Weekend Roundup

For those of you who weren't reading the blog over the weekend, a few highlights:

• Dick Holbrooke thinks caring about national security means loving war.
• Michael Mukasey makes a fool out of "contrarian" defenders of his confirmation.
• Mike Huckabee and the southern captivity of the Republican Party.
• Why liberals should cheer Huckabee and Ron Paul.
• Why Jonathan Franzen is wrong about the Kindle.

Now go about your business.

Comments

Senator Dodd, speaking live on C-Span 2. For online viewers:

http://play.rbn.com/?url=cspan/g2cspan/live/cspan2-g2.rm&proto=rtsp&plugin=1?embed

Posted by El Cid | December 17, 2007 11:18 AM

Can't we all just agree to not like the Kindle because it's ugly, poorly designed, and doesn't even stack up well against its competition?

Posted by Austin | December 17, 2007 12:09 PM

I guess I missed my chance to comment on liberals, Huck and Paul.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Huck or Paul are cuddly, cute Presidential picks or anything. But, pace the "Huckabee winning Randy Brinson's support means that Dems. can't trust social conservatives" crowd, I think that the support for Huckabee amongst the Randy Brinsons of the GOP and the support for Paul amongst the right-libertarians is actually a hopeful sign. It indicates that there is a core group of social conservatives that will support economic populists (if not liberals), and it indicates that there is a core group of right-leaning libertarians who are not glibertarians.

Many of us liberals have fretted (with a large degree of evidence on our side, IMHO) that many "social conservatives" really, at heart, were in it for the desire to lord it over (if you'll pardon the pun) others and bash on sinners while many right leaning libertarians really had a notion of liberty derived from 18th century slave owners -- "liberty for me and mine but not for poor brown folk whom we should send off to Gitmo and kill in wars, which is the sole job of gummint."

But the support amongst social conservatives of Huckabee and the support amongst right libertarians of Paul means that both groups do have a bona fide core subgroup. And these bona fide libertarians and bona fide religious folk really can be swayed by the Democratic message: provided we stop trying to moderate ourselves and play to the village and start actually defending and rebranding liberalism. Liberalism is something both libertarians and religious folks can support (if for different reasons). But if the Democrats, who are associated for better or for worse with the liberal "brand" continue to support the neo-liberal rather than the authentic liberal agenda, we'll just continue to piss off voters who might otherwise vote for us -- why should a religious conservative vote Democratic if we fail to be economically liberal and constantly support the right of icky people to do icky things besides?

OTOH, not only can the Dems. shore up their base by really being liberal, but, should Huckabee loose, the Randy Brinsons of the country might very well say "well, I disagree with the Dems. on abortion, etc., but at least they stand for economic populism, so I'll hold my nose and vote for them". If people hold their nose and vote R, they can hold their nose and vote D. But, pace the media village people, the way to get people to hold their noses and vote D is not to "compromise" and move "toward" them by moving to the center, but it's to give people a reason to vote D.

Will the Dems. do that? Will we give the Ricky Brinsons of our country a reason to vote for us? Or will we try to get their vote by being "moderate" and give nobody ... not our base, not anyone, any reason to vote D ... and let the GOP win the election by default?

Posted by DAS | December 17, 2007 2:25 PM