Centerfield

Those who aren't Blue Dogs are mostly DLC Democrats. Not too many new left-liberal faces in COngress.

Posted by: Tully at November 20, 2006 04:41 PM

I read the Murtha thread at Kos. Wow.. There were liberals advocating a centrist position to strengthen Democrats for 2008 and angry replies by Kosites. Some bitter exchanges. A meltdown I enjoyed after listening to years of how Cheney brought doen the WTC.

Tully is right. This was a centrist victory (Blue Dogs and DLC) and Dean has made what seems to be a sharp turn. I take back some comments I made about the DNC. They were not as stupid as I feared. I think Hillary knew something we didn't while Kerry and others made fools of themselves pandering to the new left.

Lieberman was the icing on the cake given his now pivotal role. The question is what will happen.

I think a military draft is the wrong way to go, but I favor a national service program similar to the one I posted. It is good for the economy and a bit of a help to our military stretch, though I understand why many here oppose a strictly military draft as being very helpful (though constitutional).

I like the label, new left, as opposed to liberal (which is different despite Kos declarations). I've used that term for years. The new left in fact, is not very Democratic based on Democrat's past history. Many elements of the new left despise many of the positions Democrats have taken for thirty years including the support of Israel. The new left considers Democratic Hawks, dangerous neocons or nasty warmongers, which they are not. I suppose JFK, FDR, Truman, LBJ, and even Clinton were neocons using new left logic, instead of centrist Democrats with a bit of hawkishness..

One Kos poster put it best, "we have to move center to get Republicans to move left, that is the only way to create some national unity and deal with America's problems". (Paraphrased) Of course, he/she was immediately attacked...LOL
I do not think Kosites really added that much to Democratic turnout. The middle moved a bit left and there was some apathy on the right. It still was very close. Corruption, domestic and foreign policy mistakes, negligence, lack of Congressional accomplishment, a dull economy, all together packed a bigger punch than the anger of the new left and their center piece -Iraq.

I would like to think your blog (and centrist blogs in general) here played a role in impacting the DNC strategy and countering the Kosites from a less partisan position. Democrats, Republicans and Independents together here rejected the new left and rallied around those candidates, Republican, Independent or Democrat that behaved more like a centrist (whatever that is).

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 20, 2006 05:43 PM

Having known some of them then, I don't think new left logic and views have changed in the slightest since the late '60s (at least). Not only would the presidents that Max lists not fit the new left vision of what the Democrats should be, no Democratic president EVER would fit. The closest you can get is a couple of failed candidates . . . and just the ones who got seriously trounced, as opposed to merely losing.

And I'm not at all sure that the reality of having to actually run the country would have kept even those guys pure enough for the Kosites, had they somehow won instead.

Posted by: wj at November 21, 2006 12:23 AM

Having known some of them then, I don't think new left logic and views have changed in the slightest since the late '60s (at least).

No argument here.

And I'm not at all sure that the reality of having to actually run the country would have kept even those guys pure enough for the Kosites

It wouldn't have. Truism of politics--run to the wings for the nomination, to the middle for the election. Hardcore True Believer wingers almost never survive in office but most run to appeal to the wings in some fashion, so you never really know with a candidate what's just wing-appeasement and what's genuine belief, if any. And once you're actually in office, you have to actually govern, which means you either compromise or you lose almost all your battles. Almost NO ONE is ever pure enough for the wings (EITHER side) once they actually have to govern for real, instead of just in rhetoric.

Posted by: Tully at November 21, 2006 10:40 AM

Why laugh at the idea of the draft? What's the problem with the draft? We're at war, why should only some families be sacrificing? So much for patriotism. This is certainly not the country it was during WW2, this is a selfish generation. I can't imagine the America of today having to ration and other such things for the war effort as people did then.

Posted by: Laura at November 21, 2006 12:09 PM

Why laugh at the idea of the draft? What's the problem with the draft?

Mainly that we don't need one. That would top the list of why it's a stupid idea. The military is at full authorized strength, and meeting or exceeding recruiting quotas.

Rangel doesn't really want a military draft, he wants a government "indentured servitude" program. Compulsory mandatory community "volunteerism" is apparently his idea of promulgating his own peculiar "liberal" conception of civic values in a free society.

Or maybe he just thinks not enough people are getting convicted of DUI's to keep all the beer cans picked up.

Posted by: Tully at November 21, 2006 12:49 PM

I disagree Tully. Homeland Defense and a PeaceCorp HERE (helping to rebuild infrastructure as important as Iraq) is not a liberal fantasy. Worked for Sparta and Israel. I think Rangel's idea is to have the wealthy's children serving and thus reduce the chance that Congress would authorize force abroad. Maybe I am wrong. Many countries have a national service requirement and if the Congress approves, it would be Constitutional, Yes?

Another reason for not sending more troops is that WE CAN'T without weakening other positions. Did you object to the facts quoted in the Draft article I posted? It seemed a very cogent article that you did not comment on. It gets down to the inability to sustain more than 150,000 for more than four months, yes? Please explain in more detail why our present force can deal with all the crap now AND the likely problems we will soon face. I cannot seem to reconcile your opinion with almost every expert I have read. I am sure you will enlighten me.

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 21, 2006 05:40 PM

And do note that the only extreme (D) Presidential candidate nominated in memory - McGovern - was actually chosen more by Nixon than the electorate.

Posted by: Jon Kay at November 21, 2006 09:43 PM

tis a pity that Mathew as well as the rest of the RW echo chamber in the blogosphere as well as on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc... seems so obsessed by the more left leaning views than what is really going on.
Ooooh conflict. oooh danger danger Mr. Smith!
Give that 2 snaps and big yawn.
A lot of this one seems like wishful thinking, like they wish for some sign that the Democratic party will be unable to fulfill its duties because Pelosi lost a vote...
Seems to me I recall a certain Tom DeLay who was not the first choice of Newt G.
oooh reality bite. chomp chomp.

I do know one Congressional duty that the Democratic Party, unlike the Republican party, will perform: oversight
Another thing. I like cracks in the pavement. A majority full of competing ideas but united in the purpose of creating something better out of the current mess (including half a trillion in budget authorizations that the somewhat incapable GOP seemed unable to deal with) is much better than the lockstep marching of yes men we've had for most of the past 12 years. Maybe that's why the GOP lost. There was no spine left for the voters to see.

BTW, Nancy Pelosi is considering legislation that would provide severance pay to Republican House staffers who will find themselves out of work when their newly unelected bosses leave office at the end of this year. It's something the Republicans didn't do for Democratic staffers when the GOP took the House in 1994.

And that is San Francisco/Democratic values.

It's also San Francisco Republican values if one was acquainted with past Republican San Francisco mayors that we remember very fondly.

Posted by: Marcus at November 22, 2006 01:58 AM

I disagree Tully. Homeland Defense and a PeaceCorp HERE (helping to rebuild infrastructure as important as Iraq) is not a liberal fantasy. Worked for Sparta and Israel. I think Rangel's idea is to have the wealthy's children serving and thus reduce the chance that Congress would authorize force abroad. Maybe I am wrong. Many countries have a national service requirement and if the Congress approves, it would be Constitutional, Yes?

No. The constitutional basis for the draft is Congress' Article I power to raise armies, and the reflected power of the states to call forth the militias for insurrection and invasion. Compulsory community work doesn't make that grade. Nor are we Sparta or Israel, both societies noted a lot more for their central military authority rather than an independent libertarian-republic foundation, however mangled that tradition may be nowadays.

Yes indeedy, it's a "liberal" fantasy--more precisely, a communitarian statist fantasy, not all that far removed from the Youth Brigades of Mao and Stalin. Millions of young people in their formative philosophical years being involuntarily "trained" into the service of the state's benevolent bureaucrats for good works--as defined by said bureaucrats, of course. The closest c0mparison in our history would be the WPA, and that didn't require a draft. People were begging to get in for those few dollars a day. The military didn't need a draft during the Depression either, as people were lining up for any job with a steady paycheck and meals, however thin.

It's also a lousy idea financially--a rough analysis of Rangel's proposal puts the cost at a fairly conservative $750 BILLION a year. That would be a 30+% increase in current overall federal spending levels, almost as much as ALL current discretionary and defense spending combined. Call it an economy-crushing doubling of income taxes. Good luck getting that through Congress!

We already have some considerable volunteer forces in the US for Homeland Security and "good works." AmeriCorps. VISTA. Citizens Corps, including CERT/MMRS and other HS programs. I have some pretty direct involvement in the latter, and have worked with many AmeriCorps teams. The LAST thing they need is a bunch of disgruntled draftees destroying what effectiveness they possess. (Ask a Ford/Carter-era veteran how well the military worked with a blend of draftees and volunteers in the post-Vietnam years. It wasn't pretty.)

Nor do I think we need massive troop flooding in Iraq, or that it would be all that effective. It could well make things worse. Bobby knows far more about that than I do, but IMHO we're not in stomp-em-flat-with-numbers "military solution" territory, and haven't been for well over a year. In a nutshell, there is no Iraq-only "solution," and you'd have to be pretty dim to think so. We're seeing a proxy war with Iran and Syria overlaid with internal score-settling and feuding between tribal and religious factions. You cannot "solve" Iraq in isolation, you must address the entire Middle East problem, particularly the unfettered ambitions of Iraq and Syria and the regional jihadis, ranging from Afghanistan to Lebanon and points west.

For all the talk about the "deteriorating security situation" in Iraq, violence has actually reduced since the expected Ramadan flare-up, to levels last seen a year ago. While you'd never know it from popular media reports (All DOOOOOM All The Time!) progress is definitely being made, and most of the major players have been ID'd for focus. What is needed is not more force, it's smarter force. I would fully expect the Pentagon to shift more towards embedding of advisory teams with Iraqi units and a smaller US troop presence, mostly a rapid reaction force to support Iraqi units.

I've said for three years--and taken massive amounts of corresponding flak from the stridently simplistic for doing so--that the ultimate "win" in Iraq must be produced by the Iraqis. That's the whole point of nation-building, to produce a stand-alone nation. To use a bad analogy (all analogy being suspect) you don't get a functioning adult by doing everything for your child, you have to teach the child to do for themself and provide support until they get it right. You have to build the child's skill set and gently push them out into the real world. It's not a choice between coddling them forever with a security team or simply pitching them out the door on their birthday, or when they flunk a semester and hang out with bad company. You don't really help them (other than temporarily) by bailing them out every time. Instead you grit your teeth and do as little as possible and help them ride it out and survive until they mature enough to handle it themselves. Well, hey, I said it was a bad analogy, but I think the point is clear.

I blame MTV and societal ADD.

Posted by: Tully at November 22, 2006 11:54 AM

Tully;

It's also a lousy idea financially--a rough analysis of Rangel's proposal puts the cost at a fairly conservative $750 BILLION a year. That would be a 30+% increase in current overall federal spending levels, almost as much as ALL current discretionary and defense spending combined. Call it an economy-crushing doubling of income taxes. Good luck getting that through Congress!

You didn't think they were going to pay these draftees did you?

Posted by: c3 at November 22, 2006 02:37 PM

That was using the assumption of E-2 private's pay plus required material support. Eliminate the pay and just leave the material support (gotta feed and house 'em) and it's still $250B or more.

That's before the price of the makework projects themselves. And the whips and chains.

Posted by: Tully at November 22, 2006 02:44 PM

Here's one small example of the kind of news on Iraq that you don't see on the six o'clock news. And this is exactly the kind of thing you need to know to form any meaningful opinion.

Posted by: Tully at November 22, 2006 04:57 PM

I understand your answer Tully, but you did not comment on the Draft article I linked in the Draft thread. "If" we are stretched thin in Iraq now and can't even take out those Syrian and Iranian proxy militias (the authors claim we can't sustain more than 130,000 in Iraq FOR MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS without weakening our military), how could we even "threaten" Iran? Don’t their actions indicate they “think” we are tapped (and trapped)? hitting them by air will probably not take out their capacity to produce a nuke.

I am sure you agree events could quickly require some serious force in the Gulf and again, the authors conclude we don't have the manpower (and perhaps the Intel&surge capacity). Are they right? I was surprised how 1.4 million gets reduced to a strain in Iraq (forgetting your logic about not needed more troops) and a questionable amount available for Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and elsewhere if needed. Wouldn't more troops send a signal to Iran -who obviously thinks we are bluffing?

Again, Baker meets with the Syrians who promise to help peace and then they green light a hit in Lebanon. Putin can’t be trusted and is unwilling to stop arming Iran, who continues to export weapons. AQ responds to the Democratic victory by vowing to destroy the White House. Some estimates put 12,000 AQ in Iraq. "If" we need a big stick to back up the carrots or respond to the crap that is unfolding, why do you claim our present strength is sufficient? You know I am a bit dense, so can you direct me to the data that shows our present disposition can deal with the threats we have talked about here at least since I have posted (and probably before), without unnecessarily putting our troops in peril (beyond what they signed up for).

I might remark that presently there is no plan to replace our power grid. If a national service program could help as well as additional military assistance (need to increase the guard to do that) in a WPA-like project, there are hundreds of billions to be saved on our energy bill. Your estimate of costs do not take into account these savings in tasks accomplished -new energy delivery systems, carbon sequestering, homeland defense (possibly stopping a trillion dollar attack)etc. I know high school graduates aren't suddenly going to get the skills required to build these things, but they do represent manpower where there is little now, Perhaps we could take the cost of Rangel's plan and be better served by paying people to enter a WPA-like program without a draft. The point is if there are no takers, then what? There are plenty of illegals that would be willing. In any case, we are still enormously understaffed in homeland defense, without a coherent policy to revitalize our energy infrastructure, lacking equipment for the reserves (who are stretched), and I assume, lacking a safe surge capacity for events that seem likely to occur with each passing day (unless we just give up).

I agree about the Iraqis-must-do-more logic but I think it is a mistake not to have more "Big Stick" force on Iraq's borders and also be able to hit militias and insurgents harder. I wonder what will happen if hostilities escalate and if the Taliban pick up more strength.

Sorry to be so repetitive, but given the stretch in Iraq, why do you seem comfortable with our capacity to deal with contingencies, should they occur. Doesn’t a lack of capacity hamper the decisions we make (or further the capitulations)? May we could draft the healthy unemployed and give them skills and medical benefits. I just see a sliding into the toilet as our politicians whimper. We have devolved far past “Ask not what your country can do for you……..”

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 22, 2006 05:06 PM

UH, Tully,

Harry Truman advocated Universal Military Training in the 40s. I didn't think he was a Stalinist.

I'm generally against programs that require people to "volunteer" for community service. In Maryland, there is a requirement for community service in order to graduate from high school. I think it's a facical law. But it's hardly Mao or Stalin type stuff.

I have been saying for a long time that people pay way too much attention to the blogosphere, especially the left-wing blogosphere. Most people I know that are Democrats don't expect an ideologically pure party. And, as far as I'm concerned, Kos is primarily on a huge ego trip.

If you want to call the Kossacks and the like "the new left" that might be an appropriate way of differentiating them from the DLC or more centrist types. But if you are implying that they are similar to the 60s "New Left" I think you are wrong. They are very liberal, but hardly revolutionary. I don't think they are quoting Mao's Little Red Book. As annoying as they are, there really is little legitimate comparison.

And let's face it, Kos isn't that much different from the conservative wing of the GOP in, say the mid-70s. They successfully navigated a takeover from the Eastern Establishment. Of course, I think it's crazy for liberals to think that will happen, but I think if you had suggested to most people (including conservatives) in the 50s, 60s, or 70s that there would be a conservative takeover, they would have thought you were crazy.

Posted by: Marc at November 24, 2006 05:41 PM

Funny thing is Mark, that the Chomsky wing went into the dark after the wall came down and they were hardly pleased with Clinton.

I call it the new left because Bush produced such hostility left of center that the "far left" stepped forward to lead the media charge against him. The Democrats welcomed the antiwar wing in and did little to curtail their comments. I guess they figured they could use the extra votes.

Let's hope we won't really need a draft. As more people navigate the web, Kosian spin might play a bigger role than conservative adverts do in the 50-80s. We can see that despite new left victories, the media blitz has significantly shaped the perception to the point we ignore hit squads (even the Russian kind), AQ in Iraq, Iran building a bomb, North Korea ignoring all and genocide on the rise.

September Scientific Amer had a great issue on energy. If we don't rebuild our power system and move on alternatives we will be beholden to oil and a rising temperature. Perhaps a WPA program is in order as well as how we deal with the energy companies.

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 25, 2006 12:23 PM

Hey, max, I can't comment on everything. There's life, you see....

Harry Truman advocated Universal Military Training in the 40s. I didn't think he was a Stalinist.

Marc, that Truman may have advocated universal military training (as compared to forced terms of actual "national service," which is what Rangel proposes) doesn't make Rangel's proposal any less of a liberal communitarian statist fantasy, nor change the fact that it sounds an awful lot like the Youth Corps of the USSR and China. Rangel knows we can't use but a small fraction of the people he would draft in the military. It's a slave-labor draft for "national service." Heh. Forced "volunteerism." For our own good, of course.

No, Truman wasn't a Stalinist. That's a straw man. But he was a "liberal." I'm not sure where you got the rest of what you're attributing to me there.

Posted by: Tully at November 27, 2006 02:10 PM

I found: rape stories o

Posted by: forced sex at December 2, 2006 08:09 PM