Sammy 4 Prez

by publius

This AJC article on Sam Nunn’s toe-dipping into the presidential waters illustrates quite nicely why things like Unity08 don’t make any sense.

[T]he Georgia Democrat, who made his name nationally as a defense-minded hawk, has watched what's happened to the country, and he’s more than a bit ticked — at the "fiasco" in Iraq, a federal budget spinning out of control, the lack of an honest energy policy, and a presidential contest that, he says, seems designed to thwart serious discussion of the looming crises. . . . Though he has said little publicly, his frustration over Iraq — he opposed the first Gulf War in '91 — can barely be contained. "A fiasco, which we've basically mishandled in all directions.

These are all serious problems – no argument there. Given that all of the problems Nunn identified can be traced quite directly to Republican political control over the past 8 years, you might think Nunn would try to reclaim his Senate seat. No such luck. Instead, Nunn (being a Democrat) is considering an indie Unity08 run that would take votes away from Democrats – you know, the party not responsible for things like Iraq and an energy policy consisting of subsidizing Exxon.

It’s safe to say that Nunn – like Bloomberg – will never run. But even if it’s just an exercise in vanity, it’s still harmful because these publicity stunts mislead the public. If you were a busy person who didn’t have the time (or inclination) to read 3 newspapers and 100 blog posts a day, you would read that article and think, “Wow, both parties really suck. They should get their act together. That David Broger guy is right on.” In this way, the Unity08 rhetoric prevents accountability by preventing people from recognizing the sources of bad policy.

It might be different if Nunn’s passion in life was intellectual property or bankruptcy law or farm subsidies. On those issues, yes, “both parties” have failed us. They are both bad, and they both cause the problem. Rock on David Broger, rock on.

But the problems allegedly motivating Nunn to run – Iraq, spending, and the lack of a real energy policy – aren’t problems shared by both parties. They’re problems caused by the Republican Party. The reason we’re in Iraq is because the United States elected a Republican President. The reason we lack a serious energy policy is because Republicans control just under 50% of Congress.

If you want to solve these problems, you should support the party committed to solving them. Alternatively, you could oppose the party blocking attempts to solve them. Nunn, of course, is doing neither.

What’s perhaps most maddening about all of this is that Nunn – regardless of whatever shortcomings he has – enjoys respect among people who are not all that sympathetic to liberals. For that reason, Nunn (like Lieberman) could have used his credibility to make a real difference in the Iraq debate. Even today, he could come out strongly for the party trying to end the war he now strongly opposes – you know, his own party. He could even get really crazy and try to reclaim a Senate seat and exert real power over national foreign policy. That's a lot more manageable than a run for Prez if he's truly feeling his country call.

But Nunn is doing nothing of the sort. Instead, he’s devoting his efforts to convincing people that the problem is simply -- say it with me in rhythm people -- the . . . extremes . . . of . . . both . . . parties.

[UPDATE: Steve Benen has more.]

Comments

[Gary Farber]

"David Broger"

David Broder?

[J Thomas]

If he inspires democratic candidates to address his issues, then we're probably alll better off. Nunn can't possibly win the democratic nomination, and the ones who can win are all implying they won't end the occupation.

Who was it who said "If you run a republican against a republican, then a republican will win"?

[jbenson]

The reason we lack a serious energy policy is because Republicans control just under 50% of Congress.

The reason we lack a serious energy policy is because republicans controlled MORE than 50% of congress for the past 6 years and the Bush administration is comprised of oil execs from the very top on down.

Putting it YOUR way makes it sound like it was only since the democrats took over congress that the repubs have blocked a sane energy policy.

[hilzoy]

It's actually worse than that. The one other thing thats allegedly motivating Nunn is nuclear nonproliferation, which he was very concerned about back in the day; hence the program known as 'Nunn-Lugar'. And who, you might ask, has taken over from Nunn on the Democratic side on this issue?

Why: Barack Obama, that's who. Hence the update to Nunn-Lugar known as Lugar-Obama.

[OCSteve]

If you want to solve these problems, you should support the party committed to solving them.

I’m not really seeing that though. I hear (read) a lot of talk certainly, but it’s been 7 months now and I haven’t actually seen much action. I certainly haven’t seen much in the way of commitment.

Iraq? They passed the spending bill with no restrictions. Spending? Yeah right. They added $22 billion more than Bush asked for to 2008 spending bills. Energy Policy – they have all caved at times to home state polluters and their promises for the future all amount to “and a pony”.

So while it is fair to say “They’re problems caused by the Republican Party” IMO you haven’t made the case here that Democrats are committed to fixing anything. They’re committed to solidifying and expanding their control – but that’s all the commitment I have seen.

So I may vote against Republicans or not at all, but unless something changes drastically I won’t be voting for any party.

[John Thullen]

There must be a book or a thesis in ferreting out the reasons why thoughtful, knowledgable, decent politicians like Nunn, Bill Bradley, and many others from both parties abandoned the electorate to the predations of the lunkheads in Congress today.

I'll include Gary Hart on that list, though we know why he went away, which was not a very good reason.

I'm sure the rise of the velociraptor wing of the Republican Party headed up by Newt Gingrich ("It's very simple" Newt says as introduction to every thought that comes into his head. No, it's not, but those three words are what the American people, simpleminded in the aggregate, hanker after.) made them sick to their stomachs, but there must be other reasons in common as well.

Then again, maybe the good ones look so good because they didn't stick around long enough to become Shakespearean tragic figures at the hands of the American electorate, who eat their leaders, good and bad.

[publius]

Gary - it was an intentional "typo"

[KCinDC]

David Broger is David Broder with a touch of David Gergen -- or maybe the "d" has been velarized by influence from David Brooks's "k".

[hilzoy]

OCSteve: bear in mind that at least 4 billion of the extra spending was for veterans' health care, PTSD/TBI, etc.

[GS]

OCSTeve: Lets not forget that the democrats barely control the senate, and the republican senators are committed to filibuster everything and anything that the democrats wants to do. And then there's also a presidential veto afterwards.

[Populuxe]

Come on now, "Nunn for you in '08" would be a great campaign slogan. In fact, now that I think of it, I'm certain the Senator made this announcement merely to see the headline "Nunn's on the run" in his daily paper.

[Morat]

OCSteve: Check the GOP budgets (when they controlled the House and Senate) versus Bush's submitted ones, before you complain about Democrats 'overspending'.

Here's a hint: The GOP passed budgets with considerably more appriopriated, as a percentage, than Bush had proposed with nary a sound from Bush.

Meanwhile, the Democrats do things like spend more money on SCHIP and veteran's health care, and you're complaining?

[OCSteve]

hilzoy: bear in mind that at least 4 billion of the extra spending was for veterans' health care, PTSD/TBI, etc.

Of course I want to see better funding for my pet programs. ;) Yay for that – but trim $22 billion somewhere else please…

Morat: Check the GOP budgets

I’ve already agreed that they caused the problems. I’m relying on Democrats to stick to their guns and fix them. So far, I don’t see that they are.

the Democrats do things like spend more money on SCHIP and veteran's health care, and you're complaining?

Sure I am. They ran on PAYGO. I’ll admit that they are making the attempt, but I’d rather see cuts made somewhere else (all these dumb earmarks come to mind) than pinpoint tax increases. Look at SCHIP – they funded it with a tax increase on tobacco that actually requires millions of new smokers to break even over ten years. It’s a large expansion of a program that is not properly funded or made up for by cuts elsewhere.

And I didn’t even bring up FISA or earmark reform or other stuff – I just touched on the specifics issues raised in the post.

[a cornellian]

One must take baby steps. If the dems controlled both congress with 99% majorities and the executive, then your complaining would be as damning as you are projecting it as. Given the reality you are simply being partisan and difficult for the sake of being difficult.

It amazes me how people (including my self) can take on irrational beliefs about how reality works when it fits a partisan agenda. The thread a while back where some vocal members of the commetariate were arguing that letting tax cuts expire was the same as raising taxes....

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Look at SCHIP – they funded it with a tax increase on tobacco that actually requires millions of new smokers to break even over ten years. It’s a large expansion of a program that is not properly funded or made up for by cuts elsewhere."

And that is classic PAYGO....

[hilzoy]

Actually, I thought that the House version of SCHIP, at least, was funded by eliminating our subsidies for private plans that compete with Medicare. (Where 'subsidies' means not what we pay them per capita, but the amount we pay them above what it costs Medicare to treat the same people, thereby giving them an unfair advantage.)

[Gary Farber]

Gary - it was an intentional "typo"

What's the meaning of "typo" in quotes?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand that. I get what a typo is. What's a "typo," with quoted indicating... what? [scratches head]

Intentional or otherwise.

?

I'm doubtless dumb, but I'm kinda baffled here. What are we talking about? What are you saying?

[Gary Farber]

[...] David Broger is David Broder with a touch of David Gergen -- or maybe the "d" has been velarized by influence from David Brooks's "k".

? Is there a source for this? Tv? Some blog?

Is this common usage somewhere, and we were supposed to recognize it, and maybe most did, but not me? (That would hardly be uncommon.)

If so, where is this common, might I ask? And apologies for my ignorance here.

[KCinDC]

No, Gary, that part was purely my own personal derangement. I assumed "Broger" was a typo, until I saw the second occurrence and then Publius's comment. Looks like it's just supposed to be something a confused American who doesn't pay that much attention to politics and might be susceptible to Unity08 might say by mistake.

[sglover]

Unity '08 is a joke, but how can any alert voter escape noticing that BOTH parties have failed, badly -- and not just in niche issues like IP law and telecom regulation. In energy policy, neither party will even whisper about the only serious fix, a gradually escalating petroleum/carbon tax. Iraq is Bush's disaster, surely, but the Dems could have stopped it in the beginning, just as they can stop it now. The Dems are doing NOTHING to head off the even bigger catastrophe of an Iranian war. Finally, impeachment investigations targeting both Bush and Cheney are a real necessity, if we want to maintain the pretense that we live in a Constitutional republic -- but the Dems don't want to risk their jobs.

There's no doubt that the Republican Party is now an organization of the mentally ill and the corrupt, but rather than resisting them in any meaningful fashion, as far as I can tell the Dems are rather pleased with the current set-up. If I were a professional politician, I'd rather run against a pack of scary nutjobs myself. But being the lesser of two evils just isn't good enough in these dark days.