Progressive Media

Just a few points I want to make regarding Joe Lieberman, the Myth of 60, and the filibuster. Conveniently, DemFromCT's pundit roundup informs me that Joe Conason has already made the political points well for me today: Let’s count the actual votes on the Republican side of the aisle, asking which Senators would have both the inclination and the will to join a filibuster. Every issue calls forth different levels of resistance, of course, but in each instance the opposition would need at least 41 total. In the very worst case, should the Republicans pick up all the remaining seats, they will begin with three more than that. Six Senate Republicans will face reelection two years hence in states that went for Mr. Obama: Judd Gregg (R-NH), Arlen Specter (R- PA), George Voinovich (R-OH), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Chuck Grassley (R- IA), and Richard Burr (R-NC). Having seen their fellow incumbents fall in the last two elections, that half dozen may well consider themselves in varying degrees of political peril. Poor Mr. Gregg watched his New Hampshire colleague John Sununu drop this year as their state turned deep blue. Mr. Martinez won his seat in 2004 by a single point and is widely considered vulnerable. So are Mr. Specter, nearing his 80th birthday, and Mr. Voinovich, now 72. Again, the thing to keep in mind about filibusters and cloture votes is that it's not how many seats your caucus occupies, it's how many votes you can muster. To paraphrase a recent popular refrain, seats don't vote. Conason makes the point politically. There are several Republicans facing potentially tough reelection battles in 2010, and that tends to make some of them reticent about obstructionism. Not always, and not on every single vote. But the peculiar nature of cloture votes is such that party affiliation isn't always the most dependable predictor of how things will come out. In looking over the cloture votes in the 110th Congress, it quickly becomes obvious that aisle-crossing votes aren't even something you can easily quantify, because a significant number of them don't break down along anything approaching strict partisan lines. Sometimes the ideological lines are clear, but partisan lines much less so. A typical cloture vote may well see 10-15 Democrats, or even nearly half the caucus on one side, with the rest on the other. Republicans, too, split their conference with fair frequency. In fact, of the 110 cloture votes in the last Congress, only three saw no crossover voting whatsoever. And in one of those instances, some 19 Senators didn't even vote, so it's hard to pin down its analytical value. Even so, three out of 110 votes is a rarity no matter how you look at it. Over 97% of the time there were Senators straying from the position taken by the majority of their side of the aisle, not including Lieberman or Harry Reid, who as Majority Leader will often switch his vote at the last minute to the other side -- a procedural move that gives him the right to call the vote up for reconsideration at a later date. As for Lieberman, he parted ways with the majority of the Democratic caucus only 15 times out of those 110, largely over issues that -- broadly defined -- could indeed fit under the excuse that "he's with us on everything but the war." And when I say broadly defined, I mean including votes on habeas corpus for enemy combatants and FISA as being "war-related." Three of his departures were over those issues, while three more were on the questions of enhanced rescissions authority, a judicial nomination, and the "no confidence" vote on Alberto Gonzales. And even if you count Lieberman as a Democrat, he wasn't even the one most frequently departing from the majority of the caucus. That honor (if it is one) goes to the just-reelected Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who parted ways with the majority of Democrats 21 times on cloture votes in the last two years. Others in the same neighborhood include Mark Pryor with 14, Evan Bayh (now an outspoken Lieberman defender) and Byron Dorgan with 13, and Max Baucus and Claire McCaskill with 12. Now, it's hard to evaluate statistics like that in a vacuum. There are lots of reasons why individual Senators might find themselves at odds with a majority of their caucus over some given vote, or even all votes in a given issue area. And it's not by itself a measure of "loyalty" or even necessarily an indicator of where you come down on the ideological spectrum. The next Senators on the list, for instance, were Bernie Sanders (who for these purposes was counted as a Democrat) and Robert Byrd, both with 11. You could hardly put the two in the same category, yet it must be admitted that Landrieu, Bayh, Pryor, Dorgan, Baucus, McCaskill and Byrd do all have a little something in common. And as for Sanders, it's hard to be surprised that a Senator who's not actually a Democrat would part ways with Democrats with some fair frequency. But really, it's the other side of the aisle we might want to be concerned with here, since reliable performance on cloture votes -- if there is such a thing -- will require some crossover voting from Republicans whether there are 60 Democrats (broadly defined) or not. It turns out that there were fewer than ten cloture votes in the last Congress in which no Republicans crossed over to join the position taken by a majority of Democrats. And among Republicans, the undisputed champ of aisle-crossing on cloture is Olympia Snowe of Maine, who departed from the majority of her colleagues in the Republican Conference 42 times in the 110th Congress. That's a 38%+ crossover rate. The endangered (and indeed, now defeated) Gordon Smith followed closely with 40. And Snowe's Maine colleague, Susan Collins, crossed over 39 times, while Norm Coleman hopped the aisle 35 times. Remember, these are just the times they voted with the majority of Democrats while leaving the majority of Republicans behind. Their numbers are even higher if you count votes where the majority of Republicans joined with the majority of Democrats on cloture votes -- something which actually happened 43 times out of the 110. Still, it should be borne in mind that even if Snowe was with the majority of Dems in every single one of those 43 votes as well (I haven't looked), that would make 85 out of 110 votes, meaning that Landrieu was still the "more dependable" of the two, as measured by frequency of voting with the majority of Dems. Even there, it must be noted that voting with the majority of Dems is no measure of, say, progressivism. There were a number of votes in the 110th Congress where the progressive position was arguably in opposition to that taken by the majority of the Democratic Caucus. The point of the counting exercise, though, is to highlight how much or how little value party identification by itself has in predicting voting position on distinct cloture votes, or even on cloture votes in general. In fact, the numbers tell us that the only Republican Senators who didn't jump across the aisle with a minority of their GOP colleagues at least once during the last Congress were Wayne Allard and John Barrasso, and Barrasso wasn't even in office for the first half of 2007. Dems, by comparison, were relatively disciplined, holding the votes of every Democrat (save Lieberman and Reid, who were not counted for these purposes) who cast a vote 72 times (versus just nine for the GOP), with four Senators (Cardin, Clinton, Klobuchar and Murray) who never strayed from the position of the majority of the caucus. Remember, too, that the filibuster and cloture are a different game when Democrats control both the Congress and the White House. Lieberman most often bolted on issues surrounding the war. But while George W. Bush sat in the White House, legislation was the only method by which Democrats could even hope to influence or change the direction of the war, and between the filibuster and the veto pen, there was virtually no chance that was going to happen. Often, Republican Senators would filibuster war-related legislation to protect the president from having to veto it, on the theory that presidential vetos make a bigger media splash than legislation that dies on the Senate floor. With only the legislative avenue open to Democrats to make a statement on the war, it stands to reason that the filibuster and cloture votes would become the Republicans' most frequently used weapon, perhaps exaggerating its importance somewhat, and thus inflating the perception of the danger posed by an aggrieved Lieberman. With a Democrat in the White House, changing the direction of the war no longer depends exclusively on legislation. That may well mean considerably fewer opportunities for filibusters in the first place, which would substantially reduce both the threat Lieberman poses even if he decides to act purely out of spite, and the strategic value of capitulating to his demand that he retain his committee chair in order to keep his vote on cloture. With the tools of the executive in the hands of someone who actually wants to change the direction of the war, the threat of a filibuster against legislation designed to do what the president can often do unilaterally is significantly diminished. That's something Democratic Senators should keep in mind as they approach this decision. Only 2.7% of the vastly inflated number of cloture votes taken over the last two years saw no crossover voting. That'll tell you something about both the reliability of a 60 seat count, and the illogic of writing off all Republican votes in making cloture predictions. Do you trade the gavel of the Senate's chief executive oversight committee to a Senator who's essentially threatening to abandon his political principles to exact revenge? That would be a bad bet in any situation. But given that just 2.7% of cloture votes over the last two years fell strictly along partisan lines, and that the one issue where Lieberman has presented any kind of a problem on cloture is no longer going to be primarily a legislative issue, anyway, I'm not at all certain that giving the gavel to a more dependable vote presents much of a threat.

• Funny stuff: check out Rahm Emanuel Facts.
• The big news around the eco-blogs (and eco-diaries here at dailyKos) is: The EPA appeals board held up permitting for a contentious coal-fired power plant and said carbon-dioxide emissions need to be regulated, in AP. That is a big victory for environmentalists, and puts a dark cloud over the future of coal power, at Grist. And environmentalists may soon have another tool to fight global warming, if plans to use the Clean Water Act bear fruit, at Dot Earth.
• Over the years, there has been much discussion - but little research - regarding the health of Gulf War veterans: Even as possibly hundreds of thousands of veterans suffer from a collection of symptoms commonly called Gulf War illness, the government has done too little to find treatments for their health problems nearly two decades after the war ended, a panel commissioned by Congress said. The advisory panel of medical experts and veterans wants at least $60 million spent annually for research, calling it a "national obligation," according to its report, obtained by The Associated Press. The report, which goes to the Veterans Affairs Secretary James Peake on Monday, said the Defense Department cut research money from $30 million in 2001 to less than $5 million in 2006. Both departments have identified some of their research as "Gulf War research" even when it did not entirely focus on the issue.
• Everybody has questions, recommendations, and high hopes for Barack Obama's administration. Steve Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists has a short post on government transparency. Dozens of organizations: ... convened and led by OMB Watch, produced a 112-page volume (pdf) that addresses transparency, access, national security secrecy, freedom of information policy, and related topics. See "Moving Towards a 21st Century Right to Know Agenda: Recommendations to President-Elect Obama and Congress."
• Creepy news of the week: did you hear about the missing nuclear bomb found under the ice in Greenland? BBC News reported on their findings earlier this week, and an article in der Spiegel today says that it's not an isolated incident: In a 1968 plane crash, the US military lost an atom bomb in Greenland's Arctic ice. But this was no isolated case. Up to 50 nuclear warheads are believed to have gone missing during the Cold War, and not all of them are in unpopulated areas.

Via press release: WASHINGTON – The Obama-Biden Transition Team today announced a broad list of Agency Review Team leads that will complete a thorough review of key departments, agencies and commissions of the United States government, as well as the White House, to provide the President-elect, Vice President-elect, and key advisors with information needed to make strategic policy, budgetary, and personnel decisions prior to the inauguration. The list includes teams that will review the Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of Energy, Department of Education, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture. The teams will begin their efforts today, and will ensure that senior appointees have the information necessary to complete the confirmation process, lead their departments, and begin implementing signature policy initiatives immediately after they are sworn in. The full list of appointees can be found here and are listed below the fold.

Tim Pawlenty, Republican governor of Minnesota: "We cannot be a majority governing party when we essentially cannot compete in the Northeast, we are losing our ability to compete in Great Lakes States, we cannot compete on the West Coast, we are increasingly in danger of competing in the Mid-Atlantic States, and the Democrats are now winning some of the Western States," he said. "That is not a formula for being a majority governing party in this nation." "And similarly we cannot compete, and prevail, as a majority governing party if we have a significant deficit, as we do, with women, where we have a large deficit with Hispanics, where we have a large deficit with African-American voters, where we have a large deficit with people of modest incomes and modest financial circumstances," he said. "Those are not factors that make up a formula for success going forward." Big question -- what can they do about it? Really, not much. The GOP is out of step with a public that is increasingly libertarian on social matters, yet their religious wing won't let them shift on those issues.

Diarist  terjeanderson gave us the heads up a short while ago. Greg Sargent has gotten the transcript. "Every Senator will have to vote the way he or she believes they should," Leahy said, in a reference to the upcoming vote on Lieberman's fate in the Dem caucus next week. "I'm one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did." "I felt some of the attacks that he was involved in against Senator Obama...went way beyond the pale," Leahy continued. I thought they were not fair, I thought they were not legitimate, I thought they perpetuated some of these horrible myths that were being run about Senator Obama." "I would feel that had I done something similar," Leahy concluded, "that I would not be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress." And here's the audio.

This might or might not be true. I sincerely hope it isn't. Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean is not a serious contender to be secretary of health and human services in the new Obama administration, sources said. Dean’s name has appeared on short lists for the Cabinet post circulating throughout Washington, based largely on his party chairmanship and career as a doctor. Dean also passed health care reforms while governor of Vermont. And his allies said the Obama transition team has had some informal discussions with him about the job. But the chief attributes President-elect Barack Obama is seeking in his HHS secretary will be an ability to work with members of Congress and shepherd reform legislation through the House and Senate. That job description has turned out to be a particularly ill-suited one for Dean, given his partisan background and lack of congressional experience, sources inside and outside the transition offices say. Dean never served in Congress and spent his Washington career trying to thin the ranks of congressional Republicans that the Obama White House will need to court during the expected debate on health care reform. Boy, I hope Rahm Emanuel doesn't get a position in the administration, given that he was chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and spent a chunk of the last four years helping thin the ranks of Republicans in the House (and did a nice job of it, too!). Oh, wait... If Obama wants someone like Daschle to head up Health and Human Services because Daschle has Hill experience, that's one thing. But if the standard is now "partisanship", then Rahm better resign ASAP, because there are few dudes more partisan in Washington than Rahm. In that questionnaire the transition team has for prospective administration employees, they might as well add another one: "Have you ever given money to a candidate for office attempting to thin the ranks of Republicans in office?" Who knew that engaging in the electoral process was now a bad thing? Howard Dean helped pave the way for Obama's victory, as well as for the increased majorities in Congress and governorships. I don't give Howard all the credit -- our current majorities are the result of a lot of hard work by a lot of people (you included) -- but it's beyond question that Dean was a major factor. Even his fiercest critics are admitting it. So to now penalize him for his success (assuming he wants HSS and assuming this article is correct) would be ridiculous. I really hope the report isn't true.

(From the diaries. Assuming this is confirmed, Leahy would be the first Senate Democrat to publicly announce his opposition to Lieberman's retention of his committee chairmanship -- kos) Senator Patrick Leahy has just finished (12.45 EST)  a call in show ('Vermont Edition") on Vermont Public Radio. (Diary now updated with transcribed quotes.) In response to a caller  ("Bill from Ripton") who raised the question of Joe Lieberman's status, Senator Leahy clearly stated his opposition to Lieberman retaining his chairmanship. Money quote #1: "I’m one who does not feel somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did.." Money quote #2:  But I felt that some of the attacks that he was involved in against Senator Obama .... I thought they went way beyond the pale, that they were not fair, that they were not legitimate, that they perpetuated some of these horrible myths that were run about Senator Obama Money quote #3:  I would feel that had I done something similar that I would not be Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress

MSNBC: Earlier this morning, Obama's transition office announced that the president-elect will meet with McCain in Chicago on Monday, and they will be joined by incoming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of McCain's closest friends and allies. In fact, per an Obama transition official, Emanuel and Graham were instrumental in putting this Obama-McCain meeting together. Remember that Emanuel and Graham served as the negotiators for the presidential debates, and when other Republicans were criticizing Obama's selection of Emanuel as chief of staff, Graham praised it. Notice which McCain sidekick is missing?

With his graphics wizardry, Prof. Charles Franklin has posted a piece at pollster.com looking at the percentage of African-American voters, the percentage of white voters who voted for Obama, and how they correlate. Click for a larger view. Prof. Franklin notes that below 20% of A-A participation, there's not much correlation between white vote for Obama and A-A turnout voting pool. However, once you reach 20% A-A voting, (for whatever reason) the white vote tends to drop precipitously. To help illustrate that, I've added a red line at the 20% range to see it visually. Look over to the right of the red line. The falling curve represents fewer and fewer white voters for Obama. While it's arbitrary to pick a number to represent what an 'expected' chunk of voters should look like, the exit polls tell us that nationally there were 74% self-identified white voters, 43% of whom voted for Obama (.74 x .43 = .32). I therefore set a purple line at around that number (30%), below which is a "below average" "white voter for Obama" number. [You can set it at 40 to correspond to the % of white Obama voters with no adjustment, and see the same right lower quadrant. I arbitrarily picked a lower number.] If you combine them, you get the Deep South over in the right lower quadrant. I have no intention of doing any South bashing, and I'm not making any assumptions about the apparent correlation. I simply note that that's where the Democratic Party still has work to do, along with OK, AR and TX. I acknowledge all those who are fighting the good fight there (hey, we can't all be HI and VT; they have it easy.) But for now, that right lower quadrant is the GOP's regional base; by 2012, TX will be a swing state. And the GOP? Beyond that right lower quadrant, they've got more work to do than we do, if they ever want to be a national party again.

Doesn't sound like Barack Obama is being that conciliatory to Joe Lieberman: Sen. Joe Lieberman has reached out to President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden to arrange a congratulatory phone call, a Democratic aide tells The Crypt. The effort has led to a recent conversation between Biden and Lieberman. So Lieberman called Obama to congratulate him (and suck up to try and save his committee chairmanship), and Obama hands him off to Biden. It's not as if Obama is blowing off his Senate colleagues. He's even called Republicans. Then he added: "Again [Obama is] making some calls to Congress ....one of the calls he made while we were on the tarmac here was to Sen. Lugar who he obviously has had a relationship with since coming to the Senate and he's you know starting to call members of Congress. "To Lugar?" he was asked. Gibbs: "He made three calls one of them was to Lugar." Don't read anything into this, an Obama aide said tonight, other than the fact that Obama is bipartisan in his telephonic conferences. So he's reaching out to key Senators, yet when Lieberman calls, he's handed off to Biden? Doesn't sound like Obama doesn't hold grudges. Senate Republicans are still trying to blame Obama for sabotaging efforts to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship, but reality is, the Senate can decide for themselves. It just seems that they can't escape their cycle of capitulation.

Some high powered assistance on the Lieberman battle from Rachel: We get it. Rachel gets it. The people of Connecticut get it. The only people who don't seem to get it are the capitulating Democrats in the Senate.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 11/11-13. Likely voters. MoE 4% (6/30-7/2 results) Do you approve or disapprove of the job Joe Lieberman is doing as U.S. senator? Approve 36 (45) Disapprove 61 (43) If the 2012 election for U.S. Senate were held today would you to reelect Joe Lieberman would you consider voting for another candidate or would you vote to replace Lieberman? Reelect 35 Consider Someone Else 18 Replace 48 Brutal. It seems that the people of Connecticut don't like the Republican version of Lieberman, the one that trashed Democrats on the campaign trail with John McCain, the one that spoke at the RNC convention, the one that failed to hold the Bush Administration accountable in Congress, and the one that pretended Katrina never happened. He's already in trouble with his constituents. But look what happens if Lieberman follows through on his threats and caucuses with Republicans: If Joe Lieberman loses his committee chairmanship at Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and switches his allegiance to the Republican Party would you that make you more likely reelect Lieberman more likely to consider voting for another candidate or more likely to vote to replace Lieberman? Reelect 31 Consider Someone Else 15 Replace 52 And those numbers look a lot worse with Democrats and Independents, since they are propped up by happy Republicans. (Full crosstabs below the fold.) So Lieberman can threaten all he wants to caucus with Republicans if he doesn't get everything he wants. Fact is, he's in shaky electoral territory, and it would only get worse if he decided to become a Republican. Call his bluff. Give him another committee chairmanship in an area where his ideology matches up with the Democratic Party. He won't leave the Democratic caucus. It would be career suicide. No one likes Joe except for Republicans, yet there are the Senate Dems, once again ready to capitulate. Apparently, old habits die hard. But maybe they'll prove us wrong and do the right thing. Update: Oh, and the people of Connecticut are still suffering buyer's remorse: If you could vote again for U.S. Senate would you vote for Ned Lamont theDemocrat Alan Schlesinger the Republican or Joe Lieberman an Independent? Lieberman (I) 34 (36) Lamont (D) 59 (51) Schlesinger (R) 3 (7)

An abbreviated version of Sarah Palin's press conference on Thursday: Some factoids:

• She took four questions and spent a grand total of 2 minutes, 8 seconds answering those questions.
• Her first answer was 25 seconds long. Her second answer was 51 seconds long. Her third answer was 28 seconds long, and her final answer was 24 second long.
• She spent most of the time saying she didn't want to review the 2008 presidential campaign. She then went on to deliver a speech in which she mostly reviewed the 2008 presidential campaign.
• Half of the GOP governors showed up. They see her as the leader of the party. I'm loving it. More, please!

Are you looking for a job? Because the soon-to-be Obama administration is taking applications: This website is designed to provide prospective applicants with information to help them apply for positions in the Obama-Biden Administration. But if you decide to apply, be aware that you'll have to answer this question: (10.) Writings: Please list and, if readily available, provide a copy of each book, article, column or publication (including but not limited to any posts or comments on blogs or other websites) you have authored, individually or with others. Damn. Really makes you rethink those flamewars, doesn't it?  ;-) [UPDATE by DHinMI] Is anyone vetting this Daily Kos diary? Thanks for the feedback by Barack Obama Thu Oct 20, 2005 at 11:53:50 PM EST Let me start by saying how much I appreciated all the energetic responses to my previous post.  Time didn't permit me to respond immediately, but I personally read most of them - positive and negative - and found them thoughtful and challenging. Rather than belabor some of the points I made in the original post, let me just offer a few quick reactions to some of the responses to my message...

Friday is a good day for punditry. Paul Krugman: The economic news, in case you haven’t noticed, keeps getting worse. Bad as it is, however, I don’t expect another Great Depression. In fact, we probably won’t see the unemployment rate match its post-Depression peak of 10.7 percent, reached in 1982 (although I wish I was sure about that). But don't mistake that for good news. Mort Kondracke: there are no atheists in foxholes, and in a recession, everyone is a Keynesian. David Brooks: Auto bailout bad. That it likely won't happen (says the newspaper of record) doesn't stop the ranting. Michael Gove (Tory MP, Surrey): Team Obama knew that the first, most important, primary of this campaign wasn't in Iowa or New Hampshire but in cyberspace. They built a team of supporters online which was, in Obama's famous phrase, fired up and ready to go, well before Hillary had even declared her hand. These supporters had been mobilising for years around a number of existing online forums, such as Moveon.Org and the Daily Kos, which had become outlets for Democrat frustration following the Bush victory in 2000... There are powerful lessons from the Obama campaign for politicians here. The first, of course, is, the technology, stupid. The internet and blogosphere are powerful tools but they change the relationship between politicians and the electorate, forcing us to work harder. Used properly, the net can allow direct communication with voters. Rich Lowry: Let me defend Sarah Palin, because that's what I do. She makes me see sparkles. But the campaign itself? Pitiful. And sad. Simon Lazarus and Ian Millhiser: Ann Dunham, ERISA, justice and fairness. Robert Borosage and Stan Greenberg: Center-right? Nah. Center-left. Roger Simon: How bad off is the Republican Party right now? Ask Newt Gingrich. Joe Conason: Don't worry about a filibuster. Between re-election and local politics, the votes aren't there for the GOP. Kathleen Parker: Fresh ire aimed at former Harvard University President Larry Summers prompts the question: Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on dumb things expressed in public? (Please say yes.)

In the late stages of the presidential race, no other name was used more by the McCain-Palin campaign against Barack Obama than Bill Ayers. Ayers is a respected Chicago professor who was a member of the 1960s militant antiwar group the Weather Underground. In their first joint television interview, Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn discuss the McCain campaign attacks, President-elect Obama, the Weather Underground, the legacy of 1960s social justice movements, and more.

UN Forced to Stop Gaza Food Aid, US Attack Kills 8 in Pakistan, Bush: Don?t Blame Market for Financial Collapse, US to Host Global Financial Summit, FDIC to Propose New Foreclosure Assistance, Jobless Claims Hit 16-Year High, Obama to Give Up Senate Seat, Emanuel Apologizes for Father?s Israel Comments, Clinton Said to Be in Running for Sec. of State, US Rejects Russian Missile Proposal

Looking at the same data I did when diagnosing the conservative "secular problem," Karl Rove concludes: Then there were those who didn't show up. There were 4.1 million fewer Republicans voting this year than in 2004. Some missing Republicans had turned independent or Democratic for this election. But most simply stayed home. Ironically for a campaign that featured probably the last Vietnam veteran to run for president, 2.7 million fewer veterans voted. There were also 4.1 million fewer voters who attend religious services more than once a week. Americans aren't suddenly going to church less; something was missing from the campaign to draw out the more religiously observant. Rove's recommendation is for Republicans to do more "to draw out the more religiously observant" -- in other words, suck up more to Christian conservatives. But that is a very narrow, politically foolish reading of the data. I had also noted that the secular vote had become larger than the weekly churchgoing vote. But Rove ignores two other key pieces of data. 1) Obama earned more support from weekly churchgoers than past Democratic candidates. 2) McCain earned less support from secular voters than George W. Bush. Obama built a stronger religious-secular coalition by offering ideas that appeal to both camps, not by crude pandering on religious matters. Bending over backwards to pander to conservative Christians will only further worry secular voters that conservatives don't properly prioritize issues that are most important to good governing. But trying to come up with conservative ideas that can appeal across religious lines is a much harder task than staying in the conservative comfort zone of telling their base what they want to hear. UPDATE: One final thought: Obama got 8.5 million more votes than McCain in beating him 53% to 46%. Squeezing 4.1 million more votes out of your base doesn't solve your problem. To put a fine point on it, if you only count the states where Obama received 53% or more, he still gets enough electoral votes to win -- 290, 20 more than needed. Goosing the base won't get those states back.

Since the start of the presidential campaign, Michelle Obama has been more scrutinized than the spouse of any other presidential candidate. Scant attention has been paid to her personal history as the descendant of slaves, an upbringing in the South Side of Chicago, and work in community organizing. We speak to Washington Post writer Liza Mundy, author of the new unauthorized biography Michelle. [includes rush transcript – partial]

The Bush administration is quietly trying to push through a wide array of federal regulations before President Bush leaves office in January. Up to ninety proposed regulations could be finalized, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment. We speak to Matthew Madia of the watchdog group OMB Watch.