Sullivan
GIVE EDWARDS A CHANCE: In both primaries yesterday, Kerry won close to a half of the votes and Edwards won around a quarter. But more interestingly, as Will Saletan points out in a must-read, Edwards beat Kerry on the question of the issues and among those in the more moderate wing of the party, i.e. those who were less angry with Bush and more in the "satisfied but not enthusiastic" camp. Edwards wins more pro-war voters as well. I infer that most Dem voters so far have been conned into voting for the idea of Kerry, not the reality. And the idea is that he is more electable. And that has become almost self-fulfilling. Edwards is therefore absolutely right to stay in. More Democrats like his views than like Kerry's (whatever they are as of 1.25 am today), and more middle-of-the-roaders support him. The vast majority of delegates has yet to be decided. In a clear two-way race, it could get very interesting. Now we've gotten rid of Clark (see below), the media needs to create a new dynamic. I'm with the Economist on this: give Edwards a chance. Kerry is far less than meets the eye.
CLARK DEPARTS: We can all now heave a huge sigh of relief. The man had no political experience, had been on every side of a critical issue (the war against Saddam), believed in preposterous conspiracy theories, and backed any left-liberal cause regardless of his previous positions. The sole rationale for his candidacy was his military record - a record which ended in his being fired for being unstable in the Kosovo war. But what amazed me even more was how many otherwise sane Democrats seemed to take him seriously. "You're really scared, aren't you? I can see it" was the refrain from many liberal friends. Yes, I was scared. Not that he was a formidable figure bestriding the political scene like a colossus. But that he was a nut-case who had a shot at becoming the nominee of a serious political party. Now he can go back to what he was planning all along: raking in the usual lobbyist dough. See you at the Palm, Wes.
- 2:25:24 AM
DEFICITS AND WAR: One more reason to be worried about the U.S.'s increasingly perilous fiscal future is that it could well jeopardize the war on terror - which will need real resources for the foreseeable future. I like Bush's new spending on defense and homeland security (which is not to say that all of it wisely used). But that's precisely why I think we need to cut back elsewhere. My agenda: means-test social security, scale back Medicare, abolish agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare and move toward a flat tax that the super-rich cannot evade. That's one good answer to the Dems' itching to raise taxes again. We can do it all - if only we stop wasting so much on people and special interests (of left and right) who do not need the help. Fareed Zakaria gets the idea. The one thing you learn from history is that inattention to national finances is the surest sign of decay in global power. No one can be for long-term deficits and the war on terror. They negate each other. When people tell me to forget the debt because the war on terror trumps everything else, they are missing the fact that the deficit will kill this war sooner than any Baathist insurgent. The struggle abroad desperately requires reform and sacrifice at home. I just hope this president (and future ones) understand this. I fear he doesn't. |
