Another One Bites The Dust

Today, Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) resigned in disgrace, after admitting to taking bribes and tax evasion. Cunningham reportedly took about $2.4 million in bribes (including cash bribes and lavish gifts) "in exchange for help securing Defense Department contracts."

According to Reuters, Cunningham said, "I am resigning from the House of Representatives because I've compromised the trust of my constituents." Indeed.

Although nobody likes to see an otherwise respectable man fall from grace, expect the Democrats to add this incident to a list of examples of Republican corruption. In fact, according to the same Reuters story, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has already declared this case as "just the latest example of the culture of corruption that pervades the Republican-controlled Congress." This is certainly an area where the Democrats can make significant gains in '06. Expect more statements like Pelosi's.

Warner Dives Into Foreign Policy

Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA), whose prospective Presidential run we have discussed in detail (here: http://the-last-polka.blogspot.com/2005/11/3-years-out-let-speculation-begin-pt-1.html) started establishing his foreign policy credentials today with a speech to New York's Asia Society. His speech discussed U.S. policy toward Asia in general, and included specific comments on the War in Iraq. According to the AP, Warner said the following: "This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war). I think we need to focus more on how to finish it...To set an arbitrary deadline or specific date is not appropriate... It is incumbent on the president to set milestones for what he believes will be the conclusion."

The story here is not found in Warner's specific comments - they're fairly conventional. The real story is that he is beginning to develop the weaker parts of his resume - in this case, foreign policy. Expect to here more from this '08 hopeful. We'll certainly be watching...

Scotty Doesn't Know

Taegan Goddard's Political Wire (http://politicalwire.com) cites a Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org) post that questions White House Press Secretary/Spokesman extroidinare Scott McClellan's absence. According to Think Progress, McClellan hasn't given an "on-the-record press briefing" in 19 days. I've been in the anti-McClellan camp for quite a while. As far as I'm concerned, the fewer press briefing McClellan gives, the better. Keeping McClellan away from the blood thirty press corps is one of the only smart things the White House's PR team has done in recent months. Many, including the author of a PR Week article that Goddard cites (http://www.prweek.com/us/thisissue/article/526932/credibility-lapse-threatens-job-security-mcclellan) suspect that McClellan's recent absence is related to his lack of credibility in the wake of the CIA Leak Investigation. There is certainly some truth to that notion. Recently, McClellan has refused to answer any questions about the "ongoing investigation," including those regarding his comments regarding Rove/Libby's involvement. However, I suspect (frankly, I hope) that the White House has finally come to the conclusion that McClellan is simply an incompetent spokesperson. He lacks charisma. He doesn't cut it under pressure. He's a bad press secretary. It's that simple. He didn't suddenly start being incompetent during the Leak Investigation - he has always been this way. Mr. President, do yourself a favor and fire Mr. McClellan - he's not doing you any favors.

Is John Murtha Responsible For The Deaths Of Americans?

While Rep. John Murtha's public cry for redeployment has been exhaustively covered in the media and commented on by pundits across the political spectrum, there haven't been many public attacks on Rep. Murtha, with the exception of Rep. Schmidt's clumsy remarks. Even the White House has chosen to respectfully disagree with Rep. Murtha, while attacking those who question the honesty of the Administration. However, consider the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin's comments about Mr. Murtha's outcry. Mr. Rubin is quoted in the November 26 edition of The Economist as follows:

If America were to "cut and run", to use the shorthand that hawks in Washington always apply to their opponents' plans, al-Qaeda would indeed regard it as a victory. Even just talking about withdrawal emboldens the enemy, argues Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank. "Murtha's comments have gotten Americans killed," he says, "They've convinced the terrorists they are on the right track." A sudden dash for the exit, adds Mr Rubin, would also warn all current and future allies that they could not trust America.

These are strong words and should not be taken lightly or brushed aside. Mr. Rubin has directly related the comments of a revered U.S. Congressman to the deaths of American troops in Iraq. He indeed is convinced that there is a causal relationship between Rep. Murtha's remarks and the killing of U.S. soldiers. Many have suggested that discussion of withdrawing from Iraq shows weakness and "emboldens the enemy." However, this is the first time that I've observed that somebody is relating a specific person's comments to the deaths of service men and women.

More On Dems Iraq Strategy

This morning's Washington Post has a piece by David Broder, which touches on what I was getting at yesterday: the Democrats are finally uniting around a common message with the most pressing issue facing the nation - the war in Iraq (see below). Broder picks up on what I discussed yesterday - Sen. Joe Biden's role as one of the key Democratic voices on this issue. He also writes of freshman phenom, Sen. Barack Obama. Here's some of what Broder writes:

But the outlines of such a position emerged last week in speeches by two respected Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden of Delaware and Barack Obama of Illinois. That they reached almost the same conclusion from opposite sides of the intraparty debate -- Biden an early and consistent supporter of the U.S. intervention against Saddam Hussein, and Obama an equally confirmed skeptic about the invasion -- adds to the significance of their statements.

Biden, the committee's senior Democrat, said in New York that it is time to scale back U.S. ambitions in Iraq and reduce troop commitment while shifting security responsibilities to the Iraqis. The next day, Obama, a freshman member of the committee, made many of the same points in Chicago...

What must happen to make it possible, they agree, is a significant acceleration in the training of Iraqi security forces and in the civil reconstruction projects needed to give Iraqis a sense of hope -- both of which will require a change in priorities and an improvement in operations by U.S. forces.

Both senators express hope that next month's election of a permanent government will help speed the reconciliation of the Sunnis to the plans of the Shiites and the Kurds, but they acknowledge that the critical decisions in this regard must be made by the Iraqis themselves...

Not only have Democrats found their voice, they may well have pointed the administration and the country toward a realistic and modestly hopeful course on Iraq.

The Democrats are gearing up for the midterm elections and are positioning themselves for an "I told you so" type campaign - that is, when the Administration begins withdrawing troops in 2006 (whether in large or small numbers remains to be seen), the Democrats will be on record calling for such action months earlier, while the Administration and Republicans will have looked reluctant to do so. With signs that officials in the Pentagon are preparing to at least draw down in the next year or so (see LA Times article cited below, http://the-last-polka.blogspot.com/2005/11/biden-outlines-case-for-iraq-timetable.html), it will be interesting to watch the politicians position themselves around the situation on the ground in Iraq.

UPDATE (11/27/05 11:51 AM): Apparently, the White House is now positioning itself in line with Biden's proposals. Via AFP:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House has for the first time claimed ownership of an
Iraq withdrawal plan, arguing that a troop pullout blueprint unveiled this past week by a Democratic senator was "remarkably similar" to its own.

It also signaled its acceptance of a recent US Senate amendment designed to pave the way for a phased US military withdrawal from the violence-torn country.

The statement by White House spokesman Scott McClellan came in response to a commentary published in The Washington Post by Joseph Biden, the top Democrat of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he said US forces will begin leaving Iraq next year "in large numbers."...

Biden's ideas, relayed first in a November 21 speech in New York, however, got a much friendlier reception.

Even though President George W. Bush has never publicly issued his own withdrawal plan and criticized calls for an early exit, the White House said many of the ideas expressed by the senator were its own.

In the statement, which was released under the headline "Senator Biden Adopts Key Portions Of Administration's Plan For Victory In Iraq," McClellan said the Bush administration welcomed Biden's voice in the debate.

"Today, Senator Biden described a plan remarkably similar to the administration's plan to fight and win the war on terror," the spokesman went on to say...

Interesting that the White House, via its hopeless Press Secretary, is now "claiming ownership" of ideas that have been, until this point, universally denounced by the President and Vice President. Who says they don't read polls...

Biden Outlines Case For Iraq Timetable

In today's Washington Post, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) outlines the case for a timetable for redeployment from Iraq. As the Ranking Member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is reasonable to assume that Biden is speaking for most, if not all, Senate Democrats. It appears that the Democrats will continue framing the debate about Iraq around just that - redeployment, exit strategy, timetables, etc. The last week or so (See post below: http://the-last-polka.blogspot.com/2005/11/this-week-in-iraq-related-political.html) has seen what many percieve to be a major shift in debate rhetoric over Iraq. It seems that while many Democrats are still calling the Bush Administration's motives and pre-war blunders into question, more and more are now talking of the future. Like we have stated before, if the Democrats want to not just compete, but make real gains in 2006 and 2008, they should have a dual focus: while not forgetting about pre war intelligence failures and/or misleading statements regarding Iraq's threat to U.S. security, Democrats must offer alternative ideas/strategies for the future of Iraq. It is clear that the American people are no longer satisfied with staying the course - at the very least, they want to discuss possible changes in course. Furthermore, much of the talk of redeployment is now focussed on what is good for the future of the U.S. Military. The Bush Administration cannot deny that the military is, at best, stretched very thin. Maintaining the current troop levels in Iraq for an extended period of time is not an option, and many military leaders have made this point clear.

So here's some of what Biden had to say:

...In 2006, [U.S. troops] will begin to leave in large numbers. By the end of the year, we will have redeployed about 50,000. In 2007, a significant number of the remaining 100,000 will follow. A small force will stay behind -- in Iraq or across the border -- to strike at any concentration of terrorists.

That is because we cannot sustain 150,000 Americans in Iraq without extending deployment times, sending soldiers on fourth and fifth tours, or mobilizing the National Guard. Even if we could, our large military presence -- while still the only guarantor against a total breakdown -- is increasingly counterproductive. A liberation has become an occupation...

Over the next six months, we must forge a sustainable political compromise between Iraqi factions, strengthen the Iraqi government and bolster reconstruction efforts, and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces.

First, we need to build political consensus, starting with the constitution. Sunnis must accept that they no longer rule Iraq. But unless Shiites and Kurds give them a stake in the new deal, they will continue to resist. We must help produce a constitution that will unite Iraq, not divide it.

Iraq's neighbors and the international community have a huge stake in the country's future. The president should initiate a regional strategy -- as he did in Afghanistan -- to leverage the influence of neighboring countries. And he should establish a Contact Group of the world's major powers -- as we did in the Balkans -- to become the Iraqi government's primary international interlocutor...

The third goal is to transfer authority to Iraqi security forces. In September, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. acknowledged that only one Iraqi battalion -- fewer than 1,000 troops -- can fight without U.S. help. An additional 40 can lead counterinsurgency operations with our support.

The president must set a schedule for getting Iraqi forces trained to the point that they can act on their own or take the lead with U.S. help. We should take up other countries on their offers to do more training, especially of officers. We should focus on getting the security ministries up to speed. Even well-trained troops need to be equipped, sustained and directed.
(Full article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/25/AR2005112500864.html)

What's good about Biden's piece is that none of his ideas sound absurd and he doesn't once mention pre war intelligence. Responsible Republicans can't hope to convince the American public that such a strategy is conceding defeat to the insurgents.

Meanwhile, the LA Times has this:

Even as debate over the Iraq war continues to rage, signs are emerging of a convergence of opinion on how the Bush administration might begin to exit the conflict...

The developments seemed to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals in 2006 and 2007, consistent with scenarios outlined by Pentagon planners. The approach also tracks the thinking of some centrist Democrats, such as Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior representative of his party on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Some analysts say the emerging consensus might have less to do with conditions in Iraq than the deployment's long-term strain on the U.S. military. And major questions about the readiness of Iraq's fledgling security forces remain, posing risks for any strategy that calls for an accelerated American withdrawal...

A former top Pentagon official who served during Bush's first term said he believed there was a "growing consensus" on withdrawing about 40,000 troops before next year's congressional election. That would be followed by further substantial pullouts in 2007 if it became clear that Iraqi forces could contain the insurgency.
(Full article here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-withdraw26nov26,0,4761481.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines)

This Week in Iraq-Related Political Maneuvering

In the last week before the Congressional Thanksgiving Recess, there were fireworks across D.C. related to Iraq. From the White House's newfound offensive on administration critics (the 're-writing history' angle comes to mind), to Rep. John Murtha outlining his plan for redeploying American troops serving in Iraq "as soon as practicable" (not 'immediately' as the Republican leadership would have us think, more on that later), and finally to Friday's debacle on the floor of the House over a hastily drawn up resolution, which represented not a message of support to the troops from Congress, but rather a weak attempt at mischaracterizing a combat-veteran's thoughtful plan for a change of course. Yesterday's events, in particular, provided a glimpse into the behind the scenes maneuvering of both parties, as each begins to position itself for the 2006 midterms.

Let's start from the top. While the White House continues to advocate 'staying the course' in Iraq, it has certainly changed course in dealing with stateside critics of administration policies. Bruised and battered after weeks of negative press and, more recently, attacks from a newly invigorated opposition in Congress, the White House unleashed its own attacks to discredit war critics. Responding to accusations that the administration manipulated intelligence prior to the war in Iraq, President Bush accused Democrats of trying to "rewrite history." The most spirited and vicious attacks, naturally, came from Vice President Dick Cheney, a leading supporter of the war and Democrats #1 target. From Reuters: (here:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051117/ts_nm/iraq_usa_dc)

In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that accusations the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a "dishonest and reprehensible" political ploy.
Cheney called Democrats "opportunists" who were peddling "cynical and pernicious falsehoods" to gain political advantage while U.S. soldiers died in Iraq...
"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," said Cheney, a principal architect of the war and a focus of Democratic allegations the administration misrepresented intelligence on Iraq's weapons program.
Cheney said the suggestion Bush or any member of the administration misled Americans before the war "is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

This week has made it clear that the Bush administration has decided that they must respond to partisan attacks with partisan attacks. That's all well and good, except for one major flaw: their rhetoric on actual policy remains the same. "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down;" "Stay the course;" we shouldn't "cut and run" - These lines have been used for months, and Bush's approval ratings continue to plummet. Real change in public perception of the war will come only when this administration begins to open up to new ideas and a possible change of course (something they seem to be reluctant to do). No reasonable person (not even most Democrats) want to "withdraw immediately" from Iraq, for the consequences would indeed be dire. However, the President must realize that our ability to change centuries of history in the Middle East, and particularly in Iraq, is limited. Changing course in Iraq and actually outlining some sort of exit strategy are not the absurd notions that Republicans would have us believe.
(By the way...it's fun to hear Cheney talk about dishonesty, shameful political tactics, and reprehensible rhetoric. I seem to remember a certain VP telling a leader in Congress to.....what was it.....ah yes, "Go F**k yourself." Now who was that...)

Meanwhile, in the Senate this week, Senate Democrats introduced an amendment (SA 2519) to the National Defense Appropriations Act For Fiscal Year 2006 (S 1042) that, among other things, called for the following (emphasis mine):

(3) Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq;

(4) United States military forces should not stay in Iraq indefinitely and the people of Iraq should be so advised;...

(6) A schedule for meeting such conditions, an assessment of the extent to which such conditions have been met, information regarding variables that could alter that schedule, and the reasons for any subsequent changes to that schedule.

(7) A campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.

This amendment was defeated in the Senate. A Republican amendment (SA 2518), sponsored by Sen. Warner and Sen. Frist, expressing similar sentiments (with key differences in rhetoric and the elimination of parts 6 and 7 - which Republicans said called for a "timetable" for withdrawal) passed by a vote of 79-19. The passage of the Republican amendment was certainly a significant event. While watered down a bit from the Democratic version (which was defeated 40-58), this amendment still called for 2006 to be a year of significant transition (aka not a year of staying the course). (Full text of both amendments can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r109:./temp/~r109qNWkBH - notice differences in rhetoric)
What does this mean? Leaders in the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, recognize the need to examine our policy in Iraq. Staying the course is not an acceptable strategy (in fact, its not really a strategy at all) - especially for members of Congress up for re-election in 2006.

Let's move over to the House, where discussion of Iraq was markedly more contentious this week. After a few days of the Administration's new offensive, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA-12), a decorated Marine veteran and ranking member on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, outlined his plan for changing course in Iraq. In a much talked about press conference, Rep. Murtha said the following (according to prepared remarks, here: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html):

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course...The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin...I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won militarily. I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress...I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free...Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

Coming from a hawk like Rep. Murtha, this statement was indeed shocking. The emotion and conviction with which he spoke made it clear that he did not take his words lightly - this was not an attempt to play on the American public's ambivalence over the war; rather, these were the words of a long time advocate for U.S. troops who fought back tears as he spoke out for what he felt was right. Was this opportunisticic as Vice President Cheney would like us to think? Was it reprehensible? Dishonest? No. What is reprehensible is that the White House is willing to allow the men and women of the United States Armed Forces to be targeted by insurgent attacks, without even entertaining new ideas. Should we pull out immediately? No. However, it is time to recognize that, as Rep. Murtha outlined, our ability to change the situation on the ground, with the current troop levels, is severelyly limited.

And now the proverbial s**t begins to hit the fan...On Friday, hours before Congress was to recess for Thanksgiving, the House Republican Leadership rushed a resolution to the floor calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The Republican resolution apparently was supposed to represent Murtha's proposal; it was rushed to the floor on the last day before a recess in order to pit Democrats up against one of the most respected members of their own caucus. This move amounted to nothing more than a transparent political ploy. The Republican leadership is wrong in assuming that they will win any debate on foreign policy/defense/war on terror - this is clearly no longer the case.
As if this ploy alone wasn't bad enough, the 'debate' that accompanied it was laced with personal attacks as well as the usual partisan talking points. Republicans hit rock bottom when the most junior member of the House, Jean Schmidt, sent the following message to Rep. Murtha: "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Needless to say, it got quite ugly from here. The Washington Post describes the showdown as follows (full story here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802896.html):

Differences over policy on the Iraq war ignited an explosion of angry words and personal insults on the House floor yesterday when the chamber's newest member suggested that a decorated war veteran was a coward for calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.
As Democrats physically restrained one colleague, who appeared as if he might lose control of himself as he rushed across the aisle to confront Republicans with a jabbing finger, they accused Republicans of playing political games with the war...[Following Schmidt's attack] Dozens of Democrats erupted at once, pointing angrily at Schmidt and shouting repeatedly, "Take her words down" -- the House term for retracting a statement. For a moment Schmidt tried to keep speaking, but the uproar continued and several GOP colleagues surrounded her as she sat down, looking slightly dazed. Presiding officer Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) gaveled in vain for order as Democrats continued shouting for Schmidt to take back her words. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) yelled "You guys are pathetic!" from the far end of the Democratic section to the GOP side.
Just as matters seemed to calm a bit, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) suddenly charged across the aisle to the GOP seats, jabbing his finger furiously at a small group of GOP members and shouting, "Say Murtha's name!" Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who had led the chants for striking Schmidt's comments, gently guided Ford by the arm back to the minority party's side.

Watching this unfold was like watching the British House of Commons: booing and shouting, the presiding officer desperately trying to call the House to order. The only difference? The House of Commons is much more civil than our House proved to be on Friday.

(I've spent much of my time criticizing Republicans with regard to Friday's House debacle. Democrats don't get off completely unscrutinized: For instance, Rep. Dennis Kucinich's hissy fit would've been comical if the subject matter weren't so serious.)

Okay, so now what? Judging from the House showdown, I think it's safe to say that the '06 Midterms will be ugly, to say the least. These races will go negative hard and early. If Democrats want to gain any credibility on Iraq, they musn't cower to White House/Republican attacks. However, Democrats must also offer alternative policies. They cannot rely on partisan attacks alone. 'Firing up the base' will only get them so far. The ambivalent middle of the country needs to hear alternatives. Nobody wants to cut and run; what Americans want are answers about intelligence failures/manipulations (yes that's right, I tend not to trust WH assertions that intelligence wasn't tampered with) and alternative proposals for the future. Without proposals for the future, the Democrats won't get as far as they'd hope. For Republicans, they can no longer assume victory in debates over foreign policy and defense matters. It seems, somewhat ironically, that the 2006 midterms will be more of a referendum on Iraq than the 2004 Presidential election. Interesting indeed.

(P.S. Dick Cheney looks like a fool in tuxedo - I had to fit that in somewhere.)

UPDATE: Let's not forget what really matters in all of this discussion:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3359080/ - U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq, as of 11/15

Faces of the Fallen (9/15-11/19), via WP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm

Also from WP: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111800111.html)

BAGHDAD, Nov. 18 -- Suicide bombers killed nearly 100 people Friday in one of the deadliest days of Iraq's insurgency, bringing houses down on sleeping families in Baghdad and shredding Shiite Muslim worshipers in two mosques in the eastern part of the country just as the victims turned their faces up to the preachers to hear their Friday sermons.

3 Years Out - Let the Speculation Begin, Pt. 1

2008 - It's time to start speculating.

We at The Last Polka will begin the speculation with one of our favorite potential Democratic Presidential Candidates (part 2 will discuss a Republican to be named later). This individual is a moderate who has had a great deal of success in a Red State. He is a governor and hails from outside the beltway (although Richmond is not too far away). With the right people around him and enough money, he has great potential. Who is it that we are talking about?

Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA)

Gov. Warner has been pushed into the spotlight in the last few weeks after his Lieutenant Governor, Tim Kaine, was elected to be Warner's successor. Kaine will take over after Warner's constitutionally limited one term governorship comes to an end in the coming months. There are several factors working in Gov. Warner's favor in his potential presidential bid. Let's begin...

Red State Credentials
There was some talk in the 2004 election of Virginia possibly 'going blue' largely due to the increased influence of the more affluent, suburban northern part of the state. Needless to say, this did not happen; President Bush swept the south, including a comfortable 9 point margin of victory in Virginia. Although I hate to give in to the prevailing conventional wisdom, I seriously doubt the chances of a northern, elitist liberal being elected president (sorry Hillary). I need not remind you that the most recent Democratic presidents have, at the very least, been able to appeal to Southern voters. Mark Warner has the ability to do this. A key part to his victory in 2001 was his ability, even as a wealthy businessman, to appeal to rural voters in Virginia. He is comfortable in his own skin and voters recognize and respect this. For instance, during his campaign for governor in 2001, he identified with rural and traditionally Republican voters with his pro-gun views and his attendance at NASCAR events. As Larry Sabato, the famous UVA professor (and founder of Sabato's Crystal Ball, here: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/) told NPR's Juan Williams(NPR's 2/7/05 Morning Edition):

He understood that rural Virginians, who tend to be the most Republican,
love NASCAR. Every chance he got, he was at a NASCAR event.

Furthermore, Gov. Warner didn't merely survive his four years as governor - he accomplished a great deal (which will be discussed below). He pushed through controversial legislation and programs through a Republican controlled state legislature. And what does Warner have to show for it? Only an approval rating in the mid 60's (according to Survey USA, here: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=2f8590f6-a3ae-434b-bd1a-fddd1ff9556e). Just a reminder: that's an approval rating well over 60% for a Democrat in a RED STATE. What's the bottom line: Mark Warner, with his bipartisan appeal, puts the South in play for the Dems. Whether Democratic primary voters will realize this remains to be seen.

Executive Experience

Another bit of conventional wisdom that I tend to, reluctantly, concur with is the idea that governors have a much better shot at the presidency than members of Congress. This trend has repeated itself time and time again in recent history (Bush II, Clinton, Reagan) for several reason, not the least of which is the experience one gains as the chief executive of a state. For Mark Warner, 'Governor' is more than merely a title. In four years as governor of Virginia, he did something that many politicians (particularly those in Washington) have a hard time doing - he actually governed. Consider,

Shortly after taking office, however, Warner found himself faced with a $3 billion budget shortfall (much larger than his predecessor had suggested it would be). He spent the first two years in office cutting spending, ultimately reducing state expenditures by a total of $6 billion and eliminating 3,000 positions for good....He eliminated 50 state boards and commissions and cut spending in every agency aside from K-12 education (from Governing Magazine's November 2004 issue).

A Democrat with fiscally conservative credentials - sounds extremely attractive to me. For his honesty with Virginians and the effectiveness of his policies, Warner was named one of Governing Magazine's Public Officials Of The Year (http://www.governing.com/poy/2004/warner.htm); In a recent issue of Time, Warner was named one of the nation's five best governors (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html). As Time reported, under Warner, Virginia "tied with Utah as the best-managed state in the country, as rated by the Government Performance Project, an academic group." So he brings not only the title of 'Governor' with him, he brings real experience and results. (Bonus: As a presidential candidate, Warner can steal the deficit reduction angle from the Republicans. Downside: He also increased taxes in Virginia, something the Republicans would undoubtedly pounce upon in any Presidential campaign. But we're getting ahead of ourselves here, aren't we...)

Bipartisan Appeal

Republicans and Democrats have a choice in the upcoming election cycles, both '06 and '08: will they settle for candidates who pander to their respective bases and again ignore the vast moderate middle of America, or will they support candidates who can actually bring people together and solve problems (because let's face it, we have a lot of problems). Here's my take on this: regardless of what national party leaders do, across the nation, voters are tired of partisan attacks and bickering. Despite close election results and the so-called culture war, Americans yearn for cooperation in government. Mark Warner can tap into this vast moderate middle and attract both traditional Americans and more progressive Americans. If the powers that be reach the same conclusions that I have (and I seriously doubt they will), they would be well advised to pour money into a possible Warner '08 campaign. The trouble Warner will have, like any moderate in either party, is in securing his party's nomination and enough money to fund a general election campaign. Even if Democratic primary voters rebel from the establishment and nominate a middle of the road candidate, it may be difficult to raise the funds necessary to win in November. On the other hand, if a moderate like Warner is nominated (admittedly, this is still a long shot) Democratic activists, so frustrated by 8 years of GW Bush, may do whatever it takes ($$$$$$) to get a Dem elected. Bottom line: if Democrats decide to appeal to moderates rather than the 'radical' fringe of their own party, Warner should be seriously considered.

Regardless of the many factors working both in favor and against a moderate like Mark Warner, he has one thing that many politicians in Washington and around the nation don't: Virginia's one term limit allows him to begin traveling the country, meeting voters, and raising money in key primary states. He has already began this effort, through his Forward Together PAC. Let's watch what happens over the next two years. Don't be surprised to see Mark Warner as a serious contender for the Democratic nomination in '08.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports that Warner made his "first political visit to the home of the nation's first primary Friday, attending a roundtable discussion on high school dropout prevention in Nashua and speaking to a gathering of Democratic activists in Manchester" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802660.html). And it starts...

UPDATE II: The Washington Post has more on Warner's NH trip, here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/20/AR2005112001463.html

Oh Howard...

Watching DNC Chairman Howard Dean on Meet The Press (full transcript here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9967566/) on Sunday only confirmed what I have feared for some time now - Dean is the wrong person to be heading the DNC in such a crucial time. With Republican Congressional leaders, lobbyists, and administration officials under investigation and the President's approval rating consistently in the mid-30's (now in several polls), Democrats have a tremendous opportunity to do what would have seemed impossible just a few months ago - win back one or both houses of Congress. However, with Dr. Dean at the helm, it seems increasingly possible that the Democrats will squander this opportunity.

National Party leaders don't have anywhere near the power they once had. DNC and RNC leaders, respectively, have two basic (however, extremely important) functions: 1) Fundraising, and 2) Crafting/Promoting a clear message on behalf of their party. Howard Dean, as the Chairman of the DNC, is, unfortunately, the face of the Democratic Party. In appearances such as Sunday's, he represents all Democrats; on such a big stage, he has a duty to be clear, concise, confident, and most importantly appealing to the viewer/voter. Howard Dean has never been able to connect with voters outside of the most liberal circles of his native Vermont - he couldn't as a presidential candidate and he still cannot as DNC Chairman. The difference: his many missteps now hurt all Democrats, not just his primary campaign.

As far as fundraising, last week the Washington Post reported,

The Democratic National Committee under Howard Dean is losing the fundraising
race against Republicans by nearly 2 to 1...From January through September, the
Republican National Committee raised $81.5 million, with $34 million remaining
in the bank. The Democratic National Committee, by contrast, showed $42 million
raised and $6.8 million in the bank.

No matter how much anti-GOP sentiment there is in 2006, Democrats will not take back Congress without MONEY. It is certainly too early to be making doomsday predictions; however, at the same time, Democrats need to take advantage of the current political climate through an aggressive fundraising campaign. Having a (D) next to one's name will only win over a limited number of disillusioned moderates. (Remember how far Sen. Kerry got running as 'the other guy'?) Furthermore, a recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll (poll data: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/997a3Midterms.pdf, story/analysis: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1283170) shows that Congressional Democrats have a relatively low approval rating (41%). In addition, 51 % of respondents feel that Democrats are not "offering the country a clear direction that's different from the Republicans."

All of this information makes the following quite obvious: Democrats have a lot of work to do if they expect to make significant gains in '06. The aforementioned poll data shows that most people still don't believe Democrats have a clear vision for America. Why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A CLEAR VISION FOR AMERICA. Please Dr. Dean, explain to us why Democrats still have not offered alternative policies on the issues that matter to us:

Right now it's not our job to give out specifics. We have no control in the
House. We have no control in the Senate.

What? It's not your job? It's not your job to tell voters what you would do differently? Its not your job to articulate specific policy differences between the Administration and the Opposition? In the words of a very wise man, you've got to be shittin' me. The head of the National Democratic party said those very words on Meet The Press on 11/13/05. Russert asked him about specific Democratic plans on Social Security, the deficit, Iraq, energy prices, and other issues, and that is how the DNC chairman responded. PITIFUL. EMBARRASSING.

One last point about Sunday's Meet The Press: RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman also appeared, in a separate segment. I would bet my paycheck that Dean's people refused to appear along side Mehlman. Mehlman would have eaten Dean for breakfast. The juxtaposition of a confident, powerful Mehlman to a horrendously inadequate Dean would have been tragic. Hell, Dean did poorly enough on his own.

I'll admit, I've never liked Dean. His early success in 2004 Primary season disturbed me. I never understood his appeal. Eventually, his inadequacies and of course the "Scream" did him in. He was elected DNC Chairman as a consolation prize in the aftermath of Kerry's defeat - this was a HUGE MISTAKE. Democrats may still make significant gains in next year's midterms; however, it will most certainly be in spite of Dr. Dean. He is the wrong person for Americans to identify all Democrats with.

First Time...

Welcome to The Last Polka. This is my first attempt at blogging. Hopefully I'll have a few posts during the week. Until then...