August 8, 2003 PERMALINK
Will Arnold Be The "Terminator"?
Or Will He Be "Gigli"?
(posted August 8 1:15 AM ET)
The media, proving again how much they enjoy being manipulated, have deemed Arnold Schwarzenegger the ãinstant frontrunner,ä and the Democrats in ãdisarray,ä for the CA recall election.
Is it that simple? Of course not.
Mind you, the media has some ground to stand on.
Schwarzenegger did lead in a recent Field Poll, (when not pitted against former LA Mayor Richard Riordan).
And Dems have not settled on a strategy or a singular candidate.
But·
1. Arnoldâs poll numbers are not scary.
His lead in the poll was an underwhelming 20%, with fellow GOPer Bill Simon in second with 15%.
And that was a poll with no Democrats in the mix, just four GOPers and one Green. (It was taken in mid-July, when Gray Davis was going for the united Dem front.)
If Dems were given a place to go, Arnoldâs numbers would have surely dropped.
Furthermore, only 31% of likely voters said they were ãinclinedä to vote for Arnold, 62% were not.
Simon, who ran an inept campaign against Davis last year, polled similarly: 30% inclined, 62% not.
Overall, not exactly ãTerminatorä levels.
2. Dems are no more in disarray than GOPers.
Yes, the Dems are splintered right now, with disagreements over whether or not to put up a replacement candidate, and no consensus over who the best replacement would be.
But is the GOP 100% behind Arnold? Nope.
Amidst the Arnold hoopla, itâs easy to forget that Simon and state legislator Tom McClintock are still planning to run.
Thereâs a reason for that.
Right-wingers think Arnoldâs not pure enough, since he has (seemingly) expressed support for abortion rights and gay rights.
This has been the state GOPâs problem for years. The party leadership is hard-right, and refuses to back moderates that have a shot statewide.
It appears that (with White House help?) Washington pols, moderate and conservatives, are trying to close ranks behind Arnold (such as Reps. David Dreier, Dana Rohrabacher and Mary Bono).
But it remains to be seen if conservatives who live in CA year-round will play along.
Arnoldâs already trying to curry right-wing favor with some quiet clarification of his so-called ãvery liberalä social views.
And Pat Buchanan wrote back in June that Arnold:
·has begun to reach out to the right to cut a deal where it plays a lead role in balancing the state budget and is given concessions on partial birth abortion.
But as long as Simon and McClintock stay in the race, and NewsMax.com is whipping up the anti-Arnold fervor, you can assume the outreach isnât working.
On top of that, you still might see another GOP moderate cut into Arnoldâs support, Peter Ueberroth, a former Time Man of the Year.
So thatâs not quite a party in ãarray.ä
Surely, Schwarzenegger has some things going for him.
The media frenzy will likely goose the next round of polls, further solidifying the perceived frontrunner status.
And heâll have plenty of personal cash with which to flood the airwaves.
But this will be a rough, nasty campaign, and itâs not at all certain that a good box-office record will be able to deflect fierce political attacks.
He canât sneak in the back door without the requisite grilling, the way the last successful celebrity candidate, Jesse Ventura, did.
And heâll have to do more than recycle catch phrases to avoid becoming another Bill McBride, the '02 FL gubernatorial candidate.
McBride too was a fresh political face, and a well-financed moderate, who supposedly was the strongest candidate on paper.
Yet McBride was soundly beaten by Jeb Bush.
The lesson: when youâre dealing with the untested, anything can happen. You can catch fire, but you can just as easily burn.
July 30, 2003 PERMALINK
Do You Have To Be For The War To Win?
(posted July 30 1:45 AM ET)
Yesterdayâs column concluded that the DLC wonât go nuclear and truly divide the party.
But DLC leader Al From also said at this weekâs DLC convention:
There has been some talk in the corridors about why we're having this fight in the Democratic Party right now.
I'll tell you why we are having this fight...it's because we need to have it, because the nominating process is the time you have fights in a political party, because the stakes are so high.
Fair enough. Letâs have it.
The centerpiece of the event was a poll by Lieberman pollster Mark Penn. In his analysis, he writes:
Swing voters are unlikely to vote for a Democrat unless he can offer a vision to compete with Republicans when it comes to national defense and homeland security.
Canât argue there. Itâs more than just the swing that needs to hear the Dem vision of defense and security.
From followed up, and said:
The problem·is that we're not in the debate·
·You've got to tell people how you can make the country stronger and safer.
Sounds about right. No one wants to be weak and unsafe.
From also said:
The right position on the war is to be for the war. What's really at stake is our way of life.
But wait. Is that what Pennâs poll said, that you have to be for the Iraq war to win?
No. It didnât.
Hereâs what it said.
It emphasized the ãsecurity gapä between the parties in the eyes of the electorate.
On the question, ãwho does a better jobä on several issues, the Dems trailed GOPers on the following:
National Security: -35 percentage points
Homeland Security: -33
Iraq: -28
War on Terrorism: -28
Foreign policy: -13
Not so hot. But there is a little contrary data.
Another question asked if you agree or disagree with this statement:
The Democratic Party is not tough enough to take on the problem of national security and keep America safe.
The result? A 48-48 tie.
And notably, swing voters, whom Penn was very focused on, disagreed with it ö swing women by 8 points, swing men by 1.
Well, how does Penn analyze all that? He doesnât.
Frankly, itâs a bit of a mess to analyze.
LiberalOasis has three big questions.
1. Do the weak Iraq numbers have to mean that the antiwar position is the problem?
It's not like the Dem leadership was antiwar. The party was split and its message was muddled.
Could it then speak to a perceived lack of confidence and conviction in how the party leadership handled the matter in Congress?
2. Why are Dems doing a little bit better on Iraq than they do on the larger issue of ãhomeland securityä?
The homeland security message from the Dems has been pretty consistent, and has DLC support -- more funding good. Whatâs not working?
Might it not be the position thatâs the problem, but, going back to the Iraq debate, the perception of tentativeness?
3. Perhaps most importantly, how do you explain how Dems do considerably better on ãforeign policyä than on ãIraqä?
(Interestingly, women give Dems a 3-point edge on ãforeign policy.ä)
Could that mean that the platform of pro-multilateralism, pro-UN, and anti-preemption, isnât a political liability?
And with a more forceful articulation, the gap could be closed further?
(Note that those three prongs are not necessarily areas of division between liberals and the DLC.)
Furthermore, could the data showing Dems doing OK with swing voters on being ãtoughä indicate that multilateralism and toughness are not at odds?
Penn doesnât explore any of these questions.
In fact, his only attempt to crystallize these findings is when he tests ãNew Democratä statements to prove that a candidate who embodied those statements could win in 2004.
On security matters, he only tested the following:
The United States must maintain a strong, technologically superior defense to protect our interests and values.
(73% agree, as do 65% of ãliberal Democratsä)
America needs a foreign policy that is committed to the bold exercise of U.S. leadership to foster peace, prosperity, and democracy throughout the world.
(49% agree, as do 50% of ãliberal Democratsä)
What Penn didnât test was the standard he himself set out:
·a vision to compete with Republicans when it comes to national defense and homeland security.
There isnât much in those two statements that makes up a competing vision.
There isnât any questioning that explores the ideas of multilateralism and pre-emption, the flashpoints that divide the parties and the public.
And there isnât any questioning that directly addresses whether someone like Howard Dean, who made clear his case against this war, would be given a fair shake by voters.
So all we get out of Pennâs poll, as far as national security is concerned, is that Dems have ground to make up, but no real analysis on how to do that.
And no acknowledgement that the ãme-tooä tack was tried already by the Dem leadership, and may well be contributing to some of these low numbers.
Yet the DLC shotgun analysis is that only a ãme-tooä position on the war will lead to victory.
The ãsecurity gapä is a problem. And, most likely, a competing vision is needed to win in 2004.
But there are different ways to do it. The DLC has no lock on the solution.
And its poll does not make the case that a Dean candidacy does not hold the key.
July 29, 2003 PERMALINK
The DLC Wonât Be A Problem
(posted July 29 12:45 AM ET)
(minor edit July 29 9:45 AM ET)
As the corporate-backed Democratic Leadership Council met in Philly yesterday, the headlines from the wires made it sound like the Dem party rift was getting wider.
AP: Centrist Democrats: Donât Vote For Dean
Reuters: Moderate Democrats Warn Party on 2004 Prospects
But thatâs not the story.
Itâs old news that the rise of Howard Dean riles the DLC.
The new news from the DLC meeting is that the olive branches are slowly emerging, as indicated in this MSNBC.com report.
DLC leader Bruce Reed, referring to Deanâs comments at the recent NOW forum, sought to lower the temperature of the spat (which Reed and the DLC started):
Weâre grateful that he defended us to Al Sharpton. Weâre not looking to have this become personal.
Other DLCers defended Dean on the issues.
Ohio Senate candidate Eric Fingerhut:
His health care proposals are excellent·I also appreciate his approach to budget balancing.
And PA Gov. Ed Rendell:
You can be against a particular war and still be strong on national security.
Most importantly, DLCer Dan Kogovsek said if Deanâs the nominee, even though heâs worried about the result, ãweâd support him.ä
That is key.
As LiberalOasis has stressed, George McGovern didnât lose because of ideology.
But because the party's moderate-conservative wing deserted him (in addition to McGovernâs own non-ideological missteps.)
Therefore, if the DLC and other moderates stand by a Dean nomination, then Dean will not be McGovern redux.
With that scenario effectively brushed aside, the DLC complaining is less of long-term concern.
Their dismissive tone towards liberals generally is still unnecessarily divisive and self-defeating.
But the DLC has a right to make its case about strategy and policy in 2004 and beyond. As do liberals.
The Dem primary voters will decide. We will all stand together in the end. And thatâs the way it should be.
July 28, 2003 PERMALINK
The Sunday Talkshow Breakdown
A weekly feature of LiberalOasis
(posted July 28 12 AM ET)
As IntelliGate continues to simmer, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was the latest to be given pushback duty, appearing on Meet The Press, Face The Nation and Fox News Sunday.
And he laid down the most brazen argument yet for the Administrationâs actions. From FNS:
·it's the nature of terrorism·that intelligence about terrorism is murky·
·I think the lesson of 9/11 is that, if you're not prepared to act on the basis of murky intelligence, then you're going to have to act after the fact.
And after the fact now means after horrendous things have happened to this country.
And from FTN:
·stop and think about what the 9/11 report is saying. It's saying we should have connected these murky dots ahead of time.
Well, you can't have it both ways.
If you wait until you have absolute certainty about terrorism, you're really saying we'll wait until after the fact and deal with it.
And I thought the lesson of September 11th is that approach doesn't work any more.
He surely knew such statements would grab some headlines and kick up controversy.
He had to assume that the ãmurkyä defense would lead to this kind of Dem response from Sen. Carl Levin, on FTN:
Boy, it sure didn't sound murky before the war.
There were clear connections, we were told, between al-Qaeda and Iraq. There was no murkiness, no nuance, no uncertainty about it at all·
·So now, when we're told that it· is a murky picture when you're dealing with this kind of an issue.
It's a very different tone, very different statement.
And that's really the issue here, as to whether or not the evidence·was exaggerated·
Of course, Levin said what needed to be said, and he is right on the facts.
But the Bushies know that emotion ö garnished with lies and half-truths ö can trump facts, especially when the emotion is fear.
And so, knowing that the ãmurkyä defense would be bait too good for Dems to pass up, Wolfie has drawn them into a dare:
Go ahead and send a message that you wonât be as quick to pull the trigger as we are.
Thatâs the Bush game. Is it sure to work?
Not exactly.
The Bushies have two major obstacles.
1. The media are playing less and less softball
Case in point:
Tim Russert, who tends to be deferential to high-level Bushies, was pretty rough on Wolfowitz yesterday (though more follow-ups would have been useful.)
Itâs too much to excerpt here -- be sure to read the whole thing.
But his finest moment was when he nailed Wolfowitz with his own words -- that liberating Iraqis and the disputed ties to Al Qaeda were not sufficient reasons for war.
Russert summed it up nicely:
So if you donât have weapons of mass destruction.
And you donât have a direct link to terrorism.
And you do have the third, which the administration has been emphasizing, but you yourself said itâs not a rationale to go to war.
What now is the rationale for having gone to war?
As the lies and half-truths are now under more scrutiny, it becomes harder for the Bushies to glide by with emotional arguments.
Simply put, eventually the record catches up with the lies.
2. If you canât find any weapons, then you didnât connect the right dots
Wolfowitz is right about the lessons of Sept. 11, in that we should have done a better job connecting the dots.
But connecting any old dots isnât doing a better job. Itâs doing a reckless job.
On MTP, Wolfowitz echoed Dick Cheneyâs earlier argument that, ãit would be irresponsible for an American leader to ignoreä the judgment of the intelligence agencies.
Whatâs irresponsible is risking the lives of American soldiers and another countryâs civilians because of a shoddy, politicized assessment of ãmurkyä intelligence.
If the Bushies found significant stockpiles of actual weapons, their assessment would be proven correct, and theyâd have an easier time arguing they can be counted on to make the right call.
Instead, theyâve left the Dems with an opening: who can you trust to competently handle intelligence?
QUICK HITS
Is Saudi Arabia the Enemy?
The Bushies took bipartisan flak yesterday for covering up the Saudi Arabian connection in the new 9/11 congressional report.
On FTN, the GOP chair of the Senate Intelligence Cmte, Pat Roberts was critical:
·part of [the report] was redacted to protect the Saudis·
·I think at some future date it will be made public.
[But] I was upset with the process, and I was upset with the amount of material that was redacted.
On MTP, where they danced around naming the Saudis, GOP Sen. Richard Shelby also took his shots:
RUSSERT: Shouldnât the American people know who are the foreign sources of support for the hijackers?
SHELBY: Absolutely. They should know.
And I figure the American people will figure out whoâs supporting who and whoâs our real ally and who has a transactional relationship with us·
·My judgment is 95 percent of that information could be declassified, become uncensored, so the American people would know.
RUSSERT: Why are they classified·?
SHELBY: Well, I think it might be embarrassing to some international relations.
Obviously, itâs a good thing politically to have public see Bush bend over backwards for his Saudi oil pals.
But Dems must also be careful not to unwittingly bolster the case of the neocons who are pushing for ãregime changeä in Saudi Arabia.
As LiberalOasis noted in May, thereâs a tendency to oversimplify Saudi Arabia, and overlook the split in the governing royal family.
Surely, seeing those 28 classified pages could help shed light on what parts of the Saudi government are sympathetic to, and supportive of, Al Qaeda.
And Bushâs Saudi ties impede our ability to properly deal with the situation, and make it easier for even reform-minded Saudi officials to look away.
But to pronounce the entire Saudi government culpable in Sept. 11, and deem them our enemy, probably exaggerates the case.
And feeds those who seek more imperial conquests.
Having said that, note what Sen. Bob Graham, who helped write some of those 28 pages, said on FNS:
I am saying high officials in this government, who I assume were not just rogue officials acting on their own, made substantial contributions to the support and well-being of two of these terrorists and facilitated their ability to plan, practice and then execute the tragedy of September the 11th.
Serious stuff. We desperately need to know more.
