"These moments come once or twice in a political life time."

Exactly the reason for everyone, big donors, presidential candidates in 08, and smaller contributors alike, to open the wallet NOW.

Dems have come close to gaining narrow majorities before, but this year could be a golden opportunity to accomplish a lot more. With a bid win, we could change the national dialogue for the first time in my lifetime.

You don't get a chance to redefine the terms of the political debate often; it's time to go for the kill.

Posted at October 18, 2006 11:48 AM in response to For Democrats, Time To Seize The Moment

It's painful to see how the Bush administration and its right-wing allies tried to remake Iraq by hiring Bush loyalists to the CPA (Jay Hallen, John Agresto,Scott Erwin, an ice cream truck driver et al).

But it's equally frightening that the hiring of incompetent ideologues looks like a rehearsal for the Right's transformation of the US. Hire cronies (Michael "heckuva job" Brown, gut public goods by privatizing them (social security), reward big contributors who work against the public interest(pharmaceutical industries).

Posted at October 10, 2006 3:36 PM in response to Welcome to the Emerald City

I dislike Kissinger as much as some of the others here but I suspect that Leverett's reference to Kissinger was intended to persuade conservative readers of the wisdom of taking a more realistic approach to the Middle East. Conservatives would be less receptive to Madeleine Albright, to name one example, as a model.

But I can't help reading Leverett's article as an obituary of political realism and shudder to think what 2 and 1/2 more years of American ideological fanaticism, incompetence and militarism will to the Middle East.

Posted at August 23, 2006 4:55 AM in response to A Presidential Briefing Memo on the Middle East

1. publicly funded elections (or clean elections along the lines of state elections in Arizona);

2. former elected officials and members of the executive branch cannot work for any firm that lobbies for 3 years after leaving their government job.

Posted at January 6, 2006 5:22 AM in response to The Mantle of Reform

Thanks for keeping us posted. It's appalling, but not surprising, that the RNC has embedded reporters in the Washington bureau of the Washington Post.  We should all be bombarding the WP with angry letters and emails. Maybe our side will finally learn how to counter the Right's attempt to create a "balanced" media.

Posted at December 14, 2005 3:22 PM in response to Astroturf vs. Grassroots

Many journalist like Bai are unable to confront the unequal (i.e. GOP-driven) polarization for a variety of reasons, but one of them is surely this:  the same forces and people on the Right who have led the polarizing wave in politics have brought tremendous pressure to bear on the media, pressure which has steadily drained content and thorough analysis from journalism.  The void has been filled with celebrity-style coverage of polticians and "he said/she said" pseudo-reporting.  If journalists actually examine the polarization of politics analytically, they would have to confront the dismantling of journalism and trivialization of their own profession.  It's easier to hiss at Democrats than to engage in honest self-reflection.

Posted at December 9, 2005 5:46 PM in response to The "Other Matt" Weighs In

So if Fitzgerald met with Rove earlier this week (after Rove testified 4 times to the GJ), why would he not indict "Turdblossom"?  Is Fitzgerald hoping that during Libby's trial damaging information about Rove will come out? Does anyone think that Libby will flip?

Posted at October 27, 2005 8:19 PM in response to Early Word on Indictments

I would argue taht DeLay is important, but you're right that he is not the most important target for Democrats.  It's too easy for voters to dismiss charges of dishonesty and corruption ("But they're all like that..").

What few have noticed, it seems to me, is that corruption is not part of the political system any more, now it is the system.

Systematic critiques are really hard to articulate in a way that informs and moves voters.  It will be easier for Democrats to explain  the Right's reign of terror  and to make a strong case against it if they adopt a reform platform.

I fear that the Democrats are not smart enough to do that, but I hope that the Dems will give me a pleasant surprise...some day.

Posted at September 28, 2005 3:05 PM in response to Raising Our Game

I agree with Mark Schmitt's analysis of the the "reconstruction" project.  The choice of Rove reveals the administration's real motives, but the selection of Rove raises another question.  The White House must believe that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald won't indict Rove-are they right? Do they know something the rest of us don't?

Posted at September 18, 2005 5:19 AM in response to It's a Setup!

Your comments are thought provoking and I am glad that you address current politics in a historical context. I don’t have the research background to offer many insights to populism, but I think that your comments on globalization might present us (progressives) with an opening.  It seems to me that populism resonates most powerfully with people who sense that they are losing control over their lives.  I would wonder whether the rightward drift of the figures that you mentioned (Reagan, Horowitz etc.) coincides with the slowing or end of new policies designed to aid the working class.  What I am speculating about is this:  once people stopped seeing the federal government as a positive force in their lives, it became very easy for conservatives to blame socio-economic problems on out of touch (liberal) politicians and on cultural trends.  Of course, the conservative critique fails to mention that the Right intends to shred the social contract: the problems with liberals/progressives is that they have never designed policies for a de-industrializing society that, in their entirety, have had the same kind of tangible benefits as the New Deal legislation.

But the problems resulting from globalization (out-sourcing) have made the weaknesses of laissez-faire capitalism increasingly apparent.  It’s easy to point to rich CEOs getting rich by sending jobs away, with the aid of conservatives in government, while communities and families struggle to make a living and pay medical expenses.  Should globalization  be the primary focus of progressives? Should we be considering policies to remedy the problems of globalization with an eye on giving people a sense that they can somehow preserve the sense of community they once had?

Posted at July 26, 2005 3:28 PM in response to populisms left and right