A pro-government revolt in our future?

In the 1970s, Ronald Reagan helped create a conservative movement - the anti-government movement. Here's the playbook for running as a Reagan conservative...it's really quite brilliant:

1. Run as an anti-government candidate. It's true, there is alot of waste in the government (although it accounts for a very low amount of total spending). Point angrily at some bureaucracies (everyone hates those) and you'll quickly win the argument. This was very popular in the 70s (especially on the heels of the LBJ expansion of the welfare state). Use colorful examples like black welfare mothers to recruit more people into your movement. Be alarmist. The government is not only wasting our money - it's tyrannical and dangerous. We must starve the beast - and NOW!
2. Run as a tax cutting candidate. If government sucks, then let's cut it's funding. Run as a populist - the people deserve their money, and the government is wasting it! Let's give it back to them!

It's a brilliant playbook. First, create a boogie man (the government). Then offer people free money. It should have worked like a charm...except for 2 problems:

1. The government does plenty of good - and those of us who aren't in the top 10% of the population actually know that. Those of us who receive health care benefits, job training, education, entitlements, or college tuition aid know that we need the government. Reagan's message reached plenty of people - but it couldn't reach those who the government touches positively on a daily basis.

2. They never cut taxes on everyone! Their populist tax cutting message was never put into practice. Instead, they repeatedly cut taxes on the rich. So regular Joes never got their free money. Why not? Republicans understand how to make a populist appeals, but they've never actually been caught in the act of helping the people.

Of course, after a couple of decades of starving federal money from the states, the states have been forced to cut services. The education system (I'm referring to suburban education) is slowly melting away. A health care crisis is emerging and states simply don't have the funds to deal with it. Suddenly, even Republicans are considering tax increases (examples: Alabama, and now even John Warner has signed onto the VA Tax reform plan). Even George Bush was forced to sign an expensive Medicare overhaul into law this year. Republicans are moving towards actually supporting efforts to socialize medicine! What has the world come to?

I'll tell you: the Reagan revolution is over. A government CAN be efficient. They've shown it in the Scandinavian countries and they'll show it here. Socialized medicine is on the way, people. And the American public is hungry for it. They don't hate government spending - they just hate wasteful spending.

Bring THEM on

The Christian Conservative movement is like an Onion article that writes itself. All these people have to do is open their mouths and they sell the case for the other side.

Is evolution real? Is the world going to end within 5 years? Should we clump all of the Jews together in the Holy Land so that they can be judged when it does end? Are homosexuals more like dogs or alcoholics? Are tampons "Satan's cotton fingers?" Are abortion doctors trying to harvest organs from monkey babies? (All mainstream Christian conservative thought). I couldn't write this stuff if I tried.

This gay marriage thing is about to come to a head...and you know what that means: it's time for a rabid grassroots movement to arise to stop it. Some see a parallel between this burgeoning movement and the Stop-ERA movement of the 1970s. That movement surprised many people with its unexpected grassroots growth and furor. But this is the age of the internet and television - and we'll have the largely secular (and very pro-homosexual) press deriding them the whole way. And the Democrats will paint the movement as a bigot-fest (while carefully straddling it by methodically repeating "states-rights", "civil unions" and "Dick Cheney's daughter" whenever questioned about their stance).

I'm starting to think this gay marriage controversy will be a net plus for Democrats...as long as Jerry Falwell goes on television to discuss it once a week, we're set.

We in political science often talk about "issue salience". How important is this issue to religious fanatics? VERY. They'll do anything - and trample anyone (including Bush) to see that the "sanctity of marriage" (I refuse to ever write that without quotes around it because it's not real...It's a useless construct) is protected.

We as Democrats should be trying to get these people (especially the more extreme elements) on television as OFTEN AS POSSIBLE. There are plenty of tolerant people who oppose gay marriage - but we need to highlight those who aren't and paint the entire movement in their light.

The South

Obviously we don't need it to win the Presidency - so why am I so keen on Wesley Clark and John Edwards as nominees?

Because there are other areas of the nation where their "southernness" would help woo moderate voters. Read this American Prospect piece for a detailed explanation.

Wes Clark the stop-Edwards candidate

According to these numbers, when Wes Clark decided to pointlessly stay in the race through TN/VA, he effectively stopped John Edwards from taking over as a credible alternative to John Kerry. Add Clark's numbers + Edwards' numbers and Edwards would be way ahead in VA/TN. Oh well.

A question worth answering - How could I turn my back on Wes Clark even though I (1) intern for him in Charlottesville and (2) went to New Hampshire to work for him?

Either I have no integrity/hate Bush with every bone in my body. Clark is no longer a viable candidate in the primaries, and I have no qualms about quickly moving on to someone who is.

Still amazed...

Dean continues to raise money...how is he doing this?

Who are these people who continue to send their money down the garbage shoot? Will they play ball in November when Kerry's on the ballot? I'm still not convinced...

Back to Kosovo

Here's a pretty good WashPost account of Clark's role in the bombing campaign in Kosovo. I'm starting to get the feeling that this Kosovo thing was more important than we were all let believe in '99. In Europe there was a real worry that WWIII was going to break out...I think that's pretty alarmist, but it certainly was a delicate situation.

Today in the Funnys

Check this out:

The same day the Senate was sent deadly ricin poison, the President proposed to cut back 6 million in funding for building decontamination.

Also, Dean "hints that he would accept the VP slot". Dean's poll numbers in "must-win Wisconsin" are in the single digits...

Clark's amusing abortion position

Here's what he said Wednesday about it:

Clark has said he is a strong supporter of abortion rights, but when asked Wednesday where he stands, he said: "I'm against abortion, but there's the law of the land. . . . I have to support the law." Yesterday, he said he supports abortion rights but added he hopes "it would be done only on rare occasions."

He has like 10 different stances on this issue. I don't think he understands it/cares about it. Oh well.

John Kerry opposing gay marriage???

All of the Democratic candidates have come out in support of civil unions and against gay marriages at one point or another. But they haven't gone as far as John Kerry is supposedly about to go. The Washington Post today says that Kerry is considering supporting a Massachusetts state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages.

Could this be John Kerry's Sistah Souljah moment? Or does this guy just love to pander? It's hard to tell.

One more thing

Here's the most important thing about that AP poll:

President Bush's public support dropped sharply over the past month, especially among older voters, political independents and people in the Midwest

That's right...Ohio is now in play (50-46 for Bush in 2000 with 3% voting for Nader)

People rant and rave about the new Republican strength in the South...but they forget that the Democrats have COMPLETE control over the Northeast and are making huge gains in the Midwest.
Let's look at some other states:

Oregon
Prediction - Safe blue state
It was 47-47 last time with 5% Nader...it should be safe.

Michigan
Prediction - safe blue
It was 51(D) to 47 (R) last time with 2% Nader vote. It's turned heavily Democratic lately though. Forget any talk of Michigan being a "tossup state".

Pennsylvania
Prediction - Leans heavily blue
It was 51 (D) to 47 (R) last time with 2% Nader vote. It should be pretty safe, especially with a northeasterner on the ticket.

Minnesota
Prediction - Safe blue
Another squeaker last time (48-46) but with 6% Nader vote.

Missouri
Prediction - Leans red
Last time it was 51 (R) 47 (D) but it has trended towards the Republicans. With 2% Nader vote in 2000, the Dems can make a play at it, depending on statewide races. But it's a long shot.

Nevada
Prediction - tossup
Last time it was 49 (R) - 46 (D) with a 2% Nader vote. So it should be close.

New Hampshire
Prediction - leans Dem
Last time it was 49 (R) to 48 (D) with a heavy 4% Nader vote. With a bit of money and Kerry on the ticket, this one's going to be a Democratic pickup - count on it.

New Mexico
Prediction - Leans blue
Last time it was an almost tie with a 4% Nader vote. They have a popular Democratic Latino governor who will be spearheading the election campaign. Give it to the dems.

Arizona -
Prediction - leans red/tossup
Last time it was 51 (R) to 46 (D) with 3% Nader votes. This time it gains electoral votes - and it's a bit more blue friendly. We'll see. I think this will be the biggest battle ground state in the nation.

Florida
Prediction - leans red
It was a tie last time, of course. And the veteran population down there might help the Dems...but the Florida Democratic party stinks lately...so I'm giving this one to the Republicans for now.

Iowa
Prediction - tossup
Gore narrowly won this one with a 2% Nader vote. It'll be a squeaker here this year as well.

Question - Why don't I mention the Buchanan voters? Because they're nuts...who knows who they would have voted for in 2000? My bet is that their second choice was Donald Duck.

Anyway - if you want to have some fun with the electoral map, go here and click on "Electoral calculator" in the right panel

If you want to see the results from 2000, go here.

Wonderful poll numbers - and my first in depth (and informal) analysis of the 2004 election

The AP poll now has Bush at 47%!!!! WHOOPIE!!!!

That's where his father was in 1992 at this point. And trending downward, might I add.

Ken Mehlman, Bush's campaign manager, had this to say about Bush's message over the next year:

Bush's approach of lower taxes, less lawsuits and less regulation will resonate with voters, he said.

Let's take these on, one by one.

1. Lower taxes. Ever major Democrat (except for Dean) has proposed a tax cut on the middle class.
2. Less lawsuits. Clearly this is a dig at John Edwards...the Bush team KNOWS that there is a gathering storm on the issue of health care. How do they plan to head it off? By blaming trial lawyers...their malpractice lawsuits are the bane of society! Haha...if this is the best Bush has...haha...that's all I have to say. Ha. Ha. Now don't get me wrong - I'm sure that a good segment of the dittohead population will be chanting a chorus of "My pills cost so much because of the trial lawyers" by the fall. But they chose the wrong trial lawyer to pick on...John Edwards will get up on stage, and "emote" about the wrongdoings of careless doctors and passionately tell the story of the many unfortunate people he's helped, and the issue will pass. In fact, it might be a net win for Edwards.
3. Less regulation? After Enron? Right. That's a winning issue.

So let's recap - 3 issues. #1 the democrats can marginalize, and #2 and #3 are idiotic.

No - Bush will be running on THESE issues in 2004:

1. Aren't you all still scared? You're all going to die! Remember 9-11? I can use a bull horn.
2. Gay marriage
3. My opponent is an elitist

That's it folks. I can't think of much else.

What will the Democrats use?

1. Bush misled about WMD (and other Iraq themes and motifs)
2. Bush hates the poor and loves the rich.
3. Bush is a scary right-wing extremist who eats babies (it's really a variation of "my opponent is an elitist", but on the Democratic side)
4. Bush is an idiot (believe it or not, this still plays a big part in campaign strategy)
5. And of course - the Economy.

I've always said that #5 could come back to bite the Democrats - but at this point, probably not. The job market isn't recovering and even if it does, the health care situation is dire right now. Even those who are still employed are feeling a pretty tight pinch.

Who knows - if this AWOL thing blows up, I might be able to throw that one onto the list as well.

Bill Frist - it had to happen eventually

Congressional leaders are supposed to do the President's dirty work. They're supposed to stick up for the party's base and fight the tough fights. That's why they never make good Presidential candidates. They're a lightning rod. Tom Daschle was destroyed by partisan attacks last March after he criticized the President.

Now Bill Frist has inserted himself into the partisan fray as the President's marriage henchman. He'll take some shots for this, and it'll wound him. But that's the job of the Senate Majority leader.

Frist is of course still on the short list for 2008 - along with Jeb.

Republicans weak in 2004?

I agree with most of what Jordan posted today, but I have to take issue with this paragraph:

However, demographic trends seem to favor the Democrats. The country is becoming more Hispanic and more Catholic - pretty liberal voting blocs. Additionally, the managerial/professional class is growing, and these people are culturally liberal and fiscally conservative, like Clinton (and Arnold Schwartzeneggar).

I don't think the demographic trends are favoring Democrats at all...in fact, they're going sharply against the Democrats. With Bush pandering publicly to Hispanics, expect some of that support to erode. Furthermore, Hispanics could be a natural Bush ally (with their opposition to gay marriage). Catholics have been moving into the Republican party over the last few election cycles, and Bush has sought to consolidate this trend during his term in office.

The worst demographic trend for Democrats is the country's trend towards higher religiosity (strength of religious conviction). America is going through a mini-religious revival. Look at college campuses (historically the most liberal places you can find). What do people openly talk about? Jesus. A generation ago, people kept religion to themselves, but now it's become a public part of many people's lives. And the divide between the secular and the religious is deep. Democrats are secular. They don't mention God. Even the more religious Democrats are humanists at heart. Republicans are religious. Good vs evil. Black vs white. And the nation is moving in that direction. That's a trend that will hurt Democrats more than any other in the next election...unless they can fake religion like Clinton did...

That professional class is growing - but we really don't know much about it. Who are these people? John Judis spent quite a bit of time identifying them in his book, The Emerging Democratic Majority. But I'm unsure...
Who are they? Are they the type of people who watch "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" but supported the war in Iraq? Do they react to populist messages? Did they smoke pot in the sixties? I just need more...

More Kerry bashing...

Here's a NY Post column...

ONE of the surest ways to get the phones ringing on any Massachusetts talk-radio show is to ask people to call in and tell their John Kerry stories. The phone lines are soon filled, and most of the stories have a common theme: our junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing) or ducking out before the bill arrives.

The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: "Do you know who I am?"

And now he's running for president as a populist. His first wife came from a Philadelphia Main Line family worth $300 million. His second wife is a pickle-and-ketchup heiress.

Kerry lives in a mansion on Beacon Hill on which he has borrowed $6 million to finance his campaign. A fire hydrant that prevented him and his wife from parking their SUV in front of their tony digs was removed by the city of Boston at his behest.

The Kerrys ski at a spa the widow Heinz owns in Aspen, and they summer on Nantucket in a sprawling seaside "cottage" on Hurlbert Avenue, which is so well-appointed that at a recent fund-raiser, they imported porta-toilets onto the front lawn so the donors wouldn't use the inside bathrooms. (They later claimed the decision was made on septic, not social, considerations).

It's a wonderful life these days for John Kerry. He sails Nantucket Sound in "the Scaramouche," a 42-foot Hinckley powerboat. Martha Stewart has a similar boat; the no-frills model reportedly starts at $695,000. Sen. Kerry bought it new, for cash.



Every Tuesday night, the local politicians here that Kerry elbowed out of his way on his march to the top watch, fascinated, as he claims victory in more primaries and denounces the special interests, the "millionaires" and "the overprivileged."

"His initials are JFK," longtime state Senate President William M. Bulger used to muse on St. Patrick's Day, "Just for Kerry. He's only Irish every sixth year." And now it turns out that he's not Irish at all.

But in the parochial world of Bay State politics, he was never really seen as Irish, even when he was claiming to be (although now, of course, he says that any references to his alleged Hibernian heritage were mistakenly put into the Congressional Record by an aide who apparently didn't know that on his paternal side he is, in fact, part-Jewish).

Kerry is, in fact, a Brahmin - his mother was a Forbes, from one of Massachusetts' oldest WASP families. The ancestor who wed Ralph Waldo Emerson's daughter was marrying down.

At the risk of engaging in ethnic stereotyping, Yankees have a reputation for, shall we say, frugality. And Kerry tosses around quarters like they were manhole covers. In 1993, for instance, living on a senator's salary of about $100,000, he managed to give a total of $135 to charity.

Yet that same year, he was somehow able to scrape together $8,600 for a brand-new, imported Italian motorcycle, a Ducati Paso 907 IE. He kept it for years, until he decided to run for president, at which time he traded it in for a Harley-Davidson like the one he rode onto "The Tonight Show" set a couple of months ago as Jay Leno applauded his fellow Bay Stater.

Of course, in 1993 he was between his first and second heiresses - a time he now calls "the wandering years," although an equally apt description might be "the freeloading years."

For some of the time, he was, for all practical purposes, homeless. His friends allowed him into a real-estate deal in which he flipped a condo for quick resale, netting a $21,000 profit on a cash investment of exactly nothing. For months he rode around in a new car supplied by a shady local Buick dealer. When the dealer's ties to a congressman who was later indicted for racketeering were exposed, Kerry quickly explained that the non-payment was a mere oversight, and wrote out a check.

In the Senate, his record of his constituent services has been lackluster, and most of his colleagues, despite their public support, are hard-pressed to list an accomplishment. Just last fall, a Boston TV reporter ambushed three congressmen with the question, name something John Kerry has accomplished in Congress. After a few nervous giggles, two could think of nothing, and a third mentioned a baseball field, and then misidentified Kerry as "Sen. Kennedy."

Many of his constituents see him in person only when he is cutting them in line - at an airport, a clam shack or the Registry of Motor Vehicles. One talk-show caller a few weeks back recalled standing behind a police barricade in 2002 as the Rolling Stones played the Orpheum Theater, a short limousine ride from Kerry's Louisburg Square mansion.

The caller, Jay, said he began heckling Kerry and his wife as they attempted to enter the theater. Finally, he said, the senator turned to him and asked him the eternal question.

"Do you know who I am?"

"Yeah," said Jay. "You're a gold-digger."

John Kerry. First he looks at the purse.

Howie Carr, a Boston Herald columnist and syndicated talk-radio host, has been covering John Kerry for 25 years.

This column is complete trash - it's full of innuendo and second-hand stories. But this will be the line of personality attack that Bush uses against Kerry this year. So get used to it. Or get another candidate...QUICKLY

Is Kerry going to pick Edwards as VP?

Mickey Kaus doesn't think so:

If Edwards is going easy on Kerry so as not to blow his chances of beieng Kerry's running mate, isn't this a vain hope? Kerry, if he wins, is unlikely to pick Edwards because a) Kerry's a vain man and won't want a running mate the press will continually say is a better speaker and campaigner than he is; and b) like virtually all candidates, Kerry will want a #2 who can go negative on the opposing party while he remains above the fray. But that's exactly what Edwards has shown he can't or won't do, for fear of blemishing his goody-goody image. (See Lieberman, Joe, 2000 general election.) ... Update: also c) kf hears semi-reliably that Kerry's polling shows that Edwards on the ticket doesn't win any states for Kerry, even in the South--while Evan Bayh does win Indiana (which is hard to believe, Indiana being a pretty Republican state). ... Might as well go after him, John! ...

My VP list right now (in order or probability)

1. Bayh
Edwards (tie)
3. Clark

Richardson has pulled himself out...so has Clark, but that hardly matters. Bayh hasn't said anything...at least I don't think he has.

The electability debate got your head spinning?

Read this Michael Kinsley article over at Slate. It's pretty amusing...

Bush's Janet Reno moment?

Remember when Janet Reno appointed that Independent Council back in the 90s who caused Clinton all of that trouble? Well, today Bush appointed John McCain to the 9 member intelligence inquiry. Will McCain play ball? We'll see.

Today's campaign news

Here's the roundup for the primaries today:

Clark decided to focus strictly on Tennessee. He cancelled a bunch of VA appearances. Early polls have him running a close 3rd in Tennessee (with Edwards and Kerry bunched at the front).

Dean announced (in an email to supporters) that if he didn't win Wisconsin, it'd be over. Implication: After Wisconsin, it's over. He did raise a bunch of money today as a result of the email...hopefully he'll throw it at Kerry with a torrent of negative ads.

Gephardt will endorse Kerry. Who cares.

I'll post some polls on here when I find them.

Or not...

Maybe there wasn't an assassination attempt today after all...

Ayatollah Sistani

If you're like me, you've been intrigued over the last year by the mysterious Ayatollah Sistani, a leading Shi'a cleric based in Najaf, Iraq. Slate has a interesting profile on him.

Here's his website.

update: Sistani apparently narrowly survived an assassination attempt today. More to come later.

The buck stops...on Mars

We've gone from WMD, to WMD programs, to the burgeoning WMD programs, to the intention to start WMD programs, to the intention but not the capability to start WMD programs as a justification for the war.

Now the country's engaged in an argument over what kind of threat the President claimed Saddam was. Tenet came out today and said, "We never said the threat was imminent." Right-wing apologists have long been citing actual transcripts of the President's remarks to prove that he never claimed the threat was imminent.

Next they'll be arguing over whether the President said Saddam was "dangerous". "No, the President never said Saddam was dangerous - he was just misled by the intelligence community. If you check the transcripts, the President only referred to Saddam's potential danger in the passive tone while biting his fingers. Clinton actually said he was dangerous and a imminent threat. Check the transcripts." That'll be the response. And we'll play this game - this charade - until someone stops and asks the obvious question:

If Saddam wasn't a threat, if he didn't have WMD programs, nor the capability to deliver them, nor much of an intention to develop them, WAS THE DECISION TO GO TO WAR CORRECT???

No one wants to answer THAT question. Plenty of Republicans have said, "With the intelligence we had...with the knowledge we had...we were misled...Clinton said it!!" But none have stopped, looked themselves in the mirror, and thoughtfully remarked, "Gee. Maybe this war was pointless. All available evidence seems to point one to that conclusion."

Colin Powell came close yesterday, but then quickly recanted (as reported in Dowd's column).

It's really all the American people ask for. Some RESPONSIBILITY taken by the Administration. The buck stops here, that sort of thing. Sure, Clinton thought Saddam was a threat. Sure, Bush the First thought he was a threat. Sure, Big Bird probably thought he was a threat - but none of those aforementioned Presidents/Sesame Street characters LAUNCHED AN INVASION INTO A FOREIGN NATION!!! They looked at the intelligence and made a decision, and the decision was to NOT INVADE!!! They didn't delegate the responsibility to the intelligence community - they made a decision. It was George Bush's decision, and all of these attempts to funnel blame down the line won't stand.

Good Dowd column (for once)

I recommend today's Dowd column.

Andrew Sullivan on the Dems chances

Here's a decent Sullivan article on the Democrats chances in 2004.

Notice the part about the growing professional class. These people are overwhelmingly Democrats.

Massachusetts gay marriage ruling

The decision:

The Massachusetts legislature asked the Mass. Supreme Court whether Vermont's civil Unions legislation went far enough. The court decided (bluntly) that it did not. Nothing short of fully legalized gay marriages will satisfy them.

The implications: When gay marriages are legalized in Massachusetts (the legislature has a few months to act) other states will be forced to recognize gay marriages due to intrastate contract laws.

Jordan has some analysis on the implications for the Presidential race.

It remains to be seen how John Massachusetts Kerry will have to say about all of this.

Kerry = Bush-lite

We're still hearing that refrain from the Dean folks. It's sickening. Kerry is a liberal's liberal. Sure, he voted for No Child Left Behind, but so did Kennedy. It was a mistake - he believed the President when he promised that more federal money would be headed towards schools. Many of us did...

The Dean people are obviously disenchanted by this whole process, and they have good reason to be. His implosion is even more monumental than Kerry's huge comeback. As Wolf Blitzer repeatedly remarked last night, it'll be the subject of college theses for years. There are widespread allegations that Kerry's campaign made nasty push-poll calls in Iowa and NH. That's a possibility as well. Kerry's has plenty of work ahead of himto mend those fences if he becomes the nominee.

White House jumps into the AWOL mess

The White House made a big mistake today. They decided to respond to charges that Bush was AWOL in the 1970s. This will only further embolden the President's attackers (and members of the media) to dig deeper.

update: It's time to get nasty...we need to attack Bush with all we've got. Let's roll.

Kerry - not a populist

Here's why there's nothing extraordinary about John Kerry. He's not a populist and he's not fighting against the special interests. He's just an ordinary Senator.

Dean supporters staying home in November?

I'm not a psychologist. I can't really figure this stuff out...

One would THINK that Bush hating Deaniacs would rush to the polls to support WHOEVER Bush faces. Eventually, they'll come to their senses and go behave like good Democrats.

But (and this is one of the reasons why I was turned off by Dean) some of these fools are actually considering staying home. If Dean brought some people into the party (and I have no doubt that he brought a bunch of young ultra-liberal college students into the party) then we could really use these people next November...even if they all live in Vermont or California or a commune somewhere else where the Democrats will probably win in a walk anyway...

Here's a Salon post on the subject... (I call it a "post" because I'm downgrading everything on Salon from "journalism" to a "post". It's just gotten that bad.)

I think most of Dean's supporters were sensible people who liked his style and his policy proposals. Hopefully these people can get the more extreme Deaniacs into line.

Two Americas

John Edwards' chief message is of "Two Americas". If it reminds you of Al Gore's ill fated populist appeals from 2000, then I urge you to navigate your web browser to www.JohnKerry.com.

No, Edwards' appeal is different and more powerful. When Al Gore ranted about "The People vs the Powerful", many of us wondered, "Which one am I?" I go to college...sure, it's expensive, but my parents take care of that. Am I the powerful? Should I vote for Bush? It was all very confusing.

John Edwards makes it very simple. One America works, and one America doesn't. Edwards' "powerful" are the ones who've had their dividend taxes cut by 15% during this administration. They're the ones who often don't pay taxes. They get great medical care, great educations, and live comfortable lives. And George Bush wants this small segment of the population (probably less than 5%) to be even more comfortable. He wants to further enrich them.

Meanwhile, the real working class (everyone else) continues to slip. Health care costs continue to spiral out of control. State and local taxes have become increasingly high and regressive. Entitlement programs are being cut (including veterans programs). These are problems that EVERYONE can identify with (except for that top 5% of the population). Edwards wages "class warfare" against only the greediest of the greedy. The CEOs who hike their salaries while moving jobs overseas. The lobbyists who control Washington, DC. That's the type of populism that can (and SHOULD)actually work in America. It's specific and it's targeted. And it's positive. Edwards is talking about lifting people up. Not just poor people - he's talking about EVERYONE - 95% of the population who've been screwed over by the elites for years.

And for those of us who have been Democrats all of our lives and are still optimistic about the Government's ability to empower people to live the American dream...for those of us who still believe in the progressive tax system (and the sound economic priciples behind it)...Edward's message is pretty exciting. It's also fresh - it's not Howard Dean's tired "Let's just tax and spend some more" liberalism. And I think, if he gets a chance, he'll sell it to the American public.

Some advice for Kerry

Ok - so John Kerry hasn't been the greatest candidate so far. But SOMETHING is convincing moderate Democrats to come out and vote for him, so I'll acknowledge that. What can he do to improve himself?

I think he needs to take what HAS worked for Wesley Clark, and incorporate it into his campaign. Namely, the references to New Patriotism, taking back the flag, and other nonsense. Sure, it makes people like my cringe - but it's the type of stuff that the teeming Neanderthal classes just love. Wave a flag at someone and they'll follow you off a cliff into a lake filled with hungry crocodiles. The Democrats MUST control the flag.

As a flag burning proponent (I'm not just against the flag burning amendment, I'm actually FOR flag burning*), I find this all rather silly. But if John Kerry follows my advice and makes this campaign about "New patriotism" then I think he'll be benefited in the long run.

*Not that I ever would burn a flag. But if I needed to - if the heater stopped working and I was cold - you bet.

AWOL AWOL AWOL AWOL AWOL AWOL

I find it fascinating how scandals bubble under the surface, then finally explode into the mainstream media...

Who cares whether Bush went AWOL or not...he clearly used his connections to avoid the war.

Sure, I would have done the same thing in a heartbeat...so would most people I know (if they had a rich daddy too)...BUT the key difference is that I haven't been prancing around in a flight suit beating the drums of jingoism like I'm GI Joe.

Fox News

This campaign will be the first one where Fox News is blatantly pro-Bush. They'll basically acknowledge (although not publicly) that they are a 24/7 George W. Bush campaign ad.

So - turn on Fox, and within moments, you'll be bombarded by the Bush campaign's talking points and strategies summarized by "fair and biased" anchors, then emphasized during a discussion panel featuring 3 Republicans and one conservative Democrat.

How is this different than 2000? Well - Fox was still biased back then, but they at least tried to publicly defend their reputation. Now it's all out in the open. Everyone in America knows that Fox is conservative. They are a branch of the RNC. Their programming is a mix between the government propaganda of totalitarian nations and a Republican campaign advertisement. For political scientists, this will be a great opportunity to study Bush's strategy. It should be pretty interesting to tune in and watch.

I don't feel like defending against the "liberal media" right now...sure, you've got a bunch of Democrats in the media. And 1. they don't hate gays, 2. they don't want to ban abortion, and 3. they're pretty secular. #1 and #2 are pretty much within the mainstream, but probably isn't. Woo hoo. While the biases of certain reporters on CNN or CBS or whatever might play through occasionally, these reporters clearly VALUE the ethics of journalism. They make an attempt to be unbiased.

Fox News, however, basically runs like a campaign ad. Producers vet anchors' language to make sure it coincides with Republican talking points. And that's fine. It's great that the RNC has a television station. All power to them. We live in a capitalist society, and if they get ahold of a TV station, then great. Give them a cookie, or a medal, or something. But let's make sure it's all out in the open.

As for the biases in Newspapers? Well - large newspapers are usually biased liberally - even in their straight news stories. But I'm talking about the WashPost/NY/LATimes here...and I'm excluding the coverage of Bill Clinton.

How many other conservative rags are there out there to counterbalance the liberal ones? The Richmond Times Dispatch and the Winchester Star are a few trashy examples.

Implications of tonight...

Kerry won...oh...5 states? Pretty good. He's still the front runner, by far. And the media is gearing up into "Kerry vs Bush" mode...

Edwards - best positioned to challenge Kerry. If Clark/Dean jump out of the race soon, then...well...maybe Edwards has a shot...but Clark plans to remain....so there you have it. Edwards can't compete with Kerry state by state on Super Tuesday...so...it's looking bleak for Edwards.

Clark - please just drop out man. It's over. You didn't really ever find a message except, "I was in the military," and John Kerry overrides that message. Then you've got the "I'm from the South" thing - and John Edwards overrides that. Finally, there's your "I'm the grassroots outsider candidate" thing...but Dean has that one locked up...so...sorry bud.

Dean - Are you still talking?

Al Gore

The main effect of his Dean endorsement: His political career is over.

Idiot...

Ok, Clark

I just saw Clark on CNN and he just said:

"We're going to take George Bush out this November."

Ok, Wes. You can stay in the race for another week.

The biggest news of the night? Howard Dean's poor poor poor showing. Time after time this year, the "grassroots" candidate has lost.

Dean and Clark were the grassroots candidates. They had the most support on the ground and the most innovative tactics. And yet - they failed...

So what's the lesson here? Who influences Presidential vote preference? Do get out the vote efforts really matter work? Do annoying phone calls, one after another, actually sway voters? Does junk mail do it? Do handwritten letters do it? Endorsements? Standing out on the street corner freezing with signs? Nope. All of these things are overrated. And that makes me feel a bit helpless...what can I seriously do to influence the outcome of the election, even just the tiniest bit?

Look at the 2000 election. A kiss, a yawn, and a DUI shifted the vote totals more than anything else.

Possible attacks upon Edwards

Here is all Bush has on Edwards:

He's a trial lawyer. Trial lawyers have single handedly caused medical costs to skyrocket. It's all their fault. Trial lawyers. Yes. They make your pills more expensive.

He'll try that - the right-wingers are already pushing this tort-reform rubbish. It's a weak argument...I don't think the American public will the idea that medical costs have risen due to some sort of world-wide trial lawyer conspiracy.

Somebody cue the Imperial March...

Joe Lieberman dropped out of the race!!! Yes!!! Goodbye you disgusting moralizing cretin!

John Edwards' big night

I hate to say it - but I'm starting to hope that Wesley Clark loses in Oklahoma and drops out of the race. With him out of the way, it'll be Kerry vs Edwards (with Dean violently hacking away at Kerry over the next couple of weeks). Edwards has a good shot. I just saw his victory speech and it was highly impressive. The whole "Two Americas" thing actually works pretty well.

Court strikes down late-term abortion law

As many of you know, I'm actually SUPPORTER of abortion (early and often, I like to say). Well, not really. But I'm pretty far out of the mainstream (to the left) on the issue. If abortion rights are in question, I always side with the mother and against the child. Sort of the Wesley Clark abortion position ("Up until birth, kill that fetus!"). Anyway, court decided to strike down an idiotic Virginia late-term ban. How pleasing.

Exit polls + Clark's son flips out

Here's the daily roundup:

The (evil) exit polls are looking good for John Kerry and John Edwards, and not so good for Wesley Clark:

South Carolina: Edwards 44, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10

Oklahoma: Edwards 31, Kerry 29, Clark 28

Missouri: Kerry 52, Edwards 23, Dean 10

Delaware: Kerry 47, Dean 14, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11

Arizona: Kerry 46, Clark 24, Dean 13

Clark's son flipped out at the media today, thereby continuing the trend of Clark flipping out at the media.

One of Clark Jr's complaints is that the media focuses too much on the horserace and ignores the issues.

True enough - but can anyone tell me what Wesley Clark stands for? Can anyone tell me what John Kerry stands for? It's hard to say. It's hard to say what any of these Democrats stand for. Maybe that's the media and maybe it's them. Who knows?

Halliburton...

This is almost getting comical. Scratch that - it is comical:

The headline: Halliburton over charges 16 million for food.

The greatest thing about the whole Halliburton scandal is that it originated on the far-left and was originally brushed off as a conspiracy theory. After all, why would the White House so blatantly and publicly violate the American tax payer on behalf of their friends? Now the headline "Halliburton cheats government" has made it incontrovertibly into the mainstream. It's a rare triumph for conspiracy theorists like Joe Conason over at Salon. Conason rails about one thing or another every day of the week, and often to no avail (it's what makes his column sort of hard to read - I often agree with it substantively, but the "scandals" he uncovers hardly ever make the mainstream news), but this time, left-wing conspiracies have become CW. And that's a wonderful feeling.

Some other recent examples of scandals building on the left and erupting into the mainstream:

1. Valerie Plame outing
2. Kay report (currently happening)
and hopefully soon to come:
3. Bush going AWOL in the 70s!

Kerry bashing

It'll probably be about 2 or 3 weeks before I get this Kerry bashing out of my system (maybe not coincidentally when the mono leaves my system as well). Until then, it's open season. But it's incredibly important to know that I don't think Senator Kerry is a bad guy - just another unappealing candidate who may squander a great opportunity to beat Bush.

That being said - Bush seems to be incredibly vulnerable right now. The Kay report devastated his credibility and no attempt to spin seems to gain him any traction. Several polls report Bush's approval rating in the upper 40s...

New TNR blog

The New Republic has started a new blog called "Iraq'd". Here's a description:

WHAT IS IRAQ'D?: If you're a pro-war liberal, chances are you're probably feeling burned right now. The case for the Iraq war rested on three pillars: The danger of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, with the clock ticking on a nuclear capability; the danger of Saddam Hussein's connections to Al Qaeda; and the human rights imperative of deposing one of the world's most despicable regimes and assisting newly-freed Iraqis in building a democracy. Well, it turns out that Saddam didn't have much in the way of WMD, or even ongoing WMD programs. And it also appears that his ties to Al Qaeda were tenuous at best. So all that's left for the war rationale is the human-rights-and-democracy argument, which for liberals is intuitively appealing (or should be). But then along comes the Bush administration's November 15 Agreement to relinquish sovereignty by June 30, which tells the Iraqis that, owing to election-year considerations, the United States can't be bothered right now to midwife a democracy. You might say you've been Iraq'd.

And no one is more Iraq'd right now than the Iraqis themselves. It's no accident that, as soon as the Coalition Provisional Authority announced its withdrawal plan, the various Iraqi factions immediately began pressing for their maximal demands: The Kurds want autonomy, an internal militia, and the oil-rich city of Kirkuk; the Shia want direct elections to the body that will assume sovereignty, in order to guard against their disenfranchisement; the Sunnis are resisting elections because they fear disenfranchisement by the numerically-superior Shia; our handpicked Iraqi Governing Council, distrusted by the broader Shia and Sunni populations, is agitating to keep its hold on power. Each faction is fighting hard to impose facts on the ground because it can no longer count on the United States sticking around to ensure that all segments of Iraqi society are represented in a future Iraqi democracy.

One of the premises of Iraq'd is that the U.S. decision to cease nation-building jeopardizes our own national security as well as Iraq's. After all, if we believe that Iraqi democracy would be a model for the region, then the converse is also true: If we leave behind a failing state in Iraq, then we provide Middle Eastern autocrats with a pretext for cracking down on the reformers and liberals in their midst, since they can point to the chaos in Baghdad as the likely fruit of democracy. And since Islamist terrorism feeds in part on Middle Eastern tyranny, then we're in a lot of trouble. Iraq'd will highlight developments in Iraq and the Middle East to call attention to this danger.

A couple of programming notes: This blog is written from Washington. Readers in Iraq are invited to pass along accounts of what's happening on the ground. Readers at home are invited to disagree with any and all of the arguments featured here.

Worth reading

Check out this defense of Dean by Andrew Sullivan.

This is less of a defense of Dean than it is an attack on John Kerry's blandness.

The WMD switcharoo

The poor White House. They were VICTIMS in all of this - the CIA misled them. They did everything they could to make sure that the intelligence was correct and not hyped.

Actually, it was quite the opposite, as TPM points out. Every time the CIA came forth with a report that questioned Iraq's WMD programs, some hawk from the Administration brushed it aside. Now they're trying to claim the opposite - that the CIA swished us away to war on a whim.

On a related note - won't it be nice to see President Bush out of office? I go to UVA - and we have plenty of over privileged frat boys here. And honestly, seeing President Bush out of office will be like seeing a spoiled frat boy fail out of school. Like the frat boy, Bush has reached the point in his life where Daddy can't help him anymore. The look on his face will be priceless. In fact, I'm going to print out a picture of George Bush's concession expression, frame it, and mount it on my wall next to my scary life-sized Ronald Reagan cut out. I can't wait.

Kerry takes lobbyist money??? Oh no!!!

Usually I wouldn't care if a candidate took lobbyist money - even if they were the top recipient of lobbyist money (We can't hold our politicians to TOO high of a standard). But usually that candidate does us the favor of not running a POPULIST ANTI-SPECIAL INTEREST CAMPAIGN!!!!

First, Senator Do-Nothing crossed the line by STEALING JOHN EDWARD'S RHETORIC!!! (The whole "Two Americas" thing...). Now this comes out. Wow.

Well folks, we've got ourselves another completely uninspiring candidate to vote for in 2004.

And that's 10 "!'s" in one post.

Thanks Zogby

Zogby has "Generic Democrat" tied with Bush in South Carolina, 44-44 (it's somewhere on there...trust me). Generic Democrat wasn't the most electable of the field, however. "Blank Slate Candidate" edged out Bush 48/42, while, "Dream Candidate" beat him 50-40. Only, "Leper-Faced Hermaphrodite Democrat" failed to out poll Bush, 43-45 (although that was well within the poll's margin of error).

Scumbag liar of the day

Pat Roberts, Senator from Kansas:

"If, in fact, he didn't have them," Roberts replied, "why on earth didn't he let the U.N. inspectors in and avoid the war? That is a real puzzlement to me."

Ahhh, of course. If Saddam had only let the inspectors into the country, we could have avoided war.

Polling polling polling

Here are the American Research Group numbers.

If Feb. 3rd finishes as it stands right now, Kerry wins 3 states, Edwards wins 1, and Clark wins 1.

Kerry would also get 2 strong second place finishes, Edwards 1, and Clark 1.

Kerry would grab the delegate lead, but the race would continue on.

I never thought I'd say this: If your name is not Joe Lieberman, don't drop out of the race!!!

Kerry has only been front runner for about one week. That's scarcely enough time to examine his voting record (well...actually that took about 5 minutes).

Hey, Zogby??? Here's a novel idea - take a poll in a battle ground state and see how well John Kerry does against George W. Bush.

Does trashing Democrats make me feel big inside? If they're John Kerry or Howard Dean, yes. I wish I had spent more time this fall trashing John Kerry, but he seemed so irrelevant. Why would Democrats decide that he was more appealing than Howard Dean?