The Republican Party has only recently understood that Point Bush is indefensible, and is right now realizing that Points Hastert and Gingrich are in danger of being over run by the voters - the House of Representatives is all but assured to go Democratic, absent Osama bin Laden converting to evangelical Christianity on network television, and the Senate will be narrowly divided. 2008 will become a year of contingencies - the nature of the Presidential election, the geography of the races, the outcomes of the last two years.

Thus the Republicans and the right in general are retiring to rally point Reagan. Gidean Rachman asks whether a blogger is capable of coherent thought. The question to ask is whether the right is capable of coherent thought. The answer seems to be "Yes, but that isn't what he is going to write down."

Reagan wasn't about small government, and everyone who repeates this obvious canard is doing public discourse a disservice.

Read more »

We need to change the way we elect politicians so working families have a real voice and are no longer overwhelmed by the influence of big money in Washington.

Read more »

Hey, let's buy Tony Snow a copy of Carl von Clausewitz's classic, ON WAR, and help him understand the difference between "strategy" and "tactics". Tony's tap dancing today during the White House press briefing revealed a shallow political hack swimming in deep waters. When asked, "are we winning", poor Tony could not come up with a definition of victory. In fact, he responded rhetorically, "what is victory". According to Clausewitz:

tactics teaches the use of armed forces in the engagement; strategy, the use of engagements for the object of the war.

What is our objective in Iraq? Eliminating weapons of mass destruction? Promoting democracy? "Fighting them (the terrorists) there so we don't have to fight them here?" These are not mutually compatible objectives. It is the lack of a clear answer that accounts for our nation's inability to define victory in Iraq. Bush, Cheney, and Rummy need to figure out what in the hell we are trying to do. Once that is clearly defined then we will be in a position to devise tactics that will complement the strategic objective.

Read more »

Finally, the Iraq debate seems to be breaking out of the box that “stay the course” vs. “cut and run” has kept it in. As it does, one of the crucial issues is how we think about credibility. Track the Bush administration statements, especially as victory has become increasingly illusional (if not delusional), and you see more and more emphasis on credibility. Even “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” is about the message sent not just the material question of killing off x number of terrorists.

This conception of credibility, though, is a trap. It was a trap in Vietnam. And it’s a trap in Iraq. It’s a trap because it defines credibility in terms of resolve, but not in terms of judgment.

Read more »

Shia militia sieze control of a city - the irony of the link is not just the article which reports that Amarah - a strategic city in the British zone of responsiblity - has been seized by Sadr backed militias, but that there is a huge side bar add for the Iwo Jima film "Flags of Our Fathers". It is the perfect juxtaposition for the post-modern generation - believing that what Billy Joel called "The Nylon Curtain" of pop consumerism had descended on the world, and that that was all that matters. Images are everything.

This works. Until it doesn't.

And even the slow on the uptake White House is aware it isn't working.

Read more »

I warned last week that China and Russia, feeling burned by Bolton's "gotcha" diplomacy, would seal up every little loophole and tie up every ambiguity before voting for a resolution. Well, I was wrong. Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya seems to have gone one step further: he beat Bolton at his own game. Wang voted for the negotiated resolution, but he included a loophole so the Chinese don't have to comply with the full spirit of negotiations. Sound familiar, Mr. Bolton? AP Reports:

"This is a resolution we have to implement," Wang told reporters at the U.N. "The question was raised whether China will do inspections. Inspections yes, but inspection is different then interdiction and interception. I think different countries will do it different ways."

In other words, if North Korean ships happen to be hanging out in Chinese ports, maybe, just maybe, China will take a look at what's inside. No one, regardless of partisan affiliation or political leanings, should be happy that Bolton got burned.

But only did Bolton lose this battle in the Security Council on North Korea, he also managed to needlessly tick off the Russians in the process.

Read more »

I’m not an economist, but it strikes me that there is an obvious economic justification underlying Andy Stern’s persuasive moral argument.* Stern hints at it when he cites McKinsey & Co.’s conclusion that, by 2008, Fortune 500 companies will spend as much on health care as they make in profit. Simply stated, American firms stand to benefit from a physically and financially stronger and more secure American middle class. Working towards that end is a savvy investment.

Read more »

One of the key issues for the future of labor, that Stern has already hit on in his posts, is healthcare and talking about the future of where we go from here. Clearly with 46 millions of Americans without healthcare (the large majority of those being working Americans) and at least that many under-insured, we have a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

But here's where the possibilities get really exciting. When it's not only union leaders like Stern, but CEOs like Steve Burd of Safeway, among many others, agreeing that something needs to change, you have the chance to create an entirely new coalition to fundamentally chance there way we handle Healthcare in this country.

Read more »

Joe Lieberman knows the ways of the Senate.

He knows that there are votes that matter -- and votes that don't.

There are cheap ways to mug a President of one's own party, much like House Democrats did to Bill Clinton during his presidency rejecting "fast track trade authority" because they were ticked off about welfare reform and wanted to send Clinton a message on a bill that wasn't all that popular anyway.

However, there are also cheap ways to applaud a President and to deceive a public.

Along these lines, Senator Lieberman decided to play "fluffer" for the Republican leadership and Bush with his statement today in the New York Daily News that he has flip-flopped on Bolton and would now support his confirmation as US Ambassador to the UN.

Read more »

Profs. Bruce Ackerman, and Todd Gitlin, with dozens of prominent co-signers - have let forth a roar of the liberal lions, including James K. Galbraith, Robert S. Reich, Kenneth Arrow, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and other names that, even individually, would need no introduction.

They build to their message, which is stated only at the climax of the piece:

Reason is indispensable to democratic self-government. This self-evident truth was a fundamental commitment of our Founding Fathers, who believed it was entirely compatible with every American's First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. When debating policy in the public square, our government should base its laws on grounds that can be accepted by people regardless of their religious beliefs...

his government's failures to respect the process of public reason have generated predictable consequences -- none of them good. The Bush administration has failed to protect its citizens from disaster -- from foreign enemies on September 11, 2001, and from the hurricane and flood that afflicted the Gulf Coast in 2005...

We refuse to confine our criticisms to personalities. We believe that the abuses of power that have been commonplace under Bush's rule must be laid not only at his door -- and the vice president's -- but at the doors of a conservative movement that has, for decades, undermined government's ability to act reasonably and effectively for the common good.

At long last, they are saying, too much, is enough. This is not merely a manifesto of the modern liberal party of FDR - but of the liberal idea as it has evolved since the humanism of the Renaissance.

Read more »

Like all responsible observers of Iraq, I have long worried about the consequences of an American withdrawal — for Iraq, first and foremost, but for the region and for America as well. Violence is likely to get even worse. Regional actors will likely be more tempted to be involved. Anarchic conditions in parts of Iraq will likely provide safe harbor for terrorists that have flocked to the country in recent years to train new cohorts and provide recruits to strike at targets around the world. Iraq would become another Afghanistan.

None of this means we shouldn’t withdraw our troops — we should, and the sooner the better. But it’s been worries about what comes afterwards that has made so many who agree with this conclusion hesitant about saying so out loud.

That’s why what Les Gelb has to say in Time this week is so important. Gelb reminds us that many foreign policy and strategic analysts a generation ago worried about defeat in Vietnam for fear that the dominoes in Asia would then fall. They didn’t, of course. And Gelb makes a good case why similar prognostications about the dangers of withdrawing from Iraq may be as wrong headed.

The fact of the matter is, very few Iraqis and very few of its neighbors want a greater disaster to befall the country. And so they’re at least as likely to try to prevent that from happening without us being there as they while we’re still there. Bad things may happen when we withdraw; but bad things are happening while we're there.

We've run out of excuses.

... we're disappearing.

James Carville and I wrote our memo (pdf) on the likely Republican "meltdown" this election very conscious of the choices that party leaders, activists and funders will have to make. We based our observations on a host of current surveys, but most important are the two surveys conducted exclusively or mainly in Republican-held congressional districts. Democracy Corps’ poll of 49 Republican districts showed Democrats ahead in these districts – including the bottom tier of some 16 most difficult seats. Last week there was a 5-point swing to the Democrats. The other poll is the bi-partisan poll conducted for NPR, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and Public Opinion Strategies. It showed the Democrats with a 4-point lead (48 to 44 percent) in the named congressional ballot in the 38 Republican seats. Democrats could expect to win half or two-thirds of those seats – a minimum of 25 seats.

The polls all show a dramatic difference in engagement and demoralization. Democratic base voters are 20 points more likely than Republican base voters to say they are “enthusiastic” about this election. This electorate will become more Democratic. The wave we are looking at will grow, not recede.

Read more »

Welcome to Table for One, the guest-blogging section at TPMCafe.

Starting Monday, August 6th we'll be joined by Congressman Steve Kagen, a freshman representative from Wisconsin. Kagen is joining us to discuss his own approach to health care reform, through his "Declaration of Health." Read his posts below, and join the discussion.

See earlier Table for One guest-blogs:
Congressman Earl Blumenauer, Scott Winship, Robert Hormats, Bill McKibben, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Sen. John Edwards, the ACLU's Anthony Romero, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Andrew Rasiej, Gov. Tom Vilsack,Gen. Wesley Clark, Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Sen. Russ Feingold.

We are having a lively debate here at TPMCafe over the Princeton Project on National Security report – and we are most thankful to all the participants for their comments. We agree with the view of many of you that, ultimately, the worth of big ideas is the extent to which they can drive more specific ideas and proposals. The second half of the Princeton Project report does just that.

So we would like to see if we can move the debate to these more specific proposals, policy recommendations that respond to the array of 21st century threats, challenges, and opportunities. These proposals focus on the Middle East, terrorist networks, proliferation of nuclear weapons, the rise of China and order in East Asia, global pandemics, energy, and the building of a protective infrastructure.

Read more »

The Republicans are having an Oktoberfest of surprises - the kind that change the outcome an election. But not in the favor of the Republicans.

Republican ex-Rep. Cunningham steered $70 million of national security work to favored military contractors. The party that pounds anyone who they don't like as traitors, appeasers and soft on military defense turns out to be war profiteering. And this is one Republican Congressman. Clerk of the House Trandahl stands at the center of the Foley scandal. A protective servant? Or player in the machine? Iraqi government removes secret police. Things are clearly going extremely well there. Meanwhile, North Korea is planning another nuclear test. That's why alarm bells are sounding - of Bush being a lame duck.

But there is another factor - one that is the chatter of right wing around the filter media. The Economy.

Read more »

One of the things you learn in law school is the negotiation adage: negotiate from interests, not from positions. When you stake out an inflexible position, you start a fight. When you try to meet your interests instead, you might find that you and your "opponent" have quite a few interests in common, and your sparring partner might become your best collaborator.

Stern has been writing about and working on overcoming positions to form unlikely coalitions and partnerships: public employees and the state of Arizona; child care providers and child care advocates; heck, the whole ragtag group of progressive forces he calls Team USA. And it makes sense that he should. After all, few understand coming together despite differences better than a union leader.

Read more »

Hard work pays off. No one should underestimate John Kerry's plausibility as the comeback kid. He has the money; he has learned from experience; he has paid the dues of candidates in this election; he even stood against Senator Joe, while others supported that ersatz Democrat at least implicitly by way of being all too quiet; he will have loyalists on his side because of whom he has helped; and he's been far bolder and clearer than others on the crucial issues. John may have taken his time to get where he is, but his current location on the political map is not so bad.

Meanwhile, Iraq is plainly deteriorating. The Administration's 30,000 number is disreputable. If the Congress flips, it is not the investigations -- that is exaggerated -- but the platform that will exist for challenges to the Administration that matters. Those in power command more attention from the MSM than those without. If Congress flips, John Kerry's position is strengthened. He and Senator Clinton will become the opinion leaders of the Democratic Party.

Others who are bold and decisive can join their ranks. But the clock will be ticking.

Moreover, not just Iraq but many other issues beckon. And others will arise. There is even a likelihood that in next two years attention will be paid to the competitive challenge of firms from China; did I mention my new book "In China's Shadow" which was the subject of a favorable review in Tucson and Fort Worth papers?

Last week's White House press conference was notable for a number of reasons. First, any time President Bush answers questions from the press is a noteworthy event, given that he has deigned to do so fewer times than almost any other modern President. It was also notable because mere hours earlier, North Korea claimed to have tested a nuclear weapon underground.

The press conference was also noteworthy because of what happened after the President left the podium. Just after he wrapped things up in the Rose Garden, top Pentagon officials held a press conference of their own to announce a new plan to maintain US Army strength in Iraq at current levels, roughly 140,000 Soldiers, through 2010. This was startling news, if only because it stands in such stark contrast to the initial war plans (or lack thereof), which called for reducing troop strength in Iraq to 30,000 by the end of 2003.

It's baffling that the President did not find this decision important enough to mention himself. Maybe he hoped the press corps would be too preoccupied filing their stories to notice the Army's announcement. Or maybe the Pentagon is ready to admit just how bad things have gotten in Iraq, but the President is not. Has it really come to this?

Read more »

What do you think? There are Democratic House candidates out there right now who might go down to defeat on November 7th because they couldn't scrounge up a few tens of thousands of dollars to run one good TV ad buy in the final stretch. Meanwhile there are heavy-hitters who want the presidential nomintion in 2008 sitting on multi-million dollar warchests. Some of them are even raising money for those warchests right now.

I agree with those who say that political money is not a zero-sum game. But in the very short-term that's a lot of money that could be injected into these races right now.

What do you think should happen?

Today the new bankruptcy code is celebrating its first birthday – at least the creditors are celebrating. For everyone else, maybe it's time to take a step back, admit that we brought an ugly baby into the world, and get to work fixing this little monster up.

Read more »

...or, not. In the 22nd round, the abstentions went all the way up to 12 - perhaps part of a strategy to bring down the minimum 2/3 of votes required to elect a Member State to the Security Council. But I don't think it's going to be that easy. More than 70 states are still in favor of Venezuela's candidacy, or at least opposed to Guatemala's.

Tomorrow, the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries will meet to discuss the circumstances they are in. It's an informal discussion, so no decision is likely to come of it. Thursday, they will go back to the General Assembly and vote some more.

I've seen some spin in the papers that simply blocking Venezuela is victory enough for the United States and Bolton....

Read more »

Pennsylvania, because of its position in the original colonies, has been nicknamed the keystone state. But for the Republicans, the keystone has always been Ohio. No Republican has entered the White House without Ohio's electoral votes. Ohio provided both the style and substance of 19th century Republicanism.

For sometime there has been a kind of folk political wisdom that the two parties have almost switched places – with the Republican Party of the present becoming the neo-confederate Christianist party, and the Democratic Party the party of industry and export. Tom Schaller has taken this folk wisdom and applied a political scientists edge to it, most recently with his New York Times piece on why Strickland, the candidate for governor, should be seen as part of a pattern of strong incoming Democratic executives.

Read more »

While oil giant Chevron bags $14 billion in profits, workers who clean their buildings in Houston earn $5 an hour with no health insurance. One of their leaders is Ercilia Sandoval, a janitor who was diagnosed with breast cancer and is fighting for her life even as she fights for health care for working people in America.

Read more »

The good people at the Princeton Project on National Security have done us a service by tackling some of the very tough issues in foreign affairs that guide both scholars and practitioners of the art of foreign affairs. But like all such grand sweeping proposals, this one too has flaws, some of which the critics and authors have already addressed. I want to offer some praise, and also point to three problems that limit the PPNS’s appeal.

Read more »

According to recent press reports, President Bush and Karl Rove, remain conspicuously confident about the GOP's midterm election prospects. So much so in fact that GOP insiders are puzzled and even worried about their apparent disconnection from the reality of the situation.

What's behind their cool demeanor? Denial? Bluff? Hard to believe you can lose after three straight wins? Is the fix in?

Tell us what you think.

It is this year where a political meridian runs through Connecticut, much as a political pole has formed in Ohio. It is these states, which have for so long thought themselves Republican as the places of good sense and hard work, where people are rethinking their relationship to the party of foley fallout, darwin denial, encyclopediac ignorance about the world and everything in it. Voters in both states saw the Democratic Party as the party of turbulence, of too quick and often ill-advised change - and now see that they have been voting for a radical nastiness which is alien to them.

Tasha Tudor wrote about New England's country world, and it is still a world unto itself. In a house of impeccably chosen furniture, artworks old and new, and colonial surroundings, Chris Murphy spoke to one hundred people who carry with them that ethos which says "New England". He is a young man, with a boundless energy that pushes at the boundaries of the walls, and the normally hushed tones found in such rooms.

Read more »

In a sign, I believe, of a major emerging debate, USA Today and ABC News have teamed up to run an entire week of stories on the problems in American health insurance and how they can be fixed. In recent months, Andy Stern has provocatively talked about these problems, insisting—rightly, in my view—that the employment-based system of health financing is in serious trouble and needs to be rethought.

Some have taken Stern’s comments to mean we should move away from an employer role in health insurance altogether, perhaps instituting some form of individual mandate that would require all workers to get coverage on their own. But that’s not how I interpret Stern’s remarks (no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong).

Read more »

What would a policy that really values families look like? 

Parents need real programs, not just rhetoric, that help them take care of their children or sick family members and supports the decent wages and health care all families need. 

Here's the good news: progressive leaders at the state level across this country have been enacting policies to help American families and, while no state has pulled all the elements together, there is a pretty good blueprint for a policy program that values families out there.   Teaming up with MomsRising, the Progressive States Network has pulled these policies together in a set of on-line resources outlining the whole array of policies that progressives can and are promoting across the country.

Read more »

My thanks to Elizabeth for her kind post (which I read just after flying into D.C., where I am doing a series of talks on the book -- for those interested, I will be at the New America Foundation at noon on Wednesday and Politics and Prose at 7:30PM the same day).  She reports one finding of my research—that the chance of major family income drops for people with average demographic characteristics has increased dramatically.  

In fact, the numbers are more worrisome than Elizabeth's post suggests. I updated the calculations for the book, and found that the chance of a 50 percent or greater income drop had increased from around 7 percent in the early 1970s to roughly 17 percent in 2002. (The graphic is available on the Washington Monthly’s blog here.)

The tenth vote yieled 110 votes for Guatemala, and 77 for Venezuela, with four abstaining. It is not clear what happened to the 192nd vote. The General Assembly's president suspended proceedings until tomorrow.

So, as a quick post-mortem I observe the following three lessons from today's vote counts.

Read more »

Union members in Arizona are working with their employers to improve public services in that state. And a new poll shows that the public supports union efforts to form partnerships with employers to find innovations and deliver the best possible services.

Read more »

In the sixth round, Venezuela decisvely closed the gap it had behind Guatemala, with the two sides tying their votes after five rounds of strong Guatemalan leads. Meanwhile, Mexico has put itself up as an alternative candidate, and has likely voted for itself in the past two rounds. What's next?

Round seven to come...

In the seventh, Cuba voted for itself, as did Mexico. Five continued to abstain, and Guatemala's vote count increased to 96, while Venezuela slipped to 89.

Round eight:  102 for Guatemala, 85 for Venzuela.  Five continued to abstain.  Word has it the Venezuelan ambassador is about to speak to the press.  I suspect he won't be holding a white flag when he does, though I do suspect that Ambassador Bolton's mustache will still be white when he's done.

Round nine:  107 to 81 for Guatemala.  It seems like Venezuela really has a solid core of supporters who simply won't budge.  I am beginning to suspect that any party that pulls away and strikes out on its own is more likely to siphon votes from Guatemala than from Venezuela.

Earlier today, the stalemate preventing the election of Guatemala or Venezuela to a two-year, non-permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council continued.  But in the last round of voting, the Venezuelans had a miniature uptick in votes.

Now, the fifth round of voting is underway, and additional candidates could emerge to offer a compromise between Venezuela and Guatemala.  But will the 70 or so states that have cast their vote in favor of Hugo Chavez retain their zeal for seeing his government on the Council as a counterweight to President George W. Bush and his Ambassador John Bolton?  Or is Guatemala's lead insurmountable?

Watch this space for updates.  Or, tune into the UN's webcast and see for yourself.

Round Five Update:  Guatemala's star is beginning to fall.  In the Fifth Round, Mexico received one vote.  Guatemala received 103.  Venezuela received 83.  Five states abstained.  In an exercise of faith-based journalism, I am happy we can count on NewsMax to say after round five of votes that "More than five rounds of voting have taken place."

Round Six Update:  In a stunning turn-around, Venezuela and Guatemala are tied at 93 votes a piece, and Mexico is still voting for itself, while 5 Member States continued to abstain.

There false premises that Democrats, or indeed Americans, simply have to get past to get anywhere on foreign policy generally and nationals security policy more particularly. They are evident in Steve’s comments on the Princeton Project report, and also in the debate on Anatol Lieven’s excellent new book, Ethical Realism, over on America Abroad.

Read more »

The hot topic at the United Nations today is whether or not the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela will win a two-year term on the Security Councl.

Scott here at BoltonWatch and I over at Raw Story have both said that the outcome of this vote will in many ways be a vote on Bolton. Will the US have a vociferous counterweight added to the Security Council by the Organization's membership? Or, is Chavez's declarations that George W. Bush is the devil a bridge too far for the membership to cross?

Which way will it go? Perhaps we'll know by the end of the day. Right now, in the first round of voting, Guatemala has a commanding lead, with 109-76 votes. But that means only 7 states, such as Chile and Italy, are abstaining. Even if Guatemala were to pick up all 7 votes, it would still need to cajole eight more countries to switch sides.

The most likely outcome at this stage seems to be the emergence of a 3rd Latin American country. This would suggest that the membership does not find Bolton completely intolerable, but that there is a consensus that it does not want a country perceived to be his ventriloquist dummy sitting on the Council.

Update: Reuters says it is now 114-74 for for Guatemala, with four still sitting out the vote. Guatemala needs 124 to be elected.

Second update:  The transomme says 116 to 70 for Guatemala in the 3rd round, with 5 now abstaining.  I was incorrect about 192 casting ballots earlier - Montenegro must not yet have voting privileges. 

Third update:  Round 4, 110-75 for Guatemala, with six abstaining.  In the next round, there will be unrestricted balloting, and that means any Latin American or Caribbean nation can stand. I can't help but wonder if Venezuela's boosters are dug in, and how that will affect the next round.

Stay tuned...

Jacob Hacker’s data show that the typical American family today is running a risk marathon. Some may make it, but every year more families are falling as the risks catch up with them.

Jacob explains that the predicted probability of a 20 percent or greater income drop among such “average” families was 4 percent at the beginning of the 1970s. By the early 2000s, it had more than doubled to 10.6 percent. See the graphic in the continuation.

Read more »

In our discussion of the "great risk shift," we haven't yet mentioned one increasingly risky area of middle-class life: college tuition.

A generation ago, we understood that we all have a stake in college affordability. More college graduates strengthen our economy and our democracy.

In recent decades, however, college leaders, politicians, and the media have focused on higher earnings as the primary benefit of college. The logical conclusion: if college is for the students, students should pay for it.

Read more »

A provocative title but having seen The Last King of Scotland last night, I was struck by the ending credit saying 400,000 people were killed under Idi Amin's reign of terror, a number shy of the estimated 600,000 people killed during the US occupation of Iraq.  Since Uganda is roughly the same population as Iraq, the numbers are even more comparable.

Read more »