Stone Court

Via Kos's DemFromCT, the likely prime time convention speakers:

Monday--Bill Clinton
Tuesday--Ted Kennedy
Wednesday--VP Nominee
Thursday--John Kerry

No way to argue with Clinton, the VP, and Kerry. But Ted Kennedy?

Is Karl Rove running the Democratic Convention? Isn't having the Convention in Boston already doing enough to remind people of a wing of the party that isn't likely to carry a lot of electoral votes? I understand that Kennedy has been a key ally of Kerry's (and an accomplished legislator), but the Convention has to be about more than payback and ego.

As of the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup data (March 26-28), Kennedy has a favorable/unfavorable of 42/47. Not quite Nader territory (30/48), but far worse than Kerry (53/36) or Bush (57/41). And we all know about the baggage.

How about a woman, a Latino, or an African American? I haven't seen them speak, but I suspect either Blanche Lincoln or Mary Landrieu would bring a lot to the table. I've seen Barack Obama twice, and I know he would. I'm sure there are many others who would be marvelous for that prime time slot.

By highlighting relative moderates like Schwartznegger, Giuliani, McCain, Pataki, and Bloomberg, Bush/Cheney '04 is using the Convention to make the GOP appear to be something that it's not. I hope that we are not going to make ourselves appear to be something that we're not.

That's the forecast where we're heading. Stone Court will be back Tuesday.

Rivka at Respectful of Otters takes issue with Ezra of Pandagon's argument that Jack Ryan's sin is merely hypocrisy, arguing that "Jack Ryan's sex life has bearing on 'how good or bad of a senator he could be' ... because he tried to force a woman to perform sex acts against her will. That's not kinky, it's abusive." She argues that the difference between Ryan's conduct and Bill Clinton's is that Ryan's is that Ryan's was not consensual.

As I read the passage quoted by Rivka, Ryan's conduct was clearly emotionally abusive, but not criminal. As such, while Ryan's conduct to Jeri Ryan may have been worse than Clinton's as to Monica, it is not clear that it was worse than Clinton's as to Hillary, since that was also emotionally abusive.

But I think Rivka, Ezra, and I agree that Clinton was a "good" President (leaving for another post how we evaluate that). So where does that leave us? Where do we draw the line between public morality and private immorality?

My take would be to respect the separate spheres of public and private. In general, the dimensions of the criminal law create a reasonable boundary dividing the two (though as the case against Clinton shows that too can be manipulated). The issues of the day are too important to vote based on a candidate's private morality. If the allegations against Ryan had been made instead against Obama, would any of us vote for Ryan or think he would be the better Senator? Of course not.

The elevation of private morality to a key aspect of evaluating candidates has been a major factor in the right's capture of the so-called liberal media. The media loves it because sex sells. The Republicans love it because both Democrats and Republicans can be creeps -- a tie -- while if voters decide on issues the Dems. will systematically benefit.

So, while Rivka makes a valid point about just how creepy Ryan's conduct was, Ezra is right to resist the erosion of the distinction between public and private. Ryan has suffered for his emotionally abusive behavior -- and the punishment has fit the wrongdoing. He has lost the love and affection of his wife, a woman who aparently is honorable enough to say "that she now considers her ex-husband 'a friend' and has 'no doubt that he will make an excellent senator.'"

As Obama rightly urges, let's focus on the issues.

UPDATE: Ryan reportedly dropping out.

When the subway is late, I complain bitterly when three come in the opposite direction. But I don't (can't) notice when mine comes right away and the folks on the other side have to wait.

With so much bad news out there, I want to appreciate a story that is good news in every way.

Liberal Oasis today has an interesting proposal that Kerry should welcome and encourage inclusion in at least one debate of any third-party candidates obtaining ballot access in 40 states. The theory is that this would blunt the Nader problem by focusing more of the media's third-party attention on the other (generally conservative) third party candidates and also appeal to independents by showing a spirit of inclusiveness. While Liberal Oasis is usually very savvy, I disagree with this analysis for the following reasons:

1. A six-person debate is just what Rove wants. Bush can easily skate by on platitudes for one-sixth of a 90-minute debate, but in a one-on-one format he may have to actually deal with some hard and/or follow-up questions. (And, if Kerry were to suggest the format for one debate, Bush would likely say, "Great idea! Lets do it for all of them.")

2. Media coverage of multi-person debates almost inevitably focus on the outlandish -- think Al Sharpton or Mary Carey. The more this election is ahout style rather than substance, the more it favors Republicans, because it encourages voters to think it's OK to vote based on who you'd rather have a beer with.

3. No matter how much exposure they get, the right-wing fringe candidates just won't draw much support from Bush because Bush is the right-wing fringe.

4. To the contrary, the presence of right-wing fringe candidates will facilitate Bush's campaign strategy of pretending to be a moderate.

In short, the debates are the one time Bush cannot hide behind McClelland, Rumsfeld, prepared statements, scripted questions, and the like -- and Kerry should take full advantage of that.

Of course, if (as is likely), Bush publicly stakes out a position insisting that Nader participate, the side benefits LO identifies may be enough to justify Kerry calling Bush's bluff and saying, sure, let's include everyone for one debate. But all in all, I think Kerry has the right idea about debating Bush: "Bring it On!"

What Nader's running mate had to say when he was the Socialist Worker's Party nominee for President in 1976:

Government: "Our goal are to . . . have a planned economy run democratically. We are opposed to what exists in the Soviet Union."

The economy: Wealth should be redistributed, peacefully if possible, and industry nationalized.

Interest on Government bonds and notes held by persons with income of more than $40,000 a year should be stopped.

"I don't believe we're spending one penny to defend the U.S. We're preparing for new Vietnams."

Jobs: Additional employment could be generated through massive public-works programs and 30-hour workweeks with no cut in pay.

U.S. News & World Report, What the Minor-Party Candidates Stand For, Nov. 1, 1976, at 28 (via Nexis subscription service).

We've arrived safely on the East Coast, and as a result, I had a chance to listen to WABC News Radio. I knew WABC was a home of Limbaugh and Hannity, but I must say I was stunned when I heard the announcer say that WABC was "the home of the 2004 Republican National Convention". I was so stunned, I went to WABC's website. Not only does it repeat the statement that "WABC is home of the 2004 Republican National convention", but it also has a link "Looking for volunteers for the Republican National Convention this summer!" (exclamation point WABC's). This is not displayed as a paid ad -- those are in the left column -- but under a news heading.

At least FOX claims to be Fair and Balanced (TM) -- WABC doesn't even pretend.

WABC is a subsidiary of Disney (pdf page 45 of 100) and has a tremendously powerful signal that extend far beyond New York. As you will recall, it was just last month that Disney refused to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11 on the stated rationale that it did not want to insert itself into politics in an election year. That claim was absurd at the time -- as documented by FAIR, Brian Leiter, and numerous others -- but it is doubly absurd now that Disney's leading news radio station is abandoning even the pretense of balance in favor of openly organizing for the Republican party.

Headin' out on the highway.

Mary and Fred will be back on Thursday.

Josh Marshall has an excellent post on Bush's (slightly) veiled request to the Pope to help his election campaign.

Not for nothing, but the exact same rules that Nader is violating prohibit "direct[] or indirect[]" participation in any political campaign (see pdf at 9 of 28). Bush is welcome to the support of individual Catholic clergy, but he cannot legally solicit the support of the Church itself, which is exactly what he was doing by going directly to the Pope.

At least nobody made a big deal out of it when a Democrat was accused of violating the same rule.

I'm not a tax (or election) lawyer, but this stinks. In a well-researched piece, the Washington Post reports that Ralph Nader's political campaign has been subleasing prime Washington real estate from Citizen Works, a non-profit he controls, despite the fact that "[t]ax law explicitly forbids public charities from aiding political campaigns". In fact, the prohibition is very broad. According to the IRS:

“[A]ll section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign”.

Nader poo-poos the whole story, but look at the facts:

-- Nader admits that "it was more convenient to rent from Citizen Works in an 'extremely tight' rental market. 'It can take a month-and-a-half to two months to find the right space with the right air transaction [ventilation system], with the right access to the building, the right location,' he said."

In other words, Nader admits that he received more favorable conditions from Citizen Works than he could get on the open market. How does that not constitute "directly or indirectly participating in his campaign"?

-- The Nader campaign was allowed to pay only partial rent for the first few months of the campaign. They justify this because the campaign was "in an exploratory stage and did not need all the space.... 'We were tiny. We were growing.'"

I have leased commercial space, and I can tell you that no landlord will allow a "tiny" start-up to pay only for what they need. This is a big challenge for a small business -- you must pay for what you hope you will need. There is just no way this passes the laugh test as an arm's length deal.

-- Nader claims his campaign manager, Theresa Amato, assured that the law was followed. "'There's no bigger stickler than Theresa Amato,' Nader said. 'She's an attorney.'"

But according to public filings Amato is the President of Citizen Works. This conflict of interest makes her assurances that the transaction was at arm's length highly dubious.

The uncontested facts are pretty bad for Ralph, and they would likely be worse if he provided the Post the information it sought. I urge that we "Fight Corporate Crime and Abuse: exact personal responsibility from all wrongdoers".

is you never know when the election is going to be. Michael Moore was able to create Fahrenheit 9/11 just in time for this year's election, but by the time he finishes his now contemplated movie on Tony Blair, Bush's lapdog should be long gone.

Crony capitalism is one thing, but what do you do when you've got the baby Bells on one side but AT&T and MCI on the other? According to tomorrow's Times, Bush has decided to go with the Bells and higher telephone rates:

The administration's announcement followed fierce lobbying and aggressive tactics; each side has raised millions of dollars in campaign contributions for the president and the Republican Party. Before the decision, rivals of the Bells said they had told the administration that if it did not side with them in the dispute they intended to run television advertisements in swing political states accusing the White House of being responsible for higher telephone rates. For their part, the Bell companies pledged not to raise rates before the election in November.

Kind of reminds one of Prince Bandar's promise "to lower gas prices before November to help the president's re-election prospects".

What else are they holding off until after November?

Apparently, the current plans to deify Ronald Reagan include replacing Hamilton on the $10 bill or Jackson on the $20.

These plans seem rather telling. If you had to sum up what those two men symbolize, what would it be? I nominate:

Hamilton -- fiscal responsibility

Jackson -- democracy

And what exactly is it we are being offered in their place?

... what conservative principle this advances?

Ronald Reagan's death gives us an occasion to consider the question of Helen Thomas's accusation that Bush is "the worst president ever". I sure say that he is when my kids ask who was the worst president ever, but how do we know?

In many ways, the comparisons with Reagan can be very instructive. On the whole, liberals disagreed with Reagan's stated policies as much as with Bush's. Yet, most of us have a much more nuanced view of Reagan, as compared to our outright anger toward Bush. As G.H.W. Bush said yesterday, "It was wonderful the way that he could take a stand, and do it without bitterness or without creating enmity with other people". The same cannot be said W, as H.W. surely knows.

Part of the difference is hinted at in Kerry's statement -- that he actually established relationships with leaders on the other side. A bigger part of it, as laid out in Joshua Green's excellent (and much cited) Reagan's Liberal Legacy, was that Reagan's decision-making took account of the changing world circumstances that he faced, rather than sticking to preconceived ideological ideas regardless of evidence or changes in circumstances (perhaps Bush's defining characteristic, as best documented by Paul Krugman).

Every president must make some decisions for the purpose of retaining power, regardless of good policy (such as Clinton's signing the welfare reform and Defense of Marriage Acts). Reagan was no exception, but many of his policies were indeed motivated by a genuine desire to advance the interests of the Nation. Even a policy as controversial as supporting the Nicaraguan Contras had a clear link to interests of the Nation in the context of the world situation at the time. (I am not arguing here that the policy was right or wrong or had good or bad consequences, but simply that a reasonable person in the 1980s could have concluded that supporting the Contras would help contain Communism and make the United States safer.)

With Bush, however, every single policy is directed toward the twin goals of retaining and exploting power for himself, his associates, and his coalition. I can only think of one major policy of the Bush Administration that a reasonable, well-informed, non-ideological person would conclude was in the best interests of the Nation, rather than those narrower, and baser, goals -- and that policy, the invasion of Afghanistan, was so stunningly and obviously necessary that I cannot imagine any president of my lifetime having done differently. (And, of course, even the effectiveness of that policy was sold out for Iraq.) Contrast that to Reagan's 1986 tax reform, rapprochement with Gorbachev, appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor, etc.

Matthew Yglesias argues that "the legend of John Kennedy was created as the 'good Johnson' [getting credit for Johnson's civil rights and poverty achievements] and a shockingly large number of people have even convinced themselves that he had a secret plan to end the war".

I agree that the idea that Kennedy would have done what Johnson did domestically is somewhere between mere speculation and outright myth. However, it is equally speculative to argue that Kennedy would have escalated Vietnam like LBJ did. That case has been made by others better than I can (here is a good place to start), so I will only add that we can't have it both ways: Either (a) Vietnam was an avoidable debacle that was the result of bad decisions made by the President and his senior staff, or (b) Vietnam was a mostly unavoidable debacle that resulted from the reasonable decisions almost any reasonable President would have made under the circumstances, so that we can conclude that even a man as different from Johnson as Kennedy would have acted similarly. I think the evidence, including Kennedy's willingness to ignore military expertise (as in the Cuban Missile Crisis) and his superior sense of popular (vs. inside) politics, suggests that the better choice is "a".