We Just Don't Get It

This from an Associated Press story yesterday:

Republican and Democratic senators warned Tuesday against a drift toward war with an emboldened Iran and suggested the Bush administration was missing a chance to engage its longtime adversary in potentially helpful talks over next-door Iraq.

For the record, I am very glad that our U.S. Senate is serving their proper, Constitutionally-authorized duty to check the president's power to make war. By doing so they are acting exactly as the Framers of our government wanted them to. Our Founders, in their great wisdom, granted Congress alone the power to declare war. Beside that basic fact is the obvious war-weariness we are all experiencing. Our Senate should be applauded for doing all in their power to make sure we do all everything possible to avoid another war.

These great statesmen and stateswomen are privy to much more information than any of us. They are well educated, intelligent, driven, and are generally high-quality people. Were they not so they would not have risen to their present rank. I hold all of them (even the ones with whom I vehemently disagree) in very high regard. In this case I encourage them to continue to push for every and any diplomatic solution that is possible.

Having said all that I must ask this question: what is wrong with them?

Think for one moment about Iran. What images come to mind? What terms do you associate with them? Do you think things like "reasonable"? How about "fair-minded"? Maybe "helpful"? Can we look to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an example of benevolence just waiting to be invited into the fold so that he can offer assistance?If Iran is willing to sit down and talk, great. Let's talk. If they are willing to help, great. Let them help. But are we ignorant? Are we blind? How many times must Iran poke us in the eye before we realize they are not willing to "help". Their goals are diametrically opposed to ours. They call us "The Great Satan". They call us "The Great Oppressor". They demonize everything we do. They openly state their desire to wipe Israel off the map. Have they not learned who we are dealing with?(If you missed Glenn Beck's special on how propaganda is used to indoctrinate people in the Middle East to hate America, I encourage you to check out at least this clip).

Am I arguing that we go to war with Iran? Absolutely not. I can't make this clear enough: such a war would be awful and must be avoided at all costs.

The question I am driving at is this: why must we put our head in the sand and/or play some sort of political/rhetorical game to pretend like Iran is just on the edge of their seat, dying to help us solve the violence in Iraq? I truly hope that none of our Senators actually believe that. Such a person does not seem to be in touch with the reality of the Middle East. If a Senator implies such a thing, this is one of those rare times that I truly hope he/she is just being a partisan political hack, trying to cut down the President for "not talking to Iran". The only other option is that such a person has deluded him/herself into believing in a dream world where war is always avoidable.

Are we destined for war with Iran? I both think and hope that we are not. However, it is foolish to think that avoiding such a war is entirely within our control. Could we avoid such a war no matter what? Yes. Should we avoid a war no matter what? Wherever possible. But war takes two to tango--and so does peace. On it's current pace Iran has been described as "emboldened" about a billion times in the past several months. They are pretty clearly encouraging, supporting, and supplying the insurgency in Iraq. They are not going to be "helpful"; they desire our destruction. If they want war with the U.S., they can make it.

May our Senators do everything in their power to ensure that conflict is avoided wherever it can be avoided. But may we not be so foolish and arrogant as to think that such a decision is wholly ours.

Stormy Seas

The political landscape is changing rapidly--even by the minute. Iraq is becoming even more dominant on the American center stage everyday. More candidates enter the 2008 political fray on a daily basis. Candidates surge and fall. The Democrats and Republicans pledge cooperation one day, and stab ruthlessly at each other the next. In this climate, how is one to make predictions about what will happen? Now seems as good a time as any to summarize some of the extrapolations that can be made from our current position. If nothing else it will be something we can look back at and laugh about what a misread these were on the situation.

The Democrats Will Take the White House in 2008


Anger over the war took a heavy toll on the GOP in the '06 primaries. With Iraq quickly becoming darn near the only issue that swing voters have in their sights it will not matter who the Republican candidate is. Just like the mayoral elections in St. Louis or Detroit or Chicago, the Democratic primary will be the real election. For the record, the history of the 1992 campaign tells us that appearances can be deceiving, as every talking head in the world though Bush 41 would be re-elected. Nevertheless, it looks like a Democratic White House is in the cards.


A conservative candidate will win the Republican nomination


John McCain's very uninspiring appearance on Meet the Press last week, combined with his already-troublesome-to-primary-voters image are battering the presumed front-runner. Though Giuliani's popularity is on the rise, he has worse image problems than McCain, and he knows it. He is campaigning fairly hard, but is very reluctant to jump into the race. Why? Probably because he understands better than anyone how the skeletons in his closet can hurt him. The stage is set for a Mit Romney or Mike Huckabee to ride a dark horse to the front of the pack, but one of them will need to do it soon, or else the front loaded primary season will kill them.


Divided government will lead to actual results


Perhaps the most optimistic of extrapolations, the Republican White House and Democratic Congress (combined with the impending presidential election) will force each side to produce meaningful, non-partisan legislation. Am I being naive in thinking this will happen? Probably, but I am hopeful.


The politicization of Iraq will get worse


Following the most optimistic projection with the least, the mainstream media has already turned their bias into two-thirds of all their news stories. Watching the Evening News is like watching an infomercial for the Democratic Party. They should report what is happening and not ignore the chaos in Iraq. But they should also not spend 15 minutes of their 30 minute show covering Democratic criticism of the war (I timed it, and that's almost how long it was on NBC the other day). We all know the Democrats are critical of the war. Cover it, but don't make it the sole basis of what you do. Some of the comparisons to Vietnam hold true for Iraq, and this one does for sure: the media will be a major influence in the direction of the war.


The challenges to America from abroad will continue to grow


Military challenges will come and go, but the economic challenges embodies in "globalization" will make the reality facing America ever more stark. We will have to adjust our educational systems, our trade relations, our immigration policies, our employment initiatives, and a host of other things to deal with the new world. Though this is the broadest of predictions, it will have major effects on politics and policy decisions. If the party in control, whichever it may be, acts like we are living in the old world, America will grow ever weaker.

We are indeed in a time of great change and great challenge. The next 21 months will be some of the most rocky and most entertaining in quite a long time. Things will indeed change, possible a lot. May they be for the better.

The Empire

A college friend of mine went off to work in Germany after graduation. While there she met a European and married him. Like her, though, he is not German--he's Irish. I was fortunate to visit with this lovely (and quite international) couple while they were seeing family in the United States recently.

As my friend's husband and I were talking the conversation naturally brushed on politics. He was all too eager to jump right in. As he is a European I expected to hear from him the stereotypical European perspective on America as an evil, malevolent force in the world that seeks to destroy all that is good and decent. Indeed, he started the conversation by calling America "the Empire".

But quickly it became clear that his analysis was not the stereotypical European one. Indeed, he sees America as an empire, but his view of how America behaves as such was striking.

Before getting to his perspective, let's define an empire. A textbook definition might be (from wikipedia): "a state that extends dominion over areas and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power." If that definition is correct, I would disagree that America is an empire (solely because of the word "dominion", which by definition means sovereign governing authority). However, if we change "dominion" to "influence" there is no question that the United States meets that definition.

When most people think of the word "empire" they likely imagine Napoleon or Genghis Khan or the Romans or the Brits--all people who used military force as their sole means of imposing authority. The word brings with it every sort of negative connotation imaginable, and understandably so.

With that as the backdrop, and as I heard him call America "the Empire", I was surprised when it became clear that his analysis of America was roundly positive. His basic point was this: of all the empires that have ever existed, the United States of America is the most benevolent, most kind, most magnanimous one in the history of the world.

If anything, according to his argument, Americans are too benevolent, allowing heavy criticism of our role and actions without adequately defending ourselves against Euro/world criticism.

Certainly his argument is biased by his marriage to an American. While living abroad, many of the volleys lobbed generally at America end up being aimed specifically at his bride.

Nevertheless, his perspective was refreshing. When I suggested to him that the American "Empire" was more economic than anything else he used my statement as an example of the American "uberhumility" that is the problem. In his view America is the only super power and has used such power for greater good in the world than has any other empire than has ever existed. Further, Americans should not be ashamed of this, but should draw attention to this fact.

Certainly, America's influence is helped along by the fact that we have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and that we can have Marine boots on the ground anywhere in the world within 24 hours (that may be an insult to our military infrastructure). Yet the U.S. does not seek sovereign governing authority over other countries generally. We do not force the French, Japanese, or Chinese to accept our culture. We do not force American television or movies on Latin America. We do not roll in tanks when Iran protests and burns our flag/vestiges. When American culture is adopted by other nations it is because they choose to do so, not because they are forced to do so.

America may well be an empire, but if this is the empire of the globalized world we may need to throw out many of the connotations that come with that word.

Unintended Consequences

During the 2004 election cycle there was much talk about how the Democrats "front-loaded" their primary calendar. More states were moved up to February and March of that year in an attempt to produce a nominee more quickly (thus allowing more time for the candidate to focus on the general election), and who was chosen by a more "representative" group of states.

Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally held the first caucus and primary (respectively), and therefore held a great deal of influence in selecting a party's nominee. If one spent the year leading up to the primary "running" for office and were unable to win in these small states with easily idintifiable constituencies, how could that person hope to win nationally? Anything less than a win in one of the two states spells doom for a presidential hopeful.Since the Republicans did not have a true primary in '04 they deferred to the Democrats' will for the primary calendar. It appears the Republicans, for reasons that are not totally clear, are deferring to the Blue Team again this year.

The earlier a state has their primary, the more important that state is in the nomination process. Since every state wants to be important, every state wants to move up. If the Democrats gave the go-ahead to a given state, that state went ahead and moved up the election.

Several months ago the Dems decided that they did not like the demographic make-ups of Iowa and New Hampshire. In a political move to appear more "diverse" they allowed two states, South Carolina and Nevada (which both contain larger populations of minorities) to move their primaries up to the period historically reserved for only Iowa and New Hampshire.

As with most moves that are purely political, this has had terrible unintendid consequences.

Iowa and New Hampshire have been in the front of the pack for over 50 years. Once this precedent became established no state dared to challenge their role. This was based on respect for history/tradition and was enforced by national party influence in the states. There were some serious problems with having two small, rural, unrepresentative states go first, but there were many benefits, too. The biggest was that it forced candidates to have a mini-election wherein they could focus all their efforts, staff, and funds. This was a great equalizer because it gave a fair shot to weaker, less-well-funded candidates. Kerry had way less money than Dean, but that fact was negated by the size of Iowa and the low expense of advertising there.

Now this political move has created a race to the front of the calendar among the states.

This has more negative consequences than it has benefits. Here is a short list:

• It allows states to rig their vote to give a particular candidate an edge. Case in point: Illinois legislatures have openly suggested moving up their state's primary to give an edge to Barack Obama's presidential bid.
  
  
• Since many of the states vying for an early position are heavily populated this will make money an even bigger influence in politics. No cheap Des Moines ads. Hello Los Angels tv market. Hello New York (New Jersey wants an early vote). If you can't raise $20-40 million dollars by January 1^st you will not have a fighting chance. Say goodbye to any "dark horse" candidates.
  
  
• It will make an already painfully long political season even painfully longer. As if most Americans were not already disenchanted by politcal ads, this has the potential to be the Mack truck that broke the camel's back. The moderate/swing voters may grow so disenchanted that many of them simply choose not to vote.
  
  
• Iowa and New Hampshire both have state laws requiring their vote be a week or more ahead of any other primaries. New Hampshire could realistically be voting in December. This may have been a benefit in the world of the pony express, but it's little more than ridiculous in the world of the Internet.
  
  
• Another big benefit of the shorter-but-more-spread-out primary season was that it forced candidates to survive a series of battles that would often--though obviously not always--produce stronger nominees. This negates that effect, as more states will be early, and therefore the nominee will be identified after the onslaught of early states posts their results.

Bottom line: more money, only "celebrity candidates", weaker nominees, a more disenchanted pool of "undecided" swing voters.

The last of that list is particularly important. A smaller pool of swing voters makes "base politics" more important. And base politics is part of what has bread the American political Freakshow. If this indeed is the case, it would give the media even more incentive to hype, distort, and sell soap opera politics, rather than dealing with policy substance, or even candidate quality. Drama, in-fighting, sensationalism, and the like will rule the day to an even greater extent.

Politics-only moves are never good. This one, in particular, is going to reshape the landscape of American politics, and in largely negative ways. Hopefully my analysis is wrong, and this ends up being the solution to what has been the "unrepresentativeness" of Iowa and New Hampshire. But just as prescriptions can have side effects, so can politically-minded moves.

When Caring Hurts

Chris Mathews of MSNBC's Hardball once summarized the differences between Left and Right this way: The Democrats are the "Mommy party" and the Republicans the "Daddy party". When we need some help or compassion we turn to Mom. When tough times hit, we turn to Dad. Viewing the ideologies of Left and Right, rather than just the parties, in this way can be helpful, despite the crudeness/bluntness of the metaphor. Conservatives are, in fact, often less caring and compassionate.

Often this is something for which we conservatives should apologize. But just as often, it is not.

This is a quandary, since we all value being compassionate and/or caring. At the root of this quandary is a corruption in our society. As a society we have redefined or misunderstood what it means to be caring. What our society calls "compassion" is not compassion. What we call "help" hurts. What we call "loving" is not showing love. Too often we end up feeding selfish desires at the expense of providing whatever it is that will truly help.

Examples of this are all over our society, and are probably present in each of our lives right now. It's the parent who spoils the child; it's the teacher who gives the student a better grade than was earned; it's the person who gets "one more chance" when they've already been given plenty; it's being politically correct instead of telling the truth. All these things have a common thread: they give temporary comfort at the expense of long-term benefit.

This happens when "caring" gets in the way of actually caring. When "loving" someone gets in the way of doing what is best for them. When "helping" a person only perpetuates the root problem that is causing their need. When being "understanding" feeds longer-term problems.

Yes, at times conservatives are too cold-hearted. Yes, there are times when our hearts need to grow several sizes. Yes, I myself can be more understanding. Yet there are other times when seeming uncaring is actually caring, seeming cold-hearted is loving, and seeming compassionless is the result of compassion.

Perhaps this phenomenon should not be framed in terms of politics, but in terms of life. Every day I see people I love making their own lives and the lives of those they care about worse because they are trying to be "compassionate", "loving", "helpful". May we do what is hard when it is right. May we be tough when tough is needed. May we throw away our emotional "compassion" for true compassion, and let us not give up on love when love need be tough.

Surprises Still

I was fully prepared to follow last night's State of the Union address with a post about how it's one of my least favorite political events of the year. The President (whether Democrat or Republican) trots out the same policies he/she has been touting for months or years; half the room rises and falls for applause lines while the other sits on their hands; the other side puts together a "response" before the address has even been given; the pundits and talking heads mull over delivery and substance while largely ignoring context and themes (Tim Russert excluded). But sometimes there are pleasant surprises.

In case you missed the speech, CNN put together a pretty good 3-minute audio summary. I recommend it.Each of President Bush's last two State of the Union addresses have followed largely the same pattern--43 goes through his policies, makes half a dozen or so fumbles through words, announces moderate-but-not-sweeping proposals, and half or less of people watching think it's good. The Democrats then come on with their canned message about how 43 is "incompetent" or how there is some vague but undefined "better way".

This State of the Union, however, had some differences from those in the recent past that made it a bit more bearable. For one, this was President Bush's first with a Congress opposes him. It was the first ever with any female in the main shot. It was the first of his two "downhill" speeches, as he is entering the era where the candidates for 2008 will certainly overshadow anything he says or does. All these things made for a more entertaining evening. President Bush was more relaxed, more conciliatory, and more realistic. That is not to say that he was relaxed, conciliatory, or realistic, but he was those things to a greater degree.

What was the most surprising was how the polls looked immediately afterward. Everyone knows how galacticly horrible Bush's approval ratings are. So bad, I would argue, that it cripples his ability to effectively do his job as commander-in-chief. Yet the polls about the speech were remarkably positive. Here is the poll from last night: "Question: What was your overall reaction to President Bush's speech -- very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative or very negative?"A few caveats: the sample size was small and the margin of error high (+/- 5%). Nevertheless, the vitriol cast toward President Bush seemed to subside just a bit, if even for a moment, last night. What is particularly surprising is the very small number of respondents who said "very negative".

Bush 43 has argued that poll numbers don't really matter, and that he has to do what is right, not what is popular. While I wholeheartedly agree with the second half of that phrase, I disagree with the first half. Poll numbers, in one important respect, matter very much. Let's say that there is some thing that is really necessary for America to do, but that thing is very unpopular (you can imagine the sort of scenario of which I write). The President needs to have the political capital that would allow Congress to support his decision to "do what is right". Further, the American people need to be willing to listen and consider that the President is right and knows what is best. If his approval rating is in the low 30s it becomes increasingly difficult for him to "do what is right".

The President will be out of office in no time. Still, there will be very important things for America to do over the next two years. For that reason, I hope President Bush can get his numbers up. Perhaps this is the first step. Even if he does, I'm still convinced (as I have argued before) that the Democrats are more likely to win the White House in 2008 that the GOP. But for the sake of our country, we can't have 70% of America opposing the Chief Executive's every move.

Hillary pt. 2 (Liabilities)

A week ago at this time Barack Obama was dominating the news. Now it is Hillary's turn. Yesterday we took a look at the assets Hillary Clinton brings with her in her bid for the presidency. It was an impressive list, which no doubt legitimizes her competition for front-runner status. But Hillary, like all other candidates, brings liabilities as well. Some are personal, some structural, and others historical. I will leave it up for comments as to whether her assets or her liabilities carry greater weight, and I welcome any thoughts on the matter. Without further ado, her liabilities:

• Hateability: One of Hillary's big assets is that she is a household name. That also serves as what is likely her biggest liability. Her unfavorability ratings, by many polls, have not dropped below 40% since 2005. That is unprecedented. Out of all the candidates for office, no one comes close. McCain's unfavorability is around 25%. Obama's is around 11%. The only person who has even mentioned a possible run whose unapproval ratings equal Hillary's are those of Newt Gingrich, who is roundly dismissed as "too unlikable". One could expect a number that high if she were a candidate running for re-election, when all the ire from the other side is directed solely on the candidate. But we are nowhere near that. In short, there is a major segment of America--and not just the conservative base--who has decided already that they won't vote for her.
• The Freakshow Lies in Wait: Since Hillary is so loved by many and so hated by many that there is even more incentive for the Freakshow that is the American political culture, and particularly the media, to hype/control/propagate stories that make her look bad. People click on articles about her. More people click when the story about her is "shocking" or "revealing" or "telling" or in some other way prone to work against her. The Freakshow wants her to explode.
  
  
• A Base Problem: This will not be as much of a liability in the general election, but the perception among the Radical Left like the Daily Kos is that she was way too cozy to President Bush for way too long. It took her forever to say that if she knew then what she knows now she wouldn't have voted for the War. But vote for the war she did, and she compounded that problem with her base by being very slow to retract support for it. Add that to the fact that they too can read her unfavorability numbers and one can start to hear the same whispers that accompanied Howard Dean in his hay day: "unelectable".
  
  
• History (The Scandals): Hillary's past is always a problem. To capture this problem, here's a quote I read in the book, The Way to Win:

  How did she make those enormous cattle futures profits? How did those long-missing billing records turn up in the White House? What role did she play in those infamous end-of-presidency pardons? What really happened with her staff and the indicted...fund-raising aide from her first campaign? What exactly is up with her marriage? And: pretty much everything about her brothers. (emphasis in original)

  And that doesn't even mention Whitewater (or Lewinsky). Speaking of Lewinsky...
  
  
• Bill: He may be the fundraiser-in-chief he may be the best strategist in the Democratic party, but he's a ticking time bomb that she can only hope doesn't go off until she is safely into a second term:
  • There are still (newer) allegations that he is not a one-woman man.
  • Though loved by many, he carries negative images with himself as well--the scandals and the more recent questions about his pre-9/11 terrorism dealings
  • His presence could create voter weariness among those who want something new
  • His presence keeps the questions about him and their personal life on the front-burner, thus keeping Hillary's message on the back-burner. Not what any candidate wants.
  • He overshadows her.
  
  
• Lack of Charisma: Hillary has incredible political skill. But she has no charisma. The larger the crowd and the more excited they get Hillary should get more inspiring. Sadly for her, she just comes off as shrill. One British paper put it best:

  She has the record, the position, the money, the support, the right hairstyle at last. Yet the only quality she cannot summon, however hard she works at it, is charm.

  The British can be blunt, but here it is true. Bush 43 is a horrible speaker, but when a candidate he did this well: he could be optimistic and deliver an applause line that made people want to applaud. Hillary makes people feel obligated to applaud. This is something that can't be taught. She can only hope her other assets outweigh this one.
  
  
• The Establishment Candidate: Contrasted with Barack, this one becomes clear: she represents what has been. She is the tried and true. While on one hand this is an asset, think about why Barack is so popular. He is new. He is a breath of fresh air. He is the anti-Hillary, and it has hurt her.
  
  
• Too Big for Her Own Good: Americans elect presidents who they like, but who they also think has a message/theme for their presidency. It is clear already what an Obama presidency would be about: hope. In 1999 Bush was pitching "restoring dignity to the White House". That was particularly important for him because by staying on message it took focus away from Bush 41. Hillary is always the story. She doesn't have a theme, and even if she did her persona might well overpower it. Her race is all about who she is, and this is a problem for any candidate, but particularly for one with as much baggage as Hillary.

To sum it up, Hillary has some image problems, and some non-image problems. Her image: Divider; 60s radical; Powerhungry; Cold; Uncharismatic. That's not saying she deserves those images, but they linger. Her non-images problems: Bill; ties to scandal; her sex; she is the establishment figure; she is hated like no other candidate. Will she overcome these? Do her assets outweigh them? These are what I submit for discussion.

Hillary pt. 1 (Assets)

In the world of politics things can change fast. Six months ago Hillary Clinton looked to be the presumptive Democratic nominee for the White House. Today, she is locked in a very intriguing Cold War with the very charismatic junior Senator from Illinois for front-runner status. Six months from now, one may be looking like the nominee, or both may have been surpassed by one of the many other challengers.

A week ago neither of the two front-runners had made any move toward an official presidential run. Now, both have. Obama made the announcement that he is forming an exploratory committee (committees never tell candidates not to run, so once they are formed that means the candidate is in the race) on his website, followed mere days later by Hillary's announcement of the same.

Every candidate has assets and liabilities. Hillary is no different. Of course, she is unique among the Democratic hopefuls: the only woman, the only former First Lady (ever), the only one to have been a household name to Joe American for nearly 15 years (which in political years is like 87), and the list can go on. But just like the rest, she has assets to her credit, and liabilities that will snip at her.As I wrote last week, I'm convinced that those who think Hillary can't win are fooling themselves. So let's take a brief look at some of the things that belong in her "plus" column (note: these do not take into account whether any other candidate can negate these, or whether they might be liabilities at the same time; they are what they are--things that give Hillary an edge):

• Money, money, money: Most candidates have to spend hours on end making calls, shaking hands, attending fundraisers (events which give candidates an excellent chance to open mouth and insert foot). Hillary does not have to do that. She has a network of donors and fundraisers already set, and now set in motion, who can raise millions upon millions without her ever having to engage in the very daunting task of gathering funds.
  
  
• She's Fought the Freakshow (and lived to tell about it):In modern politics the media has every incentive to hype any misstep a candidate makes. Hillary has felt the fury of the Freakshow, and has been burned by it. By 1994 her name was a dirty word to Joe American. Yet she has reclaimed her image. She has earned her way back. Whatever doesn't kill you politically does indeed make you stronger. Anyone who can survive the Freakshow, has learned how not to get burned, and who has learned how to handle things that can blow up has built up a sort of immunity to the traps that can so easily befall anyone who's every move makes national news.
  
  
• The Establishment Ties: At any moment she can pick up the phone and call someone at nearly any interest group on the Left, any activist, any party leader, any high level strategist, and know the person on the other end of the phone. She has an astonishing base of connections from which to draw.
  
  
• Star Power: When Chris Dodd (D-CT) or Sam Brownback (R-KS) announced their intentions to run for President, Joe American took no notice. Even if he did it was likely followed by "who's that?". When Hillary announced everyone heard, and no one was surprised. This was one of the advantages that made then-Governor Bush such a powerhouse in 1999.
  
  
• The "Moderate" Factor: Like many (maybe most) I doubt Hillary's commitment to moderation. Nonetheless, she has done an amazing job of being not polarizing since entering the Senate in 2000. You may now be thinking, "but Hillary is polarizing". Agreed, but ask this question: is she polarizing because of her speeches/record in the Senate, or is it because of her years in the White House? I would argue that latter. In my analysis she has proven over the last 6+ years that she can be in office and not be the lightning rod. Remember, she voted for the War and has co-sponsored dozens of bills with the Red Team.
  
  
• Bill: He gives her a ton of advantages, and enhances some of the above:
  • He remains the best strategist in the Democratic Party
  • He is the "Fundraiser-in-Chief"
  • His is the power behind Hillary's vast cross-country political network
  • He provides charisma where she lacks it
  • People like him and some (though maybe few) will welcome her because of him
  • Is there a better advisor in the world on how to handle a race of this magnitude?
  • There are many, many more. Probably many more than I can possibly think of.
  
  
• Experience: No, not the experience of being a two-term Senator, but the experience of having been through two winning campaigns with Bill, two winning Senate campaigns, and purposefully watching how Bush 43 succeeded (and failed). She has been around the block and has been taking keen notes on how to win and how to lose. Even watching Kerry fail--which I believe she knew he would, or else she would not have sat on the sidelines--taught her the way to the top.
  
  
• Others: The only woman; smart committee assignments (like the Foreign Relations Committee, which gives her foreign policy credibility); a proven staff; her 2006 warm-up election; money in the bank that she can roll over to her next election.

Hillary Clinton is indeed unlike any other candidate. She has been a part of the political landscape of America for a very long time. She has changed her image over and over again, yet has survived. Though I do not like her politics, I must deeply respect what she has been able to do. Most anyone else would not have been able to rebound after her image exploded half way through Bill's first term. Most would not have been able to cherry-pick a state in which to run for (let alone win) a Senate seat. Most would have withered under the scrutiny of the Freakshow. Yet here she is, locked in a Cold War for front-runner status for the Democratic nomination.

Who Knows Best?

Confrontations in politics are at their best and most productive when well-intentioned and reasonable people simply disagree about the best course of action. There can be a fair give-and-take, constructive debate, and a mutually agreeable outcome. That is politics at its best.

While such political battles take place all the time, there are other instances when our view of the world and the people in it--along with how the government relates to them--collides with a differing view to create a clash that makes compromise exceedingly difficult.

One issue that relies heavily on how we view the world is the role of government. As one could easily surmise from past posts, I am of the "limited government" point of view. Though not always, more often than not people should have the freedom to spend their money how they wish, eat what they wish, raise their kids how they wish, worship how they wish, and the like.

With that perspective in mind, I was very disappointed to read that at least one legislator in the great state of California wants to ban spanking. Throughout her argument on the topic, the legislator equates spanking with "beating a child". Obviously, parents should not be allowed to beat their children. Certainly there are parents who blur the line between a spanking and abuse. The problem with banning all spanking in order to curb the actions of these people is that it invades the right of a parent to raise and discipline his/her child in an appropriate way.

In the sake of full disclosure, I have no children. My wife and I have not yet decided whether we will spank our children (if we are blessed to have any). But I don't want the government to take that option away from us.

Simply, this seems a clear invasion of freedom and government intrusion in an area in which it does not belong. Should government protect children from abuse? Absolutely. Is spanking, as properly used, abuse? Hardly. The government should prosecute those who abuse their children. Intelligent parents can choose to use timeouts, or remove privilege, or spank their kids. I'm sure all can be effective. But the job of deciding which will be most effective with each child is the job of the parent, who knows the child, not the government who does not.

Silencing the Critics

One of the issues currently in vogue is global warming, or as many like to put it, "climate change". It's one of those topics that if talked about for too long can get incredibly boring. People on both sides of the issue cite scientists who support their views and deem the other side "junk science".

My position on the matter is probably a pretty moderate one, and since it is not truly what this post is about I'll go ahead and put it right up front: it seems clear that the Earth is warming in recent years; the issue is determining why. I am highly skeptical that we can know for certain that our activities are warming the Earth. There are great scientists who think so, but there are great scientists who doubt it. Either way, it seems that there is at least a chance that we are the cause, and we should therefore start to take steps to curb what we are putting into the air. Yet, since there is strong disagreement over whether we are causing it, I would reject motions to radically re-arrange our society (e.g. tax SUVs or fine GM or move to all electric cars).

That is neither here nor there. What is important, however, is that we keep and open mind to those who have an opposing view to whichever we hold. As I said, there are great scientists on each side, and therefore their research should be brought to light, allowing citizens and government alike to make informed decisions.

Sadly, some disagree.

They think their position is the One and Only. They are firmly convinced that their theory is correct. Once any of us reaches a conclusion we think is supported by research, sound scholarship, and rational/reasonable/sound logic, we should stand up for our position. However, standing up for your position is quite different from banning others from having a voice in the debate.

That is exactly what some in the media wish to do. Enter Dr. Heidi Cullen.Dr. Cullen is the climate specialist for the Weather Channel (yes, it is questionable if the whether channel counts as "media"). Yesterday she said this on her blog:

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms...If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.

Suppose one of Dr. Cullen's colleagues read a peer-reviewed, solid piece of science that cast doubts upon the idea that human activity is causing the Earth to warm. Suppose, further, that said meteorologist finds the scholarship convincing. What would be Dr. Cullen's reaction? Would she openly debate such a person? Would she present contrary evidence and weigh the merits of both positions? I hope she would. But her statement yesterday, simply paraphrased, says, "if you don't support my position on global warming you should be de-certified by the professional organization that oversees our work". In essence, you do not deserve to be recognized as a 'real' meteorologist.

When we shut the door to debate we are always shutting the door on any chance that we are wrong. When we do this it is arrogance at best, and insecurity at worst--arrogance in that we hold our view so superior as to not even be worthy of scrutiny, and insecurity in that we do not wish to face any possibility that our views do not hold up to the light. The latter is worse because it devalues Truth for our own peace of mind and tacitly accepts living by a lie, for the lie is one we like.

If one is truly convinced that the evidence is so overwhelming that the other side should be marginalized, let the power of the facts do the marginalizing. Let people see both sides and see that one is clearly in the right. May the force of the argument--not the force of political decisions--carry the day.

Yes, They Can

Barack Obama took his first step yesterday to becoming an official presidential candidate. Though it is not official, it appears that it will become so on February 10^th.

His fiercest competition for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, has been noticably silent for about the past month. Whether he, she, or neither is making waves, their mere presence is the elephant in the room whenever the topic of 2008 arises.

Having spent a great deal of time reading about the assets and liabilities of these two candidates I was shocked when yesterday a young black man say to me flatly (and with a tone of disappointment), "a black man and a woman? Looks like we'll have another Republican." Perhaps I am naïve, but America does not appear to me a place that any longer bars a person from any office on account of his/her demographics. Of course, will race and gender be a factor? Absolutely. However, those who view having either a woman or a minority in the White House as a novelty, in my analysis, will outweigh the few who refuse to vote for these two solely on the basis of sex or race.

Based on what I know of these two, it is likely that I will not be voting for either of them. However, here is a message for those who would like to sit back comfortably and say "Hillary can't win" and "America won't elect a black man": Either of these two can win. That is not to say that they will, just that they can.

Yes, Hillary has the image of a real wench. Yes, Barack has very very little experience. Yes, they are both liberals in moderate clothing. But make no mistake about it: they can win. Hillary has a list of assets a mile long. Barack makes people swoon with his heart-warming hope-speak (and has Oprah on his side).

As conservatives it would be comfortable to hide our heads in the sand and pretend like we live in warm cocoon of the Republican Revolution. That time is no more. We live in the Iraq era, in the Bush-hater era, in the Freakshow politcs era, and in the liberal-media's-lovefest-with-Obama/Hillary-era. If a conservative is going to take the White House he/she will have to win many battles, not the least of which is the image war that says, "yes, I too can win this election."

The Big Difference

One of the inherent flaws in government is embodied in the idea that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". That is why I am convinced that our founders were brilliant men: they enshrined checks and balances and separation of powers into our Constitution so that parts of the government would reign down on others when they get out of control. Nevertheless, the fundamental flaw in all government is that it is the ultimate arbiter, since it is the only entity in the world which can legitimately use force. If you don't pay your taxes you go to jail; if your business is corrupt they will shut it down; break the law they will put you in handcuffs.

The problem is this doesn't always apply to government itself.

Today word came out that the Pentagon "accidentally" sold goods (including parts for missiles) to Iran. Some middlemen bought the parts for alleged non-military use only to turn around and send them to Iran. Two things went wrong in the government, so far as I can tell: 1) There was plenty of evidence that the people buying these surplus parts were not on the up-and-up (one of them was even convicted on arms-smuggling charges then released only to be allowed to buy more surplus army items); and 2) The Pentagon is selling parts for F-14s, which it is retiring--the only other country in the world flying F-14s is...yup...Iran.The question is this: let's say, hypothetically, that the company that made the F-14 was selling surplus parts, and let's say they did not do their homework on the prospective buyers. How would the government react? My suspicion is the company would be shut down/raided/have its leaders put on trial, or at the very least would be heavily fined.

We will see what happens in this case. I hope I'm wrong, but what likely will happen is Congress' investigative arm will "thoroughly examine the matter", scold the Pentagon in the court of public opinion, and some rules will be changed. That will be about it. The Pentagon can't even be fined since it's not their money. Even if they could be, what would it matter? It's not their money to give away.

Businesses do not always do what is right, but when they do wrong the government is there to crack down on them. When government does wrong there is no one else there. With all due respect the 535 members of Congress are ill-equipped to serve as a proper check to the government bureaucrats who number in the 10s--if not 100s--of thousands. Providing services (even those like auctions) should be the job of those outside the government, and it should be the government's job to make sure the job is done right. That is the ultimate check-and-balance.

The Good Reverend

Fortunately for me the industry in which I work honors the good reverend, Dr. King, by giving us the day off of work. It is for that reason that I would like to take a few minutes and reflect on how far we have come since MLK's day.

In his last really famous speech before his death, I Have Been to the Mountaintop, Dr. King asked the (paraphrased) question, "if I could ask God to take me anywhere in history, where would I go?". He listed a variety of times and places, but he ended with this:

Strangely enough, I would turn to the Almighty, and say, 'If you allow me to live just a few years in the second half of the twentieth century, I will be happy.' Now that's a strange statement to make, because the world is all messed up. The nation is sick. Trouble is in the land. Confusion all around. That's a strange statement. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars. And I see God working in this period of the twentieth century in a way that men, in some strange way, are responding — something is happening in our world.

Indeed, something happened and is happening in our world.

At a party over the holidays a man whom I respect very much--a man whom I admire and would like to be like--began discussing the issue of race in our society. He said a great number of things, but one thing stuck out. He said, "racism in our society is as bad as it has ever been". One of my college history professors, while we were studying America in the 19th Century and seeing how horrifically blacks were treated during that period pointedly said this: "Anyone who says 'racism now is worse than ever' has absolutely no understanding of history". With that in the back of my mind it disappointed me to hear a man I respect so much say such things.

Our society has come a long way. Are we there yet? No. Is there still racism? Yes. Is there still discrimination? Yes. It is much more subtle, but I think we all know it is there. However, we have come a long way. As we continue to have those high quality discussions about race, let us remember all that people like Dr. King did to heal the racial problems in America.

Let's remember today how dark things were back then. Let us remember how much African Americans have had to struggle to get to where they are today. Let us continue to fight to move America forward in this area. Let us not dishonor the memories of those who struggled by pretending they had little effect. Let's remember that now, as in 1968, "something is happening in our world"--and it is good.

More Like Them

You've heard of Nancy Pelosi, but have you heard of her youngest daughter, Alexandra?

In 2000 a quirky little documentary aired on HBO called Journeys with George. It chronicled the primary and general election runs of then Governor Bush. If you have not seen in, I highly recommend it. It paints the President as a very friendly, caring, funny, and likable person. The most amazing thing about the film is not that it was shot all by home video camera, not the great behind-the-scenes happenings of the mainstream media, not the rare (unpolished) access to the candidate, but rather the name on the cover: Alexandra Pelosi.I have seen uncut footage of Alexandra, and it is quite clear that she shares her mother's political leanings. Whereas I have little respect for Madame Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for Alexandra. While the Speaker was bashing the President, lowering the level of political discourse, Alexandra was, while no less liberal, raising it.

Now Alexandra has a new film coming out. It's called "Friends of God" and takes a trip through the evangelical community. According to the NY Times yesterday she finds a Christian Wrestling Federation, a Biblical Mini-Golf Course, and a drive-through church. Despite these inclusions (which, imho, make Christians look just plain silly), Pelosi tried to make this film present the best possible side of evangelicals.

Something Alexandra said when interviewed about her movie stuck out, so much so that one of my friends called it "one of the best quotes" he has read in a while:

'I believe in the culture war,' she said. 'And you know what? If I have to take a side in the culture war I’ll take their side,' meaning the Christian conservatives. 'Because if you give me the choice of Paris Hilton or Jesus, I’ll take Jesus.'

Wow. Pelosi the Younger is well aware of the reality that many evangelicals will dismiss her movie out of hand because they so vociferously disagree with the Speaker, her mother; yet she is capable of praise of those same people.

Alexandra also wrote a piece about the relationship between the President and her mother. It is well worth reading.

Over the past two days, reading about Alexandra Pelosi, dialoguing with danny (see yesterday's post), talking with others about sending more troops into Iraq, recent conversations on race, etc., I am more optimistic than I have been in a long time about the tone of our conversations and our ability to let reason override emotion, to set aside the Freakshow, and to be civil toward those with whom we disagree.

Maybe we can beat the Freakshow. People like Alexandra and danny give me hope. May there be more like them.

Fair Criticism

Yesterday danny of danny's blog cabin commented with some very fair and rational criticisms of the President's planned troop surge. Rather than trying to reply to his five (very fair) criticisms of the plan in the comments section, I though I'd put it up front for all to see.

Before getting our feet wet, let me say a few things:

• elgreggo had some pretty nice analysis of the political fallout of this decision in yesterday's comment section. I recommend checking it out.
• I wish we could just pull out of Iraq and pretend it doesn't exist. I, like most Americans, am tired of the war, tired of hearing all the bad news, and tired of talking about it.
• I hate having to defend sending more troops there, but, sadly, it seems to be the best of our three ridiculously over-simplified options (a. pull out; b. stay as-is; c. troop surge).
• Are danny and I likely to change each other's minds? It is possible, but unlikely. Rather, I hope we can all see that there are very rational people on both sides who can have a discussion about complex issues without devolving into the typical political Freakshow style.

With that being said, here are danny's five points and my responses:

1. It was tried in August of this year and it didn't work. The neighborhoods taken by US troops were pacified for a time, but as soon as they left, the violence returned.
   
   
   • I concede this point in part. Something similar was tried in August, but that is not to say that THIS plan was tried. 43 heard this criticism and laid out the differences in his speech last night. One he didn't mention was that the August plan was a U.S. only venture. This one has some pretty serious commitments from the Iraqi government behind it (whether they fulfill those commitments is a big question mark). The problem back then, as danny mentioned, was that after a neighborhood was secured the U.S. forces would hang around a few days, then leave. The insurgents who were driven out simply returned a few days later. The goal of this plan is to ensure the "hold" part of the "sweep and hold" strategy. Whether or not this will work is a good question that will now be answered in time.
   
   
   
2. 20,000 is not enough. McCain says this and he also says that it should be for at least 18 months.
   
   
   • You might be right. Maybe we should send more if we really want to make it work. This number--a shade over 20k--is actually the very low end of McCain's estimate (3,500-5,000 per brigade, McCain wanted 5-6 brigades in Baghdad). That is somewhat beside the point--will 20,000 fail to do what 40,000 would do? Maybe. But does anyone really wish Bush would send even more than this?
   
   
   
3. There aren't 20,000 more troops to send in. We're already stretched thin with multiple and extended tours.
   
   
   • Conceded, again in part. We are stretched thin--very thin. Too thin for my comfort. But we are again at a risk-reward point. If, out of the three options (pull out, stay as-is, troop surge), the first two are destined to failure, but the third, no matter how painful, gives us a chance at success, it is my position that it is worth trying. If we pull out the Iraqi government will fall. If we stay as-is we eventually will be forced to pull out anyway (even if not for years, we can't win on the current pace). That leaves the troop surge as our best hope of the three. Does that mean stretching? Yes. Does it mean stretching even thinner than we should be stretching? Yes. Does that mean it's impossible to do? Not impossible, just very taxing.
   
   
   
4. My congressman, Ike Skelton, has been saying that it's way too late for this type of strategy.
   
   
   • I respect Ike Skelton very much. What is implied in his statement is that there was a time when a troop surge, in his opinion, would have been successful (or at least stood a good chance of being so). On this point I agree with him--we should have had more troops going in and not botched the demilitarization of the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard. Where I disagree with him is in his assertion that it is now "too" late. Is it late? Yes. Is the situation so far gone that this plan is destined to fail? I don't think any of us can say that with authority--not even Ike Skelton.
   
   
   
5. Abizaid and Casey, the (former) generals on the ground, oppose this plan. Bush has said all along that he'll listen to his generals when it comes to troop levels. Then when they oppose his new plan he kicks them to the curb. He'll say that they've failed and need to be replaced, which may be true, but if you want an example of choosing politics over statesmanship, look no further. This was a brilliant political maneuver. He passed the buck for all those months and now he's using them as a scapegoat for his failed policy. He'll reshuffle the chairs and start the cycle over again.
   
   
   • Agreed. Your analysis on this point is solid. The only caveat I would make is that it may have appeared a "brilliant maneuver", but the fact is his party got "thumped" in the election and his approval ratings are in the crapper. It may have been a brilliant strategy, but it failed. Your point here is a high quality one.

You may well read this dialogue and decide you agree with danny over me. If that is the case, I respect your opinion. There are no easy answers there, and intelligent people can disagree on the best course of action.

All In.

Where have all the statesmen gone?

Though President Bush is a lame duck at this point, and though is approval ratings are dismal, and though the Bush-haters have gone from the minority to the majority, he is still the President. He is still the Commander-in-Chief. He is still our head of government and head of state. Tonight, for better or worse, he will be the President, not a lame duck.

Every official and news outlet says the same thing: 20,000 more troops to Iraq.

By all accounts the Liberals in Congress are going to try to block funding for this measure. The Constitutionality of that move is highly questionable. For more practical purposes, it is unlikely that the Liberals have the votes in Congress to do such a thing. What has been disappointing to hear is the blatant political maneuvering and emotionalism dripping from the lips of members of both parties who oppose this move.

There are several opponents of this move who are rational, well reasoned, intelligent, and who seem to be genuinely concerned about doing what is best for America. Unfortunately, those people are in the minority.

Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Olympia Snow (yes, a GOPer) have all been guilty of this emotional politicization. Reid, the Senate Majority leader, said he would only consider an increase in troop levels if the President agreed to start withdrawing troops in six months. I can understand that sentiment. However, I can't agree with that reasoning. Though it sounds nice, it assumes failre and is simplistic in nature. In short, it is political pandering, not statesmanship.

Please hear me out before you think I am just bashing anyone who opposes sending more troops.

There are many ways this thing can play out, but let's take the extremes on both ends and weigh them against each other. On one side: we send in 20,000 troops, they become targets and are resented by ordinary Iraqis; violence escalates further; U.S. casualties go up by 20% (there will be about 16% more troops there), and the troop surge is a miserable failure; President Bush will have played his hand and lost; There will be no choice but to set the date for a withdrawal. Cost: over six months about 900 American casualties and probably $50-75 billion dollars (very rough guesses).

On the other side: The troop surge is successful in quelling the violence in Baghdad, Sadr City, and Anbar Province; terrorists are driven from major cities; Sunni and Shia militias are disarmed; neighborhoods become safe again; political stability is achieved, freeing Sunnis and Shiites to compromise without bloodshed; Iraq becomes (long-term) a stabilizing force in the region.

Is one American life lost a tragedy? Yes. Are people justified in wanting to save the lives of our soldiers? Yes. Is this a costly gamble? Yes.

If we bottom line this proposition, what we must ask is this: do the rewards outweigh the risks? There is no higher stakes game going on in the world. This is no time to make emotion-driven decisions. Saying, "sure you can have troops if you pull out in six months" is pure politics. It assumes failure. It does not truly account for the difficulty and gravity of the situation. What if things are on the upswing in five months? What if the move is moderately successful and Iraq is on the slow but very steady and obvious track up? We need tough decision, not nice-sounding platitudes

Bush 43 gambled his entire Presidency, his standing in history, and his reputation on the Iraq War. So far, it was a bet that he has lost. Assuming that tonight President Bush does what is expected of him, it will be the equivalent of pushing in all his chips. It is a move that cannot be repeated and one that will either save Iraq or send the U.S. down a road to a Vietnamesque pull-out.

Is this a good move? I don't know. But I do know that whatever the President does, and whatever the Congress does in response, must be based on sound reasoning, not emotion-driven, Freakshow politics.

We need statesmen, not politicians.

Something for Nothing

[Editor's Note: Thanks to Baxter CG for his guest post yesterday. It was quality, as always. End Editor's Note]


Everyone wants something for nothing.

Yesterday, California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, unveiled his health care plan to cover all those in his state. It would require that all adults have health insurance. The cost for covering the currently uninsured will be spread out among individuals, employers, doctors, hospitals, and the state.

This proposal will be fighting an uphill battle. Doctors and hospitals will oppose it (they are asked to pay 2% and 4% respectively into a state "pot" for health care). Businesses, both large and small will oppose it. Conservatives (though a rare breed on the Left Coast) will oppose the government mandate/entitlement/largess.

All that makes sense, since people don't want to pay for something that someone else gets. Doctors and hospitals, the ones providing the service, are being asked to pay for part of it. Can you imagine the government requiring the supermarket to pay for part of your groceries? Or the Movie theater to pay for part of your ticket? Or the mechanic to pay for part of your transmission? That's essentially what this is. I know that we are dealing with a very emotional subject. Even so, it is, at the end of the day, a business for the doctor and the hospital.

Putting all that aside, I was shocked and dismayed to read this line from one news story about this: "Unions balked at the requirements for individuals, calling them a tax on the middle class." Wow.

This should be the ultimate proof that people will always find something to complain about. Again, it makes sense for businesses, doctors, or hospitals to be upset about this. They are paying for something they don't receive. But for unions to complain that people have to pay at all is preposterous.

Everyone wants something for nothing.

As a society, we can't be takers. We must pay our fair share. It makes no difference whether it is food or clothing or health care--all are necessary for survival. To expect someone else to have to provide us these basic needs at absolutely no cost...well, I have no harsh enough words for this idea.

Please hear me clearly: I am not bashing the Governor's plan, though if given a vote I would not support it. What I am bashing is the idea that someone else must pay for every dime of our basic needs. Is affordable health insurance a goal we should strive for? Absolutely. Is expecting someone else to pay for all our basic needs something we should make our goal? Absolutely not.

I know not whether this plan will pass, but I know this: if it does there will be those who want even more. The takers take, and never stop taking. Let us be earners and pay our part and be thankful for what we have.

Oprah

In case you didn’t hear…cough, cough…Oprah built a school in Africa. Great! I am in full support of that endeavor. During the limited TV coverage…cough, cough…of the opening of her school I wrestled with several thoughts:

1) Oprah’s school is a good example of ‘conservative’ philanthropic work. How so? Well, generally when conservatives see a problem…we go fix it. We act through churches, charitable organizations, or with the sweat of our own brow. When liberals see a problem…they find a politician/law/entitlement to fix the problem…oh yeah, and then find a mean-spirited conservative to blame. In fact, the way I see it, Oprah’s school is a great model of how Hollywood glitterati and Joe American alike should act when they see people in need. Unfortunately, for a far too great a number of American voters not much of any good occurs unless government is involved. More bureaucracy is not the answer. Just the good works of good hearted people helping those in need.

2) Here is Oprah’s explanation as to why she opened her school in South Africa, not the United States:

“I became so frustrated with visiting inner-city schools that I just stopped going. The sense that you need to learn just isn't there," she says. "If you ask the kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school.” (Newsweek, Jan.8th Issue)

(These comments sound a lot like the remarks made by Bill Cosby a few years ago (transcript) that got him in so much hot water.)

Oprah, unfortunately I believe what you say. I believe that you do see many kids in the inner city that meet you with the sentiment that they would rather have an iPod or X Box instead of a quality education. I can see why you would feel bitter. But I think you are missing the point. There are so many others, bright…eager…desperate to learn…that live in the inner city and need privately funded schools, just like the one you opened in South Africa, Oprah, so that they can break free from an educational system that has let them down. They need school vouchers and charter schools that look for an alternative approach. They need privately operated schools, just like the one you opened, to be less demonized by the NEA and many of your liberal friends, which I’m sure, think that YOUR privately operated school is the greatest.

So get back on TV, Oprah…sell more commercial time…open three more $40 million privately operated schools in inner city Chicago and show us how great our kids can be.

Death by Emotion

The new Democratic Congress was sworn in yesterday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi began the push of what she has deemed the "100 Hour Plan". The plan calls for things like an increase in the miniumum wage up to $7.25/hr, direct government negotiation of prescription drug prices, and what they call "ethics reform".

No doubt Speaker Pelosi is well aware that her actions will reflect upon the field of Democratic candidates for president in 2008. She has certainly consulted with the rest of the leaders of her party in formulating her agenda. They have settled on these three issues in large part because they resonate quite easily with the America public.

Because of the structure of the House of Representatives, Pelosi can force through these measures without any committee involvement, any amendments, or any open debate. In effect, she is using this time for political gain rather than for creating good government policy. The things she and her fellow Democrats might or might not be good. That is beyond my point. For now I'm asking this: why not have an open debate on these issues, then allow for committees to talk to experts, make amendments, and come up with the best possible solutions?

Simple: Joe American has an emotional attachment to these issues. Better to ram-rod through a poorly crafted bill or a bill that doesn't really address the problem than to be deliberate, thoughful, careful, and bipartisan.

Again, I am not trying to argue that what the Democrats are inherently bad or wrong. Certainly I have issues with they way they are going about some of these changes, and I flatly disagree with them on others. But that is beside the point, which is this: we need to get beyond emotion and ask the hard questions. Is raising the minimum wage good or bad for the poor? Will the job losses suffered by minorities and those who work for small businesses offset the gains in quality of life for those receiving a raise? Will small businesses be unfairly hurt by such a price floor for labor? These questions and more would be good for our country to have. Maybe in the end the answers to these questions would still lead to a $7.25 minimum wage. I doubt it, but it's possible.

Sadly, those with an agenda have worked hard to get knee-jerk reactions about such issues. They have succeeded at getting Americans to be repulsed by anyone who opposses a raise in the miniumum wage, or anyone who sees long-term dangers in government setting price floors for prescription drugs.

The people who push such an agenda use our emotions against us. They play our feelings up to the point that they suffocate our ability to reason. Intelligent discussion dies a slow death at the hands of emotionalism.

This was made all too clear to me when the wife of one of my best friends called him "cold-hearted" for voting against our state's proposed minimum wage increase. That is the perception. If you don't want to raise the minimum wage it must be because you are mean/hateful/heartless/insensitive/insertnegativeadjectivehere. By-and-large, Americans at present seem to distain the idea of thoroughly examining measure they "know in their heart" are good.

Want to raise the minimum wage? Okay, let's have an open, honest, intelligent discussion about it. Want to have "ethics reform". Good. So do I. Let's have the open, well-reasoned discussion about the best way to do it.

Let knee-jerk reactions die at the hands of intellectually honest discussion. Don't try to ram through what's popular so you can claim an emotional victory.

Which Year 3?

Yesterday we discussed the four-year cycle of presidential politics. This year, 2007, is "year 3", the year when the real candidates emerge and the real fundraising begins. In order to illustrate two different ways this Year 3 could go, we need to take a look back at the last two Year 3s--2003 and 1999.

By examining these years we have four possible examples to look at--a primary run-up for each of the two parties each year. However, since the 2003 Republican primary was a mere formality (with a Republican incumbent running for re-election), it does not serve our purposes.

Similarly, the 1999 Democratic primary is of less use to us, since Al Gore was the presumptive nominee for the vast majority of his second term as Vice President. As early as 1996, after Clinton secured re-election, Gore's advisors drew up a battle plan for a possible presidential run. Without question, Bill Bradley put up a respectable fight. Unfortunately for him, Gore was as close as one can come to being an incumbent without actually being one.

That leaves us two comparisons to look at: The Republican Year 3 of 1999 and the Democratic Year 3 of 2003. Let's take a look.

1999: George W. Bush came storming out of Texas with a collosal network of supporters across the country. He had name recognition, connections to million-dollar donors, and a strong conservative base with the so-called Religious Right in ascendancy. He was one amnog a number of candidates (namely, John McCain), but Bush always had the fundamentals it would take to win the White House. Having become intimitely familiar with the process as he watched his father lose to Bill Clinton in 1992, he was able to avoid the missteps losing candidates always make.

The Mainstream Media had crowned Bush the presumptive nominee in the summer of that Year 3, as evidenced by this June 21, 1999 Time cover:Though everyone saw that he could win the White House, many, even then, though he was intellectually overmatched by the likes of McCain and would fall short. Indeed, a few months into Year 4, McCain nearly ousted the eventual 43^rd President by defeating him in the New Hampshire primary, only to have Bush court value voters and come triumphantly back to win South Carolina--and the nomination--handily.

2003: This Year 3 stands in strong contrast with 1999. All Year 3 long it was Howard Dean, a previously little-known governor from a small New England state, who captured the heart of the anti-war movement. The Liberal media made Dean their king, as he became the story of the year. He, too, made the cover of Time in the summer of his Year 3:There were hopefuls who tagged along the whole way--Edwards, Lieberman, Bradley, Kerry, Gephardt, Sharpton, and the list goes on. None of the others even made a dent in the Dean campaign's front-runner status during Year 3. Dean got all the media attention, all the money, and therefore more media attention, which in turn led to more money. He had the base solidly in his corner.

But the rest of the story has become all too clear. The Left, though in love with Dean, knew he could not win a race wherein he would have to turn at least one Southern state blue. The Dean Year 3 could be called a "bait and switch". Dean dominated the news, dominated fundraising, dominated travel, dominated in the image wars, yet in the end it was all for naught.

That should teach us not to put too much stock in Year 3 impressions.

On to 2003: So which Year 3 will it be? Well, possibly both. Unlike the past two Year 3s, neither side has an incumbent, or even a VP who is kind of like an incumbent. What might well happen is that the Dems could get a 1999 and the GOP a 2003. Maybe, just maybe, Hillary/Obama could ride their name recognition, media attention, and celebrity status all the way to the nomination, echoing back to Bush's 1999.

By the same token, McCain may well suffer Dean's fate. He might ride the horse named Frontrunner all the way through Year 3, only to have the primary voters reject him (though, of course, it would be for vastly different reasons than Democrats said no to Dean). He may be on the cover of Time. He may have the most money. He may be the media darling. But he may be destined for a Dean Year 3.

Odd Years

[Editor's Note: Yesterday's edition of the VoterVault was the unfortunate victim of unforseen technical difficulties. Some employers (namely, mine) have decided to firewall the VoterVault. Much apologies for having to delay the first post of this New Year. End Editor's Note]

The politics of Presidential elections always works in yearly cycles. Each year brings a unique set of events, along with its own intrigue. Since our presidential elections are every four years, naturally it is a four-year cycle. Let's pretend, for the sake of clarity, that last year was a presidential election year, and in the four-year cycle this would be "year 1". The cycle would go as follows:

• Year 1: The "feeling out" of the new President. This would involve the implementation of his/her policies, and the counter-formation of attacks by the opposition party. If the now president is newly elected (not an incumbent, as the winner in 2008 is sure to be), this can be an extrodinarily interesting year. If, however, the Pres. is an incumbent, this is the most boring year in the cyle.
  
  
• Year 2: The Midterm Year. Here the voters can either stick it to the President by voting against his/her party, or affirm the job the Pres. is doing by supporting his/her party. Elections are always fun, so "Year 2" can range from mildly exciting to downright thrilling.
  
  
• Year 3: The Candidates Emerge. It is in year three that the slate of candidates formalizes. Serious candidates spend the majority of the year--particularly every waking moment of the summer--raising money. Serious candidates now need to have about $50 million dollars by the end of the the year to stay competitive. Just for reference, Giuliani hopes to raise $25 million by April 1^st.
  
  
• Year 4: The Big Dance. Obviously, this is the most exciting year in the whole process. It is the big prize in politics. You certainly know this, so I need not spell it out.

2007 is "Year 3". The main candidates have already begun to emerge, though only one is official. For the Dems the two frontrunners are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with John Edwards--the only official candidate--not far behind. They make up what I refer to as the Trifecta.

The GOP has only one front-runner, John McCain, with Giuliani not far behind. There are fringe candidates on the Left, but as of today they have needle-in-a-haystack odds. On the Right, however, there are real candidates who could de-throne McCain and certainly Giuliani.

Why the desparity between the parties? Simple. Hillary and Barack are liberals. McCain and Giuliani are moderates. Moderates lose primaries. That's pretty much a rule. Moderates make great legislators, but they make horrible presidential candidates. That is not to say that they would make horrible presidents. They would probably be very effective. But primary voters don't want great legislators. They don't want concensus-builders. They want the people who will fight for--and deliver--the policies they want.

Tune back in to the VoterVault tommorow as we will look a bit more in-depth at type of "year 3" 2007 could be. See you then.