Iraq – An Examination

It is an axiom of mine, that anyone who goes around making noise about issues of note, should be willing to test and re-examine their own beliefs and assumptions every now and then. Therefore, I am taking another look at the war in Iraq, testing claims made by both ends of the spectrum. I would suggest as I begin, that in my experience few people on the Left are willing to test their own assumptions, so this is hardly an exercise in balance, but for all that it is worth the look.

The odd thing about all the debate surrounding Iraq, is that neither of the two major camps ever seems to pursue the most valid criticism of the other side, in my opinion because it would require granting a degree of validity to their complaint. It is reasonable, for example, for the Left to challenge comparisons between the War on Terror and our presence in Iraq, to the Allied effort in World War 2. Not that Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Assad do not show similarities in their goals and ideology to Mr. Hitler and Mr. Stalin, but the Middle East is not Europe, the forces of Iran and Syria are not at all comparable to the well-planned legions of the Reich and the USSR, and the United States faces a much different culture in the Middle East than in Europe. After all, in World War 2 the prevailing religion of the region in Europe was sympathetic to Americans, while the prevailing religion in the Middle East is by no means sympathetic, nor even neutral. The Pacific theater was much the same as Europe, in that the United States generally enjoyed a good reputation except for the Japanese troops. The Left could very reasonably point out these ways in which the War in Iraq is not like World War 2.

The Right, of course, can even more easily dispose of the myth that Iraq is like Vietnam. In Vietnam, the United States was not responding to any specific threat, and chose to support a corrupt regime simply because it was not Communist. The U.S. Congress and leadership ignored their field officers and failed to listen to the men in the battles. In Iraq, despite all the claims to the contrary, the United States has addressed a specific threat to U.S. interests, international terrorist groups who would overthrow nations friendly to the West and the United States. For the most part, the Iraqi people respect and trust the American troops; the “insurgency” is more and more proving to be a loose coalition of Baathists who have nothing to lose by fighting the Americans, radical Muslims who have bought into the lie that the United States wants a puppet state, and waves of foreign fighters recruited, trained, supplied and directed by Iran and Syria. There was never a ‘War for Oil’, excepting that the nations which tried to prevent the removal of Saddam Hussein were profiting by their deals with him – honest deals would hurt their business, and yet the Left never pays attention to greed when it is born and raised in France or Germany. The war was legal in every substantive sense, from Saddam’s repeated violations of the cease-fire terms, to the attempted assassination of President G.H.W. Bush, the constant firing-on of Coalition aircraft by Iraqi ground fire, the fraud so commonly present in the U.N. Food-for-Oil program, and Saddam’s constant refusal to provide proof that he had properly disposed of the known WMD stockpiles, again as required by the cease-fire agreement. Iraq was necessary, right, and properly fought. In any historical sense, less than five thousand U.S. combat deaths in five years is a success story. Yet I am convinced that the Right will be much quicker to admit that Iraq is not D-Day, than the Left will be to admit that Iraq is not Vietnam, and never was.

So why the fervor on Iraq? Essentially, I think, it comes down to the fact that Americans usually prefer a war where things return to status quo ante. That condition is not possible here. Instead, we were left in 2003 with the choice between letting Saddam continue to do as he pleased, with unknown consequences, or going in and taking him out. Americans strongly disapproved of not invading Iraq in 1991, and that sentiment only gained strength through the years. And the 9/11 attacks, as much as the Left tries to deny it, radically changed the matrix. The connection between Saddam and 9/11 was not that Saddam had anything directly to do with 9/11, but that he stood alongside the monsters who did it, allied with them in mind and spirit. It’s easy now, with so much attention focused on U.S. casualties and the propaganda of people like Michael Moore, to forget that the reason the Congressional authorization for the war passed so easily was not some lie or trick by the Bush Administration, but the national mood which demanded action to set things right. Going in and taking out Saddam would mean rebuilding the country, to prevent a vacuum which would surely be filled by Syria and Iran, but it also meant a unique opportunity, to give Arabs a chance at running their own country. Kings and Mullahs and Dictators of many types have filled the region for countless years; what passed for elections in the Middle East would be laughed at in derision even by veterans of Chicago and New York politics. The tens of millions who defied death squads in Iraq to vote, proved that Arabs are every bit as thirsty for a Democratic Republic, as anyone in the United States. The Left never stops to ask itself why so many veterans of the Iraq War continue to re-enlist; in large part it’s because they believe in the mission, a fact which must not be glossed over or forgotten.

In the end, Iraq was a victory, but it remains to be seen to what degree. If we leave too soon, the Islamists could too easily gain control of Iraq and begin a bloodbath not seen since Pol Pot, another history the Left denies because they cannot accept their role in creating it. On the other hand, Republicans must understand that our commitment cannot be open-ended in Iraq; while we keep bases in perpetuity in Japan and Germany, this depends on the national will as much as the need for them. As desirable as it would be to have a quick-response force in Iraq to stabilize the Middle East from the next madman who thinks Allah wants him to invade a neighboring country, to pretend that we could maintain such a force at similar cost to our bases in Germany and Japan is naïve. The ideal resolution remains to be determined, but the best course for both Left and Right would be to work for a scale-down without a time table, but which makes clear the expectation of Iraq’s self-determination in arms. It would need to keep open the prospect of returning U.S. troops if and when the need arose, and indeed should include plans for future U.S. military exercises in the area to warn the neighbors that the United States would always be able to do whatever was necessary. But for here the need to define ‘victory’ and to stand together as a nation is the most important mission. The Left and Right would find it distasteful to stand alongside one another, I do not doubt, but the Right needs the Left to be part of the national message, and the Left needs the Right in order to hope that the war may hope for an end.

The Commission of Christ and the Man of Lint

I was at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center today, for another set of tests to find out whether the treatment has been working. Short answer, yes, nothing has grown since March, and the medicines are not screwing up my blood. So, if I seem to be unbalanced and weird, well, I have always been that way, it’s just me.

But every time I go to MDA, especially knowing that I’m in good shape these days, I can’t help but pay attention to the people who are less lucky. Sometimes the cancer is harder to find, much less fight, and sometimes the fight is not enough. I see combat veterans who should be enjoying summer vacations from school, warriors who should be enjoying the fruits of a lifetime of work, and countless innocent victims in-between, brave but undeserving of the pain and trouble they have to bear. I am constantly reminded that this world is neither just nor merciful in its nature, and the only way such ideals can be made real, is if humans choose to undertake them. MDA is full of such people, people of real integrity and ability, whose competence is equal to the mission, and I thank God for them.

And that brings me to today’s topic. I am not particularly impressed with people like Al Gore, and I don’t mean his politics. Gore is one of those image-first types who think that packaging is the be-all end-all of ideals, and what bothers me is that this conceit is very, very common, so much so that I am concerned that many of us buy into the notion to some degree, this notion that actually doing good is not so important if we just show that we mean well. It doesn’t do anything for the people who need it, but the trick to this stunt is that the posers play off any sense of guilt. They only want the best, you see, and so they cannot be held accountable for the problem.

One of the most damning charges which a non-Christian can level at a believer, is the way so many of us behave. Again, I am not getting into the politics of driving the “right” car or voting according to some special-interest group’s dictates, but the simple, horseshoe-to-the-head revelation that if we want to be Christ’s disciples, we must act as He did. Not the miracles, I mean, but the compassion. Healing, helping, and beginning every encounter with honesty and dealing with the need. The way we really act when faced with real problems, well, that depends on what we are made of, and some of us seem to be made of lint. Soft, harmless, flexible, probably mean well, but useless and in the end worthless. God save me from being only a man of Lint!

“He was already in flames. It was obvious he was the real psycho of the pair”

From Alex McIlveen, a taxi driver in Glasgow who took down one of the terrorists who tried to blow up an airline terminal. Betsy Newmark has the whole story and more you should read, but I do feel I must cite his effective style of citizen interdiction:

“I ran for the guy and punched him twice in the face with pretty good right hooks. Then I kicked him with full force right in the balls …”

Good on ya, mate.

A Simple Question

The Islamists continue to kill and terrorize Muslim countries. They have once again attempted to cow the British Lion. Yet they have not even tried half so much against America directly.

The question for discussion today, especially in light of known attacks planned to follow the 9/11 assaults, is why those attacks never came about.

What broke the nerve of those terrorists?

The Psychology of Popular Politics

My company had me in one of those seminars yesterday, the kind where you are expected to radically change your perspective of the world – again. This is not to say that the experience was not worthwhile, but I am one of those people who questions the claim that anything is “revolutionary” just because the guy selling it wants you to be impressed. The experience did get me to thinking, however, about how people in general think and act, and in this case I thought about the development of political opinion. I think it may be fairly said, that popular opinion of the major parties and candidates is seen in the context of their perceived focus and pace with relation to the dominant issues.

One exercise in the seminar discussed the “SAFE” analysis of personality. Without going into too much detail, this measurement considered two axes of time and focus. That is, while specific cases vary, a person will either tend to be people-focused or task-focused, and will either prefer a fast pace or a slower, deliberate pace. It should be understood that this consideration is separate from a “right” or “wrong” consideration, as each position holds both strengths and weaknesses, and the desirability of a certain characteristic depends on the specific need. For example, medical procedures should be prompt but deliberate, and accuracy is more important than speed. On the other hand, legal proceedings tend to be slow but also deliberate. Taking care of children requires strong interpersonal skills and is necessarily slow-paced, while a fighter pilot must make quick decisions with as little emotion as possible. In political decisions, we see the same disparate needs. One of the major reasons why the recent immigration reform bill failed, aside from specific qualities in it, was that it failed to attract the majority of any of the groups. One large group disliked the bill, because it appeared to be full of errors and ignored some important problems. One large group disliked the bill, because it appeared to be unfocused, trying to apply small solutions while ignoring the big picture. Many disliked the bill, because it appeared to be rushed, ignoring questions and shutting out debate and necessary improvements. All of this, beside the basic character of the bill itself.

I am not writing about the bill as the focus here, but about the effects of political attention. As an example, at one time President Bush enjoyed a Job Approval rating in the polls of over 90%, but now stands at about 32%, where he has been for more than a year. Obviously, there are things which have changed that opinion, but what? In some cases, a political position affects the opinion, but examined objectively, this does not explain long periods of high or low approval. The quick answer, of course, is that polls are notoriously subjective and not truly a good barometer for electoral viability (see the 2004, 2000, and 1996 elections for examples), but I think there is a character reflected which should be seen in the context of the time frame. A good example of this would be Franklin Roosevelt, who was largely isolationist before 1939, moderately interested in supporting the Allied effort from 1939 to December 1941, and strongly militant after December 7, 1941. The difference between the ’finger in the wind’ style of some modern politicians and the attention to context of FDR, shows up in understanding that a paradigm shift occurs, and the statements and decisions, even where they are the same as before, must be couched according to the new conditions, or else even sound decisions will be opposed because of the way in which they are presented. Accordingly, the ground conditions for the 2008 elections do not depend on the experience of a candidate or their portfolio, nearly so much as they depend on the ability to understand the priorities of the nation and communicate their intentions in terms which will be received. This would appear to work to the detriment of Clinton and McCain, but to the advantage of Obama, Romney, and Fred Thompson.

No Posting Friday - Saturday - Sunday

Midterms Saturday and Sunday, plus a case assignment and some work on a term paper.

Next week, more noise!

What Now On Immigration and the Border?

Once again, the Senate has killed the unpopular bill which would, judging from the vitriol hurled around in the past month, have surrendered the United States to a hated foreign power, replaced all happiness and joy with dismal angst, banished the sun and the laughter of children from our lives, and subjected the nation to the maniacal designs of the denizens of hell. Of course, the actual bill did none of those things, but the hatred against it took on a dark identity of its own, and rational debate was one of its first victims. There was a palpable rage in many circles, many of whom took it upon themselves to declare that they spoke for America. This basilisk of political correctness prowls the halls in both parties, always hungry, never forgiving. Consequently, I am not optimistic that we will now move forward towards a functional decision.


The problem here, is that while the bill is once again entombed in that most formidable of mausoleums, the United States Senate, whose Majority Leader so reminds one of funerals and loss, the issues which initially gave energy to the conception of that well-meaning but poorly-built legislative spawn are still corroding the security and commonwealth of the nation. People of goodwill are now morally compelled to consider the next step, which will be difficult regardless of its author. One unfortunate hallmark of this bill’s presence, was the common use of character assassination. Many unfortunate statements made no attempt at all to address the issue, but instead attacked proponents and opponents personally, and even many influential individuals who have profited from their association with certain leaders, did not hesitate to lie about their statements, the context, or their motives. The public now regards the entire federal government, across the board, as dishonest and of no integrity, as well as both major parties. The cost of this season of spite is high, indeed. The worst may yet be still to come, as well. The nation is not well-served by narcissism on such a scale, but we were not consulted, either by the legislators, nor by those famous mandarins in the old and new media, and so we must hang on as best we can, and hope that God brings a miracle. He’s done that before, but at other times He has delivered us the leaders we asked for, a torment devoutly to be feared.

But to the issues. The whole mess is not one issue, as I have said over and over again, but a set of issues, and part of the problem is that the people working on the Hill have bollixed up even explaining what they are trying to do. And that thought gave me the starting point for trying to unravel this mess. You see, Americans have some ideas about what they want, and the Congress, strange as they have been acting, may be said in general to want the right things. The problem is that the bills they have put up for consideration are just not dealing with things effectively. I have remarked, when someone says to just do “X”, that he is presenting a goal, rather than a plan to accomplish that goal. And it occurs to me, that they are right, in that Congress is not being clear about its goals, and until they do that much, they are bound to get the plans wrong for making those goals happen.

The goals Congress is pursuing are not clear. They say they don’t want “Amnesty”, but some opponents say that’s where the bill leads, while other opponents demand a clear vote for amnesty. Congress says they want to secure the border, but won’t state specifics on how they plan to make that happen. Congress says they will punish employers who hire illegals, but not how they will avoid hurting legitimate businesses with undue bureaucracy, or how they will make the charges stick. But worse than that, Congress did an amazingly-poor job of bringing supporters on board. They did not invite comments or suggestions, they did not have regular debates in public on key provisions, they did not pay attention to the flood of emails and letters from their constituents, and they failed to make sure they included professionals in their discussions, like INS and Border Patrol agents, people who actually worked the front lines and who could have supplied critical credibility for their decisions. Even those Americans who saw good things in the bill, found it uncomfortable that the bill seemed to be forced on America. Good managers should not rush decisions, especially when those decisions are controversial, and yet there is no evidence that even a single Senator warned off his colleagues from the way they approached this bill. I’m not saying the bill is good – early on, I said I did not like it because it no effective enforcement provisions, but if you’re going to reprise the delivery of the 10 Commandments, you’d better be able to sell yourself as Charlton Heston.

I have mid-terms coming up, so I don’t have the time to put together a decent argument for what I would like to see done, but for now, I would like to see us all try the following:

1. Let go of the insults and the anger of the last month – it will do no good to dwell on it, if you’re honest you will probably have to admit you said a few things you should not, and in any case old feuds is something for hillbillies and Sicilian crime families, not rational adults;
2. Chill for a few days, enjoy the coming holiday;
3. Remember that a politician is just a politician; and
4. Come back later with the attitude that something constructive can be built. If someone wants to act like a rabid dog, you don’t have to join him.

Just a thought …

A Gun In Your Face

Guns are nasty things, for a number of reasons. I’m a big believer in the 2nd Amendment, because while I like the Republicans and can cope with Democrats in charge, it’s important that our elected officials never completely forget that we the people put them in office, and they have no power or authority whatsoever beyond what is granted by the, as it is written in a certain document, ’consent of the governed’. America is neither Imperial Rome, nor the court of some arrogant King. And sometimes it’s absolutely vital for the government to be reminded that the people are armed.

That said, some truly terrible things are done with guns. Any thug so minded can use a gun to commit robbery, rape, or murder, with no special skill or craft. Not that the cutpurses and marauders of the old days were gentlemen, but the chief reason we have to worry about crime today, is that guns make it easy to commit violent crimes. Then there is the safety question. The nice thing about a halberd or a pike, is that the little tykes are going to have a hard time picking up the thing , let alone having it go off in their face. A pistol, on the other hand, is capable of killing anyone. It’s easy to use and looks cool. I’m not a proponent of gun control per se, but I agree that there should be criminal consequences for someone leaving their gun out where a child can gain easy access. Then there is the person who wants a gun for security, but doesn’t know what to do with it. In my life, I have encountered people who never cleaned their gun, people who did not know where they kept their gun, and in a couple cases, people who actually had a loaded gun with a cocked hammer in a bag, unaware that a sudden jolt could cause it to fire. Drop your purse and kill someone, now that’s an obscene possibility for someone to allow.

But even with the crooks and idiots, I still stand by the right of the citizen to be armed. Why? Well, let’s start with another fact of modern life. If someone kicks in the door to your house and you happen to immediately call 911, how long will it be before the police arrive? And what do you think the criminals will do while the police are on their way? This assumes, of course, that the 911 system is not down, as happens from time to time, or you are not placed on hold, which happens on weekends and peak criminal activity times – apparently the authorities do not staff their phone lines according to citizen need. So, if someone breaks into your house while your wife and children are home and therefore are in immediate danger, what exactly do you do? In my case, the decision is simple – be prepared to act, and if necessary, carry out the plan. That includes taking care to insure safety and avoid mistakes, but yes it includes having deadly force available if I need it.

I have not found a statistic out there for one important condition – how many of you have been in a situation where your life was in danger? I ask, because there really is no condition quite the same as being unarmed and at the mercy of someone who is pointing a gun at you. When I was younger and a bit more careless, there were several such instances. I recall one time when I was at a convenience store when it got robbed by a gang, and I was angry at myself because I could not describe any of the robbers in detail; all I could remember was the .45 pointed at my eyes while they took my watch and wallet. Another time I was actually shot at, but that was a bit different – somehow the threat is psychologically worse than someone trying to actually do the act, though there is a terrible moment when your brain concludes – hey, that was a gunshot – hey, someone’s shooting at me – oh crap, there’s nowhere to run. In that situation, the shooter had the bad luck (and I the good) to take his shot in the hearing of a county constable officer in his car, who hit the lights and pursued the guy. I could go on about the other occasions, but all I really need to say, I think, is that I was a bit careless and criminals are rather confident when they know they are armed and believe you are not armed. One time I was prepared and confronted a gunmen with my own pistol, and for some reason he immediately lost interest in the transaction. I have never yet had to shoot another human being, but the point is that having a weapon greatly reduces the possibility that someone will get shot, since the people most likely to shoot someone are cowards when confronted with force. It’s better to avoid the danger as much as possible, by watching out for situations where you could be in trouble, but that is not always possible.

I mentioned earlier, that the government should be very aware that the population is armed. That sounds laughable on its face, since the military has weapons far more terrible than anything the simple citizen has available to him. The answer, again, is psychological. After all, the U.S. military is a volunteer force, made up of ordinary people trained to some excellent methods and, as it happens, who are generally of the highest character and moral standards to be found in the world. The notion that the U.S. military would agree to oppress the American people is an absurd and baseless insult, largely limited to the craven minds of Hollywood and media types, who coincidentally tend to reflect the lowest character and moral standards to be found in any profession as a group. There is no real need, therefore, for the average American to feel the need to use force against his government. That said, the psychological impact of the right of citizens to bear arms (not felons or aliens, by the way) has the effect of reminding elected officials that they do not have absolute control, and must be answerable for their conduct. It may sound cynical to say so, but sometimes I believe that elected officials dislike the Bill of Rights, because each of those rights speaks of a specific group which limits government. Just as the first Amendment reminds government that people will say inconvenient things, and their dissent is protected, so the second Amendment reminds government that the people have the final right to force, more inviolate than anything the government may choose to do.

Another thing about guns, is that they are a sort of symbol of the modern age. We common folks have a lot more power in our hands than ever before. We can contact our elected officials in person, by phone, letter, telegram, email, and through proxy representatives like talk show hosts. We can kill a bill, or keep it alive. We can turn a nobody into a contender, or make the front-runner a has-been. But too often we are a bit careless about how we use our influence, sometimes allowing a demagogue to claim our support when he does not deserve it, and sometimes we react in anger without considering the effect of our rage. Just as I said a person who has a gun must be careful to keep it responsibly, so too a person must be careful to say things with the consequences in mind. But I would not draw the analogy too far.

There are people who are very afraid of guns, and they speak of “gun control” as though we need to train our guns not to be dangerous, or that absurd notion that banning law-abiding people from having guns will somehow convince criminals and the insane not to have guns. The Virginia Tech massacre rather grimly proves that notion horribly wrong. The flip side of that notion is not the belief that having a lot of guns will fool people into thinking they are safer, but rather that some people think having a gun will automatically make them safer. With all due respect, please do not get a gun, unless and until you are prepared to know how to store it, clean it, and use it safely and securely.

I Support President George W. Bush

It's not the fashion these days, to stand by someone who does the heavy lifting, nor to remember virtues rejected for not suiting the whim of a mob, yet I will continue to stand by the President. And I do not stand alone.

Fools believe polls sponsored by his enemies, which focus only on the attention span of a nation beset with ADD, which is further encouraged to blame President Bush for all sorts of things he never did or cannot control. And again I am reminded why some of the nation's best minds and spirits refuse to run for national office - it is a rare courage in those who knowingly enter that lions' den.

But to our community - it occurs to me worth considering the sort of people who have not turned their back on Dubya. And I am well pleased to count them as my allies:

Vice President Cheney has never been the target of conservatives, yet they never seem to consider that he stands with the President still, just as he always has. For some people there would be the consideration of a political future, but since Dick Cheney has made it abundantly clear that he will leave office when the President does the same, it should be obvious that Mr. Cheney is a man of integrity, resolve, and he is unwaveringly loyal to President Bush. Only a Liberal or some similar fool would pretend he is some kind of bootlick or lapdog.

Prime Minister Tony Blair took a lot of heat for supporting President Bush. What's interesting, is that while he and Dubya have different political views, Tony Blair has never made a stetament which disparaged or attacked President Bush. Again, Blair took a lot of abuse for his principled position, but in the end he never wavered. While Liberals called him names, his courage and loyalty are clear and reflect Blair's own strength of character.

Despite casualties and the long heavy weight of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the troops are still strong supporters of the President. The media and the Democrats, and sadly even some Republicans have tried to use the troops as pawns for their own gambits, but as a whole the military strongly supports and stands by the President. I am constantly amazed by the strength of their conviction that the war is a worthy cause, and that President Bush is doing the right and necesaary job.

Sure, you can find all kinds of big-ego people who don't like Bush. Some think Bush-hate is their ticket to higher office, some think that the President of the United States must cater to their personal opinion like some kind of butler, and some think that they should hold Bush to expectations of perfection - rejecting everything done right in the past if he ever puts a foot wrong in his job. Some cannot stand for the man to have his own mind and make the tough decisions, and are willing to tear down all the man stands for because they cannot agree to disagree on one or two issues. The Left and Right have extremists united in malice and hysteria, and they forget why America needs President Bush. Such cowardice and hate is sadly all too common these day, but I will not pretend it is something to overlook or excuse.

Liars claim Bush "betrayed" them. People who never once ran for office, and who would not support reform when the GOP held the majority in Congress, have no standing to play at God now.

I stand with the President, come what may. To my mind, his enemies stand in self-deceit and dishonor, and what comes of that must surely be ill tidings.

The Recency Effect, part 2

On to 1980, and the world changed. Ronald Reagan was why. But first he had to get to the White House. Jimmy Carter certainly did his part to help Reagan get elected, with double-digit inflation, high unemployment at the same time, and a foreign policy that amounted to ’whine and run away’. But even so, Reagan’s clear and idealistic vision which put America first, no excuses, found strong resonance with voters. The lesson is obvious; despair never matches up well against Confidence and a plan.

For 1984, the Democrats ran the most dismal and depressing candidate they could find for the nomination. The lesson was pretty much the same as in 1980, with the same results.

For 1988, the Democrats thought they had figured out the formula. Besides the GOP had never won more than two consecutive elections, or won two consecutive elections with different Presidential candidates, since before the Great Depression. So, the Democrats once again thought it was time to roll out the ’America wants more taxes’. Trying to make Mike Dukakis look human was more successful than with Mondale, but the effort to make him look like a military leader … remember that tank photo? Anyway, the lesson is play to your strengths, but don’t pretend strengths which are not there.

Next, 1992. What a mess. And yes, I’m repeating myself, because 1992 was a repeat of 1968 in some ways. Like the Democrats in 1968, the GOP in 1992 had become fractured, with purists and extremists and various other arrogant egotists trying to hijack the party. They didn’t like G.H.W. Bush, they didn’t like the choices available, so some Republicans stayed home, and some went off the reservation to support the magnificent idiot, Ross ’kinahfinish?’ Perot. The Democrats, as usual, presented a man without a plan to America, a gregarious southern governor who had no competencies to speak off, and little integrity to back up what ideas he did carry along the way. The Democrats rallied behind their man, such as he was, while the Republicans had a lively bickerfest that further soured America’s opinion of Conservatives in particular. Thus we got President Bubba. The lesson? Well it should be obvious.

In 1996, it sure looked like the Republicans were going to get the White House back. President Bubba had managed to alienate himself with just about everyone, but he rallied his troops and rebuilt his image, which was actually pretty easy for a man whose spine was made of jello. Meanwhile, the GOP had somehow gotten the idea that image did not matter, and as a result they nominated a man with an impeccable resume, but with no discernable charisma or specific plans which resonated with the voters. So, while Bubba couldn’t clear 50% on the popular vote, Dole lost to him anyway. The lesson, appearances do count, and it’s kind of important to make sure folks know why you’d be an improvement on the current President.

In 2000, the Democrats felt good. Clinton was high in the polls again, despite his impeachment and voluntary disbarment (not legally speaking, but if a judge asks for your license and you hand it over after pleading ‘no contest’, well …), the economy was good and everything seemed to be running well (the Clinton Administration, contrary to later claims, dealt with Al Qaeda by simply not mentioning it to the American public, nor it seems the next Administration). So Al Gore felt good about his prospects of being the first Democrat to succeed a Democrat in the White House since Lyndon Johnson. Events, however, proved otherwise, and the election, while controversial, proved that either Gore was not nearly as desired by the American public as he thought, or George W. Bush was far more impressive than the Democrats ever thought he could possibly accomplish. For neither the first nor last time, George W. Bush was underestimated, and while Dubya entered the White House, all Al Gore could to go on an eating binge and begin rehearsal of a series of odd and elitist theories. The lesson is, the only real self-fulfilling prophecies are the bad kind.

On to 2004, and the President Bush vs. Senator Kerry matchup. President Bush was already paying for sticking to his position, and his lack of eloquence and media skills cost him several opportunities to put away the election early on. But once again, the Democrats presented a candidate so obviously incapable of the post he sought, that 62 million Americans pulled the lever for Dubya, the most in any U.S. presidential election. The lessons are that a stumbling competency still reflects integrity, standing by the President bears dividends, and a party which thinks that a man who married into hundreds of millions of dollars somehow is best-equipped to speak for the common man, is hopelessly out of touch.

I leave you now to consider the lessons of the past 15 elections, and apply them if you will to our present field of contenders. If nothing else, the obvious misfits should be clear.

The Recency Effect and 2008

I was reading Jay Cost earlier this week, and he was of the opinion that, historically, the Republicans are in for a rough haul in 2008. Certainly he has reasons to think so, but I disagree a bit with him about the historical influences at stake. This is partly due to the Recency Effect, which may be phrased as ’Folks See Today and Yesterday, and Forget Everything Else”. A bit of an over-simplification, but to my mind true as Gospel when we’re talking about elections.

I don’t want to re-open the feud between various factions of Republicans about President Bush. The facts are plain enough for anyone who can stop shouting long enough to think the matter through, but that is turning out to be a problem for a lot of folks. Bad news for the Donkey Kongs, is that all this feuding does not mean that Conservatives will suddenly decide to vote Donkey out of spite, or that they will sit out the next election. Like it or not, people with strong opinions tend to vote by those opinions, and if Bush is not their cup of joe, well, he’s not running this time around, now is he? The Donks will run against Bush anyway, but then that’s another psychological issue I will let alone for here. So I want to examine, from a somewhat casual and personal point of view, the Presidential elections from 1948 to 2004, and why they went the way they did. I picked 1948 for my starting point because of the number of elections available to consider, and because it’s a good starting point for the modern political era. FDR was an anomaly, call him whatever else you will, and before him the media, methods of debate and public opinion consideration were so radically different that the elections hardly bear comparison. Mr. Cost thinks differently, and on some levels I agree with his argument, but for this consideration the closer term is the only relevant one. I doubt, for example, that most folks could name the losing candidate from the major parties from any election prior to their birth.

I begin then, with 1948. President at that time was Harry Truman, not very popular with Democrats and certainly not with Republicans, whom he regularly treated like trash. That’s one reason why Democrats won’t mention him these days – they don’t want comparisons between a Democrat and a Republican who put doing the right thing ahead of being popular. Anyway, Truman was far behind in the polls to a fellow named Dewey, a prominent New Yorker with a reputation for integrity and straight-speaking – sound like anyone running for President these days? It was supposed to be a done deal, no chance for Truman, but the history books show that Truman pulled out that election. The lesson, largely ignored today, was that you can never count out a man of conviction, especially when he’s already the President.

Move on to 1952. Democrats by then were really angry with Harry Truman. Mad enough to let him know that he couldn’t get the nod for another term. Well, near as I can see that was an extremely stupid thing for the Democrats to do, seeing as how there were still millions of American Democrats who thought of Harry as Mr. President, and with a measure of respect, as well. So playing ’We’re Not Harry’ cost the Democrats some support, and when the GOP was smart enough to get General Ike to run on their ticket, that was it. Maybe Eisenhower would have won anyway against Truman, but there’s no question the Democrats made their hand weaker by whacking their own guy.

That brings us to 1956. Eisenhower versus Stevenson again, with pretty much the same results. When you consider that this time Ike was the sitting President and not the challenger, this tells you that he should have had a harder time in 1952, if he’d run against Truman. Not trying to pick on President Eisenhower, but his 1956 election was pretty vanilla fare, with no major bad news balanced against a lot of general good feeling. A don’t-rock-the-boat kind of thing, which must have annoyed Stevenson immensely. The lesson there, I hate to say, is that a President who chooses not to stand up in the hard fights can look real good in the short run.

Next, 1960. Nixon losing to Kennedy was a stunner at the time for the politicos, but it shouldn’t have been. Kennedy ran as the effective challenger, since Nixon was the Vice-President under Eisenhower. But in actual fact, there was not much of an impressive executive resume for Nixon. Yes, he’d been a member of Congress, but that has limits to its value. So in actual fact it was a race between a guy with name recognition because he was connected to the President, and a guy with name recognition because he was articulate, handsome, and rich. The lesson, is that such contests are usually close.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson smashed Barry Goldwater. Some of that was residual from Kennedy’s assassination; in 1964 not so many people knew JFK hated LBJ. A bit of that was old-fashioned dirty tricks, frankly much nastier than the stuff we see today. And some of that was that folks wanted to see Johnson given a chance to have his own term. It’s worth noting that 1964 was the last time a Democrat won the White House in a landslide.

On to 1968. What a mess. The Democrats were in a sorry state, having abandoned LBJ – maybe for good reason, maybe not, but he got a delegation of ‘crats in his office telling him he should find a good moving company. Made him bitter enough that he refused to support anyone in the race for most of the campaign, which certainly hurt the eventual nominee, VP Hubert Humphrey. It also hurt the Democrats that Robert Kennedy was assassinated – it may be a stretch to claim that RFK was a lock for the nomination, but he was certainly a force in the election, and a portion of the Democrats simply lost any reason to vote when Bobby Kennedy was dead. Add to that the fierce anger in the South against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which manifested itself in support of George Wallace, and you can see why Richard Nixon was able to win the election with only 43% of the popular vote. The lesson is, never assume the other guy is so bad that you cannot lose, and once again that deserting your President will cost you for it.

Next, 1972. If it makes sense to say that Richard Nixon only won – barely – in 1968 because the Democrats blew their unity, identity, and party discipline, what does it say that Nixon blew away Senator George McGovern in 1972? It should be noted that the Watergate scandal indicates that Nixon’s campaign was actively working at underhanded ways to win, but it’s unsure whether it would have made all that much difference. Nixon won 49 states, including McGovern’s home state of South Dakota. This was partly due to McGovern’s poor handling of his campaign (he fired his VP pick in the summer, for example), McGovern’s poor selection of issues (McGovern based a lot of his campaign on a ‘cut and run’ strategy in Vietnam, missing the fact that the Paris Peace Accords had given Nixon a much stronger hand in that arena, and that most Americans felt that cutting out on an ally was wrong, even in an unpopular war). The lesson is, organization and consistency is a critical factor.

On to 1976. This one is pretty simple. The Watergate burglars were unable to keep their secret, and whatever his initial involvement in the crime, Nixon’s deliberate obstruction of the FBI was criminal. Like another President later on, Nixon’s lying is what did him in, and his own party confronted him with the threat of impeachment. Nixon resigned in 1974, leaving unlucky Gerald Ford to try to lead the GOP. The 1974 mid-term elections were a disaster, and Ford lacked both the resume to claim authority to lead and the charisma to charm the nation. A folksy Democrat from Georgia simply smiled a lot, promised not to lie, and won almost by default. 1976 was also the last time a Democrat running for President claimed a majority of the popular vote. The lesson is, the voters will punish the party for a bad individual, if he’s a Republican.

Next up – The New Republicans, and the New Democrats

America and Race 2007

Back a generation or so ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said ” I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Sadly, it appears that most of the nation is working hard to prevent that from becoming reality. And that includes the government which is charged with ending such discrimination.

Let’s start with the government. Try to do anything with the government, and you will find yourself filling out paperwork. And what always shows up early in that paperwork, as soon as people are involved? That’s right, a demand to know the demographics, including the race of the person(s) concerned. Besides the obvious problem with demanding to know the race of an applicant or participant in a program before deciding on whether to accept them, there is also the poor consideration that not everyone has just one race. My wife and I, for example, are different races, so there is no neat simple box to check for my daughter, and I am personally offended by demands that we identify her by her race. Sure, they can say that they will not use race in their judgments, but the only real way to make sure there is no racial bias is to not ask that question. It simply has no virtue, and no explanation justifies the practice. I certainly understand statistics, and so I know that the bureaucrats will claim the race information is necessary to define demographic parameters. The problem, of course, is the Observer Effect – people change their behavior when they know they are being observed, which means that asking someone’s race, especially when it happens with every government action, influences people to believe that the government makes decisions based in large part, perhaps solely, on race. We also see programs designed to advance one race, preferential treatment which has no justification except by claiming that one race should be treated differently than others. The practice is long-standing and widely accepted, yet is unconscionable on its face.

Society does this as well. Behavior which is unacceptable for one racial group and consequently penalized, may be tolerated and even promoted for another. A good example is language. In the United States, it is reasonable to expect someone to be able to speak English, or to ask for an interpreter. At the very least, someone who knows their command of English is not good, ought to have the good grace to recognize that fact and not become angry at an American for not speaking a foreign language. After all, if one were to go to France as a tourist, one should plan on speaking French or finding an interpreter. While there are many French merchants who speak English, it is a courtesy they extend if they do so, not something which should be expected. The same for traveling to any country; if you do not speak the language, expecting the host country to accommodate you is a bit boorish. Yet here in the United States, foreigners regularly demand that Americans address them in their native tongue, especially Spanish. Speaking bluntly, this is an unmentioned facet in the illegal immigration debate; the refusal of the new arrivals to even try to speak the language, choosing not to just retain their own culture but to superimpose it on the one already in place. And yet, if someone complains about Hispanics who refuse to speak English, they are likely to be called racist, and the people who are the actual offenders are given a pass.

Another societal example is vulgarity. Certain words are universally agreed to be so offensive, that no one can justify their use – unless you are the right race, of course. The notion that epithets should be tolerated if certain races use them is absurd on its face, and yet it is promoted as the civic standard in many towns. Entire sub-cultures have grown up with a confrontational attitude, hostile to all practices which defined courtesy for countless generations. Blatant exhibitions of violent. lewd, misogynist, or racist behavior are common in large portions of the under-30 population, that same demographic which refuses to assimilate to any demand for respect for others or civic ideals, then complains because the society they create is as vulgar and hostile as they are themselves. It’s as if the street gang persona has become pandemic, and the attitudes of race-based gangs permeates to the whole of the racial demographic at large.

Then there is the media. Look at what get promoted, in the NBA for example. In the NBA, the shoe deals and media attention are focused on the likes of Alan Iverson and Ron Artest, gang-wannabe thugs who diminish the game. The NFL recently had enough of the behavior of its worst offenders, yet the media questions whether Adam “Pacman” Jones is being treated fairly; after all, he’s only up for felony indictments for an incident where someone got shot. I mean, Rae Carruth murdered his girlfriend and the NFL did not even fine him for that, so I can sort of see why the media got the idea that criminal behavior was a good thing for role models. And yes, it has to be said that there is a racial component in this; it’s not white athletes who are generally getting gun-crazy and toting drugs in their car, like Dexter Devon Reid, although the Colts show no interest in penalizing Reid for his behavior. It’s just the fashion you see, and it’s almost become expected for black athletes to have drugs and guns with them, so apparently that makes it something to excuse. Millions of kids see and hear this behavior, and what lessons do you think they learn, especially when they comprehend that you are not accountable if your skin is a certain color?

The root of the problem is hostility. Speaking bluntly, there is a vacuum of leadership where it is needed most. I quoted MLK Jr. early in this piece, but the plain fact is that no legitimate black leader of a stature anything like King’s has been seen since his death. Not that there are not qualified black role models, but the people who succeed on their own merits and refuse to play the victim, are attacked as somehow traitors to their own race. Dr. Bill Cosby, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, J.C. Watts, Justice Clarence Thomas, and many other brilliant blacks have been marginalized for not being radical and socialist, which perpetuates the vacuum, as those individuals deemed ‘worthy’ invariably prove quite the opposite, as the careers of Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson so sadly prove. Racism is quite alive and as venomous as ever. We see it when a Congressman is found with enough money to buy a luxury car stuffed in his freezer, but he keeps his job and privileges because of his race, while another Congressman is hounded out of office on charges which are dubious at best and based on a personal vendetta by a political enemy who hates Conservatives. We see it when a District Attorney willfully hides evidence, because he wants to pursue what he knows to be false charges, solely because the men charged are a certain race and culture, and the plaintiff a different and certain race and culture. We see it when we are told that only one race can possibly act in a ‘racist’ manner, and that another race is ‘entitled’ to lifelong, indeed multi-generational compensation and preferential treatment, solely on unproven accusations. We see it when people here illegally are able to march in public for “rights” they know full well they have no valid claim to, yet they know they will be untouched by the law, simply because they are a certain race. We see it when people who uphold the law are punished for it, because of their race and the race of the people they apprehend. We see it when one minority is refused its due consideration by other minority races, solely because that race practices assimilation and refuses direct confrontation with the majority culture.

And it is this same racism which keeps its own promoters down. Those who teach hostility and confrontation to their children, who urge a wholesale refusal of proven societal values in deference to behavior which even they recognize is futile and self-destructive. Sexual promiscuity destroys families, spreads disease, and leads to unplanned pregnancies and personal dismay, yet certain races promote the “right” to such behavior. Drug use leads to financial loss, penalties from the law and dismissal from employment, poor mental and physical condition and performance, yet certain races excuse or even glorify recreational drug use. Dishonest and confrontational behavior damages existing relationships and prevents development of healthy associations, leads to conflict with law enforcement, employers, and family, and can escalate to fatal consequences, yet again certain races excuse deliberately offensive behavior, even to the point of violence, as a social condition which cannot and should not be redirected to more positive choices. In short, many members of minorities are encouraged to pursue behavior which inevitably leads to loss and unhappiness in the long term, yet when that result occurs, the minority will blame the very culture it rejected, for its own self-created trouble.

Fortunately, the modern day seems to have more individual participation than in earlier years. More and more people refuse to accept the social pressure applied by special interest groups and political manipulators. Just as more people marry outside their race and raise mixed-race children, so too do more people work to escape the cycle of defeat imposed by con artists who profit by the game. The lesson is that neither government nor racial activism programs will help resolve the condition faced by individuals, but only the individuals themselves must choose to think, speak, and act according to their own character and ideals. And when they do so, such individuals generally find that other people share that same character and those same ideals, regardless of cultural heritage or superficial appearance. In my neighborhood, four races share a community with similar values. We all work hard and focus on raising our families, we all love our kids and want to build for the future. We all cooperate in common endeavors and we all ignore the sort of people whose only motives are based on hate and suspicion.

MBA Update

Well, mid-terms are nine and ten days away, so naturally it’s time for me to catch up on some blogging. Seriously, it’s struck me that an update on my school work might serve a purpose.

I’m taking three courses this summer, and here’s how I am doing so far. Each course assigns a total of 1000 points, and so to get an A I need 900 points or better. Here’s the position for each class so far:

Strategic Cost Management

Grades so far:
Reading 1 – 20 out of 20 (100%)
Case Study 1 – 70 out of 75 (93%)
Reading 2 – 18 out of 20 (90%)
Reading 3 – 20 out of 20 (100%)
sub-total: 128 out of 135 (94.8%) Ceiling is 99.3%


Grade pending:
Group Case 1 – worth 75 points

After this grade, 21% of the grades will have been awarded.


Coming up:
Reading 4 – worth 20 points
Group Case 2 – worth 75 points
Mid-Term Exam – worth 300 points

After June, 60.5% of the grades will have been awarded.



Management & Organizational Behavior

Grades so far:
Assignment 1 – 15 out of 15 (100%)
Assignment 2 – 65 out of 65 (100%)
Research Paper Outline – 20 out of 20 (100%)
Quiz 1 – 7 out of 10 (10%)
sub-total: 107 out of 110 (97.3%) Ceiling is 99.7%

Grade pending:
Quiz 2 – worth 10 points
Quiz 3 – worth 10 points

After this grade, 13% of the grades will have been awarded


Coming up:
Quiz 4 – worth 10 points
Quiz 5 – worth 10 points
Mid-Term Exam – worth 150 points

After June, 30% of the grades will have been awarded



Business Statistics and Strategic Cost Management

Grades so far:
Homework DB 1 – 25 out of 25 (100%)
Homework DB 2 – 25 out of 25 (100%)
Case Study 1 – 100 out of 100 (100%)
sub-total: 150 out of 150 (100.0%) Ceiling is 100.0%


Grade pending:
Homework DB 3 – worth 25 points

After this grade, 17.5% of the grades will have been awarded


Coming up:
Homework DB 4 – worth 25 points
Case Study 2 – worth 100 points
Mid-Term Exam – worth 250 points

After June, 55% of the grades will have been awarded


So, at this time it should be obvious that early points do not count all that heavily, yet are important to collect if you want good chances to get an A. The Mid-Terms, no surprise, count heavily, and the pace of work will increase as I move into the final month of the semester. I also need to register for the Fall Semester when registration opens in the last week of June.

“Presidential” Crisis Management

Those who have been to my personal site will have observed that I paused my 'Major League Presidents' competition after 41 contests. Basically, that's because I have a ton of work to do, including my summer classes. But I am also not entirely satisfied with my numbers, and I am considering revisiting them. For this article, I would like to explain what I was trying to do, and to ask for your input on the essential elements.

It's a popular game to rank Presidents, and a lot of publications, schools, websites, and media like to do so. Of course, what happens is usually predictable when you know the leaning of the authors/producers, and so the rankings lose a bit of their usefulness. I have come to the conclusion that part of this comes from two mistakes. First, these polls basically just assign some nominal value to each candidate, total them up and sort them out by their total score. This misses the fact that each President lives and serves in a different set of circumstances, and some Presidents were dealt an easier hand than others. Further, it seems that any President who served prior to 1840 is given an aura of superiority, without much consideration of the fact that everyone has their good and bad points, Presidents included. I don't agree with the notion that a President should be considered better or worse than other Presidents on every point of comparison. Every man who served as President had certain abilities and skills which made them desirable as President in the first place, including those men who became President through the death or resignation of their predecessor. To gain perspective from studying Presidents, we need to watch out for the blunder of making President's one-dimensional.

Some may ask why measure Presidents at all? The present field of candidates demonstrates why, I think. Is Barack Obama or Fred Thompson, with so little experience in office, really a good fit for the office? On the other, how should we weigh the long and often controversial records of people like John McCain or Hillary Clinton? Seeing how real-life Presidents handled their duties could be quite useful in marking desirable traits and warning signs in the candidates, and based on something better than emotion alone.

To sort out any comparison between Presidents, I developed a system which created a series of contests in various times and conditions, where in one case a certain President might prove superior but not necessarily in another set of conditions. Without going into even more annoying specifics, I began by trying to consider what qualities are desirable in a President. To do so, I tried to avoid the subjective - and therefore hopelessly volatile - measures which are so often presented, such as "honesty" and "courage", because such descriptions will vary according to the flavor and mood of the respondent pool. Rather, I suggest that we examine the crises in American History, and how different Presidents dealt with them. So, for this article, I would like you to suggest some crisis in American History, and critique the responses of those Presidents who addressed them. In order to avoid the more emotional responses, I should like to ask that we limit the field to crises no later than 1987.

Thanks. This article is being cross-posted at both Wizbang! and Stolen Thunder.

Women and Men and Societal Lies

I was listening to a popular FM radio station this morning on the way to my bus, and I heard a discussion between a male and female disk jockey about what sort of person each gender finds attractive. The female disk jockey opined, as is common, that men judge women primarily by their physical appearance, while women are more likely to look below the surface. The male disk jockey countered that by noting that women are quick to overlook character flaws in a handsome male, such as Brad Pitt or Russell Crowe. A quick consideration brought me to the guy’s side; a glance at magazine covers, top-name stars and calendar models reveals that women are every bit as attracted to physical beauty as men, but they are apparently more willing to lie about their motive. After all, there’s a reason why firefighter calendars sell out in days, but there is no demand for calendars with accountants known for their integrity. Women first judge men by their appearance just as often as men do women. The difference in actual lewd conduct seems to be far more due to environmental opportunity and peer pressure, than to a superior ethical position for one gender.

Society lies. The male/female stereotypes are one example, but there are many other places where a little contemplation shows the conventional opinion to be far from accurate. Rising gas prices must be the result of corporate greed rather than poor planning by governments, for example, or that the party which historically supported Slavery and resisted Civil Rights legislation, is yet the party which best defends minorities and looks out for their rights. Or the claim that talk radio, which allows direct feedback from listeners, is unfair and biased, while network television, which not only does not allow for counterviews to its positions, but has also been caught in several deliberate frauds in recent years, is still somehow more professional and responsible. Or the notion that only one race can act in a racist manner. Or the claim that the nation which frees a country from a despot, is worse than that dictatorship for protecting itself.

Some Thoughts on the Republican Field

I was watching “Meet the Press” this morning, and it was nothing surprising. This morning, they were discussing the 2008 Presidential elections, and divided the discussion, reasonably enough, into the Republican and Democrat fields. They only discussed the major candidates, so I am afraid there was no mention of Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Albus Dumbledore. Where the discussion left balance and approach MSM norms, was the way the press panel discussed Republicans as a whole, and how they discussed Democrats as a whole. That is, the press panel focused on negatives, or potential negatives, for the Republican candidates, and considered only relative positives for the Democrats. In the end, though, that sort of thing tends to work for the Republicans, since the eventual GOP nominee will have to address weak areas early on, while the Democrat will not expect it until after the party convention, at which time – unable to address the most difficult questions – the Democrat nominee may be expected to declare that it is a ‘smear’ to challenge his/her/its claims.

As a result, nothing significant was said about the Democrats; the press still prefers them, and won’t say a word against any of them. The fun came before that, when the press was playing, once again, ’Why No Republican Is Any Good’. Going down the list, the panel played true to their favorite routines;

Fred Thompson won’t last, because he’s just an actor;

Rudy Giuliani is a goner, as soon as Republicans find out what he really stands for;

Mitt Romney is not trusted by Republicans, who are suspicious of his Mormon faith and his position flips;

John McCain is “desperate”, and will do or say anything to stay in the race.

I was almost hysterical with laughter when they finished that review. I mean really, I don’t care much for McCain, but to call him “desperate” two seasons before the first primary even happens? Also, it’s a bit of projection, I think, for the left-leaning press to worry about a Mormon running for President – no Republican I have talked to, considers it a deal-killer for someone to be a Mormon and ask for his vote. As for Giuliani, he’s been very honest about what he believes and how he would govern, so the notion that he’s pretending to be something he is not is rather far-fetched. Were that so, Rudy could have played himself as a strong pro-lifer for the support, but he did not do that.

And then there’s Fred. One thing I love about the present situation, is that the Left, well beyond a doubt, is afraid of Fred Thompson. Very afraid. Enough afraid of him, that even folks who don’t know much about him are interested in finding out what has frightened the media mob so much. We have learned over the years, that the press always hates leaders who are really good for America, so it’s an early endorsement, albeit unintentional, for Thompson that the press is determined to sack him if they can.

Don’t misunderstand me, that I would accept a candidate without giving him/her a good hard look. But neither do I rule someone out just because someone else says nasty things about them. To tell the truth, I even considered the candidacy of Barack Obama early on, but his demonstrated positions on the issues has proven he would not be a good candidate for President, especially on the most critical issues of National Security, reforming Social Security and the Income Tax, on Immigration Reform and Border Security, and on America’s position and responsibility in the world. As for Hillary, she was kind enough to make her positions clear in the past four years, and thereby removed herself from serious consideration before 2006.

For the Republican candidates, I would say that while I have preferences, I am open to just about any of them, so long as they are properly focused on, as I said, those critical issues. And since we are still months away from the primary season, it is fine for a candidate to speak in general terms, if he or she prefers to establish his identity and character with the GOP voters. I do intend to find out where Fred Thompson stands on the key issues, but for now I like him because he seems to grasp the priorities better than anyone else. Running for President is not the same as applying to be a company’s go-fer. Even though the party has done a very poor job of it in recent years, when the President is elected he will lead the party and the party has the duty to pursue the course set by the President. As a result, it is essential not only to know where a potential President stands on the issues, but for the party to get a gut feel for who they would most be willing to trust with the helm. The candidate’s temper, stability, judgment, humor, intelligence, faith, courage … all these things matter more in the early going. To put it simply, Howard Dean’s obvious character flaws blew him off the map in 2004, a lesson both parties should consider before plunging too fast into the 2008 primaries. John McCain lost me not when he sponsored McCain-Feingold, but when he lied about what he had done, and about his opponents. But I could be content with a Romney, a Giuliani, or a Fred Thompson in the Oval Office, provided their answers remain consistent and direct as we move on in the primaries. What the press continually fails to grasp, is the need for a good person, not a clever media-savvy one, to serve as President.

Twelve Million Invisible People

This one is going to set off the rabid rowdies, I know already, but I have to put this in print.

I am a Republican, have been since I was 8 years old and I couldn’t understand why more taxes were supposed to be a good thing for regular folks. I am also a Conservative. I believe in the rights and power of the individual, in limited and accountable government, in strong support of the Constitution as it was actually written, and in promoting and expanding American-style to as many places as possible, because no other system works half as well or promises half as much. I am also a fundamentalist Christian, and I believe we are all accountable for those things put into our power to help or hurt fellow human beings. It is not fear of hell which moves me, half so much as fear that I might act of a hellish character.

All this brings me to the present problems of Border Security and Immigration Reform. And make no mistake, they are separate issues, both important but still definitely separate. One mistake I think both Democrats and Republicans have made in all this brouhaha, is the notion that so many disparate acts should be rolled together in one fix-all bill which in actual fact does none of what it promises. Make no mistake - I do not like the present bill before the Congress, because while a measure of bipartisanship is nice to see, getting together to push out legislation which will confuse and hinder millions of honest people while allowing some dishonest types to play the system for their own advantage is simply a very bad idea. What should be done, is that Congress should lay down the present bill and try again with several bills which each address their own specific function. Of course, that shows the politically distasteful possibility of Democrats publicly supporting a bill which secures our borders, or Republicans openly voting for a bill which requires businesses to be accountable in their hiring practices. For now, I will address only the question of Immigration Reform, for the simple reasons that the most important issue, Securing the Border, seems so obvious that I cannot imagine a serious argument against it. In fact, the only arguments I have read or heard, have been contrived rhetoric which attacks individuals – often falsely – for not doing enough or not doing it fast enough. So I leave that useless bickerfest to those who find it to their taste. Other issues are, to my mind, less important and less of the moment than reforming our Immigration laws and policies, so that is why I focus there.

Back in 1998, my wife’s mother was planning to come from Hong Kong to the United States to visit her daughter and me, but there was a problem with the State Department. You see, once mainland China began talking about Hong Kong’s “reunification” with the mainland in the same way Michael Corleone talked about Fredo’s place in the family, a lot of Hong Kongese started wondering if they might be wise to consider leaving for better climes. To that end, Mikki’s mother came to the United States and began the long process towards residency, the almost-legendary Green Card. She filled out all the forms, paid the fees, and complied with all the requirements, some of which made little sense. But she missed one of the required visits back to the United States, and Mikki explained to me that the INS refused to reconsider her position, at one point stating that the old lady would be arrested if she tried to enter the United States. Widows over sixty years old, of course, are well-known to be the most nefarious class of villain.

So I made an appointment to go talk to an INS officer at the Houston office. It was a hot summer day when I arrived, and I saw about three hundred people standing in a long line in the sun outside the building, a long line that wrapped around the building and into the parking lot. Most of the people in that line were Hispanic, though there were also a lot of Asians and some Africans. Since I had made an appointment, I wanted to make sure the line was for everyone entering the INS building, so I walked around to the entrance and saw a couple staffers smoking outside. One of them saw my white skin and business suit and waved me over. I thought he was confusing me for an employee, so I tried to explain what I wanted, but the guy didn’t care. He waved me into the lobby where the line ran up to a window where a couple clerks were handling the long line. I was directed to an ‘Information’ window where another clerk issued me a Visitor pass and directed me to the elevator. I noticed then, that the building had a large waiting room, with enough seats for more than a hundred people. I asked why the people in the first part of the line couldn’t just wait there, where it was air-conditioned, and the clerk told me it just wasn’t done. I said nothing more, but went up to my appointment, where a polite young man assured me that the INS had no intentions of arresting little old widows and grandmothers, and after a bit more paperwork I had her visit approved. As I left the building and saw all the people still waiting in line, I couldn’t help but wonder how much my appearance as a successful – and white – American had smoothed the wheels of bureaucracy. Certainly I had accomplished more in an hour than my wife’s mother had been able to see in a couple months’ of work, and she was neither lazy nor stupid. I was glad for the result, but uneasy at the apparent double-standard at the INS. Considering that event was years before 9/11, I don’t think it has gotten better for those people who try to follow all the Byzantine rules of the government.

And it is with that impression in mind, that I turn my eyes to the millions of people here illegally in the United States. I am hardly unaware or unconcerned about the effects of illegal migration, on just about every level, so I will start with the negatives of the present situation. Twelve (or more) million people who do not pay for their children’s education, for police and fire protection, for taxes, or for medical care, will severely impact any infrastructure you can name. And it is a plain fact that the number of violent criminals in the United States who came into the country illegally has been rising, and continues to do so at a fast pace. Further, the network of coyotes who traffic in border crossings is ready-made to smuggle in enemies of the United States, and whatever materials or weapons they wish to use. An answer is long overdue.

However, many of those who demand draconian actions are not realistically examining the condition. As my title suggests, they seem to not see the sort of people who are the focus of this issue. Yes, there are terrorists to protect against, but as yet I have not heard of a major Latino group which desires to murder American civilians or overthrow the United States government. Granted, movements like the Reconquista and racist groups like La Raza are problematic, but if we call them ‘terrorists’, we not only start to blur the difference between vulgar but nonviolent activists, and people who bomb schools and cut heads off as part of their ideology, but we would also be forced to declare many leading Democrats to be ‘terrorists’. The rhetoric is too similar to ignore the shared meme. Also, most Latinos are neither violent nor opposed to nominal American community practices. The Latin culture is often family-centered, loyal to Christian morals and standards, and as a whole compatible with standard Western values and beliefs.

At this point, I have to stop and acknowledge that yes, I am speaking of the illegals as basically Latino, though there are other races and cultures involved, because statistically most of the illegals are from Mexico, and from Central and South America. I also agree that I am stereotyping to some degree, but I think that in the general sense, my descriptions are accurate. I do not mean to suggest that we should not worry about millions of uneducated and unskilled foreigners in our country, who do not speak the language and do not try to assimilate into the American cultural fabric. Yet I have read enough history and heard enough from first-generation immigrants, to know that every group which comes to America in large numbers tends to be unskilled and uneducated, because the one who do have skills and knowledge are able to do well without coming to America. The United States has always taken the apparent dregs of the world. The Irish, the Polish, the African, and the Asians were all in their turn described as “too many”, “unskilled”, “uneducated and uneducatable", and they lived in cultural islands and ghettoes away from the majority for a generation. Ever hear of Little Italy? Little Warsaw? Little Vietnam? Such communities are everywhere, and they are not new. I have noticed that it is usually the second generation, the children, who start to assimilate and become part of the nation and in so doing add their contribution and shape the nation’s future. One reason my own father made a point of getting a Masters degree in Mathematics, was because growing up he got angry at hearing how bad the Irish were at Education, and that higher-order studies were impossible for a “mick”. I don’t mean to imply anything about the people who find the current illegals undesirable as a class of person, except that what is happening now has happened before. It is something which can be corrected, but only with time and only by understanding the Historical context of Immigration to America.

The reason, more than anything else, that illegals enter the United States, is a better life. No, that does not make it all right to ignore the law, but it does mean that illegal entry into the United States will continue to be a crisis until the root causes which spur illegal migration are addressed in substance:

[] The Mexican Economy and Infrastructure
[] The U.S. Immigration Bureaucracy
[] Assimilation Strategy
[] Law Enforcement Strategy

Each of those is a sub-topic worthy of its own discussion, so I will leave them stated simply for the moment. For here and for now, it is important to understand that to address this problem in any fashion which will lead to a durable and practical solution, we must choose a party which is best minded to address the matter rationally, we must support the leadership of that party and work to craft corrections and enforce functional law. We must clear out inefficient and unethical practices in the government’s offices, and we must create avenues of communication which help foreign nationals understand that compliance with the law is in their best long-term interest, and that of their children. New proposed legislation must be designed with those principles in place to guard against repeating error or creating obstacles for people who have already complied with the law, and it should encourage people to begin to comply if they have not done so already. The forces of law enforcement must be encouraged to work cooperatively to advance the cases of law-abiding immigrants and protect the rights of all persons involved, to the degree that their conduct warrants such attention, and to communicate a simple, clear message regarding rewards for compliance and punishment for defiance, for businesses as well as individuals.

We cannot simply act as if twelve to twenty million people are invisible.

So Waddaya Want?

OK, from the start I admit that I am not the best candidate to play peacemaker, but the matter is too important to ignore. Conservatives, various flavors of Republicans, and more than a few flame-throwers just out to stir up the fighting have been going after each other on and off again for more than a year now. There have been manifestos demanding surrender by the majority to a rabid few, there have been some folks so offended that they say this is the end of the Conservative Movement, there have been good-faith efforts by some very fine people to try to mend fences,
there have been gentle reminders that some folks have gone very angry without checking the facts, and some have pointed out deliberate attempts to lie about what certain officials have actually said on an issue.

A depressingly large number of Conservatives have, once again, taken up the ridiculous chant that losing is winning if it rids the Movement of ‘impure’ members. That Republicans who survived losing seats would decide to become more Conservative (I warned last year that the opposite would happen. When they lose seats, the GOP starts thinking the public wants more Liberals, and they start acting that way. I also warned the readers long ago, that the My-Way-Or-Else Conservatives were the greatest threat to the Republican majority in Congress, and that the Democrats would be happy to accept Napoleon’s advice, ‘do not interrupt your enemy when he is making a great mistake’.)

So, here we are. Republicans are the minority party, the public does not trust anyone in office because pretty much all the character attacks left marks, some of the best-qualified people are staying out or leaving the work because of how anyone gets treated, who seriously tries to tackle the hard jobs, and the tone of debate on issues has gotten so foul that no discussion ever lasts even an hour before personal attacks begin.

You did that. Yes, you. So did I. The cast is made up of folks who either caused the fights and derailed the discussion, or they stood by and let it happen. Yes, that’s a generality, there are some few people of honor who tried their best to stop the implosion, but they were ridiculed or ignored. Enough people were hell-bent on taking the Conservative Movement over the cliff, that we are now flying headlong towards the rocks. My question here, is what we do now.

Don’t bother with the issues here. As I said, the Republicans are in the minority of Congress, and even Republicans would rather heckle the President than help him get work done, so it’s not as if we are in charge of the legislation train. And Conservatives? Shoot, a bunch of them are going around pointing fingers at the others and saying they can’t call themselves Conservatives unless they troop along with the mob, and “purge” Conservatism of anyone they deem unworthy. There’s a phrase for that: Malignant Narcissism. It makes Conservatives a flea on the back of a very small dog in a very big dog pound. It’s going to be a while until Conservatives have the clout to get D.C. to take them seriously, and I hope we can all agree that is not a healthy thing.

The question here, really, is what everyone wants. To some degree, I think we feel the need to vent, to let loose some frustration and to find someone who will listen to us. I could point fingers (and you know how much I am tempted), but really the only thing we can do now is start to survey the damage and figure out how to rebuild. But even before that, we’re going to have to get the screamers to give it a rest, so we can find out what options are even possible.

The Sopranos? Get Real!

The hit series on HBO ran out its string last night, and this morning a lot of folks are talking about the ending, which is doubtless how everyone with the show wanted things to go. Me, I never watched the “Sopranos”, largely because I did not feel the need to shell out money to a cable company for something of such variable quality and annoying scheduling. But even if it had been on my set, I don’t know that I would have watched. OK, part of that is because I am in school again, and spent most of yesterday doing Cost Analysis and Quant homework (and a couple hours trying to treat a rash on my dog and to find out what was causing it). But another part is because movies and shows about the Mob are getting further and further away from the reality. While “wise guys” and the Mafia are still around, especially on the East Coast, they are a small minority of Organized Crime in America, and they are losing ground. The vanguard of Organized Crime is both more savvy and dangerous than the old guard ever could claim.

There are six types of Organized Crime groups generally operating in the United States or targeting Americans:

[] Race-based groups (like the Bloods and the Crips, the Yakuza, or Aryan groups)
[] Nationality-based groups (like the Yardies from Jamaica, or the Mexican Syndicate)
[] Professional Crime Organizations (like various Triad groups, the Moran family, or the Russian Bratva)
[] Religious organizations (like the Michigan ‘Militia’, Al Qaeda, or Lebaron’s “family”)
[] Street Gangs (small local operations)
[] Political Crime Organizations (like the Earth Liberation Front and ALF)

These organizations participate in a combination of five key types of activity:

[] Vice (prostitution, pornography, gambling)
[] Fraud (credit card, internet, real estate)
[] Drugs (distribution routes and bulk manufacture)
[] Robbery (especially small businesses)
[] Contract Violence (against rival groups, for causes, assassinations, or against threats like witnesses)

The key difference between the old-guard Mafia and modern Organized Crime, is that the new guard has learned to much better conceal its actions, to act unseen by normal people. That does not mean that OC groups have given up violent methods, however. Consider these real-life events and the possible TV show or movie plots which could be made from them:

** A gang sets a bomb off under a van belonging to a bombmaker for a rival gang.

** Hurricane Katrina sends hundreds of gang members out of their home turf as refugees in another major city, where they get into turf wars with established street gangs when they try to carve out new territory.

** Home invasion gangs target ethnic business owners with families, especially young children, who are kidnapped and held while the parents are compelled to collect a ransom. The families are dissuaded from going to the police by a suspicion of an authority alien to them, as well as reminders from the gang that while the police will do their reports and leave, the gang can come back at any time.

** Control of illegal aliens being considered a valuable commodity, gangs will hijack delivery of illegal immigrants in bloody raids.

** Women from Asia are coerced to serve as sex slaves for years, in order to “pay” for their trip to America. Such women are often sold as “wives” in black-market transactions.

** Merchandise stolen from luggage at airports is fenced through local retailers, along with many bootlegged products, such as fake designer clothing and electronics.

And that’s just what has gone on in Houston in the past ten years. You think Tony Soprano was ruthless? Next to these guys, he’s a pansy, and a fictitious one at that.

MLP Round 041

Game Scores:

T Roosevelt at McKinley, 37-33 McKinley
Garfield at Washington, 36-30 Washington
Fillmore at GW Bush, 36-31 GW Bush
Lincoln at Clinton, 33-23 Lincoln
Ford at F Roosevelt, 33-31 FDR
Reagan at Polk, 37-32 Reagan
Jefferson at Cleveland, 34-31 Jefferson
Truman at Taft, 33-32 Taft
Kennedy at JQ Adams, 29-27 JFK
Madison at J Adams, 30-24 J Adams
Taylor at Hoover, 28-23 Taylor
GH Bush at Jackson, 28-25 Jackson
Monroe at Tyler, 30-29 Tyler
Grant at Eisenhower, 30-25 Ike
Nixon at Van Buren, 23-21 Van Buren
Hayes at Coolidge, 31-22 Hayes
Carter at Arthur, 26-21 Arthur
W Harrison at B Harrison, 27-22 W Harrison
A Johnson at Harding, 27-22 Harding
Buchanan at Wilson, 26-25 Buchanan
L Johnson at Pierce, 23-18 LBJ

After playing each of the other Presidents once, one President has one loss, another two have 2 losses, another four have 6 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.

The new Rankings are as follows:

After Forty-One Rounds

.1. McKinley (40-1) beats TR
.2. Washington (39-2) beats Garfield
.3. GW Bush (39-2) beats Fillmore
.4. Lincoln (40-3) beats Clinton
.5. Reagan (35-6) beats Polk
.6. Ford (36-5) loses to FDR
.7. Teddy Roosevelt (34-7) loses to McKinley
.8. Jefferson (32-9) beats Cleveland
.9. Polk (32-9) loses to Reagan
.10. FDR (29-12) beats Ford

.11. JFK (29-12) beats JQA
.12. Truman (29-12) loses to Taft
.13. Fillmore (29-12) loses to GW Bush
.14. J Adams (27-14) beats Madison
.15. Cleveland (27-14) loses to Jefferson
.16. Taylor (26-15) beats Hoover
.17. Taft (25-16) beats Truman
.18. Jackson (23-18) beats GH Bush
.19. Eisenhower (23-18) beats Grant
.20. Monroe (23-18) loses to Tyler

.21. Tyler (19-22) beats Monroe
.22. Nixon (20-21) loses to Van Buren
.23. Garfield (20-21) loses to Washington
.24. Hayes (18-23) beats Coolidge
.25. JQ Adams (18-23) loses to JFK
.26. Arthur (16-25) beats Carter
.27. W Harrison (15-26) beats B Harrison
.28. GH Bush (15-26) loses to Jackson
.29. Harding (12-29) beats A Johnson
.30. Madison (11-30) loses to J Adams

.31. Wilson (11-30) loses to Buchanan
.32. Clinton (10-31) loses to Lincoln
.33. Grant (10-31) loses to Ike
.34. Carter (10-31) loses to Arthur
.35. Van Buren (7-34) beats Nixon
.36. Buchanan (6-35) beats Wilson
.37. LBJ (6-35) beats Pierce
.38. Coolidge (7-34) loses to Hayes
.39. Hoover (6-35) loses to Taylor
.40. B Harrison (6-35) loses to W Harrison
.41. A Johnson (2-39) loses to Harding
.42. Pierce (2-39) loses to LBJ

Gang Warily, Drummond

That handsome shield you see at the top is the ancestral coat of arms for the family Drummond. Normally, I would not pay all that much attention to heraldry, as it is as dead a matter for most people as studying Latin, or expecting Al Gore to actually cite his sources for the outrageous claims he makes. But I have discovered a bit about my family’s beginnings, which seems strangely familiar to me.

The first known Drummond appears to be a fellow named Maurice, the commander of the vessel which saved Edgar the Atheling and his sisters from the usurper Harold. Maurice, it seems, was the son of George, and a grandson of Andrew, the king of Hungary. The passage was difficult and it seems Maurice was pursued fro a while by Harold’s men. When the passengers were brought safely to Scotland, it is said that for his gallantry in the mission, Maurice was given the name Drum-onde, which in Gaelic means a high wave, and his coat of arms features three wavy bars to symbolize the sunset waves of the North Sea. Fanciful perhaps, but interesting to me.

It is also interesting to note that Sir Malcolm de Drummond was attached firmly to the cause of Robert the Bruce, and at Bannockburn it was Malcolm who devised the way to unseat the feared English cavalry – by spreading caltrops before the horses. Explaining his plan to Robert before the battle, Drummond warned the men who would fight near him to “gang warily” – that is, to watch their step since he would have caltrops all over the place. That’s how that motto got onto the family seal.

The Drummonds made a name for themselves as stout defenders of Scotland’s freedom from England. They were also strong supporters of the Jacobites, and found themselves in many battles because of it. Reading through the family legends from ancient times, and recalling stories my father passed along from our recent years, I was struck by how often my family has been loyal to causes, well beyond the point where men more frail in their convictions would flee. I was also well aware that my family gets into scraps far more often than ordinary folk do, and well beyond the number which prudence would commend. With that in mind, it seems to me no surprise at all to find that I am no deserter from President Bush, simply because turning coats has gained fashion among Republicans, nor that my words should – often – cause a protest and controversy.

I am my father’s son. And near as I can tell, that has been our tradition for going on eight centuries, at the least.

MLP Round 040

Game Scores:

McKinley at Reagan, 35-31 McKinley
GW Bush at Taylor, 37-30 GW Bush
Eisenhower at Lincoln, 37-28 Lincoln
Polk at Ford, 35-32 Ford
Washington at Grant, 34-25 Washington
B Harrison at T Roosevelt, 33-23 TR
Tyler at Jefferson, 34-28 Jefferson
Wilson at Fillmore, 31-21 Fillmore
F Roosevelt at Madison, 30-25 FDR
Van Buren at Kennedy, 32-26 JFK
A Johnson at Truman, 32-22 Truman
Cleveland at L Johnson, 32-21 Cleveland
Harding at J Adams, 30-26 J Adams
Jackson at Monroe, 32-30 Jackson
Taft at Garfield, 30-29 Taft
Pierce at Nixon, 30-21 Nixon
Arthur at GH Bush, 29-28 Arthur
JQ Adams at Carter, 32-26 JQA
Clinton at Hayes, 28-23 Hayes
Hoover at W Harrison, 27-25 Hoover
Coolidge at Buchanan, 25-19 Coolidge

One President has one loss, another two have 2 losses, another two have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.

The new Rankings are as follows:

After Forty Rounds

.1. McKinley (39-1) beats Carter, Madison, Ford, Reagan
.2. Washington (38-2) beats Buchanan, Hoover, Lincoln, Grant
.3. GW Bush (38-2) beats Reagan, TR, W Harr, Taylor
.4. Lincoln (39-3) beats Garfield, Grant, Ike, loses to Washington
.5. Ford (36-4) beats Hoover, B Harr, Polk, loses to McKinley
.6. Teddy Roosevelt (34-6) beats Wilson, Hoov, B Harr loses to GWB
.7. Reagan (34-6) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to GW Bush, McKinley
.8. Polk (32-8) beats GH Bush, Carter, Madison, loses to Ford
.9. Jefferson (31-9) beats J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, Tyler
.10. Truman (29-11) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson


.11. Fillmore (29-11) beats Ike, Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson
.12. FDR (28-12) beats Monroe, GH Bush, Carter, Madison
.13. JFK (28-12) beats Tyler, Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Cleveland
.14. Cleveland (27-13) beats Harding, JFK, Nixon, LBJ
.15. J Adams (26-14) beats GH Bush, Harding, loses to Jeff, Monroe
.16. Taft (24-16) beats Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson, Garfield
.17. Taylor (25-15) beats Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson, loses to GW Bush
.18. Jackson (22-18) beats Nixon, LBJ, Monroe, loses to Jefferson
.19. Monroe (23-17) beats J Adams, Arthur, loses to FDR, Jackson
.20. Eisenhower (22-18) beats Buch, Hayes, loses to Fillmore, Lincoln

.21. Nixon (20-20) beats Tyler, Pierce, loses to Jackson, Cleveland
.22. Garfield (20-20) beats A Johnson, Grant, loses to Lincoln, Taft
.23. JQ Adams (18-22) beats A John, Carter, loses to Taft, Truman
.24. Tyler (18-22) beats LBJ, loses to JFK, Nixon, Jefferson
.25. Hayes (17-23) beats Grant, Clinton, loses to Washington, Ike
.26. Arthur (15-25) beats LBJ, GH Bush, loses to Jefferson, Monroe
.27. GH Bush (15-25) loses to Polk, FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.28. W Harrison (14-26) beats Cool, Wilson, loses to GWB, Hoover
.29. Harding (11-29) beats Pierce, Van B, loses to Cleve, J Adams
.30. Madison (11-29) beats B Harr, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR

.31. Wilson (11-29) loses to TR, W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.32. Clinton (10-30) beats Buchanan, loses to Taylor, Fillmore, Hayes
.33. Grant (10-30) loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Garfield, Washington
.34. Carter (10-30) loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR, JQA
.35. Coolidge (7-33) beats Buch, loses to W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.36. Hoover (6-34) beats W Harr, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.37. Van Buren (6-34) loses to Taft, Truman, Harding, JFK
.38. B Harrison (6-34) loses to Madison, Ford, Reagan, TR
.39. LBJ (5-35) loses to Arthur, Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.40. Buchanan (5-35) loses to Washington, Ike, Clinton, Coolidge
.41. A Johnson (2-38) loses to JQA, Garfield, Taft, Truman
.42. Pierce (2-38) loses to Truman, Harding, JFK, Nixon

MLP Round 039

Game Scores:

Ford at McKinley, 37-32 McKinley
W Harrison at GW Bush, 36-31 GW Bush
Lincoln at Washington, 36-35 Washington
Reagan at B Harrison, 37-22 Reagan
T Roosevelt at Hoover, 30-23 TR
Jefferson at Jackson, 33-28 Jefferson
Madison at Polk, 33-21 Polk
Fillmore at Coolidge, 29-22 Fillmore
Carter at F Roosevelt, 33-22 FDR
Kennedy at Pierce, 31-18 JFK
Truman at JQ Adams, 30-27 Truman
Nixon at Cleveland, 31-28 Cleveland
Taylor at Wilson, 30-25 Taylor
GH Bush at J Adams, 30-26 J Adams
Hayes at Eisenhower, 30-29 Ike
Monroe at Arthur, 29-24 Monroe
A Johnson at Taft, 30-23 Taft
L Johnson at Tyler, 28-21 Tyler
Garfield at Grant, 27-25 Garfield
Buchanan at Clinton, 25-21 Clinton
Harding at Van Buren, 30-23 Harding


One President has one loss, another two have 2 losses, another three have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.