Hate to say it, but I think we're remarkably close to getting screwed by Bush and Holy Joe, and we're not even thinking about why. Lieberman found himself ignominiously rejected during the 2004 primaries, basically ignored during the election, branded a traitor during the Gonzales vote, and then viewed as an enemy on Social Security. The sum total of all that has been a marked uptick of interest among Democrats in finding and funding a primary challenge against him. Worse, Joe's got nowhere left to go, it's unlikely that Democrats are going to retake the Senate anytime in the near future (which would give him a committee chairmanship) and it's damn near impossible that he'll be on another presidential ticket or in a hypothetical Democratic cabinet.

With all that in mind, I see no real reason he'd want to languish in the Senate, condemned to a future of intraparty battles and partisan marginalization. Cutting a deal on Social Security might be his way out, because it might bring with it a new position for Joe: Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration. There's little doubt that he's more interested in war and peace than Medicare reform, and by this point his only chance at respect is being the very embodiment of bipartisanship. Taking credit for shattering the partisan impasse blocking Social Security reform and then ascending to a top cabinet position seems like a pretty attractive path for the otherwise marginal fence-straddler...

Update: I should clarify that I find it entirely possible, given Bush's history, that the deal will be stuck, Joe will will vote against SS, and then he'll be left twisting in the wind. My point in the post is not what Bush will or won't do, but what Lieberman thinks he will or won't do.

Brad Plumer, in a post on the nauseating Hilla bombing, notes that a car bomb has to be pretty fucking big to push the death toll over a 100 people, and so there's probably an al-Qaqaa connection here though, he says, there's probably not much point in revisiting the issue.

True enough, but wouldn't it have been nice if, at some point, we had actually visited the issue? I mean, I know we parachuted in and mixed it with the rest of the election's final week feces-throwing, but that seems to have worked to divert attention from it, not interest anyone in a full-fledged investigation. Indeed, we seem to have written it off as part of the 2004 election warfare, and once the polls closed, everyone agreed to leave it in the past. Everyone, I guess, save the insurgents.

Ouch. Deleting 900 words that took you an hour to write is never fun. But when you're approaching a thousand and you're still not sure if anyone will catch what you're talking about, it generally means your point is muddled and it's time to put the kill on it. So I did. Suffice to say that I'm not a big fan of the Goldwater debate swirling around the blogosphere. I like that Brad and Matt have donned their contrarian capes and swooped down to reality-check Barry's legacy, but I think they're taking a very narrow view of what Goldwater meant.

Goldwater emerged at a very strange moment for the Republican party. They had spent the past 30 years ceding domestic issues to the Democrats and running their campaigns on a combination of red-baiting and, well, more red-baiting. They had no real domestic critique, instead, government was almost a joint custody arrangement, with liberals taking the home-front and moderate Republicans setting the terms of the foreign policy debate. But Kennedy and Johnson proved themselves tough on communism, and suddenly Republicans were robbed of their primary critique.

So Goldwater emerged and smashed the consensus. He created an anti-government message that lost at the outset, but ended the Republican's unilateral disarmament on domestic issues. Democrats crushed him (largely on foreign policy), and then nominated McGovern and ceded their newfound national security strength without ever updating their kitchen table arguments beyond "elect us entitled competent technocrats". That's why liberalism, which now means dull empiricism, has been personified by robotic wonks like Gore, Kerry and Dukakis. Our message is stuck in the 50's, but it exists without any of the advantages we had then, and it cohabitates with the shattered and grotesque husk that is our credibility on national security. Thinking that Goldwater's extremism simply screwed the Republican party is exactly our problem -- it did hurt them by some metrics (though Johnson was going to have major coattails no matter who his opponent was), but it also gave them an intellectual energy that, in very real ways, made their party's ideology whole again. Our analysis is all head while Goldwater's effect was all heart. And, in politics, I'm convinced that heart, not head, wins elections.

Mark Schmitt's corrective to the Goldwater revisionism concludes:

What the think tanks and grassroots groups and Karl Rove and Frank Luntz figured out over the 36 years after Goldwater was how to retain the language of ideological conservatism, leave unchallenged the facade of operational liberalism, and use that combination to exercise power long enough and aggressively enough to destroy every future prospect for operational liberalism. I think they have scuttled much of the strength of real conservatism in the process, but I don't think that's anything for liberals to be glad or complacent about.

Entirely true. Goldwater gave them the energy and ideology that served to power their rhetoric, his loss gave them the motivation to build the institutions that could control the debate and hide their intentions, and the combination of head and heart gave them the full toolset needed to gain total dominance over the government. His run changed the Republican party from a bunch of comfortable technocrats who engaged in a genteel struggle for power into a movement. Meanwhile, liberals are still talking about how reality-based and empirically-sound we are, and now we're beginning to turn on the Goldwater moment as a net negative for Republicans. To me, that looks like an acceptance, even a glorification, of our party's march towards oblivion. Goldwater restored the Republican party's gut, that Democrats were finally looking at him and realizing we need to do the same was the most positive development I'd seen. I'd hate to see us turn trigger-shy now.

Update: Also see Ed Kilgore's take on this.

Julie Saltman is wondering how Republicans will oppose the obviously-popular provisions of the Count Every Vote Act. The answer is through the magic of Congress! If every piece of introduced legislation had to face an up-or-down vote at polls, CEVA would pass in a landslide. But not only won't it find itself in front of voters, it's not going to find itself in front of congress critters either. With no Republicans jumping on board and the Democrats firmly in the minority, that bills never going to make it out of committee, and sure as hell won't find itself on the floor. Indeed, the bill is basically dead until its sponsors -- Kerry and Clinton -- run for president in 2008.

Why the bill hasn't attracted any Republican cosponsors is, however, an interesting question. Nothing so self-evidently popular can be ignored by politicians lest they find themselves similarly shunned by voters. So Republicans have created a counter-bill which, under the guise of tamping down on fraud, makes it harder for people to vote. Brilliant. Now the press can satisfy itself by reprinting quotes promoting the legislation of each side and belittling the proposals of the other side, Americans can assume that it's just more partisan food-fighting, and meaningful electoral reform can be totally ignored. So the answer, Julie, is through a manipulation of representative democracy, a mastery of congressional maneuvering, and a compliant press corps. Makes you proud to be an American, no?

Update: Seems Kevin Drum is puzzling over this as well. Guys -- Americans want health care reform way worse than electoral reform, but Republicans haven't had to give them that, either. Bills drafted by the minority and ignored by the majority enter a special hell where, along with lost socks and unwanted puppies, they cower in isolation forever. CEVA will be forgotten in a week or two.

Michelle Malkin thinks emo music exists to promote the "cutting culture". That's awesome. Michelle Malkin has got to be the most unintentionally hilarious pundit in America, and I'm an enormous fan of her continuing efforts to outpace pretenders to the throne. Jonah's dorkiness is too self-aware while David Brooks's pop-sociology too easily parodied -- they don't hold a candle on Michelle "internment was a good thing" Malkin. She's less a boring pundit with a recognizable shtick and more an avante-garde goddess who defies parody, I often believes she's just a particularly daring performance artist obsessed with seeing how far her gig can be pushed. And I, for one, enjoy the act immensely.

Thanks, of course, go out to Shakespeare's Sister for the wonderful job she did this weekend. If you're not already, you should be reading her blog regularly.

Sometimes my initial reaction to condemn conservative idiocy as pernicious and malevolent and dangerous is just overcome by awe at the weird hypocrisy of it all. This is one of those times:

The government has told a federal appeals court that a suit by an F.B.I. translator who was fired after accusing the bureau of ineptitude should not be allowed to proceed because it would cause "significant damage to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."

Lawyers for the government said in a brief filed with the court on Thursday that the suit could not continue without disclosing privileged and classified information.

The translator, Sibel Edmonds, was a contract linguist for the bureau for about six months, translating material in Azerbaijani, Farsi and Turkish. Ms. Edmonds was dismissed in 2002 after complaining repeatedly that bureau linguists had produced slipshod and incomplete translations of important terrorism intelligence before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

So here you've got a conservative-run government trying to squelch a case that accuses the government of incompetence. Let me be clearer: Here you've got a government run by folks who believe that government bureaucracies are incompetent and that national security is paramount arguing that a case exposing bureaucratic incompetence that endangers our national security can't go forward. It's like they're denying their very reason for existence!

That, I guess, is the modern Republican party. One big existential crisis made manifest and given the reigns of a superpower. It's their wacky kids movie, I guess, and we're just all living in it.

Via Nathan Newman.

Via Julie Saltman and Seeing the Forest comes this gem:

A review of fines levied by other federal agencies suggests that the government may be taking swear words a bit too seriously. If the bill passes the Senate, Bono saying "fucking brilliant" on the air would carry the exact same penalty as illegally testing pesticides on human subjects. And for the price of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl, you could cause the wrongful death of an elderly patient in a nursing home and still have enough money left to create dangerous mishaps at two nuclear reactors. (Actually, you might be able to afford four "nuke malfunctions": The biggest fine levied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year was only $60,000.)

The other day, I asked Matt Singer to comment on a Montana state senator's bill to tax "big-box retailers" that refuse to pay a living wage. And so he did.

That’s all for me, folks.  I’m buttoning my collar back up and heading back to the comments threads (and my own place).  I’m off to Chicago for a day of Oscar-related shenanigans.  I’m on a 10-year winning spree with my Oscar picks, and I need to defend my title.

Thanks for letting me invade your space for a couple of days, Ezra.  It was good fun.

On a final note, lately there’s been a lot of grumbling about sexism in the blogosphere and about some of the bigger dogs not giving the smaller pooches their due, some of it fair and some of it not.  At the risk of embarrassing my generous host, I want to acknowledge that he has been supremely supportive of me, long before either issue became hot topics again, and despite the fact that we don’t always agree.  Thanks, EK.

-- Shakespeare’s Sister

I like science.

I always liked studying science, for which I had a natural aptitude, and I like reading about it still.  Any kind of science captures my interest—the natural sciences, the social sciences—in no small part because I feel it is an important endeavor to helping us make sense of the world around us, and the things and people in it.  A certain respect for science seems not only admirable, but wise, which is part of the reason the Bush administration’s continuous displays of their contempt for science to further their agenda makes me want to pull my hair out and hit something with a bat.

An editorial in today’s Washington Post reveals another example of their aforementioned disdain for scientific evidence, once again with potentially deadly consequences:

A large body of scientific evidence suggests that the free provision of clean needles curbs the spread of AIDS among drug users without increasing rates of addiction. … The administration claims that the evidence for the effectiveness of needle exchange is shaky.

The editorial refutes the claim in short order, then wraps up with the following:

Respecting science does not appear to be the administration's priority, however. Not only is it refusing to spend federal dollars on needle exchange, but the administration also is waging a campaign to persuade the United Nations to toe its misguided line. The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, which is heavily reliant on U.S. funding, has been made to expunge references to needle exchange from its literature, and the administration is expected to continue its pressure on the United Nations at a meeting that starts March 7. The State Department's new leadership needs to end this bullying flat-earthism. It won't help President Bush's current effort to relaunch his image among allies. And it's almost certain to kill people.

I can’t even begin to fathom the impetus behind twisting science so as to derail a program that provides free, clean needles to drug users which has been shown to curb the spread of AIDS.  (Not to mention other communicable illnesses spread in the same way, such as hepatitis.)  Even from a fiscal perspective, the program makes sense; it is surely more cost-effective to provide needles than for our healthcare system to administer costly care to those who fall victim to AIDS through drug use, people who are, to state the obvious, unlikely to be covered by any sort of healthcare plan.

Nothing about this is smart.  One can only surmise that those who seek to deter free needle programs are motivated by a sense that their provision will encourage drug use, but such a position is rooted in the same fantasyland that allows people to convince themselves that making free condoms available encourages sex among teens.  Handing out free needles may very well feel as though it does little to reduce drug abuse, but if it stems the spread of AIDS, value is yet to be found in the endeavor.

Rarely can legislation fundamentally alter human habits; it more frequently simply criminalizes or legalizes an already common practice, without doing much to alter the commission of the underlying deed.  There is a real world out there that must be acknowledged when constructing policies so inextricably linked to human behavior.

A Protestant theologian called Reinhold Niebuhr wrote something called the Serenity Prayer, which has been reproduced on plaques, mugs, collectible plates, laminated prayer cards, posters with kittens, and all other manner of paraphernalia.  “God, grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and the Wisdom to know the difference.”  Sometimes it is indeed wise to respect the folly of humans, to know that the change you want to make isn’t necessarily the one you can make.  That’s reality, and ignoring it makes for bad policy.

We don’t call ourselves the reality-based community for nuttin’.

-- Shakespeare's Sister

The only thing dumber than the name “Mitt Romney” is the most recent idea being espoused by the asshole who goes by it.  Pam’s House Blend links to an article in the Boston Globe, titled “Romney links gay marriage, US prestige,” which excerpts the Massachusetts governor’s address to Utah Republicans Friday night:

“America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home,” Romney said, calling the Supreme Judicial Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts “a blow to the family.”

Considering that the legalization of gay marriage has absolutely no effect whatsoever on straight marriages and the families that result from them, extending the right to marry and start families to lesbians and gays can in no way be described as “collapsing the family.”  Instead, it broadens the definition of what a family is, which would more accurately be described as “extending the family.”  Granting the same rights to the LGBT community so that they may marry and parent makes no difference to the notion of family, other than a semantic one.  Lesbians and gays already have families, and trying to legislate them out of existence is a futile task, motivated by nothing by hatred and fear.

(It’s also notable that Romney’s state is the only one to legalize gay marriage, yet has still managed to maintain the lowest divorce rate in the nation.  I wonder exactly what it will take to undermine the harbingers of doom’s claims that legalized gay marriage will cause all hell to break loose.)

''America's culture is also defined by the fact that we are a religious people," Romney said. ''We recognize our God not only in our Declaration of Independence, but even in our currency. And we are also unique in that we recognize that the family is the fundamental building block of American society."

If the family is the fundamental building block of American society, then why is it that lesbians and gays who pursue equal rights are accused of wanting “special rights”?  You know what another word for fundamental is?  Basic.  So anyone pursuing the chance to participate in one of the basic building blocks of our society surely isn’t asking for special rights, but basic rights.  Of course, disingenuous pricks like Romney know this, which is why we don’t require people to take IQ tests or be employed or be in a long-term relationship or be healthy or meet a prerequisite financial criteria before they have children or get married.  But for a reason that has no standing under a secular rule of law and no basis in logic, if the person with whom you want to express the basic right to a legally recognized family is the same sex you are, this right is denied.

Romney also gave an address to South Carolina Republicans last weekend, during which he said:

''Some [same-sex couples] are actually having children born to them." Complaining about an effort to use gender-neutral language to describe parents on birth certificates, he also said: ''It's not right on paper. It's not right in fact. Every child has a right to a mother and a father."

I love it: they’re actually having children!  Oh, the horror!  Aside from having read various studies which have indicated absolutely no developmental or other difference between children raised by straight parents and children raised by gay parents, I’ve also had a friend for over a decade who was raised by a gay father.  The only difference I see between him and most other straight guys is that he dresses better and is nicer to women.  (That’s a joke…at least the first part.)

As for every child having a right to a mother and a father, there are plenty of children who grow up without a mother or father (including, I might add, the nearly 1,000 children who have lost parents in Iraq).  Yeah, that stinks, but somehow efforts trying to prevent kids from having two loving parents of the same sex seem incredibly misplaced when there are children who are raised in single parent households all the time, with little attempt made to stem the tide of that increasingly frequent scenario.

Ten countries in Europe have legalized gay marriage (including Britain, very recently), some more than a decade ago, and despite alarmed caterwauling to the contrary, it has not undermined heterosexual marriage or families.  I would argue that '”America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world” if we continue to deny basic equal rights to all of our citizens.  To spread liberty, it might be suggested, one must actually practice it oneself to begin with.

-- Shakespeare’s Sister

One of the more interesting effects of Gannongate has been reading the various critiques on blogging from the mainstream media.  The first round of commentary was predominantly vitriol designed to undermine the credibility of bloggers as a whole; had it been effective, had the attackers succeeded in their goal of debunking the story not by disproving the facts but by delegitimizing the source of its origins, the entire Gannon story might well have faded away.

Instead, it seems their blanket dismissal of blogging and bloggers may have had the opposite effect, as some new editorials seek to defend the role of the blogoshere, and in doing so, breathe life into the notion that there is a distinct role to be played by bloggers and extend the life of Gannongate.

The St. Petersberg Times opines: 

The proliferation of Internet Web logs - so-called "blogs" - has unsettled mainstream news organizations that have become a prime target for bloggers. On the whole, it's probably a healthy development. The news media have a credibility problem and bloggers, for all their excesses, have shown they have a role to play in holding mainstream journalists accountable. … Mainstream journalists have nothing to fear from bloggers if they remain true to fundamental standards of accuracy and fairness. They must remain cautious before passing along information from blogs or reacting to their charges, while continuing to learn from a form of mass media that is evolving before our eyes. Blogging, if practiced responsibly, could boost old media's credibility by making it more accountable to the public.

Meanwhile, the Chicago Tribune muses that “New Media” isn’t really new at all: 

In the [category of New Media] are the Internet bloggers, cable television news shows and talk radio, all of whom traffic in clear, often loudly expressed opinion that frames everything they report. They're doing "opinion news--news that reflects one's own beliefs and preferences and tends to filter out dissenting views," as a recent report from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press put it. … Is that new? Nah. It's actually as old as the republic, when newspapers from front to back were clearly identified with a political philosophy and a Thomas Paine could rally Americans to embrace independence by distributing "Common Sense" far and wide. … So perhaps we're going back to the future.

While in Russia, the President asserted that it was the responsibility of the press to maintain the proper relationship between themselves and government—a responsibility which they have been lax about performing.  In the resulting void, bloggers have stepped in to demand accountability from the administration.  Old Media shouldn’t be so surprised that we’ve decided to take them to task, too.

As for the GOP shills that sought to eclipse the validity of the blogosphere’s charges about Gannon by attempting to undermine bloggers’ integrity, well…be careful what you wish for.  And you better damn well make sure when you start impugning someone else’s credibility that your own is above reproach.

-- Shakespeare’s Sister

During a recent meeting with a group of activists in San Francisco, new DNC Chair Howard Dean proved once again he is the right man for the job:

Two months earlier, many of the same Democratic stalwarts had dinner with the outgoing DNC chair, Terry McAuliffe. Despite John Kerry’s loss in the presidential race, McAuliffe’s message was remarkably upbeat: For the first time in 30 years, the DNC had raised more money than did the RNC. They had built an impressive Washington headquarters, housing shiny new technology.

McAuliffe’s ebullient demeanor soured during the question and answer session. Many of the activists had worked outside California getting out the vote. They were distressed by what they had encountered: Republican dirty tricks; voting irregularities; dysfunctional systems; antagonism between DNC staff and local Democrats. As one difficult question followed another, McAuliffe seemed to bristle. Finally, he exclaimed, “I didn’t come here to listen to whining!”

There were remnants of this anger in the audience that met with Howard Dean. Unlike McAuliffe, Dean chose to listen to every question, no matter how difficult, and then to propose solutions.

What a concept.

While the main focus of Dean’s remarks, and of the questions from the audience, was on building a better system for the party, he also touched on the core Democratic message. He began by observing that many Americans don’t understand what the Democrats stand for. His solution is not for the party to change its positions, but rather to modify the way that it delivers them.

Just a few days ago, Mr. Shakes and I were talking about this, and he was complaining about the lack of a cohesive message.  My response was that there is a cohesive message: human rights.  We defend Social Security because we believe it is a human right not to suffer through one’s old age, after dedicating one’s life to employment for the country’s benefit, in abject poverty; we seek to protect abortion rights because we believe it a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body; we advocate gay rights because we believe in equal rights for all citizens; we believe in war as a last resort because we value human life and dignity; we condemn torture tactics for the same reasons; we argue for transparent elections to ensure the right to vote and have that vote counted.  Whatever the issue is, Democrats’ advocacy stems from a belief in equality and the advancement of human rights.  Our policies are not forged by social Darwinism, but by empathy and justice.  Those are our moral values, and they’re not that difficult to convey.

-- Shakespeare's Sister

Apropos of my earlier post regarding the necessity of being vigilant about encroachments on women’s rights, we get this story out of Kansas, where the Attorney General, Phill Kline, who happens to be head of the national Republican attorneys general association, is trying to obtain the medical records of women and girls who had late-term abortions.  His rationale is that he needs information in the files to prosecute criminal cases.

Eh? 

Kline asserts that the medical records will help him prosecute statutory rape cases and pursue health professionals who have failed to report cases of suspected child sexual abuse, which they are compelled to do by state law.  "There are two things that child predators want,” he said, “access to children and secrecy. As attorney general, I'm bound and determined not to give them either."

How laudable.  The first problem (and there’s always a problem with the intentions of these folks, isn’t there?) is that invading the privacy of rape victims, statutory or otherwise, is in direct contradiction to the facilitation of an atmosphere where rape victims feel safe to identify their accusers.  Revictimizing them by forcibly revealing intimidate details between themselves and their doctors is both heartless and unproductive.  Additionally, rape victims who know and fear retribution from their attackers are already loathe to report the crime; this idiotic idea will make them loathe to seek medical treatment as well.  The second problem is:

the subpoena cover[s] "the entire, unredacted patient files of nearly 90 women who obtained abortions at two Kansas clinics in 2003" and that it was not limited by age or the absence of abuse reports.

Hmm.  A mass subpoena of women’s medical records, giving Kline access to information well above and beyond what’s relevant for statutory rape cases, including personal details like marital status, race, employment history, emergency contacts, psychological profiles, methods of birth control, prior history of abortions, use of drugs, unrelated health conditions, etc.  To say the least, it seems to raise questions about the contention that his objective is prosecuting child predators.  One might even say that this isn’t really about statutory rape at all:

Kansas law restricts abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy, where the fetus would be viable outside the womb, except when "continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."

Despite that law passed in 1998, Kansas has become a national magnet for late-term abortions because of a doctor in Wichita who performs hundreds of them each year. The doctor, George Tiller, funneled at least $150,000 through political action committees to Mr. Kline's opponent in the attorney general's race in 2002, and his clinic, Women's Health Care Services, is one of the two whose records are being subpoenaed.

Call me cynical, but I suspect that if Dr. Tiller had funneled at least $150,000 through political action committees to Mr. Kline, instead of his opponent, his medical practice wouldn’t receive much scrutiny from the attorney general’s office regardless of the number of abortions he performed. Think that’s a bit of outrageous hyperbole?  Well, let’s not forget, shall we, the recently elected Republican Senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, who sterilized a female patient without her written consent and then made a fraudulent claim to Medicaid for reimbursement for the procedure.  The party of moral values welcomed him into the fold with open arms.

Then again, maybe it’s about this:

In a statement on Dr. Tiller's behalf, his lawyer and a spokesman noted that he had complied with a subpoena from Texas authorities this week in relation to a patient who died after an abortion at his clinic…

If error by Dr. Tiller indeed caused the death of that patient, then he should be punished.  (And, if Bush & Co. have their way, her family would receive a whopping $250,000 settlement.)  But the privacy of the rest of Dr. Tiller’s patients should be invaded to see to it that he is.

The issue here is that there is no clear motive for subpoenaing all 90 of these women’s medical records.  It is to prosecute perpetrators of statutory rape?  Is it a witch hunt against a political antagonist?  Is it an attempt to discern possible malpractice?  Any of the above are dubious (to be generous) grounds for said subpoena, anyway.  Kline obviously cares about reducing the number of abortions in his state, which in and of itself is a goal that anyone can support.  But the ends do not justify the means.  They rarely do.

-- Shakespeare's Sister

Namely, the Social Security reform proposed by President Bush, who seems to be taking No Child Left Behind literally. 

The battle over Social Security has been joined by an unusual lobbyist, a 9-year-old from Texas who has agreed to travel supporting President Bush's proposal.

The boy, Noah McCullough, made a splash with his encyclopedic command of presidential history, earning five appearances on the "Tonight" show and some unusual experiences in the presidential campaign last year. He beat Howard Dean in a trivia contest at the Democratic National Convention and wrote for his local newspaper about his trip to see the inauguration.

"He's very patriotic and very Republican," said Noah's mother, Donna McCullough, a former teacher and self-described Democrat. "It's the way he was born."

In a sign of how far groups go to carry their message on Social Security, Progress for America has signed up Noah, a fourth grader, as a volunteer spokesman. He starts on spring break from James Williams Elementary School in Katy, Tex.

[…]

Noah will travel to a handful of states ahead of visits by the president and will go on radio programs, answer trivia questions and say a few words about Social Security. Though he is obviously not an expert (and not really a lobbyist, either), officials say the effort is a lighthearted way to underline Mr. Bush's message.

"What I want to tell people about Social Security is to not be afraid of the new plan," Noah said. "It may be a change, but it's a good change."

[…]

Noah plans to run for the White House in 2032 - and he wants Social Security addressed before then.

"It will be bankrupt when I'm president," he said.

(Hat tip Blogenlust.)

Aren’t there child labor laws to prevent this kind of thing?  Yeesh.

I don’t want to get my hopes up here, but this really, truly seems indicative of a desperation reserved for policy proposals that are ready for the graveyard.  It’s kind of like when sitcoms bring in a cute kid in season 7 to try to liven things up, you know it’s Next Stop: Cancellationville.

-- Shakespeare's Sister

One of the most cunning accomplishments of the Bush administration has been undermining the notion that the GOP, that great bastion of male dominance, has put to bed the last remnants of sexism within its ranks.  I dare you to call us sexists, its very appointment of a female Secretary of State seems to say.  (Or, for that matter, racists.)  Never mind that she is resoundingly incompetent and arguably lacks the requisite qualifications for the job.  Questioning her credentials is off limits; do so at the peril of having your subconscious sexist tendencies exposed for all the world to ridicule.

It is, of course, simply a grand façade, masking an insidious agenda against women’s rights, including the slow but steady erosion of abortion rights, both at home and abroad.

The latest news (hat tip Ms. Julien) comes as governments from around the world prepare to convene in NYC with the purpose of examining progress in women’s rights since the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, which met in Beijing in 1995:

Leaders from human rights and women's development organizations are sounding the alarm about the possible U.S. withdrawal from a historic women's human rights agreement currently under review at the United Nations. … Late yesterday, in quiet negotiations out of the public eye, the Bush administration signaled to other nations that it would not unequivocally reaffirm the commitments made by the United States to the world's women a decade ago.

The question such a signal raises is which commitment(s) are so objectionable that the Bush administration would consider withholding support for this historic agreement.  The platform, including all the associates strategic objectives and actions, is long and very detailed in the issues it addresses, but the objectives themselves are not so specific as to warrant much criticism from anyone genuinely interested in pursuing equality of the sexes.  A typical action item reads thusly:

Protect and promote the equal rights of women and men to engage in political activities and to freedom of association, including membership in political parties and trade unions.

Not exactly controversial stuff.  But each of these small steps add up to form a collective determination to eradicate the victimization of women the world over, some instances of which are so extreme that the pedestrian tenor of the strategies to prevent them belie their tragic nature: women condemned to death by stoning for sexual acts outside of marriage, gang-raped by rebel forces, sold into the sex trades, forcibly married at prepubescent ages, subjected to clitoridectomies and other forms of genital mutilation in an effort to prevent promiscuity, denied access to healthcare, reproductive education, and birth control, subjected to AIDS, denied divorces, killed or abandoned at birth in favor of male children, and a host of other indignities that range from glass ceilings to being sold into slavery.

The prevention of these grievous injustices is what the Bush administration is considering turning its back on.  The mere possibility of such an action is a betrayal of women everywhere, even those who face struggles that pale in comparison to those mentioned above—equal pay for equal work, the right to private medical records, the right to family leave—including the millions who cast their votes for their continued leadership.  It’s tempting to say those women are only getting what they deserve, but the rest of us must suffer the consequence of their decision as well.

-- Shakespeare's Sister

Hello, Ezra Kleinians.  In a spectacular bit of misjudgment, Ezra has decided to let one of the inmates run the asylum, as he earlier noted.  And since all the boys are angling for their Estrogen-Friendly Boy Scout Badge this week, choosing me has put him well ahead of the competition.

I kid, I kid.

Tonight I did one of my favorite things in the world—I saw a great film.  One never knows, of course, whether the evening will turn out as hoped when the lights go down; I’ve wasted more money on films that aspired to be swill than I care to consider.  But I spent this evening engaged by the thoroughly wonderful Million Dollar Baby, which I encourage you to see.  (It’s not such a strange thing to recommend on a political blog, but I won’t tell you why if you don’t already know.  Suffice it to say it will leave you with something to debate, should you be so inclined.)

On the way home, I was considering the strange path that Clint Eastwood’s career in film has taken; once vilified as a purveyor of soulless violence as Dirty Harry Callahan, he has become a favorite of Lefties who find his later work exhibits a particular type of empathy rarely seen in the typical fare churned out on a regular basis.  As it happens, there’s an article on Salon examining this very notion, which conveniently saves me some time.

There are those who suggest that Eastwood’s later films are the work of an apologist who regrets the tenor of his earlier work.  I think his transformation from object of liberal scorn to target of conservative ire just proves that if you’re around long enough, you manage to piss off everybody.

-- Shakespeare's Sister

I'm out for the weekend. Mother's birthday, girlfriend's in town, etc. Your hostess will be the excellent Shakespeare's Sister, so you should be excited.

She'll make sure you don't get bard. Ba-da-ching!

Sorry. I'll leave now.

In my second Newman link of the day, Nathan's got an excellent case study of how union votes are won -- by anti-labor corporations. Go.

By the way, you're probably going to see a lot more labor posts on this site. I recently read Thomas Geoghegan's Which Side Are You On: Trying to be For Labor When It's Flat on its Back (a really phenomenal, visceral tour of the decline of Labor). True to the title, you can't read the book and stay neutral -- which is why everybody should read the book. For my part, I'm determined not to contribute to progressivism's strange indifference towards labor issues. Indeed, I'd like to push us in the opposite direction, so expect the blog to be affected by that. If any of you are well-versed in labor issues and could recommend some books or sites that could help me, I'd be grateful.

Update: On that note, read this Nation article on the future of Labor.

Matt's efforts to reality-check the "Goldwater moment" are really worth reading and you should, uh, read them. But it's worth noting that conservatives don't really view Goldwater as this seminal, epochal moment, but rather as part of a larger history that encompasses Goldwater, Reagan, and Bush. This triumph of the true believers narrative, wherein conservatives clung to their ideals through the loss of Goldwater, were redeemed by Reagan, and proven victorious by Bush 43, allows the right to paint itself as a movement secure and unflinching in their beliefs. It creates a meta-narrative or -- dare I say it? -- a heuristic for Republicans as courageous, tough, committed, reliable, grounded, trustworthy, etc. They had their time in the wilderness and ended it through sheer dedication to conservative principles. It's not just an American story, it's a Christian one.

That's why the work Matt's doing is important, but also why it's unlikely to have an effect. Revising history is a very tough thing to do, particularly when the event in question isn't up for public scrutiny. Indeed, it'd be more useful to analyze the disconnect between Goldwater and the modern Republican party in order to understand how they appropriated their history to fit their future, rather than how their history created their future. Liberals, beyond simply building institutions, need to undergo a similar project. We need to pick a "phoenix moment" that can serve as the public rebirth of liberalism. Whether that's the Dean campaign, the Gore campaign, or a loss yet to come, in order to revive the progressive project, we're going to have to create a resurrection storyline. Republicans did it with Goldwater, but were savvy enough to ditch the portions of "Goldwaterism" that didn't work. We've got to show a similar combination of political pragmatism and marketing acumen if our much-expected resurgence is to come true. That, by the way, should be what we mean when we speak of our "Goldwater moment". Not just strengthening ACT and electing party chairmen, but preparing the public for a return to Democratic ideals.

The Apostropher catches a lie being born...

Via Nathan Newman comes tell of some innovative methods being used or proposed to force Wal-Mart into the realm of the socially conscious. Montana is considering a plan whereby large retailers would face an additional tax on receipts unless they proved their employees made a living wage. George Miller Ken Toole, the Congressman state senator behind the proposal, sensibly argues that since the state has to subsidize what underpaid Wal-Mart employees can't buy (health insurance, etc), Wal-Mart might as well be forced to fund the effort.

I'm a big fan of ideas like this (I hope Monsieur Singer will pop by to tell us about its chances in the Leg), not least because they seem so karmically delicious. Montana, however, is small enough that Wal-Mart could easily absorb the costs of such a proposal without having to change their business practices. California, on the other hand, is not. If we passed a similar bill, it'd have the same effect of our auto standards. When we decreed that cars sold here had to meet a much-higher emissions bar than they did nationwide, the effect was similar to a federal mandate -- automakers can't make one car for our market and one car for all others, we're too large.

In the same vein, Wal-Mart would find that the costs of complying with the law, when added with the costs of their flailing public image, would be pretty high. It might indeed be cheaper to simply let the stores unionize, or at least defuse that pressure by jacking wages up, rather than remaining hostage to hostile legislatures and bad publicity.

Damn. That's exactly what I wanted to say about it.

Mind if I go on a rant for a second? Wel,l it doesn't really matter if you do or don't because anyone answering no can't enter the site. What? Typepad doesn't have a screening system? Well fuck this, I'm not doing the blog then. Why should I? I'm leader of the free world, in case you didn't notice.

Only...I'm not like the leaders you remember. I'm not a great mind like Clinton or Wilson. Not a spectacular speaker like Reagan. Not an old hand like my father. In fact, sometimes I fear I'm just a little man in a big flight suit, and all the padding on the planet can't protect me from an impromptu query. That, for those wondering, is why I'm canceling the centerpiece of my trip in Germany, because they won't allow my staff to screen the questions before I take them. When I billed it as an "American-style" townhall, it seems I didn't really explain what American style is.

American style, in some ways, is a lot like Cuban style. Or North Korean style. It shares some threads with Russian and Iranian style too. And they say I'm not multilateral? Look at all I learn from other cultures! American style, now, is a style of intellectual cowardice, of fear. It's the style of a small man in tall shoes afraid of being knocked down. Let me let you in on a secret -- America, now, is an emperor aware his clothes are invisible. When my team can control the venue, the media, we can work the lighting and stage props to obscure my nudity. But without the magic and mirrors, the gig is up. But it's always been that way, really. People think I started this, but it's not true. Remember Reagan's helicopters keeping their blades rotating so the press couldn't ask him questions? Never hurt him, did it?

Something strange is happening, though. Schoolyard rules, oil field protocols, they're not really working. I mean, they work here, among Americans habituated to them. But overseas, across the world, they're doing me no good. They don't respect me, I can feel it. I figured I could snub the Germans and seem like a jock canceling on a lame party, but the papers are reporting it like a bully scared of a fight. When I took control of this country, I was told we could do anything. The military, the power -- so what the fuck has happened? I barely squeaked through the last election, this despite two dictatorial regimes toppled. We're floundering in Iraq, even my staff -- specifically told to keep the bad news at bay -- has been writing memos on it. I may not have gotten straight A's, but I know people, and I know when they're worried. And they are. What the hell's going on with China? When I came in here they were a threat, now people are saying I've made them more powerful? Japan is so scared they're begging us to flex over Taiwan? Chinese bankers are holding tons of our currency and sending it plummeting by publicly mocking the dollar's stability? It's the fucking dollar -- who cares what China thinks!?

I can't shake this though. My numbers are fine and it's not like I really care what the Europeans think, but, for some reason, they're making me feel weak because -- I can feel it! -- they just don't think we're strong. When I came into this office, I had no doubts about our power, our preeminence. I was helming the most powerful force the world had ever seen. And you know what? They knew it too. America could do no wrong, and, if they thought we did, it didn't matter; we led, they followed, and that was the order of things. It doesn't feel that way anymore. When I tell Rice to pull out of something or show disagreement, it doesn't send shockwaves or ripples. When I snub a townhall because they won't do it my way, they don't scramble to make it right, they laugh and leak to the papers. They're treating me like I was treating them. But I did that because they were weak.

Have I made us weak?

Awesome.

Brad's point that:

The way things are going, in the future people are going to be choosing to spend X percent of their income on health care. X will get larger and larger over time, by choice. So let's say X is 40 percent. From one standpoint, it really doesn't make a difference whether you pay 40 percent of your income for private health care, or 40 percent of your income in taxes that then go to government-administered health care.

That's a very specific standpoint Brad's using. Because paying for government-provided health care leaves you in an enormous pool that guarantees you access to these procedures, no matter their cost and no matter your income. Private insurance, however, is different. If you want comprehensive health care, you have to buy into (or have your employer buy into) pretty expensive plans. For many, that much income simply cannot be spared and, thus, they simply won't have access to many of those treatments. To even try and get close to the top plans, poorer workers won't be paying out the same percentage of their incomes as richer workers, they'll be spending much, much more. The reason single-payer is worthwhile is precisely because everyone pays out roughly the same percentage of their income (with some income brackets a bit more and some a bit less) and receives comprehensive care in return.

Update -- The more I look at this post, the more I think I have Brad's point wrong. He knows health care way better than I do, and wouldn't have overlooked this. So I suggest reading his post in full, as I'm well open to other interpretations of it.

Wow:

One thing is for sure: the discrimination represented in that lunch monitor’s tap on my praying nephew’s shoulder will not stand. Like Rosa Parks, religious conservatives refuse to shuffle to the back of the bus.

The story there, for interested readers, is that the nephew prayed before lunch, a hall monitor told him not to, the kid's dad called to complain, the hall monitor apologized the next day. Yes. Just like Rosa Parks. This country's dominant religion will not submit to continued discrimination from Bull Connor-like hall monitors. He took a whole day to apologize! And nor, we should warn, will the evangelical Christian who is our president, the members of the Supreme Court who are devout Christians, the Senators, or the congresscritters. Freedom now! Freedom forever! We shall overcome! Shit, the hall monitors got a firehose attack dogs detention slips! Shield the children!

Responding to Meyerson's article (which excellently lays down the Democrat's problem with the working class, but hides when solution time comes 'round), Brad Plumer writes:

Personally, I'm against "economic populism" as a political strategy. I prefer something along the lines of Eliot Spitzer's outlook on things: use regulation to correct market failures and get the capitalist system working more efficiently. That's a cumbersome message, but speechwriters can have at it. Also, I'd prefer a set of policies that reduced "economic risk" while promoting more of the sort of risk-taking that makes capitalism so marvelously vibrant. For instance, universal health care would help cushion your family against a job loss, but it would also encourage you to move jobs, relocate, seek a bold new career for which you might be more suited, without being chained down by the fear that comes with switching jobs and possibly losing your coverage. The end result, in theory, is a more dynamic economic world. What's more: It's populist, but it doesn't sound populist.

I agree with Brad entirely on policy here, but couldn't disagree more on the politics. To begin, I'm a huge advocate of using Spitzer's government v. corporations formula in conjunction with a risk reduction philosophy to form the Democrat's economic message. Spitzer has perfected the art of taking on the corporations in a way both economically sound and politically effective. We do need toothy oversight of the multinationals and we do need a government that proves itself willing to stand up for the marketplace. Indeed, right there comes the first break -- Democrats should value the marketplace over its corporate inhabitants. That gives us the edge in the economic values debate, too.

On risk, I've been slapping this donkey for awhile, and have only grown more convinced that it's the right move to make. The role of the government should be to grease the market and reduce risk to the worker. Universal Health Care, Social Security, universal day care -- all this needs to be implemented so workers aren't tied down to a particular job and stuck in a situation that doesn't fully utilize their abilities. Further, if the government takes responsibility for security, Americans have the freedom to be entrepreneurs. Anyone want to argue the good of entrepreneurship? Thought not.

My problem with Brad comes later, when he says "it's populist, but it doesn't sound populist". That's a real problem, if true. Only, I don't think it's true. And it certainly doesn't need to be true. Populism simply means favoring the worker. Fighting corporations with unfair business practices and creating a marketplace where ordinary citizens are free to make occupational choices because they're not tied down to this or that employer is, in a word, populist. Now, it's entirely possible that Democrats will step onto the podium and, through herculean effort, rob these tenets of their populism -- one just needs to read Kerry's speeches to appreciate our capability for snatching incoherence from the jaws of good politics. The sort of public wonkery he died by is bad politics but would've made for good policy. Populism, conversely, is great politics but often makes for bad policy. The challenge here is to merge the good economic principles of risk management and effective regulations with the powerful electoral effects of populism. Having a package that is populist but doesn't sound it is moot -- you still need to get elected. But framed and sold correctly, these packages can be very populist. They can be about protecting the worker from the whims of multinational corporations, both by making the companies play fair and by cutting the chains that leave Americans hostage to their job. And if we can't sell that, it'll only be because we chose populist policies but sold them as if our audience were pro-growth technocrats.

Call me a softie (unless you're Peter Beinart), but I found this post of Berube's weirdly poignant:

First the laptop goes, then the coffeemaker...I wouldn’t bother blogging about such a thing if not for the fact that the coffeemaker in question-- one of those nice steel carafe things that keeps your coffee warm without having it sit and stew on a hot plate-- succumbed, like the laptop, to a Mysterious Malfunction while insisting that it was actually in working order. (The laptop is still in denial about the loss of its USB ports; the coffeemaker continues to tell time and to insist that it will make the next pot of coffee at 6:38 AM even though it no longer heats water and brews coffee.)

Now I might simply be anthropomorphizing (that's an 18-letter word, y'all) some gadgets, but I found that touching. Like an aging, crippled dog that weakly barks at perceived intruders, or an old man who keeps coming into the office despite long ago being relieved of his work. The laptop and the coffeemaker are both making herculean efforts to remain useful, even as their usefulness has been effectively extinguished. I'll bet you that each morning, right at 6:38 AM, the coffeemaker starts trying to brew a cup of coffee, trying to heat the water, only to fail at the task and fall back, exhausted, but desperate to be given another chance the next day...

Update: Fixed the title.

Bob's characterization of stir-fry as a cooking method for kids who can't cook is, I must admit, terribly offensive. Reading it, I began to feel nauseous and had to leave the room for fear of fainting. Having calmed down and regained my grip on consciousness, I feel obligated to defend stir-frying.

Stir-fry is a damn tough cooking form to master, though one with few entry barriers for beginners. That, in fact, is part of its great appeal. Most people can use it to make something taste fine, but the well-trained can emerge with transcendent creation. Now, I'm something of a badass with a wok, so I might be biased. But Bob should really be more careful about slandering stir-fry's good name, lest he incur the wrath of WOK MAN.

Update: Added the end of the post. Sorry bout that.

Not to offend or anything, but does anyone else find the fact that one of Powerline's contributors calls himself "rocket man" more than a little, well, gay?

By the way, if one of those fools really does decide to debate PZ Myers on evolution, it's going to be a rending. I'm not even sure I could watch. No, wait, yes I could:

• As Ogged has noted, they don't say the sensible, intelligent thing ("Of course we accept the best scientific explanation of our origins!"), but instead babble about "orthodoxies." The whole bunch over there must be wanking creationists. And yes, that certainly does discredit them—it means that they are not interested in the honest, critical evaluation of the evidence, but instead leap to conclusions based on ideology.
• They complain that my short comment did not present the evidence for evolution. Silly people. I've got articles all over this weblog discussing the evidence for evolution. Check out the Panda's Thumb or many of the sites in the science and evolution categories of my blogroll. Or heck, go to a library. This isn't secret stuff. These guys aren't aware of any of it—so where do they get off criticizing legitimate biology?

Pace my earlier post on the UN, it's really worth checking out Peter Daou's new UN Dispatch, a blog devoted to shining light on what the UN does and providing some needed balance on the subject. I'm still awaiting assurances that the antichrist will not, in fact, emerge from the UN chambers, but other than that omission the blog is worth a bookmark.

Shakespeare's Sister has an excellent pair of posts running down the records potential candidates for the Supreme Court. You should read them (1, 2). I'd love to hear Jeralyn's take on these folks as well.

While on the subject, you should read Mark Schmitt's post on the "Constitution-in-exile" crowd, and what their goals are. This graf particularly jumped out at me:

I hope that when the next Supreme Court nomination finally occurs, the debate will not focus almost exclusively on the Court's position on social issues such as Roe, Griswold, gay marriage and sodomy, affirmative action, etc. The economic role of the federal government is now deeply in question, and the Constitution in Exile judges, just like the Social Security privatizers, want to roll back the clock a lot futher than 1973 or 1961.

I can guarantee you that the Republicans don't hold out the same desire. Fighting over dead fetuses and homos kissing is much easier for them than battles over Social Security and regulatory schemes. Shame that we continually accede to their demands when the battles finally join.

I wasn't planning to step into Kevin's not-enough-women-in-the-blogs fluff, having been on the receiving end of it a few times myself. But Avedon Carol dropped me into the fray, and I'll use her mention as an excuse to post some thoughts:

• First, on Avedon's point that I got linked on TAPPED despite being a new blog while some excellent women bloggers did not, I don't think that's fair. The situation was more akin to updating an address book. I've been blogging for about three years and been on their blogroll for the better part of the last, so it's not as if I emerged out of nowhere, proved I had a penis, and was admitted to the list o' links.

• This argument follows a very similar pattern each time it surfaces. Guy wonders why there aren't more female political bloggers, girl(s) list 500 female political bloggers and wonder why he's not aware of them all, guy lamely protests that that wasn't his point, guy eventually gives up and cheers when post drops off the page. As I said, I've some experience with this. But it should be noted that the question isn't whether or not there are hundreds, even thousands, of excellent female political bloggers -- there are! -- it's why there seem to be quite a few fewer female political bloggers than men. It's a proportionality thing. Often, the answer is that we're only looking at the top ranks, which is a pretty closed club (true, though it's not out of some desire by Drum and Josh to keep out the estrogen-producing riff-raff). So last time this happened, I checked that. I clicked all around the TTLB ecosystem and went to 10 blogs in a row here, 10 there, at all levels of popularity. The numbers stayed heavily male. So my sense is that despite the scores of excellent female political bloggers, there are more male bloggers. Meryl Yourish points to a recent Pew Study that found 57% of bloggers are men. That alone is a large difference and, while I haven't seen data on this, I think the difference is larger when the sample is restricted to political blogs. But even if you're unwilling to grant that, we've still got a 14% difference there. The real question, I think, is what accounts for the differential.

• Again, there are truckloads of excellent female political bloggers out there and I'm listening to Ani DiFranco as I type this (true, actually -- her new cd has been pretty constant in my iTunes). My point isn't to malign nor offend them, but to wonder what accounts for the comparative difference. My end, here, is that I want even more truckloads of excellent female political bloggers to read.

• Blogs, particularly the lefty blogs, are a clubby lot. The top guys (and gals) link to each other, perpetuating higher intragroup hits, but not doing much to help those outside the popular circle. The right is much better at this -- Instapundit exists to drive traffic to young blogs and Hewitt has made it a pet cause. On their side of the aisle, they've created established routes for recognition, not to mention habituated their readers to bookmarking new folks. We've not done that. This partially has to do with who leads our charge. Kos and Marshall basically don't link, Atrios links but mostly to a certain type of post, Kevin doesn't link all that much; the only one I'd say does a really good job of nurturing young bloggers is Yglesias, who gave me my start and has done the same for others (including the excellent Julie Saltman, whose absence on the sidebar I'm about to rectify, and whose take on this stuff should be read by all). When I was a "big boy" at Pandagon, I tried to do some of this, mainly with Brad Plumer and Here's What's Left (half female, though Heather almost never posts).

But, and I hope Brad doesn't mind becoming an example, his case proves the point. I drove him as much traffic as I possibly could, thousands of readers. Indeed, he was soon all over the blogs, appearing on Kevin's site more than I ever did and becoming a common actor in Matt's posts. But his sitemeter still barely cracks 250 a day. Now, Brad is absurdly talented, knowledgeable and fun to read, he's certainly one of the best bloggers around. So what's happened? Why hasn't his readership soared?

Blog readers, I think, are creatures of habit. They come to a couple top sites day after day, and adding on to that routine is a tough sell. With Insty and Hugh, adding new sites to their reader's daily trawl is the expressed purpose of many of their posts, they've created an environment where that's an expected response. We've not done that on the left, so though sites like Kos boast a much higher readership than anything the right's got, our blogosphere isn't as healthy, there's nowhere near the same level of upward mobility. And while I don't think that accounts for the male/female differential, I do think it creates a problem for anyone trying to move into the high ranks, and that means the gender gap on that level wouldn't change even if the numbers under it shifted. That's a problem for both genders.

Update: Per the discussion here, tried to add a promotion component to my blogroll. Check it out and tell me what you think.

If you had sat me down six months ago and told me the Democrats were going to not only outmaneuver, but out-organize the Republicans on Social Security, I would have called you a CIA plant. If you did it today, I'd call you the Washington Post:

Administration and congressional officials said many Republican members remain afraid of taking on Social Security, and many fewer than the party had hoped are holding Social Security events this week.

Republican officials said at least 70 of the party's House members are holding town hall meetings this week, not all of them devoted specifically to Social Security, while House Democrats said they will hold more than 90 Social Security events this week.

In other news, my altar to Reid and Pelosi is coming along nicely.

Congressman Hinchey really cut through Woodruff's crap on this one. How dare he voice an opinion at a Town Hall? How dare he not! Go read the transcript to hear a Democrat unapologetic about believing in the actual Bush administration, rather than the fantasy one of good government bureaucrats that seems to exist in the minds of so many. It's strange to have gotten to the point where believing the worst is the only reality-based option left...

Congressman Roy Blunt gets offended by a Michael Crowley article. Congressman Roy Blunt writes in to The New Republic. Michael Crowley is given a chance to respond. Michael Crowley eviscerates Roy Blunt. You laugh at the hapless congressman before feeling bad that this guy is helping to run the country.

C'mon -- you know you want to read the whole thing.

Praktike's criticisms of the UN are on point, I think, but downplay the obstacles to fixing it. Because, as is, the neocons don't hate the UN because there's an inequitable distribution of power, but because there in fact is a distribution of power. Since the only logical ways to reform the UN are up, and by up I mean adding to the Security Council, giving the resolutions more teeth, making it possible to override vetos, and so forth, they'll only worsens the multilateral heartburn of the hawks. I'm not really sure how you fix that, but it seems to me that the UN will remain their bete noire no matter what reforms are instituted, and the neocons just have to be considered marginal so far as critiquing the institution goes. Otherwise it's like an intervention where the alcoholic's worst enemy is invited and he continually presses for even more drinking and, if possible, suicide. You just can't listen to that guy.

Finally put up a long-overdue permalink to the excellent Shakespeare's Sister. Helpful readers are encouraged to head over to her site and apologize for my tardiness.

Also, you guys should read Tomasky's piece on progressivism's estrangement from philosophy. One thing I think he omits is that, in addition to talking strategy, we talk a lot of policy, and we generally mistake the latter for philosophy. I think that has something to do with empiricism becoming a stealth philosophy for liberals, but that's a side issue.

More to the point, I've already sent in my critique and suggestions for The Prospect's magazine, so I'll put this one here. Tomasky is completely correct that liberals don't have a strong grasp of their own ancestry. He's also one of the few people in the country able to do something about it. I'd love for his magazine to feature a monthly history lesson, zooming in on an important progressive person or event. By the time I became conscious of politics, the Clinton years were basically over, so my only connection to my movement's foundations come from the books I read. That generally works out okay -- I'm pretty excited to read Parker's biography of Galbraith (so excited I put it in my wishlist, hint, hint), even though that Plumer kid has beat me to it -- but trying to stay current on Iran and Iraq and Social Security and the EU and Medicare and elections and every other crisis developing right this very second only leaves so much time to engage books on the past. If the Prospect offered a short dose of history each month, I doubt I'd be alone in finding it a major help.

For that matter, I wonder if they couldn't partner with some historical societies and policy groups and give the history of an issue more attention in their Special Reports. Seeing the genesis of something like Social Security or Health Care or voting laws is, in my opinion, much more powerful than simply getting a briefing on it.

Update: While I'm talking about the Prospect, I should mention that this month's cover image is very, very cool. Between this and the Missing Donkey cover, it looks like the days of stock photos are dying their rightful death.

Well Sam certainly hit that nail on the head. The question, though, is whether or not setting some weird front group like USA Next in opposition to AARP is really such a smart idea. AARP's spokespeople certainly won't be alone in news articles, but whether or not anyone actually cares about the pull quotes from both sides is open to dispute. Moreover, they never got articles all to themselves, a CATO-flack or heritage "expert" always contradicted AARP's take, so I'm unconvinced that this play for media equivalency does the right any good.

More to the point, G.W. had a good thing going in mending fences with AARP. There's no doubt that Medicare would've failed without their backing, and, even if it had miraculously passed without AARP's, there would've been no cover when AARP decided to turn out its members against the scoundrels who wrecked their system. But even though AARp lined up against Medicare, if you can't be friends, you can at least be enemies only temporarily. Siccing USA Next on them doesn't offer rapprochement a few years down the line, it pushes them into full-out opposition towards the president and his party.

One thing that was nice about the Swift Vets deal, and is doubly in effect now that USA Next hired their media team, is that the veneer of plausible deniability really fell away for the Bush administration. There was no doubt that the attacks were part and parcel of the reelection effort, and there'll be no doubt that these attacks are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Bush administration. That's liable to leave the 35 million-person AARP with the impression that Republicans want to kneecap them now and for the future, and they best move to show that such things shouldn't be attempted. And that, of course, plays into the central truth of Bush's tax-cutting and budget-busting and privatizing schemes, which is that all of them make future Republican congressmen cannon fodder. Privatization has just worked quicker than its backloaded cousins, of course, but when the economic consequences come due for all these initiatives, there'll be electoral consequences right there with them. Pissing off AARP simply hastens the reckoning, particularly for no-name congressmen in districts with large populations of seniors.

A few months back, the administration understood this and was doing everything in its power to assure seniors that they wouldn't be touched by the new plans, that they and AARP really didn't have a dog in this fight. But now AARP does have a dog and, more to the point, it's actually their dog. So they not only want to mobilize seniors to fight privatization, but to protect their organization and head off future challenges. I wouldn't necessarily like to be Katherine Harris when that counterattack manifests at the ballot box.

Justin Logan writes:

What I wonder, though, is what it would take for hawks to admit they were wrong. Say, for example, a dirty bomb is set off in Chicago. Say several hundred people die in the melee, there's billions in economic damage, and intrusive new government powers are enacted.

Say that we trace back the attackers to Iraq. They emerged in the aftermath of the invasion, learned the ways of urban counterinsurgency, and melded together into a group that wanted to hit the U.S. where it hurts most. They were mobilized by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and then they organized, recruited, and trained in its aftermath. It's crystal clear that they emerged as a direct result of our policy in that country.

Would the hawks have to say, "Jesus, I really called that one wrong..."

Of course not. It would just be a sign that the more dovish of us don't understand how insidious the enemy is, and how much we need to take the fight to the enemy before he takes it to us. You can amplify any of the aspects of my hypothetical, and the hawks would say the same thing.

So then is there not a sense in which their argument cannot be disproved?

There absolutely, 100%, is. The problem with national security is that, since the War Powers Act (and, in truth, even before), it's been entirely associated with the executive. Because of that, only presidents or presidential candidates have been able to imbue their parties with definition on the subject. Since the Republicans have used a succession of "strong" leaders to puff their foreign policy chests, they already enjoy trust on the subject. Since they already enjoy trust on the subject, any future ills that come from their actions will be tossed aside in favor of the frame that reiterates their moral clarity and strength on national security.

Till Democrats elect a chief executive who presides over a foreign policy crisis and does so with obvious strength and leadership, we'll remain at a disadvantage. Thus far, Democratic definition has come from Carter (weakling) and Clinton (unfocused and unconcerned until his second-term). We squandered our last two chances, and we won't get another until we field a president. And we likely won't do that until we match Republicans on national security. For most Democrats, that's a helluva catch-22. Calling General Clark?

Clarification: I meant that the argument cannot be disproved, as in there's definitely a chance that it's impervious to events our counter-argument. But, as often happens with hastily-written, before-class posts, it made no sense. So I crossed out the line. Clearer now?

This is easily the best eulogy I've seen for Hunter S. Thompson.

Can we spell recipe-for-total-fucking-disaster? As impressed as I am by retired accountants forming militias to patrol the border, it's not exactly the best idea. The first time they meet with a coyote expedition and start shooting at the fleeing smugglers will be the last time the gangsters who run the coyote operations forget to bring heavy arsenals along for the journey.

Some friends and I went by SF MOMA this weekend, the idea being to soak up some culture and decompress from hectic weeks. But I'm not so good at turning off the political part of my brain, and so I found myself browsing the old newspapers strewn about Robert Goder's superb installation. One of them had an Anthony Lewis op-ed from the 1992 GOP Convention that I thought was good enough to Nexis and excerpt here:

"GOP Needs a Kremlin to Bash," the lead headline in The Chicago Tribune said the day before the convention. It neatly stated the seeming dilemma of a Republican Party that for 40 years had made a theme of denouncing the Democrats as soft on Communism.

But the collapse of the Soviet Union did not faze Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson or the others who speak for the Republican Party today. They bashed the un-Christian and the un-straight. They bashed Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. And they even managed to flog the Red menace.

If the Democrats won this election, Republican chairman Rich Bond suggested, Jane Fonda would be sleeping in the White House "as guest of honor at a state dinner for Fidel Castro."

The sleaze was so thick on the ground here in Houston, the attacks so far-fetched, that some people may be tempted to dismiss them as funny. Not I. I remember Joe McCarthy. I have been going to national political conventions since his day, and I do not recall one as mean in spirit as this one.

God was much spoken of. But He was a God without compassion, a God of intolerance.
...
The Houston convention was significant in a number of ways. First, it marked a big advance in influence by the religious right.

The Democrats this year did much to erase their reputation for yielding to special interests outside the party. But the Republican Party has actually been taken over to a remarkable extent by the special interests of the hard right and religious conservatives, who worked precinct by precinct to capture state delegations.

The success of the extremists was evident in the choice of the two Pats, Buchanan and Robertson, to address the convention. But even the supposed moderates, like Rich Bond, shrilled themselves up.

The nastiness had a purpose, and that was the second significant point in the convention. The idea was to take people's minds off the real issue in the 1992 election: the economic suffering of millions of Americans.

Conservatives came to power when Ronald Reagan combined right-wing social ideas with a new economic idea: the supply-side miracle. The Government would cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget.

The result has been to push the world's richest country toward bankruptcy, and to leave the average American earning less in real terms than he or she was 12 years ago.

Worth thinking about, no? Aside from post-Nixon fallout, the only times a Democrat has captured the presidency was during that brief period when the Republicans had no foreign bugaboo to scare Americans with. Sex and morality, it seems, were never enough to drive its occupants from office. They didn't stop Clinton from winning the White House, didn't stop him from keeping it, and didn't stop Gore from beating Bush (the Supreme Court, however, is another story). Fast-forward to 2004 and George W., wielding the club of terrorism, wins outright. It's an odd trick of history that Gore didn't occupy the Presidency on 9/11, and so Democrats weren't in a position to prove their abilities on terrorism. It's an odder trick that Republicans, who have done a stunningly bad job choosing, planning, and conducting the retaliatory attacks, will emerge from the crucible with anti-terrorist credibility. But product of timing or not, we should be cognizant that Republicans are building the same advantage that allowed them dominance all throughout the Cold War. Whatever Kerry's advisors seemed to have thought, it's not, and almost never is, the economy, stupid. Battles over Social Security are important, and pollsters continually find that Americans really all want to hear about Medicare, but don't be fooled -- national security is where Republicans win, and when they don't have it, they lose. So how do we take it away from them?

Can I just say how excited I am to read the critiques of this "wherefore art the female intellectuals" piece? It's going to be great fun.

Over at The Washington Post, Dan Balz has a slightly alarmist article on the leftward drift that Dean's chairmanship, and the party's new reliance on grassroots donors, might provoke. Standard stuf, to be sure, but he makes an interesting strategic point midway through:

As Dean takes the helm as party chairman, Democrats now face a competition between what might be called the Dean model and the Clinton model, between confrontation and triangulation. This amounts to a contest between a bold reassertion of the party's traditional philosophy that fits the polarized environment of the Bush presidency vs. a less provocative effort to balance core values with centrist ideas that proved successful in the 1990s but has since produced a backlash within the party.

Dean shouldn't be trying to lead the party in triangulation. His job, rather, is to make sure the activist base feels confident and connected to the Democratic label, thus freeing our presidential nominees to talk to the whole country. So long as the nation remains closely divided, presidential candidates are going to have to create personas that appeal beyond their party. You can argue about whether that means moderation or hard progressivism, but they're going to have to reach beyond their base. The only way the base can withstand such a quadrennial rejection is to forge strong bonds with the party leadership, who can then reassure them through the presidential election. When that's not done, you get Nader in 2000 and Buchanan in 1992. That's why you don't triangulate the party, you use the party to enable triangulation by the candidates. And that's why Dean's ascension should be cheered by Democrats left, right, and center. A chair trusted by the base, rather than installed as the President's apparatchik, is exactly what's needed.

You owe it to yourself to read Riverbend's wrenching post on what the constitutional codification of shari'a law means for Iraqi women:

“And is Iran so bad?” He finally asked. Well no, Abu Ammar, I wanted to answer, it’s not bad for *you* - you’re a man… if anything your right to several temporary marriages, a few permanent ones and the right to subdue females will increase. Why should it be so bad? Instead I was silent. It’s not a good thing to criticize Iran these days. I numbly reached for the bags he handed me, trying to rise out of that sinking feeling that overwhelmed me when the results were first made public.

It’s not about a Sunni government or a Shia government- it’s about the possibility of an Iranian-modeled Iraq. Many Shia are also appalled with the results of the elections. There’s talk of Sunnis being marginalized by the elections but that isn’t the situation. It’s not just Sunnis- it’s moderate Shia and secular people in general who have been marginalized.
...
It’s also not about covering the hair. I have many relatives and friends who wore a hijab before the war. It’s the principle. It’s having so little freedom that even your wardrobe is dictated. And wardrobe is just the tip of the iceberg. There are clerics and men who believe women shouldn’t be able to work or that they shouldn’t be allowed to do certain jobs or study in specific fields. Something that disturbed me about the election forms was that it indicated whether the voter was ‘male’ or ‘female’- why should that matter? Could it be because in Shari’a, a women’s vote or voice counts for half of that of a man? Will they implement that in the future?

Where's your compassion now?

Update: Digby gets this right:
We on the left are being chastized daily for being terrorist sympathizers. Former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are said to be on the other side. Any criticism of the government is Unamerican. And all of this is based upon the idea that liberals are rejecting Western values and putting ourselves in league with Islamic fundamentalists. This is literally nonsensical.

In point of fact, the argument could much more easily be made that it is the other way around. It grows more and more likely that the right, who wholeheartedly supported the war and are currently supporting the political handling of the occupation, deposed a totalitarian dictator to install a repressive fundamentalist theocracy in its place. I fail to see how that advances the cause of our country or western civilization. Indeed, it is a betrayal of everything we stand for.

Who are the real traitors to western enlightenment values --- those of us who find both totalitarianism and religious fundamentalism abominations or those who topple dictators to install theocracy? I'd ask the women of Iraq in about five years what they think. Of course, they won't be allowed to speak freely, so we'll probably never know.

Does anybody else think Ben Nelson sounds like he's one close election away from switching parties?

Would you ever consider becoming a Republican?

Somebody said not long ago that people don't always leave the party; the party leaves the people. So, recognizing that you never know what the future's going to hold, what might happen, you never say never. But am I considering it right now? No.

If you run for re-election in 2006, then, you're absolutely committed to running as a Democrat?

I have every intention, if I run again, to run as a Democrat.

Speaking of "Democrats", does anyone else think Lieberman's revived interest in private accounts is connected to the revived talk of him replacing Rumsfeld? Yeah, me neither.

Yes, that's smart Republican strategy -- enrage AARP:

Taking its cues from the success of last year's Swift boat veterans' campaign in the presidential race, a conservative lobbying organization has hired some of the same consultants to orchestrate attacks on one of President Bush's toughest opponents in the battle to overhaul Social Security.

The lobbying group, USA Next, which has poured millions of dollars into Republican policy battles, now says it plans to spend as much as $10 million on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the powerhouse lobby opposing the private investment accounts at the center of Mr. Bush's plan.

"They are the boulder in the middle of the highway to personal savings accounts," said Charlie Jarvis, president of USA Next and former deputy under secretary for the interior in the Reagan and first Bush administrations. "We will be the dynamite that removes them."

Garance Franke-Ruta gets this exactly right:

Succumbing to faculty pressure, Harvard University president Larry Summers finally released the transcript of his controversial comments on women in the sciences, made at an MIT conference in January, proving rather conclusively that those who gave him the benefit of the doubt about the nature of his remarks were mistaken in so doing.

Read the rest of her post. I thought Summers was ham-handed and wrong before, now I believe he should resign.

As Kevin noticed last week, there are two magazines packed into every issue of The Economist. There's the smart, savvy magazine that doesn't let its ideology get in the way of informing you, and then there's the magazine that talks about George W. Bush. That magazine, in stark contrast to its world-weary housemate, views the president with a combination of excited optimism, twice-burned shyness, and more excited optimism! This, from last week's issue, was simply too good not to quote:

There is no reason to believe the horror stories that Wall Street is about to fleece helpless savers: learning from other privatisations overseas, Mr Bush's people want the new retirement accounts to be managed in a way that will keep costs low.

Really truly!? Consider me convinced -- I had no idea that, unlike the Thatcher administration, President Bush's folks didn't think fleecing the elderly was a good idea! But now that I know, well, I'm going to start blast-faxing my senators right this instant!

Update: Speaking of privatization, check this WaPo article on what it's wrought overseas.

Well, it has been fun.  I want to thank Ezra for the opportunity to make a fool of myself for fourty eight hours.  And, like every bad house guest, I stayed longer than expected, made a lot of long-distance calls and drank all the liquor.  Thank you, Ezra, and I'm sorry again for ever recommending you read Hugh Hewitt's book so you can make fun of it.

A couple of things before I leave.  I had been an admirer of Mr. Thompson's and found his Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail one of the finest books of campaign literature I have ever read.  This is a fine tribute, I think.

If you're in the Kansas City area, feel free to send me an e-mail. 

I'll leave you with some thoughts on something that probably interests only me (the Kansas City Royals) below the jump.  I'll see you in the comments section.

-Chris R

Pitchers and catchers are reporting this week and half of the teams' fans think with some justification that their team has been practically, if not mathematically, eliminated.  For the past ten-fifteen years, I have been one of those fans.

I've followed the Kansas City Royals, not because it is easy and certainly not because it is fun.  It is drudgery.  I grew up in the 1970s, when the Royals were successful under a true philantrhopist, Ewing Kaufmann, who bought the team and subsidized the team even though it wasn't profitable because he thought it was good for the city.  At the age of six-fifteen, I saw Kansas City --- important to a kid because, hey, I'm FROM there -- compete against the New Yorks and (worse) the St. Louises of the world and actually win.  Then Kaufmann died, to be replaced by a committee.  George Brett retired, to be replaced by a revolving door of other teams' castoffs.  The strike happened. 

Season after season, decade after decade, my life has gone through a series of changes.  My daughter was born, I've gone through multiple jobs and I've gone through numerous friendships and relationships.  One thing has been constant:  I follow the Royals, game after game, as they consistently finish near the bottom of the league.   It isn't disappointing anymore and the players shift in and out of my consciousness because of their very mediocrity.  I don't see a real difference between, say, Rusty Meacham or Don Wengert, in part because it really doesn't matter.  They are both, for my purposes, the generic right-handed setup man who ends up soaking innings in a 16-3 blowout in August.

What does one do when something you follow so intensely and passionately lull you into an almost apathetic stupor?  Do you blame the "system", like so many fans who listen and agree to Rush Limbaugh complaining about the welfare system for three hours, then without irony listen and agree to sports radio comparing the lack of a welfare system in a cartel?  Sure, but I know better.  Kansas City isn't going to win because the system isn't broken, it is equal parts the incompetence of their management and the fact that I live in a city lucky to have major league baseball.  Besides, the Minnesotas and Oaklands of the world succeed and actually play in October, while I get to listen to people in the office obsess about the Chiefs' lack of a kickoff specialist.

Do you blame management?  Well, yes and no.  One of the reasons I don't think revenue sharing is a panacea is precisely because other smaller teams have succeded and I realize that much of the Royals' problem in the lack of two decades stems from the incompetence of the Herk Robinson regime.  After all, the Royals were actually owned (this is true) by a tax shelter -- a well-meaning committee with all the right motives and absolutely no baseball savvy.  But I know that even if the team were successful, even if there were a false spring where we finished above .500, market forces will inevitably cause the Carlos Beltrans and Johnny Damons and soon the Zach Greinkes and Billy Butlers to play for teams with more money and more exposure.

So I watch and listen.  Year after year.  I read the news accounts concerning a twenty year old who looks good, but hasn't actually pitched well in the minor leagues.  I watch double-header losses in empty, mid-August stadiums.  I listen to the endless drone of post-game callers bitching about the fact that the team lacks fundamentals, as if Bill Pecota could play flawless baseball and become Alex Rodriguez.  Most of all, I suffer the indifference and taunts of everyone I know, who treat me as the odd flake who would rather listen to Denny & Ryan rather than, say, go to the latest art opening.

For what?  I mean, would *you* go to a diner that consistently served bland food?  Would you see the Director's Cut of Starship Troopers?  Would you read a book by Hugh Hewitt if you didn't have to do a book review or something? 

Here's why:  I still believe.  I hope that Allard Baird is as smart of a GM as I think he is.  I still watch because I hope, I even dream, that somehow the Royals will have fifteen variables all fall in place and somehow win consistently.  Then, I will be delirious in an almost second youth, where I'll be brought back to when I was a kid and I actually think it mattered in my life.

Yep.  I'm hooked.  It's unconditional.  I can't say that about many things.

Matt Yglesias and Julie Saltman are having words over whether or not George W. Bush is a real live homophobe or a closet, opportunistic, tolerant. I'm going to throw in with the latter view not only on instinct, but on evidence from Lanny Davis, former counsel to Bill Clinton and classmate to George W. Bush (the LA Times article it originally appeared in is offline, this comes from Kevin Drum's excerpts):

One of my most vivid memories is this: A few of us were in the common room one night. It was 1965, I believe — my junior year, his sophomore. We were making our usual sarcastic commentaries on those who walked by us. A little nasty perhaps, but always with a touch of humor. On this occasion, however, someone we all believed to be gay walked by, although the word we used in those days was "queer." Someone, I'm sorry to say, snidely used that word as he walked by.

George heard it and, most uncharacteristically, snapped: "Shut up." Then he said, in words I can remember almost verbatim: "Why don't you try walking in his shoes for a while and see how it feels before you make a comment like that?"

Remember, this was the 1960s — pre-Stonewall, before gay rights became a cause many of us (especially male college students) had thought much about.

The view is echoed in the tapes of Bush released by Doug Wead. The two together point towards a remarkably coherent philosophy: It's not the homosexual but the homosexuality. Put another way, it's the ass-fucking, stupid.

I think the current debate concerning the mainstream media entirely misses the point.  And yes, I’m about to channel Howard Beale.  I’m going to break this in three sections.

Some conservatives seem to think that the media fails society because it is too “liberal” and that the media promotes an agenda to discredit conservatives (anti-religious, too focused on bad news out of Iraq, etc…).  The strategy by some conservative bloggers of attacking the BBC, CNN, or other outlets for their terminology or their choice of stories or even their recent “scalp hunting” is a way of either intimidating the media or, worse, discrediting the MSM so people on their side will only follow news that promotes a conservative viewpoint.

Some liberals seem to think that the media fails society because it is owned by large corporations and those corporations will not report negatively on the Administration or some businesses.  I think the cause for the media’s decline is correct (that the media is corporately owned), but in a more subtle way.

For background:  it wasn’t too long ago that news organizations’ primary function was not to make a profit.  It was to build prestige for a larger organization.  For example, CBS News in the 1930s-1970s may or may not have been profitable, but that wasn’t the point of CBS News.  CBS News’ success increased the prestige of the CBS “brand” generally and, therefore, the Paley family or their successors were more than content to subsidize a financial loss from the CBS News subdivision.  Similarly, many newspapers were not “corporate” organizations, they were family-run organizations (the Grahams, the Sulzbergers, etc…).

Since the major focus for news organizations (in particular the networks) was not focused on the profitability of the news sections, they were able to pursue stories that were controversial (e.g. it is unimaginable today for CBS to run a prime-time special to debunk a right-wing Senator’s wild charges, in part because it would receive low ratings, in part because it would be too controversial) and, further, to hire people who were interested in promoting news that may not be popular but was important.

It was a public trust, in a sense.  Yes, there was a sense of paternalism to it (we know what’s good for the public) and there was some condescension to it (which is why some conservatives bitch about “liberal elites” – they were more often than not “liberal” and they were almost by definitiion the "elite").  But for thirty years, I would argue it served the public pretty well.

Beginning in the 1980s, this began to stop.  Network news services were pressured to cut costs and bureaus were eliminated.  In order for the news division of a network to receive airtime in prime time, they were required to pander to their audience.  Documentaries like "CBS Reports" concerning the Pentagon's spending policies, to be replaced by Dateline NBC with Stone Phillips. In addition, the proliferation of news outlets (e.g. cable news, radio, INET, etc…) caused declining ratings, which caused news outlets to panic.  Even CNN, which was created as an all-news network, faced a significant challenge from FNC’s success and even faces an identity problem concerning their role in the marketplace.

-Chris R

We face three current problems:

1) Television news outlets, in particular cable news outlets, try to receive higher ratings not by reporting the news, but by reporting news that they think the audience wants to hear.  In order for a network news program to run in prime time, it invariably focuses on celebrities, diet tips, crime stories, or something similarly titillating.  Cable news focuses on the same:  for those who doubt, how on Earth would any news organization (granted, CNN Headline News isn't known for their brilliance, but bear with me) give Nancy Grace an hour of a network’s time every night if they cared about informing the public?

2) In the past, news anchors and reporters were primarily hired from print journalism.  Ed Murrow, for example, hired William Shirer as his Berlin correspondent not because he had a terrific voice (by all accounts, he didn’t) but because he was a talented and brave reporter with sources throughout Berlin (not just the Berlin Hilton).  Now, the farm system for cable news seems to be local news, where there is more focus on market demands (emphasis on happy banter between anchors, consultant’s reports concerning the marketplace, crime reports, sensationalism).  The result:  with a few notable exceptions, news anchors and reporters are not rewarded for informing the public, but for “screen presence” (e.g. cute and non-intimidating) and acceptability to the audience. 

3) More and more citizens in this country, indeed all over the world, tend to seek out news outlets that will tell them what they want to hear.  Fox News is dangerous not because it is conservative, but because it is incredibly successful by pandering to their audience.  If you are a conservative and disagree that the network is pandering to you, ask yourself when the last time FNC ran a story that challenged the audience? 

So Fox News is successful and market consultants increasingly tell their employers that the “cable news audience” is “conservative” and hiring conservative commentators might boost ratings.  Missing, of course, is the fact that while the “cable news audience” is “conservative”, that is largely because no one is trying anything else (much like market analysts suggested that Air America wouldn’t succeed because liberals don’t listen to AM talk radio).  As a result, MSNBC, intimidated by FNC’s success and facing an identity crisis, frequently attempts to hire conservative commentators (Carlson, Savage, Scarborough, Alan Keyes, etc…).  CNN attempts to emulate FNC in another way, by usually creating panels of one rabid conservative and one cowed moderate where they are to “debate” (e.g. yell) the issues of the day.

Stating that networks find it profitable to pander to their audience's beliefs isn’t a conservative or liberal critique (Al Jazeera’s success in the Arab world is predicated on the same premise, it seems to me).  We as liberals are shut of this and will create a cable network of our own – one focused on presenting the news from a “liberal” point of view, which I also find dangerous.

-Chris R

What’s missing?

We no longer have news coverage that actually informs our citizenry. 

The market seems to be promoting two things:  unintelligent news coverage concerning events that has little or no effect on people’s lives but are titillating (high-profile trials, celebrity news, etc…) or news coverage that panders to their audience’s already existing political views.

Is it too much to ask that with thousands of news outlets that there is not a market for an intelligent news network that challenges the audience rather than pander to it?  Is it unprofitable to inform the public?  Is this inevitable?

And if it is inevitable, it isn’t the media’s fault; it is the fault of our citizenry. If that’s true, the next thirty years of political discourse, where people receive news from those who condescend to their prurient interests or pander to their political beliefs, will be much more divisive and destructive than the last twenty.

I’m interested in what you have to think.  Honestly, I don’t know if there’s a solution to this problem or if I’m being overly pessimistic.

- Chris R

Yep.  This is incredibly brilliant stuff.

Am I the only one who hasn't heard of these folks? 

- Chris R

to both Glenn Reynolds and his wife. 

-Chris R

I'm sorry that so many of my posts this weekend seem to be nothing more than blog navel gazing. In my defense, it isn't my blog, I don't blog, so it isn't my navel I'm gazing at.

But let's examine this remark by Hugh Hewitt:

HEWITT: Well, I've been a broadcast journalists for 15 years. I've worked in print and television and radio. And the blogosphere is by far the most accurate and the most objective in terms of accountability. Because the moment you make a mistake, you get jumped on by your colleagues and your adversaries in the blogosphere. Dan Rather got brought down by bloggers.

Did the blogs bring down Dan Rather?  I'd like to think Rather and his reporters played a role in that, as well. Perhaps they highlighted the incompetence of CBS' vetting of the National Guard memos. But let's go to Mr. Hewitt's statement that blogs are more objective and more accurate than radio, television and print and use the "Kerry intern" rumors floated on Drudge as a case study on blog accuracy.

On February 12, 2004 Drudge "reported" that the Dem. primary campaign will be "rocked" by allegations related to a woman who "fled the country."  Instapundit linked to Drudge's allegation, Hugh Hewitt blustered that the media's lack of coverage concerning the allegations was evidence of the MSM's media bias and Powerline even interpreted the woman's lack of comment as a suggestion that there was something to the allegation. One blogger named "Bigwig", a bit aggressive in his determination, even scoured through Kerry's intern photos and identified a woman whose only "relationship" with Mr. Kerry is that she apparently happened to be an intern for Mr. Kerry at one time (even Drudge's report didn't allege an intern, btw) and even attempted to publish her phone number. That blogger's false allegations were spread by Instapundit and disseminated to a wider audience. In fairness to Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Reynolds retracted his link the same evening, after readers suggested he remove the link.

Polier, the woman who was alleged to have been involved with Mr. Kerry, denied the allegations on the 16th of February. In response, Powerline speculated about an (non-existent, apparently) ABC interview and even posted a picture of a woman who was allegedly Ms. Polier (unclear whether she actually was), Instapundit responded with a snarky remark that "I guess that settles it" with a media report concerning the Lewinsky affidavit and Hewitt to my knowledge did not even acknowledge her denial.

So let's do a compare/contrast.

Source of allegation in Rathergate: Memos sent by a disreputable source to CBS, who didn't effectively authenticate the memoranda. Not at all what you want to see from an elite organization.

Source of allegation in the Kerry allegations: A barely-sourced report by a right-wing gossip columnist, who stated that three reporters can vouch that Wesley Clark repeated those allegations off-the-record. To Mr. Reynolds, that would be quadruple hearsay, if not more. The allegations -- along with the woman's name and picture -- were disseminated extensively throughout the blogosphere.

Meaculpa in Rathergate: A public apology by Mr. Rather to his audience and the President for the false report.

Meaculpa in Kerry allegations: None, not to the readers (many of whom presumably were also disappointed and didn't demand an apology) and certainly not to Mr. Kerry.

Remedial steps taken in Rathergate: A well-publicized internal investigation headed by G.H.W.B. confidant which was publicly released.

Remedial steps concerning Kerry allegations: None. Moved on to false allegations concerning the Swiftboats.

It almost goes without saying that the chest-thumping by some right-wing blogs is silly and I can't believe I spent this much time saying the obvious:  the blogosphere is often less objective and less accurate than traditional MSM outlets.

My point? Let me start by saying that I'm not doing this for partisan snark, although I'll admit that's a collateral benefit. I don't think that the tendency to print false allegations only exists on the right-wing. God knows we have Kos diaries that do the same.

And, yes, the blogosphere can lessen the barrier to entry for a citizen to have one's voice heard. I'm here because I like Ezra's writing and think he has something to offer to the public debate -- and I wouldn't have known about Ezra (or Matt, or Jerome, or Ted Barlow, or whomever) without the blogosphere. And, yes, the Guckert/Gannon story (and Rathergate) showed that the blogosphere provides some critical analysis of journalists that is badly needed.

My point is that the blogosphere isn't going to "replace journalism" and is certainly not "more accurate" or "more objective" than traditional journalism. There is *plenty* wrong with contemporary journalism (that's my next post), but the idea that the blogosphere filled with rabid partisans is a worthy replacement is not just silly, it is destructive to political discourse (we'll have both sides of the partisan divide reading only what they want to hear). So let's stop talking about the demise of the "MSM" and "dinosaurs" without also realizing that without an objective source of news, we won't have an informed citizenry.

For two days, I have access to a blog.  Believe me, I know very little.  You may find substantive errors, sentences with passive voice problems, and, when my F7 button locks, spelling errors. 

I realize that Mr. Hewitt, a third-rate talk show host with a second-rate right wing blog, is trying to make a career out of the "blogging phenomena". Bully for him. As a result, he's going to engage in hyperbole concerning the influence of blogs (comparing it to the invention of the printing press). It would seem to me that journalists on, say, CNN, may want to look at his archives and see if he has been 100% correct in the past.

-Chris R

Sorry for the lack of posts, but I'm working on a post which will settle the hockey labor dispute.  Oh, and it will also cause us to travel in space.

Not really, of course.  But I always wanted to do one of those Josh Marshall teasers.

-Chris R

Sorry to do a Larry King on you, but I'm just going post some random thoughts until I hit an optimal caffeine level:

*  What happens if you are a political movement based on outrage, but you control all three branches of government?  For the right-wing, some are now outraged at, um, graffiti.  (By the way, generally a bad idea to do a victory dance in the other side's back yard... I once lived in DC and was told that if you weren't wearing green in the upper deck of the Vet during an Eagles loss, you don't value your life nearly enough).

*  Saw Guckert/Gannon on CNN last night.  I would say it was obvious he was lying when he nose grew during the interview, but, given the circumstances, I think I might be referring to the wrong part of his anatomy.

*  I own a Sirius radio now, so I can listen to Air America when I want.  I mostly like Air America, but I'm a little disturbed by the fact the advertisements for hypnosis and sexual enhancement might be the wrong image for a political party attempting to rebut the charges that they are impotent and out of touch.

-Chris R

To follow up and respond to Ezra's previous post concerning Gannon/Guckert.

Does this story have greater significance than McCllelan's credentialing?

Potentially, yes.   I disagree with Ezra here.  There are potentially significant issues involved which should be answered, as well as tactical opportunites to exploit here.

As much as I really don't want my first substantive post to disagree with Ezra and risk being a very bad guest, here goes:

1)  Did he receive classified information in the Plame issue?  Unlike many reading Kos, I'm unconvinced that actually took place (my understanding is that the WSJ article concerning Plame came before Gannon's interview with Wilson).  But if that is correct, if a fake journalist with a shady background using a false name received classified information, it is by definition a scandal.  If he received any special treatment from the WH or was used as a clearinghouse by the WH, as CBS implies tonight on their website (and, boy, might there be a potential irony here), it is at the very least a story worth highlighting.  I don't think it is the Profumo affair and it isn't by itself any more scandalous than the actual Plame allegations.  Gannon/Guckert's involvements, however, cause many media sources to highlight the Valerie Plame investigation -- an enormously important allegation.

We don't know where this is going.  We really don't.  There's the potential -- however slim (and I think very slim) -- that this could expand into something bigger.  Watergate was a third-rate burglary and Whitewater was really less than that.  Given the WH's past willingness to manipulate news and even create false news, this is certainly something to explore.

2) It may force some traditional journalism outlets to highlight one of the most important and disturbing developments in the last fifteen years -- the other side’s use of outlets that are rabidly partisan, use half-truths (and often less than that) to attack perceived enemies and maintain a thin veneer of journalism -- yet are *enormously* influential in shaping the daily news cycle.  We've seen the impact of the American Spectator stories concerning Clinton repeated immediately on CNN (who the story's author has discredited) and we've seen the impact of the Swift Boat stories (falsehoods spread by sympathetic websites, sympathetic 527s and Drudge).  I'm sure there are five hundred other examples. 

Will that stop many on the right from believing everything printed by these quasi-journalists?  Of course not.  Some will always want to read what they want to on both sides of the political divide (more on this later this weekend). 

But news events that highlight this development -- and, by extension, anything that highlights that certain right wing outlets are willing to spread disinformation for partisan purposes -- is a good thing for our side and potentially the nation’s discourse.  If this trend is highlighted -- and some of these groups (particularly Drudge, whose selection of stories have an odd way of finding their way to Bill Hemmer's mouth on CNN -- to say nothing of Fox & Friends) -- it may help us in the future when more substantive issues are at stake.  I'm not optimistic concerning this at all, but I do think it could potentially take place.

3)  It does something that helps us in the long-term.  We don't have many outlets to spread our message.  The only thing we have are a few lonely pundits, a growing Air America network and, of course, the blogosphere.  I have ambivalent feelings about the blogosphere generally (more about that later -- and, yes, I will implicitly contradict every single thing I write here later this weekend), but right now it is all we have.  Anything that points traditional media outlets to pay attention to liberal blogosphere helps us in the future.

Is this cynical?  Yeah.  But consider this:  as talented as Atrios is, as many hits as Kos receives, as talented as many left-leaning bloggers are, they have received more exposure out of this specific story than anything since the Dean campaign (and, frankly, more than that in some cases).

So this might have a collateral benefit.

4)  Does the sex aspect discredit #1 and cause some in the mainstream media to think that this story is not about #1 above?  Do we run the risk of a backlash?

Well, that's what the right wing is trying.  They are suggesting this is all about "sex" (ironic to anyone who lived through the 1990s) and some are suggesting that this is an outing by left-wing activists (how one "outs" someone who posts explicit pictures concerning sexuality on a website is beyond me, of course -- also, are we outing the sexuality of his false identity?).

But, of course, this story receives more media attention than most scandals – particularly scandals concerning the lack of ethics of certain partisans on the right.  Why?  Because it is about two things that the media is obsessed about:  sex and themselves (and preferably both).

The critical issue for us is to stop talking about the sex aspect of this.  It got the media’s attention, but for the sake of credibility, the story really is about a)  who gave him access, b)  how much access did he receive, and c) did it include national security secrets.  As far as I know, we've mostly focused on this.   If anyone on our side isn't focusing on this and is focusing on his sexuality, they are hypocritical and extraordinarily ineffective.

5)  Does it cause us to prevail on more substantive issues or give us an electoral advantage?

No, absent a further disclosure concerning the Plame investigation or anything else.  It may end up being a relatively small story.  Right now, the only thing it does is cause the other side some discomfort.

But, let's be honest, nothing we on our side will do will help us pick up seats in the House or Senate.  It is what the other side's hubris that will cause that.  We can only win when they overreach (on Social Security, for example) -- and they will -- and when effectively capitalize on that.  All the Lakoff framing exercises, all the attempts to catch the other side in lies, doesn't matter in the end as long as they have a louder megaphone.

Ezra's last line is absolutely accurate:  "Gannon's good target practice, but we still need to learn how to use a gun."

Well, target practice certainly helps us learn.  And yeah, it makes me sound cynical to say this.  I wish we could discuss issues and I wish this country wasn't so sex-obsessed and polarized.  I wish cable news wasn't a cesspool and that the only time we even talk about the WH's management of news is in this context.

Chris R

Q: Who are you, anyway.

A: My name's Chris Rasmussen. I've previously blogged here and here (all of my posts at that site have been scrubbed due to my calls for a mass suicide in the event Bush was re-elected). I'd like to thank Ezra, who I have admired for some time, for providing me this opportunity to make a fool of myself for 48 consecutive hours.

Q: Is that your real name or is it a psudeonym like "Jeff Gannon"?

A: It is my real name. The only thing I have in common with Mr. Gannon/Guckert is that we have a shared hobby in creating web sites for escort services.

Q: What are your qualifications for blogging? Do you have expertise in any area?

A: Much like Ezra, I suffer from a life-long physical disability rendering me unable to button a shirt. I also have thoughts and opinions and, unlike many non-bloggers, also have access to a computer. I do not, however, have the academic brilliance of a Matt Yglesias, as I spent much of my college years quite drunk. I also do not have any expertise in anything nor do I have any access to anyone remotely famous or influential. My ability to express my thoughts and opinions on a computer is considered by many experts as a potential replacement for traditional journalism. These experts are "insane".

Q: Where do you live?

A: Missouri, which will soon be renamed by the Republican legislature as "Greater Branson."

Q: What is it like living in a red state?

A: Good question. Several things. First, one looks around and tries to figure out who voted to re-elect the President. Generally, they wear t-shirts extolling the merits of their favorite professional wrestler. Once you find candidates, you attempt to provide retribution. Also, we are required to attend state-sponsored Intelligent Design classes, where we learn that the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood.

Q: So why don't you blog regularly?

A: A life long fear of committment. Also, I don't have enough thoughts and/or opinions to do this for more than two days. Sure, I can link to other people's ideas and add clever thoughts like "heh" and "indeed" like some conservative bloggers, but I don't like to live a lie.

Q: What are your political affiliations?

A: I'm a former Deaniac who is still trying to figure out how we spent $14 million and didn't have a discernable "organization", "effective advertising campaign" or "strategy".

Q: So you're just another liberal blogger?

A: Yes.

Q:  How old are you?

A:  34.

Q:  Isn't that a bit old for a blogger.

A:  Yes.  In fact, I'm very winded right now.

Q: When does Ezra get back?

A: Soon.

Q: Can he come back sooner?

Chris Rasmussen

As I've alluded to a couple times, the last two weeks have been crazy/insane for me. Applications, midterms, book reviews...it was a perfect storm of deadlines. As of this morning, the craziness is over. Nonetheless, I'm going to take the weekend to chill out and conduct a Harding-esque return to normalcy. Your host here will be Chris Rasmussen, a longtime commentor and all around smart guy. He also, incidentally, sent the e-mail suggesting I review Hewitt's book, so blogging during my recovery is his penance. But be nice to him anyway.

Digby says:

As I sit here listening to two congressmen on Inside Politics drone on about how we must restore civility to politics (now that the GOP controls all branches of government) I'm experiencing one of those rare times when I truly understand why people become Republicans. It's because they have political instincts and we don't. If you are a political animal that is a very compelling trait.
...
Paraphrasing a comment I read somewhere yesterday (apologies to the author) "pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in the middle of the family values white house living room." Goldberg affects a jocular dismissiveness for a reason. He knows what a real story is and he knows how they work. And he is trivializing this one because it is actually quite dangerous.

Meanwhile, on the left we have much handwringing by commenters over this not being a "gay" story and how we should concentrate on the national security angle and how it's really about access etc, etc. We too are ignoring the naked, gay conservative prostitute in the midde of the family values white house living room. And this is where they get us.

Liberals have a "problem" with internalizing their ideals. When we sat around a few years back earnestly arguing that the President's under-the-desk BJs weren't a matter of national import, we actually believed that personal lives were not relevant to politics. Meanwhile, across the aisle, the Republicans who do believe sexual behavior, to say nothing of homosexuality, are transcendent character flaws find themselves more than willing to overlook the failings among their own number. A friend clarified the difference for me a few days ago, it's a Protestant/Catholic thing. Democrats believe that works alone will save you, while Republicans believe faith is the only way, but reserve the right to criticize works. Faith, in this context, means faith in the Republican party, a membership card in the VRWC. Once that's been laminated, you can do anything you want save blaspheming Dear Leader.

But compounding the problem is that Gannon is a bullshit story that we desperately want to push because it bears a vague relation to the stuff wingers make gains with. Two days ago, I wrote a post Iran as a heuristic for anti-Americanism, and was surprised to find the first comment say:

Hey, Ezra, did you know that a site search for "Gannon" gets zero hits? Oh, I wonder who will win the 2006 elections, I wonder....

I wonder too, but I don't wonder too often, because I think I know the answer. It's them. Democrats have been losing because we're unable to stick a scandal, but we've also been failing because we've lost sight of our strengths. Somewhere along the way, we looked at the Lewinsky scandal, thought "we should do that", and never looked back save to criticize those who weren't keeping up.

But we're not good at pushing these scandals. We don't have an eye for them. Monica had to do with Bill; Gannon, at best, has to do with McLellan's credentialing procedures. Do we really think this is going to ricochet into Bush's lap? Beyond that, do we really think we can prove authentic at this? We'll get the guy fired, sure, but he'll just be replaced with a better-vetted hack, not with a bulldog muckraker. And, for our part, we're not going to prove authentic in this battle, not in the long run. Unless we're willing to refashion our party into a family values vehicle, arguing over homosexual softballers in the pressroom doesn't fit with our image. And until we're willing to do the grunt work of painting the Republicans as a bunch of gays who got their jobs through patronage, it's not going to stick to them, either.

That, in the end, is the problem. Until we imbue our party with some sort of definable image, we can't level any attacks because we don't have authority on any subjects. Why do you think we lost on taxes but won on Social Security? Seriously, why? Do you know that, at tax cut time, Americans wanted to forego the checks to pay down the deficit 60%-30%? But we lost that battle, and it wasn't because our caucus was more united. We lost that battle because we have no credibility on taxes, and thus Republicans didn't fear we could drive them out of office and Democrats didn't believe they could get electoral credit. Social Security, conversely, is associated with Democrats. So even though private accounts polled much better than tax cuts, the Democratic counterattack has proved devastating to the plan, so much so that Bush now finds himself fighting with conservatives as to whether or not he can raise taxes to fix Social Security.

We're not going to win by copying the Republican playbook. In football, you spend the week before a game learning the other team's plays. But you don't run them. You learn how to defend against them, and you run the plays you're good at. Because the other team has created a playbook relying on their specific attributes -- their strongest players, their coach's expertise, their linemen's size. If you tried to ape it, you'd simply be running their plays without any of their strengths. You'd lose. And if Democrats keep trying to run Republican plays without building the foundations that made them work, we will lose as well. We've got to make a conscious choice to find our own strengths, create our own image, and utilize attacks that play to our abilities. Otherwise, we're simply codifying Republican tactics as the de facto ground for political warfare, and we might as well give up now.

So does this mean we shouldn't go after Gannon? No, of course we should. But Gannon's not going to prove our savior. If our party was the party of accountable government, we could nail them for having a sycophant. If our party was the party of governmental reform, we could spear them with rules on political patronage. If our party was the party of sexual background checks, we could attack them for an incompetent vetting process. We're none of those things. We keep looking for short cuts that'll excuse us from having to do the boring work of giving our party shape. Maybe if we can just catch Bush on Plame, or Gannon, or uranium, or X, then we can hobble him and sit tight till the next election. But the Republicans didn't win because of Monica. Monica wasn't around to kneecap Clinton in 1992, or bring about the Republican revolution in 1994. In fact, Monica proved the end of Republican effectiveness against Clinton, because she provoked the right to overreach. Republicans triumphed not on scandal, but on the ability to create scandal and step into the void. They had already set their party up in opposition to congressional corruption, to liberal lasciviousness, to big government. We've not put in the time, and so the only battles we can win are those that FDR already laid the groundwork on. Gannon's good target practice, but we still need to learn how to use a gun.

The world is apparently facing a critical shortage of exorcists. Not even kidding you. So does this make Constantine a current events film?

With Bush publicly considering a payroll tax hike, we're starting to get "wheels come off" stories on Social Security privatization. The LA Times, for instance, has a nice one centering on conservatives furious at the president for considering tax hikes. Considering that many Republicans were simply looking for a way out of supporting the bill, they just got their "get-out-of-jail" free card, complete with Grover Norquist's stamp of approval on it. Bush, for his part, clearly thought mentioning a tax increase would bring Democrats rushing to the table, but the ghosts of Charlie Stenholm and Max Cleland seem to have kept them in their seats. But the man is not just failing to convince Democrats, he's failing to convince everybody:

That point was underscored in a national survey, published Thursday, showing that public support for Social Security overhaul has slipped since Bush began campaigning for private accounts.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that Americans supported keeping Social Security "basically as is," by 50% to 40%. That contrasts with a similar survey in January, before Bush began touring the nation and leaning on lawmakers to make his pitch, when Americans favored private accounts 46% to 44%.

But, but...mandate?

Been wondering what Medicaid is and what the issues around it are? Plumer's got you covered.

MSNBC is hosting a panel discussion on Social Security, specifically the president's new coupling of private accounts and a payroll tax raise. The panel is:

• Joe Scarborough, host and former Republican Congressman;

• Hugh Hewitt, conservative radio host/blogger;

• Dennis Prager, conservative writer;

• Rachel Maddow, host on Air America.

That's a 3 to 1 conservative advantage and, I wouldn't say this if it weren't true, Maddow is wiping the floor with them. She nailed the fiscal irresponsibility of privatization so hard that Hewitt was forced down to justifying it on the grounds that black people die sooner. Scarborough's response?

"You're worried about blacks. I'm worried about blacks. But I'm worried about all Americans, and I don't want to see their taxes raised."

Not only is MSNBC fair and balanced, they're humanitarians, too.

My opinion on this is the same as my reaction to finding that Reid was creating a Democratic War Room: Great, but we didn't do that before!? For those who don't like following links, the move is simply the DNC granting the DCCC and the DSCC access to Demzilla, the massive computer voter database. Previously, the three had jealously competed for voters and data. Someone must have written a memo defining the terms "same team" and "one party rule" for them.

Rick Perlstein e-mailed this morning to say that he too trudged through a Hewitt book for the good of his readers. Not only do I sympathize, but I'm a great believer that authorial sacrifices like reading Hugh Hewitt mandate long-lasting rewards. So go give his review the half-life it deserves, I'm sure it'll aid his recovery greatly.

For those wondering, I'm about 110 pages into the book, and it's now changed from lying a lot to talking about history a lot. In the last 30, it's morphed again and is making bizarre assertions about blog power. My favorite thus far:

The blogs will move much more quickly, and with much greater authority, than the MSM. They will make or break the nominee.
[P]erhaps future presidents ought to put three or four names out for collecting blog vetting before a final choice is made. The White House Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice are staffed by fine lawyers with great capacity for research and analysis.
But their number and energy are finite.

He's talking here about giving blogs first vet on Supreme Court nominees. Brilliant.

I haven't said anything on the Lebanon/Syria situation because I don't know anything about Lebanon or Syria. I do, however, know enough to recommend Praktike's comments on the matter. And by the way, are you reading Liberals Against Terrorism? Cause if you're not, you should be. Even Haggai's hanging out there now.

Will the prime minister be Jafari? Chalabi? A third candidate? I don't know, but I know who to ask:

A close aide to al-Sistani, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the alliance leaders will visit his office in Najaf to get his blessing for their choice for prime minister. If they cannot agree, al-Sistani will decide.

You know what this doesn't sound like? Iran. Nope, not in the least.

Mark Schmitt's post on the narrow missions of foundations reminded me of something Nick Confessore wrote a few weeks back in his New York Times Magazine expose of Bush's tax plans (behind the archive so no link):

Within Republican circles, Norquist's job is to organize other organizations, making sure the different branches of conservatism are moving in the same direction, at the same time, to the greatest extent possible. His particular genius is for persuading one organization to reach beyond its own agenda to help out another -- for getting, say, the cultural traditionalists at the Eagle Forum to join the business libertarians at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in opposing fuel-economy standards for automobiles by convincing the traditionalists that, as Norquist once explained to me, ''it's backdoor family planning.

I know lots of lefties who wonder why we lack a Grover Norquist-like enforcer, but not enough who wonder why we lack movement chieftains with his talents. A few days ago, Joe Rospars sent me a Hotline piece dissecting the Democratic response on Social Security that, for the first time in a long time, left me nervous about the fight:

Dems have "talked up plans for a high-dollar rebuttal campaign, but with the exception" of MoveOn.org, which has about $500K so far for ads, "most groups have eben slow to organize or fallen prey to 'donor fatigue.'" Starting 2/14, [The Media Fund] and ACT strategists are "meeting to sort out what role, if any," they will play. TMF's Harold Ickes: "Issue campaigns are always a hard sell to donors. It's not a candidate that you can talk to or take a picture with. You can't schmooze with Social Security" (2/21 issue).

We need some movement guys with the trust of the left's funding source and the ability to explain why supporting causes that don't directly relate to them is actually in their self-interest. Maybe Ickes is making a play at it, but if not, someone better step up.

This is a very, very stupid poll. If George Washington came back from the dead and tried to capture the presidency, I'd vote for Bush as well! Why? Because he knows who Osama bin Laden is. And he has likely heard of the internet, not to mention Medicare. And his context isn't centuries old.

The poll's only interesting feature was that Bush won among Republicans and Washington won among Democrats and Independents, proving that we've reached the level of polarization needed to make an Encino Man candidacy viable.

You should read Ed Kilgore's comments on the latest salvo in the abortion battle, wherein Carol Tobias of the National Right to Life Committee firmly rejected Hillary Clinton's call for compromise. As Ed notes, hardcore anti-choice folks don't see a moral difference between birth control and abortion procedures, forcing them to explain that publicly drives a wedge in their colaition. But at the end, Ed writes that:

Hillary Clinton has just given us all a textbook case of what it really means to "seize the center": it does not mean "moving to the right," it means moving to higher and stronger ground.

I'm starting to think that it's the whole concept of a "center" that messes up progressive politics. Conceptually, you can only occupy so much ground, so if you're seizing the center you're not covering the left. But Hillary's not seizing the center, she's squeezing the right. Her framing pushes them out of a whole range of positions they formerly inhabited and leaves room only for those groups entrenched in the most extreme ideas. And that's how we should think about these things, not in terms of where they move us, but where they move our opponents.

So long as you're hanging out at Ed Kilgore's place, read his post on reinstating the estate tax. Good stuff in them there grafs.

Now be honest. Is there anything cuter than a freshman Republican Senator? Because Isakson's adorable comments sure make me want to tickle him under the chin.

Well this is brilliant. We're outsourcing the war to incompetent soldiers from poor countries with shoddy human rights records. And, just like with regular outsourcing, the manpower is being massed through a byzantine web of contractors and subcontractors and no one can figure out what country's laws, if any, these guys fall into. In addition, our contact point was Custer Battles, the same Custer Battles that defrauded us out of $15 million by, among other shenanigans, providing security to an airport that wasn't in use. Excellent.

Matt's asking the big questions: If Jimmy Carter is truly a traitor, yet as an ex-president he still gets top-level intelligence briefings, is the Republic safe? I expect that George W. Bush is feeding him misinformation so Carter will mislead his superior (code name: Jesus), but how can we know the tricky devil isn't seeing right through it? Indeed, are we giving him access to confidential memos on CIA agents? If so, has he done anything to blow cover, like pose nude for homosexual websites or offer his services as a male prostitute? Has anyone looked into that Sunday school Carter has been teaching for decades? Maybe he's a pedophile!

These questions must be answered, and quickly. While the Democrats stonewall, Jimmy Carter plots and Americans slumber on, dangerously unaware of the 80-year old ex-president and his similarly aged wife massing on their border.

If you haven't been already, you should really be checking out the newly-launched Campus Progress. As the kids say, it's the shizzle.

Update: While you're there, you really have to check out "So Speaks Some Guy With a Website". Brilliant.

This may be a blessing in disguise. The Muslim Scholars Association, a hardline, highly-influential Sunni group, has offered their participation in the government if US troops set a timetable for withdrawal. It's a demand we obviously can't meet as is, but were the Shi'as and Kurds to announce that the path was now for the Iraqis to chart and a united, clearly-autonomous Iraq was necessary for that, it'd leave us with no choice in the matter. Indeed, the best thing that could happen to us would be for the democratically-elected government to offer us a dignified withdrawal in the context of proving their autonomy, maybe pairing a timetable (for Sunni dignity) with conditions for implementation (for American dignity). We're too hardheaded to leave any other way, and the Sunnis are too defensive to join a government that we're involved in, so it may fall to the Iraqi-elect to chart a middle path between our competing egos.

That, after all, is what governments are for, right?

I should note that the MSA has other demands too, including full release of detained Sunni prisoners. That's obviously unacceptable, so long as our troops are are patrolling the streets we can't be throwing open the cells of thousands of hardened, recently-imprisoned insurgents. But beyond rejecting the request in the immediate sense, leftover prisoners pose a really tricky problem that we're eventually going to have to solve. Do we turn the insurgents over to the current government? If so, when? What if they want to let a bunch of angry, anti-American radicals out in a gesture of goodwill? It's not something we can really stop, which is why I fear we'll not allow it in the first place. If we were smart, we'd withdraw and ensure that the prisoners can only leave once we do, but we've thus far shown little evidence of being smart .

So I thought it was a good idea. You know, a fun one. I'd write a review of Hugh Hewitt's new book, Blog, get a byline and a check, go home happy. I mean, the book isn't really long or anything, is it?

Well, no, it's not. But it certainly the most distasteful piece of waste I've handled since maturation imbued me with the good sense to stop handling garbage. I think I was three years old, then. Why is Hugh so bad? Well, aside from the towering egotism and the blistering partisanship, the guy is constantly lying. Here are three, just from the introduction:

On October 1, 2004, more than 130,000 internet users visited HughHewitt.com. They did so because the first presidential debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry was conducted on the night of the thirtieth, and folks wanted my take as well as my continually updated analysis of the debate that took place.
I believe George W. Bush had won the debate, and that John Kerry had committed incredible blunders. Very few pundits agreed with me. I was right.

As you may remember, Hewitt spent the day of the debate screaming at the media for ignoring the "mantan" story, wherein John Kerry would appear on television looking bright orange. John Kerry didn't. Hewitt then watched cartoons for a couple hours and declared Bush the winner. Pundits and voters disagreed overwhelmingly.

The Blogosphere is about trust. CNN lost the trust it once had and its fall has been sudden and shattering. FOX News is trusted by millions, so its numbers have shot up, much to the dismay of lefties who don't understand why viewers would trust Fox News.

Here Hewitt didn't even need to do research (or be particularly sane), he just needed to watch commercials. That "CNN: The Most Trusted Name in News" tagline? That comes because CNN still beats FOX by 7% in trustworthy ratings, 32%-25%.

[John Kerry] never recovered from an August spent hiding from the Vets, their ads, and a relentless inquest conducted fairly and with lawyerly thoroughness within the blogosphere.

Italics mine. And, I should note, those aren't the only three (and they're just from the introduction!). FOX's viewership shot up during the convention not because Republicans watch Fox, but because nobody wanted to see the RNC on the DNC's television outlet. Hugh's book will "have a huge impact across many fields." "What is really going on is an internet reformation similar in consequence to the Reformation that split Christianity in the sixteenth century." This is what I'm slogging through. This and Hugh Hewitt's enormous, uncontrollable ego, which threatens to reach out from the book and throttle me every time I turn the page. All because I wanted to defend the fine folks in the blogosphere.

You see what I go through for you?

Update: I really can't believe we're arguing over who won the first debate. On one side is Hugh's contention that Bush owned it. On the other is this:

Early polls indicated Americans felt Kerry had won the debate. Fifty-three percent of Americans polled in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll said Kerry had won, compared to 37% for Bush. Kerry also was ahead in polls taken by CBS News and ABC News.

And this:

Newsweek's post-convention poll had Bush leading among registered voters 54 percent to 43 percent. Its post-debate poll had 47 percent choosing Kerry-Edwards, and 45 percent for Bush-Cheney. Two percent said they would vote for Ralph Nader and his running mate, Peter Camejo.

Must we play such boring games?

Well this is positive:

Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), the Democratic leaders of the Senate and House, plan to shake up the Democratic political consulting community and break the grip that a small number of consultants have had on strategy and contracts, party sources say.

The Democratic leaders want to bring in new people with track records of success and innovation and look beyond the Beltway for message smiths to help guide the party.
...
A Democratic leadership aide said, “There’s general agreement in both chambers and at the House and Senate political party groups that we need to rethink our relationships with consultants [and have] more accountability for results.

Amy Sullivan should be proud.

Justin's thoughts on my post arguing the merits of the EU's lead role in Iran deserve a quick response. The world, he argues, is more complex than I give it credit for, mainly because the EU has no credible military force nor the appetite to introduce sanctions and our threats don't matter because they've been spoken aloud. I'll grant him the EU's military impotence, but nobody's talking about an invasion of Iran. The most violence being considered are surgical air-strikes, and even they're out of favor given the spread and secrecy of Iran's nuclear facilities. With America straining terribly to occupy Iran's weaker neighbor, there never was a credible threat of our force in the first place, so I wouldn't worry so much about that.

Sanctions are a bit trickier. As Justin rightly notes, Europe has shown no interest in sacrificing trade to punish Iran during past transgressions, what reason is there to believe they'll behave differently now? This, in a sense, was the point of my original post. In the past, Europe could and did rely on America to take the lead on Iran. In the past, Europe trusted America to take the lead on Iran. That allowed them to play good cop, relying on useless measures like the Critical Dialogue and working to stay our hand when they judged us unfair. That made them, to the Iranians, an honest broker, not to mention the main force ensuring America's enmity didn't isolate Iran from the global community. But now, Europe no longer trusts our ability to calm the paranoid Ayatollah, and, indeed, they quite want to do it themselves. Iran, for their part, can't allow the Europeans to pull away, their economy would collapse and a population increasingly desirous of international relations would grow chaotic for the first time since 1999. So while America's behavior is counterproductive, it's really beside the point. The mullahs will certainly use it for rhetorical advantage, but everyone at the negotiating table knows who the players are, and both sides know the stakes. The EU needs the prestige, Iran needs the EU. So, for once, there is the chance that the EU will implement sanctions simply because they're likely to work. Similarly, Iran will listen because, if they alienate Europe, they've nowhere else to turn. In that way, it's really not very complex at all.

The critical variable in all this is how close Iran is to the bomb. They've dropped vague hints that they've already got one, but that's unlikely (despite A.Q. Khan's best efforts). If they're close, they're going to rush across the finish line no matter who wants to stop them and how serious they are. Once they've got the weapon, the world will have to deal with it as fact, preventing it is no longer an option. But if they're still far, they can only stall for so long, and will probably be forced to make a deal. So is the rhetoric a bargaining chip or an accurate reflection of reality? We don't know and, odds are, Europe doesn't either. Iran's receptiveness to a deal will really be the only way to tell.

Hosting the Koufax Awards has obliterated Wampum's server. If they don't get some scratch, a good deed they tried to do for the lefty blogosphere is going to end up backfiring and driving them off the net. That'd really be a shame, we should support our own better than that. So if you can chip in a bit to help them back up, do so.

The Kyoto Pact takes effect today. Without us. In some ways, it's more symbolic than anything. Sans our involvement, it'll barely make a dent in global carbon dioxide emissions. But our opposition neither killed nor derailed it, and that in itself was meant to send a message.

It's worth noting that, in this too, Bush was for it before he voted against it:

Bush, who campaigned before his first term on the promise that he would regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, changed his mind after taking office and withdrew from the Kyoto talks in 2001, advocating voluntary steps to reduce greenhouse gases.

Didn't Bush's favorite philosopher say something about the merit of faith without works? And why is it that Bush is so scared of appearing anti-environment, doesn't his platform enjoy a broad mandate? And while we're being moral, is there any chance that Easterbrook will finally give a mea culpa on his quadrennial prediction that Bush will lead the world on global warming? Or is he just going to offer up more excuses?

This is the worst news we've had on HIV in a long while:

On Friday, New York City health officials issued this chilling announcement: A man is infected with a form of the AIDS virus that is not only resistant to three of the four classes of anti-HIV drugs, it is apparently so virulent that it causes full-blown AIDS in a matter of weeks rather than the usual decade or more. It will be super-difficult to treat, and it may be a super-fast killer.

New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden first heard of the case on Jan. 22. Tests showed that the man had been infected for only a short time.

Frieden prudently had samples of the mysterious virus assessed by two independent labs. Both labs confirmed that it is resistant to all three of the classes of pill-form HIV drugs and that it attacks its victims with what are called CX4 cellular receptors, which are typically found only in those infected with HIV for a long time and in advanced stages of AIDS.

There is more bad news. The man is the victim of another U.S. epidemic — methamphetamine use. While high and uninhibited, he had sex with more than 100 men over the last two years, often without using a condom. And he recalls little about those encounters — certainly not the partners' names and addresses. There is little hope of tracing the virus, of studying the strain's transmission, of warning the victim's partners or stopping them from having more unprotected sex.

Read the whole thing.

Matt's observation that the media, in discussing Iraq's future, is conflating a pro-Iranian government with an Iranian-style government misses the point, I think. The conversation isn't really about the institution of velayet-e faqih (Khomeini's philosophy that only those steeped in Islamic jursiprudence can rule) or friendly relations with their Shi'a neighbor. The commentary on Iran is being used as a heuristic for the possibility of Iraq emerging as an anti-American government. That's what they mean by Iran-style, they may as well say "hostage-crisis style". And that's also the fuzziness Matt's picking up on. The media, invested in pro-democracy spin, doesn't want to publicly legitimize the potential for democracy to achieve an anti-American result, but they do want to discuss it somehow. Iran, despite having been instrumental in the success of our invasion, is useful in conjuring up images of Western-hating theocracies. So they keep name-dropping it, sometimes in context of who Iraq's allies will be, sometimes in context of how Iraq's government will form, but always with the same end in mind.

I'm always amazed at the twisted logic, or at least outcomes, of Bush administration policies. When pushing policies that have no relation to reality, they change reality so it relates to their policies. They mismanage government finances and blow through a budget surplus creating what they call a "crisis" in Social Security, propose a plan that'll further explode deficits without helping the program, but then make that plan vaguely reasonable by warping the economy so we might have a heretofore unknown future of high stock returns and minimal wage growth.

The list of man made crises fitting preexisting policy solutions is almost absurdly long. Iraq wasn't a roosting ground for terrorists, but it was once we invaded. The budget was in such surplus that the only responsible thing to do was offer tax cuts, at least until we went into recession and the only responsible thing to do was offer tax cuts. And on, and on. In some ways, it's quite impressive. They ignore criticism, they ignore policy recommendations, they govern entirely on brashness and ideology and, somehow, they get away with it.

Steve Clemons brings up a good point:

Iran and North Korea know that America's bark is loud but bite is probably pretty soft right now. And the Europeans are doing their best to take on a global strategic dilemma -- their very first -- without the U.S. in the lead.

The EU is in the beginning stages of superpower-dom, their ascension accelerating during a period of American decline. The Iran problem, which America has repeatedly failed to solve and generally made worse when they've tried, is the first dispute on which the EU can manifest their vision of a superpower that relies on diplomacy to defuse international threats. This is a proving ground for them, and they're going to do their damndest to succeed where we've failed, thus legitimizing their alternative vision of international relations. Considering how tricky a problem and serious a threat Iran is, that the EU's negotiators have something to prove is an unadulterated Good Thing.

I'm going to disagree with Jeff Dubner's assertion that the Bush administration has committed too much to pivot on Social Security reform. Indeed, they've committed virtually nothing. The plan we all attack is a phantom, a combination of leaks, divination, and reading between the lines. The President has repeatedly argued that he wants to see ALL options, and that he won't release a proposal because that would impede the debate. He's consciously given himself room to pivot if his imaginary plan appears DOA. That isn't to say he will certainly abandon the plan. As yesterday's WaPo article showed, the right's money-brokers have lined up to support privatization. But for the first time, the Democratic party has a cash answer to them, in the form of small donors, 527's, the ALF-CIO, AARP, the Phoenix Group, Kerry's unspent millions, and Dean's fundraising ability. And if Democrats push past the point of no return and it becomes clear that all the proposal will do is damage the Administration, Bush's eventual answer to the crisis will be moderate, calm, and delivered by a press secretary entirely perplexed over all the hubbub.

As Justin Logan notes, Kerry's comment that we really had a "coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted" turned out to be spot-on, with the newly elected Bush administration no longer even bothering to hide the payoffs:

The $80 billion war-funding request that President Bush plans to send Congress next week will include $400 million to help nations that have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Poland, a staunch ally in Iraq, is earmarked to receive one-fourth of the money.
...
"These funds . . . reflect the principle that an investment in a partner in freedom today will help ensure that America will stand united with stronger partners in the future," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said in a statement. "This assistance will support nations that have deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other partners promoting freedom around the world."

Poland has taken command of a multinational security force in central Iraq that is made up of about 6,000 troops -- among them more than 2,400 Polish soldiers. Polish officials say that a reduction this month will leave them with about 1,700 troops in Iraq.

"Poland has been a fantastic ally because the president and the people of Poland love freedom," Bush said in announcing that Poland is earmarked to receive $100 million.

It's hard not to love that last quote by Bush, but I'm going to try and resist the urge to mock and instead say I think this is fine. Not to be too real politk about the whole thing, but America is not a charity, and there is no reason we shouldn't use our budget to convince allies over to our side. Indeed, Congress does it constantly, appropriating for this or that member's pet projects in return for their support on entirely unrelated bills. Poland is not a rich country and their support was substantial, both militarily and diplomatically, paying them off doesn't bug me. In fact, I far prefer the bribes and arm-twisting to be out in the open, where we can see it, than in circuitous, closed-door negotiations.

Now, it's certainly true that bribing our allies to go along with misguided or immoral initiatives is wrong. But it's wrong because of the initiative's merits (or lack thereof), and it's up to us not to walk down those paths and up to other countries to refuse complicity. Openly rewarding countries for making significant sacrifices to support our priorities isn't wrong or, if it is, it isn't rare. Doing it this way just makes the transaction obvious and amplifies its effect by publicizing the quid pro quo.

It was 16 years ago to this day that the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his fatwa against Salman Rushdie. And, thanks to a kind reader who used my wish list, I actually found the offending tome, Satanic Verses, in my mailbox this morning. I can't think of a better way to celebrate the anniversary of Khomeini's outrage.

By the way, to those of you who've been generous enough to use my wish list, thanks much. I put that up as a lark (Typepad offers it as an option) hoping I might get a book or two over the life of the site. Instead, I've gotten four in the first few weeks. I really, really appreciate them, and I hope they'll leave my commentary more informed, and thus informative, for you. See? It's all for your benefit, really.

I hadn't understood why Rove was promoted to deputy chief of staff, seemed like codifying what he already had, which would make no sense. Of course, I was looking for devious reasons when the actual rationale was obvious and mundane. Andrew Card is going to retire soon. When he does, the deputy chief of staff will become the actual chief of staff. And that'll be Rove. And no one will be able to argue because he was already the deputy. Duh.

With the Iraqi ballots counted and the results released, things look good. Sistani's list did well, but not well enough to act like democratically-elected dictators. They'll probably need to forge good relations with the Kurds, whose second place finish is karmically positive (after the endless oppression they've undergone, they deserve some power) and politically advantageous. As a secular minority group, it's to their interest to forge alliances and demand protection for secular minority groups, which is good for Sunni-Shia relations. That Sunnis did so badly as to not even be given their own spot on the vote totals is an obviously awful indicator, and one I'll say more about in a moment. Allawi and his list came in third, which means, if nothing else, that Americans did not fix or drastically affect the election. Not that I thought we would, but a better than expected showing for Iyad and his crew would've been very dangerous in the hands of anti-American demagogues. For Iraq's new government to be considered legitimate, it needs to be totally devoid of America's taint.

For better wrap-ups than mine, I suggest Cliff May (seriously), Brad Plumer, Matthew Yglesias (and, less pessimistically, here), and Kevin Drum. On Drum's "wherefore the Sunni results" question, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Sunni's were grouped in with "other" because their vote total was so stunningly, absurdly low that releasing the numbers would make the vote look illegitimate, anger the Sunnis (though it's their fault) and undermine the "yay democracy!" spin circling through the media.

I hear that the weekend saw Eason Jordan resign? Really? Wow, I take a few days off and you guys totally drop the ball.

As if. Is someone out there actually impressed by the Jordan's resignation? Yes, yes, I know Hugh Hewitt is going to print out a picture of a scalp and staple it to his wall, but if an egomaniac cackles and nobody cares, does he make a sound? I think not. Which is why I'm so nonplussed by the lefty bloggers lauding the remarkable takedown abilities of the right. Nailing public (or, in this case, semi-public) figures for absurd comments and getting them fired is a dance older than dirt. CNN will spend five minutes genuflecting, install his replacement, and move on with their lives. And Digby, who I generally agree with, is giving the wingers way too much credit for their waltz:

If liberal bloggers' record of scalps is Trent Lott losing the leadership post that Bush wanted him out of anyway then we aren't even in the same league. The Right Wing Noise machine is a group seasoned professionals made up of bloggers, newspapers, FOX, talk radio, and a direct pipeline to powerful Republicans in the government. We are Kos and Atrios et al. We are not equivalent.

These cats blowing their wad over every intemperate comment are not seasoned professionals, they're overexcited teenagers. Funnily enough, its their obsession with "scalps" that has actually reduced their effectiveness. While Kos and Atrios raise hundreds of thousands for their chosen candidates, their conservative counterparts are rain-dancing around the latest functionary to resign. While Matt Yglesias and Josh Marshall are helping sink the privatization plan, Instapundit and the gang are fulminating over obscure academics.

If I was Billmon, I'd now dredge up some comment by a Nazi about how power only matters when no one can see it. The right-wing blogosphere has decided to focus their efforts on fame. If they're going to have a role, they'll make it as high-profile as humanly possible. They'll also make it useless. Eason Jordan's successor won't make moronic remarks, but he's not going to do his job any differently. Meanwhile, the people in his organization and the rest of their colleagues populating the "mainstream" media have no interest in reading Hewitt's latest tirade. They're reading the wonks and reporters they can identify with, the Plumers and Drums and Marshalls of the world, and their coverage is being affected by them. Meanwhile, the activist wing of the left is filling the DNC's coffers and funneling their cash where it matters, they're creating a voice for themselves and, as Kos did a month ago, addressing the Senate Democratic Caucus.

The right spent a long time laying the groundwork for their victories. And they didn't do it in front of the cameras. Instead, they worked tirelessly to build institutions and create stealth movements that'd change the landscape without anyone realizing it. When your enemy is loud, you're lucky. It's when their progress evades the radar that they're dangerous. For now, they're all flash and no impact, while we're doing the institutional work that's become so necessary. So, contra Digby, I'm not impressed by the seasoned professionals across the aisle so much as I am by the amateur activists and journalistic prodigies on my side. And that's why I'm not worried.

Maya Marcel-Keyes, daughter of Alan Keyes, has publicly come out of the closet. In response, her parents have stopped speaking to her, thrown her out of the house, and cut off payments to her college. You know, like good Christians.

Like everyone else in blogland, I set aside a few minutes each day to sacrifice a goat to Google. But despite the enormous bloodletting conducted in their names, I often find them reasonably useless when I'm looking for very targeted information sets. Maybe I'm just not good at searching, but googling has served me better when trying to confirm information or find related data than when I've got an objective in mind. Sucks, I know, but what else is there?

Well floor me with a feather, I discovered the wonder that is The Almanac. I had no idea so much blazingly useful information could be found in a single, physical, source. Expect more actual "facts" and"research" undergirding my usual from-the-hip-bullshit from here on out.

Nixon might have gone to China a time or two, but Arnold's practically taken up residence. His persona has left him essentially invincible on questions of toughness, and he's used the freedom for pretty progressive ends. It wasn't long ago that he signed into law a needle-exchange program that Gray Davis, afraid of being demagogued by the right, vetoed thrice. Now he's reforming California's shameful prisons by shunning the all-powerful prison guards union and forcing a move towards rehabilitation. Next up? Redistricting.

So back to this blogging thing, huh? I'm 4,000 words into my Prospect critique and I think it's going well, but we'll see what the folks at the magazine think when the 8,000 word behemoth crushes their desks. In any case, many thanks to Steve for holding down the homefront. Seems like things were hopping here during the weekend. We'll see if I can keep up the pace in between bouts of criticizing my betters.

P.S -- Happy Valentine's Day! That goes for you peeps in blog land, but especially for my girlfriend in banana slug land...

Since Sunday is now coming to an end and therefore the weekend is soon over, I will no longer be posting. Ezra returns tomorrow, Monday, and I return to the comments section. After a weekend off, I'm sure he'll have much to say.

But first I'd like to thank Ezra for inviting me to experience blogging. I had a lot of fun and I learned more in the last two days than I have in a long time.

Also, I'd like to thank everyone out there who took time to read what I wrote and especially to those people who chose to comment. You guys and gals are the ones who made this experience fun and enlightening.

Thank you. I'll be in the comment section.

-- Steve Cieslewicz

I'm a Chicago guy so that explains the Tribune referencing. For my last post, I'd like to suggest that everybody reads this article about testing race horses for cocaine.

The nut of the question: "How much cocaine should be allowed in a racehorse...and whether to disqualify horses for trace amounts of the drug?" According to this report, some people are arguing that low traces of the drug don't indicate cheating, instead, it suggests that the horse's handlers are cocaine users - say, a cocaine user feeds the horse and transports traces of the drug from his/her hand to the horse's mouth. Interesting, right? Of course, there are the skeptics who believe people are giving cocaine to their horses for a competitive edge.

Scot Waterman, executive director of the National Throughbred Racing Association's task force on drug testing, said there really isn't a more polarizing topic (I'm assuming he means in the horseracing community).

I am perplexed. First, if any human being tests positive for cocaine, then penalties ensue: you don't get your job, you get suspended from your union, you go to jail, etc. I think if I was a cocaine user I might be a little jealous.

Of course, the horse is not at fault. So, the second point, giving horses cocaine is animal abuse. Somebody has to be held responsible, be it the owner or the trainer of the horse.

However, the appropriate response is not, as Mr. Waterman stated, "If racing is like society as a whole, horses are going to come into contact with it (cocaine)." Horses, unlike people, cannot actively seek and condone drug use. How many people wish they could use that execuse, "Gee, drugs are just everywhere these days, I was bound to test positive...no matter what I've done to avoid drugs."

In defense of the positive tests, phrases such as "unavoidable contamination" and "environmental contamination" are thrown around. New York State, however, upon witnessing a series of positive tests in the 1990's, decided to penalize low-level positives. The result: "unavoidable contamination" became avoidable.

-- Steve Cieslewicz

Oops

Steve Chapman, in today's Chicago Tribune, writes that the Iraq war may have had the unintended consequence of convincing our foes that they MUST obtain WMD - that Saddam's mistake was not possessing the weapons in order to defend himself against the invasion. Sounds plausible to me.

Uh-oh

Chapman's solution (read: not mine) in dealing with Iran and North Korea, as a result, is to say, "Ok, you have weapons, we can't invade you right now (Iraq, Afghanistan), and we're not sure we'd even want to anyway (given the risk involved). However, if any nuclear attack (and I'm sure any WMD attack works here as well) can be traced to you guys, the United States will seek to destroy you instantly."

Besides continuing the diplomatic discussions, economic incentives, and stern warnings, should the United States make this threat? Similarly, should the United States, along with Europe, lead a global coalition willing to unite and annihilate them in the event of any attack traceable in any fashion to either country, or country alike?

Maybe, maybe not. Would such a proposal inspire the "Them" to form coalitions? Would a paranoid Iran and North Korea look to each other, Syira, and various terrorist organizations for support should the United States set out to annihilate them? One of the best ways to unite separate people is to introduce a common outside threat (Britain v. the American colonies, Germans v. Napoleon), right? How would China, Pakistan, and India react to this scenario?

I don't know

I generally do not like to criticize when I don't have an alternative proposal, besides further diplomacy. The United States tends to follow a realist foreign policy (Cold War, Bush Administration) but then appears perplexed when other governments do: Iran and North Korea want power and security. We're unable and unwilling to give them power and willing and able to give them security, however, the only way to give them security is by basically reducing their present power i.e. put your national security in our hands and we promise to not attack you and to protect you. It is a hell of conundrum.

Look, if such a traceable event occurs, then of course we have to retalliate. How we do it will be just as important as what we do, so let's make sure we think this through, anticipate the problems, and begin working now to alleviate future risks.

-- Steve Cieslewicz

Kevin Drum's post reminds me of a topic that Ezra, Dave Weinfeld, and I (the three interns at the Washington Monthly last summer) frequently commented on: the fact that the Left appears to be much more willing to attack and despise their own hacks, public figures, talking heads, symbolic personalities, op-ed journalists, etc. than than the Right is willing to do regarding their own.

Yes, Michael Moore was at the Democratic National Convention, which goes completely against what I am saying here, but through many conversations I've had with both Liberals and Conservatives, I have found exactly what I stated in the first paragraph. There seems to be a lot more Lefties willing to ridicule and debunk Michael Moore, Maureen Dowd, and Molly Ivins than Righties openly distraught at the words written and said by David Brooks, Rush, Robert Novak, and the Wall Street Journal Eds.

I hope the reason for this phenomenon is that Lefties really do cherish the truth and/or possess a higher degree of altruistic principles, but I am biased. Perhaps, the Left is just more critical and argumentative, or more apt to play the blame game...I don't know. Maybe it is just that the Democrats are more fragmented than the Republicans, thus resulting in more intra-party strife.

The part about Drum's post that really caught my eye was: But we have to fight in a way that creates an atmosphere that encourages liberalism. So, is being uniformly critical of all ideas strictly based on their merits rather than ideological origins an innate feature of liberalism? Is that why the Left is willing to eat their own kin. Or did the Righties switch to their attack mode simply due to necessity, meaning, it was nothing more than a political strategy and this "politics of personal destruction" has no connection, in and of itself, with the Republican ideology?

I agree with Kevin's assessment that Liberalism, unlike today's conservativism, cannot survive in an environment that fosters this "scared dog in a corner, must kill all enemies" psychology.

I know this post sort of got away from me, but here are the fundamental concerns: Do Lefties tend to attack their own more frequently and more harshly than Righties?; is Conservatism naturally geared towards this "attack dog" mode, or is it just a clever, and successful thus far, strategy?; is this difference simply due to the factious nature of the Democrats versus the more cohesive unity found amongst Republicans; is something else going on here?

-- Steve Cieslewicz

Matt Yglesias focuses on Crown Prince Abdullah's scheme to be written up as "reform-minded" in the Western press while simultaneously ensuring that the same Western press will call for Abdullah to stay in power...the Crown Prince being able to institute such a plan by holding very limited elections practically guaranteeing the Islamists a victory. Read his post.

The more compelling inquiry is found in studying both America's political response and the general public's response. How Americans react to this event will illuminate our foreign policy's priorities, goals, and expectations.

Just out of curiosity, if you could institute or subtract one government policy or law, what would it be? If you can't reduce it to one, list several. I want this to be as personal of a response as possible so, in order to avoid any powers of suggestion, I'm going to refrain from stating mine (until perhaps a later time) and allow you to speak your minds.

Nothing more aptly applies to the phrase “beating a dead horse” than the legalizing marijuana debate. The common sense arguments for its legalization have been repeated ad nauseam for at least the last 40 years. But I read a Chicago Tribune article last Tuesday (I apologize for not having a link, but really the article is irrelevant)quoting a Richard Nixon appointed commission, “marijuana is relatively harmless and possession of less than an ounce should be legal.” Let’s resolve this inconsistency.

When the constitution was an embryo, Alexander Hamilton realized the federal government had to tax. One of the first federally mandated taxes was the whiskey tax and Hamilton’s reasoning was basically: from the consumption of that vice would come virtue i.e. government revenue. This philosophy, of course, continues today via the heavy liquor and tobacco taxes…and the profits reeled in via casinos. The government is able to extract good from people’s “bad” behavior. If this works for liquor, tobacco, and gambling, let’s make this work for marijuana, too.

So how about this idea, just as private companies operate casinos (Harrah’s), breweries (Miller), and tobacco production (Marlboro), while the government makes a substantial sum of money off those companies’ profitability, why not apply that practice to the sale of marijuana. Akin to drinking, enforce a minimum age, and make it a fineable offense to smoke marijuana and/or be intoxicated in public. Apply heavy fines for excessive possessions ($1,000 for more than an ounce, $5,000 for more than two ounces, $10,000 for more than three, etc. ?– but never jail time.); the main difference being that all money brought in via taxes and fines helps fund general education, drug education, law enforcement, etc. (it really doesn't matter which one). Just to be clear, the dollars I applied to the fines above are arbitrary and I don't necessarily believe it would be right for such fines to be in place, but I'm willing to compromise.

Nobody can argue that our governments (federal, states, and many local) are all struggling with deficits. Nobody will argue that our education systems are under funded or that educating kids about drug use is a bad idea. Nobody will argue that prisons are overcrowded and heavily tax our citizens (free marijuana convicts and don’t bring them back). Nobody denies that selling marijuana is major source of revenue on the black market, especially for gangs. And as the aforementioned report states, it is dishonest to argue that marijuana embodies a dire health threat. We have desperate deficits and starving programs, yet we still have a plump, ripe fruit just waiting for us to….

-- Steve Cieslewicz

In part due to the reaction toward my Indecent Proposal post and in part do to the nature of my next post, I'd like to make a quick point regarding my interpretation of the nature of blogs.

Blogs have three major beneficial effects: dissemination of information, a check on the media (as well as a supplemental source of that media), and blogs create a forum where ideas are placed on a table and then people can either admire, ponder, critique, applaud, add to, subtract from, etc. to those ideas. Blogs create dialogues.

I am a person filled with curiosity. My mind wanders, I daydream, and I constantly search for ideas and details that have been hiding in the shade. With that said, I like to play devil's advocate, I like to defend positions I don't agree with, and I also like to tinker with the perception of certain subjects in order to obtain a fuller understanding.

The point of this post is that it is much more beneficial for all of us to critique a stance or reasoning, than it is to denouce that person or idea as simpy "Republican," "Stupid," or "crazy." Instead, it'd be much more productive to cite counterexamples, other arguments ... do we all agree, or am I sounding too much like a hippie beside a camp fire at 3:30 am?

-- Steve Cieslewicz

Since it is now official, I'd like to say congratulations to Howard Dean. I supported you for president and I'm glad to see you elected as Chairman. The guy can raise money, energize the base, and connect with television viewers (my grandma absolutely loved him, that is coming from a woman who faithfully votes Republican). A man who was able to expand health care while remaining fiscally responsible (perhaps suggesting efficiency), and a man who courted the gun-rights vote while legalizing civil unions: balance.

I like Dean because he understands the biggers picture (of course, this observation is based solely on words rather than actions thus far). He wants to bring the Democrats to the South and the rural areas, and not just focus on swing states. He understands how important it is to have Democrats in positions of power throughout all levels of the political power i.e. school boards. Dean will lead the Democrats down a path where the Democrats are defining who the Democrats are, not the Republicans, and that, perhaps, is the greatest strategy of all.

Amy Sullivan, of the Washington Monthly, calls attention to this Pro-Choice America letter citing Senator Harry Reid's Prevention First Act - an act that would make it easier to get birth control and therefore cut down on unwanted pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies being something all people can agree are not good. Of course, the strictest pro-lifers will oppose this because they detest the idea of having sex and not making a baby. Fine.

But the following quote is found in the comments section:

I am a conservative Christian, and I believe birth control is wrong just as the Pope believes. To use birth control is a sin against Jesus, God, and the bible. Therefore, supporting your attempts at birth control is a sin. If God didn't want fornication to result in pregnancy, God would not have made woman as he did. Birth control is unnatural and violates the natural law.

What I find most outrageous about such religious conservatives of any religion is the fact I firmly believe in the right for them to live their lives as they want. If my neighbor is a fundamentalist of any religion and wants to live his/her life as an extreme conservative then I completely support his/her right to do so. But I am mystified when such people won't apply that same principle to me.

My philosophy (not very profound) regarding the seperation of Church and State goes like this: if the reasoning for a law can only be found in a religious text then it is automatically unconstitutional, if the reasoning can be found in a religious text but can also be completely articulated in another realm of knowledge (philosophy, science, precedent, etc.) then it is fully open to debate. In other words, I don't automatically discredit logic (for lack of a better word) derived from a religious text, I just want to be able to see a similar argument formed outside that religious realm.

It is amazing that people in the United States cringe when they hear that the Qur'an may influence the Iraqi constitution but yet, as the quote above indicates, there are so many that want to use the Bible as America's constitution.

So, to say birth control should be illegal because it offends Jesus and the Bible, well, no.

I have no earth-shattering comments on this ABA report stating that the legal representation of indigents is in a state of crisis, but I did want to take a moment to publically vent my frustration. The insurance companies cry, Republicans listen, and all of a sudden medical malpractice is placed on the high priority list and becomes a household issue. But people going to jail due to crappy lawyers is, it appears, considered to simply be unfortunate.

The Supreme Court, 1942: There are certain well defined and narrowly limitd classes of speech, [such as the obscene and the libelous, that] are no essential part of any exposition of ideas and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality (as written in Geoffrey R. Stone's Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime).

With that said, this year the Super Bowl, unlike many primetime programs, treated its viewers to tasteful programming. Paul McCartney’s wholesome tunes replaced Nelly’s crotch-grabbing, Janet’s peek-a-boo, and Timberlake’s Musketeer mime sex. The commercials, for the most part, refrained from crotch shots, crude jokes, and booby bonanza: the Super Bowl was a primetime event the whole family could sit down and enjoy without awkward “how to explain this one/I’ll explain when you’re older” moments.

I suggest the Democrats pounce on this opportunity and introduce either a bill or initiate a crusade aimed at enforcing decency standards on public airwaves: both television and radio. Before anybody yells, “Censorship!” or “Violation of the First Amendment!” let me point out this enforcement would, and most importantly could, only apply to public airwaves and would - of course! - not restrict political commentary (see Supreme Court quote above). Unlike Tipper Gore or Delores C. Tucker, I do not advocate regulating private material: Eminem can rhyme about a “fag,” Ice T can “fuck the police,” Lil’ Kim’s albums can be dedicated to oral sex, pornography can continue its own Grammy's, and Howard Stern can switch to satellite radio. But, the Democrats should argue, the abundance of commercials and regular programming saturated in overt sexual content and violent material pouring into peoples’ home

uninhibited has crossed the line.

The sex and violence don’t offend me, although I’m sure they offend plenty of adults. But this is how I envision the Democrats structuring their message: target parents who, more than ever (remember all those after school programs being cut), need all the breaks they can get raising their children. After all, the Republicans dominate those areas in the country that are growing most rapidly, especially exurban areas, presumably places abundant with families.

While the government is not in the business of raising children, the government should be in the business of not allowing such material to freely flow into the private homes and vehicles of its citizens. The government already dictates what is and is not appropriate public behavior: indecent exposure, disturbing the peace (say I start screaming in the middle of the street at 2:00 AM), George Carlin's infamous 7 words, public schools can ban kids from wearing offensive t-shirts, and I can't yell "fire" in a theater.

If I’m a parent of a 10 year-old boy and I do not want my son to watch sexual content, I am comforted by the fact he can’t rent certain movies or see such movies at the theater (minimum age requirements), I can inspect his cd collection, but if I’m cooking dinner, paying bills, or working, I cannot rest assured that my son isn’t watching inappropriate material on network television, no matter the time of day. By allowing this to happen, the government is demanding that at every instant of the day, even in my own home, I have to guard my child from offensive material. Look, the airwaves are public so isn't it inconsistent to suggest sensitive people should simply not possess a television or a radio in their homes?

Yes, there is the V-Chip. However, the V-Chip concept is backwards. The material I wish to censor should not be allowed into my home in the first place. Perhaps the solution is if I decide to allow such material into my home, then I can purchase an X-Chip that allows me to access such programming. Parents, in the privacy of their homes, should not be held completely responsible in blocking radio and television content that liberally flows into their homes with the press of a button.

What about the Internet? I’d argue that due to its evolving status, we have to leave it alone.

It is 9 feet high, 21 feet long, 8.5 feet wide, 7 tons, can carry nearly 6 tons in load, and gets 8 miles per gallon…“It” is the new International CXT. In fact, the CXT has a gross vehicle weight rating of 25,999 (compared to the Hummer’s 10,300 lbs.) which is exactly, and purposely, one pound under the 26,000 GVWR minimum requiring a commercial driver’s license.

Since the popularity of these behemoths appears to be feverishly expanding, I find it appropriate to transcend the obvious gas-guzzling and pure absurdity objections. First, should there be (is there already?) an extra tax or registration fee (both?) on these and alike vehicles simply due to the enormous wear and tear they will inflict on the roads? There is a “toll” in toll roads because it makes sense to tax the drivers who use those particular paths for transportation. So, should governments charge an extra fee for vehicles that will be unnecessary burdens on the health of public roads?

Second, think about it, the GVWR is one pound away from requiring a commercial driver’s license…immediately one word comes to mind: safety. The driver and passengers of the CXT will survive almost any natural and/or man-caused disaster, but what about other drivers, as well as the property boarding the roads? Imagine what one of these mammoth trucks will do when it crashes into a Cavalier, Camry, a pickup truck, or even a concrete barrier. Besides celebrities and people infatuated with over-compensation, International plans to market this vehicle to business owners who will be able to write this vehicle off as a tax break. Therefore, or perhaps regardless of that fact, I wonder, can Congress utilize the Commerce Clause - a clause that has historically been stretched to its limits - to regulate who (meaning which driver’s license is required) can legally drive the CXT? If not the Commerce Clause, is there another avenue government can appeal to in order to address this issue. Should the government even bother?

I know the quality's been down a bit over the last week. The posts are shorter, there are fewer of them, and I've increased the spelling errors. Apologies all around. Like a good liberal, I'm going to blame it on something, mainly my decision to graduate early. I'm swamped with job applications, course work, and general craziness. The Prospect Fellowship in particular is trial by fire, requiring a 15-page critique of the most recent issue. As George Bush would aver, it's hard work (I'm a bipartisan excuse-maker). So rather than try to complete all this amid blog posting and massive hyperventilation, I'm taking a break this weekend and going to Pismo Beach with the girlfriend, where we will proceed to ignore each other as we madly tap out our respective applications. Should be fun.

As for the site, it'll be hopping, maybe even improved. Rather than leave it dormant, I'm turning it over to my friend (and frequent commentor) Steve Cieslewicz. He was an intern at the Washington Monthly with me, where he penned a great piece on the divisibility of the Hispanic electorate, caught all the copy mistakes I missed, and generally made me look bad. You guys will love him.

As a more general site advisory, this weekend guest-pass is something I plan on doing often. My blogging often pales before your comments, and while I like doing the solo thing, I also like the occasional weekend. So I'm going to start turning it over to different commentors whenever I need the sabbath. Next week, Chris Rasmussen has offered his services, and I'm in talks with others (and mean to talk to others) for future slots. If you want to do it sometime, or nominate someone else to do it sometime, leave it in comments (or e-mail me). Otherwise, have a great weekend, be nice to Steve, and forget me not.

Mark Schmitt's got an excellent, thought-provoking post on the changing face of membership. Contra the Dean campaign and NARAL, he believes the era of dues-paying, weekly-meeting organization has passed, and we should start asking what's next.

He's right. I was as enthused as everyone else about the Dean for America MeetUps, but they survived only till the campaign's close, and only thrived while their buzz was enormous. The Democracy for America meetings that succeeded them were a pale shadow of their former selves. And I don't know anyone my age -- including me -- who's a due-paying member of any group, even those we distinctly agree with.

What's next? I fear it's this. Virtual community. Mark's observation that he simply doesn't have time to hit up a weekly or monthly meeting is well-taken, and much echoed. But he does have time to run a blog, and he's certainly enjoying the comments and community that have grown up around it. Zooming out, DailyKos has created a hell of a community for itself, as has MoveOn. These macro-organizations are like the NARALs and ACLUs of yesteryear, with the billions of smaller groups, quirkier clubs, and more eccentric meetings going on beneath the surface. When I was younger, I used to participate in a video game forum that discussed very little video games, but a whole lot of everything else. I know people involved in sports-based boards, camping-centric organizations, and online spots centered around everything else under the sun. There are thousands of smaller blogs on eccentric topic with hopping comment boards and burgeoning interpersonal relations. All these groups offer a stable community, and they all share a crucial characteristic -- you can participate in them from your desk, and do so all day.

As we leave the 9-5, physically-based job and begin to spend longer hours at work, we've less time to join the local bowling league or Democrats club. But we've much more time to spend goofing off in front of the computer screen. With the need for community still strong, these virtual groups that fit perfectly into your workday and are meeting whenever you lapse into boredom are the natural next step. I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but it seems the direction we're moving in.

Brad Plumer jumps on a hobbyhorse of mine, namely, the need to build more medical schools. There are a mere 125 in the nation, and the competition is so intense that a B here and there disqualifies you. Fast forward a few years and doctors are so overloaded that they make patients wait hours but can only offer them minutes. Residents are in such high demand that they work inhuman shifts and their exhaustion leads to mistakes. Sounds like we need a supply increase.

Further, can anybody explain why the pre-med track makes sense for anyone who wants to be a primary care physician? In that job, which mainly consists of treating basic cases, reassuring harried parents, and referring complex problems, interpersonal abilities are the most important attribute. Yet the training ground is an absurd load of sciences that prizes the workhorses above the socially-adept. Maybe we can create a separate track for those wanting non-surgical, non-specialized, non-research based practices? Maybe we can codify Nurse Practitioners (who I've always found to be excellent, often superior, doctors) into an education path? What say you, world?

Via Kevin Drum, this is really the most amazing graphic I've ever seen: At any given time, significantly more than half of Americans think the government's primary outlays are coming from food stamps and foreign aid. Meanwhile, back in reality-land, Americans spend $32 billion on food stamps and $7.4 billion on foreign aid, all this coming out of a $2.5 trillion budget. The two combined account for about 1.5% of spending. I wonder which party could have misled them so?

From the WaPo's recent poll:
We've done an excellent job explaining that private accounts aren't a solution to Social Security's economic problems, now we need to broadcast how they'd worsen them. But while we have a task, Bush has a dilemma. His whole spiel on private accounts rests on convincing Americans of a crisis. But Americans don't believe private accounts will solve the crisis, so his argument is disconnected from his solution. Sucks for him.

I know this question is becoming trite, but what the hell is Friedman talking about?

There will be a lot of trial and error in the months ahead. But this is a hugely important horizontal dialogue because if Iraqis can't forge a social contract, it would suggest that no other Arab country can - since virtually all of them are similar mixtures of tribes, ethnicities and religions. That would mean that they can be ruled only by iron-fisted kings or dictators, with all the negatives that flow from that.

Excuse me? First of all, George W. Bush has repeatedly stated that he disagrees with folks who think the brown people can't have democracies, and you are not going to question the single thing that unites us. But more to the point, if the Iraqi attempt at reform falls through, that'll mean nothing more than that they didn't succeed. Maybe the killing factor wasn't color, but American occupation and the divisions we caused. Maybe it was Saddam's legacy. Maybe it was corruption in Kurdistan. Maybe it was -- gasp! -- multicausal and not necessarily pregnant with meaning for future generations.

Stable, democratic states are weird things that no one's quite been able to blueprint. They don't always work where we think they will, they don't always fail when they should, and we're not quite sure how to move them from one column to the other. Suggesting that their success may be intrinsic to the ethnicities of the groups involved is absurd and, truly, the first time I've ever seen anyone erect the straw man Bush knocked down. Many of us mocked him when he said that, turns out we were wrong. It was a preemptive strike on Tom Friedman.

Well this is nice to hear:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.) was asked at a CATO conference in Washington yesterday whether he had persuaded any Democrats to back his plan to rescue Social Security from its financial troubles...A questioner from the audience, stressing his own Democratic credentials, said he believed Ryan's plan should attract members of his own party and wondered whether the Wisconsin lawmaker had secured any Democratic sponsors. Ryan said he had been working with friends on the "other side of the aisle" who were favorable toward his solution, but he faced an enormous problem: intense pressure on his colleagues from the minority leadership.

"We were in planning stages [with friendly Democrats]," said Ryan. But each essentially told him: "I like what you're doing. I like this bill. I think it's the right way to go. But my party leadership will break my back. The retribution that they are promising us is as great as I have ever seen. We can't do it."

And any wingers who judge this unfair can go ask some Republicans what would have happened to them if they had supported Clinton's health care reform. This is how the game is played, now, and I'm glad to see we've finally read the rulebook.

It got basically no coverage yesterday (North Korea has nukes! Charles marrying Camilla! Not necessarily in that order!), but the Senate passed a significant class-action lawsuit bill. The legislation forces many class-action suits out of states and into federal courts, where judges (many, many, many of them appointed by Republicans, simply because they've held the White House for the majority of the last 30 years) are less sympathetic, and less moved by local concerns. In addition, the bill has an odd flaw in it: A Supreme Court ruling from the 80's barred federal courts from considering cases where the affected states have materially different laws, which means many of these lawsuits will be thrown out as neither state nor federal courts are allowed to deal with them.

It's not so much that the bill's bad in concept as that it's poorly designed. Legislation shouldn't have gaping flaws like that, at least not unless it's being passed more to satisfy an interest group and less to change policy. But that couldn't have happened here, right?

Update: Via Brad Plumer, Sam Heldman has more.

I am all about Kriston's proposal for Pundit Kombat. Suggest appropriate match-ups in the comments.

I've not been particularly interested in the Cole/Goldberg slapfest (the only surprising thing was Cole wasting time on him, which seemed to me a defeat at the outset), but the argument over advocating war without fighting it is certainly worth engaging. Unfogged started it (read the comments too) and Yglesias picked it up, and now I'll throw my pennies into the fray.

The central point is whether young, healthy guys who advocate war are morally compelled to fight in it. The consensus is so long as we have a capable, volunteer army, no. I agree with that. If you argue for war then dodge conscription (like Rove, DeLay, Limbaugh, Bush, et al), you're fit for Republican leadership a bad person. I agree with that, too. The point Matt brings up, however, is thornier, which should be expected from a philosophy major. Assume you advocated for war when it looked like the volunteer army could take care of it, but their numbers proved inadequate. What then?

Seems a couple considerations become relevant. For instance -- how important did you think the war was? Were you a nominal supporter who believed, on balance, that this'd be better to do than not, but only if doing it wouldn't be very tough? I'd argue that that was the position of the vast majority of Americans during the buildup to the Iraq War. It'd been 30 years since we'd had a tough fight and few were thinking trenches and body bags. In order to cement that interpretation, the Bush administration set about firing any military leaders who offered contrary assessments, began promising a greeting full of candy, chocolates, and flowers, and predicting a resoundingly swift and victorious exit. So the support was soft, and guaranteed by optimistic government assessments. Pack of lies, as it turned out, but does that have moral bearing on those who believed them?

Yes and no. Yes because there was enough information to form an alternative hypothesis on the ease of the war, no because there was also a convincing counter-argument. But even if the initial morality is muddled, that doesn't change the emerging question -- if, at this point, knowing what we know, you still believe that the war is worth fighting and the troops should remain until the mission is completed, you have some degree of moral responsibility to contribute to that effort. After all, now you're supporting an conflict that is obviously not easy, self-evidently understaffed, and desperately in need of increased manpower. That doesn't always mean that you must actually fight, but it means you have to devote considerable time and resources to bolstering the war effort.

Weirdly, I think Jonah does this. Look at his picture on NRO -- this is a soft, untested man. His use in the field would be limited, at best. But through some divine joke, he's become a known and respected pundit, and his efforts in that capacity on the conflict's behalf do indeed support the effort. One of the problems in this debate is that we're equating sacrifice with usefulness. No one doubts that an Army General is deeply useful to the conflict, and also safely out of suicide bomber reach. Further, no one doubts that all these armchair generals would love to be offshore aircraft-carrier generals, outfitted in fancy uniforms and charged with drawing up strategic documents. That would make them more useful to the effort and they'd all be willing to do it, but we don't want them to have those jobs. Not only would they be bad at them, but they haven't earned them and they wouldn't suffer in them. And that, I think, is what's at issue here. If Jonah and others are going to advocate something that brings suffering, they should suffer in turn. And that's wrong. If they want to support a war with a draft, then they're compelled to fight. But if they want to support a war with a moderate manpower shortage, they're only compelled to decide where they're most useful, work from there, and be willing to accept a draft if it becomes necessary.

As Brad notes, moving from wage-indexing to price-indexing would result in a huge benefits cut. Had someone retiring in 2005 chosen a price-indexing system, his benefits would be 60% less than his fellow retirees, and his gas bill would go unpaid. So we should certainly oppose it on those grounds.

But one thing that I haven't seen discussed (though I'm certain it has been) is the philosophical implications of the shift. Wage-growth is a very peculiar indicator to peg payments to, and it's one that comes with a very specific message. The elderly are not a segment of society that needs the equivalent of welfare, they're not a group that we feel obligated to prop up. Instead, they were the ones whose work brought America to this point, and they deserve to share in whatever future prosperity America enjoys. It's the difference between isolating them from society as a "needy" group and rewarding them for decades of contributions. When you tack their payments to prices, Social Security becomes about keeping them alive, not including them in America's momentum. That's a real, and huge, difference, and it's one that Dems might want to include when inveighing against Bush's proposal. Using the numbers to sink the change is effective, but using the ideas to paint price-indexing's advocates as callous might prove more so.

• Al Franken is running in Minnesota.

• In a presidential head-to-head, Hillary Clinton beats John Kerry 51-34%. In Massachusetts. That's gotta hurt.

The Training Wheel strategy makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe somebody should appoint Justin Logan to something and let him try and implement it.

I should clarify this though and say it only makes sense in context of the constraints Bush has already placed on himself. It's self-evident that we need to set conditions of, and an expected date for, withdrawal. If the insurgent's attacks appear to be keeping us in the country, it'll sap their support among Iraqis so quick their skullcaps will spin. Thanks much to Bush, then, who has ruled this out. Let's hope he voted against it before he votes for it.

Not only is Bush a cold-hearted, callous dolt whose idealistic fog can't even be penetrated by a woman working three jobs, he's also wrong. He calls that uniquely American? Bullshit. I live in California and can assure you it's at least partially Mexican.

By the way, I like Greg's game: choose your own answer to Bush's snappy parting remark, "get any sleep?"

"Not really. Do you also find it weird that you run the entire country yet have time to read in the evenings and exercise in the mornings, while I work three jobs and can't even see my kids?

Put yours in comments.

Early in Bush's first term, a friend of a friend had, through family connections, gotten a few minutes in the Oval Office with the guy. Bush, he said, was exactly as you'd expect. When he found that his guest was Californian, he leaned back in his chair and sighed, "You know, i just don't get that state. Everything I touch there turns to shit."

True enough. But Bush's observation is more relevant to Iran than to the Golden State. Which is why the attention he's paying the country should strike fear into the heart of any dissident. Iranians don't much like their government, but they have a habit of rallying round it when foreigners judge it time to get involved. The government realizes both these things and so has made it common practice to redirect anger at Iran's high unemployment, poor economy, and choked-off cultural life towards the Great Satan and Evil Zionists who anchor them with sanctions and isolate them internationally. Publicly promising support for their dissidents simply plays into that -- suddenly, they are operatives of the Great Satan, paid agents of the Zionist Conspiracy, and their calls for reform are drowned amid cries of "treason".

That's why Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi's idea is so worthwhile. The US should publicly forswear an attack on Iran and directly engage their government -- not their reform elements -- over human rights and democratic processes. When we broadcast our intentions, disavow imperialist intent, and make obvious, self-evident criticisms against the Iranian regime, we can empower the critiques of dissidents without exposing them to our (well-deserved) baggage. A much better plan all around.

Via Steve Clemons, Marty Sieff's analysis of what Dean means for Hillary Clinton is quite good. His basic point is that Hillary will stroll to reelection in 2006 (adding evidence to the theory is her tremendous approval numbers and her easy lead in head-to-head match-ups with Giuliani) while Dems across the country fight it out. Dean, for his part, will run a hard-edged national strategy with more than a few pages coming from the Gingrich playbook. If his progressive bomb-throwing works, Hillary can easily adopt it. If Dean fails (and considering how tough the '06 map is [see Dayton's retirement below], he might be assuming an impossible task), Hillary can run as the heir of Third-Way liberalism.

Good, even counterintuitive, stuff. But what surprises me if how little I've seen on the most obvious benefit Dean's DNC ascension confers on Hillary -- no Dean. Barring a Democratic revolution that reshapes the nation and wins both houses of Congress, he can't run in 2008. The absence of a liberal icon and populist firebrand (who doesn't like the Clintons, by the way) is a godsend to a cautious, establishment candidate like Clinton. Maybe Russ Feingold can take his spot, but Dean's revolutionary abilities stemmed from a peculiar convergence of technological circumstances and rhetorical attributes, none of which look repeatable. There'll certainly be a liberal choice and there's always an insurgent (press-created in the event no one decides to step up), but they seem like more conventional challenges than the unheard of, misunderstood threat that Dean posed.

Dude, seeing surveillance photos of your kids at school is a pretty convincing rationale, if you ask me.

In Minnesota, Mark Dayton has decided not to run for another seat, making the 2006 map considerably harder than it was yesterday. On the other hand, I've long heard rumors that Paul Wellstone's son David wants to run for the Senate. The word on him is good and his father's legacy would make him a formidable challenger. Maybe it's time to dust off the green bus? Or register http://www.draftdavid.com? In addition, Garrison Keiller rumblings have begun, and anybody who's read his excellent book, Homegrown Democrat, knows he's a genius with framing and more than able to offhandedly ridicule and marginalize his hapless opponents. For instance, have any of your non-Obama candidates sounded this good lately?

Medicare says that even though you're not working and may need special help with the ordinary business of life, you have value in this society. This is a Democratic idea. Be a howling right-winger if it gives you pleasure, but nonetheless milk comes from cows and Medicare comes from Democrats.

Maybe this won't be so bad after all.

Update: Here's another idea.

Brad Plumer's noticed a problem:

I'm a bit confused as to what Congressional Republicans think would make for a better budget. It seems that the two primary objections from President Bush's own party are: cuts to particular programs, and the yawning federal budget deficit, which the budget doesn't really cure. Okay. But then a sizeable majority of Congressional Republicans have also signed a pledge not to increase taxes. So that solution's out. Meanwhile, cutting discretionary spending even further will only yield very tiny reductions in the deficit. And Bush's two big entitlement "reforms"—including last year's Medicare bill, which will cost $400 billion over the next five years alone, and his vague hints at a proposed Social Security plan, which will cost $4.5 trillion over the next 25 years—will only expand the deficit by huge amounts. So where is fiscal sanity supposed to fit come from? Fairy-land?

There was a time when that question had an answer. Republicans who'd been cornered into signing Norquist's "no taxes" pledge during election campaigns decided that the ridiculous promises they'd been blackmailed into making were less important than sane governance. So one of them, President George H.W Bush, reversed course and proposed some revenue enhancements to close Reagan's deficit, and then convinced 30 of his Republican cosigners to follow his lead. That bit of fiscal responsibility paved the way for the surpluses and growth of the Clinton years (and, in turn, the irresponsible promises and economic absurdity of his son's campaigns). Would that the modern Republican party act with the same wisdom...

Damn, that's a cool painting.

Wow. This LA Times op-ed is quite brave. It's from an Iranian blogger who spent 36 days in jail for criticizing the regime on her website. Having confessed to her sins, she's now awaiting trial, which probably won't go well for her either. With all that swirling around her, publishing this critique in a major American newspaper (which the American-obsessed Iranians surely keep tabs on) seems like a bad idea, but no one can doubt its courage. Make it worth her while and read the piece.

Remember that time when the Bush administration silenced an actuary and lied $100 billion off the cost of Medicare reform so Congress would pass it? That was fun, even quaint. But this is a brave new second term world, baby! And $100 billion bucks ain't shit to these guys, so now they're saying they lowballed by $670 billion. Yowza! That's second term economics for ya! Bam!

But second term dynamics shouldn't be forgotten, either. Because right now the Bushies are doggedly trying to ram Social Security privatization through, and having little luck with it. As you followers of Josh Marshall know, the most effective, and common, Republican beg-off has been "y'know, yeah, good idea, but a bit later when the deficit looks smaller". Looks like a bit later just got a lot later, and the Conscience Caucus has found itself a rallying cry. What's that Rahm Emanuel? You want to close this one out? Do it, buddy:

"If you're looking for a crisis, I would suggest you look at a crisis that was self-made in just last year, because the crisis exists in what's happened to Medicare by weighing it down," Emanuel said. "Those of us who told you it was going to cost twice as much were right."

Sam Rosenfeld, talking about Republicans playing the race card, says:

I’ve yet to hear any conservative offer a principled defense of a tactic that Republican politicians and right-wing pundits have come to use more and more over the years. Nor have I seen enough attention paid, by anybody, to a development that extends beyond the conserve-race card: In a whole array of arenas, conservatives are now the ones most likely to employ a politics of victimhood and grievance -- the persecuted Christian! the intolerant academy! the oppressive elite of blue America! -- to try to foreclose substantive debate over issues and subsume political disputes into zero-sum battles of culture and identity. The conservo-race card is only the most obvious (and obviously cynical) manifestation of this kind of right-wing identity politics.

If it wasn't so corrosive, it'd be really funny. More and more, Republicans have come to embody everything they project onto others. They call liberals big-spenders then blow up the deficits. They tar Democrats for their Hollywood ethos then run campaigns -- sometimes helmed by actors! -- based entirely on sex and war. They stereotype the left as whiny and complaining yet continually assure the majority (be it the white majority or Christian one) that the oppression and discrimination they face is real. They laugh at Democrats for having no new ideas while peddling rejects from three-decade old CATO papers. They decry the race card but can't whip it out fast enough. They demand media balance, condemn media bias, and then fund viciously right-wing outlets. As I said, it'd be amusing, if only it wasn't working.

The semi-finals are ending this week. I'm up for "Best Writing" and if you feel like throwing me a vote, I won't hold it against you.

This is crucial.

This was written about a month ago, after I was commissioned to write an article on California's dying Democrats only to find the meme had no truth but the LA Times had no scruples. I wrote this as an op-ed for the Times but they, unsurprisingly, passed. A few days ago, a friend mentioned the same fear to me, so I figured there are a few people who'd still gain from reading this. So enjoy:

Any election with the emotional intensity of 2004’s is bound to send the losers into a soul-searching tailspin, desperate to find a political Dr. Phil willing and able to diagnose their electoral afflictions. They reject the idea that a close loss can be a close loss rather than a resounding message, as it argues against a single, easy-to-repair cause and paints a cloudy, uncertain future full of deadlocked contests and unknown outcomes. That’s no fun. Americans like bright colors and bold strokes, if we’re going to lose, we’ll lose big (no matter what the numbers say). And so it’s happened that Democrats in California, where Kerry crushed Bush and staunch liberal Barbara Boxer garnered the third most votes of any candidate for any office – including president! -- in the nation, have begun searching the returns for worrying portents. But, just like during the election, Democrats forgot their Bible, specifically their Matthew 7:7. “Seek and ye shall find”, it says, and oh what finding they did.

Bush’s margin of loss closed by 300,000 votes, his total haul increasing by over 900,000 votes. The Republicans, in a press release written with an apparently jammed caps lock, touted that they’ve increased their share of the California electorate by .68 of a percent, while Democrats dropped by some .22 of a percent. Over at the Sacramento Bee, Daniel Weintraub did some number crunching and found that Bush won not only the six fastest-growing counties in the state, but 20 of the top 23. The LA Times found that, in 1992, only 13 of California’s counties had more Republicans than Democrats. The new number was 38, and oh what a powerful graphic it made, full of creeping crimson and obvious implication. Not only, it seemed, would Republicans own all of California in another 12 years, but give them 20 and they’d take control of the Pacific Ocean, too.

It was in this excitable context that I was asked by an unnamed Washington magazine to write a piece on California’s changing hue. And, as any byline hungry writer would, I jumped at the chance, it had cover story written all over it. But, much to my chagrin, nobody else seemed to agree. Not Republican flacks, not Democratic hacks, not Republican senators, not Democratic assemblymen, not professors, not political observers, not California-focused reporters, not the guy scribbling about pyramids on a whiteboard in Venice, no one. So I did some number crunching of my own. And, shortly thereafter, I called my editor and fired myself.

Turns out the story’s just not true, even if the statistics sound ominous. Bush may have done better than he did in 2000, but Kerry also made gains, beating Gore not only in votes but in total percentage of the vote. The guy who really got licked was Nader, who dropped from 418,707 votes (3.9% of the total) to 19,218 votes (.1%). Ouch. As for the fluctuations in party registration, Democrats are still beating Republicans by 7.68% statewide, and this is after the Recall election, which pitted two types of telegenic, well-hyped Republicans (McClintock and Schwarzenegger) against a singularly unappealing Democrat (Bustamante), and the latter was actually considered to have a chance. Running Cruz and remaining relevant? That’s one hardy party. And Bush’s near-sweep of quick growing counties turned out not to matter much either, as one dispirited top aid in the Republican establishment told me. Turns out most of these voters aren’t new converts but old Republicans fleeing high property prices. Democrats concentrate in urban centers and have mostly resigned themselves to living in shoeboxes in exchange for theatre, live music and independent bookstores, so they’ve been staying put. If there had been some sort of significant shift in electoral preferences, Bush would have beat his national average and Democrats would have lost seats all around the state. But Kerry beat Bush, Barbara Boxer smashed Bill Jones (and got 200,000 more votes than John Kerry), and, despite Arnold’s efforts, Democrats saw no erosion of their majority in the legislature.

Nationwide, Democrats lost this election. And, unlike last time, they lost in the ballot box, not just the electoral college and the courts. Where Gore previously beat Bush by 539,947 votes, Kerry lost to him by 3,319,608 votes. And that disparity is actually understated, as Nader’s vote-sucking 2000 performance saw no repeat. So yes, amid Bush’s nationwide improvement, his margin in California narrowed a bit. But staring deep into the pig entrails and divining a momentous shift in the Golden State is a tad premature. After all, when this state feels like flipping, it does. In 1984, it went for Reagan over Mondale, 58% to 41%. In 1988, Bush Sr. beat Dukakis, 51% to 48%. And then, in 1992, Clinton totaled Bush Sr., 46% to 32%. That was California convulsing. By comparison, 2004 was the slightest of twitches. So take heart Democrats, the land of milk and Hollywood still loves you. It’s the nation who’s unimpressed. And, as you set about trying to change that, allow me to channel Dr. Phil and offer a piece of advice, a little something to remember in the days to come: Nobody likes a hypochondriac.

As Brad Plumer rightly notes, that whole "the era of big government is over" idea is being quickly supplanted by the era of "I kinda like big government and respectfully ask for more". The number of Republicans viewing government as "almost always wasteful and inefficient" has fallen from 74% in the early 90's to fewer than 50% now. Which, I think, goes far towards explaining Bush's Medicare and Social Security reforms. With such precipitous drops in contempt towards the government, someone needs to step in and prove how totally incompetent the public sphere really is. Did 9/11 convince you the government can keep you safe? Watch them blitz a foreign country based on totally incorrect intelligence! Think torture is probably bad for America and an affront to moral values? Your government won't even allow the guy who let Abu Ghraib happen resign! He tried twice! They're forcibly keeping him at his desk! He also fucked up the war effort! Gah! And that's not all! They're going to destroy the most successful social insurance program in history despite admitting that their "fix" fixes nothing! They've screwed over the environment, squandered a giant surplus, created a massive deficit, lost a bunch of jobs, destroyed America's global prestige, forgotten to clamp down on lose nuclear material, lied to you a number of times, and created the most divided Congress anyone can remember! And yet you people are trusting them more, not less! You're screwing up the whole plan!

Brad Plumer did a nice job of smacking down an errant peer yesterday:

On Sunday, the Washington Post got Laura Thomas, a twenty-something writer, to ponder the future of Social Security. The verdict? "People my age are as likely to believe in Social Security as they are in Santa Claus." Fair enough, but fortunately for retirees across the country, the program exists wholly independent of what someone in their mid-twenties does or doesn't believe.

Read the rest.

Robert Farley asks an interesting question on farm subsidies, namely, if the reason liberals are so quick to line up against them (in violation of our traditional affection for subsidies) because we don't like the rural farmers who vote against our candidates and perpetuate Republican rule. The question is fair, I think, but the answer is no. Liberals share the same mythology concerning the small-American farmer that everybody else does. Insofar as we have a stereotype of country hicks, they're not the salt-of-the-earth families tilling fields and sweating to feed the nation. Indeed, liberals dislike farm subsidies for precisely the opposite reason -- they benefit massive corporations. 80% of farm subsidy recipients get an average annual payout of $768. The top 4%, however, receive an average of $59,000 a year. Topping the list is Tyler Farms with an $8.1 million payout, and trust me, no small family farm are they.

Eve more galling, simple redistribution (which, to be clear, I don't support) would be more effective than this. For a mere $4 billion a year, the government could put every full time farmer in America at 150% of the poverty line (granted, there are many part time farmers in America), but we currently spend $20 billion annually aiding Big Ag. So when looking for liberal biases that account for our venom towards farm subsidies, you neither have to look far nor find new ones. It's still big corporations versus the rest of us.

Brooks's latest column is so, ugh, Brooksian. Billed as a short history of Deanism, it tries and fails to connect Howard Dean to the breakdown of fraternal orders. Or something. I'm really not sure, but I do know that PZ Myers did an excellent job gutting it:

Ooh, there [Brooks] goes, treating some nice words as if they were smutty slanders. "Secular" is a virtue: we live in a secular state, which means it carries out its functions without requiring specific religious beliefs of its citizens. It does not mean that we hunt down and persecute Christians, much as the religious right would like you to think it is so.

"Embodying the educated class" is also a lovely advantage to me. He makes it sound like some narrow, weird group of people with freakish habits, but I think he's just trying to play that divisive red-blue state game. Guess what? Alabama is full of educated people! So is Idaho! And Florida! Even Texas, although I understand they have to hide in armed enclaves. Those people we're electing to the Senate and House of Representatives and White House? Educated. Judges? Educated. Even Republicans go off to universities to learn things.

So I guess I don't understand Brooks' game. He seems to be declaring the Democrats and especially Howard Dean's clan to be the party of really smart people who like to learn things. What does that make the Republicans?

Sam Rosenfeld has a very persuasive rebuttal to my recent post on Bush's farm subsidies. You should read it. I should add, by the way, that I agree with him, but my post was less about the President's conviction in supporting subsidy reform and more about the total lack of conviction that publicly supporting it displayed. As such, color me unsurprised that his support is totally disingenuous -- he's a flip-flopper either way.

In context of a post on post-war Japan, Steve Clemons writes:

Bush needs to be careful of trumpeting too much about our experience democratizing Japan -- as we were frequently on the side of the anti-democrats. To some degree, Japan democratized despite our promotion of a profound model of structural corruption there -- and the Japanese public and civil society institutions deserve credit. But Bush, as of late, has been warping this history.

Read that first line again -- "Bush needs to be careful of...". I've used it myself, Bush better watch for this or that, because he's flagrantly rewriting history/ignoring evidence/contradicting reality. I was wrong. Bush needn't be careful at all. Who in our press is going to stand up and correct the historical record? Is it you, Nedra Pickler? You, Ron Fournier? You, Dana Milbank? You, Judith Miller?

Of course not. As Digby is fond of saying, we've entered a full-fledged Foucaultian state of competing discourses, and Steve's -- ours -- takes much too long to explain. Journalistic objectivity has bred a mutant offspring of political speech completely unmoored from reality. Remember The Matrix? How the original Agents were powerful but bound by the laws of the realm? And how Agent Smith unfastened himself from those pesky constraints and his increased power was in danger of ripping the whole construct apart? It's that way now, and the result has been reality checks aren't nearly as useful as body checks. It might be that once this breed of hollow Republicans is plastered across the boards, the reality-based discourse that we miss can be restored to the political realm. Until then? Bush better be careful because Iraq is devolving into an Islamic Republic where women are oppressed and Shari'a law reigns, because he won't be careful to respect history.

I probably shouldn't admit this, but the Linkin Park/Jay-Z mashups are really much better than they have any right to be. Every time I listen to Numb/Encore I either have to write a polemic or punch someone in the face. Fear of jail time is probably going to mean more posting this week.

The iconography of dissent.

WaPo calls bullshit on the President's budget:

The spending plan does not include future expenses of the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor does it include upfront transition costs of restructuring Social Security as Bush has proposed. The administration will submit a separate supplemental request largely for Afghanistan and Iraq operations in the current fiscal year, which will be reflected in the budget charts, officials said, but war costs in 2006 and beyond will not be. Nor will be the cost of Bush's Social Security plan, which would begin in 2009 and result in $754 billion in additional debt over its first five years.

Tactically, eliminating food stamps through a farm subsidies "bumper shot" would be brilliant, but not really necessary. The attack on the subsidies is a symbolic shout-out to Bush's conservative base, the CATO's and Stephen Moore's of the world. To let that die while simultaneously kidney-punching the poor would win neither the President nor the party any friends, and let's not forget a farm industry plenty able to support Democrats in the '06 midterms. If Bush is taking them on, my hunch is he's doing it for real. And if he loses, food stamps is one of those programs with sacrosanct symbolism, retaining a facade of compassionate conservatism has been important to this bunch and I can't see them sacrificing it for such slight budgetary gain.

One more time, let's have no question of what Edwards is staking his next run on:

In what appeared to be an early start for the 2008 campaign cycle, John Edwards told New Hampshire Democrats on Saturday that poverty was "one of the great moral issues of our time," and he pledged to help fight it.

"It may seem like an impossible goal to end poverty, but that's what the skeptics said about all of our other great challenges," said Mr. Edwards, the former vice-presidential candidate. "If we can put a man on the moon, conquer polio and put libraries of information on a chip, then we can end poverty for those who want to work for a better life."

Not bad. For a variety of reasons, I'm no fan of Edwards, but I'm all for a Democrat planting himself on stage and demanding an end to economic injustice. That he's doing so can only be good for the debate.

I won't be watching the Superbowl today. Like Steve Clemons, I just can't get excited about big dudes chasing each other up and down the field. It's weird, I love football -- played it for four years -- but, like with all other sports, I have no interest in watching others do the deed. And since my girlfriend isn't around this weekend, there's nobody present to force me in front of the television (take that, traditional gender roles!). Nevertheless, this is the sort of thing I can get excited about. Over at Duncan's place they're doing some gambling -- if your team loses, you donate to one of the predefined charities. I do realize that you're betting money with no hope of making any, but that's okay, think of it as role-playing for Social Security privatization.

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

5/13/2002:

President Bush on Monday signed a 10-year, $190 billion farm bill that promises to expand subsidies to growers.

"This bill is generous and will provide a safety net for farmers, and it will do so without encouraging overproduction and depressing prices," Bush said at a signing ceremony. "It will allow farmers and ranchers to plan and operate based on market realities, not government dictates."

2/5/2005:

President Bush will seek deep cuts in farm and commodity programs in his new budget and in a major policy shift will propose overall limits on subsidy payments to farmers, administration officials said Saturday.

The bill, by the way, is a good one aimed at ending one of America's most disgraceful economic policies. But it really should end the discussion on whether or not Bush is a man of principle. It reverses legislation he supported and signed three years ago in the name of political expediency, and that shouldn't be forgotten.

Is Iran the future of Iraq?

With religious Shiite parties poised to take power in the new constitutional assembly, leading Shiite clerics are pushing for Islam to be recognized as the guiding principle of the new constitution.
...
At the very least, the clerics say, the constitution should ensure that legal measures overseeing personal matters like marriage, divorce and family inheritance fall under Shariah, or Koranic law. For example, daughters would receive half the inheritances of sons under that law.
...
Shiite politicians, recognizing a possible backlash from secular leaders and the Americans, have publicly promised not to install a theocracy similar to that of Iran, or allow clerics to run the country. But the clerics of Najaf, the holiest city of Shiite Islam, have emerged as the greatest power in the new Iraq. They forced the Americans to conform to their timetable for a political process. Their standing was bolstered last Sunday by the high turnout among Shiite voters and a widespread boycott by the Sunni Arabs, and the clerics will now wield considerable behind-the-scenes influence in the writing of the constitution through their coalition built around religious parties.

It's easy to forget that Iran started out promising not to install a repressive theocracy or allowing clerics to run the country. In fact, for the first few years Ayatollah Khomeini barred clerics from senior government positions. That stood until the MEK, which was the marginalized-group-cum-insurgency, launched a particularly ferocious and sustained series of attacks. The bombings were so stunning and sweeping reprisal so expected that it was barely noticed when Khomeini, amidst the other elements of his crack down, lifted the ban and began installing clerics. And so Iran became a theocracy.

So, to distill, the ingredients there were an Islamic power base in government, a vicious insurgency, and a starting moderation that helped the Islamists achieve power but that they never wanted in the first place. Connect the dots. And get depressed.

Kristof is rightfully getting slammed for his op-ed arguing Democrats need to spend less time obstructing Bush's efforts to eviscerate Social Security and more time offering responsible plans of their own. As so often happens with these things, Kristof seems to have drawn his column from some collective press mind, as the same daring idea was popping up in pieces all weekend long (although the Post certainly gets the award for silliest literary device in service of the editorial).

But uh, quick question guys -- while you're begging, pleading and imploring the Democrats to become responsible stewards of Social Security checks, could you tell me what George Bush's idea is here? Because -- funny thing -- he won't. In fact, he keeps asking other people to offer ideas. And insofar as all he's doing is searching for proposals to read, there are plenty of liberal policy papers floating around the internet ether, all he's got to do is search.

So guys? I know this is an easy piece to write. I know it makes you sound like calm, world-weary political watchers fed-up by the unceasing partisanship of Washington. But before you start asking one side or the other to take part in the war of ideas currently raging, you might in fact want to check if any ideas really are armed and arrayed for battle or, as in this case, there's a general idea that ideas will soon be going to battle but the driving force behind that concept has studiously refused to explain what he wants to do, preferring instead to let a phony discussion he demands provide cover for his eventual policies which will savage the program.

Now, as calm, world-weary political watchers fed-up by the unceasing partisanship of Washington, I know you wouldn't want that to happen, right? In fact, all your editorials implore liberals to save a liberal program because, from your liberal perspective, they seem the only guys able to do so. And that's great for street cred. But as calm, world-wear political watcchers fed-up by the unceasing partisanship in Washington, you guys know that's not how it works, and you know no proposal by liberals will ever see the ink on the President's pen. So stop fronting.

Mr. John Rogers wants to know if you Bit Torrenters would actually pay cash for television shows, and if so, how much. My answer is yes, so long as I wasn't paying for cable on top of it. That seems the future of TV, broadband-delivered entertainment that you decide on, which is a hell of a lot more efficient than the current cable wasteland that my bill gives me the deed to. But despite how good that sounds, I don't see how new programming would break through it. After all, with an endless menu of West Wing, 24, The Daily Show, Sex and the City, and softcore porn The "L" Word to choose from, where would you find the time, and how would you discover, untested shows?

So what's the word, y'all? Would you pay? Or is it Bit Torrent forever?

My good buddy John Edwards just sent me an e-mail with his plans for the next couple of years. Figured you guys might want to know them too:

I am very proud to say that I will be joining UNC to launch its new Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, which will examine innovative and practical ideas for moving more Americans out of poverty and into the middle class. The fact that millions in this country go to work every day and still live in poverty is wrong and unacceptable. This is personal to me, and I believe that it is one of the most important moral issues of our time.

Together with UNC, I will work hands-on to explore creative approaches to the difficulties that families in poverty face every day. We may not have all the answers right now, but I can promise you this: we will be asking the hard questions. We will work tirelessly so that America's bright light of opportunity shines on all of us.

Sounds like a plan. I'm not sure how politically savvy it is; Edwards is simply augmenting his strength (domestic) without doing anything to counter his weakness on foreign policy, but it seems like a good venture anyway. More importantly, the e-mail says Elizabeth is about to finish chemo and it went really, really well. Thank God for that.

Digby (italics mine):

Let's face facts. The extremely dishonest approach that the Republicans are taking to bring African Americans on board with their privatized personal retirement plan is just downright racist. I'm sure that the creationist right believes that the fact black men don't live as long as whites is God's intention but the truth is that they wouldn't die younger if it weren't for poverty, disease and crime which are immoral reasons in a rich country such as ours. It's bad enough that this is happening today, but the administration is selling the idea as something that will continue for at least the next forty years as a selling point for destroying social security. It's is another case of their outrageous pomo up-is-downism.
...
This is racist on a number of levels, not the least of which is that the Bush administration has made a fetish of portraying themselves as "compassionate" toward the poor with images of adorable black children and high level tokenism. They know very well that the African American community is the most reliably Democratic constituency in the nation. They are not actually making a play for their votes. Their bogus imagery is racist because it has no substance in policy terms and is actually aimed at white suburban voters who mistrust the southern red-neck edge that defines the sound of the modern GOP.

That about sums it up. The first half of Bush's "compassionate conservative" formulation doesn't exist as a policy goal but as a comforting hedge against the economic selfishness and/or cultural bigotry that motivates so many conservative voters. Compassionate people don't act like this.

Crowley's analysis of the Democratic SOTU response is spot-on, even as it's in-line. While his criticisms of the speech are the best I've read (and you should read them), it's general awfulness and ineffectiveness seem well accepted. The calls are already coming for the tradition to be scrapped, for the minority retort to be let out of its misery.

No.

There's something nicely, idealistically American about guaranteeing the opposition party airtime to respond to the President's address. Just because they don't do it well (and that goes for Republicans and Democrats), doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. What it does mean is that it needs to rescued from irrelevancy.

So let's start at the beginning. It's a speech. To succeed it requires three things: a speaker people want to listen to in the first place; a speaker possessing the oratorical skill needed to retain the audience's attention, and a well-crafted text.

Working backwards, last night's text was poor. Cluttered and off-key, it could no more decide on its tone than its focus. As the speech is scheduled for after the president's address, we already know the audience is tired of watching politicians talk, so from now on, keep it short and focused. That last night's SOTU was going to be remembered for Social Security was no secret, particularly not after the Republican's pre-briefed reporters on the issue. And, sure enough, the morning's papers reported a leader obsessed with pension plans. As such, the Democratic response should have started with something like "We know it's been a long night of talking, so we're going to keep it short and tell you about our position on Social Security privatization. If you want to know about our other policies for keeping the economy strong and the nation safe, please go to www.democrats.org. Now, tonight you heard the president say..."

Next, there's no reason our Congressional leadership needs to give it. I know they've got egos to feed and spotlights to hog, but it's time to put that away. Since neither Pelosi nor Reid have shown any interest in becoming party superstars (the media kind) or presidential candidates, they should cede the floor to those more interested in making a name for themselves through the stunning oratory that emerges only from practice and repetition. This party has orators and it has superstars, sometimes in the same guy. Is there any reason that that marquee name and Newsweek cover boy Barack Obama shouldn't have delivered the rebuttal? The ratings would have shot up simply from viewers wanting to see what he's about. What? He's too inexperienced? Fine, what about Dick Durbin, Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton? Is there any doubt they would have attracted more viewers and heightened buzz?

The Democrats aren't doing well enough to coast. We can't give opportunities like these to those sure to squander them. Pelosi has never been a good speaker, Reid has never electrified a crowd. They are our legislative leaders and I appreciate their relationships with our Congresscritters, their mastery of parliamentary procedure, their ability to unify a caucus, and their adeptness at plotting strategy. But they're bad speakers who wasted an opportunity to raise the profile and burnish the image of our party. And they shouldn't do it again.

Responding to Victor Davis Hanson's bizarre assertion that withdrawing from Iraq would choke off reformist movements in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Palestine, Matt notes that all these governments are in fact allied with us already, making the reformist movements anti-us as much as anti-them. Hanson and his ilk seem quick to underestimate the level of hatred and fear we inspire among the region's populations; we are considered the firepower keeping the Palestinians oppressed and the dictators in power. As such, keeping our army concentrated in the area is much more likely to discourage reformists trying to topple or pressure the dictators we count as friends than inspire them. Post-Iraq, post Iran-Contra, post Intifada, post-Desert Storm abandonment of Iraqi dissidents, and post-Operation Praying Mantis (where we accidentally shot down an Iranian civilian aircraft), no one in the Middle East doubts our ability to bring massive force to bear in support of unpredictable goals. Bush's inauguration speech might have been for real, but then again, it might not. Ariel Sharon is certainly not viewed as less dangerous or bloodthirsty than the Iraqi dictator we just deposed, and our allies in the House of Saud are certainly no more committed to liberty and national self-determination than was Mohammad Mosaddeq, whom we overthrew.

Americans may forget what we've done, but others don't, and they're not used to elected governments that come in acting as if the last term was served in a different universe and the goals sought then have no relation to those pursued now. We are still culpable for our past, and so the idea that our massed forces in the region embolden anybody, rather than frighten them, is just absurd.

Note to Dems -- It's like this and like this and like that, and uh.

Update: I should probably say something more on this. Berry's genius is in realizing that Bush is making an effective public play to seem reasonable, open-minded, and good-hearted concerning Social Security. He's using Congress as cannon fodder, getting them to float an unpopular plan that they'd never touch if the White House didn't have bayonets to their backs. But just because he's kept his mouth shut concerning his intentions doesn't mean that others have shown similar discipline. So just as Republicans use Michael Moore to tar the national security bona fides of moderate and even hawkish Democrats, we should use Grover Norquist's statements to define the President's plans. Props to Marion Berry for figuring it out.

Quoth Taegan Goddard:

With yet another article on President Bush's infatuation with Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy, I'm beginning to think this is the only book he's ever