Reforming the GOP.

Ever since President Obama trounced (I say trounced simply because it was clear months in advance--and contrary to what Dick Morris and Karl Rove had insisted--that there was no way that Romney could win--just ask Nate Silver) Mitt Romney in the presidential race pundits on the right and the left have been looking at how the GOP can reform itself to take back the White House.  Many like Bobby Jindal have suggested different messaging.  Jindal has specifically (and literally) said that the GOP needs to stop being stupid.  However, he seems to mean that they need to stop expressing themselves stupidly, not that they need to stop maintaining stupid positions.  Jindal has been largely praised for what has seemed like a bold move.  And the message has been received--at the House Republican retreat in January, GOP congressmen were instructed not to talk about rape.  On the other hand, Karl Rove's SuperPAC (the same SPAC that spent incredible amounts of money on 2012 elections and saw little return on its investment) has started a new project to keep Tea Partiers like Todd Akin (also trounced by Claire McCaskill), Richard Mourdock (whom the Tea Party used to oust Dick Lugar, and was then defeated by Joe Donnelly) and Paul Broun (who serves on the House Science Committee despite denying the big bang, evolution and apparently the whole discipline of embryology)  from running against more moderate and, more importantly, electable GOPers.  What is most interesting is that, while Rove seems to be offering practicable solutions to a GOP problem (as compared to the "stop talking about rape" approach), he has been bashed by many in his own party.  Conclusion:  Bobby Jindal was right.

Here's John Dickerson's competent analysis from this morning.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

After Rove's poor performance on Fox News last week, he's looking forward to speaking at the Kansas Livestock Association (nothing against cows, Kansas or associations).  On the other hand...

Citizens United vindicated?

This week, James Bopp, the lawyer who successfully defended the Citizens United case before the Supreme Court, claimed that Obama's victory has vindicated Bopp's position.  "The lesson here is all the hype over independent spending was just completely overblown...  Nobody can buy an election."  (Full article at Mother Jones).  Bopp seems to be referring to the fact that Sheldon Adelson, Karl Rove and Linda McMahon all spent enormous amounts of money on campaigns that lost miserably.  Bopp takes this as an indication that he was right to defend the pouring of unlimited and undeclared money into campaigns.  The problem is that the Citizens United case was about constitutionality, not the affects of such a policy.  The question is rather more philosophical than practical--just because one can inject enormous sums of so-called dark money into an election without influencing the outcome of said election doesn't mean you should be permitted to do so, or to use Jeff Goldblum's words from Jurassic Park, Bopp was "so preoccupied with whether or not they could, [he] didn't stop to think if they should."

Citizens United and the Buying of Elections

As it turns out, Karl Rove's Super PAC spent $400 million this election cycle, not just on Romney, but on congressional candidates.  What did he get for that cash?  Bupkis it seems.  I have not confirmed the tweets above, nor do I care to.  I'm not interested in the cash, nor in the results (in this particular post, in any case).  I'm interested in the narrative--Rove spent a rather sizable amount of money and has nothing to show for it.  Both Kaczynski and Schultz are emphasizing the wrong part, viz., that he got nothing to show for it.  The problem is not the result (perhaps Rove was outspent).  The problem is that one can throw $400 million at a campaign.  If the Citizens United ruling suggests that businesses are people too, then businesses should be given the right to vote.  Otherwise, Citizens United must be rejected as unconstitutional.