Good news for Dean

It looks like Dean will probably pick up an important labor endorsement. The New Republic has the scoop.

Complaining about "liberals"

I do it on here because something that gravely concerns me is the war of ideas. I think liberals have been losing it for the last few years. I am a liberal who wants to be critical of our rhetoric.

I may seem to be some sort of centrist, but I am nothing of the sort. I am disgusted with the Democratic Party's cowardice after 9-11. Here are my issue positions stances:

Social issues:
I believe in privacy rights as established by the Supreme Court. I'm rabidly pro-choice and pro-separation of church and state. Theoretically I think the word "God" should be removed from all government buildings/documents/anything. As a practical matter, it's not a fight worth fighting. Honestly, who cares? Should a child be FORCED to say the pledge? No, of course not.

Taxes: I think Democrats have been framing the issue wrong - instead of attempting to cut taxes through credits and "targeting" they should just aim for an exclusively working class tax cut and an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit. I do agree that a tax increase on the upper class is in order, but we should keep the dividend tax cut as it stands (15%), because, bang for your buck, that is a great tax cut.

Education: The standards and accountability rhetoric is bunk unless it's accompanied by a huge hike in teacher salaries. They're supposedly held accountable now, so let's pay them more. No, not radically more, but at least help their salaries keep pace with inflation (and perhaps surpass it).

Military spending: Practically - you can't really do much to bring the overall numbers down (unless you're a former General who is elected President, hint hint). But I'd like to. How much military spending is wasted on technology that is really only relevant to the Cold War era? Plenty. Billions of dollars. If it were up to me, I'd shift at least a bit of that to Intelligence, and a bit to veterans'/active duty members' benefits. That way, you get the political support from military personnel that would be necessary to carry out radical reforms. That would also shift the military a bit from the Republican column to the Democratic column. It might put a few miltiary supply companies out of business, but if someone is going to suffer, wouldn't you rather it be the military supply companies rather than veterans?

War: Blow up terrorist training camps anywhere and everywhere, but preferably with cooperation from sovereign states. As far as conquering territory? We've all seen how costly that is...

North Korea: Bribe them in a politically fashionable way. Seriously. Find a clever way to do it and just keep waiting for the regime to crumble. It will happen eventually. Clinton gets criticized for this, but I really respect him for it.

Iran: Get the inspectors in there.

That's it for now.

Gas tax (revisited)

The Economist discusses the upside of a gas tax in an editorial this month. Here are the key paragraphs:

The best way to curb the demand for oil and promote innovation in oil alternatives is to tell the world's energy markets that the “externalities” of oil consumption—security considerations and environmental issues alike—really will influence policy from now on. And the way to do that is to impose a gradually rising gasoline tax.

By introducing a small but steadily rising tax on petrol, America would do far more to encourage innovation and improve energy security than all the drilling in Alaska's wilderness. Crucially, this need not be, and should not be, a matter of raising taxes in the aggregate. The proceeds from a gasoline tax ought to be used to finance cuts in other taxes—this, surely, is the way to present them to a sceptical electorate.

Now that seems like a sensible plan. It beats Friedman's silly one.

Lift the Partial-Birth ban now

For a more eloquent description of why the partial-birth abortion ban should be overturned, read this William Saletan piece in Slate.
I'm afraid that we must rely on the Supreme Court to overturn this law. The American public is not intelligent enough to understand this debate. Pro-lifers like "Doctor" Bill Frist have so distorted the language of the debate that it will be impossible to rectify the situation in the legislature.

Coherent criticism of Bush's Iraq policy

Thomas Friedman's article in the Times today actually made sense. Take a look at it. Besides all of the great points about the political rebuilding process, he also pointed out that Democratic Presidential candidates have shut themselves out of the rebuilding debate by disowning the war that they once enthusiastically supported. Democrats need to avoid the impression that they are rooting against the rebuilding process in Iraq. It is tough. Further anarchy in Iraq will destroy Bush's presidency. If conditions are as they are now next year, then he will not only lose, he will lose in a landslide (a relative red vs blue landslide). But enough damage has already occurred. There is no need for Democrats to root for deterioration in Iraq. Bush vastly exaggerated the intelligence, lied about Uranium, lied about Saddam's connection to 9-11, and lied about the cost in lives and fortune. This will be enough for Democrats to mount a competitive campaign. And there will be more to come, especially on the domestic front. So please, I urge all Democrats to enter the debate over how we are going to rebuild Iraq. We aren't going to pull our troops out of there for at least a year, so please do not suggest it.

Attacks up in Iraq

Attacks are up in Iraq, according to the commander in Iraq. But of course, we already knew that, since the media tells us only bad news...or did we? Of course not. The media doesn't report these attacks that apparently happen "35 times per day". The Pentagon has also been hesitant to even release numbers of US GIs wounded. Access to hospitals is restricted so as to prevent journalists from coming up with accurate figures for US casualties.

Return to Afghanistan

For those of you who have broad band connections, check out the Washington Posts AMAZING series on the rebuilding of Afghanistan:

Return to Afghanistan

Bush = Carter

I feel like Bush was only elected because of Clinton's impeachment (much like Carter was only elected because of Nixon's resignation / Ford's subsequent pardon). Bush is likely to lose if he faces a credible candidate in 2004. Here's why:

1. Bush is a southerner. Imagine if the Republicans nominated someone from the Northeast or Midwest for President - they'd win in a landslide. Nominating a southerner is like nominating a northeastern Democrat - it doesn't make much sense when you look at the electoral map.

2. Despite the tide against the Clinton administration's supposed corruption, Bush was only able to eek out a small 1 vote win in the electoral college. Battleground states in the next election will be Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. Previous battle ground states of Oregon, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois have trended sharply towards the Democrats, while Florida, Missouri, Tennessee, and Arkansas have trended towards the Republicans. Most pundits have Florida and Missouri as tossup states, but I think they will go decisively to the Republicans. Likewise, most pundits have Arizona as a Republican leaning state, but I think its a tossup due to its growing Hispanic population, and Nevada has been tilting Democratic lately.

By my calculations, without the battle ground states, the score will be:
Democrat - 248
Bush - 234.

If I had to predict the 7 battleground states, I would predict that Bush would win Iowa, Arizona, and Nevada, while the Democrat would win Ohio, West Virginia, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. That puts the score at:

Democrat - 282
Bush - 256.

That's a close election. If you take all of the states that I label tossups and the states that I label "leaning Rep/Dem" (states like Florida) then here are the results:

Democrat - 172
Bush - 174.

That's with all of the sure fire states in each column. Keep in mind, that is AS OF RIGHT NOW, if the campaign started TODAY. Things could change, but right now I'm using today's framework to have some fun with hypotheticals.

Bush - no bounce in the polls

Bush HAS NOT improved in the polls, contrary to what the mainstream media is reporting. Here is the link to a bunch of poll summaries from TPM.

Have no fear - Bush is still in trouble.

Criticizing Muslim culture

I'm sick and tired of liberals defending Muslim culture. As long as we're not talking about Turkey, Muslim culture is quite backwards. Women are treated as non-human second class citizens. Phony monarchies rule Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. They steal all of the country's oil wealth and then sedate the populations with socialist programs that rise and fall with oil prices. Religion pervades every part of society - the only country with a somewhat secular government is Syria (but it's a brutal ba'thist dictatorship, so secularism hardly helps).

Obviously factors like colonization (after WWI) and meddling in internal affairs (Eisenhower and Reagan, I'm looking at you) have created these conditions. But equally important is the fact that even moderate Islam allows for quite a bit of discrimination and dehumanization of women. A recent article in Foreign Policy magazine declares that what truly keeps Ulamas (religious leaders) in Muslim nations from allowing reform is their hostility towards women's rights. Here is the link to the corresponding article. It's built off of the concept of Samuel Huntington's Clash of Cultures. The source of the clash, according to the article, is gender.

I'm not a moral absolutist, but I still believe that, to a certain extent, I reserve the right to criticize other cultures values if they are clearly repulsive. Imagine if the religious right ran the US and enacted their policy. What if prayer in school was mandatory, speaking out against the Christian God was illegal, and abortions were illegal? Women's rights would be ignored, since women would need to be in the home. Muslim culture is twice as bad as what I just described.

There are liberal Muslims out there, but their goverments too often silence them (especially in Egypt and Iran). The middle east should have looked to Turkey as an example of a fully functioning state a long time ago, but it has failed to do so.

Doctor shortage?

Apparently, according to the ABC News/Republican Spin Team , there is a doctor shortage that is approaching "crisis" level in the US. Poor unfortunate doctors are quitting their practice because they can't afford malpractice insurance. I talked about this a few weeks ago and it's quite clear that there isn't a crisis. Republicans and PR firms representing Doctors are spinning this. Republicans see it as a way to limit the influence of a Democratic constituency - trial lawyers. They also see it as a decent way to attack John Edwards' presidential campaign. But there isn't really a crisis. Malpractice insurance has gone up some, but those who have experienced a major increase are doctors who have COMMITTED MALPRACTICE. Let me once again refer you to an excellent Washington Monthly piece on this issue.

Update: 9:17 PM
It should be noted that the Washington Monthly has its own motives in criticizing malpractice reform: They pretty much endorsed John Edwards for President back in 2001.

Clark: No progress in New Hampshire

According to a Franklin Pierce Institute Poll, Wesley Clark has only 7% of the potential vote in New Hampshire. Dean is still strongly in the lead, with Kerry in second. Clark must pass Kerry in New Hampshire to become the "anti-Dean" candidate following New Hampshire. It's obvious that the Democratic race for President will be between Dean and another "anti-Dean". For Clark, Kerry is the enemy right now. He must surpass Kerry in New Hampshire and make him effectively irrelevant. As the primaries get closer, Democratic elites will either get behind Dean, or back another rival. Clark must become that rival.

Iowa isn't important now

Iowa isn't important now, except as a proxy war between Dean and Gephardt. This Slate article concurs with what I posted yesterday. Clark and Lieberman's bum rush from Iowa hurts its importance. I wouldn't be surprised to see Edwards leave Iowa as well, although, according to David Brooks' latest column, Edwards is doing well there.

Plus, as the Nytimes Editorial page notes, why should Iowa have so much influence on the who the Democratic nominee for President is? For that matter, why should New Hampshire, or any other state? Isn't it advantageous to Democracy to have many states factor into the decision?

This may be true, but a drawn out primary process is not advantageous for Democrats. Super Tuesday will probably be decisive, and if not, the Democrats are in trouble.

Mother Theresa

Read this hilarious rant against Mother Theresa by Christopher Hitchens.

Clark and Lieberman back out of Iowa Caucus

I haven't seen a recent poll that shows their current standing in Iowa, but I would imagine that both contenders are below 10%. Here are the implications of each candidate's decision:

1. Lieberman won't drop out of the race until after he loses badly in South Carolina. That means he'll be around to attack the Democratic field from the right until then and thereby open some holes that Bush can exploit in the general election. Fortunately no one pays much attention to Joe Lieberman.

2. A two way race between Dean and Gephardt has been set up in Iowa. I expect it to be somewhat close, but Dean should connect with a solid win, thereby ending Gephardt's candidacy.

3. The importance of Iowa has eroded. With a major contender not participating (Clark), look for expanded focus on New Hampshire and South Carolina. Also, don't be surprised if the media covers the DC Primary (before Iowa this year) with a bit more intensity.

4. The Clark campaign hasn't taken off like many expected it to. It takes a huge organizational apparatus to win in Iowa (Dean began campaigning there in 2001), so it would have been difficult for him to contend.

Schools, media, etc.

Here's a Newsweek piece that pretty much backs up what I've been saying for the last weeks.

Here is the key paragraph (TPM posted it as well)

Reporters who covered the war say that some of the Coalition’s achievements are less impressive than they sound. Paul (Jerry) Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, proudly announced the reopening of Iraq’s schools this month, while White House officials point to the opening of Iraq’s 240 hospitals. In fact, many schools were already open in May, once major combat ended, and no major hospital closed during the war. But that didn’t stop a group of Republican senators from tearing into American reporters covering Iraq earlier this month. “I was not told by the media... that thousands and thousands of Iraqi schoolchildren went back to school,” said Larry Craig of Idaho, who recently toured Iraq. The senator neglected to mention that he slept both nights of his trip in Kuwait, not Iraq.

Saletan column

Here's a William Saletan column that supports Dean and ridicules other campaigns' attempts to smear him. He makes some good points. Dean is not a liberal on most issues. That's reality. But most of Saletan's points relate to Dean's vaguely moderate positions on complicated issues like Social Security reform, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and Medicare. The American electorate is too stupid to process minor differences on these issues.

I haven't written much about this race lately because there have been very few developments. Right now Dean is in a strong position. Wesley Clark, rightfully so, has decided to go into hibernation while he gets his campaign organized. Occationally Lieberman comes forth and reads out Republican talking points. Edwards raised only 2 million last quarter. Kerry and Edwards of course voted against authorizing the 87 million, a purely symbolic vote.

Are more soldiers dying in Iraq lately?

Here's the latest

It sure seems like more soldiers are dying. It's ironic that right-wingers are pushing this, "report the good news" thing right now.