Bloodless Coup

wow. awesome, baltar, and thanks for puting to words what i've been thinking. this simply reinforces my feeling that the article in this month's atlantic observing that whoever loses in '06 will prevail by a landslide in '08. better to pick up a few seats now and run the table two year hence, especially if the dems are going to govern cluelessly should they win this time around.

i know the system is stacked more than ever against it, but how long till a significant third party emerges from the shit we have to choose from right now? if neither party is willing to be moderate (GOP) or relevant (Dems), it seems like it should only be a matter of time.

Moon - A 3rd party is only possible if Bloomberg (and presumably some friends of his) fund it. Otherwise current electorals laws, to say nothing of Duverger's Law make it impossible - which I think is entirely appropriate at the national level, presuming we keep the structure of government we have. [The only way to get a third party is to develop a parliamentary system which will never happen, you'd think, since it would put the two current parties at risk.]

Baltar - I think this comes close to blaming the victim. The Republicans, seemingly all of them, support this nonsense. The Democrats are divided on this. Some support it. Some don't. We don't have the kind of political system that enables the out of power party to fairly easily unite on controversial, deep issues that are suddenly thrown before the electorate. We don't even have annual party conferences like the British do. Given that, I don't think it's too surprising that the Democrats (happily not being the party of 1 Falwell-approved voice - and you better not deviate from that one voice or else) don't have a single position on this. And even if they did - who the fuck would care. As you note, they have no power or authority in DC. Therefore even when they do manage to unite their much more ideologically diverse group, no one in the media gives a damn or covers the Democratic position. Take Levin-Reed - a united Democratic position on the most pressing national security issue of the day ... and it's virtually never mentioned in the press. NEVER.

All in all I think the voters are smart enough to know that the Democrats aren't the pro-torture party, whether or not they are issuing policy papers to that effect, and even though they can't ever get any air time. And I think it's silly to think you'd see more of the same on this if the Democrats were in charge next year - hence the fact that the Republicans are trying to get this passed before the recess.

And of course I couldn't disagree more with your headline.

As I learned from Bill Keefe many years ago, never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate.

Armand, I completely understand why the Democrats don't have a united position: they are out of power (and thus, don't need one), and they've never been very good at united positions anyway.

It doesn't matter. As I noted in the post, if they fail to have a position, one will be assigned to them. So, it comes down to a simple question: do you want the Republicans to pick your position (which they will then run against), or do you want to choose one yourselves (which you might have a vague chance of defending). It's your choice.

And with six weeks before election day, their best shot of winning is running against Bush: and that requires actual party positions. They don't even have to actually believe in them (do you really think all the Republicans walk in lockstep to Bush?); they just have to have united ones for the next six weeks. It doesn't even matter what they are (as noted, they are bound to better than Bush's positions), so long as you get a bunch of bright policy wonks in a room to dream up decent sounding defenses for them. It's called election tactics. The Republicans have beaten you like baby seals with this same strategy for at least two cycles in a row; you'd think you would wise up sometime soon.

And the Democrats do have some power: they can tie the Senate up, and prevent legislation from moving. It doesn't even have to be about torture; it could be about Iraq, Katrina, lack of equipment for soldiers, lack of funding for veteran's hospitals, whatever the fuck. Just find a cause, stand on the Senate floor and bitch about it. Offer actual policies to fix it. Show Bush and the Republican Congress to be useless idiots.

Short version: go hammer Rove with a few of his fuckups, rather than wait for him to hammer you.

If you can't maintain enough party discipline to talk about the long, long list of failures of this administration, how can you possibly think of governing?

Binky, I'm not underestimating the stupidity of the electorate, I'm trying to convince the Democrats to channel that stupidity into votes for them. The Republicans have the tough job: convincing stupid people that things are good (when they really aren't). The Democrats have the easy job: convincing stupid people that things are bad (when they really are). Yet rather than actually doing this, the Democrats seem to be standing in a corner waiting for Rove to shoot them and put them out of their misery.

That was directed to Armand, who said that most voters are smart enought to assume that the democrats are the anti-torture party.

Well presumably there is going to be a Senate vote and at that time I think you are going to see a lot of Democratic voices raised against this.

But in terms of the election I think this is the wrong fight to have, for the basic reason that Binky raises - it's too complicated. There's all sorts of legal stuff at issue. There's lots of different categories of people involved. Lots of different rights ... basically I think it's a loser as something to tie up the Senate over.

Now something on Iraq (continually attach an impeach Rumsfeld provision and/or a body armor provision to everything conceivable that's raised in the Senate) or Katrina sure - those are already salient issues in the public mind and can cut in the Democrats favor. I don't see this as moving nearly as many votes.

I don't disagree on avoiding the fight over torture (though, as I note, I find the present "compromise" an abomination; that's not relevant to electoral issues). I still maintain that the Democrats need to have a position on it, or Rove will assign them one. The longer the silence lasts on this, the easier time Rove will have.

I honestly don't understand this comment: "I don't see this as moving nearly as many votes."

Do you mean that you don't see Iraq or Katrina moving votes (even though you just said those are salient issues), or do you mean that torture won't move votes?

Your pronoun ("this") was unclear.

The problem with a big anti-torture campaign may be that large swaths of Americans LIKE the idea of abusing the fucking ragheads until they cough up Osama/renounce Al Qaeda/convert to Christianity/whatever, and an anti-torture blitz might smack of just more [insert unflattering Rovian Dem-party stereotype: smug moralizing, pandering to the enemy, hating America, etc.] in those quarters. In other words, an anti-torture campaign might end up moving votes the wrong way.

I haven't polled it, but I bet the Dems have.

Fine, I don't disagree with that on a tactical basis. I still maintain that the more offense the Democrats do, the less time Rove will have to paint them as traitors (or whatever). The issue is almost irrelevant: pick one and start hammering away. The longer the Democrats wait, the less time for a campaign, and the greater the chance that the Republicans will define them, instead.

Independently, I still think the Democrats could make some hay out of the torture issue. The average American may not get worked up over torturing some faceless Islamic terrorist, but that might change if the Democrats start showing actually innocent people who have been tortured. Those aren't pretty pictures.

Can they? Sure. But I'm not sure if a big offensive with Nancy Pelosi leading the charge to the battlements on this issue is the best way for the Democrats to go, tactically. They're already trying to run against her - and being anti-torture could easily fit into the Democrats are just San Franciscans who want to protect the country by sticking daisies into rifles. Since the only people who would seem to have any position whereby they'd be treated as the one Democratic voice are her, Senators Kerry and Clinton, Harry Reid and Howard Dean - the kind of thing you are suggesting could make Rove's job all the easier.

And what I meant was that according to all the polling I've seen the Democrats are likely to have better winning issues out of Iraq and Katrina. If they want to win in '06 gumming up the Senate over Iraq seems the better path to take than blocking this (speaking in purely political terms).

Armand, I agree with you. However, I don't see signs of the Democrats actually either A)gumming up the Senate with pictures of Katrina and/or Iraq to showcase Republican incompetance, or B)running a national campaign (a la "Contract with America") based on any of these themes.

The Democrats seem to be playing this on a state-by-state/race-by-race basis, and hoping that the national anti-Bush feelings will filter down. I don't think that strategy works. The more of a national referendum you can make this, the better off the Democrats are.

As it stands now, they aren't playing that way. Thus, as I wrote on the initial post, they will lose.

Well, that depends - state-by-state works in places where the GOP is massively unpopular right now (Ohio being the prime example). As to why they aren't nationalizing the campaign around Iraq though, that strikes me as really weird - unless they've done the polling which suggests that's a problem in the places that a majority well depend on (and I imagine they have done that polling). Still, at the very least, if I was Reid and Pelosi I'd let few if any days go by when I didn't have some anti-Rumsfeld manuever presented on the floor of Congress.

But, again, even if they did - would anyone know? A big part of the problem here is that the Democrats get virtually no coverage for anything they do or propose. Again, to me Levin-Reed is the prime example. That came together ages ago (well, okay, this summer, but it's been awhile) and still the supposed "experts" (i.e. the idiot talking heads who comment on the news) continually say the Democrats don't have a policy on Iraq. Actually they do - but the idiot talking heads haven't bothered to read it (hey people, it's short!) or give it any attention. I think the structural problems in our governmental system and the way the minority isn't covered in the press is at least as big a problem as divisions among the Democrats.

Somewhat related topic: what do y'all give for odds on a big strike on Iran before the elections?

i should clarify -- i don't anticipate a sustainable three-party system, but i do fear obsolescence for the dems, and duverger notwithstanding, parties have been radically reformed by the tension exerted by emergent factions in the past.

funny you should mention bloomberg -- after i posted my original comment, i found myself wondering who could make it happen, and i thought about perot (cringe), and i realized: there are a handful of people rich enough to pull it off. bloomberger certainly is one, and certainly is rich enough, and moreover is the only one i can think of with the resources and the major governmental experience.

fact remains, baltar's plaint is legitimate -- the dems are foundering when they ought to be triumphant.

Pretty big risk - it's the only thing I can think of that could actually lead to impeachments if the US House goes Democratic in 6 weeks. And I'd imagine that it would be enough to bring out a whole new set of mutinous (from Bush's perspective) charges from the likes of Powell, Scowcroft and assorted retired generals and admirals. Plus it could rile up some otherwise placid folks in the media to make a host of Iraq comaprisons the president might not want on TV just before an election.

That said, is he reckless enough to do it? No question (sadly). But I'm going to hope that he's unwilling to take a risk of that scale before elections that might still provide him with a GOP majority in Congress. To begin to consider the aftermath of an attack on Iran ... well that's something I really don't want to think about.

There is no way any sane President would attack Iran. The plain facts are that other than airpower, we have no assets available to prosecute a war. None.

For all of Bush's failings (and they are legion), he isn't crazy enough to bomb Iran.

you know, it strikes me that bill clinton's surely calculated little display over the weekend might be tantamount to a hockey coach sending out a thug early in the third period, down by one goal, to pick a fight and get the team fired up. sometimes, it's a notably effective tactic.