If You Can't Beat 'Em, Cheat 'Em
Massachusetts Democrats are cooking up a plan to keep John Kerry's Senate seat in Democratic hands in case he wins the presidency. Ordinarily, the governor of Massachusetts would appoint a replacement to serve out Kerry's term - but the governor is a Republican:

Massachusetts Democrats are devising a plan to keep John F. Kerry's US Senate seat in their party's hands by blocking Governor Mitt Romney from naming an interim replacement if Kerry wins the White House.

Beacon Hill lawmakers want to pass legislation that would leave Kerry's seat vacant for two months or more, until a special election is held to fill it. That would prevent the Republican governor from naming an interim senator, as is currently required by state law.

The initiator of the proposal -- Representative William M. Straus, Democrat of Mattapoisett -- insisted he is not being partisan.

Yet another example of fair play from the party that elected a dead man's wife to the Senate from Missouri in 2000, and pulled a political dead man off the ballot at the last minute in the 2002 NJ Senate race.

Marc

Outrage
After presidential candidates are defeated or drop out of races there is usually a small deluge of what are called "post mortem" pieces, examining how and why a certain candidacy failed. One such piece, "The Assassination of Howard Dean", written by Shobak.org editor Naeem Mohaiemen appeared yesterday on the left-leaning website AlterNet. It is by far one the worst, most poorly researched and insipid pieces of political writing that I have ever read. Not only is the premise wrong, but the facts that are used to illustrate the author's points are also wrong. If this is an example (and I pray that it isn't) of liberal commentary in this country, then people on the left need to be seriously worried.

The overall thrust of the article is that moderates, and more specifically the DLC, torpedoed Dean's campaign because they didn't agree with his policy positions and, as Mohaiemen implies, feared his radical, liberal message. Before I delve into that, however, I'd like to quote from the article.

By the sixth paragraph, after complaining about the Republican tactics that defeated Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis (and also failing to present one logical reason why either candidate should have won his race, save for a mention that "Carter's gentle ways secured the historic Camp David Egypt-Israel accord") Mohaiemen brings up the DLC. The resentment is palpable as the author explains how the DLC moved the party toward the center, a move that resulted in a Democratic president winning two elections in a row, something that hadn't happened since FDR. The piece then turns to the 2000 race.:

Nothing succeeds like success. Buoyed by Clinton's popularity, a balanced budget and an era of prosperity, the DLC became the standard-bearer for the Democrats' political identity. That is until 2000, when the DLC's next king-apparent, Al Gore, took a stumble in the Florida panhandle and was then hog-tied by the Supreme Court. When the dust had settled and King George was safely inside the palace, a recount revealed that Gore had actually won, but the damage was done. The DLC's critics now came out of hiding - attacking the party for being too centrist, too cautious and too much like "Republican-lite." If you try to ape the right-wing of the nation, voters may decide to go for the "real thing"!

Forgetting for the moment the petty use of royal imagery, Mohaiemen is dead wrong. While it's true that Al Gore was once a poster boy of the "New Democrats," he did not lose the 2000 election because he was a moderate. He lost the election because he was a moderate who tried to run as a populist. Gore ran away from himself in 2000, and in the process failed to win even one southern state, including his home state of Tennessee and his boss' home state of Arkansas. Rather than running on the still-booming economy and his own personal efforts to scale back the size and scope of the federal government, Gore's campaign was consumed with fighting anything big: Tobacco, Drug Companies, Oil, HMOs, etc. You name it, Gore was ready to take it on. He was fighting for "the people, not the powerful." He didn't lose because of his moderate beliefs, but rather in spite of them.

Am I making too big a deal of this one paragraph? Maybe. But there must be some degree of accountability on this matter. You can't say that Al Gore was a moderate and that's why he lost the election because it fits nicely into your piece. You cannot wish things true by merely writing them down.

Moving on to the overall point of the piece -- that Dean was brought down by the sinister forces of moderate members in the Democratic party. While there were undoubtedly moderate members of the party who didn't like Howard Dean's rhetoric, there was also no denying that Dean had a relatively conservative gubnatorial record while Governor of Vermont. Even before Dean was a presidential candidate he was on record as advocating raising the retirment age, a position he took back at the behest of members of the Democratic party. As Governor Dean received glowing marks from the NRA. And as a candidate he argued that gun control laws should be different in rural areas than they are in urban areas, a position that many liberals deemed obliquely racist. Dean even went so far outside of accepted liberal orthodoxy as to say that he wanted the votes of white guys with Confederate flags painted on their pick-ups. Dean may have been caustic in his remarks about the war in Iraq and his anger at President Bush, and his supporters were certainly more liberal than the rest of the Democratic Party, but it's hard to say Dean was a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.

Although Mohaiemen claims (typically without offering any evidence) that the "DLC reacted with fury to the Dean candidacy...[and] attacks were carried out by DLC operatives," Dean's most vocal critic prior to the Iowa caucus was Missori Rep. Dick Gephardt, hardly a DLC-er, who attacked Dean in Iowa over tax breaks to insurance companies, Medicare, and Dean's derogatory comments about the Iowa caucus.

I know that Mohaiemen's piece is small article published on a fringe website, but I can't help the anger that reading it stirs in me. To me, as a (for the time-being) moderate Democrat, this is important because websites like AlterNet is a major news source for a number of liberal and left-leaning people. Articles like this one paint a picture for the reader that is already in the reader's mind. However, the real danger comes when articles like this are so devoid of facts, and predicated on false notions that the author might really wish were true. When this happens the state of public discourse takes another hit, not to mention the ability of those who would criticize the President (and there is ample room to do so, both on the right and left), to present a clear and accurate argument.

Do I think that Naeem Mohaiemen purposefully misled readers? No. I think that Mohaiemen honestly believes everything in the article. It's not as if these facts weren't avaiable to the author. I mean, I researched this article on the internet while writing it. The problem is that facts do not find refuge in the pen of a true-believer. After all, when yours is the side of good and righteous, facts often become just something to write around. If this is liberalism, you can officially count me out.

Tony

2004 Electoral Projections
From presidentelect.org:

Tony

A shout out to Steve Simpson
I hate to pour water on the obvious joy that Marc gets in hating John Zogby, but this poll really isn't that far off base. Look at this AP analysis of exit poll results as it appeared in the Guardian:

TIME OF DECISION: Almost six in 10 voters decided in the last week, including about two in 10 who decided in the last three days and almost that many who decided Tuesday. Edwards led by a 2-to-1 margin among those who decided in the last three days. Kerry led by 30 points among those who decided in the last month or earlier. Edwards got major newspaper endorsements in the closing days of the campaign and performed well in a debate Sunday night. More than six in 10 independents decided in the last week, and Edwards got half of them.

The Zogby poll was taken on Friday and, as the exit poll results show, Edwards made great strides by Tuesday. By looking at this poll, the results and the exit polls, we see that Edwards was able, in the waning moments of the contest, to take votes away from Kerry in order to secure his suprising second place finish. Further, Zogby's Dean number is only about five points off the final result, and when you factor in margin of error, that's not bad.

Polls should never be designed nor interpreted as if they will predict the winner and the margin, although sometimes they can. They are a snapshot of the race at the time the poll was taken, with a shelf-life of, at max, a couple of days. I think Zogby's analysis (as if his numbers preclude the need for an actual vote) is wrongheaded. But, I don't see this as an example that Zogby's a fraud.

Kicking Him While He's Down
In case you weren't already convinced that Zogby is a complete fraud, look at this:

Candidate	Feb 13 -15
MA Senator John Kerry	47
Former VT Governor Howard Dean	23
NC Senator John Edwards	20
OH Congressman Dennis Kucinich	2
Civil Rights Activist Rev. Al Sharpton	1
Undecided	*

Maybe Edwards made another amazing comeback.

Marc

The Big (Deaney) Bopper: "Good bye, baaaby."
Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean will officially end his bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination today, sources say. Dean, who made a poor third place showing in last night's Wisconsin primary, is not set to endorse any of the remaining candidates. There has been some speculation, however, that Dean may put his weight behind Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), whom Dean has said has a better chance than front-runner Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) to defeat President Bush in the fall. Dean spoke with Edwards on the phone last night to congratulate him on his strong second place finish, but there was no discussion of an endorsement.

The race is now essentially a two man contest, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Rev. Al Sharpton continuing to fight for prime-time speaking slots at the Democratic Convention in Boston. With Dean out, John Edwards has a chance to challenge John Kerry, who won last night's primary by six percentage points, directly, and we could see Edwards increase his recent attacks on Kerry's support for NAFTA and other free-trade agreements.

Beyond the immediate reprecussions, what does the ultimate failure of the Dean campaign say about American politics? Dean's campaign, which essentially relied on young, wired political neophytes and placed an importance on the internet that has never before been seen in a presidential campaign, made great strides in gathering support and cash, but failed to deliver even one primary for the former physician.

Will we ever see another serious presidential contender adopt the Dean strategy, in even a modified form? You never know. Remeber, it's not as if the Dean campaign was a complete and utter failure. Dean was a nobody candidate with next to no chance of getting the nomination, who eventually became the front-runner until his loss to John Kerry in Iowa. The question is this: what went wrong, and can it be fixed? (I guess technically that's two questions.)

One of the factors leading to Dean's downfall is what is called "negative" campaigning, which once again proved successful. Once Dean gained front-runner status he was under attack from several candidates for several weeks, until his support was eroded enough to hand Kerry a victory in Iowa. Kerry, on the other hand, has not seen these kinds of attacks since he became the prohibitive favorite following his back-to-back wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Kerry will wrap up the nomination by Super Tuesday if Edwards fails to learn the Dean lesson and step-up the attacks and the rhetoric. This is not to say Edwards should pursue the intern story, for example. He needs to attack Kerry on his record in the Senate and on the campaign trail. Kerry's political career is rife with contradiction and there is certainly some hay to be made from this. The challenge for Edwards will be to find a balance between laying out an optimistic vision for the future and hammering away at Kerry. This is no small task, but Edwards will continue to come in a close second if he fails to get tougher. And without at least a couple of wins on Super Tuesday, he's finished.

Tony

Do You Expect Me To Talk?
"No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!"

Inspired by Sean's comment on my last LEGO post:

I'd like to be the first James Bond Villain with an evil island fortress made of Legos. I don't know if I can make an Interrogation Laser or Obvious Self Destruct Button out of plastic, though...

Marc

Revolt at the idiot box (with apologies to Mundo)
Lately I've been thinking a great deal about the presidential election being dominated by Kerry's and Bush's actions during the time of the Vietnam War. I was thinking about it today and I came up with something that I think helps illustrate the point. Like most political analogies, it's not perfect, but I think you'll understand what I'm saying:

It's 1968 and the country is involved in an increasingly unpopular foreign war. There's big issues on the horizons, including civil unrest, urban rioting and rural poverty. Now imagine that this contest was centered, not on the candidates' ideas about Vietnam and how to combat the loss of domestic tranquility, but around what Nixon and Humphrey were doing during World War II.

It's hard to make the case that 1968 is 2004, (believe me, Iraq is no Vietnam) but this election still has its fair share of big issues, including war and peace. Not to mention the fact that a couple of years ago people who really don't like us starting flying planes into our buildings. The domestic issues in 2004 may be less urgent than they were in 1968, but they are no less important. Our country is facing mounting budget defecits and an entitlement train wreck in the making. And yet, our president and Congress have shown an unwillingness to confront these issues head on. In fact, most of their efforts (expanding prescription drug coverage for the wealthiest demographic in America and tax cuts that accompany spending increases) are doing real and lasting damage, in spite of perceived short-term benefits. The candidates have different ideas about these issues, so why not talk about them?

There's been alot of hand-wringing over the past couple of decades about the vacuous nature of contemporary presidential campaigns. And most of the time it's the media doing the wringing. Well, we've got those big issues that you've been lamenting. And we've got a race with candidates who have some real differences on these issues. And yet, the press has thus far dropped the ball.

There are two reasons that I can surmise for why that is: the real issues are either too complex for the news media, as it is structured, to adequately explore or the media believes the average voter is too stupid to understand these issues. Whatever the reason, we are now wallowing in irrelevant trash.

The time has come for the press to pick that damn ball up, stop whining and be, for the love of Jesus Christ, news reporters.

Tony

Things that make you go hmmm...
Alright, so I got the suicide pages yesterday, you know just to keep up with this most foul world we live in...and after gettting through the front section I was left exhausted...just too much, just the headlins can wear a person out. Here is a sample...

Another 23 dead in Iraq...glad the war there is over

Maryland drivers keeping pace with nation's speeders

Philanthropies to lend the school system like 8 mill.

Soldier's letters reveal conditional US loyalty...good to know he's on our side, er, was...anyway

Hundreds of gays exchange vows in SF

Year after nightclub fire, a focus on Safety...I didn't even know Great White had that many fans

NY officials prepare for an 'unthinkable' attack...

Bullet hits SUV on highway in Ohio...this has been going on for months...someone just target shooting at the cars on highways around Columbus...does no one care about this 'cause it's in Ohio?

Texas less likely to hand out death sentence, study says...right.

300 on Carnival ship get a gastrointestinal illness...I'm not the only one that gets pleasure from knowing this am I?

Ky. man claimed to fight 'aliens'...schizophrenia is our friend

Scharzenegger's love of cigars sparks protest...when is that godamned state going to slide into the Pacific?

Thai boy, 13, 20th person known to die from bird flu

Haitain rebels bring in reinforcements...the entire north of the country is in the dark, isolated...lovely fucking place

THousands protest head scarf ban...

Water park roof collapses in Moscow, killing at least 15...there are waterparks in Moscow?

So, what's the point of this post? I don't know...just some kind of sadly, tragically, humorous feeling that you get from reading the paper...what a fucking place.

Draper

Why Senators Don't Get Elected President
From a Post editorial on Kerry:

He says he opposes gay marriage, yet voted against the federal Defense of Marriage act. He voted for the North American Free Trade agreement yet now talks in protectionist terms, promising he will provide American workers "a fair playing field" while accusing Mr. Bush of "selling them out." Would a President Kerry seek additional free trade agreements in Latin America and elsewhere? What's his position on whether his own state should adopt a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? So far, the answers aren't clear.

The most important confusion surrounds Mr. Kerry's position on Iraq. In 1991 he voted against the first Persian Gulf War, saying more support was needed from Americans for a war that he believed would prove costly. In 1998, when President Clinton was considering military steps against Iraq, he strenuously argued for action, with or without allies. Four years later he voted for a resolution authorizing invasion but criticized Mr. Bush for not recruiting allies. Last fall he voted against funding for Iraqi reconstruction, but argued that the United States must support the establishment of a democratic government.

Marc

LEGO Porn
Inside the LEGO vault in Billund, Denmark:

Marc

The Politics Of Personal Destruction
Mark Steyn:

I don't want this election fought as the Adulterer vs the Deserter. The "politics of personal destruction" is insufficient to the times, and an insult to the entirely non-metaphorical personal destruction of thousands of Americans that took place on September 11.

Marc

Beg Like The Lowly Dog You Are
From the Maryland GOP:

Mayor Martin O'Malley...said he has no plans to ask the state for any emergency or stopgap aid to avert the layoff of up to 1,200 teachers and school employees. 'We need to get our own house in order,' O'Malley said.

Baltimore Sun, Thursday, January 15, 2004

Just 28 Days Later...

'I would hope the governor might step up. I'm somewhat exasperated...'

Mayor Martin O'Malley Baltimore Sun, February 13, 2004

I hope to see this headline in the Sun very soon:

Ehrlich To City: Drop Dead

Marc

The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few
According to today's Baltimore Sun, a secret anti-terrorism evacuation plan, codenamed The Genesis Project, that designates Frederick as an evacuation site in the case of an attack on Washington or Baltimore, will be discussed with Frederick's municpal leaders, but not the pubic at large. The plan would call for, among other things, the Frederick fairgrounds to be converted into a medical treatment and decontamination center.

Tony

Bush Deserter Evidence Goes AWOL
The Boston Globe is reporting that a key witness has discredited the story of Bush's chief accuser:

Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett, who has been pressing his charges in the national news media this week, says he even heard one high-ranking officer issue a 1997 order to sanitize the Bush file, and later saw another officer poring over the records and discovered that some had been discarded.

But a key witness to some of the events described by Burkett has told the Globe that the central elements of his story are false.

George O. Conn, a former chief warrant officer with the Guard and a friend of Burkett's, is the person whom Burkett says led him to the room where the Bush records were being vetted. But Conn says he never saw anyone combing through the Bush file or discarding records.

"I have no recall of that," Conn said. "I have no recall of that whatsoever. None. Zip. Nada."

Conn's recollection also undercuts another of Burkett's central allegations: that he overheard Bush's onetime chief of staff, Joe M. Allbaugh, telling a Texas Guard general to make sure there were no embarrassments in the Bush record.

Burkett says he told Conn, over dinner that same night, what he had overheard. But Conn says that, although Burkett told him he worried that the Bush record would be sanitized, he never mentioned overhearing the conversation between Allbaugh and General Daniel James III.

Marc