BJ “hooligans”. But those respectable types would be, you know, wrong.

Image via Wikipedia

It seems that Erik Kain and I have unofficially agreed to create the eleventh hour Bitter Enders Club of True/Slant.

Expect no weepy goodbye post from this corner of the Intertrons, at least for the next few hours. If there is decent political news on which to write over the course of the afternoon, then dammit — we’re going to write about it.

The minutia of political reporting stops for no man… or woman… or website… or dogs, we don’t stop for dogs, either.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will force Republicans to vote next week on a $26.1 billion package of education funding and Medicaid assistance to states.

It will be a tough vote for centrist Republicans because the provisions are popular with Democratic and Republican governors and would not add to the deficit.

I have to say that this really is a brilliant little strategy if it is in fact what Democrats are doing (and that seems to be more and more likely to be the case). Fighting Republicans with their own fire is what a lot of Democrats and liberals have been wanting to do for some time. But the added bonus of this particular application is that it really does take the high road, even as it locks Republicans into a double bind.

I’m not 100% convinced it will save Democrats from big losses in November, but I’m not entirely sure what else they could be expected to do.  Regardless, it will be interesting to see how these series of showdowns play out.

Image by AFP/Getty Images via @daylife

I didn’t have a chance to write about this yesterday, but didn’t the GOP just become the goose that laid the golden egg for Democrats? Apparently doubling down on outright obstructionism seems to have become the sole Republican strategy. And yesterday it seemed to play directly into the Democrats’ strategic plan, at least if my political calculus of the other day is correct.

Senate Republicans blocked progress on small-business legislation Thursday morning, handing Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) his second legislative defeat of the week.

A vote to cut off debate on a substitute amendment offered by Senate Small Business Committee Chairman Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) failed by a vote of 58 to 42.

Blocking any movement on the DISCLOSE Act can’t be spun as being obstructionist on the jobs front, but I can’t conversely see how Democrats won’t have a field day trouncing Republicans over blocking this bill. That is particularly true when you take into consideration this hot-off-the-presses Gallup poll that shows Americans are, “three times as confident” in small businesses vs. big businesses.

With Republican’s on record as playing primarily a dampening role in financial/Wall Street reform and Sen. Joe Barton’s infamous apology to BP still relatively fresh in peoples’ memories (and trust that that will come up repeatedly when campaigning for the midterms kicks in), this just seems like a dumb move.

Ostensibly Republicans are trying to hand Harry Reid and the Democrats as many legislative losses as possible to make them look ineffective. But if Democrats’ calculus is that they’ve passed the major reforms of which they’re going to be able prior to November and from here on in they campaign on what accomplishments they’ve achieved (and health care reform keeps heading in the right direction), while highlighting Republicans’ unwillingness to deal with the issues facing the nation, then this block-block-block strategy seems destined only to help Reid and the Democrats.

One wonders if Greg Sargent is still as skeptical about this potential strategy as he was yesterday.

Image via Wikipedia

Having failed to receive the support of a single Republican, Democrats’ campaign finance reform bill, the DISCLOSE Act, seems now to be banished to legislative limbo and their efforts in bringing the bill to a vote all in vain. Indeed, it was hard to see how Democrats thought they would be able to squeak out a win in the first place.

All along Reid and Schumer needed at least one Republican and all of the usual suspects seemed unlikely for some time. Scott Brown spelled out his opposition to the bill back on July 14. And both Snowe and Collins had expressed not inconsiderable amounts of skepticism in regards to the bill well in advance of the lead up to yesterday’s vote.

So then why, after the care and attention paid to health care and financial reform, bring a bill forward that, despite last minute horse racing, seemed doomed to failure all along?

Over at the New York Times The Caucus, Dalia Sussman notes that while public polling seemed to indicate strong support for the bill, which was designed to address some of the financing concerned raised by the Supreme Court’s overwhelmingly unpopular decision in Citizens United, Democrats’ failed efforts are unlikely to give them much traction at the polls in November,

Nevertheless, as Americans’ concerns are mainly focused on the economy and unemployment, it seems highly unlikely that campaign finance reform will be an important issue for them in the upcoming midterm elections. Indeed, the issue is a tough enough sell in elections during a good economy. A September 2000 ABC News/Washington Post poll tested the importance of 17 issues to people’s vote decision that year. Where did campaign finance reform rank? Dead last.

The answer, I think, is that it’s all in the narrative.

Despite two consecutive weekly polls by Gallup showing Democrats edging out Republicans on the generic ballot, Democrats are still a party without a compelling story for November. In an email about the Callup numbers, well respected pollster J. Ann Selzer of Public opinon research firm Selzer and Company reflected that, “until other polls show something similar this will be treated as an outlier, I would think.”

Selzer’s analysis puts a substantial damper on the idea that Democrats had finally found a rhetorical foothold with the anti-Wall Street that had accompanied the passage of financial regulation reform concurrent with the jump noted by Gallup.

A separate poll by Gallup just two weeks ago bears out the obvious conclusion that voters are primarily concerned with economic issues and jobs heading into November. The July 14 poll shows that 31% of respondents felt that, “the economy in general,” was the “most important problem facing [the] country today.” A close second was, “unemployment/jobs,” clocking in at 22%. That’s an overwhelming 53% citing economic concerns as the biggest problem facing the country in their estimation.

However, the third most important issue may help to shed some light on the Democratic strategy heading into November. At an admittedly somewhat distant third (11%) was, “dissatisfaction with government/Congress/politicians; poor leadership; corruption; abuse of power.” In bringing the DISCLOSE Act to a vote, Democrats seem to be attempting to enact a win-win strategy with regards to legislative efforts by tying economic concerns and government  gridlock together.

Poll after poll has shown that, despite what most Democrats would describe as their best — and the White House is describing as successful — efforts at dealing with the economic challenges facing the country, a majority of Americans do not feel that the President’s and Democrats’ economic programs have either helped or hurt them. And Democrats are smart enough to know that a.) nothing they do between now and November is likely to change that sentiment and b.) economic conditions in the country are not likely to turn around such that they affect that mood by November.

So rather than attempting the impossible task of changing the opinions people have formed based on their current life experiences, Democrats have, perhaps, decided their best strategy is to pin the failures on Republican obstructionism. This is a war cry that has been sounded for some time now. But in an electoral situation that seems as perilous as Novembers, Democrats might just see it as their only plausible hail mary.

The strategy would run: bring as many bills up for vote between now and November as possible, particularly those that have broad pubic support. If a handful of Senate Republicans decide to break ranks and pass the bill, great, add it to the list of legislative accomplishments Democrats offer to the voters in November. If, as with the DISCLOSE Act, Senate Republicans rebuff Democrats, great, add it to the list of bills on which Republicans refused to work with Democrats.

Of course, bills like the DISCLOSE Act have nothing to do with jobs, but that isn’t really the point of the strategy. The thrust of the strategy would be to lead with talk about jobs and talk about how Democrats would have liked to have done more, but then note that Republicans simply made that impossible. Likely Democrats will first point to instances like Jim Bunning’s one-man wrecking crew on the extension of unemployment benefits and then start looking to present as many other instances of obstructionism as possible, whether they have to do with jobs or not.

Needless to say, the longer the list, the more compelling the argument that Republicans are to blame for the current woes facing voters. All things considered, this may actually represent Democrats best chances at staying in power.

So don’t be surprised if you see a flurry of legislative activity over the next few months. It may well all be part of Democrats’ plan to beat Republicans electorally, win-lose-or-draw legislatively.

Yours truly made the resplendent comment that the move signalled there were, “no sacred cows, anymore.” Those were exciting heady days before things with financial reform had really started to unfold. So what has happened with Goldman and the SEC since then?

Here’s what,

Goldman, Sachs & Co., the broker-dealer, has agreed to a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to resolve the SEC’s pending case against the firm relating to disclosures in the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO offering. The settlement is subject to the approval of the United States Court for the Southern District of New York.

The firm entered into the settlement without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations. As part of the settlement, however, we acknowledged “that the marketing materials for the ABACUS 2007-ACI transaction contained incomplete information. In particular, it was a mistake for the Goldman marketing materials to state that the reference portfolio was ‘selected by’ ACA Management LLC without disclosing the role of Paulson & Co. Inc. in the portfolio selection process and that Paulson’s economic interests were adverse to CDO investors. Goldman regrets that the marketing materials did not contain that disclosure.”

We believe that this settlement is the right outcome for our firm, our shareholders and our clients.

To cut to the chase: in order to not have to publicly admit that they committed fraud, Goldman Sachs paid $550 million to settle a case with the SEC over… committing fraud. For all the fanfare and speculation over the announcement of the SEC’s case against Goldman, the settlement, which was announced on July 15, barely warranted a blip in the news cycle. Goldman Sachs did not deny fraudulent behavior costing their own customers approximately $3.7 billion and it basically went by unnoticed in most news circles.

That is a startling fact and it helps to demonstrate why overhauling the American financial sector was so important. When a $550 million settlement over a fraud case involving the country’s previously most reputable investment bank — a bank that initially called the suit, “completely unfounded in law and fact” — goes by basically unnoticed, you know that there are serious structural problems with how finance in the country conducts its business.

Image by Getty Images North America via @daylife

Republicans have not been quiet about their opposition to Democratic efforts to pass financial reform legislation aimed at reining in Wall Street and avoiding another financial collapse like that experienced in 2008. Indeed, leading Republicans got busy calling for the repeal of the legislation before it had even passed the Senate.

The Republicans’ strategy seems to be centered around the idea that opposition to government spending, which has been running rampant in independent voting circles, and a general mistrust of government overreach would, as in the health care reform debate, resonate more strongly with Americans.

However, breaking polling indicates that Republicans may have misread voters on this issue.

A poll just released by Gallup shows Democrats taking their first lead over Republicans on the generic ballot for the midterm elections,

According to Gallup, the six-point jump is due in large part to movement by the very independent voters with whom the GOP has been so successful of late.

With Republicans’ and Democrats’ support for their own party’s candidates holding steady in the low 90s this past week, independents are primarily responsible for Democrats’ improved positioning.

While registered independents still favor a Republican candidate over a Democrat on the generic ballot, Democrats have made an impressive ten point gain among independents since the beginning of July,

While Gallup is hesitant to draw any specific causality between the passage of financial reform legislation and the jump in Democratic support, it does go on to note a June poll demonstrating majority support for an expansion of regulations overseeing major financial institutions. And while a majority of Americans have expressed skepticism over the bill’s predicted efficacy, it could well be that Democrats’ message about Republican obstructionism is finally finding some purchase.

In the Huffington Post last week, outspoken reform advocate Senator Ted Kaufman advised,

Ultimately, given the make-up of the Senate and the requirement of 60 votes, this was the best bill that could pass. For those who wish the bill was stronger, let there be no confusion about where the blame lies. It is because almost every Senator on the other side of the aisle did everything they could to stall, delay and oppose Wall Street reform.

Having banked on the success of their messaging, Republicans may well be unable to pivot on what seems like breaking sentiment among a class of American voters who will hold perhaps more sway than ever in this year’s midterms.

If that is the case and Democrats are able to take full advantage of lingering anti-Wall Street sentiment, the news may prove Democrats’ first real break in the polls leading up to November’s election and the meaningful possibility of a comeback from previous predictions.

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

At Talking Points Memo, Brian Beutler highlights the continued defense of the Bush administration tax cuts by ranking Republican senators like Jon Kyl, Mitch McConnell, Judd Greg, and John Cornyn. Speaking to the tax cuts, set to expire in 2011, Cornyn had this to say,

The problem is, you know, when you raise taxes, which is what that will be if no action is taken, taxes will go up on dividends and on capital gains on a whole lot of people who aren’t rich. And the problem with that in a recession is it further contracts capital formation and investment which means it has a negative impact on jobs. I really can’t think — if you really set out to try to come up with ways to discourage people from investing and creating new jobs and growing their business, I can’t think of a more comprehensive agenda for doing that than what we’ve seen over the last year and a half.

However, the public is much less sanguine about the cuts than Cornyn, at least when it comes to deficit reduction. According to a poll conducted for Bloomberg Businessweek, “[t]he only deficit-reduction measure that gets strong support in the poll is higher taxes on upper-income Americans.”

J. Ann Selzer from the public opinion research firm Selzer and Company, who conducted the poll for Bloomberg, was able to shed some additional light on the claim. According to documents provided by Selzer, when respondents were asked,

I’m going to mention some general approaches that could be considered to help decrease the deficit—some of which may mean a sacrifice for you and your household. For each, please tell me if you think this approach should be strongly considered, just considered, or taken off the table.

…

Allow the income tax rate for the highest income earners to go back up to where it was 10 years ago.

41% of respondents said they would “strongly consider” the option and 31% said they would “consider” letting tax rates on highest earner to go back up to pre-Bush levels. Also scoring highly was, “[o]n Social Security, remove the cap so that wages over $107,000 a year are subject to the tax” (39% strongly considered, 40% considered).

Average Americans have had to tighten their belts in order to weather the country’s worst economic storm in recent history, but haven’t seen the same from their wealthier counterparts. Unlike ranking Republicans, apparently they strongly believe that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.