Cheney's secret CIA program

So, VP Cheney had his own secret counterterrorism program that he ordered the CIA to keep from Congress...for 8 years. It must be uncontroversial because current CIA Director Panetta ordered it closed upon hearing of it. No controversy on the closing of it. The leading Republicans trying to defend that lawless administration. I predict Republicans soon will turn so hard against the Bush Administration, because it will be the only way to distance themselves from the nasty stuff that is going to leak out. President Obama may want to put it all behind us, but that is not goingto happen.

According to the NYT, Senator Kyl, said:

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., argued against any investigation
just yet. "I don't think we should be jumping to any conclusions," Kyl said.
"The Republican leader on the intelligence committee in the House described this
certainly not as some kind of massive program but something that was on again
off again … never got off the ground."

Kyl said he understands the concept that national security concerns may
preclude the executive branch from sharing some information with Congress.

Don't jump to conclusions is what he is saying. But he is not saying to not stop the program. If he trusts the previous administration so much, why isn't he arguing that Panetta shouldn't jump to conclusions, to stop an 8 year program that must, MUST, have been crucial to keeping US safe. yeah.

Senator McCain';s remarks are just as nervous:

Arizona Sen. John McCain, Obama's Republican opponent in the election, said
on "Meet the Press" this morning that such an investigation would not be in the
country's best interests. "For us to continue this and harm our image
throughout the world. … I agree with the president of the United States. It's
time to move forward," McCain said.

Harm? No bellicose remarks about the Democrat Panetta endangering the country by summarily ending the counterterrorism program? Come on.

The Republicans are going to eat themselves on this one, just watch.

What Would Bipartisanship Look Like?

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 10/15/2008

Dear Sens. McCain and Obama,

For the good of the country, both of you, please, stick to the issues and stop engaging in character assassination. Yes, yes, you can rationalize this poison as important, that the character and past associations of each be scrutinized. Both of you know this is bunk. Sen. Obama is no more a terrorist because of William Ayers than Sen. McCain is the Manchurian Candidate because he was a POW. And what is worse, it adds to the divisiveness and hyper partisanship that I bet our enemies count on when we face times of hardship, like during a multi-front war and the current economic meltdown.

Sen. McCain, a week ago you finally showed your true colors by facing a booing crowd of your own supporters and telling them that Sen. Obama is not Arab, is an honorable, decent, family man, who would make a good President, but that you would make a much better one. Sen. Obama, while your rally supporters are not yelling “treason” and “terrorist” about Sen. McCain, there are scurrilous and damaging misinformation on the internet by your supporters about Sen. McCain and his family. May I suggest that your “Fight the Smears” website include smears about your opponent, too.

How shallow you both sound in your campaigns for change. This campaign is looking like more and more of the same. But what boggles my mind is that it seems the both of you are playing chicken; the problem is when one of you blinks, its not damage to your campaign but to America. Maybe I don’t get it, but bipartisanship is more than just occasionally voting with the other side. It is also about recognizing our shared fate, something both of you seem to have forgotten or you would not engage in the politics of personal destruction. And forget about justifying it with “they started it.” Both of you are capable of stopping it.

Bipartisanship is a theme both of your campaigns embrace, then why not show it? Show the American people that you at least understand what it means and then act that way. One of you is going to be the next President of the United States. And one of you will return to the US Senate as a leader of your party. President McCain, would you like Sen. Obama’s help on your health care plan? President Obama, would you like Sen. McCain’s help on your energy policy? Or, are both of you going to engage in hyper partisanship to the degree that if one compliments the other’s wife, you will reflexively disagree with the compliment?

How can you, or let your supporters without correction, call each other “terrorist,” “unhinged,” and “dangerous” and then expect to work together? Moreover, aren’t you also hobbling the next President with these kinds of attacks? Is hobbling the President of the United States in this way a good thing for the country?

Here is what you should do. Call a joint press conference. Skip the part about who called first because it undermines your calls for service to country as you argue over who should get the credit.

Sen. Obama, after being deferred to by the more senior Senator, you announce that you are now embracing Sen. McCain’s health plan. And that either as President or as Senator you will work hard for its passage. Sen. McCain then announce that after three debates, that Sen, Obama has convinced you, that his energy policy is the best for America, and vow to fight for it as either President or Senator.

Sen. Obama, you next announce that after three debates, you are convinced that Sen. McCain’s veterans policy is the one to support and vow to help make it the law of the land either as President or Senator. Calling Sen. Obama’s raise, the gambler Sen. McCain calls Sen. Obama with “I support your climate change policy” and will work next year, either from the Oval Office of the Senate to make it law.

This is just four areas to agree upon. This is bipartisanship. This is recognizing shared fate. This means we both have a stake in not burning down each other’s house (otherwise called America). There are plenty of other issues to debate, but these are settled. It makes the debates seem real and that neither of you are ideologues. “Look,” doing that will introduce a little bit of certainty into an uncertain situation. And that, “my friends,” is leadership.

John McCain's Country First Gambit

So now Senator McCain wants to suspend the presidential campaign to focus on the economic crisis. Looks like a gambit to me. First off, his campaing is tanking, so why not? But more importantly, let's dissect this.

If Senator McCain really thinks he cannot do both his job, being a senior Senator from Arizona and campaign for President of the United States (let's admit it, that is a hard thing to do...ask Bob Dole, Fritz Mondale, George McGovern...Losers everyone) then he could put country first and resign his senate seat and Gov Napolitano appoint his replacement. But, that would give a democrat Barry Goldwater's seat. Given that Sen McCain is the putative head of his party, he still has a strong bully pulpit to work on the economic crisis on the campaing trail. Or, Senator mcCAin could just stop campaigning. he could put country first and turn over the election to his hand picked successor.

But he does all this in the public eye, as if he is laying down a guantlet....this is the cynical part of this...he almost dares Sen. Obama not to follow his lead, which is of course the only true "country first" path.

It could be that a younger man, Senator Obama, can do both jobs. Lord knows Obama's campaign days are far more strenuous and long than Sen. McCain's. Why should we be surprised? I don't have what I had 25 years ago...I'm smarter, but don't have the sheer energy. So, why shouldn't age catch up with Sen McCain who is nearluy 30 years older than Sen Obama.

I used to like Sen McCain's occasional bouts of independence. I heard a speech he gave some time ago today about his respect for Sen Goldwater and his youthful exuberances. This was after hearing about his 'dare" to Sen Obama to cease campaigning. I think he is so desperate to live up to the older men in his younger life that he doesn't have a sense of who he is. He just covets the presidency.

John McCain's Health Insurance Plan...not good for me

Was reading a crique of Senator McCain's health insurance plan. Now, the critic claimed his plan was going to raise my taxes becuase he would tax health insurance benefits like it was cash. It doesn't say that on Senator McCain's website, but I suspect in order to pay for the generous tax credit, something like that is going to have to occur. It has been a goal of conservatives for a long time.

the gist of the plan is that I can opt out of my employer covered group and get inusrance on my own, and my family would get a 5K tax credit (if I can find a plan for cheaper, the residual goes into a health savings account).

So, between my employer and me, I pay 572 a month for my health insurance. I don;t pay taxes on my contribution nor on my employers. That apparently would change. I'd pay income tax on an additional $6800 in income. At my tax rate, that translates to about 2K. so, I pay 2K more in taxes but I get a 5K tax credit...I'm 3K ahead. Sounds good.

I can stick with my health plan. But why, the market is much better right? I checked and the best I can do "on my own" is no where near as good a coverage as I have right now. My deductible is 900 right now, best I can find is a 2K deductible. Prescription coverage looks, without looking at the details, about in par with what I have right now. So, double my deductible and 20% of office visits after deductible. I pay #15 right now--period. But, the plan is cheaper, by $100 bucks a month, so I save $1200. With the tax credit, I'd just be out of pocket an additional 600 bucks..plus the extra $1000 deductible

but I can stick with my employer's insurance if I wish. I still get the tax credit, so, I'm up 3K (except it has to go into a HSA). Right now, I would never use 3K, so that money just funnels to the insurance company anyway. If you don't use it, you lose it. So, I pay 2K more in taxes, and get a 3K HSA, which I might use 1-2K of. My deductible of 999 would come from the HSA. We've had those before, they worked when we had braces, but don't work easily now, "unfortunately" we are pretty healthy.

But, my employer is self-insured. We don't permit opt outs, or we couldn't insure ourselves. I'm assuming that for Senator McCain's plan to work, there must be an opt out. So, some folks, especially younger ones and single ones, or those who have options with their spouses (I didn't think about opting out and moving to my wife's insurance), that my employer's plan will probably get more and more expensive (read degraded coverage(, until I probably would find the admittedly cheaper but not as useful plan, my preferred option.

All the while I can be jealous of my mother's medicare plan, which does a better job of covering stuff than my private, employer provided plan does.

I'll look at Senator Obama's tax plan for my next posting.

Service Nation Forum

I watched/listened to the Service Nation Forum last night. I appreciated the civility, especially given the nastiness of the campaign in the last couple of weeks. (Unfortunately, at the end of the Forum one of the talking heads indicated that the Obama campaign was going to get down and dirty, beginning today. too bad).

There wasn't much to distinquish the candidates. here is my take: McCain sounds old, that is, he harks back more to the past than to the future. That maybe a function of his age....at his age, and with anyone at that age, there is a tendency to look back more than forward. Obama, he looked forward. Drew from the past, but always moving forward.

McCain did get angry, he, I felt, was smoldering, but kept it under control. It was in response to Judy Woodruff's question about the seeming inconsistency of his championing of service but the mocking and ridiculing of Obama's past as a community organizer. and that question came from one who is usually pretty friendly to republicans.

I thought McCain was angry. He gritted his teeth, he dissembled. He doesn't like to his actions quesetioned, especially if it suggests actions which are not honorable, such as hypocrisy or politcal craveness.

If I were scoring this event, given that the setting and topic favored Obama, I'd call it a draw.

I personally preferred Obama's nuances and I felt he kept politics out of it (at least obviously) as McCain did not.

Pigs in Lipstick

And now it begins. The presidential foodfight. If Republicans can make this two months of name calling, they will win. If the Democrats can keep focused on substance, I think they win.

But so far, the Dems have not been willing to get into the food fight. So, what happens? the Republicans just make up a fiction about Sen Obama calling Gov Palin a "pig."

Now, Democrats have been doing similar things. There is the whole "sambo and the bitch" fiction. But that stuff is not paid for or directed by the campaign.

But the fiction (including carefully edited videos) of Sen Obama calling Gov Palin a pig was paid for by the McCain Campaign. That elevates a 527 type of activity to the campaign itself.

The McCain campaign is calling for an apology! It is the McCain campaign which should apologize. Apparentlty "truth" isnot one of their campaign principles.

Get the facts here

John McCain is more like 'W' than you might realize

Just read this NYTimes article on the selection process of Sarah Palin. The headline is a bit misleading, however.

The article suggests a very rational process to choose a VP. How Sarah Palin's name ever got into the mix is what I'd like to know. It may be due to this:

At the very least, the process reflects Mr. McCain’s history of making fast, instinctive and sometimes risky decisions. “I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can,” Mr. McCain wrote, with his top adviser Mark Salter, in his 2002 book, “Worth the Fighting For.” “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”

This is our current President's style of decision making. I'm fairly sure that President Bush would agree...and when we use the instinctive style to buy a car, or maybe even a spouse, it is just "I" living with the consequences. But, President Bush's instincts about Putin were ..."wrong." And are the Georgian people living with the consequences (without complaint?)? The instinct to go to war in Iraq? The ridiculous justification that the world is better off without Hussein is a blanket justification to go to war with North Korea, Russia, hell, how about with China? Rwanda? And who is paying the consequences for such "instinctive" decisions?

The other side of the coin is "feet of clay." The over analyzed, get me more information, the fear of making the wrong decision, in the face of a needed decision. Senator Obama could be that kind of leader. A ditherer. Hot-headed, impulsive, maverick or a cool, headed, reasoned, contingeny planner (or ditherer?). We do have a choice in this election.

Sarah Palin

Genius. Inspired. Devious. Dangerous. These are just some of the views about Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain's VP choice.

My initial thought was "not a good choice because there are legitimate concerns about Senator McCain's age and this is someone who he thinks is qualified to be President. That choice brings into question Senator McCain's judgement (in light of his country above all rhetoric)."

My initial thought has not changed, but I do realize it is a crafty political choice because the choice does two things: 1) it shores up the conservative base...now a solid segment of the conservative base can vote for McCain and hope that Palin succeeds him soon; and 2) the fight is now on for the worst segment of the electorate. The undecided voter, the indie, the low-information voter, whoever you want to think of that group of undecideds, the war is on for those few votes and some of them probably will vote for Palin just because she is a woman and the election of her will make history. She is young, talks like a teenager (watch the Kudlow interview with her from about 4 weeks ago), is a fresh face to compare to Biden who is energetic but definitely older and of a different generation.

I also think Senator McCain picked her because of his own height. Visuals are important and he has to be seen as Presidential, which is why every picture of him is shot from below. Senator McCain is just 5-7. There has not been a 5-7 President since 1900, William McKinley. Had Senator McCain picked Gov. Pawlenty, at 6-0, would have stood next to Senator McCain. An analysis of the height factor can be found here.

Even Bobby Jindal is two inches taller and the obvious symbolic aspects, an Indian just slightly taller...and remember, this choice is about convincing a small segment of the voters at this point.

Every possible VP choice that was listed, with the possible exception of Charlie Crist, gov of Flordai is too tall (and Crist has other issues that likely disqualify him).

Some may argue that Senator Obama is too in experienced. Perhaps, but he has won the nomination and thus millions of people disagree. Sarah Palin received only one vote, that of John McCain.

Anyway....this choice is for the worst segment of our electorate, in my opinion.

The messy mixture of service, sacrifice and self-interest

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 8/23/08

Sen. McCain told Pastor Warren that he wanted to be president to “… inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than their self-interest.” This was a theme of Sen. McCain’s hour-long conversation with Pastor Warren. Sen. Obama, too, sounded a similar theme, although not as clearly stated. Responding to a question from Pastor Warren about the greatest moral failing of the U.S., Sen. Obama said it was the U.S. treatment of the lesser among us, presumably both here and abroad. Sen. McCain said that sometimes we, the U.S., forget that we are part of something larger, that we have focused too much on self-interest.

It was 47 years ago when President Kennedy uttered those immortal words, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” Only 15 years after the end of World War II and selfishness was a presidential issue.

Fact: All of us are part of something larger than ourselves. We may not recognize it. We may refuse to admit or even to see it. Nevertheless, we are social animals, we exist as members of many groups and the groups are larger than we are individually.

A cottage industry exists to point out the loss of community in the United States, from academics like Robert Putnam, author of “Bowling Alone,” to the most recent offering, Dick Meyer’s “Why We Hate Us.” The observations are the same: Americans feel something is missing, that things are off track, that things are just not right. These authors essentially point to the same thing: too much “me” and not enough “us.” The most visible sign of the lack of community is the lack of civility in every nook and cranny of our society.

That lack of “respect” for others we find in our seemingly increasing “un”civil society, however, is the leveling of individuals in our increasing democratic culture. We forget how uncivil some groups were to other groups in the not-so-distant past. The open racism toward many groups; the patronizing and virtually invisible public status accorded to women; the shame bestowed upon the poor. Despite a culture of individualism, we still respond to people based on the groups with which we identify them.

There is tension between the individual and the larger group. Our culture tilts heavily toward the individual. As we exalt the individual over the group, we shouldn’t be surprised that so many decide that common norms are a bother and flaunt them. We see it everywhere, from text messaging friends during family dinners/celebrations to treating teachers rudely to candidates for public office maliciously spinning and lying about the character of other public servants only to turn around and hope to inspire people to public service because it makes one part of something larger than them selves. I probably should also point out that we expect cynicism today.

Community service is noble, but it is also a punishment for law-breaking. It is not that people don’t participate in things larger than themselves but that too many people do it for selfish reasons. Every college student states they wish to volunteer to help the community (“because it will look good on my resume and get me a better job”).

An important factor in the erosion of a “civil” civil society is that too many use the group for their self-interest: religious leaders who use their position to pursue their sexual preferences; politicians who feather their own nests while selling their influence to the highest bidder; school administrators who show overt favoritism to their friends and family members are just a few easy examples. Such events undermine our confidence in the groups these people are part of.

What we need are individuals who are (grudgingly) willing to sacrifice self-interest for the greater good. But when we all willingly demand tax cuts amidst a war; when we demand convenience at any cost; when we bristle at any suggestion that we bear any responsibility for the problems we face, and our leaders go along with us, then why are we grousing as we reap a bumper crop of that which we have been sowing? Because we all want the benefits of others’ sacrifices.

Cynical seems to be the norm today. Cynics lampoon the idealists. The idealists are out of touch. Where are the realists? According to an article I just read, in small group situations, if given a choice, the cynics and idealists would vote the realists off the island.

I want to be your leader but don't expect me to show leadership

News today, which means yesterday, something happened. Sen. Obama has changed his view of Offshore Drilling. While some think that is the news, what I find interesting about it is that the idea came from a bipartisan group of 10 Senators who are offering a "compromise" to end the dumb bunny stalemate in Washington about the gasoline price "crisis." Full story here (and this is better than the digested AP version)

The plan, offered Friday by 10 U.S. senators as a way to break the partisan impasse over energy policy that has stalled Congress in recent weeks, would expand drilling but also set new goals and establish new funding for the use of alternative fuels.

Don't know enough about the specifics, but this sounds to me like what politics is about, the "art of the possible" instead of winner take all, no drilling, exploration or anything in exchange for just more of the same, drill everything.

But here is the reason for this post: Why isn't Obama and/or McCain one of the original Gang of 10 (as the Senator's have been tagged)? Obama's rhetoric is that he would be this kind of leader (he did quickly support the move because he sees it as the way to get what he wants, a focus on alternative fuels and energy) and McCain has a history of reaching across the isle and supporing compromises, he was part of the Gang of whatever that stopped the stalemate and possible nuclear option in the senate over supreme court justices. Yet, where are they now? Campaigning, not leading.

I grew up in the Tampa Bay area of Florida, which would be significantly impacted by oil exploration and I do not favor it. Flordia's fragile ecology is about broken, this is only going to put it further to the test. Nevertheless, I think that a "crises" has been constructed (fuel and energy are readily available, they are just more expensive, this is not 1973 when oil truly was unavailable), and public opinion is such that we will drill every spot. In that sense, our leaders have collectively failed us because this situation was foreseeable (since at least 1973) and the American public is completely unwilling to accept any meaningful change for the future. A democracy gets what a democracy wants.

According to today's blogs, the katie couric interview disqualifies both candidates

I really like it when the blogs concentrate on the same event. so much of the blogosphere is divided into right and left, and they rant on about different things, but apparently today, katie couric (CBS) interviewed both Sens McCain and Obama. here is a bit form the Huffington Post on McCain's performance:

John McCain made a mistake this evening, which as far as I'm concerned, disqualifies him from being president. It is so appalling and so factually wrong that I'm actually sitting here wondering who McCain's advisers are. This isn't some gaffe where he talks about the Iraq-Pakistan border. It's a real misunderstanding of what has happened in Iraq over the past year. It is even more disturbing because according to John McCain, Iraq is the central front in the "war on terror." If we are going to have an Iraq-centric policy, he should at least understand what he is talking about. But anyway, what happened.

What did Sen McCain do? mispell potato(e)? point to Kansas when speaking of Saudi Arabia? Nope, got his timeline screwed up:

The surge wasn't even announced until a few months after the Anbar Awakening. Via Spencer Ackerman, here is Colonel MacFarland explaining the Anbar Awakening to Pam Hass of UPI, on September 29, 2006. That would be almost four months before the President even announced the surge. Petraeus wasn't even in Iraq yet.

So, scratch Sen McCain, he doesn't know his history.

Over at Instapundit, they are ranting about Sen Obama's disqualifying remarks to katie couric:

That was an amazing segment! CBS did an excellent job. Congratulations.
This could very well be a turning point in this year's election!
Obama came off cocky, confused and crazy. McCain was wonderful- honest, humble and smart.

Sen Obama's mistake? Other than a refusal to say he was wrong about the surge (wasn't mcCain wrong about Iraq to begin with?)....here is the reasoning:

Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?

Obama: Katie, as … you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.

Couric: But yet you're saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it … so I'm just trying to understand this.

Obama: Because … it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …

Obama: Yes.

Couric … would exist today without the surge?

Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that-- not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that-- previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.
Huh?
So, now Obama says the Bush surge in troops worked but defeating Al-Qaeda and Iran in Iraq was not worth it? And, if Obama believes that his plan of fleeing Iraq during the worst of the violence would have brought peace in Iraq, he is delustional.

Meanwhile, Jake Tapper is reproting on how Obama stole the victory away from the troops in his interview with ABC.
Here is Obama explaining the surge to Terry Moran:


"Well, you were saying that it would not make a significant dent in the violence," Moran said.

"In the violence in Iraq overall, right," Obama acknowledged. "So the point that I was making at the time was that the political dynamic was the driving force between that sectarian violence. And we could try to keep a lid on it, but if these underlining dynamic continued to bubble up and explode the way they were, then we would be in a difficult situation. I am glad that in fact those political dynamic shifted at the same time that our troops did outstanding work."
That must be Barack Obama's way of saying that he was wrong.

So, both are wrong and disqualified to be president. Whoooo, hoooo....Bob Barr or Ralph Nader???

Cartooning the candidates

Maybe one reason it is hard to make fun of Candidate Obama is because, well, at least cartooning him, he cartoons very similar to our current president. Now, routinely President Bush is referred to as a "chimp" but to refer to Sen Obama as a chimp, no matter how chimp-like the cartoonist might make him, would create a firestorm, right or wrong.








Notice the resemblance to cartoons of President Bush:














Cartoons of John McCain are not too simian:

What if the flip flop were on the other foot?

No surprise that Sen. McCain opposes the adoption of children by gay folks. The bigger surprise is that he flip flopped on the issue

If this flip flop were on Sen Obama's foot, the McCain campaign would be all over it, suggesting that Obama was flipping in face of pressure from an interest group. Gay civil rights groups, even the Log Cabin types aren't usually the type of group Sen McCain cares much about...so why the flip flop? To appease the state's rights types?

If everyone follows the script, war will serve certain domestic interests

here is a different (and more thorough) analysis of the recent Iranian missle tests.

this analysis suggests, as I wish more would, that provocative displays of military force and claims of dangerous weapons development are more about domestic consumption than anything else.

It sounds like a script. The Iranian president who won his closely contested election playing on the problems of the regular Iranian people.... well, he has done nothing. So, he and the mullahs need to do something to distract from those issues as well as send messages to the people that they are beyond challenge. To me not much different that Saddam's WMDs. He had to keep the illusion in order to maintain power at home.

So, Iran's internal politics leads to more bellicose rantings toward Israel. Israel, on cue, responds with military training which could be s rehearsal for a strike against Iran. On cue, Iran fires off missiles, which our intelligence suggets demonstrates no additional capability and some faked pictures to suggest more capability than they have.

The "Great Satan" (what the extremists in Iran call the US), then on cue begin sabre rattling, all for Iranian domestic consumption.

Now, when the missile tests occurred, the Bush administration, especially Secretary Rice used it as an excuse to call for the missile shield in Europe and Georgia...all of which irritated the Russians who oppose the defensive missiles. McCain was ready to launch the invasion now. Obama, however, his response was to wait until the intelligence anaylsis shows if Iran has shown additional military capacity (which in the end, it didn't, and as this article suggets may actually show weakness). So, on the matter of judgement...who is showing the best judgement? Sen. McCain or Sen Obama? Who is eager to play the role being orchestrated by our enemies? More bellicose threats from the US actually serve the interests of the extremists in Iran. But what domestic interests does such bellicose respones here serve domestically?

The diplomatic pressure, however, looks like it is beginning to work on Iran.

More straight talk from John McCain

You'd think after the "nation of whiners" comment from his close friend and economic advisor, former Senator Phil Gramm (TX) and economist, that McCain might not be so dumb as to call the greatest anti-poverty program, certainly in US history and perhaps one of the best in the world, a disgrace:

"Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed," he said. article here

Yup, Social Security has a demographic problem, no doubt. It requires a temporary fix which might be required for 30 years, but eventually the boomers (of which I am one) will die off.

Social Security never was and is not an investment program. If McCain is principled, he would also rail against saving money through life insurance or indeed, any kind of insurance system. It is a bad investment because the only way insurance works is if most never make a claim. Social Security, set up in the 30s, was a typical insurance system, where many of those who would pay in, would indeed never get any benefits out because the life epectancy then was much lower, lower than the retirement age.

that has changed and with it, changes are required...such as increasing the age at with folks can draw social security (that has already happened and needs probably to be increased again).

Privatizing social security wouldn't be such a bad idea if the old pension systems were still in effect, but increasingly retirments are private....there needs to be some kind of insurance system in place for failures of those systems. If the housing crisis right now doesn't show the wisdom in some kind of social insuracne, I don't know what will? In a week, my market based retirement fund lost several percent of its value...some of my private investments are to pay for my kids college education, but over nite it lost 3% of its value. Yes, it could increase tomorrow by 3%, but it seems to me, and maybe I am wrong, but losses seem to occur faster in the short run than do gains. So my 3% over night loss might take me weeks or months to recover. Not good for retirement planning. As least social security can be counted on...boring, steady, consistent. Geez, I thought those were conservative values.

But the deep seated hatred of Social Security among conservatives, especially ones of means, is well known. And it shows class resentment as well as a class war. No doubt, social security is a better deal for workers on the lower side of the income ladder. (Contrary to recent claims made by, Senator McCain about it being a detriment to African Americans).

No straight talk about the economy to those voters who are hurting?

From the current US News & World Report, from its lead story in the National & World section is this: A McCain strategist is quoted, regarding Sen McCain's strategy to court Reagan Democrats (white working class voters, who used to be called in Reagan's day, "white ethnics")

"If we're going to win this election, it will because we won Reagan Democrats," says a key McCain strategist. He addds that, since the economy isn't doing well, the argument probably will have to be based on "values issues," such as patriotism, religious faith, and opposition to gay marriage and abortion, in adition to supporting troops and winning the war in Iraq.

In other words, Sen McCain isn't going to address the most pressing issues with them, the slumping economy, high fuel prices. Instead, he is going to obsfucate and discuss these other issues which really have little place and when you look at the legislative success on those issues, pretty thin.

Reagan got away with that because he had a plan to get the economy going. But trickle down never really worked, and it is not working now, and McCain is going to continue with it. I hope the Reagan Democrats, white working class (now defined singularly by educational achievement), or white ethnics, are smarter than that. Of course, many of this group are among those who have told pollsters they wouldn't vote for a black man for president, no matter what. Sen. McCain should be especially effective in recruiting that group to his cause.

This is shaping up to be an interesting campaign: Sen McCain's fear and anger strategy vs Sen Obama's hope and change in the future strategy. In Biblical terms, it is a message of fear vs a message of grace.

David Brooks, yeah right...

Is David Brooks on Sen McCain's payroll? His editorial in the NYT, entitled "Talking versus Doing" is an artfully written argument for why Sen McCain should be president, unfortunately for Sen McCain, Brooks' claims are inaccurate.

Brooks compares Sen Obama's support for the bloated Farm Bill to McCain's opposition to it. Well, neither Obama nor McCain voted ... period. So, neither thought it was that important to take them off the campaign trail.

When I first read Brooks' column, especially this gem:

McCain has been in Congress for decades, but he has remained a national rather than a parochial politician. The main axis in his mind is not between Republican and Democrat. It’s between narrow interest and patriotic service. And so it is characteristic that he would oppose a bill that benefits the particular at the expense of the general.

I thought to myself, yeah, Arizona is not exactly the biggest ag state. So, I looked them up in the last Agriculatural Census for 2002. There are only 17 other states whose value of ag products is lower. That puts Arizona well in the bottom half of Ag states. So, not supporting, by not voting, is not that a big a deal back home.

Obama, on the other hand, though he supported it by not voting for it, is from Illinois, where 41 states are lower in terms of ag value.

My point is to use the Farm Bill as evidence of McCain setting aside narrow interests is a laugh.

By the way, there were 15 Nay votes in the Senate on the Farm bill. 11 of those Senators were from states with lower valued ag production than Arizona.

I wish I could get a job writing fiction for the NYT editorial page.

Even I Could Write Zingers for The Daily Show With This Stuff

I thought I was reading a comedy spoof when I read this WaPo article. The article focuses on Sen. McCain's increasing attacks on Sen Obama's foreign policy credentials, mostly on Sen Obama's stated willingness to talk to America's enemmies. For instance:

Sen. John McCain stepped up his assault on Sen. Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials at a rally in Miami yesterday, criticizing Obama's willingness to talk to Cuban President Ra¿l Castro and other hostile foreign leaders without preconditions

Imagine Jon Stewart's contorted face as he then looks into the camera and asks, was Ronald Regan's Secretary of State an appeaser? As a video of Sec. Baker appears:

But McCain's argument was undercut when a 2006 video emerged of former secretary of state James A. Baker III, a prominent McCain supporter, saying that "talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement."

Remember McCain was the one who confused the players in the Middle East and needed Sen Leiberman whispering in his ear all the time. Imagine those videos with McCain saying this:

...Obama fails to understand "basic realities of international relations." McCain said Obama's willingness to talk with Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions during his first year as president would only embolden "an implacable foe of the United States."

Sen McCain's senior strategist Steve Schmidt said

"

John McCain is ready to be commander in chief. Barack Obama is not, because of his inexperience and poor judgment," Schmidt said. "Inexperience and poor judgment in the president of the United States makes the world a more dangerous place."

Imagine a perplexed Jon Stewart rubbing his chin and saying: Yeah, inexperience (Texas governor who couldn't find several foreign countries on a map) and poor judgement (invade Iraq) in the president make the world a more dangerous place. Slowly nodding, nodding, nodding. Then asking, why then would we want to continue the same policies? As a dumb picture of Sen McCain looms on the background.

To be far, we have to skewer Sen Obama, too.

Obama, meanwhile, has stuck to his position that the president should be willing to talk with enemies of the United States as part of a return to a more open and ambitious use of diplomacy, though last week he clarified that there would be lower-level contacts and "preparation" before any presidential meeting. On the campaign trail, Obama cites President Richard M. Nixon's opening of U.S. relations with China and President Ronald Reagan's negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as examples he would emulate.

Jon Stewart vigorously nodding, saying, Nixon's stupid foreign policy brought us cheap goods from China and has devastated our manufacturing base and negotiating with Gorby brought down communism and the newly capitalist Russia are outcompeting us on the capitalist market, too.

But Obama doesn't just cite Republican foreign policy success, he also quotes that foreign policy magician, John Kennedy:

Obama also frequently quotes President John F. Kennedy's position during the escalating nuclear arms race that the United States should be willing to meet with its adversaries: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate," Kennedy said in his 1961 inaugural address.

Can you say "Bay of Pigs?"

It is just too easy.

Straight talk express running out of gas?

At 2PM today Sen. McCain, living up to his straight talker reputation shares this little bit of conventional wisdom he shared at a town hall-style meeting Friday morning in Denver.

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said.

So, this means our forgotten war in Afghanistan, from where the 9/11 attack came and where Osama bin Laden was being harbored, is the war about democracy and Western values, while the war in Iraq is about Western values, our oil intensive culture. Yeah, well, that is a good summary and hearing someone like Sen. McCain admit it, I think is the opening of one hell of debate for this election. Finally, straight talk.

Until he landed in Pheonix. There Sen. McCain's straight talk express ran out of gas and he equivocated, he dodged, he "bent."

According to the Associated Press: "No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons," McCain told reporters.

One reason was Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, he said. "But also we didn't want him to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil, and it's more important than any other part of the world," he said.

"If the word `again' was misconstrued, I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons, and that's all I mean," McCain said.

"The Congressional Record is very clear: I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction," he said.

Now, one thing I am sure of, there is a lot of oil in Iraq, much more oil than WMDs.

I can't wait until one of our straight talkers admits that we went to war in IRaq to intall democractically installed sharia law.

We’re No. 1 in the U.S. and we demand the best

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 20 April 2008

As a sociologist I am typically fascinated more by people’s responses to events than the event itself. Sen. Obama’s recent remarks given at a private fundraiser is a good example. As is well known by now, Sen. Obama, donning his sociology cap, tried to answer a question about rural, small town Americans. He suggested they were bitter because their local economies are in a shambles and no one pays them any attention.

Instead of discussing this sociological insight into rural America, Senator Obama’s opponents have instead attacked him as an “elitist” and out of touch with regular Americans.

Fascinating. I am not going to defend or even explain Sen. Obama’s remarks. I do want to explore the charge of elitism.

What exactly does elitism mean? According to Dictionary.com, elitism has several meanings: 1) practice of or belief in rule by an elite: 2) consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group; and 3) the belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

Aren’t the same folks accusing Sen. Obama of being an elitist also the same ones who suggest he is not fit to be President because he has insufficient experience? All three major candidates work very hard to make their resumés look the best, the longest, with exaggerated claims of legislative daring do, avoiding sniper fire, and brandishing their ignorance of the Middle East. Each one argues they are the most qualified and they believe they are the best to rule. And if experience isn’t enough, we’ll go bowling, knock back a shot and a beer, and appear on late night comedy shows, to show we are hip, regular, and in touch with the “real” people (even if it is just once an election cycle). Does it seem to you that those accusing Sen. Obama of elitism fit the first definition of elitism, too?

If Senators Clinton and McCain are not elitists, according to the second definition, then they must not be proud of belonging to a select or favored group. I wonder which group it is? The U.S. Senate? Both do want out, to join an even more exclusive club (so does Sen. Obama), so are they elitists or not? Perhaps Senators Clinton and McCain are not proud to be Americans? If that were true, they would probably be disqualified. Both have trafficked in suggesting Obama is anti-American, or a lacks pride in belonging to a select or favored group (Americans, or Christians, or Democrats, or Republicans). That then seems a catch-22 doesn’t it? If he is proud to be American he is an elitist. If he is not, then he is anti-American.

Let’s examine the third definition: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. Hmm. This sounds strangely similar to another idea: meritocracy or (again according to Dictionary.com): an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth. All three candidates are over-achievers. McCain, a Naval Academy graduate, Clinton, a Wellesley graduate, and Obama a Columbia graduate. Are we to believe that McCain and Clinton would prefer winning the presidency due to their family connections?

I don’t think a charge of elitism is going to make much difference. I think Americans, in general, are elitists. We demand the best, the elite in everything. Everyone wants the best doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants, quarterbacks, and presidents. Chanting “We’re Number One” is not common anywhere but in the U.S. That seems pretty elitist to me.

Sen. Obama may be an elitist. But are we to believe those leading the chorus of those charges are not also elitists? Do they fit the opposite of the meaning of elitism? If they accuse Sen. Obama of being an elitist but are them selves elitists, doesn’t that make them “elite” hypocrites?