More on Colorado

If the Democrats in Colorado succeed in proportionally handing out electoral votes, they'll essentially make their state electorally irrelevant. Only two outcomes are possible after implementation of this system: Kerry 5, Bush 4, or vice versa. Why would Bush or Kerry spend money to fight over one electoral vote?

This initiative is also incredibly unfair in the general scheme of things. Imagine if a wealthy conservative group financed ballot initiatives in every blue state that created proportional delegation of electoral votes. The Democrats could conceivably win the popular vote by 10% or more and lose the election in a electoral vote landslide.

Apparently the Colorado initiative has little or no chance of passing - so that's good.

Clinton book good for Kerry

When Kerry's out of the spotlight, his poll numbers tend to go up or remain stable. The Clinton book will consume the media's attention for perhaps 2 straight weeks. Furthermore, it will pump up the Democratic base.

Torture scandal, part II

What caused the torture scandal to resonate with the American public? Was it Rumsfeld and Bush's role in approving the torture techniques?

No. That aspect of the scandal resonates with partisans like myself, but I don't think it has reached the mainstream public yet. It's too complicated and legalistic for Americans to understand.

Obviously the graphic photographs caused most of the outrage. Images are much more powerful than articles in the New Yorker or the New York Times. And that's why the torture scandal is about to rip wide open once again.

Remember those as-of-yet unreleased photographs and videos? Word has it that those materials will be released to the public soon. And apparently these additional images make the original "abuse" look like fun and games.

If you wonder why formerly gung-ho rightist congressmen like James Inhofe ("I'm outraged more by the outrage") have gone so quiet, it is because they have seen the stuff and you have not. There will probably be a slight difficulty about showing these scenes in prime time, but they will emerge, never fear. We may have to start using blunt words like murder and rape to describe what we see. And one linguistic reform is in any case already much overdue. The silly word "abuse" will have to be dropped. No law or treaty forbids "abuse," but many conventions and statutes, including our own and the ones we have urged other nations to sign, do punish torture—which is what we are talking about here at a bare minimum.
-Christopher Hitchens

If a few weeks worth of allegations, recriminations, and internal White House memos didn't accelerate the scandal, you can bet these new images will. And Rumsfeld/Bush/Gonzalez set all of this into motion back in the fall of 2001 when they essentially legalized torture.

Bush makes some new friends

The White House has been meeting with Western African countries lately in order to secure oil contracts. The problem? These countries corrupt dictatorships...what happened to Bush's policy to promote democracy?

You've got to hand it to Bush: he's a man of principle. When gasoline prices rise 20 cents he throws a key foreign policy tenet, democractization, out the window and runs to the corrupt dictators like a scared child seeking refuge in his mother's bed after a nightmare*. From TNR:

Last month, President José Eduardo dos Santos of Angola--Africa's second-largest oil producer--met Bush for the second time. For the leader of a midsized African country, two Oval Office visits is unusual. It's even more unusual, given that President Bush has said he will reward only those African countries that "invest in the health and education of their people. ... Corrupt regimes that give nothing to their people deserve nothing from us." That statement probably elicited a chuckle at Human Rights Watch, which estimates that, between 1997 and 2002, 9 percent of Angola's gross domestic product simply disappeared. Dos Santos's government, in other words, stole roughly as much money as it spent on health and education combined. Luckily for the Angolan leader, he has other credentials that matter in Washington: The night before his first Oval Office meeting, he was feted at a dinner sponsored by ExxonMobil and Chevron-Texaco, both of which are planning major West African expansions.

*phrase stolen from a Texas reporter

My VP endorsement (sort of)

After months of deliberation, I've decided to narrow the VP field down to two candidates. Before I get to them, I'd like to profile those who don't make my cut:

Wesley Clark:
Upsides - national security credentials, national name ID, Vietnam heroics, from the South
Downsides - a bit nutty, absolutely ZERO grasp of domestic issues, the media hates him, can't swing any states

Bob Graham:
Upsides - southerner, can probably carry Florida, national security credentials
Downsides - virtually no personality or charisma, poor health, no national name recognition

Bill Richardson:
Upsides - Latino, from sun belt, executive experience (Governor of NM), Energy Secretary, Congressman, charismatic, national security credentials (served as ambassador to North Korea), could carry entire sun belt for Kerry
Downsides - Arranged a job for Lewinski, no national name ID, possible infidelities, might scare off racist whites

Dick Gephardt:
Upsides - Labor connections, MIGHT help carry Missouri, WOULD help carry labor heavy states of West VA, Penn., Ohio, and Mich, supports protectionism
Downsides - no personality, labor no longer relevant, doubtful he could carry Missouri, too liberal

Here are the two candidates I think should be considered:

Evan Bayh:
Upsides - New Democrat (moderate), could conceivably carry Indiana, surely would help carry Ohio and other Midwest states, would solidify Kerry as a New Democrat, bipartisan (knows how to appeal to Republicans)
Downsides - Charming but not extremely charismatic, nationally unknown

John Edwards:
Upsides - Youthful/dynamic personality, popular amongst swing voters, rhetorically brilliant, impossible to get off message, could POSSIBLY carry North Carolina, could POSSIBLY help with other Southern states, would PROBABLY help win over moderates in key swing states, would take attention OFF of Kerry (that's a good thing)
Downsides - A bit green, little foreign policy experience

So there you have it. I'll be debating between these two over the next couple of weeks. When I figure it out, I'll let you know. Both picks are pretty safe. Kerry would risk little by adding either of these men to the ticket, but could potentially gain quite a bit.

Interesting development in Colorado

Colorado's electoral votes might be split proportionally. Right now, Bush stands to win 9 electoral votes in Colorado. If the initiative passes (as it likely will), Bush will probably only get 5 out of the 9 electoral votes.

Cheney claims Al Qaida - Saddam connection

This is becoming tiresome, but let's go over it again.

Only Ansar al-Islam existed freely within Iraq before the war.

Of course, these terrorists lived under the so-called "no-fly zone" in the northern Kurdish territories. Saddam didn't control the no-fly zone. He could not move his army into it, nor could he extract oil or money from it. In fact, the Kurds lived in peace under semi-democratic autonomous self-governance. The US could have easily destroyed the terrorist training camp, but we resisted. If we destroyed the camp, we would undermine our rationale for war.

Comments

I encourage comments - especially comments filled with rage and anger. Those are the best.

More on moderates

I need to clarify my recent comments regarding moderate members of congress.

1. Moderates are more prevalent in the Senate. Obviously, since states do not redistrict, the Senate is sheltered from the polarizing effects of reapportionment. Often moderate Democrats are able to win in red states and moderate Republicans are able to win in blue states.

2. It's important to be wary of the moderate media sensation. Does a politician buck their party for attention (ex: Zell Miller, and occasionally John McCain) or because their principles demand it? Clinton is another great example. I'm convinced that part of the media's fascination with Clinton was his tendency to buck the traditional ideas of his party and join Republicans to achieve goals like welfare reform. George W. Bush, believe it or not, provides another example. Back in 1999, a positive storm of media surrounded Bush, because they believed him to be a bipartisan governor, and because he was running as a "compassionate conservative" (look that up in the GOP dictionary, and you'll find "moderate"). The media simply loves bipartisanship and moderation! Both make for compelling headlines. For example:

"Senator McCain praises Democratic Party"
"Senator Miller endorses George Bush"
"Senator Graham demands a war plan from the White House"
etc.

3. Without moderates, almost nothing would be accomplished. Rarely does a President reliably control both houses of congress. Therefore, it's necessary for a President to reach across party lines to acheive their agenda. As moderates continue to disappear from congress (especially in the House) it will become considerably harder for presidents to attain compromise.

My favorite Reagan moment! (then I swear I'll move on)

I've been saving this one:

Reagan showed great courage and strength of character (not to mention his trademark positivity!) when he opened his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi (site of the murder of 3 civil rights activists) and delivered a fiery speech about states' rights. It was brilliant, really. Racist southerners hadn't yet completed their exodus from the Democratic Party, but this little move gave them the shove they needed to take their place in their rightful party - the GOP.

Of course, he also helped solidify a generation of black support for the Democratic Party...

Grave dancing (an explanation)

It occurs to me that I'm currently taking part in an institute designed to improve the political discourse, and I just danced on the grave of Ronald Reagan. A contradiction?

Honestly, I've been mulling trashing Reagan on the blog for the last week or so. For most of the week I relied upon the old saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say...", and I held myself back. I was in a particularly bad mood last night - and there you have it.

Personally, I'm a big fan of partisan bickering (to a certain extent). I don't think it thwarts progress - in fact, I think it's healthy. When I hear someone say, "Let's change the tone", I usually ask them, "Why would you want to make CSPAN even more boring than it already is?"

Some people say that a friendly political discourse would improve voter participation. Are voters are turned off by partisan bickering and negativity? Most studies show that interest AND knowledge actually increase when negative ads are run in a campaign. That's because negative ads generally contain actual content/information/policy, while most positive ads usually just contain mush.

Is increased partisanship a function of lower ethical standards amongst politicians, or just a function of the new partisan realignment?

I'd wager that it's the latter. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, bipartisanship was prevalent because both parties contained coalitions of liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Naturally, these coalitions often broke apart and formed into various alliances (the New Deal Coalition, the Civil Rights coalition, conservative anti-immigration coalitions, and regional coalitions - to name a few). We called these alliances "bipartisanship". Starting at Nixon, the parties began to shift into today's ideologically polarized alignment. Democrats are now generally liberal to moderate, and Republicans are generally conservative to moderate.

Why didn't this happen earlier?

Power has shifted from the state parties to the national parties. Traditionally, state parties controlled their message, candidates, and platform. So you could have a conservative state Democratic Party in Virginia and a liberal Democratic Party in Massachusetts. The rise of national parties put and end to this odd situation, along with other factors too lengthy to describe in detail at this late hour (the southern strategy, the VRA, the CRA, Roe v Wade, the rise of the national media, etc.).

My point: now that the parties are ideologically pure, why would they work together? Sure, you'll have centrist members voting across party lines occasionally, but other than that, you're going to see partisan bickering for a long time.

So let's say you're not like me, and you desperately want to improve the discourse. What can you do?

1. You can try to affect the political supply side. The Sorensen Institute is trying to reach young politicos in Virginia and teach them that politics should be about respect and ethics. It's a laudable goal... but I'm convinced that #2 may be our only hope:

2. Increase the amount of moderates in Congress. Moderates are called various things, ranging from "maverick" to "independent" to "heroic". In reality, their ideological position simply allows them to choose between the two parties with relative ease. They aren't more ethical or more "courageous" than anyone else in Congress. Rather, they are benefiting from the current ideologically pure partisan balance. It's hilarious that the media treats moderates like heroes...in reality, their ideology allows them to stay true to themselves while alternating between the Democratic and Republican Party. With the Democrats strafted out to the Left and the Republicans strafed to the Right, it's politically advantageous to be a moderate. The media will love you. They'll paint you as a brave maverick. For that reason, we should always be wary of moderates. Are they simply grandstanding for the media, or does their ideology truly fall between the two parties? The true moderate is a few and far between.

Why are centrists so rare?

One word: Redistricting. There are two ways to draw districts. The "good" way and the "bad" way. Let's take a look:

The "good" way is a love fest where the state legislatures get together and pad each other's districts with like-minded partisans. The Democrats are crammed into the Democratic incumbent's district, while the Republicans are crammed into the Republican districts. Incumbents are universally protected and opposition is quashed. When a member retires, the battle for his/her seat takes place in the party primary. Rarely do you find a competitive House seat. Most people would tell you that the power of the incumbency protects House members, but that's a load of bunk. Redistricting protects them, plain and simple. Do you ever notice that when a "non-controversial" redistricting plan is passed, the media praises it as some sort of benevolent gift from God?

The "good" way leads to non-competitive seats. No competition = ideologically extreme candidates. Moderates just don't run anymore because they can't get their party's nomination. Why would the Democratic party nominate a moderate for a heavily blue seat when a liberal has an equal chance of winning in the general election (that chance being 99%)? The liberal will vote with the party 100% of the time while the moderate might stray. What's the incentive to nominate the moderate?

The "bad" way to redistrict is similar to the "good" way except one party decides to screw the other one out of some seats. Most incumbents are protected (actually in both parties) but a few seats are thrown into the tossup category. This leads to a greater amount of moderate candidates, but it takes a dirty process to get there...

So there you have it. To improve the bitterly partisan political discourse, we must increase the number of moderates in Congress. In order to do that, we need to review our redistricting practices. We need to stop creating Majority-minority districts and diluting minority voting power. We need to stop cramming Democrats and Republicans into their own separate districts. When will this happen? Not in your lifetime.

One additional question to answer: Why wasn't redistricting carried out with equal efficiency decades ago?
For one thing, polling has improved. We now can identify where the Democrats and Republicans live within hours. Both statistical and demographic analysis have improved as well. Decades ago it wasn't as easy to separate the Democrats from the Republicans on a map. Today it's a piece of cake.

So next time you hear someone complaining about bitter partisan politics, calmly explain to them that it's a structural problem.

The state of the race

What you have to understand about the Presidential race is that no one is paying attention yet. Sure, you have your hardcore politicos on each side (they make up about 20% of the voting population). But aside from those people, there is only a vague sense among the general public of what this campaign is about. They see horrible images coming out of Iraq and they wonder whether Bush screwed it up. They might see a couple campaign ads claiming that Kerry is a liberal or a flip-flopper, and they wonder whether it's true. None of the sentiments about Kerry represent solidified opinion yet. It's just too early. He wasn't a national figure before his nomination and most Americans don't have a clue who he is. That's why I've always argued that he needs to run an intense barrage of positive "War Hero" ads. As politicos, we might be sick of hearing about Kerry's heroic Vietnam service, but most of the country doesn't even know about it yet, particularly the swing voters. Swing voters are swing voters for a reason: they don't have much information and aren't interested in much information. They vote using heuristics like character, personality, the amount of money in their pocket, or their perception of the country's direction. Kerry must continue to remember that for the next few months, much of the country will continue to view him as a blank slate.

When you read polling data, remember that most voters don't know more than 1 or 2 things about Kerry. The polls are largely an up or down vote on Bush's presidency (something voters know quite a bit about). And don't pay attention to Ralph Nader's numbers. If the media asked the general public to pick between Bush, Kerry, and Bozo the Clown, Bozo would poll between 5 and 7 percent as well.

Michael Moore

Take a look at this site. It presents a pretty accurate picture of Michael Moore's distortions.

Reagan

Here are my final words on Reagan:

I think he was one of the most incompetent presidents of the 20th century, aside from George W. Bush, Warren G. Harding, and Jimmy Carter. He was also the 2nd dumbest President of the 20th century, after George W. Bush. And he was one of the most divisive presidents of the 20th century. I don't respect him and I don't mourn his death. I think that the liberals who have recently praised Reagan are being both cynically opportunistic and dishonest.

I can predict what the response to this post will be (from both liberals and conservatives):

"The presidency is so important that we should mourn the passing of a president, whether he's a Democrat or a Republican."

Usually I'd agree. But when a dimwitted mediocre actor disgraces the office with his presence, I don't feel the need to pay respect. The presidency is not a symbolic office. It's not a place for a national cheerleader, of a "regular guy". It should be reserved for brilliant men and women. People like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush disgrace the office with their presence. And I refuse to honor them or show reverence.

update:I've been informed that President Bush did not serve in the 20th century, but rather, the 21st century. I also neglected to mention Herbert Hoover's name amongst the above incompetent Presidents...