December 16, 2005 PERMALINK
How To Lead
(posted Dec. 16 1:45 AM ET)
There is always a wildly disproportionate amount of attention given to Senators who are thinking of running for President.
In the last 100 years, only six sitting Senators have won their party’s nomination to be president, and only two have won the presidency (Kennedy and Harding).
Conventional wisdom is that governors make better candidates than Senators.
They have executive branch experience. They can take credit for more concrete accomplishments. They don’t speak in Beltway jargon.
In short, they are more likely to come off as leaders, not legislators.
Yet, Senators tend to get most of the pre-primary media attention, because they’re in Washington, where the political reporters are.
2008 will be no different, especially since both parties will likely have large fields of candidates, many of whom will be Senators.
If a Senator is going to break from the pack, it will be because he or she found ways to display some leadership qualities.
This will be particularly hard for Democrats, as they are in the minority and can’t easily score victories.
Displaying leadership qualities is different than self-promotion, which to some degree we can expect from all Senators running for President.
For example, creating your own plan for Iraq, that has only cosmetic differences from other Dem proposals, and has no chance of being implemented or positively impacting public discourse, is not showing leadership.
It’s just being a stereotypical legislator, and it also harms the ability of the party to speak in a unified voice.
What would constitute actual leadership?
Take yesterday's report that Sen. Russ Feingold may have the votes to filibuster a renewal of the Patriot Act, from a bipartisan coalition no less.
The fact that Feingold was the only Senator to vote against it initially gives him more leadership cred.
He has owned this issue from the start, worked at it despite long odds, and is making headway.
This development follows Feingold's proposal for a 12/31/06 target date for full ground troop withdrawal in Iraq, which began the shift in public debate, and prompted Senate Dems to vote for a flexible timetable resolution.
(Although Rep. John Murtha’s immediate pullout proposal has arguably overshadowed Feingold now, so Feingold may not get leadership cred for his move.)
In both cases, Feingold is leading in a substantive, productive way, not in a selfish, superficial way that undercuts the party.
Other presidential prospects should take note: you will do yourself and your party good if you find creative ways to lead, and rise above mere jockeying for position.
QUICK HIT
Do Bush’s Numbers Add Up?
From the Q&A portion of Monday’s Iraq speech:
Q: Since the inception of the Iraqi war, I'd like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis I include civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators.
THE PRESIDENT: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis.
From the current issue of The New Yorker:
In October, the Pentagon published its first statistics for Iraq’s war dead; it estimated that nearly twenty-six thousand Iraqis had been killed by insurgents between January, 2004, and September, 2005. The figure did not include Iraqis killed by Americans.
Hmmm.
Apparently, we’re supposed to believe that about 4,000 total Iraqis have been killed by US forces from the beginning of the war in March 2003, and by insurgents before 1/04 and after 9/05.
Sounds like a question for Scotty McClellan.
(hat tip: Snow White Of The Left)
December 15, 2005 PERMALINK
Fake Realism
(posted Dec. 15 1:30 AM ET)
Both the NY Times and W. Post characterize Dubya’s recent series of Iraq speeches as embracing a tone of “realism.”
Which means he accomplished what he set out to do, in the area of elite opinion management.
With public opinion on the verge of falling off the cliff, Bush needed to find a way to shore up some support for the war, without actually changing course and giving up the goal of exerting unilateral influence over Iraq and its neighbors.
(As Bush said yesterday: “Our tactics continue to change, but our goal in Iraq has not changed.” Take him at his word.)
By talking in more detail about the nature of the insurgency, by acknowledging tactical errors, by taking a whopping five questions from the audience after one speech, Bush gives the impression of candor and lowered, more realistic expectations.
And that impresses the foreign policy establishment poo-bahs that can help shape media coverage.
As the W. Post reported: “The less rosy language has won plaudits from skeptical analysts and politicians.”
But of course, Bush said nothing to indicate the goals of the occupation have changed. If you were skeptical of the policy before, you should still be skeptical today.
What are those goals in the near-term? Manipulating the choice for president and prime minister after the parliamentary elections are over.
The Bushies are not really trying hard to hide their plans.
As the NY Times reports today:
American officials fully expect that for months after the Iraqi election on Thursday the American ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, will remain the critical behind-the-scenes power in the creation of a factious coalition to run the country.
Why should that be needed after the Iraqi people elect representatives with four-year terms, who are empowered to then choose a president and prime minister?
Khalilzad gave a hint while on CNN this past Sunday, in response to the question, “Who’s going to win?”:
Well, I don't think that any single party will have outright majority in the next assembly...
... So the next assembly will have various groups. They will have to form coalitions. The concerns of various parties will have to be dealt with.
And I think it will be very positive for the future of Iraq.
Khalilzad would not confidently and comfortably predict a result that the Bushies would not want to see occur.
But why would they want a situation where no party wins?
As TomDispatch wrote after the first Iraqi “election” in February:
The strength of the Kurdish vote and the lack of a Sunni one look sure to create a weak coalition of some sort in Baghdad where all the legislators will be targeted by assassins.
And TomDispatch elaborated in October after the second election:
[The Bush Administration’s] first goal has long been to retain a (much reduced) military presence in that country for the foreseeable future.
The administration is on record as saying that it will leave if asked to do so; but the continuing chaos and conflict, largely sparked by the continued presence of U.S. troops, ensure that the desperately weak government in Baghdad's Green Zone, which is unlikely to survive without American protection, won't make such a request.
In other words, we’re playing Syria to Iraq’s Lebanon, influencing the composition of their government by making the country’s (illegitimate) leaders are dependent on our military presence.
Fast forward to today.
Ambassador Khalilzad is predicting that no majority party will emerge and a coalition government (read: weak government) will have to be formed.
And unnamed “American officials” are telling the press that Ambassador Khalilzad is just the guy Iraq needs to put that coalition together.
Some democracy.
Most importantly, this was always the game plan:
To craft a Iraqi government that the Bushies want, under the cloak of democracy, to serve our narrow self-interest (forsaking our larger security interest in fostering credible democracy that will reduce global resentment and stop the spread of Al Qaeda’s ideology.)
Dubya’s newfound nod to realism does not mean he has abandoned his neocon dreams.
December 14, 2005 PERMALINK
The Tookie Backlash
(posted Dec. 14 1:30 AM ET)
LiberalOasis was surprised at the number of anti-death penalty bloggers, who argued that clemency for Stanley “Tookie” Williams was an impractical or wrongheaded cause.
The underlying argument in these posts seems to be the only sensible candidates for high-profile clemency campaigns are those whose guilt is (or should be) in doubt.
(They are also pushing the current case of Cory Maye, who is on death row after shooting a police officer in perceived self-defense when police burst into his home around midnight, allegedly unannounced.
The case was originally promoted not by liberal bloggers, but by pro-gun rights bloggers, though this case is not exactly the best argument for keeping a gun in the house.)
True, death row inmates who may be innocent, and are being railroaded by the system, stand to garner the most public support.
But if you’re in the clemency business, you don’t get a lot of squeaky clean inmates to choose from. You’re often dealing with folks who have complicated stories and checkered pasts.
Furthermore, the argument against the death penalty is multi-faceted.
The fact that innocents will inevitably be killed, because the system is run by fallible human beings, is probably the most compelling argument.
But there are other arguments.
One of them is that any human being’s life has the potential to be of worth to society-- even that of a killer, even when behind bars.
No one argued that because Williams wrote children’s books and preached against violence, that he should be absolved of all guilt and set free.
But people did argue that an imprisoned yet living Williams has more value to society than a dead and buried Williams.
It’s not about what’s good for Williams -- his punishment was going to continue if he got clemency. It’s about what’s good for society.
Granted, that message was somewhat muddled because Williams maintained his innocence, even though that was not the basis of his appeal for clemency, and even though he was able to make exhaustive appeals.
Despite that, Williams still had a compelling personal story that made a good argument for keeping prisoners alive.
Does that mean Williams’ story is strong enough to change attitudes about the dealth penalty?
Obviously not, but few stories on their own could.
Even something as powerful as the release of many inmates found innocent by DNA testing has only softened support for the death penalty; it hasn’t reversed public opinion.
If you’re committing to the uphill battle to end the death penalty, you have to find a way to combine various moral and pragmatic arguments against the practice, and you have little choice but to use imperfect individuals to personalize those arguments.
Anti-death penalty advocates should not second-guess the effort to save Williams’ life and allow him to continue preaching against violence. They did what they had to do.
December 12, 2005 PERMALINK
The Sunday Talkshow Breakdown
A weekly feature of LiberalOasis
(posted Dec. 12 1:30 AM ET)
Sen. Bill Frist crawled out from under his ongoing SEC investigation for a Fox News Sunday interview.
This was an attempt to move past the lingering questions about his not-so-blind trust, and rehab his rep in time to lead what should be a bruising battle over the Alito nomination next month.
It would appear that Frist succeeded.
Despite looking guilty as sin as he stumbled and fumbled through his dishonest talking points, the media instead pushed the non-news that Frist will try the nuclear option if Dems filibuster Alito.
It's well-known that's what Frist would try to do.
Nevertheless, by talking up the nuclear option again, Frist hopes to psyche out Dems and liberals, sending the message, “Alito’s a done deal no matter what you do, so don’t waste your time.”
Two problems with that.
1. Frist did not say yesterday that he actually has the votes to break Senate rules and go nuclear.
He has never been able to do that. He wasn’t able to prove he had 51 votes before the Gang of 14 deal, and little has changed since.
Frist’s comments yesterday do nothing to change the vote count.
2. Assuming that Frist is able to go nuclear, the best political outcome for Dems is not to duck the fight.
It’s to win the fight for public opinion on Alito before it comes to a vote, to make going nuclear as politically painful for the GOP as possible.
If the public is clearly uncomfortable with Alito, you want to be able to say to voters in 2006: "the GOP broke the Senate rules to ram through a nominee that the public did not support."
In that vein, the proper response to Frist’s latest comments is:
“We Democrats are going to do everything in our power to make sure the Supreme Court is a fair court and not a stacked deck -- respecting Constitutional rights in areas such as equal opportunity, voting, public safety, the environment, medical care, and personal and marital privacy.
“And it speaks volumes that the Senate Majority Leader doesn’t want to shed light on Alito’s record in those areas.
“He would prefer to hide behind threats to break Senate rules instead facing up to a real debate on the merits.
“Whether Frist likes it or not, Democrats will see to it that the facts about Alito are heard and debated.
“And the public will have to opportunity to tell their Senators if Alito is the kind of judge they want occupying the swing seat of the Supreme Court for life.”
QUICK HITS
Graham’s VP Campaign
Last month, Sen. John McCain said of Sen. Lindsey Graham, "some people have said this might be a very attractive vice presidential candidate."
Graham, who endorsed McCain in 2000, was on NBC’s Meet The Press yesterday, auditioning for the role.
Like McCain, he puts some distance between himself and Bush by knocking claims that the war would be paid for with Iraqi oil.
Like McCain, he seeks to endear himself to Democrats, in this case by criticizing a GOP ad attacking DNC Chair Howard Dean.
And like McCain, believes we need more troops in Iraq. Saying:
I don't think we're going to have any major troop withdrawals any time soon if we're really serious about protecting this infant democracy...
...We should have had more troops. We need more troops now, in my opinion.
Leaving New Orleans Behind
Think Progress flags this damning exchange about the aftermath of Katrina, between MTP host Tim Russert and Time’s Mike Allen:
RUSSERT: This is The Washington Post and it's breathtaking.
"This city of [New Orleans] grapples with its new realities:
“More than 100,000 homes and businesses remain uninhabitable. More than three out of four residents live elsewhere.
“More than five million tons of storm debris is still on the ground.
“The power company is bankrupt. Workers are in short supply.
“Its first and so far only public school [just] reopened.
“The police force is in disarray. Scientists are recording alarming mold levels.
“Suburban suicide rates are spiking. Local doctors are operating out of tents."...
...Well, Mike Allen .... what must be done to save New Orleans?
ALLEN: Tim, I'm going to tell you something that's going to amaze you because it amazed me when I looked it up yesterday and I lost a bet on this.
The last time the president was in the hurricane region was October 11th, two months ago.
The president stood in New Orleans and said it was going to be one of the largest reconstruction efforts in the history of the world.
You go to the White House home page, there's Barney-Cam, there's Social Security, there's renewing Iraq. Where's renewing New Orleans?
A presidential adviser told me that that issue has fallen so far off the radar screen, you can't even find it.
