(As I write this I am at the eye doctor waiting for my eyes to dilate. So I apologize in advance if this post has some mistakes)

In 1941 and in 1944 the Russians used a scorched earth strategy to drive the German defenses from the Motherland. The policy was convenient and necessary for the survival of the Soviet regime. However, it left the countryside ravaged in terms of lost resources and lives. Substitute Hillary for Stalin and the Democratic Party for the Russian countryside and you have the political equivalence of a modern scorched earth policy. In an interesting article in Newsweek, it was pointed out that there is practically no way that Hillary can have more pledged delegates or a higher number of overall votes on her side before the convention this summer. Therefore, what she is basically signaling to the electorate and the Democratic party is that she is willing to tear the party and the Democratic base to shreds for the possibility that backroom dealings with super delegates will give her the nomination. This is strategy is simply and frankly stupid for a couple of reasons. The first and the most obvious reason is that McCain will have a distinct advantage because while the DNC is split, the Republican nominee will be revving up the RNC Attack machine for another organized and orchestrated run at the Whitehouse. The second reason this prolonged process is unkind to the Dems is because the longer the fight continues, the more divided the Democratic Electorate becomes. Right now 60% of Dems say they would be satisfied if either Clinton or Obama was its party’s nominee. However, if the “kitchen sink strategy” continues, antagonism from both sides can and will only increase. In my opinion picking up four delegates from last Tuesday is not enough for Clinton; She needs to bow out now, for the good of America.

My Choice is Obama

   Although I meant to publish this before Super-Duper-Fabulous Tuesday, I ran out of time and energy. However, since the Democratic party is still undecided about its candidate, I thought I would write a couple words on the reason that I am supporting Barack Obama. 

 

   The Clinton era of the early to mid-nineties is looked upon by the Democrats with fondness. Those that are tired of the second Bush Administration remember President Clinton as a diplomat (not as a  hawk) and as a fiscally responsible Democrat (not as a tax cutting at a time of war president). However,  let the Democrats not forget that Republicans viewed the Clinton Administration with almost as much disgust as the Democrats look at W. Just like President Bush, President Clinton was a divider and a polarizing figure. The Republicans in Congress detested him so badly they attempted and successfully impeached him over lying about a minor sex scandal. While many of these bitter feelings have been resting since the almost eight years he left office, the memories of many Conservatives would be jogged again if Hillary Clinton were in the spotlight as the Democratic nominee for president. While many Conservatives pundits (including such notables as Limbaugh, Hanity, Dobson) have expressed dedain and apathy towards John McCain as the Republican nominee, I would bet that if Clinton becomes the Dems choice, then many Right-Wingers would come out to vote not because they like McCain, but because they hate the thought of another Clinton White House. Otherwise, if Obama was the candidate, my bet would be that many Conservatives would show little desire to rush to the polls to support their not-so-attractive candidate. 

   In addition to the threat the many Republicans would rally around McCain not because they like him, but because they detest her, the fact is, McCain has and will be attractive again to many independents. Therefore, even though the Republican party has seen their approval ratings and popularity drop in recent months and years;  McCain's attractiveness to moderates, and the base's hatred for Clinton, brings the Donkey and Elephant neck and neck at the finish-line in November of '08. 

   Obama on the other hand has invigorated people that have never been involved in politics, and has rejuvenated those that became cynical about Washington.  The fact that he raised $32 million in January speaks to the intense popularity of his candidacy. His 352,607 (as of 2.9.08 at 12:04 pm) donors in 2008 alone, really emphasize the high volume of active support that he has managed to rally. He has invigorated people's spirits by talking candidly about hope, unity, and real change. Although other politicians speak this language frequently, there is something inherently different about Barack Obama. I honestly think he believes what he says; and that separates him from other politicians. He talks about how if he were elected he would look at the strongest people to put in his cabinet, not just the strongest Democrat, and I find that a breath of fresh air. On the other hand, Clinton would continue the polarization of politics that was prevalent during her husband's term and continues today.   One of my favorite lines Obama has had came after Iowa when he spoke about the people in America: 

 "The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are on people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

Obama and his freshness is not only appealing to those that have followed politics for decades, but also those individuals who never cast a ballot in their lives. 

   The inspired voters that are fueling his massive donations are also the voters who will give Obama a large victory in the General. Unlike Clinton, Obama does not spur the hatred of the entire Repbulican party. Obama can also compete with McCain in terms of winning the independent vote. Electability is important, and Obama has the characteristics that have proven to attract all ages, races, religions, and SESs. 

   For a person that has studied politics, and continues to be a die-hard political junkie,  I find it odd and counterintuitive that one of the biggest reasons that I support Obama is that it just feels right. When he speaks I feel like I can trust him. When he makes promises of change I honestly believe that he can do it. It is refreshing to finally be able to trust a politician the way I do Obama.  

Goodbye to All That

The posts have been nonexistent since June, but I thought I would promote a terrific article by Andrew Sullivan entitled, "Goodbye to All That." In this piece, Sullivan, a Log Cabin Republican, highlights the race for the Whitehouse, and specifically the differences between the old guard (represented by Clinton), and the new wave of leadership (represented by Obama). In his essay, Sullivan explains that Americans are ready for a new type of leadership; one that is fueled by issues and not by party politics. While the normal Obama stump speech does a fantastic jump harping the idea of change, this article explains why at both the logical and emotional level Obama's candidacy and politics are right for America - right now.

Goodbye to All That

Powell Speaks Candidly on Meet the Press

On Meet The Press this morning, Colin Powell's answers to Tim Russert's question were very diplomatic and respectful. He did however make multiple concessions about the war in Iraq. For one, he stated that if we (meaning the U.S. and its allies in the war) knew in 2003 what we know today in terms of the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the justification for going war would not be there. He explicitly stated:

"Without weapons of mass destruction the justification would not be there even though Hussein was a terrible person, there were human rights abuses abounded, he was cheating on the UN Oil for Food program...but I think it is doubtful that without the weapons of mass destruction case, the President, the Congress, the United States, and those whose joined us... would have found a persuasive enough reason to go to war."

In addition, Powell also admitted that the U.S. led coalition was ill prepared for the aftermath in Iraq:

"There was a realization that it [the war] would tie up a significant portion of our armed forces for a long time, it would cost a great deal, [and that] we're getting inside a sectarian conflict that we would have to keep a lid on and we would have to get Iraqis up and moving as quickly as possible in order to hand the responsibility off to them. And so I don't think any of us were unaware of the kinds of problems we might face. I certainly was not unaware and I was informed by my own thinking alongside CIA documentation...but all along the way, those that had experience in this part of the world and had experience in war understood that we were taking on something that was going to be a major burden for us for many years and I think the President was well aware of that and my judgment is that we didn't prepare ourselves for the kinds of challenges that occurred in the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad."

Colin Powell's candid comments today and in the recent past are refreshing to hear from a former high ranking official of the Bush administration. He admits that the war in Iraq is a civil war, does not utilize Republican talking points, but also realizes that pulling American troops out at this juncture in time is not necessarily the smartest of ideas. His independent reason guides him to believe that Americans should increase the "surge" when it comes training Iraqi troops - increasing the capacity of the Iraqi people to secure and govern their own people.

Powell's voice of reason is where Americans should turn to when placing a judgment about the war in Iraq. Forget the politicians and the catch phrases "cut and run," "slow bleed," etc. Americans should listen to experts such as Powell, read and understand the facts of the war, and devise not only a passionate belief about where America should be headed with regards to Iraq, but also one that is based on logic, reason, and concrete facts. I dare the presidential candidates to enter the debate on Iraq this way. If one does, and I believe he/she is sensible and independently minded, then he/she has my vote.

A Jump in the Polls for Thompson and Gore

According to MSNBC, a new AP poll suggests that outsiders for president on both the Republican and Democrat sides have made significant gains in terms of public support as of late.

On the GOP side, Fred Thompson, the former Senator from Tennessee, will not be rolling out his campaign until July 4th, has not participated in one debate, nor has made many public appearances, but is now in second place behind Giuliani with 17% of Republican support. The situation is even more startling on Democratic side. Former Vice President Al Gore, who now says he's 50/50 about running for President, is polling at 20%. This number is well ahead of Edwards who is in fourth place with 12%. Technically, Al Gore is only 13 points behind Senator Clinton without spending a single dollar campaigning.

So why are both the Republicans and Democrats lending so much support behind candidates that haven't even entered the race. For Republicans, I believe the support for Fred Thompson is a sign of dissatisfaction with the overall choices at this point in time. None of the candidates on the Republican side have the potential to be the darling boy of the Conservative Right. All of the first tier candidates (McCain, Romney, Giuliani) have issues that turn off voters. McCain is too old and is too bogged down with the war in Iraq; Romney is a flip flopping Mormon; and Giuliani is pro-choice (enough said). Fred Thompson on the other hand reminds Republicans of Regan with his Presidential presence, and conservative overtones.

The Democratic backing for Gore is different than the Republican reason for supporting Thompson. The Democrats support Gore because many members of the base still remember how Gore got robbed in 2000. They also feel angrily sentimental (and rightfully so) because they believe that Gore would never have invaded Iraq, and would have made steps to do something about the rising gas prices and the growing environmental problem. In addition, Democrats believe that Gore's voice, which has been incredibly popular as of late, should be included in the race to ensure that the Democratic nominee is the strongest candidate out of all prominent Democrats.

Gore on the other hand is playing this situation the right way. He knows he has a tremendous amount of political capital at this point and also knows it would be a terrible mistake to enter the ring this early in the race. For Gore It is best to sit on the sidelines for a while and watch candidates to beat up on each other. Then, when voters begin to feel fatigued and worn out by the summer campaigning, the opportunity will be ripe for the former Vice President to enter the race.

In all, Fred Thompson and Al Gore have the most efficient campaigns for their respected sides They have made the biggest moves since the last polling, and are considered first tier candidates without airing one commercial.

Small Break

I'm taking a little break from the blog for a couple days. I've got some good ideas for posts in the near future, so stay tuned. For the time being, take a look at some of the sites I frequent, especially True Tales - a great look into international (particularly Russian) affairs. Thanks for the cooperation.

-Randy-

Finally A Sensible Appointment

Bush has made many infamous political appointments during his terms in office. Not only did he appoint the Commissioner of International Arabian Horse Association (IAHA) as head of FEMA, but he also appointed John Bolton, a man who once said, "There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference," as the U.S. Ambassador to that same organization he had previously chastised.

Bush also made a "heck of" an appointment when it came to Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank. Wolfowitz, a self-proclaimed "Neo-Conservative," was one of the key architects of the war in Iraq. It is ironic that a failed nation builder was put in charge of one of the largest and most important International Governmental Organizations in world. The World Bank is not only pivotal because it provides low interest loans and aid to many third world countries, but it also helps these same countries develop sustainable economic and social systems. This is why it is so comical that a man such as Wolfowitz, infected with tunnel visionitous, was appointed to be the guiding light of the WB.

However, Bush has finally smarted up a bit. Realizing that political appointments should not just be politically motivated, he appointed Robert Zoellick as the new chief of the World Bank. Zoellick, former U.S. Trade Repersentative, and a managing director of Goldman Sachs, is viewed by many involved in NGOs and diplomats a like as a very solid choice for the vacancy. An editorial in the New York Times had this to say about Zoellick: "Mr. Zoellick is just about everything Mr. Wolfowitz was not. He is an able diplomat, experienced and interested in the details of development, trade and governance and widely respected in the many countries he has dealt with in his long career as a top State Department official and as America’s top trade negotiator."

It will be interesting to see if President Bush keeps this sensible streak going. The next step Bush should take is to fire Gonzales (another incompetent appointment), and hire an ethical, and independently minded Attorney General.

Why not Huckabee?

Why doesn't Mike Huckabee have more support? In a land of candidates who are Mormon (some Conservatives have a problem with this I don't personally), have been married three times, flip flopped on social issues, old, and are bogged down by the war in Iraq, it is amazing that a man such as Huckabee, a great socially conservative orator without skeletons in his closest, finds himself so low in the polls.

Although I do not agree with most of Huckabee's stances on issues, I still find myself more and more impressed every time I hear him speak either on radio, TV, or during a debate. His forthcoming nature is refreshing because it is the antithesis of smooth talking candidates such as Mit Romney. Just judging from the authentic passion that he speaks with, you know that he would stick to his principles as President even in the face of adversity. This is more than what could be said of the current President, or I believe any other Republican candidates in the race. For instance, Giuliani is already beginning to compromise his principles by blindidly becoming hawkish just so he can cover up his socially liberal stances and his previous marriage problems. Romney has no principles because he's nothing but a political opportunist who says one thing as Governor and another as a Presidential candidate. McCain used to be the man known to stick to his principles, but judging from his performance in South Carolina in the 2000 primaries and his false statements concerning the progress in the war in Iraq, he has compromised himself as well.

So it really depends this primary season how Republican primary voters pick a candidate. Do they merely fall for the hollow talking points of Giuliani on security, or the barrage of advertisements which a campaign like Romney can afford, or do they really stick by the principles which guide the Republican party - socially conservative values, fiscal responsibility etc? If they do send someone like Huckabee to the general election then I believe the values which Republicans supposedly hold dear will be represented in a national election. Then its America's turn to decide if those values not only fit Republican voters, but the country's as well. Until then, if Republican voters fall for the poorly orchestrated song and dance of the other major candidates they are doing an injustice to themselves and the values that supposedly guide their party.

Friedman's Take on the Esfandiari Escapade

To follow up on a previous post, Thomas Friedman wrote an interesting op-ed with regards to the situation in Iran and captured activist/academic Haleh Esfandiari. This intriguing perspective not only dismisses the frivolous allegations of Ahmadinejad and co., but also has larger insight into the problems of the Iranian state. I've posted the article in its entirety. At the bottom of the post you will also find the link to the article on the New York Times website.

I thought this regime was powerful and self-confident, and actually felt strengthened since we destroyed its two main enemies — the Taliban and Saddam. That could not be further from the truth. This Iranian regime is afraid of its shadow. How do I know? It recently arrested a 67-year-old grandmother, whom it accused of trying to bring down the regime by organizing academic conferences!

Yes, big, tough President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — the man who shows us how tough he is by declaring the Holocaust a myth — had his goons arrest Haleh Esfandiari, a 67-year-old scholar, grandmother and dual Iranian-U.S. citizen, while she was visiting her 93-year-old mother in Tehran. Do you know how paranoid you have to be to think that a 67-year-old grandmother visiting her 93-year-old mother can bring down your regime? Now that is insecure.

It’s also shameful. Haleh directs the Middle East program of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. She went to Iran in December to visit her aging mother — a trip she’s made regularly for the past decade. According to her husband, Shaul Bakhash, himself a renowned Iran expert in the U.S., while Haleh was traveling to the Tehran airport on Dec. 30, to return home, she was stopped by three masked, knife-wielding men — Iran’s Intelligence Ministry always needs three men and three knives when confronting a grandmother — and they stole her belongings and her U.S. and Iranian passports.

This was followed by six weeks of intermittent questioning by Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence. Then, on May 7, Haleh was arrested. Yesterday, she was formally charged with “endangering national security through propaganda against the system and espionage for foreigners,” an Iranian spokesman said — apparently because of her work organizing academic conferences of Iranian and U.S. experts.

Why does Iran’s leadership do such a thing? Because its hard-liners fear relations with the U.S. and want to scuttle the Iran-U.S. dialogue that began this week in Baghdad. Just like Castro’s Cuba, Iran’s mullah dictators thrive on their clash with America. The conflict gives them status among anti-American countries, our sanctions allow them to explain away their poor economic performance, and U.S. “threats,” both real and imagined, allow them to crush all legitimate dissent by labeling it part of a U.S. conspiracy.

What to do? Obviously, one option is a military strike combined with fomenting revolution. But that could easily leave us with another unstable, failing state in the Middle East. I don’t want to create another boiling Iraq. A second option would be more economic sanctions to change the regime’s behavior. The third option is engagement aimed at restoring relations.

Alas, the Bush Iran policy has dabbled in all three, but never committed itself to one, and, as a result, Iran’s hard-liners have been strengthened. The only way out of our corner now is to get some leverage. And leverage can come only from stepped-up economic sanctions — particularly doing something to bring down the price of oil, Iran’s lifeblood — combined with aggressive engagement, like declaring that we don’t seek the toppling of the regime and that we are ready, if Iran curbs its nuclear program, to restore full diplomatic and economic ties the next day.

In other words, our only hope of either changing this Iranian regime or its behavior, without fracturing the country, is through a stronger Iranian middle class that demands a freer press, consensual politics and rule of law. That is our China strategy — and it could work even faster with Iran. The greatest periods of political change in modern Iran happened when the country was most intensely engaged with the West, beginning with the constitutional revolution in 1906.

Unfortunately, the Bush strategy — diplomatic/economic isolation plus high oil prices — has only frozen the regime in power and transformed it from mildly repressive to a K.G.B. state with a nuclear program. So now we face an Iranian regime that is both powerful and paranoid.

It has the resources to snub the world and its own people’s aspirations. Yet, no matter how much this regime tries to buy off its people with oil money, it knows that many despise it. It’s actually afraid of its own people more than anyone — so afraid it even criminalizes scholarly exchanges between Iranians and Americans that the regime can’t control.

That’s why a 67-year-old grandmother — whose only crime is getting people together in public to talk about building a better Iran — is such a threat.

New York Times Article
Iran Arrests Grandma

Elephant Roadblock

I'm just going to copy this straight from CNN.com because they did a great job at describing this event in India involving a smart elephant and some confused motorists. Enjoy.

NEW DELHI, India (Reuters) -- An elephant in eastern India has sparked complaints from motorists who accuse it of blocking traffic and refusing to allow vehicles to pass unless drivers give it food, a newspaper has reported.

The Hindustan Times said Monday the elephant was scouting for food on a highway in the eastern state of Orissa, forcing motorists to roll down their windows and get out of the car.

"The tusker then inserts its trunk inside the vehicle and sniffs for food," local resident Prabodh Mohanty, who has come across the elephant twice, was quoted as saying.

"If you are carrying vegetables and banana inside your vehicle, then it will gulp them and allow you to go."

If a commuter does not wind down his window or resists opening the vehicle door, the elephant stands in front of the car until the driver allows him to carry out his routine inspection.

Forestry officials told the newspaper that the elephant is old and is therefore looking for easy food.

"So far, it has not harmed anybody," said Sirish Mohanty, a forest ranger working in the state.

"We are telling commuters regularly not to tease the elephant. But if people don't heed to our advice and harass the tusker, then it can retaliate."

Elephants are a protected and endangered species in India, which has nearly half of the world's 60,000 Asian elephants.

But conservationists say its population has fallen rapidly in recent years because of loss of habitat as a result of human encroachment into forest areas.

Click on the link below to view the story on CNN.com
Elephant Robs Motorists in India

3 Decades, 2 Adversaries, 1 Meeting

Is this the start of something new or was it merely a political charade for both sides? Today both U.S. and Iranians ambassadors to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker and Hassan Kazemi Qumi, met in Baghdad to discuss various issues that relate to the security and future of Iraq. This event is more symbolically important than anything because it is the first time in over three decades that these two countries have had high level diplomatic talks.

However, I'm curious about the timing of the event. Why now?

The first motivation that I see on the U.S. side is that Bush may finally be realizing that if he doesn't see progress in Iraq by September when Petraeus comes and reports back to the Senate Armed Services Committee, then Republican leadership in both the House and Senate will become even more agitated and really start turning against the President and his agenda. House Minority Leader John Boehner has already signaled the importance of September and future policy in the region. If progress is non-existent at that time, Bush will need to really start thinking about a plan B centered on diplomacy in the region.

Also, Bush maybe starting to take notice of the Baker/Hamilton report. The report which is used by both parties for various talking points, really provides a broad overview of where Americans, including Democrats, Republicans, and Independents stand on the issue of Iraq. Knowing that he can only isolate the majority of the public for so much longer this may be an attempt at showing the American people that he is listening to advice from others.

The problem that I see in this situation is that while it is important the relations (even on the level of one meeting) resume between Iran and the United States, I suspect that neither country is truly serious about addressing the issue of security in Iraq. For the most part, according to Crocker, the U.S. "“laid out before the Iranians a number of our direct, specific concerns about their behavior in Iraq.” I don't believe that Bush really cares if the Iranians listen or not, it just gives him an opportunity to say "I told you so - diplomacy doesn't work" to the American people when future connections are found between Iran and the insurgencies in Iraq.

The Iranians also have things to gain from these talks. First of all, from a public relations standpoint, there is no greater legitimizing force if you're a government than to meet with representatives from the U.S. government. This meeting will display to the Iranian people that Islamic government is more powerful than ever. Through "show-boat" diplomacy the Iranians did what the Iranians do best - unleash wild allegations of U.S. hostility, and display anger over U.S. policy. According to Crocker the Iranians, “mechanisms, if you will, and principles rather than the detailed security substance that we need to see improvement on.” This translates into a scenario where the Iranian government simply lectures at the U.S. discussing its lack of principles, rather than truly addressing the issues.

So while on the surface this meeting between the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq may seem like a pivotal moment, it is to remain to be seen whether or not this starts a trend of conversations between adversaries.

While some would say that these talks are a waste of time, I would disagree. While the purposes of the conversations to this point seem selfish on both ends, disregarding the true topic at hand, any conversation is an improvement step in the right direction. You never know, a breakthrough between the two countries could happen if talks continue to occur. This is diplomacy, and while it may be slow, hopefully the trend will continue in the region.

Read an article from the New York Times on the event:
In Rare Talks, U.S. and Iran Discuss Iraq

Iraq Spending Bill - Round II

Although I still may have a comment on the recent Iraq Spending Bill, for now I'm just going to post the recent "Special Comment" from Countdown with Keith Olbermann. His comments are both dramatic and intriguing. They bring up good points about what's wrong with politics and specifically the Democratic party after the election in November.

Hogzilla Shot Dead by 11 Year Old Boy

On the lighter side of the news, and I use that term very loosely, a 1,051 pound hog was hunted down and killed today in Alabama by an 11 year old boy. The large and in charge beast was "9 feet 4, from the tip of its snout to the base of its tail"(CBS).

The boy, Jamison Stone, said he shot the hog 8 times before he finally finished it off with a pointblank shot. In an interview stone also discussed his sentiments on such a momentus day, "It feels really good, It's a good accomplishment. I probably won't ever kill anything else that big."

In case you are curious, here are some more facts about the hog and the event:
* The chase lasted over three hours.
* It is said that a hog this size could yield at least 700 pounds of sausage.
* The animal measured 54 inches around the head, 74 inches around the shoulders
and 11 inches from the eyes to the end of its snout.

This poor kid has nothing else to look forward in his hunting career. I think he hit the lottery and all other animals will seem dull in comparison.

Update on Paul/Giuliani Feud

Update:

To follow up on a previous post, Rep. Ron Paul (R Texas) gave former Mayor Giuliani a list of 9 books that will help explain the sources of terrorism.

To quote Paul:"I'm giving Mr. Giuliani a reading assignment,I don't think he's qualified to be president," Paul said of Giuliani. "If he was to read the book and report back to me and say, 'I've changed my mind,' I would reconsider."

Some of the books include, Blowback (the book by Johnson mentioned in my post), the 9/11 Commission Report, Dying to Win, and Imperial Hubris.

It will be interesting to see if Giuliani has any response. Paul sure is being a thorn in the side considering he's a symbolic long-shot in this race for the nomination.

Tough Decisions on Iraq for Clinton and Obama

The Senate Democratic Presidential candidates have a huge decision to make when it comes to their vote on the recent Iraq War spending bill. If Clinton, Obama, Dodd, or Biden decide to vote for the bill they may lose support from the Democratic base and the anti-war activists. However, if they decide to vote against the bill the backlash from moderate voters may be just as severe because they will be painted as hating the troops.

Therefore, as expected, the tension is high among these four candidates. Clinton, during a recent stop got a question from the press related to this issue. She averted the question by sternly saying that this event was set up to talk about immigration, and "there will be opportunities to discuss that subject later." Obama also displayed similar sentiments during one of his campaign events. He said, "I would like to read the provisions in the bill before making comment, Alright?" Believe me, Congressmen have made numerous comments on the validity of a bill before actually reading it. Like Clinton, Obama is stalling for time either to discuss the pros and cons of voting for the bill with his advisors, and/or to possibly run some public opinion polls on the issue.

Meanwhile, John Edwards is attempting to gain some momentum from the Democratic base. In a speech yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relations Edwards said, "the Congress needs to stand the ground against this President and force a change in policy. George Bush has shown over and over again that he’s stubborn, that he’s bull-headed, that he doesn’t think he can do anything wrong. He will not change unless the Congress forces him to do it and they need to force him to do it.” He understands how powerful leftisit lobby groups can be in pushing votes to him in key primary states such as Iowa and Nevada. In addition, knowing that groups such as Moveon.org are extremely active and motivated it wouldn't be surprising if Edwards soon has one of the most committed volunteer corps out of all of the candidates. These two elements could easily help Edwards improve his numbers, and even further his attractiveness for the populist, anti-war left of the party.

Therefore, as voting Congress men and women, Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Biden have a huge decision to make. If I were Dodd and Biden I would vote against the bill because if they have any hope of getting out of the primaries and into the general they need the support of the base. However, if I were Clinton and Obama, candidates who really have a chance of getting the nomination, this decision is a tough one to make. The flack of voting against the bill could damage them in the general election, but voting for it could hurt them against a candidate like Edwards who has consistently shown his activism against the war.

I would probably stall for time as well.

The McCain Romney Spat

The quote of the day has to come from John McCain. Ever since the last Republican debate in South Carolina last week, Sen. McCain and former Gov. Mitt Romney have been at each other's throats over various issues. Romney criticized McCain's stance on immigration and campaign finance reform. McCain sharply went back over Romney's head and defended his actions harking on his integrity and doing what he believes is right.

However, the fighting has only increased since that night in Columbia. Just yesterday McCain fired back at Romney with this witty remark:

"Maybe he [Romney]can get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his yard."

This comment may same benign at first glance, but after analyzing the underpinnings and framework of the quote, it becomes apparent that McCain is not only criticizing Romney's fumbling on the issue of hunting, but also undercutting Romney's position on immigration. Although I do disagree with McCain's recent actions and comments about the war in Iraq, I still believe that he is unlike many of the other Republican and Democratic candidates. McCain values his integrity, and does what he believes is in the best interest of the country.

The Primary Rush

Yesterday, Governor Charlie Crist signed a bill into law that moved the Florida primary for the 2008 presidential election up to January 28. The reasoning for the shift is logical. Like California, Florida is a large state that believes because of its size and electoral importance in the General Election, it should be allowed to have an influence on who the candidates will be.

In the past, the Florida primary took place on Super Tuesday alongside numerous primaries from other states. However, the importance of the results on Super Tuesday have wained in recent years. By the time Super Tuesday arrives, the candidates for both parties if not decided are very limited in numbers.

The main concerns that I have with early primaries, especially in large states like Florida and California, are numerous. For one, because ad time in large markets is very expensive, second tier candidates are eliminated close to a year before the election. In the past, a second tier candidate was able to gain momentum in smaller states such Iowa and New Hampshire. This momentum would lead to increased fund raising, and a greater chance of success when it came to Super Tuesday. Therefore, the mad rush to move primaries up will create a greater need to fund raise more, and faster. This will only increase the already exuberant amount of money being raised and spent before the general election.

So what should be done to balance the arguments of big states and that of the second tier candidates? The solution that I see has to do with campaign finance reform at its ultimate - public funding of elections. I understand the argument that restricting funds for elections also restricts freedom of speech - the cornerstone of the American Constitution - but I believe limited funds will just make candidates become more creative in getting their messages out. Also, it might be advisable to shorten the election season. In Britain, Parliament is dissolved, and an election occurs within roughly ten weeks. Although we have set election dates making this process almost impossible in the American system, a creative way to limit the amount of time that candidates campaign would be much appreciated by both citizens and candidates a like. For some reason I don't believe any of the active candidates for the '08 election really like being out there at this date flying from state to state knowing this madness may not end until November of 2008.

Haleh Esfandiari Charged by Iranian Government

According to the Washington Post, 67 year old "American Haleh Esfandiari has been charged with trying to topple the Iranian regime." A scholar at the Woodrow Wilson, Esfandiari is the director of Middle Eastern studies. The hard-line newspaper Kayhan has accused the duel citizen of Iran and America of "fermenting" a "soft-revolution," one which seeks to undercut the current government and form a revolution. Neither the newspaper or the government has been forthcoming on what exactly she has done in order to receive these charges. The only information that they are sharing is that she has received funding from George Soros's "Open Society Insitute," an institue that "aims to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights, and economic, legal, and social reform."

Although the Deputy Director of the Wilson Institute Mike Van Dusen admitted that Esfandiari had received a grant from Soros, he was also to quick to point out that, "the Soros Foundation has also given money to the Iran government after the Bam earthquake in 2003." Therefore, at this point in time it is unclear what the real reasons are behind the arrest of Esfandiari.

Esfandiari was in Iran visiting her 93 year-old Mother when her passport was taken in December during a robbery en-route to the airport in Tehran. From the moment she attempted to get a replacement, she was arrested, and was interrogated for six weeks. It is unclear at this point when the trial will begin or if the United States government will seek to work back channels to get her release.

The Pirates of Africa

Understanding Africa is not only challenging because it is so large and diverse (culturally, geographically, and economically), but also because many of the problems, even viewed in an isolated context, are incredibly daunting. The fact that a large portion of Africa suffers from terrible diseases such as AIDs and Malaria is reason for concern and panic by itself, but when also coupled with governmental corruption, lack of economic industries, a monocrop culture, and ethnic tension, a perfect storm is created. A sound uncorrupt government and economy is essential for creating a viable healthcare system. However, a healthy population that is able to work and go to school is essential for creating a sound and uncorrupt economy. The healthier a population is, the more people can work, the more parents can afford to send their children to school, the greater chance those children become civically engaged as they grow older, the less corruption there is in the public sector. However, since health, education, and the economy are all dependent on one another, the problem of development in Africa is complex.

Therefore, the strategy needs to be holistic. Economic policy and quality of life issues need to overlap one another in order to create a system that goes beyond the Harrod-Domar model (the idea that purely industrialization leads to development). The World Bank, IMF, and even nation-states are moving in this direction by incorporating and utilizing quality of life indexes in their assessment of their policies and aid packages.

Even with an improvement on how aid is distributed and money is loaned to African nations, the oddities that have defined Africa exist nonetheless. As reported, the UN World Food Program, which provides aid to many African nations has had recent problems with pirates off the coast of Somalia. The UN helpless to the attacks, urges restraint and action on the part of the world community and specifically Africa: “"We urge key nations to do their utmost to address this plague of piracy, which is now threatening our ability to feed 1 million Somalis.” So while the developed world can have the best intentions in its attempt in creating a socially and economically viable environment, in the end Africa needs to take ownership of its problems.

However, because of the horrendous conditions that were created as a result of the slave trade and colonialism, Western nations owe it to Africa to forgive its debt and help in every way possible in this effort. Western nations must remain persistent in its commitment to Africa. Developed nations must work with Africa to help destroy the "pirates of the continent"- disease, sickness, corruption, governmental incompetency. So while the struggles in Africa may seem too daunting or hopeless, it is the Western world’s moral and ethical duty to assist by working with them to help end the social, economic, and health related troubles in the region.

Rep. Paul and Mayor Giuliani Square Off

I respect Rep. Ron Paul. In the debate in South Carolina last week Ron Paul dared to go where no politician has gone before - explaining the reasons for terrorism and specifically the horrific events of 9/11. Rather than speak in vague terms about terrorists hating freedom, and being envious of the Western world, Paul addressed the issue of security. Understanding that he was in a hawkish environment, it took Paul a lot of guts to state that U.S. policy in the Middle East is a major reason for terrorism today.

Rudy Giuliani, the political whore that he tends to be, proceeded to take offense to the comment even before Paul could explain the idea of 'blowback,'(read the book "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson) which is basic common sense in the study of international relations. The theory basically states that a nation-states actions abroad can lead to unintended (many times detrimental) consequences both domestically and overseas. Instead, Giuliani barked to a roaring crowd about how he lived through the horrible events and that it was insulting to suggest such absurd things:

"As someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq; I don't think I've ever heard that before and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11.While Paul's statement wasn't really that "absurd," Giuliani gained major political points with the hard-nosed Americans who don't actually think or care about the repercussion of U.S. policy."

To me its just "absurd" that Giuliani calls himself a blue blooded American if he doesn't have the guts, energy, or desire to look in the mirror and truly investigate the causes of terrorism. It's time to move beyond the rhetoric and sound cuts and develop a real plan for eliminating terrorism in its present form. It is time for Giuliani to spend more time coming up with a sound foreign policy which recognizes basic theory of international relations, and less time tip toeing around social issues, and scoring political points off a man who really has something to say. I really wonder how long the "people's mayor" can truly live off of the "heroic leadership" he displayed during 9/11.

However, judging from a recent Gallup poll, Giuliani is still the front runner in the Republican field. Altough his numbers have dropped from a high of 44% in early March, to now 29% (as of May 14th), he is still seen by many as the strong candidate when it comes to security. This needs to change. A person that is strong on security has the ability to be not only decisive when deciding when to use military action, but also one that seeks to improve the geopolitical situation as well. Giuliani does not do the latter.

The link to an editorial on this issue is as follows:
Roland Martin: Paul's Explanation Deserves to be Debated

Following in Bubba's Footsteps

I think I'm going to try to obtain a gun license for my dog Jasper because in his old age his bite might be a little less ferocious, his bark a little weaker, and lets just be honest he's too sophisticated and regal to ever claw someone to death. Therefore, in order to retain his guard dog status and his "doghood" (somewhat like manhood) he needs to find a different way to protect the house.

In the past a thought of a dog obtaining a gun license would seem ridiculous. I mean he doesn't talk, he druels, and occasionally he will pee in the house. But according to officials in Illinois this might be alright as long as Jasper can take his paw and scribble by the "X."

According to the family of two year old Bubba Ludwig, their little tot has obtained a gun license from the state of Illinois. His father filled out the application accurately describing his age, his height (2 feet tall), his weight, and all other relevant information. The state then approved the boy's application and is allowing him to use the 12 gauge shot gun his grandfather gave him.

Thankfully, the parents and grandparents of Bubba understand that a two year can not and should not use a gun. The gun given by his grandfather is being reserved for use until Bubba turns at least twelve and he can safely use it. However, just to make a point about the application process for a gun license, Bubba's parents decided to apply anyway. The process has proved to be superficial, laxed, and most importantly irresponsible.

While this is an embarassment for the state of Illinois, it truly makes you wonder what is next for guns in America. Although I agree sportsmen should be allowed to possess shotguns and rifles for hunting purposes, there is no need for semi-automatic weapons, or hand guns. We don't live in a world where militias protect the citezenry. We have a strong professional army and full police coverage everywhere in America. Having a handgun for personal protection has only proven to cause more harm than good.

Of course there are stories about how handguns have saved the lives of individuals who are being robbed, but the majority of people that own handguns do not know how to use them properly - leading to more injuries than would be caused without the gun. While most licensed owners are not two year olds like Ludwig, as displayed by shootings at Virginia Tech, mentally ill people (although supposedly restricted) can easily obtain a firearm. The application needs to become more thorough, studied, and most of all selective when deciding who can posses a firearm. Therefore, even if you do not agree that the type of gun sold should be limited to certain rifles and shotguns, hopefully you can agree that the license process should at least be more rigorous.

So when I get home, pet my dog on the head, and tell him good boy, I'll get that application rolling, strap a holster to his hip, and let him be a guard dog with some major firepower.

The Gonzales Soap Opera

It's like a soap opera - but more dramatic. The date is 2004 and time is expiring on a program that allows the White House to listen to conversations of American citizens without a warrant. In order to continue with the program, the Bush administration must get a signature by then Attorney General John Ashcroft signaling that this sort of activity is legal. However, Ashcroft, already showing discontent with the actions of the White House, is in severe condition at the GW hospital. His number two, James Comey , who happens to agree with Ashcroft and is acting AG while Ashcroft is in the hospital, gets a call from Ashcroft's wife saying the then White House Council Alberto Gonzales, and Bush Chief of Staff Andy Card are on the way to the hospital to get a signature on the document that states the wiretapping program is legal. Hearing this news, Comey rushes to the hospital, and runs into Ashcroft's room just as the Gonzalez and Card ask Ashcroft to sign the papers.

At that point, Ashcroft rallies his strength, sits up, and with harsh words not only says no, but says that while he is in the hospital he does not have the authority to sign such papers and the White House should look towards Comey. Comey, obviously distressed by the White Houses' actions decides to write up his letter of resignation. However, days later, before Comey turns in his letter to the President, the White House informs the acting AG that all the issues that he had a problem with in the program had been addressed. Comey decides not to resign at that point.

The moral of this long winded story is that the White House not only plays politics to the "Nth" degree, but they also appoint political lackies to be AG's. Gonzales' irresponsible role in this activity should have been enough of a reason for him not to be confirmed as the leading law enforcement officer in America. I understand that political appointments are part of the game, but in the justice department, which prides itself on being independent and emphasizing the creed that no one is above the law, should have someone more responsible than Gonzales as their leader.

Gonzales is loyal to Bush and that is fine as councilor, but when you take the job of Attorney General, it is imperative that politics be set aside and that you ensure that laws are being followed by all citizens of the United States. It is this independent voice that separates the justice department from the rest of the Executive departments. A man like Gonzales only leaves it in shambles with the liberties of Americans compromised.

The following is a link with part of the story along with a report on the numerous calls of resignation from Congressmen/women.

MSNBC: "Dems seek no-confidence on Gonzales"

Romney and Gitmo

Mit Romney showed some interesting colors the other day during the Republican debate in South Carolina. In the midst of attempting to act tough on security he declared that not only is Guantanamo a good idea, but in fact, the U.S. should double the size of the institution.

That to me is an intriguing statement for many reasons. One, maybe he is privy to more information than I am, but no one besides high ranking government officials truly knows what goes on there. Sure it supposedly "houses" "terrorists," but the fact that the rights (Geneva Convention and U.S. Constitution) of not only foreigners but occasionally U.S. citizens are stripped there suggests that the operations of Gitmo may not live up to "Western" standards.

To me this is troubling not only because I believe in the ideals of the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Constitution, but because the image of the U.S. is suffering abroad. This not only affects overseas tourists, but this hypocritical, arrogant image of the U.S. is used a recruiting tool for groups such as Al-Qaida, Hamas, etc. It is easier to recruit in disparate countries if there is enough ammunition to enrage, and embolden the youth. Viewing the images and hearing about the stories of life in Gitmo has created a strong pipeline of potential suicide bombers and other types of terrorists. Image is a key a component in fighting a war of ideas.

In order to truly win this intangible war, it will take a global initiative that emphasizes diplomacy, education, and development. Diplomacy will ensure that lines between the West and the Middle East are constantly open, sharing intelligence, and disrupting terrorist training camps/activities etc. Education is key because many of the youth are brainwashed and recruited to be "jihadists" at Madrasas. If countries where Madrasas are popular began to institute new education policies (sponsored by a global task force) that debunk the hateful rhetoric found within the religious schools, then the stream of recruiters will slow considerably. In order to get the youth to attend these schools and not the Madrasas, there needs to be proper incentives given by the state. This could include free lower to higher-education, and increased chances of employment if students chose to attend these schools. If the U.S. and other countries help fund these types of programs, not only will the youth's status (wealth, social) improve as they grow older, but the image of the West will improve as well because of their partnership and monetary support. Finally, along the same lines, by helping countries develop economically, the chances of terrorist activities will decrease considerably. Economics is amazing in the sense that it ties people together through incentives. Trade not only creates economic stability in a capitalist system, but it also creates geopolitical stability as well. The more tied individuals and governments become with each other through commerce, the less likely physical aggression at any level will exist.

So, while Mr. Romney probably did not think his one sentence statement held this much meaning, I would suggest that it is very important for him and every other candidate to re-evaluate what the war on terrorism truly is, whats the best way to fight it, and how will it be won. If after much reflection Romney and others decide terrorists exist because they are jealous of the freedoms of the U.S. and furthermore its best to fight it byway of increased military action, then by all means increasing the size of Gitmo is a great idea. However, if Romney and others begin to reflect and note that Gitmo is causing more harm than good and that it is hard to win a military struggle against an intangible enemy, Romney and other Gitmo supporters may want to reevaluate what they will say when asked again about this issue.

Obscure Candidate Quiz

A little fun for a Monday night.

The following is a link to the New York Times quiz on obscure presidential candidates. I scored pretty well. They defined me as a "A model citizen, a political pro or someone with way too much time on their hands." I would go with the last remark.

New York Times Quiz

A Refreshed Newt

First it was Tommy Thompson, then Fred Thompson, and now Newt Gingrich? What is it with these obscure dark horse candidates who are projected by some analysts to save the Republican party the same way Regan did during the early 1980's. You might suspect that the Republicans are in a heap of trouble if former Speaker of the House, exiled from congress for personal reasons, is looked upon by Conservative Republicans as a breath of fresh air.

According to MSNBC/National Journal, Newt Gingrich, thinks a run for the White House is "a great possiblity." And why shouldn't it be that way? Newt understands that at this point of time in the race no candidate on the Republican side is without major faults (at least in the eyes of the Republican base). Newt professes a "new," "successful"path for America that reaches back to values that made America "the shining beacon upon the hill."

What makes Gingrich most successful is the nostalgia he provides. Sure he's had infidelity problems and was not the must successful in confronting the Clinton White House on certain pieces of legislation, but all the base remembers about him is that he was the leader of the "Republican Revolution" of 1994. He was the man that led the charge and put the Republicans back in the driver's seat of the House for the first time since Roosevelt.

Republicans are desperate. Reading about and listening to Gingrich I am certain his "policies" are nothing but overblown rhetoric. However, this doesn't matter one bit. The base can overlook his hypocritical moments if it provides blind hope that they will be able to retain the White House. So while many don't suspect that Gingrich has a chance if he does decide to run for the Republican nomination, I would disagree.

The world of politics lacks logic and reason. Once a fall man for the party, the next minute the hero of the day. Newt could pull a Trent Lott and regain the prestige and control that was so bitterly stripped from his hands by scandal and poor performance as House Majority Leader.

Spending Habits

I really hate to do this because it will be two stories in a row about one man, but
John Edwards is back in the news this morning - or at least for those political nuts who are willing to read political news on a Saturday morning. This time, he is being questioned about his new policy proposals. While Edwards is being acknowledged by the press for "receiving high praise from Democrats" for his initiatives, he is also taking heat for the cost - a reported $125 billion a year. This would go to fixing healthcare, improving U.S. energy policy, and reducing poverty.

Taking a risk, Edwards is also willing to say that it will take funds that are not there right now - meaning new taxes. He is willing to roll back the Bush tax cuts (to the Clinton levels) for the top 2% of Americans in order to have the necessary finances to fund such ambitious projects.

What seems ironic however, is the criticism from Republican and the press for even mentioning an increase in taxes. Republicans are quick to point out that the tax breaks are working. The media is labeling him as a free spender. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq is approaching a staggering cost of $450 billion. Judging from my rough calculations, that would be enough to fund 3.5 years of the Edwards' plan; a plan that actually has a chance to succeed. Instead the money has been spent in a war where progress and been non-existent, and thousands of Americans have died.

On top of that, the U.S. world image/reputation has never been lower not only in Muslim states, but also in friendly territories such as Europe. In addition, on a domestic front the deficit keeps climbing, borrowing increases (from countries such as China), and disparity in wealth widens; stretching the middle class of America.

So whether it is a philosophical difference or not, I believe that tax cuts are not the answer and that if Bush really wants to take accountability for the war, he should get Americans to pay for it through a new tax. Because when you make people dig in their own personal pocket books I bet sentiment against the war will only increase. Instead, Bush is making future generations pay. I would rather see my $125 billion go to improving the country rather than hurting its future.

The label free spender should not be associated merely with a populist candidate from North Carolina, but also a hard talking, fiscally "conservative" cowboy from Texas.

Hard Hitting Questions for Edwards

Poverty and Hedge Funds don't usually mix. But according to former Senator John Edwards, they do when you're trying to find the connection between financial markets and poverty.

It was recently brought to the attention of a hungry press that John Edwards had worked for Foretress Investment Group, which according to the New York Times is "a highly profitable hedge fund and private equity firm with several executives on Forbes' latest billionaires list." Now, I don't have a problem that he was working at the hedge fund because many politicians seek to reap the benefits that go along with their name and prestige once they enter the private sector. However, I do have a problem with his insistence that it was his way to help end poverty.

Sure a person can learn a lot about financial institutions by working at a hedge fund, but its a little strange that a man with so many connections to the University of North Carolina couldn't bring in professors and set up various symposiums at his UNC poverty center to discuss the topic of markets and how it relates to a growing disparity in wealth. This approach would not only benefit him, but it would also facilitate conversation between interested Americans and academics.

John Edwards is not a stupid man. I'm sure he thought about all of this but I'm also sure he tried to work for this hedge fund under the radar - quietly receiving numerous benefits. While we have to wait to see what his compensation was, I'm guessing because of who he is, it was not small.

If he truly wanted to work for the hedge fund for academic reasons, he should have donated all the compensation he did receive to his poverty center. This would have shown that he was serious about understanding the connections between markets and poverty.

I like John Edwards a lot, I personally believe he is the best candidate out there. I just believe that he should come out and admit that working for the hedge fund was a great opportunity. It allowed him to make a lot of money and to also learn more about the connection between financial markets and poverty as well. Its time for Edwards to admit that while he is no longer a "normal guy" who lives a normal life, he can still be an advocate for those that do not have a voice.

Taking the Lead From Blair

Like him or not, Tony Blair showed tremendous class today when he announced the definite date of his departure - June 27. During a speech at the Trimdon Labor Club, Blair, as only Blair does, used his skilled oratory skills to convey a simple message to the people of Briton

"I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong. That's your call. But believe one thing: I did what I thought was right for our country."

This humility is needed on both sides of the pond as of late. As Blair's popularity has plummeted because of Britain's involvement in Iraq, and failure to revamp important domestic areas such as health care, and policing, modesty, honesty, and respect for the people is what Britons wanted and needed to hear.

It is also what American's would like to hear from President Bush as well. While President Bush has said numerous times over that things in Iraq have not been perfect, and we have made mistakes, he has never once clearly said I'm sorry for my actions - not necessarily for getting in the war - but for not trying all diplomatic outlets before going to war, holding those that planned the war accountable, and for misleading Americans byway of publicity stunts like that on the USS Abraham on May 1, 2003. I don't not believe that he has or ever will intend to hurt Americans, but his message should be just as loud and clear as Blairs: "hold me accountable if you must, I understand, but I just want you to know I did what I thought was best for this country, and I'm sorry." Two simple words -I'm sorry- would mean a lot to the American people, his image, and his legacy.

Cheney's Surprise Visit to Baghdad

Flack jacket and all, Vice President Cheney made a surprise visit to Baghdad today. Will this trip be any different from his last couple? Under the growing angst of Congress and the American people, will Cheney's attitude towards the Iraqi leadership finally change from one of support to one of pressure and accountability?

Although the President says that the U.S. will be in Iraq as long as we are needed, grumblings from the Hill highlighted by the House Minority Leader suggest otherwise. According to Rep. Boehner, "By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."

Therefore, President Bush may win this battle with the Democrats over war spending, but as the old saying suggests, the Democrats still might win the war (no pun intended). If by September we aren't seeing noticeable progress (which I personally don't think there will be), electoral pressures from an upcoming election and a rising death toll in the heat of Baghdad may be enough for most Republicans to start talking about time lines, and definite benchmarks.

However, what needs to be remembered in this whole situation is that there is no good option when it comes to Iraq. Both the Democrats and Republicans are partially correct with their assessments. The Democrats say we can not continue a failed policy - referring a civil war - therefore we need to get out. The Republicans then rebut back - what happens when the Americans do redeploy, is there going to be mass unrest in the Middle East?

It is my opinion that we need to take a third route; different from "cut and run" or "stay the course." This path will take the Republican perspective that we can not simply get out of Iraq, and combine it with the Democratic view that diplomacy and accountability are keys for progress and victory in the region. This war will not end just byway of a "surge." There must be open dialog between countries in the Middle East, and the U.S. I don't know what possible diplomatic solutions can be made, but engagement between ethnic groups and countries can only create more stability for Iraq and the region.

"White Paper" on Clean Alternative Energy

I just thought I would throw it out there - this is my tentative "white paper" on moving forward with clean alternative energy.

CLEAN ALTERNATIVE RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

FOREIGN POLICY

- - > Countries such as Iran, Venezuela, Syria, and to a lesser extent Saudia Arabia entire continent of South America to turn against the U.S. (refer to the elections in Nicaragua, lack of support in Argentina, Peru, Colombia, etc.), and a tighter grip on where U.S. trade is directed.

- - > Part of the money that is saved by not importing oil can be directed towards defense spending. This will give the United States an advantage over industrializing nations such as China, because while China needs to spend money on oil, the United States is able to direct that money towards modernizing their military. So even if the Chinese still support the oil rich nations by buying oil, their money will all be directed towards exports, while the money the United States saves will be recycled within the United States.

METHODS TO FAST-TRACK ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

- - > Heighten the Gas Tax: Although this will be politically detrimental, it is essential for the transition to alternative energy. People do not respond simply to shallow political rhetoric. If they feel that it is not in their self-interest (economically) to continue to drive gasoline-powered cars, they will switch to alternative fueled cars. With the demand of alternatively powered cars, automakers and engineers will benefit with booming business. This could revitalize depressed areas such as Detroit (remember Michigan is a swing state, don’t think I didn’t think about that).

- - > Tax Breaks for American Automakers and Alternative Energy Developers: By providing tax breaks for automakers who produce alternatively fueled vehicles, the domestic car companies will be more willing to take the jump in switching the technologies of their products. Tax breaks will also be afforded to companies who produce alternative energy to substitute oil-powered technologies. This will lead to a “mini scientific revolution” that will revitalize engineering in the U.S. This will also encourage young students to concentrate on math and science in school (something that is lacking today in American schools) because that is where profitable careers will be. This will lead to support from the Chambers of Commerce (usually a Republican stronghold).

MAJOR BENEFITS DOMESTICALLY

- - > All of the jobs that were “exported” by importing oil can be directed domestically to corporations and individuals that develop and create alternative energy. This will lead to an employment boom through out the country; especially in transitional economies such as rural areas and depressed cities.

- - > More money in the domestic economy - more money to expand businesses and close the trade deficit.

- - > By becoming the lead in the study and production of alternative energy, the United States can create an export economy. They will be able to ship cheaper fuels than oil to Europe and Asia – creating a potential trade surplus.

- - > Alternative fuels will lead to a cleaner environment. This is what will attract the environmentally conscious group to support these initiatives.

MAJOR CHALLENGE

- - > These initiatives at first, especially raising the gas tax, will be politically unpopular. The challenge is to get people to look towards the long-run. This may be hard to do in a short sighted, impatient U.S. population, but if you sell the initiatives as a “fight for our security for future generations” it is possible. It will take a strong public relations campaign, and consideration for lower income residents who rely on cheaper gas prices, to advance this policy of alternative energy. It will ultimately take a visionary pitch and a visionary politician to make this popular.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

-Environment (S)
-Great opportunity for economically depressed areas and the congressmen that represent those areas. It leads to rural and urban rebirth. Politically popular in the long run (E/P)
-More accountability, restraint and cooperation required from rogue oil nations. Major diplomatic leverage. (E/S)
-More jobs created domestically (E)
-More money stays domestically (recirculation) (E)
-Re-birth of American auto-maker (E)
-World leader in alternative energy – able to sell the technology internationaL (E/P)
-Boom for American farmer (soy, corn,) (E)

(E) – Economic Benefit
(S) – Societal Benefit
(P) – Political Benefit

Rising Gas Prices

Gas prices in San Francisco have reached roughly $3.46 - for unleaded. Production has slowed at BP and other refineries because of "unexpected maintenance" - only further increasing the strain on Americans. Meanwhile, the Saudis and Iranians are paying 46 cents and 33 cents/per gallon respectively.

Therefore, my question is when are Americans going to finally learn that the nice message in the little shimmering commercials by oil companies during sporting events do not have their best interests in mind. Oil companies want to make huge profits - which they are - while Washington politicians want the contributions that those large dividends provide. This cycle of indignity needs to stop.

America needs to become innovators once again. Its time for people to stand up and demand alternative fuels spurred by hard working, industrious, and innovative Americans. There is no reason that America cannot lead the way in developing sustainable cheap alternative methods of energy. As the world's super power the amount that America could invest in new research and development is much larger than any other state or IGO could supply.

Not only would America regain its status as the "shining city on the hill," by promoting clean alternative fuels, but it would also save Americans money, and leave the Middle East at the mercy of reform in order to survive.

As Thomas Friedman articulated in his piece a while back on "Petropolitics," as the price of oil goes up, the more free speech, civil and politic liberties, and tolerance disappears. No wonder Ahmadenijad can go on rants about the Holocaust, or the Saudia Arabians can put a woman in jail for being raped because she dared to walk down the street alone. Promotion of alternative energy is how you get serious with the Middle East.

Now I have gone this whole discussion without even mentioning the environment. I won't even go there right now - no need. The geopolitical urgencies sell the idea of reform by itself.

The Queen's Visit

It seems ironic doesn't it, the Queen, full of opulence, grandeur, and most importantly popularity, is visiting to the Whitehouse where the President, lacking respect, trust, and most of all popularity, greets her with open arms.

The president will once again open his arms wide when Gordon Brown officially takes the reigns of the Parliament in the next couple of weeks. This transition could prove to be one of the most pivotal moments in the cherished relationship between the UK and the US.

Gordon Brown, unlike his predecessor, has no ties and nothing hinging on his relationship with President Bush. In actuality, he might have more to gain if he were to weaken his relationship with the President and also his commitments in Iraq. Since there is already bad blood between Blair and Brown, Brown can just take the initiative and blame the policy failures and the increased "lap dog" demeanor of the UK on the guy before him - it was his fault not mine; I was just in charge of making sure the economy surges.

Bush has to continue to keep his butt smooching lips wet because he has a lot of work to do to get the main member of the "coalition of the willing" to continue its staunch support of a dying policy.