Jay Reding.com

Jonathan Chait has a very interesting piece on the radicalism of the Kossacks. He does an excellent job of getting under the notion that the Kossacks aren’t radicals because they endorse some moderate candidates:

I realize that the new, counterintuitive thing to say about the left blogosphere these days is that it’s not really that radical. Markos Moulitsas Zuniga says nice things about Mark Warner, which means he’s really just a pragmatist (or easily co-opted, but the effect is the same). All this is mostly true. What this interpretation misses, however, is that the radicalism of the lefty bloggers lies not so much in their ideological platform but in their ideological style. They think like sectarians. And that style is on perfect display in Kos’s attack on The New Republic.

Kos announces in his headline, “TNR’s defection to the Right is now complete.” If this sounds vaguely familiar, it’s because it is. More than two years ago, Kos launched what he called his “anti-TNR campaign,” in which he declared us to be enemies of the people. Wait, sorry, wrong jargon–I meant, enemies of the people-powered movement. Some examples of the anti-TNR campaign can be found here, here, and here.

He has refused to link to our stories–except of course the minority that attack the left, all the better to display our enemy status–and declared us irrelevant and buried in the dustbin of history. Except now, two years after having unleashed his most terrible weapons, he has to bury us all over again. And so, he urges his readers, “If you still hold a subscription to that magazine, it really is time to call it quits.” This is like the Catholic Church digging up the heretic it had already burned at the stake so it can excommunicate the corpse a second time.

Indeed, that first paragraph is key. Chait is quite right, what makes the Kossacks such a drag on the Democrats isn’t necessarily that they’re raving ideologues (although many of them are), it’s that even when they’re taking pragmatic actions they sound like raving ideologues. Let’s be honest here, but the average Joe or Jane Sixpack in a room with a “netroots” activist and they’re going to think the guy is nuts. It’s not enough that they disagree with their political adversaries, it’s that their political adversaries are by definition the very symbol of evil. Dissent from the party line is tantamount to treatchery, and the “progressive” movement isn’t a political movement, it’s a fight against evil itself.

The left-wing blogosphere takes their rhetorical cues from Ann Coulter, and writers like Duncan “Atrios” Black, Jane Hamsher, and other popular leftybloggers are strong on snark, but poor on making factual arguments. Indeed, it’s quite certain when you’ve been linked to be a popular leftyblog when the ratio of intelligent comments to trolls falls precipitously. The level of rhetorical quality on the left side of the blogosphere tends to be about the same as you’d see on an elementary school playground, except even more vicious. Granted, there are plenty of right-wing bloggers who aren’t much better, but that hardly constitutes an excuse.

That’s why this whole “netroots” idea should have serious and thoughtful Democrats scared as hell. The radicalism of the “netroots” is a net loss for the Democrats. The average American voter is actively turned off by the sort of radicals that constitutes the “netroots.” I believe one of the biggest factors that led to Howard Dean’s meltdown in the Iowa caucuses were the yellow-shirted activists whose radicalism offended the sensibilities of moderate Democrats. I believe that those activists may have even helped Bush win in Iowa. I firmly believe that in 2004 groups like MoveOn.org and the Kossacks alienated more voters than they attracted. Radicalism in American politics just doesn’t sell.

And make no mistake, endorsing a few semi-moderate candidates doesn’t make up for the juvenile attacks, the arrogance, and the lack of class and tact that comes from the “netroots” these days. If anything, it just exposes the fact that the “netroots” is really little more than a well-orchestrated mob.

Fortunately for the Democrats, Kos and his ilk can produce a lot of money for Democratic candidates, but they’re not yet on the radar of the mainstream American voter. But you can bet top dollar that the GOP would love it if they were. The more that Democrats embrace the Kossacks, the more they risk guilt-by-association - and all it takes is a few ads to get some undecided voters to wade into the fever swamps for themselves. Furthermore, the more politically active these “netroots” activists become, the more contact they have with average voters, and the more they alienate those who might be swayed. The “netroots” may not be the cause of the Democrat’s strong leftward shift, but they are certainly exacerbating it.

The Democrats are embracing the “netroots” for the funding they give them and the activist’s zeal they bring to the table – but as the old saying goes, lie down with the dogs, wake up with fleas. If the Kossacks actually could purge moderates like the DLC and The New Republic from the Democratic Party, where would that leave the 85% of Americans who aren’t self-described liberals? Sooner or later the Democrats will have to distance themselves from the radicalism of the “netroots”, and smart Democratic politicians are already doing so.

Once again, proponents of global warming find themselves replacing science with hype. CNN has a typically breathless piece with the usual tropes: global warming is indisputable fact, human activity is the cause, and the hockey-stick graph is irrefutable proof of it all.

The problem with that is that the report itself doesn’t support those conclusions at all. For instance, their version of the “hockey stick” graph is much, much less pronounced than the one used by environmentalist groups. Furthermore, their data indicates that while the 20th Century appears to be an outlier, the data we have on global climate over the past centuries isn’t entirely reliable. We know based on hard scientific evidence that there was a period of significant warming around the year 1000 (when Norse settlers were in Greenland and wine was made in England) and cooling during the Middle Ages. The contention that temperatures were constant and only rose during the 20th Century is simply not true.

Furthermore, thorough methodological review of the study finds a number of holes. Instead of being a slam-dunk case, the NAS study throws more doubt into the global warming debate.

The way this study is being hyped only proves that when it comes to global warming, science takes a back seat to huckerism. Science is an adversarial process, and the idea that climatologists all agree that global warming is real, is caused by man, and has a strong effect on our lives is a lie. Unfortunately, a cloud of groupthink has settled over much of the scientific community, and science suffers as a result.

UPDATE: This also shows the ignorance of the mainstream media on basic science. The NAS report finds evidence of the Little Ice Age - which so happened to be in full swing about 400 years ago. Of course we’re going to be in the hottest temperatures in the last 400 years – when you start with a baseline that’s artificially depressed you will find warmer temperatures. This is just junk science.

What’s even worse is the idea that we’re in the warmest period in 1,000-2,000 years. The NAS report makes it quite clear that the data going back before 1600 is not reliable enough to draw scientific conclusions from. Those media reports which make this claim are essentially lying through their teeth – not that anyone should be surprised by that.

Jeff Goldstein has some more on the spat between Kos and The New Republic, Kos ever the paragon of moderation and reason, wrote this little missive:

That was obviously violated today as the New Republic betrayed, once again, that it seeks to destroy the new people-powered movement for the sake of its Lieberman-worshipping neocon owners; that it stands with the National Review and wingnutoshpere in their opposition to grassroots Democrats.

The magazine published, in its website, an email I sent to the list. There is nothing controversial about the email, but Jason Zengerle tried to spin it as evidence that there is a “smoke-filled room” and that I send “dictats” to other bloggers, controlling what they can and cannot write about. In a subsequent post, Zengerle went further, saying that I control the financial fates of much of the progressive blogosphere. My power apparently knows no bounds!

Ludicrous, all of it, but that’s the new rules of the game. TNR and its enablers are feeling the heat of their own irrelevance and this is how they fight it—by undermining the progressive movement. Zengerle has made common cause with the wingnutosphere, using the laughable “kosola” frame they created and emailing his “scoops” to them for links. This is what the once-proud New Republic has evolved into—just another cog of the Vast RIGHT Wing Conspiracy.

Goldstein notes the dripping paranoia from Kos:

The New Republic, by dint of its uppity presumptions to report news that, for Kos, violates what he believes is the necessity of a “unified message in the face of a unified conservative noise machine”—that is, by violating what he has determined is the official narrative stance of liberal progressivism (with Kos as decider-in-chief)—has surrendered its claims to authenticity. And in doing so, it has become, to Kos, “just another cog of the Vast RIGHT Wing Conspiracy.” You can’t be on the left and disagree with Kos. Or rather, you can’t be on the left and disagree with Kos publicly — which suggests that the defining characteristic of progressivism is fidelity to its officially-sanctioned narratives.

Goldstein is exactly right: the “progressive” movement is based on a particularly vicious sort of identity politics — those who don’t toe the party line get purged — witness Senator Lieberman and now The New Republic. Moderate, thoughtful Democrats aren’t wanted.

Of course, given that self-identified liberals are a tiny minority of the American electorate, the Kossacks are leading the Democrats towards political irrelevancy. And really, it couldn’t happen to a nicer group of people. Until then, centrist Democrats should watch their backs – the Kossack Kommittee on Vice and Virtue is out for blood and those deemed insufficiently “progressive” all have targets on their backs.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds has a huge roundup of links on the Kos payola scandal. I don’t think Kos has the level of control over the Advertising Liberally network as some claim, but there’s no doubt he has a sizable amount of power of the left wing of the blogosphere – and given the puerile nature of him and the other Kossacks, that’s not to his credit. Then again, it’s not as though there’s a paucity of nut-jobs on either side of the political spectrum.

National Review notes a recent Congressional press conference on the 500 or-so chemical warfare shells we’ve found in Iraq. Indeed, these are the sort of banned weapons that put the Hussein regime in direct violation of the UN-mandated cease-fire agreement in 1992 as well as Resolution 1441 in 2002. However, it’s hard to argue a few hundred heavily degraded shells are in themselves enough to justify the Administration’s arguments on the WMD issue.

It still seems likely that Saddam had some kind of active WMD program prior to the invasion – and it seems equally likely that Saddam very quickly dismantled it once it became clear that having WMDs would be more of a liability than a help.

What we do know from the Duelfer Report is that Saddam Hussein was deliberately maintaining a rapid-start capability for WMD production, that he was developing banned missile technology, and that the sanctions regime was not containing his aspirations and would have soon fallen. It’s not the case made well by the Bush Administration, but it is beyond a doubt. George Tenet’s “slam dunk” on Iraqi WMDs remains anything but a slam-dunk.

Still, for all those who keep saying that no WMDs were found in Iraq, that simply isn’t true. It wasn’t all that long ago that Saddam unquestionably did have WMDs, and we still don’t know exactly what happened to all of it. It was up to the Hussein regime to provide a clear and transparent accounting of their weapons, and they chose the path of misdirection and non-cooperation. In the end, their unwillingness to fully cooperate with the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire led to their downfall – and given the nightmarish destruction Saddam Hussein wrought upon his own people, can anyone truly say that the world is better off with that blood-stained tyrant in power?

UPDATE: PowerLine runs a message from Michael Ledeen arguing that we did a poor job of searching for WMDs in Iraq. I’m not so sure I’d go that far, but the argument that we know everything about what happened in Iraq during the nearly year-long run-up to war just doesn’t fly. Saddam’s strategic thinking prior to the war seems to have been based on the assumption that the US wouldn’t attack - so it would make sense to hide any WMD programs and materials elsewhere and get them back once Russia, France, and China made it safe for Saddam again and the sanctions regime collapsed.

Ledeen is right – much of the comfortable assumptions about the lack of WMDs may be utterly misplaced. For instance, the suspected mobile biological labs were “debunked” as being nothing more than mobile units for hydrogen production for weather balloons – which doesn’t seem to make sense. The reactions necessary to make hydrogen require caustic chemicals in large amounts – why would Iraq have any interest in having mobile hydrogen producing units? When the “debunking” requires larger stretches of logic than the theory being debunked, that’s usually a good sign that there’s something missing.

It’s entirely possible that in the autocratic mess that was Saddam’s Iraq, the regime’s WMD capabilities basically degraded to nothing or was surreptitiously destroyed. However, the argument that Saddam had no WMDs, was no threat to anyone, and was contained is not true. It’s clear Saddam did not fully disarm as mandated, he was actively sponsoring terrorism, and the sanctions regime was collapsing. As bad as things are in Iraq now, the option was never between peace and war, it was between permitting a hostile and dangerous regime to fester and taking the risks inherent in ending the threat. In the long game, something that the critics rarely consider, allowing Hussein to remain in power would have been a major strategic mistake.

Glenn Reynolds has an interesting bit on the upcoming vote on South Dakota’s abortion ban. I agree with him: the South Dakota Legislature made a grave mistake by not putting this up to a popular vote. The law is basically null anyway, were it to be enacted it would never even be granted certiorari by the Supreme Court – it would likely end up being quickly struck down by the Circuit Court and then left there. The chances of this poorly-crafted, poorly-worded, and draconian law ever providing any kind of real legal challenge to Roe v. Wade are slim to none.

The South Dakota Legislature, led on by a group of people for whom the term “fanatic” is perfectly appropriate, made a dire mistake in passing this atrocious bill, and Gov. Rounds should never have signed it into law. Not only is it a moot point, but it has set back the cause of ending abortion in this country by decades. A wise legislative body would have slowly encroached on abortion – regulating it in such a way as to eliminate the financial benefits it provides to groups like Planned Parenthood. However, the South Dakota Legislature is not known for having a great deal of either tact or wisdom.

I have a feeling that Professor Reynolds is right – this law shall be overturned by the voters of South Dakota, as well it should be. Its draconian attempts to restrict all abortions, including those in the cases of rape and incest, go against the sensibilities of even people who are uncomfortable with or opposed to abortion. More innocent lives could be saved by an incremental approach – but fanatics aren’t known for their love of incrementalism. In the end, they have not only failed to achieve their objectives, but they’ve probably lost ground on this issue. Even though I am opposed to abortions except in the most extreme of cases, the South Dakota abortion bad is simply bad law, and should be voted down.

Marc Cooper has an interesting piece on how the Democrats are trying to hedge their bets on Iraq:

Last week when I was in the Sandia Canyon casino outside of Albuquerque, I was watching a mark play the roulette wheel in the most bizarre fashion. He had bet just about everything available. He was sure to get paid off each pass of the wheel. And just as sure to lose a small percentage of his stake each time. I noticed, for example, that he had put $10 on each of the three columns of 12 numbers each. Because every number on the board is in one or the other of the columns, the winning bet pays only 2 to 1. If you bet all three, you will get paid every turn of the wheel but you will only make back your bet. You will put $30 down on the table. And you will collect $30. You can’t win. But if a 0 or 00 comes up — a one-in-nineteen chance– you lose everything. Only a fool would take that tack.

Yet, that’s exactly the “strategy” the Democrats are using now on the issue of the war. It dawned on me today that the Dems are hedging their bet in the same exact manner. I listened very carefully today to two separate interviews DNC Chair Howard Dean gave on cable news stations. And it matched up perfectly with what Harry Reid told me a week ago when I interviewed him in Nevada. The Democrats do have a position on the war; in fact, they have three. Or is it four?

The Democrats are basically replaying their 2004 national security campaign – a campaign that led them to lose ground. The fact is that in the confines of the voting booth, the American people just don’t trust the Democrats on national security. They never have, not since the Kennedy Administration. They may not like Bush, and they might not like the war, but the Democrats have no coherent national security strategy – and they keep feeding the Republicans more and more material to strengthen their sagging position on this issue.

If this election comes down to gas prices, economics, and pocketbook issues, the Democrats could win. But it won’t. The Democrats have an almost pathological need to make every single election hinge around national security and play right into the Republican’s strengths. If the Democrats had a coherent plan for the war, they might have a chance of getting leverage. However, they simply do not. Something, even if it’s staying the course, will beat nothing every time. It happened in 2002. It happened in 2004. If things continue as they have, it will happen in 2006.

In wartime, this country needs determined leadership. The Democrats aren’t leading anything – they can’t even find a consensus position in their own party. That kind of mealy-mouthed crap demonstrates more than any Republican attack ad ever could why the Democratic Party is unfit to lead this country. The Democrats keep utterly failing to learn that lesson.

It would be exceedingly nice to have a Democratic Party that was committed to really winning this war. It would be nice if we could have debate about achieving victory rather than having a party of petulant naysayers whose only contributions to the war effort seem to be in assisting the enemy achieve their much-desired propaganda victory. The party of Truman, Scoop Jackson, JFK, and Truman has been replaced by the Party of Defeat. Sadly, that means that the Republicans will likely grow more complacent rather than less – which doesn’t help the country overall.

If the Democrats hedge their bets, the voters will too. Why take a risk on changing leadership with a party who can tell everyone what’s wrong, but haven’t a clue as to how to fix it? The Democrats have an astonishing lack of vision, and what wins election isn’t bitching about the other guy, it’s staking a position and defending it. The Democrats can’t dare do that without splitting their party between the Kossack radicals and those who are actually part of the political mainstream. The single saving grace of the GOP right now is that the opposition is infinitely worse – which may be good news for the GOP, but it’s hardly a ringing endorsement of American politics today.

Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq’s National Security Advisor has a piece in The Washington Post on the current roadmap towards a coalition exit from Iraq – the very thing that the Democrats keep saying doesn’t exist. Unlike the Democrat’s cut and run “strategy”, the agreed-upon Coalition/Iraqi plan doesn’t argue for timetables, but metrics of improvement to determine when coalition forces can leave:

Iraq has a total of 18 governorates, which are at differing stages in terms of security. Each will eventually take control of its own security situation, barring a major crisis. But before this happens, each governorate will have to meet stringent minimum requirements as a condition of being granted control. For example, the threat assessment of terrorist activities must be low or on a downward trend. Local police and the Iraqi army must be deemed capable of dealing with criminal gangs, armed groups and militias, and border control. There must be a clear and functioning command-and-control center overseen by the governor, with direct communication to the prime minister’s situation room.

Despite the seemingly endless spiral of violence in Iraq today, such a plan is already in place. All the governors have been notified and briefed on the end objective. The current prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has approved the plan, as have the coalition forces, and assessments of each province have already been done. Nobody believes this is going to be an easy task, but there is Iraqi and coalition resolve to start taking the final steps to have a fully responsible Iraqi government accountable to its people for their governance and security. Thus far four of the 18 provinces are ready for the transfer of power — two in the north (Irbil and Sulaymaniyah) and two in the south (Maysan and Muthanna). Nine more provinces are nearly ready.

The core issue in Iraq is security – without getting the security situation under control, the country can’t progress forward. The Iraqi military is performing quite well, but Iraqi internal security and police forces are doing much more poorly than is necessary to keep the peace. They have also been heavily infiltrated by sectarian militias. Prime Minister al-Maliki has promised to stop these sectarian militias from causing violence, and that is his single biggest challenge.

Our efforts at counterinsurgency in Iraq are working – al-Qaeda in Iraq is essentially destroyed and will have much greater difficulty regrouping now. This security plan will push some of the responsibility for security down to the provincial level, which is where it needs to be. It will take time and effort, but Iraq’s security forces can defeat the threats of terrorism and criminality. Furthermore, despite the racist and patronizing smears of callow Democrats, the Iraqis are pulling their weight. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Iraqis have been killed in terrorist attacks against police and military recruitment centers – and yet the lines are still long. The disgusting argument that the Iraqis haven’t done enough when they’re bearing the brunt of this conflict only shows how craven and ignorant the Democratic leadership is on this war.

Successful counterinsurgencies take time and will. Sadly, the Democratic Party has become virtual cheerleaders for al-Qaeda, constantly arguing that Iraq is unwinnable and we should pull out now. Not even al-Qaeda is so foolish as to understimate the skill and power of the US armed forces. With our help, the Iraqis will defeat the terrorists, and Iraq will be a haven for democratic pluralism in the region. It may not happen overnight, and it won’t happen on the timetable of some pencil-pushing prick in Washington, but it will happen – and once again the left will be on the wrong side of history rather than the side that actually cares about human rights and civil society.