CBS and NBC "We ain't gay."

I'm trying to figure out CBS and NBC's stance on declining the United Church of Christ ad. I get that allowing gays in the church is a controversial topic, but to say that they're rejecting it because its an "advocacy" ad, and that because "the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast." The first is just silly coming of an election cycle, and we see advocacy ads everyday. The second is just weird. First, the ad doesn't even address gay marriage, and second, does this mean when the amendment comes up CBS won't allow any ads on the topic? I'm not crying censorship here, or suspecting any conspiracy, but I think the reasons are just plain odd. My pet "wacko theory" is that CBS is trying to make nice with the White House after the National Guard memo fiasco. My realistic guess is that CBS and NBC didn't want to deal with the backlash, boycotts, and loss of other advertising for airing the ad. I think its cowardly, but they are running an business. Only thing I know is that the reasons given don't make a lick of sense.

Denial Sclimial

The only thing worse than soft diplomacy against a hard opponent, are toothless threats. There is no threat of invasion of Iran, and to even hint at it makes the US look foolish, and endangers future threats. You can't say "I'll kick you ass if you don't..." and then not when the bluff is called. Because next time you say it, you'll have to because it won't be believed. I'm glad W hasn't made any threats against Iran, It's one of the few foreign policy decisions I agree with. That threat is gone, everyone knows it, time to move on.

Sanctions are a joke, they never, ever work. That just gives the dictator a target for the suffering of the people. The whole nation rallies against whomever is putting on the sanctions, not against the dictators. Sanctions are the policy of the weak willed. They appear tough, allow policy makers a press moment, and they can then move on, but they are completely useless.

As far as conservatives saying for years that the military was cut too deep, they must have been a minority in the GOP. Cheney pushed cuts under Sr, the GOP controlled congress sure didn't do much to stave off cuts, and Rumsfeld always pushed for less. As I recall, the GOP was claiming credit for the 90's boom as the "Peace Dividend." But beyond that, with 150k troops in Iraq, how many more would we need to invade and hold Iran? Your probably getting close to half-million troops total for both states. At that point your talking about major war footing, and that's not the result of cuts that are too deep.

Also, you have to get over the "liberal" stereotype. Kennedy and Johnson had the Vietnam war, Clinton sent troops across the globe (and got bashed by the GOP for doing so) and bombed the Al Queda "pharmacy" and got hammered by the conservatives. Even Carter tried a military rescue of the hostages. Reagan negotiated their release, then dealt arms to Iran. Reagan pulled out of Beirut when the embassy was bombed. Reagan invaded Grenada. Bush Sr. invaded Iraq and more power to him for that. W. invaded Iraq again, and more power to him for that. But recall he said leading up to his first term he was against "nation building" because that's how the GOP bashed the Dems. For years the Dems took heat for using the military to "build" democracy abroad. The GOP preferred to work behind the scenes. Over the modern era its a mixed bag. At best its a mixed bag. But the GOP is late to this party. You can say "Hollywood Liberal," but modern liberals have a solid track record of defense.

The claim that the Middle East is a hotbed of terrorism because of the wide-spread oppression begs the question, "why isn't Sub-Sarahan Africa a hotbed, or Cuba, or China, or parts of Central and South America?" The Middle-East isn't a hotbed because of oppression, it's because they have the money. They have the money because we give it to them. It's like American gangs. They're dangerous because they have loads of drug cash. Take the cash away, and they get much less dangerous. Take the cash away, and they lose their lure to new recruits. We have to get away from oil to take the cash away from the terrorists. Take the cash away and we can formulate a plan based on want, not need. Nobody's freaking out about the atrocities and oppression in Africa because they use machetes, and they use machetes because they cannot afford the big stuff. Usually in a war you seek to decrease your opponents ability to wage that war. In the war on terrorism we're funding our opponents. Its just stupid.

On democracy, I can't think of a single instance where a nation build democracy without conquering the target nation. Recall MacAurthur was the defacto Emperor of Japan. Also, his rift with Truman came when Truman wouldn't give Mac the ok to conquer N. Korea. I hope it happens here, but I think its going to take decades, not years to get Iraq on stable footing and then get neighboring people to create their own. Remember that during this process all the dictators in the region will try to undermine Iraq, as a successful Iraq is a direct threat. You talk of sanctions, but the only sanction that matters is oil. It's not like boycotting pistacio's will bring any nation in the Middle East to its knees. The only way to realistically sanction Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc, is to sanction oil, but we can't do without oil. I think sanctions are a waste of time, but if you're going to do it, at least have some hope of success. Again, for me, this isn't environmental, its war. Get off oil, and they lose both their cash and their lever.

finally, Bush praises Musharraf. Got to love that. Pakistan is downgrading their efforts to contain and catch Bin Laden and Al Queda. Pakistan also gave nuke technology to N. Korea (who now flaunts it in the America's face, and exposes the limits of US power. Iran took note of this, and is now on the express train to the nuclear club. Hooray!) and possibly others, and the guy who did it is pardoned. Yet Bush is "very pleased" with Musharref. Incredible.

Diplomacy? What else you got?

War is not the only alternative to diplomacy. Just because the soft diplomacy of Europe, and liberals in general, has been a complete failure does not mean that the only bullets left in our gun are literal. Once violence is a real option, the threat of violence becomes a powerful weapon. That is the reason why modern liberals are impotent on the world stage. They have made war a last option, behind even suicide. There is no chance of violence with a European solution so why would any dictator be motivated to broker a fair deal? There is nothing in it for Iran if they abandon nukes, as there was nothing in it for Arafat to end the intifada. But the peace barkers assumed everybody wanted what they were selling. This is why soft diplomacy is the dodo, it assumes so many untruths.

I agree that Iran and North Korea feel more comfortable with us extended in Iraq. This is why in dangerous times the military needs to be ramped up. Conservatives have been saying for over 10 years that we have cut too deep. That warning is now a truth. I hope we don't invade Iran, but if you want concessions, it has to be an option...a real option. I also think that serious sanctions with teeth would be a useful tool. However, the Europeans inevitably run the sanction policies and immediately defang them. Which is why I contend that Europe should have no serious role in the major international issues of the day. I understand this is not pragmatic. But that doesn't make it any less valid.

I also think MCLeiberman's solution is a nice compromise between diplomacy and regime change. Let's defang the tyrants for a change instead of the sanctions against them.

As for abandoning the Middle East I think that would be a grave mistake. The Middle East is the source of world terror and will continue to be as long as the main ingredient, oppression, exists in such vast quantities. A free Middle East will do more to improve world quality of life and American safety than any other palliative that has been discussed. Besides, spreading liberty is the most noble endeavor a country can embark on and Americans should be proud to be part of a generation that is attempting to do just that. Isolationism is stagnation and the first stage of rigor mortis.

Mullah Madness

My question is what do you propose in place of diplomacy? Diplomacy works when both sides want resolution, or when one or both sides are stalling for time. The world is in the latter with Iran, and Iran also needs it that way. For Iran, it needs the time to develop a nuke so it can tell the US to screw off, and overtake Saudi Arabia as the Middle East power. We need it because we have no choice. We cannot confront Iran because we're already overextended in Iraq. Furthermore, and invasion of Iran would be a disaster. Suppose we had the troops, there is no doubt that the battle would be quick, but winning that peace would make Iraq look easy. Also, the price of oil would go through the roof. Remember, when we went into Iraq, OPEC said they would overproduce to handle the Iraqi loss. With Iraq off-line and Iran in the middle of a war, oil prices soar, and stay high for years (Iran would undoubtedly destroy the wells and pipe lines, and they would make great targets for Inrani insurgents). So we're forced to play for time. Our only hope is that the pro-democracy forces in Iran somehow speed up their bid for power. Its a race that we'll lose. Ultimately, Iran will have the bomb. The response from the right will be that it was inevitable that the nuclear club would expand so deal with it. I like McLeiberman's solution, just bomb the nuclear sites and tell Iran that they can't play. It would inflame anti-US feelings and set back the pro-democracy movement, but that's a great trade for our security. It would also make the US nuke lobby cry foul, and they're big GOP donors, but again, a great trade. Iran realized long ago that the America says one thing and does another. The talk tough in public and roll-over in private policy has been the stalwart US policy since Reagan. Thus, it's no surprise that we got outmanuvered here. They know we need the oil. This was part of the flaw with nation-building in the Middle East. It would take decades for the affects of a strong, stable Iraqi democracy to spread. In the meantime, we're even more involved in a perennially messed up region. It would have made much more sense to find an oil alternative for the US. It would have been cheaper, faster, and more stable. I don't say this from an environmental standpoint. I honestly don't care if we started burning coal in our cars, we need to untangle ourselves from the Middle East. What has happened is that our best threat, "we'll kick your ass" has been defanged by Iraq. Diplomacy without a stick resorts to bribery, which is what's happening. We simply cannot enforce our will upon anyone right now. N. Korea showed this and Iran listened. Iran listened when N. Korea said "we have the bomb, and we're making missiles," and the US was silent. Iran listened when it turned out that Pakistan gave N. Korea the technology, and the US was silent. This is the best time for them to make their move, and they're doing it.

Re: Mullah this

I think you're basically right but sometimes a carrot is needed with the stick. Just like with people, simply brutalizing bad guys that you have to interact with again one day and expecting good results is folly. If we could just lock up the nation of Iran and throw away the key, you may have a point but sadly...We can't, so you have to figure out ways to make them productive or, at least, non threatening members of society. The person example is a good one. A stern father with a mother who tempers the punishments with rewards or in criminal justice, the Good cop/bad cop routine are effective techniques. The problem arises when the parent/cops aren't working together and are actually undercutting each other, which is what Europe has been doing to us.

Unlike the theocratic method of gov't that most Iranians hate, there is a nationalism and a belief that if, Pakistan and Israel have the bomb, why shouldn't they? Its not an unreasonable question. If the solution to Iranian aggression lies in getting rid of the Mullahs (which i think it does) causing a nationalist backlash against the West can only undermine the real objectives.

Iran is avery different situation than Iraq. There is an educated middle class, an aware,very young/ pro Western political movement and a gov't that does rely on some sort of legitimacy outside of the sword. The sacking of Hussein sent a great message to the Mullahs and exposure to and investment from the West will hurt the regime not help it. That all being said, if Israel can figure out an effective way to go Osiraq on them....Not the worst thing in the world.

Mullah This

Please join me in a collective gasp as the news that Iran is producing the gases necessary to enrich weapons grade uranium sinks in. How could this be? I thought Europe was on the case. Haven't we been listening to international lecturing about the value of sweet talk and detente for 20 years? Funny, but that's about how long its taken Iran to get to the front door of the Nuclear Weapon Clubhouse. And now its just a matter of weeks before they learn the secret handshake.

There aren't enough megabits of memory in the world to hold all the blogs that would be necessary to catalogue the failures of international diplomatic solutions. We don't stop street crime by inviting the criminals to sit down with their neighbors to find out what the misunderstanding is. We simply stop the criminals. If you think people cannot be compared to nation states...you are deluded. There are small matters that diplomacy is very well suited to handle. But it is naivete of the highest order to not recognize the many arenas in which diplomacy is powerless.

The Europeans may as well have built the weapons for the Iranians and hand delivered them with a few billion of left over Oil for Food money. For that is the exact result of their diplomacy. The rogue nations love the talk because it provides the time necessary to accomplish their goals. While the Europeans signed and copied and collated, scheduled and rescheduled; the Mullahs built weapons. The diplomats are dupes who failed in Iran, failed in Iraq, and will fail again wherever they are given the opportunity to make deals with the power hungry.

When the world is peaceful, certainly, let the diplomats chatter to their heart's content. But when the times becomes serious, best send them to bed so the adults can put things right. Enough talk.

MNF

I'm with you. This is such a non story. Had they used the hottie latina fine but.......... How many times do I have to look at Sipowitz's ass on NYPD Blue before someone demands that they take him off the air?

Hard to see why more Dems didn't stick their neck out for Kerry.

Again we see examples of why he failed. Rather than spread the wealth to generate good will, and help others, he sat on $15mm and didn't even spend that to win. Now he wants to be a big player in Dem politics? He baffles me.


CNN.com - Dems question Kerry's campaign nest egg - Nov 18, 2004

Hard to see why more Dems didn't stick their neck out for Kerry.

Again we see examples of why he failed. Rather than spread the wealth to generate good will, and help others, he sat on $15mm and didn't even spend that to win. Now he wants to be a big player in Dem politics? He baffles me.


CNN.com - Dems question Kerry's campaign nest egg - Nov 18, 2004

Maybe I'm not as old as I thought

This MNF controversy with the Nicolette Sheridan in a towel goes right by me. I just don't get it. I've seen worse on a Friends episode, and the scantily dressed cheerleaders the MNF cameras linger on show much more skin. Now Tony Dungy feels like it was racially offensive http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1925333 I guess the good news is that I'm not as old and square as I thought.

Fertility and Abortion

Why haven't the pro-lifers gone after fertility treatments that produce unused embryos? With so much attention paid to ending abortion and stemcell research, why isn't there more of an uproar over these "cast-offs?" Not only are they are ultimately destroyed, but insurance covers the procedure. With the pro-lifers wanting to restrict where fed dollars can go, this also seems like a viable target. Is this an under the radar issue, or is it a loser for the pro-lifers due to go forth and multiply and or who want's to come out and tell a husband and wife you're against them having a baby. In any case I think the pro-lifers are in a jam here. Any thoughts?

Social Security

Quick question for our smart hydrabloggers. This CNN article about Social Security Privatization (I'm pro) says that Bush's plan will cost about $3 trillion, but then goes on to say that the 75 year shortfall is $3.7 trillion. My understanding of Bush's number is that its a short term hit, but if the long term cost is $3.7 trillion, I have to question my stance here. Not enough long term benefit to offset the short term hit. If the $3 trln is over the same span as the $3.7 that's also different. Can either of you shed some light on this?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/social.security.ap/index.html

Predictions

Part of the fun of having a blog is putting things down for prosperity. Given that, here are some predictions.

First: Clarence Thomas will be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Second: Roe v. Wade will fall within the next 6 years.
Third: Gay Marriage Amendments will pass in every state attempted.
Finally: I restate that a Democrat will win in 2008.

So there you have it. Check back, and feel free to ridicule me later.

Gay Marriage is done

Looking at the state initiatives, the most striking is the massive support for Gay Marriage Amendments. Looking at the results and the polling, I now believe that this debate is functionally over. The plan for denying homosexuals the ability to marry AND any type of legal relationship is obvious. Polls show that (in round numbers) 30% of Americans support the right of homosexuals to marry, 33% want to bar any type of recognition (marriage and civil unions, contracts, etc) and 36% support defining marriage as between a man and woman, but are ok with civil unions. So here it looks like what should pass any vote is simply defining marriage as between a man and woman. However, what passes is the complete denial of rights. Why? Look at the pro-marriage types. Some part of the 33% are really on the fence, so take it down to 30%. Of that, how many are passionate enough to really fight for it? Spend money, speak vocally, take personal risk to secure this right, not many. But look at the complete denial team. Of the 33% how many are on the fence? None. How many are willing to really fight this fight, spend money, be vocal, take personal risk, almost all. So one camp is split, and mostly meek, the other is united and passionate. Stopping there, who wins the fight for the middle 36%? No brainer. But take a look at the middle 36%. More of them probably lean towards total denial than total rights. How many of them really care? Not many. If pressed in a vote to vote for total denial, most will probably shrug and vote for it. Thinking, "close, but not perfect." The thing is, the social conservatives figured out how to get the 36%ers to vote their way. By tagging state amendments as "Amendment X: Defines marriage as between one man and one woman." The outcome is never in doubt. While the fine print may say "and deny any legal recognition to contracts or civil unions" not many will get that far. So a big chunk of the middle votes for it, thinking it mimics their views. Those that take the time to read it, some of them will go ahead and vote for it anyway. Their catchphrase is clearer, and the pro-gay marriage folks need to educate why its not what it says. This is always a losing proposition in elections. Restrictive gay marriage amendments will pass in most, if not all states. Keep in mind, even CA passes some anti-liberal laws (immigration, 3 strikes, etc). Regardless, all you need is 3/4 of the states to pass one and a federal amendment is inevitable. Once its a part of state law, it would take nothing to get voters to go ahead an vote for a national amendment as they already (overwhelmingly, this time at least) supported it at the state level. In congress, how many legislators would fall on their sword for this issue, given the inevitability of it, not enough. The best news for the social conservatives, is that this process will take about a decade, giving them lots of election year life for this wedge issue. Its a false bill of goods, but its inevitable.

The World is Watching

Some good points Bill, I mean StalinMalone. Damn. Never mind.


Some holes though. You cannot judge the presses coverage without the context of the least press friendly administration in recent history. The White House and the RNC have released so little information and have actually run attack ads (Press releases) on journalists that that cover the race that an anomosity and mistrust built up along the way. Has there been one unscripted press conference in 4 years? Did the camapign really demand that a loyalty oath be signed before entering Bush/Cheney events?

I think its absurd to seperate the Swift boat ads from the White House. Make the argument that they were effective or even deserved but they certainly had Rove's fingerprints all over them.

I was one of the few people in NYC that wasn't despondent yesterday, largely for my McLieberman foreign policy reasons. I am a lot less happy today. I am not sure that the unknown comics predication of an ultra conservative Court is written in stone but what bothers me even more was the "Moral Values" aspect. Given that there wer eleven states with ballots stripping even civil union protection for gay couples moral values was, at best partially and at worst wholly an appeal, to bigotry.

Not going to be looked at as one of our nations finer moments. I don't mean this as a Christian bashing rant. I am not the guy who disaparges religion in the red states while sipping my merlot. I believe that by a long shot, religion is a force for good in this nation but, if Rove's method to reach born again evangelicals was to demonize homosexuals and the numbers bear out that it worked, I feel furthur away from the blue states than i have in a long time.

McLieberman

The World Was Watching

Little was said about what was a major gaff by John Kerry; "The world will be watching", he informed us. Since when do Americans seek the approval of others when we make choices for ourselves? How can a man running for president be so tone deaf to the proud patriotism that has made his country the shining city on a hill? The only reason Mr. Kerry's statement didn't turn this election into a rout was that it was ignored by the media. Many will wonder how this election could have even been close for a wartime incumbent. Here's a start; a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs showed that Kerry received more favorable media coverage than any candidate in 20 years. www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=176

President Bush did extremely well when one looks at the disparity of critical press coverage. The main attack on Kerry was waged by the private citizen Swift Boat Vets. The main attack on the president was carried out by CBS. Had the story not been fabricated, the attack may well have been decisive. But isn't it the job of the press to scrutinize both candidates? I am heartened by the ability of the majority of Americans to see through the non-bias claims of the media and judge the candidates with their own senses. Then again, when you attempt to sway an American with European peer pressure you make his choice much easier.

It seems we should pay more attention to what MCLieberman has to say, he certainly called this race.

swings

As we get closer to the election, I feel less confident in Kerry. I believe that Biush has done a relatively poor, if not as bad as many say, job of follow up in Iraq and Afganistan but Kerry's entiure record is that of a dove and these are not dove times. Will Kerry prosecute the war in Iraq? Does he believe in American exceptionalism? Does he saee freedom as a basic right that we should be helping achieve. My guess is that the answer to all of these questions is no.

Bush believs in these things but lacks the qualities in a leader needed to carry them out. Is he capable of recognizing and correcting errors along the way? Will he stand on principle over loyalty even if its not to his advantage? Is he deft enough to match his actions with words that appeal to those who are inclined against him? Does he even mean to reach out to them? My guess on these is no as well. Where is Joe Biden when we need him?

Democrats all revved up!

Democrats are setting aside their pro-woman stance and taking it to the streets. Anything to get their views across. Honk if you'd rather be killing Republicans!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136798,00.html

America: Fuck Yeah

Gotta go see Team America

Backfire on Amendment 36

The ineresting thing about this Amendment is that it was originally placed on the ballot as a way of getting some of CO's electoral votes for Kerry. But now that Kerry may actually win CO, this may cost him EV's. The GOP, which originally opposed this initiative, may find themselves supporting it as the Dems start running from it.

Kerry getting above margin of error in CO

From Zogby's daily battleground state tracking poll:
COLORADO 9 Electoral Votes 2000 Vote: Bush
Poll of 602 likely voters conducted Oct. 21 through Oct. 24. Margin of error +/- 4.1 percentage points.

ELECTORS FOR PRESIDENT

BUSH (R) KERRY (D) Other Undecided Oct. 24
45% 49% 3% 3%

Bush's Nader

From the NY Times:

A Nader Nibble From the Right
The commercial made its national debut on Thursday on the Fox News Channel, aimed directly at Mr. Bush's Republican base. It starts with a middle-aged man disgustedly dropping his Wall Street Journal on the kitchen table. "What kind of conservative runs half-trillion-a-year deficits? Gets us into an unwinnable war?" he asks his wife, but adds helplessly, "I can't vote for Kerry."
"Then don't," she says, cheerily suggesting an alternative who is not quite yet a household name: Michael Badnarik, a computer consultant from Austin, Tex.
Mr. Badnarik is the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, which says he could "Naderize" Mr. Bush. A recent Zogby/Reuters national poll showed him tied with Ralph Nader at one percentage point each - not much, but possibly critical. Unlike Mr. Nader, Mr. Badnarik is on the ballot of every battleground state except New Hampshire.
"If we have a rerun of Florida 2000 in Pennsylvania, Michael Badnarik could be the kingmaker by drawing independent and Republican votes from Bush," said Larry Jacobs, director of the 2004 Election Project at the Humphrey Institute of the University of Minnesota, which has been tracking third-party candidates.
Mr. Badnarik, reached by telephone on Thursday while campaigning in Michigan, said that polls commissioned by his campaign showed him at 2 percent in Wisconsin, 3 percent in Nevada and 5 percent in New Mexico.

If the Dems' were smart they would have built this guy up to the Republican voters the same way the GOP built up Nader. Once again, the GOP is just better.

For Mr. Malone

Kerry lies again! Bush IS smarter than smarypants Kerry. How does being the "smart one" impact Bush's campaign? For Mr. Kerry, which is it, the smart one or the dumb one, when will he quit fip-flopping?

Iowa's real money presidential poll

IEM 2004 US Presidential Election Winner Takes All Market Price Graph

Fun link that all the cool kids are using. Hit the 2004 Electoral Vote Tracker

Los Angeles Times - 2004 Elections

Unknown Blogger adds to political vernacular, what did you do today?

Glad to see my RC and GC thing is catching on. Mr. Malone's (if that's his real name) argument gets circular. In the early part he makes the point that few GC's view the RC movement as a new form of Tyranny, but then later says that GC's are willing to except the the strengthening of the government under the RC's. A true conservative would not except "fight fire with fire" as either results in a loss for those who believe, like Regan, that the best government is a small government. But to the point of the tiff. Dick Armey joined forces with the ACLU over his concerns regarding the Patriot Act, TIPS, and other privacy issues http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/4562228.htm?1c, the Tampa Tribune, an extremely conservative news paper didn't endorse Bush http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGBU3UEHF0E.html, Former Kentucky Senator Cook http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/2004/10/20/oped-marlow1020-8060.html, and a growing list of folks are not endorsing Bush. Yes, Clinton had his defectors, but they left over moral issues surrounding Lewinsky, not because of policy. Will the GOP fold? No. But after 4 years of total control the President is locked in a very close race. The question "why?" has to be asked. One would think that after having the House, the Senate, and the White House that this would be the time to see the unfettered vision of the GOP. If it resonated with the people this election should be a slam dunk, yet a wartime President is in danger of losing. I think it is because the GOP is split between the brilliantly titled RC's and GC's. There is not unfettered vision because the GOP can't decide what that vision is. After 4 years, what, domestically, can the GOP hold up and say "This is what the future of the US looks like under our leadership, isn't it grand!" Record spending? No. Larger government? Riiight. Lots of time spent on fines for talking about oral sex on the radio? Next question. Patriot Act? Hope not. No Child Left Behind? Underfunded, so no. Medicare reform that costs much more than expected? Geeze. Cut-backs in pork spending? Ha! Do I want a salad with my dinner? No. (oops, I was on a roll)What policy, what direction, domestically, has the GOP brought forward that the whole party can be proud of? During this entire election I haven't heard much about what was accomplished in the last 4. It's almost like Bush is running as a challenger. What can the GOP show me that excites me? Where' s the vision? This was showcase time. I'm reminded of Lord Acton's quote "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The GOP coalition was fine when it was focused on beating the Dems, but once they got it, I think the stitching broke. Sometimes it's easier to chase than to lead. I AM looking through actions to motives. I'm trying to figure out why there have been so few actions, and it looks like the reason is that the motives of the GOP are split. That's why I see the riff. The simple fact is that after 4 years of control, the GOP could lose the Presidency and the Senate. You have to wonder "why?" Yes, they may hold both, but any reading of the situation puts Iraq as the reason. Without it, Kerry wins in a blow-out. Which brings us back to 2008 is a lock. A Master lock, a big master lock. As for you portfolio, you invest like you vote. The more debt a company or President has the better in the Stalin Malone handbook.

Shout-out

A quick shout-out to McLiberman, a true BoSox fan. Is this the year of the true "Massachusetts Miracle?" Can the state win the Series and the White House in one year, or is the Curse strong enough to derail both?

Buffalo Bills "lock" for Super Bowl in 2008

With such a potent futurist on my rolodex why aren't my stocks doing better? As interesting as the points raised by The Unknown Blogger are, they are hardly conclusive. It is accurate to say that there are differences in the GOP, and the ones sighted are even true. But a fight? Whose picking it? There have been precious few groin gouges or ear bitings in the past four years, why would someone assume there will be far more in the next four? The "values voters" have been gaining in number for a decade now as a reactionary force against a growing antagonistic cultural power base. This power base includes such institutions as universities, Hollywood, the news media and newsmaking judges. These groups are all aligned with the liberal side of American politics. The RCs (as Unknown called them) are these values voters who are reacting to what they perceive as a liberal tyranny imposing its ideas on all of us (limiting prayer and religious expression, redefining marriage, pushing sex ed curricula that is not sensitive to local views). That is why they are not alienating many GCs. Few conservatives see them as another form of tyranny, but instead a movement drawing a line in the sand and saying to the liberal tyranny, "you shall go no further". The Unknown Blogger's point is similar to the one made by those who will equate America and Al Qaeda: both have killed innocents, so both are bad. Knowing the Unknown Blogger as I do (and loving him dearly), I assure you he is much too rational to make that argument, but what that argument shows is the mistake of only considering actions, and not motives. The majority of conservatives do not perceive a new tyranny gathering, but a reactionary defense against an old one. They support the motives. This makes it easier for "small government" folk to accept this strengthening of government that Unknown very correctly identified. The thinking is "fight fire with fire". Therefore, I can't see this becoming a large enough rift to weaken the GOP in any significant way. But I do stand by my football prediction...Go Bills!

2008

Here's my bet. Whatever happens now, the Dems are a lock for 2008. This is the apex of GOP control. The party's future is a fight between the religious conservatives and the government conservatives, and they have major differences. The RC's are every bit a big government party as the liberal left. When the GOP used to talk of less government and a greater roll for charity, they meant for charities to take up the slack so taxpayers would pay less. Bush wants to bring charities onto the federal dole. GC's want less govt, the RC's want bigger govt telling the people how to live (see the FMA). A preemptive constitutional amendment is the antithesis of what the GC's believe. Bush has repeatedly asked "what can the government do for you?" Even Kennedy, the liberal hero said "ask not what your country can do for you..." And Bush's fiscal spending is beyond anything on any Dem. Presidents resume. Bush's Presidency brought the schism between the GC's and RC's to light. The GOP was rebuilt on the backs of the RC's. They started the very effective policy of running real campaigns for school boards, local elections, and state elections, knowing that this would translate into Federal control, and they were right. The whole time the GC's looked the other way at some of the extreme positions, and probably thought they could control them. But Bush shattered that illusion. The next several years, win or lose now, will be a fight for control of the GOP. This fight will cost the party elections, and the Dems are primed to take advantage. They are suddenly the party of fiscal restraint, and less govt intrusion into the lives of the citizens (see their opposition to the FMA and the Patriot Act extension). Redistricting, the Holy Grail for the GOP, only exacerbates the problem. Only the extremes form the GOP can hope to win nomination, and the fight to see who is more overtly pious, and who wants to legislate from that point will push the party even further in the direction of the RC's. It's a huge bet in a country where religion is on the wane. This alliance paid off spectacularly over the last 4 years, but it simply cannot hold. Throw in the fact that there is no VP to run as successor in 2008, well, the fight for GOP nomination is going to messy. The question is whether the nation can handle 4 more years of Bush's spending, and personal invasions. My bet is that even if he wins, the GOP battle has begun, and that Bush will face real obstacles in his agenda over the next four years (and he'll be a lame duck, never a good position anyway).

Has to have it both ways.

From a Rolling Stone interview:

Kerry said his favorite songs were "Satisfaction," Jumpin' Jack Flash" and "Brown Sugar" by the Rolling Stones, and that his favorite album was "Abbey Road" by the Beatles.

Manifesto

I think Bill Butler is cute.

Like a million voices cried out and were suddenly silenced...

For I have entered the world of Blog! Touch me. Love me. Blog me.

Test

test

Test

Test post.