Today, in the Washington Post, columnist Marc Fisher profiles Harris Miller. Although Fisher appears to like Miller personally ("a roly-poly, friendly guy" who "dumps four creams in his coffee, gobbles a cookie and answers his BlackBerry almost simultaneously"), politically he demolishes Miller in a way that almost makes Fisher sound like a blogger. Oh wait, he IS a blogger, author of the NLS-platinum-rated Washington Post blog, "Raw Fisher." And, from the looks of it, Fisher has reached the same conclusion as the rest of his platinum, gold and silver Virginia bloggers: Miller's a political disaster. Check this out.
There are three kinds of Democrats remaining in this Republican-dominated land of ours:One kind believes the Democratic Party lost a large portion of its support and a significant slice of its soul to Ronald Reagan and will never again be a majority party unless it lures back those folks who grew up admiring FDR and JFK but migrated to Reagan.
[...]
The third kind of Democrat is still horrified by the concept of Reagan -- and says so. This set of politicians is generally assumed to be the suicidal wing of the Democratic Party.
Two weeks from today, Virginians will decide which type of Democrat will take on Sen. George Allen, who, in the mysterious ways of the conventional wisdom, has gone from strong presidential prospect to vulnerable first-term senator in a matter of days.
Obviously, Jim Webb is the epitome of the "one kind" of Democrat. Miller, unfortunately, is of the "suicidal" variety. According to Fisher:
Miller is a Republican strategist's dream opponent. He's as charismatic as a toaster, wonkier than Al Gore and as proudly liberal as Al Franken. And at just about the worst time ever to be one, he's a lobbyist. He's a total contrast to Allen; no cowboy boots or chewing tobacco here. If Allen preaches the virtues of "Virginia values," Miller stands up for the mores of the state's burgeoning metropolitan areas.
Ee gads.
A "Republican strategist's dream opponent?" Is Marc Fisher channeling Raising Kaine, or is it the other way around? Yes, I've been a huge Marc Fisher fan for a long time now, as is "Not Larry Sabato." Great political analysis, great writer...what more could you ask for?
Anyway, continuing on with Fisher's demolition of the Harris Miller candidacy (yeah, I'll admit that I'm enjoying this!), how about the following?
As liberal as Miller may be, he's also a classic Washington government groupie, a lover of compromise, someone who gets juiced by stories about LBJ and Dick Nixon cutting a deal on the budget. His favorite senators are John McCain, the Arizona Republican, and Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat, in both cases because they are among the last guys in the building who walk the bipartisan walk.
OK, I agree with Marc Fisher that Miller is "a classic Washington government groupie" (great line, by the way!), but I've got one quibble. Namely, Harris Miller may be "liberal" on some issues, but he's very conservative on others, like his belief that making the Bush tax cuts permanent is a "great idea," his enthusiasm for capital punishment ("I'd pull the switch myself"), his opposition to national health care, his support for the invasion of Iraq, his belief that we don't need any more gun laws, his strong support of "free trade" and "outsourcing," etc., etc. How is all this "liberal" exactly?
Anyway, the bottom line is that Harris Miller is "what he is, a Democrat of the third kind, and an endearing one at that." Great. An endearing "suicidal" is just what we Democrats need? Not. The "dream opponent" of George Allen strategist Chris LaCivita and Scott Howell is just what the doctor ordered? Once again, an emphatic "not!"
Anyway, now that Fisher has demolished Harris Miller's candidacy, I look forward to his profile of Jim Webb next week. Based on Fisher's categorization of Democrats, however, I can pretty much guess what he's going to conclude: that Jim Webb is exactly the kind of Teddy Roosevelt/FDR/JFK Progressive and Jacksonian populist we need to help make the Democrats a "majority party" again. In other words, just what we bloggers have been saying since November 2005.
Warner does not believe that the Democrats automatically benefit from popular unhappiness with the Administration. "I think the Republicans bear the vast majority of the blame for these things, but there's a little bit of a 'plague on Washington' feeling now." The Democrats, he said, would serve themselves better by focusing less on Bush's problems. "I get some criticism from Democrats who say, 'Well, Warner, you're not giving us enough red meat all the time.' But the case has been made. We don't need to remake the case of all the mess-ups of this Administration. What we've got to do now is answer the question 'All right, if we turn the keys over to you guys, what are you going to do differently?'" Warner added that the Party needs to start by trying to reach beyond its liberal base: "Sometimes the Democrats advocate tolerance, except for people who don't agree with them."
A related interview of Goldberg is here.
I wish more Democrats would get on board with our the "big tent" and understood what it means.
Essentially, liberals are the bulwark of both the party and the grassroots electoral effort, but get little to nothing legislatively for their effort. All liberals ask is a good faith effort to stand up to government excess, abuse of the Constitution, and hegemony. Also, liberals want their leaders to stop rubber-stamping Bush's destructive policies. And they (liberals) don't get the Democratic votes they should most of the time. It doesn't matter that the bottom-line roll call wouldn't turn out liberals' way anyway. At least if Dems consistently voted to oppose Bush, there would be evidence the party stands for something.
Instead we get old-time insiders like Miller who'd leave no Republican behind while claiming he's "more of a Democrat" than Webb. In his dreams.
Liberals want the offshoring of our jobs to cease. liberals want fairness for all Americans. Liberals advocate more fiscal responsibility than the Bush-lite crowd is smart enough to understand or endorse. Liberals want good stewardship of both economic and natural resources. That's good for everyone, even business. Where is the outcry against Enron's Ken Lay (so recently convicted). Why are Bush-lite Dems afraid to talk about it. Profligate destruction of natural resources may look useful for the bottom line, but has a price in the out years, even for the profligate environmental abusers and supposed "conservatives."
Miller is no "third kind" of Democrat, as Fisher claims. He's of another species entirely. And lumping Miller in with "liberals" should really tick off real liberals. It's a downright insult. But don't get me started on that. I'll just say, as has been said (but should be repeated often) Miller would gobble up jobs like the PAC-man that he is. He's already been instrumental in the nation's high tech firms doing so. How can he look us in they eye after his a testimony before Congress? Miller may listen to opera, but that doesn't mean squat.
It's also pretty amusing that Harris Miller says (in his latest mailer) that he'll stand up to the oil companies? BWAHAHAHAHAH.
Miler's campaign tactics are reminiscent of the Monster-truck destructo levied on Howard Dean by Chris Lehane and Jonathan Chait. The bottom line: Miller's no liberal, but he's playing one till June13th.
Meanwhile, is it okay to admit I much prefer Mozart to music and don't get (nor care to get) the entire NASCAR thing?
It burns fossil fuels at an accelerated rate.
It makes a great deal of noise.
If you're lucky, you end up exactly where you started with no injuries.