« July 2003 | Main | February 2004 »
Sorry about the dearth of posts since yesterday morning. Needless to say, things haven't turned out exactly as planned.
Anyway, I'm hoping to have a little more luck when we reach Columbia later today; if not, look for blogging to resume at some point tomorrow.
Here's Andrew Sullivan, on a recent New Yorker essay by Josh Marshall:
Josh Marshall has written an engaging and artful essay about the notion of an American empire for the liberal New Yorker magazine. I read it yesterday and then re-read it. Josh manages to write about the Clinton era "soft-imperialism" and the Bush era "hard imperialism" with nary a mention of a certain even that occurred on September 11, 2001. Maybe I missed something. I doubt if his editors noticed the lacuna. Why should they? For the Clintonites, 9/11 didn't really happen.
And here's the fifth paragraph of Josh's piece:
For leftist critics of America’s role in the world, it has long been a baleful article of faith that the United States is an agent of “neo-imperialism,” exerting its power through global capital and through organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. After September 11th, a left-wing accusation became a right-wing aspiration: conservatives increasingly began to espouse a world view that was unapologetically imperialist. You could watch this happening in Washington’s think tanks. Over their lunchroom tables, in their seminar rooms, on the covers of their small magazines, the idea of empire got a thorough airing—particularly among ideologues close to the policymakers planning the war on terror. At a panel discussion in the middle of 2002, I first heard “Middle East reform”—as in making the Middle East democratic and bourgeois—spoken of the way people speak of welfare reform. As the military historian Max Boot wrote in The Weekly Standard, “Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets.” [Emph. added.]
Jesus. After a certain point, there's really nothing left to say, is there?
If all goes according to plan, Carla and I will be in Greenville tonight for the MSNBC debate, and then in Columbia tomorrow for a day of campaigning and an evening of Hootie fundraising. Assuming the laptop holds up, I'll be blogging it all.
POSTSCRIPT: And speaking of the beautiful, smart, tough and utterly charming Mrs. O'Toole, guess who's turning thir twenty-nine again today?
Happy birthday, my love.
Is John Kerry right? Can Democrats win the White House without the South?
Sure. In fact, with the exception of Florida and maybe a border state or two, that's precisely what our nominee will try to do.
But with all due respect to Sen. Kerry, that's really not the right question.
The important question is this: Can Democrats win the White House without forcing George W. Bush to spend at least some time and resources protecting his Southern base? Can we win if the Bush campaign rightly feels free to pour every penny of its $200 million war chest into the handful of battleground states that will actually decide this election -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, et al.?
And the answer to that question is no.
Just another thought for New Hampshire voters to take with them today as they trudge through the ice and snow to do their bit for democracy....
POSTSCRIPT: It's been almost half a century since the Democratic party has elected a president without a Southern accent. Is that just an electoral fluke? Or does it tell us something important about what it takes for Democrats to win national elections? You make the call.
Safire pulls a Finkelstein...There's a Republican political consultant named Arthur Finkelstein who rather famously spent the tail-end of his once-celebrated career consistently embarrassing himself and his clients by failing -- publicly and spectacularly -- to transform the endless incantation of phrases like, "LIBERAL, DANGEROUSLY LIBERAL, SCARILY LIBERAL," into a winning political strategy.
Today, William Safire attempts the same bit of political alchemy with regard to Democratic front-runners John Kerry and John Edwards -- and, not surprisingly, the results are every bit as cringe-inducing as Finkelstein's most ham-fisted efforts.
As Don Imus sometimes unkindly says, Jesus, it's time to pin a note on that guy's sweater and drop him off at the dog track.
POSTSCRIPT: John Edwards isn't asking anybody to guess where he stands on the issues; he's laid it all out in a detailed policy book called Real Solutions for America. If you haven't had a chance yet, read it here, and you'll quickly discover that John Edwards is, in fact, "MAINSTREAM, DANGEROUSLY MAINSTREAM, SCARILY MAINSTREAM." And that, folks, is a winning political strategy.
Point of personal privilege... Matt Yglesias says:
I saw some poll on TV indicating that some large majority of people now think Howard Dean doesn't have the necessary "temperament" to be president. People suck. Based on my encounter with the man, backed up by things I've heard from others, the most legit critique of his temperament you could make is that he's stubborn. We now know, moreover, that he sometimes yells at political rallies. The current president, by contrast, is more-or-less by his own admission a lazy, stupid drunk. Low blow? Perhaps, but if we really want to play temperament, that's the way it's going to have to be. [Emph. added.]
Now, Matt, I don't know why the president's body, or mine for that matter, seems to respond differently to alcohol than the average person's; frankly, it's one of the great mysteries of my life. But I do know that those of us who have done whatever the hell it took to stop pouring liquor down our throats 24/7 have earned the right not to be called drunks by anyone, including smart-assed kids trying to score easy political points on their weblogs.
Like most Democrats (and Republicans, in fact), I think that every single American who has reached a point in his life where he works hard and plays by the rules deserves to be treated with at least a modicum of dignity and respect. And unless you happen to disagree with that sentiment, Matt, I'd really appreciate it if you made some small effort to extend that simple courtesy to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. -- and to all the rest of us who wake up every morning in humbler glass houses.
POSTSCRIPT: Aside from the out-of-character post quoted above, Matt's site is, as always, a witty and erudite rebuke to all those who continue to insist that political blogs just don't matter. Go read it now.
UPDATE: All of which puts me in mind of the bumper sticker that's guaranteed to get you stopped every day of the week and twice on Sunday: I'm an alcoholic and I vote!
Quote of the day... "There are rare times in a candidate's career when his or her carefully manufactured message begins to exceed the bounds of normal political rhetoric and approach something closer to fundamental truth. Over the past three weeks in Iowa, Sen. John Edwards' (D-N.C.) stump speech did something like that, transforming him from also-ran to contender for the Democratic nomination." -- Garance Franke-Ruta, The American Prospect ("Closing Arguments" 1/23/04)
Drudge vs. the LA Times... Just what is it about John Edwards that scares Matt Drudge so much?
Yesterday, he was accusing Edwards of ... supporting Bill Clinton's position on Social Security! And today, he argues that by spending more than $729,600 in NH, Edwards has by definition violated the state's FEC spending caps -- a silly charge that's directly contradicted by this LA Times article.
C'mon, Matt -- there's just no there there. Time to move on, big fella.
Newsflash: Edwards supported Clinton... When I saw yesterday that Matt Drudge was promising to reveal the results of his "investigation" into the "mystery man," John Edwards, I have to admit my stomach did a quick back flip or two. Just what kind of sludge was about to get dumped on Edwards' head?
Well, it turns out that Drudge has caught Edwards -- get this now -- speaking kindly of a Clinton administration proposal to let an independent commission of some kind experiment with investing a small percentage of the Social Security surplus in the market, while leaving in place the guarantee that seniors now and in the future would get the benefits to which they're entitled under current law.
Wow! Next, Matt will be revealing that Edwards has been ... a good husband and father! And a terrific lawyer who's really helped people!
Sheesh.
Another Edwards convert?... After a year of doubts, TNR's Franklin Foer says John Edwards is "becoming too damn good to resist." Find out why here.
Can Clark survive without Dean?... Right from the start, the stated rationale for Wes Clark's candidacy has been simple: "I'm the only Democrat who can beat George Bush in the fall." But the larger and far more compelling rationale has always been, "I'm the Democrat who can beat George Bush in the fall because I'm the only one who can beat Howard Dean now."
And that's why, in light of Dr. Dean's current difficulties, the most interesting question about tonight's NH debate will be whether Gen. Clark and his team have been able to come up with another convincing reason for Democrats to take a chance on a candidate who, despite an important and honorable record of public service, has never actually demonstrated the ability to win an election. I suspect that that's a pretty big hill to climb, and it'll be fascinating to see how he tries to go about it.
Edwards and Kerry: Tony Blair Democrats... Tom Friedman gets it just about right in today's New York Times.
A glimpse of the future... Despite my strong and vocal opposition to his candidacy, I've been careful over the past couple of days not to kick Gov. Dean and his supporters while they're down. They don't need it, and, honestly, they don't deserve it.
Nonetheless, I'm going to link to this devastating story by Mark Z. Barabak and Faye Fiore in today's LA Times; Democrats who care about defeating George Bush this fall need to read it carefully, and understand that it's just a preview of coming attractions if we insist on nominating the former governor of Vermont.
A SOTU thanks... I don't really have anything of substance to say about last night's SOTU -- it was essentially the same old Bush stuff, and you either like it or you don't. But I do want to take a moment this morning to thank all the men and women, civilian and military, who work so hard to keep the country's leaders safe during these sorts of public events. We're deeply grateful for your efforts, and we honor your service.
The money question... Over the past twenty-four hours, I've seen an awful lot of analysis from the Dean and Clark camps suggesting that Kerry and Edwards will have less success than expected coming out of Iowa because of their relative inability to raise money. Which would make sense if the Dean/Clark fundraising advantage to date were based on traditional fundraising practices and procedures. But of course that's not the case. In fact, the Internet-based fundraising strategy they've adopted -- in essence, turning a campaign contribution into an impulse purchase -- is so radically different from the "investment" fundraising model of previous years that we really can't make any meaningful assumptions about it at this point.
For example, here's a link to John Edwards' contributions page. And if even one person reading this blog were to follow it and throw a few bucks in the till, that would raise serious questions about the entire premise of the Dean/Clark argument outlined above. So, if you're of a mind to, why not just go ahead and start proving them wrong right now?
POSTSCRIPT: When this post first went up, there was a short addendum on the twinning of Dean and Clark. After reading it over, though, I decided it needed to be fleshed out as a separate post. Look for it later today or tomorrow.
UPDATE (1/22): Josh Marshall makes a similar point here.
Congrats to the Comeback Kerry... I just wanted to take a brief break here from shamelessly shilling for my candidate to sincerely congratulate Sen. Kerry and all his supporters. You folks ran a helluva campaign in Iowa -- gritty, smart and utterly determined. My hat's off to each and every one of you.
The politics of hope... John Edwards likes to say that America wasn't built by cynics, it was built by optimists. And tonight, we Democrats sent a powerful message to the American people by embracing Edwards' politics of hope.
I'll have a lot more to say about all this in the next few days, of course. Right now, I'd just like to ask you to consider getting involved with the campaign. (The official site is here. The individual state sites that you can use to get involved in your local Edwards campaign are here. And campaign contributions are gladly accepted here.)
Together, we really can rekindle the natural optimism of America, and put our government back on the side of regular people. Please join us today.
(Updated 1/21: See the comments for details.)
Last minute campaigning... If you live in Iowa, you have a great honor and a real responsibility today: You get to decide whether the Democratic effort to unseat George Bush begins as an optimistic, hopeful campaign based on the ideas and values that bring us together as Americans, or as an angry and ultimately futile attempt to convince a majority of the American people that our opponent is a really, really bad guy.
Please, cast your vote for hope. Cast it for a responsible approach to national security, and for economic policies designed to strengthen and expand the middle class. Cast it for the kind of campaign that Franklin Roosevelt and Jack Kennedy and Bill Clinton taught us how to run.
Vote for John Edwards.
The politics of subtraction... Let's see now. Three weeks ago, the self-anointed Pope of Party Purity excommunicated several million centrist Dems like me because he's decided that we're nothing more than "the Republican wing of the Democratic party." And now, with his once-sizable Granite State lead slipping, the prickly pontiff is doing the same thing to Wes Clark and his supporters in New Hampshire.
You know, I guess Dr. Dean really is a fiscal conservative. Another month like this one and we'll be able to save some serious money by simply moving the Democratic convention into a phone booth in Montpelier.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum makes a not dissimilar point here.
'Tis true... In a Wes Clark-related post, Mark Kleiman makes this spot-on observation: "I have noticed that, on this topic and others, essays that support the position I have already taken are consistently more cogently argued, and better supported by the facts, than essays opposing that position. "
Oddly enough, I've noticed the same thing myself.
Where are the Dems?... In Slate's Iraq war dialogue, Terror and Liberalism author Paul Berman has some tough words for George Bush -- and a tough question for Democrats.
[T]otalitarian movements can ultimately be defeated only in the realm of ideas. Millions of people have to be persuaded to change their ideas. Not forced—persuaded. Which is to say, someone has to go out there and try to persuade people.On this point, which happens to be the most important point of all, Bush has failed us almost totally. It is pretty outrageous. His failure to take up these matters ought to be seen as a calamity. But then, who has been making up for this terrible failure of his? Who has taken up the burden to wage a really extensive war of ideas, a war of TV networks, radio programs, lectures, books, magazines, and everything else? I don't mean something small—I mean a massive campaign.
I think the political right is incapable of waging such a war, by virtue of its own militaristic and isolationist instincts. The neocons do sometimes talk about a war of ideas, but, on these matters, neoconservatism is all talk, no action. So, then, this should be the business of people on the left side of the spectrum. But where are the Democrats, on these matters? The left? This is truly a problem, and nobody seems to be doing very much about it, not on a grand scale, anyway.
Berman's right -- perhaps tragically so. As a group, we Democrats haven't truly begun to reckon with the challenge of 9-11, and the price of that abdication, for us and for the world, has already been high. Very high.
In truth, the great and terrible conflicts of the last century were, as Bob Dole once nastily and quite correctly put it, "Democrat wars." As this one must be, if we're to win it.
UPDATE: Jesus, already an angry email from an anti-war Dem who thinks I'm calling her a fifth columnist. For the record, I'm not. In fact, if you want to know what I think of people who do call Democrats fifth columnists, click here.
UPDATE 2: More in the comments.
Cone on Win With Edwards... I meant to mention this the other day and it slipped my mind.
Ed Cone has been keeping tabs on the Win With Edwards project since its unofficial launch late last week, and he's really been quite kind with regard to our efforts. Thanks, Ed!
POSTSCRIPT: For background on the project, see this post. And to get involved in your state's Edwards website, please visit Win With Edwards and register, or send along an email. We'll be happy to help you get started.
NOTE: No knowledge of HTML is required. If you can use a word processor, you can help edit any one of these sites.
Show me -- and them -- the money... Unlike some of my fellow Dems, I don't have any particular problem with the idea of the federal government working with lower-income couples to encourage and promote healthy marriages.
But note the utter hypocrisy of President Bush's proposal.
What's his answer to every problem facing the investor class in America? Why, tax cuts, of course, because what those folks really need is more money in their pockets.
And what has he decided to offer the millions of Americans struggling to form and preserve stable families on little more than a stubborn belief in the power of love and whatever Manpower Inc. can get away with paying this week? A billion-and-a-half bucks worth of counseling!
Sure, President Bush is a compassionate conservative. As long as that only means being compassionate to conservatives.
POSTSCRIPT: And, puh-lease, don't try to tell me that those folks can't have a tax cut because they don't pay any taxes. How about a federal rebate of their state sales taxes? Or tax credits designed to help them pull together the down payment on a house.
Conservatives can be wonderfully creative when it comes to finding tax cuts for the people who finance their campaigns. I'm just asking them to do the same for hard-pressed families who are doing their damnedest to work hard and play by the rules.
Quote of the day, or, The unkindest cut of all... "What the administration got wrong it got wrong because it didn't care about the intelligence. Like certain French intellectuals, it knew the truth apart from the facts and found its own facts to fit the truth." -- New Yorker writer (and Iraq war supporter) George Packer on the Bush administration's intellectual dishonesty in the run-up to the war in Iraq
POSTSCRIPT & FULL DISCLOSURE: Just in case you're new to these parts, I should probably point out that I supported the war with significant reservations myself. And I still do, though, like many other pro-war Dems, I've grown thoroughly disgusted by the duplicitous communications strategy the administration deployed to bring the American people along.