Conventional Wisdom and General Elections

Chap Petersen has an intriguing post on his Ox Road South blog. In it Chap demonstrates, by examining the results of elections going back to 1992, that the party that holds primaries eventually ends up winning the general election more often than not. To be sure, it's not foolproof and doesn't happen in every election. In fact, during the first few of years in the early 2000s, when the Democrats switched from conventions to primaries, they continued to lose, especially at the national level. But eventually by 2006, Democrats began to win elections.

During that time, the Republicans, in a reversal of strategy, went from an open primary system for picking their candidates to closed conventions. That also reversed their fortunes in the general election. Here is Chap's conclusion:

Over the past twenty years, the parties which select their nominees by primary generally win in general elections. That result does not necessarily occur immediately. For example, it took two years after the Dem primary in 04 for the results to sink in and really be utilized.

However, by 2006, the Democrats had a much better idea where their potential voters lived and how to reach them. This process then exploded in 2008, when nearly a million people came to vote for Hillary or Obama. That list was crucial for organizing the state for Obama in the general campaign.

Conventions are less costly and limit participation to party regulars. There are arguments for and against that. But the record is clear that primaries, in the long term, produce the winners.

I am going to expand on this. But first an observation, most politically engaged Virginians are aware of the commonwealth's conventional wisdom that the party that wins the White House loses the Virginia's governor's mansion the following year. One reason put forth for this is that by the following year, disillusionment sets in with the policies of the White House, so the Virginia electoral results act as a harbinger of the mid-term Congressional elections. Historically, the party in control of the presidency usually loses Congressional seats at the two year mark as well and for the same reason.

But the difference caused by holding a primary versus a closed convention might upset that bit of conventional wisdom as well. Let me add quickly that predicting results is always risky business, even if you claim a crystal ball. Since I'm no psychic, this is only guess work.

There could, however, be a logical reason that an open primary leads to success, especially in local and state elections. To start with, you get a wider cross section of voters picking the candidate, so you end up with a more moderate candidate who already appeals more to voters in a general election.

On the other hand, the problem with a convention is that it favors the choice of the party's most passionate partisans, those who are the most ideological - that's true whether we're talking about the Democratic or Republican Party. But right now, the Republicans seem to be particularly concerned with ideological purity and litmus tests. That could bode ill for them come a general election when you've got to tack to the center.

Another advantage of the primary system for choosing a candidate is that you get a far more accurate voter list to work from for the general election. You get lists of voters who have already come out and voted for a Democrat. In a small turnout election (and even the governor's race may well be a far smaller turnout than last year's blow out presidential race), you want to effectively target your voters and get them out. You don't want to spend your energy and time having to first figure out who they are. A good database from the primary gives you a one up on that.

There are some good reasons for holding conventions instead, and some people dislike the primary system. The strongest objection to open primaries is that too often members of the opposition party can vote and game the system to pick the weakest candidate, making it easier for them to beat in the general election.

One way to counter that is to have voter registration by party and closed primaries, limited only to members of one party. After all, if one is choosing the Democratic candidate, there is no reason why it shouldn't be limited just to registered Democrats.

Independents would still be able to register as such and vote in the general election. But they wouldn't be able to choose a party's candidate, whether Republican or Democrat. That has the advantage of getting some Independents who lean Democratic or Republican to get off the fence to declare for one or the other party.

But allowing Independents to vote in the primary also is a good way to figure out which of them actually lean your way. It too could be viewed as good for party building and for aiding GOTV efforts.

Lots of pros and cons here. But I think the good senator from the 34th District is on to something.

Buzz on the Blogosphere: Netroots Rising

The Virginia progressive blogosphere is excited that one of our own, Lowell Feld, just released the new book, Netroots Rising, which he and Nate Wilcox co-authored. Waldo posted something about it and here's something from Wilcox on MYDD. Here’s a sample of the comments, from Leesburg Tomorrow, who wrote the following:

The blogger who has done the most to help me get on my feet and pushed me to keep writing and thinking is Lowell Feld of RaisingKaine. He and I do not necessarily agree all the time, but it is thanks to him that Leesburg Tomorrow is here today...

I’d have to second that. When I first began blogging, I wrote something about Jim Webb and the next thing I knew I got two comments, one from Lowell and the other from Josh Chernila, both of RK. I didn’t even know who they were. That’s how naïve I was. I had just started blogging and was writing mostly about national level politics, economic populism, and religion. Then, I met Lee Diamond, who was handing out a petition to get Jim Webb on the ballot for the primary. That was how I found out about Webb. Since one of the big issues in Webb’s primary was outsourcing and economic justice at home, I jumped on the bandwagon. I'd been reading and linking to Paul Krugman as much as I could precisely because of his take on the economy.

Then, after reading Lowell's and Josh's comments, the next thing I knew, my blog was listed on their blogroll, they asked me to cross post on RK, I began to get more readers, and somebody suggested that I also get my blog put on Lefty Blogs. Suddenly, I was part of the the Virginia Netroots.

Lowell has done more to encourage and promote me than almost anybody else, except my former neighbor Ben Tribbett. And that was before Lowell ever even met me. So, I’m proud and honored now to put up a link on my blogroll to his new website, Netroots Rising. Not only does it promote the book with excerpts and interviews, but it’s fascinating reading even as a stand alone.

Lowell’s interview with Donnie Fowler, the son of legendary South Carolina DNC Chairman, Donald Fowler (whom I had the pleasure of meeting once), gives a very good, balanced assessment of the new Netroots medium. Donnie, who grew up living and breathing politics, was General Wesley Clark’s first campaign manager and here’s what he had to say:

Fowler: At the risk of being critical of the netroots, there’s a sense in the netroots….lots of them are new to politics, the 2003/2004 campaign was their first real political experience. There’s a sense that there was no grassroots before the internet came along, that’s just a misunderstanding. The grassroots has always existed. What technology has done has allowed us to do the most traditional politics much better and much faster. There’s nothing actually new. The netroots sometimes believes that they invented the grassroots, or some completely highly advanced super charged steroids-full grassroots.
...
Fowler: The underlying feeling that the Democratic Party never did grassroots before the netroots came along, that’s just not true. There were unions, the pro-choice movement, the [civil rights] movement, all of which predated the internet. The internet makes it all easier.

Fowler fought for the netroots when the Beltway professionals came in and took over Clark’s campaign. But he’s right that there always was a grassroots composed of loyal foot soldiers who get out the vote election after election, often with little personal reward beyond seeing their candidate win and getting a few of their favorite causes implemented as policy. The ‘net and netroots simply make communication and the exchange of ideas easier. The ideal, as Lowell has often said, is a new electronic town square, where the entire globe can be our village.

My favorite interview, though, is one Lowell conducted with Jon Henke, who was Lowell’s counterpart in the George Allen campaign.

Because I actively participated in blogging for Jim Webb and against George Allen at the time, I had a front row seat to some of what they are discussing. That campaign was as knock down and drag out as it gets. I remember trying to describe it to a friend who wasn’t familiar with the blogosphere. I said, “It’s a full contact sport, not for the faint of heart or squeamish.”

It’s fascinating all these years later to see these two worthy adversaries sit down to a cordial interview and to read Henke’s take on what happened.

Henke: I believe the Democrats “got” the Netroots in 2006, while Republicans did not get it at all. In 2007, Republicans are just now at the same place Democrats were in late 2002/early 2003: they know this whole “new media” thing is important and they know they should try to figure it out, but it’s still a bit of a mystery to most of them. It will take some time for the establishment to grow comfortable with the new communications medium.

Henke: I think pro-Democratic blogs outnumber pro-Republican blogs almost everywhere, regardless of the hue of the State. Democrats have a much more developed new media operation, and the liberal/progressive movement throws more resources at their new media effort. However, in Virginia, as in much of the country, it’s simply a matter of Democrats being out of power, frustrated and in search of new venues for their voice. Democrats gravitated to blogs for the same reason that Republicans gravitated to talk radio and Free Republic in the 90s. It gave them a place to shout – a place to get involved.

Feld: Do you believe that senior Allen strategists like Dick Wadhams were surprised at the intensity of the Virginia blogosphere? Did anyone ever say to Wadhams, “Dick, I don’t think we’re in South Dakota anymore!”

Henke: I think virtually all Republicans were surprised at the effectiveness of the Democrats internet media machine. I suspect that a few years of apparent impotence had lulled them into the belief that the LeftRoots movement was just the “fringe crazies”. That misses the real power and influence of the liberal blogs, in my opinion, which is much more in narrative development and messaging to the influentials than about fundraising and GOTV.

I could, of course, tell you what Henke said about the Macacca Moment. But nah! For that, you’ll just have to go to Netroots Rising and read it for yourself. And read what Jim Webb had to tell Lowell.

If you buy the book, you’ll find out how a group of upstarts launched a movement, helped turn the Senate blue, and made history.

Rebranding of the Baptists?

I recently wrote a post about a new book, Fall of the Evangelical Nation, by former Dallas Morning News religion writer, Christine Wicker. In her tome, Ms. Wicker maintained that the big religion story every reporter was missing is that membership in the evangelical churches is shrinking, and the denomination's political influence is waning.

Two recent stories in the Washington Post, seem to bear out Ms. Wicker's claims and show that the media are waking up to this hard fact.

First, Jacqueline Salmon writes, in the Sunday June 8th newspaper, that the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination, is going to consider a ten year initiative to halt the sharp decline in its membership. According to the report:

Alarmed by a drop in membership and baptisms, members of the Southern Baptist Convention are set to consider at their annual meeting, which starts Tuesday, a 10-year initiative to reverse the decline.

The number of people baptized in Southern Baptist churches fell for the third straight year last year to the lowest level in 20 years, and membership in the nation's largest Protestant denomination decreased by close to 40,000 to 16.27 million last year. Leaders of the convention say the numbers could represent a turning point for the organization.

The convention's president, the Rev. Frank S. Page, has predicted that unless the denomination takes swift action, the number of Southern Baptist churches will fall by half by 2030.

The article then goes on to describe the initiative, which consists of outreach to young families and college students and to create worship services and programs more relevant to their tastes and lifestyles.

Some Baptists churches, however, have taken an even more radical route. They are wrestling with the decision to drop the "Baptist" from their names because they think the brand's bad. According to this piece, by Brigid Schulte,

After 100 years, Baptist Temple, he feared, was dying. In its heyday in the 1950s, more than 900 members crammed into the sanctuary of the pretty white church in Alexandria that was built for 500. Now he was lucky to get 30. Perhaps the problem, he began to think, was the name itself.

"We're probably the most progressive church in the city, but 'Baptist Temple' sounds weird, like it's charismatic and conservative," Thomason said. He worried that the word "Baptist" had become indelibly tied to the political religious right and that when combined with "Temple" it sounded like a fundamentalist "bring out the snakes" kind of place.

Although that particular church ultimately voted to simply drop "Temple" and leave "Baptist" in their name, becoming the Commonwealth Baptist Church, the issue of name change is troubling Baptists across the nation.

The truth is there are many different types of Baptists, as the article points out. Although the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest group, there is also a denomination of American Baptists, which broke from the Southern Convention during the Civil War, over the issue of slavery. Located mostly in the northern United States, American Baptists are far more progressive than their southern counterparts. There also are historically black Baptist denominations. Each Baptist church also has considerable autonomy as none of the various Baptists Conventions are hierarchical in the way that the Roman Catholic or Episcopal churches are.

The point, though, is that many mainstream Baptists, across all denominational lines, are concerned that the Baptist name has become too associated with right wing political causes and narrow fundamentalism.

"The word Baptist is such a turnoff," said David Roozen, director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research in Connecticut, who has documented the name-changing trend. "There is a kind of national skepticism about evangelical Christianity because of the religious right and the connection to the Bush administration. You say 'Baptist' and people almost automatically think conservative."

And that's by no means an eccentric position.

Like those at many Baptist and other Christian churches across the country where attendance has steadily dropped, many Baptist Temple members feel they are at a point where they must either rebrand themselves with a new name, restart as an entirely new church or limp along a few more years before quietly closing their doors.
Recent national surveys show that in an attempt to fill pews, a small but steadily growing number of Christian churches are changing their names and even their religious denominations. Wycoff Baptist in New Jersey became Cornerstone Christian Church. First Baptist in Concord, N.H., is now Centerpoint Church. The Reformed Church in America outside Detroit became Crosswinds Community Church.

Even the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant group in the country, whose 16 million membership has declined in recent years, has hosted church-naming seminars asking the question, "To Baptist or Not to Baptist?"

So, the story Christine Wicker stumbled across and could hardly believe has now hit the mainstream media.

I can't help but be struck by the irony that not only has too close an association between denominationalism and partisan politics hurt the nation and the political parties, it's also harmed the religious denominations that allowed themselves to be so tempted by worldly power and influence.

It may be that religion is at its most powerful when it plays the role of the outsider, hungering for justice and thirsting for righteousness. If I recall my Bible correctly, none of the prophets were numbered among the powerful of the kings' courts. Indeed, they came afflict the powerful and comfort the afflicted. Perhaps, that is what Baptists need to do again, rather than change their names.

Conservatives Crying Wolf

Far too many conservative bloggers casually call Democrats socialists and mischaracterize Democratic programs as socialism. They do this because they have no idea what real socialism is.
To prove they don’t know what they are talking about, here’s a description, from a story, written by Simon Romero, in yesterday’s New York Times showing what a socialist regime would really look like. It’s from a story about the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, and his latest power grab, including his attempt to abolish term limits for his presidency, which would allow him to serve as leader of his country indefinitely. At the same time, he is proposing to alter the Venezuelan Constitution to impose stricter term limits on local governors and mayors to eliminate any challenge from them to his authority. In addition, Chavez is seizing industries, nationalizing them, centralizing his power, and shutting down TV and radio stations critical of him.

Here’s the money quote that perfectly describes his version of state socialism:

Mr. Chávez’s proposals would centralize his control over political institutions even further, potentially weakening opponents...Mr. Chávez’s current term expires in 2012...

“We are entering a new stage implying more intensive state control of society,” said Steve Ellner, a political scientist at Oriente University in eastern Venezuela...

...He has nationalized telecommunications, electricity and oil companies; forged a single socialist party for his followers; deepened alliances with countries like Cuba and Iran; and sped the distribution of billions of dollars for local governing entities called communal councils.

There is nothing in the Democratic Party platform or the policies and positions of any mainstream Democratic candidate that remotely resembles this. No Democrat, indeed no organized labor official, proposes to seize corporations from their rightful owners to nationalize them.

There is a debate in America between advocates of a pure market-based economic system and those who want a mixed system that would basically keep the free market intact but would enact legislation to ensure health and safety regulations in the workplace, the right to collective bargaining, minimum wage laws, and discourage outsourcing through tax incentives to companies that stay in the U.S. and hire American workers. This is all part of the larger debate on the role of government in helping the middle class and poor people. But it’s not about taking over industries or income redistribution.

The debate is actually twofold. It’s partly about how much regulation we need to protect health, safety, and wages without placing too onerous a burden on businesses and discouraging economic growth. Get the balance wrong and you either have a drag on the economy as businesses fail or a free for all where people get sick from unsafe products and the middle class sinks into poverty.

And this debate is also about which services we as citizens wish to fund, through taxes, for the common good. Do we, as a society, believe that funding public education, health care, Social Security, street repair, traffic control, police protection, and a myriad of other services have value? Do we want to pay for some of these things and leave others to the individual? Which ones do we fund and which do we leave alone? Those are fair questions for discussion. None of these topics include nationalizing the oil industry or turning healthcare over to government run clinics. Indeed, in America we are more apt to discuss how to privatize services than how to nationalize them. So, the debate is more likely to be about which services, traditionally provided by the government, we should keep and which should be contracted out, not which industries we should seize next.

Another area for debate is which branch of government should provide those services. What is the role of the federal government versus the state and local governments? The traditional conservative approach is to devolve power down to the level closest to the people, while liberals have favored greater involvement at the federal level to provide services to the broadest number of people.

In terms of efficiency, the arguments can go either way. We can gain economies of scale by providing services, like Medicare, at the federal level to the entire nation. On the other hand, money can be saved and duplication of effort eliminated by letting each state and municipality design its own system to meet local needs.

As you can see, there are real policy differences between the parties, but none of them are anti-capitalist or pro-socialist. One party favors a more ideologically pure and robust free market system with more sweeping laissez fair. The other party is more pragmatic and favors some government regulation for health, safety, wage protection and a safety net beneath which nobody would fall. The real argument is how much regulation and service to provide and how to fund it?

It’s important to present the real debate and give voters a true choice. It’s equally important not to misuse labels because once you start throwing around inaccurate accusations, you trivialize the language. The problem with crying wolf is that once you call Hillary Clinton and John Edwards socialists, when Hugo Chavez comes along and really threatens democracy and capitalism, people will no longer heed your warnings because the very word socialist will have ceased to have real meaning.

The Politics of Obstruction

Note: I participated in today’s press conference and below is my write up:

The good news is that the Democrats are fighting back against the Republicans’ well planned strategy to block all legislation and then label this a “do nothing Congress.”

And make no mistake, my friends, this is a very carefully thought out strategy to filibuster or veto every spending bill, every reform, and every piece of legislation that would help the lives of ordinary Americans. What it also is, though, is an attempt to thwart the will of the voters who elected Democrats to the Senate and the House in 2006 to end the war in Iraq and clean up the Republican mess of the last twelve years.

Some of the bills Republicans have filibustered, or the president has vetoed or threatened to veto, include healthcare reform, a prescription drug plan for senior citizens, healthcare for children whose parents often hold two or more jobs but can’t afford basic medical services for their kids, and any attempt to change course in Iraq. Indeed, dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq was one of the major factors that led to the ouster of Republicans in 06 and it’s the most important issue fueling public anger right now. And it’s Republicans who are blocking any attempt to bring sanity to our Iraqi strategy now.

In addition, they have blocked bills for safety measures, to make student loans more affordable, to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, environmental legislation to fight global warming – indeed many of them even deny there is global warming.

Robert Borsage, co-director of Campaign for America’s Future, in a press conference with media and bloggers today, likened these Republicans to someone who “mugs the mailman then complains about mail delivery.”

But Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich), Representative George Miller (D-Calif), and Representative Jan Schakowksy (D-Ill) joined Borsage and Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, to fight back against these tactics of obstruction.

The also pointed out that despite the Republicans’ attempts to block legislation that benefits the average American, the Congress has indeed succeeded and passed some important bills that improve lives including raising the minimum wage, and healthcare for children, which just passed the other day. Despite passing with 68 votes, making it virtually veto proof, the president is threatening to use his veto power.

Indeed, the Republicans have used the filibuster 43 times, making this the most filibusters in history, triple the previous record, and the president has used the veto 31 times from May through August.

To combat this, for the month of August, Democrats and their allies vow to hold press conferences, on-line discussions, and appearances on talk radio and television to shine a light on the Republicans obstructionist agenda to thwart the will of the American people.

In addition to a month long campaign targeting Republican senators including Mitch McConnell, John Sunnunu, Pete Dominici, Susan Collins, Norm Coleman, John Warner, Elizabeth Dole, Charles Grassley and Voinavich for their contributions to the politics of obstructionism, Democrats are airing this video, with Jason Alexander, from YouTube.

In doing so, they hope the Republican strategy will have a boomerang effect and when the GOP legislators hit their districts, the summer environment will be “hot enough to fry an egg on the hood of a car” when they meet with their constituents and hold their town meetings.

Despite the new militancy, the Democrats vowed they will not change the Senate rules or limit the legitimate voice of the minority, or the voice of conscience. Remembering their years as the minority party, they will vow no “nuclear options” to strip away the filibuster. But they do promise to shine the sunlight on the way Republicans are now abusing it and using it as a weapon of mass obstruction.

The Negative Attack Dogs of August

UPDATE: Brian Kirwin pointed out to me on Vivian Paige's site that by titling my piece "attack dogs" I was implying that he was a dog. That was never, never my intention. Frankly, I just thought it was a snappy title. But I guess because of the proximity of the title to Brian's name in the post, you could make that connection. So, I am sorry Brian. You are not a dog. I'd never call you that. AIAW

Or just a reasoned, vigorous debate?

Brian Kirwin, on Bearing Drift, challenged Creigh Deeds to condemn a new Democratic Website for going negative and attacking Republican candidates. For some background, at last month’s Blogs United conference in Hampton Roads, Deeds said this in a speech:

Whether it’s in Washington or in Richmond, we have to change the tone of the debate and put a stop to the endless bickering and gamesmanship that has come to define politics.

We have to reject the poisonous language that is used to describe the other side and hold up as an example those people who believe, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

So, Kirwin, whose favorite part-time hobby is to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy, thinks that Deeds should publicly disavow TheyDon’tGetVA.com.

Of course, turn around is fair play so let me point out that he thinks it’s perfectly fine for him or his cohorts, like Squeaky Wheel, to call Hillary Clinton a utopian socialist here.

First of all she’s no such thing. She is a moderate centrist Democrat who believes the government does have some role to play in solving social problems like health care. She also believes in public education, a socialist scheme that came over from England on the Mayflower. And her husband was the president who got NAFTA and other free trade agreements passed in Congress. There are real liberals who actually have trouble with her candidacy. But that doesn’t stop these two from misrepresenting and stereotyping her.

Or from whining when indeed there is turnabout. Somehow, Democrats are always the ones with the double standard when they retaliate against attacks. All schoolyard bullies love it when their victims are too cowed to fight back.

Unfortunately for them, Democrats are more and more refusing to be cowed and are fighting back. Something I heartily recommend, as long as they do so fairly and with integrity.


So, I went to the Website that’s causing these two conservatives such profound distress because of its patent unfairness - or so they allege. I decided to check it out for myself and here's what I found.


It’s neither unfairly negative nor an attack site. It’s a challenge.

The Democrats who put up the site do indeed claim they think some conservative Republicans are out of touch with most Virginians. And they back it up with fact-based evidence for their position.

For example, they point out that Tricia Stall signed a petition and made statements that she does not support public education. I’ve been to the anti-public education Website and seen her signature there (you do have to scroll down to see it) and read her subsequent statement.

So, what TheyDon'tGetVA.com alleges is true. In fact, you can even argue that if others agree with Stall’s position, then this site would help her by publicizing it. It’s only if you disagree with her public position on education and think it is extreme that you would call this is a negative attack.

The site also illustrates Jeannemarie Devolites Davis' less than sterling attendance record at the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority and the Northern Virginia Transportation Committee. JMDD claims credit for her clout, expertise and dedication to solving the transportation problems in Northern Virginia. If she’s not attending the meetings of boards she is on that address this issue, it’s fair game to mention it.

In fact, anything that challenges a candidate on either a public position they’ve taken or their performance on the job is perfectly fair. Without debating differences or scrutinizing competence and dedication, how is the public supposed to make an informed decision in November?

What’s unfair and negative is to make a personal attack on a candidate for things that are irrelevant to his performance, competence or public positions. It’s wrong to demonize people, stereotype or slander them. Telling outright lies is wrong. So far, this site has done none of that. It’s promoting fair and vigorous debate.

Not only does Creigh Deeds have nothing to apologize for, I invite Republicans to put up a site as balanced, fact-based and temperate as this one. Go ahead. We can stand the heat in the kitchen.

Political and Blogging Rules for the Road

Vivian Paige posted the following rules for enjoying politics, which sound suspiciously like civility and good ethics, something both political activists and bloggers could use. They come from Bob Gibson over at the Daily Progress.

H/T to Waldo too for finding it first over at the Daily Progress.

No. 1: Look for the good in people. There’s usually something you can find.
No. 2: Killing with kindness is much more effective than killing with invective.
No. 3: Agree with people when you can. Common ground often is easier to find than one might think.
No. 4: Tell people when they make a good point. One’s position often is made stronger when acknowledging the strength of another’s position.
No. 5: Politely remind someone of his own previous words when they buttress your current position and he is in conflict with his current position. Nothing disarms a speaker quite as effectively as a polite demonstration of his former wisdom after some people have hastily abandoned it.
No. 6: Use YouTube to creatively and amusingly demonstrate No. 5 as Fairfax County blogger Kenton Ngo did. The teen-ager shows House of Delegates floor remarks of the Northern Virginia delegates who sponsored the original "abusive driver" legislation explaining how it applies to certain misdemeanor driving offenses and how it does not apply to drivers from other states.
No. 7: Stick to the facts as you understand them when trying to make a point. Ask people to explain the facts and go to the source when you do not fully understand them.
No. 8: Watch and listen to people sincerely. Try to understand their motivations and backgrounds in the light in which they see and feel them.
No. 9: Leave your prejudices at the door, or at least be aware of how they limit and shape you.
No. 10: Give people the benefit of the doubt, at least until they act so egregiously that they must forfeit that right.
No. 11: Enjoy the humor of every situation without demeaning or injuring those responsible for it when they do not intentionally cause it.
No. 12: Take yourself less seriously. The sun and the earth do not revolve around you or anyone you know.
No. 13: Take any elected official less seriously, as too many people take them too seriously and this tends to rub off on them.
No. 14: Smile and enjoy the company of serious people.
No. 15: Decide whether you favor the Old Testament admonition, "An eye for an eye and an impeachment for an impeachment," or the New Testament teaching to "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
No. 16: Insert a positive thought into any negative conversation.
No. 17: Apologize sincerely for foot-in-mouth transgressions and for unintended slights.
No. 18: Read, listen and watch before speaking, remembering that God gave us all two ears, one mouth and one YouTube.
No. 19: Remember at all times that no Democrat, no Republican, no independent and no Libertarian has a corner on the truth.
No 20: Try to put things into perspective, be aware of the past and rest assured things could always get worse.

I'm printing this out and posting it right by my computer as a reminder. Again, thanks Mr. Gibson, Vivian and Waldo.

Some Things Are Universally True

Don Worthington, a reporter with the Fayetteville Observer, just kicked off a new blog for his newspaper. It’s called Inside Politics. Worthington has reported on politics, among other topics, for newspapers as far flung as Rhode Island, Alexandria, Louisiana, and the Fairfax Connection papers. He’s also an Annandale native. In the spirit of full disclosure, he’s also my husband’s college roommate and was a groomsman at my wedding.

Besides all that, his first post has this piece of universally good advice for candidates.

As the time to file for Fayetteville City Council races nears, I'm reminded of a young Boston College student who ran for the Cambridge City Council. He campaigned hard, but lost by 160 votes. He started asking his neighbors if they had voted him. He had cut their grass, shoveled their snow. Surely, they had voted him. "No," said neighbor Elizabeth O'Brien, "People like to be asked." Thomas Phillip O'Neill, Jr. -- nicknamed Tip after a popular baseball player -- never forgot that lesson. He never lost another election. People like to be asked.

And he has even better advice for voters.

Candidates will proclaim they are running to give something back to Fayetteville. That they want to improve the area's quality of life, that they want to make things better. It's time to demand more substance from those who want to lead.
I've never met a candidate who wasn't for good schools, a crime-free neighborhood and good jobs. We need to ask them how they want to achieve those goals.

Go read the rest of his first post and let’s begin setting the bar higher in Virginia too. We need more specifics and less platitudes. Sure we want better schools, smart growth, and less road congestion, but how are we really going to get it? And how much money is it really going to cost us? And how much will it cost us not to do it?

We’re all in favor of mom and apple pie. But tell me specifically what ingredients are you putting in that pie before I buy it from you.

Congrats to All Our Candidates!

If you go back to my endorsements, you will see that not everybody I wanted won yesterday. I am disappointed. And my heart goes out to those candidates who didn’t win. Running for office takes a leap of courage and a lot of work. Each and every person who does it deserves kudos for putting themselves on the line. They risk disappointment, rejection, embarrassment, and the downright meanness of the general public. When you become a public figure, the public feels it owns you and forgets that there is a human being in there who still has feelings just like they do. So my sympathy and heartfelt appreciation goes out to all those who didn’t make it but chose to take the risk and to subject themselves to that.

And my hearty congratulations to all those who won even if you weren’t my first choice. And that’s important. In a Democratic primary, those who might not have been my first choice are still my candidates now. And I will support them, work for them, and vote for them in November. And I hope to see the rest of you, regardless of who your first choice was, there beside me in the trenches.

Now, I’m heading out to see my dad for Father’s Day.

Media Matters and Ours is Failing Us

Vivian Paige has an excellent post up about last night’s Democratic Presidential debates, in New Hampshire, complete with a chart displaying graphically the amount of talk time that each candidate was allotted by moderator Wolf Blitzer. The chart was compliments of Chris Dodd’s campaign. As Vivian points out:

Look - we all know that the MSM has decided that Obama, Clinton and Edwards are the only candidates worth hearing from but does it have to be so obvious? Can’t they at least pretend that the voters haven’t made that decision yet? After all, even the primaries are seven months away!

The positioning of the top three - with Clinton in the middle - at the podiums was a dead giveaway that this “debate” was not going to give much time to the other candidates. To me, that does a disservice to the viewers, the ones who will ultimately be making the decision.

Indeed, 20 minutes into the debate, my husband and I both checked our watches, distressed to realize that within that time period, only the top three contenders – Clinton, Obama, and Edwards had even been addressed with questions. The others present were rudely overlooked.

This is probably the most poorly conducted, biased debate I’ve ever seen. It even surpasses last month’s shameful League of Women Voters event, where Charlie Hall, running for Providence District supervisor, was first up to answer each question, giving incumbent Linda Smyth the advantage of always having the last word.

That unbalanced debate could, at least, be written off as local yokel hacks who got caught clumsily trying to stack the deck. It was simply an amateur night that ended up giving their favored candidate more embarrassment than help.

But this is the professional media, the folks who pride themselves on being the gatekeepers and the shapers of public perception.

Unlike the LWV, though, their purpose isn’t even political. In a media world driven increasingly by a search for the next great star rather than a substantive focus on issues, this was all about the horse race and the charisma kids in the top tier, not about really examining the issues that affect people’s lives.

In fact this post on Huffington Post, from long time Los Angeles Times reporter, Nancy Cleeland, shows the frustration of journalists who want to do good work in an era when publishers and corporate owners want to focus on the next scandal with Lindsay or Brittany. Here’s what she had to say about her departure from the Times.

After 10 years, hundreds of bylines and some of the best experiences of my professional life, I’m leaving the Los Angeles Times at the end of this month, along with 56 newsroom colleagues. We each have our reasons for taking the latest buyout offer from Chicago-based Tribune Company. In my case, the decision grew out of frustration with the paper’s coverage of working people and organized labor, and a sad realization that the situation won’t change anytime soon.

Los Angeles region is defined by gaping income disparities and an enormous pool of low-wage immigrant workers, many of whom are pulled north by lousy, unstable jobs. It’s also home to one of the most active and creative labor federations in the country. But you wouldn’t know any of that from reading a typical issue of the L.A. Times, in print or online. Increasingly anti-union in its editorial policy, and celebrity — and crime-focused in its news coverage, it ignores the economic discontent that is clearly reflected in ethnic publications such as La Opinion.Of course, I realize that revenues are plummeting and newsroom staffs are being cut across the country. But even in these tough financial times, it’s possible to shift priorities to make Southern California’s largest newspaper more relevant to the bulk of people who live here. Here’s one idea: Instead of hiring a “celebrity justice reporter,” now being sought for the Times website, why not develop a beat on economic justice? It might interest some of the millions of workers who draw hourly wages and are being squeezed by soaring rents, health care costs and debt loads.

And even in the political sphere, once respected reporters and pundits are more interested in chasing the next star than in discussing repeal of the alternate minimum tax, health care, outsourcing, immigration policy, or even an exit strategy for Iraq.

In fairness, all of the candidates, when given a chance to speak, did address these issues and they all had thoughtful solutions. They all came prepared to engage the audience even if the media often seemed to want to give only selected candidates the chance to do so. And Vivian is right on target that that approach does a disservice to the public.

It’s possible that the most creative solutions could come precisely from the second tier of candidates because they are the ones more likely to be thinking outside the normal political "inside the Beltway" box. But they were never given the time to develop their ideas fully in front of the audience.

We live in serious times but we no longer have a serious media. Unfortunately, today’s top journalists are like crows. They are very intelligent creatures, with short attention spans, and they are easily distracted by bright, shiny objects.

Don’t look for substance or service to the American people from them.

The Assault on the Assault on Reason and Why Al Gore Is Not Running

I attended the Politics and Prose sponsored lecture/book signing for Al Gore’s new book, “The Assault on Reason,” at George Washington University last night. The auditorium was packed. In fact, when we got there at 6:15, there was a line snaking around the block to pick up tickets at the Will Call. People even were trying to buy extra tickets. Several of us in line joked that it reminded us of the scalp-free zones at baseball games and rock concerts – but for Al Gore? We giggled at the thought of it.

Nevertheless, it was a sold out event and Gore was playing to a packed house of about 2,000 people. But if they expected a searing indictment of the Bush Administration all wrapped up in fiery rhetoric – red meat for the true believers – they probably would’ve been disappointed.

Gore delivered his argument - which is that the media and dissenters have been intimidated into silence on a variety of issues, including global warming, economic conditions and the war in Iraq, by a deliberate assault on open and reasonable debate - in measured and rational tones, in an often long winded lecture. He spoke conversationally with the same professorial cadence that the press and public found so annoying the last time he ran for office.

And this audience was rapt. They hung on his every word and gave him several standing ovations. Then they lined up eagerly to have their copies of his new book autographed.

The 1,000 or so people who stayed for the book signing were whisked past the table where Gore sat signing books with the speed of an efficiency expert setting up an assembly line in a Ford factory. It had been previously announced that books would not be personalized and Gore would not answer individual questions (there had been a question and answer session after his lecture). And he mostly stuck to it. Each book was signed and then shoved to the side while the adoring owner picked it up and quickly made way for the next person in line. It was a smooth operation and, considering the huge crowd, went briskly. The lecture started at 7:30, the book signing by 8:30; and we were home in Northern Virginia by 10 o’clock.

The huge auditorium reminded me of the large lecture halls in a university, with students jammed in to hear a very popular professor. Gore looked relaxed, happy, and engaged. He was doing what he loved best, lecturing to a smart audience of his peers. He looked like a professor delighted with his honors class, not a candidate running for office.

A Lady In Distress

Two new and unwelcome unauthorized biographies about Hillary Clinton are being released just in time for the summer beach reading season. At least, neither book will be greeted enthusiastically by the Clinton campaign. Both books, Carl Bernstein’s “A Woman In Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” and “Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, don’t break any new ground. And since both tomes are by respected journalists, neither will be hatchet jobs. Bernstein, of course, is best known for his work with Bob Woodward at the Washington Post on the Watergate break in and his subsequent reporting as an ABC correspondent, and Gerth and Van Natta are both award winning New York Times reporters.

Despite all their accumulated credentials, I’m not sure why another book about Hillary Clinton is needed, let alone two. In fact, while I was complaining to a Republican friend (both of us were actually criticizing our party's respective choices) about the fact that I feared that Hillary is still too polarizing a figure for my comfort, he asked the following perceptive questions, “Is there anything the public doesn’t already know about her and Bill? Is there really any opportunity for an October surprise for her campaign?”

Good point. Her life with Bill, in and out of the White House, has been subject to so much scrutiny that it’s hard to see the public giving these two biographies more than a collective yawn before moving on to the next new best selling light fiction as they slather on more sunscreen.

That’s especially true if this report by Dan Balz and Perry Bacon, Jr., in today’s Washington Post is accurate:

“The books recount the roller-coaster ride through the Clinton presidency and his tenure as governor of Arkansas, raising anew issues of marital strife and infidelity, Clinton's strong and sometimes controlling personality, the scandals that ultimately led to impeachment, the failed effort to reform health care and much more.”

Although Balz and Bacon point out that both books could hurt Clinton’s presidential bid by rehashing past scandals and reminding voters of their Clinton fatigue from the late nineties, others predict that the public will largely ignore the ancient history. Indeed even the media has moved on to the newer scandals involving Brangelina and Brittany and Lindsay.

On the other hand, books like these do renew the energy of that part of the Republican base that has always made it a cottage industry to hate the Clintons, especially Hillary Clinton. Indeed the coffers of publishers like Regnery are perennially enhanced by printing books with unflattering pictures of her on their covers.

And that’s precisely where the danger comes for Republicans. Every time Hillary haters have tried to throw mud on her for her husband’s behavior, which is the great temptation for the self-righteous so-called values crowd, it has backfired because it reminds the larger public of two things. One is that Hillary was, in fact, the wronged wife and the victim. And, two, she behaved with great dignity during that difficult period in her life. She gained tremendous stature by stoically standing by her husband’s side, not contributing to a Constitutional crisis by leaving him, and generally acting with grace under extreme pressure. The public came to view her as a lady in distress who behaved with great decorum. And something about that view brought out all the protective instincts that people have toward victims who do not deserve what fate has dealt them.

If you don’t believe me, think back to Hillary’s debate, in her first Senate race, with Republican opponent Rick Lazio. He was a moderate, pro-choice New York Republican who was running strong at the beginning. During one of their debates, though, he aggressively stepped into her space, practically wagged his finger in her face and brought up Bill’s bad behavior in a way that suggested she was complicit in his adultery. The picture carried by the press nationwide was of her looking down with a sad expression as Lazio literally got in her face. Even with his choirboy good looks, Lazio looked like a bully who had just asked a rape victim how short her miniskirt was before her attack. People hated him for blaming the victim, the lady in distress. While I’m sure that incident was not the only reason for it, Hillary went on to win the election by 55 percent.

Books that attempt to revive Bill’s scandals or paint Hillary as controlling, cautious, and manipulative are a dime a dozen and they most bring a collective yawn. For more interesting summer reading, I’d recommend Brad Meltzer’s page-turner, “The Book of Fate,” which is now out in paperback.

Fred Thompson's Phony Red Pickup Truck

Ok, I know I’m the Virginia Democratic blogger whose been pushing the Fred Thompson for President idea here in the Old Commonwealth. I really was intrigued by Arthur Branch running for an office higher than the television DA of New York City. I mean how realistic is the premise that New Yorkers actually voted for Bubba for any office in New York City?

It’s not that I support Thompson. Just the opposite. I actually think he’d be a terrible president. But I also believe he’s going to be an attractive candidate to a lot of the Republican right because the already announced candidates just haven’t caught their enthusiasm yet. Certainly the three frontrunners have not excited the Republican base.

Because of that it would be a mistake for Democrats to write Thompson off. On paper, he can be a credible candidate, as this shows:

"He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a former member of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission and a Visiting Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, researching national security and intelligence. Thompson is also a public speaker with the Washington Speakers Bureauand is a special program host and senior analyst for ABC News Radio. He publishes a daily blog and podcast on ABC Radio web site."

I’ve seen him at National Airport doing the NYC to DC shuttle. On paper he can appear to be a credible candidate.

But the rumor has gotten out that he is famously lazy – not a good trait for a candidate let alone for a president. I think that in the placid years of the Clinton administration, back in the halcyon days of 1999-2000, when America was at peace and had a truly good economy, one where the benefits actually filtered down to ordinary working people, Thompson’s lack of serious engagement wouldn’t have been a liability. In fact, back then, the most serious political issue seemed to be with whom it would be more fun to throw back a beer. The likeability factor got more serious media attention than an actual foreign policy debate did.

But these are serious times. The sizzling economy is not trickling down past the corporate boardrooms of Halliburton or the floor of the Wall Street trading floor. Ordinary Americans are losing good job, pensions, health benefits and their pay is mostly flat. And at the same time, we are in a seemingly endless war in Iraq with no exit. People may be losing their patience for the "aw shucks" folksy persona of rich phonies.

In Sunday’s Tennessean, Larry Daughtrey, one of Tennessee’s best political writers, has this devastating piece on Fred Thompson. Here’s the money quote:

"In the Washington world of workaholics, Fred is remembered as a virtual teetotaler. During his eight years in the U.S. Senate, an insertion into the Congressional Record amounted to heavy lifting.

His high school yearbook sized him up early: "The lazier a man is, the more he plans to do."

Sliding back and forth between the fantasy worlds of the silver screen and politics is nothing new for him.

Back in 1992, the Gucci loafers, Lincoln Continental and high-dollar lobbying fees of Fred D. Thompson, Esquire, weren't playing too well at the political box office in Tennessee. So, he bought an old red pickup and a pair of $100 boots, tuned up the drawl and beat a Harvard man for the Senate in Big Orange country."

In addition, I’ve known the rumors for a while that even while campaigning in that red pickup truck, Thompson would ride a few miles out of town and the limo would be waiting, which Daughtrey sort of confirms in his article.

Frankly, in National Airport, when Fred Thompson wasn’t thinking about future voters, he didn’t seem very friendly either. The exact word to describe him - when the klieg lights weren’t on for a Law and Order scene and the political press wasn’t around to sing his praise - is “dyspeptic.”

Of course, because running for president is hard work, Thompson might not do it. As an actor, it may be the ratings for next season and not the votes.

But, as Daughtrey put it, “if he buys a used Boeing 707 and paints it red, watch out.”

The War of Words About Iraq

The Democrats seem determined to lose the confidence of the public by not sticking to their guns about getting out of Iraq. And they seem even more determined to lose the war of words about Iraq by claiming that the war is already lost. And, of course, the Republicans have no reason to do the hard work of ending the war as long as they think they can score political points by calling the Democrats defeatists. Neither side is correct.

The war in Iraq, in fact, was won long ago. Of course, since our premise for invading Iraq turned out to be false, it’s easy to lose sight of exactly what our original goals were – at least the publicly announced goals – and therefore to not recognize that we actually met them. Our military succeeded in doing everything this administration asked of them and doing it as successfully as humanly possible.

Our original justification for going into Iraq was to depose Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein and find his weapons of mass destruction before he could turn them against his Middle Eastern neighbors or us.

We got rid of Hussein and his sons. We installed a new government. Unfortunately, we never got those WMDs. But you can hardly blame the military for that. Those unconventional weapons were never there to start with, so that’s a benchmark that was impossible to meet. All the rest the military succeeded in doing.

It’s the continuing occupation that’s so damned hard.

And that’s where we are failing. It was doomed from the start and not by the military but by an incompetent civilian administration that put inexperienced people into powerful positions in Iraq, even though their appointees lacked knowledge and were not competent to rebuild the Iraqi nation. This article from the September 17, 2006 Washington Post, taken from Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s book, Life in the Imperial City, highlights the tragic missteps that certainly helped derail our efforts in Iraq.

As Chandraskekaran documents, those civilians who flooded into the country in the early days of our victory – and it was a victory – were young and their primary qualification for service was that they were ideologues, who were loyal to the Bush administration. Surprise, surprise! Like that hasn’t been the major qualification for every position of responsibility that has led to abysmal failure on the part of the Bush administration both at home and abroad.

It’s important, though, to define the real problem or we will never be able to fix it in Iraq. And the American public is as uneasy with the Democratic timetables for withdrawal as they are disapproving of Bush’s intransigent insistence on staying the course. For good reason, thoughtful people fear the consequences of pulling out and wiping our hands of the whole mess, which we largely created in the first place. It’s not unreasonable to fear a destabilized and failed state in an already volatile region that always is in danger of exploding.

But we also can’t continue an occupation that is spiraling into chaos. We can’t keep doing what we’re doing into infinity. That’s not defeatism. That’s common sense. In fact, here’s an excerpt from an article by Christopher Preble, “How to Exit Iraq,” taken from the Cato Institute’s Website in 2005.

“Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski declared last week that the United States could never achieve its goals of a democratic, stable and peaceful Iraq unless the American people were prepared to "commit 500,000 troops, spend [US]$200 billion a year, probably have a draft," and have some form of wartime taxation. Brzezinski conceded that Americans "are not prepared to do that."

Cato is not a leftwing think tank. Nor is Bryzesinski a Northeastern liberal dove. And he’s right. We’re not prepared to do those things. Nobody on the right currently criticizing the Democrats is willing to reinstate a draft let alone consider raising taxes. All they really want to do is chant slogans about defeatism and try to score political points off Democrats. That’s not a way to find a solution in Iraq.

Eventually, we have to step out of the way of the civil war going on in Iraq and let the Iraqis come up with a political solution to their political problems. We can’t do that for them. But we also can’t withdraw from the entire region. In short, Johnny isn’t going to come marching home all that soon. But he does need to get out of the Iraqis’ way.

The strategy we need is to re-deploy troops out of Iraq to nearby hot spots where they can continue to combat terrorism and defend our national interests. We also may have to leave some troops in Iraq to continue to train security forces. We cannot leave them in a lurch and abandon them. Colin Powell’s pottery rule is still true. We broke it. We have an obligation – moral and practical – to help fix it.

To do that, we also are going to have to open talks with Syria, Saudi Arabia and, yes, Iran. They are not our friends. At best, they are treacherous allies in a dangerous region. But they realize that an unstable Iraq is not in their own self-interests. In other words, while they are not our buddies, they are stakeholders in an effort to stabilize their own region. And that’s exactly how to approach them, as adversaries who happen to have a common interest with us. In the case of Iran, we will need special care. We are going to have to warn them in no uncertain terms to stop meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs. But right now, the chaos our presence is bringing to that region is actually strengthening their influence among their fellow Shia. Iran is the wild card. But we won’t get them out of Iraq as long as we are there. Our presence provides rationalization for their interference in the region.

In the end, there is a real possibility that such talks may fail. Because of that we do need to leave a door open to be able to return should the situation warrant it. Again, Preble from the Cato piece:

“The jihadis will claim that the American withdrawal represents a victory for their side. But while the United States has already suffered a blow to its credibility, it is still eminently capable of defending its vital interests. An American military withdrawal would not, and must not, signal that the United States has chosen to ignore events in Iraq.

“If Iraqis wish to retain their sovereignty and independence, they must ensure that al-Qaeda and other anti-American terrorist groups do not establish a safe haven in their country. Accordingly, the withdrawal of U.S. forces must be coupled with a clear and unequivocal message to the new government of Iraq: do not threaten us or allow foreign terrorists in your country to threaten us. If you do, we will be back.”

The truth is we had a military victory long ago. And if need be, to contain a real threat to our domestic security, we are thoroughly capable of going back in to remove a genuine threat. Americans will always support our military in actions to strengthen our legitimate national security interests.

But we have also had a diplomatic failure of monumental proportions caused by a political lack of will on the part of an incompetent and arrogant administration that still places ideology above evidence and facts.

Now we’ve got to step out of Iraq but not out of the region. Iraq must solve its own political problems with the help of the international community as led by America. We do have that responsibility. But we have got to stop losing the peace. And the only way to do that is to get out of the business of occupying another country. Let me repeat what I said near the beginning of this piece: That is not defeatism. It’s common sense.

Gerry Connolly and His Big Developer High Rollers

Both critics and supporters of Gerry Connolly acknowledge that he gets much of his financial support from real estate developers and the construction industry. An article, by Bill Turque, in today’s Washington Post analyzes Connolly’s ties to big developers and construction companies. According to the article:

“Connolly (D), who is running for a second term, is the top fundraiser on the local level in Northern Virginia, the reports show. He has amassed $311,700 from developers and builders, which is 38.5 percent of the $808,293 he has raised since the beginning of 2004, according to an analysis conducted for The Washington Post by the nonprofit Virginia Public Access Project.”

Among Connolly’s top donors are the Lerner Corp and WestGroup. But the issue isn’t simply who gives to his campaign but why they give and what they get for their donations. Nobody is so naïve as to believe large corporations, developers, trial lawyers, or any interest group gives simply out of a disinterested sense of civic responsibility. Or as Connolly’s opponent Gary Baise, a Washington corporate lawyer whose specialty is environmental litigation put it:

“ ‘The analysis I want to see is how close the dates of these contributions are to votes the board took on applications [for rezoning].’ Baise said he had no specific examples of campaign contributions that directly followed favorable votes.”

I suspect that if you examine the record you won’t find quid pro quo. You’re probably not going to read about any juicy scandals where somebody gave Connolly’s campaign a huge contribution and a week later the Board of Supervisors voted in favor of their development. In fact, Connolly stated bluntly in the article, “I don’t operate that way.”

And he doesn’t.

My guess is that Connolly is genuinely pro-business and pro-development He hasn’t sold out to the highest bidder. The highest bidders are contributing because they want to see somebody win who already supports business and growth. In other words, Connolly gets their donations because he is already on their side, not because he’s in their pocket.

And you know what? If Fairfax weren’t business friendly, see how fast residents would complain about the loss of jobs and services those businesses provide. If Fairfax's vibrant economy came to a screeching halt, watch how quickly Connolly and other supervisors would no longer be in office. In that worst case scenario, nobody in the county would be well served.

The question isn’t whether Gerry Connolly, or any other supervisor, is pro growth. It’s what kind of growth they support. So far, Connolly has been a leader in the fight for smart growth. He has been the number one cheerleader for building the tunnel rather than above ground Metro station to Tysons. In addition, he has proactively supported mixed-use building developments clustered near already existing Metro stations, like the Dunn Loring project, to alleviate suburban sprawl and roadway congestion.

Besides all that, as this Washington Post article from March shows, Connolly signed on to the Sierra Club’s “Cool County” project to green Fairfax County. Among some of the initiatives are the use of ethanol- burning buses, tax breaks for hybrid cars, encouraging new neighborhoods with more trees and green spaces, and vegetation on public buildings, including schools and firehouses, to reduce carbon dioxide levels. In addition, Fairfax County gets 5% of its electricity from alternative energy sources like solar and wind power and already uses 90 hybrid vehicles.

If pro-business Gerry Connolly can get his developer friends interested in projects that provide green spaces and that invest in alternative energy he will have accomplished more than some of the purists who constantly vilify developers and keep winning the small skirmishes while losing the war against global warming.

In truth, I am not Connolly’s biggest fan. But I’m also not his worst critic. On balance, when it comes to land use and greening Fairfax, he’s on the right side and if he can convince his developer buddies to support smart growth because its good for public relations and for business, well, there are worse reasons for supporting environmentally friendly projects that do something to alleviate global warming.

The End of the World as We Know It: I Agree With Robert Novak on Something

You know it’s the end of the world as we know it when I agree with Washington Post columnist Robert Novak about anything. But in his column today, he’s spot on in his analysis of why both Hollywood’s elite billionaire donors, like Jeffrey Katzenberg, David Geffen and Stephen Spielberg, as well as rank and file Democratic activists around the country, are so wary of Hillary Clinton.

Here’s his astounding comparison of Clinton and one of her opponents, John Edwards:

“What's wrong with Clinton was demonstrated by the Feb. 4 performance on NBC's "Meet the Press" of a competitor, former senator John Edwards, who displayed the qualities she lacks. He took firm positions and admitted error, in contrast to Clinton's careful parsing. It followed his virtuoso performance at the Democratic National Committee meeting two days earlier that overshadowed Clinton's speech there. Comparing Clinton and Edwards, one longtime observer of the Democratic scene called it "caution versus courage."

His analysis of the difference in style and substance between Clinton and Edwards is spot on. Where Hillary cautiously parses every word, every action, and every position, Edwards has already come out with a bold plan for universal health care, admitted that it would mean raising taxes on the wealthy, and stated the plan’s costs. In addition, he declared that he was wrong on Iraq and his vote for the war was a mistake that he regretted.

To be sure, Novak isn’t completely kind to Edwards. He points out that in 2004, Edwards started out as a Southern centrist in the mold of Jimmy Carter. According to Novak, when Edwards saw that it wasn’t working, he recast himself as “a leftwing populist.”

Novak thinks that many Democrats are as uncomfortable with Edwards as they are with Clinton because they consider Edwards a shallow trial lawyer. Indeed Novak believes the true beneficiary of Clinton’s early stumbles and disappointments will be Barack Obama.

While this might be true – only time will tell – the most important point of Robert Novak’s column is the contrast between Edwards, the courageous, and Clinton, the cautious. That’s his characterization, not mine.

Still, it’s an accurate take on the difference between those two, and it deeply disturbs me that Hillary can’t just come out and admit she made a mistake.

Like Novak, and like the Democratic activists he cites, I’m seeing a politician who wants it both ways. She wants to neutralize the anti-war sentiment among voters by blaming the way Bush handled the war, but she doesn’t want to admit that the war, itself, was a mistake in the first place.

The most troubling aspect of this is that Hillary is a woman who doesn’t like to admit that she made an error at all. She’s got a stubborn streak. And that reminds me all too much of somebody else who would rather go it alone than say those magic words, “I made a mistake, I’m sorry. Now, how can we correct this together?”

An admission like that doesn’t make you weaker. Indeed, it’s requisite to being a strong and credible leader.

Since Barack Obama wasn’t wrong about Iraq and hasn’t been around long enough to have cast an embarrassing vote on anything (and trust me, if you stay in elective office long enough, you’ll have some vote or some statement you’d like to kick yourself around the block for), it’s hard to know how he’d handle a situation where he had to admit he was wrong. You can’t blame the guy for being right. Or for, so far, being on the side of angels and casting votes that most Democratic activists approve of.

But it’s hard to say if that’s because his judgment is uniformly sterling and prescient or just because he hasn’t been around the block yet.

Since I’m a bit of a contrarian, I believe that everybody screws up sometime. And I want to know how my candidate will handle it when he or she does. And that’s something I already know about John Edwards and also, unfortunately, about Hillary Clinton.

Defining A Real Democrat Just Got Easier With Jim Webb

Defeated and somewhat demoralized Republicans, like Mason Conservative, are consoling themselves with a new narrative about Jim Webb. According to their new meme, Jim Webb is going to be a big disappointment to the Democrats who worked so hard for his election because Webb is really a "Pat Buchanan Conservative."

I think that's a stretch. They're misreading Webb and fooling themselves, probably because right now they need to in order to avoid admitting that Americans really did repudiate them for their handling of the war and the economy.

Their main argument, though, for comparing the two men is that Webb has an independent and sometimes conservative streak. Especially, they point out gleefully, where Second Amendment rights are concerned. Webb, like Buchanan, is against gun control and is comfortable around people who like guns. MC and other conservatives believe this will cause Democrats to become disillusioned with Webb.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that most Democrats knew Webb's position going in. In fact, one district chair said to me that although, as a part of leadership, he was publicly supporting Webb, his wife could never vote for Webb precisely because of Webb's stand on gun control. That was a minority reaction but it proves that Democrats knew exactly what they were getting in Jim Webb. And by the way, both Mark Warner and Tim Kaine also had "Sportsman for (Warner or Kaine)" bumper stickers, which was virtually an admission of being pro-gun ownership. However worthy their cause, most of the proponents of gun control have given up that fight in Virginia as unwinnable at this time.

But other than on the gun control issue, there are significant differences between Webb and Buchanan.

The most obvious is that Buchanan is a real wedge issue social conservative. Webb is not. Even during his Reagan years, Webb was considered moderate when it came to social issues like abortion. Webb is pro-choice, in favor of stem cell research, and opposed the so-called marriage amendment. So he's much more in step with Democrats than with Pat Buchanan Conservatives.
As for his opposition to Iraq, every Democrat who won last week was anti-Iraq. It's Buchanan who is marching in step with us on that one, not visa versa. Likewise, on the economy, Buchanan's populism puts him out of synch with free traders in his own party as well as Harris Miller style Democrats. But plenty of Democrats, including Brian Dorgan and Carl Levin, are also economic populists. If you're a Democrat, it's called being pro-union, something Buchanan actually isn't, but Jim Webb is.

And Webb showed his true colors today in this Wall Street Journal op-ed. Webb nails it in this piece, which is brilliantly written and literally hammers home the inequities that are bothering people.

There’s a popular misconception among the mainstream media and political pundits that populism doesn’t work in American elections because most voters don’t resent rich people. Indeed, they aspire to be rich themselves. No matter how far fetched the reality, most Americans appear to believe that the ability to achieve great wealth is within their grasp, so they support laws that favor the rich even if that appears contrary to their real economic interests.

That’s only a partial truth, though. Most Americans don’t resent the rich because most Americans are generous of spirit and kind of heart. As long as they are economically comfortable, prosperous, and secure, they are not envious. And as long as they perceive that the system is basically fair and provides equitable opportunity they are not resentful.

But too many people have been affected by downsizing, outsourcing and automation or have seen neighbors and family members affected by these forces to feel really secure. And too many have either experienced, seen, or read about the erosion of pensions and health benefits. At the same time, they’ve also read about golden parachutes, fabulous wealth and perks awarded to CEOs and corporate executives, even while their companies are performing poorly.

Most people are aware that “it’s not what you know but who you know” nowadays that determines economic well-being. Americans aren’t resentful and aren’t natural populists. But too many of them are getting fed up with the unfairness they are seeing around them. Indeed, inequity seems to run like a seam through the rock of the American economy and it's causing a crack in the surface of our civil society. Jim Webb just exposed the fault line and proved he’s a real Democrat who holds our core values. He's not a Pat Buchanan Conservative, as MC and others would have you think. Jim Webb is a Jefferson-Jackson-style Democrat.