I didn’t know about what follows when I posted last night (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog) on Atlantic politics editor and CBS Campaign 2010 “Chief Political Consultant” Marc Ambinder’s September 15 prediction that “The media is going to help the Democratic Party’s national messaging.” Though drop-dead obvious, I still found it interesting that someone in Ambinder’s position would admit it.

It turns out that only two days after Ambinder put forth his prediction, he proactively made it come true.

Despite the inquisitive title of his September 17 post (“Will the White House Play the Palin Card?”), Ambinder clearly believes that going after Sarah Palin should be part of the White House’s and Democrats’ strategy during the next seven weeks.

It’s enough to make you wonder if he has already written his CBS election post-mortems. Behold Ambinder’s cluelessness:

… when Tea Partiers are in “elect someone like Christine O’Donnell mode,” Democrats sense an opportunity. Simply put, the crazier the Tea Party seems, the more Democrats can link the Republican agenda to its source of energy, which in turn fires up rank-and-file Democrats.

There is, in fact … someone whose very name provokes disgust among Democrats, someone whose name identification is 100 percent and whose ubiquity is extremely useful.

That person is Sarah Palin. All that’s required is for the President to utter her name a couple of times. The Fox-Rush-Redstate nexus would explode. Palin would bask in the attention and respond. And respond. And respond.

… Elevate Sarah Palin? How much higher can she go? Everyone knows her. Some of Obama’s advisers have argued in the past that the attention paid to Palin by Americans in the last stages of the 2008 campaign is one reason why Obama was able to win so cleanly.

Palin and the Tea Party movement are not the same thing. The movement, evolving out of movement conservatism, is principally about government and the economy. Palin revels in the culture wars. But when that part of the Tea Party that does care about social issues becomes the story, linking the two in the public’s mind is easier.

Anyone who thinks that Palin hurt John McCain’s campaign wasn’t watching the same election as everyone else.

McCain was suffering from intense conservative disinterest until he picked Palin. When he did, she energized the sensible, conservative base of the party as no one ever has. The fact that McCain’s people then seemingly did all they could to water her down in the ensuing weeks is primarily McCain’s fault, not hers. Despite that, residual affection for Palin is what prevented McCain’s 7-point loss from going into double digits, and, for better or worse, arguably salvaged his ability to continue on as a U.S. Senator.

Despite well over a year of exposure to it, Ambinder betrays a total misunderstanding of the Tea Party movement. Fiscal issues are currently very important, but if he thinks there’s a big divide within the movement on social issues, he’s got another thing coming. The overriding issue is, to steal from Mark Levin, liberty versus tyranny. There is probably no better example of how all of the supposedly divide-creating issues (fiscal, social, constitutional) tie together under the liberty vs. tyranny banner than Palin’s completely accurate, totally courageous assertion that statist health care will inexorably lead to “death panels” — and that they are designed into legislation this Congress has already passed and this President has already signed.

So let me get this straight: During the next seven weeks, Marc Ambinder will be CBS’s “Chief Political Consultant” on Campaign 2010. He’s part of a team that will, in the network’s own words, provide “reports and political analysis (that) will be prominently featured across all CBS News broadcasts and platforms on the run-up to election night 2010 on Nov. 2.”

At the same time, Ambinder has not only clearly chosen sides, but is actively providing “messaging” advice to which he hopes Team Obama and the Democrats pay heed. Assuming he continues to do this, Ambinder’s contributions to CBS’s “reports and political analysis” will then necessarily involve evaluating first, whether the home team followed his advice, and second, whether following or not following his advice was successful.

Of course, you’ll never hear Ambinder tell his audience that “This is (or isnt’) what I suggested.” No-no-no. CBS will present its “Chief Political Consultant” as an impartial, disinterested observer.

What horse manure. And they wonder why their ratings continue to drop.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

From the abstract of “The Effects of Fiscal Stimulus: Evidence from the 2009 ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Program,” here is the conclusion from business profs Atif Mian and Amir Sufi that it accomplished virtually nothing (HT to a Friday Wall Street Journal editorial; bolds are mine throughout this post):

We find that the program induced the purchase of an additional 360,000 cars in July and August of 2009. However, almost all of the additional purchases under the program were pulled forward from the very near future; the effect of the program on auto purchases is almost completely reversed by as early as March 2010 – only seven months after the program ended. The effect of the program on auto purchases was significantly more short-lived than previously suggested. We also find no evidence of an effect on employment, house prices, or household default rates in cities with higher exposure to the program.

The Journal notes the clever methodology the profs used:

It’s impossible to test what would have happened without cash for clunkers because there’s no control group. But Messrs. Mian and Sufi do the next best thing by looking at how clunkers were distributed around the country. Comparing high-clunker areas to low-clunker areas—and thus the areas that were more “stimulated”—allowed them to measure relative economic outcomes.

Lo, Messrs. Mian and Sufi found in their paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research that there was “no noticeable difference” in economic outcomes among the 957 metropolitan areas they studied. They did detect an economic blip in cities where the auto industry is concentrated but note that the rebound can’t be disentangled from the Chrysler and GM bailouts.

Thus, the real clunker was the program itself.

I would argue that the evidence present demonstrates a high likelihood that “C4C” was a net detriment to the economy, specifically because the artificial boom and bust cycle it created interrupted the slower but much steadier progression a more typical recovery might take. C4C probably produced a nice chunk of overtime for UAW workers at the Big Three — though not as much as thought, at least at GM and Chrysler, as the Japanese transplant companies benefitted disproportionately. But that was followed by the slump Mian and Sufi documented. This letdown may well have had broader psychological effects, contributing to consumer-confidence numbers that have yet to rebound, and retail sales numbers that have generally been unimpressive.

My guess is that some of the automakers’ suppliers were especially hard-hit during the post-C4C period, possibly to the point of having to lay people off or reducing their work week.

Then there’s the impact on the used car market:

The Cash for Clunkers program – which was supposed to help boost new auto sales – is actually crushing sales at used car dealerships nationwide.

“That basically destroyed the used car industry,” said Alan Behzad, General Manager of Alan’s Auto Network in Reno. “It took probably a few million great used cars out of the market and crushed them. And that was the stuff that we were hungry for at the auctions and were fighting tooth and nail just to get, but they’re not there anymore.”

Used car dealers say they’re paying about 20-percent to 30-percent more for their inventory and many are passing a percentage of those higher prices on to customers. On the used car lots, you might see more vehicles with higher mileage, since dealers can’t afford to be as choosy.

Less well-off people — disproportionately the poor and minorities, to borrow a stock phrase from the Washington Post — who can only afford to buy used cars and get forced into the market because their current vehicles have given out are clearly among the hardest hit by this eminently foreseeable side effect. Thanks, Barry.

Oh, and here’s another added element (bolds are mine):

One of the provisions of “cash for clunkers’ was that if you wanted to lease a new vehicle and still get the incentive — $3,500 or $4,500 — you had to sign a lease that was a minimum of five years long. According to the Miami-based Leasetrader.com, which acts as an intermediary between consumers who want to get out of a lease and those who want to lease a vehicle, some “clunkers” customers are already looking for a way out of long leases. Many are finding that even with the rebate, they are stuck with a big monthly payment for at least 60 months.

John Sternal, Leasetrader.com vice-president, said that while fewer than 20 percent of the 700,000 “clunkers” transactions were leases, his company is seeing a surprising number of lease customers looking to get out of them early.

“Around April or May of this year, we started to get a couple of calls a week from people who were saying, ‘Hey, I did this clunkers deal, got a great rebate on it, and now that the dust has settled, I’m still left with a used car and 40-some-odd months left to go on the contract.’”

Although no figures are available, Sternal said the number of calls like that “have definitely increased” since May. Many people, Sternal said, have either lost their jobs, or are afraid they will. Others simply bit off more than they can chew, and need to reduce their bills.

So what can they do now? Unfortunately, not much.

In so many ways, a supposedly virtuous program has ended up viciously contributing to a “Recovery Summer” that never happened.

From Vancouver:

Sep 19, 2010 / 05:06 pm

Brian Wood, a 33-year-old resident of Vancouver, B.C., was killed in an auto collision on September 3, when the driver of an oncoming SUV lost control of the vehicle and crossed the road into his lane. His wife, Erin Wood, said that Brian acted just in time to save her, and their unborn child expected to be born in November, by sacrificing himself.

Evidence from the crash, which also killed two passengers in the other vehicle’s back seat, supported Ms. Wood’s description of her late husband’s final act: unable to avoid the errant SUV, Brian Wood slammed the brakes and swerved his side of the car toward the oncoming vehicle, ensuring his certain death but protecting his wife, pregnant with their first child.

“I think it’s pretty obvious … that if it would have been a head-on crash, we both would have been killed instantly, along with our baby,” Erin Wood told NBC’s Today Show on September 13. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

In a September 15 post-primary item at the Atlantic (“An Epic End to the Primaries: What It Means”), politics editor Marc Ambinder presented seven “different ways to look at the primaries of September 14, 2010.”

His final item reads as follows (bold is mine):

7. The media is going to help the Democratic Party’s national messaging, which is that the GOP is a party full of Christine O’Donnells, a party that wants to take away your Social Security and your right to masturbate. Well, maybe not that last part, but then again, the implicit message of the party is that the GOP is about to elect a slate of hard social rightists to Congress.

The bolded text is an obvious point to anyone with even the most rudimentary powers of observation, but it’s a pretty interesting admission nonetheless. That’s especially true because Ambinder is a bona fide member of the media. Indeed, he’s a self-admitted Journolist member who despite (or perhaps because) of that involvement has a specific assignment involving covering this fall’s elections.

On August 27, CBS announced its 2010 campaign coverage team. Marc Ambinder is on that team (HT Media Bistro):

Chief Political Consultant Marc Ambinder and Political Analyst and Contributor John Dickerson will join a veteran group led by CBS EVENING NEWS Anchor and Managing Editor Katie Couric that includes Chief Washington Correspondent Bob Schieffer, Senior Political Correspondent Jeff Greenfield and Correspondents Wyatt Andrews, Sharyl Attkisson, Jan Crawford, Nancy Cordes, Byron Pitts, Bill Plante, Chip Reid, Dean Reynolds and Political Analyst Dan Bartlett. Anthony Mason will once again help break down and analyze election night results for CBS’s viewers.

“This already is one of the most-anticipated midterm elections in a generation, and CBS News is adding exceptional talent to offer our audiences comprehensive coverage in a complex and exciting political environment,” said McManus. “Complementing the award-winning tradition of CBS News with the latest technology, our remarkable team will completely cover all aspects of this pivotal election season.”

Other items in Ambinder’s seven-pointer at the Atlantic give further clues as to where he stands:

3. I understand why some Republicans are trying to point out that Democrats are “crazy” too by noting how they re-nominated Rep. Charles Rangel in NY 15 and kicked out reformist mayor Adrian Fenty in Washington. That dog won’t hunt.

6. Expect an uptick in Democratic enthusiasm and expect several significant races to tighten. People tend to make judgments through the lens of the last major event. If Democrats interpret last night to mean that radical Republicans are threatening to take control, they’re going to be more receptive to the basic party message.

Of course Ambinder’s entitled to his opinions, but facts on the ground appear to be contradicting them:

• As to his Point 3, the voters in Rangel’s district may or may not be crazy, but at least you can say that 49% of those who cast ballots voted for someone else. If you want evidence of Democratic “craziness,” how about the fact that Rangel got “endorsements and phone calls to voters” from former president Bill Clinton and pretend-Independent Mike Bloomberg?
• As to Point 6, maybe an enthusiasm uptick is on the way, but it’s missing so far. Two separate items from the Associated Press, which would surely jump on any hint of the real thing happening, demonstrate that it’s not here yet. The AP’s Mark S. Smith, in a report on President Obama’s Saturday speech to the Congressional Black Caucus, specifically cited “polls showing his party facing a wide ‘enthusiasm gap’ with the GOP,” and pollsters’ warnings “that blacks are among the key Democratic groups who right now seem unlikely to turn out in large numbers in November.” In a Sunday morning submission, the AP’s Julie Hirschfeld Davis noted that “in dozens of competitive districts … enthusiasm for the president is at a low; even some of his strongest backers aren’t motivated to go to the polls.”

As if anyone needed further reinforcement, here is a passage from a year-ago post by Jeff Poor at NewsBusters addressing Ambinder’s opinion of Sarah Palin’s qualifications to express an opinion about ObamaCare’s “comparative effectiveness” regime (which was actually enshrined into law as part of the February 2009 stimulus bill nobody read), aka “Death Panels,” in a Wall Street Journal op-ed:

One left-leaning pundit has questioned if Palin was qualified to interject herself into the debate. Marc Ambinder wrote on the Atlantic Web site on Sept. 8 (that) the media shouldn’t take her Journal op-ed seriously because she doesn’t have the policy “chops” to take on this issue.

“Palin has policy credibility problems. Big ones,” Ambinder wrote. “A few op-eds aren’t going to help her. But if the media treats her as as [sic] a legitimate and influential voice today, she won’t need to do the hard work that will result in her learning more about policy and actually becoming conversant in the issues that she, as a potential presidential candidate, will deal with.”

However, the argument could made that Palin, with a baby with Down Syndrome, does have real-life expertise dealing with the American health care system. And her position as governor of Alaska makes her qualified to give insight into the bureaucratization of any part of the public sector, despite Ambinder’s calls to dismiss her as a serious voice in the health care debate.

That was a great final point by Jeff. Apparently in Ambinder’s world, personal experience with medical challenges and dealing with the medical care delivery system don’t count. Ah, but serving in policy roles that lead to ghoulish ideas like Zeke the Bleak Emanuel’s “complete lives system,” whose priorities for allocating care include “youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value” (i.e., a death panels regime) — that’s great stuff.

Ambinder is indeed correct in his assertion that “The media is going to help the Democratic Party’s national messaging.” It appears pretty likely that he’ll be serving as a willing provider of such assistance, and that his ability to deliver objective commentary as a CBS “Chief Political Consultant” is highly suspect.

The presence of folks like Ambinder at CBS goes a long way towards explaining why it seems likely that most viewers will be getting their election news somewhere else during the next seven weeks.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

In July, far more than half weren’t even trying to find work.

_______________________________________________

Note: This column was published at Pajamas Media and teased here at BizzyBlog on Friday.

_______________________________________________

Probably because it came out on the same day as the monthly Employment Situation Report — not to mention that it was also published on the Friday before a holiday weekend – an “Editor’s Desk” item at Uncle Sam’s Bureau of Labor Statistics entitled “Youth employment and unemployment in July 2010″ got very little attention. It deserved plenty.

The report led with this paragraph:

In July, the employment-population ratio for youth—the proportion of the 16- to 24-year-old civilian noninstitutional population that was employed—was 48.9 percent. This was the lowest July rate on record for the series, which began in 1948. (The month of July typically is the summertime peak in youth employment.)

It’s the first time this ratio has come in below 50%. In the late 1980s, it was almost 70%. This column will concentrate on the lower portion (ages 16-19) of the 16-24 age bracket.

One would expect the employment-population ratio for those in the age 16-19 cohort to be lower, and it is; but you might be surprised by how much. The July 2010 ratio for this subgroup (not seasonally adjusted) was 31.3%. That is also a low since records have been kept, and represents the fourth consecutive year with a record-breaking low. In July 2006, the analogous percentage was 44.9%. From 1948 until 2002, it was only rarely below 50%. The ratio (rounded) reached 60% for a couple of years in the late 1970s and late 1980s.

What in the world is going on here?

One obvious current factor is that those teens who are looking for work aren’t finding it thanks to the economy. Not only have millions of jobs disappeared during the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy, but adults (legal citizens and, in many states, illegal immigrants) are also competing for and taking many of the entry-level and even summer jobs that still exist. The July 2010 unemployment rate for teens (again, not seasonally adjusted) was 26.5%, setting a since-1948 July record for the second year in a row, crushing the 24.8% rate in July 2009 (this economy is breaking records all over the place, isn’t it?). Before 2009, no July ever had a teen unemployment rate higher than 22.1%

Perhaps surprisingly, though, it’s not as much a matter of unemployment as it is of disengagement, as this graphic comparing July 1989, the last near-peak July for the teen employment-population ratio, to July 2010:

The graphic demonstrates that even if the teen unemployment rate were the same as it was in 1989, the employment-population ratio would get back only 5.2 of the 28.3 points by which it has declined in the past two-plus decades. The obvious comparatives that stick out are the increases of over 5.3 million in the number of teens not in the labor force (9.680 million compared to 4.321 million), and the near doubling of their percentage of the teen population (57.4% vs. 30.4%). Fairly close to six out of every ten teens weren’t even trying to find work in July.

Perhaps it’s a matter of discouragement, as in wanting to work but not actively looking for it because one “knows” there are no jobs out there. To a degree, yes, but not as much as you might think. I looked at July 2006, when the overall unemployment rate in a strong economy was 5%. With roughly the same population as 2010, there were still almost 7.8 million teens not in the labor force. On a population-adjusted basis, that’s well over 2.5 million higher than 1989.

This means, good economy or bad, millions of teens have consciously chose not to try to enter the workforce. Why?

Though it’s hard to pin down their relative importance, I believe that at least the following factors are at play:

• More demanding high school activities, including sports and music — These have increasing encroached on summertime to the point where many teens could only work for a few weeks at most even if they wanted to.
• Overprotective parents who don’t want to expose their little darlings to the harsh, cruel world of work — With many teens, if you don’t push, it won’t happen. In many cases, no one’s pushing.
• Illegal immigration — Why would an employer hire a high school kid with an unproven work ethic when cheap, reliable help is otherwise available? Besides making it harder for teens who are looking for work, other teens don’t bother because they know they won’t get anywhere.
• Minimum-wage laws — These have caused employers to think twice about taking on summertime and inexperienced help. University professors William Even and David McPherson recently contended that federal minimum wage hikes of the past few years have been responsible for 114,000 fewer teen jobs. I think that’s an underestimate, because minimum-wage hikes also influence decisions to even to try to find work. If you think it’s highly unlikely that any employer out there will pay you $7.25 an hour, or if your friends testing the job market aren’t having success, you probably won’t start looking.
• Substantial penalties against working teens in college aid calculations — The higher a college-bound or college-attending teen’s earnings (and assets in their name), the higher a family’s Expected Family Contribution will be. This means, all other things being equal, that less financial aid will be available.
• A plethora of distractions which make it much easier to waste vast amounts of time accomplishing absolutely nothing while still not getting really bored — Video games, fantasy sports leagues, and the like would certainly fit into this category.
• Unpreparedness for work — This has to do with basic literacy, the ability to follow simple instructions, decorum, and attitude, all of which I have recently been told by several different employers continue to deteriorate, even among those who attend supposedly “good” schools.

Whatever the reasons, on balance I don’t see how increased teen disengagement can be viewed as a favorable development.

At the risk of boring readers with a “When I was young” riff, I’ll note that I got my first summer job at age 16 washing dishes for 48 hours a week at the minimum wage of $1.60 an hour. It was rough, to say the least, but I took two very important things away from the experience: a) a healthy respect for those who do such jobs all year long (while not necessarily wanting to engage in such work for the rest of my life), and b) an appreciation of how difficult it is to keep a business operation working.

How, or even when, will disengaged teens, especially those who eventually move directly into so-called “professional” careers out of school, ever learn or appreciate these lessons?

A UK Independent item about an unreleased book by historian Frank Dikötter made me think about New York Times columnist NIcholas Kristof. Readers will see why shortly.

Amazon says that Dikötter’s “Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-1962″ will be released on September 28. The Independent’s Arifa Akbar relays Dikötter’s core conclusion that “At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in China over these four years.” This is a significantly higher number than the highest previous estimate of Jung Chang, who asserted in her 2005 book, “Mao: The Unknown Story,” that “38 million people were starved and slave-driven to death in 1958-61.” The seven million extra deaths would move Chang’s 2005 total of “more than 70 million” into the neighborhood of 80 million, padding Mao’s lead over Stalin and Hitler as the worst mass murderer in human history.

The Independent’s Akbar also writes that “Mr. Dikötter is the only author to have delved into the Chinese archives since they were reopened four years ago.” If true, this reflects a startling lack of curiosity.

I hope Nick Kristof is just a little curious, and will peruse what Mr. Dikötter has documented when it becomes available. Perhaps it will move him to reach conclusions a bit different from those he reached when he reviewed Chang’s book in October 2005 (bolds are mine):

Finally, there is Mao’s place in history. I agree that Mao was a catastrophic ruler in many, many respects, and this book captures that side better than anything ever written. But Mao’s legacy is not all bad. Land reform in China, like the land reform in Japan and Taiwan, helped lay the groundwork for prosperity today. [1] The emancipation of women and end of child marriages moved China from one of the worst places in the world to be a girl to one where women have more equality than in, say, Japan or Korea.[2] Indeed, Mao’s entire assault on the old economic and social structure made it easier for China to emerge as the world’s new economic dragon.[3]

Perhaps the best comparison is with Qinshihuang, the first Qin emperor, who 2,200 years ago unified China, built much of the Great Wall, standardized weights and measures and created a common currency and legal system – but burned books and buried scholars alive. The Qin emperor was as savage and at times as insane as Mao – but his success in integrating and strengthening China laid the groundwork for the next dynasty, the Han, one of the golden eras of Chinese civilization. In the same way, I think, Mao’s ruthlessness was a catastrophe at the time, brilliantly captured in this extraordinary book – and yet there’s more to the story: Mao also helped lay the groundwork for the rebirth and rise of China after five centuries of slumber.

Just a few notes about Kristof’s assertions:

• [1] – According to the Independent’s Akbar, Dikötter writes that “a third of all homes in China were destroyed to produce fertiliser and when the nation descended into famine and starvation.” This is “land reform”?
• [2] – Thanks to China’s one-child policy, 30-40 million more girls than boys have been aborted. And Nick Kristof has the gall to favorably comment on the status of women in China?
• [3] – Kristof’s highly debatable assertion that “Mao’s entire assault … made it easier” is one of the most horrific “end justifies the means” statements I’ve ever read.

I noted when I posted on Kristof’s 2005 review (“Nicholas Kristof and Mao: He Just, Can’t, Let, Go”) shortly after its appearance that he spent an “inordinate amount of time” quibbling with Chang’s body count. I had forgotten until I went back to the review about just how determined he was to tamp down Chang’s estimate:

Take the great famine from 1958 to 1961. The authors declare that “close to 38 million people died,” and in a footnote they cite a Chinese population analysis of mortality figures in those years. Well, maybe. But there have been many expert estimates in scholarly books and journals of the death toll, ranging widely, and in reality no one really knows for sure – and certainly the mortality data are too crude to inspire confidence. The most meticulous estimates by demographers who have researched the famine toll are mostly lower than this book’s: Judith Banister estimated 30 million; Basil Ashton also came up with 30 million; and Xizhe Peng suggested about 23 million. Simply plucking a high-end estimate out of an article and embracing it as the one true estimate worries me; if that is stretched, then what else is?

Now that Frank Dikötter, based on new, extensive information that was not available to Chang, has come up with an even higher death toll, perhaps Nick Kristof will rethink his skepticism about the Great Leap Forward’s death toll.

It would be nice to think that Kristof might also reconsider his outrageous defense of Mao’s “legacy,” or that former White House Communications person Anita Dunn might decide that Mao isn’t one of her “favorite political philosophers.” Don’t count on either.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

From London:

Sep 18, 2010 / 01:07 pm

The Holy Father visited a home for the elderly in London’s Vauxhall area on Saturday afternoon. In his remarks, Pope Benedict referred to the growing population of elderly in the world as “a blessing for society.” He said that their care should be more a “repayment of a debt of gratitude” than a mere “act of generosity.”

He met with individuals both in the institution’s chapel and the theater. Lauding the Church’s work in respecting and caring for the elderly, he told his audience of residents and caretakers that blessings are bestowed on those who keep the commandment to “honor your father and mother.”

“God wills a proper respect for the dignity and worth, the health and well-being of the elderly and, through her charitable institutions in Britain and beyond, the Church seeks to fulfill the Lord’s command to respect life, regardless of age or circumstances,” he stated.

He spoke of life as “a unique gift from conception until natural death” and said that “it is God’s alone to give and to take.”

These words are a strong witness in the U.K., where the legalization of euthanasia has significant support. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

It’s almost tempting to just run a few paragraphs of Kate Zernike’s latest item in the New York Times and simply have folks take their rips, but a bit of background would be helpful.

Zernike (pictured at right) is the Times reporter who seems to have made it her mission to somehow singlehandedly discredit what may when all is said and done come to be seen as the most significant grass-roots movement in America in a long, long time. Earlier today, Clay Waters at NewsBusters reviewed Zernike’s new book, “Boiling Mad — Inside Tea Party America,” noted that she “evinces little sympathy or feel for conservative concerns,” and is intent on “finding racism everywhere she looks in Tea Party land.”

In a late March post (at NewsBusters; BizzyBlog), I noted a Zernike item (“With No Jobs, Plenty of Time for Tea Party”) which cynically questioned “whether the movement can survive an improvement in the economy, with people trading protest signs for paychecks.”

This is the same Kate Zernike Andrew Breitbart memorably called “a despicable human being” after she claimed to have found racism that really didn’t exist at CPAC in February.

With that background, the paragraphs that follow from Kate’s latest calamity won’t surprise anyone too much, but they will as usual disappoint if you’re foolishly expecting anything resembling fair treatment (bold as mine):

So you’re a Republican candidate and you want to take advantage of the Tea Party energy that jolted once-sleepy primaries. But you aren’t sure whether that means you have to take a stand against masturbation or urge your supporters to gather their bayonets — tactics that seem to have worked for a few Tea Party candidates so far. You’re not certain most Americans share the Tea Party enthusiasm for repealing the 17th Amendment (or even know that it established direct election of United States senators by popular vote). You don’t have Sarah Palin’s phone number.

Not to worry. There’s no doubt that the Tea Party is a double-edged sword: a New York Times/CBS poll last week found that while most Americans had not formed a view of the Tea Party, the percentage of independent voters who view it negatively had increased.

But the Tea Party has brought a swell of new participants to the political process, and historical and economic trends are working in favor of the party out of power — that would be you, G.O.P. The trick is to take advantage of the Tea Party passion and stay away from its extremes. Celebrate the genius of the Constitution, but don’t get into the particulars. Tea Party activists, Republican moderates and independent handicappers all agree that the road for Republican candidates is to talk about the debt and concerns about the new health care legislation — areas where Tea Party sentiment is more aligned with the views of most Americans.

… Tea Party activists — and their candidates — pose a problem when they move the discussion into a broader one about the role of government.

“You see these rallies and the signs are all about the Constitution,” said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of a nonpartisan political report. “They want it to be about these big ideological ideas, when I don’t think most voters think that way. It’s very clear that what’s best for the election is to make it about Obama, Pelosi, health care, the deficit.”

Rothenberg is about as “nonpartisan” as Larry Sabato, i.e., give me a break.

He also doesn’t get it if he really thinks that enough voters to matter aren’t worried about the Constitution and how its limits on Executive Branch perogatives are being ignored. You’ll note that Zernike didn’t quote a bona fide Tea Party member about her novel suggestion to “not get into the particulars” of the Constitution.

Zernike? The arrogant condescension continues. Remember in November.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

From Captain Ed at Hot Air on Thursday:

… The Republican Party establishment and the center-right commentariat have no problem lecturing conservatives when it comes to unifying behind establishment candidates that win primaries — and conservatives have had no problem uniting for the sake of a Republican nominee in a general election. However, when given a chance at reciprocity this year, and not just in Delaware, the establishment figures have a poor record of getting behind the candidate chosen by the Republican voters in the states. The GOP is in danger of becoming the Sore Loser Party and destroying its credibility with grass-roots activists in the process.

Scratch the “in danger” part, Ed — at least in several states.

Does anyone seriously doubt that the reactions we’re seeing from the GOP establishments in Delaware and Alaska would have been the same in Ohio if Seth Morgan or Sandy O’Brien had won in May?

(Yeah, I know I received a ritual e-mail stating the contrary from a person from ORPINO, the Ohio Republican Party In Name Only, who felt compelled to counter-challenge about Dave Yost — who I will support — and who I believe was in no position to truly speak authoritatively on behalf of ORPINO. I’ll bet there were several such e-mails in Alaska too. But when crunch time came, look what happened.)

In fact, we don’t even need to ask. All we need to do is look at a little history.

Sandy O’Brien herself told yours truly, Matt Hurley and Mark on the TIB radio show a few weeks before May’s primary that ORPINO provided her no meaningful support in her general election run in what should have been a winnable race (yeah, even in 2006; see “Mary Taylor“) after she defeated Jennette Bradley in the 2006 GOP primary for State Treasurer.

They were sore losers then, and the’re no reason to believe they aren’t sore losers now.

You can also virtually write it down: If Jon Husted, who deserves to lose, indeed loses, ORPINO will say that it’s the Tea Partiers’ and blogs’ fault, not the fault of those of us who expect a candidate to live in the Ohio House and then Ohio Senate district he has pretended to “represent.” It won’t be because ORPINO did everything it could to clear the field for a fundamentally flawed, objectively unfit candidate. Uh, if it happens, guys, yes it will.

If John Kasich wins, his first order of business should be to use his newly-found leverage to clean house at ORPINO from top to bottom. His running mate Mary Taylor will be entitled to more than a little bit of satisfaction if that indeed occurs:

From New York:

Sierra Leone native Kamara tours NYSE, other landmarks

08/18/10 8:53 PM ET

A morning’s jaunt to the New York Stock Exchange, City Hall and the United Nations would be noteworthy enough in any tourist’s album, but to be the guest of honor at all three locations, accompanied and toasted by an entourage of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Derek Jeter, CC Sabathia, Brian Cashman, Reggie Jackson, Curtis Granderson, Marcus Thames and the Sierra Leone ambassador to the U.N. is beyond anyone’s dreams. Amazingly, that was what the Yankees had in store for Mohamed Kamara on Wednesday, a glorified episode in a life all too ravaged by unspeakable hardships.

Kamara was the third beneficiary of the Yankees’ 2010 HOPE Week campaign, the second year of a program in which players surprise exemplary members of the community and treat them to whirlwind experiences. Kamara was especially deserving of this good fortune, considering what he has faced; he was born into civil war, was forced to leave his family and native Sierra Leone, and endured such poverty that he had to forego his mother’s funeral. But rather than dwell in despondency, Kamara took it upon himself to do everything possible to support his family back in West Africa.

“I saw a lot of things,” said Kamara. “I saw people getting killed, their hands getting cut off right in front of my face, pregnant women having their stomachs cut out. You had to step over dead bodies in the street.

“At a young age, my family depended on me to go into the forest for food. That’s why I was able to grow up fast.”

Kamara could spend his weekends socializing, but instead he travels several hours a day to earn a few extra dollars, working as a golf caddy in Alpine, N.J. He founded the Sierra Leone Gentleman, which raises church funds to give children in Sierra Leone an education. He treasures his schoolwork, performing in the top quarter of his class and earning a college scholarship. For an adolescent whose every move has been rooted in selflessness, it was only fair that the tides be turned for a day.

“Mohamed’s whole story really struck me,” Sabathia said. “That he does well in school, to be able to provide for his family — it’s a remarkable story that I read about and I wanted to do this event.”

When asked what it meant to be there, Sabathia said, “It means a lot. To be able to get out in the community to give our time for a kid like this, it means a lot.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.

I need to get in the last of my weekly words about Rob Portman before his BizzyBlog ad expires in a couple of days (he could renew, I suppose, in which case I’ll keep this going).

If Team Portman is feeling confident, it would be hard to blame them.

After all, thanks to Ohio’s awful economy, its pathetic governance during the past four years, and the arrival of what may turn out to be the most significant grassroots political movement in American history, Portman is sitting on what the polls are saying is a double-digit lead, including a 20-pointer from Quinnipiac.

Portman has managed to philosophically coast without breaking a sweat since he began his campaign early last year. With the kind of lead he has and Lugubrious Lee Fisher as his opponent, he probably won’t have to.

If that’s the case, those considering a vote for Portman will have to make up their mind whether not being Lee Fisher is enough to overcome, just for starters:

• a steadily deteriorating record on fiscal matters when he was in Congress.
• a really, really bad record on immigration.
• a risk-averse, career-preserving outlook (“some things are worth it for my career and some things aren’t”) at a time when the opposite is what we need in the U.S. Senate.
• his belief that being a Washington insider is a good thing.

Portman has never addressed these material weaknesses.

And let’s face something else that is unpleasant to contemplate: Rob Portman’s “insider” attitude and outlook have the potential to corrupt the new crop of senators who will be arriving in Washington in January. That’s the absolute last thing we need.

Rob Portman is campaigning as if he’s entitled to our vote instead of having to earn it. He appears to be on his way to getting away with this strategy with an electoral majority. As of this moment, I won’t be among them. You still have to show me something, pal, and you haven’t.

Here’s a hint, Rob: Tell us specifically where agree and disagree with Paul Ryan’s Roadmap.

It’s here.

The subheadline:

In July, far more than half weren’t even trying to find work. Why?

It will go up here at BizzyBlog on Sunday morning (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.

The column has already generated quite a few comments, even this early in the morning.

______________________________________________

Related:

August’s teen employment-population ratio (not seasonally adjusted) came in at 28.8%.

That’s another all-time low compared to all other Augusts from 1948 to 2009:

It’s the fourth consecutive record low.

The stat never came in below 47% for any August from 1948 until 2000. It seriously dropped during the downturn year of 2001, and never came back. It has absolutely cratered during the past two Augusts, a two-year period severely impacted by the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy.

But, as the column demonstrates, this is about a lot more than the economy. Something’s happening here. That it’s really not a good thing should be pretty clear.