One of the little things I've always enjoyed around the new year has been an annual quiz put together by semi-retired New York Times columnist William Safire in which he would ask a question about national and world affairs, give four choices of what might occur in the upcoming year -- including one or two that were pretty funny -- and at the end reveal his own picks as predictions.
So, with apologies to the great writer who hates dangling participles like the one that begins this sentence, here's my own version of a look ahead at 2008. I'll group 12 issues together -- one for each month! -- and rate the chances of each scenario.
1. DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT
a. Hillary Clinton squeaks out a win in Iowa, hangs on in New Hampshire and with opposition thus knocked out of the way, cruises to the nomination. 40 percent
b. Barack Obama edges Clinton in Iowa, giving him enough momentum to pull out a win in New Hampshire, but doesn't have enough organization or resources to consolidate his win in the next group of states and is swamped on Super Tuesday. Hillary goes on to the nomination but has to struggle to get there. 35 percent
c. Obama wins a much bigger-than-expected victory in Iowa, takes New Hampshire, and the dogs begin piling on Clinton. Testimony by indicted fundraiser Norman Hsu sinks Hillary's ship and Obama emerges as the winner. 15 percent
d. Hillary, watching her campaign go down in flames in mid-January, offers to divorce Bill in a last chance bid at the nomination. 10 percent
2. REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT
a. Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney split the first couple of states, but can't hold off Rudy Giuliani as the race goes on. Giuliani outlasts the other two in an otherwise unimpressive nomination victory. 35 percent
b. Romney wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, giving him enough of a boost in Michigan and some other succeeding states to be a player. Becomes front-runner with a Giuliani loss in Florida and goes on to the nomination. 30 percent
c. Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani each win enough states to split the vote, and the Republican National Convention decides the nomination with an old-fashioned smoke-filled room selection of a candidate. 25 percent
d. Huckabee teaches Giuliani, Romney and Fred Thompson how to play musical instruments, and they form a band. Thompson loves playing before a live audience instead of a camera, Romney bets they can make a killing with a concert tour and Giuliani is just in it for the groupies. 10 percent
3. GENERAL ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT
a. Giuliani faces Clinton and the media focuses on who handles a failing marriage the least badly. 10 percent
b. Romney takes on Obama and between Mitt's smarts and Barack's ability to inspire, they end up going into business together. 10 percent
c. Edwards challenges Huckabee and they produce a re-make of the movie "Rudy," which ain't about the former New York City mayor. 10 percent
d. Giuliani or Romney beat Clinton or Obama because the public just doesn't like Hillary and can't bring themselves to vote for someone as inexperienced as Barack. 70 percent
4. CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS
a. The Democrats, thanks to a lackluster crop of GOP candidates, hold onto both chambers of Congress with majorities similar to what they currently enjoy. 50 percent
b. Republicans take advantage of a bumbling Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to reclaim the Senate and pull the House to a deficit made workable with some moderate Democrats. 20 percent
c. Democrats, thanks to GOP retirements, expand their Senate majority (currently 50-48 with two independents) by four or five seats but lose significant ground in the House. 25 percent
d. Disgusted Americans throw the bums out and give the Libertarian Party a slight majority over the Greens. 5 percent
5. THE ISSUE OF THE CAMPAIGN
a. The economy, which continues to hum along but has enough problems like high oil prices and a soft real estate market for candidates to complain about. 60 percent
b. Iraq, which Republicans will tout as a great and hard-fought victory while Democrats claim to have never heard of the place -- unless things fall apart again. 20 percent
c. Health care, after a summertime outbreak of West Nile Virus. 15 percent
d. College football's Bowl Championship Series, after 11 teams claim a share of the national championship over the next week. 5 percent
6. TERRORISM
a. al-Qaeda hits the United States on our own soil in the early fall, throwing our election campaign into turmoil. 20 percent
b. Home grown terrorists strike in Europe, giving the GOP candidate a political boost that is only temporary. 70 percent
c. U.S. forces capture or kill Osama bin-Laden. 40 percent
d. al-Qaeda, looking for a disfunctional country in which to thrive, sets up its new headquarters in a Manhattan subway tunnel. 10 percent
(more than 100 percent since the scenarios are not mutually exclusive)
7. IRAQ
a. While a certain amount of violence and political opposition remain a perpetual part of the Iraq story, the successes gained by the surge hold through next year and allow the country's splintered political elements a chance to come together -- whether they take advantage of it or not. 40 percent
b. Extremist Shiites bomb one of their own holy sites in order to blame Sunni "Awakening Groups" and touch off a year of sectarian fighting. 30 percent
c. The Iraqi government, rendered untenable after losing militant Shiite support, falls, leading to elections that result in a more moderate prime minister and the beginning of reconciliation talks. 25 percent
d. The missing WMD is found in a hermetically sealed jar on the doorstep of the Damascus office of Funk & Wagnalls. 5 percent
8. IRAN
a. Mixed signals about the nuclear program continue to come out of Tehran and U.S. and European intelligence services. Iranian, western government officials and the United States talk until they're blue in the face with no resolution. 70 percent
b. Not wanting to leave the issue of Iranian nukes to his successor, President Bush orders an attack that, in conjunction with Israeli forces, leaves the nuclear facilities a smoking mess. The U.S. and Israel are condemned as bullies by the United Nations. 20 percent
c. The ruling Mullahs realize that President Ahmadinejad is an idiot, and he dies after "a sudden illness" in order to short-circuit a popular coup. 8 percent
d. With peace reigning next door, the Mullahs wake up one day next December to realize that 90 percent of their subjects are now living in Iraq. 2 percent
9. THE ECONOMY
a. The federal reserve sends mixed signals to markets and investors through most of the year, finally easing monetary policy under political pressure in the fall. Oil prices remain high, but don't go over $4 out of fear by the oil companies that it will result in Democrat election victories. 60 percent
b. Improvements in Iraq security and a lack of action in Iran results in a slow but sustained drop in worldwide oil prices, and with Citi and Bank of America pulling itself out of their mortgage goofs, the stock market surges to 15,000 by fall. 30 percent
c. Continued high oil prices, the mortgage crisis and deficit spending continue to drive the economy out of balance. Stocks drop under 11,000 by and unemployment climbs significantly for the first time in eons. 7 percent
d. In conjunction with each other, Russia cuts natural gas shipments to Europe, Iran cuts off oil shipments to Europe and Asia and Venezuela re-routes crude from the United States to new clients in South America. Resulting panic drives stocks under five figures and creates a new worldwide depression. 3 percent
10. SPORTS
a. Roger Clemens proves that he's been clean his entire career and Alex Rodriguez dispels similar rumors, while baseball Commissioner Bud Selig declares the steroid era over and much-ado-about nothing -- all while the Washington Nationals defeat the Kansas City Royals in the World Series. 1 percent
b. The New England Patriots reach the Super Bowl with an 18-0 record but, with his team up by four points with 10 seconds left, quarterback Tom Brady fumbles on a "kneel down" play. The ball is picked up and run in for the touchdown. The '72 Dolphins reach for the champagne again. 1 percent
c. Louisiana-Monroe goes 12-0 with a series of close college football victories, forcing BCS bowl committees to post armed guards outside the rooms where they gather to make their selections. 1 percent
d. The Patriots cruise to the Super Bowl title and a first-ever 19-0 record, nothing really happens about steroids in baseball despite a lot of pious blabbing, the Arizona Diamondbacks win the World Series, the Chinese Olympics are competed safely but are totally boring. 80 percent
11. MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT
a. Newspapers and magazines nationwide continue to contract in both product and staff and put more and more original content on the Internet, without having any sort of clue how to make money off the new medium. In the summer, unopened copies of the Sunday New York Times are blown off breakfast tables by ceiling fans. 99.9 percent
b. At a mid-year Beverly Hills cocktail party, a movie director describes his idea for a new anti-Iraq War film, is lovingly surrounded by a hundred fellow guests and toasted. The following Monday, he pitches his idea to the exact same people in their offices and is thrown out. 80 percent
c. Paris Hilton is photographed eating a double-cheeseburger and large fries at In'n'Out and the celeb-obsessed media speculate she has an eating disorder. Gets a condolence letter from Jennifer Love-Hewitt. Lindsay Lohan is spotted dancing with her father at a Manhattan nightclub. Britney Spears releases a heartfelt double-CD album sung with her real voice, resulting in critics calling her the female Bob Dylan. She appears in concert with wires stuck in her head. 0.00000000001 percent
d. The editors of Time magazine, unable to bring themselves to name as Person of the Year either the GOP president-elect, as is traditional in an election year, or Gen. David Petraeus, pick themselves for the award. 50 percent
12. THE UNEXPECTED
a. Robert Mugabe announces that Zimbabwe is pursuing nuclear weapons to defend the country against angry former land-owners. 10 percent
b. A very slight 2007 trend builds into a tidal wave in 2008 as millions of illegal immigrants head south for home seeking more positive economic conditions. 20 percent
c. The International Olympic Committee, citing smog and/or political repression, pulls the Summer Olympiad from China and gives it to Sydney. 15 percent
d. Israel and the Palestinians led by Mahmoud Abbas reach a peace agreement during the spring, giving room for the Israelis to put the squeeze on Hamas and Hezbollah during the summer. By this time next year, the world is almost completely at peace. 40 percent
Obviously, the unexpected is the most difficult to choose. Overall, though, I'm somewhat optimistic about the upcoming 12 months -- at least in that I'm not terribly worried about a terrorist attack at home, a reversal in Iraq or an economic collapse. All could happen, but the chances are against them. Of course, I also expect our officials who do nothing to continue doing nothing. If 2008 becomes, for most of us, the year in which nothing really bad happened, then it will be better than the alternative.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Bhutto Assassination, Giuliani Polling Collapse
It's going to take some time for the situation in Pakistan to sort itself out after today's assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. That is the power struggle. There will be much violence in the coming days, maybe enough to teeter the government of President Pervez Musharraf.
While media reports will focus on the riots, the determining factor will be what takes place behind the scenes. Musharraf, out of political necessity, has had to a certain extent accomodate the Islamists. Will he now throw that out the window and go after them in earnest, or will he continue to pander to the extremists?
The odds on either strategy are about even. There will be heavy international pressure to bring the assassination ringleaders and their enablers to justice. Throw Bhutto supporters into that mix. However, Musarraf gains by the demise of Bhutto. Plus, his actions in the last few months made possible the conditions that led to her death.
If the Pakistani president does not go after the Islamists, their influence will grow tremendously. That's where you really have to worry, since we're talking about a nuclear-capable country.
You'll read in the coming days tributes to Bhutto that will make her out to be some sort of hero of democracy and the last best hope of the West for a stable and democratic Pakistan. In reality, she was neither. But her death is a tragedy, another great upset in a perpetually turbulent region.
---
More poll watching, and it's not to Rudy Giuliani's benefit.
The former mayor of New York City has dropped about nine points nationally in the past couple of weeks and now leads second-place Mike Huckabee by 3.3 points, according to the RealClearPolitics.com tracker.
Giuliani is now FIFTH in Iowa with just 8.3 percent, though that's somewhat understandable with the evangelist Christian-heavy voting block in the GOP there. But in New Hampshire, with a more diverse demographic that should favor him in a state close to home, he's fallen well behind front-runners Mitt Romney and John McCain into third.
Okay, so take those first two primaries and their media-circus weirdness out of the mix. Next is Michigan, and Giuliani is running fourth. In South Carolina, about two weeks later, he's fifth again.
Even Florida, where Giuliani was going to make his first big splash, he's all but blown what was a 20-point lead in the polls in late-November. Now he leads Huckabee by just 2.2 points.
Get this. The candidate who currently LEADS the national GOP polls could be out of the race by the end of January. Admittedly, those polls from earlier in the year probably weren't terribly accurate, especially as the voting public slowly gets a feel for what the candidates are all about. But it's a surprising turnaround.
While media reports will focus on the riots, the determining factor will be what takes place behind the scenes. Musharraf, out of political necessity, has had to a certain extent accomodate the Islamists. Will he now throw that out the window and go after them in earnest, or will he continue to pander to the extremists?
The odds on either strategy are about even. There will be heavy international pressure to bring the assassination ringleaders and their enablers to justice. Throw Bhutto supporters into that mix. However, Musarraf gains by the demise of Bhutto. Plus, his actions in the last few months made possible the conditions that led to her death.
If the Pakistani president does not go after the Islamists, their influence will grow tremendously. That's where you really have to worry, since we're talking about a nuclear-capable country.
You'll read in the coming days tributes to Bhutto that will make her out to be some sort of hero of democracy and the last best hope of the West for a stable and democratic Pakistan. In reality, she was neither. But her death is a tragedy, another great upset in a perpetually turbulent region.
---
More poll watching, and it's not to Rudy Giuliani's benefit.
The former mayor of New York City has dropped about nine points nationally in the past couple of weeks and now leads second-place Mike Huckabee by 3.3 points, according to the RealClearPolitics.com tracker.
Giuliani is now FIFTH in Iowa with just 8.3 percent, though that's somewhat understandable with the evangelist Christian-heavy voting block in the GOP there. But in New Hampshire, with a more diverse demographic that should favor him in a state close to home, he's fallen well behind front-runners Mitt Romney and John McCain into third.
Okay, so take those first two primaries and their media-circus weirdness out of the mix. Next is Michigan, and Giuliani is running fourth. In South Carolina, about two weeks later, he's fifth again.
Even Florida, where Giuliani was going to make his first big splash, he's all but blown what was a 20-point lead in the polls in late-November. Now he leads Huckabee by just 2.2 points.
Get this. The candidate who currently LEADS the national GOP polls could be out of the race by the end of January. Admittedly, those polls from earlier in the year probably weren't terribly accurate, especially as the voting public slowly gets a feel for what the candidates are all about. But it's a surprising turnaround.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Merry Christmas
When you have time to breathe during the Christmas season -- between shopping, baking, shopping, mailing cards, shopping, attending parties, shopping and this year working or going to school right up to the holiday -- there is time to reflect on the meaning of our celebration. The birth of a baby that is believed to be our savior.
In this age of global theology-based conflict, it's important to examine the meaning of Christmas and how it makes Christianity, the dominant religion of western civilization, different from other faiths.
To me, the key difference that goes beyond everything else is the baby. Christians fervently celebrate a tiny, helpless lump of flesh. That such a being is able to exist in the first place, let alone grow, learn and flourish, is astonishing. We're all amazed and usually proud of how our own children develop over time. The odds of just making it to adulthood in ancient times were not so good.
It would be easy to go directly to someone in his 30s who performs miracles and worship him. Much harder to welcome the object of devotion as a crying newborn in a stable.
That's where faith comes in. Faith that this baby will grow into his savior role. Faith to look beyond the humble beginnings and see what could be in the future. That faith is what drives Christians so powerfully in their lives.
That part of the faith is what makes Christianity unique. It brings to believers a great appreciation of life itself, that life is worth living and that we can create something better for ourselves -- both individually and part of a group. That love of life, ingrained in us over the centuries, made us what we are as a people today. It allowed us to build our civilization in the Western world that is now emulated by many other cultures across many other religious lines.
To all who celebrate the holiday, Merry Christmas!
---
Despite what people wish for, a hard look at the polling data still shows no sign of a resurgence by John McCain or a collapse by Mike Huckabee in the early GOP primary states or in national surveys. Save the wishing this time of year for gifts.
In this age of global theology-based conflict, it's important to examine the meaning of Christmas and how it makes Christianity, the dominant religion of western civilization, different from other faiths.
To me, the key difference that goes beyond everything else is the baby. Christians fervently celebrate a tiny, helpless lump of flesh. That such a being is able to exist in the first place, let alone grow, learn and flourish, is astonishing. We're all amazed and usually proud of how our own children develop over time. The odds of just making it to adulthood in ancient times were not so good.
It would be easy to go directly to someone in his 30s who performs miracles and worship him. Much harder to welcome the object of devotion as a crying newborn in a stable.
That's where faith comes in. Faith that this baby will grow into his savior role. Faith to look beyond the humble beginnings and see what could be in the future. That faith is what drives Christians so powerfully in their lives.
That part of the faith is what makes Christianity unique. It brings to believers a great appreciation of life itself, that life is worth living and that we can create something better for ourselves -- both individually and part of a group. That love of life, ingrained in us over the centuries, made us what we are as a people today. It allowed us to build our civilization in the Western world that is now emulated by many other cultures across many other religious lines.
To all who celebrate the holiday, Merry Christmas!
---
Despite what people wish for, a hard look at the polling data still shows no sign of a resurgence by John McCain or a collapse by Mike Huckabee in the early GOP primary states or in national surveys. Save the wishing this time of year for gifts.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Person of Year Reaction; Media Wishing it Were So and Expressing It
Well, here's my post that I promised in the last go-round reacting to the selection of Time Magazine's Person of the Year -- and my low regard for the choice of Russian President Vladimir Putin dovetails nicely with another media issue that I've noted this week.
Regarding the choice of Putin, Time claims that he is a major player on the world stage who is greatly shaping our future. Bunk. Well, partially bunk. Putin's nationalistic fervor held his once-fractious nation together and his KGB roots allowed him to ruthlessly consolidate power. With those accomplishments behind him, he's turned his attention to reasserting Russia's role in the post-Soviet, post-Communist world. All that's granted.
But there's this, also. Russia would be thriving now because of high oil prices even if it were ruled by Mickey Mouse. He's been unable to prevent the creep of NATO to his country's doorstep. His military remains a shambles -- flying some decades-old bombers near western territory earlier this year drew some raised eyebrows, but that was about it. Haven't heard of those bombers since. Maybe they're down for their 30-year overhaul.
Russian political influence has not prevented the election of conservative prime ministers in Germany, France and the Ukraine, and energy blackmail has failed to deter former Soviet republics.
Putin, overall, has had a major impact within Russia, but not outside the country.
Gen. David Petraeus, meanwhile, has changed the course of history. World history. The future of civilization.
What bothers me most about the Time selection of Putin is that by reading their top five, it's pretty clear they really would have rather selected former vice-president Al Gore. Instead, fearful of the reaction, they placed the environmental hero second. Meaning they're chicken.
It's a reasonable query as to why they would pick someone in Gore whose impact was felt more the previous year when his "An Inconvenient Truth" film on global warming was playing in theaters nationwide. But what really goes to the credibility of the entire magazine is they're not printing what they really think. Time Inc. is based on the highly insulated island of Manhattan, which is separated from the rest of the United States more than Guam is. Time editors and the people in the circles in which they walk probably go years without seeing a man or woman in a military uniform. Petraeus just was not on their radar. Gore is. So is Putin. JK Rowling and Hu Jintao, the other runners-up, are non-sensical (though Hu could very well be a legitimate contender next year). Just goes to show how out of touch the editors are. They're a joke.
My estimate is that while Putin is, and will continue to, offer us some short-term challenges, he is the last gasp of a dying empire. In 20 years from now, Russia will be a much different place than it is now, and Putin will be a footnote in history.
But if in 20 years freedom and liberty still flourish in Europe and the Americas, and democracy in any form takes a foothold in the Middle East, then David Petraeus will be greatly responsible -- as will be the men and women he leads.
---
More blasts for my colleagues in the media.
One of the trends I'm observing is writing or saying something as analysis in hopes that what they're saying will be so. This is a bit different from what we normally see, where a columnist, for example, writes something from their perspective that might be totally wrong factually and conceptually, but that's how they see things.
What we're getting now is designed to shape the future.
Cases in point:
-- The Wall Street Journal carried an editorial Tuesday entitled "McCain's Surge: Why he's making a primary comeback." Uh, what primary comeback? RealClearPolitics.com, which I strongly suggest visiting for polling data because they aggregate all the polls for a clear picture of what's taking place in primary states, has graphs of the polling of the various candidates. McCain, far from surging, continues to gain support in very low figures and his line is either flat or falling. There is nothing to suggest that McCain's candidacy is surging in any way.
-- Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, an unabashed evangelical conservative who has supported Mitt Romney from the get-go is fully aware that the rise of Mike Huckabee has damaged his boy's candidacy, and has led the GOP establishment's anti-Huck charge. I'm not much on Huckabee myself, but Hewitt's show has devolved into unlistenable three-hour diatribes against the former Arkansas governor. For well over a week now, he's been discussing the Huckabee downfall. While Huck's numbers have just started to drop in Iowa, and he never really has gained traction in New Hampshire, there is no sign of a collapse of support elsewhere.
-- I came across a column in, of all places, the Indianapolis Star (though it seems to have originated with the Washington Post Writer's Group) with a title that was appealing, "Public United, Politicians Divided." Those four words, in that order, express something I really believe in and give me cause to blog. Writer Marie Cocco starts well by saying there's nothing worse than a presidential primary campaign during the holidays. But her idea of where the public is united loses me pretty quickly. "They think the Iraq War was a mistake and that the United States should start getting out." That might have been our mood early this year, but not now. "They think the economy is lousy and that the country is on the wrong track." Probably true, but if you were to engage people on the topic, they'd probably concede that the economy is handling its current issues. Judging from her Iraq comments that she leans toward the Democrat side of the ledger, she doesn't seem to notice that her party's leaders are among those leading us down the wrong track. "They want the government to find a way to guarantee health insurance to everyone and they overwhelmingly believe the bipartisan effort to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a good idea." In fact, what we agree on is the current health care system stinks, but we disagree on how to fix it, with most people falling AGAINST more government intervention. And that we are more than willing to pay for health insurance for indigent children, but not those who have means, which is what the expansion would have done.
You can't sit there and dream of something and make it so just because you say it is, or will be. There is no case to be made for a McCain comeback. Hewitt will probably be right in time, but whether Huckabee's drop will be fast enough to save Romney is questionable. Cocco is living in a bubble just like the editors of Time. Though she'd probably have enough guts to choose Al Gore as her Man of the Year.
Regarding the choice of Putin, Time claims that he is a major player on the world stage who is greatly shaping our future. Bunk. Well, partially bunk. Putin's nationalistic fervor held his once-fractious nation together and his KGB roots allowed him to ruthlessly consolidate power. With those accomplishments behind him, he's turned his attention to reasserting Russia's role in the post-Soviet, post-Communist world. All that's granted.
But there's this, also. Russia would be thriving now because of high oil prices even if it were ruled by Mickey Mouse. He's been unable to prevent the creep of NATO to his country's doorstep. His military remains a shambles -- flying some decades-old bombers near western territory earlier this year drew some raised eyebrows, but that was about it. Haven't heard of those bombers since. Maybe they're down for their 30-year overhaul.
Russian political influence has not prevented the election of conservative prime ministers in Germany, France and the Ukraine, and energy blackmail has failed to deter former Soviet republics.
Putin, overall, has had a major impact within Russia, but not outside the country.
Gen. David Petraeus, meanwhile, has changed the course of history. World history. The future of civilization.
What bothers me most about the Time selection of Putin is that by reading their top five, it's pretty clear they really would have rather selected former vice-president Al Gore. Instead, fearful of the reaction, they placed the environmental hero second. Meaning they're chicken.
It's a reasonable query as to why they would pick someone in Gore whose impact was felt more the previous year when his "An Inconvenient Truth" film on global warming was playing in theaters nationwide. But what really goes to the credibility of the entire magazine is they're not printing what they really think. Time Inc. is based on the highly insulated island of Manhattan, which is separated from the rest of the United States more than Guam is. Time editors and the people in the circles in which they walk probably go years without seeing a man or woman in a military uniform. Petraeus just was not on their radar. Gore is. So is Putin. JK Rowling and Hu Jintao, the other runners-up, are non-sensical (though Hu could very well be a legitimate contender next year). Just goes to show how out of touch the editors are. They're a joke.
My estimate is that while Putin is, and will continue to, offer us some short-term challenges, he is the last gasp of a dying empire. In 20 years from now, Russia will be a much different place than it is now, and Putin will be a footnote in history.
But if in 20 years freedom and liberty still flourish in Europe and the Americas, and democracy in any form takes a foothold in the Middle East, then David Petraeus will be greatly responsible -- as will be the men and women he leads.
---
More blasts for my colleagues in the media.
One of the trends I'm observing is writing or saying something as analysis in hopes that what they're saying will be so. This is a bit different from what we normally see, where a columnist, for example, writes something from their perspective that might be totally wrong factually and conceptually, but that's how they see things.
What we're getting now is designed to shape the future.
Cases in point:
-- The Wall Street Journal carried an editorial Tuesday entitled "McCain's Surge: Why he's making a primary comeback." Uh, what primary comeback? RealClearPolitics.com, which I strongly suggest visiting for polling data because they aggregate all the polls for a clear picture of what's taking place in primary states, has graphs of the polling of the various candidates. McCain, far from surging, continues to gain support in very low figures and his line is either flat or falling. There is nothing to suggest that McCain's candidacy is surging in any way.
-- Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, an unabashed evangelical conservative who has supported Mitt Romney from the get-go is fully aware that the rise of Mike Huckabee has damaged his boy's candidacy, and has led the GOP establishment's anti-Huck charge. I'm not much on Huckabee myself, but Hewitt's show has devolved into unlistenable three-hour diatribes against the former Arkansas governor. For well over a week now, he's been discussing the Huckabee downfall. While Huck's numbers have just started to drop in Iowa, and he never really has gained traction in New Hampshire, there is no sign of a collapse of support elsewhere.
-- I came across a column in, of all places, the Indianapolis Star (though it seems to have originated with the Washington Post Writer's Group) with a title that was appealing, "Public United, Politicians Divided." Those four words, in that order, express something I really believe in and give me cause to blog. Writer Marie Cocco starts well by saying there's nothing worse than a presidential primary campaign during the holidays. But her idea of where the public is united loses me pretty quickly. "They think the Iraq War was a mistake and that the United States should start getting out." That might have been our mood early this year, but not now. "They think the economy is lousy and that the country is on the wrong track." Probably true, but if you were to engage people on the topic, they'd probably concede that the economy is handling its current issues. Judging from her Iraq comments that she leans toward the Democrat side of the ledger, she doesn't seem to notice that her party's leaders are among those leading us down the wrong track. "They want the government to find a way to guarantee health insurance to everyone and they overwhelmingly believe the bipartisan effort to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a good idea." In fact, what we agree on is the current health care system stinks, but we disagree on how to fix it, with most people falling AGAINST more government intervention. And that we are more than willing to pay for health insurance for indigent children, but not those who have means, which is what the expansion would have done.
You can't sit there and dream of something and make it so just because you say it is, or will be. There is no case to be made for a McCain comeback. Hewitt will probably be right in time, but whether Huckabee's drop will be fast enough to save Romney is questionable. Cocco is living in a bubble just like the editors of Time. Though she'd probably have enough guts to choose Al Gore as her Man of the Year.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Man/Woman of the Year
A major political magazine today noted that it's almost time for Time Magazine to reveal its 2007 Person of the Year, and nominated for that honor Gen. David Petraeus, who has guided "the surge" to a certain amount of success in Iraq.
Time has a record of controversial selections, like the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, but the overwhelming majority have had a positive impact on the world. There have also been the incomprehensible concept choices like the computer or last year's pick of you.
So, to lend a hand to the editors of Time Magazine -- and ignoring the fact that they probably made their choice no later than September so they could have time to get their story together -- here are some selections of people who proved themselves worthy, or sufficiently notorious.
Petraeus -- Yep, good call.
Nicholas Sarkozy -- since being elected president of France, no one orders Freedom Fries anymore.
Barry Bonds -- the face of the just-completed steroids era of baseball. Might have more news article mentions than President Bush.
Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, Jawed Karim -- the founders of YouTube reinvigorated the Internet.
Barack Obama -- you have to give the guy credit for running a heck of a political campaign and making a lot of people interested. Like the positive message even if it's empty.
Ron Paul -- an amazing number of people wonder about him as an alternative. He is the number one most-searched political candidate on Gooooooooooooooooooogle.
Glenn Beck -- gets an hour show on CNN Headline News and it's even repeated just a couple hours later, you freak! He's interesting, isn't afraid to admit that he's nuts and is sensitive to the same ideals of this blog.
Miley Cyrus -- as Hannah Montana, she's captured the hearts and imagination of more little girls than dad Billy Ray ever did.
Steven Colbert -- the star of The Daily Show has the number two selling book on Amazon.com. 'nuff said.
Michael Yon -- no one would know that the surge in Iraq was working without Yon. The guy has more guts than any American correspondent covering the war. Basically raises donations and then goes out to the front lines to report on what he sees.
I'm sure there's some concept choices out there in case the Time editors can't bring themselves to choose Petraeus. The stem cell, the illegal immigrant. My concept choice is a product of my location: the firefighter. They're all heroes in my eyes.
When Time does get around to announcing my choice, I'll have a comment. Bet on it.
You freak. ;)
Time has a record of controversial selections, like the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, but the overwhelming majority have had a positive impact on the world. There have also been the incomprehensible concept choices like the computer or last year's pick of you.
So, to lend a hand to the editors of Time Magazine -- and ignoring the fact that they probably made their choice no later than September so they could have time to get their story together -- here are some selections of people who proved themselves worthy, or sufficiently notorious.
Petraeus -- Yep, good call.
Nicholas Sarkozy -- since being elected president of France, no one orders Freedom Fries anymore.
Barry Bonds -- the face of the just-completed steroids era of baseball. Might have more news article mentions than President Bush.
Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, Jawed Karim -- the founders of YouTube reinvigorated the Internet.
Barack Obama -- you have to give the guy credit for running a heck of a political campaign and making a lot of people interested. Like the positive message even if it's empty.
Ron Paul -- an amazing number of people wonder about him as an alternative. He is the number one most-searched political candidate on Gooooooooooooooooooogle.
Glenn Beck -- gets an hour show on CNN Headline News and it's even repeated just a couple hours later, you freak! He's interesting, isn't afraid to admit that he's nuts and is sensitive to the same ideals of this blog.
Miley Cyrus -- as Hannah Montana, she's captured the hearts and imagination of more little girls than dad Billy Ray ever did.
Steven Colbert -- the star of The Daily Show has the number two selling book on Amazon.com. 'nuff said.
Michael Yon -- no one would know that the surge in Iraq was working without Yon. The guy has more guts than any American correspondent covering the war. Basically raises donations and then goes out to the front lines to report on what he sees.
I'm sure there's some concept choices out there in case the Time editors can't bring themselves to choose Petraeus. The stem cell, the illegal immigrant. My concept choice is a product of my location: the firefighter. They're all heroes in my eyes.
When Time does get around to announcing my choice, I'll have a comment. Bet on it.
You freak. ;)
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Baseball Steroids, Black Christmas
Dawn broke over the world of baseball on Thursday, Dec. 13. Far from being a dark day, a horrible day for the game as many pundits are saying, the release of the Mitchell Report on the use of performance enhancing drugs by players is the start of a new and improved era for America's pastime.
With a very minimal exception, there were no great surprises among the players named in the report. That exception is Wally Joyner, the brilliant first baseman who fashioned a squeaky clean image with the Angels and Padres. His exception is minimal because he in 1998 took three pills received from teammate Ken Caminiti while he was battling a number of injuries. He didn't like their effect and never used them again.
There were some surprises among the names left out. All of us baseball fans had some suspects, many of whom were officially unmasked by the former senator. However, because very few people in baseball actually cooperated with the investigation, the lines that were looked into were just two: a Mets clubhouse employee who sold performance enhancing drugs to players, and the BALCO lab in the San Francisco area that sold such items to Barry Bonds and disgraced track star Marion Jones.
Obviously, many other players were using, with the drugs coming in from a myriad of other sources. We probably will never know, only suspect, the ultimate impact steroids and human growth hormone on the game.
Whether the new day dawning on baseball is as long as an Alaska summer or as short as a Russian winter will depend on what lessons are drawn from the report.
Here's my take. Official baseball -- the owners, commissioner's office, team front offices, scouts, coaches, television and pundits -- along with too many fans, fell in love with the home run. Baseball people have always appreciated power bats, but the late 1990s home run race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa was credited with reviving the game after the 1994 lockout of players. It didn't matter that these behemoths couldn't field their position, take an extra base or hit behind a runner. As long as they could send a pitch into the upper deck, all was forgiven. And as we found out in the Mitchell Report, "all" really meant "all."
Hopefully, we're falling back into an age where all facets of the game are important. Bunting, stealing bases, the hit-and-run.
I love the home run, don't get me wrong. But it's not special anymore. That's what made a shot into the bleachers so exciting. It didn't happen several times in a game. Now teams just play station-to-station and hope for a three-run blast.
With players off the juice, we might get back to the game the way it should be played.
---
Gabrielle Union, my new hero.
The star of "The Perfect Holiday" appeared to totally turn the tables on the writer of an interview I saw in my local paper the other day. A writer who, by the appearance of the questions, seemed to be shocked that a black family actually celebrated Christmas.
The writer asked about racial differences in celebrating the holiday. Union said all races celebrate and differences in traditions are among families.
The writer wondered why there were all those "white movies" like "Miracle on 34th Street." Union said maybe we could get Asian or Latino Christmas movies next year and that, in the end, all they did was show how we're not that different.
You go girl!
"'This Christmas' didn't make all that money just by pandering to a black audience," she said about a recent successful film. "People like Christmas. That's all there is to it."
Maybe I read too much into this, but I could picture the frustrated writer jumping out his seat and yelling, "Damn it! You people are supposed to celebrate Kwanzaa!"
Differences between how blacks celebrate Christmas than everyone else. Uh, yeah. Sure. The only real racial difference I can think of is that Latinos like to serve tamales on the Holy day. That's pretty cool, actually. Tamales can be really good if prepared well. Otherwise, blacks celebrate Christmas much like the rest of us. And if anyone still has any energy left after all that shopping, traveling and eating, then some even go out to enjoy Kwanzaa, too.
---
Perhaps the reason I got annoyed at Union's interviewer is I had recently heard former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young's comment that Bill Clinton has been with more black women than Barack Obama. Nice, not.
It drew a laugh and Young quickly added he was just kidding, but that's treading on some dangerous territory. I think that most of us here at home really don't want to delve too far into the subject of interracial relationships. It used to be a taboo subject. Now it's commonplace. You see all kinds of combinations of couples these days. It's no longer that controversial. Yet, at the same time, people are tired of those who still try to dredge up the old sore feelings on the topic. Yeah, it was a joke, but no one really wants to go where Young was headed.
With a very minimal exception, there were no great surprises among the players named in the report. That exception is Wally Joyner, the brilliant first baseman who fashioned a squeaky clean image with the Angels and Padres. His exception is minimal because he in 1998 took three pills received from teammate Ken Caminiti while he was battling a number of injuries. He didn't like their effect and never used them again.
There were some surprises among the names left out. All of us baseball fans had some suspects, many of whom were officially unmasked by the former senator. However, because very few people in baseball actually cooperated with the investigation, the lines that were looked into were just two: a Mets clubhouse employee who sold performance enhancing drugs to players, and the BALCO lab in the San Francisco area that sold such items to Barry Bonds and disgraced track star Marion Jones.
Obviously, many other players were using, with the drugs coming in from a myriad of other sources. We probably will never know, only suspect, the ultimate impact steroids and human growth hormone on the game.
Whether the new day dawning on baseball is as long as an Alaska summer or as short as a Russian winter will depend on what lessons are drawn from the report.
Here's my take. Official baseball -- the owners, commissioner's office, team front offices, scouts, coaches, television and pundits -- along with too many fans, fell in love with the home run. Baseball people have always appreciated power bats, but the late 1990s home run race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa was credited with reviving the game after the 1994 lockout of players. It didn't matter that these behemoths couldn't field their position, take an extra base or hit behind a runner. As long as they could send a pitch into the upper deck, all was forgiven. And as we found out in the Mitchell Report, "all" really meant "all."
Hopefully, we're falling back into an age where all facets of the game are important. Bunting, stealing bases, the hit-and-run.
I love the home run, don't get me wrong. But it's not special anymore. That's what made a shot into the bleachers so exciting. It didn't happen several times in a game. Now teams just play station-to-station and hope for a three-run blast.
With players off the juice, we might get back to the game the way it should be played.
---
Gabrielle Union, my new hero.
The star of "The Perfect Holiday" appeared to totally turn the tables on the writer of an interview I saw in my local paper the other day. A writer who, by the appearance of the questions, seemed to be shocked that a black family actually celebrated Christmas.
The writer asked about racial differences in celebrating the holiday. Union said all races celebrate and differences in traditions are among families.
The writer wondered why there were all those "white movies" like "Miracle on 34th Street." Union said maybe we could get Asian or Latino Christmas movies next year and that, in the end, all they did was show how we're not that different.
You go girl!
"'This Christmas' didn't make all that money just by pandering to a black audience," she said about a recent successful film. "People like Christmas. That's all there is to it."
Maybe I read too much into this, but I could picture the frustrated writer jumping out his seat and yelling, "Damn it! You people are supposed to celebrate Kwanzaa!"
Differences between how blacks celebrate Christmas than everyone else. Uh, yeah. Sure. The only real racial difference I can think of is that Latinos like to serve tamales on the Holy day. That's pretty cool, actually. Tamales can be really good if prepared well. Otherwise, blacks celebrate Christmas much like the rest of us. And if anyone still has any energy left after all that shopping, traveling and eating, then some even go out to enjoy Kwanzaa, too.
---
Perhaps the reason I got annoyed at Union's interviewer is I had recently heard former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young's comment that Bill Clinton has been with more black women than Barack Obama. Nice, not.
It drew a laugh and Young quickly added he was just kidding, but that's treading on some dangerous territory. I think that most of us here at home really don't want to delve too far into the subject of interracial relationships. It used to be a taboo subject. Now it's commonplace. You see all kinds of combinations of couples these days. It's no longer that controversial. Yet, at the same time, people are tired of those who still try to dredge up the old sore feelings on the topic. Yeah, it was a joke, but no one really wants to go where Young was headed.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Why Clinton, Romney Are Struggling; More on Iran Nukes
With just weeks remaining before ballots are cast in the Iowa caucuses, both of the favorites are struggling, for a reason which will be a huge determining factor in choosing our next president.
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney led their Iowa races until falling into second place recently. Both are both strong candidates who might just simply be stuck in the wrong election year. The voters want someone who will play it straight with them, be blunt if need be, and not tailor their message for each audience. It's not the year for the traditional politician. Better to be rumpled and speak with clarity in 2007 and 2008 than to have a $400 haircut and be labeled as a flip-flopper.
Clinton, of course, has been the Democratic heir apparent practically since her husband left office in 2001. Romney made a conscious decision to sink his time and resources into Iowa and New Hampshire and hope to catch the same breeze that carried John Kerry to the Democratic nomination in 2004. Both accordingly had substantial leads in the first few months of the campaign before falling behind Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Clinton's lead has shrunk sharply in New Hampshire, site of the first real primary -- in fact a new poll today shows Obama in front in the Granite State. Romney remains ahead comfortably there in what is essentially his backyard, but is still not gaining much traction with voters elsewhere (which could change as he's done well in his last two debates and gained an endorsement from the iconic conservative magazine National Review).
So things aren't well in either camp.
What you hear about mostly with Clinton is planted questions and whether anyone really likes her, and Romney's battle to get his religious beliefs past evangelical conservatives. But those aren't the problems. Symptoms, maybe, but not the problem itself.
From Clinton and Romney, the feeling too often is that you're getting what they think you want to hear so you'll voter for them. Clinton is famous for taking varying stances on issues depending on the makeup of her audience. Romney comes across as too slick by half and hasn't been able to shake his flip-flops on social issues. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has some of the same "social issue issues" as Romney, has tackled them straight on from the beginning and has not paid the same price.
Core values. Plainly spoken. That's what people want to see.
Very simply put, they might be the right people for their party, but they've come along at the wrong time in history. Hillary Clinton had two terms of exposure to the White House. Romney had been a blazing success at nearly everything he's attempted. You can't knock either one. But when voters want a candidate who will tell you how they really see it, Clinton and Romney will get left behind.
---
It's so darn early in the campaign season that predictions remain hard to make, but I'll try some.
I think both of the current beneficiaries of the Clinton-Romney struggles, Obama and Huckabee, are flashes in the pan. Polling still shows Hillary with an 18 percentage point lead nationally, so I'm suspecting that she will more likely than not hold onto her claim for the Democratic nomination.
Her key states are South Carolina and Florida, which follow hard on Iowa and New Hampshire. She's nearly blown a double-digit lead over Obama in South Carolina just in the past week or so. She's ahead by 30 points in the Sunshine State. If that advantage starts to crumble, watch out. Remember my post about piling on Hillary? If Florida starts to give way, she's in big, big trouble.
Huckabee has shot into big leads in Iowa and South Carolina, while Giuliani continues to hold a huge Florida advantage. Romney maintains that wide edge in New Hampshire. Certainly a mixed bag. As stated in a previous post, I think the races in both parties will come down to the later primary states, especially on the Republican side.
The mathematical losers in Huckabee's rise have been different in each of the early-voting states. In Iowa, it's Romney whose lost support. In New Hampshire and Florida, Thompson has suffered. South Carolina, Romney and Giuliani about the same. Nationally, the Huck vote has come at the expense of Giuliani and Thompson.
However, things are in flux. The past 10 days have seen a barrage of fire aimed at Huckabee from his opponents and the conservative press. It could take some time for those attacks to seep into the polls. We should know by Christmas if Huckabee has some real staying power with voters.
Dark horse? Thompson. If he's been hurt by Huckabee's rise, he might gain by his potential fall. If Romney fails to turn his recent debate performances and National Review endorsement into solid support, the plain-spoken actor could find himself back on Giulian's heels by the time Super Tuesday rolls around.
---
It's taken a while to make sense of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear aims, but I think some things are becoming clear.
At first, you heard from the left a lot of anti-Bush and "see, Iran never was a threat and, by the way, neither was Iraq!" comments; from the right "no way" and "it must be the anti-war on terror crowd within the CIA at work again."
But thoughtful analysis from some smart people have led to three conclusions about the NIE's judgment on Iran:
1. The writers have high confidence that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, but only moderate confidence that such work has not resumed since. It is what it is.
2. Iran continues its work on enriching uranium, for whatever reason. Once it succeeds, then whenever it decides to resume its weapons program, it won't be too far from having a bomb.
3. If the NIE is indeed accurate, then it's actually not an anti-Bush document at all. Instead, highly pro-Bush. The report suggests Iran stopped its weapons program because of international pressure. And what major pressure took place in 2003? The U.S. invasion of Iraq, right next door. The same event that caused Libya to cut ties to terrorism and end its own weapons of mass destruction programs, that forced Saudi Arabia to get tough with al Qaeda in its own country and eased Syria's grip on Lebanon.
The NIE was huge when it first came out. Still is. But in such a situation, best to ignore the immediate hysteria and wait for the cautious analysis to come out over the next few weeks.
The NIE is what it is. No more and no less.
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney led their Iowa races until falling into second place recently. Both are both strong candidates who might just simply be stuck in the wrong election year. The voters want someone who will play it straight with them, be blunt if need be, and not tailor their message for each audience. It's not the year for the traditional politician. Better to be rumpled and speak with clarity in 2007 and 2008 than to have a $400 haircut and be labeled as a flip-flopper.
Clinton, of course, has been the Democratic heir apparent practically since her husband left office in 2001. Romney made a conscious decision to sink his time and resources into Iowa and New Hampshire and hope to catch the same breeze that carried John Kerry to the Democratic nomination in 2004. Both accordingly had substantial leads in the first few months of the campaign before falling behind Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Clinton's lead has shrunk sharply in New Hampshire, site of the first real primary -- in fact a new poll today shows Obama in front in the Granite State. Romney remains ahead comfortably there in what is essentially his backyard, but is still not gaining much traction with voters elsewhere (which could change as he's done well in his last two debates and gained an endorsement from the iconic conservative magazine National Review).
So things aren't well in either camp.
What you hear about mostly with Clinton is planted questions and whether anyone really likes her, and Romney's battle to get his religious beliefs past evangelical conservatives. But those aren't the problems. Symptoms, maybe, but not the problem itself.
From Clinton and Romney, the feeling too often is that you're getting what they think you want to hear so you'll voter for them. Clinton is famous for taking varying stances on issues depending on the makeup of her audience. Romney comes across as too slick by half and hasn't been able to shake his flip-flops on social issues. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has some of the same "social issue issues" as Romney, has tackled them straight on from the beginning and has not paid the same price.
Core values. Plainly spoken. That's what people want to see.
Very simply put, they might be the right people for their party, but they've come along at the wrong time in history. Hillary Clinton had two terms of exposure to the White House. Romney had been a blazing success at nearly everything he's attempted. You can't knock either one. But when voters want a candidate who will tell you how they really see it, Clinton and Romney will get left behind.
---
It's so darn early in the campaign season that predictions remain hard to make, but I'll try some.
I think both of the current beneficiaries of the Clinton-Romney struggles, Obama and Huckabee, are flashes in the pan. Polling still shows Hillary with an 18 percentage point lead nationally, so I'm suspecting that she will more likely than not hold onto her claim for the Democratic nomination.
Her key states are South Carolina and Florida, which follow hard on Iowa and New Hampshire. She's nearly blown a double-digit lead over Obama in South Carolina just in the past week or so. She's ahead by 30 points in the Sunshine State. If that advantage starts to crumble, watch out. Remember my post about piling on Hillary? If Florida starts to give way, she's in big, big trouble.
Huckabee has shot into big leads in Iowa and South Carolina, while Giuliani continues to hold a huge Florida advantage. Romney maintains that wide edge in New Hampshire. Certainly a mixed bag. As stated in a previous post, I think the races in both parties will come down to the later primary states, especially on the Republican side.
The mathematical losers in Huckabee's rise have been different in each of the early-voting states. In Iowa, it's Romney whose lost support. In New Hampshire and Florida, Thompson has suffered. South Carolina, Romney and Giuliani about the same. Nationally, the Huck vote has come at the expense of Giuliani and Thompson.
However, things are in flux. The past 10 days have seen a barrage of fire aimed at Huckabee from his opponents and the conservative press. It could take some time for those attacks to seep into the polls. We should know by Christmas if Huckabee has some real staying power with voters.
Dark horse? Thompson. If he's been hurt by Huckabee's rise, he might gain by his potential fall. If Romney fails to turn his recent debate performances and National Review endorsement into solid support, the plain-spoken actor could find himself back on Giulian's heels by the time Super Tuesday rolls around.
---
It's taken a while to make sense of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear aims, but I think some things are becoming clear.
At first, you heard from the left a lot of anti-Bush and "see, Iran never was a threat and, by the way, neither was Iraq!" comments; from the right "no way" and "it must be the anti-war on terror crowd within the CIA at work again."
But thoughtful analysis from some smart people have led to three conclusions about the NIE's judgment on Iran:
1. The writers have high confidence that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, but only moderate confidence that such work has not resumed since. It is what it is.
2. Iran continues its work on enriching uranium, for whatever reason. Once it succeeds, then whenever it decides to resume its weapons program, it won't be too far from having a bomb.
3. If the NIE is indeed accurate, then it's actually not an anti-Bush document at all. Instead, highly pro-Bush. The report suggests Iran stopped its weapons program because of international pressure. And what major pressure took place in 2003? The U.S. invasion of Iraq, right next door. The same event that caused Libya to cut ties to terrorism and end its own weapons of mass destruction programs, that forced Saudi Arabia to get tough with al Qaeda in its own country and eased Syria's grip on Lebanon.
The NIE was huge when it first came out. Still is. But in such a situation, best to ignore the immediate hysteria and wait for the cautious analysis to come out over the next few weeks.
The NIE is what it is. No more and no less.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Oprah Big in Iowa but Will Anyone Care?
One of the great problems with our political climate right now is illustrated by the excitement generated by television talk show hostess/mogul Oprah Winfrey as she campaigns for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
Now, Winfrey has every right to campaign on behalf of the candidate of her choice and use her celebrity status to advantage. The candidate who benefits obviously has the right to use her in any way they -- and she -- find acceptable.
What bothers me is the commotion caused by a television personality on the campaign trail.
I think this is an "only in Iowa" sort of thing. First, you have Obama claiming the lead in polls from New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, so Oprah is just giving a rocket some extra boost. Secondly, as stated before, in Iowa you're looking at party activists (unions and anti-war voters on the Democrat side, evangelicals for the GOP), and they're looking for any excuse to look excited for their candidate. Plus, such people are probably more celebrity conscious than the rest of us. Finally, how often do you get someone like Oprah in Des Moines?
I think the Oprah factor will matter less as time goes on and we move on to other states. I don't know about you, but who she endorses won't matter much when I make my ultimate decision on whom to vote for in the California primary. I am still undecided, after all.
Regular people like us really don't give a darn about what the celebrities say. It's troubling that there are a few people out there who do.
---
Here's our government at work. The CIA admits it destroyed tapes of secret interrogations of terrorism detainees. Ooops. In government work, you just don't destroy records of any sort, especially in something controversial. The whole issue how to handle the detainees is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Pretty dumb thinking at Langley.
Now it comes out that Congressional leaders of both parties responsible for intelligence (there's an oxymoron for you) were briefed on interrogation techniques in 2002 and none objected at the time. Waterboarding was one of the methods displayed. One of the operatives at the briefing says they were encouraged to get even tougher on the detainees.
Yep, our government. A lose-lose situation.
---
Opponents of California's Three Strikes Law, which mandates 25 years to life sentences for criminal defendants upon their third conviction of a serious charge is under attack again. According to the Associated Press in this story a commission will be created in an attempt to reform the state's sentencing laws. Voters overwhelmingly support Three Strikes. Defendants advocates -- lawyers -- don't.
What this story fails to tell you, and what Three Strikes opponents never mention, is that judges and prosecutors have all sorts of leeway in Three Strikes cases. Strikes are waived all the time if justice dictates that a defendant shouldn't be sentenced to such an extreme term.
In the case of the prisoner mentioned in the story, the conviction which gave him the sentence seemed like it was not terribly serious, but we know nothing of the circumstances in the case. They were conveniently left out of the story. You don't get 76 years in prison for nothing. If he did, it would be overturned on appeal.
Three Strikes works just fine, has the outs that the judicial system needs in cases where it does not apply and has strong support among voters.
Now, Winfrey has every right to campaign on behalf of the candidate of her choice and use her celebrity status to advantage. The candidate who benefits obviously has the right to use her in any way they -- and she -- find acceptable.
What bothers me is the commotion caused by a television personality on the campaign trail.
I think this is an "only in Iowa" sort of thing. First, you have Obama claiming the lead in polls from New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, so Oprah is just giving a rocket some extra boost. Secondly, as stated before, in Iowa you're looking at party activists (unions and anti-war voters on the Democrat side, evangelicals for the GOP), and they're looking for any excuse to look excited for their candidate. Plus, such people are probably more celebrity conscious than the rest of us. Finally, how often do you get someone like Oprah in Des Moines?
I think the Oprah factor will matter less as time goes on and we move on to other states. I don't know about you, but who she endorses won't matter much when I make my ultimate decision on whom to vote for in the California primary. I am still undecided, after all.
Regular people like us really don't give a darn about what the celebrities say. It's troubling that there are a few people out there who do.
---
Here's our government at work. The CIA admits it destroyed tapes of secret interrogations of terrorism detainees. Ooops. In government work, you just don't destroy records of any sort, especially in something controversial. The whole issue how to handle the detainees is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Pretty dumb thinking at Langley.
Now it comes out that Congressional leaders of both parties responsible for intelligence (there's an oxymoron for you) were briefed on interrogation techniques in 2002 and none objected at the time. Waterboarding was one of the methods displayed. One of the operatives at the briefing says they were encouraged to get even tougher on the detainees.
Yep, our government. A lose-lose situation.
---
Opponents of California's Three Strikes Law, which mandates 25 years to life sentences for criminal defendants upon their third conviction of a serious charge is under attack again. According to the Associated Press in this story a commission will be created in an attempt to reform the state's sentencing laws. Voters overwhelmingly support Three Strikes. Defendants advocates -- lawyers -- don't.
What this story fails to tell you, and what Three Strikes opponents never mention, is that judges and prosecutors have all sorts of leeway in Three Strikes cases. Strikes are waived all the time if justice dictates that a defendant shouldn't be sentenced to such an extreme term.
In the case of the prisoner mentioned in the story, the conviction which gave him the sentence seemed like it was not terribly serious, but we know nothing of the circumstances in the case. They were conveniently left out of the story. You don't get 76 years in prison for nothing. If he did, it would be overturned on appeal.
Three Strikes works just fine, has the outs that the judicial system needs in cases where it does not apply and has strong support among voters.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Nuclear Iran
So now what are we to think about Iran?
In the space of just over two weeks:
-- the United Nations' atomic energy watchdog reported that Iran had acquired 3,000 centrifuges needed to process uranium and would thus be able to build a nuclear bomb in about a year,
-- and 16 U.S. spy agencies jointly released a National Intelligence Estimate that revealed that while the troublesome country was making progress on its nuclear program, it had apparently halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003.
Oh-kaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy. That's helpful.
Now, as is befitting our national leadership, you have Bush administration officials, Democrats and "experts" debating whether the NIE is right or wrong.
Well, I have no idea whether it's right or wrong and you probably don't either. The only thing I learned is that we have 16 spy agencies. I can count the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and the intelligence organization within the State Department. That's four. You can probably fold in the Secret Service and FBI to make six. But I digress.
The only argument I can make against the NIE report is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has for several years now stated his goal to build a bomb that will wipe Israel off the map. He's hailed various breakthroughs in his country's nuclear program. Logically, there's not much need for energy-rich Iran to have nuclear power.
Otherwise, here we are with divergent reports trying to figure out which one is accurate. We need to know. There is nothing that can be more dangerous in the world than to have a nuclear-armed Iran. Fortunately, Ahmadinejad has been forthcoming with his plans when it suits him. It might take one of his vitriolic speeches to figure out the truth.
---
This one we know is wrong. Sen. Harry Reid says the troop surge in Iraq is not working. That's political speech that can roughly be translated into "Darn it, I can't stop this war no matter what I do and now my party is going to get creamed for it."
There's tons of anecdotal evidence that the surge is indeed working, enough so that Reid's fellow Democrats and most media observers agree. Why Reid continues to make himself look foolish is beyond me. But it's a real illustration of the problems we have in Washington, D.C. You can hold three fingers up before Reid and ask him how many fingers you're displaying, and his answer will be whatever he believes suits him politically.
Give us the truth. Then feel free to tell us you don't like it.
---
This is NOT the most exciting college football season in years, like you might hear or read.
This season has been all about failure. Seriously, last week of the season and numbers one and two both lost. No team that's climbed to the top spots in the rankings have been able to hold their place. USC, West Virginia, LSU, Ohio State, Cal, Boston College, South Florida, Oregon, Missouri and Kansas all had a shot at glory and couldn't hold it. Only Oregon has an excuse, since their collapse coincided with an injury to star quarterback Dennis Dixon. The Ducks, when healthy, are the best team I saw all year. Unfortunately, their offense was built around Dixon and when he went down, they were toast.
Of the teams playing for the national championship, Ohio State's non-conference schedule has consisted of Youngstown State, Akron, Washington and Kent State; while LSU has lost twice and barely survived three other contests. Outside of a pasting of Virginia Tech, the Tigers non-league slate is as bad as the Buckeyes. Being in the Big 10 is no excuse for OSU's sorry schedule. That conference is really down this year.
I've not been in favor of Hawaii being included in the BCS because it's schedule has been so weak, but looking at the teams that have been favored, I think the unbeaten Warriors not only deserve their BCS spot, but maybe should be the team playing the Buckeyes. LSU will probably win by two or three touchdowns, but no two-loss team should ever be the national champion.
We should neither celebrate nor reward failure.
In the space of just over two weeks:
-- the United Nations' atomic energy watchdog reported that Iran had acquired 3,000 centrifuges needed to process uranium and would thus be able to build a nuclear bomb in about a year,
-- and 16 U.S. spy agencies jointly released a National Intelligence Estimate that revealed that while the troublesome country was making progress on its nuclear program, it had apparently halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003.
Oh-kaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy. That's helpful.
Now, as is befitting our national leadership, you have Bush administration officials, Democrats and "experts" debating whether the NIE is right or wrong.
Well, I have no idea whether it's right or wrong and you probably don't either. The only thing I learned is that we have 16 spy agencies. I can count the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and the intelligence organization within the State Department. That's four. You can probably fold in the Secret Service and FBI to make six. But I digress.
The only argument I can make against the NIE report is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has for several years now stated his goal to build a bomb that will wipe Israel off the map. He's hailed various breakthroughs in his country's nuclear program. Logically, there's not much need for energy-rich Iran to have nuclear power.
Otherwise, here we are with divergent reports trying to figure out which one is accurate. We need to know. There is nothing that can be more dangerous in the world than to have a nuclear-armed Iran. Fortunately, Ahmadinejad has been forthcoming with his plans when it suits him. It might take one of his vitriolic speeches to figure out the truth.
---
This one we know is wrong. Sen. Harry Reid says the troop surge in Iraq is not working. That's political speech that can roughly be translated into "Darn it, I can't stop this war no matter what I do and now my party is going to get creamed for it."
There's tons of anecdotal evidence that the surge is indeed working, enough so that Reid's fellow Democrats and most media observers agree. Why Reid continues to make himself look foolish is beyond me. But it's a real illustration of the problems we have in Washington, D.C. You can hold three fingers up before Reid and ask him how many fingers you're displaying, and his answer will be whatever he believes suits him politically.
Give us the truth. Then feel free to tell us you don't like it.
---
This is NOT the most exciting college football season in years, like you might hear or read.
This season has been all about failure. Seriously, last week of the season and numbers one and two both lost. No team that's climbed to the top spots in the rankings have been able to hold their place. USC, West Virginia, LSU, Ohio State, Cal, Boston College, South Florida, Oregon, Missouri and Kansas all had a shot at glory and couldn't hold it. Only Oregon has an excuse, since their collapse coincided with an injury to star quarterback Dennis Dixon. The Ducks, when healthy, are the best team I saw all year. Unfortunately, their offense was built around Dixon and when he went down, they were toast.
Of the teams playing for the national championship, Ohio State's non-conference schedule has consisted of Youngstown State, Akron, Washington and Kent State; while LSU has lost twice and barely survived three other contests. Outside of a pasting of Virginia Tech, the Tigers non-league slate is as bad as the Buckeyes. Being in the Big 10 is no excuse for OSU's sorry schedule. That conference is really down this year.
I've not been in favor of Hawaii being included in the BCS because it's schedule has been so weak, but looking at the teams that have been favored, I think the unbeaten Warriors not only deserve their BCS spot, but maybe should be the team playing the Buckeyes. LSU will probably win by two or three touchdowns, but no two-loss team should ever be the national champion.
We should neither celebrate nor reward failure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)