Barack Obama: The Next Reagan, or the Next Dukakis?

Many of my Democratic friends are thrilled at the thought that party revolutionaries may be on the verge of overthrowing the Clinton power structure and enshrining an inspiring young liberal as their party's nominee. I wonder whether they should be so excited about a candidate who may be well-positioned to lead the party to a Walter Mondale-style defeat.

First off, Barack Obama is clearly something new and exciting on the political scene. His rhetoric has inspired comparisons to Ronald Reagan (as well as a music video that's as insipid and cloying as Mmm Bop).

But when you get to the substance, he's more Mike Dukakis than Ronald Reagan. Fausta has a worthwhile compilation of his weaknesses, while Mickey Kaus entertains defenses against the charge that he is an unreconstructed lefty. He is the most liberal member of the Senate (to the left of his friend Ted Kennedy -- who's sure to be featured in attack commercials). He's a product of the Chicago machine, and so is vulnerable on ethic charges. He is out of the mainstream on partial-birth abortion. He is a high-tax candidate, whose plans are likely to scare Wall Street and the investor class more generally. He has a resume that's paper-thin. He opposes terrorist surveillance, and he's been inconsistent on Iraq, and now pushes for a speedy withdrawal -- despite improvements on the ground.

Barack Obama may be able to overcome his weaknesses as a candidate and win a stunning victory, but all the elements are there for a historic defeat. If Obama wins the nomination, he will face a real Republican opponent for the first time. While Hillary Clinton is forced to pull her punches to avoid upsetting the base, Obama will have to answer all of these charges.

Is he more likely to win a historic victory, or to join McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis as liberals from northern states who suffered landslide defeats?

F7: One Day to Stop Hillary (or Barack)

GOP online whiz Patrick Ruffini is working with Rightroots to address what they perceive as a critical weakness in the Republican presidential campaign: the lack of cash on hand. Whether Mitt Romney or John McCain wins the nomination (or even if it's Mike Huckabee), the candidate will be essentially broke. That's why they've come together to create February7.org.

The point of the effort is to raise as much money as possible in one day, with all of it to go to the candidate who seizes control of the nomination on Super Duper Tuesday. If it's unclear who the nominee will be, then the site will continue to collect pledges until the race sorts itself out.



Ruffini explains:

If we fundraise the same old traditional way — with fundraising events and direct mail early and banking on Internet enthusiasm late — we will lose. There is no way we’ll be able to get the money when and where we need it. On the Internet in particular, contributions come in late, often too late for the money to be spent effectively. We’re hoping to help frontload some of this money so that the candidate can use it against Hillary/Obama right away. When it comes to giving, early is the new late.

If the nominee is McCain, we still have to do this. His campaign especially is running on fumes financially, but they’ve shown they can be effective with an even a small amount of money.

And if it is Romney, let’s be clear: he is rich, but not Bloomberg rich, and he cannot self-fund the seven months until the Convention. Building organizations in 19 target states is a whole different ball of wax than building them in four. He will need unconditional buy-in from the base — financially and otherwise — in order to compete with Clinton/Obama.

The only candidate the Republicans have who most certainly doesn't need this kind of help:Ron Paul.

Is It Too Early to Select a VP Nominee?

Robert Stacy McCain offers up a new name for political junkies who must discuss the Republican vice presidential choice before we even get to Super Tuesday. His suggestion though, is an interesting one with some real potential:

I was very impressed with [Michael] Steele's performance on "Meet the Press" in October 2006. Steele ran circles around Ben Cardin, and Steele's subsequent defeat in the Senate race was more attributable to the situation -- running against an anti-GOP tidal wave in an overwhelmingly Democratic state -- than a reflection on Steele's performance as a candidate.

Like Romney, Steele is a "Blue State Republican" who has had to campaign and govern in an environment that is hostile to his conservative values. I've had the opportunity to meet Steele, and can attest that Steele's cheerful, upbeat -- dare I say, Reaganesque? -- conservatism is for real.

Given the current Democratic civil war over race, the selection of Michael Steele could help Republicans make a more serious play for the votes of African Americans than in any election in recent memory. Further, Steele earned a lot of fans among traditional Reagan conservatives, even as he ran a race in one of the most Democratic states in the U.S. In a year when the Republican candidate seems destined to have to work to generate some excitement, Steele would be a very memorable selection.

Senate Candidate Udall: Against Afghanistan Before He Was For It

I wrote earlier about the damage done by Al Franken to his Senate campaign this year. Turns out the Democrats have another Senate candidate in a critical swing seat, who appears to be doing the same thing.

Mark Udall is the likely Democratic candidate for the open Senate seat in Colorado (Wayne Allard is retiring). He is regarded as another of the Democrats' top recruits for a swing seat (polls have shown the race quite close). The race is sure to be a barn-burner, given that Colorado appears to be one of the most competitive states in the nation -- at all levels.

The NRSC however, points out that Udall recently declared Afghanistan to be the 'real central front' in the war on terror. That's a curious opinion, unless if you're prematurely declaring Iraq won -- which would be foolish at this point.

Whatever Udall's thinking, it's odd that he regards the war in Afghanistan as so important -- considering how many times he's voted against it:

• In 2003, Udall voted against $87 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, including funds for body armor, armored humvees, and health care for National Guard members and reservists.
• Udall voted against a bill intended to expedite the delivery of armor to troops on the ground in 2004.
• Udall voted against $453.5 billion in defense spending in 2005.
• In 2005, Mark Udall voted against $50 billion for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
• Udall voted against authorizing nearly $289 billion in Fiscal Year 2000 and 2001 defense funding -- including funds for six F-22 fighters.
• Udall voted to cut $3 billion in Fiscal Year 2001 defense spending.
• In 2007, he voted against protecting funding for homeless and disabled veterans from cuts, against increasing military housing funding by $275 million, against lowering college loan rates for graduates serving in the military or National Guard, and to prevent senior military officers from working at major defense contractors for a year after retiring.

(Click over to the NRSC site for specific vote citations.)

At least Udall will be able to benefit from the experience of others. Presumably he won't argue 'but I was for the $87 billion before I was against it.'

Labor Department to Crack Down on Union Pension Abuse?

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Department of Labor has issued an unwelcome reminder to the managers of the AFL-CIO pension fund: while they may wish to use pension funds to advance political goals, the law forbids them from doing so:

The Labor Department letter addressed a reported AFL-CIO plan to promote shareholder proposals that press companies to offer more generous employee health-care benefits, and that would require companies to disclose political contributions so shareholders could see if support was being given to candidates who don't share labor's views on health care.

Before undertaking "to monitor or influence the management of corporations," the department said, fiduciaries "must first take into account the cost of such action and the role of the investment in the plan's portfolio, and cannot act unless they conclude that the action is reasonably likely to enhance the value of the plan's investments."

The Labor Department letter comes at an important time. A recent University of Chicago study showed that union-affiliated funds do indeed systematically exercise their proxies to support labor objectives rather than simply to increase shareholder value. This was already evident in unions' statements about their shareholder power, in corporate campaigns such as the attempted ouster of Safeway's leadership during its 2004 labor dispute, and the refusal of some union health and welfare plans to do business with Wal-Mart, despite its low prescription drug prices.

The Department of Labor is required to protect the interests of workers and Union members, not to turn a blind eye to efforts by Union bosses to steer member contributions to their favored goals. If legal action is required to get unions to comply, it would be welcome.

A Late Entrant to the 2008 Race

The Onion has the story:

After spending two months accompanying his wife, Hillary, on the campaign trail, former president Bill Clinton announced Monday that he is joining the 2008 presidential race, saying he "could no longer resist the urge."

"My fellow Americans, I am sick and tired of not being president," said Clinton, introducing his wife at a "Hillary '08" rally. "For seven agonizing years, I have sat idly by as others experienced the joys of campaigning, debating, and interacting with the people of this great nation, and I simply cannot take it anymore. I have to be president again. I have to."

We should have seen it coming.

Whither the Fredheads

Patrick Ruffini is conducting a poll on whom the Fred backers will support if Thompson gets out of the race. The big leader right now: Mitt Romney, with Giuliani in a distant second. Strong reason for Senator McCain to hope Fred stays in.

If Thompson elects to stay in the race, will it be seen as a tacit move in support of Maverick? At every turn, Thompson has been accused of being in the race more to help McCain than to win the nomination himself. One wonders if there's anything he can do at this point to escape the accusation.

Ruffini's poll seems to confirm one of the real oddities of Thompson's candidacy: almost all of his supporters express a real strong dislike for McCain. Considering the friendship between Thompson and McCain, and their similarities, it's bizarre that they have such different constituencies.

That's a big reason that there wouldn't be any point to Thompson endorsing McCain if he does get out; none of his backers can stand McCain, it seems.

Another thought: if Fred does end his campaign, does that mean I can no longer call it 'Fredstate?'

Conservatives Gain a Powerful Ally

I've written before about Freedom's Watch (over at the Weekly Standard). Today the Washington Post takes notice of them:

Freedom's Watch has loudly announced that there will be no limits to what it might do. From its $15 million summer ad campaign defending the Iraq strategy to its six-figure effort in the House special election in Ohio, the group has put Democrats on notice that its agenda will go far beyond the conservative principles of its largest financial backers.

"We're a permanent political operation here in town. We're not going to be Johnny One Note," said Joe Eule, executive director of the expanding group, a nonprofit organization that many are describing as the MoveOn.org of the right.

Read the whole thing. Freedom's Watch will be influential in the 2008 cycle, pushing conservative ideas and candidates. For Republicans, it will be a welcome change not to be savaged by 'independent' liberal groups, without support from the Right.

About that Fred Surge...

Jim Geraghty notices that the ARG poll shows a dramatic increase in support for Fred Thompson over the last few days:

Well, after yesterday's brouhaha over whether Thompson was really surging... American Research Group does show what I would all a real surge, rising from 13 percent in the poll taken January 15-16 to 21 percent in the poll taken January 17-18.

A finish like that - behind McCain with 26 percent and Huckabee with 36 percent, but beating Romney by 9, would be plenty reason to stay in the race.

So in Fred's favor, there's that.

On the other hand, I wrote yesterday about the potential value of online searches in telegraphing voter preference. If that predictor turns out to be accurate in South Carolina today, it may be Mike Huckabee who winds up the beneficiary. That's because looking at Yahoo buzz today shows the Huckster surging dramatically, while Romney and Fred fall off. Here's a clip of what it looked like at 11:15 eastern today. If it's too small to read, Huckabee has seen an increase of more than 9 percent over the last 24 hours in number of searches by South Carolina residents. In the same time period, Thompson and Romney have fallen significantly.

We'll know in a few hours whose packing it in -- if anyone.

Another thought: is this more proof of the influence of Patrick Ruffini?

Can a Robot Commit War Crimes?

The question has already been broached. And it has led to a session called 'When Robots Commit War Crimes: Autonomous Weapons and Human Responsibility,' at Stanford University's Technology in Wartime conference. The io9 blog -- whose blogger is also an organizer of the conference -- describes the question like this:

Now that the military is using autonomous surveillance/combat robots created by iRobot, the company behind the Roomba robot vacuum, a strange question emerges: What do we do if a robot commits a war crime? This isn't idle speculation. An automated anti-aircraft cannon's friendly fire killed nine soldiers in South Africa last year, and computer scientists speculate that as more weapons (and aircraft) are robot-controlled that we'll need to develop new definitions of war crimes. In fact, the possibility of robot war crimes is the subject of a panel at an upcoming conference at Stanford.

One of the participants in the panel has written about a study he's conducting to help better understand the ethical questions associated with the use of robots in warfare:

If the military keeps moving forward at its current rapid pace towards the deployment of intelligent autonomous robots, we must ensure that these systems be deployed ethically, in a manner consistent with standing protocols and other ethical constraints that draw from cultural relativism (our own society’s or the world’s ethical perspectives), deontology (right-based approaches), or within other related ethical frameworks.

We need to avoid mistakes like this guy:



Perhaps if all robots were programmed with three laws...

Flood the Grand Canyon?

Interesting. This is the first time I've ever heard of this:

Interior Department agencies want to release a high volume of water from Glen Canyon Dam in Page, Ariz., into the Colorado River in early March in hopes that higher water flows will move sand out of the riverbed and restore sandbars throughout Grand Canyon National Park.

Sandbars throughout the 277-mile length of the park provide critical habitat for wildlife and protect archeological resources. High water flows also create backwaters needed by native fish, including the endangered humpback chub. Since the dam began blocking water in the early 1960s, a number of native fish species have died off and non-native plants have taken root, significantly disrupting the canyon's delicate ecosystem.

Will John Kerry Face a Serious Challenge in 2008?

Read it at the Standard.

Soft Power?

Read it at the Standard.

IMF: Iraqi Economy Growing Strong

Read it at the Standard.

Chertoff Gets Around Congress to Enforce Immigration Law

Read it at the Standard.

All Ron Paul, All the Time

This recording of a call by a Ron Paul supporter to Senator Roger Wicker's office is amusing:

Carbon Nano Tubes?

Laura W has the story:

US researchers say they have made the darkest material on Earth, a substance so black it absorbs more than 99.9 per cent of light.

Made from tiny tubes of carbon standing on end, this material is almost 30 times darker than a carbon substance used by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology as the current benchmark of blackness.

And the material is close to the long-sought ideal black, which could absorb all colours of light and reflect none.

How much more black could this be? And the answer is none -- none more black.

Is Ron Paul Deceiving His Donors?

It doesn't seem that Ron Paul is running radio or television ads for his presidential campaign -- which is surprising, since he's raised $19 million in the last quarter.

Strangely though, he IS running ads for his run for re-election to the House of Representatives:

But Paul has a vast stockpile of campaign cash at his disposal, thanks to his fundraising success in this year’s presidential bid. He raised about $19 million in the last quarter, and, if he chooses to, he can transfer that money into his congressional treasury.

Paul campaign spokesman Mark Elam indicated that Paul was planning on spending money from his presidential campaign on his House reelection bid. He went up on the airwaves Tuesday with his first advertisement, a radio spot touting his biography and legislative accomplishments.

How about it Ronulans? Did you donate to Ron Paul so he can get re-elected to the House of Representatives? Seems like a big waste of money.

I wonder what he'll do with the other $15 million, once his Congressional race is over...

Note: I wrote about Paul's Congressional race at the Weekly Standard a few days ago.

Update: Soren Dayton points out that Ron Paul did indeed, run ads in New Hampshire -- if I receive word that he's running ads in any other states, I'll add that.

Nevertheless, it's clear that Ron Paul is not running a presidential campaign. The presidential candidates are spending all that they raise -- and more, in some cases. Ron Paul is different. He's still raising money -- nominally for the presidential campaign. But it won't be spent on his presidential run; it will be spent either on his current House race, or some other cause yet to be determined.

But since he's not using the donations to pay for a presidential campaign, he ought to be up front about it.

Update II: I hope I don't have to retract this completely. A commenter reports:

He did a huge media buy with Clear Channel here in Central Florida. His ads are being played 3-5 times an hour on all 7 CC station in Orlando. It started a couple of weeks ago.

That led me to this:

Beginning this week, Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul's presidential campaign will begin running a series of radio ads in Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Maine and North Dakota in anticipation of the states' upcoming primaries and caucuses.

This demonstrates that Paul is indeed, spending his receipts on ads. It's also true however, that you have to buy A LOT of radio ads to spend $19 million. I suspect campaign filings will ultimately show a lot more spent on his Congressional campaign than his presidential bid.

A Lot Can Change in a Year

Read it at the Standard.

Truthers Taking Over Japan?

Read it at the Standard.