Separated at birth?

"[The] idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,” -- Howard Dean

"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." -- William F. Buckley

Spending Capital

An additional thought on the Lieberman story below. It is apparent that Lieberman is calling in a lot of chits in order to defend against Lamont. The thing about chits is that, once they are called, they can't be called again. This means that, in order to defend himself, Lieberman has to spend a lot of political capital that he will have to work afterward to rebuild.

In other words, even if Lieberman succeeds in holding off Lamont, all those people he called up asking him to help him out will now have his number.

This is why contested primaries are a good thing. They force incumbents to mess it up. It keeps them from growing stale and entrenched. It's the equivalent of shuffling the deck in order to keep the game fresh. Even if the incumbent wins, they will have to work that much harder afterward to rebuild the kind of political capital they needed to fend off the challenge.

Lieberman will have to start acting more like a Democrat. Otherwise, the next time, he will have even fewer chits to call in.

Framing Lamont

Joe Lieberman is lining up institutional support in Connecticut in order to head off the surging candidacy of Ned Lamont. This was to be expected. Lamont is an outsider and Lieberman has a lot of friends within the party. I don't object to this.

What I do object to, however, is the early pigeonholing of Lamont as "the anti-war" candidate. In the linked story, Sen. Christopher Dodd, the other Connecticut Senator, adds weight to this:

"You need to have more of a case to make than a disagreement on one issue to justify the kind of effort, expense and cost to divide a candidacy and party," Dodd said. "I don't think that makes a lot off sense."

The purpose here is clear: paint Lamont as a one-issue candidate who is just another anti-war crank. It's possible that this is just conventional wisdom rearing its ugly head again. But I doubt it.

In either case, Lamont needs to make a concerted effort to show that Iraq is just one line item in the argument against Lieberman. If he doesn't address this soon then his campaign will be doomed to failure.

Lawnmower Politics

From Plunderbund comes an interesting metaphor for the conflict between the grassroots and the entrenched party apparatus:

But last night’s [Ohio Democratic Party] pre-primary endorsement process is an example that the ODP subscribes to the Lawnmower Culture. Candidates who had done a good job of positioning themselves among voters, and voters who had been germinating the seeds of the grassroots for some time, were mowed down in favor of the machine.

Plunderbund argues that the grassroots can defeat the machine by growing so fast that it will choke it. But, while I am a great fan of the grassroots, we must also acknowledge that with the grass you occaisionally get weeds.

The party needs the grassroots. But the grassroots needs the party. Both are necessary components for victory.

To switch metaphors, the party is the hardware while the grassroots is the software. Without the software, the hardware is just a really expensive door stop. But without the hardware the software has nowhere to run.

What disturbs me most about situations like this is that they may be driven by parties who find keeping the party and the grassroots at each others throats as being protective of their self interests. This includes both Republican operatives and entrenched Democrats who feel threatened by shifting power bases.

We can't afford a superior attitude by either the machine or the grassroots. The stakes are to high for that kind of arrogance.

Racism?

The question of racism has come up in the controversy about the Dubai port deal. There is racism in some of the criticisms of this deal. But not all criticisms are necessarily racists (as much as Bush might like to imply otherwise).

Here's a simple formula to follow in this debate:

profiling people = not so good

profiling countries = not so bad

An Honest Harold Hill

With the Dubai port deal we find ourselves on the cusp of another one of those eye-opening moments where the people (briefly) wake up and realize the nature of the con. These moments, when they come to fruition, lead to an instinctual need for a political purge.

Unfortunately, these moments are only of the moment and often pass before we are fully aware of them. The sad reality is there will always be P.T. Barnum suckers who will buy into the next two-bit snake-oil politician that comes along. We can't depend on people waking up to the lies. Even if they do wake up and run the flim-flam artist out of town on a rail it is inevitable that a few days later they will start giving ear to the next con man to waltz into town.

People want to believe there is a simple solution to their problems.

Instead of railing against this all to human failing, it behooves us to appreciate its dynamics and use it ourselves in order to provide a counter weight to the grifters. It involves speaking on a higher plane of communication where we don't just talk about the effects of policy but also talk about the things that are effecting peoples lives. Professor Harold Hill spoke on that higher plane when he used people's fears ("Oh we got trouble!") to scam them into buying his solution.

But, unlike The Music Man, we aren't trying to fool them into believing in a fake problem in order to buy a fake solution. We are trying to awaken them to real problems and engage them in a dialog to find real solutions. Speaking on this "higher plane" is not a scam, just because it is the same technique used by the scammers.

In this case, motive truly matters.

The Republicans need to muzzle Bush

At least if they want this port controversy to die down. While the deal itself has stirred controversy, Dubya's comments on it have just made it worse.

Two days ago he threatened a veto of any legislation to block it.

Yesterday he says that he didn't know about it until it was a done deal.

Today he pats the American people on the head and says not to worry, big daddy is watching out for us.

Arrogance, cluelessness and condescension, all in a matter of three days.

The wailing we hear from Bush supporters may just be the sound of the scales finally falling from their eyes.

Bush admits the truth?

Courtesy Josh Marshall:

Bush at cabinet meeting: "And so people don't need to worry about security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America."

Josh doesn't provide a link for this quote. Is it for real? It sounds like the kind of malpropism we would expect from Bush. But is it Freudian as well?

Bush: against it before he was for it

Great find by Digby. Here's a speech given by Bush on October 6th, 2004:

I will never hand over America's security decisions to foreign leaders and international bodies that do not have America's interests at heart.

... [John Kerry] would have America bend over backwards to satisfy a handful of governments with agendas different from our own.

This is my opponent's alliance-building strategy: brush off your best friends, fawn over your critics. And that is no way to gain the respect of the world.