Backpost: Retort to "The Rove Non-Event"

Backpost: from 8/13/07.

A letter I wrote to the TPM, Re: The Rove Non-Event: "Like a whisper"

Dear Dr. Marshall,

I believe the only election that brought fear into the hearts of every true-blue Democrat was 2004. The 2000 election was a mugging - we didn't know the nature of our assailant yet but the 1994-2000 onslaught of Gingrich and his juniors made the whole country sick of fighting. People just wanted the election to end and we allowed it to because we thought the stakes were so low (proof: why so many people felt confident to vote for Nader, because it felt like it didn't matter).

2002 was a direct result of the post-9/11 wartime 'dont switch horses in midstream' mentality. I don't give Rove credit for that. Even a doofus like Carter would have gained seats after 9/11.

It was 2004 that shocked us and made us think that Rove was a magician. And now we see that much of his skill lay not in 'getting out the vote' and 'galvanizing the base' but in 'getting the US attorneys to suppress the vote and indict Democratic opponents.' Bush-Rove won in 2004 through outright theft and we're just getting into those details now. But the Attorney Scandal is the story of the theft of 2004.

I don't know how Rove's resignation protects him from Congressional inquiry into the Attorney Scandal. Maybe it was part of a deal - if he resigns and stays out of politics (or at least 2008) then Congress will let him stay out of jail. It's a dirty deal, if it happened, but I can see that kind of deal being made. The crime is too huge, a NBA Referee scandal magnified by billions, and this could be the elegant way out.

In any case, as Green's recent Atlantic piece shows, Rove angered so many members of the GOP (the comments by DeLay are awesome) that this resignation may be their way of running him out on a rail in time to salvage whatever they can in 2008. The 'whisper'-ness may be how the GOP needs it to play out.

All the best,
JC

Electability

The problem is not that 'electability' is hard to determine. It's that the primary voters suck at it.

John Kerry was not electable, but people I know (including family members, I'm sorry to say) were convinced that while Kerry was horrible, he'd be 'electable' because he was acceptable to Independents. The fact is that Kerry - as I've said before - was a boring, effete, waffling, liberal from Massachusetts with actually little going for him besides heroism expressed 40 years earlier. If actual independents would have been asked in early 2004 if they would elect someone boring, callow and shallow, they would have said "NO"

Yet, instead of Bill Clinton in 92 & 96, the Democrats nominate gawky, irritating nerds. Here's the key to electablity, something I wrote a while ago (from my old blog, Sept 15 2004):

A conclusion I make from this [a collection of polls], as a die-hard Democrat, is that my fellow party-voters are a collection of fumbling chuckleheads. Back in the primaries they voted not for the candidate they wanted, but for somebody they thought “Swing Voters” would vote for. In general, as an anthropologist, I am reluctant to call a group of people, a culture, idiotic. Generally, a mass of people do something that is in their best interest. Not in this case.

I said it back then, too, Kerry is a poor candidate. He has the charisma of untanned leather. He makes Gore look like P Diddy. He also has gaping gaps in his trained moral reasoning. How could he support the Iraq war? I’m not talking about flippy-flops, and despite my [initial] support for the war (see my post on 9/11/03 for nuances) – if Kerry were any fashion of real deal he would have voted against the war. The comparisons to Vietnam are clear for a sidelines observer, for someone who ostensibly based his youth on ‘Nam-opposition, he should have been the first to vote against. He didn’t. He’s a weenie.

The Democrats primaried Kerry because of what they thought someone else would want. This is stupid because of a countervailing psychological rule: when in doubt choose real over potential. Put simply, the Democrats liked Edwards, but thought a Swinger will like Kerry better. Except that Edwards had inherent and established value while Kerry had potential value. Is it any surprise that people still like Edwards and nobody – even Democrats – like Kerry?

If I had a chance to talk to the Democratic leadership (alert me next time a pig flies) I’d tell ‘em straight out – the only way a Democrat wins is with charisma. That is it. Yet the party keeps nominating these policy robots (Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) as if the power of ideas will outweigh the natural human desire to look up to a leader.

Successful Democrats? All charismatic bastards. JFK, Clinton, LBJ, even Truman. A Republican doesn’t need charisma in America, despite the majority of the country’s population being democrats, the state-electoral college thang makes the states significant, and there are more Republican states. The GOP can run moral reprobates (Nixon, Bush II) and spineless crackers (Bush I) and win as long as the opposition is a standard Democrat weenie.

Both parties know these heuristics:
Evil GOP vs. Robot Dem, GOP wins
Weenie GOP vs. Robot Dem, GOP wins
Charisma, no matter whom, always wins.

1960: JFK v. Nixon – Charisma/evil
1964: LBJ v. Goldwater – Charisma
1968: Humphrey v. Nixon – evil/robot
1972: McGovern v. Nixon – evil/robot
1976: Carter v. Ford – the only exception which is manifest evil is hard to win
1980: Carter v. Reagan – doofus/Charisma
1984: Mondale v. Reagan – Charisma
1988: Dukakis v. Bush – possibly the worst election in my lifetime; gads what a waste
1992: Clinton v. Bush v. Alf – Charisma
1996: Clinton v. Dole v. Alf – Charisma
2000: Gore v. Bush v. Nader – don’t get me started on the election results

If the Democrats had only nominated any one of the candidates with charisma – this would have been no contest. E.g. if the ticket were flipped and you had Edwards as the candidate with Clark, Dean, or even Kerry as VP, then we'd be having red-terror alerts every day of the summer just for Bush to barely catch sight of the donkey's rear.

Back in 2004, I said that Kerry was annoying - just as annoying as Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore. And now we got the howler monkey in a pantsuit: Hillary.

Backpost finished 4/15/08, 1:57 PM. Why didn't I publish this at the time? The whole thing was written and just sitting there.

Webb, The Blame for Iraq

Letter sent to TPM re: The blame the American people for Bush's screw-ups meme

Dear Josh,

1. In reference to the new GOP/Conservative talking point (Stanley Kurtz, Morton Kondracke) about blaming the American People for not letting Bush fight the war. I could give a long answer to this, refuting this disgusting accusation & complaining about how terrible Bush and his proxies are, but we already know all that. The short answer is that the American people knew about the price of the war in Iraq and paid for it: in the 2004 election.

If you remember, Bush won the 2000 election because his team successfully convinced the American Voters that he was just slightly ideologically to the right to Gore. He was another 'moderate' (which they called a 'compassionate conservative'). This pose was so convincing that the far-left consumed it whole and voted for Nader, thinking that there was no real difference between Gore and Bush. The American people back then wanted a moderate and before 9/11 Bush had low popularity numbers because Rove quickly ripped off the face-mask and shoved a hard-right agenda down America's throats. Rove needed to do this - because the country was teetering on the 50-50 edge in 2000 and Nader's people made the difference so Rove needed to galvanize the Christianists to offset the Greens.

Then 9/11.

And the American people, who disliked the Conservative crap, rallied behind Bush because we had just been savagely attacked on our own soil. And Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest of the whackos from Nixon/Ford felt that the time had come to create the New Executive Branch, and to get even with Saddam, all in one fell swoop. So we attacked Iraq. But I think we need to remind ourselves, and everyone, that the American People went ahead with that war because they were told that Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons, already owned chemical & biologicals and had used them before on Kurds, was an old enemy, and was a state sponsor of Al Queda. That's why we attacked Iraq and if it was all true - the WMD, the nukes, the Al Queda link - then the war would have been the moral equivalent of the war in Afghanistan (which nobody really disputes, do they?)

The 2004 election was the American voter biting the bullet and sacrificing themselves for the greater good. It wasn't a validation for Conservatism, it was in spite of that. It was the American voter thinking that they hated the Conservative politics but needing to vote for Bush anyway because the war in Iraq was still being depicted by the MSM as a necessary part of our 9/11 reaction and Kerry was a feckless, talentless, cipher. As we saw with the botched joke, if Kerry would have run against Bush in November 2006, Bush would have won.

After Katrina and after the war became exposed for its nonsense and after the American Voter was asked to give up more and more freedom (wire-taps?, torture?) the price they paid in 2004 just seemed to be too steep to pay in 2006.

2. About the Webb question: I agree with a watered-down JS. I don't think Webb was avoiding Bush as part of a sophisticated ploy. Webb reminds me of the Andrew Jackson form of politician - the straight-talk economic populist military man. And Americans would vote for Andrew Jackson over and over and over - historically I think he's the most significant president because he's the first non-Founding Father and the first American stereotype, the first non-elite, the first populist. Webb, as far as I can tell, seems to walk around as a ball of barely contained rage against all those who've slighted him in person and in the abstract. And his abstract enemies include draft-avoiders like Clinton and Bush. His hatred for Clinton is known (see that recent New yorker piece) and I imagine he hates Bush even more because of the class issue.

Bush, as we know, is a bully. He doesn't have an ounce of compassion in his putrid soul. He asked Webb about his son because he was picking a fight with someone he thinks he can beat. But as we've seen over and over, Bush underestimates his resources and strength. He doesn't know that Webb is going to mop him up. Webb truly scares the GOP because he has a better executive branch record than Cheney and Rumsfeld (who would America rather have, Sec of Defense under Ford & Bush or Sec of Navy from Reagan). Webb makes Bush look to be the wonder-wimp that he is.

And remember what Andrew Jackson (Webb) did to John Quincy Adams (Bush).

all the best, JC

Backpost put up on 2009-12-08.

Lieberman-Lamont & the TPM

My secret identity is a joke, but I keep it up the same way people use cheap locks for their mountain-bikes - it works against the lazy not the criminal.

Anyway, to add more futility to the secrecy of the Styx, you can see how well I fare in an interchange about Lieberman-Lamont at the TPM. I wrote to the blogmaster, in response to this post, and he listed my comments along with others here; I am "JC."

Naturally, I got whomped by some Cro-Magnon communist, but its nice to take an impotent stand.

The whomper claims: "The truth is that this is a super-safe Democratic seat in one of the most reliably pro-Democratic, anti-Bush states."

Wait a moment for the whiff of ordure to dissipate. Ready? OK. I emailed the TPM this morning with a response; its unlikely to be printed, so I will fill in all you reader(s):

"Connecticut is Not Blue"

The concept that Connecticut is a reliable "blue" state is silly.

I'm staring at my Republican governor (who is going to handily win reelection ) and Republicans in 3 of the 5 House seats (Rob Simmons (R), Chris Shays (R), Nancy Johnson (R) vs. John Larson (D), Rosa DeLauro (D)) and I hear disturbing echoes of 2000.

My very-liberal friends told me in 2000 they were voting for Nader because 'third parties don't make a difference' in the reliable states like New York, Massachusetts etc. Then we watched in horror as New Hampshire went to Bush (273,559 - 48.07%) because of the Nader votes (22,198 - 3.9%) which if only added to Gore (266, 348 - 46.8%) would have rendered Florida's butterflies moot (Bush would've been 267 without NH's 4, and Gore 270). And New Mexico was another squeaker (300 votes!!) but in our favor, despite Nader's 3.55% of the vote.

I know what you're saying, "But those are New states, in the old Hampshire and Mexico, Gore would have won." True. You're also thinking that Nader voters can't be added to Gore because Nader people would have just stayed home. Also, true. That's what scares me, because the hard-left of our party aren't actually reliably Democrat!

My anger at the Lieberman-Lamont race has nothing to do with the possibility of Lieberman losing the seat in the Senate. He will win in November even in a three-way. My anger is at the left wing of the Democratic party who, in my perception, are self-destructing in the name of pure ideology.

These Nader-Democrats are "true believers" and they scare me as much as the Chistianists in the GOP. Our true believers want purity in their politics and they will destroy anyone who does not match their ideals.

It's funny because the attacks against Lieberman - that he is not Democrat enough and too sanctimonious - are just accusers looking in the mirror.

You and I probably agree that its more important for Democrats to take control of the House, Senate and eventually the Executive than to have ideologically pure candidates. Even a liberal Republican votes for his party more often than a conservative Democrat, that's the way legislatures work!

If Joe weren't a good Democrat, and if he weren't popular in the national party, I would drop him in a flash and with glee. But he's good for the party. I claim, and I think the numbers and history back this up, that the Lamont supporters are too much like Nader supporters - they want bible-thumping levels of purity from their candidates and will punish apostates accordingly.

Lieberman-Lamont

I could spend many a page on this Senate race (and I will). A quick article that frames the issues well is from the NY Observer.

Quote from Lieberman:

"I am a Democrat in the mold of Truman, Kennedy, Humphrey,” Mr. Lieberman told The Observer just after the event. “I continue to be socially progressive here at home, and I believe you have to put muscle behind your ideals in foreign policy."

This race is about the out-of-control left-wing of the Democratic party. These are the same people who destroyed Humphrey in 1968, nominated McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, voted for Nader in 2000 and nominated Kerry in 2004.

The Democrats used to be and should be again, the party of blue-collar workers and all minorities (including Catholics and Jews). However the money and vocality comes from the hard-left - the suicide-bombers who are so out of touch they considered Kerry a moderate because he fought in Vietnam as a teenager.

Lieberman is the type of candidate Democrats need to support. If we hope to win in 2006 and 2008 we need the moderates, the cultural conservatives, the unashamed patriots - which is the majority of the country and the majority of national Democrats.

The fact that some buggy-eyed wacko like Lamont is getting money and support is a sign that the Democrats are ready to lose, yet again.

The Story of the Campaign So Far

The polling numbers are inconsistent across the board. No one poll even slightly agrees with another.

For example:

June 12

ICR, Bush: 52, Kerry: 44, Undecided: 2

June 9

Zogby, Bush: 47, Kerry: 45, Undecided: 8

Time, Bush: 54, Kerry: 42, Undecided: 4

June 5

CNN/USA Today/Gallup, Bush: 52, Kerry: 45, Undecided: 3

Besides the maddening concept that there can be undecided at this point - that there's some psychological profile in 2-8% of the nation of people who are willing to vote yet incapable of making a decision (I always thought that the percentage of people in America who have an opinion is greater than those who are willing to vote. I guessed wrong), there’s no consistency in the poll except Bush being ahead (maddening in its own right). The conventional wisdom is that the incumbent’s numbers are solid, that the undecideds will either vote for the challenger or stay home. Bu there’s another even more important poll, the ‘direction of the country.’

The problem with polls in general is the same problem with all language/communication – what means one thing to me, means another to you. The more refined a question, the more accurate. To ask someone who they will vote for is a complicated request that is based on a number of factors (do I like X enough, hate W enough, plan to be sober on a Tuesday, etc.) Whether you like the way the country is at the very moment is a direct question and is much more accurate in determining how the vote will be in November.

Polling Report - Direction of Country

September 7-10

• Newsweek: Satisfied: 39, Unsatisfied: 53, Undecided: 8
• AP: 44, 52, 4
• Gallup: 44, 55, 1

September 2-3

• Newsweek: Satisfied: 43, Unsatisfied: 49, Undecided: 8
• Time: 45, 50, 4

August 3-5

• AP: Satisfied: 39, Unsatisfied: 59, Undecided: 2
• Time: 44, 51, 5

July 29-30

Newsweek: Satisfied: 36, Unsatisfied: 58, Undecided: 6

July 5-7,

• AP: Satisfied: 41, Unsatisfied: 56, Undecided: 3
• Gallup: 41, 57, 2

OK, yeah, how there can be undecided about *this* is even crazier. It demonstrates that drug use must be worse than obesity in America. Anyhoo, these numbers should make Bush wake up screaming in the middle of the night for Cheney and warm milk. To hover around 40% for satisfaction? Egads.

And for comparison on these, there were 60s for good chunks of 2002 and 2003.

A conclusion I make from this, as a die-hard Democrat, is that my fellow party-voters are a collection of fumbling chuckleheads. Back in the primaries they voted not for the candidate they wanted, but for somebody they thought “Swing Voters” would vote for. In general, as an anthropologist, I am reluctant to call a group of people, a culture, idiotic. Generally, a mass of people do something that is in their best interest. Not in this case.

I said it back then, too, Kerry is a poor candidate. He has the charisma of untanned leather. He makes Gore look like P Diddy. He also has gaping gaps in his trained moral reasoning. How could he support the Iraq war? I’m not talking about flippy-flops, and despite my support for the war (see my post on 9/11/03 for nuances) – if Kerry were any fashion of real deal he would have voted against the war. The comparisons to Vietnam are clear for a sidelines observer, for someone who ostensibly based his youth on ‘Nam-opposition, he should have been the first to vote against. He didn’t. He’s a weenie.

The Democrats primaried Kerry because of what they thought someone else would want. This is stupid because of a countervailing psychological rule: when in doubt choose real over potential. Put simply, the Democrats liked Edwards, but thought a Swinger will like Kerry better. Except that Edwards had inherent and established value while Kerry had potential value. Is it any surprise that people still like Edwards and nobody – even Democrats – like Kerry?

If I had a chance to talk to the Democratic leadership (alert me next time a pig flies) I’d tell ‘em straight out – the only way a Democrat wins is with charisma. That is it. Yet the party keeps nominating these policy robots (Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) as if the power of ideas will outweigh the natural human desire to look up to a leader.

Successful Democrats? All charismatic bastards. JFK, Clinton, LBJ, even Truman. A Republican doesn’t need charisma in America, despite the majority of the country’s population being democrats, the state-electoral college thang makes the states significant, and there are more Republican states. The GOP can run moral reprobates (Nixon, Bush II) and spineless crackers (Bush I) and win as long as the opposition is a standard Democrat weenie.

Both parties know these heuristics:

• Evil GOP vs. Robot Dem, GOP wins
• Weenie GOP vs. Robot Dem, GOP wins
• Charisma, no matter whom, always wins.

1960: JFK v. Nixon – Charisma/evil
1964: LBJ v. Goldwater – Charisma
1968: Humphrey v. Nixon – evil/robot
1972: McGovern v. Nixon – evil/robot
1976: Carter v. Ford – the only exception which is manifest evil is hard to win
1980: Carter v. Reagan – doofus/Charisma
1984: Mondale v. Reagan – Charisma
1988: Dukakis v. Bush – possibly the worst election in my lifetime; gads what a waste
1992: Clinton v. Bush v. Alf – Charisma
1996: Clinton v. Dole v. Alf – Charisma
2000: Gore v. Bush v. Nader – don’t get me started on the election results

If the Democrats had only nominated any one of the candidates with charisma – this would have been no contest. E.g. if the ticket were flipped and you had Edwards as the candidate with Clark, Dean, or even Kerry as VP, then we'd be having red-terror alerts every day of the summer just for Bush to barely catch sight of the donkey's rear.

Random thought about Nader

The New Republic had a great piece a few weeks back about how Ralphie Nader is acting true to form insofar that he has spent his career being a monomaniacal crusader with a flawed moral compass. Evidently, his compass is *so* flawed that, by pure chance, he can actually do something right. That's a longer issue.

The random thought is this: as an ardent dump-Bushie (me) I naturally fear what any other dump-Bushie candidate will do the (legitimate) Democrat's chances. However, as opposed to 2000 when misguided people actually thought their vote was meaningless, anyone who votes for Nader in 2004 would probably have just stayed home were it not for a spoiler.

So maybe, just maybe, Nader running in 2004 will actually bring more people to the polls. And maybe, just maybe, those idiots who left home to vote for Nader, will encounter (on the way) just one more instance of Bush evil. And maybe, yes - just maybe, they'll be swayed on the way to the booth and actually vote for a real candidate.

Whew. I'm outa breath just thinking about it.