Last night, for the first time this election cycle, I watched a Democratic presidential debate. It was appalling. But it was also, in a way, encouraging. Before last night, I thought it was 50-50 that the Republican nominee would win in November 2008.

Now I think it’s 2 to 1. And if the Democrat is anyone but Hillary, it’s 4 to 1.

Given Kristol’s record of prognostication on Iraq, I’d say that just about wraps next November up in favor of the Democrats.

cross-posted at Ben Weyl Blog

Frank Luntz, self-exiled in LA, pops up to tell Republicans that they should run in 2008 as the party of optimism and reform. Take a moment to stop laughing, and then read on, because there’s a worthwhile nugget of discussable material in his piece (plus it’ll make you feel good). Note these points:

A GOP victory is not absolutely out of the question, of course, but getting there would take a forward-looking agenda, unparalleled message discipline, a strict focus on the millions of independent voters, an innovative candidate and campaign and a lot of luck….

To be perfectly blunt, no Republican can win the White House without winning Ohio. Although readers of this column would no doubt like to see and hear the presidential nominees up close, the reality is that California, at least when it comes to elections, is as blue as the Pacific. A successful Republican candidate in Ohio will have learned how to articulate a culturally conservative message fused with government accountability and economic opportunity specifically tailored to voters in the industrial heartland. Without the support of the anxious working class, Ohio will also turn deep blue. And so will the United States.

Daniel Larison and Ross Douthat are quick to jump on this, because they’ve spent a good deal of time arguing precisely this sort of thing (despite Jonah Goldberg’s painfully embarassing attempt to condescend to a group of writers who are 1) smarter and 2) no younger than he). As Larison once put the basic argument:

[S]mall-government conservatism doesn’t sell and “strong government” conservatism does… I don’t like it, but it is true. Ceteris paribus, a GOP that does not attempt to co-opt or develop its own answer for ”lower-middle reformism” or populism is a GOP that is much more likely to lose in a nationwide contest with a party that has started turning to precisely that kind of politics. It will in all likelihood lose the presidential race if it does not address this weakness and instead continues to trot out the old “tax cuts and deregulation” mantra.

Larison now points out that the Republican candidates best positioned to carry a “lower-middle reformist” message (”Huckabee, The Other Thompson, Hunter”) are stuck in the second tier of presidential contenders, while the frontrunners seem unable to learn the lesson of how to talk about economics. If Luntz is right, then the Republicans are getting the geography all wrong:

Giuliani and McCain poll better in named match-ups with Democratic contenders than the other two “leading” candidates, but on trade and economic policy they have nothing to offer Ohio, Pennsylvania and other Midwestern states. Leave aside their foreign policy craziness for a moment, and remember (if you somehow had forgotten) that these two are the strongest pro-immigration advocates in the field. That will not, already does not, play well with Republican voters, and it likely will not play very well with the electorate in Ohio, either. Needless to say, the state that went for Bush in ‘04 at least partly thanks to the gay “marriage” ban referendum is not going to be a good fit for Giuliani.

The Republicans need to be able to compete in Ohio and Midwestern states like Ohio, and they appear to be gearing up to nominate a candidate that will make them relatively more competitive in either the South (Fred), California (McCain), the Northeast (Giuliani) or nowhere in particular (Romney). They have apparently learned nothing from the close call in 2004 and the repudiation of 2006.

A very important point here is the different direction the parties are heading in when it comes to economic rhetoric. It’s not just the candidates, it’s the entire conservative message apparatus, which seems determined to ignore what Larison calls the difference between “economic indicators” and “political reality,” as witnessed by Bill Kristol’s latest Kudlow-esque “everything is fine, stop whining about he economy” piece in the Weekly Standard. Democrats, meanwhile, are finally taking just the opposite tack, noting that while the numbers may look good, the lived experience of the American economy these days is one of insecurity and doubt. Pundits will surely warn the Democrats away from their new populism, but Democrats are starting to understand the economy as Americans do, not as Beltway economists do, and that’s going to give them a huge advantage next fall.

I am not sure how this process works, or how they slim down the nominees, but it is just nice to be nominated.

I’m very happy to announce that I have been offered and accepted a position on Senator Chris Dodd’s presidential campaign. I moved to Washington DC on Sunday and today is my first full day in Dodd HQ. From this point forward I will only be publishing my writing in an official capacity for the Dodd campaign on its blog and on progressive blog community sites around the net.

A bit about the job. I will be blogging for the campaign alongside my friend Tim Tagaris and others. More specifically, I will be traveling with Senator Dodd as he campaigns around America. I will be posting videos of Senator Dodd and the people he meets at campaign stops nationwide. In many ways my job will be to give the American public an unprecedented window into the Dodd campaign.

The question most of you are probably asking yourselves is “Why Chris Dodd?” I believe that America needs a leader who can solve the problems facing our country with poise and conviction. Thanks to the Bush administration’s failures, our next president will enter office will little margin for error. I believe Chris Dodd is best person to fill this national need because he’s already doing it. By standing up to the Bush administration and calling for an end to the Iraq War, by fighting to restore the US Constitution and the right of habeas corpus, by protecting Americans working families from predatory lending, by strongly opposing the nominations of John Bolton, Sam Fox, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden, by working to increase make college education affordable through Pell Grants, Senator Dodd has repeatedly lead through his actions. That’s what America needs today – action, not rhetoric. That’s why I’m going to work for Senator Dodd.

As an activist and I writer I have spent the last two and a half years blogging about the things I want Democratic politicians to do in service to America. In Chris Dodd, I find a man who has time and time again done the right thing without having to be asked. I deeply respect his active commitment to democratic ideals in a time when we’ve watched far too many politicians shirk their responsibilities to the American public. I look forward to helping him win the Democratic nomination and become the next President of the United States.

Check out my first post on the Dodd blog.

Technorati Tags: Chris Dodd

Matt Ortega, whose parents may or may not be legal, is completely wrong to say that Nathan Tabor should inform his readers that he works for Duncan Hunter, because the natural reaction of any Tabor reader would be, “Hmm, I wonder if this guy works for Duncan Hunter. I’ll Google it and find out.”

Listen via streaming audio on the Blog Talk Radio page.
Listen on Windows Media.
Download the mp3 of the show.

Donohue, while appearing on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country said, and I quote:

“Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity, in general, and Catholicism, in particular. It’s not a secret, okay? I’m not afraid to say it.

[...]

Hollywood likes anal sex. They would like to see, uh, the public square without nativity scenes. I like — I like families. I like children. They like abortions.” [Full quote here]

In fact, Donohue has a history of alleging someone of “hating Christianity” and then go on to point specifically to Catholicism as the ire of the accused. Seven years ago, he used the same card against rocker Marilyn Manson.

“It is Christianity that [Manson] hates, and it is Catholicism that he hates most of all. … This guy is at war with Christ.”

Furthermore, Donohue doesn’t just slam Jews, in general, and secular Jews, in particular. He attacked Muslims as well.

“In this country, we are civilized. We don’t appreciate it when somebody sticks it to you in the name of freedom of speech, sir. We condemn it. But over there, they take the uncivilized approach. And then they wonder why so many people don’t trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty, because they will abuse it.”

Let freedom ring, ey Billy?

Donohue has waged his own personal jihad against Hollywood, in general, and actors, in particular. Crooks & Liars has video of another appearance on Scarborough Country where he said:

“There are people in Hollywood, not all of them but there are some people, who are nothing more than harlots. They will do anything for a buck, they wouldn’t care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie they would do so-and they would do it with a smile on their face.” [link added]

I am not quite sure what movie theaters Mr. Donohue goes to but I have yet to see Sean Penn or Tim Robbins sodomize their mothers in a film. Though I would like to ask if Donohue believes Ronald Reagan, former actor and 40th President of the United States, was among those mother-sodomizing harlots he speaks of.

And another thing, what is with Donohue and his fixation on anal sex? I mean, really, it is getting kinda out of hand.

If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react?

Mike Stark, commenting on Moran’s stenographic posting of right wing attacks, replies with this comment:

I’d take Moran a lot more seriously if he asked George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Don Rumsfield and any number of Republican Senators why they go on Rush Limbaugh’s show. After all, he’s still selling “Gitmo Gear” (calling Gitmo a spa for terrorists) and ridiculing Abu Grahb as a series of frat pranks – even though Iraqi’s died there and had to be spirited out…

I’d take this post a lot more seriously if Moran asked all the Republicans that attended the Conservative Political Action Committee convention of 2006 why they applauded when Ann Coulter said “raghead talk tough, raghead pay consequences”. Dick Cheney, Mitch McConnel, John Fund and George Will attended that conference. Ann Coulter has been invited back to this years…

Where was Moran then?

Listen folks – ABC is a propaganda outlet for Disney, their parent corporation. Don’t believe me? Ask Brian Ross what happened to the report he prepared that explored Disney’s decision not to vet their amusement park workers for a sexual predator history… It was spiked…

Posted by: Mike stark | Feb 7, 2007 11:48:24 AM

Another commenter writes:

That ABC News post is written by Terry Moran, whose brother is Rick Moran of RightWingNutHouse. Rick has a long post today about this matter that is almost verbatim what his brother wrote (he even adds on at the end: “My brother Terry (who has a new blog that you should bookmark immediately) gets it exactly right”. So called liberal media my a**.

What Terry Moran wrote on ABC is copied almost exactly from the right-wing blogosphere – same quotes, ideas, everything. It’s really quite pathetic. He also asks: “If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react?”

Instead of reciting what his brother and his right-wing blogger friends are writing, he should go do the work of a journalist and find out. Why doesn’t he go and reserach what Ruffini and Hynes and Henke have written – you know, do actual real journalist work – and then write about that and he can find out the answer to his stupid question.

Posted by: Rick Moron | Feb 7, 2007 11:49:39 AM

As I said before, Moran won’t do this because he and his colleagues in the conservative media are going to give the Republicans a free pass unless we compel them to do otherwise.

Technorati Tags: Mike Stark, Terry Moran

The reason that I think it’s critically important to push back against the Right’s efforts to have veto-power on John Edwards’ personnel decisions is that failing to do so gives the Right a Get Out Of Jail Free card for their own dubious hires.

The Catholic League, a right wing pressure group, has taken up the banner of Malkin and Riehl to try to determine how a candidate they would never vote for runs his campaign. This is not to concede Donohue’s claim that the Edwards has hired anyone who isn’t a stellar operative or worthy of helping craft the strategies that will be deployed to help John Edwards win the presidency. Marcotte and McEwan were hired for their skills as bloggers, not in spite of them. I know that I’ve written somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 blog posts in the last two years and I’m sure some people would find some of what I’ve written objectionable – that’s the nature of blogging. Allowing the Right to exert veto power over the movement of our bloggers onto campaigns – a process that democratizes political campaigns and makes them accountable to the base – is simply unacceptable for us as a movement. More precisely, this political moment is not about John Edwards, but about what the liberal netroots will let the Right get away with in their efforts to limit our political power.

Democrats hire opinionated, feminist bloggers and the world is apparently coming to an end. Republicans hire racists, anti-Semites, crooks, and alleged crooks and the press does not emit a sound. This free pass has to end and we’re the people who are going to end it. The hypocrisy we see in the sea of criticism surrounding Edwards’ hires plays to one of the greatest challenges Democrats need to confront: the conservative media. An email I received this morning on the subject said:

a guy who (no offense, amanda) is a lower-level staffer uses a few dirty words in a previous job, and edwards caves?

it’s almost as if there’s a conservative media bias in america. but wait, that can’t be true. rush limbaugh told me there isn’t.

The situation exists because the media has allowed it to exist. Regardless of what happens with Amanda and Melissa, the right’s free pass ends today.

Technorati Tags: Amanda Marcotte, Melissa McEwan