Pride or Prejudice ?

ILLUSTRATED: We must get beyond the stereotyped caricatures the press is boxing the American people into.

At this writing the Democratic nomination is still slogging on. These days the media cavalierly discusses the slicing and dicing of the demography in the voting patterns. There is some voting that is done against Senator Obama and Senator Clinton because of prejudices about who they are. And there are voters who affirmatively want to make history.
It is difficult to reason with either type, because the decision is coming from the heart, albeit a different place in the heart.
As a candidate or a campaign volunteer, just keep telling voters that your candidate cares about them, and will take care of the issues according to their value system.

National Security Debate: Costs and Consequences

ILLUSTRATED: In 2008 Democrats need to discuss how much we can afford to sustain Iraq vis-a-vis our resources for the Defense Department.

There have been posts here and here on this blog questioning the options and resources available in Iraq. It is becoming clear what George W. Bush is leaving for his successor: a decision on whether to break the military or let the Persian Gulf Region become a political sinkhole.

Democratic federal candidates need to be candid (if you will) and tell the American people this up front. We need to discuss the scenarios and their costs and consequences. From best to worst:
1) There is an oil deal and a recognized national government and local authorities, 2) The territorial integrity of Iraq is maintained, but more factional warfare, 3) A full bloodbath with outside countries invading.

It is totally naive to suggest that the United States will not have an interest in what happens, and in fact it is possible that the overall cost of staying may be cheaper in the long run (let's say a 10 year frame of reference).

That brings us to the other side of the equation...

The military is hollowing out. We are lowering our standards for recruits, straining the troops and families we have, destroying our equipment, and hurting our diplomatic credibility.
It will cost a lot to replenish this without a draft. There are limitations on future revenues (taxes and Treasury bonds) as well as huge domestic priorities.

There are indeed other threats in the world, so the force needed to defend against those must be modeled and compared against the costs of the Iraq scenarios in a dynamic analysis.

Democrats must communicate this now on the campaign trail since it is clearly the fault of the GOP. Come January, this is our problem.

The truth about the Surge

ILLUSTRATED: The violence of late March, 2008 shows that the Surge has not changed the political fundamentals in Iraq. McCain's main argument has been discredited.

As I have said many times on this blog, the Surge has been well executed by General Petraeus and his troops. It has had a cosmetic effect on American politics, but has had no fundamental effect on Iraqi politics.
There was a lot of violence in Basra, the gateway to Iraq's oil industry. It was ended by Muqtada al-Sadr voluntarily, without giving up arms. Thus, Iraq is a powder keg waiting to explode. The surge has really been a band-aid, a temporary lull.
When Democratic campaign workers knock on doors, we need to make the case that the surge has not changed anything. McCain is wrong, he does not stand for a change in policy. Democrats do.

What would Reagan think of Henry Paulson?

ILLUSTRATED: The GOP has just forfeited a generation's worth of political leverage.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has just unveiled a new plan to regulate the financial industry. It is uncertain how much of it will become law and which president will sign the bill.
It will be some time before we know how many real regulatory changes are actually in place here, or if it is just cosmetic. The merits will be discussed later, but the political implications are huge. The GOP has ceded the fact that the economy needs to be regulated for its own benefit. Gone is Reagan's mantra that "government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem."
For the next generation, Democrats should not be afraid of being labeled anti-business. We should say "regulating business is in the public interest, and in the interest of commerce."