The State of the Presidential Race...According to Tilam

So both conventions are over; the first new polls are in and there are 58 days to the election. So some thoughts from your truly:

1) The Palin Pick. I have been a Palin fan for a while. She was not my #1 choice (but there was no way my #1 would have been chosen) nor I did not expect here to be chosen, but am happy she was. That said, let's not go crazy. I don't think McCain was a "genius" for picking her because that implies he knew what would happen after her announcement. I suspect he liked that fact that a) she was reformer and conservative and b) her personal story was as compelling as his...though in a very different way. But no one could have foreseen what happened last week.

2) Who Won the Convention War. This was an odd one. If it were a sports match all the statistics would indicate a Democratic victory. But the score ended up with the GOP winning (I think). Again, chalk it up to the sharpshooter from AK.

3) Rather Redux. Labor Day weekend was the scene of the most vicious media onslaught again a politician that I can recall. And like the fake TANG story promulgated by 60 Minutes in the 2004 election, it backfired. The main stream media simply did not get it. While most of them DID NOT offer stories, enough of the fringe (US Weekly, Atlantic) did to tar them all. Also, notably absent were sane voices on the major networks calling foul. The hue and cry from the Right was "show us a major media story that deeply probes something controversial about Obama..." So rumors about a McCain Affair 20 years ago is fair game, but false. Rumor about an Edwards Affair in the past two years is off limits, but true. Rumors about Palin (some 54 rumors) and her KIDS are fair game, and false. My liberals friends just don't understand the CONSISTENCY of the double standard and the ever shifting reasons for or against coverage that always seems to benefit the Democrats.

4) The New Reagan. Palin, for all of her qualities, is not the New Reagan. It is true she has the ability to connect with average folk, just like Reagan did, but time will tell whether her views are similar to the Gipper's. But I, for one, am not looking for the New Reagan. I am looking for a New Somebody Else. Maybe Palin will be that person.

5) The Obama Mystique. Despite the best efforts of the media to shield Obama from tough issues, at some point, people will start to look at him deeper. I suspect that will happen in the next 45 days and he will be found wanting. His claims have never matched his record. He is not a reformer; he is a guy who rode the wave of the Chicago political machine. He his record is very partisan. And on the "judgment" question, he has never admitted to one area where he has been wrong, such as the surge.

Right now momentum clearly favors the GOP. That can change tomorrow. Stay tuned.

Devil Went Down to Georgia

One thing I did not make clear is that I do think that if Georgia were in NATO, Russia may have been deterred. Maybe. The stakes would have been higher, but I still think the Russians would have done it. It is an easy way (and great timing) to send a message. By beating up on Georgia, other nations - Ukraine, Poland, the Baltics - get the message.

NATO is unprepared to defend itself. The Alliance is a near farce in Afghanistan with too many nations refusing to actually engage the enemy. So it comes down to the US; as it always does. We need to do something meaningful and thoughtful to show the world that while we have been caught flat footed in the situation, we will be proactive in the future. Supplying our allies with enough weapons to put a dent in a few columns of tanks would be a good start.

For over 40 years, Russia and the US avoided a direct shooting war choosing to work through smaller proxies, such as the Viet Cong (against the US) and the Afghan Muhajadeen (against the Soviets). It would seem that the Cold War is not over, but has reemerged. We can deny this or accept the reality and deal with it.

Georgia on My Mind

Obama has to be hacked. He was just trying to take a little time off and the freakin' Russians decide to remind us we live in dangerous times. Can we invade our neighbors? Yes, we can!

While McCain sounded more presidential than either Obama or President Bush, what we can actually do is limited. Reading the Responsible Side of the Blogosphere, there seems to be a few thoughts:

Glenn Reynolds is realistic in acknowledging there is nothing much we can do, but he is wrong on preventative measures.

Jerry Pournelle is relieved that Georgia was not in NATO, while John Noonan at the Weekly Standard sees NATO membership as a deterrent.

A few points: no there is nothing we can do. Strongly worded statements run the risk of making us look stupid. Whatever we say needs to communicate something to the Polands and Latvias of the world. Max Boot also suggested shipping Stingers and Javelins to the Georgians, but that, I think, just provokes Russia to reciprocate with the Iranians or Al Qaeda elements in Iraq.

That said, I think we can ship Stingers and Javelins to our allies as a deterrent. Poland, the Baltic States, Georgia (once things settle down) all could buy these from us to discourage future adventures.

As for NATO, it is useless. I am not a huge fan of entangling alliances (see Pournelle above), but I do think there is a place for a League of Free Democracies. The trouble with Georgia is that they can act more recklessly if they "know" NATO Is behind them. Not that they would, but we need a level of trust that I am not sure is or was there.

As for military alliances, I would ask the question: who would we go to war for if that country was invaded? Canada? Australia? Great Britain? Japan? Beyond that...Mexico? France? Taiwan? South Korea?

I hate to think we may be forced to chose.

Father? Go Figure...

The normally solid Ann Althouse blows it big time. In criticizing here, I will give a shout out to Barack Obama, who called men to task for shirking fatherly duties.

Now I enjoy reading Ann, but knee jerk, shrill psycho feminism is unbecoming. Saying a father is critically important to raising children is like saying having two kidneys is better then just one.

But since modern feminism is deeply committed to an anti-male viewpoint and any expression of the need for a two parent household MUST imply women are worthless, Barack must be stopped.

Now I am hardly a Barack supported, but his statements here are dead on. The fact is single parent households are, statistically, more troubled environments and are a larger problem in the black community. The larger problem of what has become an anti-male society needs to be addressed, but the first step is to get men and women to be more responsible about child bearing.

This is NOT to demean the often Herculean efforts of single parent households - raising kids is tough for two parents let alone one. But I am perfectly capable of issuing a compliment without an implicit put down.

UPDATE: Ann claims she is not endorsing the feminist view. Hmmmm. I am not the only one who read it this way. She seems especially miffed at this, but she should re-read her main comment paragraph. I don't think we are "gnawing on a bone."

The State v. Free Will

Ross Douthat has an intriguing post about - I think - when exactly does an act become immoral enough to warrant state intervention. I think Ross hits the nail on the head when he points out that the disagreement is one of when, not if.

I think everyone agrees that the immoral act of murder should be addressed by state action. "Envy," defined as a sin or vice, should not. Ross says, "we have a disagreement about (surprise!) the nature of abortion - whether, like other acts of violence, it's the sort of crime that the civil as well as the moral law should sanction, or whether it's a sin along the lines of gossip, say, or sloth, which the civil authorities can't and shouldn't regulate."

Not quite. I think you have a legitimate conflict between the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the mother to control her body. Assisted suicide is another area where there is this conflict between the will of the individual and the law.

I guess, I would ask Ross, "is this this disagreement so clear cut in your mind to warrant state action?" It might be to him, but I am torn on this issue prior to the viability of the baby. So, in my mind, God gave us free will to make these decisions and face Him on judgment day. Same with assisted suicide. It is not so clear in my mind to warrant taking away the choice if the individual to end his or her life.

Tilam v. Thew First - WSJ Later

Today's WSJ has a great editorial making the same point I made last week in greater detail. To wit, Hillary Clinton does not know squat about economics and her policies will cause the problems she is trying to prevent.

The quick recap, Mrs. Clinton is concerned we are headed for Japanese style malaise. My point was that the out-dated, government will "help," Keynesian solutions that Mrs. Clinton proposes is EXACTLY what caused the malaise in Japan.

The WSJ comes through with the data.

Of course, Tilam v. Thew readers had that info last week.

Clintonomics

From the WSJ: "Hillary Clinton said she fears the U.S. is slipping into a Japanese-style economic malaise that will overwhelm the Federal Reserve's considerable powers.


"The Democratic presidential candidate said the U.S. government should be ready to buy troubled mortgages from investors and lenders to spur a recovery and avoid a lengthy period of stagnation because of unaddressed weaknesses in the financial sector."

Okay, now I will give you three guesses as to WHY Japan has been in a malaise for the past 10 years:

1) Japanese are lazy and the national savings rate is low.
2) Japanese businesses are non-competitive.
3) The government took on the burden of their banking crisis instead of letting the market sort things out.

The answer is 3. So Clinton, in all her economic wisdom, is proposing just the path the PUT Japan in its slow growth period.

Unbelievable.

Around the (Political) Horn

For a guy that loves politics, I have not had much to say on the blog as of late. Part of that was an early recognition that Super Tuesday was the first clarifying event of the political season (it was...kinda) and partly because my early choice, Fred Thompson never took off.

But here we are. First off, for the Republicans, John McCain seems to be the choice - not a total lock, but pretty much so. Ultimately, I think McCain will be a good choice and I simply do not have the trepidation that other conservatives have.

Why? Because post-Reagan conservatism rests on three "types" of conservative positions. The first is fiscal conservatism; the second is nationalism (or foreign policy conservatism); and finally, social conservatism. Very rarely (and certainly not in Reagan's or the Bushes' cases) does a Republican nominee embrace all three. Social conservatism was not a priority for Reagan and fiscal conservatism is not a priority for the current President Bush. All three, one could argue, were foreign policy conservatives first and foremost.

McCain is a foreign policy conservative first and foremost with small government instincts. He is not a social conservative by any stretch of the imagination. (Note that one socially conservative principle is to appoint judges who follow the Constitution, which is often a point where non-social conservatives - such as your humble narrator - find common ground with SC.)

For me, fiscal conservatism is first; foreign policy conservatism is second and, excepting judges, social conservatism does not move the needle at all. The fact that McCain has flipped my first two priorities does not really bother me. The fact that he pisses Jim Dobson off might be a feature rather than a bug. (I want Jim Dobson's morality foisted upon me as much as I want Gloria Steinem's.)

For the Democrats, things are far dicier. Barack Obama is an interesting candidate - for 2016. I concede he is inspirational and a great speaker, but he is one of the most liberal members of the Senate and has promised to raise my taxes. Not endearing. I think his message is one that will attract attention, but he simple does not have any real experience and his resume does not compare to Senator McCain. I also think that most people will vote substance - not style - in the private confines of the voting both.

Then there is HRC. Hillary Clinton is a very polarizing figure with all Bill's baggage and none of the charm. She is one VERY smart lady - give her credit - but does not have the touch of a true politician. But she has shown she will do anything - anything - to win. And that sort of viciousness should never be under estimated. Is the country ready for another dose of Clinton mores?

Friday Thoughts

Reading Yglesias (a hard Keynesian) on economics is like reading someone arguing creationism - it takes a lot of denial for Matt to argue taht way.

NYTimes endorses McCain and Romney/Giuliani breathe a sigh of relief. Pinch has destroyed a national treasure.

Republicans everywhere are smiling that Democrats notice that Bill Clinton is a liar. Though admittedly that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is...

Every day that passes convinces me that the Democratic primaries are making Obama is a more dangerous candidate and Hillary a less dangerous one. If Bill is pissed at the press now, Chris Wallace will make his head explode on national TV.

The economy will be the win-lose issue as usual. Iraq has calmed down and there have been no major terrorist attacks in the Western world. I am less confident that plays well for Republicans.

To astute observers, the military is at a cross roads. The US Armed Forces does not have one major force delivery platform that was introduced later then the 70s, excepting drones. The F-22/F-35 are starting to come online in small numbers; DD(X) destroyers are JUST being built (the "as needed" CG(X) and LCS are not started yet). Ironically, the Army is making better strides with FCS, but that is due to lower marginal cost and higher enemy contact. Someone needs to be worrying about this now.

Where are the Adults?

The markets are in a downward spiral and looking for some adult supervision. They will not get any from Washington.

The current credit crisis resulted from easy money policy and interest rates that were too low. This provided lenders with non-market incentives to over commit (including not doing diligence - a substantial amount of subprime mortgages foreclosures involve fraud) and viola! problems. The "solution" of easing the cost of credit (lower interest rates) and coming to the rescue does not provide the market medicine needed; Clinton's moratorium on foreclosures doesn't either; and each "solution" convinces the markets (US and world) that we are stupid or unserious about the problem.

The plain fact is no one has a stimulus solution because there is none. The best we can do to provide a sound, long term policy and structure and let the markets work it through.

Secretary Paulson, shame on you, you should know better. George Melloan certainly does.

Fred is Gone

Thompson has dropped out. This has left a lot of righties on the political front scratching their heads...me included. (Frank J. has taken it surprisingly well, but I hope he continues to educate us on Fred Thompson.)

While I have been a bit busy to comment on politics, I will have some time in the next week to reflect and post on Thompson, the economy, politics, sports and all the other subject I know shit about.

I'll leave you with this, courtesy of Theo Sparks (btw, site NSFW sometimes):

Colonel Nicholson and Progressive Liberals

It is very difficult for me to understand the logical end game of progressive liberal movement. Thinking about HillaryCare 2.0, you wonder how the state planning of health care in the US will end up any better then the state planning of agriculture in the Soviet Union. Trying to reconcile the moral hypocrisy of not allow ROTC on campus for its "discriminatory" position on gays (in quotes because it is the same policy for heterosexuals) while allowing someone who advocates the killing of gays for the sin of homosexuality to speak on campus is really hard.

In The Bridge on the River Kwai, Colonel Nicholson seeks to show his captors the superiority of the British soldier and loses sight of his true purpose - defeating a fanatical enemy. In the end, responsible for the deaths of several of the commandos who seek to blow up his masterpiece, he comes to his senses: "What have I done?!" And, as his last act, falls on the plunger and destroys the train carrying Japanese soldiers. Major Clipton looks at the scene and simply says, "Madness."

The progressive movement has flourished because it has not had to take responsibility for its actions. Like a petulant child, it shrieks about injustice without regards to facts or context. It shrieks simply because it wants its way. Once it receives the lollipop in consolation, it is content.

Maybe there is freedom in knowing that this country is not nuts enough to give you real responsibility, but is it too much for us to ask that you occasionally - occasionally - act like an adult?

Columbia Trivia

This from the Wall Street Journal ($): "Oh, and by the way, [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's] regime also executes homosexuals for the crime of being themselves. Maybe if Columbia University President Lee Bollinger were aware of the latter fact he would reconsider his invitation to the Iranian president to speak on his campus next Monday.

Mr. Bollinger, notoriously, voted in 2005 not to readmit an ROTC program to Columbia (absent from the university since 1969), ostensibly on the grounds of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gay service members. Never mind that other upper-tier schools, including Princeton, Dartmouth, Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania all have ROTC programs. Never mind, too, that in 2003 the Columbia student body voted in favor of readmission by a 2-1 margin. In Mr. Bollinger's view, 'the university has an obligation, deeply rooted in the core values of an academic institution and in First Amendment principles, to protect its students from improper discrimination and humiliation.'"

Maybe if the military had a "tell and hang'em high" policy against homosexuals, Columbia would welcome ROTC. More liberal hypocrisy. (No, hypocrisy...Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hates Bush, too! Birds of a feather; the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that. - Ed.)

UPDATE: Related via David Bernstein at Volokh: "And, come to think of it, I can't resist the contrast between the reaction to Rumsfeld at Stanford and, judging from the stories in the Columbia Spectator, the almost complete quiescence, apart from some Jewish groups, at Columbia regarding the invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

Academia is Totally Whacked

Columbia cordially invites President Ahmadinejad of Iran to speak. Holocaust denier; leader of the student who stormed the US Embassy; and who has vowed to "wipe Israel off the face of the map."

Freedom of speech is important, no?

UC Davis UNinvites Larry Summers to speak at a Regents dinner. Award winning economist, Secretary of the Treasury, ex-President of Harvard. Protests and outrage ensued. What did he do that was worse the Mahmoud? He suggested that one factor that might explain why women don't excel in the sciences is the fact that men and women might think differently.

Freedom of speech is important? No.

You can espouse any hateful orthodoxy you want...just do not question the liberals.

UPDATE: Victor David Hanson has similar thoughts expressed much better.

UPDATE 2: More sarcasm from Brendan Loy: "In other news from the world of academia, it seems that while Larry Summers isn't welcome to be a dinner speaker at the University of California, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an honored guest at Columbia. (Hat tip: Becky.) Well, that makes perfect sense to me. Ahmadinejad may be a murderous, oppressive tyrant bent on destroying Israel, dominating the Middle East, opposing America at every turn, and potentially hastening the apocalypse and the arrival of the 12th imam -- but hey, we should listen to what he has to say, right? Only closed-minded bigots and crazy right-wing warbloggers (but I repeat myself!) would say no to an "opportunity for faculty and students to engage the President of Iran." Free exchange of ideas, understanding the "other," and all that sort of thing. Summers, though -- Summers questioned feminist orthodoxy! Tolerance only goes so far, people. The free exchange of ideas extends to Holocaust denial, but it doesn't extend to suggesting the possibility that men and women might not be biologically identical. There are some things you just don't say!"

UPDATE 3: There is a method to the liberals' madness. To wit, if you don't want to look like a hating, half-crazed nutjob, you invite even more hateful, totally insane nuts. You look great in comparision!

How Much Do You Know About Civics.

A civics quiz...see how well you do.

Warning: it takes some time and it is not simple.

Back to Real Life

General Patreaus delivered his report to Congress along with Ambassador Crocker. What they said really did not matter, but to anyone paying attention...it contained no surprises EXCEPT for the proposal of a 30,000 troop drawdown next year. But even that makes sense given the facts and is confirmed by the soldiers themselves.

Did the Senators take the opportunity to ask probing questions? No. None of the Democratic candidates did anything more then deliver a stump speech.

Every poll on the President's poor approval rating makes headlines, but what of the Congress? Gallup measure confidence in various institutions last June. Congress is the lowest rated institution in the country. Lower then HMOs. Over 10 points lower then the President. Nearly two-thirds lower then the Supreme Court and 80% lower then...the Military. There are plenty of very effective Congressmen and women, but they are overshadowed by morons.

Glenn Reynolds says it best: "the best Bush strategy is to put Congress on TV as often as possible."

Hope for Michael Vick

This is very funny.

So if you are a Congressman or woman, you are 40% LESS popular than a guy who kills dogs for the fun of it!

Kill All the Lawyers

Eric over at Classical Values (quickly becoming a daily read for me) has a really good post on creating wealth vs. redistributing wealth. As an attorney and having practiced in the "real world" I will say that the vast majority of lawyers I knew were good people trying to help clients.

But I am a creator of wealth by nature which is why I found lawyering professionally unsatisfying.

What struck me about the post, though, is that as I look at and back upon my professional career my closest professional friendships have been creators and my worst professional enemies have been thieves...er, redistributors.

Furthermore, it seems to crystallize my political views also. I care less whether a person had an "-R" or "-D" after their name then whether they are out to tax me more and/or squander my money. Ted Stevens is taking our tax dollars and funnelling it to his family...that is thievery. I don't give a shit that he is Republican. This entitlement attitude of Congress is the one area of real bipartisanship and proof we need term limits.

Finally, EXCELLENT challenge. I will post on this later today.

Around the Political Horn

Now that sports are done (for now), let's see what is going on in the political world. (The answer is, alot, but these are the things that interest me, and allow me another excuse to show a picture of a congressional staffer.)

Democrat Candidates. Like it or not, Hillary is lapping the field. Obama v1.0 is showing his inexperience with answers like, "Of course, I will meet (and legitimize) every petty despot in the world." Now I believe in diplomacy as well as the next guy, but you really need a negotiating partner who makes a good faith effort to come to terms and honor its agreement. Obama, I have two words for you: Neville Chamberlain. Don't be fooled.

John Kerry. Has there been a more disgraceful representative of the Commonwealth? While most analyst agree that the bloodshed in Iraq will get significantly worse if the US leaves, the great Senator compares those forecasts with the concern with about pulling out of Vietnam: "We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn't happen."

It didn't happen. 1-2 million Cambodians dead at the hands of Pol Pot, 100Ks of Vietnamese and Laotians shipped to "reeducation" camps. All Neo-Con propaganda. Nope. Did. Not. Happen. I think we are seeing the Democrats strategy for the aftermath of a US withdrawal.

Eliot Spitzer. To any objective observer, the guy has been a total shithead thug for years. Bullying innocent, but high profile, targets to extort ransom from their corporations. Did he ever land a big fish? Usually, his vehicle of choice were anonymous leaks of exagerated claims or outright lies. Now, he has been caught. Freud called this behavior "projection."

Fred Thompson. Readers know I am a Thompson fan, but enough already. Shit or get off the pot. Declare or say no. Fred, you are starting to look like an ego-maniac more concerned with the attention then service.

Democratic Congress. After riding into town on a wave of public discontent with the way Republicans were behaving, they proceed to take this as an indictaor that the public wants them to behave even worse. More pandering to special interests, MORE pork (I hardly thought that possible), more socialized Medicine (the lesson of HillaryCare: keep things secret!) and more anti-Bush rhetoric. Governing? Let's see...nope, to paraphrase Senator Kerry, it ain't gonna happen.

The result: lower approval ratings then the President! I hardly thought THAT possible!

Work calls...

No Brotherhood Afterall

From Captain's Quarters:

"'They're firing at us, firing RPGs, firing mortars. We're not Jews,' the brother of Jamal Abu Jediyan, a Fatah commander, pleaded during a live telephone conversation with a Palestinian radio station.

Minutes later both men were dragged into the streets and riddled with bullets."

This no surprise. Nor will it clarify the problem (Islamists addiction to violence) to those who have not understood this yet. The most prevalent motivation in the Middle East for centuries is "hate." You cannot build anything on hate. You can only destroy.

But at least they are destrying each other.