ill matters

Herman Cain

2011-10-16T03:19:00.000-07:00

I was listening to Herman Cain on NPR yesterday. I think he did pretty well. What really got me though is this notion he brought up about being a Main Street business conservative vs Romney, who he said was a Wall Street business conservative. Cain said that, unlike Romney, he knew when to go to the customers to see what they wanted - if he can get that notion out there, and people believe him, he might just pull out a win in the primary, since it is exactly what the people want to hear. in fact, i couldn't put down in words exactly what it is that Republicans want from a business GOP savvy leader until i heard Cain say that 'customer line': they want to be customers again in that staid sense of 'the customer's always right, if you'd just listen to what he wants'. If they are anything eternally, Americans are customers. I think this race is going to get interesting between Romney and Cain.

The Iran Plot

2011-10-16T03:06:00.000-07:00

The Iran plot is baffling, but here's what no one seems to be saying: since the Revolutionary Guard Corps controls Iran, and they are worried about Ahmadinajad's desire to improve relations with the US, they have the most to gain from souring relations between the US and Iran via an assassination plot on US soil. As Hilary Clinton has said, the plot will only increase Iran's isolation, which is exactly what the Revolutionary Guard Corp wants - they want to head off any reconciliation with the US led by Ahmadinijad and other Iranians who are 'getting cold feet' in the fight against the Great Satan. But they aren't stupid enough to attack the US, even as directly as a plot to assassinate a foreign dignitary on US soil, giving the US a casus belli.If they wanted to isolate Ahmadinejad without actually attacking the US, if they wanted to present a case that Iran was willing to attack the US, they could do no better than to conspire with an entity they know is being watched by the US as intricately as any entity in the world - a Mexican drug cartel, riddled with DEA agents. This plot is so baffling because the Quds force of the Iranian Rev. Guards who planned it intended it to be foiled, intended to use it as an excuse for the US to isolate Iran further and head off any reconciliation, no matter how slight, between the current Iranian administration and the US.

The OPM public option alternative

2009-12-07T06:46:00.001-08:00

From today's Washington Post:

One potential alternative [to a true public option] being discussed Sunday would create a national coverage plan operated by private insurers but run by the Office of Personnel Management, which administers health coverage for federal workers. Senators participating in the talks said the OPM idea had been well received across the ideological spectrum . . . Under the Office of Personnel Management idea, national plans negotiated by the agency would be offered through state-based insurance exchanges that the Senate bill would create for small-business workers and people who do not have access to affordable coverage through an employer.

The cost of donating Mr. Obama's nobel - are the limitations on charitable donations too excessive?

2009-12-04T14:15:00.000-08:00

From a letters to the Editor in today's Washington Post:

The most interesting aspect of President Obama's Nobel Prize money [is that, unlike] many countries, the United States considers the money accompanying Nobel Prizes to be ordinary income, and, hence, subject to taxation. Also, the U.S. tax code limits the amount of charitable donations that are deductible. So, if Mr. Obama gives away all his prize money [as he said he will], it will cost him a lot of extra money. And, finally, Mr. Obama is already on record as wanting to further reduce the charitable deduction. Will his current situation change his view on this?

State of the estate tax debate

2009-12-03T04:59:00.000-08:00

From 'Extend the estate tax,' in today's Washington Post

In one of those fiscal time bombs left from the Bush administration, the estate tax, having gradually dwindled, is set to be eliminated entirely next year - only to spring back to life, full-force, in 2011. Unless something is done, 2010 will be the year to throw Mama from the train, tax-free. This would be terrible policy, not to mention unkind to Mama. The least bad, hold-your-nose alternative would be to set the tax permanently at its 2009 level, exempting the first $3.5 million of any individual estate - $7 million for a married couple - from taxation. At this level, 99.8 percent of estates are not subject to the tax. Claims of 'death tax' foes notwithstanding, a tax at the 2009 level would have scant impact on family farms or family-owned businesses. In 2011, according to estimates from the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, only 100 such entities would have to pay any estate tax, and virtually none would have to be liquidated to pay the tax. Nonetheless, the estate tax would continue to bring in badly needed revenue even at this level: $206 billion over the next 10 years. This is the hold-your-nose solution because it is excessively generous to the wealthiest Americans at a time of fiscal emergency. Making the 2009 level permanent would drain nearly $400 billion from the federal treasury from 2012 to 2021 compared with letting the estate tax revert to the rules in effect in 2001, when the tax was set at 55 percent with a $1 million exemption per person. In a perfect world, which is to say not the 111th Congress, the tax would be set somewhere between the 2001 and 2009 levels.

Gay marriage being pushed too hard?

2009-12-03T04:09:00.000-08:00

From today's New York Times:

The New York State Senate decisively rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have allowed gay couples to wed, providing a major victory for those who oppose same-sex marriage and underscoring the deep and passionate divisions surrounding the issue . . . The defeat, which followed a stirring, tearful and at times very personal debate, all but ensures that the issue is dead in New York until at least 2011, when a new legislature will be installed. Since 2003, seven states, including three that border New York, have legalized same-sex marriage. But in two of the seven - California last year and Maine last month - statewide referendums have restricted marriage to straight couples, prohibiting gay nuptials. Pollsters say that while support is generally building for same-sex marriage, especially as the electorate ages, voters resist when they fear the issue is being pushed too fast.

TDB | The transition to competence

2008-11-20T06:50:00.000-08:00

The word is that Obama will pick Arizona governor Janet Napolitano to head the department of homeland security. And in one simple but smart move, the Bush-created department that has for seven years existed without a raison d'etre is given new life and new purpose. It will - get this! - protect the homeland! The queen of a border land will now be queen of borders.

MAKES SENSE, NO?

It's a small move, but symbolic of how far from competence the Bush administration has been for these many years. Even though so much good can be done with a pragmatic (as opposed to ideological) spirit, some clear headed people, and a bit of dedicated thinking about basics, the present administration 'process' never considered these virtues.

Anyway, it's nice to see the return of plain American solutions driven competence...

...and (somewhat similarly) the rise of an American leader who can't imagine life without his blackberry.

MY GOD - HE'S ONE OF US!

TDB | In Case You Need Another Reason

2008-11-17T11:37:00.000-08:00

Another reason, that is, to feel confident about the upcoming Obama administration.

Whatever you may think of Exxon, you can't fault it on management grounds. It is widely considered the best company in the world, speaking strictly in financial and management terms. More people in the know have confidence in the 'Exxon way' than in any other set of practices. And it just so happens that the 'Exxon way' is almost identical to the 'Obama way':

What might be called the Exxon Way can be summed up in three ideals: discipline, patience and long-term vision.

Team Obama adhered closely to these ideals during the campaign, to great effect. If an Obama administration can do the same (and there's ample evidence to suppose confidently that it can) the US could see competence coming from Washington for the first time in nearly a decade.

ike/Speaking Generally

2008-10-17T08:30:00.000-07:00

Colin Powell is appearing on Meet the Press Sunday and the expectation is that he'll endorse Barack Obama. Powell's admiration for Obama has been evident since early 2007 and he has openly discussed the "electrifying" nature of an Obama presidency.

By and large, political endorsements are overrated. But Colin Powell, long-viewed as a dissenting but participatory voice in the Bush administration, adds credibility to Obama's foreign policy bonafides.

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-10-17T06:06:00.001-07:00

"Fox News accused me of fathering two African-American children in wedlock."

--Barack Obama

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-10-14T11:32:00.001-07:00

"Gov. Palin and her husband were obsessed with Wooten the way Capt. Ahab was obsessed with the Great White Whale. No Wooten, no peace. Has Gov. Palin committed an impeachable offense? Hardly. Is what she did indictable? No. But it wasn't appropriate, especially for someone elected as an ethical reformer. And her Orwellian claims of "vindication" make this blemish on her record look even worse. You asked us to hold you accountable, Gov. Palin. Did you mean it?"

--The Anchorage Daily News

ike/Jumping Ship

2008-10-14T10:39:00.000-07:00

Bye Bye.

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-10-13T11:12:00.001-07:00

"Last week's so-called town hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience."

--Christopher Hitchens

The intellectual, conservative class continues its sprint away from John McCain.

ike/That Sound You Hear...

2008-10-10T13:58:00.000-07:00

Is the Straight Talk Express jamming on the brakes and turning around.

ike/quote of the day

2008-10-10T07:33:00.000-07:00

"And so, politically, the G.O.P. is squeezed at both ends. The party is losing the working class by sins of omission — because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission — by telling members of that class to go away. "

--David Brooks

While these are historic times economically, they are also historic times politically. We are watching the death of this version of the Republican Party, a party that has lost the coalition that elected and re-elected W. The GOP has become a caricature of itself, represented now only by its fringiest and most socially conservative elements. At least Sean Hannity is happy.

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-10-08T15:01:00.000-07:00

"Last night, he (McCain) took that position on the housing issue of buying up everybody's mortgage. Conservatives are scratching their heads today and saying, ‘What happened?’ What on earth is that about? Then you got to ask, which houses? The condos in southern Florida, where people bought $500,000 homes as a second home and now can't pay for them? Are we buying those, too?”

--Mike Huckabee

I for one am perplexed and unsure of what McCain's base is at this point. I would say the social conservatives in the middle but they are Palin's base.

TDB | Quote of the Day

2008-10-03T07:55:00.001-07:00

Alan Woolf, quoted on The New Republic's blog, The Plank:

Americans are denouncing Wall Street. But their hostility is too diffuse and incoherent to help them channel it constructively. The past eight years have seen the enactment of public policies that time after time rewarded lobbyists, increased the wealth and power of the already best off, and redistributed income away from ordinary Americans. Yet by and large Americans accepted all this without protest. Now, all of a sudden, they are speaking like Populists of old, attacking greed and calling for regulation. Their protest, alas, is more symbolic than concrete. As such, we are unlikely to witness blame assigned where it belongs; nor are we apt to see the passage of serious reforms dealing with long-term structural changes in the economy or any diminution of lobbyist influence. A scary economic moment will transform itself back to politics as usual in the blink of an eye.

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-10-02T12:04:00.001-07:00

A"t a moment of economic calamity, international perplexity, political failure, and battered morale, America needs both uplift and realism, both change and steadiness. It needs a leader temperamentally, intellectually, and emotionally attuned to the complexities of our troubled globe. That leader’s name is Barack Obama."

--The New Yorker

ike/McCain's No Good, Horrible, Very Bad Week

2008-10-01T09:41:00.000-07:00

If I were teaching a class on political races, I would focus some serious class time on messaging. Messaging represents the overarching idea of a campaign and a candidate, the core rational to inspire a voter.

Often, candidates are described as being "on message" or "off message." Here's an example of Barack Obama being on message. Here's an example of Barack Obama being off message.

In the first clip, Obama is in his comfort zone, clearly "on message," underscoring his core message of change, highlighting his opponent's long-standing ties to a broken system and desperate attempts to use the same old divisive politics to attack him. Being "on message" also means being consistent, repeating refrains that reinforce what a candidate stands for.

In the second clip, Obama is "off message." He is discussing his church membership and the remarks of his controversial pastor. He is forced to talk about all of the issues he doesn't want to address: black militantism; fringe elements in his campaign; whether he shares these ideas with his former pastor.

I write these past paragraphs to give some context for what I'm about to say; I haven't seen a candidate have a worse week of messaging than the one John McCain has just endured. Let's review:

On September 15th, John McCain famously declared that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong," which allowed Barack Obama to get back to talking point number one, as seen here.

Well, how sound was the economy? It was so sound, that it caused John McCain to suspend his campaign until the crisis was solved.

So to DC traveled the knight in shining armor, a true leader and the apparent missing link to a bipartisan deal to save Wall Street and the credit markets. Except according to several reports, McCain's presence in Washington only made things worse.

Of course McCain then had to attend the first presidential debate last Friday even though Congress had not reached a deal on a financial rescue package for Wall Street — something that McCain previously said was a condition for his attendance.

Could it get worse? Sadly for McCain, the answer is yes. Minutes after the bailout bill was rejected in the House, with Republicans voting against it at a 2-1 clip, we found out that McCain press guru Steve Schmidt had actually touted McCain's contributions to the "agreement."

"What Senator McCain was able to do was to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this," Schmidt said.

No wonder new polls are showing the McCain candidacy floundering. For John McCain, it truly was a no good, horrible, very bad week.

TDB | Obama (stupidly) starts the name game

2008-09-23T12:59:00.000-07:00

I don't quite understand why the Obama campaign decided to link McCain to Rush Limbaugh. First of all, it was pretty clear to anyone paying attention as McCain closed in on the Republican nomination that Limbaugh was not happy. In fact, he was livid.

Moreover, Limbaugh is very, very well liked by the Republican base, which McCain has been courting since before he beat Romney. McCain has a fairly legitimate concern that, when the chips are down, 'conservatives' won't embrace him. They are more likely to now that Obama has essentially given McCain the 'genuine' Limbaugh endorsement that he's hitherto failed to get from the man himself (a normally enthusiastic Limbaugh has fallen well short of enthusiasm about nominee McCain).

But most importantly, by attacking McCain via Limbaugh, Obama opened up the guilt-by-association game, the one game that Obama does not want to play. He had all but avoided the issue of his very real ties to Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, and of his less credible but still very real tie to Tony Rezko. Sure, these names have been mentioned by McCain surrogates; but a real attack along such lines has been (noticeably) lacking. Sadly, it will be an all-too-noticeable part of the campaign from now on.

TDB | An Obama Foreign Policy Coup

2008-09-22T10:52:00.001-07:00

Senator Obama has an opportunity for a foreign policy coup of sorts.

When Russia went to war with Georgia nearly six weeks ago, neither candidate was particularly impressive in their response. McCain continued to toe his long standing hard line with Russia, while Obama said very little and continued his vacation in Hawaii - about as far away from the action as could be.

The man who became Obama's running mate, on the other hand, was intimately involved - as he has long been - in the Caucuses situation. He's surely knowledgeable enough about the events - and the American response - to inform Obama that the Bush administration has made a serious and dangerous mistake.

Bush decided to punish Russia by essentially 'freezing' all American/Russian relations.

We rely on Russia to help keep the world safe. We especially need their help in preventing the development and spread of WMDs. But, as the LA Times reported yesterday, the congressionally appointed Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism has been asked to not go on its upcoming Moscow fact-finding mission. This is part of the Bush administration's 'Russia freeze'. But the freeze couldn't come at a worse time.

Yes, something needs to be done in response to Russia's aggression in Georgia - and, more recently, their support for Venezuela. But it needs to be done intelligently. Recent intelligence has shown that the Caucasus are increasingly becoming a 'crossroads for Islamic extremists, criminal mafias, black market traffickers and corrupt government officials'. These are basically the four sorts of people who threaten the world - and especially America - by their interest - financial or ideological - in WMDs.

It seems to me that Obama could profit by making this an issue in the upcoming debate over foreign policy. He could use it to highlight the difference between smart foreign policy and 'strong' foreign policy. He could give Americans a real reason to support the former - and thus Obama. McCain is very likely, in response, to continue his long-held anti-Russia position and to criticize Obama as being soft on Russia, to which Obama could respond that he's being hard on WMDs and smart about Russia.

ike/Quote of the Day 2

2008-09-18T06:13:00.003-07:00

"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials. You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything. I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia.' That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."

--Chuck Hagel

ike/Inside Beisbol

2008-09-18T06:13:00.002-07:00

Wick Allison, who joined the board of National Review at the request of one William F. Buckley, and served as its publisher, endorsed Obama today.

If you read the endorsement, which I highly recommend, you'll learn that Allison gave the maximum allowable donation to John McCain during the primary.

He is a tried and true conservative.

He, like a great number of the intellectual class of his party, including the co-founder of this blog, will vote for Barack Obama in November.

John McCain, with his mendacious and cynical campaign, has become a fringe candidate.

If Obama can just garner the Colin Powell endorsement, we could all go home.

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-09-18T06:13:00.001-07:00

"And since McCain’s willingness to make speeches that have nothing to do with his actual beliefs is not matched by an ability to give them, he wound up sounding like Bob Dole impersonating Huey Long."

--Gail Collins

ike/A Swiftly Tilting Planet

2008-09-16T12:38:00.000-07:00

The incumbent president's scarcity on the campaign trail should not come as much of a surprise. Even his annotated convention speech in St. Paul lacked a certain bluster to which we have become accustomed. Approval ratings in the low 30's certainly will take the spurs off a cowboy.

But something else is happening too. The Bush administration, over the past few months, has begun to fall in line with the recommendations and initiatives articulated by the Obama campaign.

I posted about the amazing convergence on Iraq withdrawal among the Iraqi administration, the Obama campaign and the Bush White House months ago.

Yesterday, in an under the radar story, we witnessed another shift towards national public acceptance of Obama's foreign policy.

Five former secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger and James Baker among them, agreed that the United States should have dialogue with Iran.

So while foreign relations neophyte Sarah Palin was busy saber-rattling on the potential need for war with Russia, some of the most experienced policy minds in the country were agreeing with Obama's core, foreign policy belief: that talking solves problems.

I have never seen, on any level, a campaign as separated from reality as the McCain bunch.

TDB | The gist of the grist...

2008-09-16T11:40:00.000-07:00

"It's a little scary that the world's largest insurance company hasn't planned for a rainy day." - Tyler Cowen

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-09-16T06:57:00.001-07:00

"She doesn't need to know the Bush Doctrine; she is the Bush Doctrine."

--Jon Stewart

TDB | The other feminism

2008-09-15T09:38:00.000-07:00

I have nothing particularly positive to say about Sarah Palin. In fact, the idea of her as president scares the stuffing out of me. But statements like the following inspire me to say something about what she represents:

Mrs. Palin is everything that liberal feminists loathe: a gun-toting evangelical, a polar bear-hating former beauty queen, a mother of five who opposes abortion right and celebrates the fact that her pregnant teenage daughter has ‘chosen life’ [who] during her campaign for Alaska’s lieutenant-governorship in 2002 [] called herself as ‘pro-life as any candidate can be’.

Whether or not her opinions and beliefs are right or wrong, they clearly belong to a woman who has never felt that her gender put anything out of reach. There are scores upon scores of ‘feminists’ who do nothing but nit-pick and complain and thereby give feminism (a very worthy cause) a bad name (n.b., anyone ready to accuse me of stereotyping women here can go to hell – men nit pick and complain just as much if not more than women).

I am my mother’s son through and through (for good and bad), and thus a feminist to my very core. And my mother was a feminist in the vain of Sarah Palin – an athlete, a beauty queen, a workingwoman and a mother. Growing up, I heard her cheer deserving women and castigate ‘deserving’ men with a fierceness born of KNOWING that her opinion counted - and that if someone was discounting it, they wouldn't go on doing so. To her credit, mired oftentimes in a swamp of misogyny, she never shy away from calling out every misogynist she met.

Yes, there are many, many ‘feminist’ accomplishments that go far beyond such characteristics. But the strongest thing I’ve ever seen a woman do (or anyone for that matter) was to stand up to the most hard-hearted unfairness – that of biology – and resolve, unflinchingly and without complaint, to wage a battle she knew would never end, against a disease that attacked her in large part because she is a woman; and then to repeat this performance against a cancer that grew in large part from the weakness the disease had caused. It doesn’t get much more unfair than being diagnosed with lupus in your twenties and advanced lymphoma in your forties. But she never stood down – and she beat the hell out of what oppressed her.

No matter how much I dislike Sarah Palin’s politics and worry that she is unqualified to lead the country, I see in her the same kind of feminism that I see in my mother – who, btw, is still very much alive and kicking – a kind of feminism that is just as deserving of praise as the other, better known kind.

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-09-11T13:37:00.000-07:00

"McCain, by the way, is the Republican nominee for president. You may remember him from the Sarah Palin convention in St. Paul, where he gave a speech and was congratulated by Sarah Palin."

--Gail Collins

ike/Palin Comparison

2008-09-08T09:10:00.000-07:00

Regarding the pick, here are my two cents. My first reaction was to think the pick was incredibly cynical, aimed at women using the lowest common denominator. Through that lens, early indications are that the pick is a failure. Check out these focus groups post speech:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/michigan-indepe.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/female-clinton-supporters_n_123794.html

But I think there was more to it. We know now that McCain was dying to pick Lieberman. Apparently, all that convinced him to go in a different direction was the fact that he would face an all out civil war at the convention if he picked someone pro choice. Rove attributes the entirety of Bush’s margin of victory in 2004 to the three million evangelicals they turned out who hadn’t ever voted before. McCain probably came to the conclusion, after watching the Democrats avoid a train wreck in Denver, that his last best chance was to rev up the base and try to pull in the remaining, disaffected Clinton supporters. So yes, I believe the pick was purely political. There’s no way to justify it otherwise.

It seems ironic and somewhat twisted that, running for president during an unfavorable time for the GOP brand, the maverick rebel would have to embrace the fringiest part of said brand. However, they yell the loudest. And while I believe the 2008 presidential election was decided three years ago when Americans witnessed the fundamental incompetence of their federal government while an entire city drowned, picking Palin may prevent McCain from the embarrassment of a landslide in November.

That being said, I think the pick will have some disastrous repercussions. The pick not only undermined his core, articulated rationale for voting for him (judgment, country first, mature and measured leadership), it also undermined his core, articulated rationale for not voting for his opponent (where’s the beef, charisma isn’t everything, youth, inexperience).

While I’m an unabashed liberal Democrat, I tend to be dispassionate and analytical about political races. I don’t mean this in any sort of shrill, partisan way, but watching the Republican Convention was a little sad. I’ve rarely seen so many uninspired, old, fat white people in one place. Their chants sound like dirges. And I can’t help but feel like we are watching the last gasps of this version of the Republican Party. After the massive losses it’ll endure in November, the GOP will no doubt regroup around core principles: fiscal responsibility; low taxes; strong defense. And I don’t doubt, that with Democrats controlling all facets of government, some scandal over the course of the next decade will allow the GOP to re-introduce itself to American voters. But right now, John McCain is cowtowing to a base that believes that abortion shouldn’t be legal in cases of rape or incest, the world was created in seven days and the war in Iraq was ordained by a higher power. Good luck winning those arguments with a pissed off general electorate after eight years of the most incompetent administration in the history or our country.

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-08-27T06:44:00.000-07:00

"To be fair, Bill Kristol does not actually have a heart of stone. He has a heart made of Dick Cheney's discarded heart parts."

--Stephen Colbert

ike/"And You KNOW What I'm Talking about"

2008-08-26T15:24:00.000-07:00

I'm excited about this new blog feature, entitled, "And You KNOW What I'm Talking about."

The quotation comes from a 2006 speech by Hillary Clinton (fast forward to 1:30 to see the clip), in which she told a room of African Americans that Congress was run like a plantation. "And you know what I'm talking about," she exclaimed after making the comparison. Suffice it to say, they didn't. And neither did anyone else. So this space will be reserved for those comments uttered without irony that make us wonder exactly what it was the person was talking about. Simple enough, right?

I couldn't think of a better way to begin than with this John McCain gem.

"We're all Georgians?"

WTF?

How many more regional, ethnic conflicts do we have to enter before we learn that not every dispute in Asia is over communism and not every dispute in the Middle East is about al Qaeda?

I hate sounding like a Democratic talking point, but nowhere, NOWHERE are the similarities between John McCain and George Bush more profound than on the "lessons" they learned from the Vietnam War.

Bush's words are eerily reminiscent of John McCain's worldview on Iraq and foreign policy in general:

"There is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields."

It was Ted Kennedy who responded to Bush's inane assertion that the legacy of Vietnam was anything other than the perils of involving ourselves in wars that should never be waged in places we never should have been.

"America lost the war in Vietnam because our troops were trapped in a distant country we did not understand supporting a government that lacked sufficient legitimacy with its people," Kennedy said.

Let's hope Barack Obama is blessed with the same backbone.

ike/ Michelle, My Bell

2008-08-26T11:34:00.000-07:00

I think the Republicans realize their best shot at winning the presidency this year is to turn Obama into a caricature: a muslim; a communist; a terrorist; an elitist; a portend of the apocalypse.

It appeared to me that the Dems played defense against that line of attack on Day 1 of the convention in Denver.

Michelle Obama gave, what on tv was, a very sophisticated speech. Her cadence and rhythm were better than many career politicians. Her content was traditional: closed steel plants; parental love; hard work.

Seems to me, there will be plenty of time to draw contrasts between Obama and Bush/McCain. I would imagine Hillary will draw some feisty ones tonight.

Most importantly, I don't think Michelle will be an effective GOP talking point after that speech. Nobody who saw that speech could possibly doubt her passion, her depth, her commitment to family, her rags to riches story or her love of country.

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-08-24T07:44:00.000-07:00

"What we have learned this summer is this: McCain’s trigger-happy temperament and reactionary policies offer worse than no change. He is an unstable bridge back not just to Bush policies but to an increasingly distant 20th-century America that is still fighting Red China in Vietnam and the Soviet Union in the cold war. As the country tries to navigate the fast-moving changes of the 21st century, McCain would put America on hold...Is a man who is just discovering the Internet qualified to lead a restoration of America’s economic and educational infrastructures? Is the leader of a virtually all-white political party America’s best salesman and moral avatar in the age of globalization? Does a bellicose Vietnam veteran who rushed to hitch his star to the self-immolating overreaches of Ahmad Chalabi, Pervez Musharraf and Mikheil Saakashvili have the judgment to keep America safe?"

--Frank Rich

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-08-21T07:58:00.000-07:00

"We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold, are well worth having in such an agreement."

--Condoleezza Rice in Baghdad after a meeting with Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari about a schedule for troop withdrawals

TDB | Quote of the Day

2008-08-21T07:21:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama takes up my basic argument:

[T]he political culture of my formative years was much more conservative. It partly explains why, if you look at not just my politics, but also I think who I am as a person—in some ways, I'm pretty culturally conservative. I was always suspicious of dogma, and the excesses of the left and the right. One of my greatest criticisms of the Republican Party over the last 20 years is that it's not particularly conservative. I can read conservatives from an earlier era—a George Will or a Peggy Noonan—and recognize wisdom, because it has much more to do with respect for tradition and the past and I think skepticism about being able to just take apart a society and put it back together. Because I do think that communities and nations and families aren't subject to that kind of mechanical approach to change. But when I look at Tom DeLay or some of the commentators on Fox these days, there's nothing particularly conservative about them.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

ike/HILLARY-ous

2008-08-20T14:09:00.000-07:00

I have filled these pages with the rationale behind picking Tim Kaine for Vice President. He complements Obama's core change message, is an outsider and probably puts Obama over the top in a southern state he might not be able to win otherwise. Kaine is also deeply religious and speaks fluent spanish--both of which appeal to important, targeted constituencies with which Obama believes he can do better than Gore or Kerry.

But the landscape has changed a bit in previous weeks and it appears that Obama is leaning more towards selecting someone tough with bonafied foreign policy credentials, appeal to blue collar white voters and experience.

Joe Biden has emerged as the frontrunner.

Here's my question: if Obama is choosing a running mate through this lense, why not select Hillary Clinton, the preferred candidate of the middle class, rust belt, midwest and New Hampshire?

ike/Saddle Up

2008-08-19T12:22:00.000-07:00

David Gergen epitomizes the mainstream reaction to Saturday night's "debate" between Barack Obama and John McCain at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California.

Even the usually dependable Frank Rich appears nervous that McCain owns the general election momentum.

As with all debates, the coverage, the aftermath is more important than the event itself. In the past 72 hours, coverage has told us that McCain was direct with answers while Obama was more measured, more careful. The event has been framed as a turning point for McCain, a crucial moment when the man convinced the evangelical base that he was "one of them" on the issues that matter most.

The truth is that John McCain faces myriad problems in the changing religious community.

It is Barack Obama who is the religious candidate in this race, the only one comfortable talking about personal faith.

As my friend noted, the evangelical movement has been married to conservative politics for almost three decades. And while Obama doesn't threaten the foundation of this union, he does possess the ability to peel off some religious voters in important swing states like Iowa, Colorado and Virginia.

Can you imagine John Kerry or Al Gore appearing at an event at a place like Saddleback? It never would happen. Of course McCain drew a positive response for his ardent pro-life stance--look at a poll of his audience.

But as usual the media missed the important story: Obama's ability to communicate with religious voters will likely provide his comfortable margin of victory in November.

TDB | Democrats and Evangelical Christians

2008-08-19T08:02:00.000-07:00

According to E.J. Dionne:

The notion that Christianity in general and evangelicalism in particular are by nature right-wing creeds has always been wrong. How can a faith built around a commitment to the poor and the vulnerable be seen as leading ineluctably to conservative political conclusions?

But history shows us ample evidence that Christianity - indeed any faith - can orient itself behind conservative political conclusions. Religions - though, not 'faith', in my opinion - are about power relations as much as they are about ideals. Often times they are about power in support of ideals. And that power can become reactionary - often mistaken for conservative - when those ideals lose a once widespread acceptance.

This is what has happened with evangelical Christianity. Though the numbers of such Christians grows, it becomes increasingly obvious that we no longer live in a 'Christian' society. In its refusal to accept this trend - or constructively accommodate it - evangelical Christianity has allied itself with anti-progressive aspects of American society. Its chief impact on American politics has been anti-progressive. And it is this type of evangelicalism that I oppose - though I certainly have never been anti-Christian.

If indeed the defining characteristics of the McCain/Obama event at Saddleback mark a revolution in evangelical Christianity, in which Christians realize they have more in common with progressive ideals of commitment to the poor and vulnerable than they do with either anti-modern bigots or corporate powers, then a continuing Christian influence is to be welcomed. But I can't help worrying that evangelical Christians will continue to support the same politicians - with their deplorable antics and failed policies. It will be hard to give up such support when the leader of the progressives can't give them his straight and honest answer - no matter how unpopular it would have been in such company.

Barack Obama is never going to have the agreement of evangelicals when it comes to abortion. Likewise, he'll fall short of winning due consideration - and perhaps their votes - if he continues with a strategy of ducking the abortion issue by claiming - however cleverly - that the issue was above his pay grade.

I can't help but think the Democrats have a long way to go before they win over evangelical Christians en masse.

ike/ Response to Hamdan

2008-08-13T07:14:00.000-07:00

I quote from Jane Mayer's excellent book, "The Dark Side." This from chapter 8:

"The CIA, concerned by the paucity of valuable information emanating from the island,(Guantanamo) in the late summer of 2002 dispatched a senior intelligence analyst, who was fluent in Arabic and expert on Islamic extremism, to find out what the problem was...The report he wrote up...is classified top secret. But after he left the Agency, he described what he found. After spending several hours with each of about two dozen Arabic-speaking detainees, chosen in a random sampling, he concluded that an estimated one-third of the prison camp's population of more than 600 captives at the time, meaning more than 200 individuals, had no connection to terrorism whatsoever. If the intelligence haul was meager, his findings suggested, one reason was that many of the detainees knew little to nothing...Many, he felt sure, 'were just caught in a dragnet. They were not fighters, they were not doing jihad. They should not have been there...'

A later study undertaken by a team of law students and attorneys at Seton Hall University Law School bolstered the CIA officer's anecdotal impressions. After reviewing 517 of the Guantanamo detainees' cases in depth, they concluded that only 8 percent were alleged to have associated with Al Qaeda. Fifty-five percent were not alleged to have engaged in any hostile act against the United States at all, and the remainder were charged with dubious wrongdoing, including having tried to flee U.S. bombs. The overwhelming majority--all but five percent--had been captured by non U.S. players, many of whom were bounty hunters." Endquote.

The Hamdan case is not a triumph of justice. It is not proof that military tribunals can administer fair trials. Its outcome does not excuse or condone any of the absurd activities of the Bush administration's last seven years. In fact, a Pentagon spokesman has gone on record stating that when Hamdan's sentence is complete, his status may return to that of an "enemy combatant" where he can be held indefinitely by the United States government.

The logic used to hold Salim Hamdan, to punish Salim Hamdan, is the same logic used by Osama bin Laden to justify killing innocent Americans. According to bin Laden, the American government did evil things so anyone supporting it (taxpayers) was evil too. The only crime that the thousands of innocent victims of 9/11 committed was living, breathing and working in a system deemed evil by a leader wholly dedicated to bringing down that system.

Hamdan's crime was perhaps being born in Afghanistan, or perhaps it was living at a time where he needed to work in the employ of a murderous man to support his family. He testified that he was "shocked" when he found out about the 9/11 attacks. "It was a sorry or sad thing to see innocent people killed," he said at his trial. "I don't know what could be given or presented to these innocent people who were killed in the U.S. I personally present my apologies to them, if anything what I did have caused them pain."

It was Nietzsche who said, "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

It has never been more true.

TDB | Quote of the Day

2008-08-12T16:04:00.000-07:00

Slavoj Zizek, from his interview in The Guardian:

What makes you depressed?

Seeing stupid people happy.

What do you most dislike about your appearance?

That it makes me appear the way I really am...

What does love feel like?

Like a great misfortune, a monstrous parasite, a permanent state of emergency that ruins all small pleasures.

What or who is the love of your life?

Philosophy. I secretly think reality exists so we can speculate about it...

Have you ever said 'I love you' and not meant it?

All the time. When I really love someone, I can only show it by making aggressive and bad-taste remarks.

TDB | Pregunta for the Junta

2008-08-12T07:22:00.000-07:00

How did you, in less than a single decade, lose for America its status as a world power?

Utter American impotence, which we've long suspected, has emerged as a fact of international relations. The French, once more, have proven themselves more vigorous and responsible - if not quite successful - in dealing with world crises. And apparently not because they have brilliant and original solutions to offer; but rather simply because we have been forced into abandonment.

There was a time when it meant something to be an American ally. Why has that meaning disappeared - why, rather, is it hiding, cowering? Why is AMERICA forced to hide and cower at all? Why have we learned to be complacent - more than complacent, almost satisfied - with shameful inaction?

A U.S. government analyst and Russia expert, quoted in the Los Angeles Times:

The regular [foreign affairs] tool kit does not really work here... The Russians have plenty of money now, and we need their oil more than they need our credits.

We are we approaching a terrible abyss in international relations - the abyss of the unneeded. And what's more we have become defined by our own neediness.

America's greatness has always come from its willingness - and moreover its capacity - to thoroughly offend extant sensibilities in repeated efforts to improve the world. How is it that we've allowed ourselves to become so fearful of causing offense that we are no longer recognizably American?

We've become a pathetic and impotent force internationally. We don't even deserve the status of World Power anymore. We used to have - or find - solutions; now we don't even have options. Why can't you employ that wealth of evil genius otherwise so prominent in your administration to think of a course of action that, if nothing else, lands us blessedly short of total embarrassment - and well clear of any exacerbation?

TDB | The NYTimes Should Be Ashamed

2008-08-09T08:05:00.000-07:00

This morning The New York Times featured an article reporting its own 'reticence' regarding the John Edwards story:

A number of news organizations with resources far greater than The Enquirer’s, like The New York Times, say they looked into the Edwards matter and found nothing solid enough to report, while others did not look at all.

What utter crap!

Some of their comments point to a lack of interest in a story about the private conduct of an also-ran presidential candidate, and a distaste for following the lead of a publication they hold in low esteem.

Ah, a bit more plausible!

The New York Times essentially admits (with an alacrity that one could mistake for an overreaction to former reticence) that it wasn't interested in doing their job, or at least what the degenerate state of American media now considers its job: investigating, assembling and reporting a very real story of infidelity (and dishonesty) by a perennial Presidential contender.

Yet the same paper (for which I have great respect most of the time) went out of its way some months ago to 'investigate,' 'assemble,' and 'insinuate' (as they had enough class - or more likely sense - not to go so far as to 'report' it, then or since) an apparently unreal story of infidelity by a perennial Presidential contender.

Such glaring (egregious) inconsistencies are why The New York Times is suspect by so many Americans. It's no excuse that Fox News or the Washington Times editorial writers are blatantly biased in the other direction. The New York Times is (or was) the paper of record in this country; it is (or was) in a class way, way above these others, essentially 'right wing' mouthpieces.

In addition to the Times, I read the Financial Times and the Washington Post everyday, as well as other papers. In the three years I've been reading it rather religiously, I've come across nothing in the Post even approximating the degree of bias shown by the Times (mis)treatment of Edwards and McCain. The FT, with the exception of a few typos, has rarely fallen short of perfection. These successes show that bias is not inherent in journalism - even if it is inherent in journalists.

The Times needs to take this opportunity to purge itself.

TDB | The Stupid Party

2008-08-09T02:50:00.000-07:00

Paul Krugman wrote this in his Friday column:

Republicans, once hailed as the “party of ideas,” have become the party of stupid... What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”

Republicans have no doubt become the stupid party - though Democrats are mostly just as stupid. The GOP has abandoned the 'intellectual' tradition of slow-moving prudence, of realistic, historically grounded analysis of problems and informed application of 'solutions'. Republicans have shown these qualities occasionally in their history. Considering only the last half century, we saw hints of them in the 94 revolution and in the first George Bush - their full and sustained expression, though, hasn't been seen since the eight years of Eisenhower, who expressed them so well, so quietly and subtly (as they should be), and with such a lack of presumption, that people thought him dangerously passive. History has vindicated Ike, though. His years were comparatively peaceful and prosperous; they saw not insignificant progress and left us plenty of lasting accomplishments - American monuments.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the 'intellectual' qualities are essential to Conservatism, which is opposed to the macho attitude of surety and the simple mantras by which it is expressed. But that's apparently all that defines today's Republicans. The realist's appreciation for complexity has been overtaken by a visceral rejection of anything not ridiculously simple; finesse and slow, prudent application have been overtaken by unwavering reliance on force; patience and a desire for exposition have been overtaken by impatient and obsessive 'message' proffering; a willingness to debate and compromise has been overtaken by a childish need to 'talk back' to one's opponent and reject anything they say, responding with SOME countermeasures - almost ANY countermeasures - no matter how ignorant they might be.

The Republicans who are currently making a racket in the (otherwise recessed) Congress might wind up ‘scoring points’ over energy; and the Republicans who are currently directing John McCain’s campaign may wind up steering their man to victory. But such wins are losses for America. They deserve a realistic, well-planned and exhaustively considered energy solution, a thoughtful compromise between right and left that makes use of ALL America’s resources – its untapped oil, its inexhaustible coal supplies, its unlimited access to nature’s energy, whether from sunlight, from wind or the from the atom.

And Americans deserve a president who will move us away from the (unfortunately) ruling characteristics of Republican rule. I’m no Democrat; I’m a Conservative to the core. But Conservative ideals have a better chance of returning to politics, and America has a better chance of succeeding, if the Democrats are in power for a while – or, more importantly, if the Republicans are forced (perhaps only temporarily) out of power, to regroup or rebuild or, hopefully, fundamentally refashion themselves.

TDB | Hamdan

2008-08-08T22:04:00.001-07:00

I want to say a few things about the Hamdan trial and its outcome.

First, whatever issues we have with the whole process of detainment, with the existance of Gitmo, at least the Hamdan case proved the possibility (and perhaps indicated the probablity) that those detained will get a fair trial. Granted, this assessment ignores a more thorough application of the term 'fair.' Thoroughness would extend the term to the whole issue of detainment, ruling out for many the possibility of a 'fair' trial at this late moment regardless of what happens in the trials themselves. The existence of a trail only after such drama precludes any possblity of fairness.

But, as I see it, the Hamdan case proves something valuable. At least (some) Americans are still capable of (and disposed to) administering justice even after the Bush regime has so egregiously forsaken justice everywhere it reached its greedy hand. The last seven years has pushed American minds and hearts (even those like mine which tend toward understanding if not forgiveness when it comes to the maintenance of order) away from a long-solid faith - that America is essentially just; that it works for the expansion of justice in the world; that, as a government, it accepts the dignity of individual human lives, whether or not they happen to be American; that our system of government and its attendant institutions are part of a mission that seeks to see good done in the world. I've had to question these assumptions for more than a quarter of my life. So, regardless of all the other issues it raises, I'm happy to see the Hamdan trial proceed and conclusion as it did since it hints at a renewal of 'justice' as a possibility (if sadly no longer an assumption) of American life.

For those who believe, like my friend, that Hamdan should never have been subjected to his ordeal of detainment; that his role was unworthy of such a major trial; and that its outcome was nothing more than a continuation of years of mistreated, let's not forget that Mr Hamdan was indeed guilty of something quite serious. He at the very least neglected to prevent American deaths when he could have, if he did not indeed contribute to their deaths by aiding the activities of Bin Laden, &c. Whether or not he knew the locations and the timing of Al Qaeda attacks on America/American interests, he knew that Al Qaeda, the people he worked for, were guilty of killing Americans and were likely (if not clearly certain) to do it again. Thus, he could have prevented American deaths - though I understand why he didn't. He even said the reason he stayed in the employ of such a group was that he could find no other job that paid enough to support his family. I don't doubt this. But in the end, what Hamdan did is a crime, and it was for that crime and (rather remarkably) only for that crime that he was convicted. He was no conspirator; if 'terrorist' is the word we apply to Bin Laden or Zarqawi, he was no terrorist; the court understood this and ruled accordingly. Moreover, after his sentence of five and a half years was issued, his time at Gitmo was rightly recognized as time served.

Whether or not Gitmo should exist should not be too much a part of any consideration of the Hamdan trial and its results. I know my friend thinks the very existence of the prison camp is deplorable. And while I agree that it is deplorable in actuality, I can't go so far as to call it unnecessary. In this I've clearly made (some) peace with having at times to accept hard and harsh facts; and admit otherwise deplorable responses as valid and acceptable. I would like to know what my friend suggests we should have done with 'enemy combatants,' with people who we captured fighting against our country (as we have in so many other wars) and who needed to be 'locked up' (i.e., out of action) for the duration of hostilities - and hostilities have not ended. These people (not all of them, of course) would still be hostile towards America and would simply turn around and fight against our soldiers or blow up our civilians once more. I have no doubt that American lives were saved by having kept 'enemy combatants' locked up (deplorably) over the last seven years. Moreover, I'm sure a good number of them provided valuable intelligence which led to a greater understanding of Al Qaeda and of conditions in Afghanistan if not the exact whereabouts of wanted terrorists.

I do hope, however, that the Bush administration realizes (though it almost certainly will not) that Mr Hamdan is no such person and that he should be released - though (and this is just one of the many issues raised by such a long and 'deplorable' detainment) one wonders where he would go and what he would do.

TDB | More Mephistopheles, Please!

2008-08-08T19:14:00.000-07:00

Seymour Hersh, from his conversations with Ed Luce of the FT:

Who, in Hersh’s opinion, has been the worst person in the US government these past 40 years? Which official really harmed the world? From Hersh’s point of view, knee-deep in American wrongdoing since Vietnam, it might be a tough question. Was it Richard Nixon, whom Hersh helped to impeach through his part in exposing the Watergate scandal? Or Henry Kissinger, whom Hersh calls a war criminal? How about the popular choice, George W. Bush? None of the three, it turns out. Rather, he answers: 'Cheney. Easy.'

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-08-07T12:54:00.000-07:00

"Open your fucking minds. Open your minds. Be accepting of different people and let people be who they are. You know how many people came to me calling me gay cause I wear my jeans the fresh way? Or because I said hey, dude, how you gonna say 'fag' right in front of a gay dude's face and act like that's ok. That shit is disrespectful. Coming from Chicago, where if you saw somebody that was gay you were supppoed to stay ten feet away. It should be time to break out of the intuitions that I was sayin', the steretypes, or the fear, the backlash that I would get if you don't believe in what I believe in, acceptin' people for who they are…they're very talented and if they do something special in the world and they're discriminated. I've flown across the world y'all, and I've come back here to tell you — open your minds and live a happier life…"

--Kanye West

ike/Reply to Mislabeling Obama: Admirably Modern, Not Postmodern

2008-08-06T10:34:00.000-07:00

I wanted to respond to my friend's post, which criticizes columnist Jonah Goldberg's understanding of postmodernism.

As my friend pointed out, Goldberg attacked Obama for defining sin as "being out of alignment with my values." Goldberg criticizes Obama for applying his own personal definitions to sin.

Jonah Goldberg has been an eager and willing "soldier" in the right wing smear movement. And he should be--he owes his entire career to its modern dawn.

When the man finally admitted that invading Iraq in 2003 was a mistake, he couldn't help but mutter this nugget about those who opposed the war, nevermind the fact that he admitted they were right:

"In other words, their objection isn't to war per se; it's to wars that advance U.S. interests."

Does this remind you anyone else?

Goldberg's ridiculous assessment of Obama supposes that Obama prescribes to his own, self-created, independent moral code.

Goldberg knows better. The truth is that Obama's views are shaped by the same system to which most Americans prescribe--religion--and another to which fewer prescribe--the law.

"I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, that he could set me on the path to eternal life when I submitted myself to his will and I dedicated myself to discovering his truth and carrying out his works."

Barack Obama said that.

While Goldberg can't ever let the facts get in the way of a good smear, this one is especially audacious.

Here comes the smear machine, parsing words to emphasize the idea that the guy has a messianic complex.

It is sad that the pundits, and John McCain himself, have resorted to these baseless and pathetic arguments. But it is a testament to how desperate they have become in the face of mobilizing and unique opposition.

I don't think my friend's post was wrong. I just don't think Goldberg's words warranted his thoughtful response.

TDB | Quote of the Day

2008-08-06T07:18:00.001-07:00

"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant'

Barack Obama, 'in response to the McCain campaign's tire gauge stunt that mocked his suggestion to keep tires properly inflated'

TDB | Mislabeling Obama: Admirably Modern, Not Postmodern

2008-08-05T14:27:00.000-07:00

In his column today, Jonah Goldberg makes the following argument:

Asked to define sin, Barack Obama replied that sin is "being out of alignment with my values." Statements such as this have caused many people to wonder whether Obama has a God complex or is hopelessly arrogant. For the record, sin isn't being out of alignment with your own values (if it were, Hannibal Lecter wouldn't be a sinner because his values hold that it's OK to eat people) nor is it being out of alignment with Obama's — unless he really is our Savior.

By ‘Postmodernism’ Goldberg means the movement’s worst tendencies – nihilism and (moral) relativism. And there is, no doubt, a risk of nihilism where there is an absence of values by which to judge things (moral or otherwise). In such a case, there’s no wrong or right in any meaningful sense – there’s certainly no sin.

But to say that sin is ‘being out of alignment’ with one's values implies that values do still exist in some sense. This isn’t nihilism – such a situation falls well short of the worst of postmodernism, though Goldberg would have us believe otherwise.

When the believability of religion - especially religious dogma - sinks to unsalvageable levels - which, for many people, it already has – there remains something precious and beneficial (with regard to values). There's still our innate sense of being human, which for most of us involves strong convictions – which tell us when we would be doing right or wrong, when we would be speaking truth or lie, when we see good or evil. This feeling is strong in many people – including myself. If you want to call it inkling or a remnant or a pathway to god, so be it. But it isn't necessary.

Even Postmodernists like Richard Rorty, with his ironic understanding of morality and values, isn't totally without a basis for judging - there's something, as opposed to nothing - even if that something is a piece of literature, Nabokov in Rorty's own example, that 'teaches' us to be more human.

I think Goldberg is flat wrong when he assumes that Hannibal Lecter thinks what he's doing is okay. Lecter is a frightening character - not a misguided character. (The misguided tend to invoke pity, not fright). Lecter gets under our skin and scares us because he knows how wrong his actions are but does them anyway. There's something wrong with flagrantly affronting the natural 'values' we are inclined towards as human beings - our humanity.

But beyond Hannibal Lecter is an even more frightening world - a world of nihilism where there are no values, no right no wrong, no truth or lie, no good or evil. This horror world threatens to become reality (and then normality) as the religion-based values we've long held slip away into the abyss of the unbelievable. The only thing that stands in the way is our humanity - the inherent values Obama referred to above. Let's not mistake our savior for our enemy: the postmodernism that Goldberg brings up is a real possibility - a probability if we destroy (even mistakenly) the only values that stand in the way.

ike/High Crimes and Misdemeanors

2008-08-05T09:35:00.000-07:00

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Ron Suskind, is publishing a book that claims that President Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Regardless, Bush decided to invade Iraq three months later — with a forged letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam, linking the now-executed former Iraqi leader with al-Qaeda.

The Bush camp, as its prone to do, has already pushed back with its unique brand of "kill the messenger."

Tony Fratto, a deputy White House press secretary, had this to say:

"Ron Suskind makes a living from gutter journalism. He is about selling books and making wild allegations that no one can verify, including the numerous bipartisan commissions that have reported on pre-war intelligence."

Before the smear machine hits full throttle, I wanted to pass on one relevant nugget:

In 2004, weeks before the election, Suskind wrote this piece in the New York Times magazine. It caused quite a stir, especially the revelation that Bush planned to privatize Social Security in his second term--a claim that team Bush denied at the time but which proved true.

If true, Suskind's recent allegations are clearly impeachable offenses and would be the latest and greatest evidence that our country is and has been run by war criminals.

While it has seemed that, regarding this administration, absolute power has corrupted absolutely, let's all hope that we weren't led into war on a premise that our leaders knew was completely fabricated.

TDB | Dumbest Argument Before 8 AM

2008-08-05T06:22:00.001-07:00

I'm throwing this out there as a possibility for new post category. Continuing it or not depends on whether the blog world keeps uttering stupidities early each day. Over the last few weeks, they've averaged just about one per morning.

Anyway, our inaugural inanity (a word that always reminds me of Sean Hannity, for some reason) comes from Ezra Klein - (actually, one of my favorite bloggers):

[My] hunch now is that [Obama's VP pick will] be Evan Bayh, if for no other reason than Evan Bayh is the single whitest man in America, and I have a feeling that the Obama campaign wants America's Whitest Man in some pictures these days.

Bayh may very well wind up as Obama's pick, and he is a very white man; but I have a greater opinion of the Obama campaign (and a lesser opinion of whiteness) than to believe they would base such a weighty decision on such a stupid quality. Plus, we just spent 7 years under an uber-white Veep. I'll be bold this morning and suggest there might have been someone better for the country than him - no matter what color.

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-08-04T09:11:00.000-07:00

"Less asinine was McCain's two-pronged lie that Obama would rather lose a war than a campaign and that he snubbed injured troops in Germany. The former is repulsive and you can tell McCain knows it because he has a weird habit of saying it and then grinning broadly and humming a little to himself as a semi-laugh. He doesn't own the statement even as he says it. The charge itself is about as uncivil as it is possible to be, close to calling Obama treasonous, right? And the troop snub jibe is simply, demonstrably untrue, as the McCain camp was forced to semi-concede. So McCain's main moves these past two weeks have been either childish or disgusting, and both times he has signaled he didn't really believe his own message.
He doesn't seem like a serious president to me."

--Andrew Sullivan

ike/The God Delusion

2008-08-03T10:20:00.000-07:00

How the mighty have fallen.

For decades, John McCain has cultivated an image of an outsider, not a leader who could usher in a period of post-partisan politics, but a senator for whom party bickering held little interest, a senator who seemed to enjoy bucking his party's leadership to accomplish what he thought was important: campaign finance reform; immigration; opposition to tax cuts for the wealthy.

Yet perhaps convinced by consultants that he can't win the presidency without mobilizing his base, John McCain is running in large part in 2008 against his well-known and probably well-earned persona--"after all," the consultants must be saying, "how well did it work for you in 2000?"

Let's face the, ahem, facts on the ground; John McCain faces unprecedented odds in building a winning coalition in this election. The Republican brand could not be more unpopular. In key electoral swing states like Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and New Hampshire, Democrats are poised to win high-turnout senate seats. He will face a magnificent fundraising deficit.

As I've stated before, this election has been over for a long time. But the guy is almost 72 years old and has dedicated the last 30 years of his life for the opportunity he has now--so he has to go down swinging.

But he's doing it all wrong. John McCain faces immense problems in the religious community, the same community Karl Rove almost singularly credits with W's 2004 margin of victory. Of course, his difficulties are compounded by the fact that Obama is investing serious resources in a grassroots movement aimed at evangelicals who are increasingly interested in core Democratic issues: healthcare; the environment; an empathetic immigration policy; ending the war in Iraq. If Obama picks Tim Kaine as his running mate, the Democratic ticket will be comprised of two deeply religious and proud Christians.

I certainly understand my friend's point that McCain's provocative ad calling Obama "The One" appeals to a certain portion of the religious community. But George W. Bush, who ran two tremendously disciplined presidential campaigns, appealed to these communities with detailed, local, church-based organizing campaigns and direct mail--not national tv ad buys. He dedicated his television commercials, especially in his introduction to voters, targeting base conservatives and latinos, a minority group that was integral to his re-election.

The ad itself is laughable--considerably more laughable than his earlier ad blaming his opponent for high gas prices, which was hard to surpass. Not only does he not offer any contrasts to the image of Obama he attempts to create, he doesn't even level any direct criticisms of Obama. First we couldn't vote for Obama because his pastor was a nut. Next we couldn't vote for him because his wife wasn't patriotic. Now we can't vote for him because his supporters are rabid? How about some actual contrasts on the issues.

The problem is, McCain can't win on the issues. Is he going to win on not providing healthcare? On permanent bases in Iraq? On record deficits?

Hillary Clinton was able to score some points against Obama in the primary because she could say, "he's all words." She could then pivot and talk about her plan to provide healthcare to every American and to end the war. Her presence reminded Democratic voters of a more peaceful and uncomplicated time. McCain can't pivot. His recent advertising has showed that he recognizes this fact better than anyone. All that's left to do is try to convince voters that the other guy isn't suitable for office. Referencing him as the anti-christ and signalling that his election would bring about the end of the days is more likely to convince them of the exact opposite.

TDB | The Five Percent Doctrine

2008-08-01T21:04:00.001-07:00

I'm an environmentally friendly fellow; and I don't really agree with Thomas Firey; nor do I disagree with Paul Krugman. But doesn't Krugman's reasoning about the climate threat seem ridiculously similar to Dick Cheney's reasoning about the terrorist threat (what became known as 'The 1 Percent Doctrine"), which Ron Suskind so brilliantly documented for us? The matched logic behind the two strands of reasoning even leads to the (exact) same place - an insistence that anyone who is not with us in the fight is against us, and consequently should (must?) be branded morally reprehensible (er, um....'evil' perhaps).

Paul Krugman’s column in today’s NYT laments the lack of a national policy to combat global warming. He writes:

It’s true that scientists don’t know exactly how much world temperatures will rise if we persist with business as usual. But that uncertainty is actually what makes action so urgent. While there’s a chance that we’ll act against global warming only to find that the danger was overstated, there’s also a chance that we’ll fail to act only to find that the results of inaction were catastrophic. Which risk would you rather run?

He then cites the work of Harvard economist Martin Weitzman, who surveyed the results of a number of recent climate models and found that (in Krugman’s words) “they suggest about a 5 percent chance that world temperatures will eventually rise by more than 10 degrees Celsius (that is, world temperatures will rise by 18 degrees Fahrenheit). As Mr. Weitzman points out, that’s enough to ‘effectively destroy planet Earth as we know it.’”

Krugman concludes, “It’s sheer irresponsibility not to do whatever we can to eliminate that threat” and he calls for opprobrium against those who might impede global warming legislation: “The only way we’re going to get action, I’d suggest, is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral.”

We can't help but be left wondering why the threat of global terrorism should not demand the same stance. I think most would agree that nuclear terrorists (nuclear war, surely) are at least an equal if not a greater threat to the planet (given that the likelihood of terrorist success is much higher than 5%). Surely Krugman has something important to answer - and I admire him enough to hope he would not resort to claiming the distinction lies somewhere in those 4 percentage points.

TDB | 'Fallacy of the Day'

2008-08-01T19:42:00.000-07:00

Ali over at Think Progress commits a common error, dismissing good ideas simply because they belong to an 'unacceptable' class 0r category:

Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) spoke to the National Urban League, a group “devoted to empowering African Americans to enter the economic and social mainstream.” When an audience member asked him how he planned to reduce urban crime, McCain praised Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s efforts in New York Cirty before invoking the military’s tactics in Iraq as the model for crime-fighting:

MCCAIN: And some of those tactics — you mention the war in Iraq — are like that we use in the military. You go into neighborhoods, you clamp down, you provide a secure environment for the people that live there, and you make sure that the known criminals are kept under control. And you provide them with a stable environment and then they cooperate with law enforcement, etc, etc.

There is nothing wrong with doing exactly what McCain proposes. If a proposal includes good ideas - in this case, the exact right ideas - then surely we should not dismiss it, as Ali does, simply because of a categorical misalignment. We are naturally inclined to recoil when we encounter things 'military' in a place assumed to be well within the realm of 'domestic law and order'. But it's stupid to assume that because something is part of, in this case, military m.o. it is exclusively so. It can also work in other situations. In fact, in our case, it's only fitting that it should work in other situations: what the military provides is a basic of security and order; and it's only upon such foundations that institutions can function and law can reign.

The 'military tactics' used in New York (occasional instances of indefensible and egregious actions notwithstanding) were not employed in order to establish military authority; rather, they were used to prevent a kind of military authority from from having to be established. They were used to return to a state where 'domestic law and order' - and the family, community and governmental institutions that essential to it - could function. And that is exactly exactly what is needed in many of our crime-ridden urban areas.

TDB | Implying The Antichrist

2008-08-01T16:53:00.001-07:00

I just watched for the first time the McCain ad that derisively refers to Obama as 'The One'. From what I've read, critics of the spot fault the McCain camp for the dubius tactic - the nature of which seems universally agreed upon - of questioning whether someone of such celebrity status is, qua uber-celebrity, a fit leader for America. But regardless of whether one is critical or praiseworthy, all seem agreed that the purpose of the ad is to prod viewers toward a fear that Obama is a hollow shell painted in neon shades of excitement and adoration alchemically constructed from one part hype and two parts newness.

But there is something more subtle going on in this ad - something that appeals particularly (exclusively perhaps) to born-again Christians, raised, as I was (though I have long shed such beliefs), to fear the 'End Times,' as conveyed by God through John in the book of Revelations. Born-again Christians (and many mainstream Christians as well) believe that, when such times are finally upon us, an Antichrist will come. That he will be beautiful in the eyes of the masses, who are thirsty for redemption; that he will convince them that he is, in fact, the messiah - that he is The One, as Jesus was The One, come again to salvage a wrecked and lost mankind.

With regard to Celebrity, Jesus Christ was arguably the biggest celebrity of all; and Christ returned would surely seem the only rival to the celebrity of Jesus, the son of Mary. Moreover, the Antichrist will come as lucifer, the bringer of The Light - it is by this 'light', essentially, that He will trick mankind into following him. True and good Christians, of course, know better; and they will resist the light by any means possible. Etc, etc. You get the gist, surely.

The point is, the McCain ad touches unmistakably (for those 'in the know') on all these traits of the Antichrist - the redeemer; the One; the bringer of The Light; a supreme celebrity who fools the masses mankind and moves them - seemingly by some magic - to enthusiastic adoration. The rhythmic, seemingly hypnotized chants of "Obama, Obama" in the background bring one right back to childhood warnings of fire and brimstone, of being condemnded to hell for following the antichrist and his ways.

For a campaign that a) needs to secure its evangelical Christian base; and b) decided long ago (as seems plainly clear) to invest in a strategy of fear-mongering, an ad with these very undertones would seem almost too perfect a solution.

TDB | Quote Of The Day

2008-08-01T14:17:00.000-07:00

David Brooks, from his column in today's New York Times:

Today power is dispersed. There is no permanent bipartisan governing class in Washington. Globally, power has gone multipolar, with the rise of China, India, Brazil and the rest. This dispersion should, in theory, be a good thing, but in practice, multipolarity means that more groups have effective veto power over collective action. In practice, this new pluralistic world has given rise to globosclerosis, an inability to solve problem after problem... Moreover, in a multipolar world, there is no way to referee disagreements among competing factions. In a democratic nation, the majority rules and members of the minority understand that they must accede to the wishes of those who win elections. But globally, people have no sense of shared citizenship. Everybody feels they have the right to say no, and in a multipolar world, many people have the power to do so. There is no mechanism to wield authority. There are few shared values on which to base a mechanism.

ike/Pregunta for the Junta

2008-08-01T07:12:00.000-07:00

We're adding a new feature to the blog. TDB named it, "Pregunta for the Junta;" it aims to ask important questions of the Bush administration. Here goes:

While you haven't been exhibiting it lately, you were a famously disciplined and well-messaged presidential candidate....twice. Why do you insist on pile driving any hopes your pal, John McCain, had to win the presidency into the ground?

A quick follow-up: if you were running the McCain campaign, where would you slot yourself in at the Republican National Convention?

TDB | 'Fallacy of the Day'

2008-08-01T06:56:00.000-07:00

The New York Times editorial writers made this argument today:

Governments in developing countries say they must shield the poor from high energy prices. They worry that eliminating [oil] subsidies might lead to inflation at a time when prices are rising broadly. But these subsidies are misguided and mainly benefit the well-off, who own big cars and fly in jets, as well as energy-intensive industries, which are not usually those that create most jobs.

Surely the New York Times (a liberal rag, I've heard) should be more honest about what effects subsidy reduction has on the poor. By saying certain companies and certain rich people 'mainly benefit' by the subsidies that are in place, they imply that, if those subsidies were removed, said certain people and companies would feel the most 'pain'. In fact, the poor work within much smaller financial margins than companies - and have significantly fewer options and resources when it comes to rearranging expenses. Something similar applies for the well-off. If the subsidies were removed, most rich people companies would find ways to make due, though they would not be happy about it. For less well-off individuals, however, the removal would in a great many cases be life changing. Countless people would finally and fatally descend from their long-held but precarious perch just above the poverty line to become a statistic among the poor.

Note: contrary to what one might assume, I do am not a subsidy-supporter. Rather, I understand and acknowledge the difficulty in removing them once they are in place.

TDB | 'Hellofa Good Point'

2008-07-31T21:51:00.001-07:00

From a letter to the editor in yesterday's New York Times:

When reading is reduced to meaning only the acquisition of information, it is no surprise to find that minds are impoverished. Do you agree or disagree with “Jane Eyre”? With “Hamlet”? With “Their Eyes Were Watching God”? The question is meaningless, beside the point. As more and more people fail to “read,” it becomes easier for the powerful to hoodwink them because extended narratives disappear, to be replaced by the quick conclusions available in a Google search. We no longer see that we are repeating old narratives, no longer see how we got to where we are. To engage with democratic processes — to participate in making difficult decisions or answering challenging questions (shall we go to war? whose fault is poverty?) — requires the ability to examine multiple perspectives, to hold conflicting ideas simultaneously in the mind. Such qualities of thought are practiced and honed by reading, not by scanning text for information. As readers have become replaced by users, so our ability to understand what happens in our name will continue to be diminished.

TDB | Why I Am (Still) A Conservative

2008-07-31T19:10:00.000-07:00

I apologize for the length - I have a lot of self- defending to do...

I am a conservative. I say it proudly and confidently – though not without a great deal of thought (of personal Q & A). That is, for a long time I've been concerned about ‘conservatism,’ both personally and intellectually. I’d questioned at times whether I could still consider myself a conservative if I supported someone as progressive as Barack Obama; consequently, I questioned the adequacy of even being a conservative at all if ultimately I’d admitted the need to support progressivism. Most of all, I questioned conservatism as it had been represented and understood, for as long as I could remember, by the Republican Party.

But, as it turns out, the Republicans are – and have long been (with very few interruptions since the party of Lincoln) – the antithesis of conservatism. Conservatism doesn't have anything to do with Christian fundamentalism; with free-market fanaticism (or any kind of fanaticism); Conservatism isn't, for that matter, endeared to any any particular economic school (and would probably prefer Keynes - a consummate conservative, btw - to monetarists and supply-siders). Conservatism isn't opposed to a strong government that provides otherwise unprovided services; that intervenes occasionally for the 'welfare' of its citizens. Conservatism is not in favor of waging war on drugs or even war on crime if that means stupidly inflicting harsh but ineffective punishments; Conservatism has no inclination toward gruesome corporal punishments or torture; it doesn't conveniently forget to be humane - or forget that a criminal (or, more importantly, that we as punishers) are still human beings. Conservatives don't spend imprudently - or do anything imprudently, for that matter... The list could go on forever. The point is, the Republican Party is not the conservative party.

There hasn’t really been a conservative party in America since the Federalists, and only a faction (ironically) within that party actually embodied Conservatism. No doubt, there have been Conservatives throughout American history, but they have belonged to all the many American parties – and they have been few and far between (at least on the public stage). As it happens, by the time most would-be conservatives have become national figures they are more ‘politician’ than anything else (not overly pragmatic, which, as we will see, is a conservative trait; but overly opportunistic).

But conservatism is, I think, the natural disposition of Americans – as much the creed of the country bumpkin as of the establishment elite. But most Americans have been caught up in a confused dualism (Republican and Democrat) that demands (usually as a family inheritance) that one pledge allegiance to a party as much or more than to the flag; and most Americans have considered it only too natural to employ a set of given (though eternally misused) ideological labels - ‘conservative,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘progressive’) – in their search for political self-understanding (however pathetically short-lived or short-sighted it may be).

But it turns out I can be a conservative while still being liberal – because what I want is to conserve liberal values and institutions; and I can be a conservative while still championing progressivism – because I want liberal values and institutions to progress – to evolve – as anything must if it is to survive and remain healthy. But I want that progress to be careful, pragmatic and fair – and, most of all, I want it to be based on skepticism of ‘progress’ itself, on an honest confession that we don’t necessarily have the answers; that our effort at progress will be based not on moving in a certain direction (e.g., a religious society, a free market society, a truly secular society) but moving intelligently. To paraphrase Barack Obama on the war, ‘A conservative isn’t opposed to movement; he’s opposed to stupid movement’.

Which brings me to the nexus of this whole issue….

I can – moreover, I should – support Barack Obama and still be a conservative; I can, moreover, want absolutely nothing to do with the Republican Party – not now and maybe not ever – and still be a conservative. And proudly, no less! But only if I know –and can let others know – what that means.

And so, I’ve indulged in a bit of manifesto writing – for which I apologize. But I think it’s important that I explain how and why I am a conservative.

I am a conservative in that I vehemently desire to conserve the existing values and institutions of American society, not in the interest of the prosperous part of that society but in the interest of American society at large, and especially in the interest of the less prosperous among us – for the immemorial values and institutions of America are the best friend the downtrodden citizen can have.

I am a conservative insomuch as I have an unshakable skepticism of human nature, of human reason, of human actions, &c; because I believe in community nearly as much as I believe in liberty – but ultimately I believe that liberty without community is dangerous, as is the converse.

I’m a conservative because I believe in domestic law and order; because I believe in a strong military – but not a military that ever descends in any form upon America itself.

I’m a conservative because I see the need in supporting existing spiritual authority – regardless of whether the creeds supporting such authority is ‘true’ or not. But I also see – and just as clearly – the need to support existing secular authorities – and to support their essential separation from spiritual authority.

I am a conservative in that I am a great lover of my country. Whether one calls me a patriot or a nationalist, I could care less. But I do care whether one understands that I do not believe in American exceptionalism – and I certainly I do not think we should view our country or our values in messianic terms. I see the value of international institutions, of globalization, of multiculturalism – but only to a certain extent. For, as a conservative, I believe moreover in the importance (and the essential centrality) of the Nation State. Human beings are hard enough to improve individually and in small groups – they are never perfectible; and thus the world, in my view, is simply too big a place (and too full of humans) to be improved as a whole – though we may certainly improve it ON the whole. Human beings are capable of great things – but they can never be great things. The individual will always be just that; he is a fleeting thing, and great things are not fleeting – they are lasting if not eternal. But nobility, because it is a fundamental possibility for human beings, will survive as long as our species.

For the sake of that existence, and for many other reasons, I believe, as a conservative, in the value of family – and that means gay families, too. What matters is the community that grows out of love and proximity – its supreme naturalness, which is an amazing (and stubbornly metaphysical) thing. Human beings are thrown into the world, as Heidegger taught us; the world is experienced through Dasein. But we can escape Dasein (our unshakable and ultimately dreadful individuality), in a very real way, through the love we have for father and mother, for brother and sister, for husband, son and daughter – a love that is almost as natural and as fundamental as Dasein. We can – and do – learn to think of life, its possibilities and its dangers, in terms of ‘we’ and not just ‘I’. And that is the beginning – the necessary point of departure – for any concern we may learn to feel for the world at large. Thus the family must be preserved – its power conserved.

I am a conservative in that I am suspicion of Rationalism. I do not believe in grand theories or grand schemes. This applies, of course, to Marxism, etc – but also, and to the same degree, to Christianism (meaning Christian dogma – Christianity is a mode of living and understanding personally) or Islam. It is a fundamentally conservative trait to be wary of dogma, and, moreover, of anyone promulgating dogma or anything dependant on dogma. I certainly don’t believe anyone has the right to impose their version of the truth upon anyone else. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in ‘truth’ or even ‘the truth’; I am not a nihilist. But as a conservative I do not believe we can know ‘the truth’ or ‘the good’; but I do believe human beings have an innate ability to perceive when they are doing good and when they are telling the truth. And for this reason, and (once more) I believe in personal responsibility – and thus also in allowing a human being to be generally ‘free to choose’. We can, however, guide one another, but as concerned friends or caring family members; not as coercive moralists or ‘improving’ technocrats.

I am a conservative because in that I believe there is simply too much complexity and to much human variance to ever ‘really know’ about anything. And to the degree that, and with Hayek, I believe the exchange of goods (whether material or immaterial) to be simply too complex to ever allow of the ‘knowledge’ requisite for socialist planning. Thus, I believe fundamentally in market capitalism. But there are more important things than money, which has never been a fundamental conservative concern (or interest). ‘Fairness’, for example. And, as I believe in an innate human capacity to recognize their actions as ‘good’ or their utterances as ‘true,’ I also believe in an innate human capacity to recognize whether something is ‘fair’ or not. Belief in the market can attain a level of allegiance that makes it essentially indistinguishable from any other kind of fundamentalism, any other kind of systematizing – it can, in short, become a dogma. And in so far as I am a conservative, I am opposed to the dogma of market capitalism as much as I am to any other dogma.

Though I don’t believe we can plan the economy, I do believe we can plan generally in life. We can be prudent and maintain a healthy concern for the future. We can pay attention.

I am a conservative in that I find egalitarianism suspect – though I believe wholeheartedly in equality – especially before the law. But, while respecting contracts, I am also conservative in that I basically impossible to honestly understand society as a contract entered into by individuals – it is better to understand it as a partnership between generations – between the dead, the living, and the not yet living. Thus I desire – as a conservative - that our planet as well as our country and our society is handed down to our children in a healthy state and in recognizable form. Thus I am a conservationist and, to a degree, an environmentalist; and value the earth and nature more than money and the profit motive. I am therefore not opposed to regulation – so long as it is actually doing good. Regulation for regulation’s sake is stupid.

I am a conservative in that I am a pragmatist. Pragmatism is the only acceptable solution for someone who does not swear blind allegiance to anything. While I do value allegiance – to family and country and even party (though rarely) – and principles very much, I do not consider them absolute values. Thus I am a conservative insofar as I am willing to compromise, though that doesn’t rule out occasional stubbornness. I hate to see things be given up on too quickly.

Finally, I am a conservative because I believe that there is much to learn – though we can never learn everything, never know it all; thus I believe in education – especially in history and literature, which are so often passed over as inconsequential. That is a mistake – it is indeed praiseworthy to be successful in life, to be a successful professional, to be technically proficient – even dominant; but it is infinitely more praiseworthy to be successful AT life. When we face death – and we all must – our possessions and our know-how are valueless; but we are comforted by having understood life through history and literature – and, moreover, through living humanely.

And ultimately, it is a desire to live humanely (with all its varied meanings and implications) that is the fundamental desire of a conservative, like me.

TDB | Quote of The Day

2008-07-31T13:01:00.000-07:00

From the Economist:

Ohio is also a bellwether. It has voted for the winning candidate in all 11 presidential elections since 1960. In doing so, it has deviated from the national vote shares by only a couple of points. In 2004 it matched the national average exactly. The reason is that it is such a microcosm of America. Ohio is a surprisingly diverse state—with everything from big cities to rolling fields, rustbelt industries to Appalachian poverty. In the Cup-o-Jo Cafe in Columbus, the state capital, 20-somethings sit around eating vegetarian food and talking about how much Mr Obama inspires them to hope for a better world. Out in the rural areas the signs on the road tell a different story—“Hell is real,” reads one, and then, a few miles later, “Repent!”.

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-07-31T11:50:00.000-07:00

"these days i find myself working harder than ever at being at my best, overcoming my fears and pushing myself creatively in my every endeavor. my only wish after the work is completed is that it may prove further evidence that no matter how isolated we all may all feel at times, as sad or misrepresented, we are not alone. there's hope for and within each of us. I've been dealing with the truth that i have at times been a bad example and/or glorified self destructive behavior. this was never intentional, but rather a consequence of leading a public life in plain sight and never expecting any sort of preferential treatment, isolation or protection. Regardless of varied judgments as to my cultural relevance, i am thankfully alive and exercising my joy in creating. i only hope anyone who hears, reads or sees any of my contributions will permit the work to speak where i cannot. i've realized and accepted that if people decide to dislike me, they're going to find reasons to justify disliking me. there's nothing i can do about that. that said, it still does pain me to be accused of fictional crimes against innocents or to be implicated in romantic gossip involving the possibly reality-challenged--however unreliable the source or outlandish the accusations. in the end, however, i know that i have never done or even meant anyone any harm. anyway, the lives of public figures are so much more boring than anyone can imagine. honestly. and also i like metal. A LOT. (even more than last time)."

--Ryan Adams

TDB | 'Food For Naught'

2008-07-31T10:47:00.001-07:00

If the goal in Iraq was to create a government like ours in America, it looks like we can say (again) 'mission accomplished.' From today's Los Angeles Times:

Iraq's parliament ended its summer term Wednesday without passing legislation setting up provincial elections this year, forcing the government to call an emergency session for the weekend. However, a positive outcome remains far from certain...

They have created, it seems, a perfect replica of the American government - one which ends its legislative sessions without having accomplished the work at hand, which consequently calls emergency sessions (and thus governs mostly through ever-deplorable omnibus and stop-gap legislation), and which raises questions of whether the ultimate outcome of governmental activity is indeed at all 'positive.'

Maybe we should think twice about remaking the world in our own image...

One would be fairly justified, I think, in saying that this has been the essential but unexpressed (maybe even unrealized) goal of American foreign policy - at least until the Bush people clarified things in their most foul (and mis-characterizing) way. The basic idea has always been something like, 'If the world were simply more like us, foreign policy would essentially take care of itself.' This has been the case since before our founding, when the land that became America was to meant become, in one of Reagan's favorite phrases, as a shinning city upon a hill.

I paraphrase Churchill on Democracy: America's is the worst system of government except for all the others. And I am something of a Patriot and a Nationalist - but really, we can do better! We are, after all, Americans! (and Americans are, in case you've managed to miss the point, better than everyone else)

Is the problem Democracy itself? I'm naturally skeptical of things (especially concepts) that have elicited universal praise. I mean, Pakistani or Palestianian democracy has, so far at least, not merited praise. One can't escape the ultimate (and unsavory) implication: Maybe (and contrary to our long-held goal) Democracy is something only Americans should have!

But, in light of my last post, even that, it seems, is less than shinning and quite unworthy of being atop any respectable hill!

Again, I have no answers. Only prejudices, skepticism and time to write a few things down.

TDB | 'Food For Naught'

2008-07-31T09:52:00.000-07:00

Josh Patashnik, writing on 'The Plank' blog over at the New Republic, makes a terrific point that I've not really thought of before:

[Frankly], outside of Washington, I'm just not sure how much of a market there is for any coverage of Congress besides scandals and the occasional huge, easy-to-understand policy fight, like health care in 1993 or Social Security in 2005. This contributes hugely to Congress's approval ratings being chronically in the toilet: It's the epitome of an organization that gets noticed only when things don't go smoothly. And the institutional architects of Congress specifically designed it to ensure that things usually wouldn't go smoothly. Granted, I'm not sure they envisioned quite the level of dysfunction and gridlock that's characterized the last few years, but they surely would have preferred it to the alternative of an impulsive Congress unconstrained by many veto points.

His argument that there probably isn't much of a market out there for congressional coverage implies something even bigger: most citizens aren't interested in how their country is run - they're just interested about complaining when it's not running well - or, rather, when they THINK it's not running well. And, sadly, most citizens are simply not very good at thinking - at least not about this 'boring stuff.' But just such thinking is the essence of our system of government. People need a) to be informed, whether they like it or not; b) to understand what specific information implies or means when they are informed of it; and c) care enough to vote for people whose thinking is in line with their (now enlightened) thinking. As things stand, that just doesn't happen.

I don't have any solutions, really - so I'm open to at least listening to anything. I do think the heart of the problem lies with the media and with education - we could blame people, but people aren't fixable, really; institutions are. Though I hate to force the media to run specific stories - seems a bit authoritarian to me, even if its for 'good'. So I guess the only answer is to do something magical during a citizen's education to create a sincere and significant interest in politics - and in congressional and local politics, specifically; not just the alternative 'celebrity showdown' that the presidency has in essence become.

I've got nothing but complaints, it seems. Sorry - don't hate me.

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-07-28T06:55:00.000-07:00

“I can’t say I know how the current president looks on the rest of the world. I am determined and sometimes stubborn, and he is, too, but I don’t look on the rest of the world as he does, despite our shared Christian faith. For instance, I worry about our endangered values. I worry about nuclear-weapons proliferation. I worry about our torture of prisoners and how that affects our commitment to human rights. I believe in waging war only when our security is in danger. I believe in taking care of and preserving the environment. On these issues, he and I are almost diametrically opposed. Certainly, I do not profess to understand his motivations. As Christians, yes, we worship the same savior, Jesus Christ, and I think we worship Christ in the same way. I look on some aspect of Jesus Christ perhaps differently from him: I worship the Prince of Peace.”

--Jimmy Carter

TDB | Quote of the Day

2008-07-27T19:46:00.000-07:00

From the front page feature article in today's Washington Post:

Thanks to the rapid and sustained rise in prices, oil-producing countries are also accumulating vast reservoirs of money in one of the most massive transfers of wealth in history. Every day, oil consumers pay $6 billion to $7.5 billion more for crude oil than they paid six years ago. At the current rate, they will pump more than $1.5 trillion a year into the coffers of OPEC, Russia and other oil exporting countries.

ike/Quote of the Day

2008-07-26T21:26:00.000-07:00

"The election remains Mr. Obama’s to lose, and he could lose it, whether through unexpected events, his own vanity or a vice-presidential misfire. But what we’ve learned this month is that America, our allies and most likely the next Congress are moving toward Mr. Obama’s post-Iraq vision of the future, whether he reaches the White House or not. That’s some small comfort as we contemplate the strange alternative offered by the Republicans: a candidate so oblivious to our nation’s big challenges ahead that he is doubling down in his campaign against both Mr. Maliki and Mr. Obama to be elected commander in chief of the surge."

--Frank Rich

ike/Response to What Obama Lost in the Middle East

2008-07-24T15:44:00.000-07:00

By and large, I agree with the sentiments expressed in my friend's post. His post, written before Obama's crowded address to 200,000 in Berlin, neatly identifies the myriad challenges our nation faces in the international arena. It's easy to forget how far we've fallen in international standing until we see thousands of Germans waving American flags as they are addressed by a man who has become an international phenomenon.

But in order to have a president with the potential to catalyze real change in the world--in Iraq, in Israel, in Iran--we first have to elect a president with the potential to catalyze real change in the world.

With the exception of a few dozen ex pats, it is likely not one of the 200,000 who attended today's Berlin speech will cast a vote. The importance of this international trip for Obama is to convince voters back home that has foreign policy credentials. He wanted Americans to see him greeted with optimism and love, and the speech he gave served to remind Americans of the strong relationships we once enjoyed and the ones we may yet build.

In American politics, there is no issue, foreign or domestic, more popular and bi partisan than support of Israel. Our nation's politicians are united on this issue more than any other. The Guardian editorial was correct: to deliver a two-state solution will require the acknowledgement of atrocities perpetrated by both groups and major land concessions by Israel.

But Barack Obama needs to win an election. And he faces a major challenge from not only Jewish Americans but voters of all stripes that he is soft on Israel or a secret Muslim or both.

Obama's dark skin, dialogue-based foreign policy, family heritage and re-focused Iraq strategy should be enough to show the Muslim world that his election would mean a significant change in America's policy and intentions. He need not maneuver in ways, eventually necessary as they may be, that jeopardize his standing among the only people who matter to his, and our nation's, immediate political future.

TDB | Quote of The Day

2008-07-24T10:49:00.000-07:00

Indiana Representative Mike Pence to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, debating a bill that would allow reporters to protect their confidential sources:

If 10 angels swearing on Bibles wouldn't change your view of this bill, would 40 American journalists subpoenaed, questioned or held in contempt do it?

TDB | Quote of the Day

2008-07-23T19:27:00.000-07:00

Israeli President Shimon Peres, referring to Barack Obama:

[My greatest hope is for a] great president of the United States. That is the greatest promise for us and the rest of the world.

TDB | What Obama Lost By Going To The Middle East

2008-07-23T17:24:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama's overseas trip has so far been a complete success. He has looked more presidential than I could have imagined; he has been better received than I could have hoped; he has simply done an outstanding job and proved himself capable of navigating the world's most treacherous political shoals - its most unforgiving political environment. He should get plenty of experience points for having done so. But there's one thing Obama has lost as he's traveled through the Middle East - something that was key in convincing me to give up on the Republicans and support his bid for president - to support, moreover, the ideal of an Obama presidency.

The one unique thing that Barack Obama offered America in its war on terrorism is the possibility of Muslims throughout the world looking at this man - looking at his skin color, his background, and his name - and giving America, if just for a moment, the benefit of the doubt. Obama as president would allows us to be temporarily forgiven - not that we necessarily need to be forgiven - by those that hate us; it would allow the world to suspend its negative judgments about the American hegemon or the American empire and its implied diminution of status for non-Americans; it would allow people who never thought they and their kind could fit into an American world to see themselves as Americans if just for a moment. And imagining oneself as an American has always been the best advertising tool for our country - if people can see themselves as an American they are almost sure to acquire - no matter how faint at first - a love for our country.

But traveling in the Middle East, Barack Obama could not help but go to Israel. And going to Israel, he could not help saying things like this:

I am deeply committed to helping Israel achieve a lasting peace with Palestinians who are prepared to accept the state of Israel, renounce violence and terrorism, and abide by agreements.

And while i don't disagree with the sentiment or the substance behind this statement, surely Muslims will. They have heard it before, but not like this - not from Barack Obama as he visited their world. The Palestinians will say it is the Israelis that should give up violence and terrorism and should learn to deal fairly and to abide. And regardless of who is right - regardless of who is to blame - that possible moment, when Muslims would give America the benefit of the doubt after having watched Barack Hussein Obama ascend to the American pinnacle - that moment has been muddied. From now on, the benefit of the doubt can be quickly countered by, "Don't you remember what he said in Israel - we are just a bunch of terrorists to him. He's just another American!"

The Guardian editorial page summed up the Islamic take on Obama's visit fairly well, i think:

He made no acknowledgment [ ] of the 362 Palestinians killed in Gaza in the first five months of this year, compared to the six civilians and eight soldiers Israel lost in the same period. What Ms Livni and Mr Obama said may be what Israel wanted to hear. But no US president can work for peace on this script alone. To deliver a two-state solution, Mr Obama will have to persuade Israel to halt all settlement construction, before handing back a viable West Bank - not one fragmented by settlements, exclusive roads for cars with Israeli number plates, nature reserves, military restricted areas and over 600 checkpoints, barriers and other closures. Only one of the 36 hours that Mr Obama spent in Israel was devoted to talking to Palestinian representatives.

ike/ Leggo His Eggo

2008-07-23T16:07:00.000-07:00

In the pantheon of public figures who have become caricatures of themselves, Maureen Dowd ranks up there with Dick Vitale and maybe this fine lady. I challenge you to read this column and summarize her argument. If you can make it to the end, she talks about concern that Barack Obama is becoming "too prissy about food." Apparently, he's in danger of losing the election if people don't start making fun of him more. Please, I implore you, don't kill the messenger.

But today Dowd wrote about a growing criticism about Obama: his narcissism. The chattering about Obama and his humongous ego started at about the same time that Hillary Clinton's humongous lead in national polls begin to shrink. "How could this relative newcomer be so sure of himself," they asked.

I contend that much of the "Obama's Ego" buzz came from the way his supporters supported him. Obama's minions, many of whom voted or donated for the first time, were a genuine political force, either scaring or amazing the public with their passion. Regardless, the ego issue has become part of the national lexicon of Barack Obama.

One would be hard-pressed to find a group of people more egotistical than those who seek public office. I would expand on this thought if David Brooks hadn't covered this very topic in what is probably his best column ever, which he penned in the aftermath of a particularly infamous political sex scandal.

But to run for president requires a different type of audacity altogether; to actually think that you alone are best qualified to hold the most powerful job in the world necessitates a hubris associated with some sort of disorder. But where is the evidence that Barack Obama is afflicted more severely than any of his 2008 counterparts?

Apparently, the proof is in his smile. His calm demeanor. His ability to control his temper. The way he can whip a crowd into a frenzy by just talking about his vision.

Signs of narcissism? Perhaps. But I'd like to offer a different vision of narcissism embodied. After five years in captivity, is it narcissistic to abandon your wife--who has endured a debilitating car accident--and young family who have waited patiently for you? Is it narcissistic to search the country for favorable places from which to launch your political career? Is it narcissistic to call your wife one of the most heinous words in the english language in front of journalists because she dared to make fun of your thinning hairline?

And lastly, is it narcissistic after receiving a diploma from an Ivy League University, to become what U.S. News and World Report called a "tireless and pragmatic advocate for the community" in inner city Chicago?

It would be foolhardy to assume that single anecdotes from a life prove or disprove one man's sense of self over another's. But it is the responsibility of conscientious voters and citizens to dig beneath appearances and topical arguments if they aspire to discover what motivates a candidate to seek public office.

TDB | Reply to 'The End of An Error'

2008-07-22T14:09:00.001-07:00

I have to disagree with my friend on a few points. While I do think Mr Maliki's statement of at least implied support for Senator Obama's withdrawal plan/timeline was significant, I think it's neither as consequential nor as clear cut as my friend imagines.

First of all, it's not entirely clear what Mr Maliki's real desire is regarding American troops. Public support for American withdrawal - or rather public opposition to American presence - is a political necessity for him. But there are plenty of Iraqi's - and many in Maliki's own government - who are scared to death of an American withdrawal.

One of the things we can do in a situation such as this - where we know better than to assume the truthfulness of one side in a debate - is ook at the vehemence of each side's proclamations. Most Iraqi's, including Mr Maliki, who make the case for American withdrawal say that it is what the Iraqi's want and what they deserve now that Iraq is a sovereign nation; no one on this side of the argument has - to my knowledge - made any statements to the effect that chaos would erupt and Iraq would fall apart if the Americans didn't withdraw.

On the other side of the debate, nearly everyone who makes the case for a continued American presence in Iraq talks of chaos if America withdraws. I'm not saying that they are necessarily more correct simply because of their vehemence, and I don't necessarily disagree with Obama's timeline for withdawal, I'm just pointing the discussion in the direction of a group of people who have something significant to contribute to the debate and who are very, very serious believers in their opinion.

More importantly, though, is my objection to my friends argument that it is inconsequential whether or not McCain was right on the need for the surge. I very much disagree with this point, and I think that the fact that McCain has been proven correct in his support (and that Obama has been proven wrong) is very important.

It was a very difficult decision not to cut and run in Iraq, especially for someone who knows first hand that sending troops into battle inevitably means bringing home some of those troops in caskets. We faced a choice in Iraq then, when the surge was being debated: either we admit that Iraq was a mistake, that the mess we made is irreversible and that we have to abandon the country; or we admit that we simply can't leave the country and the region in its present state, - regardless of who is most responsible for that state - and that no matter how much it seems that cutting and running is viable alternative, it is in fact no such thing. This situation may present itself again in the future - likely during an Obama presidency.

Even if Obama has been proven correct in his original opposition to the war, I hope that, while he admits that there were unforeseen circumstances which have led to greater stability in Iraq, he also realizes that even the worst of situations are improvable; and that he learns something of a lesson from what the surge has accomplished. I very much want Obama to be our next president; but I would feel better knowing that he understands that it was an uncompromising attitude to unacceptable outcomes and shear nerve as much as it was unforeseen circumstances that gave the US new life in Iraq and (s0 far) kept us from having to deal with an infinitely worse situation in the Middle East.

ike/ Quote of the Day

2008-07-22T12:35:00.000-07:00

"After the Depression, a savings mentality set in. After the dot-com bubble, a bit of sobriety hit Silicon Valley. Now it’s the borrowers’ and lenders’ turn. As the saying goes: People don’t change when they see the light. They change when they feel the heat."

--David Brooks

ike/ The End of an Error

2008-07-20T19:48:00.000-07:00

It's probably best to give the mainstream media the benefit of the doubt but it appears after a few days, it has completely missed the biggest political story of the year.

Late last week, President Bush and Nouri al Maliki agreed on what was called a "general time horizon" for pulling out American troops in Iraq. When the president first introduced the troop surge, it was done in hopes of clearing space for political reconciliation. This political progress would catalyze our military's departure. In other words, we added troops in the short term to bring troops home faster. Yet even as violence in Iraq subsided, Bush remained non-commital on when we could begin our military draw down.

From a standpoint of domestic politics and the 2008 election, things started to get fuzzy when John McCain, a proponent of the surge, disagreed with its stated intent. McCain's vision of Iraq for the foreseeable future clearly included permanent bases and large amounts of American forces.

Flash forward to last week; as these "general time horizons" were discussed, it appeared that a convergence of opinion was beginning among al Maliki, President Bush and Barack Obama, who has long maintained that he would bring troops home (effectively ending the war) as quickly and responsibly as possible.

But then al Maliki took the next step; in an interview with a German newspaper, he said the following: "Obama's remarks that--if he takes office--in 16 months he would withdraw the forces--we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq. Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

John McCain is not running for president in 2008 because of a strong Republican brand. He is not running on the coattails of a popular Republican president. He is not running on a health care plan to insure millions of Americans. He is not running because of his expertise on economic issues. He is not running with a compelling plan to curb carbon emissions or raise fuel efficiency standards. He is running on the premise that in troubled times, he is more responsible and more experienced to lead our military and keep us safe.

On the seminal issue of his campaign, John McCain has been undermined by the popularly-elected leader of the country we fought to free. Whether he was correct on the need for the surge is inconsequential; the Iraqi government and Barack Obama are embracing similar visions for the future of our military in a foreign land. Who's left to dance with John McCain?

TDB | Quote(s) Of The Day

2008-07-19T22:19:00.001-07:00

Israeli UN Ambassador, Dan Gillerman, had a few great lines in his interview in this week's New York Times Magazine. I can't pick just one.

You recently called Jimmy Carter a “bigot” after he met with Khaled Meshal, the head of Hamas. Is it true you were reprimanded by the U.S. State Department? There was no complaint or reprimand. The only reaction I received was very positive.
--------------------------------------

The Palestinians' real tragedy is that they have not been able to produce a Nelson Mandela.
--------------------------------------

[The] mere presence [of the Libyans] on the Security Council is scandalous. No co-op board in this city would even consider letting Libya buy an apartment, yet the U.N. gives it a seat on the world body responsible for peace and security.
--------------------------------------

A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell and actually make you look forward to the journey.
--------------------------------------

You’re wearing a tie decorated with elephants. Is that a sign of your loyalty to the Republican candidate? No, no, my loyalty is to pink elephants.

ike/ Response to Dennis Ross and Obama's Promise

2008-07-19T11:06:00.000-07:00

I agree very much with my friend. Dennis Ross is a foreign policy heavyweight who has dedicated much of his professional life to directly negotiating peace between Israel and Palestine. His work with the Soviet Union, and its value with a provocative Russia, is well-stated in my friend's previous post.

Ross wrote his most recent book, Statecraft: And How to Restore America's Standing in the World, last year, and he defines productive foreign policy as dependant on direct negotiations. As one might predict, he is dismayed by the Bush II administration's unilaterist approach to the world.

As our recent success with North Korea and failures with Iran have proved, direct dialogue works. W's almost-Freudian rejection of his father's rather progressive foreign policy approach and subsequent embrace of neoconservativism, a school of thought born and proliferated in academia but consistently rebuked in practice, represents the most damaging legacy of his presidency.

It is encouraging to see Obama continue to advocate a philosophy of talking and an administration of experience and rationality. John McCain would be wise to embrace a similar approach; it would do much to calm well-earned fears about his bellicosity.

TDB | Dennis Ross and Obama's Promise

2008-07-19T07:02:00.000-07:00

A while back, Barack Obama mentioned an admiration for the foreign policy of the first president Bush - no doubt a smart thing to say for a fellow worryingly lacking in foreign policy experience. No matter your party affiliation, surely you can muster at least grudging respect for team Bush’s near perfect record of dedication, professionalism and efficacy. Needless to say, implicitly associating oneself with such a quality operation might lend one a bit of credibility. But was Obama being honest in his admiration? I hoped so - but there was no way to tell. Until now.

A few days ago, Senator Obama tapped Dennis Ross to accompany him on his Middle East trip. Not only does Ross have ties to the Bush/Baker foreign policy team; he is outspoken in his admiration for its diplomatic successes - its handling of German reunification, its crucial success in winning Gorbachev's 'support' for the Gulf War, its careful dance with a Soviet Union that, though it was reconciled to giving up its empire quietly, was still worryingly susceptible to action by hard-line communists. It doesn't take much to see that a knowledge and admiration of these events will be of critical help to the next president - as he tries to reunify an essentially fragmented Iraq, as he tries (once again) to win crucial support from Russia (and China); as he tries to reconcile Iran to giving up its nuclear ambitions, mindful once more of a country's hard-line threat.

Moreover, Dennis Ross embodies everything good in American foreign policy during the last 20 years. Not just 'good' in the sense of successful; but 'good' in the sense of 'well intentioned'. Obama's choice of Ross to play a key roll in advising, shaping and executing the Obama foreign policy vision proves two very important things: 1) that a much needed seriousness, dedication, and effectiveness will return to our Middle East policy when Obama is president; and 2) that Obama meant what he said - not just that he admired Bush I, but more importantly that he really intends to reach out and create consensus, to move beyond partisanship, to listen, to compromise, to be pragmatic and productive of real solutions.

Not that Ross is a creature of the Right - he is most certainly no such thing. A life-long Democratic rather! But he's probably the single foreign policy figure that can elicit anything approaching universal praise. He is possibly the one guy who could instantly convince anyone, American, Israeli and even Arab (now that Arafat, with his desperate attempts to place blame, is no more) that President Obama is committed and well-intentioned. As 'conservative' columnists David Brooks explained of the man:

I often tell candidates to hire Ross. You can wake him up at 4 a.m. and he will be able to spout off eight things the president should do right now to improve American interests in the region. The world is full of big thinkers. Few have that sort of practical intelligence.

ike/ Quote of The Day

2008-07-17T14:17:00.000-07:00

“We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change.”

--Al Gore

TDB | Reply to Finders Keepers, Losers Veepers

2008-07-17T11:43:00.000-07:00

I have to disagree with my friend on a few points. First, the VP can actually end up playing a major policy role in a Presidential administration. It's indeed true that, since VP number 1, John Adams, first complained of the weakness and unimportance of his job, almost everyone has confidently repeated the charge; and it's also true that constitutionally the VP is a weakling; but Dick Cheney may have changed the Vice Presidency for ever.

I doubt that VPs in the future will have as much power and influence as Cheney; but we'll never unlearn what Cheney has taught us: that a VP can in fact run the show. John Adams was a rather imperious fellow, and I can imagine that if he had Cheney's precedent, he would never have said what he did about the Vice Presidency - instead, he would have said (to himself this time) something more like: "So, that's how it's done!" And that's exactly what many VPs will say in the future - their personal feelings towards Cheney aside. Let's remember that the vast majority who end up in the VPs office were actually looking for the more ovular office nearby. These are men - and, as Hillary may show us, women - who very much want to be President (and believe they deserve to be).

My point is that we should consider the Vice Presidency in a different light than has been traditional. We have to think of it as much more than a tool to help in the election, especially since there are questions about McCain's age and - as much as I hate to even think about it - Obama's safety. That's my problem with Tim Kaine: I don't think people would feel comfortable if he were suddenly president. Romney is better in this regard - but he can't bring Massachusetts with him, and McCain is desperate for some swing state help. Moreover, the religious right has a problem with his Mormonism - and they're already unenthusiastic about McCain himself.

My choice for McCain is Rob Portman - he could help a lot in Ohio; he brings a lot of economic intelligence and know how; he is well liked; and he's young but still has lots of Washington experience.

For Obama, Sam Nunn - he is almost universally well-liked in Washington (and Georgia); he knows Congress very well (literally, in many cases); he knows more about nuclear proliferation than all but a handful of people in the world; he has the foreign policy credentials (and tons of FP experience); and he could very possibly turn Georgia blue - the large African American population, the third party candidacy of Georgian Bob Barr, and a lot of enduring love for Sam Nunn would put a very big, otherwise very red state seriously into contention. Moreover, Obama likes and respects Nunn - as do a lot of moderate Americans, especially those who used to be called 'Reagan Democrats' and are now called 'Unconvinced White Men'.

TDB | Quote of The Day

2008-07-16T16:54:00.000-07:00

From last night's Daily Show with John Stewart:

Barack Obama should in no way be upset about the cartoon that depicts him as a Muslim extremist, because you know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists.

ike | Finders Keepers Losers Veepers

2008-07-16T13:50:00.000-07:00

By far the coolest vice president in history is Spiro Agnew. He actually took bribes while in office. He was also most likely more corrupt than his boss, though not as smart, and certainly lacked a certain element of tolerance.

Usually, vice presidents don't have much to do. And no, I will not use this venue to indulge in any "Dick Cheney shot a man in the face jokes" because I don't think it's fair to mock a man who has approval ratings lower than Yasser Arafat's T-cell count. Too soon? My bad.

The media spends a lot of time worrying about a position that is by definition in the background. But the truth is, nobody much cares. In 2000, Joe Lieberman nearly fellated our current second in command and no one even thought to film it.

That being said, a vice presidential nominee can have a big role in electoral politics. But Democrats have royally screwed up their choices in the last two presidential elections by trying to neutralize core strengths of their opponent and not focusing on the electoral college.

In 2000, George W. Bush ran to bring "morality" back to the Oval Office. Of course, this was a deft and thinly-veiled reference to the smokin' good times that occurred there. Bush's argument had great appeal; many, probably most, Americans were sickened by Clinton's actions and believed that a less indulgent man deserved our nation's highest office. Instead of running on eight years of mostly peace and prosperity, Al Gore decided to try to hit his opponent where he was the strongest. So the Democratic Party was treated to Joe Lieberman, who needlessly tried to kill music before he succeeded in needlessly killing Americans. But back in 2000, when life was but a dream, Lieberman represented a strong religious backbone, morality and pro-family ethics. It was the perfect antidote to one of W's fundamental appeals. But it failed.

Flash forward to four years ago when John Kerry, never a favorite in a tea leaf reading contest, selected outgoing North Carolina Senator John Edwards, outgoing due more to his inability to win his home state again than his presidential aspirations. Edwards would provide a beautiful antitode to Bush's down-home folksiness. He could peel off rural white voters from W and allow Kerry to defeat the incumbent. We all know what happened.

Picking a vice president because he or she combats a certain ideological strength of your opponent is stupid. The person nominated by his party for the highest office in the land is surely better at reflecting that ideology; that's why he's the nominee. Plus, nobody votes for the vice president. UNLESS...

Veeps can carry states. More specifically, a vice presidential candidate can carry his or her home state--especially if that candidate is a popularly elected governor. So if you were a presidential nominee, why wouldn't you run on your strengths and then select as your running mate a person who could actually deliver a state you couldn't have won otherwise? Seems obvious, right?

With that out of the way, here are my Veep picks.

Barack Obama: Tim Kaine.

The Democratic Party is flush with popular governors elected in presidentially red states. Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Ohio, Arkansas. The list goes on and on. Obama has a very real shot to win Virginia even without Kaine on the ticket. The state has had two consecutive popular Democratic governors, and come January, it will have two Democratic senators. But Tim Kaine probably puts Obama over the top. And picking up a southern state is a big deal. But Kaine also does something else: he complements a strength of Obama. Obama has a real chance to peel off a chunk of evangelical voters. Karl Rove has generally credited registering and turning out 3 million new religious voters with Bush's 2004 re-election. Kaine and Obama both speak freely, passionately and articulately about their faith. And John McCain doesn't. Obama knows about the importance of this issue in states like Colorado, Iowa and Nevada. Evangelicals and latinos represent Obama's best opportunity to make in-roads among populations that voted overwhelmingly for W.

John McCain: Mitt Romney.

Money is a big problem for John McCain. Some have speculated Obama could raise $100 million in single months of this campaign. Mitt Romney, through his business and religious connections, would help the McCain ticket in a place it is in great need: the wallet. There is a dearth of popular, Republican statewide officeholders in blue states. And while Romney would never carry Massachusetts on a McCain ticket, he could help in New Hampshire. Not to mention the fact that Romney's greatest strength, his success in the private sector, knowledge of the business world and CEO experience, all serve to quell the fears of an electorate for which the growing financial crisis is the greatest concern.

TDB | Obama & Lincoln

2008-07-14T19:09:00.000-07:00

Pointing out similarities between current politicians and historical figures can quickly become a silly and pointless exercise. But the search for historical precedents is instructive - it's especially useful for exposing fallacies in current thinking. That's half of what I'm aiming at here; I also want to use history to add perspective to probable future events.

Barack Obama often invokes Lincoln's memory; and there's been much discussion of parallels between the two men. Last week even saw Obama's face superimposed on Lincoln's head and shoulders in a very skillfully painted mural. And even though much of this is done rather excitedly and without concern for historical accuracy, there are good reasons to compare Obama to Lincoln, as the two men have a remarkable amount in common.

There's been a lot of understandable concern about Barack Obama's lack of experience. But Lincoln - who, whatever your personal opinion of him, saw our nation ably through one of its most trying moments - became president with only two years of Washington experience - and this much earlier in his career. He was, even then, only a member of the House. Obama will have four years of Washington experience by the time he takes office - and as a Senator. Both Obama and Lincoln made early marks largely by opposing a popular war - the Iraq War in Obama's case, the Mexican War in Lincoln's. Both men gained national prominence not through years legislative toil (a la Richard Lugar or Joe Biden) but rather through speaking events that led to 'overnight' fame - Lincoln through his debates with Stephen Douglas, and Obama through his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. Moreover, both men will have been about the same age when elected - Obama 48, Lincoln 51; both were lawyers by profession; amd both were considered political opportunists by contemporaries, especially those in their own party.

Finally, both Lincoln and Obama have proved something of a question-mark regarding their personal religion. They have repeatedly professed themselves Christians; but few who choose to make an issue of it have been convinced by their claims. The truth in Lincoln's case - and I suspect something similar for Obama - is that he had a deeply religious sense of life, of fate, &c; but this sense, combined with a natural skepticism, didn't fit comfortably within 'Christianity'.

A lack of 'Christianness,' as it were, is, however, actually for the best - historically speaking. The only two presidents of the last 50 years who made a point of incorporating their Christianity into their politics were the two greatest failures: Bush II and Carter. Moreover, most of the Founders - especially those who later became president - were not terribly Christian men. They were, rather, men of the Enlightenment - deists with a Christian flavor.

So much for concerns about Obama's inexperience. There's one more point to be made, though. Obama has been criticized for his move to support the FISA bill; he should be forgiven this move - and any future moves that expand executive power and threaten our civil liberties. The unfortunate truth is that our civil liberties will at times be curtailed, for the safety of Americans and the continuation of our government. But such curtailment can and must be temporary; sunset provisions are essential.

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary powers - Lincoln is the perfect example of this. Securing Maryland for the Union was essential to the continuation of government and for the perpetuation of union; but in securing this border state, Lincoln violated the civil liberties of countless citizens. And it was not the only time he did so. But the important point is that his curtailments did not mean permanent changes in the basic rights of Americans. Lincoln had constitutional scruples and violated the letter of our most central document with great reluctance. Obama may very well have to do the same. As Hobbes pointed out, it's silly to worry exclusively about rights when the government maintaining those rights is threatened existentially. We should keep in mind in such cases that the truly important issue - and the mark of a truly great president - is a noticeable reluctance, not a complete unwillingness, to do the unsavory.

TDB | Reply to 'Cover Art'

2008-07-14T10:08:00.001-07:00

I have to disagree with my friend. For a few reasons. I think a) that the New Yorker cover art was both damaging to Obama and fairly tasteless; and b) that McCain has a very good chance of winning the election. Before I give my reasons, let me say that I support Obama - but I come from a long line of Republicans and, having been a Republican most of my life (I still consider myself a conservative) I know how a lot of them think.

In the latest Newsweek poll, the most recent iteration of the same poll that gave Obama a huge lead over McCain, his lead is back within the margin of error. More importantly, 12% think Obama is currently a Muslim, 12% think he was sworn in on a Koran, 26% believe he was raised a Muslim, and a whopping 39% think he attended an Islamic school as a child. This country may finally be ready to elect a black man president; but it is not ready to elect a Muslim (or a man with an Islamic background). Obama is not a Muslim; it might be unfair to call his background Islamic; but he is the only major party candidate in American history to have Islam in his background. Obama's father was a Muslim - whether lapsed or not - and that is simply too much for most Americans. This fact will not go away before November. It will eat away at the confidence of a great many Obama supporters. And the New Yorker cover will ultimately prove an aid in this deterioration of confidence. People will see it and - whether they think of it ironically, as it was intended - it will reinforce any subtle concerns they've had about Obama, his religion, his patriotism - whatever.

Sure, there are plenty of people who will understand the irony of the picture - but sadly the great majority of Americans don't understand irony. If the New Yorker supports Obama and wants to see him elected - and it's fairly clear they do - they have done a disservice to the cause. The Obama campaign, I think, understands this - and they are upset, as they should be.

I'm a huge fan of David Remnick and the New Yorker, but from an editorial point of view, running this cover was one of the dumbest things i can remember - surely Obama will keep the magazine at a greater distance when he is president than he would have 0therwise. Moreover, Remnick did a terrible job defending his decision on NPR, proving in the process just how cut off the editors of the New Yorker can be from America at large. I find it hard to believe that someone as intelligent as David Remnick could claim he simply didn't accept the argument that most people don't understand satire (without instructions); it's a sad fact that most Americans probably don't even know what satire is.

The lingering questions that many Americans have about Obama's religion exemplify the lingering questions that many have about an Obama presidency - especially in the Midwest swing states, which will determine the race. This will keep the race close, no matter how far Obama pulls ahead in the polls. Moreover, McCain is actually winning the contest for independent voters 41% to 34%, as the Newsweek poll shows. This is a significant lead by McCain - and it's among the very people who will decide this election. If McCain continues to lead by a significant margin among Independents and white males, the race will stay very close no matter what the main poll says.

ike | Cover Art

2008-07-14T08:51:00.000-07:00

By now you've heard about the cover. Provocative? Satirical? Incendiary? All of the above, perhaps.

The Obama campaign even issued a statement on it, calling it "tasteless and offensive." A McCain spokesman agreed.

There's a lot going in the picture: Michelle O sporting a Panther-esque afro, a very large gun and combat gear; the American flag burning in the fireplace; Obama clad in muslim garb; and a portrait of Uncle Osama hanging on the wall. And of course, the whole scene takes place in the Oval Office.

It's the whisper campaign personified, validated even, if only for a second, in a caricature of what the first couple of the United States would look like if (GASP) the rumors were all true.

It's funny. And it's timely.

Late last week, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki said his government was "looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty." Sunday's New York Times had a report on how the Bush administration is contemplating a drawdown of troops in Iraq starting this fall. While one presidential candidate has talked about a responsible but complete exit accomplished as soon as possible, the other has a brave new vision of a future Iraq, complete with permanent bases and all the fun stuff that comes with them.

It appears we are heading towards a place where on an issue he needs to win, John McCain is ostracized and on an island in believing our nation need maintain a permanent and robust military presence in Iraq.

If American voters overwhelmingly believe every citizen should have health care (and they do), that we need to end the Iraq War (and they do) and that Republican leadership has failed to accomplish much save bringing on the post profound period of malaise and fear in recent memory (yep, they believe that too), how can a Republican win a presidential election?

Yup.

And that's why this magazine cover is so important: it displays not only the absurdity of the attacks leveled against Obama, (here's my favorite terrorist fist bump btw) but how "mainstream" they've had to become at a time when a generally transcendent political figure is running against a man who can't even use a computer--a time when a man who will accept his party's nomination for president in a football stadium is running against a man who struggles to read off of a teleprompter.

TDB | 2005 In American History

2008-07-11T20:18:00.001-07:00

I have to say I agree very much with my friend. Katrina was a pivotal moment in American history - the final way point of 'conservative' rule. Visions of the third-world - which Americans had learned to numb their hearts and minds against after years of starving Somali faces and ravaged Balkan villages - now showed American faces, a ravaged American city. Our hearts and minds were shocked out of a long sleep and our sense of justice was shocked into looking for answers - which proved easy to find.

The regime in power and the system it created had become deplorable in almost every sense imaginable - belligerent, callous, myopic, dishonest, greedy, self-absorbed, negligent, mean, unethical and not a little bit profligate. It had been all of these things for a long time; but the indicator lights pulsed weakly, visible only to the unimportant. Widespread discontent was masked - mistaken for disparate irritations.

But in 2005, with Katrina and its aftermath, things became clear - and Americans demanded a change. The 2006 elections repudiated the party in power - 2008 will prove a repudiation of an entire way of American life. We no longer want to be apathetic gilded-age citizens of a nation obsessed with itself, hated by the world - we want to be progressive citizens of a nation long looked to for inspiration and leadership. Because of 2005 - one of America's worst ever years - we have, in 2008, refilled our depleted stores of inspiration. After November we'll rebuild our icon of leadership.

And for all those who don't believe that History repeats itself, or that America moves cyclically - in mind and in politics - consider the following description of the watershed year that spelled doom for our first gilded-age, heralding in progressivism:

The year 1894 was the darkest that Americans had known in thirty years and finally changed the way people looked at things. What had seemed irritating now became pressing. Increasingly people saw American society as unfair. While the government promoted and subsidized the efforts of the economically ambitious, the demands of labor and the farmers went unmet. A new plutocracy of predatory capitalists, no less powerful than the planter aristocracy of the Old South, was growing rich beyond anyone's imagination. Yet they maintained a callous indifference to the welfare and safety of workers. There was no such thing as public relief, and the unemployed worker was cast adrift. The cities were becoming a polluted sprawl of human misery ... Monopolies [ ] roamed the American terrain, stifling competition, shortchanging the consumer, corrupting the political process, and giving selfish men the power to direct and dispose of the wealth of an entire society. A sense of anger spread through the land, and in the mid term elections the people sent a message.

ike | McCain Can't Win

2008-07-10T10:45:00.000-07:00

If "Why John McCain Can't Win the Presidency of the United States in 2008" were a book, Chapter 1 would be called "Katrina." While I hesitate to take the Bush-like (Bush-ian sounds weird, doesn't it?) long-view of history, they'll write books about the fallout from the hurricane. It was, and I apologize for the pun in advance, the perfect storm. First off, the country got to see the fundamental and profound incompetence of the Bush administration. But the implications run much deeper; it killed the Republican brand for the foreseeable future. There before us, on national television and on repeat, we saw how the other half lived. I was working on a campaign at the time. "Oh my god," a co-worker of mine said. "It looks like a third-world country." And there it was--the flip side of the last twenty five years of economic policy and the unconscionable income disparity and cuts in domestic programs that came with trickle down economics: tax cuts for the wealthy; ballooning deficits; and a baby boomer culture that put a priority on amassing personal wealth and material possessions above all else. With whom was this resonating? I'm very glad you asked. Mostly the kids of that unfortunate and aforementioned generation, a group of new or soon to be voters who grew up more interconnected, more plugged in, than any generation in the history of the world. A generation that witnessed first-hand the priorities of their parents and asked, like Tony Montana in Scarface, "is this it?" This is a group that supports stem cell research, doesn't care if gays marry and understands that rounding up millions of people living in the United States and deporting them is impossible. So it disagrees with the GOP on the three seminal domestic issues of the past five years and then got to watch its administration perform what probably was the greatest act of domestic governmental incompetence in the history of our nation. Abraham Lincoln would have a hard time winning a national election if a big "R" appeared next to his name. And John McCain is no Abraham Lincoln.

Understanding with Iran Could Save Bush Foreign Policy (In History's Eyes, At Least)

2008-07-06T16:56:00.000-07:00

Who knows how things will play out with Iran? It's probably not productive to make guesses; but one thing worth thinking about is how history will end up scoring President Bush on Iranian relations and his success in promoting American interests. If nothing significant happens with/in Iran between now and Bush's departure in January, Iraq will most likely overshadow its neighbor almost entirely in assessments of Bush - at least until something dreadful (or unexpectedly fortuitous) happens to/in Iran and everyone sets out to find root causes.

But there are good signs from Iran this week. There are two messages coming out of the government - one of which is significantly more positive than the other (though both are doubtless positive responses, compared to former results).

So what if Iran and the US reach some kind of deal before Bush leaves and relations between the two countries start to normalize - with symbolic gestures such as the proposed creation of direct flight between New York and Tehran put in the works? That would be something, indeed. It's beyond unlikely - of course. But let's indulge the prospect for a moment to see what the upshot for Bush's foreign policy legacy would be.

It would change things a great deal, I think.

Present logic holds that Bush made a mess of already messy Iranian relations by going into Iraq. It certainly seems that this is the case. But it is only because of the Iraq war and the new unltra-close proximity of US and Iranian interests that the Ayatollah decided in 2006 to remove a long standing ban on any diplomatic dealings with the US. If those dealings turn out to be the seads of a (I repeat: very unlikely) imminent mending of relations between the US and Iran, George W. Bush will have to be seen in a somewhat more positive light as he steps down; and he will doubtless be much more highly considered in history's assessment of his Foreign policy, the results of which will be, without a great stretch of the imagination if Iranian relations are improved, a Middle East with large US allay (Iraq) a diffused relatively major enemy (Iran) and a (sad but somewhat helpful) sidetrack focus on Shia-Sunni sectarian fights for Muslims who long for action and ultimately bloodshed. That is a much better Middle East than President Bush started with - at least it will seem this way to history.

Why Obama's windfall oil profits tax is a bad idea...

2008-06-25T12:58:00.000-07:00

Though it's not enough to turn me off to the prospect of a President Obama, I have to say that the Senator does keep doing things that justify the 'another Carter term' argument. The windfall profits tax on oil companies is the latest example. Whether or not a lower gas price would be good for America (it would in the short term, but not long term) we need to at least protect ourselves from skyrocketing prices in response to, say, Iran deciding to punish the West for some sin against them by restricting oil exports. Moreover, we're not going to quit our oil habit cold turkey - it's not possible. So we need secure supplies of oil regardless of the price of gas. And we need to get ourselves off a dangerous reliance on Middle Easterners who largely hate us.

My point is: we need more oil no matter what - and it would be much better for America if that oil was American. But Obama's proposed excess profits tax would discourage the search for additional oil; thus it would have the opposite effect on the search for oil that a relaxation of the moratorium on offshore drilling would. If such a tax persisted for many year, which it most likely would, it would continuously discourage further exploration for oil for an obvious reason: much of the profits on any new oil production would be taxed away.

It costs oil companies a lot to search for oil and, when found, to build the infrastructure to extract and move it. The incentive to do so is not always going to be there simply because oil executives are greedy bastards. And this brings me to the most important point in all this: is Mr Obama failing to take into account the effect on incentive that his various proposed taxes would have? I trust Austin Goolsbee is aware of them; so I have faith in Obama. But he could really damage the economy if, while he is president, he suggests things like windfall profits taxes in response to crises he (and America) is forced to meet.

Jimmy Carter didn't take de-incentivisation into account a number of times during his presidency. Granted, it wasn't talked about as much then or as widely accepted as a result of certain kinds of taxation, but that doesn't mean the lessons of his presidency should be disregarded. As Gary Becker explained on his blog with Richard Posner:

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter introduced a windfall tax on oil companies to prevent them from profiting a lot from the high price of oil due to the Iran-Iraq war. An evaluation by the Congressional Research Service, a think tank that provides reports to Congress, concluded that the tax significantly reduced domestic oil production and raised oil imports. Disillusionment with the tax led to its abandonment in 1987.

Issue for debate: health care...

2008-06-24T01:37:00.000-07:00

Obviously, something needs to be done about health care. Too many Americans are uninsured; and the employer based health care 'program' that currently exists has - to be frank - turned to shit. Surprisingly (or unsurprisingly, to some of us), most Americans think this program is 'normal' in some sense - that it is the job of one's job to provide health care coverage. In fact, the only reason employers provide health care in America is because , as a consequence of WWII wage controls, companies began offering non wage extras to entice workers, the most significant of which was a health care plan. But this system - which is no system at all, but rather a short term creative solution for a very particular situation - has stuck with us. And it has failed us - is failing 40 some million Americans (and killing American industry) of every day.

What to do...

Basically, there are three options (four if, as Washington habits have taught us, we include innaction). Option 1 - A state run single payer plan on the European social democrat model; Option 2 - Something akin to the Clinton 1994 plan, which essentially amounts to universal coverage based on a continuation of the current employer provided model; Option 3 - A plan which removes the onus from employers and provides tax credits and subsidies to ensure universal coverage.

In my opinion, only the last option amounts to a true solution. My support regarding the particulars of that option is firmly behind the plan offered by Oregon's Democratic Senator, Ron Wyden, which is both radical and simple (and perfectly fitting for a republic, to boot): 'Every American citizen should have the same health benefits available to members of Congress.' Moreover, 'according to an independent assessment by the Lewin Group, a nonpartisan health-care consulting firm, it would save $1.48 trillion over the next ten years.'

Joe Klein (in the afterward to his terrific book, Politics Lost) summed up the plan and its implications best, i think:

Wyden's plan would eliminate the current employer-based system [and] employers would 'cash-out' the money they currently pay for health benefits and distribute it as wages; individuals would then pay an annual health care premium to the federal government, as part of their annual taxes, and choose their own private plans from a system very much like the one currently offered federal employees. There would be two mandates - one for individuals and one for insurance companies. The individual mandate would require everyone to participate, especially those who can aford health insurance and currently choose not to buy it... The destitute - those who currently receive Medicaid - would join the same system as the rest of the public, and their health-care premiums would be subsidized on a sliding scale up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. The second mandate would require insurance companies to cover everyone who applies at the same rate, regardless of preexisting conditions (this is called 'community rating' in the trade). So where's the pain [in such a plan]? Up the income scale. Health care would no longer be tax deductible. Those with incomes of more than 400 percent of poverty would have to pay for their health-insurance premiums themselves.

Why is this plan best? Five reasons: 1 - it simplifies the system; 2 - it disentangles coverage from work, a move for which portability is only the best upshot; 3 - it gets rid of Medicaid; 4 - it provides real choice instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all coverage plan, which imposition would be thoroughly unAmerican in its utter disregard for freedom of association (and to associate freely), that most basic of American traits - and the basis, as Tocqueville understood, of American society, economy, and polity; and 5 - it is eminently fair, democratic, and republican (in the particular sense understood by Plato and Cicero, Hamilton and Madison, and Montesquieu and Mill - and which is the most basic of my political sensibilities)!

Quote of the day

2008-06-22T13:11:00.000-07:00

The Economist sums up the situation well:

Mr Obama enjoys huge support among blacks and rich white liberals. That was enough to win him the Democratic nomination. But to win the general election, he needs Reagan Democrats - working-class whites who worry about national security, are somewhat culturally conservative and whom the Gipper was able to persuade to change political sides. These folks might well prefer a plain-spoken war hero like Mr McCain to the articulate and arugula-munching Mr Obama. But they would vote for Mr Obama if he ran with another plan-spoken warrior...

Obama's (Singular) Potential to End Terrorism

2008-06-17T05:18:00.001-07:00

It's ironic that the new Washington Post poll numbers show McCain significantly besting Obama (only) on the question of terrorism - because Obama provides, in the end, a counter terror tool that McCain can never match, and which ultimately may be the most vital in our toolbox.

It's likely either president will prosecute the war on terror as well as (and surely more thoughtfully and subtlety than) President Bush has (i.e., I don't see Obama going soft on Terror in his first term, since it's such a questionable leadership issue for him). And, arguably, continued prosecution would lead ultimately to the end of Al Qaeda as a/the major terror network throughout the world. But that still leaves the independent, radicalized, would-be terrorists that have become - for around half the counterterror policy establishment, no less - the most central aspect of terrorism today (and, more importantly, tomorrow).

Obama can fight this aspect of terrorism by showing Muslims throughout the world who are disaffected because of social alienation in a sometimes-suffocating but still often-distant western society; and who channel that disaffection into deadly anger toward America, that ther e's hope (and much more than hope) for them, exactly as they exist. That people of their background (sons and daughters of men and women once dismissively referred to by Anglos as colonials or natives) may count on having a true place (indeed, the very top place) in the Western wold, and in a Pax Americana. A President Obama means that both western society and hegemonic America have embraced an African American with a Muslim name - and by doing so, they have truly embraced the whole world - fulfilling a long held goal, in America's case.

For Debate | Pro-Life Heath Care Workers Desires to Abstain

2008-06-16T18:18:00.000-07:00

Today's Washington Post featured an article on pro-life pharmacies. The proliferation (admittedly slow) of such pharmacies are part of a (slowly) growing trend for health care workers in various fields to refuse to participate in care contributing to abortions and/or sometimes contraceptive measures. As always in America, an issue has been raised as to whether or not such health care workers should be allowed to abstain from or even flat out refuse to administer (let's call it) 'birth control' procedures, including issuing and/or filling birth control prescriptions.

This question, in my opinion, can be answered by referring to a fundamental principle: people should be free to engage in whatever career they desire, so long as it doesn't contribute directly to the harm of anyone else. And they should be able to do so in accord with whatever personal principles they subscribe to. If, for example, someone who wants to sell books and magazines for a living wants to do so without contributing to the dissemination of (what he considers) pornography, he should be allowed to do exactly that. Thus, it seems, if someone wants to be a nurse or a pharmacist, they should be allowed to do so according to whatever principles they hold dear. The only time their doing so should be questioned is if and when it contributes directly to the harm of someone else, meaning essentially, in our present case, if our nurse or pharmacist is the only person providing that skill in a given locality. To argue against this (and specifically in the following way) is basically unfair and moreover makes 'pro-life' citizens less likely to concede that in some thinly-served areas people shouldn't be allowed to be pro-life if they go into a certain profession:

But critics say the stores could create dangerous obstacles for women seeking legal, safe and widely used birth control methods. "I'm very, very troubled by this," said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center, a Washington Advocacy Group. "Contraception is essential for women's health. A pharmacy like this is walling off an essential part of health care. That could endanger women's health."

There are so many CVS, Duane-Reade and/or Walgreens pharmacies all over America that a pharmacy based on the idea of being pro-life (and thus expressly refusing to cater to contraceptive needs) is not going to limit access to contraceptives, which are readily available at any mainstream drug store. Moreover, nurses and doctors (the issue has apparently been more pronounced re Anesthesiologists refusing to anesthetize for certain types of procedures) who are of this persuasion should simply say so at the outset and not be put into situations where they will be the only individual available to provide such care. If they are the sole provider, their situation can default to an agreement they made when they become a professional in the health care field to waive their refusals.

The point is: to tell an American that he or she cannot participate in a certain profession because of their personal beliefs is wrong. There is plenty of room in the American economy, which is more than ably served in most sectors, for people to have the luxury of working within their framework of personal belief. That (maybe particularly American) freedom should be valued to a high degree, if not to the same degree as the freedom to purchase contraceptives.

A Problem with the 'Obamantra'...

2008-06-16T14:20:00.000-07:00

I want to take issue quickly with Obama's repeated charge against McCain, namely that a President McCain would amount to 'four more years' of George W. Bush.

There is a significant difference between what President Bush suggested, what he attempted, and what he accomplished. Admittedly, almost everything that he accomplished has become a failure - on the whole, because it was the wrong policy. But that leaves what Mr Bush suggested and what he attempted - neither of which can be considered Bush accomplishments, and thus shouldn't be seen as 'what Bush did' during his 2 terms. For example, Bush attempted to fix Social Security, in part using Health Savings Accounts (in my opinion the right policy, and nowhere proven as a failed policy). Certainly HSAs alone are not going to provide the solution to the pension problem; but they are part of that solution. But when Obama criticizes McCain, who also wants to use HSAs to help fix Social Security, he says something along the following line:

My opponent in this general election, John McCain, his idea of Social Security amounts to four more years of what was attempted and failed under George W. Bush. Yesterday he tried to deny that he ever took that position, which leads us to wonder if he had a change of heart or a change of politics.

But this is - or should be - largely beside the point. If Mr Obama wants to criticize McCain as amounting to another four years of Bush failures - for which criticism there is plenty of legitimate fodder - he should limit that criticism to Bush's failed (and thus accomplished) policies. If he wants to include in his criticism proposed Bush policies that never had the opportunity to fail, like HSAs, he should not use the same refrain: that McCain's policies here amount to another 4 years of Bush failures.

The point is - and the same point will apply for immigration as well, if it ever becomes central to Obama's speeches - that HSAs and other Bush policies only failed in Congress, they did not fail outright. Bush's legacy might have been much better if such proposed policies had truly been tried; or, they might not. But when he criticizes the Bush legacy as it stands, Obama can't honestly include in that criticism issues like Social Security reform or immigration reform. By lumping such issues together with genuinely failed Bush policies, Mr Obama is participating in the kind of dishonest politics he finds deplorable and aims to transcend.

Should we tax the rich?

2008-06-12T11:32:00.001-07:00

From today's Hotline at National Journal:

Obama's tax plan "would provide $1,042 in tax cuts for Americans in the middle 20 percent of income," while McCain's plan "would provide about $1,009 -- $33 less." Families "in the lowest" 20% of income "would get an estimated tax cut of $567 under the Obama plan but only $19 under the McCain plan." Families "in the top 1 percent of income" would "pay $115,974 more in taxes under the Obama plan while getting a $45,361 tax cut from the McCain plan" (Tumulty, Gannett, 6/12).

Having spent most of my life as a Republican, I have an aversion to tax increases. But what I'm opposed to, in the end, is not tax increases, especially for the wealthy; rather I'm opposed to high taxes. Wealthy people in America can certainly afford to pay an extra hundred thousand dollars a year. But it was unfair when we taxed the rich at a marginal rate of 90%. That's just ridiculous. Even 70% bothers me a great deal. 50% or even 60% is okay with me - it's fair and it won't negatively effect the economy by stifling productivity or creativity or the entrepreneurial spirit, which higher rates would. That's not to say the tax increase that moves us back to 50% of 60% wont hurt the economy. It will - but only temporarily. The help it provides will be permanent - our inexcusable level of debt will be reduced.

We have a lot of things we need to pay for (or pay the interest for) in this country. The wealthy shouldn't be increasing their share of our nation's wealth if it means ignoring that fact.

Quote of the day...

2008-06-12T06:22:00.000-07:00

Alvaro Vargas Llosa in The New Republic:

Actually [oil executives and governments that refuse to intervene to protect consumers] are not the culprits. For years, countries endowed with oil, such as Russia, Venezuela and Mexico, have been messing up their own capacity to produce it by using it as a political weapon. That doesn't mean that they are not producing millions of barrels each day, but it does mean that they are unable to increase production in order to keep up with demand--and traders do not expect them to raise the supply of oil in the future.

Why Obama and the Democrats Will Have More Trouble Than They Think

2008-06-10T07:04:00.000-07:00

Sunday’s Washington Post says the Obama team is aiming at all 50 states, trying to give lots of help to down-ballot elections. But an Obama presence tied up with a Democrat running for congress in – let’s say – northern Mississippi is bad news. In fact, it’s doing the Republicans’ job for them. The Republican strategy in those kinds of districts is to paint the Dem candidate as part of the Obama Dem party – which his just too liberal to be appealing. And the only reason the Dems won in – let’s say – northern Mississippi, taking a GOP seat, is that the Republican claim was unconvincing. If Travis Childers had been seen with the Obama campaign, the fact that he thinks like a conservative Republican wouldn’t have much mattered.

The Obama plan begins with victories in Kerry-voting states, and then adds 18 electoral votes somewhere. But what happens to the plan if it doesn’t begin correctly?

McCain really does appeal to a significant chunk of Democrats (HRC backers) while Obama doesn’t pull much from the Republican side. Disaffected Republicans are flooding the country; Defecting Republicans are few and far between – in fact, they are the true elites in this race (not concerned about the populist and cultural aspects of their party to stick with it when things go bad on the high end).

Thanks to McCain’s status as a Republican peculiarity, it’s looking like the GOP will be able to count once again on Ohio and Florida. On the Dems side, however, it’s looking (more each week, it seem) like either Michigan or Pennsylvania will jump the blue-state ship. Ironically, it seems Obama’s role as a party-peculiarity will prove a serious disadvantage – totally reversing the dynamics that McCain found in a very similar role.

I still say the best move for Obama is to put the South into play. Pick Sam Nunn as a running mate, win Georgia and North Carolina, keep pushing hard out west, and reduce the catastrophic fallout from a rude move by Michigan or Pennsylvania.