Centerfield

Open Food Poisoned Thread

I've had food poisoning since yesterday. The primary suspect is some old pastrami.

UPDATE: We've had to cancel a huge party. I was going to make some salmon chowder that came out pretty righteous the last time I made it.

I hope you guys are doing better?

Truthers and Truthiness

One of the unfortunate personal consequences of taking a break from blogging, over the last year, seems to be a dramatic deterioration in my ability to write stuff in nice little quick bites. The post you're reading now started as a few observations, but ballooned uncontrollably into a 1,500 word essay. I apologize for the length and understand completely if nobody makes it all the way through.

Visiting a few moderate and centrist blogs, reading a little bit here and there, one of the things that comes through rather clearly is that centrism is a broad-spectrum kind of movement. There isn't a small set of issues, or a limited agenda, that encapsulates what moderates and centrists bring to the table socially and politically. We have views on the issues, along with a detailed interest in policy. But we also have an interest in process, attitude, the culture and norms of political interaction, and a particular interest in drawing lessons from the way regular Americans approach their everyday business and family lives.

I bring this up because I think I've just run across one more way -- one slightly unexpected path -- through which centrists can contribute a little bit to the health and value of the ongoing public debate.

It was something I noticed while doing a little research into a cultural phenomenon currently in the midst of a spectacular growth curve. I was vaguely aware of one or two small parts of it, but I took the opportunity to learn more, just in the last week or so, after a member of my family developed a strong interest in it.

Various labels are put on this internet-fueled movement. The term "Truthers" is sometimes used to describe the folks who believe in this stuff. British author Damian Thompson uses the term "counterknowledge" to describe the movement in a timely book just released on the topic last month.

The most prominent cultural touchstones are a few internet-based movies, including:

• Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist, released on Google video in June 2007 and since viewed (they claim) by over 2 million people.
• Dylan Avery's Loose Change, originally released in 2005 and viewed at least 10 million times on Google video. It was also shown on the History Channel and on a few local network affiliates.
• Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism, released in 2006 and shown in theatres in a few cities, as well as on Google video.

These films are surprisingly slick, emotionally impactful, and internally compelling. By "internally" I mean to suggest that if you set aside everything you know before watching the film, while also turning off the logical faculty most of us use to make rough impromptu assessments of the plausibility of things, then you will most likely be deeply moved by these films. The narration is smooth, pleasant, and confident. The pacing is steady, and there's a nice use of imagery to focus the attention and organize the material. The graphics and narration work together to effortlessly convey each little element of the story.

I happen to work in the e-learning business, so I spend my days putting together web-based training courses that combine graphics and audio to teach people stuff. The way the producers of these films use those elements is more effective, on the whole, than most of the stuff my company does, and we have hundreds of sharp people working toward that end every day.

These films are also adept in the use of propaganda techniques. The emotional impact of imagery from 9/11 was particularly strong for me. Aside from the usual images we've seen of people falling from buildings, there was an audio piece of a guy who was on the phone in one of the towers, up to and including the moment he was crushed. I haven't been able to get that out of my head. It was truly heartbreaking.

What do these movies tell you? Well, the 9/11 conspiracy is a big piece of it. Zeitgeist and Loose Change both explain how the attacks were really a conspiracy by our own government to give them a pretext for undermining our liberties.

All three films also include the tax fraud and the "international bankers" conspiracy. The tax piece explains the absence of any legal requirement for any of us to pay income taxes. The income tax is unconstitutional, on their reckoning, and in any event it is not required by any actual law. Of course, this theory has been around for a while, and has been thoroughly debunked.

The "international bankers" conspiracy is the broad, all-encompassing one that we're all familiar with. The bankers and the Federal Reserve have controlled every major development in the last couple hundred years of Western history. They started all the wars, kicked off the Great Depression, and found a way to manipulate (and profit from) each significant historical turn.

The most recent of these films, Zeitgeist, breaks new ground by adding a fourth major thread to the conspiracy. It starts with a long segment explaining how religion, and Christianity in particular, has been used as a tool to control us. Jesus did not even exist as a historical person, according to this movie. He was invented by the powers-that-be and used as a tool to prevent us from thinking clearly and asking questions.

If you dip your toes into the portions of the internet where these movies are currently being watched and discussed, you find a vibrant, large-scale, active debate. In terms of numbers, the Truthers seem to have the advantage. The sheer number of folks who watch these things and share with their friends is staggering. The number of new people emailing their friends every day with messages like "Have you seen this? It truly opened my eyes!!!" is apparently quite sizeable. A few months ago, when Rosie O'Donnell started spouting 9/11 conspiracy stuff on The View, it was most likely part of the cultural backwash of this red hot viral internet phenomenon.

Looking at the current online debate, especially the folks taking the time to argue against the Truthers, I get the broad sense that they share some classically centrist qualities. A number of them have this powerful, unshakeable focus on getting the facts straight, along with a basic sense of balance in the way they evaluate information. Sites like Snopes.com attract the sort of folks who want to know the bottom line and are determined not to be spun. They're pretty busy dealing with the influx of Truthers over there.

Of course, these aren't qualities we can ascribe to centrism in any sort of exclusive fashion. There are folks on the left and right who are reasonably tough-minded and fact-based in their basic approach to the world around us. A blog called Screw Loose Change was started by two Republicans who engage in daily debate with the Truthers, while the site Debunking911.com was started by a liberal who wants to clearly document why these conspiracy theories aren't true. The funniest piece written by a skeptic was the one by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone, complete with a purported script by the 9/11 conspirators.

In this, there seems to be a drive that flows right along the empirical lanes we centrists tend to travel. Let's figure out what's really happening in the world around us first, regardless of who gains or loses from that assessment. Let's not walk around with alternate sets of simple facts about the world, particularly if those facts can be checked.

Of course, the concept of "truthiness" was recently developed by a prominent liberal, Stephen Colbert, as a critique of guys like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, who seem to derive their sense of what's real from "gut feelings" and are rather adept at sweeping aside inconvenient facts.

Moving the "truthiness" concept into this debate would seem perfectly appropriate, both linguistically and logically. If we begin to sweep in the bogus theories on the left, like conspiracies that claim George Bush planned 9/11, we may someday end up with a concept of "truthiness" that helps weed out the gross factual inaccuracies on both sides of the aisle.

It seems to me, with a mass phenomenon like the Truthers currently underway, that centrists can make a contribution by helping to tug these folks back to some semblance of reality, while giving a boost to those segments of the left, right, and middle who want to build real standards of factual accuracy into the public debate.

Subprime primer

I currently spend many hours per day working on matters related to the subprime mess. I have sat through countless mind-numbing presentations regarding how and why this mess developed. By far the best explanation I have found is here. It will take you 3 minutes to go through, you will laugh your butt off, and you will be genuinely better informed when you are done. So go; you will not regret it. (Warning: Some rough language.)

Breaking news

Nader picks Gonzalez as running mate

That's Gonzalez, not Gonzales.

Some Texas Turnout-Blogging

Greg Wythe's been blogging about the apparent high here in Texas primary turnout, and its possible implications. He's certainly not the only interested party here.

Only fools think TX has any possibility of going (D) in November, but, as tbe links point out, it does have local implications if a decidedly smaller fraction of Republicans than Democrats turn out to vote and Of course, the gap won't be anything like as wide in November, because at this point this is a coronation on the R side. But it's a harbinger.

Some Obama Toughness

Loren Thompson wrote a column titled Obama Is Tough, reviewing some non-namby-pamby-like Obama foreign policy positions.

Lighter side

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

Hillary's Awesomely Different Foreign policy

Abra-cadabra. Hillary Clinton is appalled at Obama for being too aggressive in promising to act on actionable intelligence in the region of Pakistan where Osama Bin Laden is thought by many to hide. And TA-Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. She's also horrified that Obama has expressed willingness to commit the mortal sin of talking with our enemies. Without precondition. Oh the horror of a lack of preconditions!

This feat of prestidigitation had me wondering. If Hillary opposes both aggressive action and forthright overtures of conciliation, what's she FOR, Virginia? Thankfully, RCP has the text of her foreign policy speech at GWU. The first ten paragraphs are predictable platitudes like this:

But while these stark realities carry dangers, they also bring unprecedented opportunities if we act wisely, if we have the right kind of leadership. There isn't any doubt in my mind that we will not only navigate through these uncharted difficult waters but emerge stronger than ever, reasserting both our leadership and our moral authority.

We need a president who understands there is a time for force, a time for diplomacy, and a time for both, who understands that we enhance our international reputation and strengthen our security if the world sees the human face of American democracy in the good works, the good deeds we do for people seeking freedom from poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, and oppression.

Sure, but the devil's in the details, and you aint got any. Pot? Kettle. She follows that up with another 10 or 12 paragraphs of nice things we ought to demand happen from all the places she's visited. She's ready to take on China economically on behalf of us. Good luck with that. Round about paragraph 23, we hit the first bit of semi-substance, that the policy of pre-emption will be over if she's President. And we'll begin to bring home troops from Iraq within 60 days, at a pace subject to a host of circumstances. Because it won't be easy. How original. Way different than Obama, too!

Finally we get to the real drivel. Numb 'em with platitudes first, then when they slip into the sugar coma, try to slip the bullshit by 'em:

If I am entrusted with the presidency, America will have the courage, once again, to meet with our adversaries. But I will not be penciling in the leaders of Iran or North Korea or Venezuela or Cuba on the presidential calendar without preconditions, until we have assessed through lower level diplomacy, the motivations and intentions of these dictators. ... we simply cannot legitimize rogue regimes or weaken American prestige by impulsively agreeing to presidential level talks that have no preconditions.

I don't really see what the difference is between talking face to face and sending lower level diplomats, unless it's to do nothing while you're pretending you are doing something. Being tough. Building prestige. Why does refusing to talk to "rogue" regimes delegitimize them? They're running their countries, plotting against us, using global 4th generation warfare to fight the political battle while we refuse to talk. Why does talking to them hurt "American prestige?" My dad used to say that prestige doesn't put shoes on my kids feet. It doesn't fix foreign policy either. And how's our prestige looking these days anyway?

The way I look at it, Obama has committed only to talking. He wants to go right to the enemy honcho and talk turkey. He wants to find out asap whether there's any common ground. Could it all be a waste of time? Of course. But nothing ventured, nothing gained. There's no reason he can't talk first, and at that time, discuss conditions for further talks. There's also no reason why he can't talk first, and then tear the leader a new one AFTER the talks. As a last resort.

What does Hillary Clinton want? She wants enemy leaders to ring up the call center and wait 45 minutes to talk to the next available representative. She wants them to talk to people who have no authority and can't help, only explain official company policy and hand down ultimatums. She spends a lot of time talking about when to use the talon and when to hand out the olive branch. But she doesn't explain when the talon will be used, except " as a last resort." Which everyone says. And her policy on the olive branch is that she'll let you touch a leaf if you kiss her ass. Brilliant. Let's face it, this allegedly vast difference in approach is cosmetic.

Apostasy!

GOP Senator Tom Coburn Requests Crucifixion

U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn's comment that going to war in Iraq was "probably a mistake" represents a significant departure from where the Oklahoma Republican started out on the 5-year-old conflict.

Maybe not crucifixion. He also said he thinks we need to stay there now. But he's certainly earned a new nickname among the party faithful, and it won't be Biff or Koko, or T-Bone. It'll be "the unforgiven."

Cranky Go Home

If a vanity candidacy leaves the station without a cheering crowd to send it off, will it make a sound?

Anti-corporate crank and gadfly Ralph Nader today announces he's going for an oh-fer-five:

Ralph Nader is entering the presidential race as an independent, he announced Sunday, saying it is time for a "Jeffersonian revolution."

...

Nader's decision, which did not come as a surprise to political watchers, marks his fourth straight White House bid -- fifth if his 1992 write-in campaign is included.

...

Name expunged also criticized Nader earlier this weekend. "My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive," expunged told reporters when asked about Nader's possible candidacy. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work."

Little test there. See if you agree with the sentiment before you review who said it. I know I agree.

Nader's become an impotent scold. Even Huckabee forthrightly acknowledged his entry helps the GOP. And here's the thing...

...I'm always going to support the 1st amendment right of folks to speak their mind and support their pet issues. Nader makes a good case at least some of the time. But it takes an egomaniac to put his pet cause above the importance of selecting our next leader. Anyone who wants to mount an independent or 3rd party challenge ought to have enough respect for our nation's presidential choosing process to either show some serious viability (like what, at least 15% to 20% by springtime, right?) or get the frak out of the way. If your idiosyncratic take on what's most important for the nation doesn't get you any real traction, but you insist on hanging around anyway, you're just a petulant crank. A sideshow troll.

And hey, I'm a cranky critter, but I'm not running, am I?

Santos Versus Vinnick

I am a West Wing fanatic... seriously, it is unhealthy. I sat and watched every minute of the last season hoping that it wasn't going to be over. This hope was based upon what I believed to be an outstanding story line regarding the made for television Presidential race between Democrat Matthew Santos, an upstart minority Congressman with a knack for angering teacher unions and spreading a message of hope, and Arnie Vinnick, a straight talking old school moderate Republican U.S. Senator who was in the twilight of his career.

Young versus old. Classic Republican ideals of the free-market, less government, big defense, and lower taxes, versus the Classic Democratic ideal that the government plays a role in giving people a step up and for solving our most serious problems such as global warming, poverty, and immigration. Two individuals who were in it for the right reasons... service and a belief that they could provide the change the American people wanted. I remember thinking at the time... wouldn't this be cool if it actually happened?

On March 4th, if Obama wins Texas, I think we are going to get incredibly close to Vinnick versus Santos. All I can say to the American people after the nomination of McCain and Obama, if he wins, is congratulations on a job well done. I think we have two potential nominees who are in their heart of hearts extremely good men, both can make outstanding Presidents, and both will inspire confidence in the hearts of most Americans that this is still the greatest and most compassionate nation on God's earth.

In the end I was holding out for Vinnick, and I can't imagine a scenario where I will actually vote against John McCain... although I have pondered it. I simply believe his experience is a good fit at the right time. As a Republican he can make actual progress on issues like global warming, energy independence, and immigration, because he isn't attached to the same groups that Mitt Romney would have been... he can negotiate with the Democrats and bring along enough Republicans.

Senator McCain was right about the surge and is right that withdrawal from Iraq will not lead to anything but dire consequences. His efforts to support increasing troop levels, in the face of poll numbers that almost ended his campaign for President, is the right kind of leadership in a post-9/11 world. I don't doubt for a second that the Senator is tough enough or experienced enough to lead this country.

Both candidates will have their challenges.

On the issues, Obama is in trouble. On things that the American people agree with Democrats over Republicans, McCain has for the most part parted with his party. Although Obama got opposition to the Iraq war right, at least politically speaking, McCain was right about the surge. However, the straight talk express will derail if the McCain campaign allows their candidate to be framed as the guy who acted like a regular politician 10% of the time, rather than the guy that took on his own party, special interest groups, and K Street the other 90%.

The New York Times piece is crap, but for maybe the first time, it isn't the sex or the lack their of that matters. Over the next nine months John McCain's long congressional career is going to be torn to pieces. Every event he went to with a lobbyist, every plane ride, every letter, and every donation is going to be investigated... we haven't even begun to discuss Charles Keating. Yes, they are going to do the best they can to knock that halo off of his head.

The good news for McCain is that Mr. Obama has also done some double talk when it comes to relationships with lobbyists and corporate interests. The guy who wants to publically finance Federal campaigns, and I fully agree, has been the darling of private contributors who are going to expect to have his ear in January of 2009. Obama understands that the game must be played if he is to be elected and create all that hope he keeps talking about, which is going to make it pretty difficult to cry foul over any letters Senator McCain has written in the past.

Obama's bigger problem; however, is a lack of specifics and a lack of identity. Because he has stated a very eloquent, but very general case for change during the nomination process, many do not really know who he is. Is he the author of the Audacity of Hope who called for more cooperation between opposing ideologies, the great mediator, or the guy who convinced conservatives to elect him President of the Harvard Review? Or is he, as the National Journal states, the most liberal member of the Senate, the leftist State Senator from Chicago, or the guy who all of a sudden went negative on free trade agreements in order to knock off Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin and Ohio? Hope will get Senator Obama to about 45 - 47%, but then he has got to start convincing independent voters that he is capable of tackling major international and domestic issues, and he hasn't even begun to scratch the surface in regards to details.

In the end, it will be close like it was in 2000 and 2004. Unlike Presidential elections since 1968, it is possible the political map will shift, significantly altering the political strategies of both campaigns. We have two nominees who won mostly because of votes that were cast in primaries and caucuses of states that were not strong holds of their political party. McCain's base of support came from the Northeast and the West, where Obama's victories were largely in the South and the Midwest.

It is entirely possible that McCain can be victorious by winning in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Hampshire, where his patriotic service, maverick tendencies, and national security experience will play well with blue collar Americans. On the other hand, it is possible that Obama can win by inspiring African Americans to vote for the first time in places like Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana, as well as independent spirits in New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, and Iowa.

Like Vinnick versus Santos, we are in for a very entertaining nine months. Will McCain try to solidify the South by picking a conservative like Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue or South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford? Or, will he attempt to build a new coalition of Republicans by going with former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Governor Christie Todd Whitman, or Senator Joe Lieberman?

Will Obama pick somebody from a Democratic stronghold with more experience like California Senator Dianne Feinstein, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, Delaware Senator Joe Lieberman, or former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley? Or will he too try and build a new coalition by picking a moderate from a red state like Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, or New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson? Or... can Obama do both by picking *gasp* Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton or former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn?

Will the campaign be respectful like Vinnick versus Santos? Will the debates or the conventions matter? What role will the Clinton’s and Al Gore play? What role will George W. Bush play? Will McCain's temper ever get the best of him or will Obama's inexperience ever get the best of him? Will either candidate make a proposal outside of the traditional views of their political parties?

Whew! We haven't even discussed the possibility that Hillary Clinton could still win in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, setting up the first contested national convention since Reagan and Ford.

Caveats On The New Ballistic Missile Defense System

The big problem is that we can't get overconfident in this thing. It has a real potential to save many lives, but in war, it absolutely will let a few through, even once it's mature (see below), Like other modern missile defense systems, probably somewhere between a tenth and two tenths would get through even if everything goes right. If we go to war with Russia or China, we need to be ready to see several cities hit. I hope we won't be so stupid.

Sec'y Gates and newspapers have been far too optimistic about it, calling it a working BMD system. It is a good step, but there's a big difference between a stable satellite with a well-known orbit and a ground-launched missile launched by a hostile power in a spot and time of their choosing.

It's really in what we engineers call beta test, tests in deployment stage. It's going to take a few years before we can ACTUALLY rely on shots on ballistic missiles actually completely doing their jobs.

Whether or not the project managers and were aware, every big project ever done and ever in the future faces engineering constraints in terms of low reliability until long test periods - first a very limited alpha test, then a deployed beta, are behind us. If they ever work - the bigger the project, the lower the odds of success, the longer it takes to work out bugs.

At that, there's another constraint that HAS been obeyed: be incremental. Tacking on a series of increasing abilities, like to an existing missile system (Standard), is much likelier to work than building something from scratch. That's why this is on board faster and cheaper than the special-purposes ballistic defense systems also being worked on.

Alot of infrastructure is needed to pull this off, not much less than was used around MAD. For it to work, more launching systems than the enemy nation has must be permanently stationed and alert near the suspect nation. It's only going to work well in conjunction with a largely circumvallating ballistic radar net. I see plans for such a thing, but it seems very much work in progress yet. And its decision time is crazily low. That'll make it hard to be sure it'll work to catch surprise launches, and there'll be several false launches, hopefully not on aircraft.

UPDATE: Only forgot the most important caveat. Updated appropriately.

The Rally: An Obama Supporter's Perspective

Being an Obama supporter, I know you'll be utterly startled to hear I saw the rally rather different than poor ol' Tully did. I was surprised to see Obama back - this is his second rally in Austin; I was under the impression that candidates liked to spread out their appearances as much as possible. In fact, Austin Rally 2 seems to've been organized after Houston and San Antonio rallies, so I wonder if it was a near thing. Let me remind you that we couldn't go in person, so this is all based on watching his speech on TV.

When it was over, I asked the Profesora her opinions. She's undecided, but says she can't possibly vote the same way I do.... She said people seem to describe Obama much the same way as they described Clinton - charismatic, young, good, preacherly voice, "The Man From Hope."

I really feel sorry for Hillary for being on the wrong side of the campaign's great voice when running on her own. Like Mathew hoped, it was pretty good stuff. I wasn't tempted to go read a book, like I am when seeing Huckabee speak.

After reading and hearing many impractical-sounding sound bites and snippets on the Obama site and in the media, I was surprised how practical I felt the entire message was at rally length as a whole. It's true that hope has an emotional, frothy feeling, and that's his theme. But let's face it: plenty of our Presidents have inspired that feeling on their sides of the aisle. Plenty of people felt hope as responses to Reagan and Clinton on their respective sides. I daresay Tully felt that way about Reagan, while I felt about Reagan the same way Tully feels about Obama.

The an end to nasty politics bit, in long form, points out that Bush and many other politicians in DC love to see us live in fear, which is true. Aren't the terror alert levels, set with bureaucratic cowardice, an instrument of fear? Bush has never once pointed out the simple truth that the American people are able to stand up to fear without bureaucratic assistance. To me that's a terrible failing. Instead he's taken advantage of that fear to do more and more things to take away our rights. Did FDR tell people to fear just hope itself?

The notion of taking away American rights in times of potential existential crisis is well-established. There is and was a real, and hard problem out there, but the nation's existence is NOT threatened. Not so many Americans died on 9/11, and we didn't even get a recession on top of the already-extant crash. It was worth taking military action in Afghanistan and developing financial investigation tools, but where's the excuse for taking so many rights? Even for the bank group, why wasn't getting FISA-style court agreement for an agreeing judge so impractical, given that FISA allows retroactive permission? Time after time I've seen officials and their defenders fail to back their actions with the kind of facts I think democracy should demand for this kind of action. We see anecdotes, but never any data or reasonable explanation why doing it right is impractical. "Well, because you gotta! And eat your broccoli, young man!"

His version of health plan looks best to me because it's mostly just making another plan available and forces far fewer into it (I want to see a widely available plan available for the poor, but think it's unamerican to force people into it). I really, really, really wish somebody would tell truth on costs, but nobody's doing that. That's not on order from any side - Bush wasn't much interested in telling the real costs of his drug plan, was he?

Of the three major candidates, I think he understands both the economy and the Internet best; he must get the Internet, since he gets things done by blog. He's understands network neutrality and is for it. He understands the economy as well as politicians ever do, and the centrality of enterpreneurship, innovation, and high technology to our way of life and economy. I'd be happier, though, if he were less liable to talk about unlikely stupid economic plans like the outsourcing discouragement credit.

I want a President who will take the positive path instead of fear and more fear. It's certainly possible that he will follow in Bush' footsteps in sliding from a positive man who forwarded American rights and values and paid attention to ground reality to the opposite kind of man. Nobody is immune from corruption or the arrogance of success. But at least he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps, started an enterprise that didn't need Daddy's courtiers to waste $millions to keep afloat, and has had vastly more experience of contrasting cultures to give him extra perspective and character. I think he's likely to decay more slowly.

Bullish on 2008, and on McCain

As I've said a few times before, I'm more than cautiously pleased at the caliber of the remaining candidates. Jonathan Rauch sounds downright bullish, especially on John McCain.

On the 3 folks left, hyperbolic:

This year's primary season has been so full of healthy developments that you could package it with oat bran and hawk it at Whole Foods. The country can thank its lucky stars that the process has pushed forward—in McCain and in Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama—the three most formidable figures in American politics. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, the result will pit the two most widely admired political figures of their generations against each other in a presidential race. The last time the country saw anything remotely like that was when Dwight Eisenhower faced Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956.

And on Dear Johnny, Rauch is downright effusive:

Most Republicans understand that their loss of credibility on spending restraint and fiscal responsibility has damaged the Republican brand. Wise Republicans understand, further, that supply-side dogmatism has become part of the problem. The supply-side movement made sense when the top tax rate was 70 percent, taxes rose with inflation, and tax cuts were only one part of a program that also included deregulation and lower spending. It stopped making sense when Bush-era Republicanism turned it into an obsession, fixated on the idea that if you just cut taxes and then cut them some more, lower spending, smaller government, and shrinking deficits will follow.

McCain has a long record of vocal opposition to pork-barrel spending and congressional earmarks; he makes a point of calling for entitlement reform; and he is not a supply-sider, having voted against both of Bush's biggest tax cuts. Supply-siders hate that, and it's true that he has now rallied to them with expensive and unpaid-for promises to extend the Bush tax cuts and abolish the alternative minimum tax. Still, McCain's heart belongs not to the supply-side absolutism of the Bush era but to the tightfisted rectitude of the Eisenhower era. If anyone has a shot at restoring Republican fiscal credibility, it is McCain.

...

So McCain offers Republicans hope of a revitalized center, a connection to independents, a productive presidency, improved fiscal credibility, improved moral credibility, a restored constitutional balance, a firm instead of flimsy war on jihadism, and a way forward on immigration. You have to look back to Reagan to find such a serendipitous match between the man and the moment.

C'mon now, be sure to transport through that hyperlink up there above the excerpts and read it all. You'll be glad you did. I'm not swooning like the almost schoolgirlish Rauch, but he makes a good case.

Open Thread: Clinton and Obama in Texas

As you know, Clinton and Obama debated in Texas. We saw the first half last night, and listened to the rest today on KUT, the UT NPR station.

Obama appeared with the 'Horns and Mack Brown. There's fear he lost both Democrats in College Station, home of the rival Aggies. A Statesman sports reporter wants to know his position on a border wall to keep out Oklahoma recruiters.

We have vague hopes of going to an Obama rally tonight. But it's not looking likely - the kid and the Profesora's schedule are combining to make it unlikely.

If all the moons are in conjunction, &c &c, I'll file a report on it right here.

This is the first post I've managed while watching the kid - he has his own keyboard to work with, and it's keeping him busy (the Profesora's idea).

What are your weekend plans?

UPDATE: NG on the Obama Rally. I had not one, but two pieces of bad luck. Oh, well - I knew that the parents of a baby getting to something as late and sudden as a rally was a long shot.

UPDATE2: Watched the rally on TV, on Austin / TimeWarner's 24hr cable news channel. Not the same, of course, but we got to hear what he had to say. Will blog it, as promised.

UPDATE 3: I'm posting it tomorrow rather than today because I'm a gasbagy analzing kinda guy rather than a liveblogger. I've got a draft done, but it needs sleeping-on.

UPDATE 4: I'd like to express my sorrow for the slain policeman in Clinton's escort, and condolences to his family and friends. That's a terrible thing to happen.

Dogs And Cats: Will on McCain Foreign Policy

(though, here in TX, you see alot of dogs and cats getting along great)

Here's a first for me - a George Will column I mostly agree with. How weird. It's a series of good questions for McCain about his intended foreign policy.

There is, of course, one big point I DO think is wrong.

But that will not enable the Democratic nominee to argue prospectively that what America's sacrifices have achieved should be put at risk by the essentially unconditional withdrawal of forces that both Democratic candidates promise.

He's wrong because Bush went on TV and sounded like we'd go in stupid, and promised both security and politics fixed in Iraq in six months. That was a year and a half ago. Now the GOP has little public credibility on Iraq. The Surge IS working, but far, far slower than Bush projected, and for different reasons than Bush suggested.

I especially congratulate Will on paying attention to events on the ground in Iraq - a distinct oddity both in DC and both rightie and leftie media.

The Blogging Life

Ok, let's not show this one to my wife. Hat tip to The Monkey Cage.

Texas Dem Update

The race seems to've tightened here in Texas.

According to the Austin American-Statesman, organizing Guadalupe Valley (TX S border region) was Clinton's first political job, so she has long-time contacts here, and there are long good memories of her and her husband. There are many good memories of the Clinton Administration here, and there's a fair amount of cultural friction here between many Latinos and many blacks. Thus, Clinton started with a huge advantage among Latinos, according to the Statesman.

Now, (maybe from the momentum? or maybe some Latinos are feeling more comfortable with Obama than their neighbors?), the polling numbers among Latinos are narrowing, though the lead's still there. But that means the overall gap is alot narrower.

So, I still think Clinton's likely to end up ahead here, but with a narrow enough margin to still be in trouble overall. I think she'll lose Ohio, though maybe narrowly.

No Need to Defend Obama

The Obama backlash furiously laps at the heels of the alleged empty rhetoric man from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The volume has grown quite high from both righty and middle blogs. And even the mainstream press has finally decided that Obama is now well-enough known and amply enough loved that the time to try a teardown is now at hand.

Links? Come on now, anyone reading here is more than capable enough to find the NY Times, the Washington Post, Stubborn Facts, and Poligazette, just to name a few.

Thankfully, there's no need to defend Obama here. Michael Reynolds punctures, nay shreds that windbag with just a few artful slashes:

J'accuse

Lackluster John and the Vitality Gap

As I surfed my rounds tonight, the news on the tube has been playing candidate clips. On the one hand, the left hand, Obama plows ahead with what many call empty rhetoric, garnering enthusiastic support even as the Obama backlash picks up steam across the middle and right wonk-o-sphere, and gushes over into the mainstream press.

We'll raise the minimum wage every year, because if you work in America, you should not be poor."

Delivered with passion and confidence, that goddamm "empty" rhetoric still stings when it's got some truth to it, don't it?

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the right hand, John McCain operates free from the bonds of someone still trying to win his party's nomination. He has turned his attack to Obama:

I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people.

Pretty good, right? Well, on paper anyway. But when it's delivered haltingly, almost without inflection, and without any discernible passion or vigor, How's it going to fare?

Leaving entirely aside the issue of the substance of the content, let's look at the match-up of the performers. Obama is doing the Little Richard version of Tutti Frutti, and McCain is doing the Pat Boone. Obama is Elvis, and McCain is Ed Sullivan.

Let's face it. On a visceral level, we've got a young, vibrant, hip preacher of positive change against an old and tired looking guy who wants to stay the course. McCain just doesn't seem to have any "game."

And as always, don't forget that I say this as someone who admires John McCain, and who in fact wrote him in as my choice for President in 2004, because I knew both of the guys on the ballot were disasters. I might even vote for him again. That doesn't change the visceral dynamic. Obama is making lots of Americans feel really good. I don't see McCain as even in the same area code. [ and friendly reminder folks, the topic of this thread is the giant vitality gap, not the substance of the candidates' messages.]

Three Quotes

I post the following three quotes without comment, other than a hat-tip to Dan Drezner.

First, a much-discussed Obama quote from a speech he gave last August:

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again.... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

Second, some of the discussion of that quote by John McCain:

"Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain said Sen. Barack Obama's threat to use military force to get rid of terrorists in Pakistan shows he does not understand the complexities of the region.

McCain said the situation in Pakistan is 'very delicate,' since the country's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is an American ally with a tenuous hold on power. The Arizona senator said a direct American attack on the country could cause a backlash that might topple Musharraf."

And finally, something from an article in yesterday's Washington Post about an event that happened just three weeks ago:

"Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

Officials say the incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan's national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government's formal permission beforehand.

It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year, particularly if a power vacuum results from yesterday's election and associated political tumult. The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident.

Independent actions by U.S. military forces on another country's sovereign territory are always controversial, and both U.S. and Pakistani officials have repeatedly sought to obscure operational details that would reveal that key decisions are sometimes made in the United States, not in Islamabad. Some Pentagon operations have been undertaken only after intense disputes with the State Department, which has worried that they might inflame Pakistani public resentment; the CIA itself has sometimes sought to put the brakes on because of anxieties about the consequences for its relationship with Pakistani intelligence officials.

U.S. military officials say, however, that the uneven performance of their Pakistani counterparts increasingly requires that Washington pursue the fight however it can, sometimes following an unorthodox path that leaves in the dark Pakistani military and intelligence officials who at best lack commitment and resolve and at worst lack sympathy for U.S. interests."

The Choice, Based on Iraq Policy

Over at Stubborn Facts, Rafique asks a question that runs right along the lines of what I've been wondering for these many months in the 2008 election cycle. His question is a large part of the reason I am truly undecided between McCain, Hillary, and Obama, with just two weeks to go before I need to pull a lever for somebody here in Ohio.

Who do you turn to, if, like me, and apparently Rafique, you think "we shouldn't leave Iraq prematurly," but you also think "we need to do more to force the Iraqis to get their house in order"?

Interesting question. But something seems missing from the early responses in the comment thread over there.

The big, broad, and I thought kind of obvious point, this election year, is that a candidate is not permitted middle ground on the Iraq issue.

Suppose you believe, as I do, and as Rafique seems to imply, that withdrawal is not our best option, and that we should take full advantage of the security gains of recent months to aim for some of the important elements of stability in Iraq. One piece of a broad refocus in strategy might include potential, or partial, withdrawal, as a means of pressuring the factions to forge a political settlement.

I think there's a sensible argument to be made that our policy in Iraq should be somewhere between a permanent committment and quick withdrawal. Good statecraft could make a lot out of that middle space, if we had a president who knew how to operate the levers of American influence in the world. But the middle space is largely disallowed, politically, in the midst of this election cycle.

On the one hand, we have McCain, who believes in committing the resources we need to win, but is deeply offended by the notion of timetables. He understands the committment of resources, but his "hundred years" type comments of late telegraph, pretty clearly, that the Iraqis need not be in any hurry.

Then we have Hillary, who aimed for a more balanced policy in the early part of her campaign, with the "responsibility gene" rhetoric and a plan for Iraq that included keeping a residual force in place for counterterrorism operations. But she shifted dramatically under the pressure of the Obama surge, and now talks simply about "ending the war" and starting withdrawal within 60 days.

Finally, we have Obama, who seems more committed to withdrawal than Hillary, and uses the same "ending the war" rhetoric. I saw a kind of informal, behind the scenes, chat with him on one of the cable shows a couple months back, and the way he discussed the issue suggested that he has some idea of the humanitarian and strategic issues behind our Iraq policy. So I'm not sure he's really a pure withdrawal guy, like John Edwards and Bill Richardson were. But you'd have to say that withdrawal is his basic position.

What to make of this? There is little or no middle space. The early comments in Rafique's thread seem to suggest Hillary and Obama were the ones who created this empty middle space on the Iraq issue, when I feel like it's all three of them.

That's why I'm deeply conflicted this election year. If I thought one of these candidates would manage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan skillfully, I would pull the lever with a clear conscience and real sense of purpose. But I'm conflicted. I don't know who's up to the job.

I know they're all tossing around some troubling ideas. And I think they have virtually no choice, in political terms, while trying to court the base vote in each party. We have, here, the classic absence of a middle ground on one of the most important issues on the current political landscape.

Even More Of A Surprise

I didn't think it was possible for a day to have a bigger surprise than a man in power 50 years step down.

I was wrong. Yes, the Pakistani elections were honest. We know because Musharraf's party lost them bigtime.

Musharraf deserves praise for not rigging them. I must say, it's what I expected. Of course, it wasn't HIS election, not directly, but still, letting opposition parties win will make life much harder for them. You never saw that happen in Saddam's Iraq, the Soviet Union, or Hitler's Germany post-takeover.

This will help the situation in Pakistan alot, I think. As I blogged when Musharraf declared the State of Emergency, Musharraf as unchecked dictator was just making things worse, both for his own people and our own interests in countering terrorists.

Castro Bows Out

Like my last post, I gotta ask why it took so long.

Clearly, the embargo was a failure, since Castro stayed in office longer than most despots. It just helped immiserate the Cuban people.

Power's pretty likely to go and stay with Raul Castro, as I see it, since he runs the Army, and has experience running things. There's evidence that he's interested in opening the economy at least a little.

Think Bush and/or this Congress will have the vision to drop the embargo?

I believe dropping the embargo would also raise the chances of democratic revolution in Cuba; I'm one of those believing many peoples need to be able to feed and house their families reasonably before having energy for needing good government.

Plus, of course, as I see it, a democracy should care about the popular welfare more than their leadership, and trade with China has certainly helped the Chinese people. Even from the political point of view, I bet more Cuban-American constituents would be happier seeing their families easily than keeping the embargo going.

Kosovo Declares Independence

Kosovo has declared independence. Serbia and Russia are grumbling, as they threatened to do.

I've been expecting this since the Kosovo crisis broke. I mean, how on earth is a population going to place any kind of trust in a government after it tried to move 90% of them? I've also long felt that the Russian agreement with Serbia's position was solely intended to prop up Russia's sphere of influence, not out of any ethical position or realistic hope.

My only question is why it took so long.

Although, it is interesting to speculate on what kind of thing it would've taken to keep Kosovo from leaving. Lessee, maybe if they were allowed to have their own independent government AND to run the Army from Kosovo, Maybe, just maybe. Yeah, fat chance.

Will Obama Take McCain's Funding Dare?

Daniel Drezner has a post titled Your political dare of the day on the subject.

My guess is that he'll take it, especially since he's already said so. Drezner points out, "on the other hand, Obama's fundraising capabilities are quite prodigious." But, of course, as plenty of politicians who've won against much-better-funded candidates can tell you, the bottom line is how you campaign, not how you raise money. If Obama didn't understand that, he wouldn't be doing so well.

Global Poverty Act

Senators Obama, Hagel, Cantwell, and Smith have seen a Global Poverty Act make it out of committee. The Global Poverty Act, would, more or less, improve our implementation of UN Millenium Goals, including committing us to spending at least 0.7 of GDP on foreign aid, which apparently we almost, but not quite do.

The Millenium Goals were, I think, alot loftier than the reality will be, but it's still IMHO worth spending on. They involve spending more thoughfully than previous aid rounds.

Not only does this kind of thoughtful foreign aid have a real potential to help lots of people, it also cuts down on future geopolitical menaces from failed states and peoples unhappy with stasis.

It's probably bad of me, but I hafta admit that one bit I like about the bill is the conservative paranoid slavering:

The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. ... which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. . . . In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, . . .

...except, it doesn't. The spending level won't change if the UN wants it to. Nor does the bill do any of those other things. It makes about as much sense as declaring Bush is a terrorist because he's buddies with Grover Norquist, who spent alot of time with extreme Islamists trying to get them aboard the GOP. And I notice the poster needed 13 years of spending to arrive at an even vaguely big number. Annually it's $65M, utter peanuts compared to Bush aid to Afghanistan and Iraq, and has the potential to keep down the chance of repeating similar wars later. Keep it up until next November, please. And next time I want to see some black helicopters, ;-)

Preservation Friday Band

I got paid. Finally. Aside from that an interesting week. I've got one client who has videotapes dating back to the early 70's. About 13,000 of them. A big problem is that moisture affects the binding and substrate so that when you try to play the tapes the heads get clogged with loose oxide. So we put them in a dry and cool environment, humidity about 20% and 60 degrees F. There are more details(see this pdf file on tape preservation) but that's a hint to all of you out there with videotapes of family and friends. Anyway it turns out that some of tapes that were unplayable even after spending 3 months of drying out were playable at 6 months. Today we played back a nice tape from 1973. Lousy camera work but the tape played back beautifully. As a comparison. my grandfather shot 16mm B/W in the 30's and after it was kept in a sometimes cool but dry closet it still looked good 60 years later when I had telecined and transferred to digibeta.

More on this in the extended entry.

The other odd item is a job listing as noted in WaPo's Gov't Inc. blog

Rock Lives -- even in the Defense Department.
In a contracting notice posted Jan. 10, the DoD said it wants to hire a "Professional Celebrity Rock Music Band" to tour in Kuwait and Afghanistan next month.

Wanna-be guitar heroes take note: the band needs to be able to play southern rock, pop rock, post-grunge and hard rock. It appears that whiny rock is out.

No faking on the rock star part. This military is serious about its fun, and they insist that at least one member of the bank be a recognizable "professional celebrity."

Oh, but don't worry about the war thing. "Protective military equipment, such as kevlar, body armour, eye and ear protection will be provided when the group is travelling on military rotary or fixed wing aircraft," the posting says.

Long live rock-and-roll procurement.

BTW in the above video preservation note that project is pretty expensive. The dubbing system I designed and built cost more than 100K. That doesn't include the tape holding facility with the temperature and humidity control, or the digibeta tape stock that we're recording to, or the salaries of the people doing the work. Not to mention my rare forays to the facility to troubleshoot and upgrade the training of the techs. Now some have opined that I transfer these tapes to hard drive instead, including Jim Wheeler who is the uber expert in the field. Well I could, but my client wants security and I, because I am a trained paranoid editor, insist on it. The nice thing about videotape is that you have record tabs that inhibit recording after they are pressed in. There are no record tabs on disk drives. One virus and irreplaceable material is lost forever. Not good. Also hard drives are be subject to failure. If I get a tape break in an hour program I still end up with 99% of it intact. Not that you're going to break a digibeta tape. Anyway we simultaneously xfer the video to DVD which is enough for the client's current needs regarding viewing and distribution. The masters and the originals are touched as little as possible. Proper storage and they could last for decades.
I consider this a stopgap measure until a more robust storage media comes into being. Something better than granite.

Taking on Obama

In his victory speech last night, John McCain made an interesting choice in deciding how to grapple with an Obama campaign predicated on the rousing themes of optimism and national unity. There are at least two approaches McCain could take in dealing with that.

First, the one he chose:

"To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude."

This is the sound-bite picked up most frequently by the networks. To be sure, McCain wove a mixture of themes into a sophisticated speech. But the theme of "false hope" was set early and strongly reinforced:

"But now comes the hard part, and for America, the much bigger decision. We do not yet know for certain who will have the honor of being the Democratic Party’s nominee for president. But we know where either of their candidates will lead this country, and we dare not let them.

They will promise a new approach to governing, but offer only the policies of a political orthodoxy that insists the solution to government’s failures is to simply make it bigger. They will appeal to our dreams of a better future for ourselves, our families and our country, but they would take from us more of the wealth we have earned to build those dreams and assure us that government is better able than we are to make decisions about our future for us.

They will promise to break with the failed politics of the past, but will campaign in ways that seek to minimize their exposure to questions from the press and challenges from voters who ask more from their candidates than an empty promise of 'Trust me, I know better.'"

McCain's interesting choice was to question both the broader message of hope coming from his opponent and his specific policies. He portrayed those broad themes as overly simplistic and somewhat hollow. He added depth to this perspective late in the speech, in a way that was fairly compelling, for me at least:

"When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest ambition, and that all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did the Naval Academy. But I didn’t understand the lesson until later in life, when I confronted challenges I never expected to face.

In that confrontation I discovered that I was dependent on others to a greater extent than I had ever realized, but that neither they nor the cause we served made any claims on my identity. On the contrary, I discovered that nothing is more liberating in life than to fight for a cause that encompasses you, but is not defined by your existence alone. And that has made all the difference, my friends, all the difference in the world.

I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the presidency with the humility of a man who cannot forget that my country saved me."

Obama's calls for hope and unity ring hollow, on this view, because they are too much about Obama, his campaign, and his movement. A deeper and more mature understanding of national leadership incorporates more of a sense of humility, of being served and "saved" by your nation, rather than the other way around.

McCain has a point. And yet, I think he took the wrong tack in grappling with Obama.

The second option open to McCain was to join the themes of hope and unity, to essentially celebrate those ideals and broad goals, but to draw his distinctions with Obama primarily in the policy arena.

That path is wide open to McCain because of his maverick record. The choices he makes on policy have so often been based on what he thinks is right for the nation, rather than what's expected of a member of his party. More than most, McCain can credibly pick up the banner of broad national leadership based on common interests and the conviction that we can all move forward together. Just as Bill Clinton stole the policies of free trade and welfare reform from his political opponents, McCain can borrow broad themes of national unity from Obama. He has the kind of record and reputation to make that credible.

I suspect this is an important choice for McCain. Because Obama has an unusual combination of qualities, as a candidate, that make it difficult to take him on in full confrontation mode. Obama's talents come together in the same intoxicating mixture we saw from the political giants of the last half-century -- Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and John Kennedy. He has that sunny personality, combined with a sharp mind, a comfort level in his own skin, and an ability to engage easily with people in all kinds of settings. He has a presence that is both likeable and substantial.

One of my longstanding pet political theories is that the success of attack politics depends largely on the personality of the person being attacked. It's not truth or falsity that matters. It's whether the target comes across as solid, even-tempered, untroubled by the accusations, and whether they manage to remain positive in the midst of it all. Bill Clinton did it during all of his scandals. You simply couldn't get that guy down. His charisma and sunny persona shined through, and so he got more popular even as things got uglier with each news cycle.

Ronald Reagan was the "teflon president". His irrepressible optimism cured every political ill. John Kennedy's ratings remained sky-high, even with the major early blunder of the Bay of Pigs.

Compare that to the impact of attack politics on Al Gore, John Kerry, and Michael Dukakis. In an interview, none of those guys comes across as your nice, friendly neighbor with the sunny disposition. The mud stuck because they seemed a little "off" to begin with, personality wise.

Consider, too, the most recent data point in the sequence. Hillary and Bill tried to roll out broad-spectrum attack politics on Obama a few weeks ago. One news report suggested that it was James Carville who had written a memo to the campaign urging them to take Obama on directly, to decisively take the guy down.

Accepting the advice of political fixers like Carville may have cost Hillary the Democratic nomination. The race was close, without that blunder, but it has since tilted considerably in Obama's favor.

McCain's better option is to aim for some of the same broad meta-goals Obama does, but to explain, at every turn, why the liberal policies Obama advocates will not take us where he claims they will. The Clintons should have understood a few weeks ago that they needed to beat Obama on the substance, not portray his ideals as "fairy tales".

Whether or not McCain learns from Hillary's mistake, I have no doubt that things will get fairly nasty in the coming months. The bitterest kinds of attacks will emerge from certain quarters, some of them predicated on certain conspiracy theories already floating around about Obama's Muslim heritage. The coming nastiness will test my little pet theory. Can you attack a candidate like Obama on some sort of wholesale level? Can you make him seem entirely wrong -- on a personal or character level -- instead of wrong on the issues?

I doubt it. But we'll see.

Electoral Results Came Out As Expected?!?

I'm startled to see that today's electoral results actually appear to have gone the way they were expected to.

How Che Kept His Cred

Captain's Quarters has grumbled about a Che flag hanging in a Houston supporters' office ( some comments on Stubborn Facts).

It's about the generation, I think. Some of you were around to watch Che go bad, or saw his name become an extremist symbol. I've been reading my history, so I'm a bit of an exception.

The classrooms we Xers grew up didn't say much about Che. Mine explained that Castro had been a baddie, but the little it said about Che was confusing. Many feel, well, he organizing revolution against Bautista, which was good (IMHO true as far it goes). So, although some really don't care what they did, others think Castro was bad but have no bad mental associations with Che. Surely that's grown more true as the Cuban Revolution recedes.

That's sharpened, I think, in Latin America and among some lefties here, where Che is a sympathetic read for teenagers. The books that mostly still show in bookstores today are moderate (yes, really) and moderately rebellious in cast, saying nothing about Communism. That makes anti-Che rhetoric look silly to many of their readers, much as most of us saw the "Just Say No" anti-drug propaganda.

Clinton Campaign In Disarray?

It's hard to be sure with executive resignations like this, but it looks like there's sacrificial blood on the floor, in the form of campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle.

As I see it, so far in this campaign, the more nervous Clinton and her top campaign staff have been about Obama, the better he's done, as they've gotten nastier in public, switched more positions, and thus alienated more and more of the huge, big-tent coalition they started with.

This week is being VERY hard on the Clintons. In case you haven't seen it, Obama seems to've sewn up Maine in addition to yesterday's sweep, and her chances in the DC-area states this Tuesday have long been bad. Hillary isn't so long on stubbornness as her opponent, so it's hard on her campaign to soldier through this kind of ordeal.

I still think she has a good chance of winning in big-delegate Texas, but with that kind of mo against her, I think it could be close to her last win, in which case the convention won't be so suspenseful.

I've been fascinated watching rightie response to Obama. Most fear him because they see he's damned good. but most also love him because he seems to be fulfilling an old dream, beating the Clintons.

Modeling the Veep

Drezner has a nice post examining the paradox of VP selection in the age of Cheney and Gore, when VPs have become much more involved in policy than the historical norm.

He links, in turn, to a pretty deep, detailed discussion at The Monkey Cage of some poly sci models of VP selection on the Democratic side.

The models are wrong in a few obvious ways. For example, there is no chance Obama will pick Hillary as his VP -- he needs hefty foreign policy or military credentials to balance out his weaknesses. But there are some interesting names on those lists that I hadn't thought about, and which score well in the probablistic model.

My suggestions for a short list for each candidate, along with the probability assigned to each in Sigelman's model:

Obama:

Jim Webb (8.8%)
Sam Nunn (10.4%)
Joe Biden (2.4%)

Hillary:

Mark Warner (7.9%)
Ted Strickland (13.9%)
Barack Obama (19%)

Open Thread: More On Baby-Safing

I hate the cabinet safing things.

The Profesora says her brother hasn't had to do so much baby-safing, since their girl's much less into exploration and pushing the barriers.

Well, I'm happy he's so curious, but it does make our lives harder and more worrying....

Tonight I'm planning on cooking meatballs. I started the marinade already.

What are your food plans for the weekend?

Centrist Voice of the Day

Something blindingly obvious, but that nevertheless didn't occur to me until recently, is that we have really broad access these days to video of lots of folks in all aspects of the popular culture -- with, you know, that newfangled thing called YouTube.

In my opinion, the moderates and centrists with the clearest and most promising voices are largely people sidelined in the present system. I just did searches for some of them -- Joe Biden, who just lost badly in the presidential contest; Colin Powell, who has refused every offer to join a ticket; David Gergen, who served Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton, and who now gives political commentary on CNN; Harold Ford Jr., who lost a Senate race in Tennessee; Angus King, who served two terms as governor of Maine; Christy Whitman, who left the Bush administration, wrote a book, and helped organize the Republican Leadership Council.

These people are out there speaking, organizing, volunteering, and expressing their views. They just don't get to make policy anymore (for the most part). Why not reserve a little spot for them each day in this small corner of the centrist blogosphere?

So, without further ado, I give you the first Centrist Voice of the Day. David Gergen, in a charming little interview with a couple of college students who were apparently completing an assignment for their communications course.

If any of you guys -- Todd, Jon, or Kranky -- want to post a centrist voice on any given day, feel free. First person to post a Centrist Voice of the Day gets to decide the voice (and the subject and content) for that day.

Texas Primary Vote Counts, Yay!

There's excitement among Texan Dems over actually having our vote count for a change. A debate is scheduled for 3/28 in Houston.

I expect TX to go even stronger for Clinton than CA did. Hispanics are even stronger here, and we have alot of old-style, Southern conservative, rural Dems, who sympathize with Clinton for the same reason many voters in Arkansas' neighbors did.

That's pretty likely going to add up to more than 2/3 of Austin (he's a virtual rock star here) and various scattered (D) metropolitan congressional districts.

Super-delegates

Link.

We've done a bad job of explaing this, but it is now basically mathematically impossible for either Clinton or Obama to win the nomination through the regular voting process (meaning the super-delegates decide this one, baby!).

Here's the math. There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination.

To date, about 55% of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obamb roughly splitting them at about 900 delegates a piece.

That means there are now only about 1,400 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.

So, do the math. If they both have about 900 pledged delegates so far, they need to win more than 1,100 of the remaining 1,400 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.

Ain't gonna happen, barring a stunning scandal or some new crazy revelation. So, they'll keep fighting this thing out, each accumulating their chunk of delegates, one of them holding a slight edge and bothing finishing the voting process with 1,600 or so delegates.

And then the super delegates decide this thing.

That's the math.

Stupid Congress Watch: Force College Endowments To Be Spent Down?

UPDATE: Sponsors in both chambers have withdrawn their bills.

Those Evil Colleges Are All Secretly Hiding Ponies In Their Basements!

And buried among the 61 amendments to the Higher Ed Act bill that lawmakers said they would seek to offer on the House floor Thursday was one, offered by Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), that would require colleges, regardless of wealth, to spend at least 5 percent of their endowments each year in ways that would reduce what students pay to attend college.

University endowmemnts' purpose in life is to be huge and grow ever bigger still. The money both grows itself and generates a positive cashflow for universities via a conservative investment strategy. That means there's more and more money available to the U over time that doesn't have to come from tuition, research, grants, or gummint help.

So why is this a dumb idea? Because it's an utterly short-term idea. OK, it could reduce tuition alot the first year. The second year, you'd get only 95% as much of a break, and it shrinks more each year. Universities'd have correspondingly less and less money from investment to build and do whatever they're doing with the endowment investment cash.

Another reason the idea's stupid is another basic money mistake: Ivy League and other elite universities charge so much because they CAN - demand for their goods is out of sight, not because they're squirreling away endowment money.

Versions under consideration in the Senate are less drastic, but are the same basic, stupid idea.

If this idea makes it into law, it'll slowly hollow out one of America's great pillars: our best-in-the-world universities and the unmatched amount per capita on R&D and its success level. A very dumb idea.

To be fair to Congress, IMHO it's unlikely to pass. But I haven't enjoyed the recent hearings on the subject.

Super Tuesday thread

I'm going to my first caucus ever tonight in Minnesota. Then I'm going home and plan to stay up until midnight watching the returns. I'm such a geek.

Mitt vs The Truth Again

UPDATE: Kranky sez I'm wrong to assign primary credit to the health plan to Romney. Whoopsie!! So maybe Mitt's right this time.

Romney's saying he's not responsible for the MA Romney health plan, now that it's facing the massive overruns predicted by Kranky's previous incarnation.

Mitt having trouble with the truth...you'd almost think it was a pattern or something. And no, I don't believe that he really just happened to change his moral stance on half the campaign issues just at the moment when it was seen as needed for him to get in the race. Changing your mind on Iraq is one thing, because that's likely to involve learning facts; changing your morals is quite another.

He's mostly pretty slick when he comes out with his whoppers, but you can see a brashness and subtle uncertainly in his manner and voice that wasn't there at the campaign's start.

An Open Letter to Fellow Massachusetts Folks

I'd like to share the letter I submitted to the Boston Globe today, which is An Open Letter to Fellow Massachusetts Folks. I'll let you know if it gets published.

The cost of the new Massachusetts health plan was quite high to start. Now estimates have already doubled, just as it leaves the gate. And there’s every reason to expect nearly double-digit annual cost increases. Among folks who run households and pay taxes and struggle to get by, there’s one pretty obvious thought: Pull the plug now.

Meanwhile, with no sense of irony, other folks decry town budgets that don’t add up, inadequate public school funding, high local taxes, and the lack of sufficient state aid to municipalities. They talk about the long list of additional social services our newly-minted governor ought to rush to provide.

It’s fine to wish to expand idealistic social programs. But that doesn’t mean you’re free to ignore the math. Massachusetts just can’t afford this healthcare program, and wishing won't make it so. If we pull the plug now, we can avoid the need to aggressively slash the state budget this summer and gut local aid. The only way that can happen is if our leaders have the courage to face the truth today. Or we can wait for the obvious math to overwhelm us, and cry like babies when towns across the state have to scramble to fix their budgets when local aid from the state dries up.

Healthcare costs are a huge national problem. Why are we so eager to be the guinea pigs to show the rest of the country what won't work? Make our next President and congress solve this.

Clintons Getting Nicer?

Has the Clinton campaign realized they were alienating their coalition and gone back to being nice? Another piece of evidence is that she played her part in the last debate's nice making nice.

The Clinton campaign could hang onto their lead if that's what's happening. It ain't over, of course - this is one of the more dramatic election cycles....

Whatja think? Are they getting nicer?

Nearest, p.123

Since we're still working on safing bookshelves, my office books are still packed. There are only two close books, which I packed specially to read while moving. One is my Tibet book, and the closer one is the last Churchill book I read in his WWII series (Closing The Ring - not the last one, which I read early to see his approach to occupations).

P.123, sentences 6-8 aren't the height of the book, I'm afraid. Though, once I unpack, the nearest will probably be some computer book or journal, which would've been decidedly worse. So far, IMHO, the best one in our little community has been Rafique's on Stubborn Facts.

[talking about why he appointed Lord Louis Mountbatten to high command in Southeast Asia] But if an officer, having devoted his life to the military art, does not know about war at forty-three, he is not likely to learn much more about it later on. As Chief of Combined Operations Lord Louis has shown rare powers of organization and resourcefulness. He is what - pedants notwithstanding - I will venture to call a "complete triphibian" - that is, a creature equally at home in all three elements, earth, air, and water, and also well accustomed to fire.

IMHO Kranky's right to be kranky about this meme, because there's no selection for interesting content except the nearest book bit, except that could be the handiest book instead of the interestingest.

I name Max and four non-centerfielders.

Petty Primary Squabbles -- and the Big Picture

At the start of this presidential primary season, when looking at the full range of contenders on both sides, I tended to conclude that there were three reasonable choices. My three choices are based largely on foreign policy, because I think our position in the world and the way we manage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are critical unresolved issues. I zeroed in on the three candidates with the most compelling combinations of experience in the foreign policy arena and some apparent sense of balance or judgment on those issues.

The top spot clearly goes to Joe Biden, in my opinion, who is long gone at this point and never really had much of a chance.

The other two -- Hillary Clinton and John McCain -- are both live options, and McCain now has the inside track to the Republican nomination.

There's a fair amount of tension in these choices. I'm looking for a candidate who will draw a certain conclusion regarding Iraq policy, among a few other things. The simple conclusion is that our policy in Iraq should be focused on stability. Given the limited but significant gains from the troop surge, we should be pulling together all the diplomatic, political, economic, and military resources it takes to try to force a political settlement in Iraq, which might then become the basis of long-term stability. Of course, it might not become the basis for stability too. We may fail in Iraq, regardless of what we do. But I think the position we're in, right at this moment, calls for a vigorous effort.

Part of that effort can involve -- and perhaps should involve -- a drawdown of U.S. forces. But the drawdown should be calibrated for Iraqi success, perhaps part of the pressure we put on them to make political progress, but not so abrupt that it destabilizes the society and helps precipitate a downward spiral.

In the early part of the campaign, both Biden and Hillary seemed to sort of get this. Biden has a detailed plan for Iraq that he developed with Leslie Gelb, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Hillary talked about "the responsibility gene" when the subject of Iraq came up. She gave the clear impression that she was not looking for the quickest way out, nor the most complete withdrawal, and she said those things in front of audiences of primary voters who very much wanted to hear a different message. It all seemed rather bold and brave to me, and her demeanor seemed balanced and even-tempered and comforting.

More recently, as we approached the primaries and then started voting, both Biden and Hillary ran into problems. Biden because he got rejected by the voters. And Hillary because she shifted rhetorical gears dramatically and began talking just like the other "withdrawal first" Democrats. The pressure of the Obama surge seems to have gotten to her.

On the other side of the aisle, we see tensions that are run parallel the Democratic ones. The ones from the Democrats are bourne out of an over-emphasis on quick withdrawal, while the Republican tensions come from an inability to discuss any sort of timetable as part of an overall strategy.

I view McCain as one of the three responsible choices in the field in spite of the fact that he's the candidate most committed to long-term military involvement. Listen closely enough to the way McCain talks about foreign policy, and you get the sense of a balanced, seasoned, and informed guy who is likely to make choices with careful deliberation. I get some of the same feeling from McCain that I do from Biden -- that he understands how to work the levers of American influence in the world, and that he will put serious effort into working with the international community.

That's what makes it hard to watch all these ongoing spats between candidates in the primaries. McCain says Romney's suggestion of even private timetables is tantamount to surrender, when our government very much needs to be setting concrete goals and holding the Iraqis to those goals. Romney actually has better ideas on Iraq policy than McCain. He just doesn't have the experience, and, more importantly, it's hard to decide how committed he can be to a solid strategy of any kind, given his pattern of policy chamelionism.

So I watch McCain hammering Romney for having better policy ideas, and I still support McCain. And I watch Hillary talking like Edwards, and I still support Hillary. Even though they're wrong on some important matters of substance, I can picture both of them actually leading in a responsible fashion. I don't believe McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, nor do I believe Clinton will start a precipitous withdrawal within 60 days, as her latest statement suggests. I picture both of those candidates doing something closer to the right thing.

I also see Biden as significantly better than all of these guys. Even with his flaws as a candidate, I can't figure out how we let this guy go, given our critical immediate needs on the world stage.

Tagged, Finally

I was starting to feel unloved until Alan at Maverick Views finally got me. The rules?

1. Pick up the nearest book ( of at least 123 pages).
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the next three sentences.
5. Tag five people.

I regarded this with dread at first because I just rearranged the office to put my reference books near at hand. Thankfully, Doublespeak by William Lutz, was a hair's breadth closer than Words into Type and the Chicago Manual of Style. I'm sure we're all grateful for that. What's it about? Well, the subtitle of the newest edition is "why no one knows what anyone's saying anymore." That about covers it. Anyway, from the Chapter on "Business Communication, Sort Of":

Now, if you add in realized capital gains to get the net income for the property and casualty insurance industry in 1986, you get a profit not of $4.5 billion but $11.5 billion. If you use the net income method for figuring profits, you discover that, instead of losing $5.6 billion in 1985, the property and casualty insurance industry made $1.9 billion. See what the doublespeak of accounting can do?

Pick 5 more? This could be hard, since I'm bringing up the tagging rear. Did anyone get Jon here yet, or William? If not, they're it.

Let's add Kevin at Preemptive Karma, Ron at middle earth journal, and Jeremy at Charging RINO.

This is sort of a crappy shmeme if the results around the net are a judge. Dry stuff.

I'd like to start another, and let everyone play in the comments. It's called "Find God In Your ITunes." Go to your Itunes library or its equivalent, select the view that shows all songs, and do a search for "God." List all or some of your results. If you want, do devil, too. Then give us your library score. Mine is God 18, Devil 11.

Friday open thread

Super Bowl thoughts? Enjoying the right-wing freakout over McCain as much as I am? Predictions for Super Tuesday? New favorite band? The floor is open.