Who is Barack Obama?

After the basketball games were done, and the vote counting as well, last Saturday night I was channel surfing prior to bedtime, and came across the speech Barack Obama made that night in Richmond, Virginia. I stopped to watch, and was amazed at the performance. This guy is a formidable candidate. A tidbit follows:



"....But in this election - at this moment - Americans are standing up all across the country to say, not this time. Not this year. The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result. And today, voters from the West Coast to the Gulf Coast to the heart of America stood up to say that it is time to turn the page. We won Louisiana, and Nebraska, and the state of Washington, and I believe that we can win in Virginia on Tuesday if you're ready to stand for change....."



More:



"...But I am running for President because I believe that to actually make change happen - to make this time different than all the rest - we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, Independents, and Republicans together to get things done. That's how we'll win this election, and that's how we'll change this country when I am President of the United States....."



Read the whole thing here.



For the last several years I have been hearing both partisan Democrats and partisan Republicans expressing the same thoughts, although each side probably has a little different idea of what that means. Obama has discovered a theme that is reacting powerfully throughout the country. His delivery and enthusiasm makes him a very formidable candidate in spite of his lack of experience.



After some thought, I decided to try to find out just who this Barack Obama is. One can check his bio at numerous places and they all have about the same info. From Congresspedia:



"Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Obama studied for two years at Occidental College, before transferring to Columbia University. There he majored in political science, with a specialization in international relations. Upon graduation, he worked for a year at newsletter publisher Business International (now part of The Economist Group), and moved to Chicago, where he was a community organizer in the Altgeld Gardens housing project on the city's South Side. It was during his time spent here that Obama joined the Trinity United Church of Christ. [26]
He left Chicago to study law at Harvard University, where he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude. After law school, he returned to Chicago and organized an aggressive voter registration effort that registered over 100,000 voters and aided in the election of President Bill Clinton and Senator Carol Moseley Braun, the first African-American woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate. Soon after, he joined a local civil rights law firm, and he became a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago..........."



He ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996 and won. In 2000 he ran against an incumbent Congressman and was defeated 61% to 30%. In 2004, he was elected to the United States Senate from Illinois. Now, in 2008, he is running for President of the United States.



You can check his personal story here, and here, and, of course, on his campaign site.

Is there a downside? Well, yes. In looking for the downside, one first would go to Hillary's campaign. There one will hear about the association of Obama with one Antoin "Tony" Rezko who is currently under Federal indictment in a corruption case. The case is described here, while Obama's connection is described here. It seems Mr. Rezko "helped" the Obamas buy a $1.6 million house right after he was elected to the Senate. That's a pretty expensive house for someone with the job history he has disclosed. The dealings came to the public eye when Rezko was required to disclose it at his bond hearing. There is no direct evidence of anything illegal, but the potential is there.

In my short search, I have not found anything else, but I suspect that if there is anything, the Clintons will be all too happy to inform us.

Where does his money come from? This is a surprise, I guess. From Opensecrets.org:

"Goldman Sachs
$421,763

UBS AG
$296,670

Lehman Brothers
$250,630

National Amusements Inc
$245,843

JP Morgan Chase & Co
$240,788

Sidley Austin LLP
$226,491

Citigroup Inc
$221,578

Exelon Corp
$220,267

Skadden, Arps Et Al
$196,420

Jones Day
$181,996

Citadel Investment Group
$171,798

Harvard University
$164,978

Time Warner
$155,383

Morgan Stanley
$155,196

Google Inc
$150,329

University of California
$140,429

Jenner & Block
$136,565

Kirkland & Ellis
$134,738

Wilmerhale Llp
$119,245

Credit Suisse Group
$118,250"

If you want to check out the other candidates, go here. This is a great site for political campaign finance.

As you can see, there is nothing revolutionary about Obama's big donors. Many of them donate to Hillary and to McCain as well.

The real downside to Obama just seems to be his far left record. He talks about hope and bipartisanship, and about all the great things he is going to do, but the devil is in the details, and he has not been free at all with details. What he does seem to be doing is trying to be all things to all people, speaking in very high sounding terms, but not going into any depth on the subject. Will he fill in the details? Somebody needs to challenge him on this. If Hillary doesn't, then he may well defeat her. He is good enough to win this thing if he can get by with the platitudes without having to go into specifics.

It is going to be an interesting election year.

The contest for the Democratic nomination

What an election year! There have been many surprises, and I suspect there will be many more. In my 50 years of active politics, I have not seen anything quite like it.

The election that this one seems to resemble the most is that of 1960. Of course it is not the same, but there are a few comparisons that are interesting.

On the Democratic side we have a contest between an old time political hardball player (Hillary Clinton playing a similar role to LBJ) and a more youthful new generation guy who espouses change (Barack Obama playing JFK). Then we had contestants that were a generation apart, and the same is true now. Hillary was born in the Baby Boomer 40s, and Obama in the X Generation 60s.

Another similarity is that the campaign for the nomination will probably go down to the wire, and end up being contested in the convention.

I can remember following that 1960 Democratic Convention, rooting for Lyndon Johnson, knowing all the time how difficult it would be for him to win it. It was a great convention, chaired by Sam Rayburn, LBJ's good friend. But all of Johnson's power in the party came to naught as the Democrats sought a fresh face and nominated Kennedy. (Of course, the Kennedys proved themselves very capable of engaging in power politics as well.)

The electorate back then was split in much the same manner as now, and JFK won the general election in as close a race as that in 2000. Nixon did not file a lawsuit challenging the vote count in Chicago, saving the country the spectacle we saw in 2000.

McCain cannot really be compared to the Nixon of 1960, although both served in the House and Senate. Nixon got the nomination because he was the Vice President.

The primary campaigns are nothing like those in 1960. Of course, back then primaries were not that important. The fight was over convention delegates picked in "smoke filled rooms" more than in primaries.

The Democratic campaigns are going to be very interesting to watch. I have always felt that Hillary would win, but have been surprised at what Obama has accomplished. His fund raising has been phenomenal, beating everyone pretty badly. Now that Hillary is having to self finance her campaign, one must wonder how long she can keep it up. Obama has some wins coming. Will Hillary have enough to compete in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania? Good question.

My view is that Hillary will win Texas when the day comes, but Obama has good shots in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Look for a convention contest.

Absence

After a hiatus of one month, The South Plainsman is back. It seems that Blogger and my security software somehow didn't get along. To get on Blogger, you have to let them put a tracking cookie on your computer. A regular cookie is not enough. My software has always been set to block trackers because I did not think it was anyone's business to know where I go on the Internet. A couple of weeks ago something happened to prevent me from signing on to Blogger, so I guess they just changed the kind of cookie they use. At any rate, I had to turn off the tracking cookie blocker in order to blog again. Or even to comment on other Blogger blogs. More later.

Hillary Down? NOT!!

The day after New Hampshire sees Hillary not down, but a winner, if only barely. What a surprise to all the pundits that were speculating she might be on her way out. There is not a chance of that. The closeness will almost certainly put the Clinton machine is in a full court press mode, however. Will they really take the gloves off? It will be interesting. This could be a long, drawn out process for the Democrats.

McCain's comeback is kind of refreshing. After the disaster with the immigration bill this summer, McCain hit rock bottom, losing suport and out of money. That he could come back as well as he has is a real compliment to him. Beating Romney in his neighborhood also put a brake on Romney's campaign. If McCain beats Romney in Michigan, Romney will really be in a struggle.

Huck came in third and remains viable heading into states where he should be stronger. He is so weak on policy, it must be the religious folks that are keeping him in it. I have said it before, but he seems like Bill Clinton without the sleaze. We know what happened to Bill.

Giulani, of course, has not yet begun to fight. How he will fare is a real question. Thompson is barely hanging on. A good showing in S. Carolina is imperative for him.

The big losers in New Hampshire: the Pollsters. They totally and badly missed on the Hillary/Obama race. The polling situation might be very interesting to follow throughout the campaign. Maybe more on that some other time.

The final analysis post-New Hampshire: this is going to be a long slog to the nomination for candidates in both parties, and for us poor watchers. Stay tuned.

Hillary down?

Here we go again with more post-Iowa analysis. Hillary's third place showing has folks from all over the spectrum writing her political obituary.

Drudge, this morning, headlines "TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGN !"

Rasmussen has Hillary ahead of Obama only 33%-29%, with Hillary down 8 points and Obama up 7 in a week's time.

CBSNEWS poll shows Obama 35%, Hillary 29% in New Hampshire.

Peter Wehner over at Contentions, posts the obit:

".....After she loses, Hillary Clinton will remain in the Senate, of course, and Bill Clinton will continue to make millions through his public speeches. They will not completely disappear from the national scene. But their days as a Democratic dynasty, and their center-stage role in American politics, are about to end."
(via PowerLine)

Is Hillary about done? No. She undoubtedly is a very polarizing person, and about as many dislike her as like her, but she has too much going for her to bow out at the first sign of trouble. I have to agree with Dick Morris (shudder!). His position is that she can withstand a few early primary losses because her strength lies in the larger states that vote later. For those that want this to be a quick process I can only tell you to get ready for one that is longer and more drawn out than recent elections have been.

What we will probably see is the Clintons going into full battle mode. The gloves will come off (pardon the metaphors), and we will begin to learn more about Obama than we really want to know. That is not all that bad. We actually know little about him.

This election year will give all of the pundits and press the opportunity to pontificate. But I don't think they are going to be able to stampede either party into naming a winner early. Democrats will surely make it into the Spring; Republicans may go all the way to the convention. It should be an interesting but frightening ride.

UPDATE: Riehl World View has similar thoughts:

"....The Clinton freight train rumbles on. If there's any real dirt, they'll chew, chew Obama up in the two weeks between NH and SC and we'll have a different race by Super Tuesday on February 5th......"

Go to the site.

What does Iowa tell us?

This election year has been shaping up to be different from any I have known in my lifetime. Everyone is dissatisfied with our government and the politics that go with it. And we all should be. Neither political party has served us well. The Republicans, upon gaining power, immediately became big spending pork barrelers; cutting taxes, all right, but then proceeding upon a spending binge that would put the Democrats to shame.

So, in 2006, the public put the Democrats back in charge in Congress. Now we have gridlock, with the Democrats trying harder to make political points than to make progress. And, of course, the Republicans trying to obstruct them. The only thing they both agree upon is to spend money. The only disagreement is over who gets the gravy. The result is that Congress polls even lower than a very unpopular President. And they should. Both sides.

The Iowa caucuses are not really very important in the overall scheme of things in this election, but I do think it is telling that the two winners are persons who are actually outside the regular political establishment in each party. Although Obama is a Senator, he is too new to have had much of Washington rub off on him. For him to win in Iowa is significant, because it shows he can get votes from an overwhelmingly white population, and this takes the race issue off the table. He represents a big change for any political party. As David Shribman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says:

"We know by the winning performance of Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois that a black man can be a formidable candidate outside of the urban areas where black politicians have had their most profound impact. Iowa is only 2 percent black, yet Sen. Obama showed wide appeal. The biggest test of Sen. John F. Kennedy's Catholicism came at the very end of the 1960 primaries, in heavily Protestant West Virginia. Sen. Obama's test came at the very beginning of the 2008 primaries -- and continues this week in New Hampshire, where blacks constitute less than 1 percent of the population........"

Is Obama a new Kennedy? Where is Lloyd Bentsen? I guess we will have to wait and see.

Mike Huckabee represents a real change for the Republican Party. Certainly he is from outside the Washington establishment, but he is also outside the mainstream of the Republican Party. A populist, his policies in Arkansas as governor were much closer to those of Bill Clinton than to mainstream Republicanism. Why did he get the votes? Peggy Noonan has a suggestion that makes sense:

"...... From the mail I have received the past month after criticizing him in this space, I would say his great power, the thing really pushing his supporters, is that they believe that what ails America and threatens its continued existence is not economic collapse or jihad, it is our culture.

They have been bruised and offended by the rigid, almost militant secularism and multiculturalism of the public schools; they reject those schools' squalor, in all senses of the word. They believe in God and family and America. They are populist: They don't admire billionaire CEOs, they admire husbands with two jobs who hold the family together for the sake of the kids; they don't need to see the triumph of supply-side thinking, they want to see that suffering woman down the street get the help she needs......"

Another out of the mainstream candidate that showed well in Iowa was Ron Paul. He has been in Congress for many years, but has voted against almost everything since he got there. No one could possibly consider him to be one of the good ole boys in Congress. His 10% has to be an additional protest vote against the politics as usual in Washington.

What does this all tell us? Clearly, many voters, probably most, want change in Washington. I suspect big changes. The question is: to what?

Obviously, the pollsters have picked up on this. Look at the Democratic campaigns...they all advocate change. Only Huck and Paul do so on the Republican side. The problem is still: change to what?

My suspicion is that what we all most want is to be told the whole truth about things, without lies, without spin, and without condescension. We will never have consensus on what changes to make except for that. But that would be a good start.

The winner this year is going to be the candidate that the people trust the most. Telling the truth might be a good start for them all.

Bills coming due

It is the New Year, and everyone has been reviewing the old year. There are a lot of different views, some good, some bad. Perhaps the one I like the best was written by Victor Davis Hanson, entitled 2007The Bills That Came Due. He noted that everything comes at a price, and went through a number of things that brought that home to us. I recommend that you follow the link and read the whole article.



This post, however, is not about the past, but the future. What bills are going to come due this year?



THE CAPITAL MARKETS



This problem really started coming home to roost last year, but the bill will possibly come this year. Years (since the early 1990's) of freewheeling lending, then dividing pieces of each debt up into pieces (derivatives), getting greedy rating agencies to overrate the debt issues, and then selling them to the public and to each other, all of it subject to little or no regulation, has gotten the worlds financial institutions and capital markets in a bind. Once the sub-prime mortgages started losing value, it was discovered that there was really no easy way to put any value on a lot of this paper that was issued. This has led to a serious impairment of the capital of most of our large financial institutions, in the US and worldwide. The central banks have added huge amounts of new reserves (created out of thin air) to the markets, and the financial institutions and the banks have been writing down their reserves and selling stock to raise new capital. So far no panic has set in. But it is only the beginning. When one dances to the music, one must pay the Piper. This may well be the year that the Piper demands payment. If so....well, it won't be pretty.



OIL AND ENERGY



Oil and energy prices will fluctuate, with an upward bias, unless the capital markets crash and cause a recession worldwide. The United States and China, along with Europe, will compete for ever more scarce petroleum this coming year, and well into the future. The inability of the United States to agree upon reasonable efforts to adopt alternatives to petroleum will make it extremely vulnerable to cut offs of its supplies from abroad. As China races to build a "blue ocean" navy which could interdict our supply someday, we twiddle our thumbs and do little but subsidize the use of food to power our cars. This enriches corporate farmers and politicians at taxpayers' expense, but does nothing to address the energy problem. A new policy encouraging research and development of alternatives including nuclear is imperative. Don't anyone hold his or her breath.



IMMIGRATION



We are beginning to see some effects of the current immigration policy. The crackdown, though insufficient to secure the borders, is having some effect. However, the politicians are playing games with us all. They authorized the border fences, but didn't appropriate the funds to do it right. There still are not enough new Border Patrolmen to do the job. Of course, what we need is a new immigration law, but there is no consensus on how existing illegal immigrants already here should be treated. The whole system is broken, and needs to be fixed. Don't hold your breath on this one, either.

POLITICS

This is where I suspect things may really get interesting. There are at least two aspects to the upcoming elections that need to be looked at. First is the methodology of the nominating process, and the other is the public's reactions to the candidates and the political parties.

The last few election cycles we have seen the winners in Iowa and New Hampshire get anointed by the media as frontrunners, and the momentum generated by that have led to their nominations. Those early events have had a far larger effect on the process than deserved, particularly since neither state is really very representative of the whole.

Ronald A. Cass has a piece out today that discusses this phenomenum over at RealClearPolitics, entitled Is This Any Way to Pick a President? Madison's Nightmare. This is a good read that explains the problem.

This year, I get the sense that this is not going to be the case. Oh, the media will try to spin these things one way or another, but it looks like we may have a longer, harder process than usual. We need it.

One reason we need a longer process before the nominations are sewed up is that we don't really know much about most of the candidates, in spite of the length of the race so far. All we get is soundbites from the media. Those that spend a lot of time on it and don't just rely on the mainstream media for the sound bites they choose for us may know more about some of the candidates, but none of us knows enough. Bill Katz has a post over at Powerline that says it all. He says there is a distance between the candidates and the public that prevents the public from really getting to know about them, and gives three reasons:

".....First, the TV myth. Television, we're told, brings us closer to events. No, it doesn't. It brings us closer to the coverage of events, and the staging of events. But the very staging of something for TV separates us from the candidate. That, of course, is the purpose – to create illusion, not reality......"

"....The second reason for the distance between public and candidate is a routine demeaning of the American voter. Voters, we're told, are impatient, they won't listen, they're not interested, so let's reduce everything to sound bites.........."

"....The third reason for the distance, and the most important, in my view, is that the concept of "knowing" the candidates has changed, in part because the selection process has changed...."

Go there and read the whole thing.

My prediction is that the public won't be happy this year with the rush to nomination. Both of these races may go to the conventions. It will be interesting to see.

As for the candidates, well, my thought is that the public isn't really attracted to any of them. Oh, sure, each has his or her supporters, but looking at the overall public reaction leaves me thinking that "none of the above" might win it all this year if that were on the ballot. This probably ties in with what Katz had to say....we just don't know that much about most of the candidates. Perhaps we know too much about Hillary. Who knows?

What is very clear is that after months of soundbite campaigning and several meaningless "debates" we are still in the dark about what the candidates really think about the issues.

What seems to have occurred is that the general public has lost it's trust of the government, the politicians and the media. We know about the spinning of soundbites and the "gotcha" journalism. We would like to hear some real debate on the real issues, and not canned responses to soft and non-threatening questions.

A lot of people have a justifiable feeling of unease about the direction the country is taking. There are some serious threats out there, and our government does not seem to be responding well to what is occurring. I think we would all like to hear the candidates talk honestly to us about those things. Instead, we are only getting soundbites and canned BS.

So, who is going to win when its all said and done? There is no way to tell. Two of the most interesting candidates, in terms of how they are performing, are Obama and Ron Paul. These guys have virtually nothing in common, but Obama seems to have gotten the lead in the Democratic race, and Paul certainly has raised a huge amount of money, although he doesn't show in the polls that well. I think the one thing they do have in common is that they are different from the usual candidates. Is their showing a reflection of a public dissatisfaction with the "same old politics?" Will the public surprise us when the voting begins? Stay tuned.

And then there is Fred Thompson. His campaign is certainly non-traditional, and I think that is intentional. What is his plan, if any? Will it work? At least he has released detailed position papers, but, of course, the media has not covered them....no "soundbites" there. We will just have to see.

The rest seem to be going about things the same old way. The polls ebb and flow. Nobody can hold a lead. Personal attacks seem to be escalating. That won't work this time.

And then there is the strong possibility of a third (and fourth?) party. Mayor Bloomberg seems to be positioning himself for a run. If he does, who will it hurt? Will Ron Paul run as a Libertarian? It is going to be interesting, and scary.

One thing is for sure. We will have to pay the bill for whom we choose this year when it comes due. A mistake may be very costly.

Politics next year

Well, weeks have gone by without a post...just have been too busy with other business. The upcoming year certainly is lining up to be very interesting, and I hope to weigh in on some of the things that are going on. I will start with politics, of course.

Politics for this election is shaping up to be very ugly, I am afraid. Every time a candidate starts to do well, others begin to take shots at them. Some may be deserved, at least partially, but others clearly are not.

Hillary, of course, has been the first target. Most agree that she is a quite polarizing person because of her past, but some of the stuff out there probably goes beyond the pale. What has occurred is that instead of issues being the issue in the Democratic race, Hillary has become the issue. It will be interesting to see how she deals with that.

The question remains for Democrats: if not Hillary, who? Neither Obama or Edwards seems to have the depth to get the job done. Is there a guy on a white horse out there that will come along to save the Democrats? Al Gore, anyone?

On the Republican side, much the same thing is occurring. Each new leader in the polls is subjected to a great deal of scrutiny (which they should be) and then come the attacks. Romney is a Mormon; Rudy is divorced, is not pro life, has some "shady" associations, etc., etc.; today we hear that McCain may have given preference to a lobbyist; Fred Thompson is too lazy; and now it starts on Huckabee: he's too Baptist.

Who will survive? Will there be a survivor?

On top of all of this, we, the public, have been subjected to the most inane "debates" sponsored by several entities. Every single one of them has been very shallow, with incredibly stupid questions, and absolutely no development of real debate on important issues. That does not look to improve next year. Its going to be real ugly.

The first primaries are coming up in a couple of weeks. Hopefully this year they will be assigned their true importance, rather than the media creating a stampede toward one "winner" or another. Given the qualities of the candidates in both parties, we need a lot more from all of them before settling on choices for nominees. Maybe the races will go down to the wire. Maybe that would be better for everyone.

Another situation that appears on the horizon is the probability of some third, fourth and fifth parties taking a shot at the prize. Look for Ron Paul, for one, and possibly Mayor Bloomberg for another.

Frankly, I kind of wish Kinky Friedman would run for President. It would be better than having to vote for "none of the above."

Leave Indian Mascots Alone

Yesterday on Blog of Ages there was a post by Lyn Ellen Lacy on Should sports ban Indian mascots? It was a very well thought out and fair description of the move to wipe our the use of Indian names and images from sports programs everywhere. I recommend that everyone read it. I am about to give my opinion on why the answer should be "No."

Four hundred or so years ago when Europeans began to come to America, they found indigenous tribes of what they called "Indians" already occupying the lands here. The name "Indians" is a misnomer, of course. The ancestors of the tribes had crossed the Bering Straits some 12,000 years before from eastern Siberia, but the Europeans didn't know this, and thinking they were in or near India, the name "Indians" stuck.

The Indians, having been here for eons had developed many different languages and customs. Some were farmers, many were hunter gatherers. They had a number of different ways that they governed themselves. They had varying religious practices, war dances, diets, and so on.

As with all human migrations throughout history, as more Europeans came to these shores, the Indians were forced away from ancestral grounds. This is nothing new. It has been going on since before the Cro-Magnons forced the Neanderthals out of Europe and the Middle East, which eventually led to their extiction. It is going on now as we see almost unfettered migration into the southwestern United States across its border with Mexico.

There were lots of battles and a great deal of diseases such as smallpox and measles here in this country, which eventually led to the decimation of the Indian populations, and the movement of them to reservations. Nobody that reads about the numerous tragedies that took place in the period can be anything but sad about what happened to the Indians. They were proud people, but could not hold up against the superior forces of the European immigrants.

They are the only group in the United States that have greater rights than others.

Many geographical locations in the United States have Indian or Indian related names: states, cities, towns, streets and streams; and then there are high school, college and professional sports teams. We have Indians, Braves, Seminoles, Chiefs, Warriors, and on and on. None of this is, or should be considered and insult to our Native Americans.

Who in the world would consider that the naming of a team or its mascot after something Indian would be insulting or offensive? People name those things for something that is strong and respected, not something they wish to belittle or insult. The only college team I know of that has named its team after something less than stellar is the University of Oklahoma, who call their teams the "Sooners." Those, as you might remember, were the people who cheated to steal land when the Indian Territory in Oklahoma was opened to settlement.

I can certainly understand someone or some group being offended or insulted when names or labels are used toward them in a pejorative manner. We should all be quick to condemn that sort of thing.

But the use of Indian related images by college and other sports teams is more complimentary than anything, and is certainly not pejorative.

There are a lot of people in this country that seem to want to continue to be victims rather than join the rest of us. Many groups that have come to this country and those that were already here have certainly been victimized for some periods, and that is sad. We should certainly remove and fight unlawful discrimination that we have.

But sports mascots? Give me a break. Some folks just need to turn their energies toward working, learning, living, and being a part of this nation instead of continuing to dwell on their victimhood.

Musings

In perusing around the New York Times the last couple of days, I ran across a couple of articles that caught my eye. The first, The Evangelical Crackup is about the apparent move toward the political center by many of the so-called "Christian Right." It is an interesting article and I recommend that you read it, although I don't neccessarily agree with all of it.

My view of it all is that the "Christian Right" was never really represented by the Falwells and Dobsons and Robertsons of the nation. As a Christian, and a Republican, I never was, and I don't think a huge number of others were, either. Many of the issues were shared, to be sure, but the apparent extremism never was. The fact that Christians voted the same way had more to do with their own values than a unity behind those people.

In spite of what the Times says, I think that those values still exist. What they are seeing is that like most of the country, many Christians are closer to the political center than to the so-called hard right (or left), and there are other issues than abortion and other purely religious issues that govern their voting choices. We see that with the polls that show many in the group support Rudy Giulani or Romney, and some even support Obama or Hillary. My prediction is that a big majority will remain right of center, however.

The other article was For Retiring Republicans, Several Explanations . This is a pretty benign article, probably just filler for the paper, but it had one quote that I noticed, and I want to speak to the issue raised.

Deborah Pryce, and republican Congresswoman from Ohio is retiring, and, among other things, told the Times:

“I don’t think anything will change until Americans revolt and get it into their heads that they need to be informed voters instead of just listening to the paid political ads,” she said.

This was in response to the high amount of negative political ads in political campaigns, and to the fact that they apparently work.

Unfortunately, she is right about that. But the problem goes even deeper. Many voters only vote for a party with no further analysis. Others never know more than what they learn from the 20 second sound bites that the TV networks choose to run. Few voters pay attention to the issues more than superficially, and have no real knowledge about any of the candidates or the potential effects of their proposed policies.

In other words, voters are their own worst enemies. We all complain that the government really doesn't represent our views, but few of us bother to participate in the process, even if that only means studying the issues and the candidates. So we get what we deserve, most of the time.

Maybe it will take Ms. Pryce's "revolution" to wake us up. I wonder what the wake-up call will finally be? If any.

Character flaws

In my meanderings around the Internet today, I came across an article In US News and World Report entitled Reflections and Regrets. ( via RealClearPolitics )It is about Gerald Ford, his new book, and his relationship with Richard Nixon, and written by Thomas DeFranks. It is a very good article, and brought back memories of the times in the early 1970s. Most of those times were troubled, due in large part to Nixon's character.

It also has reminded me that for all of the criticism of him, Gerald Ford was an honest man. Those are very hard to find in Washington these days.

One of the paragraphs that stood out was, to me, descriptive of a number of our leading politicians, including the current occupant of the White House:

"....Stubborn. "I think now as I did then, that in the area of foreign policy, he was as good if not better than any president I've known. [But] he had a character flaw: where even when he made a mistake and knew it, he would not admit it. Why? That I've never known, Tom. It was a stubbornness, self-righteousness that was just a damn shame."(My emphasis)

This is a failure that gets a lot of our leaders. One would wish they would learn, but they won't.

Read the whole article. Its a good one.

"None of the above" has my vote

While I was surfing aound this morning, I came across an interesting piece by Stephen Green of Vodkapundit, who was wrinting at Pajamas Media. It was entitled "I Was a Card-Carrying Libertarian: Confessions of a Black Sheep Republican."

What caught my attention was the sub which reads:"It’s hard to remain a Libertarian in the post-9/11 era, bemoans Stephen Green of Vodkapundit, who has officially stopped trying to change the world “one losing candidate at a time.”"

I was immediately reminded of my wish that every ballot would have a place to vote for "none of the above." With due respect to Libertarians, I have often used their candidate for that, knowing they could not win. Occasionally, someone else provides a grand opportunity to do that, as in the case of Kinky Friedman in our last Governor's election. He got my vote.

My tour through the political wasteland has not been quite the same as Mr. Green's, but with similar results.

My Dad was a Democrat when I was growing up, but was not politically active except for 1958, when he agreed to be "Honorary Campaign Chairman" for Speaker of the House Waggoner Carr when he ran for Attorney General. That was my first introduction to elective politics, I got involved, and loved it. In 1968, I was elected to office as a Democrat. I was very active in statewide campaigns as a Democrat all through the 1960s and 1970s. I was involved in political meetings at the highest levels in my home state and in Washington, and could have remained so had I chosen to.

Jimmy Carter, among other things, did me in. The Democratic Party had moved so far to the left during the 1970s that I could no longer conscientiously remain in the party. So I switched in 1979.

I remained active politically, but not in any important way at the state or national levels. All my friends and contacts at those levels were Democrats. We remained friends, but I did not take part in any of the politics.

In 1988, I was elected to another office as a Republican, and served for another 18 years before I retired. My service there did not permit me to be acive in politics except at the party level, and I did not participate at all during that period.

Like all Republicans, I was delighted to see the party get control of Congress in 1994, and had great hopes that they would make changes in the culture in Washington, and make policies that were more sensible. Those hopes were soon dashed.

Republicans quickly moved to start slopping at the trough. Pork barrel spending grew to record levels, with nary a peep from our Republican President. The earmarks expanded exponentially, with little or no restraint. The Republicans were acting like Democrats, except worse. So the public gave Congress back to the Democrats, who campaigned against the "culture of corruption" which certainly did exist. Did this change anything? Of course not. The only thing that changed were the names of the corrupt.

Republicans also gained control of our Legislature recently. I was concerned about the new Speaker that was elected. My trepidations have been proved right. Our legislature is now controlled by a few "big money" donors, and has proved that they cannot govern well, if at all. It appears that the legislation is written by the big money lobby. It's a real shame.


Where does one go now? "None of the above" is not on the ballot. We are left with having to vote for the lesser of two evils. The idealism of my youth has been smashed by the reality of current politics. What about our kids, and their kids?

Disgusting.

Why don't we get the truth on Iraq?

Michael Yon has a new report out, entitled Resistance is futile: You will be (mis)informed. Yon is an independent reporter and blogger who has embedded with US Army and Marine units in Iraq, and sent firsthand reports back to his readers for quite some time.

He was recently home for a few days, and the report describes what he found here in the US:

"....I was at home in the United States just one day before the magnitude hit me like vertigo: America seems to be under a glass dome which allows few hard facts from the field to filter in unless they are attached to a string of false assumptions. Considering that my trip home coincided with General Petraeus’ testimony before the US Congress, when media interest in the war was (I’m told) unusually concentrated, it’s a wonder my eardrums didn’t burst on the trip back to Iraq. In places like Singapore, Indonesia, and Britain people hardly seemed to notice that success is being achieved in Iraq, while in the United States, Britney was competing for airtime with O.J. in one of the saddest sideshows on Earth.

"No thinking person would look at last year’s weather reports to judge whether it will rain today, yet we do something similar with Iraq news. The situation in Iraq has drastically changed, but the inertia of bad news leaves many convinced that the mission has failed beyond recovery, that all Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, or are waiting for us to leave so they can crush their neighbors. This view allows our soldiers two possible roles: either “victim caught in the crossfire” or “referee between warring parties.” Neither, rightly, is tolerable to the American or British public......"

He is being kind and generous to our mainstream media. They have ignored good news and magnified bad news from Iraq from the beginning. Is it deliberate? Pehaps. Most people, even journalists, tend to view events from the perspective of their experience and beliefs. Something that might seem credible to one person, may not seem so to another. The same goes for a determination of what is important or not. What we do know is that most journalists are quite liberal. The result is that the news we get is tilted in that direction, whether intentionally or not.

A pretty good example of this is the current reporting out of Iraq. Has anyone noticed that the number of stories reported has gone down? Seems so to me. It also seems that the news, if reported, would mostly be good. Perhaps that is why it is not reported.

Yon has in the past offered his columns free to the mainstream media, but, of course, they would not accept. They wouldn't be caught dead printing or reporting the true story, when a bad news story fits their political leanings much better.

To try to get the real story out, Yon has offered his reports to the National Newspaper Association at no cost. Will anyone print them? We will see.

In the meantime, we are stuck with having to ferret out the truth from disparate sources, and piece it together for ourselves.

Yon's perception of what we have now is pretty good:

"......Clearly, a majority of Americans believe the current set of outdated
fallacies passed around mainstream media like watered down drinks at happy hour.
Why wouldn’t they? The cloned copy they get comes from the same sources that
list the specials at the local grocery store, and the hours and locations of
polling places for town elections. These same news sources print obituaries and
birth announcements, give play-by-play for local high school sports, and
chronicle all the painful details of the latest celebrity to fall from
grace.

"To illustrate the absurdity to which this conceit of the collective has
grown, I’m tempted to borrow from the boy in the fairy tale, only this time
pointing to and shouting at the doomsday-sayers parading by: “Hey, they aren’t
wearing any clothes. . . . ”............."


How sad. You should read all of Michael Yon's reports, along with those from Michael Totten, and Bill Roggio. They have been there, are beholden to no one, and one can get a good idea of the real truths in Iraq from them.

UPDATE: The United Nations reports good news from Iraq:

"Taxi driver Ahmed Khalil Baqir used to station himself outside Baghdad's main morgue, waiting for grieving families who went there to claim their relatives’ dead bodies.
"I was totally dependent on them for my living," Baqir, a 44-year-old father of four, said." I never thought about picking up people in the street as I was being hired five to eight times a day by these families. But now it is a waste of time to wait there and these days I wait only for about three hours in the morning and I continue my work picking up passengers in the street.”

Read the whole thing.

Via: Instapundit

A waste of his time

A new Reuters/Zogby poll is out, and our national pols do not fare very well, as one would expect. President Bush shows an approval rating of 24%, while the Congress comes in at less than half of that: 11%. This only continues what is now a long term trend. The public is fed up with politics as usual...and should be.

This is not going to change until the pols get a clue about the whys of this, and so far it is clear that they have no clue at all.

The President lost a lot of credibility by leading us into a war that most supported, but was based on inaccurate intelligence, and executed with the wrong strategy in place. That part could be forgiven, I suppose, but not the part that came later. Knowing the intel was bad, and knowing the strategy was not working, he stonewalled the country for over three years, never acknowledging the mistakes, nor making any real effort to change the strategy. Only when his party lost control of Congress did he get the point. This occurred too late to salvage his reputation, but hopefully not too late to salvage the war effort.

Then on to Congress.... What can one say? The whole kit and kaboodle of them are making the strongest possible case for Will Rogers' statement that "the only native criminal class in America is Congress."

The Republican Congress was elected in 1994 with a "contract with America" that pledged, among other things, to balance the budget, cut out pork, and reduce the size of the government. Well, the budget did get close to balance during the Clinton Administration (if one can believe the silly and arcane methodology the government uses to measure such things), but upon the ascension of the Republican President, the majority went mad, setting new records for pork with every session, and letting the budget get far out of balance. This greed...and that is what it is.... was compounded when the President failed to veto anything but the Stem Cell Bill. Some are already in prison, and others are under investigation. Let us hope the Justice Department pursues the rest of those that have violated the law.

Of course, the conduct of the Republicans outraged the voters, and that was sufficient in 2006 to unseat enough of them so that the Democrats took control of Congress. Other than the war, the main theme of the Democratic campign was to "change the culture of corruption" in Washington.

So what happened? Well they did change it, but arguably for the worse. "Earmarks" apparently now are being sold for campaign contributions. See, for instance, this site. After a spike in approval ratings for Congress after the election, the public got wise, and ratings fell rapidly, and are now lower that they were in 2006.

It just appears that both parties are so busy slopping at the public trough that they cannot see how disgusted their constituents are getting with the whole process. No wonder voter turnout is so low, and getting lower. The choices are between twiddle dee dee, and twiddle dee dum.

If someone sees Diogenes (or his ghost), tell him not to bother taking his lantern to Washington, D. C. It would be a waste of his time.

Ahmadinejad, free speech, and campus culture

In September, most of the right of center blogs were in high dudgeon about the invitation to Iranian President Ahmadinejad to appear at Columbia University. It was a big temptation to weigh in on the issue, but it seemed to be well covered from every perspective. From the right side, perhaps the best coverage came from Scott at Powerline, with his 12 part "Columbia's Disgrace" series. They can be found by scrolling through here.

Of course, it was disgraceful that an institution like Columbia would invite the monstrous head of a monstrous regime to speak in the US, but it was also an affirmation of the freedom that we have in America.

Columbia President Bollinger summed up Columbia's position:

"....I would also like to invoke a major theme in the development of freedom of speech as a central value in our society. It should never be thought that merely to listen toideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas, or our naiveté about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.

"That such a forum could not take place on a university campus in Iran today sharpens the point of what we do here. To commit oneself to a life—and a civil society—prepared to examine critically all ideas arises from a deep faith in the myriad benefits of a long-term process of meeting bad beliefs with better beliefs and hateful words with wiser words. That faith in freedom has always been and remains today our nation's most potent weapon against repressive regimes everywhere in the world. This is America at its best." (via Powerline)

That sounds good, at least until one questions whether a friend of the United States would be accorded such an invitation and be able to appear and speak without interruption. But I digress.

Scott Johnson at Powerline countered with this:

"...Columbia and President Bollinger are a disgrace. They welcome to their campus a man who is a ringleader in the seizure of American hostages, a terrorist, the president of a terrorist regime, and the representative of a regime responsible at present for the deaths of American soldiers on the field of battle. Columbia's prattle about free speech may be a tale told by an idiot, but it signifies something. And President Bollinger is a fool who is not excused from the dishonor he brings to his institution and his fellow citizens by the fact that he doesn't know what he is doing."

So the issue was joined, Ahmadinejad appeared, Bollinger scolded him, and the only result was a propaganda event for Ahmadinejad with the play on it back in Iran. Little harm, no foul?

Peggy Noonan had something good to say about it all:

"....Is it necessary to say when one speaks of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that you disapprove of him, disagree with him, believe him a wicked fellow and are not amused that he means to have missiles aimed at us and our friends? If it is, I am happy to say it. Who, really, isn't?
But this has been our history: to let all speak and to fear no one. That's a good history to continue. The Council on Foreign Relations was right to invite him to speak last year--that is the council's job, to hear, listen and parse--and Columbia University was well within its rights to let him speak this year. Though, in what is now apparently Columbia tradition, the stage was once again stormed, but this time verbally, and by a university president whose aggression seemed sharpened by fear.

"There were two revealing moments in Ahmadinejad's appearance. The first is that in his litany of complaint against the United States he seemed not to remember the taking and abuse of American diplomatic hostages in 1979. An odd thing to forget since he is said to have been part of that operation. The second was the moment when he seemed to assert that his nation does not have homosexuals. This won derisive laughter, and might have been a learning moment for him; dictators don't face derisive from crowds back home.

"It was like the moment in 1960 when Khrushchev's motorcade stalled on Third Avenue and a commuter walked by and gave him the finger. Actually I don't know there was such a moment, but knowing Americans I'm sure there was. Talking and listening to the wicked is the way we always operated in the long freak show that was 20th-century world leadership. And I'm sure before...."

A quite reasonable approach, I would say. So what we have are varying positions on the invitation and appearance, all of which are right from the perspective of it's author. And how about the subject matter of the issue? Well, he had a perspective, too, from the Islamic Republic News Agency:

".....Referring to his speech at Columbia University, President Ahmadinejad said, "The Zionists wanted to turn the event into a trial of the Isalmic[sic] Republic of Iran, but with help from the Almighty God, the plot turned into a scene in which nations could express their hatred with the rulers in the White House."

"The behavior of the government and media in the US shows that there is dictatorship in that country and people are not allowed to know the facts," said the president.

"The Iranian nation are not afraid of listening to others and believe that the whole world accepts the strong logic of the revolution and the Islamic regime," the president concluded. "

So much for the appearance being an enlightening moment for any involved. About the only thing the appearance accomplished was to give Columbia an opportunity to bask in the light of "academic freedom" and free speech; Ahmadinejad to poke a finger in Uncle Sam's eye; and all the writers and bloggers to opine about their perspectives. Dare one say that there might have been a lot of smoke, but little fire? Sounds about right.

Where does all of this leave us? I think back at the college campus(s). Clearly, Columbia, like most universities in the United States, is not friendly to centrist or right of center thinking. There is no true freedom of speech on most campuses. Instead, we have only leftist and anti-American speech. All other is not "politically correct", and therefore not permitted. We have seen that across the board: when those kinds of speakers appear on campus, they are shouted down, and not accorded the atmosphere that Ahmadinejad enjoyed. Free debate only occurs among leftists. Surely, nobody would expect, say, Donald Rumsfeld, to be accorded the same courtesies at Columbia that the monster, Ahmadinejad, was accorded. Or, for that matter, William F. Buckley, or Lawrence Summers, or our own President to name a few others.

Michael Barone has an excellent article on the campus culture that permits this sort of conduct entitled "Ivory Tower Decay." Of the Columbia/Ahmadinejad encounter, he says of the campus culture:

".....This regnant campus culture helps to explain why Columbia University, which bars ROTC from campus on the ground that the military bars open homosexuals from service, welcomed Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose government publicly executes homosexuals...."

After mentioning the absurd invitation of Hofstra Law School to Lynn Stewart, convicted and sentenced to prison for aiding terrorists, so she could participate, as a lecturer, in a conference on legal ethics(!), Barone concludes:

"....What it doesn't explain is why the rest of society is willing to support such institutions by paying huge tuitions, providing tax exemptions and making generous gifts. Suppression of campus speech has been admirably documented by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. The promotion of bogus scholarship and idea-free propagandizing has been admirably documented by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. It's too bad the rest of America is not paying more attention."

Barone raises the real question at the heart of this tempest. Why do we continue to support the one sided and exclusive leftist viewpoints to be the only ones heard on our college campuses?

Perhaps it is time to take a look at how leadership on the campuses could be improved so they would once again be places of free and unimpeded discourse. Public universities should be accountable to the public. Maybe the governing boards should be for more than show and money raising, and start taking strong positions on such things as free speech and real academic freedom.

Don't hold your breath until it happens.

Be Careful What You Wish For

My last post ended with a statement that we could not leave the field to Iran. One must look at the consequences of an American withdrawal from Iraq. This is why it is difficult for me to understand why the anti-war factions take the positions that they do.



An American retreat from Iraq would leave Iran as the only country in the Middle East strong enough to exert it's hegemony over the region, and they certainly have let it be known that is what they intend to do.



So, let's assume that the anti-war Left wins, and we withdraw from Iraq. The Gulf States are then under Iranian guns. Should we worry about that? Apparently not, if one listens to the Left. "What do we care about that region?", they seem to say. Or do they say they won't let that happen? We can negotiate our way out of the mess.



I can go on in that vein, but what is the use? The Left is anti-war, but often blindly so. They are against it, but have no real solutions to avoiding war except for platitudinous resort to negotiation with people who won't negotiate, or to getting help from countries that have no intention of helping. It all sounds good to the unthinking, but it just won't work.



In my reading today, I ran into a piece by one Juan Cole, the Middle Eastern guru favored by the Left. He makes some good points that perhaps the Left should pay attention to

"....But in all likelihood, when the Democratic president pulls US troops out in summer of 2009, all hell is going to break loose. The consequences may include even higher petroleum prices than we have seenrecently,which at some point could bring back stagflation or very high rates of inflation.

In other words, the Democratic president risks being Fordized when s/he withdraws from Iraq, by the aftermath. A one-term president associated with humiliation abroad and high inflation at home? Maybe I should say, Carterized. The Republican Party could come back strong in 2012 and then dominate politics for decades, if that happened....." (read the whole
thing)

Now wait a minute! Is he saying that they should know withdrawal will be a disaster? Of course they know. This is not about the national interest, this is about winning elections...at least to them.

Funny how he should mention Jimmy Carter, and him having been "Carterized." By this he means unjustly criticized and defeated for re-election. I am reminded that Jimmy Carter is the last leftist to be called upon to lead our country amid troubles with Iran. It should be noted that Mr. Carter abandoned the Shah, which led to the present bunch of crazies being in charge. They turned on him quickly, though, and took over our embassy, holding Americans hostage for months. Negotiate, sure, he negotiated. With himself. To no avail. Then he tried a pathetic rescue attempt by unprepared and poorly equipped troops, which was a total failure. At least he finally tried something.

We all need to remind ourselves that this is the type of individual that is seeking to benefit from our difficulties in Iraq. Mr. Carter was soundly defeated, but only after the damage was done. Will history repeat?

I will close with a warning to the Left: be careful what you wish for. It may come true, then what will you do?

The Mistake Filled War

Having followed the testimony this week of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, one is tempted to indulge in a lot of thinking about what could have been or what should have been. Retrospect is a perfect perch for doing that, of course, and critcisms now of mistakes made at the beginning is much easier than forseeing what will occur.

Like probably most Americans (and almost all the current opponents of the war) I was in favor from the start. Saddam Hussein needed to be deposed, and an American invasion was needed to do so. Also like most Americans, I assumed that appropriate intelligence and war planning would take place before an invasion. As did many, I fell for the "slam dunk" quote from CIA Chief George Tenet even though I did not particularly trust him. As we have found, that was a mistaken assumption on my (our) part.

Clearly, contingency planning was not in place for an occupation, particularly one with an active and deadly guerrilla insurgency. The invasion was done on the cheap, with bad intelligence and far too few troops. (I am pretty certain that this was the subject matter of the dispute between Colin Powell and Rumsfeld so there was probably another side presented to the President. He picked the wrong side if that is what occurred.)

Even after it became clear that was the case, our leaders stonewalled and spinned the reports in order to maintain a policy that was obviously a failure. This went on for over three years, with lives and time and treasure wasted because the government could not or would not admit error, and make appropriate changes in strategy and tactics.

The three years were critical. During that period, Americans became impatient. The public saw a drumbeat of negative news from the war zone, with hardly any of the positive things that were happening being reported in the media. The negatives (and there were many) were emphasized by the media, Hollywood, and the Left. The anti-war movement got stronger, and the American Left started forcefully opposing the war and agitating for an immediate timeline for withdrawal. Even many that favored the war changed positions, and now are pushing hard for our forces to retreat.

After the 2006 elections, when the Democrats won control of Congress at least partly on an anti-war platform, the Bush Administration finally awakened and made the changes that should have been made years earlier. Rumsfeld was let go and new strategy, tactics and rules of engagement were put in place. Another 30,000 troops were surged into the battle zones, and were finally in place in June of 2007.

Now, three months after the surge battle operations actually started, the new men in charge have been home for a progress report. The report, of course, has been mixed. The military portion of the new strategy is showing some success, but is not over. On the political side, there is less (or no) progress, but Ambassador Crocker maintains that with time, that will improve.

How much time? That is hard to tell. Even steadfast Republicans are beginning to get very nervous at the anti-war sentiment in the country, but it appears that there will be a slight consensus for following the recommendations of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. This means that we will probably have over 100,000 troops in Iraq at the end of Bush's term. Then it will be up to whomever succeeds Bush to deal with the situation. That is when it will get interesting.

Where do I stand? I think we should give the new strategy a chance to succeed, but also plan for what must be done if it does not. We cannot leave the field to Iran under any circumstances.

A touch of Fall in the air?

The last few nights, as I have been sitting out on the patio under the arbor with my puppy dog and an adult beverage, I have had the feeling that there was a slight touch of Fall in the air, with still almost a month to go before official Autumn. There has just been something about the breeze that left that impression. A few Canada geese flying over emphasized the feeling.

Today, when I took my bride out to the farmer's market to get some peas and pickling cucumbers, one of the ladies there took a deep breath and said, "There's a touch of Fall in the air." Ah, so somebody else, a farm girl no less, has the same feeling as I.

It's early, of course. The heat is still here, though not as bad as in most years, thanks, I guess, to global warming. But there is a freshness in the breeze that just makes one know that Fall is on the way.

Fall is a big time of the year here on the plains. The Comanche Moons will be along soon. The Comanche Indians used to launch raids from this area far into Mexico during this time of the year using the times of the bright moon as an aid. Indian summer. It was a time to be extra cautious if one lived in frontier Texas over a Century ago.

These days, Comanches have little to do with why Fall is special out here, unless your football team is Comanche, or their mascots are Indians. Football is what is special. High Schools and Colleges, but also Middle Schools and other leagues. And it's not just the teams, but the bands and the cheerleaders, and all the parents involved with their kids. Whole communities, too, in rural Texas.

It is a fabulous time and it starts this weekend. Such a happy time! My favorite.

On wedges and politics

With the resignation this month of Karl Rove, we see another big change in the political scene. Rove was given credit for being the "architect" of George W. Bush's elections, and actually also served in a policy position for a while. As a political genius, of sorts, he certainly directed effective tactics leading to Bush's elections, but he may well have been not suited for helping to make policy. History will tell.

I have seen him accused of taking so-called "wedge" issues and dividing the American people with them. That is nonsense. He was not nearly the first to identify such issues and fashion a campaign around them, nor will he be the last. He just did it very effectively, much as Bill Clinton did in his elections. One can see early signs of such issues in the ongoing 2008 Presidential campaign, as well. It is what everyone tries to do....separate themselves from the opposition, on the side of a majority of voters.

It is still too early to know exactly what the wedge issues will be next year, but one can get a good idea now of what some of the candidates think they will be.

Hillary Clinton, for instance, believes that national security and related matters are going to be one. Mark the positions she has taken on the Iraq war and defense issues. She is way nearer the center than any of her current opponents, but one can see Obama trying to get over there, too. It is creating some confusion about just exactly where they stand, but clearly they are both moving to the center more than the so-called "Democratic base."

On the Republican side one can see that they clearly think that immigration is going to be a wedge issue, and I suspect they are right. Giulani, Thompson and Romney are all staking out tough stands on immigration. McCain has been left behind partly because of his support for the flawed bill that failed in June.

We see both sides mentioning the problem with corruption in the government and the distrust of all areas of government, but not as really a big issue. What we see mostly so far is a little lip service, but nobody want to offend the powerful interests that are behind it. There is too much money at stake.

This last could be the wedge issue of all wedge issues, but neither party has much credibility here. The individual candidates will have make their own cases for being trustworthy, a job that will be more difficult for those that have been part of the problem. The bright candidate will get on this bandwagon. I see a lot of disgust in the general public about politics as usual in Washington, as well as even on the local level.

What about next year? This old campaigner believes it is far too early to pick the ultimate winner, but as the campaign moves along one can get a glimmer of what might unfold. Mind you, I am not endorsing one side or the other, but here goes:

Hillary has to be the front runner and practically a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination. She clearly has the momentum, and her opposition appears to be fading. Barack Obama has added some interest to the race, and has all the Hollywood crowd backing him, but the more he talks, the more obvious it is that he is not ready for prime time.

John Edwards, the "pretty boy" of the campaign has faded, and is so far out of tune on the national security issue, that he can't be nominated. Besides, he is shallower than the dry creek beds we have here in West Texas. I just don't think he has a chance.

Bill Richardson is running for veep, and he can't bring enough electoral votes to matter. As for the rest, not a chance barring something big and unexpected happening.

Who will the veep nominee be? Up for grabs, but my view is that it will be none of the current Presidential candidates. If I were Hillary, I would pick a Southern or Midwestern governor. But that's just my thought.

The Republican race is more interesting. It is going to be interesting to see the effect of Fred Thompson joining the race officially. Right now, Rudy is in the driver's seat, even though his record on social issues is not what the Republican base likes. This has to do with the importance placed on national security primarily, but I also think that the Republicans respect him for being honest about his views and not trying to edge away from his record like Romney has. Again, the trust matter gives Rudy the edge here. We will see how that plays as the campaign progresses.

Fred Thompson is due to announce officially in a week or so. Thompson has a lot going for him....he is acceptable to the base because his record on social issues is solid from the base's viewpoint. He has been good on the national security issues as well. He has a reputation, earned or not, of not being a hard worker. And, having been in the senate, may get hit as being part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. We will have to see how he does when he gets in the arena.

My view is that Romney just can't quite make it. His switches on social issues hurt. He has money and organizational skills, but there is just something there that I can't put my finger on. I think that when Thompson gets in Romney and McCain will fade. We will see.

I have mentioned McCain a couple of times. He is a good man, and is right on the national security issue as far as Republicans are concerned. His problem is that he has taken two positions that have alienated the Republican base: immigration and the McCain-Feingold law. He is perceived as a maverick who cannot be trusted by many Republicans, and this has already doomed his candidacy.

Of the other Republicans, Huckabee has some support, but not enough to win it. He may well be a good veep candidate if Rudy should win the nomination, but I don't see him being a player for very much longer. The others are even further out of it.

I see it coming down to Thompson and Giulani. Who will win it? I have no idea at this time. There are things that would favor each of them. As the campaign progresses, perhaps I will get a better idea.

Who will win the general election in 2008? I predict that it will be another squeaker, barring anything unforeseen. Positions taken by the candidates on both sides during the nominating campaigns have to be well thought out, or they will come back to haunt them in the general. It's going to be interesting.

About dogs

Yesterday, as I made my appointed rounds,I drove by a nursing home and I spied an old geezer riding his motorized wheelchair along a sidewalk, with his dog on a leash running ahead of him. Now I am sure you have all heard about the studies that show people with pets live longer, happier lives, but I want to put in a word for dogs as being very special.

Dogs were apparently bred from wolves way back in time. From that time, they have been mankind's special friends, guarding the camps, helping on the hunt,and just being a companion. Some tribes even used them for food, occasionally. Let's not go there.

There are all kinds sizes and shapes of dogs. There are great huge dogs like an Irish Wolfhound or Great Dane all the way down to Chihuahuas and Yorkies. A dog is there for any taste or personality.

My dog is an English (Llewellyn) Setter, and she is just perfect...for me. She is a constant companion, following me everywhere I go when I am at home.

She is a hunter. She spends the evening hours when I am sitting on the back patio hunting constantly all around the yard. For anything: birds, bees, butterflies, anything that moves. She will go into a point when birds arrive on the fence or the bird bath. If they are close to the ground and stay put very long, she will stalk them. It's fun to watch, except sometimes she will actually catch a bird, whereupon she will proudly bring it in to show us. It's just a natural thing to do for her. I had to take down the bird feeder permanently because of that.

She is also a guard dog, barking loudly and viciously at anyone who dares walk by our house. Particularly at first light in the morning, when the neighbors are taking a walk. Of course, she would not bite anybody, but her bark sure doesn't give any such indication. Can't say that about a Yorkie, that's for sure.

She is a very sweet affectionate dog, and my bride and I cannot imagine what we would do to change her to make her better. That is just the effect that a good dog has on you. Everyone that can should have at least one.

Last, but not least, there is one thing one can say about his or her dog, that cannot be said about any other creature:

Your dog will love you, without reservation, no matter what you do.

Try that on a cat.

Resting and retirement

A few days ago my old pal George over at Blog of Ages wrote a piece entitled Give it a rest. There is a lot to be said about that. Most of us think we have to stay busy all the time, and miss out on one of the great benefits of the "Golden Years." AKA: Geezerhood. Following is my version of "giving it a rest."

Here on the South Plains, we don't usually have much rain, but this year has been an exception. It is finally getting hot here, two months late. Even so, that's not so bad. We can't sit back in a rocking chair and enjoy the rain for now, but the plains has a special thing about it. As the sun begins to get low in the sky, and shade creeps over our back yard, the temperature drops pretty rapidly, and a breeze usually comes along with the shade.

That is when I like to get out under our arbor on the back patio, and give it a rest. It's as quiet as it can get inside town. The only noise is the dog barking occasionally, and the sound of the birds: whitewing and mourning doves, cardinals, mocking birds, robins, and the ubiquitous sparrows. Rarely, a hummingbird will come by to inspect the hummingbird feeder.

An adult beverage and some soft music - not enough to drown out the other sounds - complete the scene. Ahhhhh. Very nice and peaceful. Paradise. As you can see from the above picture.

One can quite peacefully sit and reminisce in such a setting, and I do so every evening that I can, all the while being entertained by that little Llewellyn Setter you see in the photograph. It's a geezer phenomenum, I guess. I can sit there for a couple of hours and do nothing, except piddle in the flower beds, or cook a steak on the grill, and think of all my old pals and true loves.

Gone

Been there. Gone, that is. Two weeks ago my computer crashed. Then crashed again, and again....ad nauseum. Finally discovered it was my old friend AOL that was causing it.

Now, I have been using AOL as an ISP since they started. That's a long time. The last few years, it has gotten to be something of a drag, but I stayed with it because I was used to it and I had a lot of stuff saved there.

I have been on cable a couple of years, but kept AOL for the above reasons. When it started crashing, I removed the AOL program from my computer. Voila'. It worked. Faster, better, and no crashes. So I reloaded AOL to try to recover the files I had saved. Crash!

Goodbye AOL, and goodbye all those old files I had scrupulously saved over long years. Sigh.

I have no idea why AOL was causing the crashes, but do know that removing the program from my computer makes it run far better. Time to move on.

I recognize that for a blog to get readers, one must post with some regularity. I have a few ideas, and will be posting more frequently now that I am used to my new setup.

I am done for a while on immigration. It will be back, but later. I will have some ideas about relaxing, and dogs, and crime. Among other things. There are lots of interesting subjects out there that need to be addressed. I will try to do that....in my own time, of course. I am retired, after all.

Iraq: What we don't hear

One thing I have noticed since we invaded Iraq was that There are two stories out there: one, the bad news as reported by the Mainstream Media; and two: the good news, which one can only find in small media, and on the Internet. There is a lot of very good reporting going on by independents who are embedded with our troops, and who are getting the news from observation, rather than using "stringers" of dubious loyalty like the MSM does.

Micheal Totten is one who has just embedded with the 82nd Airborne in Baghdad, and he has posted about his first patrol with them. They are in an area that has already seen the results of the surge. In the Wake of the Surge describes the patrol.

"...Everyone was friendly. No one shot at us or even looked at us funny.
Infrastructure problems, not security, were the biggest concerns at the moment.
I felt like I was in Iraqi Kurdistan – where the war is already over – not in
Baghdad.

It was an edgy “Kurdistan,” though. Every now and then someone drove down
the street in a vehicle. If any military-aged males (MAMs as the Army guys call
them) were in the car, the soldiers stopped it and made everybody get out. The
vehicle and the men were then searched.

Everyone who was searched took it in stride. Some of the Iraqi men smirked
slightly, as if the whole thing were a minor joke and a non-threatening routine
annoyance that they had been through before. The procedure looked and felt more
like airport security in the United States than, say, the more severe Israeli
checkpoints in the West Bank and Gaza....."

You won't hear anything like this from the MSM, to whom only "blood and guts" and bad news is really "news."

It is still not peaceful yet. Terror does still come to the residents of Baghdad. Sadr City has still not been cleared and that is a real cesspool. Residents are still afraid.

"....There are terrible stories around here about the masked men of the death
squads. Sometimes they break into people’s houses and asking the children who
they’re afraid of. If they name the enemies of the death squad, they are spared.
If they name the death squad itself, they and their families are killed. It’s a
wicked interrogation because it cannot be beaten – the children don’t know which
death squad has broken into the house...."

What will happen to these people if the US precipitously abandons them as some wish us to do? One should not have to ask.

Read the whole post. It has great pictures as well.

Hit the tip bucket as well, if you can. He relies on his readers to support his work.

Why blog?

That's a question I have been asking myself for some time. Frankly, I don't know why I started this blog. I certainly did not, and do not, expect anyone to really care what I think about things. The traffic on this site is a testimony to that! LOL



I can tell some interesting stories, but have to be careful since I still sit occasionally. I plan to start doing that sort of thing shortly.



First, I want to get used to writing again. One can easily tell that I am out of practice...have not written a brief in over 30 years. Perhaps even then nobody will be interested. That's OK. It can just be fun for me and one or two of my friends.



Over the years, I have become convinced that blogs are important. Clearly, big money has forced the individual out of our politics at every level. Blogs can be the great leveller. Of course, blogs don't have editors, except for the blogoshere itself. My observation is that if someone with readerships blogs something, it is immediately fact checked by other bloggers. The same goes for the mainstream media. There are hundreds or thousands of bloggers out there that parse everything and comment upon it.



The vast number and diversity of bloggers does mean one has to be very careful at accepting what they say at face value. Care must be taken, because some will lie, misstate or misrepresent matters. The same is true of the mainstream media, unfortunately



It doesn't take too long to figure out who is honest, and who is not. If a blogger is to be read by many people, he or she must be honest and ethical. Whether one is on the Left, or the Right, or in the Center (what's that?) care should be taken to be honest and ethical or your blog will not be taken seriously except by those who do not want to be honest or ethical. There are some of those out there, of course.



The question remains: why blog? I don't know....but I will continue. For a while.

Immigration, Part II: Why we must secure the border

Now that the "comprehensive" immigration bill appears to be dead, the aftermath seems to show that our government still doesn't get it. It was not about racism, as some would have it. It was always about trust. The American people, seeing an obviously flawed bill, did not trust Congress or the Executive to do the proper enforcement. They did not for the last twenty years, so why would they be expected to do so now? It was clear that the resources to implement the law as written did not even exist, and were not going to be deployed. It was going to be another amnesty without security.



A couple of news reports the last couple of days have caught my eye, and they dovetail nicely into why we still need action on border security



First, there was the release of the National Intelligence Estimate. One of the assessments according to the AP story was:

"Of note," the analysts said, "we assess that al-Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland."

So now al Qaeda is seeking to infiltrate Iraqi al Qaeda into the US for attacks on our citizens.

The other story from ABC leads as follows:

"The FBI is investigating an alleged human smuggling operation based in Chaparral, N.M., that agents say is bringing "Iraqis and other Middle Eastern" individuals across the Rio Grande from Mexico.................."

This fits with another ABC report from July 10, 2007:

"Senior U.S. intelligence officials tell ABC News new intelligence suggests a small al Qaeda cell is on its way to the United States, or may already be here..........."

In other words, we know that Iraqis and other Middle Easterners are being smuggled into this coutry from Mexico.

We have the knowledge that they want to attack us and that our border is porous enough that they can do so.

The next question has to be: "Why does not the Congress and the Executive put more interest on border security?" A full implementation of existing law would be very helpful, but the effort drags.

A strong border security bill with proper appropriations could still be passed by this Congress, but there appears to be no interest on the part of the leadership of either party to attempt to do so. Can we ever trust them to do right? Don't answer that question!

Immigration, Part I

I suppose that I started this blog to muse about various aspects of policy here in our country. Clearly, immigration is one of the most serious and divisive issues that we face as a country at this time. It is a very complex, multi-faceted problem, and does not lend itself to easy solutions. Our politicians are failing us again, for they are trying to pass "comprehensive" immigration law without really explaining it to the people. I guess they think we are too dumb.

Obviously, we have a problem, and it is a large one. There are millions of illegal immigrants already in our country, and more waves of them are coming in every day through porous borders. We don't even know how many of them are already here. Twelve million? Twenty million? Who knows?

That question presents the first problem to solve. How do we identify the illegals? We know kind of where they are: in the American Southwest, for the most part; but also in almost every other state. Is there a way to identify them without establishing a police state? Probably not, unless we can get them to come forward on their own. It just will not be practical to do it any other way.

How can we get them to do that? Well, of course we have to offer them something that they will accept. Deportation, jail or permanent exclusion from the United States are certainly not going to get them to come forward. Anybody have another idea? Please post it in the comments.

Assuming we can identify the illegals, what do we do with them? Deport them? Jail them, then deport them? What happens if we do those things?

We are talking about deporting 12 to 20 million people. What will this cost interms of additional manpower and jail space? What does this do to our economy? Most of these folks came to this country to follow the American Dream. Most work, and many even pay taxes and vote. Almost all are pretty good people. What kind of hole will this create if they are suddenly gone? What jobs will go undone in an economy with virtually full employment?

I don't hear any of our politicians talking about these questions. We do see a provision in the proposed law that would give these people a pathway to seek to become legal immigrants. All of the discussion seems to be over the code word of "amnesty." Of course, that is what it is. Why do not the proponents to this law defend it rather than deny that it is amnesty? My thought is that it is defensible under the circumstances, but only if a credible program to establish effective border security is accomplished first.

There is no real hurry to deal with those already here, other than potential terrorists. But there is a real necessity to establish security on our borders now.

My thought is that Peggy Noonan had a pretty good approach a week or two ago:

"...A little love would go a long way right now. We should stop putting newcomers in constant jeopardy by blithely importing ever-newer immigrants who'll work for ever lower wages. The ones here will never get a sure foot on the next rung that way.

We should close the border, pause, absorb what we have, and set ourselves to "patriating" the newcomers who are here. The young of AmeriCorps might help teach them English. Those reaching retirement age, who happen to be the last people in America who were taught and know American history, could help them learn the story of our country. We could, as a nation, set our minds to this...."

Close the borders now. Don't let anyone else into our house without our invitation. Then deal with those already here. Good idea.

Why do a comprehensive law now? Why not keep the promises made with the last comprehensive law in 1986...the last time we granted amnesty?

Secure the borders, then deal with the other issues.

UPDATE:

Mark Steyn weigh in this morning with another column that deals with immigration. "Immigration Bill is a Fraud" gives us a blunt view about the bill from an immigrant, and, as usual, does not mind getting right to the point (emphasis mine ):

"....Back in the real world far from those senators living in the non-shadows of their boundless self-admiration, the truth is that America's immigration bureaucracy cannot cope with its existing caseload, and thus will certainly be unable to cope with millions of additional teeming hordes tossed into its waiting room. Currently, the time in which an immigration adjudicator is expected to approve or reject an application is six minutes. That's not enough time to read the basic form, never mind any supporting documentation. It's certainly not enough time for any meaningful background check. Under political pressure to ''bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows,'' the immigration bureaucracy will rubberstamp gazillions of applications for open-ended probationary legal status within 24 hours and with no more supporting documentation than a utility bill or an affidavit from a friend. There's never been a better time for Mullah Omar to apply for U.S. residency.

America has an illegal immigration problem in part because it has a legal immigration problem. Anyone who enters the system exposes himself to an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical bureaucracy: For example, one of the little-known features of this bill is that in order to ''bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows,'' millions of legal applicants are being hurled back into outer darkness. Law-abiding foreign nationals who filed their paperwork in the last two years would be required to go back to their home countries and start all over again. Not only does this bill reward law-breaking, it punishes law-abiding......."

This is absolutely true, and is why Americans do not support the current bill. The politicians have never kept the promises made in the years before. How can we expect them to keep them now? They cannot or will not even enforce current law. They should do this, secure our borders, and then talk about a comprehensive bill.

UPDATE 2: June 18, 2007

US News says we are making progress. It sounds good, if true. Read the whole thing.

Looking for honesty and integrity

Michael Barone has an article in Friday's National Journal entitled Open Field Politics that pretty well describes what is going on in American politics today.


".....Now we seem to be entering a new period, a period of open-field politics. It seems to be a time when there are no permanent alliances, when new leaders arise with new strategies and tactics, when the voters, instead of forming themselves into two coherent and cohesive armies, wander about the field, attaching themselves to one band and then another, with no clear lines of battle and no landmarks to rally beside....."


It is an excellent article and I commend it to everyone.


I think it is clear that what we are seeing is that the voters are pretty sick of the "business as usual" in Washington, and are casting about for a solution. Neither party so far has come up with the right performance. Both Republican and Democratic promises to change are ignored after the elections, and the same corrupt practices in the Congress and the Executive continue, whomever is elected. I think we will continue to see this until one party or the other, or hopefully both, clean up the mess, and start doing the nation's business honestly and with integrity.



With so much money being collected to fund the various elections, it is going to be very difficult. The old saw that politicians try to sell the public that the money doesn't buy anything is disproved by the "earmark" process, if by nothing else. Until something is done to get absolute transparency in the process, the corrupt practices will continue.

Old folks and elderly care

Sorry about my absence, but I have been otherwise occupied, of which more later. (Editor: why are you apologizing? Nobody reads your blog.--I know, I know, but maybe someone eventually will.)

My old friend George has written a piece about the lack of geriatric physicians over at Blog of Ages today. He says there are too few young doctors going into geriatrics, which should be an up and coming specialty since there are so many Boomers reaching retirement age. He is right, of course, but one must consider that with Medicare setting the prices, it is more financially rewarding for the youngsters to specialize in things like anesthesia or heart surgery. He raises an excellent point, but he also got me thinking about another aspect of the problem.

Many of us, I am sure, have been faced with the duty of caring for elderly parents. My sweet wife and I cared for our elderly parents, stricken with everything from Alzheimer's and dementia to stroke, diabetes, and loss of limbs, for nine years. But that is not the end of the story. After having done that, we are now faced with caring for one another during our "Golden Years." This is a future that all of George's Geezers (all of us!) will face. Without enough geriatric physicians.

Many may not be prepared for a sudden end to a spouse's mobility, for whatever reasons, and it is something that every one should contemplate. Are you prepared to deal with it? One had best get ready.

This was brought home to my wife less than four years ago, when I had a quadruple coronary artery bypass and then an aortic dissection, all at the same time. My dear wife, though she had other interests, was my caretaker for several months, and did a fabulous job. People do not realize the stress put upon caretakers in that situation, particularly family. A special halo is due to my bride, and others like her, that give of their time and energy to help others in that condition.

Nearly two weeks ago, my bride got even with me. She fell and fractured a vertebra in her lumbar region. So now I get to repay her, and am doing so. And gladly. No halo expected. I have to get her well so I can get my knees replaced. LOL

So, all you geezers out there be prepared, because it is coming, whether you like it or not.

Having been so somber in this post, I will try to lighten up in subsequent ones. There are lots of good times to be had out there for us retirees, and I recommend that everyone take advantage of them.

More later.