Unleashing The Backlog: Thursday Aggreposting

Yes, I know I've been negligent of my blogging duties. Hectic pace at the day job. Blah, blah, blah. Let's blog shall we?

» WaPo: The Korean Analogy (Harold Meyerson)
» WaPo: The 'Blame The Iraqis' Gambit (Robert Kagan)

Two dead birds of the same feather here. It's pretty obvious the Bush administration is desperate to get their hands as clean as possible after the obvious disaster they've created. And of course, "personal responsibility" is sooo 70s as a staple of conservative thought ... so we don't have to worry about anyone taking responsibility for any of the bad decisions that have been documented thus far.

Kagan points out the flaw in the 'Blame the Iraqis' talking point:

Al-Qaeda's penetration in Iraq is not the fault of the Iraqis, some of whom are mustering the extraordinary courage to fight back. Nor are the Iraqi people to blame for al-Qaeda-manufactured car bombs that go off in markets where Sunnis and Shiites are shopping together. According to Gen. David Petraeus, upward of 80 percent of the suicide bombers are not Iraqis. Al-Qaeda's inhuman violence, including the use of small children as "suicide" bombs, cannot be written off as just part of that whole Iraqi cultural thing, however convenient that might be for the American conscience. As for the United States, if we are driven out of Iraq, it will be by al-Qaeda, not by the flaws of the Iraqi people.

... while Harold Meyerson points out the flaw in the Korea analogy:

The entire pattern of this war has been to deploy first and create a theory later to justify the deployment. Now that support for the war is at an all-time low, it's plainly time for the theory to justify the long-term presence of U.S. forces.

Desperate times breed desperate analogies. Enter South Korea. Within the past two weeks, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who oversees day-to-day military operations in Iraq, and White House press secretary Tony Snow have said that our troops could settle in just like their counterparts who stand guard on South Korea's border to deter an invasion from the North.

And they wonder why they're called talking points? I mean, am I really supposed to believe there's anything less than a straight line that runs from the DoD press shop to Tony Snow to Fox News to any random Republican blogger?

» Newsweek: How to Restore America's Place in the World (Fareed Zakaria)

So what to do in Iraq? Zakaria gets as close to a decent answer as anyone else I see around. Not a lot of detail, but it is a rather impressive connection of the dots on a relatively Hamiltonian foreign policy - one that acknowledges the relevance of trade to foreign policy. Read the whole thing.

» Democratic Debate Transcript
» Sojourners Presidential Forum

Caught the debate on Sunday. Well, I paid attention to about the first 15 minutes and then let the TV run while I went back to work. By then, I already knew the outcome: Hillary Clinton won.

How could I possibly deduce that? Here's my rule of thumb for all future Democratic debates: every debate that Hillary Clinton does not spontaneously combust in, she wins. She's the frontrunner. Her name's Clinton. She's sharp. And she's got a lot more support than internet flunkies tend to fathom. That'd involve metrics outside of Technorati, Digg, YouTube, and Google's Zeitgeist for those of you totally disconnected from the real world.

Oh, and that Barack guy did fairly well also. He'll keep hanging around. Wait and see where the votes go once the asterisk candidates start conceding.

The Sojourner's forum certainly struck me as a smarter concept - limit the debate to three candidates. Gotta love that kind of concession to reality. Still, the debate wasn't everything I was hoping for. Caught the reruns of it and I'm glad. It allowed the option of fast-forwarding everytime the candidates and questioners shoe-horned the word "moral" into just about every facet of either a question or an answer.

On the one hand, I'm glad to see the effort at least getting off the launching pad. The monologue that politically conservative Christians have been having is officially over and a dialogue is now under way with a truer representation of the spectrum being heard. If there was a third hand to be had, it might be that reading countless descriptions of Jim Wallis as a liberal Christian. Something along those lines, Brian McLaren has a nice blog post on correcting the media myopia in covering religion. Maybe if they did, they'd cover the dialogue a bit more wisely.

» Texas Monthly: Hoping for Hillary (Paul Burka)

Can I just take a moment to be as undiplomatic as hell here? Yeah? Great. This is one big pile of stinking dumbassery here by Paul Burka. Allow me to translate:

Something a Republican lobbyist told me about Democrats. Blah blah blah. A little dose of Broder-esque conventional wisdom that's never been borne out by verifiable fact but I'm gonna report it like sacred gospel anyway. Yadda yadda yadda. The end.

In a more diplomatic sense, I'll echo Kuff and state simply that the day I let Tom Craddick dictate who my nominee is, it'll be a cold day in hell. Well, I'm pretty sure Kuff didn't use the word hell. Whatever.

I did ask Burka to substantiate his claim - I thought I was rather polite in doing so. At least on a scale of EJ Dionne-to-Kristen Mack it ranks somewhere inbetween on the polite scale. But all Burka's argument boils down to is this: "Hillary is polarizing." That's it. Nothing more. Certainly no math to show. Just a talking point to parrot.

Problem with this is as follows: Jesse Helms was polarizing in his own home state of North Carolina. Last I checked, he never lost. In other words, there's nothing magical about suggesting that "X is polarizing" - ergo they hurt down-ballot candidates.

Other problem with this is as follows: What on earth is there to suggest that more rabid lunatics will come out in 2008 than in 2004. It's my contention that 2004 will go down as a modern-era high water mark for turnout. It's not out of the question for the 2008 contest to stack up as more important than 2004, but it strikes me as less probable. There's a point to be made that turnout methodology on both sides has certainly improved. But motivation and interest are bigger factors in my mind. Ultimately, I think turnout will be on a par with 2004 - give or take a bit. That alone would represent an accomplishment. But somehow imagining a scenario whereby either more GOP voters come out of the woodworks, more Dem voters stay at home, or some variable of motivation favors the GOP to the Dem nominee only leads to rather negligible factors for down-ballot races.

It was a convenient excuse for a variety of Texas Dems to blame their losses on George Bush in 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. I can't think of a single one that I accept that argument for. Ultimately, assuming competitive status, you win or lose based on your record, your talent, and your instincts as a candidate. Personal responsibility, unfortunately, doesn't tend to fall under the rubric of "conventional wisdom" among the Austin lobby crowd ... or whoever else feeds Burka nonsense.

Oh, and one last problem with Burka's argument - and this is really "fish in a barrel time" here. He's claiming that Republicans will run a campaign reminding voters of Whitewater. Yeah, Whitewater. The land deal that no Republican committee chair or Kenneth Starr could find a single problem with. THAT is what Paul Burka thinks will cost Chuck Hopson a State Rep. seat? Will Durrett must be a verifiable dunce for not offing him in 2006 if that's the case.

» Republican Debate Transcript

Only worth watching for the laughs. But boy do they offer them up. My favorite was the question on how each nominee would utilize President Bush after his term is over:

- Tommy Thompson: would send him out on a lecture series discussing honesty and integrity to the youth of America. Seriously. He really said that.

- Sam Brownback: first tsunami on my watch, he's outta here!

- Tom Tancredo: didn't catch the entire quote, but I think the phrase "and the horse you rode in on" was involved.

Almost as funny was this non-answer by Ron Paul (he of Technorati fame!):

MR. BLITZER: Congressman Ron Paul, how much longer should the United States stay in Iraq?

MR. PAUL: The sooner we come home, the better. If they declare there’s no progress in September, we should come home. It was a mistake to go, so it’s a mistake to stay. If we made the wrong diagnosis, we should change the treatment. So we’re not making progress there and we should come home. The weapons weren’t there, and we went in under U.N. resolutions. And our national security was not threatened.

We’re more threatened now by staying. (Applause.)

Got that? Invading was a bad idea, we're threatened now by staying ... but we need to wait and see if there's progress in September. He changes his answer at a later point to suggest that we should withdraw immediately. To date, Ron Paul has more primary opponents (two) than campaign staff & consultants who agree with him on anything. Gold standard? Legal crack heroin? Isolationist foreign policy? Impeaching George Bush? Any takers out there?