Centerfield

Open Thread For Republican Convention

Here's where to comment about the speeches and coverage at the Republican Convention

Will there ever be a political party for me?

Interesting thread on centrism by Roger Simon.

Listening to Giuliani and McCain last night, I was starting to think, well, this Republican thing ain't so bad. Just like when I listen to Lieberman or Evan Bayh I think the same thing about Democrats - hey, these folks make sense. But then, in the middle of the night, or in the dim, subterranean light of the bowels of Madison Square Garden, I wonder if there will ever be a political party for me anymore.

Left Goes Right, Everything Goes Wrong

I'm wondering what everyone thinks of the most recent development stemming from France's headscarves ban, with muslims taking hostages and demanding the lifting of the ban.

I'm fighting the impulse to just say that France is reaping what it has sown. Surely nothing justifies kidnapping and death threats. And yet I was horrified when the ban was instituted to see "liberal" France take another step down the paternalistic path of trampling on peoples rights and blithely assuming they know what's best in such personal matters. Speech codes, dress codes, and so on just aren't liberal, not if you get what the word means.

And now France is caught between a rock and a hard place. If they recognize the authoritarian misstep against civil liberties inherent in the indefensible ban, they just look like cowards, like appeasers, weak-kneed and without principle. Or else they stiffen their backs and insist the policy will stand, further institutionalizing a mistaken policy and betraying liberty a little bit more. It's depressing to see a nation such as France, our friends in finding liberty and heroic fighters for it in their own revolution, become so divorced from the ideals it once embraced.

I'd love to see them realize their error and simply take responsibility for their mistake in wasting their moral currency on such a petty thing, and at the same time come out aggressively against terrorism, but I don't see it happening. What a mess.

Let McCain be McCain

A particularly interesting take on the McCain speech, and the various reactions to it, from Greg Wythe of Greg's Opinion.

Republican Majority for Choice

Republican Majority for Choice reception is today from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m..

It honors Republican pro-choice leaders, with Libby Pataki and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Guests include former President Gerald R. Ford and Betty Ford, Sens. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Colo.; Lincoln Chafee, R.I.; Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, Maine; Arlen Specter, Pa.; Ted Stevens, Alaska; and John W. Warner, Va., and Reps. Sherwood Boehlert, N.Y.; Kay Granger, Texas, and Jim Kolbe, Ariz. Sky Club, 200 Park Ave., 56th Floor

It costs $500, but I'm guessing that journalists can go to "cover" it without paying.

New Articles from John Avlon

John's been pretty busy these days. He has a piece out about centrist Republicans at the GOP convention called Revenge of the Centrists. And he has a new article in the San Francisco Chronicle about Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The convention piece offers an especially nice overview of where the GOP finds itself today and its challenges and opportunities for the future. Check it out.

Ripon Society

I didn't realize the Ripon Society still existed. Historically, it was a group for moderate to liberal Republicans.

However, while walking in Manhattan yesterday, a college student was handing out free magazines which turned out to the the Ripon Forum. The convention issue is not online, but articles may be read from the previous issue.

Reading through the convention issue, it seems mainstream Republican, and not obviously moderate. It includes a number of pieces written by staffers from the conservative Washington Times, a piece by Tom Delay, and an interview with Jeb Bush. There are pieces by Centerfield favorites Sen. Olympia Snowe and Rep. Nancy Johnson, but they are both on health care, and don't affect the overall tenor of the issue. The only article which did pique my interest was this one, reprinted from a Maine newspaper, about a Ripon event in which Sen. Susan Collins spoke.

Opening Night

This feels a little different.

To begin with, Madison Square Garden is a bigger venue than the Fleet Center. Or at least that’s how it feels to me. There just seems to be more space here at the RNC than there was at the DNC. But, and I know it’s just Monday, there does seem to be less life as well. It seems that the excess of space sucks some of the life out. However, I’m sure the place’ll be packed when the President makes his way to the stage via a rising circular platform on the floor of the convention.

Speaking of the floor, the red rug is a lot more plush than the rug at the DNC. I’m not sure what that means, but the carpet was definitely thicker.

This is my first RNC, I covered the DNC in 2000 and again this year, so I was eager to take notice of the difference in the participants between the conventions. At first I was amazed at the lack of diversity as I was making my way through the metal detectors, but when I got to the floor I noticed people of all races and ethnicities. There were African-Americans with cowboy hats, and Asian-Americans with “W” pins. Although the claim that there is more diversity at the DNC is not incorrect, I will say that having seen it first hand, the RNC was not a monolithic group.

Although, I will say this much, they seem to sound a little different than the delegates that I spoke with at the DNC. I think I heard a slight twang in most of their voices and as they talked they spoke of only one issue and one issue alone – terrorism. Indeed, that was the theme of the evening. From McCain’s speech to Rudy’s speech, terrorism was all anyone could talk about.

At a Republican Jewish Coalition event earlier in the evening, where Norm Coleman, Arlen Spector and Tom Delay gave speeches in support of Israel, all of the speeches concerned only one issue – Israel. As a reporter covering this event, I couldn't help but think that the republican Jewish community must have only one issue in mind – Israel. Whether that is or isn’t the case is not for me to say, but it was clear to me that as the evening went on the republicans are making a concerted effort to talk only about Israel and terrorism in Jewish circles. Other issues are being placed on the periphery, not only at the Jewish event, but at the convention site as well.

Another appreciable difference between the conventions is that the republicans seem to be much less afraid of attacking their opponent. At the DNC, and at the events surrounding the DNC, there was a concerted effort to avoid attacking Bush. The politicians tried, and sometimes failed, to avoid beating up on Bush and appearing mean spirited. The republicans have no such muzzle. Again and again, from Rudy’s harsh criticism of Kerry’s "flip-flopping" to the assertion that Kerry, the multilateralist, will cower to international pressure on Israel, the republicans clearly do not have their weapons on stun.

Only time will tell if they have hit their mark or missed their opportunity to build their own case.

Open Thread For Republican Convention

Here's where to make your comments about the Republican National Convention speeches or coverage.

Tonight's speeches are not being carried on the networks, but they are on CSPAN. It's also the night the GOP shows it's moderate face with speakers like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. I guess the public won't see much of that face.

Log Cabin Republicans

The Log Cabin Republicans weigh in with "an aggressive counter attack against the radical right which has hijacked the GOP." I hope the GOP heavyweights listen.

Buyer Beware

Oh boy, this city was a mad house today. First of all, it was hot and muggy. I mean really muggy. It was the kind of weather that makes you long for those 110 degree days in Tucson.

I began my day at a non-partisan interfaith prayer service. Which, it seemed to me, was non-partisan in name only. Out of the 120 that gathered there, a good 50 or so went with the prayer leader to participate in the United for Peace and Justice march downtown. The march turned out to be a very peaceful demonstration. Although the hatred of Bush was fully evident, I didn’t see a single disturbance; save a few middle fingers pointed at some heckling republicans across the street from Penn Station.

However, tying to maneuver your way around the city was a nightmare and all of the locations where the press had to pick up credentials were dead smack in the thick of things. At one point, I was confronted by a police officer, with a large automatic weapon, who was rather assertive when he asked where I was headed. When I told him that I was going to the Hotel Pennsylvania to pick up my press credentials, he told me that it was locked down. I said – “locked down, the entire Hotel? What do I do?” His response had something to do with this not being a concern of his.

Anyway, I walked across the street and a half a block away from him and tip toed my way into the crowed and bustling hotel to pick up my press package – which included a box of Kraft Mac and Cheese with an elephant on it.

From there it was off to the Sheraton to pick up the New York passes, and so on and so forth.

One of the strange things was that walking around the city on a hot Sunday afternoon dressed as I was, in a suit and tie for an AIPAC event held at Chelsea Piers, resulted in some dirty looks from New Yorkers. Now, normally, I wouldn’t be making eye contact with too many locals. But, I couldn’t help but notice their sneering. It was clear to me that they assumed, because of my attire, that I was a republican. And, from their looks, I could tell that I was not welcome.

This was a new experience for me because I have been a New Yorker for some time now and I have never felt unwelcome here. In fact, just the opposite. So, I think it’ll be interesting to see how the real “out-of-towners” fair when they ride the subways or walk down Broadway.

Wearing a republican tee-shirt or pin is equivalent to donning a Red Sox cap in these parts, you get the jawing you expect and probably deserve. Judging by the gift shop at the Sheraton, they’ll be no shortage of George W. paraphernalia. However, I wonder if the delegates are aware of all that comes with their purchase.

McCain: Kerry's Anti-War Protesting Fair Game

Read the full article here.

"Republican U.S. Senator John McCain said Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam are an appropriate subject for political debate.

McCain, 68, of Arizona, said on the CBS News program ``Face the Nation,'' that he disagreed with Kerry throwing his ribbons from his medals on the steps of the U.S. Capitol when he returned from the war.

``Every American is entitled to protest,'' McCain said. ``Whether he did that appropriately'' is a legitimate subject for debate, he said. "

Avlon on New York Republicans

In honor of the convention, John Avlon has a new piece out about the tradition of moderate Republican reformers in New York City. Very interesting historical piece, with a nice conclusion:

Despite the expected onslaught of protests during the GOP convention next week, history shows that New York has a strong and popular Republican tradition. It is, however, a distinct tradition of independent reformers, tough on crime and corruption but liberal in its understanding of America as a fundamentally inclusive society. As the Republican Party looks to expand its appeal beyond its so-called Red State base with what is slated to be a centrist convention, these reformers represent the future in an increasingly urban and diverse America.

But the fault lines in the Republican Party remain unresolved and the challenge Teddy Roosevelt placed before the party almost 100 years ago hangs in the air over this convention with even greater urgency: "The Republican Party is now facing a great crisis," Roosevelt said. "It is to decide whether it will be as in the days of Lincoln, the party of the plain people ... or whether it will be the party of privilege and special interest, the heir to those who were Lincoln's most bitter opponents." Perhaps this week in New York can help the party of Lincoln rediscover its roots as it builds a stronger and broader base for success in the future.

Read the whole piece, and you'll see why John is one of the best writers we have in the broad centrist movement. He's one of only a handful of political columnists operating from a centrist perspective, and the only one I know of who openly embraces the words "moderate" and "centrist" as reflecting his point of view. (We have guys like David Broder too, but Broder expresses a moderate point of view without acknowledging it overtly.)

Times Square Has an Actual Howard Johnson's

Sunday, August 29—1:00 p.m. We moved into the W Times Square this morning right after 11:00 a.m., which made it possible to ditch our luggage instead of schlepping it around until legal check-in time. For the first time in my experience, the hotel room looks like the picture in the brochure.

At this hour, Times Square looks normal, but my guess is that we are enjoying the calm before the storm. There are currently four news helicopters hovering over Times Square, and the police are breeding like rabbits. The news reports anticipate a demonstration crowd of 250,000. I hope that they are using the same math that a friend of mine used when he predicted a landslide for the Democrats in the 2002 mid-term elections.

Anyway, I’m sliding out of here to go to work at Sky Club at the Met Life building, which is the venue for the first of the many events I’ll be reporting on.

Make that five news helicopters, and two more generations of NYC police.

Security in the city is very tight, with a small contingent of police posted at the entrances of all the convention-related hotels. You have to show your room key every time you enter your hotel.

Ours is the headquarters for the Republican National Committee’s Majority Fund. There are three cops outside the W, but there were nine outside our last hotel this morning. (Eleven, if you count the bomb-sniffing dogs as police officers.)

The Republican Main Street Partnership’s big event tonight was covered in the National Journal Convention Daily as “…today’s top party—or at least the one highest off the ground. The Republican Main Street Partnership, a centrist group, hosts a convention reception for the partnership’s members, special guests, and ‘valued friends’ at the MetLife Building’s Sky Club. More than 60 congressional members plan to attend. Invite only.”

New York City -- Center of the Universe

I guess I'm the other pinch-hitter that Rick talked about.

I am now in New York, having arrived with my girlfriend by commuter train this afternoon (Saturday) from Connecticut, which is our base of operations for this adventure. We arrived one day early, and (for tonight) are housed at the Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers, where Governor Pataki and his entourage are also staying. Tomorrow, we move to the W Times Square, which we stopped by to see this afternoon. The W is a trendy hotel, very cool, and I'm pumped about our staying there for five whole days.

We live in Alexandria, Virginia, and both work in downtown D.C. Gina is a lobbyist for an IT services company, and I now work at The Republican Main Street Partnership, after having volunteered there in the past when needed. My background is not in politics, but rather in roughly equal shares of homebuilding, remodeling, sales management and charity fundraising. (I'm not supposed to mention drum corps, so I won't.)

Having found myself becoming increasingly involved over the years in political matters, I decided that it made sense to do it full-time. Main Street has been an excellent opportunity for me to find my political sea legs, and discover the crucial importance of centrist politics. It promises to be an effective springboard for my future plans.

As to the convention, Dan Ain is the able political columnist in the RNC group, (with credentials,) so I will be the man on the street. In the next week or so, I will describe the other activities surrounding the convention.

If there are aspects of the event any of you would like me to focus on, let me know.

Plus ça change, plus c'est le meme chose

July 12, 2004

Special interests carve out place in convention

August 28, 2004

Special Interests Woo Powerful at RNC

John Kerry and Winter Soldier

I promised a post on Winter Soldier and John Kerry's role in it, which is the real driving force behind the Swift Boat folks' anger, and that of other veterans. Sadly I find myself buried in campaign work right now, and the load is getting heavier. I'm not working for either Presidential candidate, but for state-level candidates. Full disclosure is that my client list this time is five Republicans and three Democrats, all of whom are considered moderates.

So instead I'm posting some relevant links to material regarding Winter Soldier and John Kerry.

There's more to Kerry's post-Vietnam actions as an anti-war activist than is found in these links, including his trip to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese delegation while Kerry was still a commissioned officer in the US Navy. If you can stand the rhetoric that goes with the info, it can all be found at:

Winter Soldier

Definitely an anti-Kerry site, but contains true transcripts of Kerry's Senate testimony, the complete Kerry/O'Neil debate of 1971, timelines, the complete VVAW FBI files, and the complete text and photographs of THE NEW SOLDIER.

Also highly recommended reading on the way Vietnam vets have been misrepresented by both the Left and the Media is Burkett and Whitley's exhaustive investigation of the slanderous myth of the Vietnam Vet and the distortion of the war, STOLEN VALOR.

Women Rock!

The USA women's basketball team wins gold! Earlier this week, we saw another dramatic gold medal run from the fabulous five soccer team, and we also crowned a new Mary Lou Retton. The men in soccer and basketball have not done as well, I didn't even realize there was a men's soccer team, and the NBA superstars where down right embarrassing.

Women’s athletics over the last ten years has blossomed, the U.S. soccer team, and the WNBA have in some ways have become apart of American sports culture. Yet, in some universities and colleges throughout the country, Title 9, the law that requires gender equality in athletics, is ignored. I gave John Kerry props a couple of months ago when during the announcement of his higher education agenda he argued that the Federal Government should do a better job enforcing this law. He is absolutely right.... What point is there to a law that isn't followed?

It was huge at my alma-mater, the University of Washington, when one of my heroes in life, former Athletic Director Barbara Hedges, cut the men’s wrestling program that contained an Olympic medalist. Hedges took the revenue that went to the program and put it towards beefing up women athletics. Many argue that it is not fair to take money away from the boys so the girls can have their team also, but I think this is short sighted and we ought to make sure that colleges and universities have strong and equal men and women sport programs.

I don't have kids yet, but I know if I have a daughter one day, I would want her to have the same right to be involved in any activity that the boys can be apart of. After all, isn't that what America is all about?

Peace

Read the full MSNBC article here.

The radicals have left the shrine, its doors are open, and Al-Sadr has told his followers to drop their weapons.

This is clearly good news. I am not saying that this was not a bloody dispute, it was, but isn't this also a victory for the Iraqi interim government?

I am not going to pretend that we really know what happened over there, but my impression is that the interim government has been in control of this situation, and consistently was leading the effort that in the end concluded with the intended outcome. Could not there be made a good argument that this is a sign of success in Iraq becoming its own sovereign nation?

Bush Signs Intelligence Reform Executive Orders

From MSNBC:

"One of the orders gives the CIA director more authority on an interim basis to perform many of the functions of a proposed national intelligence director, who would oversee all 15 of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Bush also will work with Congress to create the position of national intelligence director, McClellan said....

Another executive order establishes the National Counter-Terrorism Center, while a third sets guidelines for sharing intelligence among agencies. McClellan said the orders would establish 'some common standards and clear accountability measures.'”

My question: Where's the beef? I live and work in Washington D.C. Trust me, if you don't have control over a budget in this town, you might as well be the dog catcher. Joe Lieberman is dead on with this one.

However, I do think that these steps are in the right direction and I am not so sure it would be appropriate for the White House to create a new layer of bureaucracy, with budget authority, without the Congressional process that is going to occur anyway.

This looks a lot like the creation of Homeland Security. Bush makes a move, Congress strengthens it, and in the end we will more than likely get exactly what the 9/11 commission proposed, a new cabinet level position with budget authority.

Bush: I Made a Miscalculation

Read the full article here.

My first thought is, well, duh.

Why now? The polls show he is trending up, his opponent just spent the last week defending his war record, and finally the President does what a lot of us have argued that he should have done a long time ago, admit that there was failure in the planning efforts leading up to the Iraq War.

Here is another question. With this admission that there was a miscalculation, on a day that the Defense Department's war plan is rightfully being questioned, amidst a report that blames the highest levels of government for the inhumane activity that took place at Abu Ghraib, why the hell does Donald Rumsfeld still have a job?

The administration is arguing that despite past mistakes, improvements have been made, and that overall we are better off than we would have been had we not gone into Iraq. I think there is merit to this argument and I will let others debate it, but in my opinion, the jury on Rumsfeld is done talking. The Secretary of Defense has not done his job, and he should be fired. It's over.

Open Thread

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

Progress and Politics

I recently read an article in the journal Daedalus (subscription required), "Illusion With a Future" by a philosopher named John Gray that seems to me to raise some points that are fundamental to us as centrists. Gray's premise is that the idea of "progress" in history (i.e., the belief that our moral and economic condition inexorably improves over time) is central to western thought, but is fundamentally wrong. I'm not going to discuss his entire argument, but basically, Gray says that the idea of progress has been tied to the ideal of human perfectibility. If you believe that man is inevitably destined to improve, then eventually he is destined to reach "the end of history." This concept has been used by what both religion and what Gray calls "secular humanists" to justify various utopian movements, such as Marxism, that have had pernicious consequences to mankind.

Gray thinks the idea of progress is dangerous because it implies there is a harmony of values and that if we find the "right" system we can create a perfect society. But, not only is perfection not possible, but it is not even desirable because values do, in fact, conflict. Maximizing one value may mean minimizing another. The Marxists tried to maximze equality at the expense of freedom.

Gray's argument is far more eloquent than I can expound here, but I think the important point is that any thought that progress is inevitable and that we can, through the proper application of reason, speed this process along, is dangerous and doomed to failure. Humans have passions and disagreements about the ultimate values. That is why a civilized society (in my opinion) needs to recognize the value of compromise. Free speech is important but not at the expense of yelling fire in a crowded room. Equality is important, but not at the expense of oppressing people's freedom.

The implication of this, I believe, is that the notion of "transforming" a region or a people or the world is bound to lead to trouble. Depending on your point of view, you can obviously apply this to current events. Personally, I moved away from liberal politics when I perceived it as inflexibly advocating a belief in social perfectibility that did not accept human frailties and passions. Thus, you have on compuses radical feminists and zealous "anti-racists" who spend their life trying to suppress even the most minor infractions against correct sexual and racial behavior. But, now you have an inflexible right wing that is determined, to wage a war to bring democracy and that advocates extreme individualism and free markets as the "only" way to bring about progress.

Gray does not say that progress is impossible, nor does he think we should not try to improve the human condition. But, as centrists, I think we are in a good position philosophically to understand the dangers of dogmatism in the name of progress and to recognize the need for compromise and a degree of modesty in our aspirations to perfect humanity.

Political Gauge: Another Typology

Hat Tip to Matt Welch for this fun political typology test from Political Brew, The Political Gauge.

I think I got rated as a fiscal centrist and a strong social liberal. Pretty close, I guess. I don't know how strongly liberal I am socially, maybe in the clasical sense, not so much in terms of some current liberal conventions. My sense is that individual results may vary somewhat depending on your mood at the time, but all in all, I though it was a pretty good effort. Give it a spin!

How Uninformed Voters Make Decisions

A reader recommended this fascinating piece in the New Yorker about uninformed voters, and theories about what sways them.

The War on Drugs and Boomers

I think the drug war will be with us until the Boomers are old enough to be out of power. That was the pattern with Prohibition - it took two generations to get politicians who stood up to it.

The drug war was a big success for politicians at the start because it was a reaction by the WWII generation to their childrens' rebelliousness. They saw it as cracking down on the worst of the hooliganism. They kept it up with strong support right until Bush I left office. So why didn't Clinton dismantle it? Well, he was one of those being distrusted; he either felt he didn't have moral authority to quash it, or maybe saw it as necessary when it started and hasn't reviewed his opinions; or maybe both.

Recently, a slashdot thread about a John Gilmore interview featured an argument about the drug war. What struck me was how busy everybody was arguing about its origins, and Nixon, instead of looking at whether it's working and what we should do now, 30 years later. Even a guy who was arguing against insisted on arguing about Nixon and preferred defending Nixon to factually supporting his argument. Sigh. Nixon is three decades out of power, and doing drugs is increasingly becoming a worse crime, sentence-wise, than rape and other violent crimes.

Some of us X-ers support the drug war, but I think support is pretty thin. It's not about us, we aren't caught up in it, and we see it failed decades ago, so we can end it. I hope.... Of course, by then we'll probably have found something else to crack down on (terrorism?).

RNC Bloggers in WSJ

The Wall Street Journal has interviews with the bloggers who have been officially invited to the Republican National Convention.

Centerfield is listed in the small print on the right under Other Bloggers. Thanks to Scripting News for the tip.

Where the Hell is the Civility, Man?

I like Patti Davis, I just can't help it.

I know many see her as the b--- that went on television to tell the world that President Family Values wasn't exactly a tip top dad, but you got to like someone that isn't afraid to share her opinion, regardless of the consequences.

Patti has recently written a very good article on the danger of sharing your opinion, that is pretty relevant to some conversations that have occured relating to current events. Turns out Ms. Davis was fired from her job recently because her bosses didn't like her stance on stem cell research.

I know what it is like to be shunned because you dared to share your thoughts. I was an eighteen year old when I went to my first Republican caucus to support Bob Dole, not Pat Buchanan, and a moderate, pro-choice candidate for Governor that was running against the resident evangelical conservative State Senator. At eighteen years old I had Republican delegates accuse me personally of being responsible for the death of thousands of innocent babies, and that was just the start of it. Think of the learning experience that was.

On the same subject, Carla and I have a really big pissing match going on that sometimes gets out of control, but I like to think that I would have enough respect for her as an individual not to terminate her employment if I where in that position ;)... I am also pretty sure that she feels the same way if the roll where reversed. In fact, here is a dirty little secret. I venture over to preemptivekarma.com as often as I check Centerfield to see what recently has been posted. Kevin and Carla do a pretty bang up job, even if I personally think they are wrong most of the time, and I admit there is value in their opinion. I was taught a long time ago that you can learn more from those who have opinions that differ from yours, than if you constantly sing to the choir.

Brian Keegan pointed out a week or two ago, that no matter who wins this election, 35% of the population will oppose that President out of partisan duty. Without even considering what his next policy will be, the man who wins the election will start off with 35% of the country hoping that he fails so there will be an opening for their party to win the next election. If Bush wins, it could be more. This is not a good thing for those of us who strive to improve civic dialogue.

I guess there isn't much of a point here other that I am thankful that we have Centerfield. I truly believe that a great majority of the people that visit this site do so with an open mind and the ability to at least listen to what others say and treat them with respect. In today’s political culture, that is a great thing.

LA Times: Bush Edges Ahead?

First the disclaimer, I think national polls tell us little, and for the most part are pointless.

I find the recent LA Times poll interesting, however, and think it is worth posting.

Read the full article here.

The poll that said Kerry was seven points ahead weeks before the DNC, that Californians where opposed to the recall of Gray Davis just before that election, and by the account of most regularly shows a Democratic bias, gave the President a 5 point bounce from the last poll taken, a lead of three points (49-46), and an approval rating of 52%. The Times poll is now the second major national poll, along with Gallup, to show Bush in the lead.

What does this mean? Not much of course, but here is an excerpt of their reasoning:

"That small shift from July was within the poll's margin of error. But it fit with other findings in the Times poll showing the electorate edging toward Bush over the past month on a broad range of measures, from support for his handling of Iraq to confidence in his leadership and honesty.

Although a solid majority of Americans say they believe Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, the poll showed that the attacks on the senator from a group of Vietnam veterans criticizing his performance in combat and his antiwar protests at home have left some marks: Kerry suffered small but consistent erosion compared with July on questions relating to his Vietnam experience, his honesty and his fitness to serve as commander in chief."

The poll goes on to talk about a straight partisan divide over the swift vet ads:

"The Swift boat group, which has received funding from several of Bush's supporters and advice from some veteran Republican operatives, has made only relatively small purchases of television time in a few battleground states for its two ads, the first charging that Kerry did not deserve some of the five medals he won in Vietnam and the second criticizing his antiwar testimony before the Senate in 1971.

But with the controversy attracting intense media attention, especially on talk radio and cable television, the ads have achieved extraordinary visibility among voters. Fully 48% of those polled said they had seen the ad accusing Kerry of lying to win his medals; an additional 20% said they had heard about it. Similarly, 44% said they had seen the ad criticizing Kerry's Senate testimony; another 17% said they had heard about it.

At the same time, 18% of those surveyed said they "believe that Kerry misrepresented his war record and does not deserve his war medals," while 58% said Kerry "fought honorably and does deserve" the medals.

Attitudes on that question divided along party lines. As many Republicans said they believed Kerry was lying as believed he fought honorably. By nearly 10 to 1, Democrats said Kerry served honorably."

On Bush:

"Bush's overall approval rating, which many analysts consider the best single gauge of his prospects in November, stood at 52%, with 47% disapproving; the numbers last month were 51% to 48%.

Bush's approval rating on the economy, at 46%, hardly budged from July. But the percentage of voters who gave him positive marks on Iraq did bump up from 44% in July to 48% now, with 50% disapproving.

Asked if the situation in Iraq was worth launching the war over, 46% said yes and 49% said no; last month the numbers were 44% and 51%.

"We should have done it a long time ago, eight to 10 years ago, and we probably wouldn't have had 9/11," said Gene Cox, a small-business owner and veteran from Crestview, Fla., who is supporting Bush.

Yet warning signs continue to blink at Bush. Fully 54% of voters said the country was not better off because of Bush's policies and that it should move in a new direction — although that represented an improvement for Bush from the 59% who felt that way last month.

Asked if Bush deserved reelection, 47% of voters said yes and 49% said no. By contrast, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, the last two presidents who won a second term, polled 56% and 57% on that question, respectively, in other polls at roughly this time in their campaigns.

While 45% of those polled said Bush's economic policies had left the country worse off, 27% believed they had improved conditions. Independents fell on the negative side of that ledger by nearly 3 to 1. And 52% of all voters said the country was heading down the wrong track."

Bush/McCain to Take On 527's

Read the full article here.

Some will call this political pandering, and others will call it a smoke screen, but I like what the President did today in calling on the services of Senator McCain to help in a legal effort to take on the 527s.

The Campaign Finance Reform Bill was supposed to be the law that ended soft money; the 527s are using an unintended loophole to slander the candidates of both parties in ways that few would argue is fair. I doubt there is an argument that could convince me that Moveon.org and groups like it are a benefit to the democratic system in anyway.

Bush and McCain are sending a message that this is not what we want our political process to look like, and I think most of the American people would agree. The legal battle may not go their way, but I think the debate on the effects of soft money in politics is one worth having and taking to the legislative level if necessary.

What John Kerry seems to be saying is that the ads about me aren't right, but the ads about you are okay? It is as inconsistent as his position on Iraq, his promises to reduce the deficit and pay for massive new government programs, and his unwillingness to talk about his record in the Senate. In my view, it is also very telling of what kind of President he will be.

Rorschach Nation

I believe I am one of those pinch hitters that Rick refers to in his previous post. So, let me introduce myself.

My name is Dan Ain and I have a weekly column called "Rorschach Nation" with Politicalstorm.com. Rorschach Nation is my term for our current political climate. We live in a world where people see only what they want to see through their own ideologically colored glasses. What is black to a left leaning person is white to someone on the right. Those of us trying to get at what the color actually is don’t have much of a chance. I am reprinting my initial column below which attempts to outline a path of “escape” from Rorschach Nation.

As for the RNC, I have full press credentials and am delighted to be able to provide my words to this page. At the DNC, I worked for both Politicalstorm.com and the New York Jewish Week covering mostly issues of faith and the interplay between religion and politics. This is an area in which I am particular interested in as a graduate of Boston College Law School and a current student of religion at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

Now, a little about Politicalstorm.com, Political Storm is a new site that - with two editors-in-chief, one a liberal and one a conservative (as well as down-the-center columnists like myself) - attempts to raise the level of debate by letting all sides be heard in an open, direct, and substantive format.

To give you a better idea of Rorschach Nation, here is my introduction to the column which was originally published on Political Storm and can still be found there along with the rest of my columns.

Rorschach Nation - "Foolish Inconsistency"
Dan Ain

Welcome to our new world - call it Rorschach Nation - the place where people only see what they want to see.

As Charlie Cook, the editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report recently expressed it in the New York Times: "Everything now is like a partisan Rorschach test, in which what you see depends on which side you're on."

Anyone who has turned on a television news program in the past decade intuitively understands Rorschach politics. We all know, deep down, that if a Republican had acted the way that Bill Clinton did, the Democrats would have sought the same level of accountability from him, as was proven in the cases of Bob Long and Newt Gingrich. And quite certainly, the Republicans would have come out with guns blazing against excessive government intrusion and interference into private matters.

Or, for an even better example of how personal perception shapes your take on political outcomes, just consider your answer to the question - who do you think won the 2000 election?

Never was our new world so effectively crystallized as it was during November 2000 when who had won or who had lost in the distant State of Florida depended on the lever that you had pulled earlier that month. It wasn't until December that we learned that the Supreme Court was also taking up full time residency in Rorschach Nation.

The adamant defense of President George W. Bush by the Right and his vilification by the Left is further indication that we don't care much for intellectual honesty. We only seek validation of our views, that we are "right"

However, some of us still possess that nagging urge to achieve that honesty -- that intellectual integrity within the realm of politics. So, we've come up with several non-traditional approaches to find a way out of the Rorschach Nation.

In this column, we will take the unpopular approach of assuming the highest of virtues, even from those in the highest positions. Today, cynicism is rampant; if not cliché. Filmmakers, talk radio and television programs rake in money and audience pointing out the flaws and imperfections in those who lead us. And there will never be a shortage of imperfections.

In this column, we acknowledge that people are incapable of perfection. We live in a culture that expects perfection - from our leaders, and sometimes, from ourselves. It is that endless chase for perfection, or at least the appearance of perfection, which causes the majority of our increasing and potentially life-threatening stress, anxiety, and depression.

Therefore, with each column we will wipe the slate clean. What has been said or done in the past will be of no consequence. The past will not be deemed to be prologue for anyone, regardless of how prominent and no matter how flawed. Rather, this page will assert, and will continue to assert, that everyone has the potential for renewal.

There is no single idea which requires repudiation more than the idea that our leaders need to act consistently. Much like our obsession with perfection, the words honesty and integrity somehow got associated with consistency. We've clearly forgotten our Emerson - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

So, today we scour through every vote John Kerry has ever cast in 19 years in the Senate, and every promise George Bush ever made regarding nation-building, looking for some discrepancy. As if people are not allowed to change their minds. As if people have to apologize for doing so.

The only consistency that you will find on this page is the consistently independent approach to each story in its own context, without reference to a past column; without reference to previous statements and without reference to anyone else's. We promise to flip-flop!

This may not work. It may not be possible to be political and intellectually honest. But, to have a goal; an ideal is what this is about. It is only when we get too close to believing that we can, or have to, achieve perfection do our wings wither and cause us to come crashing down to earth either as individuals or as a collective group looking up at crumbling towers.
- Published in Politicalstorm.com

RNC Here We Come

Centerfield expects to have bloggers in New York during the Republican Convention, though we haven't yet ironed out the details. These bloggers would not be our regular Centerfielders, but pinch hitters.

As far as protests go, it looks like liberal organizations will by bypassing New York to avoid getting caught up with the ultra-left. There is a fear that the Bush campaign could use images of misbehaving protestors in TV ads later down the line. (thanks to BlogLeft for the link)

Here is the web site that aggregates the posts of the blogs with credentials for the RNC.

Here is the web site that aggregates posts from the blogs which had credentials at the DNC.

Here is the web site that aggregates posts for liberal blogs which have not been invited to the RNC, but will be covering it from the Tank, a space on 42nd Street.

Does anyone have suggestions for our bloggers as to what they should cover at the RNC?

How did we get...

...to this all-too-true parody from The Daily Show:

JOHN STEWART: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the US military, and haven't been disputed for 35 years?

ROB CORDDRY: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing
coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.

STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.

CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontravertible fact is one
side of the story.

STEWART: But that should be -- isn't that the end of the story? I mean,
you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?

CORDDRY: I'm sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons'. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity' -- might wanna look it up some day.

STEWART: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?

CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well -- sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [high-pitched, effeminate] 'Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.' Listen buddy: not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.

...and this from CNN's Aaron Brown, with a comment from Josh Marshall:

O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon. O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JOHNS: Now, O'Neill may have an explanation for this but he has not returned CNN's calls. What does seem clear is that a top member of the swift boat group is now being held to the same standard of literal accuracy they've tried to impose on John Kerry.

So there you go. It really seems like O'Neill has been going on all these shows lying right through his teeth. Not misremembering some date, not having a conflicting recollection of some battle action, but telling everyone that none of the Swift Boats crossed into Cambodia when, in fact, he himself appears to have done so routinely.

Of course, the underyling facts here aren't in dispute. As Fred Kaplan points out here and many others have as well, it is well known that the US military -- and Swift Boats in particular -- made covert ventures into Cambodia.

But, again, right from O'Neill's own mouth -- Mr. Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth.

And all of this raises the question, though it's not precisely the right analogy, what exactly is the statute of limitations on these guys? How many times do they have to get caught making false claims, unsubstantiated assertions or putting forward witnesses who weren't there, before they cease to have any credibility and get treated as such in the media?

At the moment the standard seems to be, "Okay, on your first nineteen claims, it seems like you were lying to us, but send along number twenty and we'll run that one up the flag pole too."

How long?

Some would deny the existence of a Republican Noise Machine despite right-wing publishing houses publishing any author with a useful set of rumors, innuendo and lies, with Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, FOX News' and a myriad of right-wing think-tank trained pundits and columnists repeating the story often enough so the story becomes a must-tell for every media outlet in the country -- effectively drowning out more worthy and credible stories.

Some would deny that the mainstream media has been cowed into near-silence by years of those mentioned above leading a chorus shouting liberal media bias loud enough and long enough that it becomes a cultural meme.

Folks, the Democrats/left has nothing to match this abilty to control the national conversation. But, yes, they've started to establish similar organizations with a goal of balancing the equation --- so to speak. Do they have any choice? Not really, because this informal syndicate has simply been too effective not to imitate.

And what's really missing? Jounalism. Not a right-wing version and a competing left-wing version, but journalists who are not afraid to point out (and document!) that the sun rises in the east despite assertions to the contrary from one or both sides. But will there be a public that will listen critically, or will most people simply align their opinion with whatever set of 'facts' leads to the conclusion their team supports? Because that's how our culture is training us to define reality: it's whatever we believe it should be.

Well, we live in interesting times! I fully realize that most of the comments will be on how terribly biased the liberal media has been since Gutenberg, but after those comments, I'd like to know what you think we as individuals can do to encourage more effective journalism. What are YOU doing, if anything?

I Am Right, You Are Wrong!

A brilliant comprehensive presentation of all the arguments from both sides of the partisan divide in this election year can be found here. Read it, it's worth your while.

A tip o' the fedora to Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice for the pointer.

Make It So!

Get out the trumpets. Spread the word. Alex Tabarrok over at Marginal Revolutions renews the call to distribute Iraqi oil revenues to the Iraqi people by quoting excerpts from a Foreign Affairs article by Nancy Birdsall of the Center for Global Development and Arvind Subramanian, a division chief at the International Monetary Fund:

Can Iraq avoid the pitfalls that other oil-rich countries have fallen into? The answer is yes, but only if it is willing to implement a novel arrangement for managing its oil wealth with the help of the international community.... the Iraqi people should embed in their new constitution an arrangement for the direct distribution of oil revenues to all Iraqi households -- an arrangement that would be supervised by the international community.

I'm sure some powerful vested interests don't want this to happen, but I think it's a fabulous idea with few drawbacks. What better way to make a nation feel like a nation than to share in the benefits of the nation's most valuable national resource? All Iraqis would share at least one common interest.

In addition, it blunts criticism of the US as having imperialist oil crazy motives if the Iraqi people profit directly. It will take about as long as the time required to cash that first check for the stipends to become the 3rd rail of Iraqi politics that all political interests are afraid of altering. If stipends go equally to all adults, it encourages progress towards equal rights for women just by virtue of giving them some guaranteed resources. It marginalizes both terrorists who would attack pipelines and fringe political zealots who would re-distribute things unequally if at all. It would make many Iraqis unwilling to see their nation splinter. And it gives every Iraqi a big booster shot of hope for themselves and their family's future. Faster, please.

The IOC Are Minions Of Evil (disturbingly long)

I'm boycotting watching the olympics, after reading a slashdot posting on the topic. This is a summary of the low points. The bits that get to me most: enforced renaming of many businesses, and censoring of Taiwanese political speech at Atlanta.

So what's my problem with the Olympics? Well, there's a pattern. Note, blockquotes are from slashdot thread above.

Monopolistic Practices

TV Monopolies

Overly exclusive VISA contract.

by bstone (145356)
What really frosts me about these sponsorship wars is when the sponsors are allowed to pay to keep me from using competing products. I can see VISA paying to be the Olympic sponsor, and getting the resulting publicity, but when they can pay places to NOT take my credit card, it crosses a line. . . . The fact that they're proud of making these deals ("be sure to bring your VISA card because you can't use American Express"), knowing that they have paid to force me to carry extra credit cards with me, especially in these times of identity theft and credit card fraud where I'd much rather just carry one card and watch it closely, seems to me like it should be illegal.

Drug Testing

This is an arguable point. Certainly, it catches athletes by the ton. But an alternative, freer point of view might be to let arms races happen in pharmaceuticals. That's my instinct. After all, they allow athletes to have artificial enhancements and even substances all over the place (contact lenses, muscles from planned training programs, aspirin, shampoo, Gatorade, etc etc). Why do we draw the line at steroids? You can reasonably argue that the IOC is only preserving a line that our society has chosen to draw more generally. But it seems to me that the IOC is on the side of the reflexively repressive here. E.g., they show no qualms in missing out in a chance to get in on the side of freedom.

Security Theater?

I'm not even getting into this, though I imagine overzealous security may be a serious reason for low ticket demand. The fact that the Olympics has excellent reason to be nervous rather makes it a harder thing to get at, though.

Freedom Of Expression:

The Brand Protection Team

Friends of mine who work at Olympic-related services are not allowed to bring to work a bag of food that has the name of a rival company of McDonalds. They are instructed by security officers to use simple white bags without these logos!

No blogs!

Silly bans against linking to them

Limitations on political speech, in the United States.

by Kaiwen (123401)
The IOC doesn't restrict its censorship to corporate interests -- it also meddles in the political sphere. Amidst all the flag-waving you see going on -- US flags, Russian flags, Greek flags, Chinese flags, flags from every country with representatives in the games -- there is one flag you WON'T see -- Taiwan's. Why? Because it makes Beijing unhappy. At the Atlanta games -- smack in the middle of the "Land of the Free" -- three friends of mine were removed for displaying a Taiwanese flag at an event in which Taiwanese athletes were competing. This year, while watching, for example, the archery competition (the only event in which Taiwan medaled), Taiwanese spectators were waving IOC-issued flags to replace the Taiwanese flags they had brought. The IOC is not merely a corporate puppet -- it's a political lackey as well. Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan

IOC Trademark Law Interpretation

by linuxtelephony (141049)
I lived in Atlanta in 1992, 4 years before the 1996 Olympics there. The IOC was going around nailing anybody with ANYTHING remotely like "Olympic" in their company name or product. One example, Olympian Pools, or something like that. ...

I stopped watching, paying attention, or even caring about the Olympics after I saw what they did in Atlanta. Judging by the dismal ticket sales, perhaps this is a growing trend.

Some Opinion (yeah, also from the slashdot thread)

by snarkasaurus (627205)
As far as the IOC is concerned the athletes have no rights. They exist for the sole purpose of enriching the IOC and its contituent gratuity seeking, slime mold apparatchiks. These people don't walk, they glide on an extruded layer of mucous.

by PatHMV (701344)
Maybe all the stadiums are empty because all the spectators were turned away for wearing Polo(TM) shirts?

I mean, really. As a more-or-less private entity, the IOC cand do whatever it wants in terms of allowing people into venues, etc. But they have turned the whole spectacle into little more than a giant advertising venue, and that has made me lose interest in the whole deal. I saw it really start to go wrong back with the flap over whether some of the original US Dream Team could wear Reebok clothes (who sponsored those athletes) or would be forced to wear Nike jumpsuits (who sponsored the Olympics). The more the IOC does this, the fewer people will be willing to turn out and attend.

Mind you, I'm not in the commercial-sponsorships-are-evil camp. I just believe that both the IOC and their sponsoring companies should behave ethically, and see that, especially on the IOC side, there is a whole pattern of bad behavior. I also think that sponsors should be ashamed of signing deals that involve them in crackdowns on freedom of expression. Especially US corporations, and even more especially for the US Olympics, where this behavior is legal, but well beyond cultural norms.

I firmly believe that I could run a commercially successful Olympics without this microfascism. I'd auction off 10-50 global media licenses, plus one auction from each country (no exclusivity - just a special thing to allow 3rd-World media in). I think that'd make plenty of money right there, enough that I wouldn't need extortionate sponsorships. No limitations on blogging. IMHO, that'd raise my value by raising audience interest still farther. There'd be sponsorships, and we'd use the sponsored product, where practical, but no forcing it down peoples' throats. If we get guerilla advertising, that's life in freedom. I'd point out to the sponsors that they're getting extra exposure from the resulting controversy.

Posted by Jon Kay at 02:33 AM | Comments (2)

More bait for moderates

I'm pro-choice and I would not be offended by the universal legalization of gay marriages. As time has passed, I have been increasingly uncomfortable with the GOP's "no dissent" approach to these social issues. Today, I give credit where credit is due.

Vice President Dick Cheney said on Tuesday that he does not personally support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage but accepts President Bush's decision to pursue such a ban as administration policy.

Resorting to unusually expansive language to address an emotional campaign issue that has proved divisive for Republicans, Cheney said he believes individual states rather than the federal government should decide whether to sanction marriage between homosexuals.

"My general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want," Cheney, 63, said in response to a question at a campaign "town hall" meeting in Davenport, Iowa.

Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian and works for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said during the 2000 presidential race that be held homosexual marriage to be a state issue.

But he has been circumspect about gay marriage in the current election year, while Bush has appealed to social conservatives by backing congressional efforts to enact a constitutional ban. . . .

Cheney's view that states should be the arbiters of the gay marriage issue mirrors the opinions of many Democrats.

Three questions: (1) Is this calculated to comfort moderate, swing voters?; (2) If so, what does it mean for the "rally the base" strategy?; and (3) Why is the media obsessed with reporting in every story how old people are? ("Cheney, 63")?

Republican Switchers

According to the New Yorker, filmmaker Errol Morris and MoveOn are making a documentary profiling swing voters who are switching from Bush in 2000 to Kerry in 2004.

On July 1st, MoveOn sent out an e-mail and questionnaire seeking “authentic American voices committed to change” to take part in Morris’s campaign. It didn’t explicitly state that Morris was seeking Republican switchers, but the questionnaire was crafted to make converts from Bush to Kerry easily identifiable, and, of the twenty thousand responses MoveOn received, at least five hundred fit the criterion. Two weeks later, when shooting began, in a studio in the Boston suburb of Canton, that number had been winnowed to forty-one men and women from twenty-one states, who were brought before Morris and the Interrotron—ten a day—for interviews that lasted as long as an hour each.

I wish we had those 500 names. It's somewhat humbling that even in our bailiwick of swing voters, MoveOn has a longer list than we do.

Centrist speakers at GOP Convention

I'm sure we've all been hearing about all the centrists lined up to speak at the Republican National Convention, but as this article discusses, do they really have a voice in the party right now, or is it just for show? Personally, the comments of Tom DeLay lead me to be even more skeptical of the motives involved. I mean, when he is trying to talk about how inclusive the party is of moderate views, I find that hard to accept as something he believes is a good thing.

I don't know that I really have a point here, I just thought it might spark some good discussion. For example, do you think this could be good for moderates even if that is not the intention of the planners of the convention? I mean, even if they are trying to put a face on the GOP for the American people that they don't really believe is conservative enough, if the American people respond to the moderate message, could it actually push the party back towards the center?

Self-Inflicted Wound?

I've liked some of what Michelle Malkin has written in the past, but I think she is way off-base in repeating the suggestion on Hardball that one of Kerry's wounds was self-inflicted. In her follow-up piece, she says

Here is how I responded verbatim:

"Well yeah. Why don't people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg? There are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound."

Matthews frantically stuffed words down my mouth when I raised these allegations made in Unfit for Command that Kerry's wounds might have been self-inflicted. In his ill-informed and ideologically warped mind, this transmogrified into me accusing Kerry of "shooting himself on purpose" to get an award.

I repeated that the allegations involved whether the injuries were "self inflicted wounds." I DID NOT SAY HE SHOT HIMSELF ON PURPOSE and Chris Matthews knows it.

This is disingenuous on Malkin's part, and if she wants to consider herself a serious journalist, she should step back and think about it. If Kerry's wound was the result of an accident in the heat of battle, then there is no "legitimate question." Many casualties in war are not the result of enemy fire, and indeed throughout history, disease was one of the chief causes of mortality. British poet Rupert Brooke, author of The Soldier, died during his World War I service as the result of an illness caused by a mosquito bite. More recently, Pat Tillman died in Afghanistan due to friendly fire. Would Malkin deny them honor because they were not directly killed by the enemy?

The clear insinuation of "self-inflicted wound" is something done intentionally and for personal gain. Otherwise, there would be no point in mentioning it. I don't know if Malkin is consciously trying to do it, but the effect here is to influence people who are not following the debate closely with what are at best half-truths that distort the actual record.

Alberta

I'm back from vacationing in Canada. That's me in front of the Saskatchewan Glacier in Banff National Park in Alberta. The glaciers there are retreating, a sign of global warming, though it's not clear to me whether that's the result of human activity or a pre-existing trend.

Alberta is the Texas of Canada, rich in oil and cattle (the latter industry affected by an incident of mad cow disease). It also has a conservative Premier, Ralph Klein, who is the longest serving among the provincial Premiers, (equivalent to U.S. governors). Newsstands in Calgary featured a conservative Canadian magazine I'd never heard of, the Western Standard. While Klein favors small government, with an election approaching, he's awarding senior citizens a valentine by proposing to eliminate their health-care premiums.

I also learned about Canada's Northwest Rebellion of 1885, little known in the United States, in which the Metis, mostly French-speaking descendents of French fur trappers and native mothers, rose in rebellion against English land assignment in the prarie provinces. This all took place in the Saskatchewan River system, fed by the glacier above.

Update on the 527's

Bush Denounces Ads by Outside Groups

Next move, Kerry's.

Article on Boehlert campaign

This article in the Ithaca Journal talks about the campaign between Rep. Sherwood Boehlert and challenger David Walrath in my congressional district (24th NY). Even though the article seems to downplay Walrath's chances, I continue to worry about the race because of how close it was last time, and the fact that this is a pretty conservative district.

Walrath is clearly the antithesis of what I look for in a candidate, touting how much more "conservative" (I read "extreme") he is than his opponent. Meanwhile, notice the unusual comment by Boehlert that fails to pander to the far right. He says he is a moderate, and he doesn't believe the majority of his constituents are extremists. Few Republicans will (or can really afford to) make a statement like this anymore in a contested primary in a conservative district. It makes me proud that he is my representative.

Another reason I worry, though, is a recent flier received in my mail. It was sent out by a Libertarian group, but I fear the "voting record" it showed for Boehlert will appeal to the voters in my area. It essentially attacks Boehlert for being too "bigger government", supporting free trade, raising our taxes, etc. The problem is, the people in this area are so anti-tax they refuse to ever pass a school budget with even the tiniest increases. If they hate taxes so much they don't mind putting their children in subpar schools, I fear they will be riled by these attempts to paint Boehlert in a negative light.

The End of the CIA?

Two Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee have proposed what some have argued would be the end of the CIA. Read the full article here.

I am posting this mostly for the comment section, as I have not wrapped my head around it, just yet. I will say this: What in my opinion has been the problem with the discussion on intelligence reform is that many invovled in the process seem to be making proposals based on saving their own power, rather than actually fixing a system that clearly has problems. The bigger and more dramatic the proposal, the less I fear that we are making meaningless reforms.

Seriously, does anybody really think that Bush proposing the creation of an Intelligence Czar without budget authority was for any reason other than Rumsfeld didn't want power taken away from Defense?

Bob Dole Says John Kerry Should Apologize

Full article here...

An excerpt:

Dole told CNN’s “Late Edition” that he warned Kerry months ago about going “too far” and that the Democrat may have himself to blame for the current situation, in which polls show him losing support among veterans.

“One day he’s saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons,” Dole said. “The next day he’s standing there, ‘I want to be president because I’m a Vietnam veteran. “Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn’t the only one in Vietnam,” said Dole, whose World War II wounds left him without the use of his right arm.

Dole added: “And here’s, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they’re all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you’re out.”

I know there are various opinions about the Swift Vet ads. Personally, I don't find them believable. As far as I am concerned, if you put on a uniform and fight for my freedom, you are a hero, period.

However, I think Veterans who oppose Kerry have as much right to run their ads as Moveon.org has to run its ads. These 527 groups are making a mess out of this election, and I think Bush was right to bring into question on Larry King whether or not we should be allowing their existence. I know some have questioned the constitutionality of such a proposal, Carla, but I don't think anyone can argue that the 527s have made a positive impact on this election.

But let's talk about what this attack on Kerry's Vietnam record is really all about; Tully has said it on more than one occasion. Bob Dole brings up what I think the true motivation behind this issue is. It really has got little to do with where Kerry was and how many bullets he was dodging, and everything to do with the Congressional testimony he gave when he came back from Vietnam. There have been many Veterans, and probably a great majority of them, who have found Kerry's actions not only wrong, but unpatriotic.

I truly don't know what to think. I believe shining light on the atrocities that occur during war is a good thing, but I have serious doubts that John Kerry has done anything in his life without a political purpose. I totally find it believable that his comments in front of Congress where more about an ambitious former soldier angling for a political life in Massachusetts, rather than a Veteran who had honest concerns about the actions of our troops in Vietnam.

Swift Boat Vets Controversy

I'm not very fond of John Kerry, and I've argued repeatedly here that he's not likely to make a good president. I've expressed a good deal of exasperation during this 2004 election season, because I don't believe we have a good option this year.

I must say, however, that the information coming out as a result of the Swift Boat Veterans ads is changing my perception of Kerry's record as a young adult, and not in the direction the Swift Boat Vets anticipated. Check out this first-hand account in the Chicago Tribune today of the incident that resulted in Kerry's Silver Star.

For this independent, undecided voter, the Swifties might be adding an argument on Kerry's behalf.

On the lighter side (Vol. 14)

- John Kerry gives advice on what to look for in a woman (here)
- "'John Kerry' crushed 'George Bush' like a bug at the annual cockroach derby in New Brunswick." (here)
- Joe Piscopo for NJ Gov.? (here)
- "Bear guzzles 36 beers, passes out at campground" (here)

Open Thread

It's Friday. What's on your mind?

Is Bush Serious about Democratization?

An article in the Washington Post by Robin Wright today talks about how the Administration has undefunded programs designed to influence opinion about the US in the Muslim world. I find this very disturbing. Citing "Middle East experts", a dubious source to be sure, Wright claims that

On its boldest policy ideas, such as the Greater Middle East Democracy Initiative, the administration has limited its follow through or deferred to the very governments that have most resisted democratic reforms.

According to Shibley Telhami, a member of a White House-appointed advisory group on public diplomacy and Brookings Institution scholar,

It's worse than failing. Failing means you tried and didn't get better. But at this point, three years after September 11,you can say there wasn't even much of an attempt, and today Arab and Muslim attitudes toward the U.S. are far worse than they were three years ago. Biin Laden is winning by default.

I think you have to take articles like this with a little grain of salt because there are always people with an ax to grind or who are trying to advance their own interests. Still, it seems that for all its rhetoric about democracy and transfroming the Middle East, this administration is not willing to put its money where its mouth is. There seems to be a resistence to any kind of effective public diplomacy. Instead, the administration makes statements designed for domestic political consumption that have no resonance in the region. It also seems unwilling to spend any money on anything but the military, presumably because they might have to, God forbid, raise taxes. Did the administration really think it was going to be so easy that they could democratize on the cheap? Or do they really not care about democratization but just using it as a fig leaf to cover a strategy that is lacking in any real substance other than military. I do not believe, as leftists assert, that the invasion was for oil, but this administration doesn't seem serious about its own program. There are no silver bullets, but if you are going to start this (ie, intervening militarily to "transform" the region), then at least do it right. If not, you are just making things worse.

Free the Olympics!

I think the Olympics isn't enough of a media circus.

In particular, I think that the IOC's monopolistic licensing rules are so last century and should be scrapped in favor of something that lets more than one company per country broadcast Olympic TV coverage, without limitations on where they can broadcast.

I've become used to choice and thorough coverage in most events. It often, even usually takes at least two sources for me to be happy with my understanding of events that interest me. And I can increasingly often get that level of choice.

Watching an event covered by the old monopoly-coverage model often gives me a strong urge to turn it off and go do something else, something more under my control.

Kudos, by the way, to the Beeb for trying something deeply cool and accessible with their Olympics coverage, multicasting five digital video streams to the UK Internet at large (to be fair, they'd probably multicast it worldwide without IOC monopoly rules). Of course, if I was in Britain, I'd probably be grumbling about the five streams being all so similar.... What I'd really like is to be able to see both NBC AND the Beeb. Because then I'd see more different sides of this incredibly complex and global event, and probably NBC and the Beeb would feel more pressure to do a good job.

UPDATE: I just realized that I didn't have enough patience with the news to be interested in current events until the Internet came along and gave me practical and easy choice for the first time.

SON OF UPDATE: GET YOUR COMPLETE IOC REPRESSION COVERAGE HERE! The IOC forbids blogs. An interesting aspect to this bit of pettiness is that the IOC must be afraid that the media will be afraid of their value being challenged by blogs. I also heard a rumor that the IOC has a team out in the stadiums removing clothes and other items with the brands competing with IOC big sponsors.

Lateset Pew Poll Confirms Impressions

The latest Pew poll confirms much of what has been said about the candidates, and tracking polls suggest the Bush campaign's attempts to define Kerry have had some success.

Bush is seen as strong and stubborn, more reliable on terrorism but weak on the economy and social issues like education and healthcare. Comparisions with the last poll show people increasingly thinking that Bush is a strong leader and down to earth and that Kerry is prone to changing his mind. Nader appears to be trending further down, a good sign IMO. All the results are worth reviewing.

Electoral-vote.com continues to project Kerry as the 2004 victor based on the results of the latest available polls from each state. I check this map fairly often, and my sense is that Arizona and Ohio(though perhaps leaning a tiny bit Bush) seem pretty fluid, having changed color a few times each, and that Florida and Pennsylvania seem to be drifting towards Kerry although the outcome is not certain. Most of the other presumed battleground states seem to have remained pretty stable, but this may be a function of low poll frequency.

Most polls I read seem to suggest that the popular vote race is nailbiter close even though state polls seem to suggest Kerry may well be maintaining a moderate electoral advantage. Nader seems to be fading fast, and the undecideds seem to be dwindling substantially, although there are still enough left that they'll make the difference. I predict the post-mortem will talk alot about how the winner won by capturing a decisive majority of last-minute deciders.

The War on Terrorism

There is an article in "Foreign Policy" magazine in which the author discusses how we can apply the ideas of George Kennan from the Cold War to the War on Terror.

I don't think this article advances anything particularly new or startling, but I think it makes some good points. In particular, "terror is the tactic, not the adversary itself. To deal with terrorism over the longer term, we must go beyond the symptons of the problem to address the underlying causes." The article goes on to talk about the isolation of the Islamic world from the global society and the unwillingness of elites to provide any political outlets.

One could argue that the Bush Administration has attemped to deal with this by invading Iraq and imposing democracy, but I don't think that's what the article has in mind. What it suggests is a more long-term strategy, somewhat akin to the Marshall Plan in which we address both political and economic needs of the region and try to help bring it forward.

The author makes an interesting point by comparing Osama bin Laden to Stalin. "Rapproachment is no more possible with Osam bin Laden than it was with Joseph Stalin back when Kennan was writing." But he makes the point that conditions change and the obvious nihilism of the present Islamist movement should not prevent us from engaging with the Middle East and searching for common ground (while at the same time, however, continuing to go after the terrorists themselves).

Again, there is nothing particularly new here (and the article is somewhat vague on specifics), but I think the conclusion I draw from it (or want to draw) is that panic is not the way to go. Islamofascism is not on the side of history any more than communism was. But we need, not short-term solutions, but a consistent, long-term approach that includes military force but does not rely on it exclusively. Democratization is important but it's something that requires a lot of hard work, not a quick fix like an invasion. The problem is that something like this is hard to discuss during a campaign because saying something along these lines, as I think Kerry tried to inartfully, brings criticism from the other side that you are "soft" on terrorism. Our leaders need to educate people that the solution is more than just killing terrorists; it will involve long-term and expensive involvement in the region. Unfortunately, who is going to say that we might have to spend money and forego some of our cherished tax cuts?

Do People Care About Politics

I don't have anything to link to now, but several weeks ago, Anne Applebaum wrote an article in the Washington Post about a trip she took out west and the fact that someone she met did not know whether Bush was a Democrat or a Republican. I recently traveled to Tennessee and California and noticed very few political bumper stickers, whether pro or con Bush or Kerry. This seemed unusual to me since I live in Washington, DC and it seems that every other car has a bumper sticker advocating one candidate or cause or another. This suggests to me that politics is not particularly important to most Americans--at least not in the way it is to political pundits and junkiers--either because of indifference or cynicism. I think this has some important political implications. First, does it suggest that people are turned off by politics in general or only by what they perceive as the lack of options? Second, some political theorists over the years have suggested that indifference to elections suggests that most people are pretty satisfied and don't think the election will affect their lives much. Does this make sense today? Third, if most people are indifferent, what does this say about the possibility for a more participatory democracy that many leftists advocate? If most people don't care, doesn't this open the way for activists to dominate the process? Is that one reason the parties don't seem to represent mainstream opinion?

Third Party Blue-skying

There's an article in the Washington Post that examines the decline of third parties in American politics. The authors thesis is that most third parties were regional, and that the consolidation of federal powers under FDR caused voters to look only towards national parties.

What happened to eliminate serious third parties? To answer this question, we need to understand why minor parties once drew so many votes. It was because most of these parties had strength in particular regions or even particular states. They were not fully national in scope. Even the major parties had more of a regional flavor than they do today.

Politicians and voters follow power. The decline in voting for minor parties has corresponded to the increasing power of the national government relative to the states. The adoption of a national income tax and subsequent expansion of the federal government with the New Deal created pressures to develop fully national political parties. As the federal government gained more authority relative to the states and localities, voters wanted their votes to go for parties that would have a say in the great national questions of the day, rather than on the issues raised in state or local politics.

I would note that we now seeing the cumulative result of decades of two-party rule--the consolidation of voters inclined one way or another into regions of similar inclination, as many voters simply move to where they feel comfortable with the local political structure. Whereas in earlier times people grew their own regional parties, a lack of choice and responsiveness from the Big Two has (to some extent) led them to simply move to the regions they felt best represented in. Someone wanting to live in a Republican-oriented local political environment isn't going to move to San Francisco. Someone wanting to live in a Democrat-oriented local political environment isn't going to move to Utah. Over time, these trends become cumulative.

And as these regions become more defined, the extremists of each party have more control of the parties themselves, and the Great Middle is increasingly being tugged by the partisans into trying to balance extremes against the middle.

This begs the question: As more and more Americans feel disenchanted with the two major parties in an increasingly mobile America, does this leave an opening for centrist third parties geared more to the economic and ideological views of those in the middle? Does the increasing extremism of the partisans provide oppportunity for those who are tired of the Incumbent Party--both of them? And what role could the information revolution play?

Does "Character" Matter?

Matthew Yglesias has an interesting article in the American Prospect which argues that "character" is not the basis for choosing a president.

Reviewing Clinton’s My Life in the June 24, 2004, Los Angeles Times, neoconservative Max Boot happily concluded that “conservatives like character, liberals like cleverness.” He’s right. But to state what should be obvious, the president is not your father, your husband, your drinking buddy, or your minister. These are important roles, but they are not the president’s. He has a job to do, and it’s a difficult one, involving a wide array of complicated issues. His responsibility to manage these issues is a public one, and the capacity to do so in a competent and moral manner is fundamentally unrelated to the private virtues of family, friendship, fidelity, charity, compassion, and all the rest.

For the president to lead an exemplary personal life is surely superior to the alternative. But within obvious limits -- no one would want an alcoholic president, for example -- it doesn’t really matter.

Yglesias offers a "footnote" to the article on his blog.

But what's at issue here are basically matters of one's attitude toward the public and the public trust, an ability to take certain kinds of responsibilities seriously, the right combination of empathy and cold-bloodedness (for, inevitably, one's decisions will have bad consequences for some, and you can't get paralyzed), and, most generally, a willingness to put the public good before private interests.

I think that he makes some really good points. As I suggested last week, I did not feel moral outrage about Clinton's indiscretions. I was, however, appalled at how stupid he was to have gotten himself into that mess. That said, but for the 22nd Amendment, I would have voted for him again in 2000.

More on Mcgreevey

Awful quiet around here with so many on vacation, so just for giggles let's check out the latest on the McGreevey scandal.

Poll: Corruption Pushed Governor to Quit

Seems that the fine folk of the Garden State have reached the conclusion that their governor is indeed using the gay card as a martyrdom ploy to deflect some heat from the growing corruption scandals surrounding his administraton.

Meanwhile, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has a "larger view" article on the New Jersey scandals, and it's well worth reading. He points the finger in several places, including the minority Republicans.

Republicans are too often part of the problem in New Jersey, and too rarely part of the solution. In 1991, the party won more than two-thirds of the state Legislature in a voter revolt against then-Gov. Jim Florio's tax increases. In 1993 the GOP won the governorship with a pledge to cut income taxes 30%. After honoring that pledge, Republicans decided that rather than drain the Trenton swamp they would turn it into their own private hot tub.

Spending and state mandates on local government ran rampant, as Gov. Christie Whitman sanctioned a tripling of the state's debt. Her plan to reform auto insurance was strangled in its crib by trial-lawyer Republicans in the Legislature. Under pressure from lobbyists, less than half of the state's Republican legislators honored a party pledge to pass the right of initiative and referendum that voters in 23 other states have. "If I&R had won, the investment lobbyists had made in having legislators see their way would have been threatened," said John Budzash, a founder of Hands Across New Jersey, which collected one million signatures backing I&R, only to have them ignored by legislators. Small wonder that Jersey Republicans saw their legislative majorities shrink in five consecutive elections until they lost control of both houses in 2003.

Once again, no White Hats here, just Gray ones. (Hey, that's almost a California joke!)

ChangeThis.com Debuts

Recently Rick Heller received an email inviting our blog to preview access to a new website called ChangeThis.com. Since Rick was going on vacation, I offered to take a look. Last night at about 7:30pm, I received an email from them announcing their debut "tomorrow" and providing me links to their first few manifestos. Of course, their website seems to say that they started on Friday the 13th, so I don't know how much of a "preview" I really received, but I'll share with you some thoughts on their first few manifestos.

The stated purpose of Change This is to provide a voice for ideas that the media will not, and thereby foster change. Some of their, Change This, statement of purpose manifesto sounded a great deal like the kind of open-minded thinking that we welcome.

It sounded to me like the focus would be very much political/policy oriented, so I was a little surprised when the first two manifestos I came across were about business strategy. Anyway, there were a couple of pieces that were directed toward political change.

One was a fairly compelling piece urging an end to the death penalty for "child" offenders, anyone under 18 at the time of the crime. The authors, Amnesty International, use a combination of tactics. One is the simple listing of the countries that still carry out these executions along with data on the numbers of such executions since 1990. The list of names is fairly short and include the US, China, and Iran. This comparison of the US to countries to which we would probably not like to be compared is made more effective by the numbers; since 1990 there have been 36 recorded executions in this category, 19 in the US.

The other primary point they attempt to make is that they believe these executions are a violation of international law. I find these arguments less convincing, but they are reasoned arguments, and this piece seems to be exactly what Change This is trying to be all about.

The other political change manifesto was arguing for same sex marriage, primarily on the grounds of equality. It does a pretty nice job of pointing out the number of problems caused by lack of marriage status.

So, while it wasn't exactly what I expected, this site does provide a voice for change. The site's own manifesto does caution that at times, some of what you will read there will likely make you angry, and I was surprised to find that it did for me already. I found the manifesto against "drinking sugar" irritating. I think it's the first time I've heard anyone attack allowing children to drink juice.

Nuclear Terrorism (Part II)

The post about Kristoff's column on Wednesday sparked a discussion that I found useful. Kristoff concluded that column with this: "In my next column, I'll explain how we can reduce the risk of an American Hiroshima."

Well, here are his ideas.

On the lighter side (Vol. 13)

- Porter Goss - "I couldn't get a job with the CIA today. I am not qualified." (here)
- Philippine President Arroyo to men: "Stop kissing me" (here)
- Onion: "Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry outlined his one-point plan for a better America" (here)

Open Thread

Speak your mind.

McGreevey's Resignation

As everyone knows by now, New Jersey Governor James McGreevey resigned yesterday after revealing that he is gay and he had an extramarital affair with a man. I saw his speech, which Jeff Jarvis calls "the best public confession in modern media memory," and it was riveting. If you haven't seen it, you can watch it here.

Ezra Klein opines that "that were he being slapped with a lawsuit -- and accused of retaining -- a mistress, he'd be fighting it out and would likely survive his term with only moderate damage." Who knows, but I think that the real issue is his incredibly poor judgment. Poor judgment was always my main issue with Clinton as well.

GOP Convention Bloggers (part II)

If anyone happens to know someone who will be at the Republican convention, and perhaps would like to share their experience via this weblog, we'd love to give them that opportunity.

We had someone at the Democratic convention, and it would be nice to balance out our coverage. Send us an email at blog@centristcoalition.com

GOP Convention Bloggers

FYI -- Here is the current list of credentialed bloggers for the GOP Convention.

Pump Up the Volume

I'm committed to repeating the idea that loud partisans in powerful places continually accentuate differences and make us look much more divided than we are. When someone else agrees, I'm happy to cite them. This is how we can build a centrist network where open-minded people forge common ground and some volume to counter the Coulters and Moores.

Jeff Jarvis over at buzzmachine has a nice post on this, in parts of which he cites a coupla Kleins.

Jeff: I've been saying for sometime that we are not a nation divided -- that's just how media and politicians want to portray us because it fits their agendas. The truth is that we all have lives; they don't. So they spend their time shouting at us, deafening us. But they don't represent us.

Joe Klein:The "culture war" has become a pillar of the conventional wisdom. But is it real? Is it possible that the great partisan divide is a media-induced mirage, little more than an exaggerated case of squeaky-wheelism? There is plenty of evidence that the very real disputes pushed by political activists and chair-throwing media yakkers—call this the Anger-Industrial Complex—are being carelessly extrapolated to include a far less vehement populace.

Take the Moore/Limbaugh divide. A new Annenberg poll shows that the two infotainers are little more than postmodern tribal leaders: an estimated 8% of Americans saw Fahrenheit 9/11 in July, and an estimated 7% listened to Limbaugh. Their tribes are hilariously antithetical on a range of issues—83% of Rushites support the way Bush is handling Iraq, 87% of Mooreists are opposed; 85% of Rushites support Bush's handling of the economy, and 82% of Mooreists don't.

Go ahead and read the whole thing. And check the comments for predictable discrediters.

Nuclear Terrorism

Nicholas Kristof's column today is scary.

[Harvard] Professor [Graham] Allison offers a standing bet at 51-to-49 odds that, barring radical new antiproliferation steps, a terrorist nuclear strike will occur somewhere in the world in the next 10 years. So I took his bet. . .

I took the bet because I don't think the odds of nuclear terror are quite as great as he does. If I were guessing wildly, I would say a 20 percent risk over 10 years. In any case, if I lose the bet, then I'll probably be vaporized and won't have much use for money.

Unfortunately, plenty of smart people think I've made a bad bet. William Perry, the former secretary of defense, says there is an even chance of a nuclear terror strike within this decade - that is, in the next six years.

"We're racing toward unprecedented catastrophe," Mr. Perry warns. "This is preventable, but we're not doing the things that could prevent it."

If you are interested, here is Kerry's plan to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism and the "The Bush Administration Record on Nonproliferation". No matter who wins the election, I sincerely hope that the smartest people in the next administration are the ones who are working on these issues.

Totten Goes Kneejerk

The usually reasonable Michael Totten goes with the visceral spasm of a kneejerk call for the death of Al Sadr:

Moqtada al-Sadr cranked up his "revolution" and says he wants to fight to his "last drop of blood." Fine, then. Give the man what he wants.

I sympathize with the sentiment quite a bit. I thought the same thing when I heard Al Sadr decided to start pressing his luck again. But on mulling it over, I think that if we want to keep our eye on the ball, we need to recognize that while Al Sadr’s death is an outcome we’d happily accept if necessary, we look quite ugly and much like our enemies in simply calling for this death.

There’s no doubt that Al Sadr’s continually destabilizing actions can’t be tolerated any longer, and if the current configuration that serves as authority in Iraq won’t act quickly and forcefully, then we must. And this is really the gist of MT’s post. I don’t want to characterize him as issuing a fatwa on the basis on an ill-chosen post header, “Kill Moqtada Al-Sadr.”

There’s a lot of static in the comments about turning Iraqis away from us, the aforementioned “how’s it feel to issue a fatwa” etc. Like I said, let’s keep our eyes on the ball. The only Iraqis whose opinions we can concern ourselves with are the ones with open minds and a hope for a better future. My expectation is that Iraqis are like us and most other humans in wanting opportunity, security, freedom, personal sovereignty. And they are also like us in that their opinions are malleable on the basis of narrow self interest. So keeping our eye on the ball means providing an increasingly secure and predictable environment, providing for basic needs, showing hope.

Given this, it doesn’t seem like it’d be too hard to paint Al-Sadr as a sanctimonious opportunist. His ilk thrives in an environment when the broad middle that wants security and opportunity is too afraid to stick their necks out lest they be cut off. They’ve learned a ruthless pragmatism fostered by the harsh dealings of Hussein with any detractors, a pragmatism currently being reinforced by insurgents who target those who cooperate with occupation forces.

That’s why I think we need to stress that Al-Sadr will be dealt with, in order to show strength. But we also need to stress the way we are different from our enemies by showing a willingness to work within some sort of due process if it comes to that. Make no mistakes, if Al Sadr wants to take up arms, we’ll gun him down. If he wants to surrender, he can become subject to some legal process. What we can’t let be an option is for Al Sadr to continue indefinitely as a deadly gadfly. We need to show strength, but a different and better kind of strength. And we need to keep trying to make the average Iraqi's life better.

Kerry and Iraq - Further Clarification Required

Two initial qualifications to this post: (1) As someone who supported the decision to go into Iraq, I have serious concerns about the WMD intelligence issue and the post-major combat planning, and the Bush team gets no free pass from me on those questions; and (2) I concede that Kerry is in a tough spot on the Iraq issue and, therefore, I am going to give him every chance to convince me that he has some better ideas.

Today's editorial in USA Today critical of Kerry, published with a counterpoint response from Kerry, added only marginally to my understanding of what Kerry would have done if he had been president, and would do if elected this fall. But this item, which I missed over the weekend, has me as confused as ever:

Knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday. As recently as Friday, the Massachusetts senator had said he only "might" have still gone to war.

This was a calculated quote from Rubin, so what does this mean in light of the four questions on Iraq posed by Kerry to Bush today? I think that it is obvious that Kerry is intentionally playing both sides of this issue until September, when he will attempt to clarify his message based on the political landscape and the evolution of the situation on the ground at that point. Prudent politics, maybe, but I'm disappointed.

GOP 'tough love' ?!

Believe it or not, I was about to write about how the GOP needs a convincing 'slap on the hand' before centrism will become not just tolerated or accepted but actually become part of the GOP mainstream again.

However, Brad DeLong points to this excellent post by Reihan:

My strong sense is that demographic trends coupled with the decreasing salience of (a) the federal income tax burden and (b) crime, welfare, and racial preferences in national elections will create a kind of “perfect storm” for the aging Reagan coalition. The rise of right-leaning exurbs and the continuing growth of emphatically conservative religious denominations notwithstanding, I’d bet that John Judis and Ruy Texeira are, in broadest outline, correct: there is an emerging Democratic majority. The Rove strategy may very well succeed in reelecting the president, but it could represent the last hurrah for the Republicans. Partisan gerrymandering will probably serve to entrench a Republican House majority in the medium-term, but even that’s vulnerable further out.

...

Will Democratic hegemony move the center to the left? It probably will, but, if there’s no effective opposition, the newly triumphant Dems will do it in the most odious way.

...

The GOP badly needs centrist infiltrators who will shift the party back to the “wouldn’t-be-prudent” prudence of George H.W.—if you’ll recall, 41 proposed solutions to the health care crisis that made George W.’s narrow focus on association health plans and medical savings accounts look like the joke it is. ... We can beat some sense into the Republican Party now—by hoping Bush loses to the hilariously mediocre John Kerry and getting behind Rudolph Giuliani in manic Deaniac fashion before 2008—or later, when President Patrick Kennedy (heaven forfend) is reelected to his third term in a landslide.

The Third Way is it. Game over. Drowning government in a bathtub simply will not happen. The Republican Party is going to be ripe for takeover, and thoughtful centrists should think about playing pirate.

That thought has already crossed my mind!

Last month I posted this. Since then the Boston convention leaves no doubt about the Democrats' strategy whether Kerry wins the presidency or not: it's the very one outlined by Stanley Greenberg that I discussed. In light of that, what Reihan suggests is one way to ensure competition for the center.

There! That's better than writing my own post and I even have time to go out to dinner!

Virginia PACs for Centrists

This link is to an article in the Washington Post regarding fundraising efforts to elect centrists in the Virginia House of Delegates. Sounds like exactly the kind of efforts we would like to see more of/be apart of. I have a feeling Gov. Mark Warner is going to make some national waves in the future. His ideas are all over the DLC's State & Local Playbook.

"A Turncoat and a Coward"?

Item.

In 48 hours, Representative Rodney Alexander went from Democrat to Republican, friend to foe - or foe to friend, depending on your political persuasion.

Democrats reacted to the news of Mr. Alexander's party switch by calling him a turncoat and a coward. They must now gain another seat, 12 in all, to win back the House this fall. The count today: Democrats 205, Republicans 229. . .

On Wednesday, Mr. Alexander registered for the Fifth District race as a Democrat. On Friday afternoon, the last day of qualifying for the Nov. 2 ballot, he made his switch, leaving the Democrats no time to enter a strong candidate in the race.

Switching parties is fine, but registering as a Democrat and then switching parties 48 hours later, after the ballot qualification period closes, is just too cute. In that regard, it reminds me of when hugely popular Minnesota Gov. Wendell Anderson resigned his office when then U.S. Sen. Walter Mondale became vice president. Fellow DFLer Rudy Perpich assumed the governor's office, and promptly appointed Anderson to finish Mondale's Senate term. In the end, the move backfired. Minnesota voters threw out Anderson and Perpich in 1978, and the DFL could not even retain the Senate seat that had been held by Hubert Humphrey, who had died in January 1978. I won't be surprised if the last-minute switcheroo backfires on Alexander too, if not in 2004, then in 2006 when the Democrats come after him with a vengeance.

My $5 About the Democratic Convention

As a centrist Democrat, my feelings about the convention were decidedly mixed. On the one hand, in my of thinking about things, centrism was weak per se at this convention. On the other hand, the (D) centrist future looks bright, and maybe best of all, blogs were allowed in, rejuvenating convention dynamics.

To my mind, one important index of centrism is a willingness to look at and consider important facts.

In '96, I felt the luxury of being in the 'in' party. It was the other guys who had to keep their Taliban wing under wraps during the convention. The worm has turned. Oddly, I have the feeling that we Democrats weren't so far gone during the Reagan and Bush I years, but my access to news was so much worse then that it's hard to be sure. Now it's too many of us who are too interested in living in fear and seeing what they want to see instead of what is.

Fortunately, the long-term prospects for Democratic centrists seem excellent this year. Hillary's speech had me ready me to vote for her, though waiting 'til 08 is one of the tests she must pass. IMHO, it was a centrist with promise, Obama, who gave the best speech. Centrists hooked up and made plans outside the camera's glow. Despite continual attack from extremists and a compromised political position this year, everybody knows it's the future. That may be one big reason the DLC gets attacked so passionately - the far leftists know it's the future.

Also making me hopeful for the future is that it's become clear that the Internet enables facts and forward-looking arguments to pass just as much as it enables paranoia, allowing us to see around the filter of a traditional media designed to broadcast controversy more than reason.

Will and Biden on Iraq

George Will, of all people, charts what I think is a reasonable and informed centrist path through the basic Iraq policy issues in his new column this morning.

He focuses on Sen. Joe Biden, and suggests something I've been sensing for some time -- that Biden is one of a very few folks offering a clear and practical analysis of Iraq. He recognizes the fundamental mistakes of the Bush team, but asks us to look at it practically, rather than the terms of some opposing political rhetoric:

But a Kerry administration would need what Biden has, a disinclination to allow his wishes to be the father of his thoughts -- a failing of the Bush administration when planning for postwar Iraq, and a failing of the Kerry-Edwards tandem in planning for a post-Bush foreign policy.

I almost sense that, in purely substantive terms, this was Biden's year. He was the one who seemed to grasp it all in the midst of a rather bewildering war where rationales and strategies didn't match up with reality. He managed to focus, almost uniquely, on what it takes to succeed rather than finding perfectly pitched opposing political rhetoric.

He would be the logical person to be running on the ticket for president right now. But the substance didn't match up with the politics, in this case.

On the lighter side (Vol. 12)

- "Proposed Dutch law would ban unsolicited toe-licking" (here)
- "Fat tax" proposed for Maine (here)
- Gifts received by the White House in 2003 (here)
- City slogan: " "Topeka — not as bad as you think." (here)

Division in the Bush Camp

This Washington Post article discusses a division in the Bush camp between a "Morning in America" crowd that wants to run on Bush's record, and a "Move America Forward" crowd that wants to talk about dramatic policy reforms for a second term.

As one that believes the President's record is much better than John Kerry gives it credit for, although there is a lot I disagree with, I do think that the campaign ought to discuss Bush's immediate response to 9/11: the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, Afghanistan, the capture of Saddam Hussein and other popular successes. The Howard Dean/anti-Bush movement has peaked, and whether some want to admit it or not there where times during the first term that a large majority of American's thought the President was doing a pretty damn good job. Reminding them of those times is not a bad strategy.

That been said, I do not think that Bush's record makes or breaks his re-election, and I definitely come down on the side of the "Move America Forward" faction. Let's throw down the gauntlet and make this election about something. Let's talk about reforming the Middle East, re-writing the tax code, ownership/market based solutions to education and health care, and making dramatic changes to our entitlement programs.

John Kerry's biggest weakness is that he is boring... He dances around a strong policy toward terrorism and Iraq while only proposing soft solutions that nobody could disagree with. On the domestic front, Kerry is more or less proposing the same agenda that Democrats have been supporting since the 40's. I want to hear a debate on the issues. Bush should outline detailed and substantive policy proposals in his convention speech and force Kerry to take a stand. I am betting that Kerry's response to anything other than the status quo will be far too liberal and too subdued than what the American people are looking for in their leaders.

Giuliani on Kerry

America's Mayor commented on John Kerry's statement this week regarding President Bush's seven minutes in the classroom on September 11th.

He said:

"John Kerry must be frustrated in his campaign if he is armchair quarterbacking based on cues from Michael Moore. John Kerry is an indecisive candidate who has demonstrated an inconsistent position on the War on Terror, who voted against funding for our troops at war and who cannot give a clear answer on his position concerning the decision to remove Saddam Hussein."

Yup, I pretty much fully agree with Rudy on this one...

Young Voters for Bush

Chris Collins of the Seattle Times' NEXT, writes a pretty good article on why he thinks young voters ought to consider voting for Bush. You can read the article here.

Collins writes:

Bush isn't the perfect candidate, it's true.

But when we live in this "end justifies the means" political reality — where it doesn't matter, really, what the facts and details are as long as you believe in some grand political vision — it's important to know that on the issues, Bush's track record is mostly supportive of this generation's future.

And this November, "mostly" will have to do.

I am posting this article for two reason: first, to expose you to NEXT which is a group of young people based in the Seattle area that freelance for the Times, and second, Collins pretty much does a good job of outlining my own reasoning for supporting the President's re-election.... I simply don't see, if your goal is a country closer to the center, that there is really a choice in this election.

Open Thread

Whatever's on your mind. Continuing the Friday tradition for Rick as he heads off for vacation.

Our Absence

Just wanted to say sorry to everyone for our site outage yesterday and today. We had a bit of an issue related to our switch to the new web hosting service earlier this year. We had registered our domain name through our original web host, and after closing our account with them, we had no notice that our domain name was up for renewal.

The renewal date was August 2nd, and, sure enough, the site went down shortly afterwards. I was able to get in touch with the old web host yesterday, and they renewed the domain for us today. Looks like the lights are coming back on again.

So sorry for the inconvenience.

A Blog's Tale

Kos has an interesting post up about the history of Daily Kos, and a "post-convention bounce" in traffic. It appears that Daily Kos has solidified its hold on the title for "most read blog", as it has surpassed Instapundit, and left others much further behind.

Thanks to Rick, Centerfield experienced a huge increase in traffic during the convention and, before the technical problems of the last two days, there was a clear indication of a post-convention bounce here too. I, for one, have enjoyed reading comments from new contributors. Keep coming back!

Republican Centrist House Developments (part 2)

I have recently become very concerned about my congressman, Sherwood "Sherrie" Boehlert. Sherrie is one of the few long-term moderate Republican members of the House. He regularly wins the general election by a substantial majority, but in the last primary, his margin was too close for my comfort (a 1500 vote swing would have cost him the election). His opponent is a staunch social conservative. His website home page is a perfect example of everything we centrists hope to avoid - attacking the candidate for not being extreme enough. This is despite the fact that he, Dave Walrath, decries the possible gerrymandering to which he alludes. I suppose gerrymandering is OK if it results in extremism, but not if it aids a moderate, since by convention, gerrymandering hardly ever results in aiding a centrist. I doubt if Walrath would complain as much about the Texas gerrymandering escapades that assured a Republican congressional delegation from that state.

So, this brings us to our problem; that we (centrists) probably don't even help Republican moderates by pointing out their centrism in the primary stages. The above candidate's website demonstrates this. He is attacking every position Boehlert takes that is not the far right party line as if it is a crime.

This situation has helped me to decide on a strategy for party affiliation. I am currently not registered with any political party. In NY, there is no such designation as Independent, as in my native WV, perhaps because there is a party called the Independence Party, which claims to be anti both major parties, but usually supports the Republican candidates. Of course, this is a closed primary state, so during the primary election, a true Independent with no party affiliation is completely outside of the system.

So, I've decided that my strategy should be to join whichever party I think I can make the most difference for during that primary election cycle. You can change parties frequently if you like, so there is no need to select one for life or any great length of time (which has kind of held me as uncommitted for some time, since I don't feel any overwhelming allegiance to either party).

In this way, I might be able to support the candidates that most represent my ideals in the elections that often matter most to our cause, the primaries. Regardless of what may happen in the general elections, if we can fight against the extremists in the primaries, I think we can accomplish something.

Centrist Republican House Developments (part 1)

Good news first. Joe Schwarz, who I mentioned the other day, won the Michigan primary for his Congressional district. Given that this is a safe Republican district, he should be our next centrist Republican member of the House. This is wonderful considering the overwhelming Republican majority in the House, and its increasingly conservative make-up. More moderates in the Republican delegation could help balance the potential excesses of the far right.

Unfortunately, in the Kansas CD-3, the more conservative candidate knocked off the centrist. As usual, I got news of both of these developments at politics1.com.

Liberty In View Of Another Strike

Salon points to the New Republicans blog. They're real Republicans, not fans of The New Republic. What seems promising about this group blog is that they aim for intelligent writing rather than "attitude." That's a welcome addition to the blogosphere. I note this comment by Bourgeois:

Whether out of a dislike of anything that the Right stands for, or because they simply lapse very quickly into a state of denial, I have found that many people on the Left simply don't believe that there will be another strike against the US. For them, all warnings and whatnot are Right-wing attempts to secure power through whatever means necessary.

I've also been disturbed by this. I do believe there will be another strike--especially since Osama has had three years of liberty since 9-11 to plan one. It's possible that the Administration is playing with the timing of these announcements for political advantage, but there is nonetheless substance behind the threats we face.

It does indeed seem to me that civil libertarians are reacting reflexively, and not going through the mental exercise of what liberties are so essential that we would prefer to absorb another strike rather than lose them.

For instance, during the Democratic Convention, there were random searches of bags on mass transportation in Boston, something which the ACLU opposed. The logic of these searches was to avoid something like the train bombings in Madrid. What if there had been no searches, and there had been a train bombing with fatalities? Would we feel that the proper balance had been struck, that it was worth absorbing a bombing to preserve our liberty from backpack searches? I think not. Opposition to the search policy is mostly coming from a place of denial, where the threat is assumed to be unreal.

What violations of liberty would I consider so grave that I would prefer to allow some of my fellow Americans or even myself die in a terrorist bombing rather than endure them? Here's what comes to mind. The government could issue national ID's including wireless chips that would allow it to track the movements of everyone in the country at all times. People would be requires to carry this ID at all times. That's a scary proposal. I'd rather take the real risk of train bombing than have such an intrusive state.

Blue God Democrat Seeks Blue Dog Voters

If you want to know what that dyslexically challenging title means, take a look at my post at the Transparent Eye blog. I report on some of the religion-related events I attended at the Democratic convention, and how they contributed to John Kerry's use of religious talk in his acceptance speech.

PBS's Religion & Ethics program filmed some of the events, and there is a clip available online.

Democrats Cohere Around Social, Not Economic Issues

Rick Perlstein has a piece in the Village Voice arguing that populism is the key to Democratic victory, and accomodation with corporate interests is a recipe for losing.

A visionary party of opposition—you might even say a competent party of opposition—would place fixing inequality and stagnating incomes at the center of its political appeal. For all the talk of swing voters, of NASCAR dads and soccer moms, this is the way to beat George Bush—and to recover the Democrats' former status as the ruling party in American politics. Instead, the party invites within its folds securities lobbyists who want to repeal the corporate tax.

What bugs Rick Perlstein is that many working class voters seem to betray their interests by supporting Republicans. Why do they do this?

I spoke to Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission after the Red God, Blue God event last week. He estimated that the white evangelical vote would split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans rather than the current 70/30 split if the abortion issue were off the table (i.e. if Roe vs. Wade was overturned, and abortion was illegal except in a few liberal states). Perhaps he was applying spin to me, but if so, he did it rather effectively.

There is a slice of the population that values social issues more than economic issues. While at the other end of the economic spectrum from Franklin Roosevelt, they have something in common with FDR, who was called a "traitor to his class." They have even more in common with William Jennings Bryan, who was the three-time populist Democratic candidate for president, and also prosecuted the Scopes Monkey Trial. Secularists might think such people are stupid for ignoring their economic interests in favor of "pie in the sky." But these people are not going hungry, and in their hierarchy of needs, religious comfort comes before asset accumulation.

These voters may be lost to the Democratic Party. The key value that the Democratic Party coheres around is no longer economics, but social liberalism. I certainly didn't see many poor people at the DNC last week (I did meet a delegate who's a Teamster). There is also a different feel one gets when going to Democrat and Republican events (I've gone to both). It has nothing to do with wealth, as there are affluent people attending both, but Democrats are more hip, while Republicans (except Bill Weld) tend to be stuffy.

Economic populism and social liberalism conflict. They appeal to overlapping but by no means identical pools of voters. If the Democratic Party were to reformulate itself as a populist party, it would need to re-integrate anti-abortion voters and shed upper middle-class lifestyle liberals. I don't think there is any way it can do that.

American Elections

Dean Esmay has an excellent post on what it means to be an American voter in an election year. Some strong advice and good sense there for both Centrists and Partisans. It also speaks to the "vision" discussions we've had.

For Connie, Whom I Love, And My Other Cranky Conservative Friends

Anyone out there in a locale with a primary today, get out and vote. Or quit whining.

Will Ferrell Video

Centerfield has received the following email:

Some of your readers may run across a video in which Will Ferrell plays President Bush (whitehousewest.com). The producers of the video support Democratic candidates. Ironically, however, the organization asks us to sign a petition to demand that candidates require "proof of fact before airing political advertisements," when in fact John Kerry and his supporters are as guilty as George Bush for distorting the truth and selectively presenting facts to make himself more appealing. The web site www.factcheck.org offers plenty of examples to convict Kerry of fraud.

I emailed the organization and told them that if they were truly concerned about voters, you would help us understand the issues and clarify the truth, not further polarize an already misinformed electorate.

Introduction

This is my first time posting although I have been commenting on Centerfield for several months. Just a little introduction: I am 48, an antitrust attorney living outside of Washington, DC, married with a daughter. My view of centrism is that it is more of an approach and style of politics than any particular programmatic preference. I think centrists should be willing to engage with ideas from all over the spectrum and encourage the process of debate between people with different points of view--not screaming and insulting people. Thus, I think liberals and conservatives can be centrists as long as they understand that no one has a monopoly on truth and that they respect the good will of people that disagree.

Blogsploitation

Isn't the English language great! A newly coined word, blogsplotation, in an article on Online Journalism Review, Blogsploitation: Big Media Try to Steal Bloggers' Thunder at DNC. It's a good wrap up of last week's coverage. The author, Mark Glaser, previously interviewed me for a piece entitled EchoChamber.com.

(Thanks to Article Online for pointing it out)

Bully!

From US News

The Democratic Party is revamping its lovey-dovey approach and telling campaign press secretaries to come down like a ton of bricks if you screw up or slip in a little attitude. "When it comes to the media," suggests Democratic strategist James Carville, "intimidation works." He offers a tactic: "Send E-mails to the press. They do respond to pressure." That message was part of the training new campaign press secretaries were given in Boston last week during the party's convention. Hate a story? Either bully the reporter and cow the newsie into tossing you a bone, or hit hard and scare him into changing his tone and coverage. "Challenge them," encouraged David Brock of the new liberal Media Matters outfit, formed to police the press--especially the conservative media. A communications handbook from Democrats offers a softer approach. "If the error is minor," it says, "don't make a big deal out of it and don't demand a correction. The reporter is only human and will probably feel bad and apologize and perhaps feel as though he or she owes you one."

New Republican Centrist?

I just read about a congressional race in Michigan on one of my favorite political info sites, politics1.com. Apparently former State Senate President Joe Schwarz has a real chance to win. Ron Gunzberger (who I think does a great job with that site by the way) says that, in this case, Schwarz has actually been helped by being the only moderate in a race with 5 more conservative candidates.

Opponents have hammered Schwarz for being pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-gay civil unions. Schwarz loudly disputes the civil unions part, but his objection appears to mainly be one of semantics as he says he "opposes" gay civil unions but says "same-sex couples deserve basic human rights and equality" with married couples.

The race is neck-and-neck, with the winner to be the favorite in the general election. Go Joe!

Spirit

After the loss of the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia safety concerns were almost the entire political discussion. But both times, the volunteer lists for qualified mission crews remained full. They flight crews knew it was risky. They wanted to go anyway.

Despite the risk (and in some areas, certainty) of deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan, U.S. military enlistment and re-enlistment rates are above service goals, even surprisingly so.

With the latest warnings of potential attacks on specific targets within the U.S. comes this:

Financial Workers Defiant Despite Threat

Knowing they're targets, the employees show up for work anyway--nervous, but present.

And in Iraq, people continue to line up for government jobs despite the risk of car bombs and assassinations.

You can come up with your own morals and commentaries. I just wanted to note the spirit shown.

Washington Post Best Blogs

The Washington Post is running a Best Blog contest, and is seeking nominations for five blogs in each category. It seems that the nominating process itself is a popularity contest, with the five blogs that receive the most votes in each category becoming the nominees. Here are the categories:

Best Rant Best Democratic Party Coverage Best Republican Party Coverage Best Campaign Dirt Best Inside the Beltway Best Outside the Beltway Best International Class Clown Most Original Most Likely To Last Beyond Election Day

In order to be able to nominate, users must register (it's free) for the Washington Post. I highly recommend that you do so, since Centerfield frequently links to stories in the Post, and you'll be missing out on them if you haven't registered.

We're not ranters, or clowns, or inside the Beltway, or International focused, or Dirt-focused, and we don't concentrate on either Democrats or Republicans. Unfortunately, there is no category for "Best Independent Coverage" which is where I think we excel.

I case anyone is interested in nominating Centerfield, may I suggest the Best Outside the Beltway category. Centerfield is indeed outside the Beltway literally in terms of the majority of writers who post here, and figuratively in terms of our independence from the partisan struggle.

Our URL is http://centristcoalition.com/blog/

Can Centrists Be Visionaries?

There's a thought-provoking post at Greater Democracy that I don't really agree with. It implies that vision is to be found at the extremes, and the center is only a place for compromise. This is the comment I left

I don't accept the equation of visionary with the left, and stasis with centrist. This can certainly be true in some cases, but as I see it, there are valid aspects to both right and left--for instance social versus personal responsibility--and these have to be kept in balance. A common model of political development is that change is always to the left, and the right serves as a brake. This model is increasingly outdated. Instead, there are different visions, and visionaries all all sides.

A Democrat for Bush

First, Norm Coleman switched parties while Mayor of St. Paul. Now, Democrat and Mayor of St. Paul Randy Kelly has endorsed Bush.

St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly, DFL, today said he supports President Bush for re-election.

Kelly said the economy is going in the right direction, and that he believes the United States will bring the troops home from Iraq a lot sooner if "we don't try to bring in a whole new leadership team to run the show."

While Kelly says he doesn't agree with Bush on a lot of issues, the mayor says he agrees with the president on ``the issues of the greater good for a stronger America.'"

Although I am not predicting that the endorsement from a mayor of a city in a relatively unimportant state (based on the Electoral College) is going to swing the election for Bush, I think that Kerry should be at least a bit concerned about this type of defection. Is it possible that any any prominent Democrats in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida will defect?

Convention Bounce: The Beginning of the End?

CNN/Gallup/USA TODAY:

Bush/Cheney 50%
Kerry/Edwards 46%
Nader 2%

Convention bounce: Kerry lost five points since the last Gallup poll which was taken on Friday and Saturday after his speech.

Newsweek:

Kerry/Edwards 49%
Bush/Cheney 42%
Nader 3%

Convention bounce: Kerry gained 4 points, which according to Newsweek, is the smallest convention bounce since their poll's inception. However, the Newsweek poll was taken on Thursday night before Kerry's speech, and Friday night, after Kerry's speech.

I got to give the Gallup poll more credibility, since it was taken on days both after the speech; and really, I don't find it's findings that surprising.

The President has had a very good two days on the stump since the convention, speaking to very large crowds. I also believe the message about Kerry's failure to talk about his Senate career during the speech, and his "no" vote on troop funding, has been very effective.

George Will made a very good point on "This Week" when he said that Kerry's response to his record is very Dukakis-like. In 1988 the Democratic strategy was simply to ignore the Governor's record, which Lee Atwater and the Bush campaign took advantage of by framing Dukakis as an extreme liberal. Bush erased a 17 point post-DNC deficit to win the election.

John Kerry is a U.S. Senator with a liberal voting record, from the biggest blue state of them all. He is currently questioning the wisdom of a war he voted for. He did vote against troop funding, and is now accusing the current administration of fighting a war "on the cheap." None of these statements are disputable. These are issues that should be a part of this campaign. They are not going to go away no matter how many times John Edwards tells us that the American people are sick of negative campaigning... It is not negative to have a discussion about your opponent's record, Senator.

And what the hell is with Ben Affleck doing at every campaign stop? Do the Kerry people really believe that having a guy who has no policy experience what so ever, and who quit college to move to Los Angeles and be an actor, is an effective spokesperson for the campaign? I am as big a fan of Good Will Hunting as anyone, but give me a break.

Michael Crowley, of the New Republic, hit the nail on the head with his comments about Kerry's speech when he said:

"...I was surprised by the tone of Kerry's speech. Its most memorable, applause-generating moments were cuttingly partisan. Kerry essentially called George W. Bush a liar, accused John Ashcroft of violating the Constitution, and suggested the Saudi Royal family controls the U.S. economy. He also vowed to 'reclaim democracy,' described political dissent as 'the heart and soul of patriotism,' and accused Republicans of exploiting the American flag.

I agree with most of this. And I'm sure it pleased liberals who still see Kerry as too moderate. But hatred of Bush only ensures that liberals will be there for Kerry in the end. His real challenge is in the fight for swing voters. And I'm not sure how they might have felt about those incendiary, Michael Moore-ish applause lines.

This wouldn't trouble me nearly as much if I felt that Kerry had shown some more machismo on security issues. Sure, Kerry dedicated a few paragraphs to the war on terrorism and homeland security--but not all that effectively."

Crowley goes on to point out in this post that Bush has an advantage because he is able to passionately talk about the threat of terrorism and national security while Kerry is making an attempt to convince the American people we are not safe by expounding "on shipping container inspections and chemical plant security."

On domestic issues the President is going to spend the next four weeks, with most detail probably coming at the Republican Convention, talking about how creating ownership in Health Care and Social Security are going to reduce costs, and give more options to American families. Both ideas are pretty close to what center oriented organizations, like the New America Foundation and the Centrist Policy Network, have proposed. Rumor has it he is also going to discuss issues surrounding higher education, and propose reforms to the tax system.

What is John Kerry's answer to education? Spend more money... What is his plan for Social Security? The status quo... How do we fix Health Care? Create more government and spend, spend, spend....

You can say what you want about the deficit, and I have had my fair share of complaints, but anyway you look at it you cannot talk about reducing government spending without discussing serious reforms to this country's entitlement programs.

Will the same ideas that Harry Truman ran on win this election? Or have we started to witness the beginning of the end for John Kerry?

Act Blue Defines The Future

Pacific Views brings to my attention Act Blue, a new online service that fulfills in a partisan way my idea of an Amazon.gov, a way of generalizing the Dean campaign's success in soliciting contribution from small donors. Act Blue allows users to pick and choose among candidates to support--but only Democrats.

This is the future. No doubt the Republicans will be emulating this in the next election cycle. I'd like to figure out how we centrists could do something similar to pick moderates in both parties as well as Independents.

Centerfield In NY Times

There is a brief mention of Centerfield in the New York Times today.

Book Clubs, Liberal And Conservative

Liberals have come to the conclusion that the way to restore their relevance is to emulate the success conservatives have had in building institutions. Now comes the announcement of the Progressive Book Club, emulating the long-standing Conservative Book Club.

I was a member of the Conservative Book Club for a number of years, until they pissed me off by sliming John McCain in their newsletter. I was never as conservative as their average reader, but I found through their monthly newsletters books that I never came across in Cambridge bookstores. So for me, it provided balance that otherwise unavailable in the liberal precints in which I lived. I'm not talking about the conservative bestsellers, but more obscure books, like Operation Solo.

I suspect that for most subscribers, however, the CBC helped them live in a cocoon. Likewise, the PBC may help liberals weave their own cocoons. But maybe there's a lonely centrist living in a dusty conservative town for whom the PBC will provide a vital lifeline and balance in their life. If so, I welcome it.

Thanks For Your Comments

This is getting very self-referential, but the LA Times (free reg. requires) has a story lead about one of the comments on this blog.

Meet "Anna." You don't need to know her last name. And Anna may not even be "her" real name.

What you need to know is that a Web user by the name of Anna liked a photograph Rick Heller put on the Internet so much that she posted a compliment for the world to see. "Rick, thank you for this picture!" she wrote. "This is the kind of stuff I hoped to see out of you convention bloggers. =)"

The photo depicts a lawn planted with lace-up boots, arranged pair by pair in long rows. It's as though Boston opened its own Arlington National Cemetery, except the gravestones are made of tired brown leather. Heller put the photo on a Web page titled "Boots on the Ground" and typed this caption: "The American Friends Services Committee … put out this display of 900 pairs of combat boots which symbolize American casualties in Iraq."

Heller is one of dozens of bloggers who for the first time, as a group, were given press credentials to write about this week's Democratic National Convention in Boston. But this story is not about whether bloggers are journalists, or whether journalists can blog. It's about Anna and the 13 million other Americans who visit blogs, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, and why the audience for political blogs ballooned during the convention even as TV broadcast ratings tanked.

The answer lies buried online in public messages from readers to bloggers.

Thank you, Anna!