Centerfield

We're already plotting to show up in the primaries of our choice, in droves, and to overwhelm all the principled folks who are loyal to their parties!

We might want to be more organized for this, calling out those contenders in 2008 who are doing good and bad. Furthermore, a single Republican or Democrat primary endorsement and then general election endorsement from Centerfield, might not be a bad idea. I feel a committee coming on.

I think it's fine for each of us to do any endorsement we want in the form of "here's who I like in this race, and here's why."

But i think we could do a small but helpful thing by providing folks who aren't aligned with any party the inf0rmation that they need to make sure they'll be able to vote in one or the other primary in their state. Mileage varies, from what I've heard.

And I think we should be on the lookout for recommendations for state-specifric strategies for centrists. IOW, in the great state of X, I think centrists should plan to vote in the primary of party Y, and vote for candidate Z.

And I'm fine with everyone having their own criteria. For the sake of preserving my hopes that I can actually find a bonafide real-world candidate to support instead of dreaming about the Easter Bunny, I'm starting with a short list.

I want a candidate who #1 has the fortitude not to give up on Iraq unless it's crystal clear the window has closed on our chances,

and

#2 I want a candidate with the courage to forthrightly acknowledge that cost growth in SS and Medicare needs to be faced and addressed as soon as possible, who won't blow smoke up our butts by denying that forecast calls for pain, and who isn't afraid to ask for sacrifice from all components of our culture, from seniors to our newest workers to government to business.

That's my "who I can support" short dream qualities list.

Since I live in MA, I can wait until primary day to decide whether to vote in the GOP or democratic primary. That gives me the best chance of finding a situation where I can drive one party's choice to the middle. In other states, you may have to guess ahead of time.

But honestly, I think the chances are good that we'll get folks that qualify as relatively pragmatic moderates, at least in the sense that they'll respect and listen to the other sides' ideas. I like both Obama and Clinton on the democratic side. Not that they are not partisans, but that they are, as Pat likes to say, "good partisans." I also think Guiliani and McCain qualify, McCain for his iconoclasm despite being pretty conservative in many respects, and Guiliani for being, in my impression, a "git 'er done" kind of guy.

Romney is a guy whose sincerity I question. I think he pushed through a half-baked and unworkable state healthcare plan for the sake of burnishing his presidential resume, and he was satisfied to let our state liberals believe he was far less socially conservative than he in fact is, up until it was too late for them to do anything about it. He's not on my list because I think he's the most likely among the current possible candidates to continue to promote faith-based initiatives at the federal level, which I don't think is a good idea for either the government or for faiths. I expect all GOp candidates to support the notion, but Romney is the one most likely to follow through.

So Brain, what do centrists think about this? Both Parties marginalized centrists for the last two years, It doesn't mean much if the result results in a null set of policy. Can anyone really doubt the forces at work?

I think the "centrists" should mark out a position. Yes?

LOL.

(Ross Perot, call your office...)

I meant Brian,,,,sorry, but you have been "brainy" lately. LOL. Going to Weston for Thanksgiving. From Blue to blue.

Max, I suspect a little googling will turn up useful clues on where various potential centrist candidates stand on Iraq.

I think there are, in fact, multiple reasonable non-denial-based possible positions.

Max, I can't presume to speak for centrists, only myself.

My guess is that Iran is going to stick quite closely to its story about developing nukes only for power generation. Rhetorically and diplomatically speaking, it's a winner. The longer they stick to it, the more credence it gains.

How true is it? I'd hazard a guess that very few folks outside of an inner circle privy to our best intelligence can speculate with any degree of accuracy. The rest of us are left with no choice but to make assumptions largely inphormed by our biases. For what it's worth, I find it quite plausible to guess that Iran's plan is to use nuclear power plants to learn more and more about nuclear power so that eventually they can pull the sheet off of a great big nuclear bomb. Whoever does that first crowns himself king of the Middle East, no?

What do traces of powerful nuclear fuel found in Iran mean? They could mean many things. We just don't know. It's not even clear to me whether there's any particular reason to be surprised or more alarmed today than yesterday. We know they've been trying, right? Those far more expert in nuke tech could make more knowledgeable guesses, but still guesses.

I don't happen to believe Ahmadinejad's latest claim that they are definitely in the club, but no one doubts that they are trying, and many question their true motives, for good reason.

As I have said previously many times, I have no expectation that the US will be successful over the longer term in preventing others from joining the nuke club. Sooner or later, we are going to find ourselves back in the familiar cold war position of having little choice but to warily negotiate with dangerous folks who we don't like or see eye to eye with. I don't see it as a question of if, but rather of when we will face that. In my mind, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion.

The only silver lining to that cloud is that human nature, while sometimes venal and greedy, is usually fairly rational in the service of one's own self interest. That means that leaders who find themselves backed by the power of a nuclear bomb have found that such a bomb is most powerful if you don't actually explode it. This opften gets lost in the static about how this or that foreign strongman is a madman bound to blow us all to kingdom come. Thankfully, you really don't have to be all that rational to understand the virtue of using a nuke bomb as a diplomatic big stick.

Brian;

The only silver lining to that cloud

No...complete accident. No wait, I mean yes, of course I meant to do that, clever fellow that I am.

"The only silver lining to that cloud is that human nature, while sometimes venal and greedy, is usually fairly rational in the service of one's own self interest."

----------------

Brian, that paradigm worked fine for the days when only nation-states had the capacity to create and deliver those kind of weapons. How does MAD work in the days of non-state actors?

How do you retaliate against an enemy when you don't even clearly know where or who that enemy is?

What happens if the enemy you identify happens to be mingled in with a populace of millions of innocent civilians, in a nation that had absolutely nothing to with the attack?

How do you retaliate against the non-state actors sponsor when you have to rely on fairly murkey intelligence to determine exactly who that sponsor is.... and you have maybe only a 60% reliabilty estimate from the intel that you've ID'ed the right sponsor nation?

It's just way too easy for tyrants to utilize, disposable and difficult to trace assets as proxies.

Furthermore, even if said new club-members were too worried that such proxies could be traced back to them. You now have to rely on the security of alot of very volatile states to keep those weapon systems out of the hands of people who are crazy enough to use them.

Cengel, I'm not sure why you think my post relates to the issue of retaliation, which you seem pretty obsessed with in your post.

I'm just talking about assessing the likelihood of first use should somone new acquire the goods. I'm not saying it's impossible that some terrorist MIGHT acquire a nuke and be enthusiastic to use it. But the dynamic still holds where the nuke is more powerful if you don't use it, in terms of acquiring and consolidating political power. What percent sane do you have to be to notice this? I dunno.

But think about it...you're a 3/4 crazy terrorist who lucks himself into a powerful working nuke, for whatever reason. Do you:

A) deliver a blow to the great satan for the sake of Allah

B) wave around your prize, zoom onto the top ten list of most powerful folks on the planet, and establish a real-world kingdom, complete with palace and entourage.

It's probably a fair assumption that some folks across the globe are trying to acquire a nuke on the basis of vision A. What I am saying is that if such a person is in fact successful in their acquisition goal, B is bound to come to mind.

And the World Bank gets nicer about those unpaid overdue loans.