Watch Out for those Sneaky New York Liberals

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=169906&f=19

A slightly dull piece on former Press Secretary Scott McClellen's new book turns somewhere between hilarious and ridiculous when the author throws in this:

'And all seemed to suggest that maybe Mr. McClellan had been hijacked by liberal New York book editors who prodded him to turn out a memoir that did not reflect his own beliefs.'

If by 'all' the author means nothing except the people he pissed off. After mcclellen himself is quoted as saying yes he really meant it, somehow some musings by the crowd he indicts in his book that it doesn't sound like one of his briefings is grounds for throwing out that gem.
Of course the whole 'liberal new york' thing I expect from NRO or a southern paper, but coming from the NEW YORK times just seems bizarre.

Negotiation means you do what I say.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=169438&f=77

McCain had a big foreign policy speech yesterday and I was struck by a few things...

-There is an episode of family guy where Peter is attempting to haggle and goes from $1 to a million to fifty before Brian jumps in and apologizes that 'he doesn't know how to bargain'. This is what I think of when I read mccain's Russia policy. There is definitely space for a reinvigorated START process and further huge reduction in nukes. But it won't work if your larger strategic context is 'how do we emasculate russia?'.

-McCain talks about shifting the burden of proof onto countries that are charged with trying to build nukes. Who decides whether a country is pursuing a covert program? And in the shadow of Iraq - which was invaded because it couldn't prove it did not have the programs it did not actually have - what does that burden look like (keeping in mind it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist)? Finally, do we need to move to a more universal process (remember Israel, Pakistan, and India are not npt members), and if so what are the shape of those norms?

The Importance of Legitimacy

Hilzoy posting over at Washington Monthly makes an important point that while it may be debatable whether a legitimately selected Hilary Clinton is more electable than a legitimately selected Obama, an illegitimately selected Clinton is definitely less electable than Obama. She limits her critique to African Americans feeling "robbed". But I think the same could be said for a whole host of young voters who have only known 20 years of Clinton and Bush aristocracy and are desperate for change. Same for the independents that fueled the early Obama energy.



Matt Yglesias posted the results of the 1976 election in the context of a discussion about Reagan Democrats. But what was most striking to me was that it immediately looks like a possible map of 2008, with the Northeast replacing Oklahoma and Arizona. And guess what, in the Carter map those swing states Clinton says are "must win" (Penn., Florida, Ohio, and West Virgina) are all red. There is also a decent chance that this year could turn into a Reagan-like blowout.

broken prisms

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/195844.php

Josh Marshall posts a reply to his early post on McCain's speech today where he talked about how Iran isn't a super power that should be taken seriously but is a threat on the scale of the Soviets.

The reader makes a weird math argument that danger - defense = theat and since we don't know where all those Brown people live we can't threaten them with nukes and so defense = 0 and this theat Iran = theat Soviets.

Ah where to start. Let's put aside that we are supposed to be ok with McCain being a simple minded racist - I am pretty sure a big piece of our current predicament is decision makers not bothering to learn that all Brown people aren't the same. We do know where the president of Iran lives. Same goes for Iraq and Syria and to a lesser extent North Korea. Like the Soviet premier these people all have public schedules and live in official residences and presumably would like to continue living their relatively comfortable lives as Heads of State rather than watch a significant chunk and their country go up in smoke and move into a bunker in a mountain.

The only person without a return address is UBL, who isn't building Iranian nukes - though it does make a nice parallel with the Iraq/Al qaeda crap from 2004. Hmmm wonder who made him those talking points.

There is also the important point that MAD isn't defensive, it is about a balanced counter strike capacity. Since Iranian missiles can't even reach the UK, let alone the US, I don't really are how it is operative. But this get to the crux of the Iranian security dilemma driving their program. The US has begun to develop a doctrine for the tactical usage of nukes. That means that unlike the old days where we would only go nuclear in response or to prevent a complete Soviet overrun of westen Europe, today we are moving closer to utilizing them for things like sinking carriers or bunker busting exactly because others lack a strategic counter strike capacity.

Thus, if the US is running around talking about regime change and has their eye on you the only way to guarantee your defense is to build a nuclear force. It is the same strategic choice that led us to introduce nukes in Turkey as a bulwark against Soviet tanks in the 1960's.

One final piece of the puzzle is the oft mocked proposition that Iran is building a civilian program. I mean they have so much oil right? They do have a lot under ground. But years of sanctions have left it short of capital and expertise to effectively develop the fields. And even if they did it would make more sense to sell their hydrocarbons to us than burn them for domestic energy.

If we aren't willing to talk about their emerging energy crisis - be it allowing investment or nuclear civilliab technology - they have no reason not to prepare for the coming storm.

McCain's Vision

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=165649&f=77

Of all the ridiculous things in his 'I have a dream' speech yesterday the best by far was this

'On domestic policy, Mr. McCain projected that in the fifth year of a McCain presidency the United States would have experienced several years of "robust economic growth,"'

The Times noted that his speech deliberately lacked substance so that it could not be fact checked. But apparently he considers his earth moving power of wishful thinking to include the economy, since his vision would require it to pick up the minute he took the oath. More importantly, if McCain does in fact possess the green lantern ring, why doesn't he use it now!

Hearts and minds along the wire.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=165359&f=19

I am never really surprised when I read about the military having no idea how to deal with non conventional forces. But in the current chaos in sadr city they seem to have given up any pretense of running a coin campaign.

Throwing down a 3 mile cement wall down the main traffic artery, calling in airstrikes at will, and driving heavy armor through the streets are not good ways to win friends.

In this case a soldier gets hit by a sniper, they figure out where he is, then rather than send a small squad to clear the building he is in they blow up the top few floors with an airstrike. Then because they don't actually know if they got the sniper and can't chance an American getting picked off they litter the street with every smoke and concussion grenade they have and fire up the .50 as covering fire - even though they don't really know where the potential enemy is.

Maybe the militias really are unpopular and rule by fear. But random wanton destruction isn't a good way to get rid of them. And it certainly doesn't endear is to the folks who have been tipping is off to efp's and ambushes.

KO

At this point it seems pretty clear Clinton is not going to leave this fight under her own power. Despite the 'split' last night she lost by over 200,000 popular votes - her new favorite metric - in the two states. And while Dean has asked that the super's make their preference known by June 1 I can very much envision her claiming those are just their current preference and they could change their mind before the convention.

So how does obama land a knockout on her? By weaving a narrative of reckless and unbridled ambition. Her biggest negative has always been the perception of her as a shapeshifting chameleon willing to say or do anything for power.

When others would have left Bill, she leveraged him for a Senate seat. When Bush rushed to war, she gave the ok in return for a photo op and sound bites. When buyers remorse set in and theatened her shot at the White House she pretended she didn't know what she was authorizing. When donors pushed her for action she sneered that she wouldn't govern by polls. When the donors dried up and the polls were down, suddenly she scoffed at even the thought of listening to those same sages.

Whenever the Clinton people talk about 2200 delegates, the obama folks just need to say 'look Clinton has decided she is more important than the Democratic party and making sure the American people have a president who is going to work to solve their problems, so she can make up whatever she wants.. There is a process in place that everyone agreed to - including her and Michigan and Florida - and when those last primaries are finished and the supers have had their say we will have a winner. I promise to do my best to help whomever that is. Clinton has made the same pledge; we hope her actions will reflect that promise.'

I do what I want.

I firmly believe South Park is one of the greatest social satires ever created. While the are all sorts of juvenile antics the commentary on the morality and motives of people - particularly the baby boom generation that runs America - is amazing.

One of my favorite South Park episodes ever involves Cartman pretending to be an out of control teen in order to win a trip to the worlds biggest mini hold course from the Maury Show. Once on the show he introduces his characters catch phrase - I do what I want. While the actions he describes on the show - clubbing baby seals, joining gangs, having sex - are fictitious, his willingness to do what it takes to get his prize are genuine.

I am reminded of this when reading Clinton's 'I don't listen to economists' line Sunday. Like Bush, she has now said she doesn't listen to elites, subject matter experts, and public opinion polls. Having eliminated these broad swathes of the country I can only assume that means she only listens to herself, and/or her pollster, and/or her big money donors. Like cartman she'll do whatever she wants - and whatever it takes. Whether that's a good thing is for others to decide.

It can't get worse ... Right?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=161717&f=19

This is an interesting piece on the growing divorce between the security and stock markets and the economy more broadly.

Basically what seems to be happening is that Wall Street can no longer shape reality. In the past few decades when things got down the investors would flood the market with money looking to get ahead of the curve and the resulting cash influx and exuberance would bump the economy onto an upswing. However this time the old method doesn't seem to work, with the result being starts and fits that always get dragged back down by the fact that people are out of work, losing their homes, and getting smacked by inflation and high energy prices.

What is causing this? One thought is that capital only matters insofar as it can be utilized in a productive way. Have a hard time seeing what good junk bonds and flipping mortgages to more effective debt collectors does for the broad economy.

Another may be that our old baseline, which matters since we are focused on relativistic measures, is off. With the recent cut in the capital gains tax there should be a gradual shift in money to Wall St as people realign their assets. This growth in demand for capital goods should drive up the price if the fundamentals remain static. How big is this? I am not an economist but I think someone should know.