Centerfield

Disclosed Location

Now I find out where the Republicans were!

Throughout the convention, it was reported in the newspapers that a Republican quick response team was dishing out criticism at at undisclosed location a few blocks from the Democratic Convention. The reports avoided mentioning the location, presumably as a courtesy so they would not be besieged by protestors. However, the Congressional Quarterly give away, made available to conventioneers, did list the location. I didn't look at it till now. They were at 129 Portland Street. I'm sure they're not there now.

Healthcare specifics

Although Kerry's speech was well-received by many (including Pat Buchanan commenting on MSNBC!), I've read a number of posts and comments expressing disapointment over a lack of policy specifics. Although one could argue that Thursday's speech kept an appropriate emphasis on projecting an image rather than getting bogged down in policy details, I'll pass on that discussion. (Actually, if Kerry had dwelt on policy much, I can see the complaints about how he validated the media-approved idea that he's a boring speaker!)

Anyway, he does have policies that one can read. One that I'm pariticularly impressed with is Kerry's healtcare proposal here (PDF).

The part I really like concerns catestrophic illness, as explained in the Washington Post:

All it took was one cancer case and one chronic illness -- two employees out of 50 -- and the health insurance premiums of an Ohio faucet company jumped from $200,000 to $350,000 in a year.

Raymond Arth, who owns Phoenix Products in Avon Lake, Ohio, said he could not blame his insurer, Medical Mutual of Ohio, for the increase; for every $1 he had paid in premiums, the insurance company had paid out $2.08 in claims. Medical Mutual could not afford to take that kind of risk again and Arth could not afford the higher premium, so he went searching for a new policy.

Such catastrophic claims account for less than half of 1 percent of all claims but generate 20 percent of the nation's health care costs, according to the latest federal data. To cover those costs, insurers such as Medical Mutual boost premiums, often forcing companies and individuals to dig deeper in their pockets or go without care.

For more than a decade, the health care debate in America has focused on the millions of people without insurance. Now, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), in an unconventional twist for a Democrat, is focusing on the 162 million Americans who are purchasing insurance and what can be done to ease the double-digit premium increases paid by employers and their workers.

At the center of Kerry's ideas is his proposal to have the federal government reimburse employers 75 percent of medical bills over $50,000 that a worker runs up in a year. The reimbursement would, in effect, make the government a secondary insurer and ease costs for employers, workers and private insurers.

In exchange for the benefit, Kerry would require employers to offer insurance to every worker and to provide health programs that detect and manage chronic illnesses such as high blood pressure early enough to prevent the diseases from worsening.

Kerry's catastrophic-illness relief plan is the only new health care proposal -- and the most expensive -- of this campaign season. It marks the first time in 12 years that a political leader has attempted to reorient the insurance market away from dodging the costliest patients and in the direction of implementing higher quality of care.

I assume that one big objection will be whether this is an appropriate role for government. One other comment from the article:

It is not a new concept. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard M. Nixon considered reinsurance pools for the most extreme medical cases. Today, the federal government serves as the ultimate reinsurer for natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

Swing Voters

Over at Daily Kos, DemFromCT has a post on swing voters.

On the lighter side (Vol. 11)

- Croatian MP caught with porn in parliament (here)
- Donkey Wins Colorado Mayoral Election (here)
- The infamous Kerry NASA photo (here)

NATO Agrees to Train Iraqi Forces

Read the MSNBC article here.

It looks like there are a lot of details that will need to be ironed out between now and the middle of September... It also appears that although this was a decision agreed upon by all 26 nations, France apparently is the only dissentor and has been brought along kicking and screaming like the self centered brats that they are... And you can quote me on that. I wonder when the rest of the world will get sick of a country that benefits from global cooperation, but is not willing to do any of the work.

So much for the President's inability to create international coalitions though, eh?

Hillary Clinton, Centrist Chameleon

So says the Village Voice.

With this all-but-conceded presidential ambition as backdrop, Clinton has certainly been much more of a centrist senator than her liberal New York constituency required. She may have been even more centrist than her local base would ordinarily tolerate, given a pass partly because of her aura as right-wing obsession and left-wing pioneer, and partly because of the promise of her grand White House return.

Open Thread

What's on your mind? Nothing is off-topic. Talk about Democrats, Republicans, football, movies, anything...

How Many Democrats For Bush Are There?

Historical footnote: the last boss of New York's storied Tammany Hall political machine has died at 95. He was dethroned by Ed Koch, whom the article notes is a Democrat for Bush, the only identifiable one aside from Zell Miller. Can you think of any other DFB's?

Delegate Families

Larry Kestenbaum, creator of the Political Graveyard, and candidate for County Clerk in the Ann Arbor region, has analyzed the delegate lists, and found nepotism.

Kerry's Speech -- One Reaction

As I watched the early part of John Kerry's speech last night, I was prepared to be impressed. He was doing a really good job of humanizing himself -- talking about his parents, his children, the things he learned growing up, the people who influenced him.

And he came across with that stuff. It felt sincere. I think it's quite possible for Kerry to do what Al Gore did not do in 2000 -- let people in, and give us a glimpse of his home life, what he's like in more relaxed moments, who he is as a person and not just a politician.

He did a nice job of opening up those possibilities for himself last night.

The rest, however -- most of it, at least -- did not impress me. He had some good moments, but he also took off in directions that underscore the difference between a centrist style of politics and a more liberal one.

The convention this year was clearly geared toward establishing national security credentials -- to building a sense of Kerry as a robust, forceful leader. The lead-in speeches were quite good on this point, including Max Cleland's, Wes Clark's, and Gen. Shalikashvili's.

But when Kerry arrived at that issue, he led rhetorically not with a statement of his own views -- his own policy proposals -- but rather with what amounts to a critique of the current administration:

Now I know that there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities, and I do, because some issues just aren't all that simple. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so. Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so. And proclaiming mission accomplished certainly doesn't make it so.

As president, I will ask the hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation.

I know what kids go through when they are carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right when you're just not sure that that's true.

As president, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values against a threat that was real and imminent." So lesson number one, this is the only justification for going to war.

And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.

He continues with a declaration of the circumstances in which he will not go to war. And he takes four paragraphs to flesh out his thoughts about this -- the circumstances in which we will not go to war, including a heart-wrenching paragraph about the difficulties soldiers face during wartime.

Next, he considers what we should do today in Iraq:

I know what we have to do in Iraq. I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

Here is the reality: That won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

Finally, he gets to the point of discussing when we should use force:

I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response. I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger military. We will add 40,000 active duty troops - not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct antiterrorist operations. And we will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of the National Guard and reservists.

To all who serve in our armed forces today I say help is on the way.

The point about adding troops is a good one, and important, along with the point about not giving other nations veto power over our security. The rest is kind of off key. He seems to be saying he will use force when it's "required", which apparently means meeting "any attack" with "a swift and certain response".

That seems to take pre-emption off the table. And maybe, as a practical matter, we should not do more pre-emptive wars. But the threat of pre-emptive war is an important tool in any president's arsenal -- a way of pressuring rogue regimes to cooperate. It's hard for the president to credibly threaten use of force if he's espousing principles that say no use of force until somebody actually attacks us.

From this point in his speech, he goes on describe all the non-force elements that are important in a war against terror -- and they are important. But he basically gives up on filling in that one area where undecided Americans are likely to have doubts -- how comfortable he feels using force in the war on terror.

The rest of his speech is mixed. He makes some laudable points -- particularly about bringing the country together, and about the need for optimistic leadership.

But he also has that long segment where each line was punctuated by the line "Help is on the way", with the audience joining in. It was basically a long line of fairly biting riffs on the current administration:

You don't value families by kicking kids out of after-school programs and taking cops off the streets so that Enron can get another tax break.

You don't value families by denying real prescription-drug coverage to seniors so big drug companies can get another windfall profit.

You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service, if you deny veterans health care or if you tell middle-class families to wait for a tax cut so the wealthiest among us can get even more.

This was a mixed speech. But for me, it certainly didn't carry the sense of defining Kerry in the center. It suggests that he doesn't know how to grab the center. It's just not natural for him, even when he organizes his convention around that theme. Quite a few of his fellow convention speakers managed that kind of speech -- particularly Clinton and Obama -- but Kerry did not.

THANK YOU RICK!

Hurray for our man at the convention, for working hard on getting out his observations, and even sacrifcing his health on our behalf....

I think your choices on things to cover were pretty good. You're right - even when I've watched whole conventions on cable, I had little if any idea of all the events surrounding the convention, and I thought your line of inquiry was pretty interesting.

I vote we double his salary!

Proudly A Cyberhayseed

Charles Cooper of CNET slams convention bloggers, and particuarly a remark I made in one of my posts, quoting it out of context, and not linking to the full post so readers can determine it's value. Here is the comment I left at his site:

You took my remark, "Bill Clinton looks really small from the upper tiers of the Fleet Center." out of context too make me look stupid, and did not link to the post:

The point to readers is that they are not missing anything by watching this event on TV. In fact, given the distance and poor acoustics, the experience of watching speeches in person was inferior. Journalists who are making a living from covering this event have an incentive to hype their experience. In fact, I'm telling readers that it's nothing special.

Many readers were struck by my observation later in the post that some of the anchors were not paying attention to Clinton's speech. In a later post, I observed it was probably because they had received the embargoed text of the speech in advance, and had already read it. I was not aware that this was the way journalists work, and this was a revelation to my readers as well. If that makes me a "cyberhayseed" then fine--I've peeked behind the journalistic curtain, and clued all the other hayseeds out there into how the media goes about their work.

My post, which started with the "gem" you cited, concluded by observing that Clinton's speech represented a confident Democratic Party that was out but not down. It knew how to govern, and was a legitimate alternative to the administration in power. This theme which I picked up on anticipated the theme of Restoration identified in a piece in the Washington Post.

I stand by my post.

Update: CNET gave Dan Bricklin a shot to rebut Cooper.

Stamina

Don't these people sleep? Kerry and Edwards are dressed and making an appearance at 7:30 AM. Kerry's speech ended at 11PM last night, and there there were post-convention parties. I guess being nominated for President and VP gives you a blast of adrenaline.

McCain-Feingold, in Sheep's Clothing

Thus was the last pretense at campaign finance "reform" dumped into Boston Harbor. McCain-Feingold has proved more of an embarrassment than even its critics predicted, taking the "big money" that previously flowed to answerable politicians and neatly diverting it to unaccountable, shadowy groups, as well as stripping Americans of their free speech rights. But the farce hit an all-time low at the Democratic National Convention, where the groups that spent the past year quietly sidestepping the law felt confident enough of its loopholes to openly assume their place as the new fund-raising arm of the Democratic Party.

The Cash That Dare Not Speak His Name

Open Thread for Speeches

This is the place to comment on the speeches at the convention tonight.

John Kerry is coming up. Let's hear some chatter!

Photo Gallery

Taken on the floor of the convention. If I'm not mistaken, this is MSNBC's Campbell Brown


A wealth of buttons for sale.

From the press area near the floor of the convention.



View from Blogger Alley



Empty street near the Fleet Center



Another view of the same street

Politically-Balanced Conventions Aggregator

Democratic convention blogger Dowbrigade suggests keeping the ConventionBlogger aggregator running, and adding the blogs which are credentialed for the Republican convention. I like this idea. It would produce a politically-balanced aggregator, something like the Softpolitics aggregator which Centerfield has linked to in the left column.

Anarchist Photo Op

Muslim Troops?

This is an excellent idea, and a very important time for it. The plan, apparently, is to draw a force from Muslim nations that aren't immediate neighbors of Iraq, and therefore lack the kind of history of conflict that could stoke suspicions. Countries being mentioned include Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Morocco.

The Saudis are taking direct responsibility for this proposal, but something tells me U.S. diplomacy is finally achieiving results. It's better to let the Saudis take credit for it, because it needs to seem like their choice instead of our request.

Remedial Blogging Through The Weekend

Even though the convention will be ending tonight, I will be posting convention-related material through the weekend. There are photos and stories that I haven't had time to get to yet. None of these are "scoops" of course; have there been any at the convention? In particular, the People Of Faith Caucus luncheon was extremely interesting, and I need some time to write it up at a leisurely pace.

So keep coming back to this site throughout the weekend--and throughout the election season. It looks like we won't be invited to cover the Republican convention, but from near or from far, we'll have plenty to say about it.

Rendell On The Democrat's Shift

The Command Post interviewed Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania, and talked to him about the shift in the Democratic Party from liberalism to DLC centrism. Alan recorded the conversation and transcribed it, so it has a lot of nice detail.

Advice To A Republican Convention Blogger

Michele of A Small Victory will be blogging the Republican convention. She asks

What I'm wondering is this: What time do things usually get cranking during the day and what time do they wrap up at night? I'm thinking of not staying in the city at all, but going home to Long Island each night and coming back in the morning (I could also then have a blogger or two crash at my place with me, as long as you are relatively well behaved, clean cut and won't frighten my children and/or husband). So if I go home late at night, what's the general time I should expect to get back into Manhattan in the morning in order to not miss anything of relative importance?

I've skipped the post-convention parties, which run from 11PM to 2AM. Those are networking events, but I've been able to meet the people I was particuarly interested in meeting at other events during daylight hours. I have missed out on meeting some celebrities, but c'est la vie.

I skipped the 7:30 AM breakfast meetings, which are only of interest if you are following a particular state delegation.

The events I've liked best are the caucus or interest group meetings which occur during the day, between 10AM and 4PM. These don't get much coverage in the news, but this is where you can meet the political operatives.

The speeches start at 4PM, but the important ones don't start until 9PM. So between 4PM and 7PM is a good time to rest up for a late night.

I figured out the first night that the speeches look the same in person as they do on TV, except the people are smaller, and the sound is distorted. What's fun is to wander around and talk to people--especially the journalists, both ones you've seen on TV and other working journalists whose names are not familiar. I've also chatted with delegates, but I've found that journalists are more articulate--not surprising considering their profession.

People will want to talk to you, and if there are people you've always wanted to talk to, you might try pre-arranging interviews. Take a digital camera and maybe even a tape recorder or binoculars. But don't overload yourself in the morning, because you'll be getting free stuff during the day.

Centerfield in KC Star

I spoke to Dan Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday. He mentions Centerfield in a story which appeared in Knight-Ridder newspapers. The link I have is to the Kansas City Star (free registration required)

The Restoration

The Washington Post has an analysis arguing that Kerry is running not as a change agent, but for the return to the (successful) past of the 1990's. That should work for domestic issues, as long as he can convince voters he can handle the national security issues.

Les Bloggers

Dave Winer points to a story in a French magazine.

Autorisés pour la première fois à couvrir la convention du parti démocrate, les bloggers, ces journalistes et éditorialistes indépendants du web apportent une bouffée de fraicheur à un évènement des plus convenus.

Authorized for the first time to cover the Democratic Party convention, bloggers, those independent web journalists, bring a blast of freshness to a highly pre-arranged event.

Blog Flap

Since we bloggers are mostly amateurs, I figured we wouldn't be able to get through 4 days without a flap of one kind of another. Here it is (link may require free registration).

But in an interview, Schnure said dismissing Stoller as a DNCC blogger helped clarify that individual opinions do not represent the party’s views. "He wasn’t speaking on behalf of the DNCC," Schnure said.

Update: The story has now gone Instapundit.

Talking Points

Angry Liberal sees Republican talking points filtering out into the mainstream media. But some things are obvious, like how the convention is stage-managed and scripted, that one doesn't have to get the phone call from the Republican National Comittee to observe it.

I don't see that any of these talking points have really scored. Teresa's sassay "shove-it" exclamation is nothing like Hillary's condescending "milk-and-cookies" quip from 12 years ago. Sharpton is a turn off, but I haven't heard anyone suggest he'll have influence in a Kerry Administration.

On Tuesday, I saw one of the Fox anchors arguing that Clinton's Strength and wisdom are not opposing values line was Bush-bashing. At worst, it was Bush-tapping.

On the other hand, I was just listening to Bill O'Reilly on the radio, and he was singing the praises of Edwards' speech. O'Reilly is often obnoxious, but he does not operate from the GOP playbook.

Kerry's Centrism May Be Sincere

Kerry has historically been a liberal rather than a centrist. But he is to all accounts running to the center in this campaign. The question is, how sincere is it?

What I can report is that I heard no grumbling about Kerry at the DLC event yesterday. Everyone seemed to be satisfied, and many enthusiastic, about Kerry.

On the other hand, at the lefty event co-sponsored by Tikkun, The Nation, and Mother Jones, there was quite a bit of grumbling about Kerry. What support he had was of the "hold the nose and vote" variety.

So if one can judge a candidate not by his rhetoric, but by the rhetoric of his supporters, Kerry may be an emerging centrist.

Oklahoma Delegates

I went onto the convention floor last night, and spoke to a couple people in the Oklahoma delegation. I was hoping to find Brad Carson, who is listed as a delegate. I was told that he was back home, campaigning for US Senate.

Carson is a centrist Democrat, and Republican primary voters have rejected the moderate Mayor of Oklahoma City in favor of Tom Coburn, who has said that doctors who do abortions should be subject to the death penalty. I know who I favor.

The Democrats Make Me Sick

I woke up this morning with a sore throat.

The convention is enjoyable, but grueling. Breakfast events start by 8AM. The speeches at the Fleet Center run on until 11PM, and then it's slow filing out through the dense crowd. I haven't even attempted to go to any late night parties. Carrying around the laptop, camera, tape recorder and other items was exhausting. Then, you're in contact with thousands of other people, sometimes in close proximity. Among the 20,000 people here, someone had a summer cold, and now I have one.

Seriously Reducing U.S. Homelessness?

Welcome to everybody here for the convention, and to everybody else who's been hanging out here of late. I'm a software designer and Internet entrepreneur, in Austin. This was my baby during the .com boom. This post is the first in my series of postings on suggestions on the kinds of systemic DLC-like reforms, like welfare reform was for Clinton, that I think Kerry and other Democratic leaders should be focusing on as more of a constructive positive agenda to use to reach out and add to the ABB coalition, and to widen the real scope of hope offered by the party.

It's about how to cut down on homelessness and improve mental health care. Unfortunately, the sad fact is that we don't really know how to end homelessness constructively without a high cost. The Soviets may well have ended it in their system, at the cost of housing some people in gulags and killing even more people. Many countries keep people with mental health problem in mental hospitals, kept under perpetual medicated "control"; the US moved away from that in the sixties. The UK, and probably several other Western European countries provide basic housing to people in the biggest categories that cause either chronic (mental illness), or acute need (floods, pregnancy, being a minor, etc.). The official UK homeless count is 1200 (20 per million), a number I can believe after being in Britain a week and only seeing one homeless person, a young woman apparently rather in shock at newly finding herself so, which suggests that most cases are dealt with quickly.

Given the junction between housing and free mental care, the status quo seems to me that homelessness is one area where the more socialistic economies rule. Arguably, the US has chosen a better life for the majority (arguably even most poor) through capitalistic housing and health care at the expense of the homeless. On the other hand, it seems to me that there should be a way to extend the full advantages of capitalism to the homeless, possibly allowing an even better result for the homeless than countries that treat their homeless as the UK does.

The most important measure I'm suggesting is to encourage private insurance carriers to offer and advertise homelessness insurance, a service that would provide fairly minimal shelter if you need it. U.S. Government homelessness figures say:

In 1996, an estimated 637,000 adults were homeless in a given week. In the same year, an estimated 2.1 million adults were homeless over the course of a year. These numbers increase dramatically when children are included, to 842,000 and 3.5 million, respectively.

Most - about 80% - exit from homelessness within about 2-3 weeks. They often have more personal, social, and economic resources to draw on than people who are homeless for longer periods of time.

About 10% are homeless for up to two months, with housing availability and affordability adding to the time they are homeless.

Another group of about 10% is homeless on a chronic, protracted basis - as long as 7-8 months in a two-year period. Disabilities associated with mental illnesses and substance use are common. On any given night, this group can account for up to 50% of those seeking emergency shelter.

The 842,000 number isn't directly comparable with the British 1200 figure, since that's probably an instantaneous estimate, but it is .2% of the 281M population reported in the 2000 census. If we could directly compare (which we can't), the two figures, it would be ten times as bad, an estimate that doesn't seem out of line with using eyeballs both in US cities and on my UK trip. Notice that, in theory, from the above figures, that just offering homelessness insurance - a place to stay when things go bad - could potentially cut our level down to the UK level, except without the economic distortions and dependency problems. Though some work would be needed to get a high insured rate - strong portability after a year of payments or something like that, or perhaps a prepayment arrangement of some sort. Strong portability would also allow people to move away from companies that treat them poorly. And certainly, insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to turn away the mentally unhealthy. Some experience would be needed to figure out practical rules to get best results.

Given a shelter cost, including overhead, of $250/wk (seems conservative to me), the average cost per episode of homelessness would be $1000 ($400 for the 2-week 80%, $200 for the 2-month 10%, and $430 for the 1/3-homeless chronic remaining 10%). The average insurance company cost / person/year would be (using the 3.5M / year out of a 281M total) a little over $12/yr, or just over $1 a month. Dunno about you, but if I thought I could avoid living on the street for a buck a month, I'd sign up in a second!

A second measure I feel is important is to continue improving mental health insurance. Remember that mental illness plays a big part in the chronically homeless figures, and even beyond that 10% estimated chronic homeless - there is no question that mental illness vastly raises one's chances of going homeless (unsurprising if you think about it). San Diego County says:

Studies on the prevalence of mental illness among the homeless vary depending on sampling site, methodology, population definition, and other factors. A review of recent literature (Fisher, 1991) estimates 25 to 60 percent of the national homeless population to be mentally ill. The median of these studies suggests that about a third of homeless adults have severe mental health problems. The National Institute of Mental Health and the Federal Task Force on the Homeless also estimate that roughly one-third of the homeless suffer from mental illness (1992).

How many incidences of people going homeless situations could be avoided (and have their lives vastly improved) if robust mental health care was offered as part of most health insurance packages? Here is an article suggesting that recent measures to boost parity have backfired. Pressure to improve mental health care should be maintained.

The third measure is to make cheap housing more available. Popular disgust has raised fairly high the expense of the minimum socially acceptable and/or legal dwelling, But that same disgust, even though usually sympathetic in nature to the inhabitants, fails to put oneself in the shoes of somebody who can't afford anything better. One problem we are having is that we are expecting the poorest of poor to live up to middle-class standards. The following attitude, found here, though understandable, is IMHO naive and part of the problem:

When housing is affordable, it is also unsafe, in disrepair, or located far from services or public transportation.

Personally, I'd rather live mile from anywhere, in a run-down shack, than be homeless, and I note that at least one homeless guy votes the same way with his feet, and, despite making it clear that it's no spa, wishes there were more such places. We aren't real good at allowing that choice, though. I'm not suggesting new low-cost housing so much as allowing old housing to stay on the market after decaying somewhat. That seems rather likelier to work than expecting real estate companies to lose money on new construction, a tactic that has only yielded limited results. It would be better if everybody could live in good housing, but we don't know how to do that.

A related measure, I think already in place in some places, is to subsidize people to move elsewhere. Although hard-hearted in some ways, this allows people to move from expensive real-estate markets to cheap ones, often with better job situations, too.

So why would people sign up for homelessness and mental health care in addition to the thick insurance packets that the insured already face? Well, probably most Americans have seen homeless people and thought, "I could be in that spot." Insurance company ad campaigns emphasizing that point in conjunction with the link between mental health and homelessness, I think, could produce good coverage in the long term.

How about the politics of this kind of change? Well, it would sure be easier than moving the US to a UK-style economy. What are the benefits, and what jobs change? Well, premium-payers win through peace-of-mind. Insurance companies win by getting more insurance payments and new markets to expand into. It's better for beneficiaries because, well, they're alot less likely to become homeless. Homelessness-related government and nonprofit jobs would shift from rather hopeless administration of care to more hopeful regulatory and observation roles. And the homeless would not only get basic shelter, but, assuming that changing insurer is possible, also the kind of good service that competition brings.

The people who inhabit the Web are utterly amazing. I can find out what it's like in Baghdad - before or after Saddam fell - and other cities in Iraq. At least as extraordinary is the view into homelessness provided by the homeless guy. Personally, I think it's pretty miraculous that he can and does blog this much. I hope he finds it a comfort, and reading him rather motivates my post. In fact, he says he has the kind of mental troubles that so many homeless have; they may be within the range of contemporary medication to deal with. Allow me to spin a sweet what-if dream if both the necessary drug technology and mental health insurance had been available to his family. His family could have (if it was willing to admit to his problems) gotten treatment for him, which probably would have been effective. He probably would at most see a short time on homelessness benefits, and would have the kind of solid social support network that keeps most of us off the street. He'd probably have a job and some savings (possibly a good one - the social anxieties are rather suggestive of a geek here), and maybe even a girlfriend. Getting out the ledger and looking at the cost of indefinite medication, I find it paid, in this dreamish fashion, by insurance payments either from his earnings or paid by his employer. The insurance companies make money, the drug companies make money, and best of all, his life is alot more fun.

UPDATE: On the terms described here alone, Homeless Insurance has the potential to be a $5Bish/yr industry. I'd be pretty surprised if the insurance industry couldn't find ways to get that still higher, by raising the value of the product offered.

Open Thread for Speeches

This is the place to comment about speeches at the convention tonight.

DLC

I attended the morning sessions put on by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the leading centrist organization affiliated with the Democratic Party.

A major theme of the event is that the Bush Administration is not conservative when it comes to fiscal matters.

Also, that a Democrat could not get away with turning a surplus into a deficit the way the Bush Administration has.

We need a "rising tide" that does "lift all boats." The Republicans only focus on growth, but not on whether everyone shares in the growth.

There were many speakers, and no question and answer, which was unfortunately. Some of the speakers were snoozers, but Gene Sperling was dynamic. He talked about finding a middle ground on globalization, between the "sky is falling" and the no-worries points of view. He called for humility--that globalization is good, but we have to pay attention to the details, and be prepared for surprises.

An amusing moment came when one of the speakers said, "I guess we don't have any liberals in this room--well, maybe Bob Menendez."

Rep. Bob Menendez was the next speaker. He admitted to being a liberal, which he said was not incompatible with wanting to create a new, knowledge based economy.

Virginia Gov. Mark Warner was an engaging speaker. When a cellphone rang in the audience, he said it was okay. "Where you hear an annoying interruption, I hear ka-ching ka-ching" Warner made his fortune in the cellular industry. He also talked about a program to make the senior year in high school a more effective transition to college, or the working world. He said, "Senior year is wasted in most high schools--at least it was for me."

Press Bashing

When I told the rally organizer that I was covering the convention for the Centrist Coalition, which tries to bridge the partisan divide, she said sarcastically, "Oh, so if left and right agree to support the war, then it's okay?"

I think she could work on her media relation skills. My immediate personal reaction was that I was being attacked, and why should I do her the favor of publicizing her cause? But I like the photo, so I'll run it.

Convention Photos And Meetings

I'll soon be posting about my meetings with John Avlon, author of Independent Nation, the DLC, and People of Faith for Kerry, as well as general convention news and photos.

You may be wondering where I've been. I've been at the DNC all day, but did not take my laptop with me, as I've found carrying it around, together with a camera and other equipment, to be exhausting.

And the Sharks Begin to Circle...

We've talked a lot about media bias, but when the election season gets into full swing political bias takes back seat to the greed for a scoop. And the sharks are circling.....

ABC News is reporting that the Democratic Party's biggest donor is "connected," as in SOPRANOS.

Officials: Democrat’s Biggest Money Man Has Mob Connections

The Deficit

Due to "improving economic conditions that have fueled higher tax revenues," the White House "will tout fiscal progress" and reduce the projected U.S. budget deficit for fiscal year 2005 by $100 billion. Sounds great. But Nick Confessore reminds us that the "bad news" is that it will still be the largest federal budget deficit in history. Yeah, not much for the GOP to brag about here.

I think that Kerry, who allegedly "has a proven record as a deficit hawk," should make the deficit the major domestic issue of his campaign. It is an issue that should resonate with the few remaining undecided voters.

Don't Offend Swing Voters

Gail Collins writes in the New York Times --

These are the great themes of the Democratic convention: 1) This is the most important political contest in the memory of man, and 2) it will be decided by six people in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The issues are cosmic, and the candidates are addressing a population the size of Toledo.

I find it unlikely that undecided voters (to the extent that they are even paying attention) are going to be seriously influenced by anything in this convention with the possible exception of Kerry's speech. But it appears to me that Collins is right in her conclusion that "[t]he great rule of this convention is that nobody should say anything to upset the swing voters." Expect the same approach next month at the GOP convention in New York.

Open Thread for Speeches

For any of you watching the convention speeches, here's the place to leave a comment

Marlette Editorial Cartoon Satirizes Bloggers

The talk of the convention is that there is no news. So we bloggers, rather than covering news, have actually become one of the larger news stories. Now, editorial cartoonist Doug Marlette has published a cartoon making fun of us. I love it!

There is no direct link to the cartoon. Use this link, select 7-26-04 from the pull down list, and click Get Image.

Transcripts

This is where the transcripts of the speeches are posted, post-embargo.

GOP Invites Bloggers

The GOP has sent out invitations to bloggers to cover the Republican Convention. Rather than invite applications, they've chosen the bloggers themselves, and sent out unsolicited invitations. Depending on how many invitations are accepted, they may send out more. Centerfield has not received an invitation. If we do, I'll let everybody know. I'm leaning toward the Democrats this year, so I'd be perfectly happy if one of our GOP-leaning bloggers, who might have more fun hanging out at that convention, goes to the gathering in Manhattan.

NDN vs. DLC

Two historically centrist organizations, The Democratic Leadership Council and the New Democrat Network are taking divergent paths.

It was hardly surprising then, that the DLC hosted a wonkish off-the-record lunch for journalists at Fenway Park on Sunday, in which red state Governors Mark Warner and Janet Napolitano explained how they closed their states' respective budget deficits. On Wednesday, the DLC plans an even wonkier briefing on job creation, with Kerry economic gurus like Gene Sperling and Steve Rattner. And in between, the DLC threw a sedate, Sunday night cocktail party near the Boston Aquarium that featured middle-aged delegates and lobbyists--an event moderate enough that even Louisiana Democratic Senate hopeful Chris John, who is keeping a low convention profile for fear of being linked with John Kerry back home, could stop by.

By contrast, the New Democrat Network's event--at a bar in the shadow of Fenway Park--was younger, more diverse, and more self-promotional. NDN is riding high these days, having been featured in a cover story in this week's New York Times Magazine, and it's hosting a blizzard of events all week. Unlike the DLC, there are no policy forums--the briefings are about political strategy. If NDN has an ideology, it seems to be that ideology is secondary; that Democrats need to embrace whatever and whoever can win.

Some Links

Convention Blog Watch (LA Times: Free Registration Required)
(note the link to Todd's post!)

The Blogger Circus (Washington Post)

Bloggers Offer Intimate View of Convention (NPR)

Steve Garfield's Videoblog

Josh Berthume gets onto the list at one of the parties.

0 Arrests So Far

The National Journal email alert reports nothing:

There have been no DNC-related arrests as of midnight Monday, the Secret Service reported. Authorities had originally reported one Sunday, but the woman who was arrested -- for lighting paper on fire in the street--turned out not to be a protester. Boston courts had cleared their schedule this week to handle DNC-related arrests.

One For The Skipper

I thought one of the most powerful speeches last night was by the Reverend David Alston:

Manning the deck guns, most of us got wounded sooner or later, including Lieutenant Kerry. It would have been easiest, in an ambush, to simply rake the shore with return fire and roar on down the river to safety. But Lieutenant Kerry was known for taking the fight straight to the enemy. I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos.

Once, he even directed the helmsman to beach the boat, right into the teeth of an ambush, and pursued our attackers on foot, into the jungle. In the toughest of situations, Lieutenant Kerry showed judgment, loyalty and courage. Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool.

And when the shooting stopped, he was always there too, with a caring hand on my shoulder asking, "Gunner, are you OK?" I was only 21, running on fear and adrenaline. Lieutenant Kerry always took the time to calm us down, to bring us back to reality, to give us hope, to show us what we truly had within ourselves. I came to love and respect him as a man I could trust with life itself.

I am a man of faith, and I did not come here tonight to glorify what we did. I came here to share my personal knowledge of a young naval officer who rose to the challenges and responsibilities of leadership, and who has always shown the courage to speak truth to power.

The full text:

The Reverend David Alston

Democratic National Convention

Monday, July 26, 2004

BOSTON, July 27 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a transcript of a
speech by David Alston at the Democratic National Convention on Monday,
July 26, 2004:

Good evening.

My name is David Alston, and I am a minister from Columbia, South
Carolina. I join you here tonight in Boston-birthplace of the American
Revolution-to celebrate the bedrock ideals on which our nation was founded-
freedom, equality, and democracy.

I also come here tonight to honor a friend of mine, a man of courage
and conviction who has fought for these ideals his entire life: John
Kerry. Many of you in this hall already know John Kerry well. Others across
this land are still learning about his long and distinguished record of
public service.

I know him from a small boat in Vietnam, where we fought and bled
together, serving our country. There were six of us aboard PCF-94, a
50-foot, twin-engine craft known as a "Swift Boat." We all came from different
walks of life, but all of us-including our skipper, John
Kerry-volunteered for combat duty. And combat is what we got.

We usually patrolled the narrow waterways of the Mekong delta, flanked
on both sides by thick jungle. As our crewmate Gene Thorson put it, we
were a traveling bulls-eye. And we often came under sudden attack from
the enemy, hidden in the shadows. Machine-gun fire, rocket-propelled
grenades, it all came fast and furious, and Lieutenant Kerry had to make
quick, life-or-death decisions for the entire boat.

You have to realize, a Swift Boat isn't armored. The hull is aluminum,
about as thick as two nickels. And in the middle of a narrow river or
canal, with no cover at all, even small-caliber bullets could punch
right through it -- and often did.

Manning the deck guns, most of us got wounded sooner or later,
including Lieutenant Kerry. It would have been easiest, in an ambush, to simply
rake the shore with return fire and roar on down the river to safety.
But Lieutenant Kerry was known for taking the fight straight to the
enemy. I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse,
firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos.

Once, he even directed the helmsman to beach the boat, right into the
teeth of an ambush, and pursued our attackers on foot, into the jungle.
In the toughest of situations, Lieutenant Kerry showed judgment,
loyalty and courage. Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever
have to see, he never lost his cool.

And when the shooting stopped, he was always there too, with a caring
hand on my shoulder asking, "Gunner, are you OK?" I was only 21, running
on fear and adrenaline. Lieutenant Kerry always took the time to calm
us down, to bring us back to reality, to give us hope, to show us what
we truly had within ourselves. I came to love and respect him as a man I
could trust with life itself.

I am a man of faith, and I did not come here tonight to glorify what we
did. I came here to share my personal knowledge of a young naval
officer who rose to the challenges and responsibilities of leadership, and
who has always shown the courage to speak truth to power.

The 27th Psalm tells us, "Though an army besiege me, my heart will not
fear. Though war break out against me, even then I will be confident"
I stand before you tonight alive, while many of our brothers never made
it home. I am grateful to have lived to enjoy my children, to see them
grow up. But I stand here before you only because almighty God saw our
boat safely through those rivers of death and destruction, by giving us
a brave, wise, and decisive leader named John Kerry.

Today, 30 years after Vietnam, American soldiers are once again
fighting and dying on distant battlefields, at war with an elusive enemy. We
pray for these brave men and women. They are our friends, our
neighbors, our loved ones. Their loss brings all of us sadness beyond measure.

In a few short months, we will choose our next President. I believe we
need to elect a man of faith, experience, and wisdom. A man who knows
that defending America means defending our most fundamental rights. A
man who knows that leadership is not just about telling others what to
do, but inspiring them to do it. A man who knows the true meaning of
freedom, equality, and democracy. And that man is my former skipper, my
friend, and our next commander-in-chief, John Kerry.

Friends, here in this city more than two centuries ago, patriots
launched a revolution that changed history. Generations since have marched,
fought, and died to defend the sacred ideals of life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness-and to make these ideals a reality for every
American.

It is now our turn to defend these ideals. It is our time to speak out.
It is our duty to exercise our most precious right as Americans: the
right to vote.

So come November 2nd, join me in casting your ballot for a new,
principled, and courageous leader-America's next president-John Kerry.

Thank you.

Embargoes

I'm getting emails containing the text of the speeches tonight, including Ron Reagan's speech. His is "embargoed" until the delivery of the speech, which is scheduled for 10:02 PM. I guess this means that if I were assigned to cover Ron Reagan, I could pre-write the story, fill in some comments about his tone or the audiences reaction, and file the story the moment he finished speaking.

I understand now why Tom Brokaw didn't seem to be paying attention to Clinton's speech last night. He'd read it already.

Boots On The Ground

The American Friends Services Committee (AFSC), a Quaker organization, put out this display of 900 pairs of combat boots which symbolize American casualties in Iraq.

A Seeker After Democracy

Ned McGinley started out from Coeur d'Alene, Idaho on July 4 to make a documentary about American democracy. He popped into town this morning, pulling his pickup into a parking spot just one ahead of the one I pulled into. We first started talking about change for the parking meter, and the conversation went on from there.

We ended up interviewing each other.

Ned is a left-of-center libertarian, and he wants to know, "What is democracy?" He has no convention credentials; he's just here to look around, talk to people, and film them.

One thing I mentioned is how centrism in the Democratic Party is often seen as an avenue for big money interests. At various sessions here, there have been discussions about how to mobilize large donors. That doesn't come without a price.

The centrism we push here at the Centrist Coalition is more about trying to get beyond the partisan rhetoric to finding creative solutions to problems that can satisfy both the left and the right. That's not something that is especially of interest in a "horse race" context like a political convention.

Totten is Back

Michael Totten is back after a month in Tunisia and he wants people to know it. He also is still an undecided voter.

I don’t know who I’m going to vote for in November. In the next few weeks and months I’m going to be thinking long and hard about this. I’m going to build two separate cases: The liberal case for Bush and the hawkish case for Kerry. Both strike me as dubious, and will strike most other people as dubious too. But I don’t have anything else to work with here.

I understand.

UPDATE: Right after I posted this, Totten linked to Rick's post about the protest.

Red God, Blue God

I'm at the session, Red God, Blue God: The God Gap In American Politics. Will post about this, but my battery may run out, and no outlet in sight.

Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention says that the fault line is now within denominations of Christianity, not across them. He feels he has more in common with the Pope than he does with fellow Baptists Jimmy Carter or Al Gore. The fault line is between those who believe in "absolutes" and those who think in "shades of gray."

Anna Greenberg spoke of "church shopping" leading to uniformity of opinion within a church. Whereas previously, people attended the local church of their denomination, now they are mobile, and pick a church--even a Catholic parish church--that is in line with their views.

Richard Land says that the Gay marriage has not eclipsed abortion issue. Anna Greenberg agrees. Younger religious people still think abortion has salience, but not gay marriage issue. Thus, the gay marriage issue may work for this election cycle, but it will fade in the long term. Those who oppose it are in danger of risking their long-term reputation for short-term political gain.

On the other hand, abortion has not faded. Younger religious conservatives are just as passionate as older ones. It will continue on indefinitely.

Only 40% of Catholics realize Kerry is Catholic.

Kerry is perceived to be a secular person, or an "inauthetic Catholic" by many. Shaun Casey spoke approvingly of Kerry's speech to African-American churches, and wishes he would share those same sentiment with a general audience.

Kerry needs to share his spiritual autobiography. It worked for Clinton. Unless he does so, many religious people will assume he's secular, and does not share their values.

Greenberg: America is getting more religious and less religious at the same time. People are polarizing around either being secular or highly religious, with the middle-ground fading.

Land: The divide between the US on one hand, and Canada and Europe on the other, can be attributed to religious involvement. The US is more like Nigeria in being a very religous country. Europe is highly secular.

Casey: Bush gave an interview to Charisma Magazine in 2000. Gore did not return the phone call. It's a magazine for Pentecostelists with 400,000 circulation.

Casey: Rate and number of abortions went down under Clinton, due to reduction in poverty. Many Catholics are on the left, except for the abortion issue. They feel they can't even breathe their "pro-life" sympathies, however.

Land: GOP is more tolerant on diverse views of abortion. Both pro-choice and pro-life speaks at the convention. Pro-choice litmus test applied to Democrats before their given a prominent role.

Land: Strong believer in "just war" theory. Can debate whether Iraq War meets test.

Casey: I opposed Iraq War as it did not meet just war criteria. The tragedy is that we SHOULD INTERVENE IN SUDAN, but we won't, because of the folly of Iraq.

The Big Speech

A new Washington Post poll concludes that Kerry is going backwards, not forwards, and voters don't know what policies he would pursue as president.

A majority of voters say they know little about John F. Kerry's positions on key issues and want the Democratic presidential candidate to detail specific plans for handling the economy, Iraq and the war on terrorism when he addresses the Democratic National Convention and a nationally televised audience on Thursday, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. . . .

In virtually every measure tested, Kerry's image has eroded in recent weeks.

David Brooks reports that even Democrats in Boston have widely different ideas about Kerry.

Over the last few days I have spoken to Democrats who are firmly convinced he is a hawkish free-trading fiscal conservative who believes that life begins at conception, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that the U.S. should bulk up its forces in Iraq. I've also spoken to other Democrats just as convinced the Kerry is really a protectionist, socially liberal dove who actually opposes the war and supports gay marriage and nationalized health care.

It seems fair to conclude that Kerry's convention speech will be the most important speech given by any presidential candidate in recent history.

Out But Not Down

Bill Clinton looks really small from the upper tiers of the Fleet Center. I brought binoculars with me, so I could verify it was him, if the big TV screen over the podium didn't give it away. Hillary Clinton was more striking to the naked eye in her canary yellow suit. Overall, the experience of seeing the speakers live didn't seem that much different that watching them on TV.

What was more interesting was scanning the crowd. NBC, CBS, and CNN have adjacent press boxes, so when you are watching one of them, the other two are on either sides of the next wall. Dan Rather listened attentively to both Clinton speeches, while Brokaw had his back to them and seem to be reading some notes. Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala on CNN had their backs to the podium, and watched Sen. Clinton on the TV monitor.

What I saw was a party that was "out but not down." That is, the Democrats are out of power in both the White House and Congress, but they seemed confidence, not only of having a good chance of winning the White House, but of also governing effectively. Bill Clinton may be the only Democratic ex-President who was still alive and considered a success four years after he left office. I don't doubt he could be nominated for the 3rd term if the Constitution permitted it.

"Strength and wisdom are not opposing values..."

I am dying to here Rick's posts for the evening, but I had to comment on Clinton's speech. For those of you who missed it, in my opinion you missed the best reason that anybody has given for a President Kerry.

I hope the discussion surrounding the speech tonight is not talk about Clinton's charisma and whether or not he overshadows the Senator. What is important in my mind is the message that the former President articulated: we cannot allow ideology to cloud our judgments on matters of public policy in America... we not only need to be strong, but wise.

Clinton did what in my mind Kerry has failed to do so far, he not only pointed out what was wrong with many Bush policies but he argued forcefully for a centrist "New Democrat" alternative. My support for a President that is clearly not the centrist he said he was is, in more ways then one, based on a fear that the reason Kerry has yet to articulate anything other than he is not George W. Bush, is that his heart truly is to the extreme left of Bill Clinton's Democratic Party. If I could be convinced that this was not the case, and that Clinton's message was Kerry's message, not only would I argue he would win this election, but he just might win the vote of this Republican.

Kucinich Campers Unhappy

I attended an event sponsored by Tikkun Magazine this afternoon. As I expected, it was a left-wing crowd, with clear Kucinich leanings. One delegate who is apparently pledged to Kucinich spoke passionately about Kucinich delegates being unhappy about having to display unity with Kerry without getting much in return beside a speaking slot for the former candidate.

I was very impressed by Thomas Moore, a former Catholic monk and author of Care of the Soul. While he shares is very much on the left politically, he spoke about overcoming polarization, and engaging in dialogue with people on the right of the political spectrum. He was touching on a theme we often cover at Centerfield--the way to get beyond angry political debate and bring people together to solve problems.

Monday Photos and Events

If you example this photo, I think you'll agree that there is a difference between liberals and the radical left, no matter what Anne Coulter says.


This march took place in downtown Boston, far from the Fleet Center, and through the commercial hub of downtown crossing. To prevent possible property damage, marchers were followed by bicycle cops and these

On a lighter note, the blogger breakfast was graced by rising political star Barack Obama, below, who was witty, and knows how to keep a speech short. I broke away from the breakfast and shared a cab with two other bloggers, who turned out to be Kos and Atrios. to get over the the New Democrat Network talk. I also joined them at lunch with Sam Seder of Air America.

How liberal is Kerry? How conservative is Bush?

An op-ed in the New York Times today with a chart says that Kerry is more liberal than the median Senate Democrat and Bush is more conservative than the median Senate Republican. Not exactly stunning information, but the article is interesting nevertheless.

Sully Lays Down Gauntlet

Sully today:

WHAT KERRY MUST SAY: The most important task of this convention is to persuade Americans that a future Democratic administration will fight this country's enemies with a passion and energy and consistency at least comparable to Bush's.

CSPAN THIS AM

I went on C-SPAN's Washington Journal for about 5 minutes this morning, speaking with them over the phone from my home. I discussed the Centrist Coalition and gave out the URL.

I then rushed over the blogger breakfast, which had a surprise guest--Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama, who was witty and charming, and spoke briefly, which is always welcome.

I'm now at a huge presentation put out by the New Democrat Network, listening to David Brock, former conservative, is outlining the conservative infrastructure of think tanks and organizations. The NDN is hoping to create a liberal copycat structure.

Gore Censored?

In order to keep the more, um, zealous speakers from making a negative impression on swing voters, DNC convention organizers have insisted on vetting all speeches ahead of time. Now MSNBC reports that even Al Gore is not exempt.

So the word is out: the liberal wing of the party is being told to avoid any harsh rhetoric. That could already be affecting tonight's headliners: last night, Al Gore's speech was basically torn up, according to two sources, and is now being rewritten, presumably to fit more closely with the party line.

"Beantown Becomes Blogtown"

John Fund today:

It isn't news that more than 15,000 journalists are descending on this city to cover the Democratic convention. What is news is that for the first time several dozen political bloggers will receive media credentials to report on the event. Pay attention to these savvy computer mavens, for their postings are one of the most interesting ways in which the Internet is empowering people and shaping political coverage. . . .

It will always be possible for someone to point to many of the millions of amateur bloggers and dismiss them as nerdy faddists and their work as largely trivial. Most bloggers will burn out and move on to something else. But a handful are slowly building a shadow media infrastructure that will become a significant component of the media in the 21st century. There might not be much news at this year's Democratic convention, but a real story can be found in the bloggers who are making their debut this week at a major national political conclave.

A Little About Me

Speaking of personal stories, the quick rundown on me: I'm 45, a software engineer between jobs, and a registered Independent, married without children. I have a history as a swing voter. I prefer divided government. While I plan to vote for John Kerry, I hope he has to work with a Congress in which either the House or Senate remains in Republican hands. If he can do that successfully, then perhaps I might be comfortable with him having a Democratic majority to work with in future sessions of Congress.

I am the creator of the Centerfield blog, and one of ten or so writers who contribute to it. In addition to writing for this group blog, I have my own personal weblogs. Open Source Novel is my literary blog. Transparent Eye is my spiritual blog. I also contribute to Blogcritics.

In addition to blog writing, I am a published science fiction writer. I've just completed a book entitled Transparent Eye: A Memoir Of Painful Vision In California.

Bloggers vs. Journalists

I spent some time yesterday speaking with Dan Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who has just started his own blog. I said to him that I don't go in for the blog triumphalism, that they are somehow better than journalism because they are unconstrained. I admire the attempt at objectivity which journalists make--at least those in the news hole. What I like about blogs in not the insertion of advocacy and editorializing, but the ability to tell personal stories.

Journalism tries to be authoritative by banishing the first person voice. But there is a writer behind every article--computers are not that good yet--and to a certain extent, the hiding of that person behind the authoritative voice only presents the appearance of objectivity. The opinions we have, and even the news that we think is important, has something to do with our personal stories. Be as objective as you can, I say, but also be forthright about the person doing the reporting.

Hello, World

Given the number of new readers due to the convention coverage, I offer the standard greeting produced by the newbie computer programmer.

Hello, world. Welcome to Centerfield, the blog of the Centrist Coalition. The Centrist Coalition is grassroots group of moderate Republicans, Independents, and centrist Democrats who believe that strong leadership involves a bold mix of views drawn partly from the right and partly the left. We welcome new members. There is no cost to join. Members may participate in the Centerfield weblog or the Centrist Forum.

We try to promote civil dialogue, but there is one way to tick us off: by saying that centrism is nothing more than a strategy of caution, compromise, and defense of the status quo. We don't think so. Oftentimes, the two parties are so locked into their traditional positions that an independent, centrist candidate can break the mold. There are very smart people on all sides of the political spectrum, and we ignore their contribution at our peril. By finding common ground, and creating new syntheses that appeal to all sides, our society can move forward.

Todays Convention Events And Photos

This afternoon, I went to downtown Boston to collect my credentials, and inspect the blog work space at the Fleet Center.

At the time I walked by, there were no protests going on in the designated protest zone. While I'm not in much sympathy with protestors, I must admit that the protest zone is highly constrained, running in a narrow north/south axis perpendicular to the Fleet Center, and surrounded by wire. I wouldn't feel very safe inside of it in a crush. Here is a view of the Fleet Center from the protest zone.




On the other hand, the protest zone runs alongside the lot where the buses deliver the delegates, separated only by a fence. So I think delegates will have a decent view of any protestors inside the zone.

While there were no protests in the zone, there was some guerilla theatre from the Missile Dick Chicks, real women in outrageous costumes.



I saw one protest today, a colorful one by Falun Gong, the Chinese exercise practice that has given birth to an anti-Beijing political movement. There were hundreds of Falun Gong members, most dressed in yellow, or traditional costumes, in Copley Square, opposite several delegate hotels



They put on their own street theater display, depicting a scene of torture in the People's Republic of China



My photos from inside the Fleet Center did not come out (too dark). Bloggers are up in section 321 on the 7th level, which is fairly distant from but looks straight onto the podium on the convention floor. We have electrical outlets and Internet access, so we can blog while watching the speeches.

On my explorations this afternoon, I was joined by Dave Winer of Scripting News and Michael Feldman of Dowbridge. Dave was audio-blogging, walking around with a microphone and interviewing people. I spoke to a guy wearing a Teamsters For Kerry-Edwards shirt. He turned out to be a delegate from Utah who drives a UPS van. He doesn't expect Kerry to win Utah, but expects him to run ahead of Gore.

Meanwhile, Republicans have set up shop near the Fleet Center to try to respond to the Democrats. I would like to speak with them, but don't know yet where they are located. I have found their Internet site, demsextrememakeover.com

I met a number of other bloggers, including Patrick Belton and David Adesnik of Oxblog, and Matt Welch, who was not wearing the hat in the picture on his site, but was still distinctively attired.

There's more, but I have to go to sleep in order to attend to the blogger breakfast tomorrow morning.

Dump Truman

The New Republic (1948).

On one side the Democrats face a revived Republican Party. Its platform is written to appeal to independents. Its new managers are master builders in organization, trained to take and to hold political power. Its nominees are strong. Both gain from impressive records, relative freedom from the actions of the 80th Congress and the ability to win important labor support by the use of a little reform and a lot of patronage.

On the other side the Democrats face the New Party. Its program is militant. Its leadership is aggressive. Its basic support is solid. History may be on its side. . . .

Harry Truman and his friends have failed to act as the party in power in fighting for liberal measures. They have failed to act as the party in opposition by opposing reactionary measures pushed by Republicans. If they keep control of the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party will be replaced as the party in power by the Republicans in November, and it will be replaced as the party in opposition by the New Party after November.

Andrew Sullivan: "D'oh!"

Details on Delegates

Boston.com has a nice feature detailing the background of each individual delegate. Just click on a state to get age, hometown, and occupation, including if they are a professional pol.

YAY, LANCE!!

Lance Armstrong is now very likely to put the first-ever win #6 in the Tour de France under his belt.

This afternoon a local DJ was playing tunes having to do with "6" and "yellow.

Now there is a man who shows us what we can be.

Incivility Not New

Joshua Claybourn's Domain has dug up an artifact of the religious right's attack on the Democratic nominee in 1928.

Convention Delegates Polled

The NY Times has done some polling of convention delegates as part of its convention special coverage.

The delegates think of themselves — and Mr. Kerry, for that matter — as politically moderate. But on divisive social issues like abortion, the death penalty and gay marriage, the delegates are not only much more liberal than voters in general but substantially more liberal than typical Democratic voters. At every Democratic convention, the delegates hold more liberal positions than rank-and-file Democrats, just as Republican delegates are always more conservative than their voters. That is the nature of political activists.

Bull Sessions

Dan Kennedy, reporter for the Boston Phoenix, has produced a media guide to the big names in journalism who will be covering the convention. Regarding convention bloggers, he writes

Much has been made of the fact that the Democrats have decided to issue credentials to people who write weblogs. It should be interesting: some are professional journalists, some are wanna-bes, and many are don’t-wanna-bes, loudly claiming their status as an alternative to a mainstream media grown complacent and out-of-touch.

Where blogs are useful is as a supplement to journalism. By lowering the cost of publication, blogs do allow individuals or communities that have been ignored by the media to get their message out. But mainly, aren't blogs just an extension of late-night bull sessions that you had in your college dorm? It's fun to talk about politics, and blogs, especially those which have comments, allow you to do that.

High school dirty politics: where did they learn that?

A few days ago, during a discussion about why we call ourselves centrists, I mentioned that society must always strive to maintain a balance between competitive and cooperative forces. In my judgment we've moved too far to the competitive side. Whether you agree or not, I think this op-ed by Matt Johanson appearing in the Los Angeles Times illustrates one example of excess:

Campaign posters blanket the walls each election week at the high school where I teach. This year, some posters reflected a more unscrupulous election than usual.

"Bob has no friends, he's flunking all his classes and he got dumped by the ugliest girl in school," taunted the posters of Beatriz, a candidate for student school board member. Beatriz's signs encouraged student voters to avoid Bob the human disaster zone by electing her instead.

Robert, Beatriz's opponent, complained that her posters identified and humiliated him, though Beatriz claimed her "Bob" was merely a fictional character she created. The school forced her to remove the signs and apologize in front of the entire student body.

Vote-fixing also marred our election, as student delegates at the nominating convention altered counts from primary ballots to support Athena, a late entry in the race for student body secretary. Our student activities director, whose students counted the ballots beforehand to guard against just such conniving, detected the discrepancy and overturned the doctored vote. Athena was allowed to pursue a write-in candidacy, but her name did not appear on the ballot.

...

The students in both scandals acted much like many of their adult counterparts, in accordance (whether they knew it or not) with the advice of master strategist Sun Tzu.

Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese general, was author of "The Art of War." As my political science professor once emphasized, Sun Tzu's writing about principles of conflict applies to politics and elections as much as to armies and battlefields.

"He who is skilled in attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven," Sun Tzu wrote. Translation: Attack politics are mandatory as long as they are effective. "All warfare is based on deception…. The skillful fighter puts himself into a position that makes defeat impossible." Translation: Why not commit election fraud? Do you want to win or not?

On the lighter side (Vol. 10)

- McCain said serving as VP would be like returning to prison camp (here)
- The 50 Most Beautiful People on Capital Hill (here)
- "Bigger Breasts for Free: Join the Army" (here)
- ENCORE: "This Land" - Servers were overwhelmed last week. If you haven't seen this, you must watch it (but not while drinking coffee). It has even been featured on the Today Show.

Fake Centrism Planned For RNC

Peter Beinart at The New Republic (article requires subscription, sorry) warns that the speakers like up for the Republican National Convention do not at all reflect the governing party

On Monday, the convention's opening night, Republican delegates will be treated to speeches by John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg is a liberal who agrees far more with John Kerry than with George W. Bush. On economic and cultural policy, McCain has, in recent years, become a liberal--which is why Kerry could seriously contemplate him as a running mate. And Giuliani, despite his tough-guy reputation, is at least as liberal as Kerry on abortion, immigration, and gay rights--and not far from him on economics either. (He never seriously cut government as mayor of New York.)

On Tuesday night, the Republicans send up Rod Paige, a living testament to the GOP's embrace of affirmative action, Laura Bush, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, a man who not only preaches cultural liberalism, but practices it. Wednesday night is Zell Miller, who is allowed to be conservative because he's a Democrat, and Cheney. Thursday is Bush himself, nominated by yet another pro-gay rights, pro-choicer, New York Governor George Pataki.

Threats And Protest Zones

The specific threat that the FBI is warning about at the convention is, according to CNN, information that anarchists plan to do property damage, specifically to media vehicles (e.g. satellite trucks). Cynics may wonder if this is a response to grumbling over the restriction of protestors to a steel cage. I think it's reasonable to keep the protestors a sufficient distance away from the convention to keep those who would physically disrupt it at bay. I just hope that these "holding pens" have sufficient egress so that if some stupid or malevolent person tries to create a panic, people won't fall victim to trampling.

Redistricting The Right Way

The gerrymandering process in redistricting produces safe seats for Democrats and Republicans, who only have to worry about primary challenges. This is a major contributor to the increased polarization of our political process. Now, Centrist.org has produced a report praising Iowa for coming up with the right way to redistrict.

Convention Blog Aggregator

Dave Winer has set up a nice site which links to all the blogs which have been credentialed for the convention, and lists the latest posts from those blogs. For your convention coverage, visit Centerfield first, and then go to ConventionBloggers.

Open Thread

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

Frontal Assault

I opened my local paper this morning, the Columbus Dispatch, and discovered they had picked up the latest column by Jonah Goldberg of the National Review. And, yes, that it's a direct, succinct, and comprehensive attack on the moderate or centrist style of politics.

Quite an eye-opener. I hadn't yet had my morning coffee, but it was enough of a jolt to make that unnecessary.

Ultimately, this column is probably a significant favor on our behalf. Because it bundles together the primary objections to centrism, giving us an opportunity to deal with them collectively.

I'd like to address what he has to say one item at a time. (Warning, snark ahead.)

Mr. Goldberg begins with a simple series of questions:

So, let me ask you a few questions: Are you an independent?

Yes.

Do you reject "partisan labels"?

Yes.

Do you like to weigh each candidate on the merits rather than simply vote the party line?

Oh yes.

Do you wait until the last weeks of the presidential election before you make up your mind on whom to vote for, so you can study the issues as much as possible?

Sometimes. In the 2004 election, yes.

Do you watch the presidential debates and feel disappointed that you didn't get enough "substance" on "the issues."

Definitely.

Well, bully for you. You might deserve a lollypop, but you don't deserve to run the country. Unfortunately, you (and people like you) do.

Wow. Sorry to ruin your democracy, man! And no, people like me don't run the country. Most presidential elections are between a relatively doctrinaire liberal and a relatively doctrinaire conservative. We don't usually have a centrist option, which is, perhaps, why it's hard to make up our minds.

He then makes a shrewd downshift:

Now, let me back up for a moment. Decent, smart, and conscientious people are distributed across the political spectrum, including the middle. Also, there are significant differences between, say, a "moderate" and a "swing voter" — or there can be, if you know what you're talking about. And — since it never hurts to flatter the reader — if you're reading this column and you call yourself an independent or undecided, you're still probably not the sort of person I have in mind, since you're actually taking the time to read about politics more than 100 days out from the election.

But then it's back into full gear:

But as a matter of gross generalization, no segment of voters is less deserving of the high esteem they get from the media and politicians than independents, centrists, moderates, swing voters, undecideds, and others we generally call middle-of-the-roaders.

First let me make a simple factual point. There is inherently nothing more intellectually rigorous, morally decent or politically sophisticated about being a centrist. If you have a choice between voting for Nazis and voting for pacifists, how would ticket splitting be the superior way to go?

Now, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are Nazis, but the principle remains the same. Whatever your personal ideological leanings, it's just as likely that one party will be right about X and the other will be wrong. Blurring right and wrong isn't necessarily an improvement. Blending black and white may make you feel good about your capacity for nuanced thinking, but in terms of public policy, gray is often worse than either. For example, California's recent electricity crisis was the result of trying to deregulate "a little," which is worse than not at all.

It's true that there are some moderates and centrists who want to "split the difference" or find a "gray area" on each public policy issue. But there are also centrists who want a bold mix of policies, some drawn from the left and some right.

Consider the most prominent centrist groups from each party. In recent years, the DLC has favored free trade, welfare reform, the Iraq war, and social security privatization -- all distinct policies that took them away from some of the most cherished views of the Democratic party base.

Meanwhile, the members of the Republican Main Street Partnership have, for the most part, favored campaign finance reform, abortion rights, gay rights, and church/state separation, along with a serious approach to controlling government spending which ought to be considered conservative, but doesn't quite sync with contemporary conservatism.

The RMSP diverges from conservatives on cultural issues, and has a stronger backbone on spending and deficit related issues than Republican conservatives (the elected ones, at least).

Of course, those of us who watch the centrist movement closely aren't always happy with what centrist politicians do -- the compromises they sometimes make. But neither are movement conservatives or liberals typically happy with their politicians. We'd all like to see more backbone from the folks who represent us.

This irony is completely lost in the public debate; the more strongly held your beliefs, the less seriously the media take you.

Ok. That's simply not true. When it comes to debating politics, liberals and conservatives largely own the public square. The most typical style for presenting a discussion of issues is to pit the liberal guy against the conservative guy. The whole profession of political punditry is largely owned by the left and right.

Think about the last time you saw someone on, say, a cable news show who used the word "centrist" to describe the perspective he was offering.

What's ironic about this is that people of strong political or ideological views tend to know what they are talking about more than people who have no strong views at all. This is a fact confirmed by common sense. You need to know about something before you can have strong feelings on it. If you wait until the last minute to figure out whom to vote for; if you can't tell the differences between the parties and their candidates (and you're not politically exotic — i.e., an anarchist or a libertarian); if you think voting is like a Chinese menu where you can pick a little from here and a little from there; then the odds are you don't know very much about the political system. You may be a brilliant neurosurgeon, but I know interns who are sharper than you about politics.

A certain distinction is slipping away, here. Mr. Goldberg began to make that distinction earlier in his column, but now it's disappearing.

There is a difference between the folks who involve themselves professionally in politics -- even interns -- and the rest of us.

I could have a conversation with certain family members of mine who are strongly conservative, and very passionate about their views. They are what I think of as regular Americans who have a strong political orientation.

If I were to actually debate them about politics, rather than having a casual conversation, they would run into difficulty quite fast. Because, honestly, their control over the facts is tenuous, at best. They know a few things that happen to support their case, and almost none of the opposing side. They're not looking at the details in an inquisitive, challenging way.

Why? Because politics is neither a profession nor hobby for them. They have jobs and families and lives to attend to. They don't read a dozen political articles on the web each day, like some of us with a less-than-healthy obsession.

Mr. Goldberg's intern knows more than most moderates, but he also knows more than most conservatives and liberals. There's just a cultural distinction between those who track the details and those who have more broadly informed opinions. The junkies will win the argument every time, whether they're right or not.

It's true that too many of us are muddled, including some in the middle. But I challenge you to take a stroll through Centrists.org, where the major issues (and most minor ones too) are analyzed in detail, and where strong opinions are offered as a matter of routine.

Those proposals, I submit, would lead to a better America, if implemented. And we therefore richly deserve our place at the table of American democracy. We actually know where to lead this country.

Some Photos

I'll be posting photos from the convention next week. This is a test to see if they slow down loading of the page. I've reduced the size of the photos so that they shouldn't take too long to load, but since I have a DSL line, I can't really tell. So if you have a low-bandwidth line, let me know if this loads at reasonable speed.

Blogging the Convention

I thought it might be time for a new blogging the convention post, because it's rapidly approaching, and discussions are starting to pick up.

Our own Rick Heller will be there and will share his thoughts via this blog.

Patrick Belton of OxBlog has a new post today on some of the goings-on. He has some thoughts on the differences between traditional journalism and weblogging:

The Democratic Party is, at the moment, a remarkably heterogeneous assembly, with Clintonites, Kennedyites, Deaniacs, and all the other personalized neologisms spinning around their respective charismatic centers. Blogs such us ours will be looking forward to spending more time speaking with people within each of those orbits - to inspect how the world looks from their perspective, what trends and trajectories may be important for their inhabitants, and which developments in their orbit they believe are underreported in the print and broadcast media.

And writing as an amateur and the equal of the person who is the subject of our journalistic gaze that moment will, I think, compel us to relate to the delegates we cover as individuals, with respect and humility, and without film crews hovering over our shoulders - or, still worse, the journalistic impulse to treat them as 'cute', with their profligacy of buttons. Personally, I'm very much looking forward to the opportunity.

He also mentions having interviews set up with the DLC and PPI -- two leading centrist organizations. I suspect OxBlog and the DLC camp have a lot in common.

9/11 Commission Report

The 9/11 Commission report is out.

Lot's of issues, here. But I suspect the most important is this. Have we made the kinds of fundamental changes in intelligence gathering and homeland security that we need in a post-9/11 environment?

What are those changes? And how many of them have we gotten started on, at least, by now?

Troops To Sudan

Blair draws up plans to send British troops to Sudan.

Tony Blair has asked Downing Street and Foreign Office officials to draw up plans for possible military intervention in Sudan, where more than a million refugees are at risk from famine and disease.
Despite a heavy commitment of British armed forces in Iraq and other troublespots, the prime minister has had discussions with advisers for on-the-ground involvement of troops.

A major reason we have no appetite to get invovled in Sudan is that we're still tied up in Iraq. It's a further blow against the wisdom of the Iraq invasion, if it has tied up our military resources so there are none to spare.

The final reason not to intervene in Sudan is that the Muslims hate us, and this could be quickly spun by Al Jazeera not into a humanitarian deployment but "another invasion of an Arab country." It is unfortunate that we are in this position, and I don't think the President is entirely to blame, but if his father were in office, he would have handled it better.

See Ripple Of Hope for good coverage on the Sudan crisis, which seems to be reaching critical mass in terms of media attention.

Update:

A site that focuses on Sudan is Passion Of The Present.

Media Donations

I have a dual problem with this Yahoo/Reuters story on the suspension of SF Chronicle letters editor William Pates for donating money to the Kerry campaign. On one hand, such donations do raise questions about bias. On the other hand, I think Pates has every right to donate to whomever he wishes. To fire him for supporting a political candidate is downright un-American.

(I note the story is a wee bit wrong, or at least poorly researched, as it only mentions a $400 donation to Kerry, missing another $200 donation to Kerry and a $300 donation to Howard Dean that could and should have been found in any quick check.)

Pates should be able to donate to whomever he likes. But for full disclosure purposes, the paper he works for should be required to list all staff donations in each issue. What do y'all think?

A Sensible (and likely) Berger Post

A sensible post on Berger (extra points for being from the rightish side) (though I have a higher opinion of Berger as NSA than Postrel does). An anonymous source has also said something about socks, but I'm not impressed with the anonymous-source track record on politically charged items.

Nuclear Weapons in Iraq?

An unconfirmed UPI report via Young Elephant claims a find of nuclear missiles in Iraq. If confirmed, this represents a shattering blow to the "Bush lied" camp on the left as well as the neo-isolationists on the far right.

I don't believe that most moderates based their assessment on the war on WMD, but its an important additional justification nonetheless. My full comments are posted at Tutakai.

Update: A US military official is now denying the report. Nonetheless, it does highlight the continuing trickle of information that indicates that while Hussein may not have had vast stockpiles of fielded weapons, he did have the capability to produce them, had produced and used them in the past, and was concealing weapon-related related materials.

Majority of Americans Out of Touch with the Mainstream

Methinks this funny Onion article also hints at something of a well-ignored supertruth. What IS the mainstream, outside of whatever Nitwitless News and Infotainment Weekly tries so hard to outline? Are you "out of touch," or are you about as in touch as you care to be?

I think an argument can be made that this idea relates strongly to the hypothesis that Tully linked to, and which a variety of Centrists have espoused, namely, that it's not America that's polarized, it's the party elites and their PR flacks invested in a distorted view.

The connection? That the media's various biases towards drama, conflict, entertainment, etc. can give us an inaccurate view of who we are as a nation. In essence, the media is interested that their obsessions be our obsessions. (Granted, there's a circular element-it's part giving the people what they want, and part telling them...)

Doesn't it seem like the mainstream is becoming more and more illusory in some respects? 300 channels, 34 flavors, all 116 varieties, on-demand, just in time, have it your way. And yet within this wonderland of choice, there's a hidden enduring frame relentlessly suggesting what things are important and what ways to look at things make sense.

Meanwhile, for many people the most important parts of their life go on with this stuff no more than a buzz in the background.

Sensible Response to Offshoring Problems

Last night I was watching C-SPAN as a cohort of Democratic congressmen from Ohio went on an extended tag-team tirade against free trade and the recent job losses due to offshoring, particularly to China. They didn't really present any solutions, of course, aside from getting rid of the current administration and the Republicans in Congress so that they could fix things. I find the sort of rhetoric they used to be particularly offensive, because it completely ignores the big picture issues to appeal to the worst fears in average Americans.

For example, Rep. Ted Strickland proclaimed that this was all done in the name of "greed," because companies see this as a way to increase profits. Well, of course they are doing this to increase profits and/or keep from losing them to competitors who are lowering costs by doing the same thing first. That is what companies do to survive. I do not think we help our economy by asking our companies to eschew practices that make them more competitive. The end result of such actions is the companies LOSE money and market share and far more Americans lose their jobs.

I hate the fact that Americans are losing good jobs as much as these congressmen do, but I try to look at the big picture and realize that in the long run it is less harmful than the alternative.

This morning I found a particularly well-timed piece by Robert Atkinson of PPI, here, that actually offers some sensible recommendations and does seem to look at the big picture. This demonstrates that there are alternatives that are not protectionist and are compatible with free trade. I think these are the types of solutions that both parties should be looking at, rather than falling back on the easier scare tactics with no real answers.

New Political Discussion Forum -- Young Elephant

One of the biggest holes in modern political discourse lies in the lack of available, accessible forums for calm, rational, and informed political discussions. While the internet is rife with forums, to be sure, most quickly degenerate into wild flame-wars that serve only to model the degenerate nature of the slime that flows across talk radio and the television media. Most such sites are quickly taken over by the most extreme elements of either left or right who quickly shout down any dissent and debase the content. In the way, most internet bulletin boards have gone the way of the Fidonet POLITICS echomail conference and the Usenet political newsgroups before them -- into the maw of vulgar babble bereft of intellectual value.

Young Elephant is a new site that provides an opportunity to break this mold in a particularly useful way. While directed at moderate Republicans (a rare enough breed in itself these days), Young Elephant welcomes debate from all political points of view. Administrators Jedidiah Link and Chris Hill, emerging political advocates for the moderate Republican point of view (please send any tips about political staff jobs available in the Washington D.C. area here) have set a tone that provides a hopeful indicator of the future direction of the forum. Says Link,

I want to avoid the shallow level of discourse that happens at [other political forums]...I want this to be an intellectual forum.

I would like to strongly encourage readers to check out Young Elephant, register an account, and participate in one of the few really productive environments for political discussion and debate on the 'net. I would also like to request that bloggers add Young Elephant to their links lists for good, right- or moderate-oriented sites.

Berger

Geez, I hate to cite Drudge, but...

I made a bet today with a Democratic Party candidate I'm currently working for, offering her even money that a high-level Democrat would, within one week, try to change the subject in the Berger investigation from why Sandy Berger was stuffing classified files down his shorts, to who leaked the news of the investigation, and suggesting or implying a conspiracy....

Drudge is reporting tonight....

In an interview set for publication Wednesday in the DENVER POST, Clinton questions the timing of the Berger flap less than a week before the Democratic National Convention and two days before a presidential commission is slated to release its final report on the Bush administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Clinton tells the POST he has known about the federal probe of Berger's actions for several months, calling the news a "non-story."

"I wish I knew who leaked it. It's interesting timing," he added.

Ten whole bucks riding on it--and she can't use campaign funds.

The Committee on the Present Danger

Much to my delight, Senator Joe Lieberman wants to be the Scoop Jackson of the post-9/11 era. Obviously, that approach went over like a lead balloon in the Democratic primaries, but he is undeterred. Today, in the Washington Post, Lieberman and Senator Jon Kyl announced the "relaunch" of "the Committee on the Present Danger, a group of citizens of diverse political persuasions who will work to sustain and strengthen bipartisan support for the war on terrorism in Iraq and beyond." A report in The Hill today gives some more information, but also makes clear that the platform or agenda of the reconstituted Committee remains somewhat vague.

Lieberman's strong positions regarding Iraq and the War on Terror have led me to ponder a question lately -- if Al Gore had won in 2000, would the advice that Lieberman have given Gore about the need to confront Saddam have been materially different from the advice that Cheney gave Bush? I say, no. And if Gore had followed that advice and he had given the green light to an invasion that did not have broad international support, would partisan conservatives be attacking Lieberman today as the mastermind of a course of action that distracted the country from the battle against al-Qaeda and led us into a hopeless attempt at nation-building? I say, yes. I offer that as my response to Rick Perlstein's question "What makes you not partisan?"

Anyway, give 'em hell Joe.

Losing a Good One

Rep. Jim Greenwood (R, PA) has been one of our strongest centrist voices in Congress for the past 12 years. And now, it appears, we are losing him.

He's one of the few politicians, I'm guessing, to come out of the social work field. Yes, the guy was a social worker before entering Congress.

He took strong positions that pointed in opposite directions on social and economic issues, amassing a pro-choice and pro-gay rights voting record, but supporting free trade, tax cuts, and dramatic, market-oriented reforms to Social Security.

He helped organize moderate Republicans into what was called the Tuesday Group, and proceeded from there to build a bipartisan centrist coalition in the House.

Here's a story from his local paper. And here's a kind of colorful personal tale by one of the guys who posts at DailyKos.

Finally, here's our rather concise profile of Rep. Greenwood at the Centrist Coalition.

What Makes You Not A Partisan?

Rick Perlstein also asked a question directed at Centerfielders. "What makes you not partisan?"

My answer:

Biography. I wouldn't claim to be totally non-partisan, but I try to see the positive in both sides along with the inevitable negative. Part of this comes from my divided background, with my mother raising me to be religious, which would tend toward the conservative, and my father and brother being involved in unions, which would tend toward the liberal, at least on economic issues. I know people on both sides of the partisan divide, and I see how the stereotypes the opposing side holds of liberals and conservatives are not accurate. I also have a contrary nature, and when someone tells me something is true, I think, "Yes, but" and investigate the other side as well.

What about you?

Is There A Church of Bush?

Some of you may have noticed that liberal Village Voice writer Rick Perlstein engaged us in debate in the Open Thread on Friday. He sent me a link to a new piece of a Daniel in the Lion's Den nature, about attending a Bush house party. He finds a lot of Bush-worship among this self-selected group, and concludes:

Conservatives see something angelic in George Bush. That's why they excuse, repress, and rationalize away so much. And that is why conservatism is verging on becoming an un-American creed.

Last Man Standing Showing Tomorrow

A few months ago, I mentioned an interesting documentary on local politics, Last Man Standing. Here's what I had to say about it:

Watching a movie on local politics at SXSW reminded me to finish this posting, which I've been nursing for a week. I recommend the movie, Last Man Standing, which nicely captures Texas politics. Maybe what's best about it is how it captures Texas retail politics. Y'all can see it at 10:00 PM on July 20, on POV on most PBS stations. Of course, I may be biased - my wife cast a vote in the Texas Legislature race shown, and I've spent plenty of time there myself. The Lege seat mentioned was chosen because it was LBJ's old seat (not only has it moved a bit, but it's gone from being decidedly rural to edges of Austin suburban).

Outfoxed

I was invited to a MoveOn Party last night which showed the documentary Outfoxed. I'd never been to a MoveOn event before, because I'm not predisposed to like their point of view. However, I've had some problems with the coverage I've seen on Fox, so I was interested to see this Fox-bashing documentary.

(Note to Alex S. Jones - I haven't been paid to promote this documentary. All I got was iced tea and a slice of apple pie.)

The documentary presents the point of view that Fox News is not a traditional journalistic outfit, but blurs the line between reporting and advocacy in a way not seen before in American journalism. The video didn't mention the Washington Times, but the thrust of the piece was that like that newspaper, Fox News basic mission was to influence opinion (while making money) rather than informing the public.

I don't doubt that Fox can rebut some of the points, but there were two powerful points in favor of it. First, the documentary interviews an extraordinary number of "defectors," former Fox journalists who state that there was pressure to slant their stories. Second, the documentary presents excerpts from daily memos sent by Fox management to reporters with a theme of the day, which was clearly political in nature, and aligned with the Republican Party.

Not surprisingly, there was a lot of Bill O'Reilly bashing on the video. He certainly can be a jerk. However, I don't have a problem with O'Reilly, because it's obvious that he's doing an opinion program. What has been more troubling to me --before I saw Outfoxed--was how frequently Fox anchors of what I assumed to be the news hole interject opinion, usually in the form of a snide comment, into what I had thought to be news report. I was also impressed by the chart which showed that Brit Hume, who I do think of as a journalist, has a very unbalanced pattern of mostly featuring conservatives on his program.

The documentary also showed footage of a Fox reporter interviewing then Gov. Bush whose wife was a volunteer for the Bush campaign. The two chatted amiably about what a great woman the reporter's wife was before the formal part of the interview started. This seemed to be a clear conflict of interest.

I was impressed by the professionalism with which this event was organized. There were MoveOn parties all across the nation last night. At the one I attended, the host had received a DVD of the Outfoxed video,and played it promptly. About 15 minutes after the conclusion of the video, she called a phone number to join a conference call with Al Franken, Robert Greenwald (the producer of the video) and Wes Boyd of MoveOn. They spoke briefly, and answered a few questions sent via email.

The evening ended with an appeal for attendees to sign a petition to the Federal Trade Commission challenging Fox's attempt to trademark the phrase "fair and balanced," arguing that it is deceptive advertising. I signed the petition. Here at Centerfield, we do try to be fair and balanced. I don't think Fox News tries to be fair and balanced; rather, it thinks it's fair to balance what it perceives to be liberal media bias by its own orchestrated conservative opinion.

Update: Mark Kleiman liked Outfoxed, and says its more honest than Fahrenheit 911.

Sizzle, Not Steak

Joe Gandleman distills an op-ed in the LA Times dissing convention bloggers thusly:

However, bloggers, with few exceptions, don't add reporting to the personal views they post online, and they see journalism as bound by norms and standards that they reject. That encourages these common attributes of the blogosphere: vulgarity, scorching insults, bitter denunciations, one-sided arguments, erroneous assertions and the array of qualities that might be expected from a blustering know-it-all in a bar.

Joe relates some anecdotes about how he was expected to "pay his dues" as a starting journalist. Worth reading.

Update: Jay Rosen weighs in, and also page down to the valuable comment by Zephyr on blogger ethics.

Minnesota: A dead heat

Richard Nixon, in 1972, was the last Republican presidential candidate to carry Minnesota. However, my home state is trending "red." Bush lost Minnesota to Al Gore by fewer than 60,000 votes four years ago, and the odds are that it will be much closer this year.

The newest poll indicates that Nader hurts Kerry enough to make it a dead heat.

". . . Nader is hurting Kerry in two ways," said political scientist Larry Jacobs, director of the 2004 Election Project at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute. "One, he is taking some Democrats away from Kerry. But even more significantly, he is contesting Kerry's campaign for the independent swing vote."

Obviously, Minnesota is not in the league of Florida or Ohio in its importance as a battleground state. But I refuse to believe that Bush could win Minnesota and still lose the election.

Odds and Ends

Wondered why the Culture Wars seem to passing you by, or all going on somewhere else? Here's one take that should cheer up centrists.

What Culture War?

You can learn something about how the campaigns view their target voters by where they look for them:

Campaigns Use TV Preferences to Find Voters

Lastly, for a tale of local corruption in our nation's capital, here's the story of how the petitions for the slots referendum were gathered, and by whom.

Widespread Irregularities Seen in D.C. Slots Petitions

There's a ton of other irregularities in the slots drive, and D.C. voters would be well advised to turn it down and wait for a "clean" and untainted proposal if they want legalized gambling in the District. The only rush is on the part of the backers, and they seem to be doing everything they can to force a ballot choice before the plan can be properly reviewed by the public.

Go! Go! Go!

This has absolutely nothing to do with electoral politics or centrism, and I don't care!

Armstrong Clears Path to Sixth Tour Title

OxBloggers' Ideology

Josh Chavetz of OxBlog has some interesting off-the-cuff remarks on the conservative movement today and where he sees his place in it.

Meanwhile, fellow OxBlogger Patrick Belton overtly embraces the term "centrist".

Poll Watching--"the Bounce"

The usual disclaimer: Polls are not always accurate, and this far out they don't really mean all that much before both conventions have been held, and they're pretty variable even in the final run-up. The only poll that really counts is the one taken at the ballot boxes. The "popular vote" doesn't mean a damn thing in Presidential elections--all that counts is the Electoral College vote, as Al Gore can tell you.

"The Bounce" has finally materialized now that the polls have had a chance to catch up to the news. This has resulted in some of the swing states moving over to Kerry from Bush. My current EC vote projection using current polls is Kerry 311, Bush 216, with Missouri too close to call.

Removing states where the lead is within the margin of error, the numbers are Kerry 249, Bush 205. Currently "in play" by margin of error are: Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, and Maine. Kerry's numbers solidified in a few states, but declined in other swing states, most notably in Iowa, Minnesota, Maine, and Florida. Bush's numbers improved marginally in Nevada, Arkansas, and West Virginia. Edward's home state of North Carolina remains Bush's outside the margin of error, but did tighten up after the Veep announcement.

As always, these numbers WILL shift throughout the election season. Stay tuned!

On the lighter side (Vol. 9)

Only one selection this week because it might be the funniest thing ever. The Clinton cameo is just icing on the cake.

UPDATE: The website has been overwhelmed. Here is an alternative link.

Open Thread

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

Are we safer?

Condoleezza Rice has an op-ed today under the headline "U.S., world clearly are safer." Are we really safer in the short-term because of the Iraq war? I don't think so, and I supported the war. The CIA's acting chief says that "[t]his is about as serious a threat environment as I have seen since 9/11," and Iran and North Korea don't seem too deterred in their proliferation efforts.

I still think that in 20 years history will judge the Iraq war and its aftermath to have been tough, but worth it. One of the reasons that I am still considering voting for Bush is because he was willing to bet his presidency on an ambitious mission that could not possibly be completed before his reelection bid, but that he believed (right or wrong) to be critical to the long-term interests of the country. (Another reason is that I think that he was correct, at least based on the intelligence at the time.) Right now, I remain unconvinced that Kerry would have taken the same political risk even if he truly believed (right or wrong) in the wisdom of taking action.

UPDATE: From Kevin Drum --

SAFER?....President Bush, in remarks at Oak Ridge National Laboratory on July 12:

America is safer....the American people are safer....the American people are safer....the American people are safer....the American people are safer....the American people are safer....the American people are safer....America and the world are safer.

Assembly On Board

This is a scary article about the possibility that teams of terrorists could smuggle bomb components on board place separately, and assemble them in-flight in a restroom. I understand the sensitivity regarding profiling of American citizens, but there shouldn't be any issue of political correctness in closely screening passport holders from a state which supports terrorism, like Syria. It certainly sounds that if these men were not terrorists, they were "having fun" with their fellow passengers, deliberately provoking anxiety.

I suspect that some of the facts in this report are in error, given the lack of cooperation from authorities. However, Osama and his friends have had three years since 9/11 to think up creative ways to attack us. I'm sure they're up to something.

Update:
A derisive article in Salon mocking the the report above by Annie Jacobsen. But even if they were not terrorists, the Syrian passengers in this case were clearly disobeying FAA rules in flight--perhaps out of ignorance of American customs--and acting in a manner which caused the crew to contract ground and have the FBI interview the Syrians on the ground.

If there are indeed terrorists who want to attack us--and there are--we are going to have to rifle through a lot of haystacks before we find them. We should not be excessively alarmist, but if in doubt, we should check it out.

Swing Faithful

The Washington Post has a revealing article about Kerry's religious faith. Amy Sullivan points to an article about the swing faithful, strongly religious voters who are not committed to either political camp.

USA TODAY recently reported that in the 2000 presidential election, 87% of those who attend church once a week backed Bush. Earlier polls by Gallup and Pew reinforce an erroneous assumption that a "God gap" favors the GOP.

At a conference on religion's role in this year's election, the God-gap assumption was refuted by Green and Mark Silk, director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. Yes, it is true that those who worship weekly tend to vote Republican by a large margin. But Green and Silk note that when other gauges of religiosity are measured — such as attending church services a few times a month, belief, prayer and Bible reading — the gap narrows significantly and even reverses. "So it's a weekly worship difference," Green explains, "but not much of a God gap based on other factors."

Cartoon for centrists

At Hellblazer.

Will we see Kerry in Viagra commercials?

UPDATE: Tamouz pointed out that the last link is to a white supremacist site. Oopsie. That'll teach me to to be careful with my googling! There certainly was starvation after WWII, but maybe not that much.... Sorry!

My feeling on Kerry is, as I've said before, that we've basically nominated a Dole - a Senator with long experience and few enemies, but having no Elvis atall. I think you need some Elvis to be a good President.

Kerry has even extended the comparison by not just choosing a guy long on Elvis as a veep candidate, but obviously "getting his vibe back" hanging with Edwards, rather than producing from his own inner resources. Of course, Kerry's doing better in the polls than Dole, so far. That's certainly an important difference. On the other hand, people haven't made up their minds yet. Remember how fast Dean faded once people started paying attention.

I keep wishing Kerry was a better candidate. I'm certainly not enthusiastic about handing the keys back to the guy who locked away for years hundreds of illegal immigrants who mostly had nothing to do with terrorism. Nor the guy who ungratefully failed to do anything to keep the redistricting reasonable here in Austin, Mr. slow down stem cell research, or the guy who backed the anti-gay-marriage amendment. But if Kerry doesn't find a little bit of backbone by the election, I probably won't vote for him. I keep thinking of how much worse the reactions on 9/12 could have been. Would Kerry have done any better?

Most Presidential repressive actions are urged on them by subordinates. The government, because it's huge, includes many power-hungry people constantly pushing repressive ideas. One measure of Presidential character is how well they block these. Bush' spine was pretty good until 9/11, at which point, well.... Still, I keep remembering the 9/12 Charlie Rose show on which Edwardly declaimed, with his heart in the right place, but not terribly helpfully, that we should end terrorism. Tom Clancy, also on the show, asked how. Of course, he had no idea. Would something similarly useless have been the antiterror policy of a President Kerry? Would the War On Terrorism have been as similarly limited to US territory, as repressive, and as effectless as the War On Drugs? Would anybody who wrote an email that included the word "bomb" be subject to automatic phone taps? As it is, there are many fair questions about parallels to be drawn. But Bush has taken action killing, imprisoning (if sometimes unfairly), and generally making the terrorists live in terror; an alleged Zarqawi memo says that al-Qaeda has to win in Iraq or face long-term disaffection and uselessness. I cannot believe that a Kerry Administration would have been so effective.

I remember a bit from West Wing, which has a time-line in which a big terror attack has happened, but unlike ours, the President hasn't invaded any countries harboring terrorists. Terrorists have bombed a swim meet in Idaho, a congressional delegation visiting the Middle East, and even kidnapped the Presidents' daughter. Of course, this is for drama, but I believe it would be like that, because al-Qaeda would be largely unaffected, and planning on their terms instead of ours. At one point, they have a discussion in which they say that this is just something that has to be borne for a long time. I'm glad I don't live in that time line! U.S. civilians regularly dying and more worried. Surely it's just a matter of time before the explosions go nuclear in that time-line, as Gulf states join the nuclear club and one starts working with a terrorist group, or perhaps a lesser official is bribed to provide access to weapons-grade material.

Whomever is elected WILL be tested. Noonan and Kaus may declare a timeout, but do the terrorists read Kausfiles?

I still think the war in Iraq was right. I'm with Blair. This paragraph appeared here just yesterday, but I like it so much I'll just bring it out again:

On any basis he retained complete strategic intent on WMD and significant capability; the only reason he ever let the inspectors back into Iraq was that he had 180,000 US and British troops on his doorstep; he had no intention of ever co-operating fully with the inspectors; and he was going to start up again the moment the troops and the inspectors departed; or the sanctions eroded. And I say further: that had we backed down in respect of Saddam, we would never have taken the stand we needed to take on WMD, never have got the progress for example on Libya, that we achieved; and we would have left Saddam in charge of Iraq, with every malign intent and capability still in place and every dictator with the same intent everywhere immeasurably emboldened.

There is some wishful thinking out there that the nonpresence of WMD means that everything else Bush ever said about Iraq is wrong. The other Kay, David, has said that, in his judgement, other parts were right - the WMD programs on a low-scale basis (presumably in a holding pattern until the end of sanctions and international scrutiny), and support for terror. This guy isn't a partisan hack - he's the same guy who blew the whistle on stockpile nonpresence. See para 5 of this NewsHour transcript .

Nor do I believe that we've screwed up the occupation. Many think we've screwed up the occupation, just as many thought we were screwing up in Germany, Japan, Italy, and Austria. And the way some still say we screwed up in Panama in the 90s, even though Panama's now democratic (would they have preferred something undemocratic?).

Is there any evidence of a rebellion being popular? No. Is there any evidence of the violent multiethnic clash that the media's been hoping for since before the invasion? No. Is there widespread refusal to cooperate with the occupation? No. Is the occupation (and current government) a big, dumb bureacracy imposed on Iraqis against their will? Yes. Is it doing stupid things? Yes. Is it killing tens of thousands of Iraqis a year, or torturing people for being against the Occupation? No. Is it torturing people? I hope not; it certainly was. In the tens rather than the tens of thousands. Personally, I think it even deserves a kudo or two for cleverness in no doubt saving lives by moving up the sovereignty handover ceremony. It also deserves credit for working to hand over control to a credible local government faster than its WWII predecessors.

If we want to see screwing up an occupation, look back at my post on the British Imperial occupation (back when they were Imperialist, I don't for a second think they'd do so badly now). Or, hell, we can consider Allied occupations of Germany, where millions of Germans died of starvation and disease (of course, Stalin surely contributed most of this - my guess would be "mere" hundreds of thousands on the democratic side). We were much nastier to the Germans than to the Iraqis. But it all worked out anyway.

Sign Of Weakness

This strikes me not as a "novel strategy" but a sign of weakness.

Therein lies an important key to understanding Bush's reelection strategy. Although age-old campaign rules dictate that the general-election candidate must emphasize moderate "swing" voters and political independents, Bush strategists are predicting that this election, more than previous ones, will be determined by the turnout of each side's partisans. Although not discounting swing voters, Bush is placing unusual emphasis so far on rallying the faithful.

"In close elections in today's environment, the old political strategy of focusing just on independents won't work," said Matthew Dowd, the Bush campaign's chief strategist. "Campaigns have to motivate supporters at the same time of appealing to swing voters."

Did Joe Wilson Lie?

The Washington Post reports that the recent bi-partisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee undermines some of the assertions that where made in the past by Joe Wilson.

Ben Domenech, one of the founders of Red State, says: "...when can we expect apologies and retractions from all of Wilson's ideological cronies for their nomination of the liar as a anti-Bush saint?"

I have a hard time not wondering the same thing myself. I wonder if Wilson will still be an adviser to John Kerry?

You can read an exceprt from the WP article in the extended entry section of this post, or read the full article here.

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

Convention Confirmation

I take umbrage at the NY Times dismissal of centrism in its editorial regarding the convention, mentioned by Tully. Around here, we don't cheer for the tame center of compromise, but the insurgent center that seeks to shake up the two party system.

I will be blogging from the convention (I've received confirmation by email in addition to the original letter). I don't know if any of the other bloggers are non-Democrats, but I'm an Independent. I don't trust either party, which is why I'd like us to return to the good ol' days of divided government.

Blogs as Watchdogs

This column summarizes the screwups at the Washington Post and the LA Times in reporting on Paul Bremer's departure from Iraq, and the role of blogs in exposing those screwups. The article concludes as follows:

What's new about the press is that so many people who follow it with a critical eye now have an outlet to howl about inaccuracy and partisanship. The big media used to be able to shrug off critics like this. Now they can't.

Blogging the Convention

There's an op/ed in the New York Times today about bloggers receiving press credentials to the conventions.

All the more reason to hope, then, that this year's one potentially risky innovation — accepting dozens of free-form online bloggers as accredited convention journalists — may lace the proceedings with fresh insight and even some Menckenian impertinence....

....Will bloggers be tamed into centrism? Or, like Mencken, will they gleefully report that the convention's main speechmakers are "plainly on furlough from some home for extinct volcanoes"?

My bet is that boring good bloggers invites them to unleash their skills...stay tuned! (And note the Times' implication that there are no centrist bloggers. Did they check the list for Rick Heller?)

Democrat's Long-Term Strategy II

Greg's Opinion has some further analysis building off our post on Rick Perlstein's essay.

Note that Rick Perlstein himself has added a comment to the original post.

Has Cheney Failed?

The Moderate Voice review a Larry Sabato analysis finding that "Cheney Has Blown It" And "Failed His President." It seems like with the selection of Edwards, some in the GOP are hoping to dump Cheney for someone more attractive.

Why stop there? It's not Cheney who has failed so much as the man he works for. That's why I created the Decline The Nomination petition, asking George Bush to withdraw his candidacy in favor of someone more capable. The petition did not catch on however, which is why I've endorsed John Kerry.

Red-Blue Quiz

I had fun with this Red-Blue quiz pointed to by Oliver Willis. I came out in the middle, but over toward where it starts to redden.

Bearing it in Chicago

Mike Ditka has announced he's not going to run for the Senate.

Which of course means he's decided to pass!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But the AP story actually has Illinois Republicans "scrambling" to find a challenger...which is worse?

Foreign Policy by Democrats III

Comments and posts on this and other sites often express concerns that a return to a Democratic administration would mean a return to power of those on the left who believe that the use of America's power is almost always wrong.

With that in mind, I believe the following addresses that concern. This is from Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy published by the Progressive Policy Institute. Most, if not all, of the authors are very likely to form part of a Kerry foreign policy team.

Progressive internationalism occupies the vital center between the neo-imperial right and the non-interventionist left, between a view that assumes that our might always makes us right and one that assumes that because America is strong it must be wrong.

Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes, reflexively oppose the use of force, and begrudge the resources required to keep our military strong. Viewing multilateralism as an end in itself, they lose sight of goals, such as fighting terrorism or ending gross human rights abuses, which sometimes require us to act -- if need be outside a sometimes ineffectual United Nations. And too many adopt an anti-globalization posture that would not only erode our own prosperity but also consign billions of the world's neediest people to grinding poverty. However troubling the Bush record, the pacifist and protectionist left offers no credible alternative.

Progressive internationalism stresses the responsibilities that come with our enormous power: to use force with restraint but not to hesitate to use it when necessary, to show what the Declaration of Independence called "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind," to exercise leadership primarily through persuasion rather than coercion, to reduce human suffering where we can, and to create alliances and international institutions committed to upholding a decent world order.

Foreign policy by Democrats II

More on the likely shape of foreign policy if Kerry prevails in the November election, this from an article in The Atlantic Monthly by Joshua Micah Marshall:

Kerry Faces the World

"What would a John Kerry foreign policy look like? In some ways a lot like one the current President's father could endorse"

Over the course of Clinton's presidency, especially during his second term, the President's foreign-policy team crafted a new vision of how America should engage with the post-Cold War world. Because this process got into gear well before 9/11, when the world was less keenly attuned to lofty questions of foreign policy, their vision received far less attention than the high-octane theorizing of Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and the neocons before and after the attacks. Nevertheless, it offers a road map to the probable overall direction of a Kerry Administration—one that might surprise people familiar with Kerry only through his relentless criticism of Bush on the campaign trail. These ex-Clintonites are quite comfortable with the use of force, and actually agree with the Bush Administration on some key goals—for instance, exporting democracy and political liberalization—though they differ significantly on how they would pursue them. They also differ on the question of where the true threats to America lie and how to combat them. Kerry's advisers focus less exclusively on nation-states like those Bush identified in his infamous "Axis of Evil" speech and more on the host of diffuse dangers that have arisen in the wake of globalization: destabilization, arms smuggling, and terrorism.

The issue of where the true threat lie resurfaces in the discussion of Iraq:

In an April 30 speech at Westminster College, Kerry laid out a three-part plan for the occupation and reconstruction of the country. ... On the surface this may sound like merely a difference of emphasis—as though the only change Kerry proposes is a dash more multilateralism and UN involvement. But beyond specifics, the significance of which can be misinterpreted, lies a fundamental difference in world view between Democrats and Republicans—a difference in how they see the nature of the threat facing America. This, more than any distinction between hawk and dove, is also the fundamental foreign-policy difference between Bush and Kerry.

From its inception the Bush Administration has viewed states as the key actors on the world stage, and relations among them as the primary concern of U.S. foreign policy. It is a mindset rooted in the realities of the Cold War, which defined U.S. foreign policy at the time when most of the President's key advisers gained their formative experience in government. The fixity of this mindset also explains why the Bush Administration spent its first months so heavily focused on the issue of national missile defense, and seemed so surprised by al-Qaeda's transnational terrorism. The Bush team didn't discount the problem of weapons of mass destruction; it simply expected trouble to come from an ICBM-wielding "rogue state" like Iraq or North Korea, rather than from Islamic terrorist groups.

Viewed through this lens, the Administration's fixation on Iraq after 9/11 becomes somewhat easier to understand. As Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith explained to Nicholas Lemann, of The New Yorker, on the eve of the Iraq War, "One of the principal strategic thoughts underlying our strategy in the war on terrorism is the importance of the connection between terrorist organizations and their state sponsors. Terrorist organizations cannot be effective in sustaining themselves over long periods of time to do large-scale operations if they don't have support from states."

To the Democrats in Kerry's orbit, this approach is at best inefficient and at worst akin to fighting fire with gasoline—for example, it has created terrorism in Iraq where little or none previously existed. Last fall, when I asked the presidential candidate General Wesley Clark about Feith's characterization of the threat, he said it was the "principal strategic mistake behind the Administration's policy." Clark went on, "If you look at all the states that were named as the principal adversaries, they're on the periphery of international terrorism today."
...
"The Clinton Administration," says Jonathan Winer, "started out with a very traditional Democratic or even mainstream approach to foreign policy: big-power politics, Russia being in the most important role; a critical relationship with China; European cooperation; and some multilateralism." But over the years, he went on, "they moved much more to a failed-state, global-affairs kind of approach, recognizing that the trends established by globalization required you to think about foreign policy in a more synthetic and integrated fashion than nation-state to nation-state."

As Winer argues, the threats were less from Russia or China, or even from the rogue states, than from the breakdown of sovereignty and authority in a broad geographic arc that stretched from West Africa through the Middle East, down through the lands of Islam, and into Southeast Asia. In this part of the world poverty, disease, ignorance, fanaticism, and autocracy frequently combined in a self-reinforcing tangle, fostering constant turmoil. Home to many failed or failing states, this area bred money laundering, waves of refugees, drug production, gunrunning, and terrorist networks—the cancers of the twenty-first-century world order.

In the Balkans, Holbrooke, Clark, and other leading figures found themselves confronting problems that required not only American military force but also a careful synthesis of armed power, peacekeeping capacity, international institutions, and nongovernmental organizations to stabilize the region and maintain some kind of order. Though the former Yugoslavia has continued to experience strife, the settlement in the Balkans remains the most successful one in recent memory, and offers the model on which a Kerry Administration would probably build. As Holbrooke told me, the Bush Administration's actions in Iraq have shown that the Administration understands only the military component of this model: "Most of them don't have a real understanding of what it takes to do nation-building, which is an important part of the overall democratic process."

A key assumption shared by almost all Democratic foreign-policy hands is that by themselves the violent overthrow of a government and the initiation of radical change from above almost never foster democracy, an expanded civil society, or greater openness. "If you have too much change too quickly," Winer says, "you have violence and repression. We don't want to see violence and repression in [the Middle East]. We want to see a greater zone for civilization—a greater zone for personal and private-sector activity and for governmental activity that is not an enactment of violence." Bush and his advisers have spoken eloquently about democratization. But in the view of their Democratic counterparts, their means of pursuing it are plainly counterproductive. It is here, Holbrooke says, that the Administration's alleged belief in the stabilizing role of liberal democracy and open society collides with its belief in the need to rule by force and, if necessary, violence: "The neoconservatives and the conservatives—and they both exist in uneasy tension within this Administration—shift unpredictably between advocacy of democratization and advocacy of neo-imperialism without any coherent intellectual position, except the importance of the use of force."

Foreign policy by Democrats

A few posts back we were discussing the likely shape of foreign policy should there be a Kerry administration, especially as it would grow out of the foreign policy practiced by past Democratic presidents.

The following is taken from an interview of Senator Joseph Biden by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo:

Talking Points Memo: [T]ake a hypothetical Democratic administration nine months from now --- what would the continuities and discontinuities be with where Clinton left off in 2000? I mean, obviously the chessboard has moved all around. That's a given. But on an issue like North Korea, an issue like Iran, the Atlantic relationship and so forth, and broad kinds of questions about how you mix diplomatic muscle and military force --- what would you identify as the main continuities or the main discontinuities? Again, either prescriptively or descriptively.

[Senator Joseph] BIDEN: I wouldn't even try.

TPM: I’m sorry?

BIDEN: I wouldn't. I don't think you can connect those dots prescriptively or descriptively. I think it is a false --- I think the paradigm is the wrong one. I mean, I think it is literally impossible to suggest how the policies of the Clinton administration would be continued, augmented, changed, morphed, discarded in the year 2005. The world has fundamentally changed since he left office. And the damage done to our relationships around the world, coupled with the emergence of what was a perceived threat. But even the Clinton administration never fully contemplated --- no one did --- the potential consequence of a serious international terrorist organization coordinating a lethal attack against the U.S.

There isn't anybody who wrote about it. I made a speech on September 10th to the Press Club. I laid out in great detail what it was I thought we should be doing and how this administration was squandering the opportunity to deal with this threat of terror. But the truth was that I don't think that anybody contemplated --- I didn't anyway --- contemplated how not only the psyche of the country but the psyche of the world was changed by that event. And now so many pieces have been moved on the chess board [that] there are no straight lines. I don't see any way. I could better answer the question in suggesting to you how I think a Kerry administration would divert from or have continuity with a Bush administration.
...
[A] Kerry administration would reflect a foreign policy that was emerging and being debated during the Clinton administration but I think is now gelled as a consequence of events in the last four years...

BIDEN: In 1994, when I was pleading with the president to use force in the Balkans, Warren Christopher was adamantly opposed. The bulk of the administration except for the president was adamantly opposed. We talked in terms of sovereignty, of nations not being able to be violated. I made a very controversial speech in ‘94 saying I believe countries forfeit their sovereignty when they engage in certain activities --- genocide being one of those activities, harboring terrorist organizations with the knowledge that they are doing damage to other nations.

I was roundly criticized by the foreign policy establishment in my party for that at the time and ironically by the Republicans. When I introduced legislation here to give the president authority to use force in Kosovo the people who blocked it were the conservative Republicans. And if you go back and look at their argument it was the sovereignty of Yugoslavia --- ‘we had no right to intervene’.

So I think one of the things that has happened is that in the debate within my party, my team has won. There is no longer nor should there remain the standard for use of force that pertained from the Vietnam War until the time that we lost the election in 2000.
...
I think John Kerry --- I know John Kerry personally --- and I think the Democratic party generically in a new administration would be a party that was, a government that was, something along the lines that I've been arguing for, which is to have an enlightened nationalism --- to realize that force is a legitimate tool in the toolbox and able to be exercised under a series of circumstances short of all out invasion [on the part] of the United States …

So that I think that what you see is emerging, is that the world has changed, is that a Kerry administration would reflect a willingness to use force unilaterally if one of several conditions pertained: One, international conventions were being violated; they affected American interests; and the international community would not step up to the ball.

Case in point --- took me a while, and I think he would tell you this if you asked him, to convince Clinton to use force in Kosovo. He kept saying, “The UN will not go…” . I said “Don't go to the UN” --- and I'm an internationalist --- I said “Don't go to the UN. You're going to get ‘no’ for an answer. But they know, we know and the world knows that there's genocide taking place on the continent of Europe. You have an obligation to lead. And if you do, the French will follow.”

That was a gigantic departure from the orthodoxy not only of the left but the center of my party. That is now the center of my party.
...
there are new circumstances in which --- quote --- ‘the integrity of a nation’ can be violated if they're engaged in genocide, if they're clearly and unequivocally harboring terrorists who have done damage, and beyond the question of whether or not they are about to attack, preemption or the like.

It's not preemption. It is a new standard for when you basically forfeit your sovereignty as a nation-state. You cannot claim to be a civilized nation if you're engaged in genocide. So, every place with genocide should we intervene? No There has to be the practical capacity to do so. But where the two exist, I think you see the Kerry administration exercise power like the administration of President Clinton did in the 7th year of his [presidency] --- but that was, remember --- I love these Republicans --- that was in the face of overwhelming Republican opposition!

Second thing is, so there's kind of a new standard that has emerged, that I think is the combination of what I refer to as this enlightened nationalism, that we operate in our national interests in every circumstance where we can under the umbrella of international rules and the international community. But where the damage and danger is irrefutable, we reserve the right to act in our own interest or in the interest of humanity, if we have the capacity. And that is a different standard than existed for the first 27 years I was a United States senator.

That is different than the standard and the rationale of our neoconservative friends. They argue that the exercise of force is important because we are at the apex of our power and that we are more enlightened than the rest of the world. And when we have the ability to exercise force it allows us to leverage our power in direct proportion to the moral disapprobation of the rest of the world.

So if I say, if there's ten people in the room and there's a guy out in the hall screaming and he's bothering us and I say “We ought to stop that guy. We ought to stop that guy.” And everyone says, “Oh no, no. This guy's a bad guy and this guy's gonna cause real problems and there'll be dah dah dah dah dah.” And if I say, “I don't care what the hell all of you think.” And I get up and I go beat the shit out of the guy out there. And I come back in and sit down. You’re all going to look around, and when you misbehave … And I say, “Hey man!” You’re going to go “Whoa whoa whoa…”

These are the nine guys that aren't going to be able to constrain him. He doesn’t care what anybody else thinks. That's what they mean by leveraging power.

Fun with Fund-Raising and the Media

We spend a lot of time here debating the nature and extent of media biases. Earlier this week, Rick brought up the ongoing political scandal in New Jersey involving fund-raiser and real estate developer Charles Kushner, and Gov. James McGreevey. I was interested in what biases, apparent or subliminal, might be obvious in the reportage.

So here's two major media reports on the scandal, one from the Associated Press via the Boston Globe, and one from CNN.com.

New Jersey governor's top fund-raiser charged with trying to hinder probe

New Jersey fund-raiser charged

Only one thing seemed obvious to me reading through those stories. How long did it take to discover that Kushner was a Democrat fund-raiser? And that McGreevey is a Democrat governor? And that Kushner also raised money for Hillary Clinton, Joe Leiberman, and John Kerry?

Interestingly, the AP story is also reported verbatim, without alteration, on FOXnews.com. No mention of party affiliation from "right wing" Fox. And the original NY Times story that Rick referenced DOES mention party affiliation, and not at the tail end of the story. Kinda makes you go Hmmmmm....

Naturally Mr. Kushner is proclaiming his innocence. No word yet from his four unemployed college-age children, each of whom donated $2,000 apiece to Mr. Leiberman's campaign. Running donor searches based on address, it would seem there's a real tradition in New Jersey of unemployed college-age children making large political donations to parties and candidates, both Democrat and GOP.... (Try it! It's a whole lotta fun!)

I'm interested in how this will compare to reports of GOP-related fundraising scandals, and how the various news outlets report them. None on the wire right now, but there almost certainly WILL be some. After all, it's an election year, and what's an election year without both sides dodging the rules?

And now we have a starting point for comparison.

Blair on British Intelligence Failures

Read his full statement to Parliament here.

An exceprt:

Throughout the last 18 months, throughout the rage and ferment of the debate over Iraq, there have been two questions.

As I shall say later: for any mistakes, made, as the Report finds, in good faith I of course take full responsibility, but I cannot honestly say I believe getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all. Iraq, the region, the wider world is a better and safer place without Saddam.

This is exactly how Bush should be handling this issue.

Doubts About Judicial Activist

Ezra at Pandagon has a wise post about judicial activism

So though it's true that the Court should allow for gay marriage and uphold their duty to protect Americans from extraconstitutional bigotry, I'm less than comfortable with the concept, knowing how easily it could become the weapon of conservative radicals. I've got no interest in an America dictated by Thomas and Scalia.

Hookers And Machiavelli In New Jersey

Even though I'm originally from New Jersey, I had not been keeping tabs on the scandals brewing around the current Democratic Governor. But this caught my attention

Gov. James E. McGreevey's top contributor was charged on Tuesday in a bizarre scheme to enlist prostitutes in an effort to silence potential witnesses in a federal investigation of possible illegal campaign contributions. In a criminal complaint that reads like a plot line from an Elmore Leonard novel, Charles Kushner, a New Jersey landowner and businessman with close ties to many religious and political figures, was charged with hiring prostitutes to entice his brother-in-law and his accountant into sexually compromising situations.

Mr. McGreevey is still trying to explain how he came to use the word "Machiavelli" in a conversation with a fund-raiser and contributor - a fact revealed last week in an indictment of the fund-raiser. The fund-raiser, David D'Amiano, said the word was a designated code that would signal the governor's complicity in a deal to assist the contributor in a land deal, in return for $40,000 in campaign funds. Mr. McGreevey insists the use of the word was entirely innocent.

What if Nothing Much Happens?

There seems to be a widespread assumption that the Presidential race is so close that things are bound to turn on events in the next few months running up to the election. I've suggested it as well, but now I'm wondering, what if nothing big and substantial happens?

We've all been dipping the stick, and have read widespread dissatisfaction with both candidates. The electorate seems willing to dump Bush, but not especially enthused about Kerry. This state has led most to conclude that Kerry has to close the deal, that he can't win just by being Not Bush.

But, hey, that's just a hypothesis. Seems to me that, with every day that passes without Kerry closing the deal and making a surge, but hanging right in there, it becomes more and more reasonable to entertain the notion that just maybe Kerry CAN win simply by being Not Bush. (And certainly if he wins that will be the GOP spin, and maybe even a justification for a "no mandate, no honeymoon" congress leading to gridlock.)

One meme floating about these days is that people need a break from crisis mode. (I think they want one, regardless of whether a break is appropriate. Regardless of your opinion of the urgency of the war on terror (mileage varies), it's hard to deny that many people would rather not deal with it, and yearn for a return to our usual navel-gazing. Under such circumstances, isn't it very possible, assuming no real events of earthshattering significance, that a visceral desire on the part of Americans simply to turn the page might be just enough to nudge Bush out.

Federal Marriage Amendment Debate Underway Now

This story in the San Francisco Chronicle was mentioned by Andrew Sullivan and fueled his unconventional (but in my opinion hopeful) analysis of the whole thing.

I don't see the rest of the media playing it this way, or even including the facts cited in this story. I just watched the nightly news (NBC), and this is clearly the big issue of the day.

I hope the San Francisco paper is right. But I don't know.

Kerry: I was against Edwards' youth and inexperience before I supported it...

(Courtesy of Fringe Blog and Yahoo! News)

With Republicans questioning Edwards's fitness to serve as a wartime president, given the fact that he has less than six years of government experience, Kerry defended his vice presidential pick as more qualified for the job than Bush.

Kerry added, "Does [Edwards] have as much experience as me? No. But I am running for president; he's running for vice president."

Let me get this straight. The fact that Edwards is less experienced than Kerry is okay because he is running for Vice President, and he is more qualified than Bush. Wait a minute, Edwards is running for Vice President, so shouldn't his qualifications be compared to Dick Cheney (Rudy, McCain, or Ridge)? Is he serious?!?! Come on! I mean seriously, doesn't this guy ever stop covering his tracks?

FYI: I don't have a problem with Edwards' experience other than I think Kerry made a mistake not picking someone who would be considered an expert in foreign policy such as Wes Clark or Bob Graham. Interestingly, Clark or Graham could not only better articulate the message that Bush was wrong about Iraq, but they could also say that they told us at the time of the decision they believed invading Iraq was a mistake.

I also find this interesting:

With their ties loosened and shoes kicked off, the Democratic duo also vowed to forgo negative advertising in this presidential campaign -- an assertion that draws scoffs from Republicans who note that independent Democratic groups have pounded the president with millions of dollars in negative ads.

This week alone, Kerry has criticized Bush personally in speeches for lying, professional laziness, waiting until right before the election to indict Enron Corp.'s former chief executive, Kenneth L. Lay, lacking values and even having worse hair than the two Democrats. Some advisers are privately counseling Kerry to tone down his attacks on Bush.

Are they really saying they are not going to run negative ads, and even if they are, does this mean that they will ask Moveon.org not to run any of theirs, just as Bush should do with the Club for Growth? Pardon me if I seem doubtful on this one.

A Conservative In Darkest Liberalism

Acting in a local Minnesota play, a conservative finds himself in darkest liberalism (via Shot In The Dark).

LA Times: Time for Kerry and Edwards to tell us if they were wrong...

The LA Times agrees with Will (read the full editorial here):

"If not murder, John F. Kerry and John Edwards have accused President Bush of something close to criminally negligent homicide in Iraq. "They were wrong and soldiers died because they were wrong," Kerry said of the Bush administration over the weekend.

Kerry and Edwards would like to fudge the issue by conflating it with questions about how the war was prosecuted. Or they say that what matters is where we go from here. It is true that "what now?" is the important policy question. But that doesn't make it the only question. How we got here affects how we get out. And even if it had no practical relevance to our future Iraq policy, hearing how Kerry and Edwards explain their votes to authorize a war they now regard as disastrous would be helpful in assessing their character and judgment. "

This article could go both ways of course... I think it says something about Bush's character that he continually refuses to take responsibility for the case to go to war. I do again, however, think it is very clear what Bush would do in a second term, where Kerry isn't really articulating a clear message.

The problem with Kerry coming out and admitting that his vote was wrong of course is that as soon as he does, Bush will say that if Kerry where President, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. I think this is an argument, however, that he can defend himself against.

What to me was Kerry's appeal in the primary was that he seemed to be saying that it is not the Bush policy of regime change that is wrong, it is the approach the administration is taking to implement that policy.... or in other words: I would lead you in the same direction, but in a smarter way. It is possible, if he is careful, for Kerry to support the policy of regime change while stating at the same time that we should not have gone to war when we did, and that his vote was wrong because it was based off of bad information.

I sympathize with both men in a way because I wanted to go into Iraq as much as the next guy after I heard Colin Powell at the UN, but knowing what I know now, I can't come to any other conclusion that the invasion at the time that we did it was a mistake because we where not prepared. I think the world is a better place because Saddam is no longer in power; I am just not so sure that the methods used to remove him where the only way. In short, I was wrong.

Democrat's Long-Term Strategy

Matt Stoller points out a long essay by Rick Perlstein which argues that the Democrats need an assertive long-term strategy. It's a chewy essay, and even though I don't agree with it's preference for "big government" it's well-worth reading (or at least skimming).

Contra Perlstein, I hold that the DLC's abandonment of traditional Democratic strategies was a necessary first step to a new strategy.

I'm suspicious of the efficiency of government delivery of services, but am more positively inclined toward government as the financier of services contracted out to the private sector. The New Deal strategy of large government bureaucracies was in line with the centralization that was going on in the business world at the same time too. With business moving toward more decentralized, flexible models, any new strategy for government should take that into account.

Welcome Red State

I just read an intriguing diary entry called "common ground" on the newly minted mega-Republican site Red State. Check it out.

We've had asperations, here, of growing into some kind of clearinghouse for centrist or moderate thought -- a big, inclusive, dynamic gathering place.

I wonder if we should take aim at that more overtly -- try to create a centrist counterpart to Daily Kos, on the left, and, now, Red State on the right.

To do so, I suspect we would need to involve major figures in centrist politics -- perhaps authors like John Avlon, and other key professionals. We would need partners, and we would offer, presumably, to participate in building whatever site they wanted to build.

Just a thought.

I would also observe, as this diary entry seems to suggest, that when you're building a site for positively developing and sharpening your agenda, it doesn't make sense to identify as either Republican or Democrat. Coalescing around the basic ideas -- the ideology -- makes much more sense than coalescing around party membership.

We're far more naturally situated to open up the kind of "common ground" referred to in the diary entry, I suspect.

Perspectives on the War

60 Minutes did their lead segment yesterday on the Kerry-Edwards ticket, including interviews with the candidates and their wives.

Very interesting, in several respects. They came off well, in some ways, but there was an intensely uncomfortable segment where Kerry tried to explain his views on the Iraq war. (And a few other uncomfortable moments where it seemed Kerry and Edwards weren't quite in synch.)

Kerry tried to argue that he hasn't changed his mind about his vote to give Bush authority to go to war, but also that he was against the way the president went to war. That expression "the way he went to war" plays a big role in his justification for his position.

He's trying to thread the needle, basically. Retaining his ability to criticize the president for going to war, while not having to admit he made a mistake in giving the president war authority.

There doesn't seem to be much logic left in that argument. I think most fair-minded people have concluded that the primary concerns that led us to war -- WMDs, the purported Iraq-al Qaida connection -- are not borne out in the facts.

Without the primary justifications, someone like Kerry would scarecely have led the nation to war, or given anyone else authority to do so.

He talked in the interview about how we should have waited longer. But, honestly, once the inspectors were back in Iraq, they were never going to find WMDs. And with the inspections coming up clean, Kerry would not have shifted to a war footing.

That may well have represented our best policy. Pressure Iraq to the point of accepting a thorough inspections regime, and keep the inspectors in place to make sure Saddam doesn't reconstitute his programs.

A fairly obvious, natural perspective on all this is being offered by several folks who supported the war. Explain that you supported it based on the intelligence, and now that it looks faulty, you don't think there was an adequate justification for war.

The intelligence was wrong, and you relied upon it when making your decision.

This natural, straightforward approach doesn't go that far in letting the administration off the hook. And I don't think Bush's opponents fully grasp that fact.

It makes it quite logical, first of all, to question the war decision. Those are the thoughts going through a lot of voters minds right now -- should we really have done this?

You could also look more closely at whether the administration really relies on the intelligence community when it comes to Iraq policy. The most recent reviews -- by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 commission -- lean toward the conclusion that Iraq didn't have significant WMDs or collaborative ties with al Qaida.

But the Vice President, and sometimes even the President, seem still to be pushing the opposite side of that argument. If the problem was faulty intelligence from the CIA, as the administration argues, why do they still seem to believe the faulty intelligence?

On the whole, it seems like we're in a tough spot as a nation. We have an administration that lacks a healthy appreciation for on-the-ground facts -- preferring, instead, the vision and beliefs they brought to the table. And a challenger so scared of offending someone that he can't take a firm position on critical issues.

You got a fairly good look at that side of Kerry in the 60 Minutes interview. I had that queasy, almost Carter-esque sense that we might be heading into four years of indecision and weaseling should we elect this guy president.

Now That's Nonpartisan!

The Washington Post has some coverage of the Oklahoma Senate race, an open seat which is competitive right now.

I've watched online the TV commercials for Brad Carson, the Democratic candidate. It appears he's nonpartisan! He says "he'll stand up to both parties" to serve Oklahoma, and doesn't mention which party he belongs to.

He sounds like he's a centrist who would rather not proclaim his Democratic Party affiliation in GOP-leaning Oklahoma. I can understand and even approve that, but it's a bit amusing.

Hamilton-Burr 200 Years Ago

And you think politics now is rough!

The Hamilton-Burr duel was re-enacted on its 200th anniversary, by living relatives.

Rhetoric: Reagan, Cuomo and Edwards

Writing at The New Republic Online, David Kusnet discusses campaign rhetoric past and present:

[I]t was, more than anything else, Edwards's words that won him a place on the ticket...Not since the Gipper has a national candidate owed as much as John Edwards to a single speech. With Reagan, it was the nationally televised address, which his friends soon called "The Speech," that he delivered in support of Barry Goldwater in 1964; with Edwards, it was the "Two Americas" speech that he first gave three weeks before the Iowa caucuses and that helped him stay in the primaries longer than anyone besides Kerry. Ironically, when people now compare Edwards to Reagan, they tend to do so on the basis of their similarly sunny rhetoric. But "The Speech" of 1964 sounded more like Goldwater than the Gipper we would come to know. It warned that America was on the brink of "a thousand years of darkness," with communism advancing abroad and big government expanding here at home. By contrast, Edwards's "Two Americas" speech sends all the rhetorical signals that we now associate with Reagan--optimism, an orientation toward the middle class, and a rather radical perspective on American society cloaked in reassuring, sunny rhetoric.

Back in the 1980s, Reagan's Democratic rivals tried to do what Edwards now does so well--attack a conservative president for increasing inequality. But they sounded as gloomy as Goldwater, and they ended up playing into the hands of Republican race-baiters. In 1984, Mario Cuomo keynoted the Democratic National Convention with an address titled "A Tale of Two Cities." While Reagan had proclaimed America to be "a shining city on a hill," Cuomo declared that there was "another part of the city [where] there are more poor than ever, more families in trouble, more and more people who need help but can't find it," including "people who sleep in the city streets, in the gutter ... and ghettos where thousands of young people ... give their lives to drug dealers every day." Cuomo's speech was eloquent, but it contributed to the sense that, when Democrats denounced Reagan for dividing America, they were really speaking only for poor people, who were stereotyped as predominantly black. Four years later, the elder George Bush put a face on that stereotype--Willie Horton's mug shot.

So how does Edwards's rhetoric do what Cuomo failed to do?

First, Edwards leads with optimism. He begins his "Two Americas" speech by rejoicing at how great America will be when we come together again: "Can you see that, in a few short months, once again America will no longer work for just a privileged few, but for all of us? Can you see that bright future for all of us, because I sure can?"

Second, he's not only upbeat; he's upwardly mobile. He tells how he rose from mill-worker's son to millionaire, working his way through college and law school, and representing "the people I grew up with" against corporate wrongdoers. As he reminds his audience, "I won most of those battles," and so as his clients have found justice, he has found success.

Third, he addresses his appeal to the working middle class, not affluent liberals or what Cuomo called "the abject poor." Edwards contrasts the idle rich--"that guy sitting by the pool"--with those who earn their livings, "millions of guys and gals in factories, fields and offices," while having a hard time paying their bills, sending their kids to college, and saving for retirement. "These aren't poor Americans; they're the working middle class," Edwards explains for emphasis.

Fourth, Edwards doesn't stigmatize the wealthy for being wealthy, but rather for breaking the rules. He contrasts "one America that is struggling to get by" with "another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and President." The problem isn't rich people buying mansions and yachts; it's rich people buying the government.

Thus, Edwards can paint a portrait of an America polarized by class, not color or culture.

The greatest block of contested voters watching politics from a distinct perspective is noncollege and blue-collar America, where voters lack college degrees for market advantage and work in service or lower-wage positions, where income and benefits are under pressure. These are voters for whom church and faith are important and who think values and family are under pressure too. They watch the cultural and corporate winners set the tone for the times, including politics, and wonder about their lives. They know they are not winning now and may not in the future. ... they are at the center of most of the problems that are now off the agenda in this era of party parity and unaddressed problems for the middle. These problems include the rising cost of health insurance and the rising number with no insurance, slow to stagnant incomes and growing inequality, weakened family structure, and difficulties guiding and nurturing children.

"How great America will be when we come together again!" This rhetoric envisions one America, not two: an America that works for all of us, not just for those privileged by education, wealth, political connections or social status.

Now let's all sit back for the next few months and see if this message gets out and whether the groups described above understand that it's meant for them.

On the lighter side (Vol. 8)

- Inmates escape maximum security jail while guards making rap video (here)
- "Marijuana Advocates Forget to File for Ballot" (here - second story)
- Hitchens: The British Empire's second-greatest gift to the world (here)
- On off chance you haven't seen it, the July 6 NY Post cover (here)

Intentions And Results

This post at BOPnews got me writing a comment I've reproduce below.

Liberals do try to make the world a better place, and overall, that's a good thing. But sometimes liberals think "it's the thought that counts" and are more focused on intentions than results. Some programs backfire and have unintended consequences. Welfare (AFDC) encouraged dependency, and the social problems that accompany it. Some liberals, and I can think of my former professor Hale Champion, who served under several Democratic governors, were only concerned about getting short-term relief to the poor and cavalier about the long-term consequences.

Open Thread

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

The buck stops with you, Mr. President...

Well, the intel report is out.

The White House response:

President Bush’s chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the committee’s report essentially “agrees with what we have said, which is we need to take steps to continue strengthening and reforming our intelligence capabilities so we are prepared to meet the new threats that we face in this day and age.”

This is not good enough. The President of the United States needs to take responsibility... This is his administration, his CIA, his failure...

The report clears Cheney of any arm twisting of the CIA.

“The committee found no evidence that the vice president’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments,” the report said.

I think the conclusion that has been reached here, is what most centrists have been saying all along... There was bad information, the administration took that information and made a political case for going to war, the American public was unintentionally mislead; however, that doesn’t matter. All that matters is that they where mislead, and somebody should explain why and apologize for it.

Although I believe there where many arguments that should have been made rather than WMD's, that weren't probably because of political expediency, it is fair to say that had we known then what we know now the invasion of Iraq probably would not have happened. Instead of downplaying the significance of this report, the administration needs to admit it was wrong, apologize, focus on the current situation in Iraq, be more straight forward with the American public and provide clearer goals than it has in the past, and do everything in its power to fix the mess that is currently the most important intelligence agency in the world.

A good first step would not be to wait until after the election to replace Tenet. The President needs to make an appointment now, and it needs to be somebody that is not a partisan, and will be the type of person that is capable of building coalitions with Congress to ensure the American people that the problems within in the CIA are being fixed. I recommend former Democratic Georgia Senator Sam Nunn.

AP: Bush Winning, Kerry Solidifying Base and Gaining in the South

I saw this in the Washington Post this morning and damn near fell off the platform on the Metro.

According to a poll by the AP that was taken the Monday before the pick, and then Tuesday and Wednesday after:

Bush 49
Kerry 45
Nader 3

The same poll a month ago had the election tied.

On Tuesday and Wednesday participants where asked about the pick, and the results according to the AP where:

Bush/Cheney 50
Kerry/Edwards 46
Nader/Camejo 3

A month ago the AP reported that a hypothetical Kerry/Edwards ticket would win 50-47.

Other findings:

-Bush approval rating is up to 50% for the first time since January.
-56% say the country is on the wrong track.
-Kerry has increased his percentage of strong supporters from 55 to 64% in a month, the article also say his support in the South has improved but it doesn't report the actual numbers.
-Nader's numbers have dropped from 6 to 3% in a month.
-Bush's approval ratings on the economy and domestic issues such as healthcare and the environment where up a few percentage points (between 45-50).
-Bush increased his support from suburban women from 41 to 52%.
-Bush's handling of Iraq approval ratings are low, and have gotten worse in a month (the article doesn't report the actual numbers).

Okay, okay... I know nothing of polling ideology and am just as surprised as I am sure most of you will be when I saw this. What is ineresting to me is that this poll included participants from Tuesday and Wednesday where polls released the day after the pick would have only included numbers from Tuesday. I also think that inlcuding numbers before Tuesday, which the AP did, is a bit suspect.

That being said, I think that it is possible the President has regained his political footing based upon the Saddam trial, anger over the beheadings, and the growing economy. What is most telling is that for the last month John Kerry's campaign has centered on the message that the Bush economy is hurting America and it appears, at least in this poll, that American's do not feel that way. Is the "two-America's" message going to be a bust? Is John Kerry going to abandon his "whatever he said" policy toward Iraq? I do not see how he wins if he doesn't more clearly define the differences between himself and the President on foreign policy.

Regardless if this poll is correct, or not, isn't it fair to say that Kerry should be ahead by a comfortable margin after the release of F911 and the negative news Bush has received about Iraq for months?

UPDATE:

Zogby says it is Kerry 48, Bush 46, and argues that this nation closely divided is not the kind of electorate where we will see many dramatic bounces. I would argue that this nation is not divided, it is rather that we do not have a Presidential candidate that is doing any significant talking. As soon as either one of these guys shows some leadership they would see a huge bounce.

Putting On Kid Gloves?

The Atlantic's Stuart Taylor, Jr. worries that the Administration's mishandling of detentions and torture has caused a backlash that may go too far.

Problems with Edwards

While most of the comments I've read so far about Kerry's choice of John Edwards have been positive I have a couple of definite problems with him that the Bushies are obviously going to attack, considering they have already started to do so. First, and of primary importance to me personally, is his notable inexperience in government/leadership. He is wrapping up his first term as a senator, and prior to that had no experience as an elected official. I have serious reservations as to the extent that that qualifies him to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Like him or not, and I know a lot despise him at this point, Dick Cheney at least has a long record of government experience. Even his time at Halliburton was in a leadership role, which seems more applicable to the job than the experience of a trial lawyer. I'm certainly not trying to build the case for Cheney, I just find Edwards extremely lacking on this point. Of course, I am also probably one of the few who actually consider VP choices when deciding how to vote.

Edwards second vulnerability is with regard to his having been a trial lawyer. The reason this is important now is because of the outcry for tort reform. The US Chamber of Commerce, among other business groups, are now going to pursue the defeat of the Dems according this Washington Post article. It may not matter too much in terms of money because as this article suggests, Edwards brings the money of trial lawyers. Truthfully, I don't think either of these will be a big surprise as trial lawyers tend to the left and business interests to the right anyway. But, as a centrist interested in tort reform, this gives me pause.

July Surprise?

From the New Republic:

This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. . . .

This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. . . But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. . . .

[A] source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston. . .

I'm always skeptical about stories like these. I believe that pressure has probably been increased on the Pakistanis recently, but I find it implausible that American government officials have "repeatedly" stressed the need for results at the end of July in order to mute the coverage from the Democratic convention.

Chait's Novel Suggestion for Kerry

There's a pretty far-ranging discussion of the Edwards pick on The New Republic, with an intriguing variety of points.

I really like one somewhat long take from Jonathan Chait -- partly because it's funny, and partly because it runs parallel to my own perceptions of both Kerry and Edwards.

I'll quote that one part of it, in full, below. See TNR for the complete discussion.

Jonathan Chait
Tuesday, 11:30 a.m.

Frankie,

I actually had the opposite reaction about what the Edwards pick says about Kerry. It's obvious he's not Kerry's idea of a great pick. Reports held that Kerry was mystified and somewhat resentful that Edwards would run for president without even having completed a single Senate term. Kerry thinks like a senator, and senators respect people who have been in office a really long time and mastered an issue. If Kerry could have somehow been absolutely certain that he'd be elected, I bet he'd have chosen somebody like Joe Biden. The Edwards pick suggests Kerry is willing to accede to the judgment of the political professionals.

Which he needs to do far more often. Not having listened to Kerry speak since the primaries, I was surprised how awful and meandering his speech was. Even worse, it was politically tone-deaf. When discussing America's role in the world, he put the emphasis on restoring alliances rather than keeping America safe and strong. He's inviting the Republicans to translate his remarks into, "He won't go to war without permission from France." He also had a riff about investing in education rather than spending the money on prisons. That sounded very much like a belief that prisons come at the expense of education. (In truth, criminals prey mainly on the poor. Keeping criminals off the streets allows poor kids the safety they need to have some chance at getting ahead.) Substance aside, I think Clinton showed pretty clearly that the right political message for Democrats is to be tough on crime. What made Kerry's departure from the Clinton pattern all the more striking is that there was nothing about prisons in the prepared text. It was all ad-libbed. Talk about bad instincts.

So he really needs John Edwards, who has remarkably strong instincts both politically and substantively. Of all the primary candidates, I think Edwards most cogently identified what's wrong with George W. Bush's presidency. (Edwards's message was called "populist," but I merely think it was a realistic assessment of a plutocratic president.) And, unlike Kerry, he can communicate. This suggests a logical, if somewhat new, division of labor: Edwards could be the one who pulls the party message into a coherent theme, thickens it out with policy proposals (along with his staff), articulates it before the public, and lacerates the opponent. Kerry would continue to star in the television commercials as the Vietnam veteran/prosecutor/gun nut/fiscal hawk. Between his schedule of filming such commercials, he'd raise money and rest up for the debates. Too much campaigning would only alienate the public and make him even more gaunt.

In fact, here's my ideal plan for the Kerry campaign. At an upcoming rally, an anti-Kerry protestor starts to burn an American flag. Kerry leaps down from the podium and starts strangling the protestor with his bare hands, then hurls him to the ground and rescues the flag. In the course of putting out the fire, he suffers minor burns that, the campaign announces, will force him to be hospitalized and inaccessible to the media and the public until mid-October. In the meantime, Edwards is dispatched to present the Democratic message for the next three and half months.

Sounds good, huh? All they need is to gin up a protestor who's willing to endure some minor, non-lethal choking.

Blogging The Convention

I've received press credentials to blog the Democratic convention on behalf of Centerfield. I'd like to do some interviews. I'll be one or more than 10,000 people covering the convention, so I don't expect to have access to the big names. I may just talk to random convention delegates.

Can you think of some mid-level Democratic politicians or operatives, especially those of centrist inclination, who I should try to interview? Also, please suggest questions I should ask of the delegates.

I expect I'll be able to bring my laptop to the convention and blog as events unfold.

Why the US and Europe Differ on International Law

There's a really thoughtful article on where and why the US and Europe differ in approaches to international law in Wilson Quarterly

The biggest weakness in the article is that it incorporates no idea of international leadership. The United States was widely condemned as unilateral when it set up the United Nations and NATO, too. Wilson was condemned as unilateral when he meddled in the post-WWI settlements. When a world leader exercises world leadership, is he being unilateral? Only if he makes no effort to bring others along, I tend to feel. IMHO, Clinton wasn't unilateral in Kosovo, and Bush hasn't been unilateral anytime in his pursuit of the War on Terror.

Five points off for dubious claims that the economic community has made things worse by attaching long lists of conditions to loans and that the World Bank / IMF caused Argentina's problems. Five points off for gratuitous dinging of the Bush Administration as unilateral.

Did Dem establishment force Kerry to pick the wrong guy?

Josh Benson at TNR writes an excellent article that brings up some interesting points regarding the Edwards pick. Benson believes Kerry should have pulled a Clinton and picked someone that exemplifies his own strengths: Wes Clark. Benson argues that (1) Edward's campaign qualities will not come across on the evening news to the 20% of the electorate that will not pay attention to this election until the last minute, (2) Edwards lacks biography and a title (former General, SecDef, etc.), (3) and he does not possess the kick-ass kind of style that voters are going to want on national security.

I think this is at least an interesting argument and have long thought that Kerry's "what ever he says" approach to Iraq is stupid. The American people do not believe that he is more capable than Bush to handle what is probably the most important issue in this campaign: the War on Terrorism.

Feelings about the economy are up according to polls and the unemployment rate of 5.6% is exactly what it was when Bill Clinton was re-elected and was praised for his handling of the economy. Kerry has got to make some progress on the terrorism issue or pray that Iraq goes really bad in the next few months. John Edwards does not help him in this area.

An excerpt from the article:

"...I think he's a lousy choice for veep. I know this contradicts the official consensus of Democratic Washington. Almost every liberal journalist in this city was gunning for Johnny E. But that's precisely the problem. The chattering classes have filtered their own parables about politics onto Kerry's selection, fundamentally misunderstanding how voters perceive a vice presidential candidate...

Alas, it seems Clark was out of the running for the veep slot weeks ago. The Beltway whispered that he was a little too unstable, a little too egomaniacal. Others who might have also offered national security credentials, such as Joe Biden or Sam Nunn, never made the short list either. Moreover, starting a few weeks ago, the clamoring among elites for Edwards grew so loud that, had Kerry chosen anyone else, his pick would have been greeted with derision in Washington. This is a shame. Bill Clinton's 1992 decision was brilliant because he doubled down on himself--a development few elites at the time foresaw. Kerry might have done the same. Instead, in failing to appreciate that you can't have too much foreign policy heft on the ticket, he played the wrong card in John Edwards. But it was the Democratic establishment that stacked the deck."

Spidey Kicks Michael Moore's Ass

Spiderman 2 grossed $116 Million and F-9/11 hit just barely over $20 Million to beat out such blockbuster giants as "White Chicks" and "Dodgeball." So much for comparisons to the Passion of the Christ.

Read further to hear of Congressman Mark Kennedy's description of what really happened when Moore shoved a camera in his face. I attached the full Roll Call article to this post.

Michael and Me: What ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ Refuses to Tell You
By Rep. Mark Kennedy
Special to Roll Call
July 6, 2004

I wasn’t able to attend the press conference on censorship held last week by entertainment filmmaker Michael Moore. Although it’s a topic of great importance to me, there were two reasons why I couldn’t go. One, I wasn’t invited, and two, its hypocritical host was only interested in talking about “censorship” perpetrated on him.

Moore failed to recognize the irony of this situation. This press conference took place the day before the release of his film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” in which Moore censored me from movie screens across the country.

Allow me to recount what really happened the day Moore shoved a camera in my face. On the predictable path between the Capitol and my office after a vote, Moore and his camera crew were standing outside the Longworth House Office Building, waiting to talk to any Member of Congress who stopped.

Citing a since-disputed statistic that only one Member of Congress has a child in Iraq, he asked me whether I would help recruit children of Members to join the Army. My answer was yes, especially those who voted for the war. I added that I myself had a nephew on his way to Afghanistan. Upon hearing this, my moment in the spotlight was over, and Moore and his camera crew went on their way.

Shortly thereafter, the trailer for the movie hit the mainstream media. For those of you who have already seen the movie, or if you plan on doing so, you will recognize me as the guy in the suit who listens to Moore’s question, gives him an inquisitive look, but who doesn’t get to say anything in response. The fact that my answer wasn’t included came as no surprise. It would have disproved his theory that we in Congress lack conscience in how we vote.

The more I thought about it, and the more I was asked about it, the more his question offended me — and the fact that he didn’t use my answer made it worse. It’s like asking someone an accusing question on talk radio and not offering them a microphone to respond. He was implying that we in Congress placed no value on the human lives involved in war, which is simply not the case. Further disproving his theory, I’ve talked with many friends in Congress whose family members have dedicated their lives to the military. Moore has seriously underestimated how many of them there are.

Sending our troops into harm’s way is the most serious vote we ever cast as Members of Congress. We voted to allow our military to free people from the fear of terror and to protect us here at home. That’s a message you don’t hear in “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

Families all across the United States, including the families of Members of Congress, sacrifice for our freedom and our safety. Our dedication to our country goes deeper than a pithy question founded on a fabricated statistic. These men and women dedicate their young lives to keeping us safe, and they are the ones who should be offended by his implications.

My nephew was in his sophomore year at Iowa State University when he was called up to active duty. Though it disrupted his college career, he was honored to serve his country. This is the nephew I referred to when speaking with Moore, and he’s not the only member of my family involved.

In fact, this young man’s brother, another nephew of mine, recently completed his service in the Navy, and my wife has a cousin who just returned from Iraq. It’s an honor to have members of my family choose this path.

This brings me back to his press conference on censorship. When confronted by a reporter about why he censored me, Moore recounted a fictional conversation between the two of us. He continued to talk but did not give a coherent answer, and then moved on to someone else’s question. It’s not a healthy debate when the person you’re dealing with makes up the answers.

My limited dealings with Moore have been riddled with lies, double talk, misspeak and manipulation. First he said I was in the movie, then that I wasn’t. He still maintains that my remarks were not edited, when in fact they were edited out. On and on, over and over again, his story keeps changing. But this was his plan. The more controversy, the more free press, the more money in the bank for Michael Moore.

When is enough enough? He’s called Americans dumb and said that our stupidity is embarrassing. He’s now mocking the dedication of millions of American lives to the military, and we are paying for him to do it. I hope our men and women in uniform who are protecting us in Afghanistan and Iraq didn’t hear him trivialize their position. They instead deserve praise and our support for the work they do every day.

When do we, as Americans, say enough is enough? It’s your choice to see the film, but understand that it’s for entertainment purposes only, not to be mistaken for truth.

Rep. Mark Kennedy is a Republican from Minnesota.

Best of the Blogosphere

I sometimes mull around the question of what political weblog is the very best. It's hard to choose one, but there's a certain class of really excellent blogs written by highly informed and insightful folks. Some pave a path in terms of reasoned discussion that has few parallels anywhere in our political discourse.

In that class I would put Drezner, OxBlog, Greg's Opinion, The Moderate Voice, and Tutakai. And, looking at that list, I realize it leans heavily on blogs in two categories: (1) moderate Republican, and (2) centrist.

Greg's Opinion is the only Democratic blog on the list, probably because the best Democratic blogs tend to be center left, like Kevin Drum, or just plain left, like Talking Points Memo. I would argue they use more partisan, talking-points type rhetoric than the blogs included on my "best" list (an ironic observation, I realize, in the case of TPM).

Anyway, I was reading OxBlog this morning and had that thought again -- "man, these guys have to be the very best." They're good because they tackle questions from the point of view of the question itself, not whose ox is being gored.

Check out the new analysis from OxBlog regular Patrick Belton on our policy in Afghanistan.

The McCain Phenomenon

In this era of hyper-partisanship, John McCain has achieved a truly remarkable status. With the exception of Dennis Hastert, politicians from both parties praise him as a man of great wisdom. Now, he is featured in ads for both the Democratic and Republican campaigns. McCain jokes about it.

"I'm in campaign ads for both candidates. I'm a uniter, not a divider," he told reporters in Washington.

Bush must know that McCain would likely have doomed his reelection chances had he joined the Kerry ticket. Bush must also realize that McCain would give a huge boost to his reelection chances if he joined the Republican ticket. So what are the odds? I say 4 to 1.

Sully on Edwards Pick: Good Choice, Bad Speech

Andrew Sullivan tears apart Kerry's speech announcing the Edwards pick.

"It was, I think, the right decision. John Edwards will make a great running mate for Kerry. But missed in the natural brouhaha is the actual speech John Kerry gave announcing his choice. It's perhaps the first national stump speech given by Kerry now that the primaries are long over and the national campaign is beginning. And it was dreadful. It failed on almost every count. It was tedious; it was vacuous; and it was hyper-liberal."

Sully continues to critique the actual text of the speech here.

I think that this touches on the question of the election for Kerry: Will he or will he not resort to the same class warfare argument that Al Gore did in 2000?

Did Kerry and Edwards read the same book?

The book, The Two Americas: Our Current Political Deadlock and How to Break It by Stanley Greenberg, was published this past January and received high marks from both sides of the partisan gap. I read it soon after its publication.

What Greenberg does is outline a strategy with the potential to create a new majority in American politics. In the recent past both parties have employed the strategy of starting with their base and bending and flirting to gain just enough votes to eek out a win. But what if a party or candidate took the risk of deserting parts of their base and embraced policies that are supported by a majority, especially by those in key demographic groups that are growing in number and influence?

The risk, of course, is that if you fail, you'll fail in a big way because you've alienated a significant part of your base.

Here's my point: I'm convinced that the Kerry-Edwards campaign is and will be following much of Greenberg's research and insights in 2004. There have been too many echoes of these themes in Kerry's policies. And Edwards' primary campaign was essentially built on the 'Two Americas' theme. I believe that's a major reason he's now the running mate.

So, if you want to read a big part of the script, it would be hard to find a better source than Greenberg.

Cheney v. Edwards

This now-inevitable debate match-up will be dramatic, in one way or another.

Cheney is one of the most experienced public officials in elected office, with a resume going back to the Ford administration. Will his gravitas overshadow the bright, bouncy newcomer?

Or will Edwards manage to sound weighty while delivering all those clever arguments and debating points?

What about the expectations game? Will Edwards be annointed the natural "debate champ" due to his spectacular success at trial lawyering? Or is Cheney the heavyweight due to his almost unparalleled experience in high public office?

Final question. It would be very smart for the Kerry team to use Edwards' capacity to project optimism during the debates. However, the traditional role of the VP is to be the "attack dog" who does the mudslinging on behalf of the ticket.

Edwards has a finely-honed ability to mix pointed criticisms with a sense of how to do things better. He managed to slam Bush while sounding positive all through the Democratic debates -- when it was important for him to directly criticize Bush.

Will they use that more sophisticated approach? Or will he toss some of the really heavy, messy stuff at Cheney? What do you think?

A Big Bump for Kerry?

The Bush camp reportedly expects a surge for Kerry in July.

Matthew Dowd, Mr. Bush's chief campaign strategist, said he expected the race to shift from dead even now to as much as a 15-point advantage in national polls for Mr. Kerry by the end of the Democratic convention.

Though campaigns typically seek to set expectations as low as possible and Mr. Kerry's aides have said they do not expect any such lead, Mr. Dowd's public forecasts have tended to be relatively accurate. He said his prediction was based on the average upward bounce in the polls for challengers against incumbents over the last three decades at this stage in the race.

Although Zogby finds that the number of undecided voters has been steadily growing (going from 5 percent in March to 11 percent in June), Rasmussen reports that the undecided number is currently only at 4 percent. Even if Zogby is closer to the truth, it is hard to imagine a 15 point bump. But if there is even a temporary 8 to 10 point bump in favor of Kerry in July, it would mean that more people are keeping an open mind than we have been led to believe.

UPDATE: Zogby reports little immediate bounce from the Edwards selection. "`This is not a big bounce electorate,' pollster John Zogby said in a statement. `We are a nation that is split down the middle, polarized and hardened.'''

Sabato Analysis

The Moderate Voice distills Larry Sabato's analysis of the Edwards pick.

John-John, Yawn-Yawn?

From the Boi from Troy:

After being rebuffed by his first pick for Vice President, presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry chose North Carolina Senator John Edwards as his running-mate. My reaction: yawn. It underscores what many of us have thought about Kerry--he is unimaginative and lacks a clear vision for the country other than bending to the popular will of his base.

How will Edwards fare in a debate against Dick Cheney or Zell Miller?

FYI... BFT is a gay, freedom loving, Californian, centrist Repbulican... His blog is really good, and although he only talks politics some of the time (other topics include culture, sports, and "gayness with the world"), what he has to say is always clever.

Edwards Chosen

Looks like John Edwards is the guy. Of the three apparent finalists, which included Gephardt and Vilsack, he's the best choice.

It tends to explain why Kerry accelerated the timeframe for this decision. Edwards' strengths are his campaign skills -- if you're going to choose him, might as well put those skills to use as soon as possible.

Perhaps the biggest impact of this choice is the change it makes to the dynamic of the Democratic party. Edwards becomes a real heavyweight -- and a leading candidate for 2008 (if Kerry loses) or 2012 (if he wins).

As a personal observation, I think there's a strong need in our country to reshuffle the political environment. I think we need more than the typical centrist approach to fiscal and economic policy. We need dramatic entitlement reform, and it needs to happen in a relatively short timeframe.

I don't believe either Kerry or Edwards offers that kind of transformational change. Bush, on the other hand, has some forward-looking policies on Social Security reform, but placed less priority on them than his tax cuts and the Iraq war.

We need a new option, it seems to me. The most plausible source of that option, perhaps, is the moderate segment of the Republican party -- someone like Powell, McCain, or Whitman. A moderate Republican would be more likely to push for big reforms in entitlements than a centrist Democrat, while also pursuing a more effective internationalist foreign policy than the current administration.

Perhaps we will get that option in 2008.

A Centrist Foreign Policy

Tutakai asks an interesting fundamental question regarding centrism as a political philosophy. We tend to have a reasonably well-defined identity in the areas of social and economic policy, but what about foreign policy? Is there such a thing as a centrist foreign policy?

He deals with it on a conceptual level in his first post.

He makes some clarifications in his second post, and promises a third with analyses of specific foreign policy issues.

I read his first post last week, and immediately jotted out some thoughts of my own regarding one specific issue -- the Iraq war. I didn't manage to finish that post -- it ran longer than I expected -- but I will try to do so this week.

I have to say, personally, that I find Tutakai's knowledgeable and clearly reasoned approach to centrism to be exceptionally valuable. I predict he will do a great deal to build an intellectual and factual underpinning to this movement that we're all trying to push along.

Take a few moments to read through his stuff.

A July 5th July 4th Post

Every July 4th, I like to think about and silently thank and toast those who have risked their lives for liberty. Of course, it's July 5th, but better late than never, they say.

This includes democratic armed servicemen and leaders like the US Founding Fathers who risked their lives to advance liberty, but also people who quietly risk their lives to move to free countries. Today I want to particularly highlight this Chinese gentleman who happens to be in the headlines today.

Heres' to freedom!

Fiscal Hawks? Where? Behind the Drunken Sailors?

Lost GOP Souls: Didn't Republicans use to favor cutting government spending?

While the party bases are more polarized than ever, the politicians themselves look more and more alike in many ways. In 1994 the Republicans seized Congress with fiscal restraint as their rallying cry, with term limits touted as a possible tool. Ten years later, entrenched party hacks on the Appropriations Committee are working overtime to keep the pork engines at full bore, and dissenters who argue for fiscal sanity are stripped of federal funds for their districts. And forget that line-item veto that was a mainstay of the Republican agenda in 1994. The entrenched incumbents want nothing to do with it, leaving less chance for the Presidential veto to work at all without shutting down the government as Clinton did in 1998, and as Bush seems incapable of doing, at least in an election year.

And the only thing stopping total loss of control over spending is a few Republican moderates in the Senate. Yes, moderates do have a disproportionate power over their own party in some ways.

Tip O'Neill would be proud--but very, very confused. Or maybe not. While he might have some trouble recognizing the Democrat or Republican parties, he'd have no problem at all recognizing the Incumbent Party.

Let's be 'fair'

Does that seem to be the primary motive behind the following, as reported by Knight Ridder:

With the presidential election likely to turn on developments in Iraq and the U.S. economy, one of the summer's hottest political issues is whether news-media coverage of those topics is fair or biased.

Conservatives across the country decry news coverage of the war as relentlessly and unfairly negative. Last week Brent Bozell, a conservative activist, launched a $2.8 million advertising and talk-radio campaign to discredit the "liberal news media."

Such complaints are escalating - and increasingly conveyed in e-mails to journalists, letters to the editor and even in social settings with news executives - a phenomenon that appears to have been aroused in part by the Republican Party, President Bush's campaign and leading conservatives on talk radio, the Internet and cable TV.

"The bias that's been there is now simply out of control," said Bozell, whose conservative Media Research Center is running newspaper and billboard ads accusing the press of lying. The ads show a stern-faced Uncle Sam warning: "Don't believe the liberal media!"

Protests about media coverage have surged as bad news from Iraq and worries about jobs here at home have driven Bush's approval numbers to all-time lows. The president's supporters say journalists dwell unfairly on casualties and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and ignore positive U.S. economic signs.

Even if the media were to have a recognizable bias -- as many believe -- it's really a huge leap from that to "Don't believe the liberal media!" This qualifies as nothing but a smear.

There's nothing wrong with providing additional information about things that are going right in Iraq (as others here have done), but what Bozell wants you to do is to dismiss anything from the mainstream media as untrustworthy.

Does Bozell have an agenda of his own? I think any fair evaluation of his background shows that he and his organization receive support mainly from the right. Does that make his effort more-or-less partisan? I'd say 'yes'. This is from a Media Research Center fundraising letter, as reported in the Columbia Journalism Review:

"We are training our guns on any media outlet or reporter interfering with America's war on terrorism or trying to undermine the authority of President Bush."

The whole issue of media liberal vs. conservative bias is 90% rhetorical, serving the interests of those who insist on finding 'the enemy within' to rail against.

Much more useful is to simply consider the source, evaluate the argument presented and get on with it. I really do not see the utility of doing otherwise.

Happy 4th!

Best wishes to everyone for a Happy Independence Day. Let's pray the next year will be a good one for the Republic.

As an example of something not in keeping with the American spirit, see this story.

What Us Democrats Should Be Saying

Democratic leadership these days has a bad tendency to just react to what the President is doing instead of delivering positive leadership. Clinton won his elections in part by being optimistic and forward-looking and Gore lost his by being doubtful and pessimistic. Too many Democratic leaders have forgotten that need, but looking forward under pressure is, I think, a part of leadership.

To Kerry's credit, he has avoided running a negative campaign. He seems to be counting on Bush to beat himself by his high negatives and letting wingnuts like Moore rouse the base. But that's exactly the same thing Dole, a rather similar candidate, did in '96. My guess is that when people make up their minds, and think a bit about what they know about Kerry, they'll decide that Bush is the less bad of the alternatives, because he can lead and has a constructive approach on terrorism, even if he gives his wingnuts too much of a chance to nibble at civil liberties and doesn't mind deficits.

What should Kerry and other Democratic politicians be doing to establish forward positions? First, they should move the election away from War on Terror up-or-down, single-issue campaign that Bush has established. Kerry and some other moderates should agree on the overall strategy of making the Middle East safe for globalization and freedom while pledging to restore civil rights and reform problems in Iraq. That would almost neutralize the issue, IMHO.

Mostly, though, Democrats should be talking more about other things. What we should be doing, IMHO, is talking about improving traditionally government-provided and government-involved services by working in more competition and capitalist-style investment. Health insurance, mental health, unions, homeless care, postal services, welfare, retirement savings, transportation, etc, etc, all these things, IMHO, could benefit from openness, competition, and/or investment by capitalists.

Over the next few months, I'll blog about some possibilities along these lines and their political dimensions.

(maybe this time I can avoid posting it twice and confusing the blog on deletion)

On the lighter side (Vol. 7)

- Spoof translation of Saddam's court appearance (here)
- Differences in how "go f*ck yourself" is reported (here)
- "Reagan Pyramid remains on schedule" (Onion) (here)

Open Thread

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

Too Much Fun For Words!

Colin Powell Sings Village People Song

Trust me, folks, you just gotta cue up and watch the AP photo slideshow that goes with it...it's the first four pictures (at the moment).

Media Coverage of the War

There's two op/eds today on the media coverage of the war, and what's wrong with it. One of them is a first-hand account from a Marine who served in Iraq, of how a reporter determined to file sensationalist copy with the least effort skipped the truth and slanted the news.

HOW MEDIA GET IRAQ WRONG

And the other is a tale of how our soldiers find themselves fighting two wars--one of them against the media.

Humvee battles

Note that these are op/eds, both from "conservative" papers, so feel free to ignore any attributions of motivation or bias not coming directly from those quoted, or not readily apparent from the actual behavior of those involved. I do. Still, a sobering look at why even the most "objective" of media reports out of Iraq must be viewed with suspicion.

Leave Kerry's Divorce Papers Alone

Politics 1 reports that there is nothing in Kerry's divorce papers worth looking into... I would argue that even if there was they still should be private, unless of course he broke the law. I would like to meet the dimwit operative who decided that this was a good idea, and politely ask him to quit putting a stain on the reputation of the Republican Party by constantly looking into this BS.

Furthermore, I am one in the slim minority of Republicans that believes Jack Ryan should still be a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. So he tried to convince his wife to have sex in a club? Is he morally suspect? Maybe he is and maybe he isn't, but I know two things: (1) He is not the first one to argue with his wife about where and when to have sex, and (2) this is none of anybody's damn business, especially since his ex-wife herself appears to have no qualms about it.

The Republicans and Democrats in Illinois that pounced on this issue should be ashamed of themselves... They are in part to blame for the apathy that is apparent in the American electorate. I would even go as far to say that if I where in Illinois I may have to vote for Barack Obama who seems to be the only one who has stayed clear of this crap and focused on the issues, and besides, the Illinois Republican Party simply does not deserve a victory in this one. I sincerely hope that the same people who complained so much about the Torricelli/Lautenberg switch (which I agree was wrong) did not employ a strategy to replace Ryan because he was losing so badly in the polls.

On this same note, I hear there is an excellent documentary out about the 10 year plan to take down the Clinton's called: The Hunting of a President. It might be nice for those of you who have been victims of Fahrenheit 9/11, to go see what a documentary is actually supposed to be.

I would have voted to impeach Clinton because I believe the Commander in Chief should have to live under the same rules that the laws of our country force men and women in uniform to live under, and it is more and more apparent that he bold faced lied to the grand jury. That been said, the more and more people I meet in DC that where around during the impeachment trial, the more I believe it was a dog and pony show intended to embarrass Clinton and diminish the validity of his Presidency. In other words I think a lot of Republicans did the right think, but for all of the wrong reasons… Those reasons being the political ones.

UPDATE:

Jack Ryan in an interview with John Stossel to be shown this Friday night on 20/20:

"I think we need more people going to Washington, D.C., who want to engage in marital relations with their wives. I think that's a good thing for this country, not a bad thing...

I can't tell you how many calls I got in the last two weeks from people who said, 'now I always thought about maybe going into public service. But not now, not, not after I've seen what's happened to you.' And so this cannot be the right standard now for entering into American politics."

Well said...

Kerry: No licenses for illegal immigrants

Kerry takes a stand.

Democrat John Kerry said he opposes state laws that give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, a position that puts him at odds with the Hispanic activists he is courting in the presidential race.

Life Imitates Moore

Saddam Scoffs at Charges of War Crimes

"You know that this is all a theater by Bush, the criminal, to help him with his campaign," the former Iraqi president said.

Saddam has learned a few things about not being the only law in Iraq. He refused to sign any statements without his lawyer present. Now if he can only get Johnny Cochran to represent him....

Republican Civil War?

Andrew Sullivan says that a long and nasty civil war looms between moderates and conservatives for control of the Republican agenda. I think he is half-right. If Bush is re-elected, I think that Republicans will find a way to get along. However, if Kerry wins, I expect that there will be a battle similar to the one between the DLC and the Democratic left between 1988 and 1992.

UPDATE: Matthew Yglesias and his readers weigh in.

Media Update: Is Bush the New Comeback Kid?

Go read the story about an Iraqi citizen itching to testify here. Taymour Rowghzaee was shot by Iraqi troops sixteen years ago and thrown into a pit of dead bodies. Only because he was able to take shelter under more bodies thrown on top of him, was he able to crawl away and survive. His mother and sister where both killed in the same massacre…

Go here to read about Saddam's day in court. Sitting in an Iraqi courtroom the former dictator denies the atrocities that he committed.

Go here to read an article by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball of Newsweek that accuses Michael Moore of purposely distorting the truth.

Finally, go here to see a poll that has the Presidential race at 48-48%. The same poll recently had Senator Kerry up by seven points.

These are pretty powerful images from Iraq that are at least an indication that things seem to be on the upswing, and the media is rightfully pointing out that Michael Moore is full of hot air. With the job growth that has occurred and the other recent upbeat news about the economy, what are we going to have a Presidential election about? The two big issues are slipping away from John Kerry, are they not? What else does he have?