Fundraising in 2012 Presidential politics

Why is President Obama losing the "money" race in this year's election?  In this story in The New Yorker magazine, Jane Mayer writes that the President's campaign hasn't taken the time to cultivate the big donors who give hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) to get men and women elected.  Here is an excerpt:

"… By the time that Obama ran for President, in 2008, his relations with the financial industry had grown warmer, and he attracted more donations from Wall Street leaders than John McCain, his Republican opponent, did. Yet this good feeling did not last, despite the government’s bailout of the banking sector. Many financial titans felt that the President’s attitude toward the “one per cent” was insufficiently admiring, even hostile. … [Instead of getting to talk to the President about their issues at events, the Wall Street crowd got] about seven minutes per table, each of which accommodated eight donors. This was fundraising as speed-dating. …"

Read the entire article, "Schmooze or lose: Obama doesn’t like cozying up to billionaires. Could it cost him the election?" by Jane Mayer here.

Three New Articles

Kathleen Parker's piece in Newsweek is called: "What the *#@% is wrong with Republican men? It's not just Akin. By pushing some of the most invasive state policies in modern history, the men of the GOP are driving their party off a cliff. "  Read her entire column here.

In a blog called "Right Turn" in the Washington Post site, Jennifer Rubin writes an artible called "Ten myths about conservatives." 

"… Much of what the observers know is wrong, so simply dispelling 10 misconceptions that they have about Republicans should be useful. …"

Read all ten of Ms. Rubin's myth-busters by clicking here.

Finally, here is a fine tribute to the kind of hero Americans' are drawn to and the kind of hero former astronaut Neil Armstrong was.  The article by Megan Garber in The Atlantic is titled, "What died with Neil Armstrong," and an excerpt is here:

American mythology loves nothing more than the reluctant hero: the man -- it is usually a man -- whose natural talents have destined him for more than obliging obscurity. George Washington, we are told, was a leader who would have preferred to have been a farmer. Thomas Jefferson, a writer. Martin Luther King, Jr., a preacher. These men were roused from lives of perfunctory achievement, our legends have it, not because they chose their own exceptionalism, but because we, the people, chose it for them. … Neil Armstrong was a hero of this stripe: constitutionally humble, circumstantially noble.

Read the entire tribute here.

Three Articles

Here's an exerpt from "Arbitrage and why we love being conned" by Megan McArdle in Newsweek.  To read the entire article, click here.

"… fraudsters and Ponzi schemers do not succeed at their scams merely because we let them. Recent financial frauds have big dollar signs attached, but at their heart, they’re often not much different from Nigerian email scams or a three-card monte game. They work best when they let the mark believe he’s getting away with something—often something illegal, or at least dishonest. It’s an old saw that “you can’t cheat an honest man,” but it’s mostly true. We are most vulnerable to Ponzi schemes and other confidence tricks when we start to believe that we can cheat the universe—that we can get something for nothing. The best con men succeed mostly because we are so desperate to believe them. ..."

Next is a post from Wonkblog titled "How often do Presidents get what they want?" by Dylan Matthews.  Read it here.

Finally is an excerpt from an article called "All the spammers in the world may only make $200 million a year" by Alexis Madrigal in The Atlantic.  Click here for the entire article.

"… It is just so cheap to send spam and even if you only ensnare a tiny number of people, that's enough to make it worthwhile. Rao and Reiley estimate that only 1 in 25,000 people need somehow buy something through spam advertising to make it worthwhile. …"

Big Mistake - David Brooks (NY Times)

Here is an exerpt of Brook's piece today:

"Ryan’s fantasy happens to be the No.1 political fantasy in America today, which has inebriated both parties. It is the fantasy that the other party will not exist. It is the fantasy that you are about to win a 1932-style victory that will render your opponents powerless.

"Every single speech in this election campaign is based on this fantasy. There hasn’t been a speech this year that grapples with the real world – that we live in a highly polarized, evenly divided nation and the next president is going to have to try to pass laws in that context. …

"The real world … [is] where you get a diverse group of people who try to make progress in the areas where that is possible and try to sidestep the areas where it is not."

Read the entire column here.

Debates don't lead to deals - Ezra Klein (Wonkblog)

This is an exerpt from today's Klein offering -

When I talk to legislators from both parties, I tend to hear some variation of the following: “This is a choice election. The American people are getting two very different visions and they’re going to pick one of them.” ... Which is why my standard follow-up question is, “If you think this is a choice election, will you let the other side govern if they win?” No one has ever said yes.

Read the entire post here.