RSS Feeds
Categories
Archives
- March 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
Recent Entries
- Bush Wars is dead; long live Blotter!
- The Rise of the Boo-yaa's
- The Revolt of the Invisibles
- Meet the New Dems
- CIA Analyst on al Qaeda: Next Time, Nukes?
- Equal Time: The GOP Sucker Bet
- The Sucker Bet for '08: Hillary
- Oh, No: The "Third Way" Again
- Don’t Blame the Voters
- The Post-Election Story of the Year,
So Far
THE COALITION OF THE UNWILLING
VITAL
FOREIGN PRESS
- Al-Ahram Weekly
- Al-Bawaba
- Al Jazeera
- Arab News
- BBC News
- Globe & Mail
- Guardian
- Ha'aretz
- Hindustan Times
- Independent
- Middle East Times
- Mirror
- Telegraph
- Times of London
GOOD BLOGS
- Brad Zellar
- Cheek
- Civil Liberties Watch
- Fimoculous
- Joshua Micah Marshall
- Lew Rockwell
- Not So Private Ryan
- Sam Smith's Progressive Review
- Tom Nadeau
- Tom Tomorrow's This Modern World
- MaxSpeak
- Neal Pollack
- Where is Raed?
REFERENCE
January 16, 2004
« January 15, 2004 | Main | January 17, 2004 »Iowa Death Trip II: Are DLC Lilliputians Getting Gulliver Down?
Perry/Gisleson: more bloodshed in the Caucasus--er, caucuses
Gisleson: Twas the Friday before the caucuses...
My question is, how do you measure the sentiments of caucus goers? Half the people you call will hang up the second they realize the call's about politics, and the other half will include countless folks who will lie and say they're attending when they haven't been to a caucus ever since that nice Mr. Carter talked to them at the Dew Drop Inn.
Even more to the point, there's a real advantage to be gained by partisans by misidentifying who they support. While activists fear bad polling data before a primary, they know that caucus goers rarely change their minds at the last second unless they were wavering all along. What better way to abuse a pollster than to tell them you're supporting John Kerry when you're a big Deaniac? And as far as Gephardt supporters go, it's pretty easy for a union to put out the word that members should reply KERRY whenever someone asks. Deflate expectations for your guy and up the ante on the other poor schlub - that's pre-caucus maneuvering the way the pros do it.
What's to gain? Eliminating Kerry in Iowa works for Dean in New Hampshire, and it opens the door for Gephardt to hang around a while longer.
While we've been focusing on Iowa, the party's Great Satan, Wesley Clark (Joe Lieberman is too trivial in the broader scheme of presidential politics to qualify), has been advancing on Dean by leaps and bounds in the tundra of New Hampshire. Suddenly the two pony shows that were supposed to make Dean's command of the race unassailable are very much up for grabs.
For this we can probably thank Clark more than any of the other rats on the creaking Democratic ship. Just this morning Drudge featured a post about the general's employment of one Chris Lehane, a seasoned operative who is one of the party's more esteemed dirt-diggers.
I'm not jumping to the conclusion that Dean has irretrievably lost control of the race. But unless he goes on to prevail in Iowa (and he well might) by a large margin (not bloody likely), we will want to keep a close eye on two things. One is the arc of Dean's campaign rhetoric. If it turns more cravenly conservative (excuse me, "centrist") in the weeks to come, he's doomed. The other is the rate at which money is donated at his website. That will go a long way toward measuring whether the public enthusiasm for Dean is waning.
In closing, there is one thing that particularly distresses me about your sympathies for Wesley Clark. You do understand that this is a pitched battle for control of the Democratic party, correct? And you do accept that Clark is now the DLC's anointed one, right? I have no fucking idea how you can spend so much time in off-years lamenting the control of the party by proto-Republicans and then give a big wet smooch to someone who could not be a more palpable stooge of those interests.
Oh, but he's a smart manager and a man of principle in your private political universe, right? So what have you got to say about yesterday's Drudge leak of El Diablo's pro-Iraq War testimony to Congress? If you're keeping score, this means the Republicans will be able to counter--hell, laugh in the face of--anything Clark has to say about the conduct of the war. You simply make a commercial with two elements: Clark proclaiming he's always been against the war, and big bold excerpts of his closed pre-war Congressional testimony. Of course this leaves his domestic policy bona fides intact--or would if he had any, which he does not. At this point I'll wager that Clark is the Democrat Bush/Rove are dying to face. (And don't cite week-old poll numbers that say otherwise--yesterday's news about his support of the Bush policy on the eve of war changes all that drastically.)
I want to be clear in closing that I don't really think Howard Dean would do great progressive things with the Democratic party apparatus if he did manage to take it over. But Howard Dean happens to be the only Democrat who could actually compete to define the race. He is the only one who could draw "nontraditional voters" in large numbers. Any other Democrat would merely be standing around hoping that Bush or the economy fucked up badly--which they may. Myself, I don't think it's a particularly smart bet to place your hopes on Karl Rove beating himself.
Gisleson: Defending Clark is not how I want to spend my campaign season, but if you scroll down to the earlier post today you'll find a link to Josh Marshall explaining why Drudge's allegation of a Clark flip-flop is less than convincing. More to the point you'll also find a link to Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times today.
But it doesn't really matter what you think of that, because it is all too clear what Karl Rove could and would do with Clark's various flip-flops. And there is likewise no doubt that the great pack of terriers in the press corps would take such controversies, legit or no, and blow them to high heaven, because those sorts of stories are what they live for.
Incidentally, that may be the weakest Krugman column I've ever read. I will give him the benefit of the doubt by noting that the piece was clearly written and filed before the news of Clark's Congressional testimony broke yesterday. He shares your signal blind spot as a political critic: He is so wishful a Democrat partisan himself that he fails to recognize how these guys' records and personae (a much safer and more accurate word than "character" in this age of thoroughly mediated campaigns) will be kicked around by the Republicans and the media in a general election. Ultimately, what helpless Dems like you and Krugman fail to see is what an endangered species you've become: No matter how angry "the Democrats" may be at the grassroots, there simply aren't enough Democrats at the grassroots to carry this election, or come close to doing so. There's a lot of Bush-hate out there, but my feeling is that it's no more pandemic--and probably less so--than the widespread public distrust and distaste for the Democratic party in general.
Incidentally, you're wrong about Lincoln. He was consistent in his distaste for slavery. But as a matter of priorities, he cared far more about the preservation of the Union at all costs than he did about abolition.
Posted by Steve Perry at January 16, 2004 01:27 PM
Jeers and the bubble boy
An outstanding Iowa Caucus story just went up at The Economist. It’s a real joy to read serious journalists when they seek to educate their audience. The information in this article is exceptionally on-target, and with a minimum of cutesiness the un-bylined piece sums up the caucus process with considerable perspicacity. Yeah, it’s good. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone else mention the fact that Dean’s Iowa operation has grown until it now takes up two buildings, and the isolated examples presented are set out just so — no bullshit implications that they speak for the whole. Exceptional and recommended.
Iowa Secretary of State Chet Culver has predicted a record turnout with over 125,000 Democrats expected to turn out on Monday night. In part, I’m sure Chet checked out the weather and figured a predicted low of 10°F wouldn’t stop Iowans from turning out. Still, it could be that a lot of people will figure it’s going to be too crowded (heavily attended caucuses tend to drag on late into the night), and will decide to stay at home to check it all out on CSPAN during commercial breaks for Fear Factor.
But regardless of turnout, contrast the right of Iowans to express their political views with that of motorists in the deep South who make the mistake of sporting Howard Dean bumperstickers.
The Iowa media checks out the national media for yet another round of quadrennial navel gazing, including a rundown on how much all those annoying ads cost. Paul Begala gets a good turnout in Council Bluffs, and salutes the “Pope of Pottawattamie County.” John Kerry discusses “Big Mo” in Sioux City while the Mitchell Country Press announces that all four Osage precincts and West Lincoln Township will meet at the Senior Citizens Center. The Republicans trump that by having all the Osage precincts and five out of town precincts meet at the high school cafeteria. Also, John Edwards gets a well-timed endorsement from Timberwolf Fred “The Mayor’ Hoiberg.
| Dean | 30% |
| Gephardt | 26% |
| Kerry | 17% |
| Edwards | 15% |
| Uncommitted | 8% |
| Kucinich | 4% |
Credit where credit is due. I give Steve Perry crap about his taste in music, but, for the record, he’s got an awesome collection of vintage classics. However, as I constantly point out to him, most of his music dates back to the last century. Well, thanks to Steve here’s a link to one of my favorite 20th Century musicians writing about the Iowa Caucuses. Representing Punkvoter, Wayne “MC5” Kramer visited Des Moines recently.
I got the opportunity to talk with Iowa Senator Tom Harkin who was there with the troops working the phones and stuffing envelopes. He was surprisingly candid, saying that Bush is creating a climate of fear that is designed to keep us under control and out of doing something to change the way things are. He also acknowledged that no one was talking to young folks and that needed to change. I couldn't agree more.
How will all this play out? No one knows.
My rhapsodizing yesterday about Kucinich’s opportunity for a showing may have seemed a bit odd to some of you, and, if you clicked on the Kramer link above, you may have noticed that the greatest punk guitarist of all time was less than impressed with Dennis. Still, I can’t think of Democrat more qualified to take Paul Wellstone’s mantle, and I for one think Kucinich has earned a seat at the table. He should speak at the DNC, and in primetime.
* *
Jack Shafer sticks it to the blustering Richard Perle at Slate. Back in Iraq, the grateful liberated folks "in charge" are about to impose sharia law, i.e. mandatory veils. Meanwhile, 30,000 Shia protesters march in Basra demanding elections.
You knew this day was coming: our Bubble President finally tried to make an appearance in a place that the Secret Service couldn’t lock down, and the rest goes down exactly as you’d expect:
Shouting "Bush go home," hundreds of demonstrators lined historic Auburn Avenue--once the hub of the civil rights movement--to protest President Bush's visit to lay a wreath at the tomb of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on the slain leader's birthday.
Though anti-war protesters, environmental groups and human-rights activists were among the demonstrators, many in the crowd were African-Americans who said they opposed Bush's visit because his policies have gone against most of the values King stood for.
"He is desecrating Dr. King's grave by placing a wreath there," said longtime civil rights activist Billy McKinney. "It's all political. Why else would he come here when he was not invited?"
Bush, accompanied by King's widow, Coretta Scott King, and other relatives, appeared unfazed by the demonstrators, who were barricaded across the street and blocked from view by several large city buses. Still, their chants and boos could be heard throughout the area.
As several presidents have done in the past, Bush placed the wreath in front of the crypt, in the middle of a reflecting pool on the grounds of the King Center for Nonviolent Social Change. He stood briefly in silent prayer before being whisked away to attend a $2,000-a-plate re-election fundraiser where he was introduced by Democratic supporter Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia.
Save this one: Max Sawicky’s “Government by Time Bomb” lists all the things the Bushies are up to that will, over the long haul, pulverize our economy into dust.
Over at the New York Times, Paul Krugman spells it out once more, quoting Wes Clark’s memorable pronouncement, "I think we're at risk with our democracy....I think we're dealing with the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living memory. They even put Richard Nixon to shame."
The real division in the race for the Democratic nomination is between those who are willing to question not just the policies but also the honesty and the motives of the people running our country, and those who aren't.
What makes Mr. Dean seem radical aren't his policy positions but his willingness — shared, we now know, by General Clark — to take a hard line against the Bush administration. This horrifies some veterans of the Clinton years, who have nostalgic memories of elections that were won by emphasizing the positive. Indeed, George Bush's handlers have already made it clear that they intend to make his "optimism" — as opposed to the negativism of his angry opponents — a campaign theme. (Money-saving suggestion: let's cut directly to the scene where Mr. Bush dresses up as an astronaut, and skip the rest of his expensive, pointless — but optimistic! — Moon-base program.)
Josh Marshall notes that on the same day Drudge distorted some soundbytes from Wes Clark, RNC Chair Ed Gillespie touted the same points in a speech in Little Rock. Wes may be Steve Perry’s idea of the anti-Christ, but apparently he’s the anti-Christ of Karl Rove’s nightmares as well.
* *
Steve Perry slipped this URL under the door last night: Top Ten Drug War Stories of 2003. Number one with our bullets: Afghanistan is again the world’s top supplier of opium. Gee, just like everyone but Donnie Rumsfeld and the Pentagon predicted. Another victory for the gang that couldn’t shoot up straight.
* *
Posted by Mark Gisleson at January 16, 2004 11:42 AM
