Centerfield

Recall

On the surface of it the California recall is the exercise of a direct popular power to limit abuse by elected officials, but the devil is, in fact, in the details:

The Washington Post speculates on which direction the recall is breaking

And the numbers come out the same - Davis might be more popular that the man who replaces him. Some how, while the idea of being able to recall an official who has failed to do the job, the result is that Davis could get 49% of the vote and be sent home to be replaced by someone who gets as little as 30%.

In a larger sense, the whole affair shows why mass media based politics is fundamentally flawed. Davis reached the governor's mansion by using negative ads against the stronger of his two challengers, and his likely successor is known for making films, not policy. Davis has garnered some of his unpopularity by running to what might be called the "middle" on specific issues, but on that most important of centrist issues - competence - he has been a failure.

What is urgently needed is some better means of finding and promoting the best people to office, or, we will be stuck with devil's choices between an experienced politician who has no mandate, and seemingly no ability to handle the pressures of governing - and an individual who could seriously say he won't propose a solution because he has no idea what the problem is.

While, superficially, both candidates appeal to the center - Schwarzenhagger is openly a social liberal to moderate in his positions, while Davis is certainly no one's idea of a liberal on almost any issue - both are lacking. It seems likely that Davis is to be sent home, but is this really a victory for a more accountable politics?

What the recall is, more than anything else, is a clear indication that "business as usual" politics is breaking down, and the public is searching for solutions, even those which entail a great deal of risk. This is an opportunity: with the partisanized and polarized forms of politics breaking down, the chance to appeal to the idea that the center is where sane, stable and strong government resides is being given a moment to shine.

Or we can look forward to the spectacle of Sheen running to oust Schwarzenhagger somewhere in the near future.

Precious

There are very serious discussions all over blogland parsing every word and weighing every turn of phrase regarding the spy scandal.

That being the case, and since we represent the most serious of venues for reasoned discussion, I'll pass on this unusual but enlightening take on it from The Poorman.

Is Objectivity Half-Lying?

I'm planning to go to the free, 2nd day of Bloggercon this weekend. One of the agenda-setting essays for the conference, posted by Dave Winer, discusses Paul Krugman theory

He tells a story. If the Republicans said the earth is flat, Fox News would report (he says) The Earth is Flat, and people who say it isn't are unpatriotic. Then he says the other press would report Shape of the Planet: Two Sides to the Debate, and would quote Republicans saying it's flat, and Democrats saying it's round. The Harvard audience laughs.

Now I'm not going to say if I agree or disagree with Krugman about the Republcans or Democrats, but I do agree with him about the press. And the story they would report is wrong, it's a lie every bit as big as the ones he claims the Republicans are telling, in fact it's bigger because it's trying to appear balanced. Breaking news: The earth, in fact, is round. To report it as a dispute, while technically accurate, is still a lie. It's not in dispute. The real story is that one half of the political system is lying. That's a much bigger story than the fake story they report. And they do it all the time. Including the venerable paper Krugman works for.

To summarize Krugman, "Democrats good, Republicans bad" and any attempt to find a balance between competing points of view is falling into a trap. Now, I won't say that there is always a middle ground--it would have been foolish to try to find one between the Axis and Allied powers during World War II.

But in fact the ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans are not that great, when viewed from the distance of say, European Socialists. There is, for instance, no ideological content to the bitterness over the disputed election of 2000. Had the Democrats had a majority on the Supreme Court, they would no doubt have determined that Gore had won the election.

The intense partisanship resembles the bitter rivalry of sports fans. The disputed 2000 election has raised feelings of "we wuz robbed" often heard after questionable calls by referees. Krugman reminds me of a Red Sox fan wearing a Yankees Suck T-Shirt.

Nor do I agree with Winer's assessment of the press. If either side of a political debate makes statements that can be easily disproven, journalists will chip away at them, and they will retreat to more defensible lines of argument. Eventually, the debate reaches a point of equilibrium, where both sides make plausible assertions, where both sides have a saleable product in the marketplace of ideas. At that point, all that's left is to wait for new events to revise the probability that either side is true.

Dean says Clark 'was a republican'

That's what he said on Face the Nation this morning, mentioning Clark's voting for Nixon and Reagan as evidence.

It would be unreasonable to expect Dean not to raise the issue of Clark's recent affiliation with the democratic party, but I do think his campaign and the party itself would be better served if Dean had simply emphasized his own long and significant activity within the party advocating its positions. Everyone could fill in the blanks for themselves.

Anyway, I did cringe. If anyone in the Dean camp wishes to pass along my suggestion, feel free.

The Political Animal

When Aristotle proclaimed in Nichomachean Ethics that "only the many can come together to form the political... and man is the political animal." he created the basic world view which Centrists still hold today: we are all united in our common destiny as part of one nation, though each individual has his own particular interests. He explains that politics is the art of "combining all of the other arts to produce the greater good". It is the aim of politics, in Aristotle's view, to take the many different interests and combine them together into one greater whole. By doing this, he planted the seeds of a political philosophy which is resurgant in American political life, and which is now, again, finding its voice.

For much of the 20th century, Centrism seemed to be a philosophy of "neither left nor right", but this is an artifact of the modern era: a period where change and chaos seemed so unmanageble that, as Centerfield writer Rick Heller puts it: it seemed that centrism was "between two great mountains on the left and the right." And yet, I would wager that a large fraction of the American electorate - if offered a three party system with left, right and center - would be active and vocal members of a centrist party, it was what appealed to people in the idea of the "Reform" party. Clinton tacked back and forth to be seen as a centrist.

But we do not have such a system, and centrists are often feel they must weigh between which side will have too much authority in the present, and which group of experts will have too much influence. Rather than having a conversation on the political, it seems as if politics has become a few people trying to walk a tight rope: giving power to one side or another for just long enough to do what needs to be done.

But for most of political history, seeking the center was a political philosophy itself, finding the point of consensus and using rational and reasonable means to reach that consensus a strong political notion. It drives, for example, Niccolo Machiavelli's ideas on republican government: that vigorous people's guided by civic virtue would use the whole spectrum of institutions - military, political and religious - to retain their liberty. His emphasis on virtu, often called "virtue" but better translated as "will", and on balancing competing forces - being neither two generous in spending, nor too aggressive in war, being neither too prone to seek alliances, nor unwilling to make them when needed - is a program for sound government from the center of society.

This is why Americans want someone they see as a centrist, not because they want an average between left and right, but because holding elective office is about making decisions. And Americans, in the end, more than ideology, want efficacy. We would rather have pragmatism over purity. McCain is such an iconic figure among centrists - despite his conservative record as a Senator - because he presents us with a man who could make the right decision, and make that decision stick. Centrism is, at its base, the philosophy that politics is about making the right decision, and carrying it out the right way.

It is, after all, the idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number" which stands at any central coalition. The idea that reason and rationality would allow to choose "moderation" as an active idea, not merely the average between extremes. And it is Aristotle's argument that politics is the art of combining other arts that forms the basis for the Centrist program - to acknowledge that there are many sources of ideas, some ideologically driven, others the result of study, and some based on emotional intuition - but that it is the essential activity of American political discourse to coordinate all of the sources of ideas into a coherent program which commands broad support.

This fundamental shift - from averaging or dividing between extremes - and towards the active process of creating consensus, coherency and, yes, a center upon which policy rests - has already begun. By realizing that Centrism is not merely reaction against excesses of the extremes, excesses of rhetoric, or excess in pursuing a supposed good to its absurd limits - but is, instead, rooted in the long history of political and ethical philosophy - Centrists gain access to a whole political vocabulary and arsenal of quotions and ideas. Not merely Aristotle, but Erasmus, Machiavelli, Spinoza, Voltaire, Madison, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt - men who were not "left" or "right", but seeking a humane and enlightened center to public life, not merely averaging, but balancing, the competing forces in society - between labor and capital, religion and civic society, between competing factions, between pure rationality and emotional intuition.

This also liberates the burden of centrism from spending overly much time attacking the excesses of left and right. It is more important to remove excessive influence on the political system by those who would restrict civil liberties in the name of religious principles, than it is to remove "In God We Trust" from our money. It is more important to end poverty, than to attempt to determine to exactly what degree that poverty is caused by being the descendants of enslaved Africans. It is more important than we have an economy that works, rather than one which meets some arbitrary definition of systematic purity. Instead, the entire nature of extreme rhetoric can be exposed for what it is: shrill, and internally inconsistent. Centrism then, becomes the philosophy of standards: which standards to apply in which cases to reach a decision.

Instead, it is time for Centrists to assert that the reason so many political figures and philosophers of the past do not fit easily into the boxes of "left" and "right", is that they were, in their time and for ours, centrists, seeking a place to stand upon, so that they could move the earth.

So Centrism rests on a positive program, rooted in the idea that each individual discipline must be balanced by an active drive to combine all of the available resources, and utilize ideas, from whatever source, to produce the greatest good. It has a long history and a deep tradition in the ideas of reason and rationality - which is, after all, why most extreme philosophies must either attack human reason all together, or claim a "scientific" basis for their conclusions which crowds out all other viewpoints. It is time for Centrists to reclaim their heritage, and actively promote centrism, not as the remainder between two parties, but as being in a line of succession that stretches back to the birth of Western thought, and whose luminaries are known to almost all.

Rick Heller has graciously invited to blog here - and I hope over the coming weeks to spend time examining some of the great ideas of Centrism in the past, and how, by an active use of reason, we can extend these ideas into the present - to argue for a new rationality in politics, and a political philosophy of combining all of the energy and ability in American society.

Dean's Crossover Appeal

Major GOP Organizer goes over to Dean..

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Democrat Howard Dean’s stance against the war in Iraq has brought him supporters from across party lines in New Hampshire.

Hilary Cleveland of New London, wife of the late Congressman James Cleveland, and a prominent campaigner for both President Bushes, is helping organize a Republicans for Dean movement.

Dean announced the names of 40 Republicans who will serve on a steering committee. Cleveland says she’s been a lifelong Republican, but will switch her registration to independent so she can vote for Dean in the presidential primary.

Cleveland was the New London co-chair for George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign and was the state finance chair Bush’s father in 1980.

"I have been disappointed in the Bush Administration’s policies in Iraq, and former Governor Dean has best articulated why we should not have gone to war in Iraq. I like his emphasis on the importance of internationalism and his fiscal program," Cleveland said.

"I’m a moderate Republican and moderate Republicans did stress the need for international involvement in Iraq, and moderate Republicans have always spoken out for fiscal integrity," she said.

Another member of the committee, Paul Staulcup of Manchester, said he will switch his affiliation from Republican to Democrat for the primary but isn’t sure he’ll remain a Democrat.

"I see myself more as a Deanocrat than a Democrat," he said. Staulcup said his concerns relate to the country’s finances, health care and school funding.

"Bush and his colleagues are doing just about everything wrong," he said.

His wife, Elizabeth Staulcup, is switching parties after a lifetime as a Republican to support Dean. "I like what he did with the health insurance for Vermont children — that I considered very important," she said. Both say they were drawn to Dean because of his anti-war statements.

"He’s got a strong appeal," said Rep. Jane Kelley from Hampton, who became an independent to vote for Dean. "He’s peppery; he’s gutsy; he tells it like it is," she said.

Originally a Democrat, Kelley switched her affiliation to the Republicans three years ago and says she’ll return to the Republican fold when the primary is over.

While she agrees with Dean’s position on Iraq, she also is impressed that he balanced budgets as governor of Vermont.

State Republican party spokeswoman Julie Teer said these crossover Republicans remain a minority.

"The undisputed fact is this president receives overwhelming support from Republicans in New Hampshire and across the country. The bottom line is this is a very unified Republican Party," she said.

This is a good step, one reflective of my own personal beliefs change.

Egg Facial Hardened To A Tempera Glaze

I don't normally link to NY Times editorials, but this is a fair and balanced assessment

This page did not support the war in Iraq, but it never quarreled with one of its basic premises. Like President Bush, we believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding potentially large quantities of chemical and biological weapons and aggressively pursuing nuclear arms. Like the president, we thought those weapons posed a grave danger to the United States and the rest of the world. Now it appears that premise was wrong. We cannot in hindsight blame the administration for its original conclusions. They were based on the best intelligence available, which had led the Clinton administration before it and the governments of allied nations to reach the same conclusion. But even the best intelligence can turn out to be mistaken, and the likelihood that this was the case in Iraq shows why pre-emptive war, the Bush administration's strategy since 9/11, is so ill conceived as a foundation for security policy. If intelligence and risk assessment are sketchy — and when are they not? — using them as the basis for pre-emptive war poses enormous dangers.

More and more, I'm noticing amnesia among many liberals, who are saying, now that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, that there never was any reason to suspect they existed, that the issue of the WMD's was contacted, based on lies, and a fraud. I'm glad the Times has reminded people that Democrats as well as Republicans believed the WMD's existed and were an issue of grave concern.

The Bush Administration made a spectacular misjudgement in premising their policy based on the existence of these weapons. They've got egg on their face that by now has hardened into a tempera glaze. Their unwillingness to acknowledge error has created a fertile medium for conspiracy theories. Their error and their lack of accountability has undermined my confidence in their ability to handle national security issues, which was the only area in which I ever presumed them to be competent.

Nonetheless, we have indeed liberated the Iraqi people. The cost of the Iraq War may well exceed its benefits, but no one should deny the benefit of replacing Saddam's regime with a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.

Those who advocate the immediate withdrawal of American troops should recognize that a Baath restoration would be accompanied by the mass murder of those who have cooperated with coalition forces, just as Saddam massacred those who rebelled against him in 1991 after then-President Bush's poorly thought out call for insurrection.

Clark on American Patriotism

"I'm promoting a New American Patriotism – because it is vital to the life and health of this country that we criticize our leaders fairly – but freely. Some ask: How can you criticize the President at a time of war? I answer: “How can you not?” Eighteen months ago, Mr. Bush said in his State of the Union Address: "My economic security plan can be summed up in one word: "jobs." We can now sum it up in one word: “failure.” We cannot afford failure. We can’t be forced to accept failure just because we’re at war. In fact, we cannot tolerate failure precisely because we are at war.

I am not making a partisan comment. The chance to earn a living is not a partisan issue. Yet when we point out the facts, they will call us unpatriotic; or they will call us left-wing liberals – even though I have been non-partisan my whole professional life. I don’t oppose the President’s policies because they are Republican policies. I oppose them because they don’t work. If they worked, I wouldn’t be here. If he admitted they didn’t work and changed them, I wouldn’t be here.

But the President won’t change his policies, so we have to change the President."

Kennedy's Incivility II

Our public discourse has gotten to the point where criticizing the pro-war side is "unpatriotic" while criticizing the anti-war side is "McCarthyism" This is shown by the reaction to the President's mild chiding of Senator Kennedy's harsh remarks.

Bush branded the senator's charges ``uncivil.'' But many Democrats backed Kennedy, charging the White House was seeking to brand critics as unpatriotic.

``If it's unpatriotic to challenge the leadership of this country, it's a different America than I grew up in,'' said U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville). ``Sen. Kennedy obviously has a big microphone and I'm glad he used it.''

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Newton) said he disagreed with Kennedy's charge that the GOP was playing politics with Iraq.

``I don't think they started the war for political purposes,'' Frank said. ``I do think that they very demagogically exploited it politically.''

Frank also suggested some Democrats were being overly sensitive to Bush's criticisms of Kennedy. ``Uncivil?'' said Frank. ``I mean, let's not overreact. Being called uncivil is not being persecuted. People have a right to defend themselves and argue.''

Ashcroft's Ancestors

I have previously defended John Ashcroft from Howard Dean's charge that he was a "descendant of Joseph McCarthy." But his pursuit of the death penalty makes me wonder whether Ashcroft might be descended from Henry VIII's marriage counselor.

Federal prosecutors have asked Ashcroft to file death penalty charges in a case in which the defendent was convicted in a Massachusetts court some time ago and is already serving a life sentence. The case is a horrifying crime in which two sexual predators raped and murdered a small boy. The "federal hook" is apparently that the body was dumped in Maine. I have to assume that this request is not a surprise to the Justice Department, but is in fact part of Ashcroft's efforts to federalize the death penalty.

I applaud Gov. Romney's efforts to reinstate the dealth penalty in Massachusetts. But until that passes, my state does not have a death penalty, and I respect the rights of my fellow citizens to make that decision. It's galling that a party which supposedly supports states rights is trying to extend a federal death penalty to jurisdictions which have rejected it.

More Diplomatic Malpractice?

NBC News reported last night that President Bush, in his speech today to the U.N., does not intend to adopt a conciliatory tone or to make significant concessions, and that the new resolution they're crafting will be relatively weak and result in only modest additional contributions of funds or troops.

We'll have to see if that's true, and judge the speech on its merits.

If it is, though, then it seems we're pretty much on the same road we've always been on -- a mostly unilateralist strategy in Iraq.

The best choice is to craft some sort of language that makes it clear we understand the problems with our present policy, but without going so far as to say we were wrong. Any good speech writer could manage that.

We need to get as much as we can out of the international community right now. A few words of conciliation could help, and only "hurts" in the sense of making a certain segment of conservatives uncomfortable -- the ones who think the U.N. is worthless.

They'd get over it, though. And our soldiers could use some help.

UPDATE:

Looks like the speech went pretty much as expected. And a story in today's New York Times has the behind-the-scenes thinking that went into this:

In words written as much for a domestic audience as for an international one, Mr. Bush is expected to make limited concessions giving the United Nations more control in Baghdad, as the allies would like. But he will keep real authority in American hands.

"There's a feeling that you have to assert that the United States is still in control, if nothing else for domestic concerns," said a senior administration official, who, like most of those interviewed, requested anonymity.

"We're going into an election year and the president has to project an image of power and authority," the official added. "There will be a lot of language implying that we're not going anywhere. We're asking for help, but not for anyone to take over."

I think they're just plain wrong about public opinion. People would respond favorably to a real international partnership on Iraq. And the president has missed yet another opportunity to try to build one.

Kennedy's Incivility

As much as George Bush may be guilty of it himself, he is right to criticize Ted Kennedy's recent statements as "uncivil"

Kennedy criticized the White House last week for using what he described as concocted evidence against Iraq and said the case for war was a "fraud." In a separate appearance, Kennedy also described an $8.5 billion loan guarantee to Turkey as an administration attempt to bribe the country into offering military assistance in Iraq.

I would go further. In an era of globalization, what we say at home is immediately broadcast throughout the world. When his remarks are reported in Turkey, will Sen. Kennedy's charges of bribery help or hinder our ability to gain Turkish cooperation in administering Iraq? Will his charges of fraudulence help or hinder the stabilization effort in Iraq?

It is clearly necessary to have a post-mortem on the decision to go to war in Iraq, now that the assumptions for the case for war regarding weapons of mass destruction are at variance with what has (not) been discovered on the ground. But Kennedy's rhetoric, while constitutionally protected, is irresponsible in a public official of his stature. Ted Kennedy is in fact as responsible as any other single figure for the incivility in contemporary politics. Kennedy's rhetoric regarding Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution."

gave political terminology a new word, borking. Conservatives typically justify their overheated rhetoric as picking up where Democrats like Kennedy left off. Kennedy's statements are indeed a new low.

Clark A Former Republican

Some partisan Democrats have reacted with dismay to the news that Clark is a former Republican

On other issues, Clark said he considered himself a Republican after the Vietnam War, but he didn't remember whether he voted in 1972. "I hope I voted then," he said, "and I would have voted for Nixon." He voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980, and for Bill Clinton in the 1992 and 1996 elections, he said, "because I listened to what Bill Clinton said in that campaign, and he moved me."

As an centrist, I'm delighted to support a candidate who isn't rigidly tied to one party. A highly partisan Democrat like Howard Dean may rally the core of the party, but is likely to alienate Independents. After all, if Independents were so keen on Democrats, we'd have registered as Democrats.

According to a pre-9/11 Harris poll (the most recent data I've located),

Democrats continue to hold a significant modest eight-point lead over Republicans in party affiliation, based on over 13,000 adults surveyed in Harris Polls in the year 2000. This lead (37% to 29%) has scarcely changed since 1996. People who identify themselves as Independents, however, are down slightly to 23%, their lowest percentage in the eleven years since 1989.

Given the Democratic lead in party affiliation, I surmise that the average Independent must lean slightly Republican to produce the nearly even 2000 election and Republican control of both houses of Congress.

Certainly, Independents vote for Republican candidates from time to time, and may feel personally attacked by rhetoric that stigmatizes all Republicans.Here is an example of what not to do. A college student writes regarding his professor:

“Once he went through the preliminaries, he began to discuss how he had opinions, opinions that landed far to the Left on the political spectrum,” Matt relates. “Now I was very worried, not due to his political beliefs, because the majority of my other professors, many of whom have been amazing teachers, have been liberal. What worried me was the excited and proud manner in which he stated it, thusly implying that his politics would be a large part of the classroom experience. He then made a comment to the effect, “I don’t have a bias against anyone…except Republicans!” – which elicited roaring laughter from the students.

Partisan Democrats are not alone engaging in such demeaning statements. Republican pundit Anne Coulter has been very successful with similar attacks aimed at Democrats and liberals. Some Independents who are to the left of the Democratic Party may be "brought home" by such partisanship, just as it may cause some Independents to the right of the GOP to affiliate. But overall, public opinion data confirms that Independents are predominantly moderate, and fit in between the two parties on the political spectrum. In other words, centrist Independents.

To win in November 2004, the Democratic presidential candidate must appeal to those who are "in between" Wesley Clark's personal history demonstrates that he can do that.

(cross-posted at Independents For Clark)

Liberals Catching On

Liberal authors are catching up with conservatives on the best-seller list.

"What goes around comes around," said Oren Teicher, chief operating officer of the American Booksellers Association. "A year ago I was doing interviews on why there were so many conservative books out there."

Teicher says liberals were slow to latch onto a new type of book -- "a brief political tome by people who are well known through TV journalism" but now seem to have mastered the form. And he said the success of "Living History," which surprised many in the book industry, "shows that there's a big audience out there for progressive titles."

Steel Tariffs Backfire

A hypocritical decision gets its comeuppance

In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection.

Eighteen months later, key administration officials have concluded that Bush's order has turned into a debacle. Some economists say the tariffs may have cost more jobs than they saved, by driving up costs for automakers and other steel users. Politically, the strategy failed to produce union endorsements and appears to have hurt Bush with workers in Michigan and Tennessee -- also states at the heart of his 2004 strategy.

Bushies For Dean

David Brooks wrote a piece yesterday called Republicans For Dean, by which he did not mean the bloggers here, who have actually given up on Bush and support Dean, but pro-Bush Republicans salivating over Dean as the Democratic Party nominee.

Brooks has some fascinating observations about polarization in the American electorate.

Over the past few decades, the electorate has become much better educated. In 1960, only 22 percent of voters had been to college; now more than 52 percent have. As voters become more educated, they are more likely to be ideological and support the party that embraces their ideological label. As a result, the parties have polarized. There used to be many conservatives in the Democratic Party and many liberals in the Republican Party, groups that kept their parties from drifting too far off-center.

Now, there is a Democratic liberal mountain and a Republican conservative mountain. Democrats and Republicans don't just disagree on policies — they don't see the same reality, and they rarely cross over and support individual candidates from the other side.

Some expert now argue that independent voters should be ignored, with emphasis given on mobilization of core Democrats and Republicans. Others disagree:

They argue that there still are many truly independent voters, with estimates ranging from 10 to 33 percent of the electorate. Moreover, the Inclusiveness folks continue, true independents do have a coherent approach to politics. Anti-ideological, the true independents do not even listen to candidates who are partisan, strident and negative. They are what the pollster David Winston calls "solutionists"; they respond to upbeat candidates who can deliver concrete benefits: the Family and Medical Leave Act, more cops in their neighborhoods, tax rebate checks.

By this line of thinking, Dean is a terrible candidate. His partisan style drives off the persuadable folks who rarely bother to vote in primaries but who do show up once every four years for general elections.

Brooks concludes:

Which is why so many Republicans are quietly gleeful over Dean's continued momentum. It is only the dark cloud of Wesley Clark, looming on the horizon, that keeps their happiness from being complete.

For a different perspective, check out Polygon, who recalls that Democratic strategists in 1980 were gleeful about facing Ronald Reagan in the general election.

(cross-posted at Independents For Clark)

Clark Makes It 10

The wait and wonder is finally over. And I'm very glad too! We can finally find out what all this Clark love is about, and I look forward to seeing him on the upcoming debates.

Mark Fabiani, a spokesman for Clark, did not reveal the decision, but sources close to the former Army general said he told his fledgling campaign team that he's in the race. The announcement will be made at 1 p.m. EDT Wednesday in Little Rock, sources said.

Excellent advice for Clark supporters!

Or maybe it's simply good advice...period!

Posted by The Bashing Needle at the Women4Clark weblog:

Now, may offer a little advice to garner greater support for General Clark? The following is a recent post (by me) from General Clark’s forum at Leadership for America.

I rarely use the term evil, and I'm nauseated every time I hear any politician use it for political purpose...it shows a serious lack of intellect, a large dose of manipulative cynicism, and total contempt for the intellect of the target audience. However, it doesn't sound much better (in this context) coming from the audience. (not meaning you JeanPaul or Mike). This is something I've actually been meaning to bring up here for quite sometime, but I always seemed to get sidetracked.

I'm sometimes reminded by my father (extremely bright man) to be careful about using absolute terms when writing or speaking, as it shows a lack of intellect. He's right, it does. The more descriptive and logical our arguments, the more persuasive and powerful they become. I can't begin to tell you how many times I have read 'so-and-so is evil' whether it was by the right referring to Clinton, or the left referring to Bush. The problem with this type of statement is that it tends to turn away the very people both sides claim to court...those of us in the middle who are really neither left or right. It often makes this very large group look at both sides as a bunch of extremists, who are then discounted.

"One of the things I constantly appreciate about General Clark is that I've never heard him bash Bush personally in public"

Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee doesn't have to convince the rank and file to vote for him, he has to convince as many of the other side to vote for him, and more importantly the swing vote...and it's a huge number of people! This is where Dean will be in serious trouble. His popular Mean Dean approach works now because he's preaching to the choir. Gephardt’s rhetoric at the New Mexico debate did the same thing, only in his case he was trying to out-Dean Dean.

One of the things I constantly appreciate about General Clark is that I've never heard him bash Bush personally in public (though I wouldn't doubt he has privately)...or anyone else in the administration except DeLay, who earned it, and even that was mild. He's gone after policies rather than people by pointing out both what was wrong and how to make it right. I hope he can continue in that vein if he runs as I think he'll get more traction and have a good chance at getting many of the 50% who didn't vote last time to vote this time.

"don't beat up your opponent, beat up his record"

A lot of people have commented on the fact that interviewers who are normally combative to Democrats have been unusually respectful of General Clark (Tucker Carlson, Scarborough, Hannity, Tim Russert, etc.). They are because he behaves as a gentleman, doesn't lose his cool, and gets his points across with logic, rather than beating up on the opposition. We have to do the same thing. Whether General Clark runs or not, he's right in saying that the Democratic Party needs a cohesive message. Here it is: don't beat up your opponent, beat up his record, beat up his character as it applies to his record and only if it does, and offer actual alternatives to the present circumstances as opposed to empty promises i.e., here's what was done...here's what should have been done and what would have happened if we had (in other words, using comments like 'Bush is a drunk, a coward and a deserter' will not, I repeat not, sway those who think he did the right thing in going after Hussein, or those who are on the fence. And I'm saying this as a former member of the Republicans and that 50% who rarely vote. These same kinds of remarks about Clinton didn't sway people away from him either.

"Slamming Bush is like saying to this group "...Good God, you voted for him? Are you a complete moron or just insane?!" Not the way to bring them over the fence."

Ask most who support General Clark why they took such notice of him, and the answer will be something like "...because I saw him on CNN and was amazed by his analysis of what went right and wrong...because he was right every time...because he's brilliant and articulate...because his views and solutions are balanced and fair." Not one of them will say it's because he bashes Bush and his administration every chance he gets...because he doesn't. It's why he has such enormous cross over appeal. If the Democratic party wants to have that same appeal...they'd best follow his lead. We need to also. Every time one of us tells someone about General Clark, we're stumping by proxy, including in this forum. Several of us have wondered why only a third of the members here post. We've posed several possibilities...but the one thing no one has mentioned is that a lot of these people may be part of that swing vote and pissed off republicans groups...they're not going to be interested in hearing a lot of Bush bashing. They want to know who is a better alternative and why. Slamming Bush is like saying to this group "...Good God, you voted for him? Are you a complete moron or just insane?!" Not the way to bring them over the fence.

So, what I'm saying is that I realize people are more than angry about Bush & Co., and are scared by what he potentially represents for our country and our lives, but vilifying him/them makes us sound as bad as he does every time he says "evil" or "axis of evil". The only way to kill the idea of this administration as being the right one, is by discrediting it and the perception it's created with facts...not emotional rhetoric and near to full conspiracy theories. That's what they use. If they are the only ones doing that, it won't take long for them to sound like idiotic lunatics. People aren't nearly as dumb as most politicians think they are...let's try not to prove the politicians right for once.

Posted by Kelly Flinn on Sunday, September 14, 2003 at 17:17

Note the importance of what she's saying: We have a candidate who actually practices the virtue of respecting other people!

Clark Up in the Polls

A new poll today shows the effect which Clark will have immediately and the dynamic he will bring to this race. This latest Gallup Poll conducted over September 8-10 has Clark with a solid 10pt showing already. Only two points behind Kerry and three behind Lieberman, I suspect he will quickly leapfrog of these two candidates, who have been running for a year on millions already spent, and the race will turn into a three way run by December, as I've previously outlined.

There is a great deal of data in this poll, including the fact that Lieberman's biggest strength comes from voters who aren't paying attention, Clark gets three points from John Kerry, and Dean leads among voters who Always vote. None of this is really a surprise, just a validation of what many have been saying for a while surrounding the Draft Clark movement.

It should be an interesting week. Any predictions if he'll announce ahead of Friday?

Dialogue on 'how much money people need'

Jesse: When Rick Heller responded to your post about taxes, he asked the question 'how much money do people need?'.

Erasmus: Yes, I've been meaning to get back to that issue.

Jesse: Well, I've been thinking about the question.

Erasmus: And...?

Jesse: And it does seem to be a question that must be considered when you're discussing taxes.

- continue reading -

Rating Ike

There's been a lot of talk about the Clark-Eisenhower analogy in terms of generals running for president. But how good a president was Eisenhower?

Over at Independents For Clark, I argue that he was a good one. He's been underrated, in part, because as a centrist, he has no historical constituency. Liberals don't care for him, because he was a Republican and a moderate. Conservatives ignore him because he was a moderate, and did not try to undo the New Deal.

Isn't it time for centrists to adopt Ike as one of our Ikons?

Foreign Debt

An old professor of mine challenged the notion that the growing national debt in the Reagan years was a problem. He said, "If the American government owes money to American creditors, it's a wash."

But to finance the Iraq War, we've gone overseas

For most of this year's second quarter, the United States was waging a war in Iraq, with help from the British and not very many others. There were demonstrations around the world against the war. But guess who was financing it? The world was. Figures released this week showed that private foreign citizens bought an unprecedented $129 billion in United States government and agency securities. Official accounts, mostly central banks, added $43 billion more.

All told, foreigners bought almost 80 percent of the net increase in Treasury and agency debt during the quarter. They now own 38 percent of outstanding Treasuries, more than double the figure of a decade ago.

But notice--they weren't giving us money, they we're lending it, and we have to pay it back. A more multilateral approach would have resulted in more "grants" from other governments and fewer loans.

I don't reject unilateralism per se, but it's important to recognize its costs.

Tacitus on Taxes

Interesting thoughts from Tacitus on the way conservatives should analyze tax policy. He discusses the jubilation in some conservative circles over the failure of Alabama Gov. Riley's tax plan.

He quotes, first, from a Washington Post article describing conditions in Alabama:

"Alabama has the nation's lowest state and local taxes per capita and ranks near the bottom in tests of public school performance. It also has more than 28,000 inmates in a prison system built for 12,000, and its state police force has only six troopers patrolling 67,500 miles of roadway after midnight. Riley's plan also aimed to shift the tax burden to the wealthiest Alabamians, who pay an effective tax rate of 3 percent, from the poorest, who pay 12 percent."

Then gives you what he thinks is a reasonable conservative take on it:

Now, if the parks system or the state arts council was underfunded, I'd say let 'em starve. But prisons and cops -- and yes, even public education -- are legitimate functions of government at that level, and so I have to ask whether underfunding them is really the conservative thing to do. Also, while I'm more or less a flat-taxer, I think it's pretty clear that a progressive tax code is more just than a regressive one; and that's something Riley's plan would have fixed.

All in all, the whole episode and the anti-tax rejoicing in the aftermath points to an increasing cognitive dissonance in Republican circles. The notion of taxation as an evil in itself is useful as a tactical tool, but it's not useful as an analytic tool: you don't get good governance if you focus on cutting taxes in the absence of any consideration of legitimate budgetary needs or any effort to concurrently reduce spending. But that's exactly what's happening, in the Congress and in Alabama. It's worrisome and I daresay wrongheaded; and my saying so will forever bar me from winning a GOP primary in Loudon County, Virginia.

Tacitus is one of those really interesting kinds of Republicans who oscillate between conservative and moderate takes on various issues. He takes strong positions, but looks closely at the facts and takes the time to consider and evaluate them. He's not an ideology machine, but an actual concerned citizen with an open mind. Bravo.

Independents For Clark

Independents For Clark has opened up shop!

This blog is currently being hosted by the Centrist Coalition, but it may move to new digs if and when Clark declares. The link http://www.independentsforclark.com will bring you to the right place, for the next year at least.

If you would like to be a contributor to Independents For Clark, let me know. I can be reached at blog @ centristcoalition.com

Clark

Latest from Little Rock

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Clark Should Run

I am a firm Dean supporter but I really like Clark's style. I believe that Clark should run for the nomination of the Democratic Party. It can only help the debate and season the eventual Nominee.

News is everywhere today. First, he was asked to be Dean's VP, then he is reported to be running, and now he's the Headline on Drudge reportedly definitely entering the race. Bill Clinton called him a "star" and Terry McAuliff has a podium waiting for him in NYC for the 25th. We even have a term forming to describe the campaign, countering the Dean Machine, meet Wes Mania.

Clark will do a number of important things in this race, in my own humble pundit opinion. As I see it, he will cause the immediate widdling of the field. If Graham, Edwards and Kerry don't drop out by Christmas, they would definitely fall far behind Clark who would become the Southern DLC Miliatary Background Candidate. He would also challenge Joe Lieberman for the mantle of 'centrist', and his charm will quickly win over many who never got a chance to warm up to Joe. Gephardt will remain strong in his base, the Unions, and Dean will likely remain strong with his supporters, though the steam will be dramatically spread around as Clark steals a Hurricane's worth of Thunder. The dynamic I see forming is a three headed race between Clark, Dean, and Gephardt. This basically is the DLC vs. the Dean Nation vs. the Party Establishment. Kerry and Edwards have had their chance, which they blew, and Lieberman is the sacrificial lamb served up to halt the Dean momentum.

This battle will also elevate beyond a shouting match, which sums up the level of debate at this point. I would hope that all of the candidates quickly move to better pronounce their policies, as simply shouting loud (Gephardt) at the debates will look goofy compaired to Clark's cool and statesman like presence. Additionally, Clark's pounding of the Bush record in foreign policy will provide credible substance to this pivotal criticism, something the eventual candidate cannot do without.

Personally, my three favorite guys are Dean, Clark, and Gephardt in that order. I'd love to see it come down to these three following Iowa and New Hampshire, though that is not to count out Lieberman totally. This will only groom the eventual candidate to take up the challenge of Bush, and interject a credible centrist/Iraq critic into the fray.

May the best candidate win.

Vision Plus Pragmatism

Sen. Lieberman gave a major foreign policy address yesterday to the Council on Foreign Relations. It hits pretty hard against Bush, but was still mostly focused on presenting Lieberman's own plan for rebuilding Iraq.

A quick look at two pieces:

President Bush -- and some in my party -- are flat wrong to close the door to sending more American troops now. Let me say this to our men and women in uniform and to their families. As President, I will never leave the safety of our troops dependent upon the arrival of foreign troops. Never.

Right now, it's clear that we do not have enough troops or enough of the right kinds of troops to fight to defeat a difficult insurgency, keep the lights on and the water running, protect the troops now on the ground, and rotate others home. We have less than half the troops per capita in Iraq today than we had in much less challenging circumstances in the Balkans. That is why, of course, we seek international troops. But we cannot tie our hands while we wait for them.

This is really an issue of the moment. Most analysts say we are short on troops. We love discussing the possibility that foreign troops will help. If you're willing to look at present circumstances realistically, though, you must know that significant numbers of foreign troops are not on their way.

Lieberman is suggesting something quite unpopular -- potentially leaves more of a bad taste in people's mouths than the $87 billion price tag of Bush's latest plan. Reserves would have to be called up in significant numbers. Quite a burden to place on our young people, and our military as a whole.

It's also a very unpopular thing to say in front of a Democratic crowd at one of the debates.

It is both true and unpopular. If we were shuttling more troops into Iraq at this moment, it would bring some improvement to conditions there and give them some chance, at least, of achieving their mission. Our force as a whole would be better off, as would the overall mission.

Now for the second part, which is a bit startling:

The plan should make clear our commitment to sharing costs and burdens with the world. The United States must maintain military control--that's non-negotiable. But it is past time to relinquish absolute political authority over Iraq. I didn't support the war so that the U.S. could control Iraq. Iraqis must control Iraq.

The plan should include a clear timetable for transitioning Iraq to self-government. Within 60 days--the handoff of the country's government from Administrator Bremer to an international administrator.

Not in six months, not in a year--but within 60 days. Make that commitment now. Let the world hear it. And when the international administrator assumes authority, he or she should immediately announce a real schedule for Iraq to adopt a Constitution and hold free elections.

That's the most hopeful path to security for our troops and for the Iraqi people.

So, there you have it. More troops to deal with immediate problems. But an aggressive plan for sharing political authority internationally, followed by steps to transfer power to an elected Iraqi government.

Bold, but maybe realistic too. What do you think?

Reflections on Today

I awoke today, and for a moment, I did not remember. Then it all came rushing back. Today is a day which I don't like to talk about anymore. It is the dark spot on the American Soul. It is at the same time a tragedy for the souls lost from the American quilt, and a reminder of what can happen when I don't pay attention. Today has been co-opted by some in power, and Today has become sadly a tool of control. Whenever Today is mentioned, a specific response arises in the eyes, and hearts, and minds of our people.

Today is not supposed to be Used, Today is supposed to be Today. Today is supposed to be remembered, and holy, and quiet. But Today has become forever an election pledge by those who are not fully truthful. Today has enveloped the warped minds of those who seek to control us in the name of protecting us. Today is America's Day, but Today has been used to seek out and create war, against the wishes of those who suffered most Today.

I want my Today back. I want to lay a wreath at the memory of those who died, those who died too early, too young, and for no reason. And By God's Name, I do not want those in power to use their Death to control us who are still graced by life on this Earth, and in this Great Nation.

I cry Today for the souls of the lost.
I cry Today for the children without parents.
I cry Today for the loss of Today, for it has become Their Today, and They have no guilt for using Today against our Democracy, against our Constitution, and against our community.

Those who have Destroyed Today shall be dealt with by their maker, and shall be forever scorned by History.

Please, join me, Make Today about Today again, not about them, or those, or fear, or worries.

Make Today about Us, Reflect, Morn, Cry, and Remember. But do not define Today by Fear. And please, Leave Today to Today. Do not soil its name Tomorrow. Today belongs to those who have been lost. Please, leave it there, as it is, pure, and remembered.

Today is time to remember, and Tomorrow is a time to Rethink. Please hug your Children and your Wife and your Neighbor.

Rhetoric and Risk

"The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime."

This is one of the more dramatic, congratulatory statements our president peppers through his speeches. He said it again just yesterday.

I have yet to figure out what prompts him to make such statements. It just doesn't fit that well with the other stuff he tells us.

The administration insists, for example, that Saddam's regime possessed chemical and biological weapons, and that we will eventually find them. So, according to the administration, those weapons exist somewhere in Iraq.

At the same time, we are being opposed by significant guerrilla forces that include, most prominently, members of the old regime.

And we also have an influx of outsiders, including perhaps thousands of terrorists. An estimated 3,000 militants have crossed from Saudi Arabia alone.

This leads to obvious questions. Remnants of the regime may very well know where the weapons are, if they exist. And they appear to be making alliances with large groups of foreign fighters.

Aren't terrorists more likely to get hold of WMDs in Iraq than they ever were before?

United We Stood

Two years ago, after the attacks which killed 3000 people, there was a sense of "United, We Stand." It is distressing to me that this unity has dissolved so completely and liberals and conservatives once again hold each other in contempt, with a bitterness that perhaps exceeds pre-9/11 attitudes.

I won't point any fingers, but only ask, can we not accept that reasonable people may differ? Before attributing base motives to those we disagree with, let's try to see how the life experiences and information available to them might lead them to a different point of view. Let's share honestly what motivates us, so they can do they same.

Wa Post: Dean to Clark- VP?

The press is having a bit of fun today, or maybe they are on to something. It seems as if a 'secret' Dean/Clark meeting has been construed into a request for a Clark VP with Dean. I wonder if Hillary was hiding in the shrubs?

It looks like fun and games really, as the press is drumming up support and debate on the issue. Most interesting of all though is this statement directly from Dean: "This is a guy I like a lot. I think he's certainly going to be on everybody's list if he's not the presidential nominee himself."

Could Dean be lobbying for a VP position on a possible Clark ticket? Hmmm, interesting!

CBC/ Fox News Democratic Debate

The debate this evening was definitely more fun to watch than the New Mexico debate last week, if only for the hecklers. Of course there were a ton of loaded questions and zingers from many of the candidates.

Memorable lines tonight in my opinion:

Lieberman's discussion of his marching with Martin Luther King
Dean's likening of Trent Lott to Martin Luther King
Gephardt again using his catch phrase, "Miserable Failure"
Sharpton using "Miserable Failure" against Gephardt

Overall, it was a decent debate, though I'm afraid all of the cadidates are starting to mirror themselves a bit too much. Of course you all know who I thought won it, Dean, but I'm sure you had your winner too. Tell us what you think, I'd love to hear if anyone else thought that Kerry is taking his "joker" bit a bit too far. How many one liners can one Presidential candidate take out of a can?

And as a parting note, I can't wait until the debate on the 25th. Mixing Clark into the debate will be terrific because it'll show the public a new dynamic. No longer will everyone be running to be Howard Dean; we may actually see the true candidates at that point. And it'll be great practice for Dean while genearally elevating the ratings of the program due to interest in the Clark phenom. Did you know that Terry McAuliff of the DNC has ordered a 10th podium? That was in the NY Times today...

Desperately Seeking Democrats For Bush

Here at Centerfield, we are looking to showcase diverse centrist voices. We have fans of Lieberman. I'm starting an IndependentsForClark.com site. Since Steven of Republicans for Dean joined us, we've been looking for a Democrat For Bush to balance out.

Today, the Howie Kurtz highlighted RFD in the Washington Post

Now even some conservatives are saying: watch out. And there's a Web site called Republicans for Dean.

Actually, I don't recall the RFD claiming they were conservative Republicans. They seem to be moderate, which is why we welcome their participation in Centerfield.

Now, Andrew Sullivan has discovered them. He challenges their authenticity.

REPUBLICANS FOR DEAN?: I saw this coming, didn't I? Howie Kurtz buys into it today. But a close look reveals this site to be mighty suspicious. It's full of far-left rhetoric, extremist Bush-hating, and generally lacks any real conservative or Republican philosophy. It calls the Bush administration a "failed regime." If these guys are real Republicans, I'm a hetero. Someone should check who's really behind this site.

In defense of RFD, there's no dirty trick there. Dennis started the blog (on blogspot) with this post (permalinks seem broken)

Hello. I'd like to welcome you to the first posting of the Republicans for Dean blog. My name is Dennis, I'm an ordained minister who lives in Minneapolis. I'm a moderate Republican that has been involved in groups like Republicans for Environmental Protection and Log Cabin Republicans. I have to say that initially I was not crazy about Howard Dean, thinking he was too far to the Left for my tastes. However, in reading his record, I have found that there is a lot that this Republican can like about him. He is fiscally responsible. He respects gun rights. He is not as far to the Left as I thought and may just be the candidate that can create a big coalition of Democrats, moderate Republicans and Independents.

and Steven contributed this early on

I was pre-sold a war this year that now weighs heavily on my soul. I believed the war was a necessary patriotic effort for the future freedom of the United States. When we butted heads with France, I stopped buying French Fries and started ordering Freedom Fries. I started drinking California wine (not that I could ever afford French wine, thank you Bush economy) and criticized anyone I met who didn’t support the war, especially “Liberals.” We were going to war, and we all had to be patriotic, right? Otherwise, it would be Un-American or so that was what I was told my media. Well, as with life, hindsight is 20/20, and now many months after the fact, we can closely examine the “impressions” which were fed to the people of our party. The sad part is many people have not yet realized that these were all mistruths that served an agenda NOT of the people. Bush took the People to war, and the People followed.

Steven has now announced that he has reregistred as a Democrat and will no longer blog at RFD. We hope he keeps his promise to continue to blog with us.

Still, we're a bit light on Republicans right now, so if there are any centrist voices out there who want to speak up for President Bush, please do. And if you would like to blog with us, email me at blog@centristcoalition.com

Actually, perhaps Andrew Sullivan fits the bill. He obviously disagrees with the Administration on social issues. He's challenged their fiscal policy. He even thinks we may need to cede some control to the UN in Iraq. Andrew is no Conservative Republican, is he?

Clark Outdraws The Atheists

I noted below that the Kerry meetup in Boston last week reportedly had a poor turnout, drawing fewer attendees than an atheist meetup which took place previously at the same location.

I attended the Clark meetup in Boston tonight, and can report than about 50 people showed up at Tealuxe before the space was filled, and the overflow moved to a satellite meeting at Starbucks. I liked the tone of the meetup, which eschewed Bush-bashing in favor of well, Clark-gushing.

Actually, there was a lot of concern about where the President is leading the country, and obviously a desire to replace him. But quite a number of the attendees voiced a desire that Clark would run a civil campaign, not appealing to voter anger but to hopes for a better alternative. That's a theme we here at Centerfield have been promoting. I was pleased to see that others in my home state of Massachusetts are feeling the same way.

$87,000,000,000.00

That is a whole bunch of zeroes. Please, tell me what you think of this number and the President's avoidance of WMD's, Saddam, and Osama.

Dean's McCain Appeal

A Boston Globe poll of New Hampshire voters finds

Potentially more significant is Dean's appeal among voters who backed Senator John S. McCain in 2000: 54 percent of those who supported McCain's maverick candidacy -- and helped the Arizona Republican soundly defeat George W. Bush in the nation's first primary during the last campaign cycle -- said they intend to vote for Dean.

This suggests to me that the McCain (and Dean) voters value style over substance. I don't have the impression that Dean and McCain have much in common on the issues, and certainly not on McCain's signature national security positions. Here, for instance, is McCain on the 2002 Iraq War resolution

"Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows," McCain said.

Iran Trilemma

I have a very different view from Steven R below which I want to discuss at greater length than would be suitable as a comment.

The Bush Administration has made some serious misjudgement about Iraq, which is why I would like a Democrat with foreign policy experience like Wesley Clark challenge him.

I can understand why Steve now believes the opposite of whatever the Administration now says. However, there is quite a difference between saying things that are not true, and being a liar, as Andrew Sullivan points out. In conversation with my wife, I frequently say things which are not true, which after further discussion, is followed by my saying "I was wrong, and you were right." The Bush Administration is loathe to admit error, and this has allowed the mantra of "Bush is a liar" to take hold.

So if the Bush Administration says Iran is a problem, Steven seems to think its not a problem, unless Bush makes it one. Steven seems to think that an attack on Iran would be nothing more than an electioneering stunt. Perhaps there is some electioneering involved, but there is also a serious problem that cannot be addressed by isolationism.

There were 3 spokes on the so-called "axis of evil" Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

Regarding North Korea, I believe it would be wiser to allow it to become a nuclear power, rather than engage in a destructive war that might cost thousands of American lives and millions of Korean lives. Fifty years of cold war evidence suggests that communists are deterrable through the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

Regarding Iraq, it's nuclear facilities have been subject to electioneering stunts in the past. In 1981, Israel attacked Iraq's Osiraq reactor shortly before it would have come online to produce nuclear material. Israel's right-wing Prime Minister, Menachem Begin feared he would lose the oncoming election to the opposition Labor Party, which was known to oppose a preemptive attack on Iraq's reactor. While widely condemned at the time, this attack is now hailed for having set back Saddam's nuclear program so that it could not develop nuclear weapons before the 1991 Gulf War.

An argument could be made that Saddam, as a leader in the mode of Stalin, was deterrable. However, his nearly suicidal behavior in the most recent crisis which has led to his regime's downfall, the death of his two sons, and may yet result in his own death, suggest that it would be dangerous to have America's safety depend on Saddam's rationality. That is why most Americans supported a preemptive war to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, presuming they existed

Regarding a nuclear Iran, there are differences from Iraq that cut both ways. Firstly, fundamentalist Muslims have demonstrated an affinity for suicidal "martyrdom" that is difficult to deter. Unlike Communists, who are atheists, believers in the afterlife can find a rational calculus for suicide. It's true that Al-Qaeda is a Sunni Muslim organization, but Hezbollah is an Iran-supported Shiite Muslim organization that practices suicide bombing, most notable

the suicide truck bombings that killed more than 200 U.S. Marines at their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983;

Not only that, the former President of Iran, Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has been widely quoted as saying it would be worth it for an Islamic nation to engage in a nuclear exchange against Israel

If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession [meaning nuclear weapons] - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.

Perhaps, in a conflict with the United States, Iran's Ayatollahs would be deterred by the United States more numerous supply of nuclear weapons. Perhaps they would consider the Islamic Day Of Judgement to be at hand, and trust that God would be on their side. A nuclear Iran might not be deterrable in the way the Soviet Union way.

On the other hand, the democratic aspects of the Iranian regime mitigate against their taking a suicidal path. While external and internal security are in the hands of clerics and exempt from democratic control, even the mullahs seem to be somewhat responsive to popular opinion in a way that a dictator like Saddam was not. Still, the only way to be sure the Iranians do not "nuke" the United States it to make sure they do not possess nuclear weapons.

It's quite clear the Iranians are going for nuclear weapons. Sitting on an ocean of oil, there is no economic reason for them to build civilian nuclear reactors. Their aspirations are transparent. The question alternatives do we have in dealing with them

1. Allow them to attain nuclear weapons, and hope that the democratic movement restrains any rashness on the part of Iran's fundamentalist leaders.

2. Launch a "special operation" to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. This will be more difficult now than it was for the Israelis 20 years ago, because the Iranians have dispersed and hardened their facilities to fend off such an operation.

3. Launch a full-scale invasion to take over the country, as we have done in Iraq.

I don't believe anyone in the Administration seriously contemplates #3, considering how stretched the military is in dealing with Iraq. Indeed, the "preemptive" Iraq War has preempted a full-scale war against Iran.

I expect that the Administration is contemplating #2. However, there may be no way to pull it off successfully. Which may leave us with number 1--allow Iran to build nuclear weapons, and pray that we can deter them from using them.

Next Stop, Iran

Our country has lost its mind. The people of our nation have fallen asleep, and the men in charge are running us over a cliff.

To put it bluntly, a war against Iran would be somewhere between unwinnable and suicide. Iran is not a country the tanks can run through without getting shot at. Iran is not a country the troops can walk through without getting killed. Iran is not a country with a people which needs to be liberated. Iran is a bloodbath waiting to happen.

And the sad part is, this regime will use the same arguement used to thwart the UN allowing the US to enter Iraq.

"One American closely involved in monitoring Iran's nuclear programme said: "The big difference between Iraq and Iran is that the Iranians now have the ability to develop an atom bomb within two years. The time has come to force the Iranians to come clean about their real intentions."

Wait! Does that mean that, gasp, Iraq wasn't about to build a nuclear bomb?

"American officials fear that many Europeans on the IAEA's 35-member board of governors, some of whose countries have lucrative trade ties with Teheran, will back Mr al-Baradei's position."

Wait! I think I saw this before. Oh yeah, those Rush rumors about France's secret sales of technology and weapons to Iraq. Weren't there supposed to be documents to those effect proving our distrust of France was warranted? I guess they're buried in the desert with the Easter Bunny and our WMD's.

Not to be alarmist, but I do not subscribe to this policy of preemptive action. I do not trust nor do I believe anything this administration has to say regarding foreign affairs. I firmly believe this is an effort to set a new agenda for the 2004 election, just as the 2002 election was a referendum on Iraq. All the while, our belly is exposed to possible targets due to a lack of administration.

This is one battle the US cannot afford to fight. Please speak your voice now, hopefully the people can stop this war before we lose our way forever.

Bush Down, Dean Up; Stage is Set

I know, I know, you don't have to tell me. Polls don't mean anything this far away from an election. More Americans are concerned about their plans tonight than they are about our nation's future. But you're reading this blog, so you must be to some degree, a political junkie just as I am.

Today, if you are an Anybody But Bush person, you have to smile at the latest poll conducted by Zogby International. Surely, this brief slip will bounce next week as the President jerks our collective tearducts by digging up the emotions of 9/11 for his best immitation of "I care {this isn't for political gain, no way} about all Americans."

Relish today at least, as more Americans are now against Bush than with him. There is hope again that we can do something about it.

Additionally, in the same poll, suprisingly, Howard Dean has pulled ahead on the National Scene with 16% support. Kerry pulls second, which likely means more to his campaign than Dean's, and Lieberman sees the fruits of his labor, as his slide into the Political Wilderness continues. Unfortunately, Zogby picked a pertty unconfident group of Democrats, as they seem to agree by 63% that Bush will get reelected. But what may be the most telling number in all this poll insanity:

Just two in five (40%) said they would choose Bush if the election were held today, while 47% said they would elect a Democratic candidate. In August polling, respondents were split (43% each) over President Bush or any Democratic challenger.

As the title says, the stage is set. It's a great time to follow politics!

Cynical Centrist

I hadn't understood why centrist Gray Davis inspires such disgust in California. But thanks to blantantly cynical moves like this, I now get it.

After rejecting similar bills twice before, Gov. Gray Davis signed legislation Friday that will permit illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. The governor's turnaround is generally seen as an effort to win support from Latinos as he attempts to fight off the Oct. 7 recall effort, a view that Davis' aides dispute. Latinos make up 17 percent of the state's registered voters.

David has cast aside homeland security concerns about the driver's license, which is our de facto ID, putting personal ambition before principle.

Davis vetoed earlier versions of the bill, AB60 last year and AB1463 in 1999, citing homeland security concerns. In response, Cedillo had included a provision for criminal background checks in last year's measure. And this year, at the governor's urging, he proposed a high-tech fingerprinting plan. But those elements did not make it into the final version that landed on the governor's desk, prompting frustration in some law-enforcement quarters.

"We wanted to see the biometric identifier, some ability to cross-reference existing criminal databases, we wanted to see it be a temporary license pending becoming a legal resident," said Nick Warner, legislative director for the California State Sheriffs' Association. "For three years the governor has taken that as his position. Flash forward to Sept. 5, and we part ways."

The uninsured driver issue is a red herring. Supposedly, the reason for this legislation is that illegal immigrants are driving without insurance as well as licenses. Some victims of car accidents can't get compensation because drivers are uninsured.

If that is the case, why not have a state health insurance fund and social services to help people who are handicapped as a result of accidents? We don't need to blow away our homeland security and immigration policies because of inadequate medical coverage.

It's true that the vast majority of immigrants are not terrorists. So are the vast majority of airline passengers. Still, we have to develop policies that take into account the bad faith of the few who are.

Edwards Blogs

John Edwards' campaign is trying to do an interesting thing by creating an Edwards blog community

With a free account on the Edwards for President Blog, you can start to get involved! Sign-in to post stories and rank other posts. Create an account and show your support!

Clark Gossip

Salon has a couple of pieces about Clark, one discussing his prospects, and another with great gossip about his supporters.

I have to issue one correction of what I indicated below. Daily Kos turns out not to have been Dean-from-the-start, but in fact started draftclark.com before getting tired of waiting for Wesley.

Here is an article comparing and contrasting Arkansans Clark and Clinton.

Dean Not Running as a Centrist

Dean's been making interesting moves in recent weeks that seem designed to position him better to attract moderates, and perhaps also to reclaim his maverick political instincts and record. In particular, he was clarifying his position on Iraq and emphasizing our commitment to the rebuilding effort and the vital importance of seeing it through successfully.

The debate last night makes it pretty clear, though. Dean isn't serious about running as a centrist. He may have plans to pursue the traditional kabuki dance of presidential politics -- staying to the left in the primaries and moving to the center for the general election. But he's not signaling to us now that he is, or wants to be, a centrist.

First, there is the trade issue. He described his views in a way that reiterated a statement he made in a recent interview. Here's how he put it last night:

"We ought not to be in the business of having free and open borders with countries that don't have the same environmental, labor and human rights standards."

Lieberman challenged him to clarify that position, arguing that insisting on American standards would lead inevitably to the end of free trade arrangements with all underdeveloped countries. Instead of clarifying, however, he offered a somewhat murky defense of his position. His basic attitude appeared to be that Lieberman's question was unreasonable.

Trade has been something of a signature issue for centrist Democrats. Bill Clinton built a centrist legacy by disagreeing with his party on a few major issues, and trade was the first in line -- the first time he asked his party to move in a decidedly new direction.

I suspect Howard Dean is also a free trader at heart. He doesn't intend to actually apply the standard he embraced last night. He's just making a play for liberal votes. But he should understand that he's parting company with centrist Democrats when he does so.

The most startling statement Dean made last night, however, had to do with Iraq. He's taken pains to embrace our Iraq commitment strongly in recent weeks, and has called specifically for more American troops. But last night he allowed himself, at one point, to voice the rhetoric of the opposing side:

"If we need more troops, they are going to be foreign troops, not our troops. Our troops need to come home."

That last sentence is something that should not cross the lips of a responsible American leader at this moment in history. The Iraq crisis is at a peak, now. Various factions are wondering if they can push us out through violence -- whether we're willing to shoulder the burden. If we nominate someone for president who publicly wavers in that commitment, it will likely weaken our position.

Dean wants to play to a certain faction within the liberal base who thinks we should withdraw from Iraq. I'd prefer he play politics with trade, however, than with American lives at risk overseas.

UPDATE: Chris Sullentrop of Slate had nearly the same reaction I did. And he can clarify a bit on the trade issue because he asked him about it specifically in an earlier interview.

Debate In Progress

The Democratic debate is in progress.

Comments so far:

Kucinich is making Dean look moderate. Actually, Kucinich make Carol Mosely Braun look moderate.

Dean impressed me favorably by echoing my own point that we need to get Arab armies (Egypt and Morrocco) involved in policing Iraq, which we can only do by cooperating with the UN

Dean needs a neck, or at least a looser collar.

9:03 PM
The biggest surprise to me has been Bob Graham. I would not have been able to pick him out of a crowd before, but he seems intelligent and authoritative.

I've previously blogged how I'm put off by those who say "Bush is a liar." I find Dean's formulation, "What Bush said was false" to be palatable. It is possible for Bush to state something false without being a liar. He could be ignorant, mistaken, dumb, etc. The liar charge shows self-righteousness on those who use it. It is wise for Dean to avoid it.

Lieberman's shot about a "Dean depression" did not go over well. I think it was too hard a punch, and makes Lieberman look mean.

9:26
I don't like what any of the Democrats have said about "undocumented immigrants" Essentially, they're talking about open immigration. Maybe there would be some policing of borders, but once you're across and you don't commit a felony within the United States for 5 years, you become a citizen.

It makes a farce of any legal immigration process. Why would anyone be stupid enough to immigrate legally?

Even setting aside 9/11 security issues, I think American citizens whose taxes have created the accumulated capital of this country have a right to decide who they share it with. It's one thing to accept refugees with a well-founded fear of persecution, but the Democratic policy of foreign aid seems to be to allow all foreigners to move to the US.

10:20
It seems to me the Democratic candidates were pandering to the largely Hispanic audience in this "bilingual" debate held in New Mexico. There didn't seem to be any sense of a need to balance the aspirations of immigrants with the interests of native-born Americans.

They're politicians, and I expect they know what they're doing. Native-born Americans like myself may not like their position on immigration, but its not among the top 5 issues on our minds when we go into the voting booth. For Hispanic voters with relatives seeking legal status, it may be the number one issue. It's a classic case of the domination of concentrated over diffuse interests.

Shady Shores, Texas

Shady Shores, Texas is a town that I've never visited. It's a very small town on the shores of Lake Dallas; it's any small town in America.

Why should we care about Shady Shores, Texas?

Tonight, the ABC Evening News reported that that the total number of US wounded in Iraq since the start of the conflict had risen to 1,461 human beings; Americans; Soldiers; Sons and Daughters. In 2000, Shady Shores, Texas was reported by the Census to house 1,461 human beings.

Tell you friends about Shady Shores, Texas tonight. Let them know the extent of the injuries suffered in Iraq. We owe it to our troops to recognize the sacrifice they have made!

The Internet Campaign

David S. Bernstein has a roundup in the Boston Phoenix of how the various campaigns are using the internet and blogs in particular, mentioning those of Edwards-turned-Dean supporter Oliver Willis and Dean-from-the-start Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of the Daily Kos

Here's what Bernstein has to say about a Kerry meetup.com event.

TRIDENT BOOKSELLERS & Café is located within walking distance of John Kerry’s Beacon Hill residence, so you might expect a gathering of his supporters to fill the small shop. Especially since this was a MeetUp — arranged through MeetUp.com, which former Vermont governor Howard Dean’s campaign has used to recruit thousands of followers. So the seven Kerry fans who came to Trident last Thursday evening couldn’t hide their disappointment. (Actually nine showed up, but two well-groomed thirtysomething buddies left quickly, apparently having anticipated more of an opportunity to MeetUp with single women.) Trident’s wait staff was also surprised by the poor attendance; more people than this had come to an atheists MeetUp the previous week, and even a recent MeetUp of witches had seen a better draw.

I'm planning to to go a Clark meetup on Monday. I hope we outdraw the atheists.

And I thought "Liberals" were for Bigger Government

Almost longing for yester-year when Liberals where easily catagorized as Big Spenders, Pro-Big Government and Republicans as Fiscal Conservatives, Pro-Smaller Government, a new Drudge Headline, placed below the most recent Britney Spears confession, sure to sway the critical 11-15 crowd in favor of Bush, reveals to everyone what is painfully obvious. Namely, there is nothing either Fiscally Conservative or Traditionally Republican in the record of this Bush administration.

The Wall Street Journal on Thursday reports:

"While the number of official government employees declined slightly after President Bush took office, the Brookings study to be released Friday finds the number of full-time employees working on government contracts and grants has zoomed by more than one million people since 1999, bringing the overall head count to more than 12.1 million as of this past October."

So while Bush continues to label the left as Tax and Spend, he is himself All Spend All the Time. You would think that a Republican acting like a "liberal" would make news, but then again, is anyone paying attention?

Debate Tonight

Debate among Democratic Party presidential candidates from Albuquerque, N.M
televised on PBS, tonight at 8:00pm (Eastern Time, I believe)

Fortinbras, Not Hamlet

I got my copy of the Atlantic yesterday, and there is an article about Clark (not available online yet) which leads off by comparing Clark to Hamlet and (gasp) Mario Cuomo.

I want to defend him from that charge. I think it is entirely reasonable that someone considering a "career change" from the military via punditry into politics will take longer making the decision than established politicians who are simply going for a "promotion." In particular, the gig for Clark on CNN during the Iraq War was important to give him face time on TV, and a chance to wade, rather than dive, into the political maelstrom.

Rather than the helpless Hamlet, perhaps Clark will play the role of Fortinbras, Prince of Norway, who comes in at the end to gain the crown of Denmark.

More Clark links:

Leadership For America, a non-profit organization founded by Clark

Digital Clark, which contains an archive of Clark interviews viewable with Realplayer or Windows Media Player.

A Clark profile in Fortune that asks some good questions.

Page through the sharp-edged Tooney Bin for posts on Clark. He led me to this Calpundit post, which trackbacks to this attack on Clark by Backcountry Conservative.

What about taxes?

I found the following here:

For decades Lewis Lapham, born into an oil fortune, has been asking people how much money they would need to be happy. "No matter what their income," he reports, "a depressing number of Americans believe that if only they had twice as much, they would inherit the estate of happiness promised them in the Declaration of Independence. The man who receives $15,000 a year is sure that he could relieve his sorrow if he had only $30,000 a year; the man with $1 million a year knows that all would be well if he had $2 million a year....Nobody," he concludes, "ever has enough."

As a frequent subject of both political demagoguery and serious discussion, everyone has an opinion on tax policy.

No one wants to pay them. Approaches range from laissez faire to having government insure everyone's financial well-being.

Tax and spend. Don't tax and don't spend. Don't tax, borrow and spend. Just don't tax me!

I'd like to hear what others think are the elements of a small set of basic principles that should guide tax policies -- principles that you believe would be supported by many across the political spectrum.

Of course I'm suggesting we avoid political rhetoric (e.g. 'taxation is legal robbery') and focus on the answers to questions like these:

- What should be the goals of public expenditures?
- What 'rights' -- and whose -- must be considered in tax policy?
- How should an individual's means affect their tax?
- Should taxation be regressive, progressive or a mix of both?
- Should corporations be taxed?
- What should be taxed? What should not?

I'm sure that will take a paragraph or two! Seriously, let's take this a bit at a time. We're in no hurry. Take one item and write a couple of paragraphs, then let others respond.

Let's see if our thoughts begin to converge as we talk this through.

(also posted on CivicDialogues.org)

Wesley Clark aligns with the democratic party

Transcript from CNN this afternoon:

WOODRUFF: But right now we want to talk to someone who's been thinking about getting into this race. He is retired Army General, retired NATO Commander, General Wesley Clark. He joins us from New York City.

General Clark, thank you for being with us.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME COMMANDER: Thank you, Judy. Good to be here.

WOODRUFF: I want to ask you, first of all, you have been saying for months that you're neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Are you now ready to declare that you belong to, swear your allegiance to one party or another?

CLARK: Well, Judy, this has been a really tough transition to make out of uniform and looking at American society. You know, I was in the Ford administration, I know a lot of people who have really believed in the Republican party. I was working around the White House through the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Clinton administration. But as I've traveled around America and looked at where the country is now domestically, and looked at our policies abroad, I have to say that I'm aligned with the Democratic Party, I like the message the party has, I like what it stands for.

To start, it's a party that stands for internationalism, it's a party that stands for ordinary men and women, it's a party that stands for fair play and equity and justice and common sense and reasonable dialogue. It's a party that has had a great tradition in our country, and I'm very attracted to it and that's the party I belong to.

WOODRUFF: General, I think I can hear some Republicans out there saying, Well, this is really no surprise to us because you've been critical of Bush administration policy. You've, in effect, they think, aligned yourself with the Democrats. They might be asking, What took you so long?

CLARK: I think it's a very difficult transition for people who are in uniform and are very serious about government and public service. You know we've worn U.S. on our collars, we've served the commander in chief loyally, we don't speak out about public policy in uniform, we would never criticize the commander in chief whoever he was.

And, yet, as I looked at where the country is, where it's going, I looked at the policy that took us into Iraq. I always had my doubts about it, I was always concerned about what would happen afterwards. And, of course, so much of that has proved true. We tried to convey these concerns to people on the inside. They didn't listen, they didn't want to take them aboard.

I've looked at the tax cuts and what their impact is, I've looked at the job loss in America. There's just, to me, it's a very clear distinction between the two parties.

WOODRUFF: General, does this mean you are now closer to deciding, yes, you will run for president?

CLARK: Well, I'm closer to working my way through it. I'm understanding more and more about what partisan politics is, how political parties work.

I know that's easy looking at it from the outside. But when you're in the inside and people are asking you and coming to you and asking you to run and asking you for leadership and challenging your ideas and so forth, it's an entirely different matter.

But, yes, my family and I are moving toward closure on that issue. For us it's a question of what is the best way to contribute to the country?

WOODRUFF: Well we hear, General, that you're also interviewing people about staffing a campaign.

CLARK: Well one of the issues that's come up, Judy, is some people have said it was too late. And so I have tried to do my homework on that issue. I'm asking, Is it too late? I've talked to people about money, as well because that when you do something like this it's a profound step and you want to be sure that you're moving in a direction that makes sense.

You know, it's a very easy thing when you're in public life for people who like you to come up and praise you and ask you to do things. But the real question is, What's the actual situation? And you have to listen to the people who don't always tell you what you want to hear.

WOODRUFF: But you've said that you will decide by September the 19th whether you are going to go. And it sounds to me as if you're on the verge of deciding yes.

CLARK: Well, we are moving towards closure and I did have that speaking engagement in Iowa on September 19. So that is one of those benchmarks. But this has been a...

WOODRUFF: Closure meaning a yes? Closure meaning a yes?

CLARK: Closure meaning closure, closure meaning closure. I have not made a decision on this. And my wife and I are looking at all the facts so forth.

I'm very -- I like the other people in the race, they're great people. By the way, there's a lot of great people in the Republican Party, too, that I feel very close to and whom I admire tremendously. So this is a very tough decision.

WOODRUFF: You feel you've got a great burden off your chest by doing this?

CLARK: I think that it helps clarify the situation because I think it's easier for people to relate to you if they can put a label on there. And the label is, you know, I'd be proud and I am proud to be a Democrat.

WOODRUFF: All right. Spoken by retired Army General Wesley Clark, announcing once and for all that he's a Democrat.

General, thank you very much for talking to us. We appreciate it.

CLARK: Thank you, Judy.

This announcement certainly surprises no one. Reading between the lines, I'd say the decision is 'yes' and what remains is to organize the most effective way to make the announcement.

This is good news for political dialogue, the democratic party and moderate politics.

I don't think Rove et al. are finding this to be welcome news.