Stirling Newberry studies the evolution of the election process in America.#

An election is an elevation. The systems of elections in the US mirrors the way that power is controlled: an election is a test, a simulation, of power.

The elections of 1789, if they were held in some remote country, would not qualify as "democratic", since they reflect no moment of mandate, no particular submission of the government to a moment of popular will. Legislatures chose electors, who were manipulated by Hamilton - the first fixer to Washington's first citizen - to vote in the correct manner to produce the correct results. But these elections were a reflection of how power worked: in that day and age, the army was built of regiments. Regiments were funded by individual wealthy men - Washington had financed an army in the French and Indian wars, and again in the Revolutionary War. Hence, the will of those who could fund and gather war making apparatus, and capital formation, in the world of the commerical north, were the government, since, if push came to shove, they would have to raise the army that would defend it.

Ever since, the evolution of elections in the US, has mirrored how power was created, channelled and controlled.

Curt Siffert on other voters: "They're too stupid, they shouldn't be allowed to vote!" Or: "What? Democracy doesn't mean 'I Win'?"#

And the other one is that I did witness tonight how this damn "Iowa Bump" had such a huge difference for Kerry in all these states. I mean, that bump is huge. Depressingly huge. I didn't realize that such a large percentage of the primary-voting population were sheep. And that's really it, sheep. Where did all these Kerry supporters come from overnight? He was in the toilet four weeks ago. Dean's policies didn't change. Kerry's policies didn't change. Sure, some of Kerry's supporters were from "undecided" folks, but only a portion of them. The others were switchers. Dean didn't become a worse candidate all of a sudden or anything. The only thing they are responding to is the media. They read that Kerry won somewhere, so they switch their vote. As if they get a prize for picking the winner. It's treating a vote as a lottery. You don't get a prize for picking the winner. Your responsibility is to vote your damn preference. I don't get it.

Chip Gibbons on why it is ridiculous for women to be able to exhort their babies' fathers.#

In a free society, if there is no contract of support between consenting parties, there can be no obligation to pay support; not for the father and certianly not for the billions of others on the planet that did not have sex with the woman. To document an agreement to have a child between a man and woman, all that is necessary is a contract of support. Whether it's a marriage or some other form of written contract doesn't matter.

If a man is not willing to support his own child, he won't sign such a contract and that's all the woman needs to know about him. She needs to move on to a man who is willing to provide support, if in fact that is what she wants. Why do women want to have children by men who can't or don't want to support them anyway? If the care of her infant is her primary concern, she would get a contract of support from a willing party.

Oliver Willis presents a message from the Lieberman campaign.#

"There have been some reports that Joe Lieberman plans to drop out of the presidential race. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I speak, one billion voters are going to the polls to vote for Joe Lieberman and Allah smiles on them. Already John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard Dean are about to concede to Joe Lieberman. They fear his mighty jowls and wavering voice, they bow at the feet of his mainstream, moderate positions.

Kevin Aylward explains how Congressman and Senators answer letters. How depressing.#

The idea behind the CMS systems was that upon entering office the representative would procure an electronic list of the 300,000 or so constituents in your district, or if you were lucky get the previous representative's database. Staff member could add new constituents; merge records of duplicates, etc. Every inbound letter and call is tracked by a lookup search for the constituent's name. Once the record is found the contact history with that constituent is available for viewing and action.

Inbound letters and calls are 'issue coded'. For example, if you write a letter to your representative in which you urge the member to support gun control legislation, the staff members who open and read the mail enter a record of the correspondence and select a gun control issue code. If you address multiple topics you get multiple codes.

The staffer at that point has the option of creating a response (which as I recall they usually do) by picking one or more items from a list of issue talking points.

MNOT on presidential candidates and astrosuck.#

I'm so sick of watching presidential candidates confidently telling news anchors that they're doing well in the race, and explaining how well their ideas are going across.

Where are the ideas? Instead of telling me why I should vote for them, the current crop's strategy seems to be to convince me that everybody else is voting for them.

In advertising, this is known as singing the brief; rather than doing the hard work of convincing me that a product is appealing (for example), the ad just says "this product is appealing."

Alex Tabarrok links to Valdis Krebs on book buying models.#

This is a must read. Or at least look at the picture.

The Black Saint writes about Howard Dean's strategy.#

Gov. Dean blames the media for his fall because that's what everyone does and rivals whom he says torpedoed his candidacy using every desperate tactic they knew, like pointing out dumb things he'd said. But there were other problems — lavish spending early in the race (perhaps the solid gold statue of Gov. Dean with his foot pressing down on Pres. Bush's bloodied head was a bit premature), difficulty transferring his cult-like support into votes, and a candidate who sometimes talked without thinking of the political consequences or whether he was sober at the time.

He gained respect among the Washington crowd by raising more than $40 million last year, a Democratic record. Thousands of people, many who had never donated to a political campaign, were inspired to contribute to Dean's anti-Iraq war, anti-Washington, anti-ever reclaiming the White House candidacy.

Bob asks: "As a matter of common sense and self-defense, [we] will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed." Bush or Palpatine?#

Gary Santoro posts funny John Kerry comics.#

One of my hobbies is procrastination. I'm going to work on getting out some blog posts that have been sitting in queue since early January.#

The thread was last written about here on January 7th.#

Gary Santoro writes two pieces about political parties for "Dean Independents."#

The crux of the first piece is that because the two main parties in America are becoming so similar, people are leaving them in large numbers as "Independents" who look for another source of their own revelation. Nothing really strikes me as something new to add to the discussion.

But here is the sentiment:

In my opinion, the two-party structure is vulnerable to corruption and prone to the type of declines in effectiveness described in this piece. Where is a third voice, or third opinion? Today, we are limited to a choice of two political organizations that have attained large scale. A third choice could provide diversity and better representation, better checks and balances, and objectivity. Having greater than three major parties in government might be fragmentary and prevent consensus, but I would argue that our two-party system limits competition.

The second case basically emphasizes the last quote and makes the case for Howard Dean as an "Independent's Democrat."

Ole Eichhorn gets email about a post of this nature he wrote.#

Be careful what you wish for! I received an email from Ivan-Assen Ivanov, a Bulgarian, reporting that they have proportional representation, and it isn't working out:

[...]

So be it - nothing like real data! I also received email from others pointing out that in Israel's system fringe parties have undue influence, with negative implications. Fascinating.

So the downside of proportional representation is that small fringe parties have too much influence, while currently in the U.S. it could be argued they do not have enough. I wonder if there is a middle ground? Or perhaps every system has its upside and downside, and none is "best".

The "answer" is, of course, to not have a system that lets anybody coerce anyone else... but THATS not logical now is it?

Richard Tallent replies to the above post about election systems and political parties.#

Richard Tallent perfectly defines the ways that politicians exist only to extend and perpetuate their power. He speaks about this in terms of the two forms of legislations that are passed and then way every issue is a win for both sides:

The second kind are those bills that they all agree on, usually because such bills perpetuate their power. These are the insidious ones. For these, their justification is that it is more pragmatic simply to "do what's best for the people" than to risk public debate on the matter. This is where we get our Patriot Act II, hidden Executive Orders, last-minute amendments, and the "rule changes" that institutionalize the two-party structure.

It's strange because Richard and I got to the point where we agree and I don't really feel there's anything more to add. I'm curious of how this applies to blog etiquette. Is it proper to just link the reply without comment? Should you say "This space left blank intentionally?" Just an, "I agree?"

Hmmm!

Lance Arthur proposes a solution to President Bush's problem with gay marriage.#

My solution is, dare I say, both logical and elegant. Rather than spend $1.5 billion dollars educating straight couples who might be inclined to be legally wed anyway, why not send direct payments to every homosexual in the United States on the promise that we shall not marry another of our own sex?

The population of the United States is currently around 292.5 million. Taking the "10% rule" into account, that means that there are currently 29.25 million homosexuals.

Now you and I both know that many homosexuals, for reasons of their own which I'm sure have absolutely nothing to do with your administration's support of discrimination, intolerance and ignorance, choose to remain closeted (that means "in the closet") and, for the sake of argument, let's agree that 50% of the homosexual population would deny their homosexuality. This reduces the practical number to 14.375 million practicing (that means "doing it until you get it right") homosexuals.

Brent Simmons defends TV and criticizes the notion that the rest of the country must be stupid.#

I think I detect a subtext that bothers me. It goes like this imagined conversation:

A: Hey, TV is stupid, all sound-bites, no substance.

B: Yes, well, you know you can read about the candidate on the Internet, go to meet-ups, read some great stuff in print magazines, and so on. It's up to you find good information.

A: Oh, sure, I do all that. It's not me I'm worried about, it's Joe Sixpack who just watches TV that I'm worried about. He'll just believe whatever he's spoon-fed.

All I can say is, I know Joe Sixpack, and he's better than that.

Lead Ballons quotes Howard Dean, a particular quote that illustrates why he must be stopped: "We raised $40 million from ordinary people like you … We don't owe anybody anything."#

Lawrence Lessig writes about his Congressman who doesn't listen to his constituency.#

I live in the 12th Congressional District in California. We're a pretty sensible (you might call us liberal) bunch. Over 80% oppose the war. Almost 70% oppose the "Patriot Act."

Yet our Congressman — a wonderful and amazing figure, Tom Lantos — doesn't vote the way his district thinks. He has supported the war. He has supported the Patriot Act.

The New York Times reports that part of the USA Patriot Act has been struck down.#

Collins' ruling was the first of an expected string of rulings on cases now pending in courts across the country as the result of the Patriot Act.

Emily Whitfield, American Civil Liberties Union National Media Relations director, said more than 230 communities around the country, most recently Los Angeles, have passed resolutions calling for the repeal of certain controversial sections of the act.

The U.S. Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said in a statement from Washington, D.C., that the Patriot Act is ``an essential tool in the war on terror'' and asserted that the portion at issue in the ruling was only a modest amendment to a pre-existing anti-terrorism law.

A very small change--yet essential? Get your facts straight.

British Politics writes about why Howard Dean deserves a comeback.#

I want a Howard Dean comeback in New Hampshire for one simple reason: The media coverage of his Scream has been completely over the top, and has featured pundits, columnists and writers deciding on the basis of 15 seconds of a campaign rally that a serious politician is not fit to be President.

I find this kind of coverage distasteful, pointless and irrelevant. Howard Dean may be the wrong man to be President, but it's can't be for that reason. It's gotcha politics at it's lowest, and driven, not by outrage at his policies, beliefs or campaign strategy but on the media equivalent of schoolyard bullying.

Rob Lawson writes about the transformation of the Democratic party.#

What has happened to the Democratic Party? Why do they keep moving farther to the left without any consideration for their conservative members? I believe the shift to the left started with the Jimmy Carter years. Bordering on socialist status, it's no wonder President Carter was such a screw up in his own Party. Not only did he fail the American people, he failed his own Party in such a manner that; in order for the Democratic Party to survive, migrating left was essentially their only option at the time. Ever since, the Neo Dems have had a hard time obtaining power in the White House.

Both parties are completely different beasts than they once were.

ScrappleFace reports that Renee Zellweger is just a few points behind John F. Kerry in NH according to a recent poll.#

Senator John F. Kerry, who still leads Ms. Zellweger by about three points in the polls, immediately attacked her military record.

"If I had been an actor in 'Cold Moutain'," said Mr. Kerry, "I would have pretended to fight for my country in the Civil War, instead of pretending to harbor deserters, like Ms. Zellwegger did."

Mr. Kerry, who has served as a Vietnam veteran for more than 30 years, refused to say which side of the war he would have pretended to be on.

Matt Stoller speculates about New Hampshire and what might happen.#

The most interesting storyline of this primary is actually what's happening to the primary process itself. Iowa shocked nearly everyone. I'm intrigued by the free media Kerry has received, jumping to the head of the national polls he barely registered on three weeks ago, as well as the piggybank and organization of Dean, who may be able to take the huge pounding he got in Iowa just because he won the internet primary this summer. The important new component here for both actors is the internet (not the momentum, which is a staple of primary seasons) - Kerry can translate momentum into cash to fuel his later state campaign through the web, and Dean can use the cash and organization that came from his earlier momentum to fuel his current campaign.

Matt Stoller writes about Wesley Clark's presidential campaign.#

The problems of achieving the Presidency are not just practical, or logistical, though there are those, and Clark has made tactical decisions to handle them, right or wrong. What's more profound is Clark now having nothing to talk about as a candidate; when you get right down to it, running for President is not just a job audition, it's an attempt to get the country to engage in self-examination and decide what it wants to make of itself. It is, more than anything, a strategic dialogue. And Clark, despite his spectacular accomplishments (and make no mistake, Clark is one of the most brilliant leaders this country has produced in the last half century), just isn't part of that discussion right now. He's bogged down in whether he grew up poor, or whether Michael Moore said something technically untrue, or some irrelevant conspiracy theory, or a million other insultlets capable of diminishing a Presidential candidate.

Xian at Edgewise surveys that memes about Dean that are circulating the blogosphere.#

Maybe this "angry red face" meme had to be exploded in a big way, and maybe Dean needed more of a narrative than "raised the most money via the Internet." For all the meme junkies out there, Dianne Sawyer even showed the Gennifer portrait. A key failing or weakness nearly bring our protagonist low but he grows through the adversity. Better story than "geez, he really is nuts" or "don't they understand broadcast media at all?"

I'm not saying Trippi (by which I mean the whole team around and including the candidate) didn't make a serious mistake in how they handled the TV moment. They did let Dean be Dean" and since that moment of misjudgement about how something would read to practiced TV watchers (something the Dean household is not) cannot be recalled, as you cannot unring a bell, the best way to deal with a raging bull is to seize it by the horns and leap over it like a Minoan.

Adam Curry, international rock star and playboy, writes about the Dean battle-cry.#

From where I stand (about 5 thousand miles away) this 'incident' is being misused by the media to crush the Dean campaign. Witness the Diane Sawyer interview, where Sawyer blatently predicts this will hurt the campaign.

Huh? Are American voters viewers that easy to manipulate?

A writer at Kuro5hin.org fact-checks and cuts the crap with "FileGate."#

In a statement on the matter, Sen. Hatch said, "I am mortified that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files may have occurred on my watch." A Republican staff member who read the memos claims, however, that there was "no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule".

It seems clear that the Democrat's IT services in the US Senate need to be more methodical about protecting their party's documents. Nevertheless, modern computer security laws say that it's wrong to access data to which you have no permission, regardless of whether there is protection on the data or not. The fact that the data was accessed from an unsecured shared fileserver which is used by members of the bi-partisan judiciary committee is irrelevant.

Jessica writes about her visit to New Hampshire to see John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, and Joe Lieberman. I was with her for the last two.#

After he arrived, Kucinich walked around to greet people and shake hands. He's the first presidential politician to have shaken my hand this campaign (and maybe ever). He begins his talk by thanking the host and praises the white, upright piano. He doesn't seem focused when he begins to speak, then he announced that five more troops have died today, bringing the total number of dead to 512. He remembers how during the Vietnam War, he became accostumed to seeing the count every day. He worked as a copy boy at the Cleveland Plain Dealer for a while and told a story about getting a photo of a deceased soldier from a family during that war. He relaxed a little more as he talked about waiting as they went through their photographs (his story implied that someone else from the newspaper had already contacted the family to request a photo and he just went to pick it up) and how they finally selected the photo of a proud, young soldier in uniform from the top of the television and asked if they could have it back in time for the funeral so they could display it on his coffin.

He continued his thoughts on the current conflict in Iraq by reminding us of the 512 soldiers who have given their lives to this cause, the thousands more who have been injured, and all the Iraqis who have died or been injured also. Bush wants to run for re-election based on a lie, he claimed. Terror and fear embrace our every day lives. He stated that some of the candidates aren't in touch with this reality.

Michael Feldman posts a picture of Dick Gephardt's closed down office in Nashua, NH. (Michael mistakenly credits it to Manchester--but I know better, it's right outside my office window.)#

Michael at 2blowhards.com asks: "Is Bush a Conservative?"#

What exactly is conservative about George W. Bush? The question seems to be in the air. John Leo scratches his head here. Jonah Goldberg,here, points out that under Bush, "overall spending from 2001 to 2003 grew at 16 percent and discretionary spending went up 27 percent. That's double Bill Clinton's rate."

Marc Nozell saw John Edwards in Merrimack, NH.#

The girls had colored some homemade 'Go, John, Go!' signs and were in their pretty dresses, but the spent most of the time on our shoulders. We ran into a video crew from Germany and a photographer from Switzerland. There were a few college boys from Union College from outside Albany who were up for the weekend and another college girl from NYC said there were about 150 from her school up helping with campaigns (didn't catch which college or if they were only for Edwards.)

On the way out I chatted up a reporter from the Boston Globe about how the media seems to be covering NH as a Kerry/Dean horse race with no real coverage of Edwards or Lieberman and just a little of Clark. With Edwards surprise 2nd place showing in Iowa and Liebermans make or break in NH I'd think there should be more coverage of that.

ScrappleFace writes about Wesley Clark and Michael Moore.#

During the recent Democrat debate, Mr. Clark defended Mr. Moore's right to call the Commander-in-Chief a "deserter."

But today Mr. Clark said, "I thought Michael called the president a desserter -- you know, one who enjoys dessert after dinner. This, coming from Michael Moore, is a term of endearment. Like most people, there's nothing Michael likes better than dessert. I can assure you he meant no insult to the president. Michael is a patriot. He's as American as apple pie."

Dave Winer writes about Alice's Restaurant.#

Since the candidates have to avoid saying anything on TV, or showing any human qualities, they might as well go all the way and act crazy too. The challenge wouldn't be (only) to sound presidential or seem avuncular, or friendly, or dignified, or whatever it is the press values in a presidential candidate, but to mock the system so the voters know to go to your website to find out what you really think, what you really have to say. If all the candidates do it, or all the candidates who get votes, we've then reclaimed our political system. Could it really be that simple? Is it really such a wacky idea? Any wackier than the world we live in today?

The Left Coaster learns that Al Sharpton is being advised by someone who has supported and worked with George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard M. Nixon.#

I have respect for genuine differences of opinion among the candidates, but this action of Sharpton's is completely self-serving. Sharpton's desire for power shows that he is willing to play into the hands of the people he claims to oppose in an effort to "rise to the prize" - even if it means the defeat of the party of which he claims to be a member. To be sure, that defeat is certainly the goal of the Rovian Confederate Fascists and their slathering Greedy Oligarchy Party.

In an effort to maintain the vast power this cabal has attained while the American people slept, the GOP has amply demonstrated that there is no trick too low, no person above being used, no principle that is inviolate. And Rev. Sharpton, blinded by his own ambition, equal in nature and intensity to George Warmonger Bush's desire for the appearance of a legitimate electoral victory, now demonstrates that he is willing to debase himself in his quest, which makes him just like they are.

Jessica went to see John Edwards and Wesley Clark.#

See didn't actually see Edwards:

After he finished, I noticed the press mobbing him as he was leaving the room. I walked up to try to get a glimpse of him, but all I saw was the back of his head as he walked out the back door.

I'm trying not to let my negative experience at the event color my thoughts of him, but I'm afraid my notes may reflect the disappointment I feel at how things were handled. I know nothing about Edwards and was hoping to learn something substantive about him as a candidate at this event. All I know is that he isn't happy with how the country is currently being run and that he thinks certain things are problems. He didn't talk about fixing anything or what he would like to do as president in the seven minutes he addressed us. I didn't see any campaign literature, either.

Michael Feldman deconstructs John Kerry.#

Will Middle America buy a preppy jock as President? Don't we already have a preppy jock as president? Good questions, both.

There are some eerie similarities between Sen. Kerry and the man he wants to replace. Indeed, outside the JFK Arena was a charmingly eccentric political activist in a huge sandwich-board sign on which was written "Bush and Kerry: Secret Fraternity Brothers in a Blood Pact to Defraud America" and making multiple references to the myriad connections between the Bush and Kerry families and the shadowy Skull and Bones bond they do share.

Mark Schmitt writes about the political ideas of Grover Norquist.#

I've come to think that Norquist is basically an adolescent, with the adolescent's strange obsession with saying the thing that is most likely to get a reaction. I saw him speak the other day, and you can see just that smug teenager's gleam in his eye when he says something that he thinks will get everyone all atwitter, especially a nice earnest NPR host. If he weren't doing politics, he'd be a second-string Howard Stern-type DJ.

Outlandish Josh writes about the Dean pep rally extravaganza.#

The problem is, this is far more chilling than any conspiracy theory. This would suggest that the press corps is fantastically lazy -- in that they were willing to repeat a 15-second soundbyte without getting the context for themselves -- and/or willing to blow with the wind no matter what the facts are. What I don't understand is why no one from the press, and I mean no one, not even on NPR or PBS, stood up and said this was bullshit, that the conventional widsom being peddled was wholly unsupported by the facts. This kind if thing is suppsed to matter if you call yourself a journalist.

The Binary Circumstance on Democrats:#

Bad ideas, good ideas, doesn't matter. The best way for the Democrats to help us is to help themselves. I just can't take any of these guys seriously.

The Binary Circumstance links to John Stossel on 20/20 about silly lies in the world.#

Myth No. 5 — The Rich Don't Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes

According to presidential candidate Al Sharpton, "The top one percent in this country pays very much less than ten percent, very much less than five percent."

Sharpton said he thinks the wealthy should pay "somewhere around 15 percent."

But that's so silly because — and I bet most of you don't know this — the IRS says the richest 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 34 percent of all income taxes. Twice what Sharpton wanted them to pay.

Still you may feel the rich should pay even more. It's a tempting thought, since they have so much.

But let's remember the facts: the top 1 percent of Americans — those who earn more than about $300,000 a year — pay 34 percent, more than a third of all income taxes, and the top 5 percent, those making over $125,000, pay more than half.

Halley Suitt writes about what some see as Dean's shortcomings are his strengths to others.#

Dean is subversive by being honest and direct, emotional and passionate. His critics are quick to point this out. Just as they destroyed other men for crying, they seem to attack him for being vulnerable and human. But the results are paradoxical. Every put-down seems to help him come back stronger.

Michael Feldman writes a beautiful piece of prose about the current politics in American and its addictive nature.#

The Dowbrigade is worried about a friend, and wondering if its time to start planning an intervention. This friend has lately become obsessed and intoxicated by a highly addictive and ultimately destructive activity - American politics. He is losing his perspective, espousing kooky theories, keeping strange hours, and running with a very disreputable crowd. Those of us who care about him are at our wit's end.

[...]

Alas, how charmingly naive. As though the vested interests and savage winners of the multigenerational dogfight for junkyard supremacy who rule our outlaw empire are just going to roll over and fade away when an idealist with shiny ideas appears on the scene. It is almost touching to see such a sophisticated man-about-the-blogosphere reduced to dewy-eyed innocence. Doesn't he know that politics in America is a sick and vicious game, fraught with treachery and hipocrisy, more often lose-lose than win-win? Can't he see that he is being used as a wild-card chip in a desperate gambit for political survival, and that whether the gamble succeeds or fails he will probably be discarded in a heartbeat when his usefulness is perceived to be waning?

Matt May writes about the new meme of the Democratic party.#

I'm sensing that this is now a part of the Democratic playbook for 2004. These guys will stop at nothing to stay in power. They will go to any depth, lie, cheat, assail, or deceive to meet their ends, and it is we the people who must stop them. It's a meme: the new rallying cry of the Democrats. At the very least, it shows they're going to come out swinging. Finally.

Of course, the Democrats are no different. If the Democrats were in power, they would stop at nothing to stay in power either. It is the nature of power to corrupt the bearer. This is why we must remove power from the playbook.

John Robb wonders about President Bush.#

I never heard about Bush's absence from duty during Vietnam (desertion??) until Michael Moore w/Clark brought it up (Moore isn't usually a good source, but he does dig up crap that people miss or bury). I have heard about Bush's substance abuse problems when he was younger which could provide a state of mind to explain why he did it (and his connections would explain why it went away). Any insight on this? Pointers to something that will debunk it are welcome/desired.

Philip Greenspun on Hilary Clinton's attack on aviation.#

After some rich New Yorkers got killed on a helicopter sightseeing flight in Hawaii, Hillary Clinton leaned on the FAA to tighten regulations regarding such tours. In particular she wants the FAA to eliminate the ability of flightseeing companies to operate under "Part 91" (simple) and force them to operate under Part 135 of the regulations, which is designed for small airlines basically. This will put about 700 companies out of the air tour business by the FAA's estimate. It is unclear that it will increase safety because (a) most of the big helicopter flightseeing operations are already Part 135 (gives them the ability to take people farther than 25 nautical miles), (b) most of the people who've been killed on air tours were killed by Part 135 operators, and (c) helicopters tend to be unsafe, even when piloted by experts.

Dean Esmay writes in defense of the Patriot Act.#

The Wall Street Journal on the Patriot Act and Democratic candidates:

Today Senators Kerry and Edwards and another erstwhile fan, Joe Lieberman, sing a different tune, seizing every opportunity to take shots at the law they and all but two of their fellow Senators voted for. (The House vote was 357-66.)

The Senators stand by their votes, saying parts of the law are still OK. But given the hostility to Mr. Bush and John Ashcroft among Democrats who vote in the primaries, they seem to have concluded that there's more to be gained in denouncing the law, albeit only in general terms. As Dennis Kucinich is fond of pointing out, he's the only Democratic Presidential candidate who voted against the Patriot Act.

Slate (in September) wrote about the Patriot Act as well:

On the other hand, there's the John Ashcroft "Patriot Rocks" concert tour, launched last month, which has him visiting 18 cities and talking up the act to local law enforcement officials. The DOJ also unloosed a new Web site last month, designed to shore up support for the act. Ashcroft contends that had the Patriot Act been in place earlier, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and that absent a Patriot Act, the country may have seen more 9/11s over the past two years—a double-double negative that's unprovable, but enough to scare you witless. There have also been a raft of op-eds and articles—some evidently written by Ashcroft's U.S. attorneys at knifepoint—simultaneously making the point that the act has staved off unspeakable acts of terror while maintaining that it made only tiny infinitesimal changes to the existing laws.

Dean Esmay:

So I urge Patriot Act critics to follow certain standing rules before speaking: tell people what things were like before the Patriot Act, and how they are different now. Then tell us what we could change about the Patriot Act that would make you less worried about it.

If you can't do all three, then aren't you really just complaining about a bugbear?

Ethan Zuckerman classifies Iraq as a Black Hole.#

As a result, I'm starting to think of the war in Iraq as a black hole. Perhaps the concentration of media in Iraq became so intense that the very fabric of media was warped by attention density. We reached a media singularity - media focus so overconcentrated that networks literally might have gone out of business had the war been averted - that no other stories could escape.

Once Iraq came up in our session today, the rest of the conversation disappeared, like the spaceship inexorably passing the event horizon. And while I'm sorry we didn't engage more on why Africa, Central Asia, Eastern Europe and others don't get well covered, I'm pleased by the irony that this failure itself helped prove my point.

Jay Rosen writes about the press' involvement in politics.#

"Political stories don't just 'happen' the way hailstorms do. They are artifacts of a political universe that journalism itself has helped to construct." -- Paul Taylor, former political reporter, Washington Post.

Here are seven interlocking parts in a kind of contraption political journalists operate for us every four years—campaign coverage, as we have come to dread it. Recognize any of the following?

The Gaffe: when a candidate on the campaign trail takes a pounding in the press for something that just isn't said to the press on the campaign trail.

The Expectations Game: when a candidate "wins" by losing but doing better than the press expected, or "loses" by winning but doing worse.

Sean Bonner on the Freeway Blogger and the patriotic duties of America For Sale and Move On.#

"This is the only sign you will read today not paid for by a corporation"

That's the tag-line used by someone known as The Freeway Blogger who's been posting signs on the freeways of Souther California for a while now. He/She has a message and is trying to get it out there. These days, "getting it out there" isn't as it sounds. Look around. There's messages everywhere, and almost all of them are trying to sell you something. A product, a person, an ideal. Someone also paid a lot of money to put that message in front of your eyes. Graffiti campaigns such as Obey Giant are founded on just that. So if you have something you want to say to a large number of people, what are your options? Buy some ad space.

Richard links to an article by Robert David Sullivan that proposes a new way to analyze political results.#

So CommonWealth decided to make a map of our own. Aiming somewhere between the reductionist red-and-blue model and the most accurate (but least useful) subdivision of the United States into infinity, we split the county into 10 regions, each with a distinct political character. Our regions are based on voting returns from both national and state elections, demographic data from the US Census, and certain geographic features such as mountain ranges and coastlines. [...] Each region represents about one-tenth of the national electorate, casting between 10.4 million and 10.8 million votes in the 2000 presidential election.

Some states fall entirely within a region, but many are split between two or more. Electoral votes follow state boundaries, but populations don't, and the social characteristics that influence politics spill over jurisdictional lines. Rural sections of adjacent states often have more in common, culturally and politically, with each other than with the urban and suburban population centers of their states. If political campaigns can translate media markets into electoral votes, why not regional identities that cross state lines? [...]

That role becomes clear in CommonWealth's analysis of recent national elections (See "Continental Divides"): No winner of a presidential election has carried fewer than five regions in at least three decades.

Duane Bickels exclaims, "Yee-Haw! My Vote Cancels Out Y'Alls!"#

Shoot, neighbor, if there's one type'a guy you don't want in charge, it's some damn weaklin' in the White House what won't kick enough ass. Bush, that guy we got now, he kicked him some ass in that old desert. And Bush's daddy? He kicked him some ass, too. Reagan? Kicked all the ass he could, and some they said he shouldn't! But Clinton? Barely no ass-kickin' at all. Just got his ol' joint tugged by a fat girl, and hell, I could do that down by the Dew Drop Inn off I-78. What's the damn use of bein' the Commander-Chief if that's all you're gonna do? Face it, bein' president is a job of work for ass-kickers, and if you say otherwise, hell, I got a vote here what totally negates yours.

So maybe you ain't a patriot like I am. Now, when I say patriot, I'm talkin' about most of our athletes, country-music stars, and guys like me what agree with them. So, say you ain't a patriot, and you're fixin' to vote up a candidate what's some limpo what'll give in to the crybaby liberals, the damn screechin' women, the commies at the United Nations, and the other America-haters. Fine by me! I got a vote here that does just as much good as yours, and mine's marked "No Limpos!"

Ryan Overbey comments:

All my New Englander friends may think this is a caricature. Ha ha, funny! But it's more than that, it's pretty damn close to the truth. Go to the Red counties of America, and you will meet people like this. They might phrase it differently, borrowing spoonfed memes from press-releases and media outlets, but it's the same sentiment exactly. There are real people out there who, when they say "strong on defense", actually mean "kick some damn ass."

Britt Acesulfame-K writes about Howard Dean's DC win.#

my personal theory about the Dean/DC 'primary' back-and-forth? that he knows that the numbers show that the Black population largely voted against him, and that he won based primarly on White votes, even though he has been going around touting his DC win as proof that he can overcome these race issues that have been dogging him. pretty weak proof. what it really proves is that Black, urban Americans just don't have that much of a voice, and an old, white man from a state with no major metropolis at all really doesn't have much of an answer.

Kevin Lawver writes about the presidential candidates and particularly Howard and Wesley.#

The Mavericks. Dean first, and then Clark, have captured my imagination. Neither have sold their soul to the Party; neither look to me to be beholden to anyone. This is a good thing. As liberal as Dean's supporters are, he's a fiscal conservative. He looks crazy next to the Old Washington set because he actually speaks the truth as he sees it and isn't embarrassed by it. The same with Clark. Both have been lambasted by the other campaigns for their "gaffes" and "changing positions", but I see that as men thinking about issues, and changing their minds as new information comes up. While Clark and Dean are vastly different in background, their level of grassroots support is not only impressive, it's an inspiration to me. Comparing the percentage of donations under $2000 is revealing as well. Almost 70% of Dean's contributions are less than $200, and almost 40% of Clark's are (the data's a few months old). The other graphs on that page are just as revealing. The Old Washington candidates are about even with President Bush, the king of the special interest, corporate donors. That means something to me. It means both Clark and Dean have the support of real people, and the candidates aren't owned by PAC's, corporations or other unsavory groups. Both seem to speak their conscience and reveal what they really think, which is risky, but I respect that.

Shelley Powers on the MoveOn.org ad fiasco.#

I like the MoveOn ad. I think it's wonderfully orchestrated, and beautifully filmed. However, about the worst place to plunk this ad would have been during a Superbowl, to a lot of people sitting around in a party mood, drinking beer, and eating too much. The same people who want to forget the problems facing this country for a few hours during a sports game, and who are going to react negatively to having said problems forced into their face during their time of 'escape'.

Matt Stoller writes of Personality versus Issues.#

Howard Dean's impulsive manner, or at least, the impulsive manner that has been widely reported and ascribed to Dean, is boosting Kerry and Edwards. Fights on taxes, fights over positivity, bickering on who's going negative and who's positive, this is a long way from Howard Dean's clear and undifferentiated stance on the war and Bush. The debate is now over Dean's foibles, and somehow, vehement anti-war supporters have forgotten about the war. When asked, they still remember and are strongly against the war. But that has fallen on the priority scale to more prosaic concerns such as likeability. Meanwhile, Edwards' surge is encouraging on the fence supporters to look at him more closely, because it's now possible to caucus for Edwards and get above the 15% threshold.

Aaron Swartz says that Bush isn't all bad, at least compared to all the other politicians.#

The fact is, this country is so liberal that Bush isn't that bad. Even when Bush hasn't improved things, he's had to pretend he was trying (No Child Left Behind, Healthy Forests, Clear Skies Initiative, etc.). Why would he coopt the liberal rhetoric in this way except to placate a country which, deep down, is actually rather liberal. Tolerance is widely-acknowledge as something to be strived for, if not always achieved. Debates on Social Security are about how to improve it, not whether about how to get rid of it. We discuss how to improve public schools, not how to replace them. The Bush administration, while perhaps not for the best reasons, publicly proposes humanitarian interventions abroad, expensive expeditions to space, immunity for illegal immigrants, funding for renewable energy research, and aid to stop AIDS. This is the conservative nightmare world?

Now I'm not saying I'd vote for Bush, but you have to ask yourself, would four more years of this be so bad that we should give up our chance for real change?

("Give up our chance for real change" refers to voting for third parties, I imagine.)

Richard Tallent wonders why some candidates are ignored by the media.#

I may not agree with every position [Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik] holds, but his message resonates with me more than any other candidate I've heard so far (including Bush). Sure, the guy isn't electable, but neither is Al Sharpton. Even if the candidate has no chance, his ideas and issues (like those of Alan Keyes in the last election and Ross Perot in elections before) could inject some life into a race that has already been reduced to name-calling, bickering, and mind-numbing repetition of generic, trite answers to serious problems.

Kaye Trammell on why many don't vote and how to help. (Hint: Blogs might be involved.)#

There are lots of reasons that people don't vote & answers for why political efficacy (the feeling that you can make a difference) is low in voters. One of the more popular reasons is that people say that they just don't know enough. My research team has been calling this information efficacy.

General Wesley Clark announced his "Clark Reading Room." A very cool idea.#

As candidates, I think it's crucial that we practice what we preach. As Democrats, we need to set an example for George W. Bush, and show him what an open and honest government is really all about.

That's why, I'm proud to announce that tomorrow, I will formally open the "Clark Reading Room" right here in Manchester and next week online at www.clark04.com. The room will be open to any member of the public who wishes to review my personal and professional files, including the following documents:

• My military record from thirty-four years in the Army -- including performance reports from my supervisors.
• My personal financial records since I left the military and entered the business world, including my tax returns from the last five years, and the financial disclosure form that I submitted to the FEC. These files list the boards that I sat on, the stocks and securities that I own, and detailed information on other businesses that I've been involved with over the years.
• The Clark Reading Room will also have on file a list of all my paid speaking engagements since I left the military.
• Records from the one company I was registered to represent before the federal government.
• And transcripts from some of my most recent congressional testimonies, specifically those focusing on the war in Iraq.

I challenge all the Democrats in this race to follow suit, and release their public and financial papers as soon as possible. We need to show the country that there are clear differences between Democrats and Republicans. And this is one of them.

A particularly great message to Howard Dean.

Bill Bumgarner writes about people who don't understand Global Warming.#

Roy Blunt, the republican representative from Missouri, took the opportunity to poke at Gore with the statement of "It is fitting that Gore chose one of the coldest daysof the year to spread false information about the Bush Administration's record on global warming. Mother Nature didn't agree with his message and neither do I. Al, it's cold outside". What a dumbass.

Poor name, Fucking Up The Atmosphere would have been better.

Bob Pence satires a recent post on the importance of the Second Amendment.#

In fact it would seem that the Third Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is one of the least controversial legal issues ever. The founding fathers objected, in the Declaration of Independence, to the billeting of British soldiers in civilian homes, and so were determined not to repeat the offense.

It may well be the only law that rabid opponents have accused neither William Jefferson Clinton nor George Walker Bush -- nor even Richard Milhouse Nixon or even Howard Brush Dean -- of violating as President, as Governor, as Boy Scout, or ever at all.

Someone on Kuro5hin.org encourages an international minimum wage. Waxmop sets him straight in the comments.#

My advice: go check out a few textbooks on labor economics from the library. Read up on deadweight losses, the relationships between productivity, capital, and wages, and the historical relationships between wage and price inflation. Then write a serious article that examines both sides of the minimum-wage debate, and I promise that I'll create enough bogus accounts myself to make sure your article hits the front page.

Poverty sucks -- there's no denying that. But top-down authoritarian solutions have an awful track record. You certainly don't want to make things worse, do you?

Matt Stoller reports on his trip to Iowa and how the candidates are seen there.#

People are sick and tired of being bothered about politics. This is, by far, the most media attention that Iowa has ever received for its caucuses. The most direct mail. The most canvassing. The most phone banking. The most advertising. On the local news broadcast, there are basically three or four Presidential ads per advertising break. People are friendly and helpful, often until you ask about the caucuses. One guy literally ran away from us. Other experiences are even more dispiriting - one girl, educated, liberal, works in a bookstore, planned on drinking instead of going to a caucus. "They're all liars," she said, criticizing Kerry's hair and gray personality. Another nice, friendly, liberal guy said that he doesn't follow politics, and will "just put his head down and hope it all gets better." It seems to me that Iowa is a gimmick more than anything; 3% of a state shouldn't determine the next President. Despite all the resources invested here, most people just don't care.

Dan Wood writes about Al Gore's speech on Global Warming.#

Vice President Gore would have made a good professor! I've just watched a sobering and very educational lecture -- not even thatpolitical -- by the former VP talking about Global Warming. Wow, what an eye-opener. I have been vaguely aware that it's a problem at some level, but now I'm realizing that this is a problem that, if unchecked, is going to have a significant effect inmy lifetime and certainly my childrens'. (Living on Earth now is like the frog in the pot of water that is slowly getting warmer and warmer, never getting out in time to avoid being boiled to death!)

The Binary Circumstance writes about Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party Candidate for 2004, and the nature of liberty.#

BC objects Michael's idea that abortion is a states' rights issue:

When states have rights, other than those that protect individuals from the use of force, individuals lose their rights. If neither Michael or the government should force their will upon a woman, how can it be a state's rights issue. In the context of individual liberty, it makes no difference if it's a federal government, a state government, or one tyrant that denies the individual control over his/her own body; that's just a matter of scale.

And points to the problem when people do not really believe in Liberty in a way that is based on reason, rationality, and existence:

Mr. Badnarik's web site demonstrates what happens when the concept of liberty is not derived from existence, when liberty is just another form of mysticism--the freedom to reject objective reality and make up your own version of it. It is an example of liberty as a religion, a set of irrational, compartmentalized ideas based on mystical premises, rather than an extension of the very nature of existence. As such, it will not stand.

This sort of mindset is the one that leads to corruption of liberty. If you believe that Liberty is something worth protecting, fighting for and believing in, then you succumb to placing it before the individual. At that point the Liberty of many seems to be more important than the Liberty of one and all. This is akin to the egalitarian extreme of making sure their are no "stars" so that people never feel left out: Don't be great, you'll make us look bad.

Don't make a religion out of something that is not one. Fight for it for yourself because it is what's best for you, not because it's an appealing, holy idea.

Mark Schmitt writes about the Senate and its decline in recent years.#

Senators are not even permitted to refer to each other by name on the Senate floor, to discourage personal attacks. There's no need for all the vacuous, over-the-top pseudo-bipartisan flattery -- "My dear friend, the Senator from North Carolina," when referring to Jesse Helms, and so forth -- but the Senate depends on a basic level of cordiality and respect to the others who've also been elected by the people of their state. Everyone in that body knows that no party or temporary majority can rule the Senate single-handedly, and the colleague you disagree with fiercely today might be the one you need to form an alliance with tomorrow. Or they should know that.

The Senate can be a great institution. It's not without its flaws, and of course, its very makeup is undemocratic. But the fact that any member can introduce any amendment at almost any time, or speak on any subject as long as he can hold the floor, makes it one of the most open, loose and non-hierarchical legislative bodies in the world. Ideas that the President and majority party don't want to entertain, like raising the minimum wage, can be introduced by a single Senator, who can force a vote. But that openness depends on the respect and decorum, even if it's sometimes phony, that the institution had developed over two centuries. And which has been lost in a few years.

Mark Schmitt ponders the powers of independents in New Hampshire.#

In 2000, 147,000 votes were cast in the Democratic primary. According to exit polls, 65% of those voters said they were registered Democrats. So assume about 51,000 were not registered in a party. They voted about 60-40 for Bradley over Gore.

In the Republican primary, 230,000 votes were cast. The exit polls found 63% were Republicans, so figure about 85,000 votes in that primary were cast by independents, who voted 3:1 for McCain.

There is no Republican primary this year. So, potentially, all 135,000 independents who voted in the two primaries four years ago might vote in the Democratic primary, which would be a fairly overwhelming force.

Oliver Willis continues the attack on Mandy Moore. It hurts me so bad.#

I've been hearing things. A lot of disturbing things. Things that don't depict an accurate picture of The Greatest President Ever™. The unfashionable Paul O'Neill supposedly said that President Bush is like a "blind man in a room of deaf people". Is that really so bad? Or is the liberal media (don't tell me GE and Viacom don't just scream "pinko" to you?) making a big deal out of nothing? If you're a blind man with deaf people, doesn't that just mean you can use your compassionate conservatism to touch their faces and feel their pain? I have guys touching me while my eyes are closed all the time and you don't see me whining about it!

Grant Henninger clarifies what's behind the Bush Space Plan (RealAudio link.)#

If we just want to send humans to explore Mars, then we should launch them from Earth. If, however, we want to colonize space, we should pursue the plan President Bush has laid forth. I don't think that Congress or the American People would be too gung-ho about colonizing the solar system, but they will go for human exploration of the solar system. But the Bush Administration would like to see America colonize space. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld believes that space is the next battlefield and has been pushing for the militarization of space, even before President Bush took office. Colonizing the moon and Mars would fit perfectly into his vision of national security and space superiority.

Lawrence Lessig links to Paul O'Neill backing out of his claims.#

Under concerted attack from the White House, former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill retreated yesterday.

O'Neill said his contention that President George W. Bush came to office fixated on ousting Saddam Hussein was really just a government policy of regime change in Iraq that he inherited from the preceding Bill Clinton administration.

O'Neill said he would probably even vote for Bush in November's presidential election.

Ted Barlow writes about political spin.#

In the children's classic Charlotte's Web, a spider saves the life of Wilbur, a pig bound for slaughter, by spinning webs in English that say that Wilbur was an amazing, special creature. The humans believe anything that they read, and ignore the evidence of their senses that says that Wilbur is just another pig.

As a kid, I enjoyed this book very much, but I didn't believe that people would be that dumb. As it turns out, I should have trusted E.B. White.

[...]

Sullentrop has learned accidentally what I've suspected for a while: if a writer wants to spin a candidate, it almost doesn't matter what that candidate actually says. What really matters is framing. If the story says, "Clark made a crazy accusation when he said 'X'", the contents of 'X' don't matter much. The target audience, the ones who desperately want to believe, just aren't going to read it very critically. (This goes both ways, of course. Volokh conspirators have frequently noted that there's often little or nothing wrong with the "Bushisms" published in Slate, other than the fact that they are framed as humorous errors.)

Richard links to Ryan who writes about this.

Perhaps as we make suggestions on improving the news media, we ought to warn against printing satire where readers least expect it. Or at least warn against printing satire that doesn't work.

This Slate piece by Chris Suellentrop, for example, purported to show that Wesley Clark shared Howard Dean's "propensity for speaking imprecisely off the cuff." But as the writer later noted, the intended point was something completely different. Unfortunately, Suellentrop's writing fooled an awful lot of people in the meantime. And surely not all who were fooled will ever find out the full story; at this point, new readers don't see a clarification alongside the piece, and old readers probably wouldn't be coming back to check for one anyway. So the damage, however unintended, has been done.

Felix Rayman writes about the Second Amendment on Kuro5hin.org.#

Of all the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms is probably the most controversial. Many people who vocally protest the slightest violation of the First Amendment shy away from raising their voices against violations of the Second. And the defenders of the right to bear arms are often (not always) silent when the rest of the Bill of Rights is ignored. Members of the former group will attempt all manner of logical gymnastics to try to argue that the promise that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" really means that it is acceptable, even necessary, to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

For example the ACLU, usually a champion of the Bill of Rights, refuses to defend Second Amendment rights.

Richard Stokes points to a short article from TechDirt.com about patents.#

USA Today, of all places, has a good article describing just how screwed up our current patent system is, where it's clearly slowing down innovation in the technology space, rather than (as is it's entire purpose) helping to speed it up. Companies are admitting that they're shutting down various projects (or not even bothering to start) after realizing that someone (who usually isn't doing anything with it) already owns an overly broad patent that might cover what they want to do. Meanwhile, other companies say that they feel the need to spend big bucks filing for more and more patents, just to have them to defend themselves against others.

Grant Henninger responds to a commenter who says that "does not seem" is a poor way to elect a president.#

"Does not seem" is the only way to make your decisions when electing somebody. There is no way to know somebody's motivations or what their actions will be in the future. So I cannot speak with utter confidence on this issue, anybody who thinks they can is lying to themselves.

Michael Feldman reports (although the AP stole it) that Rio de Janeiro airports are giving gift packets along with the red tape.#

Brazilians, laid back and proud of their heritage, are understandably upset at the newest Homeland Security brainstorm. [...]

They decided that two can play the Gestapo game. Starting last week, all AMERICANS entering Brazil need to be photographed and fingerprinted. A nice symmetrical service gesture, redolent with ridiculous logic and innate fair play, but somehow uncharacteristically and unacceptably rude for our southerly fellow Americans, and beside a severe drag on much appreciated tourism from the north.

So to ameliorate the negative effects of the gesture, US arrivals at the Rio de Janeiro airport are getting a packet of souvenirs and gifts along with their mug shots! Think Stormbanfueher Ridge would consider something similar to encourage foreign tourists to keep arriving on our shores? Maybe we could give them those clever little models of the Statue of Liberty, except with a lamp that lights up with the different colors of the terror alert levels.....

The Binary Circumstance writes about taxes and tax reform.#

A tax is money that is legally stolen from those who worked for it and given to those you didn't work for it.

Tax "reform" is a redistribution of the stolen property and/or an agreement not to take so much the next time around that benefits whichever citizens paid enough to get their politician elected.

[... Republicans don't like Democratic tax reform ...]

Didn't Bush and Co. "take as many of their own perceived constituents off the tax rolls" as they could? They lowered taxes for the richest Americans allowing them to grow economically. Was Mr. Christian livid then?

My name is Jay McCarthy, and I approve of this message.

Oliver Willis has a satire piece that suggests Mandy Moore is an idiot Republican.#

The economy is kicking ass. I know this because I've seen it first hand. While on tour for my movie, Chasing Liberty (in theaters now!) I've been driven around by taxis, had my room cleaned by maids, and even had my shoes shined by a nice elderly gentleman. Those are jobs, aren't they? And our proud and powerful president brought them to us. The liberal media doesn't talk about that, instead they talk about things like unemployment figures - that makes my brain hurt.

This is not the first time Oliver has insulted Mandy. I'm so mortified. Oliver, this is war!

Chun the Unavoidable asks, "Was Women's Suffrage A Bad Idea?"#

Getting back to the point, was the suffragists' eventual triumph worth it? Some argue that womenfolk tend to be too emotional--due to their menstruation, child-rearing, and other peculiarities--to be trusted to make the rational decisions involved in politics. Others employ a modified argument that giving the women the right to vote is a regressive measure that penalizes those too poor to get married and double their vote. The key question here is if it is true that married couples tend to vote as the dominant partner (who often, but not always, is a man) wishes.

I know you can talk about your James Carville and Mary whatevers and so on, but I personally have never met a married couple who didn't vote the same ticket (I probably have not ever met anyone socially who voted for Bush, come to think of it.) This will accord with your experience, I expect, and we cannot explain it away as the mere meeting of true minds. In order to counteract the tyranny of the married, perhaps their votes combined should be worth only 1.5.

Michael Feldman writes that losers of presidential elections are forever losers and written off by all.#

So is it any wonder if most of the losing candidates in this losers rodeo end up shedding crocodile tears and, with secret relief, slinking away to lick their wounds, husband their resources, and plot their return to the fray in '08. Whereas the "winner" will end up sloppy road kill under the Cheny-Rove tire tracks, and disappear forever into the pages of history.

The bottom line is that Americans hate a loser. They don't like having them around, reminding us of defeat by their very presence. Better to move on, to new faces, fresh meat, optimistic promises, and unrealized potential.

I always wonder why more presidents don't return to politics. If you really want to make a difference then why would you stop?

Jack Hodgson replies to this:

(1) BOTH candidate in the general election are so personally savaged, by each other and the media, that it takes the bully pulpit of the presidency to repair the damage.

(2) Related, the reality of this savaging leaves the loser unwilling to return to the fray for a second beating.

Mark Schmitt writes about the various persuasions of Democrats, particularly those that support Dean.#

My point in the passage that Brad quoted was just to say that Gore and Bradley don't really represent quite as broad a range of the views within the Democratic party as Dean made it sound. If you put this year's candidates on a continuum, with Kucinich and Sharpton on the left at 1, and Lieberman on the right at 100, Bradley and Gore would be, maybe, at about 40 and 50, although Gore swung from about 35 right before to 75 right after securing the nomination, such as when he pledged a budget surplus "every single year." Significant policy disagreements, such as about trade, were, for better or worse, not represented in the primary debate that year, and there weren't enough reasons for labor, for example, to endorse one over the other. Inevitably, the narrow differences led to an obsessive focus on those differences (a familiar story in all progressive circles), and combined with Gore's style, made the whole campaign nastier than it should have, and the differences seem much wider.

Dean Esmay writes about Howard Dean and God.#

Not that I particularly mind. I think that only a religious bigot would suggest that a public official doesn't have every right to use his religious beliefs to inform every single decision he ever makes, whether it's a Buddhist who says, "I will oppose the death penalty because my faith tells me that capital punishment is wrong," or a Catholic who says "I will oppose abortion because my faith says that it's evil to take an innocent life."

Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with any public official doing that. Indeed, only a religious bigot (or anti-religious paranoid, which amounts to the same thing) would suggest otherwise, so far as I'm concerned. I think invoking "separation of church and state" is just a cloak for masking bigotry in these circumstances.

Keola Donaghy explains why she(?) doesn't read candidate weblogs.#

To me subscribing one of those would be like tuning into a cable channel that broadcasts nothing but political advertising generated by the candidates and their parties. I'm not subscribed to any political weblogs. Why? I need balance. I don't need to hear any more Bush-bashing, Dean-trashing crap, or pie-in-the-sky "I can cure all of the world's ills" baloney. I'd like to read someone's fair coverage of their policies and plans and how it affects Joe Average Citizen without the spin. Does such a beast exist? Is it possible?

Best answer, ever.

Marc Nozell saw John Kerry in Merrimack, NH.#

NH Voters for me because only I can beat Bush, don't use your vote to 'make a point'

That's so disgusting. Don't vote for who you want, vote against you don't want.

Mark Schmitt on Clark and his new tax policy.#

It was also good to see that Clark realized that "electability" alone -- especially if you can't prove it -- is not a sufficient basis for a campaign. His tax plan seems very good. I'm pleased to see that "simplification" is in every section, and it genuinely would simplify taxes for those low-income working people for whom the burden of taxes, both the financial burden and the complexity burden, ought to be lowest. I'm also glad to see that, by focusing on broader reform, Clark simply refuses to parse out what portion of the Bush tax cut he would repeal and which he would keep. There's no reason to walk into the debate on exactly the terms that George Bush wants it to be defined.

That seems to be part of the difference between Clark and Dean in general. Both are bold and ambitious, but in different ways. Dean's boldness is in marching unflinchingly into Bush's front lines, challenging him directly -- as too few Democrats did -- on the tax cut, on everything about Iraq, and No Child Left Behind. Clark is said to be a tactical genius, but one who sometimes makes mistakes, and it seems his boldness is in redefining the question and trying to reframe the debate. It's dangerous and daring to try to reframe the debate against someone with a quarter of a billion dollars, the power of incumbency, and a gullible press, but I think it's the better approach.

Mark Schmitt comments on Bill Bradley's endorsement of Dean, and Dean endorsements in general.#

The other thing that one sees, time and again, with Dean's endorsements is his simple persistence in asking, and that may have been part of the story here too. There's a legend in New York politics about Carol Bellamy, the young and very audacious reformer -- now head of UNICEF -- who won an upset election for the then-powerful post of City Council President in 1977. Bellamy won the endorsement of Meade Esposito, the Brooklyn Democratic boss who came from, shall we say, a rather different political culture. Asked why he endorsed Bellamy, Esposito reportedly said, "'cause the broad asked." Its one of the most important lessons in politics, and I've never seen anyone apply it as consistently as Dean.

The Third Party Blog writes about Doublespeak and Newspeak.#

Newt Gingrich, I found the least guilty of Newspeak and Doublespeak, and the most credible speaker on most of his topics. While Gingrich offered few answers, he eloquently posed the problems the nation faces in regards to domestic economics in a global economic arena with all of the challenges that that entails. Gingrich also pointed out probably correctly, that Clark stands the best chance of winning against Bush, but only if Bush experiences a large gaff or setback in the minds of centrist voters. Finally, Gingrich spoke well and cogently about both parties having an obligation for the future of the nation to enact real tax reform. However, he did fall into the Newspeak and Doublespeak of privatizing all social programs as somehow beneficial to the American people when the real beneficiaries will be usurers, middlepersons taking a cut on individual investments for managing them and the corporations to whom individual investments will be loaned. Here too, Gingrich like the other Orwellian speakers fail to mention individual investments come with NO GUARANTEE your money will be there when you need it. Investments are subject to market fluctuations and global economic rises and falls. "Entitlements" the Gingrich fails to mention, come with a contractual guarantee backed by the same full faith and credit of the U.S. Government which gives those pieces of paper we call money, value to purchase real goods and services.

I like the last assumption there that the government can really guarantee something more than a corporation can. People are still people, no matter what hat they wear.

Vote for Revenge Candidate, Shimon Rura will.#

To really stick it to Bush for ruining our country, we should amend the constitution to allow non-natives to hold the office of President, and vote Jacques Chirac in 2004! Consider this my official endorsement; as a revenge candidate Chirac trumps Dean any day.

Ed Cone writes about the "liberal" label and how to take it back.#

That's a good sign, I think, after years of running from the label.

Jeff Jarvis fumes that nobody has the right to define the word, which he rightly says should be highly inclusive. Yet for the last generation in American politics, "liberal" has been defined by conservatives, and they've made it a dirty word, synonymous with "incompetent big government that just keeps taking your money and giving it to the blacks."

It's time for liberals to reclaim the word "liberal." To say, yes, there are places and times that government plays a constructive role in society -- as Bush obviously believes, but doesn't want to pay for.

PhotoDude writes about this:

I'll tell you one of the things inside that teen's head: "Liberal" is both a political slur, and an exclusive club (which it is may depend on your parents ... if they use it as a slur, you probably view it as an exclusive forbidden club). It's truly become one of those "you're with us or against us" constructs. There is no middle ground, not in our current society.

If you support more than a few of Bush's policies, or worse, if you supported regime change in Iraq, the current "conventional wisdom" seems to be that you cannot be a "liberal." At least, that seems to be the current liberal conventional wisdom. "You're not with us, so you must be against us."

Scott Rosenberg writes about MoveOn.org attacks.#

At BloggerCon last fall, where talk about candidates' blogs was the rage, it was clear that the doomsday scenario for political campaigns experimenting with "emergent democracy" went something like this: (a) Overenthusiastic supporter of candidate, "un-controlled" by headquarters, posts something impolitic on a candidate's blog or message board. (b) Candidate's opponents jump on the posting, spotlighting it in attack ads as if it were the campaign's official line. (c) Candidate finds him/herself in trouble, and wonders whether all this idealistic stuff about "emergent democracy" was worth it.

Well, the scenario has now happened -- albeit in a somewhat different form, since MoveOn is an advocacy group rather than a candidacy. Anyone familiar with the online world is unlikely to be fooled by the RNC attack on MoveOn: It's painfully obvious that MoveOn was running an open competition, that some of the entries were bound to be outre or inappropriate, and that the open voting process was likely to insure that (as happened) the good entries rose to the top.

Moxie on Howard Dean...#

Howie D says that though God was radio silent with him on the bike path incident, he's been speaking to him lately.

On Wednesday Dean said in an interview, "from a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."[ed: -- moxie is very okay with -- using Dean's term -- "gay people" and doesn't need god's permission to justify. Advance apologies for the following "if god created" analogy.]

Katherine R. writes about the political system.#

The news media, taken as a whole, is neither liberal nor conservative, but incompetent. They allow you to fool most of the people most of the time. The Republican Party is very, very good at this. The Democrats have been very, very bad at responding. They aren't as dishonest as the Republicans, but they're not honest either; they won't stand up for their own views on many issues but they will take cheap and easy shots. This is the worst of both worlds.

Also, in some areas Bush does use more conservative/Republican rhetoric. All the God talk, all the talk about "destroying evil," the very simplistic explanations for everything, war and tax cuts as panaceas. The Democrats have ceded plenty of rhetorical ground too, and unlike Bush they've made a lot of policy concessions too.

Jim Moore write about freedom and why it matters.#

If you don't think the restriction of rights will affect you personally, consider the surveillance capabilities being established by the federal government for tracking actions in cyberspace, citizen-to-citizen telephone calls, and for monitoring personal movement via cell phones locator services.

Freedom matters. Freedom is fundamental to blogging. Freedom is fundamental to a grassroots-empowered society. Grassroots empowerment, entrepreneurship, citizen initiative--these are the real sources of vitality in our country. These fruits of freedom are the true sources of our contribution to the world at large.

Grant Henniger on mock patriotism, when people don't think about what they do.#

I'm all for people being patriotic, but there were a few things that really rubbed me the wrong way about this. First, I don't see the flags that people have put everywhere as patriotic, I see it as jingoistic. So many people put up flags and pronounce how proud they are to be an American, but they don't think about what that means. They recite words by rote, praising this country, and it seems as if they don't think about what they mean—specificly what "land of the free" means.

Daniel Davies on subtle NewSpeak and control.#

The heart of the issue is this; as Robert Anton Wilson noted, the English language is amply stocked with words to describe paranoia and irrational fear, but doesn't have one single concise term to describe arational fear of political persecution. Similarly, the journalistic lexicon is well stocked with phrases like "conspiracy theorist", "moonbat" "tinfoil hat brigade" and so on, but if we were to want to turn our conversation toward discussion of the facts that people have political views, that people with similar political views tend to flock together, that groups of people with political views tend to want to influence the direction of policy, and that the process of influencing policy is usually most efficient if carried out in an organised manner … well then we would already find it powerfully difficult to describe our discussion to a third party without using terms which implied by their ordinary usage that we were in some way weird. If we then took the further step of noting that often people have political views which are unpopular enough with the general public that it is prudent for them not to publicly express those views, then we are certainly in the realm of consipracy theory.

Brooks appears to want to move the agenda further; he appears to believe that to explain organisational structures by drawing boxes and arrows is in some way a weird thing to do. I think he's unlikely to recruit many people to the idea that good graphic design is a veiled form of anti-Semitism, but it is clear that he is right there with the general project of creating an environment in which it is impossible to express certain points of view without being undercut by the very words which you use to express them. Which, by the way, was the original point of Orwell's NewSpeak, not the double-talking euphemism which people now use it to mean.

Related to this: What You Can't Say, by Paul Graham.

Jim Moore starts off a post really good and then asks for money on the official Dean blog.#

For a lot of people, politics is a spectator sport, like football or basketball. Or politics is Hollywood-style entertainment, akin to watching Nicole Kidman or Bruce Willis (or Arnold?). We are active fans, not activists. George W. Bush, Karl Rove and the Republicans love citizen-spectators. "Just give us your votes," they say, "and we will solve your problems." "Don't rethink who you are. Just enjoy the show." "Don't think of yourself as a donor, by the way, because we have rich people to do that for you."

The way we are going to win this election is through rave-level participation. Not fans, dancers! Not fans, players. We are becoming a society of citizen-activists: Creative, bold, fun-loving, and constantly alive and active. But to win, we must reach out now to our friends and get them to come together with us. We need to expand our campaign to bring in 50 million voters, including three or four million new or returning voters. We need to find 2 million people to give $100.