Glenn Reynolds notes some interesting MSM pushback against the Kossacks and the “netroots” on behalf of The New York Times. Apparently leftyblogger Jerome Armstrong (of MyDD) has a long and rather sordid history as a paid shill – as he remains under investigation by the SEC for astroturfing stocks online. The Times also notes how Kos and MyDD push candidates who happen to be paying Moulitsas/Kos and Armstrong, such as Howard Dean and Mark Warner. Despite the fact that Warner is part of the Democratic Leadership Committee that Kos has publicly vowed to “make radioactive”.

Which just proves that not only are Moulitsas and Armstrong hacks, but shills as well. The only “gates” they “crash” are the gates of those candidates who fail to pay them their protection money. I had pegged Kos as a raving ideologue – but I’m wondering if I wasn’t underestimating him. Moulitsas gets to command a digital mob of often barely-literate but intimidating “netroots activists” and gets to play kingmaker in the Democratic Party – and undoubtedly makes a metric crapload of cash while doing it.

It’s a nice job, if you can get it.

Of course, should that be true, that means that the Kossacks are all getting played for chumps, and the “netroots” is really more of a digital mob, with Kos’ Kids paying their protection money to avoid ending up like Joe Lieberman. All a candidate has to do is keep Kos in his/her payroll and say the right things to the base, and they get instant “grassroots” support. That’s why despite The Daily Kos’ readership is relentlessly ideological, their chosen candidates aren’t always. Other than his position on the war and dislike of Bush, James Webb has almost no left-wing credentials – he doesn’t need to if he’s paid his obeisance to the Kossacks. Likewise the centrist Mark Warner gets the Kos seal of approval despite the fact that he’s barely different from Hillary Clinton, whom the Kossacks loathe beyond all belief.

The fact remains that Moulitsas has burned a number of bridges with the Democratic establishment, and there are undoubtedly many in Democratic circles who think that he will make the Democratic Party “radioactive” – and for good reason. It doesn’t help that he and Armstrong are right that Democratic Party operatives are often cynically bilking Democrats out of millions for dodgy advice. It would be convenient for many in the Democratic establishment, especially the Hillary camp, to see Kos simply fade away. Unfortunately, the Kossacks are nothing if not persistent, and they’re capable of tearing the Democrats apart if they’re not paid their danekosgeld.

For the GOP, they can be thankful that the Democratic Party is so deeply divided – a division that could be seen clearly in the difference between the Senate and House voting patterns on the Iraq War resolutions. However, I have a theory as to who could be the real winner in all of this, and it could spell trouble for the GOP in 2008…

The New York Post has an interesting piece on Rudy Giuliani’s recent speech on energy policy at the Manhattan Institute. It’s looking increasingly likely that Giuliani intends to run in 2008, and if he’s showing some real vision on the question of energy policy:

Drawing on his experience managing New York City’s power problems, Giuliani spoke of the government red tape that makes it virtually impossible to build power plants, oil refineries and (especially) nuclear-power facilities.

Summing up U.S. energy policy since the 1970s, he was blunt: “We haven’t done anything.” We haven’t drilled in Alaska. We haven’t built oil refineries. We haven’t ordered a nuclear power plant since 1978.

We need to start doing these things, he said, to diversify. Energy independence, he said, is simply the “wrong paradigm,” despite the idea’s popularity in quarters of both the Left and the Right. Instead, in a global economy, “We have to diversify, that’s our strength . . . You can be independent by being diversified.”

Giuliani’s exactly right on the necessity of not only energy independence, but energy diversity. The only way we can have a 21st Century economy is with 21st Century sources of power – that means combinations of solar where appropriate, wind where appropriate, and a much, much, much stronger emphasis on nuclear technologies for power generation. “Clean coal” can only go so far, and further deepening our dependence on fossil fuels isn’t a wise option over the long term. Nuclear power is the only reliable source of power we have that can be used nationwide in all weather conditions that doesn’t dump pollutants into the atmosphere.

Giuliani also talked about education:

The red meat for conservatives, however, came in the Q&A: An audience member asked Giuliani what he would do on education as president.

Without deflecting the loaded premise of the question (no announcement yet, folks), the former mayor launched into an impassioned brief for school choice. “A president has to know the role” of the federal government, he said. “It’s more of a leadership role.” But as that leader, he would emphasize, “choice and vouchers.”

As mayor, he said, he thought he could do for the schools what he did for the police department and other city agencies. But he learned he was wrong. The education bureaucracy and the teachers unions were too deeply entrenched. What’s needed, he said, “is to go to a choice system and break up the monopoly.”

Even if they believe it, “most Democrats can’t say to you what I just said,” he told the crowd. “They’re not allowed to.”

If Giuliani can court conservative voters who would be wary of his social positions, he is probably the single strongest candidate of any party for the Presidency in 2008. Against nearly any competitor, Giuliani looms large – he has more credence with conservatives than John McCain, he would wipe the floor with Hillary, and even a strong Democratic candidate like Mark Warner would have a very difficult time with Rudy’s name recognition and strong policy background.

Giuliani is showing some real policy chops, and isn’t afraid to stand strongly on his positions. His personal life may have been a mess, but the Clinton years showed that isn’t such a political negative as it once was. The Republican Party badly needs someone who can strengthen ties with fiscal conservatives and help forge a stronger set of policies on key issues like energy and education. Giuliani seems uniquely poised to do that.

Even social conservatives seem to like Giuliani, and he’s outpolling nearly every challenger for the Republican field in 2008. Politics is nothing but fickle, but if Giuliani can continue to impress audiences and craft a strong policy portfolio, his chances of reaching the Oval Office seem quite high.

Peter Beinart has a piece in The New Republic on why the Democrats shouldn’t abandon the Clinton legacy. It’s interesting to note how strongly the left defended Clinton throughout the 1990s, and how quickly they’ve sold him up the river today. It’s a testament to the increased radicalization of the Democrat Party that they condemn centrism with such vitriol.

Beinart explains:

[Clinton] did not create liberalism’s crisis of faith; he inherited it. And, in 1992, he became the first candidate in two decades to offer a coherent response. His adviser Bill Galston called it the “politics of reciprocal responsibility.” Government would provide opportunity, but it would demand responsibility in return; it would not give something for nothing. This idea–manifested in Clinton’s pledge to “end welfare as we know it”–angered some liberals. But it told blue-collar whites that Democrats would distinguish between people who “played by the rules” and those who didn’t. (Clinton’s tough stance on crime sent the same message.) By the time Clinton signed welfare reform in 1996, the public’s image of government was changing. When people thought of the beneficiaries of government help, they were more likely to think of people like themselves.

Beinart is right that Clinton was undoubtedly the most successful Democrat in the last 30 years. However, Clinton’s style of management was largely an artifice – a few micro-initiatives here and there to keep the populace happy. In a crisis, Clinton’s indecision and propensity towards pandering made him unable to take decisive action. He could “feel our pain” but he was never able to do much about it, which is why al-Qaeda grew and grew throughout the 1990s while the US did little more than launch a few ineffective cruise missile strikes at empty training facilities. Clinton was fortunate that his rule came during a nice little holiday from history between the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the dawn of the Global War on Terror – and the relative peace of the 1990s was an exception rather than the rule. Had Clinton been President during less opportune times, he would not be remembered as fondly as he is now.

At the same time, Clinton’s political successes came because he could reach beyond the liberal coastal elites – something the current crop of Democrats just don’t have the first clue about. The Democrats have becoming increasingly partisan, to the point at which they’ve lost nearly all ability to speak to anyone who isn’t already part of their fold. A party doesn’t win on pessimism, and the Democrats have little but pessimism these days. Compare the Clinton’s “Man From Hope” rhetoric to the despair and drama of the Democrats today and it becomes quite clear which one wins elections and which one sends a party into defeat.

The far left hates Clinton because he had the audacity to compromise, and there is nothing that a radical hates more than compromise. The Democrats are now dominated by the far left, and if the far left gets their way, they’ll purge what remains of the Clinton legacy from their party – along with what little chances they had at political success. Clinton was hardly a great President, but compared to what the Democrats are today, he stands like a colossus.

LaShawn Barber argues that the Federal Marriage Amendment is just a bad idea. She thinks it will never be ratified, and while I think it is quite possible that it could get through the ratification process, I agree that Bush is pandering to his base at the least opportune time.

So long as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) holds, there’s no need for a Constitutional amendment that would directly interfere in the affairs of the states. It does appear as though the DOMA will hold, and if it doesn’t, only then is it time to consider the possibility of amending the Constitution. To create a preemptive amendment to deal with a potential court case seems to be overkill to me.

Bush is clearly pandering to his social conservative base, despite the fact that his losses are mainly due to the immigration issue. Only a small percentage of voters really care about this as a political issue, and Bush doesn’t gain much by kowtowing to him. There are far better ways of protecting the sanctity of marriage than by creating a federal definition for it. The definition of marriage is by rights an issue for the states, and should remain as such.

Bush may get some of his base back, but it won’t be enough to make much of a difference. The FMA has only the slightest chance of ratification, and why Bush would waste his miniscule political capital on such an issue makes little sense to me.