Month: July 2004

And no right to sexual privacy either. It simply strikes me as amazing that the government can dictate how you pleasure yourself in your own home. Lawrence vs Texas doesn’t seem to be having much of an impact in the South. Surprise, surprise.

“I’m a social libertarian, fiscally conservative, hawk — an eagle, in your lexicon. In the past, I’ve been willing to give Democrats a chance. I voted for Clinton in 1992, although I soon regretted it. Since 9/11, I’ve morphed into a one-issue voter — the war on terrorism, at home and abroad. And until recently, my efforts to be open to John Kerry ran aground whenever I considered who the terrorists would rather see elected. And my anxiety only intensified after recent reports on pre-election terrorism attacks. Surely the terrorists’ rationale for such attacks would be to help elect Kerry, a la Spain. I’m not sure American voters would react the way Spaniards did, but the terrorists may not appreciate the resolve of the American heartland.
But if the terrorists were listening to Edwards last night, and Obama the night before, they may be second-guessing their plans. If the Kerry camp’s war rhetoric is in earnest (and there are good reasons to doubt it), then the terrorists may not get the easier ride they were strategizing for.
What I see happening is an emerging consensus around winning the war on terror and achieving a successful outcome in Iraq. The parties are jockeying to be seen as tougher and more hawkish. For me, there’s only goodness in that.
And If Kerry wins, then the Democrats will have to assume responsibility and accountability for protecting Americans from terror. And God forbid if another attack occurs on Kerry’s watch, the American public’s call for a tough response (and yes, retribution) will force the Democrat to take an even more hawkish stance. They’ll have to — to protect their power base, the Kerry administration.
And a Kerry administration paired with Republican control in either house of Congress would result in fiscal deadlock, which ain’t all bad either.
There’s a long way to go between now and the election, but my mind is again opening to the Dems.” I couldn’t put it better myself. I have long dreamed that the Democrats might get serious again about national security. That issue – and spending – kept me from them for a long time. But with the GOP spending like LBJ-Dems, and Kerry sounding very tough on the war, I’m open to persuasion. Tonight’s speech will be critical. Stay tuned.

Dan Drezner concurs with my assessment of what’s going on in Boston:

“America’s armed forces need better equipment, better training, and better pay,” Bush said in his 2000 convention speech. If that line sounds familiar, it’s because just about every major Democratic speaker this week has said almost exactly the same thing. Who would have thought that the man many believe to be the most conservative president in modern history could be outflanked from the right? And by the so-called most liberal man in the Senate.

No wonder Frumpy is so grumpy.

David Frum is getting grumpier by the day (Advantage Kerry!). But I was struck by one line in his most recent diary. Here it is:

It’s never good to see a former chairman of the joint chiefs endorsing a Democrat.

Why not? I thought Frum wanted the Democrats to become more serious about national defense and terrorism. If the candidate can persuade a bunch of former generals that he is the best choice in the war, and if the convention goes out of its way to restore the Democrats’ commitment to national security in a way not seen in decades, why is that a bad thing? Oh, I forgot. All that matters is Republican partisanship. Whatever their record. Whatever they stand for. Whoever their opponents are.

I didn’t think a huge amount of his speech as a work of rhetoric. Because his “two-America” riff had been chopped up for time constraints, it never quite caught fire the way it did in the primaries. But as politics, it was powerful. Edwards couldn’t afford to be too good, in case he overshadow the big guy. And the speech had the important effect of showing Edwards to be someone who actually cares about ordinary people, an area where, to put it kindly, John Forbes Kerry is not terribly accomplished. Elizabeth Edwards is also a major asset: smart, self-made, empathetic. (I’m particularly impressed by how both of them have maintained what appears to be such a good marriage. You cannot help but respect anyone who keeps a marriage together after losing a child. It’s one of the hardest things on earth.) It doesn’t hurt that Elizabeth is a little on the heavy side either. Hey, someone has to look like America. But the speech itelf was remarkable for one single reason – and it’s the same reason I’ve been banging on about since this infomercial began on Monday. Edwards gave an immensely tough, hawkish pro-war speech. They really are pulling a Kennedy in 1960. One passage stood out, resplendent:

We will lead strong alliances. We will safeguard and secure our weapons of mass destruction. We will strengthen our homeland security, protect our ports, protect our chemical plants, and support our firefighters, police officers, EMTs. We will always… We will always use our military might to keep the American people safe.
And we, John and I, we will have one clear unmistakable message for Al Qaida and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.

(By way of comparison, here’s what yours truly, a pro-war neocon, proposed Kerry should say last Sunday night:

To the murderers of al Qaeda, let me say this. Do not even begin to interpret a Democratic victory as some sign that we will acquiesce to your murderous intent and nihilist politics. In the war against Jihadism, there is no Democrat or Republican. There is simply American. We will unite to defeat you and to secure our country.)

But there was more. Edwards committed his party to victory in Iraq:

With a new president who strengthens and leads our alliances, we can get NATO to help secure Iraq. We can ensure that Iraq’s neighbors, like Syria and Iran, don’t stand in the way of a democratic Iraq. We can help Iraq’s economy by getting other countries to forgive their enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction. We can do this for the Iraqi people. We can do it for our own soldiers. And we will get this done right.
A new president will bring the world to our side, and with it a stable Iraq, a real chance for freedom and peace in the Middle East, including a safe and secure Israel.

Howard Dean may spin that as a way to bring troops home. But Edwards also pledged more troops and more defense spending as a whole. I fail to see how Joe Lieberman could quibble with much that was in Edwards’ address.

BUSH VERSUS UNITY: Edwards was also smart to bring together two important themes of this convention: unity and war. Here’s the critical passage:

The truth is, the truth is that what John and I want, what all of us want if for our children and our grandchildren to be the first generations that grown up in an America that’s no longer divided by race. We must build one America. We must be one America, strong and united for another very important reason: because we are at war.

It seems to me that a major and legitimate criticism of president Bush is that a successful war-president does not split his own nation into two. But Bush’s hard-knuckled politics, his inability to reconcile with the Democrats, or with recalcitrant allies, or to reach out to those who disagree with him, have led to a deepening divide. Some of this is not his fault. Some of it was fostered by the left. But the Democrats have at least had the good sense to see this as a weakness and to promote themselves in a positive fashion as a unifying force. And it remains true that no president who truly took the responsibility of wartime seriously would be approving semi-legal gerry-mandering in Texas, or brutal campaigning in the mid-terms, or a constituional amendment to marginalize an entire minority. But Bush and Rove made that choice; and now they face the consequences.

Domestically, I also thought Edwards was able to offer traditional Democratic support for the less fortunate without engaging in sour leftist resentment. I’m always moved by white Southern men of a certain generation who can also speak so effectively about civil rights. Not all of them have come around so passionately. And he balanced his big=spending with an honest description of how he’ll pat for it:

And everybody listening here and at home is thinking one thing right now: OK, how are you going to pay for it? Right?
Well, let me tell you how we’re going to pay for it. And I want to be very clear about this. We are going to keep and protect the tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans — 98 percent. We’re going to roll back — we’re going to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And we’re going to close corporate loopholes.

I’d rather cut spending. But I’m not a Democrat. And the Democrats can now claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility that the GOP, under Bush and Hastert and Frist, has abandoned. It will be hard for Bush to defend the tax cuts for the very rich in a debate, especially one framed this way by the Democrats.

THE GOP DILEMMA: How can Bush respond to this increasingly effective message? His only real choice is to say what the Republican machine has been saying: don’t believe them. They’re liars and liberals who will sell out the war and our military as soon as they get the chance. Or, as some readers often inform me, a vote for Kerry will be a vote for annihilation at the hands of terrorists. Or they will keep going back to Kerry’s record. None of this is out of bounds, but I don’t think it’s very effective. The trouble is that this line of attack comes across as so negative, as rooted in fear rather than hope. What Edwards accomplished last night was to make the Dems seem like the optimists in this race – those unafraid of the dangers of the world, happy warriors, if you will. And Ronald Reagan proved that optimism wins in American politics. What Bush has to do, I think, is not take the bait and go even more negative. He must point to progress in Iraq and Afghanistan and remind people who made that possible. If things deteriorate, of course, then Bush really is up a creek. And the dour Cheney up against sunny Edwards won’t help. But again, Edwards played a strong and canny card last night. This campaign, whatever else it is, is intelligent and determined. I’ve long believed that the result of this election will not be close. Either Bush will be re-elected decisively or he will lose decisively. The odds on the latter just shortened again.

Dammit, I missed him.

FISKING TERESA: She’s now clearly a liability. Here’s why.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “As few as five people in black robes can look at a particular issue and determine for the rest of us, insinuate for the rest of us that they are speaking as the majority will. They are not.” – Rep. John Hostettler, the Republican who authored the bill that would strip federal courts of the right to consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. But, of course, it could also be said about the five Supreme Court Justices who made George W. Bush the president of the United States. The Republicans love courts when they reach the right decision; they just despise them when they don’t.

RAINES WATCH: An interesting correction on the Washington Post editorial page yesterday:

The July 27 op-ed column by Howell Raines misspelled the last name of David Kusnet and incorrectly said he was a speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter. Kusnet worked for President Bill Clinton.

Carter. Clinton. They were both Democrats, right?

Jon Chait confirms how unhip it is to go to Boston and reports on the DNC from his armchair.

The Onion asks some ordinary Americans.

A reader makes an obvious point:

In the entry about the Simpsons character that will be coming out of the closet, you forgot Principal Skinner, who appears to be the obvious (and best) choice. Principal Skinner is a well respected professional male in his mid 40s. He is single (and has never had a serious relationship that we know of), and lives at home with his mother. Like many closeted homosexuals who struggle with their sexual orientation before coming out, Principal Skinner was caught hooking up with Ms. Edna Krabappel, a divorced and desperate co-worker (anyone else’s gaydar would have instantly picked up on Skinner’s secret). Moreover, he proposed marriage to Selma, Marge’s sister, who is obviously a lesbian. His attraction to women is clearly a facade, designed to be an elaborate lie to both fool the community and perhaps even continue to deny his true sexuality.
Moreover, Principal Skinner is obsessed with his image. He sits for endless sessions where his mother sketches his silhouette, and then he tacks the images all around his house. Additionally, he is a very neat and tidy person, always looking presentable and well-kempt, attributes that straight men of his age and situation do not usually personify.
In sum, Andrew, it has becomes obvious that you ignored the most clear-cut choice when predicting which character will come out of the closet. Moreover, given his persuasion as a white, middle-aged, educated man, homosexual man, I would ask that you recommend Principal Skinner for honorary membership in the Log Cabin Republicans.

Sounds a lot like David Souter to me.