Centerfield

Are we surprised? I expected Voinovich to get attacked since he's "wavering" on the Bolton nomination. Politically that could be a good thing. Electorate doesn't like attacks from the fringe. Unforutnately one has to get through the primary first and usually "the fringe" dominate the primaries.

Since Steny Hoyer is my congressman, I was rather surprised to learn of his support for the bankruptcy bill. I called his office and discovered he has supported the earlier versions of this bill.

I'm not sure what MoveOn.org thinks they are getting by pointing this out to his constituents, though. He is well-liked in the district and had token republican opposition during the last election. The ads could be better used on incumbents facing closer elections.

The howling mobs want blood, and the assorted Inquisitions feel they must oblige. Sad.

Do these ads influence voters, or just fat cats that sponser the groups?

Well, let's be realistic. MoveOn is against the bankruptcy bill--why shouldn't they complain about someone who favors it? Obviously, they think that this is an issue Democrats should not support. You can argue about that, but you can't expect partisans not to be partisan. I think it's a little naive to expect people on one side of the other to just say, well, ok, I disagree but no problem. When you say most people are "in the middle" I think that's sort of a meaningless comment. People might be generally in the middle, but they likely have strong opinions on particular issues. Obviously, MoveOn prefers liberals and Move American Forward prefers conservatives. I don't think being in the middle should provide immunity to politicians from attacks--it's not enough to say, I'm in the middle, you have to explain how this particular position benefits America.

I don't think it's necessarily difficult to be in the middle. But I think your positions have to reflect the wishes of your constituency--they can't just be in the middle for the sake of being in the middle.

Partisan groups are attacking the insufficiently loyal, those unwilling to march in lockstep. It's no surprise. If not laughable, it's at least predictable.

I think both these guys come out smelling better to their constituents. The critics Rick cite simply come off as rigid and dogmatic. I think partisans show their true colors and look worst when they attack such centrists, because then the partisns give off the egomaniacal "we're always right and the other guys make no good points" whiff. White and Black should leave the Grays alone and stick to smacking each other.

I'm no fan of MoveOn.org's politics, even though I think the bankruptcy bill is a travesty, but Move America Forward is a horse of a different color. They're running ads against a popular Republican senator accusing him of being a traitor to George Bush for being concerned about John Bolton.

Instead of talking sadly about how hard it is being a centrist, fight back. Support Voinovich, and the idea that middle America doesn't need an ideologue and bomb-thrower like John Bolton at the UN. Groups like MAF poison the polity, and it shouldn't only be Democrats and progressive groups criticizing them.

i'm thinking of unsubscribing from moveon.

LJ, eh? I'm a fan.

Interestingly enough, the Senate's only "Independent" has just called it quits. Back, to things that matter...

Both of these guys do come out smelling like a rose to their constituents, simply because no voter wants to feel as if their representative is "controlled." They like someone who occasionaly stands up--even to their own party--because it speaks of someone who has their own mind.

Voinivich was a popular Ohio Governor. The R's can't and wouldn't even try to unseat him in the primaries. He's no Specter to them.

For those of you defending Voinovich, let me ask this: do you support the politics of personal destruction? Do you support using personal attacks as a substitute for legitimate political discourse about the merits of a nominee?

Voinovich, who did not bother to attend the committee hearings at which Bolton and others testified, called for the delay, not because he was concerned about Bolton's hostility to the U.N., but because of last-minute charges of some kind of sexual harassment. Had Voinovich attended the hearings he skipped, he would have seen that the charges of improperly chastising intelligence workers who were delivering faulty product had been pretty thoroughly debunked, and it was only after these debunkings that the other charges suddenly appeared.

In other words, Voinovich did not suddenly have an attack of conscience over whether someone as skeptical toward the U.N. as Bolton should be appointed. He just decided that because the Democrats seemed to be really, really serious about this, we should wait.

I certainly don't support partisan political operavtives tossing around terms like "traitor to the party", but frankly I don't see much evidence that Voinovich was acting out of any deep-seated principles or anything like that. If he wants to say, hey, this guy's politics are out there too far and Powell has been conspicuously quiet and I just don't think he'd make a good ambassador, that would be one thing. But instead he seems to have taken the politically-easier way out of latching on to last-minute allegations of personal impropriety, which at this point do not appear to be at all well supported.

And frankly, the way the Democrats have used the filibuster to stop all debate and all votes on certain judicial nominees, I don't trust them when they say that they merely want more time to "debate" a nominee.

One of the problems with moderates is that they can sell out to the other side and be seen as heroic people of principle. Voinovich's absence followed by such a dramatic appearance reeks of a deal with the Democrats who are desperate for a victory here. I just have to laugh at the commenter who sees MAF as poison and MoveOn.org as something entirely different.

Wasn't it Hagel that said he would vote for his nomination out of committee and then against Bolton in the full senate? Why isn't Move America Forward campaigning against him?

Voinivich is a Purple State governor, whose district is in the democratic-leaning Northeastern part of the state. That he is opposed to Bolton is NOT selling out to the "other" side, but is being sensitive to his constituents. DUH! I think that every rigid partisan "loyalist" risks alienating their local audience. (Just look at Daschle)

PS
I grew up in N. Ohio under V's governorship.

I'm curious as to why anyone would support that Bankruptcy bill. It's a lousy bill and as a law will cause a lot of people to hurt. Move On is correct to be pissed at Hoyer.

As far as the Bolton nomination goes..I was a little surprised at Voinivich. But Bolton does have some problems..and the harassment thing isn't the worst of them. Witholding information from Rice and Powell on Iran is probably the worst of it.

Daniel Drezner has some interesting comments on the Bolton nomination. One of them, courtesy of Matthew Yglesias, seems relevant to carla’s point about withholding information.

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002011.html

I'm sorry but as I read this thread one phrase keeps popping into my head (maybe in light of our new Pope selection)

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"!!

It's unfortunate that some seem to think that these attacks are justified or are politics as usual. Isn't it odd that rather than using their money to influence debate or attack members of the other party, MAF and MoveOn are instead enforcing party discipline?

The issue isn't whether or not these moderates are making the "right" decision or whether they're trying to look heroic. The issue is that American politics is being consumed by groups who want government to be run on partisanship, where party rule is substituted for debate--decisions made on high and then executed by elected officials.

Let's hope that those who think these moves will actually help moderates are right. That'd be great, but in the meantime, I'll be donating as much time and money as I can to helping the centrists stay in office and stay vocal.

It might be true that most Americans are in the middle but the vast number of advocacy groups are on the edges. It's time for us to speak louder.

Earlier today I drafted a comment to the effect that with two weeks available someone like Anita Hill is being vetted and will soon be front and center right along with “don’t question her too harshly, she has suffered enough.” I decided that such a comment was too tasteless, far out and cynical to offer. Now I don’t know. Given the money available nowadays from people like Soros, “finding” these ladies at time of need and “encouraging them to come forward” must be very, very lucrative. Look what came out of the woodwork when it looked like groping charges could stop The Governator. Yeah, I know, I am at fault for demeaning our political discussion with these tasteless suspicions. Sorry. Nothing like that would be allowed to mar the serious considerations during a Senate confirmation hearing.

Do I "support the politics of personal destruction"? Whatever. Frankly, I think that bumpersticker phrase came from Hillary Clinton.

With regard to John Bolton and "personal destruction," you'll note that absolutely none of the issues surrounding John Bolton involves his personal life, whom he sleeps with, what kind of porn he likes, and whether he once made ethnic jokes in poor taste.

All of these issues surround Bolton's job performance. Sorry, but whether you harass, intimidate, abuse, or retaliate against subordinates is part and parcel of job performance. That's a no-brainer. Voinovich recognized that, and decided to delay voting because of these job issues. Workplace ethics are not private and personal, they are public and personal.

So the "personal destruction" shot is just a red herring.

As for MoveOn, I think it is stupid to run ads targeting people in your own party -- which MoveOn did as I later read. In that respect, they're certainly in the same league as the MAF folks.

Folks can attack Voinovich because he wasn't able to attend the hearings, but he obviously made his decision because he realized that whatever the White House told him about the charges didn't measure up to what he was hearing in committee. Lugar was trying to rush through this vote with a profoundly incomplete record, with State obstructing witnesses and documents, and with evidently untruthful testimony from Bolton.

I think the MAF attack on Sen. Voinovich will backfire. Sen. Voinovich is up for re-election in 5.5 years. That's a long time. As someone pointed out northeast ohio constituents may not be that upset over his opposition to Bolton. I doubt he will lose any financial support over it and he won't be defeated in a repub primary assuming he doesn't retire at the end of this term.

I think Voinovich will get pis$ed off about the ads and harden his opposition to Bolton out of spite and because he won't want to look like he's backing down in the face of the ad campaign. This whole operation is amateur hour as far as I'm concerned. The senate is not the house - senators have a net worth of at least 1 million on avg(I think) and they have their own financial backing in terms of fundraising - they don't really need the support of the national party to be re-elected as sen. specter showed recently. And senators aren't easily marginalized as house member are - every vote counts in the senate and if the Bush administration wants to start alienating republican senators they will regret it. I keep hearing these idiot freepers saying things like "why can't dubya crack heads and get these senators in line...why can't frist enforce party discipline"? Because it's the senate not the house as$holes. Senators can push back and I think people will regret this attempt to intimidate moderates when the supreme court nominations come around. They'll find out what happens when/if people decide to hold a grudge over perceived slights - senators don't consider themselves the b!tch of their party for the most part. Look at Chafee's comments to the effect of "well I'm sure they'll pressure Voinovich, then it's up to the rest of us that have doubts about Bolton[paraphrasing]". Yeah watch out when a couple of these senators start to hang together against perceived intimidation from the white house and/or RNC. And now that Santorum is backing away from the nuclear option they'll have even less of a margin to confirm supreme court nominees. I wonder if the dumbas$es at FR realize this. Bullies often overplay their hand and the idiot rush limbaugh crowd will be the ones crying when they can't get the supreme court packed with bible thumpers. I want these fools to try airing attack ads here in rhode island - good luck. There aren't that many republicans in this state - I'm one of them and I know it. Democrats could easily counteract a national strategy to unseat Chafee by crossing over in the primary - and it wouldn't take many to guarantee Chafee as the republican senate candidate in 2006. I can still hear the dumbf*cks at FR saying "yeah we need to get rid of these moderates...they can kiss their a$s goodbye in the next election...they're done". BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good luck kids. While you're at it why don't you unseat McCain in arizona or a democrat - teddy kennedy in massachusetts. Let me know how it goes.

Rick Heller is right: it is often difficult to be in the middle politically. For some people, that is an adaquate defense. I think that there are more people, however, who are generally interested in hearing a defense of whatever action caused the existing controversy.