Posted by Dodo David at 11:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Representatives Versus Leaders--Updated

Years ago I had a friend named Kirby who was a lobbyist locally and so was plugged into the political scene in a way that I had never been. I'd go to parties that Kirby threw and get to talk to a lot of local politicos one on one.

Kirby challenged my assumptions in a lot of ways. For example, I embraced computers and it was not hard for me to conceive of a day when individuals would be able to register their voices online on the issues of the day.

He hammered me on that one, and eventually convinced me of his point. We have to push the decision-making up a level or two to allow leaders to lead.

Which brings us to this pathetic Jane Smiley post at the Huffpo:

I would like to take a moment to forget about the Oscars and give Tony Blair a well-deserved whipping. American readers may not have noticed, but Blair is said by the Guardian to be "reconciled to the prospect that God and history will eventually judge his decision to go to war with Iraq, and says his decision, like much of his policymaking, was underpinned by his Christian faith." Excuse me, but divine right was for KINGS, and, anyway, divine right is over now.

This may escape you, Jane, but Tony Blair has electoral right to go to war in Iraq, not divine right by being born to his parents. That he consults his god is presumably part of the mixture that convinced folks to vote for him and his party.

I can't even begin to number the ways in which Tony's observations are out of bounds, but the main one is that Tony's job is to serve British voters, most of whom did not support the Iraq war. So, not only did Tony defy his mandate, he is now at least obliquely denying the right of the voters to "judge" him. He's going to put off being judged until after he is dead. What a relief for him. And clearly, only an arrogant SOB talks about his future arraignment before the judgment seat, such as it is, in such a pompous, idle way. He intends to be answering to a higher power! I have news for you, Tony, in the Democracy, for the PM (or the Prez), there is no higher power than the voters!

The first sentence of course encapsulates my argument from years before--that representatives are just delegates of the people, but you can see the fallacy as Kirby did. In fact the people of Great Britain did not elect a government that promised to take a poll of the UK before doing something. They elected a government that promised to lead.

Like in the US, they had some pledges they would keep and others they would accept defeat on. But for the most part voters don't (despite the common misconception) vote on issues, they vote on trust, because usually the issues that arise in a term in office are not the ones that were campaigned on.

Blair won the right to lead and he led. And in the end he'll be judged by God and the historians.

I used to think Tony Blair was something of a tragic figure -- fooled by the idiot Bush into thinking there was a chance of getting something if he went along with Bush's war, while realizing there was no chance of getting anything if he didn't go along with it. I used to think maybe Tony had seen a hard choice, and made the wrong one in good faith. But I see that Tony is another of those folks who thinks he's been chosen by the higher power that is merely his own ego to do something stupid that he kind of wanted to do all along -- to show off. I suppose he can't be beheaded -- that went out with Charles I. But I wouldn't mind if someone slapped him silly.

Not suprising to see a liberal advocating violence against a political figure. Appalling, but not surprising.

Update: KeithS, in the comments points to some appalling bits of violence advocacy from conservatives. I agree with him that they should keep their pie-holes shut.

Posted by pat at 01:38 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

You Can Lead a Horse's Ass to Water

The Huffington Post is capable of surprising me occasionaly, as today when they publish a post from a Marine serving his second tour of duty in Iraq.

Even more recently, Monday's NYT Op-Ed by Nicholas Kristoff, (Read it here) set off a wave of defeatism. Citing a recent Zogby international poll he states, "US Soldiers overwhelmingly want out of Iraq- and soon." He goes on to say "By a two-to-one ratio, the troops said that 'to control the insurgency we need to double the level of ground troops and bombing missions.' And since there is zero chance of that happening, a majority of troops seemed to be saying that they believe this war to be unwinnable."

Similarly, the polling data of Iraqis used by proponents for immediate withdrawal is also misconstrued. They claim that up to 80% of Iraqis want us out. Like I said, I want us out too, but not immediately and most Iraqis agree. In fact, the misappropriated polling date demonstrates that only 23% of Iraqis want us out immediately, but for some reason the other 77% want us to stay at least another 6 months. Why? Probably for some of the same reasons many of our own troops want us to stay another 6 months.

Of course, the commenters on that post react like a bunch of vampires suddenly faced with a crucifix.

Posted by pat at 03:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Libs Crowing Over Bush Poll

Of course, you know why they constantly cite polls like this?

It's because they're the only polls they "win".

Cenk Uygur pops the champagne.

The entire United States Congress, Democrats and Republicans, have no choice but to run from this President -- as fast as they possibly can (ironically, some of the Democrats will be the slowest to leave this sinking ship -- and Lieberman will be the very last one on board).

George Bush is the quick sand that is pulling the Republican Party underground. If they don't realize that now, they soon will when they do the next poll in their home districts. No party can survive trying to pull up a President so universally disliked (let alone a Vice President that is nearly loathed at an 18% approval rating -- I don't think Pinochet was ever that low and I know Nixon wasn't).

I do suspect that some Republicans are registering their discontent with the ports deal, and that this has knocked President Bush's ratings down a bit. Rasmussen Polling has him at 43%, off six points in the last 10 days or so which roughly corresponds to the beginning of the ports controversy. But I've never been able to figure out how Cheney rates so low. Republicans don't disapprove of Cheney, no matter what Cenk Uygur says.

Bulldog Pundit has looked over the polls and found the usual silliness with polling only adults (not likely or even registered voters), polling on weekends, and oversampling of Democrats.

Posted by pat at 09:57 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Original Uncle Tom a Hero

Says Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune.

His life reveals how complicated the cruel and peculiar institution of slavery could be. Separated from his family as a young boy when he was sold as property in an estate sale, [James] Henson was a loyal servant until he learned he might be sold again. In 1830, he escaped to Canada and founded a settlement, a trade school and a lumber business, while also helping other slaves escape.

Today Uncle Tom is a prickly American paradox. His very name has become an insult, describing a black person who is overly eager to win white approval. Yet Stowe's Uncle Tom ultimately is a heroic figure who encourages two abused slave women to escape, then suffers a fatal beating rather than give up the women's whereabouts or his Christian faith.

Yes, I have always felt that those who derided somebody with the "Uncle Tom" epithet were unintentionally complimenting their target.

Posted by pat at 10:58 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

The Worst Thing About Being Pro-Choice

Is that you're on the same side as idiots like this:

But then I announced that I needed to speak out on behalf of the many women present in the crowd, including myself, who had had abortions, and the women whose daughters might need one in the not-too-distant future — people who must know that teenage girls will have abortions, whether in clinics or dirty backrooms. Women whose lives had been righted and redeemed by Roe vs. Wade. My answer was met with some applause but mostly a shocked silence.

Pall is a good word. And it did not feel good to be the cause of that pall. I knew what I was supposed to have said, as a progressive Christian: that it's all very complicated and painful, and that Jim was right in saying that the abortion rate in America is way too high for a caring and compassionate society.

At first she can't understand why she didn't get a rousing applause.

It was not until the reception that I finally realized part of the problem — no one had told me that the crowd was made up largely of Catholics.

For a novelist, the writing is pretty poor:

Then Jim, an evangelical, spoke about the need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and the need to diffuse abortion as a political issue, by welcoming pro-choice and pro-life supporters to the discussion, with equal respect for their positions. He spoke gently about how "morally ambiguous" the issue is.

I suspect that Jim wanted to defuse the issue, not diffuse it. Don't they have editors at the LA Times?

I have come to the pro-choice position quite painfully. I do think abortion is morally wrong, but I don't think it quite rises to the level of murdering babies. Of course, read further and you'll soon find out why Lamott favors choice without any recognition of moral issues:

I am old and tired and menopausal and would mostly like to be left alone: I have had my abortions, and I have had a child.

And get this lame ending:

During the reception, an old woman came up to me, and said, "If you hadn't spoken out, I would have spit," and then she raised her fist in the power salute. We huddled together for awhile, and ate M&Ms to give us strength. It was a kind of communion, for those of us who still believe that civil rights and equality and even common sense will somehow be sovereign, some day.

A putrid piece of writing from a putrid person.

Posted by pat at 12:03 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Liberals Have a Good Laugh

Over this part of Attorney General Gonzales' testimony yesterday:

GONZALES: I gave in my opening statement, Senator, examples where President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance of the enemy on a far broader scale -- far broader -- without any kind of probable cause standard, all communications in and out of the country.

Ho ho ho! Washington authorized electronic surveillance? As one wag put it on the radio this morning, what Gonzales meant to say is that Washington authorized smoke signal interception.

But then you read what Gonzales said before:

General Washington, for example, instructed his army to intercept letters between British operatives, copy them and allow those communications to go on their way.

During World War II, President Roosevelt instructed the government to use listening devices to learn the plans of spies in the United States. He also gave the military the authority to review, without warrant, all telecommunications, quote, "passing between the United States and any foreign country."

Okay, so he misspoke when he said Washington authorized electronic surveillance. But Lincoln and Wilson and Roosevelt did, and what Washington did was similar, if limited by the technology of the times.

Posted by pat at 12:58 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Steve Cobble: Dems Should Run On Impeachment

Let's hope they take him up on this suggestion:

The initial response when we bring up the idea, though, is: how are we ever going to impeach Bush when the Republicans control everything in Washington? Precisely. That's exactly the point.

By campaigning on impeachment, candidates would be able to give millions of frustrated voters a positive reason to go to the polls. If candidates discover what we have discovered at hearings and town halls, and what our so-far-barely-reported polling has revealed, accountability/impeachment could be a big turnout issue.

Hey, it worked for Republicans in 1998. Oh, wait that's right, it didn't.

In fact, there are a few Democratic hopefuls who have come out in favor of impeachment. However, they fall into one of two categories: Democrats running in rock solid Republican districts, or Democrats running against current Democratic incumbents.

I can understand Cobble's desire to see his pet issue moved to the front and center of the party. But it certainly seems that the Democrats wasted 2004 in an effort to run as the "We hate Bush" party; I don't think it's going to work out any better in 2006.

Posted by pat at 03:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Today at the Huffpo

Most of the posts concern the State of the Union speech delivered last night; Tom Gilroy sums up their attitude:

W basically got up there and said, 'I'm the same incompetent buffoon I was 6 years ago, and I'm staying the course. What're you gonna do about it?' He stared the country down and dared us to acknowledge the miles-long list of crimes and failures trailing behind him like a swatch of toilet paper stuck to the heel of an Alzheimer's patient shuffling out of a public restroom.

Cenk Uygur sums up ten things he learned from the Alito Filibuster battle:

5. Then comes my favorite step. Shove the poll in the Democrats face and tell them that they have no hope of winning and that the public is against them. Even more importantly, that they will lose their elections if they don't run to the "center" by supporting the Republican position instead. They will claim that the poll is definitive evidence that the public does not support their position so they better get on board with the Republicans otherwise they'll do to them what they did to Tom Daschle.

Exactly who does the shoving of the poll into Democrats (sic) face (sic) is not explained; presumably it is the corporatist media.

Cenk comes across as literate compared to James Boyce, who apparently functions as the Huffpo's designated "Irate about the Swift Boat Vets" blogger.

The Swift Boat Episode and recent chickenhawk neo-conservative attacks on Representative Jack Murtha show how effective it is to understand the complacency of the voting American.

Inside the Kerry Campaign, there was the belief that the Swift Boat attacks were sure to fail because of the facts - these guys didn't serve with John Kerry; these guys are changing their store (sic), they're financed by friends of Karl Rove's - this was a naively dangerous belief in a system that doesn't exist today and probably never did. In fact, much of current Democratic thinking is based upon a flawed truth: if we just tell people what is really going on, they will flock left in horror, shock and ultimately gratitude

Of course those who did pay attention to the Swift Boat Vets found out that while they obviously didn't like John Kerry they had done their homework, unlike the sages of the press, who showed such little interest in digging into Kerry's background that they were scooped by bloggers on topics like Christmas in Cambodia.

Posted by pat at 02:53 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Damn Southerners

Ronald Brownstein has a review of several books on the South and national politics over at the American Prospect. I couldn't help chuckling at this part:

Consider the Senate. In the 11 states of the old Confederacy plus Oklahoma and Kentucky -- the generally accepted political definition of the South -- Republicans hold 22 of the 26 Senate seats. In the rest of the country, Democrats control seven more Senate seats than the GOP. But that’s not nearly enough to offset the lopsided Republican advantage in the South.

The same is true in the House. Outside the South, Democrats hold a 152-140 edge in House seats. But the GOP’s 40-seat cushion in the South ensures that Illinois Republican Denny Hastert holds the speaker’s gavel, not San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi. The imbalance is even more pronounced in the race for the White House. In 2000, Al Gore won just over 70 percent of the Electoral College votes at stake outside the South. But George W. Bush narrowly won the White House because he swept all 165 Electoral College votes in the 13 southern states. Four years later, John Kerry won 68 percent of the Electoral College votes outside the South. But Bush won because he again swept the 13 Southern states -- this time worth 168 Electoral College votes after population growth measured in the 2000 Census.

You can almost hear the sighing, the call for the United States to be split into two countries--Jesusland and the United States of Canada, as some liberals put it following the 2004 election. Apparently they have forgotten that we fought a war over that very issue, 140 years ago.

Although many liberals claim that the South went to the Republicans because Nixon pursued the "Southern Strategy" of "coded" appeals to racist rednecks, I suspect more than anything else it was that Southern white men were being pushed away from the Democrats than that they were being courted by Nixon.

The irony, of course, is that because Southern white men have abandoned the Democrats in such massive numbers, the ones who remained behind have become more important to the party. Since 1968, the Democratic ticket has included at least one Southern white male in every election except the two landslides: 1972 and 1984. The only Democrats to be elected to the presidency since then were from Georgia and Arkansas.

By the same logic, black men and black women have become more important to the Republican party. Think about the strong support than Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have enjoyed from polls of conservatives over the past decade. Either or both have been mentioned as potential running mates or presidential candidates more times than you can count.

Posted by pat at 01:08 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

The Sine Wave of Political Coverage--Updated

Okay, so I wrote a post a couple of days ago that said Hillary was inevitably the nominee of the Democrats. And as if encouraged by my prediction, everybody in the universe has been writing "Hillary is Not Inevitable" stories. Do I want to fold my cards, or should I try to double up?

Answer: I'm going to double up. But before I show my cards, let's take a look at the hands of the other people at the table.

John McIntyre, Real Clear Politics. It's tough to call him, because you know he's got a steady finger on the political pulse of the nation. But I gotta think he's bluffing with this hand (J-10 Suited):

Which is why Monday’s gaffe [House of Representatives is a plantation] could be particularly damaging. It showed the nasty, very partisan side of Senator Clinton, and it raises the question of whether Hillary will ever be able to outrun the first impression she formed with the American public in the early ’90’s. The issue isn’t that huge numbers of the public are paying close attention to this particular story, but rather what sort of judgments the political elite in the Democratic Party may draw from the Hillary “plantation” dust-up.

Compared to the rest of the Democrats, Hillary has largely been coming off to us Republicans as the sane liberal. No, not as much as Joe Lieberman, and yes, I'm very suspicious. But compared to the knuckleheads in her party she seems quite moderate.

Then Arianna Huffington raised all in (with a small chipstack). At first you think she must be bluffing in a desperation move, but she's actually got one terrific point (Ace-Five):

Even more damning is the fact that the presidential runs of both Al Gore and John Kerry attracted more upstate voters -- and carried more upstate counties -- than Hillary did. "If Gore and Kerry won upstate New York," writes Katz, "but couldn't make sufficient red-state inroads, Clinton's loss upstate doesn't seem to bode well for her potential in truly red parts of the country." The final nail in the upstate/redstate coffin: Hillary's upstate numbers are very similar to those of the senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer -- and, as Katz zings it, "no one is talking him up as the Democrats' best chance to reclaim the White House."

It was quite noticeable that Al Gore got more votes in New York than Hillary Clinton in 2000. Gore pulled in 3.77 million while Hillary only drew 3.43 million. And it's not a simple case of down-ticket dropoff in voters; Lazio got 460,000 more votes than President Bush.

But does anybody really think Gore has a chance of getting chosen by the Democrats? And Hillary in 2000 was definitely pulling the ultimate carpet-bagger move in coming to New York, a state where she had never lived; I am still amazed that she won a Senate seat on the strength of her name alone.

Then there's this CNN/Gallup poll which seems to indicate she's unelectable (Ace-Ten Offsuit).

So why am I unconcerned about the sudden "Hillary Can Be Stopped" coverage? Because I'm holding pocket queens.

It's just the sine wave theory of political reporting. There's nothing to report on campaigns for the White House right now, so the chattering classes have to generate some buzz. Hillary will surf up and down on the sine wave for the next two years, but the buzz will always be about Hillary. Which is exactly the way she wants it.

There's a lot of talk that people don't want a dynasty, but as of 2008, the same two families will have run the country for 20 years. Hillary will offer them a chance to make it 28 (as would Jeb Bush). I don't get any sense the people are ready for radical change.

Update: Jonah Golberg piles on.

Posted by pat at 01:28 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

The Inevitability of Hillary

Andrew Sullivan, clearly engaging in wishful thinking, writes that perhaps Hillary is not fated to be the Democrats' candidate in 2008.

Clinton's straddle between two political identities is, of course, temporarily shrewd. She knows full well that the Democrats' key weakness is the war on terror. They have yet to persuade the public that they can defend the West more effectively than the Republicans.

But Sully goes off the rails when he talks about the risks to Hillary from the left:

The Left loathes the war in Iraq, believes it was started in bad faith, and that it is counterproductive in the war on terror. It has gained traction from the internet as left-wing collective websites such as the Daily Kos ramp up the anti-war and anti-Bush rhetoric. Their favourite candidate is senator Russ Feingold, an independent liberal who is unrepentant in his anti-war stance and a big campaigner against Washington sleaze. If Feingold falters, there's even Al Gore, now well to the Left of Hillary and incensed by what he argues is systematic abuse of executive power.

That's all well and good and true; the question is whether it means anything that Kos supports Feingold. Let's remember that Kos and many of the Lefty bloggers supported Howard Dean in 2003 and early 2004, then switched over to Wesley Clark when the Dean bubble burst. They did not succeed in stopping the "electable" candidate; why is there any reason to believe they will have any more success in 2008?

As I wrote in the aftermath of the 2004 elections, it is easy to demean and denigrate the liberal blogosphere. But believe it or not, the liberal blogosphere represents only a tiny fraction of the far left wing of the Democratic party. Yes, they are the vocal ones, the ones with 500,000 uniques a day. But they're extremely unrepresentative and have shown a singularly poor record at getting candidates elected. If I recall correctly, Kos raised money for 15 candidates in 2004; none of them won.

So I say Hillary's the nominee. And I note that Tradesports, an online futures exchange agrees with me. Hillary's shares are trading at about 45 right now, which means that about 45% of those willing to risk their money think Hillary will be giving the big speech Thursday night at the Democratic Convention. Warner, whom Sullivan touts, is the only other candidate whose shares are even in double digits. Feingold and Gore are around 6 and 5 respectively.

Posted by pat at 03:42 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Goodman Reveals Lie in Liberal Mantra on Abortion

Bill Clinton came up with a pretty good finesse on abortion that has worked rather well for the Democrats. He claimed that he wanted to see abortion remain safe, legal and rare.

Of course, liberals are only really interested in the second part of that formulation, as Ellen Goodman makes clear in today's Boston Globe.

This is the only clinic in the state and this is the only day in the week when a woman can get an abortion in South Dakota. Today, they'll be treated by one of four doctors flown in from Minneapolis because it's impossible to recruit locally. Today's doctor is Miriam McCreary, a mother of four and grandmother of nine, who graduated from medical school in 1958. At 70, she still knows ''how desperate women are to end their pregnancies."

One clinic, one day, one doctor. This is what it's like in South Dakota right now under Roe v. Wade. It's also like this in North Dakota and Mississippi, and not very different in Arkansas or a dozen other states.

To which I say, so what? Goodman appears to think that abortion clinics should be as common as McDonald's restaurants. She points out that one patient had to make a trip of 700 miles. I know this is impossible for somebody who lives in the Bos-NY-Wash megalopolis to understand, but a 700-mile round trip is not unusual in the West. I suspect that many folks in South Dakota do a hundred miles or more going to the grocery store. It's one of the negatives that comes with living in a sparsely populated state.

I suspect that I'm the only pro-choice blogger on Lifelike. However, I am very, very reluctantly pro-choice. I see abortion as morally wrong, but not as clearly morally wrong as murder. But I'm certainly not pro abortion or in favor of more abortions as the cure for whatever ails us. I see nothing particularly awful with it being a little more inconvenient in South Dakota than in New York City; a lot of other things are as well. Goodman gets the vapors over this:

Last year, five new restrictions passed, including one, now being challenged, to force doctors to recite a state-written speech saying that abortion ends the life of ''a whole, separate, unique living human being."

The horror! Perhaps Goodman would like it better if the doctors were forced to say that abortion just got rid of a dangerous parasite?

Posted by pat at 10:48 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Alito Shuffle

The hearings for Judge Alito got underway yesterday; I haven't listened in, but Hugh Hewitt had a few of the lighter-weight bits on his program. Loved Joe Biden's roundabout explanation that while it wasn't Judge Alito's fault, he was replacing the first woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court, and simultaneously reducing the number of women on the court by 50%, so he was going to have to speak up on where he stood on women's issues.

Jonathan Turley is troubled.

This country is facing one of the most serious constitutional crises in its history. President Bush has claimed virtually absolute authority to act in contradiction of federal and international law. In the recently disclosed National Security Agency operation, he has claimed the right to order surveillance that may be a crime under federal law. Last week, it was disclosed that when Bush signed a prohibition on torture he had long opposed, he reserved the right to violate it if he deemed it in the nation's interests.

Love that little "Last week, it was disclosed...." bit of circumlocution. What Turley means to say is that President Bush announced this when he signed the bill.

James Pinkerton says that Alito's strength is that he's mainstream; it's the Democrats who oppose him who are out of touch.

What's the source of Alito's strength? Simple. To a degree that should alarm his detractors, Alito represents America. He represents the mainstream of American opinion, which has shifted from Democratic to Republican in the decades since Alito was born in 1950.

So what happened? As Ronald Reagan, another Democrat of Catholic heritage, born about the same time as Alito's parents, always said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party - the Democratic Party left me." By that he meant that the party of FDR and "Give 'Em Hell Harry" Truman, substantially working-class in its values, changed enormously in the '50s and even more in the '60s.

John O'Sullivan points out that the media might actually be helping Alito by focusing on his supposed "extreme" positions.

They found his 1985 statement that the Constitution contained no provision guaranteeing a constitutional right to an abortion. It seems, however, that the public does not agree that this is an "extreme" view. After one month of ads denouncing Alito for such abominations, a Washington Post poll showed public support for his nomination had risen from 49 percent to 54 percent.

Several Democrats Monday, including the reliable Sen. Edward Kennedy, seemed on the verge of making an even worse tactical error. They suggested that Alito's respect for executive branch prerogatives would make him too ready to approve wiretapping and other surveillance of terrorists. That shows a deep misreading of U.S. opinion.

Prediction: Alito will not get as many crossover votes as Roberts did, but he'll still win approval by about 60-40.

Posted by pat at 01:11 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Annoying Americans

Over at Right Wing News, John Hawkins has posted his list of the 20 most annoying liberals of 2005 and his list of the 20 most annoying conservatives of 2005.