Huey Long a socialist?

He was a lot of things -- a populist, a demagogue, an opportunist, a thief... but you'd have to stretch things a long long way to consider him a "socialist" in any conventional sense of the word. While his populist rhetoric certainly tapped into many of the class inequities that coincided with socialist analysis, and he supported government intervention on behalf of the poor, his political philosophy was not anything but superficially "socialist:.

Indeed, had he lived longer he seemed fated to fit more closely into a model similar to the fascist parties in Europe -- a politics built on resentment and anger rather than equality and justice. (Remember, many people considered the National Socialists in Germany and Mussolini in Italy to be "socialist" when they first began in politics).

Huey Long is a fascinating historical figure - but his politics were far too complex to be described in a simple term like "socialist".

Posted at September 26, 2008 1:32 PM in response to A Day At The Congressional Races

Lunsford is doing something different than what Chris Shays and Gordon Smith have been trying to do

In this case, he is using the words of McCain to criticize the record of the McConnell -- attempting to drive a wedge between the positions of two. Lunsford doesn't say that he is aligned with McCain on anything other than opposing McConnell's behaviour and wanting "change"

In Oregon and Connecticut, the Republican incumbents are attempting to associate themselves positively with Obama, claiming they work with him, etc

Using McCain's words against a Republican seems more acceptable to me than a Republican trying to latch on to Obama's campaign. (Although I'd prefer that no Democratic candidates ran ads featuring McCain - except attack ads - but I'm willing to give a candidate in Kentucky a pass on this.)

Posted at September 16, 2008 7:02 PM in response to A Night At The Congressional Races

Education is bad, but pressing him on the Department of Energy is potentially even more damaging, isn't it?

The public has huge huge concerns about energy issues, and the idea that McCain would have gotten rid of the federal department dealing with energy -- what does that say about his judgement?

Pounding him on his support for far right wing proposals to abolish education and energy seems like a great way to question his foresight and judgement....

Posted at September 9, 2008 12:30 PM in response to Flashback: McCain Favored Abolishing Department Of Education

of course unlike "The One" it actually engages on issues that impact real peoples' lives - instead of the juvenile name calling approach of the whole "The One" and "celeb" ads....

In an election where voters are going to be looking to see who "gets" their lives, I think this approach is more likely to be effective

Posted at August 25, 2008 11:17 AM in response to New Obama Ad Hits McCain, But With Lighthearted Touch

I've got absolutely no ethic qualms about the DCCC doing this -- but on a political level I wonder if Parnell will be able to use it to appeal to the core Republican primary electorate ("See, the Democrats are afraid of me and want to see Don Young nominated...). I think there is some political risk in having such visible Democratic fingerprints on these pieces.

That said, I hope it works...

Posted at August 24, 2008 11:52 PM in response to Dems Apparently Trying To Defeat Don Young's GOP Primary Challenger

I think the analysis is largely right, but I'd add a couple of strengths

You cite the risk that: "Republicans will argue that Biden himself embodies the notion that foreign policy "experience" -- which McCain, too, has already been accorded by the D.C. press and pundit establishment -- is what is required for a president looking to navigate the dangerous and complex world of international affairs in the 21st Century."

While that is doubtless true, it also offers the opportunity for Biden to turn that argument on its head -- if he is willing to engage in a bit of self-deprecation by offering himself up as an example of how experience doesn't always get it right, and that Obama was right early on (about Iraq) while the experienced DC hands (like him and McCain). If he uses his perceived foreign policy credentials to attest to Obama's superior judgement, he could mute McCain's argument.

And Biden, having already been willing to admit his mistake on AUMF can take that argument directly to McCain (While McCain keeps hammering on the idea that somehow Obama is wrong to "not admit that the surge worked", Biden can press the question of why McCain refuses to admit that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake in the first place).

And he is probably the most credible and effective messenger we could hope for to really challenge the ways that McCain's hot headed, sabre-rattling, militaristic response to every possible foreign policy situation will undermine American security and military, not improve it.

But in addition to the foreign policy stuff, it is a mistake to underestimate Biden as a tough and feisty messenger on the domestic front - economics, housing, women's rights, Roe v Wade, judicial appointments, etc etc... If you think back to the days he chaired Judiciary, you're remember him as an aggressive and effective voice against the Republicans, and there is every reason he will be used on the campaign trail to offer a populist and vocal attack on Bush/McCain.

Sure there are risks with Biden, but I think we'll all find that the pluses will completely outweigh them...

Posted at August 23, 2008 10:04 AM in response to Choice Of Biden Signals Vigorous Debate With GOP On Foreign Policy, But There Are Risks

But it is in the same time zone

More than distance, that's the reason it makes it easier to schedule on the way back from Hawaii -- fly up overnight from Hawaii, do a daytime event or two in Alaska, and be in Seattle or Portland in time for an evening event and fundraiser ...

Posted at August 12, 2008 7:29 PM in response to Poll: Obama Leading In Deep-Red Alaska!

Florida is tough, but the fact is that it remains close -- a strong ground game there can keep it closer than the polls say, party latest party reg figures showed a big Democratic gain, and while I think in the end McCain will probably win it there, it is very much worth playing hard there unless/until McCain opens up a huge lead. (Makes me wish Bob Graham were a reasonable VP choice).

As for dropping the 50 state strategy, absolutely not!

Yes Ohio and Michigan and PA are absolutely important, and they deserve and will get ample campaign attention...

But for too long Democrats have gone into November with the only chance of winning being concentrating all of their resources in a handful of states that add up to 271, and there was absolutely no margin for error... We see where that got us.

As Obama often reminded audiences during the primary by citing the Einstein quote - "I've often heard it said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results". If Democrats run the same campaign on the same electoral map every year, reducing the entire contest to winning Ohio, then we can't be surprised if we loose again.

Now reliable state polls show that Obama is highly competitive in AK, CO, IN, MO, MT, NV, NC, ND, VA -- and a few others that could come into play (GA, MS, SD).

These are the new swing states (along with the previous swing prizes of FL, MI, NH, NM, OH, PA) and a number of previous swing states may be moving out of reach of McCain but should not be ignored (IA, MN, OR, WA, WI).

Look at this list, and it is suddenly clear that it is McCain who faces the need to thread the needle perfectly in order to win... by keeping so many states in play, it allows Obama to have many potential paths to victory, and McCain very few.

I don't expect Obama to win most or many of these previous red states suddenly in play - he doesn't need to. Some of them will no longer be competitive as we reach mid-September and beyond. But the mere fact that they are in play changes the game entirely -- it isn't about McCain taking some imaginary bait, it is about breaking out of an electoral map that says the only way for a Democrat to win is to take all of the Gore/Kerry states + Ohio or Florida.

I'm not advocating that Obama spend an October weekend in Salt Lake City or Tulsa -- but as long as the polls shows a chance in any of the traditionally Republican states, and as long as there are sufficient campaign resources in place, Obama and the Democrats should contest everywhere we can.

A 50 state strategy doesn't mean buying up all of the evening prime time in every market in Texas -- but it does mean maintaining a strong party campaign everywhere, going in more intensely when openings allow us to do that, and maximizing Democratic votes up and down the ticket everywhere - so that even in a state Obama isn't carrying, the Presidential ticket isn't a drag to Senate, House, state and local candidates on the ballot.

As for "wasting three days to go to Alaska" - I don't believe that is the choice - this isn't 1960 with Nixon chasing around at the last minute to make good on some promise to campaign everywhere -- with fast planes and good planning, Obama (who I am told actually can sleep on a plane) can do a one day trip to Alaska and not loose campaign time elsewhere -- the advantage of a stop on the way back from Hawaii isn't simply distance, but more time zone congruence, allowing it to fit more easily into the schedule -- but it would work almost equally well attached to the beginning or end of a campaign swing to Washington, Oregon, Montana.

A campaign that operates on a different stage and strategy that our last few losing campaigns seems like a good option to me.

Posted at August 12, 2008 7:24 PM in response to Poll: Obama Leading In Deep-Red Alaska!

Hey Dem BillC

Your fantasy world must be fueled by some excellent recreational drugs -- while you sputter incoherently about millions being driven from the Democratic party, you must have missed news that Democratic voter registration in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio -- to name only a few -- are at record levels and growing as millions of new Democrats are registering, while Republican registration numbers are plummeting across the country.

Out here in reality land we look at evidence - instead of the rantings of someone so blinded by hatred that he mindlessly repeats lies and innuendo drawn from the latest O'Reilly/ Hannity/Fox/ Rove/ RNC/Charlie Black/Anne Coulter talking points -- somehow believing that cutting and pasting them on a progressive website will cause the scales from our eyes, our ideas to be washed away and we'll be in love with the idea of President McCain implementing policies we have fought against for ages.

If I was as deluded as you appear to be, I would spend my time deluging right wing sites with news of how McCain's marital infidelities with his first wife make him unfit for office, how his willingness to call his wealthy second wife a "cunt" shows what he really thinks of women, that his luxurious lifestyle financed by his ultra-rich second wife keeps him far removed from the reality of life for most Americans, that he plans to maintain and expand the discredited Bush/Cheney foreign policies that have destroyed our worldwide reputation AND our military preparedness, how his countless verbal slips on the campaign trail are a sure sign of cognitive impairment associated with early onset of Alzheimer's, how his campaign is run by and for the lobbyist for American's wealthiest companies, how he uses American troops and veterans as photo props while he attacks Obama but refuses to vote for legislation that would protect troops and veterans, etc...

Yes, I suppose if I went and wasted my time posting those facts on right wing blogs (and they all are true - unlike the lies in your rantings) that I would have a significantly better chance in convincing the average right winger reading those blogs that Obama should be president than your stale attacks on Obama will convince anyone here to vote for McCain.

But if nothing else, it is good that you post your delusions and warmed over crap from the wingnut side of the political spectrum -- if at least you were able to keep current with the attacks you would spare us having to read about them directly, but the best you seem to be able to do is re-serve two week old Rovian talking point -- hardly seems worth the effort, does it?

Posted at August 11, 2008 6:09 PM in response to Top Republican Begged GOPers To Run For Senate -- For America's Sake

Bizarrely, I'm somehow not offended by a party leader (even a Republican) begging candidates to run for the good of the country.

As much as I disagree with them, I believe that most Republicans running for office are doing it for "the good of the country." I damn well hope that any candidate is running because they believe that their vision is what's best for the country -- even if that vision is diametrically opposed to mine.

Without turning into some fuzzy "can't we all just get along" naif, I actually think that the country and the political system would be served well by candidates from all parties running on their ideas, on their vision, on opposing views of what is good for the country. Certainly not the way campaigns happen in the Rovian political world we live in -- but it would be nice to see that change in some future cycle.

Besides, with this gang of Republicans, a more honest candidate recruitment pitch might have been "please run for the good of Exxon-Mobil, Haliburton, billionaires, chickenhawk warriors, corporate polluters, job exporters, and a hodge-podge of far right bigots..." -- compared to that, it would in fact be a nice surprise to imagine that the Republicans were running for "the good of America."

Posted at August 11, 2008 5:41 PM in response to Top Republican Begged GOPers To Run For Senate -- For America's Sake