Category: Politics

The Daily McCarthy

Lanny Davis has a piece noting the way in which the “netroots” treat dissent:

A friend of mine just returned from Connecticut, where he had spoken on several occasions on behalf of Joe Lieberman. He happens to be a liberal antiwar Democrat, just as I am. He is also a lawyer. He told me that within a day of a Lamont event–where he asked the candidate some critical questions–some of his clients were blitzed with emails attacking him and threatening boycotts of their products if they did not drop him as their attorney. He has actually decided not to return to Connecticut for the primary today; he is fearful for his physical safety.

Given the level of extremist rhetoric coming from the leftyblogs, it’s not surprising that even Democrats who dare go against the marching orders find themselves in the crosshairs of the increasingly unhinged “reality-based community”. As Glenn Reynolds notes using political intimidation is nothing new for the left.

When you have a movement in which your political opponents aren’t just wrong, but the embodiment of all that is evil, you’re going to get people taking those accusations to their illogical extreme. The level of hate-filled extremist partisanship that emanates from the leftyblogs is simply atrocious – and even other Democrats are starting to notice it.

Lamont Likely To Win CT Primary

In what will be a blow to the Lieberman campaign and a win for the Republican Party it looks like Ned Lamont will win the the Connecticut Democratic primary tomorrow – Lamont is leading by 8.7 in the RCP average. However, the last Quinnipac poll shows Lamont’s lead shrinking as the election draws near.

Lieberman isn’t out – polling in primary elections isn’t an exact science by any means, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of Connecticut Democrats who are for Lamont in theory rethink their position before casting their votes tomorrow. A party that casts out one of its more august members for the heresy of reaching across the aisle on critical affairs is not the kind of party that can win over moderate voters. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Lamont only pulls out a narrow win as many Democrats choose a candidate who won’t give the GOP plenty of ammunition against their own party.

Lamont is being driven by extreme partisans. He’s an incredibly poor candidate, his media appearances has been uniformly terrible, and his command of policy is practically non-existent. Winning a partisan primary is a lot different than winning a general election – even in a state as heavily Democratic as Connecticut. For a candidate to win in a general election, they have to be able to appeal to more than a partisan base – and many Republicans are going to be crossing over to vote for Lieberman just to spite the radical left. Lamont has to win by a large margin – approaching 20% – to have a chance at winning the general election.

I don’t think Lamont will pull that off. I think he’ll win, but I think his margins are inflated – “netroots” candidates always poll well, but have troubles actually winning in an environment where spin and astroturf are useless. I’m predicting a Lamont win by 5-8%, followed by a Lieberman reelection in the fall.

Lieberman is a liberal, and very much a liberal at that. On nearly every issue, he’s on the wrong side. However, if the Democratic Party wants to punish one of their elder statesmen for the crime of putting country over party, it is a sign of just how dangerous it would be to have them in control of this country’s future.

Be Careful What You Wish For…

The latest Quinnipac poll has some very bad news for Sen. Joe Lieberman. Ned Lamont leads Lieberman by 54 to 41 points in that poll, and based on the perils of polling in primary elections that signals a likely defeat for the incumbant Senator.

This is bad news for Lieberman (although he’ll probably be reelected as an independent regardless of Tuesday’s outcome), but equally bad for the Democratic Party as a whole. The “netroots” can have a disproportionate effect in primaries where small numbers of committed activists (or activists who should be committed) can swing the results of primary contests. However, when it comes to general elections, being beholden to a group of far-left extremists is a major electoral liability. And already the GOP is working to make Kos’ support an electoral liability. Most people haven’t heard of Kos or blogs, but that doesn’t mean that the things said on blogs like The Daily Kos won’t later be used in campaign commercials and attack ads – the typical Kossack is about as far removed from the average member of the American electorate as one can get.

A Lamont victory would be a major boon for the GOP in 2006 – when a party casts aside one of its own moderates for the crime of trying to get along with the other side, it makes a pretty damning case that the aforementioned party has a few screws loose. A number of people are going to wonder why the Democratic Party threw a former Vice Presidential candidate under the bus, and painting Lieberman as an “extremist” isn’t going to fly. People are sick to death of the climate of stupid and childish partisanship in Washington, and there’s nothing more indicative of that then what the Democrats are doing to one of the few decent politicians left in this country.

Granted, I disagree with 95% of Lieberman’s positions on the issues. On nearly every issue, Lieberman take the liberal, statist position. However, Lieberman is one of the few Democrats on the national scene that is willing to put the interests of the country over the interests of his party. The argument that he blindly follows the President is a ridiculous and idiotic lie. Lieberman has been smeared time and time again, accused of what amounts to heresy against the Democratic religion of unending hatred towards the opposition.

A Republican is highly unlikely to win in Connecticut, but a decent and patriotic man can: which is precisely why I’m guessing Senator Lieberman will get substantial GOP support and defeat the unhinged, unprepared, and unserious Ned Lamont.

Someone Needs To Know When To Fold ‘Em

The Florida GOP has told Katherine Harris in no uncertain terms that she has an ice-cream cone’s chance in hell of winning the Florida Senate race. Polling has shown that she’s an incredible 37 points behind Bill Nelson, virtually guaranteeing that short of Bill Nelson having a Mel Gibson moment, he’ll beat her like a rented mule.

Harris’s quixotic campaign makes no sense. The national party won’t lift a finger for her since anything they spend in Florida will be wasted. The state party has already told her to get stuffed. She will lose, and when she does her political future is toast. I have a tough time believing that anyone could be so deluded as to believe this campaign is anything but a political suicide run, but then again I probably shouldn’t underestimate the power of willfully blind ambition.

In any event, Harris has brought this all upon herself. Her political future will end because she wouldn’t listen to good advice. A good politician, like a good general, never fights a battle they know they will lose – and clearly Rep. Harris is not a good politician. What’s worse is that against a better challenger, Nelson could be beat, but Harris seems intend on taking a potential GOP seat pickup with her.

Another Setback For The Nanny State

Federal judge has thrown out a Minnesota law designed to fine youngsters who purchase video games rated for adults. (The text of the law can be found here.)

The Minnesota law differed from laws already struck down in other states in that instead of fining retailers, the Minnesota law tried to fine the minors who attempted to purchase the game. Obviously, that approach failed.

Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch once again demonstrated why we should all be glad he stands little chance of being elected governor:

Attorney General Mike Hatch said he was disappointed by the ruling and will probably appeal.

“There’s been some pretty good evidence that children who use these excessively violent video games really learn inappropriate behavior and they’re rewarded for inappropriate behavior – how many people do you kill and things like that,” Hatch said.

One wonders if AG Hatch ever played Cops and Robbers when he was a kid.

Unfortunately the ruling doesn’t appear to be on CourtsWeb at the moment, however, Judge Rosenbaum found little persuasive evidence of Hatch’s contention that violent video games are at all correlated with antisocial or violent behavior:

“There is a paucity of evidence linking the availability of video games with any harm to Minnesota’s children at all,” he wrote.

He also said: “It is impossible to determine from the data presented whether violent video games cause violence, or whether violent individuals are attracted to violent video games.”

This is another case of how the nanny state continually attempts (often with success) to infringe upon our civil liberties. Laws such as this are ultimately futile (how many violent video games are purchased by parents rather than children?), and only foster a climate of further government interference into the private affairs of citizens. Retailers can and should enforce the voluntary video games rating system and refuse to sell violent games to minors – but using the resources of the state of Minnesota to legally enforce such a thing is both an infringement on civil liberties and a waste of taxpayer money. There is no compelling government interest in such an affair, and Judge Rosenbaum’s decision to strike this law down was the correct decision.

The Unserious Democrats

I’ve long accused the current Democratic Party of being profoundly unserious, and the events of the past week only highlight why that accusation is proven by their own actions. It seems as the only war that the Democratic Party truly gives a damn about is their war against the Republicans – the old adage that partisanship stops at the water’s edge has been ground to dust by the shameless political posturing of Democratic officials during a time of war.

The first indication of the Democratic Party putting politics above the interests of their country comes with their shameful treatment of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Al-Maliki said some things that sounded hostile to Israel. Howard Dean went so far as to accuse al-Maliki of being an “anti-Semite”, despite the fact that none other than Kofi Annan had said something quite similar. The double-standards at play in this case are clear: apparently accusing the Israelis of murdering UN officials in cold blood is acceptable if you’re a member of an approved group.

National Review strikes the right tone on this shameless act:

So that’s how Democratic-style multilateralism works? You insult and score cheap political points against an embattled ally when he is visiting the United States in the midst of trying to prevent his country from collapsing into chaos? At least that’s how some Democrats were practicing their foreign policy when Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki visited Washington and made comments so critical of Israel and exculpatory of Hezbollah that he could have been mistaken for the president of France. Democrats leapt to disinvite him to deliver a speech to a joint session of Congress, and Howard Dean denounced him as an anti-Semite. We would prefer Maliki to say different things about the Israeli–Hezbollah conflict, but, then again, we aren’t running a major Arab country and attempting to hold our Shia base while cracking down on Shia death squads. Maliki has to do both as he struggles to secure Baghdad. He is now moving to “Plan B,” since his first effort, announced six weeks ago, has proved an abject failure. More American and Iraqi troops are headed to the capital, but probably not in enough numbers to make a major difference. We fear that the chances of soon ending the sectarian bloodletting there are diminishing by the day.

Al-Maliki is an ally of the United States, even if an erstwhile one. He’s sitting on a powderkeg waiting to explode, in one of the most difficult positions a leader can be in, and the reaction of the Democratic Party? Try to score some cheap political shots against him.

NR is right: is this how Democratic “multilateralism” is supposed to work? Insulting our allies? There is nothing more disgusting, more shameless, more petty, and more idiotic than that. Al-Maliki’s comments could have been disavowed in a more tactful manner, but the Democratic Party has all the tact of Anna Nicole Smith – and about the same amount of class.

If that weren’t enough, now the Democrats are calling UN Ambassador John Bolton “a bully”, despite the fact that a “bully” is precisely what the UN needs – someone who will not accept the corruption of Turtle Bay as being an unchanging constant. When Bolton is trying to work on serious issues such as the Iranian nuclear crisis, the situation in Lebanon, and containing North Korea, is now the best time to be launching partisan attacks against our chief negotiator? All it does is embolden our enemies and keep an air of uncertainty over every negotiation.

What impetus do the Iranians have to sustain negotiations when they can use a whispering campaign against Bolton to get a replacement who has a good chance of being more accomodating towards them? The timing of these hearings only plays into their hands. A quick confirmation, even above some objections, would be the right choice – if the Democrats wish to push against Bolton they could do so when critical matters of national security aren’t also at stake.

The Democrats keep putting their own partisan fortunes above the interest of the country. A responsible party puts the country first – which is why the Democrats are a completely irresponsible party. We’re at war with a pernicious enemy that threatens to plunge the entire Middle East into a war that could devastate the entire global economy – and the Democrats seem more interested in striking Bush than al-Qaeda.

Such a profoundly unserious and irresponsible party does not deserve to lead – and when those such as Senator Lieberman who call for a more responsible stand are treated like apostates, it’s clear how the extremists in the Democratic Party are firmly in charge.

UPDATE: Captain Ed notes that even Peter Beinart is calling the Democrats on their treatment of al-Maliki. Few people will be paying attention to this, but for those who are the actions of Reid and the rest of the Democrats come off as shamelessly partisan – even if one disagrees with what al-Maliki said (and I do), it’s still unreasonable for the Democrats to so vitriolically condemn him for it – especially when Kofi Annan is saying much worse.

Seizing Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory

Will Rogers once quipped that he wasn’t a member of an organized political party – he was a Democrat. Will Rogers couldn’t have been more right. Witness the Democrat’s efforts to flail about for an agenda, demonstrating precisely why the Democrats keep losing elections. For instance, Harry Reid states:

The Senate’s top Democrat says 1994’s “Contract with America,” the Republican campaign agenda the year the GOP regained control of Congress — was an “urban myth.”

“The ‘Contract with America’ didn’t accomplish anything,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada. “(It) didn’t change the election at all.”

Other than having the GOP take control of the House for the first time in 54 years, it didn’t accomplish anything. Never mind that the Contract With America was such a dismal failure that the Democrats are flailing around to find their own version of it. The fact is that the Contract With America was one of the centerpieces of the Republican Revoluton of 1994, and one would think that Reid would want to learn the right lessons from history rather than the wrong ones.

Then again, perhaps I’m overestimating the logical capacity of Senator Reid.

And if that weren’t enough:

Democrats insist most of this year’s campaigns — 75 percent — will be a referendum on President Bush.

Which ignores the fact that President Bush isn’t on the ballot this year. This strategy failed in 2002 and 2004 (when Bush was on the ballot). The Democrats have the fatal conceit of thinking that everyone thinks exactly like they do, and all they have to do is close the deal. Yet for as bad as the Republicans are, the Democratic Party has never been further away from the mainstream in American politics. On nearly every issue, the Democrats offer platitudes for the same agenda they’ve had for decades: higher taxes, more wasteful government programs, and a weaker nation. No matter how much lipstick they put on that pig, it doesn’t get any better looking.

The only way the Republicans can lose is if they screw this election up – which admittedly they’re doing a very good job of doing. However, the Democratic “agenda” of constant Bush-bashing and mealy-mouthed promises of budget-busting social programs won’t get them ahead. What they fail to understand is that while their ideology paints Bush as an arch-conservative, the weakness in Bush’s ratings isn’t because he’s a conservative, it’s because he isn’t. The American people are sick of big-government agendas, whether they’re Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” or the Democrats’ “Nude Erection New Direction for America.”

And this is how well things are going for the Democrats already:

At a meeting with reporters at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee headquarters, Democratic leaders unveiled a Web video with clips of the president saying “stay the course” interspersed with graphics such as “gas prices at an all time high.”

They played the video on a small laptop in the front of the room full of reporters because, they said, they couldn’t find a screen projector.

Will Rogers didn’t know how right he was…

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Howard Dean couldn’t be a better spokesperson… for the GOP as his latest half-cocked rant about “divisiveness” in politics included calling Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki an “anti-Semite” and accusing Katherine Harris of being a “crook” and comparing her to Stalin.

Howard Dean is easily one of the most singularly unhinged people in American politics today, he’s a walking embarrassment to the Democrats and to the nation, and the Democratic Party elected him their chairperson and chief spokesman.

I’ll give them points for honesty, but the more people who see the kind of spittle-flecked hatred that has invaded the Democratic Party the less support they’ll get…

It Doesn’t Pay To Get Hitched

Forbes has an interesting article on how the economics of American society make it financially difficult to get married:

Marriage has a way of making people grow up and think about the future. Nights out with friends and crawling stores for clothes are replaced by eating in together and saving for a house. But while that priority shift eventually creates more stable finances, in the short term, it puts a squeeze on your wallet.

On a month-to-month basis, marriage just doesn’t pay. At least not far beyond the honeymoon phase, after which the happy couple invariably decides to leverage their new status into better living quarters, nicer cars and more “mature” spending priorities like insurance and church donations.

Despite the end of the marriage penalty in the tax structure, the economics of marriage still aren’t all that good. Marriage is good for society. Healthy families are important in developing a healthy civil society and a strong democracy. Yet our current system of economics tends to create a disincentive towards family-building. Ultimately, it becomes a vicious cycle: the breakdown of the American family erodes society and causes more societal problems, which cause a further drain on national resources which then causes an increased demand for services and higher taxes which then makes it less beneficial to start a family. From a viewpoint of societal engineering, it makes sense for a society to want to promote stable marriages and strong familes – yet the economics just aren’t there.

That’s why (as loathe as I am to say it), Hillary Clinton’s “American Dream” schtick could be the right political message for the Democrats. Rightly or wrongly, the American middle class feel squeezed out. The rise in gas prices only cements that notion, and while the reality of the economy is that we’re much better off than we’ve been since the “boom” years of the 1990s, the perception is at odds with the reality. Even though unemployment is low, outsourcing is largely a phantom menace, and job growth is steady, people have been fed a steady diet of scaremongering and after so long those messages begin to stick. Clinton is just doing what the Clintons are good at doing: reading the political tea leaves.

Ultimately most of society’s problems are less about economics and more about personal choices, but that doesn’t mean that economics aren’t a factor at all. One of the strongest assets the GOP has is being known as the pro-family party, while the Democrats are viewed as being hostile to traditional family values. However, if the Democrats start getting smart about playing into the fears of the American middle class, that could threaten the GOP’s chances in 2006 and 2008. (Of course, given the way in which moderates are treated by the coastal, secular left, that may not be much of a threat afterall.)

If it doesn’t make economic sense to get married, stay married, and have children, then fewer people will do those things, and society as a whole will lose out. There are some costs associated with marriage that can’t be legislated away – a house will always be a significant investment, saving for retirement will always require sacrifices, and raising a child will always involve massive expenditures of energy, time, and money. However, if we value the American family, we need to do more to make raising a family a more economically attractive choice. The GOP needs to speak to the needs and fears of the middle class to keep their majority, and right now many in the middle class are wondering if our political leadership really cares about their situation. Letting those doubts fester isn’t sound politics, nor is it sound policy.

UPDATE: Hotline has a breakdown of some of Clinton’s “American Dream” initiatives. Some of it is typically giveaways that will cost more than Clinton says they will, but a lot of it could resonate with fiscal conservatives – like cutting wasteful programs, restoring PAYGO rules, and reducing corporate subsidies. Then again, it’s also packed with budget-busting and employment-killed rules about mandating that every business provide health care to its employees, which is a phenomenally bad idea. Still, there’s enough meat there that GOP strategists should be worried.

Minnesota Senate Update

Captain Ed has some thoughts on the latest round of Minnesota polling, this time from a credible poll. SurveyUSA’s latest poll shows Pawlenty trouncing Democratic challenger Mike Hatch, and Mark Kennedy within striking distance of Amy Klobuchar.

I think SurveyUSA’s results are fairly accurate. I don’t think that Hatch has a chance in hell against the relatively popular Pawlenty, who’s polling at a healthy 50%. Pawlenty leads in nearly every demographic, even with minorities. Pawlenty has the kind of common touch that makes a successful politician, and while he’s had his rough moments (“health impact fee”?! Puh-lease!) his tenure in office has been a success for the state of Minnesota. Even if the people who still think the Independence Party matters all defect to Hatch, Pawlenty’s lead is still strong.

Mark Kennedy is only beginning to campaign, and he’s going to have a tough race against Klobuchar. Being 5 points down isn’t a great place to be, but that indicates that this race is still within striking distance. At the end of the day Klobuchar is running against Bush, despite the fact that his name isn’t on the ballot. Klobuchar’s position on the war, supporting a quick exit, but not a timeline for withdrawal, is the same as Kennedy’s (and everyone else’s for that matter). Kennedy will have a very tough race, but he can certainly still win.

One interesting point of commonality between the Minnesota Poll and the SurveyUSA poll is that Kennedy has a healthy lead in the 18-34 demographic, which is traditionally a Democratic-leaning demographic group. I’m not sure what the explanation for this is, although I suspect that the fact that Minnesota has produced a bumper crop of young Republican political activists in recent years may have something to do with it.

The Democrats are hoping that dissatisfaction with Bush will lead them to victory in Minnesota. However, the Republican Party of Minnesota has the organization to win, and the demographics of some of these races don’t seem very good for the Democrats. Much of it will come down to a combination of organization and drive – if Republican voters are motivated, the GOP could sweep Minnesota. If the Democrats prove to be more motivated (and Bush hatred is a powerful motivating force for them) Kennedy could be in deep trouble.

We’ll see how things work out as Election Day draws closer.