Friday, August 23, 2002
NO BLOGGING TODAY
Sorry my friends, but work and travel intercede today. Normal blogging will resume on Monday.
. . .
Thursday, August 22, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: POLLS MAY NOT TELL US MUCH ABOUT THE MISSOURI SENATE RACE
Are the polls on the Missouri Senate race accurate? It’s a question well worth asking, since this race is different from any other Senate race in the U.S. this year. If you don’t know anything about this race, here is a quote from an article in the Washington Post that should bring you up to speed.
In one of the nation's most competitive and closely watched Senate races, the deciding factor in Missouri might not be the visits by President Bush or the estimated $20 million that will be spent on 30-second ads. The race very well could turn once again on a man whose name no longer appears on the ballot: the late Democratic governor Mel Carnahan.
In 2000, Carnahan became the first dead person elected to the U.S. Senate -- ousting Republican incumbent John D. Ashcroft -- 22 days after the two-term governor and his son Randy were killed in a small-plane crash. Carnahan's wife, Jean, was appointed to the seat by the Democratic governor soon after, infuriating many Republicans.
Today, Sen. Jean Carnahan, 68, is fighting to finish out the term, fending off a challenge by Jim Talent, 45, a high-profile former GOP congressman. Talent narrowly lost a bid for governor in 2000, a race that Republicans are convinced was also influenced by Mel Carnahan's death.
Twenty months later, Mel Carnahan's memory and the accident that catapulted his wife into office still figure strongly in Missouri politics, according to voters, political experts and even the candidates themselves. "It's like the elephant in the room. It's always there," Talent said in a recent interview.
Jean Carnahan and Talent insist the race should be about their respective records. But both know that the unfathomable loss of Carnahan's husband and their oldest son still resonates, permeating judgments, speeches and focus groups, and clearly influencing both candidates' strategies.
The effect of Mel Carnahan’s death on the Missouri race, what I term the “compassion factor,” seems to be showing up in the polls:
The race has been ideologically polarized for nearly a year in this swing state, with a small percentage of undecided voters, according to a variety of polls. The most recent independent poll for KOMU television has Carnahan leading Talent 48 percent to 40 percent.
Indeed, most other polls that I’ve seen (before I could no longer sneak into National Journal’s poll section) put Jean Carnahan right around 50%, and Talent in the low 40s. If Carnahan is at or very close to 50%, she should be able to pick up enough undecided voters to put her over the top. But that may be a big “IF.”
To understand why, we need to do a little political science, particularly on opinion polls. When you start studying public opinion, one of the things you learn is that respondents do not always tell the truth, and sometimes this can seriously affect the outcome of the poll. For example, on questions relating to sex, especially on number of sexual encounters, respondents lie through their teeth. Women tend to minimize the number of such encounters, while men tend to inflate them. The reason appears to be that respondents often worry what the interviewer will think about them.
This has been known to affect opinion polls on political races, especially when the race of the candidates is an issue. For example, in 1989 Douglas Wilder, who was running for governor of Virginia and is African-American, went into the final days of the campaign with a five point lead in the polls. On election day he squeaked out a win of only about 1/2%. The reason appeared to be that many poll respondents did not want to appear racist to the interviewers, and so they said they were voting for Wilder when they were in fact voting for his opponent.
It is quite possible that something similar is occurring in the Missouri race. Let’s go back to the compassion factor. This seems to be weighing heavily on the race, as this passage from the Washington Post article shows:
Carnahan's pollsters, Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group, found that almost everyone polled knew the details of Carnahan's ordeal and that most -- even Republicans -- admired how she has handled herself. But her compelling story overshadows her record -- and that has been her campaign's challenge.
What may be occurring here is that many respondents do not want to appear callous, or perhaps even cruel, when they are asked who they intend to vote for in the Missouri Senate race. Thus, to appear compassionate to the interviewer, they say they intend to vote for Jean Carnahan when in fact they intend to vote for Jim Talent.
There is no way to really know for sure at this point if such a phenomenon is occurring. We’ll just have to watch the polls in the days leading up to the election. If they show Carnahan with a 5-6% lead, and then on election day she wins a squeaker (less than 2%), or loses, we’ll have some evidence of the compassion factor. And if she wins by a decent margin, we'll know that my theory is big bunch of poop.
. . .
BARONE, QUASI, AND THE IOWA STATE FAIR
Thanks to Tony Adragna, a.k.a. Quasipundit, for pointing out this piece in the U.S. News and World Report by Michael Barone about his visit to the Iowa State Fair (although, as we will see, Tony’s motives for sending it to me were not entirely altruistic.) The first paragraph of Barone’s column is well worth reading for the description of the Fair.
Tony makes some comments here. In particular he notes this passage from Barone:
Americans may be fighting in Iraq some time soon. But no politician brings the issue up. All those I spoke with–Gephardt and Lieberman, Harkin and Ganske, Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell and Republican challenger Stan Thompson–want Congress to vote on the issue. Gephardt says, "We can't do this alone. It's very important to explain this to people, to the Congress, to put a plan out." Lieberman backs military action. Harkin coauthored a resolution requiring a congressional vote and says, "I hold out some hope there may be some internal action against Saddam." Ganske says, "The president will have to make a case that there's a significant, imminent danger." Boswell is for action but only "if we have information that he's getting ready to launch weapons of mass destruction." Thompson says, "A case has to be made to the public why military action would be necessary."
Tony then says:
Yes, that's right, I only highlighted the GOP candidates... I mean, it isn't worth highlighting the Dem oppo since it's safe to assume they're in the oppo... Well, 'cepting Lieberman, who happens to be 'bout as hawkish as the Pope is devoted to Mary... If Dave doesn't like the sources I cited earlier, maybe he'll be more comfortable with Barone giving it to us straight from the horse's mouth... oops, there I go again... sorry Dave - make that the pig's snout!
Yes, I have to concede. There are Republicans asking Bush to make the case. Should have done more homework.
Nevertheless, there are plenty of Democrats asking Bush to make the case too. And I assume that both the Democrats and Republicans who are calling on Bush to make the case for war with Iraq would prefer him to do it sooner rather than later. If Bush is to make the case sooner, that almost certainly means that he’ll have to make the case before the election. In that case it will likely become an election issue.
You can criticize Bush for making it an election issue, but such criticisms are fairly groundless if he is responding to what other politicians—okay, okay, both Democrats and Republicans—are requesting. What’s the saying? Be careful what you wish for…
I suspect that the last two paragraphs will elicit another "Dave is being too clever" response from Tony. What I’d really like to see is an explanation as to why it is immoral for Bush to make it an election issue if politicians are calling on him to make a case. So far, no one has addressed that.
. . .
Wednesday, August 21, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: SOCIAL SECURITY SCARE TACTICS
Who needs Democrats to scare people about Social Security reform when you've got the Des Moines Register? They were at it again on Saturday, with an editorial that began:
Iowans were reminded this week that, incredibly, some politicians are still floating the idea of privatizing Social Security. Congressman Greg Ganske, who is running for the U.S. Senate, visited the Iowa State Fair and touted a Republican proposal that would allow workers to divert some of their Social Security payroll taxes into personal investment accounts.
What's so incredible about it? It's a good idea. Uh, perhaps the Register should look at what most retirement funds invest in. Here's a hint: It's called the stock market. That should tell the Register something.
It's the same idea that is given lip service by President Bush, although it's been on the back burner ever since his hand-picked commission that was supposed to devise a plan for privatizing couldn't make the numbers work.
Actually, the numbers did add up. I wonder, have the Des Moines Register editorialists even looked at the Commission's report? It shows that private accounts will be a part of making the system solvent. It will also take money transferred from the General Fund of the Budget. But private accounts will limit the amount of money that will have to be transferred.
Then the stock market imploded and the corporate scandals hit, including the news that some in the brokerage industry have been touting investments that they knew to be junk.
And that's the industry that the privatizers want to hand over your Social Security money to? No thanks.
Oh please! That is a total distortion of the investment industry. Most investors are honest. If they weren't, most retirement programs wouldn't invest their money in the stock market.
After Enron, Arthur Andersen, Merrill Lynch, Tyco, ImClone, Global Crossing, etc., and after millions of Americans now have to think about delaying retirement because their savings evaporated in the stock market, it's hard to believe politicians are still chanting the mantra of privatization.
Yep. Scare, scare, scare. Distort, distort, distort. All of corporate America is just a bunch of corrupt crooks ready to steal our money. That's why it is okay to suggest that Enron, Arthur Andersen, Global Crossing are typical of corporate America.
Privatization of Social Security is a bad idea for several reasons, not the least of which is it would blow a gaping hole in Social Security's finances. And managing 148 million individual accounts probably can't be done without creating a system ripe for abuse and corruption.
Actually, the current system is the one filled with abuse and corruption. Politicians have created this myth called the Social Security Trust Fund that fools people, and apparently the mopes at the Register , into thinking that Social Security has plenty of assets stored up for the future. As I've noted before, all that exists in the Social Security Trust Fund is government bonds. And if the government wants to use those bonds to pay for future benefits, it will have to come up with the revenue to pay off the bonds. That means tax money, which means either raising taxes or cutting spending.
Buyer beware. Social Security is guaranteed income for all seniors. It was never meant to be an investment vehicle. It is an insurance system, one that provides a basic safety net. It is immune from corporate scandals, creative accounting and the volatility of the stock market.
Insurance program? Uh, maybe the Register should take a look at what many insurance companies invest in. Here's a hint: It's called the stock market. Furthermore, the Register is wrong that Social Security is not subject to creative accounting. The way the system works now is that the Social Security system runs a surplus, that is, it takes in more in taxes than it pays out in benefits. Each year the government borrows that money to pay for other government expenses. In return, it puts government bonds equal to the amount of the surplus into the Social Security Trust Fund. If that's not creative accounting, what is?
Workers can and should save and invest to supplement their retirement income beyond Social Security. The government encourages this with tax-favored Individual Retirement Accounts and 401(k) plans that are capable of delivering all the long-term benefits that the privatizers claim can be achieved by changing Social Security.
Uh, maybe the Register should take a look at what most 401(k)s are invested in. Here's a hint: It's called the stock market. If that's a good way to supplement retirement, why is it so bad for Social Security? The Register appears to completely undermine its own argument. Not like that's a surprise.
But there's no need to change, beyond the relatively modest adjustments needed to keep the system solvent.
That is wrong bordering on the deceptive. To support the current Social Security, a couple making $50,000 annually will face a tax increase of $860 per year by 2020, and $2,100 per year by 2030. (I'll leave aside the possibility of benefit cuts, since the Register's "adjusments" would surely never include those.) Those seem like rather severe adjustments. Perhaps it depends on what the meaning of the word "modest" is.
The Register editorial is typical of what you hear from privatization opponents. They don't have any solid arguments to stand on, so they resort to misinformation and scare tactics.
. . .
ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT
I didn’t get a chance yesterday to read this piece by John Derbyshire at NRO on Brent Scowcroft. Sorry I didn’t; it’s great. This last paragraph is a gem:
What seems to me increasingly unarguable is that the time for managerialism, for understanding, for "peace processes," is past, and the time for confrontation nigh. I think we understand the peoples of the Middle East well enough, having repeatedly watched them dancing in the street at our misfortunes. It is time now to press a little understanding of us on them. The crushing of the cockroach regime in Iraq, aside from its other probable benefits, would be a splendid way to accomplish this — to bring a little attitude adjustment to a region sorely in need of it, and unlikely to acquire it through the efforts of managers, however many "diplomatic initiatives" they launch, however many "peace processes" they set in motion, however much "understanding" they display, however many "hands of friendship" they extend, however many toasts they raise to those who hate us and who spit on our values.
. . .
CROOOOW ON CROSSFIRE
Croooow Blog has this interesting bit about Richard Goldstein’s recent appearance on Crossfire.
. . .
DING DONG, THE WITCH IS DEAD!
Happy, happy, happy, happy, happy, happy, happy day!!!!
. . .
THE JEWS DID IT?
Jay Caruso notes a rather disturbing line in a CNN.com article.
. . .
MORE ON THE MEDICARE LAWSUIT
You know that Medicare lawsuit Governor Vilsack is filing on behalf of Iowa that the Des Moines Register editorial page likes so much? Well, this article shows that someone doesn’t think it’s too hot an idea:
"They're kidding themselves - and if they actually claim to have good legal guidance, they're crazy," said Tom Scully, the head of Medicare and Medicaid Services.
And the icing on the cake:
Scully, a Republican, said he'd never met Vilsack. "Is he running for re-election?" he asked. When told yes, Scully responded, "That figures."
. . .
Tuesday, August 20, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: OCTOBER SURPRISE LITE, PART 2
Two more responses on my post "October Surprise Lite." The first is from Tony "QuasiPundit" Andragna. First, he notes:
Note that Dave takes exception with "The Democrats [who] have been recently criticizing Bush for not making a strong enough case for the war", but fails to mention that the calls for Mr. Bush to make the case have been fairly bi-partisan, with a fair number of Democrats hoping he does so we can get on with it.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I don’t think any Republicans—Scowcroft, Armey, etc.—are criticizing Bush for not making the case. As far as I know, it’s only Democrats doing that. A few Republicans are criticizing some other aspects, but not Bush’s failure to make a case.
Dave also argues that if the President would "start making speeches around the country outlining the case, both moral and strategic", the the country would suddenly rally 'round the Prez and his patisans -- a Democrat nightmare turned reality!
Nonsense!
The Balz piece makes very clear that the Democrat's worry is a non-issue. As I argued below, the "moral and strategic" case is all we've heard against Iraq since the [in]famous "Axis of Evil" speech, and it ain't salable -- at least, nobody's buying it 'cept Sen. Inhoffe and the Defense Policy Board.
Certainly, taking voters' eyes off the economy might weaken Democrat hopes, but focusing them on war with Iraq is just as likely to heighten skepticism over this administration's plans for achieving the strategic objective -- that would certainly backfire on the GOP, and probably has something to do with why Republican lawmakers are asking the same questions and giving the same advice as is coming from Democrats.
Besides, as Morton Abramowitz notes, the Prez is having a hard enough time getting a coherent policy out of his own administration.
As this recent poll from the Washington Post shows, 57% of the American people back a war with Iraq. The poll does note that the support is not overly-solid, but there is more than enough for Bush to work with. Thus, it seems to me that it’s not only salable, but it’s not a very difficult sell.
Next, as this articleby Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard notes that the dissension within the Administration has been overblown by the media. (Thank you Howell Raines.) And I’m not sure that it would heighten skepticism over Bush’s plans to invade Iraq. Given the success in Afghanistan, it’s just as likely that the American people would give Bush the benefit of the doubt after he laid out his case.
On last point, on this passage:
I'll take myself out of contetion for that "Special Citizenship Award", Will -- hoping for political gain through talking up economic problems can't hold a candle to talking up war for political gains![ Dave's a bit too clever arguing that since it's not actually going to war, then it's OK -- Sorry Dave, it's still making politcs on war, and that's something those of us who have served find distasteful]
Thank you for your service to this country, Tony. I hope what follows does not offend you, and I apologize if it does. But I don’t think you can really not make politics on war. Going to war is a political decision. It means the President must garner the support of the American people, bring as many members of Congress on board as possible, and so on. It may also mean that you have to campaign on it, and try to get elected as many politicians as possible who support the war effort. To see why this is a good thing, consider your point that campaigning on the war might backfire on the GOP. If so, voters will register their queasiness with a war on Iraq—if not outright disapproval—at the polls. Wouldn’t it be better if November were in fact a referendum on the war with Iraq? That way President Bush would have a very concrete statement of the American public’s view on the war, rather than merely opinion polls.
Anyway, I’m sure there are plenty of holes in my argument, and you’ll surely point them out to me.
Now for Hesiod:
Hesiod responded to my post on his comment yesterday with an email. I’ve excerpted parts of the email below, so that I can address the points in the order I think is best. Thus, his email does not appear in the order in which it was sent to me. I’ve posted it here, so that you can read it in its original form if you so desire.
I mean leveraging the world's fear of a unilateral US invasion of Iraqw into a renewed, rigorous, unobstructted inspections regime, along with a threat to Saddam that should he use WMD against ANYONE, he's a dead man....
It only failed because the "invasion" card was not on the table. If Bush's strategy was to use the threat of invasion to beef up inspections, etc. then I would applaud him for being smart. Alas, he's dumb, and really wants to invade. In any event, deterrence and aggressive inspections will take care of his WMD capability.
However, the threat of invasion has to be coupled with an actual willingness to invade. If Hussein still does not cooperate with weapons inspections after we threaten to invade, does that mean Hesiod thinks it would be okay to invade? If not, then his argument about the threat of invasion seems rather empty.
Furthermore, it’s not clear that the threat of an invasion would compel Hussein to behave. It doesn’t seem to be compelling him right now. Consider: we’ve been threatening to invade for over six months. If Hussein is so worried about it, why doesn’t he just round up all his weapons of mass destruction and hand them over? It would certainly make it all but impossible for the U.S. to invade. Simply put, Hussein is a power-mad thug, and like all such thugs he’s not going to give up any source of his power, including weapons of mass destruction. If we were to go back to a regime of weapons inspectors, Hussein would just give them the run around again, allowing him to continue his build up of his weapons.
There is [a War on Terrorism]? Who declared it? The President only has authorizxation to use force agaionst those who perptrated the 9/11 attacks. Did Saddam attack us? If not, why are we invading Iraq?
As I’ve said before, a war is not determined by whether the Congress declared it. It became a war when the World Trade Center and Pentagon were hit.
As for "funding terrorist organizations," the ONLY ones he "funds" are the ones attacking Israel, not the United States....
And, as I said, the ONLY terrorist organizations he funds are ones that attack Israel exclusively. Israel may have grounds for attacking Saddam, but at the present time, we do not.
In case you’ve forgotten, one of those suicide bombers recently killed a number of Americans at an Israeli University. Unfortunately, Americans are not safe from terrorism even when it occurs on foreign soil. Thus, we are not only protecting Israelis by going after Hussein, we are protecting ourselves.
As for Hussein hating al Qaeda, if that’s true why are there so many reports of Hussein giving support to al Qaeda? And we don't know for certain that Hussein hasn't already given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists; i.e., we still don't know where the anthrax from last September came from. Last, Hussein would give terrorists weapons of mass destruction because number one, he wants to destroy us, and, number two, he isn’t exactly playing with a full deck of cards.
Keeping the US out of a potentially devastating and unnecessary war s just about the NOBLEST endeavor a public official can undertake. We are talking about, perhaps, thousands of US lives at stake....
Saddam, is weakened and bottled up...
I stand corrected. It's an "expensive" tactic. The cost measured in the blood of our service men and women.
On the other hand, keeping the U.S. from pursuing a war that would prevent thousands of deaths down the road might be the result of opposing a war with Iraq. That wouldn’t be all that noble.
Yes, Saddam is weak—for now. That's why the best time to invade is now, before he has built up his weapons of mass destruction to the point that he can inflict devastating damage. If we invade while he is still weak, the casualities to our men and women will be much less than if we wait until he is much stronger.
I'm not against Bush "making the case." I'm against your cynical and rather disgusting suggestion that he should use the debate as a means to garner GOP votes in the fall. Why not wait until AFTER the election so as to avoid any taint of partisanship?...
There is no Earthly reason to start the "debate" BEFORE the election, other than to use it as a means to garner votes. That's, in fact, the TITLE of your whole post: "October surprise lite." Duh! Your dishonesty and cheap partisanship is revolting....
And I'm all for [Bush making the case]. AFTER the election. What's the hurry?
Well, let’s see, perhaps it’s because the Democrats are demanding that Bush do it? Last time I checked, if your political opponents demand that you address something, they want you to address it as soon as possible. The Democrats have already stepped in it. It’s not Bush’s fault if they don’t like the smell.
Indeed, this raises the question of why Democrats are demanding Bush address the issue? Aren’t they trying to score political points—i.e. turn the issue to their favor for the election—by raising such questions? Or perhaps Hesiod thinks that they are just being nothing but good little citizens whose motives are as pure as the wind-driven snow? I’ll assume he’s not so naïve.
Finally on this point, I reiterate that just because it will win the GOP votes does not mean the tactic is not cheap. You have to look at the total effect of the tactic. In this case, it serves the purpose of bringing about a debate on a war with Iraq, and the future of a War on Terrorism.
If one is a "scare tactic," the other one is an outright HORROR tactic. You think telling people that Saddam is about to nuke their children is honest? I have to say, that's complete bullshit.
I’m not aware of anyone telling folks that Hussein is about to "nuke their children." What myself and others are saying is that he represents a very serious threat in the near future if we do not act soon. Perhaps we are mistaken, but we are not dishonest.
As for "funding terrorist organizations," the ONLY ones he "funds" are the ones attacking Israel, not the United States. Are you an Israeli citizen, or an American citizen? I think your loyalties are with the wrong country. You'd be better off directing your arguments to the Likud and Labour parties.
I’m going to let that remark slide as an ad hominem attack made in an unthinking moment. I’ll just say I’m a very loyal American, and that I assume Hesiod is too. We just have different views on what is best for America’s future.
. . .
CROOOOW ON CYNTHIA
Croooow Blog has some interesting posts on Cynthia McKinney (1, 2) and some interesting links in those posts. Boy, do I hope Georgia voters make the right choice today.
. . .
AND MORE OCTOBER SURPRISE LITE
John Bono has some suggestions similar to mine, and he had his earlier than I did. He also has a good takedown of Brent Scowcroft. His site is called Big S Blog. I will include a perma-link soon.
. . .
MORE ON THE LAWSUIT CULTURE
Robert Levy has an excellent takedown of the emerging lawsuit against the Fast Food industry at NRO. This passage is the best:
If a consumer elects to gorge on foods known to be high-calorie, then he is accountable for the consequences. He cannot hold food companies responsible, least of all on a retroactive basis. By condoning these ridiculous lawsuits, we will send our children messages far more destructive than Big Macs. First, it's okay to change the rules after the game has begun. Second, you can engage in risky behavior, then force someone else to pay the bills.
Well put.
. . .
THE WONDERS NEVER CEASE
As noted yesterday, Tom Vilsack is getting ready to sue Medicare over the way it reimburses Iowa. And the big surprise for today (are you ready for this? You’d better be sitting down!) is the Des Moines Register likes the idea! And they are praising Vilsack! A twofer!
. . .
Monday, August 19, 2002
RESPONSE TO OCTOBER SURPISE LITE
Thanks to Instapundit, aka Glenn Reynolds, for linking my Daily Diatribe for today. His blog also has lots of other good links on this issue, including one by Geitner Simmons.
I’ve received some responses on my post which are well worth discussing. Here’s an email from Nick Foresta:
Mr. Hogberg,
First of all, it is not only Democrats that have been criticizing Bush on his Iraq policy. Brett Scrowcoft, Dick Armey, and a bunch of other prominent Republicans have made as much noise as any Democrat has on this issue. As for making a case for the attack right before the election, I’ll bet he won’t. They would have to articulate a strategy and then defend it. They don’t much like to defend their positions on anything. A national conversation about the need to attack Iraq is a useful thing but it would mean the Bush team would have to have a workable plan for what to do in case of a biological attack from Iraq on our forces, or a plan for what would eventually replace Saddam, or some clues as to how long are forces would be required to stay there. These are the things the Bush team has no desire to go on record about. Why is that? Because it’s all about power and politics and not about defending the free world. They could do as you advised anytime they want if they really wanted a debate.
Cheers,
Nick Foresta
First, it’s true that other Republicans are criticizing Bush (although a “bunch” seems like an overstatement.) But it seems to be primarily Democrats that are demanding Bush make the case. And if they are demanding that so as to score campaign points, it is certainly fine for Bush to return fire.
Second, I don’t know which Bush Administration Mr. Foresta has been paying attention to, but the one I’ve watched seems quite willing to defend its positions. It was more than willing to defend its positions on tax cuts and the military operation in Afghanistan, to name two. As this article by Byron York shows, other members of the Administration—including Cheney, Condi and Rummy—have already defended the need to take out Saddam Huessein. I’m arguing that since Bush is the focal point of the Administration, his making the case would focus the American people’s attention on it. But that in no way means that “They don’t much like to defend their positions on anything” Perhaps Mr. Foresta should provide some examples to back up his statement.
Finally, regarding Mr. Foresta, why are “power and politics” mutually exclusive from “defending the free world”? How can we, or any other democracy, defend itself—let alone the rest of the free world—if we are not powerful? Last time I checked, the Berlin Wall didn’t crumble because American was weak. Indeed, toppling Saddam would make America more powerful. It is also likely to bring democracy to Iraq and perhaps other parts of the Arab world. In short, freedom and power coincide in this instance.
So do freedom and politics. The questions of how and where to defend freedom are—and should be—political. They should be matters of public debate. And if parties and politicians want to offer competing visions on such questions, all the better. That will help the public decide which vision is best, and which politicians to elect to pursue such a vision.
Hesiod left this message in my comments section:
The only reason that shallow scam would work is because the Democrats have been too spineless to propose a viable alternative to an invasion.
They should argue that aggressive deterrence and containment will work on Saddam. And make the argument forcefully and repeatedly.
By claiming Bush should “make the case” they are basically opening themselves up to just such a strategy.
Then they either have to go along with the President, even if his arguments are ridiculous, or phony, or look like they are pro-Saddam.
If they stake out an argument for why an invasion, absent a credible link to 9/11, or an immanent threat by Saddam against the US, is a BAD idea, then they can weather your suggested cheap campaign tactic.
First, the minor stuff: “[E]ven if his arguments are ridiculous, or phony.” Kind of pre-judged the President’s arguments, haven’t you? “Democrats have been too spineless.” Democrats are usually too spineless; it’s a natural condition.
Okay, on to the bigger stuff. As for “deterrence and containment,” do you mean something like sanctions? Sorry, but we’ve been trying that for the better part of a decade, and it’s allowed Saddam to continue building his weapons of mass destruction and funding terrorist organizations. If Democrats make the case for that, they’ll likely be making the case for a failed policy.
Next, why does there have to be a credible link between Saddam and 9/11? Last time I checked, this is a War on Terrorism, not just a War on al-Qaeda. September 11 didn’t just demonstrate that we are vulnerable to attacks from bin Laden and his minions, but that we are vulnerable to attacks from all sorts of terrorists. Given that Saddam funds terrorists, and he has the potential to give them weapons far more devastating than hijacked airplanes, there is more than enough reason for the U.S. to invade Iraq, connection to 9/11 or no.
Finally, Hesiod refers to my suggestion of “October Surprise Lite” as a “shallow scam” and a “cheap campaign tactic.” What, then, would that make Democrats’ calling on Bush to “make a case”? A noble endeavor? Further, what would that make Hesiod’s suggestion that Democrats make a case for deterrence and containment? If Bush making the case for war with Iraq is “cheap campaign tactic,” then the Democrats making a case against it would seem to fall in the same category. Sauce for the goose….
Yet, I’m not willing to concede that it is a “cheap” campaign tactic. Since Hesiod did not define the term, allow me. A “cheap” campaign tactic is one that is designed merely to win votes but serves no other purpose, such as bringing an important public policy issue to the attention of the American people. It is also one that is likely to have harmful effects, like frighten the American people into believing something that is not true (Democrats scare tactics on Social Security come to mind.) Bush making the case for the war with Iraq does not fit that definition. It would serve the purpose of helping the nation decide what is the next step in the War on Terrorism. Nor would it frighten the American people into believing something that is not true, unless you believe that Iraq poses no threat.
Yes, Bush making the case is a campaign tactic; but it is by no means a “cheap” tactic. And since the Democrats are calling on him to make it, they really would have no one to blame but themselves if it were to become a campaign issue.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: OCTOBER SURPRISE LITE
Some conservative commentators, most notably John Podhoretz, have called on President Bush to pull an "October Surprise." This entails beginning the Iraq War before the election, so as to make it an election issue. The result, Podhoretz and other hopes, would be to save Republican electoral fortunes.
There is only one reason to start the War with Iraq: to save the lives of Americans by taking out a regime that is a major threat. Increasing the electoral fortunes of a party is immoral to the nth degree.
Nevertheless, there is a way for Bush to make the war an election issue without actually going to war before the election. And the Democrats would have a hard time claiming that Bush is exploiting the war for political purposes. The reason is they’ve already opened the door.
The Democrats have been recently criticizing Bush for not making a strong enough case for the war. This article in the Des Moines Register nicely captured many of the charges that various prominent Democrats have been leveling at the President:
"The president has to make the case to Congress and the people, and that has not been done," House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri said during a campaign appearance Thursday for Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Ia., at the Knoxville Senior Center.
...and
"There's not been a clarity of leadership," said Lieberman, who was in Iowa campaigning for Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and other Democrats on Wednesday and Thursday.
So Bush should give them what they want. Once his August vacation at the ranch is over, he should start making speeches around the country outlining the case, both moral and strategic, why the America must wage war on Iraq. This will highlight the issue while the fall campaign is kicking into high gear. Democrats will then criticize Bush for his reasons for going to war—oops sorry, was dreaming when I wrote that last line.
But such speeches would put the coming war front and center during the election, and polls consistently show that Americans trust the Republicans more than Democrats to handle matters of national security. That would almost certainly improve Republican electoral fortunes. And if this article in this morning's Washington Post is any indcation, Democrats are worried about the effect a debate on War with Iraq would have on the election.
What could the Democrats do about it? The minute they start complaining, the response would be "Well, you wanted answers. Now Bush is giving them to you." The Democrats could say that they wanted answers, just not until after the election. Then who would be using exploiting the war issue for political purposes?
Oh, and one other thing. Not only would Bush making the case for the War on Iraq be good politics. It would also be the right thing to do.
. . .
VILSACK COME LATELY
As David Yesen pointed out in his Des Moines Register column Sunday, "After four years as governor, Tom Vilsack has finally discovered the Medicare-reimbursement issue." Yes, and now he’s going to file a lawsuit! How typically Democratic. Now that his poll numbers are in the toilet with only two-and-a-half months before the election, it’s time to get really serious about the issue.
Meanwhile, Vilsack’s Iowa Works program may be backfiring. GOP candidate Doug Gross is attacking Vilsack’s proposal to use money in the Underground Storage Tank Fund for economic development. He claims Vilsack is threatening the environment. Imagine that! A Republican able to attack a Democrat on the environment.
It’s too early to say that Vilsack is a goner. But it’s not to early to say that he’s running for his political life.
. . .
Sunday, August 18, 2002
BIG BOUNCING BOOB WATCH: THE END
After watching the thrid installment of the Anna Nicole Smith Show, I've decided that I will not be wathcing it any more. The show stupid, as I exepcted. But Anna is no longer eye candy, which I did not expect. Thus, I can think of no good reason to continue wasting that half hour on Sunday evenings.
. . .
|
. . .
|
