Last week, Obama Bim Baden, the Illinois Democratic candidate for President, announced in a lunch speech at the Economics Club of Detroit, that, henceforth, 'expense is no excuse' for environmentally-driven changes to automobiles.
Get ready to have big government make a really big grab on your wallet. Nevermind that the manufacturers are already streaming more fuel-efficient vehicles to the market.
Rather than let people choose what to buy, and, thus, how they value environmentalism, Bim Baden would just force them to pay more for what he thinks they need. Sounds a bit like...well..fascism to me. In the technical sense. State-directed production means.
Hey, is he related to Ted Kennedy? Obama certainly seems to favor that kind of liberalism- nevermind what the people think, we'll tell them what they should have.
If he's elected in 2008, the poor and merely-average in this country are in for a big shock. Ed Begley, Jr. and Leo di Caprio might be able to afford the new vehicles, and enjoy the belief that they contribute to cleaner air. But for most voters, they're just going to have to hang on to their current ride a little longer, because a new one just moved out of their affordability range.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
If I Managed Fred Thompson's Presidential Campaign....
My business partner and I were discussing the changed face of Presidential campaigning in the current era this past weekend.
I mentioned the YouTube video developed by an Obama supporter which was targeted at Hillary Clinton. My post about it, from March, may be found here. This seminal event demonstrates that quite a bit of television commercial-like publicity can be had for essentially no money.
Thus, we turned to Fred Thompson. What if he were to run, but with too little time left to raise the sort of money that other leading candidates have raised? Could he still have a chance? How would he do it?
Well, we know from old third-party candidacies such as John Anderson and Ross Perot that having fieldworkers to get such a candidate on the ballot in each state are necessary.
As to mass media campaigns, we believe that a political candidate can now essentially emulate the direct-to-consumer approaches that I have predicted will soon occur for video programming producers, over on my other blog, The Reasoned Sceptic, which is linked to this one.
To wit, we would have Thompson post videos on his website conveying his message on the various topics which he felt were important. Second, we'd have him produced in a town hall sort of environment, answering questions from an audience, and maximizing his thoughtful, sensible, folksy appeal.
Finally, to throw down the gauntlet to the posed and overly-prepped candidates, we'd film Thompson strolling down major streets in various large and small American cities, stopping people to chat with them and engage in discussions. He'd obviously be exposed to unrehearsed questions and comments, which would tend to make the more stultifyingly pompous candidates have to consider doing the same.
We'd post all of these videos on YouTube and various other free video sites across the internet, thus avoiding the need for expensive purchases of advertising slots on network or cable television. Does anyone still think you can't get good coverage directly on the internet with videos?
Just like every other quadrennial campaign, this one has some new wrinkles to which many candidates will probably not well adapt. Last time, it was grassroots, web-based fund raising and website usage. Perhaps this year's change is the rise of spontaneous, free political message videos on the internet.
I mentioned the YouTube video developed by an Obama supporter which was targeted at Hillary Clinton. My post about it, from March, may be found here. This seminal event demonstrates that quite a bit of television commercial-like publicity can be had for essentially no money.
Thus, we turned to Fred Thompson. What if he were to run, but with too little time left to raise the sort of money that other leading candidates have raised? Could he still have a chance? How would he do it?
Well, we know from old third-party candidacies such as John Anderson and Ross Perot that having fieldworkers to get such a candidate on the ballot in each state are necessary.
As to mass media campaigns, we believe that a political candidate can now essentially emulate the direct-to-consumer approaches that I have predicted will soon occur for video programming producers, over on my other blog, The Reasoned Sceptic, which is linked to this one.
To wit, we would have Thompson post videos on his website conveying his message on the various topics which he felt were important. Second, we'd have him produced in a town hall sort of environment, answering questions from an audience, and maximizing his thoughtful, sensible, folksy appeal.
Finally, to throw down the gauntlet to the posed and overly-prepped candidates, we'd film Thompson strolling down major streets in various large and small American cities, stopping people to chat with them and engage in discussions. He'd obviously be exposed to unrehearsed questions and comments, which would tend to make the more stultifyingly pompous candidates have to consider doing the same.
We'd post all of these videos on YouTube and various other free video sites across the internet, thus avoiding the need for expensive purchases of advertising slots on network or cable television. Does anyone still think you can't get good coverage directly on the internet with videos?
Just like every other quadrennial campaign, this one has some new wrinkles to which many candidates will probably not well adapt. Last time, it was grassroots, web-based fund raising and website usage. Perhaps this year's change is the rise of spontaneous, free political message videos on the internet.
Monday, May 7, 2007
John Boehner's Slip of the Tongue
I caught a few minutes of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Chris Wallace's Fox-TV program yesterday afternoon. For the most part, it was boring and predictable.
Wallace asked what Boehner thought was missing about Frisco 'Nan's legislative program, and, expectedly, Boehner answered, 'they have no program.' True, other than a sort of nihilistic roll-back of any- and everything they can get their hands on which has been done since the Republicans finally got the Speakership more than a decade ago.
However, when Wallace asked Boehner about which candidate he liked, or what he thought of them, Boehner made a telling, important slip. He whined about how, seemingly just the day after last November's elections, the 2008 Presidential contest had already begun. And that the poor voters should get a break from all this.
I'm a sceptic- born and bred, Midwestern-style. I'm not from Missouri, but, trust me, it's not the only state full of people who want to see proof.
Thus, when a hacked-up professional pol expresses sympathy for the common voter having to endure a too-long Presidential election season, my natural inclination is to think, B'rer Rabbit and crocodile tears.
Boehner's put down of the always-on White House campaign makes me think it's probably a good thing. As I wrote here in February of this year, but more briefly, the eternal Presidential campaign is actually a blessing for voters.
Remember, the President of the US is still the single most powerful elected office on the planet. You cannot know 'too much' about the people who seek, crave, lust after, and dream about inhabiting it. However, the risks, if there are any, to a too-long campaign season, are all owned by the candidates, not the voters. As I wrote in that earlier post,
"You know what? Don't worry about any of these egotistical Presidential wannabes. One of these clowns will win- we can't prevent that. And then, s/he won't be allowed to implement his/her wilder, crazier schemes anyway, because about 300 representatives will have to drink the Kool-Aid to make that happen.
More likely, the really appallingly bad ideas will be stripped off, like ionized electrons, on the way to victory. In the end, it's the daily-monthly leadership, reactive, and problem-solving grind that dominates the Oval Office."
As I discussed with another guy in my fitness club's locker room last night, after hearing Boehner's comment, we know the person we elect to the Oval Office will have warts. S/he'll have some seamier personal attributes, or a few zany ideas that don't make sense. Or some ideological stance that nearly half the country can't abide- like abortion, gun control, or, God help us with these horribly misunderstood topics, 'stem cell research.' Remember when a candidate's stand on busing or the ERA amendment seemed to matter?
In the end, some of us will passionately vote for the winning candidate, fewer of us will ardently vote for a/the loser, and a bunch of us will vote for each while holding our collective nose. I spoke with a friend this weekend who voted against Bush in each of the last two elections, but was an avid Reagan supporter in his day. She simply couldn't pull the lever for our current President, but admitted that she did not really support either Gore or Kerry.
The truth is, we rarely have a President who is actively supported by most American voters. And none of them is without fault. But the longer the campaign trail, the more unscripted, candid-camera style YouTube videos we see, the better we'll feel that we know just what we are getting when we vote for this or that candidate.
My guess is that the era of the big Presidential debate is coming to an end. Online, near-real-time video coverage is going to make a carefully-staged debate become rather meaningless. In my next post, on Fred Thompson, I'll explain that notion in more detail.
For now, though, I'm happy and confident that what is mourned by professional politicians like Boehner, is a good thing for us voters. The age of the fully-informed voter, thanks to cheap, omnipresent digital information sources and high-speed internet access, is further eroding the managed, packaged, staged candidate. No wonder the politicians are dreading the always-on, digital media future of campaigning for President.
Wallace asked what Boehner thought was missing about Frisco 'Nan's legislative program, and, expectedly, Boehner answered, 'they have no program.' True, other than a sort of nihilistic roll-back of any- and everything they can get their hands on which has been done since the Republicans finally got the Speakership more than a decade ago.
However, when Wallace asked Boehner about which candidate he liked, or what he thought of them, Boehner made a telling, important slip. He whined about how, seemingly just the day after last November's elections, the 2008 Presidential contest had already begun. And that the poor voters should get a break from all this.
I'm a sceptic- born and bred, Midwestern-style. I'm not from Missouri, but, trust me, it's not the only state full of people who want to see proof.
Thus, when a hacked-up professional pol expresses sympathy for the common voter having to endure a too-long Presidential election season, my natural inclination is to think, B'rer Rabbit and crocodile tears.
Boehner's put down of the always-on White House campaign makes me think it's probably a good thing. As I wrote here in February of this year, but more briefly, the eternal Presidential campaign is actually a blessing for voters.
Remember, the President of the US is still the single most powerful elected office on the planet. You cannot know 'too much' about the people who seek, crave, lust after, and dream about inhabiting it. However, the risks, if there are any, to a too-long campaign season, are all owned by the candidates, not the voters. As I wrote in that earlier post,
"You know what? Don't worry about any of these egotistical Presidential wannabes. One of these clowns will win- we can't prevent that. And then, s/he won't be allowed to implement his/her wilder, crazier schemes anyway, because about 300 representatives will have to drink the Kool-Aid to make that happen.
More likely, the really appallingly bad ideas will be stripped off, like ionized electrons, on the way to victory. In the end, it's the daily-monthly leadership, reactive, and problem-solving grind that dominates the Oval Office."
As I discussed with another guy in my fitness club's locker room last night, after hearing Boehner's comment, we know the person we elect to the Oval Office will have warts. S/he'll have some seamier personal attributes, or a few zany ideas that don't make sense. Or some ideological stance that nearly half the country can't abide- like abortion, gun control, or, God help us with these horribly misunderstood topics, 'stem cell research.' Remember when a candidate's stand on busing or the ERA amendment seemed to matter?
In the end, some of us will passionately vote for the winning candidate, fewer of us will ardently vote for a/the loser, and a bunch of us will vote for each while holding our collective nose. I spoke with a friend this weekend who voted against Bush in each of the last two elections, but was an avid Reagan supporter in his day. She simply couldn't pull the lever for our current President, but admitted that she did not really support either Gore or Kerry.
The truth is, we rarely have a President who is actively supported by most American voters. And none of them is without fault. But the longer the campaign trail, the more unscripted, candid-camera style YouTube videos we see, the better we'll feel that we know just what we are getting when we vote for this or that candidate.
My guess is that the era of the big Presidential debate is coming to an end. Online, near-real-time video coverage is going to make a carefully-staged debate become rather meaningless. In my next post, on Fred Thompson, I'll explain that notion in more detail.
For now, though, I'm happy and confident that what is mourned by professional politicians like Boehner, is a good thing for us voters. The age of the fully-informed voter, thanks to cheap, omnipresent digital information sources and high-speed internet access, is further eroding the managed, packaged, staged candidate. No wonder the politicians are dreading the always-on, digital media future of campaigning for President.
Friday, May 4, 2007
The Republican Presidential Candidates' Q&A
I confess to not having watched either party's Presidential candidate joint Q&A appearances these past two weeks. I won't call them debates, because, well, they were no such thing.
It's so early in the election cycle that I just don't really need to spend my time watching so many politicians strenuously try to avoid a campaign-killing gaffe, while providing no new information.
I did catch a few minutes of the Republican Q&A session. The first thing I will note is that, as is so typical in the media, while the Democrats got a network face whose name I forget, but was, statistically speaking, probably liberal, the Republicans got....Chris Matthews, who is also liberal.
Go figure. The Democrats get puffballs from one of their own, while the Republicans stupidly invite the enemy.
Anyway, around about the time I heard McCain reiterate his promise and threat to veto any pork barrel "spending bill," I also heard him weigh in for the line-item veto.
Funny thing, that. Because without the line-item veto, every promise of spending cuts that any candidate in either party makes is meaningless. It's just so much more hot air and 'blah blah blah.'
All of these candidates promise to watch your wallet in Washington, but none of them can actually affect the omnibus pork attached to critical bills that the President will need to sign. Very much like the current Iraqi funding bill. The Democrats, while promising, in the words of 'Frisco Nan, to cut out pork and earmarks, ran ahead and attached as much lard as possible to this ostensibly single-issue bill.
But, back to the Republican Q&A. From what little I saw, and heard in the aftermath, Giuliani apparently didn't send his real self. McCain was blustery and regained some of his years-ago budget-cutting credibility, but still hasn't made up for voting against the very effective Bush tax cuts of 2001-02. Romney apparently gained by coming off as controlled, knowledgeable, etc.
Still, what really pained me was watching so many briefed, canned answers that basically promised everything, and always sounded like the respondent was a saint.
Perhaps in keeping with the newly-wide-open campaign situation, with so much foment by so many, so early, something like the following arrangement would be appropriate.
A pair of moderators, chosen to represent solidly differing party affiliations, would be selected. Perhaps Colmes and O'Reilly, or Matthews and Larry Kudlow. Then a mix of candidates from both parties, or just one party, would be invited. Questions would be invited via email, directed to specific candidates, so that even the candidates' own staffs could send zingers calculated to trip up opposing candidates.
The questions would be queued up and delivered to the moderator of the opposing political stripe, so that the liberal moderator would question the conservative/Republican candidate, and so forth. The importance of the moderator's political leaning would be in his/her ability to ask penetrating, no-nonsense follow-up questions.
This way, viewers would be treated to a sort of bloodless version of gladiatorial combat. The sorts of questions you, as a citizen, would want to ask, could get aired. And someone with a desire to probe the weakest, most fatuous parts of any candidate's responses and positions would be up there pitching them.
Could it get any better? Because, frankly, after some thirty years of voting for Presidents, I'm weary of these kid glove 'debates' and Q&A sessions, where everyone tries hard just to not make the dreaded Gerry Ford "Poland" mistake.
And, these guys and gals all promise things that they cannot actually control. Let's face it- the President can't author legislation, and all of them will promise to 'cut wasteful spending.' Problem is, your necessary program may be her wasteful spending, or vice versa.
Further, many of the most emotional platform planks- abortion, the death penalty, immigration, same-gender marriage- can't really be decreed by the President. The best they can do is maybe alter the balance of the Supreme Court, and hope for the best. Which, by the way, Teddy Roosevelt, were he alive ( or maybe just Bush #41, because he still is), would tell them is no guarantee of success. Oliver Wendell Holmes did an about face on TR, and the latter rued the day he nominated the former to the nation's highest bench.
Despite all the hoopla over various detailed positions on spending, taxes, immigration, defense, etc., about all you can really hope for is to assess character, consistency, managerial effectiveness and leadership potential correctly. Anything else that we, as citizens, get from a President is a gift.
It's so early in the election cycle that I just don't really need to spend my time watching so many politicians strenuously try to avoid a campaign-killing gaffe, while providing no new information.
I did catch a few minutes of the Republican Q&A session. The first thing I will note is that, as is so typical in the media, while the Democrats got a network face whose name I forget, but was, statistically speaking, probably liberal, the Republicans got....Chris Matthews, who is also liberal.
Go figure. The Democrats get puffballs from one of their own, while the Republicans stupidly invite the enemy.
Anyway, around about the time I heard McCain reiterate his promise and threat to veto any pork barrel "spending bill," I also heard him weigh in for the line-item veto.
Funny thing, that. Because without the line-item veto, every promise of spending cuts that any candidate in either party makes is meaningless. It's just so much more hot air and 'blah blah blah.'
All of these candidates promise to watch your wallet in Washington, but none of them can actually affect the omnibus pork attached to critical bills that the President will need to sign. Very much like the current Iraqi funding bill. The Democrats, while promising, in the words of 'Frisco Nan, to cut out pork and earmarks, ran ahead and attached as much lard as possible to this ostensibly single-issue bill.
But, back to the Republican Q&A. From what little I saw, and heard in the aftermath, Giuliani apparently didn't send his real self. McCain was blustery and regained some of his years-ago budget-cutting credibility, but still hasn't made up for voting against the very effective Bush tax cuts of 2001-02. Romney apparently gained by coming off as controlled, knowledgeable, etc.
Still, what really pained me was watching so many briefed, canned answers that basically promised everything, and always sounded like the respondent was a saint.
Perhaps in keeping with the newly-wide-open campaign situation, with so much foment by so many, so early, something like the following arrangement would be appropriate.
A pair of moderators, chosen to represent solidly differing party affiliations, would be selected. Perhaps Colmes and O'Reilly, or Matthews and Larry Kudlow. Then a mix of candidates from both parties, or just one party, would be invited. Questions would be invited via email, directed to specific candidates, so that even the candidates' own staffs could send zingers calculated to trip up opposing candidates.
The questions would be queued up and delivered to the moderator of the opposing political stripe, so that the liberal moderator would question the conservative/Republican candidate, and so forth. The importance of the moderator's political leaning would be in his/her ability to ask penetrating, no-nonsense follow-up questions.
This way, viewers would be treated to a sort of bloodless version of gladiatorial combat. The sorts of questions you, as a citizen, would want to ask, could get aired. And someone with a desire to probe the weakest, most fatuous parts of any candidate's responses and positions would be up there pitching them.
Could it get any better? Because, frankly, after some thirty years of voting for Presidents, I'm weary of these kid glove 'debates' and Q&A sessions, where everyone tries hard just to not make the dreaded Gerry Ford "Poland" mistake.
And, these guys and gals all promise things that they cannot actually control. Let's face it- the President can't author legislation, and all of them will promise to 'cut wasteful spending.' Problem is, your necessary program may be her wasteful spending, or vice versa.
Further, many of the most emotional platform planks- abortion, the death penalty, immigration, same-gender marriage- can't really be decreed by the President. The best they can do is maybe alter the balance of the Supreme Court, and hope for the best. Which, by the way, Teddy Roosevelt, were he alive ( or maybe just Bush #41, because he still is), would tell them is no guarantee of success. Oliver Wendell Holmes did an about face on TR, and the latter rued the day he nominated the former to the nation's highest bench.
Despite all the hoopla over various detailed positions on spending, taxes, immigration, defense, etc., about all you can really hope for is to assess character, consistency, managerial effectiveness and leadership potential correctly. Anything else that we, as citizens, get from a President is a gift.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
US Energy Diversification vs. "Independence
Saturday's Wall Street Journal had an unusual cornucopia of interesting articles. One of them, entitled "The Mirage of Energy Independence," by Doug Wilson, expressed, with great clarity, some sentiments that I have had for years.
Specifically, Mr. Wilson notes that, with America's energy needs, and the fungible nature of the global energy market, there is no such thing as 'energy independence.' A fall in oil supply anywhere on the globe will raise prices for everyone. Further, if America were to attempt to isolate and develop non-fungible sources of oil, it would, as Mr. Wilson points out, undermine the entire interconnected world of supply chains which have brought global prosperity and individual economy specialization.
As an example of the unintended costs of misguided attempts at energy independence, Mr. Wilson recounts the cost to Brazil of building its ethanol industry. More marginal land has been used to feed the enlarged demand for corn, more fuel is used, because corn as a fuel is less powerful than carbon-based fuel, and government subsidies now abound to drive the whole process. Already, in the US and Mexico, corn prices are skyrocketing, fueling inflation throughout America's food chain, as well as for Mexico, as well.
Instead, Mr. Wilson notes that non-transportation-oriented energy consumers in the US, e.g., utilities, long ago began diversifying into natural gas, coal and nuclear, to lessen their reliance on scarce liquid petroleum from politically-unstable parts of the globe.
For transportation, Mr. Wilson suggests assisting Venezuela and Canada with the development of their respective high-sulfur oil and heavy tar sand oil deposits. Though not within our border, Wilson argues that by developing alternative sources of oil-based energy, away from the Gulf, we increase the choices for our own energy purchases, help other economies grow dependent upon selling us that energy, and lessen the hold that the Mideast has on current global energy security and availability.
In short, energy independence is almost certainly an impossibility, but diversity of supply sources is not. This makes a lot of sense, especially in the face of the reality of globally-traded, fungible oil supplies. Even if the US were to become energy-independent, we would still want to be affected by the world price for our own energy. To fail to do so would be to return to an era of indifference and wastefulness in the usage of petroleum-based energy sources.
Specifically, Mr. Wilson notes that, with America's energy needs, and the fungible nature of the global energy market, there is no such thing as 'energy independence.' A fall in oil supply anywhere on the globe will raise prices for everyone. Further, if America were to attempt to isolate and develop non-fungible sources of oil, it would, as Mr. Wilson points out, undermine the entire interconnected world of supply chains which have brought global prosperity and individual economy specialization.
As an example of the unintended costs of misguided attempts at energy independence, Mr. Wilson recounts the cost to Brazil of building its ethanol industry. More marginal land has been used to feed the enlarged demand for corn, more fuel is used, because corn as a fuel is less powerful than carbon-based fuel, and government subsidies now abound to drive the whole process. Already, in the US and Mexico, corn prices are skyrocketing, fueling inflation throughout America's food chain, as well as for Mexico, as well.
Instead, Mr. Wilson notes that non-transportation-oriented energy consumers in the US, e.g., utilities, long ago began diversifying into natural gas, coal and nuclear, to lessen their reliance on scarce liquid petroleum from politically-unstable parts of the globe.
For transportation, Mr. Wilson suggests assisting Venezuela and Canada with the development of their respective high-sulfur oil and heavy tar sand oil deposits. Though not within our border, Wilson argues that by developing alternative sources of oil-based energy, away from the Gulf, we increase the choices for our own energy purchases, help other economies grow dependent upon selling us that energy, and lessen the hold that the Mideast has on current global energy security and availability.
In short, energy independence is almost certainly an impossibility, but diversity of supply sources is not. This makes a lot of sense, especially in the face of the reality of globally-traded, fungible oil supplies. Even if the US were to become energy-independent, we would still want to be affected by the world price for our own energy. To fail to do so would be to return to an era of indifference and wastefulness in the usage of petroleum-based energy sources.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
An Historic Week
From my perspective, stretching back to recalling Kennedy's assassination, and, barely, the Cuban missile crisis, President Bush's explicit promise to veto the Democratic Senate's and House's funding bill on Iraq this week, because it contains a mandatory exit date for US troops, is an historic event.
Unlike Nixon during the Vietnam war, Bush has clearly stated , in his Tuesday address, that he is not presiding over an explicit, publicly telegraphed pullout of US troops, in order to give our enemies a precise timetable as to when they may resume their terrorist activities. But doing so, President Bush has done two things. First, he's reversed the tendency of the modern Presidency, post-Nixon, to buckle to Congress and seek accommodation. Second, he has demonstrated that he understands the lessons of Vietnam, and dealing with an enemy as well as a hostile Congress.
Upon reading the Wall Street Journal's editorial this week about 'Harry Reid's war,' I had to smile at Reid's naivete. I think he's mistaking an American dislike of losing wars for a dislike of war. By thinking that polls are finding the latter, Reid is going to do the former, and, I believe, lose his party's Senate majority come 2008. Less than going to war, Americans dislike losing a war, and they won't be charitable to one of the architects of that defeat.
I also find it curious that Reid is from Nevada, which is smack in the heart of the conservative American southwest.
Rather than pick up seats, I am reasonably sure Reid and Frisco Nan will see shrinking pluralities should the Democrats stick to their current course in forcing a date for exiting Iraq.
Thank God that the US has a President with the calm confidence, resolution and clear-sightedness of George Bush. Unlike Bill Clinton, you can't accuse him of waffling or being fickle. He doesn't sway with the winds of what is merely popular, though ill-advised or wrong.
Bush knows that publicizing a withdrawal date from Iraq will simply hand our enemies key information which they may use to await our exit, then conquer the country. Even Joe Leiberman agrees with Bush. Is this the issue what will have the wavering moderate Democrat cross the aisle, and turn control of the upper chamber back to the Republicans?
Unlike Nixon during the Vietnam war, Bush has clearly stated , in his Tuesday address, that he is not presiding over an explicit, publicly telegraphed pullout of US troops, in order to give our enemies a precise timetable as to when they may resume their terrorist activities. But doing so, President Bush has done two things. First, he's reversed the tendency of the modern Presidency, post-Nixon, to buckle to Congress and seek accommodation. Second, he has demonstrated that he understands the lessons of Vietnam, and dealing with an enemy as well as a hostile Congress.
Upon reading the Wall Street Journal's editorial this week about 'Harry Reid's war,' I had to smile at Reid's naivete. I think he's mistaking an American dislike of losing wars for a dislike of war. By thinking that polls are finding the latter, Reid is going to do the former, and, I believe, lose his party's Senate majority come 2008. Less than going to war, Americans dislike losing a war, and they won't be charitable to one of the architects of that defeat.
I also find it curious that Reid is from Nevada, which is smack in the heart of the conservative American southwest.
Rather than pick up seats, I am reasonably sure Reid and Frisco Nan will see shrinking pluralities should the Democrats stick to their current course in forcing a date for exiting Iraq.
Thank God that the US has a President with the calm confidence, resolution and clear-sightedness of George Bush. Unlike Bill Clinton, you can't accuse him of waffling or being fickle. He doesn't sway with the winds of what is merely popular, though ill-advised or wrong.
Bush knows that publicizing a withdrawal date from Iraq will simply hand our enemies key information which they may use to await our exit, then conquer the country. Even Joe Leiberman agrees with Bush. Is this the issue what will have the wavering moderate Democrat cross the aisle, and turn control of the upper chamber back to the Republicans?
Monday, April 23, 2007
On General James Jones and the Presidential Candidates
The Wall Street Journal contained an interesting piece today profiling a retired Marine General, James Jones. As former Marine Corps commandant, and NATO commander, he has acquired the respect of many declared Presidential candidates- Hillary, Obama Bin Baden, and John McCain.
Allegedly, Hillary has claimed she'd like him in her cabinet, perhaps as Defense secretary.
Here's where I am confused.
According to the article, Jones is for winning in Iraq, closing Gitmo's terrorist prison, restoring the image of the US around the world, and being engaged in dialogue with even our enemies. An interesting, somewhat centrist combination of stances, which are not surprising, given his Midwestern background.
How will someone who wants to stay and win in Iraq possibly be of use to Hillary and Obama? If he caves in to their views, he's useless to them as an objective ally. If he doesn't, he's not a team player.
Whether he's a Democrat or Republican, when forced to declare, doesn't really matter. It seems to me that his views are already more reasonable and reasoned than any candidate can tolerate down the home stretch, or in their first administration.
Truth to tell, General Jones sounds more at one with Republicans. Thus, his allure to the Democratic candidates- capturing a credible member of the opposition. But I just don't see either party being able to actually live with a strong-minded, experienced, thoughtful team member like this ex-Marine.
Sure, everyone wants the part of him they covet. But will any of them really be capable of swallowing the parts of him they don't want? If General Jones is as tough and principled as is generally believed, how can any of these candidates expect him to back down when their views contradict his?
Allegedly, Hillary has claimed she'd like him in her cabinet, perhaps as Defense secretary.
Here's where I am confused.
According to the article, Jones is for winning in Iraq, closing Gitmo's terrorist prison, restoring the image of the US around the world, and being engaged in dialogue with even our enemies. An interesting, somewhat centrist combination of stances, which are not surprising, given his Midwestern background.
How will someone who wants to stay and win in Iraq possibly be of use to Hillary and Obama? If he caves in to their views, he's useless to them as an objective ally. If he doesn't, he's not a team player.
Whether he's a Democrat or Republican, when forced to declare, doesn't really matter. It seems to me that his views are already more reasonable and reasoned than any candidate can tolerate down the home stretch, or in their first administration.
Truth to tell, General Jones sounds more at one with Republicans. Thus, his allure to the Democratic candidates- capturing a credible member of the opposition. But I just don't see either party being able to actually live with a strong-minded, experienced, thoughtful team member like this ex-Marine.
Sure, everyone wants the part of him they covet. But will any of them really be capable of swallowing the parts of him they don't want? If General Jones is as tough and principled as is generally believed, how can any of these candidates expect him to back down when their views contradict his?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
