Beware the Sabato slant

Probably we've all seen Larry Sabato on TV during election season. The UVA political scientist is usually portrayed as an unbiased analyst, concerned mainly with the facts, especially statistics, and with political predictions. Well, in this world there is no such thing as "unbiased". In Larry's case, his writings reveal him to be a liberal through and through. The excerpts below from a recent essay of his illustrate this. (The entire text of his essay is linked here.)

Now Larry Sabato is a halfway reasonable guy, as liberals go. It isn't so much his political orientation that I object to, except in the sense that he's old enough to know better. What I object to mainly is the pretense that he's unbiased. That's also what I loathe and despise about most of the media, that they lie not only in the pictures they paint of the world, but even in what they themselves are all about.

Regarding the substance of Sabato's comments:

It is laughable to describe today's GOP as being "fiercely right-wing" and "harsh" in its conservativism. In fact, in the past dozen or so years the party has degenerated into confusion, so that today it doesn't know what it stands for. Conservatives, feeling betrayed, are among the harshest critics of this GOP, and many have advocated forming a third party. For a respected polical analyst to state the opposite of the clear facts is jaw-dropping.

Sabato says it is surprising that a conservative politician would advocate civil unions (as opposed to the oxymoronic "gay marriage") for homosexuals. Apparently whenever a conservative doesn't fit his mental model of "harsh", it is surprising to him.

My advice to liberals: When your preconceived model conflicts with the observed data, stop trying to change the data. It's your fundamental model that's wrong, so you should change it to match the data. However, if liberals did this, they would cease to be liberals.

Also, the stance he describes is not "moderate". As used today, a "moderate" is someone who doesn't know what he believes, and whose highest value is just to cave in to the lunatics and all get along.

Regarding the last point below, I asked David Yepsin whether the conventional wisdom was correct about Romney's Mormonism hurting him in Iowa. Yepsin replied that it both helped and hurt Romney among Iowa Republicans, and as far as he could tell the net effect was a wash. At least in Iowa, Yepsin clearly knows more about this than Sabato does. Sabato was just speculating from a liberal perspective, as if his mental model of the world were as good as actually knowing the facts.

Presidency 2012: The Invisible Primary BeginsA Commentary By Larry J. Sabato Friday, May 08, 2009

We at the Crystal Ball must beg your forgiveness. With fewer than 1,300 days left until the next general election for President, we have failed to offer a single analysis of this historic upcoming battle. With humility, and hoping for mercy, we submit this first update on 2012.

(snip)

Two moderate-conservative Republicans who are fresh faces could give the GOP more of a fighting chance in 2012. Two-term Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota has found a way to win in a Democratic state without abandoning most traditional conservative positions. He is also in his 40s, with a blue collar background, possessing a pleasant demeanor and a sense of humor. (Having been on John McCain's short list for running-mate, he joked to this analyst after Palin was selected that he was "just one chromosome away from the vice presidency.") Whether Pawlenty intends to run for President is uncertain, and he has to decide about offering for a third term as Governor in 2010--always a risk in a Blue state. Will Republicans even accept a less harsh version of conservatism that isn't located in the Sunbelt?

An intriguing dark horse candidate is two-term Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. A proponent of gay civil unions and some other surprisingly moderate stances despite hailing from one of the nation's three or four most conservative states, Huntsman is openly testing the waters, and arguing that Republicans are headed for a long spell in the wilderness without a major ideological facelift. Wealthy and smooth in his public appearances, Huntsman makes a vital point, but undoubtedly he will strain the patience and tolerance of a fiercely right-wing party. His tiny base--Utah has but five electoral votes--doesn't help, and his Mormonism possibly will be a detrimental factor with many fundamentalist Christians, just as for Romney. (snip)

Larry J. Sabato is the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

'76 Blog: CCU's Washington Week

I'm helping lead a study trip for Colorado Christian University in Washington Dc, May 10-15. Updates will appear on our '76 Blog, hosted by the Centennial Institute. Here's the first one.

Afghan War winnable & important

(Washington, May 10) As news from Iraq got progressively better in the last year the reflexive pessimists among us have shifted their focus to Afghanistan where they tell us portents of gloom and doom can be found in abundance. We hear of a resurgent Taliban advancing on several fronts, the capital of Kabul under siege, insurgents controlling ever more of the countryside, attacks and suicide bombings way up, the Pakistan border uncontrollable, and U.S. and civilian casualties increased dramatically.

Back in fashion are the words “quagmire” and of course “Viet Nam”. In fact a Newsweek cover story called Afghanistan “Obama’s Viet Nam”.

All these grim tidings, of course, lead to the inevitable advice that the U.S. should cut its losses, and escape this “graveyard of empires”, ASAP.

While most of the alarmist assertions cited above contain the proverbial grain of truth, collectively they represent a gross distortion of reality in Afghanistan.

A vital key to these misrepresentations is that increases in attacks or casualties are invariably reported as percentile increases over a previously established base number while failing to report how relatively tiny that number may be or offering any comparisons from similar conflicts (e.g. Iraq).

For example the Brookings Afghanistan Index reported a 48 % increase in attacks for 2008 in regional Command-Capital which includes Kabul and environs and has a population of over four million people. What is not reported is that the actual number of attacks went from just 106 to 157 for the entire year or that 157 was the average number of attacks that occurred in Baghdad every four days during the summer of 2006.

Similarly while civilian casualties are increasing in Afghanistan the total for 2008 represents only one sixteenth of the casualties in Iraq in the pre-surge year of 2006.

Thus when we hear as we do of late that attacks or casualties for a given week or month were greater in Afghanistan than Iraq this is much more a reflection of the dramatically improved situation in post-surge Iraq than any gross deterioration in Afghanistan.

In assessing the validity of comparing the two countries consider that Afghanistan ( 249,934 sq. miles) is a much larger country than Iraq ( 167,884 sq. miles) and its 30 million people exceed the population of Iraq as well.

In terms of results the Afghan war from the beginning has been a considerable success story despite being greatly “under resourced” when compared to Iraq. Today there are just 38,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and even with the recently authorized 17,000 increase the total will be barely one third the number in Iraq during the surge (160,000).

Similarly the Afghan National Army (ANA) which has performed most effectively and is universally regarded as the most trusted indigenous institution in the entire country numbers only 80,000 men. Even adding the 70,000 men of the far less effective Afghan National Police (ANP) 150,000 total security personnel is small when compared to the 500,000 men in Iraq’s army and police.

Finally we frequently hear that “primitive” Afghanistan can never be a real nation but only an aggregation of feuding tribes.

This ignores the fact that while highly tribal Iraq has been a nation for less than one hundred years (1919) Afghanistan has been an independent country since the 18th century with a history of strong monarchs ruling a reasonably stable country. The last of these- Mohammed Zahir Shah (1933-1973) – oversaw substantial economic and political progress including a fairly democratic written constitution. Only a 1978 Marxist coup and the subsequent Soviet invasion precipitated the tragic period of war and civil conflict that has characterized the last thirty years.

By no means should we minimize the very daunting challenges we face in Afghanistan or conceal the fact that only a strong multi-year U.S. commitment can assure success.

However neither should we minimize the severe price of failure.

Many critics including President Obama long derided Iraq as the “wrong” war and a distraction from Afghanistan which was the “right” war and the one we “had to win”. The 17,000 additional troops President Obama authorized are a commendable first step in backing that conviction with deeds. In continuing along this necessary road of many difficult steps he deserves our strongest support.

William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post.

'Change' now our issue

(Denver Post, May 10) Colorado Democrats are having a lousy year. It’s been a tough 2009 for the party in power, and 2010 may be worse. Which is odd, because 2008 was great for state Dems. They gained a Senate seat, a House seat, and threw a coronation party for Obama, who is now embarked on the most brilliant reign since Louis XIV, the Sun King. Yet with the legislature done and election year eight months off, there’s a sense that Democrats have worn out their welcome with Coloradans, creating an opportunity for Republicans to reintroduce themselves and get back in the ballgame. Malaise hangs over the Capitol. Will Gov. Bill Ritter do a Jimmy Carter and become a one-termer? You’ve seen the numbers. Voters disapprove Ritter’s performance by 49% to 41%, according to an April poll. Matched against potential GOP challengers, he trails Scott McInnis and barely leads Josh Penry. His appointee in DC, Sen. Michael Bennett, is disapproved by 41% to 34% and trails Republican Bob Beauprez. They’re a pathetic pair.

Camelot magic is gone from the Dem ascendancy that began in 2004 when Ken Salazar was elected senator and Andrew Romanoff stormed the statehouse. We’re now slogging through a recession that Ritter recklessly failed to prepare for, his legislative allies are split and ineffectual, and Susan Greene commiserates on “what a bummer it can be to be a Democrat in Colorado.”

Despite commanding majorities of 37-28 in the House and 21-14 in the Senate, Democrats this session failed on a number of cherished goals, including a tuition break for illegal aliens, easing sentences and ending the death penalty, quitting the Electoral College, and nanny-state rules for cellphones and seatbelts.

The majority party found itself well to the left of common-sense opinion on those issues, hence unable to ram through its liberal agenda when vulnerable members balked. Centrists from Colorado Springs, Adams County, and the Western Slope made the difference on last week’s capital punishment vote, for example. Senate minority leader Penry brokered the deal.

Governing is no picnic. Leading the Senate during the last budget crisis, back in 2004, I agonized through some of the same no-win choices President Peter Groff and Speaker Terrance Carroll have faced this year. You manage your diehards as best you can. You resort to ugly fiscal solutions and wince, knowing the out party will slam you for it in the campaign. In power, it’s hard to do otherwise.

This is the beauty of our two-party system. It pushes policy toward the center and curbs the ideologues. As a conservative Republican, I naturally believe our side has better answers. I also concede our sins and imperfections. For Colorado’s benefit at present, however, that’s beside the point. What’s great is how a feisty opposition from right OR left produces wiser lawmaking as well as livelier elections.

Lively indeed is the prospect for election 2010. Four Republicans are vying to take on the little-known Sen. Bennet, along with two each who are targeting Gov. Ritter, State Treasurer Cary Kennedy, and Secretary of State Bernie Buescher. With Obama likely to suffer off-year erosion, Democrat congressmen Betsy Markey, Ed Perlmutter, and John Salazar sit uneasily in districts the GOP used to own.

Democrats might also forfeit legislative control in retribution for mismanaging the budget, gutting taxpayer protections, and saddling families with a billion dollars in new taxes and fees during economic hard times. And if the Tea Party rebellion continues, four activist justices could get voted off the state Supreme Court.

“Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Not really, Coloradans are likely to answer if asked the famous Reagan question in 2010. On kitchen-table issues like jobs and roads, the incumbents have little to boast of. Change is now OUR issue.

They can be had

Slated on Backbone Radio, May 10 Listen every Sunday, 5-8pm on 710 KNUS, Denver... 1460 KZNT, Colorado Springs... and streaming live at 710knus.com.

Never mind the gloating by liberals in places like the current Time magazine cover, which depicts Republicans as an endangered species. The fact is, public skepticism over Democrat ineptitude could make 2010 a good year for the GOP here in Colorado. You’ve seen the numbers. Voters disapprove Gov. Bill Ritter’s performance by 49% to 41%, according to an April poll. Matched against potential GOP challengers, he trails Scott McInnis and barely leads Josh Penry. His appointee in DC, Sen. Michael Bennett, is disapproved by 41% to 34% and trails Republican Bob Beauprez. They’re a pathetic pair.

My latest Denver Post column, "Are You Better Off?" spells out the logic after this week's wrapup of another underwhelming legislative session with Dems in control. Read the column on our home page just above this post. A Republican comeback in 2010 will depend on good candidates and clear conservative principles, of course. But I believe we'll have those.

Two candidates who have shown the most seriousness about taking on Sen. Bennet are Ken Buck, the Weld County DA, and Ryan Frazier, the Aurora councilman. Both are friends of Backbone Radio, and you've heard from them before. Both will give us an update on this Sunday's show.

Hosting in my place will be Ross Kaminsky and Matt Dunn. I'll be in Washington DC, helping lead a public policy field study with 16 students from Colorado Christian University, where I work now. For details on the Centennial Institute, my new project at CCU, click here.

As for the socialist, secularist, nanny-nagging Democrats, be of good cheer. Their snake oil won't fool Americans forever. They can be had, and we're just the ones to prove it.

Yours for liberty, JOHN ANDREWS