Friday, March 19, 2004

NOW he tells us!

We failed the American public by being insufficiently critical about elements of the administration’s plan to go to war,” said John Burns, The New York Times Baghdad Bureau chief who phoned in from Iraq.

"insufficiently critical"?

How about lazy and intellectually deficient?

How about being scared of losing your job if you didn't show sufficient patriotic support for the President?

How about cheerleading the march to war?

Oh well, I guess I should be pleased that we've gotten even this much of a concession out of these toads.

Vindication?

A lot of warfloggers harped on this story because it fit their view that all who opposed the war in Iraq were appeasers and closet traitors. No doubt we will hear a lot of public apologies from them now.

Why are you snickering?

Galloway accepts damages over Iraq libel

MP George Galloway accepted undisclosed High Court libel damages and a public apology today over an article which said he had opposed the conflict in Iraq because he had been paid by Saddam's regime.

His solicitor, Mark Bateman, told Mr Justice Eady that the allegations in The Christian Science Monitor in April last year were "false and without foundation".

Pledges? We don't need any stinkin' pledges!

This is an example of what I am talking about:

Democrats are under attack. John Kerry is under attack. The very values you and I stand for are under attack.

I'm asking you to put your name on what you stand for.

Sign my pledge to show your support for John Kerry and the Democratic Cause.

The Bush Republican attack machines are launching an unfair, misleading smear campaign against John Kerry. Special interests -- the big-drug, big-insurance, big-corporate companies -- are dumping millions and millions of dollars into the Bush-Cheney campaign to do whatever it takes to maintain their right-wing grip on the White House.

You and I can do something about this attack -- right now. Show your support for John Kerry -- sign this pledge and pass it along to everyone you know who also worries about our future. We'll turn this battle into a victory, and we'll help create a better country for everyone.

I urge you to act right now.

James Carville

James Carville

I'm all for unity James. But John Kerry doesn't need the pledge of me, a lowly blogger, to beat Bush. He needs people like you and your buddy Bill to get out there in front of the camera at every moment possible defending Kerry and attacking Bush. We've already shown our loyalty. Time for you guys to do the same.

Update: The more I think about this the more it irks me. The temerity of asking me to pledge myself to John Kerry and the Democrats! What next? Loyalty oaths?

I'll tell you what James: it isn't I who needs to pledge myself to John Kerry.

It is John Kerry who needs to pledge himself to me!

Howard Dean has the power

(stolen from this bartcop nation thread)

George W. Bush, circa 2007 (if there is a God)

(courtesy somethingawful.com)

Dean as point man

With regard to the aside I made in the last post: I think it would be great if Dean were to become a prominent point-man for John Kerry. The irony would be delicious, and maybe, just maybe, it would shame the rest of the Democratic leadership into risking political capital defending their nominal leader.

C'mon guys! Putting your picture on a fundraising letter is not what we mean when we talk about unity and backbone.

Kerry 2, Bush 1

Smackdown week 3:

  • John Kerry raises $10 million in 10 days, mostly via the internet (Bloomberg)
  • Spanish PP goes down to defeat in Spanish elections. Consensus appears to be that PP's close association with Bush's war in Iraq a major factor in defeat. (AP)
  • Kerry "foreign leaders" flap based on a misquote (Drudge)
  • Bush challenges Kerry to "Back it up with facts" in regard to "foreign leaders" flap (MSNBC)
  • Kerry accused of allowing lax security at Logan airport. Accuser previously said that Kerry got the information to the right people (Hesiod).
  • Powerful blast shatters Baghdad hotel, killing at least 27 people (CNN)
  • Kerry issues a "Military Family Bill of Rights" (Kerry)
  • New survey shows world opinion of America sinking (Baltimore Sun)
  • Kerry, Cheney spar over national security in dueling speeches (Washington Post)
  • New Bush ad accuses Kerry of abandoning troops by voting against funding (AP)
  • al Qaeda endorses Bush re-election (Reuters)
  • John Kerry is told to repudiate a Dean comment by the head of Bush's re-election campaign. Kerry says Dean's position is not his position. (AP)
  • Sen. John McCain says that Kerry is not weak on defense (AP)
  • Poland may withdraw troops from Iraq earlier than planned, says they were "misled". (AP)
  • Bush campaign ad hits Kerry with his own words: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." (Reuters)
  • Bush leads in New Hampshire (Political Wire)

This has been a tough week to judge. Kerry's been put on the defensive for the first time in this campaign with disputes about the "more/foreign leaders" flap, his vote on the Iraq supplemental appropriation and his reaction to criticism of comments from Howard Dean. His response to these incidents has been considerably weaker then the "crooks and liars" flap and his handling of the Dean situation and the appropriations vote suggests a return to the old weak-backbone behavior of Democrats of the last few years.

On the other hand, Bush has had a pretty bad week as well, what with the defeat of Aznar in Spain, grumblings from Poland that they were "misled" and the hotel bombing in Iraq.

And Kerry had a couple of good things happen: he is raising huge amounts of money on the internet and John McCain has becoming his point man when it comes to vouching for his character. Unfortunately, McCain cannot be relied on long-term to be their and the rest of the Democratic leadership has been noticeably unwilling to stand up for Kerry. (Aside: I have this sneaking suspicion that Dean may become one of Kerry's most vocal point men.)

I thought about just awarding half-points to both candidates and leave it at that. But that felt like a wimp-out. So, I regrettably have to award this week to Bush. On balance, he managed to get back on balance and put Kerry off balance at the same time and that tips the balance in Bush's favor.

I guess that makes this my fair and balanced judgment <ducking>

Paging Karl Rove

Time for the smear Richard Clarke campaign to begin

The Democrat's problem

I argued several months back that the Democrats should let Bush have his $87 billion supplemental Iraq bill with no strings attached because, by doing so, they would make whatever happened next entirely the property of Bush and Bush alone. By trying to tie the appropriation to a change in Bush's tax cut or some other changes in Bushie programs the Democrats effectively gave the Republicans the ammo they needed to paint the Democrats as holding up money for our troops for political reasons.

Which is precisely what is happening now with the attacks on John Kerry over his vote on this bill.

Josh Marshall highlights some of the problems Kerry has faced with his vote, including a new ABC story that essentially propagates Republican spin on his vote.

Now, we can rail, ala Bob Somerby, against the mendacity of the media in becoming a willing tool of GOP propaganda. But complaining about this kind of thing in today's present political atmosphere is like a man in a firestorm complaining about the heat. Yes, it is bad, but complaining won't put out the fire.

Kerry, unfortunately, has given the Bushies a lot of ammo to use in painting him as a wishy-washy, finger-in-the-wind politician (it's one of the reasons I didn't support him in the primary). I am not sure he can really defend himself effectively against these kinds of charges without coming off even worse (his "I voted for it before I voted against it" comment is an example of how not to respond.) Perhaps the only hope for him is if the entire Democratic establishment comes out and launches a coordinated attack against Bush in order to put him on the defensive. But, as I said in my last post, the leadership has been woefully lacking in its public defense of Kerry.

The Republicans are masters at distraction. The Democrats have to learn how to do a little distracting themselves.

Hello? Is there anybody up there?

Let me join my voice to the chorus (Atrios, Hesiod, J) of those calling on Democratic leaders to get off their butts and go out there and fight for John Kerry. So far Kerry has done a pretty reasonable job of standing up for himself, but there has been a noticeable lack of party leaders fanning out across the airwaves and making it clear that Kerry is their man and they will throw themselves on a hand grenade if that is what is needed to get him elected.

Or is asking for that much coordination and cooperation to much to ask of Democrats?

I could understand if Dean were the nominee that they might be hesitant to defend him since he made their lives so difficult over the past year (I wouldn't forgive it, but I would understand it). But Kerry is one of their own. He's the one that we were sold as being the one that the leadership could unite behind.

So do it!

Thursday, March 18, 2004

And you are there

Now you can see what Eric Alterman was talking about when he described his experience on the Dennis Miller show.

What an ass. At least Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilley gives the impression of caring enough about their guest's opinions to try and argue them down. Miller can't even be bothered to expend that much energy.

The power of computers

Check out FUNDRACE 2004, a new site that allows you to track campaign finance information. Two particular cool features of the site are the Neighbor Search, which allows you to find out to whom all your neighbors are making contributions, and Money Maps, which provides graphic maps of fundraising distributions in several major cities.

Did you know that Howard Dean contributed $2000 to George W. Bush?

(No! Not that Howard Dean.)

Dean v2.0, initial impression

I like the statement of principles that Dean has presented. But I am a little disappointed that they didn't have a specific call-to-action ready to go for launch day. Even throwing up a bat to raise money for John Kerry (as part of his $10 million in 10 days) would have been nice (though maybe Dean still is holding off on something like this until he gives his official endorsement). I know there are a lot of Dean supporters who are out their chomping at the bit for something specific to do and have been waiting for today to see what Dean had to offer.

So, the principles are good. But the principles need to be put into action ASAP if Dean isn't to lose the interest of the audience.

"Appeasment" is spreading

Naturally, the warfloggers will descry the word out of Poland that they are considering withdrawing their troops from Iraq early as just another sign of appeasement to the terrorists. I think Ivo Daalder puts it best in The American Prospect, with regard to the Spanish election (link courtesy Josh Marshall):

This is the third election of a major ally in which the party running against George Bush won. Look at Germany in '02, South Korea in '03, and now Spain. The message is: If you want to get re-elected, don't go to Crawford. Bush is a political liability -- in Europe, in particular. His foreign policy has trampled on the European views and it's now resulting in the election of governments that do not support his approach.

Any leader in "the coalition of the willing" who doesn't re-evaluate their cooperation with George the Lesser would be insane given that kind of a track record.

Is this appeasing the terrorists? Perhaps. But Bush's failed foreign policy has forced these world leaders into the position where they either have to consider "appeasing the terrorists" (as defined by the neo-cons) or face political extinction.

Of course they want John Kerry to win!

Democracy For America

Dean v2.0 is here

My run for the White House ended last month. But for me, and for supporters around the country, our work to take this country back has just begun. That?s why I have formed Democracy For America, a new organization building on the phenomenal grassroots support for our presidential campaign.

On that note...

Thomas Schaller gives some advice on how to use jiu-jitsu to turn Bush's advantages (money, media, power, etc.) against him.

Analogies

Hesiod has a good post today on just how massive are the forces that are coming after Kerry and how much he will need all of our help to defeat Bush. He draws an analogy between Kerry and General Anthony McAuliffe who was trapped in Bastogne facing a massive German counteroffensive and calls on us to be General Patton riding to the rescue.

Hesiod is right that Kerry is going to get absolutely hammered over the coming months, but there may be little he or us can do to meet the Bushies blow-for-blow. However, another useful analogy might be the Ali vs. Foreman fight. Foreman was widely favored to win because of his ability to simply beat his opponents to a pulp. Ali didn't have the strength to match Foreman's punches. But what he did have was the endurance to take the blows Foreman could meet out until Foreman got so exhausted that Ali could step up and hammer him back.

So, what we need is to provide Kerry the endurance he will need to go the long haul against the massive Bush counteroffensive until such time as the latter has emptied his arsenal and has nothing left to attack with. And then, when he is at his most vulnerable, punch his lights out.

Update: Thinking back on it, I think some of my recent posts about Kerry haven't been as useful as I would have liked. I still stand by my criticism of some of his recent comments. But I don't want to devote so much attention to them that it gives power to the attacks against him. In light of what I have said above, I will try to be more supportive of the effort to help Kerry through this trying time. I will still make note of his mistakes when I see him making them. But I will leave it at that.

Feel the love

Two good organizations are joining forces. 21st Century Democrats is partnering with Dean's new group Democracy for America.

Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Bad move

John Kerry is told to repudiate a Dean comment by the head of Bush's re-election campaign and Kerry does precisely that.

WASHINGTON - Presidential candidate John Kerry said Wednesday he does not share fellow Democrat Howard Dean's position that President Bush's decision to send troops to Iraq appears to have been a factor in the Spanish train bombing.

The chairman of Bush's re-election campaign called on Kerry to repudiate the comment that Dean made during a conference call arranged by the Kerry campaign.

"The president was the one who dragged our troops to Iraq, which apparently has been a factor in the death of 200 Spaniards over the weekend," Dean said as he defended Kerry from a Bush television ad that accused Kerry of turning his back on U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq.

Asked about the comment on his campaign plane Wednesday, Kerry said, "It's not our position."

Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot said Dean blamed the deaths on Bush and the war on terror when they were caused by a global terror network.

"If Senator Kerry understands the nature of this threat and the need to take on terror, then he should immediately repudiate these troubling comments, and stop all efforts on behalf of his surrogates to blame America for these attacks," said Racicot, former governor of Montana.

This is not simply a matter of Kerry running away from a Dean statement. It is a matter of Kerry ducking when the Republicans say "boo!"

Bad move. Bad leadership. Dean said nothing that was incorrect. By repudiating it Kerry has essentially ceded the point to the Bushies on this matter instead of seizing it as an opportunity to further highlight the failures in Bush's foreign policy.

I guess he can avoid "apologizing" when it is he that they are attacking directly. But when it is someone else that is attacked then Kerry starts looking for ways to protect himself from the fallout.

Grade: needs improvement

I like the idea behind John Kerry's DBunker site. But honestly, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. The material provided is snooze-inducing policy stuff of the worst sort. They shouldn't necessarily drop the details, but they should be used as backup to one or two short talking points (i.e., sound bites) that can be used in response to those attacks.

Yuck it up

Humor and the modern U.S. Senator

Losers for Kerry

The Poor Man has set up a set of Kerry contribution links that allow contributors to make their contributions while still indicating who it was they originally supported in the primary. I'm hoping Dean's new group will be setting up something like this soon, but until they do this is a good substitute (click here to contribute to Dean 4 Kerry).

TPM has set this up as a challenge to see which candidates supporters can raise the most money. Being a Clark supporter he naturally thinks that the only competition will be for who comes in 2nd.

Take the challenge.

(courtesy Blogging of the President)

Busted

MoveOn has turned the video clip of Donald Rumsfeld getting caught with his ass in his hands into a commercial. It is devastating because it simply plays the video with only a small graphic at the end asking for the deception to end and urging people to call congress to censure Bush.

Check it out.

Good answer

Kerry gives the proper sound-bite response to the latest attacks on his support for the troops:

This President is so committed to tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that he refused to ask them to sacrifice even a small portion of that tax cut to give our soldiers the weapons and equipment they need.

Kerry needs to come back hard against Bush on this point and challenge him to compare, side-by-side, their levels of "support for the troops".

Not exactly the kind of support they want

al Qaeda endorses Bush:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

Whoops!

CIA to investigate leak of tape to media

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials say CIA surveillance aircraft video that they think shows Osama bin Laden in 2000 was "highly classified," and that the CIA will investigate who leaked it to the media.

Now, who do we know who is capable of leaking "highly classified" information in order to cause damage to political opponents?

How to respond to accusations of dishonesty

(Mike Thompson)

The World vs. Bush

U.S. sinking in the eyes of the world

In the footsteps of the criticism of Kerry's "many/foreign leaders" comment comes this new international poll showing that international opinion of America has fallen precipitously. Not even the salve of time has helped heal the wounds over the march to war in Iraq:

Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, said that in light of the time that has elapsed since the Iraq invasion, "we were expecting more positive attitudes" toward the United States than were revealed in a survey released in May. But distrust of U.S. motives and attitudes toward Americans are as bad or worse this time.

Support for foreign policy independent of U.S. hegemony is growing, even in England:

In Britain, favorable views of the United States dropped to 58 percent, down from 70 percent in May. For the first time, the poll showed a sizable majority of Britons (56 percent) joining the French and Germans in backing a European foreign policy developed apart from the United States.

Tony Blair has been railing against this idea for some time now, but his best buddy George is one of the primary motivators for this attitude. I wonder if Tony will ever understand that supporting America does not require supporting Bush.

And how is this helping our image in the middle east and in the fight on terror?

Overall, outside the United States, the survey found broad agreement that the war in Iraq had hurt, rather than helped, the fight against terrorism. And Osama bin Laden is viewed favorably by 65 percent of people in Pakistan, 55 percent in Jordan and 45 percent in Morocco.

Suicide bombing appears to be gaining legitimacy in much of the Middle East, Campbell said. Such attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq were viewed as justified by 70 percent in Jordan, 66 percent in Morocco, 46 percent in Pakistan and 31 percent in Turkey. Larger majorities in Jordan and Morocco backed Palestinian suicide attacks against Israelis.

bin Laden still probably wouldn't beat Bush in an election for President of Earth. But it would be a lot closer than we should be comfortable with.

Update: Alan Murray provides some of the more shocking numbers from this poll:

Are suicide bombings against Americans and Westerners in Iraq justified?
Country Yes No
Morocco 70% 24%
Jordan 66% 22%
Pakistan 46% 36%
 
 What’s your view of Osama bin Laden?
Country Favorable Unfavorable
Morocco 45% 42%
Jordan 55% 39%
Pakistan 65% 9%
 
 What’s your view of President Bush?
Country Favorable Unfavorable
Morocco 8% 90%
Jordan 3% 96%
Pakistan 7% 67%

Kerry's first bad week?

Kos weighs in and he seems to be in agreement with my position that the "more/foreign leaders" flap has hurt Kerry and helped Bush. It has put Kerry truly on the defensive for the first time this season and allowed Bush to get back into his game, which included the new attack ad that suggested that Kerry doesn't care about our soldiers in the field because he voted against the $87 billion supplemental Iraq bill.

Every time Bush lies, it forces Kerry to set the record straight, taking him off message and wasting a news cycle in the process. The last few days have shown the tactic works better than the truth, and expect a lot more of this crap over the next half-year.

Thinking about this more, I think this demonstrates a potential weakness in Kerry's campaign so far: it is highly dependent on how well Bush is doing week-to-week. Kerry's team has demonstrated a strong ability to take advantage of Bush missteps and make him pay for them. But they will have a tough time winning if they remain dependent on Bush making mistakes. They have to force Bush into making those mistakes as well as demonstrate that they themselves are less mistake prone.

I was listening to Talk Of The Nation at around the noon hour and was struck by the tone of a few of the callers to the show. The general impression was that they don't particular like Bush as president, but that wouldn't be sufficient reason for them to vote him out of office. One caller in particular was critical of Kerry for not giving him anything more to vote for than "electability", (i.e., being the best "Anybody But Bush" candidate out there).

The guest on the show (didn't catch his name, but he is an editor for Atlantic Monthly) agreed with that assessment and said that Kerry won the primaries by appealing to the anti-Bush sentiment amongst Democrats. But the anti-Bush sentiment is not as prevalent among the general populous. This is a point I've been trying to make with my "fence-sitter" comments. The people who are on the fence in this election may be uncomfortable with Bush, but they won't unseat him unless they are given an alternative that is compelling enough for them to risk a change. Bush may not be great, in their eyes, but his replacement has to at least present himself as likely to be better. Just being not-Bush is not enough.

(If I can risk a little bit of Dean partisanship here, I think this is where the governor always had an advantage over the other Democratic candidates. He actually had a compelling message beyond Anybody-But-Bush. I can't help but think that he lost, in part, because many Democrats are still afraid to step into the breech with an assertive agenda. It always seems to be "just enough to maybe win, but not enough to expose ourselves to to many attacks." That kind of thinking only works if the opposition falls apart of its own accord.)

Kerry's campaign needs to become pro-active in its dealings with Bush. This is where they may be at a severe disadvantage to the Republicans. The GOP has had months and oodles of money to develop a proactive game plan for the next 7-8 months. The Democrats have only coalesced around a single candidate in the last 2-3 weeks. This leaves very little time for Kerry's team to put forth a compelling alternative to putting Bush back in the White House.

And missteps like the "more/foreign leaders" flap aren't going to make the job any easier.

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Kerrying it to far III

This is the kind of thing I am referring to (AP):

"But it is our business when a candidate for president claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders," Cheney said at a congressional fund-raiser in Phoenix. "At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to them that makes them so supportive of his candidacy."

That last comment is, of course, an appeal to the "Kerry is a tool of foreign interests" smear that I have been talking about. The clear implication of Cheney's statement is that Kerry has sold out America in order to get those secret endorsements.

I know some Kerry supporters are laughing off my concern about this but I think they are making a serious mistake by doing so. This is precisely the kind of appeal that the Bushies like to make and they do it because it works. This is becoming a serious issue and if Kerry doesn't come up with a good response to it and soon he will be seriously damaged by it.

Update: Josh Marshall seems to be thinking along the same lines as I am:

Now, I don't think there's any question this was an unwise thing for Kerry to say, not least because it's opened him up to all these attacks which are awkward to answer.

It's because this brou-ha-ha has put Kerry on the defensive that it was a bad thing for him to do. As a politician, you never want to be on the defensive (as Bush was in the first two weeks of this campaign). It makes you look weak and opens you up to other questions about your ability to lead.

The reason it's unwise to say this -- or at least say it so bluntly -- is precisely because it's so undoubtedly true. And the fact that it's true is a difficult matter politically for both candidates.

I'm not so sure about this. My impression is that foreign resentment of America amongst our erstwhile allies is primary confined to anger at Bush specifically, not America in general. Kerry would have to heal the wounds once Bush is out of office, but he at least would have a chance of doing so. Bush is hopeless.

Courtesy Henry Waxman

Iraq On The Record - The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq

Ouch!

Man treated after attempting to nail himself to cross

HARTLAND — A Hartland man was treated at a Pittsfield hospital after he nailed himself to a cross. The 23-year-old man apparently was trying to commit suicide Thursday evening in his living room, the Bangor Daily News reported.

Liars and Crooks II

And speaking of catching "liars and crooks" in a lie, check out this video of Donald Rumsfeld (courtesy Mathew Gross).

Liars and Crooks

It's a beautiful thing when you catch the "liars and crooks" in a deliberate distortion. Hesiod does the duty.

McCain disses Bush II

I said last week that McCain, by declining to immediately discount the idea of being Kerry's running mate, was making a massive diss against Bush. Robert Novak has some of the inside scoop on how Republicans have reacted to McCain's actions (link courtesy Kos).

At the moment that Republican strategists are intent on unveiling Kerry to voters as the most liberal member of the Senate, the immensely popular McCain says the prospective Democratic nominee is OK.

McCain's comment legitimized Kerry's candidacy for a lot of fence-sitters and, for that, we should be extremely grateful. Whether this was intentional on McCain's part or not I don't know. Nor do I really care.

The damage is done.

Send good strokes

I concur with Kos, we should send kudos to Boston Globe reporter Patrick Healy for his very public mea culpa about his misquote of Kerry. Not many journalists these days would have the balls to admit that they fucked up like that. Most would just rather act like it never occurred. Such courage should be rewarded.

Changes

I'm taking down The Pledge. It has fulfilled its purpose. Thanks to all who signed on and thanks to all those who abided by its spirit.

Book review

"Emergence - The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software"  by Steven Johnson (c) 2001

I've always been fascinated by the concept of connections and the way disparate fields of science, philosophy, religion and engineer often arrive at conclusions that are eerily similar to each other. It all feeds into a feeling I have had for as long as I can remember that much of the complexity of life is drive at a more fundamental level by the simplest of rules and that those rules apply in many fields of discipline, even ones that don't, on the surface appear to be connected.

I just started reading Emergence this past weekend and have only finished the first part of the book, but it provides yet another data point that feeds into this hypothesis. Steven Johnson outlines the new field of emergent systems, the theory that complex, adaptive behavior can "emerge" from simple systems without the need for internal controllers (or "pacemakers" as Johnson calls them).

Just in reading the first chapter a few thoughts emerge (heh) from my own mind:

  • The Queen in an ant colony is no more "in charge" of the colony or directs its behavior than is the lowliest worker. In fact, the Queen is just another worker, in this case a worker who carries out the specialized role of laying eggs.
  • Complex patterns of behavior can emerge from seemingly unorganized systems that can be incorrectly interpreted as resulting from consciously directed action and that this could explain the belief of many that there are nefarious and dark forces at work in the world (i.e., conspiracy theories).
  • The science of emergent systems does not deny the existence of a controlling force, it only says that it is not necessary for that controlling force (or forces) to be located within a complex organizational system. Those systems evolve in response to rules and external influences. Someone has to define the rules and someone has to create those external conditions.
  • Yet, make no mistake that those external controllers are themselves members of a much larger complex system and are thus subject to their own rules of emergent behavior. Control is an illusion, but it is a useful illusion.
  • George W. Bush and the cabal he represents only think they are controlling the apparatus of society when, like the Queen, they are just another specialized worker in the human colony. They are no more free than is the Queen.
  • Al Gore is apparently a devotee if the field of emergent systems and it had a strong influence on his "re-inventing government" efforts and may also explain why he became enamored of the Dean campaign (probably the purest example of a bottom-up organized political campaign since the start of the TV age).

I believe in free will. But I don't believe that we are entirely in control of our own destinies either. It has long been my belief that it is those who advocate for the extremes in this debate both have it wrong. The universe is neither fundamentally ordered or chaotic.

It is much to beautiful to be hemmed in by such limited notions.

Kerry gaffes

Apparently the Boston Globe reporter who reported that John Kerry said, "I've met foreign leaders" who told him that he needs to beat Bush is now saying that he mistranscribed the comment and that Kerry actually said more not foreign.

Okay, that's a screw up on the reporters part, but it really doesn't change the content of Kerry's comment all that much. Exactly what kind of leaders was Kerry referring to but foreign leaders? The reporters mea-culpa really doesn't excuse the sloppy comment from Kerry. Even if he has been hearing such comments from "many" leaders it was still politically stupid to say so (for reasons I have explained before).

This just proves to me that Howard Dean was no more a loose cannon than Kerry. It's just that Dean's comments stepped on a few Democrats toes as well as stomping all over Bush's and that created to many enemies of the wrong people for him to be a viable leader of the party.

The blogger role

I was reading this report by Jay Rosen on the recent Kennedy School study of the Trent Lott story and the role blogs played in it (pdf) when I was struck by something: blogs have become trend-spotters for the world of journalism.

Consider this analogy: in the world of fashion there are people who spend their time browsing out-of-the-way boutiques and skimming through pictures of clothing styles from all over the world. The purpose behind this activity is to spot trends that the big fashion houses don't always have the time to see. When they pick up on a particularly interesting new style they bubble it up to the higher level where the big boys can read about it, adopt it, and brand it as their own.

Blogs are performing a similar role for journalism in that they can spot a political trend that is below the radar and bring it to the attention of the professionals in the mainstream media. Who, of course, can then report this information as their own and make a name for themselves as being hip to the next big thing.

Which is why bloggers, with rare exception, will never become "name" players in journalism.

What it all means

publius has a good run down of 11-M, the Spanish election and Americans reaction to same. His thinking pretty much mirrors my own: the Spanish rebelled against Aznar's government because the apparent deception about the perpetrators of 11-M just fed into a growing sense of frustration with that government on a whole range of issues. In other words, it's a classic "straw that broke the camel's back" situation.

People will put up with a lot of shit from their government because they want to believe that it is doing the right thing by them. But there comes a time when the shit piles so high that the people just say "fuck it" and the whole thing comes crashing down in a matter of days.

Once again, this is a harbinger for the Bush administration. The Bushies have been running an administration based on deception and intimidation from even before Dubya was sworn into office. At a subconscious level even some Bush supporters understand this. All they are waiting for is that key event, that 11-M, to push them over the edge.

When the house of Bush starts to collapse my advice would be to get out of the way because it will be spectacular in its fall.

publius:

Let me more clear. I think that everyone agrees that al Qaeda (and terrorism more generally) presents a serious threat and that it must be dealt with. The real debate, however, in both America and the world is about tactics. In other words, everyone agrees that we must fight terrorism, but people disagree on how we should go about it fighting it. As for Bush, people aren’t disagreeing with his goal of eliminating terrorism. They’re disagreeing about whether Bush’s tactics (specifically, the war on Iraq) are helping or hurting the cause.

I think this is spot on. With the added comment that the debate is not advanced at all when certain advocates of certain tactics assume that anyone disagrees with them on those tactics must want al Qaeda to win. It's that kind of rhetoric that is poisoning political dialog in this country. There is, of course, similar radical talk on the other side. But only on the right are the radicals allowed to set public policy. The left at least keeps their radicals out of the spotlight and away from positions of power.

The danger in suppressing information

Tom Tomorrow has a letter from a Spanish reader who provides a useful "man on the street" perspective to what happened in Spain. I was struck most of all by the comments about the flurry of SMS text messaging that was going on prior to the election. The state controlled media looked to be suppressing information that suggested Islamic connections to 11-M. Yet the information was getting out anyway via a flash network of cell phones.

Naturally, this kind of information distribution is subject to all the normal problems with gossip channels. The idea that the government might have been suppressing information just fed into the negative feelings. Which means it might have been better for the Aznar government if they had been open and honest in acknowledging the possibility of an Islamic connection. In other words, the fact that they might have been clamping down on negative information just made that negative information more likely to be distributed and absorbed.

I don't expect authoritarians to appreciate the irony in this.

Clue for the clueless

Europeans have been dealing with terrorism within their borders a lot longer than Americans have. Remember Munich? Remember the bombing of a German disco? Remember gunfights in London and Paris airports? Remember Lockerbie?

Democrats better at creating jobs

It's not even close.

(graphic courtesy Music For America)

Did Rumsfeld break the law?

Alice Marshall has the scoop.

Monday, March 15, 2004

Kerry-Dean?

For a long time I've dismissed the idea of a Kerry-Dean ticket for many reasons (geography, personal animus, differing campaign styles, etc.). But this thread over at the DailyKOS brings back the idea and, for the first time, makes me think it isn't as outrageous as previously thought.

First of all, the geography issue is still of concern, especially considering that that geography is New England. But the Clinton-Gore model showed that, in certain circumstances, a "non-balanced" ticket might actually provide a more focused appeal than one that was blatantly designed to be more geographically balanced. There is also something appealing about the idea of blowing out the New England curse with a two-fer ticket like this.

Second, the personal animus may not be as bad as previously thought, especially considering the kind words both Dean and Kerry have had for each other of late. Much worse political enemies have partnered up (Kennedy-Johnson anyone?)

Third, Kerry's campaign style has switched much more towards the combative Dean style, thus they might mesh much better than previously thought.

Also, Dean could bring a couple of big advantages to the ticket: he would almost certainly sew up the base in a big way for Kerry. I've said before that I think this campaign will come down to who screws up the least and who can best get their base out to vote. A Kerry-Dean ticket would definitely do that.

Furthermore, many Democrats expressed the thought during the primary season that their hearts were with Dean but their minds were with Kerry. A Kerry-Dean ticket would be a unification of heart and mind that could be greater than the sum of its parts.

And then there is the fundraising and organizational prowess that Dean could bring to the team. Dean's campaign may not have been experienced enough to know what to do with the raw manpower it had at its disposal. But more experienced hands in the Democratic party might be able to make better use of it.

I still consider this to be an unlikely scenario. But it is no longer the impossibility I once thought it was.

A victory for the terrorists?

Regarding the question of whether the fall of Aznar's government in Spain is an indication that the terrorists are winning: hell no.

I'm with Guy Andrew Hall: if Aznar's policies had been successful at reducing the threat from terrorism then his party would have stayed in power. But the Madrid attacks show that his policies have failed. A new government with new policies might have a better chance at success. And, if they succeed, then the terrorist attacks have failed.

Also, the idea that these attacks alone brought down Aznar's party is absurd. If there wasn't an underlying resentment of Aznar's party to begin with then the attacks would have bolstered his support (the rally-round-the-flag effect). The fact that his party collapsed in the face of the attacks demonstrates that he had lost the confidence of the Spanish people long before 11-M.

This should give hope to at least one branch of conspiracy-mongers: an "October surprise" in the form of a serious terrorist attack might actually hurt Bush's chances of re-election. The same underlying sense of resentment that existed in Spain is seeping through the body politic in America. It could take just one significant event to cause people to run from Bush in a stampede.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Something new

Check out The Gadflyer.

Quit it!

I'm detecting a little to much glee in the comments section of several prominent blogs of late. The bloggers themselves are being more responsible in their analysis of the election so far, but far to many are already starting to say things like "Bush is toast" and "Kerry has this in the bag".

Shut up!

This election isn't even close to being "in the bag" nor is Bush anything beyond the mildly warm stage yet. We should run this race from now until November as if we are 10 points behind in the polls. Even if polls come out showing us up 20 points over Bush.

If any of you catch yourselves feeling the least bit confident just think "Howard Dean in mid-December 2003" and go out and work that much harder.

Bush mustn't just be defeated. He must be destroyed! No mercy!

That is all.

Audience participation

Kerry had to deal with a Republican "heckler" during an audience Q&A session yesterday, specifically in regard to Kerry's comment about foreign leaders wanting Bush removed from power. You may recall that Dean had to deal with a similar situation last December in Iowa and some, even a few Democrats, have suggested he didn't handle it well. I wonder what the verdict on Kerry will be?

I personally think that Kerry made a mistake in talking about foreign leaders wanting Bush gone. I'm sure it is true and that Kerry has heard this from multiple quarters. But talking about this in public is counter-productive at best. First of all, as Kerry has pointed out, he can't name names. Kerry comes off sounding weasely in trying to avoid doing just that. Secondly, many Americans, even those who don't support Bush, react negatively to the idea of foreigners trying to manipulate the electoral process. When Kerry made his comments he, unfortunately, put himself in the position of being characterized as "a tool of foreign interests who wanted to undermine our great democracy" (as a wing-nut would describe it).

I find it ironic that the campaign is less than three weeks old and Kerry has already made two statements (this one and the "crooks and liars" comment) that, coming from Dean, would have been characterized by Dean critics as examples of his dangerous shoot-from-the-hip style.

Tough Democrats no longer an oxymoron?

"John Kerry is mounting the most aggressive presidential campaign a Democrat has run in decades." -- Cox News

And the strength of the campaign has caught the Bushies by surprise.

They have gotten so used to Democrats rolling over that they have forgotten how to deal with an opponent who acts like an opponent.

In most instances last week, the Kerry rebuttal was public record before the Bush charges aired, a much more aggressive approach than that of Bill Clinton's famed war room of 1992, where the objective was to merely respond to attacks during the same news cycle.

Now this is the kind of pre-emptive warfare I can get behind!

Questions remain

Was Bush booted from the cockpit because of drug and/or alcohol use? (link courtesty Eric Boehlert of Salon's War Room '04).

Request

Does anyone know where I can find information on the expenditures of the Bush campaign to date?