Centerfield

Send More Muslim Troops

Gen. Abizaid says

"I do favor the inclusion of more international troops, especially more Muslim troops," he said. "For example, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia – they all have very capable and very professional forces that could be added to the stability equation" once Iraq regains its political sovereignty.

This is what I've been saying all along. The new Iraqi Army will be of dubious loyalty for some time. Other Muslim countries would be more culturally sensitive to the Iraqis, yet could be relied on to follow the orders of their commanders. It is these allies, not France or Germany, which are missing in Iraq and who could make a contribution.

I doubt they would be willing to send troops under US auspices at this time. But under the fig leaf of UN political trusteeship, they might.

Iraqi Prisoner Abuses

How could anyone be this sick and this stupid? I am dumb-founded. And I am afraid that the damage will be deep and permanent.

Open Thread

Say your piece. Nothing is off-topic

Accounting for the Costs of War

Joe Gandleman of The Moderate Voice discusses yet another instance where John McCain gets outside the partisan talking points and kicks butt for freedom and the American way.

Here's the text of McCain's letter:

McCain sent the following letter to David Smith, president and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, following their decision to preempt tonight's Nightline program:

I write to strongly protest your decision to instruct Sinclair's ABC affiliates to preempt this evening's Nightline program. I find deeply offensive Sinclair's objection to Nightline's intention to broadcast the names and photographs of Americans who gave their lives in service to our country in Iraq.

I supported the President's decision to go to war in Iraq, and remain a strong supporter of that decision. But every American has a responsibility to understand fully the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who volunteer to defend the rest of us; lest we ever forget or grow insensitive to how grave a decision it is for our government to order Americans into combat. It is a solemn responsibility of elected officials to accept responsibility for our decision and its consequences, and, with those who disseminate the news, to ensure that Americans are fully informed of those consequences.

There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided attempt to prevent your viewers from completely appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their behalf by Americans serving in Iraq. War is an awful, but sometimes necessary business. Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves.

Cheney Should Go

When I watched Cheney and Lieberman debate in 2000, I remember being comforted and thought either of those two men were ready and able to be president, if necessary. I have lost a substantial amount of faith in Cheney since the 2000 election, and I wish he would go voluntarily.

The other day I started reading Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack. Although I don't believe everything I read, I think that Woodward attempts to be objective and he had about as good of sources as would be possible. In general, the book portrays Bush in a much better light than one would expect based on everyday press reports. However, in my view, Cheney fairs much worse, and the book confirms my misgivings about him. The portrait is of a man who made up his mind soon after 9/11 that war with Iraq was necessary, and all information he received thereafter was interpreted in a way to support that conclusion. He also bitterly opposed consulting with the United Nations at all, and he made repeated efforts to undermine Powell's diplomatic efforts by giving speeches or making statements that were not cleared and were not consistent with the policies that Bush had dictated. For a long excerpt about Cheney's role, see here.

Why does Bush want Cheney to stay? I know, Cheney is a "trusted advisor" with broad executive and legislative experience and, because he has no intention of running for president himself, he somehow is supposed to be able to contribute more than vice presidents have traditionally done. Although those might have been plausible reasons to put him on the ticket four years ago, I don't think those are very good reasons to keep him on the ticket in 2004. Bush is not a new president anymore, and there are many others who can give him advice based on their Washington experience. Moreover, the fact that Cheney is not going to ever run for president means that he would not be sacrificing his future by dropping out.

Equally important to my conclusion is that Cheney has become a lightening rod of criticism to the point of severe distraction. Just yesterday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg had a meltdown on the Senate floor, calling Cheney the ultimate "chickenhawk." Now I'm not saying that Cheney should be off the ticket because Lautenberg had a meltdown, but that meltdown is a signal of how polarizing of a figure that Cheney has become.

Cheney is to Bush II what Dan Quayle was to Bush I in 1992 - dead weight. Bush isn't going to ask him to leave, so Cheney should go see his doctor and instruct his doctor to tell him that he can't continue. Bush could then look to someone like Sen. John Warner or Rudolph Guiliani. Kerry is going to spark at least some interest with his vice presidential choice. Cheney should do Bush a favor and give him the opportunity to do the same.

What Most Iraqis Think

The results of the new CNN poll will be used to bolster both sides of the war debate. Optimists will point to the 51% of Iraqis who say they or their family are better off than before the invasion, as compared to 25% who are worse off.

Worry-warts will point to the 52% who said that attacks against U.S. forces could be justified, or the 57% who think coalition forces should leave immediately (defined as in the next few months).

The results are, indeed, mostly sobering:

• 33% said the war had done more good than harm, while 46% said it had done more harm than good.

• 71% said they saw the troops mostly as occupiers, while 19% viewed them as liberators.

• 67% said troops were not trying at all to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed in exchanges of gunfire.

• 31% have a favorable opinion of U.S. administrator Paul Bremer, while 42% have an unfavorable opinion.

• 24% have a favorable opinion of President Bush, as compared to 44% very unfavorable and 11% somewhat unfavorable.

A few bright spots:

• 61% said ousting Saddam was worth the hardships they have faced, while 28% said it was not.

• 42% said Iraq was better off because of the war, while 39% said it was worse off.

On the whole, though, they don't like us. These numbers have shifted dramatically to the negative in recent weeks.

Centrist Win

Specter survives. Should the Centrist Coalition endorse him in the general election?

Houston Or San Francisco

The Washington Post's continued series on political polarization reports that Sugar Land, TX is reddest of the red and San Francisco is bluest of the blue.

I've lived in San Francisco. I liked it, except for the fog. I've never even been to Houston, of which Sugar Land is a suburb. Where would you prefer to live, Houston or San Francisco?

Update: Here's the transcript of an online discussion conducted by the Post's David Von Drehle.

Lieberman Calls for a Truce

For a while now, we've been encouraging John Kerry to adopt a different sort of tone when it comes to Iraq policy. Discuss it as the serious and difficult issue it is -- in respectful, even tones, rather than harshly partisan ones. Give a thoughtful, measured, and appropriately solemn assessment of where we are and where we need to go now.

This is, I think, another way of saying what Joe Lieberman said today when he called for a political truce on Iraq. We can discuss differences in policy, but that discussion is important enough where we should separate it from the partisan passions swirling around this issue.

We can say, of course, that going into Iraq was wrong -- those of us who believe that, at least. But figuring out what to do about it now is the only active issue, and solving it is critical to our future.

Below is a piece of Lieberman's speech, which was delivered at the Brookings Institution today.

UPDATE: Reading the full speech, I have to say I think his point is critical -- absolutely critical. From the point of view of actually trying to succeed in Iraq, this is the most important single suggestion I've seen. It's in all of our interests, as a nation. Let's see if either party can get past their partisan interests long enough to recognize what's good for all of us. Lieberman pitched his plan for a bipartisan war council to Condoleezza Rice today. How will the administration respond?

We meet at a most important, dangerous, and difficult time in Iraq. Americans, Iraqis, and other nationals are dying in increasing numbers there. The outcome of the current conflict will have an enormous effect on the security of the American people, the freedom of the Iraqi people, and the stability and peace of the Middle East and the world. The days and weeks immediately ahead are fateful and they are perilous.

Yet, here at home, it is mostly politics as usual. Today, I am pleading with members of both political parties, with the Administration and the Congress, in the name of the hundreds of Americans who have already fallen in Iraq, and the thousands who continue to serve us there, in the interest of our nation's security, and in pursuit of our nation's highest ideals, to stop the bickering, to overcome the mistrust, to appreciate how similar are our current goals in Iraq, and to work together to achieve them.

In short, I am calling for a bipartisan political truce on the homefront that will greatly help us achieve the victory we all desire on the battlefront.

Catch-Up

A few old articles I've been meaning to link to:

The Atlantic on Indie Dudes

The Chicago report on Conservative vs. Liberal: The Problem With The Package Deal of Political Labels

Salon article on mixed marriages between Democrats and Republicans.

A call for Britain's Tory Party to return to Harold Macmillan's Middle Way.

Kerry the Opportunist

From David Broder:

As Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish, Brian Mooney and Nina Easton write in their newly published biography of the senator, despite instances where Kerry showed himself "a lawmaker willing to stand up to prevailing political winds . . . he is trailed by a reputation for political opportunism. . . . Unlike many who are driven to succeed in public life by a core belief system, the arc of Kerry's political career is defined by a restless search for the issues, individuals and causes to fulfill a nearly lifelong ambition" for the White House.

Following up on Heather's theme, Kerry may be an effective tactitian, but I want to know more specifics about his national security strategy. He offered a taste with his op-ed in the Washington Post last week. He needs to give us more -- much more. His Iraq votes in the Senate expose a vulnerability on these issues that he needs to address consistently and relentlessly. The fact that increasing trouble in Iraq has been good news for Bush in the polls should provide a serious wake-up call for Kerry.

UPDATE: According to this, Kerry has told his advisors to work with three main policies: "John F. Kerry would move to increase the US military by 40,000 troops. He would send more soldiers to Iraq if commanders said they were needed. He would stay in Iraq as long as it took to get the job done."

Strategic vs Tactical

I just finished reading an article by Joe Klein in the April 14 Time mag (okay, so I'm behind on my reading...) that discusses the differences between strategy and tactics and how it applies to the Bush administration. Not only does it provide one of the most rational explanations for why we are in Iraq than anything else I have heard or read, it also points out fundamental flaws in both the Clinton and Bush administrations' foreign policy.

According to Klein, the Clinton administration was "the least strategic in recent memory." Because Clinton was not a strong strategic thinker, most of his actions were tactical and thus reactionary. As Bush would later refer to it, he was "swatting at flies." Bush II, on the other hand, turned strategic thinking into the fundamental philosophy guiding his foreign policy:

He filled his Administration with strategic thinkers, mostly neoconservatives, who had big ideas about how the world should work. The most important concept was the moral sanctity of American power. The post-cold war world was unipolar; multilateral institutions like the United Nations were feckless constraints on American action. … The response to Islamic radicalism would be strategic, as Rice said, not tactical: the Middle East would be rebuilt according to American principles, and Iraq was the key.

Even though the situation in Afghanistan hasn't been fully resolved and Bin Laden hasn't been found, it has been moved down on the list of priorities because it isn't fundamental to Bush's strategic plan.

The fundamental flaw in the thinking of both administrations is that strategy and tactics are not mutually exclusive. Strategy is basically the general plan or direction selected to achieve a desired state in the future. Tactics, on the other hand, are detailed maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy. In other words, tactics are the short-term steps taken to achieve a long-term goal. As Clinton discovered, tactics employed without a strategy go nowhere. It's rather like wandering through a maze without a map. Bush is discovering that a long-term strategic goal without the short-term tactics required to achieve it. Rather like having a plan to a maze with more than one way through it, but not having a plan for the shortest way through.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with Bush's strategic plan. What's wrong is that he has no detailed tactical maneuvers developed to achieve his objective. Richard Clarke recognized this and finally left in frustration. Unfortunately, Bush needs people like Clarke, with his strong tactical expertise, to be successful in achieving his goals. As I see it, the success of the first Gulf War was because once Bush I defined the strategic goal, he stepped back and let the tacticians develop and implement the steps needed to acheive that goal. It's too bad Bush II can't seem to do the same.

Press Arrogance and the Bush Press Conference

Jay Rosen wrote an intriguing and perceptive article on Bush' recent press conference. But there's a dimension to this that he doesn't give enough weight.

The relationship of the Press and the Presidency is supposed to be speaking truth to power. Their freedom and intellectual opposition are supposed to encourage that to happen.

But the press has a pretty miserable record of speaking truth to power during the Bush Administration. The press has been worse with facts than the Administration, and has gone after shadows much more often than real problems.

Why has this happened? Well, Rosen has a very revealing link to a rather arrogant piece:

Mr. Moran then said the White House press corps was sorely lacking someone like his predecessor on the beat, former ABC News White House correspondent Sam Donaldson, whose wild-man behavior and raucous, crazy-eyed bark had once been 120-grit sandpaper to Presidents Carter, Reagan and Clinton.

So, to him, the important thing for a press corps to do is to annoy the President. Discovering awkward truths isn't in it. Indeed, the reason that he thinks of the Press as more powerful in previous administrations is because the press hasn't yet found a comparable Bush scandal. But he doesn't think of that atall. So here's the problem in a nutshell. The White House press corps sees their job as having inherent power, and acting accordingly. But the purpose of theas Fourth Estate (and the only way for it to acquire power) is to unearth mistakes and awkward truths. When it plays gotcha unconstructively and isnt patient enough to do live within and do spadework on the real problems, the White House press corps loses and has little power.

That's what was behind the press conference. Since the press has, on Iraq, been much more generous with its imagination than with the facts and often sympathized with evil people, the press has little power on this issue. What Bush was doing with the press conference was to make the press bankruptcy on this issue plain to the American people.

Discussing Centrism

There's quite an extensive discussion of centrism going on right now over at Kevin Drum's site. It proceeded from this article in the Washington Post.

Here's what one or two of Kevin's readers think about moderates -- boiler-plate stuff relying on the notion that we're not decisive or feel superior due to our non-partisanship. Here's my relatively simple response.

UPDATE: We've got to get this guy Terry Ott involved with what we do here. Such a brilliant response to all the comments on the Kevin Drum thread. We need folks like him.

Pat Tillman

You probably already know the sad end to the story of Pat Tillman. He was a little noticed college football player, and what little notice he received was because he overachieved. After college, he was drafted in a late round of the NFL draft, and he again proceeded to overachieve. Immediately after he struck gold in the NFL based on his overachieving, and soon after he had gotten married, he quit the NFL (and forfeited a future fortune) to join the Army. The Army offered to make him an officer immediately. He said no, and opted for the hellish training that an Army Ranger goes through. The media wanted to interview him about his decision. He refused. For him, it was all about a higher sense of duty to country that was nobody else's business. I can only dream of having the courage of this man or, for that matter, any of the other folks who put their lives at risk to defend this country.

P.S. I have disdain for anyone who attacks Kerry’s service record. It is within the bounds of acceptable political discourse to challenge his post-Vietnam service statements, but don’t suggest to me that a guy who volunteered to go to Vietnam and was awarded three Purple Hearts was not wounded enough to get a medal unless you were under fire beside him.

UPDATE/BACKDATE: I just came across this commentary by Peggy Noonan from 2002.

On the Lighter Side (Vol. 2)

- "Swaziland's King Mswati fired former Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini last year via a text message on his cellphone." (here)
- "A British peace protester who was kidnapped by rebels in Iraq won over her captors with circus tricks." (here)
- "A woman posing as a military officer conned her way onto a British airforce base and lived there undetected for five months." (here)
- "Saddam 'still thinks he's president'" (here)
- "Senator's Wife Charged In Dispute Over Mulch" (here)
- 30 years of British streaking history (here)

The National Debate

I had lunch with Robert Cox of The National Debate last week at Bloggercon. His blog focuses on media criticism from a roughly centrist perspective.

Robert has done a post calling on John Kerry to delink from Imus. Don Imus, for those who have never heard him, is a radio and cable TV personality who sometimes says some politically incorrect things.

It is more than passing strange that John Kerry, who was so anxious to delink from a Blog - the Daily Kos - after Kos made insensitive remarks about the deaths of four American contractors in Falllujah, has been silent on far worse comments by Don Imus. In fact, Kerry seems to relish the "endorsement" he received from Imus in the days leading up to the New Hampshire primary. By my reckoning, Kerry has had more minutes on Imus more than any other politician over the past four months. Why is Kerry unconcerned that he is using Imus's show as a major platform for his campaign when Imus ROUTINELY makes these kinds of cruel, insensitive remarks about various ethnic groups and nationalities? How is appearing on Imus different from linking to a web log?

Robert makes an interesting point. From a political perspective, though, the difference is that Imus makes light of the death of foreigners, while Kos' scorn was directed at Americans. North Koreans and Iranians, in particular, as perceived of as the enemy, so we presumably wish them ill. Indeed, Kerry may benefit among swing voters by the fact that he's deemed "all right" by someone like Imus.

Should Kerry renounce Imus? I don't think so. It would perceive it to be the reverse of a "Sister Souljah moment" and would raise suspicions that Kerry is a liberal purist. It's a moment to renounce the sin, but not the sinner.

Goof on Big L Libertarians

From the Onion:

Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department

CHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist," Jacobs said. "Also, my house was burning down." Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.

NY Times Breaks with Green Orthodoxy on DDT

This NY Times Magazine article suggests that workers in the field are recognizing that judicious use of DDT could play an important role in reducing the number of deaths in 3rd world countries due to malaria. While DDT wouldn't solve the problem, and mitigation of a death toll in the millions makes sensible people willing to reconsider past policies.

To Americans, DDT is simply a killer. Ask Americans over 40 to name the most dangerous chemical they know, and chances are that they will say DDT. Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane was banned in the United States in 1972. The chemical was once sprayed in huge quantities over cities and fields of cotton and other crops. Its persistence in the ecosystem, where it builds up to kill birds and fish, has become a symbol of the dangers of playing God with nature, an icon of human arrogance. Countries throughout the world have signed a treaty promising to phase out its use.

Yet what really merits outrage about DDT today is not that South Africa still uses it, as do about five other countries for routine malaria control and about 10 more for emergencies. It is that dozens more do not. Malaria is a disease Westerners no longer have to think about. Independent malariologists believe it kills two million people a year, mainly children under 5 and 90 percent of them in Africa. Until it was overtaken by AIDS in 1999, it was Africa's leading killer. One in 20 African children dies of malaria, and many of those who survive are brain-damaged. Each year, 300 to 500 million people worldwide get malaria. During the rainy season in some parts of Africa, entire villages of people lie in bed, shivering with fever, too weak to stand or eat. Many spend a good part of the year incapacitated, which cripples African economies. A commission of the World Health Organization found that malaria alone shrinks the economy in countries where it is most endemic by 20 percent over 15 years. There is currently no vaccine. While travelers to malarial regions can take prophylactic medicines, these drugs are too toxic for long-term use for residents.

...

''I cannot envision the possibility of rolling back malaria without the power of DDT,'' said Renato Gusm-o, who headed antimalaria programs at the Pan American Health Organization, or P.A.H.O., the branch of W.H.O. that covers the Americas. ''Impregnated bed nets are an auxiliary. In tropical Africa, if you don't use DDT, forget it.''

How might Americans feel about DDT if malaria was the number 1 or 2 killer in OUR country?

Open Thread

What's on your mind? Nothing is off topic.

Short Takes

Did the votes of white racists tip the election against Republican Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American who barely lost to a Democrat in Louisiana last year? If so, is the left hypocritical in not making an issue of it?

A researcher uses brain scans to study reactions to political imagery.

A reader points out the website of the Democrat who is taking on Tom DeLay this year.

Opinion Duel pits editors of the New Republic and National Review one on one against each other.

Photos of Coffins

The politicization of this issue makes me sick. Every media outlet is keeping us completely up-to-date on the body count, which is important albeit heart-wrenching information. Why should we have access to pictures of the coffins before the brave soldiers' families have seen them? My response - we shouldn't.

Republicans and the Environment

Last week I offered a short post about the wisdom of increasing the gas tax. People had lots to say in the comments. Encouraged, I’m going to try again on a related issue.

From my view, Republicans have no coherent platform on environmental issues other than “you worry too much.” So I raise this question for discussion – what is or should be the Republican environmental agenda? David Brooks isn’t quite sure, and Rich Lowry concedes that he doesn't know anything about environmental issues and begs for help before going into a debate. Maybe you can help all three of us.

A setup?

Kerry said he would release his military records. Then he said that he wouldn’t release all of the records. Firestorm ensues, particularly in conservative blogosphere.

Okay, once the media frenzy is in high gear and everyone is watching, Kerry releases records which show that, unlike Bush – who checked the box “DO NOT VOLUNTEER FOR OVERSEAS” -- Kerry wrote “I request duty in Vietnam.” Now lefty blogosphere displays the two forms, side by side, and says "take that." (See here and here.) I don’t know if this was a deliberate strategy, but it is working out nicely.

UPDATE: Allegedly "goaded" by LT Smash, Kevin Drum twists the knife.

Happy Earth Day

Happy Earth Day from Ronald Bailey at Reason:

So has air pollution gotten worse? Quite the contrary. In the most recent National Air Quality Trends report, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--itself created three decades ago partly as a response to Earth Day celebrations--had this to say: "Since 1970, total U.S. population increased 29 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 121 percent, and the gross domestic product (GDP) increased 104 percent. During that same period, notable reductions in air quality concentrations and emissions took place." Since 1970, ambient levels of sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide have fallen by 75 percent, while total suspended particulates like smoke, soot, and dust have been cut by 50 percent since the 1950s.

In 1988, the particulate standard was changed to account for smaller particles. Even under this tougher standard, particulates have declined an additional 15 percent. Ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide, prime constituents of smog, are both down by 30 percent since the 1970s. According to the EPA, the total number of days with air pollution alerts dropped 56 percent in Southern California and 66 percent in the remaining major cities in the United States between 1988 and 1997. Since at least the early 1990s, residents of infamously smogged-in Los Angeles have been able to see that their city is surrounded by mountains.

Why has air quality improved so dramatically? Part of the answer lies in emissions targets set by federal, state, and local governments. But these need to be understood in the twin contexts of rising wealth and economic efficiency. As a Department of Interior analyst concluded after surveying emissions in 1999, "Cleaner air is a direct consequence of better technologies and the enormous and sustained investments that only a rich nation could have sunk into developing, installing, and operating these technologies." Today, American businesses, consumers, and government agencies spend about $40 billion annually on air pollution controls.

By citing Bailey's article, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with or trust every one of his assessments. I'm just saying, "Let's celebrate that we saw a problem and took it on, and we've made progress. And the doomsayers were WAY OFF!"

Politics During Wartime

A really odd sort of discussion erupted on the left side of the blogosphere following yesterday's revelation that funds were running out for the Iraq war, and that the Bush team didn't plan to ask for more funds this year.

This discussion highlights the role of politics in the Iraq issue better than perhaps any other.

We've had all kinds of calls for the Bush folks to reconsider -- including angry statements from leading Republicans like Rep. Curt Weldon and Sen. Chuck Hagel.

That makes sense. Guys like Hagel, Lugar, Biden, and Lieberman voted in favor of the original $87 billion in Iraq funds ... and, now that we need more, they want to send more.

What seems almost completely missing from the discussions we see on Kevin Drum's site, or Atrios, is the fact that many Democrats, including 7 out of 9 presidential candidates, decided to oppose the original $87 billion in Iraq funding.

I had this argument repeatedly on Democratic sites last year when it was first being considered. The arguments they made against the $87 billion were interesting, but ultimately unconvincing. And it's hard to comprehend the moral outrage at denying funds now when it was logical, in some way, to oppose the earlier package.

There are, of course, a bunch of level-headed Democrats who consistently supported funding the war. You have Gephardt and Lieberman, among the presidential candidates. In the blog world, you have the careful, thoughtful moderate Democrats like Kevin Drum himself.

But you've got a pretty heavy contingent on the other side. The 7 of 9 presidential candidates, including the ultimate nominee John Kerry. Leading liberal groups like MoveOn.org have been running ads asking what we might have done in terms of domestic spending with that $87 billion. If a perspective on the funding can be seen in those ads, it would seem to lean to the "against it" side rather than the "for it" side.

Finally, as I mentioned, you have the weight of opinion on Democratic blogs back during the $87 billion debate.

Ultimately, what we have is politics during wartime. The presidential candidates wanted to be seen as anti-war back when Howard Dean was pacing the field -- and the $87 billion vote fit neatly into that.

Now that the Bush team is also playing politics with it -- wanting to put off funding until after the election -- it's an outrage that they would withold funds from our troops.

It is, truly, an outrage. But it's one practiced pretty commonly by both the president and his critics.

Luntz v. Carville

Rolling Stone magazine has a reasonably objective discussion between Frank Luntz and James Carville. Interesting line from Luntz (a Republican pollster) -- "only about two percent of Americans really matter in this election." As an undecided voter in a battleground state, I'm in that two percent.

Nader and Iraq

Don't rule out the possibility that Nader will have an even more important impact in 2004 than he did in 2000. Consider this from his website (dated April 19):

Washington, DC: Today, Independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader put forward a three-step approach to rapidly remove US military forces, civilian military contractors and US corporate interests from Iraq. "Every day the US military remains in Iraq we imperil US security, drain our economy, ignore our nation's domestic needs and prevent democratic self-rule from developing in Iraq, nor does the belligerent rhetoric of the Bush regime help the cause of moderates in Iraq." Nader said.

Nader made his statement amid calls by President Bush and Senator Kerry to "stay the course" despite increasing violence against US soldiers and US military contractors.

There should be no doubt that many in the anti-war camp are going to decide that Kerry is no better than Bush on the war issue, and they aren't going to know what to do. The critical question is how many in that camp are really anti-war first and how many are really anti-Bush first. If they are anti-war first, they may vote for Nader or be convinced by Nader's arguments but simply stay home. Either way, each one will be a lost vote for Kerry.

It's getting even uglier

More than 30 years ago, Richard Nixon's people recruited an articulate veteran named John O'Neill to debate John Kerry as part of their effort to discredit Kerry and the anti-war movement. After his 15 minutes of fame, O'Neill disappeared.

Yesterday O'Neill announced his return to the spotlight. Claiming that he has "no choice," O'Neill kicked off an interview tour by opining on CNN that "this guy is unfit to be the commander in chief."

I think that I underestimated how nasty this is going to get.

UPDATE: Daily Kos has launched a counter-offensive.

Bush's Demeanor

I caught excerpts of a public appearance by Bush a few nights ago. It was immediately apparent that the stress is taking a toll on him, as he looked tired and nervous. Not that this isn't understandable, it sure is.

But one thing struck me, a characteristic of Bush's public demeanor that has disturbed me at times in the past , and that he was sufffering from during this appearance. What it is is this: on occasion when Bush is making serious remarks about an important issue he seems unable to stop himself from smiling and even chuckling. I find it VERY unbecoming of a President, but I don't know what to make of it. Any thoughts from anyone out there that are not gratuitously disparaging?

Bill Rubs Off

Look at how skillfully and with sidelong reference Hillary Clinton sticks the knife into Bush:

The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

"But I think that in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that."

She conceded that making such decisions is "very tough" for the occupant of the Oval Office.

"That's one of the reasons why I think it's important to have a president who asks a lot of questions, who is intellectually curious, who seeks out contrary points of view, who doesn't just surround himself with people who see the world the same way," she said. [emphasis mine]

"You have to have a decision-making process that pushes a lot of information up and asks a lot of hard questions. You don't get that sense from this White House."

I'd be shocked if HC doesn't run in 2008. Bill has definitely rubbed off on her. It's a veneer of sensible grace disguising utter political ruthlessness. Even if you don't like it, you have to admire it.

Money Running Out

All I can say is -- send the money.

Congress gave the president authority to go to war. Now they owe the troops their best chance to succeed.

Too much heat for an election year? Think about the heat our young men and women are dealing with in Iraq. Do you have even a small fraction of the courage they do?

Here's a quote from the article, for those who haven't followed the link:

Since Congress approved an $87 billion defense request last year, the administration has steadfastly maintained that military forces in Iraq will be sufficiently funded until early next year. President Bush's budget request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 included no money for Iraqi operations, and his budget director, Joshua B. Bolten, said no request would come until January at the earliest.

But military officials, defense contractors and members of Congress say that worsening U.S. fortunes in Iraq have dramatically changed the equation and more money will be needed soon. This comes as lawmakers, returning from their spring break, voice unease about the mounting violence and what they say is the lack of a clearly enunciated strategy for victory.

The military already has identified unmet funding needs, including initiatives aimed at providing equipment and weapons for troops in Iraq. The Army has publicly identified nearly $6 billion in funding requests that did not make Bush's $402 billion defense budget for 2005, including $132 million for bolt-on vehicle armor; $879 million for combat helmets, silk-weight underwear, boots and other clothing; $21.5 million for M249 squad automatic weapons; and $27 million for ammunition magazines, night sights and ammo packs. Also unfunded: $956 million for repairing desert-damaged equipment and $102 million to replace equipment lost in combat.

The Marine Corps' unfunded budget requests include $40 million for body armor, lightweight helmets and other equipment for "Marines engaged in the global war on terrorism," Marine Corps documents state. The Marines are also seeking 1,800 squad automatic weapons and 5,400 M4 carbine rifles.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, charged that the president is playing political games by postponing further funding requests until after the election, to try to avoid reopening debate on the war's cost and future.

Weldon described the administration's current defense budget request as "outrageous" and "immoral" and said that at least $10 billion is needed for Iraqi operations over the next five months.

"There needs to be a supplemental, whether it's a presidential election year or not," he said. "The support of our troops has to be the number one priority of this country. . . . Somebody's got to get serious about this."

Selling Kerry

Also in the Washington Post today, an article on the insiders of the Kerry campaign and their plan to sell Kerry to the public as a "centrist." Says the Post...

As he prepares for the most ambitious and defining phase of his presidential candidacy, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) is relying on image-makers schooled in traditional Kennedy liberalism to sell himself anew to voters as a 21st-century centrist Democrat, a muscular hawk on national defense and deficits.

Old-School Team To Sell Kerry as Modern Centrist

What's wrong with this picture?

Kerry and democracy in Iraq

I will be honest -- I just can't keep up with everything that Kerry says on Iraq. But the Washington Post editorial board warns that he has made a recent shift that is "troubling and mistaken" and notice should be taken. Their analysis seems solid to me.

Centrist Coalition Mentioned By Online Journalism Review

The Annenberg Online Journalism Review mentions the Centrist Coalition in an article entitled EchoChamber.com: Is the Net Polarizing U.S. Political Dialogue? The author, Mark Glaser, interviewed me along with others such as Markos Zuniga of Daily Kos and Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online. It's an in-depth article with lots of great links, so just read it.

If you're curious about my appearance, I'm the handsome dude whose photo appears first in the article.

Blogs Added To Balanced Aggregator

I've added a few new blogs to the politically-balanced Softpolitics aggregator, which is linked in the left column. I've added

1. The Centrist Policy Network,

2. The bilingual conservative Merde in France,

3. Robert Prather's mildly libertarian Insults Unpunished,

4. The mostly liberal Blogging Of The President,

5. The New Democratic Network Blog.

If there are any other blogs you follow that are not included in the aggregator, let me know, and I'll see if I can find their feed. If you haven't been using the aggregator, it's a great way to see if your favorite blogs have been updated without having to visit each one individually.

Is this Cheating?

An odd little item being discussed right now on Kevin Drum's site.

There are growing indications, apparently, that the president receives his questions in advance for the rare press conferences he holds.

If true, that would seem to be a major breach of trust on the part of the press. They present these events to us as open press conferences. If they're scripted, they have to at least disclose that fact, no?

UPDATE: Josh Marshall's sources say this is not true.

A Secret Deal?

John Kerry says:

"And if, as Bob Woodward reports, it is true that gas supplies and prices in America are tied to the American election, tied to a secret White House deal, that is outrageous and unacceptable to the people of America."

That is a pretty unbelievable charge, one that if proved true could (and should) turn the election. But wait, is that what Woodward "reports"? On Larry King, there was this exchange:

KING: What about the oil price thing?

WOODWARD: What I say in the book is, according to Bandar, the Saudis hoped to control oil prices in the 10 months running up to the election because if they skyrocketed, it would hurt the American economy.

KING: Now, just for the record, White House spokesman Dan Bartlett tells CNN there was no secret deal, no talk of bringing down prices in time for the election. The Saudi government also denies the story, saying the allegation that the kingdom manipulates the price of oil for political purposes or to affect elections is erroneous and has no basis in fact.

WOODWARD: In the book, it's one -- I'm sorry, it's two sentences, and I don't say there is a secret deal or any collaboration on this. I say that Bandar and the Saudis hoped to put prices -- now, I understand there's something on the wire from Bloomberg saying that, in fact, the Saudis have said this, that in the period before the election, they told the president directly that they wanted to keep oil prices low in a range. So...

KING: Well, that's -- that would make Kerry correct, saying they're affecting the campaign.

WOODWARD: Well, I don't know. I mean, Kerry has taken this to the next level. This always gets caught in the political crossfire, and I'm trying to stick with what my reporting showed. And if you looked at it, as the people at "60 Minutes" did, and so forth, you would see how good the sourcing is.

I bet Mr. Swann agrees with me -- Kerry should not be out front on this. If it can be proved, the press will find the evidence. But reckless accusations (e.g., Dean's willingness to float the idea that Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time) are not presidential. These types of accusations should be left to people like Paul Begala.

An Independent For Kerry Responds

Yesterday, I linked to Independents For President Bush and Independents For Kerry, and sent emails to the owners of those sites asking them to "pitch their candidate" to swing voters like us. I've received a response from Jim Witkins, an Independent who supports Kerry. I have posted his reply below. I will post the response from the Bush side when I receive it.

Thanks for the link and for the opportunity to share my thoughts.

I would encourage Independents and Moderates to visit the issues page on my site: http://www.independentsforkerry.org/issues/index.php

I would categorize myself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, which is why I support Kerry. In 2000 I was a McCain backer. McCain and Kerry have teamed up on the same side on numerous occasions. From normalizing relations with Vietnam and veterans issues, to campaign finance reform, to fuel standards for autos. I'd be giddy with a bipartisan Kerry/McCain ticket. Perhaps a long shot, but none the less an exciting prospect.

Mainly I support Kerry, because I believe he offers common sense solutions for a wide variety of challenges facing our country.

On Iraq I respect his plan to maximize our strengths, bringing in the UN and other countries to build a legitimate coalition, while minimizing the risks to our troops by removing the appearance of an American occupation. We are stronger and safer as a country, both at home and abroad, if we work to build stronger alliances with our allies and friends around the world.

On jobs and the economy, I think Kerry is surrounding himself with Clinton economists who proved you can create balanced budgets, keep federal spending under control, and create millions of jobs by providing the right stimulus incentives for small businesses, while protecting the middle class from excessive taxes.

I also happen to agree with a number of Kerry's priorities for a better America:

- Energy independence: investing in new forms of energy here at home so we aren't held hostage to the rising cost of oil imposed on us by the middle east.

- Service to Country: energizing young and old Americans to serve their country again by volunteering.

- and of course the biggies: working to make health care and education more affordable, protecting social security and medicare, protecting civil liberties and equality for every American.

Lastly I'd recommend that Independents check out: www.factcheck.org. It's a non partisan group that debunks Negative TV ads. Neither side is completely honest in their ads thus far, but since Bush's team has run so many more, because of their money advantage, Kerry's record has been unfairly portrayed. There are many falsehoods that should be cleared up by simply visiting that site.

Thanks

Jim Witkins
Kerry Volunteer
www.independentsforkerry.org

Why Kerry is Losing

Think back for a moment to the 2000 campaign. This was an election year during which the right was swamped with intense negative passion regarding the Clinton years, and their feelings about Gore were identical -- they thought both of these guys were ruining our country.

Now think about Bush's actual campaign that year. Did you ever hear him say that Clinton was a sleaze? Did he attack Gore for the pattern of dishonesty the media was attributing to him? Did he ever accuse Clinton or Gore of the moral failures activist Republicans were complaining about so loudly?

No. Bush allowed the media to do the criticizing, resisting the temptation to throw red meat to the crowds during his campaign appearances. He allowed people to conclude he was a positive, optimistic guy, while the press largely did his work in cutting down Gore.

Fast forward to 2004. Bush finds himself in the midst of a seemingly endless series of negative stories about his administration. They've been reeling for months, now -- one little thing after another, culminating with the major event a couple weeks ago ... the Shi'ite uprising that might tear his Iraq policy to shreds.

Imagine, for a moment, that Kerry, during this period, was giving sober, balanced, thoughtful interviews on the Iraq situation. Imagine that he didn't slam the Bush team, but rather offered a thoughtful alternative. Imagine that he let the press -- now in full swing -- do his attacking.

Kerry's reputation on Democratic activist sites like DailyKos would suffer markedly. They'd say he wimped out. But how would they feel about the 5 point lead he'd have in the polls right now, as compared to the 5 point deficit he has in yesterday's Washington Post poll?

Activists in both parties truly don't understand that red meat doesn't win elections. Sounding like a president -- thoughtful, balanced, optimistic -- is what convinces people to put you in the White House.

Most of the time I turn on the news, or pick up a paper, the lead quote from Kerry is something harshly critical of the Bush team. He doesn't understand that someone -- the press -- is already handling that. Nor does he grasp that Americans want an optimistic leader -- we want someone who takes us toward something, not away from something.

Third-Party Candidates and Election-tipping

There's an excellent article by Lawrence Jacobs in the Christian Science Monitor on how third-party candidates affect elections, and why Bush may have more to worry about than Kerry this time around.

The point for centrists to take a close look at is that a coherent centrist alliance can wield influence far out out of proportion to its numbers in any tight race, by drawing votes from both sides. I've said it here before. While third-party candidates may not be able to win elections, they can and do regularly decide elections.

Soft Opposition to Kerry

I agree with Michael Totten on just about everything. Michael Totten says that he agrees with Roger Simon on just about everything. I guess that means I need to start reading Roger Simon.

On March 2, Totten wrote that "Until further notice, this blog officially supports George W. Bush for president in 2004." Today in a post titled "None of the Above" Totten writes that "I don’t like John Kerry, but I don’t hate the man either. I'm one of the very few people who feels exactly the same way about President Bush." He also describes his opposition to Kerry as "soft." Mine too.

At this point, I could strongly support Kerry if (1) he talks consistently and convincingly about the need to see things through in Iraq, and (2) he offers some real proposals for controlling spending. Those two things, along with my general feeling that divided government is a good thing and my general support of Democrats on social issues and environmental issues, would make it an easy choice. I just get the feeling that Kerry is not going to make it easy for me.

Independents For ...

I've discovered Independents For President Bush and Independents For Kerry. I plan to invite the creators of these sites to pitch their candidate to us.

Are there any points you would like them to specifically address?

Centrist Coalition Mentioned

The Centrist Policy Network has a link to the column in the New York Sun which mentions the Centrist Coalition.

A Weak Captain

I've been commenting on a thread on Electrolite that discusses Matt Yglesias mea culpa on Iraq, which itself references David Brooks' Humble Hawk column. A clip that has gotten a lot of attention is Yglesias

When George W. Bush is president and is advocating a war and you, too, are advocating for war, then the fact of the matter is that you are advocating that the war be conducted by George W. Bush. That Bush would botch things was a perfectly predictable consequence of said support, based on -- among other things -- the fact that he'd botched everything else he'd ever done.

It's a good sound bite, but I don't agree. If we turn the wayback machine to the pre 9/11 period, the Bush team was quite effective in getting their tax cuts and other aspects of a conservative agenda through Congress. While one might well object to their values and goals, they seemed to be capable of getting what they wanted. Contrast this with someone like Jimmy Carter, who struggled out of the gate in 1977.

I had no illusions about the Bush team being a moral bunch, but I figured they would be able to achieve the goals they set for themselves. Thus, if they said there were WMD's, we would find them, or we would plant them, but we wouldn't come up empty-handed. I figured they would draw on their Saudi and other Arab connections to make the occupation work.

What sticks in my mind, of all things, is a Lifetime Channel movie I saw last week, Two Came Back, in which an experienced crew figures it can cover for an incompetent skipper. To give the plot away, the boat sinks. My mistake was thinking that the crew around Bush could compensate for a weak captain.

An Imaginary Centrist Ad Campaign

We in the center have certain organizational and activist disadvantages as compared to the left and right. We do less of the wide range of stuff liberals and conservatives do. They have popular pundits, political broadcasters, activist groups, think tanks, PACs, etc. We have some of these things too -- just not as much.

I was thinking about one piece of this picture -- the fact that liberals and conservatives moved quickly to form 527 committees in the wake of the new campaign finance laws. Groups like MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and the Club for Growth are advocating certain ideas and perspectives on the airwaves every day, and they're also pushing for or against certain candidates.

What would it be like, I wonder, if centrists made an appearance alongside the liberal and conservative ideas floating across the airwaves?

We are sorely unprepared to launch such a campaign, but I sense we're at a moment, now, when the thoughts and perspectives we could share have particular resonance.

A realistic, sensible Iraq policy arguably has more impact on our present and future than just about any other issue in recent memory. What if we suggested a sensible, balanced analysis of the Iraq situation, along with a call for a firm commitment to success in Iraq?

A campaign launched right now could focus initially on the Iraq issue. Imagine launching it with the following two commercials.

Ad #1:

First, something simple. Just a person in an office. They can be sitting behind a desk, or perhaps a little more casually, standing in front and leaning back on it. He or she speaks plainly, in even tones, with a demeanor that suggests neither pessimism nor overconfidence:

Our nation faces some unusually difficult challenges today. Our young men and women are fighting in Iraq. Their future, and ours, has a lot to do with the choices we make in pursuing a difficult mission in that country.

We think it's critically important to succeed in Iraq. Whether we bring stability to Iraq will have a profound effect on the region, and on our efforts to prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for extremism and terrorism.

We think our leaders should be straight with you about the likely sacrifices we face in Iraq. In most cases, they've minimized or downplayed the casualties, the lives lost, the numbers of troops we need, and the taxpayer dollars all of this will cost. They should ask you to make those sacrifices -- not just assume that you will.

We also believe there are far more opportunities and resources available to us than we currently use. There are moderate leaders in Iraq with fairly widespread support who we could negotiate with in developing a legitimate interim government. The international community would offer more help if we treat them respectfully.

Call your congressman, your senator, and your president. Tell them you understand how important it is to succeed in Iraq. Share whatever your thoughts are on the matter.

And if you see a veteran, or a family member, be sure to thank him or her for the sacrifices they make for you, and for the future of our country.

Ad #2:

Again, you have just a person speaking on a very simple set. But they speak briefly before showing a series of clips from various prominent centrist leaders:

We're lucky to have quite a number of strong, sensible, balanced leaders in our country. Recently, they've been pushing for stronger and more effective policies on Iraq.

Clip #1: We have McCain making one of his recent strong, balanced statements. The importance of a commitment to win, the need to recognize all the resources we need to commit in order to make sure we succeed.

Clip #2: We have Sen. Hagel, or Sen. Lugar -- one of the moderate Republican internationalists. Support for the mission, but we can get help from the rest of the world.

Clip #3: Perhaps Gen. Anthony Zinni, from one of several really sharp interviews he gave recently. Going into Iraq may not have been our best choice, but now that we're in, we have to succeed. It's become a matter of vital national interests.

You could include any of a number of leaders in those clips. Maybe Biden or Lieberman. You'd probably want to look at a bunch of clips and sort out the best, and you'd probably also want to include both Democrats and Republicans. You may even want to explicitly include someone who opposed the war -- to speak to segments of the anti-war crowd.

The basic idea is to complement the first ad by showing there's a group of solid, serious, and sensible leaders out there pushing for a more engaged Iraq policy -- the kind of policy outlined in the first ad. Make it clear there's a political home for folks who want a forceful but internationalist foreign policy.

Dating Services For The Politically Committed

The Boston Globe has a roundup on dating services for political types. There's SingleRepublican.com for those on the right. LiberalHearts.com tried to find a First Lady for Dennis Kucinich. ActForLove.org proudly claims to have been "slammed by Rush Limbaugh."

Perhaps closest to the hearts of Centerfielders would be loveinwar.com, which says it's for people who like to talk about politics, of any political preference.

I know nothing more about these sites than what is written in the article, as my wife has forbidden me from doing any in-depth research in this area. Would any of you consider trying one of these out?

Abdel Aziz Rantisi

Abdel Aziz Rantisi was assassinated today by the Israeli government. The world is an ugly place.

Why is it univerally accepted that the U.S. would be justified in killing senior leadership of al Qaeda (if we could find them), but it is the position of so many of the same people that Israeli attacks against the leadership of a terrorist organization is counterproductive-to-outrageous? In the end my only conclusion is that there is an incredible double standard based on who is in the line of fire.

Two-Party "Repression" and Coalitions

Today I'm commenting on why the two-party system is totally natural, why it tends to persist, and why third parties usually just do damage to their own sides. And I'll get in a grumble about the meme of two-party repression, which says that there are only two important political parties only because the Democrats and Republicans stomp their jackbooted hands on those trying to form third parties.

In all democracies, no matter how constituted, one needs a more-or-less majority coalition of some sort to govern. The dynamics are a little more obvious in a Parliamentary system - the Prime Minister must at most times have a majority coalition of legislators who want him to stay. In the US, the coalition dynamics are less obvious for the head cheese spot. To be elected to any given position, including President, but also including dogcatcher in Fargo or Manchester, you have to create a majority coalition of people who vote for you. Republicans and Democrats are simply frameworks for the easiest varieties of coalition to arise: right-center and left-center. The fewer parties a side has, the easier it is for a majority on that side to arise. Bush has vigorously pursued the widest possible coalition as a candidate and now in office, both trying to keep his base and appeal to moderates. For Kerry to beat him, he needs to do the same, and be better at it.

My assertion is that the persistence of the two-party system is due to natural political dynamics, not imposed tyranny. I got that idea from Jefferson, who, having read his classics, deliberately worked toward a two-party system. That system has survived for two centuries with third parties only working to either replace one party or push a particular idea.

Athens had a two and sometimes three-party system The two-party system isn't just an incidence of modern tyranny. It goes back to Athens. Apparently, there were 2-3 parties back then, too, before party registration requirements. See Aristotle's The Athenian Constitution. Also see Thucidydes' Peloponnesian War for a description of some of these politics in action - Blair and the great Athenian leader Pericles both got and kept power through triangulation in the party of the demos. Free translations of both are available online.

Now, it is widely believed that third parties and independent candidates bring new ideas, but there seems to be a limit to how far that goes. Since 1976 (when I first started to understand politics a bit), I can only think of one party that has brought in new ideas at the Presidential level - the Libertarians (expanded notions of property rights and an anti-tyrranistic tinge to anti-Clintonism are most of what got through to the GOP). Anderson, Nader, Perot, Buchanan, the Green Party, were all either about "the other guys suck," or "they aren't extreme enough."

Perot didn't represent a new point of view, he just really hated W-less Bush and thought he was better than him or Clinton. On the other side of the coin, Nader and Buchanan both thought they deserved to be President and were in enough denial of facts that they thought they could do without compromise. Compromise is another vital part of political dynamics. Somebody who refuses to compromise on anything is going nowhere. No great enterprise has ever done much without compromise. Nader has often refused to compromise, and thus accomplished amazingly little good. There is a frequent confusion of strength of spirit with ability to get things done. Buchanan and Nader are both strong in spirit, as was Dean. So were FDR and Churchill. But there's a reason why FDR and Churchill are names for the ages - they compromised often, even with totalitarianism to beat totalitarianism.

The strong note here of ego, hatred, and uncompromisingness has led me to like serious barriers to third parties. Though, we shouldn't eliminate third parties - rare and fleeting as the positive aspects are, they are vital.

I think President Wilson is to blame for spreading the idea wide of small-party merit. He preferred the British government because of its better debating style, and went on to support parliamentary democracies in the countries liberated following WWI. But that difference of debate style is probably more due to Question Time than smaller parties. He might've done better to voluntarily organise and submit to a Question Time in Congress himself. His League of Nations probably would've done better - mostly because his Congressional persuasion would've been better structured, but also because he would've been likelier to think through certain structural and enforcement issues.

In fact, rather alot of recent initiatives would've probably fared better if the President had to do a regular legislative Question Time. Both Carter and Clinton have been criticised for having poor Congressional relations. Although Bush gets along well with Congress, his administration would fared better in several ways if he'd had to face that kind of regular hardball.

Maybe another reason for small-party persistence is that it's also satisfying to the ambitions of politicians who dream of leading a new party into an electoral majority. Third-party members have a way of simply taking on faith that one of the big parties is in imminent danger of death.

Another attraction of third parties is that the members have more in common intellectually and politically. The fact that Austin Libertarians on my ballots are often from the computer industry earns them more of a glance from me than I'd give a party with the same ideals, say with many members in textiles (though not enough for me to vote for any). But similarities are more limited than they appear. Libertarian philosophy is deeply split on war issues, pretty much torpedoing them for now. And that's another third-party limitation. You spend so much time creating a party oriented around certain issues, and then unrelated issues come up and what then?

It would be unwise for us to emulate our Athenian forebears and try to create a long-standing moderate party, as some on this blog have shown interest in. Two-party dynamics deliver the goods disproportionately to us moderates. Creating a moderate party would, ironically, make us worse off, as do independent centrist Presidential candidates. Best we put up with our extremists, just as they put up with us.

A Haven For The Undecided

There are lots of blogs for Bush and lots of blogs for Kerry. There is even a site that displays the official Bush blog and official Kerry blog in columns side by side.

Centerfield is a haven for the undecided.

We're one of the few political blogs that has bloggers who favor Kerry, bloggers who favor Bush, and bloggers who are truly undecided. Indeed, none of us is enthusiastic about the choices we have this year.

The undecided are not, as some would have it, stupid or ill-informed. Ideologues assume that the other side is evil, and that those who have not committed to a side are slow off the mark. Not so. Both right and left have their strong points, and their foibles. It's still on open question which will be most evident this year.

It's hard to be passionately undecided, and there aren't that many bloggers who loudly proclaim their undecidedness. But I have found some undecided bloggers in Oregon, and I'm sure there are more around. If you are an blogger who has not made a decision about whether to vote for Bush or Kerry, you may well be a centrist. We'd like to link to you.

One way to tell us what's on your mind is by contributing to the Open Thread. We will be putting up a new open thread every Friday.

One of my hopes is that the Bush people and the Kerry people might even keep their eye on Centerfield, perhaps by subscribing to our RSS Feed, in order to hear what's on the mind of the undecided voter.

On the Lighter Side (Vol. 1)

Here are a few links that might bring a smile, maybe even a laugh, after a long week.

- The Bejing News Agency reports that Congress is seeking a retractable roof.
- rightwingeye.com takes on social conservatives.
- The Daily Mirror declares that Bush's brain is missing.
- Trump to Bush: "You're fired."
- Tony Blair for President.
- Northern Ireland bans "idiots and lunatics" from voting.

(If you come across something funny with a political bent, please send me an e-mail with the link.)

Release The Blogs

Matt Stoller of BOPnews calls on liberal partisans to release the blogs! Matt is a friend of mine, but I can state without bias that it is an in-depth and well-argued piece on Internet strategy from the Democratic point of view.

Kerry and the Anti-War Folks

Glenn Renyolds thinks that Kerry is in a very difficult spot on the war issue.

John Kerry has it tough. As I've mentioned before, he's been trying to send a positive message on the war when many people in his own party are actively rooting for the other side.

First of all, I despise the labeling of all people who are against continuing the efforts in Iraq as "actively rooting for the other side." Yes, there are some nutcases, but I don't think that there are very many. I think that the overwhelming majority of those who want an immediate pullout are unbelievably misguided, but they are not actively rooting for an American defeat.

So what is Kerry to do when those anti-war hecklers confront him? Easy -- Stay firm. If he backtracks from what he said this week, I will be done with him.

UPDATE: Former Sen. Fred Thompson has an interesting op-ed piece today. He says that "For the president's critics, there is a domestic constituency to be won from failure abroad. They are campaigning on defeat."

Gas Taxes in Europe

Here's that article from the Boston Globe on gas taxes in Europe by Todd Richissin, which the Globe apparently picked up from the Baltimore Sun:

The average price of gasoline in Britain was $5.38 a gallon, a bargain compared with the Netherlands, where it was $5.69 a gallon. In Germany it was $5.01, while the French got away with paying $4.78.

...

The reason for the higher prices in Europe is taxes. When currency and measurements are converted, the $5.38 that Britons were paying for gas last week included $4.16 in taxes. Rates are similar throughout Europe.

In the United States, each gallon is taxed 18.4 cents by the federal government, and with state taxes added on, Americans pay an average of 27 cents extra.

The whole article is well done and worth reading. This might make a good weekend homework assignment, something we could discuss next week after thinking about both the pluses and minuses of a higher gas tax. One thing I'd like to ask people to think about while reading is how self-interest can drive political opinion. The more you drive or have to drive, the less of a fan you are of the gas tax. The less you drive or have to drive, the greater the pious enthusiasm. I'm not suggesting a way to feel about gas taxes. What I AM suggesting is how well self-interest helps predict human behavior. Because for better or worse, this is at the direct center of whatever is compelling about economics: its high predictive value relative to other viewpoints that discount self-interest and expect altruism.

Gas tax

Bush wants to use the gas tax issue against Kerry. I object.

I live in a suburb of Minneapolis and my wife and I (and kids) carpool in our "HOV" lane everyday. With that disclosure, I don't get what is wrong with the "gas tax" or a discussion of an increase in the gas tax. In my view, people who use the roads the most should have to have to pay the most for the roads.

Please tell me why I am wrong.

Matt Yglesias Doesn't Want To Be A Centrist

Matthew Yglesias took a Harvard political personality test, and came out a secular centrist. He's not pleased.

I also came out as a secular centrist. In fact, I'm religious. But I don't want the government forcing religious values on people.

A "Miserable" Idea

John Kerry is trying to convince us that we are more miserable than we think. I'm not kidding.

This week, Kerry launched on his website the middle-class misery index. Spinsanity calls it "nonsense". Factcheck.org points out that Kerry's selective choices of economic indicators are silly.

Am I alone in thinking that this is pathetic? I prefer "Hey, dumbass—Kerry For President".

Open Thread

I don't think we've ever had an open thread before, because we didn't have the traffic to sustain it. We've been growing, so I want to try one now. What's on your mind? Nothing is off-topic.

Hey you lurkers. If you've never commented before, now's a great time. You don't need to leave your real name, real email address, or a home page.

And veteran Centerfielders. Jump in!

Centrist Coalition Mentioned

Those of you in its distribution area should pick up a copy of the New York Sun. The Centrist Coalition is mentioned in John Avlon's column discussing the event I attended on Tuesday.

Ariel Sharon, Centrist?

President Bush has given the green light to Ariel Sharon's plan for unilateral withdrawal from parts of the Palestinian territories. While some might focus on the word "unilateral" Sharon, for reasons not easy to understand, has broken from his historic right-wing stance and adopted the policies of the Israeli left--separation from the Palestinians and a defense wall--albeit locating the wall more aggressively than a left-wing prime minister would. He now finds his greatest opposition on the Israeli right, to which he'd been a godfather for a generation.

There is politics involved. He's under threat of indictment in a financial scandal, and may be trying to position himself as the "necessary man" who must not be dislodged for petty reasons. Whatever the basis, however, this is a significant and worthwhile development, possibly on the Nixon goes to China, or DeGaulle exits Algeria scale.

Kerry's Shift Is Well Underway

As has been pointed out below, Kerry's shift to a "stay the course" focus is well underway. We at Centerfield have all been expecting it here for some time, if I may speak for Rick, William, Tully, and probably Heather and Todd too. His recent policy statements make it obvious.

And we've been wondering how this shift would be received both by moderates and independents on the one hand, and the most anti-war elements of the left. I caught a bit of one of the Network news broadcasts tonight. It included parts of a Kerry campaign event. I saw a "troops home now" sign. Kerry was parsing about how he supported bringing the troops home and the gentleman questioning him became upset, saying Kerry wasn't, he was supporting staying the course in Iraq. Kerry clarified that he supported bringing the troops home from a stable democratic Iraq.

What I noticed is that the anti-war gentleman didn't seem to be garnering many cheers. But Kerry's latter statement was greeted with plenty of murmurs of approval. Now it's only one event, so we don't know how characteristic it is of dynamics as a whole. But it sure suggests that Kerry is now willing to frankly distance himself from the anti-war parts of the left (although only if pushed), and that he does have supporters who agree with staying the course.

One obvious thing to notice is that Bush and Kerry are in essential agreement on this point, and so the remaining debate on Iraq should thus concern the type of approach that best fosters success in achieving the agreed-upon goal.

Another interesting question is going to be "how will the very anti-war portion of the left respond to Kerry's shift?" This is very obviously an opportunity for Ralph Nader to swoop in on the wings of unconditional support for bailing on Iraq, beautifully clothing his opportunism in moral piety. (disclosure: I have no clue what his current stated position on Iraq is) Let's stay tuned...I'm not sure Nader has the willpower to pass up this his favorite elixir.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

This is from the FAQs on the 9/11 Commission's website:

What is the Commission's mandate?

The Commission's mandate is to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future.

I just heard that today Richard Ben-Veniste spent more than 9 minutes of his allotted 10 minutes with one witness making a speech. I hope that witness did not have something important to say that might have contributed to “a ‘full and complete accounting’ of the attacks of September 11, 2001.”

John Ashcroft decided to declassify a memo for the sole purpose of embarrassing Jamie Gorelick, and Republicans then call for her resignation based on an alleged conflict of interest.

I can’t watch anymore. It makes me want to cry.

UPDATE: NY Times: "Democrats and Republicans alike have raised concerns about the degree to which commission members are discussing their deliberations on television and, even, in newspaper columns — to the point that they are spinning their views like the politicians that many of them are."

Jesse Ventura, Mark Satin, and John Avlon

I attended the Declarations From Independents event yesterday at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, sponsored by the student Independent Caucus. A satisfying moment at the beginning was when I found out that several students had heard of the Centrist Coalition, and some were even enthusiastic readers of this blog. So keep writing. People are reading.

The moderator was David King, a professor at the school. He indicated that political opinion is more polarized now that at any time since good data became available in 1948. Polarization leads to an ugly tone of political debate, and aliented all but the most committed from politics. The political system one observes around one's 10th birthday, when one first becomes aware of politics, becomes the model of what politics is like. Many or even most young people are growing up in families where neither of their parents vote.

The next speaker was John Avlon, author of Independent Nation, a book I've purchased and heartily recommend. John is a columnist for the New York Sun, and is former speechwriter for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. One of his goals in writing to the book is to show that not only do centrists exist, we have been around at least since Teddy Roosevelt. Because of the two party system, there is no institutional basis for centrism, so it sometimes becomes submerged. But it inevitably returns when the two parties become polarized.

Currently, we have a reactive politics where people decide what they are based on what they dislike. George W. Bush won as a centrist in 2000, but has governed as a conservative. Liberals comprise only about 20% of the electorate, so Democrats realize they need centrists. Conservatives are more like 30% of the electorate, so conservatives feel they can win going head-to-head with liberals. (Avlon didn't say this, but I would imagine that the conservative advantage works best when campaigns become very nasty, and moderates become disgusted and stay home.) Avlon concluded with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle."

The third speaker, Mark Satin, is a former 60's radical leftist who has written a book, Radical Middle. My sense is that Satin is still "progressive" in his orientation, but he has come to realize that much partisan rhetoric is counterproductive, and an obstacle to real solutions. Satin passed through a Green Movement period, with its emphasis on finding consensus among diverse positions. Satin now belives that public policy must pick and choose among the best from the left and the right to create a new synthesis. From the right, he has absorbed the critique of big government, and the recogniztion that capitalism is more efficient than socialism. From the left, he points to lifestyle freedom and extending opportunity across social classes. Both left and right have legitimate concerns, and in the long run, one will not triumph over the other. Successful policies require satisfying both constituencies.

The final speaker was former Governor Jesse Ventura. He was the most casually dressed of all in attendence, with baggy blue jeans (he's dieting), a blue Navy Seals T-shirt, and wearing a black beard. My back was to the door when he first entered the room, but I recognized him by voice.

Ventura first got into politics by running for Mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, as a result of a dispute over sewers and sidewalks. Before he ran, both Democrats and Republicans rejected his proposals. After he won as an Independent, they both wanted him to join their party.

Later, as Governor, the first 3 years went smoothly, because Democrats and Republicans disagreed, and were forced to meet in the center, where he already was. In the 4th year, he alienated them during the budget process. He called them "gutless cowards" and they took exception to it. The Democrats and Republicans cut a deal without him.

When asked by a student about Ralph Nader, Ventura said he thought it was good that Nader stood up for what he believes. Ventura feels that Nader is unfairly blamed for Gore's loss. Gore, after all, lost his home state of Tennessee.

Jesse indicated that he might "go for it" in 2008, but has not yet made a decision.

Senator Zell Miller - 'A House Divided Cannot Stand'

I heard today about a recent speech Senator Miller gave on the Senate floor questioning the usefulness of the 9/11 commission. His speech so clearly stated how I feel about the commission, that I felt it deserves to be posted here in it's entirety.

After watching the harsh acrimony generated by the September 11 Commission – which, let me say at the outset, is made up of good and able members – I’ve come to seriously question this panel’s usefulness.

I believe it will ultimately play a role in doing great harm to this country, for its unintended consequences, I fear, will be to energize our enemies and demoralize our troops.

After being drowned in a tidal wave of all who didn’t do enough before 9/11, I have come to believe that the Commission should issue a report that says: “No one did enough in the past. No one did near enough.”

Then thank everyone for serving, send them home and let’s get on with the job of protecting this country in the future.

Tragically, these hearings have proved to be a very divisive diversion for this country. Tragically, they have devoured valuable time, looking backwards when we should be looking forward.

Can you imagine handling the attack on Pearl Harbor this way? Can you imagine Congress, the media and the public standing for this kind of political gamesmanship and finger pointing after that “day of infamy” in 1941?

Some partisans tried that ploy, but they were soon quieted by the patriots who understood how important it was to get on with the war and take the battle to America’s enemies, and not dwell on what FDR knew when.

You see, back then the highest priority was to win a war, not win an election. That’s what made them “The Greatest Generation.”

I realize that many well-meaning Americans see the hearings as “democracy in action.” Years ago, when I was teaching political science, I probably would have had my class watching it live on television and using that very phrase with them.

There are also the not-so-well-meaning political operatives who see these hearings as an opportunity to “score cheap points.”

Then, there are the Media Meddlers who see this as “great theater” that can be played out on the evening news and on endless talk shows for a week or more.

Congressional hearings have long been one of Washington’s most entertaining pastimes. Joe McCarthy. Watergate. Iran Contra. They all kept us glued to the TV, and made for conversation around the water coolers and arguments over a beer at the corner pub.

A Congressional hearing in Washington, D.C. is the ultimate aphrodisiac for political groupies and partisan punks.

But, it’s not the groupies, punks and television-sotted American public that I’m worried about. This latter crowd can get excited and divided over just about anything. Whether it’s some off-key wanna-be dreaming of being the American Idol, or what brainless bimbo The Bachelor or Average Joe will choose or who will Donald Trump fire next week.

No, it is the real enemies of America that I’m concerned about.

These evil killers who right now, right now are gleefully watching the shrill partisan finger pointing of these hearings and grinning like a mule eating briars.

They see this as a major split within the Great Satan America. They see anger, they see division, instability, bickering, peevishness and dissension.

They see the President of the United States hammered unmercifully. They see all this and they are greatly, greatly encouraged.

We should not be doing anything to encourage our enemies in this battle between good and evil. Yet, these hearings, in my opinion, are doing just that.

We are playing with fire. We’re playing directly into the hands of our enemy by allowing these hearings to become the great divider they have become.

Dick Clarke’s book and its release coinciding with these hearings have done this country a tremendous disservice, and someday we will reap its whirlwind.

Long ago, Sir Walter Scott observed that revenge is “the sweetest morsel that ever was cooked in hell.”

The vindictive Clarke has now had his revenge, but what kind of hell has he, his CBS publisher and his axe-to-grind advocates unleashed?

These hearings, coming on the heels of the election the terrorists influenced in Spain, bolster and energize our evil enemies as they have not been energized since 9/11.

Chances are very good that these evil enemies of America will attempt to influence our 2004 election in a similar dramatic way as they did Spain’s. And to think that could never be in this country is to stick your head in the sand.

That is why the sooner we stop this endless bickering over the past and join together to prepare for the future, the better off this country will be. There are some things - whether this city believes it or not - that are just more important than political campaigns.

The recent past is so ripe for political second-guessing “gotcha” and Monday morning quarter-backing. And it is so tempting in an election year. We should not allow ourselves to indulge that temptation. We should put our country first.

Every administration from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush bears some of the blame. Dick Clarke bears a big heap of it because it was he who was in the catbird’s seat to do something about it for more than a decade. Tragically, it was the decade in which we did the least.

We did nothing after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six and injuring more than 1,000 Americans.

We did nothing in 1996 when sixteen U.S. servicemen were killed in the bombing of the Khobar Towers.

When our embassies were attacked in 1998, killing 263 people, our only response was to fire a few missiles on an empty tent.

Is it any wonder? Is it any wonder that after that decade of weak-willed responses to that murderous terror, our enemies thought we would never fight back?

In the 1990's is when Dick Clarke should have resigned. In the 1990's is when he should have apologized. That is when he should have written his book. That is, if he really had America’s best interest at heart.

Some will say, “We owe it to the families” to get more information about what happened in the past and I can understand that. But no amount of finger-pointing will bring our victims back.

So, now we owe it to future families and all of America now in jeopardy not to encourage more terrorists, resulting in even more grieving families, perhaps many more over the ones of 9/11.

It’s obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps: the wimps and the warriors.

The ones who want to argue and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to our enemies and kill him them before they kill us. And, in case you haven’t figured it out, I