Where My Mind has Wandered

Exhale. Relax. Feel better. Travis Childers wins in Mississippi.

I am an independent, but there is no doubt I loathe the current administration. It disgusts me. The Republican Party needs a good drubbing in the Presidential election if it is going to reform itself and start caring more about good government and fiscal responsibility and less about stuffing friendly pockets with pork and fat contracts, gaming K-Street, and getting jobs for graduates of Regent University.

That is why I take great comfort in the victory of Travis Childers in Mississippi's 1st Congressional district. Running as a pro-life Democrat in a district that elected and returned Trent Lott to the U.S. Senate for 18 years, Childers overcame a textbook attack ad campaign by his opponent Republican Greg Davis. The ads associated the conservative Childers with Nancy Pelosi, Pastor Jeremiah Wright, 9/11, and Barak Obama's comment about bitter voters in Pennsylvania. That Childers won a conservative district despite the usual bag of dirty tricks suggests that the drubbing I am hoping for might just be in the cards.

Giuliani Banking on Snow in July

The idea that Rudy Giuliani would rise to victory with a wave of support from the large number of retired New Yorkers living in Florida always struck me as absurd. New Yorkers don't like Giuliani.

Another proof point for this assertion greeted us the morning of January 22 in the form of a brutal article in the New York Times by Michael Powell and Russ Buettner. Front page, above the fold, in the premier top-left corner of the national edition. The article eviscerated Giuliani, painting him as a vindictive man drunk with power. A man who valued loyalty above all else and would viscously attack anyone he felt crossed him, even if it meant violating the boundaries of civil conduct, and even the law itself.

"As mayor, he made the vengeful roundhouse an instrument of government, clipping anyone who crossed him."

After seven years Americans have grown weary of "my way or the highway, I'm the decider and law is subject to my interpretation" leadership. But I don't think this was even about national politics. This was local, this was personal.

Despite what the right-wing media machine might lead you to believe, the New York Times is more than a liberal paper, it is the American newspaper. It has the third highest print circulation and is the number one online newspaper in the United States. For the New York Times to level such a blow on Giuliani days before his Waterloo says something. It says, like most New Yorkers, they don't like him.

The ex-pat New Yorkers living in Florida read the New York Times. Just in case the steady glare of the sun dulled their memories of Giuliani over the years, the paper was going to remind them.

When the paper endorsed McCain for Republican Party primaries with an editorial on January 25 it described Giuliani in this manner:

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking.

Maureen Dowd wrote Giuliani's preemptive second political obituary for the paper a few days later on January 27.

It figured that he would snowbird his strategy, taking his New York subtext of blacks-want-to-mug-you-and-I-can-protect-you down to Florida and switching it to Arabs-want-to-kill-you-and-I-can-save-you.

And I wasn’t surprised that he continued to run on fear and divisiveness, zeroing in on Florida the way he used to target Staten Island, Bay Ridge, Queens and parts of Manhattan where the elderly lived. Hizzoner always focused on those who supported him and ignored those who didn’t.

We can only hope there is no act three, but if there is you can be sure that New York will have its say.

Giuliani ... No Surprise So Far

When I look at polling data I am drawn to a candidate's unfavorable score among their own party. For me it is a very telling statistic. And Rudy Giuliani, even at times when he has had high favorability ratings over the past year, has also had a pretty high unfavorable ratings among Republicans.  It is easy not to like him, and many people don't. (The pollingreport.com has great favorability data on Guiliani over time, although not much by party affiliation.)

When Giuliani ran for mayor of New York in 1993 he did so as a law and order candidate, playing on his experience as a U.S. District Attorney. New York responded well to his tough demeanor. A little snarl was a welcome thing at the time, and Mayor Dinkins had worn out his welcome. Giuliani also was a pretty moderate Republican, a political breed that still exists in small pockets on the coasts, so he was able to attract some independent voters. When he barely won the election by just more than 50,000 votes he became the first Republican mayor of New York in 28 years.

Perhaps American's are tired of W's angry squint, but the snarl just doesn't play in the current environment. And sadly, a moderate Republican, particularly from New York, isn't going to rally the party's ultra-conservative core.

Giuliani's re-election campaign in 1997 was successful but he faced a very weak challenge from Ruth Messinger. Giuliani won 59 percent of the vote, but voter turnout also hit a 12-year low. People weren't coming to the polls to support him, they just weren't inspired by the competition. We'll never know if he could have won a third mayoral race, term limits made sure of that. His 2000 Senate campaign violently imploded in April and May of 1999. Barring September 11th his political career was likely over.

After September 11th Giuliani became a national figure. The rest of the country viewed him very differently than the population of New York did. He wasn't popular on September 10, he was very unpopular. The nation created a different story for him, one that gave him a second career. He became popular in a symbolic, rather than tangible way. Now we are back to reality, the old Rudy Giuliani that New Yorkers know. They guy it was very easy not to like. From day one I've said "there is no way this guy gets elected President." But then again, I said that about the squinting dunce from Texas.

One-stop Shopping for Political Polling Data

If you want a statistical look at the McCain misfortunes you need only go to one place: The Polling Report.  The site is without question the most respected source for aggregate polling data, and the site editor -- the oft-quoted, rarely cited Tom Silver -- is the preeminent expert on the true meaning of political polling data in the United States. As the Polling Report shows, McCain's favorable ratings have peaked and troughed over time, but his unfavorable ratings have been on a steady, negative trend since early 1999. His problem isn't with his friends, it is with the enemies he is making.

McCain and the Internet Era

The front page of the New York Times on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 had plenty of material to get my mind going. The first article of interest for me was the story indicating that Sentor John McCain was on the verge of dropping out of the Presidential race becuase his campaign was unravelling. The consensus reason for the imminent demise is a lack of money; his fundraising intake is "drying up." Surprise, surprise. The lack of money isn't the problem, it is the symptom of a campaign that has made no sense. The NYT writers, Nagourney and Kirkpatrick, assign much of the blame to "Republican opposition to McCain's stances on issues like immigration." What Republicans? Every discussion of Republicans these days refers to the ultra-conservatives, the neo-cons and social conservatives that have hijacked the grand old party. Have moderate republicans run out of disposable income? Does the hard-core right-wing of the party control the destiantion of all donations?

McCain's problems began when he conformed his campaign tactics to the popular perception that you have to run to the extreme edge of your nominating party in the primaries to secure the base, after which you run back to the center to cature the general election. I can imagine the conversations in McCain's Senate office when his advisors told him he needed to launch a bible belt tour, starting with genuflecting to the student body of Liberty University. "We will keep it on the down low, nobody will notice." "By the time we hit the general election the Reagan Democrats and moderate Republicans won't remember you were there." In the Internet era everyone from traditional reporters to political junkie bloggers will know where you appeared and what you said within hours. Video of your speech will be on YouTube the following morning. The Republican Moderates and the Reagan Democrats aren't going to forgive your appearance at Liberty University any more than they are going to forgive your steadfast support for the Bush Administration's disasterous and misguided foray into Iraq. Weclome to the Internet era.

I was privvy to a remarkable dialog between two experinced envoys from the left and the right just prior to the 2004 elections. Both agreed that the candidate that was able and willing to run to the center would sweep any presidential election. How do you reconcile that with the need to raise inordinate amounts of money, starting a year before the primary? The consensus answer is run to the extremes, that is where the early money is. I don't think that works for a candidate like McCain. Smart money doesn't follow ideals; money flows as long as the money thinks the candidate can win. For a candidate like McCain that means staying true to what made you popular to begin with, not changing your colors to appeal to a vocal extreme. Act like a front-runner and raise money from your true base and the fringe will fear you and curry your favor. Make the bible belt come to you.

Doing the State's Business, Missouri-Style

The Missouri Legislature has been at the forefront of attempts to marginalize legal abortion providers. Today Republican Governor Matt Blount signed legislation that introduces a new slate of laws that attempt to limit access to an abortion.

This is not a post that discusses abortion rights/right to life as an issue, just an observation of the legal maneuvering around the issue and the potential impact of the aggressive nature of legislation. The legislation bars people affiliated with abortion providers from teaching or supplying materials for sex education courses. The rationale behind the ban is that groups such as Planned Parenthood have a conflict of interest in supplying materials for sex education courses, because they could potentially make money off the female students.

Of course, the legislation allows schools to provide abstinence-only courses. You will not find a limitation on who can teach those courses, no concern over the potential relationship between counsel and commerce. That argument only applies to abortion providers. If you look across the state you will see that this introduces an interesting precedent. Can people who work for companies that make their living providing court-mandated driver's ed and DWI courses speak at schools about driving under the influence? What about the camp fairs held on school grounds?

The U.S. Army faced a similar issue this year when it was revealed that  insurance companies with predatory pricing and sales techniques were routinely allowed to make financial planning presentations on army bases. This is a serious issue, and the basic premise is one I have some sympathy for. I am not comparing Planned Parenthood to to a predatory lender, but the right-to-life movement, and the Missouri Legislators, clearly cast the organization as a predator.

Of course, both camps in the access to abortion battle can simply launch not-for-profit education services independent of organizations that provide service for fees. And both camps are savvy enough and well-funded enough to pull that off.

The law leaves the State of Missouri to decide how absolute this separation of counsel and commerce is. The selective use of this argument may be challenged in court. The Missouri Legislature is not new to having their laws shot down by the courts. But the lawmakers have decided it is worth Missouri taxpayer's money to push the limits of the legal system in this area.

Granted, 15 percent of Missouri high school students have tried methamphetamines, and Missouri’s average annual decrease in meth use is "approximately three times less than that observed nationally", but issues like drug use -- that take a huge toll on the state -- have to take a back seat to pursuing the national right-to-life agenda.

Why I Am Mad at Jimmy Carter

I have been meaning to do a post on President Bush’s legacy and Jimmy Carter beat me to the punch when he called the Bush Administration "the worst administration ever." Now some might say that Carter is calling the kettle black in this case. His legacy isn’t so hot depending upon how you look at it. To his credit, however, he has some shining moments in international relations and he had the reputation of being a tireless worker when he was in office. Tireless. Endless days that exhausted him. George W. Bush does not have that going for him. In a society that celebrates rags to riches stories and a wholesome Midwestern work ethic I think that Carter’s background as a peanut farmer and his 20 hour days will compare nicely with Bush’s background as a ner-do-well son of a rich politician who went to bed by sundown every day of his presidency.

I never intended to compare Carter to Bush, however. I intended to compare Grant to Bush, because I think that is a more apt comparison. Both administrations have been characterized by rampant cronyism and a chief executive that left the business of the business to powerful, if somewhat corrupt underlings. As described in Wikipedia (as good a source of general opinion as any), "although Grant was personally honest, he not only tolerated financial and political corruption among top aides but also protected them once exposed." Sound familiar? No matter where you look -- Harriet Myers, pretty much every non-military employee in the Green Zone, the 150 lawyers hired from Pat Robertson’s law school, the K-Street project, the attorney general scandal, Jack Abramoff -- the list goes on, and it isn’t pretty. Still, politics have gotten neither cleaner nor dirtier over time, and Grant has a head start, so you might think Bush would have a chance. I don’t think so.

The administration’s message machine is in high-gear cranking out the line "only history will judge the Bush presidency". This is a classic Rove/Cheney tactic, hammering home a line ad nausea until it becomes accepted. Both McCain and Giuliani have been trotting this out on the campaign trail, Giuliani as recently as last night on Letterman. It does not matter how many times they repeat it, history is already judging the administration and it doesn’t look good.

First of all, Grant helped win the Civil War as the general in charge of the Union Army, while Bush sat out the war of his generation and then started two wars that won’t end well, at least not during his time in office. I don’t think you get credit for conflicts that someone else cleans up after you leave office. Grant has also benefited from recent work of historians revisiting the Civil War and the man himself. For example, the caricature of Grant as a drunk looks to be overblown at best, and possibly off-base entirely. He certainly drank much less than some celebrated Confederate generals, many of which attended a liquor and cigar-fueled card game in General Longstreet’s tent most nights early in the war.

Where Bush really loses out is how his moments in office will be preserved. The hundreds of hours of video footage of Bush will win him the prize. The legacy of most presidents is passed on through the written word, particularly in speeches, but also in personal and official letters, where ideas tend to be well-organized and thoughtful. People don’t send letters anymore, they appear on camera. And no modern president has been more poorly suited for video than George Bush. Even his most ardent supporters will admit Bush is a bad public speaker, particularly off-the-cuff. If he were a smooth public speaker, more comfortable off-the-cuff, had a more compelling persona, he would be judged, today and in the future much differently.

We don’t have original and edited video and audio from Ulysses Grant, or James Buchanan, or Warren Harding, or Franklin Pierce. But historians in the future will be able to sift through thousands of hours of George Bush on YouTube and it will tip the balance.

For those interested in the rankings of American presidents Wikipedia has a great page that aggregates many studies and polls.

Kanan Makiya and the Legacy of Iraqi Ex-Pats

Steve Inskeep's interview with Iraqi ex-pat and Brandies professor Kanan Makiya is fascinating. (Morning Edition, April 18, 2007). When the Bush administration was working hard in 2002 to build a back-story behind the decision they had already made to go to war, Iraqi ex-pats provided juicy tales of both horror and promise. The soundbyte that Makiya provided was on of the juiciest. He told the spin team at the White House that the Iraqi people would "greet the Americans with sweets and flowers."

Inskeep's interview, in which he forces Makiya to confront and explain the role he played, however small, in the case for war is one of those rare moments in which people are held accountable, and perhaps hold themselves accountable in a public forum. In some ways it reminded me of The Fog of War, the Oscar-winning documentary film in which Robert McNamara explores his own role in the Vietnam War. Inskeep's questioning is calm, even respectful, but deliberate and probing.

Makiya explains his thought process and motivations in December 2002 in measured, but seemingly honest words. He takes some shots at the post-invasion Iraqi leadership, but he also takes some moments to swipe at the Bush administration, but he does so with what he leaves unsaid. In answers to the toughest questions about his own role, for example, he notes that he "never argued for this war on the basis of weapons of mass destruction, or on the basis of national security" but strictly as a "humanitarian case."

As to what went wrong in Iraq? "Above all, (it) is the looting. The sense of insecurity that today pervades Baghdad was born on the day of liberation in Iraq -- April 9th, 2003 -- when looting went rampant. And when you combine that with suspicions of American intentions and motives ..." What goes unsaid, and I wish Inskeep had asked him, was who did Makiya hold responsible for the looting, and the subsequent erosion of order and security? There is only one answer.