Rubio: "The president clearly outlined that he was gonna push on [immigration], the media was gonna focus on this..."

"... the Senate Democrats were gonna push on this issue, and I thought it was critically important that we outline the principles of what reform is about."

Look, I think there's this false argument that's been advanced by the left that conservatism and Republicans are anti-immigrant and anti-immigration.  And we're not.  Never have been.

On the contrary, we are pro-legal immigration.  And we recognize that our legal immigration system needs to be reformed.  We also recognize, because conservatism's always been about common sense, that we do have an existing problem that needs to be dealt with in the best way possible.  Now, it was dealt with in 1986 in a way that was counterproductive.  Well-intentioned, but counterproductive because, A, they granted a blanket amnesty to three million people at the time, or that was the estimate, and, B, they didn't do any of the enforcement mechanisms.  And so our point is if we're gonna deal with this, let's deal with it once and for all and in a way that this never, ever, happens again....

In the absence of stepping forward with our own principles, the left and the president will tell people what we stand for, and it's not necessarily gonna be true.

Much more at the link. (It's an interview conducted by Rush Limbaugh.) You see what Rubio is saying: The President and the congressional Democrats, with the help of the media, have the power to forefront this issue and to make it work powerfully for their political benefit. If the Republicans hang back, they will get portrayed as villains. So it was necessary for Rubio to step forward and be the face of the Republican Party to give it some chance at looking at least somewhat good as this issue plays out.

"Republicans shouldn’t worry that President Obama is trying to destroy the GOP."

"Why would he bother?"

Subtext: It should be destroyed. It's already destroyed. Please think that. They're hopeless. All hope lies within the Democratic Party. No hope outside the Party.

Democrat, Democratic, Democratical.

Today, I encountered a word I'd never noticed before: "democratical." I was writing about the "common sense" meme and arrived at the Thomas Paine pamphlet "Common Sense" and John Adams's criticism of it as "so democratical, without any restraint or even an attempt at any equilibrium or counter poise, that it must produce confusion and every evil work."

The OED defines "democratical" to mean the same thing as "democratic," and it gives some usage examples going back to 1589 and continuing only to 1850:

1589   ‘M. Marprelate’ Hay any Worke for Cooper 26   It is Monarchicall, in regarde of our head Christ, Aristocraticall in the Eldership, and Democraticall in the people.
1608   D. Tuvil Ess. Polit. & Morall f. 4v,   Ostracismes practiced in those Democraticall and Popular states of elder times.
1686   in Coll. Scarce & Valuable Tracts (1748) I. 111   The Democratical Man, that is never quiet under any Government.
1791   J. Boswell Life Johnson anno 1775 I. 460,   I abhor his Whiggish democratical notions and propensities.
1850   G. Grote Hist. Greece VIII. ii. lxiv. 231   The levy was in fact as democratical and as equalising as..on that memorable occasion.

There are also a 3 examples of "democratical" as a noun, defined to mean the same thing as "democrat." 2 of these are by Thomas Hobbes:

1651   T. Hobbes Leviathan ii. xxii. 122   Aristocraticalls and Democraticalls of old time in Greece.
1679   T. Hobbes Behemoth i, in Wks. VI. 199   The thing which those democraticals chiefly then aimed at, was to force the King to call a parliament.

What, you may ask, is the "-al" ending doing after the "-ic" ending? When do suffixes double up like that? This seems related to the present-day controversy about using the word "Democrat" as an adjective, when GOP types refer to the "Democrat Party," instead of the "Democratic Party." There's an insult perceived in leaving off the "-ic" ending, but, oddly, in the case of "democratical," there's insult in adding more letters — "-ic" plus "-al."

Does "-al" have any meaning? "Forming adjectives with the sense ‘of or relating to that which is denoted by the first element'" is the OED definition, which seems to say, it's just a way to turn something into an adjective. But that doesn't explain "-ical." The "-ic" already made the adjective. What's up with "-ical"? What are the other "-ical" words? Comical, radical... logical...

I know what you're thinking: "The Logic Song" by Supertramp!

When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful, a miracle, it was beautiful, magical
And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily, joyfully, playfully, watching me
But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible, logical, responsible, practical
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable, clinical, intellectual, cynical...
I said now, watch what you say, now we're calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal
Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable...
But I'm thinking so logical ...

Am I thinking too logical? So... musical interlude over. What does "-ic" mean? It's just another ending used to make an adjective and means "in the manner of" or "pertaining to" or some such generic way to say what differentiates an adjective from a noun. So what's with the suffix pile-up in the "-ical" words? Wonderfully, magically, the OED has an entry for "-ical":

Sometimes forming an adjective from a noun in -ic, as music, musical, but more frequently a secondary adjective, as comic, comical, historic, historical. Its origin appears to have been the formation in late Latin of adjectives in -ālis on nouns in -ic-us, or in -icē, e.g. grammatic-us grammarian, grammaticē grammar, grammatic~āl-is grammatical, clēricus clergyman, clerk, clēricāl-is clerical. So in medieval Latin, chīrurgicāl-is, dominic-āl-is, medicāl-is, mūsicāl-is, physicāl-is. In French, adjectives of this type are few, and mostly taken directly from Latin formations, as chirurgical, clérical, grammatical, médical, etc. But in English they are exceedingly numerous, existing not only in all cases in which the term in -ic is a noun, but also as the direct representatives of Latin adjectives in -icus, French -ique. Thus we find before 1500 canonical, chirurgical, domestical, musical, philosophical, physical. Many adjectives have a form both in -ic and -ical, and in such cases that in -ical is usually the earlier and that more used. Often also the form in -ic is restricted to the sense ‘of’ or ‘of the nature of’ the subject in question, while that in -ical has wider or more transferred senses, including that of ‘practically connected’ or ‘dealing with’ the subject. Cf. ‘economic science’, ‘an economical wife’, ‘prophetic words’, ‘prophetical studies’, ‘a comic song’, ‘a comical incident’, ‘the tragic muse’, ‘his tragical fate’. A historic book is one mentioned or famous in history, a historical treatise contains or deals with history. But in many cases this distinction is, from the nature of the subject, difficult to maintain, or entirely inappreciable.

Adjectives of locality, nationality, and language, as Baltic, Arabic, Teutonic, and those of chemical and other technical nomenclature, as oxalic, ferric, pelagic, dactylic, hypnotic, megalithic, have usually no secondary form in -al.

That's long and complicated, though interesting as hell, but I boldfaced the bit that's most useful to understand what John Adams and Thomas Hobbes were getting at. It might be helpful to consider what it would mean to say: This political movement is not democratic. It's democratical. My sense is that democratic would refer to the principle that each person to be governed ought to vote. Democratical nudges us to worry about the chaos and disorder of attempting to let everyone decide everything.

This brings us back to why Democrats prefer the adjective "Democratic" (rather than to have the noun "Democrat" used in the combination "Democratic Party"). Presumably, they want to appear to be imbued with democratic values, rather than simply to be a party composed of Democrats.

A "Democrat" is, in the U.S. political sense, "A member of the Democratic party," as defined in the OED, beginning with this choice 1798 quote from none other than George Washington: "You could as soon scrub the blackamore white as change the principle of a profest Democrat."

There are times when all the world's asleep/The questions run too deep for such a simple man...

"Is 'God, guns, and gays' losing its peril for Democrats?"

A strange way to phrase a question, in this Greg Sargent column. What does this stunning lack of parallelism reveal about the Mind of Sargent?

Indeed, I’m cautiously hopeful that this time around, Democrats will overcome their typical skittishness on guns. ... [T]he politics of this issue have changed: Democrats are less reliant on conservative, rural, gun-owning voters than at any time in the history of the party, due to Dem gains among socially moderate suburbanites, and ongoing demographic shifts that continue to boost the vote share among minorities and young voters  — all voter groups who may not see “gun rights” as a potent issue.

You know those "rural" folk, who cling to their guns and religion. Maybe they can be ignored by Democrats who have other blocs out of which to build victories. But to throw "gays" on the list... well, that's not something those horrible peasants cling to like guns and religion. It's something they're supposedly repelled by, perhaps something like the way those socially moderate suburbanites are imagined to have an aversion to God and guns.

I guess Sargent might love alliteration. GGG. But someone ought to tell him that — coming from a very conspicuous gay guy — GGG stands for "good, giving, and game":  ("good in bed," "giving equal time and equal pleasure," and "game for anything — within reason'").

And some people think "Guns, God and Government" — the work of a not-quite-earless guy with a lady's name.

What does GGG mean to you? I'm thinking, for me, grammar, graphomania, and...

"Billionaire Thomas Peterffy's ‘socialist’ ads raise questions."

Headlines Politico, pointing its readers at a very effective ad that they might otherwise avoid:



The "questions" referred to in the headline are about who is helping Peterffy, a political neophyte, to make and place such ad. But there's nothing interesting there, and Peterffy comes across as an intelligent, persuasive independent:

Typically, such ads call for supporting or opposing specific candidates, but Peterffy’s ad is more vague because it doesn’t mention specific candidates — only an encouragement to vote Republican....

Peterffy said he supports Republican candidates because he sees the rhetoric of social justice and fairness from Democrats, including President Barack Obama, as a slippery slope. He also said Romney’s 47 percent comment reflected his own fears about the future of the country and was taken out of context.

“My understanding was that he said he had no ability to influence the 47 percent,” Peterffy said. “That’s the very logic I’m based on. I’m worried about when that 47 percent goes to 60 percent.”

"Althouse: If you could write your 'How Obama Lost Me' post in the next 24 hours, the race could come down to your influence!"

Writes Ruth Anne Adams in the comments to the "last 72 hours" post. She adds "But if you're going the way of Colin Powell not so much" and "But if you could at least reveal your voting preference in the next few hours, that could win a wager or seven."

I think she's misremembering what the "lost me" posts of the past were about. I started blogging in 2004, a presidential election year, and, after much coverage of the election, including a commitment to something I called "cruel neutrality," on September 26th, I wrote a post called "How Kerry lost me." This wasn't me explaining why I was going to vote against Kerry. It was me acknowledging how I felt and realizing that I could mine the blog archive to discover where that feeling came from.

Yet I find myself expressing an increasing amount of hostility to Kerry, so I thought I'd go back and trace the arc of my antagonism through my various posts.

It was a bloggy project, solving a mystery about myself by taking advantage of the archive. For example, I found the wellspring of my antagonism in a single remark: "You're not listening" (said to a man who asked him what his position on Iraq was, as if the man had simply failed to pay attention to some supposedly previously stated position, when I too had been waiting for Kerry to answer that question). And I found what was, to me, "his final, fatal mistake" (disrespecting Allawi!), which prompted me to write the "lost me" post.

In 2008, I wrote "How McCain lost me," which may have created the impression that "lost me" posts are an Althouse blog tradition. That post was written after the election, but — I said at the time — "it's the same in that I'm mining my blog archive to try to understand how my resistance to the candidate formed and hardened and caused me to vote for the other man."

I know that I voted against McCain. Up through August, I genuinely didn't know which candidate I'd vote for, but I knew I was taking more shots at Obama and therefore giving the impression that I favored McCain. I didn't trust Obama, and I feared (and still fear) what Obama would do with a Democratic Congress. McCain was a more familiar character, less fun to write about, and he was also the underdog. But by mid-October, I knew that unless something big happened, I would vote for Obama. It was nothing new that Obama did. I didn't start liking him more, and I never got caught up in the Obama lovefest.

It was a lot of work to mine that archive. Oddly, despite all that work, my commenters have accused me for the last 4 years of having fallen for Obama delusions. But the point of the work was not to drum anything into your head. It was, as it had been in 2004, an effort to see where my decision happened. That's what I'm interested in: How people think, where, in the emotional/reasoning mind of an individual, does a decision take place? The blog archive gave me the ability to examine that. What I wrote in the "lost me" posts of the last 2 elections was not anything like a newspaper's endorsement of a candidate or an argument designed to persuade anyone to agree with me. It has more to do with my professional interest in how judges make decisions: How does the human mind work?

Why haven't I done a "lost me" post this time around? I haven't had the experience of noticing that there is a mystery that I could solve by delving into old blog posts. As you can see in that last indented paragraph, above, I didn't trust Obama, and I feared what he would do with a Democratic Congress. We all saw what he did with a Democratic Congress. He let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have their way with him. It was horrible. It led to the Tea Party and the trouncing Democrats took in 2010. I've felt no connection to the Democratic Party since then. Of course, I don't like half of what the Republicans stand for, but I've still voted for some of them, notably Ron Johnson and (twice!) Scott Walker, because... what choice do I have? The Democrats have been leading us into financial ruin.

If I could have been assured that the GOP would control both houses of Congress, I might have thought Obama would be good. I like balance, moderation, and pragmatism. If one of the hardcore righties had won the Republican nomination, I would probably have gone for Obama. But Mitt Romney got the nomination, which is what I had been hoping for (after Mitch Daniels decided not to run). It was time to pay attention again to Obama The Candidate, and his campaign centered on vilifying Mitt Romney in the most inane Occupy-Wall-Street style that was completely alienating to me. Romney seamlessly transitioned from being my choice in the primaries to being my presumptive choice for President. I remained open to Obama. Obama could have won me.

Then came Benghazi, and a door closed.

The real reason Obama has campaigned on small things — like Big Bird and "Romnesia."

According to Stanley Kurtz, it's a plot to realign the electorate, "creating a long-term Democratic majority that would allow him and his successors to stop catering to the center and finally govern decisively from the left."

Somehow, within the lulling smallness, there's a scary bigness.

Obama’s frantic efforts to gin up the women’s vote and the youth vote aren’t only desperate attempts to secure his base. They flow from a deliberate decision not to fight for the center, but to build an independent majority on what is supposedly the “demographically ascendent” left.

Over at The Nation, Richard Kim gets it. Writing about the Lena Dunham “first time” ad controversy, he speaks of it as part of an effort “to realign the electorate towards the Democratic Party for a generation.” But the best place to read about Obama’s larger strategy is “Hope: The Sequel,” the New York magazine piece by John Heilemann that got attention last May.... describ[ing] an Obama campaign willing to risk turning off socially conservative Democrats and independent voters by hyping leftist social issues....

That reminds me of the way Republicans turn off the socially liberal folks (like me) who would be receptive to the rest of what they have to offer. The 2 parties have corresponding strategies, including trying to scare people about how extreme the other party really intends to be. I don't trust any of them.

Why should more than 10 people show up at a Sak 'n Save at in Reno to see Sandra Fluke?

Who is this woman? Why is she a celebrity? She's read a couple of speeches prominently, in Washington D.C., where she was selected for that role by — which Democratic bigwigs? Why?! And Rush Limbaugh made fun of her elevation into the spotlight. He did it in a crude way that boosted her name recognition. That seems to be the closest thing to something that she did to achieve prominence, and I imagine that in her own mind, surrounded by those who chose her and elevated her, she may think she is an eminent person capable of drawing crowds. What a splash of cold reality to find yourself deposited — by your promoters — at a grocery store in Reno where nobody cares.

The Democratic National Committee puts up a site designed to trick you into thinking it's Romney's.

I'm surprised they think it's acceptable to engage in this kind of trickery... or that they want to be associated with deception.

I do understand humor, but I don't see why they think it's good for them to be fake and deceptive.

"The Joe Biden that you saw last night is the Democratic Party."

Rush Limbaugh, just now. "Biden did exactly what was desired, and in the process hurt himself and Obama.... His job was to excite the base.... They came out of their shell: none of this compassion and understanding... The base wants blood. The base wants rude.... Biden gave them exactly what they wanted."

UPDATE: How it looked, per Rush: "Paul Ryan was a son who was a little embarrassed for his father... trying to tell his dad that the world has passed him by" without subjecting him to public humiliation.

Romney 49%, Obama 47%.

The new Rasmussen daily presidential tracking poll, an average of the last 3 days, 2 of which were post-debate.

Heading into Wednesday’s showdown, it was the president who enjoyed a two-point advantage. Today is the first time Romney has been ahead by even a single point since mid-September. See daily tracking history....

Both men have solidified their partisan base. Romney is supported by 89% of Republicans and Obama by 88% of Democrats. 

Romney has more support with Republicans than Obama has with Democrats.

Among those not affiliated with either major party, Romney leads by 16.

One might speculate that Obama has more of a problem reaching the middle group. His base will punish him. Romney has more ability to appeal to the middle, because core conservatives will stick with him, since they want Obama out so badly. If Romney can show — and he did at the debate — that he's not the heartless plutocrat in the Democrats' caricatures, people in the middle can feel free to vote for him (especially if they feel — as the debate made them feel — that Obama is worn out and doesn't really want to keep working at the job).

We are the 99%/You are the 47%.

Yesterday was: 1. The 1-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street protest movement, where the chant was "We are the 99%," and 2. The day we got the video of Mitt Romney talking to his affluent donors and saying "There are 47% who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. These are people who pay no income tax."

The percentages are different, but the us/them attitude is similar. It's a way of speaking politically: There are X% of us and Y% of them, and the recognizing the comparative size of the 2 groups tells us what our politics should be.

The people within group X and group Y aren't all alike, but the speaker is choosing to portray them as alike, because it's a step in an argument about what supposedly needs to be done. The claim of representing 99% is especially ludicrous, but the effort is to focus anger on the evil 1%, who elicit no sympathy at all. But it doesn't make sense for other people near the top not to worry that the greedy mob — the takers — are coming after them... which is why the 99% can't possibly be the 99%, because the top end of the 99% can see that it too is under attack, and they won't want the bottom end of the 99% speaking for them.

That's the flaw in the 99% chant: There's no credible threat that all 99% will vote together. Some of those Occupy protesters dreamed of revolution, but we've still got a democracy, and the only serious question is how many of the 99% will vote for the Democratic Party's candidates. The Democratic Party used a modified version of what the protesters were saying. That's what Elizabeth Warren articulated in her famous "underlying social contract... take a hunk of that and pay forward" rant. Obama was trying to make the same move when he inelegantly said "You didn't build that" — the 4 words the Republicans built their whole convention around.

Romney supporters can hardly complain when Obama supporters seize upon his 47% quote and use it any which way they can.



It's the most knuckle-bustin', gut-wrenchin', brain-scramblin', butt-bruisin', lip-splittin' brawl of all time.

Live-blogging Day 3 of the Democratic convention.

5:41 Central Time: I'm starting now, because it's Tammy Baldwin, my congressperson. She's running to take the seat Herb Kohl has been sitting in for oh, so long. She tells us of Wisconsin's motto, "Forward" (which Obama is using as his motto), and she finds a few opportunities to repeat "Forward." She's talking about "the Wisconsin I know" and "the America I love."

5:51: It's LBGT time. A video, with Obama saying we need to see a man with a man or a woman with a woman as equally worthy as a man and a woman. Then a young man named Zack Wahls — from Iowa — says he was raised by 2 moms, and: "I'm awesome at putting the seat down."

5:55: A really sweet and charming video about the woman who started the "Fired up/Ready to go" chant in Greenwood, South Carolina, some 4 years ago, Edith S. Childs. Ah, it's on line: here. Watch it. I liked that.

5:58: "They really got through the gay stuff quick," I observe.

6:01: Jim Messina, the Obama campaign manager is begging us for money. There's a sob in his voice. He sounds genuinely desperate.

6:28: Foo Fighters emote. [ADDED: Meade says: "This is kind of depressing music, and it goes along with the whole convention.]

6:32: The Foo Fighters are singing "I never wanna die" over and over. It's this song, "Walk":

I never wanna die
I'm on my knees
I never wanna die
I'm dancing on my grave
I'm running through the fire
Forever, whatever
I never wanna die
I never wanna leave

No, no... that's not an argument for a politician's reelection.

6:34: Now, there's this really gloomy video. Faces on a dark background. Woebegone people agonizing about how they "did everything right," and yet they are "one mistake away from losing the little that we have."

6: 47: An. act.tress. Kerry. Wash.ing.ton. I'd never heard of her before, but she's emoting big time, like she's talking to a bunch of idiots who never think about politics. But politics is thinking about us, she says ominously. Uh, we're the people watching the convention. We're not your Hollywood friends. "The other side" — "side," pronounced as a series of trembling, upscaling notes — "wants. to. take. our. voi.ces. a.way. and render us. invisible" — big wagging finger — "but we" — "we," rendered in the trembling, upward 4-syllables for a 1-syllable word, like she's really trying to scare us — "are not. invisible." Her doe eyes scan the crowd. Did they understand? Did they com.pre.hend? Did they fath.om the depths of. my. words? [ADDED FROM THE COMMENTS: Fiftyville said: "I loved Kerry Washington's statement... 'You may not be thinking about politics, but politics is thinking about you.' If you have to steal, Dems, why steal from Yakov Smirnoff?"]

6:57: Scarlett Johansson. So the beautiful actresses are all getting dumped in an early hour. Unlike Kerry Washington, the actress Johansson is able to act like a normal person. "We are the generation who feel our voices haven't been heard," she says, repeating something Chelsea Clinton said earlier in the convention. Johansson enthuses about voting. It's a speech that seems more appropriate to a bunch of young kids. And, sorry, I don't understand the basis for this whole generation believing that their "voices haven't been heard." You get to vote. Like everyone else. Why do you feel there's more of an entitlement than that? If you have something to say, say it. You kids have the whole internet. Twitter. YouTube. My generation didn't have that. What's this "no voice" business?

7:04: Debbie Wasserman Schultz aids a woman who is struggling to walk onto the stage. With great effort, she struggles to blurt out the words of the Pledge of Allegiance. My God, it's Gabby Giffords. Many tears run down many faces.

7:09: "As a Catholic woman, I take reproductive health seriously," says Caroline Kennedy, reading the script robotically. She complains about states putting restrictions on "access to reproductive health care."

7:13: Jennifer Granholm, "from the great state of Michigan, where the trees are just the right height." (She lifts Mitt Romney's gentle joke about home, and Meade and I disagree about whether she's showing some affection for her fellow Michigander.)

7:17: Granholm has a good (if unfair) line — referencing Romney's supposed lack of concern for auto-industry workers — "The cars get the elevator, and the workers get the shaft." You have to know that Romney had a car elevator installed in one of his homes.

7:21: It's "actress Eva Longoria." Not sure why Caroline Kennedy and Jennifer Granholm broke up the parade of actresses. Longoria sounds like an intelligent person who actually has followed politics in the normal way that people who like politics follow politics.

7:43: John Kerry. American exceptionalism demands an exceptional President, and that President is Barack Obama, he says.

8:05: As a tribute to servicemen and women goes on at the convention, email from Obama comes in, saying, "Ann -- Before I go on stage to accept the nomination, there's one thing I need to say... Can you pitch in $25 or more right now?"

8:44: Jill Biden warmed us up to think of Joe Biden as the embodiment of human caring, and now Joe Biden is doing the same for Barack Obama. He tells us he "loves" Obama. Obama was "gutsy."

9:40: Obama is giving his speech. Here's the whole text.  His inflections are polished, but nothing is jumping out at me as different from what I've heard him say many times.

9:55: "We, the People, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which only asks what’s in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense." Is that controversial?

10:03: The word "hope" appears 15 times in his speech. The last 3 come near the end:  "And I think about the young sailor I met at Walter Reed hospital, still recovering from a grenade attack that would cause him to have his leg amputated above the knee... He gives me hope. I don’t know what party [various heretofore mentioned] men and women belong to. I don’t know if they’ll vote for me. But I know that their spirit defines us. They remind me, in the words of Scripture, that ours is a 'future filled with hope.' And if you share that faith with me – if you share that hope with me – I ask you tonight for your vote." Other people give him hope, the Bible refers to hope, and if you hope like he hopes, you should vote for him. Because... hope!

10:17: The speech ends, and there's a flurry of confetti. No balloons, because an indoor presentation hadn't been planned. Obama steps forward and waves. There's a closeup of his face and I think I see his lip curl with a bit of disgust, and I rewind and ask Meade to interpret the face and he says: resignation. Subjectively, we think we see in his face that he knows he's going to lose. Michelle and Malia and Sasha come out, looking perfectly glossy and pretty, and then there's Biden and Jill and Mrs. Robinson and various other relatives, milling around, waving a bit, and then the long view of the stage shows they've clumped toward the rear wall. Why are they huddling there? The shots of the crowd show some ecstatic delegates — all women — and many stolid/dispirited faces — male and female. At one point there's a hitch in the Bruce Springsteen music — a silent gap — but then it plays again. And now they're gone.

10:26: The Cardinal wanders out to the lectern. He's got his benediction written out on folded sheets of paper. "Help us to see that a society's greatness is found, above all, in the respect it shows for the weakest and neediest among us." He thanks God for giving us those "inalienable rights — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He thanks God for "the gift of life" and asks that we be given "the courage to defend it." In subtle defiance of the convention's abortion-rights theme, he says: "We ask your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected."

11:03: The Democrats didn't have anything oddball, like Clint Eastwood. Nothing surprising. Nothing to talk about. Speaking of nothing, on Intrade, Obama re-election shares today experienced a 0.0% change. Oh! I checked back, now he's down 0.2%. (Romney is up 0.7% on the day.)

11:12: I just realized I fast-forwarded through Charlie Crist. Looked like another white male governor.  I forgot about the whole former-Republican thing. Does anyone really care?

"I credit the power of Matt Drudge. Reaching out, godlike, from a condo in Florida to change the course of the Democratic National Convention."

Says Instapundit, spotlighting Drudge's spotlight on the Democrats who "booed putting God back."

Now, the Democrats weren't actually booing God. They were booing the way the vote was done, which was to call for ayes and nays over and over in the hope of getting what could plausibly be declared two-thirds "aye." That never happened, with 3 voice votes, so L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa simply announced that the ayes had it. They obviously didn't. So I'd say boo to that too.

Moving beyond the superficial spectacle of Democrats kinda-sorta booing God, let's look at the Democrats supposed dedication to counting all the votes and denial that we need to worry about voting fraud. This was out-and-proud vote fraud.

God is watching. And so was everyone else. Because it was on television. And now it's viral video.

Live-blogging Day 2 of the Democratic Convention.

5:34 Central Time: I jump in, watching C-SPAN, just in time to see the ever-bold, ever-confident Chuck Schumer stride onto the stage. He says: "Tonight, we welcome a New Yorker: President Bill Clinton as our prime time speaker." He does a little fist pump on "speaker." "It's no accident that Democrats celebrate" — a bigger fist pump — "our past Presidents, while Republicans virtually banish theirs" — biggest fist pump and a big smile.

6:40: Emanuel Cleaver gets the conventioneers fired up, but the hoarse-throated yelling doesn't play so well over the television, just like the Howard Dean scream seemed nutty outside of the room where the scream was screamed.

6:48: "Mitt Romney doesn't know a thing about hard work or responsibility," says the president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, who likes to portray work as "mopping, vacuuming, and picking up our trash."

7:01: President Obama has focused on jobs since Day 1, says Nancy Pelosi. So... do we get to judge him by the result, or does he get reelection for effort?

7:07: Lots of Dems tonight are talking about "the American Dream," as, of course, the GOP did last week. It's kind of nice to see so much consensus about the idea of individuals working hard — for themselves and their families — and succeeding economically, and interesting that everyone's enthusiastic about calling that "American," as though they're into patriotism, even though I imagine it's the dream among all human beings to be able to achieve economic well-being for themselves and their families through their own work. The real question, rather obviously, is which party will do better for these American dreamers of the American dream. What is the Democrats' argument here? I really don't see it. They seem to be copying the Republicans' theme, criticizing the Republicans for saying it, and insisting they have some dream-boosting methodology.

7:15: Another parade of women. Last night's was the women of the House. Now, it's the women of the Senate. This segment was preceded by a treacly video with a song about "a woman's voice," which apparently, "can sing any song." Okay. Sing "A Boy Named Sue." Gotcha! Didn't I?

7:25: American Idol runner-up Jessica Sanchez sings "You're all I need to get by...." And then a video of Barack Obama comes on.

7:28: A young woman promotes Planned Parenthood, where she found a nurse who was able to diagnose her endometriosis, after a whole lot of doctors had no idea what was wrong with her and even accused her of being some sort of drama queen. What the hell kind of crap doctors was she going to? Come on. Endometriosis is a standard ailment. Are we to think misogyny prevents its detection? (I can't be fact checking, but, seriously, who were these doctors who couldn't diagnose endometriosis?)

7:32: The president of Planned Parenthood asserts that "Mitt Romney says he'll get rid of Planned Parenthood." Can I get a fact check? I just don't believe that.

9:16: Sorry I haven't updated in a while, but I've been bored to tears. Now, it's Elizabeth Warren, so...  She's excited about going on before Bill Clinton, who "had the good sense to marry one of the coolest women on the planet."

9:20: "The system is rigged," Elizabeth Warren asserts.

9:36: I found Warren pretty boring. When the crowd chanted "Warren, Warren," it sounded like "boring, boring." What was boring was mainly what was boring about so many of the other speeches. So much talk about economic opportunity, with no noticeable plan for furthering it, other than statements about how other people out there — not you! — ought to pay their "fair share" of taxes, and this doctrine that you've got to build the economy from the middle out. She got fervent about the notion that corporation are not people. They don't have hearts, and they don't die, and so forth.

9:38: Bill Clinton says: "I want to nominate a man who's cool on the outside, but who burns for America on the inside."

9:58: Clinton goes on at great length on the topic of how Republicans won't cooperate and compromise and work with the Democrats. Then he says he watched the GOP convention last week:"Did y'all watch their convention? I did."

In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President's reelection was actually pretty simple, pretty snappy. It went something like this: We left him a total mess, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in. But they did it well. They looked good. They sounded good. 

And he says he was convinced they were "honorable people," who really believe what they said and will keep their commitments, so the key for Democrats is to make sure people understand what they believe.

10:09: Wow, he's going on a long time. It's reminiscent of his DNC keynote speech in 1988, when his going on too long turned into a huge joke. That was Clinton's original national reputation: The guy who talked too long.

10:27: It's almost 20 minutes since I said "Wow, he's going on a long time," and he's still going. This is insane. His inflections are getting wacky, like he's in love with how cute he is.

10:38: Finally, it's over. He spoke for 50 minutes. That was really self-indulgent.

11:04 (my time, after pausing): Obama comes out to interact with Clinton. Clinton gives a low bow. And now, they still have to do the roll call. I feel sorry for the kiddies in the crowd. It's late! 

Live-blogging Day 1 of the Democratic Convention.

4:58 CT: Just setting up a post, to be added to over the course of the evening. Please join the conversation.

6:53 (I'm beginning with recorded material from about 2 hours ago. I'll be catching up.): "Being asked to pay your fair share isn't class warfare. It's patriotism," says Newark Mayer Cory Booker. He gets a huge ovation that turns into a "U.S.A." chant. They're "U.S.A."ing at the idea of patriotism, presumably. Not taxes. Oh, but paying taxes = patriotism. Or, specifically, being asked to pay is patriotism. Who is the patriot in that grammatical construction? I think it's the folks who are asking other people to pay.

7:11 (Still catching up.): Gov. Bev Perdue sounded hoarse and a bit sick as she vowed to deliver North Carolina to the Democrats. A film about health care. A young man whose parents died in a way that supposedly might have been avoided if we'd had Obamacare. They were both scientists, he says, so I'm not clear why they did not have health insurance.

7:19: The chair of the Congressional Hispanic Congress, Charles Gonzales, uses the motto "e pluribus unum" — out of many, one — to mean that all the people become one, instead of the idea that the states were brought together into one nation. The idea that the people merged into a single entity — that sounds like fascism to me. Oddly, as it repurposes the old motto, it expresses the old fashioned idea of the melting pot.

7:30: White males of the gubernatorial kind — Quinn & Kaine.

7:32: A black speaker wedged in — the mayor of Charlotte — before the next pale male. But it's a big one, so I'll go light on the fast-forwarding I'm using to try to catch up to live. It's Harry Reid.

7:36: Reid wants us to fear the Tea Party. They are "extremists and ideologues who leave no room for reason," and they're taking over the Republican Party.

7:42: Nancy Pelosi is introduced along with all the Democratic women of the House. There's disco music playing. The hell? Then I detect that it's "I'm Every Woman." Again with this creepy merging of individuals into the whole.

I'm every woman, it's all in me
Anything you want done, baby
I'll do it naturally
I'm every woman, it's all in me
I can read your thoughts right now
Every one from A to Z

See what I mean? That's creepy when it's the government. When it's some lady you're having sex with, I guess it's sexy.

I can cast a spell
With secrets you can't tell
Mix a special brew
Put fire inside of you
But anytime you feel
Danger or fear
Instantly I will appear, 'cause
I'm every woman

Now, that's just scary when it's a whole horde of government women coming at you. What is this "special brew"? Soma? But anytime you feel/Danger or fear/Instantly I will appear... Nancy Pelosi will appear?! I can sense your needs/Like rain on to the seeds/I can make a rhyme/Of confusion in your mind... no, no, no, no that's not what I want to hear from the government!

8:03: Speaking of scary... it's Jimmy Carter (on film). He's well made-up, well preserved, and well modulated. But he seems like a nice man, there, doesn't he? And he tells us Barack Obama and Joe Biden will lead us to a better future.

8:18: Huge storm here! We just lost power for a few minutes. I lost a whole paragraph of snark about Teddy Kennedy. A young Kennedy — Joseph P. Kennedy III, running for Congress — said the spirit of Teddy was with us here today. I had some prime snark! Did Teddy bring this terrible storm that drowned all my Mary Jo Kopechne material?

8:25: NARAL! It's Nancy Keenan, for "safe, legal" abortions, with "dignity and privacy." A woman should not be forced to have an ultrasound "against her will." And "rape is rape." President Obama had "the courage to stand with Sandra Flook" (is that how we're pronouncing it now?). "Women in America cannot trust Mitt Romney."

8:33: I've caught up to Rahm Emanuel. "The American auto industry is not just surviving..." Hmm. He professes to know with "absolute certainty" that something will happen in the future and "land with a thud on the Oval Office desk." Who do you want there? He's saying that like it's obvious.

8:38: It's Obama's little sister Maya and Michelle's older brother Michael. Nice. Lovely. But let's skip the details.

8:45: I'm finally completely caught up. Lily Ledbetter is speaking. This is the question of "equal pay for equal work," but the Supreme Court case she lost was a matter of interpreting statutory language about how soon you need to bring a lawsuit. I feel sorry for her, but I'm also uneasy about her as an icon representing things that are not what the court case was about.

8:48: Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts, is able to compare himself to Romney, who was, a while back, the governor of Massachusetts. He's yelling and screaming about the economy. Obama has been wonderful!!!

8:53: "I will not stand by and let him be bullied out of office!" Patrick propaganda.

8:55: Wow, everyone looks really sweaty. Did the AC break down?

9:03: Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley. I have no idea why this man has been given this prominence. Here's his question for Republicans: "How much less do you really think would be good for this country?"

9:07: Time for the keynote address at last. It's Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio.

9:17: Castro seems like he could have been a speaker at last week's GOP convention. He keeps talking about "hard work" and even "rugged individualism." But then he says "Like many of you, I watched last week's Republican convention, and they told a few stories of individual success. We all celebrate individual success, but the question is: How do we multiply that success? The answer is President Barack Obama."

9:22: Castro gets a refrain going: "Mitt Romney says no."

10:00: Michelle Obama is wearing an orange dress that in the close-up looks like a bathing suit. Lots of shoulder and arm display. Her speech goes on and on, filled with stuff that has no relationship to the question of whether Barack Obama should be reelected. He thinks his little girls are important and he's proud of them and eats dinner with them and counsels them about their middle-school friendships. Okay. I phase out. What's the point of all this? Then — this seems near the end — she starts doing this fake stuttering (as if she's talkin' 'bout my g-g-g-g-generation): "A-a-and he reminds me, he reminds me that we are playing a long game here..." (Meade says: "Not 9 holes, it's 18 holes.") "A-a-a-and that change is hard. A-a-a-and change is slow and it never happens all at once but that eventually we get there. We always do. W-w-w-w-we get there, because of folks like my dad." (Earlier in the speech she described her father.) "Folks like Barack's grandmother. Men and women who-who said to themselves, I-I may not have a chance to fulfill my dreams, but maybe my children will, maybe my grandchildren will. See-see-see, so many of us stand here tonight because of their sacrifice...." Arghhhh! This is the same thing we heard last week. It's so earnest. Stage-y earnest. But what does it say? Who should be President?!

10:16: Michelle's speech goes on a long time. I don't really see the point of it. There's a theme of waiting patiently with the expectation that our children or their children will have a better life, but what does that mean for the election? It seems to say that we should reelect Obama despite the lack of economic progress. She speaks of "unwavering hope grounded in unyielding struggle." Now there's this choked-up quality in her voice as she says she's "Mom-in-Chief," doing what's "best for our girls." It's getting very hammy. Vote for my husband. That's the end. And then the music comes up: "Move your body... move your little hips...." What?!

10:26: An unusually young woman comes out to do the closing prayer, and it goes on for almost 4 minutes. "As a young woman of faith and a leader...." Who is she? The executive director of Blood: Water Mission. I don't really understand what that is — and I did Google it — so I'm left assuming that the Democrats are simply hot to reach out to young women. 

"The Wisconsin delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa were treated like royalty."

"They were given a prime location on the convention floor, right up front and to the right of the stage. The delegates from Wisconsin aren't nearly as well positioned when the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte officially opens Tuesday."

What's happened to Wisconsin? Here's the L.A. Times trying to figure it out:

Four years ago, it might have sounded preposterous that Wisconsin, a state that preferred Barack Obama to John McCain by 14 points, would become a wellspring of successful GOP candidates and leaders.

But the impossible has happened. The state features three prominent speakers during the GOP convention -- RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, Gov. Scott Walker and vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, who hopes to wow the nation with a speech Wednesday night. In 2008, the state’s two U.S. senators were from the Democratic Party. Polls indicate that after Nov. 6, both will be Republican.

Red isn’t necessarily a strange color for Wisconsin – after all, the Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party in the state in 1854. But what may be surprising is the strong conservative bent of the politicians who have come out of a state that has not chosen a Republican for the White House since 1984.

The Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party in Wisconsin. Interesting to see that highlighted, especially with the L.A. Times failing even to mention Joe McCarthy.

Why isn't the Democratic convention treating the Wisconsin delegates better? When I look at the Electoral College maps, I can easily see how our 10 electoral votes could make the difference for Obama in this tight race. Perhaps the Dems think they're doing enough by giving Tammy Baldwin a prime-time speaking spot. (Tammy is the congresswoman from Madison's district who is all but doomed to lose to Tommy Thompson in the Senate race in November.)

"We've seen Paul Ryan and Scott Walker on the national stage. I'm going to talk about the Wisconsin I know," Baldwin said in an interview, emphasizing fairness and hard work over influence and wealth.

The Wisconsin I know... i.e., Madison. Do tell!

37.6% call themselves Republicans now, and only 33.3% say they are Democrats.

Other Rasmussen polling shows a record high percentage of Americans identify themselves as Republicans — record high, meaning since 2002. The percentage is 37.6%. How many Americans call themselves Democrats? 33.3%. (This was a poll of adults, not likely voters. I suspect Republicans are more likely to be likely voters, don't you?)

"Romney leads by nine among men but is down by one among women."

Says Rasmussen, in its announcement of the daily presidential tracking poll. The basic numbers are the same as yesterday: Romney 48%, Obama 44%. This is the first day in which the tracking poll — which includes 3 days — is based entirely on post-convention polling.

I'm very interested in the way the gender politics game is playing out. It seems that the Democrats have pushed very hard making a special offer to women — positing a "war on women" and so forth. But they're only up one point with women, which seems to be less than the usual skewing of females toward the Democratic Party. One might anticipate that the war-on-women politics would repel some men, but it looks like it's failing to work on women too.

You've got Republicans getting a 10-point advantage in the gender gap, when it's the other party doing the gender politics. Does that mean gender politics is now a bad strategy? Not necessarily. Obama might be doing even worse without it. (That's an argument in the pattern of Obama's argument about the economy: You're not better off than you were 4 years ago, but the economy would have plunged worse without the help I've been providing.)

It's also possible that gender politics can work for the Democrats, but they haven't been doing it right this time. What's distinctive about the way they've been doing it in 2012?

First, they're doing it so intensely, with the "war" trope. That's not believable, and it makes it too obvious that they're mostly begging us to look at this and not the economy, when everyone — women included — thinks the economy is the main concern.

Second, they seem to be offering special benefits for women, rather than presenting general issues in an emotionally empathetic way that appeals to women. For example, in the past, we've seen Democrats talk about the wars in terms of tired, worn-out soldiers who need to be returned to the care of their families. This year, the Democrats are talking about seemingly free birth control treatments — something for women that men don't get.

Perhaps it's caring and altruism that resonates with women, not special benefits for us. We like to think of ourselves as unselfish, trying to help others. That's the classic pull of the liberal agenda. Maybe it doesn't work to give us stuff. You need to make us feel that we are giving.

If you're going to pander, you have to pander the right way.

"Ayende Alcala, an activist with Occupy Charlotte, said the group organized the protest not with any singular agenda..."

"... but to give people a space to come together and be heard."

"No matter what your issue is, we want to let them know we stand together," he said. "We want to have a united front to start off this Democratic National Convention."

"Behind those doors, the story is going to be the 'poli-tricks' as usual," Alcala added. "It's the art of getting elected, of pointing the finger back and forth. We want to say there's another story and that's the people on the street still suffering."

Nobody in the protest expressed much hope in the political process. Said Alcala: "It's a two-faced one-party system. They have different colors and different names, but at the end of the day, they all answer to the same Wall Street corporations that dominate the system."

Organized... not with any singular agenda... Which is kind of disorganized.