December 2006

Updates

ArchPundit December 28, 2006 4 Comments

First, I’ll be back at the latest tomorrow–holidays always throw a wrench in blogging.

Second, welcome Daniel Biss to posting here at ArchPundit. I asked him some time ago to see if he’d like to blog here and he accepted and he’ll see how he likes it. I see he already has attracted good comments and I’m quite happy having him posting as he feels like it. Daniel is a math professor at UIC and a community activist in Evanston.

Third, Edwards will be announcing tomorrow and there is an ad up to the right on that–I’ll put up the video of it tomorrow.

Fourth, Vilsack raised $1 million already which is a good showing.

Finally, remember to go see Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore? On the upper left is an ad to the film. It’s a good film and fun.

An addendum on Obama, double standards, and the high bar

Daniel Biss December 27, 2006 10 Comments

As a kid, I was fairly accelerated in math. When I came home one day with a test score that was just fine but not great, my parents were pretty upset and suggested that I withdraw from the advanced course. This seemed totally bewildering to me at the time since I was comfortably passing the class, but their claim was that you don’t skip ahead in order to just get by. You skip ahead only if you can still be exceptional.

I think this is an important thing to keep in mind when evaluating the putative Obama candidacy. If he runs, he’s running really early in his career. This is a great thing for him to do if you believe that he’s a special kind of leader who we need to fix our system as soon as possible (and like I said before, I see this as a possibility, but as far as I’m concerned the jury’s still out). It’s a less good–but still sort of okay–thing for him to do if he’s doing it just because he believes that the way the potential field lines up in this cycle is advantageous to him and maybe this is his best chance. And it’s a bad, cowardly thing for him to do if he’s doing it just because he doesn’t want to build up a long record in the Senate that can be used against him one day.

This last line is somewhat controversial, but I think it’s right. People often say that he needs to run now or else he’ll have too much Senatorial baggage, but that’s not really true. For one thing, he could easily end up as a vice president or governor if he really wanted to get out of the Senate soon. For another, as a friend recently said to me, if he turns out to be as great as we all hope he is, then he should be able to build up a record that helps him, not hurts him.

As for the middle option, where he runs now because it just seems convenient, well that’s what made me open with the story about the math class. I mean, I’m pretty sure he’d be a good candidate and good president, but when you’re talking about accelerating the career path that aggressively, it should be because you’re truly extraordinary, not because you’re just good enough.

Which brings me back to the first option, the Obama-as-transformational-leader option. That’s what the country really needs, and that’s what Obama needs to demonstrate he has to offer. Because if he can offer that, then we’ll all agree that we need him, we need him badly, and we need him now, and it will make all the talk about inexperience disappear.

So, Obama supporters, when you’re asked about your candidate’s inexperience, don’t bristle. We’re asking you because we need to be convinced that he’s the guy who can usher in a new era of government. It’s a helluva a high bar, and it sure is a double standard. But if Obama wants to be treated like the rest of the candidates, he should sit in the senate for a term or two and then run. Until then, we have no choice but to expect him to be something special and unique.

Barack Obama and our broken politics

Daniel Biss December 27, 2006 6 Comments

Hi, there. So in the time since Larry gave me posting privileges here, all anybody’s been talking about has been the 2008 presidential race in general, and Obama’s candidacy in particular. I have pretty much nothing to say about that stuff, so I thought I’d just keep quiet until 2007, when there was actual legislation being talked about in Springfield and in Washington.

But so today I was reading Robert Caro’s Means of Ascent, the 2nd volume in his immolation/biography of Lyndon Johnson (and prequel to a gift I received this week), and this passage jumped out at me:

The shredding of the delicate yet crucial fabric of credence and faith between the people of the United States and the man they had placed in the White House occurred during the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Until the day of Kennedy’s death–until, in other words, the day Johnson took office–the fabric was whole. By the time Johnson left office, the fabric was in shreds, destroyed by lies and duplicity that went beyond permissible political license…

So, right. Starting with LBJ, we’ve been on a pretty bad streak when it comes to integrity in the Oval Office (with some exceptions of course). This has had an absolutely crippling effect on our public and political life, from the way policy gets made, to the way citizens interact with government, to the way elections happen.

Now we’re approaching something I actually feel like talking about. My activity in politics stems from a desire to engage people, to increase civic involvement. Down here at the grassroots level, we do what we can to accomplish that, but the fundamental problem really stems from peoples’ lack of trust in their leaders.

The excitement about Obama comes from a belief that he can restore that trust. In other words, he’ll be a different kind of President, one who would fundamentally transform our relationship to the presidency (and, by extension, our government and political system).

This is a part of what Joe Trippi is getting at with his talk of “transformational politics”. Our political system is broken, and we need a leader who’s willing to transform it into something different, something functional. A lot of people have faith in Obama’s ability to accomplish this.

The Obama skeptics see this faith as naive. They see his proven abilities (giving a great speech, writing a good book, voting for good legislation and against bad legislation) as small when compared to the task at hand. They worry that the believers are falling in love with a persona or an image, and haven’t thought through how that image will translate into executive leadership.

Some Obama supporters might say that his ability to inspire will in and of itself be enough to transform American politics, but I think there’s got to be more to it than that. I look at Obama and I feel instinctively that he’s got it, but then I can’t even articulate what exactly it is, and then I remember how easy it is to get your heart broken in politics, and how high the stakes are in America today, and I just can’t help but want to know more about what he brings to the table.

So here’s my question for those of you who are committed to an Obama candidacy: how exactly do you think he’ll be able to transform our politics? Not just what about him will enable him to catalyze the transformation, but what precisely will the transformation look like? How will things be different? How, for example, will the 2016 presidential campaign look unlike the 2004 one? The more specific your answer, the happier I’ll be…

Mr. Smith Reviews

ArchPundit December 22, 2006 2 Comments

Michael Wilmington gives it one of the worst reviews I’ve seen and it’s pretty positive:

espite that sour-sounding title, a far more heartening view of politics than ” . . . So Goes the Nation’s” can be found in this little documentary by St. Louis’ Frank Popper about a quixotic campaign by little guy Jeff Smith to win the Democratic primary in pursuit of Dick Gephardt’s old Missouri congressional seat. That’s “little” in physical stature, not in heart. Part-time poli-sci instructor Smith, who played high school basketball in fast company and has a mean cross-over dribble, wages a hard-fought, eloquent campaign, despite being an unknown underdog running against Russ Carnahan, a member of a Missouri political dynasty.

We see it all, from Smith’s endorsement by kindred spirit Howard Dean to the calls, the canvassing, and the strategizing (by political newcomers) to the first really bad negative ad: Carnahan’s team accuses Smith of being a “strange bedfellow.” Hmmmm. The movie, like Smith, is breezy, fun and keeps comin’ at ya. Politics needs more of this and less of what went on in Ohio.

\

The Sun-Times chimes in with:

“Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore?”

Critic’s rating: 2 and a half stars

“You guys ever see that movie ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’?”

Congressional candidate Jeff Smith asks prospective voters at the Oak Hill Community Center in South St. Louis. “Well, you can help make the sequel.”

Director, cinematographer, editor and co-writer Frank Popper trails Smith as he campaigns in the 2004 Democratic primary for Missouri’s 3rd District.

The seat long occupied by retiring Rep. Dick Gephardt (D) is open. Russ Carnahan, a lackluster contender with a famous name in local politics, is the likely winner. Smith’s own family is skeptical. Largely absent from this good-natured, grass-roots documentary, they seem unwilling to lend moral or fiscal support.

Popper depicts the zeal of the boyish Smith, a part-time political science instructor, as he knocks on drs and makes cell phone calls. Smith gets great results from a direct mail piece bearing a scary photo of the former attorney general with the message: “If John Ashcroft is for it, I’m probably against it.”

“Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore?” is an amusing case study in youthful enthusiasm for the electoral process, but this modest documentary skips the weighty issues posed by its namesake, the Frank Capra 1939 drama.

News at 11: Americans have Pre-marital sex

ArchPundit December 21, 2006 11 Comments

From Focus on the Family’s Citizen Link:

But Linda Klepacki, analyst for sexual health at Focus on the Family Action, said the motive behind the Guttmacher report is suspect, especially given the group’s close affiliation with Planned Parenthood.

“This is the condom cartel’s attempt at normalizing out-of-wedlock sexual behavior,” she said. “This is one in a series of documents that is designed to set the battle lines for January’s congressional battles over (funding for) sex education.”

Glenn Stanton, senior analyst for marriage and sexuality at Focus on the Family, questioned the method used to collect the data.

“These numbers seem a little high to me,” he said. “Additionally, what they don’t tell us is how active people were before marriage. Were most of these encounters among people who were engaged or were they simply casual hook-ups? We don’t know.”

More than anything, though, Stanton is distressed by the author’s implication that since so many people are doing it, it must be fine.

“What did each one of our mothers tell us?” he asked. “Just because everyone is doing it doesn’t make it OK.”

What are they complaining about from Guttmacher?

This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,” says study author Lawrence Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute. “The data clearly show that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government’s funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12–29-year-olds. It would be more effective to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active—which nearly everyone eventually will.”

The federal government is spending money to keep people abstinent until 29 years old. Seriously. No, no, I mean it. It’s like the Handmaid’s Tale without the mass infertility.

I’m concerned about oversexualized teens and higher rates of sex during the teenage years for kids, but better sex education should help that more than telling kids to abstain. Just say no isn’t an effective strategy.

When it comes to adults I have a different view. It’s called, they are adults get the hell out of their sex lives. When people got married at 18 telling people to wait made some sense–though many still did not despite the urban legends of how pure society once was. The key difference now is that we have this great thing called contraception that is an universally accepted practice so someone can have sex and not get pregnant and hence, not ‘have’ to get married because they are pregnant.

This sort of rewriting of history by Focus on the Family and others as well as their tendency to pretend society agrees with them when it demonstrably does not would be funny, but the press takes them seriously.

Dobson and gang will insist the Guttmacher study is controversial when it is not. It’s pretty consistent with other findings and done by generally reliable techniques. The press will report Dobson and gang as serious people even though they are not. The entire discussion will take on some level of importance because some serious people said it, even though the issue has been settled by the American people for decades by the American people’s behavior.

Focus on the Family is filled with anti-women, anti-sex loons who get away with seeming reasonable because no one pays attention to how far out of the main stream their ideas are. Worse–they are providing many of the appointments to government programs overseeing these areas.

Private US Team==mercenaries

ArchPundit December 20, 2006 3 Comments

For some reason the LA Times and others are into euphemisms when it comes to clear cases of private armies working against US interests.

There have been no suggestions that American officials had a role in Sameraei’s escape Sunday afternoon. But the B-movie scenario of a rich businessman hiring armed muscle to bust himself out of jail from inside the fortress-like, U.S.-protected enclave could further contribute to Iraq’s image of instability and lawlessness. The flamboyant former government minister’s arrest and prosecution were held up by Iraqi and U.S. officials as a rare example of good government prevailing in the new Iraq.

His high-profile escape, splashed across Iraqi television channels Monday night, also could further damage the reputation of the U.S., which is already believed by many Iraqis to have wasted and stolen billions of dollars in Iraqi revenue.

Iraqi officials were enraged by his escape and the suggestion that any Americans had a hand in it.

“We think that there are a lot of terrorist operations through the money that was taken through corruption,” said Sheik Sabah Saadi, chairman of the Iraqi parliament’s anticorruption committee. “Ayham Sameraei has announced on more than one occasion about his support for the resistance and the insurgents and even claimed he was a mediator between the resistance and other factions.”

Fuck them. Seriously, you either fight under the flag, or you are nothing more than a hired thug. You can sit there and try and make excuses and say they aren’t all like that, but in the end, the presence of ‘private security’ creates just these sorts of incidents that are counter to the national security interests of the United States. There is no accountability and ultimately they are just seen as other Americans.

Oh, and the escaped prisoner is pals with Rezko. Small world.

H/T Rich

What to Do in August

ArchPundit December 20, 2006 3 Comments

Yearly Kos will be in Chicago. I already registered. You should too.

Your Holiday Plans

ArchPundit December 20, 2006 2 Comments

Going to see Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore? over the holiday.

It’ll be at Facet’s Cinematheque from Friday to the 31st and it is absolutely a must see. You can even get a brief glimpse of me tired, drunk and sunburnt. If you are interested in grassroots campaigns either from the perspective of being an activist or an operative the film is fantastic. I have no financial stake in the film, though I’m friends with the producers and know the filmmaker pretty well by now.

It won the SilverDocs Audience award, it’s up for the International Documentary Association award and is one of fifteen finalists to be a nominee for the Academy Awards.

For those of you who don’t know it, Jeff is a friend of mine from grad school and is now State Senator elect in Missouri. It puts grassroots campaigns in a good context and I think the lessons hit equally on those in the grassroots and those who are professionals. And the movie is extremely well done and Frank has told a story very entertainingly.

So go see it–you won’t be disappointed.

Oh, and for the Republicans out there, as a Republican friend of mine said about the movie:

First, let me alleviate the concerns of my fellow conservatives skeptical of plunking down their after-tax cash to see this film. I know what you’re thinking, and don’t worry — the movie is long on nuts-and-bolts campaign strategy and short on liberal poppycock. Replace Jeff’s riff that “every child should have the right to see a doctor” with “stop having babies you can’t support” and the movie’s subject could have been a Republican.

Someone Finally Gets How to Use PowerPoint

ArchPundit December 20, 2006 7 Comments

Unfortunately, he was blown up.

Army Capt. Travis. Patriquin, 32, St. Charles, Mo., died last week when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle in the insurgent-dominated city of Ramadi in al Anbar province. Before he was killed Capt. Patriquin wrote a Powerpoint briefing that used stick figures to explain how the U.S. could tame al Anbar. (See the briefing in PDF format.)

The briefing, which is funny, smart and a bit sarcastic, rocketed around the military. It suggested that U.S. troops only dimly understood the competing and ancient power structures in al Anbar province. The only way to stabilize the deeply tribal region was to build security forces made up of Iraqis from the area who could police themselves, he reasoned.

In one of the last slides, the American stick figured, who goes by “Joe,” realizes that “if he’d done this three years ago maybe his wife would me happier and he’d have been home more.” Unfortunately, Capt. Patriquin didn’t make it home. – Greg Jaffe

PowerPoint is an evil tool utilized by incompetents to make the entirely unreasonable, reasonable. It is the bane of academics who attempt to use graphics to represent data accurately.

What is missed in the post from the WSJ is that Patriquin was a friggen genius who not only points out the problem of the entire Iraq war with stick figures, but turns the military’s reliance on upon PowerPoint into part of the joke. For more on the how PowerPoint led us to war and incompetence see here and here.

There are a lot of big picture draw ins I could make, but the basic issue is that this man died in vain while having some of the most hysterical and on target criticisms of the way this war has been mishandled.

Of course, Bush might get hung up on the reference to Sheik’s being around for 14,000 years (an exaggeration, but not by much) because, you know the Earth may only be 6,000 years old.