The blame game

I was doing some thinking this morning about the 9/11 report (no, I haven't read it), specifically with regard to the question of assigning blame. The general conclusion of the report was that there were multiple failures up and down the line in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, but that no one should specifically be held to blame for those failures.

Now, there are few ways to think about this:

1. The 9/11 commission punted on the issue of assigning blame because they couldn't agree on who to blame and therefore they went with the bi-partisan approach of blaming "the system".

2. By not blaming anyone they essentially let everyone off the hook. But will anything really change if no one is held accountable?

3. However, if the 9/11 commission had started pointing fingers the result would have been a lot of yelling and screaming and little action on the actual recommendations in the report, which wouldn't be good in the long run.

It is my opinion that the commission decided to go the route of "don't blame anyone" because they were more concerned with getting their proposals enacted(*). They don't want the blame game to get in the way of real change.

Which is all fine and good. Until you consider that the people who have to implement those changes are the very people who fucked up in the first place.

Is no one accountable for their mistakes anymore?

 

(*) I've heard a report that the commission members plan to continue working together to push their proposals.

Stage One Is Over

The first stage was the incumbent evaluation phase in which the voters took a closer look at Bush's performance. During that time Bush's ratings have dropped over 20 points across the board. Yet the polling numbers for Kerry vs. Bush have hardly budged. That's because most people weren't paying attention to Kerry. Stage One was all about Bush.

Stage Two will be all about Kerry and Kerry is in about as good a position as we could hope for going into this stage. He has survived a $80+ million negative ad blitz with only marginal impact on his favorability ratings (apparently the "flip/flopper" label isn't sticking). Now is the time for the Democrats to turn on the heat, not against Bush (that is so stage 1), but for Kerry. We have to make the case that Kerry is not just an acceptable alternative to Bush. We have to make the case that he is a fantastic alternative to Bush.

In a couple of months we will head into the final stage of the campaign. This will be where the voters evaluate their previous evaluations and do their first head-to-head comparisons of the two candidates. The debates will be key.

But that's the future. For now it is stage 2 all the way baby!

(The DailyKos has a report on a pre-convention bounce for Kerry.)

The Illusion of a Conflict

Background:

• The DailyKos on the DCCC's initial sloppiness with respect to the Ginny Schrader candidacy.
• The DailyKos on the culture of fear among Washington Democrats.
• Digby on the most important job Democrats have.
• Matt Stoller bringing Democratic partisans together.

Having read these posts and the threads that follow them (and contributed some to the heat within) I am left with the impression that partisans for both sides in this debate about how the Democrats should win back power ("fight back!", "better strategy!", "FIGHT BACK!", "BETTER STRATEGY!") are arguing their own position as if it was in conflict with the position of the other side.

The conflict is an illusion.

There is nothing inherent in the two camps positions that makes the other sides ideas inoperative. You can "fight back" with a "better strategy".

I think what upsets people like Markos, myself and others is not strategizing per se. It is the idea that a superior strategy is the only method that will work to defeat the Republicans. The 90s taught us two lessons:

1. Democrats can win with a "better strategy", but
2. They will continue to lose if they don't mix in an equal measure of "fighting back".

Some of the people who responded negatively to Markos' initial complaint seemed to be under the impression that those who were upset didn't care about whether Schrader was the best candidate for the job. Wrong. The concern was over the DCCC's public response to the issue, not whether they should back her or not.

"Fighting back" does not mean that we think that fighting is the be-all and end-all of politics. The failures of the Dean campaign show that a fighting spirit will only get you so far. You need a superior strategy as well. But a fighting spirit is required if you want to have a chance to put that strategy into effect.

This is not an either-or situation. We must not adopt the "with us or against us" attitude of the Bushies or the Naderites. We must learn how to fuse a superior strategy with the fire of a populist campaign.

If we don't, then we will lose. And by losing I don't just mean not beating George W. Bush this Fall. I mean that even if Kerry manages to defeat Bush we will still lose if his presidency becomes immediately bogged down in the kind of arguments we have seen in the last few days.

Let's not forget who the real enemy is here.

The real danger

pie (subbing for Atrios):

There's something wrong with the current Justice Department. Someone needs to tell these people that their overzealous and exaggerated claims about terrorism are making them look like fools and seriously damaging their credibility.

Fuck their credibility! What about the danger from real terrorism that might be increased because of their repeated cries of "Wolf!"

From the horses mouth

Greg Speed, the DCCC spokesperson who gave the "no comment" that started off last nights hullaballoo has a post up on the DCCC blog:

The Hill chose to run a "no comment" from me after I declined to respond to a question about a hypothetical scenario from an "anonymous Pennsylvania source." The reporter just as easily could have written nothing, but instead chose to run a "no comment." I was put on the spot, and rather than address something I knew nothing about, I declined to comment. In no way did I intend to undercut Ginny Schrader.

Here's a comment I posted in response to his post:

I think Greg made a mistake by not at least giving token support to Schrader's candidacy. As a press spokesman he should understand that saying "no comment" to a reporter is a blanket permission for them to put any spin on the story that they want to. I am glad that he has clarified this matter but he needs to do better in the future.

Keep up the good work.

Some are raking him over the coals. Others are expressing surprise at the anger his handling of this produced. I choose a middle-ground. He made a mistake. He has clarified the matter. But he really hasn't rectified the mistake and he needs to learn better for the future

Reading Recommendation

I'm With Stupid:

But [Michael] Moore takes stupidity seriously, and so should we. It isn�t just a term of abuse for him, and he has something of a complex about it. He makes no secret of his obsession, from his book, Stupid White Men, to the sound-bites he gave to British papers, �We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don�t know about anything that�s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.� Our patriot networks typically have used such lines to pillory Moore as anti-American, but Moore includes himself in these comments. He makes fun of fat American tourists abroad, smiling to cover up the gap in their brains, but this isn�t just any fat American tourist. It�s Moore�s own persona.

How not to support a Democratic candidate

Amen to Brother Kos:

What these assholes at the DCCC don't realize is that you never, NEVER, talk down a candidate. Now, assuming Schrader is staying in the race as promised, that genius Speed has made it look as though she's second choice. That given the chance, the DCCC would've preferred someone else in the race.

Well, if the fucking DCCC wanted someone else in the race, they should've recruited that person to begin with. But from where I'm sitting, Ginny is doing just fine. She has great creds, and has been working the district tirelessly over the last few months. And that $7,000 in the bank has taken a turn for the better over the last 8 hours, no thanks to the geniuses at the D-trip who have handicapped the Democrats into long-time minority status.

Let them try to touch her. Just let them.

The rules are changing. The party committees no longer have unquestioned control over such decisions. We now have a voice, and I'm taking this chance to flex ours.

[Background: Ginny Schrader, Democratic candidate for a House seat in Pennsylvania, got a lucky boost yesterday when her Republican opponent announced his retirement. Suddenly, her unknown campaign, unsupported by the national party, has become the cause celeb of the left side of the blog world and nearly $20,000 has been raised for her in less than 24 hours. But now some Democratic leaders are making noises about how she should be replaced by a more "winnable" candidate.]

The thing that the Democratic leadership consistently fails to understand is that they are not the be all and end all when it comes to deciding the course of Democratic politics. They have abdicated that position over the years by becoming increasingly focused on a small, narrow range of "winnable" campaigns and abandoning the rest of the party to the winds of chance (such as the unexpected retirement of a Republican opponent). They expect to be the "grand poobahs" that everyone will listen to instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing and listening to us

Sorry. No. You aren't the ones in charge. You have the knowledge and talent for running those campaigns. Use that talent where it is best suited. But the choice of the campaign to run is not yours to make.

Update:

This has spawned an interesting thread over at the DailyKos. Some people think Markos has over-reacted to the DCCC's lack of unequivocal support for Schrader. I think he is spot on. Whether the DCCC spokeman meant to undermine Schrader, his "no comment" in response to the question of replacing her left a blank into which the reporter could put any kind of story he/she wanted. That's simply bad press management.

This is not varsity play. This is the major leagues. In a political world as on the edge as our is even little mistakes like that can be costly. I can understand making them, but I can't forgive them.

The Democrats have got to understand that they should always talk up their candidates, even if, behind the scenes, they are thinking about replacing them. The Republicans don't make that kind of mistake. That's why Al D'Amato's comments about Cheney stepping aside got so much attention. It was newsworthy because it was unusual.

But Democrats undermining other Democrats is par for the course. It's that kind of shit that has to be stopped.

The failure of the "blame the other guy" defense

I commented a couple of weeks back that the Republicans might have over-reached by pushing out a Senate report that seemed to blame all of the Iraq mess on the CIA and leave Bush completely in the clear. No one, except the most extreme Bush partisan, would buy the idea that Bush was completely blameless in this fuck-up. Yet by trying to push that idea, the Republicans just come off looking even worse.

Now we are seeing the same thing happen in England. Despite the release of Lord Butler's report, which said that Prime Minister Blair and his cabinet acted in good faith, ... 

Voters 'believe PM lied over Iraq'

A clear majority of voters believes Tony Blair lied over Iraq despite the Butler Report conclusions, according to a new poll.

And opposition to the war has climbed to its highest level yet, the ICM survey for The Guardian showed. Lord Butler last week said although intelligence was flawed the Prime Minister and his colleagues acted in good faith.

(Unfortunately the linked story doesn't give the actual numbers in the poll. If I find out what they are I'll try and update.)

The attempts by Bush and Blair to cover their assess just comes off looking obvious when those attempts leave them free and clear of blame.

The Prophet Dubya

Political Wire had this from our Dear Leader as their Quote of the Day for July 16th:

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn�t do my job."

-- President Bush, quoted in the Lancaster New Era, during a private meeting with an Amish group.

Though politics is the primary focus of this blog, I am also intensely interested in matters of faith. Indeed, the question of God and our relationship with him is of a much greater importance to me than who is or is not elected President. The main reason I don't talk about it here is that I am not an overtly religious person. I believe in keeping matters of faith on a private level.

God does not speak to me, but I know plenty of people who tell me that he does. I have no problem with that. I don't consider it "kooky" in the least. That God speaks to many people of faith is something I have little doubt about.

But George W. Bush is not claiming that God is speaking to him.

He is claiming that is God is speaking through him.

He is claiming that his voice is the voice of God. I don't know how to interpret that any other way.

Bush has gone well beyond the claim that God has chosen a destiny for him that includes leading this country through a time of trial. He is claiming that he is God's representative on Earth and that he speaks with the authority of God.

I'm not sure even the Popes make claims like that anymore.

How can any serious person of faith not feel uncomfortable with a President who claims to be the voice of God?