Centerfield

The Lexus and the Olive Tree

A few weeks ago, I read The Lexus and the Olive Tree , by Tom Friedman. When I started it, I thought I would be kinda bored, because I've read Economist, Wired, and Business Week articles by the ton. I have personally been involved with creating and selling a high-tech product that had better foreign than domestic sales.

But there was plenty of insight to be found anyway. It might be because I am so much caught up in the globalist trees (less flattering explanations are possible, too), I hadn't seen an important thing he points out, that globalism is the big source of hope and fear of this time.

Interestingly, my wife the Profesora, a Latin American literature scholar, found this observation pretty obvious, even though she is distinctly skeptical of globalization's prospects. Or maybe it's because she is. Many scholars in her area see globalization as a much bigger (and usually negative) deal than I did.

The idea of globalization as the prime mover of our era would still probably raise skepticism with me if the whole pattern of the War on Terror hadn't strongly suggested a globalization-related explanation. The Middle East is the least globalized region in the world, and we were attacked not for resources or our military threat, but rather because of the competitive economic and cultural issues at the heart of globalization.

Though Friedman didn't forecast 9/11 per se, he did explain all the underlying trends involved:

Arab refusal to play in globalization: After going through several cases of national leaders being very respectful of bond ratings companies, he tells a story of an Arab national leader never having heard of Moody's.

Possibly drastic consequences of nations not globalizing (although he was worried more about a big nation than a conglomeration of medium ones).

Arab cultural and especially economic stagnation.

Technology increasing connections and individual power, for terrorism as for all else.

Posted by Jon Kay at 03:21 PM | Comments (2)

What 'non-southern stragegy' means

Should the Democrats forget the South in 2004? Cliff Schecter and Ruy Teixeira discuss various facets of this issue in The American Prospect. Here's a great statement:

The non-southern strategy is not about running as if every state were California. It's more about running as if every state were Ohio -- true to the Democratic principles and priorities cherished by the base but attentive to the concerns of the moderate swing voters who can put you over the top.

There's more to it, of course. Read!

A different take on flip-floping

Andrew Cline at Rhetorica.net:

Steve Chapman finds this tendency [believing that politicians should not change their minds for reasons of political expediency] distressing: "Anyone is entitled to change his mind in the light of new evidence. The problem with politicians is that they never seem to change their minds in ways that would hinder their ambitions." He refers to such flip-flops as empty words.

Oh, really? In other words the collective opinions of a politician's (potential) constituents count for nothing. Oooops. I don't think Chapman would like to hear it stated that way, but this is precisely the implication of his assertion. These are not empty words; these are opinions shared by voters the politician hopes to court and then to serve. Leadership can also mean serving the will of the people. Good leadership, and political wisdom, may be thought of as a thoughtful blending of these two positions.

This fits very well with my own belief that one often overlooked aspect of leadership is the ability to move a group toward consensus -- to preside over the group, not dictate to the group. In other words, the leader knows how to inspire the process.

Hmmm. I think I just 'verbalized' another reason why I like Wes Clark. And another reason why I think Bush simply isn't up to the job.

Two Strikes

Mark Allen calls himself a "classical liberal" which actually puts him to the right-of-center. But he's calling for straight talk from President Bush on the conclusions by David Kay with regard to weapons of mass destruction. With reference to mealy-mouth statements by the President's Press Secretary, Mark writes:

Statements such as these are wholly inadequate in the face of Kay's rather definitive statements about the Iraqi research programs. Americans deserve nothing less than a full accounting of what went wrong, why and how. And we deserve an action plan to fix these problems in the future.

I don't think the President deliberately lied about this. But we've now had two major intelligence failures on President Bush's watch. The 9/11 failure was early in his term, and it's difficult to assign him much blame. This second failure comes in the middle of his term when he was paying full attention. If there are systemic failures, we need to find out what they are. Otherwise, if Al Qaeda pitches another strike at us, it will be three strikes for the Bush Administration.

Charisma and Weaseling

Since Rick called me out on my comment that Clark lack charisma, I've thought about it some more, and I realize that I've left out something of a connection.

In short, my sense is that the harder a politician is weaseling, the more he tends to lack charisma. And I'm not trying to pick on Clark in particular. It seems to me to be true in general for all but the most practised weasels. In Clark's case, it seems to me that Clark has been called upon to do more weaseling than usual, because he may not have spent much time thinking about domestic policy until he became a candidate, and so a large part of his policy has been crafted more with an eye to garnering votes in the democratic primary than with a genuine connection to anything he passionately believes. And on foreign policy, he's been trying to have it both ways, so every time he has to think very carefully about each word that comes out of his mouth, there's less brain left over for passionately and clearly connecting on the basis of what he really believes.

And again, let me stress that I'm not posting to pick on Clark. Notice how much less charisma Dean has these days. He's defensive, trying too hard to control his demeanor, and using so much brain on being careful that he's not connecting. How much charisma does Dean project when he has to talk about religion? Not much, because he's made the judgement that to be 100% frank is deadly to his candidacy.

And I'm not picking on Dean either. The fact is that when you speak from the heart about what you truly believe, you generally project some charisma, you make genuine person-to-person connections, unless of course what you say is very alien to your audience, if they believe something very different. And every time you take a step that tempers what you really believe in an effort not to upset some part of your audience, it becomes harder to project genuineness, passion, real leadership.

And now I'm recalling Mike Dukakis. He spent most of his general election campaign parsing words and tempering message, and he only made a too-late closing effort when he scrapped the script and started speaking more from his heart.

So I guess that when I say that it feels to me that Clark, or Dean, or Kerry, or whoever lacks charisma, what I'm really saying is that the person seems to me to not really be speaking very much from his heart. And at some point you have to choose to do this (or at least project this) to win the Presidency.

Digging Up Dirt On Kerry

Oliver Willis wants the Kerry candidacy to set for a while to see if it can withstand the heat as the Republicans turn their fire toward him.

I think Kerry will hold up well. In an oldie but goody article in National Review, Jim Geraghty warned Republicans against trying to Dukakize Kerry, who served as Lt. Governor under the man who would be nominated by the Democrats in 1988.

The prison-furlough policy that released Willie Horton and let him rape a Maryland woman was put in place before Kerry became lieutenant governor — and Kerry was in the Senate when Horton was released.

In one piece of sloppy journalism during a tough race here in Massachusetts in 1996, Kerry was accused of a war crime, but was vindicated.

Kerry has a long legislative voting record, and there are surely some votes he'd like to take back. My advice is to him is, don't be attached to old votes. If you voted for something assinine in 1989, no one will care. But if you feel a need to defend that vote, that is what will revive the issue. Better to admit to some mistakes (which our current President is unable to do) than defend the indefensible and make people wonder whether your a liar, or just stupid.

Me Too On DailyKos

I was also at DailyKos, last night. I can't believe just how much time I spent reading most of the DailyKos comments re Trippi's departure . Interestingly, the biggest reason for Dean's problems - severe lack of message control - did come up once, but only as the middle of a five-point list in one post out of several hundred. The more general topic of his message - Dean's mistakes - went nowhere.

I mean, you tell me, is Dean for or against globalization?

Reading the thread made it occur to me that there's probably another aspect to the Great Dean Policy Veer. If you were one of the leaders of the medieval Crusades, and you happened to not actually believe in God, when talking to your troops, would you bring up your lack of faith? In fact, if you were a basically nice and kind king of guy, wouldn't you start to feel guilty about your lack of faith and maybe even go looking for some? Certainly, the Kosites and many other Dean supporters have great faith that globalization is out-and-out evil. That's yet another aspect of the primary environment that seems to have surprised Dean for ill....

Clark's Difficulty II

The Decembrist analysis of Clark's difficulties echoes my own

I'd been hoping and expecting that Clark would click with New Hampshire's independents. What I didn't understand was that before he could do that, he would have to establish his credentials as a Democrat and even his right to run in the primary, in a way that McCain never had to establish his credentials as a Republican. Spooked by Dean -- unduly, it turns out -- he had to oversimplify his position on the war, and every minute he spent shoring up his not-very-believable left-of-center cred was a minute spent not reaching out to New Hampshire independents. I sort of wonder what would have happened if Clark had answered questions about party affiliation by saying something like, "political parties have never been that important to me. I've got my beliefs and values, and that's what I'm going to talk about. I've met plenty of Republicans who share my values, but they're not represented in this administration. On the most fundamental issues, such as a fair tax system, I agree with most Democrats, but I want to lead a country that's less partisan, where we work together to solve problems," etc. How many Democrats would be upset by that? Who's loyalty today is really to a party? And it would certainly help reach independents.

Clark's top campaign people are veteran Democrats, and I believe they led them on this fruitless chase to be Dean-lite. A general seemingly that far to the left did not compute, and made the "brand image" seem incoherent. That's why he ran into trouble with an inconsistent message.

It started on Day 1 of the campaign, when Clark said that he might have voted for a resolution authorizing force (putting him in the same boat with Kerry) then quickly backed off, no doubt when his advisors told him such a position would be fatal to his campaign. Guess what? Kerry's position wasn't fatal, and neither would Clark's have been if he had admitted that like Kerry, he would have given the Commander-In-Chief the benefit of the doubt at the time, but now had lost all confidence in him.

Train Wreck at DailyKos

This is a little bit like passing by a train wreck. You almost have to look.

DailyKos has been a swarm of thousands of Dean supporters for the past many months. They've gotten restless over the last week or two, with each new piece of bad news.

Now it's pretty close to total meltdown. Even the strongest pro-Dean folks are throwing in the towel in disgust following reports the campaign is broke. These are the guys who sent in all those little contributions lo these many months, and the money is gone before we reach the third primary.

Don't look. Really. It's ugly.

UPDATE: Oliver Willis is also withdrawing support for Dean.

A Report From The Cold

I stood outside two polls on Tuesday. For 4 hours, I was outside the Mary Fisk Elementary School in Salem, NH holding a Clark04 sign. After returning to Clark's Derry office to warm up (and blog an update in Bopnews), I went out for three more hours outside the West Running Brook Middle School in Derry, NH. Around 7:30PM, after most polls had closed, Wesley Clark himself dropped by to greet last-minute voters at our poll, which was open until 8:00PM. His entourage handed out welcome cups of hot chocolate to the volunteers. I'd shaken Clark's hand one time before, but this time I did not bother to remove my glove. Clark himself was barehanded.

During the day, there was gossip among those of us standing outside the polls that Clark had fallen to fourth in the exit polls or that (God forbid!) he might even finish behind Lieberman. So by the time I arrived at the post-primary party at C.R. Sparks in Bedford, New Hampshire, supporters were relieved and even pleased that Clark was in third place, narrowly ahead of Edwards. With a bank of more than 20 cameras focused on him, Clark gave an upbeat speech. In the back of my mind, I wondered whether he would "scream" or do anything else that might embarrass us, but of course he is too dignified. The heavy and obvious media presence made me even more incredulous that Dean, the third place finisher one week ago, would have pitched his post-caucuses speech at those in the room rather than those behind the camera.

It had been a tough week for Clark. Michael Moore's endorsement had clearly backfired, with media coverage of Clark being dominated by demands that he disavow Moore's remark that Bush was a deserter. There was a sense among Clark supporters that the press saw Clark was an easy mark for gotcha journalism. One example of this was a report on CNN this week which pounced on Clark statement that in contrast to other candidates, "I didn't go to Yale" This was characterized as yet another gaffe, both in being a stealth negative attack on Kerry and failing to recognize Edwards humble roots.

In contrast, it seemed to us that Edwards was getting a free ride from the media. Just like the standard answer in a job interview, when asked to name a personal flaw, is to admit that one "tries to hard" the knocks against Edwards seem to be limited to his being "too good-looking" and "not ready yet." If he has any actual flaws, I've not seen reports about them. But even media bias does not explain the lack of professionalism I heard on my drive home after the party, as CNN radio news announced the results of the New Hampshire primary: Kerry first, Dean second, Edwards fourth. There was no mention of who came in third.

One conclusion I make from this experience is that "free media" of the broadcast variety still trumps advertising and Internet. The new model may be to use the Internet to raise money to spend on TV advertising, and that may be critical to reach a minimum level of credibility in order to receive serious media coverage. But even if the media is considered by many to be biased, it retains more credibility than information received from advertising or blog enthusiasts. The news cycle remains critical, and the impact of blogs on the news cycle remains the exception rather than the rule.

(cross-posted with BOPnews)

Prediction Time...

OK, my prediction for the day in New Hampshire.

Kerry
Dean
Edwards

Clark and Leiberman fighting for fourth.

And in that order. Anyone else want to stick their neck out? :-)

A Sign of the Times

A week ago, the voters of Iowa said they want a positive campaign, and punished both Dean and Gephardt for pummeling each other in the waning days of that contest.

Today, I suspect the voters of New Hampshire will do the same -- presenting Dean with a double-digit loss and pretty much finishing the one candidate most closely associated with the politics of anger.

I think there's something more going on here than maneuverings in a Democratic primary. I sense a certain underlying, perhaps subconscious, feeling ... something that will affect both parties and fundamentally shape the year to come.

We're in an unnatural place, politically speaking. The natural reaction of any nation following a devastating attack such as 9/11 is to pull together. You saw it in good ol' boys from Texas packing up and going to New York to lend a hand. There was a moment two years ago when everybody felt like a New Yorker, or, perhaps, people sensed that New Yorkers were reflecting our American values in the most extraordinary ways.

The natural reaction of the world, meanwhile, was deepest sympathy. Thousands of American civilians had perished in an unprovoked attack. The world understood that we were all targets -- terrorism was a challenge to civilization as a whole.

In the meantime -- the two years since -- our economy has stagnated. We've had more economic uncertainty in the past three years than in the previous decade. That uncertainty affects people more than our fears about terrorism, by a long shot.

Americans want a president who helps us regain that native American sense of optimism. We've been trying to figure out how to believe again, and haven't quite managed it. We would love to feel like we're coming together, not shouting at one another across a political fence.

The leader who can do this successfully will balance realism with hope -- being frank about the security challenges we face, the steps we need to take to deal with them, and the fact that we can never be 100% sure of preventing the next attack.

It's possible for Americans to accept the risk, while going forward with a strong sense of hope and optimism about our future. The leader of the moment will be the one who finds that balance -- realistic, grounded ... but unifying and optimistic.

Clark's Difficulty

In a comment on a previous post, Brian stated

My sense is that Clark is losing steam fast because he completely lacks charisma and is not connecting with people at all.

That is not the problem. Having met Clark, and observed the campaign closely, I can testify that many people find him quite charismatic. So why is Clark sliding? This article in the NY Times nails it.

General Clark was preparing a campaign against Howard Dean and appeared to be running to the former Vermont governor's left on issues like the war and abortion. He appeared with Michael Moore, the liberal activist and filmmaker, and George McGovern, the party's failed antiwar nominee of 1972, while Dr. Dean was endorsed by more establishment politicians.

When Senator John Kerry won Iowa, General Clark was caught off guard. While he may have benefited from the recent scrutiny of Dr. Dean, he also faced suddenly emboldened challenges from Mr. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, and Senator John Edwards, who like General Clark is from the South.

As to why Clark, who appears to be a centrist, has shifted so far to the left, don't blame me. Back in December, on the Clark Community blogs, I made a post entitled Clark Cannot Out-Dean Dean. As you can see from the comments, my perspective was not well-received.

My guess is that the shift to the left was an effort to prove he was a "real Democrat" despite being new to the party. I always felt that there was a market niche to the right of Dean in the campaign, and I hoped that Clark would fill it. It seems now that Kerry occupies that space.

Can Clark straighten things out? Yes, if he comes out ahead of Edwards in New Hampshire. If not, he'll have no momentum going to the South, and will be counted out.

Edwards Worries Republican Strategists

An article in today's Washington Post suggests that Republican strategists see Edwards as the toughest potential opponent.

Now, they could be blowing smoke, as strategists do. Could be that I'm just a sucker for this message, given that I make the very same arguments.

Here's a few paragraphs:

These Republicans said they worry most about Edwards, because he is so little known and has such a comparatively short public record. That combination would give him the easiest time morphing into whatever his campaign decides that swing voters want. "Personally, I'm the most concerned about Edwards, because he has a huge attractiveness to him," a senior Republican official said. "The only negative is the lack of experience."

Another Republican official who is worried about facing Edwards called him "Clinton without the scandal -- John Kennedy, from the South."

"He's the most appealing of the candidates, and hardest to typify as a hard-core liberal," this official said. "Edwards is seen as a problem. Everybody in Massachusetts hates Kerry. Everybody in the Democratic Party hates Dean. Everyone in the military hates Clark. But nobody hates Edwards."

Clark's image is one of "confusion," a senior GOP official said, but acknowledged his military credentials would make it harder for Bush to draw an obvious contrast.

These Republicans said they think that Kerry would be harder to run against than Dean, but easier than Edwards, with Clark in the middle. "Running against a Massachusetts liberal can't be a bad thing for a Republican," the official said. "Dean would be fun, but Kerry's pretty good, too."

Pollsters, Defend Thy Craft!

So everyone is all het up about the impending NH primary. And what's causing the excitement? At least in part it's the polls, and the numbers changing daily, and showing trends.

So the Boston Globe reports their globe/wbz poll showing Kerry with a 20 point lead, 37-17. And Zogby reports Kerry over Dean by 28-25, a statistical dead heat. Common practice is to state a margin of error of about +/– 5%.(I'm a little short on time so I skipped the links to the poll I referred to, they are easily found.)

So what's to account for such a discrepancy? Well, a margin of error is a statistical construct based on probability, and on statistical methodology that makes certain assumptions. So a margin of error primarily reflects only some generic basic assumption about accuracy based on the number of people polled. And guess what, the basic assumptions are based at least in part on the fact that no one would pay for a poll if its margin of error were any greater that what's reported these days. If the polls are less accurate than the stated accuracy based on numbers polled, the pollsters don't want to know.

And note that +/– 5% is a 10 percentage point range. So 28-25 Kerry with a +/– 5% margin of error means that the pollster is willing to state (with only 95 percent confidence, which is another story) that Kerry has between 23 and 33 percent of the vote and Dean has between 20 and 30 percent of the vote. Read that again. That doesn't tell you a whole lot, does it?

You know what might be nice, though? If a place like Zogby (or whoever, I'm not picking on any one group) might be willing to do the same 400 person poll 5 or 6 times ON THE SAME DAY. So they could find out whether their claim that the margin of error is really +/– 5 % is on the mark, or whether it's really much greater. Because of one outfit is getting 37 for Kerry and another is getting 28, this suggests that the polls are not especially reliable.

And you know what might be nicer? How about if in 2008 the people of Iowa and NH refuse to answer pollsters' questions, and demand instead that politicans tell the people what they think the people genuinely need to be told. I mean, can you imagine if the politicans had no polls to rely on, and had to craft their message based on what they thought was right for the county, instead of basing friday's message on the thursday poll that said support among females aged 18-29 was lagging. They'd have to rely either on guessing, or just speaking from their heart and their gut.

Seriously worth a try.

Atriots

Atrios shows his shallow understanding of world events with his sarcastic attacks on Thomas Friedman. Friedman, as usual, wrote a column informed by his long time spent in the Middle East

According to the 2003 Arab Human Development Report, between 1980 and 1999 the nine leading Arab economies registered 370 patents (in the U.S.) for new inventions. Patents are a good measure of a society's education quality, entrepreneurship, rule of law and innovation. During that same 20-year period, South Korea alone registered 16,328 patents for inventions. You don't run into a lot of South Koreans who want to be martyrs.

I was at Google's headquarters in Silicon Valley a few days ago, and they have this really amazing electronic global map that shows, with lights, how many people are using Google to search for knowledge. The region stretching from Morocco to the border of India had almost no lights. I attended a breakfast at Davos on the outsourcing of high-tech jobs from the U.S. and Europe to the developing world. There were Indian and Mexican businessmen there, and much talk about China. But not a word was spoken about outsourcing jobs to the Arab world. The context — infrastructure, productivity, education — just isn't there yet.

Atrios reduces this to

If there were more liberal democracies, there would be more liberal democracies.

and his commenters pile on with other sarcastic or obscene comments. To the Atriots, Friedman is villainous because he suggests that the problems in Arab societies have something to do with internal factors of Arab societies, rather than the usual litany of American sins in the region. Atrios is so offended by Friedman that he's dropped by Matthew Yglesias to repeat what he considers to most intelligent comment on his post

Someone in my comments gave the best generic shorter Tom Friedman column:

If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs. If we had some eggs.

This sort of insipid humor without any real engagement with the issues is an example of the echo chamber at its worst. They're the Beavis and Buttheads of the left.

Update:
I'm disappointed that Ryan Overbey thinks this is funny

Busy, Busy, Busy demonstrates another example of how Atrios spreading of the snide "shorter" technique devalues intelligent communication.

Pivot Point

Within the next few days, the Democratic race will most likely shift toward two main themes:

1. Kerry the frontrunner and prohibitive favorite.

2. Some alternative to Kerry emerging among the candidates with greater Southern or Western appeal (Clark or Edwards).

Given present trends, it's likely that the challenger to Kerry will have a hard time matching him and ultimately beating him.

A good portion of the more popular bloggers have long supported Wesley Clark, including Kevin Drum of CalPundit, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, and Andrew Northrup of The Poor Man.

Recently, we've seen rapidly growing interest with John Edwards, and even some ambivalence from some who previously supported Clark. Josh Marshall had an interesting take on him after attending one of his rallies, and Andrew Northrup had similar reactions.

A couple of the leading moderate Republican blogs -- Drezner and Tacitus -- have been particularly intrigued by an Edwards candidacy.

I think it makes sense, at this moment, to create a space where we talk about this. It will go one way or the other fairly soon, and whatever modest influence we can have should be exercised over the next few days.

Feel free to make your case here. I'll provide links below to discussions about this as they appear on other blogs.

Here are the discussions:

• Josh Marshall visited most of the major candidates rallies today and has a long post about the whole thing.
  
• Dan Drezner offers a moderate Republican take.
  
• Michael Totten is reevaluating the Democrats post-Iowa and genuinely considering Edwards.
  
• Greg Wythe is sticking with his man Joe Lieberman.
  
• Also, here's a ridiculously detailed compilation of all the current New Hampshire tracking polls. All the yellow and green lines are Clark and Edwards.
  

Bloggers On The Radio

Bloggers talking about blogs and presidential politics on the radio tonight, and also webcast:

The time of the show is Sunday, Jan 25, from 9pm-11pm EST (check your local listings to be sure). Guests include Atrios, Andrew Sullivan, Gary Hart, The list of the stations is here. If you don't live in one of these areas (final list will be posted tomorrow), you can stream from a lot of these over the web:

This is the page on Minnesota Public Radio that has a link to the webcast. Other guests are Max Fose, Jeff Jarvis, Josh Marshall, Kevin Phillips, Richard Reeves, Frank Rich, Ed Cone, Jerome Armstrong. The host is Christopher Lydon.

Demagoguery Addiction Theory Being Tested

Here's where my Dean demagoguery addiction theory gets tested. This, right now, is the point where he has to turn centerwards, as far left and extreme anti-Bush turnout has not been enough to put him over the top. He's not dumb - he knows this. The test of my theory is whether he sticks to disciplined centrism in the next week.

The whole bit with the scream is deeply symbolic of his problem....

One thing has happened that that suggests I'm right and he's, um, left. Even though he's trying to stay calm, and is stating policy rather than demagoguing, he isn't staking out centrist positions. He's kept the decidedly pro-regulation direction in which he has moved, decidedly away from the pro-globalisation spot that he enunciated at Cato back at the start of his campaign. That suggests that he's really moved well left, as my piece described , and isn't about to just resume centrist positions after a period of deliberate catering to the left.

We Need Your Help

Many of you have probably visited the parent site of this weblog at some point or another -- the Centrist Coalition. Just thought I'd take a moment, on behalf of the CC, to ask for your help. We're trying to build a grassroots centrist organization that helps establish an effective voice in the political process for moderates and centrists.

We have what you might consider short-term goals and long-term goals.

In the short term, we want to:

• Build an outstanding on-line resource for those interested in centrist politics. We want to offer a single place where you can find out about all the stuff going on in centrist politics -- the organizations, candidates, news articles, weblogs, books, discussions, etc.

• Facilitate discussion between moderates and centrists -- through this weblog and the centrist forum.

• Perform candidate research and recommend the best moderates and centrists running for public office.

In the long term, we want to:

• Incorporate as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, which will allow us to raise money and spend up to half of it on efforts to elect centrist candidates.

• Make connections and develop relationships between the various partisan and non-partisan centrist groups.

• Build a grassroots base for centrist politics. Find ways of connecting with all the moderates and centrists out there and encourage their active participation in the political process.

If you're willing to help us with any of these goals, either post a comment here or email volunteers@centristcoalition.com. Thanks.

Sullivan, Centrist

Andrew Sullivan is drifting toward the center

According to many Republicans, I'm selling out to the "hard left." According to some Democrats, I've finally seen the light, ha, ha, ha. How about applying principles to changing events and circumstances? It says something about what has happened to the Republican party that supporting fiscal responsibility is now the position of the "hard left." And it says something about some Democrats that you either have to hate this president or love him unconditionally. Why can't a grown-up have a complicated position? I'm a fiscal conservative, social/cultural liberal and foreign policy hawk. Neither party provides a comfortable home for people like me. I supported Clinton in 1992, backed Dole on moral grounds in 96 and opposed impeachment. I backed Bush (narrowly) in 2000. The war made my support for Bush stronger than I ever expected. I still admire his courage during that terrible time and respect his tenacity against terror. This time, I'm leaning toward Bush for those reasons but appalled by his fiscal recklessness, worried by his coziness with the religious far right, and concerned that he has no forward strategy in the war. I'm equally concerned about the obvious irresponsibility of the Democrats on national security (and spending) at a time of great peril.

Dated Dean, Married Kerry

William Saletan in Slate

Two months ago, I likened Kerry's "real deal" pitch to that of a good prospective husband competing with a hotheaded rogue: "Kerry isn't pretending to be the guy who makes your heart race. He's saying, go ahead and have your fling, but when it's time to marry, you know who to count on." A couple of weeks later, I was amused to hear that Kerry supporters were handing out paraphernalia with the slogan, "Dated Dean, Married Kerry." From everything Iowans are saying tonight, it looks like they fled the hothead for Mr. Reliable.

Can I interest you in an affair with Clark?

Echoes

At Blogging Of The President, in reference to the Dean blog, Ezra Klein has a positive view of the echo chamber

The blog kept the activists involved. It created a powerful echo chamber where they could hear from others like them all over the country. They felt involved, they were being listened to by a presidential campaign, they were finally being represented. That's the difference between activists and the average voter. Voters want representation, activists want involvement. The Dean campaign gave it to them. Then it gave them MeetUp. Now there were both virtual and tangible friends who you were working with, who you didn't want to disappoint. This is where you get the incredibly deep investment of Dean's supporters.

At Centerfield, we refer to the echo chamber negatively, as something which insulates people from other views. But I can see how for an isolated person who feels like a "voice in the wilderness" finding others online who echo their own views can be a important inspiration to activism.

I've more than once observed a process where communities gel, which is a great thing, but then harden and begin to exclude outsiders--not necessarly intentionally, but just become they speak in shorthand and with common points of reference that newbies find impenetrable.

Centerfield is becoming a small community, just starting to gel. We haven't hardened yet, and I hope we don't. If you feel like a voice in the curious political vacuum that exists to the right of the left, and to the left of the right, pull up a chair and hang out here. Leave a comment. And if you'd like post to the blog, email me at blog@centristcoalition.com.

We are right; you are wrong. Therefore...

Michael Totten points out the dangers of excessive partisanship:

It isn’t nearly good enough to acknowledge that the other political party isn’t evil. In a liberal democracy (there’s that word again) with two major parties, each party, each overall governing philosophy, brings something to the table and gets some things right. They balance. Liberals are the gas, and conservatives are the brakes. (Or is it the other way around this year?) Yin, yang, Venus, Mars, and all that. And each party gets some things flat out wrong. It’s just not possible to split a reasonably healthy political culture into halves and end up with one side completely right and the other side utterly wrong.

If you’re a partisan for one side and you truly believe in your bones that the other side is evil or wrong on all counts, it really does logically follow that you’d prefer a one-party state. If the other party has no merit and causes nothing but trouble, everything would be solved if everyone became a Republican. Or a Democrat. Or whatever. And so democracy, from this point of view, is pointless and even dangerous.

If our hate pundits followed their logic to its conclusion, they would demand that we cancel elections.

Nobody in America would want that, right? (Wish I could be more confident about that.)

Thanks to Heretical Ideas.

(Also posted to Civic Dialogues)

Cornfield Commentary

For your post-mortem needs, a good Iowa blog. I wish I'd found it earlier.

The Devil is in the Details....

The trouncing of Howard Dean in Iowa last night was not good news for the Bush team. They've been gearing up for a Dean nomination, and given the choice between Dean and almost anyone else, would rather face off against Dean next fall. Now the distinct possibility is that not only will a more moderate Democrat be on the ballot, but that it'll be a Democrat with sound national security credentials, either Clark or Kerry. (Before you point out that Clark is still untested and Edwards ran strong in Iowa, I agree. Which is why it's an open equation. But Edwards doesn't worry the White House much, it's Kerry and Clark that can neutralize the 800 lb gorilla that is the National Security issue.)

Recent polls have shown that the electorate finds Bush weak on domestic issues versus Democrats. Topping the list of domestic concerns for voters is the economy, followed by health care, Social Security, and immigration. A nice rebound in economic growth has not yet translated into a rebound in employment, especially in the skilled middle class sector, and may not before the election. The Medicare Prescription bill failed to shore up support for Bush among seniors, and the more details that come to light about the bill's massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars to Big Business while effectively eliminating private-sector involvement the less the fiscal conservatives like it.

Tonight in the State of the Union speech Bush will call for more money for health care. But his proposals are likely to echo the "health savings" proposals of last year, that ignore the fact that those who can't afford health care to begin with can't afford to save for health care either, and to call for boosting payments to health care providers already in the Medicare system, which won't help cover a single uninsured person, just make the Medicare establishment a bit wealthier. And he'll call for more money for job training, but ignore the fact that training for jobs that don't exist is pointless, especially while promoting an immigration bill that is largely geared towards bringing in more foreign workers.

No, last night in Iowa was not a good night for the Bush team. Don't look for tonight to be a big poll-booster for Bush either.

What New Voters?

There has been a debate as to whether Democrats should go left, ignoring swing voters, and counting on their more progressive stance to bring new, untapped voters to the poll.

Here is Nick Confessore in Tapped

Today's Wall Street Journal story by John Harwood contains some of the worst news for Howard Dean I've seen in a long time. It implies that Dean and his campaign are buying into one of the left's oldest, hardiest myths about winning elections: That Democrats can win not by enlarging their share of people who already vote, but by bringing in "new" voters. Folks have been making this argument for years, and it's never come to pass. Harwood does his best to give Dean the benefit of the doubt. But it's remarkable that, in several thousand words, neither Harwood nor Dean's supporters generate a shred of evidence that he might succeed where others have failed:

Nathan Newman has some numbers that convincingly argue that voter turnout has not declined quite so much. He says

So since 1972, turnout has swung up and down 5%, a healthy margin to worry about-- add in the new possibilities of mobilization pioneered by Dean and the new union strategies for mobilization this year and turnout strategies look extremely attractive, especially compared to the uncertainties of appealing to the last couple of percentages of the "uncommitted."

It isn't that swing voters should be ignored, but given the polarization in the electorate, spending all your effort appealing to the maybe 10% of the population really in the swing category, compared to the 50% of the population that doesn't vote just seems stupid.

I don't quite get Nathan's argument. It seems to me that if turnout hasn't gone down as much as is conventionally described (because of a failure to adjust to the lowering of the voting age to 18) that means there is room to go up.

One might also question whether, as opposed to new bloggers, Dean can actually turn out new voters. Matt Stoller was blogging from a caucus room near the University of Iowa last night, and here is his headline "Dean Losing Among Students."

After Dean's Iowa debacle, let's say it again:

What new voters?

Here is my centrist message to liberals: You may not like it, but come November, you gotta go after the swing voters, like those of us here at Centerfield.

Update:
Also in TAPPED, Garance Franke-Ruta writing from Iowa, agrees:

The worst part of the Iowa loss is that it eviscerates the second half of Dean's message, that his ticket to electability -- despite his anti-war stance and his controversial comments -- is his organization. Dean had the most people on the ground and one of the best organizations in Iowa, but it didn't matter. "We didn't get our people out," Dean strategist Steve McMahon told me last night. "It wasn't for lack of trying."

It's Show Time!

The Iowa caucuses are tonight, and "down to the wire" doesn't begin to convey how fluid and unpredictable the situation is right now. Four Democrats are using every erg of energy available to leap for the brass ring, and by the polls all four have a shot coming into the stretch. A few weeks ago no one expected anyone but Dean to have an edge going into tonight. Even Gephardt, Iowa's next-door neighbor with his solid union connections and legions of local faithful, was dismissed out of hand. The Iowa "futures market" option contract for candidates had Dean at nearly 60% of the $1 contract, and the only other candidate in double digits was the no-show Wesley Clark, off making his mark in New Hampshire.

What a difference a month makes. The final Zogby tracking poll has Kerry in the lead over a trailing Dean, with Edwards close behind and Gephardt fading but still in contention. With a +/-4.5% margin of error, that makes it a four-way dead heat.

One of the most amazing things (to me) of this campaign season is the pleas of people begging the Democrats to come to their senses and move back to the mainstream before they make themselves totally irrelevant in post-9/11 America through sheer idiocy and childishness. Take this quote for example:

"This country needs two strong political parties and should have more. If the Democrats self-destruct, the Bush people will run wild. They are already taken with themselves and largely unavailable to the folks. With no competition, Dick Cheney might never be seen again."

Those are words I never thought to hear coming from a blustering right-winger like Bill O'Reilly. It's rare to hear good advice coming from the opposition, especially echoing what the saner heads of your own side are saying. The Angry Left faction, to whom being ideologically and emotionally correct trumps reality, has been running wild, and sacrificing electability for post-Gore catharsis. But if the polls in Iowa are any indication many Dem voters have been listening to more sober voices, and a goodly number of them seem disinclined to let the Democratic Party slide into the wilderness for another administration. That spells trouble for Dean--and opportunity for Clark and Kerry.

Whatever tonight brings we're in for an interesting primary season, with no obvious inevitability. In my mind that's a good thing.

A Centrist Foreign Policy

I don't want to say too many specific things about it, because I probably can't capture how I feel about it in words. It seems to me that this, however, is a beautiful example of the potential brilliance of third way politics.

There's a lot of charisma thrown into this equation. But the substance is there too and shouldn't be overlooked.

The message sounds similar to what I heard on CSPAN the other night in an appearance that included Clinton and Dole.

CalPundit talks about it here.

Welcome To The Center

Michael Totten introduces as a fellow left-to-center traveler a new blog, Eyelinematch.

Not new, but relatively new to me is Philosoraptor, who describes himself as a liberal centrist.

Centerfield welcomes you. Let's play ball!

As Bush Goes, So Goes Dean?

It occurred to me that there are parallels between the Dean campaign and Bush I's reelection campaign. You all remember how well that went for Bush....

Anyway, the similarity is that a man who started as a moderate pandered to the extreme wing of his party, producing quotes that at once contradicted earlier stances and pissed moderates off enough for Perot to have room to run.

Although, there is another difference. Looking at Bush during that primary, I wondered if he actually wanted to win (he'd made up his mind by the convention). Dean is clear on that point.

There's an interesting contrast in strategies between Bush' first and second races: in the first he presented himself as a Reagan clone (win), and in the second he pandered to extreme voters (loss).

Keeping In Touch With Congress

**Public Service Announcement**

We interrupt the coverage of the presidential primaries to provide you with the following (hopefully) helpful information. I think we can all agree that it's hard enough to get a majority of American citizens to vote, much less involved to any degree in what goes on in Washington. I know that has been true in my case and it was partly due to my involvement with this blog that I am more involved now than I have ever been in my life.

I stumbled across a website today that I would like to recommend, especially during this election year that involves more than just the presidency. The website is YourCongress.com, dedicated to... Well, here is what they say about themselves:

During his 10 years on Capitol Hill, YourCongress.com Founder and CEO Christopher Porter realized that there is so much that Congress does - both good and bad - that people never see. When Chris would meet with constituents, the complaints were always the same: newspaper and television coverage of Washington is inadequate, and no one has time to go to the library to check up on Congress. And if you watch C-SPAN, it's like they're speaking a foreign language.

After reading a People Magazine article about Northern Virginia-based Motley Fool, which uses humor to teach people about stocks and investing, Chris' wife Rosalyn had an idea: why not employ the Motley Fool model to teach people about Congress?

In November of 1999, Porter left Capitol Hill to work around the clock on YourCongress.com. At the same time, he began an alliance with Dan Hunter, an old college buddy of Chris' who happens to be one of Northern Virginia's top database programmers (Dan's company: TechMethods). Together, along with help from Chris' wife Rosalyn, they have built the site you are visiting now, including the amazing free Congress-tracking service that lets you know exactly what your elected officials are doing in Washington within 24 hours of when they do it.

As YourCongress.com has grown, we have added people to help serve your needs. YourCongress.com is the flagship site of Blutarsky Media, LLC, and has a relationship with YourCongress, Inc., the fastest-growing Congress-tracking and consulting services provider in America.

I am going to utilize their tracking service to follow the people who represent ME to see just how well it works. My quick perusal of the site has impressed me, especially the humor they utilize in presenting some great information. I think this site should be bookmarked by anyone interested in what goes on in Washington and should be a link on any politically oriented website. I also think a webiste like YourCongress.com should be promoted to high school Civics teachers as a great way to introduce their students to the workings of Congress.

As for political partisanship, they offer the following Non-Partisan Statement:

Democrat? Republican? Independent? YourCongress.com knows that silliness on Capitol Hill isn't limited to one party or the other, and is committed to giving you information that is free of the stain of political persuasion.

Frankly, we don't give a damn whether Republicans, Democrats, Independents, or Smurfs control Congress - we know politicians of any kind will continue doing silly stuff that will make us money!

Our mission is just to give you straight information and irreverent humor, and let you decide what it all means.

So if you want us to care about your particular party, too damn bad.

At least that gives you some idea of their humor! Check them out and feel free to share the link with family, friends, neighbors, and total strangers.

We now return you to regular coverage of the presidential primaries. Thank you.

Link Roundup - Fulani, Laquidara et al

The Boston Phoenix tells us to be wary of the organization Choosing An Independent President 2004. They're trying to appeal to independent and centrist voters. So far, so good. Unfortunately, the group's founder is Dr. Lenora Fulani, a one-time leftist who threw her support to Pat Buchanan's presidential run, and who some say has a following that resembles a cult.

In the Washington Post, John Harris covers Democrats debating whether to appeal to the base or to the center

Liberal talk radio doesn't work when it's earnest, but will it have a shot if it features comedians? Atrios thinks experience with radio is key, but where do you find liberals with radio experience? Do you convert former rock DJ's like Charles Laquidara? Actually, I think Al Franken could be huge as a talk radio host. I wouldn't bet on Robert F. Kennedy Jr, though.

Subaru is tweaking a car to turn it into a truck in order to game energy standards.

John Margolis says that Howard Dean is no McGovern. Dennis Kucinich is. I agree. Howard Dean's campaign is a bit like 1984, combining the panache of Gary Hart with the core Democrat focus of Walter Mondale.

Kerry surges to Iowa Lead

A new Zogby tracking poll has Kerry surging to the lead in Iowa, with Dean fading to a closely-trailing tie with Gephardt, and Edwards holding on to his endorsement bounce just on their heels. All other candidates are lost in the Iowa dust right now. My earlier speculation that Clark might slip in for an Iowa third is as far gone as Jayson Blair's journalistic ethics.

As predicted, the other strong contenders and the media have banded together to pile on Dean. Dean himself seems to have actually over-campaigned in Iowa, leading to a bit of voter fatigue with the relentless cheerleading of the True Believer Deaniacs. Gephardt is looking at much the same scenario with his union organizers, and is struggling to peak on Caucus night instead of before.

There's an excellent article by John Podhoretz in today's New York Post on some of the various scenarios for the candidates going into Iowa and the following weeks. It's looking like a bumpy ride, so fasten your seat belts. The fat lady hasn't even started tuning up yet, and the only Iowa poll that really counts is coming up next Tuesday.

Are all these predictions coming true?

I'm refering to articles at the Moderate Independent. As they wrote on January 8th:

So, where is the race for the Democratic primary at now?

What had been a pleasant surprise for Dean, a battle for first place with favored Gephardt, has now become a do or die situation.

Let us be clear: If Dean loses Iowa, Dean is done.

This is because Wesley Clark very possibly will not only finish second in New Hampshire, but will win. His momentum is expected, and will continue to spread nationwide. He is the right man with the right campaign.

...

In reality – and only we will make this call at this point – Clark is likely to win New Hampshire no matter what happens in Iowa. He has risen from 8% to 18% in less than a month, while Dean has fallen from 45% to 35% and Kerry has moved off toward single digits. As more people get to know Clark, the women who have been slower to sign onto his campaign will come in droves, joining the men over 45 who are his main support at this point. Clark’s charm and charisma will seal this deal with America’s women, something no other candidate except Kerry has at his disposal.

Dean may possibly hold on to win in Iowa, but that is becoming less and less likely.

The most likely scenario at this point is Gephardt winning Iowa, Clark winning New Hampshire, and then Clark sweeping at least four of the states in the February 3rd round of primaries. And from there, it is all done but the confetti. Clark will be the Democratic nominee, with Dean showing a respectable second place finish.

Needless to say, I can't wait for this promised information:

Well, we will fill you in a bit down the road on our techniques, but for now we will say being a completely independent, unbiased, non-partisan news source allows us to simply report what is. Other mainstream media outlets worry about offending this or that group or appearing biased. They also don’t like to appear to contradict themselves, i.e. if they said Dean was the front-runner, changing the storyline will make it seem like they were dumb. And then, of course, they have their biases that make them want to push this candidate or that.

We at The Moderate Independent only care about the truth. We report what is, and don’t care what storyline is out there currently. We have no bias and don’t care to push anyone. We just report things as they are, and, as you see, we end up with the truth while others are lost in jumbled, outdated nonsense.

In addition, we have completely different reporting techniques, and this has been the second major key to why we know what is really happening with the elections. In the near future we will fill you more in on our unique methods.

We may find this very intesting!

Leaks In The Echo Chamber

New York Magazine profiles Young Republicans in Manhattan

I really admire people who are devoted as artists but nonetheless serve as political players,” says Carrie Thomas, an associate editor at McGraw-Hill. “Winston Churchill was a painter. Benjamin Disraeli was a poet. In art there is communication, and in communication there are solutions.” Heartfelt thoughts for the 26-year-old managing editor of The Record, the newsletter of the New York Young Republicans Club. Though she came to New York to work in publishing, Thomas was under no illusion that she was going to fit in politically. In school at Penn State, she was the only Republican art major she knew. She didn’t meet a single fellow Republican during her first year in New York.

Not that I'd want to, but does anybody know a place I could move to where I could go a year without meeting a Democrat? Just curious.

What Bill Clinton Thinks

I was discussing things with a Dean supporter in another forum the other day, and he charged that the DLC-type candidates in this field are "using Clinton's name in vain" -- that they're claiming the Clinton mantle when in fact Dean is saying and doing the things Clinton would do, under the circumstances.

I pointed him in the direction of his wife, and her recent policies, and suggested that perhaps Hillary's New Democrat agenda has something in common with her husband's leanings.

If you really want to know what the "big dog" thinks, however, there's a story this morning in USA Today that gives the best clues yet.

The story is page 1, above the fold, in the largest circulation newspaper in America. And it says, pretty directly, that Dean rejects the moderate Clinton heritage in favor of a combative liberal agenda.

It quotes Dean at an Iowa appearance a few days ago:

"Bill Clinton was a master politician ... but that was a different time." Republican leaders have become more conservative, he said, and Clinton's philosophy of governing from the middle is no longer the right thing to do. "I think this is a time to fight."

The reporter also talked to some of Clinton's closest aides:

No one is watching the debate over the future of that philosophy more closely than Clinton himself. At the moment, he's spending much of his time in the office behind his home in Chappaqua, N.Y., finishing his memoirs for publication this spring. But he is also on the phone regularly with nearly all the contenders, including Dean, as well as former aides working in campaigns and for interest groups.

In some conversations, Clinton has been "ticked off" by Dean's comments about him and "new Democrats," according to three former White House aides who didn't want to be identified. They say he has expressed exasperation and "befuddlement" about the wisdom of some of the stands Dean is taking and his dismissive description of Clinton's tenure as "damage control."

Dean is rather openly breaking with the Clinton heritage and calling for a new approach. It's remarkable that he's doing so overtly ... consciously ... because there's a lot of folks in the party base who love Bill Clinton.

Are Green Elephants Really RINO's?

Moderate Republicans can't stomach the Administration's evironmental policies.

Many fear that the Republican party as a whole might pay dearly for the Bush administration's radical approach to environmental issues. "The irony is that while the Bush administration's environmental policy is designed largely to strengthen their campaign strategy, it could do just the opposite," Chafee told Muckraker. "Look at a map of all the states Bush won in 2000 -- the red states are mining states, they are timber-producing states, they are ranching states, many of which have a very strong opposition to environmental laws. But that doesn't represent the interests of most of the swing states.

I know Chafee is a RINO, but the article also quotes Republicans with more credibility in the party.

Senator Edwards Needs Seasoning

I think it's too early for Edwards. IMHO, he has a lot of potential, but isn't up to the Presidency yet. Legal experience and one term as Senator aren't enough. He needs to serve a few more terms, or better still, serve as Governor. Hearing him speak, I conclude that I'm ready to vote for him for Senator (and I sure wish he were running for Senator here in Texas!).

The night of 9/12, I saw him on Charlie Rose. Bush had shown resolution that day, explaining that his administration would fight terror everywhere, if necessary going after terrorist-harboring countries (the so-called Bush Doctrine, though Jefferson beat him to it on Middle Eastern countries harboring terrorists). He had also explained the concrete steps with which the administration would start.

Senator Edwards was deeply shaken. He said we should end terrorism, and expressed complete solidarity with the Administration. Ending terrorism is a nice wish, but a little hard to implement. Then Tom Clancy, also on the show, asked the obvious tough question: "How should we end terrorism?" Edwards flinched and didn't have an answer. Charlie Rose had to help him out a bit. His heart was in the right place, and he did good for a Congresscritter, but he wasn't Presidential yet.

This is sort of situation we hire our Presidents to handle well. Presidents must face these situations and make decisions unshaken. Bush had his stuff together to issue a resolute address by 24 hours before that Charlie Rose show. He had a policy path ready to travel and expressed it with decision two hours before that Rose show. What happens when our Presidents aren't up to snuff? You think the Patriot Act was bad? You think one week of grounded flights was bad? You think the market panics and vast decrease in travel were bad? I think it would have been much worse without somebody resolute holding down the Presidency.

I do think Edwards will probably get to the point where he's up to the job. Just still needs some seasoning. Him running for President this year is a bad idea.

In Search of the Elusive Swing Voter

See the new issue of The Atlantic for an article by Joshua Green on swing voters (Thanks, David)

It almost doesn't matter who the Democratic candidate is. In terms of strategy, the road map for the coming presidential campaign was set long before the primaries—and it runs straight through the handful of states with the largest numbers of independent voters. Any candidate needs to hunt them down

That's what we've been saying all along. Centrists will make a difference, if not in the Spring, then in the Fall.

Dean Is No McCain

People are talking about Dean's anger, and his smackdown of Iowan Dale Ungerer.

Dale Ungerer, a Republican a retiree from Hawkeye, Iowa, lectured Dean for nearly three minutes. Ungerer, wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Mr Fix It," rose to his feet and condemned what he called the incivility of the campaign and the political press. Ungerer accused Dean and other Democratic presidential hopefuls of dividing the country by bashing Bush instead of showing respect for authority.

He instructed the candidates to cut their "slam, bam and bash Bush" rhetoric. "Please tone down the garbage, the mean-mouthing of tearing down your neighbor and being so pompous," Calling on Democrats to unite behind Bush. "You should help your neighbor and not tear him down."

"George Bush is not my neighbor." Dean Replied. The crowd cheered and Ungerer sat.

Eric Boehlert in Salon says the anger angle is media character assassination.

I wouldn't say that anger is a disqualification from office. Indeed, President Bush's capture of Saddam, who according to Bush, tried to kill my Dad, and the killing of Saddam's two sons, has overtones of Michael Corleone.

Still, in my mind, Dean's smackdown contrasts sharply with the behavior of John McCain when I saw McCain speak in Cambridge a little more than a year ago, which I blogged at the time.

There was only one confrontational question, by a pony-tailed man regarding McCain's support for the use of force in Iraq. McCain answered thoroughly, but what impressed me most is that he went back to the questioner to give him a chance to respond. It was very gentlemanly.

That is the man who ought to be President.

Tables Beginning to Turn

We blogged pretty extensively a few weeks ago about the Dean campaign and what most of us here see as a series of missteps and odd statements. Some of us observed that Dean might be opening up an avenue for someone to step in and challenge him effectively.

I got the distinct sense, at the time, that those words sounded implausable to Dean supporters. The ones posting over on Kos and other Dean blogs were actually responding favorably to what Dean was saying. By and large, they believe it's true, and they see it as refreshingly candidid.

I argued otherwise for a lot of specific reasons we needn't rehash. But on the purely political front, it looks like things are, indeed, shifting a bit.

Dean's momentum is stalled. He's down from 45% in mid-December to 36% in the latest New Hampshire daily tracking poll.

In Iowa, he's moved from 42% mid-December to 29% in the latest poll.

Nationally, Dean is down from 31% in mid-December to 21% in a poll released today, with Wesley Clark nipping at his heels at 17%.

Those of us who post here have primarily been interested in three of Dean's challengers -- Clark, Lieberman, and Edwards. They're all moving up in some significant way.

Clark is up 7 points in just the past week in New Hampshire. At 19%, he has solidly taken over second place to become Dean's main challenger there.

Lieberman is also up 4 points in New Hampshire and is challenging Kerry for third place.

Personally, I'm probably most interested in the Edwards momentum in Iowa. It apparently started before he received his big endorsement from Iowa's leading newspaper. He was up from 5% in December to 14% yesterday. He's also the leading second choice among Iowans according to an LA Times poll.

While I'm a Lieberman supporter, I've come to suspect, frankly, that Edwards is the strongest challenger to Bush in a general election. He has an unusual combination of qualities that makes a candidate formidable -- charm, intelligence, substance, an innate optimism, and an ability to connect with real folks in a way that seems natural.

That's why, of all these trends, I hope the Edwards one plays out over the coming days.

To get a feel for why I see it that way, check out the Des Moins Register endorsement and a new editorial in the Washington Post.

Link Fest

Other Centerfield bloggers have been quiet lately, but there's some great stuff out there, so I thought I'd catch up with a link roundup.

Matthew Yglesias points to a Murkfest of liberal hawks reconsidering the war in hindsight. Kenneth Pollack's long and important article is the starting point. Pollack was my guiding star in supporting the war. It's had a strange outcome, in that the WMD's that both Clintonite and Bushie's believed to exist do not appear to be there. But that's hindsight. In hindsight, it was still proper to authorize force in order to get Saddam to allow the inspectors in. And the Dean position, which opposes the authorization resolution, seems to me to be a faith-based initiative with Saddam as the one to be trusted. Once in, the inspectors should have been given more time to work. But overall, I'm not unhappy with the outcome.

What does the soldiers actually think about this war. Check out this Military Times poll.

Check out the Centrist Policy Network on When Treasury Secretaries Attack!

Visit this interesting new blog, The Greater Nomadic Council.

An Unfair Disadvantage

A former Republican congressman turned Boston talk radio host speaks frankly on why liberal talk show hosts are at a disadvantage:

I'd like to hear the other side done well. But we've noticed that there's a difference between liberals and conservatives: Liberals will check out the other argument, but hard-core conservatives, they don't want to hear it. When we put on a liberal substitute host, the conservatives just turn it off.

Dean - A Once And Future Centrist?

If you missed Meet The Press this morning, try to catch it again tonight at 10:00 PM on CNBC. Tim Russert et al. spent about 10 minutes talking about blogs. The key question is whether the Internet, which is clearly an asset in mobilizing a small number of passionate partisans toward winning the nomination, could actually end up a liability in the general election by putting forth a candidate who does not connect with trailing-edge voters.

They also showed the clip from four years ago where Dean dismissed the Iowa caucuses, saying

If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by the special interests, in both sides, in both parties. The special interests don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people. They represent the extremes.

Gee, he sounded like one of us. Maybe Dean is "faking it" running as a liberal in 2004. The problem with that is, if by some chance he is elected, he'll be expected to hold true to his campaign promises. I recently read Left Coast City, a portrait of politics in San Francisco. It quotes a writer at the alternative newspaper, SF Bay Guardian, who celebrated the defeat of the very liberal San Francisco Mayor Agnos at the hands of the more conservative Frank Jordan, explaining that it

taught all hypocritical moderates who run as progressives an important lesson: if they ever abandon their base they will suffer the same embarassment as Art Agnos

The Dean who runs now is the President Dean we should expect to govern later. Don't expect him to revert to centrism even if he wants to, as that would lead to a revolt among those who lifted him up and would be essential to his re-election.

Politically-Balanced Aggregator

I've produced a "politically balanced" blog aggregator I bet you will like. The SoftPolitics aggregator, powered by Userland's Manila content management system is updated hourly with links to any new posts on those blogs to which it subscribes. It provides "one stop shopping" to spare you the agony of visiting a blog, only to find that it hasn't been updated since your last visit.

I've tried to produce a list that provides a balanced diet of liberal, centrist, and conservative views. These are the blogs currently subscribed to by the aggregator.

Atrios
Bo Cowgill.com
Centerfield
Electrolite
The Volokh Conspiracy
Winds of Change.NET
BushOut.TV
Calpundit
Daniel W. Drezner
DiscountBlogger
Dr. Frank's What's-it
Joshua Claybourn's Domain
Mark A. R. Kleiman
Matthew Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
NathanNewman.org - News and Views
Oliver Willis: Like Kryptonite To Stupid
Scott Rosenberg's Links & Comment
Spinsanity
Talking Points Memo
Yale Diva
Zogby Blog

If there are other blogs you'd like to nominate for inclusion in the aggregator, please leave a comment below. Blogs must produce an RSS/XML feed in order to be considered.

The S Factor

As it's common to attribute President Bush's popularity to the stupidity of his supporters, it's worth examing the entry James Taranto produced based on a USA Today poll

Strangers on a Train Wreck
Here's a fascinating tidbit from this week's CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. The following table shows the proportion of "Republicans/Republican leaners" and "Democrats/Democratic leaners" who said they'd "never heard of" each of the Democratic presidential candidates:

Candidate	Reps	Dems
Clark	17%	22%
Dean	14%	17%
Edwards	25%	28%
Gephardt	14%	21%
Kerry	18%	20%
Lieberman	7%	11%

For the most part these differences aren't huge, but it's nonetheless striking that in every case, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to have heard of the Democratic candidates--especially since Dems are in a position to vote on these guys in the next few months. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that people who are more informed about politics tend to be Republicans.

The author of the "S Factor" piece may have his tongue against his cheek, but this hypothesis is sincerely held by many. It's hard for people who are smart to imagine that other smart people might legitimately come to differently conclusions. So they assume the other side is stupid or evil.

Iowa Follow-Up

These two stories cover the current situation pretty well...

Caucus-night vote-swapping could tilt Iowa

and

Two Democrats Accuse Dean Camp of Dirty Tricks

This is where the True Believers can sink your campaign through zeal, and where old-fashioned politickin' can make a mockery of the polls. Some of the Deanies have no doubt made plans to do exactly what's described, with or without any approval or knowledge from Dean, and the very accusation will not only keep Iowans on the alert for interlopers, but could provide a backlash against Dean.

Delegates favoring candidates that can't get that 15% in a precinct will also continue to play "Bury The Leader" by throwing their support to other candidates. And if Dean is viewed as a manipulative interloper by those delegates, it's Dean they'll try to bury.

In the meantime, Kerry, Clark, and Gephardt are all showing some strength in Iowa as the vote moves from speculative to actual....

***UPDATE***

AP: Dean Accepted Special-Interest Money

From Iowans, no doubt....

TNR Endorsement

Greg has an excellent, detailed breakdown on reactions to The New Republic's endorsement of Joe Lieberman.

Here's the endorsement itself. And here's Greg's roundup.

Four Years Out

In the Washington Post, Terry Neal observes that parties newly out of power are often not hungry enough to do what it takes to win

Both Democrat George McGovern and Republican Barry Goldwater were nominated by their parties four years after their respective parties lost the White House. Both men "came from the fringes of the political mainstream of their time, and each promised to bring passion and attract new voters to their party," Rothenberg wrote. Does that make Dean his day's McGovern or Goldwater?

It seems as though a party has to be out of office for eight years before electability becomes a major issue. George W. Bush was a prime example of that. For his party, Bush's presumed electability superseded other issues, including questions about his experience, gravitas and ideological purity. (Remember, Bush was seen as more of a moderate back then.)

For Republicans eight years out of the White House in 2000, the election was about building the most invincible candidate. For Democrats in 2004, only four years out of the White House, this election is more about sending a message, not only to Republicans, but to party leaders in Washington.

California's State of the State

Arnold Schwarzenegger, California's "Governator," gave his first State of the State speech Tuesday night. Judging from reports I heard in the news, it must have been the most covered state speech since his inaugural. Why should non-Californians care? California is the third largest state with the fifth largest economy in the world and ranks number one in gross state product, outranked regionally only by the Mideast, Great Lakes and Southwest regions. From a political standpoint, as the most populous state, California holds 55, or 10%, of the Electoral College votes. The next two states, Texas and New York, each only hold 6%, or 34 and 31 respectively.

The Public Policy Institute of California has some interesting facts about California's voters. The key fact is this:

Register voters are primarily Democratic, but Republicans are more likely to go to the polls. The largest share of registered voters in California is Democratic (45%). Republicans make up 34 percent of registered voters. However, among the registered voters most likely to go to the polls, eight points separate the two major parties (D 45%, R 37%). To be successful in statewide elections, candidates must attract independents and other voters, who constitute 18 percent of likely voters. Women outnumber men in the Democratic ranks, while men outnumber women among Republicans, as well as among independents and other parties combined.

California voters are also most likely to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative with the largest percentage (31% of all registered voters) stating an overall political ideology that is moderate, based on surveys conducted between January 2002 and August 2003.

This is the political environment that threw out Grey Davis and got Schwarzenegger elected so I suppose it's not altogether surprising that our new governor is a moderate himself. Unfortunately, the legislature is not. To fully appreciate some of the fun and games that followed Schwarzenegger's inauguration in November, I highly recommend reading Jill Stewart's last three columns here, here and here. They provide a fascinating background to Tuesday night's State of the State speech and help to explain some of the facial expressions of the legislators shown during the speech.

Key quotes from the speech:

• Over the last five years, the state's income increased by 25 percent, but spending increased by 43 percent. This was irresponsible. The fact of the matter is that we do not have a tax crisis; we do not have a budget crisis; we have a spending crisis. We cannot tax our way out of this problem.
• We have no choice but to cut spending, which is what caused this crisis in the first place. These are cuts that will challenge us all. But we cannot give what we do not have.
• We cannot afford waste and fraud in any department or agency. Every governor proposes moving boxes around to reorganize government. I don't want to move boxes around; I want to blow them up.
• I plan a total review of government - it's performance, its practices, its cost.

Brave words. It should be interesting to see how this all shakes out. The first thing he has to do is get his California Recovery Plan (read bond) past the voters in March. Meanwhile, he is releasing his new budget at the end of this week.

How will all this affect the Presidential election? I don't know. As Jill Stewart put it:

The irony is that even if Schwarzenegger builds a fledgling bipartisan/moderate effort, he will increasingly be pulled toward partisan politics because of the coming presidential election.

With Democrats still nursing bitter wounds over the 2000 election controversy, with Howard Dean turning up the heat on President George W. Bush, and with sharp divisions over Iraq, 2004 could be the most partisan election in memory.

Schwarzenegger has already been named Honorary Chair of the Bush-Cheney '04 California Leadership Team, and stated on Dec. 18, "President Bush has shown great leadership by acting decisively to transform tough challenges into golden opportunities."

How that will play to the moderates is anybody's guess, but I suspect they will be the most influential voters in the State come March and November.

Why Iowa Doesn't Mean Much

The Iowa caucuses are fast approaching, and there will be much hooplah in the press about how the various candidates perform there. But the truth is, Iowa really doesn't mean all that much. In fact, the only thing an outside observer could really learn from Iowa is how easy it is to cheat in elections.

For why this is so, read Dan Savage's New York Times article on the 2000 Iowa caucuses here. The caucuses aren't really a primary. They're a turnout head-count.

All Iowa will really tell us is who can get the most True Believers into their cars and over to Iowa, which means that either Dean with his evangelical internet legions of Deanie Babies or Gephardt with his Missouri Border Ruffians* will probably win Iowa. (UPDATE--By the polls, even Clark might sneak in the back door, though he';s not campaiging there.) Even the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 27 won't do much but shake out a few of the hopeless wannabe's. The real early indicators will come on the first "Super Tuesday," Feb. 3, when seven states go to the primary polls with 290 delegates at stake, and the best chance at confirming the eventual nominee will be March 2, when California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington State hold their primaries, with roughly 35% (1529) of the delegates up for grabs. Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi follow a week later with another 545 delegates available. By then, there should be a real trend.

Let us not forget that at this point in 1992, Bill Clinton wasn't even a blip on the screen.

*You wouldn't believe how long as a Kansan I've waited to use "Missouri Border Ruffians" in a non-Civil War context....

Reality Check!

As one of the most free countries in the world, we often find ourselves walking a fine line in protecting the rights so important to us. When these rights come into conflict, how do we determine which right takes precedence? How much of one right are we willing to give up in order to have the maximum benefit of another right? I didn't realize until this last weekend, how much conflicting rights (specifically our right to privacy vs. our right to safety) probably helped to make the terrorist attacks on September 11 possible.

In a December 31, 2003 article in the Slate, Stewart Baker, general counsel of the National Security Agency from 1992 to 1994, explains in some detail how and why this happened.

Earlier this month, as fears of new al-Qaida attacks mounted, the Justice Department announced new FBI guidelines that would allow intelligence and law enforcement agents to work together on terrorism investigations. An ACLU spokesman was quick to condemn the guidelines as creating the possibility of "an end run around Fourth Amendment requirements." I used to worry about that possibility myself. Not any more. Because the alternative is to maintain a wall of separation between law enforcement and intelligence. That's what we used to do. And on Sept. 11, 2001, that wall probably cost us 3,000 American lives.

There's a quiet scandal at the heart of Sept. 11; one that for different reasons neither the government nor the privacy lobby really wants to talk about. It's this: For two and a half weeks before the attacks, the U.S. government knew the names of two hijackers. It knew they were al-Qaida killers and that they were already in the United States. In fact, the two were living openly under their own names, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. They used those names for financial transactions, flight school, to earn frequent flier miles, and to procure a California identity card.

Despite this paper trail, and despite having two and a half weeks to follow the scent, the FBI couldn't locate either man—at least not until Sept. 11, when they flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. If we had found them, there is a real possibility that most or all of the hijackings would have been prevented. The two shared addresses with Mohamed Atta, who flew into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, and Marwan Al-Shehhi, who flew into the South Tower. They were linked to most of the other hijackers as well. So August 2001 offered our last chance to foil the attacks. And if we want to stop the next attack, we need to know what went wrong in August 2001. Despite all the resources of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, we did not find two known terrorists living openly. How could we have failed so badly in such a simple, desperate task?

We couldn't find al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi in August 2001 because we had imposed too many rules designed to protect against privacy abuses that were mainly theoretical. We missed our best chance to save the lives of 3,000 Americans because we spent more effort and imagination guarding against these theoretical privacy abuses than against terrorism.

How could we have let this happen? Now, don't misunderstand me, I appreciate and expect to have a right to my privacy. However, it looks to me as if this is a case of being more afraid of the imagined bogeyman in the closet than the real intruder at the bedroom door. It doesn't make sense; worse, it doesn't make good policy. It looks like the government is figuring this out -- finally. Perhaps this explains the present circumstances surrounding BAA Flight 223.

The article is too long to repeat here in its entirety. Stewart goes into more detail about the frustration of the New York FBI intelligence agent looking for al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi and his personal experience with the "wall." I strongly recommend reading the whole thing. His conclusions are worth repeating here, however:

What lessons can we learn from this tragic unfolding?

First, that the source of this tragedy was not wicked or uncaring officials. The wall was built by professionals who thought they were acting in the country's and their agency's best interest. They were focused on the hypothetical risk to privacy if foreign intelligence and domestic law enforcement were allowed to mix, and they worried that courts and Congress would punish them for putting aside these theoretical concerns to combat a threat that was both foreign and domestic. They feared that years of successful collaboration would end in disaster if the results of a single collaboration could be painted as a privacy scandal, so they created an ever-higher wall to govern operations at the border between domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence. As drafted, the rules technically allowed antiterrorism investigators to do their jobs—if the investigators were sufficiently determined and creative. For a while they were, but the FISA court scandal sapped their determination and finally choked off any practical hope of getting the job done.

The second lesson is that we cannot write rules that will both protect us from every theoretical risk to privacy and still allow the government to protect us from terrorists. We cannot fine-tune the system to perfection, because systems that ought to work can fail. That is why I am profoundly skeptical of efforts to write new privacy rules and why I would rely instead on auditing for actual abuses. We should not again put American lives at risk for the sake of some speculative risk to our civil liberties.

And the final lesson? Perhaps it isn't fair to blame all the people who helped to create the wall for the failures that occurred in August of 2001. No one knew then what the cost of building such a separation would be. But we should know now. We should know that we can't prevent every imaginable privacy abuse without hampering the fight against terror; that an appetite for privacy scandals hampers the fight against terror; and that the consequence of these actions will be more attacks and more dead, perhaps in numbers we can hardly fathom.

The country and its leaders have had more than two years to consider the failures of August 2001 and what should be done. In that time, libertarian Republicans have joined with civil- liberties Democrats to teach the law enforcement and intelligence communities the lesson that FBI headquarters taught its hamstrung New York agent: You won't lose your job for failing to protect Americans, but you will if you run afoul of the privacy lobby. So the effort to build information technology tools to find terrorists has stalled. Worse, the wall is back; doubts about legal authority are denying CIA analysts access to law enforcement information in our new Terrorist Threat Integration Center. Bit by bit we are recreating the political and legal climate of August 2001.

And sooner or later, I fear, that August will lead to another September.

So should we all.

Hat Tip to Gene Reynolds

Deadly Consequences Of Overheated Rhetoric

A suicide bombings in Istanbul has been linked to a misguided metaphor used by a California writer (via James Taranto)

Nurullah Kuncak says his father, Ilyas Kuncak, was boiling about the rumored rapes just before he killed himself delivering the huge car bomb that devasted