One Caveat

Fukuyama Lays it Out

A great op-ed from Francis Fukuyama in the New York Times today.  For those of you that don't know of Fukuyama, he is one of the premier foreign policy minds in the world today.  He as written several expert books on international relations and foreign policy and are a great read for someone wanting to get into foreign policy.  I have more on his article a little later.

More Like Maher

For those of you that love Bill Maher as much as I do, here is a great article about him and his show.

No Bid Contracts

Check out this interesting piece from the New York Times about an official with in army contracting offices getting demoted.  I would like to make a quick comment on an issue related to this story, no bid contracts.  For those who have never worked in a government agency that issues contracts, no-bid contracts seem like simple giveaways to politically friendly companies. Although this may sometimes be the case-often it is not. The bidding process for a state and especially for a federal contract is an extremely lengthy and costly ordeal for both the government agency and for bidding firms. Often there is not enough time to have a formal process, like during the Iraq war, and before the rollout of Medicare Part D. This time-crunch often requires government officials to exercise their best judgment and issue a no-bid contract to an available and willing firm.

I am not excusing all no-bid contracts; there are surely some dirty ones out there. But it is important not to pre-judge all of them before learning all of the details. Without knowing the finger points of the process, it is easy to form an incorrect assessment.

Attack of Google

Is Google planning on providing free internet?  There as been some talk that Google is approaching the Microsoft status of a hated giant.  I personally love Google; not for any one particular reason, but the way the do business and the overall company image.  I believe there must be a distinct between good business practices and growth and bad business practices and growth.  Microsoft's actions towards alot of its competitors in the late 80s and throughout the 90s can surely not be categorized as good or fair business practices.  Although Google may be growing very fast and overtaking its rivals, I do not see any evidence that it is participating in any violations of free-enterprise.  This may change, but as of now, I say google on.

Good Point

Surburban Guerilla has a great point about the hurricane veering towards Alabama and Mississippi rather the New Orleans.  Is God punishing them for some reason?

So Long

Ezra pens a good response to the Arizona Daily Star's firing of Ann Coulter.  The only comment I would make to all of the outrage at her comments and the delight at the repercussions of those on the left is too be a bit careful. Even though I may agree with a lot he says I put Michael Moore on par with Ann Coulter in terms of fair and accurate journalists. Moore may not say as many cruel and hurtful things, but he is definitely not looking at issue from a non-partisan point of view. I firmly believe that comments just as Coulter’s need to be condemned regardless of which side utters them. I believe the Dick Durbin’s comments earlier this summer should have been condemned by the left and the Democrats. So while basking in the effects of Coulter’s remarks, be mindful that the left isn’t completely barren of idiotic quotes itself.

Is It Coming?

Im waiting for someone in the Pat Robertson crew to come out and say that Katrina was the work of God punishing New Orleans for its sins.  Robertson may be laying low after his latest idiotic statements.

The Beginning of a Rift

Ezra has a theory on why John Roberts was selected rather then a Hispanic or a woman.  A comment that has at the end of the post however is something that caught my attention and that I must disagree with,

This business/Christian Right thing is actually an important cleavage to think about, not because they're going to split anytime soon, but because the rise of the theocrats has really taken the spotlight off the plutocrats.

I have to disagree with the idea that this rift is not going to cause problems for the Republicans. In fact, I believe that this will likely be the biggest issue for Republicans in the 2008 primaries. The GOP has gotten lucky that President Bush is the kind of candidate that can be a balancing force between the two camps. He has managed to pass legislation that has more or less appeased both factions of the Republican Party. Finding another candidate with this ability seems rather unlikely.

Looking at some of the front runners for the 2008 nomination, McCain, Giuliani Rudy, Rice, Frist, only Frist would have a chance to get strong support for both camps-and his business credentials are great. The religious Right is likely to strongly oppose McCain and Giuliani because of the uncertainness of McCain, the pro-abortion stance of Giuliani and the fact that Rice isn’t married. All however would likely receive strong support from the pro-business camp.

I firmly believe that 2008 will be a difficult primary for the Republicans. It is likely determine which side of the party is the dominant force within the GOP for many years to come. If such a rift does occur, it will be up to the Democrats to capitalize on it.

Classic

Classic O'Reilly.

A Mistake?

This from the Washington Post, Gay Rights Groups Urge Defeat of Nominee.

Although it may have been ethically wrong, the gay rights groups probably would have done more good coming out in favor of John Roberts.  Their opposition to him probably solidifies the Right's support.

New Goals For Victory

Ezra has some very interesting and intuitive thoughts about a potential U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Most notably,

Now, I'm no pollster, no strategist, and no campaign consultant but, come to think of it, I've not lost many elections, either, so this is my opinion, and take it for what it's worth. Withdrawal, despite the frame it's currently in, doesn't have to be presented as recognition of a quagmire or ass-kicking. It doesn't have to be a loss. The case can be made that Bush's mistake, aside from his fatal mismanagement, was massive overreach. He wanted to do much more than America should. Our "job", our aim, was to depose a tyrant, halt his (fictitious) weapons programs, free the Iraqi people, get them back on their feet, and get the fuck out.

We did depose the tyrant, we did ensure he had no weapons programs, we did "free" the Iraqi people, we helped them hold elections, helped them form a government, and soon, hopefully, they'll have a constitution. Once their army is largely trained, that's the end of America's job. What's happening, now, is the expected result of us continuing a project that is already completed. Eventually, freedom means independence. It means taking responsibility for your own future and working things out. Our job in Iraq is complete. Hovering over it like a worried parent accompanying their kid to college is just making the country lash out at us.

With this in mind, it seems to me that the Bush Administration should have kept this kind of thinking in mind when creating their public relations campaign. I have written earlier about the difficulty in completely breaking an insurgency in its home country. This should have never been the goal for the war. Although the current difficulties probably never entered the minds of those in charge of post-war planning, a total end to the insurgency should not be the only way to declare victory. For some reason, even though this has continuously been deemed a different type of ware, the same standards for victory still stand; this is a mistake.

If the Bush Administration had been smart they would have started talking about the recent democratic government advances, the recent constitution problems not withstanding, as evidence that our responsibilities are nearing the end. These kinds of advancements should be the real goals of our occupation, not the defeat of insurgents. Instead the Administration has related these democratic victories back to the defeat of the insurgency-saying time and time again that the insurgency will eventually lose out to the political process. Each time they have been wrong.

Although the most opportune time may have passed, the Democrats can shift their message to reflect Ezra’s. By creating benchmarks other then defeat of the insurgency to measure victory, Democrats can support withdrawal without being anti-war. This may be a difficult message to put out, but it can’t be any worse then the current one, or lack thereof. The goal of a war like this should not be the ultimate defeat of the insurgency-such a goal could take many more years-but the formation of a government that can defeat the insurgency on its own.

Exactly What I Said

Matt further illustrates my point that sadly, Robertson still does matter,

Every time Pat Robertson has gone and said or done something lunatic for the past several years, the cry from the conservative establishment has been the same -- he's not an important figure on the right, so who cares? Byron York -- and good for him -- writes in The National Review that this isn't as true as some would like to think:

There is some truth to that, but there is also some evidence to suggest that Robertson is not quite as marginalized a figure as conservatives would like to believe. His main forum, the television program The 700 Club, is available in nearly all of the country on the ABC Family Channel, FamilyNet, the Trinity Broadcasting Network, and some broadcast stations. According to Nielsen Media Research, The 700 Club, aired each weekday, has averaged 863,000 viewers in the last year. While that is not enough to call it a popular program, it is still a significant audience. It is, for example, more than the average primetime audience for CNN last month — 713,000 viewers — or MSNBC, which averaged 280,000 viewers in prime time. It is also greater than the viewership of CNBC and Headline News.

"It's a pretty good audience," says John Green, a professor at the University of Akron who is also a fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "He is certainly a consequential figure." But Green and others point out that, even though Robertson has a core audience of supporters, his influence — which had a high point in 1988 and 1989, when he ran for president and founded the Christian Coalition — is unquestionably on the wane. Figures like James Dobson have eclipsed Robertson in political influence, and popular evangelicals like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen have surpassed him in the religious world. "They are more in tune with contemporary culture, while Robertson was more in tune with what was happening with evangelicals 20 or 30 years ago," says Green.

That seems correct to me. Robertson is far less influential than he once was, and isn't in a position to pull strings among conservative elites in Washington, but he's good a big audience and can't just be written off as meaningless. Certainly in a world where rightwingers seem to think it's fair to attribute Michael Moore's movies to the leadership of the Democratic Party, it's worth being a bit concerned about the Rev. Robinson's views. It should also be noted that the leaders whose star has risen as Robertson's has fallen aren't exactly paragons of good sense themselves. Take a look around the website of James Dobson's slick and hyper-influential Focus on the Family and you'll see what I mean.

 

Keeping Rove in the News

Really great summation of the whole Rove/Plame scandal in the LA Times.

Here He Is

Here is the answer to Ezra's question of where Mogtada al-Sadr has been lately.

Still More on Robertson

Great op-ed from the Christian Science Monitor,

So much for the respect and pro-life positions that Robertson has long espoused. How inconsistent to fight to protect the life of the unborn and then call for the assassination of a foreign leader who holds opposing political views. Not that Robertson or anybody else shouldn't defend the right to live. But it's difficult not to see the contradiction between his two positions.

If it Looks Like Extremism II...

Kos makes comparisons between our religious leaders here in America and religous leaders in Islamic countries that I have been harking about for a while,

1. Though not strictly part of government, hold such substantial political power as to be able to dictate many government policies, with well-known religious figures holding forth in frequent public court on government policies and actions.

2. Extremely distrustful of science as being contrary to religious values. Generally anti-intellectual.

3. Intolerant of those with differing religious values; view other religions -- even generally closely related sects -- as illegitimate. Associated persecution complex which presumes religious-neutral or religious-absent law to be intentionally oppressive of their own beliefs.

4. Attempting to weaken state-based education systems in favor of a government-funded network of religious schools dedicated towards the teaching of strict fundamentalist values.

5. Demand government support for their religious agendas, including the passage of laws based on their particular religious beliefs, under the assertion that the country was "divinely founded" and therefore inherently subservient to their religious sect.

6. Generally dismissive of the rights of women.

7. Generally dismissive of the rights of minorities.

8. Calls for God to "remove" political opponents by killing or otherwise rendering them unable to serve.

9. An extensive worldwide fundraising network that includes financial connections to the bloody West African "conflict" diamond trade and other questionable financial activities.

10. And finally, as we have seen in the last few days: willing to publicly endorse the utility of violence against international foes. Significantly, actions against purely political or socioeconomic foes are justified based on questionably religious grounds.

Although I agree with this statements whole heartedly, most Americans would not.  Admittedly Robertson’s group is less likely to advocate violence as a means of change; his recent comments a notable exception. Most Christians in America however do see notable difference. In my opinion most do see the present struggle as good vs. evil and do not draw comparisons between the two groups of religious leaders. They are willing to excuse the statements and actions of Robertson, Dobson, etc. because at the very least they are advancing American ideas.

It is up to liberals and Democrats to attempt to carefully draw comparisons without seeming like we are against Christianity. We need to be vocal about resistance to extremism in all its forms while being supportive of religion in general. It is important to keep in mind that not all religious groups and people are as extreme in their thinking as some of the more visible leaders. It is important to show the similarities and therefore the danger in allowing such extremism to carry on, without criticizing Christianity in general.

Unfortunatly Robertson Does Matter

From the Daily Pepper,

Pat Robertson is a joke and should be treated as such. Like Ezra said, this is really nothing new from his team, and it's nothing worth getting agitated over. It would be wildly funny if people didn't take Robertson so seriously. Robertson is front-page news. Methinks he's planning a pledge drive.

A reality check: Pat Robertson doesn't matter. He's a fool. Hugo Chavez' response was dead-on, "I don't even know who this person is." Pat Robertson has done what all grade-Z celebrities do - they pull a Busey. Pulling a Busey is to say something so shockingly stupid that it automatically generates attention.

And now contrast that with this from Digby,

“The 700 Club's average daily audience, according to AC Nielsen's November sweeps, is up 26% over last year. At a time when most daily shows are struggling The 700 Club is experiencing tremendous increases. November's average daily audience of 922,000 households is the highest in ten years and we experienced the same success in October and November.”

 

A rather large number of Americans watch Christian TV. An increasing number of them get their news from this media. Pat Robertson, whose 700 Club appears more than once a day on Disney owned Family Channel, is the most popular of all...and he's a lunatic spreading hate and violence to people who are very susceptible to his message. It's only a matter of time.

I am not trying to defend Pat Robertson by any means; I dislike him as much as anyone. But I am however providing a warning that not everyone agrees that “Pat Robertson doesn't matter;” he obviously does matter to some people, nearly one million a day. Although he does say some crazy things that make headlines that most of his viewers do not agree with, hundreds of thousands of people agree with enough of what he says to tune in every day.

A similar comment could be made about Cindy Sheehan; that she is only one person and doesn’t matter. But this is obviously incorrect-just like it is incorrect that Pat Robertson doesn’t matter. He obviously mattered in 2000 after his Christian Coalition helped revive President Bush’s campaign after its slow start in New Hampshire. So instead of simply writing off Robertson as a nut that doesn’t matter anymore, recognize that he does matter to some people and the real goal should be to help show these people that they should be looking for religious guidance in more appropriate places.

 

From Federal to State

This story in the New York Times about northeastern states developing their own pollution control program provides an excellent segue into an issue I have been advancing for months. This is the possibility of Democrats becoming the party of states’ rights. Although this may seem like reactionary proposal from a party that is out of power at the national level, I believe that in addition to winning the support of a few niche voters, Democrats can better advance their policy objectives by supporting more states’ rights.

A good example of this would be gay marriage, a difficult question for many Democrats. In the current climate any kind of national acceptance is highly unlikely. And although a federal Constitutional amendment is unlikely, it is still a probability. In my opinion Democrats should follow what John Kerry said during his campaign and leave it up to the states. This provides Democrats would a fairly solid argument, all the while preventing a federal Constitutional amendment.

Environmental issues provide another avenue. It is evident that the Bush Administration is not concerned with passing any kind of meaningful legislation, so it is up to the states to get in front of this issue. California is leading the charge for a regional pollution control pact much like the one in the northeast. More states should follow their lead; I would also encourage states to follow California’s lead in requiring higher standards for mileage per gallon from cars.

I believe that by supporting states rights in these issues, in addition to issues like gun control, education, and a variety of economic issues, Democrats can capture a group of voters that have felt somewhat alienated by the federal power grabbing that has gone during the Bush Administration. Making such a transition may not be easy, but the Republicans have done just fine leaving their fiscal responsibility tenets behind, and I think the Democrats can do the same thing with their belief that federal programs and laws are preferable to state ones.

A Demotion for Telling the Truth

An interesting article in the New York Times.

If it Looks Like Extremism...

Atrios asks a very poignant question,

NBC started their Robertson piece with "This was no extremist cleric issuing a death threat. This was Christian Minister Pat Robertson..."

So, it's a non-extremist cleric issuing a death threat. What do the extremist Christian clerics do?

Although it is impressive that some fairly high ranking Republicans are speaking out against Robertson, the real leaders of the party have yet to comment on the situation. Getting Bill Frist to comment would have to be the most interesting since he is having such a difficult time playing his current balancing act.

This is a good situation to really press the Republicans; they have been able to avoid criticizing religious leaders and fanatics that are either breaking the law (Eric Rudolph) or at the very least trying to incite violence (Robertson). I hope that President Bush has another press conference during his extended vacation and get pressed on the issue.

Delay's Last Stand?

Delay is getting some help from Cheney; via the Houston Chronicle.

There an Echo in Here?

Andrew Sullivan echos my earlier sentiment about Robertson's new gaffe.

Shared Sacrifice?

Via the Progress Report:

MILITARY -- RECRUITING TROUBLES CROSS SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC LINES: The Washington Post, picking up on a story from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that "the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield." As the Army attempts to address its significant lag in recruiting, it has begun running ads that focus on "influencers" -- people such as parents, teachers, and coaches who could be encouraging kids to enlist. Indeed, the problem, according to Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins, is that today the people who influence their decisions "are less likely than they were in past generations to recommend [military service]." The Post-Gazette article told the story of a Marine recruiter who went to a house where a mother came to the door dressed in an American flag T-shirt and declared her support for the troops. But her support only went so far. "Military service isn't for our son," she told the recruiter. "It isn't for our kind of people."

I have wondered if the attack against Cindy will do anything to affect recruitment. Although it may be nearly impossible to tell, when parents see the kind of attacks directed at her, it may persuade them to be even more restrictive on their kids entering the military.

More on Medicare

In addition to Ezra’s post about the current state of the health care system in the U.S., there is good piece in the New York Times about the increases in staff in lobbying and consulting firms before the start of the new Medicare Part D. I’ve also previously written an article about it. I am currently working in state government during my internship, and I am getting a first hand look at how the new program is getting implemented. There is a lot yet to decided, but a few points are worth considering.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe new program is going to be very problematic for the very reason it was created. Bush wanted to create a program that was controlled somewhat by market forces. This goal in and of itself I believe is a good one; a health care system created out of a synthesis of market forces backed and regulated by government seems like a respectable option. The problem as I see it however is that the clients of this program are the elderly. Although this demographic is very much attuned to their health care, the structure of Medicare Part D is likely to confuse even the savviest consumer. The main problem is that the benefit although paid for by the government, is being administered by private plans (PDPs). This means that in October beneficiaries are going to be receiving applications from private companies like United, and Aetna-not from the federal government. Being able to recognize the relationship will be understandably difficult for seniors.

Another important component is the formularies that each plan has. All plans are required to include at least one drug from each therapeutic class of drugs. Which drugs the plans choose depends on what deals they can negotiate with drug makers. And the plans’ formularies can change each month. This could mean that seniors could be forced to enter into a plan that only provides half of their drugs and would have to back to their doctor and get prescriptions for all new brands of drugs. This also means that when starting on a new regiment of drugs, members are going to have to know what drugs their plan covers. If a doctor prescribes a drug not covered, the member will either have to pay for the entire drug, or return to the doctor to get a new prescription.

All of this is going to either play good for Republicans or really bad. They were quite forceful in pushing the program through and it may come back to hurt them. The open enrollment period is from November 15 through May 15, 2006. This starts getting into election season for the midterm elections. Seniors are of course very politically attuned, but especially when it comes to their health care. If the program gets off to a bad start, you will likely see many seniors voting against Republicans primarily for punishment for the program.

What exactly will come of the new program remains to be seen, I’ll be in my current position until probably December so I’ll will keeping posting updates.

Robertson's Light Gets a Little Dimmer

I agree completely with Ezra’s post, but take it one step further in that Pat Robertson has been saying wacko things for a long time and especially for the last five or ten years. Sooner or later we need to stop being surprised.

It will be a little interesting to see the reaction of Republicans. Most of his weirder comments have gone by without much reaction from Republicans, probably because they have not been pressed to comment. I hope that some in the press corps gets enough gumption to put the question to someone in a position of power.

For me this instance is a little maddening in that the people on the left like Michael Moore get labeled with a crazy sticker for some of the things they do and get included with the mainstream of liberal politics while people like Robertson get excluded from mainstream conservative politics. Conservatives simply state that Roberston isn’t reflective of their ideas and shouldn’t be considered a notable spokesman; all the while they claim that Michael Moore is the voice of the Democrats/liberals. Conservative either need to denounce or embrace Robertson and other like him and I am recommending Bill Frist for the job.

Roberts and Comparable Worth

There is a really good comment on Ezra’s latest post about Roberts,

Also, when an idea like "comparable worth" is beaten into the ground over time, that fact does tend to make it seem more legit to have disparaged it in the first place.

Comparable worth is a nice idea in a utopian world, but it isn’t practical. If you really sit down and think about, no would one the government coming in and regulating wages; simply put, that policy would be socialism. This should not be looked at as a gender rights issue, one that makes Roberts’ out to be a woman-hater, but as an economic issue. It is a shame that female unskilled jobs don’t pay as much as male unskilled jobs, but wage regulation is not the way to fix that. Better education and more job opportunities for women would be a much more productive fix. 

Draft vs. Combat

An attuned reader provides a respectable response to my issue of women getting drafted,

Leaving aside the fact that the majority of feminists don't think anybody should be drafted, regardless of their gender, you'll find plenty of women protesting the fact that women who join the U.S. military are restricted from combat positions. For your edification, here's a link to NOW's position on women in the military:

http://www.now.org/issues/military/index.html

I appreciate the response and understand the thrust of the response. Admitting my ignorance I was not aware that NOW held such a respectable position on women fighting in combat positions.

However, the information does not really change the thrust of my argument about the issue of women being drafted. Although it is probably far from most of their minds, all 18-25 year old males are in constant danger of being drafted and sent to war. Nothing on NOW’s website makes any objection to women being excluded from the military. Perhaps somewhere out there is an argument being made by someone in some sort of leadership position in the feminist camp, but I am not aware of it.

Rudolph Apologizes

He does so only for the Atlanta bombing, not for any of the abortion clinic bombings. With all the veracity on the right against terrorism and protecting U.S. citizens, you sure don’t see many of them coming out and condemning Rudolph. If Al Qaeda was bombing abortion clinics, you think conservatives would be condemning them?

Rush and Sean Join Bush on the Way Down

Rush and Hannity are losing listeners; from the Star Tribune.

Come on Further

Ezra does an excellent job of refuting this widely absurd post at Bitch, PhD. I have not been a regular reader of her website, but after reading this post I’ll be checking it out on a regular basis. One quick tip to her though, go read this book. I must preface the rest of my comments by saying that I am a white, middle class male and I hope I don’t offend anyone.

I personally don’t have much sympathy for the feminist movement because of the manner in which it is often conducted. I certainly believe women are equals, there needs to be much work done in raising their equality and they face many hardships that men do not have to face. I do however place then in the same groupings as many religious sects, environmentalists and many other groups that believe the world is ending because of the actions of others and that the current circumstances are the fault of others.

I am in a graduate class of 25 students, 18 of which are females. I went to undergraduate school at a college that was 55 percent female; my current school is over 50 percent. I challenge anyone to find a college that is not primarily based on math that does not have a female majority. I bring up this issue because it is one in a long list that refutes the main railing cry of feminists that men are holding women back. If anything, it is time holding women back. I firmly believe that as the current women in their 20s grow older, barrier after barrier will fall. As the current group of leaders retires, their jobs will be increasingly filled by women. It is hard to have lots of high-level women in positions of power with so few women going to college for something other then teaching or nursing which was the case during 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s; as this has changed so will the role of women in society.

One final comment: one of my biggest pet peeves is the fact that women want total equality-except when it comes to fighting our wars. Do you see many women protesting that females should have to sign up for the draft? There is nothing that creates more equality then dying for you country, if you want true equality you have to take it in all its forms, not just the ones you want.

Be Careful...

Digby has an interesting post that references a post at TPM about presidential hopeful George Allen. I would like to caution however that this kind of sentiment is exactly that of which preceded George Bush’s two term presidency.

That being said, I would like to make a prediction that the 2008 Republican presidential nomination is going to be a very hotly contested and may end up being somewhat damaging to the party. The GOP has been lucky that Bush has been for the most part, able to balance the different religious, business and political wings of the party throughout his two terms. It is unlikely that they will be able to find someone with a similar ability to be the nominee in 2008. The current front-runner, McCain will appeal to the political wing of conservatives and probably the pro-business but will never gain wide-spread acceptance in the religious wing. His strongest chance would have to pick a vice-president along the mold of Lindsey Graham to reassure the religious folks.

The goal for Democrats is to have a nomination process similar to that of 2004: cordial, quick and not particularly harmful to the nominee. If they can limit the bickering and infighting and escape more united, I believe that there will be sufficient damage within the GOP on which to capitalize.

Much more on this topic in the future.

Busted

Michelle Malkin gets my blood boiling as much as anyone nowdays so I hope she gets busted on this.

Careful Now

Per Atrios; I hope all these groups are real careful in keeping this an anti-war protest and not a media circus.

Falling Further

Bush's numbers drop even further.

Frist's Flip-flopping

Ezra has a great post on Bill Frist’s declining probability of obtaining the presidency. He is right in all of his criticisms of the senator’s actions over the last few months. I would add one more thing that made him really weak in my eyes; the statement he made about John Bolton’s nomination being more or less over, and then after a conversation with the White House, reversed his position. This strengthened his argument that he is nothing more then a lap dog for Bush. It will be interesting if he gets repaid by getting Bush’s endorsement-which I consider highly unlikely.