Do they really believe this stuff?

Sitting in a coffee shop today I over-heard a Bennet field director pitching the candidate to a minor local politico. Part of his pitch was that Andrew Romanoff is a known quantity and he is solidly and decidedly moderate. Bennet though, according to this staffer, is less known and thus is more maleable to the liberal base.

First, that Bennet's views are less well known does not speak at all to the maleability of his positions. Second, does this guy really believe that Michael Bennet is at all persuaded by the liberal base or that his views are any less "moderate" than Andrew Romanoff? Bennet's views haven't shifted one iota since he took office - he voted against mortgage cramdown and he supported Senate health reform. He supported health reform all along and his opposition to mortgage cramdown was typical of so-called moderates who believe in the sanctity of banksters contracts but not union contracts.

This pitch that Bennet might be some closet liberal if Democrats apply pressure is farcical. He is what he is, you can either support him or not but outside pressure will have likely little impact on Michael Bennet. It certainly won't turn him from a Congress Park liberal into a true progressive, just like Andrew Romanoff will not be suddenly changing his Wash Park liberal stripes into some sort of labor firebrand.

It just seems like such a transparently ridiculous pitch to be making.

On Ritter

Quoting Seth from my comments section,

I find that, with Ritter, the straightforward answer is usually the correct one. He didn't think he could win, so he took his ball and went home.

This is similar to my friend Danny the Red Hair's assesment after watching the govs announcement yesterday (I missed it), that it appeared like he was being forthright and that there is no other shoe about to drop. I think Seth and Danny are right. We're so used to cynical and jaded politcians we hardly know how to react when confronted with sincerity and honesty. The governor has cynical politcal players around him and has occasionaly acted as a politician is wont to do but all in all the man (and I know him more than a little) is incredibly earnest. I believe what he said and knowing his commitment to Jeannie and his children I am not the least surprised that if he felt his family needed him he would do what was needed for his family. He looked at the issues in the state, he looked at the campaign, he looked at his family and he decided he would serve his family and himself better by retiring.

I have been dissapointed by many aspects of his administration but that's because I hung high hopes on the governor and much of that idealism was misguided. He was never a firebrand, a populist, a progressive or a dynamic leader. He's always been an upper middle class Denver liberal with blue collar roots and a dedication to public service. He's demonstrated competent stewardship of the state at a time when no governor could be expected to do much more than that. He hasn't been a bad governor, he hasn't been corrupt and aside from the Kolomitz affair it's been a relatively quiet four years.

To me the take away lesson here is that elected officials must seize opportunity immediately. There was a conventional wisdom in this administration that the often laborious process of governing that they undertook was ok because "we have eight years." I often wanted to scream out - "No, YOU DON'T!" but it wouldn't have mattered. In the three plus years since his landslide victory and the expansion of legislative majorities the national mood has shifted, the state's mood has shifted, massive budget shortfalls have wrecked the state government and the opportunity for Ritter to really leave a stamp on this state has all but evaporated.

By stepping down now though the governor has given Democrats a chance to effect change in 2011 and beyond. I thank the governor for his service, for his forsight in stepping aside now and I call on my friends to rally around protecting our legislative majorities and focus on electing a new Democratic governor. We don't often get second chances in life but I think this may be a second chance for Democrats in Colorado.

Stunned

I am absolutely floored by this. No one that I know saw this coming at all. No one.

There aren't even any good rumors as to why at this point.

Completely shocked.

I don't get it...

Persusing the blogs today I keep coming upon commentary regarding Brit Hume offering spiritual advice to Tiger Woods. I guess I just don't understand why this particular comment has generated so much outrage. It seems like run of the mill right-wing jackassery to me. It was a ridiculous comment for a lot of reasons but it was no more ridiculous than scores of other ridiculous things that are said every week.

Also there seems to be some consensus that if a Jewish commenter (or Muslim) said this about a Christian (or Jew) that the commenter would be forced to resign, post-haste. I don't see that either.

On terrorist safe havens and failed states...

Yglesias,

But there are real questions about how reasonable this fear of safe havens is. For one thing, the strategy is frighteningly unbounded. Today America is worried about chaos in Afghanistan, but there are also indications that al Qa’eda has found safe haven in Somalia and Yemen. Broken states, alas, are not all that rare. To suggest that the United States could succeed in its mission to vastly improve governance in Afghanistan, given enough time and money and manpower, hardly provides evidence that the task could be repeated in Sudan and Nigeria and Chad. If it’s true that the world’s security depends on eradicating every pocket of instability on Earth, then we really are doomed.

I agree with Matt here and would just add that even if we could narrow down the boundaries of what unstable states we would be involved in there's the matter of how we would achieve stabilization. Present conventional wisdom in Washington is that you deal with a "safe haven" country by blowing it up, several times over.

I don't think it's too controversial to note that this strategy does not have a good track record.

Do we ever catch terrorists at airport screenings?

It seems like every other week or so we kill Al Qaeda's number two or three leader via a predator drone. Occasionally the FBI rounds up some nuts in suburbia who have intentions of launching some sort of attack on the United States.

Have we ever though stopped a bomber at an airport screening? Have we prevented a terrorist attack by making someone take off their shoes, dump out their water or by seeing a bomb vis a vis a full body scanner?

Seems curious that I can't think of a single instance of the Secretary of Homeland Security (be it Ridge, Chertoff or Napolitano) coming in front of the cameras to announce that a terrorist had been apprehended at the airport thanks to our enhanced screening techniques.

More music reviews...

My old friend Joel just completed an immense project, he reviewed a different album every single day of 2009. His tastes, to use a cliched phrase, are eclectic and I think just about anyone can find a review of something that they love, something that they hate and quite a few things that they have never heard of. It's an impressive feat, well written and researched.

In 2010 Joel, masochist that he apparently is, will now be writing about a different song every single day.

Long live The Daily Guru, add him to your RSS feed this year - you're sure to enjoy it.