Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Last night I attended a dinner gathering of about 15 professed conservatives in San Francisco (yes there are some in that city). Our host was a prominent local (but national) radio political comentator, with whom I am vaguely familiar (though not a regular listener). They were attempting to put together a coalition of voices to deal mostly with local political issues but to do so in a way that might have possibilities in a broader context (sort of a conservative voice from the belly of the beast). I'm not much interested in political activism, but a friend, who is a member of the group, induced me to attend, apparently believing that I would either be able to contribute or would find it interesting.

What interested me most were the rather moderate aims of the group. There was, for example, no anti gay bashing, but rather a discussion about how their interests in areas ranging from crime prevention to reducing the rather serious corruption in city government are really similar to ours , and how to make that connection with them. Mostly they were concerned about the problem of getting any kind of conservative message out in a city rather utterly dominated by liberal media and well organized liberal political groups. To be sure, there were flashes of more deeply felt underlying issues, but overall I was quite imprressed with the tolerance and moderate nature of the discussions, and the affability of the rather interesting people involved. I doubt that even Bernie, had he been there would have found any grist for his conspiracy mill.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Lighten up Bernie. The article was not about her past or policy proposals, but rather about how to beat her in a political context. The story about her persistent response to the mirror remark ("I did not put that mirror in my office") wad oddly evocative of Bill's famous words as the Lewinski story began to unfold. However, most of the text was advice to today's Republican candidates Hardly the kind of stuff to merit the somewhat paranoid musings put forward in your post.

I was disappointed that you didn't react to my comments on the Krugman quote you (or someone) posted on a previous page. That was really strident, overwrought and evocative of serious zealotry.

george

I don't think there is any way I can encourage you to perceive these things differently than you do. I hadn't seen the earlier post that you point to, but I'm afraid the same applies there. Don't know what to say, really.

But to clarify one notion in your earlier post, my use of the phrase "new conservative movement' arises out of Nina Easton's "The Gang of Five". Krugman uses the similar "movement conservatives". Both reflect an historical shift in the party which you might associate with Reaganism or some other term. Others use some similar formations as in the following link where "Conservative Movement" is the preferred term for Buckley here and for Bill Kristol, as in

Quote:

"Leaderless, rudderless and issueless, the conservative movement, which accomplished great things over the past quarter-century, is finished."

here.

Feel free to use any formulation you find agreeable.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

here and for Bill Kristol, as in
Quote:
"Leaderless, rudderless and issueless, the conservative movement, which accomplished great things over the past quarter-century, is finished."
here.

Feel free to use any formulation you find agreeable.

Leaderless?

http://www.gop.com/images/about/duncanweb.jpg

Robert M. (Mike) Duncan, a 30-year political strategist and veteran of Republican politics, was elected as the 60th Chairman of the Republican National Committee in January 2007.

Duncan has worked for and advised Republican candidates and parties at the local, state and national level his entire adult life. He has held a wide variety of positions at the RNC, most recently as General Counsel and before that, Treasurer. During his career, he has served on the campaigns of five Presidents, including Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. He has been a delegate to six Republican National Conventions and is one of the few persons ever to serve on four standing convention committees.

Chairman Duncan's service has extended to the federal government. In 1989-90, during a sabbatical from his banking career, he worked in the George H. W. Bush White House as assistant Director of Public Liaison. President George W. Bush appointed him to the President's Commission on White House Fellows in 2001 and nominated him to the Tennessee Valley Authority Board, a position to which he was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate in March 2006.

Duncan has been equally active in his home state of Kentucky, where he helped in the successful campaign to win back Kentucky's statehouse for the first time in 36 years. In 1998 he took a leave of absence from his business and chaired Jim Bunning's successful U.S. Senate race. In addition Duncan is a long-time supporter and fundraiser for Senator Mitch McConnell.

A civic capitalist, Chairman Duncan is active in numerous professional and nonprofit organizations. He served as board chairman of a state university and a private college. He is a Trustee of the Christian Appalachian Project, the 15th largest private social services agency in America. His public service has been recognized with several distinctions, including honorary degrees from the College of the Ozarks, Cumberland College, and Morehead State University. His student-mentoring program, in its 28th year, has been featured on CBS Sunday Morning and in The Los Angeles Times.

The Duncan family is the principal owner of two community banks with five offices in eastern Kentucky. Chairman Duncan has served as President of the Kentucky Bankers Association and as a Director of the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank Cincinnati Branch.

Mike Duncan and his wife Joanne are 1974 graduates of the University of Kentucky College of Law. They live in Inez, Kentucky and have one son, Rob, an Assistant United States Attorney in Lexington, Kentucky, who is married to Valerie Ridder of Springfield, Missouri.

Rudderless?

GOP Platform

Issueless?

War on Terror, Immigration, smaller government, health care, Tort reform, Economy, Social Issues... The very same issues the Dem's have.

What's kind of funny is the idea the GOP is done for...

Quote:

A favorite of headline writers, GOP dates back to the 1870s and '80s. The abbreviation was cited in a New York Herald story on October 15, 1884; "' The G.O.P. Doomed,' shouted the Boston Post.... The Grand Old Party is in condition to inquire...."

0 Replies

It's as silly as the '30-year majority' that Rove and others projected for the Republicans a few years back.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McG

I linked those bits (which I didn't bother reading) simply to demonstrate to george that the use of "conservative movement" or some variant refers to something quite real, and to make the point, found instances of use by two people who are central to the movement itself. That's it.

0 Replies

oh.

0 Replies

A short bit from Alterman who attended the debate...

Quote:

A few more debate observations:

I was in the spin room at UNLV post debate and noticed a few things. First off, only the second-tier candidates come in. Kucinich was there from the start, and I noticed Richardson and Biden later. For the top-tier candidates, however, we got designated spinners. Clinton sent Mark Penn; Obama, David Axelrod; and Edwards, Joe Trippi. I engaged Penn on the question of Hillary's vote for the Lieberman/Kyl amendment that could have the effect of legitimating Dick Cheney's planned invasion of Iran. I asked Penn whether this created enough daylight on his left for Edwards or Obama to strike a sufficient contrast to ride to victory in Iowa. Penn parried this pretty well, as did fellow Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald in private conversation, and it doesn't appear that this is where either Edwards or Obama is going. More worrisome is the likelihood that the Bush administration will use it when they decide to attack Iran. To be fair to Hillary, however, she insisted during the debate that the president absolutely did not have the constitutional authority to attack Iran and was not going to get it from this Congress. I talked with Axelrod and Trippi too, but I don't remember much of it to tell you the truth. I did get the impression from others in the campaigns that Obama-ites are feeling that they will surprise people in Iowa in part because they've put together a campaign staff there that has gone largely unnoticed, but is apparently killer. Meanwhile, watch for Edwards to focus not on beating up Hillary but on the fact of his own electability. This makes sense to me because attacks on Hillary resound not to Edwards' benefit but to Obama's. The trick is figuring out a way to say to Democrats that they should pick him because it's too risky to go with a woman or a black when so many Democrats are one, the other, or both. I am, as I keep saying, neutral between these three, but I do think the fact that the candidate who has staked out the most progressive platform is also polling as the most electable one, is a rather amazing state of affairs, and were it not for Obama's entry into the race, would probably have worked for Edwards. Today that looks less likely of course, but it remains a pretty interesting race ... so long as you can ignore Russert, Blitzer and the like ...

http://mediamatters.org/altercation/?f=h_column

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

John Bolton, the war-mongering madman, now out of his post at the UN and touring to market a book and forward his extremist ideology said recently, "I think this will be a very consequential election." He's right.

This is a portion from Krugman's final chapter in his new book. It states concisely my own sense of the present situation.

Quote:
On Being Partisan

The progressive agenda is clear and achievable, but it will face fierce opposition. The central fact of modern American political life is the control of the Republican Party by movement conservatives, whose vision of what America should be is completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement. Because of that control, the notion, beloved of political pundits, that we can make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish...

To be a progressive, then, means being a partisan - at least for now. The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if Democrats have both the presidency and a large enough majority in Congress to overcome Republican opposition. And achieving that kind of political preponderance will require leadership that makes opponents of the progressive agenda pay a political price for their obstructionism - leadership that, like FDR, welcomes the hatred of the interest groups trying to prevent us making our society better.

This is what started it. Evidently the "non-movement" Liberals are every bit as committed as the so-called "movement" conservatives.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
John Bolton, the war-mongering madman, now out of his post at the UN and touring to market a book and forward his extremist ideology said recently, "I think this will be a very consequential election." He's right.

This is a portion from Krugman's final chapter in his new book. It states concisely my own sense of the present situation.

Quote:
On Being Partisan

The progressive agenda is clear and achievable, but it will face fierce opposition. The central fact of modern American political life is the control of the Republican Party by movement conservatives, whose vision of what America should be is completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement. Because of that control, the notion, beloved of political pundits, that we can make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish...

To be a progressive, then, means being a partisan - at least for now. The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if Democrats have both the presidency and a large enough majority in Congress to overcome Republican opposition. And achieving that kind of political preponderance will require leadership that makes opponents of the progressive agenda pay a political price for their obstructionism - leadership that, like FDR, welcomes the hatred of the interest groups trying to prevent us making our society better.

This is what started it. Evidently the "non-movement" Liberals are every bit as committed as the so-called "movement" conservatives.

Ah, the 'Republican Lites.' All they care for is money. We can give them that if they will get on board.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
John Bolton, the war-mongering madman, now out of his post at the UN and touring to market a book and forward his extremist ideology said recently, "I think this will be a very consequential election." He's right.

This is a portion from Krugman's final chapter in his new book. It states concisely my own sense of the present situation.

Quote:
On Being Partisan

The progressive agenda is clear and achievable, but it will face fierce opposition. The central fact of modern American political life is the control of the Republican Party by movement conservatives, whose vision of what America should be is completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement. Because of that control, the notion, beloved of political pundits, that we can make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish...

To be a progressive, then, means being a partisan - at least for now. The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if Democrats have both the presidency and a large enough majority in Congress to overcome Republican opposition. And achieving that kind of political preponderance will require leadership that makes opponents of the progressive agenda pay a political price for their obstructionism - leadership that, like FDR, welcomes the hatred of the interest groups trying to prevent us making our society better.

This is what started it. Evidently the "non-movement" Liberals are every bit as committed as the so-called "movement" conservatives.

Try to think more carefully about his matter george.

There's a valid overall discussion/disagreement about whether 'conservative' policies or 'progressive' policies are more beneficial to citizens.

But there is also the separate matter of how either of those communities/philosophies are constituted in different periods of time. Buckley and Reagan both changed your party in profound ways. FDR and Clinton changed theirs in profound ways.

Krugman's argument is that progressives will have to proceed in certain strategic ways in order to counter successful strategies which evolved in the conservative community over the last thirty/forty years. That will mean that something which might be termed a "new progressive movement" will have to come into being. He thinks it ought to look and act in certain ways (an internal discussion, open to disagreement rather as in disagreements between Buchannan and yourself, say).

As an example, the conservative movement has been extraordinarily effective in developing/coordinating the legal element of their community, getting them into positions of power, and forwarding desired legal policies in aid of the overall movement. Their vehicle has been the Federalist Society. Only recently has the progressive community realized that they'll have to do something quite the same.

We can argue as to what policy/philosophy is best but there's no argument as to which community has been smarter about a whole range of organizational matters over the last several decades. And there's no argument as to whether a party, in its philosophies, can change over time. The party pre-Reagan was a different creature than it is now.

0 Replies

I have no issue with the struggle (or whatever it is or you may wish to call it) for the future leadership and strategy of the Democrat party. Such things go on in both parties with varying degrees of intensity all the time.

I do agree that, with the Reagan Presidency, the Republicans gained a degree of dominance over the terms of the debate that has proven somewhat lasting, and that this coincided with an era of particular fecklessness and loss of focus among Democrats (from Jimmy Carter to Walter Mondale, their products were rather stale.) Some indeed may argue that the Clinton Presidency represented, instead of a clear Democrat victory, some sort of centrist Democrat accomodation to the new Republican paradigm - a "triangulation"that was temporarily beneficial to them.

In keeping with this, one could also argue that the heretofore dominant Republican paradignm is itself now stale and spent, leaving the Democrats with the opportunity to create a new era for themselves.

OK so far. However the current Democrat leadership appears (to me) to posess only the partisanship and combatativeness required for the struggle, and very little in the way of the new ideas required to win it. They are the anti-Republican and anti-Bush forces well enough, but, as the Pelosi/Reid team has so amply demonstrated, they are merely opportunistic and combatative, lacking any coherent program of their own. Worse for them, none of the leading Democrat candidates appears to be either inclined (Hillary) or able (Obama & Edwards) to articulate an alternate, affirmative view in a way that has broad appeal.

I do hope Krugman's assessment becomes doctrine among Democrats. That will continue their complacent illusion that there is a "progressive" agenda out there with wide appeal and that all they need is ever more combatativeness to beat their harted foe. Sounds like a great way to lose with an otherwise winning hand.

0 Replies

Might it be that the vitality or broad appeal of progressive ideas at this point in time are somewhat invisible to you?

The left, in America, Canada and Britain were clearly taken by surprise when their ideas began to fall into disfavor and more conservative notions/parties gained ascendancy.

Or, to rephrase, hold onto your hat.

0 Replies

Say on your course. We shall see.

0 Replies

Did I mention that my mother could beat up your mother any old day?

0 Replies

I doubt it -- Margaret O'Donoghue was a firey redhead with a combatative nature. (Also a bit left wing - she was more likely to agree with you than to lose.) However, once she heard you criticize her darling offspring, you'd be toast.)

0 Replies

My Mum was like that although she would never toast anybody. She would simply dismiss them as no-hopers and encourage her friends and dependents to do the same.

0 Replies

Perhaps that's why we were always encouraged to pity the English.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I mostly wanted context. Was it about "not all Republicans are evil"? I'd agree with that. [..] I agree (if this was the context in which he said it) that making it just plain Democrat vs. Republican isn't necessary and can be counterproductive. You can criticize specific Republicans, or specific policies (which, again, he does), without criticizing the whole group.

Hhmm, well, I think that a lot of the difference between what you describe ("not all Republicans are evil") and what I describe ("tsk tsk, don't be overty confrontative") is just in how one receives or hears a message. I can well imagine that Obama says something in a debate with Hillary and the others that I take as meaning, "now dont be needlessly confrontative" while you take it as being, "let's not make this just a plain Democrat vs. Republican thing".

Hell, I wouldnt be able to articulate the exact nuance of difference between those last two things, to be honest. I mean, beyond that you like it and I don't. I mean, let's say we're in an ongoing debate together. I've been going round saying, "Turn up the heat on the Republicans!", and soon after, you're saying, : "Sure, but let's not make this just a Democrat vs. Republican thing. You can criticize individual Republicans and Republican policies, but lets not go criticizing the Republicans as a whole". If that's anything different than, basically, "tsk tsk, let's not be overly confrontative" it's a difference in nuance that escapes me.

Personally, when I hear stuff like this from Obama - and this is from the 30 October debate - I feel that it veers dangerously into the naive, into the Bloombergesque meaningless:

Quote:

One last point I want to make -- part of the reason that Republicans, I think, are obsessed with you, Hillary, is because that's a fight they're very comfortable having. [..]

And part of the job of the next president is to break the gridlock and to get Democrats and independents and Republicans to start working together to solve these big problems like health care or climate change or energy.

And what we don't need is another eight years of bickering. And that's precisely why I'm running for president, because one of the things I've been able to do, throughout my political career, is to bring people together to get things done. [..]

But here's the experience that I think the next president needs. I think the next president has to be able to get people to work together to get things done, even when they disagree.

And I've done that. [..] I've worked with Dick Lugar, Republican spokesperson for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to focus on the next generation of nonproliferation efforts.

Now, that, I think, is critical experience.

Naive, I think, because no, harmoniously working with Sen. Lugar on nonproliferation is not exactly the critical kind of experience the next president most needs. To put it bluntly, a Democratic president will need to be able to bust some balls to get things done, considering the entrenched interests involved.

Naive, I think, because if Obama thinks that today's dominant Republicans and conservative pundits are "very comfortable" picking their fights and lines of attack against Hillary but will suddenly be different if it's not a Clinton they're facing, he's got another thing coming. He's naive if he thinks that they won't be just as "comfortable" picking a fight with him - I mean, a black liberal, from Chicago, with drug use in his past yada yada - fill in all the nonsense they'll be playing up to kneecap him. The nature of the Republican machine is not shaped by the opponent being called Clinton, and wont suddenly change as soon as someone well-willing and inspiring appears.

And finally, perhaps most importantly, no - major solutions for "these big problems like health care or climate change or energy" are not going to be achieved by trying to find some overall consensus that "Democrats and independents and Republicans" will all agree with. Any solution that will fit that wide a bill will just be meaningless compromised filler. Like he himself also says, the new President will need to be bold, and that includes giving up on some broad national consensus of Democrats, Republicans and independents on issues that require decisive action.

The thing is, I agree with you that Obama can put a different message out, too - sometimes he does. Sometimes he still embraces red state America (as in, the ordinary people on the street there), but makes clear that when it comes to the Republican party machine, he's willing to fight. In his speech at the Jackson-Jefferson dinner for example:

Quote:

I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America, I want to be the President of the United States of America. And if those Republicans come at me with the same fear-mongering and swift-boating that they usually do, then I will take them head on. Because I believe the American people are tired of fear and tired of distractions and tired of diversions. We can make this election not about fear, but about the future. And that won't just be a Democratic victory; that will be an American victory.

Even that is terribly woolly and vague/abstract in all its 'inspirationalness', but at least it gives off some awareness of what would await him, and some willingness to be resilient and combative in the face of it. But those moments are rare, and overall he just doesnt seem to be able to get himself to be so.. well, primitively tribal and all that. So terribly partisan, so 'uncivilised' .. it often seems to me like there's some kind of self-notion as a bipartisan, ever-reasonable, ever-polite, sophisticated national healer that gets in the way of readying himself for the fights he'd have to wage.

0 Replies

OK, back to safer grounds: polls!

It's no news that I'm a big fan of pollster.com, and specifically, its lovely and insightful graphs, in which all national and state polls are tracked, trendlines and all.

For example, these ones on the Democratic race in Iowa, the Republican race in Iowa, the Democratic race in New Hampshire, and the the Republican race in New Hampshire.

But sometimes I'm a bit frustrated by them. The pollster.com trendlines are extremely cautious. With good reason, but still. Even when new results come in that diverge from recent ones, mostly the trend line is just made a little more or less steep; actual "bends" or turns in the trend are made only once a three months or so at most.

Again, all for very sound methodological reasons. But I'm following these races and I see what could just be new trends emerging or turning, and they wont show up in the pollster.com trendlines because they are too tentative.

And then on the other hand, you have the day-to-day news reports that uncritically zoom in on any one single opinion poll result, and act like it proves some new breakthrough. "Obama passes Clinton in Iowa!", you will read this week, based on the one latest ABC/WaPo poll. Or you might read, "Richardson's support in New Hampshire doubles!", based on the WMUR poll that came out tonight. In return, when an ABC/WaPo poll in late September had Hillary at 53%, we had a series of reports that week announcing Hillary's great breakthrough - even though no other poll in the same period repeated the finding.

So, I want something of a middle way. The 31 October Democratic debate in which Hillary seemed to fell off her pedestal was widely said to be a potential turning point, but the pollster.com trendlines wont show that for a while still even if it's true. Yet it's foolish to go on any one single poll to determine whether there was any rupture in the trends.

Hence, instead - new nimh graphics! Smile

They feature poll averages by periods of roughly a month or two; averages that each encompass five to seven individual polls that appeared in that time. Data are all from pollster.com, except for the polls that had Al Gore in them, for which I looked up the alternative data without Gore on the sites of the respective polls themselves.

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6890/ianhdemslb1.png

P.S.: Similar graphs for the Republicans HERE.

0 Replies

Thanks.

Obamarama is damn close in NH and trending well, not so much in IA.

Is it possible to ask about this -

Quote:

-- I see what could just be new trends emerging or turning, and they wont show up in the pollster.com trendlines because they are too tentative.

?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know