Book Review: The Silence of the Rational Center.

I just finished re-reading The Silence of the Rational Center: Why American Foreign Policy is Failing, by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke. I originally read it last summer and found it to be one of the 2 best books on politics/ government I read all of last year. The main argument of the book is that foreign policy, more than any other area of government requires thoughtful, fact-based analysis that rarely makes for entertaining debate and doesn't exactly fit into a 30-second sound byte. The overarching point is that we, as Americans prefer what the authors term "the Big Idea". From "Manifest Destiny" to "Imperialism of Righteousness" to "Freedom on the March", we prefer a grand vision to boring analysis of pros and cons of a particular action. At times this has been a good thing, for example the idea of personal liberty laid out in the U.S. constitution has served us well. In recent times an over-simplified cable-news-friendly view of events has not. The experts on foreign policy issues generally take a much more pragmatic approach. This group constitutes the "rational center".
Analysed in the book are:
-Cable news, which far from shedding light on a subject usually either involves name calling between 2 or more opposing talking heads who usually have no expertise in whatever they're discussing but are picked for their fiery rhetoric.
-How the "rational center" is supposed to function. Keeping emotion from carrying policy makers off during times of national stress, balancing ideals and actual policy in times of crisis, and how it has failed miserably at certain instances (McCarthyism, the lead-up to the Iraq war.)
-The disastrous results when "big ideas" combine with "big media" to shape public opinion through a format that de-emphasizes rational discussion, and turning complex policy challenges into undifferentiated, apocalyptic threats to the nation's very existence. This format also conditions viewers to imagine that foreign policy consists of clear, binary choices.
-The use of blind patriotism and fear to make people more susceptible to the "big idea".
-A good deal of the book examines the role of "think tanks" that look to advance their agendas by twisting data to fit a preconceived notion, and the phenomenon of "false expertise".
- A chapter is devoted to "experts" like Noam Chomsky or Paul Krugman on the left and several prominent "neocons", many of whom are famous for political positions on areas they have no special training, experience, or insight into.
-A chapter is dedicated to "elites and the use of force". Many people think we have a hawk party and a dove party in this country, but looking at our political history, a more accurate description would be a hawk party (Democratic) and a super-hawk party (GOP). Examined in this section is how political elites view military force as a policy tool.
-A chapter is spent looking at fighting insurgencies. The most interesting part of this to me is that almost no Democratic nation has fought a successful counterinsurgency campaign on foreign soil since at least 1940. This is followed by a 4-page list of conflicts and the results in that time span. The only successful counter-insurgency mentioned in the book is the one China fought against Tibet, using tactics not generally available to democratic nations (i.e. genocide). The failure rate of insurgencies is very, very low.
-The problems facing intelligence gathering agencies are detailed.
-The last section of the book examines the future of U.S. relations with China. A "big idea" leading to war with Iraq is one thing, but the same thinking leading to a confrontation with China would be catastrophic. The authors then lay out potential areas of conflict (for example, in another 20 years China will very likely demand at least 99 million barrels of oil per day. The world currently produces 84 million a day, a number that is not likely to rise.) and several ideas for how to deal with our relations to China as an ascending superpower.
-The book goes into a lot of detail, but I'm trying to keep this post shorter than the actual book. Overall an excellent read for anyone interested in political discourse that doesn't involve calling people idiots, traitors, etc. but deals with subject matter in a more scholarly fashion.

Big Money on the Line.

Barack Obama scored a major coup this week with his endorsement from several members of the Kennedy dynasty. Endorsement is not the right word. This was an annointing. Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, and (perhaps most importantly) Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the former president didn't just endorse him, they practically handed him the torch and declared him the next JFK. A lot of the RFK wing of the family has endorsed Hillary, but they don't tend to be nearly as high-profile. While Ted Kennedy's endorsement carries a lot of weight in certain segments of the left, and is nothing to sneeze at with regards to Democratic primaries, I think the endorsement of Caroline is a bigger deal over all. She's not as political of a figure and hasn't become a punch-line the way uncle Teddy has. I'm not sure this will be enough to put him over the top against the Clinton machine, but I hope so. I think Obama will be a much tougher challenge for McCain in November, but I'd like to see the strongest candidate from each party go at it.

The "Idiot" Wing of the Republican Party Hates John McCain.

I think the thing that makes me happiest about John McCain's victory in Florida yesterday is the way a lot of right-wing blowhards have further revealed their hypocrisy and complete separation from reality due to their hatred for the Senator. Rush Limbaugh has sobered up long enough to say that if McCain is the nominee he will "sit this one out". Tom Delay has said the same thing. Good, maybe that corrupt son of a bitch (in Dick Armey's words) can better use his time trying to keep his ass out of jail. Just this morning I heard one of them say that if McCain beats Romney to become the nominee, it will be the worst bloodbath the GOP has suffered since Goldwater in 1964. Apparently polls have a liberal bias because every poll I've seen shows the exact opposite. McCain is in a statistical tie with all Democrats, while Romney gets beaten by at least 12 points. There's a bigger turn-around here though. Do you remember in 2004 that these same talking heads were saying the most important issue was national security? We were told that "the fate of western civilization is at stake", "the war is the defining issue of our time", "this is world war 2 all over again". This faux-patriotism was what helped turn me from true-believer into dedicated skeptic. Perhaps it was best exemplified in the way these chicken-hawks wrapped themselves in the flag and questioned the patriotism of anyone who opposed their policies, even when involved trashing a guy like Max Cleland, who lost an arm and both legs serving his country, or John Murtha, or John Kerry (none of whom I agreed with at the time) who've actually shed blood for this nation. Because apparently real patriotism is measured more in party affiliation than in pints of blood. What a difference four years makes. Apparently pretending to be a fighter pilot and war hero matters more to this crowd than actually being one. Because right now there's only one candidate who gives me any reason at all to think he knows the first thing about national security, foreign policy, or how to run a war. But, according to the far-right, the party must rally around the candidate who is most likely to.....lower rich peoples' taxes! Deficits don't matter!(according to Dick Cheney) The fact that the last seven years have been an economic disaster for most of the country doesn't matter. We need more of the same! All that talk about national security was clearly a smoke-screen. The real priorities are painfully obvious at this point. Critical thinking and putting the country above the Republican party orthodoxy are an unpardonable sin to this crowd. It would be kind of interesting to see how this crowd would react if their "conventional wisdom" is followed. How would they spin the results on the air on November 5th, the day after the Democratic nominee beats Romney by ten points and the democrats take 7-8 seats away from the GOP in the Senate, and God knows how many in the House.

The State of the Union: Undressed

I'm writing this as I watch the address. Hopefully it will prove entertaining.
-I start off with Katie Curic talking as the Senators mill around glad-handing and bragging about how drunk they got in Davos over the weekend.
-Still waiting for ol' number 29 to show up. No sign of him yet.
-Uncle Teddy's looking tan. Must have just got back from the compound: Where the beer runs like water, and the women run like hell!
-"I got your stimulus package right here!"- Ted Kennedy.
-He finally enters to a response that can best be described as "polite".
-I hope there's another moment like that subway hero last year. Blowing kisses to the crowd, giving Laura Bush a full-body waste-to-waste hug. It was awesome.
-We're up to minute number 29 of Bush entering the room. There should be pyrotechnics like on pro wrestling when they enter the arena.
-The Bush daughters are looking fine tonight.
-Nancy Pelosi's hair is working tonight.
-Dick Cheney is, well, Dick Cheney.
-The interior secretary is not here.............just in case.
-Now he's talking.
-Harry Reid did NOT get drunk in Davos.
-Talks about respecting one's opponents in a campaign.
-John McCain just threw up when he heard that. Remember 2000?
-"Trust people with their own money." -especially rich people.
-He's trying to convince us that "it isn't that bad".
-note: "it's worse"
-No poor people free loading on the "stimulus package"
-Do it now. Right the hell now.
-Don't let my tax cuts expire. They're the only thing I can claim as a domestic accomplishment.
-"Make the tax cuts permanent". The right half applauds.
-Sit down Condi.
-"I'm fiscally responsible now! I really am!"
-note: bullshit.
-"I'm against earmarks now!" No you're not. just shut up already. Anyone standing and applauding is a liar.
-"I'm gonna veto your ass".
-Reform Fannie May and Freddie Mac and get me a Baby Ruth!
-Better health care. Hillary's like "yeah right. you bastard!"
-Barrack's looking at him like "get this guy off the stage"
-Pelosi is trying to hide behind him so she can't be seen laughing.
-Dick Cheney looks like he's got somewhere better to be, like a torture session or something.
-Touts the wildly unpopular-from-both-sides No Child Left Behind. No standing O on this one.
-Kennedy looks embarrassed that he wrote that law. He's sitting next to his new best friend Barack.
-I'll bet Hillary is pissed at all the Kennedys right about now.
-"liberate more children in public schools." Yeah, I've seen how you liberate people pal.
-The sec. of commerce kind of looks like Ricardo Montoban, only not handsome.
-A brief 2-person standing O occurs after the "free trade" section. They sat down quick when they noticed no one was joining in.
-He's looking tired these days. He needs to take more time off.
-I think Nancy might be texting! "ya hez a jakass." "y wasnt i invited?"
-Cheney looked bored as hell till Bush mentioned the oil companies. That perked him up!
-He's talking stem cells. I'd better not see the supremes do any cheering.
-"The constitution means what it says." ROFLMAO! Now that's irony.
-"We honor the strength and resilience of the people of the gulf coast who've rebuilt their lives with no help from my administration."
-More about cutting spending. 'cause there's an area where he has credibility!
-He touches the third rail but lets go quickly.
-Is the flag behind him supposed to be that wrinkly?
-past 7 years = stirring moments in the history of liberty. Why don't we wait for it to become history before revising it?
-Pushes the 9/11 button HARD.
-Now Cheney stands. some boos mixed in. Cheney is probably rock hard right now.
-More crap about "spreading the hope of freedom" one bomb at a time.
-Talks up the mini-surge in Afghanistan. No joke here. That's long overdue.
-The Iraq surge is great!.......so why is it ending? oh yeah, not enough troops to keep it up.
-Nancy is reading a book! I knew it. Hope it's more entertaining than this speech. He has had better nights, speech-wise.
-"The surge is having results few of us could have imagined one year ago". Casualties have been reduced to the levels of two years ago!
-"I have told 935 lies to date about the situation in Iraq!"
-Everyone we kill over there is an al quaida now. Do they interview the bodies? According to the naval war college between 2 and 5% of the insurgency is al quaida affiliated, but to hear Bush tell it you'd think it was all of them.
-We're stopping the surge because it worked so well. When you have an advantage in war the key is NOT to exploit it.
-BOB F'N DOLE in the hayouse!
-What the hell does "return on success" mean? That sounds like some doublespeak B.S. my company would come up with, naming a program to decrease my benefits.
-Don't leave Iraq until every drop of "freedom" has been pumped out of the ground.
-NSA Stephen Hadley knows what he can go do with himself as far as I'm concerned.
-I mean that.
-Our strategy in Iraq can be summed up in one word: hope. Hope like hell.
-Michael Chertoff looks like some kind of blood-sucking ghoul from hell.
-He's talking trash about Iran.
-He now directly contradicts the latest NIE in saying Iran has a nukes program. I repeat this is a direct contradiction of what his own intelligence agencies say. (16 of them)
-Now he talks up his illegal,unconstitutional program to spy on american citizens. "Give me the tools to protect america"
-"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"- Benjamin Franklin.
-He's talking up the "Protect America" act. George Orwell is cackling maniacally in hell. What a name "Protect America".
-Protect the telecoms that have helped me break the law. NOW!
-An additional 30 billion to Africa. He was a fiscal conservative for all of 26 minutes.
-And it's finally over. Hopefully the next president is a better speaker.
-Now he's signing autographs. Hope he signs someone's boobs. He probably hasn't done that since his Yale days.

-Now for the democratic response.
-I wonder who it'll be. Who's going to come through the curtain?
-I can tell you who I hope it isn't.
-It's the governor of Kansas wow.
-She's got a fire going in her den.
-We're not as divided as our politics suggest......I am
-She says politics is bull-crap.
-She's boring me.
-Now she touts some democratic achievements...finally. Mention caving to the president on a weekly basis.
-Sign the SCHIP bill you evil bastard!
-Let's all just roll up our sleeves and get to work.
-So far this couldn't be less inspiring.
-or specific
-That looks like a gas fireplace behind her. I prefer real wood.
-I've had enough of her. They should have had Jim Webb do it again.

Book Review: A Tragic Legacy

Here we go with my first book review. I just finished reading A Tragic Legacy: how a good vs. evil mentality destroyed the Bush presidency, by Glenn Greenwald. Last summer I read Greenwald's first book How Would a Patriot Act? and I read his blog on salon.com religiously so I pretty much knew what to expect. Greenwald is a former constitutional law attorney, so much of his writing focuses on civil liberties issues and he is a strident critic of much of the Bush administration's agenda of maximizing the power of the federal government. It's hard to tell where he falls on the political spectrum (in a good way). He comes across to me as someone who is driven more by rational thought and "reality based" logic than someone looking to push a certain ideology. His devotion to the constitution and the rule of law combined with intense disdain for neo-"conservatism" have made him one of my favorite writers. A Tragic Legacy is divided into 6 chapters. Chapter one describes just how unpopular the president has become. Chapter two examines the principles that drive President Bush, his polarized view of the world, and the view of himself as a man of destiny. Chapter 3 outlines Bush's conduct in the run up to and handling of the war in Iraq. Chapter 4 examines the drumbeat for a showdown with Iran. Chapter 5 outlines a lot of the ways in which the Bush/Cheney view of the constitution bares little resemblance to the document as it is written (this is kind of a running theme throughout the book, as well as insights into what makes neocons tick.) And then in the conclusion he once again talks about the Bush legacy (think Lyndon Johnson, but without the domestic achievements). So here are a few snippets that stuck out to me:

-Part of the first section details how many conservatives have tried to distance themselves from Bush, but Greenwald points out that this began only after the president's approval ratings plummeted to Johnson-during-'Nam levels and that most of them were trying to re-write the history of their own involvement.

-A telling piece of polling data: In a February '05 poll asking people to describe Bush in one word, the top response was "honest" with 38%. 13 months later the top answer was incompetent (29%), and honest had dropped into 6th place, tied with the word liar (14%) and just behind the epithet idiot (17%) Ouch! The '07 results were even worse with incompetent and idiot making five point gains.

-He spends a good deal of time examining the claims by those on the right that Bush was never a conservative at all. This is followed by an interesting contrast of conservatism as it exists in theory versus what is actually practiced by those who claim to adhere to it. The conservatives in question never hesitated to claim Bush as one of their own when he was popular. He also states that: ""conservatism"- while definable on a theoretical plane- has come to have no practical meaning in this country other than a quest for ever-expanding government power for its own sake." He drives this point home by pointing out how much domestic discretionary spending increased under Reagan (a little over 11%) and W (almost 36%).
-Chapter 2 lays out the case of Bush as a man who, by his own admission, relies on his "gut" rather than careful analysis. At one point just after the Iraq war began when asked by Senator Biden why he was so confident about the prospects given how many variables existed, Bush put his hand on Biden's shoulder and responded "my instincts, my instincts".
- Greenwald does not spare the media or the "opposition" party who failed to do their jobs of scrutinizing the case being made during the prelude to the war in Iraq or during the occupation itself.
-He also makes the case that a moralistic vision is a much stronger driving force for president Bush than geopolitical considerations in handling foreign policy. To quote one Arab diplomat: "The U.S. has been Iran's best friend. You have eliminated its enemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. You have even reduced yourselves as a threat to Iran because you have wasted so much blood and treasure in Iraq."
-He spends a large portion of the book making the case against a potential war with Iran, and examining the neo-conservative obsession with comparing anyone who opposes any war to Neville Chamberlain. He even mentions how many of these same groups ran ads during the 80's comparing Reagan to Chamberlain because he negotiated with the USSR, rather than start World War III.
-But by far the point made most often in the book is how the administration has routinely violated the constitution and eroded freedom in the name of safety. The passage I liked best in the entire book states: "The premise of America is and always has been imposing limitations on government power even if it means accepting an increased risk of death as a result."[emphasis in original] Perfect safety is the illusion driving Bush. For example I might be safer from serial killers if the police could randomly round up and investigate anyone they wished or search anywhere without a warrant. Does opposing that make me "pro-murderer"?
-Overall it was a good read and I would recommend it to anyone interested in preserving the constitution and the freedoms it guarantees. (I would also recommend Greenwald's other book: How Would a Patriot Act?)

Quick hits from this week......

These are random crazy notions that crept into my head this week.



-During Monday night's Democratic debate, I kept expecting the crowd to start chanting "JERRY! JERRY! JERRY" during the Clinton-Obama stuff. I had Edwards as the winner again, but almost by default this time.



-During the back and forth I was secretly praying to see Hillary get flustered, just completely lose it and drop an N-bomb before she even knew what happened. Admit it, that's a funny thought.



-Speaking of which, a group of right-wing misogynist hatchet men this week formed an anti-Hillary group called "Citizens United Not Timid". Get it? I'll bet that took weeks to come up with something that clever. I can only hope these bottom feeders will crawl back wherever they came. I'd hate to see what they name themselves if Obama gets the nomination.



-I think it would be way more historic to have a black president than a female president. If you don't believe me, just ask yourself: who has a rougher time in our society, white women or black men? If you look at life expectancy, average income, and most other metrics you'll see that this is a very easy question to answer.



-Speaking of acronyms, According to David Kuo's book the group "Empower America" formed by Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett was originally going to be called the "Lincoln Institute for American Renewal" nobody realized what the acronym would be for a while.



-On Tuesday I watched a Frontline special on kids and the internet. It was a pretty good look at how kids have become addicted to cell phones and social networking. The funny part to me was when these folks took their daughter to testify before congress about the dangers of sex-predators online. Word to the wise, if you want to keep your kids safe from sexual deviants Capitol Hill might be a good place to avoid (along with school, church, summer camps, or shopping malls).



-I heard someone ask someone else if they knew how Heath Ledger died. I wanted to interject: "Pretty much the same that kills any 28 year old celebrity."



-In an effort to be more user-friendly, Al Quaida has started an "ask Zawahiri" section on their web affiliates. It's the best way to stay up to date on your favorite jihadists. So far the most common question is from a guy with the screen-name "cowboyW43" who has posted the question "So, just between u and me, ware u guyz stayin these days?" like a thousand times.



-I'm seriously expecting to see college kids walking around wearing shirts that say "Ron Paul is My Homeboy" any day now. He's quickly becoming something of a folk-hero with a passionate following. I'm sure the person most surprised by this is Ron Paul himself. I personally think he's very good for the party in general.



-How come nobody's talking about the Senate? There are 34 seats up for grabs this year. 23 are currently in Republican control, 11 in democratic. I'd say 10 of the 11 Democrats are all but assured reelection. Of the Republicans, about half will be seriously contested. It wouldn't surprise me to see the dems gain 5 or 6 seats, regardless of what happens in the presidential race.



-Not to be outdone the GOP held a debate this week. My overall impression was that it will be an uphill fight to retain the White House in November. They'd better have Reverend Huckabee pray with all his might that this stimulus package works and that Iraq doesn't spin any further out of control between now and the election. There were some good moments though.



-When Romney said the line about "Bill Clinton roaming the White House with nothing to do" I forgot for a minute how much I dislike the guy. Then Russert pretends to be confused and says "what do you mean by that?" I wish Romney would have said "Dumb-ass, I mean Bill Clinton is a sex-fiend! He's a habitual line-crosser". I'd say Romney had a very good night overall. I'd still never vote for him,(unless it's him and Hillary) but for all the reasons I have not to like him, stupidity is NOT one of them.



-Stick a fork in Rudy, he's done.



-Russert didn't seem to think McCain had economics experience. McCain looked like he wanted to strangle him with his bare hands. McCain's like "Idiot, I've been on the commerce committee for 20 years, and chairman for 7!"

- Mike Huckabee had one of the most interesting proposals of the night. Rather than borrow money from China to mail people checks that they will spend on goods made in China, he proposed a massive infrastructure program. The idea is to spend the money on I-95. That way the money goes to American companies and provides jobs during the project, and afterwards you have something to show for it. Damn good idea. I remember a guy who did this very thing and it in part turned his nation from a broken dispirited nation into a superpower. The guy was Adolf Hitler and the country was Nazi Germany. Not exactly an example one would use as a selling point. All joking aside, I like this idea much better as a stimulus package. Better in the short term, much better long-term, just don't use the example I gave (maybe mention Eisenhower and the inter-state highway system here in the U.S., not.....you know.)

Endorsement

(Bob submitted this post to me and I thought it pretty well summed up my feelings on the presidential race, and I agree with 99% of it I thought it would serve pretty well as a statement of endorsement)

Possible conversion on Candidates

Tonight Senator John McCain won the South Carolina Primary. I have over the last several weeks started to reexamine the senator and his candidacy. In the 2000 primary I supported John McCain because I like the fact that he spoke truth to power and was willing to buck the system when he thought he was right.This year I wrote the Senator off, this was a mistake of mine I for the first time in my life bought into the pundits opinions. As I look at his positions there are some I don't agree with, like his stance on immigration ( the amnesty bill) and his support of campaign finance reform. But I like that fact that he is trying to get things done and is willing to go against his party if necessary to do so. He has a consistent conservative voting record, he is a rational logical conservative. He is a supporter of a balanced budget and against pork barrel spending, and his foreign policy experience is first rate. I like that he has spent his life in public service, that he honorably and courageously served his country in Vietnam and sacrificed his pride, blood, and a whole lot of pain for his nation. The fact that he knows the horror of war makes him very qualified to be President and Commander and Chief. He also has the credibility to talk about issues like torture and techniques for interrogation. I like that fact that he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve that he is one of the millions of Americans who for the most part believes religion is a private matter. He doesn't pander to the likes of Pat Robertson or James Dobson and I like that very much.He also appears to be against the defense of marriage amendment which would ban gay marriage, he says that it is a states rights issue and this is a good start and a good position for a President from the GOP to take. So as I look at the Senator again and reassess what I'm looking for in a leader of my party and more importantly my country I am considering doing something I have never done this late in a Primary and that is switching my support.I think I may be a McCain Republican, I believe that he can appeal to Republican and independent voters alike, I also think he can beat Hillary Clinton like a drum. More importantly I believe he is just what America needs after seven years of the Bush Presidency and a Democratic party that is clueless to the threats this nation and world faces. John McCain is an elder statesman, a man who has been tempered by war, is schooled in how government works, and has a core set of Principals. I think that America taking a break from being governed by Baby Boomers may very well be what this nation needs. I still like Mike Huckabee but the political realities are that if he can't win in South Carolina, how can I expect him to win in Indiana, Connecticut, and Colorado and supporting a losing candidate leads to very bad policies by the person that beat him. I think Mike would have made a fine President but I realize now that McCain may be a better fit for me.So I am considering switching my support to Senator McCain. Now I am not a fair weather fan, I simply realize that I may have chosen Governor Huckabee too quickly. I have always called myself a Reagan Republican and that is very true he is after all my political hero but I also think I am a McCain Republican. So we shall see I hope the Senator wins in Florida and can go on to take out Romney on Super Tuesday. As for Governor Huckabee I believe he spent his energy on Iowa, he may win a few more primaries but I think for the most part he is done. So I will mull it over for a few more days and decide weather to stick it out with Governor Huckabee until the nomination is decided or whether to change my support to Senator McCain.

(Steve's note: What it came down to for me in a race where there is no candidate that I agree with 100%, I liked the fact that McCain is more of a known quantity to me. He has more experience in lawmaking than all three leading Democrats combined. And while I disagree with McCain on how long we can stay in Iraq, I don't believe any of the dems on this issue. When's the last time any president moved our forces away from oil? So I feel that most likely any candidate will find an excuse to continue the war. The difference is that McCain is honest about it, and I believe he will be much more competent in these matters than our current president.)

The Man Who Could Cost the Dems the White House.

A few posts ago I mentioned how I had forgotten over the years what kind of people the Clintons really were. I was conscious of how good the economy was in the nineties, how likable Bill could be, and the fact that he was a much better (not to mention more conservative) president than W. I remembered what kind of president he was but forgotten what kind of person he is. The willingness to say anything to win, renting out the Lincoln bedroom to campaign donors, stealing furniture like the God damn Beverly Hillbillies (I'm sure Bush didn't want most of that furniture anyway), and pardoning campaign donors like it was going out of style. Over the past few weeks there have been so many reminders of the slash and burn Clinton machine that I'm truly disgusted by the idea of returning this family to the White House. Up until losing Iowa, Hillary's campaign seemed to be based on talking about the issues; since then it has been a muck-raking machine not unlike the one Bush ran in the 2000 primaries. This was when Bill really launched his scorched earth policies toward Senator Obama. In the past few days I can't turn on a tv or radio without hearing Bill allege voter intimidation or distort Obama's comments. (yeah, I'm sure Obama supporters were trying to bully union members with Bill Clinton standing within earshot.) It has gotten so bad that Ted Kennedy and is reported to have had a heated discussion with him telling him to knock it off for the good of the party. Of course this was a waste of time because Bill Clinton couldn't care less about the good of the party. He only cares about getting his wife elected so he can be nearer to the power he clearly can't live without. His accusing Obama of being a sellout to the party for claiming that Reagan had better ideas than the democrats was the thing that pushed me over the edge. So I'd like to look a little deeper into this discussion and you can judge for yourself who is telling the truth. First of all Obama did not say that about Reagan, he said Reagan inspired people in a way that Clinton never did. This has the advantage of being true. You want an example? There are currently at least 4 presidential candidates running around calling themselves "the next Ronald Reagan" (to the point of absurdity). How many are calling themselves "the next Bill Clinton"? Zero. Not even the one who's married to him. Secondly Obama said that in the 1990's the Republicans were "the party of ideas". Note he never said good or better ideas. It's funny that Bill would pretend to be offended by this after spending his entire '92 campaign pitching himself as a "New Democrat" clearly implying that he also believed something was wrong with the old dmocrats. To argue that the 90's were not a decade dominated by republican ideas would require a condition bordering on amnesia (especially from '94 onward). I listened to an interview today with Paul Begala trying to defend the Clintons and he did an excellent job of making my point for me. He talked about how he was there fighting against these ideas all the time. He never pointed to times he was fighting for the ideas of the left. The real idea man pushing the discussion of this country in the nineties was not Clinton it was Newt Gingrich. What were the "ideas" driven by Clinton in the 90's? A "universal" health care plan that didn't provide universal health care? An assault weapons ban that didn't ban assault weapons? (Not that I would be in favor either way) This is what has taken down the dems again and again. Let's pretend for a minute that every idea the GOP has had in the last 30 years was a disaster in the making that would clearly lead to a Mad-Max scenario. A bad idea beats no idea any day of the week. If I were to ask you for 3 main ideas that sum up the Republican Party you could name them without batting an eye. If I asked the same question about the democrats to 5 people I'd most likely hear a) 15 different answers or b) some incredibly vague answers. To put it another way Al Gore is probably the closest to an idea man the Democrats have had in recent years. He laid out a clear vision for his goals as president, and it's not a coincidence that he fared much better than John Kerry who didn't offer any vision whatsoever. It's also puzzling to me why of the three democrats left standing, the only one I view as an "idea" man is running a distant third. As a McCain supporter I would much rather see Hillary as the opponent. As an American I would much rather have an Obama or Edwards presidency than return the Clintons to the White House. Some parties never learn.

Critical thinking 101

+In the last post I mentioned a lot of dirty political stuff going on and in this one I'm going to show how a little bit of critical thinking can go a long way in keeping you from making an idiot out of yourself. Too often we pass on whatever we hear without question, usually because it reinforces something we're already inclined to believe or we got it from a "reputable source" like an email or the radio. The thing I find maddening about this is that you don't have to have a research library or spend precious minutes searching the Internet to know when you're hearing bull shit. Generally I find the best question to ask when hearing any spurious claim is: "does this add up?". While a comprehensive list of logical fallacies heard in every day life would take far more space than I'd care to use right now, I'm going to use a specific example to point out examples. Since the "Who is Barack Obama?" email hoax has been around for a long time and in the news lately I'm going to use it as my example here. I also use this one since most of its claims are what I call "rat poison" lies. Just as rat poison consists of mostly food, with a little poison mixed in, most lies have a little truth (albeit twisted and distorted) mixed in. And any time you mix a lie with the truth you only create a more dangerous lie. The claims have been thoroughly refuted, so I won't go out of my way to point out every factual error just the stuff that should be a red-flag to a thinking person that they're not reading a factual account. So here's the email and then my breakdown will follow.


Who is Barack Obama?Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice. If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about itand share it.We checked this out on "HYPERLINK "http://snopes.com/" \nsnopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself.Who is Barack Obama? Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was bornin Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas. Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocate to Indonesia. Obamaattended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic School." Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical. Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama' s mother, Ann Dunham,introduced his stepson to Islam.Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible but instead the Koran Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!! Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?...... NOT ME!!! .

observations:
-First of all I thought putting the line in there about checking it out on snopes.com was brilliant. Whoever did that clearly knew enough about human nature to know that most people will take their word for it and not check the link themselves. If they were to click on it they would learn that snopes (a reference page for checking out urban legends) completely debunks this story.

-These things always tell you to forward it to everyone you know NOW! The survival of the world depends on it! Never underestimate the power of fear to destroy logic. A similar phenomenon can be observed when politicians use phases like "mushroom cloud over an American city" or "world war 3". This is not said to get you to think rationally but to not entertain any doubts.

-"very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it" So right here we have a pretty good idea who this is intended to appeal to. Note that you are asked to pray about it rather than to think about it. A good prayer for this occasion would be: "Lord, please help me to know when people are full of it. And protect me from anyone who thinks you are so powerless that you need them to be your enforcer here on earth. Amen".

-Have you noticed yet that his full name is used 4 times? I wonder if this is to compare him to the late King Hussein of Jordan. Probably not. Please feel free to not vote if some one's middle name the major issue for you. Keep this in mind: in the nineties "George Bush" was a common name for babies in Kuwait, so a lot of kids in that part of the world probably have similar problems ahead of them

-"Barack Hussein Obama was bornin Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas." - This one cracks me up as well. Did you notice the words ATHEIST and MUSLIM? They thought those might slip past you without the all caps. I think the part that slips through here (and the author's real issue with the Senator) are the words preceding those. Capitalizing WHITE and BLACK would be a little over the top, better to plant the thought in your mind and hope that you care about that kind of thing (And if you do have a problem with that feel free to have a hunting accident or something).

-"His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia." So the guy who is a RADICAL (and presumably very fundamentalist) Muslim marries a divorcee with a child. (Who don't forget, is an ATHEIST infidel) That's a little fishy don't you think? Hopefully the fear hasn't worn off so you're not being rational.

-"Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world." So his mother the "ATHEIST" sends him to a school that teaches fundamentalist Islam? Come on. Jerry Falwell couldn't have made up something this ridiculous. (but not for lack of trying)

-"keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible" This wouldn't bother me even if it was true, which it is not (I'm sure it was an honest mistake by whoever originated this since I'd bet that that person thinks "they all look alike") Theodore Roosevelt wasn't sworn in on a bible and wanted to take "in God We Trust" off of the currency. Last I checked, he was considered a pretty good president being enshrined on Mount Freakin' Rushmore and all. I personally believe (and I say this as a Christian, a Baptist no less) that all oaths of office should be taken with a hand on a copy of the Constitution, rather than a religious text. But, getting back to the point, do they expect me to believe that this guy does everything in his power to hide the fact that he's a Muslim (even going so far as to join a church) but then demands to be sworn in on a Koran in the middle of the capitol, with cameras everywhere? Yeah, that adds up. That makes about as much sense as a terrorist getting all kinds of safe houses and fake ID's and then showing up at the airport wearing a shirt that says "HI-JACKER" across the front.

-"Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches." Again it seems like a sleeper agent would know better than to draw this kind of attention to himself. Because we all know reciting the pledge and putting your hand over your heart are what makes one a real patriot. There's no way anyone who does these things could ever be a danger to the republic. Anyone who wraps them self in a flag and carries a cross must be on the up-and-up.

"The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out." Gosh, how did I miss that one? Did "the Muslims" hold a press conference or just put out a written statement? Do you suppose they voted on the idea? Or was it just decided by the "King of Muslims"? What have "the Christians" said in response? To claim the Bin Ladens and Husseins of the world represent all (or even most) Muslims is about as rational of claim as saying that the Grand Inquisitor of Spain represents all Christians.

-In conclusion, never let the facts get in the way of irrational fear.

march of the hatchet-men

It's South Carolina time again and you know what that means....all the "values" types and "christian" groups get to enter the fray and the campaign rhetoric goes from "weird" to "what the hell is this guy talking about?". For people like myself who love irony in all its forms this used to be a very entertaining time. In fact just today I got an e-mail from a group run by Tom Delay inviting me to a breakfast dedicated to "restoring God and apple pie" or some other damned thing to America. The idea of the guy who was once referred to by a colleague as "the most corrupt son of a bitch in the history of Washington" hosting a conference about "restoring our values" really puts a smile on my face. And I get the usual nonsense about Hillary, McCain, and Obama in my in-box. (Surprisingly not much anti-Romney stuff. You'd think his mormonism would drive the conspiracy idiots crazy.) This never used to bother me until I started talking to (and hearing about) people who actually believe a lot of this shit. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since I recently heard some one say (and I hope this is a bogus statistic) that 18% of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth. I'll deal with some of the more outragous stuff in an upcoming post, but some of the stuff I've read said falsely about today's candidates are actually true about some of the best presidents we've had. A good number of the founding fathers never would have made it through the modern meat-grinder that candidates go through.

my home state lets me down again.

Well, my home state has let me down again. Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton won the Michigan primary on Tuesday. They picked the candidate I like the least from each party. Hillary's win was not particularly impressive since she was the only major candidate on the ballot and the second place finisher was "uncommited". I don't necessarily oppose these two for ideological reasons (too liberal, too conservative, etc.), I see these two as people who will say or do anything to get power. The Romney win bothers me for several reasons.
-The campaign he ran in Michigan focused heavily on being the "native son". It worked because, as a person who lived in Michigan for 24 years, Michigan always seemed to be a place that was particularly quick to latch on to people with Michigan connections, however tangential. (This could be the case everywhere, but I haven't noticed the phenomenon nearly as strongly here in Colorado.)
-He was willing to pander in the most shameless manner. When McCain honestly pointed out that the auto industry jobs are gone forever, Romney went on the attack claiming that he will bring those jobs back. This is a fantasy. The woes of Michigan over the last 30 years are an object lesson of the disastrous results of having an entire economy based on one industry. The sooner the state can move past this the sooner it will recover some lost prosperity.
-The specifics of how he's going to bring back the big 3 also don't measure up. Basically he wants to ease fuel economy on new vehicles and target massive tax breaks at the big 3, so they'll have more money to invest in factories and the like. Let me say this, no company bases these kinds of investments on taxes. What the auto manufacturers (and most businesses) need is very simple. Two things that would bale them out more than anything else are 1) a solution to the rising health care cost for employees and pensioners alike. I'm not saying it has to be national single-payer health care per se, but something has to be done. If you look at the money these companies pay in taxes versus health care costs the numbers aren't even close. 2) They need more people buying their products. Lower taxes won't do a bit of good to spur investments if you have a factory full of vehicles (or any other product) that aren't selling (or not selling enough) This is why targeting the tax cuts at the middle class (who are most likely to spend the money) would have provided a much better stimulus than targeting it at the top bracket.
-Another issue is this. I don't think Romney has a chance of beating any of the 3 democrats in the general election. Generally if you're in a (hopefully short) recession, nominating a blue-blood wall street tycoon won't play all that well in Peoria. Especially when its a guy who wants to double Guantanamo and likes to go around praising the corporations like drug companies that people (rightly or wrongly) believe are turning record profits at the expense of the middle class. So I'm begging my fellow voters: Please don't make me have to choose between Mitt and Hillary in November.

While you were watching American Idol...

Here are my thoughts as I listen to the Nevada Democratic debate:

-We start off with a Kum bay ya moment as the candidates try to make nice and get past the recent racial tension. Meanwhile Republicans everywhere laugh. Edwards is happy he wasn't dragged into this mess. Barrack says it's all cool. Hillary wants it all to go away...BAD.
-Barrack apologizes to HIllary for calling her "likable". It's still a total love fest 24 minutes in.
-Edwards points out that he kills more lobbyists before 7 am than most candidates do all day. He will stand up to the big money interests.
-Hillary calls Bush pathetic for begging the Saudis for cheaper oil. Somehow I doubt cheap oil is on his radar over there.
-They then talk about their strengths and weaknesses. Edwards says he's a fighter. If I'm looking for the candidate I would take in a street fight, I'd take Rudy to be honest with you. (but only because McCain is so old and took all those beatings in 'Nam.)
-There is false information circulating on the internet about Obama. You're shitting me! False info on the internet? I feel so used right now. Next you're going to tell me that the illuminati aren't behind a conspiracy that has been running the world for the last few hundred years.
-Obama: "I trust the American people to sort out the truth". So would I if I'd been asleep for the last 7 years. Truth and Reason aren't exactly in vogue these days.
-All three say they don't want a continuation of the current hands-off approach to anything regulatory. Edwards reminds us he's the only liberal on the stage. Both Clinton and Edwards come out against predatory lending and the bankruptcy "reform" act that passed a few years back. All three will be knocked as anti-capitalist for this. But the most anti-capitalistic people around tend to be successful capitalists who don't want competition.
-Hillary wants a five-year freeze on interest rates. Interesting, but it sounds like something that could be a really bad or really good idea. I'd have to consult an economist.
-Now they get to ask each other questions! this better be good. Hopefully they won't suck.
-Edwards: "Why do these special interests give you so much money? Because they think you're nice?" no softball there. Obama: "yes, because they like me. And I don't take lobbyist money either." and calls for public financing of campaigns.
-Hilary: "Barack, will you co-sponsor my legislation to make Bush obey the constitution in regards to treaties?" LMAO, there's no one short of God himself that could make Bush obey the constitution, let alone a spineless congress. He simply doesn't think it applies to him in accordance with Cheney's Law. The legislation she is proposing already exists. It's called article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the United States Constitution. (It states that all treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the Senate.) Obama: "we'll work on it."
-I didn't catch Obama's question because I went outside to smoke a cigarette.
-All three would end the war in Iraq (or not). Only Edwards says he will take ALL combat troops out of Iraq. I like this better than the half-ass strategy. I would rather have either 0 troops or 250,000. The last thing I want is a force over there too small to adequately defend itself. If we're going to be an empire, BE AN EMPIRE. All or nothing. Go big or go home.
-Hillary is the only one really nailing Bush over and over. Smart move on her part. The other 2 should follow this example.
-All three say we're not taking good enough care of our veterans. It's a sad commentary on the "leadership" of Bush that this is even an issue. Absolutely disgusting.
-Edwards opposes more nuke plants. Obama: "if we can find a way to do nuclear energy cheaply and safely, I'd do it." Yeah, okay.
-Hillary wants to stop subsidies to oil and gas companies. I don't believe her for a second. She's the main "big money" candidate on that stage.
-Edwards smacks her down: "Hillary has raised more money from those companies than anyone else" Thank you, John. My thoughts exactly. He'd end the subsidies to. I believe him. I may have been wrong about this guy. Too bad the media has ruled him out and only wants to talk about the other two. So much for the idea of a "liberal media".
-All three now get out their 10-foot poles to touch the immigration issue with.
-Hillary says she's been working on family issues for 35 years. (Insert your own joke right here)
-Now for gun control: careful guys this is what cost you the congress in '94, according to Bill's memoirs. All 3 are careful to take moderate stances.
-Now for the "war on terror". This should be good.
-Hillary "we need to repair relationships. we can't win by going alone." Good point but I would have taken greater care to separate Iraq from the "war on terror".
-Obama: "we are less secure now than before Iraq. We should have used that money and manpower to secure this country" Good point. Something that the current administration is not doing very well AT ALL.
-Edwards sounds good talking about Pakistan.
-"When did you make the decision to run for president?" Hillary: "a year ago" Me: "LMAO How stupid do you think I am?" Edwards:"a year ago" Obama: "same answer" Okay so I don't really believe any of them. But that's okay, because it's not really an important question. And with that we wrap up.

-Overall thoughts: This was a much kinder, gentler debate than the last one, much to my disappointment. No one really stuck out to me as looking particularly strong, or weak. Fortunately I was probably the only one watching so I don't see this moving any one's poll numbers any.

The Undecided voter, make a decision already.

(note: This post is the first of hopefully a series written by my friend Bob,who is currently working as a contractor in Iraq and is one of the most hard-core political junkies I know.)

I have been following the Presidential election as closely as I can what with being in Iraq and all and heard some commentator refer to the what I believe has become the staple of American politics and that is The Undecided Voter. This particular commentator was talking about how with only two days to go until the Michigan Primary there was something like nine percent of voters who claim to be undecided? This makes me ask the question "Who are these people?" I mean how is it possible for someone to not know with only two days before the election who they are going to vote for? I might remind you that I am referring to people who vote in primaries. These are individuals who by all accounts are the people the most interested, involved, and passionate about the political process. The grassroots activists,party faithful, union members, NRA,NARAL, Veterans groups, religious groups and of course political junkies like myself. These voters are suppose to be among the most involved and informed voters and yet we have large numbers of people who claim right up to going into the polling booth to be "undecided". I would argue that we aren't choosing what ice cream flavor to pick at Baskin Robbins we are choosing a President.My question is how can a voter not know who they are, that's what this comes down to. See if you know who you are and what you believe it is very easy to decide on a candidate. I for example know that I value freedom, personal responsibility, individual liberty and rights, the sanctity of life, and a strong vibrant military. There for I am naturally drawn to the Republican party, after listening to all of the candidates running for office. Hearing the positions and ideas I then narrow down the ones I can't vote for. I first eliminate Ron Paul because while I like his libertarian views on personal freedom and spending I believe he is clueless on the need to aggressively fight the war on terror. Then I eliminate Duncan Hunter who I like on most issue but realize that he cannot win and think that he is a bit to much of an establishment candidate. I then go through all the candidates until I find one that I can support. In this case I chose Governor Mike Huckabee for a myriad of reasons. I knew several weeks before the election that I would cast my vote for the Governor. Now the question I pose to you is how can anyone who plans to vote and is in anyway informed not know who they are going to vote for? While I do understand that candidates taking watered down positions doesn't help in the decision making if you know what you believe its still rather easy to choose.I believe this happens first because people are afraid in some cases to take a firm stand for whatever reason. Second because they are waiting to see which candidate will kowtow to them and whatever set of issues is important too them, and third because too many voters base there votes on how they "feel" about a candidate. A good example of this is the Barack Obama candidacy, here is a man who undoubtedly has great skill as an orator, a lot of charisma, and extreme intelligence. Yet anyone who is honest with themselves will admit that this man has virtually no experience, little back ground, and will need a lot of o.j.t. ( on the job training) and yet he is in contention for the Democratic Party nomination because of how he makes people "feel" haven't we learned our lesson. I mean we got President Bush because Republicans "felt" good about him.Now I believe he has been a decent President and strong leader, but if the GOP in 2000 had based its decision on who would make the best President then John McCain would have been the nominee and would have gone on to beat Al Gore like a drum. Basing how you vote on your feelings can only lead to disaster. We end up with people who make us feel good about ourselves and possibly bypass better leaders.Time and time again I hear people talk about how just days before an election they are undecided and I just want to say "Hey Grow some balls, examine what you believe and make a damned decision already!" after all we are choosing the leader of the free world here, not a Fraternity President. Take a stand people, after all ITS IMPORTANT!

The Sympathy Vote?

I was seriously wrong in my analysis of Hillary Clinton in regards to the January 5th debate. I thought latent sexism would work against her when she responded angrily to Edwards calling her the (paraphrasing) "candidate of the status quo" and then tearing up when asked "how do you do it?". (My impression is that this moment was totally calculated, I can't really back it up that's just what instinct tells me.) I thought these events would combine to be the death blow to her campaign. What I've seen since seems to be the opposite. I've read about 600 articles talking about how she was ganged-up on and bashing Edwards and her critics as "bullies", and talking about how the crying thing helped reveal that she's a real person with feelings (more on that later). I'm seriously expecting to see a youtube video of a ridiculously effeminate crying teen-ager screaming "LEAVE HILLARY ALONE". The thing I failed to take into account is the power of perceived victimhood in our society. I'll give an example. A few months ago I read an article that mentioned how when the novel The Grapes of Wrath was released a lot of criticism came from poor migrant farmers who didn't like being portrayed as helpless victims of circumstance. Contrast that with today. We've gone from a time when actual helpless victims didn't want to be portrayed as helpless victims to a society where even the rich and powerful want to be portrayed as victims in order to gain my sympathy. Let's save our sympathy for people who deserve it: people who are crying for legitimate reasons like hurricane Katrina or loss of loved ones in the war, not people who come out and cry over their political fortunes.
I'm not even necessarily trying to bash Hillary here. If you feel like crying, go ahead I don't feel it should be an issue one way or another. My problem is this: sympathy is no reason to vote for ANYONE. Let's pretend for a minute that the other candidates are bullies who are ganging up on her because of her gender (which I don't believe for an instant any more than I believe attacks on Romney or Obama are based on religion or race, respectively). Do you really think a President of the United States will never have to deal with bullies? Do you think Kim Jong Il or Vladimir (I call him Vladimir) will be moved by sympathy? Another claim that drives me insane is "this emotional moment shows that she really has feelings". If you didn't know she was a real person with feelings you are, to put it nicely, a MORON! They're all real people with feelings (even Rudy, believe it or not). And this seems to be a winning strategy. So now we get to watch her go from being a candidate who talks about the issues and why she has the strongest skills and experience to be an effective president to a campaign that will increasingly feature her trying to be warm and "grandmotherly". And it could work. What does that say about the way we pick a leader? At the same time Bill is stepping up his role as the attack dog, coming out and criticizing Obama (and the criticisms are by and large legitimate). This bothers me because it is beneath the dignity of a former U.S. president. I don't remember Bush 41 demeaning himself in this matter when his son was running. (it could have happened but I don't remember seeing it). I guess I shouldn't be surprised in this development though because dignity has never been a hallmark of the Clinton dynasty.

Scoring the January 5th Debates: Part 2 the Democrats.

- I'm not going to go into nearly as much detail as I did with the GOP. Not because of any bias, but because I can only handle so much debating, and my note-taking was more and more sparse as the night wore on.
-As an aside, I wish I knew how to read lips when they had all the candidates from both parties on stage at once. It would be very entertaining if they had all been hugging and smiling while telling each other what douche-bags they are.

-Winner: John Edwards via TKO in the second round. He came out looking strong and determined tonight. He was really on his game. The angry "crusader for the working class" and blue collar advocate role is working very well for him. I still don't think he can get the nomination, but he will be a factor. The winner could will be whichever candidate he takes fewer union and other blue collar votes. The strategy of taking down Hillary so he can get Obama one-on-one is a much better strategy than what I expected.
-Loser: Hillary Clinton. I thought for sure it would be "attack Obama" night from all sides, but instead it was Edwards dealing damage to Hillary all night.

Random observations:
-While far from a supporter, I think Dennis Kucinich should have been there. I tend to think more viewpoints are a good thing, not a distraction from the "serious" candidates.
-We start with Obama's hawkish statements about Pakistan and Al Qaida. He wants to go after UBL no matter what and secure the nukes. I think Obama has to talk tough on this issue, so people take him seriously as something other than a lightweight on foreign policy. You could look at this and other Pakistan statements as his "I am not a pussy. The American people have a right to no whether their president is a pussy, and I am not pussy" speech. He didn't score major points but didn't lose any ground which was kind of how the night went for him on the whole.
-Next Edwards promises to be even tougher against Al Qaida, talked tough about Musharraf and states his goal to rid the world of nuclear weapons. That's nice, but how many countries do you really think are going to give up their nukes? It'd be one big game of you first, no you first, no you first.
-Hillary weighs in on the issue to point out that her husband went after Al Qaida by launching missile strikes on the Sudan back in the 90's. I remember that. As I recall those strikes blew up an aspirin factory and may have also knocked over a chair. I don't think reminding people of half-ass measures taken pre-9/11 is a very good strategy.
-Then the moderator talks about a nuclear attack occurring on an American city and mentions some "expert" who says there is 30% chance of that happening in the next decade. WTF? How the hell do you think they arrived at that figure? I'm not saying it won't happen. I wouldn't be surprised if did but I'm willing to guess that number was pulled out of some one's ass. Edwards then pointed out how the president would have to be strong, yet a calming figure if that happened which is probably good. Because I'm the furthest thing from calm, and if I were president in that situation this planet would be a very quiet place for about the next million years or so if you follow my train of thought.
- At that point...... well I went outside to have a smoke, not sure if I missed anything or not. Fortunately I came back for the defining moment of the debate.
-Hillary's going after Obama, she's backing him down. He's keeping his cool but he's up against the ropes. She's accusing him of talking a good game but not backing it up with results. And then.....
-John Edwards launches this barrage out of nowhere, referring to Hillary as an agent of the status quo, attacking those who want change. He then points out that she wasn't doing this "when she was ahead". If this were a boxing match Hillary would be getting the standing 8 count at this point. I thought he really connected on this one. I don't know that I've ever seen Edwards look as strong as he did tonight. He was passionate. I think he came across as a fighter and a populist.
- To make matters worse Hillary responds with this diatribe about how she has been changing things for 35 years (by being married to Bill I suppose). I wanted her to say "I was changing things before your balls dropped!" There was a good minute or so of Mr. Hyde before she calmed down. My reaction: wow, a campaign just died right before my eyes. She was the candidate who could least afford to lose her composure. That may very well be her Howard Dean "HYYYYAHHHH!!" moment. Part of the reason is latent gender bias. If John McCain goes off on a similar rant, people think "wow he's a bad ass. Don't mess with those old veterans, they're some tough bastards." If Edwards did it it's "wow what a fighter". When Hillary does it people say "what a bitch!" It's totally unfair but I think a lot of people felt that way whether they realized it or not. I know it was 15 or 20 minutes before I thought to ask myself if I would have reacted the same way to a man. The answer is no, I think I'd be like "wow, this guy plays hardball". I know I wasn't the only one thinking it, probably just in the minority of people who will admit it.
-Richardson, by the way, has not been seen or heard from in twenty minutes. I picture him sitting there grinning and rubbing his hands together like the emperor from star wars watching his opponents destroy each other. He gets in a good line saying "I've been in hostage negotiations that weren't this brutal"(paraphrase). He sort of came across as the "adult" here, calming the rest of them down.
-I won't bore you with any more details as to me this was the high point, and I was having a hard time keeping my concentration after that having been up since 4:30 a.m. but suffice to say I thought Edwards won, Obama and Richardson didn't do anything to hurt themselves, and it's the beginning of the end for Hillary. I'd say on the party level, the democrats as a whole came across better than the republicans.

Scoring the January 5th Debates 1: the GOP

Damn, talk about some hardball!
These are my post-debate impressions. I have avoided reading or watching "expert analysis" as much as possible since my experience is most media types see what they want to see during these things and a lot of analysis seems to come from someone who was watching an entirely different program. I'll start with the republican debate:

Winner- I don't think anybody looked particularly strong to me, but Ron Paul is making a serious bid to get my vote. It would have been nice if he had at least got some time to speak during the second half of the debate. I think McCain seemed to help himself the most, but he didn't deliver the knockout punch at any point. (Other than the line about romney being the candidate of "change")

Loser- Romney. If this had been a prize fight he would have been carried out of the ring about half way through. He faced a vicious triple-team from McCain, Thompson, and Rudy and did not handle it well at all in my opinion. He came across as a guy who can dish it out but can't take it.

Now for my observations about various portions of the debate in no particular order.

-The first portion of the debate was on foreign policy. I expected to hear a lot of statements with no basis in reality and was not disappointed.
-The first statement I noticed that raised a few eyebrows for those of us in the "reality based community" was Fred Thompson saying that we are winning in Iraq, and we are safer because of it. I guess one of the upsides to having no long term strategy is that you can't be accused of failing to implement it. As a candidate, I think Fred Thompson makes a good actor.
-The best example of the death of conservatism happened when the other candidates snickered and shook their heads while Ron Paul suggested that people don't like having their countries invaded, or to be pushed around. I'm getting more and more certain of my belief that this guy is the only conservative on the stage. Rudy made a particular ass out of himself by once again repeating that we were attacked because they "hate freedom" saying that the attacks had "nothing to do with our foreign policy". (sure, Islamic terrorists and the Muslim world in general couldn't care less about the overthrow that put the Shah in power, our support for Israel, or anything like that. I'm not saying any of these policies are even wrong, I'm just saying that you can't isolate them from the current situation) And in keeping with the World War 2 fetish that dominates the right these days someone threw out the term islamofascism, because remember all bad guys are just like the Nazis in every way. You only serve to undermine your own credibility with that kind of thing. Seriously, a neocon history of the world must read like this: stuff happened, more stuff happened, WORLD WAR 2!, stuff, more stuff, 9/11! None of these guys are interested in rational analysis, they just want to wave the flag. Right Rudy, we've been choir boys all along.
-McCain had interesting (and revealing) thoughts on this issue. First he talks about how great Bush has been as a leader and notes that there have been no recent terror attacks on US soil. A few minutes later he mentioned the need to "restore confidence in government". WTF? Generally those replacing "great leaders" don't need to do much confidence restoring.
- Romney uttered some of the most outlandish lines of the night at this point. He referred to Robert Kagan, neocon icon, war-enthusiast, and self-proclaimed expert as "brilliant". I didn't catch the next part because I was cleaning vomit off of the carpet because of that statement. I guess we know what to expect from a Romney presidency; more faith-based defense policy, lies, and exploiting fear. At another point Romney referred to the current struggle with terrorism as the biggest (or one of the biggest) crises this country has ever faced. another WTF? moment. I guess if we didn't include foreign threats in the late 1700's, the war of 1812 when the British burned the capitol, the Civil War, reconstruction, World War 1, the great depression, World War 2, the Cuban missile crisis (and cold war in general), then yeah this is at the top of the list. I'm not saying we ignore the danger, because it is obviously very real, but we need to maintain some perspective.
-Huckabee came off to me as kind of a lightweight on this issue. No glaring absurdity, but no real insight or details either.This is where I think if he gets the nod he needs a proven commodity as running mate.
-Ron Paul emphasized again that we're not living up to the principles of the constitution. It's too bad he didn't mention domestic spying and some of the related issues right here.

-Next came health care. I think this is one of the biggest areas where the republicans are going to get hammered in November. I didn't hear any statements last night from the candidates that I would think will resonate with voters.
-This may have been the strongest segment for Huckabee. When he pointed out to Romney that you can't get anything more than a bandage in an ER for $1,000 he subtly showed himself to be the populist candidate or "guy who gets it" while at the same time casting Romney as an out of touch elitist. The best part of this exchange was that Huckabee didn't do it in a way that looks like "going negative". I think he'll be the one who's assumed the "compassionate conservative" mantle from Bush (who ironically is neither compassionate nor a conservative)
-Rudy caught my attention by making the claim that "We have the best health care system in the world." What a completely meaningless statement. Best by what standard? longest life expectancy? lowest infant mortality rate? number of individuals covered? most money spent? He might as well have started a "USA!" chant. (And don't think you can win me over just by mentioning Reagan 11 times in 4 minutes.)
- Fred Thompson said " A good number of people who don't have health care can afford it." Voters watching the debate probably heard: "most people who don't have health care can afford it."
This seemed like a major blunder to me that helps reinforce the notion that republicans don't have a clue on this issue. What do you mean by "a good number"?
-McCain probably scored some points by mentioning free clinics and bashing the pharmaceutical companies. I think that's an argument that plays well with voters. Here's an industry charging 500 bucks a pill in some cases because otherwise there would be no money for "research and development", I'm willing to bet they could still find money to fund congressional junkets, the largest Washington lobby of almost any industry, and ads on EVERY PROGRAM on television telling me to go ask my doctor for their drug.
-Romney then rode in on his white horse to defend the drug companies. "no drug company left behind", I can see the bumper sticker now. This looked pretty weasely to me. I thought this would be the topic he would manage to score points on, but he seemed flustered and off his game at this point (and rightfully so, it was clear all night who the others were looking to damage) . From what I understand, he's had success on this issue as governor, but didn't really drive that point home here. Instead he went the route of using the word "change" at least 10 times in 5 minutes. Way to latch on to the hot buzz-word of the day.
-Ron Paul also did nothing to distinguish himself in this one (or the illegal immigration debate that followed). As a medical doctor who still occasionally delivers constituents' babies, I expected more insight from him. Basically he simply pointed out that inflation is the problem and that we have to quit running massive deficits to stop inflation, and mentioned people flying to India for surgery. Not a good night for him.

-Next came the issue of illegal immigration. I can't really seem to stir up the vitriol a lot of people can on this issue (I've tried). It seems like everyone you talk to is either completely naive or a complete xenophobe on this one. So we have 2 parties talking about the need to secure the borders ( just one border actually), and 0 parties actually making anything happen other than lip service.
-I thought this was the first issue Rudy looked good on. Most of the candidates have positions on this issue so similar that any variance in position gets blown completely out of proportion. I think some of the misconceptions he had on this issue were the ones shared by pretty much everyone on the stage, but he came across as striking the right balance between toughness and compassion.
-McCain probably had the most to lose with the base on this one. He and Romney looked ready to fight each other on this one. There was like 5 minutes of back and forth over the word "amnesty". Best line from McCain at this point was "Ronald Reagan gave out amnesty, so I guess he'd have appeared in one of your attack ads, too." I'm normally not a big fan of these guys taking Reagan's name in vain but it was good here. He was also the only one to mention going after those who employ illegal immigrants which is vary popular on the left.
-Romney had another bad moment in my eyes when after agreeing that you can't just throw out 12 million people, talked like he wanted to just throw out 12 million people. I hope I'm not the only one that caught that one. The Thompson, Rudy, McCain triumvirate stuck together to go at him early and often on this issue just like the previous two.
- Huckabee seemed not to want to wade into the mud on this one and was content to let the other combatants hack away at each other. Most of what little he said was positive and exceedingly vague. Paul and Thompson were non-factors in this discussion, besides Thompson jumping in to help McCain when Romney attacked (I think someone's looking for the veep nod.)

- Overall analysis, not the best debate for anyone in terms of striking a chord with the general populace. I think you could say McCain was the winner simply in terms of New Hampshire because of the damage done to Romney from all sides. There's a lot of work to be done on this side of the aisle between now and November 4, because I don't think anybody really did anything that would attract more people to the party in the general.