Elections Have Consequences - Wisconsin Heart of Darkness Edition

Wisconsin Favorite Sons
Cannibals Jeffrey Dahmer and Eddie Gein

Memeorandum informs us the Madison, Wisconsin protest story crested the Yossarian* threshold and is now a mandatory post for all political bloggers.

Full Disclosure: Your loyal blogger has a few issues with the state of Wisconsin. I have driven the full length of the state more times than I care to remember, as there is no choice when transiting from Chicago to our family lake-side cottage in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Wisconsin produces little that is edible with deep-fried cheese curds the epitome of state cuisine, is responsible for foisting tasteless macro-brewed beers out of Milwaukee on the rest of the nation, is best known as the premier breeding ground of world-class serial killers (Eddie Gein and Jeffrey Dahmer being two examples of note), experiences periodic outbreaks of widespread community madness (Black River Falls), famously re-enacts the Vietnam war during deer season (with real bullets), and not coincidentally - is the home of the Green Bay Packers. Yes I am still bitter about the NFC Championship game. But I digress...

Having won the Wisconsin gubernatorial election in November, Republican Governor Scott Walker set out to do exactly what he said he would do as a candidate. This outraged many Democrats and liberals both in and out of the state, who apparently believe he should govern more like the Democrat who lost.

A few days ago Rachel Maddow sounded the liberal alarm and, as is often the case, her clarion call is the clearest articulation of the progressive case. We learn from Rachel that nothing less than the entire future of the Democratic Party is at stake in Madison, Wisconsin. Recall that the Democratic Party was characterized as a juggernaut only two short years ago, riding an unstoppable permanent demographic realignment over Republican Party roadkill with an open highway of political dominance rolling out before them. Yet now, suddenly and inexplicably the Democratic Party is facing political extinction in Madison, Wisconsin:


There is a downside to being crystal clear in your argument. You can be shown to be clearly wrong. Such is the case with the first claim of Maddow's case, that the state fiscal problems were all ginned up by the new governor. Politifact reports she clearly got her facts wrong:

"There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it. We rate Maddow’s take False."

The rest of Maddow's argument - that this is really all about money flow to Democratic Party - has merit. In fact, the right and left completely agree on this point. John Fund via Da Tech Guy:

'Labor historian Fred Siegel offers further reasons why unions are manning the barricades. Mr. Walker would require that public-employee unions be recertified annually by a majority vote of all their members, not merely by a majority of those that choose to cast ballots. In addition, he would end the government’s practice of automatically deducting union dues from employee paychecks. For Wisconsin teachers, union dues total between $700 and $1,000 a year'

This is what this is all about, nothing else, that’s why the biggest guns in the democratic party are fighting this fight. They know those dues will end up funding their campaigns, if they lose this fight here it’s all over..."

Isn't it great when the right and left, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives can come together, be of one mind and agree on the facts? Krugman echoes Maddow's thoughts, saying this is all about power for Republicans, yet with a partisan blind spot as big as Wisconsin, he fails to notice that this is also all about power for Democrats. And no - this is not a "false equivalency". This is as equivalent as it gets.

Democrats believe that Republican politicians are the beneficiaries of corporate largess and consequently vote taxpayer funds into profits for private contractors, "public-private" partnerships, and contracts for unnecessary weapon systems, with the expectation that portions of said profits are funneled back into supporting Republican campaigns. Republicans believe that Democrats continually increase spending on the size of the public sector and legislate union-friendly rules in order to increase the base of forced dues payed into union coffers which in turn funnel money back into supporting Democratic campaigns. They're both right. May the circle be unbroken. Kumbayah.

This is one reason (among many) why The Dividist is so adamant that neither party can ever be trusted with all the keys to the castle. Ever. Without exception. Regardless of individual candidates. But I digress...

Meanwhile, back in Madison, the public sector unions have again organized protests at the steps of the capitol to exercise their Democratic right to shut down the Democratic process and subvert the Democratically expressed wishes of the Wisconsin electorate, in order to be sure that the money flow to the Democratic Party is not interrupted.

The irony was not lost on Joe Klein:

"An election was held in Wisconsin last November. The Republicans won. In a democracy, there are consequences to elections and no one, not even the public employees unions, are exempt from that. There are no guarantees that labor contracts, including contracts governing the most basic rights of unions, can't be renegotiated, or terminated for that matter. We hold elections to decide those basic parameters. And it seems to me that Governor Scott Walker's basic requests are modest ones--asking public employees to contribute more to their pension and health care plans, though still far less than most private sector employees do. He is also trying to limit the unions' abilities to negotiate work rules--and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time...

Public employees unions are an interesting hybrid. Industrial unions are organized against the might and greed of ownership. Public employees unions are organized against the might and greed... of the public?

The events in Wisconsin are a rebalancing of power that, after decades of flush times and lax negotiating, had become imbalanced. That is also something that, from time to time, happens in a democracy."

Patrick McIlheran finds support for the Governor from a surprising historical source:

"Roosevelt's reign certainly was the bright dawn of modern unionism. The legal and administrative paths that led to 35% of the nation's workforce eventually unionizing by a mid-1950s peak were laid by Roosevelt. But only for the private sector. Roosevelt openly opposed bargaining rights for government unions. "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. "A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."

As Klein notes, the politics of power has a way of balancing itself out. The media and Democrats exclusive focus on the union power-play fight over the union give-backs in the "Scott Walker Budget Repair Bill", have allowed some of the possibly more egregious issues buried in this bill to remain relatively unnoticed. As with Democrats in 2009, the seeds of destruction for the resurgent Wisconsin Republicans are being planted now in 2011. Perhaps in this very bill.

I think the Democrats and unions are seriously misreading the temperament of the Wisconsin voters who just elected this Republican governor and legislature. Particularly when Democrats talk about initiating recall campaigns for Wisconsin Republican politicians. As noted above, Wisconsin does have a history of madness and a long standing tradition of eating their own, but this recall campaign is truly delusional, and likely to backfire on Democrats in a big way. Who is more likely to get recalled? Republicans doing what they were elected to do four months ago? Or Wisconsin Democratic legislators shirking their responsibilities and hiding out in Illinois motels?

Well, Democrats are always welcomed in Chicago. Maybe the Wisconsin legislators should stay in their Illinois hideouts. They may find that they will be more welcomed in the President's old Cook County stomping grounds than back in their home districts.

*Paraphrasing Joseph Heller's famous protagonist from Catch 22 - "What if everyone was blogging about about the Wisconsin protests?" I can only respond as did Bomber Pilot John Yossarian: "Then I'd be a damn fool not to".

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Rachel Maddow throws Keith Olbermann under the bus while Bill Kristol rushes to his defense.

In other news - My head explodes.

This is not my usual fare, but I've had a few things to say about Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow in the past. Perhaps more relevant, memeorandum has identified Olbermann's suspension from MSNBC as a mandatory post or what I refer to as a Yossarian.* Let us begin.

The left-o-sphere is up in arms. The right-o-sphere cannot contain their mirth. Keith's "good friend and colleague" Rachel Maddow (who owes her TV career on MSNBC to Keith Olbermann) explains exactly what happened:

If you look past her sympathetic demeanor and pay close attention to what she is saying, the unmistakable takeaway is that Maddow is standing foursquare on the side of MSNBC management. She is saying her “good friend and colleague” Keith Olbermann was flat out wrong. Worse than that - he was "Fox News wrong."

She spends several minutes tut-tutting over a litany of egregious examples of Fox personalities raising funds and contributing to Republican candidates and causes. Well and good, but once she starts down that path, there is no way to backtrack and justify Olbermann's contributions to Democratic candidates as acceptable since – you know – that would make MSNBC just like Fox.

Ever since Jon Stewart put Fox and MSNBC in the same journalistic basket at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear last week, the MSNBC punditocracy have been a bit touchy on exactly that subject.

It is obviously important to Maddow to demonstrate that she works for a news organization that has higher standards than Fox. Important enough that her “good friend and colleague” Keith Olbermann had to go under the bus. She even seems to agree the punishment meted out from MSNBC management is fair (as long as the suspension does not go on to long), concluding with a wish that he will be back soon. Perhaps it was more like a plea for a (MSNBC News) Presidential Pardon. Perhaps in the expectation that Olbermann will show remorse and get some time off for good behavior. Perhaps.

Meanwhile - unlike Maddow - neocon nemesis William Kristol has Keith Olbermann's back with a full throated defense:

Keep Keith! – William Kristol

"MSNBC’s suspension of Keith Olbermann is ludicrous.

First, he donated money to candidates he liked. He didn’t take money, or favors, in a way that influenced his reporting.

Second, he’s not a reporter. It’s an opinion show. If Olbermann wants to put his money where his mouth is, more power to him.

Third, GE, the corporate parent of MSNBC, gives money to political organizations. GE executives and, I’m sure, NBC executives give money. Why can’t Olbermann?

Perhaps Olbermann violated NBC News “policy and standards.” But NBC doesn’t have real news standards for MSNBC—otherwise the channel wouldn’t exist. It’s a little strange to get all high and mighty now.

But there’s now a Republican House, and perhaps GE is trying to curry favor by dumping Olbermann?

Republicans of the world, show you believe in the free expression of opinion! Tell the crony corporatists at NBC—keep Keith!"

I'm not going to try and sort this out.

One voice is yet to be heard.

What will Keith do?

*Paraphrasing Joseph Heller's famous protagonist from Catch 22 - "What if everyone was blogging about about Olbermann's suspension?" I can only respond as did Bomber Pilot John Yossarian: "Then I'd be a damn fool not to".

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Neocon warmongers for Obama!

I was not going to bother, but the Powell and Adelman endorsements have apparently been declared by the blogging powers that be as a mandatory post for all political bloggers. I have no choice but to declare a "Yossarian", as I have periodically done before. and paraphrase Joseph Heller's famous protagonist from Catch 22 - "What if everyone was blogging about the Powell endorsement?" I can only respond as did Bomber Pilot John Yossarian: "Then I'd be a damn fool not to".

The topic was not all that interesting, because I don't believe that either Powell or Adelman's endorsement will have any meaningful impact on this election. Obama will be elected for exactly one reason - the country is in the grip of an economic meltdown and market panic during the last few weeks of the election. A poorly executed McCain campaign did not help, but the economic fear swamps all other considerations. Under this kind of economic cloud the electorate will sweep the incumbent party out and the opposition party in. If McCain had kept it close, these endorsements might have made a difference and been important for Obama. As it is, the endorsements are bringing "coals to Newcastle". Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats will claim a mandate, and with no meaningful opposition in Washington, we are on a high-speed hell-bound train to the inevitable bad governance, corruption and abuse of power that always accompanies single party rule.

Back to Adelman. Obama supporters have breathlessly covered his endorsement as a shocking validation of everything that is wrong with the McCain campaign. After all, this is a "loyal", lifelong Conservative Republican. I have a couple of problems with that characterization. First, it is astonishing that anyone who believes the Iraq war was a mistake (as do I) would put any credence in Adelman's judgment or take anything he says seriously. Adelman is most famous (infamous?) for his 2002 Washington Post editorial where he pitched the Iraq War as a "cakewalk":

"In 1991 we engaged a grand international coalition because we lacked a domestic coalition. Virtually the entire Democratic leadership stood against that President Bush. The public, too, was divided. This President Bush does not need to amass rinky-dink nations as "coalition partners" to convince the Washington establishment that we're right. Americans of all parties now know we must wage a total war on terrorism. Hussein constitutes the number one threat against American security and civilization. Unlike Osama bin Laden, he has billions of dollars in government funds, scores of government research labs working feverishly on weapons of mass destruction -- and just as deep a hatred of America and civilized free societies."

Adelman was a neocon's neocon. And the neocon "might makes right" eagerness to wield the military as a instrument of policy rather than as a last resort, coupled with their willingness to sacrifice the Constitution, rule of law, bill of rights, and common decency on the alter of "security" is the very reason why the Republican Party is about to rendered completely irrelevant.

As regards his professed "loyalty" to the Republican Party or conservative principles, recall that in a 2006 Vanity Fair article, Adelman was only too eager to hold himself and the Neocon philosophy blameless, while throwing everyone else in the Bush administration under the bus. It stands as one of the most gratuitous examples of craven CYA finger pointing ever committed to print. But hey! This is one of the key architects of the philosophy that may have destroyed the Republican party, or at least rendered it politically impotent for a generation. So why not pay attention to him and his endorsement for Obama? Neocons for Obama!

Colin Powell is a more interesting study. He has been a frequent topic of posts on this blog. Powell is a man I deeply respected in the Bush41 administration, and would have whole heartedly supported for President in 2000. If we had used the Powell Doctrine as a guiding principle in 2003 as we did in the first Gulf War, we never would have gone down the disastrous Neocon path in Iraq.

But the big question about Colin Powell remains - Why did he enable the Bush administration to support a policy he knew to be in contradiction to the successful doctrine that bears his name? Why did he choose loyalty to the administration over loyalty to the American people? I asked this question in an open letter and a 2006 post where I wondered "whether Colin Powell might, in the judgment of history, carry the label of being to Iraq what McNamara was to Vietnam":

"In 1995, Robert McNamara (widely referred to as "the architect of the Vietnam War") writing in his memoir "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam", revealed that as early as 1967 (with 25,000 American dead) he no longer believed that America could win the war in Vietnam, and as a direct consequence of expressing that view, resigned (or was fired) from the LBJ administration.... Neither McNamara nor LBJ chose to share that insight with the American public. Ultimately it took 50,000 American lives for a majority of Americans to learn that their government could not be trusted on the reasons for, nor the "light at the end of the tunnel" progress in, Vietnam. It is reasonable to posit, that if McNamara had recognized in 1968 that his loyalty was owed first to the American people, and second to the LBJ administration, had communicated what he knew then to the American people, we might have seen a better end, a quicker end, and fewer deaths and casualties in Vietnam... Colin Powell enabled the GWB administration to garner the support needed to put us on this course. I suspect that Colin Powell, out of misplaced loyalty, like McNamara on Vietnam, failed to be forthright and honest with the American people about Iraq. Should Colin Powell, in future memoirs, like McNamara, proclaim that he knew that the Iraq occupation was a wrong policy, he will, like McNamara, have blood on his hands for every day that passes between the time that he recognized the mistake, and the day he finally comes clean with the American people. It took McNamara 27 years. How long will it take Powell?"

Make no mistake. It was a critical decision point, a nexus in history, when in 2002 Colin Powell walked into the Oval office to advise the President. As he related to Tim Russert:

"when I took it to the president and said, “This is a war we ought to see if we can avoid,” I also said and made it clear to him, 'If, at the end of the day, it is a war that we cannot avoid, I’ll be with you all the way.' That’s part of being part of a team."

If Powell understood that this was the wrong path, Powell should have told Bush that he did not support the policy and resigned. Colin Powell enabled George W Bush to make the decision to prosecute the occupation. Colin Powell sold the war to the American people. After Cheney and Bush himself, Powell is the man most responsible for the war decision.

At some level Powell knows this. He is a study in contradictions. As a consequence of failing to act on what he knew to be right in 2002, he has spent years explaining and justifying his actions. I cannot help but feel that this endorsement is yet another attempt to assuage his conscience, rehabilitate his reputation and scrub the blood off his hands.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Yossarian, 2008 election, Colin Powell, Barack Obama, Iraq, Ken Adelman, neocon

Its up to you New Yorker! New Yorker!

"These little town blues, are melting away
Ill make a brand new start of it - in old New York
If I can make it there, Ill make it anywhere
Its up to you - New York, New York."

As Amba at Ambivablog and Ann Althouse said about the New Yorker cover "everyone is talking about it. " So I have no choice but to declare a "Yossarian", as I have periodically done before and paraphrase Joseph Heller's famous protagonist from Catch 22 - "What if everyone was blogging about the New Yorker cover?" I can only respond as did Bomber Pilot John Yossarian: "Then I'd be a damn fool not to".

Since, as usual I am a day late and and a dollar short, I don't have a lot to add to the volumes written about the the cover itself. The cover is exactly what illustrator Barry Blitt intended, a humorous and brilliant slap down of the more inane attacks on Obama by the rabid right. No matter, the cover is not the real story. The real story is the reaction to the cover by Obama, his campaign and his supporters. As always, the tone is set at the top, with staff and supporters taking their cues from the leadership. Obama's reaction:

"ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports that when he was asked about the controversial cover during a press avail today, Obama shrugged and then said, "I have no response to that."

So, Barack Obama is pouting. Think how differently this story evolves if Obama instead looks at cover, laughs out loud, says "That's great. They missed a few points, where is Reverend Wright?"

But he did not say that. Instead we get an official Obama spokesman taking offense:

"The New Yorker may think... that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. "But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

And so the Obama acolytes who understand only too well that electing Barack Obama is much, MUCH too important to laugh about, go into high dudgeon and pile on.

But what do I know. Perhaps the Obama campaign is right. Perhaps it is important for every President and political candidate to immediately respond with righteous indignation on every political magazine cover. Perhaps Hillary Clinton and George W Bush should have responded to previous New Yorker covers in kind. Consider:

Hillary certainly could have sniffed about this New Yorker cover when the Monica Lewinsky scandal was breaking in ...

May 1994

"The New Yorker may think that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the First Lady's presidential ambitions..." said a Clinton spokesman "But during this time of personal family crisis and pain most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. "

Or when she decided to run for New York Senator in...

July, 1999

"The New Yorker may think that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature that Hillary Clinton's political opponents have tried to create of her Senate campaign." said a Clinton spokesman "But most readers will see thie portrayal of her as a dilettante tourist about to get mugged by tough New York politics it as tasteless, sexist and offensive. "

And if Presidential candidates need to respond to cartoon covers, shouldn't Presidents also respond in kind?

December 2006

"The New Yorker may think that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature President Bush's left-wing critics have tried to create." said a Bush spokesman "But most readers will see the cover's portrayal of President Bush as a meek housewife subservient to a slovenly Dick Cheney head of the household as tasteless and offensive. "

January, 2007

"The New Yorker may think that their cover is a satirical lampoon portraying an out of touch imperial President who is fiddling while the country burns." said a Bush spokesman "But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. "

Yeah. That's the ticket.

By the way, the article itself - you know - inside the magazine - is great. I suggest everyone try to get past the cover and read it for real insight into the making of Barack Obama.

And for any who worry that satire is just too sophisticated for your average American, who fear that the great unwashed need to be protected from sophisticated humor, noted conservative blogger Jon Swift has the answer:

"The next time the New Yorker tries to run a satiric cover, they should include a label that says "Satire" in very big letters just as they label all of their advertisements. Although I am not generally in favor of solving problems with legislation, the time may have come when the government needs to mandate warning labels for satire like they do for cigarettes."

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Yossarian, 2008 election, Democrats, Barack Obama, New Yorker

Olympic torch protest postscript: Good call Mr. Mayor

Some think the coverage of the Olympic Torch relay in San Francisco yesterday did not merit the media frenzy it received. They would be correct.



If Wolf Blitzer thinks this was the biggest story of the day, who am I, a mere blogger, to disagree? So I was forced to declare a "Yossarian" on the story. Paraphrasing the Yossarian Principle from Joseph Heller's Catch 22 - "What if everyone was covering about the San Francisco protest of the Olympic Torch relay?" I can only respond as did Bomber Pilot John Yossarian: "Then I'd be a damn fool not to".

Since the biggest story in the world Tuesday was taking place in my backyard, I had no choice but to venture out from behind my keyboard into that space I like to call "outside". Armed only with a TREO 700P, I attended and live blogged a portion of the torch route on a supplemental team blog we set up for the purpose. I walked the "route not taken" from Justin Herman Plaza to the planned start at the ball park and back again when it became clear the torch was heading another way.

"It was an Olympic-sized fake-out, and by the end of the day, instead of the violent clashes that some had feared, the Beijing Olympic torch run left only thousands of frustrated protesters on one end of San Francisco and mostly relieved runners and officials on the other. The finger-pointing is bound to go on for days about whether changing the route at the last minute was right. But on Wednesday, Mayor Gavin Newsom and other officials said that once they got a good look mid-morning at the chanting, surging, flag-waving crowds along the torch's advertised route, they felt they had no choice."

Alan Steward Carl blogging at Donklephant characterized the decision to secretly divert the Olympic Torch relay route as "cowardice". I disagree.

I expected a carnival atmosphere, the kind of protest "circus" that only San Francisco can stage, and I was not disappointed. The biggest surprise for me was the split within the San Francisco Chinese-American community. There was a lot of emotion on display including heated arguments in the streets and we even witnessed a fist fight. I guess I assumed this was a one sided argument (Pro-Tibet), and had no idea about the depth of the division that exists in the community. It was almost as bad as between Obamites and Clintonistas. There were big crowds along the route lined with activists intent on stopping the run and there was a real potential for people to get hurt - including the torch bearers.

Net net - Mayor Gavin Newsom pulled this off brilliantly. The torch run in Paris was a wake-up call. In San Francisco, they got the message. No one was hurt, there were minimal arrests, the Chinese got a completed face saving ceremony and photo op, while much of the city was turned over to protesters. They, in turn, were permitted to vent their collective and variegated spleens with the media attention they craved for their respective causes. Entertainment was provided by the City and Olympic committee. Fun was had by all.

The oppression of Tibet by China is a deadly serious issue.

The San Francisco Olympic Torch Relay protest was not.

I am glad it stayed that way.

Well played Mr. Mayor.

x-posted at Donklephant.
UPDATED: 11-April-08 - Added Video and links.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Gavin Newsom, Olympic Torch, San Francisco, protest, live blog, Tibet, China

2008 Presidential Candidate Stack Ranking Version 2.4 - Post Democratic Debate

I missed the debate (but was not the only one), choosing instead to play an afternoon round of golf at Presidio. I intended to watch the late rerun on MSNBC but fell asleep on the couch during the first question, possibly due to the beer consumed during and after the round, possibly due to the candidates replies. However, I will not let this unimportant detail inhibit me from expressing strongly held opinions on the debate that I did not see. After all, this was a "Yossarian" event. [Paraphrasing the Yossarian Principle from Joseph Heller's Catch 22 - "What if everyone was blogging about the First Debate of the 2008 presidential election?" I can only respond as did Yossarian: "Then I'd be a damn fool not to."].

Net net: Clinton was presidential. Obama and Edwards were not. Biden was funny and sharp. Gravel was entertaining. Kucinich was articulate and insane, but he has a hot wife. Richardson hurt himself, but it was just a flesh wound. I forgot the other guy's name.

Armed with these new insights, it is time to update the DWSUWF 2008 Presidential Stack Ranking. As a reminder, the DWSUWF stack ranking is a preference not a prediction. This list represents the top ten candidates DWSUWF would like to see as President, stack ranked in order of preference. Imposed on this list are two constraints: alternating political party affiliation, and a divided government outcome in 2008.

This week we only made changes to the Democrats on the list, next week (post GOP debate), we will review and update the Republicans.

Since I missed the debate, I had to find a different criteria for re-ranking the top tier Democratic hopefuls. Unity08 to the rescue. The Unity08 Dream Ticket "Would you wear this button?" test fits the bill. Now, I have expressed my skepticism about Unity08 before (here, here and here). I also thoroughly enjoy reading Ahab Jim at the Irregular Times regular harpooning of this endangered white whale. Still I signed up as a delegate on the off chance that Unity08 actually becomes something politically meaningful. I am on their list and received an e-mail invitation to create a "Dream Ticket" on their site. I must admit to having some fun with this, it is an inspired promotion.

There is a significant philosophical difference between Unity08 and DWSUWF. Unity08 believes the political cure to what ails us, is a "unity" administration, with a President and Vice President representing different parties. DWSUWF believes that our Federal government is more fiscally responsible, creates sounder legislation, governs better, and is more effective as a corruption watchdog if the Executive office and Legislative majorities are held by different parties and are at each others throats.

That said, I used the Unity08 dream ticket tool to take my favorite candidate (Chuck Hagel - R) and pair him up with all of the top Democrats as VP. Then I stared at the buttons and selected the one I would actually wear. The winner is:
Which is now reflected in the new and improved, updated and revised ...

=====
DWSUWF 2008 Presidential Candidate
Stack Ranking v. 2.4

1) Chuck Hagel (R)
2 ) Bill Richardson (D)
3) Ron Paul (R)
4) Joe Biden (D)
5) Rudolf Giuliani (R)
6) Hillary Clinton (D)
7) John McCain (R)
8) Barack Obama (D)
9) Mitt Romney (R)
10) Al Gore (D)

=====

Changes since the last update: Based on the Unity08 button test, Richardson is now my top Democratic contender, which drops Joe Biden one notch, although I still like Joe. I just cannot have both of my top two candidates reviled and disparaged by the rank and file of their own party. Since Hagel is my favorite, Biden has to drop down. Barack drops behind Hillary having failed the "Looks and sounds like a President" test in the debate. In the last Democratic party slot, Al Gore replaces Wes Clark. I don't think either is running, but Al is getting more publicity. And he won an oscar.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, Barack Obama, libertarian, Chuck Hagel, 2008 election, Hillary Clinton,John McCain, debate,Joe Biden, Democrat, Republican,Rudy Giuliani,Mitt Romney,Ron Paul, Bill Richardson, Al Gore.

Dancing Bear pas de trois

Paraphrasing the question posed in Joseph Heller's Catch 22 - "What if everyone was blogging about the Connecticut Democratic primary?" I can only respond as did Yossarian: "Then I'd be a damn fool not to."

Ned Lamont beat incumbent three term Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic primary by a margin of 4% with an unprecedented high voter turnout for a primary. Lieberman was not facing any scandal. Lieberman's tenure and committe appointments put him in a position to shovel pork to Connecticut with a bulldozer. He had a huge campaign war chest, and the solid support of the Democratic Party establishment. He was endorsed by the Democratic party demi-god Bill Clinton. This is the profile of an incumbent that cannot lose. Some attach significance to the fact that the margin of victory closed to only 4 percentage points, but this is clearly a case where "The wonder of a dancing bear is not that the bear dances well, but that it dances at all."* Well, this particular bear was looking like Gene Kelly last night.
[* Quote attributed to John Irving but not sure if he is the original source]

Defeating an incumbent is a very hard thing to do in a general election. Defeating an incumbent in a primary is well nigh impossible. We saw an awful lot of "dancing bears" last night. An incumbent moderate Democratic Senator that was a hawk on on the war was defeated. An incumbent, anti-war rabid left wing Democratic Representative of Congress was defeated (opeative word is "rabid"). An incumbent moderate Republican Representative supported by Presdent Bush was defeated. If a dancing bear is a wonder, a pas de trois of dancing bears is even more notable.

Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post has the story:
House Incumbents McKinney, Schwarz Fall in Primaries

"In the shadow of the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut, angry voters in three states showed their discontent last night by unseating two incumbents and choosing a candidate who campaigned against his primary opponent's bipartisan past. The defeat of Georgia's outspoken Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D) and Michigan moderate Rep. John J.H. "Joe" Schwarz (R) appeared to confirm the strong headwinds that polls suggest members of Congress will face in November from an angry electorate looking for change."

Some bloggers take note but fail to appreciate the bear's fancy footwork:

The Glittering Eyes asks: The people have spoken! But what the heck did they say?

"My first reaction to last night’s results with Lieberman, McKinney, and Schwarz all defeated was that there was an anti-incumbency movement at work. But on reconsideration I’ve decided that, as James Joyner notes, the results are more clearly explained by issues specific to each individual campaign than some general movement against incumbents."

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway wonders if: Lieberman + McKinney + Schwarz Defeats = Anti-Incumbent?

"Uh, against how many incumbents who won their primaries? Don’t they signal anything? Oddly, since I tend to vote Republican, I have paid no attention to the Schwarz contest. I gather that he was, like Lieberman, defeated by a candidate more closely aligned with his party’s base. McKinney is, well, McKinney. Slapping a police officer, making one outrageous statement after another, and an even nuttier dad making constant idiotic statements to the media were, shall we say, not helpful. Now, I don’t doubt that there’s a strong anti-incumbent wind out there. But three losses easily explained by the idiosyncracies of the individual contests are hardly further evidence for it."

Nonsense. No one goes into a voting booth and just votes against incumbents. A general anti-incumbent bias is always distilled to the "idiosyncracies of the individual contests". The "idiosyncracy" is a specific action trigger for the generalized anger at incumbents over the direction this government has taken our country. In this environment, voters look for idiosyncracies as an excuse to throw their particular bum out of office. They are practically begging for an idiosyncracy. "Just show me an idiosyncracy. Make my day, punk!"

One incumbent losing a primary is an interesting aberration. Three losing a primary is a political chorus line of dancing bears. And that dancing bear chorus line will look like the Rockettes by November.

The DWSUWF blog will happily join that high-stepping, incumbent-kicking line.

Just Vote Divided.