Jamison Foser

Stephen Strasburg

Friday Night Bruce

OK, since I'm obsessing over Racing in the Street anyway ... top 3 early-evening-on-a-Friday-in-the-Summer Springsteen recordings:

3) Downbound Train, Dublin, 5/20/03. Mostly because it begins with Springsteen announcing "Let's play that sun into the ground" in a way that just feels like the end of the week, but also because it's an excellent performance of a grossly underrated song.

2) The entire Main Point show from February 5, 1975, from the opening spare, striped-down version of Incident on 57th Street to the raucous Mountain of Love to the premiere of Thunder Road (then known as Wings for Wheels) to ... well, again, the whole show is just wonderful. And it's a great segue from dusk into night; from a rough week into the weekend.

1) Racing in the Street, any (full-band) performance. 'Cause summer's here and the time is right...

It's time for Obama's dog to lawyer-up

Remember this?

"[M]aybe Newt Gingrich & Co. will someday be as earnest about private sector oversight as they are about embarrassing the administration. But it's hard to believe that, since Gingrich told lobbyists before the election that he intended to establish a select committee on corruption to investigate the Clinton administration. 'Washington just can't imagine a world in which Republicans would have subpoena power,' he said. It can now. But so far, Republican scrutiny has been about embarrassment more than enlightenment." -- Gloria Borger, 7/31/95

Keep in mind, Borger wrote that before Dan Burton's clown-show of an investigation repeatedly issued subpoenas to the wrong people and before the Republican House of Representatives impeached a president for having an affair.

Now, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa wants to make clear that if you liked the Republican investigations of the White House cat, the armed assault on vegetable gardens Dan Burton waged in a delusional attempt to disprove Vince Foster's suicide, the endless distractions and wasted money of partisan investigations of non-scandals, you'll love what the GOP has in store for Barack Obama if they win control of Congress:

Rep. Darrell Issa, the conservative firebrand whose specialty is lobbing corruption allegations at the Obama White House, is making plans to hire dozens of subpoena-wielding investigators if Republicans win the House this fall. 

The California Republican’s daily denunciations draw cheers from partisans and bookings from cable TV producers. He even bought his own earphone for live shots. But his bombastic style and attention-seeking investigations draw eye rolls from other quarters. Now, he’s making clear he won’t be so easy to shrug off if he becomes chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in 2011.

...

Issa has told Republican leadership that if he becomes chairman, he wants to roughly double his staff from 40 to between 70 and 80. And he is not subtle about what that means for President Barack Obama. 

At a recent speech to Pennsylvania Republicans here, he boasted about what would happen if the GOP wins 39 seats, and he gets the power to subpoena. 

“That will make all the difference in the world,” he told 400 applauding party members during a dinner at the chocolate-themed Hershey Lodge. “I won’t use it to have corporate America live in fear that we’re going to subpoena everything. I will use it to get the very information that today the White House is either shredding or not producing.” 

In other words, Issa wants to be to the Obama administration what Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) was to the Clinton administration — a subpoena machine in search of White House scandals.

Assuring the BPs and Blackwaters of the world that they won't be the target of GOP investigations is a nice touch, isn't it? Good to know Issa's focus will be on the things that really matter -- like whether someone offered a 30-year Navy vet a job.

The Democrats' real message problem

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza has a post entitled "Democrats' message problem" that highlights a new NPR poll conducted by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Republican pollster Glen Bolger. Cillizza argues that the poll "suggests that on the major issues of the day, the Democratic argument is trumped by the Republican one." I agree -- but that's simply because the Democratic argument, as tested by this poll, isn't very well conceived or written. 

Here's Cillizza:

The poll tested a variety of potential/likely messages on health care, the economy and financial reform for generic Republican and Democratic candidates in 70 of the most competitive House districts in the country -- 60 held by Democrats, 10 held by Republicans -- and consistently found that the GOP argument gained more traction with voters.

...

Let's look at the overall messages for each side tested by the two pollsters.

The Democratic message:

"The partisan wars go on in Washington, but I'm focused on the battle for regular people. I voted for tax cuts for middle class families and small businesses and companies that create American jobs and on tough Wall Street reform. They voted to let Wall Street keep the money and do what they want, keep tax breaks for big corporations that send jobs overseas. They bailed out the banks, left the country in debt and voted against helping the unemployed in the resulting crisis. People are under the financial gun, and I vote against earmarks and to control spending."

The Republican message:

"It's time for the Democrats to stop living in the past by blaming others for nearly ten percent unemployment and their runaway government spending. I am focused on the future. I was not part of the Republican Congress that spent too much, and my goal will be to stop the wasteful spending that has only gotten significantly worse with one party control of Washington. The Democrats are growing the size and scope of government, and it's hurting our economy. We need a check and balance to make sure Washington listens to the people, rather than just spend, spend, spend."

Presented with those two options, 39 percent of respondents in the 70 House districts tested said they agreed with the Democratic statement while 52 percent chose the Republican statement.

Looking at those two messages, I'm not at all surprised the Republican message tests better. 

First of all, look at the way each message begins. The Democratic message opens with pablum: "The partisan wars go on in Washington, but I'm focused on the battle for regular people." What does that even mean? It's process, and it has nothing to do with voters' lives. The Republican message, on the other hand, opens with a hard-hitting indictment of the Democrats: "It's time for the Democrats to stop living in the past by blaming others for nearly ten percent unemployment and their runaway government spending."

The second sentence of the Democratic message is rambling and confusing, with three ands and a grammatically-challenged ending ("I voted for tax cuts ... and on tough Wall Street reform.") The second Republican sentence is a simple declarative statement.

The third Democratic sentence pulls its punch, accusing the Republicans of voting to "let Wall Street keep the money and do what they want." That isn't much of a negative; it emphasizes the GOP's support for freedom. Rather than saying "keep the money and do what they want," it should stress that the GOP would let Wall Street do bad things. The third Republican sentence contains no such drawback: "wasteful spending that has only gotten significantly worse" is an unambiguous negative.

The Democratic message concludes with a nod to the financial strain many Americans face (good!) -- and a purported Democratic response to that strain that, well, isn't (bad!): "People are under the financial gun, and I vote against earmarks and to control spending." I suspect that few people who are "under the financial gun" are much comforted to learn of a vote against earmarks.

So, basically, the Republican message is well-written, direct, and forceful. The Democratic message is meandering, soft, confusing, and opens and closes with irrelevancies. It's no surprise the GOP message tests better.

But maybe you noticed something else about the Democratic message? Like ... its lack of a Democratic message? The two specific positive actions the paragraph conveys are voting for tax cuts and to limit spending. That's it. People are hurting, and I want to cut taxes and cut spending -- that's a Republican message. There's nothing about health care or unemployment benefits or jobs programs or anything else. Is it any great surprise that given a choice between a hard-hitting Republican message and a mealy-mouthed Republican-Lite message, respondents chose the former?

Here's Cillizza's assessment of the question and results:

The results run counter to the deeply held belief among some leading Democratic strategists that the best way to limit Democratic losses this fall is to simultaneously embrace the accomplishments of the 111th Congress while raising questions about the lack of Republican solutions to the major problems facing the country.

But the Democratic message didn't actually "embrace the accomplishments of the 111th Congress." It didn't give Democratic voters any reason to back it. Unsurprisingly, then, if you look at the full poll results, you see huge gaps in the percentage of voters who strongly favor each statement -- the 12-point advantage for the Republican message in Tier 1 districts is a 17-point advantage if you consider only those who strongly favor one of the messages. (If this message testing is indicative of the messages actual Democrats are delivering in these districts, it should be little surprise that one section of the poll memo is titled "Strong enthusiasm gap favors Republicans in Democratic districts.")

The Greenberg/Bolger poll (pdf) tested another set of messages, not mentioned in Cillizza's piece:

(DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE) might say, "They left America with rising bailouts, deficits and unemployment. So, I'm fighting for small business and the middle class, not the big guys. I helped get the biggest tax cut ever for the middle class, extended benefits and health insurance for the unemployed and passed tax credits for small business and clean energy to create new jobs here. And I'll make sure Wall Street pays back every penny and that the government reduces the deficit each year. We can't go back to policies that hurt the middle class."

(REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE) might say, "The bailouts failed. The stimulus failed. And the health care bill will cost too much money. Unemployment has skyrocketed since the Democrats started running Washington. We cannot grow the economy by growing government. The best way to revive the economy and create jobs is to reduce government spending and encourage businesses to create jobs. We need to stop burdening our children and grandchildren with Washington's reckless overspending. My top priority will be to bring down the deficit and work to create jobs, not kill jobs."

Again, I think the Republican message is simply better-written than the Democratic message, though the gap isn't as large this time. Again, the Republican message consists of short, clear, declarative sentences -- the longest is a straightforward 21 words: "The best way to revive the economy and create jobs is to reduce government spending and encourage businesses to create jobs." Compare that to the 35-word heart of the Democratic message: "I helped get the biggest tax cut ever for the middle class, extended benefits and health insurance for the unemployed and passed tax credits for small business and clean energy to create new jobs here."

Still, the Democratic message in this matched pair is much better-written than in the first one. And there's less pointless pablum. And this one actually includes some positives other than cutting spending and taxes -- extension of benefits & health insurance, for example. It gives Democratic voters something to applaud.

And, unsurprisingly, it tests better. Remember: In Tier 1 districts, the GOP message in the first pair had a 12-point advantage, and a 17-point advantage when looking only at people who strongly preferred one of the two statements. In the second pair, the Republican advantage drops to 9 points -- 8 points among those with a strong preference, less than half the advantage the GOP message had in the first pair.

That, obviously, is still not good for the Democrats. It does, however, lend some support to the notion that a clear, unambiguous, progressive message may be more effective than a muddled Republican-Lite message.

The poll also tests health care messages -- and, again, there is a striking qualitative difference between the messages as written. Take a look:

(DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE) might say, "Health reform isn't perfect, but it's a good start that puts an end to the worst abuses of the insurance companies. They want to change it so the insurance companies can deny people coverage because of pre-existing conditions and kick them off if they get sick. I'll keep working to make the law better by providing families and businesses more stable coverage and lower costs, not go back to the old way where insurance companies set the rules."

(REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE) might say, "At a cost of over one trillion dollars, the new health care law is increasing the cost of health care for middle class families, lowers the quality of care we receive, and will increase our taxes. This plan is little more than a government takeover of health care, giving government bureaucrats the power to make medical decisions. We need to change the new law by keeping the few good parts and significantly improving the rest."

The Democratic message begins and ends by criticizing the health care reform legislation is is theoretically touting. The Republican message clearly, consistently, and unambiguously slams the law. If the Democrats continually stipulate to their own flaws, is it really any surprise that the Republican message tests better?

Here's the good news for Democrats: the Republican message probably tests better than the Democratic message in part because it simply is better. It's better-conceived (it does not undermine itself the way the Democratic message does, nor does it give its own voters the cold shoulder) and better-written (direct, straightforward, strong declarative sentences.) Why is that good news? Because it suggests the Democrats have room for improvement. If this poll showed the same advantages for Republican messages against well-crafted Democratic messages, that would be bleak news for the Democrats.

Stephen Strasburg

I've been trying not to succumb to the Stephen Strasburg hype, but after his dazzling MLB debut last night, that's going to be pretty difficult.

Watching Strasburg against the Pirates brought back memories of David Cone's emergence in 1988. Cone wasn't technically a rookie, having pitched a total of about 120 innings the previous two seasons, but when he moved from the bullpen to the starting rotation in May of '88, he seemed to come from out of nowhere, and immediately dominated: A shutout in his first start, 1 run allowed over 7 innings in his next, 7 scoreless innings and 12 strikeouts in his third start, six straight starts in which he allowed 1 or 0 runs. Two ten-inning, 1-run complete games just 11 days apart. A 2-hit shutout of the Phillies in which he took a no-hitter into the 8th, and a 1-hit shutout of the Padres. I listened to just about all of Cone's starts on the radio that summer, and haven't been as excited by a young pitcher since. Until last night.

Still, it was one game, in a sport in which one game is a pretty meaningless sample size. (You have to be at least a decent player to score 35 points in an NBA game, but you can be a pretty bad player -- by Major League standards -- and throw a shutout or have a 3-hit game.) Those urging restraint on the basis of it being only one game have a point.

Those who minimize Strasburg's performance by scoffing that the Pirates are little better than a minor league team, however, should look closer. 

True, the Pirates aren't a good offensive team: They're last in the National League in runs per game and next-to-last in OPS+.

But the Pirates don't strike out all that much -- slightly less than league average, in fact. Before last night, the Pirates had struck out at least 14 times in a game only once all year -- a 14-inning game against the Brewers in which they had struck out only 11 times through 9 innings. Dan Haren, one of the best strikeout pitchers in baseball, recorded 9 strikeouts in 6 2/3 innings against the Pirates on April 10, the best previous strikeout performance by a starting pitcher against the Pirates this season.

Stephen Strasburg had 14 strikeouts in 7 innings last night, and struck out the last 7 batters he faced (and 8 of the last 9.) No, the Pirates aren't very good -- but they don't strike out much, and nobody else this year has had the kind of success against them Strasburg had.

The National