The roar of a thousand mice

Michael Smith is an Oregonian (as am I) and a Republican (am not) who is running for President in 2008 (sorry, not interested :-). He has what I think is an interesting idea: MicroCampaigns.

Imagine hundreds of candidates for the 2008 Presidential primaries. Instead of just the few insiders with big money, envision each state with several local candidates, or dozens of candidates pitching specific topics to specific constituencies.

...

I can'?t imagine finding the resources to take my campaign national - I'?ve always figured that if I could get one delegate from Oregon, and use that credibility to represent a message to the Republican National Convention, I'd have been successful for a political novice with negligible resources. But if hundreds adopted my strategy simultaneously, what might be the effect?

...

The normal orchestrated coronation might be replaced with some real debate. The candidates might have to really address some issues. The process might produce some leadership.

There is to much emphasis in our political system on "all or nothing". The candidates with good ideas don't run unless they think they have a real chance of winning and the people don't vote unless they think their vote has a real chance of being decisive. The result is that the only people who influence the process are those powerful enough, or crazy enough, to think they have a real chance of "winning it all".

Michael's is more the "pebble in the avalance" approach. By himself he has little power to change things. But when combined with a thousand others with a similar motivation he can affect change of monumental proportions.

I'm a Democrat and a supporter of Howard Dean. Dean never realisticly believed he had a chance of getting the nomination in 2004. He got in the race not so much to get the nomination as to change the dialog within the party. By any reasonable standard he has succeeded in that effort. That is why I classify him as a winner.

Normally I would say that any ordinary Joe or Jane running for President would have to be incredibly arrogant to think they have any chance of winning. But if their approach is more akin to Michael's MicroCampaign, where their primary hope is simply to change the dialog, then "winning" becomes a realistic proposition.

Cutting of your nose

I agree with Matt Stoller. Considering the herd of cats Nancy Pelosi has to wrangle every single day, I think it would be best if we "cut her a little slack".

Especially considering truly stupid things like this:

Yesterday's [Congressional Black Caucus] meeting with Jefferson was well-attended, drawing nearly all of the caucus's heavyweights -- Ways and Means ranking Democrat Charles Rangel (N.Y.), Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat John Conyers (Mich.) and Democratic Caucus Chairman James Clyburn (S.C.).

Most lawmakers would not comment afterwards, but a CBC aide summed up some members' frustration, saying, "Congresswoman Pelosi, by preemption without any legal justification, has now created a new precedent for how members are going to be treated. Unfortunately, she's chosen to single out an African-American for this honor."

Then the aide added an electoral threat, saying, "The African-American community, which overwhelmingly backs the Democratic Party, will not take this lightly. I hope she enjoys being minority leader."

If the Democrats regain the majority next year, four, possibly five, members of the CBC would lead committees. So any threats about keeping Pelosi out of the Speakership would necessitate them losing out on that opportunity as well.

And as for the comparison between the situations with Rep. Jefferson and Rep. Mollohan (read the above for more details) there are two fundamental differences, neither having anything to do with race. (1) The evidence of criminality on the part of Jefferson is much stronger than that against Mollohan and (2) Mollohan has already resigned from his senior position on the ethics committee. So Pelosi's call for Jefferson to step down from his committee position is actually a call for equivalent treatment.

Apparently Pelosi tried to get Jefferson to step down voluntarily behind the scenes. Going public on this was not her first choice. For all we know, she made a similar, behind doors, request to Mollohan.

UPDATE

Mollohan resigned from his position on the Ethics Committee, but he still holds his seat on the Appropriations Committee, a much more powerful post.

I still think Pelosi's call for Jefferson to step down is correct. But I'll defer on the question of whether their truly is equivalence between Mollohan and Jefferson at this point.

George Bush is too nice

I'm getting inklings of a new consensus forming in the right-wing blogosphere that explains why Bush has become so unpopular. It's because he's been too nice a guy to go out and actually beat up his critics like they so richly deserve.

Yep. You heard that right. Bush is falling in the polls because he is too nice.

Oliver Willis points to one example from The Anchoress, who writes a long post praising Bush, a man too great for his times, who has to suffer the ignominity of not just the Democrats but also the betrayal of his own base. And why is this happening? Because Bush is too good to treat the traitors like they really deserve to be treated.

Then this morning I came across this from PrestoPundit, courtesy of the Dauou Report:

... the unconscionable lies of the President’s political enemies have become the accepted facts of contemporary public discourse. The thing responsible for this is the President’s “I’m a uniter, not a divider” charade. It’s encouraging to see the White House take off the gloves. But the White House is fatally late to the party. For the American people the legend of “Bush lied, men died” has become fact — and when the legend becomes fact, the Democrat press prints the legend — every time.

So, up till now, the White House has just sat back and taken all the criticism, never raising a finger of protest, never "taking the gloves off". This has resulted in Bush's low approval ratings as the unanswered "lies" have taken hold. Why? Because Bush is just too nice a guy.

I'm sure Valerie Plame might disagree with that assessment.