The Green Party - 2004

In the interest of full disclosure, allow me to announce that I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. And more to the point I live in Florida. At the time I didn't realize quite how committed President Bush would be to pushing his extremely conservative agenda.

But times change--and Norman Soloman, who is occasionally nutty, has some good advice for the greens; advice I intend to take to heart.

"In discussions about races for the highest offices, sobering reality checks can be distasteful to many Greens, who correctly point out that a democratic process requires a wide range of voices and choices during election campaigns. But that truth does not change another one: A smart movement selects its battles and cares about its impacts.

A small party that is unwilling to pick and choose its battles -- and unable to consider the effects of its campaigns on the country as a whole -- will find itself glued to the periphery of American politics.

In contrast, more effective progressives seeking fundamental change are inclined to keep exploring -- and learning from -- the differences between principle and self-marginalization. They bypass insular rhetoric and tactics that drive gratuitous wedges between potential allies -- especially when a united front is needed to topple an extreme far-right regime in Washington."

Are You Safer Now than you Were Four Years Ago?

In my case yes, but largely because I moved across town. Still this is a slogan that some of the Democratic presidential candidats are bringing out. It's not an entirely wise slogan, as Jonah Goldberg points out today in his article.

"Voters surely felt more insecure after Pearl Harbor, that doesn't mean they thought FDR was wrong to prosecute WWII. Bush can make the case that the risks we face today are worth preventing greater risks tomorrow.

So, Bush's opponents need to make the case that voters are less safe because of Bush's actions and that they would do things better than Bush has."

There are a few areas where the Democrats can make that case. Certainly, President Bush's recent actions have alienated much of the world. Perhaps the Democrats would have moved slower on Iraq; is that necessarily wrong? Particularly if they went into Iraq with a real coalition instead of the lame one we seem to have now.

But he is correct that if Democrats are going to say that Bush screwed up, they also need to talk about what they could do better.

Why Not Saudi Arabia?

Rich Lowry asks the question today, that many have asked, on the left and the right. Most of the September 11th Hi-Jackers were from Saudi Arabia, as is Osama bin Ladin. And yet we seem comfortable giving them the pass, rather than putting serious pressure on them to reform their ways.

Mr. Lowry explains this discrepency by pointing to a very successful Saudi Arabian foreign policy. "Saudi flack Prince Bandar has extensive personal relationships with top Washington policy-makers -- he used to play racquetball with Colin Powell -- and knows the way to official Washington's heart: cash. The Saudis make a practice, for instance, of buying former U.S. ambassadors to Saudi Arabia. "If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office," Bandar once said, "you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office."

So, when a terrorist conspiracy with Saudi links murders 3,000 Americans, the Saudis are treated very gently. Coddling the Saudis has become an ingrained Washington habit."

He suggests that Democrats take the offensive on this issue; that making an issue out of Saudi Arabia would be their duty as the opposition party, and would be a patriotic thing to do as well. A public service, as it were.

Life is but a Dream

Well Ms. Ann Coulter's latest work takes aim at the CIA. Apparently the CIA is to blame for the Governments inability to prevent September 11th. Also, President Bush should be exonerated for failing to make any changes at the CIA since September 11th. She doesn't say that, but it's assumed.

But even that little tidbit pales in comparison to the whopper she tells later on in the article. "For 50 years liberals have called Republicans idiots, fascists, anti-Semites, racists, crooks, shredders of the Constitution and masterminds of Salvadoran death squads. Only recently have they added the epithet "liar." Even noted ethicist Al Franken has switched from calling conservatives "fat" to calling them "liars.""

Minor point first. Actually Franken in his book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," relayed that he originally planned to call it "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar." So it's not entirely a switch.

Major point second. Can anybody think of a five letter name that refutes Ms. Coulter's larger point. Starts with N, and remarkably it has a X right in the middle of it. That's right--it's Nixon. You remember Nixon, Ms. Coulter? Liberals did call him a liar as I recall. Of course this isn't technically a lie. You can't believe that Ann expects anybody to take her literally.

Oh and how about this particularly nasty phrase. "Clinton also lied every time he said "God bless America," though he doesn't believe in God or America, and I don't recall any Republican ever ripping his skin off about that." Thank God for Clinton, eh, Ms. Coulter? Without him to attack, you'd have to figure out some way to actually suggest that George Bush was good for America. A task which is presumably beyond you.

Conservative Troubles Redux

George Will has sounded off on the rumblings on the right, referenced by Tony Blankley, but does it more specifically. He references four groups of conservatives.

Foreign Policy Conservatives (as opposed to Neo-Conservatives), are unhappy because of recent statements that the Iraq war was fought to uphold a United Nations resolution and to liberate an oppressed people; neither goal lies within the strict national interest criteria.

The Low-Taxes Conservative has much to be happy about, but has to be concerned that, although President Bush has cut taxes, he hasn't dong anything to reduce spending.

The Constitutionalist Conservative is upset with the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold affirmative action programs, and the Religious Conservative or Social Conservative is upset with the Courts decision to strike down the Texas sodomy law.

You might be a bit confused as to how the last two are President Bush's fault. Well, I'll tell you--it's because of Alberto Gonzales. Remember that name. He is on whatever list of potential candidates for the Supreme Court exists, and some would put him at the front. He is a Latino Justice, and would most likely make his way through the nomination process unscathed. And, of course, he's much more moderate than the Social Conservatives and Constitutionalist Conservatives would like. President Bush has been warned and warned again that many hardcore conservatives will be angry and upset if he nominates Gonzales.

This puts President Bush in an interesting position. Does he really want to pick a(nother) fight with Congress? Or with is political base?

For a more liberal view of Gonzales and the forthcoming fight you might check out Salon's article on it. If you aren't a member you will have to watch an ad or something.

The Hussein Boys

They are dead, as we all know. Interesting article at the New York Times today on the Brothers Grim, as they call them. Basically they say that while they are nice symoblic victories, we need to get Iraq rebuilt before the people are really going to loosen up and like us.

"Electricity and other vital services have to be restored on a round-the-clock basis throughout Iraq. Reliable Iraqi police and security services need to be trained and vetted, new jobs found for the unemployed, and the oil industry restored to full production.

Paul Bremer III, Washington's chief civilian administrator in Iraq, plans to unveil today the most specific plan to date for reviving Iraq's economy and public institutions, complete with target goals for the next 60 and 120 days. Realizing his hopes will require more money than Washington originally planned and the active support of the Iraqi people. The demise of the Hussein brothers should make it easier to win that support."

The one thing I do like about the article; it underscores the monsterousness of the Hussein regime. While there are questions about how much of a threat Iraq was to the United States, there can be no question that it was an evil regime.

Rumblings on the Right

There is a bit of dissatisfaction on the right in regards to the Presidency of George W. Bush. Not that there is any serious movement to replace him or vote for someone else, but there are cocerns. Tony Blankley commented on that in his most recent article, and suggests it is probably a reflection of the essential divisions within the Republican Party or Conservative Movement.

" . . . conservatism is a house of many mansions, and it is a logical impossibility to have policies that satisfy us all. Conservatives are both muscular military interventionists and isolationists; free traders and protectionists; libertarians and cultural traditionalists.

Almost all of us believe we are anti-statist. And yet some of us want morality enforced by the state. Others are cheerfully supportive of rounding up vaguely suspicious-looking Arabs. And in fact, a majority of self-identified conservatives support such federal welfare schemes as Social Security, Medicare and even prescription drug subsidies for seniors. (Although in the last case, most conservative leaders and intellectuals oppose such an expansion of federal entitlements.) But, crosscutting all these varieties of American conservatism is a deeply visceral distaste for political compromise and expediency. And that distaste turns quickly to distrust of conservative leaders when they reach the national governing level."

He mentions Rush Limbaugh's criticisms of President Bush as a reflection of this distrust and distaste. I always find it intersting that one assumes that if a pet politician makes a decision it is because of political concerns. As if it is impossible that President Bush and Rush Limbaugh could disagree on an education policy, for example.

He does end with the positive news that President Bush has down so well on foreign policy that he will hold the party together. We'll have to see on that score.

Provocative Question from Mr. Paul Krugman

Who, frankly, seems to ask a lot of provocative questions. His latest article contains a great intro with "Who's Unpatriotic Now?" Of course he's playing off the idea that those who thought invading Iraq was a bad idea were unpatriotic, and possibly America-haters. In it he comments that the US may be weaker now, with our Military so committed around the world.

"Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden — who really did attack America — and Kim Jong Il — who really is building nukes."

The whole article, as always, is worth checking out.

New Link

You're never going to believe this, but I added a new link. It's pretty good--well written. Solid. Go check it out.

sabotage

David Horowitz, who has never been accused of moderation, writes today, in part about his old bugga-boo. Having been a former member of the Far Left, he never passes up a moment to take a shot at them, and then comments on how the Democratic party is following in their footsteps.

"Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has followed suit in its own timid way, shedding the mantle of appeasement to become the party of sabotage. Not a day has gone by since American forces liberated Iraq that Democrats have not attempted to undermine the leadership that brought about the victory. The greatest triumph of American policy since the end of the Cold War has become the unending target of Democratic snipers -- among them all its presidential nominees and its chief congressional spokesmen."

Not a day has gone by? Not a single day? That sounds like a little bit of hyperbole.

Perhaps Mr. Horowitz should console himself by remember that we live in a democracy. A democracy is by its nature a combative system. Republicans never let up on Clinton, did they? So why should he expect democrats to follow an opposite path from his own party?

More to the point, if President Bush did allow disingenuous information to be presented to the American People in order to convince them to go to war, than he needs to answer for that. I'm not talking about impeachment (a pipe dream at best), but I am talking about an electoral process.

Rebuilding Iraq

Pretty much all the Conservative Commentators are focused on defending President Bush and his statement in the State of the Union. All I have to say is that there is one way to clear this up immediately; find the Weapons of Mass Distruction. If you find them, all these questions melt away.

But Fred Kaplan has written an interesting article on why we need to get the UN involved in the rebuilding of Iraq, and why our Unilateral Plans may not have been entirely successful.

"The problem is not merely that India has refused to honor Bush’s request for 17,000 peacekeeping troops unless the operation is put under U.N. auspices, or that France and Germany made similar refusals (no doubt with barely straight-faced schadenfreude). Nor is it that the “coalition” has failed to muster more than a handful of nations to send more than a few hundred troops on a mission that is straining the powers of 148,000 top-notch American soldiers.

These much-noted embarrassments are but symptoms — logical corollaries — of the underlying problem, which is that Bush and his top advisers deluded themselves into presuming, against all historical precedent, that they could rebuild Iraq on their own in the first place."

Check out the entire article. I hope we get the UN involved sooner rather than later. If no WMD's are found and we continue losing our troops, pressure will mount for President Bush to bring the troops home--better to work on getting the UN in to cushion the blow.