How About We DON’T Nominate A Loser?

To some folks it will doubtless appear to be nothing but hindsight, but it sure looks to me that the nominees sent up by the Republicans and Democrats are sometimes incredibly predictable losers.

Yes, there were times when certain polls showed John Kerry ahead in the numbers, yet I never saw even one poll where folks expected him to win. Bush started ahead in that category, never really trailed, and frankly it was because everyone figured out pretty early that Kerry was a loser. Why, exactly, the Democrats tabbed him for their mantle is one of those unexplained mysteries.

Not that the Republicans have a perfect record. I mean sure, Bob Dole was a very honorable man with a solid record, but like Kerry there was never a serious sense that he would beat Bill Clinton in 1996. The GOP had other, better, names they could have chosen, but they went with Bob anyway.

And some guys who almost won still lacked those qualities of charisma, wit, and energy that we all look for in a potential President. Al Gore, Gerald Ford, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale … these were “right stuff” guys? Again, I’m not attacking their honor or accomplishments, but really, when did these guys look like they should be leading the pack?

Old news, I know, but it’s relevant when we see the choices we have now. The Democrats are pushing Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Al Gore (again), and Barack Obama as their top tier choices. Of those, only Obama can claim anything like freshness, and he does that because he’s done nothing in his one term in the Senate. Yes, John Kennedy was young, but at least he could and did answer specific policy questions.

And the Republicans? John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani and so on remind me of a bunch of stereotypical politicos – former notables past their prime, wannabes who never had a “prime” on the national level, and screamers like Tancredo who can’t manage a single thought beyond their one core issue – and that issue is not the defense of the United States. Sorry, but that is a recipe for losing, not leadership. While these men each have their strong suits, there’s not one of them that reminds anyone of Dubya’s caliber, let alone Reagan.

The current state of the Democratic Party makes me slow to suggest that I could vote for any Democrat to be President, but the Republicans had better think long and hard about what we are selling to the American people. Because what we have right now, doesn’t pass the smell test.

Peace and Rest to Molly Ivins, Solace to Her Family and Friends

I never liked Molly Ivins very much. I never met her in person, so I’m talking here about her articles. I never felt inclined to spend money on her books, although I’m told they are much like her articles, only more so. I always found Ivins representative of that self-devoted clique of liberal narcissists in the media who thought they owed no honor to anyone with whom they disagreed, and like the KKK were inclined to shrug off protests from decent folk regarding their conduct – they know better than we common folk, don’t you know?

But Ivins passed away this week, and from breast cancer to boot. Since my own diagnosis I have learned quite a bit about cancer. There is no peaceful, gentle way to die from it. Cancer kills a lot of people, from every demographic group and gender and age, and even the survivors are ravaged by the fight against cancer, and never know for sure that it won’t come back. And in Ivin’s case, the damn thing came back, and she beat it again, and it came back yet again, an evil monster that finally beat her body and stole her life. Cancer has been in the news a lot this past month, actually. In addition to Ivins, Art Buchwald died from cancer, and so did Richard Kelley, President Clinton’s stepfather. Marcheline Bertrand, the mother of actress Angelina Jolie, died from cancer in January, and so did Deborah Orin of the New York Post. Vern Ruhle, pitching coach for the Cincinnati Reds, died from cancer in January along with NASCAR driver Benny Parsons. You get the idea, and we have not touched the thousands of ordinary, decent folks who died from a disease they did nothing to cause and could not hope to stop.

But cancer didn’t beat Molly. Of that I am sure. Ivins, for all my disapproval of her politics and rhetorical tactics, was a fighter, no shrinking violet, and she would hardly sit still and let it beat her. What’s interesting as well, is that Ivins showed an uncharacteristic modesty where her fight against cancer is concerned. Maybe it’s other cancer patients she had in mind, who must fight for their lives without enjoying the fame and fortune of being a well-known author, or maybe it’s just that facing the end of your life as you know it – or worse, your independence – so suddenly is humbling and sobering. No one deserves cancer, and I am impressed with anyone who is not turned into a blobbering case of self-pity when they realize what they are facing. And those who stand up and fight the disease with all they have, cannot help but earn my admiration. Ivins fought hard, every step of the way, and while she died from cancer, it did not beat her.

May God grant you rest and peace, Ms. Ivins, and may all who knew and loved you find solace and know that you won that battle which mattered most.

Press Conference at the Alternate Universe News Network

”I would like to thank the press for attending this conference. I will be making a brief statement, then I will be open for a few questions.

“As you all know, I am a patriot who has fought and bled for our great nation, and the President knows full well the service I have delivered to him and to the Army. So I was appalled to be accused as some kind of traitor.

“This nation knows that I have been three times wounded in battle, and my wife died while I was in service to the nation. I have paid out of my own pocket to supply my men with provisions and meet their needs, for which I was never recompensed by Congress. I earned my promotions through daring and courage on the field; though the President more than once praised my valor and victories, he himself has seldom enjoyed such success as a commander, save when my work made it possible, and he has had the good fortune to escape suffering the sorts of injuries which I and men like me have borne without complaint.

“It is plain to many men like me, that this war we now fight is hopeless, and our best course, likely our only hope, is to plead for negotiation to end the senseless violence which presently tears at our nation.

“Thank you. I will now accept a few questions from the press.”

‘General Arnold, I’m Tory London from the New York Times, and thank you for your service. Do you think President Jefferson is provoking this new war with Tripoli to take attention away from his mismanagement of the economy?’

”I don’t want to speculate about his motives, but you know, it’s something you do have to think about, the possibility that he is sending armed men into foreign countries because he just can’t get over the fact that we really never won that war against Britain.”

‘General Arnold, Forbes Kerry from the Boston Globe…’

”We’re old friends, Forbes, please call me Benedict-“

‘Thank you, Benedict. Some pamphleteers are trying to justify the use of military force by saying we should attack pirates in their lands, rather than wait for them to come over here and attack us. How would you answer them?’

[shakes head] ”That’s just sad, Forbes. ‘Pirates’ is a derogatory term used to marginalize complaints from people who have grievances against the American government, it has no place in civilized debate. And anyone with intelligence would know better than to listen to someone who is not established in the press as you are. I mean, these pamphleteers are just a bunch of know-nothings who like to spout off their ignorance.”

‘General Arnold, I’m Tom Paine and I’m one of those pamphleteers you just insulted. What about men of great standing who publish pamphlets?’

”I know no such ‘great men’. “


‘What about James Otis?’

”Never heard of him”

‘Samuel Adams’

[snorts] ”A loud drunkard”

‘Benjamin Franklin’

“A fat, old drunkard who chases women”

‘Paul Revere’

”A poor horseman with delusions of grandeur”

‘Alexander Hamilton’

”A poor statesman with delusions of grandeur”

‘OK, be that way. What about you trying to sell West Point to the British in 1780?’

”Old news, I did what was necessary to oppose that senseless war.”

‘So you’re not a traitor?’

”How dare you question my patriotism, just because I did not support the war! This conference is over!”

[ stomps away from podium]

Territories 2008

A lot of people say that Florida decided the 2000 Election, in the same way that they say that Ohio decided the 2004 Election. Certainly those states played a role, and the argument can be made that if things in those states had shaken out differently, so would the election, yet in actual fact there were other states which were just as critical, or more to the point, the 2008 campaign may be decided by the location of the key states this time around. It is important to look at every state as a possible win or loss. With that said, I do think we can look at the results of elections in the modern era and get a sense of what states will most likely be in play in 2008. By my calculations [which I will not go into here, except to observe that they are driven by election results and demographic trends], even the District of Columbia has only a 94% chance of landing in a certain fashion, and of the states no state shows greater than 80% chance of going a certain way. Sure, a candidate would like to hold the 80% share, but it does show that ‘certainty’ is a trap which the smart candidate will consider and avoid. Therefore, as a caveat before I go further, I would say I am using three shades of Red and Blue, and none of them absolute.

The deepest properties would be those states or that district which has gone for a certain party for at least the last 10 straight Presidential elections. For the Democrats, that would be the District of Columbia, worth 3 Electoral Votes (EV). For the Republicans, that would be the following states: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, Kansas, Alaska, South Dakota, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Those 11 states are worth 63 EV. Mathematically, that rather explains why Democrats who win Presidential races generally do not enjoy landslides.

The next-strongest group would be those states which have generally or clearly favored a party over the last 15 elections, but which also have gone for that same party the last 5 Presidential Elections (or 4 of the last 5, with another election decided by 1% of the vote or less). For the Democrats, that list would be Massachusetts, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Minnesota, New York, Washington, Wisconsin, and Oregon. Those 8 states and 88 EV bring the Democrats up to 8 states, one district and 91 EV.

For the Republicans, that second list would be Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Those 5 states and 72 EV bring the Republicans up to 16 states and 135 EV, half of what they need to win the White House. They also keep the Republicans 44 electoral votes ahead of the Democrats at this point, with 26 states left to count.

The third-strongest group would be those states which have provided 50% or more of the popular vote in at least 9 of the last 15 Presidential Elections. For the Democrats, that list does not add a single state, but for the Republicans, that list adds the following states: Montana, Colorado, New Hampshire, and – oddly enough – Vermont! Those 4 states and 19 EV bring the Republican tally up to 20 states and 154 EV, and create a 63-vote lead for the Republicans with 22 states left to count.

OK, a 22-state field is still a large place, but we now have a true “starting position” for the race. Granted, even I find it unlikely to believe that New Hampshire and Vermont will go Red in 2008, so I will arbitrarily flip them Blue, and that gives us the following positions, regardless of the parties’ nominees:

Democrats: 10 states plus DC, 98 EV: 172 EV still needed
Republicans: 18 states, 147 EV: 123 EV still needed

If we next consider states which went 4-out-of-the-last-5 for a party, here’s what happens. The Democrats add Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, Michigan, New Jersey, Maine, and Iowa. Those 10 states and 160 EV bring the Democrats up to 20 states plus DC, and 258 EV, 14 EV needed to win.

For the Republicans, that condition adds Arizona and Georgia, 2 states and 25 EV. That brings the Republicans up to 20 states and 172 EV, or 98 EV needed to win with just 10 states left on the board.

Suddenly it looks like the Democrats have a commanding lead. Presuming we extend the last-5-election counter to allow for 3 of the last 5 with 1 under 1% margin, that puts Florida in the Republican tally, which I am inclined to do because of the positive ratings for Jeb Bush there, and the rotten efforts by the Democrats there. That raises the Republicans to 21 states and 199 EV, 71 EV away from a win with 9 states left to look at.

And that’s your battlefield for 2008. Kentucky, Ohio, Louisiana, Nevada, Tennessee, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia.

I can winnow that down some more by looking again the histories of those states:

Ohio: 10 of the last 15 elections went for the Republican, 4 for the Democrat. The Republican claimed 50%+ 8 times, the Democrat 1 time.

Tennessee: 8 of the last 15 elections went for the Republican, 5 for the Democrat. The Republican claimed 50%+ 6 times, the Democrat 2 times.

Kentucky: 9 of the last 15 elections went for the Republican, 5 for the Democrat. The Republican claimed 50%+ 8 times, the Democrat 3 times.

Those three states will go Republican, unless something happens which makes all the other histories unreliable. That brings the scoreboard up to this tally:

Democrat: 20 states plus DC, 258 EV, 14 EV needed to win
Republican: 24 states, 238 EV, 34 EV needed to win

Still At Stake:

Missouri (11 EV), 8-5 Republican in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 5-3 GOP 50%+
Louisiana (9 EV), 8-7 Republican in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 8-3 GOP 50%+
Arkansas (6 EV), 8-6 Democrat in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 7-5 Dem 50%+
Nevada (5 EV), 10-5 Republican in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 6-2 GOP 50%+
West Virginia (5 EV), 10-5 Democrat in last 15, 3-2 Democrat in last 5, 7-5 Dem 50%+

So, who can win those five states? That might decide it all.

Russia – The Forgotten Threat

AJ Strata has done Pulitzer-worthy work chasing down the trail of the murderers of former spy Alexander Litvenenko and journalist Anna Politkovskaya, not that the MSM will ever admit it. I cannot do better on the specifics of this case, than to point the reader to some recent examples of AJ’s work here, here, here, here, and here.

But I would also like to expand on the matter to reconsider Russia in the context of Global events. It is commonly thought that if a nuclear bomb were to go off, a la “24”, it would be the work of Islamofascist terrorists, a paranoid fantasy carried to grim climax by the short squat dictator in North KantFeedPeople, or perhaps a mistake resulting from the Greed of Halliburton. Statistically however, by far the most likely source of a nuke going off in an American city is Russia; it is not commonly remembered or mentioned in the media that Russia still has more warheads than any nation after the United States itself, many of them still quite capable of reaching the American homeland. Oh, and did I mention that the Russian Command-and-Control of its Nuclear armament is, well, something less than optimal?

With that happy thought in mind, we now turn our attention to the Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti, your old friends and mine, the KGB. What’s that you say? There is no ‘KGB’ anymore? Well, that’s actually the problem. You see, the Sluzhba Vneshney Razvedki (SVR) – which replaced the KGB after Mikhail “Happy Face Comrade” Gorbachev handed over the Kremlin to Boris “Waddaya Got To Drink” Yeltsin – did not need nearly the numbers of employees that the KGB and its counterpart, the Glavnoe Razvedyvatel'noe Upravlenie or GRU used, to say nothing of some of the darker job descriptions. Many of these goons got kicked to the curb, and found employment with the only organization which desired their special talents and could afford to keep them fed; the Russian Mafia.

The Russian Mafia, or Bratva for short, owns and controls a great deal of modern Russia, and what it does not control it still influences. This brings us almost full circle, because one scenario of the Litvenenko/ Politkovskaya murders is the manipulation of President Vladimir Putin by Bratva. While it has not been proven, neither can such a possibility be ruled out; such is the reach and ambition of Bratva. Bratva gangs have been implicated in the United States in extortion schemes involving NHL players and teams, in suburban New York as long ago as 1975, and for brains and muscle, Bratya likes the ’Sword-and-Shield’ for ideas and daring. Just something else to think about; the likelihood that men with no love for America but a clear lust for influence and money, not only have access to nuclear weapons, but contacts with people who would love to use such weapons on America.

Against that, a hundred Jack Bauers might not be enough.

The ‘Bush Hate’ Influence

Real Clear Politics has been tracking Job Approval ratings for Dubya for quite a while now. While I disagree with their methodology, it can still be an interesting, if untrustworthy barometer for the political weather in D.C. (the District of Corruption).

The present numbers say Dubs is at 33.9% Job Approval. Pretty grim. But there’s a range in there worth noting. More to the point, look who is where.

First off, I personally reject as currently valid those polls which are more than 10 days old, so that gives us the following, revised, spread:

Rasmussen: 40%
Newsweek: 30%
Time: 37%
CNN: 34%
CBS News: 28%
NBC/Wall St Journal: 35%

OK, that’s 34.0%, which is about where RCP shows it, but look at the 12-point range between polls in that same period. Folks, that’s not very much of a consensus, especially when you have to add in the 3.5 +/- point margin of error. If these polls can claim to be accurate, there’s really a nineteen-point range of variance in poll positions. There’s a scientific term for that, but in plain English it means that at least some of these polls are worthless, absolutely not worth your trust.

Just another reminder that some folks in the media are quite willing to lie to you.

As a comment for anyone interested in digging into the details, neither Rasmussen nor Newsweek was willing to release the party identification of respondents along with their press release of the poll results. In the CBS News poll, Democrats polled outnumbered Republicans 444-292.

Just something else to think about.

Stupid, Yet Winning

CNN has a gallery of the dumbest tech failures of 2006, including:

Sony’s exploding PC batteries;

The response by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which addressed such problems by advising laptop computer users to not use laptop computers in their laps;

A promotion with the TV show “The Apprentice”, where instead of promoting the client, General Motors, the team produced an advertisement blaming GM for Global Warming;

A McDonald’s promotion in Japan which gave away thousands of MP3 players – infected with computer viruses designed to steal passwords for hackers;

Amazon.com’s pre-game sales of UCLA’s NCAA Basketball Championship hats - - - the day before UCLA loses to Florida in the actual game;

AirTran’s collapse of their computer systems in June, leading to denial of boarding passes to thousands of customers at the airport, forcing paying customers to miss their flights while the airline ignored the problem;

and of course YouTube, which collected thousands of popular videos without requesting permission from the original site, sent a cease-and-desist demand to a user who found a way for users to save videos to their hard drive from YouTube.

What’s amazing to me, is that in spite of such “accomplishments”, the U.S. is still the model for business success for the world.

Eco-Idiots

Generally, I like BusinessWeek magazine. It has a lot of good information, and it provokes thought into many issues involving Business. But the magazine also makes the mistake of playing to the fad of the moment, in which case it sometimes forgets important rules of business, even logic, in order to press the story for popularity. That’s what happened in its most recent issue, with a cover story titled “Imagine a world in which socially responsible and eco-friendly practices actually boost a company’s bottom line. It’s closer than you think.” Yeah, that’s the title. It shows up that way on the cover, in the index, and it starts the article that way. The exact wording every time, although when you get to the actual article, it does include the header ”Beyond the Green Corporation”. Pete Engardio, who wrote the story, is very proud of his words.

Before I go further, I want to emphasize that I like the notion of ecological responsibility, especially a company which considers the needs of its community and works to be a good citizen. My complaint with the BusinessWeek article is the major premise of the story, that “eco-friendly” practices directly make a company more profitable. To be blunt, the story fails to make that case, and there are danger signs in the story for serious investors to count against this claim. Chiefly, the story presents ecological policies as if there was no downside or risk, a claim which is not only false, but which could adversely affect both business decisions based on misleading claims, and which could also lead investors to count ecological efforts as a form of fraud.

The first warning sign is dependence on the buzzword, “sustainability” – there’s no real consensus yet on what that word means, especially for specific companies and their goals and practices. Also, I note that companies like Innovest play fast and loose with their ratings of company performance, choosing not only to include subjective social markers but also to discount and ignore traditional warning signs in a company’s finances. The story, for example, makes much of Sony, ignoring its recent quality and customer satisfaction issues, simply because Sony has crafted an image for energy efficiency and pollutant control. An image, not documented fact, and the rejection of valid financial data and sector performance hardly makes the case for a credible evaluation. The same for Ford, which has long pursued “green” policies, some of which are now blamed for company mistakes which have dangerously damaged Ford’s competitiveness with other carmakers. Innovest issues ratings for estimated risk which seem to have nothing at all to do with genuine financial risk. That is misleading at best. Serious problems are explained away or put off to other causes, a behavior which reminds me a lot of Enron or Worldcom just before they went crash. That’s not to say that Ford or Sony are in the same shape, but deceptive stories which ignore problems in a company or attempt to promote indicators which do not accurately represent the company’s risk condition, should not be published as the cover story in a major business magazine.

Congress and Cowardice

We have a Congress full of cowards. Without fail, when the issue of the war against Terrorism comes to their attention, the action of both chambers is to do the expedient; promise support for the troops, but do little to follow through, especially on any action which might actually move the matter towards victory. The Democrats sit on their hands when the President proposes that we win the war; they want to impeach him for doing his job, whatever excuse they pin on it. But the Republicans who applauded the notions of ‘victory’ and ridding the world of Islamofascism are no better, hypocrites who refuse any personal hardship and quail at the thought of doing what is right rather than what makes a good sound byte. What passes for “leadership” in either party bears a striking similarity in appearance, odor, and character to what passes from a Cholera victim. And this, God help us, is the nature of that body which will direct the nation’s course, and by extension the world, for the next 23 months.

The Democrats praise General Petraeus as they send him off to Iraq, even as they mock and insult the plan he helped create for dealing with the war there.

John McCain wants to run for President on his ‘pro-war’ credentials, yet he is meeting with other Senators to discuss legislation which would cut the knees out from our deployed troops.

Nancy Pelosi says she wouldn’t consider cutting off funding for the troops, even as she makes constant public statements which trash their efforts and press for abandonment of Iraq.

Tom Tancredo pretends to be a patriotic American, yet he deliberately attacked President Bush and the priorities of the Republican Party, simply because he failed to hijack the agenda in favor of his personal will.

Jim Webb engaged in a little hate-fest of lies this week, as his “response” to the President’s State of the Union address did little more than tear words out of context, and cherry-pick support to claim that we were losing and should basically give up and run away.

Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe, well, they basically shrugged off the last of their dignity and defected to the Dark Side. I figure they will start yelling ”Allahu Akhbar” during dull moments on the Senate floor.

You get the idea. There’s not a one of them with a spine. What passes for "backbone” in Congress is not checking the NY Times every morning to find out what the media expects them to say and do. I heard Hugh Hewitt say yesterday that a few of them “get it right”, but I cannot agree. Those few who do seem to understand the needs of the nation and the crisis we face, still do little to rebuke their shameful colleagues and demand responsible service from them. If a man attacked your wife, you should do more than remark that you would yourself not act as he has; you should defend her and beat the miscreant into a bloody pulp. So it is here, that the nation itself is in dire circumstance, and those who have not attempted to join in on the rape, neither do anything to stop it. A proper defender of the troops and the nation will yell, denounce, and obstruct the pursuit of defeat and abandonment, yet not one Representative or Senator has risen to his feet on this point. Some, to be sure, have made measured statements, when the cameras are on and they think they can impress their hometown voters with a little empty rhetoric, but if you check their actual submitted bills, co-sponsorship, or voting record on the decisions which might accomplish more than a political action, you find a wasteland.

It is well past time, for Americans of determination who desire accountability to make plain to Congress that the present condition of cowardice must cease. The miscreants turned out in the 2006 elections did not lose because they supported the war, or because of any one issue, but because they did not take clear stands in alignment with either principle or their voters, to a degree even worse than the ones left in office. They do not answer calls or mail from the voters, they do not respond to any press except softball interviews from known supporters, and they will not stand alone on principle. None of them.

What can the ordinary man do? Well, for starters we can send a louder message. There is a pledge circulating now, to remind certain Senators that we are, in fact, in a deadly serious war, and that they have made a commitment we expect – indeed demand, them to keep. Sign it and push for it.

After that, the principle for diligent voters, whether Republican or Democrat or Independent of any party, must be to hold the official accountable, completely, for both what he says and does, and for what he ignores. Otherwise, we should prove ourselves as cowardly as these liars and crooks now in office.

Up To The Job

This week I have been writing about President Bush and his management of our country in difficult times. The response has been mixed, from people who agree with me that Bush is one of our best Presidents, to vitriol-laced screeds that he is somehow our worst President. While the latter sort are clearly unbalanced by their hatred – their refusal to recognize the greatness of President Reagan does their credibility quite a bit of damage – it seems to me that it is worthwhile to explore the way we look at Presidents.

There are three methods generally available to consider the merits of a President’s accomplishments; ranking front-to-back, a grade scale such as a teacher would issue, and in-place comparisons. The first method, while an interesting exercise, is often devolved to a simple popularity contest, which really does not address the actual performance of a President. And a grade scale, while useful if applied as objectively as possible, is often the puppet of the grader, and is used to create an image rather than assess the man in total. Also, the difference in each President’s time and place to address the nation’s welfare to varying degrees and with shifting priorities, makes many comparisons unfair. Indeed, many leading historians decline to assess a President who served in their own lifetime, because they realize that personal bias will likely devalue the analysis they apply, as each President is awarded or penalized points simply because the historian personally likes or dislikes the man and his politics.

The third method, in-place comparisons, can also fall prey to personal manipulation, but at least an attempt to correct for bias can be made. I would further note that in-place comparisons should not be used to claim that one President was clearly “better” than another, because of the difference in each man’s environment; it is one thing to say, for example, that no President since Washington would be likely to have done a better job in his place at the start of the nation, yet it might also be valid to say that no President could have done better than Lincoln with the tasks laid to his charge. The purpose here is simply to consider whether President Bush was “up to the job”, as demonstrated by how other Presidents would have handled the same crises. I further note here that I am not including Bush’s non-Presidential contemporaries in a comparison, either as an opportunity to praise them or rebuke them, because we cannot truly know how a “President Gore” or a “President Kerry” would have faced the real events. Only men who have truly served as Presidents can honestly be weighed on the Presidential scale.

Setting the stage for these comparisons, therefore, requires me to consider the sort of actions which could be fairly considered without some personal requisite for success. That is, I do not consider the virtue or fault of President Bush’s judicial appointments, because a Conservative or Republican would see the matter much differently than a Liberal or Democrat. Also, while I personally find Bush’s efforts to reform Social Security and Medicare to be honorable and indicators of his sense of honor and duty to the country’s welfare, the fact that his efforts did not result in effective legislation makes it impossible to properly consider them accomplishments. Also, too complex a comparison would make the task cumbersome and cluttered in its results. Accordingly, I look to five key matters which I contend a responsible President would have addressed, and whose success can be clearly measured. Those matters are these:

[] April 1, 2001 – A PRC fighter jet collides with a U.S. Navy Reconnaissance aircraft in International waters. The PRC pilot is killed in the crash, while the U.S. Navy plane is forced to land and its crew taken prisoner by the PRC.

[] September 11, 2001 – Terrorists from the international group “Al Qaeda” hijack four US domestic commercial aircraft, and ram two of them into the World Trade Center buildings in New York City, and a third airliner into the Pentagon.

[] Fall 2001 – The economic recession which began earlier in the year is aggravated by effects, technical and psychological, from the 9/11 attacks. The economy threatens to worsen unless the government acts.

[] October 2001 – The terrorist group Al Qaeda is directly linked to the Taliban regime in control of Afghanistan. The Taliban refuse to cooperate with demands to eject Al Qaeda, instead demonstrating a militant desire for war against the West through terrorist attacks.

[] February 2003 – The dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq continues to flout its violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire terms, to support a large number of international terrorist actions, especially the tactics of suicide bombers against civilian Israeli targets, and the international consensus of the Intelligence Community is that Saddam is seeking the development of WMD, and his behavior strongly suggests he possesses stockpiles of WMD.

The situation in each of these crises is such that no President could have expected to have reliable prior knowledge sufficient to prevent the crisis from occurring, nor was U.S. policy able to anticipate these crises. It is no coincidence that four of the five defining crises of the Bush Administration emerge from international incidents.

With this in mind, the benchmarks established by the present Bush Administration are as follows:

I – The crisis, which could have ended in disaster and at times appeared in doubt, ended with improved U.S.-Sino relations and the safe return of the entire U.S. Navy crew. While often ignored by critics of the Bush Administration, this early crisis is one of his shining successes in Diplomacy, and demonstrated an often-missed subtlety to the Bush method.

II – The Bush Administration undertook a comprehensive review and overhaul of the National Defense paradigm. While controversial in places and not always well-explained, the actions taken under President Bush’s authority have prevented another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil, while keeping Civil Liberties intact.

III – The Bush Administration pursued and accomplished an aggressive set of tax cuts and system reforms, which were largely responsible for the early recovery from the recession, in addition to improving collection of federal revenues. The plan was controversial for its effect on long-term debt, but Bush’s deft use of monetary tools provided critical assistance for small businesses and drove confidence for the U.S. Economy in general.

IV – The Bush Administration, despite heckling from the Left that they were inviting disaster and ignoring History, supported a bold plan which assisted Afghan partisans in overthrowing the Taliban and establishing a freely-elected government, which allowed the first-ever votes by women in that country. Terrorist camps based in Afghanistan were obliterated and their networks devastated.

V – The Bush Administration created an international coalition even larger than the one which repulsed Saddam’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, obtained both a United Nations Security Council sanction against Iraq and an authorization for the use of force from both houses of Congress, before carrying out the invasion of Iraq in alignment with the 1998 United States policy of regime change in Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled, Saddam along with the overwhelming majority of his minions was captured and many others killed, and a democratic republic began to develop in the Mid-East nation. Despite claims which pretended the war was solely about WMD, and lies that no WMD were found in Iraq, the major objectives of invading Iraq were justified and accomplished, although the emphasis by some figureheads on nuclear material led to embarrassment when assurances by numerous intelligence agencies proved wrong on that count. Fear of a democratic republic in an Arab nation led a number of surrounding regimes to support incursions of terrorist groups, and fascist Islamic groups also fueled an insurgency which has been difficult to defeat, in some part because political enemies of the Bush Administration have played games with the issue rather than maintain an united front, which has been played by the Islamofascists for media propaganda. It should also be noted that the U.S.-led action led to collateral reforms, such as the promise by Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi to renounce WMD, and the rise of self-determination demands by Lebanese citizens against Syrian occupation. The Iraq issue remains the largest effort by the Bush Administration which success remains in any doubt.

With these benchmarks in place, I now consider how other Presidents since World War 2 would have fared, given their known job performance.

I – The key qualities necessary to resolve the China crisis would appear to be an understanding of world power relationships, along with a long fuse. Accordingly, Presidents Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Franklin Roosevelt would all have enjoyed success in resolving this crisis without loss of life or an escalation in tension. President Carter often “gave away the farm” in negotiations, and so would have given the PRC more than necessary, such as granting an extension of PRC airspace demands, and so I count his effort as less successful. Presidents Johnson and Truman were known for provocative and confrontational statements, especially with regard to Asia, and so I conclude that in their cases an escalation would be more likely.

II – 9/11 is a seminal historic event, and so it is difficult to precisely name how any individual would react, but the style of crisis management reveals clues. The Clinton Administration, for example, repeatedly failed to respond to Al Qaeda attacks, including the 1993 attempt to bomb the WTC, treating it instead as a matter for criminal investigation. Also, when a threat was perceived as serious, the Clinton Administration typically over-reacted with a heavy hand, as the Elian Gonzalez raid, the Waco raid, and the attack on Ruby Ridge demonstrate. The temptation for immediate retaliation was a mistake both Bush Administrations resisted successfully, but the behavior of the Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Truman, and FDR Administrations indicate that they would have immediately struck at a target of opportunity, and in the 9/11 context such action would have played to the advantage of Al Qaeda, which hoped to enflame the region in a general war. On the other hand, the Reagan, Bush I, Carter, and Kennedy Administrations would – on the basis of their reaction to provocations in their own time – have refrained from spontaneous action and paid attention to their defenses instead.

III – It is a cliché to say that Presidents get far too much praise for a good economy, and too much blame for a bad one. However, there are instances where specific and timely action – or the duty to act missed – can have tremendous effect on the Economy. The lessons of Fiscal and Monetary Policy were developed from such understanding. In my opinion, only the Bush I, Reagan, and Kennedy Administrations would have properly understood and applied the Monetary action of broad tax cuts to reignite the Economy. The Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, and FDR Administrations would have tried Fiscal tools, which would have made the deficit worse than the Bush actions did, but without similar success in improving Employment and Consumer Confidence. The Ford, Eisenhower, and Truman Administrations would have tried to ride out the recession, which in the short term at least would have weakened the Economy and destroyed confidence and job creation. The Carter Administration, with its sometimes-myopic focus on the deficit, would never have consented to deficit spending or tax cuts, and so would have done the worst of all in that circumstance.

IV – The overthrow of the Taliban was a gutsy call, the kind of thing that no poll-driven President would have attempted. Only Reagan, Nixon, FDR and Truman would have understood the need for such an action, and only FDR and Truman would have had the nerve to take on the task the way George W. Bush did. While the other Presidents would have felt obliged to respond in force, bombings and a few raids would have been the end of it, by the lights of Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, and Eisenhower.

V – The most controversial decision of George W. Bush’s Presidency would have been tough on any President. For instance, most modern commentators have forgotten the harsh criticism Reagan took for liberating Grenada, an action far smaller and quicker, to say nothing of the blame smeared on him for the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983. We commonly see defenders of the former dictator Saddam Hussein parade on television, as if his monstrous crimes were irrelevant to the issue, and we also hear the claim – never supported by evidence – that Iraq would have been better off if we had not invaded. Certainly by that logic, 1948 Berlin was not nearly the happy-go-lucky place it was in 1944, nor could Tokyo in 1947 be said to be the happenin’ place it was in 1942. And since so many in the media like to interview people with agenda in the Middle East, perhaps we should weigh the victory in the Cold War by the opinion of former KGB agents and zampolits now left unemployed with the demise of their oligarchy? In any case, only Franklin Roosevelt could be said to possess the vision and the courage to have engaged in a similar course, especially as his vision for the reformation of Germany after World War 2 is significantly similar to the Bush plan for the re-emergence of Iraq as a stable, central democratic republic in the Middle East. A gamble yes, but a worthy one. The other Presidents, honorable though their intentions are, would none of them been bold and resolute enough to decimate Al Qaeda the way the Bush plan has done, to establish a free republic in the middle of the most contentious region in the modern world. Some, like Clinton and Nixon, would have anticipated the political maneuvering by their opponents which would have made the task harder, and so they would have demurred to meet the challenge. Others, like Carter and Eisenhower, would have found the stakes too challenging and abandoned the game rather than think too deeply about the need for a long-term American commitment. And sadly, some might have been frightened by the madmen in Iran just one border away, and fled from the challenge even if their cowardice cost the country in its long-term welfare. To be courteous, I will not name those timid souls, except to observe their presence in this matter.

Those who chose to pursue the matter would have fared the same as Bush has; it is too often ignored that the enemies of America are not idle in their campaigns against us, no matter who sits in the Oval Office. Those who would have declined to invade Iraq would doubtless have avoided the present specter of constant military action, yet they would not have emerged unscathed. Saddam had already shown a willingness, indeed an eagerness, to support and sponsor terrorist organizations, especially those most active against the United States, and connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were known even prior to the 2003 invasion. Consequently, failure to remove Saddam Hussein through a military invasion would not only have allowed the region to continue its devolution into chaos, feeding the ambitions of Syria and Iran along the way (why is it that anti-Bush minions never mention those ambitions, which would surely have filled the vacuum with their own armies if the Coalition had not come in?), but would also have emboldened Al Qaeda and assured it of a stable base from which to launch new and ambitious attacks on America.

Overall, I find it impossible to find any President in history who would have done as well in meeting these challenges as President George W. Bush has done, and it is inconceivable that any man could have done better. The sole question is how long this fact will be evident before Dubya receives the respect and appreciation he is so clearly overdue. That, and how long before the first howling jackal posts a comment which does nothing to establish his case, but rather spews hate and venom in their ceaseless attempt to defame the President.



PS - Chuck Simmins has an excellent non-partisan way to compare the State of the Union at this point in three Presidencies. (ht Glenn Reynolds)

Madness By Choice

Tuesday evening I strolled over to Polipundit to check reaction to the President’s State of the Union address. I might as well have visited Andrew Sullivan’s site or Kos-land, for the level of maturity I found there. Of course, to expect maturity from the Polipundit readers at large is a bit like expecting Mike Nifong to do his job properly, but that’s not the issue for here. I mentioned that most people would ignore or mock what the President said, and I was proven right by the content of the comments which followed my observation.

Soon after that, personal insults against me started. Small wonder, since I am a known supporter of the President and therefore an enemy to many of Polipundit’s tenants. But what else happened was a strange study in mob dynamics; I was quickly – and quite falsely – accused of banning certain readers from Polipundit.com when I was one of the hosts there. What’s intriguing is not the charge per se - that was a common lie used by a few individuals back in 2006, when the site polarized beyond repair and the site owner declared a dictatorship.

What is interesting is that the charge has taken a sort of “Woodstock” effect; where initially only two readers believed they had been banned – possibly an honest error, although the claim was never true – by this past Tuesday it was as common as buying coffee from Starbuck’s to claim that DJ Drummond had banned one from the Polipundit.com site. I addressed those claims fully when they first surfaced, and I would ignore the matter now, except that I perceive a syndrome at work, and one which is likely more pervasive than people are aware or would like to admit. It is that syndrome which not only is willing to lower one’s standards of conduct into the muck of false accusation and slander, but which in some cases comes to prefer it, so that the lie is the first choice rather than a desperate attempt. In the perspective of the Rabid Right, the arch enemy is typified by sites like the Daily Kos, which controls the tone and direction of its debates by quite deliberately banishing anyone who even appears to be Conservative, Rational, or who dares to question the marching orders of the Left. Thus, when the Rabid Right wishes to destroy an enemy, the preferred attack is to accuse him – however falsely – of acting in a like manner to the Daily Kos, even when this requires the RR to use the Kos’ own dishonest tactics, as we see here. Ignored is the fact that I answered the claims fully when they first came up, and ignored too is the fact that it was always impossible for me to ban individuals from the site, even if I wanted to do so. But in examining this situation, another unfortunate action has become evident; apparent malice on the part of the site owner.

Polipundit.com was created by a single person, who posts under the screen name “Polipundit”. When he decided to bring additional writers onto his site, there were certain conditions under which we operated, one of them the obvious fact that the site owner retained control of the site. Early on, there were incidents with individuals who attempted to disrupt discussions, using foul language, personal attacks, and attempts to derail discussions onto non-seqiturs. Three of the four new writers pressed for the right to ban the IP addresses of those offenders, but the site owner declined to grant that right. Offensive posts could be and were deleted, and in extreme cases an IP address could be banned from a specific post, but since Polipundit.com at that time usually had more than a dozen new threads a day, anyone kicked from one thread could simply show up again in another thread. Veteran readers of Polipundit.com may recall that readers often complained about thuggish behavior which moved from one thread to another. So those people who pretend to have banned from the site are either individuals who were banned from a few specific threads where they refused to act civilly, or who were banned from Polipundit.com by the site owner himself [the only person who ever that ability], or who were in fact never actually banned at all. In any case such people are lying, making false accusations for whatever reason their spite brought to being in their foul hearts.

The significance of this fact comes from the claims by some, that the site owner “restored” them to access to the site, and they implied that the site owner blamed me for their access difficulties. As I have no specific knowledge of communications between the site owner and such persons, I cannot say whether the individuals are lying or the site owner is, but in either case the actions and the lack thereof from that site owner are disappointing. When the site owner threw out the other writers from his site in May of 2006, certain promises and understandings were made in email communications, which I prefer not to detail here, except that all parties promised to act in an honorable manner, especially in not blaming the other side for any misunderstandings or in creating any hostility. I will say plainly that all the writers who left Polipundit.com kept our promises, including not revealing the true name or location of the site owner, nor disparaging his reputation. I must bluntly observe that the site owner of Polipundit.com has not done the same, failing to keep certain specific promises made, and in my case if he did not directly malign me for an action he knows full well I did not commit, he at the least made no effort whatsoever to correct the record when those individuals began falsely accusing me of banning them. The site owner knows full well that I am guiltless in that matter, and therefore he knows those accusations to be false and malicious, yet he has not once taken it upon himself to correct the record, apparently preferring the smear to the truth. He ignored email requests from me to correct the matter in mid-2006, and apparently is still happy to let a lie stand in order to malign me, even after I have wished him well, supported his endeavors and heretofore held from publicly pointing out his ignoble behavior. I suppose shame is powerless against some folks.

What is interesting here, however, is that Polipundit.com used to be a site of fair discussion, obviously right-of-center but a place where Liberal perspectives and arguments were welcome. What has changed, is that while Liberals still visit the place and state their piece, the civility is gone. Completely. The place has the ambience of a biker bar, where only crude epithets and sub-graduate logic are acceptable; the more genial Liberals who could banter in good spirit are quite gone, replaced by knuckle-draggers who do little more than throw insults. The same for the Right, where anyone who supports the President may expect to be ill-used, and context is lost to the preferred simplicity of the mob mentality. In recent weeks, the feeling one gets from visiting Polipundit.com soon after arriving, and especially after a comment which dares to pursue a modest discourse, is that one is glad to be there only in a virtual sense, because in a real-world establishment of this type, one would be fervently hoping for the appearance of a police officer or six. A rhetorical gang-rape is the program du jour at Polipundit.com, without fail. While the present writers are generally good, and one in particular worth the read in 9 out of 10 times, the sense of the place is foreboding and dire for anyone who does not stay in the herd.

I have seen this also at other formerly intriguing sites, though admittedly at a mush lower level of hostility to reason and civility. Yet it must be said that in the Blogosphere, the number of sites which are truly open to considering alternative points of view and maintaining a civil atmosphere are in the decline. Whether Left or Right, the promise of the “New Media” is no longer the fresh invitation to expand one’s horizons and explore the full dimensions of an issue. In this measure, I fear that the Blogosphere is representing the mindset of the populace as a whole. The President addressed the nation last night on a number of critical issues, but it is doubtful that many people listened at all, whether on the Left or on the Right. Twice elected President of the United States, with more than 62 million Americans lining up behind him in 2004, George W. Bush is now ignored because of personal enmity, turf wars, an arrogant media, and a desire to put expediency ahead of principle. The liars pretend that deserting the President on Iraq won’t impact our troops there or the mission, they claim that they only ‘criticize’ the President when they call him names and lie about his intentions, and they all pretend to better qualification, these posers who have none of them been elected to office, nor who have borne the weight and responsibility that Dubya has carried for more than half a decade now. They defecate on the flag with their actions, but would have one believe they are freshening the place up. And their style is becoming the norm.

History warns us that these things may represent a greater threat than mere incivility. After the American Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan managed a campaign of terror for decades in the South, domestic terrorism and mob violence directed at millions of Americans simply for their race and culture. Along the West Coast in the 19th Century, race riots and lynchings of Asians were common, to the degree that law enforcement did nothing to stop it, even at the federal level. Immediately after the First World War, a period of civil unrest in the United States included assassinations and bombings, and waves of criminal violence that was only put down with near-nationwide martial law through the Palmer Raids. And there are people alive today who recall the polarization of race during the late 1960s and early 1970s, which still influence New York and California politics and social conditions. Yes, it’s a stretch to jump from name-calling on a discussion board to race lynchings, but it is important to observe that the road to such violence started just the way our present road is changing, away from personal discretion declining the use of personal invective and a constant application of context to discussions, to the wholesale and deliberate disruption of legitimate authority, and demands for violent and radical action. This present road ignores the root causes of Terrorism and the decay of procedural standards in political debate, replacing them with the self-satisfying personal attack and the expedient poll-advancing statement which promotes the next political campaign at the cost of the nation’s health and welfare. While we are but newly set on that road, we dare not ignore its destination. And the Blogosphere, which moves the quickest of all media and enjoys the repute of popular support and participation in the greatest measure, is now called to the duty to restore Reason to the helm.

The Next Long War

President Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. While still disputed by Liberals and Communist sympathizers (more on them later), this fact is increasingly accepted by the American people and much of the Western World. I mention this at the start of this article, because while he was President, this conclusion was far from acknowledged. I remember the taunts that he sent troops to Grenada, because he could not win in Lebanon. I remember the claim that Reagan’s tax cuts would cost the country’s economy in the long run, or that Star Wars would provoke the Soviets into World War 3. Although anyone with a working knowledge of history understood that Stalin’s acquisition of Eastern Europe was Act One of WW3; the ‘Cold War’ moniker cloaked the true nature of the conflict for many people.

Which brings me to the media. Flush from the propaganda victory which helped bring down South Vietnam, CBS led the way for the offensive against Reagan’s defense of the United States. National Security became mocked as somehow an excess of government action or attention, and traditional values like Family and the expectation of Civility by public officials were targeted for ridicule and assault, as if the majority’s interests were Unconstitutional. Indeed, the media assisted a number of lawsuits which claimed just that; only the fringe hold rights.

The Cold War therefore was a war with many fronts, some of them immediate and local, and the costs both real and personal for every American. The nation changed, sometimes for the better but not always, as it wrestled with the ideological enemy which began in Moscow, but which found allies even in American colleges. By 1980 Reagan faced a dire condition and a resolute enemy, yet when he left office the enemy was in full retreat. Reagan changed the world, and we all owe him a great debt and gratitude.

Yet there were other heroes of the Cold War, even among our Presidents. Because of his success as President, some people have wondered what if we had found a man like Reagan long before. What if a Reagan had been elected instead of Eisenhower in 1952, for instance. Yet even Reagan had his setbacks and defeats, and we cannot know that he would not have done, in Eisenhower’s place, exactly as Ike did. The conditions each President faces are indeed unique, and we do well to consider what options were truly open to them. And with that in mind, I again turn to the first hero of the Gold War, Harry Truman. I say here, quite plainly, that there were aspects to Truman’s Administration which I do not like at all, not least his partisan politics. Truman was a bitter enemy to most Republicans, and never made an effort to cooperate with the other party. Yet in the context of the Cold War, Truman has earned high marks from historians and people who understood the world he faced. Truman recognized, almost before anyone else, the ambition of Stalin and the Soviets, and he spared no effort or expense to protect the United States and the Western World from Global Communism. For his efforts, Truman was roundly criticized, even by his own party, and he did not run for re-election in 1952 in part because his own people deserted him. Yet Truman has been vindicated where the Cold War is concerned; he correctly measured the threat, and set up the defenses which made all the future efforts, including Reagan’s victory, possible. The Cold War was never a one man show, and part of what makes Truman great, is that he understood that he would never receive his due credit for the initial defense, yet he took on the challenge without shirking.

We see now another long war, and the man who first called us to defense also warned us that the fight would be long and difficult, enjoying victories but also suffering defeats, and sometimes those defeats would come from lowering our guard or from officials who take the easy road instead of meeting the call of duty. That President was falsely maligned for celebrating the success of one mission in the first campaign, his enemies pretending he was announcing the final victory prematurely. In so doing, these enemies gave aid and comfort to the very forces seeking the destruction of the West, as they showed the beginning of the relentless and often witless campaign to divide the American government against itself, a collection of Quislings willing to deny their own nation if it seemed they could personally profit by it. Major newspapers have deliberately and repeatedly revealed secrets which weakened the effort of our troops and the men who guard our nation. Major politicians have promised “support for the troops”, only to public second-guess every strategy and tactic employed in the war when it became opportunistic for them to do so. Political rivals have purposefully blurred the priorities of the nation in order to recruit voters to their personal crew on a theme of “Blame Bush”. And so just a few years after the swift destruction of Saddam’s regime and the initial work to begin a new chapter in Middle East governance, where the people freely elect their representatives under a Constitution which protects rights and advances individual freedoms as a template for a brighter future, we see groups and demagogues tearing apart that promise in order to feed their own empires of greed and pride.

This has always been so. Not every man is willing to fight when needed by his country, and not every man who enjoys the freedoms and blessings of America is willing to support the ideals which brought those very freedoms about. Freedom is too much for some individuals, we are told. Once it was the country rube who supposedly could not understand the depth of a democratic republic, then we were told the black man could not be trusted with freedom. Then we were assured that women could not be trusted with the vote, or that minorities would ruin this nation if given equal standing with white men. Oddly, it is still the party which claims to represent the poor man, and the minority, which does the most to deprive them of equal position with the privileged men of old, just as historically that party did the most to prevent those rights in the first place. But there have always been such men. By the grace of God, however, America has also always been blessed with people who were willing to do whatever was necessary to advance Justice, Freedom, secure the lasting Peace, and to act in true Honor, even at terrible personal cost. By God’s grace such a man still serves as our President.

It is our misfortune that after so long a war to defeat Communism, we are faced with yet another implacable enemy. It is hardly chance, however. Jackals have long been known to watch two powerful opponents fight, in hopes of picking off the survivor. And there are still many shards of the old Communist ideology still about, lusting to destroy the power which shattered Communism’s hope for world dominance, and those men who most resemble the Champion who won that fight. It is, to my mind, a false assumption on the part of the Islamofascists that they defeated the Soviet Union, or that they can win the long war against the West. It is, however, also clear beyond doubting that they are willing to murder a billion people or more in hopes of that goal. Before this war is finished, Islam must utterly divest itself of the violence of Fascism, or else it must suffer the devastation its feral rogues hope to unleash on the world as a whole. This has been done before, of course. Germany was purged of Fascism, as were Italy and Japan, but each at a terrible cost. And though the world was spared the nuclear holocaust of a Soviet immolation, the cost in lives, pain, and loss was still very large for so many years.

Tonight President Bush will deliver his State of the Union address. It will sadly be necessary for the President to remind the nation that we are still at war. It is even more sad, that many will fail to accept that this war is necessary, indeed inevitable, that the United States is the defender of the Western World, or that the actions taken in Iraq since 2003 have been right and effective. Instead of considering the President’s message thoughtfully, the opponents of the President will instead deliver a rhetorical knee-jerk response which ignores Reality, assists the enemies of America, and dismays the public who trust the government to speak plainly to them about what is going on. The media will do what it does best and most commonly; praise themselves as the true “experts”, and lie about President Bush in order to create a conflict about which they can report. And in so doing they will make the war longer, harder, and more costly.

In the end, I still believe the United States will prevail. God has blessed this country for a reason, and that reason, indeed God Himself, is unknown to the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, to Sam Brownback and Arlen Specter. It would not be right or fair to claim that God is a Republican, and He certainly is no Democrat. Yet it would be correct to suggest that in this war, He is the sure Defender of America, because of the ideals of America, and those who do His work are His allies.

Desertion

The New Orleans Saints are getting their butts kicked by the Chicago Bears right now. And a few days from now, a lot of people who rode the Saints bandwagon will jump off, climb on the wagon for one of the Superbowl teams and pretend they were there all along. That happens, of course – everyone knows what a “fair-weather” friend or supporter is. It occurs to me that we see the same thing in politics, as well, even more often. Deserters always make excuses, but in the end few people show loyalty under the test, no matter how much it is deserved by the man they desert.

History will vindicate George Walker Bush, not only as a good President, but as one of our best. Not only because of the tax cuts which reignited the economy, not only because he was the first President to seriously try to reform Social Security, not only because he saw us through the 9/11 crisis without either a rash or cowardly result, but because he stood by his people, especially listening to the military and making decisions by what was best in the long run. For everyone concerned.

Few people will agree now. It has become quite fashionable to show a backbone of butter, or worse to falsely insult the President if one can make points off it. I heard more than one Republican this past week try to pretend that President Bush did not know how hard the fight would be in Iraq, a baseless lie obvious to anyone who bothers to recall any of his State of the Union addresses or his response to early and constant whining from the press. It is those politicians who never found themselves willing to bear the burden or keep the commitment, who so falsely try to shift their own guilt onto the President. We’ve certainly seen that before. Such cowards blamed Ford for Vietnam, and Reagan for Lebanon, while they themselves never found it convenient to stand with the President when the nation itself required such a sacrifice.

I am writing today’s piece as something of a bookmark. The day most certainly will come, when many pretend that they stood with President Bush. But only those who stand with him now can honestly claim that honor.

I stand with the President, as always, and support his efforts wholeheartedly. And so I condemn the desertion of pretenders and enemies who thought to fool the party and the nation.

Why Nuclear War Can Be Ethical

On a discussion board I frequent, one poster presented the following hypothetical question;

“If you were President of the U.S. and were just informed that we were definitely under a full nuclear attack by a country that'll destroy most or all our people, would you order a full nuclear counter-attack?”

The poster received the predictable “correct” answers from many people, condemning any sort of violent response, to the point that the consensus became clear that the group, as a whole, thought that any use of nuclear weapons, even in retaliation to a massive unprovoked attack, was not only immoral but an atrocity. I was the sole respondent to observe that the only moral course was to retaliate in full force. For today’s column, I want to expand on why this is so.

I must begin with the acknowledgement that nuclear weapons are horrific weapons, which no sane person wants to see used. Yet it must be understood that nuclear weapons exist, and therefore we must address that fact. We can try to prevent proliferation, but in truth we cannot hope to do so forever. It follows therefore, that the only control we can hope to hold is to influence the behavior of nations in such a way that they will be disinclined to build or use nuclear weapons.

When we look at the question posed at the beginning, there are a lot of missing pieces. What we do know, is that a massive nuclear attack is underway against the United States, and therefore the United States is not the trigger of these events, but rather someone else has done this. Since we are dealing with a hypothetical, it is completely fair to answer by saying we would plan and act ahead of time in a way to dissuade that massive attack from happening. Deterrence, in a word. And historically, for all the talk and blather, the only proven deterrent from such an attack is the sure destruction of the aggressor through retaliation.

A good example of this can be found by examining the world condition in 1975. While it is popular to pretend that the Soviet Union was largely misunderstood and never truly a threat to the West, in reality the USSR certainly hoped to win a war of conquest against the Free World, and planned it military ambitions accordingly. The Soviets boasted a much larger army, with better experience and organization, higher morale (especially as Vietnam fell), support from regional governments and logistics. The Soviets made inroads into Africa, Asia, and South America and many leading “intellectuals”, both Republican and Democrat, were counseling American leaders to push for the best deal possible, before it was “too late”. In the dark days before Reagan and Thatcher, it seemed all too plausible that the Iron Curtain would soon extend its reach to at least all of Europe and North Africa.

Yet it did not happen. One thing bothered the Soviets, one thorn in their plans which stymied Moscow’s ambitions. The United States refused to rule out a nuclear retaliation, even in response to a conventional invasion by the Warsaw Pact. The United States possessed the means, and it seemed the will, to use nuclear weapons to prevent Soviet hegemony in Europe. The Soviets erroneously believed that the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 reinforced that view, since Carter had served as an officer in the United States Navy. Perhaps that view was not erroneous, as even in his most obliging discussions with Moscow, President Carter never ruled out a U.S. First Strike, an option he understood was vital, perhaps literally vital to the very survival of the United States.

It is difficult for some people to understand the unique role of the United States. Even as they demand the U.S. serve as a global policeman, liberals and simplists fail to understand that the United States serves a truly unique role, one which no other nation is able, much less inclined, to take up. The nuclear umbrella is held by Uncle Sam, and so there is a very great difference between American nuclear might and nuclear weapons in anyone else’s arsenal. It should also be understood that such an umbrella has already restrained the American hand in the use of nuclear weapons.

It is now known that in the last weeks of 1963, President Johnson was seriously concerned that the assassination of President Kennedy might have been planned and supported by either Cuba or the Soviet Union. If this was true, President Johnson would be faced with a truly ghastly decision in how to respond. . One consideration was the possibility of full-scale war with the Soviet Union, which would inevitably include nuclear strikes. In 1964, there was little doubt that the United States could devastate the Soviet Union to a degree that the Soviets could not hope to match. However, even if American losses would comparatively light, Johnson understood that even “complete victory” as it was then defined would include the deaths of millions of Americans, and severe damage to the infrastructure of the United States in all respects. But even if this could be avoided, the annihilation of the Soviet Union would mean that the United States would forever after be linked to an act of incalculable barbarism, and any influence the United States could claim would be solely through the threat of force; it would impossible to reconcile any claim of moral leadership with the devastation of so much of the earth and the deaths of so many people.

It is in this light that I return to the hypothetical question. If we accept for discussion the claim of a massive nuclear attack on the United States, then we are by definition discussing an aggressor who is unconcerned with the morality of their attack, but who is pursuing the destruction of America as an integral step in a plan of conquest – no other possibility exists. If such a power were to succeed in surviving the assault on the United States, the remaining nations of the earth would fall under control of an unquestionably evil despot, having proved a bloodthirstiness on unprecedented scale and malicious forethought. The responsibility of the United States is such, that even were it facing its own imminent destruction that the United States must use its forces to remove that threat from the rest of the world. The attack must be deterred through the certainty of total retaliation, but even if that should be insufficient to prevent the attack, the attacker must be totally destroyed to end its threat and evil.

Certainly all of this sounds grim and cold-blooded, and that is true. However, the audience should take note of the great difference between a hypothetical massacre and a real one. If the knowledge of the first can dissuade a power from causing a second, then that course must be pursued as the most moral choice. Nuclear weapons cannot be unmade, nor knowledge of them undone. Therefore the resolve of the United States to respond in full force must be established beyond question, in order to diminish desire to build, much less use, such weapons.

O As In Obama, Or 0 As In Zero?

In 2004, Democrats thought they had it all set up. Convinced that America hated President Bush as much as they did, they figured that all they had to do was avoid a complete disaster for a candidate. Unfortunately, History showed that the entire Democrat selection shared that quality.

Unsure about what went wrong but convinced that the problem could not be that President Bush was actually respected and supported by most of the nation in that election, the Democrats examined their methodology and decided that the ’jump to conclusions and grab the first candidate who makes them breathe heavy’ plan was still the way to go, and in addition to keeping their front-loaded primary schedule for 2008 they agreed that qualifications for their nominee must depend heavily on the public whim. Acknowledging that John Forbes Kerry was the party’s second straight disaster for a nominee, and the fourth such ridiculous submission from the Jackass Party in the last five Presidential tries, they also tried a hard reverse on several points:

Whereas John Kerry was clearly a horse-faced old white man, and a veteran of the War in Vietnam, the current Democrats are more than slightly enamoured of Barack Obama, an attractive young black man who probably couldn’t find Vietnam on a map. Where Kerry was most well-known as a back-stabbing traitor who falsely accused his fellow soldiers of atrocities, Obama is careful to praise the military, if only in platitudes. Where Kerry could not order lunch without offending someone, Obama is articulate and charming. Where Kerry’s roots were in the most elite sections of Massachusetts, Obama boasts of his Chicago roots, as if he were an ordinary working-class man. Where most folks would expect Kerry to hang out with Ted Kennedy, they would expect Obama to chill with Oprah. And where Kerry thought his name would help him, Obama is already working hard to keep his name from being a factor.

Beneath the surface, however, the Democrats’ preference in personal qualities continues to be a constant. Both Kerry and Obama have voting records which support Socialist economic policies and try to impede the Military and our Intelligence agencies from doing their jobs. Both avoid naming any specific polices they would support as President, or any doctrines they would pronounce in leading America. Neither is known for sponsoring significant legislation, nor is either a heavyweight in the Senate in terms of getting things done. Both men are essentially ornamental, rather than practical, from dress to function. Both hope to win election through public resentment of the present leadership, rather than any personal character or plan of action on their part. Both refuse to answer tough questions, and both get kid glove treatment from the Mainstream Media, especially network television. Both have a habit of disappearing when Hillary enters the room.

I would not bet money on an Obama Presidency anytime soon.

What Paul Taught Me About Pain

“To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me.”

Paul, in 2 Corinthians 12:7-9

My cancer is growing. How fast, I cannot say, but it is more difficult now than it was last week, both in what I can do and in terms of pain. I won’t dwell on that here, except that it has brought unexpected blessings of perception, perhaps a few insights. That verse from Paul was one I thought I understood, but I have a different take on it now. Obviously, I have no idea what Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” was, although I cannot help but consider my similarity when I feel a jab in my side, unexpected and sharp. I imagine Paul thinking from time to time, that maybe he has gotten past the problem, when suddenly he feels it again, maybe when he tries to sleep, maybe while eating, but a nasty reminder that he is never free from it. It seems quite apt to call such a thing a “messenger from Satan, to torment”.

But maybe it’s not quite the same for me. Where Paul calls his pain a messenger from Satan, I believe mine is a reminder from God. I am reminded that we all must die one day, that all sorts of things we might think are important are really just vanity and selfish pursuits. I am reminded that many people are in pain, sometimes temporary and sometimes permanent, sometimes minor and sometimes a torment, sometimes it seems just part of life which we all must face, and sometimes a singular injustice we did nothing to deserve. On the one hand, I sometimes complain that every time I seem to start getting things to go well in my life, something seems to happen which ruins it all. On the other hand, I have seen children with cancer, and people who found out too late to do anything but wait for death, and I am ashamed of my own complaint. Sometimes I feel that I do not receive what I have worked for, that I am cheated of justice and my right reward, but then I see others who have been cheated to a greater degree, and for much longer, and again I am silenced by that rebuke.

I think about things, especially at night when I am having trouble getting sleep. I realize that I live for a purpose, and I want very badly not to screw up the things that matter. I do not just desire to be a good husband and father, I need to be the best husband and father that I can possibly be. I do not simply want to live in service to God and as a witness to His love, I need to do so. I do not simply wish to help people understand what hope and joy and peace are really like, I need to do my best to help people find those things if they desire them.

Even if I beat this thing, I am aware that the clock is running.

Painfully aware.

Something I Did Not Know Before

My readers will already be aware that I do not think all that highly of Democrats, particularly the present leadership. However, I try to be honest when considering people, and I have discovered something which needs to be praised.

I am presently reading a book about the Zodiac Murders, and so came across the name of David Toschi, the San Francisco detective who was the lead investigator for the case. Unfortunately for Toschi, he became something of a celebrity, and so collected enemies and rivals along the way; while Toschi never voiced a desire to be anything but a good cop, it was rumored that some high-profile politicians intended to make him police chief, perhaps back him for elected office. A sort of smear campaign began against Toschi, which not only cost him his position in the Homicide department (Toschi was transferred to Pawn Shop robberies for allegedly writing fan mail about himself to a newspaper under assumed names), but which damaged the credibility of authenticated letters sent by the murderer. It was later established that Toschi broke no laws or regulations, and in no way compromised his work or the evidence, something police chief Gain cannot claim. He was restored to his former rank and duties after a number of people came to his defense, most notably then-City Supervisor Dianne Feinstein (later Mayor and now United States Senator). It should be noted that Feinstein put her own position at some risk to defend Toschi, and that the available information indicates her defense of Toschi was principled and apolitical.

I disagree with Senator Feinstein on a number of issues, but applaud her principles and courage in defending Detective Toschi. It demonstrates a level of character and integrity which should not be ignored.

So Tell Us, What's YOUR Plan?

It needs to be repeated, again and again. For all the noise and hatred spewing from the Democrats against President Bush, no one else has suggested a specific plan of action to address the key concerns of the Middle East. So again I ask you, Democrats Liberals and Bush-Haters everywhere, to lay out your plan.

To constitute a legitimate “plan”, the plan must be specific enough to address the following salient questions:

[] How will your plan result in a stable Iraq?
[] How will your plan address the known aggression from Iran, Syria, and militant Islam?
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East economically?
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East diplomatically?
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East culturally?
[] How will your plan prevent another 9/11-style attack?
[] How will your plan attack Al Qaeda or similar terrorist organizations?
[] How will your plan protect Israel?
[] How will your plan improve the standard of living in the Middle East?
[] How will your plan protect the rights of women, religious minorities, or children in the Middle East?

Call me a pessimist, but I don’t expect much in the way of substantive answers. And for purposes of scoring, rhetoric alone will count as negative submissions, and personal insults will count as negative submissions twice each.

This forum is open to all mature, civil adults. I think there’s what, five or six of us still around.

Lance Armstrong Is Wrong This Time

Lance Armstrong, arguably the best athlete alive today, and justly respected for the toughness and courage he showed in beating Cancer, did his reputation a little tarnishing today. Writing for CNN and speaking in front of the Capitol as if he were the Voice of America itself, Armstrong had himself a little whine-fest, demanding that the United States government spend more money on Cancer research.

OK, normally I would be really slow to take on someone as respected as Lance Armstrong. Especially where the territory is cancer. But if there’s one thing that I can say now that I could not just a couple months ago, it’s that I have at least as much right as Lance Armstrong to speak about Cancer and what the government should do, since I am presently fighting my own battle, years after he won his (and God willing he will not have to fight it again). I certainly have ideas about some things the government – at all levels – can and must do better – but I also know enough to suggest that Armstrong’s speech today was not altogether honest, either about what is being done or what can be expected in a reasonable effort to find a cure for Cancer.

Armstrong sounds like the stereotypical Liberal in his speech. Said Armstrong, ”I patiently waited to hear a candidate for office explain to constituents what he or she planned to do about one of the leading threats to the health and well-being of all Americans -- cancer. My patience was greeted with silence.” Well Lance, as important as it is to cancer patients to know what elected officials intend to do about Cancer, there has never been an indication that the voters in general demanded candidates address specific diseases or conditions. One could just as easily be outraged because no candidate for Congress mentioned Alzheimer’s, Heart Disease, or Diabetes. You were not answered, I dare suggest, because the question never came up during the campaigns.

Armstrong’s attack on the government continued: ”The political ads didn't tell voters that earlier in the year funding for cancer research was cut for the first time in 30 years. Nor did they explain that a lack of funding slows the pace of scientific discovery and the development of treatments. Our candidates did not mention the decrease in funding for programs that provide information and screening to people who need these services.”

Armstrong did not cite any sources to back up these claims, nor frankly am I personally interested in whether they are true or not. This might sound peculiar, but it’s because I see Mr. Armstrong’s suggestion that less money means less progress (also implying that more money spent will somehow create more progress, all on its own, which is a quintessentially Liberal proposition), is hopelessly poor logic. It’s as if Armstrong was arguing that only the most expensive bike wins the Tour de France, or that only the best-paid employee does the best work. Armstrong’s argument is emotional, at times compelling, but it hardly works on a rational level.

Armstrong claimed to speak on behalf of millions of Cancer survivors and patients, but he does not speak for me in this instance. The reason he does not, is because I find that confrontational tactics like his, while satisfying on one level, really do nothing to advance understanding or results, those very things Armstrong claims he wants most. As an example, I return to my own condition:

My cancer is a rare variant of abdominal cancer, PMP for short. Even after decades of research, not much is known about it, and while one new regimen has shown promise, technically there is no known cure for PMP and so by the book to have PMP is to have terminal cancer. Don’t worry, I am hardly giving up, but I want you to understand that I am not painting the walls of my scenario with fantastic illusions.

As it happens, I am presently going through a bureacratic maze, because the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center will not admit me until they have reviewed my case, which means they want to receive the medical records from every doctor I have seen and every test I have taken. The reader will note that M.D. Anderson has not offered to collect this information, but demands that I retrieve it and send it to them. In that course, I have discovered that my other doctors' offices have been very bad about dragging their feet. I was shocked to learn that unlike other states, Texas does not consider medical records to belong to the patient - the records belong to the medical provider, which in hard fact means that I cannot compel them to release my records - I have to ask them nicely and hope all my forms are filled out correctly. At least one doctor's office was actually offended that I was going to another provider to have my cancer treated, even though the cancer I have is a rare variant which the oncologist has never seen before. They "lost" my file for a week, then made me appear in person to request the files, which meant filling out a long form, which they then announced was - oops - the "wrong" form, and so I had to fill out another form instead. Despite multiple requests, by phone, in writing and in person, after two weeks neither my Primary Care Provider, my urosurgeon, nor my oncologist has sent the files to M.D. Anderson. Forgive me Mr. Armstrong, but I strongly doubt that giving more money to these sorts of people will improve the situation. If government wants to help cancer patients like me, they need to establish nationally the right of patients to receive and keep our own medical records. They need to establish nominal procedures that take burdens from patients and their families when they are already stressed and overwrought, and require that medical providers cooperate with patient requests and expedite processes where delay affects survival chances. Money is not the issue here, Mr. Armstrong.

I have great respect for Lance Armstrong's fight against Cancer, and his advocacy for better education and attention to Cancer in general. I would suggest that I see Armstrong's courageous and noble fight against Cancer in the same way that I see John McCain's courageous and noble service in Vietnam; extremely honorable and a great message, but it does not qualify him to speak with authority in all things or at all times. In other words, Armstrong is a heroic figurehead for all of us who fight Cancer, but he is not thereby qualified to make budget decisions, to judge the effort of Cancer research solely on one factor, nor is he qualified to speak as the sole voice for cancer patients.

Would I like more money to be available for Cancer research? Of course, but only if the researchers are accountable and specific about what they will do with additional money. There needs to be sanity about which form of Cancer needs funding the most and in what amounts, and what threats to human life and health must also be addressed. Simply giving doctors and laboratories more money, I must contradict Mr. Armstrong, will in no way advance the discovery of vaccines automatically, nor will a higher salary for doctors suddenly open the insights to prevention or curative regimens. At best, the money will provide tools which can help find advances, but without a demand for accountability it can just as easily be wasted. But more to the point, the problem with Mr. Armstrong's speech and demands, is that it focuses on the people who have always held control - the people who have money, who are in positions of power, and who will always be tempted to grandstand and play favorites. The focus should be on the needs of the patients, who all too often are objectified and their individual voices muffled because spokesmen like Armstrong are too busy playing politics to listen themselves.

No Champion This Year in I-A College Football

Personally, I was hoping the Florida Gators would do something like this. They flat-out stomped the highly-favored and apparently-overrated Ohio State Buckeyes 41-14, and so laid claim to the National Championship in College Football. Unfortunately for Florida, they did not prove that they really were the best team. While the Gators played a great game, all they really did was prove, once again, that Division I-A NCAA Football can never claim an authentic “champion”, unless and until they establish a playoff, as is done with every other NCAA sport, and every division in NCAA Football except Division I-A.

The University of Florida finished 13-1, losing only to Auburn. Auburn, for its part, finished 11-2, losing to Arkansas and Georgia, but 1 loss is awfully close to 2 losses, and Florida cannot simply brush off the loss to Auburn as irrelevant; at the least it proves that Florida could not beat every opponent it faced. The only team that can say that is Boise State, from the WAC. The WAC, of course, has never been a favorite of Football’s Snob Society; years ago Brigham Young had a number of teams with records and stats as good as any team, yet they were always locked out of a National Championship chance, simply for being BYU. Auburn, who beat this year’s Pretender to the throne, was itself undefeated in 2004 but not allowed a shot, again because men who cared about money rather than honor refused to do the right thing. So, while pollsters will grudgingly allow that Boise State had a good team, no one in a position of power has suggested that they were hosed, even though millions of football fans know that for a fact.

Since teams that lose can be considered above the one undefeated team for a national championship, we should also consider that Wisconsin finished 12-1, as did Louisville, and of course Ohio State. If there’s going to be a mulligan, then we have at least five teams who can all make a valid claim to number 1. And if one loss is really the same thing – as we seem to hear argued – as no losses, then we must in fairness consider the two-loss teams, which would bring in Auburn (who beat Florida), LSU, USC, Michigan, West Virginia, Rutgers, TCU and BYU. That gives us thirteen teams with a claim to the title in some fashion or another. It’s been obvious for decades, but this year as much as ever; If there is no playoff, no team can rightfully claim to be the Champion.