DailyKos showing again why its known as a hyper-partisan site

[tagryn]

In discussing whether Gates should stay on as Secretary of Defense in an Obama administration, Kos writes that "whether Gates has been a good Sec of Defense is irrelevant" and it needs to filled by a Democrat for party reasons, end of story. Somehow, politics-before-effectiveness when it comes to national security doesn't do much for me; the current Administration has taken a lot of heat for often putting political considerations ahead of practical ones, yet I guess its OK as long as its the "right" party doing it.

Kos was apparently feeling his oats a little today, since he also issued a warning to moderate Democrats that he's hoping to purge them from the party now that they're no longer needed to ensure a majority. I'm of the opinion that a reduced/abashed GOP minority working with the "blue dog" Democrats can be positive in terms of reforming D.C. while preventing the bigger abuses that usually come with having one party in charge of both the executive and legislative branches. What I consider abuses, of course, Kos would consider not going far enough (hence the "hyperpartisan" label). But then, Kos' track record of supporting candidates hasn't been particular stellar historically, so this may not be something serious politicians will sweat about...

Comments

[erikred.livejournal.com]

Actually, what kos said was "the problem with putting a Republican at secretary of defense (or in the intelligence agencies) is that it reinforces the bullshit notion that only Republicans can be effective stewards of our national defense."

Regardless of whether kos is "hyper-partisan" or not (and hell, I'm as lefty as they come, and I'd call him pretty darn "hyper-partisan"; you don't go to kos for unbiased reporting, and I generally don't go to kos at all), he brings up a fine point here: through hawkish stances and a masterful PR policy, the GOP has convinced Americans that the Dems are soft as silk on national defense. Leaving the semi-competent Robert Gates in SECDEF would not only further that image, it would validate the Bush Admin's failed policies. We need someone else.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that if the supremely talented author of the Powell Doctrine, Ret. General Colin Powell wanted the job, I'd be one of the first to jump up and salute, Republican or not. The man has the chops, and he has the will.

Maybe, though, I'm just a little confused: do you really think someone like kos matters in the greater scheme of things? I think he's as irrelevant as LGF and Den Beste, only slightly more relevant than Malkin, Coulter, Wonkette, Drudge, and Knowles, somewhat less relevant than Huffington, and significantly less relevant than Sullivan. Am I somehow being naive here?

[tagryn]

- If you consider Gates only "semi-competent", I'd be interested to know where you think he's messed up as SecDef, specifically?

- Powell was the guy who stood before the UN and testified that Iraq had WMD; he was the face put on the policy. How would his appointment not "validate the Bush Admin's failed policies" even more than keeping Gates around would?

- The whole thing is based the idea that SecDef needs to be a Democrat, regardless of how well Gates has actually done his job. While I'd expect Kos to make this argument, for now I take Obama at his word that he's not going to play that game. At the same time, there's certainly some Democratic options which would make sense (Sam Nunn), others that'd be abject disasters (Wes Clark), and others in the middle (Jim Webb). A good choice I'll certainly support, while a reflexive lets-get-a-Democrat-in-there-regardless choice less so.

- Kos does tend to overestimate his own importance as a matter of self-preservation to keep the $$$ coming in (big surprise), but I regard his site as a canary-in-a-mineshaft for what the hard progressive side is thinking, just like LGF and RedState is for the hard right (Den Beste retired from political writing 3-4 years ago). Webtraffic is notoriously difficult to estimate, but the Wikipedia page for them cites "an average weekday traffic of about 519,000 visits,[1] and has between 14 million and 24 million visits per month." plus $1.4 million in campaign contributions raised during the 2006 campaign. Huffington said last year her site averages "3 million a month" by way of rough comparison. But on Alexa Kos is only ranked 3,164 among all websites in popularity, while HP is 560th and Sullivan is at 3,654. The metrics are, shall we say, less than precise on these things.

[erikred.livejournal.com]

Gates: Destroying our ability to field a Powell Doctrine level army by diverting artillery units to supporting counter-insurgency. Now, I agree that CI is a primary component in dealing with the current situation in Iraq, but not at the expense of making our military unfit for an actual conflict.

Powell: It is generally recognized that Powell did everything he could to delay the invasion; he was more of a fifth columnist than a believer. Also, as the author of the Powell Doctrine (and I know I sound like a broken record here), he's the best person to bring our military back to combat readiness.

Auto-Dem: No argument here, though I think that you're emphasizing the dem-at-all-costs point more while kos was talking about the image of dems as soft on defense.

Kos and bloggers: Frankly, I consider you to be more relevant than any of the others. I used to work at a dot-com, you may remember, and web traffic is one of the least reliable indicators of relevance. But hey, if your blood pressure's not high enough, you could always stream KPFA; those guys make me laugh.

[tagryn]

Erik - I think you might find this article at Stratfor interesting, it actually echoes what you're saying about how Gates is sacrificing long-term capabilities in order to meet short-term goals in the Air Force. I think it takes a balanced approach to presenting the points on each side:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/geopolitical_weekly_u_s_air_force_and_next_war

[erikred.livejournal.com]

This is some very interesting stuff. Thanks, Tom!

One good url deserves another: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/33

This is a video of a presentation by Thomas Barnett on making the case for a military re-org. His points are astoundingly valid, from where I'm sitting, and not just because they sound a lot like what I've been saying for a while.