The Surge is Working

Or so says Kim Kagan. Democrats across the country cover their hears and scream "nah nah nah I can't hear you." But even the media has slowly been coming around to Kagan's perspective, that the surge is having an effect, and only weeks after it reached full-strength. This isn't to say that their coverage is always good, just that they're grudgingly admitting an improved scenario (and not all of them, it goes without saying).

But why do Democrats continue to ignore these developments, both in Congress and across the country? In both cases, I think there's the underlying fact that their psyches are so set against this war and this president that information that doesn't fit into this framework is rejected out of hand. (I'm pretty sure there's a technical psychological term for this, I've just forgotten it). In Congress, given the intelligence reports I'm sure they're getting, it must be somewhat harder to ignore. Their response? Launch another anti-war offensive, cut things off before the surge's progress can be digested by the public and so that General Petraeus can't make a good report in September. In other words, they're determined to declare defeat despite developments to the contrary, out of spite for the president, their own close-mindedness and that of their constituents.

People Are Stupid

Or at least that's the thesis of The Myth of the Rational Voter by Bryan Caplan. I'd previously seen it reviewed in the Economist, but now a review is available to the masses on Opinion Journal. Oh and in response to Mr Caplan, I say: No duh. Founders created a republic, we've thrown their masterpiece out the window and replaced it with a democracy, something akin to mob rule. We're supposed to elect politicians to make decisions for us - because we should be humble enough to recognize that as a bunch of average joes, we ain't bright enough or informed enough to make big decisions. Two problems with this: we elect idiots, and we're without humility. Instead, we get things like this Iraq "debate," with the people proclaiming they want an end to the war. I'm sorry, America, I forget - where did you get your PhD in International Relations from? Harvard? Princeton? SAIS?

Yes this may be something of a morning rant.

Keith Ellison, 9/11, the US Government...

He's not saying 9/11 was a government plot, he's just saying that if you say that they call you crazy...

On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

I was uncomfortable with Ellison as soon as he was elected not because he was a Muslim but because he's a member of the Nation of Islam. Now this. I'm hoping Minnesotans get their stupid "dontcha know" grins off their faces before next fall and elect someone slightly less crazy.

Oh, and he said all of this in front of a receptive bunch of atheists looking to rebuild the reputation of atheists. They think this helps?

(h/t LGF)

McGovern Weighs In

And Mr. "Come Home America" doesn't know if an anti-war Democrat can win. Check it out.

What Homefield Advantage?

If you listened to the buzz, you'd think Obama would be invincible in his home state. But a recent poll from ARG, reported by the Tribune, has Clinton within the margin of error: Obama 37%, Clinton 33%, MOE +/-4%. On the other side of the aisle, Giuliani's got a pretty commanding lead though Thompson's overtaken McCain.

This is Getting Absurd...

I've remarked previously that the Democratic Party isn't so much a party as a disparate group of interest groups that can hardly tolerate one another and are often willing to subvert the party's interests to those of their particular group. And because of their 'party' composition, Democratic presidential candidates have been pandering away. There was a forum discussing Spanish issues in Miami. There was supposed to be a debate co-sponsored by the CBC and focused on black issues - except that the nutroots couldn't stand Fox asking real questions. And now there's going to be a gay debate.

I find it bizarre to think that there's enough issues to keep them pandering away: aren't blacks, Hispanics and gays all concerned about jobs, national security, etc.? I also think these debates might be counterproductive for Democrats: if they don't sufficiently pander to the "concerns" of the interest group in question, the activists get pissed; if they actually say anything of substance, Republicans may have material for attack ads. Pretty absurd.

Cindy Sheehan (again)

More on crazy "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan's threat to run against "San Fran Nan" Pelosi. What's unclear, as far as I can tell, is whether Sheehan will run as a Democrat or a third-party candidate; I'm hoping it's the latter, which may be the more likely given the fact that she's publicly quit the Democratic Party. If so, she doesn't have to worry about winning a primary, and can run against Pelosi from now until next November.

I don't have a horse in this race (honestly I'd sell San Francisco to Canada or any other willing buyer for a buck fifty), but I hope Sheehan can run a quasi-credible campaign. If so, she might succeed in keeping Pelosi at home, rather than campaigning for Democrats across the country. It might also (if sufficiently threatening) cause the DNC and DCCC to pour resources into the district, resources that might otherwise be directed against Republicans. If Sheehan actually does have a shot, I wonder: will anti-war ultra-Leftists (Maxine Waters, Kucinich, et. al) who have publicly clashed with Pelosi endorse Sheehan? This could be a lot of fun.

Congressional Rematch

Last year in the northern suburbs of Chicago, Democrat Dan Seals gave Republican incumbent Representative Mark Kirk a run for his money. The funny thing about this race in the state's 14th district was its unexpected nature. Although the DCCC was targeting plenty of races around the country (including the nearby 6th District - Roskam and Duckworth), the 10th was largely ignored. Despite being largely ignored by the establishment, Seals ran a strong campaign; Kirk won 53-47, closer than most observers had expected.


Seals is back for a rematch, but he's got a primary challenger in Jay Footlik, a former Clinton administration aid. According to Politico, Kirk, Seals, and Footlik have all been fund raising at a frenzied pace. Combined with the fact that both the NRCC and DCCC will be pouring resources into the race, this'll be one to watch. Chicago's collar counties (basically suburbia) have been going purple over the last couple years as is the trend in suburban areas across the country (suburban Northern Virginia's move to the left helped both Kaine and Webb win there in 2005 and 2006); traditionally Republican voters have moved even further away from urban areas into "exurbia." This trend has been especially true of the 10th district, complicating Kirk's job.

In the big picture, watching the 10th will be instructive. If Republicans want to regain Congress and maintain their control of the White House, it's suburban districts and voters they'll have to win over.

UPDATE: I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner, but Rahm Emanuel is also a former Clinton staffer - perhaps he recruited an old buddy to run? Why? Is it because Seals is black in a predominantly white district? Ooh that'd make the CBC mad!

More Michael Yon

Michael Yon has written again, a wide-ranging report that must be widely read and disseminated.
Among other things, he paints a picture of General Petraeus - competent, considerate to his troops, and popular with them - that stands in stark contrast to the media and the Democrats' mud-slinging. Along with that, he notes how incredibly effective our veteran troops are; this in a city which threatened to be more lethal than Fallujah or Ramadi.

He also reports that the AQ-perpetrated massacre that he previously reported is actually worse than expected, that some local Iraqi officials believe there may be hundreds of bodies buried in the area. He also reports that al Qaeda seems to have plumbed a new depth of inhumanity in their behavior.


Finally he notes media issues - and how some things are unverified but assumed true while others are unverified and assumed to be false and while many journalists have other agendas or misuse their inherent credibility, many do good work and are in an extraordinarily dangerous line of work. As always, read and send. Yon's doing incredible work, I only wish that the media as a whole would follow his lead.

I Love the Democratic Party!

Apparently anti-war crazy Cindy Sheehan's threatening to run against Pelosi if Madame Speaker doesn't begin impeachment proceedings against the President. Given that that seems unlikely to happen, I think we could see the Democratic primary fight of the century. I just don't know who I'd more like to see win - the crazy who admits she's crazy or the crazy one who plays like she's sane?

And people wonder why Democrats have a hard time winning national elections? This fratricidal excuse for a party is not so much the big tent as the freak show on the side.

Romney: King of Iowa?

But does it mean anything? According to Politico, Mr. Organization has attacked the state's unique caucus system like it's an HBS case study; of the other top-tier Republican candidates, only McCain has a major presence there, and given his recent free fall, including him there is little more than a courtesy. Romney's also the only top-tier candidate who has remained committed to the state's August straw poll.

But if a tree falls on a mime in the forest/if only one "real" candidate competes in Iowa - does anyone care? Romney's playing to the emotions of Iowans by suggesting that nominating anyone else would undermine the state's "first in the nation" status. But what if there's no one but Romney to nominate? If Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain withdraw from the caucus itself as they withdrew from the straw poll, Romney's victory there would be hollow and enormously expensive.

Clinton's campaign circulated (and then leaked, perhaps accidentally) a memo suggesting she do exactly the same thing - withdraw from Iowa, effectively ceding it to Edwards. However, she quickly backpedaled, insisting that she would compete there. But there are different elements driving any Democratic decision, namely labor. Skipping Iowa would likely have the effect of angering large numbers of union members (and Democratic-minded voters), which isn't a risk Hillary is willing to take (she's getting enough flack from them on the Mark Penn front anyways).

But for any Republican to pull out now may be overly hasty - as Politico rightly points out, there are still plenty of uncommitted Republican voters in the state (some polls put undecided at 30%).

HRC & Faith

It doesn't take a very astute observer to notice the frequency with which many Democratic presidential candidates are playing up their religiosity. Obama's rhetoric has been the most pronounced, but Hillary Clinton hasn't been far behind. Why so much more God talk this year? I'm tempted to think that the absence of any viable Catholic candidates may play a role; Obama, Clinton and Edwards all hail from more "progressive" Christian backgrounds and thus aren't in danger of being undermined by conservative clergy as Kerry was in 2004.

Returning to Clinton, I stumbled across a post on Ben Smith's Blog (Politico) by Richard Allen Greene discussing an article on the Senator and her faith in today's NYT. Greene, echoing the Times Michael Luo, asks whether religion is a no-win situation for Hillary - that it will only anger the secular left while failing to win over the religious right.

I have to say that I'm leery of Clinton's adoption of religious rhetoric - even if it is underpinned by sincere belief - because of the suddenness with which it has appeared. A religious person who only chooses to wear their faith on their sleeve when beneficial is disingenuous. There's the old joke that a Republican prays in public and drinks in private while a Democrat drinks in public but prays in private - Hillary's moved her prayer into the public square for convenience. The article is noteworthy in the depth of the religiosity (false or otherwise) that she has adopted, but it makes it none the more palatable. Among all of the various testaments to her faith (many of which are very indicative of her Methodism and its liberalism), the most interesting is Mike Huckabee's quote:

“I think that she has genuine faith. I go to a church that’s very expressive,” Mr. Huckabee added in an interview. “It doesn’t mean my faith is more genuine than someone” who has a very reflective tradition “and maybe who worships in a much more liturgical manner, in a quiet way.”

But let's return to the big question - whether Democratic candidates hurt or help themselves by embracing religion and the language of faith. Liberal evangelical minister Jim Wallis has argued that many moderate people of faith - church-going independents or others who are religious but not politically ideological - are driven away from the Democratic Party by its absolutist rhetoric on abortion; Wallis, for his part, is pretty unequivocally pro-life. He suggests that moderating this stance could deprive the GOP of the support of independents it needs to win presidential elections. While that might be true, it could also deprive a Democrat of the support of one of the party's key constituencies - abortion absolutists.

So while Hillary or another Democrat might succeed in winning some moderates by embracing faith and moderating their stance on abortion, the cost of doing so should be balanced against discontent among both secularists and abortion advocates. The reasoning might be that such activists wouldn't rebel because they'll hold their noses (though Leftist single-issue voters have proven remarkably unpragmatic in the past) and support the Democrat; but if Nader gets into the race (as he's made noises about doing) or if Bloomberg's in, things might change. We'll see. But for the time being, it'll be interesting to see how Democrats handle the irreconcilable demands of their base and people of faith.