The Citizens

Sunday, May 30, 2004

Free Trade Helps Reduce World Poverty

Hi Everyone,

A lot of people blame trade for the world's problems. Anti-trade Republicans and anti-trade labor unions blame trade for unemployment in the USA (and other developed countries). Anti-trade activists in the Democratic and Green parties blame globalization and world trade for increasing poverty in the developing world.

In a previous posting (see archives) I argued that the real problem for the unemployed in the USA was lack of options for retraining and changing industries.

I recently found an interesting article about how trade effects the developing world. Its by Jagdish Bhagwati and T.N. Srinivasan (two economists from Columbia and Yale respectively). And its short (12 pages) so it won't take too long to read. Here are some of the highlights:

* An overwhelming majority of the world's poor live in rural areas of China and India.

* China and India have both dramatically increased their openness to world trade in the last 25 years.

* China is the fastest growing economy in the world and India is the 11th fastest growing economy in the world.

* Both China and India have dramatically reduced their poverty levels (both have cut poverty roughly in half since the late 1970s).

The authors argue that empirical evidence directly refutes the arguments that globalization and trade are making poverty worse.

Comments? Disagreements? Controversies?

Friday, May 28, 2004

How Should We Lessen US Dependence on Middle East Oil?

Hi Everyone,

We've been hearing a lot lately about the need to lessen the US dependence on Middle East Oil. There seems to be a broad consensus that this dependence forces the US to get entangled in messy conflicts in the Middle East that it would otherwise avoid (not sure this is a valid assumption but let's leave that alone for now). However, that seems to be where the consensus ends. Here is a brief presentation of some of the more often proposed options:

Option 1) Increase our imports from outside the Middle East. PRO: This would be a relatively cheap way out. Russia (a big potential oil exporter) and most African, Latin American and Asian producers are not in OPEC so increasing their role in the world oil market would tend to weaken OPEC and presumably lower the price of oil. We could impose many of the environmental costs of drilling on other countries. At the same time, US companies would likely be heavily involved in extracting, shipping and selling the stuff which would mean a tidy economic benefit for American business interests CON: We'd still be importing oil. Also, most of these non-Middle Eastern countries have many of the same problems with dictatorships, political instability, terrorist/rebel movements etc that make us worry about Middle East oil.

Option 2) Increase drilling in the US. PRO: We wouldn't be importing the oil anymore. The US would not have to depend on unstable, tin-pot dictatorships for its energy supply. This would mean more jobs and not all of them would be on the North Shore of Alaska. A lot of them would be in Southern states like Texas and Louisiana. CON: This is a short term solution at best. After we pump out all the oil in Alaska, the Gulf Coast or off shore from Santa Barbara, CA we'll be right back were we started only now we'll have ruined some beautiful parts of the country.

Option 3) Lower dependence on oil overall by shifting to renewable energy sources. PRO: This is the best, if not only, long term solution. CON: This is the most expensive solution in the short and medium term. Many of the alternative energy technologies are only in their initial stages of development and require a lot of investment to make them profitable and practical.

Anyone else have any comments?

No Excuse For Torture

[This is a Re-Posting from earlier this month]

This morning, Bush reiterated his claim that "nobody can doubt that Iraq is better off because it is free." This is, although not explicitly offered as such, his justification for the abuse of prisoners. Isn't torture okay, the argument goes, if we can get good results by doing so? Too many New Yorkers no doubt would say that the torture of a "few Arabs" would have been worth it, if it could have prevented 9/11.
Even Alan Dershowitz suggests, as he did after 9/11, that there should be "torture warrants" issued in select circumstances to elicit information. Shame on him. Shame on this administration. Torture is a bargain with the devil. And remember: the devil always wins.

It is on this issue, above all others, where the civilized world rallies or fails. The issue is not "police brutality." Torture is an attempt to break the spirit by depriving the victim of his sense of humanity through pain and humiliation. The hallmark of torture is not physical pain, but psychological destruction.
Torture is wrong. No exigent circumstances justify it. Its gradual abolition was one of the greatest achievements of the Enlightenment. Freedom from torture is our most precious freedom. No matter how badly the government hates us, it has no right to destroy us physically and psychologically. Thus we are free men and women with the right to dissent. Now we are seeing that in Iraq, the army - OUR ARMY- strips
prisoners naked, leaves them in the freezing cold and dark for days, forces them to perform acts of humiliation, and beats them. And that's just what they chose to photograph. If there were photographs of Guantanamo, we would likely see worse.

There must be house cleaning in the Defense department. If Bush and Rumsfeld cannot understand why this is wrong, they must be swept out of office on a wave of revulsion. America can survive more terrorist attacks. We cannot survive the introduction of torture. There was a time when our presidents would declare a "national day of humiliation and prayer" to take stock of our wrongdoing. This is the time for such a day.

I recommend that we all, as a nation and as individuals, set aside a day over the next week or two for reflection and education, or prayer if you are so inclined. It is an appropriate time to put away the yellow ribbon and don a black one, or simply dress in black clothing. We should ponder the question: how have we become so angry that we are willing to countenance this behavior? I propose May 28 - the Friday before Memorial Day.

Thursday, May 27, 2004

Consumer Victory

Relief is finally on the way for California cell phone consumers, at least. Hopefully such policies will follow for the rest of us, for as the saying goes: As goes California, so goes the nation.
California Public Utilties Commission - New Cellular Rules
These changes require, among other things:
(1) Late charges can be no more than 1.5% of the total, and must not accrue until 22 days after the bill is sent.
(2) Consumers have 30 days to cancel after service after signing up. No more signing on the dotted line for 2 years with no recourse and huge fees.
(3) All terms must be in at least 10 point type.
(4) All rates must be clearly posted on the internet, and if rates are not available to new customers they must be clearly marked.

The industry, of course, with its Republican backers, resisted mightily. In this election, Democrats need to remind consumers of who is on their side and who always backs big business and privilege against the middle class.

Minor changes

Hi Everyone,

I've made some minor changes to the side bar. I will change them back if the other citizens get upset. I would like to especially recommend checking out the link to the Federalist Papers which is a great website for poli sci nerds like me. Why let the Radio Talk Show crowd tell you what the Founding Fathers intended when you can actually look it up for yourself so easily!?

Also, I've put in a link to the U.S. Constitution.

Today's updates have been brought to you by the number 7, the letter B and the 6th Amendment.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

McCainigans

This is the lead paragraph of the body of Kerry's new stump speech on foreign policy:

More than a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt defined American leadership in foreign policy. He said America should walk softly and carry a big stick. Time and again, this Administration has violated the fundamental tenet of Roosevelt’s approach, as he described it: “If a man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble.”

Anyboyd else think this is this aimed at John McCain?

Wednesday, May 26, 2004

Extinct and Endangered Sub-species of Republicans

The rise of Evangelical (mostly Southern) protestants as a major political force since the Nixon "Southern Strategy" has doomed to extinction a couple of Republican factions with long histories in the party.

Many people know about the so called "liberal" Republicans (aka Rockefeller Republicans, aka Progressive Republicans). Arlen Specter is the last of that sub-species. Jeffords was of this type but he evolved into an Independent who votes with the Democrats.

But fewer people have heard of the Stalwarts. Stalwart Republicans are the Midwestern budget hawks, like Gerald Ford or Bob Dole. They tend to be fans of small businesses and family farms. They distrust big business and big labor alike. They distrust Southern politics and think talking about religion with strangers is nearly as rude as asking someone how much money they make. Most of them aren't Baptists, Pentecostal or other kinds of Evangelicals. Stalwarts belong to the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists and other "mainstream" protestant sects mostly. Stalwarts like their religion quiet and their liquor laws strict - speaking in tongues just seems a little like public drunkenness. In places like small town Minnesota, they used to vote Republican as reflexively as Southerners used to vote Democrat and for much the same reason - a kind of collective hangover from the Civil War. These are the descendents of the Kansas Jayhawkers who fought against the spread of slavery (and plantation agri-business) in Bloody Kansas. In the 19th century, they got their name because they are supportors of a third term for U.S. Grant. These are the Republicans most likely to be bent out of shape over the deficit Bush is running. They would sooner end the tax cut than run up the debt. Stalwarts don't all live down on the farm any more. But suburban life (in places like Minneapolis, Milwaukee or Columbus) hasn't changed their ideology much.

This rock-ribbed sub-species of Republican would appear to be thriving. Republican candidates do well in the much of the Midwest but Bush seems to have abandoned the Stalwarts. The Bush administration has done little to keep this group happy. The high deficit spending is especially irksome to the Stalwart Republicans. The social conservative policies aimed to keep the Evangelicals happy only make Stalwarts uncomfortable. These voters are unlikely to vote Democratic. But it is easy for them to believe that they can just forget about the whole thing and not vote at all.

The Stalwart Republicans will be crucial for Bush in Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota and maybe even Missouri. Bush is behind in all but one of those states (Iowa) right now and he probably needs to win half of them. There is really nothing he can do to get the Stalwarts on his side at this point. Reversing himself on the tax cut would do the trick nicely but he will NEVER do that as it would alienate the populist NASCAR Nationalists.

Anecdotal Report From Ohio

Hi Everyone,

A number of posts and links on this site have pointed out that Kerry is ahead in Ohio and in other swing states. I was recently in Ohio for the wedding of two good friends of mine (to each other) and have the following non-scientific observations.

The neighborhood I was in most of the time was a suburb of Columbus known as a Republican stronghold. In fact, it was once common to say that the politics in this part of Columbus "range from far right to utter darkness." In the five days I was driving around town I saw exactly one (1) Bush-Cheney campaign yard sign. I did NOT see a lot of Bush-Cheney bumper stickers either... those I did see were very old looking and could be left over from 2000.

I've heard rumors that two relatives of mine who are life long supporters of the Republican party are very dissatisfied with Bush. In both cases, it was Bush's messianic style that most turned them off. Also, both relatives generally regard Bush as incompetent. Now only a mad man would think that either of these people would ever vote for a Democrat. But it is reasonable to imagine that they (and people of like mind) would stay home or at least only vote for Congressional races.

Bush's strategy of a Nationalist/Evangelical coalition seems to have left out a constituency long critical to Republican party success...fiscal conservatives. Fiscal conservatives are a major component of Republican voting bases in Ohio and the rest of the Midwest - a fact that Southern Evangelicals are totally clueless about (more on that later). The Midwest is where the "swing states" are. Alienating these fiscal conservatives (Bob Dole or Gerald Ford style Republicans) will likely prove to be fatal for Bush.

Moral Rot?

A commentary in the Los Angeles Times today by Rebecca Hagelin, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, called "Down the Sewer to Abu Ghraib" claims that the reason for the abuse carried out by the soldiers in the photographs is the inevitable result of a culture that has turned from God and is suffering "moral rot."

Hagelin fails to mention, however, that those particular soldiers are from the Bible Belt, and almost certainly were raised in some "bible-believing" fundamentalist Christian sect (e.g., Southern Baptists and "non-denominational" groups). Reports are now coming out that prisoners complain of being forced to curse Islam and praise Jesus. This behavior is more likely to be a result of religious extremism, not modern secularism. These errant soldiers likely believe, as Bush does, that we are fighting "evildoers" and are therefore justified in treating them as less than human.

So it is not atheism and secularism that is to blame here, but misguided religion. The real issue is profound and depressing. These "Christians" have forgotten that true religion is hard and challenges one to become a better person, to love one's enemies and seek to find the image of God in every human being. False religion is easy, confirms existing prejudices, and indulges hate and anger. Our President's faith smacks of the latter, not the former. True religion asks "are we on God's side?" False religion simply claims that God is on ours. The gate is wide and the way is easy, that leadeth to perdition. Islamic extremists make the same error, and are condemned by the true faithful in their religion who see Islam as true surrender to the will of Allah, the Merciful and Compassionate, not the justification for murder.

Iraqi Sovereignty

I am waiting for the President of the Navajo nation or the Cherokee to say to the new Iraqi regime, "Well, we're 'sovereign' too."

No country on earth uses the term "sovereignty" more loosely than the United States. States are sovereign. Tribes are sovereign. We're lucky that "sovereignty" is not applied to wildlife refuges or community college districts. In American jurisprudence, "sovereignty" really just means certain rights that were traditionally ascribed to sovereigns, but that is all. Perhaps the Bush legal team just does not understand what the rest of the world means by "sovereign" - not a mere legal fiction, but a real bundle of rights.

But the Navajo may have more advice to give yet. Come to think of it, are we planning to build a casino in Baghdad?

Amusing Speculation about the REAL Bush Plan

Hi Everyone,

There was a Frontline recently about the effect of religiosity on Bush. In it, one of the people being interviewed suggested that G.W. Bush believed in a “12 Step God” which he found out about while getting off the booze and blow (for the original 12 steps google them). and simply carried that over into the Post-9/11 era. In his recent speech – that no one saw – Bush outlined a 5 point plan. In that spirit, allow me to speculate about the real plan. You know, the 12 step plan for Iraq!

1. Iraqis must admit they were powerless over terrorism - that their lives had become unmanageable (at least by Iraqis).

2. Iraqis must come to believe that a power greater than themselves could restore them to sanity.

3. Iraqis must make a decision to turn their will and their lives over to the care of God as Bush understands Him in his role as God's instrument on Earth.

4. US Military Intelligence must make a searching and fearless moral inventory of the Iraqis themselves – by rounding up tens of thousands of people and actually taking an inventory, run it like a business it will be more efficient that way!

5. Iraqis must admit to God as Bush understands Him, to themselves, and to neutral country the exact nature or their wrongs.

6. Iraqis have to be entirely ready to have God as Bush understands Him remove all these defects of character - keep in mind that Bush is God's instrument on Earth.

7. The Iraqis must humbly ask Him to remove their shortcomings.

8. US Military Intelligence has made a list (see step 4) of all persons to be harmed, and has no specific plans to make amends to any of them.

9. US Military Intelligence might make direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would look bad on Al Jazera or CNN.

10. US Military Intelligence will continue to take the personnel inventory (see step 4) and when MI is wrong, promptly release the personnel in question, except when to do so would look bad on Al Jazera or CNN.

11. The American people must seek though prayer and meditation to improve their conscious contact with God as Bush understands Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power we can grant to John Ashcroft to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, The President, in his role as God's instrument on Earth, calls on all Republicans to carry this message to as many voters as possible, especially in swing states, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

Presidential Address

I wanted to ask some people about their opinions of Bush's recent address about Iraq, but then it hit me -- nobody saw it. It wasn't carried on any of the big four networks around here (although I heard that Fox at least offered it to its affiliates) so if you wanted to see it, you would have to turn to MSNBC or the like. How often does that happen, that a prime time presidential address is not aired? Well, it's sweeps month.

It's probably good for Bush that no one saw it. He seems to be having a terrible run of luck with any kind of publicity whatsoever...the big news was the Abu Ghraib is to be torn down. Does anyone else think this is not the best way to handle this? Why not make it into something positive, like a learning center or a soup kitchen, or really, anything at all? What's it going to be, a parking lot? And doesn't it seem weird to be essentially destroying evidence while an investigation is ongoing?

Maybe I'm overreacting. What does everyone else think?

Thursday, May 20, 2004

Another Low Moment for American Catholics

Over the weekend, several Roman Catholic bishops told their parishioners that they could not vote for candidates who believe that abortion should not be criminalized (regardless of the candidate's moral stance on abortion). They said the same about those who were agnostic on gay marriage. They also signalled that the candidates themselves, in particular John Kerry, might be denied communion.

Aside from being an unwanted intrusion into politics by conservative RC bishops, the hypocrisy was painful. Why is the church's teaching on abortion being elevated above its teaching on the death penalty or contraception, just to name two? Republican Catholics violate the church's ironclad teaching on the death penalty. Virtually ALL American Catholics violate the church's ironclad teaching against contraception. The Pope does NOT consider these to be "far less important" than abortion, as these conservative bishops falsely claim. Of course, they cannot be consistent here: there would be nobody left to vote for.

The truth is that with the exception of gay rights and abortion, Democrats are more in line with papal teachings than Republicans. Pope John Paul II repeatedly calls for social programs to combat poverty, and condemns treatment of prisoners in the USA, police brutality, and so forth. He condemns capitalist exploitation and indifference to the needs of the poor. The Vatican was also resolutely opposed to the Iraq war. Yet for the RC bishop of Colorado Springs and others, all of this is subjugated their political agenda and personal prejudice. Shame on this handful of Roman Catholic bishops, and shame on their fellow bishops for keeping silent rather than condemning their erring brothers.

But why should the silence of other Roman Catholic bishops be a surprise? Why should the shame be a surprise? It is a great distraction to take the moral high ground and make headlines by picking and choosing which laypersons' political views to punish. It is certainly better than getting tough on those who molested little boys and those who tried to cover it up.

Maybe we should stop asking whether the Roman Catholic church should deny John Kerry communion. Maybe if John Kerry is offered communion, he should not take it.

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

A Serious Look at the Reform Party and Third Party Politics

In 1992 and 1996, Ross Perot ran as the Reform Party candidate as a centrist/populist. In 2000 Pat Buchanan ran with the endorsement of the Reform Party from the far right. Now, in 2004, Ralph Nader is running with the endorsement of the Reform Party from the far left. Is the Reform Party nuts? Do they pay any attention to the candidates they endorse? The secret to understanding the Reform Party (and contemporary third party politics in general) is to realize that they are a one issue party and that issue is opposition to free trade.

Why is third party politics based on the trade issue? First, free trade benefits a sizable majority of American voters (we can debate that issue later, for now just trust me). Second, because of the first reason, the median voter in any state wide or national election (local areas can be hurt by trade) will be pro-trade. Since we have an electoral system that encourages parties to compete with each other for the support of the median voter, both the Democrats and the Republicans – especially in the Senate and the White House – will have pro-free trade positions. The two parties disagree sharply on issues such as abortion, welfare spending, taxes, etc but on trade, they agree.

Now, since the Reform Party (and other third parties) need to differentiate themselves from BOTH of the major parties, they need an issue that both Democrats and Republicans agree on that they (the third party) can rail against. Right now, the biggest issue that fits that bill is free trade. Normally, one of the two major parties will adopt the position of the new third party to capture their votes. To a certain extent, the Democrats have done that with both civil rights for minorities and with environmental protection. But they won’t move towards being anti-trade because trade is just too good for too many people. That’s why the Green Party is mainly an anti-trade/globalization party now rather than an environmentalist party.

To sum up: Trade is THE issue of third party politics because both of the major parties agree on that issue. The problem for third parties is that the reason both major parties support free trade is that free trade is good policy for the vast majority of Americans. So don’t let Green voters, Reform Party voters, Naderites, Pat’s angry peasants, or Ross Perot tell you that they lose because they are getting screwed by the system. The biggest reason the Greens or Reform Party have no chance of being anything but a spoiler is because the most important policy they advocate is bad policy.

(NOTE: if you click on the links above, scroll down to the bottom of the page to see a little graphic that places each person or party in a two dimensional ideological graph)

Funny and ha-ha funny

Ah, the Onion. A must-read every week. Here's my fave from the new one.

White House Slam Dunk Contest Results In No Slam Dunks
WASHINGTON, DC—The annual White House Slam Dunk Contest, a spring ritual since 1977, featured its usual share of cringe-worthy misses and twisted knees Monday, but once again, no slam dunks. "I tell you, this is some sorry stuff I'm seeing," celebrity judge and former San Antonio Spur George "Iceman" Gervin said, holding up a "1" card after press secretary Scott McClellan made an awkward leap in a pair of wingtips. "The three-point contest was bad enough, but this is just depressing." The last White House slam dunk on record occurred in 1983, when a blindfolded Secretary of the Interior James Watt leaped from the foul line to execute an aerial 360-spin into a tomahawk that shattered the backboard.

Tuesday, May 18, 2004

Vilsack for VP

Tom Vilsack(born December 13 1950) is a two-term Democratic governor of Iowa.

He may help balance the testosterone heavy foreign policy ticket with home and hearth values. He was an orphan, adopted from an orphanage. Apparently, he has overseen the increase in health care coverage for Iowa's children to 94% coverage.

Various quotes that indicate how he might play on the Democratic ticket:
"The first year of his second term saw the creation of the Iowa Values Fund, a $503-million fund designed to help boost the Iowa economy by creating higher-income jobs."

"Vilsack was elected to the Iowa State Senate in 1992. As a State Senator, Vilsack helped pass a law which allowed workers to receive their health coverage when changing jobs. In addition, he wrote a bill which required the state to pay for 50% of county mental health costs."

More Veep Thoughts

Hi Everyone,

Did someone bring up the VP speculation??? Here is a modestly updated old email I sent out to friends a couple of months ago. This was when the AWOL Bush thing was the hot story so I was looking especailly at candidates who had either served in the military or at least did not get embarassing deferments during Vietnam. I still think that's important because a comparison between Democratic "Veteran Doves" and Republican "Chicken Hawks" would be great. I think a governor would be preferable too as it is hard for two Congressmen to campaign for change - although the solid GOP control of both houses may loosen that up a bit. That said, my favorite VP candidate is Evan Bayh from Indiana - though he has draw backs.
Evan Bayh: He is in Senate Class III which means his term expires in 2005, so he's up for reelection in November. Running as VP might force him to resign his Senate seat - not a safe seat for the Dems. Bayh graduated from Indiana U in 1978 and graduated from UVA law school in 1982 so he was too young for Vietnam and too old for the Gulf war. No military service done but none really expected of his generation either. Frankly, I'm surprised this guy didn't make a serious run for the top spot on the ticket this time around. Makes me wonder if he's got problems I don't know about.

Getting a governor on the ticket would be great. They are more likely to be able to deliver their home state than a House Rep (like Gebhart). Information for governors: http://www.nga.org/cda/files/GOVLIST2004.PDF and http://www.nga.org/governors/1,1169,,00.html
The current governor of Indiana is a Democrat named Joseph Kernan (he was a "flight officier" in Vietnam and was shot down - has won a bunch of medals including the DFC). He was elected Lt. Gov and moved up when Governor O'Bannon died from a stroke. He is up for reelection in November 04. Being up for reelection in 04 is a problem as he might have drop out of the race for governor with no likely Democrat to replace him. But he might put Indiana in play - and I can't imagine Bush losing Indiana and winning Ohio or Michigan.
Ed Rendell gov of Pennsylvania. He is up for reelection in November of 2006. He served in the Army after Korea and before Vietnam. Got a BA from U. Penn in 1965 so he's another Ivy Leaguer. He pushed through a 30% reduction in property taxes for homeowners - that's gotta make him popular in the suburbs of Philly. As Mayor of Philly he balanced a city budget that seems to have been badly out of whack. His wife, Marjorie Rendell, is a Federal appeals court judge in the 3rd Circuit. Pennsylvania is going to critical too (just like Ohio) and he could help a lot there. If Bush loses PA and OH, its over even if "[GW's] brother assures [him] that [they've] got Flordia."
Brad Henry gov of Oklahoma. BA from U. Oklahoma in 1985 (so too young for Vietnam too old for Gulf war). He is in his first term and was elected in 03. So he's kind of new. He has a string of electoral victories including balancing a budget without the kind of brutal cuts Schwarzenegger has put through to avoid raising taxes (more on that on request).

The problem the Dems seem to have is that many of their likely running mates are people who are up for reelection. Here are some Democratic Senators who are NOT up for reelection in Nov 04.

Bingaman (D-NM), got BA Havard 65, JD Stanford '68. Served in Army Reserve from '68 to '74 so he might be vulnerable on that. I would bet that he was a JAG officer but there is a suspicious lack of detail on his biography website.
Bill Nelson (D-FL), Was in the Army reserve (Capt) '65-'71 but was activated from '68-'70. Doesn't mention if he was in Vietnam but does a lot of Veterans affairs stuff. Was the congressman who went up in the Shuttle in 1986. Looks like a career politician - the Grey Davis of Florida. I don't know how popular the guy is down there. He might be able to shift the balance in a close Florida race.
Ben Nelson (D-NE), He's a cornhuskin' draft dodger I'm afraid. BA Nebraska '63, MA Nebraska '65, JD Nebraska '70. Stayed in school for the duration of Vietnam and never left U. Nebraska. Nothing against that institution but it ain't Harvard so one wonders if he was staying in school because of his intellectual calling or to stay out of the draft. Can't say I blame him, but the Republicans sure wouldn't miss the chance to raise the question.
Max Baucus (D-MT), JD Stanford '70 or '71 (doesn't say). Rode his Harley-Davidson to Sturgis for the big biker ralley there in 2000. So he and Kerry could do some biker themed photo ops. No military service and probably got student deferments while at Stanford where he no doubt complained about those smelly hippies over at Berkeley. (sorry could resist the chance to stir up Stanford-Cal rivalries with Law Talkin Guy and some of our loyal visitors). If Baucus is popular in Montana that could play into a "Western" strategy that would put Bush on the defensive in the only part of the country he's really popular outside the old Confederacy.
Joseph Biden (D-DE), BA Delaware '65, JD Syracuse '68 probably got student deferment but when he was prime draft age (18-22) Vietnam hadn't really heated up yet. By the time the war got going he was probably too old. He is the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee! Also a big friend of the environmental crowd (negate Green support for Nader?). Biden has been doing the Sunday morning talk show circuits exuding "gravitas" all over the place.
There are others to be sure anyone have any comments on any of these people or other possibilities?

Veep thoughts

Several people, including our own Raised by Republicans and Joe Biden, have suggested that the ideal running mate for John Kerry is John McCain.

Please.

If you're going to reach out and try to convert a Republican, you might as well go for the gusto -- the one person who would guarantee victory for Kerry and defeat for Bush:

Colin Powell.

Now hear me out: it's not as crazy as you might think. Have you read these accounts about the inner workings of the Bush administration? Geez, if these are accurate, then Colin Powell is that little guy in the office who has all these great ideas, you know? But his boss decides to listen to these other guys who he hates instead. And then, after
arguing about how it's stupid and it'll never work, he has to go and announce the other guys' plans to the world. How would you feel if that were your job?

But maybe you don't think he would jump ship and become a democrat. Have you seen Colin Powell's political views? Tell me he's not a democrat. He certainly would not be shunned by the party if he decided to join.

Like John McCain, Colin Powell is well-respected, well-liked and well-spoken. Those few idiots who wouldn't vote for a ticket with a black man on it are probably right-leaning anyway, so Kerry need not worry about that. But the biggest advantage he would give Kerry would be the devastation he would leave behind in the Bush camp. If he were to leave, even without saying anything, it would give tremendous credence to the reports about the inner workings of Bush's circle. Plus, Powell is the only Bush administration member that people actually, well, like. Who would become their public face, John Ashcroft?

No, it'll never happen. But if you're going to hope McCain jumps ship, why not Powell too?

Monday, May 17, 2004

Powell Interview (This is just spooky)

OK, now this latest thing is just unbelievable.

On Meet the Press this Sunday, Collin Powell was being interviewed via satellite by Tim Russert when one of Powell's press aides, Emily Miller, tried to sabotage the interview before Powell could answer the final question regarding pre-war intelligence. Miller admits to interfering with the camera by pushing it away from the Secretary of State but insists that she only trying to get MSNBC to hurry because they were over due for an interview with another news agency. But if that were the case why would she be concerned that "they're editing it?" Its all very fishy. Here is part of the transcript of the interview:

"Russert: Finally, Mr. Secretary, in February of 2003, you placed your enormous personal credibility before the United Nations and laid out a case against Saddam Hussein citing...

Powell: Not off.

Emily: No. They can't use it. They're editing it. They (unintelligible).

Powell: He's still asking me questions. Tim.

Emily: He was not...

Powell: Tim, I'm sorry, I lost you.

Russert: I'm right here, Mr. Secretary. I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that.

Powell: We really...

Russert: I think that was one of your staff, Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate.

Powell: Emily, get out of the way.

Emily: OK.

Powell: Bring the camera back, please. I think we're back on, Tim. Go ahead with your last question.

Russert: Thank you very much, sir. In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam Hussein. It now appears that an agent called Curveball had misled the CIA by suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological and chemical weapons. How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited?

Powell: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

Russert: Mr. Secretary, we thank you very much for joining us again and sharing your views with us today.

Powell: Thanks, Tim.

Russert: And that was an unedited interview with the secretary of state taped earlier this morning from Jordan. We appreciate Secretary Powell's willingness to overrule his press aide's attempt to abruptly cut off our discussion as I began to ask my final question."

I don't want to sound conspiratorial but this incident smells very fishy to me. The statement that Powell made after the camera came back to him is very embarrassing to the White House. I'm inclined to believe that the press aid knew it was coming and wanted to cut the interview short. That is the impression given by NBC's account of the incident as well.

Massachusetts Marriage Mania

Gay Marriage is turning out to be the butter knife of wedge issues. Doesn't cut well and few are interested. After all the furor over the possibility of a constitutional amendment, people around the country are asking, "So what?" And the pictures of happy newlyweds are adding to the "live and let live" attitude that co-exists with sexual puritanism in the American psyche. The Republican Congress is also not obliging the President's desire for a wedge issue - it looks like now that no vote at all will be taken this Fall. Can gay marriage, in the end, really not be such a big political deal?

The answer appears to be a miscaclulation of real magnitude. Gay marriage is working against the President: he looks powerless to prevent it. Or, he just plain looks mean and out of touch. Not a compassionate conservative. The clue to this analysis is in Governor Schwarzenegger. Instead of being part of some sort of resurgent Republican spearhead, Schwarzenegger is avoiding Bush altogether. Why, he must wonder, is the president talking about a gay marriage amendment instead of a balanced budget amendment? He's abandoned the President on gay marriage entirely. He has kept mum during the recent scandals. His new budget may relent on 'no new taxes'. And his advisor, Warren Buffet, has joined Kerry's team. Bush is leading his party into the wilderness.

Democrats seem united around "live and let live."
It's the Republicans who are divided.