When Your Dad Is Running For President...

You shouldn't break the law.

NBC News has confirmed that Howard Dean's 17 year old son has been arrested...it looks like for burglary or robbery (I just caught it on MSNBC, can't find the story on the net yet).

What the fuck was this kid thinking?

Son. Of. A. Bitch.

Rick Perry has called for a special session on redistricting.

He says that "The recently completed regular session clearly demonstrates that legislators -- regardless of political party affiliation and philosophy -- can work together to address issues important to Texans."

Uh huh. That's why the Democrats had to leave the state to keep from getting screwed with their pants on.

Me and Texas are no longer friends.

We Have Money But Give Us More!

Why, exactly, is NRO soliciting contributions? Don't they realize that real conservative publications get their funding from Richard Mellon-Scaife?

Did someone piss off one of their sugar daddies, or does Jonah need a new transmission for his car, or what?

Or perhaps it's a sort of high-concept electronic word art piece. Maybe they already have plenty of money, but are saying they deserve more, at the expense of regular people who don't have as much, in which case it's a brilliant illustration of conservative tax-cut ideology.

Genius!

I bet it was Kathryn Jean's idea...

Conspiracies

I was greatly amused by the list of things people in America believe that Bob Harris currently has posted up at Tom Tomorrow's site. There are some real crazies living amongst us. But we knew that.

However, one number actually disturbed me quite a bit. According to the numbers Harris cites, only 10% of the population believes that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Let's think about that for a minute. That means that 90% of us think that Oswald didn't act alone. The Warren Report, however, which was the result of the official government investigation, says he did.

9 out of ten people don't believe the government's official version of the assasination of a democratically elected President. For fuck's sake, more people believe OJ's version of Nicole's murder than believe the government's version of Kennedy's.

My question is, if so many people think the official version is wrong, why is it that anyone who talks about anyone other than Oswald being involved is automatically accused of conspiracy theorizing?

I'm not going to get into the assasination right now, because it's late and I'll just end up driving myself crazy, but make no mistake- Kennedy's assasination, coming as it did during a critical point in the balancing game that was the Cold War and arguably being a major cause of the social upheaval of the late 60's, was one of the most significant events of the 20th century, with ripple effects that will continue to be felt, at least indirectly, for a long time to come.

So if none of us believe what we are told about it, why aren't more people concerned about getting the full truth? Is it fatigue? After so many years of so many different theories, different versions of evidence, and different suspects, we all just say "Fuck it" and ignore it?

I'm just as guilty of saying "fuck it" on this subject as anyone, but doesn't that strike you as extraordinarily dangerous?

VeryVeryHappy Poetry Corner

Kevin Drum has decided to tweak D² Digest's angry post about the many flaws of haiku as an English poetry form.

As I always appreciate a good tweaking between friends, I approve.

D²'s post is a stunning example of intellectual elitism, and is also completely correct. I approve of it, too!

And so, to show my admiration, I present two politically themed poems - a haiku for Kevin, and a limmerick for D² (a form which he suggests is much more challenging):

Bright sun before rain.
Deceiving us all, we're wet.
Republicans suck.

There once was a rich man named Bush.
His election was akin to a putsch.
He now screws all the poor folk,
His reign's like a quick poke
From a sharp stick straight to the tush.

I. Am. Awesome.

Presidential Issues

Uh oh. I let slip that I am in favor of the (admittedly far-fetched) Dean/Clark ticket.

So let's take a closer look at that, eh?

First, in this post, a rundown of candidates whose names are not Howard Dean:

John Kerry- Can't win. Sorry. He very well might win the nomination, but if he does, I will be digging a very deep hole -- filled with cheap booze and old science fiction novels -- in which to spend the next four years, because George Bush will reign until 2008.

Why? For one very simple reason - John Kerry is boring and looks too damn old.

Simplistic, juvenile analysis? Yes. But it is absolutely correct.

Say what you will about Bush, the man is quite the young buck, as Presidents go, and his handlers are very careful to present him in small, easy-to-swallow bites to keep him seeming fresh, interesting, and exciting. You and I thought the carrier landing was excessive, but a good chunk of the populace loved it, and not just the die hard Republicans.

Kerry just cannot win against Bush’s vitality.

It's too bad, then, that Kerry, as the pseudo-front runner, is wrapping up a lot of the big campaign guns - particularly Rand Beers, who could potentially do a lot of damage to Bush while bolstering Democratic National Security Street Cred (DNSSC).

Hopefully, Kerry will get bounced out of the primaries and gracefully hand off all his weaponry to the nominee.

Joe Lieberman- Can't win. Same problems as Kerry, with the additional stench of loser carrying over from 2000. The only Democrat less trusted by the base is Zell Miller, and Lieberman's handling of the Enron investigation makes that distinction deserved.

John Edwards- The way I see it, Edwards is the only guy besides Dean who has a chance at beating Bush. Unfortunately, he has, up to this point, been a disappointment. As Kos has noted in the past, he has occasional brilliant moments followed by a week or so of mediocrity. This is no good.

Actually, for a young guy who's a relative newcomer to national politics, he's done pretty well. Unfortunately, all of the "next Clinton" talk has led to over inflated hopes – both on his part and the media’s -- which have in turn made his actual performance to date a failure in terms of expectations. Bad. Bad. Bad.

Another big chink in Edwards' armor is the fact that he was a trial lawyer only a few years ago. Now, you and I know that that does not necessarily make him a bad guy; in fact, given his record of going after major corporations on behalf of wronged individuals, it can be a big plus. The problem, though, is that people dislike lawyers, especially ones that sue. Yes, the perception of trial lawyers all being greedy thugs who help lazy good-for-nothings get rich with frivolous lawsuits is manufactured by the tort "reform" crowd, but that doesn't make it go away. Basically, in order for Edwards' previous career to be a factor in his favor, he needs to continue to "fight for the little guy" in the Senate for a few more years, so that journalists and other storyline-makers can draw a parralel between his two careers, with fighting people who take advantage of others as an overarching theme. Otherwise, the GOP can just point to him and say “trial lawyer,” and the jig is up; go home, no White House for you.

I like John Edwards. I think that, given a bit more experience and a more extensive Senate record, he could be a real contender. In fact, I'm looking at him a little like Gary Hart in '84- a young guy with good ideas and charisma who just needs a few more years of experience and a higher national profile (assuming Edwards avoids any Monkey Business-type flameouts).

So this run is good for him. Let him learn the ins and outs of national campaigning, and let him build up that all-important name-recognition. He's one of the few national figures in the Democratic party who's young enough to still be in his political prime in 2012 if another Democrat wins the Presidency next year. On the other hand, if the gods throw tomatoes at us and Bush wins next year, then Edwards will be ready to roll in 2008. Either way, this is a practice run for him.

Dick Gephardt- Can't win. Unions like him, he has a lot of legislative experience, blah blah blah. So did Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale, and those two got beaten like the family mule.

The fact is, any Democrat smart enough to know who he is is also smart enough to know that he was the top Democrat in the House during a time when the Republicans ruled the House with an iron fist. Dick couldn’t keep the GOP from growing in power in the 90's (save for that little hiccup in '98 when the country decided it hated Newt), and everyone knows it. More than that, he presided over the 2002 midterms which, in terms of the House, were quite a drubbing for the Democrats. And no matter what The Note says, he still gives off a faint whiff of Loser from that election.

Yes, he has a nifty health plan, yes he is raising some good money, yes he has good support in midwestern blue states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois.

Doesn't matter. He has too much baggage, too little personality, and the unions simply can't get out the vote like they used to. God help us if he wins the nomination.

Bob Graham- Who?

Al Sharpton- Can't win without help from extra-terrestrials, and only then if they have death rays and are willing to use them.

But so what? Al certainly talks a good game, and my initial fears of the Republicans accusing the Democrats of racism for discounting him as a contender in the primaries have mostly faded away.

He's an entertaining guy, and from what I've seen and read of his speeches, he manages to make interesting some of the larger messages the Democrats have been trying to push (the Kool-Aide line about Bush’s tax cuts was classic). He is able to phrase things in a funny, memorable, sound-bite way, a skill that seems to be sorely lacking among Democrats.

He will never be President, but I say let him bash Bush to his heart's content. A few funny lines, if picked up by the media, can be devastating, and if they come from Al, the nominee can avoid any blowback that might result from negative reaction to what he says.

Al can be our wrecking ball.

Carol Mosley-Braun- Can't win. She's simply too marginal a figure. Honestly, I don't know what possessed her to declare, unless perhaps she is trying to score some points and raise her profile for another run down the road.

Dennis Kucinich- Can't win. I'm going to get flack for this, but someone needs to state the obvious.

He's too damn funny looking to win.

Again, it's a stupid, juvenile thing to say, but it's true. Compared to someone of Bush's good looks and vitality, Kucinich doesn't stand a chance.

Even if he was the most brilliant candidate imaginable, with a platform that could win over the entire country, he would still lose. For good or ill, television is a critical component of any modern campaign, and Dennis does not look good under the lights. You think they made fun of Dukakis for looking a little strange? You ain't seen nothing.

***

Having gone through all that, I'll talk about Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, and why I believe they could be a winning combination in my next post after I get home from class tonight.

Security Issues

I'll go over my currently-preferred Democratic ticket in another post (it's Dean/Clark), but first I want to try out an idea I've been kicking around since January.

Whoever gets the nomination should quickly snap up Gary Hart and tell everyone that he will be their National Security Advisor if they win.

Now, granted, National Security Advisor is not an office you usually see a Presidential candidate talk about filling on the campaign trail; it certainly is never a major campaign theme. If they give any thought to it at all, people usually rely on the perceived national security credentials of the candidate, and assume that they will fill the various government posts with like-minded people.

However, for an election that will be as much about national security and terrorism as it will be about anything else (and let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it will be all about the economy, eh? Played that game in 2002. Didn't go so well), it seems like it would not be a bad idea to shove every bit of security street cred the Democrats can muster in everyone's face.

Even though I never mentioned it in this space, I actually like Gary Hart a lot. Unlike other Hart supporters, though, I didn't actually want to see him make a Presidential run (I'm looking at you, Ezra). Here's an excerpt from an email I sent to a friend of mine discussing Hart's potential candidacy:

If I were a Republican, I couldn't pick a better Democratic candidate. Not because his ideas are worse than those of the GOP. They're better. Not because the majority, if they understood, wouldn't support Gary Hart in a second over any Republican. They would. But because the GOP political apparatus is geared primarily toward massive smear campaigns and character assassination, and Hart has a giant bullseye on his chest. This is what these people do. Take, as only one example, Bill Clinton. A man who I have mixed feelings about, but, regardless, was a brilliant and very competent President, with a relatively minor character flaw. Over the years, the GOP has succeeded in painting him as a cesspool of immorality and vice, who set a "moral tone" which caused everything from the Columbine shootings to the Enron-led fraud epidemic. I am not making this up: They blamed Enron on Bill Clinton getting a blowjob.
Clinton at least had the courtesy to try and hide the fact of his adultery. Hart paraded it in the country's face, a particularly brilliant move given the power of the various televangelist empires at the time.

Fortunately, Hart decided against a run at the Presidency. When he did, though, he made sure to emphasize the fact that he still had a great desire to serve the American people in some capacity. Some people have suggested that he should run for the Senate again- an interesting possibility that would ultimately be doomed, for much the same reason as a Presidential run. People care where politicians stick their widgets, even if it was 16 years ago.

But Gary Hart's biggest strength this time around -- national security and anti-terrorism -- is both a desperately sought-after commodity in the Democratic party, and something that, in the proper office, can be divorced from an ancient character scandal. Nobody cares about the National Security Advisor's sex life.

For the nominee, making Hart the visible architect of their national security platform would be an ideal theme-crafting move.

We all learned in 2000 that the prevailing themes among journalists can make or break a candidate (Al Gore and the internet, anyone?). By bringing Hart onboard as an important side-figure, the Democrats can capitalize on the media's perception of him as a terrorism-psychic and a national security guru without being weighed down by his baggage.

Things That Annoy Me, Part 273,635

I really wish blogger-types would stop using "meme" as a synonym for "theme."

Yes, yes, a lot of people actually do use the word properly, but it has become so damn fashionable that I can't use it myself without feeling pompous.