In 2004 Howard Dean was the closest to understanding what has happened to the American Legacy and what it would take to restore it in a political world of Repubs and Repub-lites. John Edwards, with his “Two Americas” theme, was closest behind him. Of course we know what was done to Dean by his own party, and John Kerry stupefied and emasculated any effort by Edwards to talk about underlying principles of our legacy and place in the world and for each other. In 2007, Edwards has turned up the dial and is hitting even more of the right notes . . . and dropping in the polls. Maybe it’s that drop that that’s convinced him just to go out with guns blazing and truth hammering. But I think his fate will demonstrate that the bulk of the American people just don’t care about what this country was supposed to stand for. Howard Dean’s problem wasn’t himself or the media. It was the American people. Edwards looks to be facing the same enemy. We’ve ceased to deserve what we’ve been given, and none of the well-planned bromides from the Clintons or Obama, even if victorious somehow in 2008, will reverse that. There’s always been a thread in our country that promised opportunity for every person here, but it’s been swept away in contribution corruption, media perversion, and politician mediocrity and mendacity. Edwards increasingly understands it, but in a democracy you get what you deserve. And that bill is only now arriving.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Legacy Down
Friday, January 05, 2007
We Are All A-holes from Vermont Now...
Really, how does Paul Begala still have any cred whatsoever? Just wondering. Maybe he doesn't, but he still thinks he does. His (and Carville’s) “We won because of Rahm--Howard Dean sucks” schtick, really, was tired and old before it even came out of their mouth for the first time.
I was going to just politely greet him and shake his hand, but I had an attack of conscience. After all that Begala and Carville have done to undermine Gov. Dean’s efforts at the DNC, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity. "I hope you will support the 50-state strategy," I told him, expecting the shrug off or a "nice to meet you too," but that isn’t what Begala had in mind.One day, Carville and Begala will look up and realize that nobody’s paying attention to them anymore. Not that that will stop them from talking...
"That depends what you mean by 50 state strategy he said." I responded by telling him that I meant the plan for Democrats to compete everywhere and for every office in the country. That I don’t support he said, "we should start with principles and values." "Sure, we should compete everywhere" he muttered, "but that’s not the right strategy." He continued that after working for over 30 campaigns this cycle, not a single one of those campaigns was helped by the 50-state strategy. He challenged me to name examples where the 50-state strategy helped us win in 2006. I proceeded to cite wins in Kentucky and Indiana, along with progress in Nebraska and Kansas as evidence of the plan’s short term success.
"Look," he said, "When we started there were only about 15 competitive races, but Rahm made the field over 35 by the end and that had nothing to do with the 50-state strategy." I told him we never would have had so many competitive districts if not for the DNC investing staffers and resources into those states early on and expanding the playing field. "So you have people out there, what are they doing there though?" he questioned. " I told him they were building a long term infrastructure for the Democratic Party, and we had people all over America knocking on doors and spreading the Democratic message. "So what do they say when they knock on the doors then?" he asked me. I told him they had a succinct 6 point plan for a "new direction" that they were discussing, a cohesive message that we haven’t had in the past. "Anyway," Begala continued... "I don’t need some a**hole from Vermont telling me what to do."
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
I realize...
...that James Carville is just a giant, bald, ET-looking, bespectacled fish in a barrel at this point, but...this is still one mighty fine takedown courtesy of one Mr. Chris Bowers...
There are two main reasons why James Carville does not like Howard Dean. The first is that Howard Dean does not trash other Democrats, and Carville prefers Democrats who throw their own party under the bus. The second is that he is a political consultant, and as such many of his friends have gotten rich off of commissions from television advertisements. As far as he is concerned, all donations to all Democratic committees exist so that he and his friends can get richer. Since Howard Dean is spending money on field organizers and grants to state parties, his friends tend to not get rich from the money the DNC raised. This is abhorrent to Carville, since Democratic Party committees exist to make him and his friends rich.Bowers is a little (okay, a lot) more civil than I'm capable of being at the moment, but I'll forgive him for that. Seriously, how long do people like Carville still get to be on TV? When does being good at your job actually come into play? When does looking like a Republican-esque opportunist by calling for Howard Dean's head moments after he helped to engineer an election landslide actually hurt your credibility? These are obviously rhetorical questions...I know what the answers would be if I really wanted to ask...
...
Yet still, after producing a sub-.500 record int eh top fifteen House targets, Carville has the gall to tell the press that he and his other consultant buddies deserved even more money so that they could have run even more ineffective advertisements.
...
Carville can try and continue his consulting con that more money to the DCCC would have automatically translated into more victories for Democrats in the House, but looking at our performance in the top fifteen targets, I have to say that is hardly a guarantee. What is a guarantee is that it would have made his rich consulting buddies a lot more money. We practically swept every close race in the Senate, so I have no beef with their consultants. However, when it comes to the House, I want answers. Did we use the right consultants? What other options to we have? What commissions are they taking from these ads? How can we work to reduce the size of those commissions if they are being done on a percentage basis? To what extent are other forms of independent expenditures besides advertising on broadcast advertising more or less effective? How much money does James Carville personally stand to gain from the extra money he wanted channeled to close House races?
Odder and Ender
The MO House has presented a report blaming abortion for illegal immigration. If all those zygotes had embedded and been borne to fruition (which happens less than half the time even when fertilized, I've heard), we wouldn't have all these open jobs for people to cross borders for. Seriously. As Governing points out, the next report will show how affirmative action has caused higher gasoline prices. Now you know why everyone there says "show me," including that 1 + 1=2. . . . Other bloggers have mentioned this but it perfectly explains why I was so despondent on the night of the IA caucuses in 2004, listening to all those over-educated Dems and media talk about how Kerry was "electable" and Dean wasn't. All Dean was, was right. And now those same people are saying Dean could never be elected Pres. Hmmmm. . . . A survey shows that Americans favor gov action on health insurance, just over half wanting it mandatory, with 60% wanting higher rates for smokers and 30% for the obese. Interesting question as to whether we could avoid gov regulation if we got premiums up high up enough or if it would just stop insurance from being used. Anyway, the window is clearly open for the Dems if they can get over the "Hillary health care disaster" once and for all. Get people guaranteed health care and watch the risk-taking necessary for a vital capitalism take off again, by both existing companies and by more entrepreneurs. I'm just saying.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Have to Be More Than the Other Guy
Good analysis of Tuesday's election results nationally here. I got elected to a school board once, primarily because the incumbent had aggravated too many people to get chosen again. IOW, all I had to do in the campaign was make clear that I wasn't worse than he was. That's the way elections are. Usually, they're judgments of the incumbents, not endorsements of the challengers. We knew all along that the Dems weren't putting forth a new view of themselves in this campaign, just saying "We're not Bush." Okay, it was enough. But now they're already arguing over what "we're not Bush" means. Why? Because they don't know who they are themselves. And, as this article makes clear, that's the difference between being a long-term viable party and just the default position when the Repubs get too extreme and overreaching in their don't-think-it's-over quest for total domination of our political system. They're weakened right now, so the Dems have a chance to develop a strong counter of responsibility and effectiveness while clarifying everything wrong about the Repubs. Or, they can immediately start cutting each other up, like that moron Carville is trying to do with his idiotic suggestion to dump Dean (can we finally admit that Carville is a third-rate Rove whose 1992 claim to fame was the last Repub implosion, not some genius result of his making??), and not get the right things done to offset the Busheviks and restore us to our historical path. (Demosthenes has the definitive tribute to Dean here.) The fate of the American Legacy is literally in their hands. Was this just a bump in the fall of our republic or an actual turnaround? The tools are there for the turnaround. The blame will be theirs if they fail.
