Katrina vanden Heuvel | The Nation

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

At first glance, it might seem as if Mitt Romney’s path—from voting in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary to being the 2012 Republican presidential nominee—was linear. But over the past, winding twenty years, Romney has held every possible view on every possible issue—often at the same time. When it comes to policy, he’s been downright promiscuous.

He was for a woman’s right to choose before he was against it. He was for tax cuts for the rich before he was against them. He was for—no, he wrote—health reform before he was against it… before he was for the parts that everybody liked.

STOP-AND-FRISK. We were happy to see an exclusive Nation video on stop-and-frisk gain widespread attention this week, both in the news and at this week’s New York City Council hearings. Investigative filmmakers Ross Tuttle and Erin Schneider obtained the only known recording of the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program in action—and what they heard is nothing short of chilling. After stopping a Harlem teenager named Alvin without giving a legally valid reason, the officers proceed to call him a “fucking mutt” and threaten to break his arm and punch him in the face. We applaud the bravery of Alvin in coming forward and are hopeful that this video will continue to fuel efforts to end the racially discriminatory practice. I hope you’ll take a look at the powerful video—and find out what you can do to help defeat the program.

VP DEBATE. The vice presidential debate may have been more successful than the presidential one but, as John Nichols points out, we still have no idea what the specifics are of the Romney/Ryan tax plan. “On issue after issue,” writes Nichols, “the Republican vice presidential candidate danced around the details.” And unlike President Obama last week, Joe Biden was prepared to call out his opponent. For analysis, read Nichols’s piece, “Richard Milhous Ryan: No Specifics, Just a ‘Secret Plan.’ ” And you can find more debate coverage on TheNation.com from Emily Douglas on Martha Raddatz’s abortion question and Robert Dreyfuss on the foreign policy gap. Also, be sure to tune in to CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer on Sunday at 10:30 am ET, as I join a panel to discuss the debate and election.

PROGRESSIVES & ELECTION 2012. If you’re in New York City, please join me at The New School on Wednesday at 7 pm for a conversation about the role of progressives in the election. Featuring Chris Hayes, John Nichols, Patricia Williams and Ilyse Hogue, and moderated by Richard Kim, we’ll address how to balance support for the Democrats with the need to mobilize grassroots movements for social and economic causes. To find out more and sign up, click here.

RE-ELECT THE PRESIDENT. “The threat is clear: we can’t afford a Romney/Ryan victory.” In this week’s editorial, “Re-Elect the President,” published alongside a progressive forum on President Obama, we argue that Obama’s re-election is a necessary step in fighting for progressive change in 2012 and beyond. The forum brings together a range of journalists, activists and intellectuals to debate what a second Obama administration might look like—and how progressive movements will be, and have always been, crucial to election outcomes and policymaking. “Our progressive history is a history of getting our hope fix from movements, not just from individuals,” writes Deepak Bhargava, in the introduction. Francis Fox Piven and Lorraine C. Minnite stress that without both movement politics and electoral politics, neither can be effective. And Ai-Jen Poo makes the case that now more than ever people are ready to engage in a broad-based movement for economic justice.

DEBATE DEBACLE. On Wednesday night President Obama and Governor Romney stood together on stage in the first of three nationally televised debates. And the two candidates gave voters plenty to mull over. Romney promised, if elected, to fire Big Bird and moderator Jim Leher—perhaps one of only a handful of honest statements uttered by the former Bain Capital CEO. John Nichols explains that Romney, “whose debate performance was not encumbered by facts,” spent most of the evening capitalizing on a post-truth era of politics. Bryce Covert writes on the glaring failure (or in Romney’s case, a successful dodge) by the candidates to bring up those issues important to female voters. “Given all the unfettered candidate talking points and potpourri of disconnected issues,” writes Covert, “you’d think someone would have uttered the word ‘women.’” Also missing from the debate was any tangible discussion on how to tackle the problems of poverty and the environment in America; check out the questions the candidates should have answered, gathered by Greg Kaufmann and Mark Hertsgaard.

I also want to thank the over 600 readers who watched the debate live online with The Nation. If you missed this lively discussion, visit a replay of that chat here, and stay tuned as we continue to bring live conversations with Nation journalists throughout election season and beyond.

With Karl Rove’s efforts to oust the president ramping up but still looking likely to come up short, some will be tempted to declare that fears of a dark-money election era were overblown. Unfortunately, they couldn’t be more wrong. While Obama looks likely to survive (at the cost of his own concessions to big-money politics), dark-money elections are unfolding all around us, and undisclosed contributions could decide to what extent he actually gets to govern.

Just look at California. Republicans are still strong favorites to hold the House. But the US Chamber of Commerce isn’t taking any chances. As National Journal reported, the Chamber dropped $3.3 million for TV ads backing nine GOP House candidates in the state; most of that cash is just for ads airing between September 28 and October 7. Democrats have described the chance for seven California pick-ups as central to their hopes for the House. If an Obama sweep puts that dream in reach, the Chamber’s big spending could be what tears it away. (On Thursday, it announced another blitz, on behalf of six Republicans in New York state; it’s also supporting a couple conservative Democrats.)

Indeed, dark money from Super PACs and trade associations always posed the greatest threat in state and local races, where voters—and reporters—pay the least attention. That makes them a ripe target for secret donors, whose outsized ad-war firepower could determine who controls both houses of Congress. That’s a prospect that should scare big-D and small-d democrats alike.