The current field

Some general thoughts on the shape of the presidential campaign...

First, the GOP has been energized by front-runner status of Hillary Clinton. The refrain I find online and in conversation with conservative friends is "Hillary must be stopped." About a month ago I watched Sean Hannity plead with evangelical strongman Pat Dobson to get behind Giuliani. In between obsequiously stating "how much he respected" Dobson, Mr. Hannity pointed to some shared interests and, of course, the all-important issue of who will nominate acceptable judges. Dobson stuck to his guns, letting his dissatisfaction with the former mayor be known unequivocally. Whether the evangelical wing of the GOP and independents will stay clear of Giuliani is unclear (as of this writing, Pat Robertson has come out in support of the former mayor as the best chance to beat Clinton.)

I find the enthusiasm for Giuliani confusing. The narrative is supposed to be that he was an effective mayor of New York city and did a good job immediately after 9/11. I, on the other hand, remember a guy who was crassly authoritarian, and so offended such a large portion of New York that he was practically ridden out of town. The issues often raised -- multiple marriages/divorces, insufficiently pro-life, too left on gun-control, not anti-gay enough, etc. -- are less troubling to me than his poor judgment in appointees, Bernard Kerik only being the most prominent. Still, one can imagine that Giuliani, who seems like a neocon/conservative Dem, would have a hard time sustaining enthusiasm from the GOP base.

And this would probably hold true, were it not for the perceived inevitability of Hillary Clinton's nomination for the Dems. This also seems odd to me: why such enthusiasm for an evasive hawk, especially when the Dem base desperately wants the US out of Iraq. Ms. Clinton has been at least evasive (Clintonian?) about this issue. But even putting this aside, why nominate the one candidate that energizes the opposition? Well, no one ever accused the Dems of being electoral wizards.

Mitt Romney currently has his shorts in a bunch because he was caught saying he would not have a Muslim in his cabinent. Much chatter will go to whether Mr. Romney is a racist. Cenk Uygur comments on Huffington Post that he, for one, does not believe Mr. Romney to be an actual racist; rather, "... he just plays one on TV." This is not conclusive evidence that Romney hates Muslims; rather "it means Republican primary voters hate Muslims." He goes on to say

"Mitt Romney is the greasiest man in America. He is so greasy, he shines. And in that shine
you can see the reflection of his audience.

Romney is desperate to please. He will say or do anything to win the crowd, whichever crowd he is trying to win over at the time. When it was a more liberal audience in Massachusetts, he loved gay rights, respected a woman's right to choose, was ambivalent about Reagan and was more liberal than Ted Kennedy. Now that it is a Republican primary audience, he is for doubling Guantanamo, enhanced interrogation techniques, more unnecessary wars and yes, hating Muslims."

The left blogosphere is in a tizzy because Governor Huckabee is making headway in the polls. Iowa, where he is in a statistical deadheat with Mr. Romney is perhaps not too surprising, as nearly a third of those polled are evangelical Christians. But the good governor has even surged to second place in Florida! Goodness, gracious, what to make of it?

Part of the surprise, I believe comes from the fact that so many liberal bloggers literally live in a different world than evangelicals. This goes far beyond the coast/elitist aspect. This does not, however, mean they do not have insight on to many of the larger currents at play. For example, I had often wondered why more evangelicals had not backed Huckabee right away, especially when there are obvious faults with Romney and Giuliani. Kevin Drum, at Political Animal, describes why nicely: "Christian conservatives are obviously a substantial interest group within the Republican Party, but as Jon Chait pointed out in The Big Con, that's all they are: a substantial interest group. The real bosses of the party are found among the tax jihadists and corporate interest groups who make up its economic wing," whom he refers to as the "money-cons." The result of these power-dynamics is that "in today's GOP, hating unions is more important than hating gays, and eliminating the estate tax is more important than eliminating abortion."

While the term "hating" is rather strong, I believe the crux of the statement is true, i.e. economic issues take precendence over the social issues. Indeed, Mr. Huckabee is about as populist as a Republican can get. Interesting how this drives the neocons crazy.

Fear Itself

A dialogue has been going on at Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo about the perceived support for Rudolf Guiliani. Reader MR stated that

"Guiliani's continued #1 position can be broken down very simply, in my opinion. Lots and lots and lots of well-meaning, non-evil Americans voted for Bush in 2004. After 3 long years, they now know the man they voted for is incompetent. But because no one likes to admit they made a mistake, the self-examination stops there... many Bush voters don't think they voted for the wrong ideals, just the wrong person to carry them out. Enter Guiliani. He seems to them like the opposite of incompetent, in fact, he's the guy who gets things done. He's like Bush, only smart."

For this reader, support on the Right for Guiliani is a form of face saving. The ideals and subsequently, policies, are fine; only their execution (no pun intended) is flawed. Viewed from another angle, we could say that the Guiliani supporter does not see systemic problems with the Bush administration, only personal ones.

Mr. Marshall disagrees -- and in a suprisingly snarky tone -- stating that "[s]o far at least I think the key to Rudy's strength in the Republican primaries is that he's offering to make up for aborted fetuses with more genuine dead people in the Middle East. And for many core Republican voters it's a very hard offer to pass up." Yikes!

Other readers commenting see Guiliani's leading position as a reaction to Hillary Clinton's front-running position among the Dems. Presumably, he is perceived as the best candidate for defeating her in the general election.

Woven into the comments about the Guiliani/Clinton connection, however, was this from JH of Illinois, who gathers from a dialogue with a friend that "anti-terrorism and America's security trumps everything else" for him and senses that "a lot of other conservative Americans probably feel the same way."

Another JH, this time from Michigan, supports this, stating that "the right has made the war on terror into a moral crusade, yes crusade, on par with abortion" and that "these are people who see in black and white and casting the war on terror as a war against evil." For "black and white" we can read "moral clarity."

I see two threads as being joined. First, as TPM reader MR states, it is natural for people to not want to owe up to a mistake. The results of the Bush administration, especially in the realm of foreign policy, are so abysmal as to be impossible to ignore. However, for many, there is a raw need to embrace as president a "Billy Bad-ass" personality who will "get things done." I believe this comes from many Americans' disposition toward authoritarianism. Much has been written about the GOP as the "daddy" party, and John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience provides a compelling account of how personality types play out in politics. But I believe it is not just a yearning for a "competent" Bush (ie a "real" cowboy ass-kicker as president) that drives support for Guiliani.

This is where the thread developed by the other TPM readers picks up. Guiliani supporters buy into a view of the world that is essentially defined by the Global War on Terror (patent pending). This worldview is indeed manichean, and the United States is viewed as beyond corruption or evil. Hence, there is no torture (eg waterboarding is "not torture") because we are the good guys, and we do not do that. All facts are simply arranged to fit the model.

Of course, this model does not extend to all Americans, and the left -- or anyone that dissents from the movement -- are de facto "the other." Hence, voter fraud is strictly a Dem issue; the GOP cannot have participated in voter fraud because they are, by definition, "men of honor." The outing of Valerie Plame is not treason, because the administration simply would not do such a thing--it is, quite literally, unthinkable to the Right.

What drives this worldview, and allows for the belief that the GWOT is the defining issue of our era, is fear. Complexity and introspection can foster a self-doubt that, while not the same as fear, can act in the psyche in much the same manner. As the complexity of the world stokes fear, it feeds the desire for the "man on the horse" who will cut through the petty restraints set up by bureaucrats and lawyers, human rights and civil liberties, laws and the Constitution. Fear creates the desire for a leader "tough enough" to do whatever is necessary to "get the job done." This yearning cannot be called a yearning for fascism because ... well, we do not do that, we are Americans. Indeed, such a charge is simply -- unthinkable.

Strategy for the Dems

Last week, I was in my state Capitol, Lansing, for a government affairs forum. Afterwards, I was introduced by some friends to the head of the Michigan GOP. The talk boiled down to the last election, and the Iraq effect. Apparently, the GOP machine had its best turnout ever, and still got stomped because Iraq turned the the Independents to the Dems. The conversation then moved toward state issues (e.g. the desire to get a right-to-work initiative on the ballot.) What has struck me, and stayed with me, is the recognition among GOPers about their weakness on the Iraq issue. It is a mystery to me why the Dems cannot take advantage of this. As Political Animal reader Augustus states:

"If Democrats want to get anywhere they need to investigate the Republicans for lying about WMDs because it's a three-fer: it brings up Iraq (which is bad for Republicans), it establishes Republicans as liars (bad for Republicans), and helps exonerate Dems for voting for the war because they were lied to.

"Or remind people about Katrina: it shows this administration doesn't care about homeland defense, is incapable of responding to disasters, puts incompetents in charge of the most important areas of our government, the reconstruction is languishing and rife with corruption, and the administration couldn't even perform the most remedial task of collecting the foreign aid pledged to New Orleans (to the tune of nearly $900 million dollars).

"Dare the DNC to say it: the Bush administration has proven itself to be far less competent caretakers of New Orleans than the French. Oh, but the DNC won't - they're still struggling and on the defense about stupid things like Pelosi's trip to Syria.

"Here's a word the DNC should start using: treason.

"Hell, Republicans have been throwing that term around with all the care of drunk frat boys tossing Mardi Gras beads (hey, look at that, I mentioned New Orleans again...) WHY THE F*** ARE DEMOCRATS SO INCOMPETENT!?!?

"No, seriously. This administration -- with the full and willing participation of the GOP controlled house and senate -- has perpetrated more crimes, more scandals, more lies, more screw ups than perhaps the last 20 presidents combined. And yet the Democrats are still on the defensive and are almost completely incapable of mounting a real offense, yet alone accurately branding the GOP for the bad deeds they have done."

Now, Augustus is a very angry man. Why? Probably because he loves his country, and has noticed that the GOP in its current incarnation has seriously damaged our security, has structurally undermined our economy, and has diminished our standing internationally. His desire to see the Dems use the "treason charge" is unwarranted--simply because the GOP has been flip in its use does not mean the Dems need to mirror this behavior. This especially true when, as Augustus correctly notes, the GOP has given the Dems multiple opportunities to go on the attack. I like in particular the emphasis on the "three-fer" nature of pounding away on the missing WMDs. Everytime the GOP tries to turn to its traditional macho, tough-guy swagger, the Dems need to point to Iraq, to the missing WMDs, and to the patent dishonesty -- the lies -- of the administration and its allies.

What are you dying for?

From Tuesday, April 24, 2007, under the heading 10 Coalition Troops Killed, Dr. Juan Cole has an excellent post. He states that "although we do not yet know the names of those killed, we know who they are like," and provides a heartwrenching list of those who have fallen in Iraq, complete with links. To those who say this is, after all, a war, and the numbers are (still) "very small," I ask that they visit this post and follow the links. The fact that the carnage does not equal that of the Second World War's Eastern Front is simply irrelevant.

Dr. Cole goes continues on: "Saddam is gone. There was never any threat to the US or UK from Iraq, and there is not now one. What is the mission, for which these young people have given their lives this spring? What do we tell their children about why their daddy is no longer there for them? ...

"We ask our men and women in uniform to risk their lives, sometimes to sacrifice them, for the security of our nation. But the security of our nation is not in doubt ... "

The security of the nation was never seriously threatened by Saddam's Iraq, but the lies and greed and ignorance that have fueled this war have threatened the security of the Republic. This is the price of empire, of foreign interventions, of war: tarnished idealism, dead heroes, and innocents who will not remember their fathers or mothers.

Why is this man smiling?

Because no matter what, the President has his back. After testimony in which he stated he did not know why he fired the US attorneys in question, but assured us that he had reasons which were appropriate, one would expect Mr. Gonzalez to be on the ropes and very soon out of a job. Put aside running commentary such as the host of GOP senators who were at least stand-offish and sometimes overtly condemning; leave behind questions such as why did he not research the firings since he knew he would be giving testimony? No, despite a performance that can only be termed dismal, Mr. Gonzalez is safe. Indeed, the President still has "more confidence" in him, and following his crash and burn in the Capitol stated [he] "went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer, honestly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job." Statements such as that explain why the nation has increasingly less confidence in the President. Pundits will examine and discuss the reasons for Bush keeping Gonzalez. He's loyal to a fault, they will say, or the GOP strategists do not want to appear weak; the party sees no upside in firing Gonzalez, or the President cannot afford to go through a round of hearings for a new Attorney General. All this is well and good, but the fact remains: Bush and his core team no longer enjoy the confidence of the nation, and are beginning to lose the confidence of their own party. It is about time.

The most astounding thing in 32 years

From Al, the President's Man: Alberto Gonzales is bloodied by his trip to the Senate, by Dahlia Lithwick in Slate.

"One of the finest moments comes when Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., busts out a big, big chart. Which happens after almost everyone has gone home. The chart compares the Clinton protocol for appropriate contacts between the White House and the DoJ on pending criminal cases with the Bush protocol. According to Whitehouse, the Clinton protocol authorized just four folks at the White House to chat with three folks at Justice. The chart had four boxes talking to three boxes. Out comes the Bush protocol, and now 417 different people at the White House have contacts about pending criminal cases with 30-some people at Justice. You can just see zillions of small boxes nattering back and forth. It seems that just about everyone in the White House, including the guys in the mailroom, had a vote on ongoing criminal matters.

"Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., calls this 'the most astounding thing' he's seen in 32 years."

Only in the past 32 years? How about we enshrine this protocol chart in Ripley's Believe it or Not. Talking about the "horse built by a committee."

Appearing "Presidential" ... or not

Speaking at Murrells Inlet VFW Hall in South Carolina, Senator McCain was asked when he thought the US Military might "send an air mail message to Tehran." Mr. McCain began his answer by singing the first lines of a popular Beach Boys song, which he renamed "Bomb Iran." A clip of the exchange can be viewed here. The good senator has gone from "straight shooter" to "eccentric uncle." His decline, precipitated by his lust for the presidency, is sad to watch, but not surprising; this is very reminiscent of Bob Dole ("I'll be whatever you want me to be.")

The office of the presidency has become like Tolkien's Ring of Power -- it corrupts everything and everyone who comes into contact with it. Some fall sooner than others, but all fall eventually. Lord Acton's observation on power is perhaps cliche, but it is as accurate as it ever was and we do well to consider its ramifications as the campaign for the Ring--er, presidency--heats up (no pun intended.)

The "dead-enders"

Today we read the following:

"Majority Expect U.S. Will 'Lose' War In Iraq
By GARY LANGER, ABC NEWS POLLING DIRECTOR
Apr. 17 - ABC News/Washington Post poll finds 51 percent think U.S. will lose war, 66 percent think Iraq was not worth fight; Dems, Pelosi get higher marks in approval and trust.

A bare majority of Americans for the first time believe the United States will lose the war in Iraq, and a new high -- two-thirds -- say the war was not worth fighting. Yet the public divides on setting a deadline for withdrawal.

That mix of sentiments -- unhappy with the war, unclear what to do about it -- is keeping George W. Bush in deep disfavor. Just 35 percent approve of his job performance overall, a scant two points above his career low. And just 29 percent like how he's dealing with the situation in Iraq. "

Everyone knows the outcome, but refuses to face reality (i.e. "the public divides on setting a deadline for withdrawal.") The public knows now that it has been conned. It followed the advice of the politicians and media and "gave war a chance." Now, with the conflict having lasted longer World War II, we face our consciences as we look at defeat, wondering what "victory" would have looked like.

Cheney and Bush refuse to accept timelines, saying this would "legislate defeat." On the attack, they can still muster the tough-guy talk. Only now, the nation realizes that politics and international conflict are not action-movies or video games. Indeed, political decisions have consequences -- in conflict, these consequences are paid in blood and treasure.

Still, despite the billions poured into a conflict that has produced one and one-half positive results (Saddam Hussein is gone, along with any near-term possibility of a resurgent WMD program in Iraq) and a host of negative results (thousands of deaths and shattered lives, a degraded international standing, a strengthened strategic position for Iran, an energized terrorist base, structural damage to the US economy, a strained military with depleted hardware, an expanded use of mercenaries, er, "contractors," the ruin of the Iraqi oil industry, the creation of a new failed state in the heart of the world's oil producing region, the complete disruption of Mideast power politics, etc.) -- still, STILL a full 29% of those polled approve of the President's handling of the situation. These are the real "dead-enders" that Rumsfeld, Cheney and others famously refered to, who could not see the writing on the wall.

Fun with email

From the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, fun times in the world of email:

"The Republican National Committee set up the accounts for about 20 Bush aides, such as Karl Rove and his deputies, who get involved in politics, spokesman Scott Stanzel said. Having the GOP create non-White House addresses and provide separate BlackBerries, laptops and other communications gear was designed to avoid running afoul of Hatch Act rules barring federal employees from engaging in political activities with government resources or on government time, he said

"Under President Clinton, White House aides used separate equipment for political spadework but did not have separate accounts.

"This is entirely appropriate," Stanzel said of the Bush White House practice.
He said staffers used their RNC accounts instead of White House accounts to discuss the prosecutor issue or conduct other official business for several reasons, including extra caution about complying with the Hatch Act as well as the convenience of using one account instead of several. Stanzel said he could not speak to whether anyone was intentionally trying to avoid White House archiving because he had not spoken to all those involved." [italics mine] Well, I have some inkling of whether this was intentional--what do you think?

Stanzel said some e-mails have been lost because the White House lacked clear policies on complying with Presidential Records Act requirements. This seems odd, as email is hardly an emerging technology. The announcement of the lost e-mails gave new fodder for inquiry on fired prosecutors issue, which has been fading from the front pages. "This sounds like the administration's version of the dog ate my homework," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "I am deeply disturbed that just when this administration is finally subjected to meaningful oversight, it cannot produce the necessary information."

The good news is that email can be difficult to truly eliminate. Somewhere, these emails most likely exist. As electronic communications at work belong to the employer, I would suggest that electronic communications pertaining to running the country belong to the people. Let's take the effort to find them.