Nice. I wonder if Webb gaining three points or so in the polls today has anything to do with this.
The more anyone knows about Allen the worse he looks. Apparently he bullied his sisters too. He seems to be at the Mafia end of the normal range.
He could have been our next President, but the evil blogs killed him. I bet that will be his story, anyway.
It's actually the guy who calls into Limbaugh and other wingnuts to piss them off (read: tries to have an actual fact-based debate), so he does know how to hit their sensitive spots. It's amazing how anyone who asks a question that the media deems uncivil is automatically labeled a "protestor" or a "heckler". This democracy thing is just too complicated, I guess.
What's amazing is that "he asked a rude question so we had to beat him up" seems to be a perfectly acceptable line of argument in the media coverage.
Allen's a bad person. That this is still a race tell you all you need to know about today's Republican party.
That Allen is, apparently, not going to be president means Santa or someone up there is still, at this late date, looking out for the USA. I thought he was a lock a year or so ago.
Santa or someone up there
Scooby Doo. "I woulda been president if it wasn't for those meddling kids with their blogs and video cameras!"
Chris Walken's character in The Dead Zone. In this version, the handshake revealed a slightly easier route.
If he loses this election, I agree he's toast. If not, though, I'd still watch him. The obvious play in '08, when confronted anew with macaca and the sealed arrest records and the rumors of abuse and the general sense that he's a moron, will be, "That's old news, voters rejected the politics of personal destruction in 2006, I'm here to focus on the future." Worked very well for GWB and his national guard service- do damage control the first time around by weaseling and stonewalling, and when the topic comes up again later because all the questions are still unanswered, say that it's an old story.
Sadly, I agree with SP. I have no idea how Allen remains a viable candidate in the Virginia Senate race, but that he does makes me believe that I have no ability to predict what could possibly make a Republican not viable.
"... I have no ability to predict what could possibly make a Republican not viable."
coming out as gay / an atheist / part black would do the trick.
Well, racism and sexism are pretty par for the course, really. Disdain for the media, sure. Assholishness, check.
I'd say that *maybe* if a Satanic child molestation ring run out of the White House was found to include at least half-a-dozen top Republicans--there would have to be pictures--then maybe they wouldn't be viable. Maybe.
But even if you discount all of the race-related matters, look at the quotations floating around from his sister's book. The guy is like a Pat Conroy monster on steroids. WTF?
14 - The funny thing is that there was actually a conspiracy theory involving just that (maybe without the Satanic ritual abuse "recovered memories"), involving the G.H.W. Bush White House. Google on "Craig Spense Conspiracy of Silence".
Allen is entirely too easy to Swiftboat. Even if he manages to win the Senate race (which I doubt), there's no way in hell he's going to become president. He couldn't even get the nomination. Other Republicans would garrote him in the primaries before any Democrat would have to lift a finger.
14: Well, it would explain a lot. But without pictures, we got nuthin.
But why isn't he dead yet, Apo? He's a massive bully, and gives every indication of being something worse. And we're running a war hero and former member of the Reagan Administration against him. How is Allen still alive? I'm happy that it's close, but, when I step back for a moment, it's deeply worrisome that (a) it's only close, and (b) I'm happy because it's close.
You could say the same thing about the Congressman who allegedly beat his mistress: what could people possibly be thinking if they choose to vote for such officials? What does it take to kill a Republican candidate?
Don't underestimate the advantages of incumbency.
20 has it exactly right.
Also, Sherwood is a gerrymandering All-Star. (I know because my parents were gerrymandered into his district between 2000 and 2002) He was known to be a mistress-strangler during the 2004 election too, and he didn't even have an opponent. If it weren't for the fact that his mistress-strangling somehow got a lot more national publicity in the wake of the Foley scandal, I'd say "You know it's going to be a landslide if Don Sherwood might not be reelected."
He was known to be a mistress-strangler during the 2004 election too, and he didn't even have an opponent the Dems didn't even bother trying to run anyone against him.
Clarified.
I'm only a little surprised that there hasn't been more of this kind of thing, lately. When Presidential speechwriters hate their opponents' guts and the President suggests that opposition is terrorism, then actual violence isn't too far away. At this point, fisticuffs in Congress, Preston Brooks-stylee wouldn't surprise me.
If I get to see Robert Byrd crack Saxby Chambliss in the head with a cane, I'll die a happy man.
17 and (as a reply) 20 have it exactly right. If Allen doesn't go down this year, he'd still be walking wounded into any potential 2008 bid. Among all the rest, the man has sealed divorce records. No way that gets beyond the primaries with all the other sharks around.
But why isn't he dead yet, Apo?
He's served one term, and he only got there by defeating the only Democrat VA has sent to the Senate since 1970, and who had a sex scandal. He's probably going to lose to only the second Democrat elected in 36 years. All most people knew about him then was that he was the son of a famous Redskins coach. I don't know what sort of opposition he faced in that Republican primary, but it's much smaller sharks in that pool.
26 isn't quite right -- Allen was running as a reasonably popular former governor against a sex-scandal-weakened Chuck Robb in 2000. His election in 1993 presaged the great 1994 Congressional shift, in that he ran a classic law and order campaign against the woman the Dems put up (the AG of the state, and he hit her hard on parolees up to no good; the campaign didn't need to engage in racial mudslinging, because the subtext is already there, and this was in the bad crack years when saying that she was soft on crime slopping over the District was potent). Virginia in 1993 really isn't the same as Virginia in 2006, and people know more about Allen now than then.
Re: 19, it's also worth noting that this is Webb's first time running for elective office. I would have voted for Clark in 2004, but he was awfully stiff on the campaign trail, and Allen, while bone-stupid, is pretty good at retail politics.
former governor
Damn. That's right.
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA - Unfortunately, the version* I kept hearing today suggested that the gentleman in-question threw a punch and was then "sucessfully subdued". I've been trying to get good info ever since to no avail. Still, the accounts of Allen's past thuggery make me think the worst of Allen's staffers. This campaign is getting very, very dirty.
*Admittedly, a pro-Allen crowd by-the-numbers.
Also: regardless, it looks bad. Period.
Bad for Allen, that is. Fucking hell. Can't we vote already?! Gah.
The video I linked in 4 seems to show pretty clearly that the guy didn't do anything physical before they grabbed him.
32: I'm most definitely not trying to defend Allen here. It seems to have been a chaotic encounter that either side will spin as it seems fit. That's all I was getting at. (I voted for Webb in the primary and will be voting for him again next week; just trying to provide the info/spin as it's flying around here.)
Wasn't the marine-guy asking if Allen spit on his wife? You people don't find that question repulsive?
33: I don't mean to imply that you're defending Allen, I'm just saying that the fact that this is on videotape will probably cut down on the more egregious spin.
although, the whole turnabout thing (dems getting on republicans for personal sex issues) is pretty funny
You people don't find that question repulsive?
I find it more repulsive that, by all indications, it's a fair question.
It is? I don't mean about it's being true or not. The whole Clinton thing rather soured me on politicians being asked about their personal lives, unless it's actually relevent. It might help if I knew what context the spitting happened in. I'll look around, but if someone wants to volunteer the answer...
35: Absolutely. You'll have a few Allen staffers claiming that there was other stuff off-camera, but the image is very, very powerful. More powerful than a GOP staffer speaking at a podium, to be sure.
Sorry, teo. I think we just crossed wires. I was just trying to point to what I suspect will be the Allen line tomorrow. I was most certainly unclear in that regard.
Hey, no problem. I understood what you were getting at.
It might help if I knew what context the spitting happened in.
There's a context in which spitting on your wife is okay?
Mini-Comity, I think. Everyone else: don't get spit upon.
43 --> 41. Although, the ramifications of "43 -->42" are surprising.
38: I guess I'd draw the line at credible allegations of abuse. I don't recall what sat behind the Jones allegations, but, if the allegations seemed credible, they're relevant. Certainly relevant to the press.
There's a context in which spitting on your wife is okay?
Let's not start another mini-battle between you and Tia. I think the allegation is that it was not wanted spitting.
Allen sounds like a sick fuck.
I've been thinking more and more that voting for President should be about 90% character and 10% issues. They're all undone by their personal flaws--you just have to figure out who's going to be less fucked up.
Allen isn't important to me, not any charismatic candidate. That is not how it works. The charismatic candidate is discovered or created by the thugs. Ernst Roehm discovered Hitler. The thing to watch is the thugs. When the grass roots Republicans start becoming violent, this will be seen as used by a spontaneous leadership. It wasn't Wallace who created the Wallace campaign, and God knows Nixon wasn't charismatic. The grass roots demands fascism.
Lose both houses, Bush calls the troops back with exit casualties, disaffected young keyboarders hit the streets, and Allen or someone like him starts the 4th Reich.
I've been thinking more and more that voting for President should be about 90% character and 10% issues.
You mean as opposed to the 99% character/1% issues mix we usually have?
Agree that issues are bullshit, but I think, for me, it's mostly structural: I want someone whose constituency thinks like me. I'm electing an agent, I think.
Care to re-state? I presume I might have some points of agreement, but you lost me.
52:David Neiwert at Orcinus has written a whole book about fascism, and I am partly parroting his analysis. Partly is my experience from the late sixties. I am not feeling real deep or articulate right now, but think about the Terror in France. It is about the worship of ACTION. It is not something that is controlled, but something that controls. It is happening in Iraq today.
The Fuehrer becomes the expression of the Volk.
The next two years are unbelievably dangerous. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Yeah, it looks like a fair question, after all.
I've been thinking more and more that voting for President should be about 90% character and 10% issues.
Of course you're completely wrong. For the foreseeable future, the only thing that matters to me is party.
"... I have no ability to predict what could possibly make a Republican not viable."
coming out as gay / an atheist / part black would do the trick.
,,,
I'd say that *maybe* if a Satanic child molestation ring run out of the White House was found to include at least half-a-dozen top Republicans--there would have to be pictures--then maybe they wouldn't be viable. Maybe.
You guys heard that Allen is part jew, and about the Foley scandal? not quite the same thing, but once people attach to one tribe, NOTHING detaches them.
Addendum: it sounds like i'm child molesting and being non-wasp. But i'm just reporting on the GOP mind.
um, EQUATING child molesting and being non-wasp.
I've been thinking more and more that voting for President should be about 90% character and 10% issues.
Anyone for competence? We in the protectorates are getting nervous.
Allen sounds like a bad person for various reasons, but in this particular incident, Stark was looking for trouble, not an interview.
The video shows Stark physically trying to push his way past one of Allen's men to get closer to Allen. When you push people, you're inviting them to push back. And Stark's question, "Did you spit on your first wife?" was not a serious journalistic inquiry. It was heckling, plain and simple. Allen wisely, and understandably, decided to avoid playing Stark's game.
Consider: If Bill Clinton had been on his way to deliver a speech in a hotel back in 1997, and a right-winger with a microphone tried to push his way past security, shouting, "Mr. President, how many of Monica's other dresses did you ejaculate on?" — well, what do you think would have, or should have, happened? Do you think Clinton would have waved away his bodyguards and stopped for an impromptu interview?
That said, while Allen's men had every right to shield him from a heckler like Stark, they should not have resorted to violence. It was unnecessary and inappropriate, and it generated negative PR for Allen. Which is exactly what Stark wanted.
GB, just for context, Allen's divorce records are sealed, and the "Allen spit on his wife" rumor has apparently been going around the journalism community for a while now. (A recent... TNR, I guess... piece on Mark Warner's decision not to run for president mentioned Warner's reaction when he heard it, although the name was redacted.)
I agree that Stark was looking to provoke a reaction by being a jerk, although I suspect he was imagining more on the order of Allen flipping him the bird.
It seems to have been a chaotic encounter that either side will spin as it seems fit. That's all I was getting at.
Yeah, sort of like Kerry's so-called "military service". Just like the year Bush was in the National Guard but no one there saw him.
You people don't find that question repulsive?
The context is sealed divorce records, sealed arrest records, and a smear campaign blaming Webb for the actions of fictional characters in a book her wrote. It's very possible that Webb did spit on his wife.
I've been thinking more and more that voting for President should be about 90% character and 10% issues.
Yeah, look at the terrible things that adulterous drunk Churchill did.
In this particular incident, Stark was looking for trouble, not an interview..... Allen wisely, and understandably, decided to avoid playing Stark's game.
Stark was trying to put Allen on the spot. There various things Allen could have done, but he chose the thuggish option. Not surprisingly for a neo-Confederate who terrified his own brothers and sisters in childhood. I don't know what you mean by "wise" here.
47: Ogged, you're insane. The last two administrations have demonstrated that we utterly lack the capacity as an electorate to evaluate the character of a presidential candidate. This shouldn't be surprising, either: we tend to evaluate the character of presidents in terms of how they fulfill the roles we encounter in our day-to-day lives (are they good spouses, good parents, etc.). We don't tend to evaluate them in terms of what makes them good or bad presidents, in which case the questions are less "Does he cheat on his wife?" than "How quickly would he order an air strike on a third-world country?"
Issues, ideology, and boring old competence really are the most important things to look for in a president. Yes, it helps if it looks like the man is a nice guy, but that's just window-dressing, and any politician with a realistic shot at the presidency is going to have some ability to convince people he's got "character" regardless of whether he's really a flesh-guzzling werewolf by night. Every so often you're going to have an obvious case like George Allen, but sister-beating, noose-decorating, deer-decapitating wannabe-rednecks are outliers. And even cases of grievous moral harm aren't always indicative of an inability to competently and morally lead. Ted Kennedy is guilty of vehicular manslaughter, but I'd much rather have had him as president in 2000 than the non-Chappaquidick'd George Bush.
a flesh-guzzling werewolf
You can't guzzle flesh unless you melt it or puree it first. Into a kind of flesh soup, or fondue, if you like. Next time on The Werewolf Gourmet.
What do you dip in your flesh fondue?
61 -- Accusing Webb of having maybe spit on his wife I think is really stepping over the line -- that is pure speculation.
Ogged, you're insane.
Note that I was not the one who said that. And I'm not saying that it's true for sure either. I'm trying to be good.
63: My werewolves have multiple sets of quick-spinning teeth, like a dental cuisinart.
It's possible that it's pure speculation, and it's possible that it came out orally in court (though the official records are now sealed). And as they always say, by unsealing the records Allen can put an end to the speculation.
Many started to denounce the politics of personal destruction on Jan. 20, 2001. These same people also then discovered that fiscal soundness, constitutionalism and the rule of law are really just archaic superstitions, even though they'd been harping about them incessantly from 1992 to 2000.
As for me, I reject these people and take my stand in favor of fiscal soundness, the Constitution, the rule of law, and the politics of personal destruction.
Love that video. I especially like the part where the bodyguard is leaning over Stark holding on to his shirt and snarling "Now yer gittin' personal! " What a lofty conception of politics!
You mean as opposed to the 99% character/1% issues mix we usually have?
I think you meant "image". Character isn't even in play.
This might be a touchy subject, but the politics of "character", personal honor and courtliness seems especially Southern. Jesse Helms had wonderful manners and a very pleasant way about him, they say.
67: I think you're wrong. Allen can't do anything to make 64 less true.
If it's not in the court records, he can say so and get all huffy.
Every other rumor about Allen has proven to be true so far, so it's possible that the gossip networks are picking up a freeby here. On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet that it's true.
From your tone it sounds as though you have your doubts about fiscal soundness, the Constitution, the rule of law, and the politics of personal destruction. If you don't love America, maybe you should find someplace you like better.
OK, now I feel bad. You'll notice that 64 does not contain the word "Allen." And although I don't comment often, I think you might be the most reasonable guy on the internets.
Issues, ideology, and boring old competence really are the most important things to look for in a president.
Maybe this is disagreement driven by hard-to-define terms. I have no idea how one would describe Clinton's ideology, or how specifically one could describe it without seeming overly credulous. And, of course, Clinton was famously untrustworthy on issues. I took "character" to mean something akin to a personality map: what will the candidate trade for what other thing, how much pressure can he absorb without changing his mind on an issue, etc.
To me "opportunistic centrist New Democrat" describes Clinton pretty well. More hawkish than a lot of Democrats, pro-death penalty (etc.), pro-"free trade", pro-corporation but significantly better than Republicans on most issues.
He made a point of separating himself from the liberal wing of the party and from the protectionist labor people, sometimes with mere symbolism and sometimes with real, meaningful actions.
George Will was quite happy with Bill.
More hawkish than a lot of Democrats, pro-death penalty (etc.), pro-"free trade", pro-corporation but significantly better than Republicans on most issues.
And competent.
Ok, the character thing was poorly put, partly because I'm not sure what I mean. I'm thinking something like: Bush's stupidity, stubbornness and incuriosity are killing us in Iraq, and if Al Gore had been elected to two terms, this is about the time that we would have been sick of his overanalysis, just like Clinton's dissolute management style was wearing thin after six years. I guess it's like, "the vices will out," and so you have to pick your vice carriers carefully. But this is probably impossible, since the vice doesn't necessarily tell you how deep it runs, and when it comes out. So maybe if we could be good judges of character, it would make sense to vote on it.
Could Unfogged put "Fighting for fiscal soundness, the Constitution, the rule of law, and the politics of personal destruction" on its masthead? That sounds like a winning concept to me.
75: Clinton was actually pretty weak in the "ideology" department, but pretty solid on competence. And while your understanding of "character" has some merit (in that it evaluates Clinton's character as a politician as opposed to his character as, say, a husband), it's almost certainly not what the majority of Americans think of when they think of Clinton's character. While the vast majority of Americans continued to approve of Clinton's job performance throughout the impeachment, polls also showed him taking a huge hit in character-based ratings like "honest and trustworthy." Why a lie about one's personal life should indicate anything about one's honesty as president is beyond me, but it allowed George Bush to run a campaign on the premise that he wouldn't diddle an intern. This is the same kind of logic that makes Americans outraged at the terrible corruption of Congressional cybersex yet relatively apathetic about state-sanctioned torture.
George Will was quite happy with Bill.
Please don't make me go looking for Will quotes to demonstrate that this isn't true. Clinton's said different things to different people, but...seriously: Cabinet that looks like America, gay people in the military, universal healthcare, etc. Not a Will guy; at least not a 1992 Will guy.
If I were George Bush, I'd be screwing interns every day -- just to make Clinton (with his one measly intern) feel jealous, and just to let the Democrats know that they'd been totally pwned. It's a good thing I'm not George Bush, I suppose.
I'd prefer your governing philosophy, although it might be a little alarming to the unenlightened.
In "The Agenda," his book on the early Clinton presidency, Bob Woodward reports that a sarcastic Clinton "bellowed" to his staff that "we're Eisenhower Republicans. . . . We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?" Actually, it was, for conservatives. And is.
Will is pretty cynical and doesn't care about a lot of Moral Majority stuff.
Is that a Will quotation, Emerson? You dropped the link.
Never mind. Found it. Find me something that praises Clinton contemporaneously; as even the Bush parents noted, it's hard to be against eight years of peace and prosperity.
Oh, if it were peace and prosperity through methods that slashed the share of national income going to the very wealthy, Will would manage to be cross about it, don't you think?
Republicans have a way of complaining even when they're happy. Their bullying of the media has been tremendously successful, but they complain as much as ever.
Will couldn't support Clinton, but he could chuckle quietly while Clinton was defying most of the Democrats on free trade.
In the actual political climate of the time Clinton was the best we could get, but policywise he was flawed, and he weakened the Democrats long-term.
I think that to Will the difference between the party'e electioneering and public agenda, and the real policy issues, is very clear. He really only cared about the latter, and he could deal with Clinton (after the medical insurance thing was killed) very easily.
Yeah, it kills me that people keep pointing to the Clintons as avatars of wild-eyed liberalism when, by any honest measure, WJC was the most conservative Democrat to hold the office since before the New Deal.
Clinton would probably have a better liberal legacy if he'd managed to push through his health care agenda.
In the actual political climate of the time Clinton was the best we could get, but policywise he was flawed, and he weakened the Democrats long-term.
I'm very dubious of any proposition that the Dems electoral troubles are the Clenis fault. From what I see, Dems were weakened not at all on the issues, but because of their inefficacy at fighting Republican PR, an area where they still could learn from Clinton.
I dunno, Michael. I'm very, very fond of Bill Clinton personally, and would love to see him taking a more active role in Democratic campaigns, but the endless triangulation and shifting to the right served to legitimize the GOP's policy stances in a lot of people's eyes and laid the groundwork for the Nader debacle. I also think it's probably to the Democrats' advantage that the health care revamp they were proposing didn't get off the ground. It was a horrible kludge of half-measures that, to me, seemed to miss the point altogether.
Sorry, but anyone who thinks that Clinton was/is not a skilled politician is simply full of shit. We can argue about his substantive policies all day long, but the man has truly rare talent.
Sure, easily the best politician of his generation.
but anyone who thinks that Clinton was/is not a skilled politician is simply full of shit.
Who said that?
98- I thought someone did, but maybe not. Anyway, I've heard it before many times before-- his success being due to luck, not talent, his political skills are vastly overrated, etc.
Of course he was lucky (as is every successful politician, to some extent or another), and probably his skills are overrated to some extent by some people, but when people act as if he was just a passive beneficiary of good fortune who lacked real skill or saavy of his own, well, I find it hard to take them seriously.
In 1992, Clinton, despite all his similarities with Bush the Elder, managed to show a stark contrast between himself and the Pres. A big part of the Nader debacle was that Gore didn't properly differentiate himself from Bush II. Since 9/11, the elections have largely been about national security, and I don't think there's a case that the "Dems are weak on nat'l security" charge is Clinton's fault.
His personal victories did not strengthen the party, partly since he spent much of his time in office humiliating the Congressional Democrats, partly because "free trade" angered a majot constituency, partly because he followed the "me too" DLC strategy, and partly because he put in place a weak national campaign strategy: heavy fundraising from malefactors of great wealth in order to make big media buys every two years, with no party-building and no message development between elections.
He did know how to frame issues and talk, though, and he could defend himself and fight back too.
What he did with all the triangulation on domestic issues (which worked out well for him, badly for the Democratic party) was provide cover for the weirdos on the right, and make them look saner. Part of the reason it's taken us so long to get reasonable people around to the fairly obvious fact that single payer healthcare is going to be cheaper and more efficient for the same outcomes than any godawful-hybrid-channel-everything-through-the-same-million-health-insurance-companies mess is Clintonian genuflection to the god of 'The market is always more efficient regardless of circumstances', which is nonsense and politically damaging nonsense at that.
Part of the problem, Emerson, is that the country as a whole, and even the Democratic party as a whole, does not want the pacifist, free-love, socialist utopia that you want.
On the contrary, Tim, I want to massacre the middle class and enslave their children. I am no pacifist.
Since 1994 it's been lose-lose for the Democrats, and I think that the burden of proof is on anyone who says that he strengthened the party/
Erm, is it okay if Sally and Newt hold out for indentured servitude? Perhaps some form of syndicalist apprenticeship?
Slavery seems so, absolute.
he put in place a weak national campaign strategy
It's scapegoating to put all this on Clinton's shoulders. Bush, for instance, has great national message control, but he's not the one in charge. I was pretty yound during all this, so maybe there is some reason that Clinton deserves more blame than, say, the DNC chairman or the Congressional leaders?
partly because he followed the "me too" DLC strategy
What does this refer to?
Sell what you have and give it to the poor, LB.
Otherwise, I'll sell your kids to someone nice. Or I might even give you a special deal to buy them back.
106: I meant after the ritual Slaughter of the Not-Innocents, Emerson. I think of Clinton as someone who helped transform the party by moving it to the right, which is a direction it needed to move along some vectors. Basically, I think he made it possible for the Democrats to keep people like Kos (and me). Since I'm in the portion of the electorate to which he appealed, there are some obvious concerns about bias, but...you're still a crazy hippie, so nyah.
Since 1994 it's been lose-lose for the Democrats, and I think that the burden of proof is on anyone who says that he strengthened the party
The Dems have been going downhill not since 1994, but 1966. It didn't start under Clinton. Clinton suredly failed to reverse this fall, and I'm sure he could have done more - but it just seems to me that a political party is more than one man.
I don't know if the problem is so much with Clinton's strategies rather than the fact that they only work if you have someone as charismatic as Clinton as the face of them.
It is easier for a rich lawyer to pass through the eye of a camel than to follow the path of Emerson. Unless said lawyer gives offerings of hott, underaged animals. For ye have the animals always with you; but Emerson ye have not always, for he is long in the tooth.
There was no need for Clinton to sign all that pro-monopoly deregulation legislation. That kind of "third way" rightward shift appeals to exactly nobody. Other than lobbyists, who aren't technically people.
112: First, it's a tautology to say that political ideas only work with a candidate who can sell them. Clinton's just not an exception to this. Second, Clinton's gift was that he could explain things to people so that they made sense. And he could do it like more in the manner of a good teacher than a boring old coot. I think it was his rhetoric more than his personal appeal which was the key to his success.
Other than lobbyists, who aren't technically people.
In a more perfect world, they'd be raised like veal and fed to the indigent.
114: the glass-stegall act wasn't it? yeah, bad bill - but doesn't it appeal to exactly nobody because exactly nobody (within the margin of error) is aware of it?
Winning you and Kos in 1992 didn't seem to do the party any longterm good. "Move to the center", "Never be a dove" and "Support business" turned out not to add up to a powerful recipe for electoral success.
I do grant that Kos on the issues is pretty close to the DLC, except on Iraq and Israel. And I do appreciate the fact that he's moved away from the battered-wife submissive-wetting political strategy that the DLC and DNC would prefer the Democrats to use.
One little data point that no one seems to remember except me is "soft money". The campaign finance laws allowed for "party-building money" in addition to campaign money. This could be used for messages on the issues, for voter registration, and I think for GOTV. Clinton and Gore were among the leaders in using party-building money for election campaigns via a loophole.
The Republicans did it too, but the difference is that the Republicans didn't quit party-building activities.
The Clinton strategy, which was based on marginalizing the Democratic core constituencies, required the avoidance of populist message and made recruiting volunteers and small-dollar donations much harder.
Michael: that, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
That's my point -- why did he sign those bills? It wasn't to get votes.
DLC types always explain to me that the loss of Congress was inevitable, and only happened to take place while Clinton was President. That way of reading history ("shit happens!") doesn't strike me as conducive to running winning campaigns.
Do any of you grant that triangulation had an enormous long term down side? Or that sucking up for big corporate money led to some bad policy decisions? Or that Clinton and Gore had something to do with the Democratic Party's various strategic and tactical weaknesses?
And technically, it was a bill repealing the Glass-Steagall Act that Clinton signed.
Or that Clinton and Gore had something to do with the Democratic Party's various strategic and tactical weaknesses?
This is a different claim - what I've been seeing is that they were the cause of the Dem's weaknesses. I'm sure they can be construed as contributing to the Dem weakness - but how much? Triangulation? Too far in the past, people don't care anymore. I don't think C&G were the main players in the long decline on the Dems. Clinton left office with the economy in good shape, and with high approval ratings. To argue that he was perfect, though, would be insane. But, what about the other players? I don't think Clinton's Presidency doomed Gore or Kerry. I'm less informed on the national House races, but shouldn't the DNC take some blame for that? And the House leaders? Or did Clinton really shut them all down such that they couldn't campaign while he was President?
"Too far in the past": people aren't consciously thinking about it now, but there was damage done there that's never been repaired.
I am assuming that during Clinton's time as President that the DNC was staffed with his friends and supporters.
The Democrats in Congress deserve some of the blame, but considering that Clinton was sabotaging them pretty consistently, their problemns were partly his too.
Triangulation? Too far in the past, people don't care anymore.
See, this is, I think, basically wrong. The way triangulation worked was as an admission that "Everything the Democratic party has historically stood for is wrong; all those criticisms thrown our way about being class-warfare waging evil Stalinist demons were right; but here's a teeny little policy that acknowledges that we've always sucked in the past and still suck, but that you should independently think is a good idea." And that'll help you get Democrat-haters voting for your stuff, but it also encourages and legitimizes them: "Even Clinton recognizes that liberalism is unworkable and evil." (All quotes invented and exaggerated for effect.)
I think triangulation is still having an effect, and not a good one.
Hmm, I have mixed feeling about this. On one hand I tend to be a Clinton defender, on the other hand the main selling point of triangulation was that it would have political benefits. If everyone agreed that triangulation stinks as policy and politics that would strike me as leading to policy that I desire.
It might, however, be an example of the pundit's falacy.
I thought, for example, that it was widely considered that Clinton's decision to sign on to "Welfare Reform" was bad policy but had substantial political benefits.
Michael: that, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
That's my point -- why did he sign those bills? It wasn't to get votes.
I don't think the criticism that Clinton sometimes signed bills that were only liked by lobbyists is in anyway unique to Clinton. It's not admirable, but it seems pretty comon.
Question for people that think Clinton's triangulation had a long-term rhetorical cost -- do you think his support of gays in the military and universal health insurance had long term rhetorical benefits?
I always assumed that Clinton was personally a fan of "free trade" and that he pursued it because he thought it was good policy, not just to please business interests. I know that DeLong still tends to support "free trade" but has started to step back from that position, I wish I knew what Clinton thinks about NAFTA now.
Kevin Drum's pretty big on posting up polls every now and then that show the public broadly supports basic liberal positions, and opposed basic GOP ones, so I'm unconvinced as to the accuracy of 124.
And, as I sorta said above, for the last two elections have been lost on nat'l security. I don't see how triangulation relates to that. And I don't think Gore lost b/c of traingulation. He lost b/c he didn't fight against negative character attacks, and b/c he allowed Bush to play centrist.
Maybe triangulation hurt in some House races - but Dems gained House seats in 1998, which I believe was a historic first - to gain House seats while your party holds the Presidency. And since then - lack of infrastructure does seem a plausible weakness, as well as nat'l security and second-rate campaigning tactics. And gay marriage.
Centrally, my objection is that the issues which relate to triangulation just haven't been relevant to the last few elections cycles.
It wasn't the issues related to triangulation, it was the permanent damage to the party related to triangulation.
John, that sounds possible, but what does it mean concretely? Permanent damage would be important insofar as it hurt Dems at the polls. As I said, Dems made a historic gain in 1998 (b/c of impeachment, but this still argues against the signifigance of triangulation), and in 2000 more people voted for Gore than voted for Clinton in 1996. Still, what you say is possible, but to be convinced I'm going to need some more concrete example of the damage done.
I don't have stats, just impressions, but look at how people reacted in that thread where I suggested that Democratic politicians should start bragging about how the American people trust them and want them to govern based on their liberal principles. Even here, a lefty bastion, people got all edgy about whether voters would backlash against anyone telling them they liked liberals. Left politics are treated as embarrassing and unseemly in a way that seems absolutely bizarre to me, and I think the manner in which our last hugely visible successful Democratic politician ran away from them reinforced that.
Left politics are treated as embarrassing and unseemly in a way that seems absolutely bizarre to me
Okay, I've hesitated about bringing this up for a long time, but I suspect geography might play a role here.
Oh, sure, I live in liberal central, if that's what you mean, but even out west and down south, there are lots of Democrats. But they're embarassed about it, in a way that I think has something to do with triangulation.
Or am I missing your point somehow?
No, that's my point, but I don't think you're really appreciating it. People, even liberals, who come from places where conservatism is strong have attitudes toward liberalism and conservatism that are different from those of people who come from predominantly liberal areas.
Cartoonish left politics are treated as unseemly, again because the Limbaughs and Roves of the world have done a good job convincing people that "the left" believes in a lot of unreasonable shit. So what? I think LB's right: there's no reason in the world not to say that most Americans *do* believe in helping out people who are down on their luck, that most Americans do think that abortion is a regrettable option but they don't want the government policing women's reproductive decisions, that most Americans think that the US should provide kids with a good education, and that most Americans think that the free market is basically a good thing but the government also has a role in making sure that business owners don't get away with polluting the water, ripping off their customers or their employees, or bribing politicians. None of those things are hard to say.
Left politics are treated as embarrassing and unseemly in a way that seems absolutely bizarre to me, and I think the manner in which our last hugely visible successful Democratic politician ran away from them reinforced that.
Name the last Democratic president that didn't run away from the "liberal" wing of the party. Carter certainly did. Lyndon Johnson ran as a liberal but not as a technocratic liberal. Kenedy comes closest to a president that used his charisma to envigorate liberalism but he wasn't that liberal in his policies and he ran to the right of the republicans on foreign policy. He ran against Nixon on the argument that the Republicans hadn't done enough to prevent the Soviet arms build-up!
I don't think there's been a liberal Reagan -- a president that consciously pays a debt to movement politics rather than electoral politics but I don't think you can blame that on Clinton.
Look at it another way, which of the contenters in the Democratic primary in 1992 wouldn't have run away from liberalism? Tsongas? Jerry Brown -- perhaps, but I don't have a lot of faith in him as a standard bearer for a movement.
Lyndon Johnson ran as a liberal
on race and helping the little people. Otherwise, his roots were conservative dems.
136 -- exactly. My point is that the last presidents that could be described as subscribing to the liberal brand were kennedy and johnson and, in both cases, it's a stretch to say that.
People, even liberals, who come from places where conservatism is strong have attitudes toward liberalism and conservatism that are different from those of people who come from predominantly liberal areas.
Agree with teo, again.
And I'll agree with that, sure, but isn't part of the reason for that that we go along with it?
137: It's impossible to disentangle these labels from distant events (like the '60s) absent a fair bit of research. Until I read something by Perlstein, I certainly didn't know that until Goldwater (I think this is the right time point), Republicans ran away from the "conservative" label.
LB, I get what you mean. People like liberal policies, but not so much calling them "liberal". More thoughts on this later; I just didn't want to ignore you.
And I'll agree with that, sure, but isn't part of the reason for that that we go along with it?
Maybe, but this sort of attitude towards politics is part of a much broader world-view. There's a lot of cultural capital tied up in that world-view, and it's really hard to give up. I suspect a lot of the problem is that the myth-makers of the Democratic Party are pretty much confined to the Bo-Wash corridor; even the West Coast influences the "liberal" sensibility only at a distance. Basically, Soros should set up a Democratic think-tank in Colorado or Arizona.
140: And after Goldwater -- people thought he was a loon. Reagan is when calling yourself a conservative got mainstream.
143- You're right, it was Reagan. Obviously, what the Democrats therefore need to do is run a famous actor for president. Weren't we just commenting the other day on the disarming political power of celebrity in this country?
Why haven't the Dems done this already? Isn't like 98% of Hollywood on their side?
Goldwater -- people thought he was a loon
Maybe your people did. My people loved him.
(This is why I'm still skeptical that the Democrats can win the West.)
But that's not fair, he was a favorite son in Arizona and New Mexico. Saying that the bulk of the American electorate generally thought Goldwater was loony isn't me being an out-of-touch New Yorker, it's just true.
Saying that the bulk of the American electorate generally thought Goldwater was loony isn't me being an out-of-touch New Yorker, it's just true.
Maybe. But that was also 40+ years ago. Reagan--a "Westerner"--may be a better touchstone by which to get a sense of the difference in reactions in different parts of the country. In certain very blue areas, he was reviled. But he was, and is, much loved in much of the rest of the country.
146: I know that, I was just teasing you.
Ah. I'm actually a little touchy about that sort of "If you were a real American, instead of a latte-sipping-liberal-enclave dweller, you'd just understand" thing. While there are areas where it's true, I get weird when it's used to back up something I know isn't the case. Which makes me miss when people are kidding.
Michael, the Republicans have controlled both house of Congress for almost all of 12 years. That seems like concrete damage to me.
Secondly, the Republicans still set the national agenda to which Democrats must respond. We're finally just barely gaining the initiative back, but this is almost entirely because the Iraq War was such a terrible mess. Busg was allowed to run completely wild for three years (2002-2005) while the Democrats sputtered.
One of the reasons for the passivity is that any attempt to make a strong independent Democratic statement would run the risk of saying things that the dominant Democrats don't want to say. Even at the beginning of this year Democrats were very timid about opposing the war, and Hillary still is. It's always said that The American People Want X, but the Democrats sying that are the ones who really want it.
The tendency has been to accept public opinion as given (especially if it seems to support the DLC). The Republicans didn't accept public opinion, they tried to mould public opinion, and they were successful.
The DLC isn't quite as dominant now, but I'm speaking of the whoile period back to 1994.
149: Yeah, that's why I was hesitant about bringing this stuff up in the first place.
It's okay to bring it up, just telegraph the jokes a little more clearly, or be prepared for some whining.
And yet Jon Tester is running a very strongly civil libertarian campaign, and the polls I've seen all tend to suggest that he's the next senator from the great state of Montana. Sherrod Brown is going to be the most populist person in the Senate on trade issues. How much of the distaste for "liberalism" is actual politics, and how much is regional biases? If John Kerry, D-MA, had been John Kerry, D-WI, but just as inept at selling himself, would the attacks on him have held up nearly as well?
You folks are overestimating the importance of policies and positions.
I voted this afternoon. I held my nose and voted for Patricia Madrid, the democratic challenger, for congress. I *hate* *hate* *hate* voting for someone who is manifestly and obviously stupid, and probably corrupt besides. If I didn't care so much about constitutionalism and separation of church and state - rather esoteric issues that don't bother most folks - I wouldn't have been able to do it.
Madrid has campaigned in the now-typical democratic manner: she has courted the big money so she could buy lots and lots of horrible TV ads, and told volunteers to go away. Her ground campaign involved some paid canvassers, and volunteer canvassing two hours every saturday. The GOTV effort seems to be mostly automated recorded calls, with some effort to round up volunteers at the last minute to make calls from lists of dubious quality. Her ads are running many times an hour on all the channels.
Policies and positions haven't gotten much play. The ads are all GOTCHA! and misrepresentations. Despite the Democratic party having a 140,000 to 120,000 advantage in registrations (with another 70,000 Decline To State) the campaign isn't about issues and policies, it's about who can buy the best and most numerous TV ads.
Which is to say that LB is a latte-sipping liberal who probably enjoys ballet and torturing Christian babies, not like real American in the heartland who have never been in a Starbucks.
That's a filthy lie. I've never been able to follow ballet.
How much of the distaste for "liberalism" is actual politics, and how much is regional biases?
Regional biases are probably a lot of it, but I'm not sure your examples really bear that out. Civil libertarianism and protectionism aren't really what a lot of people associate with "liberalism" (presumably because those are issues that the right doesn't want to emphasize because their own positions are so unpopular).
I *hate* *hate* *hate* voting for someone who is manifestly and obviously stupid, and probably corrupt besides.
Uh, how long have you been living in NM?
LB, please. Your shameless attempts to pander aren't fooling anyone. I've lived in Ohio for 18 months! I know from authenticity!
Teo, I'd say that the things most people associate with liberalism (which I will dub p-liberalism, like m-fun) are taxes, abortion, the God-hating gun-taking ACLU, and giving money to black people (and not throwing enough of them in jail). Am I missing something in the p-liberalism register? Tester has been very up front about two of those four. The problem is that these things are crude, outdated stereotypes, so of course nobody defends p-liberalism. Jim Webb's statements about affirmative action were thoughtful, not that I particularly agree with them, but nobody actively wants to raise taxes on the middle class.
Liberalism has been successfully labelled by the Republicans as various sorts of bad things. This certainly isn't Clinton's fault, it started back in 1968, probably, or certainbly 1980, but Clinton played to the prejudices and didn't really successfully promote a strong alternative definition -- just a mix of me-too and split-the-difference.
I'd didn't help that one of the smears against liberals is "promiscuous, permissive, and self-indulgent", and the Monica thingie fit that stereotype to a T.
159: Exactly. Candidates like Tester are doing well because they're pushing the right buttons, not because of regional bias or whatever.
Uh, how long have you been living in NM?
Since 1975. Perhaps it's the incompetence of the party that most angers me - or rather, that the party's efforts have been aimed at weakening the formal party structure itself: there's been a real effort to make sure that the party doesn't organize, doesn't get out the vote, doesn't develop new talent, that there's no precinct or ward organization, etc. Instead, there's only personal loyalty and personal favors. So I voted for John Dendahl. And against Mary Herrera. Fuck the issues and policies. And fuck Rahm Emanuel, whose early money and support was the only thing Patricia Madrid had going.
I'm starting to think I might be bitter and angry.
I think we've had this discussion before.
But put Tester before a national audience and have him say the same things, and I think it comes out okay; have Senator Jones of New Jersey make the same case and it doesn't. I don't know -- maybe it's just that in more conservative states, politicians learn to be liberals while signaling that they aren't p-liberals, or maybe it's just that Schweitzer and Webb and Tester can all talk about guns (and church, but mostly guns) without sounding like big fakey fakes.
maybe it's just that in more conservative states, politicians learn to be liberals while signaling that they aren't p-liberals
This is basically what I was getting at in 132. In an environment like that, you have to present yourself a certain way to succeed. In an environment where most people agree with you, presentation isn't as important and it's easier to skate by.
163: Yes. Sorry. Having actually voted this afternoon, and then this evening tried to watch TV, brought it all back up like a bad pizza. The politics of reverse peristalsis. I wonder if there's some sort of chewing gum that can help me break this self destructive urge to pretend we're living in a participatory democracy.
Am I missing something in the p-liberalism register?
NAMBLA.
164: isn't that just the same "southerners have a bruised ego about their collective social status vis-a-vis the rest of the union" thing?
the South will rise, "yoyo". THE SOUTH WILL RISE.
169: It pretty much has, hasn't it? How much more do you want?
No one should be fooling themselves about broader mandates this year. The fact is, the failure in Baghdad is an ebb tide that powers all Republican candidates. Some are in deep enough channels so they're still afloat, others are aground. If the Maliki government had brokered a deal of some kind, and averted/wound down the war, even Burns might be fine.
Majorities agree with us on the actual issues, but like the other team's narratives better. Unless we get a master storyteller, like our last president.
Maybe our problem is the demise of the smoke-filled room. It was a place where story-telling ability could be measured. Instead, we're measuring other talents altogether in Iowa and New Hampshire.
In case any other New Yorkers were, like me, thinking that with Alan Hevesi involved in a stupid scandal they should at least check into what his opponents' views are on issues, I have learned the following: his Republican opponent is named Chris Callaghan. His main issue is changing the public employees pension fund over to defined contribution. I can't see voting for him. I was hoping Working Families would be running someone against Hevesi, but they're doing their usual fusion thing for all the state-wide offices. There is a Green party candidate, maybe that's the way to go.
The ability to determine what district you are located in via the New York State Assembly's website is too awful to truly be believed. My zip code corresponds to three different districts, so I had to use the map provided in each assemblyperson's profile. The map looks like this.
It pretty much has, hasn't it? How much more do you want?
slaves?