Massive GOP Pushback vs. Bipartisan Troopergate Investigation

by: Paul Rosenberg

Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 10:31

“The Partisan actions of Sen. French, Sen. Elton and the Legislative Council have tainted the investigation beyond the appearance of impartiality required under the Alaska Constitution,” said Kevin Clarkson, Esq., of the firm Brena, Bell & Clarkson, P.C., and counsel in the suit.

The investigation, which began after Monegan’s dismissal in July 2008, is being led by outspoken supporters of Barack Obama and members of the Democratic Party. Sen. Elton, the Chair of the Legislative Council donated $2,000 to the Obama campaign but has failed to disclose this to the Legislative Council and he continues to preside over the Council with respect to the investigation, refusing to convene meetings of the Council at the request of a majority of the Council’s membership.

In fact, the GOP-majority Senate Legislative Coucil met last Friday, and issued 13 subpeonas, with a Wasilla Republican casting the deciding vote in defiance of mounting party pressure to fall into line.  Palin herself has been silenced, with GOP operatives talking to the press in place of her, and, apparently, the entire Alaska executive branch.  Meanwhile, AP reports the involvement of the Texas-based Liberty Legal Institute, which TPM explains is connected to James Dobson.  Alaska blogger/radio host and former GOP legislator Andrew Halcro has a list of 13 times–from July 18 to September 2–that Palin pledged full cooperation with “any investigation.” (full list on flip).

Latest Palin Line On Troopergate Fails Smell Test

by: Paul Rosenberg

Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 10:12

There’s just one thing wrong with this: it’s a Rovian coverup involving more lies and deception than you can throw a stick at.  Indeed, if it were true, there would have been no “Troopergate” in the first place.  The whole scandal began when Palin had a subordinate fire Monegan, without giving any reason.  If this were truly why he was fired, then why didn’t she just say so?  Particularly since the failure to explain her actions caused an immediate stir in Alaska at the time.

On July 20, the Anchorage Daily News wrote:

THE HONEYMOON IS OVER … So, will our Sarah change her claim of “transparency” to merely “translucence” given her refusal to say why she fired Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan?

“Opaque?”

So Many Topics, So Little Time

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 17:27

Well, it stops here!  Err… would you believe it slows down briefly to gawk at a roadside attraction?  Well, never mind.  Here’s an emergency catch-up potpouri, designed, if nothing more, to relieve some feelings of guilt I’m dealing with none too successfully.  First up, John Dean’s observations on Sarah Palin’s lack of qualifications from a Constitutional perspective.  Oh, she’s not forbidden to be President, Dean says, but…

ABC Investigates Palin Censorship

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 16:00

Still, you may want more….

Walking And Chewing Gum

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 13:25

(A) Democrats are reality-based when it comes to policies, and totally out to lunch when it comes to winning elections, and politicking in general.

(B) But Republicans are totally out to lunch when it comes to policies, and as reality-based as it gets when it comes to winning elections, and politicking in general.

The series grew rather long, so I want to concentrate on its basic premise, why it is so, and why it matters to us right now.  The bottom line of all this simple: there is no silver bullet.  No matter how brilliant you think your idea is, even if you’re absolutely right, it won’t be enough to win the election.  It’s not silver bulletts, but systemic approaches that win elections, and beyond, build political power over time.

McCain's Lies–A Great Viral Video From Brave New Films

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:44

View it. Pass it on.

Run Center, Run Right

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 09:00

At the time, I felt there were three things worth noting:

(1) Some shifts away from majority positions to rightwing minority positions were presented as shifts “to the center”.  Most notably, even most Republican voters now see “free trade” as more bad than good.

(2) We were told that this was a “political necessity.”

(3) We were told that this “always happens.”

(1) and (2) were particularly dubious when Obama backed away from his criticism of NAFTA, given how crucial Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are to winning the White House, and how hated NAFTA is among the very blue collar voters that Obama needs in order to beat McCain there.  But #3, at least, seemed plausible to those who don’t recall the elections of 1968 and 1980.  Even those who do recall those elections are likely to insist that they, too, followed the standard pattern of running away from the center in the primaries, and towards it in the general election.  And now, at least, I’m not inclined to argue with them, because now we clearly have a counter-example on our hands: John McCain ran center in the primaries, and now is running right.
 

"I Am Not A Crook"–The Anti-Palin/McCain Ad Obama OUGHT To Run

by: Paul Rosenberg

Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 16:30

How would I go about it?  Simple: I’d link her to Richard Nixon, via Dick Cheney and GW Bush.  The script I’d use is on the flip.

A Sad Descent into political Chaos?

by: villagernyc

Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:06

On Wednesday, September 10, 2008, New York City saw puffy clouds, cool breezes and sunshine that gently bathed the city’s tall buildings in crisp golden sunlight. The bike path along the Hudson was filled with cyclists and joggers while on the streets, tourists made their way to places like Times Square or the ferry out to the Statue of Liberty.

Outside towers near Wall Street, office workers took smoking breaks enjoying the hints of autumn while others lunched on benches tossing an occasional crumb to pigeons while traffic whizzed by on the West Side Highway. From an observation deck of an individual life in the city, the island of Manhattan was enjoying a beautiful day.

Still, there is no doubt, countless New Yorkers have been engrossed by the ongoing nonsense gripping the current contest for the land’s most important political office a horse race that has recently been punctuated by references to dogs, swine and lipstick.

But with that captivation has come an increasing sense of worry and frustration, as many New Yorkers watch and listen to a political contest that has in many minds descended into a chaotic diversion and not a debate over party ideology, values and solutions.

Here it is, the second week of September and despite a Congressional Budget Office report saying the United States deficit is projected to rise to $407 billion, along with a continued rash of failing financial institutions, the nightmare of misled war in Iraq, a mere treading of water in the land of the Taliban, Afghanistan, despite the fact that 50 million un-insured, a disappearing middle class, the headlines are filled with talk of pitbulls, swine and lipstick, as if some sort of Animal Farm like fever had stolen the meat from the potato’s of reality that politics is meant to address.

Even on this day before the anniversary of what is arguably the city’s greatest tragedy, a crime of death, destruction and horror, a memory that still blips loudly on the radar screens of so many New Yorkers and Americans everywhere, text messages were being sent and phone calls made among political junkies who call themselves Democrat as they worried aloud that the party values they support were facing increasingly tremendous obstacles come November.

For many, some who call themselves transplants, those who originally come from places far away from the so called sophistication, the bustle and hustle, those who ran away to New York to exist in tolerance and acceptance, an added sense of urgency was setting in as polls showed increasing numbers for the party they held responsible for exploiting pain and tragedy for political gain.

They wondered why, in an election year where the baggage of the past administration would logically derail or simply, perhaps even dramatically sink any remnant of hope for Republicans maintaining control of the executive branch, the Democrats were still failing in their attempts to make victory, perhaps more appropriate, change, a “sure thing” in November

Since the days of September 11, 2001, New York City has moved on. Sure, the memories are still there, the pain, the hurt and the anger, but regardless, the busy lot that New Yorkers are, dictates staying on their toes, and that includes following politics.

In one phone call, a CEO of a small marketing firm downtown said that whomever devised the coronation of Sarah Palin as a running mate for the 25 year veteran of Congress was “simply genius.”

He went on to say that they, the Republican strategists, long ago mastered how to get into the psyche of America’s heartland.

Just what is that psyche?

In a chapter tilted Persecuted, Powerless and blind from his book “What’s the matter with Kansas”, author Thomas Frank asserts that in what he calls ‘red land’ “both workers and their bosses are supposed to be united in disgust with those affected college boys at the next table, prattling on about French cheese and villas in Tuscany and the big ideas for running things that they read in books.

According to the transplant marketing exec in Manhattan, the people described in that book are his family, his family’s friends among others outside his current universe are the ones who see the antithesis of those college boys in Sarah Palin and John McCain.

“David Axelrod just got his head handed to him on a silver platter,” he yelled into his phone.

Not that the marketing exec is happy about that. Rather, he says, the Democrats, i.e. Obama and his team must rise up, perhaps take a humble pill, and somehow figure out how to “inspire” the reportedly “more than half” of the nation’s voters. He, his running mate and his surrogates must figure out a way to re-inject the hope that a better America is somehow attainable through the political process, a poisoned process that they can overcome, if they maintain their sincere message of opportunity for all.

To be fair, the marketing man on the phone was a Hillary supporter during the primary and as of just a few weeks ago, made no denials of his reluctance to grudgingly support the Obama-Biden ticket. But, with the new Alaska superstar stealing the thunder from everyone else in the campaign, he says he realized that his frustration was geared more towards the American people, and perhaps the media for not highlighting the crucial differences in the candidates and what it is they intend to do, or not do, once in power.

Plain and simple, how can Democrats spell out to the people that voting for the Republican candidate would most likely do little to change their lives from the current state it is in now?

Still, during the chat, he said some members of his own mostly politically moderate working class family had been energized by Palin simply because they can identify with her.

“They really don’t care about her stand on issues, it’s about a person that’s like them, not some fancy pants elite politician like Obama,” he said.

At that moment in the conversation, thinking back in political time to the Democratic Primaries, one can’t help but recall the moment that Senator Hillary Clinton seemed to wake up and embrace the populism espoused by the now “disgraced” John Edwards. It was at that point Clinton appeared to whip her campaign out of an entitled, arrogant state of being and began to aggressively market herself as someone who passionately embraced the populist issues of all the people in a manner that was purely political, but somehow sincere. In the waning days of her campaign, Clinton was able to work that political formula, while guzzling whiskey shots and beer all the way to several victories, but alas, to little to late.

For some reason, despite fact the Senator was indeed a Clinton, people began to believe, that this candidate would wake up every morning and fight for their interests. They saw someone who would seek to bridge the glaring economic inequity that had helped further foster the class divides of the states. Perhaps, they even began to believe that she was sincere.

It is imperative that the Obama campaign figure out its way in doing basically the same, perhaps not a carbon copy repeat of the Clinton awakening but certainly not the sad tit for tat insult show that the campaign has engaged in along with the Republicans. Otherwise, millions of Americans will continue on their quest to choose a candidate they can relate to.

Meanwhile, in New York City, the anniversary of that day that shook modern America to its very foundation, tested its resolve and for a brief shining moment, unified a nation so tightly, will come and go just like every other day.

The Obamathon

by: SouthFrankfort

Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:07

But the last two weeks, on balance, have not been good. I was one of Obama’s earliest supporters. I have never criticized him. I have contributed and volunteered.

Now I think I understand why he might fall short. I think there’s a new equation, and he must solve it.

Gallup: Palin Initially Picked Up South, Gained Nothing In West

by: Paul Rosenberg

Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:42

And over the two-week period, from Aug 18-24 to Sept 1-7, McCain actually lost ground in the two most contested regions: down 2% in the West and down a whopping 7% in the Midwest:

Of course, this doesn’t tell us what’s happening this week on a regional basis.  But it does tell us that the media’s narrative (and their own internal perception) of a national shift toward the GOP over this time period was without foundation, and–if Gallup is right–actually false.  And this perceived shift has clearly helped the GOP, as their heightened level of lying is not seen for what it is–or at least began as: a sign of desperation.

UPDATED: Raw Numbers On Flip

Stating The Obvious About Sarah Palin

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:36

When a strategy article hits the top of DKos’s rec list AND the front page of TalkLeft, you know you’ve hit gold.

“http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…”

The story linked to, “Sarah Palin Is Not a Hockey Mom”, by Sean at 538, makes a good point.  But is it really the whole story?  Or just a really good, solid starting point?  As my title suggests, I think it’s really just an excellent way of stating the obvious.

Of course, the Dems have such a long history of missing the obvious that one should never construe my characterization as a put-down.  Quite the opposite: Think of it as a pick-up–as in pick up the ball and run with it, to mix sports metaphors.

Sean’s point is simple. Palin isn’t a hockey mom:

She’s a hockey player. She’s a fourth-line hockey agitator, beloved by the home crowd, loathed by the opponents, injecting passion into both fan bases, the kind of home-team hero that no Stanley Cup winner goes without.

Her role is to throw the other team off, to get them to react to her, lose their focus and composure, and set things up for her team’s top scorer.  Sean praises Biden for not taking her bait:

Democrats would be smart to understand her as such, and I see a lot of reaction that doesn’t seem to grasp what Palin is doing and the value she’s providing. I see a lot of Democrats taking a lot of bait.

This applies more to Democratic surrogates than it does to the top-ticket duo. Joe Biden had the smart response yesterday – naming the behavior – expecting it, and then riding through without taking the bait:

“It was about how well placed — and boy she is good — how a left jab can be stuck pretty nice. It’s about how Barack Obama is such a bad guy.”

And that’s all he says of Palin’s antics. Name the behavior, even praising the skill with which the agitation was attempted, and then back to focus. It’s “the economy, stupid.”

He’s right at the core, and right to praise Biden, but he needs someone else to pick up the ball and move it down the field, extending the metaphor all the way to the goal.  I humbly volunteer for the task.  

The "Ins" and "Outs" of "Celebrtity" Politicians

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:30

If you spend 18 months building a campaign around the theme of “Change,” it’s just “empty rhetoric.” If one week before your party’s national convention you SUDDENLY make your candidacy about “Change,” that’s “red meat.”

A variation on that might be:

If you spend 18 months building a campaign around the theme of “Change,” attracting unpredented crowds to hear you speak, you’re not a leader, just an elite “celebrity.” If you’re an obscure first-term small-state governor almost no one’s ever heard of, and you’re nominated as VP, you’re “a natural.”

Behind this glaring double-standard lies a core feature of conservative politics–the central role of in-groups vs. out-groups, “us” vs. “them”.  Of course, this is a feature of virtually all social groups, but it plays a uniquely intense and vital role for hard-core conservatives.

This is reflected in the fact that 4 years after first bursting on the national scene, and 18 months after beginning his presidential campaign, there are still tens of millions of people who don’t seem to feel they “really know” who Barack Obama is, while Sarah Palin, on the scene for just over a week, is being embraced as a “salt of the earth” sort whose many problems are readily blamed on “the media”.

But it’s also reflected in cold, hard data.

From "Bitch-Slap" To "Gaslight" — Grokking The GOP Game

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 19:45

The concluding line of the passage I quoted was:

Demonstrating Kerry’s unwillingness to defend himself (if Bush can do that) is a far more tangible sign of what he’s made of than wartime experiences of thirty years ago.

The main reason this works so well is two-fold–as I’ll elaborate on jump.  But the essence is simple:  Conservatives are confronational, while liberals are cooperative, which gives conservatives an edge.  The prize is culturally working-class swing voters whose political interests align more with liberals, while their political instincts align more with conservatives.

The full background and complexities of how this works are simply beyond most liberals, which is why the Democrats keep losing.  Many old-style New Deal and Civil Rights-era liberals had a “fighting faith” that was fundamentally moral, not military, and they could cut through the miasma that todays more tepid liberals seem perpetually encompassed by.  But they are in very short supply these days.

While some have possibly learned some of the lessons of 2004, the relative lack of such fighting liberals means we lack a critical mass that truly understands the conservative mentality and how it evolves from one battle to another, one presidential campaign to another.  Someone who does understand is award-winning novelist Jane Smiley, and, she’s just written a short, but must-read diary at Huffington Post, titled “Gaslight”, after the Charles Boyer-Ingrid Bergman movie.  In a very few short few sentences, she captures the essence of how the quantitative increase in the intensity of lying actually reflects a qualitative shift in the nature of the game being played.  Yes, “bitch-slapping” is still part of the mix, but it’s now only part of a more sophisticated game.
 

Do They Really Want To Go There?

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:54

Governor: Pontius Pilate

Community Organizer: Jesus Christ

Governor: George Wallace

Community Organizer: Martin Luther King

Governor: Sarah Palin

Community Organizer: Barack Obama

Too Late. They Already Did.

It's "Born In The USA" All Over Again

by: Paul Rosenberg

Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 22:25

If the real thing don’t do the trick
No, you better make up something quick
You gonna burn burn burn burn it to the wick
Ooooooohhhh, barra barracuda.

–Heart, “Barracuda,” 1977

Nancy Wilson, now:

“Sarah Palin’s views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song ‘Barracuda’ no longer be used to promote her image. The song ‘Barracuda’ was written in the late 70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The ‘barracuda’ represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there’s irony in Republican strategists’ choice to make use of it there.”

But the irony’s even deeper than that….

Smoke, Fire And Gasoline–Alaska GOP Legislators Throw Troopergate Block For Palin

by: Paul Rosenberg

Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 17:48

The sheer intensity of Palin’s turn from promised cooperation to Nixon/Bush total resistence only seems to makes sense if she’s got something very serious to hide.  So now, subtley, belatedly, but most definitely, the Republican state legislators are coming to her assistance, agreeing to subpoena the whole lot of Palin cronies she’s convinced not to testify, but not Palin herself.  The announcement comes along with an earlier completion date for the investigation–October 10–which could make it even easier for Palin to run out the clock.

This move will clearly allow Palin’s stonewall to continue, without consequence, unless political heat is brought to bear.  This will prove particularly challenging, as the Nancy Pelosi “See No Evil Policy” is having a deeply corrosive trickle-down affect on our political culture, as stonewalling legislative oversight has now become accepted public practice.  Details on the flip.

No Questions For Palin???

by: Paul Rosenberg

Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:08

Questions, schmestions!  Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign asks why Palin should talk to the press, when she can talk to the American people?

Jay Carney, dumped on by Wallace, is not so sure:

It’s important to them [the American people] to know if Palin can handle herself in an environment that isn’t controlled and sanitized by campaign image makers and message mavens. Maybe she can, maybe she can’t. As far as Wallace is concerned, it’s none of their — or your — business.

Remember back in the Dark Ages of mid-August when being able to give a good speech was grounds for being dismissed as unqualified?

Looks like McCain was right: we do have to catch up with history!

Another GOP Lie: There WAS No Vetting Process

by: Paul Rosenberg

Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:17

Hmmmm.  The GOP lying about its secretive VP candidate.  Who’da thunk it?

Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin….

Mr. McCain’s advisers said repeatedly on Monday that Ms. Palin was “thoroughly vetted,” a process that would have included a review of all financial and legal records as well as a criminal background check. A McCain aide said the campaign was well aware of the ethics investigation and had looked into it.

Again, the central issue here is McCain’s character: his judgement, his integrity, his temperament, his leadership.  He’s not even been nominated yet, and he’s already acting like Nixon in the last days of Watergate.

Forgetting Sarah Palin–It's McCain's CHARACTER, Stupid!

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:35

McCain’s selection of Palin is widely seen as a gamble that just might pay off.  Not if the Obama campaign handles it properly, though. If they do, it has zero chance of success.

One of the most-cited problems with the choice is that it undermines the attack on Obama’s lack of experience.  But in reality it doea far more than that: it reveals McCain as utterly untrustworthy.  As I wrote in a comment yesterday:

It Doesn’t Just Render The “Experience” Attack Useless

It clearly demonstrates McCain’s entire line of attack on Obama for the last two months was entirely insincere.  He didn’t mean a thing he said.

And if he didn’t believe any of that, then why should we believe anything he says???

This is the angle I would take: John McCain, you can’t believe anything he says.

Integrity was supposed to be one of McCain’s signature qualities.  No matter how many times he flip-flopped, no matter how much he pandered, the press always made excuses for him, based on the supposition of his unshakable integrity.

But this flip-flop is just to big to disappear, if properly attacked. What’s more, it’s not just McCain’s integrity that’s been destroyed by this choice.  His judgment, temperament, and management style are all similarly discredited.  After this, there’s simply no there there, so far as McCain’s character is concerned.

The point here is simple: don’t get distracted by Palin’s shortcomings.  What’s important about them is what they say about McCain.

Further Thoughts on the Obama Campaign

by: Mike Lux

Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 17:52

I’m feeling better today for a couple of reasons, which might or might not be related to each other: the first being that several people inside the campaign contacted me to say they agreed with my post, and are working to change things; the second being that the campaign’s message over the last couple of days seems to be steering more in the right direction. Examples of point 2 include some tougher ads going after McCain, the great DNC Exxon-McCain project, Obama’s ignorance remark, and the really solid speech Obama gave on energy in Indiana (thank goodness he gave this speech instead of announcing Bayh as his running mate while in there).

The Elkhart speech was exactly the kind of speech Obama ought to be giving. He smacked McCain upside the head (“Yesterday, Sen. McCain started running a TV ad saying that Washington is broken. No kidding. It only took Sen. McCain 26 years in Washington to figure that out.”) He linked McCain to Bush and to oil company contributions and to big business lobbyists and to the old ways of doing things in DC. And most importantly, he talked about big important ideas and laid out serious goals.

So the speech made me feel better, and the dialogue with friends on the inside did as well. One of the more interesting conversations I had was with someone who said “Okay, smartass, point well taken, but you ought to come back with more specific ideas on how you would change things.” Point well taken in return. So here’s my list:

Capitol Hill Caution

by: Mike Lux

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 14:12

As readers of OpenLeft know, I am one of those folks who personally doesn’t like to criticize the Democratic Presidential nominee once the general election campaign gets underway. For me, as I have written, whatever faults they exhibit in the campaign almost never outweigh the risk of doing anything to damage their chances of winning. I believe in gritting my teeth and muttering curses to myself whenever they disappoint me, but not saying much critically in public and doing whatever I am asked to do to help the team win.

However, when the campaign is drifting seriously off course and threatening their chances to win, I make an exception on the no criticism rule. And I fear we’re reaching that point. I think I know what the problem is, too. It’s that Capitol Hill Caution has taken over the campaign.

Presidential Campaign Rhythms

by: Mike Lux

Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 19:00

What Passes for Humor from John McCain

by: Mike Lux

Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:35

Labeling Obama

by: Mike Lux

Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 17:42

Waking the Giant: Making the Latino Vote Count in 2008

by: project vote

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 14:54

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns and Nathan Henderson-James

Massive voter registration drives, recent passionate immigration debates, and the contested presidential primaries are finally bringing one of the nation’s fastest growing populations into the democratic process, despite decades of low voter participation rates and recent voting rights attacks based on anti-immigrant rhetoric. Recognizing their rapidly increasing voting power – which is catching up with their “raw demographic power,” particularly in the closely contested states of Florida, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada – both presidential candidates are actively pursuing Latino voters. However, advocates caution a powerful lesson must be learned from voter suppression schemes executed in recent elections in order to ensure this former “sleeping giant” of electoral participation will have access to the polls in November, and most importantly, have their votes counted.

Charlie Brown Obama's Clever Plan

by: Paul Rosenberg

Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 13:30

The baseless, and failed, “move to the center” cliché

The central problem is that if Democrats embrace the GOP framework of National Security — that “Strength” means what the GOP says it means — then that framework gets enforced and perpetuated, and it’s a framework within which Democrats can’t possibly win, because Republicans will always “out-Strength” Democrats within that framework. It’s only by challenging and disputing the underlying premises can Democrats change the way that “strength” and “weakness” are understood. The Democrats had such a smashing victory in 2006 because — for the first time in a long time, and really despite themselves — there was a perception (rightly or wrongly) that they actually stood for something different than the GOP in National Security (an end to the War in Iraq). Drawing a clear distinction with the deeply unpopular GOP is how Democrats look strong. The advice that they should “move to the center” and copy Republicans is guaranteed to make them look weak — because it is weak. It’s the definition of weakness. The most distinctive and potent — one could even say exciting — aspect of Obama’s campaign had been his aggressive refusal to accept GOP pieties on National Security, his insistence that the GOP would lose — and should lose — debates over who is “stronger” and more “patriotic” and who will keep us more safe. The widely-celebrated foreign policy memo written by Obama’s adviser, Samantha Power, heaped scorn on Washington’s national security “conventional wisdom,” emphasizing how weak and vulnerable it has made the U.S. When Obama took that approach, he appeared to be, and in fact was, resolute and unapologetic in defending his own views — the very attributes that define “strength.” The advice he’s getting, and apparently beginning to follow, is now the opposite: that he should shed his prior beliefs in favor of the amorphous, fuzzy, conventional GOP-leaning Center, that he should cease to insist on a re-examination of National Security premises and instead live within the GOP framework. That’s likely to lead to many things, but a perception of strength isn’t one of them. One of the very few things in the universe with a worse track record than America’s dominant Foreign Policy Community is the central religious belief of the Democratic consultant class and Beltway punditry that Democrats, to be successful, must shed their own beliefs and “move to the Center.”

Politics As Usual In Drag As Transformation

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:33

The ad, like much of McCain’s messaging lately, focuses on energy independence, global warming, and standing up to other Republicans. Not to be too much of a concern troll, but there is simply no way that a Republican can win a campaign with this message. It is the exact same thing that caused Democrats to lose elections for the past two decades: McCain is admitting that the opposing party is right. Not only will this anger McCain’s base, but when even the Republican nominee for President admits that Democrats are right on global warming, odds are that people will just vote for actual Democrats instead of the Republicans who are trying to act like Democrats. To quote Arianna Huffington quoting George Lakoff:

As cognitive psychologist George Lakoff told me: “Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party’s progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are.” It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side’s positions are worth moving toward, while your side’s positions are the ones to move away from.

McCain’s message focus for over a week now has been on how we need progressive change on energy and global warming. Even if his policies don’t match, he is at least running on a progressive, Democratic message. Not only does this imply that Democrats have the right ideas on energy, global warming and other ideas, McCain’s ad explicitly says that he stood up to other Republicans on this issue. In other words, McCain is bluntly saying that Democrats are right, and Republicans are wrong.

I nodded my head vigorously in assent.  But then I read something by Theda Skocpol wrote over at TPMCafe that started me questioning. Skocpol is one of America’s leading social scientists and historians.  Her book on the origins of the American welfare state, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in United States is considered a classic.  So I tend to pay just a leetle bit more attention to things she says than your run-of-the-mill bloviating, if you catch my drift.

Her piece was titled, “Can the Obama Campaign Shape the Agenda?” and it raised some surprising doubts, given how dominant the Obama campaign had seemed to me up to that point, and how inept McCain appeared–not to mention that massive bounce that seems to have genuinely emerged.

Here’s what Skopcol said….

Top Ten Races

by: Mike Lux

Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 17:39

Every year, there are certain political races that become really important symbolically and substantively in terms of the impact that an election cycle has on the country’s politics. In 1994, the fact that Republicans took out Speaker Foley and the giant presence of Gov. Cuomo added to the huge symbolic weight of their victory. In 1998, the fact that we took out both D’Amato and Faircloth, the two leading architects of the Whitewater investigation strategy for the Republicans, had a huge impact on the interpretation of that election. In 2004, Thune’s victory over Daschle became a symbol of the total GOP victory that year, and had a bigger impact on Capitol Hill politics than any Congressional or Senate election in years. In 2006, the stunning primary loss of Lieberman changed the way politicos in D.C. perceived the emerging progressive coalition. So far this year, the Donna Edwards primary landslide and the loss of Hastert’s seat in the special election have carried big weight among the chattering classes.

Even beyond these highest profile races, though, there are slightly less seismic races that matter in the nature of how politics is viewed and how power flows. In 2006, Jim Webb’s victory, fueled by the Macaca video, signaled an important new trend in politics. The combination of Webb, Tester, and Sherrod Brown winning victories on sharply populist themes created some real fear in corporate interests. Key committee chairs going down can change power dynamics dramatically, for good or bad, in Congress- for example, Pombo losing in 2006 made enviro members of Congress more aggressive.

So I thought it would be worth coming up with a list of the 10 most important races for this cycle outside of the Presidential. I factored in symbolic weight, elections that could bring people in who would be true progressive leaders, taking out especially bad conservatives, the importance of the race in terms of Presidential politics, the competitiveness of the race, potential longer-term importance (for example, beating George Allen and Rick Santorum last cycle took out two potentially strong Republican Presidential or VP candidates for 2008), and special reasons that might make media pundits and political insiders sit up and take notice.

Here’s my list, and I’ll be interested in other races you think should be on:

Top Ten Races

by: Mike Lux

Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 17:39

Even beyond these highest profile races, though, there are slightly less seismic races that matter in the nature of how politics is viewed and how power flows. In 2006, Jim Webb’s victory, fueled by the Macaca video, signaled an important new trend in politics. The combination of Webb, Tester, and Sherrod Brown winning victories on sharply populist themes created some real fear in corporate interests. Key committee chairs going down can change power dynamics dramatically, for good or bad, in Congress- for example, Pombo losing in 2006 made enviro members of Congress more aggressive.

So I thought it would be worth coming up with a list of the 10 most important races for this cycle outside of the Presidential. I factored in symbolic weight, elections that could bring people in who would be true progressive leaders, taking out especially bad conservatives, the importance of the race in terms of Presidential politics, the competitiveness of the race, potential longer-term importance (for example, beating George Allen and Rick Santorum last cycle took out two potentially strong Republican Presidential or VP candidates for 2008), and special reasons that might make media pundits and political insiders sit up and take notice.

Here’s my list, and I’ll be interested in other races you think should be on: