P8kice8zq6szrqrmqxag

Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

If you're interested in the broader issues involved in America's policy toward China and East Asia then, by all means, read this article by John Judis, my friend and former partner in writing the Below the Beltway column for the American Prospect.

The essence of John's argument is that liberals should get over the presumption that support for Taiwan vis-a-vis China is necessarily rooted in some reactionary form of McCarthyite Cold War militarism. And not just verbal support, but selling the Taiwanese the weaponry they need to defend themselves against Chinese threats of forced reunification.

About a year ago I wrote another Below the Beltway column which made something of a contrary argument -- making the case against the wacky right-wing hysterics who want to roil up East Asia with a new Cold War. My point was that a very ill-begotten sort of American domestic politics was threatening to sow havoc in East Asia. I don't think my piece is necessarily opposed to John's. But I would say also that in the intervening year I've somewhat shifted my position more toward his.

Now, having said that, I do think there's one part of the equation to which he gives too little attention. We should be willing to sell arms to the Taiwanese to help them defend themselves. We should probably also be willing to help defend thems directly should China seek to invade the island.

But as any sane person will realize, this second scenario is one we want to avoid at almost any cost.

We want to make clear our committment to defend Taiwan enough to prevent Chinese aggression but not so much as to encourage Taiwanese recklessness or efforts to secure formal independence. And that latter danger is much more than a theoretical possibility -- as a number of events in the late 1990s demonstrated.

So, yes, sell the Taiwanese the weapons they need to mount a credible defense. But also realize the dangers of making our support for Taiwan too fulsome.

More on this later.

Alright, we've been getting questions for a while about why there's a link down there on the left to Slate.com. Now at last we can tell you.

Here's the deal: as you know, these have been difficult times for online content providers. NBC just pulled the plug on NBC Internet -- their lame online division with the commercials featuring that svelte, fetching brunnette. And little more than a week ago Inside.com, one of the most buzzworthy web ventures out there, pulled the plug on itself and 'merged' with Brill's Content.

Well, even ventures with deep-pockets behind them can't ignore the gusting winds roiling the online sea. So tomorrow we're going to be announcing the merger of Slate.com and Talking Points Memo.

Now for the moment, we'd really rather not comment on any rumors you may have heard about this actually being a buy-out of one company by the other. As will be clear when we do the role-out tomorrow afternoon this is a true merger, as signified by the new merged company's name: SlatePoints AG.

(The AG stems from some German financing we brought in to help float the deal. We'll also be dropping the ".com" suffix from the new company name -- on the reasoning that that's just way to 1990s for 2001 and sort of has the whiff of death about it, given the NASDAQ crash, and so forth.)

Anyway, you'll still get all the same great content from the new combined venture. Tim Noah's Chatterbox column is slated to be renamed "Talking Points, Jr." as of May 1st. But Kinsley and I still have to have a sit-down with Tim and iron that out. Aside from that, most of the existing features and columns will likely continue as they are.

P.S. So what's the Slate.com link really doing there? Well, something cool; but not nearly as cool as SlatePoints AG. I'll toss up a post with the real score later this evening.

By all means read this excellent analysis in the Washington Post of the mix of internal Chinese politics and geo-politics at play in the current spy plane stand-off. The piece is particularly good in describing the unenviable position of Chinese President Jiang Zemin and the downside for the United States if this crisis leaves him weakened.

As far as fiscal policy goes, you really don't need Talking Points so long as you keep up with with Paul Krugman's 'Reckonings' column on The New York Times' Oped Page.

Sunday's installment provides an important reality check for anybody who's getting too excited about the rebuke the Senate gave the president last week -- slicing his $1.6 trillion tax cut to $1.2 trillion.

Unlike many of my friends, I'm quite happy to give Tom Daschle & Company real credit for succeeding at the art of the possible. Accomplishing even this was a major feat -- given that the filibuster is not available for tax and budget bills. And keeping all but one Democrat on board involved exceptional legislative skill on Daschle's part.

But, look, the real problem is that they only have fifty votes. And unless and until they get a few Republicans to work with them, there's just not that much they can do.

So, a great effort. But their power is just very limited. And as Krugman points out even a $1.2 tax cut -- organized along Bush's lines -- is still a disaster.

What's so important about Krugman's piece today is his willingness to state the obvious in unambiguous terms: the Bush tax cut package is premised on a bundle of lies, half-truths, and evasions. There is really no other candid way to put it. The cuts which go to the average family are paltry. The cuts it provides for the very wealthy are great. The danger it poses to the future solvency of Social Security and Medicare is profound. And if you're thinking about a prescription drug benefit under Medicare any time soon, well, you can just forget it.

Read the article. You'll be glad you did.

Wow! Did you just see Joe Lieberman on the Evans & Novak Show?

He talked a good game and made some interesting comments on a possible 2004 run.

More pointedly, though, he was the first marquee Democrat (at least the first I've seen) to openly make the 'Hey, you didn't really get elected anyway, bub' argument against George W. Bush. Yes, there was a touch of sugar-coating. But not much.

When I get a hold of the transcript, I'll post it.

P.S. Is there going to be an acronym for the 'Hey, you didn't really get elected anyway, bub' argument? No doubt. HYDRGEAB -- not exactly euphonious, but you can't have everything.

The Talking Points mailbag has been filling up with requests for a run-down of the potential Democratic standard-bearers for 2004. Who's up, who's down. All that.

One of these days I'm going to write up a long post on why a potential Evan Bayh candidacy - essentially an article of faith for many Washingtonians - is premised on an outdated view of the Democratic party, a view from an era when Democrats were so flat on their backs that they had to find their presidential candidates in states where virtually no one ever voted for Democrats

But for the moment just a preview.

Being a popular two-term Democratic governor from Indiana teaches you one thing - caution. And lots of it. But now even some of those who should be Bayh's natural supporters for a hypothetical presidential candidacy are wondering whether that Indiana-bred caution may run so deep that he just can't be an effective national leader in the Democratic party.

And consider one reason for those doubts. Much of Bayh's potential presdiential cachet is based on his association with the Democratic Leadership Council (the centrist, more pro-business faction of the Democratic party) - much is often made of the fact that he's just taken the post as chairman of the DLC, the same post Bill Clinton held when he ran for president … yada, yada, yada.

But so far the DLCers cannot seem to get him to sign on to their alternative to the Bush tax plan.

So here's what this means. Bayh is trying to position himself as the centrist Democrat for 2004. Much of this is premised on his association with the centrist, New Democrat DLC. Yet he won't even sign on to their tax cut plan because he presumably thinks it's too liberal.

The person who gets the nod in 2004 will be the one who can bridge the divide between the centrist and labor-liberal wings of the party. But apparently the centrist wing of the party is too far left for Evan Bayh.

Isn't this a problem?

Earlier I said I thought it would be a mistake even to try to ban 'coordination' between candidates and independent expenditure groups. Let me try to explain why.

Let's take a group at random. The Sierra Club or the Christian Coalition. Each group has deeply woven ties to the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. It's in the nature of things that the Sierra Club or perhaps the AFL-CIO will be in on-going close contact with the members of the Democratic party. The candidates, the leadership, etc.

It's in the nature of things, normal, expected and most importantly, right. They're ideological allies. They share common goals both in terms of whom to elect and what legislation to pass.

They will also discuss political strategy. They can't help working together towards common goals, even if they avoid explicit conversations on the topic.

Now I know this isn't exactly what the anti-coordination folks are talking about when they talk about cracking down on what they call "so-called independent expenditure groups." And I agree that among friends we might be able to agree on when someone crossed the line and when they didn't.

But that's the point.

These things aren't decided among friends. Quite the opposite. They're decided among prosecutors and their potential targets.

The problem with getting into this thicket is that politicians and political advocacy groups would, in the nature of things, constantly be operating in a gray area where they were either a) discharging their highest duties as citizens by participating vigorously in civic life or b) committing serial felonies.

Yes, some examples would fall easily into either category. But most would not, I suspect. And the serious players - game theory being what it is - would necessarily have to run close to the line.

The problem here is not that the intent of the law is necessarily ill-conceived or constitutionally impermissible - though I suspect both are likely the case - but that the enforcement of the law would necessarily be arbitrary and political.

More on this later.

Let me just quickly comment on the campaign finance debate underway in the Senate. Like many people, I often think my friend Mickey Kaus stretches things a bit far in looking for cases where liberals have it all wrong.

But not this time. He's completely right about the amendment to McCain-Feingold which would ban ads by independent expenditure groups in the run up to an election.

As Mickey says, the issue isn't that this is a great idea but that there are some weird constitutional 'difficulties'. This is plainly unconstitutional and rightly so! It's a terrible idea. I understand the impulse. Sort of. But it's a terrible idea.

Contrary to the claims of many conservatives, I believe that the 1st Amendment applies to far more than narrowly political speech. But political speech is obviously the core of what the Amendment is about.

It can hardly be the case that the 1st Amendment guarantees your right to watch slippery nymphets writhing around on top of each other on the web (just an example that popped into Talking Point's head, feel free to supply your own pairing) and not the right to advocate political arguments on the eve of an election.

It stands both principle and logic on their heads.

This is a case where the antis have every argument on their side.

Next up, why even trying to ban 'coordination' been politicians and independent expenditure groups may be a bad idea.

Okay, now that I've finally thrown off the burden of having to hew to a party line, I can finally come clean! I really dig Joe Lieberman. (And this isn't just a matter of tribal affiliation.) He rocks. Actually I didn't use to have much use for him at all - especially when he used to be the darling of all the more reproachable people in DC, when he used to always be knocking his own party, and especially when he used to hang out with that cretin Bill Bennett. But, hey, let's let bygones be bygones, okay?

Now, here's the deal. There are at least a half a dozen Democratic senators who want to run for the big office in 2004 - including Lieberman, to put it mildly. But for the moment let's just focus on the two marquee New Dems who are in the hunt - Lieberman and Evan Bayh.

It's really not too much to say that in terms of positioning for 2004 Lieberman is just kicking Bayh's butt. It's almost painful to watch.

Any New Dem who hopes to be in the hunt in 2004 must at least give props to the liberal base of the party. They're not going to be the liberals' choice for the nomination. But they can't be unacceptable to them either.

Lieberman came out of the 2000 race with a strong sentimental bond with the base of his party. He didn't so much need to prove himself to them as he needed to keep those embers of affection burning.

But he's actually done much more than that by becoming the most conspicuous advocate of a progressive alternative to the Bush tax cut - focusing the debate on the importance of the payroll tax burden and advocating a substantial tax cut weighted towards working families.

Each of the presidential wannabes is carving out their own signature issue. Kerry's got environment. Edwards is taking up Patients' Bill of Rights. But the tax cut issue is really an issue apart - especially for a New Dem trying to broaden his appeal within his party. Why? Because to the left of the party - the part Lieberman needs to appeal to - its fiscal policy that is the big enchilada, the issue they always fear they're going to be sold out on.

And what's Bayh's angle? That would be ahhhhhhh … pretty much nothing. His big angle is the trigger mechanism - which has gotten almost no political traction, and which most observers now agree is a practical nullity.

Most importantly, it doesn't significantly depart from the Bush package.

Yes, Democrats argue that the surpluses may not materialize and that we could be plunged back into deficits. But the essence of the Democratic argument is that even if the surpluses do materialize, the Bush tax cut package still represents a massive misallocation of funds - both in terms of who gets tax cuts and what other priorities the money could be spent on.

Part of what's going on here seems to be a matter of staff. Lieberman's operation is A-list and Bayh's just isn't (we'll say more about why later). But equally important Bayh just doesn't seem willing to sign on with what the vast majority of Democrats are thinking when it comes to tax policy. He won't even sign on to the tax package put together by the DLC, the group of which he is now the chairman. He won't even really come out against the Bush package.

Hey, why is there a link down there on the left shilling for Slate.com? That's the section where Talking Points usually shills for himself, right? Where he tries to get readers to send donations to keep the site up and running with wit and insight for the content-starved web masses? What's up with that?

Interesting you should ask ... Stay tuned for more soon on this puzzling development.

TPMLivewire